[Jim Giberti]

[Jeremy Garchow] “Groups can be containers, which can compliment X’s clip container system very nicely. A group can be a compound, a storyline, an audition, a multiclip…a role.”

I like this Jeremy, It’s how I’ve been thinking of Motion lately, and putting it in context with X is a good way to visualize the overall concept.

I’ve had the unique (for us) opportunity to do a ton of stuff in X and Motion5 the last few months and now I’ve been reworking a lot of stuff in 7 and Motion4.

I’ve evolved a pretty solid opinion from the experience – along with doing a lot of audio post directly in X and separately in DP.

I think I’ll post my “conclusion in a new thread FWIW.

Jim

[Jim Giberti]

I work regularly in one of the more sophisticated DAWs, Digital Performer, loaded with a lot of great Plugins and VIs and primarily use Focusrite gear on the front end.

I also do a lot of our audio in FCP X.

I won’t waste anyone’s time with obvious benefits of a full blown recording and mixing environment like DP. The point I would make is that I edit and mix some audio in FCP X because it’s simply faster to do with a lot of projects.

Faster than Digital Performer, for instance, for quickly editing dialogue and VO work, ducking music to voice in realtime, and even grouping audio for “track wide” EQ and compression.

Now for a complex mix, like when I need to to see all my tracks and faders and levels in front of me across 48 channels, there’s no comparison to the control and vision of a big league DAW.

But you need to understand how to mix audio in X to appreciate how facile it can be for less demanding audio post.

[Jim Giberti]

Another quick musical analogy.
We were traveling while I was in the middle of a another project in the music world.
I picked up a Martin Backpacker, a tiny, lightweight guitar with a 3/4 scale neck that I could just carry on and store overhead.

It was great to be in Tortola working on the beach and on a boat, but what I gained in portability and convenience I lost in precision and more detailed control.

There are always going to be things that are best done bigger not smaller, and with an actual 3D interface built to match human physiology.

[Jim Giberti]

Let me take my point a little further, beyond the obvious, “just because something’s new doesn’t mean it’s inherently better” thing.

Fingers have amazing sensory and manipulative abilities, and our ability to do amazing things with them comes from eons of evolution. All of this tactile response isn’t because millions of years of previous fingers moved over glass surfaces.

We’re wonderfully evolved to manipulate 3D surfaces. For instance, I’m sitting at an electric grand piano right now. On the screen that I’m typing, I can call up a virtual version of it…all 88 keys that will trigger the same 3GB samples. There’s no way anyone can input or manipulate the data/keyboard on the 2D surface with the control, dexterity and speed that you can on the physical grand piano’s responsive keys. Now add the sustain pedal…

Another advantage of the tactile feel from even a thin Mac extended keyboard, for instance, is the ability to train your fingers to do a vocabulary of commands quickly, without looking at them or the keyboard while you’re visually processing information on the screen.
In other words, you’re able to use a tactile and visual skill set simultaneously with 3D input.

Musicians, editors and typists can learn to fly on their devices specifically because of what they can feel and how they’ve trained their brains and developed muscle memory to work in a precise, defined, 3D area.

I don’t think fingers can be trained to perform a similar non-visual simultaneous skill if there’s nothing for them to reference and train on physically.

I think there are lot’s of techniques and devices for inputing and expressing information that won’t be improved with fingers on a 2D screen.

[Jim Giberti]

[Juan Salvo] “I disagree. And you have a real world example of this. If you’ve ever seen a toddler take to an iPad. They pick it up immediately and instinctively. Mouse and keyboard take a lot more brain power then grabbing and pointing,
“

Well, first of all, I’m not sure you can disagree with a personal preference.

Secondly, the idea that something takes more brain power to master isn’t a bad thing. Take physics for instance.

[Jim Giberti]

If I were to awaken from a frozen state, from pre computing days, and I was shown two models to control these new “thinking machines” – one where I moved my hands around a screen with images, and one where I had remote control with lots of tactile response that allowed me to view the images without my mitts all over them – frozen guy’s going with the keyboard, trackball and jog shuttle.

[Jim Giberti]

[Neil Goodman] “If only you could turn the angle viewer into an actual full timer viewer i might actually try something out in this thing.
“

I’d definitely like to hear what you think if you do.

[Jim Giberti]

[Richard Herd] “Sorry to go off topic, but Jim have you made the tutorial for “bussing” audio around FCPX, yet?
“

Unfortunately with our current schedule I haven’t had any time RIchard.

I mentioned recently that I’m in the middle of doing a lot of work in both environments which means doing some audio post in X and the rest in my Digital Performer studio.

It’s giving me a great opportunity to really compare 7 and X workflows.

Initial impression is: I like the ability to handle everything in one app when it’s got to be done fast and doesn’t have too many audio tracks that need sculpting.

On the other hand I love sitting behind a 48 track console and seeing my mix in front of me and having all my tools from MasterWorks, Waves, Focusrite etc on busses in real time.

Likewise I like working fast in the color board, but the New Magic Bullet Looks 2 has become an indispensable part of our creative process in X and 7.

But this is all for a comparative post that I’m going to write when I get all this work out.

In the meantime, if you have any specific questions regarding bussing I’d be glad to offer any insight I can.

[Jim Giberti]

We’ve got 5 imac i7s running film, recording studio and design flawlessly.

Always had the biggest fastest towers.
Moved past them a while ago and haven’t had a regret.

[Jim Giberti]

[Jeremy Garchow] “No excuse, but that’s the way it is.
“

I’m certainly aware of the way it is.

These discussions are pretty much exclusively about the way it should be, hence the last sentence in my post.

And you’re right, there really is no excuse.

I try and imagine explaining to a client how I stopped running a very successful campaign in order to run a obviously poorer campaign by comparison.

There should be a law (at least for companies with more money than the government) that they need to actually improve their products before releasing them as replacements.

I’ve got FXP 7 and X , Motion 4 and 5 running back and forth right now in a crazy schedule of redoing some spots, and releasing a bunch of new ones and as much as I like X, we’re getting very close to going back to 7 and Motion 4 full time because of this.

Absolutely absurd position to put your actual proponents in.

Absolutely stupid for a group of visionaries.