So just do the whole "bin" from Compressor instead of FCP X ? WTF? Why the heck would you want to do bulk transcoding of your raw clips inside FCP?
RB
Took the FCP X plunge...
- Thread starter RBDesign
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
So just do the whole "bin" from Compressor instead of FCP X ? WTF? Why the heck would you want to do bulk transcoding of your raw clips inside FCP?
RB
Joe Walker
macrumors newbie
I didn't say raw clips, I said sequences, as in timelines. For some of my clients, on any given day, I might be exporting between 10 - 50 spots/videos/versions/etc and doing that in FCP is quicker than doing the whole Send to Compressor gag. Let's clear something else up here before this turns into a flame war, I don't hate FCPX at all, I think it's actually got some good features to it, I'm just puzzled why they left out so many good "old" features. That's all. Chill dude. Drink up, life's short. 
I understand your problem. In the real world of professional workflow, you then use the app that does this for you.
For myself, I have numerous options in my production studio. Whether its 3D, Motion Design, DAW or NLE, we have at least two or three options to get the job done. Funny though, in some cases like in 3D, I would be using Notepad on Windows just to do the stupidest things like fixing Mel scripts or setting up Render que's. Now you think with a high end app such as Autodesk Maya they would come up with a Render > Render multiple scenes option. But they dont. So as a professional I have to sit there and type this crap up in Notepad.
Sorry for going of topic
Last edited:
KeithPratt
macrumors 6502a
Perhaps this isn't the neatest way of doing it, but assuming there's no provision inside FCPX, FCPX and I are far apart philosophically in how we like to work, and that doesn't bode well.
Over the past few years I've amassed thousands of photographs. I kept the CR2 files until I got sick of sidecar XMPs and started converting to DNG. Then, when I was looking into Aperture and Lightroom, I ran into the issue of RAW adjustments not carrying over. I'm not going to go back and redevelop thousands of personal photos in the years to come, so I started archiving ProPhoto TIFFs and deleting the RAW files. At the same time I decided against Aperture/Lightroom. I like the implementation of various of their tools, but ultimately I prefer to use Bridge, Photoshop and Finder. I'd rather manage my files manually via a system of folders and Smart Folders than have a DAM keep them in a database. And I prefer the layers system and more finite nature of working in Photoshop and outputting as TIFF to using the adjustment brushes in Lightroom.
None of that is me being set in my ways or unable to see the benefits of other software and techniques, it's me over time refining what software and workflow best fit my brain and personality. You seem intent on not recognising that people work and think differently.
evil_santa
macrumors 6502a
I didn't say raw clips, I said sequences, as in timelines. For some of my clients, on any given day, I might be exporting between 10 - 50 spots/videos/versions/etc and doing that in FCP is quicker than doing the whole Send to Compressor gag. Let's clear something else up here before this turns into a flame war, I don't hate FCPX at all, I think it's actually got some good features to it, I'm just puzzled why they left out so many good "old" features. That's all. Chill dude. Drink up, life's short.
again this is where FCP X dosnt work will in a Pro environment, I regularly make promos where i will make a master edit & nest that sequence into the TX sequence and use a motion template for individual endboards + add appropriate voice over, there can be 20-50 version depending on how often the show airs and how many countries it is broadcast in. I can't use this workflow in FCPX as it won't let me nest sequences into each other, I could duplicate the timeline , but if i need to make a change, i.e. a guest on a show changes, i will have to go through all the 50ver and change then change them. Very Time consuming. Right now in FCP7 i will only need to change the master and it will ripple through all the TX sequences. With no batch export it then becomes very time consuming exporting 1 clip at a time!
There are export options to Facebook, youtube even CNN but what about exporting to Broadcast TX servers like Omneon & B4m Fork?
Yep same as Avid. One sequence at a time
I do not mean to be argumentative and without looking at the way your work is actually arranged - this could be one of two cases.
1) You are right and whatever you need to accomplish maybe more time consuming in FCP X.
2) You are wrong and it is merely a matter of re-arranging they way you are thinking about what you need to accomplish and how it is organized in your current tool.
I am not making an argument that there is NOTHING needed in FCP X - I am just trying to point out when abstracting conversations to "I do this and that and this and that but I cannot organize it in the way I do now and accomplish that in FCP X" it leads to this mass mob mentality of "You cannot do X" vs a potentially much more productive thought process of how to organize and accomplish what you need to do in a completely new tool with a completely different way of working that COULD actually gain you a lot.
If everybody thought this way we would all still be stuck with actual razor blades (or worse - a couple of video decks).
RB
LethalWolfe
macrumors G3
Or option 3) You can modify your workflow to fit FCP 10 and accomplish the same tasks in the same amount of time, but if you don't gain anything what is the point? Like they say, if it ain't broke don't fix it.
As opposed to the abstract, yet positive, post that started this thread?
I think people use the broad statement of "it doesn't fit in my workflow" because it's easier than listing each point over and over again.Ultimately, I think it comes down to horses for courses and the people that have been the most critical and most disappointed w/FCP 10 are, in my experience, people that require fairly standard features that FCP 7 has but FCP 10 lacks. It's not that FCP 10 is new. It's not that FCP 10 does some things differently. It's that FCP 10 lacks features that they require to do their daily job.
It's like someone trying to get me interested in a state-of-the-art car when I do construction for a living. Yeah, the car can be sweet as hell but if I need a vehicle with high ground clearance, a bed to throw building materials in and a hitch for occasional towing I'm not going to give the car anything more than a passing glance. I don't need to take it out for a test drive to know that it doesn't meet some of my basic requirements.
Off the top of my head here are a few things that are keeping me from spending more time w/FCP 10.
-No baseband video out
-No multicam
-No OMF, AAF or EDL support
-No FCP 7 project support
-No tape I/O beyond FW
-trackless timeline
Some things will never change, some will and some will rely on third parties to fill in the gaps. If FCP 10 gets to a point where I think it can be a useful tool for me I'll dig in. I'm not going to sit on my thumbs waiting for that day though.
Lethal
evil_santa
macrumors 6502a
I think you find that the correct answer is #1, and that i'm right.
As for editing with Tape, have you ever run 8 1" machine + a couple of DVEs through a huge GrassValley mixer to do an edit? It good fun you should give it a go.
Or option 3) You can modify your workflow to fit FCP 10 and accomplish the same tasks in the same amount of time, but if you don't gain anything what is the point? Like they say, if it ain't broke don't fix it.
As opposed to the abstract, yet positive, post that started this thread?
Ultimately, I think it comes down to horses for courses and the people that have been the most critical and most disappointed w/FCP 10 are, in my experience, people that require fairly standard features that FCP 7 has but FCP 10 lacks. It's not that FCP 10 is new. It's not that FCP 10 does some things differently. It's that FCP 10 lacks features that they require to do their daily job.
It's like someone trying to get me interested in a state-of-the-art car when I do construction for a living. Yeah, the car can be sweet as hell but if I need a vehicle with high ground clearance, a bed to throw building materials in and a hitch for occasional towing I'm not going to give the car anything more than a passing glance. I don't need to take it out for a test drive to know that it doesn't meet some of my basic requirements.
Off the top of my head here are a few things that are keeping me from spending more time w/FCP 10.
-No baseband video out
For me it's who cares - I would imagine that even people that care about crappy video out are better off with the way that FCP X handles color than the completely non-managned pass-thru that it has used in the past. I would bet that FCP X display on a decent calibrated monitor is probably better than the some of the consumer crap hooked up as "reference monitors" that are quite a common setup for the not so well funded - actually I have seen a lot of consumer TVs hooked up even in "reputable outfits"
-No multicam
Yes but committed for 1/12 and it's not actually difficult for a few cameras right now
-No OMF, AAF or EDL support
Auto Duck you are still cheaper.
-No FCP 7 project support
Ummm yea but for new projects?
-No tape I/O beyond FW
I hope nobody id dealing with tape in a year or two - thank god I haven't had to in a long long while.
-trackless timeline
This one I do not get and was a lot of what I was speaking to in my previous reply.
LethalWolfe
macrumors G3
The people that didn't care about proper color management before aren't going to care about it now, and the people that did care about it before still care about it now. I would agree that FCP 10 + a decent calibrated monitor is more color accurate than FCP 7 + a crappy monitor but how useful is an apples to dog crap comparison?
I did the whole ghetto multi-cam thing for years and I'd rather not revisit those days.
I can only judge FCP 10 based on what it is right now. Like I said before, if FCP 10 grows into something that I think will meet my needs I'll put it back in my tool box. I need tools that I can use today, not tools I might be able to use sometime next year.
Cheaper than buying FCS 3? Yes. Better value? Not by a long shot. One could also buy CS 5.5 or Avid MC 5.5 at the discount price and get a much more well rounded solution for about the same price as FCS 10, Motion, Compressor, and the proper Automatic Duck plugin.
Backward compatibility is a big selling point to keep people from venturing else where. Post houses have archives of old projects, TV shows have past seasons that will inevitably be pulled out of the mouth balls, and longer term projects like documentaries (a stronghold of the old FCP) can takes years to complete. For example, I recently finished a documentary that spanned FCP 5, 6 and 7!
I'd rather have tape support and not need it than need tape support and not have it. Avid and Adobe currently have more tapeless support than FCP 10 does and they didn't ditch tape I/O to get it. It's not an either/or problem.
Using tracks to organize the timeline, especially in a multi-editor environment, is a simple and common way to keep things from turning into a visual clusterf*ck. Think of it kinda like white space when it comes to formatting text. I'm also not a fan of the magnetic timeline for similar reasons (it doesn't let me organize and manipulate the timeline how I want to).
One of the things that made FCP 'classic' so popular was its flexibility. Sure, if you didn't know what you were doing the program would give you enough rope to hang yourself with but if you took the time to read the manual and had some fundamental video knowledge you could certainly get the app to 'punch above its weight'.
Lethal
I don't fully understand what you're trying to do, or what the specifics of "nesting sequences" are, but have you explored compound clips and auditions? Using those, you can embed multiple sequences (compound clips) in the main timeline as an audition, and swap them out as required. No idea how you'd automate the output using all versions, though, or if that's actually what you're trying to do; just throwing some ideas out there.
The people that didn't care about proper color management before aren't going to care about it now, and the people that did care about it before still care about it now. I would agree that FCP 10 + a decent calibrated monitor is more color accurate than FCP 7 + a crappy monitor but how useful is an apples to dog crap comparison?
I did the whole ghetto multi-cam thing for years and I'd rather not revisit those days.
I can only judge FCP 10 based on what it is right now. Like I said before, if FCP 10 grows into something that I think will meet my needs I'll put it back in my tool box. I need tools that I can use today, not tools I might be able to use sometime next year.
Cheaper than buying FCS 3? Yes. Better value? Not by a long shot. One could also buy CS 5.5 or Avid MC 5.5 at the discount price and get a much more well rounded solution for about the same price as FCS 10, Motion, Compressor, and the proper Automatic Duck plugin.
Backward compatibility is a big selling point to keep people from venturing else where. Post houses have archives of old projects, TV shows have past seasons that will inevitably be pulled out of the mouth balls, and longer term projects like documentaries (a stronghold of the old FCP) can takes years to complete. For example, I recently finished a documentary that spanned FCP 5, 6 and 7!
I'd rather have tape support and not need it than need tape support and not have it. Avid and Adobe currently have more tapeless support than FCP 10 does and they didn't ditch tape I/O to get it. It's not an either/or problem.
Using tracks to organize the timeline, especially in a multi-editor environment, is a simple and common way to keep things from turning into a visual clusterf*ck. Think of it kinda like white space when it comes to formatting text. I'm also not a fan of the magnetic timeline for similar reasons (it doesn't let me organize and manipulate the timeline how I want to).
One of the things that made FCP 'classic' so popular was its flexibility. Sure, if you didn't know what you were doing the program would give you enough rope to hang yourself with but if you took the time to read the manual and had some fundamental video knowledge you could certainly get the app to 'punch above its weight'.
Lethal
Look - I am just trying to be the Devil's advocate here - I think there are some pretty amazing things in FCP X that for the most part too many people are ignoring due to a couple of things that are irritations today. Once you dive in and spend time with X it has some amazingly powerful ways of working that I believe are very worthwhile.
One comment on the tracks for organization - the combination of the timeline index, keywords, named markers, and now roles with the new update you can be just as organized - even more organized that with some fixed track model. The way X works can be amazingly fast.
Like anything else - if you are in the middle of production or even at the start of it. Jamming a brand new completely re-written, re-thought, unproven, and unfamiliar tool into the mix is not a good idea at all. You would have to be nuts to do that - I agree with that for way more reasons than you even brought up.
I am glad Apple put FCP X out there and it's not just a freshening up of a fairly old model based on the virtualization of what is actually a model of physical "tape" or "film". Considering it's completely new from the ground up they had to put it out there so that the rest of the software ecosystem and vendors had a stake in the ground to support it. I see that happening in a decent way now and a big way later. It's hard to imagine something this new and different somehow springing to life fully complete and whole. Give it a year - maybe less.
As for multi-cam - yes we all pretty much need multi-cam now. My understanding from a lot of people that actually know that facts is that cutting it from the .0 release was not an intent but that it just was not ready for the release schedule. I am glad they decided to release it now for reasons stated above. I hope that the multi-cam support will be as innovative as a lot of the rest of what we are seeing when it is available early in 2012.
RB
evil_santa is referring to exporting each sequence out to its own single file from FCPX.
something that cant be done in Avid MC as well.
Maybe future release, they will let you select multiple Projects in Project window and export each to a specific file.
LethalWolfe
macrumors G3
I agree that there are some great things in FCP 10 but even those great additions can't overcome all of the omissions. FCP 10 works for some people and doesn't work for others.
In your opinion.
IMO, an organized timeline speaks for itself. I can look at a timeline and immediately know where the A-roll, B-roll, bumpers, lower thirds, gfx, slates, interview audio, vo, nat sound, SFX and music are and if I need to find a specific clip I can hit command+f to search for it. I really like the metadata features in FCP 10 and it's a shame that Apple swapped one organizational approach for another instead of giving us access to both.
Better and different aren't always the same thing but I'm always up for making things better. Who knows, maybe in a few years more NLEs will be like FCP 10 than not but in the mean time I still need to make a living and I can't do that w/FCP 10 in its current state.
Lethal
Yep same as Avid. One sequence at a time
Is that a joke I'm just not getting? Avid has been able to do batch exports since... forever, as far as I know.Yep. There's really no difference between exporting one sequence or exporting several sequences at a time. They just have to all be in the same bin, so if they're in different bins you just make a copy and put it in a "batch export" bin. You select all the sequences you want to export, then select export the same as if you were doing just one sequence. They will all export one after another.
I think there's a distinction between professional use and professional post house use that is the dividing line here.
I'm part of a film distribution company, and tape and multitrack are part of our bread and butter. Heck, even Netflix prefers tape delivery of content (go figure). The same goes for US and international broadcast. If we sell internationally, we have to provide PAL tape with 4 track audio. In FCS3, I can transcode and roll off to tape (which is expected to be frame accurate, btw).
Easy media management/isolation is crucial. Imagine having a library of 100+ feature films. Each one resides on its own hard drive, along with all of the film's collateral material. Now imagine having four projects open at the same time. In FCS3 - easy peasy, and all the source material stays where it needs to be. Not so much in FCPX.
Version compatibility is also a big deal - I am constantly going back to projects to do minor content edits to comply with various broadcast or theatrical content standards. Are there kludgy workarounds? Sure, but that's not the point.
IMO, what Apple produced is not an upgrade or a continuation of FCS - it's a different product. Maybe it's Apple's intention to abandon the part of the market that I am part of - I'm not mad, just disappointed. But I do understand that we are part of a small market. My biggest concern is that if Apple is not going to restore the features we need, Avid (and Adobe) will once again own the market, and I would expect that they will do what they have done in the past - go back to Windows only releases.
I'm part of a film distribution company, and tape and multitrack are part of our bread and butter. Heck, even Netflix prefers tape delivery of content (go figure). The same goes for US and international broadcast. If we sell internationally, we have to provide PAL tape with 4 track audio. In FCS3, I can transcode and roll off to tape (which is expected to be frame accurate, btw).
Easy media management/isolation is crucial. Imagine having a library of 100+ feature films. Each one resides on its own hard drive, along with all of the film's collateral material. Now imagine having four projects open at the same time. In FCS3 - easy peasy, and all the source material stays where it needs to be. Not so much in FCPX.
Version compatibility is also a big deal - I am constantly going back to projects to do minor content edits to comply with various broadcast or theatrical content standards. Are there kludgy workarounds? Sure, but that's not the point.
IMO, what Apple produced is not an upgrade or a continuation of FCS - it's a different product. Maybe it's Apple's intention to abandon the part of the market that I am part of - I'm not mad, just disappointed. But I do understand that we are part of a small market. My biggest concern is that if Apple is not going to restore the features we need, Avid (and Adobe) will once again own the market, and I would expect that they will do what they have done in the past - go back to Windows only releases.
Aah see that was one of the problems in the past. The slew of sequences across multiple bins was the norm for that particular project. Each bin had its own media with a single sequence for output.
Oh well its been a few years since and really havent done anything like that with 5.5.x.
Thanks, Im glad I learned something here
Media management and isolation are cake - especially with direct SAN support vs a work-around.
There are a million ways to get things to and from tape although I expect we will see that soon enough from 3rd parties (which makes a lot of sense vs waiting for apple for every device out there past present and more importantly future) It looks like the external device support/plugin business being given to the 3rd party = usually the maker is part of the model given the device SDK's released, I actually think that is a way better and pretty open model.
X is a very forward looking product - that's good. Does using it in the FIRST 6 months to support legacy stuff present challenges? Of course it does - that does not make it a "bad" product nor does it relegate it forever to "non-professional" use. If you are still futzing with completely inadequate from just about any perspective DV or worse yet Analog video tape in a few years it will be unbelievable - until it goes away, I am sure there will be support from vendors that sell the stuff soon enough.
The completely hilarious thing about all these conversations - and that is what it is - just a conversation - is how entrenched and embedded all of the people are that are completely un-willing to see any good at all in FCP X. The hilarious part is that you are all digital and are far far far worse than the analog guys were about digital anything. Funny stuff. All this non-sence will fall by the wayside and be completely irrelevant in a few years. Just like dedicated physical edit stations/systems/rooms/ from the 70's, 80's. 90's are now. Do you remember at all what FCP v1, 2, 3, heck even 4 looked like and what they "couldn't do"? You have to be kidding me. The world was not built with this crap but it changed the way just about every "pro" does things in less than a decade. That's why it's funny - the people that were doing things the same way using the same materials for 40 years were more open minded than a lot of the people that have been doing this on FCP for hmmmm 5? 4? whatever.
As for backwards compatibly yes - that can be a challenge depending on how and what your actual job is but at the end of the day it's a GIGANTIC challenge for all things digital and needs to be a part of anyones overall game plan. I have shot a LOT of film - still and motion, is it still viable? Yes am I glad I have it - yes. Can I "read" it now and probably as long as it physically exists? Yes. Would I want to "re-read it" again? Certainly not in bulk. That is the original capture medium. The final product that was produced using old methods I still have but the "work product" of getting from orginal to finished product is GONE except for notes on what was done. Why? There was no way of saving the work product so you could arbitrarily start in the middle somewhere. Nature of the beast.
With digital work-flow you now have that convenience and if it is worthwhile to save that work-product I am sure someone will capitalize on it - I can certainly imagine a 3rd party using the XML import SDK to do some sort of conversion - heck you could even imagine it sucking in just about anything to FCP X and using roles like "V1 A1.A2" to organize it. We'll probably see something like that soon with XML import for X.
As for Video tape - not a great capture medium - not a great long term storage medium. It sucks for way too many reasons to list. Archival? Ha. You really think that devices to read the stuff will be around forever? Every single bit of important source material I have ever had that was video has long ago been transferred to a more stable medium - and then re-re-re-re transferred to more modern medium. Did I looose quality? No, will I ever need or want the orginal source again? No - there is no technology that will "read it better" down the road (unlike film has seen). Is it cheap - not really. In fact all in cost is really high.
Just some food for thought - this has NOTHING with what people need to do their job right this second. Just some perspective about moving forward. Let me ask a really simple question since the "tape" non-sense comes up over and over and over again at the end all be all life is over(although temporary and not really a killer because there are lots of ways to skin that cat) - Is there anyone out there that wouldn't like to be out of the "tape" business? not - can you be done with tape today - but would you like to be done with it?
RB
LethalWolfe
macrumors G3
I'd go farther and say there are many varieties of professional w/some having much more demanding needs than others. What works for a small home business, for example, won't necessarily work for a multinational corporation.
I doubt Adobe or Avid would leave the Mac platform unless Apple stopped being competitive in the hardware space. Back in the day when Avid briefly thought about going Windows only Apple hardware was stagnating badly thanks to Motorola. When Adobe decided to rewrite Premiere into Premiere Pro FCP had decimated Premiere's Mac user base was so I wasn't surprised when it was initially Windows only.
The landscape is different now than it was then.
Lethal
JonEC
macrumors newbie
100% true. But...
Yes, the staggering limitations of previous incarnations of many successful programs have become irrelevant over time. HOWEVER...this is undoubtedly due to continuity in the "chain of development" - a piece of software is embraced by a user group and then progressively refined/upgraded as more and more users come on board. But if a company makes the foolish mistake of alienating a large enough percentage of their faithful clientele, they may never get another chance to make today's ill-conceived blunder the industry leader of tomorrow.
Yes, the staggering limitations of previous incarnations of many successful programs have become irrelevant over time. HOWEVER...this is undoubtedly due to continuity in the "chain of development" - a piece of software is embraced by a user group and then progressively refined/upgraded as more and more users come on board. But if a company makes the foolish mistake of alienating a large enough percentage of their faithful clientele, they may never get another chance to make today's ill-conceived blunder the industry leader of tomorrow.
evil_santa
macrumors 6502a
Nesting
Nesting sequences in FCP7 is quite simple, this example is for a typical promo edit, with 4 versions that will broadcast throughout the week, Firstly you make your Master Sequence, show in green the the project bin, this will be the first 15 sec of the promo without the " Tonight at 2030" tags on it.
You then create new sequences for each of promo versions, 4 shown here in yellow. In these sequences you drag the Master Promo in to the new TX sequence. Then add the appropriate time caption & voice over to each TX version. You then batch export each sequence and send send to the TX server, put to tape for broadcast etc
Depending on how often the show is broadcast, how many TV Stations it is broadcast on and different timezones i can have up to 50 different TX versions.
Making the promos this way will allow me to make any changes or revisions, (things change such as guest dropping out, updated content or new locations etc..) and those changes will simply ripple through to all the TX versions, all i have to do is re batch export and send to TX.
In FCPX Compound clips sort of work, you can make you master edit , compound it , then copy and paste to all the versions, but if you need to make a change you will have to go through all the TX ver, remember 50 of them, and re paste, with the way the FCPX time line works it will probably collapse in on its self and you would have to re edit the end graphic & voice over. This would be a lot of extra work, about as much as making up all the version in the first place.
Audition, I've not tried this but from what I've seen you would have 1 master with all the version in the audition, so you would export, change the audition, export, change the audition, export, change the audition ( did i mention 50 times), quite a good way of getting in a mess & RSI
Or you could duplicate the master clip for each TX ver and just change the end accordingly , you would then have to make the changes in each version x50!!
The only way would i see to do this is to export the master promo and reimport it into the TX versions, and if changes are needed, re export/import and relink, dose FCPX relink? As far as i can see this is the least time consuming of any of the options, but it still a few more steps than i my current method, added to the lack of batch export, i be in edit all night again!
This is just 1 example of "FCPX dose not fit my work flow" & 1 example of how i use nested sequences. Clearly this is something that not every user would ever have a need for but it is part of my daily workflow.
Nesting sequences in FCP7 is quite simple, this example is for a typical promo edit, with 4 versions that will broadcast throughout the week, Firstly you make your Master Sequence, show in green the the project bin, this will be the first 15 sec of the promo without the " Tonight at 2030" tags on it.
You then create new sequences for each of promo versions, 4 shown here in yellow. In these sequences you drag the Master Promo in to the new TX sequence. Then add the appropriate time caption & voice over to each TX version. You then batch export each sequence and send send to the TX server, put to tape for broadcast etc
Depending on how often the show is broadcast, how many TV Stations it is broadcast on and different timezones i can have up to 50 different TX versions.
Making the promos this way will allow me to make any changes or revisions, (things change such as guest dropping out, updated content or new locations etc..) and those changes will simply ripple through to all the TX versions, all i have to do is re batch export and send to TX.
In FCPX Compound clips sort of work, you can make you master edit , compound it , then copy and paste to all the versions, but if you need to make a change you will have to go through all the TX ver, remember 50 of them, and re paste, with the way the FCPX time line works it will probably collapse in on its self and you would have to re edit the end graphic & voice over. This would be a lot of extra work, about as much as making up all the version in the first place.
Audition, I've not tried this but from what I've seen you would have 1 master with all the version in the audition, so you would export, change the audition, export, change the audition, export, change the audition ( did i mention 50 times), quite a good way of getting in a mess & RSI
Or you could duplicate the master clip for each TX ver and just change the end accordingly , you would then have to make the changes in each version x50!!
The only way would i see to do this is to export the master promo and reimport it into the TX versions, and if changes are needed, re export/import and relink, dose FCPX relink? As far as i can see this is the least time consuming of any of the options, but it still a few more steps than i my current method, added to the lack of batch export, i be in edit all night again!
This is just 1 example of "FCPX dose not fit my work flow" & 1 example of how i use nested sequences. Clearly this is something that not every user would ever have a need for but it is part of my daily workflow.
Attachments
LethalWolfe
macrumors G3
Almost as hilarious as the people that are completely unwilling to see that FCP 10 is unusable to some people because of features it lacks regardless of how many cool new features it has.
Lethal