Jean-françois Robichaud
Forum Replies Created
-
If you select a clip in the timeline and go into the info tab in the inspector window, the in/out TC will be displayed there (maybe not under the basic view though). I do hope Apple provides a better way to view timecode.
-
[Walter Soyka] ”
I think that flexibility was the design philosophy in FCP — there were always multiple ways of doing the same thing.Agreed. In fact, I’d say it’s the design philosophy of all successful NLEs.
[Walter Soyka] ”
Do you find that FCPX allows this same flexibility, or is there one easy path with FCPX, and others that are possible but much more difficult?”The first thing one notices when using FCP X is how it breaks with the traditional multi-track timeline shared by most NLEs. One tends to think: it forces me to work in a specific, “alien” way, rather than what I’m used to. But that’s just the first impression. Differences in the timeline are mechanical; they don’t force you to change the way you construct a narrative, but you do need to adapt to the new tools and features. After a few weeks, I do get the feeling it’s very flexible (organic might be the word), certainly less rigid. Some timeline operations still lack precision.
I don’t see a problem with the base architecture, but with some of the secondary design decisions: the unified viewer is very well implemented when working on a laptop, but for one who has the screen real estate, can I get a separate viewer please? Some things shouldn’t have been hidden from view: it should be more timecode-friendly, etc. Hide some things by default, sure, but just let me turn it back on if I want to see it.
-
Every editor’s got his own way of doing things. A flexible enough tool allows one to develop his own approach, using it in a way that it wasn’t necessarily designed for, but fits the editor’s mindset.
I also started out with linear editing, but moved on to NLE with Premiere, then Final Cut Pro (around V4). For most projects, I start with a cerebral, analytic approach to editing: I spend I lot of time browsing my clips, organizing them, picturing the edit in my head, before I even start putting anything together in the timeline. This might be a leftover from my linear beginnings (or it could be constructive procrastination), but it works for me. However, once I start assembling in the timeline, the process becomes more impulsive (in a good way).
I’ve been playing around with FCP X since its release. I haven’t yet edited a full project in it, but I’ve run many tests and used it to synchronize audio to interviews. It’s obvious that the media management features are very well suited to my style (keywords collections and all). It will be interesting to see how beginners will use these features to organize media. They might learn to spend more time thinking about the edit before putting anything in the timeline.
Beyond the obvious lack of interaction with an editing ecosystem, I’ve met my share of quirks, bugs and other strange behaviours in the timeline (all reported to Apple). Yet it don’t feel FCP X forces me to work in one specific way. There are still many ways to construct an edit using the primary/secondary storylines, connected clips, compound clips, etc. Some operations are very efficient, others require too many steps to accomplish. Once again, how will a newcomer adopt it, since they have no preconception of how a timeline should behave?
It’s too early to tell if I will be editing any faster in FCP X than FCP 7, but overall, I find its approach more attractive, despite its quirks. Sure, part of it is the novelty aspect, but there is something substantially smart about it. Once the interface has matured (2012? 2013?), it should be quite an efficient tool.
-
[Ellie Krnich] ” Also, if anyone knows a way to tell FCPx to STOP moving the playhead when I simply want to highlight a clip, that would be lovely.”
Hold the option key when clicking on the clip.
-
You’ve got the wrong setting in your preferences.
Go in Preferences/Editing and set “Apply transitions using -> Full Overlap”
-
Exactly, the best way to edit a music video in FCP X is to put the music in the main storyline and connect everything else to it. That defines the music as the backbone of your edit. Each connected clip is connected to a specific timing in the music.
It’s probably a good idea to make a few secondary storylines (alt-G) for portions of the edit, depending on one’s needs.
-
The concept of the magnetic timeline is an A, the implementation is a C.
It’s true strength is that it lets the editor explicitly define in the timeline the relationships between clips that were only defined in his head in the traditional timeline. With this information, the software itself takes over the micro-management part of editing, allowing the editor to focus on the narrative aspect. The editor doesn’t lose power over the edit, as he is the one defining the relationships between clips and therefore the behaviour. But he just doesn’t have to take care of the dummy tasks.
Some think this is bad, that it dumbs editing down, I think it just automates the parts that have nothing to do with the creative, which you had to do because of the limitations of the traditional timeline.
It also makes the editor’s intention clearer just by looking at the timeline: it contains more information.. Useful when a second editor takes over or when you come back to your edit 2 weeks later.
I say the implementation is a C because its UI doesn’t feel completeky fluid.
-
[Bret Williams] ” And FCP X really has no place in the pro world, yet, if ever. Plus it’s nothing like Avid or FCP classic (7) or Premiere. At least those three share 3 point editing. Premiere is a good option, but I’d say Media Composer is where it’s at for students.”
FCP X does have 3-point editing. It’s got a whole list of missing features, but that one is not on the list.
-
[Aindreas Gallagher] ” mm. That’s not what we wanted to hear, can you rephrase it?”
Ok. I’ll code an fully-featured OMF export tool during lunch and sell it to you for $0.99 on the App Store.
Is this better? 🙂
-
[Chris Kenny] ” No, but once APIs are more widely available, someone will inevitably make a cheaper utility for this purpose.”
I certainly hope so. However, I’ve been taking a look at the specs for the OMF standard and it’s awfully complex. It seems there is no fast and easy implementation for OMF export. It’s not the kind of thing one can code in a week or two, and it must be tested against all kind of software on multiple platforms. Automatic Duck already specializes in OMF export, so I’m not surprised they already have a solution out. But for anyone attempting to do this from scratch, it’s a huge endeavour, so I don’t know how cheap they can make it.