Neil Patience
Forum Replies Created
-
They have used an old film frame or an empty film leader frame as an overlay – pretty easy to achieve.
Google “old film frame photoshop” and look at images. You will see lots of static film frame overlays that you could use. I found several borders and a large film strip graphic.
There are also some film look plug ins that will make your footage look more “film like” inside the frame.
There are some free ones like CGM aged film that can add grain and tint etc. There are others – just search for film look plug ins.
Hope that helps.best wishes
Neil
http://www.patience.tv -
Yes ProRes is a must – editing H264 is not recommended.
check out this link
https://library.creativecow.net/ross_shane/tapeless-workflow_fcp-7/1
best wishes
Neil
http://www.patience.tv -
I have seen other posts that suggest Cinema Tools 4.0/4.01 is not compatible with Lion.
For example here https://discussions.apple.com/thread/3313443?start=0&tstart=0
and here https://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=1203519I am not sure which version of FCP had Cinema Tools 4.0 however I am using FCP V 7.03 which has Cinema Tools 4.5.1 which does run fine under Lion.
best wishes
Neil
http://www.patience.tv -
Hi Tracy
No you cant open an FCP7 project in FCP6.
The only way to do this is to use XML – export from FCP7. You can then import the XML into FCP6.
best wishes
Neil
http://www.patience.tv -
This to me sounds like the usual aliasing issues that you get with DV recordings.
Its pretty much a “feature” of the DV format. It can usally be seen pretty clearly on shots that contain thin horitontal or near horitontal lines which is why things like like buildings, fences, roof tiles, pipes etc etc will generally suffer.
[Loren Risker] “SD is usually lower field dominant I believe, so probably what you’ll need to do is set your project to interlaced with lower field, then deinterlace taking away the upper field.”
This is not quite accurate. DV/HDV is the only format that is lower field dominant not SD in general. So it does hold true in your case but does not apply to all SD formats.
Removing a field wont help because you will just halve the horitontal resolution which if anything will make it worse.
I think Boris have or had a “DV Fixer” plug in that may help – I have not used it though so not sure how good it is.
best wishes
Neil
http://www.patience.tv -
No worries Bill – I appreciate your reply, we all get a bit touchy sometimes.
[Bill Davis] ”
And I’d hate to see a lot of editors who could use and benefit from it falling into a sinkhole of kvetching and never finding their way out.”
Maybe you should use your obvious passion and enthusiasm for FCPX to teach ? I’m guessing you have years of experience that others could benefit from. Hey its a thought 🙂Probably, like most of us, too busy earning a living though.
Anyway thanks again.
best wishes
Neil
http://www.patience.tv -
One possible cause of the “out of memory” issue is because you have large stills in your sequence. If you have stills that exceed 4000 pixels you are likely to get an out of memory error.
If that is the case just reduce the size of the stills and you should find the memory error goes away.
This wont help with the OS upgrade issue however – I am not sure what that problem might be.
best wishes
Neil
http://www.patience.tv -
Woah Bill where did all that come from ?
Considering I started by saying I totally agreed with you, and you clearly state that there are many levels and “sub groups” of editors, I would have thought that you got the fact that maybe “one size might not fit all” Therefore I find your reply a little odd and some may say a tad over defensive.
For a start:
[Bill Davis] “It might be true. But your phrasing is based on argument and contention, not fact. The “removed FCP7 from the shelves might have been nothing more or less than the patent license on some lines of internal code that Apple chose not to renew and which was set to expire. There’s no way to know for sure. But just because you believe the above is gospel, doesn’t make it so.”
Totally agree with you again – but the truth is you have no more idea that your statement above is any more or less “based on fact” than mine.
Surely its a given we are all speaking in terms of conjecture and speculation ?
Secondly:
[Bill Davis] ”
And while I’m just a busy corporate video producer, I’m fully convinced by my personal experiences editing paid work on deadlines over and over again over the past 90 days on X that it’s a great general purpose editing tool.”Great so FCPX works for corporate video production and you can make money from it – excellent you made the perfect choice for you.
I wish you continued success.However my opinion as a busy broadcast editor with over 20 years experience in post production counts equally to yours, no more no less, as we work in different environments, what works for you may not for me and vice versa.
Thirdly:
[Bill Davis] “Those guys at ABC Sports aren’t pissed off. And cutting “billions of dollars on the line” replays for hundreds of millions of eyeballs is as pro as it gets.”
Again totally agreed – however I regularly cut fast turnaround sports highlights that are transmitted daily to over 100 countries worldwide.
We cut features and highlights that support a studio show that is on air for 8 hours a day 7 days a week and additionally around 20 inserts for each of 3 live news items.
So I have a pretty good idea what it takes to create content under pressure of time and TX deadline.
This is totally done on Avid – different environment different solution. but equally as “pro as it gets”Fourthly:
[Bill Davis] “Keep talking about what a terrible mistake it is. And by all means ignore it and bad mouth it whenever possible.”
I did not say FCPX was a “terrible mistake” or “bad mouth it” – simply that the initial release had been badly handled and hence my agreement with Walters opinion. I was merely speculating that in my opinion his speculation was correct.
[Neil Patience] . . . that has seen more editors look in the direction of Avid, Adobe, PCs and any number of other bits of software and hardware.
To argue against the statement that some sections of the post community are looking elsewhere is surely a lost cause. There are many posts and articles here that confirm that.
[Bill Davis] ”
That simply doesn’t jibe with what i’m experiencing day to day.”Again your experience is not everyone else’s. I could be wrong but it seems your sentiment is “it works for me so my opinion is right”
And finally:
[Bill Davis] ”
“Before speaking out ask yourself whether your words are true, whether they are respectful and whether they are needed in our civil discussions.”-Justice O’Connor”So your words are “true” are they Bill ? “respectful” of other peoples experiences ? “needed” and “civil” ?
I respect your experience and can see that for you FCPX is great – however from your reply I am questioning that you are totally practicing what you preach.
best wishes
Neil
http://www.patience.tv -
Mpeg 4 is not an ideal format to use for your T3i footage.
You should transcode it to ProRes. I would use either ProRes LT or ProRes 422. (HQ and 4444 offer no advantage for T3i footage)It sounds like you are using your internal drive for capturing footage.
This is not a good idea and will often result in dropped frames.
Always capture to an external drive (or extra internals) but not the one running your OS.You need to get a fast external drive – Firewire 800 would be the minimum spec I would look at. However you dont say what kind of Mac you have so its hard to suggest something faster drivewise.
In general for video and certainly if you get into multiple streams of HD video playing back at the same time, you need fast hard drives.
Maybe a raid of some kind – esata or thunderbolt maybe the way to go but that depends on budget, what your mac can handle and requirements.In terms of more memory again depends on which version of FCP and how much you have already. FCP7 tops out around 4 gigs I think in terms of what it can use, so more is not going to speed FCP alone up much. FCPX is 64 bit and will likely benefit from more Ram.
In general its a good idea to post your system spec as it helps anyone answering make more specific and accurate answers to your questions.
best wishes
Neil
http://www.patience.tv -
[Walter] “With interchange, FCPX could have still satisfied everyone using it today, but wouldn’t have alienated so many editors with more complex or collaborative workflows. Instead, Apple could have positioned FCPX as a strong all-around editor for the broad middle as well as a serious offline tool for collaboration.”
[Bill] But Walter, again this “presumes” that the default (and more importantly, initial) goal of every editor must be to work collaboratively.”
Whilst I totally agree with Bill that it clearly is not every editors goal or need to work collaboratively that does not make Walter’s point incorrect.
FCP7 was capable of meeting the needs of a wide range of editors skills and working environments. Those that needed to collaborate could, those that needed full broadcast HD monitoring had the option. Those that needed just simple firewire i/o and never needed to collaborate could work equally well.
FCPX was marketed and sold as a total replacement for FCP7, there is no doubt this was Apple’s intention as they removed FCP7 from the shelves the day FCPX was released. No transition no crossover just total replacement.
However the initial release could only service those that did not need to collaborate or those that did not need monitoring or to use any of the other features that were initially missing.
Whilst it may be true that Apple “concentrated on making it an “individual” tool rather than a collaborative one”
That presumption that somehow that would be OK with everyone at all levels led to a marketing and PR disaster that has seen more editors look in the direction of Avid, Adobe, PCs and any number of other bits of software and hardware.
So I would say Walters point is quite accurate.
best wishes
Neil
http://www.patience.tv