Mathieu Ghekiere
Forum Replies Created
-
Oliver is right. Sync Clips in FCPX made the timecode of that clip 00:00:00:00 and you could not change this in any way.
This gave a lot of people grievances when they sent that to Resolve.I think it was only 10.1.2 recently that fixed this, and you could choose the timecode. BTW, very glad Apple finally listened to that one.
Thanks for the article, Oliver. I always am happy to read your articles.
-
Hi Herb,
your words remind me of a editing teacher in a film school in Belgium, who even got an oscar nomination for his sound-editing on a foreign film, who said he liked X, and said: “in the beginning I didn’t really like the automatic nature of the magnetic timeline, but after working with it, I have to admit that it always guessed correctly what I wanted to do.”
I’m sure you probably wouldn’t agree with that, but I do think that Apple, much more then Adobe, thinks about how people use their software, and what they WANT to do with specific actions. I think this holds true for both their OSX, iOS, ProApps and Consumer Apps. You could always want better, but there is a reason people look to Apple as masters of User Interfaces.
-
The answer is Yes. The same goes for Compressor.
And, Like FCPX but unlike FCP7, they can even run at the same time on the same network.
-
It’s stuff i’ve been asking Apple to put in since 10.0.0…
We make big compound clips with the same timecode as the original clips and with a timecode generator.
This of course only is do’able if you don’t have hundreds of different clips… -
Hi Herb,
In my opinion 10.0.6 was a huge update. An update after which a lot of people used it professionaly.
We had multiple PIOP, An R3D workflow that is arguably the best of any NLE because of speed and a Built-in proxy workflow, and copy and paste attributes (long overdue, but the new version is – again – better than what we had in 7), audio components (also huge, can’t remember that being in the white paper).
Those were the bigger features, there were of course a host of smaller ones that really made the program better.That being said, I agree that it SEEMS that the pace of development has slowed a bit and I would Like it if Apple would release another road map and put out another juicy feature update.
BTW a great tutorial on audio components by Sam Mestman for Anyone that’s interested:
At the end, Sam says there are no fade handles on individual audio components. This was added in 10.1.
Some contents or functionalities here are not available due to your cookie preferences!This happens because the functionality/content marked as “Google Youtube” uses cookies that you choosed to keep disabled. In order to view this content or use this functionality, please enable cookies: click here to open your cookie preferences.
-
It’s like asking the iPhone team why they don’t put a hardware keyboard on it.
FCPX is going into a direction. It needs refinement. But it doesn’t need to be changed into something it isn’t.
You can ask the iPhone team to make a better software keyboard. To have extra features for their touch-keyboard. Asking for a hardware keyboard like all Blackberry’s had, is a wasted effort.
(and when Apple announced the iPhone, a lot of people kept asking for a ‘real’ keyboard also). -
Because in the beginning you edit in systems you know. You detach audio because it ‘looks’ like things you are used to – having a blue clip and a green clip separate.
After a while you realize that in 99 percent of the cases you don’t need to detach audio unless you want to purposely BREAK sync.
After a while I realized most of the times I was unnecessarily detaching audio.It would be nice if there would be option to put audio immediately back with it’s associated clip, like in the contextual menu. Of course.
But do I miss it? No.Will there be a couple of cases where it takes X a couple of more keystrokes to get to what you want? Probably. But the opposite is also true, and in my experience, much more so. Where you need much more keystrokes in traditional NLE’s (Charlie’s post is an example of this, above, working with 6 tracks, patching, for making J&L cuts, etc. …) than you need in X.
-
I’m not sure if this is true, Herb.
In that sense that if you would start from a blank slate, would all the track-based NLE’s with their terminology (sync-indicators, bins, subclips, patching, clip colissions, etc etc) not also also have their own terminology?
Once you start from a blank slate, Who rules that FCPX is there-fore the difficult one and the traditional NLE’s are the Simple ones?If you learn someone edit on X that doesn’t have previous experience in a track-based NLE, a lot of this perception goes away. They just accept it for what it is. It is people (Like me, once) that did track-based editing for Years (some of you even decades) that are having the most difficult time adjusting.
As someone who grew up with Première and based my living on editing on FCP7, I think it’s brave that Apple dared to re-think editing. And therefore it also needed new terminology to break away clearly from old perceptions.
Yes, X had and has growing pains. What do you expect if you try to break new ground? IOS also needed a lot of maturing (no 3rd party apps at first, no copy paste, …).
I think after being skeptical of X and refusing it first but learning it to at this point, switching 100 percent of my work and that of the facility where I work freelance to X, I really think the magnetic timeline and Roles are a much better alternative than tracks. And I really think it’s the way of the future.
It just Needs some maturing to do (look at Marcus’ blog post about Roles and how it could behave for audio mixing). But therefore it Needs maturing of the concepts it has now and not going back to tracks.
Even in it’s ‘young’ form, I already like X more than ‘traditional’ NLE’s. -
Go Charlie!
Everyone here also doesn’t mention how you can use the Inspector to easily mute channels, and have them stay contained.
And I can only vote an extra +1 to what Charlie and Jeremy are saying here. Once you work with it, in *most* cases X is faster then a track-based NLE. You really have to get used to it, but it pays off.
There are a couple of things where X is slower, but like Charlie, I notice that I’m much more frustrated in 7 (or any other track-based NLE) missing things that X has, than the other way around.You should work with this software. A lot. Force yourself to do it the way X does. And yes, once you wrap your head around it, this takes time as we are all used to years of working in a different way. Our muscle memory needs to change. Once it does, I really don’t enjoy editing in 7 anymore, although I did it for years and thought it was the greatest NLE out there.
And, again, like Charlie said, a lot of this sometimes seems convoluted, and one of the reasons is that it uses a lot of new terminology. But once you see it all in action, you can do most things a lot faster, and with much more fun than other NLE’s.
Like others, I missed sync-indicators in the beginning. Now I don’t anymore. I think my brain is wrapped around how stuff works in X.
I used to look at X and *think* in track-based terms, and saw everything as work-arounds. Now I look at X in its own terms, and I work faster (and with more joy) then any other NLE. And I’m not a saint, I make the mistake if I look at track-based NLE’s now. I think: why don’t they have the magnetic timeline? Why do people in track-based editing do so much work-arounds to do what I can do much more non-destructive and faster in X?