FORUMS: list search recent posts

Is the name clouding our judgement?

COW Forums : Apple Final Cut Pro X Debates

<< PREVIOUS   •   VIEW ALL   •   PRINT   •   NEXT >>
Oliver Peters
Is the name clouding our judgement?
on Feb 11, 2012 at 2:39:17 pm

It's been said a number of times by a number of folks, but would we be trying so hard to make FCP X work for everything, if Apple had, in fact, named it "iMovie Pro"? (I'm not meaning this as a pejorative.) Or if they had released it as an "editing assistant" application? Sort of a good "pre-editor" or maybe even just a "rough cut editor"?

FCP X is a good tool for SOME things, but not all. Because it is called Final Cut Pro, I think a lot of us are trying to MAKE it work, when often it isn't the right choice. Hence, a lot of frustration. Thoughts?

- Oliver

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


Return to posts index

Michael Aranyshev
Re: Is the name clouding our judgement?
on Feb 11, 2012 at 3:05:58 pm

In other words if Apple didn't try to pass FCPX for something it is not would it generate as much forum traffic? Discussing FCPX itself, probably. On the other hand issues like "Where the hell is FCP8?" and "Do I go Avid or Adobe?" would surely make up for it.


Return to posts index

Richard Cardonna
Re: Is the name clouding our judgement?
on Feb 11, 2012 at 6:13:29 pm

Maybe if they would have also priced it higher like $900. and hyped as the future is now or something of the sorts.

RC


Return to posts index


Steve Connor
Re: Is the name clouding our judgement?
on Feb 11, 2012 at 3:09:34 pm

[Oliver Peters] "Or if they had released it as an "editing assistant" application? Sort of a good "pre-editor" or maybe even just a "rough cut editor"?"

Why would they have done that? for a lot of us it's a full featured editor, better in most ways than FC7. I get that there's stuff missing for the heavy lifters out there but not everyone needs those things.

I get what you are saying though, it might have taken the edge off if to had a different name

Steve Connor
"FCPX Agitator"
Adrenalin Television


Return to posts index

Rafael Amador
Re: Is the name clouding our judgement?
on Feb 11, 2012 at 5:46:51 pm

[Steve Connor] "for a lot of us it's a full featured editor, better in most ways than FC7."
With his "age related" shortcomings, FC was a full feature editor no just for a lot of us but almost for everybody.

[Steve Connor] "I get that there's stuff missing for the heavy lifters out there but not everyone needs those things."
For me Is not about "heavy lifters", I'm not one of them.
What I don't like in FCPX Is the lack of intuitiveness and the lack of a GUI where I can see every single element of my editing at a glance and move it in time and space at my will.
rafael

http://www.nagavideo.com


Return to posts index

Bill Davis
Re: Is the name clouding our judgement?
on Feb 11, 2012 at 6:15:58 pm

[Rafael Amador] "What I don't like in FCPX Is the lack of intuitiveness and the lack of a GUI where I can see every single element of my editing at a glance and move it in time and space at my will.
rafael"


Yes rafael, we get that it's not "intuitive" for you.

But your "intuition" and mine may just be different.

I happen to be currently reading a novel set in the Arctic among indigenous people. The author does a great job of expressing how those people relate to the natural world in very different ways to what I understand through my daily life. Their "intuition" is very different than mine. They consider things like weather to be daily "life and death" issues - because for them, they are.

So their "intuition" about climate is finely honed. Mine, living in Arizona, is astonishingly dulled by comparison. Weather is a factor (in the form of heat) during the summer, but largely irrelevant otherwise. So I have developed a good bit of "heat" intuition. And almost no "deadly cold" understanding beyond simple reason.

In the same way, someone who has been conditioned to edit in one particular fashion - based on the editing tasks they've been MOST exposed to on a day to day basis, will "color" their entire approach to editing.

It really can't be otherwise.

The issue with the X-dismissers is often that they can't see "editing" as anything other than the way "they" edit.

But others with different challenges and needs DO see it very differently.

And we're not wrong because of that.

You want to thrive in your editing climate. I want to thrive in mine.

The larger question is if "Hollywood" editing is more reflective of the overall climate that most people live in, or is my more "general and increasingly web oriented business editing" the more widespread climate?

Worth considering, 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


dermot shane
Re: Is the name clouding our judgement?
on Feb 11, 2012 at 3:17:45 pm

Good point.... the entire roll out was OTT, and not in a good way - the name iMoviePro has really stuck, even with agency creative directors who would be a perfect target market will not be caught dead with it - it's just so vastly uncool a thing to admit to haveing installed.

Given Steve Bayes background and the pre-release hype - i was thinking it might give DS & Smack a run for their money. The glowing quotes from TrailerPark is a prime example of this...
But the lost source code for Shake & Color did not re-appear, and with that loss, goes the hopes for a powerhouse FCX, and yea the OTT hype and FCX name are not helping much.

Oh well

They got my $300... and it's been worth the minimal cost - if only to be able to tell my clients to stay far away for now with - some real world iMoviePro chops in my back pocket as proof.

As a side note, every single client of mine who were on FC7 last year are now on PP or MC, maybe 30-40% of the projects i finished last year were cut on FC7, it's now zero, and looking ahead no projects i'm finishing up to the end of the year are on either FC7 or iMoviePro

Will wait and see what 2013 brings

Dermot


Return to posts index

Bill Davis
Re: Is the name clouding our judgement?
on Feb 11, 2012 at 6:01:54 pm

[dermot shane] "Good point.... the entire roll out was OTT, and not in a good way - the name iMoviePro has really stuck, even with agency creative directors who would be a perfect target market will not be caught dead with it - it's just so vastly uncool a thing to admit to haveing installed."

Actually, I think looking back from where I am today, I think the big hue and cry was the very BEST part of the rollout.

Every day I'm more and more delighted that it's being largely dismissed by lots of people who are so busy that they have no time to really learn what's actually underneath the hood.

Because that's giving me precious time to build expertise. Each editor who dismisses it makes my skill set slightly more rare.

If X evolves as I suspect it will, I have a nice head start. And every passing month, it appears that it's growing quite nicely, thank you.

I find that very comforting.

"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

Walter Soyka
Re: Is the name clouding our judgement?
on Feb 12, 2012 at 2:18:58 am

[dermot shane] "Given Steve Bayes background and the pre-release hype - i was thinking it might give DS & Smack a run for their money."

That's exactly what I was thinking, too. My initial disappointment with FCPX was specifically that I was hoping for a finishing tool and didn't get one.

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


Jeremy Garchow
Re: Is the name clouding our judgement?
on Feb 12, 2012 at 2:22:10 am

[Walter Soyka] "[dermot shane] "Given Steve Bayes background and the pre-release hype - i was thinking it might give DS & Smack a run for their money."

That's exactly what I was thinking, too. My initial disappointment with FCPX was specifically that I was hoping for a finishing tool and didn't get one."


I was looking forward forward to FCP giving Smack a run for it's money too. :)

Sorry, editing a difficult piece at the moment. I need a laugh break.


Return to posts index

Roland Blaser
Re: Is the name clouding our judgement?
on Feb 11, 2012 at 3:25:33 pm

Hi Oliver

As a senior FCP user I expected Apple to improve a very nice and professional tool (FCP7) instead of bringing something completely different (FCP X). Means recoding and some GUI redesign.
Keeping the proven concept and tool and, maybe, in parallel publishing something else: iMovie Pro for all the people always looking for something new. Would have been the much better way for most of us, including Apple's reputation within the video pro community.
A soon as iMovie Pro would have reached a certain quality, we could have jumped to the other ship, leaving nice but older FCP7 behind...
Will Apple ever learn how to treat pros?

Roland

********
Science journalist, cameraman, video editor. 30 years of science communication for Swiss National TV. Awarded Prix Media by Swiss Academy of Science. Nominee Descartes Prize for Science Communication European Union.
> Mac Pro 8 core, MacBook Pro. AJA ioHD. FCP 7.


Return to posts index

Rick Lang
Re: Is the name clouding our judgement?
on Feb 11, 2012 at 3:34:52 pm

would we be trying so hard to make FCP X work for everything, if Apple had, in fact, named it "iMovie Pro"?

A rose by any other name is still a rose.

Either a new product iMovie Pro or perhaps a more fitting upgrade to Final Cut Express would still generate a lot of questions albeit less initial anger or frustration from many FCP7 professionals. The other posts to the topic are correct in my opinion. Things would be calm until version 10.0.3 when all hell would break loose that Apple was providing more capable tools to Express users than the pros! Given FCP7 saw no more updates, many would be apoplectic! By then it would be obvious that Apple had forsaken FCP.

Certainly it would seem the pros would be forced to look elsewhere without a glimmer of hope for something thrown their way. The path Apple took however likely does give assurance to the pros that the FCPX product is intended for them and will be improved going forward. As has been documented, FCPX has had many problems beginning with the launch strategy and timing and the retirement of FCP7 when obviously FCPX was not a replacement for all FCP7 users. In spite of the rough start, the pros now have a direction and a choice to make between Apple and other vendors. With iMovie Pro or FC Express X, Apple would not be in the pro game at all in the minds of most.

Rick Lang

iMac 27” 2.8GHz i7 16GB


Return to posts index


tony west
Re: Is the name clouding our judgement?
on Feb 11, 2012 at 3:46:31 pm

I think the main mistake they made was putting some of the new cool tools (like the precession tool) in Imovie first.

They rebuilt imovie and made it stronger before they rebuilt fcp.

Then when people saw X after Imovie they just said imovie pro.

Apple had the order wrong.

It had no effect on me, because I hadn't seen imovie for years, I just saw a faster 64 bit program with cool new tools.


Return to posts index

Mark Morache
Re: Is the name clouding our judgement?
on Feb 11, 2012 at 5:46:17 pm

Naw.

At first I thought of it as Final Cut Pro Ex

then as Final Cut X

Now I think of it as Final Cut Pro Eventually

It's getting better and better, and little by little everything is starting to line up.

It's been enough for me to start using it with 10.0.0, and never stop.
It's only getting better.

I think they should have labelled it as a beta, just like the external monitor function.
They should have NEVER taken FCS3 off the market, and still shouldn't, as long as it's still selling any copies at all.

In fact, I think they should either severly discount FCS3, or give it away for free with the purchase of FCPX.

Meanwhile I'm going to continue to exercise my Q, W, E and D fingers with great delight, and look forward to the next release.

---------
Don't live your life in a secondary storyline.

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


Return to posts index

Joseph W. Bourke
Re: Is the name clouding our judgement?
on Feb 12, 2012 at 12:03:26 am

I firmly believe that if they had called it Fetal Cut Pro X that people would have immediately known that this baby was not ready to go out into the world yet. Let it rest, and get nourishment, and mature, until those missing features have grown into place, and everyting would be just fine, and this forum would never have happened.

Joe Bourke
Owner/Creative Director
Bourke Media
http://www.bourkemedia.com


Return to posts index


Bill Davis
Re: Is the name clouding our judgement?
on Feb 12, 2012 at 5:09:31 pm

[Joseph W. Bourke] "I firmly believe that if they had called it Fetal Cut Pro X that people would have immediately known that this baby was not ready to go out into the world yet."

Oh poppycock. Pure and simple.

It was "ready to go out in the world" from day one.

Because the real world is where real things grow up.

If the FCP team had waited until the software was "perfect" for movies and episodic TV and 100 seat shops it would have likely been released just in time to celebrate the out-sourcing of master control in the last local TV station on the planet.

The smart play isn't building towards what a society is transitioning away from - but building for what it's transitioning towards.

"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

Mark Dobson
Re: Is the name clouding our judgement?
on Feb 11, 2012 at 5:59:50 pm

[Oliver Peters] "if Apple had, in fact, named it "iMovie Pro"? (I'm not meaning this as a pejorative.) Or if they had released it as an "editing assistant" application? Sort of a good "pre-editor" or maybe even just a "rough cut editor"?"

Sure there are still a lot of shortcomings with this software and the launch was similar to that of the Titanic, however with each update more editors are taking a second look.

The fact that the interface looked similar to iMovie, that many actually called it "iMovie Pro" alone will have ensured that many 'pro' editors would not be seen dead operating FCPX.

Image and association are powerful drivers in life and FCPX has been well tarred and feathered. However beneath it's tarnished exterior there is a lot to be said for this new kid on the block.

Give it more than a cursory glance, spend time with it on real projects, look beyond the magnetic debate and many would be reluctant to return to the more conventional editing packages.

I'm 7 months in now and, whilst I sometimes howl with frustration at the lack of maturity that FCPX frequently displays, I'm confident that this much more than an 'editing assistant' and Apple for all its faults are starting to open up as witnessed by the recent access to 10.0.3 release that has resulted in 7toX.


Return to posts index

Bill Davis
Re: Is the name clouding our judgement?
on Feb 11, 2012 at 6:26:34 pm

[Mark Dobson] "Sure there are still a lot of shortcomings with this software and the launch was similar to that of the Titanic, however with each update more editors are taking a second look."

(slapping forehead)

Of course!

Now I finally understand that on this journey, sometime in the future, because they hopped aboard Final Cut Pro X - many hundreds of people will die violently.

Glad we got that cleared up.

"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: Is the name clouding our judgement?
on Feb 11, 2012 at 6:19:00 pm

I'm sure a lot of us are tying to "make it work" - it would be a sad world if the only choices were the other 2 A's. (no offense Edius and Vegas)

As long as Apple stays committed to making it work and listens to users, I think it will quickly be back as a respected pro NLE. They seem to be on a pretty fast track with fixes and updates - we'll see if that continues...

Lance Bachelder
Writer, Editor, Director
Irvine, California



Return to posts index

Andy Neil
Re: Is the name clouding our judgement?
on Feb 11, 2012 at 9:11:53 pm

[oliver peters] It's been said a number of times by a number of folks, but would we be trying so hard to make FCP X work for everything, if Apple had, in fact, named it "iMovie Pro"?

I seriously doubt it. Because if we're just talking about a name change, it still wouldn't keep people from resenting why apple chose to develop this program instead of updating FCP7. That anger would carry over no matter what.

Secondly, I think people try to make it work, because they want it to work for them. When I first layed hands on an Avid, it was a Newscutter 1.5 I think, I tried to make it do what it couldn't at the time. Back then you only had 3 or 4 video tracks available and I wanted to composite over 15 in this scene I was cutting. My workaround was ridiculous, but that didn't stop me because I wanted to edit the story a particular way.

I see FCPX the same way. I want to edit stories based on my own sense of creativity, not on the limitations of the software. I push to discover the flaws and report them because, like Avid, I hope that the developer is listening and will make the program better. Secretly, I feel all developers hope that as well; that their users will tell them how they can make their software better.

Of course there's also the fact that FCPX is really new and people are still just discovering ways to use it. FCPX may not be useful for all workflows yet, but I have no reason to believe that will always be the case. In all likelihood it will end up like FCP7, possible to use for almost any workflow, but ideal for only some.

Andy

http://www.timesavertutorials.com


Return to posts index

Oliver Peters
Re: Is the name clouding our judgement?
on Feb 11, 2012 at 10:03:38 pm

A lot of good replies. I'm not as optimistic as some that FCP X will ever become a universal solution, unless some inherent design issues are resolved. It is however tantalizingly close for a lot of projects and really has both strong "offline" and "online" edit system features.

For example, on one project I'm cutting, that will rely heavily on speed ramps, I plan to use it for the "online system" (without the client) because of the quality of the optical flow, but I'll do the rough cut with FCP 7, because it's better suited on this job. On another, I would love to use it because the show uses heavy chromakey and it's just better and faster in X. Unfortunately it's a clean-up and conform of a piece the client built himself in FCP 7 and the track lay-out and design would be very hard to transfer to X without a complete rethink of the creative. In fact, the nature of the second project is sufficiently involved, that no translation into another NLE would be successful. So I'm stuck doing the clean-up in FCP 7 and hope that I can handle the creative cut on the next show, where I have some control of the tools.

My point is that these issues tend to point to FCP X as being A good tool (among many) in the arsenal, but maybe not THE tool. That's why I started from the standpoint of the branding. This tends to lead me to believe that we'll be seeing more FCP X / Adobe CS combo jobs in the future.

Ironically I did a convention edit the other night and it was the kind of job that would have been a good one for FCP X. There were about 7 editors on this. All running FCP 7. When I suggested to them that X might actually be a good tool on this job, I got a lot of dirty looks, along with being accused of hastening the downfall of paid editors everywhere ;-)

- Oliver

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


Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: Is the name clouding our judgement?
on Feb 11, 2012 at 10:47:54 pm

[Oliver Peters] "When I suggested to them that X might actually be a good tool on this job, I got a lot of dirty looks, along with being accused of hastening the downfall of paid editors everywhere ;-)"

Right! Because the "$399 upgrade cost of FCS4" would have kept so many people from buying it!

I have heard that a $100 software cost separates the wheat from the chaff in the editing world.

What do they think of DaVinci Free?

I do think if FCPX came out under a different name, there would be a completely different way of looking at it. Yes, we would be mad about the disappearance of FCS4, but in general, I think there would be some differing mind sets. Sure there'd still be some of the same arguments, but the anger would be more focused on Apple and less on each other and the level of pro you represent.

On the other side, it would allow people to approach it with more of an open slate, like, "This is something new" instead of "Why is this called Final Cut Pro?"

All that being said, I don't think Apple could have done it any other way. If it didn't have the FCP badge, I wouldn't be looking at it as hard as I have been. They have said that they are still interested in the "pro market" and it's going to take a while longer, but they have delivered on that so far. Sure, it doesn't fit every pro workflow, but you can see they are slowly adding pro features.

Jeremy


Return to posts index

Oliver Peters
Re: Is the name clouding our judgement?
on Feb 11, 2012 at 10:59:57 pm

"Right! Because the "$399 upgrade cost of FCS4" would have kept so many people from buying it!"

You're missing the point. Not because of the cost, but rather the perception by working editors of who FCP X is being marketed to.

- Oliver

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


Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: Is the name clouding our judgement?
on Feb 11, 2012 at 11:01:23 pm

[Oliver Peters] "You're missing the point. Not because of the cost, but rather the perception by working editors of who FCP X is being marketed to."

No, I get it. But I would tell those people to take a really good look around.

It's not about the money, but it's about the money.


Return to posts index

Rafael Amador
Re: Is the name clouding our judgement?
on Feb 12, 2012 at 2:16:27 am

[Bill Davis] "Yes rafael, we get that it's not "intuitive" for you.

But your "intuition" and mine may just be different."

You are a tooooo clever and intelligent guy but is supposed that FCPX is not aimed only for highly brained people like you but also for short brained intuitionless people like me.

If you say that FCPX is INTUITIVE you are taking the piss of everybody man.
FCPX can be fast, precise, smart, futuristic or whatever, everything except INTUITIVE.

Beside un intuitive, has a shit of GUI where nobody except the editor would be able to understand what's going on over there.
With FCP, anybody could fallow and understand a sequence that somebody else has started. That do not happens with FCPX at all.
rafael

http://www.nagavideo.com


Return to posts index

Bill Davis
Re: Is the name clouding our judgement?
on Feb 12, 2012 at 5:17:57 pm

[Rafael Amador] "Beside un intuitive, has a shit of GUI where nobody except the editor would be able to understand what's going on over there.
With FCP, anybody could fallow and understand a sequence that somebody else has started. That do not happens with FCPX at all.
rafael"


Again, I respectfully TOTALLY disagree.

After a month, I understood the GUI perfectly. Just about what I went through with Legacy back in 1999. I think you've just forgotten what it was like back when none of us knew how to find a Capture Scratch with both hands.

Second graph above is wrong too.

Send me any X sequence you like. I can parse it as fast as I can parse one from legacy. All it takes is understanding the conventions used. What the heck is the difference between opening someones's sequences buried inside other sequences and opening a compound clip? Nothing, really.

What you're arguing is the rough equivalent to saying its harder to express ideas in Itallian than it is in English. It's only harder for someone who doesn't speak Itallian.

All that matters, is that you learn to speak the language.

Period.

"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

Richard Herd
Re: Is the name clouding our judgement?
on Feb 13, 2012 at 10:33:20 pm

[Jeremy Garchow] "It's not about the money, but it's about the money."

Truer words have rarely been posted! The irony and paradox surrounding this app are just awesome.


Return to posts index

Walter Soyka
Re: Is the name clouding our judgement?
on Feb 12, 2012 at 2:32:48 am

[Oliver Peters] "It's been said a number of times by a number of folks, but would we be trying so hard to make FCP X work for everything, if Apple had, in fact, named it "iMovie Pro"? (I'm not meaning this as a pejorative.) Or if they had released it as an "editing assistant" application? Sort of a good "pre-editor" or maybe even just a "rough cut editor"?"

But what would FCPX assist? Once you finished the rough cut, what would you do next?


[Oliver Peters] "FCP X is a good tool for SOME things, but not all. Because it is called Final Cut Pro, I think a lot of us are trying to MAKE it work, when often it isn't the right choice. Hence, a lot of frustration. Thoughts?"

I think that FCPX was launched in rough shape, and without consideration for industry standards. Since it didn't interchange, it was neither a good standalone tool for rough cut, nor a good standalone tool for finishing.

In other words, if you couldn't do your entire job on FCPX, you couldn't do any of the job on FCPX.

If 10.0.0 had supported EDL/OMF/AAF interchange (or maybe if 10.0.3 had been the launch), we'd be having difference conversations about FCPX: we could have been talking about what it does, instead of what it doesn't do.

With interchange, FCPX could have still satisfied everyone using it today, but wouldn't have alienated so many editors with more complex or collaborative workflows. Instead, Apple could have positioned FCPX as a strong all-around editor for the broad middle as well as a serious offline tool for collaboration.

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

Oliver Peters
Re: Is the name clouding our judgement?
on Feb 12, 2012 at 3:27:26 am

[Walter Soyka] "But what would FCPX assist? Once you finished the rough cut, what would you do next?"

Presumably as a companion to a more advanced finishing editor.

- Oliver

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


Return to posts index

Walter Soyka
Re: Is the name clouding our judgement?
on Feb 12, 2012 at 3:51:02 am

[Walter Soyka] "But what would FCPX assist? Once you finished the rough cut, what would you do next?"

[Oliver Peters] "Presumably as a companion to a more advanced finishing editor."

There's a rumor (which I think Craig S. brought to our attention here) that iMovie '08 was originally going to be a product called "First Cut" [link] and was specifically intended to make it easy to sort through mountains of footage before sending to FCP for finishing.

It's possible that FCPX would have been the more advanced finishing editor.

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

Mark Morache
Re: Is the name clouding our judgement?
on Feb 12, 2012 at 7:27:19 am

Would have?

I'd say will be, and headed there fast.

---------
Don't live your life in a secondary storyline.

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


Return to posts index

Andreas Kiel
Re: Is the name clouding our judgement?
on Feb 12, 2012 at 1:42:53 pm

[Oliver] ... Or if they had released it as an "editing assistant" application? Sort of a good "pre-editor" or maybe even just a "rough cut editor"?
None of that would have made sense. An "editing assistant" or a "pre-editor" implies to have good interfaces, exchange options. This is not given at the current state and hadn't been there on launch

[Oliver] ... FCP X is a good tool for SOME things, but not all. Because it is called Final Cut Pro, I think a lot of us are trying to MAKE it work, when often it isn't the right choice. Hence, a lot of frustration.
I agree. There are a lot of attempting features in there which can make some productions work like a charm. But there are are other - especially when you need to work in a collaborative environment - which don't work or are missing and in so far for many people it's a no go.

[Oliver]Thoughts?
Some.
FCP and FCPX both are data base driven. FCP has a bad interface to access the underlying databases especially using the so called "metadata" (hype word at this time). These metadata always had been there and I don't understand those people claiming that this is really new.
As always with any NLE you have to know what you do and have to understand the approach of the NLE (which quite often does not match your way of thinking).

Personally I think FCPX was released at a bad point of time and too much focused on a single user.
Maybe it would be interesting to see how many of the "lovers" do work in collaborative environments when creating their projects.

No doubt FCPX will involve - but that's finally true for every app.
In the meantime we can spent/waste time working with the app - and learn.

- Andreas

Spherico
http://www.spherico.com/filmtools


Return to posts index

Michael Aranyshev
Re: Is the name clouding our judgement?
on Feb 12, 2012 at 2:27:55 pm

[Andreas Kiel] " FCP has a bad interface to access the underlying databases especially using the so called "metadata" (hype word at this time). "

How good is FCPX interface for accessing the actually useful metadata, for instance TC, reel, Scene and Take embedded in BWF files from modern production sound recorders? How bad is FCP7?


Return to posts index

Bill Davis
Re: Is the name clouding our judgement?
on Feb 12, 2012 at 5:57:36 pm

[Michael Aranyshev] "How good is FCPX interface for accessing the actually useful metadata, for instance TC, reel, Scene and Take embedded in BWF files from modern production sound recorders? How bad is FCP7?"

If you see "meta-data" as something you merely "access" then perhaps there's not a massive difference.

However, if you can instead start to see metadata as something brought directly into the user experience and given nearly equal weight in the actual editing interface - essentially elevated into something the user is "expected" to interact with, add to, manipulate and manage, then I'd say the difference is profound.

The vast majority of manipulations you do with your metadata in the Event Browser become available to ALL projects across all drives and all edits - while in Legacy, anything you do in metadata lives in a single project - walled off from everything else.

As an example, color correct a clip in the Event Browser and that color correction is still in place when you drag that same clip into as many projects as you like from that point on.

It's a very significant fundamental difference in approach.

"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

Michael Aranyshev
Re: Is the name clouding our judgement?
on Feb 12, 2012 at 6:22:42 pm

[Bill Davis] "The vast majority of manipulations you do with your metadata in the Event Browser become available to ALL projects across all drives and all edits - while in Legacy, anything you do in metadata lives in a single project - walled off from everything else. "

There is a bit too much word acrobatics in it for my taste. When I get a picture or sound take from the set the image and audio I see and hear is data. The timecode, reel, scene, take, white balance, ISO, F-stop and lens stored in the file is metadata. When software allows me to see and manipulate this metadata but doesn't allow to pass the changes to other software the changes it made is not metadata anymore.


Return to posts index

Bill Davis
Re: Is the name clouding our judgement?
on Feb 12, 2012 at 11:40:35 pm

[Michael Aranyshev] "The timecode, reel, scene, take, white balance, ISO, F-stop and lens stored in the file is metadata. When software allows me to see and manipulate this metadata but doesn't allow to pass the changes to other software the changes it made is not metadata anymore."

Fine.

But when you have the ability to apply a tag like "Favorite" or Rejected" - or better yet, "Part of Series A" or "old product label" or ""needs color grade" at the clip level, that's every bit as valuable as "metadata" as the reel number or ISO setting. Perhaps more so.

That's the whole point. The nature of metadata has opened up. It's no longer just what the camera manufacturer reports, it's ANYTHING you want to attach to the clip. And extending that to areas such as audio tweaks, color grades, and titling info opens up HUGE new vistas in organization, clip access and workflow.

I know a company who works training dogs for all sorts of purposes including police work and guide dog stuff. They are gleeful about X since they can instantly search and pull up behavior characteristic examples "by breed" in seconds.

The clips are the clips. The metadata is what you make it.

That's a HUGE change in thinking that only starts when you ask yourself "what can metadata do for me beyond what the camera manufacturer could see."

Your very language choice above "this metadata" tells me you're focused on metadata as what you've traditionally been supplied with by others upstream of your edit process.. I'm saying that built into X is a new orientation that encourages creating and sharing useful metadata in new ways by allowing the editor to easily make non-destructive decisions and judgements that append to your clips, then flow to others in a more customizable and useful form than was easy to do before.

That's a huge, important change, IMO.


FWIW.

"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

Michael Aranyshev
Re: Is the name clouding our judgement?
on Feb 12, 2012 at 11:52:35 pm

[Bill Davis] "But when you have the ability to apply a tag like "Favorite" or Rejected" - or better yet, "Part of Series A" or "old product label" or ""needs color grade" at the clip level, that's every bit as valuable as "metadata" as the reel number or ISO setting. "

I have the ability to tag my footage in FCP 7. It's has Comments, Labels and Markers etc. But that's not the point. The point is unless tags I apply in the app are available outside of the app I use for applying them they are not really metadata, just "metadata".


Return to posts index

Steve Connor
Re: Is the name clouding our judgement?
on Feb 12, 2012 at 2:30:40 pm

[Andreas Kiel] "Personally I think FCPX was released at a bad point of time and too much focused on a single user.
Maybe it would be interesting to see how many of the "lovers" do work in collaborative environments when creating their projects."


Well I'm a "lover" and I've been collaborating with a colour grader using DaVinci and I've also just sent out some audio tracks, via roles export, to a sound editor. Early days for this sort of thing and I understand that it absolutely doesn't fit into most standard collaborative workflows, but it's getting there slowly.

Steve Connor
"FCPX Agitator"
Adrenalin Television


Return to posts index

Andreas Kiel
Re: Is the name clouding our judgement?
on Feb 12, 2012 at 3:44:35 pm

[Michael Aranyshev]How good is FCPX interface for accessing the actually useful metadata, for instance TC, reel, Scene and Take embedded in BWF files from modern production sound recorders? How bad is FCP7?

It's a kind of "cosi cosa".
Both of the apps do allow to search for BWAV metadata like TC, rate, Scene, Take and Note, Reel somehow - if they do exist in the source.
With X you can merge mono files into one audio file and you loose the metadata (beside the known bug that in many cases you'll sync as well). With 7 (or below) the 'Master Metadata' - means the metadata of the highest clip - were kept.
But there was a nice feature with 7 - though it was a bit cumbersome and obviously not well known. Merging BWAV and Video did write the BWAV metamadata to the QT metadata as iXML for modern BWAVs. That was cool and perfectly fitted into our worflow. We could import any merged clip from anywhere and automatically got the 'Scene, Take, Note' as metadata beside the maybe 2 or 3 TC informations (Source TC, Source Reel; Aux TC, Aux Reel).
As QT is dying and AV Foundation is not really there this is a problem for me/us.
With X you may use the free WaveAgent to merge mono files int a poliphonic files prior to import. This will keep metadata and sync. But you have to take of roles - highly recommended to do that.

Anyway, anybody else may say: it's not a problem for me.

[Steve]Well I'm a "lover" and I've been collaborating with a colour grader using DaVinci and I've also just sent out some audio tracks, via roles export, to a sound editor. Early days for this sort of thing and I understand that it absolutely doesn't fit into most standard collaborative workflows, but it's getting there slowly.
I think it's great to have both "Lover", "Haters" and those in-between (like me) here. This does help everybody to look at whatever thing/feature in a different way.

As I'm mostly involved into workflows I do have a different point of view than most of the others here.

And yes, I do see that with 10.0.3 CC interchange is much better, Audio and Roles had been improved even earlier. That's great - but doesn't cover the options (though mostly unknown) from before.

But on the other hand: around 10,000 people use an app of mine which allows (even using the free version) to extract titles with quite a lot of settings from FCP using XML. X doesn't allow that any more in that way. There was a question on one of the lists whether you could share a project to work with with titles (in a worldwide environment) even if you don't have the original media. That was easy with 7 - with X no chance.

And look at that kind of professionals who wanted to do a DCP release of their project (that even may be people who just want you go with their documentary to a festival without a real financial kind of interest). These people don't have the option to get a full release with a few clicks any more - cause QT Codec plugins are not supported any more. New AV Foundation APIs are not available yet.

There are many more examples I can list.
So it's a strange time.

But at the end it's still the same as I said before:
No doubt FCPX will involve - but that's finally true for every app.
In the meantime we can spent/waste time working with the app - and learn.


- Andreas

Spherico
http://www.spherico.com/filmtools


Return to posts index

Michael Aranyshev
Re: Is the name clouding our judgement?
on Feb 12, 2012 at 4:16:39 pm

1. FCPX did not invent metadata
2. FCP handled real production metadata as well or better than FCPX


Return to posts index

Andreas Kiel
Re: Is the name clouding our judgement?
on Feb 12, 2012 at 5:45:30 pm

[Michael Aranyshev]1. FCPX did not invent metadata
True

[Michael Aranyshev]2. FCP handled real production metadata as well or better than FCPX
Partially true.
With FCP there had been a lot of metadata - more then most of you ever thought - but they had been hidden to the user many times. This was bad - really bad. But using a kind of 3rd app they were visible and editable. Definitively not the best way, but is was possible and doable.
With FCPX there are more limitations at the moment. As there are no real "connections" like detailed XML, 3rd party stuff can't help at the moment.

- Andreas

Spherico
http://www.spherico.com/filmtools


Return to posts index

Bill Davis
Re: Is the name clouding our judgement?
on Feb 12, 2012 at 11:45:29 pm

[Michael Aranyshev] "1. FCPX did not invent metadata

True


2. FCP handled real production metadata as well or better than FCPX"


Only if you artificially limit the definition of what "real production metadata" is or should be.

Some of us simply don't want the concept to be so limited. Particularly since expanding it don't take anything away from the limited traditional uses that you seem to be stuck on.

Metadata as a concept that yearns to be WAY more broad in scope and potential than camera IDs and Reel numbers.

And I feel it's patently short-sighted to constrain it like 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

Michael Aranyshev
Re: Is the name clouding our judgement?
on Feb 13, 2012 at 12:06:17 am

"Real production metadata" is something that comes from the set embedded in the video or audio file, not in email or on the post-it note. The constrain is not the type of information but the medium it is carried on.


Return to posts index

Richard Herd
Re: Is the name clouding our judgement?
on Feb 13, 2012 at 10:57:20 pm

[Michael Aranyshev] ""Real production metadata" is something that comes from the set embedded in the video or audio file, not in email or on the post-it note. The constrain is not the type of information but the medium it is carried on"

Yes! The keywords associated to clips and compound clips in FXP need to be exportable as actual metadata, not just "in-app keywords" and available as an index file.

Everybody's got their wish list? That's mine.


Return to posts index

Herb Sevush
Re: Is the name clouding our judgement?
on Feb 13, 2012 at 12:18:39 am

[Bill Davis] "Only if you artificially limit the definition of what "real production metadata" is or should be. "

This is not one of those "lets make up a definition" moments.

Production metadata means metadata created during production. It doesn't mean anything you want it to mean so you can buttress your argument.

Something you add as a tag in an editing system, even if it's quite valuable metadata that will stay with the clip till the end of eternity, is still not "production metadata."

And given the fact that production MD is important, is used fairly uniformly throughout the industry, and is in every definition of the term metadata, it's a shame and a weakness that FCPX can't access it, especially because it is so robust in other ways with MD.

Exclamation point.

Herb Sevush
Zebra Productions
---------------------------
nothin' attached to nothin'
"Deciding the spine is the process of editing" F. Bieberkopf


Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: Is the name clouding our judgement?
on Feb 13, 2012 at 4:48:02 am

Bill, Metadata is a generic term.

Timecode is metadata, frame by frame metadata to be exact.

Fcpx has some incredible metadata functionality, but in other ways it's limited.

P2 has really decent metadata functionality bullt right in to it, and fcpx can actually read a lot of it. The problem is that it goes in to a black box, meaning some of it you can use, others you can't. So if a piece of preentered metadata is one of FCPX's black boxes, I can't search for it like I can other metadata in an event. The only place I can see it is in the inspector, which makes it not so useful.

Real production metadata is useful, very useful. There are people who actually take time before/during/after a shoot to enter said metadata and make sure it matches so it gets passed correctly through the post process.

Fcpx doesnt use all of it. I think it has to do with AVFoundation not being ready, but I am just speculating.

Something as simple as reel numbers don't get imported in to fcpx without help, even if the reel number is embedded in to a QT movie. Pun intended, but this is a real problem for some people.

I agree with you that there's some great features and that using the metadata across different event and projects is great, but that's where the fun stops. There's a limited amount of that data that can get shared outside of fcpx and few applications can even use that data once it is outside of X.

I do agree the foundation has been built, but let's not make it to be more than what it is.

Right now it's a really fast and extremely efficient renaming and description system. I welcome that, but it needs to be opened up even more. I'm sure it will get there, otherwise apple will have wasted a bunch do time for nothing as the sheer amount do metadata that it's primed for is staggering.

Jeremy


Return to posts index

Bill Davis
Re: Is the name clouding our judgement?
on Feb 13, 2012 at 5:21:57 am

[Jeremy Garchow] "I do agree the foundation has been built, but let's not make it to be more than what it is.

Right now it's a really fast and extremely efficient renaming and description system. I welcome that, but it needs to be opened up even more. I'm sure it will get there, otherwise apple will have wasted a bunch do time for nothing as the sheer amount do metadata that it's primed for is staggering."


I guess I see the metadata foundations of X as buying into a house with electricity and decent wiring.

I may not own (or even have current access to) all the specific electric appliances, that I suspect I will come to enjoy in the future - but the fact that the electrical distribution network was designed into the basic architecture is the most critical factor.

If all I have is a couple of 2 prong plugs in the kitchen, I've got a problem.
(having lived for more than a decade in a house built in 1937 , I can attest to the fact that six to 10 2-prong ungrounded outlets were once adequate for a "modern" home, are NOT optimal any longer - times have changed!)

The rest I can deal with over time.

"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

Michael Gissing
Re: Is the name clouding our judgement?
on Feb 13, 2012 at 5:25:56 am

[Bill Davis] but the fact that the electrical distribution network was designed into the basic architecture is the most critical factor.

Continuing your metaphor, I think Jeremy was saying the connection to the street is what's missing. If, when and how that happens is yet to be revealed. I hope the team at Apple are reading all the published specs and not going it alone.


Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: Is the name clouding our judgement?
on Feb 13, 2012 at 6:05:29 pm

[Bill Davis] "I may not own (or even have current access to) all the specific electric appliances, that I suspect I will come to enjoy in the future - but the fact that the electrical distribution network was designed into the basic architecture is the most critical factor."

Well. I don't think this was built for future formats, but rather built for current formats.

Just look at everything that's available in just the "camera" section:



There's there's EXIF, IPTC, Image, Spotlight, and Studio sections as well.

It's pretty incredible.

One thing I noticed, if you make a custom view with everything selected, not all of these options show up in the inspector. I am curious as to what "Color Space Override" is, but it won't show up in the inspector, for example. Perhaps it's reserved for certain file formats (like RGB), but even that doesn't seem to make it show up.

Perhaps this functionality will become part of the Camera Import SDK and will allow camera manufactures to plug in to this architecture. I don't know.

Jeremy


Return to posts index

Richard Herd
Re: Is the name clouding our judgement?
on Feb 13, 2012 at 10:20:23 pm

[Jeremy Garchow] "I am curious as to what "Color Space Override" is,"

Simple guess: designing custom LUTs (and CDLs) for playback, for example: Shooting Arri S-Log to display as custom LUT.


Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: Is the name clouding our judgement?
on Feb 13, 2012 at 10:47:43 pm

[Richard Herd] "Simple guess: designing custom LUTs (and CDLs) for playback, for example: Shooting Arri S-Log to display as custom LUT."

Ok. Gimme!

Although I'll take log-c. ;)

Jeremy


Return to posts index

Richard Herd
Re: Is the name clouding our judgement?
on Feb 13, 2012 at 10:59:03 pm

Agreed. I learned the hard way: DO NOT SHOW YOUR CLIENT THE RUSHES...EVER. EVER!!

Because the vision in their head and what the straight line looks like are too different. I have to "digital one light" and then show client.

Imagine having that on ingest.


Return to posts index

Bill Davis
Re: Is the name clouding our judgement?
on Feb 12, 2012 at 5:42:20 pm

[Walter Soyka] "I think that FCPX was launched in rough shape, and without consideration for industry standards. Since it didn't interchange, it was neither a good standalone tool for rough cut, nor a good standalone tool for finishing.

In other words, if you couldn't do your entire job on FCPX, you couldn't do any of the job on FCPX.

If 10.0.0 had supported EDL/OMF/AAF interchange (or maybe if 10.0.3 had been the launch), we'd be having difference conversations about FCPX: we could have been talking about what it does, instead of what it doesn't do.

With interchange, FCPX could have still satisfied everyone using it today, but wouldn't have alienated so many editors with more complex or collaborative workflows. Instead, Apple could have positioned FCPX as a strong all-around editor for the broad middle as well as a serious offline tool for collaboration."


But Walter, again this "presumes" that the default (and more importantly, initial) goal of every editor must be to work collaboratively.

And sorry, but it's not.

In fact, I'd argue that very few modern editors actually start out working collaboratively. We all have to learn to edit as INDIVIDUALS before we can bring our skills to any collaborative enterprise.

Essentially we start out learning to push the buttons for ourselves, on our own. Training our brains to "think" in editing terms.

At some point, when you've developed higher level skills, then the market may want you to contribute them in collaboration.

Maybe Apple understood that since they were making a significant shift in overall editing concepts - concentrated on making it an "individual" tool rather than a collaborative one in the first iteration makes good sense.

I can easily imagine an internal Apple meeting where somebody debated the time, effort and money that would have to be tossed into A) maintaining backwards compatibility with Legacy. B) The hassles of maintaining support for two major editing products simultaneously. and C) looking at the growth potential signaled by a burgeoning new class of pervasive editing reuirements in society that do not greatly benefit from the highest level feature set that grew up in response to traditional workflow needs.

And somebody in a position of authority at Apple simply said "Screw it. Let's make a clean break and leave the past behind so we can push forward. And if we're right we may lose in the short run, but we'll win big in the end."

And if we win with this and have a new, more modern approach, there's nothing to stop us from adding back all the capabilities that Legacy ever had and more - but built better, faster, and stronger because of our new approach. Isn't that a good reflection of what we've just seen in 10.0.3's Multi-Cam? Most people say that while it's new and not totally fleshed out - what it IS is in many ways superior to what it was in Legacy.

How many more features will follow the same path and return stronger than they could have been via continued Legacy development?

We'll see.

"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

Neil Patience
Re: Is the name clouding our judgement?
on Feb 12, 2012 at 8:45:08 pm

[Walter] "With interchange, FCPX could have still satisfied everyone using it today, but wouldn't have alienated so many editors with more complex or collaborative workflows. Instead, Apple could have positioned FCPX as a strong all-around editor for the broad middle as well as a serious offline tool for collaboration."

[Bill] But Walter, again this "presumes" that the default (and more importantly, initial) goal of every editor must be to work collaboratively."


Whilst I totally agree with Bill that it clearly is not every editors goal or need to work collaboratively that does not make Walter's point incorrect.

FCP7 was capable of meeting the needs of a wide range of editors skills and working environments. Those that needed to collaborate could, those that needed full broadcast HD monitoring had the option. Those that needed just simple firewire i/o and never needed to collaborate could work equally well.

FCPX was marketed and sold as a total replacement for FCP7, there is no doubt this was Apple's intention as they removed FCP7 from the shelves the day FCPX was released. No transition no crossover just total replacement.

However the initial release could only service those that did not need to collaborate or those that did not need monitoring or to use any of the other features that were initially missing.

Whilst it may be true that Apple "concentrated on making it an "individual" tool rather than a collaborative one"

That presumption that somehow that would be OK with everyone at all levels led to a marketing and PR disaster that has seen more editors look in the direction of Avid, Adobe, PCs and any number of other bits of software and hardware.

So I would say Walters point is quite accurate.

best wishes
Neil
http://www.patience.tv


Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: Is the name clouding our judgement?
on Feb 12, 2012 at 10:13:47 pm

[Neil Patience] "So I would say Walters point is quite accurate."

Absolutely.

Let's not forget those of use that need to collaborate with ourselves (like going to a dedicated grading app, or composting app for example, where I am doing all the driving).

Jeremy


Return to posts index

Bill Davis
Re: Is the name clouding our judgement?
on Feb 13, 2012 at 12:08:19 am

[Neil Patience] "FCPX was marketed and sold as a total replacement for FCP7, there is no doubt this was Apple's intention as they removed FCP7 from the shelves the day FCPX was released. No transition no crossover just total replacement.
"


Uh.... want to show me a single piece of Apple marketing material that supports this?

It might be true. But your phrasing is based on argument and contention, not fact. The "removed FCP7 from the shelves might have been nothing more or less than the patent license on some lines of internal code that Apple chose not to renew and which was set to expire. There's no way to know for sure. But just because you believe the above is gospel, doesn't make it so.

[Neil Patience] "That presumption that somehow that would be OK with everyone at all levels led to a marketing and PR disaster that has seen more editors look in the direction of Avid, Adobe, PCs and any number of other bits of software and hardware.

So I would say Walters point is quite accurate."


Walter is often quite accurate. But not always perfect any more than anyone else. And he's usually first to admit when he's engaging in speculation.

In truth, looking at the the universe of "people who edit video" - narrowing to "people who edit video for money" further narrowing to "people who edit with significant budgets" and further narrowing to "those who edit at the top tier of that sub-group" yep, Apple has pissed some of them off.

But that a pretty small sub-set of "editing" and Apple hasn't even pissed off all of the people at the top.

Those guys at ABC Sports aren't pissed off. And cutting "billions of dollars on the line" replays for hundreds of millions of eyeballs is as pro as it gets.

And while I'm just a busy corporate video producer, I'm fully convinced by my personal experiences editing paid work on deadlines over and over again over the past 90 days on X that it's a great general purpose editing tool.

So I'm confident that it's going to not just survive, but thrive over the coming years.

But don't believe me.

Keep talking about what a terrible mistake it is. And by all means ignore it and bad mouth it whenever possible.

If you're right, I'll eventually "wake up" and see that I really shouldn't have been able to do so much work, so quickly, and so profitably with it. But as long as I can. I'm gonna disagree with those who say it's a poor tool.

That simply doesn't jibe with what i'm experiencing day to day.

"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

Rafael Amador
Re: Is the name clouding our judgement?
on Feb 13, 2012 at 2:44:53 am

[Bill Davis] "After a month, I understood the GUI perfectly. Just about what I went through with Legacy back in 1999. "
Took for you one month to understand the legacy GUI?
Took for me 5 minutes.

[Bill Davis] "Send me any X sequence you like. I can parse it as fast as I can parse one from legacy. All it takes is understanding the conventions used. What the heck is the difference between opening someones's sequences buried inside other sequences and opening a compound clip? Nothing, really.
What you're arguing is the rough equivalent to saying its harder to express ideas in Itallian than it is in English. It's only harder for someone who doesn't speak Itallian.
All that matters, is that you learn to speak the language. "

Yes for you after 7 months using FCPX.
Give an FC sequence to an editor coming from AVID or PP and without previous experience in FC and won't have any problem to understand it.

Bill, you can talk and talk, write and write, but that won't make of FCPX an intuitive application.
Period.
[Bill Davis] "The issue with the X-dismissers is often that they can't see "editing" as anything other than the way "they" edit.

But others with different challenges and needs DO see it very differently.

And we're not wrong because of that.

You want to thrive in your editing climate. I want to thrive in mine."


Is not about dismissing nothing but about not being able to do your work.
It seems that for you things can only be white or black: Who is not with FCPX is against FCPX.

[Bill Davis] "The larger question is if "Hollywood" editing is more reflective of the overall climate that most people live in, or is my more "general and increasingly web oriented business editing" the more widespread climate?"
The "Hollywood way" probably affects to the 0.01% of the video editors in the world, if not less.
rafael

http://www.nagavideo.com


Return to posts index

Bill Davis
Re: Is the name clouding our judgement?
on Feb 13, 2012 at 5:10:48 am

[Rafael Amador] "It seems that for you things can only be white or black: Who is not with FCPX is against FCPX."

Nothing could be farther from the truth.

I see ample grey in FCP-X. Believe it or not, there are things I sometimes wish it would do that it doesn't do yet. I probably praise it too much - but largely as a reaction to so much misplaced hate in the early days that obscured it's real value. And far too many who can't get "unstuck" from the positions they initially carved out and maybe they feel they have to defend - regardless of a growing realization that lots and lots of what was said about it initially - have turned out to be totally wrong.

It's not a disaster. It's not a lousy design. It's not iMovie Pro, and it's not the end of editing as we've known it. Period.

I don't have a problem with anyone who comes here and looks at it objectively and have either praise, concerns, or even outright dislike for it - as long as they can express valid reasons for their thinking.

I do have problems with people who come, make blanket statements about how useless or terrible or ill-designed it is - since I use it every day and I know the truth to be nothing like that.

(I do find amusing the number of posts over the months where folks have said "but it doesn't do (this) - only to find out that it actually does - that's been fun to watch!)

End of story.

"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

Neil Patience
Re: Is the name clouding our judgement?
on Feb 13, 2012 at 2:54:38 am

Woah Bill where did all that come from ?

Considering I started by saying I totally agreed with you, and you clearly state that there are many levels and "sub groups" of editors, I would have thought that you got the fact that maybe "one size might not fit all" Therefore I find your reply a little odd and some may say a tad over defensive.

For a start:

[Bill Davis] "It might be true. But your phrasing is based on argument and contention, not fact. The "removed FCP7 from the shelves might have been nothing more or less than the patent license on some lines of internal code that Apple chose not to renew and which was set to expire. There's no way to know for sure. But just because you believe the above is gospel, doesn't make it so."

Totally agree with you again - but the truth is you have no more idea that your statement above is any more or less "based on fact" than mine.

Surely its a given we are all speaking in terms of conjecture and speculation ?

Secondly:

[Bill Davis] "
And while I'm just a busy corporate video producer, I'm fully convinced by my personal experiences editing paid work on deadlines over and over again over the past 90 days on X that it's a great general purpose editing tool."


Great so FCPX works for corporate video production and you can make money from it - excellent you made the perfect choice for you.
I wish you continued success.

However my opinion as a busy broadcast editor with over 20 years experience in post production counts equally to yours, no more no less, as we work in different environments, what works for you may not for me and vice versa.

Thirdly:

[Bill Davis] "Those guys at ABC Sports aren't pissed off. And cutting "billions of dollars on the line" replays for hundreds of millions of eyeballs is as pro as it gets."

Again totally agreed - however I regularly cut fast turnaround sports highlights that are transmitted daily to over 100 countries worldwide.
We cut features and highlights that support a studio show that is on air for 8 hours a day 7 days a week and additionally around 20 inserts for each of 3 live news items.
So I have a pretty good idea what it takes to create content under pressure of time and TX deadline.
This is totally done on Avid - different environment different solution. but equally as "pro as it gets"

Fourthly:

[Bill Davis] "Keep talking about what a terrible mistake it is. And by all means ignore it and bad mouth it whenever possible."

I did not say FCPX was a "terrible mistake" or "bad mouth it" - simply that the initial release had been badly handled and hence my agreement with Walters opinion. I was merely speculating that in my opinion his speculation was correct.

[Neil Patience] . . . that has seen more editors look in the direction of Avid, Adobe, PCs and any number of other bits of software and hardware.

To argue against the statement that some sections of the post community are looking elsewhere is surely a lost cause. There are many posts and articles here that confirm that.

[Bill Davis] "
That simply doesn't jibe with what i'm experiencing day to day."


Again your experience is not everyone else's. I could be wrong but it seems your sentiment is "it works for me so my opinion is right"

And finally:

[Bill Davis] "
"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"


So your words are "true" are they Bill ? "respectful" of other peoples experiences ? "needed" and "civil" ?

I respect your experience and can see that for you FCPX is great - however from your reply I am questioning that you are totally practicing what you preach.

best wishes
Neil
http://www.patience.tv


Return to posts index

Bill Davis
Re: Is the name clouding our judgement?
on Feb 13, 2012 at 5:34:15 am

[Neil Patience] ""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"

So your words are "true" are they Bill ? "respectful" of other peoples experiences ? "needed" and "civil" ?

I respect your experience and can see that for you FCPX is great - however from your reply I am questioning that you are totally practicing what you preach.

best wishes
Neil
http://www.patience.tv"


Yeah. Sorry.

You touched a nerve that's been a bit raw recently. And for all I know I totally mis-interpreted your tone and intent. If so, sorry. My bad.

I'm a bit conditioned to being one of the few voices here (thankfully not the only one - or even the most persuasive) that cares about the success of this software.

I'm a bit loyal because it's making my life a lot easier these days.

And I'd hate to see a lot of editors who could use and benefit from it falling into a sinkhole of kvetching and never finding their way out.

I'll try to me more temperate. And again, sorry if I overreacted.

(and while i aspire to Justice O'Conners standards, unfortunately I'm perfectly capable of falling short of that sensible standard. - again, sorry.)

"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

George Howard
Re: Is the name clouding our judgement?
on Feb 13, 2012 at 8:17:01 am

And now Bill has apologized, showing respect and responsibility. Bill, you have lived up to your excellent quote, and I salute you.


Return to posts index

Neil Patience
Re: Is the name clouding our judgement?
on Feb 13, 2012 at 10:33:37 am

No worries Bill - I appreciate your reply, we all get a bit touchy sometimes.

[Bill Davis] "
And I'd hate to see a lot of editors who could use and benefit from it falling into a sinkhole of kvetching and never finding their way out."

Maybe you should use your obvious passion and enthusiasm for FCPX to teach ? I'm guessing you have years of experience that others could benefit from. Hey its a thought :-)

Probably, like most of us, too busy earning a living though.

Anyway thanks again.

best wishes
Neil
http://www.patience.tv


Return to posts index

George Howard
Re: Is the name clouding our judgement?
on Feb 13, 2012 at 8:06:20 am

I am enjoying all the comments, but I recognize a pattern that I have seen in myself. In posting back and forth, one can become frustrated that people are not "getting" my point. Each post can become slightly emotionally elevated, partially because the very face-to-face feedback we all receive when we are in the same room is absent on the Internet. From my viewpoint, each of you are making excellent points, and the whole is greater than the individual parts. We can not convince anyone against their will, and new ideas take time to be understood. I see you all as giving us your valuable time and experience, and my best advice, from experience, is when you find yourself getting worked up and combative, walk away from the keyboard. Thank you all, again, for your excellent comments.


Return to posts index

tony west
Re: Is the name clouding our judgement?
on Feb 13, 2012 at 1:57:37 pm

[Neil Patience] "We cut features and highlights that support a studio show that is on air for 8 hours a day 7 days a week and additionally around 20 inserts for each of 3 live news items.
So I have a pretty good idea what it takes to create content under pressure of time and TX deadline.
This is totally done on Avid "



We have Avid at our FOX stations also (but not in the trucks) and we have great people who can cut the heck out of sports on Avid.

It's just not for me. For me I can cut faster on X

THEY can cut just fine on Avid. It's a matter of TASTE at that point. I don't like bins, I like my skimmer and
I don't like Avid's title tool over X's titles. I don't like tracks. But THEY do.

Both tools can work.

They know their Avid and have used it for years and I'm sure they don't see why they should start all over with this.

I don't want them to if they don't want to.

Some people are fine looking at that render bar in 7. Unacceptable for me at this point. Everyone has their thing.

I will say that two of our Avid folks are looking at X and liking it.

They won't be the last.


Return to posts index

Trevor Asquerthian
Re: Is the name clouding our judgement?
on Feb 13, 2012 at 8:18:02 pm

[Bill Davis] "Those guys at ABC Sports aren't pissed off. And cutting "billions of dollars on the line" replays for hundreds of millions of eyeballs is as pro as it gets."

Which guys? Is there a link? Thanks



Return to posts index

Michael Aranyshev
Re: Is the name clouding our judgement?
on Feb 13, 2012 at 11:39:35 pm

[Bill Davis] "The "removed FCP7 from the shelves might have been nothing more or less than the patent license on some lines of internal code that Apple chose not to renew and which was set to expire."

I've heard it mentioned a couple of times here on the COW. What lines of code would they be? For FCP Apple licensed EDL library from Alba Editorial and VTR control from Pipeline digital. Alba site is up but Pipeline is gone. Of course there is also OMF which is Avid.


Return to posts index

Walter Soyka
Re: Is the name clouding our judgement?
on Feb 13, 2012 at 2:04:06 pm

Brace yourselves...

I agree with you, Bill.

I gave the what on interchange, and you gave the wherefore.

My comment in this thread was meant to be pretty limited in scope: we were talking about FCPX as an editing assistant, rough cut, or offline editorial application, so naturally interchange would have been an important part of that. If you can run your edit from start to finish in FCPX, you don't need interchange. If you need more capability than FCPX currently allows, though, interchange to another app that offers that capability will be a challenge.

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

Richard Herd
Re: Is the name clouding our judgement?
on Feb 13, 2012 at 11:03:17 pm

[Bill Davis] "imagine an internal Apple meeting where..."

I love this kind of speculation.

I imagine an internal Apple meeting where...

They said, "We are no longer going to pay licensing fees to third party developers."


Return to posts index

Walter Soyka
Re: Is the name clouding our judgement?
on Feb 13, 2012 at 2:43:54 pm

[Oliver Peters] "Because it is called Final Cut Pro, I think a lot of us are trying to MAKE it work, when often it isn't the right choice. Hence, a lot of frustration. Thoughts?"

I'd like to propose a variation on this question: if the product where NOT called Final Cut Pro, would it have gotten the consideration it did?

Would FCPX have been rejected for those workflows where it does offer compelling advantages if not for its apparent pedigree? Would "Magneto-Data-Edit" from "Developer X" have fared as well on the App Store?

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

Michael Aranyshev
Re: Is the name clouding our judgement?
on Feb 13, 2012 at 2:55:49 pm

Possibly. What I saw launching FCPX for the first time wasn't an NLE but an interesting footage archive solution. Looked great for home. Looked promising for emerging "newspaper television" market.


Return to posts index

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