Is there something better than CMD+Z for mass UNDOs?

After a month of superb Macprovideo training in FCPX and futile searches of the "worthless" FCPX help[less] document, I cannot find more on a VERY BASIC subject that pertains to everybody using FCPX.
EDITING HISTORY:  Since we have NO control over our SAVES,  how do you undo the last 50 changes --or-- undo everything since 10am?  Do I have to hit CMD+Z until I get callouses?   I did see a reference to TIMELINE HISTORY but the doc is skimpy & doesn't  seem relevant.
If there is a window that shows a chronological order of changes & time with the option to UNDO, that would be great.   If I've missed it, please advise.
Thank you for time & thoughts.
-Dale

Thank you R&B, you're an officer & a gentleman.
BTY- I can never figure out why folks on this (and all other forums) have ALIAS names.  If they don't know you by your real name, then I can't see the purpose of an alias.

Similar Messages

  • Something better than the 'shear' filter..

    Hi, I am looking for something better than this primitive 'shear' filter. I need to shape an image with the help of a curve, just like in shear, but more professional than just with a vertical line inside a teeny-weeny window... Any ideas..? Curently working in Photoshop CS3.

    How can I add more curve points in Warp..?
    Unfortunately one can not, therefore the Illustrator Envelope Distort-recommendation.
    CS5 is supposed to offer improvements in this field … but no release-date has been announced yet.

  • Why A is better than B/G for Voice over WLAN

    Hello all,
    Now this post has some questions and statements in that you guys know all about and would like your valued advise and corrections/confirmations on the points.
    Why A is better than B/G for voice:
    B/G is congested, ie BT, Microwaves. Lots of other WLANs etc etc etc - FACT!
    More non-overlapping channels - FACT!
    The scatter and reflection on A is better than B/G. The idea being, the higher the frequency, the better the scatter. Would this be correct?
    Higher frequencies produce better penetration results through walls, I have read. Or is it worse. Cisco say worse in the document "2.4 GHz waveform of 802.11b and 802.11g can pass through many walls. The 5 GHz waveform of 802.11a has approximately half the tendency for a given power to transmit suitable amounts of energy through walls because of its higher frequency" Ref: enterprise mobility guide. I am a little confused on this ?
    A travels thru water and other moisture better than B/G, thus damp walls, wet walls, open areas (lets say between two buildings) would handle A better than B/G?
    The Fresnel Zone (clearance required of an obstacle without degrading signal) is better on the A band due to a small wavelength size. Would this be a major factor for an RF design engineer? Any more technical "dummies guide" to this subject would be good?
    OFDM handles signalling shortcomings like multipath fade better that previous modulations techniques (I know that G 11Mbps and above uses this also). Anyone have an English explanation to why this is? Also, please look at the graphic attached that shows the enterprise mobility guide in chaper 3, the table. What is the difference between the modulation and transmission type as many people refer to DSSS and OFDM as "modulation" I am a little confuse by this table.
    Can anyone give me any more reasons and facts, and clarify any of the points above so when someone comes to me and says, "ahh, just roll out voice on B/G" I can say well this is why not?
    Many thx indeed,
    Ken

    You have some good questions. The main reason why people are moving voice to 802.11a is the fact that there is more congestion in the 2.4GhZ spectrum. For example in a downtown area building. There are so many wifi devices out in the 2.4Ghz along with all the other interference that you get on that spectrum. 802.11a, the 5Ghz is a shorter wavelength, so the more it is susceptible to attenuation. The lower the frequency the better the signal can travel through various materials. Look at cell phones.... they are in the 800mhz or lower spectrum and they have greater distances than higher frequencies. Another reason is that if you have guest access, you have to look at devices you need supported. There might be legacy 802.11b clients or newer clients that only support 802.11b or 802.11g. So now the 5Ghz is open which give you more bandwidth for voice.
    Water is an RF killer no matter if you use 2.4Ghz or 5Ghz.

  • Is mackeeper a good application to use? or is there something better?

    my coputer is real junked up and i ran mackeeper and it says to fix all 2000 problems i need to activate it, is it a crediblle program and worth activation? or is there something better?

    Do not install MacKeeper (and how to uninstall it if you have):
    https://discussions.apple.com/docs/DOC-3036
    (Please note that references to the original developers, Zeobit, should now refer to Kromtech Alliance Corp, who acquired MacKeeper and PCKeeper from ZeoBit LLC in early 2013.

  • I am receiving an error message every time I try to update my iPod software. Is there something I should be looking for? Thanx, Dennis Morris

    am receiving an error message every time I try to update my iPod software. Is there something I should be looking for? Thanx, Dennis Morris

    Follow the directions for resolving the error if it is listed here:
    iTunes: Specific update-and-restore error messages and advanced troubleshooting
    If not listed, com back with what the error says.

  • Can Labview be better than vendor software for Zymark robot operation?

    I am trying to decide on alternate software to for programing Zymark Zymate and Benchmate systems. Thank you.

    Of course my first reaction is, "Of course you should use LabVIEW." But I may be a bit biased in that direction. It's a question that's really up for debate.
    Since LabVIEW is nothing more than a programming language, it can be both better and worse than the vendor software. It really depends on how you code the application.
    I know nothing about either of the systems you mention, but from the other response, it seems they just rely on serial commands to operate. LabVIEW is very good at serial communication. However, if the vendor software does everything you need, then you probably wouldn't gain much from writing your own version in LabVIEW, or any other language for that matter.
    However, if the vendor software is lacking some features you want or nee
    d to use, or maybe you just don't like the user interface, then it would be worth a shot at making your own. What language you use should really depend on which one you are most comfortable with. If you've been coding in some flavor of C for years, then you may some problems throwing something together quickly in LabVIEW to do what you want. On the other hand, if you're new to programming, then LabVIEW would be a good choice. It's very easy to learn the basics and have something running quickly, but there's more than enough depth to the environment to make a very powerful program.
    Ed
    Ed Dickens - Certified LabVIEW Architect - DISTek Integration, Inc. - NI Certified Alliance Partner
    Using the Abort button to stop your VI is like using a tree to stop your car. It works, but there may be consequences.

  • Creating something better than Photoshop CC ?

    The basic CC concept  just doesn't work for many people, including myself. Bottom line: there must be a  perpetual license option for a basic photo image editing program. For many photographers, Photoshop Elements just isn't robust enough. My guess is that other companies will jump into this huge new market, but that's going to take time.
    It looks like Adobe is the only company in the position to produce a solution in the short term. So let's start there.
    Over at the Kelby Blog and NAPP (the "Photoshop Guys," NAPP memebers and Blog contributors) they are actually working on a product concept to present to Adobe in response to CC. It's initially being called "LightShop" and its basic premise is to be a stripped-down Photoshop CC that integrates with Lightroom.  It will have minimal Type, no 3D, no video, and less special effects and other bloat -- just a clear Lightroom-like interface that is smooth and fast. Most important, it sells as a perpetual license like Lightroom, for under $200. This concept sounds interesting -- if you're into Lightroom. I'm not.
    Another idea is for Adobe to offer something like a Photoshop Elements "Extended Edition." Now that they have killed the Standard Edition of Photoshop, a product like that would not encroach upon the now professional market focus of Photoshop CC. It would be relatively easy to produce because most of the code is already in Photoshop Elements for more advanced features  -- it's just turned off. ACR already comes with Elements, and Bridge could be included as before.  If some of the deficiencies of standard Elements could be addressed, and some of the consumer oriented bling thrown out, then it could be ideal for amateur to semi-pro photographers. Photoshop plug-ins would work as they do now. Sell a perpetual license for under $200, and I think a lot of non-CC customers would be happy. An upgrade from CS3 onwards would be great too, for maybe $100.
    But exactly what features would be best for a Photoshop CC alternative product? Is 16-bit necessary if you are global-editing RAW in ACR or Lightroom? Can you really tell the difference in a print or on the Web? What about Blend Modes -- do we need that many? How about just one sharpening filter -- the upcoming version of Smart Sharpen?

    You bring up a great point. Lets say when we eventually die and lets say our family or even clients want to see what we have done. Adobe with cc in a way has cut off your legacy by not having a perpetual program that can automatically open your files. Which is different from saving as older file type.
    If cc had more price options i would be very temped to join it. Ither a 30-40$/month plan for say a suite as they have done for years or pick your favorite 3 programs and 1-2 minior ones like bridge or acrobat. I would also like to see a 10-15/month plan for just 1 program but that is not a special offer but long standing price. Im sure the cc price will change within the next 12 months which is for good or bad why you can only lock in a 1 year plan. It would be nice if like a phone you could lock in your plan price for 2 years. At least you would know what to expect. Adobe should look at phone subscriptions and see how we get people to pay 90/month for a phone which for many is a toy and they cant get people to pay 50/month for tools. With phones when you renew your contract gennerally every 2 years you get a massive discount on some new phones and some will actaully be free or upto 70% off. Adobe shoudl consider this. The more adobe products you have the bigger your renew discount should be. They could do it as 2 year contract or have several durations besides monthly and yearly. Have a 6 month, 18 and 24 month. Say you pay 50/month for your contract duration of 1 year, when it comes time to renew you should have a discount lets say 10-20% off which would be 40-45$ which is handy. If you upgrade to cc and have a suite you should have a biggerest discount than just 1 program say instead of 40/month like 30/month for that contract duration and if you have master collection maybe 20/month for the duration. Then with those 2 suites when its time to renew still give a discount but maybe less. Maybe a suite becomes 40/month and master 30/month but give more discount than those who just renewed. Give us what feels like incentives not punishments.
    Ya having 3 almost 4 photoshops was getting a big crazy. Photoshop extended, photohop, photoshop elements and light room. I guess its good for adobe to consolidate but they could have done it with out the cloud. Just make elements and lightroom merged and bump up the price maybe 40%. I think thats fair. Similarly with photoshop and extended, merge the 2 and increase price to 1/2 way between both. Starts getting weird when you have many overlapping things. Like web design has dream weaver and muse. I would love to get that as 1 program or a package deal since they do the same thing but go about it differently. Merge them as 1 and increase price 40%. Same with indesign and incopy, merge them together and increase price 40%. This will make each program stronger and a better buy. Just good house keeping to simplify. Adobe offers so many things I honestly dont know what some of their new things like fusion do. Many have only been around 1-2 years and its becoming complicated to know about all their stuff especially when they start overlapping.
    Good luck adobe. I do love you but you are breaking my heart. I want to stay but you need to make some changes to help me want to.

  • Is there anything better than a new iphone?

    Hello,
    My 3G iphone is coming to the end of its contract and I can get a new phone. I have an imac desktop so I am looking for something that will sync my diary, contacts and music easily. Are there any cheaper alternatives to the iphone? Im not sure I want another one...

    If you are running a Mac OS less than Lion, there are literally hundreds of iSync compatible phones.
    See http://support.apple.com/kb/HT2824 for natively supported devices.
    See http://support.apple.com/kb/HT2520 for devices supported via a third party iSync plugin.
    Other Mac syncing solutions for non-Apple phones include the "Missing Sync" range of products, "Blackberry Desktop Manager" for Blackberry devices, and "SyncMate". Check the websites for lists of phones these products support.

  • Carousel View Better Than Cover Flow For The Finder?

    I have been using my .Mac Web Gallery quite a bit lately and I love the new and improved Carousel view. Apple keeps updating it (they added reflections, a nice play/pause scroll bar, and now you can use the scroll wheel (or ball) on your mouse just like Cover Flow in iTunes and the Finder) making it better and better and it has gotten to the point where I think it would make a lot more sense (and look nicer) for Apple to implement it in the Finder in place of Cover Flow. Cover Flow works perfectly for iTunes still (as that's what it was intended for) and I think that it's "Ok" in the Finder in Leopard, but now that Apple has cleaned up the Carousel view so much in the .Mac Web Gallery, I can see it looking PERFECT in the Finder in Leopard. For anyone who's used or seen the Cover Flow view in the Finder, you'll realize what I mean when I say that it's "Ok". The problem with it is that most of the dynamically generated icons in Leopard are not nice squares like the albums in iTunes so the icons off to the sides of the center one look skewed and distorted. The Carousel view would fix that problem while retaining the benefits of the Cover Flow view and, from what I can see, would actually enhance the benefits because the side icons would be easier to see as they are not skewed. All I'm suggesting is for Apple to swap out the Cover Flow view in the Finder for the Carousel view and then the Finder would really SHINE! So, my question to any of you is, "Would you vote for the Carousel view to replace the Cover Flow view in the Finder?" Please let me know any of your ideas or suggestions. Thanks.

    I made a newer post about this same topic (trying to be a little more strategic) and this time I included a link to a video demonstrating my point. Here's the post http://discussions.apple.com/message.jspa?messageID=6574743#6574743.
    I couldn't agree with you more on the custom folder icon issues. I'm beginning to find out what the problem is on that. I have used the newest version of Candy Bar for my Home directory icons and that works fine, but there are some folders that I want to use a different icon for and leave the rest as they are. Candy Bar can't do this for me (as it only works with the generic icons) and so I used Apple's Icon Composer application (in the Developer Tools) to make the correct icon sizes for Leopard and then saved them as .icns but then copying and pasting that on a folder would result in the default ICNS icon and not my custom icon (that was under 10.5.1). So I finally got the custom icon to appear, but it only works for sizes 128x128 and lower, even though I put a 512X512 version in there. That's why it doesn't show up in Cover Flow. For some reason, Leopard "blacks" out anything larger than 128x128 on "Cut and Paste" icons. I found that out by copying my custom icon from the Get Info panel and then opening that in Preview and it shows a black background for the larger icons instead of the alpha channel. I'm still trying to figure this out. Also, IconBuilder seems to be doing the same thing (making and ICNS file) but it seems to work better. I haven't used that since I've upgraded to Leopard but from what I've read it should work, but I don't have Photoshop right now. Well, thanks for posting and agreeing with me on the Carousel view and I hope you check out my video. Thanks.

  • Email Set-up...something better than Outlook Express 4.5?

    Happy New Year ~
    I'm trying to set up about 3 email accounts on an OLD iBook Blueberry running OS 8.6. It has Outlook Express 4.5 installed on it, and though it did "take" one of the email addresses yesterday (it was able to download mail from the server, but I didn't test sending any mail out), it hasn't been able to send/receive at all today. I'm not real familiar with Outlook, so don't know if I'm missing something. I tried checking two boxes that said things like: "Requires secure SSL/POP" because I do have passwords that are involved in accessing the server account, but still nothing.
    The computer did connect to the internet via ethernet and DSL, though, so that's not the problem.
    Anyway -- after all this, I'm wondering if there's any simpler email program I can maybe try downloading and using? Or any other suggestions?
    (I'm just spoiled, having been graced with an iBookG4 less than a year ago - my first Mac - and loving Panther and OS X..I'd love to upgrade to Tiger as soon as my budget allows)
    Thanks for any and all insight.
    iBook Blueberry   Mac OS 8.6 or Earlier   G3, 300MHz, 32MB DSRAM, OS 8.6

    Hi aToast...
    Yikes! ...your comment brings back a lot of memories - good and bad
    For some reason I do remember that you shouldn't have to check off the 'Requires Secure SSL/POP'. Aside from that just make sure you have both your incoming/outgoing 'mail server' and of course your password typed correctly.
    There are other programs you could try (I remember trying others but Outlook was always the best for me) ...take a look under the 'classic apps' on the Pure-Mac site for example - http://pure-mac.com/email.html
    If you could get up to os 9.2.2 then try the Mozilla Suite - that would be my pick for best classic browser and email combo.
    ibook Clamshell (Indigo)   Mac OS X (10.3.9)   40Gig - 320Ram - DVD/CDRW

  • Can there be more than one port for the same logical system

    Can we have more than one TRFC port for tranferring data from one logical system to another?
    The requirement is to transfer same basic idoc type from one logical system to another through two different ports. Is it possible?
    For eg. some specific data (country specific) for the same basic idoc type can be sent through a separate port and the other data through a different port inorder to distinguish between the two.

    Hi Shital,
    I don't think so. Because of that what i told you. There would be a dirty trick (back routing) to solve your issue. But its quite difficult and not standard. You create two http receiver services  and two http sender services. You route your message depending on payload to the one or the other http receiver channel. The receiver is in both cases: THE XI! Now you have a second message, which you  can route to IDoc adapter. But in this case you have different sender and in the receiver determination you can put the sender, so you will be able to use different communication channnels and so different ports / destinations.
    Advantage: Your task would run, no performance problem (http: very good, asynchron)
    Handicap: You see every message double in the monitoring, the scenario is not easy to understand and it is a big task 4 other people to change it.
    Regards,
    Udo

  • Is there anything better than iPihoto?

    Hi there,
    I'm a long time iPhoto user, but I think I'm out growing it. I have about 5000 photos in my library now (and no, I don't want to split it into smaller libraries). I have a 1ghz PowerMac G4 and the speed of iPhoto isn't that bad. The issue I have is that I about to get a dSLR and I think I will be taking much more photos, so I see my library growing faster.
    I'm about to keyword tag all my photos with people, places, and things, and rate all the photos (I know, major job, but I'm anal enough to do it Before I undertake such and job, I want to know that my work won't be wasted.
    Here are my criteria for my image management program:
    1) easy to use
    2) Albums, or the ability to place photos in virtual containers
    3) keywords with ease of entering and assigning them
    4) ratings (1-5 is fine)
    5) web publishing. here's the hard one. I don't want to create web galleries from my library, I want to have the library dynamically published. Right now I use iPhoto and iPhotoWebShare, which works pretty well. I want more. I want the ability to search by keyword, not unlike how you can search within iPhoto. Ideally, the search would let the user search by keywords and ratings. I'm not above writing my own web system (i'm in the process of dumping the iPhoto data to a sqlite database, and then writing a php search engine), so if there is no native web publishing, at lease good scripting capabilities to get the data out.
    I figure the obvious choices are cumulus, portfolio, and iview. iPhoto might still fit the bill, but it just seems fragile. Maybe iPhoto 6 will use core data and we will have direct sqlite access to the database (cool), but until that is announced, I'm not willing to hold my breath.
    Any ideas?

    Allan
    I was in a similar situation to you, and decided to go with Portfolio.
    I'm currently in the process of migrating my iPhoto libraries to Portfolio, and I'm very impressed by the sotware. Most important thing for me is stability (closely followed by feature set) and it hasn't crashed once so far.
    It easily takes care of items 1 to 3, though I'm not sure about item 4 (I'll check when I go home tonight); I use a "Favourite" keyword, rather than a rating system. And, even if it doesn't, you could replicate it using keywords of 0 through 5.
    I use a combination of real, physical "watch" folders (I like to store the originals in folder(s) based on date taken), smart folders (keywords, etc..), and virtual folders (events, vacations).
    To meet #5, Portfolio 7 comes with a basic version of NetPublish that allows for one concurrent connection to the website per hour. If this isn't sufficient, you'll have to pay for the full version of NetPublish.
    Obviously, Portfolio's a serious financial investment ($200), so I'd recommend you take a look at the 30 day trial version and see what you think. There's also copious documentation available at their web site.

  • Need sodium vapor frequency specific filter something better than plain  orange

    Somebody tell the LIGHTROOM PHOTOSHOP TEAM THAT WE NEED A FREQUENCY SPECIFIC FILTER THAT TARGETS THE SODIUM VAPOR SPECIFIC FREQUENCY TO FILTER OUT THAT LIGHT POLLUTION IMMEDIATELY

    Just click Black & White. You cannot create with a filter what's not there in the first place.
    When you filter out all of that specific frequeny, no normal color information will remain. You'll only retain the contrast information (which you can bump nicely with Clarity).
    P.S. I think something went wrong with your Caps Lock or Shift key, maybe you should check it for glue or chewing gum.

  • Anyne know something better than iLap? Please

    just bought one. still feelin some major heat coming off the laptop. def can't keep it on my lap for long.
    anyone heard of belkin cushtop? other?
    thnx

    well, i use both idrum and guru. guru is crazy cool with alot if the stuff it can do, way too much. but to hit the highlites and comparison to ultrabeat(mainly the things it does that UB doesnt):
    you have a sound browser where you can click the sounds and hear them and not blindy have to load samples in
    the patterns are easily drag-able into the instrument track one created(stylus style)
    the editing PER HIT in the patterns is crazy as well, can edit shift(if youd like that beat not exactly ON the grid, you can slide its position around) as well as any of the other parameters can be tweaked per beat (filtering, pitch, volume, pan, sample-start point and repeat triggers for glitch effect)
    the application of 'feels' you can use (MPC swings, etc...)
    there really is alot you can do with it, waaaay more in depth than idrum and waaaaay easier to use the UB:-)
    my 2 cents!

  • Something Better than iWeb?

    I'm looking for a website program for the Mac that is as easy as iWeb but can build sites more like dreamweaver. I don't like iWeb because it's too private, family, media, mac like. Are there any programs for the Mac other than iWeb that are like this? (Without the confusing HTML).

    Sandvox is fairly similar to iWeb and has a Pro version with added features...
    http://www.karelia.com/
    You could also have a look at Goldfish...
    http://www.fishbeam.com/en/goldfish/
    Shutterbug has a kind of quirky interface but has a lot of good features and is inexpensive....
    http://xtralean.com/SBOverview.html

Maybe you are looking for