Creative COW SIGN IN :: SPONSORS :: ADVERTISING :: ABOUT US :: CONTACT US :: FAQ
Creative COW's LinkedIn GroupCreative COW's Facebook PageCreative COW on TwitterCreative COW's Google+ PageCreative COW on YouTube
APPLE FINAL CUT PRO:HomeFCP ForumFCP XFCPX TechniquesFCP TutorialsFC ServerBasics ForumPodcastFAQ

Questions before Update

COW Forums : Apple FCPX or Not: The Debate

<< PREVIOUS   •   VIEW ALL   •   PRINT   •   NEXT >>
Share on Facebook
Stefan BuhrmesterQuestions before Update
by on Sep 21, 2011 at 5:18:54 pm

Could somebody do me a favor and check if Apple added the following in the 10.0.1 update?

- Is it possible to drag&drop motion files into the FCPX timeline to import them?
- Did apple add support for custom (read: "user input") project resolutions?

I got a refund and don't want to purchase again just to find out that it still cannot do that.


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  

David LawrenceRe: Questions before Update
by on Sep 21, 2011 at 5:43:25 pm

[Stefan Buhrmester] "I got a refund and don't want to purchase again just to find out that it still cannot do that."

No need to re-purchase, you can now download a free 30-trial and test it out.

_______________________
David Lawrence
art~media~design~research
propaganda.com
publicmattersgroup.com
facebook.com/dlawrence
twitter.com/dhl


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  

Bret WilliamsRe: Questions before Update
by on Sep 21, 2011 at 5:43:32 pm

Actually if you got a refund then you can still download for free. Not sure there's even a way to pay Apple if you decided to.

I got a refund on Aperture and it's still downloadable.

But either way there is a 30 day free trial.


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  


Devin CraneRe: Questions before Update
by on Sep 21, 2011 at 5:48:39 pm

To answer your first question, there is a work around. You can drop Motion files into the timeline, but you need to change the extension to .moti from .motn.

Concerning the Custom Resolution- no change.



Return to posts index
Reply   Like  

Marvin HoldmanRe: Questions before Update
by on Sep 21, 2011 at 6:36:09 pm

Not sure that's the case. I too, got a refund, but still have the 10.0 installed. Haven't used it past the original few days, but just haven't deleted it. I was curious if what you say regarding being able to download it was try. I don't think so, as the only way I can tell to download the update is via the app store. I also have a copy of Motion and Compressor (which I have been working with some) and it updates, as of yesterday.

As mentioned before, the 30 day trial is available. I have downloaded that and will spend a bit of time seeing what it does better.... after I'm done working with our new version of PPro.

Marvin Holdman
Production Manager
Tourist Network
8317 Front Beach Rd, Suite 23
Panama City Beach, Fl
phone 850-234-2773 ext. 128
cell 850-585-9667
skype username - vidmarv


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  

Bill DavisRe: Questions before Update
by on Sep 21, 2011 at 11:46:07 pm

Stefan,

If you have existing "older" Motion files, your question makes sense.

But the fundamental relationship between the two programs has undergone a pretty substantial change.

My explorations have indicated that a chunk of the code that makes up Motion 5 is already "embedded" in FCP-X. It's the program's titler. When you do text work inside FCP-X you're using Motion's code. Period. This changes the fundamental relationship between what we used to think of as two separate programs. They aren't really so "separate" any more. When you go "outside" to Motion, you're actually just opening up additional capabilities on top of the subset that lives in FCP-X.

This means the old thinking about "round tripping" is kinda obsolete.

It's probably not strictly accurate, but I think of the relationship as having "Motion light" built into FCP-X - and when I launch Motion 5, the extra capabilities "enhance" the control and add new abilities. But many of the tools and code are exactly the same. So there's not really two different programs at work. Just one seamless "text and graphics" environment that expands or contracts as the user sees fit.

This makes it a whole lot easier to operate, since no matter where you start, or how you change things - what you do in one area will be reflected in the other because there's only ONE file in play. Not two that are being merged.

Put another way, there's no penalty to roughing out titles in FCP-X, since a simple option click will "open" them inside Motion 5 and let you further refine them with all of Motion 5's tools.

The very concept of having to "round trip" is un-necessary - because it's all coming from a single code base, so what you do in motion doesn't just "reflect" back to a file in FCP-X - it IS the file in FCP-X.

Does that make sense?

"Before speaking out ask yourself whether your words are true, whether they are respectful and whether they are needed in our civil discussions."-Justice O'Connor


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  


Aindreas GallagherRe: Questions before Update
by on Sep 22, 2011 at 6:19:59 pm

I don't really think that answers the question?

isn't the point to take a section of the timeline, send it to motion, do a whack of post and effects on it and roundtrip back to FCPX?

having sections of motion lite present in the main app isn't really the same thing?

you want a PPRO to AE and back workflow. isn't that what's missing here?


http://www.ogallchoir.net
promo producer/editor.grading/motion graphics


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  

Stefan BuhrmesterRe: Questions before Update
by on Sep 22, 2011 at 6:23:34 pm

[Aindreas Gallagher] "you want a PPRO to AE and back workflow. isn't that what's missing here?"

Yes

But that missing feature already exploded several times on creative cow (especially the Motion Forum), no need to spark a new fire.


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  

Aindreas GallagherRe: Questions before Update
by on Sep 22, 2011 at 6:27:28 pm

heaven forbid, God knows I've done enough incitement on this forum, i just thought bill's reply had wandered quite a ways off beam there.


http://www.ogallchoir.net
promo producer/editor.grading/motion graphics


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  


Steve ConnorRe: Questions before Update
by on Sep 22, 2011 at 6:54:06 pm

I'm hoping round tripping makes a return in the future, perhaps the new XML might allow this?

"My Name is Steve and I'm an FCPX user"


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  

Erik LundbergRe: Questions before Update
by on Sep 22, 2011 at 10:14:57 pm

This is what ticks me off. REALLY. And it goes on and on. And there is no real reason why, other than Apple invented so much shiny new brilliant ways to do stuff, they completely lost the basics. Because the Motion integration in FCPX is BRILLIANT. Except this one basic thing. Whatever they smoked, I want one too.

On the other hand, if they fix that, we've got best-in-show integration, in my opinion. This is jaw dropping surely (that they left it out to begin with, that is).

Erik Lundberg

Technical Director, Media Technology, University of Gothenburg, Sweden


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  

Bill DavisRe: Questions before Update
by on Sep 23, 2011 at 3:37:08 am

I just got back from California and the DV Expo where I dropped in to see a bunch of old friends - most of whom were giving the presentations that the attendees were there to learn from.

I came away totally energized by the conversations I had.

One guy told me that the way he sees it, FCP-7, Premier, Vegas, and Avid represent the best of what digital video editing has been for the past 10 years.

But FCP-X represents what it will be for the NEXT 10 years.

It's a long play. We're in phase one.
Over and over the same idea from people in a position to know. This is the beginning of something designed to grow and grow and grow.

One guy reminded me that we're looking at FCP-X after merely 3 months of life. And one very smart guy reminded me that the 90 day revisions just rolled out this week have already added more useful new capabilities than the original FCP added in it's entire first year.

From that perspective, we can only imagine what it will look like in 2 more years.

Come for the ride or not. Your choice.

"Before speaking out ask yourself whether your words are true, whether they are respectful and whether they are needed in our civil discussions."-Justice O'Connor


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  


Michael HancockRe: Questions before Update
by on Sep 23, 2011 at 11:28:23 am

[Bill Davis] "But FCP-X represents what it will be for the NEXT 10 years. "

What part of it represents the next 10 years? The focus on metadata or the UI? Because if it's the UI, I disagree. If it's the use of metadata, I agree but I don't believe that makes FCPX the exclusive editor of the future. All the other NLEs can add that functionality but still maintain a standard editing interface.


I'm honestly curious, what part of FCPX is going to make it the future of editing? Because if it's not the UI, everything else can and probably will be adopted (to a certain degree) adopted by the other NLEs, thereby removing any competitive advantage FCPX might now enjoy (in relation to metadata).

----------------
Michael Hancock
Editor


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  
+1

Walter SoykaRe: Questions before Update
by on Sep 23, 2011 at 12:57:18 pm

[Bill Davis] "One guy told me that the way he sees it, FCP-7, Premier, Vegas, and Avid represent the best of what digital video editing has been for the past 10 years. But FCP-X represents what it will be for the NEXT 10 years. It's a long play. We're in phase one."

Bill, you've been presenting FCPX as a "take it or leave it" scenario. You also imply that the complaints against FCPX are all illegitimate, and that Apple is the only one thinking about the future.

I totally disagree. If FCPX doesn't work for someone, I want them to talk about it so that Apple can hear it. The uproar over FCPX's release was well deserved, and has resulted in a better app and better communication.

There's a lot to like in FCPX, but there are some really questionable things, too. If Apple doesn't make FCPX work for more working editors, how can it become what FCP was to the industry?

I don't disagree that FCPX is a long play, but all NLEs are long plays. You've already ordained FCPX as the editor of the future, without considering what Adobe CS6 or Avid MC 6 will bring. You're comparing your vision of what FCPX will become with what the competitors are today.

Pragmatically, what good is the editor of the future if it doesn't work today? Why should a working editor care about FCPX until it can actually help them do their job?

What do you think FCPX's new editorial paradigm and user interface enables that couldn't be done before? Is it enough to counterbalance the loss of things that could be done before and can't be done now?


[Bill Davis] "One guy reminded me that we're looking at FCP-X after merely 3 months of life. And one very smart guy reminded me that the 90 day revisions just rolled out this week have already added more useful new capabilities than the original FCP added in it's entire first year. From that perspective, we can only imagine what it will look like in 2 more years."

What they've added in the first 90 days aren't "useful new capabilities." They're useful old capabilities. They're some of the things that the best of digital editing for the past 10 years have had for those 10 years. They're features that are important to editors and should be been available at launch.

Post production doesn't exist in a vacuum, and Apple can't bring the future alone. If Apple enables more workflows over the next two years, then FCPX will be very interesting indeed. If Apple stays insular, FCPX will truly become iMovie Pro, and editors that relied on FCP will have to move elsewhere.


[Bill Davis] "This is the beginning of something designed to grow and grow and grow."

Surely new features can and will be added, but I think the "new paradigm" data model and UI could be a straitjacket that's already limiting development. See David Lawrence's post [link] after a quick read of the XML. I'm not sure the designers understood all the downstream ramifications of their decisions while developing the FCPX user experience.

Also, if this was designed for growth, why do the XML format and APIs feel like an afterthought? Aren't these things that should have been locked down earlier in the design process? Apple makes new Mac OS X APIs available to developers well before they make the new OS available to the public.

Walter Soyka
Principal & Designer at Keen Live
Motion Graphics, Widescreen Events, Presentation Design, and Consulting
RenderBreak Blog - What I'm thinking when my workstation's thinking
Creative Cow Forum Host: Live & Stage Events


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  
+1

Marvin HoldmanRe: Questions before Update
by on Sep 23, 2011 at 2:09:55 pm

I'm equally curious how "after merely 3 months of life" you can make such a bold pronouncement? If it hasn't been around long enough to come to a conclusion that it is NOT the road forward, how can you be so certain it IS?

While I was encouraged to see the incremental update, and equally encouraged to finally hear some sort of message from marketing regarding the "target" user, I am still not convinced that this is the application presents a clear vision of the next 10 years of the industry. While Apple obviously has the resources to keep this product on a slow road for development, one must wonder if the new crop of people entering the industry will be enough to embrace the product and make it consequential in "future world".

The one thing I think Apple might be banking on are the current changes in the industry (and world as a whole). Future world will probably be one where more and more editors are freelancers, working out of their bedrooms with hardware/software that they can conceivably afford.

As someone who has been on both sides of this scenario, I would say that those folks, more than anyone else, are going to need less restrictive editing software than FCPX. You might say that it will become less restrictive as it further develops. I think this is going to be the real question that the few left at this forum will be discussing for quite some time.

Whether or not the backbone architecture of this FCPX will ever be able to be as versatile as all of the other established NLE's? At this point, it would appear to be an island, while all the other NLE's would appear to be airports.

Marvin Holdman
Production Manager
Tourist Network
8317 Front Beach Rd, Suite 23
Panama City Beach, Fl
phone 850-234-2773 ext. 128
cell 850-585-9667
skype username - vidmarv


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  


Steve ConnorRe: Questions before Update
by on Sep 23, 2011 at 2:16:15 pm

Well I'd much rather spend time on an Island than in an airport :)

"My Name is Steve and I'm an FCPX user"


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  

Marvin HoldmanRe: Questions before Update
by on Sep 23, 2011 at 2:49:07 pm

Sure, if you don't want to go anywhere.

Marvin Holdman
Production Manager
Tourist Network
8317 Front Beach Rd, Suite 23
Panama City Beach, Fl
phone 850-234-2773 ext. 128
cell 850-585-9667
skype username - vidmarv


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  

Steve ConnorRe: Questions before Update
by on Sep 23, 2011 at 3:05:35 pm

Well, here on the island, they are in the process of building an airport with some limited destinations.

"My Name is Steve and I'm an FCPX user"


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  


Mitch IvesRe: Questions before Update
by on Sep 23, 2011 at 3:04:41 pm

[Walter Soyka] "Pragmatically, what good is the editor of the future if it doesn't work today? Why should a working editor care about FCPX until it can actually help them do their job? "

Walter, you might be missing the point. Like the current administration keeps telling us... sure the economy sucks now, but we're supposed to stop our criticism and bitching, because in 10 years the economy will be better. How we get by until then, nobody seems to want to discuss...

Yes, the sarcasm is intentional, and I agree with all of your points...

Mitch Ives
Insight Productions Corp.
mitch@insightproductions.com
http://www.insightproductions.com


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  

Marvin HoldmanRe: Questions before Update
by on Sep 23, 2011 at 3:20:06 pm

Careful Mitch, bringing politics into this forum might be a bit dangerous. It's pretty flammable without that can of gasoline (to add yet another analogy).

:-)

Marvin Holdman
Production Manager
Tourist Network
8317 Front Beach Rd, Suite 23
Panama City Beach, Fl
phone 850-234-2773 ext. 128
cell 850-585-9667
skype username - vidmarv


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  

Mitch IvesRe: Questions before Update
by on Sep 23, 2011 at 3:31:33 pm

[Marvin Holdman] "Careful Mitch, bringing politics into this forum might be a bit dangerous. It's pretty flammable without that can of gasoline (to add yet another analogy)."

A bit late to worry about civility on this board isn't it? Seriously, people need to develop thicker skins. Not everything thats said is directed at someone personally. It's time to "cowboy up"...

Having been on the COW since the very beginning, I have never seen anything that has gendered this kind of response. I'm sure Apple wishes they could stuff that Genie back in the bottle.

On the positive side, Apple's been forced to change the way they communicate. Their website lists features coming in 2012... wow... that's new. They've also committed to the professional... wow... that's new. IMO, none of this would be happening without this forum. That "pollyanna" delivery at NAB probably won't happen again either... all because of the dialogue on this forum. Ron and Tim deserve a lot of credit for not caving to advertisers, etc. and keeping this forum up...

Mitch Ives
Insight Productions Corp.
mitch@insightproductions.com
http://www.insightproductions.com


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  
+1


Steve ConnorRe: Questions before Update
by on Sep 23, 2011 at 3:39:55 pm

[Mitch Ives] "They've also committed to the professional... wow... that's new. IMO, none of this would be happening without this forum."

The COW saves the day!!!

"My Name is Steve and I'm an FCPX user"


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  

Tim WilsonRe: Questions before Update
by on Sep 23, 2011 at 5:10:18 pm

[Mitch Ives] "On the positive side, Apple's been forced to change the way they communicate. Their website lists features coming in 2012... wow... that's new. They've also committed to the professional... wow... that's new. IMO, none of this would be happening without this forum. That "pollyanna" delivery at NAB probably won't happen again either... all because of the dialogue on this forum. Ron and Tim deserve a lot of credit for not caving to advertisers, etc. and keeping this forum up..."

[Steve Connor] "The COW saves the day!!!"

As our man Elvis would say, Thankyouverymuch!

We've talked about the value of this forum to the COW as a whole, and to the people who are able to participate in a way that doesn't drive them crazy, but yes, we're well aware of its importance to the web at large.

For all that this has been a full-contact forum, threads like this show that it can be done without losing a well-considered, professional focus. These issues matter, and they're going to matter more in the future, not less.

re: advertisers, a note that, per our Terms of Service, we'll step in to prevent unwarranted or personal attacks on sponsors. But the Terms are equally clear, if vendors step in it with a poor release, substandard service that's not being addressed, etc., they're going to have to clean it up themselves. We invite you to read that policy yourselves -- we really do feel strongly enough about it to make a public declaration about it. We're not aware of any other website that has made this promise to its members and readers.

Having said that, we give all the credit in the world to the many sponsors who have taken the heat and kept communicating. They're showing that this is how it should be done in every industry.

You're right to point out that Apple has taken an unprecedented step forward in this regard, Mitch. For all that there are other things to criticize Apple for, it's fair to give them credit for good citizenship when it occurs.

Thanks again, guys.

Tim
COW


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  

Bill DavisRe: Questions before Update
by on Sep 23, 2011 at 5:17:12 pm

>Bill, you've been presenting FCPX as a "take it or leave it" scenario. You also imply that the complaints >against FCPX are all illegitimate, and that Apple is the only one thinking about the future.

I disagree with your view above. It's not "take it or leave it" - it's look at it rationally, or look at it emotionally. You simply can't recast what has passed for the the FCP-X discussion to date as other than "emotion trumps reason." This does not imply there's not room for disagreement. We've seen quite a bit of reasonable questioning. But we've also seen a whole lot of "scandalized" emotional writing that has totally missed core realities.

I've been trying to present an opposing view based on my experience - which is unique to me - but is also long and mostly successful in knowing where to bet my professional video editing capital in order to make my living.

There are still large numbers of of loud voices who are simply damming the software - many of them on sketchy information, or based on their view of parochial issues that don't affect the lions share of editors.

So since I see things differently, I'm going to keep saying so.

I do NOT think that "Apple is the only one thinking about the future", Walter. Not at all. That would be a stupid opinion, in my view. I have at least one long time friend at Adobe who I just ran into and spent an hour talking with at the EXPO, so I'm not an Adobe or AVID hater in any way. I admire both companies and respect their operations including the people who are charged with figuring out what the market eventually will want.

What I've actually said is closer to "Apple is the only company who has taken the big risk of tearing down their flagship editing suite in order to modernize it's code for better performance in the future."

They are FIRST out of the gate with a modern NLE gut and re-build. We'll see whether the other major players see that and follow suit, or keep going with the older code base they have.

As I've said here in other posts. We had 4 similar professional NLE choices 90 days ago. Now we have 3 similar ones, and one radically different one.

Some find that horrible. I find it excellent. Now I have MORE choice, and so will you. This debate should focus on that and value facts over angst.

FACT: I stuck my head in all the "training session" doors at the DVExpo yesterday. In nearly all the free ones, attendence was kinda anemic. The only one that was chock full? Diana Weiland's 3 day FCP-X Certification Class that cost upwards of $800.

And yes, I KNOW there are plenty of expensive training program seats that have been filled with people learning AVID and Premier too. That's self evident for anyone who thinks about it.

The point is that if everyone universally agreed with the "FCP-X is a loser" meme that so many here are relentlessly propounding, those seats would NOT have been in such high demand.

Or maybe I'm wrong and absolutely everyone who decides to learn and support FCP-X at this point are wannabees or sheeplike drones who can't understand "real" editing - if so, I still commend those folks for the initiative to gather together to risk their hard-eanred cash in order to engage in what they clearly see as self-improvement.

We'll see, won't we.

"Before speaking out ask yourself whether your words are true, whether they are respectful and whether they are needed in our civil discussions."-Justice O'Connor


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  
+1


Marvin HoldmanRe: Questions before Update
by on Sep 23, 2011 at 6:01:33 pm

[Bill Davis] - "Apple is the only company who has taken the big risk of tearing down their flagship editing suite in order to modernize it's code for better performance in the future."

But to what end? If FCPX added capabilities beyond anything that competing NLE's already offer, then I might agree with this statement. It would appear that Apple changed it more to conform to their existing applications versus where they assumed the industry might be heading. Frankly, I think it has a lot more to do with how they envision these types of applications to end up being sold in the future, which is via an app store with a great many 3rd party add-ons, all of which Apple can collect a bit on without having to be involved in R&D and support. That being said, I think many (including myself) were attracted to FCS because of the tighter integration between OS, hardware and application. The direction they seem to be taking is quite far from "revolutionary". In fact, I would say it appears a bit "de-evolutionary" for the sake of profit. Do I begrudge that? No. But to say this is going to be better is a bit of a leap, in my opinion.

[Bill Davis] - "They are FIRST out of the gate with a modern NLE gut and re-build. We'll see whether the other major players see that and follow suit, or keep going with the older code base they have."

I would agree that they are the first of the NLE's to completely gut a successful program in favor of what they hope the future might be. It really all comes back to the very rational question, "why?". Why would they feel the need to re-write the nom-clamature of an industry? Again, the only reason I can see is they are hoping to create a convergence of their product lines. While I can see this logic flourishing in a board room, I don't really see it coming to fruition in a world where everyone else still calls a timeline a timeline. Other NLE's have managed to evolve their code to 64-bit without the need to throw away all the hard work they've done before. As a consumer, I can't really see why I would consider throwing away a decade or projects and experience in favor of a very sloppily released beta-version of Apple's vision of the future. While I am happy to see and hear the outcome of this weeks round of updates, I don't see them as earth shaking. Frankly, they were pretty much expected. Unfortunately, they only go to confirm what many have already pointed out... it's going to be many, many months before Apple can restore functionality to anything near it's EOL'd predecessor.

In the end, it doesn't really matter if you're "first out of the gate" with a product that doesn't work.

[Bill Davis] - "Or maybe I'm wrong and absolutely everyone who decides to learn and support FCP-X at this point are wannabees or sheeplike drones who can't understand "real" editing - if so, I still commend those folks for the initiative to gather together to risk their hard-eanred cash in order to engage in what they clearly see as self-improvement. "

I think you are marginalizing those you don't agree with in a statement like this. What most of the more experienced on here have pointed out is that the vocal majority in favor of this "new way" of thinking lack a solid background to make many of the pronouncements of how "awesome" this application really is. For those with the time and inclination, this is a great way to work with video. There needs to be a balanced understanding that it can only take you so far. At this point that is a two-fold statement. It will only take you so far editing, because if it's inherent limitations. Most here acknowledge that while projects may be easy to start with FCPX, at some point you will run up against it's rigid structure and limited communications with other programs and devices. The second, more esoteric limitation is just how far this program might take you in "the biz". With it's radically different way of describing structure and metadata, it will not do very much to prepare someone new to this business for the more consistent way things are described in the rest of the NLE's of the world.

The notion that those who have been around and are voicing these concerns are somehow belittling anyone who might try is, on the whole, untrue. Most of the cow herd are simply pointing out the short-comings of this program as it exist, and by all indications, will grow. To the new adopters who might think this is their ticket to the future, you will most likely be hitchhiking. That's the cautionary message that seems to be lost in the personal subterfuge.

[Bill Davis] - "The point is that if everyone universally agreed with the "FCP-X is a loser" meme that so many here are relentlessly propounding, those seats would NOT have been in such high demand."

Obviously, there is no universal agreement on this, or you wouldn't be here. It is a new product, which is cheaper than the others and accessible to a larger group of people. The fact that it is filling seats at the DVexpo is not a big surprise. The real test is not filling the seats, but how many of those certified will actually to on to use this application and how many will use this as a springboard to other NLE's. I expect at least some of those seats were "evaluating" the feasibility of the product at some corporate benefactors expense. Not everyone will come to the cow and dig for such insight.

As has been ask of you before....

Exactly what specific features do you see FCPX having that no other NLE has? Give us a list. Please.

Marvin Holdman
Production Manager
Tourist Network
8317 Front Beach Rd, Suite 23
Panama City Beach, Fl
phone 850-234-2773 ext. 128
cell 850-585-9667
skype username - vidmarv


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  

Bill DavisRe: Questions before Update
by on Sep 23, 2011 at 9:12:52 pm

I appreciate all you said.

In the end you asked a specific question, so I'll answer it.

Here the the features I believe will win the day in the long run.

The code base of X appears to be significantly tighter and more modern. They had already re-envisioned the OS with AV Foundation supplanting Quicktime, Core Audio, Core VIdeo, Core Graphics, et al. It's rudimentary to understand the engineers to want to rebuild the flagship programs to take advantage of these foundational technologies that were't around when the foundation of FCP was conceived.

It's precisely that core re-alighment that lets it be so agile. And that means the new "lean and mean" build makes it less dependent on towers maxed out with ram and HD arrays, and more adaptable to laptops, tablets, and smart phones.

You and I both know that laptops today run circles around desktops of just a few years ago. It's a crystal clear trend. FCP-X is in conformance with that trend.

Continuing, Unlike FCP-Legacy, it "speaks" file based storage natively. FCP-legacy was designed "ground up" in an era when video meant TAPE -= and video editors with talent were trained to think of a piece of moving tape as the fundamental concept of how images were stored and played back.

But they no longer were. And that gave Apple the chance to do what it does best. Think Different.

(Yes, I know, many of you immediately will get hostile and think "but it wasn't broken." And you're right, it wasn't. But history is full of examples of people who re-invented stuff that worked just fine, when they believed they could see a way to make them work better. Jury's still definitely out on that in this particular case, but I'm comfortable that the new way is likely to be superior to the old way in the long run - while appreciating the absolute right of anyone else to see things differently.

My continuing enthusiasm (and I'll admit that that describes exactly what it is) for FCP-X is based on what it's doing well for me. Here's an example. Right now, we're working on about 30 interviews shot over 3 days of production in San Diego. With FCP-7 I would have had to Log and Transfer those cards and wait until everything was transcoded to ProRes before I could start editing. FCP-X allows me to open the Disc Images of the card files (6 cards in this case) into RAM and all the virtual footage is available INSTANTLY to start editing with. Hours and hours of prep saved. For all I know, other NLE's might have had that before, but FCP-7 did not. Big efficiency win for me in this particular case.

I also think FCP-X's "less timeline centric" orientation is going to win. The timeline itself comes from an era when nearly all professional deliverables were destined to be sold by time increments. That's TV shows and commercials. (Theatrical movies were always less length dependent within reasonable limits) For the modern editor who may NEVER have to deliver a 30 sec spots or a 44-45 minute cut for a network TV slot - then the "work to rigid time specs" that were once critical in the vast majority of projects- aren't so much any more..

Part of the FCP-X bet is clearly that in the future less video will be consumed on TV and via plastic discs, and more as pure data on laptops, ipads, smart phones and thumb drives.

I believe they are correct. The missions are changing, so the tools must adapt as well.

They also appear to see that while large organizational team approaches have to still be supported (and said as much with the XML and Stems inclusion in 1.01) they also understand that modern video content creation is rapidly skewing more toward the efforts of a single person in a seat than a building full of role-players. After saying that, if you can build a video editing tool that is agile, useful, modern, more processer and OS efficient AND allows add features that make it ALSO useful in workgroup situations - that just adds icing to the cake and makes it a better tools at little incremental development cost.

In sum, the "gut and rebuild" of the software is exactly the same as gutting and rebuilding ANYTHING else.

A company does it because they're dissatisfied with the existing foundational construction.

It's a PITA to gut to the core. Much more efficient, easier and less costly to renovate than to scrape, dig out the old foundation and re-build from scratch.

The only reason to do it, is that you think foundations THEMSELVES have evolved and the ones being constructed and installed today are BETTER than the ones installed yesterday.

In the first big paragraph of this I mentioned half a dozen technologies that are in play today that didn't even EXIST when the code base of FCP-legacy was being developed.

I simply think the BEST software talent isn't put to best use when you make them constantly work to keep compatibility with code and calls and even features that were mission critical 10 years ago, but might NOT be so important now. (I doubt FCP-X can link to anything over an RS-232 port, but so what!)

So since you asked, that's my view.

For what it's worth.

"Before speaking out ask yourself whether your words are true, whether they are respectful and whether they are needed in our civil discussions."-Justice O'Connor


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  
+1

Herb SevushRe: Questions before Update
by on Sep 23, 2011 at 9:56:18 pm

Bill,

That was a very articulate answer to a question that no one has asked. You answered the question "what specific features do you see FCPX having that FCP7 doesn't have?"

The question Marvin asked was:
"Exactly what specific features do you see FCPX having that no other NLE has?"

As far as I can see your San Diego shoot could have been edited on PPro just as quickly and easily. So unless there was something specific about either the keyword tagging, the auditions, or some other feature of the magnetic timeline that sped your edit up more than cutting in PPro's more traditional interface, then the question again is what is the advantage of FCPX over all the other NLE's. Comparing it to the corpse that is FCP7 is not really the point.

Herb Sevush
Zebra Productions


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  


Bill DavisRe: Questions before Update
by on Sep 23, 2011 at 10:25:17 pm

Fine Herb,

That just means that I was able to use the $299 tool instead of the $999 one (499 for a limited time) to do the same work in the modern, agile style.

I'm not forced to buy a suite of tools (and pay for access to them) that I'm not likely to use.

I can live with that.

"Before speaking out ask yourself whether your words are true, whether they are respectful and whether they are needed in our civil discussions."-Justice O'Connor


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  

Herb SevushRe: Questions before Update
by on Sep 23, 2011 at 10:36:56 pm

Oh, so now the argument for FCPX is that it's cheaper?

Elsewhere and always you have positioned yourself, and all others trying to learn FCPX, as being open to the new, not hamstrung by the restrictions of the past. I know these are not your exact words, but I think they are fairly representative.

Given that, I'm curious as to why your desire to learn and expand your boundaries ends with Apple. Your thrilled to be trying out and proselytizing for FCPX but seem to have no interest in giving the same consideration to Adobe or Avid. I mean integration with AE and Photoshop is not something to just sneer at, yet it seems the only new program you're interested in is FCPX.

Just curious.

Herb Sevush
Zebra Productions


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  

Bill DavisRe: Questions before Update
by on Sep 23, 2011 at 11:24:04 pm

Herb,

It may be difficult for you to understand this, but I think about more than one thing when I consider things.

It's price is ONE aspect that's important at some times. Everybody understands that. Everybody.

Particularly, I suspect, in allowing students and other beginning editors access to tools. Most people who take a moment to think beyond the level of "I must pick this guys argument apart" understand that a $200 difference (let alone a $700 one!) is significant in some circumstances — including the one I described in the original discussion - choosing a modern laptop tool to do basic prep in card-based workflows.

I was making an apples to apples comparison in response to someone saying that other tools have similar speed and features. Fine. In a targeted discussion of limited to feature performance that alleges that two products have much in the way of parity - why is noting that one of those options has a superior price point anything but useful?

If you feel the price difference is fully justified by additonal features, argue that and tlet the budget customer reading here decide if those extra features are worth the extra price.

I suspect that would be more useful than just taking me to task because I bought up the factual reality of a price differential.

"Before speaking out ask yourself whether your words are true, whether they are respectful and whether they are needed in our civil discussions."-Justice O'Connor


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  


Herb SevushRe: Questions before Update
by on Sep 24, 2011 at 4:36:14 pm

"It may be difficult for you to understand this, but I think about more than one thing when I consider things."

Nope, doesn't surprise me at all.

"It's price is ONE aspect that's important at some times. Everybody understands that. Everybody.
Particularly, I suspect, in allowing students and other beginning editors access to tools"


Most people in video production use Photoshop. Many use After Effects. If you use both PPro is free. So now lets throw in the cost of both Compressor and Motion, which you would need for any sort of professional workflow. Now FCPX is at $400. If you will need any of the other 3rd party apps for things like tape support, or OMF or XML interchange, in the current scheme these will now cost extra. For even a beginning professional, when taking in the cost of all the software that you will actually need to get work done, I don't think it's clear that FCPX is cheaper. It will be in some cases, it won't be in many others.

As for students, Adobes Student price for PPro is 340, for the whole Production Suite it's 445.

"I suspect that would be more useful than just taking me to task because I bought up the factual reality of a price differential."

I wasn't taking you to task for bringing up prices, I was merely surprised that in the middle of a discussion about the specific features that FCPX had vs the rest of the NLE world you suddenly chose to bring up price as the distinguishing feature. I can't recall you ever mentioning it before in any of your other many postings.

But then I guess you had nothing left to say about the features argument so why not turn a corner? It's good technique, used it often enough myself.

Herb Sevush
Zebra Productions


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  

Marvin HoldmanRe: Questions before Update
by on Sep 24, 2011 at 12:03:24 am

[Bill Davis] - "It's precisely that core re-alighment that lets it be so agile. And that means the new "lean and mean" build makes it less dependent on towers maxed out with ram and HD arrays, and more adaptable to laptops, tablets, and smart phones. "

As long as people need speed (and time is money in this business) they will need ram, HD arrays and towers. The general trend before FCPX was towards more portable laptops, but as someone who uses both routinely, the smaller laptops, tablets and smartphones will not replace towers for sheer "getting the job done faster". The tighter integration you espouse as one of the primary benefits would be great if it were a soup to nuts solution, but by Apples own words, they will be relying on third party implementation for a significant portion of functionality in the long run. I don't see how this is system can remain "lean and mean" as it heads in this direction, not to mention the prospect of upgrades as we move forward with a host of vendors.

[Bill Davis] - "Right now, we're working on about 30 interviews shot over 3 days of production in San Diego. With FCP-7 I would have had to Log and Transfer those cards and wait until everything was transcoded to ProRes before I could start editing. FCP-X allows me to open the Disc Images of the card files (6 cards in this case) into RAM and all the virtual footage is available INSTANTLY to start editing with. Hours and hours of prep saved. For all I know, other NLE's might have had that before, but FCP-7 did not. Big efficiency win for me in this particular case."

Not sure what files you are using, but we've been using XDCAM footage NATIVELY via Calibrated Software for some years now. Move the files from the camera to your hard drive and start editing. No conversions, no re-wraps, no pro-res. Makes the workflow efficient and keeps the data footprint small. FCPX can't do this. XDCAM footage must be re-wrapped before it can be used doubling your data-footprint. While it's true some of this takes place in the background, it still leaves you with twice the amount of footage to ultimately manage. Nothing new or revolutionary about FCPX here. And yes, PPro deals with XDCAM natively as well. Both are more efficient than FCPX.

[Bill Davis] - "I also think FCP-X's "less timeline centric" orientation is going to win. The timeline itself comes from an era when nearly all professional deliverables were destined to be sold by time increments."

Exactly how do you propose professional deliverables be sold? Even youtube has specifications on the commercials it runs before you get to see your selected content. I don't think this notion is even remotely based in any future reality. As long as there are commercials, no matter WHAT the medium, there will be time increments to sell them. That is not going away, and frankly neither are commercials.

[Bill Davis] - "Part of the FCP-X bet is clearly that in the future less video will be consumed on TV and via plastic discs, and more as pure data on laptops, ipads, smart phones and thumb drives. "

That is not the future, that is today. Every major NLE out there has some contingency for producing this type of deliverable, or at the very least, an established workflow to getting the product to one of a great many products to create it. FCPX didn't invent digital media.

[Bill Davis] - "A company does it because they're dissatisfied with the existing foundational construction. "

In this case, they sacrificed functionality for "foundational construction". Now they are going to rely on others to restore that functionality by banking on the "foundational construction". The real question at this point is whether that "foundational construction" is going to even be relevant in 2 years when other NLE's have had a chance to study the benefits you espouse and inevitably incorporate them into their products. You don't think Adobe has people looking at integrating AV foundation? By the the time FCPX restores it's functionality other NLE's will have maintained theirs while incorporating these foundations. Which do you think will be better then?

Sadly, Apple has stacked the deck against themselves with this product. It appears you are advocating FCPX as the best option for those looking of an NLE. FCPX is absolutely great software for someone who does not need it to do a job. For everyone else, it is clearly lacking.

Marvin Holdman
Production Manager
Tourist Network
8317 Front Beach Rd, Suite 23
Panama City Beach, Fl
phone 850-234-2773 ext. 128
cell 850-585-9667
skype username - vidmarv


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  

TImothy AuldRe: Questions before Update
by on Sep 23, 2011 at 6:02:32 pm

Bill Davis -"You simply can't recast what has passed for the the FCP-X discussion to date as other than "emotion trumps reason."

When you make a statement like that you are not just implying but saying outright that there is no room for disagreement with you on that particular subject. I can and will recast it is something other than emotion. It doesn't work for me in my world. It doesn't work for many other people in theirs. I don't care who calls it the future. When it does what I need it to do I'll consider it. That is empirical, not emotional.

bigpine


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  


Chris HarlanRe: Questions before Update
by on Sep 23, 2011 at 8:21:21 pm

[TImothy Auld] "Bill Davis -"You simply can't recast what has passed for the the FCP-X discussion to date as other than "emotion trumps reason."

When you make a statement like that you are not just implying but saying outright that there is no room for disagreement with you on that particular subject. "


I second that. There have been many passionate, but well-resoned statements made about the program. I would say they far outweigh those of blind anger. I feel very comfortable, in fact, making the statement that, given the degree of change FCP has undergone between versions, what has passed on this forum over the last few months is actually a triumph of reason over emotion.


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  

Bill DavisRe: Questions before Update
by on Sep 23, 2011 at 9:13:51 pm

big,

You are correct. My language went a bit too far.

Sorry.

"Before speaking out ask yourself whether your words are true, whether they are respectful and whether they are needed in our civil discussions."-Justice O'Connor


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  

Michael HancockRe: Questions before Update
by on Sep 23, 2011 at 6:16:07 pm

[Bill Davis] "They are FIRST out of the gate with a modern NLE gut and re-build. "

What does this mean? Premiere has undergone two compete rebuilds recently, with the most recent being CS5, if I remember correctly. When they did it, though, they didn't present a reinvention of the editing timeline and change all the terminology. But they definitely rewrote their application to handle modern video and audio formats a while ago - and they still handle more file formats natively than FCPX.

Or do you mean Apple are the first to throw everything away and present a new way to hammer the proverbial nail?

----------------
Michael Hancock
Editor


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  


Chris HarlanRe: Questions before Update
by on Sep 23, 2011 at 8:22:55 pm

[Michael Hancock] "Or do you mean Apple are the first to throw everything away and present a new way to hammer the proverbial nail?"

Yeah, but it is a magnetic hammer.


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  

Bill DavisRe: Questions before Update
by on Sep 23, 2011 at 9:41:44 pm

Clearly, Chris, you've never needed to re-upholster a chair.

A magnetic tack hammer is PRECISELY the tool you want.

Runs circles around a traditional one and prevents time lost to thumb and finger injuries in the process.

: )

"Before speaking out ask yourself whether your words are true, whether they are respectful and whether they are needed in our civil discussions."-Justice O'Connor


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  

Chris HarlanRe: Questions before Update
by on Sep 23, 2011 at 9:59:23 pm

[Bill Davis] "Clearly, Chris, you've never needed to re-upholster a chair.

A magnetic tack hammer is PRECISELY the tool you want.

Runs circles around a traditional one and prevents time lost to thumb and finger injuries in the process.

: )
"


Actually, Bill. As you often do, you make some pretty large assumptions on very little data. My grandfather was an upholsterer, and I spent many years in his shop helping out. My attitude to editorial detail probably comes from my days in his shop. My mother--as a hobby--continues to reupholster regularly. I'm probably far more familiar with a tack hammer than you will ever be, though I certainly cannot say that for certain, as you may have your own story about upholstery. One of the things I would have to say about tack hammers--and remember, this comes from years of experience--is that, despite their extreme usefulness in specific instances, they are fairly useless if not completely useless in most other applications.


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  


Bill DavisRe: Questions before Update
by on Sep 23, 2011 at 10:35:00 pm

Agreed.

An in fact, if you're making 1000 chairs a day, the proper toolset is likely going to be a big-assed compressor and a host of workers weilding penumatic brad guns.

The best tool benches feature a broad range of tool choices that the artist can pick and choose in order to scale their efforts to the scope of the tasks at hand. Something I suspect your grandfather would have understand perfectly.

I don't have to have upholstery professionals in my family to understand that.

And to understand that there are likely more people who will benefit from a CHOICE in NLE editing platforms just as the woodworking industry benefits from not having all chair builders go to the store and be forced into a choice of BRAND of big compressor systems, rather than having a wider range of toolsets including some specialty tools that work better for particular uses.

FCP-X represents a very different choice.

That can be nothing but good for editing in general, whether it's adopted by millions, thousands, hundreds or dozens.

"Before speaking out ask yourself whether your words are true, whether they are respectful and whether they are needed in our civil discussions."-Justice O'Connor


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  

Chris HarlanRe: Questions before Update
by on Sep 23, 2011 at 10:53:56 pm

[Bill Davis] "he best tool benches feature a broad range of tool choices that the artist can pick and choose in order to scale their efforts to the scope of the tasks at hand. Something I suspect your grandfather would have understand perfectly."

Oh, agreed. He also was pretty good at recognizing actual innovation, as opposed to gimmicks and poor design tarted up as "the future."

[Bill Davis] "FCP-X represents a very different choice.

That can be nothing but good for editing in general, whether it's adopted by millions, thousands, hundreds or dozens."



I've got no problem with that as long as they know what they are actually getting.


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  

Bill DavisRe: Questions before Update
by on Sep 23, 2011 at 10:59:25 pm

We were doing fine until I got to your last line.

Which to my eye, seemed to imply "those who disagree with my perceptions are merely too dumb to understand what's good for them."

I can't believe that's what you meant to say.

So I'll ignore it.

"Before speaking out ask yourself whether your words are true, whether they are respectful and whether they are needed in our civil discussions."-Justice O'Connor


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  


Chris HarlanRe: Questions before Update
by on Sep 23, 2011 at 11:11:54 pm

[Bill Davis] "We were doing fine until I got to your last line.

Which to my eye, seemed to imply "those who disagree with my perceptions are merely too dumb to understand what's good for them."

I can't believe that's what you meant to say.

So I'll ignore it.
"


Bill, you shouldn't ignore it. You should actually listen to it. How do you possibly get the above bit of foulness from "I've got no problem with that as long as they know what they are actually getting." If that is really what you eyes say, they need serious checking.

What I'm saying, Bill--just so you get it--is that there is so much bloviated misinformation floating around about the super zippy life-altering coolness of FCP X, that I think it is important that forums like this exist so that people can learn the short comings as well as the strengths of FCP X so that they can make an informed decision. Does that make it clearer for you?


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  

Bill DavisRe: Questions before Update
by on Sep 23, 2011 at 11:50:38 pm

Yes Herb.

You've been consistent to the point of dogmatic in your view about FCP-X.

It's also clear that you are as hardened in your thinking as I am in the opposing view that this continues to be software that is new, interesting, and increasingly useful.

I'm more than a bit thankful that I'm on this side of the coin, because I believe that my thinking is a path to more understanding (and more fun along the path) than is yours. And I suspect you feel exactly the opposite. We'll have to accept that.

Because we're different people.

I am curious as to your continued coming back to a place about a topic you appear to have decided is fatally flawed and unworthy of your time. That confuses me. When I assess something as unworthy of my time, I leave it behind and go concentrate on things that I DO find worthy of my attention.

Maybe it's just a microcosm of the current era where modern radio and the web teaches us that constant angst, confrontation, and clash is more satisfying to many than is civility and reasoned discussion from BOTH sides.

I think you and I may be stuck inside the classic "glass half full vs glass half empty" polarization.

In fact, I think you might be the the guy who used the term "Pollyanna" a while back to describe my view.

I'm totally OK with that, btw.

I kinda had a thing for Haley Mills when I was a lad and actually admired the character for coming to issues with a perspective that naturally gave new ideas and situations either a positive spin or at least the benefit of the doubt.

And I'd rather make mistakes by being too open, than make mistakes by being too closed.

You're against FCP-X and I'm for it. I get it. As does everybody else here.

We should move along.

"Before speaking out ask yourself whether your words are true, whether they are respectful and whether they are needed in our civil discussions."-Justice O'Connor


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  

Chris HarlanRe: Questions before Update
by on Sep 24, 2011 at 1:38:12 am

[Bill Davis] "Yes Herb."

I'm guessing, Bill, that you are addressing me and not Herb.

[Bill Davis] "You've been consistent to the point of dogmatic in your view about FCP-X.

It's also clear that you are as hardened in your thinking as I am in the opposing view that this continues to be software that is new, interesting, and increasingly useful.
"


This is demonstrably untrue. While I have expressed great dissatisfaction with the loss of FCS, I have shown a fair interest in FCP X, acknowledged its potential usefulness on many occasions, and have stated numerous times that--while it would not be my main editing tool--I could find a place for it in my arsenal with a few minor adjustments, such as EDL export.


[Bill Davis] "I am curious as to your continued coming back to a place about a topic you appear to have decided is fatally flawed and unworthy of your time. That confuses me. When I assess something as unworthy of my time, I leave it behind and go concentrate on things that I DO find worthy of my attention. "

Again, if you'd bothered to pay any attention to my posts, you would see that over the last few months, I have often shown interest in FCP X's potential. I've started threads about it--Roles, for instance--because I am generally curious about what advantages FCP X might offer me. When I started that serious and positive thread about Roles, all you did was belittle me for starting it. Instead of having a positive conversation, all youu did was make a series of roll/role jokes.


[Bill Davis] "In fact, I think you might be the the guy who used the term "Pollyanna" a while back to describe my view.

I'm totally OK with that, btw.
"


Nope. Not me. Maybe you mean Herb, who I am also not.


[Bill Davis] "You're against FCP-X and I'm for it. I get it. As does everybody else here.

We should move along.
"


Again, wrong. There are things I don't like about FCP X, though it may soon become useful enough for me to own. You feel free to move along. I plan to continue to examine and debate the usefulness of FCP X for some time to come.

By the way, do you ever actually talk about the specifics of the program? I'm not sure I've ever seen that.


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  


Herb SevushRe: Questions before Update
by on Sep 24, 2011 at 4:51:39 pm

Well at least we have Hayley Mills in common. Preferred The Parent Trap and That Darn Cat to Pollyanna though. And no, I'm not the one to describe your view as Pollyanna-ish.

As for why I come to this forum, it's where many of us orphans have come to discuss where we shall go next. FCP7 is dead, we all have to migrate. Some will go Adobe & Avid, some might go FCPX, I'm hoping something comes of the Lightworks open source experiment. I've already eliminated Edius, Media 100 and Vegas as they are not robust enough for my work flow.

The question some might ask then is why do you come here, since you have already determined that you are not looking anywhere other than FCPX for your future? It would seem the techniques forum would be more up your alley.

But unlike some others, I would never ask that question. I would never tell a Cow poster what to say or where to say it. But that's just me. I guess it's because I'm so closed.

Herb Sevush
Zebra Productions


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  

Bill DavisRe: Questions before Update
by on Sep 23, 2011 at 9:19:40 pm

You telling me that Premier is now calling Core Audio and AV foundation for it's processing?

If so I'm impressed.

I freely admit I don't know the other pacakges very well. That's why I try to stick as close as possible to trying to discuss that features I work with and understand.

If Adobe (or Avid's) re-builds have put them on a feature or speed equivelence, of if they provide features that FCP-X does not, then you'll never hear me say that someone shouldn't follow that reasoning and switch.

The reasoning I do take issue with is the drone of "it's not professional and you can't do good work with it because it doesn't do what I want the way I want to do it." That's absolutely correct. It doesn't. It does a lot differently. So what?

Apples pricing for X seems to have caused at least Adobe to cut their entry price in half to woo new users - so good for the guys who want to switch!

I'm just not one of them. Simple as that.

"Before speaking out ask yourself whether your words are true, whether they are respectful and whether they are needed in our civil discussions."-Justice O'Connor


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  

Michael HancockRe: Questions before Update
by on Sep 23, 2011 at 9:43:54 pm

[Bill Davis] "You telling me that Premier is now calling Core Audio and AV foundation for it's processing?"

I'm not a coder, but probably not. But I can tell you it has equal or better performance than FCPX has and it's had it for at least a year (when did 5 come out? That was the breakthrough moment for Premiere).

Depending on your source footage, Avid has equal or better performance than FCPX it's still a 32-bit app (P2, XDCam, Red - not so much with .h264). Perhaps that's why I find it hard to get excited about Apple creating the OS and the NLE and thinking they're going to tap into some amazing power - they couldn't do it with FCP, why should FCPX be different? Most other NLEs punched out way more realtime power than FCP ever did, on the exact same Mac. What changed with X that Apple can finally exploit their own OS and hardware better than the competition?

[Bill Davis] "I freely admit I don't know the other pacakges very well. That's why I try to stick as close as possible to trying to discuss that features I work with and understand."

That may be why you receive so many heated responses to your posts. You aren't familiar with what Avid and Premiere offer, so some of what you promote as groundbreaking isn't - it's been available for a long time. I was editing on an Avid directly off P2 cards years ago. Premiere has been editing natively for a long time, burning through .h264 files like butter. All the transcoding you were doing? It wasn't necessary if you chosen a different tool.

FCPX may well be a great tool for certain niches now and even more in the future. And it's not about "professionals" vs. amateurs or prosumers. Those words have been beaten up and skewed so much lately they've lost their meaning. It's about being familiar with what FCPX does different and measuring it against what the alternatives do. As you stated:

[Bill Davis] " It does a lot differently. So what?"

The "what" is, does it do them more efficiently? If you've only ever known FCP, absolutely (minus the obvious things missing like monitoring and multicam - Apple has said they're coming). But if you're familiar with Avid or Premiere or Vegas or Edius or Media 100 you're looking at it from another angle, and perhaps it doesn't do a lot more efficiently, or not efficiently enough to warrant learning a new language and a new way to edit.

As to Adobe and Avid temporarily lowering their prices - that's what's great about FCPX whether it works for you or not. It's lowered the cost barrier even more, for at least a little while. And means we all win.

----------------
Michael Hancock
Editor


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  


Bill DavisRe: Questions before Update
by on Sep 23, 2011 at 10:56:03 pm

As to your comment:
Most other NLEs punched out way more realtime power than FCP ever did, on the exact same Mac.

The oddity is that even if all could agree that in all cases this was universally and strictly true, what was the barrier that caused it to always remain substantially less successful than FCP-Legacy in it's market share? Was this just a re-do of the BetaMax is superior to VHS, but the market doesn't care? Was there a differentiator like "whole movie" capacity that drove the success of one over the other? Interesting questions, but the fact remains that FCP-X was the most widely used world wide editing platform when they did the rebuild. I suspect that without the overall ascendence of Apple as a business, this risk would not have been conceivable. So thanks to Jobs betting successfully on iPods/ITMS, iPhones and iPads, the company had the luxury to take a flyer on the FCP re-invention game. And so we win with a new, if controversial choice. Good. I like more choice.

Heated responses to my posts? Yep, gotten TOTALLY used to that. Some are interesting. Many feel "knee jerk" to me, as if the respondent is still doing what I did initially - give no weight to what might be true inside what was ticking me off. But that's how modern debate works. You pick and choose weakness and try to address that - and ignore whatever you can't take apart and address as easily. I'm TRYING not to do that. But I suspect I'm regularly failing at it. That's OK. Opinions that are never tested have a larger chance of being exposed as baseless over time. Those that are challenged and can be defended are the ones that stick around. I'm okay with that.

As to the idea you expressed in "if you've only ever known..." I understand the concept. But I dismissed trying to be the "systems analyist type" long ago. In that game you need an overview of the strengths and weaknesses of all the players. If you're in the seat doing the work, your interest can stop at the point you find a tools that satisfies your personal needs.

I've had that since April of 1999. FCP. I guess I should be the first guy to be pissed that they changed it since my entire career has largely been based around it. But I'm having the time of my life learning the new thinking that X is built on. Its FASCINATING to me. And I like fascinating, challenging, and things that shake my life up (in moderation, of course.)

Like the say, YMMV.

Totally agree with your last line, however. FCP-X instantly drove savings into the Pro NLE market. Hope it lasts.

"Before speaking out ask yourself whether your words are true, whether they are respectful and whether they are needed in our civil discussions."-Justice O'Connor


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  

Walter SoykaRe: Questions before Update
by on Sep 23, 2011 at 6:24:13 pm

Bill, my apologies if I've mistakenly read the tone of your posts, but you've been writing quite a bit about how FCPX is the future of editorial, and that's what I'm trying to understand. There are certainly some important advancements in FCPX, but taking the package as a whole, I don't think they're currently worth the tradeoffs.

I agree with you that there have been many emotional critiques of FCPX (though I like to think I've made some pretty reasonable critiques of both the feature set and the user experience design choices!).

On the flip side, though, how many of the pro-FCPX arguments (some of which I have made myself!) are forward-looking projections, guesses, and wishes from people like you and me with no idea what's actually going on in Cupertino?

In my mind, "FCPX is a great platform for future development" does not make FCPX the NLE of the future. Nor does the "FCPX is built on a database" claim. Nor does the "third parties will add needed functionality" claim.

What specifically do you see in FCPX today that makes you think it is the future?


[Bill Davis] "What I've actually said is closer to "Apple is the only company who has taken the big risk of tearing down their flagship editing suite in order to modernize it's code for better performance in the future." They are FIRST out of the gate with a modern NLE gut and re-build. We'll see whether the other major players see that and follow suit, or keep going with the older code base they have."

Well, Adobe rewrote AE and Premiere Pro for CS5 [link], and MC6 will be 64-bit [link] so FCPX isn't the only NLE built on a modern platform for future development.

Updating the code to take advantage of modern technology is necessary. Removing useful features, alienating your third-party developer ecosystem, ignoring industry standards, and forcing all your existing users to migrate and retrain -- that's optional.


[Bill Davis] "As I've said here in other posts. We had 4 similar professional NLE choices 90 days ago. Now we have 3 similar ones, and one radically different one. Some find that horrible. I find it excellent. Now I have MORE choice, and so will you. This debate should focus on that and value facts over angst."

The difference between FCPX and the other NLEs is a two-edged sword, though -- that's what horrifies people. 90 days ago, we had 4 NLE choices with proper video monitoring and some sort of edit decision import from other systems. Today we have 3. Some workflows have fewer choices than they had before; that's a fact, not angst.

I'm very interested in fact-based debate on this. With FCPX, Apple threw out decades' worth of conventional wisdom about what editing should be and what an NLE should do, and ignored many legitimate workflow needs. I think the burden is on them to show why their new way is better.

Pervasive metadata? I love it. Auditions? Great idea. Faster media skimming? Worth a shot. All of these could be implemented in a conventional NLE.

No persistent source monitor? The self-collapsing, trackless timeline? A magnetic timeline, based relationally to the primary storyline instead of to time? I've written about why I don't like these, and about how I think conventional tracked systems could be improved to take advantage of interesting concepts like clip connections -- but I haven't seen anyone describe how the new storyline metaphor or UI that goes with it actually improves editing.

I don't think that newer is automatically better. If FCPX is better, what's better about it? Was it worth the loss of other features and workflow?


[Bill Davis] "Or maybe I'm wrong and absolutely everyone who decides to learn and support FCP-X at this point are wannabees or sheeplike drones who can't understand "real" editing - if so, I still commend those folks for the initiative to gather together to risk their hard-eanred cash in order to engage in what they clearly see as self-improvement. "

A couple paragraphs above, you talked about arguing the facts, not the emotions -- and this bit represents neither my thinking nor any reasoned critique of FCPX.

Walter Soyka
Principal & Designer at Keen Live
Motion Graphics, Widescreen Events, Presentation Design, and Consulting
RenderBreak Blog - What I'm thinking when my workstation's thinking
Creative Cow Forum Host: Live & Stage Events


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  

Bill DavisRe: Questions before Update
by on Sep 23, 2011 at 9:39:03 pm

Walter,

I've found you one of the MOST reasonable and open-minded voices around here. Period.

The "forward looking projections" comment is completely fair as well. So fair that it was echoed by at least one guy I talked to this week who actually does have some invitational access to the FCP-X development thinking. (and who was VERY careful with making sure he spoke only in broad generalities because of that.) I got the "this is the foundation, there's a LOT more to come" and the "the team was empowered to start to dump any and everything in order to re-consider what was possible and beneficial in the light of where editing is most likely to be going for the greatest possible number of real-world broad spectrum editing tasks (my language interpretations exclusively, not what he SPECIFICALLY said, because as I noted, he clearly took his ND responsibilities very seriously)

The above is not NEWS. Just a veiled distant glance at what is probably going on in Cupertino. And is nothing more than can be seen in the features and the approach in the reality of the FCP-X by anyone who wants to look at it rationally.

So if this "early building blocks" idea i is correct what might it mean?

It appears that the 90 day rapid delivery of XML, STEMS, ROLLS, and new camera SDKs might be an indication that with cleaner base code, there are fewer software interactions to screw up when the code goes in to enable new features - and that may just empower more rapid revision and improvement.

I'm still cutting in FCP-Legacy most days. But my home town studio group is back in session tonight to explore FCP-X - and since the 1.01 rev, I've had responses from nearly twice as many people as last time who want to attend.

Momentum for the product? Only time will tell.

"Before speaking out ask yourself whether your words are true, whether they are respectful and whether they are needed in our civil discussions."-Justice O'Connor


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  


Marvin HoldmanRe: Questions before Update
by on Sep 24, 2011 at 12:17:05 am

[Bill Davis] - "in the light of where editing is most likely to be going for the greatest possible number of real-world broad spectrum editing tasks"

The implication is that by targeting the larger consumer market that an explosion of editing will follow. Well, the "revolution" has already happened (can you say iMovie?) and the common discovery was that no matter how "awesome" the tool might be, it still takes more time to edit video than most people care to spend learning and doing it. "Real-world broad spectrum editing task" require versatile tools that are flexible enough to conform to your ideas, not restrictive ones that limit your abilities by thinking for you. When desktop publishing came along you didn't get an appreciable rise in the number of good designers. FCPX isn't going to create a new market any more than iMovie has.

Marvin Holdman
Production Manager
Tourist Network
8317 Front Beach Rd, Suite 23
Panama City Beach, Fl
phone 850-234-2773 ext. 128
cell 850-585-9667
skype username - vidmarv


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  

Bill DavisRe: Questions before Update
by on Sep 24, 2011 at 1:52:21 am

Marvin,

My perspective is that this is another thing you have dead wrong.

"When desktop publishing came along you didn't get an appreciable rise in the number of good designers. FCPX isn't going to create a new market any more than iMovie has."

I think most of the "good designers" 10 years after the fall of the Linotronic culture and the rise of the desktop era were PRECISELY those who dumped the old workflow most rapidly and adopted the new ones.

I owned a small ad agency during those years and I saw the rise, fall and obsolescence of phototype from the beginning, middle and end.

The youngsters with emerging talent took the new abilities that flexible on-screen design, PostScript, Firey RIPS and even the Laserwriter and watched as wholesale changes swept across the landscape.

Yes, talent will out. But no matter how astonishingly design talented the guy doing page layouts by cutting rubylith and pasting up physical type might have been, obsolescence was on the horizon the moment the game changed.

I totally understand your defense of Towers, RAM and big assed hard drives. But it's going to mean NOTHING when the client EXPECTS you to show up on set and load, edit and display how shot 007b2 cuts against 009c3. If you can't deliver on that that request because you're stuck on the system "back in the office" heaven help you. And the moment the shooter in the field discovers that he or she can actually FINISH a cut at the client's deskside, then they're going to start thinking "Why do I need those guys back in the office working so hard to amortize that big iron. The work is getting done right here. I'm right here doing it. So why shouldn't I just do it myself and forgo the hassle of the costly edit suite."

Editing skills are moving from being centered around SHOPS to being centered around individual BRAINS. If you can't see that, good luck with all the expensive hardware. (Suggest you look into depreciating it according to IRS Section 179 because at this rate, it's gonna be worth ZIP faster than you can believe.

That changes everything. Period.

FWIW.

"Before speaking out ask yourself whether your words are true, whether they are respectful and whether they are needed in our civil discussions."-Justice O'Connor


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  

Chris HarlanRe: Questions before Update
by on Sep 24, 2011 at 3:13:20 am

[Bill Davis] "I totally understand your defense of Towers, RAM and big assed hard drives. But it's going to mean NOTHING when the client EXPECTS you to show up on set and load, edit and display how shot 007b2 cuts against 009c3. If you can't deliver on that that request because you're stuck on the system "back in the office" heaven help you. And the moment the shooter in the field discovers that he or she can actually FINISH a cut at the client's deskside, then they're going to start thinking "Why do I need those guys back in the office working so hard to amortize that big iron. The work is getting done right here. I'm right here doing it. So why shouldn't I just do it myself and forgo the hassle of the costly edit suite."

Editing skills are moving from being centered around SHOPS to being centered around individual BRAINS. If you can't see that, good luck with all the expensive hardware. (Suggest you look into depreciating it according to IRS Section 179 because at this rate, it's gonna be worth ZIP faster than you can believe.

That changes everything. Period.
"



There is nothing new about this. Everything you are talking about here has been happening for years. YEARS. Half a decade. I was doing the most of the stuff you are describing in 2004/5 on G4 17 with FCP, and all of the stuff by 2007. For Broadcast. Constantly. That doesn't mean that I don't still use towers or enjoy 4 monitors plus broadcast out. You are talking about history as if it were the future.


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  


Bill DavisRe: Questions before Update
by on Sep 24, 2011 at 8:00:20 pm

Chris,

History informs us about the future unless we ignore it.

Everyone here knows that when you can do 80% of what it took a tower system to do 5 years ago on a modern laptop, that means that we're compelled to re-think the value of the "desk in an office" model.

Perhaps the traditional "post house" where I cut my teeth will remain. But it certainly didn't in the other major recent creative industry that went through the digitization process - music production.

I suspect there are still "monolithic" recording studios out there. But a fraction of the number that were in business 10 years ago. What killed that model was when everything that was needed in the audio production, editing and manipulation chain got digitized and computerized.

ProTools altered the landscape.

Now the video production industry is following the precise same path.

Heck, I'm writing this in my own production studio - purpose built in what was once the hay-barn behind my horse property in Scottsdale. I keep looking around and thinking that even THIS model - built on the desire for economic efficiency (no separate office rent) and more flexible control of billing (stripped down overhead that means I don't have to account for every quarter hour of time a client spends here) is looking awfully long in the tooth.

I'm considering that I may need to transform my plant from a studio building to a briefcase - and where my "shop" becomes wherever space I happen to find convenient at the moment.

I do a lot of voice talent work. I started in dedicated studios and radio stations where clients had to pay for other peoples' real estate costs and depreciation. Then I built my own studio and built a dedicated voice booth with wires leading from the mic to the "control room" where the mixer and recorders lived...
today I look into my voice booth where 80% of what I painstakingly built as an audio chain is gathering dust. Today a Neuman TLM-104 feeds a Zoom H4n. That's IT. The entire original studio chain is collapsed to 3 components - a good mic, an XLR cable, and a sub-$400 digital recorder. And ALL of it can be tossed in a bag and taken on the road. Add the internet for distribution and I can satisfy client needs anywhere anytime with no virtually no economic overhead at all.

And now video is following precisely the same path.

One bag with a 5dMkii body and lenses. The same H4n for audio. A laptop, and a modest array of grip, LED lighting and data storage gear - and we're close to the point where my multi-hundred thousand dollar studio will fit into a couple of carryons.

All one has to add is the same thing people have always had to add to the gear to get good results.

Talent.

And the next generation of talent that will be competing with us don't even conceive of video production as a thing done in a building. But rather as a thing done on a screen.

Pretty powerful difference.

"Before speaking out ask yourself whether your words are true, whether they are respectful and whether they are needed in our civil discussions."-Justice O'Connor


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  

Chris HarlanRe: Questions before Update
by on Sep 24, 2011 at 8:42:08 pm

Bill, in the world I work, if you want to mix, you still need a room with adequate monitors to do so. If you want to seriously color grade, you still need a properly lit room and a properly calibrated monitor to do so on. If you are recording ADR and foley and music, you still need a stage that is quiet enough to record on. If you are working on a show with a half a dozen other editors, you still need adjacent bays and office space and a kitchenette.

I have a very portable rig built around a Macbook Pro that has decent portable monitor speakers, 2nd computer monitor, broadcast monitor, and RAIDed storage. I can set it up in 20 minutes. Or I can just use the laptop. Or I can work on my 8 Core, in a nice bay environment. Or I can work in one of the many seats around LA, when needed. As I said, Its been this way for me for a number of years. What does any of this have to do with FCP X?


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  

Bill DavisRe: Questions before Update
by on Sep 24, 2011 at 11:24:02 pm

It has to do with the PERCENTAGE of overall work that is suited to each environment.

I don't dismiss that there are all sorts of projects that benefit from or even REQUIRE the fully-equipped video suite model.

But every time they add capabilities to the simpler, more agile systems, more and more of the work can be effectively done outside the older model.

I believe that's accelerating. As I said, there are still big, professional purpose-build recording studios where the top tier artists pay top dollar for access to the most professional gear and talent available.

Once that was the ONLY way.

Today you've got some of that. But you've also got Jimmy Buffett recording in his home studio that rivals the finest rooms on the planet.

And you've got bands like Owl City who do amazing work on laptops and ProTools.

Even scarier, you've got the YouTube stars, who make amazing sounding, rich, layered compositions in crappy conditions and with barely adequate hardware.

Here in Phoenix (a city of 2 million) I'm not sure there's more than one or two rooms left following the old "dedicated studio" model. (And NONE like the long gone Audio Video Recorders where there was a recording space big enough to bring the Symphony in for recording!) That type of work is done exclusively via location recording today.

I suspect video will follow that path.

It's what I'm seeing anyway.

"Before speaking out ask yourself whether your words are true, whether they are respectful and whether they are needed in our civil discussions."-Justice O'Connor


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  


Chris HarlanRe: Questions before Update
by on Sep 25, 2011 at 12:53:30 am

Bill, I get it. I keep trying to say to you that you are preaching to the choir. I agree with most of your observations with the caveat that in the industry town I work in things are a little different. But only a little. I've been one-man-banding for years now. I'm very mobile. I wear many hats. I sometimes work on HD broadcast video at Starbucks. I am the very model of a modern Major-General. What does this have to do with FCP X?


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  

Herb SevushRe: Questions before Update
by on Sep 23, 2011 at 10:27:31 pm

After 2 years of development taking another 90 days to add on some absolutely basic features that have been standards around the industry for over a decade is not all that impressive. How long will it take them to add multi-cam and video monitoring, and thereby get to where they should have been to begin with - another 6 months? Good, at this rate they will have caught up to where the competition was a year ago by next year - if they keep up that rate of improvement they will actually become an NLE leader by the time the sun goes Nova.

Herb Sevush
Zebra Productions


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  

Bill DavisRe: Questions before Update
by on Sep 23, 2011 at 11:03:27 pm

Herb,

If you are correct it will sputter, lag, fail to gain any market traction and fail. Because it's an extremely competitive world out there.

If I am, it will succeed because the larger market wants something different than you do than the things you keep relentlessly complaining about in tone and particulars aren't the core of why people and companies adopt software into their lives.

We'll know in a couple of years, won't we?

"Before speaking out ask yourself whether your words are true, whether they are respectful and whether they are needed in our civil discussions."-Justice O'Connor


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  


Marvin HoldmanRe: Questions before Update
by on Sep 24, 2011 at 12:20:09 am

[Bill Davis] - " the larger market wants something different than you do"

Once again, you're assuming the "larger market" wants to edit video. I say most are in love with the notion but are bored by the craft. The actual process of editing is VERY droll to most. The fact is, most folks are just to busy to devote the time to this endeavor unless they pursue it as a career.

Marvin Holdman
Production Manager
Tourist Network
8317 Front Beach Rd, Suite 23
Panama City Beach, Fl
phone 850-234-2773 ext. 128
cell 850-585-9667
skype username - vidmarv


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  

<< PREVIOUS   •   VIEW ALL   •   PRINT   •   NEXT >>
Share on Facebook


FORUMSTUTORIALSFEATURESVIDEOSPODCASTSEVENTSSERVICESNEWSLETTERNEWSBLOGS

Creative COW LinkedIn Group Creative COW Facebook Page Creative COW on Twitter
© 2014 CreativeCOW.net All rights are reserved. - Privacy Policy

[Top]