FORUMS: list search recent posts

The missing Source Window

COW Forums : Apple Final Cut Pro X Debates

<< PREVIOUS   •   VIEW ALL   •   PRINT   •   NEXT >>
Dominic Deacon
The missing Source Window
on Oct 10, 2011 at 11:41:19 pm

Just curious as to how people are getting by without a source window. It's seems to get talked about a lot less than other missing features. Multi-cam, OMF and EDLs get a lot of coverage but I've always assumed they would be added eventually. It's the missing source window that got me to drop Final Cut. I can't imagine editing without one.

I imagine can get by without one if you primarily edit documentaries or interviews but most of what I cut is drama. The source window is vital for eyelines or for matching positions when cutting from wides to mediums etc. Basically I need to be able to see two shots at once constantly.

Has FCPX got a feature I'm missing that makes this not an issue? I understand it has a Trim mode but I've never found them very intuitive. I'[ve always prefered to do everything in the source window or on the timeline.


Return to posts index

Shane Ross
Re: The missing Source Window
on Oct 11, 2011 at 6:17:23 am

You aren't alone. The missing VIEWER is yet another HUGE chunk of missing stuff that makes FCX not a viable option or me as well. Yet another example of a fundamental flaw in design, and how the engineers have NO CLUE about the tools that editors need and use. Sorry, that small scrubber window doesn't cut it...even if I can finely tune my in point. I need a larger window in order to see what I am doing...I need a side-by-side comparison on many occasions.

Shane

GETTING ORGANIZED WITH FINAL CUT PRO DVD...don't miss it.
Read my blog, Little Frog in High Def


Return to posts index

Ben Scott
Re: The missing Source Window
on Oct 11, 2011 at 8:51:18 am

try

  • turning off skimmer
  • display clips as a list
  • use command 1 or 2 to toggle whats on the viewer

only thing I see as a problem for matching is ganging is missing which is essential for reconforming edits

for eyelines Its awkward that you cant turn off mark in and out when in events browser and the skimmer is off thats why jkl is probably better in that situation.


Return to posts index


Rafael Amador
Re: The missing Source Window
on Oct 11, 2011 at 10:33:59 am

For me that's enough to reject FCPX.
A source and a program window is the minimum to consider a system as pro.
Even the times of the U-Matic LB we had two monitors.
rafael

http://www.nagavideo.com


Return to posts index

Ken Pugh
Re: The missing Source Window
on Oct 11, 2011 at 1:01:15 pm

I spent many years editing on Media 100 with its single media window, so I was very used to this style of editing, switching between source and record in the same window, so I know it can be done. Despite this, when I switched to FCP it was a huge liberation having both source and record windows active at the same time, I could never go back.

I wonder what's the logic behind one screen? Is it so the software can work more effectively on single screen systems, like the iMac range? To make room for all the metadata? Useful as it is, I'd rather edit from pictures than metadata....

Ken.


Return to posts index

Andrew Richards
Re: The missing Source Window
on Oct 11, 2011 at 2:01:13 pm

[Ken Pugh] "I wonder what's the logic behind one screen? Is it so the software can work more effectively on single screen systems, like the iMac range? To make room for all the metadata? Useful as it is, I'd rather edit from pictures than metadata...."

Probably a screen real estate thing. However, with two displays there is plenty of room, and the Trim tool shows a fleeting glimpse. I think they ought to have a persistent second viewer as an option for users who have the pixels available and need to see side by side images (though I have defended the lone viewer in the past, I've come around on this issue). Surely there must be some sort of second viewer in the cards with the upcoming multicam feature. Dare we hope for two birds with one stone?

Best,
Andy


Return to posts index


Walter Soyka
Re: The missing Source Window
on Oct 11, 2011 at 2:56:34 pm

[Andrew Richards] "Probably a screen real estate thing."

And yet many complain about gratuitous chrome. Also, when FCP v1 was released, most screens were 1024x768. Even the smallest MacBook Air today has 33% more screen real estate than that.

My guess is that the loss of the source monitor was driven by the design decision to try to simplify or streamline the NLE's interface by making it more contextual: since you can only shuttle or interact with one viewer at a time, you should only show one viewer at a time. The two-up then appears in context only for editorial operations that explicitly require it.

Apple isn't alone here. Smoke used to work this way, too, and many Smoke editors still use the single viewer. It is worth noting that Autodesk added a source/record view some time ago. Hopefully Apple will, too.

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


Return to posts index

olof ekbergh
Re: The missing Source Window
on Oct 11, 2011 at 4:27:50 pm

Media100 also finally added a second viewer, after years of requests.

I think a second viewer is great, but not all the time. It would be nice to be able to have one like M100 does now, open it when you need it. It would also be nice if it had the capability of keeping multiple screen shots, possible from a popup window for CC etc.

Olof Ekbergh


Return to posts index

David Roth Weiss
Re: The missing Source Window
on Oct 11, 2011 at 4:56:55 pm

[Walter Soyka] "Apple isn't alone here. Smoke used to work this way, too, and many Smoke editors still use the single viewer. It is worth noting that Autodesk added a source/record view some time ago. Hopefully Apple will, too."

Smoke isn't an editing tool, it's a finishing tool. Matching action isn't really needed in Smoke by the time most projects arrive in a Smoke suite.

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


Brian Mulligan
Re: The missing Source Window
on Oct 11, 2011 at 8:05:58 pm

[David Roth Weiss] "Smoke isn't an editing tool, it's a finishing tool. Matching action isn't really needed in Smoke by the time most projects arrive in a Smoke suite.
"


Funny because I have been editing in Smoke for 6 years. Never conformed an edit. Never imported an EDL. And I can edit well with 1 viewer.

Brian Mulligan
Senior Editor - Autodesk Smoke
WTHR-TV Indianapolis,IN, USA
Twitter: @bkmeditor


Return to posts index

David Roth Weiss
Re: The missing Source Window
on Oct 11, 2011 at 8:47:58 pm

[Brian Mulligan] "Funny because I have been editing in Smoke for 6 years. Never conformed an edit. Never imported an EDL. And I can edit well with 1 viewer."

Here's Autodesk's description of Smoke from their website:

All-in-One Editorial Finishing on the Mac

"AutodeskĀ® SmokeĀ® software is a leader in professional editorial finishing for high-quality commercial and broadcast projects. Smoke is an integrated finishing solution that combines intuitive editorial timeline navigation with advanced 3D finishing tools. Native support for industry-standard media formats and GPU-accelerated interactivity when compositing mean you can finish projects faster and deliver your best work, even against tight deadlines."

So, the fact that you use Smoke differently at your TV station proves only that there are exceptions to every rule. Does your limited exception actually negate the validity of my statement? If not, then I ask you to please explain, how exactly does your post "further" the ongoing discussion in any way other than to add unwanted or unneeded noise and distraction?

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

Daniel Annefelt
Re: The missing Source Window
on Oct 11, 2011 at 9:27:23 pm

[David Roth Weiss]
"Here's Autodesk's description of Smoke from their website:

All-in-One Editorial Finishing on the Mac
...
So, the fact that you use Smoke differently at your TV station proves only that there are exceptions to every rule. Does your limited exception actually negate the validity of my statement? If not, then I ask you to please explain, how exactly does your post "further" the ongoing discussion in any way other than to add unwanted or unneeded noise and distraction?"


Interesting.
Website info tops six years of experience.
Let's follow this train of thought.
Here is what it say on Apple's web site:

Final Cut Pro X:
- Built from the ground up for pro video editors.
- Revolutionary Video Editing.
- Built-in professional audio editing features.
- The Magnetic Timeline eliminates the restrictions of traditional, track-based timelines.

So that, by the same logic, would make it true, correct?

regards
.-daniel


Return to posts index


David Roth Weiss
Re: The missing Source Window
on Oct 11, 2011 at 9:43:02 pm

[Daniel Annefelt] "So that, by the same logic, would make it true, correct?"

Daniel,

Silly post Daniel!

Evidently you are unaware that Smoke is very well-known primarily as a finishing tool. It's way too expensive for most as a primary edit station. My quote was from the website was simply to support my message to Brian, who knows very well that he is among very few users who actually use Smoke as an edit station, which is clearly not what it was designed for.

Anyway, what exactly is your intent, to get into a discussion of truth in advertising, or do you really have something to add here, such as that you are actually knowledgeable about Smoke and it's usage, and that you can say with authority that both my message and the message on the Autodesk website are invalid?

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

Daniel Annefelt
Re: The missing Source Window
on Oct 11, 2011 at 11:04:28 pm

[David Roth Weiss]
"Daniel,

Silly post Daniel!

Evidently you are unaware that Smoke is very well-known primarily as a finishing tool. It's way too expensive for most as a primary edit station. My quote was from the website was simply to support my message to Brian, who knows very well that he is among very few users who actually use Smoke as an edit station, which is clearly not what it was designed for.

Anyway, what exactly is your intent, to get into a discussion of truth in advertising, or do you really have something to add here, such as that you are actually knowledgeable about Smoke and it's usage, and that you can say with authority that both my message and the message on the Autodesk website are invalid?"


David,

The message on Autodesk's website is correct.
You just have to read a little further than the initial splash page to
realize that Smoke is promoted (and used) as both non-linear editor
and finishing system. This I can attest to with authority.

regards

Daniel Annefelt
Producer, Creative & Design
MTV Networks North


Return to posts index

Walter Soyka
Re: The missing Source Window -- and FCPX UI
on Oct 11, 2011 at 8:59:09 pm

[Brian Mulligan] "Funny because I have been editing in Smoke for 6 years. Never conformed an edit. Never imported an EDL. And I can edit well with 1 viewer."

It's funny you should pop in, Brian -- I was just going to mention the thread [link] where you opened my eyes about skipping offline editorial and cutting from scratch in Smoke.

Whether Autodesk added the source/record view to allow more users to originate editorial in Smoke, or whether they added it to make the application more accessible to editors already familiar with other platforms, I think the salient points here are that they offered the option, it's useful to many editors, and Apple would do well to follow suit.

On the interface point I raised earlier, Smoke presents a pretty interesting comparison -- its UI is very touchable (it was built for use with a pen), it works in panes within a single window, and it's highly contextual, but it doesn't draw the "dumbed down" complaints that FCPX's UI does. What's the difference?

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


Return to posts index


Andrew Richards
Re: The missing Source Window -- and FCPX UI
on Oct 12, 2011 at 2:30:20 pm

[Walter Soyka] "On the interface point I raised earlier, Smoke presents a pretty interesting comparison -- its UI is very touchable (it was built for use with a pen), it works in panes within a single window, and it's highly contextual, but it doesn't draw the "dumbed down" complaints that FCPX's UI does. What's the difference?"

Gradients.

Best,
Andy


Return to posts index

al ellis
Re: The missing Source Window -- and FCPX UI
on Oct 13, 2011 at 9:02:34 pm

Since first seeing fcpx i thought apple had just copied the smoke 6 ui and stuck it in their programme the colours and thw desktop architecture was uncanny, the similarity between smoke and fcpx ends there however. Smoke allows editing like an avid, like fcp, like fcpx and its own novel gestural editing and its been doing all of this for years. The reason it's not seen as dumbed down is because it carries some of the best fx/graphics tools out there, it'll properly edit 4:4:4 uncompressed , truly uncompressed. no not pro res, dnxhd or any other 'flavor' that says it's near as dammit uncompressed, although it'll handle both prores and dnxhd or anything else in the same timeline. It does multiple bitdepths, stero 3d, real 3d compositing and it still supports ancient legacy workflows and all hi end or low end finishing deliverables.
Smoke is an interesting comparison to fcpx, the comparison is how to do it properly and how not to. And oh yeah, the autodesk forums are a pretty lively place where, when people ask for new features or bug fixes, someone from autodesk posts a reply and the gripe is addressed and is normally in the next release, and if it is'nt you always get the reason why and not just a wall of silence or guff about paradigms/conceptual shifts and get told your way of working wasnt working. In short, you get what you pay for and a smoke these days is about the same as what an avid was a few years ago.
Getting back to the thread point, the reason for smoke having a single monitor and a swipe to source was, if i remember rightly, because of the type of video cards smoke used on the sgi platforms, nevertheless you could always set up your desktop on smoke to have multipe scalabe preview windows as well as your record (timeline) window.


Return to posts index

Walter Soyka
Re: The missing Source Window -- and FCPX UI
on Oct 13, 2011 at 9:43:16 pm

[al ellis] "Smoke is an interesting comparison to fcpx, the comparison is how to do it properly and how not to."

Agreed. I think that while that FCPX UI and the Smoke UI have some common design goals, Autodesk's implementation is superior.

The thing I like the best about the Smoke UI is how highly contextual it is -- for any task, the UI exposes everything you need and nothing you don't.

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


Return to posts index


Andrew Richards
Re: The missing Source Window
on Oct 12, 2011 at 2:20:42 pm

[Walter Soyka] "And yet many complain about gratuitous chrome. Also, when FCP v1 was released, most screens were 1024x768. Even the smallest MacBook Air today has 33% more screen real estate than that."

Yes, but on the other hand FCPv1 was designed around 4:3 DV, and not 16:9 HD. The UI now has to account for 26% more width per image in the media it must display. If you double that for two viewers, you have to find 52% more horizontal space to fit the twin viewers for an HD-centric UI. You can scale the images down to postage stamps, but it isn't an even exchange.

I know Aindreas and others bitch about the chrome, so I wanted to quantify the "gratuitous" chrome to see if FCPX is wasting that much space compared to FCP7. As far as I know, gratuitous means uncalled for; lacking good reason; unwarranted. As UIs go, I would take that to mean pixels that serve no purpose for conveying information or accepting user input. Anything else in the chrome has a purpose and cannot be gratuitous, no?

I borrowed this FCP7 screen cap from Walter Biscardi's blog post about UI because it is essentially the default FCP7 layout. It is from a 2560px wide display, so I grabbed an FCPX cap of my own on a similar display. Then I counted pixels with Photoshop's histogram palette.


I've blotted in red all the areas on the FCP7 UI that do nothing and convey nothing. The unused space in the timeline is not wasted, just un-utilized. According to Photoshop's histogram data, there are 126,636 gratuitous pixels or 3.6% of that screen cap.

Contrast with FCPX in fullscreen mode:

There is indeed a fair amount of gratuitous chrome. According to Photoshop's histogram data, there are 313,317 gratuitous pixels or 8.5% of that screen cap.

So the numbers don't lie! FCPX must have bloated chrome. It's that big open bar in the middle seemingly waiting for buttons the way a stripped down economy car has blanks where the higher trim level's buttons and doodads would live.

[Walter Soyka] "My guess is that the loss of the source monitor was driven by the design decision to try to simplify or streamline the NLE's interface by making it more contextual: since you can only shuttle or interact with one viewer at a time, you should only show one viewer at a time. The two-up then appears in context only for editorial operations that explicitly require it."

I agree, but isn't that the means to the end? The end being better utilization of available screen real estate more of the time? The bottom line is that the user should have more control over how the UI adapts to particular contexts.

Best,
Andy


Return to posts index

Walter Soyka
Re: The missing Source Window
on Oct 12, 2011 at 2:58:41 pm

[Andrew Richards] "Yes, but on the other hand FCPv1 was designed around 4:3 DV, and not 16:9 HD. The UI now has to account for 26% more width per image in the media it must display. If you double that for two viewers, you have to find 52% more horizontal space to fit the twin viewers for an HD-centric UI. You can scale the images down to postage stamps, but it isn't an even exchange."

In fairness, I did pick the lowest-res display Apple offers for my comparison. A more reasonable choice for editing (like 1920x1200 display on the MacBook Pro) offers almost three times the number of pixels that the 1024x768 display did. A 2560x1440 offers almost five times the number of pixels. Big net gain for 720 work, smaller net loss for 1080.

Of course, with HD, you can use a smaller scale and still make out the image better than you could with SD.


[Andrew Richards] "There is indeed a fair amount of gratuitous chrome. According to Photoshop's histogram data, there are 313,317 gratuitous pixels or 8.5% of that screen cap."

Nice work! Personally, I can live with 8.5%. It's the loss of custom layouts that I'm mourning here.

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


Return to posts index

David Roth Weiss
Re: The missing Source Window
on Oct 11, 2011 at 4:52:57 pm

[Andrew Richards] "I think they ought to have a persistent second viewer as an option for users who have the pixels available and need to see side by side images (though I have defended the lone viewer in the past, I've come around on this issue)."

I think you must have missed a dose of the Kool Aid. :)

Next, you'll be wanting tracked audio.

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

Andrew Richards
Re: The missing Source Window
on Oct 11, 2011 at 7:07:28 pm

[David Roth Weiss] "I think you must have missed a dose of the Kool Aid. :)

Next, you'll be wanting tracked audio."


Never! :-)

I think roles are conceptually superior to tracks, at least for the way most users seem to use them: identifying, sorting, and routing audio. That is not to say there isn't a lot of improvement I'd like to see, like more flexibility when dealing with audio married to video, adding effects and making adjustments to roles as busses (a la compound clips), and sync markers. I like the collision avoidance that comes with not having rigid tracks, and roles let me have my cake and eat it too in that respect.

Best,
Andy


Return to posts index

Craig Seeman
Re: The missing Source Window
on Oct 11, 2011 at 8:20:18 pm

[Andrew Richards] "I think they ought to have a persistent second viewer as an option"

I've thought they need to improve the Two Up display. It shows up when you're trimming in the timeline with the mouse but not the keyboard. One should also be able to call it up to compare the out point in the Event Library clip to the in point of the timeline clip.

I'm thinking that maybe rather than persistent or not but something that can be invoked by keyboard or context when comparisons are needed.



Return to posts index

Herb Sevush
Re: The missing Source Window
on Oct 12, 2011 at 4:51:19 am

When they implement multi-cam they will have to have 2 viewers and they will have to keep them up as long as you haven't locked the edit, otherwise multi-cam is unusable. It would be insane at that point not to allow 2 viewers as on option for all editing.

Herb Sevush
Zebra Productions


Return to posts index

Liam Hall
Re: The missing Source Window
on Oct 11, 2011 at 8:39:46 pm

[Rafael Amador] "For me that's enough to reject FCPX.
A source and a program window is the minimum to consider a system as pro.
Even the times of the U-Matic LB we had two monitors.
rafael"


My Steenbeck only had one screen. In those days we considered people who edited on U-Matic as amateurs. Funny that...

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


Return to posts index

Herb Sevush
Re: The missing Source Window
on Oct 12, 2011 at 4:47:17 am

But a kem could have 2 or more, and I often linked multiple moviolas together, both upright and flatbed. So what's your point? do you think editors would have turned down a preview head on a steenbeck if it was possible?

Herb Sevush
Zebra Productions


Return to posts index

Liam Hall
Re: The missing Source Window
on Oct 12, 2011 at 7:20:23 am

[Herb Sevush] "But a kem could have 2 or more, and I often linked multiple moviolas together, both upright and flatbed. So what's your point? do you think editors would have turned down a preview head on a steenbeck if it was possible?"

My point was a countenance to Rafael who seemed to think you need two screens on an edit system for it to be professional. Clearly, that's not the case.

BTW some eight plate Steenbecks had two screens too.

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


Return to posts index

Dominic Deacon
Re: The missing Source Window
on Oct 11, 2011 at 10:50:45 pm

[Ben Scott] "use command 1 or 2 to toggle whats on the viewer"

So the way it works is that you use command 1 and 2 to toggle back and forth between the source viewer and the record window? People are okay with that? I couldn't work that way. Well I could but I can't see why anyone should. It might be fine for doco work but for narrative filmmaking that sounds very slow, inefficent and also very taxing on the brain.


Return to posts index

David Roth Weiss
Re: The missing Source Window
on Oct 11, 2011 at 11:16:27 pm

[Dominic Deacon] "So the way it works is that you use command 1 and 2 to toggle back and forth between the source viewer and the record window? People are okay with that? I couldn't work that way. Well I could but I can't see why anyone should. It might be fine for doco work but for narrative filmmaking that sounds very slow, inefficent and also very taxing on the brain."

Most of the people we hear from the most have no experience cutting narrative, and thus no idea why anyone cutting narrative/dramatic material would even care about the second viewer. As someone wise once wrote, "you don't know what you don't know."

The bottom line is, prior to June 21st, if you had asked any of them to raise their hand if a single viewer was on their wish list, or if you'd asked them if it would enhance their editing experience in any way, there isn't one among them who would have a raised hand. But, since June 21st they will defend it quite vehemently.

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

Ben Scott
Re: The missing Source Window
on Oct 12, 2011 at 1:24:29 pm

is that compared to using a mouse to change between windows?


Return to posts index

Dominic Deacon
Re: The missing Source Window
on Oct 12, 2011 at 9:23:19 pm

[Ben Scott] "is that compared to using a mouse to change between windows?"

No. Compared to not having to change windows at all because they're both just sitting there.


Return to posts index

Bill Hall
Re: The missing Source Window
on Oct 11, 2011 at 4:38:19 pm

I still can't help but by into the "it was designed for a touch interface" conspiracy theory. If that is the case screen real estate concerns make sense. You just don't have much working room on an iPad and I imagine they are looking to make a seamless port.

This in no way makes it a good idea.


Return to posts index

Walter Soyka
Re: The missing Source Window
on Oct 11, 2011 at 4:49:16 pm

[Bill Hall] "I still can't help but by into the "it was designed for a touch interface" conspiracy theory. If that is the case screen real estate concerns make sense. You just don't have much working room on an iPad and I imagine they are looking to make a seamless port. "

I agree -- the interface does feel very touchable, and that would certainly explain the usage of space in the UI design. You have to leave room for much larger targets in a touch system than you do in a mouse-based system. Resolution matters more in terms of physical space (since the size of your fingertip is fixed) than it does in pixels (where the tip of the cursor is always 1px).

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


Return to posts index

Jim Glickert
Re: The missing Source Window
on Oct 11, 2011 at 9:07:04 pm

Thanks, Dominic, for starting this thread. The very first time I saw FCP X, it was the lack of a source viewer that turned me off immediately. But since the vast majority of complaints regarded the lack of support for XML and other things (most of which I don't use), I thought there was something wrong with me. Now, thanks to this thread, I feel better about my complaint. Yeah, it's obviously possible for me to edit without a source viewer, but then it's also possible for me to do so while kneeling at my desk instead of sitting in a chair. Apple, appease me and give me a source viewer. I'll provide the chair.

Jim


Return to posts index

Andrew Hays
Re: The missing Source Window
on Oct 12, 2011 at 5:24:19 pm

wht I can't seem to understand is why Apple thought it was such a good idea to get rid of it in the first place...

Things are gettin' interesting...


Return to posts index

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