The not so huge but still annoying problems in FCP X

Discussion in 'Digital Video' started by acearchie, Jun 23, 2011.

  1. acearchie macrumors 68040

    acearchie

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2006
    #1
    Hi guys just to say that this is a bit of a rant because I just had to give up on FCP X today and had to resort back to FCP 7 and it has all been written in the heat of the moment!

    I have read all the pro's take on FCP X and the majority feeling is that Apple has let us down.

    I decided to take every comment with a pinch of salt and after downloading it tried it for myself.

    I downloaded it with no issue and install was a breeze however, that is where my problems started.

    Below is a list of the problems that I have so far encountered. This isn't an exhaustive list but it's the problems that annoyed me enough to remember them as I write this:

    • For a start it wouldn't place nicely with a camera I had been given footage on. The camera didn't work in FCP 7 either though
    • After I had installed all 576 clips! (About 50gb of DV material) I decided to allow it to analyse them with all the boxes checked. It got to 100% of analysing audio and then force quit. I then reloaded to notice that it hadn't stored any data for the video (people, shot type, stabilisation) and I was unable to tell if it had done anything for the audio. I couldn't find a "black and white" 'This clip has been analysed' and I didn't want to waste more time so I continued.
    • I then keyworded all the clips which was actually a good experience but I found it annoying that I couldn't seem to drag any clips into folders I created and I was only able to drag the smart collections into folders.
    • After keywording every clip I started to try and lay down a base edit. This was not possible due to all the beach balling that was occuring.
    • I decided to copy all the media across to an external drive as I hadn't before (yes I should have before). I then had a lot of trouble opening the project using the media on the external drive and I am still not quite sure how I did it. FCP X would never show both events on the internal and external hard drive and instead only one or the other and I'm not sure how I managed to get it to work in the end.
    • I also found it annoying that when you click and drag a clip it selects in and out points and doesn't actually move the clip meaning you have to click and click again to move it if you want the whole clip and don't want to pick in and outs.
    • I like parts of the magnetic timeline but I don't like the fact that I can't drag something into the middle. It has to jump to the start so for instance I wanted to start my project with just sound but at first was unable to. So I had to generate a black background before I could lay down the sound with gaps as I wanted.
    • I then spent probably 2 hours constructing a 30 second sequence which would have taken about 10 mins in FCP 7
    • Controlling opacity is a nightmare as now you have to push several buttons just to get to the controls and once you have made a keyframe you can't move it in the x and y direction at the same time it is only one or the other. However, I later found that you can drag a fader similar to on the audio and it will fade out a clip and always keep the fade out at the end if you change the duration.
    • My sequence also had quite a few slowing down of clips. I was a big fan of the quick and simple cmd+j in FCP 7 and found retiming a bit difficult at first as there was no way to input say 60%. You would have to input 50% from the drop down menu and drag the retime bar to get it to 60% and then shorten the clip.
    • Also when ramping the speed you can only have 4 increments so you can't be that accurate and it doesn't look great. Optical flow within FCP is a nice addition though.
    • Along the way I had a lot of trouble with gaps and compound clips but they are quite difficult to explain.
    • I also quite often mark the audio track to sync cuts to the beat. I was annoyed to find that if you mark the audio track the blade tool won't snap to it unless the playhead is on it as well which is a pain!
    • I then wanted to add a title as the main reason I wanted FCP X is quite a lot of the generic effects that would impress some people that I make videos for. But this is where I lost it as the text effect was a fly in style effect and I wanted to text items to fly in one after the other. This worked but then there was a long black gap afterwards as the default setting used 3 text inputs (and I had left the third field blank). I decided to use the blade tool to cut out the black and the title just adjusted the duration of each text fly in so there was still the same proportion of black.
    • At this point after knowing I could work a lot faster in FCP 7 I gave up and started to write this as a mini rant to try and justify the hours I have wasted on FCP X today.

    In short. I will probably enjoy using FCP X for short narratives with not that many short clips and where not that much fine tuning in the edit is necessary as I am sure it will work much faster that FCP 7.

    However, for larger projects with many tracks of both audio and video FCP X quickly becomes very cluttered as you can't decide where the items go they just bounce above and below your clips.

    For the moment I will keep FCP X ticking over but I don't see it as a replacement for FCP 7. You may say that this is obvious as this has been widely stated all around. But being a small time student editor I don't have access to broadcast monitors every day, I don't work of tape and I don't use multicam so FCP X could have worked but unfortunately it just doesn't at the moment.
     
  2. CaptainChunk macrumors 68020

    CaptainChunk

    Joined:
    Apr 16, 2008
    Location:
    Phoenix, AZ
    #2
    Thanks for sharing your experiences.

    So far, I've seen (mostly) rants with a bit of praise (from beta testers still high on the Apple Kool-Aid) here and there.

    At this point, shelling out $300 (+$50 for Compressor) for an NLE that will break my workflow in a great number of ways is stupid. When they polish things more and listen to professional editors that have to adhere to the ecosystem of their industry (i.e. give us some of our tools back), I'll pony up.
     
  3. linuxcooldude, Jun 24, 2011
    Last edited: Jun 24, 2011

    linuxcooldude macrumors 68020

    Joined:
    Mar 1, 2010
    #3
    I can't really speak for the professional video editor, but coming off of iMovie it blew me away. In fact, it seems on a few things I was a little unsure of in iMovie until recently. But in FCP X, most everything seemed to naturally work the way I wanted it too, so it appears a lot of thought has been put into the interface & design. But to be fair, it did take 3-4 solid hours to get started for the basic edit.

    But I can understand from the pro standpoint to be quite different. A lot of features need to be put back in, no opening FCP7 projects ect.

    But I'm wondering whenever the bugs get worked out and features back in, I think it has the potential to be a fantastic program.

    Edit: Yeah, well it always seems exporting to render and compress is giving me a hard time. That they definitely need to work on too.
     
  4. acearchie thread starter macrumors 68040

    acearchie

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2006
    #4
    I'm not sure how that would work though. There are so many little things missing from FCPX that I doubt the FCP 7 project would function in it!

    You would probably find that so many of the clips wouldn't work or playback in realtime that it wouldn't be worth it.

    On the other hand I'm not entirely sure why you would want this feature. The only real thing I can think of is opening an old project a year later to change something for a client to go to DVD or something. If this is the case what is the problem with keeping the 1gb FCP 7 application. It's not like you are forced to delete it now FCP X is here (and I am definitely glad that you don't have to!).

    I think probably the mine gripe with not being able to open FCP 7 project files is that people want to test the program with current finished and unfinished products for a direct comparison.

    In a few months time I can't really see this being an issue as you will either be continuing to work in FCP 7 or FCP X you won't be carting projects between the two.

    People have also made the comparison to word documents working with different versions of the software but this is a completely different kettle of fish. Last time I checked a word document was a few hundred kilobytes. My relatively small projects can run up to over 100GBs on my capture scratch and over 20GB of rendering and other files associated with the project. This isn't exactly something you are going to send to a colleague over email and since the projects aren't transferred as much as word documents it's not very relevant as an example.

    Don't get me wrong. Some of the features are really nice and I look forward to using FCP X for some projects. But I think if Apple really valued their pro customers (I.e the ones that pulled out over £700 for the FCS3 suite) then they would have designed it so that it is easy to learn from an FCP 7 point of view however, it seems that it is the other way around and easier to learn from an iMovie point of view.

    All in all I just hope we get a response from Apple either telling us that "sorry we sort of got it wrong, updates are coming" or "Sorry guys the pro market just isn't that lucrative anymore, we are going to cater for more all in one youtube creators"

    Personally I think the second option is a cop out as, as many people now with FCP 7, the beauty of it was that you could be using the same simple software to create your short youtube videos as the editors who are editing the oscar nominated films. The best thing about FCP 7 for me was that on the surface it was actually quite simple once you had learnt the basics "editing theories, codecs, rendering etc" but then it was a very deep program with several layers so you could make the project as advanced or simple as you needed. With FCP X it just seem that there isn't so much depth and that if you really want to fine tune your projects the level of accuracy and detail you can find in FCP 7 just isn't there.

    Sorry about my further ranting I am just a tad annoyed! :D
     
  5. CaptainChunk macrumors 68020

    CaptainChunk

    Joined:
    Apr 16, 2008
    Location:
    Phoenix, AZ
    #5
    I just played with FCP X at a friend's house. Although I wasn't able to spend as much time messing with it, I've been noticing a lot of the same things the OP has.

    From the standpoint of my friend (who's not pro editor but just wanted a nice upgrade from iMovie), it's fantastic. To me, it's so radically different than FCP 7 it's frustrating. Overall, I find it impossible to cut in FCP X with the same level of speed and precision I can in FCP 7. Some highlights of my experience:

    1. The traditional media browser has been replaced by "Events", which only seem to want to display graphical thumbnails of the imported clips, omitting any other useful data, such as a clip duration, in/out points, codec, etc. There's not even a contextual menu option to view the clip properties. Given that FCP X Events behave essentially like iMovie Events, I can only imagine that larger projects will become a cluttered mess over time. Keywording system or not, I want to be able to organize media the way *I* want to, not the way to FCP X forces you to.

    2. The concept of sequences is gone and you get ONE timeline per project. Basically, you're forced to create a brand new project for each timeline. Ouch.

    3. They really need to reintroduce A/V tracks in a later release. Pro editors NEED these.

    4. I'm not too keen on not having a viewer. Things like being able to match a frame on the timeline with the original media seem impossible now.

    5. The bundled transitions are a joke. Simple things such as fade-in/fade-out are absent. Why?


    I'm sure if I had more time to fiddle with FCP X, I'd find more oddities. But so far to me, this NLE really does seem like iMovie Pro.
     
  6. Gilly3000 macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Jun 23, 2011
    #6
    Final Breath for Final Cut Pro

    Why can't we:

    Multiclip editing
    Import or Export EDLs
    Import or Export OMFs
    Import or Export XMLs
    Having multiple timelines open at the same time
    Assign video or audio tracks
    Customize workspace
    In and Out section exporting

    Among many other things!

    When I heard that Randy Ubillos was redesigning Final Cut Pro I knew that we were headed for disaster. This loser has ruined this wonderful editing tool. It's dumbed down to be nothing than a glorified version of iMovie. Shame on Apple for letting this happen. Oh, did I mention that you most likely have to buy either a new video card or new MacPro to run it.

    I'm am currently doing a movie at Universal on Final Cut Pro 7, and will advise the studio executives I work with to go back to Avid.

    Good Bye Final Cut Pro, or it's new name...Final Cut Amateur.
    John Gilbert, a.c.e.
    Editor
     
  7. LethalWolfe, Jun 24, 2011
    Last edited: Jun 24, 2011

    LethalWolfe macrumors G3

    LethalWolfe

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2002
    Location:
    Los Angeles
    #7
    First, did we really need a new thread for this? Would this already well-worn rant have not fit in any of the other half-dozen FCPX threads? Second, were you also worried about heading for disaster in '91 when Randy was heading up the Premiere team or in 1998 when Apple bought up the KeyGrip team (headed by Randy) and started working on what would become FCP?

    I'm not a fan of the current state of FCP X at all but calling Randy a loser and saying you knew it was headed for disaster once you heard he was involved shows a complete lack of historical knowledge for two of the three most well known NLE's around.


    Lethal
     
  8. THX1139 macrumors 68000

    THX1139

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2006
    #8
    I agree with pretty much everything written here, but I am left scratching my head wondering why Apple did this. I find it rather mind boggling that Apple ignored the needs of professional editors and appear to be forcing this new style of editing on them. It was my understanding that Apple got input from folks like Larry Jordan on features... but then it appears they just ignored that advice. It was Apple arrogantly making a statement saying that only Apple knows what people need going forward. Or, perhaps Apple doesn't have a clue about what professional editors need? Or, we are left with the nagging suspicion that Apple doesn't really care about the pro market and this is just another (large) step to take the company into a consumer device/software company only direction.

    Apple might have bigger plans in store and in the end it might actually work out for the best for everyone. But in the meantime, they sure have thrown out a turkey that they expect professionals to accept as the new and better way to edit. Well... that may be true in the long run, but in the meantime they should have kept FC7 alive and then did a transition into the new FCX over the coming year. That's what Newtek did while redeveloping Lightwave. They kept the main application updated while they worked on the new CORE project. They knew that once CORE took off, they could kill off the legacy software. Apple has the money and resources to update FCS AND release FCX simultaneously. Then as they add features to FCX, they could slowly let FCS fade away as FCX gets embraced by the professional community.

    Adobe must be having a celebration. All of the things that FCX isn't are the same things that Adobe has been striving to incorporate into their software. I saw an ad today that says, "Adobe gets it" which implies that they know what pros need and can provide those now. Maybe in a years time, Apple is going to come out on top and everyone who doubted is going to look back and say that what they did was genius. In which case, Adobe and AVID are going to look like dinosaurs. OR, Apple truly blew it and they forever lose their pro market (maybe thats what they want?) as the sales for FCX falls off and people start jumping ship for Adobe/AVID solutions. The window for Apple to come out of this in closing fast. They should have kept their options open by continuing to support FCS.

    One last thing. If it wasn't for Final Cut, I wouldn't be able to justify buying a Mac. A friend of mine built his own 6 core machine to run Adobe production suite and paid a quite a bit less than I did. Going forward, if I find myself not running Final Cut, I'll have less a reason to stay with Apple hardware. I'll have an iPhone and an iPad but my work machines will all be windows/linux based. Final Cut was the only thing holding me from making the switch and now that appears to be gone.
     
  9. LethalWolfe macrumors G3

    LethalWolfe

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2002
    Location:
    Los Angeles
    #9
    IMO Apple is changing focus to the web-centric editing crowd first and TV/Film editors second. I think updates to add back what's missing in FCP X will come at some point in time but the priority is not going to be the TV/Film crowd anymore. Video is turning into a new form of literacy and I think Apple recognizes that, recognizes that there is a massive group of people who want more than iMovie but were intimated by the price and GUI of FCP.

    I think Apple wanted a single app to span the range from FCE users to FCP users and, with the first shot out of the gate, choose to target the FCE users even though they had to know that would royally upset FCP users (many of which have been requesting a substantial FCP update for years).


    Lethal
     
  10. pemb145 macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Jun 24, 2011
    #10
    I'm an FCE user, although have been brushing up on iMovie since the FCP X announcement.

    Unusually for me, I held off opening my copy of FCP X until I had watched 5 hrs of training from Steve Martin, and was pleasantly surprised at the features - granted, I am no pro editor, but I am amazed at the comments in general from people who have spent a little time struggling to understand the interface and functionality.

    I am managing all I did before in FCE, plus an increased use of the keyboard (my spanish keyboard was not liked by FCP), and overall speed.

    For less than 10% of the price of FCP X you can learn from an excellent trainer who had the benefit of working with Apple engineers - surely better than asking other starters questions they have difficulty in answering?
     
  11. acearchie, Jun 24, 2011
    Last edited: Jun 24, 2011

    acearchie thread starter macrumors 68040

    acearchie

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2006
    #11
    I started the thread in the heat of the moment. It also has touched upon a few more mundane issues than the other threads and I was trying to not mention some of the problems that have been mentioned elsewhere.

    This is something I don't like. In FCP 7 when working on some long projects FCP would start to freeze up when there were a lot of clips in the sequence so I would start a new one and create a master sequence and drop all my other "scenes" into it. FCP X might be able to handle it better but it is nice to be able to create duplicate sequences where you can try out different things and then play then side by side. Auditions doesn't cut it.

    I wonder how many Final Cut Studio users there were versus Final Cut Express. I for one purchased FCE and then found myself upgrading to the suite relatively quickly. If that's the route they are taking I wouldn't be surprised if the next iterations of iMovie have not so many great new features for consumers but shiny FCP X has loads of great features to make simple films seem like blockbusters.

    Back when my family started buying macs it was a cult thing. It seems that as the popularity has grown more and more has been done to take control away from the users and only basic tasks can be completed and if you want to go deeper or do something more strenuous the applications seem to not allow it.
     
  12. LethalWolfe macrumors G3

    LethalWolfe

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2002
    Location:
    Los Angeles
    #12
    I was actually responding Gilly3000 who had started a new thread. Now that his thread has been rolled into this one I should go back and edit my response for clarity's sake.


    Lethal
     
  13. acearchie, Jun 24, 2011
    Last edited: Jun 24, 2011

    acearchie thread starter macrumors 68040

    acearchie

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2006
    #13
    Ahh gotcha, I thought Gilly's post seemed a little out of place.
     
  14. CaptainChunk macrumors 68020

    CaptainChunk

    Joined:
    Apr 16, 2008
    Location:
    Phoenix, AZ
    #14
    What's most upsetting about this whole thing (as a pro, anyway) is Apple's decision to totally drop support for FCS with FCP X's release. Basically, they're telling us that they're going to stop providing updates for FCS while they somehow expect us to embrace a new NLE with missing features.

    I can understand the argument that Apple is trying to target the web-centric editing crowd (yes, that market is much larger), but then again, when they demoed your new software at NAB (a convention for PROFESSIONALS working in broadcast), one wouldn't expect that they would alienate the pros as much as they did with this release.

    While I'm all for revolutionizing the way things are done in the industry (it's inevitable that video editing has been on a steady path to becoming more and more democratized since the beginning of the millennium), it's still a tough thing to deal with.

    That being said, I'm still interested to see how Apple will handle whipping FCP X into shape. Though I found my initial experience with it frustrating, I think the new engine has a ton of potential.
     
  15. acearchie thread starter macrumors 68040

    acearchie

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2006
    #15
    This is the worst thing. Imagine a mixture of FCPX and FCP7 it would be immense yet at the moment both softwares are crippled.

    In one way it means that the future is looking bright but at the moment it feels for me sort of like trying to get blood from a stone.
     
  16. KeithPratt macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Mar 6, 2007
    #16
    I know it's for want of a better word, but people are misusing the term "pro". Both are professionals, but FCPX is a very different proposition to a wedding video editor than it is to a shop working in post- on a Discovery Channel series.

    Apple obviously has some fundamentals to iron out and rethink, but where I think FCPX has potential is if they made it a really solid framework (with really solid basic editing/post- functionality, obviously) and encouraged developers throughout the post- world to create plugins that would allow the user to tune it to the level they need.

    For some FCPX's included colour tools will suffice, but if you need serious power and control, you buy the Baselight plugin. Apple provides the infrastructure: the coding language, floating-point processing, AV Foundation, etc. Automatic Duck extends functionality and lowers its prices (because they'll be selling more) and we get an intermediate focussed on providing the best movement between various applications. AJA port their VTR app as a plugin. And so on.

    This could be as revolutionary to the post-production as the buffet was to fine dining.
     
  17. Sylonien macrumors regular

    Sylonien

    Joined:
    May 21, 2011
    #17
    Funny how much fire FCX has come under. Including myself. I wonder if Apple will respond or change or release something else in the near future. :mad:
     
  18. illegalprelude macrumors 68000

    illegalprelude

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2005
    Location:
    Los Angeles, California
    #18
    I think you nailed it right there. This is in response to the death of the TV and rise of YouTube an Vimeo videos with specific user created channels getting millions of hits.

    If Apple does not bother to offer a higher end version or one more suited for the pro editor, I almost see it as they might loose lets say a 500,000 pro editors, but gain how many millions of up coming editors and creators whose sole aim is the web?
     
  19. Gilly3000 macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Jun 23, 2011
    #19
    Final Breath for Final Cut Pro

    I'm not out of place by stating my opinion on editing software that I've been using for YEARS, and am now seeing it destroyed.

    How long have y'all been around? C'mon, this thing's a turkey. I'm back to Avid and anything on FCP will be on FCP 7.

    FCP X is for amateurs. Enjoy it, it's all yours.
     
  20. the vj macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2006
    #20
    Do you want to know a real life situation?

    In my TV station we have no less of 400 promos, each one edited in FCP 7. We may have a total of around 1000 pieces of video created in FCP 7 in general.

    In April we decided to change the image of the station, we needed to open each file and replace the logos and voice overs. It took us 3 month to do that.

    If we adapt FCP X, we would have to re edit everything, it would take us way more than a year.
     
  21. GoKyu macrumors 65816

    GoKyu

    Joined:
    Feb 15, 2007
    Location:
    New Orleans
    #21
    I am in no way a video editor (I mostly do Photoshop), but I wanted to chime in from the point of view of a complete novice in this area.

    I use iMovie for the occasional video I make for YouTube - it has more than enough power for those of us who are amateurs or who only cut video once in awhile.

    I've seen FCP - it's a beast of a program, and to me, FCPX doesn't look much different, but if pro editors are complaining, then Apple needs to either update the software for *their* needs, or let people know that they're getting out of the pro market for video editing.

    What I don't get is what I put in bold in your post above - people who want more than iMovie want the full FCP. FCPX is *still* very technical and intimidating to me. If you're looking to move beyond iMovie, then you're doing this for a living and *need* those advanced features...
     
  22. LethalWolfe macrumors G3

    LethalWolfe

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2002
    Location:
    Los Angeles
    #22
    There's certain a lot of potential w/FCP X if Apple address all the show-stopping problems in a timely manor and decides to concurrently support FCP7 until FCP X is a fully featured replacement. Unfortunately there is a massive amount of 'no one knows' in the app's future and potenal doesn't pay rent or put food on the table though.

    Did you think it would be around forever? I figure between now and the day I die I'll probably learn a dozen different NLE's at least.
    First learned Avid 13 years ago, FCP 9 years and there was a very short stint with Premiere 6/6.5 in there as well. I've also done a little linear editing too but nothing to write home about.

    So don't switch to FCP X. It's not like you'll run 'system update' one afternoon and Apple's going to change all your FCP 7 installs to FCP X.

    Adobe Premiere can take FCP project XMLs and Automatic Duck can transfer FCP projects into Avid projects so it's not like there's no place to go for FCP 7 users. The industry has gone through massive changes in the past thirty years (film editing to linear tape editing to 'big iron' nonlinear editing to desktop nonlinear editing) and I think it'll survive the relatively minor shakeup that's going on now.


    Lethal
     
  23. jeznav macrumors 6502

    jeznav

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2007
    Location:
    Eh?
    #23

    You need to spend time in it. I'm a FCP user and I found out things in FCPX is just moved around.

    1. Events are essentially the Media Bin. You can import clips to a faster or external drives of your choosing, not necessarily on your main OS hard drive. (In my case I have 1GB RAID 'Scratch Disk' for all my projects, it creates a Final Cut Events folder which FCPX looks through even other hard drives that are connected which are automatically pulled in to the program.) Clips data are there. Just set the Events viewer to show list view instead of thumbnails and you get columns such as Start, End, Duration, etc. You can right click on an empty column and you can add Codecs, Shot, Scene, Reel, etc. You can also view/modify the clip data by clicking on the (i) icon on the far right to open up inspector and click on Info.

    Creating a FCPX project doesn't have to be on your main OS drive. Just go to the Projects Library viewer, right click on the hard drive (In my case 'Scratch Disk'), then click on New Project. This will create a folder called Final Cut Projects in your specified hard drive rather than in the /User/Movies folder in your main drive. Again, FCPX will watch out for this folder, so as soon as you connect a hard drive with your FPCX projects in it, you will see it in your Project Library. This also works for Events as well. No need for File > Open.

    You can also combine your imported clip events with your projects along with other render media, metadata, in a single folder. Just go to File > Consolidate Project Media. It will put everything in that project folder and its more easier to manage to transfer or archive your projects in the future.

    Initially I was looking for a setting to specify the path for my primary location for all my files. This is how FCPX works by looking for these special folders and 'Spotlighting' them. It even works on a mounted shared network, not just hard drives.

    2. The concept of Sequences is not gone. Its just renamed to Compound Clips. Who told you need to create a brand new project for each timeline? That's dumb and inefficient.

    The project I am working on has multiple scenes. I first work on the first scene. All my edits are there, music and etc. When I want to work on my second scene. I select all my clips in that timeline and click on New Compound Clip. This will create a single clip called Compound Clip. I then go to the inspector panel and rename that to Scene 1. Easy, there's your sequence. You can even modify its framerate, format and resolution. You can also nest within multiple compound clips if you like. Now in the Events Library, I select all my Scene 2 clips, right click and select on New Compound clip. All of those clips are now added in a new timeline which I can rename to Scene 2. In this timeline, I don't see clips in Scene 1, just like sequences. For that, I can back out of that to the main timeline and see two compound clips, and click on the first one and see all my scene 1 clips.

    3. There's this thing called the Storyline. It is essentially the main Track #1 in the timeline. You can have multiple tracks layering on top or below each other. You can lift or extract A/V tracks from the main storyline to a new track layer. For audio clips such as sound effects, you can highlight all of them, and create a new compound clip which would be your audio track. You can specify and audio role to this clip such as Dialogue Music, SFX, etc. You can preview that track alone by selecting Solo, or disable it from the rest by hitting V.

    4. Although there isn't any secondary viewer on-screen and assuming Pros have a secondary monitor, you can go to Window > Show Viewer on Secondary Display. Your main viewer will be displayed there in fullscreen. Also there is Show Events on Secondary Display. All your imported clips are play backed there.

    5. Fade in and Fade out points are accessed by clicking on the top left corner of a clip, and selecting Show Video Animation. You will get a stack of video parameters that can be key framed. Expand the Opacity bar and drag the In and Out points to your liking.


    I still have a lot to learn or relearn. Hope this helps.
     
  24. CaptainChunk macrumors 68020

    CaptainChunk

    Joined:
    Apr 16, 2008
    Location:
    Phoenix, AZ
    #24
    Good info. Like I stated earlier, I only played with it for about an hour. I suppose I just didn't find the way everything was laid out in the media browser very obvious.

    I never thought the Events had to be on the main OS drive, but I find it odd that it defaults there, considering that no pro NLE should ever advocate using your main OS drive for a folder that can potentially contain several GBs worth of imported media. The radically different approach to doing things just left me puzzled more than anything.

    Interesting. I suppose I just never thought of compound clips being used in such a way, considering when Apple demoed the software at NAB, they essentially touted the feature as a way to keep complicated edits condensed for a less cluttered timeline.

    Another thing to adjust to, I suppose, being that a lot of us are so used to accomplishing the same thing with sequences organized in bins.

    I do use two monitors in my editing bay, but it still seems a bit absurd that you practically have to have a second monitor to enable that type of functionality. Secondly, from all that I've gathered, there's really no way to run a custom layout. Different editors have different preferences on how everything is arranged.

    Maybe I'm missing something here, but that just seems to be a rather unintuitive way of doing something that was once a simple drag and drop operation from the Effects bin in legacy FCP. I noticed that "cross-fade" is included in the Transition effects, but why can't they give the same courtesy to something as rudimentary as fade-in/out? I shouldn't have to fiddle with opacity sliders to achieve such a simple effect.


    Trust me, this helps a lot. Thank you.

    Apparently, I have a lot to relearn, too. But still, I can't see myself adopting FCP X as a viable FCP 7 replacement just yet. As a professional editor, I actually rely on things like XML/EDL export, numbered A/V tracks for exporting audio timelines to post sound mixers, etc.

    I'm hoping with a bit more polish, FCP X will become a more mature platform for us pros.
     
  25. acearchie thread starter macrumors 68040

    acearchie

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2006
    #25
    You make an interesting point but I think a lot of people will be angry having already purchased a lot of dedicated hardware and software that did work and now they have to pay more just to get back the functionality that it had before.

    It would also mean that FCP X could easily turn out to be more expensive than the whole FCS3 suite.

    I wasn’t saying that your post was out of place in general but in this thread it is as I was looking to document some of the more boring changes that you would notice day to day rather than the glaringly obvious ones that everyone has talked about.

    At no point have I disagreed with what you have said so I don’t see why you have gone all aggressive.

    Similar to what Lethal said but the way I see it is that if you have enough hard drive space for all that footage then what is stopping you from keeping a copy of FCP7. I realise that it is not going to be updated but the current version seems stable, at least on my computer.

    From the amount that has changed in FCPX I don’t know how it would be possible to open an FCP 7 project without heaps not working.

    A lot of people who use iMovie for their youtube projects like the presets and ease of use of it. I’m not sure if they would be attracted to the seemingly high priced FCP X where you have more control but essentially you have to do it all yourself.

    An example of this was I was trying to entertain my younger sister on a weekend and I suggested we try out a trailer that you can make on iMovie. For 10 mins editing what you create is really good but you cannot fine tune it at all. To make something similar in Final Cut would probably take in excess of an hour and to some people that seems backwards to pay more for a piece of software that does something slower.

    Thanks for the points. I did a small sequence, sorry storyline, the other day that involved a lot of short clips all fading out quickly and I got very tired of having to open up the video animation on every single clip ever after I had learnt all the shortcuts (ctrl+v to open up video animation).

    It seems to me that for shorter less complicated edits FCPX is much faster at laying down a sequence however, when it comes to more picky things like fade ins and outs FCP 7 is still the king.

    On another note, before the release of FCP X I had never really looked at Premiere but now I have it looks how I would have imagined FCP X to look like, a similar interface to FCP 7 but with a more polished feel.

    Has anyone got any experience of FCP 7 vs. Premiere? I am still a student so the price isn’t so much of an issue. Plus it would probably be a good idea to get as many NLEs under my belt as possible!
     

Share This Page