i'm officially dangerous!

i sat down for hours today and used fcpx to process a couple of prores hd clips and i'm here to tell you no treasure hunt video game is as hard to play as fcpx--made even harder with the medium gray icon on dark grey background.

needless to say, i had no idea what i was doing and if i'd had to merge clips i doubt i could have done it. took me nearly an hour just to figure out how to delete a segment of one clip and i couldn't do it again on a bet--i don't remember how i ended up doing it, but it was supremely non-intuitive.

anyway, after i 'processed' the clips (which were hurriedly shot off my back porch as i raced sundown), i sent them to vimeo, facebook, and youtube to test those functions. figuring out how to actually save them as files on my computer took considerably longer until i made a guess that my computer was an 'apple device'. [g]

at any rate, these clips aren't worth anything except for the learning factor as the exposure could have been better, although, in my defense, the lighting exceeded the dynamic range (i was using the /video/ setting for prores--i used the /film/ setting for raw, but i haven't processed them yet because i'll have to shift over to resolve for that) of the sensor. i was pleased with how the 15mm lumix lens held up to being pointed directly at the sun and i liked the flare patterns.

good points are that the exposure tools and the stabilization tool in fcpx worked far beyond my expectations--these were handheld and i was shivering in the cool air. the export facility is easy to set up and use and seems to output as good quality clips to the destinations as could be expected.

so here's the vimeo links although don't expect much:





but i'm satisfied. i've done a complete, but primitive 'project' from beginning to end and now i can tweak the workflow. still haven't decided whether i'm keeping fcpx since i still have to compare resolve against it, but i suspect i will keep it if only for the amount of documentation and tutorial matter for it.

/guy

btw, both of these both came out much better on youtube because the youtube editor has checkboxes so you know what you're doing and getting unlike fcpx which needs hundreds of hours to learn, but is hundreds of times more powerful when mastered.

/guy

I don't get why you say learning FCPX is like climbing a very high mountain but in the same sentence talk about comparing it with Resolve. If you can't grasp the basics of FCPX you're never going to get into Resolve!

The very basics of FCPX can be picked up in 30 mins. Seriously. You can import clips, build a short sequence and have it uploaded to YouTube within 60 mins. I know because I've taught absolute beginners how to do this with success.

Have a look at the many, many how-to videos on YouTube or better still check out the training packages from people like Ripple Training or Larry Jordan. That's where to start.

Collin, your advice is always spot on. However, I think Guy is having a hard time because he is partly blind, and has difficulty seeing. But he is learning, he got the two clips loaded up on YouTube. I think he just needs some time with FCPX to get used to how the digital work flow functions. Colin's background is mostly with analog "film" photography.
Yes, he is going to need to get the hang of FCPX before he can even begin to tackle a more advanced program like Resolve.

I have a background in both analog and digital video editing, and I am having trouble with Resolve.
Cheers

colin, i can't grasp the basics of premiere or imovie or quicktime. obviously the video editing paradigm is escaping me. i'm an old time analog film guy too with the smell of stop bath and fixer probably embedded into my skin and i've even used a razor blade to cut 8mm film for some student projects long ago.

but it's my background in computing holding me back, not the understanding of video. i input my first programs using toggle switches and lived in dos and unix commands lines. and i've never never been a gamer. so when i'm expected to just 'intuit' where to click and then what that click is going to do, i''m beaten. i assure you that while i was working in fcpx yesterday i had the apple beginners guide and a youtube tutorial both up on the screen and both of them assumed more than i knew.

for example, something as simple as removing a section of a clip was more an accident than finding a description of how to do it. here's an example from the apple docs:

"Set the start point: Position the skimmer (or the playhead, if skimming is turned off) where you want the selection to start, then choose Mark > Set Range Start (or press I)."

and then the doc still doesn't tell you how to cut the portion you've selected. luckily, i wanted to cut about 30s from the very beginning in a contiguous run and i just started dragging things around until something i did shortened the clip. as i said, i'd have trouble repeating that.

here's the apple document i was using:

http://help.apple.com/finalcutpro/mac/10.3/#/ver28cca92

today i'm going to go back to premiere, imovie, and quicktime with my test footage and compare how they handle things compared with fcpx and compare features and power and quality and then i'll run the equation and decide which one i want to devote the time to learn in depth. to tell the truth, excepting for the quality stepdown, the youtube editor does nearly everything i did using fcpx yesterday--just not near as well. right now, the power of the editors capable of editing this pro video is mostly wasted on me.

tks for the tip about resolve. of course i might only need it on the (?rare?) occasions i shoot raw--i still need to process the raw i shot yesterday to see if using that mode is worth the hassle of learning its much more limited (resolve) workflow. but, i've already discovered i can use the raw files as a source of raw still like a 24-30fps stills camera.

thanks guys! and denny, i'm going in to the va today to get some new glasses on the way and when i get the other eye done and new glasses to accommodate it, i should be seeing better than i've seen my entire life. i'm looking (!) forward to that! you were right in that the gray-on-gray look of fcpx wasn't helpful to anyone who was looking for stuff he'd never seen before and didn't know where on the screen it was.

/guy

i spent several hours today running the test clips i'd shot through the other movie editing programs i had installed. i had already tested fcpx so today i auditioned resolve, imovie, and premiere (elements, not the pro or cc?). i left out quicktime since it's pretty primitive even by my standards and too many functions are hidden, as is often the case with apple software.

the verdict was easy when quality isn't taken into account and i wouldn't have much way of testing for output quality anyway other than to eyeball it. premiere is by far the most beginner friendly editor. i dislike adobe software as a general rule because it thinks it owns your computer and fights you trying to put directories where you don't want them, but that's just a minor hassle.

premiere has beginner tutorials built right in and they are interactive so you can practices as the tutorial progresses. no flipping madly around screens and tabs. it has a /quick/ and an /expert/ view along with the /guided/ view. all the tools are right beside your viewer and they are actual text, so no guessing what tiny icons do.

the timeline is also quite different than the others and i'm ashamed to admit i never once found any proof of the existence of an audio track in any of the other editors. premier even has a track so you can do narration right in your timeline. it exports to youtube, facebook, and vimeo, or to your computer. in fact, about the only frustration i encountered was that when i selected all 3 clips and tried to apply an exposure setting, premiere told me i had to do it one clip at a time. that would be a pain in the butt if you had two dozen clips!

so does anyone know if the quality out of premiere is at least as good as the other amateur editors?

my problem was that i've always sought all the quality i can get and i was starting out trying to swing for the fences using resolve and fcpx to try to wring it all out when i barely knew how to trim and merge clips. i was flying too close to the sun and my wings burnt off! so now i'm going to swallow my pride and use the training wheels program until i learn enough i can step back up to the big league. and i can always use the /raw/ mode and just import them as stills into lightroom--unfortunately dxo only supports stills cameras and not video cameras--not even video cameras which shoot /raw/ although i submitted a request for the bmpcc via their page and one of their reps on dpreview.

the weather has us socked in here and my house is surrounded by water due to rains over the last 3 days. cold too. but it should clear up by first of next week. got a video head to put on one of my tripods because the one i have is being used by a spotting scope. i have a tiny little tabletop tripod by vanguard which i got for the 'scope and it has a great video head considering it was cheap micro tripod, so i got a vanguard head that looked like it had a similar function, but much better quality.

/guy

oh, in case you missed the implication, i won't be using resolve anything soon. trying to use it was total and utter frustration. everyone was right about it being an order-of-magnitude harder to use than anything else. /guy

Collin, yiurmadvice is always spot on. However, I think Guy is having a hard time because he is partly blind, and has difficulty seeing. But he is learning, he got the two clips loaded up on YouTube. I think he just needs some time with FCPX to get used to how the digital work flow functions.

Ah........ I didn't realise. My apologies to Guy for making an assumption.

colin, i can't grasp the basics of premiere or imovie or quicktime. obviously the video editing paradigm is escaping me. i'm an old time analog film guy too with the smell of stop bath and fixer probably embedded into my skin and i've even used a razor blade to cut 8mm film for some student projects long ago.

Yep - that was exactly my track, too!

Yes, all three of us come from an analog photo background. I had the advantage of studying film making in college and then having access to TV ENG cameras through my work.

Guy, good luck at the VA, keep plugging away at it, you are starting to get it. Like any new instrument, it takes practice.
Cheers