Michael Hancock
Forum Replies Created
-
That’s actually a thing!? I was being cheeky!
—————-
Michael Hancock
Editor -
[Steve Connor] “Probably shouldn’t be using FCPX then?”
I may not like the cupholders in a Tesla, but that doesn’t mean I’m not going to drive one. 🙂
—————-
Michael Hancock
Editor -
[Charlie Austin] “I use roles for video exports too, works the same for me.”
I use roles for my video too, but I still miss tracks. The video roles are good for exports, but I don’t get any benefit from them during the edit since there are no video lanes.
Video tracks, for me, give me better visual organization/structure and allow me tweak an edit from my keyboard (particularly trim mode) much faster. With tracks I can limit what I’m trimming to just V2 or V3 and V5, for example. In FCPX it requires a lot more mousing.
—————-
Michael Hancock
Editor -
[andy patterson] “If I have four dialogue tracks, four effects track, one sound track and an ambient music track and the producer wants just an export of the four dialogue tracks I can have it done in one second by simple soloing the four tracks using my $59.99 Korg nanoKontrol 2 control surface. I don’t have to mouse click after mouse click after mouse click to mute and solo tracks. There is also no time spent upfront assigning roles. I can also EQ the entire audio track and clean it up in seconds. You can do it clip by clip as well. “
It’s just as fast in FCPX, but different. Assigning roles, especially for something as broad as “music”, “dialogue”, and “effects” takes a couple seconds for an entire project. Select all of your music and assign the audio role as Music. You never think about it again as you’re editing, and its takes a few seconds. Same with Dialogue, Effects, etc… If Apple would allow you to assign a role to an event, or a keyword, you could automate 99% of the process. I’ve requested that multiple times.
The only time roles is an issue is if you don’t assign it before you begin editing. After you’ve dropped a clip into your timeline there is no way to assign a role at the event level and ripple it to your sequence. I’ve requested that quite a few times too!
And roles are useful for more than just exporting splits. Like Charlie has talked about – it’s when you get a ton of specific requests for mixing dialogue/effects, music/effects, mono with stereo, etc… – roles make it easy to do all that from one sequence, and quickly. And you can save your role exports so you don’t have to mouse click like crazy. I have one saved that exports just Color, Graphics, 2Pop/Slate, and FINAL MIX. I set it up once, and that’s used for every master export I do.
Play around with it and you’ll see how versatile and powerful it is. I’d love to see a “roles” type export from Avid and Premiere, but with their track based system. I really miss tracks for my video – audio, not so much.
—————-
Michael Hancock
Editor -
[andy patterson] “Could you do a short demo/tutorial? I think others might like to see it as well. “
He did back in February. It’s definitely worth a watch.
https://fcpxpert.net/2017/02/25/fcp-x-versioning-using-roles-the-video/
—————-
Michael Hancock
Editor -
That makes sense. Thanks.
—————-
Michael Hancock
Editor -
Thanks for jumping into the thread.
[Darren Roark] “We needed more time in editorial so I did a test turnover to the mixer so he would be comfortable with less lead time to prep the mix. That bought us a couple weeks. “
Does this mean that the sound designer started a first pass with the test turnover, giving you guys more time in editorial to lock the edit, then they updated the mix with the locked edit? Or do you mean that the export from FCPX required a few weeks less prep time for export to sound/conform on the audio side, before the mix started?
—————-
Michael Hancock
Editor -
[Charlie Austin] “I’ll see if Darren wants to pop in and add some details, but he’s probably not up for the arguments that would erupt.”
LOL. I’m not looking to argue – I’m just looking for actual details about what workflows saved time and money. They cite “specific workflows and tools”, but never get specific. Hopefully he’ll pop over with more info.
—————-
Michael Hancock
Editor -
[Lance Bachelder] “Sounds like the show was probably set up with a traditional post workflow which may have included weekly Avid system rentals etc. So a Producer who had never worked on a real Indie would naturally freak out seeing their show cut on a laptop with $300 software. “
That’s kind of how I was reading it too, but that’s a pretty bad comparison of cost savings then, isn’t it? They could run Avid or Premiere on the same laptop and seen the same savings (minus the higher cost to buy Avid/rent Premiere). Unless there’s more to it than that?
That’s why I wish the article would have gone into real detail about where the savings were actually realized, how significant the savings were, and why.
You mentioned that exporting a master file with 16 channels of audio per studio specs is easy in FCPX – maybe that’s a lot more time consuming in Avid or Premiere and would have cost them an extra day in post. That could easily be a couple grand in savings right there!
I guess we’ll never know.
—————-
Michael Hancock
Editor -
From the article:
“I was impressed with the cost savings: FCP X was so inexpensive, particularly when I considered what the system was able to save me as far as deliverables.”
What exactly are these cost savings and deliverables, and how much are they? Can we get a breakdown of where the money is being saved in FCPX versus cutting in Avid or Premiere? It must have been a huge amount, since “Honestly, had it not been for the FCP X savings, the movie Daisy Winters would have sacrificed in ways that would have been detrimental to the film.” That’s huge! So, where are the details?
—————-
Michael Hancock
Editor