Turn them into a compound clip.

Command -W I think. Then you can add transitions.

Thanks, will experiment tomorrow.

The optical flow time remapping is a very nice alternative to Twixtor, so you can save money there.

I curious how FCPX's fast/slowmo compares to Twixtor. I've been in contact with Re:Vision and they tell me that Apple haven't yet given them what they "need to make Twixtor work in FCPX" and want us to voice if we would like Twixtor to work in FCPX here: Apple - Final Cut Pro - Feedback (http://www.apple.com/feedback/finalcutpro.html)

Perhaps FCPX's built-in fast/slowmo is already as good, if not even better than Twixtor, and that's why Apple is now sitting on the fence..?

-- peer

Just did but I haven't has a chance to work with it. Thanks for the suggestion.

Is there a way to apply transitions to overlay graphics which seem to resist preset transitions unless in the main video track?

Don't make a compound clip, make a secondary storyline cmd G.

I curious how FCPX's fast/slowmo compares to Twixtor. I've been in contact with Re:Vision and they tell me that Apple haven't yet given them what they "need to make Twixtor work in FCPX" and want us to voice if we would like Twixtor to work in FCPX here: Apple - Final Cut Pro - Feedback (http://www.apple.com/feedback/finalcutpro.html)

Perhaps FCPX's built-in fast/slowmo is already as good, if not even better than Twixtor, and that's why Apple is now sitting on the fence..?

-- peer

FCPX optical flow is as good as it gets for slomo IMHO.

That's interesting. I tried using the optical flow slowmo for a clip, and found it to be the worst of the two options. It had all sorts of crazy motion artifacts like you typically see from bad twiddle clips. But when i slowed down to the same speeds with the other two options, they both looked better, which was confusing to me. Are there certain situations where optical flow doesn't work as well as the others?

The best is Kronos, a plug-in from The Foundry which utilizes the GPU to accelerate it.

have you changed your settings in the editing preferences for transitions from full overlap to available media?

That works fine. However it seems that the program defaults to "full overlap" at every boot. A nuisance but workable.

I would suggest trashing your preferences and see what that gets you. I'm about to try Preferences Manager, a free app from Digital Rebellion to use for saving mine.

FCPX optical flow is as good as it gets for slomo IMHO.

Have you done a comparison between Optical Flow and Twixtor?

-- peer

Man, I've been out of the loop for a while, I guess! All I read about FCP X is about how awful it is and how it stripped out many of the great features of FCP 7 (multiclip, etc). So tell me: what is better about FCP X than FCP 7? Surely there must be a few things...

For me this one is easy...

All NLEs can Cut,Slide,Slip,Roll etc along with standard Timeline operations.

IMO - the greatest/superior NLE is the one that enables you to find the clip that you need, when it pops into your head.

FCP X's Event Browser along with skimming and Keywording does just that. I have never been able to work faster than I do today on FCP X. And more importantly, with FCP X I NEVER loose that momentum when I cut a story.

That was my biggest gripe in Premiere Pro.. And FCP7. It was NOT a visual workflow. Searching a clip involved looking at clip-icons and reading text. In FCP X - I dont look at clip-icons and read clip names I watch them and skim thru' them. FCP X is the only NLE with a visual/interactive source management

I agree 100% with all of that ^^^^^.

The visual presentation of assets in FCPX is a probably a huge part of why I like it so much.

But the other part is that everything just feels so intuitive to me. I feel like there used to be a middle man between what I wanted to see and do what it took to see that thing. It feels like that's gone now. FCPX feels like a much more direct connection between what I envision, and what's on my screen.

Lightworks has a similar system with their Multi-split screen Viewer, where you can compare a selection of shots that you can play side by side. A slightly different way of displaying it, but basically, this does the same thing.

For those using FCP X professionally now, how would you rate its stability compared to 7. And, if you've tried them, compared to Avid and PP.

I've been using FCP through 7 since I started doing this work, but got some inexplicable error messages last time and I hobbled to the finish. Now, faced with a new project. am willing to consider a clean slate.

Not too interested in fancy effects, but just knowing I can get a project done with minimal tech headaches.

P.S. I'm using an 8-core Mac Pro with Lion.

FCPX vs FCP7 - much better except when you need the things they left out: Discreet audio tracks, non-buggy graphic file handling (photoshop files work but don't try any modest transitions between layers), strange track behavior in relation to the primary storyline track. The program is still version 1.

FCPX vs PP5 - Not much of a comparison except for a few functions PP has over all FCP versions anyway, primary is the clean integration with other Adobe products. The file codec transparency that PP5 has over FCP7 is not much of issue with FCPX although apparently a few codec variants that work in PP will not presently play in FCPX without conversion. The FCPX interface, in my opinion, is light years better than PP5.

FCPX vs AVID - Avid always beat FCP7 and PP in terms of file management for long feature projects or shared series projects. My recent experience with AVID has been very, very limited but I have not seen anything in FCPX that addresses shared projects very well if at all. FCPX's keyword system can be extremely useful for managing your own projects but my experience is that a feature length project in FCPX might be a little tough at the moment (due to memory bugs mostly) although the audition feature, in theory, seems great for sifting through alternate takes.

Very useful comparison, WIlliam.

Let's say you're doing a project that's basic enough not to stretch the capabilities of any of the programs, but you want the best chance of avoiding crashes and corruption as you work. Would you bet on FCPX?

That's an interesting call. FCPX's dynamic saving makes crashes not much of a worry. Corruption has not been an issue for me but neither was it in FCP7 for years.

The main issue I would pose to you is the leaning curve FCPX requires. It does not behave like the traditional NLE in many ways. You need to allot time to learn the program, search the internet for hints and perhaps take a couple of on-line classes.

Well, first things first. Was a living in a fool's paradise, thinking I had 8GB of RAM installed. It's only 5! Not good, not good at all!

I'm still curious to know if someone has done a comparison between Optical Flow and Twixtor.

-- peer