Jean-françois Robichaud
Forum Replies Created
-
Regarding the wrong frame rate used by FCP X in the syncing process, I just realised that it’s my fault, as my main video clip (the one that spans the whole song) is a non-standard SD clip with square pixels, rather than 0.9. I outputted it from MPEG Streamclip with the wrong settings. That seems to be why FCP X failed to interpret it properly.
When I drag this clip in the timeline I get a window saying: “The Video Properties of this clip are not recognized”, with an option to select Format, Resolution and Rate.
All my other clips (outputted from FCP 7 as SD clips with proper 0.9 pixels) are interpreted correctly.
My mistake, it’s not a bug after all. If all my clips have standard properties, then the syncing process creates a compound clip with the correct settings. But that just goes to show that FCP X does not support non-standard formats, which might not be a bug, but quite a frustrating limitation.
-
Ok, I just ran a test with a music video and it works… mostly. Here’s what you must do:
– In the Event Browser, select all of your clips, as well as the music audio.
– Right-Click and choose Synchronize Clips.
– This will create a compound clip with all clips synchronized.As long as your video clips have got a clear audio of the music, it should work. If not, you’ll have to do manual syncing.
I just executed a test of this syncing process. For this, I downloaded the music video for Video Killed the Radio Star. Then I cut it up in about 30 different pieces of overlapping video, some representing a single shot of at most a few seconds, some 20 seconds long or more. I’m trying to simulate your particular situation here.
The syncing process:
– I imported all of this footage in a new event in FCP X.
– I selected all the clips (including a standalone audio version) in the Event Browser
– I choose “Synchronize Clips” from the right-click menu
– Automatically a new compound clip appeared in the Event Browser and the syncing process was launched in the backgroundResults:
– You need to wait for the background syncing process to finish before you open the Compound Clip with synced footage. Opening it too early, and all the clips start at frame zero. Just reopen it from the Event Browser once the BG syncing is completed and it should be fine.
– All clips were successfully synchronised to each other and to the audio clip… almostISSUES:
Unfortunately, there was an issue with frame rate. The clips have a 29.97 timebase, but FCP X created a compound clip with a 23.98 timebase. This led to most clips having a subframe offset with the reference. I thought this was because I hadn’t told FCP X what my project’s frame rate was supposed to be, so I restarted after dropping clip in the project timeline, making FCP X switch the project to 29.97 (FCP X uses info from the first clip to determine frame rate). Then I resynced all the clips: same problem. Then I thought, the Event is independent from the Project, so changing the project framerate isn’t going to affect what I do in the Event Browser. So how to I tell FCP X explicitely what frame rate to use for the syncing process? Shouldn’t this be implicit from the clips all being at 29.97? Unless I’m missing something, this is a bug.Also, I kind of cheated: in addition to the audio clip and all of the short video clips, I had a video clip that spanned the whole music video. FCP X inserted that long clip in the main storyline of the synced compound clip and connected everything else to it (including the audio clip).
If I repeat the syncing process without this full video clip (so just audio and short clips), FCP X doesn’t sync things properly. It’s a repetitive song, so it still makes matches, but they’re the wrong ones.
Here’s my theory: FCP X will only use a VIDEO clip as basis for syncing other clips. If you don’t have a video clip that spans the whole song (or at least sufficient overlaps), then FCP X might not sync properly. In my case, some of my short clips do have overlaps, but maybe they’re not sufficient for FCP X’s algorithm. FCP X should have used the audio clip as a basis to sync all the short video clips, but it failed to do that. So I guess this is a bug too.
More on this later.
-
Actually I just ran a test on a music video, syncing roughly 30 video clips + an audio track, in a single operation. It works. I’ll write a new post with the details shortly.
-
No need for a gap clip. You can simply lay down the song audio in the timeline as your main storyline. Then add all video clips to be connected to it.
But that won’t help with sync. According to the manual, you will do this: Select all videos AND song audio in the Event Browser. Select Clip>Synchronize Clips. This will create a compound clip with all of your elements synced together. In theory at least. I don’t know if this feature can handle 32+ clips. I haven’t tried it. If it works, then you’ll have a timeline in which you can reorder your connected clips up and down for visibility, and trim them as you wish.
I think I’m actually going to test this functionality now.
-
In your latest example, note that RED is connected the main storyline (that connection link goes all the way from RED to the gap clip in the main storyline). Therefore, RED will ripple with edits in the main storyline, not with edits to any secondary storyline.
If you want RED to ripple with edits to the secondary storyline (GREEN/BLUE), then it must be connected to it. But wait, you can’t connect a clip to a secondary storyline. What you can do is select GREEN/BLUE/RED with the selection tool and turn them into a compound clip (Alt-G). You can edit this compound clip by double-clicking on it in the timeline.
The question though, is, do you really need that RED clip to be above blue? If you’re using some sort of blending mode or transparency, then it would make sense, but if it’s a straight cut anyway, it might be simpler to move it at the same level as BLUE and including it within the secondary storyline.
-
I have fond memories of PPRO (I even had good times with the dreadfully unstable Premiere 6.5). Switched to FCP exclusively a few years ago not by preference but because I could no longer afford to be the odd one out in my industry; everybody around me was using FCP. I felt FCP had a much weaker timeline, bad text support, very unintuive menu system (some tools seemed to be arbitrarily distributed within menus), strange bugs in its interaction with external devices, etc. Then again, at first, I was focusing on its weaknesses and not really seeing its strengths. I warmed up to it over time.
-
“But we’re not asking FCX to infer the timeline from the video out. ”
I was only refering that your comment if one can play it then the intent is there.
“The relationships between the Audio and Video are explicit in the FCP timeline. Either the audio is linked with the video, or it is free floating.That’s how it should be carried over. There’s no need to look for further “intent”. And if you want to, you can always link them after the fact, can’t you?
Unless you’re saying there’s no way to put audio in a FCX timeline without linking it to some video. This is not my perception of how FCX works.”I seems as though you misunderstood my whole post. I’m not talking about a video clip’s own audio. I’m talking about all of the other elements, whether they be additional sound: voice over, extra dialogue, music, sound effects; or visual: titles, overlays, inserts, cutaways, etc.
The point I was making is about how these secondary elements connect to the backbone of the edit. I can only infer so much about their relationship from their position in a traditonal timeline. The FCP X timelines contains more information about their intended relationship (which exist mostly in the editor’s head in the case of a traditional timeline). That’s not an opinion that’s a fact. The opinion would be whether it’s a good thing for the intended relashionship to be explicitely spelled out in the edit. I certainly think it is, especially since it does not require any extra effort to make it explicit. If I go back to my timeline weeks later (or after a long weekend) or pass the edit to another editor, it’s much less likely the relationships between those elements will be misinterpreted.
“Do I sometimes grab a section of my FCP timeline and miss a bit of audio? I suppose, but it’s pretty rare. I usually lasso the section I want to move and slide it where I want.”
You wouldn’t even need to lasso in FCP X to move multiple clips. Since the relationships are defined in the timeline, you can just move the base clip. How about you use a slide or slip edit, and that makes a sound effect out of sync with the video? Won’t happen with FCP X either: the connected clips move with their master clip, no matter what tool or method you use. That’s just one example, maybe you never use the slide tool, but no matter what your methods are, there is something to be gained from having a smarter timeline. Some people fear that automating part of the timeline removes power from the editor (dumbsmit down), but that’s bullshit. Since the editor is the one who defines the connections and therefore the behaviour of the timeline, it only means you don’t have to micromanage every last element, saving time and keeping your focus on the essence of the edit. You’re still having frame accurate control over your video (and much more on your audio). I’ve tried to think of an operation where this would lead to unwanted behaviour, but I haven’t found one yet.
I’m pissed off about the whole lot of missing features and Apple’s refusal to present a roadplan. But the changes to the timeline, along with some other changes, certainly makes me positive about the release.
-
“This is a BS remark. The relationships exist in the timeline, not the editor’s head. How do I prove that? Anyone in the world can open my timeline and play back my edit. I don’t need to be present.
Not enough information? BS. Put in default information. Sorry – metadata….”
I am as frustrated as any by the missing features and the inability to open legacy projects. But I think you misunderstood what is meant here. It’s not about being able to play the edit (that’s trivial) but translating it from one language to another yet retain the intent behind the clips position relative to each other. That is non-trivial because FCP 7 is implicit about the intent while FCP X makes it explicit.
You can’t watch a video and know what the editor’s timeline looked like exactly: you can only make an educated guess. An algorithm can’t read your FCP 7 timeline and guess what your intent was: it could generate 100 different timelines that make different assumptions about your intent yet that would all play the same. In each alternative, your elements would be connected differently Should this sound effect be connected to this clip or that one? Does the music relate to this or that clip? Or maybe the music is the backbone and everything else is connected to it.
None of this matters if all you want to do is play the timeline, but it does matter as soon as you want to move things around. The reason the magnetic timeline is a big deal is this: since all connections are explicit, the software can be smart about keeping everything in order. But it’s more than that: it means that an FCP X timeline contains more information about the INTENT than a traditional timeline ever could. That means that a second editor can look at the timeline and actually gain more knowledge about what the original editor intended, just by the way elements are connected to each other.
FCP X forces you to be explicit about these things, but in a way that doesn’t require any extra effort from you. Have you never moved an element in your timeline but forgotten that another should have been moved along with it? Sure you caught it as soon as you played back you edit, but you still lost 20 seconds figuring out what the hell happened there. This is unlikely to ever happen with FCP X. But it’s about a lot more than preventing mistakes, and it’s not about holding you hand either. It’s about giving you the power to explicitly define your intent within the timeline and let the software work for you.
I know I must sound like an Apple shill, but I just happen to be impressed by the possibilities offered by this timeline. I still think Apple should provide a conversion tool, maybe one that proposes alternative translations or maybe allow you to set rules for translation.
-
This petition is a waste of time because the bottom 2 request are not even close to being realistic. The petition could have some use if it requested:
– the temporary reinstatement of FCS3 availability and support
– the rapid implementation and deployment of missing pro features in FCP X (then list them but we all know what’s missing)
– a new release of Color
– a roadmap of Apple’s plans concerning all of thesethen at least the petition would have some probability of being heard. Remember when Microsoft said they would no longer support XP, in support of Vista? The backlash led MS to backtrack and support XP at least until its follow-up to Windows.
When you make unrealistic demands, you’re not even going to be taken seriously.
-
I agree with this prestige issue. In addition, While FCP might not be such a large part of Apple’s revenue stream, it is one of the main reason so many professionals have gone and are still are going Mac rather than PC. That was what made me switch from Windows and many I know did the same. And that doesn’t only lead to Mac Pro sales from post houses of all sizes but actually much more iMacs and Mac Book Pros from freelance and upcoming professionals. Apple can afford to lose the revenue from FCP sales to pros, but does it make any business sense to risk losing these customers to PCs? Especially when the cost of implementing the features that pros want can’t be that high. Cutting FCS3 now might seem to go against that, but Apple knows it’s got up to a year to follow up on FCP X: nobody’s going to replace all of their Macs by PCs on a hunch; pros got too much invested in their hardware.