FORUMS: list search recent posts

Todays FCP X announcement

COW Forums : Apple Final Cut Pro X Debates

<< PREVIOUS   •   VIEW ALL   •   PRINT   •   NEXT >>
Craig Meadows
Todays FCP X announcement
on Jan 31, 2012 at 7:48:01 pm

In addition to MultiCam editing the bigger news for our shop is that it seems we may soon see drivers for broadcast monitoring via 3rd party products, i.e.; AJA, BMD, Matrox, etc. Anyone have more information?

http://forums.creativecow.net/readpost/335/25355


Return to posts index

Andy Neil
Re: Todays FCP X announcement
on Jan 31, 2012 at 7:51:08 pm

AJA already has drivers up for their Kona products. I don't know about BM because I don't own a BM card, but heard they were going to be up later today.

Broadcast monitoring requires Lion, that much seems clear though. As soon as I update my Kona machine to Lion, I'll know more.

Andy

http://www.timesavertutorials.com


Return to posts index

Thomas Frank
Re: Todays FCP X announcement
on Jan 31, 2012 at 7:54:55 pm

No drivers for the AJA ioHD. Bummer



Return to posts index


Mark Suszko
Re: Todays FCP X announcement
on Jan 31, 2012 at 8:07:51 pm

Adcock's article in macworld offers a lot of hope, and it makes me feel better bout deciding to try x at home. At the risk of breaking an unknown rule of posting:





http://www.macworld.com/article/165108/2012/01/first_look_final_cut_pro_x_1...



Return to posts index

Greg Jones
Re: Todays FCP X announcement
on Jan 31, 2012 at 8:27:30 pm

It's small, but I like the fact you can match frame back to the 'bin' or whatever they call it now and your original clip has the in and out points from your edit. I still don't like the fact that there's not a 'Source' Monitor. Maybe they'll listen and put that back in too.

Greg Jones
D7,Inc.
Orlando,Fl.
http://www.d7-inc.com

Greg Jones
Orlando,Fl.
http://www.d7-inc.com


Return to posts index

Chris Harlan
Re: Todays FCP X announcement
on Jan 31, 2012 at 9:37:55 pm

[Greg Jones] "It's small, but I like the fact you can match frame back to the 'bin' or whatever they call it now and your original clip has the in and out points from your edit."

Not small at all. That's good news.


Return to posts index


Craig Seeman
Re: Todays FCP X announcement
on Jan 31, 2012 at 9:41:02 pm

[Greg Jones] "I still don't like the fact that there's not a 'Source' Monitor"

Interesting how Multicam seems to work though. You got your multiclips playing on the left and the clip you've edited on the right. It's a step away from ganging.



Return to posts index

mark cookman
Re: Todays FCP X announcement
on Jan 31, 2012 at 8:28:29 pm

still cant see how it fits into a collaborative workflow; editors and fx artists need to share media.


Return to posts index

Greg Jones
Re: Todays FCP X announcement
on Jan 31, 2012 at 8:37:46 pm

Yeah. I agree. I think it would be great for down and dirty single edits, but as far as television shows or even feature film work, it's not there. I think Avid is going to take back over the collaborative environment.

Greg Jones
D7,Inc.
Orlando,Fl.
http://www.d7-inc.com


Return to posts index


Andy Neil
Re: Todays FCP X announcement
on Jan 31, 2012 at 8:50:46 pm

[mark cookman] "still cant see how it fits into a collaborative workflow; editors and fx artists need to share media."

Not sure I understand. FCPX shares nearly as well as FCP 7 does.

You can already share media in FCPX for multiple editors.

FX artists work in a variety of tools and you send media to them like you do with FCP7. You create selects and export video for them. Some graphics can now be built as effects, titles and transitions directly in Motion and then applied as needed in FCPX.

Automatic Duck's Pro Export plug-in allows for OMF/AAF export for pro tools, or you can send stems directly from FCPX.

What are you having trouble seeing?

Andy

http://www.timesavertutorials.com


Return to posts index

Thomas Frank
Re: Todays FCP X announcement
on Jan 31, 2012 at 8:57:14 pm

And you go to Davinci and back FCPX correct? I don't understand ether about this can't share or send clips to other Apps.

I see it everyday FCPX users sending ProRes 4444 files to After Effects and Co.



Return to posts index

mark cookman
Re: Todays FCP X announcement
on Jan 31, 2012 at 9:40:52 pm

An example for you folks: with FCP7 multiple editors can use the same clip (located on a shared drive) in each of their timelines and edit with it concurrently, meanwhile an FX artist is able to update the clip, the changes are reflected in any edits referencing that media.

Can't see a way we can be that slick with FCPX at the moment, I'm hoping there will be some kind of FCServer solution for collaborative needs.


Return to posts index


Andy Neil
Re: Todays FCP X announcement
on Jan 31, 2012 at 9:57:35 pm

[mark cookman] "with FCP7 multiple editors can use the same clip (located on a shared drive) in each of their timelines and edit with it concurrently, meanwhile an FX artist is able to update the clip, the changes are reflected in any edits referencing that media."

If you do that with FCP7, the clip will go offline and gets automatically reconnected.

Guess what? It works exactly the same in FCPX now. So I guess the future is now, eh?

Andy

http://www.timesavertutorials.com


Return to posts index

mark cookman
Re: Todays FCP X announcement
on Feb 1, 2012 at 12:51:53 am

Guess what? It works exactly the same in FCPX now. So I guess the future is now, eh?


Perhaps you are right and after catching up with the now through a little background reading; "guess what" I should have said is :

After the update it seems studios can still only use FCPX collaboratively if they run on a SAN.
Due to flexibility needs; there is no 'per seat' file-share licensing in our future.


Return to posts index

Andrew Richards
Re: Todays FCP X announcement
on Feb 1, 2012 at 3:44:41 pm

[mark cookman] "After the update it seems studios can still only use FCPX collaboratively if they run on a SAN.
Due to flexibility needs; there is no 'per seat' file-share licensing in our future."


Are you talking about Xsan? Xsan is now included in Lion, no additional cost per seat. You still have the infrastructure requirements though.

Best,
Andy


Return to posts index


Oliver Peters
Re: Todays FCP X announcement
on Feb 1, 2012 at 12:55:43 pm

"If you do that with FCP7, the clip will go offline and gets automatically reconnected."

Huh? No it doesn't. People in FCP 7 SAN environments do this all the time. The limitation is that each has to work in their own local project or copies of a master project.

Oliver

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


Return to posts index

Andy Neil
Re: Todays FCP X announcement
on Feb 1, 2012 at 4:44:46 pm

[Oliver Peters] ""If you do that with FCP7, the clip will go offline and gets automatically reconnected."

Huh? No it doesn't. People in FCP 7 SAN environments do this all the time."


Just because people do this all the time, doesn't mean that's not what happens. You can see it happen when access through the network to the clip is slowed just enough. When the connection is fast enough, there is barely a dip to black when the file is changed and then the new file is connected, but the save procedure breaks the connection to the original file and FCP automatically relinks to the new save, usually in the blink of an eye.

I was merely pointing out that it's exactly how FCPX works now.

Andy

http://www.timesavertutorials.com


Return to posts index

Oliver Peters
Re: Todays FCP X announcement
on Feb 1, 2012 at 4:54:18 pm

[Andy Neil] "but the save procedure breaks the connection to the original file and FCP automatically relinks to the new save, usually in the blink of an eye."

Well, I'll have to take your word for that. I've never seen it happen on Xsan, FibreJet or Maxx Digital's FinalShare with FCP 6 or FCP 7. That's with several years worth of use. Other issues, yes, but not that.

[Andy Neil] "I was merely pointing out that it's exactly how FCPX works now."

Except that in FCP 6 or 7, I can have two editors simutaneously access the same capture scratch folder of media. With FCP X you cannot have two editors simultaneously access the same Event folder.

- Oliver

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


Return to posts index

Andy Neil
Re: Todays FCP X announcement
on Feb 1, 2012 at 5:06:49 pm

[Oliver Peters] "With FCP X you cannot have two editors simultaneously access the same Event folder."

Which is why in collaborative environments, you don't copy files to a specific event folder. Instead you link to those files from both machines.

Andy

http://www.timesavertutorials.com


Return to posts index

Matthew Sonnenfeld
Re: Todays FCP X announcement
on Feb 1, 2012 at 5:45:30 pm

Andy, I think that a major issue here is the language. Regardless of how similar things might be in reality, it is a new language, new steps, new methods, and only FCPX people will understand. Try having an audio engineer or a colorist access your media and they will be lost completely. FCPX is not for serious collaboration. It is for one FCPX user to work on a project with maybe a couple other FCPX users. There is still nothing that I have heard in this back and forth that could convince me that FCPX is a good choice for a collaborative production workflow.

This is not an issue of laziness either. There is a universal language among all of post production and FCPX breaks that. It's not just about the main editor, which is something that FCPX seems to neglect.

As for all this talk about tracks being spreadsheets as bad, as imposing... Editors biggest jobs are organization. We like spreadsheets.

As for the automation of assigned roles, sorry for being a skeptic but I don't trust it. When I hand over a project to do my mix in Pro Tools, I will have spent more time double checking to make sure it got than automation right than I would have had I just placed the audio in the track I want from the start. The last thing I would ever want is a phone call from a confused audio technician about why my tracks don't make sense and having to explain to him how FCPX role assignments got it wrong.

Panasonic HPX170 P
2011 Macbook Pro 17", 2.3 Ghz Quad Core, 8GB RAM
Matrox MXO2 LE with MAX
Adobe Premiere Pro CS5.5, Final Cut Pro Studio 3, Avid Media Composer 3.5.4
The College of WIlliam and Mary


Return to posts index

Craig Seeman
Re: Todays FCP X announcement
on Feb 1, 2012 at 6:00:07 pm

[Matthew Sonnenfeld] "As for all this talk about tracks being spreadsheets as bad, as imposing... Editors biggest jobs are organization. We like spreadsheets."

Databases are far more powerful. Over time, regardless of NLE, the power editor or their assistances, will be database proficient. I suspect other NLEs will catch up but FCPX is taking the lead in that department. It really needs a facility level management tool though.



Return to posts index

David Lawrence
Re: Todays FCP X announcement
on Feb 1, 2012 at 7:01:28 pm

[Craig Seeman] "Databases are far more powerful. Over time, regardless of NLE, the power editor or their assistances, will be database proficient. I suspect other NLEs will catch up but FCPX is taking the lead in that department. It really needs a facility level management tool though."

More powerful for what? The analogy really doesn't make sense. It's like saying because we have mySQL, there's no longer a need for Microsoft Excel. Really?

_______________________
David Lawrence
art~media~design~research
propaganda.com
publicmattersgroup.com
facebook.com/dlawrence
twitter.com/dhl


Return to posts index

Craig Seeman
Re: Todays FCP X announcement
on Feb 1, 2012 at 7:14:45 pm

[David Lawrence] "More powerful for what? The analogy really doesn't make sense. It's like saying because we have mySQL, there's no longer a need for Microsoft Excel. Really?"

It's not that the spreadsheet doesn't have utility but it's way too limited IMHO. If you don't need to go beyond those limits in a given project that's fine. I used to do a lot of Filemaker work and, of course, used spreadsheets. The number of people and organizations who used spreadsheets instead of databases because they had no idea how to use a database was pervasive IMHO.

Being able to use Roles to line up content in rows (tracks) as needed would be good. I don't want my NLE to limited by that mode, as most are. This is something I've felt since I first used Avid circa 1990 and it's the thing that ignited my interest in FCPX. Despite its weaknesses it's the first NLE (at least that I've seen) that designed to be a database.

One thing that FCPX hasn't broached, and may not for some time, is that a powerful database not only allows for complex relationships but allows for flexible display. FCPX has a ways to go in that area but my own guess is that Apple is going to move the database further along for a bit before it can really get into more flexible interface control.



Return to posts index

Oliver Peters
Re: Todays FCP X announcement
on Feb 1, 2012 at 7:25:52 pm

[Craig Seeman] "One thing that FCPX hasn't broached, and may not for some time, is that a powerful database not only allows for complex relationships but allows for flexible display. FCPX has a ways to go in that area but my own guess is that Apple is going to move the database further along for a bit before it can really get into more flexible interface control."

Maybe I'm dense, but would you please elaborate on that with some specific examples? I've seen it stated over and over, but I just don't see it. For example, FCP X's database functions seem considerably less involved than Avid's. (Especially when you factor in things like script-based editing.) Or than Final Cut Server's or CatDV.

Smart Collections and Keywords are simply other ways of doing the same things. Plus this data doesn't appear to be externally accessible. You can export XML, but you can't reach in from the outside and extract information. So, I fail to see how FCP X is any more of a database with any more power than what others have been doing for 20+ years.

- Oliver

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


Return to posts index

Aindreas Gallagher
Re: Todays FCP X announcement
on Feb 1, 2012 at 10:27:29 pm

its all getting a little isaac asimov here -

Say I'm stupid craig (and you wouldn't be wrong) explain in straightforward terms the transformative importance of the database in the context of FCPX as an editing system to a lowly editor? Simple examples relating to the editing experience with this software as it currently stands?


http://www.ogallchoir.net
promo producer/editor.grading/motion graphics


Return to posts index

Paul Dickin
Re: Todays FCP X announcement
on Feb 1, 2012 at 11:03:34 pm

[Aindreas Gallagher] "...in straightforward terms the transformative importance of the database..."
Hi
My most straightforward 'need' is for different captures (tape) or transfers (card) of the same material - A/V + timecode + Reel Name - to be seen by the NLE as linkable with no issues, regardless of clip in/outs etc. So for example if a whole tape had been captured overall, then fragmentary clip sections subsequently recaptured would work in the edited project without any relink fiddling and fooling around.

A label based spreadsheet like FCP Legacy couldn't do this as it can't see beyond the original capture/ingest labeling of the video. All that Shift-F matchback malarky if you've brought clips into the browser from another project.

A proper database would see clips from identical assets as being the same thing even if brought to the project by different ingest methods.

That's where my puck has been - awaiting an NLE to catch up with it... ;-)



Return to posts index

Aindreas Gallagher
Re: Todays FCP X announcement
on Feb 1, 2012 at 11:16:58 pm

[Paul Dickin] "
A proper database would see clips from identical assets as being the same thing even if brought to the project by different ingest methods.
"


again being stupid - how does that arise in a work scenario? what are you describing in a work scenario with this re-linking going beyond the spreadsheet?

[Paul Dickin] "So for example if a whole tape had been captured overall, then fragmentary clip sections subsequently recaptured would work in the edited project without any relink fiddling and fooling around.
"


nnnnn. do you mean you are capturing smaller segments of the same material? I'm not getting my head around this bit? whats the work scenario?


http://www.ogallchoir.net
promo producer/editor.grading/motion graphics


Return to posts index

David Lawrence
Re: Todays FCP X announcement
on Feb 1, 2012 at 10:55:31 pm

[Craig Seeman] "The number of people and organizations who used spreadsheets instead of databases because they had no idea how to use a database was pervasive IMHO."

Certainly. I've seen this many times as well. That doesn't change the fact that even though they have some functional overlap, they're really different tools for different jobs.

[Craig Seeman] "Being able to use Roles to line up content in rows (tracks) as needed would be good. I don't want my NLE to limited by that mode, as most are. "

Fair enough. I'm curious - do you do a lot of work in nodal compositors? If so I can imagine why you you'd find this liberating. For me, tracks are a foundation. They provide inherent structure and organization, both temporally and visually. I've never felt limited by them. Just the opposite, in fact.

[Craig Seeman] "One thing that FCPX hasn't broached, and may not for some time, is that a powerful database not only allows for complex relationships but allows for flexible display. FCPX has a ways to go in that area but my own guess is that Apple is going to move the database further along for a bit before it can really get into more flexible interface control."

This is something Walter Murch alludes to in that interview from a couple months ago. The idea being that if you have a robust database backend, you can build whatever UI you want on top of it to visualize the data. Great idea and hope it's possible.

My hunch though is that the timeline UI itself is designed around a data model that is considerably less flexible than people think. My gut is the UI design decisions are deeply baked in. I'd love to be wrong about this though! The possibility of a malleable database backend that could be poured into any type of frontend UI is what keeps me paying attention to FCPX's progress.

_______________________
David Lawrence
art~media~design~research
propaganda.com
publicmattersgroup.com
facebook.com/dlawrence
twitter.com/dhl


Return to posts index

Walter Soyka
Re: Todays FCP X announcement
on Feb 1, 2012 at 11:28:54 pm

[Craig Seeman] "Being able to use Roles to line up content in rows (tracks) as needed would be good. I don't want my NLE to limited by that mode, as most are. "

[David Lawrence] "Fair enough. I'm curious - do you do a lot of work in nodal compositors? If so I can imagine why you you'd find this liberating."

I see where you're going here with nodes versus tracks, but I've made the argument before that nodal compositing is a great example of how allowing the operator to use spatial arrangement is important. Imagine if the node graph continuously automatically reflowed as you worked -- you'd get lost.

People are naturally very good at spatial thinking, but FCPX doesn't take advantage of this.

Metadata is one thing, but a self-collapsing timeline is another. Craig makes a great point -- and I think Jeremy has suggested this, too -- it'd be great if FCPX could actually use metadata to drive the view of the timeline instead of always showing the native parent/child view.

Position and alignment conveys information to humans very quickly. Here's a quick non-editorial example. In my article on FCPX from a few months ago, I included this timeline:






Here's another look at the same timeline, ruthlessly collapsed:





They convey the same information, but one is meaningful to humans at a glance, and the other requires a lot more work -- or additional tools or workarounds -- for humans to process.

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

Chris Harlan
Re: Todays FCP X announcement
on Feb 2, 2012 at 12:41:14 am

Those timelines are interesting, Walter. I've got to go back and read that.


Return to posts index

Walter Soyka
Re: Todays FCP X announcement
on Feb 2, 2012 at 2:09:11 am

[Chris Harlan] "Those timelines are interesting, Walter. I've got to go back and read that."

Thanks, Chris. I'd certainly appreciate hearing your thoughts on it, especially in light of the release of 10.0.3 (which I would note on the timeline if I were building it today -- it's a much more important release than a couple of the major version FCP Classic releases).

I'm glad to see the pro features making their way back into FCPX, but 10.0.0's missing functionality wasn't the main thrust of my thinking, then or now. The question has become much larger than FCP/FCPX for me.

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

Chris Harlan
Re: Todays FCP X announcement
on Feb 2, 2012 at 2:36:04 am

[Walter Soyka] "I'm glad to see the pro features making their way back into FCPX, but 10.0.0's missing functionality wasn't the main thrust of my thinking, then or now. The question has become much larger than FCP/FCPX for me."

I agree completely. I've never had any doubt that Apple would do the things they announced they would. The bright side today--for me--are the small things they have turned their attention to. But it also demonstrates to me that the notions I've held of X's trajectory are pretty much on target, and that the decisions I've made to expand my personal toolset beyond what Apple has to offer were correct. I guess I'm even grateful for the motivation. And, as X opens up more, I'm sure I'll find uses for it.

I was cutting a piece last night on FCP7, with several temporarily overlapping chunks of video, and 18 tracks of audio--some synced, some out of sync, and some not synced at all--and I became aware for a moment how much I was depending on the color-coded timecode overlay in the record monitor and all of the TC sync references on the timeline, and really, how much I regularly depend on them without even being aware that I am. And then today, as I read about the new fixes and enhancements, it just really struck me how far apart these tools are.


Return to posts index

David Lawrence
Re: Todays FCP X announcement
on Feb 2, 2012 at 12:48:14 am

[Walter Soyka] "I see where you're going here with nodes versus tracks, but I've made the argument before that nodal compositing is a great example of how allowing the operator to use spatial arrangement is important."

We're in complete agreement here. Spatial position is essential in mapping a nodal pipeline. The last thing you'd want is for it to constantly reflow. Where I was coming from is that in nodal compositing, the focus is generally on individual shots, not the timeline or time per se. The spatial position and connections between nodes have nothing to do with that node's relationship to time. It's all about the composite.

[Walter Soyka] "Imagine if the node graph continuously automatically reflowed as you worked -- you'd get lost.

People are naturally very good at spatial thinking, but FCPX doesn't take advantage of this."


Agreed. I think this is one of the reasons I dislike the magnetic timeline. By default it reflows both horizontally and vertically in time. For my work style and project needs, more often than not, this gets in the way.

[Walter Soyka] "Metadata is one thing, but a self-collapsing timeline is another. Craig makes a great point -- and I think Jeremy has suggested this, too -- it'd be great if FCPX could actually use metadata to drive the view of the timeline instead of always showing the native parent/child view."

Yes! This would be great. I think the forced parent/child UI is the core problem with the current FCPX timeline for editor's like myself. It's an artificial constraint when you're used to working in an open, non-hierarchical timeline.

I hope we eventually see something like this but I'm not holding my breath ;)

_______________________
David Lawrence
art~media~design~research
propaganda.com
publicmattersgroup.com
facebook.com/dlawrence
twitter.com/dhl


Return to posts index

Chris Harlan
Re: Todays FCP X announcement
on Feb 2, 2012 at 1:56:10 am

[David Lawrence] " Spatial position is essential in mapping a nodal pipeline. The last thing you'd want is for it to constantly reflow. "

I was just trying to imagine that, and it made me laugh my head off.


Return to posts index

Aindreas Gallagher
Re: Todays FCP X announcement
on Feb 1, 2012 at 11:52:43 pm

mind you david -

http://twitpic.com/8e1ly6

as somebody who knows coding like they know CERN, I still feel full blown multiclip architecture turned up quite head turningly fast in the fashion they have just produced it.

although: the timeline is as ever glommed with chrome when moving clip objects tho. I will never stop stamping my walking stick on that point. that timeline has immense problems moving the physical clip objects.

to me, they feel immensely heavy objects on current hardware - its a ridiculously gloopy timeline. I would recommend anyone to throw a clip around freely on 7 and X - really let your mouse go - the difference is jaw dropping given that physical clip movement represents intrinsic editing thought process.


http://www.ogallchoir.net
promo producer/editor.grading/motion graphics


Return to posts index

Oliver Peters
Re: Todays FCP X announcement
on Feb 2, 2012 at 12:30:28 am

[Aindreas Gallagher] "as somebody who knows coding like they know CERN, I still feel full blown multiclip architecture turned up quite head turningly fast in the fashion they have just produced it."

I hope no one here really believes this release was in any way, shape or form a response to customer complaints and concerns. It seems quite clear to me that we've now pretty much reached the version of FCP X that ProApps had always intended to launch. It's just that they were probably a year premature, so a lot either wasn't ready or didn't work or was dependent on something now yet in the OS. So items had to be stripped out and are now being added back in. I think this version pretty clearly shows an unequivocal direction, which means not many of the "lovable FCP 7 features" are going to make their way back in.

- Oliver

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


Return to posts index

Aindreas Gallagher
Re: Todays FCP X announcement
on Feb 2, 2012 at 12:51:39 am

i can't keep track of who is pro or con anymore? aren't you a floater??

:)

ok so for the sake of a rant to reassert my rabid credentials:

look forget everything else - bottom line - the FCPX timeline is a bombsite. its a crater. and they're not going to try and fix that because of where they wanted to bring imovie.

the timeline is the central intellectual conceit of an editing system. Apple's timeline is a broken, slow to react mess of indescribable proportions.

primary storyline, secondary storyline, connected clips, roles, its ridiculous. it represents lunatic *not invented here* avoidance of the continuing reality of the underlying track structure. Apple's core timeline work is immensely annoying.

people can talk about four dimensional databases and exposing data though three dimensional artificially intelligent tags all they want.

the timeline is a gloopy ridiculous reductive metaphor mess. that, I would argue, is the central issue.

there - a bit of the rabid froth.


http://www.ogallchoir.net
promo producer/editor.grading/motion graphics


Return to posts index

Oliver Peters
Re: Todays FCP X announcement
on Feb 2, 2012 at 2:06:41 am

[Aindreas Gallagher] "i can't keep track of who is pro or con anymore? "

You mean me? I'm trying to keep an open mind, but the application keeps fighting me on that ;-)

- Oliver

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


Return to posts index

Andy Neil
Re: Todays FCP X announcement
on Feb 1, 2012 at 6:26:38 pm

[Matthew Sonnenfeld] "I think that a major issue here is the language. Regardless of how similar things might be in reality, it is a new language, new steps, new methods, and only FCPX people will understand."

I'm sorry to disagree with you Matthew, but you're just wrong about that. There is no language barrier with FCPX except inside the program itself. If an audio engineer accesses my media, it's no different than then the media he/she accesses from any other NLE. You think if you edit in FCPX you have to translate everything to everyone else, but that's just not the case. If I export OMFs or AAFs out of X for a pro tools session, they show up as organized tracks (organized by role).

[Matthew Sonnenfeld] "As for the automation of assigned roles, sorry for being a skeptic but I don't trust it. When I hand over a project to do my mix in Pro Tools, I will have spent more time double checking to make sure it got than automation right than I would have had I just placed the audio in the track I want from the start."

This is because you don't understand what it's doing. It's very easy to understand how FCPX assigns roles. I'm convinced that if you took the time to understand the roles feature, you would be just as comfortable as I am using it. I've been in this game for over a decade. I'm very comfortable editing in the traditional mode. I also was not a fan of FCPX's paradigm at the beginning. But after practice, I found that there are several aspects of editing in FCPX that are quite a bit faster than the traditional way. Roles is one of those aspects.

I'm not trying to convince you of anything; the past months on these boards have cured me of that. I just want to make sure that incorrect information regarding FCPX doesn't get spread as gospel to those who haven't yet made up their mind. And your concerns about the roles feature with regards to outside collaborators are unfounded. Roles are neither difficult nor time-consuming.

Andy

http://www.timesavertutorials.com


Return to posts index

Oliver Peters
Re: Todays FCP X announcement
on Feb 1, 2012 at 6:32:39 pm

[Andy Neil] "Which is why in collaborative environments, you don't copy files to a specific event folder. Instead you link to those files from both machines."

I completely understand that. Unfortunately it's the Event that holds the metadata. In FCP 7 both editors could work from copies of the same project, so they both had access to common logging metadata, comments, etc. Is there an equivalent in FCP X?

- Oliver

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


Return to posts index

Leo Hans
Re: Todays FCP X announcement
on Feb 3, 2012 at 9:48:29 pm

Oliver,

Perhaps Apple has still work to do, but that's not true.

If you share FCP7 project and one editor modify something the only way to consolidate both projects is to copy and paste sequences. But every change made in the clips (marks, sub-clips, metadata, etc). is lost.

So, you can share the media but not keep it updated.

I can see FCPX in the near future working in a real shared environment.

Leo Hans
Editor AVID - Final Cut Pro
http://www.leohans.com


Return to posts index

Oliver Peters
Re: Todays FCP X announcement
on Feb 3, 2012 at 10:41:08 pm

[Leo Hans] "If you share FCP7 project and one editor modify something the only way to consolidate both projects is to copy and paste sequences. But every change made in the clips (marks, sub-clips, metadata, etc). is lost."

I think it depends. For example, in the film world, you can have an assistant on one system create a separate FCP 7 project for each day of dailies. Maybe 30 or more individual FCP 7 project files - one for each day of dailies. In the dailies project(s), he can ingest/import media, merge double-system sound, enter scene/take/log info, etc. The editor can now open a dailies project across the network, link to the media and copy & paste (or drag across) all that data into a bin in the editor's master FCP 7 project. Works fine and no metadata is lost. Obviously a lot of manual work is done and it requires human communication and interaction between the editor and assistant. Granted, if the assistant later changes something in his dailies project, this doesn't come across and would somehow have to be manually updated. The trick with FCP 7 projects and sharing has been to think of them like Avid bins (at the OS level) and work accordingly. The point is that two or more editors can freely shared FCP 7 projects in various ways that work for them.

I do a lot of work at a shop that has Final Cut Server and 4 seats of FCP 7. I presume at some point we'll see this type of project management enter the picture for FCP X. With FC Server you have to use a formal check-out/check-in procedure, which is a lot like what Avid does in Interplay. That method (with FC Server) allows sharing, but only one editor can have the correct file checked out from FC Server at any given time.

- Oliver

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


Return to posts index

Morten Ranmar
Re: Todays FCP X announcement
on Jan 31, 2012 at 9:31:55 pm

The problem is, unless you login to a SAN volume, you cannot share your projects, proxies, optimized media on a network drive, to allow other seats to access it in a simple way. There are some of us who don't do everything on a Macbookpro...

- No Parking Production -

2 x Finalcut Studio3, 2 x Prod. bundle CS5.5, 2 x MacPro, 2 x ioHD, Ethernet File Server w. X-Raid.... and FCPX on trial


Return to posts index

Thomas Frank
Re: Todays FCP X announcement
on Jan 31, 2012 at 9:34:58 pm

We don't ether all MacPros here and all Projects no matter FCPX or Premiere projects are shared over FireWire drives and RAIDS over fiber.



Return to posts index

Morten Ranmar
Re: Todays FCP X announcement
on Jan 31, 2012 at 9:51:28 pm

Yes I know it's possible to create a "disc mount" and cheat FcpX, but that is not a professional workflow. We have editors comung in on random computers, who have to open up and work on projects. This needs to be done in a true shared environment, which FcpX does not (yet) offer, unless you are on a SAN...

- No Parking Production -

2 x Finalcut Studio3, 2 x Prod. bundle CS5.5, 2 x MacPro, 2 x ioHD, Ethernet File Server w. X-Raid.... and FCPX on trial


Return to posts index

Matthew Sonnenfeld
Re: Todays FCP X announcement
on Feb 1, 2012 at 12:25:37 am

Maybe I'm closed minded but until (and it's still an "if") they add a way to use a more traditional track based timeline, stellar multi-cam and improved keying, even if I can open my old projects and monitor properly (almost), is still not for me.

Panasonic HPX170 P
2011 Macbook Pro 17", 2.3 Ghz Quad Core, 8GB RAM
Matrox MXO2 LE with MAX
Adobe Premiere Pro CS5.5, Final Cut Pro Studio 3, Avid Media Composer 3.5.4
The College of WIlliam and Mary


Return to posts index

adam dewhirst
Re: Todays FCP X announcement
on Feb 1, 2012 at 1:27:18 am

"the use of a more track based timeline environment"... this has been the most frustrating thing for me with fcp x... this storyline business (what if you don't produce stories?), i just don't see the point... what advantages does it have over tracks on a timeline where you can see everything and move any clip or clips (video or audio) around at your whim with or without effecting other clips... the only thing i didn't like about the fcp6 timeline, which i still use, is that when you nest a clip you can't apply global effects to that nest... i'm not sure if you can do this with compound clips or not?

multicam editing is not what i have ever used nor ever will so this update is very poor for my part...


Return to posts index

Craig Seeman
Re: Todays FCP X announcement
on Feb 1, 2012 at 1:39:48 am

Timelines have been used for certain functions that FCPX endeavors to obviate the need for.
Organizational needs will be managed by metadata.
Editing function needs are managed variously.
Visual feedback some might still want be the function for that is already diminished.

Basically you have to look at WHY you need one clip on top of another. There are other ways to fulfill most of those needs. Roles, while still a work in progress, allow you to disable clips that perform a specific function. They provide control based on function rather than track layer. Compositing also works but could also use some improvement.



Return to posts index

Matthew Sonnenfeld
Re: Todays FCP X announcement
on Feb 1, 2012 at 1:56:01 am

Te problem is that all of those things take extra steps. Tracks work. They're straight forward. I dont want to think about WHY I need tracks or why some things may interact the way they do. Tracks have been used this way for a reason and it's proven at this point.

Take the issue with audio in FCPX. Sure you can export audio with dialogue, effects, music, etc. but the way i understand it is that the clips all need to be labeled individually so that the XML can organize them coherently to go to ProTools. Yes it's nice metadata to know what's dialogue and what's not at a glance but its extra steps. It defeats the purpose if you ask me. I just want tracks. They organize themselves with minimal effort.

Panasonic HPX170 P
2011 Macbook Pro 17", 2.3 Ghz Quad Core, 8GB RAM
Matrox MXO2 LE with MAX
Adobe Premiere Pro CS5.5, Final Cut Pro Studio 3, Avid Media Composer 3.5.4
The College of WIlliam and Mary


Return to posts index

Craig Seeman
Re: Todays FCP X announcement
on Feb 1, 2012 at 2:20:49 am

[Matthew Sonnenfeld] "Te problem is that all of those things take extra steps."

You point to a track (the old way) or you assign a role (the new way). You need to do "a thing" and you do it.

[Matthew Sonnenfeld] "Tracks have been used this way for a reason and it's proven at this point. "

Tracks have been used that way because there was no alternative. Now there is. It used to look like a spreadsheet with rows of clips. Now it looks like a database. It still needs some work but the concept is better IMHO and the execution is improving. Maybe it's like touch typing. I don't need to look at the keys to know I'm hitting the right one. I can see the story though as I type it.



Return to posts index

David Lawrence
Re: Todays FCP X announcement
on Feb 1, 2012 at 5:02:42 am

[Craig Seeman] "Tracks have been used that way because there was no alternative. Now there is. It used to look like a spreadsheet with rows of clips. Now it looks like a database. "

It's about frame-of-reference. Tracks are the most natural and efficient way to represent multiple concurrent channels of media relative to absolute time. The database functionality doesn't help with this. Labels (roles) exist outside time and space -- they solve a different kind of problem.

There are many workflows and project types that demand multiple, parallel, media channels in absolute time -- multi-track audio recording or multi-channel video to name a couple.

I've said for while and I still believe that FCPX's single Primary Storyline is its biggest conceptual weakness. It's efficient for certain kinds of editing and will hopefully improve; but at its core, it's currently still an embellished single-track system. Sure, you can edit with it, but many editors like myself will find it limiting until it gets much more flexible.

Today's updates are great and I'm curious to see how the timeline evolves. Now if they ever give the ability to create multiple Primaries as needed, things could get really interesting...

_______________________
David Lawrence
art~media~design~research
propaganda.com
publicmattersgroup.com
facebook.com/dlawrence
twitter.com/dhl


Return to posts index

Craig Seeman
Re: Todays FCP X announcement
on Feb 1, 2012 at 4:36:23 pm

[David Lawrence] "Tracks are the most natural and efficient way to represent multiple concurrent channels of media relative to absolute time."

It depends on the duration. I can see time with connected clips and secondary storylines. If different parts of disparate time distance need to be "relative" I can make them a secondary storyline. I have choice. Clips apart in time may or may not be relative. I can make that "connection" as I see fit.

Tracks serve certain functions for me:
B-roll
compositing
alternate cuts of a section
display of common functions (titles, fx, vo, sfx, etc).

All these are handled in FCPX. As I note above, if I need them disparate time elements to be "relative" I can do that. I have the choice. Tracks are not enforced. I am free to define the use depending on the project needs at hand.

I prefer to think of FCPX as "virtual tracks" rather than "trackless," which I think was another example of bad marketing on Apple's part.

What I find missing in FCPX is that Secondary Stoylines don't have many of the editing features Primary Storylines have. I suspect that will change as FCPX evolves.

I'd like to see a "track tool' which would make disparate clips into a secondary storyline if I need them connected horizontally. It would be nice to integrate that into Roles so one could select all VO for example and "make secondary storyline" from them.

I have no reason to be locked into spreadsheet like tracks.



Return to posts index

David Lawrence
Re: Todays FCP X announcement
on Feb 1, 2012 at 10:29:00 pm

[Craig Seeman] "It depends on the duration. I can see time with connected clips and secondary storylines. If different parts of disparate time distance need to be "relative" I can make them a secondary storyline. I have choice. Clips apart in time may or may not be relative. I can make that "connection" as I see fit."

Duration is irrelevant. The problem is everything must either be in or connected to the Primary -- whether it makes sense or not. Fine for some things but a huge limitation for any editorial workflow requiring multiple, independent channels.

This is why we see workarounds like spiking clips to frame 1 to try to simulate independent track-like behavior. That fact that you have to do this is a clue that the timeline paradigm still needs major work.

Roles may help visually, but I don't see how they address the constraint of everything having to connect to or be in a single Primary track.

_______________________
David Lawrence
art~media~design~research
propaganda.com
publicmattersgroup.com
facebook.com/dlawrence
twitter.com/dhl


Return to posts index

Andy Neil
Re: Todays FCP X announcement
on Feb 1, 2012 at 2:21:10 am

[Matthew Sonnenfeld] "Take the issue with audio in FCPX. Sure you can export audio with dialogue, effects, music, etc. but the way i understand it is that the clips all need to be labeled individually so that the XML can organize them coherently to go to ProTools. Yes it's nice metadata to know what's dialogue and what's not at a glance but its extra steps."

See, this is a common misconception about the Roles feature. You should check out my tutorial on Roles right here on the Cow.

FCPX INs and OUTs-Roles

First of all, those metadata roles are assigned automatically by FCPX using a variety of criteria when imported. If it guesses wrong, roles can be changed for a single clip, or entire event's worth of clips with about two clicks of the mouse.

Secondly, you likely do it all the time so you probably don't see it this way, but placing specific audio on specific tracks in a timeline is actually taking "extra" steps. They are the extra steps that you do consciously to remain organized, but you don't HAVE to put your dialogue on tracks 1 and 2.

The roles feature trades a completely manual workflow for one that is about 90 percent automated. How does that defeat the purpose?

Andy

http://www.timesavertutorials.com


Return to posts index

David Roth Weiss
Re: Todays FCP X announcement
on Feb 1, 2012 at 2:01:36 am

[Craig Seeman] "Timelines have been used for certain functions that FCPX endeavors to obviate the need for."

At least it endeavors to obviate the need in the minds of the software engineers and a minority of editors. Whether it actually obviates the need in the minds of most editors still remains to be seen.

Until Apple fires the puck closer to the vast majority of editors, or the majority of editors become more proficient skaters, the magnetic timeline may never likely be quite the puck Apple is hoping for.

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

Lance Moody
Re: Todays FCP X announcement
on Feb 1, 2012 at 2:03:47 am

And, then again, it might be exactly that.

I actually used the software and (even prior to this update) most of the complaints about it (particularly the magnetic timeline) are ridiculous--it edits just like an any editor edits. Now with the update, which addressed ALL of the major complaints, we see piddling new complaints that have magically become the NEW showstoppers.

Thank God that there will be no quality decrease in THE KARDASIANS due to waiting a month for the software to be updated AS PROMISED.


Lance



Return to posts index

tony west
Re: Todays FCP X announcement
on Feb 1, 2012 at 2:30:05 am

[Lance Moody] " we see piddling new complaints that have magically become the NEW showstoppers. "


Well put.


Return to posts index

Michael Gissing
Re: Todays FCP X announcement
on Feb 1, 2012 at 3:02:51 am

"Now with the update, which addressed ALL of the major complaints, we see piddling new complaints that have magically become the NEW showstoppers. "

Come on Lance. From day one many said the magnetic timeline was THE showstopper (wow the caps makes it seem so much stronger). So not ALL the original issues have been addressed. Like no broadcast tape I/O support.

I want to know more about the support for AJA and Decklink cards, but if you are a Matrox person the problem remains. Is the Kona support both ways? Can I input and record via SDI in? Is SDI out true rec709? Does the output to a broadcast monitor include on screen displays like the Nattress curves or is it a true clean feed?

Far from solving ALL issues, it certainly starts to tick some of the original boxes. The issues left might be piddling and new for you but they are still old game stoppers and serious for others.


Return to posts index

Lance Moody
Re: Todays FCP X announcement
on Feb 1, 2012 at 3:23:20 am

As I mentioned, the magnetic timeline can't really be a showstopper for an actual editor. Yes, it handles the timeline differently than the old FCP but editing functions all work more or less as we have come to expect, even if in a different package (and I started before CMX3600>AVID>FCP1.0).

I will tell you what the real showstopper for many folks here is:

Learning how to use the new software.

I was frustrated as hell on the first FCPX project. But I was frustrated as hell on the first Avid project as well.

But as I worked in X (and I chose a somewhat complex project that I could take my time with), the better things got and the easier they got. I can look at that timeline and see my own clunky misunderstanding in the early portion of my work and then I can see how things began to click the longer I worked.

I came to really love the way it worked. There were still horrible problems then but they almost all have been cleared up in this latest release. And yes, I should acknowledge that there are still a few issues remaining, not everything got fixed. I am looking forward to using X in the future.

Best,

Lance



Return to posts index

Michael Gissing
Re: Todays FCP X announcement
on Feb 1, 2012 at 3:29:09 am

"I will tell you what the real showstopper for many folks here is:
Learning how to use the new software."

Well that doesn't apply to me. I have spent my life beta testing all sorts of editing software, mostly audio editing. As I have pointed out from the beginning of FCPX debate is that the magnetic timeline for me represented a backwards step in audio functionality and by adding Roles, Apple seems to be moving away from a possibility that they will let the editor decide which model works best.

I could bore you with dozens of reasons why Roles and magnetic timeline can't efficiently make the deliverables that I need on a day to day basis but I have already been there and done that.

So until it gets all the functionality that I rely upon and are available in FCS3 I just can't use this software professionally. I'll tell you when all my list is tick if and when it happens.


Return to posts index

Chris Harlan
Re: Todays FCP X announcement
on Feb 1, 2012 at 3:47:22 am

[Lance Moody] "As I mentioned, the magnetic timeline can't really be a showstopper for an actual editor. "

Oh, dear. You must be an ACTUAL editor. How thrilling to meet you.


Return to posts index

Lance Moody
Re: Todays FCP X announcement
on Feb 1, 2012 at 4:11:37 am

Hi Chris,

That wasn't meant to be a pissing contest type of comment, just that there is nothing inherent in the magnetic timeline that might preclude an editor from editing (even though he or she might bristle at the metaphors used in the software). That's all.

Lance



Return to posts index

David Lawrence
Re: Todays FCP X announcement
on Feb 1, 2012 at 4:18:23 am

[Lance Moody] "there is nothing inherent in the magnetic timeline that might preclude an editor from editing"

All true, it's just that some of us need more than one real track ;)

_______________________
David Lawrence
art~media~design~research
propaganda.com
publicmattersgroup.com
facebook.com/dlawrence
twitter.com/dhl


Return to posts index

Chris Harlan
Re: Todays FCP X announcement
on Feb 1, 2012 at 4:18:39 am

[Lance Moody] "Hi Chris,

That wasn't meant to be a pissing contest type of comment, just that there is nothing inherent in the magnetic timeline that might preclude an editor from editing (even though he or she might bristle at the metaphors used in the software). That's all.

Lance"


Fair enough.


Return to posts index

Michael Aranyshev
Re: Todays FCP X announcement
on Feb 1, 2012 at 9:31:17 pm

[Lance Moody] "editing functions all work more or less as we have come to expect"

They don't. 3-point editing is broken. Replace at Playhead is broken.


Return to posts index

Craig Seeman
Re: Todays FCP X announcement
on Feb 1, 2012 at 9:38:52 pm

Three point editing works for me and I suspect most people or you'd see wide complaints about given its fundamental use.

Replace at playhead is not broken. It hasn't been implemented. Replace is currently is Start or End or "Replace."



Return to posts index

Michael Aranyshev
Re: Todays FCP X announcement
on Feb 1, 2012 at 10:39:35 pm

[Craig Seeman] "Three point editing works for me and I suspect most people or you'd see wide complaints about given its fundamental use."

It is broken by design. When they realized that they duct-taped Shift-D onto the the thing.

[Craig Seeman] "Replace at playhead is not broken. It hasn't been implemented. Replace is currently is Start or End or "Replace."
"


Three useless things where one useful was is broken.


Return to posts index

adam dewhirst
Re: Todays FCP X announcement
on Feb 1, 2012 at 2:03:59 am

hi craig,

"Timelines have been used for certain functions that FCPX endeavors to obviate the need for."

do you mind me asking what endeavours these are?


"Organizational needs will be managed by metadata."

i'm willing to adapt to this mode of working although i used to organize my media via sequences.

"Visual feedback some might still want be the function for that is already diminished."

this is a big problem for me. i am working in a VISUAL medium and need visual cues to remember what i have and where.

"Basically you have to look at WHY you need one clip on top of another. There are other ways to fulfill most of those needs."

to composite/layer (its also much easier to organise visually but i dealt with that above)

"Roles, while still a work in progress, allow you to disable clips that perform a specific function. They provide control based on function rather than track layer."

to be honest i have no clear idea what this means but it does seem to me its another step towards conceptualising (and hiding from the eye) what one used to be able to see and make more immediate desicions based on this vision.

adam


Return to posts index

Craig Seeman
Re: Todays FCP X announcement
on Feb 1, 2012 at 2:15:48 am

[adam dewhirst] "this is a big problem for me. i am working in a VISUAL medium and need visual cues to remember what i have and where."

I can still see what I have on top of the primary storyline. I can still pile things up if I need to. The question is the need. I need to composite I can do that. I need to put an alternate set of b-roll over another set of b-roll, I can do that. If I need to turn off all my titles, I can do that. I can turn off all my VO, Sound FX, etc.



Return to posts index

Robert Brown
Re: Todays FCP X announcement
on Feb 1, 2012 at 7:07:56 am

Maybe in 8 months FCPX will "evolve" into FCP8. What will the next new/old feature be? Whatever it is it will plainly demonstrate the utter dominance of FCPX. Like "hey guys, now we have EDL out so take that!".

Robert Brown
Editor/VFX/Colorist - FCP, Smoke, Quantel Pablo, After Effects, 3DS MAX, Premiere Pro

http://vimeo.com/user3987510/videos


Return to posts index

Oliver Peters
Re: Todays FCP X announcement
on Feb 1, 2012 at 1:10:07 pm

Tracks served valuable functions, but it's a situation of you like it or you don't. I doubt Apple will now change the course they're on. Adapt or move on.

BTW - it's completely incorrect to say tracks existed because there was no other way. In fact early NLEs started with completely different designs than tracks. Quantel Harry used a vertical filmstrip metaphor with composites stacked behind the visible clip. These approaches were dropped because tracks worked better. Even today some of that exists in Smoke and DS, where effects can be broken out into nodes.

One real issue right now is that Apple attributes different values to Storyline clips versus Connected clips. There is no real reason to do that and as a result it causes the user to swap one set of workaraounds for another. It also forces the user to toggle between the Selection and Position tools (magnetic versus position MODES) in order to do the SAME task - moving clips around in the timeline work area.

Oliver

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


Return to posts index

Michael Aranyshev
Re: Todays FCP X announcement
on Feb 1, 2012 at 9:40:07 pm

Basically you have to look at WHY you need one clip on top of anothe

Because I'm editing a feature shot on Arri D21, Red and Alexa. The actual clips I cut are all ProRes LT but the VFX guys and the colorist wants the original "Digital Negative". To give it to them the first step is to make three EDL's for each type of the footage. That's why I need tracks.


Return to posts index

adam dewhirst
Re: Todays FCP X announcement
on Feb 2, 2012 at 3:25:22 am

i've done some reading about roles and i find it hard to believe they are being talked aboutas a replacement for tracks. they are an organisational tool. tracks can serve this purpose well and still do in legacy fcp versions but their main use for me is providing a visual summation of my edit and ease of editing.


Return to posts index

Carl Edwards
Re: Todays FCP X announcement
on Feb 1, 2012 at 6:59:00 pm

I'm sorry but that's not how VFX shares media, we do it with XMLs and with Avid AAFs and relinking to the original media.

We never export out of final cut do to quality concerns (8bit and such). Until we can get DPX or OPENEXR out of final cut at original quality it is not going to be doing any media export for us, it's strictly offline quality.


Return to posts index

Andy Neil
Re: Todays FCP X announcement
on Feb 1, 2012 at 7:20:24 pm

[Carl Edwards] "I'm sorry but that's not how VFX shares media, we do it with XMLs and with Avid AAFs and relinking to the original media.

We never export out of final cut do to quality concerns (8bit and such)."


I don't understand. FCPX can export XML. Its a new flavor of XML so it may not be compatible with whatever you do VFX on, though that may change since Resolve already supports it. Also, FCPX renders in 32-bit float, what are your 8-bit concerns regarding a QT export? ProRes? HQ is a 16-bit codec I believe, but quality will only be as good as the original footage.

Andy

http://www.timesavertutorials.com


Return to posts index

Carl Edwards
Re: Todays FCP X announcement
on Feb 1, 2012 at 7:33:51 pm

[Andy Neil] "I don't understand. FCPX can export XML. Its a new flavor of XML so it may not be compatible with whatever you do VFX on, though that may change since Resolve already supports it. Also, FCPX renders in 32-bit float, what are your 8-bit concerns regarding a QT export? ProRes? HQ is a 16-bit codec I believe, but quality will only be as good as the original footage."

It is in fact a new flavor of XML that very little supports, so yeah, that would be part of the problem.

But I get the feeling you didn't read too closely. We export out DPX and OPENEXR, neither of which FCP supports so we do this out of one of our smokes or flames. There was great integration between the two with FCPs old XML format turning into a near universal format that we could pass around. But apple chucked all this integration for no reason when they up-versioned.

So I don't have QT export concerns, but even if I did HQ is certainly not a 16-bit format. The only decent quality you can get out of FCP is 4444 at 12bit, the rest is chopped off at 8bit. 4444 would be ok except only Macs can read it, which doesn't help us that much.

On top of all this we still get people sending us tapes all the time and expecting us to be able to read them.


Return to posts index

Andy Neil
Re: Todays FCP X announcement
on Feb 1, 2012 at 7:54:34 pm

[Carl Edwards] "But I get the feeling you didn't read too closely. We export out DPX and OPENEXR, neither of which FCP supports"

I read fine. I didn't mention DPX because I know that FCPX doesn't support that format at the moment. Besides you were talking about exporting DPX from FCP, not importing DPX INTO FCP.

[Carl Edwards] "Until we can get DPX or OPENEXR out of final cut...

So I focused on formats that you CAN get out of FCPX. I looked up ProRes 422 HQ because video bit depths are not my strong suit. According to what I read, HQ is 10bit, not 8bit. And you can also export out of FCPX in Uncompressed 10-bit. Surely, you can read Uncompressed on a PC?

Andy

http://www.timesavertutorials.com


Return to posts index

Carl Edwards
Re: Todays FCP X announcement
on Feb 1, 2012 at 8:12:07 pm

Listen, it's nice that you are trying to help us recreate our workflow to get around FCPXs shortfalls, but don't.

A 10bit "uncompressed" compressed quicktime is not a substitute for 10bitlog DPX or 16bit OpenEXR. This is aside from the fact that I bet we can't read it in Linux, which is what our compositors are working in.

I'm not expecting anything out of FCP to look good honestly. It's always had so-so image quality and really terrible looking timewarps. That's fine. It's offline quality and it's great for that, or it was until they took away it's ability to integrate into a pipeline. That's what bothers me.


Return to posts index

Andy Neil
Re: Todays FCP X announcement
on Feb 1, 2012 at 8:37:40 pm

[Carl Edwards] "Listen, it's nice that you are trying to help us recreate our workflow to get around FCPXs shortfalls, but don't."

Hey, I'm just trying to understand here. There's no need to be snippy. I'm just asking questions about your workflow and pointing out what FCPX can do. If it doesn't work for you, fine. I'm not trying to sell you on it.

Have a nice day,

Andy

http://www.timesavertutorials.com


Return to posts index

Carl Edwards
Re: Todays FCP X announcement
on Feb 1, 2012 at 8:41:13 pm

I'm sorry, you're right. I let the condescending tone you use in pretty much every post get under my skin a bit.

Sorry about that.


Return to posts index

Andy Neil
Re: Todays FCP X announcement
on Feb 1, 2012 at 8:43:07 pm

Wow.

Andy

http://www.timesavertutorials.com


Return to posts index

Frank Gothmann
Re: Todays FCP X announcement
on Feb 1, 2012 at 9:52:08 pm

[Andy Neil] "Wow."

Peace, guys. It's just a piece of software.


Return to posts index

Michael Aranyshev
Re: Todays FCP X announcement
on Feb 1, 2012 at 9:45:23 pm

[Andy Neil] "I'm just asking questions about your workflow"

Back when films where shot on film nobody edited with the original camera negative. They would strike workprints, edit with them and only after picture was locked went back to the negative. It is the same now except ProRes is our workprint and DPX is our negative.


Return to posts index

David Roth Weiss
Re: Todays FCP X announcement
on Feb 1, 2012 at 9:56:11 pm

[Michael Aranyshev] "Back when films where shot on film nobody edited with the original camera negative. They would strike workprints, edit with them and only after picture was locked went back to the negative. It is the same now except ProRes is our workprint and DPX is our negative."

Let me get this right... Are you suggesting that post-production actually existed before the June 21st release of X?

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

Michael Aranyshev
Re: Todays FCP X announcement
on Feb 1, 2012 at 10:34:01 pm

Heretical, isn't it?


Return to posts index

Brad Davis
Re: Todays FCP X announcement
on Feb 1, 2012 at 1:53:17 pm

This announcement, release list and further announcements by 3rd party companies gave us insight on how FCPX is going to be developed as a product. FCPX is never going to be a "complete package" as FCP 7 was. Apple decided to strip the engine make it a basic editor, if you want the bells and whistles beyond what's provided, your on your own. They'll keep adding to it but it will never be like FCP 7. If you want backward compatibility to the legacy, there's an App for that in 7toX. You want high end color grading, go purchase BMD DaVinci. If you want formal audio support to Pro Tools, there's an App for that as well. It falls into their business model of making hardware and base applications and letting anyone develop and sell through their means (ie. The App store.) This also further my previous conclusion 8 months ago that the entire FCS was dumped because of legal and licensing of the previous software more than anything.


Return to posts index

Craig Seeman
Re: Todays FCP X announcement
on Feb 1, 2012 at 4:24:28 pm

[Brad Davis] "This also further my previous conclusion 8 months ago that the entire FCS was dumped because of legal and licensing of the previous software more than anything."

Maybe I came from a different direction but I reached a similar conclusion. It's the only thing I can think for the sudden cessation of sales, something Apple has never done before (IIRC) for any software or service. They generally have a long EOL with continued sales.

[Brad Davis] "FCPX is never going to be a "complete package" as FCP 7 was. "
[Brad Davis] "If you want the bells and whistles beyond what's provided, your on your own."
This does seem to be part of the business model. Different but not worse (although some would seem to believe that). What it means is that we may see multiple different ways to perform certain functions coming from different third party developers. I like that. Key is speaking a common language through the new XML for example. It allows Apple to focus on improved core functionality and connectivity (no R&D team has infinite time and resources).



Return to posts index

Simon Ubsdell
Re: Todays FCP X announcement
on Feb 1, 2012 at 10:13:04 pm

[Brad Davis] " If you want formal audio support to Pro Tools, there's an App for that as well."

Not one that works reliably, there isn't (with all due apologies to the late lamented but now very much defunct Automatic Duck).

And there's no sign that there's any coming along in any foreseeable future.

And that's why, despite all the hoopla over this latest update, my operation (and apparently only a handful of others) still can't begin to think of using FCPX for professional work. Which is a shame ...

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


Return to posts index

Michael Gissing
Re: Todays FCP X announcement
on Feb 1, 2012 at 11:32:13 pm

Simon, Brad may be referring to a proposed app due at the end of Feb -

http://forums.creativecow.net/thread/335/25455

But still vaporware


Return to posts index

Simon Ubsdell
Re: Todays FCP X announcement
on Feb 2, 2012 at 11:19:45 am

[Michael Gissing] "But still vaporware"

Absolutely - and even come the end of February I will sit back and wait for others to discover all the things XtoPro may not be able to do. (On day one it won't be able to handle levels or transitions for a start ...)

Automatic Duck, now entirely broken by 10.0.3, had a number of alarmingly significant issues which made it very far from the robust solution that is essential if FCPX is to be taken seriously at the top end.

Robust really is the word here. Rock solid, 100% reliable. Anything less means time wasted, missed deadlines, loss of revenue. Gimcrack solutions just won't cut it here.

So great, Apple delivered multicam (of a sort, because the audio side doesn't really work yet), and yes they delivered the first tentative move towards monitoring (but it's still "Beta" - as if the whole of the rest of the application wasn't also still in Beta). I can't get really excited about those things because we've known they were coming now for months.

But multicam for me is a pointless bit of window dressing when it's still missing OMF - which FCPX absolutely must have and should have had from the word go.

99% of jobs that I do absolutely require going to ProTools to finish the audio, full stop, no negotiations. Hence no OMF, no FCPX. I can't believe that more people are not kicking up a stink about this as to my mind it's the single most important obstacle - not to say that there aren't others.

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


Return to posts index

Simon Ubsdell
Re: Todays FCP X announcement
on Feb 2, 2012 at 12:10:01 pm

[Michael Gissing] "But still vaporware"

Absolutely - and even come the end of February I will sit back and wait for others to discover all the things XtoPro may not be able to do. (On day one it won't be able to handle levels or transitions for a start ...)

Automatic Duck, now entirely broken by 10.0.3, had a number of alarmingly significant issues which made it very far from the robust solution that is essential if FCPX is to be taken seriously at the top end.

Robust really is the word here. Rock solid, 100% reliable. Anything less means time wasted, missed deadlines, loss of revenue. Scissors and paste solutions just won't cut it here.

So great, Apple delivered multicam (of a sort, because the audio side doesn't really work yet), and yes they delivered the first tentative move towards monitoring. I can't get really excited about those things because we've known they were coming now for months.

But multicam for me is a pointless bit of window dressing when it's still missing OMF - which FCPX absolutely must have and should have had from the word go.

99% of jobs that I do absolutely require going to ProTools to finish the audio, full stop, no negotiations. Hence no OMF, no FCPX. I can't believe that more people are not kicking up a stink about this as to my mind it's the single most important obstacle - not to say that there aren't others.

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


Return to posts index

Craig Seeman
Re: Todays FCP X announcement
on Feb 2, 2012 at 3:28:35 pm

Might it be that OMF won't happen until Logic Pro X is out . . . unless a third party succeeds. It might be Apple wants Logic to be an equal option, not giving ProTools and advantage. I'm not saying that's a good business decision but it wouldn't surprise me that Apple wants to give their tools equal footing (at least in their perception).



Return to posts index

Simon Ubsdell
Re: Todays FCP X announcement
on Feb 2, 2012 at 3:40:12 pm

[Craig Seeman] "Might it be that OMF won't happen until Logic Pro X is out . . . unless a third party succeeds. It might be Apple wants Logic to be an equal option, not giving ProTools and advantage. I'm not saying that's a good business decision but it wouldn't surprise me that Apple wants to give their tools equal footing (at least in their perception)."

I'd be more than happy for Logic X (if it ever comes!) to be a replacement for ProTools - which is overpriced and underperforming. Logic is a great product but ...

Some of us work in an environment where we don't get to choose, and the DAW we have to work with is dictated by the industry. We have to deliver audio projects in the DAW format required and conversely take delivery of them as they come, without moving them to a different DAW.

And the industry standard is and will remain ProTools for the foreseeable future (until AVID goes bust or sells it off either of which could be sooner rather than later).

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


Return to posts index

Matthew Sonnenfeld
Re: Todays FCP X announcement
on Feb 2, 2012 at 3:50:54 pm

Adobe Pro Tools. Can anyone else see it?

Panasonic HPX170 P
2011 Macbook Pro 17", 2.3 Ghz Quad Core, 8GB RAM
Matrox MXO2 LE with MAX
Adobe Premiere Pro CS5.5, Final Cut Pro Studio 3, Avid Media Composer 3.5.4
The College of WIlliam and Mary


Return to posts index

Oliver Peters
Re: Todays FCP X announcement
on Feb 2, 2012 at 4:33:25 pm

[Matthew Sonnenfeld] "Adobe Pro Tools. Can anyone else see it?"

You haven't been paying attention to Adobe, then. ;-)

Adobe has had Audition for several years. Since CS5.5, it's been both Mac and PC and included as the audio application in the bundles (replacing Soundbooth). It's a very nice DAW (originated out of Cool Edit Pro) and takes OMFs and AAFs. Definitely better interchange outside of FCP than Soundtrack Pro. Basically it's ProTools without the music/midi components.

- Oliver

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


Return to posts index

Matthew Sonnenfeld
Re: Todays FCP X announcement
on Feb 2, 2012 at 5:32:12 pm

Oliver, I actually switched to Adobe in September and have been using Audition since then and I agree with you that it is excellent. What I was referring to was exactly the music capabilities of Pro Tools. Seems like that would be a very nice addition if you ask me.

Panasonic HPX170 P
2011 Macbook Pro 17", 2.3 Ghz Quad Core, 8GB RAM
Matrox MXO2 LE with MAX
Adobe Premiere Pro CS5.5, Final Cut Pro Studio 3, Avid Media Composer 3.5.4
The College of WIlliam and Mary


Return to posts index

Craig Seeman
Re: Todays FCP X announcement
on Feb 2, 2012 at 5:48:55 pm

[Simon Ubsdell] "I'd be more than happy for Logic X (if it ever comes!) to be a replacement for ProTools - which is overpriced and underperforming. Logic is a great product but ..."

Apple plays by their own rules and certainly their own strategy. I'm not saying it makes me happy. I'm not saying they will lock people into Logic but they may not release a feature until it works with their products first.

Just my hunch but I can imagine they'd have OMF or other round tripping to Logic as part of any feature that would also work with ProTools. In other words when they can get it to work with Logic, they'll release it to the world and probably not before. If Logic become EOL that would be another story.



Return to posts index

Bill Davis
Re: Todays FCP X announcement
on Feb 2, 2012 at 4:53:40 am

[Brad Davis] "They'll keep adding to it but it will never be like FCP 7."

Agree with this. And that's a very good thing. 7 was great. But built for a different era and largely stuck in the particular needs of that era.

[Brad Davis] "This also further my previous conclusion 8 months ago that the entire FCS was dumped because of legal and licensing of the previous software more than anything."

Disagree with this. If that was the only issue, they could have simply totally dumped their NLE business and the resulting revenue loss would have had an effect on Apple roughly equal to someone wielding a squirt gun during a monsoon rainstorm.

My view is that Apple had some of the finest NLE interface programmers on the planet in-house. And the best way to keep the top talent happy is to give them projects that challenge their skills and capabilities.

The X project was precisely that. A room full of top notch experts being given the ultimate reward for having built a program that changed the whole industry a decade plus ago. That last decade project has generated a nice return, so the FCP team was simply given marching orders something like "dream big, don't be afraid to break with tradition if you think you can make something that will work better in the changing landscape of media in the 21st century."

I think they've done that.

Legacy developed to meet the needs of the video/movie industry in 2000. That was a world where broadcast and motion picture production were the "marquee" outlets. - but web video, video for teaching purposes, and video produced for the kinds of iDevices that Apple produces have generated new needs that are basically "different" from the old MovieStudio/TV station model.

So Apple is constructing a tool for this new world.

Simple as that.

"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

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