Jim Giberti
Forum Replies Created
-
What a cruel suggestion.
I was hoping that the X people might have the Motion people over for coffee and discuss how they got it right. I only posted about it because I was going through a bunch of Motion work this weekend.
They were all done originally in Motion 4 and I was tweaking a bunch of elements for some TV spots.I was really happily surprised at how much more responsive things were from when I originally designed them. I’m (nearly) sure round tripping will be restored. The two programs really could be a great tandem if X evolves quickly.
-
I’m just saying, I see a real performance plus in Motion 5 and a real performance issue with FCPX 1.0.3.
-
[Chris Harlan] “Here’s part of the 51%”
Perfect, no translation necessary.
-
[David Lawrence] “I have to tip my hat to you, Jim. The hoops you’re jumping through to make FCPX work your way are both clever and a little scary. Are you using the Position Tool a lot with your new project template?”
I am David. For the most part (sans full editing) the secondaries are pretty much tracks once you get them to stay put. And they do have the advantage of holding CCs, so you can use them to assemble and then to master, so there are real pluses.
My favorite thing is using the locked secondaries to force the audio alley under the primary and having your edits go there and stay there. And I tweaked it a little more so that it’s easy to do the same with, say your SFX or whatever.
The advantage being as you select audio you don’t have to keep selecting the secondary to drop it into, it acts like selecting audio tracks in 7.
-
[David Lawrence] “After last year’s fiasco, I imagine they’ll be very careful. I’ve heard from several sources that they apparently thought they hit it out of the park at the NAB sneak peak and were completely blindsided by industry response after the June 21 release. I get the impression they’ve been scrambling ever since then.
“I was going to ask, “How could they misjudge the industry that badly?” but then I remembered how much negative feedback they supposedly got from the pros that did preview it. Pretty perplexing.
-
[Simon Ubsdell] ”
Everything suggest they are waaaaaaaaaay behind whatever schedule they set themselves – and in all probability without a gameplan as to how to get abreast of any of it.
“I wonder if they’ll try and make some news at NAB?
-
[Craig Seeman] “It might make them faster though. It’s not the only thing important though but it is key when time is money.
“I don’t understand why you say “them”, is FCPX somehow the property of teenagers?
-
[Frank Gonzales] “I know there is quite a bit lacking compared to FCP 7 and P CS5 currently; but really? Can you not see what Apple is doing here?”
Sure I can Frank, I’ve produced about 10 spots with it and I’m working an a second film with it now.
I just don’t think experience makes people Fuddy Duddies, and I don’t think a new program is going to make young editors better than me/us.
-
[Craig Seeman] “Given it’s 1.0.x nature, I think the performance issues will be addressed as, at the moment, performance (where and when it does work) is one of its biggest current selling points.
“Right, but I don’t think it’s just me…why did 1.0.3 go the other way with performance?
I was becoming a big fan, warts and all, because of performance and features, but I’m convinced that they made a boo boo with the update.
-
[Frank Gonzales] ” Don’t worry about FCPX, its for the new kids…..and trust me, they will do more amazing things than we ever did in a quarter the time. Reality hurts.”
Really, OMG, LOL, have u talked with one recently?