FORUMS: list search recent posts

Is Apple Being Misleading About Native Editing Support?

COW Forums : Apple Final Cut Pro X Debates

<< PREVIOUS   •   VIEW ALL   •   PRINT   •   NEXT >>
Kevin Patrick
Is Apple Being Misleading About Native Editing Support?
on Dec 16, 2011 at 2:37:59 pm

Just read this post.

http://forums.creativecow.net/thread/344/6404#6404

On Apple's FCP X site they have a list of Native editing support for. The footnote attached to that statement says: Native editing includes support for import and playback without transcoding.

In that list they include: Sony IMX, XDCAM HD, XDCAM HD422, and XDCAM EX.

But the footnote statement isn't true. You can't import XDCAM EX. Not without re-wrapping the files. Granted in the column to the left they do say that import is supported with additional software from Sony. But, if you simply looked for a format under the native editing column and checked the fine print footnote, you's miss the fact that additional software is needed. Without the additional software, you can't edit, natively or transcoded.

Deliberate or not, it's misleading.


Return to posts index

Steve Connor
Re: Is Apple Being Misleading About Native Editing Support?
on Dec 16, 2011 at 2:42:45 pm

It's not being transcoded, it's being rewrapped, so technically they are correct. But of course FCP7 could do this also.

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


Return to posts index

Oliver Peters
Re: Is Apple Being Misleading About Native Editing Support?
on Dec 16, 2011 at 2:52:17 pm

Final Cut - all versions - support SOME codecs wrapped as MOV containers. If it's a codec that FCP can handle, then it's "native" as long as it's in an MOV container. So it can't, for instance, handle RED's r3d container or MXF.

Oliver

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


Return to posts index


Rafael Amador
Re: Is Apple Being Misleading About Native Editing Support?
on Dec 16, 2011 at 3:05:33 pm

Agree.
Native would mean to be able to drag&drop from a card to the time-line without other intermediate process (L&T).
As an XDCAM user I expected FC to be able to deal with the MP4 or MFX avoiding the Transfer.
If Calibrated plugins can do it, why FC don't?
rafael

http://www.nagavideo.com


Return to posts index

Kevin Patrick
Re: Is Apple Being Misleading About Native Editing Support?
on Dec 16, 2011 at 3:17:29 pm

[Rafael Amador] "drag&drop from a card to the time-line without other intermediate process"

I agree.

Adobe makes this very clear one their website.

http://www.adobe.com/products/premiere/extend.html#Supportedvideoformats

To quote: Import and edit content from Sony XDCAM and XDCAM 50 cameras directly, without rewrapping or transcoding.

There's a big difference between how PP and FCP X handles the same format.

There's also a big difference between how Adobe and Apple explain this on their own websites. Apple requires you to not only read the fine print, but to read all the text in that section. And even then you need to understand what they mean by additional Sony software. (and you can use more than just Sony's software to handle this)

Apple could have been as clear as Adobe, but chose not to.


Return to posts index

Dennis Radeke
Re: Is Apple Being Misleading About Native Editing Support?
on Dec 17, 2011 at 12:39:11 pm

[Kevin Patrick] "[Rafael Amador] "drag&drop from a card to the time-line without other intermediate process"

I agree.

Adobe makes this very clear one their website.

http://www.adobe.com/products/premiere/extend.html#Supportedvideoformats

To quote: Import and edit content from Sony XDCAM and XDCAM 50 cameras directly, without rewrapping or transcoding.

There's a big difference between how PP and FCP X handles the same format.

There's also a big difference between how Adobe and Apple explain this on their own websites. Apple requires you to not only read the fine print, but to read all the text in that section. And even then you need to understand what they mean by additional Sony software. (and you can use more than just Sony's software to handle this)

Apple could have been as clear as Adobe, but chose not to."


Well said Kevin (and Rafael). On a personal level, I have always found this frustrating when speaking to the less informed editor because they maintain that this workflow is native. However, as an Adobe employee (and professional) you just have to try to present the information and move on. ;-)

When I present, sometimes I will take an iphone 640x480 .mov, some file based media, a Canon 5D clip playing off of the CF card and a RED 4k file all on the same timeline to illustrate what native really is. That gets 'no-rewrap' idea across.


Return to posts index


Craig Seeman
Re: Is Apple Being Misleading About Native Editing Support?
on Dec 16, 2011 at 4:47:23 pm

FCPX has hooks that allows camera manufacturers to develop direct plugin support.

Sony has said they will but given Sony's speed if development it may be long wait. Follow Sony's move from ClipBrowser and XDCAM Transfer to the unified XDCAM Browser. It'll be interesting to see what Canon does as well.



Return to posts index

Oliver Peters
Re: Is Apple Being Misleading About Native Editing Support?
on Dec 16, 2011 at 4:53:31 pm

FCPX has hooks that allows camera manufacturers to develop direct plugin support.

Unless you have updated info to the contrary, according to Apple's direct comments to me, this will still require MOV wrapped files. And at least as of last week, RED as one of those, didn't sound too happy about FCP X.

Oliver

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


Return to posts index

Craig Seeman
Re: Is Apple Being Misleading About Native Editing Support?
on Dec 16, 2011 at 5:01:29 pm

[Oliver Peters] "Unless you have updated info to the contrary, according to Apple's direct comments to me, this will still require MOV wrapped files."

That would be a disappointment. I has heard otherwise but that was apparently early than the what you heard. I was under the impression AV Foundation no longer made that necessary. It's certainly not doing that in any visibly or recorded way with AVCHD (BDMV folders). Other formats currently require wrap to mo but my understanding is that is changing.



Return to posts index


Oliver Peters
Re: Is Apple Being Misleading About Native Editing Support?
on Dec 16, 2011 at 5:07:24 pm

It's my understanding that AV Foundations changes things under the hood and with hardware IO. You still have to have a file format that FCP X recognizes. It seems that is QT MOV. I have no idea what Apple's camera SDK involves, so quite possibly it could be something like what MXF4Mac does, using an alias or something like that. Then a non-QT file would be "soft-wrapped" as an MOV on-the-fly. If that's the case, then we would both be correct.

Oliver

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


Return to posts index

Kevin Patrick
Re: Is Apple Being Misleading About Native Editing Support?
on Dec 16, 2011 at 5:03:35 pm

[Oliver Peters] "according to Apple's direct comments to me, this will still require MOV wrapped files"

Are you saying Apple told you that if Sony develops a plug-in for FCPX, users will still have to re-wrap XDCAM EX files?

Unlike PP which can browse, import and edit these same files without re-wrapping?

If that's the case, then I'd have to say Apple is pretty much deliberately misleading on this issue.


Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: Is Apple Being Misleading About Native Editing Support?
on Dec 16, 2011 at 7:16:03 pm

[Kevin Patrick] "If that's the case, then I'd have to say Apple is pretty much deliberately misleading on this issue."

Marketing speak, homie.

It does support those codecs natively, just not the containers.

FCP7 supported AVC-Intra natively, but that meant you had to rewrap it.

I hope MXF4mac can make their component work with FCPX, and the rest of the camera manufacturers too. Native container/format support is one of my major gripes with FCPX. The interface can be fixed.

Jeremy


Return to posts index


Marvin Holdman
Re: Is Apple Being Misleading About Native Editing Support?
on Dec 16, 2011 at 9:36:20 pm

Given that Sony rolled for years with re-wrapping as the solution for FCS compatibility (equally marketed as XDCAM compatible), there is a high likelihood that what you see is what you get (re-wrap). Makes it a real pain to manage your data because the re-wrap solution basically doubles your data footprint. That's a big deal if you are in a place with multiple shooters in the field every day. It adds up quickly and makes database management a bit of a chore.

Calibratedsoftware.com makes an excellent product for working with TRUE native XDCAM footage. Very handy in the way it interacts with QT without the need for re-wrapping footage. Not so sure how it works with FCPX though, been too busy installing PPro and ditching FCS. Will say that PPro does deal with XDCAM in a TRUE native manner, not this re-wrap BS.

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


Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: Is Apple Being Misleading About Native Editing Support?
on Dec 16, 2011 at 9:38:46 pm

I've used a similar component called MXF4mac for all of my MXF needs. It allows working with MXF footage natively in the application with no rewrap. It isn't working with FCPX, currently, which isn't as fun.

Jeremy


Return to posts index

Craig Seeman
Re: Is Apple Being Misleading About Native Editing Support?
on Dec 16, 2011 at 10:27:27 pm

Sony has had a plug in as well for FCP7 although they didn't publicize much I think. This imported the .mp4 directly
They've already said they will have a plugin for FCPX.



Return to posts index


Craig Seeman
Re: Is Apple Being Misleading About Native Editing Support?
on Dec 16, 2011 at 10:29:33 pm

Ian Cook from Sony mentioned this 3 months ago in FCPX forum
http://forums.creativecow.net/readpost/142/876930



Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: Is Apple Being Misleading About Native Editing Support?
on Dec 16, 2011 at 10:29:57 pm

[Craig Seeman] "Ian Cook from Sony mentioned this 3 months ago in FCPX forum
http://forums.creativecow.net/readpost/142/876930"


Heh heh! Nice one.


Return to posts index

Craig Seeman
Re: Is Apple Being Misleading About Native Editing Support?
on Dec 16, 2011 at 10:32:26 pm

This was FCP7 version. They charged $99 for it so it wasn't a freebee.
Cinemon
http://pro.sony.com/bbsc/ssr/micro-xdcamexsite/cat-accessories/resource.sol...



Return to posts index

Steve Connor
Re: Is Apple Being Misleading About Native Editing Support?
on Dec 16, 2011 at 10:37:07 pm

[Craig Seeman] "This was FCP7 version. They charged $99 for it so it wasn't a freebee.
Cinemon
http://pro.sony.com/bbsc/ssr/micro-xdcamexsite/cat-accessories/resource.sol.....
"

and you could only get it in the USA

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


Return to posts index

Marvin Holdman
Re: Is Apple Being Misleading About Native Editing Support?
on Dec 16, 2011 at 10:39:41 pm

Anyone tried this one yet? It says it supports Lion. Of course, at $899, it should rub my feet while as well.

http://pro.sony.com/bbsc/ssr/cat-datastorage/resource.latest.bbsccms-assets...

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


Return to posts index

Scott Sheriff
Re: Is Apple Being Misleading About Native Editing Support?
on Dec 17, 2011 at 8:34:48 pm

[Craig Seeman] "FCPX has hooks that allows camera manufacturers to develop direct plugin support."


Well that is not 'native'. Native means inherent, or inclusive.
Needing a third party plugin would be neither. To claim a native capacity, while requiring a third party plugin to achieve this so called 'native' capacity is misleading.
This new shift to heavy use of third party plugins to make an app work as advertised is a convenient way to 'blame shift' for lack of development, bugs, or poor performance. I guess you get what you pay for with a $299 app.

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


"If you think it's expensive to hire a professional to do the job, wait until you hire an amateur." ---Red Adair

Where were you on 6/21?


Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: Is Apple Being Misleading About Native Editing Support?
on Dec 17, 2011 at 8:47:52 pm

[Scott Sheriff] "[Craig Seeman] "FCPX has hooks that allows camera manufacturers to develop direct plugin support."


Well that is not 'native'. Native means inherent, or inclusive.
Needing a third party plugin would be neither. To claim a native capacity, while requiring a third party plugin to achieve this so called 'native' capacity is misleading.
This new shift to heavy use of third party plugins to make an app work as advertised is a convenient way to 'blame shift' for lack of development, bugs, or poor performance. I guess you get what you pay for with a $299 app."


What I think this is going to mean is that, you will be able to write your own plugin similar to what was happening with companies writing their own log and transfer plugs.

I wish FCPX had more true native support, even if that meant being able to make proxies. FCPx's proxy making while you edit is actually pretty nice. Then it's one click back to full resolution.

Time will tell, but it's odd we haven't seen anything from the camera SDK yet. There must be something that isn't adding up.

Jeremy


Return to posts index

Oliver Peters
Re: Is Apple Being Misleading About Native Editing Support?
on Dec 17, 2011 at 9:06:27 pm

[Jeremy Garchow] "but it's odd we haven't seen anything from the camera SDK yet. There must be something that isn't adding up. "

This may be a two-step process. The supposition is that the Q1 2012 update featuring broadcast output had to wait for the appropriate AV Foundations hooks in the OS. This may also hinge on the same thing. In theory, it could mean that wider camera support via the SDK will coincide with that update. Of course, that's simply a big guess.

OTOH, the people really interested in supporting that SDK are likely to be companies that sell into the pro market. They may also be on the fence waiting to see how FCP X market penetration is among pro users. Why put in the effort when no one will use it? Not saying that will be the case, but DaVinci has already stated that they really didn't have anyone asking for FCP7/X XML roundtrips, but they did it based on anticipating the future. We'll see if that was a correct guess.

If you are a pro-camera manufacturer, where would you put your development efforts: Adobe, Avid or Apple?

- Oliver

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


Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: Is Apple Being Misleading About Native Editing Support?
on Dec 17, 2011 at 10:51:47 pm

[Oliver Peters] "This may be a two-step process. The supposition is that the Q1 2012 update featuring broadcast output had to wait for the appropriate AV Foundations hooks in the OS. This may also hinge on the same thing. In theory, it could mean that wider camera support via the SDK will coincide with that update. Of course, that's simply a big guess."

Either that or there needs to be more XML support, probably both.

[Oliver Peters] "If you are a pro-camera manufacturer, where would you put your development efforts: Adobe, Avid or Apple?"

Everywhere, wouldn't you? Can't really afford not to, especially if you're someone like Sony when Panasonic cameras work "out of the box" with X.


Return to posts index

Oliver Peters
Re: Is Apple Being Misleading About Native Editing Support?
on Dec 17, 2011 at 10:58:35 pm

Everywhere, wouldn't you? Can't really afford not to, especially if you're someone like Sony when Panasonic cameras work "out of the box" with X.

No, I wouldn't. No one has unlimited engineering responses. Look at something like the SR codec. If you had to choose between FCP X or Avid AMA or Adobe, then I think FCP X goes to the back of the line. Not enough users of SR codec media will be cutting on FCP X by mid-2012. OTOH, AVCHD or EX may be an entirely different story.

Oliver

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


Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: Is Apple Being Misleading About Native Editing Support?
on Dec 17, 2011 at 11:34:29 pm

[Oliver Peters] "No, I wouldn't. No one has unlimited engineering responses. Look at something like the SR codec. If you had to choose between FCP X or Avid AMA or Adobe, then I think FCP X goes to the back of the line. Not enough users of SR codec media will be cutting on FCP X by mid-2012. OTOH, AVCHD or EX may be an entirely different story."

I wasn't talking about the higher end editorial, really. X won't be there for a bit. Even so, Sony would be silly not to offer support for whoever wants to use SR. Look at RedCineX, you can go anywhere from that app, even if your NLE doesn't officially support R3D.

I was talking more about something like broadcast workflows with XDCam. If X gets video out and stabilizes, I could see X coming in handy in quick turnaround environs, like live events.

Jeremy


Return to posts index

Oliver Peters
Re: Is Apple Being Misleading About Native Editing Support?
on Dec 17, 2011 at 11:50:55 pm

I was talking more about something like broadcast workflows with XDCam. If X gets video out and stabilizes, I could see X coming in handy in quick turnaround environs, like live events.

Yes, I could see that. But it sounds to me like the answer gets back to something that is more or less like L&T. Right now AVC-Intra is supported only through Import From Camera. This is native codec support but not true native camera support. The most "native" today is ProRes from an ALEXA, yet there is no support for embedded source ID numbers. I would suspect XDCAM support would also require Import From Camera, so you'd still lose time to copy/rewrap media.

Oliver

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


Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: Is Apple Being Misleading About Native Editing Support?
on Dec 18, 2011 at 12:12:58 am

[Oliver Peters] "I would suspect XDCAM support would also require Import From Camera, so you'd still lose time to copy/rewrap media."

That's the thing though, you can start working right away with the media simply importing in the background. AVC-Intra gets the benefit of all the metadata too. You couldn't have a native avc-i with MXF files as there's no way to fire them over via XML quite yet, like you can with fcp legacy and an MXF component, or even a way to write a custom importer that I am aware of.


Return to posts index

Oliver Peters
Re: Is Apple Being Misleading About Native Editing Support?
on Dec 18, 2011 at 12:51:26 am

[Jeremy Garchow] "You couldn't have a native avc-i with MXF files as there's no way to fire them over via XML quite yet"

You can with Premiere Pro and Media Composer. That's an Apple-induced limitation.

- Oliver

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


Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: Is Apple Being Misleading About Native Editing Support?
on Dec 18, 2011 at 12:55:55 am

You can with Legacy as well with third party help. It doesn't currently work with X though as that infrastructure isn't quite there yet.


Return to posts index

Oliver Peters
Re: Is Apple Being Misleading About Native Editing Support?
on Dec 18, 2011 at 1:05:43 am

[Jeremy Garchow] "You can with Legacy as well with third party help"

I think you are missing the point. You can't simply drag and drop P2 AVC-Intra files into "legacy". You have to go through L&T which copies the files. By contrast, Premiere Pro and Media Composer let you directly access and edit with the files without further conversion, transcodes, copying, etc. That's true native editing. Likewise Premiere Pro and Media Composer allow direct access to RED .r3d files. I wouldn't recommend working that way, but you do have the option.

Oliver

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


Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: Is Apple Being Misleading About Native Editing Support?
on Dec 18, 2011 at 1:17:38 am

[Oliver Peters] "I think you are missing the point"

Like I said, not without third party help.

I edit native MXF files in FCP all day everyday with no rewrap/transcode.

This tutorial is old as there's an app I use called p2 Flow that sends the files over now, but the concept is exactly the same. It works with AVC-I since v7.0:

http://library.creativecow.net/articles/garchow_jeremy/dvc_pro_hd.php

Jeremy


Return to posts index

Oliver Peters
Re: Is Apple Being Misleading About Native Editing Support?
on Dec 18, 2011 at 2:57:10 am

[Jeremy Garchow] "there's an app I use called p2 Flow"

Yes, I'm familiar with it. As you said - a third party solution, because Apple WON'T do it.

- Oliver

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


Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: Is Apple Being Misleading About Native Editing Support?
on Dec 18, 2011 at 5:22:33 am

Aren't some of the Avid AMA plugs written by manufacturers?

Hopefully the camera import SDK will become something similar. Who knows.


Return to posts index

Oliver Peters
Re: Is Apple Being Misleading About Native Editing Support?
on Dec 18, 2011 at 1:54:54 pm

[Jeremy Garchow] "Aren't some of the Avid AMA plugs written by manufacturers?"

Yes. AMA is a plug-in architecture. Avid provides the QuickTime plug-ins, as well as native ProRes support (in addition to AMA). Other AMA plug-ins (Sony, RED, Canon, etc.) are supplied by each camera manufacturer. With an AMA plug-in installed, access is direct to the native camera file from within Media Composer. IOW, you don't go through any external third-party application between the camera files and the Media Composer interface.

- Oliver

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


Return to posts index

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