Robin S. kurz
Forum Replies Created
-
[Eric Santiago] “However Apple decided to place everything in one level sub-folders deleting the actual root it was residing in.”
Apple i.e. FCP doesn’t delete anything. Either you import from an existing location, leave the media in place and the folder structure is maintained. OR you import and copy to the library, in which case yes, obviously, everything is in one directory, the “Original Media” folder. Not sure where the confusion lies. It’s pretty simple, no?
– RK
____________________________________________________
Deutsch? Hier gibt es ein umfassendes FCP X Training für dich! -
[Simon Ubsdell] “Would you consider that to be a mistake on their part?”
Since you didn’t quote anybody and the threading here is so hellaciously convoluted, I don’t know exactly who you’re asking.
But if it was me: nope. But only because I know they would come up with something that isn’t anything even remotely like what e.g. Adobe is doing and stay true to the overall groundwork they’ve already laid. It’s not exactly like they decide on how to do things haphazardly or on a whim. There’s a lot of planning, design and logic behind it, whether others can (or want to) see and appreciate it or not.
– RK
____________________________________________________
Deutsch? Hier gibt es ein umfassendes FCP X Training für dich! -
[Ian Thomson] “I am ‘right clicking & showing package contents'”
I’m sorry… you’re doing what?? Are you saying that you are merely uploading the CONTENTS of the library?? (O_o)
No, you can’t just open some random single file from within the library, you open THE LIBRARY and FCP does the rest. That’s the whole point of it being a package.
[Ian Thomson] “as simple as ‘compressing it’ yeah?”
Yeah.
But I suspect that google is simply stripping the bundle of its suffix, which changes it into just an ordinary folder (which is also what any and everyone sees if they don’t have FCP X installed). Simply add “.fcpbundle” to it… done.
– RK
____________________________________________________
Deutsch? Hier gibt es ein umfassendes FCP X Training für dich! -
[Bill Davis] “one of their longtime editors had positioned their second monitor with the Event Browser on the right side of their Main Monitor”
I actually do this all the time when viewing/organizing. Makes for MUCH less scrolling. I have the viewer there the rest of the time. Now if only I could do the same with the timeline.
– RK
____________________________________________________
Deutsch? Hier gibt es ein umfassendes FCP X Training für dich! -
[Oliver Peters] “to customize the UI in ways that improve their efficiency.”
So, “cuz I wanna”. Because, again, the question was how? What specifically would they do differently for the actual sake of improved efficiency, above and beyond the way it is now. I’m quite aware that others are asking for it in general, yes.
[Oliver Peters] “You are probably in the minority there. “
I wouldn’t be too sure.
I suspect the vast majority merely demand that “flexibility” (which it is the opposite of in my eyes, at least in THAT incarnation) in the “because I’m used to having that way!” sense, without actually, objectively considering how and why another approach could actually be i.e. IS better. Unable to actually point to specifics (apparently) as to how or why it’s so horribly constrictive to their workflow, which I think is a baseless meme. IOW pretty much in the exact same way that people react to the magnetic timeline for the first time. Some come around, others don’t and go back to the comfortable world of same ol’ same ol’. Horses for courses.
– RK
____________________________________________________
Deutsch? Hier gibt es ein umfassendes FCP X Training für dich! -
[Ian Thomson] ” I will just ‘unpack’ the library and back that up”
I for one have no clue what that means, but it sounds VERY wrong. Ever thought to simply ZIP the library before upload??!
– RK
____________________________________________________
Deutsch? Hier gibt es ein umfassendes FCP X Training für dich! -
[John Rofrano] “That’s an interesting observation.”
It is. And exactly the same one I actually made years ago as well. I couldn’t help think that HE of all people MUST find X absolutely brilliant because of the way he works himself. If not, he must never have actually gotten into the nitty-gritty of it or only spoken to people that knew just as little.
– RK
____________________________________________________
Deutsch? Hier gibt es ein umfassendes FCP X Training für dich! -
[Michael Paul] “is the secondary story line (I am sorry if I might be using wrong terms)”
Yes, you are. At least in this case. Because you go on to described simple CONNECTED clips, not a secondary STORYLINE. The only things that have the magnetic timeline features are the primary or secondary storylines, not regular connected clips, no.
Five CONNECTED clips:
Five clips in a connected STORYLINE:
The latter (created with ⌘G or by holding G and moving them together) will give you the desired auto-closing of gaps, the former will not. Also SELECTING a secondary prior to hitting one of the edit keys (Q, W, E) will perform that in the secondary, not the primary.
[Michael Paul] “If I use IN and OUT to select a range I only select the main time line but everything above just gets ignored.”
Have you tried turning on the Clip Skimmer (⌥⌘S)? With that you can set ins and outs on a secondary or connected clip. Or use the Range tool (R).
[Michael Paul] “I can not simply remove the end or the beginning of a middle clip of those 5 clips.”
Sure you can. In a myriad of ways. Either select an edit point and hit ⇧X with the skimmer at the position you want to move it or even (assuming you’re on a US keyboard) ⌥ and [ or ] to trim in or out. Whether they ripple depends, again, on whether they are just connected or in a storyline.
Bottom line: you need some decent basic training! These are ALL things that any decent training will cover. That would have saved you this entire thread if you ask me.
– RK
____________________________________________________
Deutsch? Hier gibt es ein umfassendes FCP X Training für dich! -
[Oliver Peters] “FCPX frequently “forgets” some of them.”
Have never had that happen. But then I understand that it essentially works like the navigation in a browser. Go back a bit and then open something new, the previous “last” are gone, yes. I suppose one could consider options if that’s what you’re referring to.
[Oliver Peters] “The current forward/backward arrangement makes it tougher to move between versions.”
How so? It’s a simple shortcut or a click and hold on the arrows to see everything.
[Oliver Peters] “Any situation where you want to work between sequences.”
Again, I don’t see how that could be an advantage in X (see Charlie’s video) considering the amount of screen real estate that takes (never mind the visual clutter) for something that can just as well be done using other methods. Giving up that much space and clicking-shoving-scaling around for something I need to see for a few seconds or clicks at best? But I guess I’ve simply never had that task where the trade-off could make practical sense.
[Oliver Peters] “some editors would want the inspector to the left of the viewer”
Because “I don’t want Apple telling me what to do!“, or because that actually poses some sort of workflow advantage, that is worth breaking up the GUI concept over? Because you would have to, which would make for problems elsewhere. If it’s taking up too much space, the only reason that I’ve ever wanted to “move” the inspector, then: ⌘4?
The inspector is for changing clip, effect, title, whatever parameters 99.9% of the time. In other words that what you see right next to it in the Canvas. What specifically would having it (or any other area) to the left improve with that that I can’t think of? And on pretty much every screen size I can think of, opening it doesn’t even rescale the canvas if you’ve closed the library and/or the event window, which I in fact do, if rescaling is a concern.
Like I said, the fact that the scopes are in the same window as the canvas is the only thing I would want to change. But, ironically, even then I have no idea where it could be better. I certainly wouldn’t want it floating.
That’s actually the biggest problem I personally have with this oh-so-great flexible pushing around of screen elements and windows in apps such as Premiere, AE etc. In my experience, if most tabs are anywhere else than in their default layout position, things start looking completely funky, space is being wasted and the usability and visibility is made worse in a plethora of ways. Here the window content is only 10% visible, over there the opposite. 90% is blank because scaled up way too far, because of another tab that’s docked with it. A complete waste with no advantage worth losing space over and just plain having a nasty visual mess imho. Then you “float one”, click on another behind it… gone. Behind the others. Confusion, nervous clicking and random shoving of UI elements ensues making things even worse and wasting time. I just don’t see it. It’s obviously anyone’s prerogative to disagree, but I will never be convinced that I’m giving up anything actually essential in comparison, instead of just tweaking what’s there. Other than for reasons of “cuz I wanna”. If Apple made the interface modular in the PPro sense anytime soon, I’d be very disappointed aside from even more surprised.
– RK
____________________________________________________
Deutsch? Hier gibt es ein umfassendes FCP X Training für dich! -
[Steve Connor] “I think you’ll find both myself and Oliver understand FCPX very well thank you”
Which is why I wasn’t addressing either of you nor anyone else in particular. I was speaking in general terms.
– RK
____________________________________________________
Deutsch? Hier gibt es ein umfassendes FCP X Training für dich!
