FORUMS: list search recent posts

Be STILL my BEATING HEART.

COW Forums : Apple Final Cut Pro X Debates

<< PREVIOUS   •   VIEW ALL   •   PRINT   •   NEXT >>
Aindreas Gallagher
Be STILL my BEATING HEART.
on Sep 7, 2011 at 6:08:29 pm

Jeremy garchow just posted this.



No published Apis, no published XML hooks stuff, and you can still get this?

I am many flavours of agog.


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


Return to posts index

David Roth Weiss
Re: Be STILL my BEATING HEART.
on Sep 7, 2011 at 6:20:24 pm

Kinda makes you wonder what the developers of FCP X have been doing with all their time since February when they first showed the same version of X that's still out today to the privileged few, doesn't 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

Jeremy Garchow
Re: Be STILL my BEATING HEART.
on Sep 7, 2011 at 7:49:14 pm

[David Roth Weiss] "Kinda makes you wonder what the developers of FCP X have been doing with all their time since February when they first showed the same version of X that's still out today to the privileged few, doesn't it??"

Absolutely. In a good way.

You can then export your AE project to PPro, and get an XML, too.

There are some limitations of course: http://www.foolcolor.net/foolcut


Return to posts index


Craig Seeman
Re: Be STILL my BEATING HEART.
on Sep 7, 2011 at 8:01:32 pm

For those who want the direct link.
http://foolcolor.net/foolcut

One think you can say is that FCPX seems to inspire ingenuity.
I guess the formula is - drink the Apple KoolAid, hallucinate what you want, make it a reality.
If you read the comments on the video on Vimeo apparently he plans to convert to FCP7 XML to allow send to Resolve.



Return to posts index

Gary Huff
Re: Be STILL my BEATING HEART.
on Sep 7, 2011 at 8:12:08 pm

How about all those people that said that FCPX's timeline was so "revolutionary" that it couldn't translate older projects or out to other formats and so on.

Guess they were simply full of it, eh?


Return to posts index

Aindreas Gallagher
Re: Be STILL my BEATING HEART.
on Sep 7, 2011 at 8:26:10 pm

yeah but, that was shagging apple that said it, and here's a bloke who's knocked together a full bore automatic duck with apparently little coding experience using applescript or something?

for 70 bucks? They'll be slashing prices over at automatic duck at this rate.

I have to say - just the sight of that timeline opening up in AE was rather cheering. The editing paradigm in FCPX I think is still irretrievably screwed, but at least that's magic bullet shot to shot grading sorted for 70 bucks.

It's the first good news in a while this.


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


Return to posts index


Gary Huff
Re: Be STILL my BEATING HEART.
on Sep 7, 2011 at 8:33:40 pm

Of course, to use this you still have to edit in FCPX, which is where the big problem lies. ;-)


Return to posts index

Aindreas Gallagher
Re: Be STILL my BEATING HEART.
on Sep 7, 2011 at 8:53:14 pm

yeah, if only the experience of operating that timeline wasn't so shite, and the viewer wasn't gone, and the keyframing wasn't so screwed, and the effects weren't such motion template tripe, and if only you could make a bin/bucket/container, and a video only overwrite didn't still kill the audio on the clip you're overwriting, and the audio waveforms weren't unusable, and the broken out audio wasn't a permanent operation that never shows off sync, and the arbitrary rules of connected clips and secondary storylines weren't so stupid, (why can't I make a dissolve?), if only they had retained soundtrack pro, if only the scrubber wasn't so bloody annoying, if only the clip in and out points were persistent, if only in precision editor you could set the edit point on the playback space bar halt, if only that colour corrector had never been born, if only clips didn't do ten frame dissolves when you deleted them, if you could only de-magnetise the timeline, if only you didn't have to select the correct audioclip of the dozen on that days shoot in order to use audio sync feature, thereby making it half pointless really, and also if only it wasn't so unreliable even when you had selected the correct audio clip, and if only it wasn't so scarily buggy, Oh.. if only, if only, if only it all just wasn't so shite.
I'm still generally annoyed, but at least you can get to AE for colour correction if you have to use it.


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


Return to posts index

John Davidson
Re: Be STILL my BEATING HEART.
on Sep 7, 2011 at 8:58:33 pm

Now if they can make this dump into Logic so we can export OMF, I'll be a long way towards happy.

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


Return to posts index


Chris Harlan
Re: Be STILL my BEATING HEART.
on Sep 7, 2011 at 9:01:34 pm

[John Davidson] "Now if they can make this dump into Logic so we can export OMF, I'll be a long way towards happy.
"


But guess what:

Apple Moving Toward Release of Logic Pro X?

http://www.macrumors.com/2011/09/07/apple-moving-toward-release-of-logic-pr...


Return to posts index

Aindreas Gallagher
Re: Be STILL my BEATING HEART.
on Sep 7, 2011 at 9:11:34 pm

BLOOD BOILING.

"...the only concrete detail being that Apple will not be incorporating a GarageBand-style user interface for the revamped application, likely sticking to a more complex interface more appropriate for the professional-level nature of the software. "


WHAAAAAT????
why is it only us getting creamed here? why can't we have our more complex interface more appropriate for the professional-level nature of the software?



GAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA







GAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA

GAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA

GAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA


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


Return to posts index

John Davidson
Re: Be STILL my BEATING HEART.
on Sep 8, 2011 at 1:16:48 am

Oy. I thought that was a joke. Oh fun.

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


Return to posts index


Chris Harlan
Re: Be STILL my BEATING HEART.
on Sep 8, 2011 at 2:24:20 am

Heym maybe 3rd time is the charm. Quicktime X. FCP X. Logic X. I've been wondering if I should switch to Pro Tools, anyway. So, if the release is a pile of puss, off I go. Makes Avid all that much prettier.


Return to posts index

Robert Brown
Re: Be STILL my BEATING HEART.
on Sep 8, 2011 at 6:05:54 am

Check out Nuendo. A lot more bang or the buck. And when I was doing testing a year or 2 ago I found it read FCP OMFs better than Logic. Go figure. And use whatever vid and aud hardware you want. One of my favorite apps ever as you can map the keyboard however you want and the editing just makes so much sense you'll become annoyed with other apps.

Robert Brown
Editor/VFX/Colorist - FCP, Smoke, Quantel Pablo, After Effects, 3DS MAX, Premiere Pro

http://vimeo.com/user3987510/videos


Return to posts index

David Lawrence
Re: Be STILL my BEATING HEART.
on Sep 7, 2011 at 9:33:50 pm

[Gary Huff] "Of course, to use this you still have to edit in FCPX, which is where the big problem lies. ;-)"

Maybe not. If you can get a timeline out, you can re-edit that timeline.

Here's what I think would make FCPX a huge win:

Go back to Randy U's original design vision. Rebrand it. Make it First Cut Pro X. Don't try to force it to be a professional NLE. Instead, develop it into a revolutionizing organizing and assembly tool. Then create an export workflow to take organized projects into a real editing system for finishing. Or not, if you don't need to. As long as there's a way out, the possibilities are endless.

Imagine being able to use a laptop in the field to log and tag footage instantly, do quick assemblies and rough cuts, etc. Then export and finish in a more powerful, flexible, editorial system. Something like that would rock.

Foolcut shows it's possible to get a timeline out. Next, I'd love to also see keyword collections exported as bins containing clips. I'll bet it's possible. Export capability like this would change FCPX from a half-baked NLE into an innovative and valuable prep-tool for all kinds of workflows.

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


Return to posts index


John Davidson
Re: Be STILL my BEATING HEART.
on Sep 7, 2011 at 9:35:32 pm

Final Prep X?

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


Return to posts index

illya laney
Re: Be STILL my BEATING HEART.
on Sep 8, 2011 at 5:12:35 am

David Lawrence
"Imagine being able to use a laptop in the field to log and tag footage instantly, do quick assemblies and rough cuts, etc. Then export and finish in a more powerful, flexible, editorial system. Something like that would rock."

The Foundry's Storm already has that covered and more.

twitter.com/illyalaney

nextLAB Mobile
SpeedGrade DI
Resolve
da Vinci 8:8:8 Renaissance
Color



Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: Be STILL my BEATING HEART.
on Sep 8, 2011 at 11:26:53 am

Storm is dead, or really, it's dying:

http://www.thefoundry.co.uk/products/storm/

Jeremy


Return to posts index

illya laney
Re: Be STILL my BEATING HEART.
on Sep 9, 2011 at 3:25:46 am

Yeah, it's too bad they didn't expand into other cameras.

twitter.com/illyalaney

nextLAB Mobile
SpeedGrade DI
Resolve
da Vinci 8:8:8 Renaissance
Color



Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: Be STILL my BEATING HEART.
on Sep 9, 2011 at 3:56:59 am

Pomfort silverstack looks cool. Not the same, but still cool.


Return to posts index

David Dobson
Re: Be STILL my BEATING HEART.
on Sep 7, 2011 at 9:55:50 pm

Or you could edit in Premiere and do this without a 3rd part app.


Return to posts index

David Roth Weiss
Re: Be STILL my BEATING HEART.
on Sep 7, 2011 at 9:02:27 pm

[Aindreas Gallagher] "They'll be slashing prices over at automatic duck at this rate."

About five years too late IMO. Though in all fairness, I must admit that I'm decidedly biased against the greedy Duck, and for good reason.

When Wes refused to allow me to sell an unopened version of one of his products I'd bought at full retail, I became a huge non-fan of The Duck.

Bad call Wes!!! And yes, if you see this you'd better believe I'm still pissed, and you'll never get another buck from me, ever.


Return to posts index

Walter Soyka
Re: Be STILL my BEATING HEART.
on Sep 7, 2011 at 9:09:53 pm

[Gary Huff] "How about all those people that said that FCPX's timeline was so "revolutionary" that it couldn't translate older projects or out to other formats and so on. Guess they were simply full of it, eh?"

I don't think so.

Going OUT to a traditional edit is relatively easy, but some FCPX-specific information (clip connections, storylines, compound clips, etc.) will be lost as there's no way to store that data in other formats.

Going IN to FCPX in a meaningful way is a whole other matter, because the same FCPX-specific information I mentioned above doesn't exist in other apps or formats and must be guessed or deduced by the translation application.

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: Be STILL my BEATING HEART.
on Sep 7, 2011 at 9:14:46 pm

realistically it's going to be a 1V 2A import isn't it?
that way it can slot to the primary storyline. Or actually having more audio stuff below could be fine couldn't it? its just the connected clips and all that balls you'll have to avoid?


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


Return to posts index

Walter Soyka
Re: Be STILL my BEATING HEART.
on Sep 7, 2011 at 9:23:22 pm

[Aindreas Gallagher] "realistically it's going to be a 1V 2A import isn't it? that way it can slot to the primary storyline. Or actually having more audio stuff below could be fine couldn't it? its just the connected clips and all that balls you'll have to avoid?"

My guess is that the reason that Apple has decided not to offer legacy import is that unless the translation software can correctly guess the intent and context around every single edit decision in the list (the same storyline and clip connection information which FCPX collects and corrects as you edit), the magnetic timeline will not behave as expected if you try to edit an imported legacy project.

The information that the magnetic timeline needs in order to function just doesn't exist in an .FCP file, an FCP7 XML file, or an EDL.

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: Be STILL my BEATING HEART.
on Sep 7, 2011 at 9:32:09 pm

yeah, but sure, come on though - 1V 2A - how hard is that? that's like a bunch of shots one after the other. there are no relationships or intents, that's start with the first clip, add the other clips in sequence on the primary storyline until you come to the last one.
I bet you twenty quid once apple (if they ever do at this rate) publish the specifications, that is out, commercially, in a fortnight.

you have to be able to get 1V 2A in there. you have to. or the world is mad.


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


Return to posts index

Walter Soyka
Re: Be STILL my BEATING HEART.
on Sep 7, 2011 at 9:47:36 pm

[Aindreas Gallagher] "yeah, but sure, come on though - 1V 2A - how hard is that? that's like a bunch of shots one after the other. there are no relationships or intents, that's start with the first clip, add the other clips in sequence on the primary storyline until you come to the last one."

If you give a mouse a cookie...


[Aindreas Gallagher] "I bet you twenty quid once apple (if they ever do at this rate) publish the specifications, that is out, commercially, in a fortnight."

From the FAQ [link]:
Can I import projects from Final Cut Pro 7 into Final Cut Pro X?
Final Cut Pro X includes an all-new project architecture structured around a trackless timeline and connected clips. In addition, Final Cut Pro X features new and redesigned audio effects, video effects, and color grading tools. Because of these changes, there is no way to “translate” or bring in old projects without changing or losing data. But if you’re already working with Final Cut Pro 7, you can continue to do so after installing Final Cut Pro X, and Final Cut Pro 7 will work with OS X Lion. You can also import your media files from previous versions into Final Cut Pro X.

Can Final Cut Pro X export XML?
Not yet, but we know how important XML export is to our developers and our users, and we expect to add this functionality to Final Cut Pro X. We will release a set of APIs in the next few weeks so that third-party developers can access the next-generation XML in Final Cut Pro X.


They are equally clear about import being impossible, and export being a priority. I hope I am wrong about this.

Perhaps as foolcut shows, AppleScript is the answer, but again, proper translation is a really non-trivial problem!


[Aindreas Gallagher] "you have to be able to get 1V 2A in there. you have to. or the world is mad."

Well...

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

Jeremy Garchow
Re: Be STILL my BEATING HEART.
on Sep 7, 2011 at 9:53:02 pm

[Walter Soyka] "Can I import projects from Final Cut Pro 7 into Final Cut Pro X?"

Notice it says projects, not timelines. I would think that you would do away with the primary storyline in an import, and keep it all as connected clips to a gap. Let the user move stuff to primary as they see fit.


Return to posts index

Mark Morache
Re: Be STILL my BEATING HEART.
on Sep 7, 2011 at 11:53:06 pm

[Jeremy Garchow] "[Walter Soyka] "Can I import projects from Final Cut Pro 7 into Final Cut Pro X?""

I gotta think you could take that 7 timeline and make it trackless. V1 would be a direct translation. V2 could be a direct translation as well if you put everything into a secondary storyline. That would leave the reconnecting to the editor. Reconnecting is much easier than re-editing.

Or if all they did was connect the first frame of each V2 clip to the frame directly under it on V1, that would go a long way. Dissolves on V2 could be converted to keyframed opacity. Wipes and other transitions could force those parts of a V2 timeline directly into a secondary storyline.

Then do V3 and above the same way.

Seems like the audio could be done just as easily.

I'll be they could come up with a translation for the 3 way color corrector, or they might even be able to create a version of it for the FCX effects bin.

Frankly, anyone who uses plug-ins and tried to open that project on a machine without the plug-ins has some fixing to do, but at least their edit is there. Why can't we be afforded the same opportunity in FCX?

There's some wicked irony here when you consider that AE can open an FCX project, but FCX can't round trip to motion. And that Premiere Pro can open a FCP7 project but FCX can't.

What's wrong with this picture?

Being of the "there must be a pony in here somewhere" school of philosophy, I'm expecting that the long delay from Apple for an update to FCX is because of the extra work it's taking them to put the tracks back in the timeline.

Seriously, they could have created their non-conflict timeline with tracks. They could have kept a version of connected clips by locking clips together, in tracks. They could have given us 64bit with backround rendering, crazy powerful metadata, even a version of the magnetic clips, and still given us our tracks.

I'm glad there's still room for Aindreas to be shocked and awed.

---------
FCX. She tempts me, abuses me, beats me up, makes me feel worthless, then in the end she comes around, helps me get my work done, gives me hope and I can't stop thinking about her.

Mark Morache
Avid/Xpri/FCP7/FCX
Evening Magazine,Seattle, WA
http://fcpx.wordpress.com


Return to posts index

David Lawrence
Re: Be STILL my BEATING HEART.
on Sep 8, 2011 at 1:46:10 am

[Mark Morache] "Being of the "there must be a pony in here somewhere" school of philosophy, I'm expecting that the long delay from Apple for an update to FCX is because of the extra work it's taking them to put the tracks back in the timeline. "

Oh how I wish you're right about that. Not holding my breath tho...

[Mark Morache] "Seriously, they could have created their non-conflict timeline with tracks. They could have kept a version of connected clips by locking clips together, in tracks. They could have given us 64bit with backround rendering, crazy powerful metadata, even a version of the magnetic clips, and still given us our tracks. "

Word. The UI is an abstraction of the guts under the hood. The trackless magnetic timeline is a design choice, not an engineering choice. Apple could have absolutely kept tracks if they wanted to. In fact there's evidence in the program itself that at some point tracks were there. I would love to have been a fly on the wall when they decided to dump this for their "magical" new paradigm.



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


Return to posts index

Aindreas Gallagher
Re: Be STILL my BEATING HEART.
on Sep 8, 2011 at 9:00:54 pm

oh god I love that timeline. looks, just look at the usable audio waveforms.


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


Return to posts index

Gary Huff
Re: Be STILL my BEATING HEART.
on Sep 7, 2011 at 11:18:36 pm

[Walter Soyka]
Going OUT to a traditional edit is relatively easy, but some FCPX-specific information (clip connections, storylines, compound clips, etc.) will be lost as there's no way to store that data in other formats.

Going IN to FCPX in a meaningful way is a whole other matter, because the same FCPX-specific information I mentioned above doesn't exist in other apps or formats and must be guessed or deduced by the translation application.


I guess you'll keep tossing up this argument until someone goes and does it, and then I suppose in response you'll just throw up your hands and, say, "I don't know. Must be magic."?


Return to posts index

Walter Soyka
Re: Be STILL my BEATING HEART.
on Sep 8, 2011 at 1:20:57 am

[Gary Huff] "I guess you'll keep tossing up this argument until someone goes and does it, and then I suppose in response you'll just throw up your hands and, say, "I don't know. Must be magic."?"

Gary, I'd love to be wrong about this. I'd love for someone to figure out how to make a meaningful translation. Someone who says something is impossible should never interrupt someone who is doing it.

I still think you're dramatically oversimplifying the challenge. These new conceptual constructs (storylines and clip connections) are foundational to the FCPX timeline, and they're totally independent of and unrelated to the clip identification and temporal information expressed in EDLs and FCP7 XML.

Take your last complicated timeline and export an EDL for each track. Load them all in Excel, and with no information other than reel and timecode, can you correctly identify each edit as what would have been a clip in the primary storyline, a clip in a secondary storyline, or a connected clip, if you had originally edited in in FCPX?

My argument is that making a traditional timeline into a fully-functional FCPX timeline is an incredibly complicated problem, and that's why I think Apple has not included that feature. Do you disagree?

I'm with Mark and Jeremy -- there are several very reasonable ways to get the clips into FCPX at the right points in time, then let the editor hand-magnetize the timeline. If you make mistakes, the magnetic timeline features still won't work right, but like many here, I'd certainly rather have my edit in with limited magnetic functionality than not have it at 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 Lawrence
Re: Be STILL my BEATING HEART.
on Sep 8, 2011 at 1:48:30 am

[Walter Soyka] "If you make mistakes, the magnetic timeline features still won't work right, but like many here, I'd certainly rather have my edit in with limited magnetic functionality than not have it at all."

Walter -- just curious, what specific features are you thinking wouldn't work right?

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


Return to posts index

Walter Soyka
Re: Be STILL my BEATING HEART.
on Sep 8, 2011 at 2:51:46 am

[David Lawrence] "Walter -- just curious, what specific features are you thinking wouldn't work right?"

If you just connect all the clips to a gap as the primary, you get no magnetic rippling as you rearrange clips.

If you guess at the primary storyline and connected clips, but you guess wrong about the connection points, or guess wrong about what's primary and what's connected, the rippling will be wrong.

FCPX works because it encourages you to establish these relationships in context at the time you make the edit. I don't think an imported timeline missing these contextual cues would feel like an FCPX timeline which relies on them.

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 Lawrence
Re: Be STILL my BEATING HEART.
on Sep 8, 2011 at 3:29:03 am

[Walter Soyka] "If you guess at the primary storyline and connected clips, but you guess wrong about the connection points, or guess wrong about what's primary and what's connected, the rippling will be wrong.

FCPX works because it encourages you to establish these relationships in context at the time you make the edit. I don't think an imported timeline missing these contextual cues would feel like an FCPX timeline which relies on them."


OK, makes sense.

But the more I think about it, I'm not sure it would be that big a deal. FCPX forces all connections to be in relationship to the primary. I find that to be one of its biggest constraints and weaknesses. What if the relationships expressed by track groupings have nothing to do with a notion of "primary"? As long as vertical and horizontal relationships in time are maintained, grouping wouldn't matter and could left for the editor to decide after import.

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


Return to posts index

Gary Huff
Re: Be STILL my BEATING HEART.
on Sep 8, 2011 at 5:01:54 am

[Walter Soyka]FCPX works because it encourages you to establish these relationships in context at the time you make the edit. I don't think an imported timeline missing these contextual cues would feel like an FCPX timeline which relies on them.

FCPX does not, at least to my knowledge, use any sort of artificial intelligence engine to establish this context. The "context" of which you speak is a simple run of IF...THEN...ELSE statements in the code (more or less) that governs the behavior. Whether it does it at the moment that you place clips on the timeline, or whether it does it later with clips that are arranged in time by another NLE, the end result is the same. Undesired linkage could easily be fixed after import.

It's curious to me because you can't seemingly claim that all of this will be messed up when FCPX will import iMovie projects, so that must be an admission that iMovie has a lot in common with FCPX under the hood if that sort of importer was provided on Day 1. Yet there are those who claim that it only bares a superficial resemblance with the UI, so which is it?

I'd love for someone to figure out how to make a meaningful translation.

Ah, I've seen the out you've left for yourself there.

My argument is that making a traditional timeline into a fully-functional FCPX timeline is an incredibly complicated problem, and that's why I think Apple has not included that feature. Do you disagree?

Yet another out. No one is saying that an importer will do a 100% perfect job time in and time out. That would be dumb. However, I will say that an importer will be able to import a lot of projects that will play correction from time 0:00:00 to the end. There will probably need to be some connections made, but that's it.

Are you really unable to grasp that most of what FCPX magnetic timeline does it automatic linkage? You can still do the exact same thing in any current NLE, you just have to do it manually.


Return to posts index

Walter Soyka
Re: Be STILL my BEATING HEART.
on Sep 8, 2011 at 12:35:07 pm

Gary, what's with the aggressive tone? We disagree, and you're describing me and my arguments as "full of it," "leaving outs," "dumb," and "magic?" If we're going to disagree, let's do so with civility.


[Gary Huff] "FCPX does not, at least to my knowledge, use any sort of artificial intelligence engine to establish this context. The "context" of which you speak is a simple run of IF...THEN...ELSE statements in the code (more or less) that governs the behavior. Whether it does it at the moment that you place clips on the timeline, or whether it does it later with clips that are arranged in time by another NLE, the end result is the same. Undesired linkage could easily be fixed after import."

You seem to be suggesting that the FCPX editorial paradigm is not fundamentally different from the FCP editorial paradigm, so translation is straightforward. I disagree here.

I think it's roughly analogous to raster drawing versus vector drawing. Can you make the same image with both methods? Yes. Can you rasterize a vector drawing? Yes. Can you vectorize a raster drawing? Not nearly as well -- the translation may look right, but it's not going to be easy to modify because the contextual information about how the strokes were drawn doesn't exist in the raster drawing. You'll spend a lot of time cleaning up a vectorized drawing that came from a raster drawing.

I don't think FCPX (or Illustrator) has artificial intelligence. I do think it has additional features and data structures that FCP7 (and Photoshop) do not, and that the way you manipulate edits (and curves) use those features and data structures. The raster-vector translator in my example above had to guess at what the vector app could have actually tracked in the first place.

I agree with you that there's no reason why FCPX shouldn't be able to take a legacy project in and place the clips correctly in time. Jeremy, Mark, and David and others have all outlined ways this could be done. Of course I think that "undesired linkage" could easily be fixed after import. I also think that FCPX already has all the tools you'd need to hand-magnetize a timeline.

I'm essentially offering an apologist argument to rationalize why Apple hasn't included -- and have stated that they won't include -- a much-needed legacy import feature: a translated timeline wouldn't feel like a "proper" FCPX timeline without a lot of manual intervention.

I think I'm with you on this -- I don't need Apple to protect me from myself. I'd gladly work over a non-native timeline to get the edit in. So would everyone else on this thread, I'm sure. I'd rather hand-magnetize a timeline than eye-match it. Add it to the list of feedback Apple doesn't seem to be considering.


[Gary Huff] "It's curious to me because you can't seemingly claim that all of this will be messed up when FCPX will import iMovie projects, so that must be an admission that iMovie has a lot in common with FCPX under the hood if that sort of importer was provided on Day 1. Yet there are those who claim that it only bares a superficial resemblance with the UI, so which is it?"

I don't know. I haven't used iMovie. Since FCPX can import iMovie projects and not FCP projects, I'd assume that iMovie's architecture is far closer to FCPX than FCP7.


[Gary Huff] "Yet another out. No one is saying that an importer will do a 100% perfect job time in and time out. That would be dumb. However, I will say that an importer will be able to import a lot of projects that will play correction from time 0:00:00 to the end. There will probably need to be some connections made, but that's it."

I'm not looking for outs -- I just see some shades of gray where you see black and white.

I agree that an importer could easily make an FCPX timeline that would play identically to the FCP timeline it was imported from. That just involves placing clips correctly in time. It just wouldn't be ready to edit, as if the piece had been originally edited in FCPX with an FCPX methodology.


[Gary Huff] "Are you really unable to grasp that most of what FCPX magnetic timeline does it automatic linkage? You can still do the exact same thing in any current NLE, you just have to do it manually."

There is nothing like a clip connection with an arbitrary linkage point in FCP7, Avid, or Premiere Pro, and because of this, you cannot replicate the full behavior of the magnetic timeline in anything but FCPX. You can come close in many cases, but not all; FCPX's features and structures make the new timeline's logic fully internally consistent.

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

Paul Dickin
Re: Be STILL my BEATING HEART.
on Sep 8, 2011 at 1:46:01 pm

[Walter Soyka] "I agree that an importer could easily make an FCPX timeline that would play identically to the FCP timeline it was imported from. That just involves placing clips correctly in time. It just wouldn't be ready to edit, as if the piece had been originally edited in FCPX with an FCPX methodology."
Hi
I guess this may be significant - in legacy FCP the 'project' gets built in the project's internal XML (or code} whilst the media 'assets' sit unchanged on the hard drives.
In FCP X the 'project' (=timeline) is built cumulatively into a database that is part and parcel of the AV Foundation asset database(s) - which is a developing process as the timeline is built in the editing process.

So the 'database' construction going on in FCP X seems to be a relational order of magnitude more complex than in legacy-FCP - and part of that complexity may relate to the interaction with AV Foundation data being created in the editing process that is additional to the sum of the individual media assets in the project. So which bit of legacy-FCP project data goes where in FCP X's data structures may be problematic?

[Jeremy Garchow in his article] "Just recently, an Applescript was released by foolcolor.net called foolcut (http://www.foolcolor.net/foolcut). It takes your FCPX timeline and transfers it over to Adobe After Effects... This is done with scripting and no API.."

At this point in time legacy-QuickTime is inherently compatible with AV Foundation - foolcut's Applescript FCP X database-querying powers show that - but will that always be the case?

[Jeremy Garchow in his article] "My biggest gripe with FCPX is the lack of native digital media format support. It is time to realize that the world is not a Quicktime world, and hasn't been for some time, and that's OK! ...FCPX needs to embrace the non-Quicktime wrapped formats (MXF, R3D, MTS, etc) and allow for direct access to these audio and video essences, instead of wrapping them in yet another proprietary format."

Is legacy-QT compatibility another 'transition process' - like OS 9 Classic was, or Rosetta? Something that will be withdrawn at a later date? As Jeremy points out there is some sort of kludge currently going on...

Apple maybe don't want to allow something now that they know they will break further down the road?


Return to posts index

Gary Huff
Re: Be STILL my BEATING HEART.
on Sep 8, 2011 at 3:45:59 pm

[Walter Soyka]Gary, what's with the aggressive tone? We disagree, and you're describing me and my arguments as "full of it," "leaving outs," "dumb," and "magic?" If we're going to disagree, let's do so with civility.

First of all, "full of it" and "dumb" wasn't even in reference to you, so thanks for pulling in two of those to attempt to bolster your "poor me" defense. And please don't resort to being so incredibly sensitive that "leaving outs" and the "magic" crack are as offensive to you as "glee club" was to others. And, BTW, yes I'm aggressive, but I try to be fair and if you make a good point, I'll concede it. But so far, most of your points seem to demonstrate an ignorance of software development.

I think it's roughly analogous to raster drawing versus vector drawing.

It's not even roughly, more like not at all. Vector-based drawing takes place at the moment of media creation. FCPX is not there in the camera when I'm shooting video, it comes in later when the process of dealing with video is the arrangement of it, and it works its timeline by automatically linking what it thinks (by IF...THEN...ELSE rules on a fundamental level) are proper linkages.

And it sometimes doesn't even get them right when editing within it.

I'm essentially offering an apologist argument to rationalize why Apple hasn't included -- and have stated that they won't include -- a much-needed legacy import feature: a translated timeline wouldn't feel like a "proper" FCPX timeline without a lot of manual intervention.


That's fine and all. I would say that, from my point of view, Apple didn't include one because FCPX is not the successor to FCP7. Instead, it is the "pro" version of iMovie. A newly formed Apple product, not an upgraded version of someone else's code. I think to argue otherwise is really to bury your head in the sand (IMHO).

I don't know. I haven't used iMovie. Since FCPX can import iMovie projects and not FCP projects, I'd assume that iMovie's architecture is far closer to FCPX than FCP7.

And this wasn't so much referencing anything that you have particular said, but others who had tried to make the argument that iMovie and FCPX have nothing in common except a superficial resemblance in UI.


There is nothing like a clip connection with an arbitrary linkage point in FCP7, Avid, or Premiere Pro, and because of this, you cannot replicate the full behavior of the magnetic timeline in anything but FCPX. You can come close in many cases, but not all; FCPX's features and structures make the new timeline's logic fully internally consistent.


I never said "arbitrary", I said you could duplicate it by linking manually, which I can. I still don't understand why you cannot see that FCPX's timeline is just like the others, except with more automation of linking clips. That's all it does. And sometimes it messes up as well.


Return to posts index

Walter Soyka
Re: Be STILL my BEATING HEART.
on Sep 8, 2011 at 4:40:13 pm

[Gary Huff] "First of all, "full of it" and "dumb" wasn't even in reference to you, so thanks for pulling in two of those to attempt to bolster your "poor me" defense."

Well, since I was the one who had the original discussion with you about how hard it was to get stuff into FCPX in the first place, I assumed I was included in your original statement, "How about all those people that said that FCPX's timeline was so "revolutionary" that it couldn't translate older projects or out to other formats and so on. Guess they were simply full of it, eh?"

I pulled "that would be dumb" directly from one of your subsequent responses to me.

And "poor me" is not a defense. I'm happy to debate you on the merits, but I expect you to extend me the same courtesy.


[Gary Huff] "And, BTW, yes I'm aggressive, but I try to be fair and if you make a good point, I'll concede it. But so far, most of your points seem to demonstrate an ignorance of software development."

I'm asserting that the data in an FCPX timeline is a superset of the data in an FCP timeline.

How does that suggest an ignorance of software development?


[Gary Huff] "Vector-based drawing takes place at the moment of media creation. FCPX is not there in the camera when I'm shooting video, it comes in later when the process of dealing with video is the arrangement of it, and it works its timeline by automatically linking what it thinks (by IF...THEN...ELSE rules on a fundamental level) are proper linkages."

I think that editorial is a creative process in and of itself. FCPX does not automatically link things willy-nilly with a series of if-then-else statements. It links them according to the decisions the editor makes, and the specific FCPX tools he or she uses, while editing: cut it into the primary storyline? Pull it out of the storyline? Connect it? Change the connection point? Position it? Compound it? Storyline it?

All these things affect the context of the clip and its relationships to other clips -- and the context is both totally plastic and relevant to subsequent operations.

I picked the vector curve example specifically because FCPX doesn't just represent the composition and output of the edit (as the FCP timeline does, and as a raster image does) -- it also represents some information about how the edit was actually constructed, via storyline designation and clip connections, then it uses that information to guide the mechanics of subsequent editorial.


[Gary Huff] "I never said "arbitrary", I said you could duplicate it by linking manually, which I can. I still don't understand why you cannot see that FCPX's timeline is just like the others, except with more automation of linking clips. That's all it does. And sometimes it messes up as well."

FCPX's magnetic timeline may not always do what you intend, but it will always do what you tell it. It won't mess up. It follows its rules consistently, and garbage in will make garbage out.

Do this in FCP7: Imagine a sound effect with with some build up leading to a crash. You want the crash to hit on a specific frame, shortly after an edit point, but the build-up begins before the edit. You lay the SFX in and adjust the clip connection point so the audio and visual hits match. Now, with FCPX, if you insert a new clip at the edit point right before the hit, the hit stays linked where it is supposed to, and the build-up will still correctly proceed the hit over the new clip.

FCPX manages the context of how the two clips relate -- not just their absolute points in time -- and that's an interesting new tool for editorial, and a complication for meaningful import of legacy timelines.

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: Be STILL my BEATING HEART.
on Sep 8, 2011 at 4:56:56 pm

[Walter Soyka]I pulled "that would be dumb" directly from one of your subsequent responses to me.

Here's the original context:


No one is saying that an importer will do a 100% perfect job time in and time out. That would be dumb.


I thought I was pretty clear that the "dumb" would be anyone claiming that a FCP7 importer would be able to do a perfect job all the time. My point being would that it would be dumb to say that, which is why no one is. If you still insist that I called you dumb, then I'm simply flummoxed.

I'm asserting that the data in an FCPX timeline is a superset of the data in an FCP timeline.

How does that suggest an ignorance of software development?


Because you couch it in terms that FCPX is developing "context" for connecting your clips instead of just following a pre-determined IF...THEN...ELSE path that can be applied at, really, any time instead of merely at the initial moment of arrangement. You seem unable to understand how this would be a accomplished from a strictly programming point of view, which makes your perception of how an importer would work very limited.

[I]t also represents some information about how the edit was actually constructed, via storyline designation and clip connections, then it uses that information to guide the mechanics of subsequent editorial.


See? Again with couching a simple process in language that implies FCPX is something of being "aware" of what is going on. It connects clips based on its proximity to others and where on the timeline it is placed. Why can you not conceive of being able to time-shift this process?

I think that editorial is a creative process in and of itself. FCPX does not automatically link things willy-nilly with a series of if-then-else statements. It links them according to the decisions the editor makes,


Again with the language that suggests that FCPX is aware. It is not. All of the features you listed are ways of doing the same thing as before, just in different ways. Perhaps FCPX makes some mistakes on an import, but how hard is it to fix, really? Once you have a timeline that plays back normally, why does it seem to you to be such a huge deal to re-arrange things?

and the specific FCPX tools he or she uses, while editing: cut it into the primary storyline?

The primary storyline is easily analogous to "V1", so I fail to see the issue. Whatever is on top is seen instead of what is in the primary storyline. So regardless of whether you made V3 the "primary" it is still layered.


pull it out of the storyline? Connect it? Change the connection point? Position it? Compound it? Storyline it?


Again, you are simply putting too much stock into this. You seem to think it is something new rather than a re-writing of what we basically already know. All the video you do in FCP7 is layered. All the video you do in FCPX is layered. How it gets layered is beside the point. In FCP7, a video on V3 is going to be shown instead of the video on V1. In FCPX, the video in the primary storyline is not going to be shown if there is video placed on a layer that is above it, regardless of what terminology Apple uses to describe that upper layer.

This whole thread started because someone can take the FCPX timeline and duplicate it in After Effects. Why are you still unable to grasp this concept when the evidence is right there in front of you?


Return to posts index

Walter Soyka
Re: Be STILL my BEATING HEART.
on Sep 8, 2011 at 5:32:07 pm

[Gary Huff] "My point being would that it would be dumb to say that, which is why no one is. If you still insist that I called you dumb, then I'm simply flummoxed."

I'll concede that one. I misread it the first time, thinking you were calling my entire argument dumb, and I apologize to you.

I stand by the rest of my remarks.


[Gary Huff] "Again with the language that suggests that FCPX is aware. It is not. All of the features you listed are ways of doing the same thing as before, just in different ways. Perhaps FCPX makes some mistakes on an import, but how hard is it to fix, really? Once you have a timeline that plays back normally, why does it seem to you to be such a huge deal to re-arrange things? ... Why can you not conceive of being able to time-shift this process?"

We're talking past each other, then.

As I have said over and over, I think it would be very easily doable to just get the clips into FCPX at the right points in time, then let the editor re-arrange these.

I think it's a very hard problem to ask software to meaningfully and correctly translate from a timeline which lacks the storyline and connected clips to one that does.

For whatever reason, Apple has opted not to develop this feature.

FCPX doesn't "know" or "understand" anything. It is not itself "aware" of anything. However, while FCP only stores information about a clip's absolute point in the timeline, and does not store information about the relationship between clips, FCPX does store information about the relative position of clips and their relationships.

This information is captured at the time the edit is made, and adjusted when edits are changed. This information is an attempt to capture the editor's intent, and is then later used for the series of if-then-elses that govern the magnetic timeline's behavior.

I think the FCPX timeline is only superficially similar to the FCP7 timeline. I guess you think they're very similar. I honestly can't see how. It's not magic, but I think there's a very deep conceptual difference between the FCP7 open timeline and the FCPX magnetic timeline.

I think it could be time-shifted if a human is reviewing the decisions. I don't think it can be easily time-shifted and done by a computer, which will have no context for the clip relationships from a multi-track EDL (which is what FCP7's XML essentially is).

Anyone who expects software to automatically deduce the relationships between the clips in their edit and make the magnetic timeline work as expected is expecting a magic bullet. That's all I'm saying!


[Gary Huff] "The primary storyline is easily analogous to "V1", so I fail to see the issue. Whatever is on top is seen instead of what is in the primary storyline. So regardless of whether you made V3 the "primary" it is still layered."

I agree that for straight playout, it doesn't matter. For later manual connection, it doesn't matter.

But for a serious attempt at translation, V1 as primary may not always be a good assumption. There could be checkerboarded primary edits on V2. The audio could be the primary.


[Gary Huff] "Again, you are simply putting too much stock into this. You seem to think it is something new rather than a re-writing of what we basically already know. All the video you do in FCP7 is layered. All the video you do in FCPX is layered. How it gets layered is beside the point."

No -- how it gets layered actually governs the behavior of the magnetic timeline as the edit continues.


[Gary Huff] "This whole thread started because someone can take the FCPX timeline and duplicate it in After Effects. Why are you still unable to grasp this concept when the evidence is right there in front of you?"

I'm arguing that FCPX's timeline is a superset of FCP's timeline. It contains everything FCP does and more. It's easy to go out. FCPX must ultimately place clips at specific points in time, which is the way every other application on the planet manages time-based media. FCPX's extra clip relationship data will be lost in the process.

It's harder to go in, because those other apps don't collect all the data that FCPX does.

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: Be STILL my BEATING HEART.
on Sep 8, 2011 at 5:58:18 pm

I guess we're at a standstill then until a FCP7/XML project importer comes out.


Return to posts index

David Lawrence
Re: Be STILL my BEATING HEART.
on Sep 8, 2011 at 6:13:46 pm

[Walter Soyka] "FCPX must ultimately place clips at specific points in time, which is the way every other application on the planet manages time-based media. FCPX's extra clip relationship data will be lost in the process."

I think the point that I (and maybe @Gary) am not getting is what is it about this extra relationship data that is in any way meaningful about the editor's intentions? Especially since all relationships must be expressed in reference to the primary storyline.

For example, if it were possible to connect clips to secondary storylines, or even other clips, then I'd be able to create meaningful relationships that actually reflect my grouping intentions. But given the constraint of everything having to connect to the primary storyline, whether it makes sense or not, I just don't see any meaningful value.

Jeremy's recreation of Kevin Federline's timeline is a good example of this. Even though the timeline looks the same on the surface, the relationships have nothing to do with the editor's intentions.

If we assume that:

V1 = primary
V2 = connected at In point IF no transitions
V2 = secondary connected at In point IF with transitions

rinse and repeat for both video and audio...

Doesn't that get us 90 to 100% there for a useful percentage of cases? What would we really be losing?

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


Return to posts index

David Dobson
Re: Be STILL my BEATING HEART.
on Sep 8, 2011 at 6:28:01 pm

And can FCPX have a timeline in which there are no extra connections or linkages or whatever they are? And if it can then why can't it import a FCP7 timeline and just have be unconnected?


Return to posts index

Walter Soyka
Re: Be STILL my BEATING HEART.
on Sep 8, 2011 at 6:39:02 pm

[David Lawrence] "I think the point that I (and maybe @Gary) am not getting is what is it about this extra relationship data that is in any way meaningful about the editor's intentions? Especially since all relationships must be expressed in reference to the primary storyline."

It's only meaningful in one context: the operation of the magnetic timeline. When the operator intentionally connects a clip at a different point, or moves a clip into or out of the primary storyline, it alters the relationship between the clips, which alters the result of magnetic timeline moves.

If the translator guesses wrong about where a clip should be connected, or whether it's primary or secondary, normal magnetic rippling could appear to break the timeline, because the editor's intent about the relationships between clips wasn't expressed correctly. Of course, the magnetic rippling would behave exactly as the timeline indicates, but the timeline itself would be wrong -- or at least not what it would have been if the edit had originated in FCPX. Garbage in, garbage out.


[David Lawrence] "Doesn't that get us 90 to 100% there for a useful percentage of cases? What would we really be losing?"

I absolutely think it would get us close enough for most of the cases. I don't think we'd be losing much at all. It would be my strong preference to see this feature implemented. I think there are a significant number of corner cases, and I think that only simple timelines would translate with absolutely no prep or repair, but it's certainly nothing a professional editor couldn't very, very easily fix.

One of the lines from the SuperMeet sticks out in my mind: "sync is sacred." My argument is that Apple has not implemented this feature not because they think legacy support is unimportant, but rather because they don't want FCPX to appear to break its promise on the sanctity of sync even once.

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: Be STILL my BEATING HEART.
on Sep 8, 2011 at 6:41:35 pm

[Walter Soyka]One of the lines from the SuperMeet sticks out in my mind: "sync is sacred." My argument is that Apple has not implemented this feature not because they think legacy support is unimportant, but rather because they don't want FCPX to appear to break its promise on the sanctity of sync even once.

I think that's a huuuuuge stretch there, Walter.


Return to posts index

Walter Soyka
Re: Be STILL my BEATING HEART.
on Sep 8, 2011 at 6:54:04 pm

[Gary Huff] "I think that's a huuuuuge stretch there, Walter."

Fair, Gary -- but I'm at a loss to think of another reason why they would give up their format lock-in (unnecessarily inviting their user base to migrate away), or deny FCPX the ability to finish a project started in any other system.

One of Apple's biggest traditional strengths is a simple and consistent user experience.

If they're not looking to protect one, why would Apple choose to make FCPX an island in an industry that thrives on interchange? Is it part of a not-so-subtle set of cues to actively push professionals away from the product for some reason?

This is a very honest question. If adding legacy import is an easy task with no negative consequences in terms of FCPX's design and use philosophy, why not add it? Why specifically state in the FAQ that you have not and will not do it? Why intentionally close FCPX off to broader uses?

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: Be STILL my BEATING HEART.
on Sep 8, 2011 at 6:56:58 pm

[Walter Soyka]This is a very honest question. If adding legacy import is an easy task with no negative consequences in terms of FCPX's design and use philosophy, why not add it? Why specifically state in the FAQ that you have not and will not do it? Why intentionally close FCPX off to broader uses?

Perhaps because FCPX is not the successor to FCP7, but is instead the "pro" version of iMovie, necessitating a clean break from the past?


Return to posts index

Walter Soyka
Re: Be STILL my BEATING HEART.
on Sep 8, 2011 at 7:03:19 pm

[Gary Huff] "Perhaps because FCPX is not the successor to FCP7, but is instead the "pro" version of iMovie, necessitating a clean break from the past?"

So is your thinking that Apple was willing to cede the traditional professional market and a significant portion of their existing user base to another application in order to garner a larger and less demanding audience?

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: Be STILL my BEATING HEART.
on Sep 8, 2011 at 7:17:00 pm

[Walter Soyka]So is your thinking that Apple was willing to cede the traditional professional market and a significant portion of their existing user base to another application in order to garner a larger and less demanding audience?

I don't think they believed they had to cede anything. It's quite possible they thought that it would be a "one size fits all" editing program that would bridge the gap for more enthusiast users and professionals all at once, adding on to it as it goes, just like they did before with the FCP series.


Return to posts index

Aindreas Gallagher
Re: Be STILL my BEATING HEART.
on Sep 8, 2011 at 8:39:04 pm

ye are both in a deeply jesuitical conversation here.

two cents - if I have a messy as hell FCP7 timeline, if I have three clips on V6 with transition between them, a space, then a bunch more clips, a few solids above, and a mess of stuff below relating to alternate editing decisions below, and then some more traditional V1 V2 interview with b-roll stuff going on..

what is FCPX going to do? given where the stuff with dissolves is its going to have to designate secondary story line, to retain the dissolves, but there are orphans clips everywhere below - presumably then FCPX is going to try and thread down vertically to create connected clips, tunnelling down to the holy primary on V1, but what if it encounters more clip dissolves on the way down?

better again - what if I have slipped audio on the b-roll to get clinks or bird song nats in where i want them? what happens to that audio? Does it get exploded out of the secondary storyline or the connected clip? how?

the point surely is not that the software is intelligent - far from it, rather the point is that a basic software translation of assets is made incredibly more difficult when the dumb software is called upon to sort a timeline created in an entirely freeform editing environment into the large number of strict arbitrary rules of FCPX. I can't have a dissolve here? excuse me? it has to be what? a secondary what now?

To repeat - I do believe that very soon after the AXEL specifications are published we will have the ability to import sympathetically arranged FCP7 timelines into FCPX. there will be rules easily understood as to where clips can or cannot be. To the extent that retaining dissolves will require thought.

Walter's point is sound however - Apple were simply not willing to release such a hobbled set of instructions, because the timeline they built would break a large portion of in process, multilayer timelines. I find it very easy to imagine a number of really messy outcomes. I imagine that they didn't have to imagine it. they tested it and refused to release it under their banner.

We'll still get stuff in, and probably fairly painlessly with some nous, but the demand for intent in the vertical relationship and the machine translation problems that presents with incoming FCP7 timelines is, as Walter outlines it, significant.

Apple don't do messy, so, after washing their hands, they dropped us.


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


Return to posts index

David Roth Weiss
Re: Be STILL my BEATING HEART.
on Sep 8, 2011 at 7:08:49 pm

"[Walter Soyka]One of the lines from the SuperMeet sticks out in my mind: "sync is sacred." My argument is that Apple has not implemented this feature not because they think legacy support is unimportant, but rather because they don't want FCPX to appear to break its promise on the sanctity of sync even once."

Let me see??? If I understand correctly, what Apple is really saying is, if you haven't bothered to learn to operate FCP properly up to now, and thus don't know how to properly maintain sync, just take the time to learn this completely new app and all of the completely new and different nomenclature we created, then sync will no longer be an issue for you.

If learning is such an impediment for these people, what makes Apple think they'll actually bother to learn FCP X?

Here's an idea for Apple's new ad...



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

Gerald Baria
Re: Be STILL my BEATING HEART.
on Sep 9, 2011 at 12:31:17 pm

The typography is off.:P

Quobetah
New=Better


Return to posts index

Glen Hurd
Re: Be STILL my BEATING HEART.
on Sep 10, 2011 at 4:03:51 pm

Not for those who move their lips when reading ;)


Return to posts index

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