Matt Callac
Forum Replies Created
-
[Matthew Sonnenfeld] “I just don’t like the feeling that hundreds of dollars worth of software isn’t MINE, on my bookshelf, always there when/if I need it.”
I’m really concerned about this aspect as well. The app store scares me, and so does purchasing anything that exists only in digital form. When something happen I want a tangible backup i can pull from. Also app store downloading for FCP creates a real problem for me since I like to rebuild out edit suits from the ground up every 6 months to a year. I’ve got Disc images of all my install discs so it goes pretty quick. Only having access to the software via the app store makes me think it won’t be possible to scartch a drive and reinstall the app.
[Neil Hurwitz] “1.There is no resale value for FCP software, when you bought it
it was an expense not an investment
2. You have the option of staying just as you are
3.Switching to Avid is going to cost you more
So Suck it up, don’t worry about your INVESTMENT (not)
You blew the money the second you bought it
Buying software is not like buying a FDIC insured CD
YOU ARE IN BUSINESS, SUCK IT UP
JEEZ”You’re totally wrong. Purchasing FCP, while being an expense, it’s also an investment. Unless your FCP use is purely recreation, it’s an investment. You invested your money in this Set of software so that you could make your living off of it. FCP is generating returns for you if you are making money off of the work you do in it. People are mostly up in arms because it looks like everything has changed. This means it’s going to take everyone (who chooses to stick it out with FCPX) several months to create new workflows and figure out how best to utilize the new infrastructure. Most people adhere to an “if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it” model of editing. Once you’ve streamlined your workflow, you stick with hit and make minor adjustments as you go. Seemingly this is a whole new little beast. People are not looking foreward to having to relearn and rework things that weren’t broken for them in the first place.
The real bottom line though is, if you don’t like the changes…don’t adopt the software. I remember not too long ago seeing several big edit shops in NYC running Avid on Mac OS 9. That worked for them and they continued to use it as long as it worked. You don’t NEED to upgrade, but if the new changes are things that will increase your productivity, by all means…upgrade. If not…keep using your well oiled edit machine and keep making money off of it.
-mattyc
-
Sweet, I’ve always wanted a digital plush cow.
-mattyc
-
[Scott Sheriff] “If you’re an editor today, you’ll still be one tomorrow.”
…..you just might not get paid for it tomorrow.
-mattyc
-
[kim krause] “why do people always have to know whats going on as it’s happening…really, a few hours later won’t make any difference in your life”
Kim, don’t you realize, that if we’re the first to know about it…we can be the first to complain about it. Isn’t that what the internet is for? Complaining about stuff.
-mattyc
-
[Scott Sheriff] “There is some truth to that. But the reality seems to be that standards have significantly been lowered in the past 5-7 years. At the same time so have rates.”
Scott is right. In just my short professional career (7 years) I have personally noticed standards have dropped. Younger people entering the job market have a short attention span and a sense of entitlement. A lot of them don’t want to work for someone else, so they never get an entry level position where they are forced to learn broadcast standards, proper workflows, etc etc. They buy a computer and a DSLR camera and go into business for themselves. These days anyone who can shoot something 60fps and slomo it to a piece of music is an “editor”.
While I agree that real editing is about storytelling, and if you’re a good editor your work will be good no matter what system you are on, that’s sort of only true to people who appreciate. If the media world gets oversaturated with sub par editing…that becomes the new expectation or the new standard. So while someone who is an editor, or a storyteller, or an appreciator of those things will know good work when they see it, the common person won’t.
It’s no surprise that Post production houses made the recent list of America’s top dying industries.
[Scott Sheriff] “This business is transitioning from an art or craft, to nothing more than an ordinary job, to something as common as shooting your own stills.
You can think your mad skillz can magically stop this trend if you want to.”Well said, scott.
-mattyc
-
[Rafael Amador] “You need to set your sequence codec Animation Millions+ too.”
Not so. I haven’t done this in years but I just tried it. I exported out of FCP with an alpha. You can do it from whatever timeline you want..so long as you are doing export using quicktime conversion. And if I had to make a guess as to why yours wasn’t working, it’s because you were rendering before you exported. If you want to maintain the alpha, you can’t render it before you export. You have to export it from the timeline un-rendered. If you render before you export, the problem is that the codec that you’re in doesn’t support alpha channels.
-mattyc -
[Wayne Marx] “My only hesitation was that I couldn’t find a way to Smooth the keyframes in the ‘Center’ settings [as you can with the Scale setting, hence wanting a plug-in.”
you do that in the canvas window. If you select the layer you are moving..click the keyframe you want to smooth..right click and select ease in/ ease out from the menu..then you’ll have handles to adjust your ease amount.
once you have keyframes you like you can always send to motion project. FCP keyframe easing isn’t the greatest. It works for some things…but for anything bordering on more than basic I’d port it to motion..then you can modify your keyframes on a graph view.
-mattyc
-
[Richard Sanchez] “(I might be backwards on that”
Yes, you are backwards. first number is frequency. wiggle(1,10) would be every second wiggle 10 pixels.
and this is how I’d do it as well. Much faster, and much more organic result. You’ll still have to mess around with the numbers to get the exact look you’re wanting. Also you’ll need to scale your footage up a bit to hide edges, as david already mentioned.
-mattyc
-
Sounds like you aren’t getting a video signal. Have you opened the Kona control panel to make sure it is configured correctly. Is your video input on the control panel set to SDI?
-mattyc -
I know what destructive editing/compositing is but used in your terms it’s rather confusing. I was pointing out the fact that it’s not destroying anything…it’s creating new ones. Then I was making the distinction that Render files don’t ever reference each other. This doesn’t mean (as you’ve pointed out) that render files aren’t used as source media in order to speed up a render or provide realtime playback of effects. It just means that when Seq A is in Seq B it’s creating completely new render files for Seq B. Therefor A within B no longer needs those original A render files, but the Independent seq A (as well as any other sequences that also contain seq A) are still referencing the original A render files.
Does that clear up a little more about what I was saying?
-mattycp.s. I don’t know which is more complicated…the actual nesting process or trying to discuss it via an internets forum.