[Jeff Markgraf]

[Noam Osband] “I’m trying to break out of using X like 7”

Bingo. It’s the hardest part of learning X, in my opinion. Once you get over that hump, you’ll wonder why it took so long. After several years, I’m still learning to leave Avid/FCP7 and the others out of my X brain. Which can be hard when I still use them on a regular basis. But worth the effort.

[Jeff Markgraf]

Really, DRW, kind of a cheap shot here.

Most sound editors I know don’t do their work in any NLE – they use Pro Tools or some other audio-specific editing/mixing software. So dissing an NLE for not adhering to film/tv industry audio conventions is just silly. Especially when outputting audio in a conventional track format for sound turnover is almost trivially easy (particularly in X…see Mike Matzdorff’s discussions re: Focus). But I think you already know that.

I have no problem with audio tracks at all. Been using them since I got into radio and audio work in high school. Still use them more than 40 years later. Video track are fine, too. Been using them for over 30 years. All “professional” work, and almost exclusively in this rather small and narrowly-focused part of the overall audio/video world called the broadcast and motion picture industry. Making a good living doing it. (I won’t bring up industry awards, because that would make Timmy Auld’s head explode.)

That said, I love working in X. More than Avid. More than Resolve. More than Lightworks. More than VideoCube. More than D-Vision. More than EMC. Way more than CMX or GVG.

And including audio editing/mixing as part of a complete A/V project. Though I’d probably not make X or any NLE my first choice for mixing or sweetening. Then again, I’ve never tried it for that purpose. Have you? Has anyone else? If so, I’m genuinely interested in his/her thoughts.

Those of us with industry backgrounds as deep as yours and mine (and most others on this forum) have good reason to respect the workflows used in Avid, et al. There’s no desire to toss them out on their collective ear.

Leaving aside some unknown personal animosity, why does Bill’s enthusiasm engender such obvious hostility? Is he excited? Yes. Is he sometimes prone to overstatement? Yes. Is he a “fanboi?” Hardly. Is he simply wrong and deluded? Nope.

I don’t think I’m any of the above, either, yet I agree with most of what he says. So what does that make me?

Not really trying to bash you, personally. I suspect you’re really a very reasonable person, based on your years of posting on the COW. (Unlike many of the usual suspects, who just seem…umm…whatever…) I truly wish you could a) cut Bill some slack and b) make a real effort to get to know X in its current version with all the third party helper apps that are available for professionals. Your considered perspective on this particular NLE would be, IMHO, very valuable.

[Jeff Markgraf]

Wow. Lots of stuff in this thread. My wishes are relatively few (and echo what others have said). in approximately descending order of importance to me:

1. As several have said, connect or “pin” a clip to an absolute timecode in the timeline. For us promo guys, this would be huge.

2. Direct access to the clip opacity at top and tail. Hate having to “control-v, expand the opacity track, pull the slider” every time. Having the little slider thingy directly available, like in the audio portion of the clip, would be a huge timesaver for me. Being able to hot-key select “fade in” or “fade out” opacity with an option to directly enter the rate in frames would be even better. I loved this method back on the VideoCube, and found I could really work quickly this way. And this obviates the need for a video-only dissolve, which seems inexplicably difficult and/or unimportant to the folks at Apple.

3. Like Oliver said, an Avid-style collapse and expand in timeline function. I can live with compound clips in place of collapsing. But being able to expand the compound in the timeline would be a huge timesaver for compositing-heavy projects. And as Oliver points out, a timeline-specific collapse function is often more useful than having to make a compound clip. Usually when I make a compound, I want it by default to “reference a new parent” or whatever X calls it. So even switching the default behavior to make me choose to NOT make it an independent compound would be better than the current method.

4. Better match framing. Maybe I’m missing something but it seems like a simple “select clip in to out, go to head, match frame, clip appears in browser with in point selected, go to new location on timeline, insert/replace/connect clip” should be that simple and that fast. Is it? Am I just not seeing it? ‘Cause match framing always seems fraught with “oops, didn’t mean to do that” when I need it. And I’m almost always always in a hurry when I need it.

5. Really don’t think the “roles-based mixer” is ever going to happen…not sure it ever should. But roles-based bussing would be sweet. Something more friendly than “select a role from the timeline menu and apply an effect (compressor, EQ, etc) to all the highlighted clips” approach. An actual HUD or something that lets me select, deselect and manipulate the order of application would be great.

6. More flexible timecode windows would be nice. FCP7 really had it down. In Avid, I always make a custom TC window with master, V1 and in-out display. Having such an outboard window display in X would be fine.

It feels like a lot of the other requests I’ve seen in this thread (and over and over again in other threads!) are so firmly rooted in the “make X like Avid/Premiere/Legacy” mindset that I am leery of them. X is X. (Can I get a Hallelujah!) When I edit on Avid, I try to make the most of its trim mode. When I’m in X, I like the fact that trim isn’t a mode to go into and out of. I can trim plenty fast either way. Just different ways of accomplishing the same thing.

[Jeff Markgraf]

[Herb Sevush] “doesn’t work for me as a business investment.”

Works great for me. No trinkets needed.

[Jeff Markgraf]

Yep.

[Jeff Markgraf]

Here’s the web page:

https://www.fcpeffects.com/products/basic-drop-shadow

[Jeff Markgraf]

Hi John

I already suggested to him that he try DNxHD or whatever the fancy new DNx flavor is that handles big frame sizes (source is 5k RED).

He’s rendering the files through RedCine. Yes, I questioned the ProRes conversion on PC, because I didn’t think there was a sanctioned ProRes encoder for PC. He doesn’t have any more info, as he’s somewhat technical, but not full-on geek.

The next question is whether he can get Mac drivers for his fancy Invidia graphics card. If so, can he just put it in a Sonnet TB to PCI box? Last I heard, no one was sure whether you could tell the Mac to use the new graphics card. Which seems odd, since it’s just another PCI card. But maybe there’s an unresolvable conflict with 2 gfx cards connected at the same time? He loves this card, because it renders almost as fast as a Red Rocket, at least on the PC.

I’m awaiting a DNxHD test from him.

[Jeff Markgraf]

Hi Lance.

I haven’t seen any of it. I’m only involved to help him troubleshoot the issue. I suspect all will be fine in X. As I said, he only wants to use the PC to get access to the Invidia card’s fast rendering.

[Jeff Markgraf]

I understand. I don’t have all the details yet. He may be just handing off the rendered files and having nothing else to do with it. I’m sure the people he’s sending them to can tweak the color. I’m more interested in why it’s happening. Especially since it only seems to be on the PC side.

[Jeff Markgraf]

Noah

Haven’t seen the shift. Not sure how severe it is. I presume this is some variation on the famous QuickTime gamma shift. Does the pc prores encoder use a different process or different math from the apple encoder?