10.2.3 (or 10.3) waiting :)

No they are not. In the angle editor you are looking only at a specified monitoring angle. If there's a gap on the angle you see nothing. You do not see any other angles. It only monitors one video angle.

Why would you stick a multicam inside of another multicam?

BenB wrote: Why would you stick a multicam inside of another multicam?

That stresses me out even thinking about it.

I am not multi-cam into multi-cam, I am trying to see how far I can take an idea, the idea being seeing as all audio plays in a multi-cam, yet only the monitoring angle for video plays out, I wanted to see if I added a 2nd video angle below the primary topmost video angle if I could get the 2nd video to show through, using the ripple training idea of a gap clip as a sort of window, gap clips normally are transparent, yet in multicam they are black, it does not work.

It was a proof of concept thought, what else can we do with multi-cam, yet I have found something strange, I have 2 video angles, set video 1, topmost video as monitor angle, stepped back, closed the multi-cam, layer 2 video, the non monitoring angle plays, yet it is off set 10 seconds, it should be invisible, even rendered, it still plays the non monitor angle instead of respecting the selection of the monitor angle to track 1, it plays track 2!!

The monitoring angle in the angle editor doesn't correspond to the choice in the timeline—it's for organising the multi-clip, e.g. correcting sync issues on other angles.

@MsJustine,

I like your creativity. However, trying to shoehorn not just one, but two features into something they weren't designed to do isn't really making a new feature. In order to do what you want to do, you can easily add all these tracks into a compound clip and your "angles" would be secondary storylines.

It kind of sounds like you're trying really hard to make a FCP7 workflow in FCPX. Stop it. Just stop. You will drive yourself crazy and you won't be happy.

I'd try the secondary storyline method though. You'll get what you want out of that for the most part.

Thanks, just 1 tweak to multi-cam, and it is beyond powerful, it is a huge assest, see my diagram!!

That's because you can hear multiple audio tracks at once, but you can't see multiple video tracks at once. You can do what you're wanting with a compound clip and secondary storylines... Or just do secondary storylines in a normal project.

I know FCPX is trackless, well it is not!! It is a trackbased system, you have to have tracks, it would not work, the idea is with PPro, Avid, the tracks are like traditional lanes on a road, horizontal spaced side by side, FCPX uses vertical tracks, like a multi-story car park, looked from a helicopter you only see the top most track, the grey in my graphic highlights the problem, it prevents video from below from being viewed!!

As this is a I wish I could see in 10.2.3, or 10.3, this is that thing, get rid of the damn grey it is not needed, not loved, not desired, hated!!!

You can scale, transform, affect the playback of the clip, at least the controls are there, and work, so the idea of using mutli-cam as a super compound clip is there, I am going by the fact that controls are enabled, so Dev team was intending to see more use of multi-cam, it is let down by the grey which inhibits any other video from being visible unless you switch, you might for example be doing a news studio type shoot, where a presenter is talking, turns in her chair, to camera 2, you want in the upper corner a picture in picture, then cut to the full video, this could be done with the grey area removed, easy, powerful, but no!!!

That was just a thought out of my head!

the grey in my graphic highlights the problem

If you edit the multicam inside the angle editor, you're still doing it "manually". In fact, to do so would ignore the benefits of the multiclip, as it'd be like syncing angles in a traditional track-based timeline, cutting out bits of the top track to see the tracks beneath. The whole point of multicam is to preclude that necessity.

FCP does not use tracks. Tracks in the apps you mentioned are containers. The layers in FCP are not containers. Elements move vertically as space is available.

In the multicam editor single video lanes can be made the monitoring angle. Any lane can be made the monitoring angle. You don't have to cut away or disable lanes to view what's underneath. If I want to see the 14 lane in the multiply clip I just make it the monitoring angle. I don't have to disable everything above. You're want to edit the video in the multicam editor. That's not what it's designed for, and it shouldn't be.

The angle viewer should the angles regardless of the monitoring angle that appears in the viewer.

.... what about coming back to topic ... ?
(promised: 10.3 comes without tracks...)

ok, in a thread of +17 pages, any moderation is ... late.
apologizes for being an idealist. :blush:

Karsten Schlüter wrote: .... what about coming back to topic ... ?
(promised: 10.3 comes without tracks...)

ok, in a thread of +17 pages, any moderation is ... late.
apologizes for being an idealist. :blush:

So right!
Maybe we just start a new discussion called "Waiting on 10.2.4 or 10.3"?

I will go to my grave maintaining FCPX is track based, trackless is not possible, just the tracks are stacked vertically and displayed on a 2d monitor side by side. How anyone can say it is trackless is wrong, sorry.

What we have is like planes freedom in the vertical plane, if you could view 2 tracks in 3d it would look like this = an equal sign!!

In order to see the underlying track it is shifted out from the vertical plane to run parallel to the 1st track, but it is still a track, it has all the properties of a track, it is a track!! How can it be anything else???

davechap wrote: …
Maybe we just start a new discussion called "Waiting on 10.2.4 or 10.3"?

Maybe, if one has the need for a new topic, about tracks or life in general, s/he starts a new one?

What makes tracks tracks is that they are containers. You can move items between containers like you do between folders, but the track is a container. There are no equivalent containers in an FCP project unless you create them making storylines. Storylines are track like containers, but they're free floating and will move about as needed. There is a fundamental difference between track behavior and the behavior of an FCP project.

You can call them tracks if you like, but you are incorrect and you're misleading people when you say that.

"but it is still a track, it has all the properties of a track"

No, it does not have all the properties of a track. In a single LANE of connected clips, I can move one, or a set of those clips out of that lane to another lane, and the rest are unaffected. In a TRACK, they are all locked together, and what I just did would be impossible. Storylines are TRACK-LIKE, but still not tracks. A TRACK can not be moved in a horizontal directly, as Connected Storylines can. As Tom said, in FCPX, everything outside of the Primary Storyline is free floating and can be moved vertically or horizontally anywhere you want, above or below. A track simply can not physically do that.

I think Karsten is correct, someone needs to start a new thread about concepts only they understand.

This thread makes my back hurt.

For anyone who didn't watch the virtual FCPX user group video, or did and missed it, fun facts:
- If you purchased FCPX when it was first released, you have now paid about $60 per YEAR for it.
- PPro, at $20 per month, is costing you $240 per year, or $1200 since FCPX was first released.
- Apple has sold AT LEAST 1 million copies of FCPX, at $300 USD, that means Apple has $300 million for an NLE. That's a VERY healthy software development company for just one application. So yes, Apple makes a ton of money off of FCPX.