[Jim Giberti]

[Bill Davis] “Either we’re all crazy – or there is something different about it that makes so many feel that once we’ve made the full transition – fully jettisoning X and going back to the way we used to edit is the one thing we simply won’t seriously consider.”

I don’t think anyone is crazy in this discussion Bill.

I’m continuing to work with it because I like so many things about it.
The speed of grading and unlimited secondaries built into each track.
The speed of adjusting audio waveforms in realtime in the timeline.
The speed of organizing and compiling with the Keyword Editor and Event Browser.
But I’m not going to stop clamoring for important improvements that would expand it’s capabilities.

I’ve created a workaround for one that’s bothered me a lot, but the memory and performance issues are big issues for me.

[Jim Giberti]

For me Tony, it’s more, why does Apple require me to build a work around to “trick” X into making tracks that stay in place?

I just got tired of the lack of simple, visual, linear organization when I wanted it in complex edits.
It doesn’t change the way X works, it just gives me more control of my organization and therefore edit.

Visually, I see editing as a north, south, east and west proposition- and metadata is like Z space. FCPX is all about north and south (me too), and all about Z space (me too), but kind of, eh, when it comes to east and west – so I just wanted to force it to respect those compass points too.

It’s awfully nice to hit Q and have the audio tracks drop automatically below the primary without a Secondary, and stay there without a Compound Clip until I’m ready to finish.

[Jim Giberti]

Me too. That’s why I wanted to set up a “default timeline” for this project and edit everything into it.

This thing has been in production for a year gathering all the footage over 4 seasons.

I absolutely loved organizing the hundreds of scenes, locations, seasons and actors with the keyword editor…absolutely dwarfs 7 in that regard.

I don’t need tons of tracks. I just need more east/west control than X natively allows for.

I especially like this “audio sync lane”. Because of the remote nature of some of these locations there’s some audio direct to camera but most is separate audio. This gives me the ability to drop either in and do J and L cuts quickly with either. I just want it all to drop into and stay in a straight line as easily as if I selected a track in 7 and this way it does.

Honestly I think my basic starting point will be just three fixed audio tracks with that lane below the primary. I think I’m good with everything north of the primary right now, but it’s immediately expandable.

[Jim Giberti]

Hey Steve, I was one of the people talking about it as I said, but I wanted to make it an actual permanent starting point for all my projects with an easy “exit strategy” for final output.

Plus the dedicated audio lane, I think is a new idea and works great. I took the whole idea to more practical level at least for me, in so much a this is what I have when I open the program now…I don’t have to set anything up. It’s a pretty similar working environment to FCP7 for a lot of uses and you can add tracks and delete tracks as simply as in 7.

[Jim Giberti]

Helmut, you probably already are but just in case- regularly delete your unused render files and keep your Project and Event folder empty of anything but your current work.

Even then you’ll want to quit X regularly as the RAM issue is a big problem with performance too.

[Jim Giberti]

[Steve Connor] “I’m impressed by your tenacity, many people would have not given FCPX another chance. I’m hoping for a 10.04 release shortly to fix some of the issues that .03 seems to have caused, at the moment it seems like Apple are moving quite fast with development, I hope it continues.
“

As I said in another thread, If nothing else, I am persistent.

I’ll definitely give a heads up regarding this new project.
Aside from some pickup scenes that have to be shot next week, I’ve got everything organized and squeaky clean for the edit.

[Jim Giberti]

[Steve Connor] “Could I ask why you are still using FCPX after your horror story of an experience with it?
“

I think Craig probably said it right regarding the innovations and toughing through the early FCP days.

I was motivated to figure out what needs to be done to operate it at it’s optimum through those messes.
I’m intrigued by it’s potential.
It does do many things elegantly and flexibly.
It’s half amateur and half pro and I’m hoping the pro half wins.
Add track capability and audio mixing and it could be our future.
I really need to see if it’s X or possibly PP6 going forward…it’s not going to be 7 or avid for us in the long run.

Finally Steve, I decided (I’ve got some time with this promo piece) to virtually start from scratch with X implementing every organizational and management technique possible to see how it would perform with this project.
I’m willing to work with it’s short comings if it’s going to mature quickly. If not, we’re going to have to go elsewhere and I want to know that I gave it a real shot.

[Jim Giberti]

[Craig Seeman] “[Jim Giberti] “When FCPX’s performance matches it’s potential then maybe it becomes an Illustrator.”

Note T. Payton said 3 to 4 years. Not that we know the future, not that Illustrator had much in the way of similar competitors but it may be FCPX is more distantly related to the current NLEs than some think.”

Right, is that somehow not congruous with my post?

[Jim Giberti]

[T. Payton] ” Like Luddiites (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luddite) we believe this new technology was a death sentence to our much loved craft. Some of us even lashed out, seeking some type of revenge upon the very ones proposing this new technology.”

We worked with that first version. I love new technology then and now.

But you’re not a Luddite for wanting new technology to actually be superior to old technology – you’re just a demanding professional trying to get your job done today without the luxury of the long view.

When FCPX’s performance matches it’s potential then maybe it becomes an Illustrator.

As someone who’s cutting another project with it right now.

[Jim Giberti]

[greg buick] “The problem is, this will use an obscene amount of hard drive space and take about 30 years on my old laptop.

most of the material will not make the edit of the final film and it seems like a shame to have a hard drive full of unused prores files.
“

Greg you’re a prime candidate for my “FInder Selex” technique, something that’s allowed for with X and while it isn’t as precise as log and capture in limiting files size, will probably help a lot.

We shoot a lot of multiple angles (5DIIs) and do a lot of outdoor action coverage for TV spots and promo films. We don’t archive the disks but instead just dump them into folders and usually do a first pass immediately, finding keepers and naming them.

Anything that gets a name then gets separated into actors or scenes and put into folders i.e., Zeke Keepers, Tara Keepers, Pete Keepers, they then get brought into X keeping the folders as automatic keyword collections to start the editing process.

In other words, if your concern is that the most of the footage won’t make the edit, then do your first or second selex pass before you get to the program and then just import your selex folders. We do it all the time, the file based 5DII footage is perfect for that with X just using OSX Quick Look.

Now, everything that’s in your event browser is already organized in a first round of keywording AND it’s in the small h.264 files size.

Now as you build your edit (no color correcting, filters or transitions) and you lock in your footage, you can right click the clips that you are going to use and transcode just those clips directly in the Event Browser. You’ll end up with just the clips you use, transcoded in Pro Res and ready for real editing.

You don’t even want to think about working with h.264 in the timeline. The Pro Res footage will make your system happy and make for much better color correcting etc.

Hope this helps.

Jim