FORUMS: list search recent posts

Is Oliver Peters wrong?

COW Forums : Apple Final Cut Pro X Debates

<< PREVIOUS   •   VIEW ALL   •   PRINT   •   NEXT >>
Herb Sevush
Is Oliver Peters wrong?
on Oct 9, 2011 at 12:07:00 pm

IN the "FCPX or NOT?" thread, immediately below, Mark Dobson wrote this in his positive review of FCPX:

I think that for many this software will never cut the mustard. Oliver Peters has really nailed some of the issues in his FCP X road blocks blog;

http://digitalfilms.wordpress.com/2011/08/14/fcp-x-road-blocks/

Oliver wrote this article before the recent upgrade. Would any of the proselytizers care to go thru his criticisms on a point by point basis and show where he is wrong?

In addition Mark Morache, in his positive review in the same thread, wrote this:

"Presently, there is no easy way to slip the clip without moving the attached clips. I may have a couple of b-roll shots and a sound effect or a soundbite. Currently I need to slip the clip, then move each attached clip back to where it was.

Sometimes I can move the connection point to a different clip, freeing up the clip I want to slip, but not always.

So now I need to do it in two steps to slip the clip then move the attached media back.

It was a problem that didn't exist before the connected clip paradigm in FCX."


Any comments from the brethren?

Herb Sevush
Zebra Productions


Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: Is Oliver Peters wrong?
on Oct 9, 2011 at 1:18:05 pm

I havent read Mr Peters article, but as far as the slip, you have to move the clip out of the primary and leave a gap (it's one keystroke), slip, then back down (another keystroke).

Not ideal, but it's possible. It would be nice to have a modifier to slip primary clips without this work around.


Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: Is Oliver Peters wrong?
on Oct 9, 2011 at 1:30:12 pm

Just read Oliver's article. Some issues have been addressed in .1, some haven't and some have been announced for the next revision.

He's not wrong.

Jeremy


Return to posts index


Herb Sevush
Re: Is Oliver Peters wrong?
on Oct 9, 2011 at 2:03:53 pm

Which issues have not been addressed in the update and are not yet scheduled for revision?

Herb Sevush
Zebra Productions


Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: Is Oliver Peters wrong?
on Oct 9, 2011 at 3:13:12 pm

"no VTR i/o except over FireWire – and no broadcast video monitoring output.". Coming with or around the next release.

"Rolling audio edits.". Not quite sure what he means as he referrs to split edits, this are possible. If he's referring to clips not in the primary, then if you put the clips in a secondary, you can roll.

"Multiple trim points.". Yes, true. I find trimming to be really easy in FCPX, so it doesn't bother me too much.

"Multiple mono audio channels". True. The way to do this now is inefficient, but it is possible.

"Sequence timecode start". Fixed in .1

"Multicam". Announced for early 2012

"Track tool.". Roles is the beginning here. Improvements are needed.

"FCP sequence import". The official release of fcpxml should help here.

"Copy/paste/remove attributes". It's possible in FCPX, but again not very efficient and works way differently than fcp7. For instance, there's no remove effect, but you can paste a disabled effect to turn it off on the current clip.

"2.5/3D DVE.". True, not there, but.......

"Manual organization of bins and projects.". This is a touchy one. I find keyword collections to be great, some see them as rigid. He's right about timelines (FCPX projects). FCPX is simply different in this regard.

"Mixer panel.". True. No mixer.

"Timecode overlays.". True. Can roll your own tc reader but doesn't help with audio tc and multiple layers.

"Dual source-record windows.". True.

"Out-of-sync". True

"Interface response". Seems better since .1

"It’s an island". Now that fcpxml is official, we should hope to see more interchange soon, but it's an unknown known. I would say it's less of an island. Bridges/transportation lines are being built, but aren't complete.

Jeremy


Return to posts index

Herb Sevush
Re: Is Oliver Peters wrong?
on Oct 9, 2011 at 3:49:21 pm

Jeremy -

Thanks for summing that up.

Herb Sevush
Zebra Productions


Return to posts index


Jeremy Garchow
Re: Is Oliver Peters wrong?
on Oct 9, 2011 at 3:57:30 pm

No worries.


Return to posts index

Andy Neil
Re: Is Oliver Peters wrong?
on Oct 9, 2011 at 5:02:12 pm

I don't know if you consider me a prothletizer or not (I consider myself to be frank about what FCPX is missing), but I read the article yesterday and I agreed with most of it. Aside from setting TC which was addressed in the most recent update, all of his criticisms are valid. I personally relate to the inelegant way of handling embedded audio channels, copy/paste attributes, multicam, and audio mixer tool.

Manual organization of bins and projects already exists. This is the one criticism that I think falls short because I manually organize with keyword collections all the time and it works as good or better than bins in FCP 7. I also actually like having projects organized outside of the event browser too.

Perhaps where I differ from those who think FCP is dead, is that I think many if not all of these issues will be addressed. It's well-thought out criticisms like his that might stand a chance of being implemented. Many things that he talks about can be easily incorporated into the existing paradigm.

• Slipping clips without adjusting connected clips could be handled with a modifier key while using the trim tool.

• Audio Mixer tool could be implemented as a "room" or Avid-like "workspace" set up. You hit a shortcut key, and the event browser disappears. An audio mix tool and other audio tools are in it's place allowing you to mix your audio cleanly and quickly.

• Expanding audio feature should expand to include all audio tracks separately. Then you can mix them independent of each other from within the project for reference. And they can still be locked from going out of sync. Then you would only use the Break Apart Clip Items shortcut for when you actually WANT to break sync.

Andy

http://www.timesavertutorials.com


Return to posts index

Rafael Amador
Re: Is Oliver Peters wrong?
on Oct 9, 2011 at 5:17:01 pm

[Jeremy Garchow] ""It’s an island". Now that fcpxml is official, we should hope to see more interchange soon, but it's an unknown known. I would say it's less of an island. Bridges/transportation lines are being built, but aren't complete."
FCP is a classic TC based application. For FCPX TC is basically a way of identifying individual "pictures". In truth FCPX abandon the "frame concept". Stills duration is not anymore set in "frames", but in time fractions (which I guess could be a minimal factor on accuracy. haven't experimented).
If translation has been a complication with tracks/TC based application (perhaps because it haven't been a real interest on the side of the manufacturers), I understand that things could get more complicated between FCP and FCPX. Anyway, for me is hard to accept that FCPX is unable to export a basic EDL. Is like being impossible to convert a Word document in to SimpleText.

[Herb Sevush] ""Presently, there is no easy way to slip the clip without moving the attached clips. I may have a couple of b-roll shots and a sound effect or a soundbite. Currently I need to slip the clip, then move each attached clip back to where it was.

Sometimes I can move the connection point to a different clip, freeing up the clip I want to slip, but not always.

So now I need to do it in two steps to slip the clip then move the attached media back."

I think that in this thread Tom Wolsky gives the solution:
http://forums.creativecow.net/thread/344/4818#4818
rafael

http://www.nagavideo.com


Return to posts index


Mark Dobson
Re: Is Oliver Peters wrong?
on Oct 9, 2011 at 6:34:29 pm

Great question Herb,

The truth is there is no right or wrong, its a matter of consideration and choice.

Oliver Peters like many of us has developed specific workflows within FCP 7. I understand he does a lot of Feature Film editing and has developed a very structured approach to dealing with scenes, multiple takes and complex structures.

It's not possible to precisely emulate many of these in FCP X. However I've found that it's possible to find workarounds, sometimes quite convoluted, to most of the jobs I used to do in FCP 7.

One point that he makes that I agree with relates to the speed of the GUI. Opening any event, project or clip and you are also opening a filmstrip or series of filmstrips. The lag is frustrating.

Another is the limitation of the Copy/Paste/Remove Attributes function in FCP X. It's really selective in FCP 7 and also splits the Audio and Video functions. In FCP X it's all or nothing.

I know that I'm giving myself a lot of extra work, and at times stress, through using FCP X. I also know that at any stage I can simply switch back to FCP 7.

I have dipped back into FCP7 on a couple of occasions and it all feels very old fashioned and clunky, kind of square.

So for the moment I'm with FCP X and enjoying the ride.


Return to posts index

Herb Sevush
Re: Is Oliver Peters wrong?
on Oct 9, 2011 at 6:45:04 pm

"The truth is there is no right or wrong, its a matter of consideration and choice."

Absolutely

"I know that I'm giving myself a lot of extra work, and at times stress, through using FCP X. I also know that at any stage I can simply switch back to FCP 7. I have dipped back into FCP7 on a couple of occasions and it all feels very old fashioned and clunky, kind of square. So for the moment I'm with FCP X and enjoying the ride."

I very much agree that in many ways FCP7 is old fashioned and clunky.
Have you given the same consideration to any of the other NLE's out there, or just to FCPx, and if it's only FCPx that your looking at, my question is why?

Herb Sevush
Zebra Productions


Return to posts index

Mark Dobson
Re: Is Oliver Peters wrong?
on Oct 10, 2011 at 10:31:27 am

Hi Herb,

Sorry for the delay in responding - what i would call a timezone delay as I'm here in South East England.

The thread has moved on a bit since your post and now we the contributions of Oliver Peters himself which is great.

To answer your question - Have you given the same consideration to any of the other NLE's out there, or just to FCPx, and if it's only FCPx that your looking at, my question is why?

The answer is no – not in any great detail - I know what’s out there and I know the decisions that many of peers have made – mostly shifting over to Adobe Premier Pro.

I’ve been using Apple computers for 27 years now and editing on them for the last 10 years. I’ve been using FCP since Vers 3 and in some way I’ve built up a lot of trust in the brand and the thinking that goes on behind it.

The sad news of Steve Jobs death and the subsequent plethora of articles about both Apple’s business development and the philosophy behind what they do has been fascinating and has in many ways reinforced my commitment to giving FCP X a really good try out.

And the only way for me to actually assess the software is to use in the real world, on actual commercial projects with real deadlines and real expectations from the clients I work for.

In many ways the work we do is not that complex. They would in broad terms fit in with Oliver Peters first criteria of workflows he feels are viable for FCP X. Projects that are basic news packages.

The programmes are basically documentary format using interview material to provide the narrative structure together with graphic sequences to top and tail the programme and provide section / chapter sequences. With FCP7 is was able to produce all the programme components within the app. I learnt about composite modes and layoring clips and was able to produce pretty sophisticated graphic sequences and stings. Audio likewise was reasonably easy to handle through using the different layers for different functions.

My big gripe with FCP7 was the amount of rendering lockdown time, its inability to handle different formats on the same timeline without rendering, and the dreadful crashes that occurred from time to time. And basically how slow it was when asked to anything vagually complicated So FCPX addresses many of these issues. On a recent job I had 5 different formats coexisting quite happily in the same project.

For me to move to another editing system such as Premier Pro would involve a large investment in time and being a bear with a small brain I would get pretty confused if I was to start using different packages to do different jobs.

So to go back to the original question about shifting away from this new Apple software. Well I guess I still have faith in the smart thinking that has underpinned my experience with the company over the years.

If this time next year a lot of the issues about the functionality of this software have not been resolved I might well start looking elsewhere or think about a different way of making a living. Maybe one that doesn’t require electricity.

Mark Dobson
Producer and Director
Alembic TV
http://www.alembic.tv


Return to posts index


Herb Sevush
Re: Is Oliver Peters wrong?
on Oct 10, 2011 at 12:47:50 pm

"I might well start looking elsewhere or think about a different way of making a living. Maybe one that doesn’t require electricity."

I've been trying to figure out how to edit via steam for years. After all, it's mostly hot air we're dealing with.

Herb Sevush
Zebra Productions


Return to posts index

Benjamin Mullins
Re: Is Oliver Peters wrong?
on Oct 11, 2011 at 10:58:45 am

Mark Dobson
For me to move to another editing system such as Premier Pro would involve a large investment in time and being a bear with a small brain I would get pretty confused if I was to start using different packages to do different jobs.

I agree with not wanting to use different packages for different jobs (although having a broad knowledge of software is always advantageous) but as FCPX is a new NLE anyway, isn't learning Premiere Pro or Media Composer just exactly the same amount of effort as learning X? Given this, why choose X over MC or Premiere and why do you think Apple would put us in a position where we have to make this choice?



Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: Is Oliver Peters wrong?
on Oct 10, 2011 at 11:41:52 am

[Mark Dobson] "One point that he makes that I agree with relates to the speed of the GUI. Opening any event, project or clip and you are also opening a filmstrip or series of filmstrips. The lag is frustrating. "

It is mich faster than opening huge projects in FCP7 though. A couple of my current FCP7 projects are 7 minute open time. Talk about lag frustration.

[Mark Dobson] "I have dipped back into FCP7 on a couple of occasions and it all feels very old fashioned and clunky, kind of square. "

That's the funny thing. I have the same experience.


Return to posts index


Jeremy Garchow
Re: Is Oliver Peters wrong?
on Oct 10, 2011 at 11:37:34 am

[Rafael Amador] "FCP is a classic TC based application. For FCPX TC is basically a way of identifying individual "pictures". In truth FCPX abandon the "frame concept". Stills duration is not anymore set in "frames", but in time fractions (which I guess could be a minimal factor on accuracy. haven't experimented)."

I think I might know what you are referring to here. First of all, welcome to NTSC. What FCPX does right is calculate tc from what NTSC is, a time fraction. 29.97 fps is really 30000/1001 fps, so accuracy is FCPX is better than FCP Legacy. After all tc is frame by frame metadata, isn't it? All cameras calculate their tc this way, why shouldn't an NLE?

[Rafael Amador] "Anyway, for me is hard to accept that FCPX is unable to export a basic EDL. Is like being impossible to convert a Word document in to SimpleText."

Its completely different. How do you express a compound clip in an EDL? It is not a word for word translation.


Return to posts index

Herb Sevush
Re: Is Oliver Peters wrong?
on Oct 10, 2011 at 12:57:26 pm

"How do you express a compound clip in an EDL? It is not a word for word translation."

The same way you would express a complex sequence to an EDL in FCP7 - you didn't.

It was understood that you had to clean up your timeline to prepare an EDL when you needed one, and of course with FCPc (Classic) it was easy enough to do. Are you saying FCPx is more limited and can't be cleaned up for EDL prep?

Herb Sevush
Zebra Productions


Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: Is Oliver Peters wrong?
on Oct 10, 2011 at 6:02:01 pm

[Herb Sevush] "It was understood that you had to clean up your timeline to prepare an EDL when you needed one, and of course with FCPc (Classic) it was easy enough to do. Are you saying FCPx is more limited and can't be cleaned up for EDL prep?"

Not at all. It's the same process, really.

I was just going off Rafael's example of a word doc to simple text. A modern timeline to EDL does not fit that analogy, and just like you said, you don't do it without some major work first.

Jeremy


Return to posts index


Herb Sevush
Re: Is Oliver Peters wrong?
on Oct 10, 2011 at 6:10:13 pm

"I was just going off Rafael's example of a word doc to simple text. A modern timeline to EDL does not fit that analogy, and just like you said, you don't do it without some major work first."

I thought his point was that once the editor has done his prep, it should be as basic as .doc to .txt. An EDL is still a viable tool in certain situations and the fact is, alone amongst Mac NLE's, FCPx can't make one or import one (yet.)

Herb Sevush
Zebra Productions


Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: Is Oliver Peters wrong?
on Oct 10, 2011 at 6:22:14 pm

[Herb Sevush] "I thought his point was that once the editor has done his prep, it should be as basic as .doc to .txt. An EDL is still a viable tool in certain situations and the fact is, alone amongst Mac NLE's, FCPx can't make one or import one (yet.)"

Maybe I misunderstood. I apologize if I did.

Foolcut can get you to an app that will make an EDL, and that's kind of a hack made before the official FCPX language was released. I am sure the tools will come. Someone will develop it as someone will pay for it. Do you think all FCP Legacy users use EDL? Film out ones do, but how may people is that? Why would Apple waste time on an EDL exporter when there's so much more work to do first? Even a company as huge as Apple has to allocate their resources.


Return to posts index

Herb Sevush
Re: Is Oliver Peters wrong?
on Oct 10, 2011 at 6:38:16 pm

"Why would Apple waste time on an EDL exporter when there's so much more work to do first?"

That's the question isn't it? What are the priorities? Apparently EDL exports, multi-cam and video monitoring weren't, while Imovie importing and presets for Youtube were.

And broadcast editors weren't supposed to infer anything from those choices?

Herb Sevush
Zebra Productions


Return to posts index


Jeremy Garchow
Re: Is Oliver Peters wrong?
on Oct 10, 2011 at 7:18:37 pm

[Herb Sevush] "What are the priorities? Apparently EDL exports, multi-cam and video monitoring weren't, while Imovie importing and presets for Youtube were. "

The priorities right now? Probably making sure FCPX is stable and to shore up the underlying code before allowing it to be released in a high tension broadcast environment, and release APIs ro developers now that it's out in the wild. This is smart, in my opinion. Go slow, Apple always has.

[Herb Sevush] "And broadcast editors weren't supposed to infer anything from those choices?"

I don't know, were they?


Return to posts index

Bill Davis
Re: Is Oliver Peters wrong?
on Oct 10, 2011 at 7:41:40 pm

Maybe they were supposed to "infer" that we all need to keep our eyes on an information distribution structure where I suspect that in sheer numbers, more videos are posted in a week than all of Hollywood has ever produced in it's lifetime?

YouTube (and Vimeo, et al) are ascendent. Movie theaters, not so much. In fact, you can find virtually empty cinemas in every major city every day. I bet my nearly 19 year old son and his girlfriend watch five times the movies via download and RedBox then they see in a traditional theatre in a normal year.

Trends matter.

And I think "publish to YouTube" is going to prove to be a WAY smarter top tier feature in an NLE Software package than is "export stems for audio sweetening" - if one can get over the "pro" verses "amateur" ego angst that rides along with much of this.

Personally, I want BOTH features. Increasingly.

FWIW.

"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

Herb Sevush
Re: Is Oliver Peters wrong?
on Oct 10, 2011 at 8:06:33 pm

"I bet my nearly 19 year old son and his girlfriend watch five times the movies via download and RedBox then they see in a traditional theatre in a normal year."

If the movies hadn't first opened in a theater they never would have heard about them or wanted to download them. There is as yet no substitute for the legitimacy of a theatrical or broadcast (including cable station)presentation. You need to spend some serious money to overcome the noise of a million cat videos on YouTube. My guess is those movies your son watched used EDLs, OMFs and XMLs up the kazoo. In it's present form FCPx couldn't cut them.

I wouldn't count on the death of theatrical presentations just yet, there is still something about watching a movie in the dark alone and yet together with an audience. Avatar doesn't make a billion dollars as a vimeo feature.

Herb Sevush
Zebra Productions


Return to posts index

Rafael Amador
Re: Is Oliver Peters wrong?
on Oct 11, 2011 at 9:37:51 am

[Jeremy Garchow] "I think I might know what you are referring to here. First of all, welcome to NTSC. What FCPX does right is calculate tc from what NTSC is, a time fraction. 29.97 fps is really 30000/1001 fps, so accuracy is FCPX is better than FCP Legac"
So now you need to take the calculator?
That makes no sense unless you go to a free Time-base agnostic system.
The day that you will be able to shot 73fps with your camera, you will need that kind of calculations.
If NTSC timing starts to be a problem in 2.011 we are going well.
Is that difficult for FCPX understand what is a frame?

[Jeremy Garchow] " After all tc is frame by frame metadata, isn't it? All cameras calculate their tc this way, why shouldn't an NLE?"
That's really funny
TC (LTC and VTC ) exists before PCs and before somebody invented the word Metadata.
LTC is a sophisticated audio track, while VITC is part of the very video signal.
Apple is creating a video-agnostic application, but lets don't change the reality and lets don't confuse people. That manufacturers adapts the terminology and concepts for marketing purposes is to understand. That skilled professionals accept it or defend it, not.

[Jeremy Garchow] "Its completely different. How do you express a compound clip in an EDL? It is not a word for word translation."
What a heck is "compound clip"?
Is it something very different than a "nest"?
Contains something different that pictures in a certain order?
Of course an EDL wouldn't be the way, but something more sophisticated.
The translator of course is possible. The price, probably more than the very FCPX, because will be left to third part developers.
rafael

http://www.nagavideo.com


Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: Is Oliver Peters wrong?
on Oct 11, 2011 at 12:27:40 pm

[Rafael Amador] "So now you need to take the calculator?
That makes no sense unless you go to a free Time-base agnostic system.
The day that you will be able to shot 73fps with your camera, you will need that kind of calculations.
If NTSC timing starts to be a problem in 2.011 we are going well.
Is that difficult for FCPX understand what is a frame?"


Rafa, I understand your pissed, brother. I get it. Apple let you down in some way.

What you are saying here isn't making any sense. FCPX calculates time better than FCP7, and all this is invisible to the user. It does understand frames. You work in PAL which are whole frames. It's all good. For us NTSC shlubs, FCPX represents better accuracy. To me, there's nothing wrong with that. I will find the post about how thus is done later.

[Rafael Amador] "TC (LTC and VTC ) exists before PCs and before somebody invented the word Metadata."

So, I'm wrong? Tc isn't data about data? Because tc can be carried over analog audio doesn't mean it's data? Metadata didn't exist before the PC? A pie chart is metadata. I dint think I am overstepping any bounds here.

[Rafael Amador] "Apple is creating a video-agnostic application, but lets don't change the reality and lets don't confuse people. That manufacturers adapts the terminology and concepts for marketing purposes is to understand. That skilled professionals accept it or defend it, not. "

Can you explain what you mean here? Video agnostic? Manufacturers?

[Rafael Amador] "What a heck is "compound clip"?
Is it something very different than a "nest"?
Contains something different that pictures in a certain order?"


No, they are similar. Cant have nests in EDLs either. Do you use EDLs and how?

[Rafael Amador] "The translator of course is possible. The price, probably more than the very FCPX, because will be left to third part developers."

Would you pay for it if you needed it?


Return to posts index

Rafael Amador
@ Jeremy
on Oct 13, 2011 at 3:28:44 am

[Jeremy Garchow] "Rafa, I understand your pissed, brother. I get it. Apple let you down in some way.
"

Yes Jeremy. Very pissed.
You would be pissed if Apple had thrown to the toilet years of your savings.
To buy my ioHD and my Sapphire and Re-Vision plugins, in a place where everything costs double and where wages are 10 times lower than where you are, has been really hard. I've got it only sacrificing holidays, or the kayak I want to buy since years (I have the mekong 200 meters from my house) or driving second hands cars (here we pay 100% taxes on cars. The best credit I could get here is something like a 19%, if could put a house as warranty. Here not exist mortgages). Not everybody lives around Cupertino.

I've to mention that I don't edit since one year, and I don't know if I'll do it in the future (may be this is why I've been lately so picky in the forum -and probably out :-), so, NLEs are not my main concern.
But I'm pissed by the absolute disrespect of Apple to thousand of people like me all around the world.

I'm pissed also, because Apple NOW release information that have been holding for years just to discredit FCP in front of FCPX:
WHITE PAPERS FCPX for FCP Editors Pg 20: Export QT Movie is 8b ( I guess means QT Conversion). I wanted that statement few years ago.

But in the end i'm pissed because the could have done an really AWESOME application with best of both, but, just to be different, they decided to eliminated a fashion of editing that works, and will work forever because is NATURAL. And a board that allows to have a full picture at once.

Rafael.

PS: I add the next considerations without any intention of further discussions.
I'd rather have some beers with you :-)

[Jeremy Garchow] "[Rafael Amador] "So now you need to take the calculator?
That makes no sense unless you go to a free Time-base agnostic system.
The day that you will be able to shot 73fps with your camera, you will need that kind of calculations.
If NTSC timing starts to be a problem in 2.011 we are going well.
Is that difficult for FCPX understand what is a frame?"

What you are saying here isn't making any sense. FCPX calculates time better than FCP7, and all this is invisible to the user. It does understand frames. You work in PAL which are whole frames. It's all good. For us NTSC shlubs, FCPX represents better accuracy. To me, there's nothing wrong with that. I will find the post about how thus is done later."


I understand quite well the timing problems of NTSC (you can't understand PAL without passing first by NTSC).

FCP has had only problems to mix video standards and to identify files Time bases but FCP never had any problem to manage any time-base. Even less with stills, that are has not any kind of Time-base. in years around the forum i've never heard "FC is making my stills shorter, or longer".
Sincerely, I can't understand why FCPX can't calculate the duration of ONE FRAME (the most basic concept of filming: One photogram) up to Project settings, so you can set a "3 frames duration" and FCPX does the rest.
Is difficult for FCPX to look at the project setting and calculate the frames duration by him self?

You talk about more precision, so can you tell me how to set 1 FRAME DURATION(1/ (30.000/1001) = 0,33366..) for your stills, when you can set just Seconds with 2 fractions (x,xx)?
What happens if you set "Still Duration: 0,04" (bit longer than a frame in NTSC)?
Will FCPX write a bit of the still on top of the next frame?
And if you set the still duration: 0,02?
Will FCPX write just 2/3 of the frame?

[Jeremy Garchow] "[Rafael Amador] "TC (LTC and VTC ) exists before PCs and before somebody invented the word Metadata."

So, I'm wrong? Tc isn't data about data? Because tc can be carried over analog audio doesn't mean it's data? Metadata didn't exist before the PC? A pie chart is metadata. I dint think I am overstepping any bounds here."


That's the point. You see, you consider VIDEO as just DATA. I can't.
I can consider video as an electric signal (old definition: 1V peak to peak), or as a piece of a story to be told, but not as data.
I can't make that abstraction. I'm not

The LTC not only can be carried over analog audio; is originally an analog audio track.
TC is not data about data but a clock signal with some important features (OK, meaningless today) beside the HH/MM/SS/FF info.
TC wasn't developed for NLE, but for synchronizing VTR (which at the time used a crappy CTL). TC wasn't designed for editing precision.
I don't know if you ever have edited with something like I"C or U-matic or you've ever heard of the so called "Color Framing" that made life of PAL editors way harder than those in NTSC. Before Betacam, you (NTSC) had just a 50% chances of cutting right in the frames you wanted, while in PAL we had only a 25% accuracy due to the Chroma Phase.
NLE (analog) was an obvious application.
The only think you could consider kind of Metadata on TC, where the "User Bits".

[Jeremy Garchow] "[Rafael Amador] "The translator of course is possible. The price, probably more than the very FCPX, because will be left to third part developers."
Would you pay for it if you needed it?"

Sure, I'd pay it for if I'd really needed it, although my experience with translators has been ver disappointing.
AutomatickDuck came bundled when I bought Combustion3 years ago (AutoDesks let us down too) and the truth is that never worked.
That was in 2005 and I guess that now works, but what I may do in AE or Combustion is not that complicated to justify 600 bucks.
I've been sending things to Shake or using "PopCorn Island" to pass things to AE.
But was not really necessary for the kind of work I do, so paying 600 bucks

http://www.nagavideo.com


Return to posts index

Paul Dickin
Re: @ Jeremy
on Oct 13, 2011 at 11:08:22 am

[Rafael Amador] "I've to mention that I don't edit since one year, and I don't know if I'll do it in the future (may be this is why I've been lately so picky in the forum -and probably out :-), so, NLEs are not my main concern."
Hi Rafa
The best thing to be said about a mid-life crisis, whether from internal or external circumstances, is that it is just that - mid-life. Life goes on... :-)
/GlassHalfFull mode

It is the job of an GUI to present complex mathematical data in a user-friendly way - 1 frame at a time if its rasterised video, and 1 pixel etc..
But because of the need to have sub-frame/sub-pixel accuracy the GUI needs to hide the 1.000000000 nature of one video frame, whilst letting me make a sample-level audio edit at 1.123456769 or whatever.
(Being of the same mind as Rafa means I have no off-the-top-of-my-head notion of how many significant digits I need to specify an audio sample accurately - that's the GUI's job...)

The heart of FCP legacy's (=QT's) media management problems came from its treatment of time-code exactly the same as linear tape's control track counter methodology. Only the first frame seemed to have been t/c stamped, and then an offset counter for the rest of the clip.

For that reason FCP legacy (+QT) had to go. Whether FCPX (AVFoundation) is any better I don't know...

Its unfortunate that at this time of revolutionary change in technical methodologies that Apple's CEO had other things dictating the need to move things along (too) fast :-(

[Rafael Amador] "...so, NLEs are not my main concern."
Neither were they for Steve. :-(


Are Lao Nagas the same as the ones in NE India?
I fell in love with Manipur on a visit earlier this year - might try to go a bit further sometime to buy you that beer... :-)



Return to posts index

Rafael Amador
Re: @ Paul Dickin
on Oct 14, 2011 at 5:13:15 pm

[Paul Dickin] "It is the job of an GUI to present complex mathematical data in a user-friendly way - 1 frame at a time if its rasterised video, and 1 pixel etc..
But because of the need to have sub-frame/sub-pixel accuracy the GUI needs to hide the 1.000000000 nature of one video frame, whilst letting me make a sample-level audio edit at 1.123456769 or whatever.
(Being of the same mind as Rafa means I have no off-the-top-of-my-head notion of how many significant digits I need to specify an audio sample accurately - that's the GUI's job...)"


I'm not questioning the way FCPX manage time. I question how the GUI manage what is a "1 frame duration" and specifically in something where is not involved any Time base (stills). The Project time base dictates the Frame duration.
High precision is needed in "video signal managing" (video processing, effects, color), but on timing you can't go (you don't need) further than a "1 frame" (well 1 field).
Audio doesn't need any Time-base. His very Sample rate is the best time-base and allows a "1s/48.000" accuracy on editing.
We know how buggy has been (is) FCP, assigning the default "Sequence Preset" to any imported audio file
(http://library.creativecow.net/lyon_matt/fixing-fcp-assets/1)

[Paul Dickin] "The best thing to be said about a mid-life crisis, whether from internal or external circumstances, is that it is just that - mid-life. Life goes on... :-)
/GlassHalfFull mode"

I wish I'll be in my "mid-life", but I'm barely 6/8 years from retirement. Sure, that's a factor when i consider getting in deep with FCPX, but not the main. I work alone (fired my last assistant 3 years ago) and I do everything from shooting to delivery (scripting, Color grading, commercial and driving too). I have always new things to learn: Filming, lighting, color Grading (I want to buy me a PANA AF-100 now. Cine-like; very different of what I'm used) learning a new NLE makes no much sense for me. I would take the challenge (there are things in FCPX that I like badly) if I'd think that was of any help, but starting by the fact that I can't get tied to a computer/storage system, FCPX is not an option.
rafael
PS: The Indian Nagas are an ethnic group (I'll love to visit Nagaland), while in Laos they refers to some legendary giant flying snakes living in the Mekong. here they are convinced they exist :-)

http://www.nagavideo.com


Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: @ Jeremy
on Oct 13, 2011 at 5:22:56 pm

[Rafael Amador] "You would be pissed if Apple had thrown to the toilet years of your savings."

Yes.

[Rafael Amador] "To buy my ioHD and my Sapphire and Re-Vision plugins, in a place where everything costs double and where wages are 10 times lower than where you are, has been really hard. I've got it only sacrificing holidays, or the kayak I want to buy since years (I have the mekong 200 meters from my house) or driving second hands cars (here we pay 100% taxes on cars. The best credit I could get here is something like a 19%, if could put a house as warranty. Here not exist mortgages). Not everybody lives around Cupertino."

Absolutely. I am not sure if those plugins will rewrite themselves for FCPX, but I bet they will. What do you use out of the revision offerings?

[Rafael Amador] "I'm pissed also, because Apple NOW release information that have been holding for years just to discredit FCP in front of FCPX:
WHITE PAPERS FCPX for FCP Editors Pg 20: Export QT Movie is 8b ( I guess means QT Conversion). I wanted that statement few years ago."


This has been known, though for a long time. It's really easy to test.

[Rafael Amador] "FCP has had only problems to mix video standards and to identify files Time bases but FCP never had any problem to manage any time-base. "

I find this to not be true. FCP Legacy improperly tagged frame rates all the time on audio files (even ones with tc) causing major sync issues. It said you need a frame rate of 23.98, but really 23.976 is needed, and that causes issues as well. X intends to shore up that problem. It rounds to the frame for display (as do cameras) but the timing is way more accurate. This is good. The old method started with a tc number, then did the math in frames, which is less accurate and not as good. Here's a discussion on it:

http://forums.creativecow.net/thread/335/16076

[Rafael Amador] "Will FCPX write a bit of the still on top of the next frame?
And if you set the still duration: 0,02?
Will FCPX write just 2/3 of the frame?"


How do you think cameras do this? Do you think they record fractional frames? No. They just playback at a fractional frame rate, but the whole frames are there. FCPX also calculates times vs frames this way.

[Rafael Amador] "That's the point. You see, you consider VIDEO as just DATA. I can't.
I can consider video as an electric signal (old definition: 1V peak to peak), or as a piece of a story to be told, but not as data.
I can't make that abstraction. I'm not "


Well, I don't know really what to say here. In a digital world everything is data, even the video "signal". It's packed, sent and unpacked via 1.5 or 3 Gbps SDI. By it's very nature, it's a data stream, and a very fast one. TC is now a digital signal with rp188. It's a data track. Tapeless formats are all data. I think FCPX approaches this concept very well. I like it, maybe some don't. It is very rare that we have just one camera on a shoot anymore, it's very often three, if not four. Cameras have become specialized tools as well, certain job, certain tool. FCPX helps to combine all of this easily, then manage it easily, and I am very grateful for this.

[Rafael Amador] " don't know if you ever have edited with something like I"C or U-matic or you've ever heard of the so called "Color Framing" that made life of PAL editors way harder than those in NTSC. Before Betacam, you (NTSC) had just a 50% chances of cutting right in the frames you wanted, while in PAL we had only a 25% accuracy due to the Chroma Phase.
NLE (analog) was an obvious application.
The only think you could consider kind of Metadata on TC, where the "User Bits"."


And this relationship has evolved in digital transmission. TC is still used to sync, but it might not just be VTRs, but all recording devices. Timing/sync is of course still very crucial, and it also offers data (information) about the video and audio to a human that is legible and usable to help guide the edit process.

[Rafael Amador] "That was in 2005 and I guess that now works, but what I may do in AE or Combustion is not that complicated to justify 600 bucks.
I've been sending things to Shake or using "PopCorn Island" to pass things to AE.
But was not really necessary for the kind of work I do, so paying 600 bucks"


I've used Autoduck AE Import for a very long time. It has always worked remarkably well. On the X side and from initial tests, Foolcut works well and is 1/4 of the price of the Legacy equivalent. It takes in to account almost all of FCPXs new methodology, and this was before there was a proper language released. This to me, bodes well for translation in the future. CatDV already has a FCP7 to FCPX translation in place, it's not perfect, but translation rarely is.

Jeremy


Return to posts index

Rafael Amador
Re: @ Jeremy
on Oct 14, 2011 at 5:15:38 pm

[Jeremy Garchow] "What do you use out of the revision offerings?"
I have FieldsKit and RelSmart Motion Blur.
I was waiting for Twixtor to be 10b.
Another great plugin gone is NeatVideo, although they have a discount for PP migrants.
I passed from top analog system to a MB.667 (TiBook. Still working!!) and a SONY handycam (DV), so for me trying to extract the best of those short means has been almost an obsession.
I could afford spend a lot of time learning and then applying (here clients don't push you, but the opposite :-) those long, boring processes (Chroma smoothing, de-noising, rendering to 10b -on short performance machines- and CC) and techniques (avoiding re-compressions and color field changing) but in the end all that effort really paid back. For years I've been getting the best jobs around because the picture from my DVcam looked better than any other in the country (nothing better than a PD-170 around till I bought my EX-1).

[Jeremy Garchow] "[Rafael Amador] "I'm pissed also, because Apple NOW release information that have been holding for years just to discredit FCP in front of FCPX:
WHITE PAPERS FCPX for FCP Editors Pg 20: Export QT Movie is 8b ( I guess means QT Conversion). I wanted that statement few years ago."
This has been known, though for a long time. It's really easy to test."

Yes, WE new and we avoided QTConversion, but Apple has never stated that in any user manual or so. It may be in some deeper technical publication, but for years they have been thousands of questions (at least in the COW), and Apple kept the mouth shut.
For years Apple kept the mouth shut about too many issues (10b rendering when broken, gamma issues,..).
(Few years ago I was very pissed when people of Adobe, started to pop in the FC forum Sorry Dennis Radeke). I thought those guys went there just to sell PP; but now I really appreciate that somebody came down to the arena . In the end they were compelled to answer questions)

[Jeremy Garchow] "[Rafael Amador] "FCP has had only problems to mix video standards and to identify files Time bases but FCP never had any problem to manage any time-base. "

I find this to not be true. FCP Legacy improperly tagged frame rates all the time on audio files (even ones with tc) causing major sync issues. It said you need a frame rate of 23.98, but really 23.976 is needed, and that causes issues as well. X intends to shore up that problem. It rounds to the frame for display (as do cameras) but the timing is way more accurate. This is good. The old method started with a tc number, then did the math in frames, which is less accurate and not as good. Here's a discussion on it:

http://forums.creativecow.net/thread/335/16076"


You are right Jeremy, but all that was due to a poor Apple job. Proper TC tagging was a mess, so was Interlacing.
But I'm with you that we have to move on. TC was implemented 30 years and now is limiting.
I was complaining just about the "Still frame duration" setting in FCPX. Even if FCPX uses a different method for timing, the GUI could have been easily set in Frames. This would make things easier for users. In he end we are working with few standards (23.976/24/25/29.97/30).
FCPX doen't needs a big data-base to keep in mind the effective duration of "1 frame" in the different standards, and multiply that value by a certain number of frames.
rafa

http://www.nagavideo.com


Return to posts index

Herb Sevush
Re: Is Oliver Peters wrong?
on Oct 9, 2011 at 6:37:26 pm

"Perhaps where I differ from those who think FCP is dead, is that I think many if not all of these issues will be addressed."

There are any number of features I waited 7 years for FCP7 to fix and it never happened. What makes you think that your list of fixes won't meet a similar fate. And if they don't get fixed, will FCPX still be useful in your workflow?

Herb Sevush
Zebra Productions


Return to posts index

Andy Neil
Re: Is Oliver Peters wrong?
on Oct 9, 2011 at 7:08:28 pm

[Herb Sevush] "What makes you think that your list of fixes won't meet a similar fate."

Oh various reasons. Mostly because fixing the issues listed in that article don't seem to require a major change to how the program foundation is laid out. Maybe I'm just a "glass half-full" kinda guy.

I mentioned how I would institute fixes from a user standpoint while still maintaining the core manner in which FCPX works (aside from creating a "rooms" feature where you could perform more in-depth audio and color correction editing).

I've used FCP from the 1st version and I've been eye witness to it's growth. Now FCPX is Apple's choice for heading into the foreseeable future. I think they're listening to how FCPX is being used, and where the real workflow problems are. I also don't think they've any plans to voluntarily concede the pro market. Particularly because as that line between pro and amateur gets further blurred, editors of all stripes will be wanting the same things out of their software.

Andy

http://www.timesavertutorials.com


Return to posts index

Ben Scott
Re: Is Oliver Peters wrong?
on Oct 9, 2011 at 7:17:14 pm

i think the article by oliver peters is good but slightly cynical

like many people have said in above comments this has been addressed or is a different consideration in FCPX

I really like this thread and think people should be turned on to it as it is explaining what is good and objectively what isnt quite working

talking about version the new upgrade end sept/beg oct 2011

personally I think the audio needs some sort of scratch track, somewhere a filter like PPMULATOR or giniometer can be added so you can watch the output of everything from the mix

in fact why not proper bussing of tracks its what is needed

the installation of motion plugins needs to be better explained and some sort of installer needs to be provided so its easier for the less techie to install

trimming is perfect when using the dragging method, frankly keyboard based it isnt, this needs to be fixed and priorities on the keyboard shortcuts need to be readjusted

what Oliver I think missed was the ganging back to original edit, this is essential for a reconform

the copy and paste feature is so lame it needs to be granular like aperture or at least FCP7, i wasted an hour trying to fix audio levels I had mixed as they were overwritten when copy/paste coloru correction. the whole lock sound /or/ lock picture idea no longer works but this is dangerous when doing finishing

the colour balance in "color" board is lame, give us the 3 way and curves then this is a viable solution, plus some form of tracker while you are at it

mixer needs to be there but I would say more important is the support for control surfaces and midi

out of sync is a joke, this is a priority

grouping of keyword collections is something I think is needed the browsing of 100 keywords isnt working

also roles are great, as are colour corrections, please sort these out so that these are loaded in a way that works. it would be nice to delete roles and have sets of roles that can be loaded in/out.

also I would like to challenge if there is rich metadata support, unless there is something like fcp server support with custom translations of metadata then this is limited.
also why no metadata out, why the dumn export NLEs have had for so long, its there, why not aggregate to rss feeds etc, its a basic function that is essential to rich media

also grading is really let down by the fact that there is no way to copy paste effects properly, this will make fcpx drag behind and not work for broadcast work and is a major priority

the I/o thing makes it embarrassing when discussing when discussing with clients e.g. its not ready

audio rolls dont work, also why the full overlap feature on transitions when what is needed is something like that on audio so you can get the storyline function to work

for tracks with visuals I have to disagree with everyone that misses in fcpx it is addressed and is more eloquently done

FCP import/export XML is a wait and see, I think there is enough proof of concept this is going to be much more rich than in the past, plus I think you will see more web based programmers picking this up

would be very nice to have some form of automated QC built in to fcpx, this is a killer feature that would make this a system over other NLEs. thinking applescript or watchers.

I can see FCPX integrating with some output VTR tools for versioning etc, this is essential for it to be used. if there is the same ease of use as AVid DS for output then this is a killer tool

the almost nodal timeline should get deeper in its nodal effects system, I think send to motion is sorely needed as is apple buying up Conduit plugin. please do!!!!


I find overall that FCPX is too mouse/touch surface driven, this needs to be addressed with keyboard priorities or control surfaces for this software to be taken seriously

but lastly and most of all
I think FCPX kicks ass big time, it is the future and when people see what it actually brings (and not be cynics) they will be bowled over. It is going to be the next indesign to the quark, wait and see.


Return to posts index

Herb Sevush
Re: Is Oliver Peters wrong?
on Oct 10, 2011 at 2:52:50 am

Ben -

Thanks for the input. I have a few questions?

"in fact why not proper bussing of tracks its what is needed"

Hoe can you bus tracks when their are no tracks?


"also grading is really let down by the fact that there is no way to copy paste effects properly, this will make fcpx drag behind and not work for broadcast work and is a major priority

out of sync is a joke, this is a priority"


Am I correct in thinking these are the 2 biggest things you need fixed?

Herb Sevush
Zebra Productions


Return to posts index

Ben Scott
Re: Is Oliver Peters wrong?
on Oct 11, 2011 at 8:56:35 am

no need for bussing for tracks what I am talking about is grouping of elements so you can put a set of meters that arent VU meters on the output of a "role" or total final mix
and for such a crucial thing the compound clip solution is a fudge and gets in the way

the copy paste thing makes the software unusable for onlining material, it needs granualarity badly. In fact this is the killer feature of FCP7 and other apple software like aperture, try doing it on an Avid its a pain

seeing clips in sync is really important it shouldnt be the case that breaking apart audio and visuals causes such problems, the only fix I have was to match frame back to source clip in event browser


Return to posts index

David Roth Weiss
Re: Is Oliver Peters wrong?
on Oct 9, 2011 at 7:50:41 pm

[Herb Sevush] "There are any number of features I waited 7 years for FCP7 to fix and it never happened. What makes you think that your list of fixes won't meet a similar fate. And if they don't get fixed, will FCPX still be useful in your workflow?"

Just yesterday I was helping someone out on the FCP Forum who was looking for, and not finding, the DVCPro50 codec, which as you all know has been listed in every version of FCP as "DV50," for at the last five or six years.

How hard would it have been for the Apple software developers to change that appropriately?

Is there any wonder why many here are just a tad skeptical the same developers will ever get around to fixing X properly?

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

Don't miss my new Creative Cow Podcast: Bringing "The Whale" to the Big Screen:
http://library.creativecow.net/weiss_roth_david/Podcast-Series-2-MikeParfit...

POST-PRODUCTION WITHOUT THE USUAL INSANITY ™


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


Return to posts index

Herb Sevush
Re: Is Oliver Peters wrong?
on Oct 9, 2011 at 8:05:47 pm

My FCP7 wish list was headed by 2 things - the ability to properly and easily digitize over time code breaks and the ability to mute video tracks without erasing all renders. You of all people would recognize these as features we had in *edit 10 years ago. Waited 7 years for it to happen in FCP - never happened; along with a less crucial list that goes on for awhile.

Being positive is a good thing, but I go by the only adage - hope for the best, expect the worst.

Herb Sevush
Zebra Productions


Return to posts index

Andy Neil
Re: Is Oliver Peters wrong?
on Oct 9, 2011 at 8:41:49 pm

[Herb Sevush] "My FCP7 wish list was headed by 2 things - the ability to properly and easily digitize over time code breaks and the ability to mute video tracks without erasing all renders."

Well, I agree with point about renders (ironically, this works in FCPX), but Capture Now has been around the whole time for capturing across timecode breaks. I'm not sure what you expected.

Andy

http://www.timesavertutorials.com


Return to posts index

Herb Sevush
Re: Is Oliver Peters wrong?
on Oct 9, 2011 at 9:44:05 pm

Capture now is an absolute and total piece of s**t. If you've never captured with either Avid or *edit or any other NLE that can capture, and then batch re-capture over time code breaks seamlessly, with no waste of time, no hunting for in points, no 50/50 chance of making a corrupted clip, then you have my condolences. Let me assure you, FCP is the absolute worst program I've ever used for this purpose. I envy Avid users this ability, if no other.

Herb Sevush
Zebra Productions


Return to posts index

Oliver Peters
Re: Is Oliver Peters wrong?
on Oct 9, 2011 at 10:19:32 pm

Hi,

I'm glad the post sparked a bit of discussion. I'm not going to comment on the individual issues here, but thanks for the various summations. That post was written to point out the issues that I feel are impediments to adopting FCP X for complex projects and at professional post facilities. I just did a free, live webinar last week on the same topic, which can be purchased here:

http://www.filmmakingwebinars.com/on-demand/fcp-x-road-blocks/

I do have the update and am quite familiar with it, as well as what Apple has publicly announced for early 2012. I don't view this as much of an update, but rather a fix that put back in those items that probably didn't work or weren't finished for the June launch. If anything, this update and the coming items confirm to me that Apple is designing an NLE that will probably never integrate most of the features people want brought back from FCP 7. For better or worse, they have simply decided to change direction. Unfortunately, I feel it's an interface that boxes both Apple and the user into a very limited corner. I suppose the simplistic concepts of cuts and tracks were only confusing for software engineers ;-)

I hardly view my point-of-view as cynical, simply because I don't gush over everything Apple does. FCP "classic" has been my bread-and-butter NLE for many years and I would have loved to see something that would have been a mash-up between FCP 7 and FCP X. My choices are dictated by my clients, so I certainly stay up to speed with FCP X. I just feel that for every speed advancement, there are numerous efficiency reductions in the design of the software.

I view every project I have done since June from the angle of how would this be done under FCP X. In almost every instance, it has some up lacking. Granted, these are large projects, like a multi-commercial campaign or an indie feature film. YMMV! But if my clients go there, so will I. So far they are sticking with FCP 7 and contemplating Premiere Pro or Media Composer as their next NLE.

Cheers,
Oliver

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


Return to posts index

Ken Zukin
Re: Is Oliver Peters wrong?
on Oct 9, 2011 at 11:19:48 pm

Oliver's post here says it all -- to expect that Apple will somehow transform FCP into a workable tool is just tilting at windmills.

It's been a good run. I loyally supported Apple for a decade -- they profited from my involvement -- I used their software (and hardware) to generate a nice revenue source.

Time to move on -- wish it wasn't so -- but it is. Now if only I had some assurance that they will continue to make and support their desktop machines.


Return to posts index

Herb Sevush
Re: Is Oliver Peters wrong?
on Oct 10, 2011 at 12:11:07 am

Ken -

I'm not faulting you on this, but the point of this thread was NOT to bash FCPx. I literally wanted to hear from those editors who like and use FCPx and find out what they thought of Oliver's list.

It doesn't surprise me that editors who have already decided not to use FCPx will agree with Oliver's post, but I would like to learn from those editors who are using it everyday if they agree with any of the issues that Oliver brings up; and if so how do they work around these issues, what they think the future will bring, and whether or not they think these issues are very important to their workflow and on how they decide on which NLE to use.

I'll be very happy to start a separate bashing thread and I'll invite you and Aindreas to start it off.

Herb Sevush
Zebra Productions


Return to posts index

Oliver Peters
Re: Is Oliver Peters wrong?
on Oct 10, 2011 at 12:32:43 am

Herb,

A bit more in your intended spirit than maybe my earlier post... I'd like to say that there seem to be four project types/workflows/uses in which FCP X is solid. As such, I still view it as a viable tool in the toolkit, even if it isn't your main NLE.

1. Projects that are basic news packages. Meaning that they consist of a soundbite/SOT/VO track (the "radio edit" or A-Roll - FCP X's primary storyline), with B-Roll cutaways to bridge the jumps (connected clips). This is the type of package that Apple has used in its demos and plays to FCP X's strong points.

2. Projects made of moves on stills with music. The "Ken Burns" style project. The built in "Ken Burns" mode makes this much easier than any other NLE and certainly than FCP 7.

3. Using FCP X to prep HDSLR jobs. For example, import native H264 files from a 5D, stabilize, clean or sync audio and do initial color balance. You could use FCP X to build a selects reel and than export that as a self-contained movie to use in another NLE if you prefer. The advantage is no up-front transcoding.

4. FCP X could be a go-to Mac editor for bigger-than HD jobs. For instance RED 4K files. Although there is no native RED RAW support, right now, you could transcode to 4K ProRes using Redcine-X and then import and cut in FCP X. The same is possible in Premiere Pro and soon hopefully, Media Composer. Performance-wise FCP X may have the edge. I haven't tested a direct comparison yet.

BTW - the chromakeyer in Motion 5 is one of the better tools on the market.

- Oliver

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


Return to posts index

Oliver Peters
Re: Is Oliver Peters wrong?
on Oct 10, 2011 at 1:04:14 am

One more thing to think about that I'll toss out here. This doesn't get mentioned a lot in all the pro-con threads, but that is the fundamental change Apple has made to how FCP X interacts with projects. In the case of FCP 1-7, you had many, individual project files that contained all your edit decisions. Under FCP X, the entire system is one big project file.

FCP X "Projects" are equivalent to FCP 7 "sequences". FCP X has basically absorbed some of the architecture of Final Cut Server. The upside of this is that ALL MEDIA and ALL EDITS are available to you at once. The downside is that this gets unwieldy and at the moment, there is no provision to hide the things you don't want to show up. More or less, ProApps decided to copy the Avid method, but still leave some of the files exposed at the OS level.

The solution is to manually move Events and Projects out of their folders at the Finder level or to use an app like the one Assisted Editing has created. In my own experience, FCP X runs more smoothly with fewer Events and Projects, so it's a good idea to get into a habit of moving everything OUT of the normal folders (use an "inactive" folder, for example) and then only move in the files for a production you are actively working on. As such FCP X is more of a direct extension of the OS itself than FCP 1-7. However, this also means that changes you make are global. For example, creating new "roles" means these additions are there for EVERY production from then on. So think before you make any changes. For instance, you may want to create a Role for VO, but not Joe's VO.

- Oliver

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


Return to posts index

Herb Sevush
Re: Is Oliver Peters wrong?
on Oct 10, 2011 at 3:10:27 am

Oliver -

Thanks for all your comments, and especially for the original article that started this thread.

I think the time has come for a thread like this. I think it is important to know what are the limitations and problems faced by editors who like and use FCPx in order to properly evaluate it.

Every NLE has it's plus and minuses, even to it's most enthusiastic users, and getting a sense of where the problems lie is important to anyone trying to evaluate it. It's one thing to hear about pitfalls from those who don't like it, and that information is valuable, but the criticism from those who do like it and use it is, if anything, more necessary when trying to gauge it. Seeing how Apple addresses those issues in upcoming releases will be a crucial part of that process.

Herb Sevush
Zebra Productions


Return to posts index

Oliver Peters
Re: Is Oliver Peters wrong?
on Oct 10, 2011 at 11:49:35 am

[Herb Sevush] " I think it is important to know what are the limitations and problems faced by editors who like and use FCPx in order to properly evaluate it. "

Of course, now that Apple offers a free trial, you can also download and evaluate at no charge.

Oliver

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


Return to posts index

Herb Sevush
Re: Is Oliver Peters wrong?
on Oct 10, 2011 at 1:05:46 pm

I'm a multi-cam editor at least 90% of the time, so trying out the current FCPx is pointless for me.

Because the nature of multi-cam lends itself so well to metadata, and because of the excellence of the FCPc multi-cam feature I have high expectations for the next FCPx update. If it lives up to my expectations I then have to figure if dealing with the rest of X's behavior will make it worth the effort. That's my reason for starting this thread, to see if there are any other dealbreaker's out there, beyond the basic magnetic timeline stuff.

Herb Sevush
Zebra Productions


Return to posts index

Steve Connor
Re: Is Oliver Peters wrong?
on Oct 10, 2011 at 4:05:01 pm

[Herb Sevush] "Oliver -

Thanks for all your comments, and especially for the original article that started this thread.

I think the time has come for a thread like this. I think it is important to know what are the limitations and problems faced by editors who like and use FCPx in order to properly evaluate it.

Every NLE has it's plus and minuses, even to it's most enthusiastic users, and getting a sense of where the problems lie is important to anyone trying to evaluate it. It's one thing to hear about pitfalls from those who don't like it, and that information is valuable, but the criticism from those who do like it and use it is, if anything, more necessary when trying to gauge it. Seeing how Apple addresses those issues in upcoming releases will be a crucial part of that process."


I've been using FCPX on a variety of projects over the last couple of months, long form event documentary, corporate promos, highlights video etc. The biggest issue for me has been stability before the .01 release. But I did expect problems in that area, the .01 release has improved stability considerably.

I can honestly say I haven't hit any major roadblocks so far in editing terms, creatively it hasn't stopped me doing anything I wanted to do and in many respects it has helped.

There's certainly been a lot of "think" time but like any software I've needed less of that as time has gone on. To be honest I've enjoyed the change and the challenge, however I do understand that some people don't want to change their workflows to the extent they would have to if they used FCPX.

I've been able to do this because my current slate of projects hasn't required the major features that are lacking, however to continue using it I would need Multicam, external monitor support and export to Resolve at the least.

But as it stands I've had a very positive experience with it

"My Name is Steve and I'm an FCPX user"


Return to posts index

Benjamin Mullins
Re: Is Oliver Peters wrong?
on Oct 11, 2011 at 11:25:42 am

Hi Herb,

I think you're right, it is important to see where and how X is being used and to what avail, but as a freelancer really my main consideration is 'are post houses using it?' If so, then so will I, if not what's the point?

Has anyone walked in to a post facility and seen X in use, or been asked if they can use it on a job? (in any field - broadcast, film, corporate).

Ben.



Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: Is Oliver Peters wrong?
on Oct 10, 2011 at 5:44:57 pm

[Oliver Peters] "This doesn't get mentioned a lot in all the pro-con threads, but that is the fundamental change Apple has made to how FCP X interacts with projects. In the case of FCP 1-7, you had many, individual project files that contained all your edit decisions. Under FCP X, the entire system is one big project file."

Don't you mean the opposite?

With FCP Legacy, you had to open a project in order to get anything out of it. In FCPX, you can open a project, an event, or both. The application is just the application. You can't do this with FCP7. You have to open the project before you can export a timeline or have access to your organization.

[Oliver Peters] "For example, creating new "roles" means these additions are there for EVERY production from then on. So think before you make any changes. For instance, you may want to create a Role for VO, but not Joe's VO."

Not if you quit FCPX, take the project out of the Final Cut Pro Project folder and reload. In my testing, Roles are project specific, if the project isn't loaded upon FCPX launch, then that Role isn't loaded. The Roles that aren't loaded or assigned, go away and come back when you load the appropriate project. This makes the $5 Event Manager X is well worth it if you need separation of church/state (and roles). :)

Jeremy


Return to posts index

Oliver Peters
Re: Is Oliver Peters wrong?
on Oct 11, 2011 at 2:30:15 am

[Jeremy Garchow] "Don't you mean the opposite?"

No, I was talking in the sense that the app and the OS are all part of single unit. I didn't necessarily mean "project" in the literal FCP sense.

[Jeremy Garchow] "Not if you quit FCPX, take the project out of the Final Cut Pro Project folder and reload. In my testing, Roles are project specific, if the project isn't loaded upon FCPX launch, then that Role isn't loaded."

I stand corrected. I haven't done much moving around of projects since the update. I was going by Apple's docs that cautioned against randomly naming Roles.

- Oliver

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


Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: Is Oliver Peters wrong?
on Oct 11, 2011 at 2:42:22 am

[Oliver Peters] "I stand corrected. I haven't done much moving around of projects since the update. I was going by Apple's docs that cautioned against randomly naming Roles."

Yeah, the manual is unclear about this. From what I can gather by testing it a little, Roles seem to travel with a project.

Jeremy


Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: Is Oliver Peters wrong?
on Oct 10, 2011 at 12:00:17 pm

[Herb Sevush] "Capture now is an absolute and total piece of s**t. "

Couldn't agree more. This is why having capture card manufactures make a capture utility for tape is exciting. You will be able to interact with the company that is making the interface and make the capture utility better instead of waiting for a fix that will never come from the Apple side.


Return to posts index

Oliver Peters
Re: Is Oliver Peters wrong?
on Oct 10, 2011 at 12:18:14 pm

[Jeremy Garchow] "You will be able to interact with the company that is making the interface and make the capture utility better instead of waiting for a fix that will never come from the Apple side."

In a sense, some of the moves Apple has done with FCP X are good because it allows them to work within their core competencies. VTR handling has never been strong in any version of FCP, so it's better someone else does that. If you look at the VTR handling in Media Composer for instance, it's a pretty good bet that no utility will match it, though. There simply is no overwhelming need to put a lot of development into such a tool today.

One of the things people are having a hard time coming to grips with is the fact that FCP X has a much narrower and locked down focus. FCP Classic evolved into a great freeform Swiss Army Knife that fit many diverse workflows, from simple projects to features to large integrated facilities. Plus the software suite concept made it a great media hub around which you could structure your complete operation. FCP X simply isn't that kind of an application. I doubt it will ever be that.

Oliver

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


Return to posts index

Chris Harlan
Re: Is Oliver Peters wrong?
on Oct 10, 2011 at 4:34:58 pm

[Oliver Peters] "FCP Classic evolved into a great freeform Swiss Army Knife that fit many diverse workflows, from simple projects to features to large integrated facilities. Plus the software suite concept made it a great media hub around which you could structure your complete operation. FCP X simply isn't that kind of an application. I doubt it will ever be that.
"


Ultimately, that is my problem with the whole venture; its not that FCP X is a total failure, but rather that it does a very poor job of replacing FCS. In fact, "poor job" is kind. It just doesn't replace it. FCP X is a tool that I will probably own once edl/xml export issues are worked out, but it is just too inflexible to replace FCS.


Return to posts index

Simon Ubsdell
Re: Is Oliver Peters wrong?
on Oct 10, 2011 at 4:51:35 pm

[Chris Harlan] "it is just too inflexible to replace FCS"

[Oliver Peters] "FCP Classic evolved into a great freeform Swiss Army Knife"

For me, one of the main issues is that FCP Classic and Media Composer alike are tools that give you a very wide range of options for any particular process so that it is possible to devise a workflow that "works" for you, your business and your way of editing. (Quite often with NLE's it's about finding the least worst way of doing something, rather than the Platonically perfect way of doing it, but that's a whole other story.)

The limitation with FCPX as it currently stands is that the range of worflow options have been reduced dramatically - in many areas, as much in terms of the editing interface as elsewhere, there are now almost no options at all. You have to do it the FCPX way, or not do it at all.

I'm sure this will change as time goes by (or maybe not?!) but it's not a great position to be in at the moment - especially if you happen not to particularly like the FCPX way of doing things.

Simon Ubsdell
Director/Editor/Writer
http://www.tokyo-uk.com


Return to posts index

Bill Davis
Re: Is Oliver Peters wrong?
on Oct 10, 2011 at 7:09:36 pm

"The limitation with FCPX as it currently stands is that the range of worflow options have been reduced dramatically - in many areas, as much in terms of the editing interface as elsewhere, there are now almost no options at all. You have to do it the FCPX way, or not do it at all."


That's as silly on it's surface as being angry that if you want to become a "guitar player" you have almost no options at all - you have to do it the "guitar" way or not at all. Six strings. Not 7 or 11.

I simply don't hear guitar players arguing that six strings limits ones creativity.
Keyboards stuck at 88 keys. Autos stuck with a gas pedal to the right and a brake pedal to the left.

FCP-X can cut video. It might not do it the way you like. But it can do it. It might not have all the buttons in the same place, and it might not offer controls you've become accustomed to - or even controls you believe deeply and un-changably that you need in order to do your work efficiently - but it can STILL cut video and do most of what most people need to do when they assemble video projects.

So it's a viable alternative.

It will slowly sink - OR it will be tuned and enhanced and modified into a wicked fast, world class environment for real world cutting - based on what happens over the next few years.

I've learned NOT to bet against the men and women at Apple. They exist in a culture that succeeds by taking measured risks based on understanding long term trends and making smart future projections.

And I think FCP-X - and offshoots of it's design structure - will eventually come to dominate "day to day" editing far into the future.

Hell, Window 8 looks like it was nearly totally informed by the "iUniverse" that Apple created over the last few decades. The "clicky-picture" teams at Apple have truly kicked ass over all comers largely because Jobs was bright enough to get there first.

Took a while. But then so will FCP-X. Because the thinking behind it is both smart and forward thinking and there will always be a subset of people who will seek out then resonate with smarter thinking.

My 2 cents, anyway.

"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

Bill Davis
Re: Is Oliver Peters wrong?
on Oct 10, 2011 at 6:40:36 pm

Isn't this the crux of the whole thing, Herb? You're bound and determined to see it in light of X being a "replacement" for Legacy.

And many, many editors are still trying to compare and contrast the old with the new.

Others are doing what I think is more natural. Let go of what FCP was. Look at the new possibilities of what will be. And change ones thinking accordingly.

Once I did that, I could start to see where the new software will "fit" in a world that's changing so rapidly.

Mobile, agile, flexible, less focused on "traditional" workflows - and more focused on what the new tools allow and what the entire new world of global, accessible, massive and constantly changing information requires in terms of a tool to ingest, manage, search, sort, aggregate, assemble and re-transmit visual information in a world awash with more of it than ever before.

Those who need to continue to work in the classic mode, are the ones rationally looking to switch to those classic style "monolithic editor" platforms. I get that.

But now everyone else has a whole new tool that is excellent for one new way of working.

I spent my weekend in San Diego and it took me about 5 minutes to set up my "editing bay" on the 32nd floor of the Grand Hyatt with nothing more than my MacbookPro and a small Firewire 800 drive.. FCP-X did an amazing job of letting me tag and start assembling selects out of 64 gigs of field data generated in a full day of DSLR shooting.

The footage looks wonderful. The travel gear profile made it possible to avoid excess baggage hassles (tho barely!) and I'm much, MUCH more effective for my clients than I've ever been before.

That's the game changer, IMO. Not what this will do for the "studio-style" traditional work process.

I'm now confident that I could have done a very respectable "first cut" of the entire project had the client requested that. As it is, this will likely be my first "full FCP-X project" since I'm comfortable enough to feel like I can manage actual work with it now.

For fun, I've attached a 5d. still that I took Sat night in the wee hours of the view from my temporary "Thurs-Sun" edit suite.

Times have changed - and it's increasingly clear to me that's why FCP had to change as well.

(I could have sent this picture - OR an FCP-X cut of the days video - ANYWHERE on the planet in seconds. That is the game changer. Good and NOW will increasingly trump perfect and later for some kinds of work in some circumstances. And the world will move on...



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


Return to posts index

Chris Harlan
Re: Is Oliver Peters wrong?
on Oct 10, 2011 at 6:52:28 pm

[Bill Davis] "Isn't this the crux of the whole thing, Herb?"

Sigh. Dale, you keep calling me Herb. No offense to Herb, who is a fine fellow in his own right, and a far better Herb than I could ever be.

[Bill Davis] "You're bound and determined to see it in light of X being a "replacement" for Legacy.
"


Well, since Apple offered it as one, that only seems reasonable. Don't you think?


Return to posts index

Bill Davis
Re: Is Oliver Peters wrong?
on Oct 10, 2011 at 7:20:35 pm

No, I don't.

I don't remember anyone on stage at the unveiling. (and I had a good seat) saying this is an "upgrade to" or even a "replacement" for FCP-7.

IIRC said they were introducing "the future" of video editing from Apple.

Yes, they named it Final Cut Pro X. So it's easy to understand how that left an assumption in many minds that it was an "upgrade"

But When Randy demo'd it - he didn't show the audience a single thing that looked or worked like 7.

The name is trivial. The change was not. It's a fundamental thing that we're responsible for changing in our brains. And it's not Apple's job to coddle us through the change by wasting time and effort on a useless IP search for a different name when they already own a perfectly good one.

That's how I choose to view it anyway. Tea leaf reading about Apple's motives is fun, but functionally useless. The game has changed - and so has what the brand "Final Cut Pro" stands for. It used to stand for a big program a lot like AVID and Premier. Now it stands for a completely alternative way to approach the tasks of manipulating digital motion and still content.

Choose it or not. Your call.

"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: Is Oliver Peters wrong?
on Oct 11, 2011 at 12:36:58 am

[Bill Davis] "I don't remember anyone on stage at the unveiling. (and I had a good seat) saying this is an "upgrade to" or even a "replacement" for FCP-7."

Seriously?! This is beyond specious, Bill.

[Bill Davis] "The name is trivial. The change was not. It's a fundamental thing that we're responsible for changing in our brains. And it's not Apple's job to coddle us through the change by wasting time and effort on a useless IP search for a different name when they already own a perfectly good one."

Really?! This is what you are going with?

[Bill Davis] "The game has changed - and so has what the brand "Final Cut Pro" stands for. It used to stand for a big program a lot like AVID and Premier. Now it stands for a completely alternative way to approach the tasks of manipulating digital motion and still content."

The game has changed? Yeah, more than a decade ago, when cheep NLEs of all varieties began to appear. Magnetic frippery and an iPhoto-like database do not a new revolution make.


Return to posts index

Herb Sevush
Re: Is Oliver Peters wrong?
on Oct 10, 2011 at 7:01:47 pm

"Isn't this the crux of the whole thing, Herb? You're bound and determined to see it in light of X being a "replacement" for Legacy. "

First off, you posted in response to something Harlan wrote, so I'm not sure if this is really aimed at me, but I'll take a swing.

Apple announced X as the replacement for Legacy - I had nothing to do with it. They couldn't have been more clear about that, it's why they EOL'd Legacy. But let's not spend too much time on that, I agree with you - it's a dead issue.

"Look at the new possibilities of what will be. And change ones thinking accordingly."


I am and continue to. That's why I started this thread. It's part of my process to view any possible successor to my workflow. It's why I'm looking at PC solutions, Mac solutions and I'll look at Linux solutions if they show up. I have nothing invested in any other system so I feel free to make the best choice for me. Can you say the same? I hope so.

"But now everyone else has a whole new tool that is excellent for one new way of working."


I appreciate that FCPx is working so well for you and so many others. As for me, I feel fortunate that I am still able to work in the "classic" mode, although I'm not very monolithic. My main issue is that FCPx seems to be excellent for "one new way of working," while I prefer my editing systems to be much more flexible, capable of working in many different ways.

But when the multi-cam update comes out I will give FCPx a look and then may the best NLE for me win.

By the way, great shot - love the 5d.

Herb Sevush
Zebra Productions


Return to posts index

Bill Davis
Re: Is Oliver Peters wrong?
on Oct 10, 2011 at 7:29:39 pm

Herb (accurately, I hope)

In tone, content and logic, your post is a winner in my estimation.

I know you were extremely skeptical at first about what FCP-X represented. It appears that today, you're open to it's possibilities.

That's all I and many other of the programs early, and very vocal defenders, were hoping to foster.

At first, the early, loud and often unbending "knee jerk" voices of condemnation were just about the only voices out there.

I know I personally took a LOT of lumps from those who were pissed off and were ready to jump down the throat of anyone who said a single nice word about the program.

Things are finally calming down. That's good because as we we in this industry should always remember - as the signal rises and the noise diminishes - clarity of communication increases.

Peace.

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


Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: Is Oliver Peters wrong?
on Oct 10, 2011 at 6:00:40 pm

[Oliver Peters] "If you look at the VTR handling in Media Composer for instance, it's a pretty good bet that no utility will match it, though. There simply is no overwhelming need to put a lot of development into such a tool today."

Blaspheme! Every NLE should be good at everything, especially when it's not needed!

I'm being facetious. I think it would be in capture card company's best interest to make a really nice capture utility so they can sell capture cards to the people that need them. It is exactly this kind of development energy that is better served for the people that develop it, and not Apple who is building the infrastructure. Time will tell if that infrastructure is any good and developer friendly.

[Oliver Peters] "One of the things people are having a hard time coming to grips with is the fact that FCP X has a much narrower and locked down focus. FCP Classic evolved into a great freeform Swiss Army Knife that fit many diverse workflows, from simple projects to features to large integrated facilities."

I guess I see it completely opposite. You buy what you need, and don't buy what you don't. If you need an MXF Exporter/Importer, buy it, if you don't you don't. I worked that way with FCP Legacy for a long time. It was a relatively expensive per machine plug-in as well, but I have been working with native MXFs for years. You need a "complicated" EDL or film match back system for FCPX, you will buy it from someone who will develop and support it and will spend way more time than Apple will on it, which means it will hopefully be better than what Apple could do. This is what I believe will be the true calling to FCPX, even though it doesn't appear that way right now. Yes, we have lost dedicated audio, color and DVD apps, but aren't there better apps out there that were offered in the FCP suite?

Jeremy


Return to posts index

Herb Sevush
Re: Is Oliver Peters wrong?
on Oct 10, 2011 at 1:11:50 pm

Of course you might want to ask why creating a capture module was so daunting for Apple, since every other NLE I ever worked with could manage this quite well.

I also simply don't like having to deal with digitizing as something outside of the basic program - if they create a third party digitizing plug-in I'd feel much more comfortable with it. This might be irrational, but it still makes me feel like I'm buying a car without a carburetor and they tell me to go buy one at AutoZone.

Herb Sevush
Zebra Productions


Return to posts index

Simon Ubsdell
Re: Is Oliver Peters wrong?
on Oct 10, 2011 at 3:03:32 pm

[Herb Sevush] "it still makes me feel like I'm buying a car without a carburetor and they tell me to go buy one at AutoZone."

Good analogy ...

I feel very much the same about the issue of OMF export without which I can't really do much with FCPX professionally yet. There is a deep and bitter irony to the fact that Automatic Duck were flagged by Apple as the solution to this problem in the FAQ - only for them to jump ship to Adobe where I would imagine that the last of their concerns will be supporting FCPX (though I could be wrong, anything is possible).

I feel that core functions really should be provided by Apple not by third parties - it feels just too flaky to be relying on companies like AD who may or may not disappear from the FCPX scene without warning, however brilliant their products may or may not be.

The other aspect to this is that I want to know that OMF export (or whatever other function we are talking about) is going to function without issues and I want Apple to have taken the responsibility for this reliable functioning. I don't think that's an unreasonable ask.

Simon Ubsdell
Director/Editor/Writer
http://www.tokyo-uk.com


Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: Is Oliver Peters wrong?
on Oct 10, 2011 at 6:09:28 pm

[Herb Sevush] "Of course you might want to ask why creating a capture module was so daunting for Apple, since every other NLE I ever worked with could manage this quite well. "

Name them. Did they include third party hardware support? If so, who wrote the drivers?

[Herb Sevush] "I also simply don't like having to deal with digitizing as something outside of the basic program - if they create a third party digitizing plug-in I'd feel much more comfortable with it. This might be irrational, but it still makes me feel like I'm buying a car without a carburetor and they tell me to go buy one at AutoZone."

Seriously? So that window that opens in FCP can't be looked at as a whole 'nother interface? What if a capture system plugged right in to FCPX? You choose it from an FCPX menu and it opens a capture utility? Wouldn't it be the same thing? You could assign the event, the role, the audio channels the keyword collection all right there. Once it's done, all media is in place. Doesn't that sound feasible? Forgive me for actually being excited about this stuff, check it:

http://www.aja.com/news/index_article.php?id=157

Jeremy


Return to posts index

Herb Sevush
Re: Is Oliver Peters wrong?
on Oct 10, 2011 at 6:30:20 pm

"Name them. Did they include third party hardware support? If so, who wrote the drivers?"

EMC2 - proprietary capture card,
*edit - both pinnacle and matrox cards
Media 100 - wasn't my system, don't know about drivers and cards.
PPro - used it only as a firewire editor, Adobe wrote the drivers, I think
Avid - well, you know.
FCP - blackmagic card

Your point being what, that blackmagic's drivers are at fault? Don't know what your getting at.

"Seriously? So that window that opens in FCP can't be looked at as a whole 'nother interface? What if a capture system plugged right in to FCPX? You choose it from an FCPX menu and it opens a capture utility? Wouldn't it be the same thing?"

As you already quoted me as saying "if they create a third party digitizing plug-in I'd feel much more comfortable with it." So yes, as I already said, I would be quite happy with a third party system that plugged into FCPx - that's what a plug-in means, unless I'm having a hard time understanding English.

As for the AJA capture system, first off I didn't see where it says it will open from within a FCPx Menu. Second, being a Blackmagic card owner, i don't know that it applies. I also don't like the idea that different systems will have different capture utilities based on the I/O card your currently using. Again, that might be a misplaced anxiety, but I'd prefer a program to have a unified capture module no matter what card I happened to be using.

But more importantly I'd just be happy to have any system that actually worked across time code breaks properly and that could handle batch-recaptures from the project I was working on.

Herb Sevush
Zebra Productions


Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: Is Oliver Peters wrong?
on Oct 10, 2011 at 6:55:12 pm

[Herb Sevush] "Your point being what, that blackmagic's drivers are at fault? Don't know what your getting at."

Not at all, but they way that they had to interface with the current application might have helped or hindered the process.

AJAs VTR Exchange capture/playback utility worked better than FCP7s. It uses the same hardware, different interface. This is what will happen with FCPX, they better utility will be used and send media directly to FCPX.

Blackmagic has one too:

http://www.blackmagic-design.com/press/pressdetails/?releaseID=11836
http://www.blackmagic-design.com/products/ultrastudio3d/software/

Matrox: http://www.matrox.com/video/en/products/mac/mxo2_family/vetura_capture/

If you will allow me to read between the lines here a bit, or really connect the dots. Apple has announced capture card support, or rather "broadcast video monitoring" which is capture card support. AJA, Decklink and Matrox have announced capture utilities.

These companies have really close relationships to Apple. Why would they go through this trouble if they didn't know that they would NEED this software? You can test them now if you want to, and help build it. They can't announce FCPX support because there's nothing to announce yet. They won't announce until it's available. Sounds familiar, right?

This means that if you have the same hardware that can be used in all of your disparate video apps, the same capture interface will be present across all of them. How is this a bad thing?

[Herb Sevush] "But more importantly I'd just be happy to have any system that actually worked across time code breaks properly and that could handle batch-recaptures from the project I was working on."

Give them a shot. The Blackmagic one is available now.


Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: Is Oliver Peters wrong?
on Oct 10, 2011 at 11:58:00 am

[David Roth Weiss] "How hard would it have been for the Apple software developers to change that appropriately? "

Man, if that's the only thing that needed fixing....I'd be pissed about the release of X.


Return to posts index

David Roth Weiss
Re: Is Oliver Peters wrong?
on Oct 10, 2011 at 3:21:54 pm

[Jeremy Garchow] "Man, if that's the only thing that needed fixing....I'd be pissed about the release of X."

Unfortunately, the DV50 thing I mentioned is but one example of an entire plethora of things never fixed over the years in FCP. And, the point I made is that examples like it do not exactly breed confidence that FCP X will ever get all the fixes it requires.

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

Don't miss my new Creative Cow Podcast: Bringing "The Whale" to the Big Screen:
http://library.creativecow.net/weiss_roth_david/Podcast-Series-2-MikeParfit...

POST-PRODUCTION WITHOUT THE USUAL INSANITY ™


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


Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: Is Oliver Peters wrong?
on Oct 10, 2011 at 6:14:06 pm

[David Roth Weiss] "And, the point I made is that examples like it do not exactly breed confidence that FCP X will ever get all the fixes it requires."

But if you changed "DV50" to "DVCPro 50", wouldn't it stand a chance to break all your legacy projects that are looking for "DV50"?

Now apply that to all the little things that FCP Legacy had in it, and maybe it isn't as easy as it seems.

I mentioned in another thread that why spend a whole ton of time fixing stuff that you know is going to be obsolete? Apple has probably known that FCP Legacy's days were numbered for years, why go through the effort of fixing every little thing when that will have been for naught?

Jeremy

PS Sorry for my barage of posts today, just catching up from the last few days.


Return to posts index

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