Learning from Pro Tools

Avid does editing for many years now and there is a lot to learn from them.

I like the fcpx approach in the beginning of a project. Things are on the flow while you go.

But, as the project proceeds there is a point where I need control. And it would be great to come from the fcpx floating structure to a timeline channel stucture.

Pro Tools has it for sound: You can go from "shuffel" to "insert" and things stay stable, locked on place or on the beat.

If you care about rhythm in your story telling this would help.

It would be a great function to the end of a project.

For music videos...

Sorry in case it was not so clear.

I talk about feature films and rhythm meaning editing rhythm.



TH

Has what you are trying to say anything to do with the magnetic timeline and the parent-child relationship between storyline clips and connected clips
vs.
independent tracks with content-wise unrelated clips and an "open timeline"?

If so, then it's a matter of one's approach. Under the hood, none of the elements we work with exist. On the harddrive there are no "folders", "clips", "blades" or "tracks", all of these are invented by and for human minds which can't think like computers do.

Be more specific. Which particular tool works better in certain circumstances in another NLE?

Hezel wrote: But, as the project proceeds there is a point where I need control. And it would be great to come from the fcpx floating structure to a timeline channel stucture.

Apple lay the ground work for a very sophisticated audio mixer - if that's what you are referring to ("channels"). Many have expected that to come with 10.4. As it's typical for Apple, they won't just copy & paste other companies' solutions.

Hezel wrote: Avid does editing for many years now and there is a lot to learn from them....

Randy Ubillos managed FCPX. He was also the initial designer, architect, and lead developer for Adobe Premiere, which he invented in 1991. He led development of the three versions of Adobe Premiere, also "legacy" Final Cut Pro. The clip skimmer was his idea.

If Avid developers learn enough from FCPX it might possibly keep the company from going out of business. They were delisted from NASDAQ three years ago due to financial irregularities, (now reinstated) but they are still laying people off. This is despite having a 95% lock on the Hollywood editing market, which shows how tiny and niche that market segment is.

Hezel wrote: ...as the project proceeds there is a point where I need control. And it would be great to come from the fcpx floating structure to a timeline channel stucture....

I agree this requires some learning and adjustment. Mike Matzdorff (assistant editor of the Will Smith movie "Focus") became so frustrated at FCP X he wanted to throw his computer against the wall. He eventually appreciated it and cut the movie using FCP X. Many of us who came from other editing programs have had similar experiences.

www.fcp.co/final-cut-pro/news/1512-mike-...wood-feature-on-fcpx

But as posted in your other thread, once an editor becomes familiar with FCPX, they have no problem with the skimmer or "floating" FCPX structure: www.fcp.co/forum/4-final-cut-pro-x-fcpx/...yhead-position#91556

In this video Thomas Grover Carter shows how FCPX can be used when deep into an almost finished edit. You can always learn things by watching him work -- he uses FCPX similar to how Jimi Hendrix used a guitar: vimeo.com/194855528