FORUMS: list search recent posts

What does Apple need to do better with FCPX?

COW Forums : Apple Final Cut Pro X Debates

<< PREVIOUS   •   VIEW ALL   •   PRINT   •   NEXT >>
Oliver Peters
What does Apple need to do better with FCPX?
on Aug 5, 2018 at 8:20:58 pm

Here's one POV:

http://alex4d.com/notes/item/happy-7th-birthday-fcpx

- Oliver

Oliver Peters - oliverpeters.com


Return to posts index

Joe Marler
Re: What does Apple need to do better with FCPX?
on Aug 5, 2018 at 10:07:39 pm

Alex implies that Apple needs to support Hollywood-type workflows more directly, but then he says "I am not convinced that the vocal tiny minority in feature films and TV are worth supporting".

Avid has a near-total lock on Hollywood. Yet the last time I checked, Avid's stock was near a 25-year low, their revenue from video editing and solutions has declined each year since 2011 and is currently at about $200 million per year. Apple makes more on adapters and watch bands. The "street cred" from Hollywood using Avid near-exclusively may amount to something, but in real-world revenue it's not much.

Alex then says "The last gap in the Final Cut Pro X feature set is collaboration: where multiple people can work the same media and timelines at the same time".

I agree with that. However this is technically difficult. It is essentially a multi-user distributed database. Google has this in Google Sheets -- each user's spreadsheet changes are color coded, their change history is tracked, and there's an integrated chat feature. Google makes this look easy but it's very difficult to do with near-100% reliability and without an on-premesis server. However that would be much more useful to my team than 360 VR features.

Alex then says "It is likely that over 95% of videos made in the world are made by a single person". This implies that an investment by Apple in multi-user FCPX technology might be misdirected. But are 95% of videos made by one person because that's the best workflow or because multi-user collaboration is so difficult and unsupported by current software that only 5% try it? I've worked on some small teams where it would be very beneficial to have two geographically-separate assistant editors marking keywords and ratings while a lead editor made an assembly edit. There are 3rd-party workarounds for this using MergeX but it's tacked-on.

Multi-user video editing collaboration is often discussed solely in the context of a co-located team on a LAN. That's true for large professional teams but for the more typical (and numerous) smaller FCPX workgroups, they are geographically distributed. Such collaborative editing is generally discussed only regarding the timeline. With FCPX much of the work happens *before* the timeline phase, as media is rated and keyworded in the Event Browser. Geographically distributed, cloud-based collaboration on *that* phase would be useful -- and in keeping with FCPX orientation. This might seem difficult but Google has solved it with Google Sheets.

Re other issues, for years FCPX was vastly faster than Premiere at exporting to H.264. This performance lead has now evaporated. After seven years of not supporting Quick Sync, Premiere CC on the Mac can export to H.264 as rapidly as FCPX. At least FCPX still supports it on the decode side, which Premiere hasn't yet done. Resolve performance seems to be improving month by month. There's a lesson here -- if you stop making rapid advances your competitors (no matter how sluggish) will eventually catch up.

There are websites with huge "grab bag" lists of requested FCPX improvements -- color-coded video lanes, etc. I personally would like a auto-scrolling timeline but I can scroll it with my finger. I don't have good workarounds for the poor management of external proxies, non-existent collaborative features, or nagging UI issues like the timeline jumping when applying color correction.


Return to posts index

Steve Connor
Re: What does Apple need to do better with FCPX?
on Aug 6, 2018 at 8:41:33 am

[Joe Marler] "or nagging UI issues like the timeline jumping when applying color correction."

Currently the most annoying "bug" in FCPX for me.


Return to posts index


Eric Santiago
Re: What does Apple need to do better with FCPX?
on Aug 8, 2018 at 6:27:31 pm

This happens with almost any other mouse moving to a different area other than project timeline move.
I guess its time this was fixed.


Return to posts index

Ronny Courtens
Re: What does Apple need to do better with FCPX?
on Aug 6, 2018 at 9:08:15 am

I agree there is a lot of contradiction in that text. Apple will do with FCP X whatever seems beneficial to its further expansion, and that may not always exclusively be what movie and tv people want.

I think Apple has well learned from the past. They nearly went bankrupt when they only catered to the professional crowd, they will not make that mistake again.

I think that collaboration would be high on their list now and yes, there are a whole bunch of wish-lists floating around for any NLE. That only proves that we all have completely different opinions on how our favorite tools should work, whatever these tools are.

BTW Joe: you can activate the auto-scrolling timeline in FCP X with CommandPost.

- Ronny


Return to posts index

Brett Sherman
Re: What does Apple need to do better with FCPX?
on Aug 11, 2018 at 1:21:19 pm

I do think FCP X should incorporate better collaboration. However, I don't think that would improve their standing in Hollywood by that much. Mainly I think it's inertia and specialized tools for workflows already set up for Avid. You might open up possibilities for a disruptive group that starts using FCP X, but that's about it.

Ironically, the long ago decision to stick "Programs" inside "Events" has made incorporating collaboration much more difficult. If they were separate then users could muck around inside Events all they want and combining them is a simple Boolean Add operation. However once "Programs" are inside Events then versioning has to rectified. It's not impossible, but more difficult.

I wish when the moved to Libraries, they kept "Projects" in their own container separate from "Events".


Return to posts index


Robin S. Kurz
Re: What does Apple need to do better with FCPX?
on Aug 11, 2018 at 2:33:41 pm

[Joe Marler] "Re other issues, for years FCPX was vastly faster than Premiere at exporting to H.264. This performance lead has now evaporated. After seven years of not supporting Quick Sync, Premiere CC on the Mac can export to H.264 as rapidly as FCPX."

Sorry, but that is just plain false.







… which also mirrors my own tests 100% btw. Adobe will also never get PPro there without a complete rewrite, sorry. But I guess that's what the "Project Rush" is all about.

- RK

____________________________________________________
Deutsch? Hier gibt es ein umfassendes FCP X Training für dich!
Youtube | Facebook


Return to posts index

Joe Marler
Re: What does Apple need to do better with FCPX?
on Aug 12, 2018 at 12:33:15 pm

[Joe Marler] "Re other issues, for years FCPX was vastly faster than Premiere at exporting to H.264. This performance lead has now evaporated. After seven years of not supporting Quick Sync, Premiere CC on the Mac can export to H.264 as rapidly as FCPX."

[Robin S. Kurz] Sorry, but that is just plain false."

Historically FCPX has been much faster than PP, esp. at H.264 playback and encoding. This was due to several factors, but Premiere's lack of support for Quick Sync (esp. on Mac) was key. In general editing 4k H.264 using Premiere on
even a high-end Mac was very sluggish. In 2016 Premiere introduced proxy support, which makes scrubbing and JKL responsiveness faster, but the issue is how fast is Premiere vs FCPX at 4k H264 without proxies.

You can see some of the earlier tests I've posted showing how much faster FCPX was at H264:

https://forums.creativecow.net/thread/344/45875

As I described here, the FCPX viewer update rate when scrubbing a 4k H264 timeline was about 10x
faster than Premiere: https://forums.creativecow.net/thread/335/100210

However more recently PP got a lot faster (for exporting) in the 2018 update 12.1.1. It was no faster for
decoding, which means timeline scrubbing was no faster, but export performance was equal to or even faster
in some cases than FCPX on the same hardware. I posted test results here:

https://forums.creativecow.net/thread/335/101459

Whether the Metal or OCL playback engines were used made no difference.

After I posted those tests, another PP update was recently released, 12.1.2. I just re-tested this on both top-spec 2017 iMac 27and a 10-core Vega64 iMac Pro, using the same Sony Alpha XAVC-S codecs mentioned in the above video.
My documentary team has seven of these cameras including two A7RIIIs, and if all our multicam teams
are active we shoot about 1 terabyte per day, so we deal with a lot of this material.

Playback: Premiere 12.1.2 is no faster than the previous version on a top-spec 2017 iMac or a 10-core Vega 64 iMac Pro. Playback at 1/4 res of 4k H264 multicam without proxies is extremely laggy and slow. JKL keyboard lag is severe. FCPX 10.4.3 using the same material on the same hardware is a little sluggish but much faster.

On the iMac Pro (which does not have Quick Sync due to Xeon), both FCPX and Premiere are apparently using AMD's UVD/VCE hardware acceleration. FCPX uses it on both encode and decode side, apparently Premiere only uses VCE which is the encode side. However FCPX is apparently not using hardware acceleration for HEVC 10-bit encoding, so it's extremely slow.

Exporting: see below results. These tests used a 60 sec multicam clip from two Sony A7RIIIs. Material was XAVC-S, UHD 4k 8-bit 4:2:0, 100 mpbs.

2017 iMac 27, 32GB, 4.2Ghz i7-7700K, RP 580, 2TB SSD, macOS 10.13.6: FCPX 10.4.3, vs Premiere Pro CC 12.1.2:
============================================================================

FCPX: 4k H264 Fast Encode, 30 mbps: 40.4
Premiere: 4k H264 VBR 1 pass, 30 mbps: 41.8

FCPX: 1080p H264 Fast Encode, 20 mbps: 39.4
Premiere: 1080p H264 VBR 1 pass, 20 mbps: 27.6

FCPX: 4k HEVC 8-bit, 16 mbps: 1:25
Premiere: 4k HEVC 8-bit VBR 1 pass, 16mbps: 1:29

FCPX 4k HEVC 10-bit, 18 mbps: 33 minutes
Premiere: 4k HEVC 10-bit VBR 1 pass, 18 mbps: 11:27

2017 iMac Pro, 64GB, 10-core, Vega 64 GPU, 2TB SSD, macOS 10.13.6: FCPX 10.4.3 vs Premiere Pro CC 12.1.2:
==========================================================================

FCPX: 4k H264 Fast Encode, 30 mbps: 47.3
Premiere: 4k H264 VBR 1 pass, 30 mbps: 39.1

FCPX: 1080p H264 Fast Encode, 20 mbps: 28.8
Premiere: 1080p H264 VBR 1 pass, 20 mbps: 24.7

FCPX: 4k HEVC 8-bit, 16 mbps: 44.9
Premiere: 4k HEVC 8-bit VBR 1 pass, 16mbps: 42.3

FCPX 4k HEVC 10-bit, 18 mbps: 24 minutes
Premiere: 4k HEVC 10-bit VBR 1 pass, 18 mbps: 4:12


Return to posts index

Robin S. Kurz
Re: What does Apple need to do better with FCPX?
on Aug 12, 2018 at 1:06:57 pm
Last Edited By Robin S. Kurz on Aug 12, 2018 at 5:29:52 pm

Ah. So you were literally talking about H.264/5 only. I took the "performance lead has now evaporated" to imply in general, not exclusively in such an isolated task. My bad. The performance lead in general certainly hasn't "evaporated". Far from it.

I can't speak to either codec, since I have near nothing to do with them other than maybe an occasional ingest from elsewhere, nor have I explicitly tested them recently. So not a yardstick that is in anyway relevant to me personally. But again, the video above comes to a very different conclusion, as does this article/video: http://bit.ly/2MkTS5C … though, granted, the version of Premiere is not mentioned (nor that of FCP) in the latter, so it could potentially be the pre-update version. But it is from yesterday…

- RK

____________________________________________________
Deutsch? Hier gibt es ein umfassendes FCP X Training für dich!
Youtube | Facebook


Return to posts index


Oliver Peters
Re: What does Apple need to do better with FCPX?
on Aug 12, 2018 at 9:43:25 pm

I've been in the process of testing a maxed-out 2018 15" MBP with the Core i9 and with the 2TB SSD for a RedShark review. I have an identical test sequence that I created for FCPX, Premiere Pro, and Resolve. It's mainly 4K Alexa files (with a default Log-C LUT added in the NLE) and some 1080p Broll clips. All ProRes, since this is from a media managed project. The sequence is an :80 1080p/23.98 timeline. Obviously there's scaling on the clips, but one is also reverse slomo with optical flow. I have done testing with the media on both the internal SSD and an external USB3 SSD.

Basically all apps play this at full resolution without any issues. The one exception is the optical flow clip. It stutters in Premiere at any resolution. Oddly though, in FCPX is stutters in "best performance" but not in "best quality". I can set this timeline to continuously loop playback full screen to the display without any issues at "best quality". Nothing has been rendered. Editing experience and fluidity is about the same in all three.

I ran export tests out to 1080p ProRes and 1080p H264 (10Mbps) from all 3. FCPX and Resolve both have incredibly fast export times. One interesting thing is that Resolve's H264 export is even faster than FCPX's. Premiere (via AME) is significantly slower in exporting the ProRes, as well as the H264 versions. Most of this seems to be the added processing time it needs for the optical flow clip. But even if that weren't there, it would take longer.

I have a second test project of all RED raw 4K clips in a 4K timeline. Here I need to drop the setting down to "best performance" in FCPX and 1/2 resolution in Premiere. Then it plays quite smoothly. Can't go higher or it chokes.

- Oliver

Oliver Peters - oliverpeters.com


Return to posts index

Michael Gissing
Re: What does Apple need to do better with FCPX?
on Aug 12, 2018 at 11:54:23 pm
Last Edited By Michael Gissing on Aug 12, 2018 at 11:57:38 pm

[Oliver Peters]"One interesting thing is that Resolve's H264 export is even faster than FCPX's."

Whilst Resolve is blindingly fast, I have been constantly frustrated that it has problems with strong saturated GFX colors, constantly giving me flashing block errors. And not just these pure colors. It seems the encode is purely single pass as these errors are close to picture cuts and are likely the failure to create a proper I frame on the cut.

I'm on a grunty PC but clients and other editors are mighty impressed by render speeds in Resolve 15 (b6) but less impressed by these artifacts.
EDIT. This is only with H264. Other codecs are fast and accurate without these block errors


Return to posts index

Joe Marler
Re: What does Apple need to do better with FCPX?
on Aug 13, 2018 at 10:19:26 pm

[Robin S. Kurz] "I can't speak to either codec...So not a yardstick that is in anyway relevant to me personally. But again, the video above comes to a very different conclusion, as does this article/video: http://bit.ly/2MkTS5C … though, granted, the version of Premiere is not mentioned (nor that of FCP) in the latter, so it could potentially be the pre-update version. But it is from yesterday…"

It likely applies to almost any Long GOP codec, including AVCHD, Sony XAVC-S, all the variants of H.264, and HEVC. This means almost anything shot with a smart phone, GoPro, any consumer camcorder, most DSLRs and mirrorless cameras, etc.

There were two previously-mentioned videos, one by Jason Vong and the other by Max Yuryev. Jason Vong focused almost exclusively on Premiere *playback* performance of 4k Sony XAVC-S. Any comparison to FCPX was incidental and the details were not well documented.

As opposed to 1x speed *playback* performance, editing operations often involve a lot of rapid scrubbing forward and backward on the timeline using JKL or other shuttle commands at 2x, 4x, etc. Those tests are very revealing, but Jason never mentioned doing those.

But he claimed to get better Premiere 1x playback performance after updating to 12.1.2. The release notes do state hardware accelerated *decoding* on MacBook Pro and iMac Pro running High Sierra. That is new.

However I have a 10-core Vega 64 iMac Pro running Premiere 12.1.2, and I can't tell any difference. It was sluggish before on 4k H.264 scrubbing, and it's sluggish now. The same JKL commands on FCPX on the same hardware are much more responsive, but the iMac Pro is less responsive on H.264 than my top-spec 2017 iMac, probably due to AMD's UVD hardware vs Quick Sync.

Re the H.264 encoding tests Jason and Max did which showed FCPX much faster, Premiere has many encoding options, and it's easy to pick one (e.g, CBR or VBR 2-pass) that makes export much slower. By contrast for "Master File - Computer", and probably various other presets, FCPX defaults to VBR 1 pass at a fixed bit rate, about 20 mbps for 1080/29.97 and 30 mbps for UHD 4k/29.97. That is an efficient encoding method which can be hardware accelerated. On Premiere if you pick CBR or VBR 2-pass, it will silently fall back to software-only encoding. It's possible that's what happened on the tests by Jason and Max.

When I do Premiere vs FCPX encoding tests, I always pick VBR 1-pass and the bit rate that best matches FCPX. Then I examine the output files with Invisor to ensure the file was encoded as expected. That helps ensure a fair and even test.

I just ran some more tests, this time using a simple 60 sec UHD 4k/29.97 XAVC-S clip. Exporting to UHD 4k/29.97 VBR 1-pass at 30 mbps, here are the results:

2017 10-core Vega 64 iMac Pro:
=====================

FCPX 10.4.3: 44.1 sec
Premiere 12.1.2: 34.9 sec

2017 iMac 27, 4.2Ghz i7:
================

FCPX 10.4.3: 40.5 sec
Premiere 12.1.2: 44.1 sec

In Premiere if I encode with different settings than the default used by FCPX "Master File - Computer" default, I get the following times:

Premiere 12.1.2, iMac Pro, CBR 30 mbps: 1:37
Premiere 12.1.2, iMac Pro, VBR 2-pass 30 mbps: 3:12
Premiere 12.1.2, iMac, CBR 30 mbps: 2:54
Premiere 12.1.2, iMac, VBR 2-pass 30 mbps: 5:54

So, you can pick H.264 encoding options that will make Premiere much slower than FCPX. However when using equivalent encoding options, as of 12.1.1 (the early 2018 release) Premiere is essentially as fast on the same hardware as FCPX at H.264 encoding, and even faster in some cases.

Premiere remains much slower than FCPX at *decoding* 4k H.264, and especially at typical JKL scrubbing operations typical of editing. But even FCPX is somewhat laggy at this, despite the iMac Pro's horsepower. For 4k H.264, I typically must use proxies for fast, fluid editing. When proxies are used, Premiere and FCPX are *both* fast at 4k H.264 timeline operations.

The point is Premiere has generally caught up to FCPX's H.264 encoding performance, plus added important features like collaborative editing. Similarly, Resolve performance has vastly improved. Apple cannot stand still on either performance or features, but they cannot sacrifice stability. It is difficult to achieve all three of those.


Return to posts index


Robin S. Kurz
Re: What does Apple need to do better with FCPX?
on Aug 14, 2018 at 7:40:12 am

[Joe Marler] "The point is Premiere has generally caught up to FCPX's H.264 encoding performance… "

Again, an area of little concern to me personally. My work consists of 95% of everything else you mentioned in addition to other things where the best possible performance is the key to avoid ulcers. But thanks for the numbers and background nonetheless.



[Joe Marler] "Similarly, Resolve performance has vastly improved. Apple cannot stand still on either performance or features, but they cannot sacrifice stability. It is difficult to achieve all three of those."

Sure, both are making serious strides forward. No question about that. But then the last seven years have proven that Apple/FCP are clearly NOT "standing still" by any means. Aside from the fact that BOTH are and will always be TRACK based, which has become a complete no-go for many. Certainly for me. And I have yet to meet anyone that has both worked with and understood the trackless timeline that thought going back would actually pose any sort of workflow advantage rather than huge disadvantages in comparison. So there's that. Simply shaving a few seconds off of an MPEG encode doesn't exactly move the needle enough to even be noticed and, in the bigger picture, little more than a bandaid on a gaping wound imho.

And yes, as you say, you cannot sacrifice stability. Especially if it's just for the sake of yet another quickly tacked on feature that is only relevant or for the appeasement of a minuscule but vocal amount of users, which Adobe is become quite infamous for (and BMD more and more as well from what I'm hearing), especially in the context of PPro. Fortunately not something that Apple is in the business of doing, whether that means having to look to 3rd parties for certain specialty features irking some or not.

- RK

____________________________________________________
Deutsch? Hier gibt es ein umfassendes FCP X Training für dich!
Youtube | Facebook


Return to posts index

greg janza
Re: What does Apple need to do better with FCPX?
on Aug 14, 2018 at 8:31:58 pm

[Joe Marler] "Apple cannot stand still on either performance or features, but they cannot sacrifice stability. "

An issue that might be slightly off-topic: I freelance at a number of post facilities that are Apple based and lately ( within the last year) each and every place I've worked has a variety of stability issues.

I'm working at facilities that have a multitude of trashcan macs or imacs and both are equally unstable. These facilities are running san systems as well as Adobe CC and not FCPX.

The trashcan macs have overheating issues which result in rendering problems. The imacs have multiple issues that often result in hard crashes.

I mention this because the facilities that I work at have full engineering support and so the systems are maintained as best as possible.

Windows 10 Pro | i7-5820k CPU | 64 gigs RAM | NvidiaGeForceGTX970 | Blackmagic Decklink 4k Mini Monitor |
Adobe CC 2018 |Renders/cache: Samsung SSD 950 Pro x2 in Raid 0 | Media: Samsung SSD 960 PRO PCIe NVMe M.2 2280 | Media: OWC Thunderbay 4 x 2 Raid 0 mirrored with FreeFileSync


Return to posts index

Oliver Peters
Re: What does Apple need to do better with FCPX?
on Aug 14, 2018 at 10:51:57 pm
Last Edited By Oliver Peters on Aug 14, 2018 at 11:16:36 pm

[greg janza] "The trashcan macs have overheating issues which result in rendering problems. The imacs have multiple issues that often result in hard crashes. "

I also have heat issues with the trash can. I added an app called Mac Fans Control, which allows me to set the fan to run at max speed all the time. This helps.

Interesting about the iMacs. We are running 3 Retina iMacs and 3 iMac Pros. All with the Adobe toolset. Our graphics guy pushes After Effects really hard. No issues. Only occasionally the SAN volumes spontaneously dismount on some machines. But the Macs themselves are fine.

- Oliver

Oliver Peters - oliverpeters.com


Return to posts index


greg janza
Re: What does Apple need to do better with FCPX?
on Aug 15, 2018 at 6:33:49 pm

[Oliver Peters] "Interesting about the iMacs. We are running 3 Retina iMacs and 3 iMac Pros. All with the Adobe toolset. Our graphics guy pushes After Effects really hard. No issues. Only occasionally the SAN volumes spontaneously dismount on some machines. But the Macs themselves are fine."

As luck would have it, the engineer at this facility (which has a dozen edit suites) is swapping out the trashcans and older imacs with new fully decked out imac pros so in theory the instability issues should improve.

I'm working on one of the new imac pro's today so it's my first chance to put it through the paces.

Windows 10 Pro | i7-5820k CPU | 64 gigs RAM | NvidiaGeForceGTX970 | Blackmagic Decklink 4k Mini Monitor |
Adobe CC 2018 |Renders/cache: Samsung SSD 950 Pro x2 in Raid 0 | Media: Samsung SSD 960 PRO PCIe NVMe M.2 2280 | Media: OWC Thunderbay 4 x 2 Raid 0 mirrored with FreeFileSync


Return to posts index

Ronny Courtens
Re: What does Apple need to do better with FCPX?
on Aug 17, 2018 at 2:04:44 pm

Oliver,

Are you sure Energy Settings on all iMacs are set to never sleep? Going into sleep mode is one of the main causes for workstations getting dismounted on a NAS.

- Ronny


Return to posts index

Oliver Peters
Re: What does Apple need to do better with FCPX?
on Aug 17, 2018 at 2:56:09 pm

[Ronny Courtens] "Are you sure Energy Settings on all iMacs are set to never sleep?"

Thanks, but yes. This actually happens in the middle of someone working. It primarily happens on the machine used by our AE artist. So he's taken to working only locally when he's in AE and then moving files back and forth to QNAP. However, it also happens when that machine is idle. Primarily that machine and not too often on any others. We've tried both SMB and AFP and direct 10GigE, as well as TB3 through a Sonnet adapter. Don't really see any change, although it has settled down a bit lately.

- Oliver

Oliver Peters - oliverpeters.com


Return to posts index


Tangier Clarke
Re: What does Apple need to do better with FCPX?
on Sep 13, 2018 at 8:52:14 pm

I'd be happy with just the ability to batch export from FCP X or batch send to Compressor, better relinking tools and reporting, batch syncing, and for FCP X to be able to read the chapters in a Quicktime that it created...just for starters.

Some additional nice treats would be:
  • To have the crop and retime buttons/menus, all other buttons, and timecode display available above the timeline when using viewers on a second display.
  • Being able to rename clips in the app which would also change in the finder the way FCP 7 did. This feature alone would allow me not to have to use EditReady.
  • To have the exported role names in a multitrack Quicktime come back into FCP X as those same names.
  • To be able to shift-select all channels at once (rather than manually selecting each one) in a polyphonic audio file.
  • Have the forward/backward selection (using T) from FCP 7 back.
  • Speed ramping curves more akin to FCP 7
  • Expand a compound clip in place, rather then in a storyline.
  • IG Story preset for Compressor - yep it's a part of my workflow now - vertical and 30p. I can only do this in FCP X at the moment.
  • Have content scaled inside a mask do actually that.
  • Some smart Apple-esque features like auto detect the best audio channel and disable the others for dialogue. Not perfect, but just a starting point to save time from enabling/disabling channels. Another unique feature would be auto marking where the clapper hits…for those times when you have to manually sync content. These two are far fetched but they would be tantamount to the magnetic timeline for me in reducing clicks and time.
  • The ability to save a Compressor batch session. Couldn't we do that a while ago or am I imagining that?


Return to posts index

Tangier Clarke
Re: What does Apple need to do better with FCPX?
on Sep 19, 2018 at 5:01:30 pm

I forgot one long-standing thing that I wish were resolved. With it's database backbone, I wish FCP X had some way of restricting the creation of duplicate or sometimes multiples of the same clips in a library. Too often I cam cleaning my events and libraries to isolate the original imports that have been created and their keywords.; clips that are in use and not. This takes up too much time. Merging same clips and their information (metadata, ins and outs, etc.) could be a welcome option.

I find that duplicates and multiples of clips seems to be just par for the course working in FCP X and especially when moving XMLs back and forth between editors. The organizational and search capabilities of FCP X are great, but this is one item I wish Apple would address...and Reveal in Browser working better in identifying the clip. I tend to have to Shift+F several times before I can see the clip.


Return to posts index

Mathieu Ghekiere
Re: What does Apple need to do better with FCPX?
on Sep 20, 2018 at 8:00:15 pm

Great list, Tangier. I hope you sent it to Apple through their feedback menu.

https://mathieughekiere.wordpress.com


Return to posts index


Scott Witthaus
Re: What does Apple need to do better with FCPX?
on Sep 21, 2018 at 12:58:09 pm

Allow Events to be grouped in folders

Scott Witthaus
Visual Storyteller - FCPX, Premiere
https://vimeo.com/channels/1322525
Managing Partner, Low Country Creative LLC
Professor, VCU Brandcenter


Return to posts index

Eric Santiago
Re: What does Apple need to do better with FCPX?
on Sep 21, 2018 at 1:57:09 pm

I just want the damn playback window to stop jumping around when Im moving my mouse over areas on the GUI :P


Return to posts index

Scott Witthaus
Re: What does Apple need to do better with FCPX?
on Sep 21, 2018 at 2:01:40 pm

Turn off skimming?

Scott Witthaus
Visual Storyteller - FCPX, Premiere
https://vimeo.com/channels/1322525
Managing Partner, Low Country Creative LLC
Professor, VCU Brandcenter


Return to posts index


Michael Hancock
Re: What does Apple need to do better with FCPX?
on Sep 21, 2018 at 3:31:12 pm

[Scott Witthaus] "Allow Events to be grouped in folders"

YES! There's already a Smart Collections folder at the root of the library. They need to expand that to include folders for events!

And I'd love to be able to pin an event (preferably in a different pane), so when I click on a different event I can still access the original one without having to Shift+Click them all. Tabbed events would be great, actually. One pane, pin the tabs so they stay open.

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


Return to posts index

Tangier Clarke
Re: What does Apple need to do better with FCPX?
on Sep 21, 2018 at 5:05:54 pm

Yep. I sent the full list. Had to retype though and send multiple feedback submissions since the field space limits how much one can send.


Return to posts index

Morgan Hazard
Re: What does Apple need to do better with FCPX?
on Sep 21, 2018 at 4:08:48 pm

For me: Motion.

A substantial update to motion is what fcpx need.


Return to posts index


Eric Santiago
Re: What does Apple need to do better with FCPX?
on Sep 21, 2018 at 6:13:07 pm

I have a few things that I would like fixed.

But on a positive note, just had to deal with an 8 plus hour EVA-1 shoot and editor needs in it on Premiere.
I like FCPX workflow for handling Proxy even as an afterthought.
Premiere is a bit too many steps and is giving me grief when using an Avid DNxIO.
Oh well, can't win em all.


Return to posts index

greg janza
Re: What does Apple need to do better with FCPX?
on Sep 21, 2018 at 6:35:43 pm

fwiw, whenever possible it's definitely helps to eliminate proxies from your workflow.

Windows 10 Pro | i7-5820k CPU | 64 gigs RAM | NvidiaGeForceGTX970 | Blackmagic Decklink 4k Mini Monitor |
Adobe CC 2018 |Renders/cache: Samsung SSD 950 Pro x2 in Raid 0 | Media: Samsung SSD 960 PRO PCIe NVMe M.2 2280 | Media: OWC Thunderbay 4 x 2 Raid 0 mirrored with FreeFileSync


Return to posts index

David Mathis
Re: What does Apple need to do better with FCPX?
on Sep 21, 2018 at 7:58:56 pm

Here is my wish list:
Built in mask tracking for color grading
Hold and more ease options for keyframes
Seperate colors for video and audio when video has attached audio
Ability to sort events in the order of your choice
*KeyFlow Pro allows to you to sort projects or groups as you please
Role mixer
Better integration with Motion
Export individual clips from the timeline without needing a third party tool
Email alerts when a project is finished exporting or rendering


Return to posts index

<< PREVIOUS   •   VIEW ALL   •   PRINT   •   NEXT >>
© 2018 CreativeCOW.net All Rights Reserved
[TOP]