|
bassguitarhero posted:I've never worked with so little direction, but so far it's working. When I've cut for news or documentaries or music videos I get people who want to sit behind me the whole time and go through things step-by-step. Maybe it's just because these guys are so busy, but they're really to-the-point and hands off. My last email from them was 5 bullet-pointed changes and telling me the different formats they want it in to send to the client. Hands-off clients can generally be a mixed bag of good and evil. Sometimes it can be great if the client is easy-going, as well as easily impressed ("you can FADE there!?") Others, however, end up being a ticking time bomb of miscommunication and unholy frustration. I've had jobs that start as a simple "can you make us an auto-play 16:9 DVD?", and a day later get an email back saying "Hey, the DVD plays fine, but for some reason the music seems louder than the dialogue. Of course, not only did we not take any time to realize there was a problem in the audio mix until the loving DVD authoring stage, but we also don't have any of the assets needed from the project to make this an easy fix. How's about we send you the stereo down-mixed quicktime file, and you slap a magical unfuckerate filter on it? Can we get a viewing link by the end of the day?" 
|
#
¿
Jan 28, 2011 21:05
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 28, 2024 00:51 |
|
|
Fiction D posted:I have a question I've been surfing around the web for in hopes of finding an answer. Maybe someone on here will know. It's pretty particular. Is it listed as a filter when you open the clip in the viewer? If so, just remove the filter. You'll of course lose the effect, but it sounds like you aren't seeing it anyways as it is. Edit: Ahh, beaten, but yeah that should take care of the problem.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 27, 2011 18:56
|
|
|
Anyone have any experience with the RED Rocket card? My boss is thinking of purchasing one if the feature we're bidding on comes through.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 29, 2011 21:21
|
|
|
Fiction D posted:What's a good, light export setting in fcp for a rough cut? I need to send it to someone online How long is the cut? If it's just for someone to preview, you can't go wrong with H.264 at, say, 2000kbits/sec. That's probably the most common compression for web.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 30, 2011 23:00
|
|
|
Fiction D posted:Bout 19 mins. I went with 720p and it says it's going to take an hour. Dunno if I should can it for something that'll take less time. Not sure what your original footage is, but any time you compress something down for web it's a pretty heavy level of compression and does take a little time. You could easily cut down your compression time considerably by using Compressor with clusters. The only problem is for some reason you can't cluster render in Compressor if you're going straight from FCP. You gotta Export -> Quicktime Movie (pretty fast export, no extra compression added to the timeline), then bring it into Compressor and go from there.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 30, 2011 23:33
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 28, 2024 00:51 |
|
|
Not sure if this is already commonly known or if it's just a bunch of  , but here's an interesting theory, quoted from the Apple Support Communities Discussions Board:quote:From a Professional standpoint, the current version of FCPX is unusable on so many levels due to the absence of basic features that made FCP series the juggernaut it was until yesterday. https://discussions.apple.com/thread/3134732?tstart=0 While the inconsistencies in his argument have been addressed (Apple is not requiring an upgrade to Lion for the upgrade, and the more important counterpoint that 3rd party plugins have started to be released), I do think it illuminates a very possible and likely future of the product upon the release of Lion. It just seems logical from Apple's business model, that with the release of Lion, the "fixed" FCP X will be also be released with a set of plugins that must be purchased separately through the app store. Eventually it seems, the future of FCP is that Apple will only develop the foundation for the program, hence the low $300 tag, but the professional capacity of the program will rely almost entirely on plugins which will be available exclusively through their app store. Thus, the total cost of the program is completely at the discretion of the developer of said plugins. Apple spends nothing on developing the software, and gets to cash in on the program in the same way they've cashed in on the app store from all of their iDevices. Makes complete sense from a business standpoint.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 24, 2011 15:46
|
|