[Lars Fuchs]

This sounds like a cool technique that I’m going to try to use. I don’t quite follow what you mean by ‘default position’ for the camera, but probably once I start trying it out it will become clear.

Thanks!

[Lars Fuchs]

Thanks! That’s just the info I needed. I’d noticed the zoom parameter in the camera settings box before, but never made the connection to pixels in the frame. I guess I was mostly looking at the angle indicating field of view, and didn’t realize what I could use the pixel information for.

You have my deepest gratitude!

[Lars Fuchs]

[Mark Raudonis] “What you’re describing is EXACTLY what we do on a BIG scale. We often have six different shows going simultaneously, with almost 100 seats connected. We’re using X-SAN and FCP, and the “project sharing” problem that you outline just isn’t an issue”

That’s awesome. How do you do it? As I said, I’m an old goat with old habits, but not so proud that I’m unwilling to learn a better way of doing things. So I honestly want to know.

[Mark Raudonis]“Your negative comments about “networked, group workflow” is exactly why Avid vs FCP is such a debatable topic.”

Isn’t that what we’re doing? All the same, I didn’t intend to be negative; I was just describing an observable fact, that in order to share bins across projects you have to open the projects first. Whether that adversely affects one’s workflow depends on the workflow, and ultimately, your point of view. What works for one, doesn’t work for another.

Unfortunately, I don’t often get to do much about how my clients’ systems are set up, including workflow. That’s usually a done deal by the time I’ve been hired. I’ve begun to treat the project file roughly as though it were a bin, and that’s been working out all right for me.

But in all earnestness, I would really be grateful if you could share some insights into how you manage your editorial setup. I think I could learn a lot..

[Lars Fuchs]

Stephan and Walter are right in that functionally, there really isnt much to separate the two platforms from each other. I work with both systems frequently. Anecdotally, based just on my clients, my impression is that older more established businesses tend to use Avid, and the newer, smaller companies tend to use Final Cut pro.

Firms old enough to predate Final cut pro, say around 2002-2003 when fcp versions 3 and 4 came out, have a considerable investment in Avid gear and expertise. They probably find that it makes sense for them to stick with what they have. A large number of avids are running on Wintel platforms, which adds an extra impediment to making the switch.

[Dylan Reeve] “I’m not interested in a slagging match in either direction”

Nor I, but you never know. However I have found one area where I prefer Avid to FCP. And that is in editing a television series which has several editing suites and multiple editors cutting multiple episodes simultaneously. Now, I’m an old goat with many obsolete habits, so if I can be proven wrong here, then that’s great. But let me explain my opinion here:

Since FCP stores bins inside a project file, you have to open the enclosing project first if you need to access a bin in another project. This doesn’t seem like it would be a big deal, and in many cases it isn’t, but projects, especially as they get bigger, can take quite a while to open. When you have to open a lot of bins from other projects, those extra moments start to add up. I’ve worked on a reality shows that shoot thousands of hours of footage that fill hundreds of bins. I was often exasperated by the time spent waiting for projects to open. But presumably as computers get faster, this will be less of a problem.

Avid stores bins as separate files, so they can be opened directly from other projects. I find that to be a time saver.

A more serious issue arising in this same multi-episode, multi-room, multi-editor situation is version control. Using Avid’s Unity, editors can share a single bin (not a copy). Only the first editor who opens a bin can save it, all others have only read-only access, but can save copies. In final cut, each editor works with a local copy of the project containing the relevant bins. I found that this necessitated a great deal more work on the part of the editors, or more often, the assistant editors, to keep a master copy of the project up-to-date, which in an Avid Unity is totally unnecessary.

I’ll just hasten to add that this is just one particular situation, and that I recognize that Avid has its own shortcomings in other areas. This is just one that in my personal experience might make me choose one over the other.

[Lars Fuchs]

[Bob Cole] “When sending multiple timelines to Compressor,”

I stopped using the “Export using Compressor” option quite a while ago, because I hated the way it tied up FCP during the entire process. Instead I create reference quicktime files that I bring into compressor from Finder. Then I can add as many files as I like to a batch, and I can keep working in FCP even after I submit the job. I’ve been quite happy with this workflow, your mileage may vary.

At the moment I’m trying to teach myself enough AppleScript and Automator to create a watch folder that will automatically compress any file I export to it from FCP and the upload the resulting file to an FTP site.

[Lars Fuchs]

Can you tell us more about the files you were given and the files you created? Codec, frame size, and frame rate are the key pieces of information. If you’re not sure, you can open one of each in QuickTime and hit CMD-I or select ‘Get Info’ from the menu. If for example the frame rates are different you’ll get an error. Say if you converted footage shot at 59.94 fps to a 29.97 offline file.

In any case it will be easier to figure out what happened if you can provide more data.

[Lars Fuchs]

Thanks guys for pointing out that I can manually enter a value greater than +/- 100 in the feathering field. That does work.

I had gotten used to After Effects where the full range of a parameter is available to the slider. It’s good that Motion does have more feathering than I realized, but it isn’t very convenient to be have to manually enter all values above 100. If you’re not sure if you want 700, 800, 900, or 1000 pixels of feathering, say, you have to manually enter each value, back and forth, rather than simply dragging the mouse til its right.

[Lars Fuchs]

David, thanks for remembering to post the results!

That first-hand knowledge is invaluable. I’ve often encountered the -av issue, though I have been lucky so far to have had backups. I’m sure one day my luck will run out, and as I said, it really is good to have options.

Thanks again for sharing!

[Lars Fuchs]

Sure, but only a smidgen of feathering. I suppose the +/- 100 feathering control refers to pixels, because when I use large stills in a a Motion comp, I can only get a little bit of feather at the max setting. And the odd corner behavior (peaking) of feathered masks is annoying as heck. Oh, and you can’t set mask shape keyframes to ‘constant’ interpolation.

On the other hand, thinking of Motion as a really big plugin for FCP makes it seem way cooler than as a motion-graphics tool.

Okay, okay, I’m just venting here – sorry about the rant – but I stand by my feathering complaint. And the instability.

[Lars Fuchs]

I’m always happy to help, but who are we kidding here? The Blink filter is way easier, and Luca’s Dual Flicker plugin that Andy pointed out is really amazing. Wow!

You’re so right about the Cow – I remember toying with the blink effect when I first started with FCP and then forgetting all about it. The irony is that if I had needed to create that effect I would probably have done it the brute force way. I don’t know that it would have occurred to me to ask the cow first.

Now I know better! Thanks all!