-
All replies
-
Helpful answers
-
Sep 21, 2016 10:37 AM in response to gjgby GeeD,I think the argument is that you keep all your photos in Photos then access them from iMovie which will reference them rather than make duplicate copies, thus saving disk space.
[Personally I have always avoided using iPhoto or Photos and keep all my media in my own file system, dragging and dropping them into the video editor as needed. With iMovie this does waste space since a copy is created in the library, but with FCP X which I now use, you can choose 'external media' and avoid this disadvantage. ]
Geoff.
-
Sep 21, 2016 11:55 AM in response to GeeDby gjg,Thanks Geoff,
I see the sense of importing photos to PHOTOS as a space saver, but not importing Videos to PHOTOS as there is no way to effectively preselect video clips in PHOTOS as opposed to, (in effect) importing full tapes with long takes, in my case over 2 hours of material. So I'm still puzzled why Apple would recommend this route in their "TIP" for Videos.
My initial thought was that there might be some quality advantages in importing first to PHOTOS.
gjg
-
Sep 21, 2016 12:23 PM in response to gjgby GeeD,There is no way that going via Photos could improve quality versus direct import. If Photos can't do anything of use to you with movies you might as well import directly into iMovie and store them in events in an iMovie library rather than a Photos library. The same applies to still photos if you don't use Photos to edit or or organise them. Keep an offline backup of them of course. I am always wary of Apple application libraries since their format, which is not documented, often changes (irreversibly) when the app is updated. A simple folder structure created and manipulated with the Finder gives you control and is much safer and simpler to deal with in the long run.
Geoff.
-