Tell me what is GOOD about FCP X

[Sean Lander]

Originally Posted by Brett Sherman

Personally, I think they should ditch the whole storyline business as I don't think it helps anyone. Why can't you just put an effect on the outgoing clip and it just transitions to the clip that is shown next regardless of position. Just like fade-out works now, but with the ability to use two-sided transitions too.

I'll tell you once you get used to it it's brilliant.
Why? Here's an example.

You have 3 clips of overlay sitting on top of an interview. This form of editing is the style you've used across your whole timeline. With your interviews in the main storyline and your overlay (b-roll) on top.
Lets say you want to perform a single roller trim on the second of your three clips.
If you do this you know that ALL the clips on that video layer will be moved along. Creating a second storyline make those three shots independent and you can do what ever you like to them without worrying about destroying sync. Even better if you decide to move the interview further down the timeline just drag it down and the second storyline will go with it.

FCP X has a little way to go before it's ready for professional use, but the way it EDITs right now is far superior to anything I've used in the past. It's going to be huge.

[Geoff Dills]

Originally Posted by Brett Sherman

Let's say for example you have an interview where in between sentences someone slams a door. In FCP 7 it was easy to just insert ambient audio in the audio track. It took like 3 keystrokes - bing bang boom - done. Now it's much more cumbersome you have to detach the audio, split it, delete the middle section, insert the new audio, reconnect everything together.

Fairly simple in X. Range tool, select door slam, lower audio to zero. If you want ambience after selecting door slam, find ambience in your source clip, mark in, ctrl 3, D.

[William Hohauser]

For cuts only editing and split edits, X is a breeze. Much better than FCP7. I am having problems with transitions not landing at the cut points correctly or the transition changes the cut points. Perhaps I am doing something wrong. Perhaps it's another version 1 issue.

[Geoff Dills]

have you changed your settings in the editing preferences for transitions from full overlap to available media?

[William Hohauser]

Just did but I haven't has a chance to work with it. Thanks for the suggestion.

Is there a way to apply transitions to overlay graphics which seem to resist preset transitions unless in the main video track?

[Olof Ekbergh]

Turn them into a compound clip.

Command -W I think. Then you can add transitions.

[William Hohauser]

Thanks, will experiment tomorrow.

[Peer Landa]

Originally Posted by Jason Burkhimer

The optical flow time remapping is a very nice alternative to Twixtor, so you can save money there.

I curious how FCPX's fast/slowmo compares to Twixtor. I've been in contact with Re:Vision and they tell me that Apple haven't yet given them what they "need to make Twixtor work in FCPX" and want us to voice if we would like Twixtor to work in FCPX here: Apple - Final Cut Pro - Feedback

Perhaps FCPX's built-in fast/slowmo is already as good, if not even better than Twixtor, and that's why Apple is now sitting on the fence..?

-- peer

[Geoff Dills]

Originally Posted by William Hohauser

Just did but I haven't has a chance to work with it. Thanks for the suggestion.

Is there a way to apply transitions to overlay graphics which seem to resist preset transitions unless in the main video track?

Don't make a compound clip, make a secondary storyline cmd G.

[Geoff Dills]

Originally Posted by Peer Landa

I curious how FCPX's fast/slowmo compares to Twixtor. I've been in contact with Re:Vision and they tell me that Apple haven't yet given them what they "need to make Twixtor work in FCPX" and want us to voice if we would like Twixtor to work in FCPX here: Apple - Final Cut Pro - Feedback

Perhaps FCPX's built-in fast/slowmo is already as good, if not even better than Twixtor, and that's why Apple is now sitting on the fence..?

-- peer

FCPX optical flow is as good as it gets for slomo IMHO.

[Ben Fullerton]

That's interesting. I tried using the optical flow slowmo for a clip, and found it to be the worst of the two options. It had all sorts of crazy motion artifacts like you typically see from bad twiddle clips. But when i slowed down to the same speeds with the other two options, they both looked better, which was confusing to me. Are there certain situations where optical flow doesn't work as well as the others?

[Steve Kalle]

The best is Kronos, a plug-in from The Foundry which utilizes the GPU to accelerate it.

[William Hohauser]

Originally Posted by Geoff Dills

have you changed your settings in the editing preferences for transitions from full overlap to available media?

That works fine. However it seems that the program defaults to "full overlap" at every boot. A nuisance but workable.

[Geoff Dills]

I would suggest trashing your preferences and see what that gets you. I'm about to try Preferences Manager, a free app from Digital Rebellion to use for saving mine.

[Peer Landa]

Originally Posted by Geoff Dills

FCPX optical flow is as good as it gets for slomo IMHO.

Have you done a comparison between Optical Flow and Twixtor?

-- peer