Robin S. kurz
Forum Replies Created
-
[Alexander Wolf] “Why not? “
Because it’s inferior to e.g. ProRes?
But bottom line: if the image looks acceptable, what’s the problem? I wouldn’t overthink it.
– RK
____________________________________________________
Deutsch? Hier gibt es ein umfassendes FCP X Training für dich! -
[Noah Kadner] “Why Photo-JPEG?”
😀 … was gonna ask that, too, but figured he’d know why. 😛
– RK
____________________________________________________
Deutsch? Hier gibt es ein umfassendes FCP X Training für dich! -
[Oliver Peters] “What? I’m amazed that you say that, since it was one of the main issues discussed in the early versions.”
Of course it was. And like I said, it was a given that it would come and I happen to know that it was in fact on the road map from… let’s say, very early on. The only question was when and what it would look like i.e. how it would work. Just because Apple didn’t in fact announce that it was coming until several months after release (and only oder duress), says nothing about what was already in the making. That aside from the fact that you’re essentially suggesting that they cranked out THAT multicam in a mere matter of a few months, which imho is a ludicrous notion. The testing alone takes that long.
– RK
____________________________________________________
Deutsch? Hier gibt es ein umfassendes FCP X Training für dich! -
I rest my case.
And not in all of four years have I ever heard anyone say that multicam was any such “response”. That doesn’t even make sense to me. I think it was a given from day one that it would and had to come.
– RK
____________________________________________________
Deutsch? Hier gibt es ein umfassendes FCP X Training für dich! -
Compression is always relative to the actual image being compressed i.e. in video the delta. Therefore one can only assume the one clips simply has significantly higher overall delta than the other. At least there’s no other reason I can think of for why that should/could be happening, if everything is in fact exactly as you describe.
– RK
____________________________________________________
Deutsch? Hier gibt es ein umfassendes FCP X Training für dich! -
[Steve Connor] “Just for the sake of argument can you give us list”
I would think simply looking through the version history should be telling enough. On the other hand I can’t know which of each change/addition was or wasn’t something you or anyone else may or may not have been asking for or needed. It will obviously be more for some, less for others. But which in and of itself does not put the legitimacy of any one feature or function in question as a whole, just because someone may feel their unfulfilled request was way mo’ betta important. I for example felt that the addition of a second viewer was completely superfluous, but that was definitely an option born out of user request. Did nothing for me, a LOT for others. So the overall definition of amount is a personal one in the end. I’m also not really interested in playing the game of listing a feature just to have the usual subjects answer with “Pffff, should have been in there since day one!” or “NLE xyz has had that for years!” yadda yadda yadda either. 😉
I just know that for me and my workflow there has been a lot, some big, some small, and all for just a small lump sum that I paid a very long time ago. And yeah, a number of things still pending. But I’m also very active in terms of feedback where many (oddly, often the ones screaming the loudest) don’t even know that the feedback page even exists. Then maybe, some day, I too will have that utopian ultra-perfect NLE that some seem to already have found, where there is nothing left to be changed or improved!
– RK
____________________________________________________
Deutsch? Hier gibt es ein umfassendes FCP X Training für dich! -
[Oliver Peters] “I’m not sure that’s a valid comparison.”
Sure it is. If you’re going to argue on mere update count, which he was doing, how couldn’t it be? No mention of WHAT those individual updates brought with them.
[Oliver Peters] “Everything up to 10.0.6 was likely in the original design but not ready at the time of launch. “
Erm… even assuming that that wasn’t pure conjecture…so? So only Apple knows what they’re working on for future releases a few months (if not years) in advance but launch the current release anyway (knowing what is “missing”) works out to being “too early” or “incomplete”? Not sure how that exactly works. But I guess then legacy FCP was only 1.0 with the actual 3.5 version? I’d say that’s all very much a matter of personal perception and preference in the end, little more. An odd position to suggest as fact.
[Oliver Peters] “I think you can consider that version to be the true 1.0 release of FCP X and then start counting from there.”
Well, I don’t actually. That’s a logic that can be said of any and every software that has ever been released and gotten an update shortly afterwards. Never mind that things such as the XML exchange, multicam, broadcast monitoring and a plethora of other things were already released a few months after its release. An easy six months before your 10.0.6/1.0. So again… no, not something I think I would logically consider. But then a large part of what came with 10.0.6 was comparatively irrelevant to me. Go figure. There were a lot of things that came much much later that were much more relevant. But I wouldn’t go around calling that release the only true 1.0 because of it. I’m also still missing stuff, so I guess I’m still in beta? 😀
[Oliver Peters] “Now look at the last release, which gave us 3D text and little else.”
Sorry, wrong again. Aside from that in fact being TWO releases ago, there were, again, a long long list of other new and/or much improved features included. Whether those were of any use or interest to you (or me) personally is actually extraneous. Big flashy features to add to some already overcrowded PR bullet list? No. But certainly a LOT that clearly shows that Apple is listing to their users just as much as others… they just don’t do it on public boards et al. But to seemingly suggest that every CC update in the same timeframe somehow ALL included some amazing new, life-changing features (such as the amazing, indispensable morph cut technology :P) in comparison and functionality would also be highly disingenuous at best imho. Not to mention that many of those “new” features looked strangely familiar or were also things that, according to it’s users, many many years overdue. So I guess that door swings both ways.
– RK
____________________________________________________
Deutsch? Hier gibt es ein umfassendes FCP X Training für dich! -
[Bret Williams] “And you can even do a morph cut in FCP X manually with a few edits and optical flow.”
I’m personally not a big fan of the whole thing, since from experience it really only delivers when very specific prerequisites are met, otherwise it’s in fact useless imho. Look at any and all demos and it becomes apparent before you even use it yourself why they chose the material they did. In which case I’d rather just look for/shoot decent b-roll (which I find much more appealing than a talking head anyway) and use that. In fact I noticed it being used in a broadcast interview just the other night (from whatever NLE, I don’t know) and I found it to be distracting, even if ever so subtly. It just plain looks wrong and is off-putting to me, like a badly done key.
But MotionVFX are on a plugin btw:
(after I already rolled my own long ago with Motion for someone else)
– RK
____________________________________________________
Deutsch? Hier gibt es ein umfassendes FCP X Training für dich! -
[Andy Field] “Apple with FCP X tells editors “our way is better, so get used to it or take a hike”. “
Oh yeah. I forgot. My bad. :-))))))
*facepalm*
– RK
____________________________________________________
Deutsch? Hier gibt es ein umfassendes FCP X Training für dich! -
I would simply use TrackX. I’ve found mocha’s Motion export to be both cumbersome and buggy.
– RK
____________________________________________________
Deutsch? Hier gibt es ein umfassendes FCP X Training für dich!