FORUMS: list search recent posts

Lightworks

COW Forums : Apple Final Cut Pro X Debates

<< PREVIOUS   •   VIEW ALL   •   PRINT   •   NEXT >>
David Battistella
Lightworks
on Jul 31, 2011 at 3:50:13 pm

This forum is full of people with deep opinions about how a professional NLE should operate.

I'd say that the very best way to get your dream NLE is to get involved in the lightworks beta program. This will be a greatest opportunity to help improve the NLE from the ground up and have your legitimate concerns heard.

If they port to mac soon it could be the free tool that the everyman pro is looking for, with all the pro compatibility built in, etc.

Just a thought. If you think Appke is not listening then Lightworks might he the way to go.

Seems like primetime for an opensource NLE and there is enough opinion and expertise here to create a good one.



David

______________________________
The shortest answer is doing.
Lord Herbert
http://vimeo.com/battistella



Return to posts index

David Roth Weiss
Re: Lightworks
on Jul 31, 2011 at 4:38:17 pm

Just imagine what the world would be like today if, instead of FCP X, Apple had delivered the "tool that the everyman pro is looking for, with all the pro compatibility built in, etc."

Therein lies the real shame in all of this.


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

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

POST-PRODUCTION WITHOUT THE USUAL INSANITY ™


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


Return to posts index

Neil Hurwitz
Re: Lightworks
on Jul 31, 2011 at 5:09:55 pm

In todays's news items I see that Postworks and Technicolor
have joined forces in New York (call it what they may "Franchise"
it's a roll up) Technicolor buys Laser Pacific, these things are the big news. Not all this whining about FCPX, It's getting old and smelly. If you got Work, If you got Billings, If you got loyal customers, Then I guaranty you are not worried about what Apple
does or doesn't do, You will simply find the right tools for the job
It's just not that complicated.
Mommy Mommy Mommy The bad man took my toy truck


Return to posts index


Aindreas Gallagher
Re: Lightworks
on Jul 31, 2011 at 5:53:34 pm

[Neil Hurwitz] "It's just not that complicated.
Mommy Mommy Mommy The bad man took my toy truck"


as one who can be accused of it - that's blatant trolling.


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


Return to posts index

Chris Harlan
Re: Lightworks
on Jul 31, 2011 at 6:03:43 pm

Did she take your punctuation too?


Return to posts index

David Roth Weiss
Re: Lightworks
on Jul 31, 2011 at 6:09:51 pm

[Neil Hurwitz] "If you got Work, If you got Billings, If you got loyal customers, Then I guaranty you are not worried about what Apple
does or doesn't do, You will simply find the right tools for the job
It's just not that complicated."


Neil,

You fail to recognize that a large percentage of enterprise customers disagree strongly with your over-simplification of this matter. Go knock on the door at Disney and tell them to stop whining - they have 2700 seats of FCP.

FCP was enterprise level software my friend, and even companies with only a single seat have every right to be upset that it was replaced with less than beta-level software as vastly incomplete as the so-called release version of FCP X.


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

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

POST-PRODUCTION WITHOUT THE USUAL INSANITY ™


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


Return to posts index


David Battistella
Re: Lightworks
on Jul 31, 2011 at 5:58:24 pm

David

I think within 12 months all of the functionality people have been asking for will be built in.

I wonder if they will get Walter Murch to endorse thus version? Or if the Cohen brothers will edit a film on it at some point.

(at some point not tomorrow)

It will be interesting to see Appkes marketing rollout. the marketing rollout will be the big indicator on where they are going.

Who will be the brave one? (after omf and XML out are enabled).

Interesting times.

______________________________
The shortest answer is doing.
Lord Herbert
http://vimeo.com/battistella



Return to posts index

David Roth Weiss
Re: Lightworks
on Jul 31, 2011 at 6:12:14 pm

[David Battistella] "I think within 12 months all of the functionality people have been asking for will be built in. "

David,

Great! Then let's see it.

[David Battistella] "I wonder if they will get Walter Murch to endorse thus version? Or if the Cohen brothers will edit a film on it at some point."

Never gonna happen.


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

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

POST-PRODUCTION WITHOUT THE USUAL INSANITY ™


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


Return to posts index

David Battistella
Re: Lightworks
on Jul 31, 2011 at 6:31:04 pm

David

I agree. We will have to see it and many are waiting and watching.

The first "upgrade" will have to be significant.

- open FCP legacy
- edl XML import export (I think we will see a share to devices that will integrate with logic)
- pro I/O with capture cards for broadcast monitoring.

I think all of that needs to be in the first update.
-

______________________________
The shortest answer is doing.
Lord Herbert
http://vimeo.com/battistella



Return to posts index


Andrew Richards
Re: Lightworks
on Jul 31, 2011 at 8:15:35 pm

[David Battistella] "open FCP legacy"

Given that Apple has categorically stated they won't be doing this, it is highly unlikely they'd do a 180 and deliver this feature. Certainly not in the first update.

My hunch is that Apple decided project translation into FCPX Event/Project combinations can't be done to their own UX standards, but I don't see any reason a third party couldn't come up with a good-enough solution using the forthcoming AXEL XML API. Lots of assumptions would need to be made in terms of how to construct a magnetic timeline from a legacy timeline's EDL, but I think a reasonable facsimile timeline could be extrapolated and then left to the editor to take the rest of the way to magnetic nirvana.

You might even get a range of tools that can do this, from the cheap and simple using legacy FCP XML to the expensive and complicated that can read legacy .fcp binaries and let the user define what assumptions are made in the extrapolation.

Best,
Andy


Return to posts index

Andrew Richards
Re: Lightworks
on Jul 31, 2011 at 7:55:20 pm

[David Roth Weiss] "Never gonna happen."

Never is a long time...

You're probably right about Murch and the Coens, but some high-profile talent will use it on a major feature. Perhaps a Fincher or Jackson movie shot on EPIC, handled digitally from sensor through distribution? When you shed all the legacy celluloid requirements, the feature pipeline gets a lot more FCPX-friendly. It obviously can't be done on 10.0, but maybe 10.1 or 10.2.

(PS, before anyone jumps on me for those version numbers thinking I mean minor updates, those are going to be how major revs are delineated, just like OS X. It says so in the EULA.)

Best,
Andy


Return to posts index

Aindreas Gallagher
Re: Lightworks
on Jul 31, 2011 at 8:14:20 pm

[Andrew Richards] "When you shed all the legacy celluloid requirements, the feature pipeline gets a lot more FCPX-friendly."

they're probably going to want to look at source, selects and monitor aren't they? Or at least, that's what that oscar winning editor chappie said in variety - no source monitor, no dice.

Also another film editor made the point on this forum that on a typical duration film selects reel, the skimmer becomes completely unusable.

I think if one were a film editor one would say pretty unequivocally that FCPX is not fit for purpose.


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


Return to posts index


Andrew Richards
Re: Lightworks
on Jul 31, 2011 at 9:44:39 pm

[Aindreas Gallagher] "they're probably going to want to look at source, selects and monitor aren't they? Or at least, that's what that oscar winning editor chappie said in variety - no source monitor, no dice."

You mean this? He actually talks about having three monitors, which I guess means Viewer/Canvas/External, but the External is always mirroring whichever is active between the Viewer or Canvas, so it isn't really three monitors if one is always mirroring another. I guess since I'm more of an engineer than an editor, I don't fully understand the need for a persistent source monitor. Are you regularly playing back the two simultaneously, ganged? I never used that technique, and I'm interested in knowing why it is essential for feature work.

[Aindreas Gallagher] "Also another film editor made the point on this forum that on a typical duration film selects reel, the skimmer becomes completely unusable."

Selects reel? Swimming upstream. This is what metadata is for. Unless the cam op is not stopping record on cut, the clips off the camera will be short by nature. Like I said, non-celluloid workflows are much closer to the pin.

[Aindreas Gallagher] "I think if one were a film editor one would say pretty unequivocally that FCPX is not fit for purpose."

Today it isn't. Saying it never will be is pretty bold. Unlikely? Fine. Never? I'll take that bet.

Best,
Andy


Return to posts index

Aindreas Gallagher
Re: Lightworks
on Jul 31, 2011 at 10:05:23 pm

yeah that's the one - but I think he's actually talking three before you get to external - I don't know features editing from a hole in the ground, but I think selects form a rather important part of the process - hence they typically have...

"we use source material, select material, and then our edit material, so we use three monitors. You can kind of force yourself to change, but why? It might be better if you’re working on a laptop, but if you’ve got three monitors to work from, then it’s not better — it’s constricting.”

He means that they habitually have, in effect, two source monitors. I think viewing the selects reels in pretty intrinsic to features editing, doesn't really have anything to do with ganging or anything like that, they demand three sources - not one monitor flicking constantly between the timeline, the source monitor, and the selects stuff, which does sound amazingly stupid when you think about it. Apple have done it to squeeze the clip inspector and the skimmer stuff on a laptop destined GUI. its laptop interface logic - basically that Apple have gone way too far in removing the source monitor - I personally feel that strongly. I think its a giant mistake. I think the source monitor is intellectually valid and important. I think you need a persistent second window. Anyway multicam directly calls for a functioning source monitor of some kind - so they're going to have to solve it one way or another.

[Andrew Richards] "Selects reel? Swimming upstream. This is what metadata is for."

I'm not sure that captures what a selects reel's function is - but I'd let someone besides me who actually knows what they're talking about step in on that one.


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


Return to posts index

Andrew Richards
Re: Lightworks
on Jul 31, 2011 at 11:19:59 pm

[Aindreas Gallagher] "I'm not sure that captures what a selects reel's function is - but I'd let someone besides me who actually knows what they're talking about step in on that one."

My mostly ignorant understanding of selects reels are that they are string outs of good takes used to primarily to locate shots. Like a playable bin, so to speak. If that isn't correct, I'm keen to know what they really are for.

Best,
Andy


Return to posts index


Aindreas Gallagher
Re: Lightworks
on Jul 31, 2011 at 11:27:55 pm

Nah that's my understanding too. Its just that I don't see how metadata relates to the practise of selects reels. Consciously trimming and preparing a reel of takes for viewing and use in the main edit or whathaveyou is pretty different to just dragging a yellow bounding box around something and typing 'selects' in the keyword box.
Metadata is getting kind of crazily overrated and overstated in this release IMHO. You'd swear it was the ark of the covenant or something?


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


Return to posts index

Andrew Richards
Re: Lightworks
on Aug 1, 2011 at 12:18:38 am

DUPLICATE POST


Return to posts index

Andrew Richards
Re: Lightworks
on Aug 1, 2011 at 12:19:22 am

[Aindreas Gallagher] "Consciously trimming and preparing a reel of takes for viewing and use in the main edit or whathaveyou is pretty different to just dragging a yellow bounding box around something and typing 'selects' in the keyword box."

True, kind of like the miniature pre viz sculpture an artist might make while developing the final casting (Rodin did that anyway). My impression was that the selects reel was less conptemplative than that, and more of a playable bin that didn't require opening each clip in the bin to scrub through them. A selects collection in FCPX could give you that kind of quick access to screening good takes (mouse over, JKL, repeat), but it wouldn't put you through the rigor of laying anything out as any kind of a rough edit.

[Aindreas Gallagher] "Metadata is getting kind of crazily overrated and overstated in this release IMHO. You'd swear it was the ark of the covenant or something?"

It's really powerful when embraced. A lot of well-worn techniques are analogs for metadata, except the computer isn't aware of them. Metadata is what you make of it.

Best,
Andy


Return to posts index


Aindreas Gallagher
Re: Lightworks - who here works regularly with selects reels?
on Aug 1, 2011 at 10:12:45 am

yeah - I might've been over egging the loving preparation of a selects reel - but -

[Andrew Richards] "FCPX could give you that kind of quick access to screening good takes (mouse over, JKL, repeat), but it wouldn't put you through the rigor of laying anything out as any kind of a rough edit."

for one - its the old NCO offline chappie that's tasked there methinks to feed the reel through, but honestly - if you offer someone the choice of a selects reel in its own monitor, or jittering the skimmer around the filmstrips tagged select as the edit timeline viewer collapses into the source monitor - its just not going to fly. No one is going to buy that as a workflow improvement because.. its not. Working rigorously to lay out a good selects reel is a part of the process no? just like rigorously naming your clips for easy recall, rigorously preparing and categorising the bins - none of this stuff was broken or went out of style.

Larry Jordan said on those editing guys podcast there (... its called something like that - I think they're aussie), that it was his understanding that appple got REAMS of detailed feedback from top flight editors on these issues - they just chose to completely ignore it. those are almost precisely larry's words. So that, even with their limited beta feedback, apple chose to pretty much completely disregard it.

to quote another word Larry used more than once on the podcast:

hubris.


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


Return to posts index

Carsten Orlt
Re: Lightworks - who here works regularly with selects reels?
on Aug 1, 2011 at 11:39:35 am

Got to hand it to you, you have faulter an inch from your love of FCPx :-)

Just to entertain: Maybe Apple didn't take any notes from all those editors because all they wanted was the 'old' FCP.

Fascinating all this and I repeat what I said earlier: You are all crazy guys :-)

Carsten


Return to posts index

Carsten Orlt
Re: Lightworks - who here works regularly with selects reels?
on Aug 1, 2011 at 11:41:35 am

oops, should of course read: ...to you, you never faulter and inch...


Return to posts index

Andrew Richards
Re: Lightworks - who here works regularly with selects reels?
on Aug 1, 2011 at 1:02:49 pm

[Aindreas Gallagher] "if you offer someone the choice of a selects reel in its own monitor, or jittering the skimmer around the filmstrips tagged select as the edit timeline viewer collapses into the source monitor - its just not going to fly. No one is going to buy that as a workflow improvement because.. its not."

Valid opinion, I'm mostly playing devil's advocate to point out that there is more than one way to tackle a task. You don't have to skim, you can turn that off and use good ol' JKL. But if you need to see the next frame all the while you are doing that, as David Roth Weiss previously pointed out, then a single viewer is indeed a no go for you.

[Aindreas Gallagher] "Working rigorously to lay out a good selects reel is a part of the process no? just like rigorously naming your clips for easy recall, rigorously preparing and categorising the bins - none of this stuff was broken or went out of style."

I did say it was how Rodin worked, I wasn't arguing against it. If it is part of your creative process it is definitely valuable. I was operating under my own idea of a selects reel that didn't consider it anything more than a playable bin.

[Aindreas Gallagher] "appple got REAMS of detailed feedback from top flight editors on these issues - they just chose to completely ignore it."

If Larry meant the late stage beta starting in February of this year, then the timeline is too short to have implemented anything from that feedback. Any feedback collected there, aside from bug reports, is for major revs way down the line. Software development cycles for these products are measured in years, not weeks. New features don't go from suggestion box to shipping product in a few months. Granted, "new" is relative, many of these are probably features that have been on all the old NLEs for years...

We can only really call these suggestions ignored if they don't show up in 10.1 or 10.2. Of course, none of that at all excuses the hubris shown in yanking FCP7 off the market without offering a suitable replacement!

Best,
Andy


Return to posts index

Aindreas Gallagher
Re: Lightworks - who here works regularly with selects reels?
on Aug 1, 2011 at 1:16:01 pm

Damn you man, you are. just. too. reasonable.

I think Larry was referring to the longer term NDA beta testers? Threes months is no time to change anything really.
And yes. The dot releases are sure going to be the answer to all of this. We're all just hanging around kicking stones in the meantime.

Here's a fun question - do we think the dot releases will be beta tested? As you say 10.1 is a full release that's probably a year out, but what about 10.0.1 or 10.0.7, when does beta testing crank back up? Are they talking to their original NDA beta testers already? Oh that's right - NDA.

Still - they do have some alternate timelines lying around:

http://alex4d.files.wordpress.com/2011/07/timeline_different.jpg

There's a lot less chrome there too.


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


Return to posts index

Andrew Richards
Re: Lightworks - who here works regularly with selects reels?
on Aug 1, 2011 at 2:55:58 pm

[Aindreas Gallagher] "Here's a fun question - do we think the dot releases will be beta tested? As you say 10.1 is a full release that's probably a year out, but what about 10.0.1 or 10.0.7, when does beta testing crank back up? Are they talking to their original NDA beta testers already? Oh that's right - NDA."

Apple is very selective in who they gather beta feedback from, and I'm not at all sure if they seed minor revs for apps. They certainly do for OS X, but that is a different animal (har har). I'm not in the Double Secret Probation Inner Circle of Forbidden Knowledge, and if I was, I'd have been disappeared by now for even mentioning it.

[Aindreas Gallagher] "Still - they do have some alternate timelines lying around"

Quite the intriguing artifact, no? Love those detective posts from Alex. Particularly the one about shared projects and events.

Best,
Andy


Return to posts index

TImothy Auld
Re: Lightworks
on Aug 1, 2011 at 4:45:56 pm

For me selects are more about visualization than organization. Metadata is great for organizing, for finding things you need in a specific situation. I also tend not to discount anything that I think might be useable, so my selects are often more of an assembly of anything I think might be - even marginally - useable in some way, and less a collection of what I deem to be "good takes." Very often one sentence - or even one word - from what otherwise might be discarded as a "bad take," will end up to be integral in crafting the best possible scene you can. For me to be able to see all those things together and then be able to play with them like a Rubic's cube, is invaluable to me. I accept that it may be a limitation in how I approach editing but at present I just don't see how metadata can achieve the same thing for me.

bigpine


Return to posts index

Robert Brown
Re: Lightworks
on Jul 31, 2011 at 10:22:52 pm

[Andrew Richards] "
I guess since I'm more of an engineer than an editor, I don't fully understand the need for a persistent source monitor. Are you regularly playing back the two simultaneously, ganged? I never used that technique, and I'm interested in knowing why it is essential for feature work.
"


Are you talking about the 2nd monitor in the UI? If so it's a simple concept. One monitor for footage you are reviewing, and one for the timeline. It comes out of linear editing, but still makes a lot of sense. You do have the option of turning it off if you want though which I never would.

[Andrew Richards] "Selects reel? Swimming upstream. This is what metadata is for. Unless the cam op is not stopping record on cut, the clips off the camera will be short by nature. Like I said, non-celluloid workflows are much closer to the pin.
"


Metadata is an addition to the process it doesn't eliminate anything. Any good editor will want to see everything that was shot. Some segments go exactly as planned but inevitably as you get towards the end a project, you will have problems, or sections that aren't working well and by seeing the footage sometimes you find something that can make it work. Having the computer scan and organize your footage for you is a gimmick - although it may be useful at times, but there will NEVER be a replacement for seeing the footage with your own eyes. That's what editing is. Evaluating the media you have available and putting it into some sequence that makes sense or is compelling in some way. You have to see what you have in order to do that.



Return to posts index

Andrew Richards
Re: Lightworks
on Jul 31, 2011 at 11:15:14 pm

[Robert Brown] "Having the computer scan and organize your footage for you is a gimmick - although it may be useful at times, but there will NEVER be a replacement for seeing the footage with your own eyes."

This is not at all what I meant. By metadata, I meant the editor tagging clips or ranges of clips as good, bad, whatever. My understanding of a selects reel is a string out of good clips to reference when looking for a shot. Such a technique is superseded by user-generated metadata marking clips as good, bad, whatever. I'm arguing selects reels are an outmoded organizational workflow in the context of FCPX or any other metadata-centric tool.

Best,
Andy


Return to posts index

Robert Brown
Re: Lightworks
on Jul 31, 2011 at 11:58:40 pm

[Andrew Richards] "Such a technique is superseded by user-generated metadata marking clips as good, bad, whatever. I'm arguing selects reels are an outmoded organizational workflow in the context of FCPX or any other metadata-centric tool.
"


Metadata doesn't supersede anything. It's a tool to use as you wish. If you read Walter Murch's book "Blink of an Eye" you will see that no technique has been outmoded. He's worked with about everything out there and finds benefits in any system no matter how antiquated. It's simply how you chose to work and the nature of your material. What tends to happen is that some material on first look may have seemed unusable but later on it saves your ass.

Where I work we definitely don't use clip reels like we used to but use XMLs like a clip reel from our Dalet system. I don't know how many times I've had somebody give me an XML of pre-selected shots where nothing was useable, and then by simply matching into the real and scanning forward and back a few minutes you find something much better. Like I said before, there is no substitute for actually looking at what was shot even if it's already been evaluated and sometimes that means going through long reels.

I just got back from Taiwan working with the editorial dept on "Life of Pi". It is still common practice for a director to not call "cut" and then just reset while still rolling. And then if you get into things like shooting young children and animals where you can have 10-15 minute rolls just trying to get the perfect thing. Metadata won't help you with that. You might have to look through every bit of that material many times before you find the exact right bit. And feature editing is very much about going through EVERYTHING to make sure your using the best take you have. It's pretty painful and you need something that scans smooth because you might be doing it for a while.

This is one reason why some people are rejecting FCPX. Apple acts like they have solved an old problem through their amazing technology but unfortunately that old problem is just the nature of the beast.



Return to posts index

Andrew Richards
Re: Lightworks
on Aug 1, 2011 at 12:33:27 am

[Robert Brown] "Like I said before, there is no substitute for actually looking at what was shot even if it's already been evaluated and sometimes that means going through long reels."

There's nothing inherent to sorting media with metadata tags that precludes seeing all the original source and finding that hidden gem.

[Robert Brown] "It is still common practice for a director to not call "cut" and then just reset while still rolling. And then if you get into things like shooting young children and animals where you can have 10-15 minute rolls just trying to get the perfect thing. Metadata won't help you with that. You might have to look through every bit of that material many times before you find the exact right bit. "

Even in these cases, you can turn off the skimmer and have the exact same screening capability via JKL that you have in every other NLE. All I'm arguing is that a selects reel is just a clip collection by another name. Both require you to watch and sort the media. If you have a 15 minute clip and you lift a few selects for a selects reel, how is that any different than selecting the same ranges and tagging them with keywords for a particular collection? That's all I'm getting at.

[Robert Brown] "Metadata doesn't supersede anything. It's a tool to use as you wish."

It's the primary organizational tool in FCPX, and the rest of the app is designed around that premise. I originally posted trying to use FCPX another way is swimming upstream. You can beat a nail into some wood with the cheek of a hammer, but it works better if you use the face.

Best,
Andy


Return to posts index

David Lawrence
Re: Lightworks
on Aug 1, 2011 at 4:38:27 am

[Andrew Richards] "There's nothing inherent to sorting media with metadata tags that precludes seeing all the original source and finding that hidden gem."

It has great potential but the way tags are currently implemented is cumbersome. The UI needs to be much more unified and direct. In FCP7 a clip can be named, marked, have set in and out points, etc. All of this information is immediately visible and manipulable in the source viewer. Everything is at the editor's fingertips in one place. It's trivial to play past the in/out points to search for missed material which (as @Robert Brown, points out) is often exactly the thing that will make a scene work.

In FCPX, a keyword collection only shows selected ranges. To play beyond the keyword range, you have to 1) select the source event, then 2) view in list mode, then 3) select the clip from all the other clips in that event, then 4) click the disclose triangle to reveal the keywords then 5) select the keyword. Then you can do what would have taken one double-click to do in FCP7. Five steps vs. one step. This seems to be the pattern with FCPX.

[Andrew Richards] "Even in these cases, you can turn off the skimmer and have the exact same screening capability via JKL that you have in every other NLE."

I think the skimmer is cool but vastly over-rated. I've been skimming clips since FCP 1.5. Here's how - I drag the playhead back and forth. When I see a section I like, I zoom in and skim that section or use JKL keys. You can do it in the source viewer or you can make a sequence drop the clip in and do it on the timeline. It works great, it works with clips of any length, and it's optional. Skimming is cool but it's not new and it's not that big a deal.

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


Return to posts index

Andrew Richards
Re: Lightworks
on Aug 1, 2011 at 1:24:32 pm

[David Lawrence] "In FCPX, a keyword collection only shows selected ranges. To play beyond the keyword range, you have to 1) select the source event, then 2) view in list mode, then 3) select the clip from all the other clips in that event, then 4) click the disclose triangle to reveal the keywords then 5) select the keyword. Then you can do what would have taken one double-click to do in FCP7. Five steps vs. one step. This seems to be the pattern with FCPX."

Yes, that is cumbersome. There needs to be a quick way to find the original source for the keyword range.

Best,
Andy


Return to posts index

Geoff Dills
Re: Lightworks
on Aug 1, 2011 at 1:34:26 pm

If I'm in list view in the event library and I'm viewing a clip from a keyword collection and I want to see the original clip, all I have to do is click on the Event it's attached to and it instantly pops up the clip it came from, twirls open the clip to see all the keywords an highlights the keyword I was looking at originally. Why is that so hard?

Best,
Geoff


Return to posts index

Andrew Richards
Re: Lightworks
on Aug 1, 2011 at 3:01:51 pm

[Geoff Dills] "If I'm in list view in the event library and I'm viewing a clip from a keyword collection and I want to see the original clip, all I have to do is click on the Event it's attached to and it instantly pops up the clip it came from, twirls open the clip to see all the keywords an highlights the keyword I was looking at originally. Why is that so hard?"

I'll be damned. It even places the playhead for you, and you get the colored line indicator of the selection duration. One click, JKL from there.

Best,
Andy


Return to posts index

David Lawrence
Re: Lightworks
on Aug 2, 2011 at 4:33:17 am

[Andrew Richards] "I'll be damned. It even places the playhead for you, and you get the colored line indicator of the selection duration. One click, JKL from there."

Better! We're down to two clicks. Now they just need to fix the range selection bugs and it might start getting usable... ;)

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


Return to posts index

alban egger
Re: Lightworks
on Aug 1, 2011 at 4:44:56 pm

[Robert Brown] ". Like I said before, there is no substitute for actually looking at what was shot even if it's already been evaluated and sometimes that means going through long reels."

Well, then the skimmer alone should be worth the $ 299 for you ;-)



Return to posts index

Robert Brown
Re: Lightworks
on Aug 1, 2011 at 5:39:22 pm

Why would I pay $300 for what I can already do and lose half of the other stuff I do on a regular basis? I haven't seen the new skimmer but I had no problem with any previous system.


Return to posts index

David Roth Weiss
Re: Lightworks
on Jul 31, 2011 at 11:34:57 pm

[Andrew Richards] "since I'm more of an engineer than an editor, I don't fully understand the need for a persistent source monitor. "

When cutting dramatic or narrative material you're dealing with continuity, cutting on action, and match cutting between takes much more so that in other forms of filmmaking.

Actors are not robots and as such they do things a bit differently in every take. So, when cutting this type of material, you're consistently making edits from similar, yet very different takes, most of which have innumerable variables, and both good and bad elements, all of which must be considered, requiring you to see both the A & B sides of the moving action on virtually every shot at all times.

For instance, something as insignificant as hand position can become the most important factor in a dialog scene. Even though you might simply be inserting simple back and forth exchange of lines into a dialog scene, you must carefully cut around the hand positions of both actors on both sides of every cut so the cuts are seamless and so the audience is unaware of the cuts.


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

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

POST-PRODUCTION WITHOUT THE USUAL INSANITY ™


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


Return to posts index

Andrew Richards
Re: Lightworks
on Aug 1, 2011 at 12:06:13 am

[David Roth Weiss] "So, when cutting this type of material, you're consistently making edits from similar, yet very different takes, most of which have innumerable variables, and both good and bad elements, all of which must be considered, requiring you to see both the A & B sides of the moving action on virtually every shot at all times. "

Agree. FCPX only begrudgingly gives you a two-up A/B while actively trimming. It ought to be available under more circumstances than that. I still think there are times a two-up would be wasting screen real estate, but FCPX is too stingy with it today.

Best,
Andy


Return to posts index

David Roth Weiss
Re: Lightworks
on Aug 1, 2011 at 12:26:40 am

[Andrew Richards] "I still think there are times a two-up would be wasting screen real estate, but FCPX is too stingy with it today."

Whatever FCP X ultimately becomes, it simply must allow certain elements of it's interface to be user switchable and/or user defined.

NLEs have always become more user definable over time, not less. Even the ripple behavior of slomo in FCP, which was locked in stone for the longest time, was eventually turned into a feature that could be toggled at will by the user.

If FCP X was not so rigid, that might go a long way toward placating many of it's detractors.


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

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

POST-PRODUCTION WITHOUT THE USUAL INSANITY ™


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


Return to posts index

David Battistella
Re: Lightworks
on Aug 1, 2011 at 6:44:57 am

Iin my view editing is editing.

There are specific things that might happen more often in drama over other forms where a source record monitor is handy. For teh speciific kinds of match cuts you are talking about are used more frequently.

In terms of style match cutting is falling by the wayside a bit. Thinking about MURCH's "In the blink of an eye here" where after reading that book I pretty much abandoned that idea.

I will state that the best thing a source record set up lets you do is this.

EYE MATCHING

You can't do that with one monitor and there have already been times where I have had to eye match a cut brought into FCP X.

There is a solution.

You can cut the video onto the primary storyline and leave a gap. as you play through and the "cut" happens you can see if the shot continues or there is a "bump" then you can slip slide to match.

Two monitors was better for eye matching and with no XML or EDL that is the only way to bring a current Legacy project into FCP X.



David

______________________________
The shortest answer is doing.
Lord Herbert
http://vimeo.com/battistella



Return to posts index

Chris Harlan
Re: Lightworks
on Jul 31, 2011 at 6:12:55 pm

I used to Love Lightworks. I'd give it a shot again, even if it is just a downtime hobby. I also wonder whatever happened with Montage. It was a quirky thing, but I enjoyed it. Oddly, it shared a few idiosyncrasies with FCP X. Single Viewer and a timeline that wanted to keep shoving everything to the left, as I remember. The thing I really liked about it: It had nine rotating timelines that doubled as bins. I think I probably still use timelines as bins in FCP7 because of the years I spent on the Montage. Of course, the thing would be unusable now, but once upon a time it felt like a real luxury.


Return to posts index

David Cherniack
Re: Lightworks
on Jul 31, 2011 at 6:34:51 pm

[David Battistella] "I think within 12 months all of the functionality people have been asking for will be built in."

My own witnessing of the development of a few NLEs makes me wonder if you've been smoking BC Gold. :)

If they have the will to build in the changes necessary for the high end work place - fixed tracks and baseband video out - a good deal longer than a year. And that's it they have any intention of it, which looks to me to be doubtful

David
AllinOneFilms.com


Return to posts index

Ron Pestes
Re: Lightworks
on Jul 31, 2011 at 7:07:22 pm

And in 12 months think of how much farther ahead Adobe and Avid will be...

ronpesteshdvideo.com
Apple Certified Master Pro FCS 2
Sony EX-3
MacBook Pro
New convert to Adobe CS5.5 Production Premium


Return to posts index

David Battistella
Re: Lightworks
on Jul 31, 2011 at 7:12:12 pm

What's BC Gold?

______________________________
The shortest answer is doing.
Lord Herbert
http://vimeo.com/battistella



Return to posts index

David Cherniack
Re: Lightworks
on Jul 31, 2011 at 7:17:02 pm

[David Battistella] "What's BC Gold?"

Sorry. BC Bud.

Hint: you smoke it.

David
AllinOneFilms.com


Return to posts index

David Battistella
Re: Lightworks
on Jul 31, 2011 at 7:49:43 pm

[David Cherniack] "Hint: you smoke it."

OH!

I don't smoke. Up not up on all the Cheech and Chong lingo.

I thought you were talking about the Olympics. :)

David

______________________________
The shortest answer is doing.
Lord Herbert
http://vimeo.com/battistella



Return to posts index

Greg Andonian
Re: Lightworks
on Jul 31, 2011 at 11:23:02 pm

[Ron Pestes] "And in 12 months think of how much farther ahead Adobe and Avid will be..."

Indeed. I'd imagine NAB of next year is Apple's deadline to prove they are still serious about pro video editing. NAB is when Premiere Pro CS6 will be released, and it should be a very appealing upgrade, since it will include feature enhancements that were requested by the FCP refugees. By NAB Media Composer 6 will also be out, and that will also be significant and appealing since it's making the leap to 64 bit.

______________________________________________
"THAT'S our fail-safe point. Up until here, we still have enough track to stop the locomotive before it plunges into the ravine... But after this windmill it's the future or bust."


Return to posts index

Robert Brown
Re: Lightworks
on Aug 1, 2011 at 12:02:52 am

Yeah I'm really looking forward to that. It will be interesting to see if Apple even does NAB. I mean why would they? If there is no video out then it's not broadcast.



Return to posts index

Patrice Freymond
Re: Lightworks
on Aug 1, 2011 at 9:33:51 am

I have good memories of working with Lightworks. We're very interested to see it ported to the Mac OS later this year as we don't want to go to PP and are reluctant to go back to Avid.

Incidentally, my mentor on Lightworks, who was a very respected features editor in France, was working with a single window. Yep, you could do this 20 years ago.

Lightworks had a flexibility re its interface that no other NLE ever had. And I think it should be this way: let the editor configure his own. If it was possible 20 years ago it surely must be possible now...

Patrice Freymond

Senior editor
FCP Certified Trainer

patrice@monteur.tv


Return to posts index

Rafael Amador
Re: Lightworks
on Aug 1, 2011 at 11:49:49 am

[Andrew Richards] "since I'm more of an engineer than an editor, I don't fully understand the need for a persistent source monitor. "
You know how is possible to edit a "1 minute" piece of video in just two minutes time?
With two monitors.
No with Metadata, key-words or blah-blah-blah.
A player + a recorder + 2 monitors is the most basic expression of an edit post since video editing exists.
Two eyes: two monitors.
One brain hemisphere for the source and the other one for the program.
Now I will need my full brain (if remains anything) to understand how my time-line goes.
rafael

http://www.nagavideo.com


Return to posts index

Oliver Peters
Re: Lightworks
on Aug 1, 2011 at 12:21:37 pm

I do actually cut films and have so far cut an equal number on versions of both Media Composer and on Final Cut. In fact, I'm currently cutting one on FCP7. Although the general wisdom is that MC is a better tool for films, I actually prefer the more freeform nature of working in FCP7. So, as much as I have problems with FCPX, I'm not ready to completely discount it just yet. Apple's approach with the launch and this software - as it relates to the film/tv editing community - has been schizophrenic at best. Whether that improves is as yet an unknown.

The real impediments to me are the supposed strengths FCPX - namely how you edit in the timeline. The rest - smart collections, key words, events - these are all approaches that will improve with time and we'll probably all grow to appreciate them.

Back to David's original point though with Lightworks... Open source development is an interesting idea. I'm not really sure yet that what Editshare is offering as a beta, actually represents true open source. We'll see. The truly interesting thing would be if Apple were to open source the FCP "classic" code or the design and GUI. That would never happen, but it would be interesting where someone like The Foundry might take such a tool.

Oliver

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


Return to posts index

Geoff Dills
Re: Lightworks
on Aug 1, 2011 at 12:59:33 pm

[Oliver Peters] "The real impediments to me are the supposed strengths FCPX - namely how you edit in the timeline"

Oliver, have you watched the Balis Moviola video on the timeline? Really explained the way it works better than anyone else has been able to explain it that I've seen.

Best,
Geoff


Return to posts index

Glen Hurd
Re: Lightworks
on Aug 1, 2011 at 3:21:56 pm

It's funny how much we're tied to software - especially software that becomes central to a whole pipeline in our business.
It's not enough to be overly familiar with each program's idiosyncrasies, but we also make financial commitments to other software and, usually expensive, hardware that all must answer to that central piece of software.
In the ideal world, all major hubs (software) would be multi-compatible. So would hardware. If a central piece of gear stops being upgraded, you could easily replace it, and move on.
The ideal world doesn't exist.
Swapping FCP for Avid still means acquiring new hardware, re-evaluating existing pipelines, etc. Premiere may be easier, but has other issues.
This is not efficient, nor is it good for business.
Yet we swallow it because we must.

Unions were set up to protect workers from business owners who had no deterrent for abusing them. Not that all business owners were bad, but without a deterrent, some could be. Greed seems to have a way of growing.
A world where software has replaced hammers and shovels is relatively young.
How long before industries, such as ours, realize the need for a new kind of protection. Not from over-zealous business men (in the employer/employee sense), but in the protection of the user from tool-maker.
As long as companies have complete control over the tools they build and the interfaces they run on, we are forced to struggle with their ideas. Normally, a free market answers to the consumer, but if that consumer is considered to be too small to consider, we then have disruption.

So, at some point, it seems it would be wise for an industry, such as ours, to commission its own tool-building enterprise. A linux of editing, as an analogy. Whether it be an open-sourced version of Lightworks, or whatever, it would become the standard by which our industry could establish what we like or don't like. Financial contributions to make this software work would come from the bigger players, who in turn, are the biggest employers. So a demand for efficiency and quality would be built in as a result of the real needs for those working at the top of the spectrum.

This would offer several advantages.
It sets a standard for what we prefer our tools to do and how we expect them to operate within an editing ecosystem.
It forces the "competition" to answer to our standards, instead of, say, them imposing their own paradigms on us - culled from months of editing vacation videos and such.

Seeds for thought, anyway.


Return to posts index

Oliver Peters
Re: Lightworks
on Aug 1, 2011 at 3:31:58 pm

[Geoff Dills] "Oliver, have you watched the Balis Moviola video on the timeline? Really explained the way it works better than anyone else has been able to explain it that I've seen."

Yes, I watched it. Also the "Missing Features" video. You'll note the issues he has to tap-dance around. Things like the lack of ability to easily roll either audio or video edits without workarounds. Or the easy ability to throw things out of sync once you break items apart.

It helps to understand these issues by actually working with the software, which I have. I keep doing that, thinking there may be a way to integrate the workflow. Every time I do that and dig deeper, more issues become evident.

For example, try taking clips with dual mono audio. Now adjust different audio levels on each of the two tracks and different in/out points. Just one of the many little items that are deal-breakers when you add them all up. Plus the general bugginess of the software at this point.

I'm trying to avoid another "FCPX versus" discussion here ;-) since the thread really started with Lightworks and open source. It would have been interesting to see where FCP COULD have been taken - not where it WAS.

- Oliver

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


Return to posts index

Geoff Dills
Re: Lightworks
on Aug 1, 2011 at 3:48:01 pm

[Oliver Peters] "
I'm trying to avoid another "FCPX versus" discussion here ;-) since the thread really started with Lightworks and open source. It would have been interesting to see where FCP COULD have been taken - not where it WAS."


Agreed. Funny there's more posts in this thread about Lightworks than the entire forum the Cow dedicated to it. But little talk about Lightworks. I looked at it and thought it had promise. The controller looks like a fantastic way to work with footage. And its strength is its ability to be customized to the editors delight.

But I made a decision when I switched to FCP to pick one editor and stick with it so I'm trying to continue that approach with X and find out what will make it work, not that it is necessarily a better way in all regards. As to adjusting two audio tracks, the only way I've found is to open in timeline and do it there.

Best,
Geoff


Return to posts index

John Pale
Re: Lightworks
on Aug 1, 2011 at 4:42:14 pm

Having actually tried the Lightworks beta (in a very limited way), I think its even less usable than FCPX in its present state.

This is not the Lightworks used to cut academy award winning films. Not exactly anyway. This version is much less stable (yes...its a beta). Its also extremely feature incomplete. If you think FCP X is missing stuff, you ain't seen nothing yet.

Its interface is also very different than Avid/FCP classic and will take a great deal of getting used to for anyone coming from those worlds. Some may find the editing paradigm clunky and outdated, others will find its simplicity very liberating.

I am not as hopeful about open source editing software. While Apple's hubristic (is that a word?) attitude of thinking they know better than professional editors, and taking no input is certainly troublesome, having a clear vision for the interface is essential for it to work well. I am sure longtime Lightworks users must be a little scared of letting the masses turn their beloved interface into a hodgepodge of FCP and Avid features, just to achieve familiarity, when it does go completely open. Just try to get a room full of editors to agree on anything. One person's essential feature is completely irrelevant to another.


Return to posts index

Chris Harlan
Re: Lightworks
on Aug 1, 2011 at 5:26:22 pm

Ah, Legacy software. I have fond memories of Montage and Speed Razor, for instance. They were remarkable in their time; trying to use them today would be maddening. I'm guessing a voyage back to Lightworks would be a bit of a challange, as well.

That's the problem with this whole FCP wasn't cool (or was a toy) when it was first released. It's just not the late '90s anymore.


Return to posts index

Oliver Peters
Re: Lightworks
on Aug 2, 2011 at 12:36:17 am

[Geoff Dills] "But little talk about Lightworks. I looked at it and thought it had promise. The controller looks like a fantastic way to work with footage. And its strength is its ability to be customized to the editors delight."

I know Andy and the folks at EditShare well and I think what they are doing is a great attempt. It's always good to see new blood, even if it's an older system. This is a totally different Lightworks than in the past. I'm not a big believer in Open Source programs and so far, the development is largely in-house to drive the turnkey film editing system. I also don't see it ported to any other OS any time soon. The code has very deep hooks into Windows.

[Geoff Dills] "But I made a decision when I switched to FCP to pick one editor and stick with it so I'm trying to continue that approach with X and find out what will make it work, not that it is necessarily a better way in all regards."

Of course X is completely different than FCP 1-7, so it seems that at this point you could just as easily move to any other NLE.

[Geoff Dills] "As to adjusting two audio tracks, the only way I've found is to open in timeline and do it there."

Yet, it's absolutely simple in FCP7 ;-)

- Oliver

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


Return to posts index

Herb Sevush
clips with dual mono audio
on Aug 1, 2011 at 3:59:09 pm

"For example, try taking clips with dual mono audio. Now adjust different audio levels on each of the two tracks and different in/out points."

Oliver, what happens in this case?

Herb Sevush
Zebra Productions


Return to posts index

Oliver Peters
Re: clips with dual mono audio
on Aug 2, 2011 at 12:49:04 am

[Herb Sevush] "Oliver, what happens in this case?"

Clip parameters largely have to be modified in the timeline or "opened in timeline". The latter is like making a source-side change (or adding a filter to a master clip) in FCP 7.

When you edit a clip to the FCP X timeline, you then have to change the clip from stereo to dual mono in the audio tab of the inspector. You can disable (un-check) one of the tracks, but you can't adjust individual levels. You have to actually break apart the interleaved A/V clip into connected video/audio clips. Since these are now separate, but connected clips, it is very easy to inadvertently move one and throw it out of sync. Unfortunately, you have to separate them if you want V, A1 and A2 each to have different edit-in points. Also to have different audio levels for A1 and A2. Now extend this to camera clips than can have 4 or more channels of sync audio.

There are no provisions yet in FCP X to identify out-of-sync timeline elements and nothing to easily move or slip them back into sync. The workaround is to combine the separated clips back into a compound (nested) clip on the timeline.

- Oliver

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


Return to posts index

Andrew Richards
Re: clips with dual mono audio
on Aug 2, 2011 at 1:01:19 am

I think he means you can't manipulate individual audio channels across cuts (L or J style) in the main timeline without detaching them from the video, thus putting them at risk of being moved out of sync (with no sync markers to let you know).

Even with mono tracks, FCPX displays all the audio married to video in the main timeline in aggregate. You can drill into individual clips to manipulate the discrete audio channels, (using the "Open in Timeline" option), but you are limited to edits within the scope of the single clip (you can't highlight multiple clips and "Open in Timeline").

This all makes handling mono audio channels separately rather wonky.

Best,
Andy

EDIT: Oliver answered while I was typing.


Return to posts index

Herb Sevush
Re: clips with dual mono audio
on Aug 2, 2011 at 1:42:28 am

"This all makes handling mono audio channels separately rather wonky."

I generally use 4 cameras with mono audio split out among the channels, effectively giving me 8 channels to play with as I cut. This kind of work around stuff, for something I use all the time, everyday, is an absolute deal breaker for me. I wonder in which FCPX upgrade they will figure out they need to address it?

Herb Sevush
Zebra Productions


Return to posts index

Oliver Peters
Re: clips with dual mono audio
on Aug 2, 2011 at 2:04:47 am

[Herb Sevush] "I wonder in which FCPX upgrade they will figure out they need to address it?"

I had a fairly involved conversation with Apple folks in preparing my reviews. I brought up the deficiencies in audio mixing and was told some of the problems would be tackled in the future through metadata. To which I replied, "Huh? People who mix often do it 'live' by playing the audio, moving virtual faders and LISTENING in real time. How do you do do this with metadata?" (I know about the "roles".)

I didn't get any answers or explanations. They implied that they could have done an FCP7-style mixer panel if they had wanted to, but didn't. They also indicated there was a certain level of complexity caused by the compound clips - and potentially compounds within other compounds.

I have the impression they have boxed themselves in by the design of the application.

- Oliver

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


Return to posts index

Paul Dickin
Re: clips with dual mono audio
on Aug 2, 2011 at 11:17:53 am

[Oliver Peters] "...they could have done an FCP7-style mixer panel if they had wanted to, but didn't. "

Steve Jobs: “People think focus means saying yes to the thing you’ve got to focus on. But that’s not what it means at all. It means saying no to the hundred other good ideas that there are. You have to pick carefully. I’m actually as proud of many of the things we haven’t done as the things we have done. Innovation is saying ‘no’ to 1,000 things.”

Why should they 'put back' all the functionalities they 'haven't done'? They're proud they've said 'no' to all that stuff. :-(

[Oliver Peters] "How do you do do this with metadata?"
I guess the same way as a radio DJ or presenter has their audio 'mixed' when they speak - the music levels are dipped automatically. Designate a primary audio track in metadata, and everything else gets taken down automatically...



Return to posts index

Oliver Peters
Re: clips with dual mono audio
on Aug 2, 2011 at 11:39:10 am

[Paul Dickin] "Why should they 'put back' all the functionalities they 'haven't done'? They're proud they've said 'no' to all that stuff. :-("

Which is why I'm less optimistic than others that the many missing features will make it back in. I simply don't accept the argument that they couldn't put everything in because they ran out of time or because it's a 1.0 product. Some of the choices were conscious design decisions.

Oliver

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


Return to posts index

David Lawrence
Re: clips with dual mono audio
on Aug 3, 2011 at 12:43:56 am

[Oliver Peters] "I didn't get any answers or explanations. They implied that they could have done an FCP7-style mixer panel if they had wanted to, but didn't. They also indicated there was a certain level of complexity caused by the compound clips - and potentially compounds within other compounds.

I have the impression they have boxed themselves in by the design of the application."


[Oliver Peters] "I simply don't accept the argument that they couldn't put everything in because they ran out of time or because it's a 1.0 product. Some of the choices were conscious design decisions."

I completely agree. Conscious and potentially fraught with unintended consequences. The response Apple engineers gave you is telling as Larry Jordan's report that none of the user feedback from industry pros who were given advanced copies was incorporated. Why would Apple ignore obvious deal-breaking deficiencies any advanced user would immediately call out during user testing?

My biggest concern is that Apple has painted itself into a corner at a deep level with this design. I've seen this happen before on large software projects. Initial assumptions driving development may not get tested against unexpected usage patterns. Thousands of man-hours and millions of dollars later, a project may wind up so far down the assumed path that it becomes impossible to turn around. Then you show your application to real users and get the rude surprise that your usage assumptions don't pan out. What do you do now? Projects developed in secret are especially vulnerable to this kind of trap.

I get the impression that the UI/object model was never stress tested against the real-world needs of complex projects. Apple's response re: compound clips is especially interesting. I've found that complex object groupings and manipulations are fragile. One of the easiest ways to crash the program is to try to do something unexpected with an object or container. I really wonder if the model scales.

I hope I'm wrong about this. I want to believe that Apple can fix it. I guess we'll have to wait and see...

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


Return to posts index

Oliver Peters
Re: clips with dual mono audio
on Aug 3, 2011 at 12:54:25 am

[David Lawrence] "I get the impression that the UI/object model was never stress tested against the real-world needs of complex projects."

On another issue, I noted that the projects (sequence settings) seem to be locked at 4K DCP frame sizes. So I specifically asked about Epic 5K projects. They apparently didn't test any Epic media. BTW - Epic 5K ProRES files do work in these 4K timeline. (They are scaled or cropped to fit.)

- Oliver

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


Return to posts index

Andrew Kimery
Re: clips with dual mono audio
on Aug 4, 2011 at 12:01:43 am

[David Lawrence] "My biggest concern is that Apple has painted itself into a corner at a deep level with this design."

This assumes that Apple even wants to cater to the "traditional pro" market anymore. I know I'm not the first to say it but it's worth repeating. Apple didn't make a mistake if they intended to focus primarily on a different kind of editor.


-Andrew

3.2GHz 8-core, FCP 6.0.4, 10.5.5
Blackmagic Multibridge Eclipse (6.8.1)



Return to posts index

<< PREVIOUS   •   VIEW ALL   •   PRINT   •   NEXT >>
© 2017 CreativeCOW.net All Rights Reserved
[TOP]