FORUMS: list search recent posts

FCP7 to FCPX XML Translation from Philip Hodgetts

COW Forums : Apple Final Cut Pro X Debates

<< PREVIOUS   •   VIEW ALL   •   PRINT   •   NEXT >>
Michael Hancock
FCP7 to FCPX XML Translation from Philip Hodgetts
on Jan 31, 2012 at 2:11:37 pm

http://www.philiphodgetts.com/2012/01/7tox-for-final-cut-pro/

----------------
Michael Hancock
Editor


Return to posts index

Rafael Amador
Re: FCP7 to FCPX XML Translation from Philip Hodgetts
on Jan 31, 2012 at 3:15:21 pm

Things start to smell different.
That sounds great.
rafael

http://www.nagavideo.com


Return to posts index

Gary Huff
Re: FCP7 to FCPX XML Translation from Philip Hodgetts
on Jan 31, 2012 at 3:35:49 pm

Must be magic to all those people who said it couldn't be done because of the incredibly complex and nuanced way that FCPX dealt with the intentions behind your video data...


Return to posts index


Michael Hancock
Re: FCP7 to FCPX XML Translation from Philip Hodgetts
on Jan 31, 2012 at 3:37:05 pm

You mean people like Apple? :-)

----------------
Michael Hancock
Editor


Return to posts index

Gary Huff
Re: FCP7 to FCPX XML Translation from Philip Hodgetts
on Jan 31, 2012 at 3:39:54 pm

Apple's explanation for not including it was marketing speak for "we didn't care enough to actually try."


Return to posts index

Mark Morache
Re: FCP7 to FCPX XML Translation from Philip Hodgetts
on Jan 31, 2012 at 3:50:50 pm

[Gary Huff] "Apple's explanation for not including it was marketing speak for "we didn't care enough to actually try.""

I'm thinking that's not quite true.

For all the things that come across when moving a project from 7 to X, some things don't. Offering users an incomplete conversion might have created just as much complaining from the ranks, or perhaps more.

I'm sure they wanted to have a clean cut from legacy as they wrote X, and who would have been happy if they held back on anything new in X to make sure that the legacy projects could be imported.

Legacy projects can still be opened in FCP7. That makes the conversion process less necessary.

Meanwhile, I'm jazzed about the ability to convert 7 to X, for just 10 bucks. (and a good bit of massaging.)

---------
FCX. She tempts me, abuses me, beats me up, makes me feel worthless, then in the end she comes around, helps me get my work done, gives me hope and I can't stop thinking about her.

Mark Morache
Avid/Xpri/FCP7/FCX
Evening Magazine,Seattle, WA
http://fcpx.wordpress.com


Return to posts index


Gary Huff
Re: FCP7 to FCPX XML Translation from Philip Hodgetts
on Jan 31, 2012 at 4:34:43 pm

[Mark Morache]Offering users an incomplete conversion might have created just as much complaining from the ranks, or perhaps more.

Yeah, can you imagine if they'd done that with Final Cut Pro as a whole?


Return to posts index

Walter Soyka
Re: FCP7 to FCPX XML Translation from Philip Hodgetts
on Jan 31, 2012 at 3:56:14 pm

[Gary Huff] "Must be magic to all those people who said it couldn't be done because of the incredibly complex and nuanced way that FCPX dealt with the intentions behind your video data..."

Somehow, I expected this post from you after our last exchange [link].

Read Philip Hodgett's blog post about developing 7toX [link] -- he describes how hard the translation was to do. A few quotes:
  • "Turns out it’s harder going forward than back."
  • "I’ve often said, in the last few months, that I would not want to be the person developing a Final Cut Pro 7 to X translation tool. I was telling the truth because I could hear the salty language that came from Greg’s work area: there’s no sugar coating it, this is the most complex piece of software we’ve ever written."
  • "These were two very different applications, with different data structures and two very different design mindsets. Translating from one to the other is difficult."
  • "There are some things lost in translation, as a perfect translation isn’t possible between two very different languages. (Imagine translating Spanish into Mandarin, when you natively speak English and you’ll get an idea.)"

So I'd say that my post my post [link] where I said "Going IN to FCPX in a meaningful way is a whole other matter, because the same FCPX-specific information I mentioned above doesn't exist in other apps or formats and must be guessed or deduced by the translation application" -- the one that spawned your "magic" comment -- was exactly right.

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

Gary Huff
Re: FCP7 to FCPX XML Translation from Philip Hodgetts
on Jan 31, 2012 at 4:36:53 pm

I never said it would be easy, but it's certainly not impossible. And there may be mistakes, but that's going to happen whenever you move a project from one NLE to another.

Just because it "guesses" wrong, doesn't mean that it's a problem. If you can import a project and it play back right, even if the foundation isn't exactly as you would have laid it if you'd used FCPX in the first place, it's still a success in my book.


Return to posts index


Andy Neil
Re: FCP7 to FCPX XML Translation from Philip Hodgetts
on Jan 31, 2012 at 6:34:29 pm

[Gary Huff] "I never said it would be easy, but it's certainly not impossible. And there may be mistakes, but that's going to happen whenever you move a project from one NLE to another."

The key in your statement is "that's going to happen whenever you move a project from one NLE to another." FCPX is a new NLE despite its name, but BECAUSE of its name, there would always be the expectation that projects from one should come over completely, without errors.

Imagine opening an FCP 6 project into FCP 7. You get the dialogue box and click update. It does it's thing and when it's finished, you aren't worried about whether the color correction came over. You KNOW it did. The project works and looks exactly as it did in 6.

But import an FCP project into Avid, and you may expect there to be some things that don't translate.

I wonder if maybe it WAS impossible when they made that statement. After all, FCPXML wasn't released, and that was the foundation that was going to be necessary to ensure backward compatibility. Once there was enough XML code, the fine people at Intelligent Design were able to fill a market gap. Good for them. I hope they make a ton of money off it.

Andy

http://www.timesavertutorials.com


Return to posts index

Craig Seeman
Re: FCP7 to FCPX XML Translation from Philip Hodgetts
on Jan 31, 2012 at 6:55:12 pm

[Andy Neil] "the fine people at Intelligent Design were able to fill a market gap"

Intelligent Design, God creating the world and life all at once.
Intelligent Assistance, the Philip Hodgetts company.

Given the importance of the feature, maybe the first is appropriate as some feel Philip has just created a viable FCPX world for FCP7 editors.

"Philip Hodgetts credited with Intelligent Design at the COW."



Return to posts index

Andy Neil
Re: FCP7 to FCPX XML Translation from Philip Hodgetts
on Jan 31, 2012 at 6:57:54 pm

[Craig Seeman] "Intelligent Design, God creating the world and life all at once.
Intelligent Assistance, the Philip Hodgetts company."


LOL. Ooops. Perhaps a little Freudian slip on my part. Surely opening FCP 7 projects in X is ipso facto confirmation of the existence of God.

Andy

http://www.timesavertutorials.com


Return to posts index


Gary Huff
Re: FCP7 to FCPX XML Translation from Philip Hodgetts
on Jan 31, 2012 at 9:16:27 pm

[Andy Neil]Surely opening FCP 7 projects in X is ipso facto confirmation of the existence of God.

Or the first sign of the impending apocalypse.


Return to posts index

Rafael Amador
Re: FCP7 to FCPX XML Translation from Philip Hodgetts
on Jan 31, 2012 at 4:43:16 pm

Two guys from outside has done what the people which should know better than nobody else both applications said it couldn't be done.
Whatever the way we analyze it, is a slap in Apple's face.
rafael

http://www.nagavideo.com


Return to posts index

Craig Seeman
Re: FCP7 to FCPX XML Translation from Philip Hodgetts
on Jan 31, 2012 at 4:51:24 pm

[Rafael Amador] "Whatever the way we analyze it, is a slap in Apple's face."

Apple's marketing really botched this. Had they simply mentioned the road map on some of these things, even if they couldn't reveal the details, that would have helped. Had they simply said, "we'll build out the XML so it can be handled by a third party developer" instead of what appeared to be "impossible" it would have helped. Granted people would have grumbled given the wait, knowing what was coming, what was possible, would have gone a long way.

That this is only a 0.3 release seems to speak that Apple has a lot in mind that it considers much bigger than this. FCPX is coming along fine and they do seem to be moving quickly to re introduce what has been missing but the marketing is a botch. It's driven people away. It's create mistrust. Apple is certainly getting the App in order. They have to get the marketing in order as well.



Return to posts index


Gary Huff
Re: FCP7 to FCPX XML Translation from Philip Hodgetts
on Jan 31, 2012 at 4:57:48 pm

[Craig Seeman]That this is only a 0.3 release seems to speak that Apple has a lot in mind that it considers much bigger than this.

Version numbers generally don't mean anything these days, so I wouldn't read too much into that.


Return to posts index

Craig Seeman
Re: FCP7 to FCPX XML Translation from Philip Hodgetts
on Jan 31, 2012 at 5:49:07 pm

[Gary Huff] "Version numbers generally don't mean anything these days, so I wouldn't read too much into that."

They're a marketing game for some companies. These days it seems every update to FireFox or Chrome is a full version number.

Look at how Apple versions other X apps now. OS gets a full .x every 18 months or so. Quicktime X went from .0 to .1 with Lion though.

They do mean something and that, in part, is controlled by marketing. Apple calling this 0.3 is a bit of a "shrug, no big deal" thing. It does mean that .1 will be a much bigger deal than this.



Return to posts index

Gary Huff
Re: FCP7 to FCPX XML Translation from Philip Hodgetts
on Jan 31, 2012 at 5:54:04 pm

[Craig Seeman]It does mean that .1 will be a much bigger deal than this.

To you only. Not necessarily to Apple.


Return to posts index


Craig Seeman
Re: FCP7 to FCPX XML Translation from Philip Hodgetts
on Jan 31, 2012 at 5:58:15 pm

[Gary Huff] "To you only. Not necessarily to Apple."

Follow Apple's pattern. Connect the dots. You do follow their OS X versioning don't you?



Return to posts index

Walter Soyka
Re: FCP7 to FCPX XML Translation from Philip Hodgetts
on Jan 31, 2012 at 6:26:26 pm

[Craig Seeman] "They do mean something and that, in part, is controlled by marketing. Apple calling this 0.3 is a bit of a "shrug, no big deal" thing. It does mean that .1 will be a much bigger deal than this."

Alternate interpretation: Apple charges for point upgrades, and this is a tacit admission that these features should have been in 10.0. They may feel that users who bought 10.0 shouldn't have to pay for a point-release upgrade to get the basic functionality like multicam and video monitoring that existed in the previous version.

Of course, I would still expect that 10.1 would bring new features, but those features may not be more important than getting back the missing basic functionality that forced many to reject the app's initial release.

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

Craig Seeman
Re: FCP7 to FCPX XML Translation from Philip Hodgetts
on Jan 31, 2012 at 6:48:20 pm

[Walter Soyka] "Alternate interpretation: Apple charges for point upgrades, and this is a tacit admission that these features should have been in 10.0. They may feel that users who bought 10.0 shouldn't have to pay for a point-release upgrade to get the basic functionality like multicam and video monitoring that existed in the previous version."

I have no argument with that. They're not going to charge for catchup features. 10.1 will be the earth shattering new stuff that will have us bending the plastic (but I don't even need the actual plastic for much of that either, let alone greenbacks).

[Walter Soyka] "Of course, I would still expect that 10.1 would bring new features, but those features may not be more important than getting back the missing basic functionality that forced many to reject the app's initial release."

10.1 will include using eye movement to move clips with real time eye scan (and people think gestures is going to be a big deal). Then we'll spend the next year complaining how insert edits fail when we blink .



Return to posts index

Walter Soyka
Re: FCP7 to FCPX XML Translation from Philip Hodgetts
on Jan 31, 2012 at 6:50:56 pm

[Craig Seeman] "10.1 will include using eye movement to move clips with real time eye scan (and people think gestures is going to be a big deal). Then we'll spend the next year complaining how insert edits fail when we blink ."

So Murch will come back to FCPX when it edits with the blink of an eye?

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

Craig Seeman
Re: FCP7 to FCPX XML Translation from Philip Hodgetts
on Jan 31, 2012 at 7:35:40 pm

[Walter Soyka] "So Murch will come back to FCPX when it edits with the blink of an eye?"

. . .and the term "Walter Murch Effect" will be as ubiquitous as the "Ken Burns Effect."



Return to posts index

Andrew Kimery
Re: FCP7 to FCPX XML Translation from Philip Hodgetts
on Jan 31, 2012 at 7:57:15 pm

[Craig Seeman] "
That this is only a 0.3 release seems to speak that Apple has a lot in mind that it considers much bigger than this. FCPX is coming along fine and they do seem to be moving quickly to re introduce what has been missing but the marketing is a botch. It's driven people away. It's create mistrust. Apple is certainly getting the App in order. They have to get the marketing in order as well."


Apple knows the update is big, regardless of what number they give it, and they also know they'd get raked over the coals all over again if they charged for any of these 'catch up' updates.

10.1 will be the next full version of the app just like 10.7 was the next full version of OS X.

2.9 GHz 8-core (4,1), FCP 7.0.3, 10.6.6
Blackmagic Multibridge Eclipse (7.9.5)



Return to posts index

Bret Williams
Re: FCP7 to FCPX XML Translation from Philip Hodgetts
on Jan 31, 2012 at 8:45:21 pm

Apple has stated that like the iPhone app store, there will be no charges for upgrades in the AppStore. I haven't ever seen any. And in the iPhone app store they have to change the name of the app to charge. So I assume Apple will not ever be charging for upgrades to any of their Apps on the app store. That was the clear impression they gave me when they introduced it. If they meant something else they should've been very clear because I'll be ticked off when and if they start going back on their concept.


Return to posts index

Andrew Kimery
Re: FCP7 to FCPX XML Translation from Philip Hodgetts
on Jan 31, 2012 at 8:52:16 pm

I was never under the impression that once you buy FCP 10 you will get updates free forever. Apple also said you couldn't do free trails via the app store either.


-Andrew

2.9 GHz 8-core (4,1), FCP 7.0.3, 10.6.6
Blackmagic Multibridge Eclipse (7.9.5)



Return to posts index

Thomas Frank
Re: FCP7 to FCPX XML Translation from Philip Hodgetts
on Jan 31, 2012 at 9:01:22 pm

What are you talking about? All Apps I have purchaesd over the App Store on my iPad had free updates.



Return to posts index

Andrew Kimery
Re: FCP7 to FCPX XML Translation from Philip Hodgetts
on Jan 31, 2012 at 9:15:22 pm

So all apps are now pay once and get free upgrades forever? When the next version of FCP X (10.1) or OS X (10.8) comes out they will be free if you already own FCP 10.0 or OS 10.7 respectively?

2.9 GHz 8-core (4,1), FCP 7.0.3, 10.6.6
Blackmagic Multibridge Eclipse (7.9.5)



Return to posts index

Thomas Frank
Re: FCP7 to FCPX XML Translation from Philip Hodgetts
on Jan 31, 2012 at 9:21:45 pm

My comment went to Bret Williams about the iPhone App Store and yes so far all updates for the Apps I have purchased where free. Sorry that was the case so far.



Return to posts index

Bret Williams
Re: FCP7 to FCPX XML Translation from Philip Hodgetts
on Feb 1, 2012 at 5:17:22 am

When steve introduced the iPhone app store he specifically said "and all updates on the app store are always free." And they have been.

When they introduced the app store for the mac I was blown away when he basically said "and just like the iOS app store, all updates are free of charge" or something like that.

So, like so many, I presumed when they added FCP to the App store that it would be free updates forever.


Return to posts index

Gary Huff
Re: FCP7 to FCPX XML Translation from Philip Hodgetts
on Jan 31, 2012 at 9:24:12 pm

[Thomas Frank]What are you talking about? All Apps I have purchaesd over the App Store on my iPad had free updates.

Yeah, there's no way in hell that's going to be the case until the end of time. There will be another entry on the App Store at some point for an upgrade to FCPX. Whether that will be labeled as FCPX2 or FCPX 10.1 or whatever is anyone's guess, but it will be the case.

It remains to be seen just what kind of functional state FCPX (original) will be in at that point.


Return to posts index

Thomas Frank
Re: FCP7 to FCPX XML Translation from Philip Hodgetts
on Jan 31, 2012 at 9:31:34 pm

well a course but still better then Adobes update plan.



Return to posts index

Rafael Amador
Re: FCP7 to FCPX XML Translation from Philip Hodgetts
on Feb 1, 2012 at 3:28:22 pm

[Thomas Frank] "well a course but still better then Adobes update plan."
With FC.7 we paid 300 bucks for three new Prores flavors and bit more.
rafael

http://www.nagavideo.com


Return to posts index

Thomas Frank
Re: FCP7 to FCPX XML Translation from Philip Hodgetts
on Feb 1, 2012 at 3:31:43 pm

Still better then Adobes plan ;)



Return to posts index

Gary Huff
Re: FCP7 to FCPX XML Translation from Philip Hodgetts
on Feb 1, 2012 at 5:14:03 pm

You get Photoshop, Premiere, AE, Speedgrade (CS6), Audition, ect. ect. ect. with Adobe...so I fail to see your point.


Return to posts index

Bret Williams
Re: FCP7 to FCPX XML Translation from Philip Hodgetts
on Feb 1, 2012 at 10:56:52 pm

To quote the Mac App Store Support FAQ: http://support.apple.com/kb/HT4461

"Updates for apps from the Mac App Store are free. Updates will appear in the Updates tab of the Mac App Store when they are available."

So what is the definition of an update? I think it's the same as the iOS app store. There is no function or method to charge for an update to an app. Period. They wrangled out in-app purchases and how to do that, but updates are free.

I realize other companies are going to get around this by simply changing the app name by versioning. BUT, how do they keep from screwing their current customers? Say you've got Widget 2011, and it cost $200. They sell the boxed upgrade to Widget 2012 for $50. If you purchased Widget 11 in the App Store for $200 how do you get Widget 2012 for $50 via the App Store. You don't. It is explicitly disallowed. They can sell Widget 2012 in the App store for $200 as a separate app, but how does that help the owners of Widget 2011 that want it for $50.

Apple has already addressed this with it's own apps because they could see the future, as they're inventing it. They reduced the price of FCP X to the normal upgrade price. In fact, it's $100 more than the upgrade price. So yes, they will probably sell FCP 11 for $299. There won't be much to complain about as that is pretty much the old upgrade pricing. Look at Aperture and iWork apps when they went into the App Store. Prices were dropped. In the case of Aperture it was dropped to the upgrade pricing or less. With the case of iWork/iLife apps, they have never had any upgrade pricing. And they made Snow Leopard ridiculously cheap as well as Lion. They've slowly dropped their pricing and dropped the idea of upgrade pricing BEFORE they even announced the app store, with a few exceptions. It's probably part of the reason they decided to cut off FCP 7 sales, albeit a shallow reason. It just didn't fit the new model and nobody thought it through.

So, how does Adobe an Microsoft put their apps on the App store with no upgrade pricing when users are used to paying 35% of full retail for the upgrades every year, not 100% They'll have to adapt to Apple's concept and/or come out with "App Store" versions that are somewhat lesser featured, but much less cost. Give me After Effects that is limited to 1080p for example for $299 instead of $999 for example. Adobe will also have to adapt to the idea that you're allowed to put it on all your machines. Not just 1.


Return to posts index

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