[Nayeli Garci-crespo]

Right on and nicely expressed. All we want is information!

-Nayeli

[Nayeli Garci-crespo]

Steven: “I’ve spent a lot of time convincing people that FCP was a viable and accurate alternative to Avid for feature editing.”

Yeah, me too! I would say, listen… maybe it’s not as stable, has a few bugs, etc., but for the price it’s great, and you can successfully get what you need from it. Especially when all you are doing is an offline for a DI and with very limited funds. I knew what to watch out for with CMX3600s, how to make sure they came out with no errors. I kept on pushing for more extensive use of FCP XML in labs. Now all those AVID editors are going “I told you so.”

This wouldn’t have been such a huge deal if they had called it the new Final Cut Xpress and had not discontinued FCS 7 with no warning. They’ve replaced apples with oranges (ugh, pun really not intended). It makes NO sense that it is called Final Cut Pro. It’s like replacing your MS Word with “Text Edit” and calling it the new MS Word, discontinuing all support for previous versions, while simultaneously getting rid of Excel and PowerPoint. It seems underhanded. Saying this is Apple being Apple doesn’t address the real issue.

-Nayeli

[Nayeli Garci-crespo]

Is there really no way to turn it off? Really??

-Nayeli

[Nayeli Garci-crespo]

“Yours is the most reasonable, well thought out and articulated posting I have read.”

*blush*
Thanks, Herb.

-Nayeli

[Nayeli Garci-crespo]

Hi… here is my conclusion for the moment. At first I was a little scared, but pleased that big new changes were being made to Final Cut. I migrated to Final Cut from Media 100 around one of the last “1” versions and have never had the need to use anything else since then, even though of course there were many bugs I wanted fixed and features I would have liked to see added. I was hoping Final Cut Pro X was going to address some of those issues… I was all for learning a new interface and way of working if necessary. What I didn’t expect was for all the pro features of the program to be eliminated or relegated to third party solutions, with vague promises of some features perhaps being restored in the future. I was anticipating frustration and annoyance at having to relearn my way of working, but also surprise and pleasure at some great new tools. Instead, I am now seriously thinking I need to change software to either Premiere or Avid (neither of which I am very familiar with so I’m expecting to invest a good chunk of time into research, first).

First, let me explain that I use Final Cut Studio for offline edits of feature length films (as assistant editor and post supervisor or coordinator), for editing TV shows (XDCAM and digiBeta delivery), and for offline editing of short films that are to go through a DI and printed to 35mm. In Mexico, where I am based, Final Cut Pro is the standard in the feature-length film industry (only a tiny share of the market goes to AVID or Premiere, for cost reasons). I’ve used it with a variety of formats: 35mm, super35mm, 16mm, super16mm, RED, tape and tapeless video (P2, EX3, 7D, etc.). People complain about the software all the time, but we are able to get from the offline edit to the DI to the final 35mm print with relative ease. Exporting EDLs, XMLs and OMFs is NECESSARY. I’m not saying there isn’t room for improvement with those formats, but it is not something we can do without at this stage. If something better comes along in the future, I’m sure we would surely slooowly implement it (a lot of money is invested in the status quo), but it’s not something we can do without NOW. Someone commented somewhere that it’s the equivalent of Microsoft Word removing the “Print” feature, based on the fact that print media is on the way out, only allowing you to create PDFs. I think that is exactly it. So maybe we can can continue to use Final Cut 7 unsupported for another year… perhaps two. But eventually we will have to find another solution. Maybe some intrepid souls will stick with Final Cut X as it is further developed and with added third party tools.

However, I personally don’t like the third party tool solution, not for something as basic as an EDL or an OMF… How many of us have been in a situation where something isn’t working with third party software, and the third party software company blames Apple, while Apple blames the other software company? Of course, you have to use a variety of tools in conjunction with each other all the time, but why use a tool that is so limited to begin with that it requires myriad other tools for it’s most basic functioning (from the pro’s perspective)? If it was your only option, OK, but when you have other programs to choose from, why complicate your life? The only reason would be because you’re so familiar with the program you don’t want to switch, but as the new interface has a learning curve, is your effort not better spent elsewhere?

Clearly Apple has decided to refocus their market. It makes sense. I’ve heard rumors they wanted to ditch Final Cut Pro for years. The pro market is a tough one… why suffer with it if you can make tons more money with iTunes, iPhones, iPads and iPods? What HURTS is how cavalier they have been about it. Why not come out and clearly state that they are changing focus? Why call it “Final Cut Pro” and pretend it’s in the same product line? Why not announce that the line of software ends with Final Cut Studio 3 (which at most should have been called Final Cut Studio 2.5… I now realize it was a quick, careless release to get it out of their hair as they knew they were changing course) and give people the opportunity to make sure they’ve downloaded and properly stored away all the updates they’re going to need to weather the storm? All their hype was completely misleading.

Yes, Final Cut Pro X has some great new features (background rendering, 64 bit), perhaps it even has the seeds for a new way of thinking about editing… I’d be willing to give them the benefit of the doubt–I’m all for new and better. But it’s all moot for the feature length film industry if it can’t handle the basics of what the industry requires NOW. So, I think the criticism is well-deserved. Sure, there are probably people out there who will benefit from this new software, but the presentation of the software has been very poorly handled by Apple for us “pro” users. And I don’t think it’s that Apple doesn’t know what it’s doing, or is out of touch with its users. I think this is a calculated move on their part. It’s hard not to feel cheated (but all’s fair in love, war and business, I suppose).

So my conclusion: I have to start researching the alternatives, but I’ll also keep an eye on what Apple does in case it proves interesting. I’ve been meaning to learn AVID and Premiere for a while now, anyway. I’m also going to be at the mercy of the decisions made by production companies and post houses… I have to be a in a position to give the best advice I can, but in the end a lot of this will be decided by the people spending the money. Luckily for me I just have the one Mac Pro work station at home. I am sure for many businesses out there this is going to be a tough call.

-Nayeli

[Nayeli Garci-crespo]

“What? there is no such thing as “audio pullup”
First OFF- Audio files do not have frame rates, there are no frames in audio, audio is measured in feet and inches or minutes and seconds- there are not now nor have ever been frames in Audio.”

Actually, though it was true before that audio had no frame rate, digital audio recorded with field recorders now has metadata that can specify frame rate, in addition to sample rate. This metadata affects how programs deal with audio–it CAN make a difference if your audio file has a 23.98, 29.97, 30, 24, or 25 frame rate specified. Things have gotten a lot more complicated than they were. You can even have a file that is recorded at one sample rate but stamped in the metadata at another rate.

So though in a strict sense, yes, there are no frames in audio, but rather samples, the metadata that has the timecode information and the samples since midnight does in effect embed frame rate information in the audio file, and this affects how that audio file is reproduced. How any particular program deals with all the different metadata varies. Different software reads or ignores or interprets metadata in different ways. And since software is continuously and quickly evolving, doing workflow tests is essential. This is a particular “nightmare” in Final Cut Pro, which applies pullup or pulldown where it thinks is necessary, without giving you the direct option of turning it on or off.

And YES, there is such a thing as pullup in audio–it’s the opposite of pulldown. These terms are used to mean a sample rate conversion, so that audio plays back either .1% slower (pulldown) or .1% faster (pullup)… changes that are often necessary to get your audio to synch with your video and/or film in NTSC land. You could argue that it would be better to actually say “sample rate conversion” instead, but they are an easy way to indicate the speed change (which sometimes is “baked in” with a render, or other times just applied within a session while you are working with the audio).

-Nayeli

[Nayeli Garci-crespo]

Alex,

Thanks SO much for this explanation. The AT LAUNCH thing… and that AIF doesn’t have TC metadata. I suppose WAV is the same as BWF?

I think that’s why I’ve been more confused than ever about how Final Cut deals with audio after millions of tests. I read somewhere else before that once you’ve imported an audio file, Final Cut flags it and imports it the same way afterwards, but I have not been able to determine a consistent pattern. In fact, I’ll go through the same exact procedure twice using the same audio (quitting FCP, starting a new project, etc.) and get different results with some things. I think I’ll try it all again keeping the launch settings in mind and see if I can get consistent results this time!

This “feature” of Final Cut is absolutely maddening. How much easier it would be to just be able to set HOW you want your audio interpreted! It is so counterintuitive to have to set your sequence preset to how you want your AUDIO to import, as opposed to the rate of how you want your video.

*sigh*

Now, my question is… does this affect Cantar’s faux “C” mode? Because I’m editing a project reverse TKed to 23.98, and importing audio with that sequence setting at launch that was recorded in the C mode, which should give me sync, but it appears I do not. Final Cut is not applying pullup or pulldown (and those are perfectly acceptable terms in audio by the way–in other words, they are used professionally and understood) but the audio behaves as if it were recorded at regular 24fps/48000 instead of 48048 stamped at 48000.

Pulling hair out,

Nayeli

Nayeli

-Nayeli

[Nayeli Garci-crespo]

Thanks a bunch Steve! That actually solves my mystery. I’ve got tons to learn about sound and video, thanks for helping me along!

-Nayeli

[Nayeli Garci-crespo]

“You should confirm whether the HDCAM was really shot at 23.98 and not a true 24fps. This can be done with F900 cameras. If so, depending on the playback of the HDCAM deck at the lab, it is possible that the HDCAM tapes at 24fps (maybe) were “corrected” to 29.97 (therefore 23.98) in the dub to DVCAM”

That’s one of the first things I checked. The F900 is set to 23.98 for sure, at least that is what the camera operator assures me. And they even told me at the lab that if it was set to 24fps, given the equipment they have, they would need to upload it to their eQ to do a conversion to 29.97.

Now here’s a question that may seem stupid. I’m new to video, as far as capturing goes, and I’d never asked myself this:

When a video camera running at 29.97 or 23.9 record an image that when played back lasts .1% longer than the event did in real time? Or is this just something that happens with a telecine of 24fps film? (Or I suppose conversion from true 24fps video as well.)

-Nayeli

[Nayeli Garci-crespo]

“try saving as an Aiff file and then re-importing into fcp”

I did that, and it’s what synchronizes with the video, because Final Cut doesn’t alter the speed of the file.

Do AIFF files have no timecode information by nature?

-Nayeli