faq quote "FCP-X does not have an analogous concept to tracks in a Pro Tools timeline, so a converted project will look different in Pro Tools compared with FCP-X. We use the names of Roles and the primary lane number to sort the media. In addition the number of overlapping media, anchoring of media and multi-channel audio files can all increase the number of tracks in Pro Tools."
God knows I'm sure its nothing but a hard fought coding effort, but the above sounds equivalent to trying to shoehorn something very strange and very square into a circular post production circle. Is it reasonable to presume that an entirely alien edit system is ever going to bed into broader production and post production given that almost no facility or broadcaster, no production house or employer of any description has shown any willingness to employ it as an edit system in the first place?
What rational basis is there for thinking that this will change? If the people that actually employ people to be editors will not touch this system, and they have thus far overwhelmingly shown that they will not, and if Apple will not relent on FCPX's basic architecture, and they show no inclination of doing so, how is this system anything other than a smashed brick wall dead end? Apple can't make employers use it, and its pretty obvious, from what Jordan and many others have said, that industry opinion and reaction, right up to its release, carried absolutely no weight with Apple. How do you possibly square this?
Unless I'm missing something, if FCPX resolutely remains FCPX, and the industry continues to leave it dead in the water, as it is currently doing, then Apple will have happily ceded command of all future paid media editing, with its attendant ecosystem of media transport and delivery, not to mention the hardware and software itself.
Trust me, the levels and panning from an edit are next to useless in sound post. Firstly we don't dip clips, we dip sub mix stems. Secondly your levels suck and make no sense once proper EQ and dynamics processing and bus routing are added.
Thirdly you have little or no idea of deliverables and track layouts. But relax, we don't expect those things and we all ignore or re zero all clip gain and panning before we start so don't sweat that those features are not yet available.
We are certainly keen to make sure the X2Pro plugs this gap, and plugs it well.
This all takes time as the two applications are very different in their approaches. Our engineers have a lot of experience of this type of work, but understanding FCPX's infinitely nestable clips took some effort!
I'm not being critical here. Having been a little sceptical at first, I have to say that the more I see of FCPX and of its rapid development direction, the more impressed I am. I've been creating tools in this industry for a long time, but I really think the FCPX team have done a great job, and have seen the future of editing.
So we are really keen to hear about the features you guys need most, so that we can prioritise those first. Or perhaps you need other tools to blue FCPX back into your professional workflows? Let us know!
Hi James. Yes, we had to leave levels out of the first release in order to get it out as soon as possible. Without it there was no way to go from FCPX 10.0.3 to ProTools, so we were under a lot of pressure from folks using FCPX on productions now to release something which would at least translate the edits.
The good news is that we are working on this right now and hope to have first efforts in the hands of one or two beta testers next week. It will deal with levels, automation gain and fade handles. Because these can be applied in several ways in FCPX using compound clips, we have to concatenate them all into a series of keyframes on each track in ProTools. Fade handles will initially be translated into a straight linear fade.
We've not included panning in this work. Feedback from the market is that the audio guys don't want panning information from the edit, so we've set this to a lower priority. Happy to hear counter views!