FORUMS: list search recent posts

FCPX or Not...

COW Forums : Apple Final Cut Pro X Debates

<< PREVIOUS   •   VIEW ALL   •   PRINT   •   NEXT >>
sandy shapiro
FCPX or Not...
on Mar 19, 2012 at 2:43:33 am

...not. Hello Avid. Hello professional software.


Return to posts index

Daniel Frome
Re: FCPX or Not...
on Mar 19, 2012 at 11:58:18 am

That's it folks. Close the debate forum. It has been solved.


Return to posts index

Steve Connor
Re: FCPX or Not...
on Mar 19, 2012 at 12:08:10 pm

Thanks for letting us know

Steve Connor
"FCPX Agitator"
Adrenalin Television


Return to posts index


Shane Ross
Re: FCPX or Not...
on Mar 19, 2012 at 3:11:32 pm

Most informative post yet!

Shane
Little Frog Post
Read my blog, Little Frog in High Def


Return to posts index

Mitch Ives
Re: FCPX or Not...
on Mar 19, 2012 at 3:34:08 pm

it's brevity was impressive...

Mitch Ives
Insight Productions Corp.

"Criticism may not be agreeable, but it is necessary. It fulfills the same function as pain in the human body. It calls attention to an unhealthy state of things." - Winston Churchill


Return to posts index

Craig Seeman
Re: FCPX or Not...
on Mar 19, 2012 at 4:11:36 pm

Must edit sound bites for a living.



Return to posts index


Craig Seeman
Re: FCPX or Not...
on Mar 19, 2012 at 4:10:14 pm

[sandy shapiro] "...not. Hello Avid. Hello professional software."

FCPX Yes. Hello professional software.

12 years on Avid and there's reasons why I wanted something different. A decade more has passed and looking at Avid, while it's absolutely a top professional NLE, my reasons for leaving it behind haven't changed.

FCPX, professional software . . . coming up from the "minors" is looking very professional.



Return to posts index

David Cherniack
Re: FCPX or Not...
on Mar 19, 2012 at 5:05:15 pm

[Craig Seeman] "FCPX, professional software . . . coming up from the "minors" is looking very professional."

In 3 to 4 years it may be ready for the show.

NLE's are among the most complex applications in the entire software universe. They must do hundreds of different tasks in a multitude of different ways for a wide spectrum of users and uses.

No one has ever managed to develop one from scratch to maturity in less than five major cycles. And as been pointed out here, Apple is not exactly known for developing in house sophisticated applications from scratch.

Just for the point of view of NLE history the notion that FCPx is almost ready to play in the bigs is borderline delusional. But hey, Craig, that hasn't stopped you so far :)

David
AllinOneFilms.com


Return to posts index

Craig Seeman
Re: FCPX or Not...
on Mar 19, 2012 at 5:09:22 pm

It's already being used in many professional environments including broadcast. Granted it has some severe limitations but "Professional" means many things to many people and people are certainly getting paid to use it and some of this work is used for broadcast. Motion is certainly "Professional" as well.



Return to posts index


David Cherniack
Re: FCPX or Not...
on Mar 19, 2012 at 5:58:33 pm

Hey Craig,

You used the baseball analogy, not me. Double A ball is also professional but it's a long jump to the majors.

As has been stated here many times, beware analogies. They're for poets and ponces.

David
AllinOneFilms.com


Return to posts index

Craig Seeman
Re: FCPX or Not...
on Mar 19, 2012 at 6:08:17 pm

Sans analogy, if people make money using it, it's professional.
If you want to use "broadcast" or "cable TV" as professional than it meets the needs of some in that market as well.
Actually if someone uses "professional" that opens the door, not the use of an analogy.
FCPX is certainly professional.



Return to posts index

David Cherniack
Re: FCPX or Not...
on Mar 19, 2012 at 6:38:58 pm

Lump all professional use together? Horse Patties. That's not what you meant by using the word 'majors'. Split hairs if you must. Split infinitives, ok by me. Split your analogy up after the fact? Who do you think you're fooling :)

David
AllinOneFilms.com


Return to posts index


Craig Seeman
Re: FCPX or Not...
on Mar 19, 2012 at 6:44:35 pm

It's being used for broadcast. That's professional.
Outside the USA I know of one broadcaster that moved their operation to FCPX.
I've offered to interview him. He says he doesn't have the time but he also thinks all these debates are foolish. He's using it, despite some issues, and it's working fine for their facility and he has no intention of changing.
You don't have sole control over what professional means. It's being used.



Return to posts index

David Cherniack
Re: FCPX or Not...
on Mar 19, 2012 at 6:47:24 pm

[Craig Seeman] "ou don't have sole control over what professional means. It's being used."

Craig, I'm not trying to define professional, but you're trying to define what's major league.

David
AllinOneFilms.com


Return to posts index

Craig Seeman
Re: FCPX or Not...
on Mar 19, 2012 at 6:52:06 pm

[David Cherniack] "but you're trying to define what's major league."

Yes, I provide a definition rather than others who make blanket statements about "professional"
Broadcast is one such definition. One could argue corporate may be major league as well.



Return to posts index


David Cherniack
Re: FCPX or Not...
on Mar 19, 2012 at 6:57:20 pm

[Craig Seeman] "One could argue corporate may be major league as well."

You could but I doubt many would agree with such a blanket ststement.

I always use the term "high end" instead of "professional". It can include everything from features to YouTube, depending on the complexity, creativity, and production values. It's sufficiently vague, unlike "major league" which is pretty definite, in baseball anyway.

David
AllinOneFilms.com


Return to posts index

Craig Seeman
Re: FCPX or Not...
on Mar 19, 2012 at 7:03:29 pm

[David Cherniack] "I always use the term "high end" instead of "professional"."

What's high end? Heavy FX? That needs a definition as well.
If one is using it with RED or Arri sources is that "high end" (yes I know there's no direct RED codec support yet)



Return to posts index

David Cherniack
Re: FCPX or Not...
on Mar 19, 2012 at 7:08:58 pm

[Craig Seeman] "What's high end? Heavy FX? That needs a definition as well."

High end is high end. If you wish to define it I suggest that the definition will only be suitable to you...which is precisely why it's intentionally vague.

David
AllinOneFilms.com


Return to posts index

Craig Seeman
Re: FCPX or Not...
on Mar 19, 2012 at 7:53:35 pm

[David Cherniack] "High end is high end"

Assertions like that kill any kind of intelligent discussion. To talk about suitable for various market or workflow definitions. While we may each have different definitions, being able to state them can give us each an idea about where our perceptions come from. Saying something like "High end is high end" is near pointless. If you want to make assertions like that, there's no point in discussing because discussion involves language and definition. When I make statements I try to define them in some form.



Return to posts index

Chris Harlan
Re: FCPX or Not...
on Mar 20, 2012 at 1:05:36 am

[Craig Seeman] "Assertions like that kill any kind of intelligent discussion."

So does a dogged obsession with broad definitions of "professional," especially when the contextual meaning can be ferreted out by most casual observers.


Return to posts index

Richard Herd
Re: FCPX or Not...
on Mar 20, 2012 at 4:39:15 pm

Someone has to be the Astros.


Return to posts index

David Cherniack
Re: FCPX or Not...
on Mar 19, 2012 at 8:04:56 pm

[David Cherniack] "It can include everything from features to YouTube, depending on the complexity, creativity, and production values"

That's enough for me, and I suspect, most high end users. If you wish to try and define it more specifically, please don't let me stand in your way. While you're doing that consider that my aunt Mary makes money selling knitting videos that she shoots on a phone and edits with Movie Maker. Is she professional. You bet.

David
AllinOneFilms.com


Return to posts index

Craig Seeman
Re: FCPX or Not...
on Mar 19, 2012 at 8:24:15 pm

[David Cherniack] "That's enough for me, and I suspect, most high end users."

You mean like the broadcasters using FCPX?

If it's "enough" for you, you've certainly limited discussions to yourself or only those who somehow know your unspoken definition, to the exclusion of others who are "high end" users.



Return to posts index

David Cherniack
Re: FCPX or Not...
on Mar 19, 2012 at 9:28:04 pm

[Craig Seeman] "If it's "enough" for you, you've certainly limited discussions to yourself or only those who somehow know your unspoken definition, to the exclusion of others who are "high end" users."

No, not to most high end users, I suspect, but you've obviously excluded yourself. So really there's no more point to belabour, is there.

David
AllinOneFilms.com


Return to posts index

Jim Giberti
Re: FCPX or Not...
on Mar 19, 2012 at 6:10:29 pm

[Craig Seeman] "Granted it has some severe limitations but "Professional" means many things to many people"

As an often frustrated professional producer using FCPX, I'd say Craig nails the X conundrum with this statement.

My frustration with Apple is specifically because I have a hard time balancing the "professional" aspects and the "severe limitations" in day to day use.

A new iteration of FCP should have hit it out of the park.
It didn't.

So many of us are ambivalent toward FCPX because Apple delivered an ambivalent product.

As the most profitable and visionary company of it's kind, in history, Apple should be way beyond half-baked, works for some people, products.


Return to posts index

Craig Seeman
Re: FCPX or Not...
on Mar 19, 2012 at 6:37:41 pm

[Jim Giberti] "So many of us are ambivalent toward FCPX because Apple delivered an ambivalent product."

I have my bouts with it as well. I'm dealing with another round of dual mono blues. Basically the feature set is "uneven" it would seem. I do trust the progress they seem to be making though. I don't these issues are because it's a half baked Apple pie errr product. I suspect it may have to do with a combination of their direction their heading with it and what they can get out the door first.



Return to posts index

David Lawrence
Re: FCPX or Not...
on Mar 20, 2012 at 12:26:42 am

[Jim Giberti] "My frustration with Apple is specifically because I have a hard time balancing the "professional" aspects and the "severe limitations" in day to day use."

Seems to me, the reason these discussions about whether FCPX is "professional" or not keep getting bogged down is because they mix up two very different "professional" needs:

1) technical
2) workflow

FCPX incorporates many high-end technical specs. 4K playback, broadcast monitoring, multi-cam, etc. are all features that exceed the needs of typical consumers.

In terms of specs, FCPX is clearly "professional".

On the other hand, FCPX's workflow flexibility is currently very limited. The timeline model is rigid and incompatible with every other professional system on the market. The audio UI feels like an afterthought at best. Exchange with other programs is improving thru 3rd party tools but there are still many holes.

In terms of workflow, FCPX is has a long way to go before it can call itself "professional" in terms of collaborative workflow and industry standards.

This to me is the crux of why FCPX seems so ambivalent -- it wraps high-end professional technical specs in an oversimplified package that doesn't give advanced editors the control and flexibility they need to do their jobs.

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


Return to posts index

Daniel Frome
Re: FCPX or Not...
on Mar 20, 2012 at 3:22:44 pm

That's the best explanation I've seen so far. Nailed it.


Return to posts index

Aindreas Gallagher
Re: FCPX or Not...
on Mar 19, 2012 at 8:25:47 pm

[Craig Seeman] "It's already being used in many professional environments including broadcast. "

hey craig, would you maybe be able to give a few examples?


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


Return to posts index

Craig Seeman
Re: FCPX or Not...
on Mar 19, 2012 at 8:48:45 pm

I know of one in the Netherlands but he refuses to participate in these discussions.
Alban Egger has said he has.
Tony West, Mark Morache also.




Return to posts index

Aindreas Gallagher
Re: FCPX or Not...
on Mar 19, 2012 at 9:08:51 pm

not at all looking to over-press the point Craig - but in the US say, outside of the people here posting, and, to be fair, mark morache is pretty ambivalent at this point... but in terms of 'many professional environments' type thing, do you have particular facilities houses, broadcast departments, production companies type stuff in your head?

I know there was that guy who gave the talk and said he was moving his facility to FCPX - but he's been a bit quiet lately? forget the name, as usual...


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


Return to posts index

Craig Seeman
Re: FCPX or Not...
on Mar 19, 2012 at 9:28:54 pm

[Aindreas Gallagher] "I know there was that guy who gave the talk and said he was moving his facility to FCPX - but he's been a bit quiet lately? forget the name, as usual..."

Evan Schechtman at OutPost Digital. I haven't heard much from him anywhere about anything lately. Apparently he'll be at NAB.
https://www.mewshop.com/news/2012/feb/28/mewshop-editlounge-nab-2012/
It'll be interesting to see where he is.
Last thing I saw that including him regarding FCPX was his mentioning his move to it in some of the coverage of the 10.0.3 release.



Return to posts index

Chris Harlan
Re: FCPX or Not...
on Mar 20, 2012 at 1:16:18 am

[Craig Seeman] " know of one in the Netherlands but he refuses to participate in these discussions.
Alban Egger has said he has.
Tony West, Mark Morache also.
"


So, when you say "broadcaster," you mean a few people delivering to broadcast, and not what the term traditionally means--NBC, CBS, ITV, PBS, etc.?


Return to posts index

Craig Seeman
Re: FCPX or Not...
on Mar 20, 2012 at 1:36:10 am

[Chris Harlan] "So, when you say "broadcaster," you mean a few people delivering to broadcast, and not what the term traditionally means--NBC, CBS, ITV, PBS, etc.?"

I believe there is one broadcaster in the Netherlands that moved to FCPX (so he's told me). I'd love to see about interviewing them. As much as I like FCPX I still see some significant facility level issues so I'm curious about this is as well. You'd think Apple would be all over them for promotional purposes.



Return to posts index

Rick Fromet
Re: FCPX or Not...
on Mar 20, 2012 at 2:35:18 pm

LOL!

So "many professional and broadcast environments" translates to "I heard of a guy in the Netherlands that doesn't want to be interviewed"?

That's SERIOUSLY laughable...

As the movie Spaceballs put so eloquently...

"I'm your father's, brother's, cousin's, best friend's, room mate".

"So what does that make us?"

"Absolutely nothing."

FCP 1.0 - FCPS


Return to posts index

tony west
Re: FCPX or Not...
on Mar 20, 2012 at 2:37:06 pm

I talked about Playoff Baseball last season on here Craig at the time when we used it.

I talked about how many people watch Major league post season sports.

It's not really gonna matter to some folks.

I don't really care either. When I'm on the job I'm not even thinking about what somebody I don't know likes or doesn't like. I'm just doing MY job.

Our people in St. Louis dominate major sports as a percentage like no other city. You can't look at the Super Bowl, World Series Final Four or any other major sporting event without seeing the work of some of our people.

Our director directs the Stanley Cup

X is moving into sports because it works well there.

On another subject, these companies that make third party programs are making them for X, Avid and PPr

They would be stupid to leave out X because of the sheer volume of people using the product.

To me it's simple business 101

Companies are going to make plug-ins for X and design programs for it because there is a lot of money to be made in doing so.

Even if Apple stood still (which they won't) other people are making the product better every month because they make money by doing that.

There are things that X can do and can't do.

The what it can do out ways the what it can't do for me.


Return to posts index

Richard Herd
Re: (OT) FCPX or Not...
on Mar 21, 2012 at 8:57:53 pm

Speaking of sports in StL, did you participate in the NCAA Div 1 Wrestling tournament? I watched it on ESPN3.com.


Return to posts index

sandy shapiro
Re: FCPX or Not...
on Mar 20, 2012 at 12:47:43 am

Avid still trumps imovie2. Maybe it'll catch up in a couple years and I am interest in it's future. Just wanted to get a discussion going and its been informative hearing everyones opinions.

Honestly, I wouldn't even cut sound bites in FCPX; not where it is now. Good to hear it works for the Seaman though as I do own Apple stock and like to hear its selling.


Return to posts index

Richard Herd
Re: FCPX or Not...
on Mar 20, 2012 at 8:47:43 pm

[sandy shapiro] " and like to hear its selling"

That was funny! Apparently apple is buying back some stock too. http://money.cnn.com/2012/03/19/technology/apple-dividend/index.htm


Return to posts index

Richard Herd
Re: FCPX or Not...
on Mar 19, 2012 at 9:50:34 pm

The actual job of cutting pic is very awesome.


Return to posts index

Andy Field
Re: FCPX or Not...
on Mar 20, 2012 at 1:15:44 pm

[CRAIG SEEMAN) "I believe there is one broadcaster in the Netherlands that moved to FCPX (so he's told me)"

Who are we kidding?

I know a guy, who knows a guy who thinks he knows another guy who's using it for broadcast?

Seriously?

FCP7 had hundreds of broadcast and film facilities - documented (maybe 1000's....I know a guy who thinks that's true )

FCPX developers - nearly a year after release have exactly....hmm we don't know for sure of anyone using it for broadcast full time.

People who edit full time need a rock solid and not "we think it will get there one day" editing system.

FCP 7 was it.

Avid is it.

Conan's editors clearly think Premiere Pro 6 is it if ..even before it's released...they're already cutting with it for BROADCAST.

Yet FCP X can find no love in everyday Hollywood or broadcast.

Still the folks who like it (and good for you...it works for you) continue to twist themselves into pretzels cheer leading a product that high end broadcast and film editors still can't trust to do what they need. No mixer, no tracks, third party vendors forced to risk their businesses filling in gaping holes that weren't there in the previous version of the software.

I admire the endless optimism of folks who have no problem paying for the privilege to continue this, now nearly year long, beta testing program for Apple.

Andy Field
FieldVision Productions
N. Bethesda, Maryland 20852


Return to posts index

Craig Seeman
Re: FCPX or Not...
on Mar 20, 2012 at 2:49:12 pm

Talk about "you've got to be kidding"

At 9 months FCPX is probably further along in the professional market than FCP1 was.
I'm not comparing it mature apps that have been in release for years if not decades.
FCPX is maturing quickly. Yes it's being used in broadcast. Yes I know of one broadcast facility using it as their NLE of choice.



Return to posts index

Walter Soyka
Re: FCPX or Not...
on Mar 20, 2012 at 2:55:09 pm

[Craig Seeman] "At 9 months FCPX is probably further along in the professional market than FCP1 was. I'm not comparing it mature apps that have been in release for years if not decades."

Why not compare FCPX to mature apps? The market must. FCPX is not competing against FCP1. It's competing against PrP CS5.5, MC6, and FCP7.

FCPX wins big in some workflows but loses big in others. FCPX is still the exception rather than the rule in broadcast. Doesn't that make both Tony West and Andy Field correct?

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: FCPX or Not...
on Mar 20, 2012 at 3:52:47 pm

[Walter Soyka] "Doesn't that make both Tony West and Andy Field correct?"

Argh! And such is the problem with commensurablility and construal.


Return to posts index

Jim Giberti
Re: FCPX or Not...
on Mar 20, 2012 at 4:10:31 pm

[Walter Soyka] "Why not compare FCPX to mature apps? The market must. FCPX is not competing against FCP1. It's competing against PrP CS5.5, MC6, and FCP7.
"


This is the only valid comparison Walter.

We're talking professional use, the community that's been based largely around FCP and whether they'll stay with Apple or move to another program.

That's the debate.

Not to beat a dead horse, but if they allowed for demagnetization, a simple track grid and mixer (you know that old fashioned proven stuff) FCPX could be a great program.

Right now it's half a great program and half a not great program.


Return to posts index

Craig Seeman
Re: FCPX or Not...
on Mar 20, 2012 at 4:52:08 pm

[Jim Giberti] "Right now it's half a great program and half a not great program."

But for each of us we weigh what is great vs what is not great differently. That's why some find it an improvement compared to other professional NLEs in some areas that are important to us and, others not.



Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: FCPX or Not...
on Mar 20, 2012 at 5:30:48 pm

[Craig Seeman] "But for each of us we weigh what is great vs what is not great differently. That's why some find it an improvement compared to other professional NLEs in some areas that are important to us and, others not."

Completely.

The Event side of the program, in my opinion, is awesome and represents true innovation.

It has taken those bunches of clips or media that we get, that really have no tangible asset, and allow us to to assign tangible elements to them, completely abstracted from where they are on some huge hard drive, in a meaningful way that is important to us as the content creator. It also allows instantaneous rearranging or reordering without destroying anything that we have already done. Lately, our projects have been changing very fast. We go in and shoot with one idea, and over the course if the project, that idea will change, and in my opinion, X is really suited for that with the Event structures in an easier and more powerful way than other NLEs. Again, it's not perfect, but it does present a level of control and power that other NLEs don't have.

I also like some of the media management side of things. The ability to create high resolution and proxy copies of footage with a click of a button is great, and it allows you to keep working while the process is happening. Also, the media is stored in a tidy little folder, something that third party apps have created to FCP7 (putting capture scratch/media folders in one place on a per project basis). Yes, the render files can get unruly pretty quick, but FCPX allows quick deletion of those if necessary. I would also like to see some better native format support without having to rewrap everything to .mov. There are times when this is great, there are times when this is unnecessary. We should have the choice. We also need a few more, or perhaps enhanced, consolidation tools.

The Project side needs some help, as well as performance/stability. That's A#1. Without reliability, you have nothing in a professional workspace.

I am not worried about interchange so much. It has been proven that it can be done. Is it perfect yet? No. It still needs enhancement and hard work. I know David L said that X's timelines are incompatible with any other NLE, I would beg to differ. No offense, David, just pointing it out. Yes, sometimes it requires 3rd party support, sometimes it doesn't, but that doesn't bother me. I use a lot of third party materials in FCP7 so it's not a new venture, personally, and I don't mind paying for something that help me get the job done.

I know we were talking about Pro vs High End. With the release of RCX Pro beta 11, it now supports FCPX round trip, so if you consider Red to be "high-end" then it's obvious there are people that think FCPX might be worth their time in "high-end" workflows. It would also allow conforming of Red material to almost any other NLE from FCPX, and conforming FROM other NLEs to FCPX. It's not impossible, and it's not incompatible.

The biggest thing that will stall FCPX completely (in my opinion) is not the Project or timeline or native format interfaces, but rather performance and reliability. People will find ways to work around any quirks, but if the program is crashing or in the one case we've heard about, corrupting beyond easy repair, then it will never get picked up by the late swath of professional editors, and I mean that in whatever pro space you work in. It needs more time in the oven.

Jeremy


Return to posts index

David Lawrence
Re: FCPX or Not...
on Mar 22, 2012 at 12:44:37 am

[Jeremy Garchow] "I know David L said that X's timelines are incompatible with any other NLE, I would beg to differ. No offense, David, just pointing it out. Yes, sometimes it requires 3rd party support, sometimes it doesn't, but that doesn't bother me."

No offense taken ;)

BTW, I wasn't talking about interchange, which is clearly getting better. I was talking about the timeline itself, which is definitely odd man out in the post industry. Some folks like it and some think it's a mess. I'm in the latter category. Maybe I'm weird but I think it's important that the track layout I send to my sound guy looks the same as what I'm seeing in my NLE. I'm skeptical that roles will ever be as robust as a well organized track layout. I think it'll be a while before we see this level of exchange from FCPX:





The reason this kind of exchange fidelity is possible is because the track-based world is a mutually understood language; a language that's been shared by most time-based tools for decades. Apple has every right to try to reinvent that language, but choosing to go it alone instead of building on industry standards really only benefits Apple. They shouldn't be surprised by an industry response like the ones from Bunim/Murray and Conan's guys.

Of course if you're happy with the workflow and don't mind that timelines may look completely different as they move around the pipeline, by all means enjoy. All that matters is that it works for you.

[Jeremy Garchow] "The biggest thing that will stall FCPX completely (in my opinion) is not the Project or timeline or native format interfaces, but rather performance and reliability. People will find ways to work around any quirks, but if the program is crashing or in the one case we've heard about, corrupting beyond easy repair, then it will never get picked up by the late swath of professional editors, and I mean that in whatever pro space you work in. It needs more time in the oven."

Agreed. I have a feeling that performance and stability improvements will be consuming the Pro Apps team for quite a while. For this reason alone, I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for new features. They need to get the current release stable first.

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


Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: FCPX or Not...
on Mar 22, 2012 at 3:22:05 pm

[David Lawrence] "I think it'll be a while before we see this level of exchange from FCPX:"

I would beg to differ again (Crazy, I know).

Just curious, do you ever send your sequences off to audio post?


Return to posts index

David Lawrence
Re: FCPX or Not...
on Mar 22, 2012 at 7:16:24 pm

[Jeremy Garchow] "Just curious, do you ever send your sequences off to audio post?"

Of course. OMF when I send to my sound guys. When I'm on my own, I actually prefer to round trip with Soundtrack Pro. Despite a few UI quirks, the workflow with STP is great and I have all the tools I need at my fingertips.

[Jeremy Garchow] "I would beg to differ again (Crazy, I know)."

LOL, well what's crazy is 8 months and two updates out they still haven't managed to provide basics like audio sync markers. What's up with that? The fact that something this elementary is missing to begin with says a lot about their audio design assumptions and priorities. They have a lot of work to do.

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


Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: FCPX or Not...
on Mar 22, 2012 at 7:36:49 pm

[David Lawrence] "Of course. OMF when I send to my sound guys."

OK, and do you sit with the audio guys or are they offsite?

[David Lawrence] "well what's crazy is 8 months and two updates out they still haven't managed to provide basics like audio sync markers. What's up with that?"

Don't know. Still in the oven.

[David Lawrence] "They have a lot of work to do."

Come on, dude. FCPX is perfect.


I am just kidding, interwebs.


Return to posts index

David Lawrence
Re: FCPX or Not...
on Mar 22, 2012 at 8:28:05 pm

[Jeremy Garchow] "OK, and do you sit with the audio guys or are they offsite?"

Offsite. I get where you're going ;)

My point is that I layout my audio tracks intentionally to make life easier for the audio guys. Or for me when I'm in STP. There's more to it than just labeling, track order is important too and right now there's no way to control that. Compound clips and controls hidden in the inspector add further complication.

I like seeing the exact same audio layout as my sound guys. It makes it easy to communicate and reduces potential for error.

[Jeremy Garchow] "Come on, dude. FCPX is perfect."

So true! Luddite features like audio sync markers, persistent in/outs, and range export may damage the potential of FCP-X irreparably! ;)

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


Return to posts index

Simon Ubsdell
Re: FCPX or Not...
on Mar 22, 2012 at 8:35:45 pm

[David Lawrence] "My point is that I layout my audio tracks intentionally to make life easier for the audio guys. Or for me when I'm in STP. There's more to it than just labeling, track order is important too and right now there's no way to control that. Compound clips and controls hidden in the inspector add further complication."

Interestingly the makers of x2pro have started to address this very elegantly with their implementation of roles in the AAF.

Not that I'm disagreeing with your basic argument about layout which I think is very important.

Simon Ubsdell
http://www.tokyo-uk.com


Return to posts index

David Lawrence
Re: FCPX or Not...
on Mar 22, 2012 at 9:27:22 pm

[Simon Ubsdell] "Interestingly the makers of x2pro have started to address this very elegantly with their implementation of roles in the AAF."

Agreed. Looks like they're doing some great work. Now let's see if Apple can bring some of that elegance to FCPX. ;)

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


Return to posts index

Simon Ubsdell
Re: FCPX or Not...
on Mar 22, 2012 at 7:37:47 pm

[David Lawrence] "LOL, well what's crazy is 8 months and two updates out they still haven't managed to provide basics like audio sync markers. What's up with that? The fact that something this elementary is missing to begin with says a lot about their audio design assumptions and priorities. They have a lot of work to do."

Yup. I'm afraid Schadenfreude is not an attractive behaviour pattern but I can't help being amused at seeing the peerless Apple showing itself to be completely imbecilic over this whole product.

They've swum way out of their depth and they don't really have a clue how to get back to shore. It shouldn't be funny - but it is.

They obviously massively miscalculated how long it would take to get it into any decent kind of shape, then they panicked and just threw it out there anyway. And funniest of all is that they're just carrying right on throwing out stuff that is way from ready, from multicam to broadcast monitoring to PSD support, to 10.0.3 itself which is clearly more dysnfunctional than anything we've seen so far.

I'm sorry but to me they just look sillier and sillier as time goes by - and I'm loving it.

And I think it is a hugely valuable lesson to us all. No business, however mighty, is infallible. Empires rise. They also fall.

If I have a reason for sticking around and watching, it's because there's nothing quite as satisfying as a good come-uppance.

Simon Ubsdell
http://www.tokyo-uk.com


Return to posts index

Chris Harlan
Re: FCPX or Not...
on Mar 23, 2012 at 12:34:18 am

Did anyone notice that Randy Ubillos' title has changed? His title was "Chief Architect for Video Applications" but on iPad keynote video he is now "Chief Architect for Photo and Video Applications."

Do you suppose that is up a tier for Randy or down a tier for Video?


Return to posts index

David Lawrence
Re: FCPX or Not...
on Mar 23, 2012 at 12:38:29 am

[Chris Harlan] "Did anyone notice that Randy Ubillos' title has changed? His title was "Chief Architect for Video Applications" but on iPad keynote video he is now "Chief Architect for Photo and Video Applications.""

Yup. As a matter of fact, he was the one giving the iOS iPhoto demo during the new iPad launch.

[Chris Harlan] "Do you suppose that is up a tier for Randy or down a tier for Video?"

Maybe both?

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


Return to posts index

Craig Seeman
Re: FCPX or Not...
on Mar 23, 2012 at 12:41:28 am

Hmm so maybe next will be an Apple Photoshop competitor . . . without layers?



Return to posts index

Chris Harlan
Re: FCPX or Not...
on Mar 23, 2012 at 12:51:57 am

[David Lawrence] "[Chris Harlan] "Did anyone notice that Randy Ubillos' title has changed? His title was "Chief Architect for Video Applications" but on iPad keynote video he is now "Chief Architect for Photo and Video Applications.""

Yup. As a matter of fact, he was the one giving the iOS iPhoto demo during the new iPad launch.

[Chris Harlan] "Do you suppose that is up a tier for Randy or down a tier for Video?"

Maybe both?
"


That would be my thought. Just one more little thing.


Return to posts index

David Lawrence
Re: FCPX or Not...
on Mar 23, 2012 at 1:14:07 am

[Chris Harlan] "That would be my thought. Just one more little thing."

Also interesting reading reviews of the UI:

iPhoto for iPad Hands On: Pretty and a Little Stupid?

iPhoto's Mystery Meat Gestures

Not that it matters. They've already sold over a million copies.

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


Return to posts index

Richard Herd
Re: FCPX or Not...
on Mar 20, 2012 at 3:26:16 pm

But have you actually done any cutting in X?


Return to posts index

Andy Field
Re: FCPX or Not...
on Mar 20, 2012 at 4:40:12 pm

yes - we've all tried cutting with FCPX --

we WANTED it to be great and move forward with what it does well. The point is - the no tracks no preview monitor - no mixer - no drop shadow? Really ...this was in Premier version.0000 more than a decade ago (yes there are ad ons..but why is this necessary?)

Folks who must deliver deadline broadcast and film aren't sitting around playing with something only to make their work more difficult.

Jim Giberti's statement above is spot on --

Listen to your users...and you'll see the folks in broadcast and film back on board

Andy Field
FieldVision Productions
N. Bethesda, Maryland 20852


Return to posts index

Richard Herd
Re: FCPX or Not...
on Mar 20, 2012 at 5:03:37 pm

Did you play with it, or did you really cut and deliver something?

I'm almost done with a project (did not DL 10.0.3 thankfully); it's a non-deadline project by the way. The actual cutting of a story is superior. I've also simultaneously been using Legacy and PP for other stuff, both of which "feel" like steps backward in terms of actually cutting a story, and we all know we do a lot more than just cut. I downloaded Media Composer trial, but sheesh I still dislike it, haven't used it since 2003.

By "preview monitor," do you mean a color grade monitor thing? Or do you mean the skimmer tool? The color correction window is pretty decent--better than PP, IMO-- but I miss my curves from Color. As far as color grading goes I hear, but haven't used, the XML to da vinci work very well.

[Andy Field] "Folks who must deliver deadline broadcast and film aren't sitting around playing with something only to make their work more difficult"

In fact they are just "playing" with X, because they are too busy hopefully to actually learn X. And make no mistake about it: there is a learning curve. I've said it before, I'll say it again. I had to read the manual so often to simply begin a project and wrap my imagination around the nomenclature that this first project has taken easily three times longer than it should have. Knowing this, I offered a discount to the producer. But now that I know the stuff I know the actual cutting is much quicker, more accurate, more flexible.

But I know there's no way to learn something without doing it. In any case, one must blow away the notion that one can sit down in any app and then know it after playing with it once or twice. Why do that if you have a customer sitting next to you? Could you imagine: "Sorry I need to close the app and restart it." And "sorry I need to duplicate the project every now and again and store it on a hidden .dmg in case the project gets corrupt."

I can't imagine anyone is still reading, but if so: I do 99% of my title in AE, anyway, but I find myself using the titler in X -- better than legacy. My next real learning is audio. Whew. Wish me luck. The best part is the FX are all from Logic and they really work awesome-ly.


Return to posts index

Andy Field
Re: FCPX or Not...
on Mar 20, 2012 at 5:25:06 pm

Richard - it's maddening having others try to discern what other editors are doing. (Did you just "play with it?") It's working for you? - great! --

But you make my point when you say you can't have a client sitting next to you and say - sorry have to reboot or hide events or whatever else FCP X makes you do to get to where we were before X.

And no we didn't "play" with it. We actually cut real projects on it ...and it's lacking in so many ways with the flexibility, mixing etc we need (eyeline matching and action matching with a preview and a record monitor that virtually every other editing set up on the planet offers)

The skimming thumbnails (more like pinky nails on some machines) just doesn't cut it. And no tracks is a deal breaker - period. the kludge work around to get audio in and out is just that - a kludge... Apple could and can fix all of this and grab back the base it lost. In the meantime - the rest of us have work to accomplish with tools that do what we need.

Andy Field
FieldVision Productions
N. Bethesda, Maryland 20852


Return to posts index

Richard Herd
Re: FCPX or Not...
on Mar 20, 2012 at 6:12:31 pm

[Andy Field] "the rest of us have work to accomplish with tools that do what we need."

I'd add one more to your list: ...with tools that do what we need "and that we know how to use." That's a major problem, having to relearn what you already know how to do. The precision editor does a fine job of matching eyelines, btw.

http://help.apple.com/finalcutpro/mac/10.0.3/#ver3363b235 granted apple's thumbnail sample image is silly. It should be either matching singles or CU to MS.

But wait, there's more silliness: they might not use the word "tracks," and they are all big on this being a "trackless" system, but (shhh don't tell anyone) they actually use tracks. Right click the audio: Make it the primary and wallah it behaves like a track, but you just can't call it a track. Jim had a clever way to work that I've incorporated: you connect the audio to a piece of slug (dang!) I mean "gap clip." And the audio track (dang!) I mean "primary audio only media" is a non-moveable tra--. There I caught myself. It's...it's...it's... I'm at a loss for nomenclature, here.

The only update I'm waiting for is to color code "roles." In other words, I want all my dialogue to be Blue and my score to be Red. All is currently green.


Return to posts index

sandy shapiro
Re: FCPX or Not...
on Mar 20, 2012 at 5:30:47 pm

Let me ask you all this: Why? Why introduce FCPX and discontinue a perfectly working wheel - FCP7? The latter was starting to dominate the field!

I understand opening up your market share. But why lose most of your professional base?

My gut says it's strictly numbers for Apple. Which is another reason why I don't trust them. I trust Avid as they make editing and audio systems and have been for years.

Believe me, I've chosen FCP Studio over Avid in years past, only working with Avid for some projects (and that number was dwindling). But now, I've been totally thrown around by Apple. They're going after the prosumer and consumer market trying to duplicate the splash they made in the same market with the iphone and ipad. As far as $ signs, I get it. And that's fine. But they just don't care for past users, and that's the problem.

I am completely interested in learning new and faster ways of editing. But FCPX just isn't it. And my lack of trust over this new move has driven me away from Apple. Why should i worry about this happening again? Avid and Premiere are tried and true.

And the fact that Apple does not offer a discount or incentive to FCP Studio owners is a slap in the face. Avid and Premier offered half off their products to FCP users who could provide a serial #. Thus proving a company's ability to offer discounts. Apple just doesn't care for their loyal users.


Return to posts index

Steve Connor
Re: FCPX or Not...
on Mar 20, 2012 at 6:09:52 pm

[sandy shapiro] "And the fact that Apple does not offer a discount or incentive to FCP Studio owners is a slap in the face. Avid and Premier offered half off their products to FCP users who could provide a serial #. Thus proving a company's ability to offer discounts. Apple just doesn't care for their loyal users.
"


Discount? Have you seen how little it costs?

Steve Connor
"FCPX Agitator"
Adrenalin Television


Return to posts index

sandy shapiro
Re: FCPX or Not...
on Mar 20, 2012 at 6:32:19 pm

of course i have seen the cost. and compared to fcp studio, it's "little" in terms of cost too. the point is moral rather than financial. they sell a product by advertising that you can upgrade, then they pull the plug on the upgrade.

ive spent 5 figures on their products. avid and premiere offer discounts to editors to bring them to their team. why wouldnt apple do the same to their current (or now past) client base?


Return to posts index

Richard Herd
Re: FCPX or Not...
on Mar 20, 2012 at 7:06:40 pm

5 figures, ouch! I imagine that causes a lot of angst for many people. I imagine it is the root of all acerbic hyperbole regarding X. Also note that expenditure depreciates for 5 years (last I checked). From the point of view of purchasing software and hardware, you ought not feel like you need to buy anything until the depreciation runs its course.

If that's today, Avid on a PC is tough to ignore, from purely ROCE point of view.

If that's, 2016, you get to sit back and watch this crazy show.


Return to posts index

Richard Herd
Re: FCPX or Not...
on Mar 20, 2012 at 7:01:27 pm

[sandy shapiro] "Why? Why introduce FCPX and discontinue a perfectly working wheel - FCP7? The latter was starting to dominate the field!"

Unfortunately, we just don't know. I assume the answer is FCP had a lot of license agreements from software acquisitions, by Apple. Apple bought the underlying code of FCP from macromedia, for example.

You're completely entitled to your feelings. Please Note: Avid had serious problems a few years ago. It was part of the reason FCP won a lot of market share, well, that and the mac pro. At the time I recall a bunch of arguments over media management and organization.

IMO, Premiere is less of a pro app than X, but I haven't used 6.

I'll say it again: the actual cutting of pic in X is pretty sweet, and also organizing footage is much better with keywords. I think its a misnomer to call it "metadata" unless that data follows the export (dang!) I mean "share." For example, I label scene, shot, take as keywords. That is, "Scene 1" then "WS" then "take 1." As I select keywords to reveal the corresponding footage, wallah! it's all nice and neat!

Use whatever makes you happy, obviously. I hope you have a million happy clients!


Return to posts index

sandy shapiro
Re: FCPX or Not...
on Mar 20, 2012 at 7:19:56 pm

Thanks for the thoughts and insight, Richard. And of course, I wish you many happy returning clients as well.


Return to posts index

Shawn Miller
Re: FCPX or Not...
on Mar 21, 2012 at 4:06:20 am

"[Richard Herd] IMO, Premiere is less of a pro app than X, but I haven't used 6. "

Just curious, Richard. Why do you say this?



Return to posts index

Richard Herd
Re: FCPX or Not...
on Mar 21, 2012 at 3:52:26 pm

There's two parts:

The pro part: It keeps losing media and I have to relink. Yesterday it stopped saving.

The 6 part: It isn't release :) but I have planned to buy it.


Return to posts index

Shawn Miller
Re: FCPX or Not...
on Mar 21, 2012 at 10:33:41 pm

"[Richard Herd]The pro part: It keeps losing media and I have to relink. Yesterday it stopped saving."

Odd, I haven't experienced this. Is it possible that you have a configuration/workflow issue?

Shawn



Return to posts index

Bill Davis
Re: FCPX or Not...
on Mar 21, 2012 at 4:15:53 am

[Andy Field] "Listen to your users...and you'll see the folks in broadcast and film back on board

Andy Field
FieldVision Productions
N. Bethesda, Maryland 20852
"


And in doing so they may damage the potential of FCP-X irreparably.

Too many people are still hollering for it to be more and more like the editing systems we've had for decades.

I don't.

I want it to develop into something better.

The fundamental reality of X is that they took a one trick pony - a video editing application - and cleaned it up, cleared out the cobweb code, and bolted it to a sweet little search engine.

Last time I looked, the elevation of "search" into brain dominance all over the world has been the single most transformative occurrence in society in a generation.

Search is what makes the modern internet actually functional on a day to day basis. Not for "computer professionals" who could always manipulate the bits they needed, but for every day people.

I completely understand why all the professional editors here are so inflexibly stuck in obsessing on the fact that it doesn't "edit" the way other software does.

But editing is only one part of the game in the new connected world saturated with a zillion videos produced every second.

FCP-X elevates "edit" more towards parity with concepts such as search, sort, find, alter and deploy.

THAT is what is going to be transformative in the long run.

Largely because it's how my life operates every day today. And yours too.

I need to discover? I search. I need to target? I sort. I need to deliver? I deploy.

X does all of this inside the same tool that lets me cut, rearrange and perfect.

If it's just 50% as good an editing software (and I suspect it's going to be 90% some day!) but becomes 80% better at the search and soft and manage stuff - it's going to rock the wider video world.

Because search is increasingly what powers modern communications today for all of us.

That's what I see.

If I'm wrong nothing much will change in editing in the next decade.

If I'm right - pretty much everything will. Whether we all like it or not.

Time will tell.

"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

Jim Giberti
Re: FCPX or Not...
on Mar 21, 2012 at 7:02:39 am

[Bill Davis] "Search is what makes the modern internet actually functional on a day to day basis. Not for "computer professionals" who could always manipulate the bits they needed, but for every day people.

I completely understand why all the professional editors here are so inflexibly stuck in obsessing on the fact that it doesn't "edit" the way other software does.
"


Which is why they've got half of a professional program Bill.

I'm not inflexibly stuck.
I'm very flexible, which is why I dove into FCPX and why, after doing a lot of work in it for half a year, I like half of FCPX.

The half they left out is the ability for professionals to use the proven, world class, talents and techniques that they've honed for decades, within their new X paradigm.

If Apple doesn't respect those invaluable skills learned over, probably, millions of hours of their users professional careers, then they're just arrogant wonks.

And if they are arrogant enough to think that our professional skills aren't worth supporting, then we should support Adobe so that we have a strong, software-only company that's builds programs based on their users needs.

It's called a professional relationship and Apple seems to think that that's a top down arrangement.


Return to posts index

sandy shapiro
Re: FCPX or Not...
on Mar 21, 2012 at 1:36:04 pm

Apple is a multi-billion dollar company, this might also might be the problem. They don't feel the need to keep the small professional market. Who knows, they might start building cars next and abandon FCPX.

When X was released I was excited. I like a challenge if the end results bring me from point A to B in a faster and stronger manner. Thinking in new ways is what makes us better editors. NLE was a big leap from the Steenbeck. I do understand we have to evolve. However, X simply falls short. If Apple released a new prince and discontinued their old king, don't you feel the prince should be worthy of the thrown? That's another reason I'm miffed. They threw away alot of our high-end tools and just focused on the flash. If they offered a bridge and incentive for FCP Studio owners, that to me would mean they're thinking about our needs, business and market base. A multi-billion dollar company can't do that? They simply don't care...at this point.

The rumors of the macpro tower's demise is another story. Have you ever tried cutting Alexa Pro Res 444 on a new Imac packed with Ram? Doesn't work so well. I have been looking at PCs. I can't believe I would ever say that...


Return to posts index

Steve Connor
Re: FCPX or Not...
on Mar 21, 2012 at 1:38:28 pm

[sandy shapiro] "The rumors of the macpro tower's demise is another story. Have you ever tried cutting Alexa Pro Res 444 on a new Imac packed with Ram? Doesn't work so well. I have been looking at PCs. I can't believe I would ever say that..."

Still very much rumours though, although as time passes it might start to look more likely that they are true.

I believe the subject may have been discussed briefly on here?

Steve Connor
"FCPX Agitator"
Adrenalin Television


Return to posts index

Steve Connor
Re: FCPX or Not...
on Mar 21, 2012 at 2:43:05 pm

Just noticed that UK Apple store is showing 3 days delivery on all Mac Pro models, US store still has immediate delivery though, still you never know...........

Steve Connor
"FCPX Professional"
Adrenalin Television


Return to posts index

Richard Herd
Re: FCPX or Not...
on Mar 21, 2012 at 4:06:21 pm

[sandy shapiro] "Have you ever tried cutting Alexa Pro Res 444 on a new Imac packed with Ram?"

And that is the best reason ever to imagine a new Mac Pro is forthcoming: Alexa uses Pro Res 444.

No Mac Pro? Alexa will have to go somewhere else.


Return to posts index

Michael Hancock
Re: FCPX or Not...
on Mar 21, 2012 at 4:09:58 pm

Alexa records to DNxHD now. It's already going somewhere else (or at least wisely expanding its recording options).

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


Return to posts index

Richard Herd
Re: FCPX or Not...
on Mar 21, 2012 at 4:57:57 pm

It's not here yet, but that's a very big deal.

http://www.arri.de/camera/digital_cameras/news.html?article=881&cHash=67b31...


Return to posts index

Michael Hancock
Re: FCPX or Not...
on Mar 21, 2012 at 5:14:07 pm

It's here right now - paid upgrade:

https://alshop.arri.de/catalog/alexa


Workflow:
http://provideocoalition.com/index.php/ssimmons/story/arris_dnxhd_alexa_upd...

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


Return to posts index

Richard Herd
Re: FCPX or Not...
on Mar 21, 2012 at 7:53:45 pm

That is very good news!


Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: FCPX or Not...
on Mar 21, 2012 at 9:34:47 pm

[sandy shapiro] "The rumors of the macpro tower's demise is another story. Have you ever tried cutting Alexa Pro Res 444 on a new Imac packed with Ram?"

Just "offlined" 3 spots on a 2009 MacBook Pro dual core with a real time Glue Tools LUT. And when I say offline, the 444 ProRes files were used.

4 GBs of RAM, second internal media drive (pulled my DVD drive and put a hard drive in it's place).

So...yes, but no.

I imagine a newer quad core iMac would probably have been all good, and better.

Jeremy


Return to posts index

Richard Herd
Re: FCPX or Not...
on Mar 21, 2012 at 4:03:45 pm

I just want to tell stories. And X is great at cutting. Exporting has been a pain. Round tripping has been a pain. Getting the project started was a real big giant pain. Getting Compound Clips and primary storyline and all the new jargon learned, another big pain. But actually cutting pic is very nice, and the search is a big part of that.


Return to posts index

Frank Gothmann
Re: FCPX or Not...
on Mar 21, 2012 at 10:28:18 pm

[Bill Davis] "And in doing so they may damage the potential of FCP-X irreparably.

Too many people are still hollering for it to be more and more like the editing systems we've had for decades."


Oh come on. Having an optional viewer and canvas and optional tracks might damage the potential? Options and features, as far as I remember, have never damaged the potential of anything, rather the contrary.
You can't shake the idea that people want what you call old fashioned because of habbit. I might be because it actually works.
A wheel is a wheel and it is round for a reason. Reinventing it and making is square just so that it's different and then asking third-party developers to supply the sandpaper doesn't make sense.

[Bill Davis] "FCP-X elevates "edit" more towards parity with concepts such as search, sort, find, alter and deploy."

As well as revolutionary concepts such as crash, corrupt, enjoy spinning beachball, reinstall from scratch, pull hair out and finally switch application.


Return to posts index

Richard Herd
Re: FCPX or Not...
on Mar 22, 2012 at 12:15:11 am

[Frank Gothmann] "optional viewer and canvas"

I've seen this come up a few times now. I'm not sure why folks love the viewer and canvas idea so much, but I think it had to do with ganging and matching between shots. If that's the beef, here, you can do that in the precision editor.

http://help.apple.com/finalcutpro/mac/10.0.3/#verc1fac344

and also select the following option: http://help.apple.com/finalcutpro/mac/10.0.3/#ver3363b235

If on the other hand, you have a different beef, then it can "usually" do what you want it to do, it just has a totally different name. I put usually in quotes not as sarcasm but to point to the fact that some features are missing, especially with regard to export. Dang! I mean "sharing." It's now called "sharing" not export.


Return to posts index

Andy Field
Re: FCPX or Not...
on Mar 22, 2012 at 1:33:52 pm

Monitor/Canvas isn't a beef - it's a necessity for much of the work we do. and the work around links you provided is actually an EXTRA step. You can make the match frame or action match with a Preview/Record two window set up....in one edit

With the "precision editor" (funny how even Apple acknowledges it's new way isn't all that precise) you must do two steps -- make the edit - and then slip slide ripple or roll the edit to match the action you want to match.

Another upgrade that is a step backward

Andy Field
FieldVision Productions
N. Bethesda, Maryland 20852


Return to posts index

Christian Schumacher
Re: FCPX or Not...
on Mar 23, 2012 at 3:08:40 pm

[Richard Herd] "but I think it had to do with ganging and matching between shots. If that's the beef, here, you can do that in the precision editor."

I'm afraid there isn't a way to gang different sequences - or shots - using this precision thing. Care to elaborate on that? Oh, wait...You're gonna say that you never use this, so why bother to explain it? it doesn't have a completely different name, it just won't allow you to perform some of the tasks that every other professional editing software has already built in for years. If it looks like a pig, it's a pig. You can try to put lipstick on it, name it what you will, but...


Return to posts index

Richard Herd
Re: FCPX or Not...
on Mar 23, 2012 at 5:43:34 pm

here was this dude does:
http://www.macprovideo.com/hub/final-cut/gang-sync-in-fcp-x


Return to posts index

David Lawrence
Re: FCPX or Not...
on Mar 23, 2012 at 5:56:54 pm

[Richard Herd] "here was this dude does:
http://www.macprovideo.com/hub/final-cut/gang-sync-in-fcp-x"


Only 12 steps instead of one. Sweet!

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


Return to posts index

Simon Ubsdell
Re: FCPX or Not...
on Mar 23, 2012 at 5:58:14 pm

[David Lawrence] "Only 12 steps instead of one. Sweet!"

Snap ;-)

Simon Ubsdell
http://www.tokyo-uk.com


Return to posts index

Simon Ubsdell
Re: FCPX or Not...
on Mar 23, 2012 at 5:57:42 pm

[Richard Herd] " here was this dude does:
http://www.macprovideo.com/hub/final-cut/gang-sync-in-fcp-x"


Yup, that really works just as well as gang sync. Only - let me count them - 12 easy steps!!!!!

Simon Ubsdell
http://www.tokyo-uk.com


Return to posts index

Frank Gonzales
Re: FCPX or Not...
on Mar 28, 2012 at 5:57:58 pm

I've been reading the posts and you guys just don't get it.

"Listen to your users...and you'll see the folks in broadcast and film back on board"

This is the LAST thing Apple should do. Think of Henry Ford, The users wanted a faster Horse. Its perfectly clear what Apple is doing with FCPX; they are targeting the next generation of editors, not the current generation. In a few years, FCPX will be fully matured and the defacto standard that Adobe and AVID will try to copy, yet, as usual, they will be well behind. This is the way Apple has always worked since the beginning. This current generation of editors will be the fuddy-duddys that talk about the good-ole days of editing. With the recent update of FCPX, the multicam approach blows everything else out of the water. It's exciting. Don't worry about FCPX, its for the new kids.....and trust me, they will do more amazing things than we ever did in a quarter the time. Reality hurts.


Return to posts index

Jim Giberti
Re: FCPX or Not...
on Mar 28, 2012 at 6:05:15 pm

[Frank Gonzales] " Don't worry about FCPX, its for the new kids.....and trust me, they will do more amazing things than we ever did in a quarter the time. Reality hurts."

Really, OMG, LOL, have u talked with one recently?


Return to posts index

Frank Gonzales
Re: FCPX or Not...
on Mar 28, 2012 at 6:22:03 pm

LOL, Hey, I'm right there with you, it may seem laughable, I have tremendous respect for people on this forum; however, I've witnessed Apple do this too many times. FCPX is attempting to make the process of editing more story-based than technical. Of course, this gives it the feel of iMovie Pro as some people say, but good grief, please play with the new multicam editor and you will see what I mean in terms of Apple's progress. I know there is quite a bit lacking compared to FCP 7 and P CS5 currently; but really? Can you not see what Apple is doing here?


Return to posts index

Jim Giberti
Re: FCPX or Not...
on Mar 28, 2012 at 6:30:36 pm

[Frank Gonzales] "I know there is quite a bit lacking compared to FCP 7 and P CS5 currently; but really? Can you not see what Apple is doing here?"

Sure I can Frank, I've produced about 10 spots with it and I'm working an a second film with it now.

I just don't think experience makes people Fuddy Duddies, and I don't think a new program is going to make young editors better than me/us.


Return to posts index

Craig Seeman
Re: FCPX or Not...
on Mar 28, 2012 at 6:40:19 pm

[Jim Giberti] "I just don't think experience makes people Fuddy Duddies, and I don't think a new program is going to make young editors better than me/us."

It might make them faster though. It's not the only thing important though but it is key when time is money.



Return to posts index

Jim Giberti
Re: FCPX or Not...
on Mar 28, 2012 at 8:08:28 pm

[Craig Seeman] "It might make them faster though. It's not the only thing important though but it is key when time is money.
"


I don't understand why you say "them", is FCPX somehow the property of teenagers?


Return to posts index

Craig Seeman
Re: FCPX or Not...
on Mar 28, 2012 at 8:22:52 pm

[Jim Giberti] "I don't understand why you say "them", is FCPX somehow the property of teenagers?"

Isn't that's what we're talking about when we start to use lots of three letter phrases. To me, the very nature of the beast, is going to make it more attractive to those with less baggage. It's not that us old folks (like me and you?) can't appreciate and use it but I think the younger folk who have neither the built in resentment nor the preconceptions about workflow, will be much more open to it.



Return to posts index

Frank Gonzales
Re: FCPX or Not...
on Mar 28, 2012 at 6:42:30 pm

Bill, I may have been a bit disrespectful in referring to us as Fuddy-Duddies; however, at the advent of the digital watch, the skills of a craftsman watch-builder were no longer necessary to achieve the same goal....a paradigm shift occurred......Apple is King at technological paradigm shifts. Its sounds like we are doing the same thing. We are using the tools that benefit our skills while keeping a watchful eye on Apples new paradigm......but I do disagree with you in that they should honor the current skills of the trade in the midst of trying to move forward and if they don't they are arrogant skonks. People felt the same way about Apple for not allowing Flash on their mobile devices, we know how that turned out.


Return to posts index

Craig Seeman
Re: FCPX or Not...
on Mar 28, 2012 at 6:37:53 pm

[Jim Giberti] "Really, OMG, LOL, have u talked with one recently?"

Yes and they're great at taking entire phrases and reducing them to a few letters to expedite communication. One FCPX equivalent feature might be the Skimmer.



Return to posts index

Simon Ubsdell
Re: FCPX or Not...
on Mar 28, 2012 at 6:42:08 pm

[Frank Gonzales] "Think of Henry Ford, The users wanted a faster Horse."

Brilliant!!!!! Why did no-one think to mention this comparison before?

;-)

Simon Ubsdell
http://www.tokyo-uk.com


Return to posts index

Frank Gonzales
Re: FCPX or Not...
on Mar 28, 2012 at 6:53:44 pm

LOL, Hey, why are you bashing my timeless, trite and over-quoted phrase? It's a powerhouse when people cling tooth and nail to only the things they know.


Return to posts index

Thomas Frank
Re: FCPX or Not...
on Mar 24, 2012 at 4:29:32 am

[sandy shapiro] "...not. Hello Avid. Hello professional software."
We call this spam.



Return to posts index

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