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

FCP X and the Future of Editing

COW Forums : Apple FCPX or Not: The Debate

<< PREVIOUS   •   VIEW ALL   •   PRINT   •   NEXT >>
Share on Facebook
Gerry FraibergFCP X and the Future of Editing
by on Nov 20, 2012 at 3:42:43 pm

Interesting article on FCP X and the Future of Editing by David Leitner in Filmmaker Magazine.

http://filmmakermagazine.com/56928-fcp-x-and-the-future-of-editing/



Return to posts index
Reply   Like  

Frank GothmannRe: FCP X and the Future of Editing
by on Nov 20, 2012 at 3:52:51 pm

What's most interesting to me is, again, the misconception that 64bit automatically equals faster in people's minds. It just doesn't. It has the potential but if the code doesn't deliver it can be as slow or even slower than 32bit.

------
"You also agree that you will not use these products for... the development, design, manufacture or production of nuclear, missiles, or chemical or biological weapons."
iTunes End User Licence Agreement


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  

Bill DavisRe: FCP X and the Future of Editing
by on Nov 20, 2012 at 4:26:12 pm

[Frank Gothmann] "What's most interesting to me is, again, the misconception that 64bit automatically equals faster in people's minds. It just doesn't. It has the potential but if the code doesn't deliver it can be as slow or even slower than 32bit."

I know it's kinda "glass half full" - but isn't the flip of this also accurate?

Which is to say that with UNLESS you have a 64bit code base - you are RESTRICTED from the potential for subsequent speed increases?

It's the same exact thing - but seen in this light -it's kinda like slogging you way through a tough college class - paying a small penalty today for the realistic opportunity to have a much better tomorrow.

Know someone who teaches video editing in elementary school, high school or college? Tell them to check out http://www.StartEditingNow.com - video editing curriculum complete with licensed practice content.


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  


Walter SoykaRe: FCP X and the Future of Editing
by on Nov 20, 2012 at 4:47:21 pm

[Bill Davis] " know it's kinda "glass half full" - but isn't the flip of this also accurate? Which is to say that with UNLESS you have a 64bit code base - you are RESTRICTED from the potential for subsequent speed increases? It's the same exact thing - but seen in this light -it's kinda like slogging you way through a tough college class - paying a small penalty today for the realistic opportunity to have a much better tomorrow."

Sort of, but not necessarily.

The primary benefit of 64-bit computing is access to larger pools of memory. 32-bit applications are limited to a theoretical maximum of 4 GB of RAM. Additionally, there are a few specific computations that are faster with 64-bit processing due to the wider registers.

Some instructions on 64-bit processors can actually run slower than their 32-bit counterparts, since they require moving twice as much information around.

Practically speaking, the newest Macs mostly ship with 8 GB of RAM, so on these systems, after OS X overhead, other applications, and a bit of free space, FCPX is unlikely to be able to grab much more than 4 GB of RAM anyway, negating the primary benefit of 64-bit architecture.

To Frank's point, it's not being 64-bit that makes FCPX so fast -- I think most of the speed increase comes from better exploiting the CPUs and GPUs in modern systems. To your point, going 64-bit and having access to more RAM makes it easier for a developer to make their application run faster, but it's neither necessary nor sufficient for speed.

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  
+3

Bret WilliamsRe: FCP X and the Future of Editing
by on Nov 20, 2012 at 4:15:04 pm

Decent article, but this quote is moronic -

"The editor, free from worry about accidentally knocking clips or complex sequences out of sync, can playfully shuffle clips and sequences, focusing entirely on story structure."

I would have to disagree and say that FCP X is the most prone NLE there ever was to screwing up a project. (And it doesn't warn you whatsoever nor have any visual representation of what's in sync.) Clip connections being the culprit of course. AND ripple editing. Sure, it makes it easy to swap a clip, but it better not be in the primary with other clips or a secondary connected to it! Since they'll all move and screw up the sync. And lord forbid you delete a clip in the primary and everything shift down, except your music of course, which will now be out of sync.

Both of the above have ways to prevent them from happening. In .06, you can hold down the tilde key to keep connected clips from moving when moving a clip or slip/sliding it, and you can shift delete to keep the timeline from rippling when deleting a clip. In most NLEs they consider time and sync to be a bit more important, as it should be. I just think X has got the default mode a bit backward. Tilde key mode should be the default behavior, and rippling should require mode toggle.


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  
+3

ted irvingRe: FCP X and the Future of Editing
by on Nov 20, 2012 at 4:45:36 pm

I'll just throw in my teenie weenie comment on the latest version of FCPX which is 10.06. And I gotta say, I love being able to export and the export is a hidden process. Instead of sitting and waiting to render or watching an export bar, I can go on to other timelines and edit. Plus I can export multiple timelines with this new hidden feature while not having to do it in Compressor. That is still an option, but this is very liberating for me. I primarily edit sports packages and once I'm done with one i jump on to the next and now i don't have any wait time. It's weird getting used to because I"m used to seeing an export window. I have a lot of praise for FCPX and some complaints, but my guess is that down the road all of this will occur on a tablet with a stylus or your finger. just look at windows 8. Just imagine what Avid Media Composer will look like running on 8. Cool!

Ted Irving
Freelance Content Creation
CBS MaxPreps/BBN3
http://www.tedtv.tv
tedirving@yahoo.com


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  


Andy NeilRe: FCP X and the Future of Editing
by on Nov 20, 2012 at 5:30:10 pm

[Bret Williams] "I would have to disagree and say that FCP X is the most prone NLE there ever was to screwing up a project. "

I have to say, I feel like you're mis-representing FCPX quite a bit, Bret. First of all you talk about all the limiations X has with regards to moving and deleting clips, and then mention in the subsequent paragraph that there are simple keystroke actions to prevent those problems. It's like you're saying, "FCPX has all these problems but really they don't so nevermind."

Just because the default behavior has been flipped does not make the program more prone to sync issues. You just have to learn to use it that way. In fact, in my editing, it's rarer that I want to delete a clip and leave a gap than want to close that gap. So to me, X's default behavior makes perfect sense.

And while I don't think anyone will argue that it's a good idea that FCPX doesn't have sync indicators, you're being a bit insincere about FCPX's ability to maintain sync. The article was clearly talking about how since video and audio are married as a single clip, you don't have to worry about losing sync, and that's completely true. Sync issues are even less of a problem now with 10.0.06 because you can edit and keyframe individual channels of audio without detaching.

Andy

http://www.timesavertutorials.com


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  
-1

Bret WilliamsRe: FCP X and the Future of Editing
by on Nov 20, 2012 at 11:05:38 pm

Agreed on the point of married audio clips. I keep them married.

When I talk about it throwing a whole project out of sync, I'm more talking about rippling a timeline. In many situations the VO and/or music track is going to be connected possibly to the first clip or very early in the timeline. As it often is with my projects, the secondaries and connected clips are in sync with the music, and also positioned to relate to the vo. In FCP legacy with all tracks UNLOCKED, or in Avid with all tracks sync-locked (how I worked at all times in both), deleting a clip didn't ripple unless you told it to. In legacy, you could still throw clips out of sync that had edits before the ripple point, in much the same way that clips connected before the ripple point in X won't get rippled and will be out of sync (Vo, music, or even secondaries that are connected before the edit point, all depending on the situation. Avid takes it one step further and if you have sync locks on, and try to ripple an in-out area, it will litterally slice through tracks you didn't want to ripple to preserve sync.

Anyway, my point is that the default behavior in X is the potentially more hazardous behaviour. And without any sort of attic or restore feature to go back a few versions, you could really be stuck. Deleting a clip could even delete an entire secondary edit if you don't pay attention. Slipping a clip can throw off an entire secondary edit if it's connected and you don't use the tilde key.

I prefer my edit system respecting my edit decisions a little more. Yes there are ways around it, and 10.0.6 made a lot of headway. Like I said, I'm used to it. But I wouldn't expect the casual or new user to be.


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  

Andy NeilRe: FCP X and the Future of Editing
by on Nov 20, 2012 at 11:36:16 pm

[Bret Williams] "Avid takes it one step further and if you have sync locks on, and try to ripple an in-out area, it will litterally slice through tracks you didn't want to ripple to preserve sync. "

It's ironic that you mention Avid because in Media Composer the default configuration is to have sync locks turned off.

I agree with you about preserving broll cut to music or VO. I wish the "override clip connections" command were a toggle rather than a hold down shortcut, which would solve that problem nicely.

Andy

http://www.timesavertutorials.com


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  


Bret WilliamsRe: FCP X and the Future of Editing
by on Nov 20, 2012 at 11:50:03 pm

True, but even without, you have to be very specific about what tracks are affected, so without them it could be argued that it is quite a deliberate process, so whatever happens is up to the user. I kept them on to keep accidents from happening. Everything was very deliberate. Mark, lift, ripple, etc.

I think toggle ripple (horizontal magnetics) and toggle tilde would solve a lot of grief.


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  

Oliver PetersRe: FCP X and the Future of Editing
by on Nov 20, 2012 at 8:13:36 pm

[Bret Williams] "I would have to disagree and say that FCP X is the most prone NLE there ever was to screwing up a project. "

I completely agree. Plus this is funny coming from Bret, who has largely been very positive about X ;-)

I've certainly had my share of moments looking at the timeline and wondering what happened (or what I did) to mess it up. Call it operator error if you like, but the design of X is such that it's very easy to make unintended edits, which are often not discovered until later. Things like removing a transition, causing the clip to shift position, because you've lost the length of media equal to half of the transition's duration. Then "helped" by the magnetic timeline. Yuk!

- Oliver

Oliver Peters Post Production Services, LLC
Orlando, FL
http://www.oliverpeters.com


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  
+1

Bret WilliamsRe: FCP X and the Future of Editing
by on Nov 20, 2012 at 10:47:32 pm

I was pretty negative at first. I was in the "well, what's next, Avid or Premiere?" boat for the first 8 months as I kept giving each new version a shot. Usually on my old MacPro 1,1, which wasn't a good situation. But eventually with a new iMac maxed out, and the multi cam feature I ran into a couple projects we shot on 5D that I was largely on my own (so free to look like an idiot with nobody watching except my wife - who is often the producer, though). It took some getting used to, but I finally saw where they were headed with this thing, as long as they keep pushing forward. I have Premiere and use After Effects quite a bit, but I haven't really had a chance to dig in to Premiere. The more I played with Premiere, the more I realized it was just FCP 7 1/2. Better and more powerful at many things, but lacking at others.

I now enjoy X's trackless magnetics, vertically. The horizontal rippling and such I don't care for. I'm used to it, but it still annoys me. The tilde key saved my sanity. No more connecting stuff to other stuff just to slip a clip or to move a clip. I've been using NLEs since 1993 - VideoCube, Media100, Avid, EditDV, FCP 1-7, Premiere, and they all respected time and sync much more than X. This always-on ripple mode was always the downside of consumer editing devices like iMovie and Casablanca. Remember that thing?


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  


Franz BieberkopfRe: FCP X and the Future of Editing
by on Nov 20, 2012 at 5:57:01 pm

Stunning.

His final statement after he's carefully dressed the usual tropes in Historical Import:

"I cut a 17-minute documentary one evening last summer … I loaded files, reviewed footage, cut picture, sound, music, added titles and credits, and finished in 11 hours straight. There was no initial rough cut, then fine cut. … The finished results were projected before an audience the following morning."


Debate over.

My favourite part was this though (and it was hard to choose):

"As an NLE designer today, where would you draw the line between professional and nonprofessional? Which features would you include or deny?"

This is the real point - aren't we all NLE designers? Haven't the old distinction been creatively disrupted? Isn't there a bit of the "Pro" Software Designer in all of us? In short, why rely on the professionals at Apple when there's been such dramatic democratization of the tools and resources?

Franz.


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  
+3

David LawrenceRe: FCP X and the Future of Editing
by on Nov 20, 2012 at 8:01:13 pm

Yep, same old same old. Guess the author missed the past year and a half of this forum. My favorite part:
The uncluttered interface is key to understanding how radically innovative FCP X truly is. Conventional timelines resemble orchestral scores, with dozens of staffs representing myriad instruments and sections, each charted across time. In a conventional NLE timeline, video and audio tracks can similarly number in the dozens, overflowing even the largest display. In many cases, these tracks are mostly empty, containing only a handful of clips. Arguably, a massive waste of precious screen real estate is the result.
Gee, I thought all that "clutter" on the timeline including empty space was information.

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


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  
+1

Oliver PetersRe: FCP X and the Future of Editing
by on Nov 20, 2012 at 8:15:41 pm

[David Lawrence] "Yep, same old same old. Guess the author missed the past year and a half of this forum"

The irony is he talks of cluttered timelines because of tracks. Yet I've spent far more time shifting my timeline around vertically in X than I have in other track-based NLEs.

- Oliver

Oliver Peters Post Production Services, LLC
Orlando, FL
http://www.oliverpeters.com


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  
+1


Walter SoykaRe: FCP X and the Future of Editing
by on Nov 20, 2012 at 8:20:22 pm

[Oliver Peters] "The irony is he talks of cluttered timelines because of tracks. Yet I've spent far more time shifting my timeline around vertically in X than I have in other track-based NLEs."

I'm like the Gordon Gecko of UIs: complexity is good.

To be more specific, the complexity of the UI should match the complexity of the task at hand. An application fails when its UI is needlessly complex or overly reductive.

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  

Bret WilliamsRe: FCP X and the Future of Editing
by on Nov 20, 2012 at 11:56:32 pm

Why are you shuffling vertically?

Also, FCP X takes up lots more screen real estate than 7. Mainly because of how much space it wastes especially with expanded tracks, plus the smallest track height is nearly double that of legacy.

I guess making compound clips helps, but I avoid them except for minor compositing where they are needed to achieve an effect. But that held for legacy as well.

And if you're not compounding 12 layers is no different than 12 tracks.


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  

Oliver PetersRe: FCP X and the Future of Editing
by on Nov 21, 2012 at 12:32:54 am

[Bret Williams] "Why are you shuffling vertically?
Also, FCP X takes up lots more screen real estate than 7."


If you mean me, then because of what you just said. I'm talking about scrolling up and down, not rearranging connected clips. They do that quite nicely on their own when I don't want them to. ;-)

- Oliver

Oliver Peters Post Production Services, LLC
Orlando, FL
http://www.oliverpeters.com


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  


Walter SoykaRe: FCP X and the Future of Editing
by on Nov 21, 2012 at 12:54:28 am

[David Lawrence] "Gee, I thought all that "clutter" on the timeline including empty space was information."

David,

Everybodyknowsthatwhitespacecarriesnomeaningfulinformation :)

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  
+4

Bill DavisRe: FCP X and the Future of Editing
by on Nov 21, 2012 at 1:15:14 am

[Walter Soyka] "I'm like the Gordon Gecko of UIs: complexity is good.

To be more specific, the complexity of the UI should match the complexity of the task at hand. An application fails when its UI is needlessly complex or overly reductive.
"


Walter, I know that complexity is sometimes unavoidable. But that's why humans have struggled mightily for all of history to tame it. (Or didn't someone here think the 3 ring binder was a smart idea?)

And I'm not sure its too safe to argue that tools that make complex tasks easier to manage necessarily "dumb down" the complexity of either the tasks themselves or most users approach to dealing with them. I think, instead, that the best tools evolve to confront the new necessities and technologies of society. That's why we moved from rocks to hammeers to compressor driven nail guns.

And to the usual subjects who seem to always stop by to toss a few extra stones at X - yawn.

The X approach isn't the devil incarnate, it's actually just a different set of drawers, folders and cubbyholes used to organize the same elements we've always had. Maybe you're the type of person who is ONLY happy when everything is spread out on the table or hanging on individual pegs on the workshop pegboard. But others of us WANT to have toolboxes, cabinets, and most definitely pre-configured socket sets to keep our world organized when we sit down to use out do stuff.

I'm still astonished at the rigidity of the group who simply can't be happy with a world where there are THREE major editors that all work nearly the same, traditional way - and have to push back at every opportunity to belittle the ONE software approach that gives a user the choice of a different organizational structure.

You all just can't have been THAT hurt by the discontinuation of Legacy can you? So much that way more than a year later you're still pissed? Wow.

Sorry it's forcing you to live with such a sour outlook. That can't be fun.

Personally, I'm actually having more fun editing than ever! Largely because X makes it simply more enjoyable. I'm working faster, I have the ability to try things with impunity since there's no big render penalty any longer - and I'm able to comp, deploy and get feedback faster than at any time in my career.

The OP in the original article pretty much gave cogent reasons for his opinions. Whats the point of arguing that he shouldn't like what he likes? That just seems silly.

The only thing WEIRD about that is that it makes those who hate the software so deeply have to confront the fact that the tool - as it stands right now - satisfies an ever widening swath of editors.

Sooner or later, some of you are going to have to drop all the angst and simply deal with that reality.

But I'm not holding my breath. ; )

Know someone who teaches video editing in elementary school, high school or college? Tell them to check out http://www.StartEditingNow.com - video editing curriculum complete with licensed practice content.


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  
-2

Walter SoykaRe: FCP X and the Future of Editing
by on Nov 21, 2012 at 3:15:39 am

[Bill Davis] "I'm still astonished at the rigidity of the group who simply can't be happy with a world where there are THREE major editors that all work nearly the same, traditional way - and have to push back at every opportunity to belittle the ONE software approach that gives a user the choice of a different organizational structure. You all just can't have been THAT hurt by the discontinuation of Legacy can you? So much that way more than a year later you're still pissed? Wow. Personally, I'm actually having more fun editing than ever! Largely because X makes it simply more enjoyable. I'm working faster, I have the ability to try things with impunity since there's no big render penalty any longer - and I'm able to comp, deploy and get feedback faster than at any time in my career."

I am sincerely glad that FCPX works for you. But it doesn't work for me, and I think it could be a lot better for both of us than it is today.

I learned my lesson from the PIOP thing -- I don't want to suggest any features for FCPX that will break what's good about it. You shouldn't have to hate FCPX so I can like it. For all the credit Apple has gotten for their forward-thinking, both in this article and all over this forum, this latest release of FCPX has shown a startling lack of curatorial courage.

Since we apparently have to be very careful what we wish for, now I want SIOPs instead of PIOPs, so FCPX doesn't lose user data by design, but also so that FCPX ranges still work as originally intended. Despite my grousing about the self-collapsing timeline, I don't really want to undo the magnetic timeline. I want to "plus" it. Add David Lawrence's multiple primaries, and we can all enjoy magnetism where it works better, and tracks where it doesn't -- and it's all compatible with the parent/child data model.

I'm not really upset that Legacy is gone; in retrospect, I didn't realize how poorly it worked for me. The FCP7 EOL and FCPX launch was a bit of a wake-up call for me (and, it seems, the industry at large).

I'm now looking for an NLE that fits my editorial needs as well as Ae fits my graphical ones. Premiere is my go-to NLE today, and it's working nicely for me, but it's far from perfect (lack of proper native intermediate codec, abysmal media management, close-but-no-cigar finishing capabilities, limited interchange outside of the suite, schizophrenic track targeting, miscellaneous UI gotchas). FCPX's strengths don't really suit my work, so it's of limited value to me; likewise with Media Composer. After a couple months off, I'm working hard at Smoke again, and I think it has a lot of potential for my work, but I will need a lot of practice before I could work faster there than I could in Ae/Pr, and even then, I think it will supplement but not replace my existing toolset.



[Bill Davis] "The OP in the original article pretty much gave cogent reasons for his opinions. Whats the point of arguing that he shouldn't like what he likes? That just seems silly."

The article wasn't positioned as an opinion piece about software the author liked; it was another in a line of technically inaccurate, Only Apple Innovates, Newer Is Better, FCPX Is The Future analyses that wraps up a speed-editing challenge comparing FCPX to FCP7 instead of Pr CS6.

I actually agree with Mr. Leitner's main point: Apple is the only one who has completely rethought the editorial paradigm from the ground up. I just don't think that means that Apple is the only NLE developer that's forward-looking. Smoke 2013 offers a re-imagined editorial/FX/compositing workflow; Adobe Anywhere shows a new approach to collaboration.



[Bill Davis] "The only thing WEIRD about that is that it makes those who hate the software so deeply have to confront the fact that the tool - as it stands right now - satisfies an ever widening swath of editors. Sooner or later, some of you are going to have to drop all the angst and simply deal with that reality. But I'm not holding my breath. ; )"

What does "dealing with that reality" mean? I have an academic interest in how FCPX appeals to "an ever widening swath of editors," but I have a personal interest in how it appeals to me.

If there weren't things to like in FCPX, I don't think there'd be any angst. I think it's like Tim W. mentioned in the other thread -- it's not just about what FCPX actually is; it's still a bit about what we had each hoped it would be.

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  
+4


Bill DavisRe: FCP X and the Future of Editing
by on Nov 21, 2012 at 6:28:34 pm

[Walter Soyka] "it's not just about what FCPX actually is; it's still a bit about what we had each hoped it would be."

Here we agree, Walter.

But I'm still of the opinion that theres a rigid and loud class of the "hurt" =still angry because they so deeply hoped that it would be "legacy with improvements" that they STILL can't get over the emotional burden of loss and see the software for what it is - rather than what they so fervently hoped it would be.

I'm all for analysis and critique of the program as it currently exists - and you've added a LOT of value to that discussion.

I'm just tired of the same hand full of people trying so VERY hard to make the reality of X align with their emotional anger about their personal "loss."

At some point, it's time to move on from that. And I keep hoping that when we see article for or against it - we'll start to get something OTHER than the same voices so deeply desperate to pick it apart.

If they had significant reasoned thinking to back up their opinions, I'd defer. But most of the time it just seems to me that the heaviest criticism still comes from those who don't spend time with nor understand the program very well.

Unless somebody pushes back against the tide of the whiners - I'm afraid we'll have MORE pressure to "fix" what isn't wrong with it - and we'll get MORE of the PIOP vs SIOP hassles where to calm down those are constantly struggling with their sense of loss - we get sops to their feelings that aren't as well thought out as they might be.

People (and companies) typically make WORSE decisions under pressure than they do when given time to refine and reflect prior to acting.

True of people. True of big companies as well, I suspect.

FWIW.

Know someone who teaches video editing in elementary school, high school or college? Tell them to check out http://www.StartEditingNow.com - video editing curriculum complete with licensed practice content.


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  

Walter SoykaRe: FCP X and the Future of Editing
by on Nov 22, 2012 at 4:29:31 am

[Bill Davis] "I'm just tired of the same hand full of people trying so VERY hard to make the reality of X align with their emotional anger about their personal "loss.""

A very fair point -- but I do think this particular thread is very high-signal, low-noise.


[Bill Davis] "Unless somebody pushes back against the tide of the whiners - I'm afraid we'll have MORE pressure to "fix" what isn't wrong with it - and we'll get MORE of the PIOP vs SIOP hassles where to calm down those are constantly struggling with their sense of loss - we get sops to their feelings that aren't as well thought out as they might be. People (and companies) typically make WORSE decisions under pressure than they do when given time to refine and reflect prior to acting. True of people. True of big companies as well, I suspect."

I have done my fair share of whining -- but I also think the PIOP debate pointed to a real deficiency in FCPX. Selections (non-favorited ranges) were way too fragile. While I think that with the current PIOP implementation, the cure is worse than the disease, that doesn't mean that there aren't better alternate implementations.

I say keep the pressure on. Keep pointing out the deficiencies. Squeaky wheels get grease.

Apple had the vision and courage to develop and release FCPX in the first place. You keep reminding me it's a runaway success. Why on earth would they feel so much pressure on PIOPs of all things to rush through this ill-conceived implementation?

And once they (rightfully) decided that PIOPs solved a real problem, how did this implementation make it out of the lab? David and I both argued vociferously for PIOPs, but we (of all people!) are also both highly critical of this implementation. It's like Apple didn't realize the good thing they had going before, so they couldn't understand how this would break it. Philip Hodgetts and Jeremy Garchow were all over this, literally within hours of release, and they were right on. This PIOP implementation should have been denied, shot down in flames, dismissed with extreme prejudice in the beta program. First, do no harm!

Developers get feature requests all the time, and it's their job to figure out the best way to implement the best ideas within their application's philosophy. But a feature request often comes in as a solution; the developers may need to divine the underlying problem, then think about other possible solutions. I didn't really want PIOPs specifically; I really just wanted FCPX to not nuke selections when I clicked off clips. Back to the drawing board...

It's Apple's fault that they released a bad implementation of a popular feature request, not the people who requested the feature. The line between whining and feature request can be pretty blurry.

Bill, I'm curious what you'd think of David Lawrence's multiple primaries idea. If you didn't use them, FCPX would work just the way it does now -- just the way you like it. If someone like David or me was pining for tracks, we could use them, too -- but we could even have local (virtually intratrack) magnetism.

Couldn't a whiny feature request (give me my tracks back!) lead to a best-of-both-worlds solution (multiple primaries)?

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: FCP X and the Future of Editing
by on Nov 24, 2012 at 6:21:36 pm

[Walter Soyka] "Bill, I'm curious what you'd think of David Lawrence's multiple primaries idea. If you didn't use them, FCPX would work just the way it does now -- just the way you like it. If someone like David or me was pining for tracks, we could use them, too -- but we could even have local (virtually intratrack) magnetism. "

Walter,

Would multiple primaries be useful and welcome? Probably. What I worry about is what developmental pathways get shoved aside in order for the dev team to work on this concept - which while "nice" is also largely unnecessary for many people working with the software day to day right now.

So what gets pushed back in the queue in order to make the software "somewhat" better for a class of users for whom a single primary and multiple secondaries don't get the job done? This clearly isn't a "stopper" since people are doing all manner of work with the program as it is now, so it's a fair question to ask what class of users "requires" multiple primaries? Is is JUST people who can't let go of the "track" paradigm? Or is there something truly exceptional that it would allow for the general user that they don't have right now? If so, someone needs to make the case that it would go beyond "nice" and elevate the change to being "important."

Essentially, I'd want someone to outline clearly for me the real-world issues that a multiple primaries construct would solve for the majority of the programs users - not just the class of "those who like tracks and are unhappy that they are no longer available" - because that's just too small a class to take the dev teams eye off the ball of improving X for everyone.

Personally, if they spent the next year robustly "interconnecting" the Event Browser to the outside world via agile and robust import/export - I think that would make X a massively more useful tool than simply adding "more primaries" to the mix.

But I'm willing to listen to folks who'd argue that multiple primaries would make the software better - particularly if they could tie it to specific editorial tasks that "most" editors need to do every day.

FWIW.

Know someone who teaches video editing in elementary school, high school or college? Tell them to check out http://www.StartEditingNow.com - video editing curriculum complete with licensed practice content.


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  


David LawrenceRe: FCP X and the Future of Editing
by on Nov 21, 2012 at 8:00:40 pm

[Walter Soyka] "Since we apparently have to be very careful what we wish for, now I want SIOPs instead of PIOPs, so FCPX doesn't lose user data by design, but also so that FCPX ranges still work as originally intended."

Walter, I got into this a bit with Jeremy in another thread and was wondering about your opinion. I would argue that selecting ranges and marking In (and/or) Outs are very different editorial intentions. I believe oversimplifying/overloading the range selection UI is the reason so many users clamored for PIOPs in the first place, and why PIOPs are now a mess.

Rather than try to add force a range selection UI to have marker-like functions, wouldn't it be easier to design a special flavor of markers specifically for In (and/or) Out points? Folks who just want to use the range tool could ignore them. Folks who like marking Ins/Outs would have them as an additional tool. I see no reason why it couldn't be implemented in a way that works for everyone.

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


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  

Walter SoykaRe: FCP X and the Future of Editing
by on Nov 22, 2012 at 3:50:18 am

[David Lawrence] "Walter, I got into this a bit with Jeremy in another thread and was wondering about your opinion. I would argue that selecting ranges and marking In (and/or) Outs are very different editorial intentions. I believe oversimplifying/overloading the range selection UI is the reason so many users clamored for PIOPs in the first place, and why PIOPs are now a mess."

Let's talk about IOPs and ranges. IOPs mark the extents of a range; a range is the sequential set of frames between IOPs. IOPs imply ranges, and ranges are defined by IOPs.

So I'm not sure there are any operations in any NLE that work fundamentally on IOPs and not ranges; every operation I can think of conflates the two. When you cut a source clip into a sequence, you are copying that span of frames defined by the extents.

Can you think of an editorial operation where the IOPs matter and the frames between them don't? Likewise, can you think of an editorial operation you can perform on a range of frames without defining its extents?

This is all a long way of saying that I think the difference between a range and a set of IOPs is insignificant. What I do think is new, different, and very significant in FCPX is that there are some new, non-editorial operations, organizational in nature, that operate on ranges and which never existed before.

In FCP7, IOPs/ranges are pretty much only useful for editorial operations. In FCPX, IOPs/ranges are equally useful for organization and editorial. That may mean that setting IOPs/defining ranges may be overloaded, but I don't think the solution is to use different commands for defining ranges for organization use or for editorial use -- that strikes me as too confusing and/or inflexible. I'd be very interested to hear more about how you think separating ranges and IOPs would work, because I'm having a hard time visualizing it.

To Jeremy's point, I'm not sure that a global PIOP setting is the right solution; turning it on after an errant click blew away your IOPs won't get your data back.

I think the problem to solve is retaining useful range data in a way that doesn't force it back on the user where it was not intended to be used.

That's why I've proposed SIOPs (stored in and out points). Basically, I want FCPX to be able to recall the last defined range on every clip, whether it was favorited or not -- but I don't want that range to have the same standing with any tool, organizational or editorial, as a properly favorited range. I want it to be a ghost range, which will persist until manually cleared or superseded by a newly defined range, but with only one possible operation: promotion to a regular range (selection).

This gives you the memory advantage of PIOPs without the scary organizational side effects in FCPX; it also gently encourages "proper" FCPX range workflow by costing the user a keystroke to recall a non-favorite range but without the steep data loss consequences of pre-10.0.6 behavior.

The more I think about it, the more I'm surprised by the Apple 10.0.6 PIOP implementation. Of all the features to bow to pressure on, why did they pick this? Or did they really think that this implementation is an improvement?

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  

David LawrenceRe: FCP X and the Future of Editing
by on Nov 22, 2012 at 6:42:03 am

[Walter Soyka] "Let's talk about IOPs and ranges. IOPs mark the extents of a range; a range is the sequential set of frames between IOPs. IOPs imply ranges, and ranges are defined by IOPs. "

Yes and no. It's true that IOPs imply range, and ranges are defined by IOPs. But remember, In and Out marks don't have to be used together. We're talking about In and/OR Outs. Editors commonly use In and/or Out marks separately, simply as markers with no intention of setting a range.

[Walter Soyka] "So I'm not sure there are any operations in any NLE that work fundamentally on IOPs and not ranges; every operation I can think of conflates the two. When you cut a source clip into a sequence, you are copying that span of frames defined by the extents. "

Yes, but in a three-point edit, only one side of the edit is a range. The other is marked. The marked side doesn't care about extents. It's irrelevant. The editor needs to be able to mark this transition point and shouldn't be forced to use a range selection tool to do it.

Plus, who says marking an In and/or Out necessarily leads to an edit? It may just be a temporary reminder. It doesn't rise to the importance of Favorites and it's not a range.

[Walter Soyka] "this is all a long way of saying that I think the difference between a range and a set of IOPs is insignificant. "

I guess we disagree on this ;) I think marking a transition point and selecting a range are totally different editorial intentions. Forcing them into the same selection UI was a mistake. The PIOPs mess doesn't mean that PIOPs are a bad idea, I think it means the current PIOPs implementation is bad design.

[Walter Soyka] "In FCPX, IOPs/ranges are equally useful for organization and editorial. That may mean that setting IOPs/defining ranges may be overloaded, but I don't think the solution is to use different commands for defining ranges for organization use or for editorial use -- that strikes me as too confusing and/or inflexible. I'd be very interested to hear more about how you think separating ranges and IOPs would work, because I'm having a hard time visualizing it."

[Walter Soyka] "Basically, I want FCPX to be able to recall the last defined range on every clip, whether it was favorited or not -- but I don't want that range to have the same standing with any tool, organizational or editorial, as a properly favorited range. I want it to be a ghost range, which will persist until manually cleared or superseded by a newly defined range, but with only one possible operation: promotion to a regular range (selection)."

What I imagine is a special type of markers, accessible from the keyboard, which would behave much as you describe above. When set by the editor, they persist and take priority over other selections until cleared. They can be used separately or together. If used together to define a range, only one pair is allowed per visible clip instance. They have a different graphic UI so they're visually distinct. They appear in list view. Their use is totally optional. If you don't use them, everything works as before 10.0.6. I think making them distinct and separate from the range selection UI is the key to making them work and would be a much simpler to understand solution than the SIOPs concept (which is quite interesting, btw).

[Walter Soyka] "The more I think about it, the more I'm surprised by the Apple 10.0.6 PIOP implementation. Of all the features to bow to pressure on, why did they pick this? Or did they really think that this implementation is an improvement?"

I guess I would ask - why do you think there was so much pressure that Apple felt they had to do this? What does that say about editorial workflow? Hint - it's not unwillingness to adapt.

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


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  


Walter SoykaRe: FCP X and the Future of Editing
by on Nov 22, 2012 at 3:48:07 pm

[David Lawrence] "But remember, In and Out marks don't have to be used together. We're talking about In and/OR Outs. Editors commonly use In and/or Out marks separately, simply as markers with no intention of setting a range?"

So why use an IOP instead of a marker?

Defining a range prepares you for the next operation, whatever it is.


[David Lawrence] "Yes, but in a three-point edit, only one side of the edit is a range. The other is marked. The marked side doesn't care about extents. It's irrelevant. The editor needs to be able to mark this transition point and shouldn't be forced to use a range selection tool to do it."

In a three-point edit, the range of the one-point clip is defined by the duration of the two-point clip.

FCPX handles three-point edits perfectly well.



[David Lawrence] "What I imagine is a special type of markers, accessible from the keyboard, which would behave much as you describe above. When set by the editor, they persist and take priority over other selections until cleared. They can be used separately or together. If used together to define a range, only one pair is allowed per visible clip instance. They have a different graphic UI so they're visually distinct. They appear in list view. Their use is totally optional. If you don't use them, everything works as before 10.0.6. I think making them distinct and separate from the range selection UI is the key to making them work and would be a much simpler to understand solution than the SIOPs concept (which is quite interesting, btw). "

I am still not really following. This makes two classes of operative ranges in FCPX. I think a command to recall the last (ghosted but visible) range -- or even allow its re-selection with a mouse click -- preserves the existing selection model without adding too much more complexity.

But maybe I am missing something? How would you define the problem that your proposed solution sets out to solve?

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  

David LawrenceRe: FCP X and the Future of Editing
by on Nov 25, 2012 at 4:58:13 am

[Walter Soyka] "So why use an IOP instead of a marker?"

Because an IOP is special. It tells the NLE to act on the marked point.

[Walter Soyka] "Defining a range prepares you for the next operation, whatever it is. "

Sure, but so does marking a single point.

[Walter Soyka] "In a three-point edit, the range of the one-point clip is defined by the duration of the two-point clip. "

Yes, but in FCPX, there's no way to define a persistent one-point mark. It's especially bad on the timeline itself. The one-point mark is held by the skimmer or the playhead position. It could't be more fragile.

[Walter Soyka] "FCPX handles three-point edits perfectly well. "

No argument here.

[Walter Soyka] "I am still not really following. This makes two classes of operative ranges in FCPX. I think a command to recall the last (ghosted but visible) range -- or even allow its re-selection with a mouse click -- preserves the existing selection model without adding too much more complexity. "

The problem with this is you're allowed multiple range selections per clip. Which one gets recalled?

[Walter Soyka] "How would you define the problem that your proposed solution sets out to solve?"

I think the problem is defined by the language of editing. When editors say "Mark in" or "Mark out" they're referring to a very specific thing -- selecting an exact point in time. Holding that point for an action now or later. A point is not a range and while range may be implicit, all that matters when we say "Mark in" or "Mark out" is often that single point.

I think FCPX needs a better mechanism to hold these single points that tell the system to "act here". Right now, they're either way too fragile (skimmer or playhead) or mixed in with range selection, which has led to the PIOP mess. I think an optional UI overlay/command set for these special, persistent markers would solve the problem. It would need to be properly thought out and designed, but I think it would work.

I don't mind it being in a different class because "Mark in" or "Mark out" is different than range selection. I imagine it could be easier to understand and would be helpful to many editors who like myself, feel range selection alone is an oversimplification of the standard editorial toolset.

BTW, it's not that range selection as the sole editorial UI excludes possibilities, it's that it's just another thing that makes the interface annoying to many editors who might otherwise give FCPX a chance.

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


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  

Walter SoykaRe: FCP X and the Future of Editing
by on Nov 27, 2012 at 6:58:00 pm

David, sorry for my delayed response. I have a very strict rule against discussing PIOPs over Thanksgiving dinner in my house...


[David Lawrence] "Yes, but in FCPX, there's no way to define a persistent one-point mark. It's especially bad on the timeline itself. The one-point mark is held by the skimmer or the playhead position. It could't be more fragile."

Ok, now I see where you're coming from. Thank you for this.

If you have a way to remove the fragility -- which I argue SIOPs would -- then I don't think it matters at all if a default complementary point is set at the clip's extremity, so long as your editorial operations allow you to choose whether they work from the in or the out, as FCPX does with the ludicrously-named Backstory. (And you thought the Ken Burns effect was poorly named...)

Since the editor still has control over whether the In or Out point is used to drive the edit's alignment, you can still have all the same functionality with a range as you would with a single point.

Note that the range here includes the automatic extreme in or out point, which may be ignored by the next editorial operation. Is that an AEIOP? I wish I could think of a word that started with U instead...


[David Lawrence] "I think the problem is defined by the language of editing. When editors say "Mark in" or "Mark out" they're referring to a very specific thing -- selecting an exact point in time. Holding that point for an action now or later. A point is not a range and while range may be implicit, all that matters when we say "Mark in" or "Mark out" is often that single point."

An interesting line of thinking. I see how we probably generally think in points on the record side and ranges on the source side -- but again, the record range is implied (possibly overridden) by the source range and edit command alignment.

I think the fragility problem is separate from the AEIOP issue. I think fragility is a serious issue, but with edit alignment, I really don't see a practical problem with AEIOPs.


[David Lawrence] "I don't mind it being in a different class because "Mark in" or "Mark out" is different than range selection. I imagine it could be easier to understand and would be helpful to many editors who like myself, feel range selection alone is an oversimplification of the standard editorial toolset."

But wouldn't this mean translating back and forth between IOPs and ranges, depending on what you wanted to do next? That's where I see SIOPs as a good option -- they reduce fragility, but observe the current (simple) selection model.


[David Lawrence] "The problem with this is you're allowed multiple range selections per clip. Which one gets recalled? "

This one is a really strange feature... I'm not sure if I think it's cool or hideous yet. But I'd say when there are multiple ranges on a clip, recall the range that the playhead is parked within.

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  


Andy NeilRe: FCP X and the Future of Editing
by on Nov 22, 2012 at 7:06:03 am

[David Lawrence] "I believe oversimplifying/overloading the range selection UI is the reason so many users clamored for PIOPs in the first place, and why PIOPs are now a mess.""

[Walter Soyka] "The more I think about it, the more I'm surprised by the Apple 10.0.6 PIOP implementation. Of all the features to bow to pressure on, why did they pick this? Or did they really think that this implementation is an improvement?
"


Can someone catch me up on what exactly is the problem with the new PIOP behavior in FCPX? I've been reading back in forth in this thread but while both David and Walter agree that it's bad, no one has elaborated exactly why it's bad.

I don't see much use for selecting multiple ranges in a clip myself, but the main feature where it remembers the last selected range on every clip is welcome and works fine to my mind.

I'm just trying to figure out why so many people are irate about the new behavior.

Andy

http://www.timesavertutorials.com


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  

Steve ConnorRe: FCP X and the Future of Editing
by on Nov 22, 2012 at 8:01:53 am

[Andy Neil] "I'm just trying to figure out why so many people are irate about the new behavior."

I'm not sure it's so many, as far as I can see it's only two or three people on here that actually use FCPX are annoyed about it.

Steve Connor
'It's just my opinion, with an occasional fact thrown in for good measure"


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  

Jeremy GarchowRe: FCP X and the Future of Editing
by on Nov 22, 2012 at 3:32:01 pm

[Andy Neil] "I'm just trying to figure out why so many people are irate about the new behavior."

Because it broke something good about fcpx.

Start here, and watch the thread devolve:

http://forums.creativecow.net/readpost/335/43876

Here's an earlier thread after I had a chance to mess around for a while:

http://forums.creativecow.net/readpost/335/42991


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  


Steve ConnorRe: FCP X and the Future of Editing
by on Nov 22, 2012 at 7:58:39 am

[Walter Soyka] "The more I think about it, the more I'm surprised by the Apple 10.0.6 PIOP implementation. Of all the features to bow to pressure on, why did they pick this?"

It was a valiant attempt to save valuable internet bandwidth by stopping the interminable discussions on here about PIOPs, sadly it seems to have failed.

Steve Connor
'It's just my opinion, with an occasional fact thrown in for good measure"


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  

Bill DavisRe: FCP X and the Future of Editing
by on Nov 24, 2012 at 6:26:53 pm

[Walter Soyka] "That's why I've proposed SIOPs (stored in and out points). "

Somehow when I came upon your SIOP acronym - I mentally decoded it as "Situational In and Out Points"

Which is perhaps cooler (or maybe just scarier!) as a concept.

Does make you wonder if IOPS in the EVENT browser might conceivably work differently then IOPS in a Storyline - or a range selection on, for example, a graphic or audio clip.

Something to cogitate on a bit, perhaps....

Know someone who teaches video editing in elementary school, high school or college? Tell them to check out http://www.StartEditingNow.com - video editing curriculum complete with licensed practice content.


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  

Aindreas GallagherRe: FCP X and the Future of Editing
by on Nov 22, 2012 at 12:31:50 am

[Bill Davis] "You all just can't have been THAT hurt by the discontinuation of Legacy can you? So much that way more than a year later you're still pissed? Wow."

and greetings passive aggressive debater.

for. the. umpteenth time bill: looking to falsely characterise the nature of the debate underway on what is explicitly a debating forum, and mischaracterise and invalidate views opposing your own is very weak sauce.

it is your favourite tipple though.

As you are more than well aware at this point, FCPX forum debate brewed into a pretty intense discussion about what comprises a truly valid editing system.

whether FCPX actually represents a true, broad-scale, all case use, intellectually valid editing system is in question and on the table, not least because, outside of established sole operators, client set one man shops, and a guy who is, to be fair, making a fine case for it to 'imagine' on the BBC, and also say three cases on the apple -

the software does not exist. This software, in terms of being paid to edit, which is different to reading (and god how tired am I of that literacy argument), if you are looking to be paid to edit, there is absolutely no sign that you are going to be paid to have learned the completely non-standard practise dreamt up in FCPX.

that is an issue, and getting to 18 months after launch, with a lot bolted on, and absolutely no employer movement, this is an existential question for the software.

In my estimation Bill - you are using canopus or vegas. And you are welcome to it, sincerely. It is simply off the main beam of employer meets broadly accepted tool use. That wil be occupied by FCP7 for an (unbelievably long time I'm beginning to suspect), then its basically Avid and Premiere after 7.0.

at least thats most likely - said nate silver.

(and please do not say I don't try and engage with the thing FCPX - I've been badly mocking up improved keyframing even - the point is FCPX generates interesting debate, but as a central concern of editing in the large sense - no. its too structurally and semantically distorted at its basic level.)

http://vimeo.com/user1590967/videos http://www.ogallchoir.net promo producer/editor.grading/motion graphics


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  


Oliver PetersRe: FCP X and the Future of Editing
by on Nov 22, 2012 at 1:08:46 am

[Aindreas Gallagher] "whether FCPX actually represents a true, broad-scale, all case use, intellectually valid editing system is in question and on the table, not least because, outside of established sole operators, client set one man shops, and a guy who is, to be fair, making a fine case for it to 'imagine' on the BBC, and also say three cases on the apple - "

I think there's an interesting parallel between RED and FCP X in the TV world. If you look at RED, their cameras have had the most success with the individual owner/operator. The Alexa, OTOH, currently owns the digital camera world in established TV productions. The reason is workflow. It doesn't matter whether RED's cameras are or are not superior. They require a non-standard workflow for post. Alexa came along and the ProRes workflow just fit.

The situation is similar with FCP X versus "traditional" NLEs. X simply doesn't fit the established mold in places where the folks simply don't have the time or interest to re-invent the wheel. Hence a reticence to adopt.

- Oliver

Oliver Peters Post Production Services, LLC
Orlando, FL
http://www.oliverpeters.com


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  

Bill DavisRe: FCP X and the Future of Editing
by on Nov 22, 2012 at 4:12:19 am

[Aindreas Gallagher] "not least because, outside of established sole operators, client set one man shops, and a guy who is, to be fair, making a fine case for it to 'imagine' on the BBC, and also say three cases on the apple -

the software does not exist. "


Bwahhhaaa! - I LOVE this.

What a wonderfully imaginative argument, sir! You, yourself painstakingly list a class after class that represents at LEAST hundreds of thousands of potential members (a reasonable fraction of the overall body of X paid downloaders to date!) and then opine contrary to the expressed experiences of these same SCORES of users you innumerate - the thing is "sniff - sniff" unworthy its very existence.

Well done. Your anchor at the center of your own universe is officially unassailable!

I hereby bestow upon you the Ironic Post of the Era award, (with beech nut clusters!!) hands down!

Know someone who teaches video editing in elementary school, high school or college? Tell them to check out http://www.StartEditingNow.com - video editing curriculum complete with licensed practice content.


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  

Jason PorthouseRe: FCP X and the Future of Editing
by on Nov 23, 2012 at 6:34:21 pm

[Bill Davis] "I hereby bestow upon you the Ironic Post of the Era award, (with beech nut clusters!!) hands down!"

Gotta chime in here Bill. I understand Aindreas' point totally. I'm a jobbing editor, and pre X, 7 was definitely in the ascendent here in the UK, in my experience. I'd not done a job on Avid for about 4 years, all my clients (across the board from BBC Broadcast to small corporate producers) were on 7, or happy to cut on my suite running 7. Post X launch, many are still on 7 reasoning (wisely) that 7 still works, ain't broke, still does what they want... but many are switching rapidly back to Avid. X isn't even in the shortlist. Now, whatever the rights and wrongs of this are, as an editor who makes a healthy living doing this I'm forced into a situation where I have to use Avid more often (which as an end user I consider to be inferior to FCP7 in a number of key ways, better in others - but I prefer 7) or convince clients to use Legacy, which is fine for the clients who trust me!! So yes - in terms of the people who pay the bulk of my wages, X is non existent in their world. Much as you might wish it otherwise, in the circles Aindreas and I work in it just ain't happening yet. I suspect that is true for much of the world. It may not be right or fair, and they may all be missing a trick by not drinking the Kool-Aid or taking the red pill and adopting X with loving arms, but it's the reality we've been working with since Apple introduced X. There is a reason for the vitriol, and 'get over it' kinda misses the point.

_________________________________

Before you criticise a man, walk a mile in his shoes.
Then when you do criticise him, you'll be a mile away. And have his shoes.

*the artist formally known as Jaymags*


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  
+1


Steve ConnorRe: FCP X and the Future of Editing
by on Nov 23, 2012 at 6:44:36 pm

[Jason Porthouse] "in the circles Aindreas and I work in it just ain't happening yet. I suspect that is true for much of the world."

I'm a massive fan of X and I've been using it almost exclusively since launch, but if I had to go back to being a Freelance Editor again then I'd be learning Avid. Based on the launch, I'm not surprised X isn't being adopted at the moment, I'm sure it will eventually start to creep back into facility and Broadcaster use, but I bet it will take a while and I can't see it ever getting the dominance that Legacy had

Steve Connor
'It's just my opinion, with an occasional fact thrown in for good measure"


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  
+1

Bill DavisRe: FCP X and the Future of Editing
by on Nov 24, 2012 at 6:47:29 pm

[Jason Porthouse] "X is non existent in their world. Much as you might wish it otherwise, in the circles Aindreas and I work in it just ain't happening yet. "

Jason,

I don't argue anything the contrary. I KNOW that X has not made huge waves in the "major suite" world as yet.

Secretly, this is one of the things making me happiest right now - since that takes pressure off for Apple to try to bend X's feature sets and capabilities in a direction that's mostly oriented towards the specific needs of large shop users. I've come to believe this would be a mistake since trying to satisfy this group would mean that the small wonderful ideas in X that appeal to the general editor but don't particularly satisfy the large scale industrial users would be shunted aside in priority.

Look, they baked in VIMEO sharing rather than DG Fastchannel settings under the hood, elevating the needs of the individual over the needs of the facility user. That's by design at this point. Do you really think that as X evolves, it's going to be hard to implement direct out to other services if it's still required?

Right now the focus of X is on evolving into the finest "personal" editing program it can be - NOT the finest "facility" editor it can be. I firmly believe more enterprise capabilities will follow (precisely as they did in Legacy) but I'm delighted the Apple Dev Team appears focused on individual empowerment at this stage, rather than the enterprise class user.

Get the individual stuff reinvented to solve real editorial and modernized personal workflow issues - and the enterprise (which is really just a whole bunch of individuals working for the same concern) will surely be dragged along in time.

Your view isn't wrong at all. It's just coming from a type of editing seat that is still important, but less and less the "average" one any longer.


FWIW.

Know someone who teaches video editing in elementary school, high school or college? Tell them to check out http://www.StartEditingNow.com - video editing curriculum complete with licensed practice content.


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  
-1

Chris HarlanRe: FCP X and the Future of Editing
by on Nov 25, 2012 at 4:18:58 am

[Bill Davis] "Secretly, this is one of the things making me happiest right now - since that takes pressure off for Apple to try to bend X's feature sets and capabilities in a direction that's mostly oriented towards the specific needs of large shop users. I've come to believe this would be a mistake since trying to satisfy this group would mean that the small wonderful ideas in X that appeal to the general editor but don't particularly satisfy the large scale industrial users would be shunted aside in priority. "

Secretly? But yes, I actually agree with you. I think X should become great at what it is, and there are plenty of other programs that deliver what it is not.


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  


Steve ConnorRe: FCP X and the Future of Editing
by on Nov 25, 2012 at 3:28:18 pm

[Chris Harlan] "Secretly? But yes, I actually agree with you. I think X should become great at what it is, and there are plenty of other programs that deliver what it is not.
"


Great comment Chris.

Steve Connor
'It's just my opinion, with an occasional fact thrown in for good measure"


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  

Chris HarlanRe: FCP X and the Future of Editing
by on Nov 27, 2012 at 8:17:55 am

[Steve Connor] "[Chris Harlan] "Secretly? But yes, I actually agree with you. I think X should become great at what it is, and there are plenty of other programs that deliver what it is not.
"

Great comment Chris.

Steve Connor
'It's just my opinion, with an occasional fact thrown in for good measure"

"


Hey, Steve! How's it going?

I've felt that way for a long time now. I'm comfortable enough with the other stuff that I'm not lacking for tools. Both MC 6 and CS 6 made that possible. And while I would have preferred something else once upon a time, I think Apple should really nourish X's uniqueness. I also think that its change of direction has made it possible for the other NLEs to thrive/survive, which is also a very good thing.


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  

Aindreas GallagherRe: FCP X and the Future of Editing
by on Nov 23, 2012 at 10:44:18 pm

[Bill Davis] "Well done. Your anchor at the center of your own universe is officially unassailable!

I hereby bestow upon you the Ironic Post of the Era award, (with beech nut clusters!!) hands down!"


I will have my prize meatloaf please.

but you know what I'm saying - I won't repeat the good points laid out below, but I'm facility and client dependent for my living. No Jobs are ever posted for FCPX in the UK, or have been. I regularly raise the question -and it really isn't being considered as far as i can tell, and they are pretty carefully getting ready to reset themselves for the next couple of years.

I'm not in truth at the man jason's beeb level, I'm more commercial and corpo with some tasty stuff - I just finished a half hour doc on the ryder cup based around a lengthy interview with olazabal and archive - olazabal is a total dude btw, and, unlucky america on yet another ass kicking. :)

the point is that I can still say FCP when asked preferred editing system - there is no way I could have executed that piece in Avid, fortunately there are absolutely piles of people in my position, and london is stuffed to the gills with nook and cranny facilities packed with small room inexpensive day rate suites running five year old macpros and FCP 7.0.3 - production companies can book one for a hundred odd a day depending on their relationship.

but the massive FCP7 overhang will eventually go away - I am going to have to become Avid proficient - am slowly in the process of it.

but those suites bill, god knows how many of them there are - are never going to be FCPX - Its a total, absolutely total rejection thus far. Clients are barely aware of it - half of them don't even know FCP is EOL - not kidding. When I say FCPX doesn't exist - thats what I mean. It literally doesn't exist for the facilities, the clients, or the editors.

at the very minimum, this represents a massive discontinuity with the editing system it took its name from. I consider it really, really questionable that it will follow the same osmosis path FCP did a decade ago - as oliver pointed out - FCP represented industry standard practise from the outset - on no level can you say this about FCPX.

If the adoption situation changes, my position changes - you know well that I really like certain things in X. cupertino laid massive cards on the table with regard to card based ingest, rapid footage interrogation and timeline CC operation.

Ultimately, I feel that if they had mollified timeline operation alone - began with clip connection negation- just that spoonful of sugar, then the medicine might possibly have gone down.

as it is, there is insane intellectual waste in the dead wake of FCPX. Motion rigging for controlled live branding architecture still strikes me. That is actual manna for corporate, and a tremendous time money personnel interplay short circuit. there is real client money left on the table there.

a corporation's ability to deploy the brand bible components, live, directly into any edit suite is beyond unheard of, and in a large organisation, has real implications.

No one has gone near what apple executed there, afaik.

but positing/foisting motion onto designers for design pre-stage was dependent on the primary editing system's broad adoption.

so thats a problem.


http://vimeo.com/user1590967/videos http://www.ogallchoir.net promo producer/editor.grading/motion graphics


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  


tony westRe: FCP X and the Future of Editing
by on Nov 23, 2012 at 11:43:14 pm

[Aindreas Gallagher] "Clients are barely aware of it - half of them don't even know FCP is EOL - not kidding."

Are you surprised by this Aindreas? Most of my clients are not cutting edge on most of the tools that are out there.

They don't anything about the Sony F5 either. I don't blame them really, they are not the ones using the equipment. Like you have said in the past, they just want to feel confident that I know how to use it. What ever it is.

Apples and oranges though.

A person cutting their own doc and a person like you cutting for clients. These should be two different discussions.

.02


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  

Aindreas GallagherRe: FCP X and the Future of Editing
by on Nov 24, 2012 at 12:50:45 am

[tony west] "A person cutting their own doc and a person like you cutting for clients. These should be two different discussions."

god knows it is now. apple have effectively spiked and discarded their core intellectual avid rebellion.

the point is what exactly are apple thoughts now?

Is this market based? As oliver says - if FCPX is Red say, to production's alexa, should we simply get rid of the idea that there should be an agreed editor platform?

aren't we shouting for a broad based populist winner? the egalitarian anti-avid of yore hegemony that FCP so very, very nearly was?

the point is that if apple had played it safe, hit 64 bit, removed memory errors - they would have utterly destroyed Avid.

the last eighteen months would have included Avid's bankruptcy. that's actually pretty likely.

they chose to completely ignore that open goal. Now everyone has to learn avid - so thanks for that cupertino.

and we still have no clear idea how Apple view their role outside PR, or indeed, how they view the market itself.

I personally have absolutely no idea how apple see the world I am editing wage dependent on- and that is a really interesting, unfriendly mystery.

given the gigantic field of editing practitioner mushrooms sprung from the FCP seed a decade ago - I would personally argue that apple have some onus to speak to their view of the craft of editing and their likely role in it.

http://vimeo.com/user1590967/videos http://www.ogallchoir.net promo producer/editor.grading/motion graphics


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  

tony westRe: FCP X and the Future of Editing
by on Nov 24, 2012 at 6:14:26 pm

[Aindreas Gallagher] "I personally have absolutely no idea how apple see the world I am editing wage dependent on- and that is a really interesting, unfriendly mystery."

I hear you, can't speak for them I just watch them, and one thing I have seen is them snuggle up to the top cameras.

You may have seen the post on Red Raw and I saw a clip of the f 55 working with X (not even out yet)

They already had Alexa in their release video. Sync ready DSLR, what's left?

They are ready for the top cameras in the world.

That tells me they want to do top stuff.

Only top end productions use Red. They clearly want those independent film makers and they are starting to get them.

Last time I was on Kickstarter I saw teasers with recognizable X graphics.

I didn't expect houses like yours to switch this year or maybe next.

It's going to be out there long haul. Too much power for too little of a price with too many people feeling like it's fun to work with to be ignored.


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  


James MortnerRe: FCP X and the Future of Editing
by on Nov 22, 2012 at 4:50:21 pm

[Aindreas Gallagher] "the software does not exist. This software, in terms of being paid to edit, which is different to reading (and god how tired am I of that literacy argument), if you are looking to be paid to edit, there is absolutely no sign that you are going to be paid to have learned the completely non-standard practise dreamt up in FCPX.

that is an issue, and getting to 18 months after launch, with a lot bolted on, and absolutely no employer movement, this is an existential question for the softwar"


Not trying to get into a flame war, I'm just curious: Why is this? I've just checked broadcast now, mandy.com and grapevine ( 3 big recruitment/freelance sites here in the UK) and there is absolutely nothing for FCPX editors. There are some people listing it as a skill, but no job listings

As I say, there are plenty of people getting a lot out of this package. Why is no-one advertising jobs founded on it here in the UK?


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  

Jason PorthouseRe: FCP X and the Future of Editing
by on Nov 23, 2012 at 6:18:10 pm

[James Mortner] "As I say, there are plenty of people getting a lot out of this package. Why is no-one advertising jobs founded on it here in the UK?"

My experience of it is that it's going to be a slow uptake. It took a while for Legacy FCP to be accepted, and even now there are pockets of the BBC that won't touch it with a barge pole, believing that anything that doesn't have a purple triangle on it will cause their programme to crash and burn in a fiery mess of lost clips and unsynced screwed up footage. Much of this is due to the protectionist mindset certain key Avid editors had when FCP was on the ascendant, putting the fear of 'here be dragons' in to the heads of simple producers...

That aside, Apples royal ****-up of the launch of X, alongside the fact that there were deficiencies in the original program (and there still are for some key applications) has meant that post houses (who are very conservative in the main) have been either ignoring it completely or tentatively exploring it's potential, alongside a known system they can trust. It'll be a while before it's talents and advantages result in adoption, and even then wholesale switchover won't be for a few more years, if at all. It's fine for small boutique post houses (or in-house setups for production companies) but I feel that it will be an uphill push for it to be accepted widely. And that's no surprise really - Legacy wasn't really a player until maybe version 4 or 5 - what's that, 3 or 4 years after launch?

So I think we'll see a slow burn for professional acceptance, and the key question will be if the momentum built with 7 has been totally squandered with X. Of course none of this matters a jot to Apple as they're shifting more units (allegedly) than they ever did with 7, but I think we may be heading back to a time when 'Pro' editors use 'pro' software once again and the upstart X will be relegated to the (wannabe) 'Pro in all of us'. I hope this isn't the case as I don't believe it's an accurate perception of X at all, but as I said the 'missing elements' on launch and revolutionary paradigm shift meant that as many were put off as were exited by it, especially amongst producers and facilities. I have X, like many bits of it, but still use 7 and I'm brushing up on Avid again (and indeed cutting 3 one-hour films on it, much to my dismay) to ensure my hire ability for the foreseeable future.

Jason

_________________________________

Before you criticise a man, walk a mile in his shoes.
Then when you do criticise him, you'll be a mile away. And have his shoes.

*the artist formally known as Jaymags*


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  

Andy NeilRe: FCP X and the Future of Editing
by on Nov 23, 2012 at 7:06:37 pm

[Jason Porthouse] "...post houses (who are very conservative in the main) have been either ignoring it completely or tentatively exploring it's potential, alongside a known system they can trust."

This is exactly true. I agree completely with you Jason. I was just talking to a facilities manager of a middling post house about X and there were a couple things that jumped out at me despite the fact that I personally think from an editing perspective, X would be perfect for the kind of work they do.

The first think that struck me was that the tests they ran on X that worried them involved editing projects in 24p and then converting them to 30i after for use in pro tools. Tests that would've yielded the same results in FCP7 (their current system). In fact, they're workflow is designed to avoid the issues of 24p to 30i conversion, but yet, they expect X to handle things different. So while they're testing it, they're doing so with weighted scales and every failure is a confirmation of a "bullet dodged" for not having adopted it.

The second thing that was interesting was that the claim that, "no one else we know is using it," was a viable excuse for why they hadn't adopted it. It's clear that there is a bias against X, I suspect from the launch and the reticence for jumping full in with something so different. But, it's not as if they're being pushed towards another system. They seemed just as reluctant to go with Avid (because of it's financial issues), or Premiere (media handling).

The final thing they mentioned was they were worried about the other editors at their house being able to pick it up. I thought that was funny, but it's prescient. The younger AEs have all played with it, but the long timers know 7, and probably only 7 (or maybe Avid), and do NOT want to learn something new. This attitude will make sure FCPX gets slow adoption, not fast.

Andy

http://www.timesavertutorials.com


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  


Oliver PetersRe: FCP X and the Future of Editing
by on Nov 23, 2012 at 7:38:36 pm

[Andy Neil] "The first think that struck me was that the tests they ran on X that worried them involved editing projects in 24p and then converting them to 30i after for use in pro tools. "

As an aside... This seems a bit odd. Pro Tools is perfectly fine with 24p (23.976) projects. There's the obvious OMF or AAF conundrum with X, but I frequently send X, 7 and MC 24fps jobs to my usual Pro Tools guy without issue. Not sure what their problem would be.

- Oliver

Oliver Peters Post Production Services, LLC
Orlando, FL
http://www.oliverpeters.com


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  

Andy NeilRe: FCP X and the Future of Editing
by on Nov 23, 2012 at 8:09:42 pm

I probably just worded it oddly. The problem isn't Pro Tools. The problem is timing a show for 30i broadcast mastering when production shoots in 24p and editors want to edit in 24p. They currently just edit in a 30i timeline to maintain proper timing, but for some reason they're holding X to a different standard.

Andy

http://www.timesavertutorials.com


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  

Oliver PetersRe: FCP X and the Future of Editing
by on Nov 23, 2012 at 9:01:53 pm

[Andy Neil] "They currently just edit in a 30i timeline to maintain proper timing, but for some reason they're holding X to a different standard."

I get it. It's a real PITA to try to get exact timings with the X timeline. Timecode is a real afterthought and you have to work harder at it with X than other NLEs. It's still doable with X, so I'm not sure it's a complete deal-breaker, but I certainly understand their concern. The simple act of removing a 1 sec. dissolve fading up on the first clip of a 30 min. show will cause everything in the timeline that follows to shift by 12 frames. Not ideal in broadcast TV.

- Oliver

Oliver Peters Post Production Services, LLC
Orlando, FL
http://www.oliverpeters.com


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  


Tim WilsonRe: FCP X and the Future of Editing
by on Nov 23, 2012 at 8:17:36 pm

A belated thumbs up to you, Oliver, for your observation about the different ways that RED and Alexa are both prospering. "Leverage" notwithstanding, Alexa is simply better suited to the "40 hours of footage down to 42 minutes, 22 times a year," where RED's advantages become clear when you can build a fresh workflow around it. I've obviously oversimplified your point, but I think that you're also right about how this applies to X In the context of Jason, Steve and Andy's posts above.

It has always been true that 7 had (some admittedly large) niches where it worked and where it didn't. I still think that X is already bigger than 7, but may never be as useful for the exact same niche-sters that prospered with 7, a la there not really being that many people wrestling very long between RED or Alexa. The workflow is ultimately more important than features or interface metaphors.


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  
+1

Oliver PetersRe: FCP X and the Future of Editing
by on Nov 23, 2012 at 9:25:36 pm

[Tim Wilson] "Alexa is simply better suited to the "40 hours of footage down to 42 minutes, 22 times a year," where RED's advantages become clear when you can build a fresh workflow around it. "

Quite true. What a lot of the arguments in this thread come down to is the split in the worldview between individual owner-editors and staff or for-hire editors. "Industry-standard" workflows are essential to the latter group.

If I'm a client and use some one-off workflow, then I'm stuck with the facility that knows that workflow. If I have a conflict, it's harder to move. If I'm using accepted routines, then I can have my pick of suppliers. That's the issue that hit RED's adoption and I think it applies to X as well.

Right now with MC or FCP 7 I can collaborate on projects with other editors on the other side of the world. We can each open the other's projects and generally understand what they did because of the similarities.

[Tim Wilson] " I still think that X is already bigger than 7"

That's probably a dubious number. It now seems apparent that 7 never had the success of previous versions, because many FCP users stayed with 5 or 6. For all we know, Apple may have sold more seats of 7 AFTER X than before. The general parsing of Apple's words, is that X has outsold 7, not all of "legacy". I'm sure there are more seats of iMovie than either.

[Tim Wilson] "The workflow is ultimately more important than features or interface metaphors"

Yep. The reason "legacy" caught on was because users initially saw it as a "little Avid". The $100K NLE as a $999 application for your personal use. The operational design fit into the known world. As advanced features were added, these were built to match the workflows of the existing world. In many cases, they were improved upon in ways that users asked for. Those paradigms are built and it will take a long time to rebuild something entirely different.

Innovation does not always equal success. After all, none of us are editing with CMX's voice-activated edit system. ;-)

- Oliver

Oliver Peters Post Production Services, LLC
Orlando, FL
http://www.oliverpeters.com


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  
+1

Chris HarlanRe: FCP X and the Future of Editing
by on Nov 24, 2012 at 4:11:14 am

[Oliver Peters] "[Tim Wilson] "The workflow is ultimately more important than features or interface metaphors"

Yep. The reason "legacy" caught on was because users initially saw it as a "little Avid". The $100K NLE as a $999 application for your personal use. The operational design fit into the known world. As advanced features were added, these were built to match the workflows of the existing world. In many cases, they were improved upon in ways that users asked for. Those paradigms are built and it will take a long time to rebuild something entirely different.
"


I agree with both of you, but I would also add that the attraction of Legacy was that it was not just a "little Avid," but a "little everything." The beauty, for me, when I first started using it, was that it was flexible enough to be used like any number of editors. It could function a little like Avid, Montage, Speed Razor, Media 100, and D/Vision. I found that I could use most of my favorite approaches from any of these programs, which is not something I could say about any of the other programs individually. It was a very thorough adoption of the NLE market in general, which I'd guess was a big part of its success. It certainly is what enthused me.


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  


David LawrenceRe: FCP X and the Future of Editing
by on Nov 21, 2012 at 2:33:38 am

[Walter Soyka] "Everybodyknowsthatwhitespacecarriesnomeaningfulinformation :)"
LOLthat'sright,Walter.Iforgot!

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


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  

Chris HarlanRe: FCP X and the Future of Editing
by on Nov 21, 2012 at 11:52:59 pm

You style-master!


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  

Walter SoykaRe: FCP X and the Future of Editing
by on Nov 21, 2012 at 2:47:53 pm

[Franz Bieberkopf] "My favourite part was this though (and it was hard to choose):

"As an NLE designer today, where would you draw the line between professional and nonprofessional? Which features would you include or deny?"

This is the real point - aren't we all NLE designers? Haven't the old distinction been creatively disrupted? Isn't there a bit of the "Pro" Software Designer in all of us? In short, why rely on the professionals at Apple when there's been such dramatic democratization of the tools and resources?"



I've been giving this a bit of thought, and the author poses a very interesting question.

If you were designing an NLE from scratch, what would your design philosophy be?

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  


Oliver PetersRe: FCP X and the Future of Editing
by on Nov 21, 2012 at 4:22:41 pm

[Walter Soyka] "If you were designing an NLE from scratch, what would your design philosophy be?"

It's absolutely a valid question. In fact, it's THE QUESTION in this whole ongoing debate. Apple clearly chose to set out in a very "non-standard" direction in the belief that the "standard" direction was no longer suited for a file-based production world. Whether or not that's really true is highly debatable. Maybe they just wanted to shake things up and thought they were being innovative, rather than really worry if their approach was best suited or not. We may never know, nor does it really matter.

I would point out that a lot of folks around here keep answering some of the objections to the design with "look how many years it took to get to FCP7". The truth of the matter is that the core design and most of the organization and editing features were in place at FCP 1 or 2. The rest were feature additions, codecs and stability fixes. By that measure, what we see today is about where FCP X will sit for a while. Maybe some additional features, like a mixer, but don't expect to see huge changes from what's there now.

It's my belief after batting these questions around - and in doing real work with X - that Apple set out with a design philosophy of creating a more-malleable, "platform-style" application. If you want to make it a news/server-oriented tool, add ABC add-ons. Want to make it a film-oriented tool, add XYZ. And so on. By design, this means many workflow essentials are left out and in fact will probably never be added by Apple.

It also means there are some core limitations in structure and design that make it unsuited for some productions without significant workarounds (IMHO). I don't see that changing. If you like it today - great! Apple designed something that fits for you. If you don't like it today, move on - as it may never be the tool that's best for you.

In my own workflows, I've found it to be a good tool for some types of projects, but I've come to the conclusion that it will never be the best tool for all of the work I do. I did have that feeling about FCP7. For me, the multi-NLE approach seems to be something I'm struck with from here on for a while.

- Oliver

Oliver Peters Post Production Services, LLC
Orlando, FL
http://www.oliverpeters.com


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  
+2

Chris HarlanRe: FCP X and the Future of Editing
by on Nov 21, 2012 at 9:44:35 pm

[Oliver Peters] "In my own workflows, I've found it to be a good tool for some types of projects, but I've come to the conclusion that it will never be the best tool for all of the work I do. I did have that feeling about FCP7. For me, the multi-NLE approach seems to be something I'm struck with from here on for a while."


I'm in the same place. 7 seemed to solve all of my problems, and I'd hoped that it would eventually take over the world. Now I'm bouncing back and forth between Avid and Premiere (and 7), and see that as being the way it will be for some time to come. I don't really mind, and have found the whole venture broadening, but yes--there was a simplicity to being settled on a single NLE. Of course, before FCP it wasn't that way for me. I had to move around between all kinds of systems, and was fairly used to that. So maybe my complacency with FCP was actually a kind of trap.


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  

Jeremy GarchowRe: FCP X and the Future of Editing
by on Nov 24, 2012 at 6:07:56 am

[Oliver Peters] "The truth of the matter is that the core design and most of the organization and editing features were in place at FCP 1 or 2. The rest were feature additions, codecs and stability fixes. By that measure, what we see today is about where FCP X will sit for a while. Maybe some additional features, like a mixer, but don't expect to see huge changes from what's there now."

Time out.

I have nothing but respect for what you do Oliver, but this is a gross oversimplification don't you think?

First, Legend had a lot tacked on to it over the years, XML being one of them that is used (or at least I used) for organization, and in X's short life span the interface has already changed a bunch.

Why should we not expect further progress with more time?


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  


Oliver PetersRe: FCP X and the Future of Editing
by on Nov 24, 2012 at 3:18:58 pm

[Jeremy Garchow] "First, Legend had a lot tacked on to it over the years, XML being one of them that is used (or at least I used) for organization, and in X's short life span the interface has already changed a bunch"

I'm talking about file/folder structure in the browser and how you edit clips in the timeline. Also keyframing, blend modes, the whole After Effects-style of adjusting effects. That was there in the beginning. XML as an I/O method was added later, but it didn't change how you edited inside FCP. It only extended its ability to interact with the outside world. The point is that the core operation inside the application was in place from the start and so I believe the same is true for X at this point.

- Oliver

Oliver Peters Post Production Services, LLC
Orlando, FL
http://www.oliverpeters.com


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  

David LawrenceRe: FCP X and the Future of Editing
by on Nov 24, 2012 at 6:57:25 pm

[Oliver Peters] "The point is that the core operation inside the application was in place from the start and so I believe the same is true for X at this point."

Agreed. None of the updates to date have changed the basic editorial model and there's no reason believe future ones will. Significant updates like multi-cam, were in development from the beginning and would have been included at launch if they were ready at the time. That's not to say there isn't room for future improvement with the current UI, it can and will get better. But the basic editorial mechanics seem pretty firmly in place.

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


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  

Andy NeilRe: FCP X and the Future of Editing
by on Nov 24, 2012 at 10:38:37 pm

[David Lawrence] "None of the updates to date have changed the basic editorial model and there's no reason believe future ones will."

That's not true at all. Even discounting multi-cam because "it was in development before", the Event Viewer, Roles, and Audio Component Editing are all major changes to the editorial model of FCPX. You can even make a strong case for compound clip behavior in 10.0.6.

Andy

http://www.timesavertutorials.com


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  


David LawrenceRe: FCP X and the Future of Editing
by on Nov 25, 2012 at 3:13:05 am

[Andy Neil] "That's not true at all. Even discounting multi-cam because "it was in development before", the Event Viewer, Roles, and Audio Component Editing are all major changes to the editorial model of FCPX. You can even make a strong case for compound clip behavior in 10.0.6."

I get what you're saying but I disagree. The change in compound clip behavior addressed a crippling implementation flaw and should have been in place at launch. The other changes are welcome improvements but none fundamentally change the editorial model because none fundamentally change the timeline model. It is what it is. I'd love to be wrong but I don't see it changing that much.

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


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  

Andy NeilRe: FCP X and the Future of Editing
by on Nov 25, 2012 at 8:41:11 pm

[David Lawrence] "...none fundamentally change the editorial model because none fundamentally change the timeline model."

Then you've got an extremely narrow definition of what constitutes an editorial model, if the only thing you are counting is the trackless nature of the timeline. And conveniently dismissing compound clip behavior because it "should've been there" is just you creating a confirmation bias. It wasn't there before. It wasn't designed that way before. It was changed in 10.0.06 and it fundamentally changes how one edits in FCPX. To me that is very the definition of "editorial model."

Take Roles for example. They allow for a completely different take on access of clips via the timeline index as well as completely change how audio is exported. A change in the editorial model.

The Event Viewer which allows for an event browser shot to be displayed alongside a timeline shot fundamentally changes how one approaches matching shots when editing in FCPX. Another change in the editorial model.

Audio Component Editing which makes single channel editing possible in clips where before audio had to be disconnected and therefore subject to sync problems, fundamentally changes how one edits audio in FCPX. Yet another change in the editorial model.

Perhaps you meant to only comment on the modality of the timeline, I don't know. But you said "editorial model" in your OP and to me, that's anything that changes significantly how someone can edit in an NLE. Like it or not, these additions, including multicam have done just that for FCPX. I agree that it's unlikely that X will ever have track editing like you're used to in legacy or Avid, but that doesn't negate the possibility that Apple will make real changes to the editorial model that we all got in 10.0.0, since it's obvious that they already have.

Andy

http://www.timesavertutorials.com


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  
+1

David LawrenceRe: FCP X and the Future of Editing
by on Nov 28, 2012 at 9:20:47 am

[Andy Neil] "And conveniently dismissing compound clip behavior because it "should've been there" is just you creating a confirmation bias. It wasn't there before. It wasn't designed that way before. It was changed in 10.0.06 and it fundamentally changes how one edits in FCPX."

Compound clips were fatally flawed before 10.0.6. The design was broken. This is a bug fix, not a feature.

[Andy Neil] "Perhaps you meant to only comment on the modality of the timeline, I don't know. But you said "editorial model" in your OP and to me, that's anything that changes significantly how someone can edit in an NLE. Like it or not, these additions, including multicam have done just that for FCPX. I agree that it's unlikely that X will ever have track editing like you're used to in legacy or Avid, but that doesn't negate the possibility that Apple will make real changes to the editorial model that we all got in 10.0.0, since it's obvious that they already have."

I consider 10.0.0 a poor benchmark for Apple's progress. 10.0.0 was an alpha-quality mess, likely released because of scheduling and marketing pressures. Certainly not because it was ready. As far as I'm concerned, 10.0.3 represents the first true working version of the program. Multicam, and roles were all in by then.

It sounds like we define "editorial model" in an NLE differently. For me, how the timeline behaves and how it dictates editorial operations is the core of the editorial experience. The timeline is the center, everything else revolves around it.

All the improvements you mention are significant. They added features, but none of them changed the basic operation of the timeline itself. Yes, we'll see further improvements down the road, but I doubt the core model changes.

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


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  


Steve ConnorRe: FCP X and the Future of Editing
by on Nov 28, 2012 at 1:19:25 pm

[David Lawrence] "All the improvements you mention are significant. They added features, but none of them changed the basic operation of the timeline itself. Yes, we'll see further improvements down the road, but I doubt the core model changes."

Doesn't the tilde key modifier show that Apple CAN change the core model? the tilde key effectively locks any connected clips in time and breaks the connection, albeit temporarily. If Apple were to change this from a modifier key to a mode and the tilde key modifier shows that this would be easy for them, then that would enable fixed secondaries that aren't connected. That seems like it would be a change to the core model?

Steve Connor
'It's just my opinion, with an occasional fact thrown in for good measure"


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  

Jeremy GarchowRe: FCP X and the Future of Editing
by on Nov 28, 2012 at 2:12:16 pm

[Steve Connor] "Doesn't the tilde key modifier show that Apple CAN change the core model? the tilde key effectively locks any connected clips in time and breaks the connection, albeit temporarily. If Apple were to change this from a modifier key to a mode and the tilde key modifier shows that this would be easy for them, then that would enable fixed secondaries that aren't connected. That seems like it would be a change to the core model?"

Even without the tilde, there's a lot less disappearing of connected clips when trimming, a definite change in the "core model".

Audio components are a huge change in the "core model".

Compound clips have changed completely. While it might be seen as a "bug fix" by some, they are completely reworked and have changed the fundamental way in which they operate and have therefore changed the "model". They weren't simply fixed, they were reinvented.

I have few problems with the magnetic timeline as a concept, it just needs to be pushed further. There are still some things that are simply impossible, like muting video only with one click.


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  

Oliver PetersRe: FCP X and the Future of Editing
by on Nov 28, 2012 at 2:32:37 pm

[Jeremy Garchow] "it just needs to be pushed further"

Out the door? ;-)

- Oliver

Oliver Peters Post Production Services, LLC
Orlando, FL
http://www.oliverpeters.com


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  


Steve ConnorRe: FCP X and the Future of Editing
by on Nov 28, 2012 at 2:37:18 pm

[Oliver Peters] "Out the door? ;-)"

If anything it was pushed out the door too quickly

Steve Connor
'It's just my opinion, with an occasional fact thrown in for good measure"


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  

Jeremy GarchowRe: FCP X and the Future of Editing
by on Nov 28, 2012 at 2:50:46 pm

Yes.

It could stand to go eat some glass in the real world.


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  

Chris HarlanRe: FCP X and the Future of Editing
by on Nov 28, 2012 at 6:15:39 pm

[Oliver Peters] "[Jeremy Garchow] "it just needs to be pushed further"

Out the door? ;-)

- Oliver

Oliver Peters Post Production Services, LLC
Orlando, FL
http://www.oliverpeters.com
"


AND HE SCORES!


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  


David LawrenceRe: FCP X and the Future of Editing
by on Nov 28, 2012 at 9:14:15 pm

[Steve Connor] "Doesn't the tilde key modifier show that Apple CAN change the core model? the tilde key effectively locks any connected clips in time and breaks the connection, albeit temporarily. If Apple were to change this from a modifier key to a mode and the tilde key modifier shows that this would be easy for them, then that would enable fixed secondaries that aren't connected. That seems like it would be a change to the core model?"

Maybe I'm thinking a bit too meta or we're getting into semantics but I see that as a new feature, rather than a fundamental change in the core model. It's a step in the right direction but still doesn't go far enough.

I was excited when the tilde key modifier was announced, but disappointed that it only affects connections on the primary clip you're moving. They need an additional tilde modifier that turns off all connections if so desired. For example, this would be useful if you wanted to swap two clips on the primary without affecting anything in the secondary. In FCP7, swap edits take a single modifier key. I'd like it to be just as easy in FCPX. Is there an easy way to do this now? Am I missing something? If so, please let me know.

To me, the core editorial model is the hierarchal, A/B clip relationship paradigm that's defined the timeline since 10.0.0. Each new release has built on that model, but I don't think they've changed it. Everything still must spike to V1. Maybe new features will eventually add enough flexibility that it won't matter and the timeline will work for editors like me. I don't know. I'm open to being surprised, but I'm not counting on it and I'm not holding my breath.

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


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  

Steve ConnorRe: FCP X and the Future of Editing
by on Nov 28, 2012 at 9:25:10 pm

[David Lawrence] "To me, the core editorial model is the hierarchal, A/B clip relationship paradigm that's defined the timeline since 10.0.0. Each new release has built on that model, but I don't think they've changed it. Everything still must spike to V1. Maybe new features will eventually add enough flexibility that it won't matter and the timeline will work for editors like me. I don't know. I'm open to being surprised, but I'm not counting on it and I'm not holding my breath.
"


Don't get me wrong, I hope they don't change it for Editors like you. PPro and Avid are out there and for most people moving from FCP7 one of these will work, what I'm saying is they seem to be open to change and that tilde key could be a precursor to a mode where everything doesn't refer back to the primary.

Steve Connor
'It's just my opinion, with an occasional fact thrown in for good measure"


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  

David LawrenceRe: FCP X and the Future of Editing
by on Nov 28, 2012 at 10:31:50 pm

[Steve Connor] "Don't get me wrong, I hope they don't change it for Editors like you. PPro and Avid are out there and for most people moving from FCP7 one of these will work, what I'm saying is they seem to be open to change and that tilde key could be a precursor to a mode where everything doesn't refer back to the primary."

I actually agree with you. I'm pretty happy with my other options -- FCPX doesn't need to become like them. I'm more interested in seeing how far it can evolve beyond the limitations of the current model on its own terms.

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


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  


Jeremy GarchowRe: FCP X and the Future of Editing
by on Nov 25, 2012 at 12:33:53 am

[Oliver Peters] "The point is that the core operation inside the application was in place from the start and so I believe the same is true for X at this point."

Multichannel QT output/mixing was added later, renaming clips from filenames vice-versa was added later, log and transfer was added later, fit to fill and more enhanced retiming capabilities were added later, text tools were added later, auto-select buttons were added later, the entire fx architecture was added later, as a matter of fact two architectures were added, timecode overlays were added later, paste attributes was added later, dynamic/asymmetrical trimming was added later, keyboard customization was added later, ganging came later, merged clips came later, dupe detection came later, etc. All of these little bits and bobs are small, but they help the day to day workload and they weren't in v1 or 2 (if memory serves).

With X, there has been many interface updates, and even some of the "core" behaviors have changed a lot, a whole lot, really. My sense is that they aren't done, and aren't afraid to change how things work, let's hope most of it is for the better.


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  

Oliver PetersRe: FCP X and the Future of Editing
by on Nov 25, 2012 at 12:53:09 am

[Jeremy Garchow] "(if memory serves)"

I don't believe it does. A lot of what you list was in there a lot earlier than you seem to think. But it's irrelevant. The core functions of how you construct an edit on the timeline, how you trim, how you keyframe audio and effects, etc. The FxScript effects architecture. All there by at least 2.12.

My point is that the basic structure of X is locked into place and any pining for track-like behavior (among other things) is pointless, because Apple isn't going to put it in. I go back to the same mantra. Deal with the application that you have today, not the one you believe it might become at some point in the future. All these pie-in-the-sky discussions of databases that go outside of the Event and fancy work with roles and more - it's all just blue sky wishful thinking.

Sorry to be so "glass half empty", but I'm tired of working with an app that feels very sloppy when going from clips in the Event browser to the timeline (half the time it hangs up and has to be "fiddled with" to wake it up), that corrupts my renders, that fails to render some effects, that doesn't allow mixing on-the-fly, that offsets my primary storyline when I trim or delete transitions, that re-arranges the vertical order of connected clips at will, yada yada yada...

- Oliver

Oliver Peters Post Production Services, LLC
Orlando, FL
http://www.oliverpeters.com


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  

Jeremy GarchowRe: FCP X and the Future of Editing
by on Nov 25, 2012 at 1:05:29 am

[Oliver Peters] "I don't believe it does. A lot of what you list was in there a lot earlier than you seem to think. But it's irrelevant. The core functions of how you construct an edit on the timeline, how you trim, how you keyframe audio and effects, etc. The FxScript effects architecture. All there by at least 2.12."

Fxscript was maybe 2, fxplug was certainly later, but I'd love it if you'd check my sources. A lot of the trimming, audio key framing, multichannel mixer was v3 and later, multichannel output was after 3. Auto select was v4. I could list them all, but I guess it's "irrelevant" to this discussion about how things change.

[Oliver Peters] "Sorry to be so "glass half empty", but I'm tired of working with an app that feels very sloppy when going from clips in the Event browser to the timeline (half the time it hangs up and has to be "fiddled with" to wake it up), that corrupts my renders, that fails to render some effects, that doesn't allow mixing on-the-fly, that offsets my primary storyline when I trim or delete transitions, that re-arranges the vertical order of connected clips at will, yada yada yada..."

I don't seem to have to wake up fcpx, 10.0.6 has been much more smooth for me. I don't get corrupt renders (although I try not to render), I mix one clip at a time on the fly, and the other things you mention are easily fixable cosmetics, or a keyboard shortcut away. Really fixable problems. In due time...


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  


Oliver PetersRe: FCP X and the Future of Editing
by on Nov 25, 2012 at 1:07:38 am

[Jeremy Garchow] "Really fixable problems. In due time..."

Why should I wait?

- Oliver

Oliver Peters Post Production Services, LLC
Orlando, FL
http://www.oliverpeters.com


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  

Jeremy GarchowRe: FCP X and the Future of Editing
by on Nov 25, 2012 at 1:37:48 am

[Oliver Peters] "Why should I wait?"

If the rest of fcpx is of no advantage to you personally, then there's no reason to keep debating. You gave it a real honest to goodness shot and found it too annoying to continue.

No shame in that game.


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  

Oliver PetersRe: FCP X and the Future of Editing
by on Nov 25, 2012 at 2:03:59 am

[Jeremy Garchow] "If the rest of fcpx is of no advantage to you personally, then there's no reason to keep debating."

My current position with it is to continue using it on a very selective basis for the few projects where I feel it's right. I had been pushing everything through it and am starting to feel a bit burned by it on some jobs. So currently I'm moving a few more of those over to Media Composer for a while. Plus keeping an eye on Premiere, depending on how the market shifts. I've got a client who's really hot for Smoke 2013, so maybe that's in the future, too. Who knows?

- Oliver

Oliver Peters Post Production Services, LLC
Orlando, FL
http://www.oliverpeters.com


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  


Jeremy GarchowRe: FCP X and the Future of Editing
by on Nov 25, 2012 at 2:48:58 am

[Oliver Peters] "My current position with it is to continue using it on a very selective basis for the few projects where I feel it's right. I had been pushing everything through it and am starting to feel a bit burned by it on some jobs. So currently I'm moving a few more of those over to Media Composer for a while. Plus keeping an eye on Premiere, depending on how the market shifts. I've got a client who's really hot for Smoke 2013, so maybe that's in the future, too. Who knows?"

Certainly not me.

It is an affordable time to be an editor. It is a confusing time to be an editor. It is a time to commit many new shortcuts to memory and then forget them when you open the next newest greatest traditional 64bit cutting edge image stabilized ray tracer compositing grading hot mixing finisher.


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  

Oliver PetersRe: FCP X and the Future of Editing
by on Nov 26, 2012 at 2:55:40 pm

[Jeremy Garchow] "I don't seem to have to wake up fcpx, 10.0.6 has been much more smooth for me."

What is see has been the same issue that has plagued X from the start. When you use skimming, at some point the viewer quits responding to the toggle between event clips and the project. Then you have to specifically click and scrub one or two event clips before it correctly updates to the project image again in the viewer. This is very consistent for me on several different machines and projects.

[Jeremy Garchow] " I don't get corrupt renders (although I try not to render)"

See the screen grab.



This is all ProRes4444 video from an Alexa. The primary is a full screen shot. The first connected "layer" is a set of product shots that are 2D PIP w/shadow. Titles above that. The top 5 "layers" of connected clips are PR4444 animation rendered out of Motion 5. It is impossible to properly preview this without rendering. You'll notice the unrendered patch up front. That's a retimed shot which starts fast and holds. Will not render at all (except during export).

Where I get render corruptions is at the various transition points. The corruption takes the form of the video that's in the 2D PIP popping full screen for 1 frame. This is random and occurs both when I render the whole project, as well as when I leave it unrendered and simply export. Deleting render files doesn't change the behavior. I've had this occur on two different machines with completely unrelated media and projects. The one in the screen grab was created after the 10.0.6 update, but the one on the other machine was created before.

- Oliver

Oliver Peters Post Production Services, LLC
Orlando, FL
http://www.oliverpeters.com


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  

Jeremy GarchowRe: FCP X and the Future of Editing
by on Nov 26, 2012 at 4:02:15 pm

What's the top adjustment layer?

I still use Ae for compositing, although I was mocking up graphics the other day in FCPX and found that everything worked really well. I had no render issues.

[Oliver Peters] "When you use skimming, at some point the viewer quits responding to the toggle between event clips and the project. "

I guess I don't see this as I have carried over my FCP7 habit of using kb shortcuts to select which area I want to focus on. Even then, I have never seen this behavior, or at least I have never noticed it.

I do agree that transitions are weird in the primary as they are "missing" the start/end on edit options, especially at the beginning of the timeline, so I use slug fades and that seems to work better and is a little easier to manipulate. I used them in FCP7 too, that way it's one transition at the beginning/end instead of the stack of 5 you have there.


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  


Oliver PetersRe: FCP X and the Future of Editing
by on Nov 26, 2012 at 4:41:22 pm

[Jeremy Garchow] "What's the top adjustment layer?"

Oops, yes, forgot to mention. It's a broadcast safe filter.

[Jeremy Garchow] "found that everything worked really well. I had no render issues."

As I said, it's random and unpredictable. I can re-render the project and it will be OK the second time or sometimes, I'll have a corrupt frame in a different place.

My gut feeling is that a lot was changed "under the hood" with 10.0.6 because of the length of releasing it. This has undoubtedly introduced many new bugs.

- Oliver

Oliver Peters Post Production Services, LLC
Orlando, FL
http://www.oliverpeters.com


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  

Gerry FraibergRe: FCP X and the Future of Editing
by on Nov 26, 2012 at 4:49:53 pm

Two steps forward, one step back.



Return to posts index
Reply   Like  

Jeremy GarchowRe: FCP X and the Future of Editing
by on Nov 26, 2012 at 4:51:54 pm

[Gerry Fraiberg] "Two steps forward, one step back."

10.0.6 has been nothing but improvements for me, but that is my relative experience.

I'm not saying X is perfect, it's not, but if you look at 10.0.0 and 10.0.6, there's measurable and significant improvement and most of it is for the better.


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  


Gerry FraibergRe: FCP X and the Future of Editing
by on Nov 26, 2012 at 4:59:23 pm

Jeremy, my flip "two steps forward, one step back" comment was in response to Oliver saying "This has undoubtedly introduced many new bugs."

I'm a one man band operation. I bought and have worked in FCP X since day one, and am quite delighted to see the steady improvements.

- Gerry



Return to posts index
Reply   Like  

Joseph OwensRe: FCP X and the Future of Editing
by on Nov 21, 2012 at 4:35:24 pm

[Walter Soyka] "If you were designing an NLE from scratch, what would your design philosophy be?"

Storyboard.

jPo

"I always pass on free advice -- its never of any use to me" Oscar Wilde.


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  

Bill DavisRe: FCP X and the Future of Editing
by on Nov 21, 2012 at 6:41:12 pm

[Walter Soyka] "If you were designing an NLE from scratch, what would your design philosophy be?"

Well, if I wanted to build a sustainable business around it - the answer would be simple.

First I'd gather some REAL data on what the market is and where it's likely going.

Using that data, I'd figure out what the largest potential market would be in the future where I could satisfy the greatest number of potential customers.

Then I'd build a product designed to meet the majority of their needs at the most affordable price possible.

I'd make it modular - upgradable - extensible - and built on the most modern technological underpinnings possible, even if I had to jettison internal technology that has worked in the past, but is in decline in the modern era.

In other words, I'd design it for the present and the future - and not worry overmuch about the past.

I'd balance a "walled garden" approach in the general interface so that people would acclimate to it and approach the use of the program with consistency - and make sure that around that garden there are lots of ways to innovate significantly and rapidly without tearing down the core of the program and requiring my users to re-learn that core.

If my extensible capabilities were rich enough - then I'd rely on the market to address smaller niche markets while I'd concentrate on improving the core.

Which all kinda describes exactly what I think Apple did with X.

FWIW.

Know someone who teaches video editing in elementary school, high school or college? Tell them to check out http://www.StartEditingNow.com - video editing curriculum complete with licensed practice content.


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  
-4


Michael GissingRe: FCP X and the Future of Editing
by on Nov 21, 2012 at 8:38:23 pm

I read an article about how the Autodesk team went about redesigning the Smoke interface. They sat a lot of experienced editors in front of Smoke and watched them try to edit something without any pre training. They said how painful it was to watch experienced story tellers struggle with the interface and set about redesigning the UI to something that was familiar yet powerful.

Unless you were targeting a different market then designing an NLE that lacked many of the basic conventions of editing UI without involving experienced editors would be silly.


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  

Andrew KimeryRe: FCP X and the Future of Editing
by on Nov 21, 2012 at 8:48:06 pm

[Bill Davis] "Using that data, I'd figure out what the largest potential market would be in the future where I could satisfy the greatest number of potential customers."

So you'd build an NLE geared for easy adaption by consumers? ;)




Return to posts index
Reply   Like  

Bill DavisRe: FCP X and the Future of Editing
by on Nov 22, 2012 at 4:16:17 am

[Andrew Kimery] "So you'd build an NLE geared for easy adaption by consumers? ;)
"


Absolutely. Because "consumers" are a massively wide swath of the overall population. And in satisfying such a broad group - I'd be very likely to see useful concepts that niche groups (even skilled ones such as "professional editors" would not reveal.

At the design stage, EVER narrowing is an elimination. How can you assess whether your core list of "needs" is proper if you're starting out with the very group for whom "core needs" are the MOST rigidly pre-defined?

How can you expect to find insight when you only talk to people who have been largely doing the same things in the same way for 50 years?

Just a thought.

Know someone who teaches video editing in elementary school, high school or college? Tell them to check out http://www.StartEditingNow.com - video editing curriculum complete with licensed practice content.


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  
-1


Chris HarlanRe: FCP X and the Future of Editing
by on Nov 22, 2012 at 5:18:34 am

[Bill Davis] "How can you expect to find insight when you only talk to people who have been largely doing the same things in the same way for 50 years?"

You're joking, right? FCP X is far closer in approach to all other NLEs than all NLEs are to electronic linear editing. And electronic linear editing is far closer in approach to all NLEs than it is to a Moviola. I would say a whole lot has changed in the last 50 years.


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  
+1

Andrew KimeryRe: FCP X and the Future of Editing
by on Nov 22, 2012 at 7:14:40 am

[Bill Davis] "At the design stage, EVER narrowing is an elimination. How can you assess whether your core list of "needs" is proper if you're starting out with the very group for whom "core needs" are the MOST rigidly pre-defined?"

If you are making a product, any product, that's primarily geared towards consumers or infrequent users you should study that demographic. If you are making a product that's primarily geared towards an established/frequent user base with established goals you should study that user base. The core needs for both will not be the same.

IMO step one to offering something new to someone is to completely understand each step of their existing process. If you don't examine and totally understand why things are the way they are before changing things you are being disruptive just for the sake of being disruptive. I've built, modified, and in some cases, totally blown up workflows at a number of companies/shows over the years but my first step is always to embrace the existing workflow and understand why and how it works for them. Sometimes what looks useless at the onset is actually pivotal once you understand how the whole process works in concert.


[Bill Davis] "How can you expect to find insight when you only talk to people who have been largely doing the same things in the same way for 50 years?"

So post production workflows and tools in 2012 are pretty much the same as they were in the '60s?




Return to posts index
Reply   Like  
+3

Rafael AmadorRe: FCP X and the Future of Editing
by on Nov 22, 2012 at 5:34:31 pm

[Bill Davis] "Well, if I wanted to build a sustainable business around it - the answer would be simple."
Bill, I don't think the question was about making "sustainable businesses", but about designing your own NLE from scratches.
rafael

http://www.nagavideo.com


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]