Marcus Moore
Forum Replies Created
-
Really? I actually prefer how keyframes are handled in Motion vs AE- it’s one of the reasons I started using Motion more and more in the last few years.
I’d be quite happy if Motion’s keyframe window was ported over to FCPX- maybe there’s a better way, but that would certainly be a step up from what we have.
And I think there comes a point where it’s impossible to have a complex interface that doesn’t suffer on smaller screens. I don’t see how it’s possible for one layout to make the maximum use of a 27″ display and at the same time be optimized for something 15″.
-
Honestly, I think that would even out because I’m more inclined to believe that the more professional a user is, the more likely they are to send in user feedback to apple.
-
It’s not a question of whether anyone has to tell them. It’s about how they prioritize it in development. If 1000 editors ask for something, that may move it up the ladder in terms of importance.
-
They key is that in the magnetic timeline, when primary storyline elements are moved around, connected clips need to be able to shift up and down as potential collisions occur.
A track is a static element, where you put all dialogue on Track 1, sound effects on Track 2 and 3 for example. If you were to allow connect clips to jump across tracks, track assignments would loose all meaning as people currently use them. Tracks are really just a manually assigned form of metadata.
I think there’s a very direct comparison between keywords in the Event Browser and Roles in the Project timeline.
Where in legacy you put clips about clowns into a bin called clowns, so that you knew they had clowns in them. In X, you assign the keyword clowns to footage, and an organizing keyword collection called clowns is automatically created.
I believe the same thing would work for Roles. So that any clips assigned with the Role SFX would be grouped together in a horizontal Role Collection in the timeline. Unlike a track, which is 1 audio layer deep, a Role Collection could be several clips stacked on top of one another.
I’ve tried to exposing this many times. I’m sure a visual would be helpful.
-
We just don’t know- so we should stop presenting supposition as fact.
I look at the promo page on apples site and I see lots of room for user accessibility.
-
While I think that AMD might have gotten exclusivity this time around, I don’t see any reason why there couldn’t be an nVidia option down the road.
-
Indeed. And I don’t think they’ll do it. The issue is that putting tracks back means dropping the magnetic timeline AND connected clips. They’re all interconnected. And I DO NOT see going back to tracks as an improvement.
The only thing that bothers me about the timeline as it stands is it’s lack of a hierarchical/organizational visual structure. And as I’ve said many times before, I think that can be managed quite handily with Roles.
-
I suppose, but even using the current software with multicore MacPro configs, which does FCPX benefit more from now, a 6-core 3.4GHz system or a 12-core lower GHz system?
Does FCPX lean one way or the other for what it does?
-
Nooooooo!!!!!!!
-
Yeah, but that was a sneak BY Apple, and at NAB, where they’ve previewed FinalCut updates many times since launch.
Denver previewing unannounced FCPX features is not the way Apple does things.