[Jeff Markgraf]

The “hurt you” post is a slightly out-of-order response to James’ “why not use a mouse” post.

The threading on this forum is not ideal. Which is why it’s a good idea to quote the post to which one is responding.

[Jeff Markgraf]

[James Ewart] “And may I ask why do some people seem so averse to using a mouse?”

James – Michael is correct on this point. The mouse is not your wrist’s friend. That’s why I use a pen and tablet.

As far as keyboard editing, I find that more keyboard and less mouse can be much faster. I use as little mouse as possible on Avid, and now that I’m more comfortable with X, more keyboard there as well.

But, yes, X requires more mouse than Avid. Certainly not a deal breaker, though. And I find the benefits of X more than makes up for the additional mousing.

[Jeff Markgraf]

[Mike Warmels] “I can’t bear to look at it anymore.”

I used FCP-generated proxies on the RED 5k movie footage because the MacBook Pro couldn’t decode and debayer 5k in real time. 4k would have been fine. Mind you, the proxies were about 1/2 resolution, so effectively 2k. Even the DP could barely see a difference on my Flanders Scientific monitor showing a 2k picture. And since you can switch immediately from proxy to original and back, it’s a pretty seamless workflow. So…maybe rethink the proxy issue?

Good to know about the Avid backward compatibility. I have v8, and have been reluctant to use it for stuff with a facility still on 7.something.

I hear you on XD-CAM. Big bag o’ hurt. And I wish FCPX could force-optimize XD-CAM. So, you’re right – transcoding is the only way to go. That sucks. Although I will note that even Avid gets cranky with XD-CAM. and you absolutely have to transcode for layback or export. Which also sucks.

Pretty much any other format plays nice with my system. Ah, there’s that inconsistent performance issue again. Really a drag.

[Jeff Markgraf]

Regarding roles in sweetening: X to Pro crates an AAF that gathers timeline audio clips by roles and lays them out in a standard Pro Tools style. So “Dialogue-Bob-lav” clips are all sent over as one track, unless there’s overlap, in which case it sends to one or more tracks in sequence (T1, T2, T3, etc.). Then the next role is handled on the next sequential tracks. Same for music, sfx, etc. As long as there’s a role (and subroles, if any) assigned, the clips are grouped. (Disclaimer – I haven’t used it yet so I may have some details wrong, but I’m pretty confident it works this way.) X to Pro can also send to Logic X more accurately than X’s own send-to-Logic function, apparently. ;-(

So, yeah, roles as they exist now are far more than cosmetic.

I wonder, can the footage have roles set before going to your undisciplined directors?

Also, I THINK you can select multiple roles in the timeline index and add/change roles there. Bill? Confirm?

As far as grouping clips in the timeline to approximate “tracks,” I think it was Charlie Austin who had a method:

Create some dummy titles named “SOT,” Music,” “SFX,” and so on. Pull them underneath the primary storyline. Then place each connected audio clip below the appropriate barrier strip. Do it either as you edit or after finishing a section. Doesn’t take long, and the visual organization is obvious. If the audio is attached to video, it’s probably dialogue/SOT by default. If it’s nat sound, it can still stay attached to the video. Just drag the A/V clip under the primary as you would an audio-only clip. Make sense?

As far as UI: we’ll have to agree to disagree. As I described in a different thread (“Why I like Premiere Pro – looking for serious discussion”), I’m a serious editor who is just fine with the X UI. I prefer a single monitor, and prefer to have my pix monitor directly above my UI monitor, just like in the old linear edit bays. And I’m particularly fine with one UI video window that automatically switches between source & record as needed. But I get that most editors want more customization — I just think it’s mostly habit, rather than a real need. To each his own. I think Apple could easily accommodate this request.

[Jeff Markgraf]

[Mike Warmels] “Maybe I should go over and cut with him. ;-)”

I’d pay money to see that 😉

Regarding AMA – I’ve found a mostly useful workflow (cutting promos and sales reels and short-form). Because I can’t tolerate the incredibly slow import process in Avid (import a 50 minute pull reel? No thanks!). So I’ll AMA link the long clip and scan for my pulls. Then subclip each pull and immediately transcode the subclip. Doing it right away, I can name the transcoded clip and include the reel number (NCIS_Eps 504-510_PR1415-2) in the name so I can easily get back to the source reel if something goes awry. Then I delete the temp AMA’d subclip and move on. Ultimately faster than batch subclipping, batch transcoding and hoping I get the clip names right. Then I delete the link to the source and cut away. I can always relink to the source and pull more clips.

As far as transcoding to ProRes for X: I rarely have to cut with h.264 or other really nasty source footage, so I don’t usually need to transcode in advance. Now that I can work with MXF files directly in X, I don’t even transcode Avid DNX files anymore. I can just pull them right off the ISIS drives into X, make a synch or multicam clip to lock the audio & video together, and cut away.

I’m curious why you don’t just optimize the clips in X? Or make proxies. That can be done overnight, as well.

Lastly, regarding Avid: I didn’t think you could go backwards in projects. I can open up older projects in, say, v7 or v8. But I don’t think I can open up a v8 project in v7 or v6. Am I mistaken? Never had to do it.

[Jeff Markgraf]

Mike –

Improved roles functionality is an ongoing feature request. You’re right: lots of opportunity here, if Apple can deliver.

[Mike Warmels] “role assignments between clips in the browser and used section from that clip in the timeline are not connected for some reason.”

There have been several discussions in the forum about browser vs. timeline roles. Some have suggested that changing a role on a clip in the timeline should ripple back to the browser-master clip level.

I’m with the “Why would you want that?” crowd. If I’ve initially assigned a role (say, “Dialogue”, subrole “Bob-lavaliere”) and I want to change it in the timeline (perhaps I’m using a bit of room tone stolen from the Bob-lav clip as an ADR fill), I wouldn’t want the role assigned for that particular instance to change the role as assigned on the master clip.

I think Herb talked about using a bit of “sizzle” sound as part of the dialogue in some instances, while using it as sfx in other instances. He was using the example to support his desire for tracks. But I think it’s a good example of why rippling a role change back to the master clip is a terrible idea.

Perhaps the solution would be to make it an option, as someone else suggested.

[Mike Warmels] “what’s the problem with working with tracks?”

I think roles, especially when more fully implemented, serves the same organizational function as tracks. If we get the roles grouping/colors/etc. that we’re asking for, even the much vaunted “visual reference” function would be taken care of. And using roles sidesteps the “Track Tetris” annoyance. (I for one could go the rest of my life without ever having to patch another audio or video track!)

[Jeff Markgraf]

Hi Mike.

I don’t think Bill intends to be condescending or dismissive of the issues you seem to have with X. Bill is one of a few of us who have had pretty consistently good luck with X. As Oliver and some others have pointed out, there does seem to be some wild and inconsistent variation between users and systems. Perhaps the sign of an “immature” (not meant to be derogatory, just descriptive) hardware/software relationship.

As a side note, newer versions of Avid (v8.xxx), which have finally incorporated some of the modern file-handling capabilities of FCPX and PPro, are also fraught with buggy and inconsistent behavior. And the newest Avids absolutely require modern, top-line hardware.

As far as specific points:

I used to have the open inspector window sluggishness at times. Not so much anymore on 10.2. And definitely not so much now that I’m on a new MacPro tube/trashcan/dustbin/R2Mac2/whatever you call it.

Never had a problem with my AJA T-Tap slowing down performance. (First time I’ve heard this one.)

Waveform drawing was a problem that seems to be fixed in 10.2 Slow opening of libraries and projects also seems to be fixed in 10.2.

[Mike Warmels] “it’s the tortoise compared to the old hare of AVID, which wins on much slower discs.”

As noted above, the introduction of AMA brought many an Avid to its knees. And the latest version just won’t cut it on older hardware – unless you don’t use AMA or large format video or background rendering or real-time proxies – in which case, why bother with the latest version?

[Mike Warmels] “but when it gets bigger, more footage etc… it slows down.”

I had some issues cutting a feature shot on RED 5k. Only viable using proxies and “better performance” mode. But then, that was on a Retina laptop as the CPU, and pre-10.2. Works like a charm now on the same footage, even using original 5k, now that I’m on 10.2 with the Tube.

I know, I’m sounding like a broken record.

[Mike Warmels] ” Why are there no patches to fix the older versions? Even on older AVIDs you get support and bug fixes, why not on older FCPX versions?”

Well…having used Avid since the mid-90s, I have found that “patches and bug fixes” were almost exclusively new versions or .xx updates. Just like FCPX. To this day there are certain versions of Avid that simply don’t play nicely with certain OS versions, both PC and Mac. So I don’t think it’s fair to expect 10.08 or 10.1.xx to be patched to bring it up to par with 10.2. As with Avid, it’s often far more than a simple patch to fix the problems associated with older versions.

None of this is to dismiss the very real problems you and some others are having. I wish I knew what the secret sauce is to fix the problem systems. And it probably doesn’t help to hear that some of us just don’t have the issues you’re having. I think you’re stuck, to some degree, until you can get the 10.2 upgrade.

[Jeff Markgraf]

Rich –

Piling on with a bunch of others here: Avid without ISIS (and Interplay) is mostly just an old-school NLE. Mostly great editing functionality, with what many consider best-in-class trim functionality. Terrible for effects and compositing. Nothing special for audio or color correction (you’ll want to sweeten in ProTools and color correct in Resolve). Graphics created by the usual suspects and dropped in.

On the plus side, as of version 8, FINALLY a decent means of dealing with file-based video and larger-than-HD video formats. Looks like they cribbed a few ideas from FCPX! But be prepared to have new, powerful hardware to handle it. (And ProTools & Resolve & AE are still required.)

But, to repeat, unless you need the kind of multi-user workflow that only ISIS can provide — at a fairly significant price! — Avid isn’t a foregone conclusion.

And while it’s conventional wisdom that only ISIS (and UNITY before it) can effectively handle large-scale multiple user workflow, I’m not so sure that’s true anymore. FCPX and PPro can both work very effectively with modern asset management systems (like Cantemo Portal and some others). The only UNIQUE feature of ISIS is multiple users on a project simultaneously. All the others require users to pull a local copy of the project and then re-integrate it when done. (With ISIS, the first user of a bin locks out the others from writing to the sequence and bin, but anyone can open the bin read-only, use a locked sequence as a source, make a copy of said sequence and do their own thing, etc. And as soon as the original user closes the bin, it’s up for grabs again.)

And, yeah, Hollywood is still primarily an Avid town. I don’t see that changing anytime soon.

[Jeff Markgraf]

Bill – troll may just be trolling.

There’s a small percentage of posters both here and on fcp.co forums who often seem angry. Maybe they just have an inelegant way of expressing themselves. Or maybe they really do look at anything that is counter to their needs or expectations as worthless and inferior. Not sure. I just know that there’s no reasoning with the anger bears. Just move on to the next post. Life’s too short.

[Jeff Markgraf]

Just to keep the OT going: so now that Corbyn has won the Labour leadership, is Britain about to go down the tubes? Or is he, in fact, the downfall of Labour?

Some interesting Bernie Sanders parallels, if you follow US politics.