FORUMS: list search recent posts

Range-based keywording: unique to FCP X?

COW Forums : Apple Final Cut Pro X Debates

<< PREVIOUS   •   VIEW ALL   •   PRINT   •   NEXT >>
Alan Okey
Range-based keywording: unique to FCP X?
on Apr 2, 2012 at 5:32:17 pm

A friend recently asked me if Avid Media Composer 6 has range-based keywording. I'm not certain, but I said I didn't think so. He's primarily interested in using the feature as a more efficient way to catalog footage for use in trailers.

Is range-based keywording (defined here as the ability to assign metadata not simply to a clip but to a range of frames within a clip) a feature that is unique to FCP X at this point? Do any other NLEs or third-party tools offer this functionality?

Please advise, thanks.


Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: Range-based keywording: unique to FCP X?
on Apr 2, 2012 at 5:56:26 pm

Not sure about Avid or others, but FCP7 has a form of it in the extended markers. Screen grab here:



It's not as easy, or as fluid as FCPX, but the idea of it is somewhat similar. In my opinion, the method in which FCPX not only allows you to do this sort of organizing, but the way in which it is presented and the way that the information can be manipulated by the user is rather unique. Some will say that iMovie does this, and I would say it does some version of it, but they are different in how they accomplish the same methodology. iMovie is the concept, FCPX takes it a step further.

Jeremy


Return to posts index

Simon Ubsdell
Re: Range-based keywording: unique to FCP X?
on Apr 2, 2012 at 6:35:14 pm

[Jeremy Garchow] " Some will say that iMovie does this, and I would say it does some version of it, but they are different in how they accomplish the same methodology. iMovie is the concept, FCPX takes it a step further."

Being probably the "some" referred to here, I would say that keywording does not strictly speaking exist in iMovie but the concept of favoriting ranges was well established.

The point I was making to which you are referring here is that it's not a major step at all to go from range based favorites to some kind of keyword tagging of them that you can then search. The difficult and innovative bit was the sticky range based selections - the easy bit (well, what do I know, I'm guessing here) was to add on a bit of extra database sifting - as in assigning a searchable tag to those favorite ranges.

I really don't think we should be getting that excited about some simple database functions here in the second decade of the 21st century. The part that iMovie had already achieved, now that was cool. (And let's not forget that iMovie has long been doing its own ultra clever hidden database management with its grouping and sorting of automatically detected shot types. Now that's very cool indeed.)

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


Return to posts index


Oliver Peters
Re: Range-based keywording: unique to FCP X?
on Apr 2, 2012 at 5:59:29 pm

Yes, range-based keywording is unique to FCP X. However, it's effectively the same as a subclip. Media Composer 6 does have a very advanced Find function, as well as the optional (+$500) PhraseFind for phonetic searches.

- Oliver

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


Return to posts index

Daniel Frome
Re: Range-based keywording: unique to FCP X?
on Apr 2, 2012 at 6:06:47 pm

No, FCP7 has had 'range based markers' since 7.01 I think. FCPX's implementation is better, but same concept.

Avid's easiest comparison would simply be making subclips. You can rename the subclips and they will always remember their link back to the master clip, so it serves the same purpose.


Return to posts index

tony west
Re: Range-based keywording: unique to FCP X?
on Apr 2, 2012 at 6:16:05 pm

[Daniel Frome] "Avid's easiest comparison would simply be making subclips. You can rename the subclips and they will always remember their link back to the master clip, so it serves the same purpose.
"



Making subclips makes more media to take up space though right?


Return to posts index


Daniel Frome
Re: Range-based keywording: unique to FCP X?
on Apr 2, 2012 at 6:18:04 pm

[tony west] "Making subclips makes more media to take up space though right?"

Nope, a subclip is a virtual clip, created exactly for this case of breaking up larger media without actually duplicating.


Return to posts index

tony west
Re: Range-based keywording: unique to FCP X?
on Apr 2, 2012 at 6:31:25 pm

[Daniel Frome] "Nope, a subclip is a virtual clip, created exactly for this case of breaking up larger media without actually duplicating.
"



I was thinking in the media manager where it say "modified media"


Return to posts index

Daniel Frome
Re: Range-based keywording: unique to FCP X?
on Apr 2, 2012 at 6:38:01 pm

[tony west] "I was thinking in the media manager where it say "modified media""

There is no media manager as such as Avid, and there is no 'modified media' option either. Perhaps you're thinking of another NLE?


Return to posts index


tony west
Re: Range-based keywording: unique to FCP X?
on Apr 2, 2012 at 11:46:47 pm

[Daniel Frome] "Perhaps you're thinking of another NLE?
"


Yep sorry : )


Return to posts index

Keith Carunida
Re: Range-based keywording: unique to FCP X?
on Apr 2, 2012 at 7:18:32 pm

Daniel,

Creating subclips in Avid isn't really serving the same purpose if you can't attach metadata to those subclips and then have that metadata searchable. I've never used FCPX but it's my understanding that a single clip can contain virtually unlimited metadata/keywords. The advantage to this is that one subclip could serve many functions. So, instead of having to sift through every subclip, visually, for the shot you're looking for you could simply do a search for, for example, any clip that had the keyword "scope" attached to it. Does this make sense?



Return to posts index

Daniel Frome
Re: Range-based keywording: unique to FCP X?
on Apr 2, 2012 at 7:24:14 pm

This makes perfect sense, but since subclips are also searchable, and can contain lots of unique metadata, I still think it serves the same purpose.

I won't get into which way is "better" because that is subjective, but if you're looking for a way to break up a long clip into segments and attach metadata, this is a very workable solution.


Return to posts index


Keith Carunida
Re: Range-based keywording: unique to FCP X?
on Apr 2, 2012 at 7:40:23 pm

I knew that subclips in Avid were searchable but I thought it was limited to that particular subclip's name. Can a user add keywords to subclips in Avid?



Return to posts index

Daniel Frome
Re: Range-based keywording: unique to FCP X?
on Apr 2, 2012 at 7:51:40 pm

[Keith Carunida] "I knew that subclips in Avid were searchable but I thought it was limited to that particular subclip's name. Can a user add keywords to subclips in Avid?"

Yes. You can assign unique metadata to every subclip, such as the "comments" column, or make up your own column, and it is all searchable.


Return to posts index

Michael Phillips
Re: Range-based keywording: unique to FCP X?
on Apr 2, 2012 at 8:01:46 pm

All columns are searchable on master clips, subclips, etc. I also use ScriptSync as a form of span-based searches by having a description on a page then drop the clip(s) on the script. One can use manual sync reference for non dialog pieces. If there is dialog, then it can be synced automatically via phonetic indexing. Then all scripts become searchable as well.

What I like about "subclips" in general is the graphical overview of takes in a bin where a picture is a thousand words. A simple glance will often work...


Michael

Michael Phillips


Return to posts index


Daniel Frome
Re: Range-based keywording: unique to FCP X?
on Apr 2, 2012 at 8:04:13 pm

[Keith Carunida] "I knew that subclips in Avid were searchable but I thought it was limited to that particular subclip's name. Can a user add keywords to subclips in Avid?"

Sorry for the double post, but in the interest of information -- here is a screenshot of my giving subclips several unique keywords, and then searching them. I have entered information into some of the 'standard' columns that Avid creates, and also created my own:



Return to posts index

Keith Carunida
Re: Range-based keywording: unique to FCP X?
on Apr 2, 2012 at 8:19:20 pm

No apologies - thanks for the info!



Return to posts index

Bill Davis
Re: Range-based keywording: unique to FCP X?
on Apr 2, 2012 at 8:55:57 pm

X does things a bit more "visually"

Here's a pair of screen shots of the Event Browser in action. In the first shot, the selection is the entire event library - giving me scrolling clip access to the 170 scenes in this project. In the second, I've just clicked on "Entertainment"as a keyword collection (upper left display) - which brings up every instance of every range where I've attached Entertainment as a keyword. Across all events.

It's instant. Visual. and useful since I can further "sub range" anything I like and add or remove new keywords right from here as the spirit moves me.

The point of X is largely that the database is constantly "live" and key wording by clip, OR by range, using individual or multiple keywords over any and all range selections is pretty dynamic.

As someone who finds visual info often superior to plain text at least in editing contexts. (I've got a lot of scenes with firetrucks - which is the one I want?) I like the way X does this a lot.

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


Daniel Frome
Re: Range-based keywording: unique to FCP X?
on Apr 2, 2012 at 9:06:14 pm

This also looks great Bill. It's actually strikingly similar how it all works (fyi, I can make Avid's method visual too I just didn't enable video images for my screenshot).

Just curious: if someone else has the same clip on their computers, can you transfer your keywords over ot them, thus giving them the same collections of that clip as you've got?


Return to posts index

Bill Davis
Re: Range-based keywording: unique to FCP X?
on Apr 3, 2012 at 2:18:53 am

[Daniel Frome] "Just curious: if someone else has the same clip on their computers, can you transfer your keywords over ot them, thus giving them the same collections of that clip as you've got?"

Not yet.

Remember this is just a dumb little $299 app. Not a decades old construct after 100s of revs and improvements!

Also, on a more serious note, I honestly think that like with most of Apple's development, they think first in terms of "personal empowerment" then leverage that into group situations.

Look at the iPad. It was born as a personal device. Version 1 had little infrastructure beyond the "one user, one brain" mode. Now, because it's flooding into corporate America, Apple is doing a LOT with third party developers and enabling pathways to allow corporate customers to manage the device on a more centralized basis. Deployment of apps, remote wipe (to secure corporate content) and similar features are being added rapidly. But the individual empowerment foundations have made a device so simple to approach that it's reduced training to virtually nothing.

I'm noted this before but I work with large companies that have simply "given" iPads to their entire sales force well in advance of when the company actually plans to use them - simply to let their employees teach themselves how to use the device and avoid all training costs and hassles.

The point is that Apple's habit and history of success is to build for the individual user first - to build an app that will work for one operator extremely well - and THEN to leverage it out into the wider world.

There's a lot of new plumbing in X. And lots of potential export and import hooks like the Share Menu and the Event Browser that are ripe for collaborative workflows. But right now, it's a personal editor at heart.

Time will tell how and if it expands.

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

Richard Herd
Re: Range-based keywording: unique to FCP X?
on Apr 3, 2012 at 3:19:01 pm

[Bill Davis] "Not yet. "

Exactly. And why apple does what apple does befuddles common sense.

Anyway, we also need a way to export keywords into an index file. For example, one of my clients for whom I make dance how-tos and performance DVDs has a quite a few FW800 drives. If I'm looking for a particular piece of footage, I want X to tell me its own Drive_A then I can plug it in and get the footage. This text based export index file (that doesn't exist) needs to also include other data.


Return to posts index

Walter Soyka
Re: Range-based keywording: unique to FCP X?
on Apr 3, 2012 at 3:29:45 pm

[Richard Herd] "Anyway, we also need a way to export keywords into an index file."

Agreed 100%. Metadata portability would open up all kinds of new workflows for FCPX users.


[Richard Herd] "If I'm looking for a particular piece of footage, I want X to tell me its own Drive_A then I can plug it in and get the footage."

FCPX is Digital Asset Management Lite. Full-fledged DAMs can track offline/proxy assets to allow users to manage massive data sets. This would be an important feature to add sometime in the future. The current all-online, all-the-time model isn't sustainable.

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: Range-based keywording: unique to FCP X?
on Apr 3, 2012 at 3:42:07 pm

[Richard Herd] "If I'm looking for a particular piece of footage, I want X to tell me its own Drive_A then I can plug it in and get the footage."

Just curious, do you (did you) do this with FCP7?


Return to posts index

Richard Herd
Re: Range-based keywording: unique to FCP X?
on Apr 3, 2012 at 5:08:18 pm

Not exactly. I used tape name.


Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: Range-based keywording: unique to FCP X?
on Apr 3, 2012 at 5:39:11 pm

[Richard Herd] "Not exactly. I used tape name."

Got ya.

Hopefully, FCPXML will support more metadata in the future. At that point, you could get some sort of parser to find any information on your Events/Projects, but you would have to have added that data (it's sometimes added depending on the import format/technique), and remembered to have exported an XML before the job is taken offline.


Return to posts index

Bill Davis
Re: Range-based keywording: unique to FCP X?
on Apr 3, 2012 at 7:12:39 pm

[Richard Herd] " If I'm looking for a particular piece of footage, I want X to tell me its own Drive_A then I can plug it in and get the footage. "

This gets so frustrating after a while.

That's NOT how X is designed, Richard. What you're describing is how Legacy was designed.

Back then, our Capture Scratches were simple folders of clips and all that was required was a pointer in the software to the location. So storing clips in separate places off-line and connecting to them to the editor made perfect sense. Where you stored them and how you named them and whether you moved them somewhere else or not was trivial. Just update the connection info and keep moving.

In X, the Project Library the Event Browser and the Timeline are always connected - for extremely valid reasons that provided a lot more power and flexibility - once you become accustomed to it. The cost for that is that you can't just move stuff willy nilly. So instead of loading up "clips" you load up whole PROJECTS - and the expectation is that ALL the clips for that project will be in fixed locations and dependably accessible for X. You shouldn't really ever have to go looking for them, because they'll already be there - embedded in the fabric of the project database.

And this (along with a lot of other new thinking) has been a major hurdle to all those who spent truly significant time operating any traditional NLE interface before migrating to X. This program is fundamentally different. It's built on different ideas and different ways of defining tasks. And if you approach it with anything but an open mind - willing to re-think how things might function - you'll be running up against walls unnecessarily, IMO.

Blow "I need to connect clips" out of your thinking if you want to operate efficiently in X.

Substitute "'I need to build a reliable database of all my assets - so I can access and use ANY of those assets - across any and all present and future projects."

The joy is that in the new system - anything (edit decisions, color correction, audio levels - you apply to your captured assets in the Event Browser - remain available for use in all subsequent projects. So you're building a persistent body of assets "as you like them" as you operate X. The database of your edit decisions grows and grows and makes you life easier and easier the longer you work in X.

When legacy was born, storage was expensive and computers were slower. Today, storage is cheap and computers and networks are ever faster. X is building toward that future. All your past editing decisions - preserved - constantly on - and available to you to use or modify as you like.

So hopefully "where's that clip so I can link to it" will be completely unnecessary in the future X is building towards - because it will always be right where it's always been - connected to your editing system.

Ready when you need it.

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 Hancock
Re: Range-based keywording: unique to FCP X?
on Apr 3, 2012 at 7:32:11 pm

[Bill Davis] "That's NOT how X is designed, Richard. What you're describing is how Legacy was designed.
"


Then it's poor design. Avid media is handled by a database too, and it can generate detailed reports of your sequence and bins showing you where that footage lives. What's the point of having a database with all of this information being tracked by the software if it's being held hostage by that same software? This is exactly what these databases are good for - tracking assets and giving that information to the editor.


[Bill Davis] "So hopefully "where's that clip so I can link to it" will be completely unnecessary in the future X is building towards - because it will always be right where it's always been - connected to your editing system. "

So all projects have to be online all the time? Even for a one man shop that's silly. When I was the only production guy at a small ad agency I would work on 20+ clients in a year, complete hundreds of commercials/videos, and generate terabytes of footage. Having to keep all of that online all the time because my software won't share information with me isn't good. This should be addressed by Apple. It's a reasonable and logical feature request.

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


Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: Range-based keywording: unique to FCP X?
on Apr 3, 2012 at 7:35:13 pm

[Michael Hancock] "[Bill Davis] "That's NOT how X is designed, Richard. What you're describing is how Legacy was designed.
"

Then it's poor design."


Everyone calm down, we know that FCPX is not up to potential yet. FCPXML doesn't carry this information yet. As soon as it does, you will be able to port more information in and out of FCPX.

Jeremy


Return to posts index

Richard Herd
Re: Range-based keywording: unique to FCP X?
on Apr 3, 2012 at 8:44:10 pm

[Michael Hancock] "So all projects have to be online all the time?"

Not exactly. There is a significant difference between Events and Projects.

Media show up as Events.
Projects show up as Projects.

In 7, you would have to import the media into the project. That is not how X does it.

Describing it here is silly. Until you actually do it, it won't make sense.

All I'm saying is sometimes I need to make a reel and the footage is on another drive somewhere else. I would like X to tell me where it is.


Return to posts index

Michael Hancock
Re: Range-based keywording: unique to FCP X?
on Apr 3, 2012 at 8:52:43 pm

Ah - I'm not up on my FCPX lingo. Thanks for the clarification. I've worked with the trial a bit (first release - not 10.0.3) but it was really buggy on my system so I stop playing with it. I guess I never got my head around how FCPX renamed projects and bins and sequences, et al.

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


Return to posts index

Richard Herd
Re: Range-based keywording: unique to FCP X?
on Apr 3, 2012 at 8:57:24 pm

[Michael Hancock] " never got my head around how FCPX renamed projects and bins and sequences, et al."

FYI: It ain't painless. But now that I know it, it's actually faster than 7. But that first project was a real PITA.


Return to posts index

Bill Davis
Re: Range-based keywording: unique to FCP X?
on Apr 3, 2012 at 9:43:14 pm

[Michael Hancock] "Then it's poor design. Avid media is handled by a database too, and it can generate detailed reports of your sequence and bins showing you where that footage lives. What's the point of having a database with all of this information being tracked by the software if it's being held hostage by that same software? This is exactly what these databases are good for - tracking assets and giving that information to the editor."

I understand that this is how you see it. I see it differently. I use X nearly every day for all my editing. It's capabilities have made me feel like I'm using a much better editing tool than I've had during my last 10 years as an FCP-Legacy editor.

I've never edited with Avid. (or Premier or Vegas for that matter) so I'm not qualified to compare them. If such a comparison is important to you - then talk to others.

I'm qualified to talk about my personal experiences transitioning from Legacy to X for my full time work as a corporate video producer/editor who typically creates and edits 30-100 or so projects in an average year.

I know there are plenty of high volume shop or TV station editors who might edit that many projects in an average month - or even one massive project in a ear that has a budget that dwarfs my aggregate total by orders of magnitude.

That's the point. I'm not arguing that X is the right tool for every editor in every situation. Just that it works amazingly well for editors like me.

YMMV.



[Michael Hancock] "So all projects have to be online all the time? Even for a one man shop that's silly. When I was the only production guy at a small ad agency I would work on 20+ clients in a year, complete hundreds of commercials/videos, and generate terabytes of footage. Having to keep all of that online all the time because my software won't share information with me isn't good. This should be addressed by Apple. It's a reasonable and logical feature request."

You're still just not "getting it" - and I'm not sure I can help you.

You keep trying to link what X is to your pre-conceptions. And that's going to fail for you, IMO.

Not to beat a dead horse here, but NO, you aren't "required" by X to have "all projects online all the time." The number and arrangement of your projects is totally up to you. I regularly move mine onto backup drives. They stay out of sight until I connect those drives. Then all the projects on that drive are "INSTANTLY" connected to my workspace with all their clips linked.

This means I control the library by the simple process of choosing which drives to connect.

That plus one of the trivial disk cataloging programs like Disk Librarian, and give me all the tools I need to locate archived projects in seconds - and lets me determine what I want ti arrange on-line or off-line.

Again, you keep pushing about what the software does or doesn't do. And all I'm telling you is that much of it is NOT like other NLE's I've used.

What I see in it was confusing at first, but every week becomes more useful to me - and I better appreciate what it is and how it's likely to keep growing over time for me. Even if Apple never adds a single new feature what's in X right now has made my editing life easier with tools I don't want to leave behind to go back to edit like I did in Legacy.

It may never work for you like it does for me.

Because our needs might never be the same.

But I'm one kind of very typical editor. One with clients that have on-going video needs with usually show to medium range production time frames (not instant every hour needs like a TV station - and not once a year massive needs like a movie producer) but somewhere in the great middle ground where most editors I know work. A large amount of my work is for on-going businesses where revision and deployment are important factors. Many of them are moving from physical media distribution to on-line access. They want to be able to publish now - revise later and republish the revised content quickly and efficiently. (they used to send out DVDs - now they just want to publish on-line for managed group access via the web.) They used to deploy to break room TV sets (in my corporate training work) but are moving rapidly toward deploying that content on smart devices like phones and iPads.

For those clients and for me FCP-X is an absolutely excellent tool.

It's simplifying and breaking down the production and distribution cycle and making my content easier to produce, revise, manage and deploy.

And that's how it's earned my continuing use.

I've said here countless times that X is not the ONLY tool that does any of these things.

But it is, IMO, an absolutely excellent one among others that competes on it's unique strengths exceedingly well.

Learn it or not. Use it or not. That's up to you.

But it's a mistake to judge it if you fundamentally mis-understand it. And your questions appear to me to be evidence that you don't understand it very well at this point.

No more or less than 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

Richard Herd
Re: Range-based keywording: unique to FCP X?
on Apr 3, 2012 at 7:35:06 pm

You've got it all wrong. Some drives fill up, but they still have footage on them. I want X to tell me the name of the drive and what is on it. Basic database stuff.


Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: Range-based keywording: unique to FCP X?
on Apr 3, 2012 at 7:35:59 pm

[Richard Herd] "You've got it all wrong. Some drives fill up, but they still have footage on them. I want X to tell me the name of the drive and what is on it. Basic database stuff."

If the Event is online, then you simply look at FCPX and it will tell you what drive it's on.

Maybe I'm missing something?


Return to posts index

Richard Herd
Re: Range-based keywording: unique to FCP X?
on Apr 3, 2012 at 8:57:02 pm

There's only 2 FW800 on the client's machine. I can only plug in two at a time. Right now we're up to 7 drives. This guy, Byron, has been shooting since the 1940s; he's 87 -- WWII footage (not war footage, but on leave) from Bolex transferred to MiniDV. (I'm trying to talk him into transferring the 16mm to an HD format. This doesn't even begin to discuss his stills collection: large format, large format 3d, and other amazing stuff. Next week I build his Web site, so I hope to share some of his stuff.


Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: Range-based keywording: unique to FCP X?
on Apr 3, 2012 at 9:29:40 pm

[Richard Herd] "There's only 2 FW800 on the client's machine. I can only plug in two at a time. Right now we're up to 7 drives. "

OK, I understand more about what you're saying, but without a project file, this isn't possible with any NLE.

Actually, you don't need a DAM, you need a catalog system, which is much easier and much cheaper.

Have you thought about a more centralized storage raid? or why not daisy chain?

How much material over the 7 Drives?


Jeremy


Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: Range-based keywording: unique to FCP X?
on Apr 3, 2012 at 9:41:37 pm

[Jeremy Garchow] "Actually, you don't need a DAM, you need a catalog system, which is much easier and much cheaper."

Sorry, check NeoFinder as an example.


Return to posts index

Walter Soyka
Re: Range-based keywording: unique to FCP X?
on Apr 3, 2012 at 7:49:21 pm

[Bill Davis] "That's NOT how X is designed, Richard. What you're describing is how Legacy was designed. "

I disagree. FCP was not a DAM. It didn't track metadata like FCPX does. These questions around asset management are new to most of us, unless you were using CatDV, FCSvr, or the like.


[Bill Davis] "When legacy was born, storage was expensive and computers were slower. Today, storage is cheap and computers and networks are ever faster. X is building toward that future. All your past editing decisions - preserved - constantly on - and available to you to use or modify as you like."

Soyka's Law -- Expectations rise at the same rate as capabilities. Applied here, storage is cheaper, but files are bigger.

With respect to its DAM, FCPX's current design simply doesn't scale. That's not forward-thinking design. It's either bad design -- or it's completely immature.

I have 24 TB of storage online, and it's not nearly to hold all my work. I have a dozen or so 1.5 TB LTO5 tapes holding archives. Keeping all media for all projects from all time online isn't practical for everyone. Building the storage infrastructure would be mind-boggling complicated and expensive.

Jeremy seems to have a lot of confidence that future updates to FCPXML will allow third parties to deal with this. I'd love to see that, and I think that third-party developers are offering some really innovating solutions (like VirtualMXF), but I also think that splitting DAM duties between FCPX and a third-party app reduces the power of having a DAM in an NLE in the first place.

I hope that this is an area that Apple intends to develop themselves in the future, because this is one of those maddening close-but-not-quite features.



We discussed this a couple months ago [link]. Here's what I wrote then:


IBM sees three dimensions to Big Data [link]: volume, velocity, and variety.

Volume means we're amassing more data than ever before. Velocity means we're amassing it faster. Variety means our data is not all neatly structured as an individual datum we can stuff in a spreadsheet or database; assets like text, graphics, audio and video are totally unstructured.

FCPX starts to treat variety, creating some structures that the user can apply to their unstructured data. However, as long as this is a manual process for humans, the twin threats of volume and velocity threaten to overwhelm our ability to keep up on variety.

I suppose you could argue that FCPX is starting to treat velocity, with native format support, but that's still far from perfect [link].

FCPX offers no tools at all for managing volume.

You wrote a great line about FCPX and metadata a couple months ago:
[Bill Davis] "And what sets X apart from the competition? The elevation of data handling into a role arguably equal to image manipulation."



I think this is true, but Apple needs to push very, very hard to make sure that the tools they're providing for data handling are as suitable to the task as the tools for image manipulation.

If metadata is going to be a true advantage for Apple and for FCPX in ongoing projects versus one-offs, they must really innovate that toolset.

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: Range-based keywording: unique to FCP X?
on Apr 3, 2012 at 8:07:10 pm

[Walter Soyka] "I disagree. FCP was not a DAM."

Totally

[Walter Soyka] "With respect to its DAM, FCPX's current design simply doesn't scale. That's not forward-thinking design. It's either bad design -- or it's completely immature."

It's not a data asset manager, nor will it be.

Will it have aspects of it? Yes, but in my opinion, of you want an asset manager, get one.

[Walter Soyka] "I have 24 TB of storage online, and it's not nearly to hold all my work."

Totally, agree. We have 23-ish TB online right now, and 70+(!) LTO4 tapes for archive. There's no way this will all be online, ever, unless Moore's law start applying to storage.

[Walter Soyka] "Jeremy seems to have a lot of confidence that future updates to FCPXML will allow third parties to deal with this. "

The interesting thing about ALL of this is that FCP7 was a very capable metadata storage system. XML is an easily searchable text document and FCP7XML allowed the passing of metadata pretty easily. It needed some work, and it wasn't perfect, but it was there. What FCPX has done is shown is that metadata can be very useful if you can give the proper amount of usability to it. When it's hard to use, no one uses it (well, I did in FCP7, but that's me). When it's easy to use, people will use it, and then they will come up with all new and exciting ways to implement it.

The ironic thing about X is that the backbone of FCPX metadata is there. Just have a look at the extensive list that FCPX can store. Right now, you can't get it OUT of there as the XML doesn't carry most of that information. There's no reason that Apple would build this list and functionality if it wasn't gong to be useful someday, especially with FCPX's very present and easy text search/sort abilities and the numerous ways to use this metadata to rename/resrot your footage with a few clicks. Go in to the inspector, find the info tab, see the Drop down at the bottom if the window that says Basic View, then click on "edit metadata view" and check out that list.

[Walter Soyka] "If metadata is going to be a true advantage for Apple and for FCPX in ongoing projects versus one-offs, they must really innovate that toolset."

My feeling is that it's innovated, we just haven't seen the whole feature set. It's still in the oven.


Return to posts index

Richard Herd
Re: Range-based keywording: unique to FCP X?
on Apr 3, 2012 at 9:11:37 pm

[Jeremy Garchow] "Yes, but in my opinion, of you want an asset manager, get one."

Got a recommendation?


Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: Range-based keywording: unique to FCP X?
on Apr 3, 2012 at 9:20:44 pm

That works with FCPX?

CatDV.


Return to posts index

Andrew Kimery
Re: Range-based keywording: unique to FCP X?
on Apr 3, 2012 at 10:06:31 pm

[Bill Davis] "When legacy was born, storage was expensive and computers were slower. Today, storage is cheap and computers and networks are ever faster. X is building toward that future. All your past editing decisions - preserved - constantly on - and available to you to use or modify as you like.

For some people yes, for other people no. SD used to be a chore to handle, then it became common place. Then HD came out and it was a chore to handle and now it's pretty common place. Now 4k and 3D are coming down the pipe and they will be a chore to handle.

The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo probably has one of the most cutting edge workflows and the amount storage they needed for finishing the film was 55TB. That's just space for the locked edit, VFX shots, mixing, color correction, etc.,. Lord knows how much storage they needed for the full rez (5k) dailies. For RT playback they had to build a disk array that could handle 1.1gigs a second (for 1 stream). For offline I think they cut w/ProRes LT proxies. Extreme example? Maybe today, but I think it will become a fairly common workflow for Hollywood movies very soon. The David Fincher film Zodiac shot on the Viper, recorded 444 RGB and required 144TB to hold all the dailies.

The faster our machines get the more we ask of them so I think the net result is pretty much the same. Sure, any modern computer today could handle an SD workflow like a hot knife through butter, but how many of us are still doing SD-only workflows?


-Andrew

2.9 GHz 8-core (4,1), FCP 7.0.3, 10.6.6
Blackmagic Multibridge Eclipse (7.9.5)



Return to posts index

Bill Davis
Re: Range-based keywording: unique to FCP X?
on Apr 3, 2012 at 10:28:10 pm

[Andrew Kimery] "Now 4k and 3D are coming down the pipe and they will be a chore to handle.
"


I'm the contrarian here often, but I'm not convinced that 3D is ever going to be much more than a solution looking for a problem in the reasonable future.

Some day it may well rock in fascinating areas like viraual surgical training and absolutely in immersive gaming. But as a passive entertainment medium I have my doubts. It's just not that much "more" satisfying than the current state of 2D TV quality for most users in most cases.

4k makes sense in the same way DSLRs make sense for photography because if you're going to all the hassle and expense of producing content, why not capture more data and future proof your content by capturing "retina display" friendly rasters now.

But 3D?

Not really interested at this time and a bit worried that it might well be the "quadraphonic sound" of this generation.

But I could be totally wrong here, and a part of me hopes I am.

"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

Herb Sevush
Re: Range-based keywording: unique to FCP X?
on Apr 4, 2012 at 2:06:12 am

[Bill Davis] "I'm the contrarian here often, but I'm not convinced that 3D is ever going to be much more than a solution looking for a problem "

Here I totally agree with you. However increased frame rates - shooting 60 fps and viewing at 60 (showscan was the early prototype) as well as 4K viewing will use all the bandwidth modern systems can handle. But,as you stated, 3D for home TV viewing, as opposed to gaming, is the quadrophonic sound of the 21st century.

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: Range-based keywording: unique to FCP X?
on Apr 4, 2012 at 2:12:25 am

[Herb Sevush] " However increased frame rates - shooting 60 fps and viewing at 60 (showscan was the early prototype"

720p does it right now, today.


Return to posts index

Herb Sevush
Re: Range-based keywording: unique to FCP X?
on Apr 4, 2012 at 2:46:10 am

[Jeremy Garchow] "720p does it right now, today."

Yes, I shoot 720P60 all the time, but as far as I know it's never broadcast that way, it's always converted to 1080i for broadcast, throwing out half the temporal information. What I'm talking about is 4KP60, in a theater.

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: Range-based keywording: unique to FCP X?
on Apr 4, 2012 at 2:50:44 am

Depends on the channel.

I hear you about 4k60p, but I think we know what that will look like.

I'm curious to see 48p.


Return to posts index

Franz Bieberkopf
Re: Range-based keywording: unique to FCP X?
on Apr 3, 2012 at 10:17:06 pm

[Jeremy Garchow] "Right now, you can't get it OUT of there as the XML doesn't carry most of that information."


Jeremy,

Is it still true that FCPX doesn't take in camera meta-data? or has this changed? Would this function be beholden to the same changes that meta-data out will require?

It seems there are walls that keep the meta-data isolated on both sides (in and out).


Franz.


Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: Range-based keywording: unique to FCP X?
on Apr 3, 2012 at 10:49:38 pm

[Franz Bieberkopf] "Is it still true that FCPX doesn't take in camera meta-data? or has this changed? Would this function be beholden to the same changes that meta-data out will require?

It seems there are walls that keep the meta-data isolated on both sides (in and out)."


Kinda?

It's seems to be there in the sense that if I bring in a p2 clip (which has an XML) via the new log and transfer function, the metadata comes in. It's not mappable and only some of it is adjustable/searchable (the fields that you can edit/type are searchable within X). So a format like p2 that has very decent "built in" metadata that's close to a standard via Panasonic's recommendations works, but it's not perfect.

A format like Arri Alexa also has XMLs but FCPX doesn't read that XML file and there's currently not an easy "mechanism" to import that style of XML. The guts do seem to be there, fortunately.

This will probably take major updates to AVFoundation and FCPXML to get this to where fcp7 sits in it's current state, is my educated guess.

So, yes, I think it is rather limited in scope today, but some of it is working provided you have the material that X understands (like p2).

The announcement from the MXF4mac folks alludes to a "Pro" version of VirtualMXF that maps 7 metadata to X, which seems to bode very well for upcoming possibilities without the log and transfer mechanism.

Jeremy


Return to posts index

Oliver Peters
Re: Range-based keywording: unique to FCP X?
on Apr 3, 2012 at 10:55:11 pm

[Jeremy Garchow] "A format like Arri Alexa also has XMLs but FCPX doesn't read that XML file and there's currently not an easy "mechanism" to import that style of XML. The guts do seem to be there, fortunately. "

FCP X also doesn't read embedded metadata inside a QT file. For example, no reel ID numbers in ALEXA files or QT movies altered by FCP 7 or an app like QtChange. FCP 7 reads these.

- Oliver

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


Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: Range-based keywording: unique to FCP X?
on Apr 3, 2012 at 11:07:12 pm

[Oliver Peters] "FCP X also doesn't read embedded metadata inside a QT file. For example, no reel ID numbers in ALEXA files or QT movies altered by FCP 7 or an app like QtChange. FCP 7 reads these."

This is where updates to AVFoundation come in, or if a more generic XML import becomes available so that the reel gets mapped to X's reel field.

As I said, it works with formats that are logged and transferred so there's some of it in there, it's just not complete.


Return to posts index

Oliver Peters
Re: Range-based keywording: unique to FCP X?
on Apr 3, 2012 at 11:38:58 pm

[Jeremy Garchow] "This is where updates to AVFoundation come in, or if a more generic XML import becomes available so that the reel gets mapped to X's reel field. "

I understand, but I really don't care why it doesn't work (that's not directed at you). I'm sure ARRI what just as surprised as the rest of us! Makes it really hard to develop workflows around something you can't rely on.

- Oliver

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


Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: Range-based keywording: unique to FCP X?
on Apr 3, 2012 at 11:51:10 pm

[Oliver Peters] "I understand, but I really don't care why it doesn't work (that's not directed at you). I'm sure ARRI what just as surprised as the rest of us! Makes it really hard to develop workflows around something you can't rely on."

Yep. It's one of the reasons I think we see 10.0.3 in its rushed state.

Apple wanted to let people know that XML is there, not quite as robust, but it's there and will be ready.

Some day.

Maybe soon.

Maybe not.


Return to posts index

Oliver Peters
Re: Range-based keywording: unique to FCP X?
on Apr 4, 2012 at 12:48:38 am

[Jeremy Garchow] "Apple wanted to let people know that XML is there, not quite as robust, but it's there and will be ready."

Interesting note on the QT reel number issue. The FCP X display (Event Browser column) does not display it, but it is read by the app, because it passes through the FCPXML. I just sent a test file with Alexa clips through Xto7 to FCP 7 and then exported an EDL from there. Reel number shows up in "Modify TC" and also in the EDL. Go figure.

- Oliver

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


Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: Range-based keywording: unique to FCP X?
on Apr 4, 2012 at 3:41:32 pm

[Oliver Peters] "Interesting note on the QT reel number issue. The FCP X display (Event Browser column) does not display it, but it is read by the app, because it passes through the FCPXML. I just sent a test file with Alexa clips through Xto7 to FCP 7 and then exported an EDL from there. Reel number shows up in "Modify TC" and also in the EDL. Go figure."

But that's a function of Xto7 as it probably grabs the reel from the QTs (or FCP7 does, but my guess is Xto7 does it as it's controlling the XMLs).

There is no "reel" field in the FCPXML as AVFoundation probably doesn't grab it at this point in time. FCPX does add the encamping card name to logged and transferred footage, just like FCP7.


Return to posts index

Herb Sevush
Re: Range-based keywording: unique to FCP X?
on Apr 4, 2012 at 4:02:11 pm

[Jeremy Garchow] "There is no "reel" field in the FCPXML"

You don't need "reel" names since tape is dead, haven't you heard?

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: Range-based keywording: unique to FCP X?
on Apr 4, 2012 at 4:09:40 pm

[Herb Sevush] "You don't need "reel" names since tape is dead, haven't you heard?"

Canon has.


Return to posts index

Herb Sevush
Re: Range-based keywording: unique to FCP X?
on Apr 4, 2012 at 4:19:02 pm

[Jeremy Garchow] "Canon has."

Which, among other things, is what helps explain their enduring preeminence in the video industry. When I see the Canon logo on a video camera, as opposed to the lens, I know it's a big time production.

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: Range-based keywording: unique to FCP X?
on Apr 4, 2012 at 4:32:38 pm

[Herb Sevush] "Which, among other things, is what helps explain their enduring preeminence in the video industry. When I see the Canon logo on a video camera, as opposed to the lens, I know it's a big time production."

Totally.

Here's an example of a modern "reel number". This number connects directly to a file, regardless of physical disk location. FCPX does this with it's own unique ID system, but with tapeless media, it seems it should use the wealth of info that's already available in most professional file formats, of which Canon does not have, and don't get me started on all of that. What a reel number does is point a person or computer to a physical medium. In the case of digital files, the physical medium is intangible for us humans and can also move dynamically. This number is computerrific as it can point directly to a file through a search regardless of directory or location on the disk. Who needs bins and folders? ;)



themodernreel.png

Jeremy


Return to posts index

Herb Sevush
Re: Range-based keywording: unique to FCP X?
on Apr 4, 2012 at 4:52:00 pm

[Jeremy Garchow] "What a reel number does is point a person or computer to a physical medium."

Yes.

[Jeremy Garchow] "This number is computerrific as it can point directly to a file through a search regardless of directory or location on the disk. Who needs bins and folders? ;)"

Who needs bins and folders? Me. But I like the rest of your picture. Although I might want a shorter reel #.

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: Range-based keywording: unique to FCP X?
on Apr 4, 2012 at 4:58:46 pm

[Herb Sevush] "Who needs bins and folders? Me. But I like the rest of your picture. Although I might want a shorter reel #."

I don't necessarily. FCPXs keyword function allows the uber sorting of all data that bins and folders necessarily do not, but it still allows you to "put" the files somewhere if you need them.

That reel number is taken from the file itself, I did not generate it. It makes reconnecting native MXF media in FCP7 a super simple and easy process.

Jeremy


Return to posts index

Oliver Peters
Re: Range-based keywording: unique to FCP X?
on Apr 6, 2012 at 2:59:01 pm

Hi,

Circling back to this issue. Did a bit more testing with media connected and disconnected. Note, this is all media from 5Ds, where I've added reel numbers and TC using QtChange or from Alexas with embedded reel numbers. Both types of media are imported as files, not from cards.

[Jeremy Garchow] "But that's a function of Xto7 as it probably grabs the reel from the QTs (or FCP7 does, but my guess is Xto7 does it as it's controlling the XMLs)."

Actually, I believe it's a function of FCP 7. If you run Xto7 with no media connected, and then mount the media drive when you bring the XML into FCP 7, the conversion is fine and both reel numbers and timecode come across. That's because FCP 7 is reading both from the connected media. The interesting gotcha is that if you import the XML into FCP 7 with the media disconnected and not relinked, you DON'T get reel numbers OR timecode. TC count is simply using a frame offset value starting at 00.

What appears to be happening is that FCP X spits out a clip name with a frame offset value. That's converted in Xto7 and then FCP 7 attaches the correct TC based on this offset as well as a reel number, because it is reading it from the media file itself when it relinks.

The moral of the story is that cannot generate a correct EDL from X by way of Xto7 and FCP 7 when the media is disconnected.

Oliver

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


Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: Range-based keywording: unique to FCP X?
on Apr 6, 2012 at 3:44:38 pm

Thanks, Oliver.

It probably is a function of QT as AVFoundation obviously does not have that function quite yet.

Kudos for doing the homework.

I know that 7toX requires all files to be online, does Xto7 not have the same requirements?

Jeremy


Return to posts index

Oliver Peters
Re: Range-based keywording: unique to FCP X?
on Apr 6, 2012 at 3:47:47 pm

[Jeremy Garchow] "does Xto7 not have the same requirements?"

Didn't seem to. I generated an FCPXML from X with media connected. Exited and unmounted the drive. Brought that FCPXML into Xto7 and saved an FCP 7 XML. Then mounted the drive, launched FCP 7 and imported the FCP 7 XML. Media reconnected and reel and TC info was there.

- Oliver

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


Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: Range-based keywording: unique to FCP X?
on Apr 6, 2012 at 4:04:13 pm

I know you said if media was offline the information didn't come in.

If you import an XML to 7 that's offline, save and quit. Reopen 7 and reconnect, does the info show up then?


Return to posts index

Oliver Peters
Re: Range-based keywording: unique to FCP X?
on Apr 6, 2012 at 4:11:48 pm

[Jeremy Garchow] "If you import an XML to 7 that's offline, save and quit. Reopen 7 and reconnect, does the info show up then?"

Haven't tested that. Something for later if I get a chance.

Oliver

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


Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: Range-based keywording: unique to FCP X?
on Apr 6, 2012 at 4:25:08 pm

Thanks, Oliver.


Return to posts index

Oliver Peters
Re: Range-based keywording: unique to FCP X?
on Apr 7, 2012 at 1:42:57 am

[Jeremy Garchow] "If you import an XML to 7 that's offline, save and quit. Reopen 7 and reconnect, does the info show up then?"

I was able to test this now. When you reconnect, you initially get the "attributes don't match" prompt. If you continue anyway, then it relinks and restores the proper TC and reel numbers based on the embedded media clip metadata.

- Oliver

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


Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: Range-based keywording: unique to FCP X?
on Apr 7, 2012 at 2:05:11 am

Death to QuickTime. All hail QuickTime.

Thanks, Oliver.

Jeremy


Return to posts index

Walter Soyka
Re: Range-based keywording: unique to FCP X?
on Apr 7, 2012 at 2:11:12 am

I'm with Jeremy. QuickTime is the worst media container, except for all the other ones.

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

Bill Davis
Re: Range-based keywording: unique to FCP X?
on Apr 3, 2012 at 10:15:39 pm

[Walter Soyka] "I think this is true, but Apple needs to push very, very hard to make sure that the tools they're providing for data handling are as suitable to the task as the tools for image manipulation.

If metadata is going to be a true advantage for Apple and for FCPX in ongoing projects versus one-offs, they must really innovate that toolset."


As is often the case, Walter - this is another area where we largely agree.

I truly appreciate your orientation. It's important for all of us coming from "ground up" use profiles (as opposed to large shop experience) to come to better understand this stuff.

But it's also critical, IMO, that Apple not spend so much initial time getting the plumbing perfected that they ignore the editing engine itself in the process.

So far, the bulk of the early development work in X has been split. Roles was largely data centric - while multicam leaned toward editorial - even if both were fundamentally just more metadata capabilities like everything in X.

I don't want them to stop development of editorial to make better systems for the large scope data needs of the few - before they get more and better capabilities in the primary functions.

It's a delicate balance for any developer - providing features for multiple constituencies.

Hey, are you going to NAB? If so, I'd love to try to shoe horn in time for a sit down drink. I've enjoyed our discussions so much that I feel I own you at least one!

Let me know.

"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: Range-based keywording: unique to FCP X?
on Apr 3, 2012 at 10:39:08 pm

[Bill Davis] "I don't want them to stop development of editorial to make better systems for the large scope data needs of the few - before they get more and better capabilities in the primary functions. It's a delicate balance for any developer - providing features for multiple constituencies."

My question is this: to what degree do the features we see today give us a window into FCPX's underlying architecture? If you over-engineer, your product will be flexible but will never ship. If you under-engineer, you can ship faster, but you'll tie your hands for future development.

I have no idea where on that spectrum FCPX lies. Maybe it'll be relatively simple for Apple to add the functionality we're all looking for. On the other hand, maybe they never intended FCPX to be suited for some of those "big" needs and would need to seriously rework the internals to accommodate them. A third option: maybe it would be easy to add features, but will offer Apple too little ROI on the development. I guess we'll find out eventually, right?


[Bill Davis] "Hey, are you going to NAB? If so, I'd love to try to shoe horn in time for a sit down drink. I've enjoyed our discussions so much that I feel I own you at least one!"

I'll be there. Maybe we can get an FCPX or Not forum mini-meet going? Anybody else going and interested?

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

Andrew Kimery
Re: Range-based keywording: unique to FCP X?
on Apr 3, 2012 at 10:46:29 pm

[Bill Davis] "I'm the contrarian here often, but I'm not convinced that 3D is ever going to be much more than a solution looking for a problem in the reasonable future."

I pretty much agree about 3D. I just tossed it in there as an example of how our media-crunching needs keep expanding alongside our media-crunching abilities. It's the same w/computer games. The faster the hardware gets the more hardware demanding the games become.


-Andrew

2.9 GHz 8-core (4,1), FCP 7.0.3, 10.6.6
Blackmagic Multibridge Eclipse (7.9.5)



Return to posts index

Bill Davis
Re: Range-based keywording: unique to FCP X?
on Apr 4, 2012 at 12:07:27 am

[Walter Soyka] "I'll be there. Maybe we can get an FCPX or Not forum mini-meet going? Anybody else going and interested?"

I'm up for that - the more the merrier.

I've got plans Mon late evening and Tues from 4pm on - but daytimes, happy hours and Wed are cool.

God knows theres no lack of places along the monorail where some of us could assemble at a table for a chat.

Anyone's welcome to raise a hand if they want in as far as I'm concerned.

"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

Jeremy Garchow
Re: Range-based keywording: unique to FCP X?
on Apr 4, 2012 at 12:22:44 am

[Bill Davis] "Anyone's welcome to raise a hand if they want in as far as I'm concerned."

That would be lots of fun. I can't make it this year!


Return to posts index

moody glasgow
Re: Range-based keywording: unique to FCP X?
on Apr 4, 2012 at 7:23:58 pm

I'd be interested in coming by, if you guys will allow a Flame guy to attend.

moody glasgow
smoke/flame
http://www.thereelthinginc.com


Return to posts index

Walter Soyka
Re: Range-based keywording: unique to FCP X?
on Apr 4, 2012 at 7:53:24 pm

[moody glasgow] "I'd be interested in coming by, if you guys will allow a Flame guy to attend."

Absolutely. Can't wait to hear your opinion on whatever Autodesks's big Smoke announcement will be!

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

Walter Soyka
Re: Range-based keywording: unique to FCP X?
on Apr 4, 2012 at 7:57:47 pm

Bill -- I've started a new thread [link] for this suggesting a daytime meetup on Tuesday or Wednesday. Maybe we'll catch a few more folks. Please feel free to jump in and guide the conversation.

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

Andrew Richards
Re: Range-based keywording: unique to FCP X?
on Apr 4, 2012 at 1:49:35 pm

[Walter Soyka] "Jeremy seems to have a lot of confidence that future updates to FCPXML will allow third parties to deal with this. I'd love to see that, and I think that third-party developers are offering some really innovating solutions (like VirtualMXF), but I also think that splitting DAM duties between FCPX and a third-party app reduces the power of having a DAM in an NLE in the first place."

From where I sit, FCPX is begging to be the client in a client/server setup where the heavy lifting of storing and serving media and metadata is on the server-side and FCPX is only mounting what the editor is working on (while everything else is a quick search away). The way it sits now, FCPX has a glass ceiling for volume. Fine for small-scale stuff, but a busy shop would find itself working around it with Event Manager X, the sparse image workaround, or SAN Locations on Xsan.

I've noted before that OS X already has the frameworks to enable this. FCPX interacts with its Events and Projects via CoreData SQLite persistent stores. But what if it could also read and write to a centralized PostgreSQL database? Live sharing of Event and Project databases would enable some killer workflow efficiencies!

[Walter Soyka] "I hope that this is an area that Apple intends to develop themselves in the future, because this is one of those maddening close-but-not-quite features."

YES.

Best,
Andy


Return to posts index

Oliver Peters
Re: Range-based keywording: unique to FCP X?
on Apr 4, 2012 at 2:05:28 pm

" FCPX is begging to be the client in a client/server setup where the heavy lifting of storing and serving media and metadata is on the server-side and FCPX is only mounting what the editor is working on (while everything else is a quick search away). The way it sits now,"

The stupid part is that FCP 7 with FC Server works (worked) EXACTLY that way.

Oliver

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


Return to posts index

Andrew Richards
Re: Range-based keywording: unique to FCP X?
on Apr 4, 2012 at 2:29:18 pm

[Oliver Peters] "The stupid part is that FCP 7 with FC Server works (worked) EXACTLY that way."

I disagree. FCP7 had no idea FCSvr existed. You had to check out your FCP project file from FCSvr and then open it in FCP7. FCP7 and FCSvr could be united atop shared storage and FCSvr could manipulate the project files it was handing out to allow for edit-in-place, but FCP7 never had any idea FCSvr was there doing that. FCP7 just know it had a project file and that file linked to such and such media on the SAN.

If FCP7 had been directly addressing FCSvr, you would be searching for clips on the server from within FCP7's Browser pane. Not in a separate Java app that you then had to drag your clips into FCP7.

What FCPX's CoreData store model for Events and Projects opens up is the possibility that you could have FCPX as the client proper, with no separate sidecar app. The keywording in FCPX would be hitting the server directly, not waiting for a save to a file that would then have to be uploaded and parsed by the server. Shared FCPX Events would be like having a live shared Browser window in FCP7, and shared Projects would be like having a live shared Timeline window in FCP7. This is utterly different from the way FCSvr worked with FCP7, and in my opinion, it would be much more powerful.

One of the biggest problems with FCSvr in my experience was that editors saw using it as a chore, they did as little as possible in order to avoid spending time in it, and they really just wanted to have the metadata they were creating in FCP (markers, bins, etc) to "just show up" in FCSvr. But since FCP7 didn't talk to FCSvr at all, that could not be achieved with anything approaching a practical workflow.

It would be cool if Apple built such a thing, but it seems extremely unlikely that they would.

Best,
Andy


Return to posts index

Oliver Peters
Re: Range-based keywording: unique to FCP X?
on Apr 4, 2012 at 2:43:42 pm

"I disagree. FCP7 had no idea FCSvr existed. You had to check out your FCP project file from FCSvr and then open it in FCP7. FCP7 and FCSvr could be united atop shared storage and FCSvr could manipulate the project files it was handing out to allow for edit-in-place, but FCP7 never had any idea FCSvr was there doing that. FCP7 just know it had a project file and that file linked to such and such media on the SAN."

I understand that. All the "management" is on the FC Server side. But it does take care of moving the media and relinking the files in FCP 7, so that there is a very cohesive environment. The point is that Apple started something and then simply dropped it in midcourse. Maybe we'll see a new version of FC Server in the future that ties into FCP X in a similar fashion.

Oliver

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


Return to posts index

Andrew Richards
Re: Range-based keywording: unique to FCP X?
on Apr 4, 2012 at 3:58:57 pm

[Oliver Peters] "But it does take care of moving the media and relinking the files in FCP 7, so that there is a very cohesive environment."

Cohesive as far as linking to media, but disjointed for metadata and feedback. The editors I worked with found the check-in/check-out process added a lot of friction to their workflow, and they lamented that the places they naturally dealt with metadata already (markers and in the bins) did not translate at all into FCSvr even if they did tolerate the distraction of check-in. For them, FCSvr was a burden they wound up avoiding whenever they could.

Where FCSvr did shine was in automating producer approvals and other tasks external to FCP. In this respect, it saved editors a lot of time and effort. They could and did embrace that. But as far as the core functionality of metadata and media management, there was (is) a gulf between FCP and FCSvr. CatDV and its "magic door" address that using Apple Events and XML, but FCSvr never did.

That's why I see so much potential in FCPX as a true client. Just by using FCPX, the editor is creating gobs of valuable metadata that would be so much more valuable if it were available to more than one editor at a time. If FCPX were directly interacting with a central Events and Projects database, then the whole thing becomes frictionless. Elegant, even.

Pie in the sky, sure, but it looks damn tasty in my imagination.

Best,
Andy


Return to posts index

Richard Herd
Re: Range-based keywording: unique to FCP X?
on Apr 4, 2012 at 4:09:26 pm

Hey Andrew...recently I started teaching a High School documentary filmmaking class and a narrative filmmaking class. I applied for and will probably get a grant for 5 iMacs i5s and 5 FCPXs. I was hoping to make all the media available to all the computers all the time. Is there a real way to do that, currently?

I also learn a lot from you posts, so thanks!


Return to posts index

Andrew Richards
Re: Range-based keywording: unique to FCP X?
on Apr 4, 2012 at 4:44:11 pm

[Richard Herd] "I applied for and will probably get a grant for 5 iMacs i5s and 5 FCPXs. I was hoping to make all the media available to all the computers all the time. Is there a real way to do that, currently?"

Yes, but there is a catch. If you uncheck the box for copying files to the Events folder and do all ingest externally (not via FCPX), you can use any shared storage system that supports your codecs and the client load (aggregate bandwidth). See the SAN forum for that. Then when you import the files into the event, FCPX just links to the media in place a la FCP7. In this case, Projects and Events are still stored on direct attached storage (Movies folder or other local drive). If you wanted to get fancy, you could do home folder syncing with OS X Server and leave the Projects and Events in the user's Movies folder (default location), but that could get unwieldy since render files are stored with Projects (another thing Apple really needs to fix). Then when they sit at any machine and log in against Open Directory on OS X Server, the contents of their home folder is synced to that machine and will show them the same thing they saw the last session on any other machine. A lot of render files would mean a lot of network traffic, hence the warning.

Xsan would let you put Events and Projects on shared storage via SAN Locations, but Xsan is expensive and complicated and not for the novice (though a lot less expensive and complicated than it used to be). Even for a workgroup as small as yours, you are still looking at minimum $25K just for equipment ($1,500 Qlogic 1400 switch, $850 SANlink Thunderbolt HBAs and cables for each client, twin $1,600 Mac mini Servers for MDCs, additional Gig-E switch for metadata traffic, fiber optic cables, and of course a qualified Fibre Channel RAID). The price goes up if you want more than a dozen usable terabytes or more switch ports for more clients. Then there's the cost of a qualified installer's time.

Either way, you'd be spending five digits to get some form of shared storage that can support editing.

Best,
Andy


Return to posts index

Richard Herd
Re: Range-based keywording: unique to FCP X?
on Apr 4, 2012 at 5:39:00 pm

Thanks! I get about $5,000 per student @ 30 students.


Return to posts index

Andrew Richards
Re: Range-based keywording: unique to FCP X?
on Apr 4, 2012 at 5:55:07 pm

[Richard Herd] "Thanks! I get about $5,000 per student @ 30 students."

Do you anticipate the students sharing media across their projects? Like they all pool their shoots and edit from the pooled media? Or would this be demo media for teaching that they just all need access to?

Best,
Andy


Return to posts index

Daniel Frome
Re: Range-based keywording: unique to FCP X?
on Apr 4, 2012 at 5:50:23 pm

Hey, if you're students qualify for that Avid discount ($295+4 years upgrades free) you can always "donate" them to me and use FCPX ;)


Return to posts index

Andrew Kimery
Re: Range-based keywording: unique to FCP X?
on Apr 4, 2012 at 6:26:27 pm

[Andrew Richards] "
One of the biggest problems with FCSvr in my experience was that editors saw using it as a chore, they did as little as possible in order to avoid spending time in it, and they really just wanted to have the metadata they were creating in FCP (markers, bins, etc) to "just show up" in FCSvr. But since FCP7 didn't talk to FCSvr at all, that could not be achieved with anything approaching a practical workflow."



This was my reaction when I started testing it for possible deployment at the last place I worked. The integration I'd hoped for just wasn't there which was very disappointing.


-Andrew

2.9 GHz 8-core (4,1), FCP 7.0.3, 10.6.6
Blackmagic Multibridge Eclipse (7.9.5)



Return to posts index

Andrew Richards
Re: Range-based keywording: unique to FCP X?
on Apr 4, 2012 at 6:38:17 pm

[Andrew Kimery] "This was my reaction when I started testing it for possible deployment at the last place I worked. The integration I'd hoped for just wasn't there which was very disappointing."

And for the record, I loved FCSvr. But I'm not an editor. I made it do some pretty killer stuff with automating archiving and publishing to the web.

Best,
Andy


Return to posts index

Oliver Peters
Re: Range-based keywording: unique to FCP X?
on Apr 4, 2012 at 7:29:43 pm

[Andrew Richards] "The editors I worked with found the check-in/check-out process added a lot of friction to their workflow, and they lamented that the places they naturally dealt with metadata already (markers and in the bins) did not translate at all into FCSvr even if they did tolerate the distraction of check-in"

Really? The check-out/check-in process makes it almost function like Unity and Interplay. I've been working with it a couple of years now as an editor. Custom bin entries show up as metadata in FC Server if you assign it that way. You have to search through the productions branch and not the assets branch. However, I would agree that it's not the best DAM when compared with other products.

- Oliver

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


Return to posts index

Andrew Richards
Re: Range-based keywording: unique to FCP X?
on Apr 4, 2012 at 7:48:04 pm

[Oliver Peters] "Really? The check-out/check-in process makes it almost function like Unity and Interplay. I've been working with it a couple of years now as an editor."

Really. Like pulling teeth. It didn't help they tended to have really bloated bins that made check-in take a long time.

[Oliver Peters] "Custom bin entries show up as metadata in FC Server if you assign it that way. You have to search through the productions branch and not the assets branch."

They wanted markers to map to Annotations (which can be done with some really crazy scripting and even then it requires a rather brittle series of hoops to be jumped through). What little access you have to FCP project metadata in FCSvr wasn't condusive to their work.

[Oliver Peters] "However, I would agree that it's not the best DAM when compared with other products."

Not for editors, but it was the king of value for money and automation.

Best,
Andy


Return to posts index

Oliver Peters
Re: Range-based keywording: unique to FCP X?
on Apr 4, 2012 at 7:54:23 pm

[Andrew Richards] "Like pulling teeth. It didn't help they tended to have really bloated bins that made check-in take a long time."

In the operation I work at, there are only a handful of freelance editors who come in, so we've basically worked out a system. I generally find the only really long check-in is with the initial session. Check-in itself is no issue, just the time to move/transcode media. We tend to do that overnight and correct any issues in the morning. The rub is a few time when projects get corrupt.

[Andrew Richards] "They wanted markers to map to Annotations"

Yep, that sounds like pushing the system for what it wasn't designed to do.

- Oliver

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


Return to posts index

Bill Davis
Re: Range-based keywording: unique to FCP X?
on Apr 4, 2012 at 6:23:11 pm

[Oliver Peters] "The stupid part is that FCP 7 with FC Server works (worked) EXACTLY that way."

Yep,

And too bad Legacy was welded on to Quicktime - was based on a largely flat-file underpinning - and likely had significant pieces of licensed code peppered throughout it - all of which Apple dumped in the transition to X.

A lot of people would have been very happy if Apple could have simultaneously saved everything while simultanesouly re-building everything in a new and more modern expression.

But providing such absolutely mutually contradictory things at the exact same time is the stuff of dreams, not real-world software development, I'm afraid.

So certain users have lost a whole lot of good - in exchange for the as yet unfulfilled promise of better.

You label it "stupid" and I understand that.

I label it "risky" but also quite possibly "transformative." And I personally like new ideas a whole lot better than I liked the old ones.

There are times for "safe" and times for "bold." Since the new X works well for me already - I like that they took these chances to provide me with an alternative choice.

It's more fun this way!

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

Jim Giberti
Re: Range-based keywording: unique to FCP X?
on Apr 4, 2012 at 6:44:41 pm

[Bill Davis] "There are times for "safe" and times for "bold." Since the new X works well for me already - I like that they took these chances to provide me with an alternative choice.

It's more fun this way!"



I can be an adventure Bill .

I thought this was a well balanced post.

It's no more reasonable to say that FCPX is crap than it is to say that the people working with it successfully are...whatever.

When it does what it does well, it's a lot of fun to create with.
It's the adventure I could do without.


Return to posts index

Bill Davis
Re: Range-based keywording: unique to FCP X?
on Apr 4, 2012 at 7:11:28 pm

[Jim Giberti] "When it does what it does well, it's a lot of fun to create with.
It's the adventure I could do without."


I hear that loud and clear.

Someone said that there are folks from here who have left and are now populating the boards of the other software programs. That's excellent, to my thinking.

If they needed something that X does not provide, it's reasonable and sensible for them to go where they can get what they need to do the work that they need to do.

I'm happy here - since a lot of smart folks are still exploring what X means - even after all this time.

I think this is one of the most interesting places I visit on the web for precisely that reason.

Many here are argumentative, and that's great in my book. Because the ones that remain are also now sorted into those who don't represent as much of a "risk averse" orientation. Which makes them more interesting to hang out with, IMO.

Yourself definitely included!

Hey, are you joining the NAB trek? Love to extend the "first round's on me" offering to you as well if you're going to be there.

Take care.

"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: Range-based keywording: unique to FCP X?
on Apr 4, 2012 at 8:24:27 pm

[Bill Davis] "Hey, are you joining the NAB trek? Love to extend the "first round's on me" offering to you as well if you're going to be there."

Oh man, yet another great invitation that I'd love to accept.

DRW invited me to the ProMax soiree that I have to sadly miss.

The biggest problem with owning a creative firm and a farm is that this time of year, 7 days a week is hardly enough.
It's the reason I moved the offices and studios to the farm a few years ago. This time of year I'm either completely schizophrenic or fully integrated depending on your perspective.
I'm foaling, I'm editing, I'm preparing fields, I'm designing, I'm working with horses asses...I'm working with horses asses.


Return to posts index

Bill Davis
Re: Range-based keywording: unique to FCP X?
on Apr 4, 2012 at 11:31:36 pm

[Jim Giberti] "I'm foaling, I'm editing, I'm preparing fields, I'm designing, I'm working with horses asses...I'm working with horses asses.
"


Hah.

There's working with animals - and there's working with animals after all.

I haven't spent much time in the equine world, but I my company was essentially the in-house video production entity for PetSmart for many years, so I've spent as much time around four-legged critters as two (and often like them more!) so I appreciate that when you're responsible for their care and well-being - there's little choice involved. When you need to be there - you need to be there.

The good thing is that unlike decades ago, anything we're likely to see at NAB will be on the web nearly instantly, so other than meeting up with and talking with old friends (and perhaps making a few new ones) it's not the "have to be there" thing it once was for keeping up with the industry.

Sorry we'll miss you.

"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

Oliver Peters
Re: Range-based keywording: unique to FCP X?
on Apr 4, 2012 at 7:40:34 pm

[Bill Davis] "I label it "risky" but also quite possibly "transformative." And I personally like new ideas a whole lot better than I liked the old ones.
"


I get that and I don't disagree, but the discussion was about asset management. For all the claims about that being built into X, there is zero evidence that it's true beyond what's being exposed inside the interface. So is it really a case of being transformative or of throwing the baby out with the bath water?

- Oliver

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


Return to posts index

Bill Davis
Re: Range-based keywording: unique to FCP X?
on Apr 5, 2012 at 6:29:33 am

[Oliver Peters] "I get that and I don't disagree, but the discussion was about asset management. For all the claims about that being built into X, there is zero evidence that it's true beyond what's being exposed inside the interface. So is it really a case of being transformative or of throwing the baby out with the bath water?

- Oliver
"


Oliver,

I still think that's too perjorative and too harsh an assessment.

Do you really think the FCP-X teams focus was so caviler the they didn't realize that by choosing to strip the code back to zero - that they were going to piss people off? Do you think that if they could have seen a way to keep all that Legacy was and still build what they wanted X to be that they would have?

To me that simply makes NO sense.

I just don't imagine the X team as a building full of masochists gleefully grinning at all the turmoil they've caused. It makes a lot more sense to me that if they couldn't re-invent inside the old structure, they had permission to tear it down and build a new one.

And that's what they did.

It's inarguable that the major difference between Legacy and X is that while Legacy accommodated metadata - X is literally driven by it. It's not a bolt-on - it's the core of the whole program.

It's also clear that the construction team has had to prioritize that meta-data's use, features and essential plumbing in the early days here. But it's equally clear that the capability of the program to use metadata more wisely and pervasively was the very foundation of the whole re-build.

That said, those functions are only important if the rest of the strucure - the editorial functions are also crafted carefully.

I think they are. The first level build is leaner, requires fewer keystrokes to do more functions, and presents new rapid and agile editing functions than I believe Legacy did. I know that many editors were exceptionally fluid and fast in Legacy - and that over it's decade, it had a lot of great stuff for the "power user"

But as someone who editing with Legacy in year 1 and with X in year 1, I have to stand firmly that this software is lightyears easier to edit with - once you know how to overcome it's quirks - which is precisely what I had to do back in 1999 with V1.

Granted I was stuck in DV with a Quadra 840 AV with Legacy V1,(IIRC), and computers have come a long way - but here I am with a laptop and firewire drive editing HDSLR footage faster and delivering work faster with X then I ever managed with my MacPro and Studio 3 after 10 years of solid practice.

That says something in my book.

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

Oliver Peters
Re: Range-based keywording: unique to FCP X?
on Apr 5, 2012 at 2:26:04 pm

[Bill Davis] "I still think that's too perjorative and too harsh an assessment."

I don't see that, but OK. Besides, why should I cut one of the largest tech companies in the world - gifted with money and really bright software engineering folks - any more slack than I would Avid, Adobe or anyone else?

[Bill Davis] "Do you really think the FCP-X teams focus was so caviler the they didn't realize that by choosing to strip the code back to zero - that they were going to piss people off? Do you think that if they could have seen a way to keep all that Legacy was and still build what they wanted X to be that they would have?"

Huh? I don't believe I ever said that. Seems like you are inferring it. First of all, could they have written a 64-bit update from FCP "legacy"? Sure. Absolutely, Avid and Adobe have done just that. Did they choose to "re-imagine" an approach to editing and that required some trade-offs? Yes, I believe that's the route they took. I believe they are banking on the slow replacement/upgrade schedules of most shops to buy them time. Most people will continue on FCP 7 for at least another year to get serious work done. So it's a calculated risk.

[Bill Davis] "X is literally driven by it. It's not a bolt-on - it's the core of the whole program."

While that may be true, it still doesn't change what I said, which is that the benefit of this is ONLY INSIDE the open app, events and projects. This doesn't translate into asset management software, which is what you and others keep trying to imply. You may well be correct, but please show me any evidence of this. So far, what I see, is no more advanced than what Avid has been doing since 1989 and quite frankly is less than what's there in MC6 today. The database structure is simply a lift from Aperture applied to video. It may work with 1,000s of pictures, but let's see if that same approach works with 1,000s of projects and 100s of 1,000s of video clips.

[Bill Davis] " think they are. The first level build is leaner, requires fewer keystrokes to do more functions, and presents new rapid and agile editing functions than I believe Legacy did. I know that many editors were exceptionally fluid and fast in Legacy - and that over it's decade, it had a lot of great stuff for the "power user""

For every more agile function, there are others that take 2 or 3 extra steps or workarounds to achieve. Not better. Not faster. Just different. Again, you are arguing the editing points and ignoring the actual question - asset management.

[Bill Davis] "Granted I was stuck in DV with a Quadra 840 AV with Legacy V1,(IIRC), and computers have come a long way - but here I am with a laptop and firewire drive editing HDSLR footage faster and delivering work faster with X then I ever managed with my MacPro and Studio 3 after 10 years of solid practice."

Hmmm... Well I've had similar experiences, although I was using FCP1 with a CineWave and cutting HD, so DV would have been a blessing ;-) In any case, I don't necessarily come to the same conclusions.

- Oliver

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


Return to posts index

Chris Harlan
Re: Range-based keywording: unique to FCP X?
on Apr 7, 2012 at 3:22:29 am

I agree with everything you said in the previous post, except I have a few qualms with:

[Oliver Peters] "Yes, I believe that's the route they took. I believe they are banking on the slow replacement/upgrade schedules of most shops to buy them time. Most people will continue on FCP 7 for at least another year to get serious work done. So it's a calculated risk.
"


I believe they started out that way, and it may be the way that things are still going, but I also think there is an excellent chance that derailment has (or will) occurred based on the pressure of sales in vastly more profitable areas. It strikes me that anyone associated with the Pro Apps team would be striving mightily to get themselves some iAction. Its the only place where mid-management fortunes have any real potential of coming to pass. While I can't discount individual acts of dedication and selflessness, I also can't fault anyone for wanting to get their behinds behind allThings-i.

As to most people continuing for another year, I'd have to say that in my neck of the woods any last ditch effort needs to come no later than this Fall.


Return to posts index

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