FORUMS: list search recent posts

Re: After a year has perception of FCPX changed?

COW Forums : Apple Final Cut Pro X Debates

<< PREVIOUS   •   VIEW ALL   •   PRINT   •   NEXT >>
alban egger
Re: After a year has perception of FCPX changed?
on May 27, 2012 at 7:29:19 pm

[Andrew Kimery] " I wonder how many people see the point updates as Apple trying to patch a broken production where as a new version many times carries w/it the air of a fresh/revitalized product and new features."

So far the updates of FCPX were not at all tryingto patch a broken product but they simply brought new features. The RE-LINK wash´t broken, it wasn´t even there. Broadcast monitoring was missing


Return to posts index

David Cherniack
Re: After a year has perception of FCPX changed?
on May 27, 2012 at 8:50:45 pm

I believe Andrew was talking about the perception of FCPX as broken, not whether it is or not.

David
AllinOneFilms.com


Return to posts index

Bill Davis
Re: After a year has perception of FCPX changed?
on May 27, 2012 at 11:44:12 pm

Since this is just all speculation and chatter, here's my question.

What else could Apple have done given the reality of the situation surrounding FCP?

In my estimation, that situation was:

A) a target niche of video producers divided into vastly discrete camps from video hobbyists to movie production professionals - with huge numbers of sub-groups in between with differing needs.

B) a rapidly and revolutionarily underlying desktop OS platform transformation taking place(Leopard to Snow Leporad to Lion) simultaneously.

C) the emergence of Mobile and the Apps culture driving huge shifts in information demand - including video.

And into that vortex, you're going to launch a totally re-imagined product that has to be poised to take advantage of the changing landscape of how and when people need to edit and deploy video?

I mean come on. This is not the 1980s any more. Cameras don't cost $100,000. You don't need teems of engineers to take care of them. I can assemble a dozen cameras with a few phone calls to meet any need I see - and so can you.

If you or I spy a truly or unique situation that deserves preservation on video, that used to be exclusively a "call a professional" situation. Today it's simply not.

A mile around wherever you're sitting today is unheard of video production power sitting on closet shelves and in teenagers bedrooms. Your neighbors likely have quality camcorders, the skateboard kiddies have GoPros, and everyone has HD CelPhones - and all the desktop computers in your neighborhood have the capabilities of editing software.

And worse yet (or better, depending on your orientation!), any one of the video professionals here can probably show up in your neighborhood with a roller bag and do fully professional video production with nothing more than a half hour of setup time - we all have the gear AND the expertise and we can go anywhere at the drop of a hat without an OB van in tow.

Like it or not, that's a massive shift in things.

So if you were tasked with designing software to meet the needs of the largest swath of all these new "video producers" honestly, would you make the design goal to create software where the number ONE criteria is "it has to have operate so much like FCP-Legacy so it doesn't make those users annoyed?"

I personally wouldn't put that in the top two dozen design list criteria.

Legacy had to go away because the larger video production world is moving away from what it was great at. Not ALL of the production world, certainly, but enough of it to really matter.

Legacy was a response to the way video was done when Legacy was growing up.

X was a response to real technological change in the way video production increasingly happens now. Cameras everywhere. Cheap cameras. More outlets. Less broadcast, more internet. Less opportunity to "crack" the movie business, more opportunities to "crack" the business video game since every business with more than a dozen employees uses video.

(As an aside, In my youth, I never went into a "shopping center or store" where video was on a screen other than in a department or store selling TV sets - and today you can't go into a mall without walking past 100 video screens playing content everywhere you look. Times have totally changed in that way.)

X makes damn good video right now. And next year will probably make even better video. And will handle audio better. And over the years, I think it will become popular and more productive precisely because it's core features are focused on helping users make order out of chaos, (tagging search, library functions) make fast assembly the rule (range based work and magnetism), and agile deployment (its sharing features.)

Those things are needed by more people in a connected world awash in video than the ability to send your audio to an out of house composer and/or a colorist and even those "high end" piping functions have clearly been planned for in the X future.

It'll probably take a few more years for the X plumbing to become complete. But that's fine with me. It's a wicked fast general cutting tool that handles everything I've been throwing at it lately, and travels by my side comfortably now rather than waiting for me to get back to the studio to get the real work done.

And those attributes are more important to me today, because that's what I've discovered I actually need in my day to day work.

I need a great PERSONAL video editing solution that does 80% of all video functions out of the gate. Not an "industrial shop" solution held back to get the top 5% of high-end features just right for a sub set of it's users.

So I think Apple did a great job of figuring out the right feature mix to start with.

If you see things differently - post away.

If you really think Apple should have held off and released a more fully featured but far more complex HollyWood Suite Editing Tool - and hoped that the masses would have loved that larger beast via the "halo" effect - make the case.

I think they released a killer 'personal editing tool" based around wildly new thinking that took most of us half a year or more of constant use to really begin to come to grips with - and are now growing it very rapidly into an amazing modern content creation app that can handle most tasks tossed at it right now by people outside of "large facility" workflows.

Right call, IMO.

Floor's open.

"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


John Davidson
Mine Has Changed!
on May 28, 2012 at 2:41:40 am

I'm starting to love it, which is hard to believe. I love it's integration with Aperture - suddenly I have all our home movies and iPhone videos accessible to create those family moments that have required a colossal pain in the butt to edit up till now. I love it's integration with iTunes - now I can confidently organize our music libraries in iTunes for SFX roles and fun stuff like that, right in the editor.

What got me on board was the frame accurate playback of FCPX in the latest version with AJA and Blackmagic. Then we tested the BMG Media Express for digitize, and dang it it wasn't easier and better than working in FCP7. Now we have even less reasons to use FCP7.

I think some of the other things that have really brought me on board was the re-use of metadata for future projects. We sometimes make a dozen promos based off a handful of episodes of shows - so we're constantly re-doing clip reels. Add in Motions 'build your own effects' options and we're sold.

Now for the hard part - finding good editors that can work on FCPX. It's going to be a while before we can be experts at it, but we're making the switch now. CS6 didn't do it for us (LOVE so many of it's updates though!) - but we're starting to think FCPX can.


Return to posts index

Mark Dobson
Re: After a year has perception of FCPX changed?
on May 28, 2012 at 8:07:08 am

[Bill Davis] "I think they released a killer 'personal editing tool" based around wildly new thinking that took most of us half a year or more of constant use to really begin to come to grips with - and are now growing it very rapidly into an amazing modern content creation app that can handle most tasks tossed at it right now by people outside of "large facility" workflows."

I'm with you on this Bill.

Despite some really irksome missing functions like not being able to selectively copy attributes, or do a one click audio dissolve etc etc FCPX has become the replacement editing solution from FCP7 for me.

A big point you make in the quote above is the fact that it does take a long period to reorient oneself to working with FCPX. It is not the same as other non-linear edit packages and I think a lot of people will have immediately run into problems by trying to edit in the same manner as they had in FCP7, and failing or getting into a muddle immediately.

I adopted FCPX from the start ( very nearly 12months ago! ) and apart from DVD Studio Pro haven't used
Final Cut Studio at all in the last year.

I went through a disorienting 3 month period where either through the buggy early versions of the software or my own ineptitude I ran into huge difficulties with content crashes and force quits - it felt like the central kernel at the heart of the software just couldn't cope with more than one thing at a time.

But nowadays crashes are a rare occurrence and since version 10.0.4 every thing that should happen, does happen.

I actually think that FCPX offers a really flexible approach to editing. And I have every confidence that the next update will address even more of the 'missing features' that people gripe about.

But in terms of addressing the topic of this thread 'After a year has perception of FCPX changed?' I would say yes and no.

I think a lot of people made up their minds almost immediately that FCPX use didn't look right for them and some of those will have tried it again following the updates and introduction of Broadcast Monitoring and the ability to export XML, to communicate with other systems.

I don't know whether we will ever discover the real reason why Apple chose to EOL Final Cut Studio, licensing issues? A clean slate?, but the fact that it was knocked on the head had a huge impact on the perceptions towards FCPX at its launch.

I think there was a real disappointment that such a robust system had been discarded in favour for a, on initial investigation, substantially cut-back version.

And Apple must have been profoundly shocked by the initial, very fierce, negative response to the launch and they now seem to be a lot more open about future developments for this software to the extent of publishing a roadmap, a hint that there will be a return to having a dedicated source monitor and enhanced audio capability.

So I think that FCPX will slowly regain any ground it has lost as a result of the miss handled launch.

But choice of NLE seems to similar to choice of religion and we know firmly entrenched peoples views are towards that, nothing will change those types of perceptions.


Return to posts index

Herb Sevush
Re: After a year has perception of FCPX changed?
on May 28, 2012 at 11:45:20 pm

[Bill Davis] "What else could Apple have done given the reality of the situation surrounding FCP?"


They could have ported FCP7 to 64bit, using the redesign to optimize performance, clean out the bugs, organize the menu's etc.

They could have brought out something like FCPX, called it something else, while continuing support for and even updating Legacy, announcing that X would be the future but they weren't throwing out the work flows of their current users.

They could have spun-off / sold off Legacy while throwing their energy into X.

They could have done a lot of things. They had plenty of options, many of which would have made both you and me happy. As is their right, they chose a path that didn't. I don't have to still kiss their ring for doing so do I?

And while you make a good argument for why Apple did what they did, you make no allowances for why many of their users felt screwed by them for doing so. I'm not sympathetic to Apple's reasons when they are at cross purposes to my needs.

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


Return to posts index


Richard Herd
Re: After a year has perception of FCPX changed?
on May 29, 2012 at 3:13:40 pm

[Bill Davis] "wicked fast general cutting tool"

Word.


Return to posts index

Greg Andonian
Re: After a year has perception of FCPX changed?
on May 28, 2012 at 5:04:17 am

alban egger So far the updates of FCPX were not at all trying to patch a broken product but they simply brought new features. The RE-LINK wash´t broken, it wasn´t even there.

If Apple had named this program something other than Final Cut Pro, it would be easier for me to agree with that. A lot of the features that were missing from X did exist in previous versions of FCP, and that's why their addition is seen as a patch or repair...

______________________________________________
"THAT'S our fail-safe point. Up until here, we still have enough track to stop the locomotive before it plunges into the ravine... But after this windmill it's the future or bust."


Return to posts index

olof ekbergh
Re: After a year has perception of FCPX changed?
on May 28, 2012 at 1:45:30 pm

I now find FCPX to be a great solution for our facility.

We used fcp7 but never as our main solution. M100 was always our main editor, with AE as our compositing tool, and we did most cc in M100 but often used Color XML round tripping with M100.

I tried FCPX when it first came out but it just seemed too buggy and sluggish. I kept trying it as each update came out. I really liked the DB aspect and I also actually really like the magnetic timeline. But the lack of proper monitoring and sluggish behavior kept us from adapting it.

I finally decided to try a new iMac, top of the line with everything maxed. Wow FCPX runs great on it and the Matrox MX02 runs perfectly.

I completed our last project on FCPX and as I was really getting into how it works I kept getting more impressed. I can do everything in one app now. The cc is really very good once you spend some time with it. Even the audio tools are decent, compression limit and EQ works quite well, even auto noise removal is not bad.

FCPX works great with EXcam and AF100 native formats, we always transcoded those before. This is a big time saver.

Our work is a mix of industrial training promo and safety videos. We also do commercials promoting tourism in the White Mountains, and a lot of WEB vids and kiosks for our clients. We also do some long form doc work.

I am now in the process of importing all our projects that we change and update on a yearly bases into FCPX. We do safety boating videos for a company that produces the safety courses for most of the states in the US. And they keep needing updates as laws change. The magnetic timeline makes these changes a breeze.

I think the biggest problem for us was that our 4 year old 8core MP's just were not fast enough. I am very happy with the low price of our new iMac and how quiet the TB RAID is, you no longer have to keep the SAS raid in another room to be able to edit.

I think Apple needs to make a big point of encouraging updated hardware with FCPX or editors will be disappointed in the performance. Personally I am very happy to see the end of the noisy tower computers and RAID I closures.

A new suite is now possible for very low price.

iMac $2,600.00
TB raid $1,600.00
MX02 or similar <1,000.00
FCPX etc. $500.00
SDI monitor $2,500.00

This is really amazing, compared to what this type of performance cost a few years ago. My first SD system cost almost $70,000.00. And a Betacam was $100,000.00+ back then. We are really seeing the democratization of video production, and I am all for it.

Yes lots more competition keeps you on your toes but there are also many more cients and outlets for good video.

Olof Ekbergh


Return to posts index


Craig Shields
Re: After a year has perception of FCPX changed?
on May 28, 2012 at 3:22:10 pm

I think Apple needs to make a big point of encouraging updated hardware with FCPX or editors will be disappointed in the performance.

I think that's key. My MBP chokes on it and it frustrates the heck out of me. While we do have an edit suite. I mostly use the MBP cause I'm in the field most of the time. We have Premiere 5.5 and I have been demoing CS6. I disagree with those calling it FCP8. It has nice features but the stupid stuff it does with target tracks and other annoying stuff makes me miss FCP7.



Return to posts index

Joseph Owens
Re: After a year has perception of FCPX changed?
on May 28, 2012 at 9:13:09 pm

[olof ekbergh] " We are really seeing the democratization of video production, and I am all for it."

People who use this buzz-phrase must have a particularly perverted sense of "democracy".
Video production has always been open to anyone who could afford it, there is no monarchy or dictatorship involved -- its just cheaper now and so is the product.

Maybe its just a semantic distinction, but the term "popularized" might be more accurate.

Like its "popular" to discuss advanced quantum mechanics and cosmology at parties without any qualifications or understanding of the field.

jPo

You mean "Old Ben"? Ben Kenobi?


Return to posts index

Bill Davis
Re: After a year has perception of FCPX changed?
on May 28, 2012 at 9:43:02 pm

[Joseph Owens] "People who use this buzz-phrase must have a particularly perverted sense of "democracy"."

It's just a meme.

In the internet era, a meme is a a useful landing on the staircase roughly adjacent to the emoticon and the acronym to save bandwidth.

After all, the guy didn't just use a small "d" - he "verbified" it properly as "democratization" which we all know in 21st century videospeak is supposed to call to mind images of teenagers stealing our livelihoods with their "HD" cel phone cameras.

The proper response isn't to call into question the term itself - but rather to form a mental image of a mall-rat, or skatepark kid with a half-busted go-pro getting hired to shoot the next project YOU wanted to land - in exchange for a $30 trade credit at GameStop.

(muttered: "damn kids")

; )

"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: After a year has perception of FCPX changed?
on May 29, 2012 at 4:04:05 pm

[Joseph Owens] "Like its "popular" to discuss advanced quantum mechanics and cosmology at parties without any qualifications or understanding of the field."

What parties are you going to? ;0)


Return to posts index

Liam Hall
Re: After a year has perception of FCPX changed?
on May 28, 2012 at 1:22:11 pm

[alban egger] "So far the updates of FCPX were not at all tryingto patch a broken product but they simply brought new features. The RE-LINK wash´t broken, it wasn´t even there. Broadcast monitoring was missing
"

The point is, those features should have been there from the start. Apple said it was a PRO tool, it wasn't. We were told our jaws would drop, they didn't.

A year later Apple are busy playing catch-up; adding features to FCPX that were basic functions of FCP. Though, it will take a whole lot more to rebuild the trust with their professional users they so catastrophically lost when they EOL'd FCP and replaced it with a pro/am product.

That said, I've always quite liked FCPX and keep checking it out with each new release in the vein hope they will sort out the glaring errors in its design.

Liam Hall
Director/DoP/Editor
http://www.liamhall.net


Return to posts index

Bill Davis
Re: After a year has perception of FCPX changed?
on May 28, 2012 at 5:45:04 pm

[Liam Hall] "That said, I've always quite liked FCPX and keep checking it out with each new release in the vein hope they will sort out the glaring errors in its design."

I'm honestly curious about this Liam,

What do you consider these "glaring errors in it's design" to be?

Since increasing numbers of us here are editing with it as our primary NLE software - and some of us have been transitioned for months exclusively into X - and we're getting all our work done in a very timely manner - this seems to imply that any such "glaring errors" are relative only to some workflows.

We've also seen time after time significant and deep misunderstanding about what the software can and can't actually do - and have seen many examples of people who might not initially "like" how X approaches a particular task - but have to acknowledge that the task can certainly be completed if one is simply willing to take the time to learn the new way it's implemented in X.

Discussing this kind of thing can really help people decide in a very practical way if their needs might or might not match what X does.

So I'n truly curious. What doesn't X do that you MUST do?

In your terms, what are these "glaring errors in design?"

Thanks.

"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


Liam Hall
Re: After a year has perception of FCPX changed?
on May 28, 2012 at 7:04:06 pm

[Bill Davis] "So I'n truly curious. What doesn't X do that you MUST do?"

It's not necessarily what X doesn't do, it's what X doesn't do well.

The timeline isn't designed with complex editing in mind. The file structure and media management aren't designed with a busy editor or facility in mind. And the trackless timeline, with its roles/stems, connected clips and storylines... ...well, that's all simply mindless...

Among other things, I find "Events" and "Projects" ill-conceived, and whilst I know there are workarounds, I'm not convinced FCPX is designed with editing in mind. I'm sure FCPX looked good on Randy's powerpoint presentation though.

Liam Hall
Director/DoP/Editor
http://www.liamhall.net


Return to posts index

Steve Connor
Re: After a year has perception of FCPX changed?
on May 28, 2012 at 7:06:10 pm

[Liam Hall] "The timeline isn't designed with complex editing in mind. The file structure and media management aren't designed with a busy editor or facility in mind. And the trackless timeline, with its roles/stems, connected clips and storylines... ...well, that's all simply mindless...

Among other things, I find "Events" and "Projects" ill-conceived, and whilst I know there are workarounds, I'm not convinced FCPX is designed with editing in mind."


Interesting opinion, many of us will disagree with you.

Steve Connor
"Sometimes it's fun to poke an angry bear with a stickl"
Adrenalin Television


Return to posts index

Clint Wardlow
Re: After a year has perception of FCPX changed?
on May 28, 2012 at 8:34:14 pm

well, I have to admit after reading all the posts in this and the original thread, I am more willing to give it a go. I will probably purchase a copy after the next update.

I'm still not convinced I can make the magnetic timeline work in my particular workflow, but I guess it will give it a shot (even though the thought of the time I will have to invest to get competent kind of depresses me).

Overall, I still think the general perception (outside of the COW forum) is still pretty negative concerning FCPX. Though Apple has made strides to fix many of the complaints about the original release, I don't think the success some editors are having is getting out there into the collective conscious of the movie world. I think the general perception is still as if it were in the 10.0 version.


Return to posts index

Bill Davis
Re: After a year has perception of FCPX changed?
on May 28, 2012 at 9:25:58 pm

[Clint Wardlow] "I'm still not convinced I can make the magnetic timeline work in my particular workflow, but I guess it will give it a shot (even though the thought of the time I will have to invest to get competent kind of depresses me)."

Clint, the big secret is that the "magnetic timeline" is actually pretty trivial to wrap your reflexes around. Bite the bullet and give it two weeks. The magnetism will become immaterial faster than you can imagine. It's absolutely a red herring. If you can edit without magnetism, you can edit with it. It's no more complicated than driving with a clutch or an automatic car. You get conditioned to expecting the behavior or each quite rapidly.

The real challenge in X is not actually learning how to do basic editing on it. I can teach anyone new to editing how to do that in a couple of days - for really experienced editors who have extensive "muscle memory" from other NLE approaches to overcome it might take a few weeks or even months to re-program your reactions - particularly if you have to work the old muscles concurrently with building the new ones - that can be a challenge for editors who cant't take the time to "deprogram" and "reprogram" their thinking due to mission critical on-going work.

But trust me, learning basic editing in X is actually extremely straightforward.

It's taking the time to learn the truly new stuff, the relationships of metadata flow, and where the hundreds of hidden drawers that contain useful tools are in X that takes months and months to explore.

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

Clint Wardlow
Re: After a year has perception of FCPX changed?
on May 28, 2012 at 9:46:08 pm

[Bill Davis] "But trust me, learning basic editing in X is actually extremely straightforward."

It's not the basic stuff that worries me. It is the complex layers of image and audio that I use so often, that worries me.


Return to posts index

Bill Davis
Re: After a year has perception of FCPX changed?
on May 28, 2012 at 9:54:52 pm

[Clint Wardlow] "It's not the basic stuff that worries me. It is the complex layers of image and audio that I use so often, that worries me."

Understood.

But it doesn't change the fact that you can't really know if X is going to meet all of your present expectations - fail to meet one or more critical ones - or (and here's the real challenge) if your expectations will functionally change given access to new tools that might call all, some, or maybe none of your current standards into question.

Change is afoot. Big change. X is part of that.

It's totally fine if you don't want to change anything in how you do your work.

It's also totally fine if you start walking down the change road like I did - and start to see new and really interesting things that have caused me to question how my entire workflow might change to take advantages of new opportunities that X makes it easier to explore.

In my view, change is often attended by opportunity.

For others, change is often just a big, nasty hassle.

It's up to you to determine which is true for you in relation to this particular tool.

My 2 cents, anyway.

"Before speaking out ask yourself whether your words are true, whether they are respectful and whether they are needed in our civil discussions."-Justice O'Connor


Return to posts index

Richard Herd
Re: After a year has perception of FCPX changed?
on May 29, 2012 at 4:54:46 pm

[Bill Davis] "new and really interesting things that have caused me to question how my entire workflow might change to take advantages of new opportunities that X makes it easier to explore"

Please write these down and share them.
Thanks!


Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: After a year has perception of FCPX changed?
on May 29, 2012 at 4:14:23 am

[Clint Wardlow] "It's not the basic stuff that worries me. It is the complex layers of image and audio that I use so often, that worries me."

Ok. Fair enough to feel cautious.

I think we should start talking concrete examples. What are you worried about exactly?


Return to posts index

Clint Wardlow
Re: After a year has perception of FCPX changed?
on May 29, 2012 at 5:49:25 am

[Jeremy Garchow] " think we should start talking concrete examples. What are you worried about exactly?"

A prime example would be a projection piece I edited for an art installation. It was designed to be projected through cheesecloth stretched in front of a piece of sculpture onto the white wall behind it. The cheese cloth presented an ethereal ghost image in front and the white wall captured the brighter image behind the sculpture.

It had a soundtrack comprised of various industrial noises. One of the sounds was a long persistent machine hum that would raise and lower through out the piece (not the main sound clip--but underlying). I had multiple compound images of the sculpture creating the piece, blended with various other shots I had taken of machinery in motion. However I had one lengthy image of construction workers that ran through out. This image would fade in and out to various levels of opacity based on the sound of the machine hum. It would never be completely gone, but often dominated the blended images then fade away. In FCP7 this was fairly easy to accomplish through key frame manipulation. But being as neither this image or the underlying sound was "primary," I am not sure how I would get the same results with the same precision in FCPX.


Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: After a year has perception of FCPX changed?
on May 29, 2012 at 4:13:41 pm

[Clint Wardlow] "I am not sure how I would get the same results with the same precision in FCPX.
"


if you're curious, I can show you a few ideas.


Return to posts index

Clint Wardlow
Re: After a year has perception of FCPX changed?
on May 29, 2012 at 4:21:23 pm

[Jeremy Garchow] "if you're curious, I can show you a few ideas."

Actually that would be great. That is one reason I posed the question. Although I wonder if we should move this over to the FCPX techniques form once I have FCPX in hand?


Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: After a year has perception of FCPX changed?
on May 29, 2012 at 4:39:40 pm

[Clint Wardlow] "Actually that would be great. That is one reason I posed the question. Although I wonder if we should move this over to the FCPX techniques form once I have FCPX in hand?"

Yes. Yes indeed.


Return to posts index

Richard Herd
Re: After a year has perception of FCPX changed?
on May 29, 2012 at 4:53:16 pm

[Clint Wardlow] "It is the complex layers of image and audio that I use so often, that worries me"

Not so stuff to learn either. The really difficult part for me has been abandoning "capture scratch" mentality.


Return to posts index

Liam Hall
Re: After a year has perception of FCPX changed?
on May 28, 2012 at 9:05:07 pm

[Steve Connor] "Interesting opinion, many of us will disagree with you."

Yes, and many will agree with me.

There's still much I do like about X and I'll continue to use it for quick, simple edits. I'd like to know how some of you cope with the disappearing in and out marks? That drives me mad...

Liam Hall
Director/DoP/Editor
http://www.liamhall.net


Return to posts index

Steve Connor
Re: After a year has perception of FCPX changed?
on May 28, 2012 at 9:07:59 pm

[Liam Hall] "Yes, and many will agree with me.

There's still much I do like about X and I'll continue to use it for quick, simple edits. I'd like to know how some of you cope with the disappearing in and out marks? That drives me mad...
"


Shhhhh! you'll start the PIOP debate all over again!

I now use the "F" key and it bothers me much less than it used to

Steve Connor
"Sometimes it's fun to poke an angry bear with a stickl"
Adrenalin Television


Return to posts index

David Lawrence
Re: After a year has perception of FCPX changed?
on May 28, 2012 at 11:25:03 pm

[Steve Connor] "Shhhhh! you'll start the PIOP debate all over again!

I now use the "F" key and it bothers me much less than it used to"


How well is that "F" key working for you in the timeline, Steve?

Ok, I'll go back outside now. ;)

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


Return to posts index

John Davidson
Re: After a year has perception of FCPX changed?
on May 28, 2012 at 11:39:49 pm

[David Lawrence] "How well is that "F" key working for you in the timeline, Steve? "

I'm not totally sure I get the joke, David. Is it because if you switch timelines with an i/o selected and come back to the original time line, the i/o selection is gone? That's sort of annoying I guess, but you could always blade tool your i/o and then trim them as you wanted - then overwrite or insert.

I'm still new at it, but there's probably a way to use the i/o to make the selection a standalone clip on the primary storyline. Just trying to figure out what would cause you grief by the loss of i/o in the timeline aside from the obviousness of having to reset them.

John Davidson | President / Creative Director | Magic Feather Inc.


Return to posts index

Craig Seeman
Re: After a year has perception of FCPX changed?
on May 29, 2012 at 12:40:48 am

[David Lawrence] "How well is that "F" key working for you in the timeline, Steve? "

You can go between Timeline and Event Browser without losing the Range in the Timeline. It's lost if you select something else in the Timeline.

I think the issue the programmers need to look at is Range vs Clip selection. Making a Clip Selection (not a Range) shouldn't remove a previously created Range.



Return to posts index

John Davidson
Re: After a year has perception of FCPX changed?
on May 29, 2012 at 12:42:56 am

That makes sense. I suppose markers or blade tooling are the workarounds so you don't lose your place.

John Davidson | President / Creative Director | Magic Feather Inc.


Return to posts index

Walter Soyka
Re: After a year has perception of FCPX changed?
on May 29, 2012 at 12:50:53 am

[Craig Seeman] " I think the issue the programmers need to look at is Range vs Clip selection. Making a Clip Selection (not a Range) shouldn't remove a previously created Range. "

Not to resurrect the PIOP debate, but I think one of the conclusions from that was that the only selection model in FCPX is range-based selection, and that storing potentially overlapping ranges is a challenge because of clippish constructs like favorites and keyword ranges which present to the user as clips, but do not function like clips.

Working around this design limitation (or solving the problem, depending on your point of view) requires both a lot of developer work and a step away from the ideological purity of FCPX.

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

Craig Seeman
Re: After a year has perception of FCPX changed?
on May 29, 2012 at 1:31:29 am

[Walter Soyka] "and that storing potentially overlapping ranges is a challenge because of clippish constructs like favorites and keyword ranges which present to the user as clips, but do not function like clips."

Overlapping Ranges is not possible but neither was that with PIOP on FCP7. At least with Ranges I can save multiple Ranges on a Clip. Keywords can overlap on the other hand.

[Walter Soyka] "Working around this design limitation (or solving the problem, depending on your point of view) requires both a lot of developer work and a step away from the ideological purity of FCPX."

I'm not absolutely sure it's the same issue on the Timeline where Favorites don't exist. The issue is that a Clip Selection (which is not the same as a Range) loses the Range selection.

If you're referring to In OR Out points, yes, there is only Range (In and Out pair) but I don't find that much of an issue (at least for me).



Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: After a year has perception of FCPX changed?
on May 29, 2012 at 4:06:31 pm

[Walter Soyka] "Not to resurrect the PIOP debate,"

Did someone say PIOP?

[Walter Soyka] "Working around this design limitation (or solving the problem, depending on your point of view) requires both a lot of developer work and a step away from the ideological purity of FCPX."

Well, I guess that's one view of it. For those who want to read on PIOPs, read this really long and involved thread. It's really long. And involved.

http://forums.creativecow.net/thread/335/34096#34787


Return to posts index

Walter Soyka
Re: After a year has perception of FCPX changed?
on May 29, 2012 at 4:25:33 pm

[Jeremy Garchow] "Well, I guess that's one view of it."

I was trying to offer an even-handed summary. Sincere apologies if I've failed at that.

How about this?

There are some legit reasons why traditional PIOPs in FCPX are not be a good idea. Favorites cover all traditional PIOP use cases, and offer other advantages besides. Learning to use the F key to save a range as a favorite requires some muscle re-memorizing (and with it the pain of losing marked ranges until marking favorites is habit), but once learned, FCPX's favorites have no discernible downsides over PIOPs. Though FCPX's favorites could be improved (notably by allowing overlaps), adding FCP7-style PIOPs would require spending a lot of developer time and adding some potentially strange abstractions to FCPX for arguably negligible benefit.

I do believe this is one of the areas where the user needs to adjust to a different way of thinking and working to reap the benefits of a different (and not inferior!) system.

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: After a year has perception of FCPX changed?
on May 29, 2012 at 4:57:43 pm

Shift-F


Return to posts index

Craig Seeman
Re: After a year has perception of FCPX changed?
on May 29, 2012 at 12:27:26 am

F key. Not only don't they disappear when making them Favorites, you can have multiple Favorites (in and out points) per clip.

Granted the bother is remembering to hit the F key before you click on something else. I do wish it tagged a Range (in and out) as a Favorite automatically when you clicked on something else.



Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: After a year has perception of FCPX changed?
on May 28, 2012 at 8:29:18 pm

[Liam Hall] "The timeline isn't designed with complex editing in mind. The file structure and media management aren't designed with a busy editor or facility in mind. And the trackless timeline, with its roles/stems, connected clips and storylines... ...well, that's all simply mindless...

Among other things, I find "Events" and "Projects" ill-conceived, and whilst I know there are workarounds, I'm not convinced FCPX is designed with editing in mind. I'm sure FCPX looked good on Randy's powerpoint presentation though."


I think this is all relative. I have a much different view of this. What we see today does not represent a "final" product. It represents the beginnings of an infrastructure. It still needs work, sure, but for an out of the box sharing solution, it's a very decent start, and I wouldn't say it is ill conceived.

First,let me say that I can understand your frustration. X is a totally different beast when it comes to media management and sharing. I am not saying you don't understand it, I'm not discounting your expertise and knowledge, but speaking as someone who is trying to figure this out, I will say it's really different. Certainly different than fcp7, but different from the other big NLEs as well. It most closely rivals Avid's and media100's finder level bin/timeline system, but yet it's different than those as well.

If you have a SAN, especially an XSAN system, the true "facility" level that's built right on to X makes a whole lot of sense. I understand that working with local drives and multiple machines isn't ideal at this point, but if you are a SAN facility, the media management support in X, I find, to be a pretty good start. In my opinion, there was some thought put in to how to share media, Project, Events between many users, relatively easily. The events and projects are separate, and for good reason. The method employed in how X can reference media into many Events means that people can have their own Events, but reference the same media without doubling/tripling media. There's also the Merge Events and other media management commands (such as consolidate). Instead of sending an XML of a bin, timeline, or sending a project with those things as one would in 7, you simply send the Event or Project file itself, and since X has what some might see as a "rigid" file structure, it actually works to an advantage. Quit fcpx, place an event/project in the proper place, relaunch and everything is connected. I imagine at some point we might get an "import Project" dialogue so that you won't have to shut down X to refresh the libraries, and the file system will be taken care of automatically (similar to how the iMovie project import works today).

Sure, some more work is needed, such a being able to trim if you need to dupe media for whatever reason, more robust XML support so that metadata can be passed around outside of fcpx and reimported if need be, and Project only timeline conforms.

Custom filters are also a bit of a kludge at this point, but Andreas Kiel has been working on system that helps to mitigate some of that: http://www.spherico.de/filmtools/MTT/index.html

So while it's not perfect, the starting infrastructure is actually pretty interesting, even if all the pieces aren't quite there. It is obvious that Apple has put thought and time in to this, and is thinking of "facility" level sharing. The "SAN Locations" (which serve as an Event/Project check in/check out system of sorts) that are built in to X work pretty well. I think that there's not a lot of people that have SAN's on this forum, and that's understandable, but if you do, I encourage you to take a good look at it. In my mind, it's a rather decent and forward looking start of a shared file system built right in to the NLE, even if it doesn't appear that way at first.

I also think that thunderbolt will make having smaller SAN based systems cheaper and easier than ever, but that is just more speculation.

I'm not saying this system will work for everyone, or even that you will like it, but in my opinion, there's some real thought put in to how this system will work, and it will take sometime for it to get there.

Jeremy


Return to posts index

Liam Hall
Re: After a year has perception of FCPX changed?
on May 28, 2012 at 10:51:03 pm

[Jeremy Garchow] "So while it's not perfect, the starting infrastructure is actually pretty interesting, even if all the pieces aren't quite there"

I agree Jeremy. That is why I'm still running it alongside my other NLEs. FCPX is promising, but Apple need to deliver on those promises. More importantly if they want to change peoples' perception about FCPX and be taken seriously again, they need improve their communication with pro users. I think we can all agree on that...

Liam Hall
Director/DoP/Editor
http://www.liamhall.net


Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: After a year has perception of FCPX changed?
on May 29, 2012 at 2:21:35 pm

[Liam Hall] ". More importantly if they want to change peoples' perception about FCPX and be taken seriously again, they need improve their communication with pro users. I think we can all agree on that..."

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. Who's perception do they need to change and why?

As far as communication, yeah, it hasnt happened for the last 10 years from Apple, I can't imagine it getting much better.

Although, since the release of X, Apple has stated clear intentions, and delivered on them, even though we had no idea fcs3 would be EOLd. That was an unfortunate side effect that won't matter in another year or less.

Jeremy


Return to posts index

Herb Sevush
Re: After a year has perception of FCPX changed?
on May 29, 2012 at 2:28:18 pm

[Jeremy Garchow] "even though we had no idea fcs3 would be EOLd. That was an unfortunate side effect that won't matter in another year or less. "

Maybe not to you. It will always matter to me.

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


Return to posts index

Craig Seeman
Re: After a year has perception of FCPX changed?
on May 29, 2012 at 3:10:05 pm

[Herb Sevush] "Maybe not to you. It will always matter to me."

One person does not make a market. People who move to FCPX as their first NLE and people who make judgements based on ROI in their business may not weigh FCP legacy's demise very heavily. Just as people may not weigh what Avid nearly did over 10 years ago nor Adobe's choice not to enter the Apple market for some time after previously supporting it or Discreet/Autodesk killing Edit.

The A companies all have a history of decisions that concerned editors and facilities. As time goes on the market passes that by.



Return to posts index

Herb Sevush
Re: After a year has perception of FCPX changed?
on May 29, 2012 at 3:14:50 pm

[Craig Seeman] "One person does not make a market."

Craig, what part of "I" did you not understand? I never said my feelings represented anything other than my individual feelings.

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


Return to posts index

Craig Seeman
Re: After a year has perception of FCPX changed?
on May 29, 2012 at 3:30:54 pm

I . . . just like to paint things in broader strokes because I am not the only person who might read this. It's just the area that . . . I . . . focus on.



Return to posts index

Herb Sevush
Re: After a year has perception of FCPX changed?
on May 29, 2012 at 4:29:03 pm

[Craig Seeman] "I . . . just like to paint things in broader strokes because I am not the only person who might read this. It's just the area that . . . I . . . focus on."

The way you worded your last post implied that I thought I was the market. Generalize away.

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


Return to posts index

Craig Seeman
Re: After a year has perception of FCPX changed?
on May 29, 2012 at 4:52:52 pm

Sometimes a post is a catalyst for a thought from me, not meant to directly counter what the poster was saying.

Clearly we all have specific priorities and they are important to use whether our workflows are majority or niche. I don't mean to contest that at all. Even if only one person with one workflow needs one feature, it's supremely and justifiably important to that individual.



Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: After a year has perception of FCPX changed?
on May 29, 2012 at 4:18:59 pm

[Herb Sevush] "Maybe not to you. It will always matter to me."

That's fine. It will always matter to me as I we have a legacy library to maintain and update, but if this means that we will essentially move on to a more capable tool, then working in the present on current projects with that tool will be worth it.


Return to posts index

Liam Hall
Re: After a year has perception of FCPX changed?
on May 29, 2012 at 3:03:07 pm

[Jeremy Garchow] "Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. Who's perception do they need to change and why?

As far as communication, yeah, it hasnt happened for the last 10 years from Apple, I can't imagine it getting much better.

Although, since the release of X, Apple has stated clear intentions, and delivered on them, even though we had no idea fcs3 would be EOLd. That was an unfortunate side effect that won't matter in another year or less.

Jeremy"


Who
As you know, there is a growing suspicion among professionals that Apple no longer cares about them or their products - be them hardware or software. Indeed, many long term Apple customers have been purchasing PCs to do their editing, compositing and other work on for the first time in their careers.

Why
Apple claim professional users are important to them - they've said this many times in the last eighteen months. Of course, we are small beer in their global success story and we're a PITA to boot but I'll take them at their word.

I do see a change in their communications strategy lately, but they need to step it up and some if they are to win back the respect they held a couple of short years ago.

Liam Hall
Director/DoP/Editor
http://www.liamhall.net


Return to posts index

Craig Seeman
Re: After a year has perception of FCPX changed?
on May 29, 2012 at 3:22:57 pm

[Liam Hall] "I do see a change in their communications strategy lately, but they need to step it up and some if they are to win back the respect they held a couple of short years ago."

At the recent Blackmagic show in NYC, Apple did an FCPX presentation and had a table and a real live Apple employee (the presenter) there to answer questions. Apparently this is a recent decision as others stated this wasn't the case at the preceding west coast event. We'll see if this is an ongoing change but it seems Apple FaceTime now includes a real in person Apple employee when to comes to asking about FCPX.



Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: After a year has perception of FCPX changed?
on May 29, 2012 at 4:32:48 pm

[Liam Hall] "Who
As you know, there is a growing suspicion among professionals that Apple no longer cares about them or their products - be them hardware or software. Indeed, many long term Apple customers have been purchasing PCs to do their editing, compositing and other work on for the first time in their careers."


Really? I guess in the "Mac only" crowd in my local arena, I know one person who is even thinking about switching. I don't know everyone, and I don't communicate with the world, but from my vantage point, the people I see switching first and the ones switching to CS6, and the ones working with native Red footage as they need all the horsepower they can squeeze out of their machines if they aren't plunking down for a Red Rocket.

I also see that some people have been working in a mixed mac and PC enviro for years, so this is nothing new.

I can understand the suspicion, but it's more of a public relations type of problem at this point. Not one corporation is perfect, and they will all kill something that you are using for no reason but that it didn't make business sense on the 28th page of a spreadsheet.

Apple just happens to be the most recent company to do it.

[Liam Hall] "Why
Apple claim professional users are important to them - they've said this many times in the last eighteen months. Of course, we are small beer in their global success story and we're a PITA to boot but I'll take them at their word.

I do see a change in their communications strategy lately, but they need to step it up and some if they are to win back the respect they held a couple of short years ago."


Well, you can't have it both ways. Which is it?

They have communicated and delivered on their communications. What else more do you need them to say? Whether or not a MacPro is coming?

Look at other companies, do you know when Avid MC7 is coming out or the plans for it?

CS7?

No, some things are still sacred. Even though it might not be what you WANT to hear exactly, I don't think what Apple has said is a lie. i think they are interested and perhaps their view of "pro" is different from your view.

They jury is till out for me, mostly due to FCPX reliability (or lack there of), but as a "pro" software it does somethings much better than other more commonly accepted and mature "pro" software.


Jeremy


Return to posts index

Liam Hall
Re: After a year has perception of FCPX changed?
on May 29, 2012 at 6:49:06 pm

[Jeremy Garchow]

I can understand the suspicion, but it's more of a public relations type of problem at this point.
(EDIT)
Well, you can't have it both ways. Which is it?



W are discussing this in the context of peoples' perception about FCPX, so yes it is mainly a PR issue.

I don't want or expect Apple to be forthcoming with anything other than a brief roadmap of their software and hardware products, but I do expect them to engage fully with professional customers. And by professional, I mean everyone who uses their PRO products at whatever level. They certainly should have a presence at trade shows, and they should do a whole lot more online, creating something with substance, not just make a few marketing films telling us how wonderful their products are.

How difficult is it for their product managers to communicate via email with users? Not very. I get regular emails from Adobe and Avid, plus many Adobe guys frequent this and other forums to answer questions in a grown-up civilised manner without giving away secrets. They even host free webinars offering help and advice with direct access to the team.

Surely, in this day and age a little communication is a the least a customer can expect from a company like Apple. Maybe there's an ap for that...

Liam Hall
Director/DoP/Editor
http://www.liamhall.net


Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: After a year has perception of FCPX changed?
on May 29, 2012 at 7:13:02 pm

[Liam Hall] "I don't want or expect Apple to be forthcoming with anything other than a brief roadmap of their software and hardware products, but I do expect them to engage fully with professional customers. And by professional, I mean everyone who uses their PRO products at whatever level. They certainly should have a presence at trade shows, and they should do a whole lot more online, creating something with substance, not just make a few marketing films telling us how wonderful their products are.

How difficult is it for their product managers to communicate via email with users? Not very. I get regular emails from Adobe and Avid, plus many Adobe guys frequent this and other forums to answer questions in a grown-up civilised manner without giving away secrets. They even host free webinars offering help and advice with direct access to the team.

Surely, in this day and age a little communication is a the least a customer can expect from a company like Apple. Maybe there's an ap for that..."


There's no question that Adobe's communication style is top notch. They are out there, listening.

Apple does things differently.

If the end of FCS has thrown people for a loop, then there's plenty of options out there.

In this regard, nothing has changed from Apple, other than they actually released a potential software "roadmap" and have so far delivered on it. People that have submitted bug reports to Apple have received actual responses asking for more information.

So maybe, Apple's style isn't what you want anymore. That's totally fine. There's a multitude of PC companies that will gladly help you purchase a computer, and do it with a smile, as well as NLE companies that have a public online presence.

Curious, but have you contacted Apple support about FCPX problems? What was your experience?

Jeremy


Return to posts index

Clint Wardlow
Re: After a year has perception of FCPX changed?
on May 29, 2012 at 7:32:37 pm

[Jeremy Garchow] "If the end of FCS has thrown people for a loop, then there's plenty of options out there.

In this regard, nothing has changed from Apple, other than they actually released a potential software "roadmap" and have so far delivered on it. People that have submitted bug reports to Apple have received actual responses asking for more information.

So maybe, Apple's style isn't what you want anymore. That's totally fine. There's a multitude of PC companies that will gladly help you purchase a computer, and do it with a smile, as well as NLE companies that have a public online presence."


Well, this is where a lot of pros felt they were thrown under the bus by Apple. They invested time and lot of money built on the FCS studio paradigm only to have it EOLed with little warning. This does not bolster confidence, especially when you need to invest heavy dollars on hardware and software. So I can see where the trust issue is a factor.

That is where Apple needs to do most of its PR work. To get rid of this perception (right or wrong) that Apple will uncermoniously dump a product that folks have invested into and on which their business depends.

A prime example of this is the way they have handled publicity on where they are going with the Mac Pro. No one really knows what Apple is going to do. Or if they are going to support power computing anymore. We can only make guesses.

But a shop planning a future business model might feel a little leary investing lots of dollars if they feel they will remain in a constant state of uncertainty what Apple is going to do next.


Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: After a year has perception of FCPX changed?
on May 29, 2012 at 7:58:49 pm

[Clint Wardlow] "But a shop planning a future business model might feel a little leary investing lots of dollars if they feel they will remain in a constant state of uncertainty what Apple is going to do next."

I guess for me personally, putting that much faith in a company that I have zero control over is a zero sum game.

We buy computers, they work for a while, not forever.

Apple is still selling the MacPro today, granted it's older hardware. But if I were to buy an Apple computer today, it would be Applecared and guaranteed to work by Apple through that Applecare contract.

Even if I bought a new computer today, it would still be covered for the next three years.

FCP7 was EOLd almost a year ago, I still use it everyday.

These are tools, I see them as replaceable, even if it's going to suck and cost more money.

I don't know, there's plenty of options, if one company makes you feel more secure than the other, go for it.


Return to posts index

Clint Wardlow
Re: After a year has perception of FCPX changed?
on May 29, 2012 at 8:12:09 pm

[Jeremy Garchow] "I guess for me personally, putting that much faith in a company that I have zero control over is a zero sum game.

We buy computers, they work for a while, not forever.

Apple is still selling the MacPro today, granted it's older hardware. But if I were to buy an Apple computer today, it would be Applecared and guaranteed to work by Apple through that Applecare contract.

Even if I bought a new computer today, it would still be covered for the next three years.

FCP7 was EOLd almost a year ago, I still use it everyday.

These are tools, I see them as replaceable, even if it's going to suck and cost more money.

I don't know, there's plenty of options, if one company makes you feel more secure than the other, go for it."


I am not talking about me personally. I am talking about the perception of Apple by many in the business, that five years ago would have had no qualms about investing heavily in Apple products.
Now there is a feeling of uncertainty (as demonstrated rather promeniently through out the web) and lack of trust by many former Apple devotees in the pro editing field.

I really think Apple needs to demonstrate its commitment to the Pro market (not just say they are committed) if they are going to win back many they have lost. And frankly, from a PR stance, they are kind of doing a piss poor job of it IMHO. Folks don't seem to be convinced.

I mean really, guys like you in the COW forum seem to do a better job of it than the entire high-paid staff of the Apple PR team.


Return to posts index

Craig Seeman
Re: After a year has perception of FCPX changed?
on May 29, 2012 at 8:26:12 pm

[Clint Wardlow] "I really think Apple needs to demonstrate its commitment to the Pro market (not just say they are committed) if they are going to win back many they have lost. And frankly, from a PR stance, they are kind of doing a piss poor job of it IMHO. Folks don't seem to be convinced."

I wonder what people are expecting of them.
They now reveal some FCPX roadmap.
As I noted previously, the showed up in NYC and not only gave the expected dog an pony show but they had a table and answered questions (obviously not revealing anything more than they have).

BTW during the presentation they stressed again and again the roadmap is official. I suspect even that they went through handpicked people in dark caves rather than a direct announcement publicly, is something they're now trying to address.



Return to posts index

Herb Sevush
Re: After a year has perception of FCPX changed?
on May 29, 2012 at 8:34:01 pm

[Craig Seeman] "I wonder what people are expecting of them."

Behavior similar to that of Adobe, Avid, HP or any of dozens of other companies. Behavior that doesn't come under the heading of "well that's just the way they are." It's nice that they showed up at your meeting Craig, but how about that they make it a policy to show up at public meetings, and gee, maybe they could find some way to announce that policy publicly, and I know that it would be hard but there must be a way, something new and revolutionary ... like a press release.

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


Return to posts index

Steve Connor
Re: After a year has perception of FCPX changed?
on May 29, 2012 at 8:39:35 pm

[Herb Sevush] "Behavior similar to that of Adobe, Avid, HP or any of dozens of other companies. Behavior that doesn't come under the heading of "well that's just the way they are." It's nice that they showed up at your meeting Craig, but how about that they make it a policy to show up at public meetings, and gee, maybe they could find some way to announce that policy publicly, and I know that it would be hard but there must be a way, something new and revolutionary ... like a press release.
"

Well Tim Cook is just 4 hours away from presenting at D10, perhaps he'll have some news :)

Steve Connor
"The ripple command is just a workaround for not having a magnetic timelinel"
Adrenalin Television


Return to posts index

Craig Seeman
Re: After a year has perception of FCPX changed?
on May 29, 2012 at 8:57:28 pm

[Herb Sevush] "how about that they make it a policy to show up at public meetings"

I'd like that as well. I'm curious to hear from others if they continue that.
This meeting was done with Blackmagic, it was public. Adobe and Avid were there as well.

[Herb Sevush] "maybe they could find some way to announce that policy publicly"

That's why I added that the presenter emphasized that the roadmap is officially. Obviously there's a credibility issue when they use other people as mouthpieces.

I think Apple may be feeling it finally. I'm looking forward to hearing from somebody else that Apple is continuing down the path. Where Apple sends staff (not trainer, not a facility manager) and speaks directly and takes questions directly.

I'm just documenting that they've done this once, done it recently and hope this becomes direct communication going forward.



Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: After a year has perception of FCPX changed?
on May 29, 2012 at 8:29:39 pm

[Clint Wardlow] "I am not talking about me personally. I am talking about the perception of Apple by many in the business, that five years ago would have had no qualms about investing heavily in Apple products.
Now there is a feeling of uncertainty (as demonstrated rather promeniently through out the web) and lack of trust by many former Apple devotees in the pro editing field."


And that's fine. If there's another company that makes the internet feel more comfortable, then go for it.

I never bought a MacPro because of PR or a TV ad, I bought them because of OSX, and that they worked.

[Clint Wardlow] "I really think Apple needs to demonstrate its commitment to the Pro market (not just say they are committed) if they are going to win back many they have lost. And frankly, from a PR stance, they are kind of doing a piss poor job of it IMHO. Folks don't seem to be convinced."

Who do they need to convince except for one user at a time? Seriously, what words could be said that would otherwise "convince" you? I am generally curious as to what mythical spell any company must cast in order to "gain trust" from a customer. When FCP7 was released a couple of years ago, what trust was put in to our hands by Apple?

[Clint Wardlow] "I mean really, guys like you in the COW forum seem to do a better job of it than the entire high-paid staff of the Apple PR team."

I'm not sure what this means.

I am not an Apple PR rep. It very well could be that all my Apple computers and software could melt at the time of Apple's choosing whenever Tim Cook presses the huge "delete-all" button.

I will move on and survive.

I take it that you have never switched NLEs before?


Return to posts index

Clint Wardlow
Re: After a year has perception of FCPX changed?
on May 29, 2012 at 8:52:21 pm

[Jeremy Garchow] "I take it that you have never switched NLEs before?"

I don't know why you insist on making this personal.

I am talking about the perception of Apple by many of its former pro users. If you don't think there is a level of mistrust by many that use to use (and still use) Apple, I don't think you are paying attention.

It has nothing to do with me.

I just offered an opinion that Apple has a long way to go PR-wise to win back many that were once its staunchest defenders. I mean, this whole forum is an example of that. We are still discussing whether FCPX is a "professional" tool almost a year after it was released.

And frankly, Apple has been closed mouthed about its plans. I heard about modular design based on Thunderbolt and macminis here. I heard about the imac pro here (whether they happen or not is another matter because apple isn't saying). I mean we hope they release some sort of concrete plans for a MacPro replacement this summer, but we don't really know for sure.

I think that is a PR model that may work for iphones and ipads...but not about stuff pros depend on to do day to day business, especially after Apple released an NLE that through the industry into a tizzy.

I mean this is just my opinion, but I think there are a lot of folks that will never trust Apple again (and I don't mean me) unless the company does something to assuage their fears.

These people don't want to be wowed, they just want to be sure they'll be able to operate 3 years down the road with what they purchase from Apple.


Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: After a year has perception of FCPX changed?
on May 29, 2012 at 9:04:08 pm

[Clint Wardlow] "It has nothing to do with me."

I guess I'm not worried. about what the guy next door thinks about me using FCPX, if that's what I choose to use.

I don't care about Apple PR. They have said things, and so far they've done it. I am glad they have said they are going to work on FCPX and are committed to it. That keeps me around. I don't know what else they could say.

For a 1 year old program, it's remarkably advanced in certain crucial areas, the rest will catch up.

Or not.

[Clint Wardlow] "And frankly, Apple has been closed mouthed about its plans. I heard about modular design based on Thunderbolt and macminis here. I heard about the imac pro here (whether they happen or not is another matter because apple isn't saying). I mean we hope they release some sort of concrete plans for a MacPro replacement this summer, but we don't really know for sure."

We never have. It's pretty much always a surprise.

Clint, I'm not trying to take this personal, I'm sorry. I am just wondering what Apple has to do but keep developing FCPX. The rest will fall in to place. Either "you" like the software and buy it, or "you" don't. Ultimately, what more does any company have to do? Sing us to sleep?

[Clint Wardlow] "I mean this is just my opinion, but I think there are a lot of folks that will never trust Apple again (and I don't mean me) unless the company does something to assuage their fears.

These people don't want to be wowed, they just want to be sure they'll be able to operate 3 years down the road with what they purchase from Apple."


Three years? People will still be using FCS3 in three years. The Mac OS is very flexible and can run on a number of machines by taking it out of any mac computer and booting it to another mac computer. It is amazing in that way. Three years from now, everything will look different again, but I bet a person will be able to dust off that old hard drive and boot to Snow Leopard or Lion from that drive.


Return to posts index

Clint Wardlow
Re: After a year has perception of FCPX changed?
on May 29, 2012 at 9:23:14 pm

[Jeremy Garchow] "Three years? People will still be using FCS3 in three years. The Mac OS is very flexible and can run on a number of machines by taking it out of any mac computer and booting it to another mac computer. It is amazing in that way. Three years from now, everything will look different again, but I bet a person will be able to dust off that old hard drive and boot to Snow Leopard or Lion from that drive."

I certainly am counting on it. I am freezing my current mac in time and hoping it will still work 3 years from now even if I have upgraded to some other super computer (mac or otherwise.)


Return to posts index

Erik Lundberg
Re: After a year has perception of FCPX changed?
on May 31, 2012 at 4:57:18 pm

[Clint Wardlow] " I am freezing my current mac in time and hoping it will still work 3 years from now"

We're doing a time freeze thing to the workstations at our facility. All our Mac Pro's 2010 have been fitted with new hard drives, and I'm leaving FCPS2/Snow Leopard untouched on the old system drive. Clean install of Lion on the new drive, which will hold FCPX, CS6, Smoke and Lightwo^H^H^Hwhatever. In six months time, I guess the perspective on both FCPX and the rest has shifted a lot, and most likely we have singled out one of them as the main platform, with the rest of them on there as well, in case we have work or editors that need other tools.

Erik Lundberg

Technical Director, Media Technology, University of Gothenburg, Sweden


Return to posts index

Mathieu Ghekiere
Re: After a year has perception of FCPX changed?
on May 29, 2012 at 11:05:23 pm

Just to put it out there:

yes, Adobe communicates much better then Apple, BUT:

- When I mailed Tim Cook (hey, why couldn't I try?) about in how far they would take the suggestions and feedback of the real professionals serious in making FCPX better, I got a mail back 3 days later from the FCPX team that they want to have it known that they are taking FCPX and the professional market serious.

- When I mailed about a bug to Apple recently, I got a mail back 1 day later asking for specifics. When sending that, they confirmed sending it to their engineers.


Return to posts index

Liam Hall
Re: After a year has perception of FCPX changed?
on May 29, 2012 at 7:36:11 pm

[Jeremy Garchow] "So maybe, Apple's style isn't what you want anymore. That's totally fine. There's a multitude of PC companies that will gladly help you purchase a computer, and do it with a smile, as well as NLE companies that have a public online presence.

Curious, but have you contacted Apple support about FCPX problems? What was your experience?
"


Firstly, just so you understand where I coming from, I'd rather eat my own arm than buy a PC.

Second, as for Apple doing things differently, well yes they do. In that regard they remind me of one of my old clients, Kodak...

In seriousness though Jeremy, as has been mentioned already, we have seen some chinks in Apple's communication strategy lately and they have delivered on the roadmap they set out in terms of updates to FCPX. If they could continue to open up just a little more I'd be happy.

FYI I've contacted Apple many times in the past, customer service has always been first class. I've never needed to contact them about FCPX though - I've usually found the answer to my question here or on Lynda or somewhere else. Maybe I should send them a note about how I feel about Events or In and outs just to see what they say!

Liam Hall
Director/DoP/Editor
http://www.liamhall.net


Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: After a year has perception of FCPX changed?
on May 29, 2012 at 8:00:40 pm

[Liam Hall] "Maybe I should send them a note about how I feel about Events or In and outs just to see what they say!"

:)

Not feature requests, I am talking about actual support.


Return to posts index

Bill Davis
Re: After a year has perception of FCPX changed?
on May 28, 2012 at 9:18:02 pm

[Liam Hall] "The timeline isn't designed with complex editing in mind."

Well, a Steenbeck wasn't actually designed with "complex editing in mind" but that didn't stop legions of editors from cutting very complex projects on it. So i guess I'm just clueless about what you mean by "complex." Probably just me.



[Liam Hall] "The file structure and media management aren't designed with a busy editor or facility in mind."

Now this just baffles me. How is elevating a relational database to near parity with the editing interface an example of "aren't designed with the busy editor or facility in mind?" It seems me that X in time is likely to outstrip most current editorial platforms in media management simply because they designed the database and editorial functions to function totally in tandem. But we must just see this very differently as well.

[Liam Hall] "And the trackless timeline, with its roles/stems, connected clips and storylines... ...well, that's all simply mindless..."

To me, it's almost completely "mindful." It appears to me that massive amounts of careful though and consideration went into the construction of the X interface. Primary evidence of that is that it would have been MASSIVELY easier just to do "tweaked" versions of the same workflow approaches that every other software package had done before.

The changes in X might not resonate for you - and that's all well and good - but to apply a word like mindless is to argue that they are NOT changes - just accidents. And like it or not, the change in X is far from "accidental" - the definitional opposite of "mindless" no?



[Liam Hall] "Among other things, I find "Events" and "Projects" ill-conceived, and whilst I know there are workarounds, I'm not convinced FCPX is designed with editing in mind."

Interesting. Can't recall who it was and whether or not it was here, but I was reading something yesterday from someone who was commenting about how he didn't like Events or Projects at first either - but as his work and database got more complex, he appeared to reconsider that initial opinion. IIRC, in the face of increasing workflow complexity - those concepts started to make a whole lot more sense than that did to him when he viewed every "project" as it was in Legacy editors - separate, discrete, "cut off" constructs rather than entries in a "stream" of accessible projects - one of the foundational thinking changes I think that X has made. After all, if you're still working "one project at a time" - then the entire Event Library makes little sense. OTOH, if you see your work as a series of discrete events - shoots, sound recordings, photo creations, downloads, whatever, that are all brought together into an initial key wording, coloring, and perfecting space (the event browser) - and you'd like access to all of not only that projects assets but ALL your projects assets to be accessible, then the Event idea starts to make huge amounts of sense.


[Liam Hall] "I'm sure FCPX looked good on Randy's powerpoint presentation though."

Well, you had me seriously engaged up to this.

This is just, IMO, undeserved snarkiness. It implies that X is some kind of empty"all sizzle and no steak" tool and implies that everyone here who've spent the past year exploring it are all just clueless fools - and that our year of discussion is based on us being too dense to understand how clever Mr. Ubillos snuck one over on us rubes.

The other view, of course, is that the guy responsible for empowering more professional editors than any other single software designer on the planet, just felt that there might be better long-term ways to assemble media in the modern era - and that those might be worth codifying into a new type of editing tool.

Perhaps you are correct, and all of us who find editing in X to be faster, more flexible, and more interesting than we felt editing was after our years editing in Legacy are just delusional.

But I suppose I'm content in my delusions. And far too polite to publicly say anything your comment above about whoever wrote the current version of Premier or AVID or Vegas - since those folks are all likely worlds smarter about NLE design than I am.

Thanks for expounding on your views, anyway. I personally see them as being largely based on "feelings" rather than "facts" so I remain far from convinced the the arguments - but I certainly appreciate your taking the time to try to explain your point of view.

Thanks.

"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

Liam Hall
Re: After a year has perception of FCPX changed?
on May 28, 2012 at 10:40:17 pm

[Bill Davis]Well, a Steenbeck wasn't actually designed with "complex editing in mind" but that didn't stop legions of editors from cutting very complex projects on it. So i guess I'm just clueless about what you mean by "complex." Probably just me.


[Bill Davis]Now this just baffles me. How is elevating a relational database to near parity with the editing interface an example of "aren't designed with the busy editor or facility in mind?" It seems me that X in time is likely to outstrip most current editorial platforms in media management simply because they designed the database and editorial functions to function totally in tandem. But we must just see this very differently as well.

[Bill Davis]To me, it's almost completely "mindful." It appears to me that massive amounts of careful though and consideration went into the construction of the X interface. Primary evidence of that is that it would have been MASSIVELY easier just to do "tweaked" versions of the same workflow approaches that every other software package had done before.

The changes in X might not resonate for you - and that's all well and good - but to apply a word like mindless is to argue that they are NOT changes - just accidents. And like it or not, the change in X is far from "accidental" - the definitional opposite of "mindless" no?


[Bill Davis]Interesting. Can't recall who it was and whether or not it was here, but I was reading something yesterday from someone who was commenting about how he didn't like Events or Projects at first either - but as his work and database got more complex, he appeared to reconsider that initial opinion. IIRC, in the face of increasing workflow complexity - those concepts started to make a whole lot more sense than that did to him when he viewed every "project" as it was in Legacy editors - separate, discrete, "cut off" constructs rather than entries in a "stream" of accessible projects - one of the foundational thinking changes I think that X has made. After all, if you're still working "one project at a time" - then the entire Event Library makes little sense. OTOH, if you see your work as a series of discrete events - shoots, sound recordings, photo creations, downloads, whatever, that are all brought together into an initial key wording, coloring, and perfecting space (the event browser) - and you'd like access to all of not only that projects assets but ALL your projects assets to be accessible, then the Event idea starts to make huge amounts of sense.

[Bill Davis]Well, you had me seriously engaged up to this.

This is just, IMO, undeserved snarkiness. It implies that X is some kind of empty"all sizzle and no steak" tool and implies that everyone here who've spent the past year exploring it are all just clueless fools - and that our year of discussion is based on us being too dense to understand how clever Mr. Ubillos snuck one over on us rubes.

The other view, of course, is that the guy responsible for empowering more professional editors than any other single software designer on the planet, just felt that there might be better long-term ways to assemble media in the modern era - and that those might be worth codifying into a new type of editing tool.

Perhaps you are correct, and all of us who find editing in X to be faster, more flexible, and more interesting than we felt editing was after our years editing in Legacy are just delusional.

But I suppose I'm content in my delusions. And far too polite to publicly say anything your comment above about whoever wrote the current version of Premier or AVID or Vegas - since those folks are all likely worlds smarter about NLE design than I am.

Thanks for expounding on your views, anyway. I personally see them as being largely based on "feelings" rather than "facts" so I remain far from convinced the the arguments - but I certainly appreciate your taking the time to try to explain your point of view.

Thanks."





Wow Bill, so many words, so much hysteria and so little reason.

Too many points to pick you up on, so I'll just pick a few. As someone who used to work on Steenbeck I'm well placed to disagree with opening point. A flatbed, a trim bin and a good assistant were indeed designed for complex editing. It would just take a while and a lot of effort. On a modern NLE I can edit in hours what would take weeks on Steenbeck. That's a fact in case you think it's a feeling.

On your second point about my use of the word "mindless". I'm not suggesting they didn't think about what they were doing, more that the changes they made to the timeline were inferior to the existing one. I'm sure the tech to enable the magnetic timeline/connected clips etc is very clever, though to me it doesn't enhance the editing process. Change for the sake of change is pointless. No?

As for my barb about Randy's powerpoint, well I think you are being over dramatic about this and to suggest it somehow diminishes those people that have spent the last year working on FCPX is plain silly. I'm one of those who downloaded it it on day one and have used it since day one alongside other NLEs!! My point was simple, the things that are good in FCPX aren't necessarily the things that make editors smile, they are things that will make software engineers smile - things like "elevating a relational database to near parity with the editing interface"...

Liam Hall
Director/DoP/Editor
http://www.liamhall.net


Return to posts index

Carsten Orlt
Re: After a year has perception of FCPX changed?
on May 28, 2012 at 11:14:41 pm

"Change for the sake of change is pointless"

Absolutely correct! But FCPx timeline is far from "for the sake of it"

It actually addresses all the shortcomings of a track based timeline in a genius way :-)


Return to posts index

Herb Sevush
Re: After a year has perception of FCPX changed?
on May 28, 2012 at 11:51:16 pm

[Bill Davis] "Well, a Steenbeck wasn't actually designed with "complex editing in mind" but that didn't stop legions of editors from cutting very complex projects on it. "

You know not whereof you speak.

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


Return to posts index

Craig Seeman
Re: After a year has perception of FCPX changed?
on May 29, 2012 at 12:15:50 am

[Liam Hall] "The timeline isn't designed with complex editing in mind."

[Liam Hall] "And the trackless timeline, with its roles/stems, connected clips and storylines... ...well, that's all simply mindless...
"


I'd strongly disagree. Rather than a "track" based system that forces tracks into the cross and often competing purposes of compositing and organization, I can layer with connected clips and secondary story lines while Roles is used for organizing. Granted Roles needs a bit more feature development I don't see this as an impediment to complex editing. It's certainly not "mindless." In fact it allows very sharp focus to the task at hand, putting together clips that tell a story.


[Liam Hall] "Among other things, I find "Events" and "Projects" ill-conceived,"

You don't seem to understand FCPX at all. Events and Projects are probably more well thought out than the organizational structure in most other NLEs I've experienced (at least Avid and FCP7). Keyword and Smart Collections are more flexible than bins because clips and portions of clips can exist in multiple Collections at the same time. This allows for very complex multipurpose organizing and, yet, very easy to implement.

Events and Projects show the incredible flexibility of the relational database underlying it. Events are repositories of Media. Projects of Stories. A Project can draw media from any number of Events. While many people mistakenly believe there is only one Project per Event, that is likely because when you first create a Project it must be tied to one Event, establishing an initial relationship in the database. Ultimately a Project can draw from many events.

Add that you can create Compound Clips as "workspaces" in Events which can then be dropped into any number of Projects and you have far more flexibility and complexity than in most other NLEs (IMHO).

The Project Library itself allows me to look at any number of Projects complete with Skimming or Playback without have to open one after another in a timeline. Within the Project Library I can create folders to organize my Projects independent of the Events. Select any Project and you can see in the Inspector all the Events a given Project may Reference (use media from). Which also means that any Event can have media used in any number of Projects. In short, you can have very complex relationships between numbers of Events and numbers of Projects.



Return to posts index

Paul Neumann
Re: After a year has perception of FCPX changed?
on May 29, 2012 at 1:00:52 am

So I went to add an animated logo bug to a promo in FCPX. Cool, but not enough punch. So I add another instance of it above and use a Vivid Light blend mode. Cool. That's what I was looking for. Now since this goes across the whole spot I'll just compound this whole thing and stick some fades on it. But wait...once the compound clip is created the vivid light blend mode on that bug is GONE. It's stuff like this that keeps me away from FCPX.

And don't give me the work-around. I don't need work-arounds. I need it to work. That kind of compositing is a simple but necessary function that I shouldn't have to jump through hoops to do.

Obviously, Apple got my money. That's perfectly cool. And I'm cool with it being a $300 product 'cause that's about how it performs. I want it to work. I really do. I'm the perfect customer for it. Self-contained corporate production. But it's lost data, corrupted projects and outsmarts itself in so many ways.

If it can't do all that then it just ain't all that.

Love the discussion though.


Return to posts index

Liam Hall
Re: After a year has perception of FCPX changed?
on May 29, 2012 at 7:47:19 am

[Craig Seeman]
You don't seem to understand FCPX at all.



Actually Craig, I do understand FCPX. I've used it for over a year, I've done the training... ...there are some things I like, some things I don't. It's funny how evangelists like you and Bill can only see things from your own perspective and assume the rest of us are stupid. Funny, but rather sad too...

Liam Hall
Director/DoP/Editor
http://www.liamhall.net


Return to posts index

tony west
Re: After a year has perception of FCPX changed?
on May 29, 2012 at 1:50:25 pm

Liam, I can only tell you how "I" got around the in out frustration.

I think what threw me off was muscle memory from legacy.

Before, you had to do more clicking and dragging with the playhead needle, to get around clips and timeline.

Now you have the skimmer, so you don't have to click on the source to see it.

Once I set my I and O it stays there, unless I click on the source clip or another source clip.

My mm was to "click" on the source clip to look at it again or to adjust the i and o but as you know, that makes the i and o go away.

So I just don't do that and it doesn't go away.

It took me a while to get out of the habit of clicking to adjust the source i and o instead of grabbing the
i and o handles like they want you to, but once I got that down pat I never think about it.

You could hit f like some have suggested but that's an extra step that depending on how fast I need to go I might not take. I love the hitting f when I need it, I like that it's there.

As I edit, most of the time I don't hit f and I don't worry about my I and o going away because I know what it takes to make it go away and I simply don't do that.

Many people have the skimmer turned off because they don't like it. If you turn it off that makes you have to click, and that makes it harder to do what I talked about.

I don't know if this will help anybody out there but it sure helped me.


Return to posts index

Bill Davis
Re: After a year has perception of FCPX changed?
on May 29, 2012 at 2:01:34 pm

[Liam Hall] "It's funny how evangelists like you and Bill can only see things from your own perspective and assume the rest of us are stupid. Funny, but rather sad too..."

Poppycock.

I read what you wrote. I asked polite questions intended to uncover your concerns and address the issues you brought up.

I was respectful and polite about everything you wrote indicating how I saw things differently, but not saying a word about you - until you devolved into what I felt was an insupportably snarky attack on Mr. Ubillos's competency as a programmer. And even in doing that, I cited the reasoning I used to form my opinion.

But here you go again, resorting to personal attacks and deeming those of us in disagreement as "sad."

Not to tax your ability to reason too much, but EVERYONE on the planet sees things from their own perspective. It's the only one any of us have.

And if I'd "assumed you were stupid" I wouldn't have wasted my time responding to your post point by point.

At the base, I agree with Jeremy.

If you have something to say about the software - say it.

To the extent you feel compelled to continue as above with overt attacks on the people here - I'd politely advise you to put a sock in it. This board is not about who's "likable" or not. (If that's a persons primary focus, they have a zillion hours of reality TV to wallow in that covers that ground relentlessly)

This is a place where people come to debate whether a particular piece of software can help them get their work done - and I'm not getting a sense that you can argue those merits very comfortably since you keep diverting your posts away from facts and features and into personality issues.

And finally, not sad at all. Quite happy. I have great new software to explore that's making my editing life easier. So I'm struggle free and good to go. You - apparently not so much.

"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

Liam Hall
Re: After a year has perception of FCPX changed?
on May 29, 2012 at 2:39:09 pm

[Bill Davis] "Poppycock.

I read what you wrote. I asked polite questions intended to uncover your concerns and address the issues you brought up.

I was respectful and polite about everything you wrote indicating how I saw things differently, but not saying a word about you - until you devolved into what I felt was an insupportably snarky attack on Mr. Ubillos's competency as a programmer. And even in doing that, I cited the reasoning I used to form my opinion.

But here you go again, resorting to personal attacks and deeming those of us in disagreement as "sad."

Not to tax your ability to reason too much, but EVERYONE on the planet sees things from their own perspective. It's the only one any of us have.

And if I'd "assumed you were stupid" I wouldn't have wasted my time responding to your post point by point.

At the base, I agree with Jeremy.

If you have something to say about the software - say it.

To the extent you feel compelled to continue as above with overt attacks on the people here - I'd politely advise you to put a sock in it. This board is not about who's "likable" or not. (If that's a persons primary focus, they have a zillion hours of reality TV to wallow in that covers that ground relentlessly)

This is a place where people come to debate whether a particular piece of software can help them get their work done - and I'm not getting a sense that you can argue those merits very comfortably since you keep diverting your posts away from facts and features and into personality issues.

And finally, not sad at all. Quite happy. I have great new software to explore that's making my editing life easier. So I'm struggle free and good to go. You - apparently not so much.

"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"


Ease up there tiger. I'm not looking for a fight...

The title of this thread is, "After a year has perception of FCPX changed?" I gave my opinion in reference to that question. My jury is still out. As I have said, there are bits I like, bits I don't like, and a corporation I've lost some trust with.

Now, play nicely.

Liam Hall
Director/DoP/Editor
http://www.liamhall.net


Return to posts index

Richard Herd
Re: After a year has perception of FCPX changed?
on May 29, 2012 at 6:10:20 pm

[Bill Davis] "they have a zillion hours of reality TV "

And edited in Avid!


Return to posts index

Craig Seeman
Re: After a year has perception of FCPX changed?
on May 29, 2012 at 2:39:04 pm

When you say the timeline isn't conducive for complex editing and Event and Projects is ill conceived that shows a lack of understanding.

Maybe you have a definition of "complex" you assume is common. You should define and substantiate your position.

There's nothing at all ill conceived about Events and Projects. Whatever shortcoming you don't mention, it's easy to prove its greater flexibility as I have done.

I responded with explanations. You've made generalizations.



Return to posts index

Liam Hall
Re: After a year has perception of FCPX changed?
on May 29, 2012 at 3:11:50 pm

[Craig Seeman] "When you say the timeline isn't conducive for complex editing and Event and Projects is ill conceived that shows a lack of understanding.

Maybe you have a definition of "complex" you assume is common. You should define and substantiate your position.

There's nothing at all ill conceived about Events and Projects. Whatever shortcoming you don't mention, it's easy to prove its greater flexibility as I have done.

I responded with explanations. You've made generalizations."


Sorry Craig, I've only got time for sweeping generalisations. I'll try and write something detailed when I can - maybe start a new thread with it.

Liam Hall
Director/DoP/Editor
http://www.liamhall.net


Return to posts index

Clint Wardlow
Re: After a year has perception of FCPX changed?
on May 29, 2012 at 3:31:11 pm

[Liam Hall] "[Craig Seeman] "When you say the timeline isn't conducive for complex editing and Event and Projects is ill conceived that shows a lack of understanding.

Maybe you have a definition of "complex" you assume is common. You should define and substantiate your position.

There's nothing at all ill conceived about Events and Projects. Whatever shortcoming you don't mention, it's easy to prove its greater flexibility as I have done.

I responded with explanations. You've made generalizations."

Sorry Craig, I've only got time for sweeping generalisations. I'll try and write something detailed when I can - maybe start a new thread with it."


I think I can help here, because this is my worry also with FCPX. I think the term "simple" should be replaced with "standard" i.e. an edit based on a linear storyline. You know? Where intercutting and montage advance a storyline that progesses from point A to point B.

Non-Linear structure that is cut for interplay of image and sound which does not rely on a traditional 3-act structure seems a bit more difficult in FCPX to my mind. I could be wrong here. Still these kind of videos often develope organically as the edit progresses. You have a general idea of what the finished product should look and sound, but it often changes as during the process.

Now I may be wrong here, but FCPX seems more aimed towards a pre-planned (storyboarded if you will) editing style. You need to determine primary storyline at the get go. Now this works well (and is somewhat essential) for traditional linear narrative -- which is what most for hire work will involve.

However, I am curious to hear from FCPX editors how they deal with a more freeform type of work. I am sure the capability must be there, I just don't know how it would be done in a magnetic timeline with a primary storyline structure. Anybody out there cut anything like I mentioned above in FCPX? How did you do it?


Return to posts index

Craig Seeman
Re: After a year has perception of FCPX changed?
on May 29, 2012 at 3:56:14 pm

[Clint Wardlow] "Now I may be wrong here, but FCPX seems more aimed towards a pre-planned (storyboarded if you will) editing style. "

How so?
I hear about many people doing unscripted work in FCPX. Docs for example. News is another. Sports yet another. None of this is pre planned storyboard work.

Keep in mind that the Project Storyline isn't the only place one can edit. One can edit segments as Compound Clips in the Event Browser for example

The magnetic timeline is conducive to moving chunks around in my opinion.

I have heard some argue that narrative, which would be pre planned storyboarded, would be more difficult to cut in FCPX. I'm not sure of that personally. That does seem the opposite of what you're saying.

There does seem to be a number of people editing short form corporate pieces in FCPX and those are often pre planned storyboarded and can actually be quite "dense."

It may depend on what one's definition of "complex" is. There certainly are some potential issues though. Personally I think complex audio editing is an issue when using dual mono or more audio channels. I also think there's significant room for improvement for compositing on the Storyline as well but obviously that's not the only form of complexity.



Return to posts index

Steve Connor
Re: After a year has perception of FCPX changed?
on May 29, 2012 at 4:03:49 pm

[Craig Seeman] "I hear about many people doing unscripted work in FCPX. Docs for example. News is another. Sports yet another. None of this is pre planned storyboard work.

Keep in mind that the Project Storyline isn't the only place one can edit. One can edit segments as Compound Clips in the Event Browser for example

The magnetic timeline is conducive to moving chunks around in my opinion.

I have heard some argue that narrative, which would be pre planned storyboarded, would be more difficult to cut in FCPX. I'm not sure of that personally. That does seem the opposite of what you're saying.

There does seem to be a number of people editing short form corporate pieces in FCPX and those are often pre planned storyboarded and can actually be quite "dense.""


I've done a broad mix of scripted and unscripted edits in FCPX as well as more organic pieces and it works fine on all of them, I have not felt that it is unsuitable for anything I have done so far. I know all us FCPX users KEEP saying it, but once you've learned it (and not just played with it for a few weeks) editing with it works as least as well and in a lot of cases even better than other NLE's I have used.

Steve Connor
"Sometimes it's fun to poke an angry bear with a stickl"
Adrenalin Television


Return to posts index

Clint Wardlow
Re: After a year has perception of FCPX changed?
on May 29, 2012 at 4:14:54 pm

[Craig Seeman] "How so?
I hear about many people doing unscripted work in FCPX. Docs for example. News is another. Sports yet another. None of this is pre planned storyboard work.

Keep in mind that the Project Storyline isn't the only place one can edit. One can edit segments as Compound Clips in the Event Browser for example

The magnetic timeline is conducive to moving chunks around in my opinion."


Yet all of these things that you mention do tell a traditional linear story of sorts. They provide a storyline that progresses from A to B (pre-planned or not).

I am also not worried about moving chunks so much as repositioning single independent pieces (which I do a lot).

Compound clips do work for some image blending, but more for images of equal lengths and not one lone image that may be contained over the entire length of a video (and is also tied to a secondary piece of audio).

I am curious, how precise is it to edit in compound? Can you do precision editing based on an beats in an audio segment? These are the questions I have about FCPX?

The one thing that does excite me now I have decided to purchase it, is that I may discover elements within that could lead to those wonderful happy accidents. That while X may not be able to to replicate some of the stuff I can do in FC7, I may learn some new editing moves that are not possible anywhere else.

Now that I have wrapped my mind around it...maybe using FCPX in conjuction with a more traditional track-based NLE (probably PPRO CS6), I might be able to create things that are not possible using only one NLE.

So here's to the great unknown.


Return to posts index

Richard Herd
Re: After a year has perception of FCPX changed?
on May 29, 2012 at 6:51:12 pm

[Clint Wardlow] "Yet all of these things that you mention do tell a traditional linear story of sorts. They provide a storyline that progresses from A to B (pre-planned or not)."

A quick bone to pick but not too seriously...
All stories proceed linearly (traditional and avante garde). Non-linear diegesis is a metaphor for complexity in the narrative that forces the audience to use their intelligence and memory, but the playback of the narrative must proceed linearly. That is, even if the tape is cut (like the beatles did famously) and stitched back together randomly, during playback it proceeds linearly.

In any case, X handles well the construction of any narrative. The databasiness gives the editor more "non-linear-ness."

Oh yeah, "P" turns off the magnetism and puts X in "place" mode.


Return to posts index

Steve Connor
Re: After a year has perception of FCPX changed?
on May 29, 2012 at 6:53:05 pm

[Richard Herd] "All stories proceed linearly (traditional and avante garde). Non-linear diegesis is a metaphor for complexity in the narrative that forces the audience to use their intelligence and memory, but the playback of the narrative must proceed linearly. That is, even if the tape is cut (like the beatles did famously) and stitched back together randomly, during playback it proceeds linearly.

In any case, X handles well the construction of any narrative. The databasiness gives the editor more "non-linear-ness."

Oh yeah, "P" turns off the magnetism and puts X in "place" mo"


Well said!

Steve Connor
"Sometimes it's fun to poke an angry bear with a stickl"
Adrenalin Television


Return to posts index

Clint Wardlow
Re: After a year has perception of FCPX changed?
on May 29, 2012 at 7:16:48 pm

[Richard Herd] "A quick bone to pick but not too seriously...
All stories proceed linearly (traditional and avante garde). Non-linear diegesis is a metaphor for complexity in the narrative that forces the audience to use their intelligence and memory, but the playback of the narrative must proceed linearly. That is, even if the tape is cut (like the beatles did famously) and stitched back together randomly, during playback it proceeds linearly."


That is because it is how we experience time. In a linear fashion...so really, unless you magically transport your film to another dimension...it is the only way we can experience anything.

However, when I speak of linear narrative, I speak of classical story structure. When you look at the films of say Stan Brakhage, they eschew this kind of storytelling, often using film scratches and bizarre emulution effects to achieve a mood or emotion. But just try to write a summary of what such a film is about and you'll understand what I mean by linear narrative.


Return to posts index

Richard Herd
Re: After a year has perception of FCPX changed?
on May 29, 2012 at 8:12:13 pm

[Clint Wardlow] "Stan Brakhage"

First, I shall watch his films immediately. Thanks!

Second, you got it exactly: human beings experience time linearly, which is why the exhibition is a linear experience. Not so coincidentally, so is video editing. :)

As a literary interpretation method, all dramas have five basics:
1. Who is the main character?
2. What does the main character need?
3. Who or what tries to stop the main character?
4. Does the main character get the need?
5. What does the main character learn?

I'd also argue these are hardwired into our brains in the process of making meaning. There's been many noble attempts to abandon structure but alas you said it, [Clint Wardlow] "That is because it is how we experience time. In a linear fashion...so really, unless you magically transport your film to another dimension...it is the only way we can experience anything."

Additionally, the editor is the one who literally assembles the stuff in a linear fashion.


Return to posts index

Clint Wardlow
Re: After a year has perception of FCPX changed?
on May 29, 2012 at 8:32:58 pm

[Richard Herd] "As a literary interpretation method, all dramas have five basics:
1. Who is the main character?
2. What does the main character need?
3. Who or what tries to stop the main character?
4. Does the main character get the need?
5. What does the main character learn?"


What if it is just a collection of images and sounds not showing a single living thing...only stuctures. What if it doesn't embrace any of these elements. I would suggest watching "Koyaanisqatsi" and tell me how it fits within that dramatic schema.

Or the example David posted?


Return to posts index

Richard Herd
Re: After a year has perception of FCPX changed?
on May 29, 2012 at 8:45:22 pm

Our nature is such that we can't actually turn off the meaning making part of our brains. We call that catatonia, somnambulance.

I shall definitely watch Koyaanisqatsi. Thanks again!

I would also suggest Lyn Hejinian's poem "My Life."

[Clint Wardlow] "What if it is just a collection of images and sounds not showing a single living thing...only stuctures. What if it doesn't embrace any of these elements. "

What if...then it ain't drama. Many corporations do just this only its called "marketing video." ;) <--now that's snarky


Return to posts index

Richard Herd
Re: After a year has perception of FCPX changed?
on May 29, 2012 at 8:51:34 pm

Is this it? http://www.hulu.com/watch/27800/koyaanisqatsi


Return to posts index

Herb Sevush
Re: After a year has perception of FCPX changed?
on May 29, 2012 at 8:52:29 pm

[Richard Herd] "Our nature is such that we can't actually turn off the meaning making part of our brains. We call that catatonia, somnambulance."

It is because our brains will always make these kind of connections that our art does not have to. Dreams are often a series of totally unconnected visual and auditory memories - it is in our waking interpretation of them that drama or story becomes manifest. Art can be like a Rorschach blot - the story only exists in the mind of the viewer. Such art does not have to be made with the 5 steps you outlined - the perceiving mind will create them for itself. Or as Godard once said - movies should have a begging, middle, and end, just not necessarily in that order.

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


Return to posts index

Richard Herd
Re: After a year has perception of FCPX changed?
on May 29, 2012 at 9:01:53 pm

[Herb Sevush] "Such art does not have to be made with the 5 steps you outlined - the perceiving mind will create them for itself. Or as Godard once said - movies should have a begging, middle, and end, just not necessarily in that order"

Herb, that's not what I said. I said, "As a literary interpretation method, all dramas have five basics:
1. Who is the main character?
2. What does the main character need?
3. Who or what tries to stop the main character?
4. Does the main character get the need?
5. What does the main character learn?"

A literary interpretation method...

This point has been belabored far too much.


Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: After a year has perception of FCPX changed?
on May 29, 2012 at 8:45:50 pm

[Clint Wardlow] "Or the example David posted?"

That is essentially a music video.

If you are confused as to how you might edit a music video in FCPX, it's pretty easy.


Return to posts index

David Lawrence
Re: After a year has perception of FCPX changed?
on May 29, 2012 at 9:20:36 pm

[Jeremy Garchow] "That is essentially a music video.

If you are confused as to how you might edit a music video in FCPX, it's pretty easy."


And how many multi-channel, synchronized video installations have you made?

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


Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: After a year has perception of FCPX changed?
on May 29, 2012 at 9:25:31 pm

[David Lawrence] "And how many multi-channel, synchronized video installations have you made?"

More than you'd think, they just aren't in museums.

I also think if you want to edit multichannel video in FCPX, it would also be pretty decently easy due to FCPX's superior grouping capabilities.


Return to posts index

David Lawrence
Re: After a year has perception of FCPX changed?
on May 30, 2012 at 1:06:10 am

[Jeremy Garchow] "More than you'd think, they just aren't in museums."

Great, so then you'll understand why I disagree about multi-channel work being like music video. Music video is simple and fits the FCPX A/B single track linear model pretty well. Basically you're cutting B-roll over a master audio track.

Multi-channel and interactive video typically require parallel composition. If FCPX had multiple independent primaries, I think this would cover it, but as it stands currently, connecting everything to the single primary is a huge constraint.

[Jeremy Garchow] "I also think if you want to edit multichannel video in FCPX, it would also be pretty decently easy due to FCPX's superior grouping capabilities."

You could do it using Jim's template, but you're working against FCPX's strengths. Let me know how it goes if you do a multi-channel project that way. I think Premiere Pro 6 would be a better choice as you'd get the all the benefits of grouping as well as tracks.

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


Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: After a year has perception of FCPX changed?
on May 30, 2012 at 2:56:30 am

[David Lawrence] "Great, so then you'll understand why I disagree about multi-channel work being like music video. Music video is simple and fits the FCPX A/B single track linear model pretty well. Basically you're cutting B-roll over a master audio track."

I guess I just see things differently, David. Really, I bust things down to their parts. Fcpx is hardly an a/b model if you don't want it to be, anymore than a track based program is. X has layers. I can't believe we are still having this conversation about layers. Sometimes, I feel you are taunting us.

Anyway.

No, it's not an MTV music video, but it is a sequenced bed of audio set to visuals. A music video of a different format x3.

That piece you sent had a soundtrack. It seemed fairly sequenced to me. It might not have started out that way, but there's no question that pieces of that came out of some sort of sequencer, whatever that may be.

So, the description of the video says there are three channels.

If I were doing this (and how I edit multichannel (or screen) events) is to make three timelines with the soundtrack in each timeline and begin the edit.

I then add the three timelines nested in fcp7 to three video tracks with the soundtrack in that master timeline and arrange each nest so that they are visible.

That way I could independently edit any channel and also view all the nests together as one program. After the edit is complete, I usually bounce the whole thing out to AE and break it up in to it's disparate parts via automatic duck. Sometimes it's one big blended screen, sometimes it's a combo of blended and disparate satellite screens that are all sepearate pieces, sometimes different aspect ratios, but comprise a whole program. Since AE had much better scaling and resolution independence than FCP7. I'd finish it all up in AE. Changes were a pain in the a$$.

This would be even more flexible in fcpx as I could have the each channel as a compound in the event, and a Project made up of the 3 channels. Any work done in compounds is updated in the master comp. in fcp7 you had to make sure you clicked things in the right order for this. Also, fcpx can handle up to 4k resolution and renders in float so I might not even need AE. If so, there's this: http://clipexporter.mindtransplant.com/ae-features.php

Simply put the soundtrack in the primary, and add three compounds as connected clips. Nothing moves. I can choose to edit the compounds in their own timelines and simply switch to the master Project to get the birds eye view with audio muted on each compound. I suppose multicam could be used somewhere, but I think that would be limiting. Positioning the compounds will be easier and would also allow an export of all the pieces as one viewable movie.

[David Lawrence] "You could do it using Jim's template, but you're working against FCPX's strengths. Let me know how it goes if you do a multi-channel project that way. I think Premiere Pro 6 would be a better choice as you'd get the all the benefits of grouping as well as tracks"

I have a lot of respect for Jim, but I don't use his template. I agree that it works against X's strengths, but Jim has devised a very clever way of working. I'm not trying to take that away.

I haven't done a multichannel edit in a little while. I'd love to tackle it in X, it'd be a good challenge.

How would you do it, in your NLE of choice of course?

Jeremy


Return to posts index

David Lawrence
Re: After a year has perception of FCPX changed?
on May 30, 2012 at 6:43:57 am

[Jeremy Garchow] "I guess I just see things differently, David. Really, I bust things down to their parts. Fcpx is hardly an a/b model if you don't want it to be, anymore than a track based program is. X has layers. I can't believe we are still having this conversation about layers. Sometimes, I feel you are taunting us."

Of course we see things differently, Jeremy, lol! That's why this debate forum is fun. And nope, not trolling, Just thinking about Clint's questions about FCPX and his workflow from my perspective.

[Jeremy Garchow] "If I were doing this (and how I edit multichannel (or screen) events) is to make three timelines with the soundtrack in each timeline and begin the edit.

I then add the three timelines nested in fcp7 to three video tracks with the soundtrack in that master timeline and arrange each nest so that they are visible.

That way I could independently edit any channel and also view all the nests together as one program. After the edit is complete, I usually bounce the whole thing out to AE and break it up in to it's disparate parts via automatic duck. Sometimes it's one big blended screen, sometimes it's a combo of blended and disparate satellite screens that are all sepearate pieces, sometimes different aspect ratios, but comprise a whole program. Since AE had much better scaling and resolution independence than FCP7. I'd finish it all up in AE. Changes were a pain in the a$$."


Yes, that's would certainly work. But what if you're building your soundtrack and your video channels all at the same time? What if you need to create and manipulate interrelationships between all channels simultaneously?

[Jeremy Garchow] "How would you do it, in your NLE of choice of course?"

Well, as you know, I'm a big fan of the spatial approach to editing. I think of multi-channel video works like "Primetime" the same way I think of a multi-track musical composition. So I would compose the piece using tracks and open space as a blank canvas. Each track is fully independent but all tracks share the same sync reference. It's perfect for the job.

Years ago, I met Melhus and asked about his process. He told me he essentially treated FCP as a superDAW, using it to compose everything from TV and Film A/V samples. He starts with audio, but video is integrated throughout. I don't know specifically what his timelines look like but I got the sense that the flexibility of the open timeline was essential to his creative process.

It's also been a while for me but if I was doing a multi-channel piece today, frame size, program type and the way sound is used in relation to picture would be the main factors on how I would approach it. As you know, there's a lot of other things to consider as well. In the past, I've used AE to create content which was synced and mastered in FCP. Regardless of what I would use today, I'd still want tracks and absolute time for final A/V multi-channel sync. I can't think of a better or more natural way to visualize the final piece.

Again, I'm sure FCPX is capable of doing multi-channel work. But are you working with the design or fighting it? It's all about having the best tool for the job and using the tool as it was designed to its best advantage.

The magnetic timeline is great for certain kinds of workflows but if you ask me, multi-channel production isn't one of them. I don't think the UI designers even considered it. If you wind up doing a multi-channel in FCPX, please share what you learn. I think it'll be interesting.

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


Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: After a year has perception of FCPX changed?
on May 31, 2012 at 12:16:47 am

[David Lawrence] "Yes, that's would certainly work. But what if you're building your soundtrack and your video channels all at the same time? What if you need to create and manipulate interrelationships between all channels simultaneously?"

Well, how would you do this in a track based system? That's how you'd do it in FCPX the only difference being you might have to move some things in and out of the primary and perhaps reattach some connection points just like you might have to juggle some clips around to different tracks in FCP Legend. X does not mean you don't have to think about what you're doing, you still have to think about it. Once a person learns the system, you react instead of think just like we're all used to doing in 7.

If you need to see everything on the screen at the same time you can either go back to the nested comp, or if you're building everything scaled down in to one comp, you'd have to do the same in FCPX.

[David Lawrence] "Well, as you know, I'm a big fan of the spatial approach to editing. I think of multi-channel video works like "Primetime" the same way I think of a multi-track musical composition. So I would compose the piece using tracks and open space as a blank canvas. Each track is fully independent but all tracks share the same sync reference. It's perfect for the job."

OK. So don't use FCPX. I, personally don't see a problem with using FCPX for this. Sometimes, I don't start in the primary. I'll start as connected clips to a gap. Then nothing moves unless I want it to. Once things get further refined, I can then move them in to the primary with either a keyboard shortcut, or the 'p' key if it's audio only. And sync points? FCPX has selectable sync points, I understand that you don't like it and it doesn't make sense. That's perfectly fine as it isn't exactly as easy as everyone claims it to be, especially when it comes to audio.

[David Lawrence] "Again, I'm sure FCPX is capable of doing multi-channel work. But are you working with the design or fighting it? It's all about having the best tool for the job and using the tool as it was designed to its best advantage. "

If I am trying to get it to work like a track based system, I'm fighting it. If I am using it as designed, I'm working with it. Just as if I wanted to move stuff around with tracks, I'm fighting the tracks, when in FCPX I simply grab and move what I want and everything else gets out of my way without losing sync, or any relationships. It's all a matter of perspective. If we can get better reliability (10.0.4 is much better, but we need more yet) and some multichannel audio controls, I'd start slowly employing it today and grow it's use as it grows in capability.

Apple can take more time and keep refining it. FCP7 is still working just fine for now.

Jeremy


Return to posts index

David Lawrence
Re: After a year has perception of FCPX changed?
on May 29, 2012 at 7:40:29 pm

[Richard Herd] "All stories proceed linearly (traditional and avante garde). Non-linear diegesis is a metaphor for complexity in the narrative that forces the audience to use their intelligence and memory, but the playback of the narrative must proceed linearly. That is, even if the tape is cut (like the beatles did famously) and stitched back together randomly, during playback it proceeds linearly."

Not necessarily. Sounds like you haven't done much work with interactive or multi-channel video production. There's more possibility than you're imagining. This is especially true in the world of art, museum installation, and experimental filmmaking. It's a very rich field with many innovative examples:






[Richard Herd] "In any case, X handles well the construction of any narrative. The databasiness gives the editor more "non-linear-ness." "

Which is unfortunately undermined by the single-track UI which is locked to relative time.

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


Return to posts index

Clint Wardlow
Re: After a year has perception of FCPX changed?
on May 29, 2012 at 7:49:52 pm

[David Lawrence] "[Richard Herd] "All stories proceed linearly (traditional and avante garde). Non-linear diegesis is a metaphor for complexity in the narrative that forces the audience to use their intelligence and memory, but the playback of the narrative must proceed linearly. That is, even if the tape is cut (like the beatles did famously) and stitched back together randomly, during playback it proceeds linearly."

Not necessarily. Sounds like you haven't done much work with interactive or multi-channel video production. There's more possibility than you're imagining. This is especially true in the world of art, museum installation, and experimental filmmaking. It's a very rich field with many innovative examples:"


Couldn't have said it better.



[David Lawrence] "Which is unfortunately undermined by the single-track UI which is locked to relative time."

And that's what worries me.


Return to posts index

Steve Connor
Re: After a year has perception of FCPX changed?
on May 29, 2012 at 8:02:27 pm

[David Lawrence] "Which is unfortunately undermined by the single-track UI which is locked to relative time.
"


In timeline terms what exactly can't you do in FCPX that you could do in Legacy, apart from tracks of course. A specific example would be great

Steve Connor
"Sometimes it's fun to poke an angry bear with a stickl"
Adrenalin Television


Return to posts index

Richard Herd
Re: After a year has perception of FCPX changed?
on May 29, 2012 at 8:19:08 pm

But that's a silly request. Asking for an example of what Legacy did that X doesn't do and then excepting the relevancy.


Return to posts index

Steve Connor
Re: After a year has perception of FCPX changed?
on May 29, 2012 at 8:22:29 pm

[Richard Herd] "But that's a silly request. Asking for an example of what Legacy did that X doesn't do and then excepting the relevancy."

Do you mean physical tracks? because they have absolutely nothing to do with linear or non-linear stories which is what we're talking about, so why shouldn't they be excepted?

Steve Connor
"Sometimes it's fun to poke an angry bear with a stickl"
Adrenalin Television


Return to posts index

Richard Herd
Re: After a year has perception of FCPX changed?
on May 29, 2012 at 8:29:52 pm

The guys complaining about X missing tracks want them back. They feel limited by linearity. <-- Okay I like that phrase "limited by linearity." For me, editing is more of a feeling than a technical trade. I admit there have been times where I have stacked footage and just tried to feel it. For them I think a multicam technique in X might be useful.


Return to posts index

Richard Herd
Re: After a year has perception of FCPX changed?
on May 29, 2012 at 8:46:49 pm

Have you seen/experienced THe Cremaster Cycle?


Return to posts index

David Lawrence
Re: After a year has perception of FCPX changed?
on May 29, 2012 at 9:08:56 pm

[Steve Connor] "In timeline terms what exactly can't you do in FCPX that you could do in Legacy, apart from tracks of course. A specific example would be great"

I think you're missing the point. It's not that you couldn't do multi-channel work in FCPX, the question is why would you want to? It's not designed with that in mind.

Look at multi-channel audio. Even Apple knows it's currently a mess and needs fixing. The same problems with multi-channel audio apply to multi-channel video as well. Let's see what Apple comes up with in the next release.

Tracks and absolute time is a natural way to graphically express multiple concurrent channels of time-based media. There is no primary. There is no secondary. There are just media objects composed in parallel channels of absolute time.

For the kind of non-linear/multi-channel work Clint is talking about, the magnetic timeline's advantages would likely be far outweighed by its single-track constraints and inflexibility. Tracks and absolute time have none of these problems.

BTW, Bjørn Melhus makes his work with FCP Legacy. Or at least he did several years ago.

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


Return to posts index

Steve Connor
Re: After a year has perception of FCPX changed?
on May 29, 2012 at 9:18:16 pm

[David Lawrence] "Tracks and absolute time is a natural way to graphically express multiple concurrent channels of time-based media. There is no primary. There is no secondary. There are just media objects composed in parallel channels of absolute time."

So are you saying you can't do absolute time in FCPX?

Steve Connor
"The ripple command is just a workaround for not having a magnetic timelinel"
Adrenalin Television


Return to posts index

David Lawrence
Re: After a year has perception of FCPX changed?
on May 29, 2012 at 9:38:37 pm

[Steve Connor] "So are you saying you can't do absolute time in FCPX?"

I'm saying you can't easily have multiple parallel channels of absolute time without bending over backwards. Clever hacks like Jim Giberti's template attempt to bring some of this flexibility back but it's still a hack. The bottom line is the magnetic timeline is a single track timeline that ripples by default and forces everything outside it to be in temporal relation to it, not the external window. For multi-channel work, there is zero advantage in this.

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


Return to posts index

Steve Connor
Re: After a year has perception of FCPX changed?
on May 29, 2012 at 9:43:12 pm

[David Lawrence] "The bottom line is the magnetic timeline is a single track timeline that ripples by default and forces everything outside it to be in temporal relation to it, not the external window. For multi-channel work, there is zero advantage in this."

We've been through this one before, it's very easy to stop it rippling.

Steve Connor
"The ripple command is just a workaround for not having a magnetic timelinel"
Adrenalin Television


Return to posts index

Steve Connor
Re: After a year has perception of FCPX changed?
on May 29, 2012 at 10:08:55 pm

[Steve Connor] "[David Lawrence] "The bottom line is the magnetic timeline is a single track timeline that ripples by default and forces everything outside it to be in temporal relation to it, not the external window. For multi-channel work, there is zero advantage in this."

We've been through this one before, it's very easy to stop it rippling.
"


Here's an example and yes I know if you edit the primary there is a relationship to the clips above, but the workaround is very simple, you don't touch the primary.







Steve Connor
"The ripple command is just a workaround for not having a magnetic timelinel"
Adrenalin Television


Return to posts index

David Lawrence
Re: After a year has perception of FCPX changed?
on May 29, 2012 at 10:17:24 pm

[Steve Connor] "We've been through this one before, it's very easy to stop it rippling."

Yeah, the "P" key. That's not the point.

The point is parallel tracks/absolute time vs single track/relative time.

FCPX isn't the best tool for every possible media production. It's not designed to be. It's OK to acknowledge that.

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


Return to posts index

Steve Connor
Re: After a year has perception of FCPX changed?
on May 29, 2012 at 10:25:05 pm

[David Lawrence] "FCPX isn't the best tool for every possible media production. It's not designed to be. It's OK to acknowledge that.
"


If you need fixed tracks then of course FCPX it isn't the best tool for you, but your argument about absolute time and the primary storyline is flawed. You can easily edit in absolute time in FCPX if you don't touch the primary.

Steve Connor
"The ripple command is just a workaround for not having a magnetic timelinel"
Adrenalin Television


Return to posts index

Herb Sevush
Re: After a year has perception of FCPX changed?
on May 29, 2012 at 10:28:30 pm

[Steve Connor] "If you need fixed tracks then of course FCPX it isn't the best tool for you, but your argument about absolute time and the primary storyline is flawed. You can easily edit in absolute time in FCPX if you don't touch the primary."

As one who has never opened X, are you saying you loose no functionality by not using the primary, that the primary is of no greater importance than the secondary?

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


Return to posts index

Steve Connor
Re: After a year has perception of FCPX changed?
on May 29, 2012 at 10:38:24 pm

[Herb Sevush] "As one who has never opened X, are you saying you loose no functionality by not using the primary, that the primary is of no greater importance than the secondary?
"

You lose the ability to use the precision trim editor so trimming has to be done "manually'

Steve Connor
"The ripple command is just a workaround for not having a magnetic timelinel"
Adrenalin Television


Return to posts index

David Lawrence
Re: After a year has perception of FCPX changed?
on May 30, 2012 at 12:32:07 am

[Steve Connor] "You can easily edit in absolute time in FCPX if you don't touch the primary.

LOL, yes Steve. That's exactly how the primary was designed to be used. Kind of reminds me of this short film:



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


Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: After a year has perception of FCPX changed?
on May 30, 2012 at 1:00:07 am

[David Lawrence] "Kind of reminds me of this short film:"

I have no idea how that relates to what's being talked about, but I'm now thirsty!


Return to posts index

David Lawrence
Re: After a year has perception of FCPX changed?
on May 30, 2012 at 1:13:22 am

[Jeremy Garchow] "I have no idea how that relates to what's being talked about, but I'm now thirsty!"

Glad you enjoyed! Just responding to:

[Steve Connor] "You can easily edit in absolute time in FCPX if you don't touch the primary."

I mean, sure. And you can use a nail gun to open a beer bottle... ;)

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


Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: After a year has perception of FCPX changed?
on May 30, 2012 at 1:59:20 am

[David Lawrence] "I mean, sure. And you can use a nail gun to open a beer bottle... ;)"

Or an ATV


Return to posts index

Richard Herd
Re: After a year has perception of FCPX changed?
on May 30, 2012 at 6:03:02 am

Or you can use secondaries and "P" and Shift-F.


Return to posts index

Richard Herd
Re: After a year has perception of FCPX changed?
on May 29, 2012 at 8:15:41 pm

That stuff you posted only confuses linearity and simultaneity. This happens with ballet, opera, theatre, rock concerts, where the wealth of experience can be shifted by subjective points of view. The but the events proceed linearly.


Regarding X, I just don't care what NLE anyone uses. However, because this is the Cow and it is essentially a place for learning, I would hate for someone to miss the point of "P," place editing, that turns off the magnetism/relativism, and also secondary storylines are tracks.


Return to posts index

tony west
Re: After a year has perception of FCPX changed?
on May 29, 2012 at 10:33:34 pm

[Richard Herd] "and also secondary storylines are tracks."


Yes.


I really don't do things that differently than I did them before. I still stack clips up on top of clips.

It still has tracks, they just move out of the way when you drag one toward another.

That video was really cool, but it was made in 2002 in (in SD no less)

What somebody did then, you should be able to recreate with 2012 technology some ten years later.


Return to posts index

David Lawrence
Re: After a year has perception of FCPX changed?
on May 30, 2012 at 12:51:06 am

[tony west] "What somebody did then, you should be able to recreate with 2012 technology some ten years later."

2012 technology has nothing to do with UI design. The UI metaphor is whatever the designer chooses. A trackless timeline is a design choice, not a technology.

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


Return to posts index

Richard Herd
Re: After a year has perception of FCPX changed?
on May 30, 2012 at 6:06:48 am

[David Lawrence] "2012 technology has nothing to do with UI design. The UI metaphor is whatever the designer chooses. A trackless timeline is a design choice, not a technology."

And in a metadata environment, I'd guess the audio UI should be nifty. "Should" is a pesky word there, subjunctive mood. Simultaneously, it means the hypothetical future and the past tense. Oh Apple! What they should've done; what they should do! An entire forum devoted to the cause.


Return to posts index

tony west
Re: After a year has perception of FCPX changed?
on May 30, 2012 at 9:08:38 pm

[David Lawrence] "[tony west] "What somebody did then, you should be able to recreate with 2012 technology some ten years later."

2012 technology has nothing to do with UI design. The UI metaphor is whatever the designer chooses. A trackless timeline is a design choice, not a technology.
"


I don't know if I agree with you on that one David.

technology |tekˈnäləjē|
noun ( pl. technologies )
the application of scientific knowledge for practical purposes,

But more to the point, was that video supposed to be an example of something that could not be done in X?


Return to posts index

David Lawrence
Re: After a year has perception of FCPX changed?
on Jun 5, 2012 at 5:28:07 am

[tony west] "technology |tekˈnäləjē|
noun ( pl. technologies )
the application of scientific knowledge for practical purposes, "


Hi Tony,

Yes, that definition is correct, but I'm talking about something a bit different. Wikipedia has an excellent entry on user interface design. If you do a word search on the article, you'll find that the word "technology" appears nowhere in it. That's because while it's true that technology is the underpinning of any computer interface, the interface design itself is a wholly conceptual representation that can use any metaphor the designer chooses. In that sense technology has nothing to do with it. The magnetic timeline is a design choice, not a technology choice.

[tony west] "But more to the point, was that video supposed to be an example of something that could not be done in X?"

No, it was intended as an example of some of the kinds of non-traditional media experiences Clint was describing. I have no doubt it could be produced in FCPX. Probably Jim's template would be the most straightforward way to go, though Jeremy's ideas may work as well. I personally think tracks are the most efficient way to represent multiple channels, but that's just me. YMMV.

BTW, I was fascinated by Charlie Austin's approach which he described in his article - avoid storylines altogether and just cut with connected clips. Very interesting...

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


Return to posts index

Chris Harlan
Re: After a year has perception of FCPX changed?
on May 30, 2012 at 12:21:29 am

[Richard Herd] " and also secondary storylines are tracks"

No, they are not. Unless your plan is to redefine what a track is. Certainly, they have characteristics in common with tracks, but they do not--by any means--fit the full definition. For a secondary storyline to be a track it would have to be a bus-able isolated channel that runs the entire length of program in a consistent space.


Return to posts index

David Lawrence
Re: After a year has perception of FCPX changed?
on May 30, 2012 at 12:34:45 am

[Chris Harlan] "No, they are not. Unless your plan is to redefine what a track is. Certainly, they have characteristics in common with tracks, but they do not--by any means--fit the full definition. For a secondary storyline to be a track it would have to be a bus-able isolated channel that runs the entire length of program in a consistent space."

Yep. Well said, Chris.

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


Return to posts index

TImothy Auld
Re: After a year has perception of FCPX changed?
on May 30, 2012 at 12:43:01 am

You are frightening and intimidating me with your clarity of thought this late in the day.

Tim


Return to posts index

Chris Harlan
Re: After a year has perception of FCPX changed?
on May 30, 2012 at 5:19:57 am

[TImothy Auld] "You are frightening and intimidating me with your clarity of thought this late in the day.
"


Yes, my power to illuminate the bloody obvious can just be overwhelming sometimes.


Return to posts index

Richard Herd
Re: After a year has perception of FCPX changed?
on May 30, 2012 at 5:52:38 am

I'm no essentialist philosopher. I don't care about essential qualities or arguments about necessary features before a label can be applied. If it, or better yet, if I can get it to behave like a track, then it's a track. If you can't get it to behave like a track, then use a different UI. Does it matter to me? No. Does it matter to you? No.

The point of tracks is simultaneity.

The guy who said it was non-linearity has confused the two terms.

It's all to me a bunch of silliness, but I do enjoy a good craigslist.org type open forum thread circa 2001.

I hope your clients are happy! I hope they return for more work!


Return to posts index

Chris Harlan
Re: After a year has perception of FCPX changed?
on May 30, 2012 at 6:21:33 am

[Richard Herd] "I hope your clients are happy! I hope they return for more work!"

Me too.


Return to posts index

Franz Bieberkopf
Re: After a year has perception of FCPX changed?
on May 29, 2012 at 1:33:26 am

[Bill Davis] "Change is afoot. Big change. X is part of that."

"Nothing dates faster than people's fantasies about the future."
- Robert Hughes, The Shock of the New (Episode 4)

[Walter Soyka] "Not to resurrect the PIOP debate, ..."

No debate gets re-opened faster than any given previous debate here.
- F. Bieberkopf, (Episode X+1)


Return to posts index

Franz Bieberkopf
Re: After a year has perception of FCPX changed?
on May 29, 2012 at 1:38:14 am

... in addition to which, I would like to propose "The Persistent In And Out Points Debate" as our very own Godwin's Law.

Franz.


Return to posts index

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