6 Replies Latest reply: Feb 6, 2012 12:07 AM by Ciarals
Ciarals Level 1 Level 1 (0 points)

Hi guys! In the 10.0.3 update of Final Cut Pro X, there's this new feature: Multicam editing with automatic sync and support for mixed formats, mixed frame rates, and up to 64 camera angles.

 

A few days ago the great Plural Eyes app was released for Final Cut Pro X: http://www.singularsoftware.com/pluraleyes.html

 

As far as I can see, the new Final Cut Pro X 10.0.3 does the same job as Plural Eyes, so is Plural Eyes useless or has still some important features that Final Cut Pro X 10.0.3 hasn't?

 

Thanks for the answer. Bye!


MacBook Pro, Mac OS X (10.7.2), 15-inch, Late 2008
  • 1. Re: Final Cut 10.0.3 vs Plural Eyes
    Tom Wolsky Level 10 Level 10 (106,230 points)

    PluralEyes does multicam editing?

     

    FCP has always had automatic syncing. In the past PluralEyes has done this better.

  • 2. Re: Final Cut 10.0.3 vs Plural Eyes
    Ciarals Level 1 Level 1 (0 points)

    Hi and thanks for the answer... Of course I was talking about automatic syncing and not about multicam editing.

    Do you think Plural Eyes is still better than Final Cut Pro X 10.0.3 for automatic syncing?

  • 3. Re: Final Cut 10.0.3 vs Plural Eyes
    Nately Level 1 Level 1 (145 points)

    In 10.0.1 and 10.0.2 I had problems with FCPX syncing audio and video correctly. PluralEyes seemed to work better.

    But in my limited testing of 10.0.3 (albeit with similar clips) the multi-cam syncing in FCPX has been nearly perfect. I wasn't terribly impressed with PluralEyes for FCPX as it seemed quite messy having to create new project timelines, etc.

  • 4. Re: Final Cut 10.0.3 vs Plural Eyes
    Ciarals Level 1 Level 1 (0 points)

    I tested the multicam sync in FCPX 10.0.3 and I think PluralEyes is still better. My test was made with a concert project: 3 cameras and 1 clean audio track. I created a new project with clips in the wrong order and after 5 minutes Plural Eyes created the perfect project. FCPX didn't make it: after 1 hour of processing, some clips were not in the correct order, etc... Surely, they've done a great job, but PluralEyes is still the best for me.

  • 5. Re: Final Cut 10.0.3 vs Plural Eyes
    J Roe Level 1 Level 1 (0 points)

    Thanks for the test Ciarals, but I am still in a bit of a dilemma. I will be doing a multi-cam shoot in March and need really good sync results between the two cameras (probably no separate audio track or recording, just the two on-camera mics).  If I buy the new Plural Eyes for FCPX they want $149.  If the new 10.0.3 upgrade had not just come out I would have definitely gone ahead with spending the money. But now will it really be worth 150 bucks? Based on your experience trying to just sync two cameras what would you do? Would love your opinion.

  • 6. Re: Final Cut 10.0.3 vs Plural Eyes
    Ciarals Level 1 Level 1 (0 points)

    I'll go with PluralEyes. The sync in FCPX is not that bad, but not as good as PluralEyes. I bought PluralEyes less than a week ago, so I could have a refund, but I won't do it. PluralEyes does one thing and does it perfectly.

    I tested it with 6 video tracks and 1 audio track: PluralEyes synced them in less than 5 minutes perfectly, FCPX in more than 1 hour and whith some clips not synced. Is not bad, I mean, is "included" in the package, but PluralEyes is way better. If you want my opinion, go for it.