Apple push to win back pro editors

[David Battistella]

How are you successfully negotiating FCPX thru the "post Pipe" . Are there certain strategies for doing so ? For instance ..... how does FCPX interface with Pro Tools? What is the recommended pathway from FCPX to D.I ?

I just put a 26 minute film through "the pipe" from r3d to DI and dcp finish.

1. Import R3d's and create 5k Prores proxy media.
2. Switch the preferences to edit with proxy media
3. Edit your film.
4. Export FCP X XML (for picture)
5. Export audio using x2pro. (Creates aaf file)
6. Open list in resolve lite (export fcp 7 XML)
7. Select sequence and create a compound clip.
8. Add tc burnin to clip, Send qt export of final sequence to post (audio and picture)
9. Mix audio in protools
10. DI on Pablo
11. 4k, 2k dcp's, 4k, 2k, HD Prores masters.

there is a completely digital tape less, front to back 4k finish for theatrical projection using fcpx.

Ps, I have not included full res 4k screeners from fcpx, trailers, and stuff you have to do along the way, but basically you cut that and when you are locked switch the prefs to high quality media and it reads the r3d natively and using the 64 bit processing to render directly from the r3d with or without a rocket card.

Could have exported any 5k fx shots directly from fcp x, r3d timeline to DPs media if I needed too. The Pablo could relink those or the r3d in the conform.

Plus, I can do this on USB 3 drives.

David

 

[Ian Laurie]

Okay, so now that the thread is becoming constructive (thanks for that David, Steve and others) How about if you have a question about FCPX capabilities, ask it in a non aggressive manner and have solutions. If the solution doesn't work, politely say so, and then go away for a few months, and then ask us again when your curious again. There really is no reason to bash software on these boards. They are what they are, they work for you or they dont, if your curious if something has changed, just ask. I don't know, maybe its me getting old, but it really does seem futile on the internet these days to have a reasonable discussion about anything.

 

[Bruce Allen]

OK knowledgeable FCPX folks, here are some things that I (as a pro editor - eg someone Apple is trying to win back according to this thread title) was a little confused by with earlier FCPX versions. Maybe they have gotten better or I was just really stupid before?

Let's say you have a slightly more complex finish and need to go back and forth. What is the workflow for getting stuff back into FCPX and messing with it?

For example, when I go to a mix, I don't want just the finished mix. I want finished mix, plus stems - eg dialogue, music, fx, etc.

If I need to do a re-cut either picture or audio down the line (which happens a lot), then I put my stems on tracks 1-8 (labeled DX, MX, etc). And I go nuts cutting.

As for all of the individual audio chunks... I either move then down and turn then off (so they're still there if I need them), or I match back into the sequence with all of the original audio, grab what I need, then punch the stuff I need into the stems really quickly. How does that work with FCPX?

I know that FCPX has "Roles" now (thank heavens) but that has mostly been publicized for export. How does the whole trackless thing work when you are at the end of the project and have stems?

Also, can you generate an EDL with handles now? EG let's say you're working on an indie movie with VFX and you want to generate an EDL of just a sequence with all of the VFX shots in it, plus 10-frame handles on either side, to send to the VFX folks along with DPX files?

Final question: can FCPX work with image sequences yet? Not as a series of still images with 1 frame duration but as clips?

Thanks a lot!

Bruce Allen
www.boacinema.com

 

[David Battistella]

Bruce,

for stems it should not be a big problem.

Lets say your getting your stems from a d88.

you could

1. Import the 8 tracks
2. Select all you existing sequence audio and create a compound clip and mute the compound clip (kind of like moving it down and muting it but neater in the timeline) or even put it above picture. Name the compound clip original audio.
3. Place the 8 tracks in sync with your two pop.
4. You can create custom roles or names for these tracks, so you could create roles called track 1, 2, 3 etc, or name them dialog, m&e 1, music, etc according to you taste.
5. Edit or blade edit those tracks as you normally would keeping your waveforms on.
6. If you need to acces old audio (and match it to the mix) just open up the compound clip you created and grab it from there.

On handles.

i think if I wanted to get the handles it could be pretty easy. If I open up the fcp x XML in resolve I can easily add the handle then I generate the lists from there. Fcp x does not export cmx edls, or fcp 7 edls. The had to create a richer edl format for their new database structure and resolve reads it perfectly and acts as a great translator.

I think there is a small app that takes any fcp x XML and converts it to other edl formats as well. I know that there is one in the works.

You can export a DPs sequence from the fcp x timeline (fcp 7 could not do that without an expensive plugin)

if you import an image sequence you end up with a editable clip.


david

 

[Neil W. Smith]

Saturday 27th - 4K MADE EASY training

Saturday 27th - 4K MADE EASY training

+1

I'm attracted to the ProRes4K codec and the speed I keep hearing about. But if its still "little orphan X-ee", then it's essentially QTPro for $300 or only appropriate for one stop post scenarios which is pretty limiting. Neil W Smith at Lumaforge is threatening to prove FCPX is actually a viable tool as of version 10.0.8 at his class on the 27th - I'll be in the front row with a positive attitude and an open mind...

Cheers - #19

Looking forward to seeing you in the front row, Blair .... and to reading your report afterwards on RU.

Now, here's a great example of a professional post guy who is already a master at what he does but who still has the willingness to suss out what's happening in the world of FCP X workflow ... some of you may know that Blair was one of the original founders of the 'RED Ninjas' later known as the '4K Ninjas' ... a band of intrepid brothers who roamed the streets of LA fighting for the cause of 4K way back when it was still considered a 'scam' by those that thought they knew better ... Blair has forgotten more than most of us will ever know about getting .r3d RAW footage through the post pipeline in the most efficient manner.

This man is already an expert in 4K RED workflow .... and yet, he has the smarts to invest some of his precious time in seeing if he's missing something .... why is he doing this? ... I'll let him answer that question for himself but I'd hazard a guess that it's something to do with sustaining his competitive advantage in a field where every Tom, Dick and Harry who buys a Scarlet suddenly thinks he's a genius filmmaker who is going to become the next Spielberg .... knowledge is power .... desktop tools are evolving rapidly ... look what happened to the still photography market once Photoshop took off ... DSLRs and PhotoShop changed how we worked with digital still imagery .... hell, when Jim was first tweaking the original 72 MB TIFFs off the first RED prototype camera for IBC 2006, what tool did he use to correct the images before sending them off to Graeme to test his latest de-bayering algorithms? ... you guessed it, Jim is a master of Photoshop curves.

RED cameras provide the foundation for visual story telling but NLEs are the walls and color correction the ceiling ... you can't tell a moving picture story without a NLE .... Apple had a very successful product in FCP 7 but they also knew that it had reached the end of its 32 bit shelf-life .... they're investing serious engineering resources into developing the 64 bit replacement ... did they bring it to market in the most effective manner? ... surprisingly not for a company that's supposed to know a thing or two about marketing ... but they stuck to their guns and have been listening intensely to editors around the world, garnering their input and refining the functionality based on real-user feedback.

FCP X 10.0.8 is nothing like FCP X 10.0.0.

Will FCP X continue to evolve at a rapid pace? ... you betcha ... will you have to continue to learn new tricks to stay ahead? ... only if you want to make money and be involved in the art and craft of visual story telling. No technology worth its salt is going to stand still ... and no company who wants to stay in the digital acquisition and file based game is going to stick with last year's ways of doing things.

If you think NLE software engineering is easy, have a look at one of Apple's competitors' financial results for the last five years ... they haven't made a profit in five years ... they can't post last year's financial report because of accounting issues ... NASDAQ has just sent them a nasty letter demanding they get their shit together or else!

Guys, learn to embrace change ... Apple is serious about our business ... they will regain their leadership role in the NLE marketplace.

Easy to use, super friendly desktop video editing tools will become as widespread as PhotoShop and its many imitators and derivatives ... video is becoming an integral part of our everyday visual grammar and social communication .... FCP X is a great tool to help you tell your stories ... learn it, master it, use it to your competitive advantage.

Neil

 

[Joachim Hoge]

Great to see so much information entering this thread. Thanks to everyone that has shared their knowledge.

 

[Mathieu Ghekiere]

OK knowledgeable FCPX folks, here are some things that I (as a pro editor - eg someone Apple is trying to win back according to this thread title) was a little confused by with earlier FCPX versions. Maybe they have gotten better or I was just really stupid before?

Let's say you have a slightly more complex finish and need to go back and forth. What is the workflow for getting stuff back into FCPX and messing with it?

For example, when I go to a mix, I don't want just the finished mix. I want finished mix, plus stems - eg dialogue, music, fx, etc.

If I need to do a re-cut either picture or audio down the line (which happens a lot), then I put my stems on tracks 1-8 (labeled DX, MX, etc). And I go nuts cutting.

As for all of the individual audio chunks... I either move then down and turn then off (so they're still there if I need them), or I match back into the sequence with all of the original audio, grab what I need, then punch the stuff I need into the stems really quickly. How does that work with FCPX?

I know that FCPX has "Roles" now (thank heavens) but that has mostly been publicized for export. How does the whole trackless thing work when you are at the end of the project and have stems?

Also, can you generate an EDL with handles now? EG let's say you're working on an indie movie with VFX and you want to generate an EDL of just a sequence with all of the VFX shots in it, plus 10-frame handles on either side, to send to the VFX folks along with DPX files?

Final question: can FCPX work with image sequences yet? Not as a series of still images with 1 frame duration but as clips?

Thanks a lot!

Bruce Allen
www.boacinema.com

Hi Bruce,

some videos that maybe give you an idea of how Roles can work:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W9SKJoarCoI

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h-wlJp9TauQ

I think everyone agrees Roles can get better (group them in the timeline, have an audio mixer to use with them, color coding, ...) but personally, I *love* the concept of roles versus tracks, because it goes back to the content, the metadata, and not just on which track it is. In a way, I think it's more flexible, especially in combination with the timeline index and future potential of it.

About EDL's, I know there is a program that does it, but I'm not sure about handles, and I don't have experience with it: http://xmil.biz/EDL-X/EDL-X.shtml

For ProTools there's http://www.x2pro.net (which can export with handles).

There's also

I don't think FCPX can work with image sequences yet. But I always have a very simple workflow for it: open it in QT7, export it as a Prores, and voila. Doesn't take a lot of time - but I only use it for timelapses here and there. Considering that Motion 5 has support for image sequences (doesn't it?) I would think it's a matter of time until FCPX has it.

Kind regards,

M.

 

[shashbugu]

I just put a 26 minute film through "the pipe" from r3d to DI and dcp finish.

1. Import R3d's and create 5k Prores proxy media.
2. Switch the preferences to edit with proxy media
3. Edit your film.
4. Export FCP X XML (for picture)
5. Export audio using x2pro. (Creates aaf file)
6. Open list in resolve lite (export fcp 7 XML)
7. Select sequence and create a compound clip.
8. Add tc burnin to clip, Send qt export of final sequence to post (audio and picture)
9. Mix audio in protools
10. DI on Pablo
11. 4k, 2k dcp's, 4k, 2k, HD Prores masters.

there is a completely digital tape less, front to back 4k finish for theatrical projection using fcpx.

Ps, I have not included full res 4k screeners from fcpx, trailers, and stuff you have to do along the way, but basically you cut that and when you are locked switch the prefs to high quality media and it reads the r3d natively and using the 64 bit processing to render directly from the r3d with or without a rocket card.

Could have exported any 5k fx shots directly from fcp x, r3d timeline to DPs media if I needed too. The Pablo could relink those or the r3d in the conform.

Plus, I can do this on USB 3 drives.

David

Wow!!!! 11 steps, Wheeew!!! my Lord, thats so 2012. Why not just open your project in
Smoke 2013,
transcode to Prores LT, edit, vfx, grade, mix audio, DI conform hi res DPX or 4k, export.

One Program.

 

[shashbugu]

Actually the figure is more like 85% of seats in Europe, and 95% in the USA/Canada. Most people have zero interest in low-budget indies. In home video, (VOD, blu-ray) there is more indy interest, but only in genre fiilms with budgets of 1 million or more - which are not one-man band affairs either. The editor and the colorist are most often not the same person.

You're talking about no-budget long-tail doco shows or whatever - these are an awful way to make a living.

Thank you for making that very clear. Its amazing how many people can't wrap their heads around this simple fact

 

[Neil W. Smith]

FCP X to Resolve to SMOKE workflow

FCP X to Resolve to SMOKE workflow

Wow!!!! 11 steps, Wheeew!!! my Lord, thats so 2012. Why not just open your project in
Smoke 2013,
transcode to Prores LT, edit, vfx, grade, mix audio, DI conform hi res DPX or 4k, export.

One Program.

Agree to a certain extent - we already incorporate Autodesk's SMOKE into our 4K FCP X and DaVinci Resolve workflow demos ... however, I have to say that though SMOKE is a great product and is very powerful it has a somewhat steep learning curve and of course is a lot more expensive than $299 (FCP X) and $999 (DaVinci Resolve) .... a skilled and experienced SMOKE artist can work wonders with Autodesk products but getting an ex FCP 7 editor up to that level of proficiency takes a lot longer than taking someone from FCP 7 up to FCP X.

Also, because we leverage Apple's XSAN in our 4kFLOW pipeline we like the idea of different artists being able to access the same set of RAW files from different workstations ... not everyone is a skilled SMOKE operator like you and in a shared storage environment with multiple client workstations we see the need for separate artists to handle cutting, grading and VFX/compositing.

XSAN plus FCP X as the backbone to a pipeline that has separate SMOKE, Resolve, Redcine-X, Photoshop and After Effects workstations seems to make a lot of sense in a multi-user workflow.

At our 4K MADE EASY Training Day we will be demoing the round-tripping between FCP X and SMOKE and DaVinci Resolve ... in our mind, that's an incredible Apple based 4K pipeline. We don't go into details on SMOKE functionality (that's a different kind of training session) but we do work closely with Autodesk to test the XML round-tripping between SMOKE and FCP X.

Neil

 

[shashbugu]

Agree to a certain extent - we already incorporate Autodesk's SMOKE into our 4K FCP X and DaVinci Resolve workflow demos ... however, I have to say that though SMOKE is a great product and is very powerful it has a somewhat steep learning curve and of course is a lot more expensive than $299 (FCP X) and $999 (DaVinci Resolve) .... a skilled and experienced SMOKE artist can work wonders with Autodesk products but getting an ex FCP 7 editor up to that level of proficiency takes a lot longer than taking someone from FCP 7 up to FCP X.

Also, because we leverage Apple's XSAN in our 4kFLOW pipeline we like the idea of different artists being able to access the same set of RAW files from different workstations ... not everyone is a skilled SMOKE operator like you and in a shared storage environment with multiple client workstations we see the need for separate artists to handle cutting, grading and VFX/compositing.

XSAN plus FCP X as the backbone to a pipeline that has separate SMOKE, Resolve, Redcine-X, Photoshop and After Effects workstations seems to make a lot of sense in a multi-user workflow.

At our 4K MADE EASY Training Day we will be demoing the round-tripping between FCP X and SMOKE and DaVinci Resolve ... in our mind, that's an incredible Apple based 4K pipeline. We don't go into details on SMOKE functionality (that's a different kind of training session) but we do work closely with Autodesk to test the XML round-tripping between SMOKE and FCP X.

Neil

fair enough. Agreed.

 

[Robert Ruffo New]

Looking forward to seeing you in the front row, Blair .... and to reading your report afterwards on RU.

Now, here's a great example of a professional post guy who is already a master at what he does but who still has the willingness to suss out what's happening in the world of FCP X workflow ... some of you may know that Blair was one of the original founders of the 'RED Ninjas' later known as the '4K Ninjas' ... a band of intrepid brothers who roamed the streets of LA fighting for the cause of 4K way back when it was still considered a 'scam' by those that thought they knew better ... Blair has forgotten more than most of us will ever know about getting .r3d RAW footage through the post pipeline in the most efficient manner.

This man is already an expert in 4K RED workflow .... and yet, he has the smarts to invest some of his precious time in seeing if he's missing something .... why is he doing this? ... I'll let him answer that question for himself but I'd hazard a guess that it's something to do with sustaining his competitive advantage in a field where every Tom, Dick and Harry who buys a Scarlet suddenly thinks he's a genius filmmaker who is going to become the next Spielberg .... knowledge is power .... desktop tools are evolving rapidly ... look what happened to the still photography market once Photoshop took off ... DSLRs and PhotoShop changed how we worked with digital still imagery .... hell, when Jim was first tweaking the original 72 MB TIFFs off the first RED prototype camera for IBC 2006, what tool did he use to correct the images before sending them off to Graeme to test his latest de-bayering algorithms? ... you guessed it, Jim is a master of Photoshop curves.

RED cameras provide the foundation for visual story telling but NLEs are the walls and color correction the ceiling ... you can't tell a moving picture story without a NLE .... Apple had a very successful product in FCP 7 but they also knew that it had reached the end of its 32 bit shelf-life .... they're investing serious engineering resources into developing the 64 bit replacement ... did they bring it to market in the most effective manner? ... surprisingly not for a company that's supposed to know a thing or two about marketing ... but they stuck to their guns and have been listening intensely to editors around the world, garnering their input and refining the functionality based on real-user feedback.

FCP X 10.0.8 is nothing like FCP X 10.0.0.

Will FCP X continue to evolve at a rapid pace? ... you betcha ... will you have to continue to learn new tricks to stay ahead? ... only if you want to make money and be involved in the art and craft of visual story telling. No technology worth its salt is going to stand still ... and no company who wants to stay in the digital acquisition and file based game is going to stick with last year's ways of doing things.

If you think NLE software engineering is easy, have a look at one of Apple's competitors' financial results for the last five years ... they haven't made a profit in five years ... they can't post last year's financial report because of accounting issues ... NASDAQ has just sent them a nasty letter demanding they get their shit together or else!

Guys, learn to embrace change ... Apple is serious about our business ... they will regain their leadership role in the NLE marketplace.

Easy to use, super friendly desktop video editing tools will become as widespread as PhotoShop and its many imitators and derivatives ... video is becoming an integral part of our everyday visual grammar and social communication .... FCP X is a great tool to help you tell your stories ... learn it, master it, use it to your competitive advantage.

Neil

This is incredibly arrogant.

I know many very highly paid, cutting edge post house who make lots and lots of money with no decline in sight who do not use FCPX, and only edit on Avid. They will not be "left behind" anything. They work on AAA features, videos for top-ten music artists, etc.

Just because something is new does not mean it is an improvement. And yes, we all should try new things with an open mind, but a working professional should pick and chose what works intelligently, based on a complex mix of criteria.

Rather than resembling Red, the pro-FCPX guys here sound more like 5D MKII proponents a few years ago. "It works for me and my no-budget Vimeo work, therefore it is the new "in" thing" - join us or be a dinosaur" etc. It was nonsense then, it is nonsense now.

 

[Terry VerHaar]

Who is arrogant in this discussion? You must not be a "working pro" if you don't do the kind of work I do, the way I do it.

Yea - and all those "cutting edge post houses" are just rolling in dough.

Wow.

 

[Bruce Allen]

Who is arrogant in this discussion? You must not be a "working pro" if you don't do the kind of work I do, the way I do it.

Yea - and all those "cutting edge post houses" are just rolling in dough.

Wow.

Well, both parties are being arrogant. It is definitely arrogant to say that the people who don't learn FCPX will be left behind.

Also, what do you know about the financial state of post houses to make those statements?

The trailer company I work for, which has a gigantic Avid system, is doing quite well, thank you. Don't insult us, please. Trailer editing is a job where you have multiple companies competing to cut the same material into the best 2 minute presentation of movie. It's basically competitive editing. We are quite proud of beating a bunch of other companies with our edits of trailers for The Avengers, for example.

Also, just because folks don't choose to learn FCPX now doesn't mean that they won't very quickly learn FCPX when it gets the features they need. Editing isn't really about any one app.

Anyway, I really enjoyed David's notes and look forward to having a go at trying some of the things he suggested. Can we get back to that, please?

Bruce Allen
www.boacinema.com

 

[Eric Santiago]

Wow!!!! 11 steps, Wheeew!!! my Lord, thats so 2012. Why not just open your project in
Smoke 2013,
transcode to Prores LT, edit, vfx, grade, mix audio, DI conform hi res DPX or 4k, export.

One Program.

Some can agree to this but isnt the cost between the two a bit off?

 

[Bruce Allen]

Some can agree to this but isnt the cost between the two a bit off?

Not that much... a very small percentage of total cost actually:

FCPX + Motion + Plugins + Mac + Monitor + Hard Drive Storage + Desk + Chair + Rental of Office Space
Smoke + Mac + Plugins + Monitor + Hard Drive Storage + Desk + Chair + Rental of Office Space

Plus if your editing time is $600+ per day and Smoke saves you a few days and brings in more / better clients... you will make money.

I understand the high cost is off-putting but if editing is your actual profession (and that's the title of this this thread), it makes sense to use the best tool. Whether that is FCPX or Smoke or Avid or Premiere or more likely all of them.

Personally I go for the "all of them" route - which is why I am interested in FCPX and own it. Just have hit a few problems so far.

This probably also explains why there is a divide between people angry over EDL and others who are like "but there's a 3rd-party app".

Some pros are angry at the idea of wasting time finding a 3rd party EDL app and learning how to use it. This makes them really mad because they just want to hit Export EDL and go back to billing clients $100 per hour or whatever. Try telling a client "oh, I have to bill you $200 to export an EDL because I'm using FCPX and I had issues installing the 3rd-party app"... they will laugh at you. Or if you held up their $300-per hour online session because you couldn't get them an EDL, they will not laugh. Also, you would not believe what a hassle it is getting an app installed in a professional environment sometimes. For example, you're freelancing on someone else's system... or you don't have admin rights on the system.

The whole idea is that time is money. Now, FCPX can save you time, for sure. It has a lot of cool features. So it is not a 1-way street at all.

Bruce Allen
www.boacinema.com

 

[Hrvoje Simic]

This man is already an expert in 4K RED workflow .... and yet, he has the smarts to invest some of his precious time in seeing if he's missing something ....

Interesting approach.

Apple had a very successful product in FCP 7 but they also knew that it had reached the end of its 32 bit shelf-life ....

So they decided to use the decade old approach of rudimentary consumer video editing apps, left tons of professional video editors shocked, lost tons of professional editors who switched, tried to convince tons of editors they are just old fashioned and don't want to "embrace the change" which is based on multiple flawed principles for a large portion of requirements, then asked those same editors (compared to whom they know better) to help them improve the product and fix the flaws.

did they bring it to market in the most effective manner? ... surprisingly not for a company that's supposed to know a thing or two about marketing ...

That's one option.

Another option is that a company doesn't come to 137 Billion in cash reserves without thorough planning, and that its marketing stayed very good.

In that option that company might have done some market analysis, found out that more and more people have access to video content creation tools and wish to make something themselves, that larger income comes with catering a larger market, that one product might require less investment and expenditures than two, and that a bunch of FCP7 users might want to continue using the platform they invested in and help them with the feedback (without fee) to compensate for the flaws.

but they stuck to their guns and have been listening intensely to editors around the world, garnering their input and refining the functionality based on real-user feedback.

If the tool is revolutionary and based on a completely new paradigm, and if the "old ways" are to be avoided,
the feedback carries a potential of damaging a new paradigm, because it comes from the editors who have been working attuned to the "old ways".

look what happened to the still photography market once Photoshop took off ... DSLRs and PhotoShop changed how we worked with digital still imagery .... hell, when Jim was first tweaking the original 72 MB TIFFs off the first RED prototype camera for IBC 2006, what tool did he use to correct the images before sending them off to Graeme to test his latest de-bayering algorithms? ... you guessed it, Jim is a master of Photoshop curves.

What is the basis of this analogy ?

Easy to use, super friendly desktop video editing tools will become as widespread as PhotoShop and its many imitators and derivatives ... v
ideo is becoming an integral part of our everyday visual grammar and social communication ....

http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2397215,00.asp

What does this have to do with having a viable FCP7 successor (along FCPx) ?

 

[Eric Santiago]

Not that much... a very small percentage of total cost actually...

Just ref to software of course

 

[Mike Garrick]

Yes we all know the following .....

FCPX is not FCP 7
FCPX is not Avid
FCPX is not Premier
FCPX pisses off a lot people
FCPX is different to other NLE's.
FCPX is cheap.
FCPX cant be used on PC.

Anything I missed ?

Now thats out of the way can we please move on from the FCPX hate & start trying to understand this software for people who are considering adding it to their NLE quiver. I'm in that boat right now as my Mac Pro died (dam you fate) right in the middle of a job. So in the next day or so I'm buying a Retina display or an Imac & for a miserly $300 get FCPX as well.

So before I embark on the frustration of learning a new NLE I would like to know exactly what I'm getting into with threads like this . Possible of impossible ?

P.S. @ David B.

Thanks for the long & considered reply. Interesting you can get AAF files out of FCPX with 3rd party app. Never new that. AAF opens straight up in Pro-tools & I've used it previously in getting edits into post houses.

 

[David Battistella]

I highly recommend buying and doing some training along with the new purchase. I bought Larry Jordan's training series, but ripple training is excellent as well.

I edited stuff beforehand with the software, but the training helps explain what the software does, while explaining how it differs from what we are all "used" to after twenty years of editing with linear thinking NLE's.

i bought the training and watched a couple of tutorials a day. It s extremely helpful.

I used to be a "figure it all out by myself" person, but its actually really worth learning what the software "does" do and the logic behind the way it is set up.



PS: I'm not telling anyone not to use Avid or premiere, nor am I here complaining about those pieces of software. I'm proficient in both of them as I am with many different cameras, etc. I encourage everyone to use what ever tool maximizes their personal creativity and fits their own working environment. People wanted fcp 7 on steroids, apple went a different direction, If I use a epic, Alexa, 5d, go pro to shoot a job, I'm still a pro, I don't let the tool dictate my professionalism. I don't do that with NLEs either. Lately I tend to prefer capturing with an epic and editing with FCP x. I have a workflow that let's me interface with any post house on earth, I'm not to worried about this stuff.

But, like when red first showed up, I don't agree with people shitting on something for the sake of it. My overriding attitude is that change is good, it keeps the mind nimble.

having spent a fair bit of time on various forums I did make this post a while back that might be worth revisiting...

http://www.reduser.net/forum/showthread.php?67476-THREADIQUITTE