or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Software › Mac Software › Adobe continues assault on Apple's Final Cut Pro X with 'switcher program'
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Adobe continues assault on Apple's Final Cut Pro X with 'switcher program' - Page 4

post #121 of 151
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

But they're it. Period. No one makes any software comparable to what Photoshop, Illustrator, and InDesign do. If you need them, you have to have those. Period. So they can charge whatever they want.

Sad, but true. Illustrator used to be my THIRD choice for illustration, but they bought my second choice (Freehand) and my first choice, Canvas, is now a windows-only app (grr...)

BTW, what has Adobe done to Photoshop since version 7 (last Classic version)? I don't see much improvement in CS5 except for the refine selection tool, which still isn't as good as Mask Pro for some things. I'm surprised nobody has tried to take on Photoshop.

That's the problem when you have these industry "standards" like ESRI, Adobe, Windows, etc. with bullcrap certification programs. There's no competition and we get stagnation and arrogance.
post #122 of 151
If possible, you should also show an example of non-live music video editing with multicam footage. When I first saw how Final Cut Pro 6 (?) did it I was blown away. In this case you're not editing a single set of multicam footage but multiple sets. Eg. in a music video there's typically the band playing. It will be shot in several settings, say in the desert, on top of a building and in a warehouse, for example. For each setting during the music you'll need to cut between the bass player and the singer, and so on. Doing this kind of edit requires the real power of true multicam.

Quote:
Originally Posted by UrbanVoyeur View Post

There is a very important difference between editing footage from multiple cameras shooting diferent things (which is what the Calcio Storico Fiorentino piece is) and editing footage from mutliple cameras simultaneously shooting the same event from different angles when sound and image must be in sync.

Think of the typical 4 camera sitcom. Think pratfall and reaction shot.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiple-camera_setup

This is used when shooting plays, concerts, training videos, sporting events, motivational speakers, church services, and many other types of live or difficult to repeat situations. I even saw it in a recent wedding.

For this you need an entrirely different kind of editing setup to do it quitckly, accurately and effectively. In the past, before NLE's, you'd have 4 tape decks slaved together and 1 recorder for the program. You'd watch 4 monitors plus 1 for program and use a live switcher to cut between them.

This is what people mean when they speak of "multi-cam editing"
Today, that experience is replicated in NLE's like FCP7, Media Composer, and Premiere Pro. But NOT FCPX. This is what Apple meant when they said multi-cam editing was not in the X release but that they are working on it.

I do not claim to be a good editor, but I have worked with them and have had my work edited by them. BUT, I will dig up a clip of mine to demonstrate what I am talking about.

The Calcio Storico Fiorentino is a great little peice, but I would point out that there was little in the way of graphics, effects, or post production sound. It was a series of shots strung together against a music track and with crowd sounds roughly matched to the screen action. Maintaining audio sync across cameras was not necessary.

Bottom line: you need the right tool for the job. Right now, FCPX is not the right tool for many (most?) pro-needs.
post #123 of 151
Quote:
Originally Posted by UrbanVoyeur View Post

There is a very important difference between editing footage from multiple cameras shooting diferent things (which is what the Calcio Storico Fiorentino piece is) and editing footage from mutliple cameras simultaneously shooting the same event from different angles when sound and image must be in sync.

Think of the typical 4 camera sitcom. Think pratfall and reaction shot.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiple-camera_setup

This is used when shooting plays, concerts, training videos, sporting events, motivational speakers, church services, and many other types of live or difficult to repeat situations. I even saw it in a recent wedding.

For this you need an entrirely different kind of editing setup to do it quitckly, accurately and effectively. In the past, before NLE's, you'd have 4 tape decks slaved together and 1 recorder for the program. You'd watch 4 monitors plus 1 for program and use a live switcher to cut between them.

This is what people mean when they speak of "multi-cam editing"
Today, that experience is replicated in NLE's like FCP7, Media Composer, and Premiere Pro. But NOT FCPX. This is what Apple meant when they said multi-cam editing was not in the X release but that they are working on it.

I do not claim to be a good editor, but I have worked with them and have had my work edited by them. BUT, I will dig up a clip of mine to demonstrate what I am talking about.

The Calcio Storico Fiorentino is a great little peice, but I would point out that there was little in the way of graphics, effects, or post production sound. It was a series of shots strung together against a music track and with crowd sounds roughly matched to the screen action. Maintaining audio sync across cameras was not necessary.

Bottom line: you need the right tool for the job. Right now, FCPX is not the right tool for many (most?) pro-needs.

Fair enough!

I read the page you linked, Then I surfed the web and found several tutorials involving 3 to 9 cameras.

The ability to display 16 camera views at the same time and dynamically select among them is nice -- though, not very precise. I suspect that the real work begins when this is done -- fine tuning the camera changeover, etc.


Apple has said they are working on multicam support for FCPX -- but as of today FCPX cannot do the entire multicam editing process.

What FCPX can do today:

-- process multiple clips of any combination of supported format, codec, resolution, etc.
-- synchronize multiple clips based on sound (very accurately)
-- include soundless video clips for manual synchronization
-- include a sound-only clip

You select all these clips, select synchronize, and FCPX creates a "synchronized clip" which contains all the subclips aligned by sound -- roughly analogous to an FCP7 multiclip.

Then, you can move this "synchronized clip" to your storyline and expand it showing the layered, synchronized subclips.

You don't get the flattened video track as with FCP7 as FCPX has no way to create it, yet!

But, you can manually scrub through the subclips and manually create markers/crossovers (the video is updated in the storyline, while scrubbing -- making this very easy).


I even found a video demonstrating the process:

Multicam Final Cut Pro X - Final Cut Pro X Tutorial

Admittedly, it is not as elegant or easy as FCP7 appears to be.

However, the video makes the editing look harder than it need be:

It deletes the section in every layer above the layer they want to show -- leaving holes in the upper clip. Instead, you can split the clip and disable the section to allow the clip below to show through.

But, the author is forgiven -- What's it been, a week since FCPX dropped?


I should mention that FCPX has a precision editor that shows both sides of the edit updated concurrently -- so as you try to fine tune the camera cutovers it is easy to get close by scrubbing, then nudge 1 frame at a time (if necessary)

With what's already available in FCPX, I expect multicam will be much faster and easier than FCP7.


I have never used multicam! I am looking for a source for some reasonably-sized multicam clips that I can download -- then synch in FCP7 and FCOX,


Quote:
Originally Posted by nvidia2008 View Post

If possible, you should also show an example of non-live music video editing with multicam footage. When I first saw how Final Cut Pro 6 (?) did it I was blown away. In this case you're not editing a single set of multicam footage but multiple sets. Eg. in a music video there's typically the band playing. It will be shot in several settings, say in the desert, on top of a building and in a warehouse, for example. For each setting during the music you'll need to cut between the bass player and the singer, and so on. Doing this kind of edit requires the real power of true multicam.


Can these multiple sets be synched with each other, i.e. do they share a common sound track?
"...The calm is on the water and part of us would linger by the shore, For ships are safe in harbor, but that's not what ships are for."
- Michael Lille -
Reply
"...The calm is on the water and part of us would linger by the shore, For ships are safe in harbor, but that's not what ships are for."
- Michael Lille -
Reply
post #124 of 151
Quote:
Originally Posted by UrbanVoyeur View Post


Bottom line: you need the right tool for the job. Right now, FCPX is not the right tool for many (most?) pro-needs.

This is what so many of us are saying. At this moment in time FCP X does not provide what we need to get jobs done in the way our clients expect and need them to be done. It may very well become capable as Apple adds features. At that point people at the higher end will start using it.

I sure would like to know what Joel and Ethan Coen think about FCP X.
post #125 of 151
Quote:
Originally Posted by strobe View Post

That's the problem when you have these industry "standards" like ESRI, Adobe, Windows, etc. with bullcrap certification programs. There's no competition and we get stagnation and arrogance.

All certification programs, or just certification for products you don't like?

Apple's professional digital applications are the standard for professional photographers, filmmakers, editors, sound designers, music producers, and multimedia artists.
post #126 of 151
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dick Applebaum View Post

These specialists coud possibly do their jobs with a $300 FCPX seat as opposed to a $1,000 FCS seat.

For more advanced effects, graphics and titling -- the specialists could do their Job with a $50 Motion 5 seat.

If they'd integrated the complete apps they might but they only took selected features. There is going to be a way to get the data into other apps, FCPX isn't a replacement for a dedicated apps like Soundtrack Pro and Color.

I think they got rid of STP because you'd only use STP for minor corrections to audio, which are better done in FCP. An audio specialist won't be using STP but Logic or Pro Tools. Instead of Color, people can use Da Vinci. It's not that expensive at $995 if your job is being a colourist and it's not Mac-only:

http://goo.gl/EDDpF
http://www.blackmagic-design.com/pro...davinciresolve
http://goo.gl/KcoIG

Motion is quite powerful so worth maintaining and has advantages over AE such as being able to do holdout mattes and garbage mattes without precomps. It doesn't seem to have the good plugins Shake used to have though (Primatte and Keylight) and AE even has Keylight but it's very fast at rendering and has a decent structure. Rendering on the GPU makes the UI sluggish though.

Also Motion doesn't integrate very well with FCPX, you have to publish a Motion scene as a template to get it into FCPX and you don't get individual layers so the control still lies in Motion.

Compressor is a bit of a mess as they haven't changed it. It still hangs up completely at random and has the old UI.

I wonder if they will eventually merge FCP and Motion into a single app - you get the same keyer in FCP as you do in Motion. They could have special clips as effects clips, which have a bunch of layers or even nodes (if they're feeling adventurous).
post #127 of 151
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvin View Post

If they'd integrated the complete apps they might but they only took selected features. There is going to be a way to get the data into other apps, FCPX isn't a replacement for a dedicated apps like Soundtrack Pro and Color.

I think they got rid of STP because you'd only use STP for minor corrections to audio, which are better done in FCP. An audio specialist won't be using STP but Logic or Pro Tools. Instead of Color, people can use Da Vinci. It's not that expensive at $995 if your job is being a colourist and it's not Mac-only:

http://goo.gl/EDDpF
http://www.blackmagic-design.com/pro...davinciresolve
http://goo.gl/KcoIG

Motion is quite powerful so worth maintaining and has advantages over AE such as being able to do holdout mattes and garbage mattes without precomps. It doesn't seem to have the good plugins Shake used to have though (Primatte and Keylight) and AE even has Keylight but it's very fast at rendering and has a decent structure. Rendering on the GPU makes the UI sluggish though.

Also Motion doesn't integrate very well with FCPX, you have to publish a Motion scene as a template to get it into FCPX and you don't get individual layers so the control still lies in Motion.

Compressor is a bit of a mess as they haven't changed it. It still hangs up completely at random and has the old UI.

I wonder if they will eventually merge FCP and Motion into a single app - you get the same keyer in FCP as you do in Motion. They could have special clips as effects clips, which have a bunch of layers or even nodes (if they're feeling adventurous).


Ha!

I've been reading a lot and watching a lot of videos... Tutorials, Panel discussions...

I see/hear random comments like:
  • FCS SoundTrack Pro is a mess..
  • I use the built-in FCP color tools, rather than round-tripping to the Color app -- it gives me easier-to-maintain clips
  • You should avoid multiclips -- they are buggy, a resource hog and cause the system to crash


It appears as if: whether some capability exists (or doesn't) -- some "pros" will praise it while other "pros" will diss it.

...Some are some, and some are not.


Anyway, I am still looking for a source of multicam footage that I download and play with over the holiday.





Edit: Can't find any multicam footage -- so I decided to make my own. Problem is, I am the only one here -- so not much to shoot.

I decided to shoot a few minutes of video of the living room... Exciting.

I was able to FCPX Import from a Panny AVCHD, a Sony Handy Cam (Mini-cassette), iPhone 4 and an iPad 2.

I played some music on the iMac so they'd have a sound to sync.


FCPX was able to handle all the formats -- I don't think FCP7 will.

I'll play around some more tomorrow & see if I can get something more creative to film.
"...The calm is on the water and part of us would linger by the shore, For ships are safe in harbor, but that's not what ships are for."
- Michael Lille -
Reply
"...The calm is on the water and part of us would linger by the shore, For ships are safe in harbor, but that's not what ships are for."
- Michael Lille -
Reply
post #128 of 151
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dick Applebaum View Post

I played some music on the iMac so they'd have a sound to sync.

With respect to music videos lip sync is the most important. Traditionally we have always done multi-cam with time code, but audio sync using audio wave analysis has some potential as it does not require the tedious time code set up.

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply
post #129 of 151
Quote:
Originally Posted by mstone View Post

With respect to music videos lip sync is the most important. Traditionally we have always done multi-cam with time code, but audio sync using audio wave analysis has some potential as it does not require the tedious time code set up.

According to a friend, there is not enough money to justify the cost of most music videos.

Mayben FCPX will change the economics.
"...The calm is on the water and part of us would linger by the shore, For ships are safe in harbor, but that's not what ships are for."
- Michael Lille -
Reply
"...The calm is on the water and part of us would linger by the shore, For ships are safe in harbor, but that's not what ships are for."
- Michael Lille -
Reply
post #130 of 151
For anyone wanting to see a great video training series on FCPro X I highly recommend this .. totally free to watch and unlike a certain other training video series on FCP X you won't fall asleep!

I have no affiliation this isn't a spam post, just a link to a great resource for all those curious about FCPro X.

http://www.izzyvideo.com/final-cut-pro-x-tutorial/
Enjoying the new Mac Pro ... it's smokin'
Been using Apple since Apple ][ - Long on AAPL so biased
nMac Pro 6 Core, MacBookPro i7, MacBookPro i5, iPhones 5 and 5s, iPad Air, 2013 Mac mini.
Reply
Enjoying the new Mac Pro ... it's smokin'
Been using Apple since Apple ][ - Long on AAPL so biased
nMac Pro 6 Core, MacBookPro i7, MacBookPro i5, iPhones 5 and 5s, iPad Air, 2013 Mac mini.
Reply
post #131 of 151
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dick Applebaum View Post

According to a friend, there is not enough money to justify the cost of most music videos.

Mayben FCPX will change the economics.

Depends on the situation. I have a friend who does all the video work for a large church. They record every Sunday meeting. All the sermons and all the music using multi-cam... And they apparently have no problem affording it. Oh, and they use all Macs for the entire church even in the accounting department.

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply
post #132 of 151
Quote:
Originally Posted by mstone View Post

Depends on the situation. I have a friend who does all the video work for a large church. They record every Sunday meeting. All the sermons and all the music using multi-cam... And they apparently have no problem affording it. Oh, and they use all Macs for the entire church even in the accounting department.

Ha!

I was thinking more along the lines of Sara Bareilles' King of Anything; Norah Jones' Don't Know Why; Sarah McLachlan's Angel; or Kanye West's Homecoming -- the latter which I bought just to see if I could figure out how to do the compositing.

But you're talking Music Videos for All God's Chillen' -- like they used to shoot in the church scenes on Ally McBeal.


Hmmm... There's a Catholic church in downtown Tucson that has a Mariachi Mass most Sundays. Usually with some soloists and accompaniment by the choir. I could see how that would be an interesting multicam shoot -- say maybe 7-9 cameras.


Hmmm... Does the church you mention use any special lighting for the shoot?


Hmmm... There is another Catholic church in the foothills in Tucson. They have a very large 2-3 story clear window that looks out on the Catalina mountains. Every Easter they have a Sunrise Service and during the mass you can see the sun rise and paint the mountains -- they literally jump off of the background canvas -- changing colors from gray and browns to green then pinks and rose....

Awesome!


Hmmm... forget the weddings, and band jams...
"...The calm is on the water and part of us would linger by the shore, For ships are safe in harbor, but that's not what ships are for."
- Michael Lille -
Reply
"...The calm is on the water and part of us would linger by the shore, For ships are safe in harbor, but that's not what ships are for."
- Michael Lille -
Reply
post #133 of 151
I just realized something that could mitigate one of the issues with FCPX!

With Lion, you will be able to run multiple instances of OS X on a single computer.

If done properly, that would mean that you could run FCPX under one instance and FCP7 under another and have access to the files from either system.

Not as nice as an import or running both under a single OS X instance but hey, were creative, right?
"...The calm is on the water and part of us would linger by the shore, For ships are safe in harbor, but that's not what ships are for."
- Michael Lille -
Reply
"...The calm is on the water and part of us would linger by the shore, For ships are safe in harbor, but that's not what ships are for."
- Michael Lille -
Reply
post #134 of 151
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dick Applebaum View Post

With Lion, you will be able to run multiple instances of OS X on a single computer.

But you can do that now...

Originally posted by Marvin

Even if [the 5.5” iPhone exists], it doesn’t deserve to.
Reply

Originally posted by Marvin

Even if [the 5.5” iPhone exists], it doesn’t deserve to.
Reply
post #135 of 151
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

But you can do that now...

Legally?
"...The calm is on the water and part of us would linger by the shore, For ships are safe in harbor, but that's not what ships are for."
- Michael Lille -
Reply
"...The calm is on the water and part of us would linger by the shore, For ships are safe in harbor, but that's not what ships are for."
- Michael Lille -
Reply
post #136 of 151
Quote:
Originally Posted by Smiles77 View Post

Yes, it's better--for most. We pay Apple to do the research and decision making for us in creating a great product; and because we like their work, we purchase their products.

Many Android fans love the fact that Google and (most) handset makers let them make the phone into what they want. That is their advantage; and because they like that culture, they purchase those products.

Your choice is in what you choose to buy--not how the companies choose to implement their respective operating systems and handset strategy.

I'd still prefer Flash on my iPhone and iPad, with simple switch in Settings to kill it if I don't want it...
post #137 of 151
Quote:
Originally Posted by DJinTX View Post

It is a ridiculous notion to suggest Apple has been attacking Adobe. Since when does opting not to support an inferior product count as an attack? And yes Steve has made public statements including his open letter regarding flash, but this is not an attack either. Tech journalists and consumers wanted to know the situation, so of course Steve is going to give Apple's answer to the situation. Saying that Flash is inefficient and obsolete and crash-happy is not a lie, nor an attack. It is simply the truth. He didn't spew venom at Adobe, and has given them so many opportunities to fix their product. But for some reason they refuse to spend time improving this product. I think they probably could improve it if they wanted to. So either they do not want to, or they cannot. Either way, who would want this on their iPad or iPhone. Not me. I am extremely happy in my flashless mobile existence. Good riddance.

I would say that calling upon whole web community to ditch Flash and adopt HTML5 is attack, and then some.

Flash might be inferior (though some Flash/HTML5 tests didn't confirm that) but it is also de facto standard. HDD spindles are inferior to SSDs but you don't just ban them - you work on developing better technology and then you wait for it to take over. Then you switch from spindles to SSD. I think that ousting Flash (before better technology is fully developed and common enough in the wild to make easy transfer) is risky and not really the best possible way to deal with the issue, but it does seem Apple is coping well with that move.
post #138 of 151
Quote:
Originally Posted by nikon133 View Post

I would say that calling upon whole web community to ditch Flash and adopt HTML5 is attack, and then some.

Flash might be inferior (though some Flash/HTML5 tests didn't confirm that) but it is also de facto standard. HDD spindles are inferior to SSDs but you don't just ban them - you work on developing better technology and then you wait for it to take over. Then you switch from spindles to SSD. I think that ousting Flash (before better technology is fully developed and common enough in the wild to make easy transfer) is risky and not really the best possible way to deal with the issue, but it does seem Apple is coping well with that move.


Excellent post. It is definitely a shoot the messenger situation. To blame Adobe for the ineptness of some of their end users is totally unsupportable from a logical perspective. It is a smoke screen for the fact that Steve does not like the general type of content that is commonly presented using Flash. To call Adobe 'lazy' is simply hypocritical. If Apple can't protect its own operating system from a third party plugin which might be misused by inexperienced coders, then they are equally lazy. Well written Flash is not a danger to OS X.

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply
post #139 of 151
Quote:
Originally Posted by fecklesstechguy View Post

I of course can choose to pour cooking oil in my gas tank and expect it to run just like it does on 88 octane. NOT.

Apple is waiting on Adobe to prove that they can, with four people rewrite Flash to be a truly mobile function, not just a cobbled together semi-developed piece of dreck that stutters, judders and sucks battery life like a parched vampire.

BTW, try the cooking oil in the gas tank thing once on your car - you will be amazed at the performance.

That is not true. Hasn't SJ said that he will never let Flash on iOS? Under such circumstances, it is a bit delusional to expect Adobe invest time and money for something that will be rejected by default.

And regarding Flash and HTML5 performance both on desktops and mobile platforms, do yourself a favour and google around. You will find number of articles on that topic. You can start with:

http://www.themaninblue.com/writing/...ve/2010/03/22/

http://www.gamasutra.com/view/news/3...On_Android.php

http://www.craftymind.com/guimark3/
post #140 of 151
Quote:
Originally Posted by mstone View Post

With respect to music videos lip sync is the most important. Traditionally we have always done multi-cam with time code, but audio sync using audio wave analysis has some potential as it does not require the tedious time code set up.

Audio sync is only a fallback for missing time code sync & lock. Audio sync is rarely as frame accurate as a TC lock from a generator or a master camera.

There are two reasons for this: sound travels slower than light, and every camera has a slightly different frame and audio clock.

Cameras at different distances from a stage or speaker will each pick up sound at a slightly different time. It's not a problem if ALL cameras get the same master audio feed OR if you can use the sound from each individual camera whenever you switch shots.

But what often happens is you have one camera that gets clean sound from the board or source and the rest get whatever from on camera mics. So when you line up by sound all the cameras are several frames different and the words or music don't quite sync up.

Additionally, cameras, especially pro-sumer or low end pro often have slightly different clock timings, particularly with respect to audio samples. This can be seen in long takes (30+mins) where the audio and image appear to drift in and out of sync. This plays havoc with audio based line ups and they never stay lined up.

When you sync lock with a TC generator, every camera is on exactly the same clock and every frame and audio sample happens at the exact same instant. There is no question of lining up frames.

Having shot both ways, the a TC generator is always preferable. And yes, I have Plural Eyes and clapboards.
post #141 of 151
Mmmmm...

One of the things Adobe is pushing is its [somewhat limited] ability to import FCP media and
sequences into Premiere on a best effort basis.

Here's a video:

Using Final Cut Pro With Adobe Premiere Pro


and the specs:


Importing XML project files from Final Cut Pro


This is a "best effort" conversion.


Apple has no equivalent capability for accessing current or legacy FCP projects in FCPX.

In fact, you cannot buy an Apple product today, that will process the current FCP7 workload or legacy FCP7 projects.



This is a show stopper!


A Brazilian web site has detected import capabilities within FCPX:


Internal files from Final Cut Pro X proves that Apple is working on XML support [updated x2]

Leia mais: Internal files from Final Cut Pro X proves that Apple is working on XML support [updated x2] | MacMagazine


However, Apple has said thay can't do an import of FCP7 into FCPX.

Rumor is that: because Apple can't do a perfect job -- they will not do anything.


Was ist das? Das ist scheiße!


When has Apple (or any technology company) done a perfect implementation of anything -- maybe Apple should just call it a hobby.


The real question is: can Apple or anyone (with access) do an acceptable job of importing FCP7 into FCPX.

The short answer is yes:


Here is an FCP7 Sequence:

:



Here's the equivalent IN FCPX:





Here's a view of the fcp7 timeline:




And the corresponding storyline in FCPX.




Here is how the FCPX storyline might look with the thumbnails displayed and all the "track" artifacts removed:




And how the FCPX storyline looks with the compound clip expanded for editing:





OK, With the XML file and the source media from FCP7 I was able to manually approximate the import of FCP7 into FCPX.

Don't we have computers to free us from [most of] the drudgery of manual labor?



Anyway, I did not convert the whole sequence as I had proven my point:


For those who care, here is the original output from FCP7:

FCP7 Output


And my [roughly] equivalent FCPX output.

FCPX Output


So, a reasonably astute mind with the XML from FCP7 can do an acceptable job of manually importing FCP7 into FCPX.

It isn't perfect, but it's close enough!


One is reminded of the test to tell the difference between a mathematician and an engineer:

The mathematician and the engineer have their backs against the wall of a large room.

Against the opposite wall is a stunning person of the opposite sex -- stark naked.

The challenge: you can take as many moves as you want -- each time halving the distance to the person on the opposite wall.


The mathematician says that it is impossible to ever reach the person on the opposite wall.

The engineer says: "I can get close enough".


I believe it is time for Apple to get close enough!
"...The calm is on the water and part of us would linger by the shore, For ships are safe in harbor, but that's not what ships are for."
- Michael Lille -
Reply
"...The calm is on the water and part of us would linger by the shore, For ships are safe in harbor, but that's not what ships are for."
- Michael Lille -
Reply
post #142 of 151
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dick Applebaum View Post

But you're talking Music Videos for All God's Chillen'

Not quite. This particular church is Messianic English Protestant and the word Chillen' is definitely racist and implies a connotation not acceptable within their doctrine.

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply
post #143 of 151
Quote:
Originally Posted by mstone View Post

Not quite. This particular church is Messianic English Protestant and the word Chillen' is definitely racist and implies a connotation not acceptable within their doctrine.

Sorry... I am at a loss -- I just don't know how to respond to that comment.
"...The calm is on the water and part of us would linger by the shore, For ships are safe in harbor, but that's not what ships are for."
- Michael Lille -
Reply
"...The calm is on the water and part of us would linger by the shore, For ships are safe in harbor, but that's not what ships are for."
- Michael Lille -
Reply
post #144 of 151
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dick Applebaum View Post

Sorry... I am at a loss -- I just don't know how to respond to that comment.

No worries, just an FYI

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply
post #145 of 151
Quote:
Originally Posted by UrbanVoyeur View Post

Audio sync is only a fallback for missing time code sync & lock. Audio sync is rarely as frame accurate as a TC lock from a generator or a master camera.

There are two reasons for this: sound travels slower than light, and every camera has a slightly different frame and audio clock.

Cameras at different distances from a stage or speaker will each pick up sound at a slightly different time. It's not a problem if ALL cameras get the same master audio feed OR if you can use the sound from each individual camera whenever you switch shots.

But what often happens is you have one camera that gets clean sound from the board or source and the rest get whatever from on camera mics. So when you line up by sound all the cameras are several frames different and the words or music don't quite sync up.

Additionally, cameras, especially pro-sumer or low end pro often have slightly different clock timings, particularly with respect to audio samples. This can be seen in long takes (30+mins) where the audio and image appear to drift in and out of sync. This plays havoc with audio based line ups and they never stay lined up.

When you sync lock with a TC generator, every camera is on exactly the same clock and every frame and audio sample happens at the exact same instant. There is no question of lining up frames.

Having shot both ways, the a TC generator is always preferable. And yes, I have Plural Eyes and clapboards.


Yeah, I can see where a synchronized TC is superior,


However, for a lot less money and fuss, a sync sound can get you pretty close -- then if you can easily nudge the angles into sync a (a subframe at a time) you should be good to go.

I tried jam syncing 4 cameras with FCPX (Pany AVCHD, Sony HandyCam Mini Cassette, iPhone 4 and iPad 2.

It took about 5 minutes to get acceptable (to me) manual sync.

How accurate must the sync be (for 99% of multicam shoots), as you are cutting between cameras, possibly with a transition effect -- how close is close enough?
"...The calm is on the water and part of us would linger by the shore, For ships are safe in harbor, but that's not what ships are for."
- Michael Lille -
Reply
"...The calm is on the water and part of us would linger by the shore, For ships are safe in harbor, but that's not what ships are for."
- Michael Lille -
Reply
post #146 of 151
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dick Applebaum View Post

How accurate must the sync be (for 99% of multicam shoots), as you are cutting between cameras, possibly with a transition effect -- how close is close enough?

I think his point is that it needs to be dead on since you are most likely getting your audio from the booth not from the cameras. If the lip sync is off by a half frame it will be noticeable.

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply
post #147 of 151
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dick Applebaum View Post

The engineer says: "I can get close enough".

I believe it is time for Apple to get close enough!

Yeah, they should be able to make a decent go at it. Their file management doesn't help given that it creates shortcuts to referenced files, but still doable - they'd just need to create all those references when importing an XML file.

Even if they just get the in and out points of all the edits and put placeholders where it can't replicate what FCP did, it would help.

I think a lot of decisions Apple made in FCPX were quite sensible and the ones that aren't will naturally be some good marketing for their competition.

It's annoying for example that they default the import command to import from a camera but they have full keyboard customisation so you can switch it around so that command-i imports files.

Having limited FPS and resolution options will cause some people problems but they cover the most common resolutions and frame sizes. Nobody is shooting at 1024 x 768 so if you want to make footage for an iPad, work in 720p with safe zone overlays and then crop it on output. If you want 12fps video for a low bandwidth screen capture video, work in 25/30fps and export to what is needed.

What can be very annoying is the constant rendering. In FCP, you could work in DVC Pro HD or a host of different codecs natively. FCPX wants to render everything into ProRes - even ProRes files that don't match the project frame size. So say you have ProRes files that were cropped above a 720p frame size from 1080p, to allow for stabilisation, it tries to render the whole thing to ProRes again at exactly your frame size.

Not only this, it re-renders every change. If you take a small clip into FCPX in a 720p project, scale it up, let it render, scale it down, let it render and so on, it keeps render files for every change so you can end up with GBs of render files just piling up on your drive compared to tiny source clips. This is obviously to allow you to undo changes but still, if your files are in ProRes, they shouldn't need to be rendered every time for every change.

Imagine if you have 90 minutes of source footage that has a tiny black bar on top and you just want to scale it up and move it up to crop off the bar, it will put the entire timeline into orange and try to render the entire 90 minutes to disk and if the event goes on your internal, so do the render files.

Some people like native editing for everything, which some of the competition has and its ok but you can edit ProRes on any machine if you have fast enough drives and this isn't the case with codecs like AVCHD:

http://forums.adobe.com/message/3631146?tstart=0

The fact that Apple developed ProRes shows they understand how best to deal with video files in a way that works for everyone. I personally would love if every file in the world was ProRes for capture and editing and H.264 for delivery and I get the impression Apple does too but it's never going to happen as they don't offer ProRes encoders for anyone but us special Mac users and that's where it won't get widely adopted.
post #148 of 151
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvin View Post

Yeah, they should be able to make a decent go at it. Their file management doesn't help given that it creates shortcuts to referenced files, but still doable - they'd just need to create all those references when importing an XML file.

Even if they just get the in and out points of all the edits and put placeholders where it can't replicate what FCP did, it would help.

Absolutely! Then, they could show off the FCPX "To Do" markers to annotate what the import couldn't handle -- and the user could skip directly among clips needing attention.

Another thing the importer could do is pull in the render file corresponding to each clip that it couldn't handle, set corresponding in and out points -- then put it in the storyline above the clip, in a disabled state.

That way the user could enable it, see how it looked in FCP7, disable it, then try to accomplish an equivalent result with FCPX. In the project I manually imported, there were some Title Generators that aren't available in FCPX yet. I just got the render file, trimmed it to match the missing effect clip and was good to go.


Quote:
I think a lot of decisions Apple made in FCPX were quite sensible and the ones that aren't will naturally be some good marketing for their competition.

It's annoying for example that they default the import command to import from a camera but they have full keyboard customisation so you can switch it around so that command-i imports files.

Having limited FPS and resolution options will cause some people problems but they cover the most common resolutions and frame sizes. Nobody is shooting at 1024 x 768 so if you want to make footage for an iPad, work in 720p with safe zone overlays and then crop it on output. If you want 12fps video for a low bandwidth screen capture video, work in 25/30fps and export to what is needed.

What can be very annoying is the constant rendering. In FCP, you could work in DVC Pro HD or a host of different codecs natively. FCPX wants to render everything into ProRes - even ProRes files that don't match the project frame size. So say you have ProRes files that were cropped above a 720p frame size from 1080p, to allow for stabilisation, it tries to render the whole thing to ProRes again at exactly your frame size.

Not only this, it re-renders every change. If you take a small clip into FCPX in a 720p project, scale it up, let it render, scale it down, let it render and so on, it keeps render files for every change so you can end up with GBs of render files just piling up on your drive compared to tiny source clips. This is obviously to allow you to undo changes but still, if your files are in ProRes, they shouldn't need to be rendered every time for every change.

Whoa! How did you discover that? That sure can eat up a lot of disk space in a short amount of time -- especially critical on a portable.

I fooled around with this a bit and:
-- it doesn't render while wou are making the changes -- only after you stop for 2 seconds
-- it doesn't appear to re-render if you go to a setting where it has already rendered

But, I suspect that Apple will want to give the knowledgeable user some control over this: temporarily turn rendering off, set a longer interval, etc.

Quote:
Imagine if you have 90 minutes of source footage that has a tiny black bar on top and you just want to scale it up and move it up to crop off the bar, it will put the entire timeline into orange and try to render the entire 90 minutes to disk and if the event goes on your internal, so do the render files.

Some people like native editing for everything, which some of the competition has and its ok but you can edit ProRes on any machine if you have fast enough drives and this isn't the case with codecs like AVCHD:

http://forums.adobe.com/message/3631146?tstart=0

The fact that Apple developed ProRes shows they understand how best to deal with video files in a way that works for everyone. I personally would love if every file in the world was ProRes for capture and editing and H.264 for delivery and I get the impression Apple does too but it's never going to happen as they don't offer ProRes encoders for anyone but us special Mac users and that's where it won't get widely adopted.

Yeah! There are other things to be aware of. I transcoded clips from my Panny AVCHD on import. A 3-minute clip was imported as is at 306.5 MB AVC1 (I think that AVC1 is a new codec designation for FCPX -- maybe AVFoundation).

The transcoded clip came in at 2.85 GB ProRes 422.

So, your event library has the originals and any transcodes.
"...The calm is on the water and part of us would linger by the shore, For ships are safe in harbor, but that's not what ships are for."
- Michael Lille -
Reply
"...The calm is on the water and part of us would linger by the shore, For ships are safe in harbor, but that's not what ships are for."
- Michael Lille -
Reply
post #149 of 151
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dick Applebaum View Post

Whoa! How did you discover that?

I go above and beyond to find things to complain about. I actually just can't stand storage space being wasted so I make sure to know what programs are doing when they use their automated processing. You can watch the folders being created in your project render folder when a render starts.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dick Applebaum View Post

That sure can eat up a lot of disk space in a short amount of time -- especially critical on a portable.

Indeed it can and it also slows things down unnecessarily because writing to drive storage is most likely to slow down your system. It only does it when you aren't actively doing things in FCPX but it also does it when FCPX is in the background. This isn't good when it comes to Flash storage either like on a MBA.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dick Applebaum View Post

Yeah! There are other things to be aware of. I transcoded clips from my Panny AVCHD on import. A 3-minute clip was imported as is at 306.5 MB AVC1 (I think that AVC1 is a new codec designation for FCPX -- maybe AVFoundation).

The transcoded clip came in at 2.85 GB ProRes 422.

So, your event library has the originals and any transcodes.

It also keeps the proxy files there. Proxy files are quite good as they don't use as much space. If you use ProRes LT and work in that, it should save a decent amount of storage. It all comes down to bitrate. Consumer AVCHD cameras will give you maybe 9Mbps video so if you transcode to ProRes, which is 50-100Mbps, you are going to increase the storage use dramatically.

An interesting thing about AVCHD is that they are really just MPEG-4 clips in a different container (.mts), although there will likely be variants. You can actually rewrap them into a .MP4 container and they will play in Quicktime natively. There's an app here called rewrap2m4v:

https://public.me.com/catservant

You have to install ClipGrab from here:

http://clipgrab.de/en

Then you just drop a .mts onto the rewrap script and it creates a .m4v that you can open in Quicktime. It's handy for previews.
post #150 of 151
Quote:
Originally Posted by jnjnjn View Post

You were wrong about this as you are now by repeating it. It's clear from Apples response and intent before releasing the product that the focus is as firmly on professionals as on anyone else interested in editing.
The point is that pro editing doesn't have to mean that it's awkward and difficult to do without thousands of hours learning it. It can be pro and intuitive and elegant at the same time. This makes it accessible for most people using iMovie and pro editors at the same time and unifies the editing software into one codebase.

J.

Pro is about how you cut, and who you cut for. iMovie was easy too, but I don't remember anyone talking about being paid to cut with it. You might as well open a photo retouching business using iPhoto. Or do desktop publishing in TextEdit. Simple.
post #151 of 151
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dick Applebaum View Post

With Lion, you will be able to run multiple instances of OS X on a single computer.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

But you can do that now...

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dick Applebaum View Post

Legally?

Leopard Server had it way back in 2008:
http://blogs.vmware.com/vmtn/2008/01...l-leopa-1.html

As I understand if you are running Leopard or Snow Leopard Server you can use VMWare Fusion or equivalent to run Mac OS X Server as guest OSes. Correct me if I'm wrong...

Back in 2007:
http://db.tidbits.com/article/9277
"This License allows you to install and use one copy of the Mac OS X Server software (the "Mac OS X Server Software") on a single Apple-labeled computer. You may also install and use other copies of Mac OS X Server Software on the same Apple-labeled computer, provided that you acquire an individual and valid license from Apple for each of these other copies of Mac OS X Server Software."

I think the updated agreements say you can't run Snow Leopard Client as guests on a Snow Leopard Client Mac. Just Servers on Server. AFAIK. Not sure about running Snow Leopard Server as guests on a Snow Leopard Client Mac or vice versa. Any specific info on this, anyone?

Maybe this will all change in Lion. Any info on that?

Actually why was this topic in this thread? LOL
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Mac Software
AppleInsider › Forums › Software › Mac Software › Adobe continues assault on Apple's Final Cut Pro X with 'switcher program'