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

Email Exchange with Randy Ubillos, FCP X Designer

COW Forums : Apple FCPX or Not: The Debate

<< PREVIOUS   •   VIEW ALL   •   PRINT   •   NEXT >>
Share on Facebook
Chris MessineoEmail Exchange with Randy Ubillos, FCP X Designer
by on Jun 23, 2011 at 2:59:36 am

I email Randy Ubillos, the designer of FCP X, and asked about support for migrating FCP 7 projects to FCP X. Here is his word-for-word response:

"FCP7 projects do not have enough information in them to properly translate to FCPX (in FCP7 all of the clip connections live in the editor's head, not in the timeline). We never expected anyone to switch editing software in the middle of a project, so project migration was not a priority.

Final Cut Pro X 1.0 is the beginning of a road, not the end."


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  
+2

Chris KennyRe: Email Exchange with Randy Ubillos, FCP X Designer
by on Jun 23, 2011 at 3:05:34 am

[Chris Messineo] ""FCP7 projects do not have enough information in them to properly translate to FCPX (in FCP7 all of the clip connections live in the editor's head, not in the timeline). We never expected anyone to switch editing software in the middle of a project, so project migration was not a priority."

This is a valid point. I think Apple could import FCP 7 projects by converting each track to a storyline, but the resulting FCP X sequences wouldn't be organized at all the way a competent FCP X editor would organize a sequence. Conceptually, it would be like running your project through Google Translate. You'd get something related out the other end, but not anything a native speaker would ever say....

--
Digital Workflow/Colorist, Nice Dissolve.

You should follow me on Twitter here. Or read our blog.


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  

Chris MessineoRe: Email Exchange with Randy Ubillos, FCP X Designer
by on Jun 23, 2011 at 3:10:52 am

They're smart guys. I think they could have figured it out.

The key phrase to me is this: "project migration was not a priority."

Once you know that, you know so much about how they view the current FCP community.

Chris Messineo
Off Stage Films


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  
+1


Rob MoragasRe: Email Exchange with Randy Ubillos, FCP X Designer
by on Jun 23, 2011 at 3:21:43 am

Hi,

Well you may not want to "Project Migrate mid Project " But if you have capture a whole heap of footage from tape with timecode in FCP 7.0 (cause you can't capture with timecode in FCPX) It would make sense to be able to at least open up that project in FCP X rather than having to re-import all of the footage to a new event which is currently damn slow, even if you don't copy the media into a new event!

Rob


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  

Todd SearlRe: Email Exchange with Randy Ubillos, FCP X Designer
by on Jun 26, 2011 at 3:36:47 pm

Whoa, whoa...FCPX can't even import with timecode? Uh, that is bad times for a lot of reality shows...How am I supposed to demarcate where specific dialogue is?


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  

Craig SeemanRe: Email Exchange with Randy Ubillos, FCP X Designer
by on Jun 26, 2011 at 4:23:07 pm

Who's making these absurd claims? I see timecode on the files I import.
People should really examine the program before making claims.



Return to posts index
Reply   Like  


Chris KennyRe: Email Exchange with Randy Ubillos, FCP X Designer
by on Jun 23, 2011 at 3:23:40 am

[Chris Messineo] "They're smart guys. I think they could have figured it out."

There is no "figuring this out". Have you used FCP X, and really wrapped your head around the way its sequences work? They sort of look like they have conventional tracks, and at first glance it seems like imports would be easy, but once you understand what you're seeing that's clearly not the case. A competent FCP X editor, when creating a sequence, is creating all sorts of relationships between clips that FCP 7 doesn't have any way to even represent. For FCP X to import a sequence and have it organized as well as a human would organize it, it would have to literally watch and understand your video....

--
Digital Workflow/Colorist, Nice Dissolve.

You should follow me on Twitter here. Or read our blog.


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  
+1

Greg BurkeRe: Email Exchange with Randy Ubillos, FCP X Designer
by on Jun 23, 2011 at 3:56:24 am

Does it really even matter...Clearly they weren't thinking "Pro" at all But Hey my Little 13 year old brother Loves it for his skateboarding video NICE JOB APPLE!!! NOW WHAT ABOUT US!!!!!


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  
-2

Eric SuschRe: Email Exchange with Randy Ubillos, FCP X Designer
by on Jun 23, 2011 at 3:57:09 am

How different FCPX is is irrelevant. What matters is how business works. Businesses can't just jump off a cliff with no connection to the past. They need to do their work the way the client wants, and many times that means building on what they've done with the client before. Apple really doesn't understand business. I can't believe how wrong they got this release. Didn't they talk to any editing professionals before this release?

____________________________________
Eric Susch
http://www.LetsKnit2gether.com
http://www.EricSusch.com
Follow me on twitter @EricSusch


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  


Chris KennyRe: Email Exchange with Randy Ubillos, FCP X Designer
by on Jun 23, 2011 at 5:05:08 am

[Eric Susch] "Businesses can't just jump off a cliff with no connection to the past. They need to do their work the way the client wants, and many times that means building on what they've done with the client before. "

I have no idea what sort of work you do, but in our operation each project is essentially self-contained, or if there are elements shared between projects for a given client, they've things like stock media and motion graphics files that could easily be imported into FCP X. I'm just not seeing how the capability to move a specific sequence to FCP X is really critical for migration. Sure, it would speed migration up if FCP X could flawlessly open every FCP 7 project, because you could just switch immediately. But in the absence of perfect import (which would probably be nearly impossible with a whole new rendering engine, etc. even without the new timeline features), continuing to work on projects originated in FCP 7 in FCP 7 was always going to be the only sensible choice.

For most users, I think, if they just start creating all of their new projects in FCP X (once Apple fills a couple of feature gaps), 12 months later they'll probably be opening FCP 7 all of once a month.

--
Digital Workflow/Colorist, Nice Dissolve.

You should follow me on Twitter here. Or read our blog.


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  
+1

Michael PierroRe: Email Exchange with Randy Ubillos, FCP X Designer
by on Jun 23, 2011 at 5:32:22 am

Yeah, but working in a company that does a lot of broadcast and has for years, I've had to open up older projects, from FCP 6 or 5. Being able to do that is critical. I may not use that feature everyday, but being able to do that has been essential. The fact that I wouldn't be able to now is a huge deal breaker.

Obviously if I had FCPx I would start new projects on it, but that doesn't alleviate the need for legacy compatibility. Say whatever you want about the lack there of, but frankly it seems pretty obvious to me, as I'm sure to a lot of people here, the people who created FCPx MUST HAVE INTENTIONALLY left out the functions that would make this app useful to any pro user. The things that are missing are just too blatantly obvious to just leave out...


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  

Chris KennyRe: Email Exchange with Randy Ubillos, FCP X Designer
by on Jun 23, 2011 at 2:02:34 pm

[Michael Pierro] "Yeah, but working in a company that does a lot of broadcast and has for years, I've had to open up older projects, from FCP 6 or 5. Being able to do that is critical. I may not use that feature everyday, but being able to do that has been essential. The fact that I wouldn't be able to now is a huge deal breaker."

But this is alleviated by being able to install FCP X side-by-side with FCP 7.

[Michael Pierro] "Obviously if I had FCPx I would start new projects on it, but that doesn't alleviate the need for legacy compatibility. Say whatever you want about the lack there of, but frankly it seems pretty obvious to me, as I'm sure to a lot of people here, the people who created FCPx MUST HAVE INTENTIONALLY left out the functions that would make this app useful to any pro user. The things that are missing are just too blatantly obvious to just leave out..."

See my post here. The importing issue is not straightforward.

And I agree that certain features were deliberately left out... of the first release. I don't agree that this implies Apple isn't working on these things or doesn't recognize that some people need them. It makes a great deal of sense to structure releases to focus on mainstream features first, then start selling a product suitable for most users while you continue working on features for the higher end segment of the market.

--
Digital Workflow/Colorist, Nice Dissolve.

You should follow me on Twitter here. Or read our blog.


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  


Craig SeemanRe: Email Exchange with Randy Ubillos, FCP X Designer
by on Jun 23, 2011 at 4:17:00 pm

[Michael Pierro] "The things that are missing are just too blatantly obvious to just leave out..."

Or more difficult to implement. It's a work in progress and as someone who works with developers, there's a lot that goes in to prioritization of feature implementation. It's a lot more than "importance" unfortunately for some users. In fact when you look at the whole of the 2 million users they got most of the basics done.

Most of the FCP world is not broadcast and XML and OMF is not live or die.
On the other hand even the wedding videographer and the kid doing the music video of their band may use multicam.

Apple could have waited another 9 months to get all this done. In the meantime the "Pros" would be screaming about how FCS is such a low priority as the lack of any update slipped into a third year.

Despite the product name similarity, this is a ground up creation and it's not complete but personally, I'm glad I have something to play with now. In fact I'm glad that rather than a dog an pony show, I actually have a usable thing showing me where Apple is headed. You may or may not like the direction but at least you have a TANGIBLE to judge from. That's a lot better than words and webpages IMHO.



Return to posts index
Reply   Like  

Jonathan DortchRe: Email Exchange with Randy Ubillos, FCP X Designer
by on Jun 23, 2011 at 5:49:49 am

I totally agree. I'm far more concerned with UI/Feature omissions than FCPX 1.0 being able to integrate with FCP 7.0. Apple let the FCS3 install remain untouched for a reason. First time we're able to run two FCP's side by side. I think most people complaining about the lack of project migration are merely doing so out of principle, but if you've poked around FCPX for even a few minutes you can see how there's no way a FCP 7.0 project would translate into this new interface. You'd also see how this program can't accommodate probably around 30-40% of the FCP 7.0 capabilities. From the core architecture down to the fundamental concepts behind the UI, they're two totally different programs. I'm not a software engineer but I have to assume that writing such robust video based software is difficult. There are only a few players in this market.

FCPX reminds me of the first OSX release more than anything. Flashy but totally lacking major features, entirely different non compatible UNIX/Cocoa base -- and we were forced to dual boot with Mac OS 9 until things with OSX were up to speed.

JONATHAN DORTCH
BLACK WOLF CREATIVE


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  

Jerry HofmannRe: Email Exchange with Randy Ubillos, FCP X Designer
by on Jun 23, 2011 at 2:12:19 pm

Apple doesn't understand business? I'd love to have their $65,000,000,000.00 and no debt position.

Jerry

Apple Certified Trainer, Producer, Writer, Director Editor, Gun for Hire and other things. I ski. My Blog: http://blogs.creativecow.net/Jerry-Hofmann

Current DVD:
http://store.creativecow.net/p/81/jerry_hofmanns_final_cut_system_setup

8-Core 3.0 Intel Mac Pro, Dual 2 gig G5, AJA Kona SD, AJA Kona 2, Huge Systems Array UL3D, AJA Io HD, 17" MBP, Matrox MXO2 with MAX - Cinema Displays I have a 22" that I paid 4k for still working. G4 with Kona SD card, and SCSI card.


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  


Richard ClarkRe: Email Exchange with Randy Ubillos, FCP X Designer
by on Jun 27, 2011 at 5:58:03 am

"Businesses can't just jump off a cliff with no connection to the past. They need to do their work the way the client wants, and many times that means building on what they've done with the client before. Apple really doesn't understand business. I can't believe how wrong they got this release. Didn't they talk to any editing professionals before this release?"

I really disagree with this attitude that it is our clients who tell us how to work, life is about change, if we hang onto the past we die, however, it is healthy to learn from the past. I still use my film experience as my work attitude and process, FCP or whatever, is simply a tool. I would never, ever allow a client to dictate how I work and on what platform I work. I am an Editor, they are clients. I listen to them, take on board where they wish the project to be and then I take them there, simple really. So many post production businesses are dead in the water because of their refusal to consider new business plans. I created a very successful Post House way back in 1971 in Sydney Australia, I tried to recreate the same business model in Venice Beach California and fell on my face. I hung on too long. Now I am hopefully smarter, I must be :) I moved back to Aotearoa NZ but seriously my new way of working IS smarter, faster, sleeker and much more cost effective. Outsourcing, virtual relationships, keeping lines of communication open and doing business in a very transparent manner all help. Again and I say it over and over, it's all about attitude, simple really.

Richard Clark's kiwicafe.com
Film | Photography | Writing
http://www.kiwicafe.com/
Aotearoa aka New Zealand


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  

David Roth WeissRe: Email Exchange with Randy Ubillos, FCP X Designer
by on Jun 27, 2011 at 4:11:05 pm

[Richard Clark] "I really disagree with this attitude that it is our clients who tell us how to work, life is about change, if we hang onto the past we die"

Richard,

Though you have worked in L.A., your move to New Zealand seems to have caused you to forget that there is an entire well-established and interconnected industry ecosystem here that was created to manufacture a product in a fashion originally patterned after the factory assembly lines owned by the first studio owners before they created this new industry.

The model they originally created still works today in much the same fashion, though the assembly line hasn't been under one roof for many decades, and may today be spread all over the world. However, it still depends upon collaboration and the ability to hand-off the work product to other professionals who do their work at stages along the line, with the goal of ultimately producing a final completed product that conforms to one or more of today's growing list of multiple standards (if you can still call them standards) so the product can be shown in venues targeted for it's exhibition.

The entire point of this being, if you don't recognize that you're part of an assembly line, or if you work completely autonomously, your clients may not care how you work, but if you work collaboratively, and many still do, you still very much need to be able to assure those you work for that you can fit into the virtual assembly line of their design.

So, for many who still do work collaboratively, and the best films and video are still made that way, no man is an island. In fact, many clients still do care what tools we use to do our work. Even at the very lowest levels of the biz, ads for jobs on Craigslist specify what tools producers want their prospective editors to cut on. So, I don't think your argument really flies.


David Roth Weiss
Director/Editor/Colorist
David Weiss Productions, Inc.
Los Angeles
http://www.drwfilms.com

Don't miss my new tutorial: Prepare for a seamless transition to FCP X and OS X Lion
http://library.creativecow.net/weiss_roth_david/FCP-10-MAC-Lion/1

POST-PRODUCTION WITHOUT THE USUAL INSANITY ™


Creative COW contributing editor and a forum host of the Business & Marketing and Apple Final Cut Pro forums.


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  

Nelson TorresRe: Email Exchange with Randy Ubillos, FCP X Designer
by on Jun 23, 2011 at 4:20:42 am

[Chris Kenny] "A competent FCP X editor, when creating a sequence, is creating all sorts of relationships between clips that FCP 7 doesn't have "

What relationships? All I want to do is place a clip next to another. Pretty simple. I don't need them to propagate.

Apple really dropped the ball very badly on this one. They should have consulted picture editors not wedding videographers& YouTube bloggers.


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  


eric monroeRe: Email Exchange with Randy Ubillos, FCP X Designer
by on Jun 23, 2011 at 4:53:50 am

I must disagree with one thing that you said Nelson, that FCP X is okay for wedding videographers/and youtube bloggers.

As a professional in the Wedding industry, having no multi-cam support pretty much cripples the ability to produce wedding films in a timely or professional fashion. Any “GOOD” wedding videographer in the business this day-n-age is using multiple HD sources to capture “the moment”. So……should we put our 4+ HD camera sources on the timeline and edit them the old fashion way?!?!?! I am sure that will go over well with the professional wedding & event videographers out there. I know that some people may look at someone filming/editing weddings as low-level and not the same level as someone in Hollywood, however it IS what some of us rely on full-time for a living. Last year I filmed/edited over 50 weddings and events, all shot using 4 HD cameras and cut using FCP 7’s multi-clip editor. As a business owner I provide for my family and serve a fairly large client base. No multi-camera ability makes FCP X TOTALLY USELESS for someone like me.

Oh and btw Stevie J……NOBODY WANTS TO WATCH THEIR WEDDING ON iTUNES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Blu-ray is a must for my business….(seems Hollywood likes it too) ;o)

(I have been producing cinematic wedding films professionally for quite a few years now….not because I cant get a job doing anything else in the world of video, (been there done that) but because I am truly enjoying filming weddings, and working for myself.)

Looks like the world of editing is gonna change alright…Wedding/Event/indie on Adobe…..and big production houses (that still use EDL, XML, OMF etc. in their everyday workflow) will be on Avid…….Goodbye MacinTOYS

As someone else already said……this is iMovie Pro….not FCP. (they proved that with importing of iMovie projects and not FCP 7 backwards compatibility.

Whatta joke.

FCP – RIP 2011


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  
+3

george manzanillaRe: Email Exchange with Randy Ubillos, FCP X Designer
by on Jun 23, 2011 at 5:19:38 am

That's exactly what i'm saying... Why are we trying to overcomplicate editing? it's all about linear timing and juxtaposition. Relationships?? What does that even mean?!!??

----
george manzanilla
rundfunk media
http://www.rundfunk.com
vimeo.com/rundfunk


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  
+2

Craig SeemanRe: Email Exchange with Randy Ubillos, FCP X Designer
by on Jun 23, 2011 at 5:37:13 am

[Nelson Torres] "All I want to do is place a clip next to another. Pretty simple."

Actually not simple at all. What looks like a sequence and behaves like a sequence in FCPX, isn't a sequence in the same sense it is in FCP7. It's why such things as the Gap feature exists in FCPX. It's more of a "wrapped thing" as about to a bunch of clips. Such "wrapped thing" can have holes (gaps) in it. Probably not the best explanation but the key is that while an FCP7 thing and function might look the same as something in FCPX, it's not . . . even if it serves a somewhat similar function.



Return to posts index
Reply   Like  


Ted BekeRe: Email Exchange with Randy Ubillos, FCP X Designer
by on Jun 27, 2011 at 4:39:19 pm

I agree. Couldn't they just create it where linked clips from FCP 7 are a storyline in FCPX. All b-roll and audio tracks in FCP 7 are connected to these storylines in FCP X. An editor could go through and break any clip connections that shouldn't be there. It would be a lot better way to get a handle of the program than sitting around being frustrated because it lacks compatibility. This might be a flawed and tricky feature, but this is something they should work on or at least heavily hint to a third party developer like automatic duck to work on. In my opinion this was just a very lazy move on their part.

Ted Beke
Producer/Editor/Founder
Precious Ham Productions


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  
+1

Craig SeemanRe: Email Exchange with Randy Ubillos, FCP X Designer
by on Jun 23, 2011 at 5:11:04 am

Chris, you're one of the voices of reason.

I think some way, some how, someone needs to go into some serious detail about AV Foundation. A think in FCPX that sort of looks like something analogous to something in FCP7, really isn't in terms of what's going on in the code. Much of this has to do with the move from Quicktime to AV Foundation. Even what looks like a "sequence" in FCPX really is radically different than the similar looking thing in FCP7.

The differences between Quicktime and AV Foundation may make some heads spin but it really needs to be explained in nonprogramer terms for professional editors.



Return to posts index
Reply   Like  

Walter SoykaRe: Email Exchange with Randy Ubillos, FCP X Designer
by on Jun 23, 2011 at 5:51:17 am

[Craig Seeman] "I think some way, some how, someone needs to go into some serious detail about AV Foundation. A think in FCPX that sort of looks like something analogous to something in FCP7, really isn't in terms of what's going on in the code. Much of this has to do with the move from Quicktime to AV Foundation. Even what looks like a "sequence" in FCPX really is radically different than the similar looking thing in FCP7. The differences between Quicktime and AV Foundation may make some heads spin but it really needs to be explained in nonprogramer terms for professional editors."

I must respectfully disagree.

"We shape our tools, and then our tools shape us."
-Marshall McLuhan


This is not, and should never be, about the code or the AV Foundation data model. This should be about storytelling.

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


Craig SeemanRe: Email Exchange with Randy Ubillos, FCP X Designer
by on Jun 23, 2011 at 8:13:29 am

[Walter Soyka] "This is not, and should never be, about the code or the AV Foundation data model. This should be about storytelling."

But people who have only ever used pen and paper can't fathom the typewriter in this case. Heck they complain the keys aren't in alphabetical order.

It should be about story telling but it decidedly is not. if it were about story telling the venomous antipathy wouldn't be the case.

Sometimes it's important to tell people why a gasoline engine driven car is not a horse. This is especially the case when people dump hay in front of and start complaining it's not eating. They need to know that engines don't eat hay.



Return to posts index
Reply   Like  
+1

Stephan WalfridssonRe: Email Exchange with Randy Ubillos, FCP X Designer
by on Jun 23, 2011 at 8:25:54 am

[Craig Seeman] "People who have only ever used pen and paper can't fathom the typewriter in this case"

But that's also because typewriters limit you to using one font at one size, and the workflow is decided by the machine not the person behind it. With pen and paper you can write with any style in any direction you want and even make drawings.

Sure one day the fcp-x typewriter may become a full fledged wordprocessor. But right now it's not.

Stephan


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  

Simon UbsdellRe: Email Exchange with Randy Ubillos, FCP X Designer
by on Jun 23, 2011 at 8:55:00 am

[Craig Seeman] "Sometimes it's important to tell people why a gasoline engine driven car is not a horse"

With respect Craig, you and Chris Kenny keep making this point over and over without actually elaborating a great deal on it, but as though it really changes anything meaningful about the end-user's experience of the product.

What other piece of software for general use requires the end-user to understand how and why the code has been written the way it has in order to be able to use it properly? I think the answer is "none" and I think you'd have to agree.

Put it this way, you could have absolutely no knowledge of how QuickTime is written and still edit in FCP7 at then highest possible level.

I appreciate that you know what you're talking about and I understand that for you this issue seems to be of significance and no doubt it is in terms of understanding where the product has come from and where it might be headed - but in the real world of the end-user it is surely a complete irrelevance.

Your hay/car analogy doesn't seem to be sufficiently explanatory in this case.

Simon Ubsdell
Director/Editor/Writer
http://www.tokyo-uk.com


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  
+1


Craig SeemanRe: Email Exchange with Randy Ubillos, FCP X Designer
by on Jun 23, 2011 at 3:19:06 pm

[Simon Ubsdell] "What other piece of software for general use requires the end-user to understand how and why the code has been written the way it has in order to be able to use it properly? I think the answer is "none" and I think you'd have to agree. "

It's not that knowing changes the utility of the program, it's that it changes the whining into understanding. The posts here are tantamount to saying, "why can't the car eat hay since my horse does?" One might still opt for the horse and there may be very sound reasons currently. It's the lack of understanding that's resulted in a lot of "unproductive" posts.

I'd like to see more real critique of faults as well as advantages. Some that's in this forum but there's an overwhelming of "car doesn't eat hay" kind of posts.

Expectations become realistic and decision making becomes more informed.

For example, the whole database/metadata methodology needs to be understood, in my opinion, so people grasp why Apple went with that. It might help people understand the Event, Project, Storyline format. Why what people call a "sequence" (Storylline) behaves the way it does. Certainly that doesn't mean people will be happy with and certainly people may move to other NLEs . . . but it may stop the outcry that Apple should "fix or bring back" something that can't really happen. The car does not eat hay nor would it make sense for auto-manufacturer to build in or even simulate that feature.



Return to posts index
Reply   Like  
+1

Simon UbsdellRe: Email Exchange with Randy Ubillos, FCP X Designer
by on Jun 23, 2011 at 3:34:33 pm

[Craig Seeman] " It might help people understand the Event, Project, Storyline format."

I think if you'll forgive me, you are "flogging a dead horse" as it were!

I sense that anybody who is serious about moving forward with the product has moved quickly past the point of being confused by any of this - they're quite clever people at a guess and can read a manual.

Meanwhile those who don't want to learn have far bigger - and to be honest more problematic - issues that are discouraging them from even bothering. For better or worse.

But I know I won't convince you so I'll shut up now ;-)

Simon Ubsdell
Director/Editor/Writer
http://www.tokyo-uk.com


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  

Craig SeemanRe: Email Exchange with Randy Ubillos, FCP X Designer
by on Jun 23, 2011 at 4:34:48 pm

[Simon Ubsdell] "I sense that anybody who is serious about moving forward with the product has moved quickly past the point of being confused by any of this - they're quite clever people at a guess and can read a manual.

Meanwhile those who don't want to learn have far bigger - and to be honest more problematic - issues that are discouraging them from even bothering. For better or worse.

But I know I won't convince you so I'll shut up now ;-)"


But it's really the people who refuse to understand who wont shut up. Some simply don't want to understand it. They should move on and stop cluttering the forum.

There are others though who genuinely don't understand things who have been negative. I think it's far better to give that portion a helping hand then lump them in with those who don't want to learn.

People have different ways of learning.



Return to posts index
Reply   Like  


Walter SoykaRe: Email Exchange with Randy Ubillos, FCP X Designer
by on Jun 23, 2011 at 8:58:07 am

Sorry if I was unclear, Craig. I wasn't suggesting that we shouldn't talk about AV Foundation because we should talk about storytelling instead.

I am saying FCPX's design should have been influenced by the needs of a storyteller, not by the AV Foundation data model -- hence the McLuhan tools quote.

For what it's worth, I have studied up a bit on AV Foundation, and I think you're reading way too much into it. At its core, AV Foundation is just "one of several frameworks that you can use to play and create time-based audiovisual media" [link]. FCPX is introducing some new editorial and organizational concepts, and it's using a modern framework for media creation and playback, but I don't see why they are as inextricably linked as you suggest. AV Foundation contains the tools used to build FCPX, but AV Foundation doesn't strictly define the FCPX feature set.

For example, I've seen you suggest that gaps must be added because AV Foundation can't have a hole in a composition. Even if that were the case, FCPX could hide that unnecessary detail from the user. Don't you think it's more likely that gaps are there to make connected clips behave consistently in the UI?

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  

Craig SeemanRe: Email Exchange with Randy Ubillos, FCP X Designer
by on Jun 23, 2011 at 3:49:50 pm

[Walter Soyka] "FCPX is introducing some new editorial and organizational concepts, and it's using a modern framework for media creation and playback, but I don't see why they are as inextricably linked as you suggest. AV Foundation contains the tools used to build FCPX, but AV Foundation doesn't strictly define the FCPX feature set."

Yes, but we need to understand the influences based on the underlying technology. AV Foundation is one of them. There are certainly others. It doesn't define/limit the entire app. It's one key element though.

[Walter Soyka] "For example, I've seen you suggest that gaps must be added because AV Foundation can't have a hole in a composition. Even if that were the case, FCPX could hide that unnecessary detail from the user. Don't you think it's more likely that gaps are there to make connected clips behave consistently in the UI?"

That's the kind of critique we need to see more of. It's an example of why the "wonderful GUI" still has some issues. Why can't the end user pull apart things and have the Gap inserted invisibly for example? I believe AV Foundation uses the "sequence" (Storyline" as a kind of file a little bit differently then the old style sequence which was just a series of pointers. The new thing (looks like a sequence but called a Storyline) can't have holes in it but why does this "working" have to be visible to the user?

My own gut is that Apple changed a lot of the nomenclature because they wanted to make intuitively clear (without explaining why) that things "things" that look like things you saw in FCP7 were only superficially similar and are, in reality, quite different. That this may not clearly come across may be another critique. Do the new names for things clarify or confuse? Maybe sticking to conventional would have actually helped people's understanding.

It's almost as if a "first tutorial" now needs to be a glossary of "this is called this because of that" It might be a more colloquial way of explaining AV Foundation without getting too technical.

Maybe, "A Storyline looks and works like a sequence but it's really a container. It can't have holes in the container so we have to have slugs to file holes. A "Gap" is a slug but that name was used because we want to make clear it's necessity to fill the hole," or whatever.

That a "Project" has one sequence is another good example of some of the confusion and frustration going on. In this case a "project" in FCPX is confusing because the word is what would use in FCP7 but it's really not the same thing at all.

Basically there's some serious confusion in the naming and that plays in to confusion about certain functions being there or not. All this frustrates people.



Return to posts index
Reply   Like  

Simon UbsdellRe: Email Exchange with Randy Ubillos, FCP X Designer
by on Jun 23, 2011 at 3:58:39 pm

[Craig Seeman] "A Storyline looks and works like a sequence"

No, I think the renaming of things is confusing even you, Craig. A "storyline" is the last vestige of what we used to know as "tracks", hence the "primary storyline" (the nature of which is to always ripple the timeline events, whereas the "secondary storylines" don't). This much is clear from the manual.

Also I would suggest that the "mystery" of "gaps" is just down to the design of the primary storyline which is meant to ripple everything as a default behaviour - this being the case you obviously need a mechanism like gaps to enable removal of material from the primary storyline in such a way as to keep the overall timeline duration the same, i.e. if you don't want rippling to take place.

Simon Ubsdell
Director/Editor/Writer
http://www.tokyo-uk.com


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  


Charles BRe: Email Exchange with Randy Ubillos, FCP X Designer
by on Jun 27, 2011 at 5:41:00 am

Who is this semen guy? and why does it seem like he's about to spill his name all over FCP X?



Return to posts index
Reply   Like  
-1

Aindreas GallagherRe: Email Exchange with Randy Ubillos, FCP X Designer
by on Jun 23, 2011 at 9:08:24 am

seconded. I could care less about the technical underpinnings right now, and I have no interest in having anyone explain the minutiae of the AV foundation to me.

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


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  
+2

Michael PierroRe: Email Exchange with Randy Ubillos, FCP X Designer
by on Jun 23, 2011 at 5:22:06 am

That doesn't make a lot of sense to me. In the end, regardless of whatever is going on inside the editor's head, the clips in a timeline always relate to eachother by at timecode. Clip A starts at x and ends at y clip B starts at y and ends at z. That is not that hard to get your head around. If they wanted to implement that, I can't imagine it being particularity hard.


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  
+3


Chris KennyRe: Email Exchange with Randy Ubillos, FCP X Designer
by on Jun 23, 2011 at 2:05:42 pm

[Michael Pierro] "That doesn't make a lot of sense to me. In the end, regardless of whatever is going on inside the editor's head, the clips in a timeline always relate to eachother by at timecode. Clip A starts at x and ends at y clip B starts at y and ends at z. That is not that hard to get your head around. If they wanted to implement that, I can't imagine it being particularity hard."

This is not how clips outside of the primary storyline work in FCP X. 'Connected clips', for instance, have no direct, fixed relationship to each other, but only to storyline clips they're attached to.

--
Digital Workflow/Colorist, Nice Dissolve.

You should follow me on Twitter here. Or read our blog.


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  

Chris KennyRe: Email Exchange with Randy Ubillos, FCP X Designer
by on Jun 23, 2011 at 2:07:16 pm

[Michael Pierro] "That doesn't make a lot of sense to me. In the end, regardless of whatever is going on inside the editor's head, the clips in a timeline always relate to eachother by at timecode. Clip A starts at x and ends at y clip B starts at y and ends at z. That is not that hard to get your head around. If they wanted to implement that, I can't imagine it being particularity hard."

This is not how clips outside of the primary storyline work in FCP X. 'Connected clips', for instance, have no direct, fixed relationship to each other; only to storyline clips they're attached to.

--
Digital Workflow/Colorist, Nice Dissolve.

You should follow me on Twitter here. Or read our blog.


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  

Tony SilanskasRe: Email Exchange with Randy Ubillos, FCP X Designer
by on Jun 23, 2011 at 3:25:09 am

And as so many have pointed out this is a brand new app so its also to be expected. There are a lot of glaring issues with Media Management in FCP 7 that needed to be worked out. I personally think they are on the right track with forcing people to start fresh and rethink their media organization. Have a long way to go before it's pro-worthy, though.


tony

http://www.HungryCliff.com


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  


Paul NordinRe: Email Exchange with Randy Ubillos, FCP X Designer
by on Jun 23, 2011 at 3:33:29 am

Then if Apple is so smart and knows its not production ready yet (for many workflows anyways). Why did they pull FCS3 so fast? Its that type of thing that has pissed me off. I now have to manage access to my FCS install discs with a lot of care because they just became critical to my business.

_______________________
El Mundo Bueno Studios
Film * Audio
http://www.EMBstudios.com
Emeryville, CA
_______________________


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  
+3

Matt CallacRe: Email Exchange with Randy Ubillos, FCP X Designer
by on Jun 23, 2011 at 3:44:34 am

[Paul Nordin] "I now have to manage access to my FCS install discs with a lot of care because they just became critical to my business.
"


The discs don't mean a damn thing. You can run to any shop in town to borrow their install discs. your serial number is what's important.

I created disc images of all my install discs for FCS3 to make it easier. If you lose your serial number you're SOL, but you should back that up too.

-mattyc


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  

Chris JacekRe: Email Exchange with Randy Ubillos, FCP X Designer
by on Jun 23, 2011 at 3:23:12 am

That sounds exactly like what he would say. In 2000 and 2001, I worked QA on the FCP team. I still remember a good-natured slightly-drunken shouting match during dinner at Quark's Cafe, when we were working NAB 10 years ago. The FCP designer at the time and I were screaming about how keyboard mapping needed to be added to FCP, and Randy was screaming right back "Editors don't want that!"

In the brief time that I knew him, I found Randy to be a brilliant software engineer, who has made some truly elegant stuff. In my opinion, his genius is without question. But when I learned that he was the designer for the new FCP, I was concerned, because I never felt like he understood the end user of a video editing product.

I was one of the few people on that QA team that came from a production background, rather than a computer background. In the same way that I never really fit in with the "computer" crowd and could never fully understand them, I felt that Mr. Ubilos never really understood the sometimes eccentric editing community who relied on his product.

Producer/Editor
and former Apple Employee


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  
+1


Eric SuschRe: Email Exchange with Randy Ubillos, FCP X Designer
by on Jun 23, 2011 at 3:36:41 am

[Chris Messineo] "Final Cut Pro X 1.0 is the beginning of a road, not the end"

Wow. We all fought for YEARS trying to convince the professional editing community and our clients that FCP was a professional product. It was a long uphill battle. For the past few years it has finally been accepted. Now Apple wants to throw that all away and start over? I can't tell you how insulted I am by this email.

____________________________________
Eric Susch
http://www.LetsKnit2gether.com
http://www.EricSusch.com
Follow me on twitter @EricSusch


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  
+3

Tony SilanskasRe: Email Exchange with Randy Ubillos, FCP X Designer
by on Jun 23, 2011 at 3:52:01 am

[Eric Susch] "Now Apple wants to throw that all away and start over?"

I don't see it that way at all. Many of the features they added (at the expense of others we need, for now at least) are ones editors have been asking for for years and many of those features, like 64-bit, background rendering, GPU acceleration, are at the foundation of a product and are best added with a clean slate. Just ask Adobe. This doesn't mean they are throwing away the basics but you have to start somewhere then add those little guys back in. With the outcry from editors for a new version they seemed to have caved for once and released this one too soon. Maybe they hoped editors would look at their past (poor product launches but great and visionary updates) and realize how amazing the future could be with this new foundation.


tony

http://www.HungryCliff.com


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  

Eric SuschRe: Email Exchange with Randy Ubillos, FCP X Designer
by on Jun 23, 2011 at 4:15:16 am

This is a product release. We have to discuss what's there not what we hope the future will be. We don't know what's going to happen with FCPX or how long any updates will take. Companies don't always do what you think they are going to do. There's no guarantee that the professional features that have been lost will be put back in. So right now the future better pro FCPX isn't here yet, FCS3 is EOL, and we're all in the middle.

____________________________________
Eric Susch
http://www.LetsKnit2gether.com
http://www.EricSusch.com
Follow me on twitter @EricSusch


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  
+1


J HussarRe: Email Exchange with Randy Ubillos, FCP X Designer
by on Jun 23, 2011 at 3:51:59 am

There it is - there's the attitude. We are going to conform to his ideas and that's it - like Kai Krause of years gone by, who ruined countless apps and plug ins with his crappy unworkable interfaces.
.
That email nauseates me - it means without an incredible amount of flak he will be too arrogant to listen.

Well, the flak is everywhere now - and it ain't gonna die down anytime soon. He better be listening or he can chat with grandma about his awesome, useless app, the pros will blow him off like a bad habit.



Return to posts index
Reply   Like  
+2

Douglas K. DempseyRe: Email Exchange with Randy Ubillos, FCP X Designer
by on Jun 23, 2011 at 4:33:04 am

You apologists are missing the point. FPCX doesn't have to be a pro app, now or ever. That's Apple's business, and if they want to market a great prosumer app, fine. I shoot with prosumer cameras all the time.

But I don't expect Sony to take the F35 camera off the market, now that they offer the NEX-FS100 Super 35mm camcorder body for $5,000. UNLESS they have decided to throw in the towel on high-end cameras, and sell only the prosumer gear.

But that is what Apple has done. It is the fact that FCP7 is not being sold, that you can no longer acquire a valid, legal FCP7 serial number from an authorized vendor (one who can guarantee the serial number you just bought is not already in use, and you are simply buying the eBay seller's hard copies).

When is the last time you heard of a dead app receiving updates? How many times has an OS upgrade necessitated updates of your Pro Apps? Do any of you remember the Compressor irregularities caused by Pro Kit 6.01 Frameworks, a problem common enough for Jon Chappell's site to post instructions on how to go back in Time Machine, retrieve the previous ProKit update and reinstall the old Frameworks?

Do you imagine FCP7 will run flawlessly on Lion and beyond, while we keep our fingers crossed that 2 or 3 years from now, FCPX will "go pro" and open our archived FCP7 projects -- projects that we now open, modify and cut & paste from all the time, as we evolve and update projects for clients, or re-purpose footage for new projects?

Walter Biscardi and Richard Harrington, who bring up these issues in their podcast, are credible professionals with real companies -- not hobbyists who take a training course and declare, "Hey I'm an editor." They point out that they will probably have to invest a lot of time & money in exporting XML of all their hundreds of archived projects, to be cross-graded to Premiere or Avid at some future date, possibly as early as this Fall, as a hedge against the failure of FCP7 to live on indefinitely.

These are not small, "whining" glass-half-empty concerns.

Until Apple issues a press release stating that I will be able to use my FCP7 projects through Lion and/or until FCPX opens FCP7 and does multi-cam, OMF, XML, has organizable/identifiable tracks for dialogue, music and effects, and all the other fairly basic stuff that any pro needs... until I see it in writing, I have to assume Apple has bailed out of our miniscule high-end pro market, and will now serve only the great mass of one-man band operations.

Calling that observation "negative" or saying "migration is not a priority" is a reasonable statement are simply selfish, ignorant statements.


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  
+5

Tony SilanskasRe: Email Exchange with Randy Ubillos, FCP X Designer
by on Jun 23, 2011 at 5:21:51 am

[Douglas K. Dempsey] "Until Apple issues a press release stating that I will be able to use my FCP7 projects through Lion and/or until FCPX opens FCP7 and does multi-cam, OMF, XML, has organizable/identifiable tracks for dialogue, music and effects, and all the other fairly basic stuff that any pro needs... until I see it in writing, I have to assume Apple has bailed out of our miniscule high-end pro market, and will now serve only the great mass of one-man band operations."

I've been a loyal FCP user for 10 years and one thing has remained a constant... Apple has always played its cards close to its chest. Love it or hate it, it's what they do, and if history tells us one thing it's that they mostly likely won't change that mentality. But I don't see how this affects what you're doing today. FCP 7 still works, in fact it works great and will continue to work great. Plus, legitimate copies will be around on places like Amazon longer than you think. The issues you bring up mostly stem from possible future optional upgrades. A friend of mine has a G4 with Final Cut Pro 4.5 on it and it still does everything it did the day he got it. Does it run Snow Leopard with all its advancements... nope but it still works. Things change and sometimes sacrifices have to be made. The point is FCP X is just another option to consider just like Adobe or Avid. Many of the negative concerns for FCP X are valid but it's not like Apple went and deleted FCP 7 off of every editors' computer overnight. I just find it very hard to get worked up over this when there's plenty of options out there.


tony

http://www.HungryCliff.com


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  


Marcus UmsteadRe: Email Exchange with Randy Ubillos, FCP X Designer
by on Jun 23, 2011 at 7:24:20 am

You say that FCP 7 (and 4.5 for that matter) still work, and "great" at that, but do they? Being limited by old tech like the 32-bit walls and such do not allow progress or even keeping up with the rest of the industry, who will take advantage of the new tech that comes along.

It seems like the still-believers are hoping that by having their car explode mid-race will turn out okay, because Apple will pull a rabbit out of a hat and *poof*... in drops a new super-car that suddenly speeds past the rest of the track. In the meantime, they're just expected to get out and push the car down the track while others pull away with every passing second.

This isn't ok. It's unrealistic to keep pointing out that you could still edit on an older system, because so much of this industry is about pushing the limits, inventing new ways of storytelling, and getting others to notice and ask, "How did they pull that off?"

This is the same reason US Armed Forces attempt to destroy their secret high-tech aircraft when they crash, before the enemy arrives. Sure, they might still have guns that fire bullets, but it's no match for what DARPA-DAVE and "Q" just invented. It's about keeping ahead of the pack.

What Apple did to their fans was tell everyone to take a fifteen minute intermission, then switch reels and start a new show as soon as the audience left the theater. Some will hang on and try to get immersed in the plot of this new picture, but meanwhile in the other theaters, everyone is enjoying the show.


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  
+2

Jamie FranklinRe: Email Exchange with Randy Ubillos, FCP X Designer
by on Jun 23, 2011 at 5:26:13 am

[Douglas K. Dempsey] "Calling that observation "negative" or saying "migration is not a priority" is a reasonable statement are simply selfish, ignorant statements."

The apologists have their work cut out from them, yet I'm amazed at the work they are putting into it and insults getting tossed around as if these issues are crocodile tears...


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  
+2

Mitch IvesRe: Email Exchange with Randy Ubillos, FCP X Designer
by on Jun 23, 2011 at 3:49:13 pm

[Douglas K. Dempsey] "Do you imagine FCP7 will run flawlessly on Lion and beyond, while we keep our fingers crossed that 2 or 3 years from now, FCPX will "go pro" and open our archived FCP7 projects -- projects that we now open, modify and cut & paste from all the time, as we evolve and update projects for clients, or re-purpose footage for new projects?"

This has been on my mind. Why rush out FCPX so quick? Is it perhaps because Lion is coming in a month, and FCP7 wont run on it very well, so you punch FCPX out quick and discontinue FCP7 before people can scream about FCP7 problems under Lion? Could be just coincidental, but the timing my not be...

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


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  


Steven GonzalesRe: Email Exchange with Randy Ubillos, FCP X Designer
by on Jun 23, 2011 at 4:44:32 am

I still have an old VHS tape of the FCP rollout in 1999. Randy Ubillos is there, talking about having a professional editor on the team from the very beginning.

Doesn't this seem to be the problem, that this time around they forgot the wise decision they made way back in 1999?



Return to posts index
Reply   Like  

Bryan KeithRe: Email Exchange with Randy Ubillos, FCP X Designer
by on Jun 23, 2011 at 5:33:48 am

Hey Chris,

Can you post Randy's email so that we can all contact him with our rants and constructive criticism. It probably won't make an ounce of difference but it might make us feel a little better. :)

Bryan Keith
http://www.happylandstudio.com


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  
+1

Paul JayRe: Email Exchange with Randy Ubillos, FCP X Designer
by on Jun 23, 2011 at 7:16:50 am

Who upgrades any software in the middle of a project?
Its asking for troubles anyway.
No argument.
Xml export and broadcast i/o IS a big argument


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  


Joe CampanaleRe: Email Exchange with Randy Ubillos, FCP X Designer
by on Jun 23, 2011 at 8:57:59 am

After reading his response, I seriously do not understand the mindset at Team Final Cut in Cupertino.

On one hand, Apple crashes the pro user conference at NAB, and boasts about Final Cut's importance in broadcast media, how professionals are important to them, etc.

On the other, Randy Ubillos states legacy support wasn't a priority because, get this: they didn't think anyone was going to switch in the middle of a project.

What?

SOMETHING is seriously wrong at Apple - major internal miscommunication between marketing and development, incompetent leadership... Whatever it is, I've never seen them appear so weak.


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  
+4

Peter BlumenstockRe: Email Exchange with Randy Ubillos, FCP X Designer
by on Jun 23, 2011 at 10:00:40 am

Nothing's wrong at Apple and they know very well what they are doing. This is, obviously, deliberate and quite amazing in its deliberate deceitfulness. Attract the pro market, make a product a household name for professional use and then abandon that small pro niche market and sell a new product that has nothing in common with its predecessor but the name to thousands of consumers who have heard of the apps reputation in the past. Apple has become a very, very dubious and mean company that cannot be trusted and relied on in a business environment. And as I have said elsewhere, this is just the start. FCP X is a single monitor app, no Mac Pro is used anywhere in any official pics of the app, Thunderbold soon to be in all the Macs so no need for PCI-E or several internal hard drives - bye bye Mac Pro hardware.


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  
+4

Mark OnatRe: Email Exchange with Randy Ubillos, FCP X Designer
by on Jun 23, 2011 at 11:06:02 am

All they had to do was upgrade iMovie to iMovie Pro and just say the FCP suite wasn't ready. They're not a cash-strapped company.
I agree that this is going to make them look weak in general.
Why blatantly misrepresent something? Are they too successful to be burdened by a small customer segment? Does some nutcase think they need to change their identity? Have two years of wild success corrupted the company? IS the consumer side OK with losing the rep of the pro side? Wow, someone just lit one at the party.

Plus the Mac Pro line is overpricing components in its hardware.

The consumer side is the side with the most competition. iPads are pricey compared to 7-inch Androids. Maybe the guys following Steve don't know what they're doing after all. Wouldn't surprise me. Creative people don't stay in bureaucracies once they make money. Only untalented paperpushers stay in comissariats. Apparently all that talk about Apple being high on itself has turned out to be true.

The ridiculous thing is that amateur filmmakers are just now getting their hands on more pro gear with HD dSLRs and GoPros and moving on up into the ranks of pro creators (mtn bikers, snowboarders, extreme etc). iMovie works for a while, but once you get it, you want to move up. These guys have built FCP as much as anyone. Now Apple's telling them - don't buy our software and don't buy our laptops either. Go back to the PC where things are cheaper and you can customize the software.

I would say its baffling but it actually reminds me of the old days of APPLE, when getting on the internet wasn't that important.


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  


Stephan WalfridssonRe: Email Exchange with Randy Ubillos, FCP X Designer
by on Jun 23, 2011 at 11:32:11 am

[Joe Campanale] "Randy Ubilious states legacy support wasn't a priority"

Obviously iMovie legacy support was more important than FCP7 legacy support.


Stephan


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  
+2

Craig SeemanRe: Email Exchange with Randy Ubillos, FCP X Designer
by on Jun 23, 2011 at 3:28:29 pm

[Joe Campanale] "On the other, Randy Ubillos states legacy support wasn't a priority because, get this: they didn't think anyone was going to switch in the middle of a project. "

I agree that this was truly thoughtless. It's not only about switching mid project. It's about what happens when a client wants to do revisions on a project a few years old.

I regularly have clients coming back to make a few changes or rebranding on 5 year old cable spots. FCP7 will only live so long with new OSs and machines. Am I to maintain a collection of old machines with old OSs for my clients? Must I start each old project from scratch in FCPX even if it's just changing titles and logs?

The irony is the very market FCPX is suited for, so people claim, it still has serious failings. In my tapeless world of local cable spots and corporate, clients sometimes want to revise projects going back a few years.



Return to posts index
Reply   Like  

Rob WomackRe: Email Exchange with Randy Ubillos, FCP X Designer
by on Jun 23, 2011 at 6:00:28 pm

My biggest issues with FCP-X is that for all intents and purposes, it is an iMovie update not FCP, and that it does not fit into any professional workflow with ease. Unless of course, you color corrected and mixed from within Final Cut (which I used to do), in which case this is not an issue. Attempting to change the paradigm of video editing is all well and good, and I wish them luck although I think this effort is doomed, but I don't think it's fair to characterize negative reactions as whining when a professional's tool of choice is changed so dramatically with no hope of backwards compatibility (except with iMovie). You might shoehorn FCP-X into a workflow, but it is not designed to do that. FCP-X is the workflow, and a fairly limited one at that. No secondary color correcting? No multitrack recording and mixing? Fine, but no other way to do that? Or to even view your video on a broadcast monitor? Poor.

I say that it is an update to iMovie simply because of the fact that you can open old iMovie projects, but not FCP projects, that FCP-X and iMovie share many of the same interface features and nomenclature, and that the paradigm is an extension of the iMovie paradigm. Maybe they didn't work off the iMovie codebase. But who cares? They removed interoperability and added extremely gutted versions of Color and Soundtrack Pro (which was already hobbled), and this is a good thing? Yes, if you cut with iMovie, then it is a very good thing. In any case, you can call this FCP-X 1.0 but it isn't. It is supposed to be Final Cut Pro 10 and it only works with old versions of iMovie, and in all practicality this makes it an iMovie update.

As far as the backwards compatibility thing goes, allowing us to operate FCP7 on the same machine is a weak compromise, because eventually FCP7 will not work on the MacOS. Then what? Sorry, sir, but you're screwed. At least when OSX first arrived, there was a way to operate all the OS9 applications from within OSX. Not FCP, though.

Robert Womack
Creative Bridgekeep
http://www.CurrentMarketing.com
"Louisville's Leading Interactive Marketing Agency"


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  
+1


walter biscardiRe: Email Exchange with Randy Ubillos, FCP X Designer
by on Jun 23, 2011 at 6:51:10 pm

[Chris Messineo] "We never expected anyone to switch editing software in the middle of a project, so project migration was not a priority."

And what if someone wants to open a project to revise it?

Walter Biscardi, Jr.
Editor, Colorist, Director, Writer, Consultant, Author, Chef.
HD Post and Production
Biscardi Creative Media

Blog Twitter Facebook


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  
+2

Craig SeemanRe: Email Exchange with Randy Ubillos, FCP X Designer
by on Jun 23, 2011 at 7:19:06 pm

[walter biscardi] "And what if someone wants to open a project to revise it?"

I mentioned elsewhere that this is one of my concerns. Often enough I have clients asking for revisions on projects going back a few years. By then there may be yet another new OS and new Macs here. I don't expect to have any method to open an FCP7 project.

One might interpret

"We never expected anyone to switch editing software in the middle of a project, so project migration was not a priority."

As something that might not be implemented for some time but if it's "not ever" that's going to be a serious problem. This is an example of something we need to know ASAP because we don't want to dig ourselves into a hole. The risk is that a project you start in FCP7 today due to feature necessity may not be retrievable at all in two years short of keeping a Mac and FCP7 alive on one system (for how many years).

If they tend to have an importer eventually (just not know) they should make that clear. All in all, I think Apple's poor communication is a bigger issue the feature sets in an app which most know is not ready for many post workflows.



Return to posts index
Reply   Like  

Chad WilmothRe: Email Exchange with Randy Ubillos, FCP X Designer
by on Jun 23, 2011 at 7:26:32 pm

Maybe the missing "Pro" features are waiting for Lion and new Mac Pros with Thunderbolt(for hardware I/O).

Therefore Apple marketing think: everyone will have to buy a new Mac Pro anyway, so they can keep their current Mac Pro running Snow Leopard for FCP7.

It's a way to guarantee new Mac Pro sales...

Just a thought

Chad Wilmoth
Visual Reality Studios
http://www.visual-reality-studios.com


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  


Post removed.

Patrick SheffieldRe: Email Exchange with Randy Ubillos, FCP X Designer
by on Jun 24, 2011 at 1:12:29 am

"FCP7 projects do not have enough information in them to properly translate to FCPX (in FCP7 all of the clip connections live in the editor's head, not in the timeline). "

This is a BS remark. The relationships exist in the timeline, not the editor's head. How do I prove that? Anyone in the world can open my timeline and play back my edit. I don't need to be present.

Not enough information? BS. Put in default information. Sorry - metadata....

Just an excuse for poor planning.

Patrick



Return to posts index
Reply   Like  
+3

Jean-François RobichaudRe: Email Exchange with Randy Ubillos, FCP X Designer
by on Jun 25, 2011 at 11:31:05 pm

"This is a BS remark. The relationships exist in the timeline, not the editor's head. How do I prove that? Anyone in the world can open my timeline and play back my edit. I don't need to be present.

Not enough information? BS. Put in default information. Sorry - metadata...."

I am as frustrated as any by the missing features and the inability to open legacy projects. But I think you misunderstood what is meant here. It's not about being able to play the edit (that's trivial) but translating it from one language to another yet retain the intent behind the clips position relative to each other. That is non-trivial because FCP 7 is implicit about the intent while FCP X makes it explicit.

You can't watch a video and know what the editor's timeline looked like exactly: you can only make an educated guess. An algorithm can't read your FCP 7 timeline and guess what your intent was: it could generate 100 different timelines that make different assumptions about your intent yet that would all play the same. In each alternative, your elements would be connected differently Should this sound effect be connected to this clip or that one? Does the music relate to this or that clip? Or maybe the music is the backbone and everything else is connected to it.

None of this matters if all you want to do is play the timeline, but it does matter as soon as you want to move things around. The reason the magnetic timeline is a big deal is this: since all connections are explicit, the software can be smart about keeping everything in order. But it's more than that: it means that an FCP X timeline contains more information about the INTENT than a traditional timeline ever could. That means that a second editor can look at the timeline and actually gain more knowledge about what the original editor intended, just by the way elements are connected to each other.

FCP X forces you to be explicit about these things, but in a way that doesn't require any extra effort from you. Have you never moved an element in your timeline but forgotten that another should have been moved along with it? Sure you caught it as soon as you played back you edit, but you still lost 20 seconds figuring out what the hell happened there. This is unlikely to ever happen with FCP X. But it's about a lot more than preventing mistakes, and it's not about holding you hand either. It's about giving you the power to explicitly define your intent within the timeline and let the software work for you.

I know I must sound like an Apple shill, but I just happen to be impressed by the possibilities offered by this timeline. I still think Apple should provide a conversion tool, maybe one that proposes alternative translations or maybe allow you to set rules for translation.


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  


Patrick SheffieldRe: Email Exchange with Randy Ubillos, FCP X Designer
by on Jun 26, 2011 at 4:15:31 am

"You can't watch a video and know what the editor's timeline looked like exactly: you can only make an educated guess."

But we're not asking FCX to infer the timeline from the video out. The relationships between the Audio and Video are explicit in the FCP timeline. Either the audio is linked with the video, or it is free floating. That's how it should be carried over. There's no need to look for further "intent". And if you want to, you can always link them after the fact, can't you?

Unless you're saying there's no way to put audio in a FCX timeline without linking it to some video. This is not my perception of how FCX works.

Some translation problems are probably inherent in FCX's design flaw/limitation of no Audio/Video tracks (Yes, it's a limitation... I use Tracks for a reason. They are not something I was saddled with and looking to rid myself of - I don't find timecode pesky either).

Do I sometimes grab a section of my FCP timeline and miss a bit of audio? I suppose, but it's pretty rare. I usually lasso the section I want to move and slide it where I want. On my list of Annoying Problems Manipulating The Timeline, that doesn't even make the top 20. To redesign an entire paradigm to remove that problem seems misplaced in the extreme.

Patrick Sheffield
Sheffield Softworks


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  
+2

Jean-François RobichaudRe: Email Exchange with Randy Ubillos, FCP X Designer
by on Jun 26, 2011 at 3:53:45 pm

"But we're not asking FCX to infer the timeline from the video out. "

I was only refering that your comment if one can play it then the intent is there.

"The relationships between the Audio and Video are explicit in the FCP timeline. Either the audio is linked with the video, or it is free floating.That's how it should be carried over. There's no need to look for further "intent". And if you want to, you can always link them after the fact, can't you?
Unless you're saying there's no way to put audio in a FCX timeline without linking it to some video. This is not my perception of how FCX works."

I seems as though you misunderstood my whole post. I'm not talking about a video clip's own audio. I'm talking about all of the other elements, whether they be additional sound: voice over, extra dialogue, music, sound effects; or visual: titles, overlays, inserts, cutaways, etc.

The point I was making is about how these secondary elements connect to the backbone of the edit. I can only infer so much about their relationship from their position in a traditonal timeline. The FCP X timelines contains more information about their intended relationship (which exist mostly in the editor's head in the case of a traditional timeline). That's not an opinion that's a fact. The opinion would be whether it's a good thing for the intended relashionship to be explicitely spelled out in the edit. I certainly think it is, especially since it does not require any extra effort to make it explicit. If I go back to my timeline weeks later (or after a long weekend) or pass the edit to another editor, it's much less likely the relationships between those elements will be misinterpreted.

"Do I sometimes grab a section of my FCP timeline and miss a bit of audio? I suppose, but it's pretty rare. I usually lasso the section I want to move and slide it where I want."

You wouldn't even need to lasso in FCP X to move multiple clips. Since the relationships are defined in the timeline, you can just move the base clip. How about you use a slide or slip edit, and that makes a sound effect out of sync with the video? Won't happen with FCP X either: the connected clips move with their master clip, no matter what tool or method you use. That's just one example, maybe you never use the slide tool, but no matter what your methods are, there is something to be gained from having a smarter timeline. Some people fear that automating part of the timeline removes power from the editor (dumbsmit down), but that's bullshit. Since the editor is the one who defines the connections and therefore the behaviour of the timeline, it only means you don't have to micromanage every last element, saving time and keeping your focus on the essence of the edit. You're still having frame accurate control over your video (and much more on your audio). I've tried to think of an operation where this would lead to unwanted behaviour, but I haven't found one yet.

I'm pissed off about the whole lot of missing features and Apple's refusal to present a roadplan. But the changes to the timeline, along with some other changes, certainly makes me positive about the release.


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  

Geert van den BergRe: Email Exchange with Randy Ubillos, FCP X Designer
by on Jun 26, 2011 at 8:58:26 am

To stay for a bit on the technical side, because of the AV foundation discussion:

Let's not forget that it's also possible to go from iMovie to Final Cut Pro 7 (apparently, I never used iMovie). So it does create an XML/EDL in some way for FCP 7 to reference the files from.

Now FCPx timeline is much more complex than iMovie, but still it does not seem like something that's impossible to do. Except that it seems only export the basic video and audio clips are 'easy' ( what about Motion projects in the timeline?), but basically that would be enough for most professionals. So I don't buy the 'not enough information' remark for Randy Ubillos.

There's an article on DVcreators.net http://www.dvcreators.net/what-does-the-guy-who-led-the-original-final-cut-...

Which tells that iMovie 08 was originally destined to be some pre-final cut application called First Cut. So again going between the two applications with different frameworks is not impossible. The process of bridging the gap between iMovie and Final Cut was already laid out on the roadmap for years. Basically they have done the same thing before with Logic Pro and GarageBand.

Personally there are some aspects that I like about FCPX and I think we will see some updates soon, but I truly dislike the way the app has been presented and the lack of a roadmap with stuff that will be added soon. Unfortunately I think that most people on this forum have already bought this app (including me) and probably also a lot of iMovie users might have already made purchases so Apple is already cashing again...


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  


David FishRe: Email Exchange with Randy Ubillos, FCP X Designer
by on Jun 26, 2011 at 3:36:56 pm

The 1.0 argument would make sense, if the new product did not contain the words "Final Cut Pro". FCP 7 was a very mature product, having been through through numerous upgrades and improvement over it's 10-yr plus history.

All of a sudden Apple is saying were back to 1.0??? How can anyone take this excuse seriously. Let's get real. Call it something else and treat it as a 1.0 release. But to call it Final Cut Pro? Please.



Return to posts index
Reply   Like  

Craig SeemanRe: Email Exchange with Randy Ubillos, FCP X Designer
by on Jun 26, 2011 at 4:25:08 pm

There's nothing wrong with innovation and it rightfully will and should be the replacement for FCP7 . . . EVENTUALLY. FCS2009 should not have been pulled. It may take the better part of a year before FCPX reaches feature parity. Apple envisions this as the NEXT Final Cut. It's just not ready yet.



Return to posts index
Reply   Like  
+1

Brandon KraemerRe: Email Exchange with Randy Ubillos, FCP X Designer
by on Jun 26, 2011 at 6:44:01 pm

An interesting thread, among the many on this topic.

In response to the low priority of opening legacy projects expressed by Mr. Ubilos I have this point to draw.

My company works with brands, several very large brands with years of footage acquired for each. Not only is it very important to be able to open old projects on a regular basis and share sequences from them towards new projects, it's absolutely vital to source the logged footage that exists in our legacy library projects. The man hours that goes into the effort of logging the nuances of this footage is a huge investment for us and it vital to serving the brands we create content for. If there is no way to port these logs and sequences of selects strings than migrating to FCPX is a non-starter. It's not at all about switching programs in mid project, it's about all the intellectual capital that is organized in a programs architecture that is unable to be mined. So I agree with others that until Apple talks to the pro-users directly and tells us that there will be the ability to import bins and sequences from legacy projects there is no way we can consider this product.

Furthermore, aside from the working speed provided by a 64-bit version of FCP, there is NOTHING that I can't accomplish creatively with virtually any other NLE application that requires I use FCPX. You shouldn't be able to watch a professionally produced product and say, that looks like FCPX. I can solve any problem I need to with what ever tool I use, it will just be a different approach. I don't see how FCPX as made any other tool I could use obsolete. Therefore cutting off legacy project and product support is a very arrogant move on Apple's part. I can find a tool that will open my important legacy libraries, it just isn't apparently FCPX.


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  
+2


Craig SeemanRe: Email Exchange with Randy Ubillos, FCP X Designer
by on Jun 26, 2011 at 7:01:55 pm

I like FCPX but I'm certainly sympathetic to your situation because I have the same issue. I have corporate videos and local cable spots that clients request revisions on going back a number of years.

At some point FCP7 will break due to changes in OS and/or hardware and I will no longer be able to revise those projects unless either Apple provides import or I move to another NLE.

Keep in mind Randy Ubillos said it wasn't' a priority, not that it wouldn't happen. Apparently it's not something they thought the first release would need. It's not mission critical at the moment because I can still use FCP7 for that but some of may face the crossroads as soon as Lion arrives. At that point one will not be able to buy a Snow Leopard Mac and another FCS2009 seat. Apple has allowed for no transition period apparently.



Return to posts index
Reply   Like  

Jerry HofmannRe: Email Exchange with Randy Ubillos, FCP X Designer
by on Jun 26, 2011 at 11:45:59 pm

We all know the only real dongle for FCP is a Mac. Maybe we could even get them to unlock already owned systems to be copied legally on any computer you or your company owns, dunno but extra seats will likely be available for quite some time on ebay I'll wager.

Maybe they'll update it fast enough that we don't have to wait until FCP 7 just doesn't run anymore. In the presentation they said they'd be updating it faster than before.

There is a roadmap I'm sure, and they will be adding or a third party will supply software to do what we must. If there's a market, somebody is going to fill it. Some think it will be FCP's competition. Some don't. We'll see. I like much of what I see in X. 64 bit, background renders et all. Facial recognition might even be in the cards with this new platform, they have it in the photo apps already... And that's what it is a new platform. For starters, there has to be XML in the code of FCP X or Automatic Duck couldn't have latched on to it... I believe they had that for sale within hours of FCP X's release.

I seriously believe waiting and playing around with X for the cost of a nice dinner for 4 is a good idea if you can. And most can. For how long will be up to Apple, they say it will be faster. We'll see eh?

Jerry

Apple Certified Trainer, Producer, Writer, Director Editor, Gun for Hire and other things. I ski. My Blog: http://blogs.creativecow.net/Jerry-Hofmann

Current DVD:
http://store.creativecow.net/p/81/jerry_hofmanns_final_cut_system_setup

8-Core 3.0 Intel Mac Pro, Dual 2 gig G5, AJA Kona SD, AJA Kona 2, Huge Systems Array UL3D, AJA Io HD, 17" MBP, Matrox MXO2 with MAX - Cinema Displays I have a 22" that I paid 4k for still working. G4 with Kona SD card, and SCSI card.


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  

Paul VlachosRe: Email Exchange with Randy Ubillos, FCP X Designer
by on Jun 27, 2011 at 12:32:14 am

I don't mind learning new software, although I have better things to do with my time, honestly, and it's a bit of a hassle. In fact, there's stuff I need to put off or not do if I must re-learn an application. Always pissed me off that they changed the Compressor interface with every iteration, or DVD SP, for that matter.

Anyway, I can deal with that.

If FCP-X will not allow for opening old FCP projects down the road, though, that's quite serious. I have years worth of old material that I need to go back to on a regular basis.

I have been Apple's biggest loyalist, apologist and evangelist for a long, long time, but I will move on faster than a thunderbolt if they can't fix this. For about it being insensitive to real world needs and arrogant, in general. It's just plain stupid.


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  
+3


Paul VlachosRe: Email Exchange with Randy Ubillos, FCP X Designer
by on Jun 27, 2011 at 12:33:40 am

I don't mind learning new software, although I have better things to do with my time, honestly, and it's a bit of a hassle. In fact, there's stuff I need to put off or not do if I must re-learn an application. Always pissed me off that they changed the Compressor interface with every iteration, or DVD SP, for that matter.

Anyway, I can deal with that.

If FCP-X will not allow for opening old FCP projects down the road, though, that's quite serious. I have years worth of old material that I need to go back to on a regular basis.

I have been Apple's biggest loyalist, apologist and evangelist for a long, long time, but I will move on faster than a thunderbolt if they can't fix this. For about it being insensitive to real world needs and arrogant, in general. It's just plain stupid.


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  
+2

Brandon KraemerRe: Email Exchange with Randy Ubillos, FCP X Designer
by on Jun 27, 2011 at 1:33:56 am

Lack of SAN support is for now a non-starter for us, not that we'd jump at this app right now anyway, but no SAN means we can't even really efficiently test a project with X and I have to assume this is also the case for most larger facilities. I hope this is on the priority list.

I don't know much about code or development, I am an end user... and I've been using NLEs since 1990, but in my guess it would seem that SAN support would be a basic foundation level thing and not an add on like XML. Lets hope I am wrong and it appears soon, but what we'd really like is a direct statement about these and other concerns.


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  
+2

Jerry HofmannRe: Email Exchange with Randy Ubillos, FCP X Designer
by on Jun 27, 2011 at 1:56:04 am

We all know the only real dongle for FCP is a Mac. Maybe we could even get them to unlock already owned systems to be copied legally on any computer you or your company owns, dunno but extra seats will likely be available for quite some time on ebay I'll wager.

Maybe they'll update it fast enough that we don't have to wait until FCP 7 just doesn't run anymore. In the presentation they said they'd be updating it faster than before.

There is a roadmap I'm sure, and they will be adding or a third party will supply software to do what we must. If there's a market, somebody is going to fill it. Some think it will be FCP's competition. Some don't. We'll see. I like much of what I see in X. 64 bit, background renders et all. Facial recognition might even be in the cards with this new platform, they have it in the photo apps already... And that's what it is a new platform. For starters, there has to be XML in the code of FCP X or Automatic Duck couldn't have latched on to it... I believe they had that for sale within hours of FCP X's release.

I seriously believe waiting and playing around with X for the cost of a nice dinner for 4 is a good idea if you can. And most can. For how long will be up to Apple, they say it will be faster. We'll see eh?

Jerry


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  


Richard ScottRandy, I disagree.
by on Jun 27, 2011 at 2:20:11 am

[Chris Messineo] ""FCP7 projects do not have enough information in them to properly translate to FCPX (in FCP7 all of the clip connections live in the editor's head, not in the timeline). We never expected anyone to switch editing software in the middle of a project, so project migration was not a priority."


I hate to disagree with the man who developed the software because he knows more about its internals than I can ever hope to. But I have to call bull on this one, and maybe my lack of engineer-level knowledge helps here.

Final Cut Pro has a media library with metadata about your clips. FCPX has a media library with metadata about your clips. Surely you could figure out how to translate from one to the other.

Final Cut Pro has timelines, which are nothing more than a sequence of clips. These clips have starting points, ending points, and transitions between them. FCPX has a different sort of timeline... which also has clips arranged in a sequence, with starting points and ending points and transitions between them. At their core, timelines of all sorts are nothing more than ordered lists of things. So what if there's no such thing as "Track A", just arrange the clips in the same order as they are in FCP 7 and that gets us 90% of the way there.

"FCP7 all of the clip connections live in the editor's head, not in the timeline." I don't even know what this means. When I open a FCP 7 project, the program knows full well what clip to place where. Sequences don't appear in random order each time I open it. That's all that needs to be translated.

Chris, I think you've gotten too engrossed with how different the internals are between the programs to realize that we don't care about such engineering details. Both organize clips into sequences, and surely you could figure out how to translate an ordered list of things into a new, entirely different storage model. I do know some things like specific filters will not translate over. But you can always give us the option to (a) flatten it into a rendered clip (using FCP7's renderer as a client process) or (b) remove effects and revert to the original media.

This isn't impossible. It maybe difficult to translate data between two very different formats, and it would surely be time-consuming to implement and test. But it is definitely not impossible. It just takes time and effort that Apple has decided is not worth it. Everyone who has built a career on your software disagrees.


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  

Randy PhillipsRe: Email Exchange with Randy Ubillos, FCP X Designer
by on Jun 27, 2011 at 4:06:22 am

I truly look forward to each & every upgrade of FCS, X included. I look forward to the day when I can integrate this into my workflow, but that will not be until I can open legacy projects.
I do 100's of tv commercials & dozens of industrial projects every year & for me to be required to start all of them from scratch is ludicrous.
Yes, I can keep 7 installed along with X, but then I'm not moving forward, I'm holding on to the past.
In the last month, I revised 6 different projects for a large local corporation that I had previously done & it took a couple weeks of editing. If I would have started from scratch, it would have taken months & the client would have lost thousands of dollars. These were dvd's that had to be shipped with each unit & their client began assessing fines for the product not being delivered. True, the client waited too long to get me started on the project revisions, but which one of us has not been under the gun like this?
What needs to happen is there needs to be a "legacy" mode that allows exiting projects to be opened up in FCPX, then re-saved with whatever attributes are necessary for FCPX integration. Until that happens, I'll be living in the past with 7. I suppose if the day comes that I need to start from scratch, I will, but how much bad publicity has this been for our editing platform? Yes, any piece of software is a work in progress until the day it's discontinued, but while some say this is a totally new product, I humbly disagree. This is the next step in the evolution of Final Cut. The lessons & experience learned from all the years it's existed seem to have been pushed aside for the new interface. I have no doubt it's incredible & will change the way people think about video editing, but as of right now, my 9 years worth of archived projects seem to be of no interest to Apple. Wow.......just wow.

Randy Phillips
Randy's Video
Quincy, IL


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]