Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Log in
  • Hey all, just changed over the backend after 15 years I figured time to give it a bit of an update, its probably gonna be a bit weird for most of you and i am sure there is a few bugs to work out but it should kinda work the same as before... hopefully :)

Work flow: Resolve to FCPX or FCPX to Resolve?

R

Ron Michaels

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 17, 2016
Messages
104
Reaction score
0
Points
0
[FONT=myriad-pro, sans-serif]Sorry pros I'm fairly new to this, been searching and learning quite a bit but a few general pointers will help piece it all together for me.
Best workflow?[/FONT]
If you are working with cinemaDNG you need resolve to transcode it first before FCPX can use it correct?
But if you are working with RED footage, there is the RED plugin to import directly into FCPX. Which would be edit first, grade second, then final Export from Resolve?

Thanks
 
Interesting your not the first to say that. A few over at creativecow said the same thing. And the more I search, the more I see people dumping FCPX. Shame if i didn't use a $300 piece of software that I own...lol
Thanks for the input
 
Zeb B said:
Just use Resolve for your Editing function as well and skip the FCP round trip bother. If you are shooting Cinema DNG then Black Magic has a warm place for you in Resolve. RED is easy as well. Use proxy / optimized footage within Resolve for smooth playback. See this thread to get started on your journey:
http://www.reduser.net/forum/showthread.php?147050-BLoR-DaVinci-Resources

Resolve is quickly becoming a full featured NLE. Learn it since it will be one of the last standing in 3-5 years after Apple dumps FCP
Click to expand...


I second that. After learning about Davinci stepping up its game with editing functionality I switched to it from FCPX and certainly haven't looked back.
 
I have to disagree with everyone . Fcpx is by far the easiest most advanced NLE. Not to say the others AERNT power full or good ... But in my opinion, fcpx , with all its available 3rd party plugins , and the way it operates ... It's by far the best overall (once you learn). I have absolutely NO issues editing all my red footage in fcpx , and with all the plugins and motion templates I own .... Everything is so much easier
 
I noticed fcpx has some super fast render speeds compared to others. But resolve isn't far behind, from what I saw on YouTube, resolve even beat premier speed tests. It would be cool if resolve had audio syncing, and plugins to correct lens distortion and things of that nature.
 
Kalechi Noel said:
I have to disagree with everyone . Fcpx is by far the easiest most advanced NLE. Not to say the others AERNT power full or good ... But in my opinion, fcpx , with all its available 3rd party plugins , and the way it operates ... It's by far the best overall (once you learn). I have absolutely NO issues editing all my red footage in fcpx , and with all the plugins and motion templates I own .... Everything is so much easier
Click to expand...

I agree. FCPX is a very powerful editor. I am also looking for a workflow where I can do my editing in FCPX, then do my final color grade in DaVinci Resolve. What I'd like to do is do all my edits in FCPX and do some minor color grading there, then take the timeline to DaVinci and work with the RAW for the final grade. The problem is usually the timeline gets mangled in DaVinci. (I haven't tried it with the latest version.) Honestly, if there were plugins for FCPX that would let me do a more professional color grade, with nodes, a keyer, and tracking, then I'd be happy to stay in FCPX.
 
Jose Mojica said:
I agree. FCPX is a very powerful editor. I am also looking for a workflow where I can do my editing in FCPX, then do my final color grade in DaVinci Resolve. What I'd like to do is do all my edits in FCPX and do some minor color grading there, then take the timeline to DaVinci and work with the RAW for the final grade. The problem is usually the timeline gets mangled in DaVinci. (I haven't tried it with the latest version.) Honestly, if there were plugins for FCPX that would let me do a more professional color grade, with nodes, a keyer, and tracking, then I'd be happy to stay in FCPX.
Click to expand...


Exactly the reason to ditch FCXP and go straight to Davinci. Round tripping sucks and simply adds a lot of unnecessary work, now with Davinci's improved NLE, which is really great right now, theres just no need. And I wouldn't waste your time waiting for Apple to add more very advanced features to FCPX like tracking etc. I don't think that will ever happen. Regarding 3rd party plugins, OFX is with Davinci and many more developers are starting to offer OFX versions of there plugins.
 
Brody_B said:
Exactly the reason to ditch FCXP and go straight to Davinci. Round tripping sucks and simply adds a lot of unnecessary work, now with Davinci's improved NLE, which is really great right now, theres just no need. And I wouldn't waste your time waiting for Apple to add more very advanced features to FCPX like tracking etc. I don't think that will ever happen. Regarding 3rd party plugins, OFX is with Davinci and many more developers are starting to offer OFX versions of there plugins.
Click to expand...

I'm happy with FCPX. I tried DaVinci's editing and I didn't like it as much as I like FCPX. But NLEs are a personal preference. You have to go with the tool that feels best to you. I'm curious though, I didn't spend as much time with DaVinci's NLE as some of you have, is it to the level where you can edit a feature in it? When I heard the DaVinci guys talk about it they said it was only for quick edits.
 
Since FCPX is very easy to get started with, I think there are pretty large number of users who have dabbled a bit with it including color correction, secondary correction, animated masks and so on. Maybe they've worked with compound clips and at least generally understand what the magnetic timeline is about.

When you've gotten this far, it's easy to think you 'know' FCPX. Many opinions about it is probably from this user lever, or lower.

FCPX has many organisational features that allow for great speed even with larger materials. But these kind of things are not the 'sexy' features that pop up on forums casually discussing it.

Needless to say, DaVinci is leagues ahead in the color correction department, including tracking, NR (even if most people typically go 3rd party) and so on. As has been mentioned, DaVinci becomes a more potent editor with every iteration and if you learn it properly from the ground up I think it's easily good enough, not to mention great enough, for many use cases.

That said, there seem to be an unwarranted pre-disposition to dismiss FCPX because... well who knows.... It's probably the old "if you're software is bad, it makes mine look good!"

I think few FCPX complaints come from users who know the ins and outs (partly of course, because those users are deep into it because it's a good fit).
 
AndreeMarkefors said:
FCPX has many organisational features that allow for great speed even with larger materials. But these kind of things are not the 'sexy' features that pop up on forums casually discussing it.

Needless to say, DaVinci is leagues ahead in the color correction department, including tracking, NR (even if most people typically go 3rd party) and so on. As has been mentioned, DaVinci becomes a more potent editor with every iteration and if you learn it properly from the ground up I think it's easily good enough, not to mention great enough, for many use cases.

That said, there seem to be an unwarranted pre-disposition to dismiss FCPX because... well who knows.... It's probably the old "if you're software is bad, it makes mine look good!"

I think few FCPX complaints come from users who know the ins and outs (partly of course, because those users are deep into it because it's a good fit).
Click to expand...

I go back and forth between FCPX and DaVinci and frankly, I just like the more modern magnetic timeline and the speed with which I can cut on FCPX. DaVinci is doing a good job at making improvements, but I still much prefer FCPX for everything I do. People often say it is good for short projects and not long ones (I know about Focus and WTF and how they accomplished their workflows) but that just isn't true. Consider this.
The Forever Project shot in stereo on RED Dragons and a BMD camera just for giggles.
 
I love FCPX too and I'm going to stick with it... Going back to the original question though, which I'm interested in as well, are there things you can do to minimize the round tripping? I like the fact that you can drop your .r3d RAW files directly onto the FCPX timeline, do some minor color corrections with the plugin, and edit your entire piece there. FCPX is great at creating proxies if you need it. The question then is, what happens when you're done editing and want to go to DaVinci? I know you can import a FCPX timeline into DaVinci but I have to say, that seems to get mangled often for me because it either can't find all the assets or there are plugins it doesn't know about. I wish it would just say, he are the portions of these RAW clips that were selected, in this order, now color grade them.
 
Jose, I get what you are saying. The good thing at this point is that the things that don't show up in Resolve, effects and the different plugins and the like, are carried in the xml file, so when you go back to FCPX those things will still be intact. It makes for a cluttered timeline in Resolve, but it isn't that hard to ignore. (Depending of course on the complexity of your edit.) Clearly Resolve's NLE resembles FCPX far more closely than Premier or Avid for instance, but as long as it remains track based, it will be limited in how it handles FXPX xml files. Both it and Premier feel kind of like FCP 8 would have been I think. What I think would be cool (this will never happen...) would be a DaVinci Resolve plugin that works inside FCPX, giving you some of the most used features. Denver Riddle's Color Finale works for limited primary corrections mostly, but is a bit finicky and difficult to control precisely. So, give me a mini Resolve inside FCPX with a control surface interface (Tangent Element comes to mind) and I would be very happy!!!
 
Scot Yount said:
What I think would be cool (this will never happen...) would be a DaVinci Resolve plugin that works inside FCPX, giving you some of the most used features. Denver Riddle's Color Finale works for limited primary corrections mostly, but is a bit finicky and difficult to control precisely. So, give me a mini Resolve inside FCPX with a control surface interface (Tangent Element comes to mind) and I would be very happy!!!
Click to expand...

I was about to try the demo for Red Giant's Magic Bullet Looks for FCPX. Have you tried it? I haven't tried Color Finale.

Looking at the workflow from Whiskey Tango Foxtrot it seems they always start with a quick color grade and generate ProRes 4444XQ. Although they didn't say they were using DaVinci, the workflow is similar. You import the RAW files into DaVinci, output ProRes, edit in FCPX, then re-import the timeline into DaVinci, color grade, and repeat...I did notice, however, from their screenshots that they had simplified their timeline a lot. Everything was on a single layer. Often when I edit, I might have video clips layered on top of others. They didn't, and I wonder if that's the trick. After you're done with the edits in FCPX, simplify your timeline before exporting to DaVinci.
 
I think they had condensed their "layers" into compound clips.

Edit:
I should add that I believe the reason in WTF they start with Resolve is because that is what the DIT is using on set. I don't start with DaVinci myself. FCPX works just fine with raw files from our RED cameras and so that's what I do. I do my edit (no transcoding) and even include the graphics in the xml file I generate for import into Resolve. Then, in Resolve, I turn off the things that don't work (the graphics track for instance) and do the grade. I then export an xml for FCPX and when I bring that into Final Cut, I do any final polishing before export. Works for me.
 
Last edited:
Scot Yount said:
I should add that I believe the reason in WTF they start with Resolve is because that is what the DIT is using on set. I don't start with DaVinci myself. FCPX and work just fine with raw files from our RED cameras and so that's what I do. I do my edit and even include the graphics in the xml file I generate for import into Resolve. Then, in Resolve, I turn off the things that don't work (the graphics track for instance) and do the grade. I then export an xml for FCPX and when I bring that into Final Cut, I do any final polishing before export. Works for me.
Click to expand...

Great, this is exactly the way I want to work. The part I'm missing then is that last step...you import the xml from FCPX into resolve, now you're working with raw files in Resolve, right? Then you do your grade and export xml. Then you import that xml back into FCPX, and FCPX then preserves your color grade? I didn't know that worked. I always thought it only worked if you exported ProRes from DaVinci and used those files to build the FCPX timeline. Cool, I'm going to try that.
 
Where would Motion 5 fit into the mix. After "final export"?
 
Scot Yount said:
I should add that I believe the reason in WTF they start with Resolve is because that is what the DIT is using on set. I don't start with DaVinci myself. FCPX works just fine with raw files from our RED cameras and so that's what I do. I do my edit (no transcoding) and even include the graphics in the xml file I generate for import into Resolve. Then, in Resolve, I turn off the things that don't work (the graphics track for instance) and do the grade. I then export an xml for FCPX and when I bring that into Final Cut, I do any final polishing before export. Works for me.
Click to expand...

I found this from Apple talking about the RED-FCPX-DaVinci workflow. https://www.apple.com/final-cut-pro/docs/RED_Workflows_with_Final_Cut_Pro_X.pdf

Correct me if I'm wrong but it seems like there are two common workflows.

Workflow#1:
1. Import RAW footage into DaVinci, do minor color grading, save project.
2. Export ProRes files (XML is not necessary).
3. Import ProRes files into FCPX and edit.
4. Export XML from FCPX.
5. Import FCPX XML into original DaVinci project. You now have a timeline that resembles the FCPX timeline. Do the final grade.
6. Export ProRes files again to the same location as before (XML is not necessary).
7. Open FCPX project. FCPX should grab the new versions of the ProRes files from the same location.
8. Now you have a graded project in FCPX. Make minor tweaks and export for delivery.

Workflow #2:
1. Import RED RAW files into FCPX.
2. Do minor color corrections and Edit project.
3. Export XML from FCPX.
4. Import FCPX XML into DaVinci.
5. Color grade in DaVinci and save project.
6. Export ProRes files and XML in FCPX format.
7. Import DaVinci's XML file into FCPX.
8. You now have a new timeline (not the original) which is using the ProRes files that have been color graded.
9. Make minor tweaks and export for delivery.

The advantage of Workflow 1 is that DaVinci owns the RAW files and you can go back and forth between FCPX and DaVinci generating new ProRes files as needed. The advantage of Workflow 2 is that you don't have to transcode to ProRes first before you start editing.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top