Reading the low level hysteria on this forum created by expectation amplified feedback loops; the assumptions running wild, the wishful thinking unbounded, the rejection of expressed concerns as Cassandra-ist...it all reminds me of a little ditty by Oscar Wilde:
Aunt Jane observed the second time,
That she fell off the bus,
"The step is short from this ablime
to the ridiculous."
It's clear many of us transfer our a part of our identity to our creative tools. That's what humans beings do. We identify and objectify the identification. That's sublime. Apple leaving the X in FCP-X to stand for Unknown has fueled a hysteria that results from such charged uncertainty of being. That's ridiculous and certainly not helpful for its users. But that's where Apple lives, marketing wise: Create Hysteria Around Product.
Nonetheless, my wish for FCP-X, both sublime and ridiculous:
May it truly be as ground breaking as the most wishful thinking expressed here and advance the editing paradigm in new and original ways...and may its users be able to objectively see it for whatever it is.
[David Cherniack] "May it truly be as ground breaking as the most wishful thinking expressed here and advance the editing paradigm in new and original ways"
I am certainly all for this notion. So I join the good vibe.
Believe me. Everything is a lie.
[David Cherniack] "may its users be able to objectively see it for whatever it is."
Apple users seeing things just as they are? Surely you jest.
It's hysteria mixed with egotism and self-interest; lots of people sell snake oil round here...
All I would say in response is that there does seem to be a lot of Cool-aid in this house.
While I truly hope Apple has come up with a new editing paradigm I'm more than doubtful. The timeline based NLE has been around for 20+ years and its architecture has been stable for more than half that time. The automobile achieved architectural stabilization by its first two decades and improvements ever since have been incremental, not counting fins which were a temporary quantum insanity. Not that FCP-X will be the fins of NLE history but whatever improvements in work flow it brings, I expect will be incremental. But that's a mighty good thing and should be welcomed by the rest of us who are using other software. Designers tend to fall into ruts and need to be inspire by seeing the usefulness in what someone else is doing.
As for those who want to drink the Cool-Aid, that's fine. Let them if it makes them happy. I really don't care if someone's religion has elements of strange beliefs if they're a good person and don't try to foist it on me. I have my hands full with my own.
[David Cherniack] "The automobile achieved architectural stabilization by its first two decades and improvements ever since have been incremental..."
It was more like 50 years before monocoque constructtion and traction-avant (FWD), which are crucial to the modern evolved motor car.
The monocoque analogy is apt. Hitherto Apple, Avid and Adobe have been 'coach-builders', building their bespoke bodywork (= the visible part of the car) on the chassis of the underlying OS.
Apple has chucked that out, and is apparently about to integrate the application directly into the OS's core underpinnings.
What was a big deal for the automobile, leading to greatly enhanced structural stability and road-holding (= performance) will be a 'big deal' in NLE performance terms.
FWD and monocoque contruction are incremental improvements. They didn't change how humans interact with the automobile the way steering wheels and foot pedal brakes did. If Apple integrates some functions of the NLE into the core OS it may yield performance improvements (that remains to be seen unless you happen to be a beta tester or psychic) but that doesn't fundamentally change the architecture of how humans interact with the NLE.
[David Cherniack] "...incremental improvements. They didn't change how humans interact..."
The medieval monks sorted out books - binding, pages to be turned with their written word on, inset illustrations etc. Along came Gutenberg and Caxton and made no changes to the human>book paradigm.
Not a big deal?
[Paul Dickin] "The medieval monks sorted out books - binding, pages to be turned with their written word on, inset illustrations etc. Along came Gutenberg and Caxton and made no changes to the human>book paradigm."
You're confusing reading a book with using a tool.
The architectural stabilization of any human-tool interface is a process that happens in the early development of any new tool. The car is a good example. The first cars did not have foot brakes, steering wheels, rubber tires. They soon became standards because they did the job better than the hand brake, steering stick, and metal rims. Can you imagine NLE's without timelines? There were a few. Lucas's Edit Droid introduced timelines and bins in the mid-late 80's.
I'm not saying that the interface, once it stabilizes is static. Incremental changes are constant and when radically new technology becomes available it can profoundly re-stabilize the architecture around new ways of doing things.
Is this true of FCP-X? Possibly but it remains to be seen how much it's designed for a future of tablet editing. On your normal keyboard and mouse interface I see what may be incremental improvements but it also remains to be seen how applicable they are to high level, as opposed to consumer, editing.
What's with the 'no timeline in FCP X' notion?
What Apple seem to be doing (if you read their developer documentation for AV Frameworks) is making the timeline (seen in the program's GUI) an AV Mutable Composition. At OS (= AV Frameworks) level.
That means FCP X is 'only' the GUI. Any other GUI - call it Motion or Soundtrack or Color, whatever - can have direct and maybe simultaneous access to the AV Frameworks assets that comprise your work-in-progress 'edit.
No round-tripping (or tripping ;-) ). Just enhanced tools for enhanced productivity, once the full suite is all developed. :-)
Add that to extensively developed and pervasive metadata databasing, again at OS system leve,l for accessibility to any GUI running...
"when radically new technology becomes available it can profoundly re-stabilize the architecture around new ways of doing things.
Is this true of FCP-X? "
[Paul Dickin] "What's with the 'no timeline in FCP X' notion?"
Paul, where does the paragraph above produce a 'no timeline in FCP-X" interpretation? Try reading a little more slowly. It connects the dots better.
We'll see how the AV Frameworks implementation plays out in actuality for pro use. But it's not what I'm talking about. There's a big difference between a Ferrari engine and a Model T. But both are engines with steering wheels, gas pedals and brakes. Back to the original question: Will FCP -X profoundly change the GUI architecture of the NLE to be worthy of the appellation 'paradigm shift'? We'll see, but not from what I've seen so far.
[Paul Dickin] "Apple has chucked that out, and is apparently about to integrate the application directly into the OS's core underpinnings."
I think that all of the other companies are doing much the same and I think the analogy is a bit far fetched. If you're 64-bit, you're tying into Grand Central Dispatch... This idea could be right in certain cases, but my point is that if the OS has features, other companies can tie into it. FCP X may get a head start on OS X Lion, but the OS business unit must make it open for any company to tie into.
[Dennis Radeke] "...all of the other companies are doing much the same..."
I don't know anything about Avid.
It remains to be seen whether Adobe's cross-platform Windows/OS X implementation running on a Mac is as elegant as Apple's. ;-)
It's gonna be awesome!!!! After 1 year.
H264 editing is gonna work ( Most potential customers )
XDCAM is NOT gonna work. ( Sony's problem )
Untill then. Chill out and stay with current workflows, or change your NLE.
[Paul Jay] "It's gonna be awesome!!!! After 1 year."
Maybe sooner. One can't say that definitively. We have no idea why Larry Jordan revised his comments. Personally (I admit that part) I think the updates will be fast and furious now that they aren't tied to printing and shipping disks. Granted development still takes time but I suspect that the stuff that isn't ready is already underway for updates.
Oke. lets say: 6 -12 months.
Lets hope they used the 30 days in June to create 30 updates.
[Paul Jay] "Oke. lets say: 6 -12 months."
Yup. And I suspect the updates will be in stages based on a combination of demand and ease of implementation. That's the way it usually is for most developers. I don't doubt Apple looks at the forums to gauge feature demand.
My own wild guess is that file based and metadata based improvements may be the first round. I think Apple sees the urgency in that.
Back in "the old days" a lot of things would have to be done to roll out a feature update since, unlike bug fixes, they usually involved making discs, printing boxes, shipping. Now it can be a bit more piecemeal so there may be more frequent updates that target specific feature improvements.
[Paul Jay] "Lets hope they used the 30 days in June to create 30 updates."
With online file based distribution, the "lock down" date can be much later than with print, disc, ship method so I don't doubt tweaks are happening up to the last minute. It may even be that features that a deemed "work in progress" due to some issues, may simply be "locked out" to the end user until finished.
I don't doubt there will be some folks digging into resource folders to spot some of that. You can see that sort of thing happening with other Apple products on the rumor sites. It's the "we found this in the code so it might mean that is coming." That will be the fuel to the new rounds of speculation once FCPX lands in our Application folders. It certainly can give us a clue to what parts are the "work in progress" bits.
BTW I see FCPX opening and expanding a lot of avenues some of us aren't really talking about. There's lots of talk about integration into facilities, which people suspect may be weak in the initial release, but there's the area of client collaboration as well. Think of where Apple was with FCP7 and using iChat and think of where it might go with Facetime (maybe) or iCloud (maybe). Think about what that iMovie import screenshot might mean. Clients motivated to buy Macs so they can do their own offline or more advanced shot selection so the advanced editor/finisher brings into the FCPX Suite.
I just think Apple's put a lot more thought into professional needs than some give them credit for. That Gretzky line about going where the puck will be is very relevant. We might be look at "facility integration" (which no doubt is very important) but Apple may be thinking about "external client integration" as a leap forward for facilities.
If you're looking amongst cars, FCPX might not be the fastest car out of the gate . . . it might be the fastest spaceship though. Of course that still won't help you get from Philadelphia to Pittsburgh today but Apple might be thinking of Andromeda. Then they'll add some wheels on the ship so you can drive it local too. I think Apple's thinking about NLEs and the Production/Post ecosystem may itself be non linear.