FORUMS: list search recent posts

The one good thing about FCP_X

COW Forums : Apple Final Cut Pro X Debates

<< PREVIOUS   •   VIEW ALL   •   PRINT   •   NEXT >>
Neil Goodman
The one good thing about FCP_X
on Sep 15, 2011 at 8:50:47 pm

is that it made Media Composer actually affordable. Never thought id have an avid up and running in the comfort of my own home. With the crossgrade, i managed to get the software and a i/o box for under the price of the software alone. Pretty sweet if you ask me.

No more going back and forth between work and home and school, and different software. Can accomplish all with just one kit now and to me thats amazing.

Neil Goodman: Editor of New Media Production - NBC/Universal


Return to posts index

H. Spencer Young
Re: The one good thing about FCP_X
on Sep 16, 2011 at 1:39:54 am

That doesn't sound like a paid advertisement at all!

HSY
http://www.hspenceryoung.com


Return to posts index

Bob Tompkins
Re: The one good thing about FCP_X
on Sep 16, 2011 at 11:52:04 am

Neil....do you work with J.R. Griffin at NBC?



Return to posts index


Neil Goodman
Re: The one good thing about FCP_X
on Sep 16, 2011 at 2:03:24 pm

hahah , sorry guys, wasnt meant to sound like an advertisement, im just pretty stoked at the moment.


No i dont work with that person, sorry man.

Neil Goodman: Editor of New Media Production - NBC/Universal


Return to posts index

Marvin Holdman
Re: The one good thing about FCP_X
on Sep 16, 2011 at 3:42:09 pm

Funny, some folks have pointed out that Apple's main motivation to make software is to sell Apple hardware. Given the recent migration to other NLE's it would seem FCPX is most effective at selling other vendors software.

Bad plan, or no plan?

Marvin Holdman
Production Manager
Tourist Network
8317 Front Beach Rd, Suite 23
Panama City Beach, Fl
phone 850-234-2773 ext. 128
cell 850-585-9667
skype username - vidmarv


Return to posts index

Bill Davis
Re: The one good thing about FCP_X
on Sep 16, 2011 at 3:51:44 pm

We'll likely know in about 3 years whether this public pronouncement is prescient or short sighted.

"...one good thing?"

Sounds extremely short sighted to me.

You've decided that the FCP strip and rebuild is 99.9% useless and .1% worthwhile. I accept that this is your reality based on what you need to do today. But I also think it's limiting to consider what you do today as the ideal template for what the market is going to force you to do tomorrow.

The cloud is coming. Workflows MUST change. Look at the release attributes of Windows 8 if you don't believe me. Agility will likely trump traditions. Ask the FLASH community who just learned that Windows 8 doesn't support it. I'm pretty sure we'll all need to learn and operate more than one instrument in order to secure seats in the media orchestras of tomorrow.

Maybe Adobe will actually end up being the agile and innovative editing platform of the future. Nobody knows for sure.

What we do know is that they are NOT the first company that took the astonishingly risky step of gutting and re-imagining the wholesale foundations of their code base in order to leverage what the media landscape might be in the future.

Every day studying FCP-X tells me it's a new tool for a new age. I might be absolutely wrong. But I'm also NOT stopping my exploration. If for no other reason that when I jettisoned my fear of what was different, I finally starting seeing what about it might be a lot better.

For example I recently stumbled on a chart showing CPU allocation that showed that the code in FCP-X is a VERY minor CPU cycle drain where technology like Flash GULPS cycles like a binge drinker. Will that be critical as we move into a new generation of mobile processors and an increasingly Win8/iOS world?

Admittedly, I don't occupy a seat where production efficiency is everything. If I did, I might feel precisely like you do. FCP-X is NOT a "buy it and get back to where you were in editing efficiency in 2 weeks" tool. It requires a LOT of revised thinking and a WHOLE lot of learning in order to operate efficiently.

But it's also instructive to note that a whole lot of people are starting to understand what it's unique strengths are and are starting to see where it can leverage success.

Short game or long game? In golf, you can't win without both. Perhaps the same is true for media manipulation?

Just food for thought.

"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'Connor


Return to posts index


Marvin Holdman
Re: The one good thing about FCP_X
on Sep 16, 2011 at 4:42:17 pm

Bill, I think it's all well and good to say the future is coming, but to make a blanket pronouncement that not embracing this particular application (FCPX) is simply "short sighted" is, well, simplistic and not true. I don't think anyone will argue that perhaps cloud based work is somewhere in the future, but I also think you must admit that this software is far from ready for it. Not to mention the bigger picture in which our current network infrastructure is FAR from being able to support ANY cloud based viability for anything but proxy editing.

That being said, I think the "clouds" that most of the people in our business will be using won't be some third party server farm that we rent space at. Perhaps some kind of VPN solution that will make if viable to have more mobility to where our edits and scrubs might take place, but I still believe that for our industry (let's just say broadcast video and above) cloud distributed media assets won't come for at least another 10 years. Provided we trust the current ISP's to actually invest their profits in the future instead of merely reaping short term gains on existing, sub-par infrastructure (but that's another subject).

This all comes back to why I think it's foolish to "embrace" this pity of a program. While it might be worth a day or two of time invested, trying to incorporate it into any existing workflows is a fools errand. There is NO WAY you can know how long it will take for this thing to have the features needed to be productive. It is so vastly different from the interface and terminology side that it is simply incongruent with the existing industry. Why should anyone take the time to learn this magnetic timeline approach and in-bred meta convention? The likelihood of industry wide adoption of this bastard child is less than likely.

At the end of it, I really wonder why you would deride anyone who might feel anyway other than enthralled with this strange dysfunctional application (Bill Davis -"Sounds extremely short sighted to me.) I would propose that it is exactly the opposite and that say that very astute to take advantage of the current pricing structure of the competitors NLE's due to this debacle. In three years time, what will happen will happen. In all likelihood, they will upgrade from whatever is purchased today based on the CURRENT capabilities of the choices at hand on THAT day. To struggle with a half-built application in the meantime is nothing short of silly and painful.

I agree that FCPX is worth a look. I agree that there are some good things about it. I think SOME of the features MIGHT gain widespread acceptance. I just don't see how anyone can justify more than a 5% commitment of time to using this application in it's current form. What i hear from most advocates is that it "has promise" and because of that they feel that something will be missed if they don't try and incorporate it today. I don't believe that it's necessary, or even wise, to even try at the moment. When (or if?) it gets fleshed out most here will be able to learn it rather quickly. Look around, there are very bright people here. Nothing will be missed by NOT adopting it for the next three years.

You want to be an early adopter? Great, good for you. If you have the time and inclination, go for it. It will certainly be appreciated by everyone here in the long run. But to call people out because they don't share your fascination with this half-baked application is just rude.

[Bill Davis] "Every day studying FCP-X tells me it's a new tool for a new age. I might be absolutely wrong. But I'm also NOT stopping my exploration. If for no other reason that when I jettisoned my fear of what was different, I finally starting seeing what about it might be a lot better."

I believe you are absolutely wrong to say that FCPX, in it's current state, is "a new tool for a new age". I think it MIGHT be one day, but this is not that day. I KNOW you are wrong about implication that most folks here "fear" change. You can't work in this industry for ANY length of time and fear change. The implication that folks here "fear" what FCPX proposes for change is just silly. Most that I see simply wonder if this new way of thinking is pertinent. The jury is still out on that one, but it doesn't appear that everyone is going to adopt magnetic timelines and Apple's proprietary metadata formats as an industry standard anytime soon (or at all for that matter). The rest of the features seem fairly innocuous in terms of being fearful of their adoption. Things such as background rendering and format compatibility are all well and good, if they are included in a functional package. No one I know fears either of these concepts. Nice, sure, revolutionary? Not really. More evolutionary actually, and in all likelihood some form of these ideas are likely to appear in coming versions of the competitors NLE's. I'm really not sure what you think people "fear" in this program, but the assumption of it is condescending to this herd.

Sorry for what might seem like getting personal, but it appears you enjoy engaging folks in this manner. Thought I'd return the favor one time.

Marvin Holdman
Production Manager
Tourist Network
8317 Front Beach Rd, Suite 23
Panama City Beach, Fl
phone 850-234-2773 ext. 128
cell 850-585-9667
skype username - vidmarv


Return to posts index

Bill Davis
Re: The one good thing about FCP_X
on Sep 17, 2011 at 12:04:35 am

It's incredibly tedious time and time again to say something and watch while the same people shoehorn it over and over again into their preconceptions of what i must have meant.

Please stop it.

Everyone here already has a perfectly acceptable video editing solution in hand called Final Cut Pro. It's working fully and flawlessly for the bulk of the worlds editing needs. (The 2 million paid seats are still functioning just fine, including yours and mine.

So the ENTIRE discussion is predicated on where things are going in the future.

So viewing everything said here in the sole context of what it means right now misses the entire point, IMO.

It is in that context alone that this discussion is taking place. Yes, people like the OP in this thread are seeing things they don't like and diving out to other tools. There is NOTHING wrong with that. They will either be short sighted or visionary, they will save their money now and have more later, or they will save it now and come to realized it would have been wiser to take a long term investment view.

Thus has it ever been.

I simply believe that it's more than possible to convert a short term view into a LOUSY long term strategy. So I believe that there should be voices on BOTH sides that take the other to task if one thinks the discussion is revolving around a view that has rational alternatives.

My views are predicated on my history. I started with FCP in May of 1999, two weeks after it's release. At that time it was derided, dismissed, and openly laughed at by the wider editing world. But for every on-line skirmish it lost, it won new converts from outside the mainstream - and eventually it triumphed.

I have NO CLUE about whether FCP X will do the same.

I just know that when things happen in my life I pay attention and try to get smarter. That's the point of experience.

David Lawrence posted a thoughtful message below. I think the article he posted has it largely WRONG.

I'll write my thoughts in that thread.

As always, feel free to ignore them. These are opinions only. Everyone here has strong opinions. I try to post the WHY behind what I opine. Take it or leave it.

Simple as that.

"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'Connor


Return to posts index

Chris Harlan
Re: The one good thing about FCP_X
on Sep 16, 2011 at 3:43:44 pm

Agreed. Over the years, the effect of FCP on Avid has been terrific, as well. I think without FCP we would have been stuck with something like 2.8 forever. I really like 5.5 and am looking forward to 6, which we will see in December, I've been told.


Return to posts index


Bernard Newnham
Re: The one good thing about FCP_X
on Sep 16, 2011 at 4:33:27 pm

"The cloud is coming. Workflows MUST change. Look at the release attributes of Windows 8 if you don't believe me. Ask the FLASH community who just learned that Windows 8 doesn't support it. "

If it's going to take HD video, it had better be a very fast moving cloud. In any case, a lot of people aren't going to want to send their expensive rushes out into who-knows-where where who-knows-who can hack it. Also the stuff about Windows 8 isn't true. ZDNet says -

"The Windows update will come with one version of IE for the operating system's touch-friendly Metro interface, which debuted in Windows Phone 7, and one for the traditional Windows desktop interface. The latter will support Flash and other plug-ins, but the Metro-style IE10 will not, according to IE team leader Dean Hachamovitch."

B


Return to posts index

Neil Goodman
Re: The one good thing about FCP_X
on Sep 16, 2011 at 5:25:02 pm

While i understand It could be something great one day.. How long should we wait ? Theres definately some good things there, but the software is unuseable for me and lots of others. Aside the slew of missing features, the program is just unstable and a resource hog. FCP_X should be more efficient on my comp then FCP 7 but its just not. It crashes, bogs down, and is just riddled with bugs. Not too mention i think connected clips are the devil. To assume the footage above my main track needs to follow along, even when slipping and sliding is just ridiculous and aware of the workarounds but i shouldn't need a workaround for something so simple.

That said, i do own FCP-X, bought it to learn it and get ahead of the curve in case it does one day become what we all want to it to be, but Media Composer is quickly becoming my prefrerred editor. its what i started on and knowing theres a future for it, gives me the motivation to dive in full time.

Neil Goodman: Editor of New Media Production - NBC/Universal


Return to posts index

David Lawrence
Re: The one good thing about FCP_X
on Sep 16, 2011 at 8:11:40 pm

John Gruber linked to this article today. While its focus is mainly on mobile platforms and pre-announcements, what the author says about the "just wait" mentality seems relevant to the situation with FCPX.

http://mobileopportunity.blogspot.com/2011/08/two-most-dangerous-words-in-t...

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


Return to posts index


Bill Davis
Re: The one good thing about FCP_X
on Sep 17, 2011 at 12:33:57 am

David,

Interesting read - but I couldn't disagree with the author more.

This smacks to me of the kind of modern "wall street" thinking that views every decision through the lense of "what's in it for me right now."

That drives short term profits - and if that's all you care about - it's an excellent strategy. But it's also led to the kind of thinking that gave us the real estate bubble and crash, and that's led to the banking crisis. It elevates results NOW over investing in a long term sustainable business model that can drive higher profits - but over a longer period.

I'm quite pleased that Apple, In my estimation, continues to look at where the industry is likely to be going in the long run, rather then ONLY where it will be next year or next month - or even what *I* as a current 10year plus FCP editor might think I want right now.

Hell, 80% of what they built into the new software I'd never even CONSIDERED as a possible feature in an NLE. That's the BEST part of it in my estimation.

They forced me out of my pre-conceptions and to consider new ideas. I absolutely get that some people saw that exclusively as "destroying" the software. They should absolutely look elsewhere. It's the only rational thing to do. For those of us who see the change as a new opportunity, all we want is for people to stop spending so much time and energy trying to convince us that we're too stupid to understand how horrible it is. It's all been said before. Endlessly. For the OP, if that's your mantra, you and countless other like you have made your point. It's time for you to move on to something else.

But some of us simply see something else here. I absolutely think FCP-X is a long tail play. We won't know the full payoff for years.

Without that understanding I agree it doesn't make much sense. An no company gets to where Apple is today by willfully making decisions that don't make sense.

Nearly EVERY voice complaining here has the same central theme. "It's not what I want *right now*.

Yes, it's not. So to focus the debate entirely on "now verses when" PUSHES the poll. What it is now is exciting and interesting and flexible and new. And toxic to some ways of thinking, primarily the "it doesn't do what it MUST do for me" crowd. You folks are correct. So simply change software.

I totally understand that thinking. Heck, I've raised a teenager so I've been watching it for the last 10 years! - (Stop right there — I'm NOT AT ALL saying that anyone who hates FCP is exhibiting teenage thinking, because I believe there are VERY rational reasons for finding it lacking in a whole WORLD of upper end mission critical editing workflows - exactly like many of the vested pros here must support. I'm saying that while it falls very much short of what some, even many editors need, expect and desire - theres another group of editors for whom it will be an EXCELLENT solution for workflows and tasks that I can see becoming more and more important on the horizon. And for most of the editors who need it to be something different from X, they still have 7 running just fine, thank you very much.

What does it mean to ME is always an important question. But it requires us to understand that ME is variable in the great world of editing.

The dumpers, haters, and doom sayers have had all the platform they could have possibly wished for over the past months.

I see something different in the same set of facts. Everyone gets to decide for themselves who's vision they wish to subscribe to - - but you can ONLY do that when you're willing to hear from both sides.

So when I see a post like the OP post here. I just want to say "there's another way to see things."

We'll let the market place sort out who gets it right.

Personally, I'm fine with that.

"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'Connor


Return to posts index

TImothy Auld
Re: The one good thing about FCP_X
on Sep 17, 2011 at 10:39:11 am

The marketplace does not now nor has it ever sorted out who gets anything right. It sorts out which product sold the most. And that can happen for a variety of reasons including, but most certainly not limited to, what product is the best at serving its particular need.

bigpine


Return to posts index

Bill Davis
Re: The one good thing about FCP_X
on Sep 17, 2011 at 6:36:56 pm

bigpipe.

No quarrel with that statement.

But the larger concept is where the INDUSTRY of editing is going. Once upon a time, editing meant one thing and one thing only. You HAD to go to a dedicated editing suite in order to secure access to the tools of professional video content editing. No individual could afford to own and maintain a rack of multi-thousand dollar decks, a Grass Valley switcher, an ADO system, the engineering team necessary to maintain it and the precision educated editors necessary to operate it.

Now, the common laptop does EVERYTHING that that system did. And much, much more. In addition, the software has made most of the base video editing functions so easy that a fifth grader can "cut" stuff. (saying nothing here about talent or judgement - which I honor - but merely about functionality and toolset access)

So like it or not, this surely bleeds off the need for the traditional business model and dedicated suite.

You simply can't avoid that truth.

That model will likely hold on at the highest echelons, because it drives the FINEST results - but the world isn't always asking for the finest results. The world is clamoring for choice and access and personal vision empowerment via images in motion that often (but not always) include a video component.

So FCP-X wins if it provides THAT. Not if it provides a cheaper path to the old suite-centric view of editing.

I'm meeting weekly with a group of editors who are all exploring FCP-X and at last nights session we got into a discussion of "round tripping" between FCP X and Motion. It took us about a half hour of discussion to realize that "round tripping" as a concept is GONE in FCP X. Not because they didn't build the capabilities in - but because, once again, they changed the entire paradigm. When the lightbulb finally went on we all realized that round tripping is "gone" because they functionally built a subset of Motion directly INTO FCP X - and simply used that code as the FCP-X titler. So when you "go out" to the standalone Motion app (really, just load up the additional code), you're just extending the capabilities of the built in titler - not actually going anywhere DIFFERENT. So once again, the old thinking is useless. Seen in that light, Motion works more akin to Acrobat vs Acrobat Pro. With the "free" version built into X you get a good chunk of the capabilities right inside the software. If you want more flexibility or control, the dedicated software launch EXTENDS the control range and gives you more choice. But the base capabilities of both are EXACTLY the same. There's no longer a reason to exit one "program" and work in another when large chunks of the same code is in both places and the you can simply "hook into" the larger capabilities of the dedicated app and get the extended capabilities in the same workspace you're already in. It's a SMARTER way to work. No exit, No re-entrance. You're always THERE, merely utilizing the subset or the full compliment of code as you like.

This is a good example of why FCP-X was so baffling to so many for so long. It takes a lot of time and exploration to start to reveal the WHY behind the WHAT they did.

Once you do, it makes a whole lot of sense. And explains how and why Motion went from a another bloated, huge standalone app, to a $49 app store add on. It absolutely is not the tool it used to be. Peter Jackson will NOT be using Motion for the next LOTR like mega-movie. But hundreds of thousands of FCP-X editors WILL be using it to extend their capabilities, make amazing titles and motion graphics INSIDE the editorial process and do very cool stuff that no other NLE package will allow them to do with as much agility or ease.

Thats a pretty compelling concept, if you ask me.

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'Connor


Return to posts index


TImothy Auld
Re: The one good thing about FCP_X
on Sep 17, 2011 at 7:16:22 pm

I for one have never been baffled by FCP X. If you stick to the confines of how it wants you to work it is actually quite simple. And I also find that the integration with Motion to by one of the the very positive things about FCP X. However the fact remains that it is at present a very buggy piece of software and one that cannot meet my delivery needs at this time. And I have serious doubts that it is much of a priority at Apple to make it do so. I could be wrong and kind of hope I am.

As a side note I read in one of your previous posts something to the effect that FCP 7 "still works flawlessly." For the record it never did. If it did I would not have to worry about my project size ballooning and the project file possibly possibly becoming corrupt due to the simple act of placing all my sequences together in one bin. Nor would I have to constantly create new projects for long-form work again to ward off the possibility of corrupt project files. And Soundtrack Pro has never worked for anything over a couple of minutes long. No NLE works flawlessly (all you need is one trip around Avid's attic to know that) but FCP has more that its share of peccadilloes.

bigpine


Return to posts index

Jim Giberti
Re: The one good thing about FCP_X
on Sep 17, 2011 at 10:32:40 pm

As a guy that owns a communications firm I have to ask, why the !*$# do they not take the time to explain that type of radical yet positive change as part of the process of introducing you countless users to your new paradigm?

Why should the people who pay (some of) your bills have to scratch their heads and have lights come on after lengthy use and discussion, when a simple explanation of key changes and their value would be so simple by the people who decided to make them?

Regardless of how x sugars out, Apple should be embarrassed at their horrid communication and PR regarding it.


Return to posts index

TImothy Auld
Re: The one good thing about FCP_X
on Sep 17, 2011 at 11:59:21 pm

I do hope I am wrong about this but I honestly don't believe we are not the folks they are aiming at. If we were then I think there might've been a bit more information forthcoming from Apple at this point. My bottom line is that if they make a better box at a competitive price that will run the software I need to run then I will buy it. My sole loyalty to the Mac platform has always been FCP. It's not without fault but it does a number of things better (IMO) than the other NLE's out there. If it is truly gone for us the I will miss it. And I will be heartily angry at a company that cultivated me for 10+ years and then dropped me like a hot stone for revenue that - in relative terms - would not buy them a hot cup of coffee.

bigpine


Return to posts index

Aindreas Gallagher
Re: The one good thing about FCP_X
on Sep 18, 2011 at 1:53:04 am

[Bill Davis] "The world is clamoring for choice and access and personal vision empowerment via images in motion that often (but not always) include a video component. "


Bill, with the greatest respect, what in the holy hell at all does that statement mean?

seriously - who are you arguing for and what exactly does it mean?


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


Return to posts index

Bill Davis
Re: The one good thing about FCP_X
on Sep 18, 2011 at 6:12:37 am

I'll give equal respect to your question and try to answer it as clearly as possible.

Once upon a time thousands edited video.

Today, millions do.

The vast majority of them are NOT suite based professional editors.

I suspect that if any of us could somehow draw a magic circle around where we sit and edit and expand until it encompassed 10,000 other people who have paid seats at which they sit and edit with FCP - we'd all discover that those 10,000 seats are often in corporate offices, ad agencies, small businesses, and yes, in the bedrooms of teenagers who got an educational copy and liked the tool so they've stayed with it in hopes that someday they can edit their great digital movie.

This is happening not just in America, but globally. The Supermeet in Amsterdam at IBC draws a crowd just like the one at NAB.

So video editing remains a rapidly spreading global phenomenon.

The FCP that developed from V1 to V7 evolved from a simple tool, to a massive, robust, feature laden suite. And many of those here have come to depend on it for high-dollar, high-stress work under merciless business deadlines. And, represented by many voices here, many of those pros are angry, pissed, and deeply upset by the direction that Apple took with it's professional editing tool. They sincerely hoped it would continue on the same path of incremental evolution, adding capabilities to the code without losing anything they'd invested in learning.

Apple did something entirely different. They looked around and noticed that that type of editing workflow is diminishing as a share of the market. Whether it's consolidation, market evolution, or simple smaller budgets and tighter constraints on time and resources, they saw that for every feature, or high end Madison Avenue commercial or Hollywood release that needs a broad and tightly integrated team of editors, colorists, sound designers and post professionals, there are probably a THOUSAND projects designed to feed the web, iPad screens, and smaller digital devices that don't follow the massive monolithic team requirements.

THAT is what my sentence was trying to imply.

I was in a presentation day before yesterday where the speaker pointed out that the most popular "search engine" on the planet is still Google - but number two is not Bing, or Ask, or Yahoo - it's YouTube, for heaven's sake.

Those hundreds of thousands of videos are where people go to get info about anything from the local dry cleaner to how to bake a lemon pie.

Do you think that change in viewing habits ESCAPED Apple's research teams?

People here are largely pissed because they expected X to be a simple evolutionary upgrade of the capabilities they had in 7.

We now know that it wasn't that AT ALL. It was a rebuild designed to be something totally different and more attuned to what video (AND non-video based motion content) is rapidly evolving into. And for those who MUST toil in TV, or feature movies, I get that FCP X will likely not meet their needs today and may NEVER meet their needs.

But I've come to suspect that FCP-X just might be an even BETTER tool for the kind of work that the world is increasingly consuming.

Remember all the angst about how it's harder cut to a fixed length in X? Guess what? There's NO default fixed length requirement on the web, or on a file to send to a client to promote your business, or to load on your iPad to show someone at point of sale.

Apple "got that" way before I did.

Have you watched any of the very successful web videos that are largely just motion graphics with narration? Not a frame of video, but they communicate incredibly well. And with the new Motion/FCP-X integration, they're likely going to be easier to create in FCP-X.

Does that help explain what I was talking about?

If you see something different happening, if you think that the biggest, richest, most "playable" game will continue to be Broadcast TV, Feature length movies that require large team workflows, or even monster dollar national commercial work - then by all means grab one of the other tools and join the smaller but perhaps richer group that will make their living working with traditional editing tools in the traditional editing style. The programs that do those well will also do lots of other kinds of work well.

But FCP X is designed to do a particular type of agile, revisable, compelling, short form eye catching work incredibly efficiently. It has tools not just for video editing, but for outstanding titling, quite robust "real world basic" audio handling and solid, non-confusing encoding and web delivery capabilities built in at a fraction of the cost of the offerings of it's competitors. All that built around a database driven structure is designed to let you build a large persistent library of assets and meta-data that you can flexibly log, track, search, sort, and re-combine at levels only constrained by your ability to figure out the keywords you want to pull out whatever you imagine you need.

I'm trying to talk here about what I've seen of what it can do right now. And how that might evolve. And to put that into context about what I see happening in the wider world of IT, communications design, and shifting market needs.

I'm not a pro in any of these except modestly in video and how to communicate with it - something I've been doing for the past 30 years plus.

But I keep seeing signs in FCP-X that what was done to it was done with PURPOSE.

How that vision plays out in the market only time will tell.

Hopefully that makes things clearer.

Sorry I'm always so long to explain things.

To mangle Blaise Pascal's timeless thinking, if I'd had more time, I would certainly have written a shorter post here.

Hope that helps.

"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'Connor


Return to posts index

shawn Bockoven
Re: The one good thing about FCP_X
on Sep 19, 2011 at 5:02:14 am

I'm starting the Bill Davis fan club.

Two of us are now using X to finish videos. The more I learn, the better the software works ... amazing! Did most only give the software a few minutes/hours before passing judgement? I am having to force this old dog to rethink NLE editing. Yes, I have given my screen the middle finger a few times, but the errors were mostly my fault. We are finding that we can say yes to more projects do to the speed of FCP X.


Return to posts index

David Lawrence
Re: The one good thing about FCP_X
on Sep 19, 2011 at 5:21:54 am

[shawn Bockoven] "Did most only give the software a few minutes/hours before passing judgement?"

Not exactly. Some of us have been trying to use it since it was released.

You might want to read Mark Morache's excellent article describing how he cut a piece for broadcast on FCPX.

Then read some of his conclusions about the workaround issues in this thread.

The problems are very real.

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


Return to posts index

Bill Davis
Re: The one good thing about FCP_X
on Sep 19, 2011 at 4:35:56 pm

David,

I haven't heard even the most ardent supporters of the program imply that it doesn't have problems.

Nor have I heard anyone in the positive camp say it's appropriate for every task or industry. Clearly those who need deep and specific features - and even some who need common but not yet supported features (multi-cam and music video "sync to audio" workflows come immediately to mind) will not find this to be their preferred tool in this initial iteration.

But that's not what the nay-sayers are constantly carping about. Many of them - based totally on their own assertions as posted right in this forum - got stuck arguing that the WHOLE of the software was fatally flawed, useless, toyish and irrelevant for EVERYONE's use. They screamed (and are still to a certain extent) arguing only APPLE FAIL as if their superior knowledge of how video editing software MUST work in order to be useful is the right and proper view.

I just don't think that's true.

More and more I use FCP-X I see that there is a place for FCP-X in professional video editing. It's just not the place the industry used to be. That does NOT imply that it will overthrow all else and become the new central core of all video editing. That's silly. The big, monolithic, full-featured code library heavy traditional approach will have a solid place in editing for a long time.

But I believe so will a newer, more agile and task targeted software approach. And I think that's precisely what FCP-X has been all along.

It's Caterpillar verses Kubota in construction machinery. (at least to this casual observers view)

Once upon a time Caterpillar dominated the quality construction equipment market in the US.
Then suddenly, in the small neighborhood construction projects in the 90's and 2000's I saw a giant influx of Kubota equipment. They looked smaller, more fuel efficient, and easier to operate.

Better tool for the jobs being done more often, because for every big plant construction job that needed the major graders, there were thousands of school playgrounds, shopping center site grades, and small scale construction projects that could benefit from a smaller, more agile, more fuel efficient version of the older, larger, less efficient tool.

Market segmentation in the classic sense.

And here we go again.

"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'Connor


Return to posts index

David Lawrence
Re: The one good thing about FCP_X
on Sep 20, 2011 at 7:00:10 am

Bill,

I was replying specifically to this quote from the poster:

[shawn Bockoven] "Did most only give the software a few minutes/hours before passing judgement?"

This is the same tired argument we've been hearing for months on this forum. I find it not only wrong, but also naive and presumptuous. I don't think it helps move the dialogue forward.

That's why I responded with links to Mark Morache's article, as well as his conclusions that were posted in the FCPX Techniques thread.

I find Mark's observations especially valuable because he's put FCPX to work in a typical situation it seems optimized for (short form A/B cutting with simple FX) -- and he's actually delivering for broadcast with it. He's outspoken about what he likes and he likes a lot. And he's upfront about what doesn't work. The bottom line is that he's frustrated with the UI, like so many of us.

Please read what he has to say here. He nails it. And remember, this is someone who likes what FCPX offers. Mark's given the software a chance, but I think many others don't have the time or the patience, and that's why you'll find some of them wholly dismissing the software.

BTW, I completely agree with you about how the industry is changing. I'm a case study in that change.

I do all my work on on a laptop. I use a suped-up late 2008 unibody 15" macbook pro. I usually have it in clamshell mode under my desk hooked up to a 24" Cinema Display and many TB of storage. When a client needs me to work on site, I pop it in my bag and it's a portable edit suite, with all the tools I need at my fingertips. I work exclusively in 1080p HD in various formats. Over 50% of the time, my source is DSLR. I rarely have budget to work with my favorite sound guys so 90% of the time I'm a one-man-band providing all post-production services. I never need to deliver for broadcast, my clients exclusively want video for web, PowerPoint embeds and projected presentations. In short, I should be the ideal candidate for FCPX.

But like Mark and so many others, the UI is a deal killer.

I think the underlying backend architecture of FCPX has amazing potential. H264 without transcoding? Awesome. Once I got the hang of metadata-based organizing, I really liked it. But none of the great backend and organizing tools matter if the editing paradigm is broken.

I've written a couple articles exploring why I think this is and I have a third I'm sitting on until after the first update. The problems have nothing to do traditional editors not groking a radical new tool designed for the needs of a mobile, decentralized work style. I think it's much simpler. I think Apple blew it. And now they're scrambling to figure out how to fix the damage. Read Mark's post. He describes a UI paradigm that is conceptually flawed and deeply broken. The big question is whether it's broken beyond repair.

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


Return to posts index

Bill Davis
Re: The one good thing about FCP_X
on Sep 23, 2011 at 3:50:36 am

As a very smart guy told me in conversations this afternoon in Pasadena when I went to see some old friends in the FCP/DV/Editing community....

This is Version 1 after 3 months of life. The foundation is complete. The "Build out" is progressing rapidly.

We've gotten more additional core capabilities in this 90 day rev than FCP 1.0 got in it's first year.

This development pace is possible because of the "stripped, cleaned, and optimized code.

If he's right, we can expect rapid and constant progress (tho clearly never enough for the people who want this total rewrite to have sprung whole from the ashes of it's 10 year older sibling - losing nothing and including everything that incrementally developed in the original.

If you don't see any light at the end of this tunnel - then you're totally free to leave the pathway.

This IS FCP-X and how it's going to develop.

It's brand new - and it's totally different than anything else out there.

90 days ago we all had four versions of the same basic way to edit.

Today you have three traditional choices and one totally different one.

If you can't see that's BETTER than having four versions of the same basic thing - then feel free to do what many others are. Go to one of the other three.

I'm having a blast expanding my brain now that I FINALLY have a chance to use something totally different.

Simple as that.

"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'Connor


Return to posts index

Marvin Holdman
Re: The one good thing about FCP_X
on Sep 19, 2011 at 3:34:26 pm

You seem to apply that FCPX is the ONLY program that has this vision of the future. I would say that the democratization that you are claiming is so visionary has been afoot since NLE's came about. The fact is, video editing was becoming more accessible long before FCPX came out. The fact that it seems it is purpose built to "simply" the process, thereby making it more widely accessible is nothing new at all.

The real question at this point is...

Will this current interpretation of the future be successful?

I say it's already been proposed by Apple in the form of iMovie. A much broader range of people have access to iMovie than FCS and as a consequence the current explosion of youtube is, at least in part, being fueled by this fact. Perhaps a slightly better version of iMovie will bring a rash of cliche presets to the world of youtube, but will it make those video's any better? Historically, easier access to presets will not appreciably improved anyone's ability, it will only make for more effects in the same mediocre videos. I am not deriding experimentation and fun with this craft, it's one of the reason's most of us took this as a career... it's fun. But I would say the same number of people who will keep after it once they find out that, as much fun as it may be, it is still hard work to make something that is consequential, is still just as limited (no matter how awesome the NLE application). And FCPX doesn't inherently improve the quality of the craft. Frankly, it is ultimately limiting in the range of what CAN be done. As long as you do it FCPX's way, you're fine, it you want to be be creative, or experimental with your tools, you might be better off finding a tool that allows this. FCPX is not that tool.

Marvin Holdman
Production Manager
Tourist Network
8317 Front Beach Rd, Suite 23
Panama City Beach, Fl
phone 850-234-2773 ext. 128
cell 850-585-9667
skype username - vidmarv


Return to posts index

Bill Davis
Re: The one good thing about FCP_X
on Sep 19, 2011 at 4:53:21 pm

Marvin,

I appreciate your view. I just disagree. I think that the FCP-X rebuild is aimed precisely at business video. How else does one explain the database underpinnings?

iMovie is for non-professionals exploring the movie making arts and making ONE isolated movie at a time. (I imagine it's superb at that tho I've never used it myself)

FCP-X on the other hand, is built for the serial content producer. Assets, type treatments, database logs, - virtually everything about it is "sticky" in that once you create them, you can access and re-access them time and time again. You can sort assets, search assets, re-combine assets with amazing ease.

Why build that in if you're just serving a market doing THIS ONE video? It makes no sense.

But it makes PERFECT sense if you're serving a market that will be doing business videos or training videos or blog style videos or anything else that keeps you in constant communication with an audience that you wish to develop over time.

I respect that Avid, and others, have great tools to do the same thing. Plus a lot of other tools that appeal to the big show centric workflow. But the truth is for everyone sitting at a screen cutting around the world today - only a very small fraction of them will ever need to deliver into such a huge, distributed workflow that they'll need all the tools that even FCP-7 offered. I say this with confidence because as a corporate producer working on 5 and 6 figure videos for my entire career - but largely out of my own shop and therefor in a smaller footprint operation instead of a more traditional "agency" model shop - I seldom used more than 25% of the capabilities in FCP. (although admittedly the 25% in question varied from project to project!)

Look, I'm still cutting on FCP-7 for many things I'm working on today. Why wouldn't I since I have twelve years experience at running it and it works great. I just keep trying to learn something new about FCP-X every day and learning its differentiating capabilities so that the day I have to cut something that can leverage the things it can do that 7 can't - I'll be ready to go.

Knowing two languages beats knowing one. And I think a swap from FCP-7 to Premier is like feeling that you have to change from American English to British English. Little new thinking required so it's trivial and you can listen and communicate well right away. But someday you *may* find that second language useful. Particularly if it's the language of a new place you someday find it valuable to visit.

Seems smart to me.

"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'Connor


Return to posts index

Marvin Holdman
Re: The one good thing about FCP_X
on Sep 19, 2011 at 7:53:39 pm

To expand on your analogy....

FCPX is a language that no country speaks. Perhaps it will gain widespread popularity one day, but we all learn languages fast, so why waste time on something that may, or may not be commonly spoken in 3 years?

If you enjoy working with it, great. Have fun. Does it expand your vision of the future? Awesome. I can see just as much of that future transitioning to PPro plus I get everything I need to do the job.

As for metadata... you say this;

[Bill Davis] "FCP-X on the other hand, is built for the serial content producer. Assets, type treatments, database logs, - virtually everything about it is "sticky" in that once you create them, you can access and re-access them time and time again. You can sort assets, search assets, re-combine assets with amazing ease.

Why build that in if you're just serving a market doing THIS ONE video? It makes no sense."

"Sticky"? Sure, in as much as you are "stuck" with it, if this is your choice to manage your metadata. If you are in a non-colabrative environment and have a limited amount of on-going work to do, the I could see it working for you. But I see some real problems with their metadata plan down the road. First, you are married to it completely. There is no portability of this metadata. You can't take it to another application (say an SQL database) and work it. You might say that's "coming in the future" but has it come for iPhoto or iMovie? Similar data systems that are completely closed and likely always will be.

Frankly, there are more (and better) sources to do what you describe. Better functioning in the present versions with a historical likelihood of moving toward this bright shining future that you seem only to be able to see through the FCPX prism.

As I said, if it works for you great, but I would suggest that you are putting all of your eggs in one flimsy beta-basket if you are currently building your entire meta structure around this application.

FCP7 does work today, but we (like many others) have decided it was best to migrate away from it as quickly as possible to minimize future impacts. Given the current state of FCPX we decided that it was simply not ready for the task. As you are still using FCP7 for some of your work, it would appear (through your actions) that you agree with this. Watching this unfold over the last several weeks, hearing other professionals weigh in on the matter and Apple's near complete silence on the matter leads us to believe that there is a problem in the Cupertino Paradise. Will it be fixed? Will it be "awesome" in 3 years? Who can say.

I argue the point with you because, at the bottom of it, I want to agree with you. It's just that you are not giving a sound enough argument to embrace the same level of enthusiasm that you seem to have for this product. I really would like to gulp down that frosty mug of koolaid you seem to enjoy so much, but given everything I've seen and heard so far.... our business would die (or get really, really sick).

Please, prove me wrong. Run a multi-editor, collaborative, meta-data driven, cloud driven, enterprise level broadcast business with it and show us all this bright future that you so believe it to be a harbinger of. The product you are describing is the one I was waiting for. But I've not seen the one you describe.



Marvin Holdman
Production Manager
Tourist Network
8317 Front Beach Rd, Suite 23
Panama City Beach, Fl
phone 850-234-2773 ext. 128
cell 850-585-9667
skype username - vidmarv


Return to posts index

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