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

Events: Good or Bad?

COW Forums : Apple FCPX or Not: The Debate

<< PREVIOUS   •   VIEW ALL   •   PRINT   •   NEXT >>
Share on Facebook
John HeagyEvents: Good or Bad?
by on Dec 21, 2012 at 6:08:00 pm

How do people feel about the Event paradigm compared to the "free for all" in FCP7 when it comes to accessing media in a shared environment?

For us it simply gets in the way and adds a layer of complexity when in a large shared environment. The need to virtualize the media via aliases when linking to media is of no benefit.

We require all edit rooms to access all the media on our Xsan. We cannot present media in Events as it locks it away for every other user. This is certainly the opposite of sharing, and having to make and manage copies is untenable.

The only way I see is to use a MAM like CatDV to send media to projects, which of course requires an Event. Essentially we are forced to use Events to support the Project's media management requirements.

The first step to improve sharing is to share Xsan locations where the first to open the location has read/write and subsequent users have read only. What happens when the "owner" removes the location? Who has write then? It's a tricky issue and ultimately needs a centralized database to manage.

Apple, and others, confuse sharing projects with concurrent use of media. While one can use media concurrently with FCPX it's far more complex than FCP7 and needs improvement.

We've built a large powerful shared environment and the act of creating a project in FCPX essentially unshares and locks away all the media that project requires.

Thoughts on how Apple can improve project sharing and concurrent use of media?

Thanks
John Heagy


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  

Jeremy GarchowRe: Events: Good or Bad?
by on Dec 21, 2012 at 8:33:02 pm

It is highly dependent on what you mean by "sharing" and what exactly is you need to do.

There is a lot to like, at least in my opinion. The rest of it still needs work.

The alias system could be great, but it is rather limited as FCPX is bad at sending alias links through the app itself, you have to do that through the Finder, but that also can cause issues.

I do not mind the Event and Project structure, and XML is improving. Sending an Event as an XML is actually ok.

[John Heagy] "We require all edit rooms to access all the media on our Xsan. We cannot present media in Events as it locks it away for every other user. This is certainly the opposite of sharing, and having to make and manage copies is untenable."

This is why the media needs to sit outside of the Event, and only import an alias. If you are working with more than .mov source material, you will need third party workflow enhancers to help with this, or you convert everything to .mov masters.

[John Heagy] "The first step to improve sharing is to share Xsan locations where the first to open the location has read/write and subsequent users have read only. What happens when the "owner" removes the location? Who has write then? It's a tricky issue and ultimately needs a centralized database to manage."

I think the ultimate in flexibility will be to not have one person be able to r/w to a database (and the rest read only, FCPX doesn't even allow you to mount read only Events) but FCPX should be allowed to have multiple people write to one database, perhaps through a user system. The structure of Events and Projects seems to want to warrant this system, but perhaps that is my optimism getting in the way of the reality of gravity.

[John Heagy] "We've built a large powerful shared environment and the act of creating a project in FCPX essentially unshares and locks away all the media that project requires."

I would be curious as to how multiple users can work on one project in your current environment.


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  

John HeagyRe: Events: Good or Bad?
by on Dec 21, 2012 at 8:51:46 pm

[Jeremy Garchow] "I would be curious as to how multiple users can work on one project in your current environment.
"


We simply duplicate the project file and append the editors initials. No worries about access to media with FCP7.

John


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  


Jeremy GarchowRe: Events: Good or Bad?
by on Dec 21, 2012 at 8:58:11 pm

[John Heagy] "We simply duplicate the project file and append the editors initials. No worries about access to media with FCP7."

Right, so you never work off of the same project.

The same goes for FCPX.

You can export an XML of the Event, reimport it wherever else you'd like and add the editors initials, or whatever works the best for you.

You can then, using the Finder, move this Event (with aliases) to whatever SAN Location you want OR out it in it's own folder and mount that as a new SAN Location.

Projects are even more portable.


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  

John HeagyRe: Events: Good or Bad?
by on Dec 21, 2012 at 9:10:21 pm

[Jeremy Garchow] "You can then..."

That's my point. In FCP7 there is no "You can then..."

Events for the sole purpose of enabling a project to link to media is complexity with no value.

John


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  

Jeremy GarchowRe: Events: Good or Bad?
by on Dec 21, 2012 at 9:23:06 pm

[John Heagy] "Events for the sole purpose of enabling a project to link to media is complexity with no value."

I guess it depends on how you look at it. It's not FCP7 so I don't treat it as such. Perhaps you are skipping the benefits.

The media management capabilities in FCPX aren't bad, but they need to work better with aliased media.

If you could do everything that's capable in FCPX now, but keep the aliases, you wouldn't even have to leave FCPX. Simply create a new SAN Location, dupe the Event in to that Location with aliases, Remove the Location, then the other person mounts the SAN Location with everything in tact. At that point, they can either transfer the Event to their Location or just keep it where it is.

Easy.

With Events, I can import someone else's organization and completely start over with my own (or add my own style or whatever), but also leave the original method in place in case someone wants to pickup where they left off.

I simply can't do that in FCP7 without duplicating all the assets in the FCP7 project as the bin system is so rigid.


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  


John HeagyRe: Events: Good or Bad?
by on Dec 21, 2012 at 10:01:15 pm

[Jeremy Garchow] "With Events, I can import someone else's organization and completely start over with my own (or add my own style or whatever)"

That's a nightmare scenario in an organized shared environment! As I mentioned earlier a MAM is the only way I see us using FCPX and in that case changing the clip metadata in FCPX is pointless. A shared environment means sharing media with consistent metadata. Individual Events where people can rename and add metadata only to be lost when they import the media again from the MAM is waisted effort.

Apple claims that FCPX is all about ease of use. It is for "one man bands" but "facility" shared environments then have to work around all the hand holding with multiple "easy" steps that in the end add no value.

I don't ever see Apple making it easy/direct for us at the expense of the single user.

John


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  

Jeremy GarchowRe: Events: Good or Bad?
by on Dec 21, 2012 at 10:18:47 pm

[John Heagy] "That's a nightmare scenario in an organized shared environment! As I mentioned earlier a MAM is the only way I see us using FCPX and in that case changing the clip metadata in FCPX is pointless. A shared environment means sharing media with consistent metadata. Individual Events where people can rename and add metadata only to be lost when they import the media again from the MAM is waisted effort.

Apple claims that FCPX is all about ease of use. It is for "one man bands" but "facility" shared environments then have to work around all the hand holding with multiple "easy" steps that in the end add no value.

I don't ever see Apple making it easy/direct for us at the expense of the single user."


Do you need to share project data, event data, or media metadata?

Maybe you need a MAM, maybe you don't. Do you have one now? How do you handle all of this now?


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  

Oliver PetersRe: Events: Good or Bad?
by on Dec 22, 2012 at 12:54:43 am

Events are intended be a managed media workspace. The design intent was to do exactly what Avid has done with their MediaFiles folders. Apple really, really wants you to import media into the Events folders, but has allowed linked aliases as a concession. This is actually much the same as how Aperture works with media libraries.

- Oliver

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


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  


Jeremy GarchowRe: Events: Good or Bad?
by on Dec 22, 2012 at 1:21:53 am

[Oliver Peters] "This is actually much the same as how Aperture works with media libraries."

And how FCP7 projects work.

It's not a concession, it's by design.


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  

Oliver PetersRe: Events: Good or Bad?
by on Dec 22, 2012 at 1:24:28 am

[Jeremy Garchow] "It's not a concession, it's by design."

Except that when you speak with Apple, they strongly recommend against leaving media linked and technically "unmanaged". Mainly because of the propensity for humans or other apps to alter or move the actual media files.

- Oliver

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


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  

Jeremy GarchowRe: Events: Good or Bad?
by on Dec 22, 2012 at 1:29:34 am

[Oliver Peters] "Except that when you speak with Apple, they strongly recommend against leaving media linked and technically "unmanaged". Mainly because of the propensity for humans or other apps to alter or move the actual media files."

This was true in FCP7 too. This is no different when you think about it like that.


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  


Oliver PetersRe: Events: Good or Bad?
by on Dec 22, 2012 at 1:35:49 am

[Jeremy Garchow] "This was true in FCP7 too. This is no different when you think about it like that."

It's completely different! FCP "legacy" did very little to manage media. Media management - such that it was - was only a factor through tape capture, log & transfer or the Media Manager. If you simply imported media, it was loosely linked. Why do you think FCP users screamed for better media management? Apple simply copied what Avid had been doing for two decades.

- Oliver

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


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  

Jeremy GarchowRe: Events: Good or Bad?
by on Dec 22, 2012 at 1:49:59 am

[Oliver Peters] "Apple simply copied what Avid had been doing for two decades."

I can't tell if you like this or hate this.

Having media sitting place and linked to an FCPX Event, is not that different than having media sitting in one place and linked to an FCP7 project, but it's smarter and more powerful due to the way Events work.

When you move the media in the Finder in FCPX, it doesn't go off-line.

When bringing media IN to the Event, yes it's totally different, but that's not what we are talking about here.

I like that relative drive and file path are less important than FCPX. Relinking is much easier. You can even move media once it's linked, and FCPX still keep track of it.

I don't see how this is dumbed down or not useful, or a concession.

I am starting to feel like I have green antennae growing out of my forehead.


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  

Walter SoykaRe: Events: Good or Bad?
by on Dec 22, 2012 at 2:04:07 am

[Jeremy Garchow] "I am starting to feel like I have green antennae growing out of my forehead."

It could be worse. You could be trapped on an ornament.

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  


Jeremy GarchowRe: Events: Good or Bad?
by on Dec 22, 2012 at 2:05:49 am

[Walter Soyka] "It could be worse. You could be trapped on an ornament."

This is true, but at least, Santa.


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  

Chris HarlanRe: Events: Good or Bad?
by on Dec 22, 2012 at 6:18:17 am

[Walter Soyka] "[Jeremy Garchow] "I am starting to feel like I have green antennae growing out of my forehead."

It could be worse. You could be trapped on an ornament."


Oh, now; don't knock it until you've tried it. If you're far enough up the tree, the view is incredible.


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  

Oliver PetersRe: Events: Good or Bad?
by on Dec 22, 2012 at 3:15:10 am

[Jeremy Garchow] "I can't tell if you like this or hate this.
Having media sitting place and linked to an FCPX Event, is not that different than having media sitting in one place and linked to an FCP7 project, but it's smarter and more powerful due to the way Events work. "


From a personal level, I like having media linked. But that's because I'm meticulous about handling media at the Finder level. However, I've been burned by the work routines of other editors who aren't as meticulous. Handle the "finishing" and you find that some of the media is offline, because it's not on the external drive you've been given. Instead it's linked to files on their personal pictures folder or music folder. They forgot to copy it over. These are the sort of things that copying media into a controlled space prevent.

- Oliver

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


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  


Jeremy GarchowRe: Events: Good or Bad?
by on Dec 22, 2012 at 5:31:52 pm

[Oliver Peters] "From a personal level, I like having media linked. But that's because I'm meticulous about handling media at the Finder level. "

[John Heagy] "That's my point. In FCP7 there is no "You can then..."

Events for the sole purpose of enabling a project to link to media is complexity with no value."


[John Heagy] "That's a nightmare scenario in an organized shared environment!"



I think we need back up here, fellers.

Part of the problem is that not one of us is talking in specifics. I feel like we are talking over each other.

Events are stored in Folders. You dupe that folder, and you dupe an Event. You can then mount that new folder as its own San Location.

There are problems.

Since render files are stored with the Event as well as any transcodes, that folder can be large. You have to be aware of this workflow, and certainly FCPX needs some more tools to help with these types of workflows.

As far as sharing metadata, it's all there. We have had discussions before about how to apply certain metadata to existing clips (Arri Reel, for instance), and once you apply metadata in FCPX, there are now XML presets that you can create to send metadata along with the footage in an external XML file. This is new and unique to FCPX, you could not do this with FCP7 as fast and as easily.

Nothing new here, same as FCP7, with a few more growing pain caveats, for sure.

As far as working meticulously in the Finder with aliased Events, this is also possible.

The good thing? Oliver, You can take a shottily Finder organized project, and reorganize it in the Finder without FCPX even caring, all media stays linked/aliased. I guess you can call that a concession?

And John, I think we are talking about different organization. I am talking about footage organized within the Event. So I can take a messy Event and clean it up for my purposes leaving the other person's mess for them to clean up. You see, I can have both. You, may be talking about the Finder organization as the "nightmare"?

If you are getting a finished sequence for finishing, FCPX has some really good tools to make sure you get all the media you need.

You cannot, no matter how hard you try, save everyone from themselves. FCPX still needs the operator to work intelligently and know what is going on behind the curtain. With FCPX's tools though, they are actually fairly decent (albeit limited and rudimentary) at gathering all kinds of media and sending it in tact to another location be it a hard drive, computer, or volume.

Sometimes the Finder is better, sometimes you don't have to leave FCPX to perform these functions, and yes, it is a different workflow.

Jeremy


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  

Oliver PetersRe: Events: Good or Bad?
by on Dec 22, 2012 at 8:42:02 pm

[Jeremy Garchow] "The good thing? Oliver, You can take a shottily Finder organized project, and reorganize it in the Finder without FCPX even caring, all media stays linked/aliased. I guess you can call that a concession?"

Huh? Not true at all. I just tested this. Took a file (linked) from a folder on one drive and moved it to the desktop. Deleted the original. The clip is offline in X. Copied the file from the desktop back to the original location and it relinked automatically. That part works about like "legacy" but definitely not in the way you imply.

OTOH, if you modify that media file (name, length, embedded metadata, etc.) it is nearly impossible to get X to manually relink. "Legacy" would do this but complain first. The reason you can't relink after modification is because Apple buttoned down the media management in a very Avid-like way. That's a good thing, but does remove some versatility that we had with "legacy".

It gets back to what I said before. The way Apple INTENDED people to work with media files is to copy them into the Events, because ONLY those folders are what X truly has control over. They permitted linking because that's how people like to work, but there is definitely a risk - which was there in "legacy". That was something they were trying to mitigate in the design of X.

I use linking almost exclusively, too, but the risk enters in the two-editor-sneakernet scenario. Editor A starts the job on an external drive. All camera media is on that external drive along with Events and Projects. But, all music, stills and graphics are on the internal hard drive. Editor B gets the external drive to continue the job. Camera media is there, but music and stills are offline (though in some case X copies these to the Events anyway). The danger of Finder-based organization, which Apple sought to fix.

Oliver

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


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  

Walter SoykaRe: Events: Good or Bad?
by on Dec 22, 2012 at 8:55:08 pm

I'm finding this whole discussion kind of amusing. One of the early criticism of FCP was that its so-called media management was bush-league. Somewhere along the way, as the Legend of FCP rose, FCP's weak media management became a strength that we couldn't live without.

What's the real problem here? That FCPX has a stronger, more classical media management system, or that it lacks collaborative tools?

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  


Aindreas GallagherRe: Events: Good or Bad?
by on Dec 22, 2012 at 10:42:24 pm

[Walter Soyka] "FCP's weak media management became a strength that we couldn't live without."

my evening for disagreeing here - but I don't feel that's right really walter - surely the point is that the FCP open workflow married, over time, smaller collaborative scenarios that were unlike Avid?

more fundamentally -is open media management a weakness full stop? does editing fundamentally require a closed silo? given the collaborative weaknesses of a closed silo?

let me ask you this - when your assets are video, and scripts, and storyboards, and PSDS, and CG elements, and scratch VO's, and music picks that others outside of editing might want to look over - how much stuff should go into a silo?

forget the legend carry on - thats a really convenient dismissal of large scale organic procedures that grew out of new shops utilising FCP - the fact that we made sense of it does not mean it did not make sense.

the only thing that is required is proper media management. the collaborative review finder space available in a well ordered FCP project file encompassing all assets is an intrinsic asset of the FCP system itself. Its highly egalitarian. Finder level review of these assets by multiple partners is pretty key in a lot of shops I get to go into.

The idea that we return to a blackbox one way transcode silo strikes me as strange - at least coming from apple. I can't tell who they are selling it to.

to my mind avid set their early approach to guarantee video assets via transcoding - apple feel like they have aped it a little, but mostly they were looking to remove the chance of user error - you know, like a magnetic archive or something.

In all honesty - as ever this feels like seriously mixed up software. I don't think this software knows what it is.

but in essence: the fully finder open media pool has true advantages, and its removal has real, tangible, current workflow drawbacks.

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


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  

Jeremy GarchowRe: Events: Good or Bad?
by on Dec 23, 2012 at 2:20:37 am

[Aindreas Gallagher] "open media management"

The Legend of FCP.

It wasn't open media management, it was shitty media management. In it's passivity, it allowed pliability, because you could get media through customs fairly easily, as long it had the same file name on the passport.


[Aindreas Gallagher] "the only thing that is required is proper media management. the collaborative review finder space available in a well ordered FCP project file encompassing all assets is an intrinsic asset of the FCP system itself. Its highly egalitarian. Finder level review of these assets by multiple partners is pretty key in a lot of shops I get to go into.

The idea that we return to a blackbox one way transcode silo strikes me as strange - at least coming from apple. I can't tell who they are selling it to. "


We now need to start the Myths of FCPX to compliment of the Legend of FCP.

In what way is .mov FCPX media not Finder accessible? You do realize that FCPX will import the entirety of your .mov and folder organiztion to collections which reflect the Finder organization?

And how is the media that FCPX creates a blackbox? It's .movs.


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  

Jeremy GarchowRe: Events: Good or Bad?
by on Dec 24, 2012 at 3:12:59 pm

[Aindreas Gallagher] "the only thing that is required is proper media management. the collaborative review finder space available in a well ordered FCP project file encompassing all assets is an intrinsic asset of the FCP system itself. Its highly egalitarian. Finder level review of these assets by multiple partners is pretty key in a lot of shops I get to go into.

The idea that we return to a blackbox one way transcode silo strikes me as strange - at least coming from apple. I can't tell who they are selling it to. "



Put another way, what is unique to FCPX is that you can see what is in each Event just by looking at the Finder.

Since FCPX stores media, be it linked or copies/transcodes of the original, you can simply browse all of the movs in the Finder without even opening FCPX, or having a copy of FCPX installed on the machine.

I guess you can call that a closed blackbox, but I'd tend to say it's even better than FCP7. With FCP7 you'd need to open a project to see exactly what media was in it, not so with FCPX.

Jeremy


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  


Aindreas GallagherRe: Events: Good or Bad?
by on Dec 27, 2012 at 12:57:55 am

[Jeremy Garchow] "I guess you can call that a closed blackbox, but I'd tend to say it's even better than FCP7. With FCP7 you'd need to open a project to see exactly what media was in it, not so with FCPX.
"


you know thats not real - apple, as oliver peters has laid out, are heavily weighting the scenario to avid style events where the media is held transcoded in a blackbox not referenced to - yes, they are still readable QTs in the event, but they are undifferentiated and the entire externally readable project folder structure paradigm we understand is gone.

answer me this - tell me you do not have a default project structure folder - or maybe a few variations on that theme.

one of the cardinal strengths of FCP was the realisation that you could create a fully permanent public archive for all assets - a civil service in the finder as it were, using naming and numbering conventions, each project holding a common asset folder substructure, with the lot going periodically off to LTO.
last I checked - this got deployed across massive commercial concerns and quite a bit of broadcasting - at least in the UK.

yes it was delicate - it was finder based - but it was immensely powerful. properly ordered, the finder forms an excellent basis of operations.
send a producer an email with a finder file string, and they can interrogate graphics assets, scratch VOs, PSDS, offline renders, recent 5D dumps -simply because these are all held in a common transparent folder project structure hierarchy - in the finder, that they can navigate to.

and they they can introduce assets the same way - two way street.

Apple made a really serious mistake here - its new software is aping pro avid scenarios, but bent more to a prosumer auto focus protective scenario -
its just frankenstein software -

it's neither fish nor fowl.

I personally really feel that: the thing that came off the software operating table - with jobs's feedback hand grenades lobbed in over time -
it has an epic identity crisis, that will never go away - apple have likely locked themselves into a total dichotomy, given how much they have probably sold this to an enthusiast base, as well as their historical blooded pros.

I find it impossible to see anything other than this software evaporating in the mid ground.

it's - you know - a chimera. thats just not a smart thing to create.

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


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  

Jeremy GarchowRe: Events: Good or Bad?
by on Dec 27, 2012 at 3:00:19 am

[Aindreas Gallagher] "you know thats not real - "

Pretty sure it's real. I can see what's in an Event. I can't see what's in an fcp7 project.

[Aindreas Gallagher] " but they are undifferentiated and the entire externally readable project folder structure paradigm we understand is gone."

Not entirely. You can import pre organized finders in to fcpx and the folders translate to keyword collections.


[Aindreas Gallagher] "answer me this - tell me you do not have a default project structure folder - or maybe a few variations on that theme."

Sure. Depending on the job, there's a rough outline we use.

[Aindreas Gallagher] "one of the cardinal strengths of FCP was the realisation that you could create a fully permanent public archive for all assets - a civil service in the finder as it were, using naming and numbering conventions, each project holding a common asset folder substructure, with the lot going periodically off to LTO.
last I checked - this got deployed across massive commercial concerns and quite a bit of broadcasting - at least in the UK."


I guess I'm having a hard time understanding why this can't be done with fcpx.

[Aindreas Gallagher] "yes it was delicate - it was finder based - but it was immensely powerful. properly ordered, the finder forms an excellent basis of operations.
send a producer an email with a finder file string, and they can interrogate graphics assets, scratch VOs, PSDS, offline renders, recent 5D dumps -simply because these are all held in a common transparent folder project structure hierarchy - in the finder, that they can navigate to."


And why can't you do this with fcpx?


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  

Jeremy GarchowRe: Events: Good or Bad?
by on Dec 23, 2012 at 2:11:24 am

[Walter Soyka] "I'm finding this whole discussion kind of amusing. One of the early criticism of FCP was that its so-called media management was bush-league. Somewhere along the way, as the Legend of FCP rose, FCP's weak media management became a strength that we couldn't live without.

What's the real problem here? That FCPX has a stronger, more classical media management system, or that it lacks collaborative tools?"


I think the real problem is that we have a really hard time thinking of FCPX media management in FCPX terms. We still think in FCP7 terms, and how can we not? While there are similarities here and there, there are also major differences.

I find FCPX's media management to be stronger than 7s, but I'm just a guy in an edit shop.


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  


Bill DavisRe: Events: Good or Bad?
by on Dec 23, 2012 at 7:07:55 am

[Jeremy Garchow] "I think the real problem is that we have a really hard time thinking of FCPX media management in FCPX terms. We still think in FCP7 terms, and how can we not? While there are similarities here and there, there are also major differences."

DING - DING - DING - DING

We have a winner.

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

Jeremy GarchowRe: Events: Good or Bad?
by on Dec 24, 2012 at 12:31:36 am

Bill, I respect your point of view, but this isn't a contest.

There are people who might want to use fcpx on more than their laptop and fw800 drives.

I am one of those people, and we are hardly a giant facility.

I enjoy speaking with people who are also trying or thinking about doing the same types of workflows as we are. It seems there are few that are talking about these kinds of situations on public forums (or perhaps there are simply only a few people stupid enough to do it, and again, I am one of those people).

There's no reason to read between the lines of other posts and reiterate fcpx isn't for the big leagues (or whatever), as that's exactly what we are here discussing. In my case, I am not qualified to be in the big leagues, but we do have a shared environment, so I try to add my opinions to the conversation in order to share knowledge. I'd appreciate it if you'd let us have a conversation about it without trying to put people on the defensive.

If people weren't interested in it on any level, they wouldn't be here, or fcpx wouldn't allow things like referenced events and San Locations if Apple wasn't thinking about facility level functionality during development.

Back to the egg nog.


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  
+1

Bill DavisRe: Events: Good or Bad?
by on Dec 24, 2012 at 7:14:47 am

[Jeremy Garchow] "Bill, I respect your point of view, but this isn't a contest."

I was trying - hamhandedly it seams - to indicate support for a simple concept that i see over and over here.

Which is folks often unable to "see" X for what it actually is - essentially misjudging it by arguing against it on what I think are often far too narrow views.

Again, I have absolutely no quarrel with those who understand it and find it wanting. That's fair. But I still think it's struggling with too many who don't have a clue about how it actually functions and who subsequently dismiss it based on how they think it must work based mostly on what they read or on too cursory a look.

Heck, I still regularly misunderstand parts of it after all my time using it, so that's no big deal. I try to reserve my bristles for people who write what appear to me to be "negative absolutes" that miss-represent it's functionality.

I read your post as not a "competitive" deal at all, but rather as another reasoned post that further shows you've taken the time to really understand what's under X's hood. My silly onomatopoeia was supposed to be a light hearted way to express that.

I'll keep such support to myself, henceforth.

No big deal.

(Tho I still think you got the central idea absolutely right.)

Happy holidays, regardless.

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  


Jeremy GarchowRe: Events: Good or Bad?
by on Dec 23, 2012 at 2:07:47 am

[Oliver Peters] "Huh? Not true at all. I just tested this."

If you would have moved that file to another directory on the same Volume, FCPX wouldn't balk.

Now, using your example, all you would have had to do is drag the file from the finder back in to the event in fcpx, and FCPx would have relinked (by creating a new pointer to the file on the desktop).

Really easy, and really fast. Much faster than FCP7.

[Oliver Peters] "That part works about like "legacy" but definitely not in the way you imply."

I said to move things between Volumes (sich as an external and the desktop), FCPX has tools to do so. You need to use the right tool for the right job. SOmetimes, that tool includes a bit of manual labor in the Finder.

Here's the hypothetical.

You receive a less than meticulous arrangement of assets on a hard drive, and those assets are aliased in an FCPX Event. You, being Oliver that likes files meticulously arranged (I do too, by the way), are free to rearragne the files in the Finder (and keeping the files on the same Volume), and FCPX will keep track of it.

Try this. I am not making this up.

You can put it new directories, multiple directories. Rename it. Just keep it on the same volume and see what happens.

[Oliver Peters] "OTOH, if you modify that media file (name, length, embedded metadata, etc.) it is nearly impossible to get X to manually relink. "Legacy" would do this but complain first. The reason you can't relink after modification is because Apple buttoned down the media management in a very Avid-like way. That's a good thing, but does remove some versatility that we had with "legacy"."

Weird. I can rename a file in the finder to an aliased file, and FCPX tracks it just fine.

Here's the error that happens if other metadata is edited such as tc.

"Relinked files must have the same media type, same frame rate, and similar audio channels as the original files, and must be long enough to cover all the clips that reference the files."

Is this a bad thing? FCPX tells you when your files have gone awry?

[Oliver Peters] "It gets back to what I said before. The way Apple INTENDED people to work with media files is to copy them into the Events, because ONLY those folders are what X truly has control over. They permitted linking because that's how people like to work, but there is definitely a risk - which was there in "legacy". That was something they were trying to mitigate in the design of X."

I don't see it that way at all, but I'm an alien.

When you get down to it, and really start messing with it, and learn to talk in the temrs of FPCX, it actually makes sense and it's all that hard to deal with. Working with media in Events is much cleaner and easier, but it doesn't suit every workflow. The methods that FCPX has in place to work with Events aren't an after thought, which maybe you seem to be implying? Let's not forget, when you alias a file in an Event, a file still goes in the Event, just not the original media file.

Every NLE or video program has rules when it comes to media handling and management. X is no different, and in some ways, represents a major shift forward.

Sure, it could use a few more capabilities, what program can't use a few more capabilities?

[Oliver Peters] "I use linking almost exclusively, too, but the risk enters in the two-editor-sneakernet scenario. Editor A starts the job on an external drive. All camera media is on that external drive along with Events and Projects. But, all music, stills and graphics are on the internal hard drive. Editor B gets the external drive to continue the job. Camera media is there, but music and stills are offline (though in some case X copies these to the Events anyway). The danger of Finder-based organization, which Apple sought to fix."

And they should be punished for trying to fix or help with this problem?

FCPX has tools to ensure all media is one place (Organize Events, Consolidate Project, etc). It is up to you to choose whether or not to use them. If you choose not to use them, then you are the master of your domain and it is up to you to remember to move all the appropriate files, just like most any other NLE.


Jeremy


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  

Oliver PetersRe: Events: Good or Bad?
by on Dec 23, 2012 at 2:28:47 am

[Jeremy Garchow] "And they should be punished for trying to fix or help with this problem?"

Why do you keep trying to position it like I think they did the wrong thing? I didn't say that. I'm merely pointing out that from the point of view of the users used to working in "legacy", Apple has made some significant changes that appear to complicate their life. That's the core starting point of this thread. Remember, I'm the guy that likes what Avid has done. Apple is simply following their lead ;-)

You are arguing IN FAVOR OF LINKING. I'm NOT, although that IS hope I work most of the time. Your scenario of organizing within the volume is all well and good but it doesn't represent the real world. That is the one where editors hand off drives and forget that some of the files were saved on a different drive. Those are the kinds of real-world problem that linking causes.

- Oliver

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


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  

Jeremy GarchowRe: Events: Good or Bad?
by on Dec 23, 2012 at 2:41:36 am

*edited for spelling

[Oliver Peters] "Why do you keep trying to position it like I think they did the wrong thing? "

Because they have 'copied something that Avid has done for two decades'. Like I said, I can't tell if you hate or love this. And that linking is a "concession". A concession, to me, is a negative term in the context of your original argument. I know you have a love hate relationship with X, so there are times when I cannot tell if the feature you are discussing is good for you or bad for you.

[Oliver Peters] "You are arguing IN FAVOR OF LINKING. I'm NOT, although that IS hope I work most of the time. Your scenario of organizing within the volume is all well and good but it doesn't represent the real world. That is the one where editors hand off drives and forget that some of the files were saved on a different drive. Those are the kinds of real-world problem that linking causes."

I argue in favor of linking because in a shared environment (which is really how this thread started), it cuts down on media duplicates, and also allows certain flexibilities that working with media inside the Event does not. It actually makes things LESS complicated. I feel that this was on purpose, and not conceding to the whims of professionals.

I don't know what you mean about organizing on a Volume doesn't represent the real world. I do it all the time...but it IS on an alien planet, so...there's that.

It's so easy though, to just tell someone to consolidate their Project to a new drive. All files would be copied, linked and ready to go on any computer with FCPX on it with minimal fuss.

FCPX has fall down easy tools to make efforts like this simple to the user.

But, as I said, you can't save everyone from themselves especially, if they don't bother to learn how to select one menu option before sending off a drive for finishing. It is much less convoluted than FCP Legend's "Media Manager".


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  


Oliver PetersRe: Events: Good or Bad?
by on Dec 23, 2012 at 2:56:27 am

[Jeremy Garchow] "Because they have 'copied something that Avid has done for two decades'"

Because it's true. You don't seem to like me saying that Apple copied an existing idea.

[Jeremy Garchow] "And that linking is a "concession". A concession, to me, is a negative term in the context of your original argument."

I think you are applying a value that isn't there. I am offering this position, because it is essentially how the product folks at Apple presented it to me. The preferred design intent is to import media into the folders to maintain control.

[Jeremy Garchow] " organizing on a Volume doesn't represent the real world. I do it all the time..."

How often do you work on projects started by another editor (often the client who isn't really a knowledgeable editor) and have to continue with their files, handed to you on external drives? That's the scenario I'm describing. That's far more applicable to most of the folks on this forum than working with SAN volumes.

Regarding your test (all changes done in Finder):

- Change file name at the finder level, FCP X relinks.
- Move the file to another location on the same drive, FCP X relinks.
- Alter the file slightly, like add an annotation in QT7, FCP X relinks.
- Move the file to a different drive, FCP X DOES NOT relink.
- Trim the length of the file using QT7, FCP X DOES NOT relink (that's applicable when clips are externally color correction).
- Replace the trimmed file with the original in the original location, FCP X relinks but only after several attempts at manual relinking.

- Oliver

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


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  

Jeremy GarchowRe: Events: Good or Bad?
by on Dec 23, 2012 at 3:30:01 am

[Oliver Peters] "Because it's true. You don't seem to like me saying that Apple copied an existing idea."

On the contrary, if there's something to be emulated, it's more robust media management.

I have nothing against you.


[Oliver Peters] "I think you are applying a value that isn't there. I am offering this position, because it is essentially how the product folks at Apple presented it to me. The preferred design intent is to import media into the folders to maintain control."

Well. I don't have access to the product folks, but I'd tell them that even when files are linked there's a file in the event that maintains control. So I'd ask for clarification.

They would also prefer if I auto analyzed all my media, but I don't.

[Oliver Peters] "How often do you work on projects started by another editor (often the client who isn't really a knowledgeable editor) and have to continue with their files, handed to you on external drives? That's the scenario I'm describing. That's far more applicable to most of the folks on this forum than working with SAN volumes."

I just received my first fcpx project. I wrote about it a while ago. It was the easiest transfer I've ever been a part of and everything was a complete mess.


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  

Oliver PetersRe: Events: Good or Bad?
by on Dec 23, 2012 at 3:37:50 am

[Jeremy Garchow] "I have nothing against you."

Rest assured, I certainly don't take it that way.

[Jeremy Garchow] "but I'd tell them that even when files are linked there's a file in the event that maintains control"

I think they know that ;-) The point is they have been trying to remove human error introduced by messing with the files externally.

[Jeremy Garchow] "I just received my first fcpx project."

I didn't mean X specifically, but outside projects (with media) in general.

[Jeremy Garchow] " It was the easiest transfer I've ever been a part of and everything was a complete mess"

But you were lucky because everything was on the drives you were given.

- Oliver

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


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  


Jeremy GarchowRe: Events: Good or Bad?
by on Dec 23, 2012 at 4:18:36 am

[Oliver Peters] "But you were lucky because everything was on the drives you were given.
"


I made sure of it as did FCPX's media management tools.

I made my own luck on that one.


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  

Jeremy GarchowRe: Events: Good or Bad?
by on Dec 23, 2012 at 3:42:47 am

[Oliver Peters] "- Change file name at the finder level, FCP X relinks.
- Move the file to another location on the same drive, FCP X relinks.
- Alter the file slightly, like add an annotation in QT7, FCP X relinks.
- Move the file to a different drive, FCP X DOES NOT relink.
- Trim the length of the file using QT7, FCP X DOES NOT relink (that's applicable when clips are externally color correction).
- Replace the trimmed file with the original in the original location, FCP X relinks but only after several attempts at manual relinking."


When moving to different drive, simply dragging the file back in to fcpx will relink it.

Trimmed files that are too short won't relink along with the other warnings posted earlier.

If using graded files, you'll have to use XML interchange for now.

Still, it's not too shabby if you ask me.


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  

John HeagyRe: Events: Good or Bad?
by on Dec 24, 2012 at 6:08:02 pm

Bill, you may want to stop reading as I'm about to discuss niche workflows.

[Jeremy Garchow] "Do you need to share project data, event data, or media metadata?"

We do start edits in one shift and finnish in another, and will have up to 3 rooms working on a single show at the same time. So yes to sharing projects.

The use of Event sharing comes down to access and scale. Scale in number or edit rooms and amount of media. Every edit room needs access to all the growing weekly media.

If we were to use the Event strategy 100% (Bill doesn't like "paradigm") we could put each week's media, 6000+ clips per week, in it's own Event via an Xsan location or multiple locations.

The considerations for doing that:
How does FCPX function with 6000 .movs in an Event?
22 weeks x 6000 clips equals 132000 clips and all need to be accessible!
Once a single user adds this Xsan location/s it prevents everybody else from accessing it.
Sorry, but I not going to copy 132000 aliases into 20 separate Xsan locations for each of our edit rooms to link to.

For all the above reasons we would only use Events to import/link to just the media needed for that sequence. Using Events like Apple intended really only works when there's a clear association between a small groups of projects to a small group of events. When all projects need all events all the time across all systems... well it simply wasn't designed for that.

We use an offline/online workflow in most cases. Importing an offline xml determines what media needs to be imported, so using events in an ad hock way would work.

Currently the most likely way I see us sharing is via .fcxml where the media is simply relinked to another Xsan Location/Event totally independent of the original. Due to media being imported fresh each time the metadata in the event is essentially pointless. Initially fcpxml was not designed with 100% fidelity... has that changed?

For us Events are simply a means to an end in our offline/online workflow. I'm not saying it's not valuable to others, we may use it for isolated jobs.

FCP7 managed to flourish in "one man bands" all the way up to facilities like ours. FCPX is loosing out as the successor to FCP7 in "facilities" and even small shops due to the fact it was not built to facilitate sharing of media, but to really restrict it in a nod to Avid. Apple has underestimated how the anti-Avid approach used in FCP7 benefitted places like us. Designing workflows (sorry, niche workflows) with FCP7 was like using a near unlimited palette, compared to Avid which is like painting a straight jacket.

It's clear I'm swimming upstream in trying to use FCPX in our facility based on our what our peers are doing. Bunim Murrray is just one example of many.

Wish me luck!

John


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  


Oliver PetersRe: Events: Good or Bad?
by on Dec 24, 2012 at 6:34:35 pm

[John Heagy] "The considerations for doing that:
How does FCPX function with 6000 .movs in an Event?"


I haven't had events quite that large. Usually the largest have been around 1,000 files and up to 1TB of ProRes/LT/HQ/4444 media. My concern is that each time this Event is initially accessed, it will take a while for the files to be buffered into RAM. Might not be a show-stopper, but definitely an annoyance compared with other NLEs.

[John Heagy] "22 weeks x 6000 clips equals 132000 clips and all need to be accessible!"

Then if all of this has to be accessible at once, that's a LOT of buffering. I use a volume-level SAN, so FCP X works differently than with XSAN. It is my understanding that only one user at a time can access the same SAN location on XSAN. Is this right Jeremy? If so, how would it affect collaboration?

In my volume-level SAN workflow, we keep all media files on the SAN. Events and Projects are local on each machine linked to the SAN media. When there is a collaboration, each editor has a copy of the same Events. Their Projects are different, so to move from one room to the next, we simple copy over the Project file from room A to room B and continue. In this scenario, two editors can be working simultaneously with the same media pool.

- Oliver

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


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  

John HeagyRe: Events: Good or Bad?
by on Dec 24, 2012 at 6:50:28 pm

[Oliver Peters] "It is my understanding that only one user at a time can access the same SAN location on XSAN. Is this right Jeremy? If so, how would it affect collaboration?"

That's correct. It kinda kills collaboration on the face of it. One would need to copy that event to another Xsan location at which point the media is shared but any additions made in the event, favorites, keywords etc are now isolated.

[Oliver Peters] "In my volume-level SAN workflow, we keep all media files on the SAN. Events and Projects are local on each machine linked to the SAN media. When there is a collaboration, each editor has a copy of the same Events. "

That's very interesting! You have fooled FCPX into thinking your volume level SAN mount is truly an internal HD. Can multiple users make metadata changes to the media in these shared events? Do both users see each others changes? How does that effect the project? Does externally changed media unlink media in the project?

Sorry for all the questions.

John


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  

Oliver PetersRe: Events: Good or Bad?
by on Dec 24, 2012 at 7:37:50 pm

[John Heagy] "That's very interesting! You have fooled FCPX into thinking your volume level SAN mount is truly an internal HD. Can multiple users make metadata changes to the media in these shared events? Do both users see each others changes? How does that effect the project? Does externally changed media unlink media in the project?"

In this configuration, all volumes are mounted as if they were external drives. In fact, the icon looks like any other drive and not the network icon like "add SAN locations". In fact "add SAN locations" is greyed out on these systems. The SAN software (FibreJet) controls read/write permissions. Without it, you would accidentally write to the same volume from two different locations causing collisions and corruption. FibreJet prevents that.

We initially tried running Events/Projects on the SAN volume, but that caused too many beach balls in X. Presumably it's a network traffic issue and not a bandwidth issue, since the connections are all 4Gbps FC.

Each user can make their own metadata changes to Events, since that info resides locally. So far our use has been to have editor A cut the main job and have editor B go in and simultaneously create cutdowns of interviews to be used by editor A. Then the cutdown project file is copied into the other editor's Projects folder. Any Event metadata changes, like keywords, etc. done by one editor do not show up in the other editor's version, unless that Event is also copied over. Since editor A only cares about the edited selects, he generally would not need the keywords that editor B created in his editing process. I haven't tested this with compound clips, so I'm not sure what would happen there. I guess you'd have to make sure to also copy the Events with the compounds.

It's essentially the same process as if I were editing a project at work and at home, with each location having a mirrored set of media. In the SAN case, there's no need for a mirrored set of media drives, since each of the two room links to the same media files.

If you modify the media externally to FCP X, then the same caveats apply as if you were working locally. For instance, my biggest bottleneck is sending files to an out-of-house colorist. I get back rendered files, that are trimmed and have had the file names altered in some fashion. FCP X will not relink these without a corresponding FCP X XML. So far, I don't think Baselight (the colorist's system) generates that. So, I have to use a workflow that involves an FCP 7 roundtrip and 7toX to get these files back into X.

If you were working back and forth with two editors making changes to a common "master sequence", this would have to be done by working on local copies and then moving the sequence (Project file) between them. It's essentially the same way FCP 7 would work now. To my knowledge there are only three systems that support active, dynamic changes within the same open job/project/production and that's Avid, Avid/FCP7 with EditShare and Lightworks.

- Oliver

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


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  


John HeagyRe: Events: Good or Bad?
by on Dec 24, 2012 at 8:41:54 pm

Ah I see. So you have shared read only volume/s with all the "real" media then each room has it's own read/write volume with events linked to the real media.

So you have three things to worry about: The real media, the project, and now the event. Do you see any added value that merits the added complexity of having your media only be accessed thru events? Do you encourage your users to customize these events i.e. changing clip names or creating keyword collections? Do you attempt to merge the events when finished?

I forgot volume level SANs can't mount read/write on more than one user. Maybe that's why FCPX allows this workflow. Got my hopes up there for a minute.

With FCP7 it was easy to trick, or break the "rules", and do what you wanted. FCPX will be a tougher nut to crack. FCPX is a walled garden... at least it's not Cheyenne Mountain like Avid. Hmmm, whats a good metaphor for Premiere... maybe "The kitchen sink"

John


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  

Oliver PetersRe: Events: Good or Bad?
by on Dec 24, 2012 at 10:47:40 pm

[John Heagy] "you have shared read only volume/s with all the "real" media then each room has it's own read/write volume with events linked to the real media."

Yes.

[John Heagy] "So you have three things to worry about: The real media, the project, and now the event."

Yes. A true in-app project management function is a glaring omission. Yes, Event Manager X... I know. Still a horrible omission by Apple.

[John Heagy] " Do you see any added value that merits the added complexity of having your media only be accessed thru events?"

Well, as I said before - and Jeremy disagrees with - the design intent (as I understand it directly from Apple) is to use the "copy imported files into the Event" function. This keeps the media safely managed. In any case, the organizing/metadata process still has to occur, whether the Event files are separate files at the finder level or whether they are embedded into an overall project file (FCP 7, PPro). I am used to dealing with this in Avid-land. There, bins in the app correspond to specific files in the finder that exist within a project folder. These are linked to media files inside a controlled MediaFiles folder. Alternately, you can use AMA which makes things even more complex, by linking to media not within controlled folders.

What I still don't really understand is why Event files and folders should be different from Project files and folders. At their core, there doesn't seem to be much difference. They aren't in Avid-land, since sequences live in bins and a bin file with master clips at the finder level is in the same place as the bin file with sequences. Not sure why this is any different with X. For me this gets confusing with X, because I manually move Event and Project folders in and out of the active folders. Ultimately I have to be careful about naming, so I remember what folder is an Event and what's a Project so that I move them back into the right place.

[John Heagy] "Do you encourage your users to customize these events i.e. changing clip names or creating keyword collections? Do you attempt to merge the events when finished?"

No real answer to that. In the SAN shop I'm referring to, I'm the main editor moving forward with X to test the waters. The other editor who has assisted with X is only doing so with my encouragement. Mainly so that he's up to speed. So customizing Events with collections is fine. All the media stays in the same Event for a single production. I'm completely against changing clip names inside the NLE (other than Avid). Yes X tracks and takes care of this, but it can cause other issues later, especially when you need to roundtrip with other applications. There are plenty of other fields to use.

[John Heagy] "I forgot volume level SANs can't mount read/write on more than one user"

A volume-based SAN can give only one user write access to a given volume. A single user can have read access to any or all and can have write access to any volumes not already accessed by another user. In this set-up, each room usually has write access to its designated working volume and read access to all the others. Volume-based SAN structures usually are organized by rooms or by productions depending on the facility preference.

[John Heagy] "With FCP7 it was easy to trick, or break the "rules", and do what you wanted. FCPX will be a tougher nut to crack. FCPX is a walled garden... at least it's not Cheyenne Mountain like Avid."

While that's generally true, you have to remember that FCP "legacy" users screamed for better media management and that's precisely what Apple did in X. As far as Avid, I find it easier to deal with moving this media around, with the exception of AMA. That's still a work-in-progress.

- Oliver

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


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  

John HeagyRe: Events: Good or Bad?
by on Dec 25, 2012 at 12:57:29 am

[Oliver Peters] "...you have to remember that FCP "legacy" users screamed for better media management and that's precisely what Apple did in X"

Yeah I hear that, but I wasn't one of them. We had that all licked. It takes discipline and off course a reliable shared environment.

John


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  


Jeremy GarchowRe: Events: Good or Bad?
by on Dec 26, 2012 at 5:23:30 pm

[Oliver Peters] "[John Heagy] "So you have three things to worry about: The real media, the project, and now the event."

Yes. A true in-app project management function is a glaring omission. Yes, Event Manager X... I know. Still a horrible omission by Apple."


Agreed.

Although with SAN Locations, it's better. Our particular SAN has a function called "ProjectStore" that acts as a bit of a front end to project management. It wasn't created specifically with FCPX in mind, I think it's more of an Avid function, but it does work really well for an FCPX shared environment. Perhaps XSan has similar functions, I don't know.


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  

Jeremy GarchowRe: Events: Good or Bad?
by on Dec 26, 2012 at 4:56:43 pm

[John Heagy] "We do start edits in one shift and finnish in another, and will have up to 3 rooms working on a single show at the same time. So yes to sharing projects."

Sharing Projects is much easier as FCPX has devices in place to do so without duplicating media.

You could dupe the Project to a new San Location, dismount that Location, then mount on another machine.

There would be no ID conflicts this way. But, every Project needs an Event.

[John Heagy] "The use of Event sharing comes down to access and scale. Scale in number or edit rooms and amount of media. Every edit room needs access to all the growing weekly media.

If we were to use the Event strategy 100% (Bill doesn't like "paradigm") we could put each week's media, 6000+ clips per week, in it's own Event via an Xsan location or multiple locations."


Yes. From there you would need to dupe the Event. This is where FCPX, currently, doesn't have the convenient duplication method as it does with Projects without duplicating all media in the Event. Finder dupes result in dulicate IDs. This is fine as long as you never cross the streams and try and add both the original and duped Event at the same time.

[John Heagy] "How does FCPX function with 6000 .movs in an Event?
22 weeks x 6000 clips equals 132000 clips and all need to be accessible!
Once a single user adds this Xsan location/s it prevents everybody else from accessing it.
Sorry, but I not going to copy 132000 aliases into 20 separate Xsan locations for each of our edit rooms to link to."


Not sure how it functions with 6000 .movs I honestly haven't tried it, let alone 132000.

I find that having less Events, in general, is better than having a bunch of Events open at once. I would try to add everything to as few Events as possible. This is where FCPX's organization methods really do help as it's fairly easy to group sets of footage together (which in your case sounds like it's by 'week').

[John Heagy] "For all the above reasons we would only use Events to import/link to just the media needed for that sequence. Using Events like Apple intended really only works when there's a clear association between a small groups of projects to a small group of events. When all projects need all events all the time across all systems... well it simply wasn't designed for that."

No, but I think this is where there's a big difference between FCP Projects, the the FCPX method of Projects/Events.

If all of the media starts from the same pol of media (same clip IDs) then "modifying Event References" in FCPX seems to work pretty well, at least in the cases where I have needed to use it.

Also, again, FCPX has methods in place here to move Projects around decently. You'd select the "Duplicate Project + Used Clips" and set a new destination (which in your case, would be a new San Location). Then FCPX Dupes the finished Project and creates a new aliased Event. If all of your media is accessible to everyone on the SAN (which it should be if you are working with aliased media), this works really really well.

This is also dependent on media types. If everything is .mov before you import to FCPX, you're good.

If you use P2, then it's best to convert to .mov before editing in FCPX as I don't think there's an MXF plugin that will read p2 clips natively quite yet (other Op1A MXF formats do work just fine, though).

AVCHD is also a problem as it needs to rewrap to .mov. You would want to do this outside of FCPX so that the media isn't imported directly in to your Event/Location, and it gets sequestered from the rest of the network in a read only Location that FCPX won't mount.

[John Heagy] "We use an offline/online workflow in most cases. Importing an offline xml determines what media needs to be imported, so using events in an ad hock way would work."

is that with proxy media or do you mean you finished outside of the NLE?

[John Heagy] "Currently the most likely way I see us sharing is via .fcxml where the media is simply relinked to another Xsan Location/Event totally independent of the original. Due to media being imported fresh each time the metadata in the event is essentially pointless. Initially fcpxml was not designed with 100% fidelity... has that changed?"

It seems that some if it has changed, yes, at least with Events. When exporting an XML, you now have a choice of metadata presets to export along with it. Of course, these could be FCPX's premade groupings, or you can make your own. I haven't done absolute extensive testing, but it seems the Event XMLs are accurate. This is also a good way to store dupes of Events, and be able to import them, still with aliased media, be able to rename them, and giving the Event a separate ID. I use an set that I made called "everything View" in which every single option is checked. I have to remake this view after every new install of FCPX as the amount of metadata fields changes with every release and we raraly work with one type of media in a project anymore, so I feel it's better to have it all than not have enough.

Projects also have this same metadata export functionality. Projects are tougher, though, as the Motion Templates don't always come through, and there seems to be generic "There were errors when importing this XML" and no clues as to what those errors were.

I find that using FCPX's methods are more reliable for now, if staying within FCPX. Of course leaving FCPX will require an FCPXML.

[John Heagy] "FCP7 managed to flourish in "one man bands" all the way up to facilities like ours. FCPX is loosing out as the successor to FCP7 in "facilities" and even small shops due to the fact it was not built to facilitate sharing of media, but to really restrict it in a nod to Avid. Apple has underestimated how the anti-Avid approach used in FCP7 benefitted places like us. Designing workflows (sorry, niche workflows) with FCP7 was like using a near unlimited palette, compared to Avid which is like painting a straight jacket. "

The jury is still out for me. I find that separating Projects and Events is actually kind of helpful. Sometimes the two are very different and should be treated as such. Event XMLs are also helpful.

[John Heagy] "It's clear I'm swimming upstream in trying to use FCPX in our facility based on our what our peers are doing."

Yes, but it's fun. And rewarding. Right?


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  

Bill DavisRe: Events: Good or Bad?
by on Dec 22, 2012 at 1:14:37 am

[John Heagy] "How do people feel about the Event paradigm compared to the "free for all" in FCP7 when it comes to accessing media in a shared environment?"

Let's please start this more accurately...

Hey fellow large scale facilities operators who represent a tiny fraction of the overall editing industry.
We have a crisis at hand in that we only have two of "three A's" catering to our whims!!!

This is unacceptable. We must have ALL the popular editing systems working at top speed to meet our rarified needs.

So let's try to present a unified public face and shame Apple into working even harder to grow this third tool into something that meets OUR needs over all else.

It's unthinkable that we'd simply allow it to start simple and small as a superb personal editing tool then grow and mature slowly and thoughtfully (as we allowed the original FCP to do) into something more "facility robust."

And perish the thought that we just use something else until it meets our needs. Nope, that's unacceptable. We must question it's very foundational thinking!

Events? Poppycock. The only people who love Events are the LITTLE people. The Unconnected people. Those bereft of servers and tech support and minions to do their vile bidding. EVENTS are the PROBLEM, don't cha know? They allow those little people to sort stuff. To organize stuff. To make their editing work easier. Hell, they even use it to PRE-EDIT stuff that then can then REUSE at will. How DARE they!

Stand FIRM oh fellows of the great EDITING HEGEMONY firmly against this blasphemy.

Armageddon is NIGH!!!


(OK, that was fun. Haven't unfurled the Rant-o-matic with all the Snark attachments in far too long. Now I can finally have a happy holiday and rest till the first of the year. Merry Christmas to the Christians! Happy various celebrations to those who aren't. And happy New Year to ALL!

Whoops, forgot to answer John's question.

I f***ing LOVE events. (excuse me, "the Event Paradigm") And further I think it's going to re-shape a lot of editing workflows in the future because a dedicated place to pool and access pre-editing work that can be shared across events while staying connected forwards and backwards to asset states ROCKS massively IMO.

FWIW.

Wait...damn. I didn't get an analogy in, did I? Sorry. Uh, wait a second....ok, here you go...

The Event Browser is mature BINS on steroids with embedded communcations links. Your problem isn't the EB dude, it's with the current plumbing and the fact that this new BOILER hasn't settled on the pipe fittings standards yet and so you can't bolt it onto your existing building. But some of us know the water is HOT even tho the power requirements are super efficient! The new plumbing is excellent - the few initial drips have been addressed, AND there are increasing attachments and fixtures available so that I can get lots and lots and lots of things heated perfectly - things I never even expected to use my boiler for! It not only provides for killer showers and dishwashing - it steam cleans my floors, cooks perfect tamales, and keeps my BREAD from getting too crusty. It powers my treadmill and after I bought a cheap "steam trumpet" it wakes me with a muted Purcell's Trumpet Voluntary so sweetly played that I arise day after day with a smile.

I can't wait to see what they build for it next.

Seriously. The boiler isn't industrial-sized quite yet, but when it comes to boiler design - I think it's a keeper.

Just try not to get too upset if you try to bolt it onto a freekin LOCOMOTIVE and it dosn't work yet. It's young.


: )

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  
-3


Joseph W. BourkeRe: Events: Good or Bad?
by on Dec 22, 2012 at 6:06:05 am

It doesn't matter much that the water's hot if you can't get it out of the faucet, eh?

Joe Bourke
Owner/Creative Director
Bourke Media
http://www.bourkemedia.com


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  

Bill DavisRe: Events: Good or Bad?
by on Dec 22, 2012 at 6:53:08 pm

[Joseph W. Bourke] "It doesn't matter much that the water's hot if you can't get it out of the faucet, eh?"

Totally true.

Thankfully, I'm delivering more video faster out of X in my world where I need more a garden hose than a fire hose or a dam spill way. - so the taps that I need are flowing quite strongly thank you very much.

: )

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

Sandeep SajeevRe: Events: Good or Bad?
by on Dec 22, 2012 at 4:09:17 pm

The OP has a concern. As a working editor, it is a valid concern. I'm struggling to see anything in his post that is deserving of such a condescending reply.

This forum used to be a relevant resource, when I started putting X through it's paces I found the discussions on both the merits and drawbacks of the software really helpful. Now it seems like people who post here questioning the slightest thing get flamed.


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  
+3


Gary HuffRe: Events: Good or Bad?
by on Dec 22, 2012 at 5:53:50 pm

[Sandeep Sajeev] "As a working editor, it is a valid concern. I'm struggling to see anything in his post that is deserving of such a condescending reply."

Bill's hardly a "working editor" so he's unaware of what that world is really like.

[Sandeep Sajeev] "Now it seems like people who post here questioning the slightest thing get flamed."

Because woe be to him that dares question the love of a mega-corporation.


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  
-1

Bill DavisRe: Events: Good or Bad?
by on Dec 22, 2012 at 6:40:18 pm

[Gary Huff] "Bill's hardly a "working editor" so he's unaware of what that world is really like."

Interesting observation.

I suppose the fact that I've fed and clothed my family for the past twenty five years producing, and yes, editing, videos falls short of the "working editor" designation in your estimation.

So heck, what say we determine some solid defensible standards for all. I looked you up on IMDb. If I got the right guy, I see see listings for two "shorts" as editor and notably, no A.C.E. designation after your name.

So help me out here. Presuming I haven't got you mixed up with someone else - what makes YOU a working editor after 2 short films and me NOT after I've delivered well over 300 finished paid self-edited videos for clients over my career?

I'd just like to get my thinking straight here.

Is your contention that only BIG system editors are REAL editors?

If so, how do YOU fit into that narrative so I should take your points to heart?

And does this mean we need to setup a "pyramid of qualifications" system here on the forum so we know who's "pro-er" than the other poster?

Just let me know, Gary, so I can figure out where I fit in and where you fit in and so I can better know my place.

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  

Gary HuffRe: Events: Good or Bad?
by on Dec 22, 2012 at 8:26:47 pm

[Bill Davis] "I suppose the fact that I've fed and clothed my family for the past twenty five years producing, and yes, editing, videos falls short of the "working editor" designation in your estimation."

Didn't you mention a while back that you'd never really edited much until FCPX came out (instead you were more writer/producer)? If so, that would mean you've been editing for a year and a half now.

[Bill Davis] "I looked you up on IMDb. If I got the right guy, I see see listings for two "shorts" as editor and notably, no A.C.E. designation after your name."

I'm not in a union. Not sure that it means anything.

[Bill Davis] "Is your contention that only BIG system editors are REAL editors"

No, just that they sit in front of the machine from start to finish. Your typically asinine comments, plus the comment about not having really edited beforehand, say that your experience isn't exactly varied enough. Which is fine. But you keep wanting to shoehorn your limited experience into other people's, which is why you have the reputation that you do.


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  
+1


Walter SoykaRe: Events: Good or Bad?
by on Dec 22, 2012 at 8:43:52 pm

[Gary Huff] "Didn't you mention a while back that you'd never really edited much until FCPX came out (instead you were more writer/producer)? If so, that would mean you've been editing for a year and a half now."

Bill's a long-time FCP user (v1, I think), community member, and production magazine writer.

Bill's self-contained workflows give him a different perspective than others of us here may have, but he is absolutely an experienced professional.

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: Events: Good or Bad?
by on Dec 22, 2012 at 6:50:48 pm

[Sandeep Sajeev] "The OP has a concern. As a working editor, it is a valid concern. "

Sandeep,

It's a completely valid concern. That means one thing for one class of editor - and completely different things for many other classes.

I've tried to be a voice since day one for people who are working professionals (defined as those who make their primary living exclusively in video production) but not always "large facility" working professionals.

I believe the entire craft of editing is getting broader and wider and includes more different types of people who do more different types of work then ever before.

And so I'm a bit bristly when anyone assumes that the ONLY proper way to judge a tool like FCP-X is in the light of what a large facility editor might need.

Look up at the top of this thread. There's a robust discussion between and about the needs of facility class editors.

And here's my little thread about what someone sees as the value of X that is wonderful now and MAY grow into something that facilities editors would want to know about some day.

What's wrong with that?

If the tone bugs you, sorry. This is the one place I feel kinda empowered to let loose because for well over a year we've seen that there are AMPLE folk here who will robustly push back at anything I say - which means I can be a bit edgier to keep the entertainment value higher. (cuz obviously I'm the ONLY guy who ever does that here, right? RIGHT?)

So load up and fire away.

Thats part of the fun of "or NOT."

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

Aindreas GallagherRe: Events: Good or Bad?
by on Dec 22, 2012 at 7:30:09 pm

[Bill Davis] " which means I can be a bit edgier to keep the entertainment value higher. (cuz obviously I'm the ONLY guy who ever does that here, right? RIGHT?)
"


I don't know about you - but I'm getting a back hander from the cow. fresh jersey cream, and some really nice gloucestershire red.

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


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  


Bill DavisRe: Events: Good or Bad?
by on Dec 22, 2012 at 10:23:14 pm

[Aindreas Gallagher] "I don't know about you - but I'm getting a back hander from the cow. fresh jersey cream, and some really nice gloucestershire red."


I don't even get any of the broken bottles of curdled cream.

Damn, I'm living wrong.

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  

Joseph W. BourkeRe: Events: Good or Bad?
by on Dec 22, 2012 at 8:07:06 pm

'Tis the season to be gnarly...it seems. This seems to be the only forum on the COW where everyone has a self-important, self-appointed, agenda. While I thoroughly enjoy reading it, I feel almost sorry for those who have to swing their b*lls around and tout what they have or haven't done, as opposed to what someone else has or hasn't done. It doesn't matter - we're all a trivia question in the long run.

We're three days away from Christmas, folks...this is supposed to be a season of light...not the season of "the spotlight's on me". Merry Christmas...Happy Chanukah...Ramadan Mubarak...and Joyous Kwanzaa...and if I've missed anyone, Happy Happy...

Joe Bourke
Owner/Creative Director
Bourke Media
http://www.bourkemedia.com


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  

Bill DavisRe: Events: Good or Bad?
by on Dec 22, 2012 at 10:29:12 pm

[Joseph W. Bourke] "While I thoroughly enjoy reading it, I feel almost sorry for those who have to swing their b*lls around and tout what they have or haven't done, as opposed to what someone else has or hasn't done. It doesn't matter - we're all a trivia question in the long run."

Maybe so, but when I post an opinion, and then someone questions the credentials upon which I base that opinion - I can't think of any better way to establish for the wide range of readers whether I'm blowing smoke or espousing an opinion based on real-world experience than to publicly post such experience.

I post a lot of opinions, but I try to make my facts, facts.

And the stuff about who I am and the kind of work I do are facts. They can be verified or challenged (and certainly dismissed as to relevance) by anyone at any time.

Thats how on-line debate is supposed to work, isn't it?

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


John DavidsonRe: Events: Good or Bad?
by on Dec 24, 2012 at 10:47:59 pm

This forum is a lot like this:
http://www.hulu.com/watch/3526

John Davidson | President / Creative Director | Magic Feather Inc.


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  

Chris HarlanRe: Events: Good or Bad?
by on Dec 23, 2012 at 1:39:51 am

[Bill Davis] "What's wrong with that?
"


A lot of it comes down to tone, Bill. The way I read your post, it seemed to me that you dropped on the OP like a ton of bricks. I was scratching my head as to why you did that, and was going to post something like Sandeep posted, but he got there first.


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  

Bill DavisRe: Events: Good or Bad?
by on Dec 23, 2012 at 7:03:19 am

Well Chris, I agree tone is important.

So mine is fair game for discussion. But so is the OPs.

QUOTE:
For us it simply gets in the way and adds a layer of complexity when in a large shared environment. The need to virtualize the media via aliases when linking to media is of no benefit.
(Bullet Point: It's NOT perfect for my large facility)

And...
This is certainly the opposite of sharing, and having to make and manage copies is untenable.
(Bullet Point: It does NOT the way I think things should work)

And…
Apple, and others, confuse sharing projects with concurrent use of media. While one can use media concurrently with FCPX it's far more complex than FCP7 and needs improvement.
(Bullet Point: It's too complex and confusing and NOT ready for me yet)

Now remember, this thread is about EVENTs as a general construct. Good or Bad. And the OP's view was clearly stated as coming from a "facility" viewpoint. And equally clear that Events are (in his opinion and for his purposes) BAD.

But that title, in my opinion, opens the discussion to exactly what the title says. A discussion of whether Events as a CONCEPT are good or bad.

Precisely what I was bloviating about in my admittedly grumpy rant. (which BTW, was clearly teasingly labeled as exactly such in my body copy.)

I like EVENTS. No, I actually LOVE FCP-X Events. The EB is right up their with the new Share menu as the thing I find MOST useful about X day to day. Others appear to have the same feeling about them.

So it's in that context that I was delighted to argue against the OP's POV that Events are bad juju.

I think over time, Other NLEs will adopt something similar. I really do. A pre-timeline workspace with persistence is BRILLIANT, IMO even if long-conditioned timeline centric editors have tremendous difficulty thinking outside the timeline in the new "two-stage" content creation process such as X's.

I know the way Apple has initially implemented it in X doesn't "fit" into facility workflows right now. And that the underlying plumbing is undeveloped. But I hold out huge hope that this concept spreads out like wildfire - because it's really, really useful for a lot of practical editing tasks with file based workflows used in a world where revision and redeployment are (in my view) becoming increasingly important.

But this is all just me thinking out loud as always.

And anyway Happy Holiday's Chris.

Hope to see you here in the new year.

BTW, if you've got time and are in LA for the January LACPUG meeting, I'm doing a presentation on my Multi-Cam Jazz project that night, so if you have time, stop by and maybe we can grab a beer afterwards. I'm totally non-combative in person, as I think others here who've shared a pint with me will personally attest!

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


Jeremy GarchowRe: Events: Good or Bad?
by on Dec 24, 2012 at 3:09:05 pm

Here's John Heagy's quote, your summation, and then mine.

[Bill Davis] "QUOTE:
For us it simply gets in the way and adds a layer of complexity when in a large shared environment. The need to virtualize the media via aliases when linking to media is of no benefit.
(Bullet Point: It's NOT perfect for my large facility)"


FCPX doesn't have a traditional project structure and the way Events are sometimes organized causes more work than we are used to. Since Render files and transcodes are stored with Events, it makes moving or duplicating Events a lot of work or take a lot of disk space, not to mention, when duplicating a referenced Event, FCPX will automatically add any external media in to the Event on the duplicate. This creates unnecessary duplicates of media. Is this the best way that this can be done, Apple? What is the benefit here?

[Bill Davis] "And...
This is certainly the opposite of sharing, and having to make and manage copies is untenable.
(Bullet Point: It does NOT the way I think things should work)"


Why all the duplicates? What happens when we need to archive or restore, or simply track multiple sets of the same data set? Is this the best way this can be done, Apple? Anyone?

[Bill Davis] "And…
Apple, and others, confuse sharing projects with concurrent use of media. While one can use media concurrently with FCPX it's far more complex than FCP7 and needs improvement.
(Bullet Point: It's too complex and confusing and NOT ready for me yet)"


While there are ways to manage Events without having media in them, the options for dealing and sharing those Events runs out pretty quickly without resorting to a lot of file duplication. This needs some work, Apple.

As a test, Bill, have you tried any of these things we are talking about in this thread? If so, you will see, that while there are some really good things, FCPX currently falls a bit short. What is find frustrating is that currently, FCPX is a tease. There's some really cool options in San Locations, but the management of referenced media in SAN Locations or local drives simply aren't possible in FCPX. Some of the capability is there, but not all of it. This is coming from someone who generally likes FCPX.

I can assure you, I've tried your workflow. A laptop and a singular fw800 (or eSata drive) works just fine, but that is not the reality for all of us. Even if you take a SAN out f it and try and work between two machines (one local, one mobile) and multiple drives, it gets a little weird and you can end up with a lot of duplicates of things (media/Events/Projects, etc). In larger environments, duplicates are not what it takes to keep things organized. FCPX is billed as the Final Cut Studio replacement, and in many ways it is. One last remaining hurdle is workflow, and in a shared environment large or small, that is a major consideration.

Jeremy


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  
+1

Bill DavisRe: Events: Good or Bad?
by on Dec 25, 2012 at 12:20:05 am

[Jeremy Garchow] "FCPX doesn't have a traditional project structure and the way Events are sometimes organized causes more work than we are used to. Since Render files and transcodes are stored with Events, it makes moving or duplicating Events a lot of work or take a lot of disk space, not to mention, when duplicating a referenced Event, FCPX will automatically add any external media in to the Event on the duplicate. This creates unnecessary duplicates of media. Is this the best way that this can be done, Apple? What is the benefit here?"

Jeremy,

But doesn't the inherenet difference between "traditional projects structures" and the way X is nearly entirely referential the whole crux of this problem?

Admittedly, you have vastly more experience than I do trying to make X work in a SAN environment. And I'll bow to your experience when it comes to managing the I/O issues that are involved with that.

But =even my rudimentary workflow has caused me to have to seriously re-consider how I view the "attachment" of files to their home base versions. Over my decade working with Legacy, ALL I could do was read whole files into my Capture Scratch and so I built a mental management process around MOVING that Capture Scratch around if I wanted to work on a different machine.

What X has revealed to me is that this is extremely inefficient in my situation. It's MUCH easier to make the data pool transportive - rather than seeing the PROJECT as the element I transport.

I can easily understand that in a facility construction, where the database must be both fixed and centralized that what works for me will NOT work for the facility manager. However, I'm still thinking that there may be something about the newly "disconnected" capability that suits my workflow so well that portends a new way of working for larger systems as well.

If, as Philip Hodgets has schooled me, virtually EVERYTHING about X is metadata based and simply a system of managed references to pools of sequestered data. It's seems reasonable to believe that as that structure (FCP-X) evolves, I'll have to more farther and farther away from my original ideas that SOURCE footage is what I used to think it had to be.

Again, I admit, my Firewire Drive workflow is NOT the solutions for everyone. But that's not the point. It's that it BROKE my prior thinking.

I'm absolutely unqualified to tell anyone in a SAN environment what the new "agile yet automatically re-linkable" data referencing construction in FCP-X will mean to them. But I DO know it's something very different from what was built in to Legacy.

And so I'll likely keep asking openly what there is about the NEW plumbing that you and I both have come to better understand that Apple has built into X that might be relevant to those who have little or no experience in anything but systems that treated pools of stored video as simple Capture Scratch buckets.

Because I think that's a huge difference in how X works, compared to Legacy.

I'm also mindful of your phrase "the way Events are sometimes organized causes more work than we are used to."

I think that's well written. And it askes if the problem is the structure of how Events (ARE) or more based on the fact that X is young, and there aren't that many of us who have that many hours poking around under the hood.



[Jeremy Garchow] "Why all the duplicates? What happens when we need to archive or restore, or simply track multiple sets of the same data set? Is this the best way this can be done, Apple? Anyone?
"


I don't understand this, because I NEVER face duplicates unless I purposely create them for backups.
That's the core of my workflow. One source file. Expressed many ways via X. I don't COPY Events much - I reference them by either loading them or not. It seems natural and simple to me. But I acknowledge that if I was surrounded by 10 other editors who had to work simultaneously on the SAME event in real time and can see how it would be a serious concern. Again, however, this is the realm of folks who see X as a "REPLACEMENT" for Legacy and need it to do the same jobs that Legacy did.

I don't see X as that. I see it as itself. Something extremely excellent at what it's created to do - but NOT something trying to be what it's not.

I think it IS worth asking is if the problem so many have with X is that it's NOT Legacy writ larger? Which is still the ONLY way they believe they can find any value in it?


[Jeremy Garchow] "Even if you take a SAN out f it and try and work between two machines (one local, one mobile) and multiple drives, it gets a little weird and you can end up with a lot of duplicates of things (media/Events/Projects, etc)."

Now this is something I do a LOT and I'm just not seeing this. The program on two machines. The EVENT AND PROJECT material on anything you can move between them - and BINGO - you never have to duplicate anything. It's simply seeing the Event and Project libraries for what they are. Data pools that any machine running X will look for - and if detected, that project instantly becomes part of the connected machines workspace. So the issue is only if you need TWO editors working on the same files. And I totally agree - X is currently NOT built to do this. It's NOT a collaborative editing tool right now any more than Legacy was in V1. It's at best got baby steps in that direction with the increasing ability to handle XML, OMF, etc. But that's NOT it's wheelhouse right now. So asking it to form the hub of a large collaboration system is as silly as asking a bunch of guys with sports cars to be responsible for getting all the kids to a large, local school.

Now we've heard that they're maybe working with some larger shops on a nice trailer rig that the powerplant in X might hook up with someday for heavier loads - but right now, it's just NOT a truck.

It would be excellent if they can build a real load hauler into this design, because I think you, as much as any of us have come to appreciate the things that X does well. But it's NOT a truck. Not yet. Not at all.

And it's NOT Legacy 2.0 yet either.

It's going to be something different. We'll see what in time.

[Jeremy Garchow] "FCPX is billed as the Final Cut Studio replacement, and in many ways it is. One last remaining hurdle is workflow, and in a shared environment large or small, that is a major consideration."

Not sure I heard ANYONE say that from the stage at NAB 2011 when Apple introduced it. They said "The NEW Final Cut Pro X."

Then, absolutely yes, they announced the EOL of FCP-Legacy. But I don't remember ever reading anything about it from APPLE saying that X was supposed to be a direct REPLACEMENT - as in stop using Legacy today and start working with X to do everything you're doing today, tomorrow.

In fact, knowing how differently they work, it would have been totally insane if Apple had ever knowingly said that. After all, they were the ONLY people who really knew what it actually was. And I'm sure they had no illusions about anyone in the middle of a job, switching and just moving right along.

So I'm going to maintain that that was petty exclusively an audience interpretation, not ever an Apple talking point, and an interpretation that many invested legacy users came to not only believe, but deeply resent.

Sorry for the novel - but the gifts are wrapped and everyone in the house is out on errands, so I"ve got quiet time to write.

Hope your coming year goes well and I truly appreciate your participation in the forum. You've been tremendously fair and useful to the discussion and I appreciate all the efffort you've put into helping so many here understand the reality rather than just the popular perception of X.

Merry Christmas and all the attendent best wishes.

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  

Oliver PetersRe: Events: Good or Bad?
by on Dec 25, 2012 at 3:18:24 am

[Bill Davis] "Over my decade working with Legacy, ALL I could do was read whole files into my Capture Scratch and so I built a mental management process around MOVING that Capture Scratch around if I wanted to work on a different machine. "

I don't understand this statement. "Legacy" was never tied to the Capture Scratch folder. This was merely where files captured from tape or converted via Log and Transfer ended up. You could easily import from any folder. With file-based workflows, the Capture Scratch location has become a lot less important. For instance, in working with converted ProRes files from HDSLRs or RED, as well as native files from Alexa, I haven't used the Capture Scratch location for years (except for renders).

In that sense - as Jeremy has stated - "legacy" and X basically work the same way. So even today, if you move to a different machine with X, you still have to move the source files for media as well as event and project folders. If you are talking about having all of this on a single FW800 drive, then that's exactly the same as "legacy". Simply have the source clips and the FCP "legacy" project on the same drive. I guess I don't understand your explanation as to why one is different than the other.

- Oliver

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


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  


Jeremy GarchowRe: Events: Good or Bad?
by on Dec 26, 2012 at 5:58:29 pm

[Bill Davis] "Jeremy,

But doesn't the inherenet difference between "traditional projects structures" and the way X is nearly entirely referential the whole crux of this problem?"


Sure. That's what we are trying to figure out. It doesn't work the way it used, so, at least in my case, I need to figure out a way that works. I don't care if it looks or smells like FCS3, I just need it to work in a way that's conducive to a multi-user, multi-seat environment. So far, it does and it doesn't.

[Bill Davis] "But =even my rudimentary workflow has caused me to have to seriously re-consider how I view the "attachment" of files to their home base versions. Over my decade working with Legacy, ALL I could do was read whole files into my Capture Scratch and so I built a mental management process around MOVING that Capture Scratch around if I wanted to work on a different machine.

What X has revealed to me is that this is extremely inefficient in my situation. It's MUCH easier to make the data pool transportive - rather than seeing the PROJECT as the element I transport. "


But the problem, Bill, is that once you have more than one user, which means more than one Project or Event, things can get odd. The way that FCPX stores the files can cause some issues if you aren't careful or diligent. FCPX, currently, only has limited tools to deal with all kinds of workflows. It needs mroe work in certain areas to make protability iwthin the same network lighter and faster. Portability between different vollumes is OK in FCPX, but sharing and emrgning data from one larger or smaller set together isn't wuite refined in FCPX.

In your case, using one Fw800 drive, your Events and Projects are ever changing, but it's on one device, which of course you can use on whatever machine. Now imagine a subset of that data that three separate people are working on. It gets harder to deal with and is impossible with one fw800 drive.

Now, that's not to say that the structure is inherently flawed with FCPX. I don't think it is. I just think it needs a few more tools to help users migrate and merge these data sets in order to keep things together, while being able to work separately.

[Bill Davis] "I don't see X as that. I see it as itself. Something extremely excellent at what it's created to do - but NOT something trying to be what it's not."

Great. I see it differently. The database approach will win out, I think, in the end for us. I just think there needs to be more in app functionality to deal with all the data, so I see it as not finished trying to be what it is. I don't know if you've ever done this, but if you have a gmail account and know someone else with a gmail account, try editing a document at the same time. It's next level collaboration, it allows per user tracking and changes, and allows real time access of a "single" document. I could be wrong, but it seems to me with the way FCPX Events are setup, this type of thing may be possible mroe so than it not being possible. I don't know. This won't be possible with a fw800 drive, that part is clear.

[Bill Davis] "I think it IS worth asking is if the problem so many have with X is that it's NOT Legacy writ larger? Which is still the ONLY way they believe they can find any value in it?"

As I said earlier, for me personally I don't care if it works like FCS3, I just need it to work. Right now, the plans seems to be in place, and there are hints to better collaborative workflows and there's already a bit of functionality built in to it, but the level of control isn't there. If none of the current functionality was available, (like SAN Locations, XML, etc) I would leave it alone. But it IS there, so I am going to try and leverage it and discuss what's possible today. If FCPX isn't going to work out for us, this will give other companies a chance to shore up their offerings, and perhaps I will take my business to them. Win, win.

[Bill Davis] "Not sure I heard ANYONE say that from the stage at NAB 2011 when Apple introduced it. They said "The NEW Final Cut Pro X."

Then, absolutely yes, they announced the EOL of FCP-Legacy. But I don't remember ever reading anything about it from APPLE saying that X was supposed to be a direct REPLACEMENT - as in stop using Legacy today and start working with X to do everything you're doing today, tomorrow."


They tried, Bill, as they stopped selling Legacy almost immediately. That was a warning shot across the bow to move on. So I can either use the product of the same name sake as I have been doing for the better part of the last decade, or I can jump ship to another company. I don't need a stronger hint as to what I need to do.

[Bill Davis] "So I'm going to maintain that that was petty exclusively an audience interpretation, not ever an Apple talking point, and an interpretation that many invested legacy users came to not only believe, but deeply resent."

I am not mad at Apple, so stop telling me that I am. I am trying to make FCPX work for us, why can't we question the design when there's simply no method in place to perform certain capabilities that are needed in a shared environment?


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  

John HeagyRe: Events: Good or Bad?
by on Dec 24, 2012 at 4:16:10 pm

[Bill Davis] "QUOTE:
For us it simply gets in the way and adds a layer of complexity when in a large shared environment. The need to virtualize the media via aliases when linking to media is of no benefit.
(Bullet Point: It's NOT perfect for my large facility)"


Wow Bill, thanks for quoting and properly summing up what I really meant so concisely.

Clearly these are divisive statements that warranted you're condescending and insulting response. My request for ideas that would help FCPX find a home in collaborative workflows aka: "niche workflows" has clearly upset you. Sorry about that!

I'll also try and communicate the entirely of my thought in the posting subject from now on.

Happy Holidays
John


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  
+2

Keith KobyRe: Events: Good or Bad?
by on Dec 26, 2012 at 2:22:46 pm

John,

Sorry, I got to this party really, really late. All the wine is gone and there's been like 4 or 5 fights... I missed a good one!

We are using fcpx in an xsan environment somewhat similar to yours and it works and we are actually finding it very powerful and useful.

Here are the keys:

1.) Keep your media centrally located on the san. Govern finder access with ACLs just as you would today. Not sure how you do it, but we do not use Final Cut Pro Documents structures any more for media org on the san.

2.) Turn off "copy media to the event on import" (paraphrasing) in the fcpx preference's pane. It's a preference that you'll want to manage and teach your editors about in the event that they trash their preferences (just like we had to with certain preferences in 7 in a san environment like scratch etc)...

3.) The directory where you would keep your fcp 7 project files will need a parallel directory on the san for fcpx "san locations".

Important concept: fcp7 project file = fcpx san location
or a san location is just a folder on the san, so, folder = 7 project

The storage pool on your xsan where this project directory is kept (if you are using affinities and the like in your san setup) needs to be big enough to hold your render files.

4.) In the fcpx project directory that we created above, create a folder for each "project" that you are working on. Add that new directory as a "san location" to one station's fcpx instance.

5.) Inside of x, select the san location in the event browser and create a new fcpx event in that san location. Do the same in the project area and create a project. Import your media (no copy) into your new event and begin tagging/prepping and then editing in the newly created project (timeline).

6.) San locations are one user at a time, kind of like 7 projects were supposed to be one user at a time. Although in 7 you could open the same project at the same time and clobber someone else's work if you weren't careful.

7.) To hand a san location over to someone else, "remove" it from one instance of x, add it to another.

8.) a) To copy a project to another user, like you would copy a 7 project file, create another folder on the san in the fcpx projects directory. Export an xml of your events and projects from the first station, import it on the second into the newly created san location.

8.) b) Jeremy Garchow and I have been discussing other workflows. You can take a project (sequence) and make a compound clip out of it (like a 7 nest but better), and then share the compound clip inside of an event as an xml. The second user can then import it.

Yes a mam can help. Check out Cantemo Portal. We are installing it now.

http://moosystems.com

I suggest them because, being in a similar san environment to your's with lots of media and "collaboration" (using the same media at the same time at the least), things can get changed and moved. Check out the feature they are adding called CP Media Detection that reads Filesystem Events.

http://moosystems.com/products/moofs-media-detection/

Yes - we too want real project and event sharing inside of X. We also want a good way to get information back out of fcpx back into the mam. It opens many doors when that feature set is available.

I think, though, that a mam would be recommended over putting tens of thousands of clips or hundreds of thousands of clips into a single project (7, X, PP6, whatever - you'll have problems). Catalogue and centralize that annotation in a mam. Search the mam. Pull what you need into a project and customize from there. You'll get better performance from the NLE. Cantemo Portal has a way to export an fcpxml directly into fcpx...

So to answer the question of the original post: Events, good or bad?

Events are incredibly powerful if you use them the right way and they work in a collaborative environment. If used in the wrong way in a shared environment (copying files into the event), they can be cumbersome.

Happy Holidays John! If you want to discuss further, I'm sure we have a mutual friend who can put us in touch.

Keith

Keith Koby
Sr. Director Post-Production Engineering
iNDEMAND
Howard TV!/Movies On Demand/iNDEMAND Pay-Per-View/iNDEMAND 3D


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  


Jeremy GarchowRe: Events: Good or Bad?
by on Dec 26, 2012 at 6:02:17 pm

[Keith Koby] "Important concept: fcp7 project file = fcpx san location
or a san location is just a folder on the san, so, folder = 7 project"


Bingo.

Now if there was a way to dupe only what's needed, instead of everything that's in that folder.

Or move a Proxy only Event, or a high quality transcode only Event from the greater Event.


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  

John HeagyRe: Events: Good or Bad?
by on Dec 26, 2012 at 10:12:23 pm

[Keith Koby] "mportant concept: fcp7 project file = fcpx san location
or a san location is just a folder on the san, so, folder = 7 project"


Hi Keith,

Yes, we have come to that conclusion as well. It's basically a way of combining events into a "project folder" so it's much like Avid in the end. For concurrent workflows we would add two additional SLs, one for the second edit and another "share SL" that could be added in order to copy a project into and then released to the other edit to copy to their SL.

We have a project volume that is smaller and less powerful than our many media volumes. Using San Location (SL) = Projects approach means putting the SL on the small project volume. Now I have to worry about Render files, which need media volume performance, not to mention render files filling the small volume. Heaven forbid a user has the media link preference set wrong and terabytes of media start coping behind the scenes into the volume. The render files are a big issue. We maintain a live backup of our entire project volume. Including render files will increase it's size 10 fold. Deleting them is the obvious answer but unlike FCP7 they are buried inside each project folder requiring one to delete from FCPX or have admins go cherry picking in the finder.

I'm not arguing that using events in a shared environment is impossible. I am arguing it's value.

[Keith Koby] "Yes - we too want real project and event sharing inside of X. We also want a good way to get information back out of fcpx back into the mam. It opens many doors when that feature set is available. "

I see events as a built in MAM considering Final Cut Server is dead. In a MAM, media is separate from projects and has powerful metadata tagging and search, just like events. The other tenant of all MAMs is presenting a shared consistent view/version of all the media. Events prevent concurrent sharing and allow/encourage users to customize/change the media metadata. In the end one has a SL/project with custom metadata that can't be concurrently shared but only copied. Sounds like FCP7. Not saying that's bad but we're jumping thru hoops here for what gain? I don't think I like the idea of using FCPX entered metadata to feed a proper MAM. Not enough control of taxonomy... pulldowns etc.

So similar question: What's the value of events if using a MAM?

[Keith Koby] "Events are incredibly powerful if you use them the right way and they work in a collaborative environment. If used in the wrong way in a shared environment (copying files into the event), they can be cumbersome."

Can you detail one powerful feature of events? I'm not talking about search and metadata entry as that could all be done without the media being separate from the project in light of SL=project. What's a powerful feature of requiring media be in an event in order to view or use in a project?

One thing I could see us using an event for is a set of approved media for all shows, like lower thirds, copyrights, etc. Having them become inaccessible once a single user attaches kills that idea. I'd like to see read only events as a start.

As you say, and describe, it's possible to collaborate with FCPX. I just don't think it's an improvement over FCP7. This is why FCPX is struggling in large shared collaborative workflows and Apple's solutions/recommendations fall very very short in my opinion.

[Keith Koby] "If you want to discuss further, I'm sure we have a mutual friend who can put us in touch."

Indeed we do! Looking forward to speaking with you soon!


Happy Holidays
John


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  

Keith KobyRe: Events: Good or Bad?
by on Dec 27, 2012 at 3:29:31 pm

Events Metadata vs MAM Metadata

Take a look at what is possible with the Cantemo Portal I referred to earlier... You can have a full length feed clip that you've ingested and catalogued into the MAM. That clip can have multiple (overlapping) ranges that have been and annotated in the MAM. You can then export an xml from the MAM that opens FCPX and imports into your event. The clip will have a drop down with all the annotations as keyword collections.

Now lets say you have a whole bunch of clips - different angles or just different clips all referencing the same person or the same action like a gatorade dunk. Collect them in the mam, export the xml and import all of those into an event. Inside the event you not only have your individual clip and it's ranges, but a way to automatically group all of those labeled ranges into keyword collections. Want to see all of a particular type of highlight from the clips you imported? Simple, click on the keyword collection or search.

So you have the centralized repository in the MAM and the fine tuned area in the NLE for what you are using. The beauty of those keyword ranges is that they are basically little subclips all ready to drop in to the timeline and fine tune. It makes for a very, very fast workflow inside the app. FCPX is nice in that it can really use all of the data you throw at it from the MAM.

What is needed is the ability to add role and sub role information to clips in the mam and then have that carried across via xml.

Roles and Sub Roles...

Roles are another set of metadata tagging that you do in the event and they carry in to the timeline. They give you very powerful handles for finding, selecting, soloing, effecting, correcting etc, all the clips in the timeline. But better, they give you handles for exporting what you want to export.

So if you have your lower thirds and graphics roled as such, you can quickly turn those on or off in the timeline or in the export. You can save your export by role setups as presets! You can group those in the share menu so you can for example easily export a texted and textless master from the same timeline... No duping of sequence and cleanup and re-render necessary. And export is super fast on cheaper hardware (iMacs with thunderbolt dongles etc).

So, first you have your Sr. Editor establish the graphics package as clips and compound clips that are "rolled out" or "rolled up" if you like, in a master event. You export an xml of that Graphics Master Event and put it in a central place on the san and even catalogue it in the mam for quick access.

From here, we are creating another san location for each station or each editor where they put all of their graphics builds. They each can import a complete ready for edit graphics set into their personal san location...

From the point of view of sharing it is better than 7 in that metadata tagging that is made and "shared" via xml is more useful. You just go about the sharing in a different way. I don't see it currently as a huge advantage or disadvantage on the workflow process. Just an advantage inside the app when you are working with the materials. The framework is there for it to be a huge advantage in the future.


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  


Jeremy GarchowRe: Events: Good or Bad?
by on Dec 27, 2012 at 7:02:18 pm

I just found something, and I am foolish.

If you dupe any Project that has referenced or aliased media and choose "Duplicate Project and Referenced Event" it will create a new Event with aliased media.

So, this means that you can put one clip from every Event you want to dupe a Project, Dupe it, and move it to either a new Location or hard drive.

Alternatively, you can put only the clips you want to move in to a Project, Dupe it, choose "Used Clips Only" and it keeps the files aliased.

This must be an update with FCP 10.0.6 that I passed over.

Before 10.0.6, when you duped a Project/Event it would copy the media in the entirety to the new Event.

I guess I should read the release notes more carefully. "When duplicating an event or project where media resides on shared storage, only the links will be copied. This speeds up duplicating or moving events and projects to another editing station that is linked to the same shared media."

Jeremy


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  

Keith KobyRe: Events: Good or Bad?
by on Dec 27, 2012 at 7:29:34 pm

Yes. This is important. Before it would duplicate media.

Keith Koby
Sr. Director Post-Production Engineering
iNDEMAND
Howard TV!/Movies On Demand/iNDEMAND Pay-Per-View/iNDEMAND 3D


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  

Jeremy GarchowRe: Events: Good or Bad?
by on Dec 27, 2012 at 7:34:08 pm

[Keith Koby] "Before it would duplicate media."

...And drive me insane.

:)


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  


John DavidsonRe: Events: Good or Bad?
by on Dec 27, 2012 at 7:42:55 pm

[Jeremy Garchow] "...And drive me insane."

That's not a far drive...more like a putt!

John Davidson | President / Creative Director | Magic Feather Inc.


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  
+1

Jeremy GarchowRe: Events: Good or Bad?
by on Dec 27, 2012 at 7:52:54 pm

[John Davidson] "That's not a far drive...more like a putt!"

Hey, who let you in here?


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  
+1

Oliver PetersRe: Events: Good or Bad?
by on Dec 28, 2012 at 6:56:02 pm

I'm not sure that I completely followed the discussion of how some of you are talking about duplicating projects. As I see it, these three options work this way:

Duplicate Project Only

This is simply a copy of a sequence for versioning (or "in progress" editing) purposes. You can include render files and you can also save to a different drive. It's effectively the "save as" function. The FCP X quirk is the "shared" folder within a Project folder hierarchy. If you have shared (exported) a Project, then this function also copied those media items. For example, .m2v files if you created a DVD using the Share menu.

Duplicate Project and Referenced Events

This is designed to copy a Project to a new drive or location. If you had originally imported with media set to copy into the Event, then this function copies any original media inside the Event copies. You'd use this to make a Project and all Events portable. Obviously if the media is linked in the Event, then you'd also have to copy (from the Finder) any original media that is linked.

Duplicate + Used Clips

This is the replacement for the FCP "legacy" Media Manager. It's the same as Avid's consolidate function. All media is copied to a designated location with a new, self-contained Event that now contains copies of the original media files (untrimmed) within it. Again, this is another method of portability, as well as back-up. IOW, edit a production from as many Events as you like. When the cut is locked, use Duplicate + Used Clips to put all final camera masters and the final edit into a single location (1 new Event folder with media, 1 new Project folder).

I'm sorry if I'm being pedantic, but it just sounds to me like a lot of the comments seem to be overthinking how these choices work. What am I missing?

- Oliver

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


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  


Jeremy GarchowRe: Events: Good or Bad?
by on Dec 28, 2012 at 10:07:52 pm

[Oliver Peters] "I'm not sure that I completely followed the discussion of how some of you are talking about duplicating projects. As I see it, these three options work this way:"

I don't know if "some of you" means me, but what you have outlined is exactly the way it works.

If you did this before 10.0.6 and had media in the Event and duped a Project using anything but "Project Only" to a new drive/SAN Location that media would be physically copied to the new Events, now it just remains aliased.

Same with Events only.

If you are talking about me, did I misrepresent something?


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  

Oliver PetersRe: Events: Good or Bad?
by on Dec 29, 2012 at 12:47:32 am

[Jeremy Garchow] "I don't know if "some of you" means me, but what you have outlined is exactly the way it works. "

No, more of a general comment. Nothing specific.

[Jeremy Garchow] "If you did this before 10.0.6 and had media in the Event and duped a Project using anything but "Project Only" to a new drive/SAN Location that media would be physically copied to the new Events, now it just remains aliased."

Oh man! You are right. I had done this earlier and it copied the media, which is precisely what I needed it to do. Now, only making aliases is COMPLETELY USELESS. This means that effectively there is NO WAY to consolidate and archive a Project and associated media from within FCP X. Does anyone at ProApps ever think about how the application is ACTUALLY used???!!!

[Jeremy Garchow] "did I misrepresent something?"

No. I now get what you were talking about. I thought the software was supposed to be getting better!

- Oliver

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


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  

Oliver PetersRe: Events: Good or Bad?
by on Dec 29, 2012 at 12:53:18 am

[Oliver Peters] "Oh man! You are right. I had done this earlier and it copied the media, which is precisely what I needed it to do. Now, only making aliases is COMPLETELY USELESS. This means that effectively there is NO WAY to consolidate and archive a Project and associated media from within FCP X. Does anyone at ProApps ever think about how the application is ACTUALLY used???!!!"

Of course, there's another possible answer. That is, it was broken with 10.0.7 and is a bug. This would simply mean that QC of releases has gone downhill.

- Oliver

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


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  


Jeremy GarchowRe: Events: Good or Bad?
by on Dec 29, 2012 at 1:18:59 am

[Oliver Peters] "Oh man! You are right. I had done this earlier and it copied the media, which is precisely what I needed it to do. Now, only making aliases is COMPLETELY USELESS. "

Funny.

In a shared environment, I find it completely helpful as it allows a central pool of media instead of many copies.

If you need to bring the files in to the Event after duping, single click the Event and choose File > Organize Event Files and it will bring in all media that's not in the Event or on the drive.

[Oliver Peters] "No. I now get what you were talking about. I thought the software was supposed to be getting better!"

It just goes to show that options are needed as I find this new way to be superior with SAN Locations.

A simple check box of "move media?" or whatever, would be good.

At all options are possible with the current setup. Before, there was no good way to make an aliased Event with FCPX and differing Event IDs.

Jeremy


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  

Oliver PetersRe: Events: Good or Bad?
by on Dec 29, 2012 at 1:30:48 am

[Jeremy Garchow] "If you need to bring the files in to the Event after duping, single click the Event and choose File > Organize Event Files and it will bring in all media that's not in the Event or on the drive."

Aah... OK, thanks.

[Jeremy Garchow] "A simple check box of "move media?" or whatever, would be good. At all options are possible with the current setup. Before, there was no good way to make an aliased Event with FCPX and differing Event IDs."

Agreed. Quite right. I'll settle down know ;-)

Nice for Apple to let us in on these changes - especially when it alters how the app operates from one point version to the next. And when the on-screen description implies other behavior. The description says" "This option copies media used in the project to a new event." I don't consider aliases as media.

Options are good. Communication from the manufacturer is even better!

- Oliver

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


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  

Jeremy GarchowRe: Events: Good or Bad?
by on Dec 29, 2012 at 2:37:43 am

[Oliver Peters] "Nice for Apple to let us in on these changes - especially when it alters how the app operates from one point version to the next. And when the on-screen description implies other behavior. The description says" "This option copies media used in the project to a new event." I don't consider aliases as media."

Totally.

I don't think the descriptions have changed from version to version.

On the 10.0.6 release notes, towards the bottom where it says "Final Cut Pro X version 10.0.6 improves overall stability and performance, and adds these fixes:", I missed this as well:

"When duplicating an event or project where media resides on shared storage, only the links will be copied. This speeds up duplicating or moving events and projects to another editing station that is linked to the same shared media."

http://support.apple.com/kb/HT4589?viewlocale=en_US&locale=en_US

This also works on local storage and not just shared storage, so obviously, the words used everywhere, are unclear.

It's a moving target as has been mentioned before, but I do think the capability, at least for my personal workflow, has improved.

Jeremy


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  


Oliver PetersRe: Events: Good or Bad?
by on Dec 29, 2012 at 2:55:54 am

[Jeremy Garchow] "This also works on local storage and not just shared storage, so obviously, the words used everywhere, are unclear.
It's a moving target as has been mentioned before, but I do think the capability, at least for my personal workflow, has improved."


Now that I understand it better, I agree. The real frustration is that Apple seems to think that seeded points passed out via Mark and Steve (Ripple Training) are somehow adequate for users. They do a great job, but it is simply not enough.

- Oliver

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


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  

Keith KobyRe: Events: Good or Bad?
by on Dec 28, 2012 at 11:07:33 pm

I was referring to copying or moving media from one event to another. It used to dupe. Now it just copies the alias.

Keith Koby
Sr. Director Post-Production Engineering
iNDEMAND
Howard TV!/Movies On Demand/iNDEMAND Pay-Per-View/iNDEMAND 3D


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  

John HeagyRe: Events: Good or Bad?
by on Dec 27, 2012 at 9:11:42 pm

Thanks for the detail response. I wasn't questioning all the tagging, keywording, and search - couldn't all that theoretically work without media being squirreled away in an event?

We've come to the conclusion that San Location(SL) = project and essentially are using events to support only projects in this SL. This is not Apple's intent where Events become a long term library for any and all projects. In Apple's world of single users with local storage, all events are shared with all projects. I understand one can export xmls of events but then they generate new events and unless merged at some point go "out of sync" quickly.

In order to work in a shared media environment we must create isolated events.

I understand my argument against events in a shared environment is somewhat moot as events are required.

I think we're all in agreement Apple needs to improve shared media workflows. I'm just pointing out what I see as fundamental obstacles.

Not being able to share events is a fundamental obstacle considering events were built to be shared across projects.

So I think Apple needs to figure out a way to share events in a shared environment.
If not they will continue to be something we will have to work around.

John


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]