Robin S. kurz
Forum Replies Created
-
[Andrei Popa] “No matter which layer is on top and what blend mode I use, both layers as visible.”
Sorry. Maybe I’m just a little thick, but I’m not getting what you’re trying to do or how that is possible, no. Maybe you could post a screenshot to clarify.
-
[Ann Bens] “Click on triangle of a clip under Video Usage or Audio usage.”
One can only assume you’re not in fact talking about FCP X, since I for one know of no such triangle.
-
[Andrei Popa] “Now what I want to do is to have only the shape of the person, on an alpha channel.
Meaning the person stenciled or the background? Set the key and invert as needed. Render out with ProRes 4×4 to retain the alpha.
[Andrei Popa] “Is there a different way to do this than chroma key or rotoscoping?”
Not that I can think of. Other than maybe a difference key. But that would dictate having a static shot and a clean background plate. But I doubt the results would be all that much better, if at all. Sometimes it even calls for a combination of all three.
-
Ah, you were talking specifically about multi-channel audio. I thought in general.
But yes, you could simply open the clip in the timeline and assign the roles individually there. But that’s not necessarily very practical, so there’s definitely room for improvement.
But I personally prefer to rename the entire track (audio component) as opposed to using roles, which I can then see in the timeline (without having to switch). Something I can do in the event and also in batch (assuming they have the same audio).
-
[Bill Davis] “for any editor who shoots on cards (or drives) who sees the benefits of a single file package that bundles content and and it’s attendant metadata into a standalone unit”
I believe those are called “Camera Archives” in Final Cut Pro. 😉 Archives that in fact can be accessed as if they were the original camera/disk/card and are closed packages, as are sparse bundles. Perfect for archiving (hence the name :D).
All in all, I don’t see how images of any sort could be of any advantage compared to what FCP offers by default. Be it in the form of archives or libraries. With the advent of Yosemite and “Photo” even your Lightroom libraries won’t need any special treatment compared to all the other libraries you might have. That is, assuming that Adobe in fact embraces the whole concept and doesn’t, once again, think they can do it better with their own thing, whatever that may be (Bridge et al?).
-
[Jeremy Garchow] “but that can only be done in the timeline, and not cannot be done in the browser. “
Erm… actually it can. 😉
-
[Craig Alan] “I can also do what I am asking in terms of selecting what I am calling a track or layer by shift-z and then lasso. But it would be nice to have a way to do this more easily.”
Again, for what purpose? Moving? Deleting? There are easier alternatives for either and then you can always simply shift-click in the Timeline Index, which is even easier and faster than Shift-Z and marqueeing.
-
[Craig Alan] “Would like to reveal in timeline”
Again, that’s what the Timeline Index is for. Maybe not as one-click, but then you don’t have to look for the clip in the event first either.
[Bill Davis] “Which timeline? You DO know that you can easily have a clip in the browser that’s been placed in 100 timelines?”
A clip is only marked as used in the context of the current active timeline, Bill, so yes, common sense tells me it would of course only be for that timeline. And it works without showing in 100 different places in other NLEs also.
-
[Craig Alan] “And I have to keep repeating to scores of students, “Timeline, which is called a ‘project’ in FC…” “
I get the gist of the point, yes. Got it from the beginning actually. 😉 I’m just saying, at least from the perspective of the students that I have (it’s not my main source of income btw) and various colleagues I collaborate with, that the assertion that you’d have to say “that’s a project” more than once would be insulting their intelligence. You also make it sound as if, if they were called Sequences, you wouldn’t have to say anything or less otherwise.
Of course there are then those that will use the oh-so-tired logical fallacy of bandwagon to appeal to popularity (i.e. “normality”) i.e. the fact that many people do something one way, as a cheap form of validation of that “normality” argument. The flaw in this argument (and I’m not saying you’re making it) is that the popularity of an idea has absolutely zero bearing on its validity. Context is what makes for better or worse… but even then it’s ultimately purely subjective.
Moving to another NLE I’ll just hear students say “Oh, you call that xxx here, okay”. Done. No bizarre philosophical, set-opinionated discussions break out. No brain-twister born, no rocket science.
[Craig Alan] “the most important skill you can teach students is how to learn.”
Very true. And again, once students (or anyone I’ve trained for that matter) has managed to wrap their head around things such as the whole library, event, keyword, favorites, codecs etc. etc. concepts, the least of their problems is whether something is called a PROJECT or not. 🙂 I’ll say “Open the project” as well as “go into the timeline” and both are fully understood after 2 mins. Sure, there are always the ornery “rage against the machine” types (9 out of 10 times of course the ones coming from a different NLE) that insist – because THEY have a problem with it and have their bandwagon as “proof” – that it should be different. Only, being the most impertinent and vocal doesn’t give ones claims any more validity either. 😀
Sure, I had to wrap my head around some of the new terminology, too, and wouldn’t have minded if things stayed the same (as far as they even could have), but… they didn’t… life goes on. Seeing what I have in X, having to put up with such “huge problems” as nomenclature is a small price. 🙂
[Craig Alan] “Namely: Google, Apple, Adobe.” If instead they would all work together using a set of standards that allow their products to interact seamlessly with each other, we would all win. “
If their goal in doing so had any common ground, they might even. But then Google (fortunately) doesn’t make an NLE either (not counting that weird online thing they have) and I’m personally glad to not have *anything* to do with them. But it would also be rather naive to think that the above could ever happen.
[Craig Alan] “its lack of integration with the broader media production eco-system.”
Huh? How so? If anything, then AVID is by far the most closed island out there. They rely near exclusively on their own proprietary standards and formats. So I really don’t see how Apple is in anyway guilty of being less integrated, sorry. Especially since FCPXML is completely open and exponentially more powerful/flexible than e.g. OMF, EDL, AAF etc. IMHO they’re improving the landscape with it and setting the platform for a much *improved* integration. Not sure how it’s Apple’s fault that others refuse to implement it. Comparatively TINY companies have, therefore the motivation by big ones not to support it is pretty obvious if you ask me. And I have to wonder what Adobe’s buying of Automatic Duck was all about, if they (apparently) aren’t tapping into their expertise as exchange experts. Hmmm…
So what are you referring to exactly? And I’m not asking that to be facetious.
[Craig Alan] “However, I do think that its poor choice of renaming things that did not need renaming was symbolic of a culture that wants to own the entire tool set.”
I personally think that’s a gross overstatement, if not a somewhat odd assumption… but you’re entitled to your take. 😉 I think that history has shown many times over, that Apple has a culture of simply doing what they believe to be best/an improvement, yes. Not afraid to try new ally’s and rethink this or that. I find that quite commendable actually. That has lead to (arguably mostly) huge successes and also failures. Jobs once said in an interview (roughly) “We just make what WE think is great and put it out there. If people love it, too, great. If not, oh well. On to the next”. So to suggest there’s some sort or dogma, arrogance or evil ulterior motive behind any of it, as opposed to honest curiosity and desire (and clearly a LOT of courage) to improve matters, is doing them a stark injustice imho. I think their biggest shortcoming is how (if even) they communicate things. Leaving too much up to interpretation and speculation. That will hopefully change in the future for the better.
But “wants to own the entire tool set” in the context of Apple strikes me as somewhat short-sighted. Especially since “owning” the NLE toolset (I’m not entirely sure what that even means) would be of no gain to them in any real sense. And doesn’t that in fact completely contradict what they are doing?? Wouldn’t they in fact not take the “easy way” if that were the ultimate goal? By simply making “FCP 8” and echoing everything everyone else is doing (as everyone else IS) just to appease the masses? We’ll see. I’m pretty sure that FCP will find back to its original “glory”. And that BECAUSE it is different.
-
They ARE tracks in the case of multicam actually. You simply need to open the multicam with a double-click and anything you apply to any one angle is applied to every instance of that angle in the edit. Including audio/roles. They are recursive.
[Craig Alan] “Right now if I want to select an entire layer”
What is “a layer”??
Since I don’t actually know for what purpose you are trying to select an angle (if that’s what it is), that’s the best I can offer. Then there is always the Timeline Index Window that you can use to filter/select anything in the timeline quickly and easily.