[Robin S. kurz]

[Herb Sevush] “So does this mean you would recommend doing this WITH L&L?”

If they needed it, sure. Don’t see why I wouldn’t. With the standard stabilizer you’d have the scaling issue, which is why in its case I wouldn’t.

____________________________________________________
Deutsch? Hier gibt es ein umfassendes FCP X Training für dich!

[Robin S. kurz]

[Simon Ubsdell] “I think most Premiere users will find it quite surprising that you couldn’t easily work out how to deal with this. It really isn’t rocket science.”

Thanks for the additional brilliant and exemplarily constructive insight.

Of course the fact that the room I was in whilst trying this was also filled with roughly TWENTY part and full-time Premiere users, all of which were equally stumped, makes that claim that much more hilarious. Thanks for the hearty chuckle.

– RK

____________________________________________________
Deutsch? Hier gibt es ein umfassendes FCP X Training für dich!

[Robin S. kurz]

[Simon Ubsdell] “Could you show us some of the lines of code”

Talk about a loaded question. You know full well that I can’t. As if lines of code had a precursor along the lines of the following algorithm brought to you by… Soundtrack! or such nonsense.

Talk to an Apple engineer the next time you see one. I did. I’d say about as reliable as it gets.

– RK

____________________________________________________
Deutsch? Hier gibt es ein umfassendes FCP X Training für dich!

[Robin S. kurz]

[Herb Sevush] “well first the stabilizer would go a little crazy when the pot was brought into the frame as it sought to stabilize the moving pot, then it would settle down into a much tighter framing for the length of the clip in order to fix the bump”

Nope. At least not with my stabilizer, since it has dynamic scaling. If nothing is being stabilized, nothing is being scaled. Not a thing scary about it. See: Lock & Load.

[Herb Sevush] “the amount of time you’d be wasting stabilizing good portions of the shot”

Again, nope. Happens in the background. I don’t care how long it takes. But yeah, not a workflow I would recommend using the standard stabilizer.

– RK

____________________________________________________
Deutsch? Hier gibt es ein umfassendes FCP X Training für dich!

[Robin S. kurz]

[Herb Sevush] “Like many complex things, CC multicam can be unintuitive depending on the nature of your materials.”

Exactly. Inconsistent and unintuitive.

My first and foremost problem was, that I (unknowingly, since it has never been anything I needed to even think about before) combined footage with varying resolution. That lead to anything that was smaller than the largest clip getting a big nasty black border around it. W… T…? Took me ages to figure out. And the list grew from there…

Had that happened with a multicam in FCP X (which it actually couldn’t, even if you tried) a simple double-click and rescale in the angle window would have fixed matters in seconds. Not with CC… Adobe is apparently only worried about winning the “Longest Feature List” contest, not usability. Oh well.

– RK

____________________________________________________
Deutsch? Hier gibt es ein umfassendes FCP X Training für dich!

[Robin S. kurz]

[Joe Marler] “The FCPX deficiency in how stabilization, optical flow and tracking plugins work is a dark, dirty corner of the product.”

? ? ?
What does that mean? Care to elaborate?

[Joe Marler] “and in some cases like these multicam behaviors, it is much harder than Premiere.”

Couldn’t disagree more. Recently had to do a multicam with CC and it was a painfully frustrating, convoluted, unintuitive mess in comparison. If there’s one thing FCP X does better than anyone else, then that is multicam… by a long shot!

– RK

____________________________________________________
Deutsch? Hier gibt es ein umfassendes FCP X Training für dich!

[Robin S. kurz]

[Oliver Peters] “The difference is that Apple is willing to drop a product that is successful and profitable at the height of its popularity.”

Being which product exactly? Certainly not FCP. No idea what the continued “they killed FCP!” &%$ is all about, since they factually did not. Whether one is happy with the changes, agrees with the politics, execution etc. etc. or not is actually irrelevant to the facts.

[Oliver Peters] “Generally that’s not true of the others”

Right. Because products such as DS or GoLive etc. etc. etc. were absolutely hated and not used by anyone? 😀 Like I said (rather implied)… double standard. And seemingly selective logic as well?

[Oliver Peters] “They stopped development and stopped sales.”

So which other product does that not apply to after its latest update/upgrade? I’m really curious. Have any of the other big A’s continued development of prior versions of their software? I sure don’t know of anything, but am more than willing to be enlightened. And, again, whether one agrees with the tactics or overall execution of any given update/upgrade in any of the cases is irrelevant to the overall point.

[Oliver Peters] “And you say THAT with a straight face!”

Sure I can. The technology of all of the above is factually within FCP X. Even Motion code is (clearly) heavily present.

But to the actual point: are you going to guarantee anyone that any of the big A’s will still be around with their current suite of software in e.g. 5 years? No? So how does Apple i.e. FCP X pose some sort of special exception? Because that’s the “logic” I’m unable to follow.

[Oliver Peters] “There’s little evidence of that in the real world. If anything, the numbers are with Adobe at this point, if you go by casual observation. In spite of all the lovely spotlights in FCPco and other sites showcasing facilities using FCPX, those are largely outliers still today.”

Like I said. Whilst on the subject of (pure, unsubstantiated) conjecture…
But then I guess you can show me “evidence of that in the real world”, right? :-))

– RK

____________________________________________________
Deutsch? Hier gibt es ein umfassendes FCP X Training für dich!

[Robin S. kurz]

[Charlie Austin] “I was generalizing”

So was I. 😉 I didn’t mean to imply you meant me specifically.

– RK

____________________________________________________
Deutsch? Hier gibt es ein umfassendes FCP X Training für dich!

[Robin S. kurz]

[Oliver Peters] “there’s little or no difference in time between – a) assigning favorites and rejects and then slapping the favs into a timeline to fine-tune, versus – b) slap everything into the timeline and cut out the garbage. “

Sorry, but the difference is HUGE. Not even close to the same from a (globally) organizational standpoint.

– RK

____________________________________________________
Deutsch? Hier gibt es ein umfassendes FCP X Training für dich!

[Robin S. kurz]

[Bret Williams] “F should take you to the keyword collection it came from and shift F to the source in the event.”

Seeing that any given clip can belong to any number of keyword collections, how could that possibly work? How is FCP supposed to know which of e.g. FIVE different keywords assigned to a clip you prefer??

Once in the event you can choose which keyword is relevant to you, so it’s a two in one. No changes needed.

And the key obviously would have to be something else other than just plain F. 😉

– RK

____________________________________________________
Deutsch? Hier gibt es ein umfassendes FCP X Training für dich!