Turning off the magnetic timeline?

What's the point of all these posts? You don't like the way the application works, don't use. Nobody here cares. There are millions of users around the world using this software successfully and find it fits their needs and the way the work and have used it professionally for a number of years. No idea why you've posted all this, just to troll?

And hello, color correcting in FCP is tricky? ***, it's as simple as it can get. Resolve makes it complicated.

Oh for God's sake Tom. Get over it. I responded to a post earlier today - we then engaged in a discussion. It is a healthy debate - it would be healthier if Apple listened of course. Yep, some people love FCP - but others hate it with a passion. I think Apple could have achieved the former without causing the latter, but thats just my opinion. And you're welcome to yours. I found FCP colour grading very tricky - the sliders were hard to move accurately and FCP is missing the extra slider in resolve. I don't think there is any comparison and I have done quite a bit of work in both now. The bottom line is that I was never able to achieve the colour grade in FCPX for the wedding which I did last year - and I was motivated to do it because I could not successfully import the FCPX multicam stuff into DVResolve - so I had great colour in DVR but could not assemble the timeline, and a well assembled timeline in FCP but crap colour. Colour grading is Resolve's raison d'être and they do it brilliantly.

YYou move the sliders with the keyboard. Click a puck and use the arrow keys I think it's ridiculous to compare the simplicity of the FCP color board to the complexity of Resolve. Of course Resolve is a better grading tool, but to call FCP's color tools tricky is just silly.

Everything you dismiss in FCP I find the most helpful. Keywords and data driven organization. Unbekiveable tools. The magnetic timeline makes editing fluid and easy.

IVe taught FCP to hundreds and hundreds of people since 1999 and X since 2011. The hardest people to teach were those who cane to the application with pre-conceived ideas of how editing software should work. That's what I see in reading your messages. This is an incredibly stupid thread that should have died years ago. Reviving it is just pointless trolling.

Hi Tom

Good that you agree that "of course, resolve is a better grading tool".

And, yes, you will note in my post that some people love FCP. I disagree that FCP is "data driven" - data, or at at least the structure of data, is concealed by FCPX.

I am not a person with has preconceived ideas - this is a dishonest argument. I bought your books, I did another course, I still hate FCPX.

The points I make are valid. FCPX has earned its detractors - even you must acknowledge this. You would be better served trying to understand why people move away from FCPX instead of bleating about its advantages.

After our last interchange many months ago, I bought your book, enrolled in a course and tried to like FCPX. As I said, it has some great features, but i just doesn't accommodate the way I work.

I have received a HUGE amount of flak from you, and others, about the views I have expressed about FCPX. Really, this is very oppressive. I have taken your views on-board and persevered with FCPX but, in the end, it just doesn't work for me - for all the reasons I have stated.

I am an Apple fanboy since 2002. I was predisposed to love FCPX. But the reality is that FCPX works for a specific group of editors who like the workflow that FCPX imposes. If you are not in that select group, you will hate it, And REALLY hate it.

I am in the latter group. Get over it.

You should not take this so personally. My material is not the same as yours. My workflow is not the same as yours. DV Resolve suits me better and, as you admit, has vastly better colour grading tools.

There will be others who find FCP-X awkward. For those people my posts will be helpful.

You should consider that before you criticise what I have to say.

Stephen

the structure of data, is concealed by FCPX.

I have no idea what that means. It makes no sense.

Actually I don't understand why people move away from FCPX. I understand why people want to stay with something they're familiar with and comfortable with and suits the way they're used to working. That I understand.

GRading is important, and clearly a central component of your workflow. For me assembling the story and organizing a sensible structure with a flow that leads the viewer to climax is what's most important. FCP gives me the tools to do that. Other applications simply don't.

Hi Tom

"The structure of data is concealed by FCPX"

I am a computer programmer by trade. Data, in its natural form, is the raw files and whatever you add to that as a film-maker.

I shoot on a camera, which produces files. I record on digital audio device which produces files. These files are "real" and reside in the file system. For me this means a file from the main tape camera, one or more files from the disk-based close-up camera, various files from the blackmagic handheld camera and various files from the Sony audio recorder. These are the files I create and know and want to see in my editor.

FCP conceals this, by default, by hiding all these data files in a conglomerate library. You can avoid this by specifying that imported file are to be stored in the file system, but it is an option - the default is to conceal. Now I like to group my files in a way that makes sense to me. Thats easy with subfolders, or bins.

It is not possible to store clips in a structured arrangement in FCPX. You cannot create bins or subfolders. You must use keywords. But keywords are flexible, like an amorous gentleman at a cocktail party, You can put things where he suggests but you will lose all structure: some things can be in more than one place and some things can be nowhere at all.

Assembling a Story

I like to assemble a story within the confines imposed by the broadcaster. This means that the timeline has to be a specific length. There must be credits at the end; there must be highlights of the next episode before the credits; there must be a review of the previous episode at the start. When all this is mapped out you have the space (time) for the episode on which you are working.

In the work that I do I do not have the luxury of starting at the beginning and ending up where the material takes me. I must work within the confines of the broadcaster. To do this I need to map out the episode. It is critical, for this process, that clips stay where I put them. I might start by placing the credits at the end. How would you do this in FCPX without using spacers?

"I don't understand why people move away from FCPX"

Well, to be honest, I am not the first or the last to criticise FCPX. Perhaps you have an empathy problem? Not everyone will work the way you do - a great piece of software accommodates all its users.

FCPX just doesn't and that is why people, like me, but not only me, move away.

If you have any influence with Apple then please try to persuade them not to be so arrogant. Remind them that they are just software developers, not film makers, and they should not try to impose their idea of workflow on real world film makers. Remind them that we have choices!

If you still can't figure it out then try and get together with those who hate FCP - and try to understand why this is so. If you assume that these people are just defective in some respect you will never understand.

I have been involved in the IT industry since 1977. I know everything there is to know about software development. Right now I am learning to write strategies for auto stock trading in a new language and completely new environment. If you have an IT background you are always open to new things. But they have to stack up.

FCPX just doesn't stack up. It works for some but it is SO hopeless outside its narrow objective that it is hated by others. Thats why people move away from FCPX.

To understand why you need to sit down with its detractors and understand why.

Stephen

ByronBound wrote:

… For those people my posts will be helpful.…

… haven't read all 66pgs of this … weird thread, but I missed the 'help' in your posts, all I read are complains, wrong assumptions (due to wrong uninformed usage of app), and endless repition of "I hate…".

btw:

do you hate hammers or brushes too?? 😉

Every software forces to a designated workflow - I can accept that. Or use a different software.

That simple.

To 'teach' others, your workflow is the one-and-only, therefor FCPX is humbug, is immature.

imho.

And this board is less for sharing opinions, but helping technical issues

-bye-

the default is to conceal.

ACtually the default is to use the previously assigned behavior. The default for the first library created when you first launch the application is to use the llibrary container. To say that's concealed is absurd.

I have no influence on Apple. Sorry I don't see why the software should be made to work like conventional track based editing systems. Dont see the point of building another piece of track based bloatware. Editors have enough choices to work that way if they wish. I'm thankful Apple chose to rethink the process, move away from that model, and build a new paradigm that really works quickly and efficiently and is proving itself every day in multiple forms.

I don't assume others who use different software are defective; I would hope that those who hate FCP would have the same courtesy. The vitriol unleashed on FCPX users from the first days and since has been disgusting.

I have sat done with many detractors, and had many in most every class I have taught. Some never took to at and stayed with Avid or went with Premiere. That's fine, and I understand why they made those choices. One thing is certain, that when they were finished they didn't HATE FCP, they just preferred not to use It.

I dont know what you mean by hopeless outside its narrow objectives. I know dozens of event and wedding prodicers who love using this software. I know people in narrative fiction, documentary, sports, news, corporate production, and practically any form you can imagine who use this software every day, and are glad to have a different choice for their workflow.

Your post shows a blank icon. Unfortunately, this is the only answer to this question on the internet.

(guess it was solved... 😝)