FORUMS: list search recent posts

FCP-X "Lightroom for video"

COW Forums : Apple Final Cut Pro X Debates

<< PREVIOUS   •   VIEW ALL   •   PRINT   •   NEXT >>
Bill Davis
FCP-X "Lightroom for video"
on Sep 21, 2012 at 10:34:35 pm

Spent the evening last night at a lecture by a national Adobe Lightroom expert.

I'm not a still guy, but I try to learn something about parallel disciplines and last night was very interesting. And Since Adobe's foundation was originally more successful extending Photoshop than extending Premier (at least back in the day), I thought what I saw and heard might be interesting to the video folk here.

He made some points. Among many...

Lightroom being a database not actually a photo browser like Bridge or a photo editor like Photoshop.

He opined that this is important because everything goes faster if you're dealing with a database rather than manipulating original files.

He also talked at length about efficiency, noting that with the specific tools in Lightroom, he can do nearly all of the work he needs to do to manage, prepare, and export his pictures for his clients inside Lightroom -and rarely goes into Photoshop these days unless his clients are specifically willing to pay extra for custom retouching. He noted he actually prefers to leave that to others - like agency art directors - so he can remain productive in his core competency - which is photo creation over photo re-touching.

As he described his workflow, he talked about shooting 3000 to 5000 or more images on a typical shoot - having to cut that down to 200-300 in an initial pass - then concentrate on getting 100 - 200 of those "client ready" for review as quickly as possible.

He spent a lot of time talking about metadata tagging workflows that enable precisely that. Instinctive, rapid rough sort - rather than burning time obsessively looking back and forth between two similar images trying to figure out which one might be "more perfect."

Essentially, he's leveraging metadata and tagging to ruthlessly drive efficiency - so he can make more money faster.

The reason I'm writing about this here, is that with cameras becoming less expensive and more prevalent - our industry is seeing vastly more raw footage generated than we ever had to deal with in the past.

The thing that struck me most was the 3-part approach he showed out of Lightroom. 1. Build the database via tagging. 2. Attach additional metadata to it to express your editing decisions. Then Batch export in order to satisfy multiple constituencies who have differing needs - essentially creating not just ONE master - but multiple masters for uses ranging from emailing client review files to archiving.

This seems to me to be very much like the X rebuild. Most of the Lightroom approach for stills - is expressed similarly in X. (Tho obviously photo management and video stream management are vastly different in data scope and throughput considerations.)

Lightroom has clearly come to dominate professional photography in the past few years.

So for those on Premier, I'd be interested in your thoughts. I've seen Premier as a big tool for a specific set of editorial tasks much like Photoshop for stills.

Is a tool like X that seems to be built more on a Lightroom style approach to video - a fair metaphor?

I know many here wanted a more Photoshop approach in X than Lightroom. But I wonder if the wider market sees more potential in the rapid manipulation and management approach - as opposed to deep-file precision rebuilding and repair approach that Photoshop is so known for?

Will Premier continue to expand on the current approach? And if so, will Adobe ever do for video what they did for image manipulation - bring out a "lightroom" approach for video?

Interesting questions.

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

Rafael Amador
Re: FCP-X "Lightroom for video"
on Sep 22, 2012 at 3:22:05 am

[Bill Davis] "So for those on Premier, I'd be interested in your thoughts. I've seen Premier as a big tool for a specific set of editorial tasks much like Photoshop for stills."
I would never compare Photoshop with PP. In any case i would compare it with AE. Somehow, AE is Photoshop in motion.

I think that a Lightroom approach for video managing would be interesting for distribution of raw material for news and so. In the end this is not much related with video editing, or at least I don't see this the kind of tasks that an NLE must be designed for.
rafael

http://www.nagavideo.com


Return to posts index

Bret Williams
Re: FCP-X "Lightroom for video"
on Sep 22, 2012 at 4:00:34 am

"Premiere"

And I'd say X is more akin to iPhoto & Aperture. Both of which are similar, but preceded Lightroom, and share many of the same terminology and interface nuances.


Return to posts index


David Lawrence
Re: FCP-X "Lightroom for video"
on Sep 22, 2012 at 6:58:40 am

[Bill Davis] "Will Premier continue to expand on the current approach? And if so, will Adobe ever do for video what they did for image manipulation - bring out a "lightroom" approach for video?"

They already have. It's called Prelude.

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


Return to posts index

David Lawrence
Re: FCP-X "Lightroom for video"
on Sep 22, 2012 at 7:06:09 am

BTW, the Prelude product manager is Wes Plate, a name that should be very familiar around here. I expect this program will get very very good. It's currently at version 1.0.2.

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


Return to posts index

Oliver Peters
Re: FCP-X "Lightroom for video"
on Sep 22, 2012 at 3:44:28 pm

I'm not exactly sure why this is a revelation. Apple did this first with Aperture and basically the database management functions are similar between Aperture and Lightroom. The same team that developed Aperture developed iMovie and FCP X.

- Oliver

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


Return to posts index


Oliver Peters
Re: FCP-X "Lightroom for video"
on Sep 22, 2012 at 3:48:11 pm

PS: And the reason Lightroom dominates is because Apple has given all signals of having lost interest in Aperture. It's simply a vehicle to sell iMacs and MacBook Pros. They haven't been keeping ahead with the feature set. Meanwhile Adobe keeps making Lightroom better.

Oliver

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


Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: FCP-X "Lightroom for video"
on Sep 22, 2012 at 5:20:28 pm

Prelude is young, yet.

It was certainly developed for a very specific broadcast workflow at first, I hope it broadens up to more workflows. It has lots of potential.

I would love it if it could help color manage/conform Log based footage, or help to consolidate, or help with a non news type of setting.

On a separate note, has anyone here transferred their collection from Aperture to Lightroom? How was that process?


Return to posts index

Walter Soyka
Re: FCP-X "Lightroom for video"
on Sep 24, 2012 at 2:17:06 pm

[Jeremy Garchow] "On a separate note, has anyone here transferred their collection from Aperture to Lightroom? How was that process?"

My wife is a photographer. Last year, she joined the exodus from Aperture to Lightroom.

The move is pretty easy on the library side. RAW adjustments don't translate, so you must rasterize them if you wish to preserve them.

http://lightroomsolutions.com/articles/migrating-from-aperture-to-lightroom...

Walter Soyka
Principal & Designer at Keen Live
Motion Graphics, Widescreen Events, Presentation Design, and Consulting
RenderBreak Blog - What I'm thinking when my workstation's thinking
Creative Cow Forum Host: Live & Stage Events


Return to posts index


Walter Soyka
Re: FCP-X "Lightroom for video"
on Sep 24, 2012 at 7:04:38 pm

[Oliver Peters] "PS: And the reason Lightroom dominates is because Apple has given all signals of having lost interest in Aperture. It's simply a vehicle to sell iMacs and MacBook Pros. They haven't been keeping ahead with the feature set. Meanwhile Adobe keeps making Lightroom better."

There's another point of discussion that came up over and over among photographers I know -- Aperture defaults to a managed library, where it stores all your photos for you in a single monolithic bundle that is not meant to be manipulated in the Finder, whereas Lightroom works with your disk/folder structure.

This is a point that has come up here before with respect to FCP7 vs FCPX, and Lightroom is interesting here in that it shows that you can still have a fully managed catalog (media database) and have direct Finder/Explorer-level access to your file structure.

Walter Soyka
Principal & Designer at Keen Live
Motion Graphics, Widescreen Events, Presentation Design, and Consulting
RenderBreak Blog - What I'm thinking when my workstation's thinking
Creative Cow Forum Host: Live & Stage Events


Return to posts index

Bill Davis
Re: FCP-X "Lightroom for video"
on Sep 24, 2012 at 8:08:22 pm

[Walter Soyka] " Lightroom is interesting here in that it shows that you can still have a fully managed catalog (media database) and have direct Finder/Explorer-level access to your file structure."

But Walter, in any photographic app - all pointers necessarily lead to single, monolithic fixed original file - the original state of which doesn't ever change over time. Whereas with video in general - and with X in particular - the goal is to tag "ranges" of original items that are changing over time.

This seems to me the because any photo database can impose a "source file is THIS and always will be" approach that makes it much simpler to manage at a finder level than a video system where the Source file is defined by multiple ranges of a clip that the user is free to designate, remove, and/or re-define at will.

(formal analogy warning!)
It's pull toy (single connection) verses spider web (interconnectedness) that makes one task relatively easy and the other orders of magnitude more complex?

I'd be intersted in hearing from others who know about competitive editorial systems here.

Are there any other hybrids out there that are more like X (and Lightroom, to keep the thread on topic) in the sense of each being apparently designed to seamlessly mesh both database and editorial functions into a single interface.

I know Adobe has it's much loved "dynamic linking." Do I read it correctly that this is a bit like my beloved Filemaker Pro - essentially flat file database - but with "quasi-relational" features via lookup and linking - which keeps it less complex to use and manage, but also provides a taste of "interconnectedness?"

Again, I appreciate the discussion from all.

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


Return to posts index

Walter Soyka
Re: FCP-X "Lightroom for video"
on Sep 24, 2012 at 9:58:09 pm

[Bill Davis] "But Walter, in any photographic app - all pointers necessarily lead to single, monolithic fixed original file - the original state of which doesn't ever change over time. Whereas with video in general - and with X in particular - the goal is to tag "ranges" of original items that are changing over time. This seems to me the because any photo database can impose a "source file is THIS and always will be" approach that makes it much simpler to manage at a finder level than a video system where the Source file is defined by multiple ranges of a clip that the user is free to designate, remove, and/or re-define at will. "

I'm not sure I follow. A source file is a source file, whether it's a still or a movie. The range within the source file is a separate bit of metadata defining a selection relative to that source, whether it's crop region in a photo or an in-to-out temporal range in a video.

I don't mean to pick a fight about managed vs. referenced media stores. They each have strengths and weaknesses. I was just noting that a good number of photographers I know wanted the same degree of control over the storage of RAW files as they did their negatives.


[Bill Davis] "Are there any other hybrids out there that are more like X (and Lightroom, to keep the thread on topic) in the sense of each being apparently designed to seamlessly mesh both database and editorial functions into a single interface."

To be pedantic, I'm not sure you can implement an NLE without also implementing a database.

I am not trying to take away anything from the advances that FCPX has made here, but there was a lot of database goodness to be had with Legend, too. I used subclips like ranges and the "Good" checkbox like a favorite marker in FCP Legend all the time. I set custom thumbnails for icon view. I stuffed all kinds of metadata into the name, description, scene, shot, and angle columns. I used browser sorts and finds all the time to sift through footage.

FCPX does this better -- no argument from me there -- but a lot of these metadata and database-driven benefits have been readily available to editors as long as NLEs have been on the desktop.

All that said, I certainly agree with your general contention that given the increasing volume of data and the increasing velocity with which we generate it, putting more tools in front of the user to help them manage it all is a very good thing.


[Bill Davis] "I know Adobe has it's much loved "dynamic linking." Do I read it correctly that this is a bit like my beloved Filemaker Pro - essentially flat file database - but with "quasi-relational" features via lookup and linking - which keeps it less complex to use and manage, but also provides a taste of "interconnectedness?""

Dynamic link is a pipe that lets you connect the output of one app to the input of another in order to eliminate disconnected intermediate renders (I do love this phrase which you have coined, by the way!)

Basically, you can drag and drop an After Effects composition (analogous to a Motion project's timeline) into Premiere, and it will work in Premiere as if it were any other video clip. Make a change in Ae, it reflects automatically in Pr, without any rendering required.

It's really got nothing to do with databases, other than the data that defines the connection is stored in one. It's more about reducing friction between the member apps of the suite.

Walter Soyka
Principal & Designer at Keen Live
Motion Graphics, Widescreen Events, Presentation Design, and Consulting
RenderBreak Blog - What I'm thinking when my workstation's thinking
Creative Cow Forum Host: Live & Stage Events


Return to posts index


Bill Davis
Re: FCP-X "Lightroom for video"
on Sep 22, 2012 at 6:17:07 pm

Thanks.

I don't follow the Adobe products, so I wan't aware of prelude.

The MacWorld review of it said...

"It helps you ingest and manage large amounts of recorded content from various sources and lets you organize the clips and also add directorial notation and rough cuts to pass on to an editor. You might say it’s the director’s tool for managing and selecting the dailies—the footage shot on any given day."

Is that a fair representation?

It seems counter to what I watched about Lightroom, since I was shown not only organizational tools but tools that enabled the user to largely perfect and export finished results as easily for a client as for another department.

Again, just trying to clarify my thinking about these products.



Essentially, the goal of most photographers using lightroom is to get the job DONE there. Rather than

"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

David Lawrence
Re: FCP-X "Lightroom for video"
on Sep 23, 2012 at 1:36:23 am

[Bill Davis] "You might say it’s the director’s tool for managing and selecting the dailies—the footage shot on any given day."

Is that a fair representation? "


Yes, that seems fair and accurate to me.

[Bill Davis] "It seems counter to what I watched about Lightroom, since I was shown not only organizational tools but tools that enabled the user to largely perfect and export finished results as easily for a client as for another department.

Again, just trying to clarify my thinking about these products."


I haven't done much work with Prelude yet other than to just open it and poke around, but my impression and everything I've read about it says that it's more geared to prep than finishing. It has tools for doing a first pass assembly and rough cut, but it's really not intended to be a full-blown editor. I think this makes sense given how it's positioned in the workflow.

When you think about it, photo touch-up is a much more specific task than full editorial so I can see how it might be possible to get images client ready in Lightroom. Editorial really is a much bigger job. That said, the program is very new so who knows how much will be possible with future versions.

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


Return to posts index

Michael Hendrix
Re: FCP-X "Lightroom for video"
on Sep 23, 2012 at 5:01:18 pm

I believe Prelude was also developed more for News Producers that are not editors. It was a product that was specifically written for CNN and someone else. They just through it in the CS6 suite.

My guess, when Prelude 2.0 comes out, it will be miles ahead (aka, Encore 1 to 2). The foundation is there with Dynamic Link, as even after a project is taken to Premiere, you can still make changes in Prelude and it updates through DL.



Return to posts index


Oliver Peters
Re: FCP-X "Lightroom for video"
on Sep 23, 2012 at 6:51:32 pm

I don't think you should view Prelude's database functions at the same level as Lightroom, FCP X or FC Server. It's really a logging/transcoding/pre-edit application with the ability to inject metadata into a clip. This carries over into Premiere Pro. In that sense it's more like a standalone version of Avid's AMA or even Avid Media Log or FCP "Log & transfer".

- Oliver

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


Return to posts index

Bill Davis
Re: FCP-X "Lightroom for video"
on Sep 24, 2012 at 3:53:24 am

So if I understand all the responses from people who know more about this than I do ...

It seems that my original contention that when Apple re-invented FCP from Legacy to X, they may have incorporated a bit of the same philosophy that Adobe employed in adding Lightroom to their lineup.

What impressed me about the Lightroom product what that a wide range of working professoinal photographers who are more concerned with volume and productivity than micro-control and perfecting - can be more productive and save a lot of time and grief by doing more work in Lightroom - since it's oriented less toward making one thing "perfect", and more towards making it easy for photographers to create and manage more content, more quickly - whilst maintaining the ability to improve that content easily over time.

(that said, the demo guy was able to make some pretty deep changes to his images and ended up with some extremely "publishable" finals directly out of Lightroom.)

Obviously Photoshop remains in the still industry for those who need or want total control for the "last forever" types of content that must be as perfect as possible prior to release. But Lightroom seems to have earned a place in the workflow of many photo pros because it concentrates on the tasks most commonly done for most images in volume production situations.

That seems important to me, since I'm rapidly seeing clients interested in creating videos to feed the web rather than TV or cinema - any therefore prioritizing "get it done and out there quick - then go back and refine it as needed".

Again, I'm just thinking on the page, here. But watching an approach sweep an established industry as Lightroom appears to be doing in the still photography world caught my attention last week.

Thanks to those here who have helped me understand the context.

I appreciate the points of view and the discussion.

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


Return to posts index

Oliver Peters
Re: FCP-X "Lightroom for video"
on Sep 24, 2012 at 12:04:26 pm

Bill,

I think you are missing the image manipulation horsepower of Lightroom (and Aperture for that matter). LR is a powerful image manipulation tool on par with Photoshop. It's just that it is geared towards photographic adjustments, not graphics or compositing. If you only work with photos, you never really have to touch LR. In addition, there's a plug-in architecture that currently supports a lot of popular tools, like Magic Bullet Looks, DFT FilmStocks and TIffen Dfx. These same statements are all true of Aperture as well. New in LR4 is the limited ability to review, trim, adjust and transcode video files.

Here's a link to a recent review I wrote:

http://digitalfilms.wordpress.com/category/apps-gear-filters/2012/06/30/ado...

Oliver

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


Return to posts index


Walter Soyka
Re: FCP-X "Lightroom for video"
on Sep 24, 2012 at 1:53:16 pm

[Bill Davis] "What impressed me about the Lightroom product what that a wide range of working professoinal photographers who are more concerned with volume and productivity than micro-control and perfecting - can be more productive and save a lot of time and grief by doing more work in Lightroom - since it's oriented less toward making one thing "perfect", and more towards making it easy for photographers to create and manage more content, more quickly - whilst maintaining the ability to improve that content easily over time."

I guess I see Lightroom a little bit differently. I think Lightroom is all about workflow -- a product designed specifically around photographers' professional needs, not a product designed specifically to favor speed over control.

Traditionally, a photographer takes a bunch of pictures, edits them down to a smaller set of selects, and makes technical and sometimes artistic corrections to the images before delivering them.

This may sound almost ridiculous, but prior to Lightroom & Aperture, there was really no software specifically for photographers. You had to use some combination of a DAM/catalog/browser like Portfolio or Bridge along with a raster editor like Photoshop -- none of which are purpose-built for photography.

Lightroom encompasses everything a photographer might do in a darkroom; you've got negative storage, browsing and selection (like with a light table), and development and printing. The toolset accommodates all the traditional needs of a photographer, but ends there (no airbrush or magazine layout, for example). The toolset exploits computers' strengths where possible (database!) but is fundamentally geared around the same workflow as photographers have been using for decades.


[Bill Davis] "Obviously Photoshop remains in the still industry for those who need or want total control for the "last forever" types of content that must be as perfect as possible prior to release. But Lightroom seems to have earned a place in the workflow of many photo pros because it concentrates on the tasks most commonly done for most images in volume production situations."

The photographer's final deliverable is very often a source for another creative professional (designer, art director, editor), and that's where Photoshop comes in.

Paint, retouch, compositing, graphics -- these are all tasks where Photoshop excels.

Of course, unless your deliverable is a single image, Photoshop is not the end if the line, either. It may go from there to InDesign for print, Ae for motion graphics, Pr/FCP/whatever for editorial, Dreamweaver/Edge/Muse/whatever for web, etc.


[Bill Davis] "Again, I'm just thinking on the page, here. But watching an approach sweep an established industry as Lightroom appears to be doing in the still photography world caught my attention last week. Thanks to those here who have helped me understand the context. I appreciate the points of view and the discussion."

Lightroom is sweeping the industry, and in my opinion, that's because its approach is a digital version of the approach that photographers have always taken to their work.

I'm struggling with how to compare it to FCPX. On the one hand, FCPX fundamentally does the same stuff that any other NLE does. On the other hand, the way that FCPX wants to do it is a bit different than anything else.

Walter Soyka
Principal & Designer at Keen Live
Motion Graphics, Widescreen Events, Presentation Design, and Consulting
RenderBreak Blog - What I'm thinking when my workstation's thinking
Creative Cow Forum Host: Live & Stage Events


Return to posts index

Michael Griggs
Re: FCP-X "Lightroom for video"
on Sep 24, 2012 at 5:21:33 pm

[Walter Soyka] "Lightroom encompasses everything a photographer might do in a darkroom; you've got negative storage, browsing and selection (like with a light table), and development and printing. "

Yup.

The best comparison of Lightroom to a video program would not be an NLE, but a color grading app, like Resolve.


Return to posts index

Walter Soyka
Re: FCP-X "Lightroom for video"
on Sep 24, 2012 at 5:45:30 pm

[Michael Griggs] "The best comparison of Lightroom to a video program would not be an NLE, but a color grading app, like Resolve."

In terms of image control, yes, but in terms of workflow, I disagree.

Color grading is usually the last step of video post-production, whereas Lightroom is the first step in still post-production, before the image is retouched, composited, or used elsewhere (web, video, print). Lightroom has loads of editorial functionality (image selection, not image modification) that are not present in a dedicated color grading app.

I think a product like SCRATCH Lab might be a better comparison from a workflow perspective, because it's designed for dailies workflows. SCRATCH allows you to stack multiple takes for a shot within a single construct for comparison purposes, and it allows for look development before the footage is ever imported into an NLE.

But this is still not a perfect comparison -- and there may not be one, since photos and video, for all their similarities, are still very different.

Walter Soyka
Principal & Designer at Keen Live
Motion Graphics, Widescreen Events, Presentation Design, and Consulting
RenderBreak Blog - What I'm thinking when my workstation's thinking
Creative Cow Forum Host: Live & Stage Events


Return to posts index

Michael Griggs
Re: FCP-X "Lightroom for video"
on Sep 24, 2012 at 6:44:39 pm

[Walter Soyka] "I think a product like SCRATCH Lab might be a better comparison from a workflow perspective"


Ok, you got me there. Workflow is quite different.

To Bill's original point/question, is FCPX akin to LR....I think it's a definite NO.

You could say any program that is non-destructive/database oriented is comparative to X's metadata-tagging etc approach. But isn't that really just oversimplifying any app that uses a computer's strengths?


To speak to the difference/relationship between LR and Photoshop, I would say that compares better to a Premier/AE workflow...you edit (organize, color correct/stylize) in Premier/Lightroom, and for more intensive and specific work on a shot or picture, you would go to Photoshop/After Effects. (Obviously they can all be used individually or as a group.)


Return to posts index

Bill Davis
Re: FCP-X "Lightroom for video"
on Sep 24, 2012 at 7:29:11 pm

[Michael Griggs] "To Bill's original point/question, is FCPX akin to LR....I think it's a definite NO.

You could say any program that is non-destructive/database oriented is comparative to X's metadata-tagging etc approach. But isn't that really just oversimplifying any app that uses a computer's strengths?"



I don't disagree with this. I'm just trying to clarify my understanding,

At one level, the major functional change that happened between FCP Legacy and X was two fold. First, the database functions were massively enhanced and given equal weight in the interface. And second, there was both and stripping down and re-imagining of what the most needed editorial and project handling functions should be to get the results that Apple felt that the largest number of modern editors (at MOST levels of daily editing, not just the upper end of the professional class) would want.

So you get an emphasis on rapid workflow. High quality results, but in more limited areas of focus. Robust import and export for fast project creation and agile project sharing. And a connected workflow that encourages revision and versioning export.

There was a lot of what I saw in the Lightroom demo that seemed to have the a similar overall philosophy.

I'm not saying they have the same goals or the same intents. Just similar approaches to looking at what 'some" classes of real world users might need - and designing a tool specifically to do those functions - rather than continuing to try to complete with a single monolithic tool that tries to do everything for everyone.

Essentially, Lightroom is a tool for a class of photo producers that covers territory that Photoshop does not - by adding robust database functions to a limited but also pretty robust suite of tools necessary for most day to day photographic work.

Doing this, it seeks to solve particular workflow problems that are increasingly part of a working photographers daily reality.

Arguably, FCP-X was designed to do something very similar in video.

But I acknowledge the analogy is far from perfect.

At best that comparing them can do is point out that across the digital production realms - there are needs for new tools for the way people work today and may work in the future - compared to how we all used to work yesterday.

Lightroom is doing well in photography because it seems to have well focused on serving the real world needs of its core audience.

Whether X will do the same is an unfolding story.

Nothing more than that.

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


Return to posts index

Michael Griggs
Re: FCP-X "Lightroom for video"
on Sep 24, 2012 at 7:43:28 pm

[Bill Davis] "High quality results, but in more limited areas of focus."

A.K.A. - Apple in a nutshell.....


Return to posts index

David Lawrence
Re: FCP-X "Lightroom for video"
on Sep 24, 2012 at 7:46:45 pm

[Michael Griggs] "A.K.A. - Apple in a nutshell....."

AKA FCPX in a nutshell... ;)

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


Return to posts index

Bill Davis
Re: FCP-X "Lightroom for video"
on Sep 24, 2012 at 8:10:17 pm

[David Lawrence] "[Michael Griggs] "A.K.A. - Apple in a nutshell....."

AKA FCPX in a nutshell... ;)"


With a nod to Blaise Pascal, of course. (paraphrasing) "I would have written you a shorter letter - if I had more time."

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


Return to posts index

Walter Soyka
Re: FCP-X "Lightroom for video"
on Sep 24, 2012 at 7:29:44 pm

[Michael Griggs] "You could say any program that is non-destructive/database oriented is comparative to X's metadata-tagging etc approach. But isn't that really just oversimplifying any app that uses a computer's strengths?"

I think that database-driven media stores and non-destructive media manipulation are fundamental to all NLEs. This is not new with FCPX.

What is new with FCPX are a bunch of evolutionary improvements to that database, especially on the UI and search/retrieval side. I don't think of these as the revolutionary improvements one in terms of structure or impact beyond the scope of editorial that some people have discussed here. (I've also found that a lot of people here look at all the exposed power of the media's relational database in the events browser and assume that projects are similarly database-driven, when in fact they seem to be very hierarchical.)

In other words, I think that FCPX offers some notable interior improvements for many editors, but I don't see how FCPX changes an entire discipline's workflow in the way that Lightroom does.

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

Chris Harlan
Re: FCP-X "Lightroom for video"
on Sep 24, 2012 at 7:03:13 am

[Oliver Peters] "I don't think you should view Prelude's database functions at the same level as Lightroom, FCP X or FC Server. It's really a logging/transcoding/pre-edit application with the ability to inject metadata into a clip. "

Seconded.


Return to posts index

Aindreas Gallagher
Re: FCP-X "Lightroom for video"
on Sep 24, 2012 at 10:28:21 pm

late jumping in, sorry if this has been covered - so think of prelude like first cut say?

...if we want to get really meta about the choice steve made when ubillos showed him first cut - the original architecture for what became the imovie/fcpx architecture.

it is documented that Ubillos originally envisioned a lightroom style pre-stage to FCP (that being photoshop), which is what he presented - hence the non-narrative cascading bunching of clips that drove the imovie users of the time mad - but steve jobs decided the insights presented by Ubillos were broader in application.

god knows jobs could leap into puddles though right? but in the long and the short - that presentation, which I would argue was proper on ubillos's part and a fundamental error on Jobs's part - lead to a pre-stage organising mechanism being imploded directly into the creative main stage of the editing ground space.

If we want proof of this we need look no further than the fact that ubillos, when deriving all of the main elements - drive libraries, tagging, filmstrips within a single viewer, which are all on record as the elements of the first cut demo that Jobs re-directed into imovie - when ubillos devised all this architecture, he never intended it to be a mainstage FCP editing area. Let alone imovie.

I rather feel this point is overlooked. Ubillos walked in with one thing, and via Jobs - we all, over time and inertia, got another.


it is a continuous elbow twitch for me with FCPX - its beautifully put together, in a certain sense, it has colour correction capabilities in the area of masking that makes lumps out of every other editing system out there, and bar tracking, matches every high end colour correction system out there without exception (ok b-splines but whatever) -
the responsiveness of the masking and effects architecture on consumer hardware at 1080P is outright surreal - still - in the upper left hand corner I have a headache of compaction, where I am presented with OS level drives, twirl down menus to see the tags, filmstrips, and sweet god knows what else - it is simply too much noise up there.

that pre-stage, exactly as adobe has it with prelude...

....has instead become the final intellectual collapse of Ubiloss's first cut?
a ludicrously cramped area comprising events, OS drives, tags, favourite viewer, filmstrips - a single bin viewer mess - and this mashed potato mess is actually supposed to be the composed editing staging area for your determined FCPX timeline?

that aside - don't get me started on the everliving joke that is the mangled, 3D whacky style filmstrip view A/B trimming, auto-linking, auto rippling mess that is that idiot's preferred idiot of all time timeline.

--------------------------------

*better vendor message*

in other news - hey! - adobe are quietly posting (themselves) a nice third party hack to fractionally reduce the onscreen GUI size of their excellent timeline trimming tools.

I'm not joking, they really did. I swear - they are an editor's editor as a vendor.

Prelude is really rather nice, and very trustworthy. it certifies a transcode, which I half love. Adobe PPro 6 is, with flaws, (would you like to import that other project?) an excellent, highly focused editing system, developing at warp speed. Adobe want this very much.

And in Adobe's case the "this" is unequivocally monetarily focused on the professional user.

Adobe do not sell phones.

http://vimeo.com/user1590967/videos http://www.ogallchoir.net promo producer/editor.grading/motion graphics


Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: FCP-X "Lightroom for video"
on Sep 24, 2012 at 10:45:01 pm

[Aindreas Gallagher] "so think of prelude like first cut say? "

You have to be overly generous with the word "cut" when using Prelude. It's more of an assemly than a cut. Most of the "cutting" is done through markers. You add a marker with an in and out, and you can add that marker range to the timeline, you can't "Cut" a clip. You can also add a clip in it's entirelty, and you can roughly rearrange the clips, but it's not a cut. I liken it more to a marker assembly or string out.

[Aindreas Gallagher] "that pre-stage, exactly as adobe has it with prelude...

....has instead become the final intellectual collapse of Ubiloss's first cut - a ludicrously cramped area comprising events, OS drives, tags, favourite viewer, filmstrips - a single bin viewer mess - and this mashed potato mess is actually the composed editing staging area for your FCPX timeline."


Maybe. I think Prelude is designed for non editors to give a rough idea to editors (or a news producer that was there during the shoot to give to an editor back at the ranch) as well as handle any transcodes and card dumps. As an editor, the actual "Rough Cut" portion of Prelude drives me sorta nutty, and organization is actually better in Pr because you can have all sorts of bins. I also don't like the one way communication of Prelude being the first, everything else after it, and how XMP seems to a forgotten stepchild of Adobe. Prelude could stand to serve as a middle man, but Prelude is very young yet and needs more experience. However, I do appreciate that Adobe is taking non native workflows seriously. I wish AVCHD would get blown off the planet never to return.


Return to posts index

Aindreas Gallagher
Re: FCP-X "Lightroom for video"
on Sep 24, 2012 at 11:18:01 pm

my irritation resides with FCPX.

the upper left of the FCPX GUI is an editors bomb site of exposed mounted drives, tags, favourites, keyword collections and filmstrips.

The point is however - that the above use scenario can be, in a consumer use case, an utterly simple paradigm - and yet still horribly reductive for us.

Apple are simultaneously introducing useless complexities (roles), and still busily bleeding in stupidity, such that they can see uniform behaviour across all of those using their editing paradigm under their sun. Editing may as well be as proprietary as maps.

Apple are the very very worst here. the arts and technology crossroads they are looking to straddle is a devils crossroad.

we need to walk away from this. quickly.

http://vimeo.com/user1590967/videos http://www.ogallchoir.net promo producer/editor.grading/motion graphics


Return to posts index

David Lawrence
Re: FCP-X "Lightroom for video"
on Sep 24, 2012 at 11:03:21 pm

[Aindreas Gallagher] "in other news - hey! - adobe are quietly posting (themselves) a nice third party hack to fractionally reduce the onscreen GUI size of their excellent timeline trimming tools."

Link please?!

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


Return to posts index

Aindreas Gallagher
Re: FCP-X "Lightroom for video"
on Sep 24, 2012 at 11:38:31 pm

and the adobe ink -

http://blogs.adobe.com/kevinmonahan/2012/09/20/smaller-premiere-pro-cs6-tri...


Honestly - it's a lovely link, it shows true confidence in the audience, fallon style but - to any old editor at all - why not really, really read this.

and have a hard think through about apple as an editing software vendor going forward. as they say.

http://vimeo.com/user1590967/videos http://www.ogallchoir.net promo producer/editor.grading/motion graphics


Return to posts index

David Lawrence
Re: FCP-X "Lightroom for video"
on Sep 25, 2012 at 3:25:37 am

Thank you kindly. I downloaded and installed the patch but unfortunately the recent 6.0.2 update seems to have broken it. Only the right facing cursors display. Phillip Bloom says they're working on it so I'll try again with the next release. It looks promising.

[Aindreas Gallagher] "Honestly - it's a lovely link, it shows true confidence in the audience, fallon style but - to any old editor at all - why not really, really read this.

and have a hard think through about apple as an editing software vendor going forward. as they say."


Oh you know I have. For me, Adobe is a breath of fresh air.

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


Return to posts index

David Lawrence
Re: FCP-X "Lightroom for video"
on Sep 25, 2012 at 3:40:20 am

[David Lawrence] "unfortunately the recent 6.0.2 update seems to have broken it. Only the right facing cursors display. Phillip Bloom says they're working on it so I'll try again with the next release. "

Well, whaddya know -- turns out the 6.0.2 update included new retina graphics. The reason the patch is broken is because some of the cursor file names have changed.

Also, there are now two versions of each cursor - normal and x2 for retina display. And get this, the cursors are just .png files. You can open, edit and save them in Photoshop. If I get some spare time, I may fix this myself!

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


Return to posts index

Aindreas Gallagher
Re: FCP-X "Lightroom for video"
on Sep 25, 2012 at 12:32:53 pm

no way really? its the one tiny gui gripe i have - I find them a little too harshly red and yellow, and a little too big.

I can tweak these to my hearts content in PS? oh be still my beating heart.

http://vimeo.com/user1590967/videos http://www.ogallchoir.net promo producer/editor.grading/motion graphics


Return to posts index

David Lawrence
Re: FCP-X "Lightroom for video"
on Sep 25, 2012 at 4:48:53 pm

[Aindreas Gallagher] "no way really? its the one tiny gui gripe i have - I find them a little too harshly red and yellow, and a little too big.

I can tweak these to my hearts content in PS? oh be still my beating heart."


Really. It's easy! Here's what you do --

1) Navigate to the Premiere Pro application in the finder.
2) Control-click on the application and select "Show package contents"
3) In the window that opens, navigate to Contents/Settings/Cursor
4) The Cursor directory contains all the cursor image files. Note how they are all .pngs
5) Save a backup copy of the Cursor directory
6) Edit the cursor image files in Photoshop any way you like!!!

That's it. For extra credit you can edit the x2 versions for the retina display as well.

On thing I noticed is that the cursors have translucent edges. If that's important to you, make a green layer behind the image layer in Photoshop so you can see the edge while you're editing, then delete the layer before you save.

Be sure to back up the originals before you start tweaking.

Let me know how it goes. Have fun!

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


Return to posts index

Walter Soyka
Re: FCP-X "Lightroom for video"
on Sep 25, 2012 at 4:58:33 pm

The instructions seem to be about the same for Windows -- the default path is C:\Program Files\Adobe\Adobe Premiere Pro CS6\Settings\Cursor

As best I can tell from looking, the anchor point for the cursors is denoted in the filename (i.e., Cur_AreaSample_3_20.png's pointer is centered 3 pixels to the right and 20 pixels down from the raster's [0,0] upper-left origin). Whether those numbers actually drive the application or merely reflect what's pre-programmed into the app, I couldn't say without testing.

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

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