FORUMS: list search recent posts

FCP-X timeline

COW Forums : Apple Final Cut Pro X Debates

VIEW ALL   •   PRINT   •   NEXT >>
Eric Jurgenson
FCP-X timeline
on Apr 13, 2011 at 6:39:35 pm

Trying to get my head around the new "trackless/grouping" paradigm. Does anyone else think that what is designed to simplify is actually going to make things much more confusing? I'm freaked out that opening a "nested" clip moves the tracks around for the other media. I don't knoew if I could work without the inherent organization of dedicated tracks. Is there going to be a way to mute/solo/label/route tracks? It seems Apple is sacrificing practicality for eye candy. I simply don't know if this will work in a professional editing environment.



Return to posts index

Mark Suszko
Re: FCP-X timeline
on Apr 13, 2011 at 6:50:05 pm

I'll tell you what my biref glimpse thru the keyhole looked like to me: maybe this is something like a nodal interface, with the nodes all laying on a timeline. It seems with the linking behaviors to secondary assets like has node-like attributes. If you've worked in various compositors, like COmbustion, or the graphical link display mode in DVDStudio Pro, this will look familiar.


Return to posts index

Nigel Thompson
Re: FCP-X timeline
on Apr 13, 2011 at 7:01:53 pm

The no tracks makes total sense to me. it takes that ease of use in the timeline you spoke about to a whole new level. You cant accidentally delete a part of a track now, (and have to trim it back in) and have to shift everything down or up. the video tracks are there but its virtual. for example u can place video ontop each other at the software will see that.
With audio , most of us mix down to 2 tracks anyway, but im sure there will be a way to patch to 8 tracks or whatever for output. we just need to wait and see the other specs as they come. Super meet is for a few nights no so ?

HVX200, RED ONE, FCS and more,
High End, Production & Post Production
in the Caribbean
http://www.bistt.com


Return to posts index


Eric Jurgenson
Re: FCP-X timeline
on Apr 13, 2011 at 7:03:43 pm

To me, this is quite different from a nodal interface, which I think of more as a patch panel. Timelines need to show relationships to program time, which nodes don't do very well.

I'm more concerned about the ability to assign clips to tracks that can be muted, mixed, and solo'd. I don't see any way around this being an absolute requirement for serious editing.



Return to posts index

Cory Caplan
Re: FCP-X timeline
on Apr 13, 2011 at 7:27:07 pm

Well, I really can see Apple's point on this one-- Audio mixing is a paradigm change from a track based system. I wouldn't be surprised at all to see logic adopt a very similar interface, because for the most part, it will work very well (clip based, and then vertically) In either program, really, you can just "assign a clip to a submix/send/effects group/ whatever" if you need to. Change of habit? yes, but I don't think it will add more time, and I think the time saved by not having to scroll up and down as much will be more than worth it in the Vertical

I don't know whether submixes/sends/etc.. are implemented in FCPX, but it should be ASAP if its not.. I think this will reduce the tracks on something like logic and I will like it..

ie: Create a dialog send, music submix, fx send, and you can add effects to the each submix.. and that would work really well with this interface..



Return to posts index

Eric Wescott
Re: FCP-X timeline
on May 4, 2011 at 6:30:30 am


I'm more concerned about the ability to assign clips to tracks that can be muted, mixed, and solo'd. I don't see any way around this being an absolute requirement for serious editing.


It looks like it will all be based on "tags". You will be able to assign tags (some tagging appears automatic) to audio clips. Then if you want to mute, mix, solo you do it by selecting tags.

I was a little concerned about being able to keep music, dialogue and additional audio organized visually but it looks like the time line attempts to keep similar tagged items grouped on horizontal lines..


Return to posts index


Cory Caplan
Re: FCP-X timeline
on Apr 13, 2011 at 7:17:23 pm

I've really taken some time to digest this. I think the timeline is a really mixed bag. Some things will work much better this way. Take for instance movie scenes. This is fantastic for that. Each scene is a unit, drag and drop, newly ordered.

Also the VERTICAL aspects of magnetic timeline are fantastic, and long needed. Best in class, for sure. The removal of a1 a2 is great. The audio features are sick.

The Horizontal paradigm, I'm not yet convinced. I think for many, many editors this will be a vast improvement, and I think for many of my jobs, this will be a just fine, but when I'm cutting things that are a matter of 1 frame adjustments, beats, time etc.. I think I'll find it frustrating...

The one WAY overwhelming thing I'm at a loss to explain is things that are time driven. It seems like a nightmare to try to deliver a piece that has to fit an exact time like a TV Act or even a 30 second spot. It's almost like they're taking "time" out of the "timeline" in a way. I think that's the takeaway for me-- Some great tools for shows with no real time requirements, but could be frustrating when I'm editing something "to time"

I wonder how music video folks will like the magnetic timeline.. I guess when you cut something in, you have to manually "attach" each cut to the music track, so it doesn't slide?



Return to posts index

Paul Roper
Re: FCP-X timeline
on Apr 13, 2011 at 6:55:18 pm

I, too, am suspicious. Timeline editing has evolved to what it is over many years - because it works. I use FCP on a daily basis, and I have tried to use iMovie once or twice - it leaves me completely baffled. All Apple really needed to do was fix some bugs and bring the application into the 21st Century with 64 bit, multi core processing. That'd make me happy. Also, people get used to an interface - it really is very annoying when a software vendor moves something you click on hundreds of times per day to another location for no apparent reason. It's like a car manufacturer deciding to put the accelerator on the left and the steering wheel under the seat because it looks nicer.

In the olden days of Quantel Henry/Editbox, I could edit stuff without even looking at the screen because nothing was customisable and all the buttons and menus were in the same place, so I knew exactly where to click. This resulted in a blazingly fast editing process. This kind of fixed layout is still used for Smoke and Flame. I think.

Just take a look at Gmail for an example of a company trying to do something different just for the hell of it. Every other email program/website has evolved into what we recognise and like - Gmail's ridiculous 'conversation' crap is just misleading and silly. Let's hope FCP X's interface isn't just misleading and silly.

Oh - and what happened to FCP 8?


Return to posts index

Warren Eig
Re: FCP-X timeline
on Apr 13, 2011 at 7:09:38 pm

How does this affect OMF export to go to protools? Especially when you make a compound clip? Does all audio end up on the correct track, say dialogue or SND FX on export? This is a wait to be seen.

Warren Eig
O 310-470-0905


email: warren@babyboompictures.com
website: http://www.babyboompictures.com


http://www.babyboompictures.com/BabyBoomPictures/AFX.html
http://www.babyboompictures.com/BabyBoomPictures/KnitWits_Movie.html
http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0251670/


EDITING REEL: http://www.babyboompictures.com/BabyBoomPictures/Editing_Reel.html
TITLE DESIGN: http://www.babyboompictures.com/BabyBoomPictures/Titles_Reel.html



Return to posts index


Paul Roper
Re: FCP-X timeline
on Apr 13, 2011 at 7:10:51 pm

....but more importantly, do we suspect that Apple's pricing of this ($299?) and the lack of news about the other 'pro' apps is yet more evidence of Apple dumbing down its product line to target consumers and not pros? I was in a large Apple store yesterday (to return my dead MacBook Air - lasted only 4 months) and there was a noticeable absence of Mac Pros...well, there was ONE - a bottom of the range single processor thing, stuffed in the corner. Compare this to the probably about 200 other silly little fashion trinkets filling the shop - MacBooks, Airs, iPad, iPods, iPhones...

Is there really a future for professionals using Apple gear? I suspect not.


Return to posts index

Eric Jurgenson
Re: FCP-X timeline
on Apr 13, 2011 at 7:24:40 pm

Yeah, it's sort of like ACID for music composition. Great for moving chunks around. But what if you want to move PARTS of a chunk around? Very confusing.



Return to posts index

Phil Hawes
Re: FCP-X timeline
on Apr 13, 2011 at 7:37:43 pm

From what I read of the reports of the demo of the new Final Cut X, the new features demonstrated are targeted towards the amateur video maker with a camcorder or DSLR. Features like stabilization, rolling shutter correction, noise cancellation, and audio sync, all supposedly happening on import, are targeting users who have basic production equipment problems. These are all features to compensate for amateur errors. A lot of these tools are problematic and not what a professional is asking for.

Nor does the professional want a new "event list" , filmstrip viewers, a new iMovie like trim editor, or pop up color correction.

The only feature here that any professional would want is 64 bit and multi-threading and not so they could edit H.264 natively in an iMovie like environment or have a no transcoding workflow. A 64 bit multi-threaded Final Cut 7 would have satisfied most people and taken away a lot of headaches.

If the demo had been targeted towards professionals the following features may have been shown: better Media Management tools, improvement for filters (10 bit), a better Compressor interface, better integration with Color, and perhaps Motion working in 10 bit with more finesse.

It remains to be seen what the actual Final Cut X really is but as for now it is definitely not being marketed to the professional. Does Apple really have the audacity to believe that they can rewrite the history of video editing with a Final Cut GUI change? I think not. I just suspect that they are shifting their market.

Phil


Return to posts index


Steve Connor
Re: FCP-X timeline
on Apr 13, 2011 at 7:42:43 pm

Are we really going to have two months of people constantly posting in every thread that Apple have abandoned professionals, based on this brief sneak peak with no real details? You can't make a judgement based on what we've seen so far.

Steve Connor
Adrenalin Television

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


Return to posts index

Phil Hawes
Re: FCP-X timeline
on Apr 13, 2011 at 7:50:12 pm

I'm just commenting on how the product has been marketed.
Obviously I don't know what the final product is and perhaps neither does Apple. I'm also making sure they know what I think.
As a professional I've been ignored by this marketing. Why?


Return to posts index

Craig Shields
Re: FCP-X timeline
on Apr 13, 2011 at 8:05:13 pm

If you watched any of the videos posted today you would see that they know exactly what the final product is. From what I've seen, it seems to be very well thought out. You even have to read between the lines when watching. Take note of the full car commercial video being produced in the demo. The color correction, graphics and lower-thirds were created I'm sure by FC or the rest of the unseen suite.



Return to posts index


Paul Roper
Re: FCP-X timeline
on Apr 13, 2011 at 7:55:17 pm

I base my "Apple has abandoned professionals" on what I've seen over the past couple of years, not just this presentation. It's logical really - the profit margin on a top-end $699 iPad (a circuit board, a touch screen and a case) must be huge in comparison to a low-end $2499 Mac Pro (various circuit boards, big transformer, hard drive, DVD burner, aluminium case, etc. etc.). The same goes for their other mass-market trinkets - 16GB iPod nanos can be knocked out for pennies and sold for $179. I even heard rumours of "Final Cut on iPad" recently. This would fit right in with Apple's policy of gimickry over usefulness.

So why would they continue to develop software that is targeted towards pro users who need the processing power of a high-end machine, when they are probably* planning to stop the manufacture of anything above the level of iMac? The answer is to aim at people who want something more than iMovie but would be afraid of using (& paying for) a professional application - hence the introduction of this new Final Cut Consumer.

*based on nothing more than my feelings.


Return to posts index

Jay Soriano
Re: Final Cut Pro X stays in the picture for pros
on Apr 13, 2011 at 8:26:20 pm

Posted this good read by Gary Adcock below. I'll post it here again:

http://www.macworld.com/article/159202/2011/04/final_cut_pro_x_blog.html


Return to posts index

Scott Sheriff
Re: FCP-X timeline
on Apr 13, 2011 at 7:54:42 pm

[Steve Connor] "Are we really going to have two months of people constantly posting in every thread that Apple have abandoned professionals, based on this brief sneak peak with no real details? You can't make a judgement based on what we've seen so far."

All I can say is you only get one chance to make a first impression, and I'm assuming Apple knows this. It looks like 64 bit iMovie Pro is the impression they wanted to give.
So, yeah I (or you) can make a judgment on what we have seen so far.

Scott Sheriff
Director
http://www.sstdigitalmedia.com

I have a system, it has stuff in it, and stuff hooked to it. I have a camera, it can record stuff. I read the manuals, and know how to use this stuff and lots of other stuff too.
You should be suitably impressed...


Return to posts index

Craig Shields
Re: FCP-X timeline
on Apr 13, 2011 at 8:07:24 pm

iMovie Pro? Wow. We didn't watch the same demo.



Return to posts index

Scott Sheriff
Re: FCP-X timeline
on Apr 13, 2011 at 9:06:08 pm

[Craig Shields] "iMovie Pro? Wow. We didn't watch the same demo."

Demo? How about just looking at the touted features.
I think Phil Hawes hit the mark with this post:
"From what I read of the reports of the demo of the new Final Cut X, the new features demonstrated are targeted towards the amateur video maker with a camcorder or DSLR. Features like stabilization, rolling shutter correction, noise cancellation, and audio sync, all supposedly happening on import, are targeting users who have basic production equipment problems. These are all features to compensate for amateur errors. A lot of these tools are problematic and not what a professional is asking for.

Nor does the professional want a new "event list" , filmstrip viewers, a new iMovie like trim editor, or pop up color correction.

The only feature here that any professional would want is 64 bit and multi-threading and not so they could edit H.264 natively in an iMovie like environment or have a no transcoding workflow. A 64 bit multi-threaded Final Cut 7 would have satisfied most people and taken away a lot of headaches.

If the demo had been targeted towards professionals the following features may have been shown: better Media Management tools, improvement for filters (10 bit), a better Compressor interface, better integration with Color, and perhaps Motion working in 10 bit with more finesse
."

So here are some of these dubious 'features'.

- Non destructive color balance on ingest
- Stabilization on ingest
- Audio cleanup on ingest
- Smart collections - like smart folders
- Clip connections, primary and secondary media locking together
- Single keystroke nesting
- Compound clips - collapse clips into a single clip
- Inline precision editor - simplifies trimming of clips
- Automatic control of number of tracks - add and go when needed
- One click to match color between clips
- Color & Soundtrack now in FCPX
- iMovie like filmstrip view
- Color & Soundtrack now in FCPX

The real telltale sign is all the things people have actually been posting about needing fixed since 6.0 that seemed to be swept under the rug, in favor of pushing features aimed at 'auto iris' shooters.

I noticed a lot of fan boys have been 'thumbing down' and flaming anyone not under the Reality Distortion Field. Grow up.
Many of us out here are so underwhelmed, we're not 'whelmed' at all by this announcement. We are certainly not stopping you from downloading this at 12:01 on day one if that makes you happy.

Scott Sheriff
Director
http://www.sstdigitalmedia.com

I have a system, it has stuff in it, and stuff hooked to it. I have a camera, it can record stuff. I read the manuals, and know how to use this stuff and lots of other stuff too.
You should be suitably impressed...


Return to posts index

Craig Shields
Re: FCP-X timeline
on Apr 13, 2011 at 9:21:26 pm

I'm not a fan boy. I just watched the demo and decided for myself that these are pro features. I didn't need to read someones column to make up my mind. If you shoot anything with CMOS you will encounter some rolling shutter. If you shoot with a DSLR, you probably have an HN4 recorder that you will sync with your scratch track. That's why folks use Plural Eyes. I wouldn't be so quick to call someone a Fan Boy because they can see the value in something you can not.



Return to posts index

Scott Sheriff
Re: FCP-X timeline
on Apr 13, 2011 at 11:27:09 pm

[Craig Shields] "I wouldn't be so quick to call someone a Fan Boy because they can see the value in something you can not."

No, I called people fan boys for being under the influence of the Reality Distortion Field and 'thumbing down' legitimate dissenting opinions and flaming those that would be skeptical of the all mighty Apple.

And the things I think are of most questionable value are:
- Non destructive color balance on ingest
- Stabilization on ingest
- Audio cleanup on ingest
- One click to match color between clips

If material is properly shot in the first place, these features are superfluous.

Scott Sheriff
Director
http://www.sstdigitalmedia.com

I have a system, it has stuff in it, and stuff hooked to it. I have a camera, it can record stuff. I read the manuals, and know how to use this stuff and lots of other stuff too.
You should be suitably impressed...


Return to posts index

Craig Shields
Re: FCP-X timeline
on Apr 13, 2011 at 11:46:45 pm

Reality Distortion Field? Hmmm... did you make that up yourself? Of course not, you heard it from someone else and decided to regurgitate. How about Fan Boy? Nope, every 15 year old with a PC has used that to dismiss the views of others. The fact is, you must live in a distortion field if all the footage you get is properly shot. You are the one that introduced the flame junior, not me.



Return to posts index

Scott Sheriff
Re: FCP-X timeline
on Apr 13, 2011 at 11:55:37 pm

Wow. You really told me.
Don't forget the Caps Lock next time.

Scott Sheriff
Director
http://www.sstdigitalmedia.com

I have a system, it has stuff in it, and stuff hooked to it. I have a camera, it can record stuff. I read the manuals, and know how to use this stuff and lots of other stuff too.
You should be suitably impressed...


Return to posts index

Cory Caplan
Re: FCP-X timeline
on Apr 13, 2011 at 7:49:38 pm

Phil, I've been with Avid since 1997 and both since 2005, but when you say "better media management" (which is a drum I beat for a long time until the last couple years) What modern workflows are you talking about? Everything is shot on compressed media these days, and storage isn't really an issue anymore, so why would you just not edit directly with the files? Do you really need proxy footage if FCP handles native footage well?

I'm playing devil's advocate here.. in most of my other posts, you can see that I'm not super thrilled re: "pro" users.

And yes, Apple does completely have the audacity. They prove it time after time. And about 75% of the time, they're right. (see iPhone, USB vs floppy, and I'm about to hand them digital video vs. bluray, based on my clients [lack of] requests for BR..)



Return to posts index

Dan Hayes
Re: FCP-X timeline
on Apr 13, 2011 at 9:33:11 pm

If there's one thing that Apple doesn't lack it's audacity. I think they do believe they know better than the people who deal with this for a living.



Return to posts index

Andree Franks
Re: FCP-X timeline
on Apr 13, 2011 at 9:59:57 pm

Final Cut Pro for 299,- is dumping down from the Pro's?
This is a Joke right?
Boy I tell you I think it is more then now!

Because the upgrade Studio price with:
Final Cut Pro 7
Motion 4
Soundtrack Pro 3
Color 1.5
Compressor 3.5
DVD Studio Pro 4
is 299,- and you can get Full Version at B&H for 749,95 divide that by (lets be fair) five is 149,99.


Also we know so far this is not it and there are more Apps coming. I say we wait how much the others will cost.
From the Demo I just seen, no this is for the Pros yeah anybody can buy it know and run it of there iMac and won't have idea how to really use all the tools. But if it is true what Apple promises this thing (Final Cut Pro lets skip 8 and 9) is going to kick some A$$ on a Mac Pro! Which is good marking point for the Pro hardware.

But lets get back to the Timeline. This can really speed up editing... editing on the fly :)
For time well me as the driver of Final Cut or any other NLR software is in control of the time. Soooo nope this is going to work out. :)



Return to posts index

Scott Sheriff
Re: FCP-X timeline
on Apr 13, 2011 at 7:46:07 pm

[Paul Roper] "Also, people get used to an interface - it really is very annoying when a software vendor moves something you click on hundreds of times per day to another location for no apparent reason. It's like a car manufacturer deciding to put the accelerator on the left and the steering wheel under the seat because it looks nicer."

That is right on target. Not only do people get used to control interfaces, but with most successful designs form follows function. Don't you just love when two of the most used 'buttons' are on opposite sides of the screen?
At one time the major controls of cars were not standardized. The current layout evolved from people learning what did, and did not work.
Motorcycles reached their standard control layout much later. It's pretty easy to come across a bike with the clutch/brake and brake/shifter/kick starter controls on opposite sides from what is now the 'norm'. The thing is that when you run into one of these bikes, they are all brands that did not make it and fell into obscurity.

Scott Sheriff
Director
http://www.sstdigitalmedia.com

I have a system, it has stuff in it, and stuff hooked to it. I have a camera, it can record stuff. I read the manuals, and know how to use this stuff and lots of other stuff too.
You should be suitably impressed...


Return to posts index

Steve Connor
Re: FCP-X timeline
on Apr 13, 2011 at 8:11:35 pm

I'm going to be in a minority here, but I've just finished watching the footage from the show yesterday and in particular the edit demos and I completely disagree with the iMovie Pro comments, IMHO this is a paradigm shift in professional editing as far as the timeline goes at least, the flexibility, power and sheer speed of the new timeline is going to make my days editing quicker and easier.

If the rest of FCP and what remains of the suite is this well thought out then I can't wait for June

Steve Connor
Adrenalin Television

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


Return to posts index

Miha Pece
Re: FCP-X timeline
on Apr 13, 2011 at 8:14:21 pm

"APPLE ABANDONING PROFESSIONALS" also seems non-logical. For a company who really wanted to be a major at the end of the chain: selling content, it would be stupid to abandon a tool which is producing this content. But of course, it seems logical to do everything to widen or democratise this production chain.

Miha Pece
editor


Return to posts index

Nigel Thompson
Re: FCP-X timeline
on Apr 13, 2011 at 9:27:55 pm

New things and ways always seem illogical but wait for more information and hands on experience then make a judgement
Everyone needs to chill. and if then u dont like it just buy something else i really dont see the need for all the rant and rave

HVX200, RED ONE, FCS and more,
High End, Production & Post Production
in the Caribbean
http://www.bistt.com


Return to posts index

Matthew Sonnenfeld
Re: FCP-X timeline
on Apr 13, 2011 at 9:57:48 pm

I'm actually very confused with the linked audio and video in the timeline. Maybe someone could help me better understand this. I hope I don't sound silly asking this but....

How would I be able to just use the audio of one clip under the video of another or intercut audio if they are always linked? I.E., swap out a word or two that are not clear in a clip for a clearer version from another. Also, will rolling audio and video independently work the same way? The roll/slip tools are extremely important for me and I just am having a lot of trouble wrapping my head around how these two tasks are accomplished.

Thanks!

Panasonic HPX170 P
2008 Unibody Macbook Pro 15 inch, 2.8 Ghz, 4GB RAM
CalDigit VR
Final Cut Pro Studio 3
Avid Media Composer
The College of WIlliam and Mary


Return to posts index

Gabe Thorburn
Re: FCP-X timeline
on Apr 14, 2011 at 12:16:05 am

This is very confusing for me, too. I require seeing the clip's audio in the timeline at all times. Visually, I like to see the audio under the incoming edit or visa-versa (j-cuts and L-cuts). The demo showed that you can adjust things that are out of sync in one of those video/audio combo clips by going into a new window and adjusting it there. This is really a break from mode-free editing if you have to go into a separate window to do or see something.

And how does it work for audio on other tracks? It seems very convoluted.


Return to posts index

Phil Balsdon
Re: FCP-X timeline
on Apr 13, 2011 at 10:35:36 pm

The beginning of the presentation of FCP-X Apple made a big point about the high end professional market users of FCP, Coen brothers etc. They absolutely have to make Final Cut Pro the best and most professional application out there for professionals, and the cheapest.

Why? Because it's "the professional's choice" label that is their biggest marketing tool - so that the wannabe users can feel like they are professionals because they use it. They also have to make it affordable for their most profitable market - everybody - otherwise iMovie would suffice, especially at the price.

I'm sure they've thought long and hard professional workflows and what professionals want. I suspect that things like auto white balance on import etc. are selectable, but it doesn't mean the product is not "pro".

Cinematographer, Steadicam Operator, Final Cut Pro Post Production.
http://philming.com.au
http://www.steadi-onfilms.com.au/


Return to posts index

Scott Sheriff
Re: FCP-X timeline
on Apr 13, 2011 at 11:50:09 pm

[Phil Balsdon] "The beginning of the presentation of FCP-X Apple made a big point about the high end professional market users of FCP, Coen brothers etc. They absolutely have to make Final Cut Pro the best and most professional application out there for professionals, and the cheapest."


But remember this is the same Apple that has continuously pushed nesting, which doesn't work as advertised. Roundtripping to Color and STP, which doesn't work as advertised. Media Manger which is convoluted and doesn't work as advertised. And this is the same Apple whose upgrade instructions are wrong and those that follow them end up with a 'crash-o-matic' system.
When I here Apple talk, all I hear is 'Charlie Brown's Teacher', wot, wot wot.
They had a room full of professional users, and didn't have a Q&A.
What does that tell you?
This may be a great product, or a dud. But I'm not going to take Apple's word that it's great.
We'll see what the first couple of months on the forums are like after the release.

Scott Sheriff
Director
http://www.sstdigitalmedia.com

I have a system, it has stuff in it, and stuff hooked to it. I have a camera, it can record stuff. I read the manuals, and know how to use this stuff and lots of other stuff too.
You should be suitably impressed...


Return to posts index

Scott Sheriff
Re: FCP-X timeline
on Apr 14, 2011 at 12:25:11 am

[Nigel Thompson] "Everyone needs to chill. and if then u dont like it just buy something else i really dont see the need for all the rant and rave"

I think part of the ranting is that while they have appeared to address some complaints with previous versions, it seems that many have not been addressed at all in favor of 'eye candy'.
The reason this is offensive is that many have spent big money on the software in previous versions, and expensive hardware to run that software. And that same software has several advertised core features that version after version don't work as advertised, or are buggy.
It has the feel of a car with a great paint job, plush interior and killer sound system, that regularly won't start.

Scott Sheriff
Director
http://www.sstdigitalmedia.com

I have a system, it has stuff in it, and stuff hooked to it. I have a camera, it can record stuff. I read the manuals, and know how to use this stuff and lots of other stuff too.
You should be suitably impressed...


Return to posts index

Mark Palmos
Re: FCP-X timeline
on Apr 13, 2011 at 9:58:53 pm

[Eric Jurgenson] " I don't knoew if I could work without the inherent organization of dedicated tracks."

I totally agree Eric, and I think it is truly impossible to NOT have a way to dedicate tracks... I cannot imagine there would be no way.

At present, FCP is confused and confusing WRT the paradigm of track selection. You click on the leftmost V1 V2 to assign where to INSERT/OVERLAY clips when editing in, but click on those other little icons to select tracks which determines which tracks are active if you delete media, or if you press X to get IO of the current track.

IMO if you are editing, the track tabs should determine both where INSERT/OVERLAY clips are placed AND which track determines what is marked by X key or which tracks are deleted. It makes sense to have the same tabs for both because if you are ADDING and REMOVING stuff from the timeline (aka editing ;) you would purposefully be doing that to specific tracks so you can determine where you want clips to go WITHOUT having to drag and drop clips.

FCPX would HAVE to have a way of assigning where clips are insert/overlayed because mousing about is obviously not going to be a requirement, so if you are to press F9 or F10, where does the stuff go?

I'm sure there will be track assigning ability, there HAS to be.

Mark.


Return to posts index

Dan Hayes
Re: FCP-X timeline
on Apr 13, 2011 at 10:18:26 pm

[Mark Palmos] "FCPX would HAVE to have a way of assigning where clips are insert/overlayed because mousing about is obviously not going to be a requirement, so if you are to press F9 or F10, where does the stuff go?

I'm sure there will be track assigning ability, there HAS to be."




From what I've seen, I think it's all done with magnets.



Return to posts index

Mark Palmos
Re: FCP-X timeline
on Apr 13, 2011 at 10:34:04 pm

[Dan Hayes] "From what I've seen, I think it's all done with magnets."

Hey there Dan!
I hope all is good with you?!

That MAY be ok if you were dragging your clips to the timeline and could place them were you want, but there absolutely must be a way to

mark IO on the timeline

mark I on the source clip

target a specific track on the timeline

press a keyboard command to have that source clip go to that spot on the timeline.


absolutely basic necessities for most editors... I didnt see the show, so how do magnets do this basic operation without a mouse being used?

Mark.


Return to posts index

Eric Jurgenson
Re: FCP-X timeline
on Apr 13, 2011 at 11:28:59 pm

The thing is, if the tracks aren't right there on the main interface where you can see them, what good is it to be able to assign clips to specific tracks in the background? This is key timeline information, and it clearly isn't there.

Maybe they have an "old style" button that switches back to a more functional interface.

I must apologize. Mark and I are old EDITors, and frankly we were spoiled by it's simple beauty.

Murdered by Autodesk and Apple ten years ago, and still I pine.



Return to posts index

Eric Jurgenson
Re: FCP-X timeline
on Apr 13, 2011 at 11:41:25 pm

To clarify that last statement: Apple strangled it, and Autodesk stabbed it in the heart.



Return to posts index

Michael Gissing
Re: FCP-X timeline
on Apr 13, 2011 at 11:48:42 pm

I'm with you Eric. I can't see that letting an application decide what tracks you have various material on is helpful. I use FCP to finish so having all supers and text elements on specific tracks is important. This glimpse release is showing an editing tool which is perhaps less suited to finishing but may be really nice and fast to edit with.

The promising thing is the fact that it is a new build, 64 bit and is sorting some fundamental workflow problems. The look is nice. I have always argued for darker skins on every audio edit system I have used. Combined with dedicated controllers, I find long days of editing are easiest with proper ergonomics and darker screens. FCP's current look is not good. I mostly work in Color and love the darker interface. This new timeline look has promise.


Return to posts index

Scott Sheriff
Re: FCP-X timeline
on Apr 14, 2011 at 12:03:55 am

[Michael Gissing] "The promising thing is the fact that it is a new build, 64 bit and is sorting some fundamental workflow problems. The look is nice. I have always argued for darker skins on every audio edit system I have used. Combined with dedicated controllers, I find long days of editing are easiest with proper ergonomics and darker screens. FCP's current look is not good. I mostly work in Color and love the darker interface. This new timeline look has promise."

It will be interesting to see how much problem this new build will be for plugins, and controllers.
I'm with you on the dark interface. I'm not a fan of the node, at least not for editing. It would be nice to have a choice of traditional UI, and/or light dark.

Scott Sheriff
Director
http://www.sstdigitalmedia.com

I have a system, it has stuff in it, and stuff hooked to it. I have a camera, it can record stuff. I read the manuals, and know how to use this stuff and lots of other stuff too.
You should be suitably impressed...


Return to posts index

Gabe Thorburn
Re: FCP-X timeline
on Apr 14, 2011 at 12:28:16 am

Yes, and what about EDLS that require track data? EDLs require a V1, V2. Maybe storylines ( as tracks are now apparently called) translate correctly into an EDL.

And absolutely - you need to be able to patch tracks in the timeline. Select tracks, solo-select tracks. That has to be in there, but I could not see anything in the timeline screenshots that indicated it was.

Hopefully there is a classic mode that you can switch the timeline too.


Return to posts index

Nigel Thompson
Re: FCP-X timeline
on Apr 14, 2011 at 12:53:05 am

I agree ..... there needs to be LOTS answered, EDL's , Audio output, timeline settings , media management etc etc.
But dont let yourself go crazy guys. We all made investments. me as well. but what i do know is..... wait and see all the full features first.
The announcement was no in depth enough to make a judgement. The thing is not available yet let get more info as time goes by and then we can make informed statements and or decisions

HVX200, RED ONE, FCS and more,
High End, Production & Post Production
in the Caribbean
http://www.bistt.com


Return to posts index

Les Kaye
Re: FCP-X timeline
on Apr 14, 2011 at 3:37:31 am

I don't know why everyone's in a tizzy - it's not like it's all THAT revolutionary. Pinnacle Liquid had (has?) it years ago where a "track" could be anything - video, audio or video AND audio combined in one track. There were actually some interesting ideas in their UI (as well as some terribly clunky ones).

http://www.pinnaclesys.com/PublicSite/us/PinnacleLife/Content/Tutorials/

Anyway, just mentioning the similarities - not taking a side one way or another. Just yet.

http://www.leskaye.net


Return to posts index

Michael Gissing
Re: FCP-X timeline
on Apr 14, 2011 at 4:11:47 am

[Les Kaye] "I don't know why everyone's in a tizzy - it's not like it's all THAT revolutionary."

I am unconcerned about revolutionary, just professional workflows where material has to be exported to other apps and how to best arrange track based elements for a handover. This trackless idea may be fast and convenient for the edit, but I do not see how it is best suited to dropping final mixes into a finished timeline and exporting with correct track allocation.

Too much of FCP particularly with audio has been clip based. There is a very strong argument for track based processing, particularly with audio and this seems to be moving away, not towards that better implementation.


Return to posts index

David Roth Weiss
Re: FCP-X timeline
on Apr 14, 2011 at 5:19:16 am

Michael,

Now, after listening to the entire presentation on video from the SuperMeet, I'm beginning to think that there were many, many things lost in translation by those of us who only received our news live, via Twitter feeds and blogs. The presenters dropped loads of hints, and made many subtle references to an entire range of things that are coming later in X that were mentioned nowhere else. And trust me, I read almost every word, by every person reporting from the event.

What I heard when watching the complete video of the "sneak peek" made me feel much more secure, and I began to think that we are in the hands of some very bright guys who really do get it, and who know exactly what we do, and who know what they're doing. I'm much more relaxed about the whole thing now, and I'm actually looking forward cutting my first project on X.

I think if you listen carefully, you'll get the idea that the new interface is going to be very flexible. I don't think you're going to find that X will suddenly prevent those of us who know what we we're doing from doing what what we need to do, from having control over the various elements in sequences.

Just remember, you heard it here...

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

POST-PRODUCTION WITHOUT THE USUAL INSANITY ™


A forum host of Creative COW's Business & Marketing and Apple Final Cut Pro forums. Formerly host of the Apple Final Cut Basics, Indie Film & Documentary, and Film History & Appreciations forums.


Return to posts index

Michael Gissing
Re: FCP-X timeline
on Apr 14, 2011 at 5:25:22 am

David, I am reacting to the screenshot that started this thread. I was actually feeling positive as well and that was without the detailed study of the presentation. There was a lot to be positive about and I know it was a limited demo with functionality of beta software and nothing about the rest of the package.

I am certainly not doom saying - far from it. There is a lot to be really pleased about but I am throwing a cautionary note about the one aspect that Eric raised about the possibility of not having hard tracks.


Return to posts index

Les Kaye
Re: FCP-X timeline
on Apr 14, 2011 at 5:32:06 am

FWIW, anything's possible - especially with Apple - but I highly doubt that they'd neglect OMF or other critical workflows necessary in a "Pro" environment - regardless of the disappearing track trick.

http://www.leskaye.net


Return to posts index

David Roth Weiss
Re: FCP-X timeline
on Apr 14, 2011 at 6:03:38 am

[Michael Gissing] "I am certainly not doom saying - far from it. There is a lot to be really pleased about but I am throwing a cautionary note about the one aspect that Eric raised about the possibility of not having hard tracks."

I understand exactly what you're concerns are, but I suspect there are going to be toggles for almost all of those things. I mean let's face it, the editor is the ultimate organizer, not the guys that write the software, and they know that. No one knows better than the editor where all the elements in a sequence need to reside, and if specifying tracks is necessary, I'm sure you'll get to make that call. The guys at Apple are bright, and they know post.

Trust me, X is going to have kinks that we're going to have to help Apple to iron out, but they know what's coming, and I assure you, they're going to be paying a lot of attention to those of us on this forum.

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

POST-PRODUCTION WITHOUT THE USUAL INSANITY ™


A forum host of Creative COW's Business & Marketing and Apple Final Cut Pro forums. Formerly host of the Apple Final Cut Basics, Indie Film & Documentary, and Film History & Appreciations forums.


Return to posts index

Michael Gissing
Re: FCP-X timeline
on Apr 14, 2011 at 6:14:48 am

[David Roth Weiss] "and I assure you, they're going to be paying a lot of attention to those of us on this forum."

If true, then all the more reason to voice concerns as well as comment on some real advances like proper audio sub frame scrubbing and no more keyframing. I noticed also the meters seem to allow for 6 output channels.

If Apple are listening, then take an old trick from audio DAWs and have small peak meters that align to each audio track. Left hand side is industry standard.


Return to posts index

David Roth Weiss
Re: FCP-X timeline
on Apr 14, 2011 at 6:24:04 am

[Michael Gissing] "f Apple are listening, then take an old trick from audio DAWs and have small peak meters that align to each audio track. Left hand side is industry standard."

I didn't say they were listening now... In fact, I'll bet their in hiding now.

Save your good ideas for June and beyond... They need us, and they know it.

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

POST-PRODUCTION WITHOUT THE USUAL INSANITY ™


A forum host of Creative COW's Business & Marketing and Apple Final Cut Pro forums. Formerly host of the Apple Final Cut Basics, Indie Film & Documentary, and Film History & Appreciations forums.


Return to posts index

craig trevithick
Re: FCP-X timeline
on Apr 14, 2011 at 2:38:38 pm

I think they've just renamed "nesting" and made it easier.

If certainly seems like they are dumbing it down. There isn't a viewer anymore, I guess so the interface can fit all on one screen.
It looks more like imovie than Final Cut.
What happened to compressor, DVD Studio Pro, and Motion?

As a FCP editor since version 1.0, I'd like them to release FCP 8 and add the 64 bit interface. Leave imovie for the consumers.


Return to posts index

Mark Suszko
Re: FCP-X timeline
on Apr 14, 2011 at 3:12:09 pm

I barely ever used the viewer for much anyway, myself.


Return to posts index

craig trevithick
Re: FCP-X timeline
on Apr 14, 2011 at 3:14:31 pm

Did you ever keyframe anything? like a filer?


Return to posts index

craig trevithick
Re: FCP-X timeline
on Apr 14, 2011 at 3:21:20 pm

Did you ever keyframe anything, like a filter or transition?
Whenever you doubleclick something in the timeline it opens in the viewer and lets you adjust it. How did you type out text?


Return to posts index

Tom Daigon
Re: FCP-X timeline
on Apr 15, 2011 at 3:18:24 am

Calm down everybody. According to informed sources elsewhere on the web ...there is a viewer. you can mark in and out, you can 3 point edit and you can turn off any new option you dont like. And if you turn most of them off you have something that looks a lot like FCP 7 so quit PMSing ;-)

Tom Daigon
Avid DS / FCP / After Effects Editor
http://www.hdshotsandcuts.com


Return to posts index

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