FORUMS: list search recent posts

Steve Kanter: What FCPX CAN Do

COW Forums : Apple Final Cut Pro X Debates

<< PREVIOUS   •   VIEW ALL   •   PRINT   •   NEXT >>
Paul Jay
Steve Kanter: What FCPX CAN Do
on Aug 1, 2011 at 12:56:56 pm

Steve Kanter: What FCPX CAN Do

http://fcp.co/final-cut-pro/news/502-fcpx-what-it-can-do-by-steve-kanter


Return to posts index

Geoff Dills
Re: Steve Kanter: What FCPX CAN Do
on Aug 1, 2011 at 1:01:38 pm

Funny thing, he tries to show how to reconnect media, but when he copies the project file to the other drive, watch how he puts it in the event folder instead of the project folder and then assumes FCPX is messing up again. He never does realize what he's done and ends up doing it over again. Not sure which clip it happens in.

Best,
Geoff


Return to posts index

alban egger
Re: Steve Kanter: What FCPX CAN Do
on Aug 1, 2011 at 4:29:50 pm

Yes, Steve contradicted his intention. Instead of showing how powerful this tool is, it actually looks cumbersome, complicated and actually needs work. But the mistake was on the finder-level not in FCPX.



Return to posts index


Greg Burke
Re: Steve Kanter: What FCPX CAN Do
on Aug 1, 2011 at 5:09:32 pm

Informative non the less, but i can't help but feel this "its a great program" approach is a little biased, I mean Steves making money off Teaching FCPX, Making New Plug Ins, and New Consulting for FCPX its no wonder he's trying to market it as a Great Program. I've recently accepted that Apple is Focusing on Software and Hardware that is targeted to the average Consumer, and thats fine, disappointing, but fine. I think iMovie X 10.0 is a great program, for certain things.

I wear many hats.
http://www.gregburkepost.com


Return to posts index

Craig Seeman
Re: Steve Kanter: What FCPX CAN Do
on Aug 1, 2011 at 5:36:38 pm

[Greg Burke] "Steves making money off Teaching FCPX, Making New Plug Ins, and New Consulting for FCPX its no wonder he's trying to market it as a Great Program."

Like any business, he can chose to support another NLE. Despite the similar name FCP7 is not FCPX so there's no inherent "transfer" of knowledge or base beyond that they have both been from Apple.

He has made a business choice to support FCPX because he believes there is/will be a profitable market for it. He will not be able to create that market so his saying it's a "Great Program" is really of little consequence. He may be supporting FCPX because he believes it to be a great program . . . that lots of people will WANT to use it.

[Greg Burke] "I've recently accepted that Apple is Focusing on Software and Hardware that is targeted to the average Consumer,"

Far too many FCPX features are not geared towards "average consumer." It's missing many higher end features but there are quite a few already included. I doubt the "average consumer" has the need for the quality scopes included. Most "consumers" have no use for 4K resolution support either. Subframe audio editing is also something that most "consumer" wouldn't use. "Consumers" certainly don't need the detailed implementation of metadata support.



Return to posts index

Greg Burke
Re: Steve Kanter: What FCPX CAN Do
on Aug 1, 2011 at 6:08:00 pm

Well Craig We all know your more than excited and supportive of apples new NLE program, its quite clear you like it, but that doest always mean that what everyone else is saying about is wrong. But PLEASE do not be confused iMovie X is a really neat intuitive program, I DONT HATE THE PROGRAM. I hate the fact that apple slapped on the FInal Cut Pro Name, On something that was obviously built off the IMovie Code and marketed to be the "next" Final Cut.

I don't want to get into a whole long argument/Debate about What apple did right/wrong its irrelevant at this point, they did it, Final Cut Pro is dead move on. I've accepted it and am moving into Avid and Premiere, Im not happy about it but Its what you have to do as a editor "evolve" so to speak.

[Craig Seeman] "Far too many FCPX features are not geared towards "average consumer." It's missing many higher end features but there are quite a few already included. I doubt the "average consumer" has the need for the quality scopes included. Most "consumers" have no use for 4K resolution support either. Subframe audio editing is also something that most "consumer" wouldn't use. "Consumers" certainly don't need the detailed implementation of metadata support."

Consumers want to edit on a ipad with little to no problems, do i really have to get into this again? Randy Said he designed this program so one could edit a family video with ease on a cruise ship, THATS FINE. Again I can Appreciate a NLE program thats simple easy and fun to use. In the year few years will we'll see 200$ cameras that shoot in 4k res, 3D and much much more! SO apple is prepared with iMovie X when thats happens.

Again I DO NOT HATE THE PROGRAM, NOR Do I HATE the People who are using it. If its works for you thats great, Im just disappointed much like the other 3% randy says used FCP Studio on a Income Career Basis.

I wear many hats.
http://www.gregburkepost.com


Return to posts index


Craig Seeman
Re: Steve Kanter: What FCPX CAN Do
on Aug 1, 2011 at 6:21:03 pm

I expect that within a year or so not only will most of the "Pro" features return but that FCPX will have advantages over other "Pro" NLEs. Only time will tell. Will the "Pro" market may be small in number they are big in budget so I don't doubt Apple will make FCPX a facility level tool. That metadata use and control is there for a reason. I doubt Apple would waste development of that if there wasn't a strong financial motive to exploit it.



Return to posts index

Aindreas Gallagher
Re: Steve Kanter: What FCPX CAN Do
on Aug 1, 2011 at 9:49:31 pm

[Craig Seeman] "Far too many FCPX features are not geared towards "average consumer." It's missing many higher end features but there are quite a few already included. I doubt the "average consumer" has the need for the quality scopes included. Most "consumers" have no use for 4K resolution support either. Subframe audio editing is also something that most "consumer" wouldn't use. "Consumers" certainly don't need the detailed implementation of metadata support.
"


yessss - but. doesn't all that, taken along with the - hold it with mittens, don't detach the audio - prosumer nature of the timeline, starting at 0 with no bars, no video out.. doesn't that simply mean that apple fired a bullet that they hoped to hit two targets with five hundred yards apart?

I mean isn't that the point? it's a schizophrenic software release. one piece of softwware cannot simultaneously be both a successful prosumer/consumer product and also a truly professional product. That just can't realistically happen.

Gruber had it right in the talk show - in apple's new lingo - pro simply means a souped up version of the consumer product. it happened to aperture, and it just happened, radically, to final cut pro.

we were always going to get the yellow bounding box - thor could not have stopped that - because that is what imovie on the iphone, the ipad and the desktop have - we will never have core paradigms that exist outside of their consumer software. and that is problematic.


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


Return to posts index

Craig Seeman
Re: Steve Kanter: What FCPX CAN Do
on Aug 1, 2011 at 10:16:05 pm

[Aindreas Gallagher] "but. doesn't all that, taken along with the - hold it with mittens, don't detach the audio - prosumer nature of the timeline, starting at 0 with no bars, no video out.. doesn't that simply mean that apple fired a bullet that they hoped to hit two targets with five hundred yards apart?"

It means FCPX is missing important features. Given what it has, many of the others are likely to happen. Apple has said they'll be adding timecode start time on export I believe.

Personally I also think some of the missing features are severe enough to be a problem for "prosumers" as well. It's just plain missing important stuff. But I also believe, after seeing lots of evidence, that Apple will be adding much of the missing features "Pros" need.

I think your bullet analogy has merit. It doesn't quite hit either target but I think Apple's aim will improve on hitting both targets though.

[Aindreas Gallagher] "one piece of softwware cannot simultaneously be both a successful prosumer/consumer product and also a truly professional product. That just can't realistically happen."

It can happen. It's just not there yet. Part of it comes from additional features and part of it will involve GUI improvements. I think Apple's goal is do be able to be as rough or as finished as the user needs. It's a goal they haven't met yet . . . but I think it'll be a lot closer by next year. I think their APIs (many of them just getting out the door) and implementation of their XML replacement will take things much further.

[Aindreas Gallagher] "we will never have core paradigms that exist outside of their consumer software. and that is problematic."

I wouldn't say "never." There's a long history of "consumer" features becoming standard "pro" tools in video. Just look at the LCD monitor built into your professional camera.



Return to posts index


Aindreas Gallagher
Re: Steve Kanter: What FCPX CAN Do
on Aug 1, 2011 at 11:01:51 pm

[Craig Seeman] "I think your bullet analogy has merit. It doesn't quite hit either target but I think Apple's aim will improve on hitting both targets though."

(I cherry picked that quote and then some...)

I think apple know how to fashion really incredible software bullets, but the idea that they can fashion a single bullet to hit these two targets is sheer madness.
the two target minds have radically different levels of comprehensibility when it comes to editing - so apple have to allow for operability from a casual, easily confounded user and at the same time answer the needs of ten plus year editing pros?
You cannot have all levels of operation from the most casual to multi-decade professional contained within the one product.
that product cannot be made. there is no way to fashion it.

although god knows, we really are looking at the attempt.

on the camera analogy - it's like asking canon to collapse their offerings into a single camera that can function as a mission critical professional dslr, while also being capable of being picked up and operated as an enhanced point and shoot for someone vaguely conversant with cameras.
Companies have product ranges with gradations of complexity for a reason.

It doesn't matter how brilliantly you think about it, or how brilliantly you execute it - this single bullet simply cannot work. The attempt asks the wrong questions and sets the wrong task. You end up with FCPX.


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


Return to posts index

Craig Seeman
Re: Steve Kanter: What FCPX CAN Do
on Aug 1, 2011 at 11:46:01 pm

[Aindreas Gallagher] "on the camera analogy - it's like asking canon to collapse their offerings into a single camera that can function as a mission critical professional dslr, while also being capable of being picked up and operated as an enhanced point and shoot for someone vaguely conversant with cameras. "

Actually I think most cameras can do that. Even the high end Canon DSLRs have fully automatic mode. That can be said for many mid level professional cameras as well whether it be Canon XF series or Sony XDCAM cameras. They all have fully automatic modes. I mean what "pro" would spend several thousands or tens of thousands on a camera and use Auto White Balance or Auto Focus? Yet those functions are there.

Throughout the industry, "consumer" features have been integrated into mid and high end gear.

Apple is trying to do this with FCPX and, in the long run, I think they'll succeed.



Return to posts index

Aindreas Gallagher
Re: Steve Kanter: What FCPX CAN Do
on Aug 2, 2011 at 12:34:32 am

I.. dunno craig - one bullet - two wildly divergent targets.

ten years of a user base. And they build this thing. I just can't buy the rationale, or the motive.

in shoe drop, thought experiment terms: what happens when (hypothetical) they buy 3DSMAX, Softimage, the autodesk line of flame smoke etc?

What happens to those software entities then? How much can the craft actually stand apple's presence?
what happens to critical professional software? What do they do to it?

Apple's godly perception of the market, what it means in their eyes, and what it means for the people pursuing that market as a livelihood is gone weird.
We are not, all of us, simply in a financial software skills petri dish of their making, to be mixed up in some future pot skills bunsen burner - there is some real stuff here.

Apple are gone a bit weird and they will, it appears, do just about anything that comes into their heads. Anything. Industry, craft or livelihood bedamned.

sorry - I'm back to greatest hits rants, but really: how can you trust this company? they're poking an entire craft with sticks to find fresh money.


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


Return to posts index


Jeremy Garchow
Re: Steve Kanter: What FCPX CAN Do
on Aug 2, 2011 at 3:44:25 am

[Aindreas Gallagher] "they're poking an entire craft with sticks to find fresh money."

This pretty much sums up a lot of the for-profit production industry. So, it's fitting, eh? Seriously though, let's think about this for a second from the business side of things since this point is now raised.

Yes, profits are a motivation, not the only motivation. I can't work for free, not sure anyone in these forums can. Are all these "switch" deals that are happening right now are out of the "goodness" of other company's hearts? No. It's carpe diem with your fresh money. They want people to buy themselves in to their club by knocking down the cover charge.

I do not think the release of FCPx was necessarily the smartest business move in terms of keeping an installed user base, wouldn't you agree? I am not apologizing for Apple. We can't use FCPx in the shop as it stands, but they are no dummies. If you look at their recent history, the moves they make are deliberate when it comes to releasing new products.

It wouldn't be a smart to grab $299 from everyone now, and nothing from them in the future.

The shake-the-tree-to-see-if-money-falls-out argument doesn't quite add up.


Return to posts index

Craig Seeman
Re: Steve Kanter: What FCPX CAN Do
on Aug 2, 2011 at 4:12:48 am

[Aindreas Gallagher] "in shoe drop, thought experiment terms: what happens when (hypothetical) they buy 3DSMAX, Softimage, the autodesk line of flame smoke etc? "

Autodesk (Discreet) like Edit*, Cleaner, Combustion?

[Aindreas Gallagher] "how can you trust this company?"

Like Avid announcing dropping Mac support (but they did a quick back peddle) or Adobe leaving the Mac market after Premiere 6.5?

Like Media 100 844/x?



Return to posts index

Aindreas Gallagher
Re: Steve Kanter: What FCPX CAN Do
on Aug 2, 2011 at 12:47:16 pm

[Craig Seeman] "Autodesk (Discreet) like Edit*, Cleaner, Combustion? "

well.. yeah. I still argue that Apple is a different, more dangerous crazy.

on combustion - remember paint and effect before it? you could paint on 3DSMAX models as displacement maps with it?

annnd before that it was illuminaire paint? from denim software? we bought that package back in my old station in 98. I remember the box arriving. animatable vector based paint tools. I thought that was amazingly cool.

Our engineers also later plunked a pile of cash down on 844X as the main online.

They also bought an *edit. We didn't have much luck.


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


Return to posts index


Walter Soyka
Re: Steve Kanter: What FCPX CAN Do
on Aug 2, 2011 at 1:54:34 pm

[Aindreas Gallagher] "illuminaire paint? from denim software? we bought that package back in my old station in 98... Our engineers also later plunked a pile of cash down on 844X as the main online. They also bought an *edit. We didn't have much luck."

Yikes! Aindreas, if your old station was an FCP shop, please find out what they're migrating to next so we can all run the other way...

Walter Soyka
Principal & Designer at Keen Live
Motion Graphics, Widescreen Events, Presentation Design, and Consulting
RenderBreak Blog - What I'm thinking when my workstation's thinking
Creative Cow Forum Host: Live & Stage Events


Return to posts index

Aindreas Gallagher
Re: Steve Kanter: What FCPX CAN Do
on Aug 2, 2011 at 2:13:38 pm

yeah, they had the 844X and a lightworks offline - I were the first one to order FCP into the station in 2002 at version 3 for the graphics department.. had it on a blue and white G3 with 5 or 10 gigs of external scsi, I think it was, AE 4.1 running on the ICEboard. that card was huuuge. I loved every single plugin with it. The colour ramp plugin it came with was savage. But there were so many extension conflicts it took three days of trial and error to get a working set, well two - one for video editing and one for everything else.

Conflict extensions - man, now they were crazy. I do not miss them at allll.


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


Return to posts index

Robert Brown
Re: Steve Kanter: What FCPX CAN Do
on Aug 3, 2011 at 7:25:27 pm

[Aindreas Gallagher] "I think it was, AE 4.1 running on the ICEboard"

Yeah I used to be into the Ice boards. Major pain in the ass but would blow other systems out of the water for some things and had a great plugin set. I few years ago I just ended up throwing it away. Such is life.



Return to posts index


Robert Brown
Re: Steve Kanter: What FCPX CAN Do
on Aug 2, 2011 at 4:15:35 am

[Aindreas Gallagher] "Apple's godly perception of the market, what it means in their eyes, and what it means for the people pursuing that market as a livelihood is gone weird.
We are not, all of us, simply in a financial software skills petri dish of their making, to be mixed up in some future pot skills bunsen burner - there is some real stuff here.

Apple are gone a bit weird and they will, it appears, do just about anything that comes into their heads. Anything. Industry, craft or livelihood bedamned.
"


I totally agree. They should just get out of pro media and leave it alone. I remember reading some of the sad stories from Silicon Color people about people getting laid off after the Apple acquisition and now all of their hard work is a dead product. These companies are just playthings for Apple. They have a pretty big list of products they've acquired and killed once they got bored with them.



Return to posts index

Andree Franks
Re: Steve Kanter: What FCPX CAN Do
on Aug 2, 2011 at 2:18:07 pm

[Aindreas Gallagher] "on the camera analogy - it's like asking canon to collapse their offerings into a single camera that can function as a mission critical professional dslr, while also being capable of being picked up and operated as an enhanced point and shoot for someone vaguely conversant with cameras.
Companies have product ranges with gradations of complexity for a reason."


Well that is happening right now! Especially Canon.



Return to posts index

Geoff Dills
Re: Steve Kanter: What FCPX CAN Do
on Aug 1, 2011 at 5:47:47 pm

[Greg Burke] "Apple is Focusing on Software and Hardware that is targeted to the average Consumer, and thats fine, disappointing, but fine."

I agree they've widened the target for this editing software, making it easy for a novice to pick it up and use it quickly and successfully. But to ignore its pro features make your arguments about it weak. If I were in the software production business, I would certainly be looking towards making software more inclusive of potential customers rather than exclusive.

My sense is the "pros" saw their skillset value suddenly plummet in the market place (though I suspect that's only in their own heads...the ability to use tools to tell stories will always be marketable) and have continually found any way they can to denigrate this software as "crap". And since Apple released this without any "Look guys, we know it's not complete, we know you're going to have to spend some more money for the extra features the pros will need so we priced it appropriately, and here's our vision on how to use this new software and its roadmap" they just released it. They blew it. But that doesn't change the ability of the software. And at this point in time for me, it does more things better than FCP7 for me to stick with it.

Best,
Geoff


Return to posts index

Craig Seeman
Re: Steve Kanter: What FCPX CAN Do
on Aug 1, 2011 at 7:10:57 pm

[Geoff Dills] "And at this point in time for me, it does more things better than FCP7 for me to stick with it."

I agree. As I weigh the speed and workflow advantages and consider what current issues will likely be resolved, FCPX is a viable way forward.

One would have to believe FCPX is "frozen" in time to believe Apple won't be targeting professionals as well.

It's ironic what many consider the ability to import iMovie projects, for example, as "proof" that it is "consumer." To me, this is a major leap forward. Rather than making window dubs for clients and getting back lists of numbers to enter, they can do their selects in iMovie and even rough out a cut. I know many "pros" despise "client interference" but for the hands on client this can be a major improvement. Of course this means clients who need this regularly might be inclined to buy Macs too given the time/money savings on having to hand enter time code numbers.



Return to posts index

Jim Giberti
Re: Steve Kanter: What FCPX CAN Do
on Aug 1, 2011 at 7:13:04 pm

The comments about this not being a professional tool are becoming old. I'm certainly a pro and make a good living much of it centered around FCP. Accepting the obvious missing features as understood, I can't fathom how anyone spending serious time with X can think that Apple put all of this back end development into it for a lark or to attract soccer moms - it's an absurd proposition.

This program was rewritten at 64 bits and at great cost for the future not to piss off editors. Now they're launch and communication is a head scratcher in many ways, but in other ways not so much.

If you're not comfortable with it then that's understandable. I've vacillated on the subject. But now, after investing time into X (which on my schedule isn't easy, so I'm a prime candidate to be resentful) I'm really liking it and the way I can interact with it, including grading and a lot of things I discover each day.

That's because it's not an amateur tool. It's different but much of that difference is very smart and to dismiss it as lightweight and prosumer is off he mark. It's deep.

Also calling their integrity into question (the shill theory) every time someone writes something positive about it is pretty tired. That could be suggested of every review of everyone who profits from anything, including all the folks who are now vocal proponents of PrP.

But I take them at their word as I do people who write intelligently of their FCP X experience.
If we want a free and honest flow of opinions and information it's a good idea to encourage it without questioning motives.


Return to posts index

Gary Huff
Re: Steve Kanter: What FCPX CAN Do
on Aug 1, 2011 at 7:32:05 pm

[Geoff Dills]My sense is the "pros" saw their skillset value suddenly plummet in the market place (though I suspect that's only in their own heads...the ability to use tools to tell stories will always be marketable) and have continually found any way they can to denigrate this software as "crap".

Well, Geoff, your sense is dead wrong.


Return to posts index

Geoff Dills
Re: Steve Kanter: What FCPX CAN Do
on Aug 1, 2011 at 7:44:30 pm

[Gary Huff] "Well, Geoff, your sense is dead wrong."

How would you explain it?

Best,
Geoff


Return to posts index

Chris Harlan
Re: Steve Kanter: What FCPX CAN Do
on Aug 1, 2011 at 8:49:15 pm

Because I can't do my job with it?


Return to posts index

Andree Franks
Re: Steve Kanter: What FCPX CAN Do
on Aug 1, 2011 at 9:12:07 pm

Funny you say that cause I could not do a 3D Animayion with Avid! Does this make Avid not a pro tool?
lol

I have another one for you when Flash came out it was said not use on professional or industrial web sites do it's lack of Compatibility (plugin needed). What is your take on that!



Return to posts index

Gary Huff
Re: Steve Kanter: What FCPX CAN Do
on Aug 1, 2011 at 9:15:20 pm

Andree, your post makes no sense at all.


Return to posts index

Chris Harlan
Re: Steve Kanter: What FCPX CAN Do
on Aug 1, 2011 at 9:25:56 pm

No offense, but what on earth are you talking about. I'm guessing that you are not following the through line of the thread.


Return to posts index

Andree Franks
Re: Steve Kanter: What FCPX CAN Do
on Aug 2, 2011 at 6:39:09 am

oh no harm here I am usually cool and professional... ;)

Are we here not talking about the good old Pro and FCPX story?
Well you wrote
[Chris Harlan] "Because I can't do my job with it?
"

And I am referring to the previous post with my sarcasm, well I am telling I could not do my job with Avid, I had to use something in the lines of Maya or Cinema 4D.
Do you get where I am going with this?

By the sorry about the misspelling, I am trying this Samsung Tab out at the moment... Yeah it sucks, not pro enough ;)



Return to posts index

Gary Huff
Re: Steve Kanter: What FCPX CAN Do
on Aug 2, 2011 at 7:41:44 pm

[Andree Franks]And I am referring to the previous post with my sarcasm, well I am telling I could not do my job with Avid, I had to use something in the lines of Maya or Cinema 4D.
Do you get where I am going with this?


I do get what you are trying to say, and it's completely weird.


Return to posts index

Walter Soyka
Re: Steve Kanter: What FCPX CAN Do
on Aug 2, 2011 at 1:39:07 am

[Andree Franks] "I have another one for you when Flash came out it was said not use on professional or industrial web sites do it's lack of Compatibility (plugin needed). What is your take on that!"

I'll try this one.

My take on that anyone who said Flash should not be used for professional or industrial web sites due to lack of compatibility when it was launched was absolutely correct -- at the time. Once you could assume a browser would have Flash, then you could reasonably use it. Macromedia had (and solved) a very difficult chicken-and-egg problem.

Likewise, I think it's reasonable for someone to denounce FCPX today because it won't work for them, then adopt it in the future if the software or the user's needs change.

Walter Soyka
Principal & Designer at Keen Live
Motion Graphics, Widescreen Events, Presentation Design, and Consulting
RenderBreak Blog - What I'm thinking when my workstation's thinking
Creative Cow Forum Host: Live & Stage Events


Return to posts index

Walter Soyka
Re: Steve Kanter: What FCPX CAN Do
on Aug 2, 2011 at 1:40:02 am

-duplicate post-


Return to posts index

David Roth Weiss
Re: Steve Kanter: What FCPX CAN Do
on Aug 1, 2011 at 7:58:20 pm

[Geoff Dills] "My sense is the "pros" saw their skillset value suddenly plummet in the market place (though I suspect that's only in their own heads...the ability to use tools to tell stories will always be marketable) and have continually found any way they can to denigrate this software as "crap". "

Geoff,

You're clearly not a "pro" yourself, otherwise you would not put quotations around the word. So, what exactly makes you think that you have any idea what a pro thinks? And furthermore, since you have no actual frame of reference, why should anyone really care what you think about pros?

In fact, maybe you could be so kind as to tell me and the other Cow members here exactly what is it about Geoff Dills that should make us care about any of the words you write? Or, are you just like my dog, who licks his weenie just because he can?




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

Geoff Dills
Re: Steve Kanter: What FCPX CAN Do
on Aug 1, 2011 at 8:15:42 pm

Classy reply David. The quotes were there to differentiate between people I consider real pros and the whining I see from alleged pros about this software.

Google me if you doubt my cred.

I have found your discussions so far to be rude, uninformative and not helpful in any way. All you want to do is dismiss any opinion which differs from yours and ridicule anyone who voices it. This will be my last response to any post by you.

Best,
Geoff


Return to posts index

David Roth Weiss
Re: Steve Kanter: What FCPX CAN Do
on Aug 1, 2011 at 8:20:24 pm

[Geoff Dills] "I have found your discussions so far to be rude, uninformative and not helpful in any way. All you want to do is dismiss any opinion which differs from yours and ridicule anyone who voices it."

Odd stuff coming from a guy who just dismissed every single professional who disagrees with his point of view about 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

Gary Huff
Re: Steve Kanter: What FCPX CAN Do
on Aug 1, 2011 at 9:07:37 pm

[Geoff Dills]Google me if you doubt my cred.

I did and if this is you, then I fail to see where your experience jives with being able to diss professionals who feel abandoned by Apple who EOL'd FCP 7 and didn't provide complimentary functionality in FCPX.


Return to posts index

Geoff Dills
Re: Steve Kanter: What FCPX CAN Do
on Aug 1, 2011 at 9:23:11 pm

My experience gives me a VERY good point of view.

I've watched as tape formats came and went, edit systems came and went and seen this industry change. I'm not knocking anyone for feeling bad about what's happened, I'm knocking their response.

When we went from 3/4 inch tape to betacam no one cried, "How do I play my old tapes on this new machine?" because it would be stupid.

So when I see everyone whining about how you can't open legacy FCP7 projects in FCPX I am reminded of that. To me the solution is so simple: keep a machine with a partition with FCP7 around as long as you have legacy projects you need to work with. How hard would that be? Did Apple promise you that you would ALWAYS be able to open up a project in ANY future version of FCP? No. It's akin to folks getting their knickers in a twist when old software won't work with new operating systems. When you buy something, all you SHOULD expect is that it does what it does TODAY and continues to do that. Anything else is gravy in my book.

The other argument that gets me annoyed is the "until it has proper video out it's not pro." I was under the assumption MOST pros would use external software to color grade. So the "pros" are doing their own color grading inside FCP? Oh, it must be the "lesser pros" who do that. See where this leads when you try to define "pro"?

There is a growing number of people who "get" FCPX and are finding all the ways to get the job done using it. I do feel for all those who think they've been screwed, but like the Eagles' song says, "Get Over It".

Best,
Geoff


Return to posts index

Gary Huff
Re: Steve Kanter: What FCPX CAN Do
on Aug 1, 2011 at 9:28:56 pm

[Geoff Dills]When we went from 3/4 inch tape to betacam no one cried, "How do I play my old tapes on this new machine?" because it would be stupid.

Frankly, I'm amazed that you didn't give the slightest thought to this analogy before writing it down for all to see. That's an entirely different format change, not a new 3/4 Tape Deck that doesn't play 3/4 Inch Tapes anymore.

Besides, I think you are placing more importance on the backwards compatibility that the user group here is. Apple killed their own product, leaving no room for transition (puts you in quite a pickle if you need new seats) while leaving a product that does not have the same functionality THAT IS REQUIRED FOR THE JOB AT HAND. How many times do we have to go over this point? Too much ignorance floating around here with the rabid FCPX fanbase it seems.

BTW, nothing you've said about your experience in any way validates your opinion.


Return to posts index

Steve Connor
Re: Steve Kanter: What FCPX CAN Do
on Aug 1, 2011 at 9:55:13 pm

[Gary Huff]
Besides, I think you are placing more importance on the backwards compatibility that the user group here is. Apple killed their own product, leaving no room for transition (puts you in quite a pickle if you need new seats) while leaving a product that does not have the same functionality THAT IS REQUIRED FOR THE JOB AT HAND. How many times do we have to go over this point? Too much ignorance floating around here with the rabid FCPX fanbase it seems.

BTW, nothing you've said about your experience in any way validates your opinion.
"


Sorry do we have to validate our opinions here now?

Steve Connor
Adrenalin Television

Have you tried "Search Posts"? Enlightenment may be there.


Return to posts index

David Roth Weiss
Re: Steve Kanter: What FCPX CAN Do
on Aug 1, 2011 at 10:49:48 pm

[Steve Connor] "Sorry do we have to validate our opinions here now?"

Steve,

If Geoff Dills is going to make blanket statements about "pros," you're damned straight, he does have to qualify his opinion when asked to do so. As I said before, he has no frame of reference for knowing what professional editors think.
And, why pre tell would anyone here on the Creative Cow really care what a part time Home Makeover cameraman has to say about the mindset of professional editors in this context?

Let me remind you, before June 21st, 2011 people like you and Geoff came to the Cow when you had troubles so you could ask pros like myself, and like Walter, and like Shane, for our help when you needed it. Now, just because we disagree with you about FCP X are we all suddenly the enemy? There's something very screwed-up about that.


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

Steve Connor
Re: Steve Kanter: What FCPX CAN Do
on Aug 1, 2011 at 10:55:17 pm

Wow, do you actually realise just how arrogant you sound?

Steve Connor
Adrenalin Television

Have you tried "Search Posts"? Enlightenment may be there.


Return to posts index

David Roth Weiss
Re: Steve Kanter: What FCPX CAN Do
on Aug 1, 2011 at 11:04:21 pm

[Steve Connor] "Wow, do you actually realise just how arrogant you sound?"

Steve,

The entire second half of this thread is about a post which several people, myself included, have taken exception to, in which Geoff Dills wrote following:

"My sense is the "pros" saw their skillset value suddenly plummet in the market place (though I suspect that's only in their own heads...the ability to use tools to tell stories will always be marketable) and have continually found any way they can to denigrate this software as "crap"."

And you're simply taking his side because he agrees with you. That's really sad. And, if I'm arrogant for saying so, then I guess I'm going to have to live with it, because it is mighty sad.


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

Steve Connor
Re: Steve Kanter: What FCPX CAN Do
on Aug 1, 2011 at 11:10:58 pm

No David my issue with you is that you launched into a personal and professional attack on someone who had simply voiced an opinion as it happens I don't agree with his original point, but he's allowed to make it.

Steve Connor
Adrenalin Television

Have you tried "Search Posts"? Enlightenment may be there.


Return to posts index

Gary Huff
Re: Steve Kanter: What FCPX CAN Do
on Aug 1, 2011 at 11:26:58 pm

[Steve Conner]No David my issue with you is that you launched into a personal and professional attack on someone who had simply voiced an opinion as it happens I don't agree with his original point, but he's allowed to make it.

Then why is David not allowed to make his point when Geoff's was also a personal attack?


Return to posts index

Steve Connor
Re: Steve Kanter: What FCPX CAN Do
on Aug 1, 2011 at 11:31:52 pm

[Gary Huff] "[Steve Conner]No David my issue with you is that you launched into a personal and professional attack on someone who had simply voiced an opinion as it happens I don't agree with his original point, but he's allowed to make it.

Then why is David not allowed to make his point when Geoff's was also a personal attack?
"


I'm not sure he did attack anyone personally, are you referring to his comments about "pro's"

Steve Connor
Adrenalin Television

Have you tried "Search Posts"? Enlightenment may be there.


Return to posts index

David Roth Weiss
Re: Steve Kanter: What FCPX CAN Do
on Aug 1, 2011 at 11:34:11 pm

Steve,

You really should go back and read the thread from the point at which Geoff enters the conversation. And, if you do, you will see that I asked him to qualify his knowledge of the inner workings of the minds of the "pros," as he refers to He couldn't answer, because he clearly has no frame of reference on the subject, and so he chose instead to attack me.

The fact is, I can be arrogant in this matter, because unlike Geoff Dills, I know what I'm talking about. And, I can and will support what I say in any number of ways if asked to do so. And, on top of that, I have a very lengthy history plastered all over the Internet which shows that not only do I know what I'm talking about, but that I've been willing to share it with others for years and years and years. It's available for all to see.


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

Chris Harlan
Re: Steve Kanter: What FCPX CAN Do
on Aug 2, 2011 at 6:00:56 am

[Steve Connor] "Wow, do you actually realise just how arrogant you sound?
"


Actually, he doesn't. I've read David's posts on and off for years and he has provided a terrific public service. I don't think he sounds arrogant at all.


Return to posts index

David Roth Weiss
Re: Steve Kanter: What FCPX CAN Do
on Aug 3, 2011 at 11:21:58 pm

[Chris Harlan] "Actually, he doesn't. I've read David's posts on and off for years and he has provided a terrific public service. I don't think he sounds arrogant at all."

Thanks for your support Chris. It's tough around these parts now that it's open season on professional editors.


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

Bill Davis
Re: Steve Kanter: What FCPX CAN Do
on Aug 2, 2011 at 12:03:31 am

David,

It's not about your opinions. It's about the relentless TONE that you and a few others here have adopted.

I understand that, since I found myself going in the same direction and had to elect to stop myself.

Honestly, go back and read your last 100 postings. Count the personal pronouns.
Much of what you and a core group of other professionals here on the negative side have written tends to be peppered with "I"s and "You's" with the arguing very loaded towards personal attacks. (A good example being the post quoted herein.)

In fairness, I found myself being drawn in the same direction, so I've tried to concentrate on work (And learning about how X actually works!) for the past few weeks and have taken a break from whatever I was contributing to any personal hostility here.

What's really sad is to come back and see that nothing's really changed.

The sound and fury is exactly where it was the DAY the program was released.

After this much time after release, it's clearly little about the actual program anymore. Everyone's had more than enough time to understand whether it works for them or not. I truly would have expected those who find it not matching their needs would have acted on that assessment and left FCP behind and turned their "mindshare" to whatever tool they feel preserves the "Pre-FCP X" approach to professional editing that they need or want.

But for many they're continuing to congregate at the scene of what they obviously view as "the terrible accident" and gawk. And so I'm worried this will turn into the blog version of the Jerry Springer show - where the only rule is trashier the talk, the higher the ratings.

That's just not my type of TV.

FCP X is Apple moving on - for better or worse.

We have to face the reality that none of us can make FCP-X into what WE want it to be. It's Apple's ballgame. All we can do is accept what it is and decide if that works for us.

To those who want to stay here and argue about the program - that might be useful, particularly if you can articulate why you like, or don't like about how it works. That's instructive. But to stay and hassle the PEOPLE who simply wish to learn more about it is, IMO, kinda lame.

And anyone who does so without being a current, actual USER of the software, has to be taken with a HUGE grain of salt. This is NOT a particularly intuitive piece of software to understand. I saw a long thread on another board today asking how to RELINK files, not understanding that the database restructuring makes the very CONCEPT of re-linking a bit obsolete. (in a "flat file" world, re-linking is trivial In the spider web of a relational database, it's FAR from a trivial task!)

FCP-X is inarguably imperfect, but just as inarguably a new approach to how editing software works.

People want to learn about it. And dismissing ANYONE by turning the discussion to personal attacks - or engaging in any form of "i'm more "pro" than you are - silliness lowers the discourse, in my opinion.

I'm mindful that when I post here, I'm leaving a permanent record - and being dismissive of the PEOPLE who disagree with me might not be the best strategy in this endlessly indexed and searchable era.

For what it's worth.

"Before speaking out ask yourself whether your words are true, whether they are respectful and whether they are needed in our civil discussions."-Justice O'Conner


Return to posts index

David Roth Weiss
@Bill Davis
on Aug 2, 2011 at 12:51:15 am

Actually Bill, I invite you to go back to look at my last 100 posts. In fact, you can go back to 2001 if you'd like. You will actually be shocked to see that since June 21st I've hardly had time to make many posts. I've had several articles and podcasts published however.

So, I challenge you, please do go count up my posts and dissect them anyway you wish, because you'll find that what you think I've written is not in fact what I've written. And, other than the few times that I've butted in to moderate a thread or two, which is something I hate doing, but something that comes with the turf of being a Cow leader, you will also find that I'm the one asking people to discuss the software, not the software pilot.

Now, if you'd like to go head to head, last one hundred of your posts against the last one hundred of mine, you're on!!! Let's count pronouns -let's count whatever you want. Okay?


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

Geoff Dills
Apology
on Aug 2, 2011 at 1:15:08 am

I wish I had been more clear that when I put " around "pros", I was specifically referring to people on this forum that always chime in on any discussion on the merits or lack thereof with FCPX with, "See!!! It's Crap."

I was NOT referring to all professionals. Obviously a real pro examines the software carefully first. Discovers if it can fit his needs. If it does, great. If not, move on. I thought that's who we're dealing with. Except one pro decided to take offense and I apologize. But David, the blatant attack on me was over the top. Rein it in a bit.

Best,
Geoff


Return to posts index

Liam Hall
Re: Apology
on Aug 2, 2011 at 9:18:54 am

[Geoff Dills] "I was NOT referring to all professionals. Obviously a real pro examines the software carefully first. Discovers if it can fit his needs. If it does, great. If not, move on. I thought that's who we're dealing with. Except one pro decided to take offense and I apologize. But David, the blatant attack on me was over the top. Rein it in a bit."

Geof,

I'm a 27 year veteran of the film and video Industry, working entirely and continually at the sharp end of international production and post. I'm a fully paid up professional. I totally understood your viewpoint and agree in part that some people are reacting negatively to FCPX simply because it points to a future where the barriers to entry into this Industry have been largely removed - at least in terms of equipment and learning curve to operate that equipment.

People are rightly annoyed at Apple for discontinuing FCPX (I am), and it is understandable that most professional editing houses will look at this software and dismiss it instantly (mine did), as it doesn't fit either their workflow or business model. Whether it ever will is a moot point and at this time we're all just guessing if it will or won't. It was the same with FCP1, that's why I'm keeping a keen eye on FCPX.

I think you may have touched a raw nerve with the use of the word pro. Some of the comments, plus the amount of time and energy certain COW members are spending denigrating this software points to other motivations. "Me thinks they doth protest too much".

My advice; just ignore anyone who mentions the editing elite or top editors or the best editors in town. The truth is the best guys and gals in town are busy and not attending meetings or writing on the internet or testing new software - that's the job of their assistants and of course a boat load of wannabe's, nobodies and folk stuck at the airport (like me), or watching a render bar on their screen.

I see no reason for you to aplogize. None whatsoever. Indeed, it is you that should receive an apology from David Roth Weiss for his rude and personal attack on you. I don't care what side of the argument people are on, just that they conduct themselves in a polite and friendly tone - that's exactly what professionals do.

Liam.

Liam Hall
Director/DoP/Editor
http://www.liamhall.net


Return to posts index

David Roth Weiss
Re: Apology
on Aug 2, 2011 at 5:10:43 pm

[Liam Hall] "it is you that should receive an apology from David Roth Weiss for his rude and personal attack on you."

Liam,

I specifically asked Geoff what qualifies him to know anything about the "pro" editors he was psychoanalyzing in his original post. Geoff told me to Google his name, which I did at his request.

So, point me toward a single thing I said that is untrue and I will gladly apologize to Geoff.

I'm standing by at the ready and waiting.

[Liam Hall] "Some of the comments, plus the amount of time and energy certain COW members are spending denigrating this software points to other motivations. "Me thinks they doth protest too much"."

You don't actually get it Liam. You see. it's perfectly acceptable to denigrate the software. What's not acceptable is denigrating people who may not agree with you. By attaching various pejoratives and motivations to their personal likes and dislikes, as Geoff Dills did that serves only to try to invalidate them. You've just done it again in the line above, and you don't even realize it.


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

Liam Hall
Re: Apology
on Aug 2, 2011 at 6:14:35 pm

[David Roth Weiss] "You don't actually get it Liam. You see. it's perfectly acceptable to denigrate the software. What's not acceptable is denigrating people who may not agree with you. By attaching various pejoratives and motivations to their personal likes and dislikes, as Geoff Dills did that serves only to try to invalidate them. You've just done it again in the line above, and you don't even realize it."

David,

I do get it, note my use of the word some , so please don't patronise me and please keep this debate professional.

Regards,

Liam.

Liam Hall
Director/DoP/Editor
http://www.liamhall.net


Return to posts index

David Roth Weiss
Re: Apology
on Aug 2, 2011 at 6:50:39 pm

[Liam Hall] "so please don't patronise me"

Let's see, by pointing out that you too are guilty of invalidating the concerns and motivations of those who disagree with you, I'm being patronizing? Not sure how that follows... It's like the opposite of patronizing where I come from.

And, I asked you to be specific and to point to what I said about Geoff Dills that was false, but you didn't or couldn't give me an answer. Just put up and I'll apologize to him post haste.

But, more importantly Liam, what do you think actually qualifies Geoff Dills to analyze the motivations of professional editors? That's the point I raised with him, and I still want to know the answer. Raising that question hardly qualifies as an attack.


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

Liam Hall
Re: Apology
on Aug 2, 2011 at 8:09:50 pm

[David Roth Weiss] "Let's see, by pointing out that you too are guilty of invalidating the concerns and motivations of those who disagree with you, I'm being patronizing? Not sure how that follows... It's like the opposite of patronizing where I come from.

And, I asked you to be specific and to point to what I said about Geoff Dills that was false, but you didn't or couldn't give me an answer. Just put up and I'll apologize to him post haste.

But, more importantly Liam, what do you think actually qualifies Geoff Dills to analyze the motivations of professional editors? That's the point I raised with him, and I still want to know the answer. Raising that question hardly qualifies as an attack."


Trust me David, even my cat thinks you're coming across as a bit cranky here...

I haven't invalidated anyone's concerns. I'm not going to be drawn in to a tit-for-tat row over this, but I do feel you need to reread what I wrote:

[Liam Hall] "People are rightly annoyed at Apple for discontinuing FCPX (I am), and it is understandable that most professional editing houses will look at this software and dismiss it instantly (mine did)

Obviously, I meant FCP7...

Anyway, everyone should be allowed their voice. If Geoff thinks some people have a vested interest in denigrating this software then that's fine, it is his opinion. It's a perfectly valid one and he doesn't need to win an Oscar in order to express it.

In life, and in particular on the internet, it is always sensible to consider the source though, I do think you were being more than a little arrogant to dismiss Geoff's comments in the way you did.

I don't feel threatened by amateurs or hobbyists using FCPX. Some people on here act like they might indeed be. That's my opinion and I don't need to waive my resume around in order to express that either.

Anyway, as is often said on the net; opinions are like arse-holes, everyone's got one and I'll add - there's no need to act like one.

Kind regards and happy shooting,

Liam.

Liam Hall
Director/DoP/Editor
http://www.liamhall.net


Return to posts index

Andree Franks
Re: Apology
on Aug 2, 2011 at 9:31:52 pm

Do you have to be one to see one or do have to know one? :)



Return to posts index

Chris Harlan
Re: Apology
on Aug 2, 2011 at 8:31:47 pm

Liam, please let us know when you may by chance be stuck again at an airport, so that we can shower ourselves in your honey-dripped condescension. Just the thought that you might once again patronize a forum such as this, instead of sending your flunkies or assistants, adds a delicate beauty to my day that I cannot quite define. I knew that there had to be some reason to be grateful for flight delays.

Again, thank you.


Return to posts index

Liam Hall
Re: Apology
on Aug 2, 2011 at 8:41:05 pm

[Chris Harlan] "Liam, please let us know when you may by chance be stuck again at an airport, so that we can shower ourselves in your honey-dripped condescension. Just the thought that you might once again patronize a forum such as this, instead of sending your flunkies or assistants, adds a delicate beauty to my day that I cannot quite define. I knew that there had to be some reason to be grateful for flight delays.

Again, thank you."


Fair point Chris, that did read badly!

Kind regards,

Liam

Liam Hall
Director/DoP/Editor
http://www.liamhall.net


Return to posts index

Chris Harlan
Re: Apology
on Aug 2, 2011 at 8:44:01 pm

Ah! Well, more the gentleman for acknowledging it!

I'm waiting on client notes right now. That's my excuse.


Return to posts index

Craig Seeman
Re: Apology
on Aug 2, 2011 at 9:05:37 pm

[Chris Harlan] "I'm waiting on client notes right now."

So I have this image of Chris walking in to the edit room in a waiter's uniform and asking the clients what they'd like for lunch as he jots the orders down on his pad.

It shows how language can be interpreted as it sits exposed to the elements in a forum post.



Return to posts index

Chris Harlan
Re: Apology
on Aug 2, 2011 at 9:11:44 pm

Really? May I suggest that you need to develop your interpretive skills just a bit?


Return to posts index

Craig Seeman
Re: Apology
on Aug 2, 2011 at 9:46:16 pm

I'm an editor and my ability to perceive things "differently" than others is an asset according to some of my clients. Breaking out of conventional thought avoids mundanity. It's probably also why I see FCPX as an asset because the tool opens one to working a little differently.



Return to posts index

David Roth Weiss
Re: Apology
on Aug 2, 2011 at 10:24:05 pm

[Craig Seeman] "Breaking out of conventional thought avoids mundanity. It's probably also why I see FCPX as an asset because the tool opens one to working a little differently."

You need to find better material to work on Craig, it's just that simple.

Christ, if we had known that was the issue we'd have been scouting for you since Jun 21st. Gosh, that would have saved a lot of reading.


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

Craig Seeman
Re: Apology
on Aug 2, 2011 at 11:03:20 pm

[David Roth Weiss] "You need to find better material to work on Craig, it's just that simple."

Sometimes you get what the client hands you and you have to make it interesting. Sometimes you find an approach the client didn't see.



Return to posts index

Herb Sevush
Re: Apology
on Aug 2, 2011 at 10:28:15 pm

"Breaking out of conventional thought avoids mundanity. It's probably also why I see FCPX as an asset because the tool opens one to working a little differently."

So would editing FCP7 upside down with my pants on fire, plus I could still have a viewer window.

Herb Sevush
Zebra Productions


Return to posts index

Craig Seeman
Re: Apology
on Aug 2, 2011 at 10:41:17 pm

[Herb Sevush] "So would editing FCP7 upside down with my pants on fire, plus I could still have a viewer window."

Yes. You should try it some time. I should introduce you to some of my past clients (and facilities I've worked at). There's nothing like editing with smoke billowing into the room from a facility kitchen fire and you're on deadline.



Return to posts index

Herb Sevush
Re: Apology
on Aug 2, 2011 at 10:49:49 pm

Been there, done that. Finished a major piece for one client as the firemen were coming up the stairs. Does wonders for quick decision making.

Herb Sevush
Zebra Productions


Return to posts index

Craig Seeman
Re: Apology
on Aug 2, 2011 at 11:01:37 pm

[Herb Sevush] "Been there, done that. Finished a major piece for one client as the firemen were coming up the stairs. Does wonders for quick decision making."

And now you have those thrills built right in to FCPX.



Return to posts index

Herb Sevush
Re: Apology
on Aug 2, 2011 at 11:24:04 pm

Life is thrilling enough without inviting some chaos in for a visit. That's why I never understood thrill seekers -- you want a thrill, go raise a kid, that's enough adventure for a lifetime.

Herb Sevush
Zebra Productions


Return to posts index

Aindreas Gallagher
Re: Steve Kanter: What FCPX CAN Do
on Aug 2, 2011 at 2:16:25 am

[Bill Davis] "none of us can make FCP-X into what WE want it to be. It's Apple's ballgame. "


oh lord bill, but you kill me.

that, I swear to god, is a truly, truly stupid statement.


[Bill Davis] "I'm mindful that when I post here, I'm leaving a permanent record - and being dismissive of the PEOPLE who disagree.. etc etc etc a dash more CAPS, four more paragraphs, etc etc etc"

and I close with a quote:


"I don't know why I am being quoted" - unnamed Irish supreme court judge.


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


Return to posts index

Chris Jacek
Re: Steve Kanter: What FCPX CAN Do
on Aug 1, 2011 at 11:11:43 pm

[Geoff Dills] "So when I see everyone whining about how you can't open legacy FCP7 projects in FCPX I am reminded of that. To me the solution is so simple: keep a machine with a partition with FCP7 around as long as you have legacy projects you need to work with. How hard would that be? Did Apple promise you that you would ALWAYS be able to open up a project in ANY future version of FCP? No. "

This is an incredibly big deal. It can also be agued that there IS an unwritten promise from every software provider that old projects will open in the next version. Maybe not every version, but definitely the NEXT version. Could you imagine Microsoft pulling the same crap with MS-Word? Microsoft even goes so far as writing patches that allow you to open newer files in an older version.

Can you think of ANY software update that does not open or convert the previous version's files? Probably not, because that kind of irresponsibility would bankrupt most software companies.

Also, your use of the word whining is also offensive and inaccurate. It's not whining when it's a legitimate gripe. Or in your world, was Poland just whining about being invaded? (Note: This is not meant to be an equivalent analogy, but only to point out that not all complaints are "whining," and those who suggest as much are being disingenuous)

Professor, Producer, Editor
and former Apple Employee


Return to posts index

Craig Seeman
Re: Steve Kanter: What FCPX CAN Do
on Aug 1, 2011 at 11:48:10 pm

[Chris Jacek] "Could you imagine Microsoft pulling the same crap with MS-Word?"

Can you imagine what Windows XP users had to do to "upgrade" to Widows 7?



Return to posts index

Chris Jacek
Re: Steve Kanter: What FCPX CAN Do
on Aug 2, 2011 at 1:53:53 am

[Craig Seeman] "[Chris Jacek] "Could you imagine Microsoft pulling the same crap with MS-Word?"

Can you imagine what Windows XP users had to do to "upgrade" to Widows 7?"


It's not even remotely analogous. These are operating systems, not apps, and you could still open most XP apps in Windows 7.

Professor, Producer, Editor
and former Apple Employee


Return to posts index

Craig Seeman
Re: Steve Kanter: What FCPX CAN Do
on Aug 2, 2011 at 4:19:49 am

[Chris Jacek] "and you could still open most XP apps in Windows 7."

Actually lots of stuff was broken. So much so that they had an XP compatibility mode (so I give them that much). While 7 was an "upgrade" from Vista, it was not an upgrade from XP. It was a completely new OS that had to be installed from scratch. That's assuming your computer met the minimum specs otherwise you just had to buy a new computer.



Return to posts index

Bill Davis
Re: Steve Kanter: What FCPX CAN Do
on Aug 2, 2011 at 12:24:54 am

Criss,

You can't open "legacy" projects in FCP-X because the underlying database structure is COMPLETELY different.

Constraining someone to using one finger is fine for a game like TAG - but when you decide to change the game to "cats cradle" a "one finger" constraint is INSANE. The simplicity of a flat-file query based program like FCP-legacy - bears little relationship to the spider web relational database structure of FCP-X.

Perhaps someone might someday "parse" the new database and do a simple "import" of one field - like "clip content" into a single field like the viewer in X. But the idea that you can POUR a timeline's worth of flat file decisions into an equivalent structure in a spiderweb - where everything MUST connect to everything else in order to properly function is imaginary thinking at best.

What do people think? Apple just decided to piss off people by not taking the time to "code" legacy support into the software? That's INSANE. They knew perfectly well that it would have been a HUGELY positive feature. So the only intelligent rationale is that it was functionally IMPOSSIBLE to build what they wanted while simultaneously maintaining direct compatibility with the prior software architecture.

That people can't understand something this simple, astonishes me.

And so please, everyone, stop harping on how terrible the lack of legacy support is.

YES. It's a MAJOR bummer. And, from what I understand, it's also an inescapably reality that must be faced if we want the potential new capabilities of what the developers hope FCP-X will become as it develops.

Time to move on.

"Before speaking out ask yourself whether your words are true, whether they are respectful and whether they are needed in our civil discussions."-Justice O'Conner


Return to posts index

Walter Soyka
Re: Steve Kanter: What FCPX CAN Do
on Aug 2, 2011 at 12:46:05 am

[Bill Davis] "You can't open "legacy" projects in FCP-X because the underlying database structure is COMPLETELY different... Perhaps someone might someday "parse" the new database and do a simple "import" of one field - like "clip content" into a single field like the viewer in X. But the idea that you can POUR a timeline's worth of flat file decisions into an equivalent structure in a spiderweb - where everything MUST connect to everything else in order to properly function is imaginary thinking at best."

This was a design decision that Apple made, and we can learn something about Apple's point of view from it.

They wanted to change the editorial paradigm, but they were willing to do so at the expense of supporting their existing professional customers' infrastructure and legacy work.

I cannot think of a precedent for this in the world of professional software -- and I think this goes a long way toward explaining the reaction to FCPX. No developer of professional solutions has ever shown this apparent disregard for their customers, their customers' industry standards, and their customers' ability to work.

In general, developers of niche, high-end professional tools keep an eye on the future and continually improve, refine, and evolve their products, but do so while providing continuity for their users.

Walter Soyka
Principal & Designer at Keen Live
Motion Graphics, Widescreen Events, Presentation Design, and Consulting
RenderBreak Blog - What I'm thinking when my workstation's thinking
Creative Cow Forum Host: Live & Stage Events


Return to posts index

Chris Jacek
Re: Steve Kanter: What FCPX CAN Do
on Aug 2, 2011 at 1:58:21 am

[Bill Davis] "Criss,

You can't open "legacy" projects in FCP-X because the underlying database structure is COMPLETELY different. "


And this is exactly why the software should not carry the FCP name. Everyone argues how it is a completely different program, built from the ground up. That's fine. If they did not name it FCP, and put a higher number on it (albeit not the 8 you'd expect), we'd have much less to complain about. Apple makes the CLEAR implication that this is an upgrade or update.

IF they'd named it something else, and kept FCP alive, I think 90% of the complaints would not exist. It is the deceptive nature of it all that really rubs people the wrong way.

Professor, Producer, Editor
and former Apple Employee


Return to posts index

Craig Seeman
Re: Steve Kanter: What FCPX CAN Do
on Aug 2, 2011 at 4:23:47 am

[Chris Jacek] " That's fine. If they did not name it FCP, and put a higher number on it (albeit not the 8 you'd expect), we'd have much less to complain about."

OSX was not really an update from OS9 either. Nor could OS9 software run on it. Although Apple did have "Classic" that one could run inside OSX. In fact the key difference is able had no transition period between FCS2009 and FCPX.



Return to posts index

Gary Huff
Re: Steve Kanter: What FCPX CAN Do
on Aug 2, 2011 at 4:28:11 am

[Bill Davis]You can't open "legacy" projects in FCP-X because the underlying database structure is COMPLETELY different.

This statement is completely ignorant of the software coding process. You can't open legacy FCP6/7 projects in FCPX because Apple didn't want to spend time developing that. Period. No matter whatever fancy doodads you put in the UI, the end result is still clips, transitions, effects, ect. and there is no technical reason why there cannot be a FCP project import feature.


Return to posts index

Andree Franks
Re: Steve Kanter: What FCPX CAN Do
on Aug 2, 2011 at 6:55:39 am

So you have some inside knowledge or programming. Know how that this can be done?
I don't! But your statement clearly states that it is possible to import Final Cut Pro 7 and lower into Final Cut Pro X but the Final Cut Pro team was to lazy to provide there customers with this option?
That is a pretty ballsy statement... especially since many none Apple humans stated the opposite even here on the Cow!
Then there should be no worries a 3rd party will provide us with this tool to make a extra buck! ;)



Return to posts index

Gary Huff
Re: Steve Kanter: What FCPX CAN Do
on Aug 2, 2011 at 2:21:22 pm

[Andree Franks]So you have some inside knowledge or programming. Know how that this can be done?

I used to be a programmer (BASIC, C++, PHP) so I know what is and what isn't possible in a general sense. This is far from being impossible.

I don't! But your statement clearly states that it is possible to import Final Cut Pro 7 and lower into Final Cut Pro X but the Final Cut Pro team was to lazy to provide there customers with this option?


They weren't "lazy." It wouldn't be easy, and it is a huge pain to import something and translate into such a paradigm shift, but Apple could have done it if they wanted to. They had the resources to contribute to such a function, they just didn't want to.


Return to posts index

Chris Jacek
Re: Steve Kanter: What FCPX CAN Do
on Aug 2, 2011 at 6:37:33 pm

[Andree Franks] "So you have some inside knowledge or programming. Know how that this can be done?
I don't! But your statement clearly states that it is possible to import Final Cut Pro 7 and lower into Final Cut Pro X but the Final Cut Pro team was to lazy to provide there customers with this option?
That is a pretty ballsy statement... especially since many none Apple humans stated the opposite even here on the Cow!
Then there should be no worries a 3rd party will provide us with this tool to make a extra buck! ;)"


It's not ballsy at all, it's common sense. You don't need any inside knowledge to know this is possible. Or at least it's possible to import the basic structure of a timeline. It is still in-points, out-points, timecode, etc.., Saying you can't concert that is like saying you can't convert inches to centimeters because they are on a completely differently based number system. Pure hogwash.

The only problems with converting previous projects is that FCPX lacks functionality that FCP7 did (i.e., how could you convert a multiclip sequence). This is what makes Apple's claim about "FCPX being too complicated" laughable. It is the FCP7 project that would be too complicated.

Professor, Producer, Editor
and former Apple Employee


Return to posts index

Walter Soyka
Re: Steve Kanter: What FCPX CAN Do
on Aug 2, 2011 at 6:52:16 pm

[Chris Jacek] "The only problems with converting previous projects is that FCPX lacks functionality that FCP7 did (i.e., how could you convert a multiclip sequence). This is what makes Apple's claim about "FCPX being too complicated" laughable. It is the FCP7 project that would be too complicated."

I think the problem with converting an FCP7 timeline to FCPX is guessing the editor's intent (which FCPX gleans as you construct the edit) from the legacy timeline alone. FCPX would have no way of looking at an FCP7 timeline and figuring out how to translate absolutely placed clips on discrete tracks into primary storylines, secondary storylines, and connected clips.

Without properly translating the timeline and correctly guessing the editor's intent, all those cool new editorial features in FCPX won't work right.

This suggests to me that FCPX will never ingest an edit from any other system, because no other system represents editorial like FCPX does. This is why I've suggested that Apple made a conscious decision to change the editorial paradigm rather than support any legacy work.

Perhaps someone will come up with a tool that allows an editor to "magnetize" a timeline, but that could be very complicated endeavor, too. Since an improperly magnetized timeline would cause FCPX the same trouble that an unmagnetized timeline would, I'd be surprised if Apple opens up import the way they have announced they will for export. I'd love to be wrong here.

Of course, getting the edit out via XML is easier -- you can flatten out the relative trackless timeline and throw out clip connection metadata and get a standard absolute tracked timeline.

Walter Soyka
Principal & Designer at Keen Live
Motion Graphics, Widescreen Events, Presentation Design, and Consulting
RenderBreak Blog - What I'm thinking when my workstation's thinking
Creative Cow Forum Host: Live & Stage Events


Return to posts index

Gary Huff
Re: Steve Kanter: What FCPX CAN Do
on Aug 2, 2011 at 7:46:23 pm

[Walter Soyka]I think the problem with converting an FCP7 timeline to FCPX is guessing the editor's intent (which FCPX gleans as you construct the edit) from the legacy timeline alone.

Despite the fancy bells and whistles with FCPX's timeline, it's still, as Chris said:

It is still in-points, out-points, timecode, etc

That would be like Apple releasing a new version of Pages and that it couldn't import documents from Pages '09 because the new Pages uses auto correct.


Return to posts index

Walter Soyka
Re: Steve Kanter: What FCPX CAN Do
on Aug 2, 2011 at 8:00:28 pm

[Gary Huff] "Despite the fancy bells and whistles with FCPX's timeline, it's still, as Chris said:

It is still in-points, out-points, timecode, etc

That would be like Apple releasing a new version of Pages and that it couldn't import documents from Pages '09 because the new Pages uses auto correct."


Gary, I'd agree that it's a shame that Apple has chosen not support any sort of legacy compatibility, and I certainly understand the consequences for shops like mine with years of FCP legacy. However, an FCPX edit it is not just in-points, out-points, timecode, etc., and that is the root of the problem here.

FCPX needs more data about the edit that is available in the FCP7 timeline in order to make the magnetic timeline work. If FCPX were to open an FCP7 timeline, it would have to lose storylines, clip connections, and trackless magic.

You cannot automatically magnetize a legacy timeline, because the information about the relationships between clips that FCPX relies on is not expressed. If you tried automatic magnetization, the first time that the computer or editor guesses wrong about a storyline or clip connection, it would totally break the FCPX editorial experience. The tools just wouldn't seem to be working right.

Apple made a huge design decision with FCPX, and legacy compatibility is one of the things they were willing to trade for it.

Walter Soyka
Principal & Designer at Keen Live
Motion Graphics, Widescreen Events, Presentation Design, and Consulting
RenderBreak Blog - What I'm thinking when my workstation's thinking
Creative Cow Forum Host: Live & Stage Events


Return to posts index

David Roth Weiss
Re: Steve Kanter: What FCPX CAN Do
on Aug 2, 2011 at 8:08:59 pm

[Walter Soyka] "You cannot automatically magnetize a legacy timeline, because the information about the relationships between clips that FCPX relies on is not expressed. If you tried automatic magnetization, the first time that the computer or editor guesses wrong about a storyline or clip connection, it would totally break the FCPX editorial experience. The tools just wouldn't seem to be working right.

Apple made a huge design decision with FCPX, and legacy compatibility is one of the things they were willing to trade for it.
"


Walter,

I am not a computer programmer, nor do I play one on TV, but I'll go out on a limb and will suggest that eventually somebody, probably not Apple, will make an application or plugin or utility that will enable users to import legacy projects into FCP X.

I'll bet ya $1 if you'd care to make a wager?


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

Walter Soyka
Re: Steve Kanter: What FCPX CAN Do
on Aug 2, 2011 at 8:30:22 pm

[David Roth Weiss] "I am not a computer programmer, nor do I play one on TV, but I'll go out on a limb and will suggest that eventually somebody, probably not Apple, will make an application or plugin or utility that will enable users to import legacy projects into FCP X. I'll bet ya $1 if you'd care to make a wager?"

I won't take the bet, because this is one of the things I'd really like to be wrong about.

What little Apple has said about interchange has been focused on OMF and XML export. On import, all they've said is that "there is no way to 'translate' or bring in old projects without changing or losing data."

If Apple allows developers access to some sort of import hooks, they will be at the mercy of the importer's interpretation of a legacy edit. If the importer guesses wrong, the FCPX timeline will not work correctly in some edits. If the FCPX timeline isn't working correctly, it will reflect poorly on FCPX and on Apple.

On second thought, they don't seem to mind FCPX reflecting poorly on them, so perhaps we will see import after all.

Walter Soyka
Principal & Designer at Keen Live
Motion Graphics, Widescreen Events, Presentation Design, and Consulting
RenderBreak Blog - What I'm thinking when my workstation's thinking
Creative Cow Forum Host: Live & Stage Events


Return to posts index

David Roth Weiss
Re: Steve Kanter: What FCPX CAN Do
on Aug 2, 2011 at 8:50:56 pm

[Walter Soyka] "I won't take the bet, because this is one of the things I'd really like to be wrong about."

Completely understandable. I seldom bet against my heart no matter how good a bet seems. Winning isn't everything...

[Walter Soyka] "What little Apple has said about interchange has been focused on OMF and XML export. On import, all they've said is that "there is no way to 'translate' or bring in old projects without changing or losing data.""

That's the easy way out for them. Had Steve Jobs told Randy Ubillos from the outset that his job depended on the necessary code that would open legacy projects, we'd all be better off now. There are only two outcomes, and I'm not sure if either of them wouldn't be a vast improvement.

[Walter Soyka] "If Apple allows developers access to some sort of import hooks, they will be at the mercy of the importer's interpretation of a legacy edit. If the importer guesses wrong, the FCPX timeline will not work correctly in some edits. If the FCPX timeline isn't working correctly, it will reflect poorly on FCPX and on Apple."

Color 1.0 was not very good at round-tripping, and ver. 1.5 still doesn't do a perfect job, but that hasn't ruined Apple or kept most of us "pros" from performing our appointed duties.


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

Paul Dickin
Re: Steve Kanter: What FCPX CAN Do
on Aug 2, 2011 at 9:53:17 pm

[David Roth Weiss] "Had Steve Jobs told Randy Ubillos from the outset that his job depended on the necessary code that would open legacy projects, we'd all be better off now."
Hi
Hmmm.
I think its OS X that's going to be handling the XML, straight into CoreData...
Does OS X 'understand 'editing'?
There will have to be some sort of utility to turn random bits of QT FCP Legacy timeline XML into AV Foundation mutable gubbins. Then CoreData might have an inkling of what its supposed to be doing.

And Walter S. will say "that doesn't make any sense".
Which it doesn't....
But that's because Apple are doing 'something' we so far haven't 'understood'.

I guess that what SJ actually said was something along the lines of "Randy be sure to throw out all that legacy stuff, because where Apple's headed nothing from the Apple Computers Inc era is going to remain.
After Lion, zilch!
OS XX Alto-Stratus (Cumulo-Nimbus?) won't have a file system, won't have a Finder, keyboard or mouse..."

The times they are a changin'....Bob's avatar will do the keynote song :-).

And Walter S. will say "that doesn't make any sense".
Which it doesn't.
Yet...: -(

So my bet (£10?) is on a x10 more cataclysmic Apple announcement a year or two down the line.
Which is the only way this summer's debacle makes any sense to my way of thinking :-(



Return to posts index

Walter Soyka
Re: Steve Kanter: What FCPX CAN Do
on Aug 3, 2011 at 1:57:43 am

[Paul Dickin] "I think its OS X that's going to be handling the XML, straight into CoreData...
Does OS X 'understand 'editing'? There will have to be some sort of utility to turn random bits of QT FCP Legacy timeline XML into AV Foundation mutable gubbins. Then CoreData might have an inkling of what its supposed to be doing. And Walter S. will say "that doesn't make any sense". Which it doesn't.... But that's because Apple are doing 'something' we so far haven't 'understood'."


Paul, you know me so well! That really doesn't make any sense!

I don't think it's because Apple has done something that we just haven't understood yet -- I think they simply chose to pursue a new editorial paradigm that needs more information to represent an edit than can be derived from legacy systems without reconsidering the magnetic timeline implementation.


[Paul Dickin] "I guess that what SJ actually said was something along the lines of "Randy be sure to throw out all that legacy stuff, because where Apple's headed nothing from the Apple Computers Inc era is going to remain. After Lion, zilch! OS XX Alto-Stratus (Cumulo-Nimbus?) won't have a file system, won't have a Finder, keyboard or mouse..." And Walter S. will say "that doesn't make any sense". Which it doesn't. Yet...: -("

Well, Paul, maybe you don't know me as well as I thought. I was rooting for BeOS to beat out NeXT as the basis for OS X. If BeOS had won, we'd all be rocking relational database filesystems today, instead of the hierarchical system we're saddled with now.

Walter Soyka
Principal & Designer at Keen Live
Motion Graphics, Widescreen Events, Presentation Design, and Consulting
RenderBreak Blog - What I'm thinking when my workstation's thinking
Creative Cow Forum Host: Live & Stage Events


Return to posts index

Chris Harlan
Re: Steve Kanter: What FCPX CAN Do
on Aug 11, 2011 at 4:53:34 pm

Walter! Another BeOS fan. I thought I was a lone in the Universe. A very nifty OS in its time. I even bought stock (which, of course, became worthless.) Sad that something so useful perished in the tech bubble investment inferno.


Return to posts index

Walter Soyka
Re: Steve Kanter: What FCPX CAN Do NOW BeOS
on Aug 15, 2011 at 6:56:33 pm

[Chris Harlan] "Walter! Another BeOS fan. I thought I was a lone in the Universe. A very nifty OS in its time. I even bought stock (which, of course, became worthless.) Sad that something so useful perished in the tech bubble investment inferno."

Chris, before BeOS, I was an OS/2 fan and an Amiga fan. I really know how to pick 'em, don't I?

If you have an afternoon with nothing to do and you want to relive all that Be fun, check out the Haiku project [link] -- an open-source operating system inspired by BeOS.

Walter Soyka
Principal & Designer at Keen Live
Motion Graphics, Widescreen Events, Presentation Design, and Consulting
RenderBreak Blog - What I'm thinking when my workstation's thinking
Creative Cow Forum Host: Live & Stage Events


Return to posts index

Andree Franks
Re: Steve Kanter: What FCPX CAN Do NOW BeOS
on Aug 15, 2011 at 7:03:28 pm

Yeah BeOS was cool for its time... IRIX! now that was a stable system! SGI what where you thinking!!!



Return to posts index

Herb Sevush
Re: Steve Kanter: What FCPX CAN Do
on Aug 2, 2011 at 8:12:08 pm

"Apple made a huge design decision with FCPX, and legacy compatibility is one of the things they were willing to trade for it."

And the fact is this is not unique to FCPX. Adobe, among others, did the same thing when going from Premiere to Premiere Pro, The difference being that Adobe was upgrading from a consumer app to a pro app, whereas Apple ...

Herb Sevush
Zebra Productions


Return to posts index

Gary Huff
Re: Steve Kanter: What FCPX CAN Do
on Aug 2, 2011 at 9:53:27 pm

[Walter Soyka]FCPX needs more data about the edit that is available in the FCP7 timeline in order to make the magnetic timeline work. If FCPX were to open an FCP7 timeline, it would have to lose storylines, clip connections, and trackless magic.

What is this mysterious data that FCPX would need? What about an FCP7 timeline would cause an import into FCPX to lose all of these above? Will you care to elaborate?


Return to posts index

Walter Soyka
Re: Steve Kanter: What FCPX CAN Do
on Aug 3, 2011 at 1:45:22 am

[Me] "FCPX needs more data about the edit that is available in the FCP7 timeline in order to make the magnetic timeline work. If FCPX were to open an FCP7 timeline, it would have to lose storylines, clip connections, and trackless magic."

[Gary Huff] "What is this mysterious data that FCPX would need? What about an FCP7 timeline would cause an import into FCPX to lose all of these above? Will you care to elaborate?"

Gladly.

The timelines -- how the NLE models and stores editorial decisions -- of FCP7 and FCPX are superficially similar, but upon further study, they are really very different.

FCP7's timeline places clips in absolute time. As far as FCP7 is concerned, the clips are held in place only by their relationship to the sequence's master clock. They are not related to each other. Stepping outside of the NLE and speaking in terms of story, the clips do have a relationship, but in FCP7, it's entirely implicit in their arrangement in time. FCP7 has no way of directly tracking or encoding that relationship.

FCPX, on the other hand, has the relationship between clips built into its fundamental design. FCPX's timeline places clips relative to each other. FCPX is stores and manages information about the relationships between clips (not so much between clips and absolute time) in primary storylines, secondary storylines, and clip connections. This is the basis for the magnetic timeline. Without the information about how the clips are connected to each other, the magnetic timeline cannot work.

FCPX has its editorial model (connected clips) built into the application. It's simply not built to handle clips that relate only to time, not each other.

The problem I see with importing legacy projects is that no other application encodes any information about the relationship between clips. They are all references to absolute time, and FCPX just doesn't think this way.

I'm suggesting that the design decisions that make the magnetic timeline possible make legacy import nearly inconceivable without some major changes in how the timeline is implemented. David Lawrence and Oliver Peters have discussed this in other contexts elsewhere, too -- that Apple may have painted themselves into a corner with some of the early design decisions in FCPX.

For a whole lot more on this, you could go back through this forum and read David Lawrence's posts on the magnetic timeline. He carefully points out the logical differences between the FCP7 timeline and the FCPX timeline. You could also go back and read some of my discussions with Aindreas Gallagher, where we discuss how FCP7 was open and flexible in terms of editing methodology, but FCPX was built around a single methodology.

Walter Soyka
Principal & Designer at Keen Live
Motion Graphics, Widescreen Events, Presentation Design, and Consulting
RenderBreak Blog - What I'm thinking when my workstation's thinking
Creative Cow Forum Host: Live & Stage Events


Return to posts index

David Roth Weiss
Re: Steve Kanter: What FCPX CAN Do
on Aug 3, 2011 at 1:59:03 am

[Walter Soyka] "I'm suggesting that the design decisions that make the magnetic timeline possible make legacy import nearly inconceivable without some major changes in how the timeline is implemented. "

Walter,

"Some men see things as they are and ask why, I dream things that never were and ask why not." - Bobby Kennedy

I might be wrong, but then again I might not be wrong... In any case, I can't imagine that a translation app of some sort can't be created. Heck, we put men on the moon with less computer than what's in my phone.


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

Walter Soyka
Re: Steve Kanter: What FCPX CAN Do
on Aug 3, 2011 at 2:29:06 am

[David Roth Weiss] ""Some men see things as they are and ask why, I dream things that never were and ask why not." - Bobby Kennedy"

My favorite variation on this theme is the old Chinese proverb, “The person who says something is impossible should not interrupt the person who is doing it.”


[David Roth Weiss] "I might be wrong, but then again I might not be wrong... In any case, I can't imagine that a translation app of some sort can't be created. Heck, we put men on the moon with less computer than what's in my phone."

I don't think that it's literally impossible to translate an FCP7 timeline to FCPX. I do think it's a more complex problem than many have considered, and it would require some serious intelligence to look at the FCP7 edit, discern the relationship between clips from their placement in time alone, and encode those relationships for FCPX.

Consider an FCP7 timeline. This clip that starts on V2 at 00:07:24;10? Does it belong in the primary storyline? Or maybe a secondary storyline? Or maybe it's a connected clip? Is it connected on the first frame? Perhaps there's an audio hit that connects to a visual hit? Or perhaps it's connected to a specific reference in the audio track? What role should be assigned to the audio track?

Now that's just one clip. Those decisions must be made for every single edit, and you really need to understand the content as well as the placement in time to determine a clip's relationship to the other clips. If any one of those decisions are incorrect, the magnetic timeline may not behave the way it's supposed to when manipulated, because it relies on well-defined relationships between clips.

I think that magnetizing a timeline like this is a non-trivial task for humans, let alone computers. If the computer could read the EDL and figure out the relationships between the clips from their placement and content, would it really be that far off from being able to automatically edit the content from scratch?

The magnetic timeline encodes an awful lot of context at the time the edit is made for later use. The translation problem gets a lot easier to solve if you remove some of the constraints that the magnetic timeline imposes.

Walter Soyka
Principal & Designer at Keen Live
Motion Graphics, Widescreen Events, Presentation Design, and Consulting
RenderBreak Blog - What I'm thinking when my workstation's thinking
Creative Cow Forum Host: Live & Stage Events


Return to posts index

Gary Huff
Re: Steve Kanter: What FCPX CAN Do
on Aug 3, 2011 at 3:38:52 am

[Walter Soyka]Consider an FCP7 timeline. This clip that starts on V2 at 00:07:24;10? Does it belong in the primary storyline? Or maybe a secondary storyline?

It would go into a secondary storyline, by default. There are exceptions, but I would say that most edits have the meat of the footage in track 1 anyway. You can always move it down into the primary if it's meant to be more than a "master clip," there's no reason why "accidentally" putting video tracks 2-infinity into secondary storylines would break anything. It's all layers.


Or maybe it's a connected clip? Is it connected on the first frame?

How does FCPX know to connect clips when you first drag raw footage into it? It makes a guess, and then you have to turn it off or select another option, so I fail to see how playing by the default rules that FCPX already has to do would be any different.

Perhaps there's an audio hit that connects to a visual hit? Or perhaps it's connected to a specific reference in the audio track? What role should be assigned to the audio track?


Role? You mean like keyword? Assign it "Audio Track 2" or whatever they would like to designate it. Then you can rename it, can't you? Sure, you'd have to go in and do housekeeping chores, but when else wouldn't you have to when importing a legacy project? And an "audio hit" that is connected to a "visual hit" is an element of time. Video starts at 32sec 12frames and the audio must come in at 32sec 22frames in order to match the onscreen action. How could FCPX NOT know how to handle this?

and you really need to understand the content as well as the placement in time to determine a clip's relationship to the other clips

You have, more than once, referred to FCPX needing to know things that, frankly, make it sound like it has some kind of Artificial Intelligence engine. It does not. FCPX is based on a programmers idea of how to group things in order to "second guess" the editor and do some stuff automatically. When the guess is right, it's great and saves time. When it's wrong, you have to fix things. Considering it does this just from a brand new project, why don't you think it can be done in a project importer?


Return to posts index

Paul Dickin
Re: Walter Sokya: What FCPX Does...
on Aug 3, 2011 at 12:38:03 pm

[Walter Soyka] "I think they (Apple) simply chose to pursue a new editorial paradigm that needs more information to represent an edit than can be derived from legacy systems without reconsidering the magnetic timeline implementation."
Hi
Thanks for your explanations Walter. Very helpful :-)

[Walter Soyka] "I don't think it's because Apple has done something that we just haven't understood yet ..."
I wasn't really referring to FCP X, more to the overall (software/services) plan of which FCP X is just a part (Apple's Big Plan) - which doesn't include current broadcast workflows/professionals, about which they seemingly "don't give a damn" :-(

[Walter Soyka] "I don't think that it's literally impossible to translate an FCP7 timeline to FCPX. I do think it's a more complex problem than many have considered, and it would require some serious intelligence to look at the FCP7 edit, discern the relationship between clips from their placement in time alone, and encode those relationships for FCPX.

The magnetic timeline encodes an awful lot of context at the time the edit is made for later use. The translation problem gets a lot easier to solve if you remove some of the constraints that the magnetic timeline imposes."


[Gary Huff] "You have, more than once, referred to FCPX needing to know things that, frankly, make it sound like it has some kind of Artificial Intelligence engine. It does not."

The 'choices' that Walter refers to seem more to be a set of 'rules', rather than artificial intelligence.
With the new FCP X paradigm Apple has chosen to impose a set of rules that the GUI insists on, which seek to impose meaningful context on the layout of the timeline.

It appears to me that FCP X puts this timeline relationship data into its own database, which sits above, and 'controls', the lesser. simpler, sets of data that give structure to the AV Foundation assets that are brought into the various Events.

AV Foundation assets - AV Mutable Compositions - can be an order more complicated than the QuickTime file architecture assets they replace. FCP X takes full advantage of the new power that this complexity unlocks.
It is at the lower level database that David Lawrence's time-defined track-element structures exist and get defined - at what frame which track element in which basic asset gets played.

The XML of an FCP 7 project maybe can only go as far as defining the basic data sets of the QT assets - which will need to be 'translated' into AVF assets.
Even an FCP 7 sequence probably just corresponds to an AVF data set.
Its only with FCP X's 'super' database that all the lower level data gets coordinated into the edit as defined by the GUI and toolset that FCP X provides. And its 'rules'.

So dealing with a legacy FCP 7 project will require an 'application' to handle the allocation of various types of data from the XML into the two databases, as per the new rules. That application isn't - by Apple's deliberate choice - FCP X.

I know most editors aren't interested in this infrastructure stuff, but I think its only through having a basic comprehension of the overall methodology - the reasons they're doing things - that those 'ching' moments can happen.

Like in the thread where it was mentioned that maybe the reason why in/out point don't stick in the Event browser is that this is could be designed (eventually ;-) ) for multi-user cooperative workflows, so editing metadata should only be affixed to the asset in an individual user's 'project' - as a favorite or whatever. The shared Event assets should remained unaffected...



Return to posts index

Walter Soyka
Re: Steve Kanter: What FCPX CAN Do -- NOW: Translating FCP7 to FCPX
on Aug 3, 2011 at 1:05:59 pm

[Gary Huff] "You are totally over-thinking this. The magnetic timeline is nothing more than a "gimmick." A series of "If" "then" and "elses" that automatically groups clips together in a way that it thinks will be helpful to the editor. While FCPX may try to do its damnedest to hide time from the end user, it still has to relate to time at some point."

It's certainly possible that I'm over-thinking it -- but I think you're glossing over the differences between how the FCP7 and FCPX timelines work.

The magnetic timeline may be a gimmick, but I think one of two things are true: the magnetic timeline was either the goal of FCPX's new editorial system (in which case the designers added clip relationships to make it work), or it was an easy by-product of the new editorial system (in which FCPX tracks the clip relationships).

You're right that clips in FCPX ultimately relate to time, but they only do so indirectly, via the primary storyline. This is what makes export possible.

By relating clips to each other, FCPX has added a large amount of abstraction in the editorial process versus previous NLEs, but requires more information about how the edit is assembled. I'll argue below that assembling the edit from scratch in FCPX gives the application the context for each edit that it needs for the magnetic timeline.


[Gary Huff] "How does FCPX know to connect clips when you first drag raw footage into it? It makes a guess, and then you have to turn it off or select another option, so I fail to see how playing by the default rules that FCPX already has to do would be any different."

It's different because when editing a clip into FCPX, the application only has to guess one new relationship. Even a straightforward finished timeline can have hundreds of edits and clip relationships. When importing a project, FCPX would have to reverse-engineer all those interconnected relationships en masse, which is a significantly harder problem than guessing relationships one at time by noting how the editor cuts clips into the project.

Think about it like IKEA furniture. It's relatively easy to assemble when you follow the directions, but once assembled, it's quite a bit harder to look at the finished product and derive the exact installation instructions.

If that example isn't hard enough, change "IKEA furniture" to "mechanical watch" or "modern jetliner."


[Gary Huff] "Video starts at 32sec 12frames and the audio must come in at 32sec 22frames in order to match the onscreen action. How could FCPX NOT know how to handle this?"

The point I was making with connected clips is that they do not always connect on the first frame. If a connected clip sits over an edit, connecting it via the first frame will yield a different result than connecting it via the last frame if you try to insert material in between them. There's no way to know from an imported timeline which frames are supposed to be linked.


[Gary Huff] "You have, more than once, referred to FCPX needing to know things that, frankly, make it sound like it has some kind of Artificial Intelligence engine. It does not. FCPX is based on a programmers idea of how to group things in order to "second guess" the editor and do some stuff automatically. When the guess is right, it's great and saves time. When it's wrong, you have to fix things. Considering it does this just from a brand new project, why don't you think it can be done in a project importer?"

I see how the language I've used would lead you to think that I think FCPX has artificial intelligence. I apologize for my imprecision and the confusion it's causing.

I don't think that FCPX literally "knows" anything about the edit, but I do think it does use the relationships between clips (rather than their position in absolute time) to hold its timeline together. No NLE has ever done this before, and it's why I think the translation problem is harder than it seems at first glance.

As I mentioned above, I think assembling a new project, editing in one clip at a time, is a totally different process than reading an imported timeline from left to right, because it allows FCPX to relate individual clips to each other as they're added to the edit. This isn't about letting FCPX form a literal understanding of the edit, but rather building the clip relationships that are the basis for FCPX's project organization and the magnetic timeline.


[Gary Huff] "There are exceptions, but I would say that most edits have the meat of the footage in track 1 anyway. You can always move it down into the primary if it's meant to be more than a "master clip," there's no reason why "accidentally" putting video tracks 2-infinity into secondary storylines would break anything. It's all layers."

I guess this is the part of the problem that I'm not articulating well at all. I think that because of the differences between FCP7 and FCPX, an imported, auto-magnetized timeline wouldn't "feel" like a native FCPX timeline.

Primary storylines, secondary storylines, and connected clips have organizational meaning to the editor in FCPX. Unless you can correctly guess what each clip should be and how it relates to the others, an imported timeline would be gibberish, and FCPX would feel very hard to use.

I think that's why Apple has resisted import -- because you can go from the relative FCPX timeline back to a standard absolute timeline for export, but you can't automatically go from a standard absolute timeline to a relative FCPX timeline.

I don't think that's a good thing, and I'm not trying to defend Apple for leaving project import -- a critical feature for many -- out of FCPX. I do think that if import were as easy as you're suggesting, Apple would have had good reason to do it. By not including import, Apple has removed FCPX's legacy format lock-in advantage, and placed FCPX on equal footing with other NLEs among FCP7 users, because any application change will be a migration.

I've said before that I'd be willing to hand-magnetize a timeline if it meant we could have project import -- it can't be worse than eye-matching an online.

David mentioned roundtripping to Color, and that might be a great place to start. A good Color workflow means spending some time in FCP7 first to clean up the timeline before import. Perhaps someone could devise a workflow from FCP7 to FCPX where track assignments in FCP7 drive whether clips are placed in primary storylines, secondary storylines, or held as connected clips. Perhaps markers could be used to denote connection points. I don't think this problem is unsolvable, but I don't think we'll see an easy automatic solution that makes an FCP7 project feel right in FCPX.

Walter Soyka
Principal & Designer at Keen Live
Motion Graphics, Widescreen Events, Presentation Design, and Consulting
RenderBreak Blog - What I'm thinking when my workstation's thinking
Creative Cow Forum Host: Live & Stage Events


Return to posts index

Herb Sevush
Re: Steve Kanter: What FCPX CAN Do
on Aug 3, 2011 at 1:05:36 pm

Walter -

I'll now propose a translation algorithm.

Video
FCP7 Track 1 = Main Storyline
Track 2 = Secondary Storyline
Track 3 = Connected Clip (this holds for all tracks above 2)

Audio
Any clip becomes connected to the first clip it is in sync with. I don't know how to arrange the rest of the audio in a trackless universe, but perhaps some automatic metadata tagging, labeling clips for their original FCP7 tracks would be the answer.

It wouldn't matter if the FCPX relationships were wrong, obviously the editor would have to go through it and re-assign relationships, all the X guru's keep pointing out how easy and flexible it is. This way, however, all the data would come across. I don't see why something like this couldn't work? (then again I'm often described as being dumber than a stone.)

Herb Sevush
Zebra Productions


Return to posts index

Walter Soyka
Re: Steve Kanter: What FCPX CAN Do
on Aug 3, 2011 at 1:21:06 pm

Herb -- great minds think alike! I just suggested something similar in a post that hit a couple seconds after yours.

Perhaps I should clarify my position on legacy import a little bit:
  • I do think it's very important that FCPX be able to import FCP projects, XML, and EDL.
  • I don't think it's theoretically impossible to get an FCP7 timeline into FCPX.
  • I do think it's tremendously difficult for a computer to do, automatically, with any real meaning.
  • I do think that Apple is avoiding project import because the design of FCPX's editorial model is so different from that of traditional NLEs that translation is a non-trivial problem, and a poorly-translated import would be difficult to work with in FCPX.
  • I do think it's much simpler for a human editor to guide this translation, and prepping the timeline in FCP7 as you and I have suggested might be the easiest way in.


Walter Soyka
Principal & Designer at Keen Live
Motion Graphics, Widescreen Events, Presentation Design, and Consulting
RenderBreak Blog - What I'm thinking when my workstation's thinking
Creative Cow Forum Host: Live & Stage Events


Return to posts index

Gary Huff
Re: Steve Kanter: What FCPX CAN Do
on Aug 3, 2011 at 2:01:29 pm

[Walter Soyka]I do think it's tremendously difficult for a computer to do, automatically, with any real meaning.

I think Herb's idea works just fine. You really need to explain how this would be any different than how FCPX derives "meaning" from just your plain 'ole basic everyday footage that has no hooks into any kind of FCPX database whatsoever. To re-iterate, FCPX gets "meaning" from where you place your footage on the timeline. Whether you are placing your footage in real time within the program, or did it in FCP7 and are now importing an old project, FCPX can still get "meaning" either way. And if the meaning is wrong, you can fix it.

a poorly-translated import would be difficult to work with in FCPX.

How? Is FCPX easy to work in or not? It cannot be both ways. Either it's easy to make changes or not. Can you describe a specific example of a poorly-translated FCP7 project that would be difficult to work with under FCPX?

Effects plugins are a far bigger hurdle than the timeline itself (which is really a non-issue) and would be where I suspect the biggest problem would lie. They are quite different under FCPX, and translating values over to a brand-new filter that doesn't work quite the same way (if it has anything analogues in FCPX to begin with) would be quite a difficult project. That's to say nothing of third-party plugins that, by and large, don't even exist for FCPX yet.


Return to posts index

Herb Sevush
Re: Steve Kanter: What FCPX CAN Do
on Aug 3, 2011 at 2:05:39 pm

"Effects plugins are a far bigger hurdle than the timeline itself"

Effects Plug-In rule #1:

Except for re-timing filters, no other filters or plug-ins will be translated.

Now it's no longer a hurdle.

Herb Sevush
Zebra Productions


Return to posts index

Gary Huff
Re: Steve Kanter: What FCPX CAN Do
on Aug 3, 2011 at 2:13:00 pm

I agree, Herb. But that is far more damaging to your edit than that magnetic timeline would be. That was my point, sorry if it wasn't clear.


Return to posts index

Walter Soyka
Re: Steve Kanter: What FCPX CAN Do
on Aug 3, 2011 at 2:28:09 pm

[Gary Huff] "To re-iterate, FCPX gets "meaning" from where you place your footage on the timeline. Whether you are placing your footage in real time within the program, or did it in FCP7 and are now importing an old project, FCPX can still get "meaning" either way."

That's where we disagree. You're arguing that the FCPX timeline is logically the same as the FCP7 timeline, but with different window dressing. I'm arguing that there's information stored in an FCPX timeline that cannot be derived solely from an FCP7 project or EDL without massive operator intervention.

As the edit becomes more involved, I think sorting out the clip relationships becomes more complicated.

Yes, FCPX gets "meaning" from where you place your footage, but it gets that meaning at the time the footage is placed. Since clip relationships are important in FCPX, and clip relationships are by definition relative, I'm arguing that in addition to their placement in time, the order in which clips are edited into the timeline and the fact that they are edited one at a time makes it easier to capture the editor's intent for a specific clip and its relationships, because the edit is made in context. I don't think that same context is present when reading a traditional timeline left to right.

Whether FCPX guesses your intent on an edit decision correctly or incorrectly, it guesses right in front of you as you're making your edit, and you have the immediate opportunity to correct a wrong guess. With an imported project with hundreds of guesses, you'd have to pre-flight the entire edit before you can expect the FCPX timeline to work as it's intended.


[Gary Huff] "How? Is FCPX easy to work in or not? It cannot be both ways. Either it's easy to make changes or not. Can you describe a specific example of a poorly-translated FCP7 project that would be difficult to work with under FCPX?"

An imported project with hundreds of wrong guesses about where clips belong or how they're connected wouldn't behave the way the same exact project would if it were built from scratch in FCPX.

FCPX has an editing methodology built in, but FCP7 just let you arrange time-based media in absolute time within a video raster. FCPX may work easily when you observe its methodology, but I think if you diverge from it, you'll end up fighting the way the app is built to work.

I agree with Herb that prepping a timeline in FCP7 would mitigate some of the translation challenges, and I posted a very similar idea at the same time he did in the post that you're responding to.

Gary, we may just disagree on this. You think I'm over-thinking, and I think you haven't thought it through. I want legacy import, so I sincerely hope that you are right and I am wrong. I'm afraid that the differences between an FCP7 edit and an FCPX edit are more than skin deep, though, and I think this makes translation a more difficult problem than it seems.

Walter Soyka
Principal & Designer at Keen Live
Motion Graphics, Widescreen Events, Presentation Design, and Consulting
RenderBreak Blog - What I'm thinking when my workstation's thinking
Creative Cow Forum Host: Live & Stage Events


Return to posts index

Gary Huff
Re: Steve Kanter: What FCPX CAN Do
on Aug 3, 2011 at 3:21:33 pm

[Walter Soyka]With an imported project with hundreds of guesses, you'd have to pre-flight the entire edit before you can expect the FCPX timeline to work as it's intended.

How would this be the case? Video tracks are essentially layers, so any video on track 1 will be ignored when there is a video on track 2 at the same time, and so forth and so on. That is what is required to make the edit work as intended: to respect the layers. Same thing for audio. I have no idea why you think it is so overly complicated, or that FCPX does not actually deal in time. Of course it does, it has to, there is simply NO WAY around it.

Like this:

Video 3]_____________________<---------->________________
Video 2]___________________<------->_________<------->___
Video 1]<------------------------------------------------>
Audio 1]<------------------------------------------------>
Audio 2]_____________<-->___________<-->___<-->_________
Audio 3]_________________<-------->______________________

This is a representation of a typically basic timeline. Now each of these elements is arranged in a layer. Video 2 will overwrite the video on Video 1 because it is on top and so fourth. Audio is different because it will play everything on every track simultaneously if you let it. Now, what keeps Audio 2 from playing at the beginning of the clip or right in the middle of the track at Audio 3? Time. It doesn't matter how much fancy metadata you have, or what is linked to what or anything. That only matters when you move stuff around. What matters is that at a specific moment in time, the track in audio 2 will play and then stop. Then at a further moment in time, the process will repeat. Further from that, the track in Audio 3 will also play, and so on. Same with the video, except whatever is on top of another Video track will be shown and not underneath.

Now HOW exactly would importing this timeline into FCPX mess up? I can understand clip connections and so forth and so on, but there should be absolutely NO reason why you couldn't import a project from FCP7 and it actually play "correctly" as per the basic edit itself. There won't be Video 3 clips playing underneath Video 2 clips in the like. The only possible problem would arise when you start to move things, and then you might possibly have to fix relationships, but I don't think that would be that big of a deal, especially if you switch to the position tool.

FCPX has an editing methodology built in, but FCP7 just let you arrange time-based media in absolute time within a video raster. FCPX may work easily when you observe its methodology, but I think if you diverge from it, you'll end up fighting the way the app is built to work.

Again, you are making this far more complicated than it actually is. FCPX is really not doing anything different than FCP7. If you had the source code to FCP7, you could very easily duplicate the magnetic timeline just by adding in a bunch of "If" "then" "else" statements that see how elements are being added to the timeline and then grouping them together automatically. You can duplicate all the magnetic timeline stuff yourself in FCP7, you just have to make the clip connections manually.


Return to posts index

Walter Soyka
Re: Steve Kanter: What FCPX CAN Do
on Aug 3, 2011 at 3:45:17 pm

Gary, it's clear that you've put a lot of thought and effort into trying to explain your point of view to me. Thank you for that.

I'll point you to David Lawrence's article, The Magnet Timeline -- Thoughts on Apple's New Paradigm [link] for some background on my perspective.


[Gary Huff] "Now HOW exactly would importing this timeline into FCPX mess up? I can understand clip connections and so forth and so on, but there should be absolutely NO reason why you couldn't import a project from FCP7 and it actually play "correctly" as per the basic edit itself. There won't be Video 3 clips playing underneath Video 2 clips in the like. The only possible problem would arise when you start to move things, and then you might possibly have to fix relationships, but I don't think that would be that big of a deal, especially if you switch to the position tool."

You've already written my answer in there. You can get the basic edit in, but once you start trying to move things, the fact that the edit doesn't conform to FCPX's editorial model will have you fighting the application all the way. In a complex edit, there will be hundreds of these relationships to sort out.

It will give a terrible user experience, and that's why I think Apple is dodging import. Not because I think it's literally impossible to import a timeline, but because FCPX's tools require information about clip relationships that doesn't exist in other NLEs to work as they were intended.

I should probably clarify my point of view on this a bit more, but this is what I've been trying to say from the beginning here: only knowing the placement of clips in time and not knowing the relationships between clips, FCPX won't work the same way as it would if the edit had been built from scratch.

It seems that Apple, who places such a high premium on the user experience, would rather not import legacy projects at all than import them poorly and offer a bad user experience with FCPX.

Walter Soyka
Principal & Designer at Keen Live
Motion Graphics, Widescreen Events, Presentation Design, and Consulting
RenderBreak Blog - What I'm thinking when my workstation's thinking
Creative Cow Forum Host: Live & Stage Events


Return to posts index

Gary Huff
Re: Steve Kanter: What FCPX CAN Do
on Aug 3, 2011 at 3:55:46 pm

I think, then, that we are ultimately at an impasse which will only become clearer once someone actually makes it possible to import and we can all see what actually happens with the timeline at that point. Whether that happens or not depends on what the status is on acceptance of FCPX as an editor in those worlds come a year from now.


Return to posts index

Chris Upchurch
Re: Steve Kanter: What FCPX CAN Do
on Aug 3, 2011 at 4:13:24 pm

[Gary Huff] "I think, then, that we are ultimately at an impasse which will only become clearer once someone actually makes it possible to import and we can all see what actually happens with the timeline at that point. Whether that happens or not depends on what the status is on acceptance of FCPX as an editor in those worlds come a year from now."

I think it's almost certain that some third party will build an import tool. There's too much demand for someone not to try and fulfill it.


Return to posts index

Gary Huff
Re: Steve Kanter: What FCPX CAN Do
on Aug 3, 2011 at 4:23:59 pm

I think that really depends on a lot of things. Apple has still to release the APIs to make that possible for one. I'm not sure what is out there regarding the FCP7 project file data structure. If there's nothing official, then it will have to be "hacked" essentially in order to be read. If, by the time this has all happened, FCPX is a wash for use in those production houses that have a vested interested in opening legacy projects, it may not be financially viable to do.

So, it largely remains to be seen what happens.


Return to posts index

Andree Franks
Re: Steve Kanter: What FCPX CAN Do
on Aug 3, 2011 at 5:03:12 pm

Hmmmm why dint we all get to gather with some prodigy programers make our own NLE program?
Man we could cretae the perfect tool the best from Avid (like the name Vida) ;) Premiere Pro, Smoke, Final Cut Pro and Media100!
Oh yeah make it a streamline interface like cinema 4D and multi platform so it looks a like and feels the same on any OS!
Why not? Oh yeah the Blender in the NLE world! :)



Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: Steve Kanter: What FCPX CAN Do
on Aug 3, 2011 at 5:03:50 pm

[Gary Huff]
"Video 3]_____________________<---------->________________
Video 2]___________________<------->_________<------->___
Video 1]<------------------------------------------------>
Audio 1]<------------------------------------------------>
Audio 2]_____________<-->___________<-->___<-->_________
Audio 3]_________________<-------->______________________"


This is where it gets weird. So, in FCPx terms, V1 and A1 are essentially the primary storyline?

My first questions is, what if they aren't? Then what does FCPx do?

In order for a dissolve to happen on anything that's not in the primary storyline, it needs to be on a secondary storyline, so on your v2 and v3 where both of those tracks overlap, you would need to create a compound clip within the secondary storyline, but what if that's not the intent (meaning maybe v2 and v3 both have transparency and are creating a composition)? What if all you want to do is dissolve from v2 to v3? Then you can simply add a secondary storyline with no compound clip, and add a cross dissolve between the two elements. Another scenario is, are they simple connected clips? Then they would have to have opacity transformed applied to them instead of dissolves. How does FCPx know which one to use?

What if you don't need a dissolve or you decide to do it through opacity transforms? Then there's no need for a secondary storyline. So how does the XML tell FCPx this? Quite simply, it doesn't. It is here that FCPx has to make some sort of guess and right there is where the information might get "lost".

Also, little things like Motion tab transforms, audio/video filters and the like will probably not translate directly or at all, but to me it is more about how the layers from FCP7 will translate to FCPx.

I agree, that it would be easy to just being everything that's not v1 in as connected clips in time (FCPx still has a timer, a clip @ 1 second in FCP7 can come in to FCPx @ 1 second as well), but you would start to lose meaning if there's dissolves involved.

Also, there's the audio. Does the V2 track have audio? DO you then bring in the audio embedded to the video? Or is it a totally separate clip in which case, it will simply be an audio element tied to the primary storyline.

I do think there will be some translation programs written, but I am sure there will be a bit of work once it is in FCPx to bring it back to the editor's FCP7 intentions.

What I find weird is the "before and after" picture that Apple used at the Supermeet. Essentially they said, here's the timeline in FCP7, and here's the same timeline in FCPx. Any questions?

That was a bit of a tease.


Return to posts index

Herb Sevush
Re: Steve Kanter: What FCPX CAN Do
on Aug 3, 2011 at 5:10:39 pm

Jeremy -

Assume in any of your scenarios that the translation guessed wrong, that what should have been a connected clip was put on the second storyline, or vice-versa. How hard would it be for the editor to manually fix things, now that the basic clip info was in the project? (that is a real, not rhetorical, question, I personally have no idea.)

Herb Sevush
Zebra Productions


Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: Steve Kanter: What FCPX CAN Do
on Aug 3, 2011 at 5:19:59 pm

[Herb Sevush] "How hard would it be for the editor to manually fix things, now that the basic clip info was in the project?"

It really depends on the complexity of the project and how it was laid out in FCP7 and what the intention of the clips are.

I would think the easiest thing to do would be to bring anything that is not on v1 and the embedded audio attached to v1 as connected clips. You would then translate dissolves to other layers as opacity transforms. All "non-embedded" audio would come in as connected clips.

I think this would give you the most "bare bones" translation, meaning, it's the closest thing to breaking apart all the layers in a way that makes sense in FCPx as you are going to get. From there, as the editor, you might have to make some adjustments (adding secondary storylines, make compound clips etc., whatever makes sense for the piece). If the translation program does less guessing and more simplification, then I think it's best in the long run for the FCPx editor. If it's a complex edit with multilayer composites, then perhaps it won't be. Even in that case, I still think laying out the "layers" as simply as possible is the "best" way, but time and testing will tell I'm sure.


Return to posts index

Gary Huff
Re: Steve Kanter: What FCPX CAN Do
on Aug 3, 2011 at 5:30:03 pm

[Jeremy Garchow]My first questions is, what if they aren't? Then what does FCPx do?

FCPX importing a FCP7 project would make Video 1 the primary and Video 2 secondary and so on. I'm not sure what the problem is. As long as the layering of the videos remain intact, the edit will work.

What if all you want to do is dissolve from v2 to v3? Then you can simply add a secondary storyline with no compound clip, and add a cross dissolve between the two elements. Another scenario is, are they simple connected clips? Then they would have to have opacity transformed applied to them instead of dissolves. How does FCPx know which one to use?

I'm not sure what you are getting at here. The same problems occur because you can't add a transition between a clip in V2 and V3. You'd have to alter opacity handles, which can easily be translated into FCPX, because you can do the same effect. You could even default to relating all Video tracks as secondary storylines and be done with it, and then fix it as you want. I don't see how this would effect being able to easily make changes to a legacy timeline in FCPX.

Also, little things like Motion tab transforms, audio/video filters and the like will probably not translate directly or at all, but to me it is more about how the layers from FCP7 will translate to FCPx.

Yes, but this would be the case with any importer (it will be similar in going from FCP to Premier for instance). I don't think the layering of the video will be difficult at all in translating a timeline from FCP7 to FCPX.

Also, there's the audio. Does the V2 track have audio? DO you then bring in the audio embedded to the video? Or is it a totally separate clip in which case, it will simply be an audio element tied to the primary storyline.

It would be an audio element tied to the primary storyline. I'm not saying that clip connections might not be odd, but as long as everything runs at the appropriate moment in the timeline, the edit should be good. The problems will be in the connections, and that's either going to be an easy fix or not, meaning that FCPX is either easy to work with and makes changes in or not.


Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: Steve Kanter: What FCPX CAN Do
on Aug 3, 2011 at 5:36:44 pm

[Gary Huff] "FCPX importing a FCP7 project would make Video 1 the primary and Video 2 secondary and so on. I'm not sure what the problem is. As long as the layering of the videos remain intact, the edit will work."

But what if it makes more sense that the music is the primary storyline? Or the VO, which is not on V1 or A1? Then what? It can be a problem.

[Gary Huff] "I'm not sure what you are getting at here. The same problems occur because you can't add a transition between a clip in V2 and V3. You'd have to alter opacity handles, which can easily be translated into FCPX, because you can do the same effect."

I understand and outlined that, but what if that's not what's needed or what's "best"?

[Gary Huff] "I don't think the layering of the video will be difficult at all in translating a timeline from FCP7 to FCPX."

To me, that will be the most difficult. Filters and transforms can be ignored. As far as the connection points, those can be easily fixed as well, once the timeline is in FCPx.


Return to posts index

Gary Huff
Re: Steve Kanter: What FCPX CAN Do
on Aug 3, 2011 at 5:46:30 pm

That's only a problem if you think in terms of "tracks" and "objects". You can easily disregard all of that and say, "This element on Video 2 plays at 45 seconds, 10 frames, and because it is on Video 2, it will be shown instead of the element that is currently playing at that time on Video 1", and so on, and then translate that to where it works under FCPX, which can then have all the relationships re-done by the editor who needs to make changes.

Again, FCPX is trying to hide "time" with it's magnetism, but at its core it is still relating to time because that's how video works. ¥ou can't get around that, only hide it to a certain extent from the end user.


Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: Steve Kanter: What FCPX CAN Do
on Aug 3, 2011 at 5:56:30 pm

[Gary Huff] "That's only a problem if you think in terms of "tracks" and "objects". You can easily disregard all of that and say, "This element on Video 2 plays at 45 seconds, 10 frames, and because it is on Video 2, it will be shown instead of the element that is currently playing at that time on Video 1","

Sure. That is the most simplest form, but what if it's not that simple? What if v3 belongs in the primary storyline, with the other layers (v1,v2) UNDERNEATH it? Not even at all possible in FCP7. You can't write this information via XML.

But FCPx doesn't have that thinking so it's not really that simple. A primary storyline does not necessarily equal V1 A1/A2 of FCP7. I am not talking about the magnetic timeline at all, I am simply talking about the layers and how FCPx "defines" them.

Also, in your example above, what if it's a composite? "Travel matte" layering works differently in FCPx than it does in 7.

I also said, that I think the easiest way would be to being everything in as a connected clip (the most bare bones) and the FCPx editor will have to sort out the rest. That is not how Apple rolls, though. They will leave that math for someone else (hopefully Automatic Duck as they have been a crucial Rosetta Stone).

I agree with you, it's possible and I think it will happen, but it's simply not that simple.

Jeremy


Return to posts index

Gary Huff
Re: Steve Kanter: What FCPX CAN Do
on Aug 3, 2011 at 6:01:56 pm

I never said it was simple, but you're still over-complicating things. Can you provide an example of where Video 3 would NEED to be in the Primary Storyline track?


Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: Steve Kanter: What FCPX CAN Do
on Aug 3, 2011 at 6:20:10 pm

[Gary Huff] "Video 3 would NEED to be in the Primary Storyline track?"

Anytime it needs to be. Perhaps it's an interview with audio, or it's a keyed composite (there's a new composite mode called "Back" in FCPx that's not prevalent in FCP7) to name a few.


Return to posts index

Gary Huff
Re: Steve Kanter: What FCPX CAN Do
on Aug 3, 2011 at 6:24:04 pm

Neither of which has anything requiring to be in a Primary Storyline.


Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: Steve Kanter: What FCPX CAN Do
on Aug 3, 2011 at 6:28:12 pm

[Gary Huff] "Neither of which has anything requiring to be in a Primary Storyline."

Unless you want everything to trim correctly, you will want it in a Primary storyline.

I think you are assuming that all "primary storyline" elements in FCP7 are in v1/A1A2? It might not be that way.


Return to posts index

Gary Huff
Re: Steve Kanter: What FCPX CAN Do
on Aug 3, 2011 at 6:39:41 pm

It only needs to playback correctly. Can you not easily move elements around to make for easier editing after import?

I would make the Primary Storyline Video Track 1 and Audio Track 1, and then layer everything else appropriately after that.


Return to posts index

Herb Sevush
Re: Steve Kanter: What FCPX CAN Do
on Aug 3, 2011 at 6:40:46 pm

Jeremy -

If I can interject here, I think what Gary is saying is that if you simply wanted to play down the FCPX timeline, without making any further edits, it wouldn't matter how X incorporated it. The problems would all come if you tried to edit with the incorporated footage - at that point mistakes in interpretation would become evident, but if all you are trying to do is create a project containing the proper clips, and have those unedited clips play out the right way, most of these issues would not be crucial.

For someone familiar with X you're probably thinking, yeah but why would you want to do that? The answer is it seems like it would be a good place to start.

Herb Sevush
Zebra Productions


Return to posts index

Gary Huff
Re: Steve Kanter: What FCPX CAN Do
on Aug 3, 2011 at 6:50:34 pm

Exactly Herb. I'm not asking for a 100% perfect import, and I don't think anyone else who'd like to import legacy projects are either. Just make it play fine and then tweak it to fight the new editing paradigm.

Certainly beats completely re-constructing a project from scratch.


Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: Steve Kanter: What FCPX CAN Do
on Aug 3, 2011 at 6:57:36 pm

[Herb Sevush] "The problems would all come if you tried to edit with the incorporated footage - at that point mistakes in interpretation would become evident, but if all you are trying to do is create a project containing the proper clips, and have those unedited clips play out the right way, most of these issues would not be crucial."

How crucial or not is left to the editor. If you send an XML to an editor who's not you or in the same building, these kinds of issues can be tough to translate as you will have to guess at the editor's intentions, or how the translation program is presenting the FCP7 timeline in FCPx terms. A lo res reference movie would help, but that might not always be available. For simple cuts only stuff, this will be very easy, but the more layers and the more complex timelines in which the layers interact this process becomes way more difficult to translate.

As I originally said, the simplest way is going to be the "best" but it might not be the most correct.

I hear what Gary is saying, and I think we are saying some of the same things, but it's really not a simple venture, otherwise it would be in there.

[Herb Sevush] "For someone familiar with X you're probably thinking, yeah but why would you want to do that?"

It's not whether or not I would want it to do anything, it's writing the code to tell it what to do that might be OK or not for all timelines. Yes, there are some generalizations that could be made, but I guarantee that people won't be happy, or someone that doesn't know will ask a some forum somewhere "wait, this didn't come over like it was placed in FCP7!". Or "I received an XML of timeline that's 4 years old, all the original media, render files, and editors/producers are gone, I am left to fix it. I have FCPx and some consolidated media. When I run the translation and reconnect, the audio and video is out of whack and things pop on and off randomly. Please help, edit due in four hours!" It is those assumptions that need to be made that make the process difficult.


Return to posts index

Herb Sevush
Re: Steve Kanter: What FCPX CAN Do
on Aug 3, 2011 at 7:05:02 pm

I agree with and understand everything you said, and I appreciate your taking the time to explain it. The only thing I will add is that something is better than nothing.

Apple has insisted on nothing at all, and whether or not a simple translator with many limitations would have cause them a lot of headaches, providing nothing at all is provoking a lot of anger.

Herb Sevush
Zebra Productions


Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: Steve Kanter: What FCPX CAN Do
on Aug 3, 2011 at 7:25:12 pm

[Herb Sevush] "The only thing I will add is that something is better than nothing. "

From yours and my standpoint, absolutely. Anything would be better than nothing. From Apple's standpoint, maybe not so much. Again, I am not defending Apple, but I can understand why they wouldn't take the risk right away. While it might be provoking anger right now, if they released a sort working/hobbled translation system, all of that anger would be deferred until later. This way, they get all of the anger out up front. :) Six of one, half dozen of the other, either way people are angry/upset/whatever.


Return to posts index

Gary Huff
Re: Steve Kanter: What FCPX CAN Do
on Aug 3, 2011 at 7:08:07 pm

[Jeremy Garchow]Yes, there are some generalizations that could be made, but I guarantee that people won't be happy, or someone that doesn't know will ask a some forum somewhere "wait, this didn't come over like it was placed in FCP7!". Or "I received an XML of timeline that's 4 years old, all the original media, render files, and editors/producers are gone, I am left to fix it. I have FCPx and some consolidated media. When I run the translation and reconnect, the audio and video is out of whack and things pop on and off randomly. Please help, edit due in four hours!" It is those assumptions that need to be made that make the process difficult.

Of course people will do this, but they won't get much sympathy for trying to upgrade their project to another NLE in the middle of a time-sensitive edit. And I don't think Apple would particularly worry about the support calls concerning this either, considering they are the "You're holding it wrong!" company.


Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: Steve Kanter: What FCPX CAN Do
on Aug 3, 2011 at 7:30:56 pm

[Gary Huff] "Of course people will do this, but they won't get much sympathy for trying to upgrade their project to another NLE in the middle of a time-sensitive edit. "

Isn't this a "you're holding it wrong" thing to say? What if that person only has FCPx? And there were given a 4 year old edit and a little of the media?

[Gary Huff] "And I don't think Apple would particularly worry about the support calls concerning this either,"

Oh, I think they would. Apple has a reputation to uphold, and bad support is a bad reputation, especially in the video realm.

Wait, isn't this thread about Steve Kanter's presentation? :-D


Return to posts index

Michael Hancock
Re: Steve Kanter: What FCPX CAN Do
on Aug 3, 2011 at 7:37:12 pm

[Jeremy Garchow] "Oh, I think they would. Apple has a reputation to uphold, and bad support is a bad reputation, especially in the video realm."

Lets be honest here Jeremy. If Apple was that concerned with their reputation in the upper echelons of post they wouldn't have released FCPX and pulled FCS3/FCP7 the same day. And they certainly wouldn't have presented FCPX at NAB as if you could open legacy projects and use it for broadcast work. But they did both. Their reputation has been tarnished - providing at least some way to bring projects forward, regardless of how much work it makes for the editor, is still a better option than nothing. And Apple has said they aren't going to do that.

I think they're aiming at a less vocal, less demanding, wider base. This may be part of the plan to push the most demanding customers away.

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


Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: Steve Kanter: What FCPX CAN Do
on Aug 3, 2011 at 8:03:23 pm

I am being honest.

Sure, I am disappointed that there are missing items in FCPx, but I also see a future in it. Apple knows what they have done here, they have released a version that can't be used any the upper echelon because it isn't ready. Just like the iPhone wasn't ready for enterprise use when it first came out either. Now it is. FCPx is another deliberate Apple release where they publicly beta test the entire system, and then build on it. Do you think not releasing an enterprise version of the iPhone killed their iPhone business? Do you think once they got the enterprise side of the iphone working it helped them? I sure do. There are huge companies that are now buying iPads for all of their employees. Now that it has enterprise support, it is doable. Do you think that Apple did this as a favor to big companies? No. It was intentional. Use the consumers as a test base where missions aren't as critical, then shore up the enterprise network.

I'll say it again, if they released a partially ready, sort of busted system, that would have been worse than releasing something that some people can't use right away.

[Michael Hancock] "But they did both."

They never did say what exactly it was they were going to release on Day 1, though. Legally speaking, they haven't broken any rules.

They also said that you won't be able to open FCP Legacy "projects" they didn't say anything about timelines/XML. The question on the FAQ says: "Can I import projects from Final Cut Pro 7 into Final Cut Pro X?" From the FAQ: "Because of these changes, there is no way to “translate” or bring in old projects without changing or losing data."

[Michael Hancock] "I think they're aiming at a less vocal, less demanding, wider base. This may be part of the plan to push the most demanding customers away."

Yeah maybe, but I bet they aren't trying to push the middle away either which is a huge part of their business as well. You know, the people who aren't editing feature films, and the ones that aren't just doing it for an expensive hobby, but still need the interchange/connectivity to external systems and devices.


Return to posts index

David Lawrence
Re: Steve Kanter: What FCPX CAN Do
on Aug 3, 2011 at 10:17:45 pm

[Jeremy Garchow] "Wait, isn't this thread about Steve Kanter's presentation? :-D
"


LOL! This is a fascinating tangent!

Really enjoying reading everyone's thoughts on how to solve the import problem. I'm in the same camp as most of you. Seems like import would be a) doable b) imperfect, and c) give messy results. How valuable that would be would depend on your needs. Agree that anything is probably better than nothing most of the time.

I think another fair question is are there complex timeline structures that FCPX simply cannot handle with its object-based model? Take for example, this timeline sample from Shawn Federline:



What would something like this look like in FCPX? Lots of layers and no notion of "primary"? How well does FCPX's model accommodate the editorial needs that result in complex structures like these? Looking forward to the day when we can test this. With import!

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


Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: Steve Kanter: What FCPX CAN Do
on Aug 3, 2011 at 11:45:12 pm

You hit the nail on the head, David. That is the perfect example where this timeline is more of a composite than a story. In that case, I think the "gaps" are going to have to get a workout in the primary storyline, but it's going to be hard to tell FCPx how to do that. Well maybe not, on second thought. There certainly is no visible primary storyline in that timeline and since the primary storyline dictates the timing of the rest of the elements.....

This is a case where compound clips might make sense, but how would you know which stacks to make compund clips? Therein lies the problem.


Return to posts index

Andree Franks
Re: Steve Kanter: What FCPX CAN Do
on Aug 4, 2011 at 4:47:01 am

I just realized that this complaining and nagging about FCPX not importing FCP7 projects proofs that everybody really wants to use FCPX!
If I would NOT want us it since FCPX is not so great... :) why would I care and waste my time and energy arguing about it? It's the wishful thinking. ;)

Me personally I kinda like this Node like Timeline. Most likely I will do the next project on it to see how it can stand in a real life situation. Besides it's good to know something that MIGHT, become the next big hit?

For my old FCP7 projects... well last time I checked FCP7 still worked on day it was pulled. I see FCPX as like no other NLE software. If it was done in MediaComposer, Premiere or Final Cut Pro# I will use that software to do my changes.

You guys have a nice day! :)



Return to posts index

David Lawrence
Re: Steve Kanter: What FCPX CAN Do
on Aug 3, 2011 at 9:27:42 pm

[Jeremy Garchow] "What I find weird is the "before and after" picture that Apple used at the Supermeet. Essentially they said, here's the timeline in FCP7, and here's the same timeline in FCPx. Any questions?

That was a bit of a tease."


You're being waaaay too nice. It could also be called bait and switch ;)

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


Return to posts index

Gary Huff
Re: Steve Kanter: What FCPX CAN Do
on Aug 3, 2011 at 3:29:59 am

[Walter Soyka]FCP7's timeline places clips in absolute time.[snip]
FCPX, on the other hand, has the relationship between clips built into its fundamental design. FCPX's timeline places clips relative to each other.

You are totally over-thinking this. The magnetic timeline is nothing more than a "gimmick." A series of "If" "then" and "elses" that automatically groups clips together in a way that it thinks will be helpful to the editor. While FCPX may try to do its damnedest to hide time from the end user, it still has to relate to time at some point.

When you edit in FCPX, you're still editing in the typical way. You lay down a "master" track, then you place tracks next to it or on top, and so on. There's really no difference, and don't let the pizzazz fool you. You can still select a clip and MOVE IT FORWARD IN TIME or even BACKWARDS IN TIME. Then, the logic functions of FCPX go "Hey, I think until editor specifically wants to move this clip again, I'll just connect it to the master clip!" Remember, all of this stuff has to be done from scratch at some point. No footage being imported into FCPX has anything done to it to give any kind of pseduo-FCPX-mumbo-jumbo-magnetism that makes things work. It's just footage, like it has always been. FCPX just has a lot of fancy processing functions that try to hide stuff from the end user, but at its core it is processing time just like every NLE on the planet.

Now, I'm not saying it's easy, I'm sure there are some complicated edits that would require some translation to get across, but there's absolutely no reason that FCPX could not import a FCP7 project on a basic level.


Return to posts index

Andree Franks
Re: Steve Kanter: What FCPX CAN Do
on Aug 2, 2011 at 9:30:19 pm

Really I would think a multi clip would be easy you just take the clips that are in the sequence... I could do that manually. ;)

Isn't all about in's and out's.... What I am saying is that if it's possible then someone will make it possible and make that extra buck! It's that easy so lets all see what happens.



Return to posts index

Chris Upchurch
Re: Steve Kanter: What FCPX CAN Do
on Aug 2, 2011 at 3:28:54 pm

[Gary Huff] "This statement is completely ignorant of the software coding process. You can't open legacy FCP6/7 projects in FCPX because Apple didn't want to spend time developing that. Period. No matter whatever fancy doodads you put in the UI, the end result is still clips, transitions, effects, ect. and there is no technical reason why there cannot be a FCP project import feature."

I think the "It's impossible" vs. "Apple just didn't want to" debate misses the point. Apple has a notorious perfectionist streak. They are perfectly willing to leave out a feature rather than implement it in a way that doesn't meet their standards. A classic example is the lack of copy and paste on the original iPhone. Cut and paste was an expected feature, one that was featured on many competing platforms and Apple got a lot of grief for not supporting it until version 3.0, two years later. It would have been much easier for them to implement some version of cut and paste and improve on it later, but they were willing to take the heat (and deprive deprive their users of copy and paste functionality) until it met their standards.

You may recall that when FCPX came out some folks digging around in its guts found references to an import function and took this as evidence that import functionality would be coming in the future. Since then Apple has said fairly definitively that it's not. My guess (and I am speculating here) is that during development, Apple worked on an FCP7 import feature, decided the results weren't good enough, and ripped it out. What the folks digging around in the released software found was probably the results of that experiment. Again, this is merely speculation, but it fits with the way Apple is known to do things.


Return to posts index

Gary Huff
Re: Steve Kanter: What FCPX CAN Do
on Aug 2, 2011 at 9:51:24 pm

[Chris Upchurch]I think the "It's impossible" vs. "Apple just didn't want to" debate misses the point. Apple has a notorious perfectionist streak.

Apple's "perfectionist streak" is merely an urban myth. FCPX being a point in that example.


Return to posts index

Chris Upchurch
Re: Steve Kanter: What FCPX CAN Do
on Aug 3, 2011 at 12:04:15 am

[Gary Huff] "Apple's "perfectionist streak" is merely an urban myth. FCPX being a point in that example."

Really? Almost all the complaints I see about FCPX are either about features that weren't implemented, or about features that were changed (particularly ones where the changes are perceived as dumbing down the fature for consumers). I see few (if any) complaints that features were implemented badly.


Return to posts index

Michael Hancock
Re: Steve Kanter: What FCPX CAN Do
on Aug 3, 2011 at 1:39:08 am

[Chris Upchurch] "I see few (if any) complaints that features were implemented badly."

Audio dissolves spring to mind. I've seen a lot of complaints about that. Marking In and Out on a source clip then selecting something else - they disappear. Poor design there. Read in this forum about Dual Mono sound. Seems to be an issue.

Apple failed to fix huge issues with FCP7. Gamma issues? Pulldown when mixing frame rates in the timeline? There are plenty of examples of issues users were clamoring to have fixed, but they didn't.

Saying they failed to implement certain features because they weren't "good enough" for Apple QC standards doesn't make sense when you consider their previous software. There are too many examples of things being poorly done before. Or do they really care this time to get everything right, all the time?

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


Return to posts index

Craig Seeman
Re: Steve Kanter: What FCPX CAN Do
on Aug 3, 2011 at 2:01:49 am

[Michael Hancock] "Audio dissolves spring to mind. I've seen a lot of complaints about that."

Individually audio dissolves actually work very well. Expand Clip and then you have fader handle controls plus the curve options. The problem is when you need to do a lot of them and you really just need to use a "standard" dissolve added to a bunch of clips. Then your forced to detach audio

[Michael Hancock] "Apple failed to fix huge issues with FCP7. Gamma issues?"
Fixed in FCPX I believe.

[Michael Hancock] "Pulldown when mixing frame rates in the timeline? "
Have you checked this in FCPX?


[Michael Hancock] "There are too many examples of things being poorly done before. Or do they really care this time to get everything right, all the time?"

Some of the aforementioned issues may have been difficult to fix without a patchwork approach. That's good reason to toss the whole codebase and start over.

I can imagine import presented a lot of issues. Although superficially one might imagine an import method which gave you options to make tracks either connected clips or secondary storylines but I can only guess they ran into so many issues and so many forks to travel down and the result was making a major R&D into an import interface with many options to run through and each creating a tangle of other options that it just didn't make any practical sense.



Return to posts index

Michael Hancock
Re: Steve Kanter: What FCPX CAN Do
on Aug 3, 2011 at 2:14:33 am

[Craig Seeman] "[Michael Hancock] "Pulldown when mixing frame rates in the timeline? "
Have you checked this in FCPX?
"


I'm not talking about FCPX here - I'm talking about FCP7. I assume they fixed it in FCPX? Shame they never did for 7. It needed to be. And to be perfectly clear, I don't have FCPX. It doesn't have features I need and, while I'd like to try it, I'm not paying $300 for it. If they had a trial (like everyone else) I definitely would. I believe there's some stuff there I'd love (and a lot I wouldn't).


[Craig Seeman] "[Michael Hancock] "Apple failed to fix huge issues with FCP7. Gamma issues?"
Fixed in FCPX I believe."


Good. It desperately needed to be. Now if they hadn't broken so much else in the process. :-)

[Craig Seeman] "Some of the aforementioned issues may have been difficult to fix without a patchwork approach. "

Some of them, but certainly not all. I imagine the Gamma issue would have been a huge undertaking, but pulldown? They never should have gotten that wrong.

My original post was a counter to the idea that many things might be missing from FCPX because Apple has such high QC standards that some stuff just didn't hit them. I'm saying their previous software is evidence that their QC standards aren't as high as people may imagine. Stuff isn't there for other reasons, and Apple is talking.

It will be interesting to see how FCPX develops.

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


Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: Steve Kanter: What FCPX CAN Do
on Aug 3, 2011 at 2:35:42 am

Interlaced 3:2 pulldown is fixed in FCPx.

The weird thing is fcp <= 7 understood 3:2 pulldown from v3 or so, as it could add it in real time on a dv output for chrissakes. It could just never render it properly in the timeline.

[Michael Hancock] "I'm saying their previous software is evidence that their QC standards aren't as high as people may imagine."

I don't know if many people thought the fcs QC process was all that stringent. I think part of that had to do with a set of really, really old code, mixed with newer code (Color, Motion, FCServer etc) and the quilted patchwork was getting harder and harder to make work. In my opinion, this is one of the reasons why FCP has had such a major restart. Or whatever you want to call it.


Return to posts index

Walter Soyka
Re: Steve Kanter: What FCPX CAN Do
on Aug 2, 2011 at 12:31:54 am

[Geoff Dills] "When we went from 3/4 inch tape to betacam no one cried, "How do I play my old tapes on this new machine?" because it would be stupid."

I'm not sure the U-matic/Betacam format change is a good analog here for two reasons: Sony supported U-matic with parts, service, and sales for years after Betacam was introduced, and Sony cared about interchange and standards. A BVW-75 Betacam editor can actually control a BVU-800 U-matic editor via RS-422 with no additional hardware.

FCPX is an island. It doesn't interchange. Because it can't fit into your workflow, it must replace it entirely.

Walter Soyka
Principal & Designer at Keen Live
Motion Graphics, Widescreen Events, Presentation Design, and Consulting
RenderBreak Blog - What I'm thinking when my workstation's thinking
Creative Cow Forum Host: Live & Stage Events


Return to posts index

Bill Davis
Re: Steve Kanter: What FCPX CAN Do
on Aug 2, 2011 at 12:46:13 am

Precisely Walter.

They've jettisoned the old code in the quest for a newer approach that they believe will allow better performance and capabilities in the future.

But it certainly has disrupted the present.

The only questions left, IMO, is who needs to stay where editing IS for very defensible and sensible business reasons - who is ready to buy into the possibilities that FCP-X might hold for a better future - and who's going to get STUCK unable to decide what they should do - and for how long.

That's a pretty simple array of choices.

IF you edit, you HAVE to take one of those three paths. Apple has decided that for you. Like it or not.

By now, anyone who's been listening should have the objective data they need to make their own decisions. Which is precisely why the non-feature or capability oriented stuff (like the name calling) is getting so tedious.

Those paths should be pretty clear by now. Time for people to make up their minds and move on, IMO.

Sticking around merely to tell people that their viewpoint - whatever that opinion might be - is somehow "wrong" is self-indulgent at this stage, IMO.

"Before speaking out ask yourself whether your words are true, whether they are respectful and whether they are needed in our civil discussions."-Justice O'Conner


Return to posts index

Walter Soyka
Re: Steve Kanter: What FCPX CAN Do
on Aug 2, 2011 at 1:02:03 am

[Bill Davis] "They've jettisoned the old code in the quest for a newer approach that they believe will allow better performance and capabilities in the future. But it certainly has disrupted the present."

Agreed. And in my mind, this is Apple's big error here -- they have prevented users from upgrading from FCP7 to FCPX. All FCP users must either continue work on EOL software, or migrate to another platform (be it Avid, FCPX, Premiere Pro, or something else entirely).


[Bill Davis] "By now, anyone who's been listening should have the objective data they need to make their own decisions. Which is precisely why the non-feature or capability oriented stuff (like the name calling) is getting so tedious. Those paths should be pretty clear by now. Time for people to make up their minds and move on, IMO."

I can understand why everyone is upset about Geoff's original post. He suggested that no one can have a legitimate complaint against FCPX, and that anyone who voices one is simply trying to prove they're still worthwhile.

A lot of the drama could be avoided if people could understand that we all have different needs and workflows, and FCPX is perfect for some workflows, but totally inappropriate for others. No value judgment here -- just a simple fact. It works for some, but not for all.

"Pro" has become a very broad term, and I think the lack of precision in the word is the root of a lot of the disagreement here.

Walter Soyka
Principal & Designer at Keen Live
Motion Graphics, Widescreen Events, Presentation Design, and Consulting
RenderBreak Blog - What I'm thinking when my workstation's thinking
Creative Cow Forum Host: Live & Stage Events


Return to posts index

Bill Davis
Re: Steve Kanter: What FCPX CAN Do
on Aug 2, 2011 at 5:40:46 am

Walter,

I understand your point, but I think you're defining it too narrowly.

You say "All FCP users must either continue work on EOL software, or migrate to another platform (be it Avid, FCPX, Premiere Pro, or something else entirely)." and that is certainly ONE way to interpret it.

Another equally valid view is to say "All FCP users must make the choice to continue using traditional editing paradigms as represented by Avid, FCP-Legacy, Premier Pro, or something else entirely, or accept that to move into a world where superior data flexibility and new capabilities NOT POSSIBLE under legacy software architecture is finally possible, they must accept that they will lose current capabilities as they adapt to the new architecture."

Your statement is true. So is mine. The perspective shift is the ENTIRE argument here, IMO.

The core is that people are miffed (some incensed!) that Apple has changed direction. The real question is whether the team behind FCP-X is right or wrong in thinking that making such a FUNDAMENTAL architectural change will be a better bet than merely building more rooms on the old mansion.

Sometimes remodeling is smart (as Avid, PP and Vegas continue to do. Sometimes people with a nice piece of property decide that the old house is getting long in the tooth and a scrape is required.

I don't think this is anything more than that - with the attendant hue and cry of those who had come to like the old design, very, VERY much - albiet after years and years of repair, remodeling and patchwork.


As to your second point, I couldn't agree with you more.

Well said.

"Before speaking out ask yourself whether your words are true, whether they are respectful and whether they are needed in our civil discussions."-Justice O'Conner


Return to posts index

Dennis Radeke
Re: Steve Kanter: What FCPX CAN Do
on Aug 2, 2011 at 11:52:17 am

[Bill Davis] "Sometimes remodeling is smart (as Avid, PP and Vegas continue to do. Sometimes people with a nice piece of property decide that the old house is getting long in the tooth and a scrape is required."

A nice analogy Bill. To take it further, Adobe knocked Premiere Pro down and rebuilt it twice on the Mac platform in the last 5 years (CS3 and CS5). The key though is that we didn't build something completely different that threw the owner of the house off. Adobe built a new house that fit within the confines of the property.

I think what has been a challenge for FCP users is that in one fell swoop, Apple changed the architecture, the interface and the workflow. And on top of that, they lost several very key features. It will be interesting to see what the next 6 months holds for the industry.

Dennis - Adobe


Return to posts index

Bill Davis
Re: Steve Kanter: What FCPX CAN Do
on Aug 2, 2011 at 6:18:20 pm

Denis,

Thank you. And I must say I agree with everything you say.

Apple has decided incremental change was not going to move the bar far enough forward.

So not only did they 'scrape' but they decided to build what they see as a "house of the future."

Often, these fail. But when they succeed, they change everything.

Whether, in the long run this is moving from the horse to the car (transformative) - the steam car to the gasoline car (evolutionary)- or from the gasoline car to the electric car (arguably too disruptive regardless of any potential benefits) - is precisely what remains to be seen.

"Before speaking out ask yourself whether your words are true, whether they are respectful and whether they are needed in our civil discussions."-Justice O'Conner


Return to posts index

Walter Soyka
Re: Steve Kanter: What FCPX CAN Do
on Aug 2, 2011 at 12:57:37 pm

[Bill Davis] "I understand your point, but I think you're defining it too narrowly."

I went off and had a nice long think about your argument here. I have reconsidered my position, but I don't think I've changed my mind all that much. I'd love to discuss this a little more, in case there's something I've missed.


[Bill Davis] "You say "All FCP users must either continue work on EOL software, or migrate to another platform (be it Avid, FCPX, Premiere Pro, or something else entirely)." and that is certainly ONE way to interpret it. Another equally valid view is to say "All FCP users must make the choice to continue using traditional editing paradigms as represented by Avid, FCP-Legacy, Premier Pro, or something else entirely, or accept that to move into a world where superior data flexibility and new capabilities NOT POSSIBLE under legacy software architecture is finally possible, they must accept that they will lose current capabilities as they adapt to the new architecture.""

Until FCPX offers feature parity with Avid, FCP7, and PrP, many editors can't simply choose one or the other because of the paradigm it offers. When and if FCPX offers a toolset with important features like reference monitoring and interchange, then I think we'll be able to choose a platform based on its editorial model. Until then, FCPX is automatically disqualified from many workflows.

I'm very curious about your statement "to move into a world where superior data flexibility and new capabilities NOT POSSIBLE under legacy software architecture is finally possible, they must accept that they will lose current capabilities as they adapt to the new architecture."

I think it's possible to change the legacy software architecture without changing the user interface or editorial paradigm. Look at Premiere Pro, which had an invisible overhaul for CS5.

Let's put that aside for a moment, though, and talk about the history and future of NLEs, because perhaps you consider the user interface and editorial paradigm to be part of the legacy architecture.

Let me first lay out my over-simplified view of the NLE development. CMX600 and its ilk represent the first generation of NLEs (customized hardware). Avid started the second generation (desktop computer with special hardware). FCP and its spiritual successor, Premiere Pro, are in the third (software-only, video hardware support). FCPX forks off from previous NLEs in the fourth generation (software-only, new abstract editorial model).

I don't think that there's anything inherent in the self-organizing, trackless, magnetic, relative timeline in FCPX that gives it new capabilities that the previous standard manually-organized, tracked, absolute timeline had. Am I missing something here?

I do think that FCPX's pervasive metadata opens up new capabilities by essentially placing an asset management solution within the NLE, but I don't see any reason why this couldn't be added to a third-generation NLE. (Even better would be separating asset management from editorial, because though they are linked, I think they should be separate functions.)

What is possible with a fourth-generation tool that is not possible with a third-generation tool?

Walter Soyka
Principal & Designer at Keen Live
Motion Graphics, Widescreen Events, Presentation Design, and Consulting
RenderBreak Blog - What I'm thinking when my workstation's thinking
Creative Cow Forum Host: Live & Stage Events


Return to posts index

Bill Davis
Re: Steve Kanter: What FCPX CAN Do
on Aug 2, 2011 at 6:51:12 pm

Walter,

First off, I want to say how much I appreciate the first line you posted. All too often here posters (myself firmly included) simply read and react. I'm honored you gave my position careful consideration.

In that spirit, rather than toss off a quick reaction, I'm going to give your ideas the same consideration you honored mine with.

More to come later for any who are still interested.

"Before speaking out ask yourself whether your words are true, whether they are respectful and whether they are needed in our civil discussions."-Justice O'Conner


Return to posts index

Bill Davis
Re: Steve Kanter: What FCPX CAN Do
on Aug 3, 2011 at 6:54:34 am

In the order of your post:
Until FCPX offers feature parity with Avid, FCP7, and PrP, many editors can't simply choose one or the other because of the paradigm it offers.

I find that analysis spot on. However, I’m simply advocating the wisdom of not spending over much time stuck in a mode comparing an 11 year old program which has evolved step by step from insignificance to world-wide professional acceptance – to one that’s been gestating for a couple of years at best, and only “live” for a couple of months.

The temptation is HUGE. And FCP-X clearly compares woefully if that’s the standard you must hold it to. My argument is that it’s clearly hard for many (tho clearly not you, personally to accept the reality that the designers NEVER intended FCP-X to be an evolution of FCP-7 – it’s it’s own beast - Accepting that is the required first stage to = judging whether it has unique value on it’s own.

This debate, largely driven by a palpable cloud of anger, loss and fear – (all reasonable emotions in anyone who sees a critical tool that feeds them in “jeopardy.”) has been way more about the LOSS of 7 than about the reality of X.

And I simply think that misses WAY too much of what’s going on here.

Your comment: FCPX forks off from previous NLEs in the fourth generation (software-only, new abstract editorial model).
I don't think that there's anything inherent in the self-organizing, trackless, magnetic, relative timeline in FCPX that gives it new capabilities that the previous standard manually-organized, tracked, absolute timeline had. Am I missing something here?

Maybe not. Perhaps providing “new capabilities” is something they simply decided to rationally de-value – at least in the early days of the software - and instead elevated OTHER features that they felt would be potentially more valuable to a future superior sustainable business model higher on their “critical” list.

What might those be?

We’ve heard a LOT about the underlying relational over flat-file database underpinnings.
Those may be important if this turns out to be a “feature race” in the long run. If so, they merely valued long term profits over short term ease of development. It’s a RARE view in business these days, I’ll admit – but Apple is pretty singular in having enough return to make any shareholder happy – so they have room other companies simply don’t to hold a long range view if they so choose.

But maybe there are simpler forces at work here. What about cloud deliverability? Apple is making HUGE bets (and reaping equally huge profits) by moving to an “all virtual” business model. Packaged goods are disappearing from Apple stores in favor of the App Store model. (Perhaps it’s instructive to note here that FCP-X was the very first product in the App Store that broke into the “over $100” price category. Perhaps code (and therefore feature) “slimness” was a factor in the FCP-X release strategy? It would be interesting to see the “features per lines of code” comparison between FCP-X, FCP legacy” and the other NLE products. (I doubt that metric even exists, but it WOULD be interesting)

Or perhaps they actually did that odd duck RESEARCH – and found that the growth curve is truly not in the high-end priests of the industry – but a larger body of day to day worker bees that are more and more tasked with doing functional video work in this new economy. To me that WOULD be sad. But maybe it’s truly an inescapable reality.

I don’t presume to know the answers to these questions, myself. I just know that FCP-X is a big bet. That bet is that the game is changing. I think that’s correct. The game is changing BIG TIME.

And once you acknowledge that, the REAL game is to try and figure out what the new game will be and how you can position yourself to best capitalize on it.

Every minute spent moaning about what’s lost (or even WHY it was lost) in the transition from FCP-7 to FCP-X is, IMO wasted time. The key is to understand what Apple saw coming that led them to make this huge break – whether it was driven by market forces, editing interface visions, database possibilities, economic forces, cloud deliverability, or just orneryness – the key is to focus on whether this upheaval presents possibilities for jumping forward over the ever increasing competition.

But that requires limiting distractions. And for me, this debate is remaining far too long in a place where people seldom interested in a rational discussion of the whys and wherefores – but rather just REACTING angrily to a changing game.

The game IS changing.

Walter, I truly appreciate your desire to look beyond the surface. That will be one reason I think you’re left standing when many who are so palpably resistant to even considering what might be better about FCP-X, and, more critically, what it’s revision might mean in a larger sense, will be left behind.

Peace.

"Before speaking out ask yourself whether your words are true, whether they are respectful and whether they are needed in our civil discussions."-Justice O'Conner


Return to posts index

Walter Soyka
Re: Steve Kanter: What FCPX CAN Do
on Aug 3, 2011 at 1:52:57 pm

Bill, thank you for your kind words and thoughtful consideration!

Reading this post, I think we largely agree.


[Bill Davis] "This debate, largely driven by a palpable cloud of anger, loss and fear – (all reasonable emotions in anyone who sees a critical tool that feeds them in “jeopardy.”) has been way more about the LOSS of 7 than about the reality of X. And I simply think that misses WAY too much of what’s going on here. "

A dear friend of mine likes to explain things both positively and negatively. He consistently defines concepts in terms of anchors on either side of the concept. For example, in describing a design, he might say "it's clean, but not sterile."

I agree with you the discussion on FCPX has been largely negatively anchored. There's been a lot of heated rhetoric on what FCPX is not, and quite a bit less discussion about what it is (though there have been a few very, very interested threads recently which show more of this balance -- many thanks to David Lawrence and Aindreas Gallagher for starting some of my favorites).


[Bill Davis] "I don’t presume to know the answers to these questions, myself. I just know that FCP-X is a big bet. That bet is that the game is changing. I think that’s correct. The game is changing BIG TIME. And once you acknowledge that, the REAL game is to try and figure out what the new game will be and how you can position yourself to best capitalize on it."

I agree that the game is changing, and I think it's important that we remember that Apple is playing a different game than we are. When I think about the business of creative work, I see a funnel which pours out to clients. Moving up the funnel, you have all the agencies, production companies, and freelancers who produce client work.

Any one of these constituents may serve only a handful of all the available clients. You know who serves all these clients, indirectly? Adobe. Apple. Autodesk. Avid. We market our services to our clients at the bottom of the funnel, while the toolmakers market their products to us at the top.

It's very easy to forget just how broad the spectrum of creative work is. What you do most certainly differs from what I do, and what I do most certainly differs from the next poster here, etc. Companies like the four As have a large challenge in developing tools to fit into these widely divergent needs. If nothing else, FCPX has shown how we must be aware of our own needs and occasionally re-evaluate the way we do our jobs.

Thanks again, and cheers for the discourse.

Walter Soyka
Principal & Designer at Keen Live
Motion Graphics, Widescreen Events, Presentation Design, and Consulting
RenderBreak Blog - What I'm thinking when my workstation's thinking
Creative Cow Forum Host: Live & Stage Events


Return to posts index

David Roth Weiss
Please Miss Manners
on Aug 3, 2011 at 4:20:35 pm

[Bill Davis] "for me, this debate is remaining far too long in a place where people seldom interested in a rational discussion of the whys and wherefores – but rather just REACTING angrily to a changing game."

Bill,

Everyone on this forum heard your message loud and clear by about the seventh or eighth time you repeated it, it's getting old now that you've reached your fortieth repeat.

Okay, we get it, we understand that you're the official Miss Manners here, arbiter of that which is timely, correct, and well-mannered, and that we must all listen when you dictate when the "official period" of X mourning should end.

Now that you know we've all heard you, would you mind kindly ceasing the insertion of all the capitalized crap that you try to pound into us, such as: "HUGE, BIG TIME, IS, REACTING, WOULD, WAY, RESEARCH, etc., etc., etc.?


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

Bill Davis
Re: Please Miss Manners
on Aug 3, 2011 at 6:55:11 pm

I am, yet again, skewered by your rapier-like repartee.

I simply cannot withstand another of your devestating ad hominem attacks. I am in ruins.

So, bleeding and contrite, I'll return to my small quiet corner of the production world to crank out yet more video embedded powerpoint/keynote/ipad delivery work for my current nameless massive global beer company client —  and you may return to your next electronic press kit for the LA movie studio industry that appears to be the heart of your work —  each of us keenly aware that YOU have demonstrated that YOUR viewpoint on everything from editing to the use of CAPS in internet discussions is - in every possible way - vastly superior to mine.

you win.

congratulations.



Oh, and thanks VERY much for letting me exercise my seldom used passive/aggressive muscles. Feels kinda nice once in a while.

; )

"Before speaking out ask yourself whether your words are true, whether they are respectful and whether they are needed in our civil discussions."-Justice O'Conner


Return to posts index

Gary Huff
Re: Please Miss Manners
on Aug 3, 2011 at 7:02:09 pm

[Bill Davis] So, bleeding and contrite, I'll return to my small quiet corner of the production world to crank out yet more video embedded powerpoint/keynote/ipad delivery work for my current nameless massive global beer company client — and you may return to your next electronic press kit for the LA movie studio industry that appears to be the heart of your work

Bill, what was the point of this? To not-so-subtly imply that you are "better"? Because that's how I took it.


Return to posts index

David Roth Weiss
Re: Please Miss Manners
on Aug 3, 2011 at 7:09:39 pm

[Bill Davis] "Oh, and thanks VERY much for letting me exercise my seldom used passive/aggressive muscles. Feels kinda nice once in a while.; )"

Bill,

Honestly, I'd rather you exercise your passive/aggressive muscles, even if it's aimed directly at me, than continue trying to be the arbiter of vice and virtue about the proper length of mourning, which you do repeat way too often.

And, with regard to the "caps thing," there is actually a Cow rule about that, and you are the only person on this forum doing it. Better and more judicious writing is the way to hammer your points home.


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 Lawrence
Re: Steve Kanter: What FCPX CAN Do
on Aug 2, 2011 at 9:22:10 pm

[Walter Soyka] "I don't think that there's anything inherent in the self-organizing, trackless, magnetic, relative timeline in FCPX that gives it new capabilities that the previous standard manually-organized, tracked, absolute timeline had. Am I missing something here?"

Not at all. I've never encountered a situation that I couldn't handle in FCP 1-7.

[Walter Soyka] "I do think that FCPX's pervasive metadata opens up new capabilities by essentially placing an asset management solution within the NLE, but I don't see any reason why this couldn't be added to a third-generation NLE. (Even better would be separating asset management from editorial, because though they are linked, I think they should be separate functions.)"

Absolutely right. The new metadata-based architecture holds wonderful promise. File management is currently broken, but even that could wind up in a good place. There are numerous advances throughout FCPX, none of which required a radical UI paradigm change. A UI/interaction model is an abstraction. It sits above the underlying architecture and can be whatever the designers decide. FCPX's timeline design is a choice. The big question is how deeply that choice is baked into FCPX.

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


Return to posts index

Andree Franks
Re: Steve Kanter: What FCPX CAN Do
on Aug 2, 2011 at 6:42:41 am

[Walter Soyka] ""Pro" has become a very broad term, and I think the lack of precision in the word is the root of a lot of the disagreement here"

Not really a "Pro" or professional is someone that makes money "Cash" "bling bling" with what they do. :)
But again you have you volunteers hmmm might havebto rethink that one.



Return to posts index

David Cherniack
Re: Steve Kanter: What FCPX CAN Do
on Aug 2, 2011 at 2:20:02 pm

Looking for a meaningful distinction in the word "pro" seems to me to be a rather frustrating exercise. "Professional" refers to anyone who makes a living in a specific field. FCP-X is certainly going to be adequate for many who fit the bill. It won't for others who work at the higher end of the industry and whose needs are greater than its capabilities. Therefore I always prefer the term "high end" to "pro". It's loose but for this discussion it's more specific.

David
AllinOneFilms.com


Return to posts index

Gary Huff
Re: Steve Kanter: What FCPX CAN Do
on Aug 2, 2011 at 3:29:00 pm

[Andree Franks]Not really a "Pro" or professional is someone that makes money "Cash" "bling bling" with what they do. :)
But again you have you volunteers hmmm might havebto rethink that one.


Why would having volunteers require you to re-think that? If your editing experience consists solely of volunteer jobs, then you are not a pro, in my opinion.

If your primary (or a significant source of) income is derived from editing, then you are a pro, regardless of how often you volunteer your time.


Return to posts index

Jim Giberti
Re: Steve Kanter: What FCPX CAN Do
on Aug 2, 2011 at 1:24:30 am

"The only questions left, IMO, is who needs to stay where editing IS for very defensible and sensible business reasons - who is ready to buy into the possibilities that FCP-X might hold for a better future - and who's going to get STUCK unable to decide what they should do - and for how long."

This pretty much sums it up Bill.
I didn't need and wasn't looking to make a professional decision of this importance right now.
"Stuck" is a pretty uncreative place though so I made the decision and fortunately all of our upcoming work fits within the initial limitations of X.

I know that we are fortunate vs a lot of our brethren (and sistren) who simply cannot use this software as it is and have to make tougher choices.

One thing I have to say about X in general though, it's so different that it's fun learning it.


Return to posts index

Bill Davis
Re: Steve Kanter: What FCPX CAN Do
on Aug 2, 2011 at 5:42:54 am

Jim,

THAT is an attitude that will serve you exceptionally well, always.

"Before speaking out ask yourself whether your words are true, whether they are respectful and whether they are needed in our civil discussions."-Justice O'Conner


Return to posts index

Herb Sevush
Re: Steve Kanter: What FCPX CAN Do
on Aug 2, 2011 at 7:37:21 pm

"The only questions left, IMO, is who needs to stay where editing IS for very defensible and sensible business reasons - who is ready to buy into the possibilities that FCP-X might hold for a better future - and who's going to get STUCK unable to decide what they should do - and for how long.

That's a pretty simple array of choices.

IF you edit, you HAVE to take one of those three paths. Apple has decided that for you. Like it or not."


This implies that FCPX is not only the "future" of editing, but also the only future. It's a good bet that an exciting alternative is waiting right around the corner, and it isn't being made by Apple.

Considering Apple's track record; the fact that they have made their reputation marketing software created and designed by others, and that they have never before internally created any software of any importance in the field of visual media creation, betting that this first time effort is going to be a field leader seems rather far fetched.

If one is going to bet on innovation in this field, Avid and Adobe have the track record to bet on.

Herb Sevush
Zebra Productions


Return to posts index

Craig Seeman
Re: Steve Kanter: What FCPX CAN Do
on Aug 2, 2011 at 8:11:49 pm

[Herb Sevush] "they have never before internally created any software of any importance in the field of visual media creation"

Motion is very good and unlike FCPX has gotten a good reception at about 4 stars in the App store.



Return to posts index

Herb Sevush
Re: Steve Kanter: What FCPX CAN Do
on Aug 2, 2011 at 8:21:21 pm

Craig -

I like Motion, use it all the time. But it has had NO impact on the field of compositing. My statement was about "software of any importance", as in creating software that influenced the field, was a category leader, etc. After Effects is such a program, and it wasn't invented by Apple. I'm just questioning this vision of Apple as being the company to create the future of the NLE - they've have no track record that makes me believe they can do it.

Now track record isn't everything, but then again software design isn't hardware design, which, along with marketing, IS Apple's field of excellence.

Herb Sevush
Zebra Productions


Return to posts index

Shawn Birmingham
Re: Steve Kanter: What FCPX CAN Do
on Aug 2, 2011 at 8:33:36 pm

After Effects was not invented by Adobe. It was invented by CoSA.


Return to posts index

Herb Sevush
Re: Steve Kanter: What FCPX CAN Do
on Aug 2, 2011 at 10:04:08 pm

I stand corrected on that point. AT least I'm safe to say that Avid invented Avid.

Herb Sevush
Zebra Productions


Return to posts index

Paul Dickin
Re: Steve Kanter: What FCPX CAN Do
on Aug 2, 2011 at 10:15:13 pm

[Shawn Birmingham] "After Effects was not invented by Adobe. It was invented by CoSA."
Hi
A very apt reminder.
Adobe bought After Effects from Aldus (who had acquired it from CoSA) because.....
.....because users of Adobe Premiere v3 were absolutely clamouring for a motion control window bigger than Premiere's postage stamp. And....
....and, you might guess it if you think about it....
....Randy said "sod off" (I paraphrase - I wasn't there, I was clamouring) to Adobe when their managers asked Randy to 'fix' the aforesaid postage stamp.
So Adobe bought AE, to give users a proper motion control facility....



Return to posts index

David Lawrence
Re: Steve Kanter: What FCPX CAN Do
on Aug 3, 2011 at 3:16:27 am

[Craig Seeman] "Motion is very good and unlike FCPX has gotten a good reception at about 4 stars in the App store."

Deservedly so! Apple did a very nice job with the update to Motion. If they had approached the FCP update in a similar manner, I have no doubt we'd all be jumping for joy.

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


Return to posts index

Bill Davis
Re: Steve Kanter: What FCPX CAN Do
on Aug 4, 2011 at 9:56:16 pm

Herb, I hear clearly that you loath Apple as an entity, but to argue that they've grown from their particular garage and taken their vision farther, and in a more sustainable fashion than any other current operation on the planet (Exxon/Mobile excepted) is simply magical thinking.

The truth is that no matter how you measure creativity in business, Apple is a world class company.

That they've bought or licensed as many patents or processes as they've developed in house is just a reflection of the fact that they understand that no business can exist in a modern, interconnected planetary global economy as an island.

Stuff they HAVE invented in house, (e.g. Quicktime, Firewire (prior to giving it away to iEEE to encourage it as a standard) and everything else represented by the quite large vault of in-house patents they hold were developed on company time with company resources by company people.

So I believe you're argument falls flat by objective standards.

"Before speaking out ask yourself whether your words are true, whether they are respectful and whether they are needed in our civil discussions."-Justice O'Conner


Return to posts index

TImothy Auld
Re: Steve Kanter: What FCPX CAN Do
on Aug 4, 2011 at 10:20:31 pm

Bill,

Apple did not give Firewire to IEEE. They funded IEEE's development of the technology, which
pretty much amounts to buying it. And to whose "objective" standards do you refer? Your own?

bigpine


Return to posts index

Herb Sevush
Re: Steve Kanter: What FCPX CAN Do
on Aug 4, 2011 at 10:26:19 pm

I don't loath Apple I admire them greatly. But just because a company is great at some things doesn't mean it is great at all things.

Apple is great at the nexus of hardware and software - nobody is better at thinking about the future uses of computers and designing the operating systems that interface with users, with special emphasis on consumers, the type of users who don't want to know how or why something works, who just want something that works.

However software applications are not any of the things I have described, and they are not something that Apple has ever been great at. Name one category leading App they have ever designed themselves - a word processor, spreadsheet, financial program, sound editor, image editor - anything. No Word, Excel, Quicken, Photoshop, Pro-Tools - no software that was not part of the operating system ever caused anyone to jump up and shout.

Actually, I mis-spoke, there was one category leader that only Apple sold, and that was Final Cut, a program created by Macromedia. I will give Apple credit for nurturing it and improving it and making a category leader out of it. But then of course you know what they did with it -- they dumped it. As they have done with a room full of other software they bought and mismanaged to death.

So if I were to objectively look at Adobe, Apple and Avid and ask myself who has the best track record for creating innovative media software, Apple would be at the bottom of that list. And that's just the facts.

Herb Sevush
Zebra Productions


Return to posts index

Bill Davis
Re: Steve Kanter: What FCPX CAN Do
on Aug 5, 2011 at 5:17:09 pm

Since you just asked for "one" here you go.

Keynote.

Go backstage and any major business conference or public presentation and ask the tech crew behind the curtains whether they would prefer presentations in PowerPoint or Keynote. They might say "either" because they understand that their job is to work with both - but buy them a drink after the job - away from their bosses - and if it's not 99 to 1 Keynote, I'd be shocked.

Even in the PC dominanated world of big company IT - the guys I know and have worked with for years break out in a sweat when they're forced to work with PP presentations, and exhibit nothing but relief when handed a Keynote presentation. Particularly when the presentation is complex. Embedded sound and video files in Keynote projects tend to simply work.

In PowerPoint, not so much.

Apple software. Generally regarded as "top of the class."

"Before speaking out ask yourself whether your words are true, whether they are respectful and whether they are needed in our civil discussions."-Justice O'Conner


Return to posts index

Herb Sevush
Re: Steve Kanter: What FCPX CAN Do
on Aug 5, 2011 at 5:46:25 pm

"Apple software. Generally regarded as "top of the class.""

Lets see, Avid basically invented (along with EMC) the modern NLE, Adobe developed Premiere, Photoshop and Illustrator, and Apple has Keynote, who backstage people will tell you is better than Power Point, although it's not remotely the category leader. Yes, I can clearly see how Apple is "generally" regarded as top of the class when it comes to application software.

PS

And Bill, if you're going to quote Sandra Day O'Connor, you should spell her name right.

Herb Sevush
Zebra Productions


Return to posts index

Andree Franks
Re: Steve Kanter: What FCPX CAN Do
on Aug 5, 2011 at 5:58:59 pm

Man Avid is no top of the class software! It belongs in the news room lol.
Joke aside top of the class won't help if the user isn't. Hihihihi haaa another joke or not? ;)



Return to posts index

David Roth Weiss
Re: Steve Kanter: What FCPX CAN Do
on Aug 4, 2011 at 11:10:09 pm

[Bill Davis] "So I believe you're argument falls flat by objective standards."

Bill, although you're not exactly the world's leading expert on "objective standards," I'm very happy to see that it's not all typed in caps. This proves there's hope for all the rest of us old dogs. I might even take my copy of FCP X out of the mothballs now...


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

Steve Connor
Re: Steve Kanter: What FCPX CAN Do
on Aug 1, 2011 at 9:51:00 pm

[David Roth Weiss] "Geoff,

You're clearly not a "pro" yourself, otherwise you would not put quotations around the word. So, what exactly makes you think that you have any idea what a pro thinks? And furthermore, since you have no actual frame of reference, why should anyone really care what you think about pros?

In fact, maybe you could be so kind as to tell me and the other Cow members here exactly what is it about Geoff Dills that should make us care about any of the words you write? Or, are you just like my dog, who licks his weenie just because he can?


"


I thought we didn't do personal attacks here on the Cow, because that reads just like one.

Steve Connor
Adrenalin Television

Have you tried "Search Posts"? Enlightenment may be there.


Return to posts index

Steve Connor
Re: Steve Kanter: What FCPX CAN Do
on Aug 1, 2011 at 11:43:35 pm

[David Roth Weiss] "Geoff,

You're clearly not a "pro" yourself, otherwise you would not put quotations around the word. So, what exactly makes you think that you have any idea what a pro thinks? And furthermore, since you have no actual frame of reference, why should anyone really care what you think about pros?

In fact, maybe you could be so kind as to tell me and the other Cow members here exactly what is it about Geoff Dills that should make us care about any of the words you write? Or, are you just like my dog, who licks his weenie just because he can?


"


I believe this personal attack came first, he was replying to this post.

Yes, you are a very experienced professional who has been incredibly helpful over the years on the Cow, no-one is questioning that, I just think you do not need to resort to posts like the one above, when pursuing an argument?

Steve Connor
Adrenalin Television

Have you tried "Search Posts"? Enlightenment may be there.


Return to posts index

David Roth Weiss
Re: Steve Kanter: What FCPX CAN Do
on Aug 2, 2011 at 12:12:22 am

[Steve Connor] "I believe this personal attack came first, he was replying to this post."

This was not a personal attack Steve. I was seriously asking him about his qualifications for his inside knowledge of the "pros," because it was patently obvious from the quotes around "pros," just as I mentioned, that Geoff had no frame of reference for his statement.

If it's the dog licking his weenie part that you saw as an attack, I will admit that might seem inflammatory at first blush. But, please notice, I very carefully phrased that part as a question, because I was really hoping it would illicit answers to my questions. Meanwhile, I can accept criticism and even offer apologies for that part if it's the real hurtle here. But, I don't really think it's the issue.


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

John Godwin
Re: Steve Kanter: What FCPX CAN Do
on Aug 2, 2011 at 12:33:34 am

I started frequenting this forum when FCPX was released because hoped to learn. The main thing I've learned is that "Pro" appears to be defined as " what I do and on up", and that's sad. The personal attacks are pretty unprofessional and surprising from the reputation of the Cow, and, yes, I've read the entire thread.

Best,
John


Return to posts index

Mark Dobson
Re: Steve Kanter: What FCPX CAN Do
on Aug 1, 2011 at 7:08:59 pm

Hi Geoff

i'm sure if you were there sitting next to Steve you would have pointed out his error and everything would have gone more smoothly. It's easier to notice things like that when you are not the one talking to a live audience and being filmed for the keen eyed observers sitting at their own computers.

Sure things went a bit off kilter but I really got the point he was making and the main thing I take away from a session like that is Steve's positive attitude to learn about and impart all that he can about FXP X.

And he's got a dog who can edit better than me.


Return to posts index

Geoff Dills
Re: Steve Kanter: What FCPX CAN Do
on Aug 1, 2011 at 7:43:17 pm

[Mark Dobson] "i'm sure if you were there sitting next to Steve you would have pointed out his error and everything would have gone more smoothly."

I think what was surprising was that out of a room full of knowledgeable people, not one person noticed. And don't get me wrong, I thought he presented some good information. And I am a fan of X. And it was an easy, honest mistake. Just funny was all.

Best,
Geoff


Return to posts index

Craig Seeman
Re: Steve Kanter: What FCPX CAN Do
on Aug 1, 2011 at 8:02:22 pm

I've seen other FCPX presenters make mistakes like this. Alas that's the nature of a program which has no veterans yet. We're all newbies on FCPX.



Return to posts index