[Nick Meyers]

you’ll want to ask this in the FCPX Techniques forum.
BUT
FCPX and MacBook Pros do work well together (not so surprisingly)
so I’ve read, anyway

nick

[Nick Meyers]

you could also have a look at Edit Ready:
https://www.divergentmedia.com/editready
but Catalyst Browse is free ☺

nick

[Nick Meyers]

and upgrade to 7.03 if you haven’t already,
i seem to remember issues with disappearing refer files in 7.0

nick

[Nick Meyers]

although trash your prefs first,
that would be less painful if it works ☺

nick

[Nick Meyers]

yeah, markers.

you know you can delete a marker?
park on it, and command tilde (from memory)
if you make this marker a specific colour it would make it simpler to pick put of f field of other markers

otherwise:
hit tab to jump to the current TC field in the timeline,
copy
find the seg you need to move, make in/out, cut,
tab again to go the TC field,
paste, and tab again (enter is the obvious choice here, but can often take you to the correct spot, and then open whatever clip is there into the viewer, so kind of annoying)

idea #3
park on your return point,
match frame the clip there into the viewer
go to your seg, in/out, cut.
hit home to go to the start of the timeline,
Q to jump to the viewer,
f to match back to your return point

nick

[Nick Meyers]

try Catalyst Browse?

you might have to transcode on a more up to date machine.

nick

[Nick Meyers]

try 108001

[Nick Meyers]

it’s probably a FRAME count

[Nick Meyers]

they are interlaced

“should I uncheck “interlaced scaling”?”
i dont know , what does the manual say

no don’t de-interlace. you need the fields for the pulldown to work.

basically rip from the DVD as clean as possible, do everything else afterwards.
that’s what i would do.

[Nick Meyers]

Standard def TV was always interlaced.
the fields were not counted back then, just the frames.

the file on the DVD is 23.976 (why waste data-rate with duplicated fields?)
it displays on a TV as 29.97 ( i belevie the player does this)

(( im no expert as i live in PAL land, as I’ve mentioned. i would imagine – or hope- that modern TVs don’t need to have redundant fields added to bulk the frame rate up to 29.947, achieving nothing but a weird motion in the process. i would hope that a modern monitor could display 23.976, but what do i know? ))

the 48Khz you see is referring to the Audio.

nick