[Jeff Markgraf]

[Michael Gissing] “But X remains a tool with limitations in audio processing that an editor like Murch finds a deal breaker. “

Not sure how you get this from the interview. The only deal breaker Murch spoke of is Avid’s 25 track limitation.
And what are the audio processing limitations in FCP X that were not present in FCP 7?

[Michael Gissing] “Of course he carries that sensibility into picture editing and I am not the least bit surprised he favours a track based NLE, simply because he knows that it is a better approach for complicated sound workflows.”

Again – where does Murch say this or anything like this?

He has worked with traditional track-based editing systems. He has not worked with FCP X, except in an undefined casual, non-professional way. It very well could be that he will not favor the “trackless” system of X. But he hasn’t made that judgment, since he hasn’t really used X.

Furthermore, why is a traditional tracked system better for a complicated workflow? He never said that. I’ve never seen him offer that opinion in any book or interview thatI’ve seen.

[Michael Gissing] ” I wondered how magnetic timeline plus roles could ever hope to mirror the complex layering of mix processing that a clip, track, bus & master bus approach can give. Here we are these years later and many editors are still hoping Roles can be augmented by sub roles and roles based plugins/mix automation.
“

Lack of implementation does not equal lack of ability.

Like most others, I would dearly love to see a means to buss audio in FCP X. I do think roles and subroles can provide adequate fine breakdown of audio. It’s the bussing that’s currently lacking. Compound clips and secondary storylines cover many of the functions one typically accomplishes with bussing, but both techniques have some limitations.

There’s really no excuse for not having some kind of bussing architecture at this point. But I think it’s quite a leap from Apple’s lack of implementation back to some kind of inherent inability of X to allow for such a thing.

As far as automation, I guess that’s where the bussing comes in. Applying automation to a track or to a group of tracks via a track-based mixer. Automating a mix via a role or subrole-based mixer is functionally equivalent. If X had it, it would be great. But, really, “track” = “role/subrole” is kinda obvious, isn’t it.

For the record (not that it matters to someone who actually uses automated mixing in their NLE), I’ve never used nor seen any editor use the automated mixing capability of FCP7 or (I presume) PPro or the more limited version in Avid. Either via a mouse inside the program or via an outboard mixer. Ever. Well, maybe once or twice just to see if it worked. But never for real, on a real spot or a real promo or a real show segment or a real movie. That’s what audio sweetening is for, with real mixers on a real stage who do it for living.

I get that many people on this forum do not and will not accept the “trackless” audio of X. OK. To each his own. But attributing such views to Walter Murch, who has not made any actual statements about the issue, is simply inaccurate.

[Jeff Markgraf]

[Aindreas Gallagher] “my God – the adherents on this forum sometimes. “

My sentiments exactly, but not directed at Scott in this case. Yep looking’ at you, AG…and DRW, and the rest of the old men in the balcony yelling at the Muppets. (NB: I’m almost an old man myself, so let’s not get hung up on the age thing.)

Murch’s book is a great read. Lots of very wise and thoughtful things to say about the art and craft of editing.
Not so much to say about Avid vs. FCP7 or tracks vs. the alleged horrors of FCP X.

Trying to frame his book or his talks as evidence of the failings of X is absurd. He’s a great editor. Not a platform whore.

As far as his complex audio mixes in the editing process…that’s his thing. He’s comfortable working with audio in a traditional tracks structure. He finds Avid’s 24 track limit to be…well, limiting. On the other hand, he’s never worked in X, either in audio or video. So what can we infer from this? Just that he’s never worked in X and so has no real basis to judge the good or bad of the so-called “trackless” methodology.

Someone earlier (Andrew?) pointed out that the 99 (or whatever) tracks available in FCP Legacy, which Murch used so effectively for his complex audio mixes, disappeared in X. True. The tracks disappeared. Did the ability to do complex mixes also disappear in X? Says who? Why would anyone say that? Seriously? Complex mixes are not possible in X? Nonsense. Complex multi-track mixes are not possible, duh, because no tracks, in the conventional sense. Nevertheless, I’m certain if Walter Murch decided to learn FCPX, he’d do the same kind of complex mixes. Because that’s what he does.

Honestly, your guys and your track fetish are really getting tiresome. Even in a debate forum.

[Jeff Markgraf]

Well, I do not really want to go from X to Avid at all. But some of the companies I work with can’t stand the idea of not having a project end up on their Avid system. “What if we have to make changes in a month and you’re not available?” and other such hand wringing. Rather than putting FCP on one of their systems… So a proper translation program would make my life easier.

[Jeff Markgraf]

[Oliver Peters] ” bridge already exists via Resolve.”

Well, yes, except it doesn’t work. It should, but it doesn’t. And that’s not even dealing with audio, which works even less.

[Jeff Markgraf]

Great to see this. Long time coming.

Obvious (?) question: Could this be the “bridge” between X and Avid? XML from FCP to AE. Then export an Avid AAF, copying media, etc? I’m not clear from the presentation. (And I’m not ready to spend $300 to experiment…yet.)

Any thoughts? Anyone used this yet?

[Jeff Markgraf]

[Shane Ross] “So, I’m just saying that’s one feature I’d need to consider a switch”

Totally understand. Switching from Avid here in LaLa Land is a tough sell. At least for cutting shows.

That said, I really enjoy working in X these days. I’ve done promos, short comedy segments, a feature and a documentary on X in the last couple of years. It has its quirks, but I really find cutting in X to be fast and flexible. For “rough cuts” that need compositing (like anyone really does a rough cut any more – more like finished cut with temp graphics!) I find X infinitely faster than Avid.

Avid 8.4 (or whatever they’re up to) has really tackled the file-based and large format problem. And I say good for them. It’s been a long time coming. I could happily cut on Avid for years to come. But left to my own devices, I’m really digging X.

Someday, someone is going to crack the revise-and-replace nut. That will be a great day. Until then, over-cutting rules.

[Jeff Markgraf]

[Shane Ross] “Is there any way to replace that other than over-cutting like we do in every other NLE?”

So I just did a quick test. Imported a 20 sec ProRes clip of a finished spot, called “Blue”. Put it on the timeline, aded a timecode generator and exported it as a 640×360 m4v file (simulating a viewing copy). Imported that file. Put in on a timeline.

I selected the m4v clip in the event browser and went to the relink clip dialogue. I relinked the clip to a second version of the original, called “red.” Same spot, same length, just a different color scheme.

The m4v clip in the browser now had the new “red” audio and video, and the m4v clip in the timeline also updated to the “red” version. The name still said “m4 viewer.”

Caveats here: must be the same length, must be the same frame rate.

So, Shane, the answer to the replace clip question is at least a partial “yes.”
In the case of replacing the timecode viewer footage with select hi-res pulls, then no. Just as with any NLE. Because the pulls are different clips. If, on the other hand, you got the hi-res version from which the viewing copy was made, then it would seem to work, assuming the same length & frame rate.

[Jeff Markgraf]

Sigh. Aindreas, I know you enjoy trolling. But “best…by a country mile” says exactly nothing of use.

What, for you, makes PPro the best? In this case, I’m asking about specifics of the day to day editing process. Like, “love the way trim mode can be selected with a right-click” or “man, right clicking to set the dissolve rate is so much better than the dissolve dialogue box that avid puts up every time…and I sure don’t miss having it remember my last duration!”

For that matter, what do YOU find “meh” about PPro?

[Jeff Markgraf]

Hi Andrew.

I guess I’m looking for some of the day in, day out edit-specific things that make Premiere the preferred NLE for people. I get the feeling that I’m somehow missing something.

It’s not that I don’t appreciate what I think of as the “big” things that Premiere brings to the table. For example, being format agnostic is great, but not something I think much about cranking out promos all day. Whereas a feature such as Avid’s dynamic trimming (if you use it much) is huge in minute by minute, hour after hour editing. Or, for some people, being able to gang synch. Or being able to expand a compound clip in place to tweak the layers – something FCPX can’t do.

So, yes, stuff like your example of opening multiple timelines so as to cut and paste into a new timeline is what I’m looking for. Or like being able to adjust audio as the timeline continues – something Avid just can’t do. “Little things” that affect the edit process over and over, all day long.

Not sure I want to be convinced, so much as enlightened. If I’m saying “meh” while others are saying “wow,” then I really want to know what the fuss is all about.

[Jeff Markgraf]

Bumping to try to get some responses to the more focused question. Anyone?