FORUMS: list search recent posts

10.0.4 Feature Requests

COW Forums : Apple Final Cut Pro X Debates

<< PREVIOUS   •   VIEW ALL   •   PRINT   •   NEXT >>
Greg Jones
10.0.4 Feature Requests
on Feb 1, 2012 at 11:43:54 pm

Now that I've played around with the new version of FCPX, I have some feature requests for the next version. I've already sent these off to Apple but I thought it would be fun for everyone to chime in. At least Apple seems to be listening, which is a good sign.

1. Source monitor. This is a very big issue for me. I've worked on just about every non-linear system and they all have a source and program monitor. I would like to be able to pull my source files up to look at and compare to my timeline and to mark in and out points. Seems like Apple could just add this as a pull down under where the waveform and histogram are. Back in the 90's Media 100 had a single program monitor and it was a pain in the butt. The little filmstrip they have to mark in and outs doesn't work for me at all.

2. Manual folder organization under the events clips area for better organization. I would like to be able to manually organize my clips if I want to.

3. The ability to turn off events and projects and the ability to be able to relate events to projects. If I turn off a project then I'd like all the events associated with that project to be turned off. I know there is a third party solution, but it would be very nice if it was integrated.

4. Better integration with broadcast monitoring. Right now it's a little convoluted and lags a little. I guess that's why they are calling it beta. I'd like it to be as responsive as my media composer 6 app is will Kona.

Those are the big four for me. Apple has added a lot since last year, so hopefully they keep going.


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


Return to posts index

Michael Gissing
Re: 10.0.4 Feature Requests
on Feb 1, 2012 at 11:54:59 pm

OMF export from FCPX not via XML and third party translators. As FCPX and it's new XML format are essentially beta software there will be a long period of fixups required as the XML stage evolves, so third party developers will not be able to provide stability for a long time.

AAF export might be nice but there is a whole world of sound post based on OMF and fixing this aspect of broadcast and feature film workflow is a biggie.


Return to posts index

Helmut Kobler
Re: 10.0.4 Feature Requests
on Feb 2, 2012 at 12:10:26 am

1) I really want a new way to create alternate cuts of the same project, without having to duplicate the whole project. On a regular basis, I want to try out a new idea while keeping the option of going back to my original edit on the Timeline. But duplicating the project is so wasteful in terms of disk space, and creating too many projects can slow FCP X to a crawl. So I would like the equivalent of alternative timelines within the same project. In other words, bring back Sequences please.

2) The ability to set In and Outs on the timeline, and export just that section of my work. Right now, the only way you can export a portion of the timeline is to Export to Compressor, which takes a while to load, and even longer to set In and Out points.

3) Better Copy/Paste attributes, which more control over what's copied and not.

4) More snappiness.

-------------------
Documentary Camera in Los Angeles
http://www.lacameraman.com


Return to posts index


James Mortner
Re: 10.0.4 Feature Requests
on Feb 2, 2012 at 12:26:50 am

[Helmut Kobler] "2) The ability to set In and Outs on the timeline, and export just that section of my work. Right now, the only way you can export a portion of the timeline is to Export to Compressor, which takes a while to load, and even longer to set In and Out points.
"


Can it seriously not do this ? I ran into the same problem the other day !


Return to posts index

Braden Storrs
Re: 10.0.4 Feature Requests
on Apr 10, 2012 at 7:37:43 pm

A pretty quick way to do this is to command A to select all clips in your timeline, create a compound clip, set markers at your in and out points, drag to ends of the comp. clip to the markers and export. Then just either undo those steps or drag the the ends back out and break apart the clips and you're back to normal.


Return to posts index

James Mortner
Re: 10.0.4 Feature Requests
on Apr 11, 2012 at 10:04:55 am

[Braden Storrs] "A pretty quick way to do this is to command A to select all clips in your timeline, create a compound clip, set markers at your in and out points, drag to ends of the comp. clip to the markers and export. Then just either undo those steps or drag the the ends back out and break apart the clips and you're back to normal."

OK, so just to make sure, I downloaded the trial of FCPX and attempted your instructions.

I can't honestly see this as "quick". It's actually shockingly hard for an operation that used to take around half a second to accomplish. Plus the fact that you have to use undo's to get back to where you were is just laughable. I know I would get faster the more I used this, but why ? Why on earth bother when many other things are so broken and awful ?


Return to posts index


Braden Storrs
Re: 10.0.4 Feature Requests
on Apr 11, 2012 at 6:02:57 pm

I know they need to fix this feature I was just offering an option instead of the suggested one of sending to compressor. There are workarounds for some things for now and yes you get much faster once you learn the program. Personally though as I have used FCP 7, PPro CS5.5, and FCP X. There are some steps backward in FCP X that need to be addressed but the steps forward in other areas the program has taken are so large that it makes the steps backward acceptable (for the time being). Now when I go back to FCP 7 and PPro CS5.5 (we use CS5.5 at the studio) it feels like, and is, a big step backwards. It may take longer to do some things in FCP X but it is so much faster at other things that it easily makes up for the lost time and then some.


Return to posts index

James Mortner
Re: 10.0.4 Feature Requests
on Apr 13, 2012 at 8:06:00 am

All true, my issue is more that yes I can learn and get faster. Yes, I can probably do many things quicker than FCP 7. However, outside of very specific workflows it seems FCPX is worse than useless.

There's no getting around the central issue that I can spend my time far more effectively exploring PPro, Smoke, Hiero or AE to HELP me produce better work faster. Why bother with a broken bit of software that works in some ways and falls down desperately in others ?

This also means its impossible for me to convince anyone to invest in FCPX, no matter how enthusiastic I am ! None of my bosses or engineering people are remotely interested. Maybe this will change over the next few years, Id be surprised if there aren't a few more tricks up Apple's sleeve...


Return to posts index

Steve Connor
Re: 10.0.4 Feature Requests
on Apr 13, 2012 at 11:46:07 am

[James Mortner] "However, outside of very specific workflows it seems FCPX is worse than useless.
"


It can't do shared projects yet, it's multi cam could be better, what workflows can't it do that make it "worse than useless?"

Steve Connor
"FCPX Professional"
Adrenalin Television


Return to posts index


James Mortner
Re: 10.0.4 Feature Requests
on Apr 13, 2012 at 3:47:36 pm

Say you needed to conform a 40min programme cut in Avid, master and send to smoke for final legalise and titling. Variety of tape, DVD rips and media files to sort out. Would FCPX be equal to the task ?


Return to posts index

Steve Connor
Re: 10.0.4 Feature Requests
on Apr 13, 2012 at 3:54:20 pm

[James Mortner] "Say you needed to conform a 40min programme cut in Avid, master and send to smoke for final legalise and titling. Variety of tape, DVD rips and media files to sort out. Would FCPX be equal to the task ?"

Not very easily, but that not's exactly a common workflow is it? Why would you want to conform a programme cut in one NLE on another before sending to finishing?

Steve Connor
"FCPX Professional"
Adrenalin Television


Return to posts index

James Mortner
Re: 10.0.4 Feature Requests
on Apr 13, 2012 at 4:26:51 pm

We often need to confrom for flame, smoke or baselight as there just isnt enough time for them to do it.

But yeah, the 40min example is extreme. It was a nightmare with FCP7 to be frank


Return to posts index


Braden Storrs
Re: 10.0.4 Feature Requests
on Apr 13, 2012 at 4:46:17 pm

Unfortunately you're right. It is difficult to convince people to switch back, I have the same problem at my studio. That is Apple's fault for sure but I think/hope they will fix the situation. They seem to really be trying to fix the situation with how much they've improved their software since its release. FCPX is an awesome peace of software but as a A-z, whole editing suite it is incomplete. Currently we can't cover everything that needs to be done in a production with the Apple products available. That being said there is a way to still use FCP X as the main editor, it just requires other third party software, such as DiVinci Resolve, to be used as well. Make sure that Apple hears what you're saying. The more they hear the more motivated they will be to improve. I just sent a long tongue lashing/plea to Apple about the whole situation and I hope they pay attention because I love the direction they took with FCP X and want it to become king again.

If you want to send them feedback do it here: http://www.apple.com/feedback/finalcutpro.html

One thing though I've experienced is that there have been many, many times that the editors around me have said I wish I could do "this" or "that" while using CS5.5 (which we use at the studio). I say well you can in FCP X. I can't count how many times that has happened.


There are some good companies that have made the jump to FCP X though. If people want an example have them check this out: http://www.apple.com/finalcutpro/in-action/


Return to posts index

James Mortner
Re: 10.0.4 Feature Requests
on Apr 13, 2012 at 4:54:16 pm

Definitely a good idea to do that, this could be some tasty software with the right tweaks and changes !


Return to posts index

Chris Harlan
Re: 10.0.4 Feature Requests
on Feb 2, 2012 at 1:59:46 am

[Helmut Kobler] "1) I really want a new way to create alternate cuts of the same project, without having to duplicate the whole project."

Yeah, this is still a biggie for me.


Return to posts index


Dustin Parsons
Re: 10.0.4 Feature Requests
on Feb 2, 2012 at 2:45:37 am

[Helmut Kobler] "1) I really want a new way to create alternate cuts of the same project, without having to duplicate the whole project."

Agreed, I can't believe FCPX doesn't have this! I duplicate my projects all the time and would think that most other editors do too. How are you supposed to experiment without destroying the work you've already done?


Return to posts index

Mark Morache
Re: 10.0.4 Feature Requests
on Feb 2, 2012 at 2:39:29 am

[Helmut Kobler] "I really want a new way to create alternate cuts of the same project"

Yes. In FCP7 I could have several copies and versions of sequences. In fact many projects are littered with versions I need to clean up!

My workaround is to select the portion of the timeline I want to create versions of, make it a compound clip, duplicate the compound as an audition, and then step into the compound and create my alternate reality.

That way I don't need to have a version of the entire timeline, I can just have the compound clips in an audition that I can simply click to change for previewing.

In some ways this makes a lot of sense, because my changes may just be in one small section, and if I make changes to the rest of the timeline, I may need to replicate those changes in the alternate timeline as well. Also, having the versions live in one project timeline, keeps me from having copies of the renders in each project.



[Helmut Kobler] "2) The ability to set In and Outs on the timeline"

I'm afraid to trim the timeline before I export then undo the trims, because if the program crashes before I undo, I'm sunk.

Lately I've tried dropping the entire sequence into a compound clip, trimming the parts I don't want to export, then undoing the trims.

The good thing about the compound clip, is that even though parts of the sequence aren't in the timeline, they are still nested within the compound clip. If the program crashes before you undo, all you need to do is drag the ends of the trimmed compound clip back to their original length, then break the compound clip apart. Pretty simple.

Anyone see any potential trouble in this?

---------
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

Lance Bachelder
Re: 10.0.4 Feature Requests
on Feb 2, 2012 at 3:19:08 am

Concur on the in and outs on the timeline to export/render/lift/delete etc - one of the missing features from PPro (I know there is the Workspace Bar thingy) that I always use in FCP7, Avid and VegasPro.

This needs to be put back in X asap.

Lance Bachelder
Writer, Editor, Director
Irvine, California



Return to posts index

Bill Davis
Re: 10.0.4 Feature Requests
on Feb 2, 2012 at 4:26:12 am

I still disagree about this with most of you.

I think the difference between Legacy and X can be seen as Legacy was a "versioning" program where every project can exist in all sorts of unfinished states while you decide what you really want. But then, when you decide what your particular FINAL program is - you had to BAKE that into a terminated document. That's how most videos were made in the past - and how many of them still need to be made in the present and will suite many projects in the future - but does that mean the "draft, draft, draft, then bake a final - is the only "best" way to develop ALL programs?

Let your thinking roam a little.

Increasingly, the world is valuing projects that aren't necessarily "terminated" but those that can be published in "progressive states. One example is video hosted on a web site. It really doesn't have to "terminated" to be valuable. It might have one "state" today. Perhaps content with current pricing - but that content may need to change tomorrow. Sale prices, revised rules, special offers - the list of content changes can be almost endless.

In X, everything in the Project Library can be viewed as a "live connected" final. It's exportable in it's current state - but the moment you make a change, the "current state" is updated in real time.

Perhaps one of the things X will evolve more towards is a content creation tool that better enables changes to be done incrementally. The project library can just as easily be seen as a rudimentary "content management" view. Where the "current" state of projects are reflected. The Share menu is poised to do "one click" publication.

I see that as potentially a lot more useful than "always bake a version of this timeline and cut it off from further access" which is how I'd describe the Legacy reliance on "serial project export."

Again and again, if you only look at X in terms of what you're "missing" from Legacy - I think you're unnecessarily limiting your view.

You have a NEW tool here. It favors new thinking and new possibilities. Those who simply keep looking for it to be what Legacy was are going to be constantly disappointed.

Those who can see it for what it is - a program designed to re-think video creation workflows - rather than just keep doing things as we always have in the past - will be the first to leverage it's unique capabilities and be poised to benefit as it matures.

My 2 cents anyway.

"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

Lance Bachelder
Re: 10.0.4 Feature Requests
on Feb 2, 2012 at 9:02:27 am

I don't think wanting to export a region (in to out) from a work in progress is asking too much Bill. Vegas Pro (which is so much like a cousin to X its silly) has had the region style editing for over a decade and I can simply drag a region and render or export that region - it works exactly like FCPX but there's a simple checkbox in the rendering window that says "Render Loop Regoin" - simple! It will only render that area and render everything in the stack that is enabled. This would be the easy to ad.

Lance Bachelder
Writer, Editor, Director
Irvine, California



Return to posts index

Bill Davis
Re: 10.0.4 Feature Requests
on Feb 3, 2012 at 2:17:20 am

Lance. I get what your saying. And even agree at first blush,

But I'm wondering if Share is a bit like Versions in modern word processing.

At first the shock of losing "save as" was kinda traumatic - it was so very ingrained in my thinking.

Now I'm starting to understand that the whole "versioning" paradigm has actual advantages over "freeze and dump all previous iterations" which is kinda what "save as" was.

Share isn't "Export this range of the timeline" either. Since implementing that would likely have been trivial, I'm trying to see why.

And the best I can come up with at this point is that maybe there's a larger plan (kinda like the versioning thing) that isn't fully evident to me at this stage?

"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

James Mortner
Re: 10.0.4 Feature Requests
on Feb 2, 2012 at 7:02:16 pm

[Bill Davis] "a program designed to re-think video creation workflows - rather than just keep doing things as we always have in the past "

Seems to me that you are FORCED to re-think and re-build thanks to no built-in FCP7 import. Which has now been magically fixed by a third party app


Return to posts index

Andy Neil
Re: 10.0.4 Feature Requests
on Feb 2, 2012 at 4:57:54 am

I'm going to second your number 2 and 3. Although instead of IN/OUT points, I'd prefer something similar to Premiere's "work area" idea. I think it'd fit better with how X is designed.

My big one has to be with audio handling. This is particularly important now that multicam has been introduced. Often times in multicam workflows, you're dealing with upwards of 8-20 discrete audio tracks (especially in reality tv). I don't have a problem with them being synced and embedded in a video angle, but there NEEDS to be an easy way to get to the individual audio layers to make adjustments, or silence the unneeded tracks.

My proposal is for a "step in" feature where if you double click a clip with embedded audio that it expands to show you ALL individual audio tracks allowing you to easily make keyframe adjustments or trims to layers. Then when you escape out, it closes back up again. In this mode, you won't be able to affect the audio track's position (FCP will still keep the sync), but you can make all other audio edits to it.

Andy

http://www.timesavertutorials.com


Return to posts index

Mark Morache
Re: 10.0.4 Feature Requests
on Feb 2, 2012 at 5:26:01 am

[Andy Neil] "My proposal is for a "step in" feature"

That's not a bad idea. I use "open in timeline" as a step-in feature, and it mostly works.

Generally I use the loudness enhancement on clips to compress them and raise the gain, and once I step into a clip by opening in timeline, the enhancement goes away, and I'm left riding my separate audio tracks without the loudness.

Would you still be able to make changes to audio tracks as one? For example if I expanded the audio to create a J-cut, would I need to make adjustments to all the tracks separately?

Perhaps they need to expand the audio with one double-click and show you each individual channel with second double-click.

Another tweak I'd love to see is a vertically expanded audio track when I expand the audio track. It just makes sense. I'm opening it to work on it, so make the embedded audio larger by default.

---------
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

Michael Gissing
Re: 10.0.4 Feature Requests
on Feb 2, 2012 at 5:55:39 am

So do you guys want audio tracks or not. We seem to go around in circles about the best way to visualise and control elements in a timeline.

Not surprisingly audio seems to demand a good old fashioned timeline over the magnetic timeline and Roles. Why not cut through all the dancing around motherhood statements about paradigm shifts and just demand that Apple give us an option to work and switch between a conventional track based view, magnetic timeline whilst editing if you want and roles as a way of dynamically patching.

Everyone would then be happy. (not sure about Bill:)


Return to posts index

Andy Neil
Re: 10.0.4 Feature Requests
on Feb 2, 2012 at 6:37:11 am

[Michael Gissing] "So do you guys want audio tracks or not. We seem to go around in circles about the best way to visualise and control elements in a timeline."

I not interested in traditional audio tracks in FCPX. The majority of the time the current paradigm works for me. However, that isn't to say that it can't be improved upon. It's especially important considering multicam workflows.

Andy

http://www.timesavertutorials.com


Return to posts index

David Lawrence
Re: 10.0.4 Feature Requests
on Feb 2, 2012 at 7:22:03 am

[Michael Gissing] "Not surprisingly audio seems to demand a good old fashioned timeline over the magnetic timeline and Roles. Why not cut through all the dancing around motherhood statements about paradigm shifts and just demand that Apple give us an option to work and switch between a conventional track based view, magnetic timeline whilst editing if you want and roles as a way of dynamically patching."

Well said.

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


Return to posts index

Andy Neil
Re: 10.0.4 Feature Requests
on Feb 2, 2012 at 5:58:57 am

[Mark Morache] "That's not a bad idea. I use "open in timeline" as a step-in feature, and it mostly works."

Except with a multiclip, you have to open the clip in the angle editor and then open the angle in timeline mode. By the time you get there, you are no longer at the spot where the clip you wanted to affect is; you have the entire clip to deal with. This makes things like adjusting independent tracks at certain points all but impossible.

[Mark Morache] "Would you still be able to make changes to audio tracks as one? For example if I expanded the audio to create a J-cut, would I need to make adjustments to all the tracks separately?"

In my version of this feature, OPT+double clicking would give you the behavior we have now by double-clicking. The single embedded audio clip still has uses, I just don't think it should be default.

Andy

http://www.timesavertutorials.com


Return to posts index

Morten Ranmar
Re: 10.0.4 Feature Requests
on Feb 2, 2012 at 11:12:51 am

REAL collaborative workflow on any kind of Shared storage solution.

- 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

Matt Killmon
Re: 10.0.4 Feature Requests
on Feb 2, 2012 at 1:58:57 pm

This is the biggest one for me: I have a Facilis Terrablock and briefly played with the FCPX 10.0.1 trial version. It wouldn’t work on any Multi-user Write volumes, only on Single-user Write ones. And that means that no two editors could have the same Project open to access all the same source media for different “events” at the same time. That’s a big lose for me. It seems like there’s a need for some sort of light “server” app that could administer the database-like structures of the Projects (with keyword collections and other clip metadata that’s not actually attached to clip files themselves) so that multiple people could access them at the same time.

In general it seems like FCPX is targeted towards islands of individual editors working on separate projects (or just single editors with direct-attached storage). I’d love to see FCPX expand to allow for more easy collaborative editing.

That said, I’m glad that important features are coming back. It seems that perhaps sometime in the next year, it’s possible that FCPX will have “grown up” enough to accommodate my needs. Until then, I’ll be sticking with the workflows I’ve gotten used to on 7. Unfortunately this means that I’ll be 18 months behind people who’ve been using FCPX from day one. I suppose I should consider buying a personal copy at home and futzing around with it in my off-hours to get familiar with the program.

EDIT: My unfamiliarity with FCPX is clear, as I’m not even using the correct terms (Projects/Events). Sigh!


Return to posts index

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