FORUMS: list search recent posts

FCPX in action

COW Forums : Apple Final Cut Pro X Debates

<< PREVIOUS   •   VIEW ALL   •   PRINT   •   NEXT >>
craig slattery
FCPX in action
on Oct 9, 2012 at 10:22:25 am

The Culture Show, Wednesday 10pm BBC Two 10 October 2012. This episode will contain to the best of my knowledge the very first item cut at the BBC Production Village in FCPX and will screen nationally. Yesterday I completed a 8 min item for our national Arts magazine program cut in FCPX, and the experience I have to say was a lot of fun. The RIBA Stirling Prize 2012, presenter Tom Dyckhoff. The item was cut in London and sent down the line to our Glasgow studio to be included in tomorrow nights show. In Glasgow the item will be dubbed and graded. We sent a Pro Res422 QT and an AAF from X2pro.


Return to posts index

Robin lewis
Re: FCPX in action
on Oct 9, 2012 at 12:21:36 pm

I think with the next update people should stop moaning and start using it in practise. I enjoy it a lot, with the third party extras like X2Pro ECT its faster, more fun and just feels better than all the other NLE. of course still has a long way to go but certainly is not as bad as people make out!

Good to hear someone has used it for broadcast.


Return to posts index

Gary Huff
Re: FCPX in action
on Oct 9, 2012 at 2:14:19 pm

[Robin lewis] "I enjoy it a lot, with the third party extras like X2Pro ECT its faster, more fun and just feels better than all the other NLE."

In your opinion. I've worked with it before and I still enjoy editing in Premiere CS6 far more. And this "faster" thing is completely nebulous.

[Robin lewis] "of course still has a long way to go but certainly is not as bad as people make out!"

Which is funny, because I read of people's workflows on here and they all seem to be filled with work-arounds and attempts to "trick" the magnetic timeline to do what they want it to. It seems like a lot of effort just to use the NLE, and feels like, "I'm going to make this work if it kills me!" I'd prefer to work in something that doesn't require that right off the bat.


Return to posts index


John Davidson
Re: FCPX in action
on Oct 9, 2012 at 6:49:43 pm

Try getting a USB mic to work in Premiere.


Return to posts index

Shawn Miller
Re: FCPX in action
on Oct 9, 2012 at 8:10:23 pm

[John Davidson] "Try getting a USB mic to work in Premiere."

I use an M-Audio USB Mobile Pre on my mobile workstation (with Premiere) without issues. Does it not work under OSX?

Shawn



Return to posts index

John Davidson
Re: FCPX in action
on Oct 9, 2012 at 8:15:19 pm

Not easily. Took quite a few hacks to get it to work (over a day of googling and trying to figure it out). Tried the same thing in FCPX and it just worked right of the gate. Premiere just didn't want to see it. I'm not surprised it works easily on a PC. Adobe and macs are basically just staying together for the kids.

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


Return to posts index


Shawn Miller
Re: FCPX in action
on Oct 9, 2012 at 10:19:43 pm

[John Davidson] "Not easily. Took quite a few hacks to get it to work (over a day of googling and trying to figure it out). Tried the same thing in FCPX and it just worked right of the gate. Premiere just didn't want to see it."

That's disappointing, though I'm suprised Adobe didn't fix it right away. They're usually pretty good about things like that.

[John Davidson] "I'm not surprised it works easily on a PC. Adobe and macs are basically just staying together for the kids."

I'm not a Mac user, but I can't imagine this is a common feeling amongst Adobe users on the Mac. I haven't heard anything like this from AE, Photoshop or Illustrator artists (for instance). Then again, I fully admit that I'm probably out of the loop here.

Shawn



Return to posts index

John Davidson
Re: FCPX in action
on Oct 9, 2012 at 10:34:14 pm

You can tell it from really simple things like cmd+, doesn't open preferences. Standard mac shortcuts are ignored. There are conflicts with standard mac applications using the F# keys for things like easy ease in After Effects. On macs you have to choose between easy ease (F9) or muting your computer. I kept the mute on my computer as I use that more than easy ease.

There are also less Adobe supported graphics cards on macs vs pc's. Full-Screen isn't supported, even though that feature was available for Adobe to implement since Feb of 2011 when Lion was first released to developers.

So much about Adobe apps for mac screams "we built it for PC's first". I use Adobe apps and I love 'em, but when people on PC's say their adobe stuff works great compared to Mac's, I believe them. Some of that probably has to do with the fact that Macs (iMacs and Mac Pros) have gone so long without a meaningful update. I'm hoping that changes soon. We're jonesing for a new iMac but I'm not buying another one right now because the current models are 500 days old.

I think (hope) Apple has some awesomeness coming soon.


Return to posts index

Shawn Miller
Re: FCPX in action
on Oct 9, 2012 at 11:27:40 pm

[John Davidson] "You can tell it from really simple things like cmd+, doesn't open preferences. Standard mac shortcuts are ignored. There are conflicts with standard mac applications using the F# keys for things like easy ease in After Effects. On macs you have to choose between easy ease (F9) or muting your computer. I kept the mute on my computer as I use that more than easy ease."

I had no idea

[John Davidson] "There are also less Adobe supported graphics cards on macs vs pc's."

Isn't this more of an Apple issue though, since they support so few video cards to begin with? Not criticizing, just wondering aloud if Apple couldn't be a bit better about offering more graphic/display card options.

[John Davidson] "Full-Screen isn't supported, even though that feature was available for Adobe to implement since Feb of 2011 when Lion was first released to developers."

Just bizarre, I wonder why this is. I wouldn't be happy about it either.

Shawn



Return to posts index


John Davidson
Re: FCPX in action
on Oct 9, 2012 at 11:56:04 pm

The card manufacturers don't make as many cards for macs as they do PC's. When they do, they're more expensive.

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


Return to posts index

Walter Soyka
Re: FCPX in action
on Oct 10, 2012 at 1:57:52 am

[John Davidson] "You can tell it from really simple things like cmd+, doesn't open preferences. Standard mac shortcuts are ignored. There are conflicts with standard mac applications using the F# keys for things like easy ease in After Effects. On macs you have to choose between easy ease (F9) or muting your computer. I kept the mute on my computer as I use that more than easy ease."

Have you ever used an Adobe product on a PC? If not, you could. Just use your pinky on the Control key instead of your thumb on the Command key. Everything else will be the same. Adobe apps are neither properly Mac-like nor PC-like. The interface is identical, cross-platform.

I'm not sure I'd criticize After Effects for using the function keys -- that's what they were there for! It's relatively recent that those keys have been taken over by the Mac's OS -- and even then, not all Apple keyboards in recent history have used thr same function keys for the same OS features. Apple's own FCP7 used F9 for one of the single most important and common editorial operations. AE has been using F9 for easy ease forever, and they've also bound just about every other key on the keyboard to something, so switching key bindings now would break almost 20 years of muscle memory.


[John Davidson] "So much about Adobe apps for mac screams "we built it for PC's first". I use Adobe apps and I love 'em, but when people on PC's say their adobe stuff works great compared to Mac's, I believe them. Some of that probably has to do with the fact that Macs (iMacs and Mac Pros) have gone so long without a meaningful update. I'm hoping that changes soon. We're jonesing for a new iMac but I'm not buying another one right now because the current models are 500 days old."

I don't think that Adobe chooses to prioritize PC development over Mac development; on the contrary, I think they've taken great pains to keep parity, whether Apple cares about parity or not.

I wished Apple had stayed in the performance game, and I wished Apple hadn't dumped NVIDIA a few years back for ATI in the Mac Pro line. Now I'm over it. I'd certainly hate to see Adobe not pursuing things like GPU acceleration just because Apple doesn't take advanced graphics seriously.

I've adopted PCs alongside my Macs while you've stayed exclusively on the Mac platform, but we're both really doing the exact same thing: choosing our hardware based on our software needs (render power for Adobe/Maxon for me, ability to run FCPX for you). I'll bet it's working out pretty well for us both!

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

John Davidson
Re: FCPX in action
on Oct 10, 2012 at 2:50:39 am

I started on PC's and was a massive detractor of macs until our first Tiger G5 in 2005. A big issue for me was losing the F9 key for easy ease, which is stupid I know, but it was. I still don't think there's a way to get it back without wrecking my itunes control. It's been seven years and we still have to right click on keyframes to easy ease.

When you say CS6 is the same on Mac and PC, I agree, mostly. This consistency of UI takes away from the overall mac experience, i.e. itunes controls, no full screen apps, and the comment above that usb mics worked easily on a pc when on a mac it involved a price in blood to get working. I think in the last 3 years Adobe has taken great pains to code apps better for mac, but the core of all Adobe programs start on PC and then go to mac. If it didn't, we'd see Adobe take more advantage of mac specific abilities like mac consistent keystrokes (CMD + ,) for prefs, full screen apps, and acknowledging the Apple keyboard control layout, for example. We don't even get a mac shortcut layout preference option.

That's part of why I stuck with Apple's solutions. Their programs feel like they were built for the system you're using and take advantage of it. If Adobe made CS6 specifically for mac, they would use Grand Central Dispatch instead of CUDA. Know what I mean?

There's a lot Adobe skips over that OSX makes available to them for whatever reason - I guess multi-platform UI consistency. I think that at it's root Adobe starts in PC land and clones that to mac. It's the under-the-hood things that can get you. There not programs built FOR macs, they're programs built to work ON macs.


Return to posts index


Walter Soyka
Re: FCPX in action
on Oct 10, 2012 at 2:29:13 pm

[John Davidson] "If Adobe made CS6 specifically for mac, they would use Grand Central Dispatch instead of CUDA. Know what I mean? "

GCD is about threading on symmetrical multiprocessing systems, whereas CUDA exploits GPGPU, so OpenCL (also an Apple technology) is probably a better comparison with CUDA. While CUDA predates OpenCL by a few years and has more mature development tools, I think it's worth noting that Adobe has begun supporting OpenCL as well.

But yes, I do get your point that as a cross-platform developer, Adobe doesn't integrate platform-specific features deeply into their applications. Instead, they develop their own core cross-platform technologies (like MediaCore, Mercury Playback Engine, Mercury Graphics Engine, or Mercury Transmit) or leverage cross-platform technologies from third parties (CUDA, OptiX) and adapt them for both Windows and Mac.

Personally, I think that's a good thing. It would be a nightmare to have a version of Creative Suite for Windows that was completely different than a version of Creative Suite for Mac. Native look and feel, depending on host OS? Separate release schedules that were influenced by Microsoft's and Apple's OS schedules? Diverging feature sets according to host platform development roadmaps and offerings? Fragmented user communities?

I use Adobe apps on Macs and PCs alike nearly every day, and I appreciate the common interface and feature parity. I don't feel that the Adobe apps on the Mac side are under-performing given the hardware they're on. In fact, I've noticed a couple things that are smoother or better on the Mac -- like scrolling massive comp timelines in Ae or screen refreshes while loading the effects preset list. In fairness, I use Premiere predominantly on my PCs, so I can't really speak to a platform-based performance difference there.

Some thoughts on the issues of cross-platform design from John Nack:
Some thoughts about platform consistency [link]
Future Photoshop UI changes [link]

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

John Davidson
Re: FCPX in action
on Oct 10, 2012 at 9:22:11 pm

Not completely different, but acknowledging the platform specifics wouldn't kill anybody. Wasn't CS4 32 bit on Mac and 64 bit on PC? I think if Mac versions had a better feature or system functions tailored to the platform, the nightmare would be specifically for PC people would would either want it desperately or call it a gimmick. For those who really commit to a platform (either way) customized options tailored to the platform would be a good thing. That consistancy across Apple apps is what makes using them so pleasant (and part of why I really dig FCPX).

And you totally busted me on CUDA/GCD. I was reaching, obviously :).


Return to posts index

Shawn Miller
Re: FCPX in action
on Oct 10, 2012 at 10:24:04 pm

[John Davidson] " Wasn't CS4 32 bit on Mac and 64 bit on PC?"

Premiere Pro CS4 was 32 bit, but it would work on 64 bit systems. PPro didn't go 64 bit until CS5. I think you may be thinking of Photoshop CS4.

http://www.macworld.com/article/1132810/photoshop64.html

"At WWDC 2007 Apple discontinued its Carbon 64-bit program, which left company’s like Adobe without an avenue to make its current codebase 64-bit."

"Adobe said that they have been working on the Carbon 64-bit version of Photoshop for some time and had planned on releasing a version for Creative Suite 4 (CS4). However, with the changes at WWDC 2007, that is not going to happen."

“Our feeling has been to deliver 64-bit on both platforms for this release,” said Nack. “We could hold back the Windows 64-bit version until we could catch up on the Mac, but that didn’t seem fair to those customers.”


Shawn



Return to posts index


Walter Soyka
Re: FCPX in action
on Oct 11, 2012 at 1:20:35 am

[John Davidson] "Not completely different, but acknowledging the platform specifics wouldn't kill anybody."

You can't accommodate all the platform specifics of Windows and all the platform specifics of the Mac without breaking Adobe's own internal consistency. Instead, they've chosen to essentially create a platform that's neither Windows nor Mac, but is still sensible on both.


[John Davidson] "Wasn't CS4 32 bit on Mac and 64 bit on PC?"

Yes, but as Shawn detailed, that was absolutely Apple's fault. Apple had talked up Carbon 64 in 2006 and even seeded beta versions of Carbon 64 to developers before abruptly pulling the plug in June of 2007.

That left Adobe in a bit of a pickle. They could skip CS4 on the Mac, they could hold back CS4 on the PC, or they could release CS4 on Mac as 32-bit only and work toward rewriting their wrappers in Cocoa for CS5. I think they made the best choice.

From Apple, it would have been far friendlier to developers to have either not committed to 64-bit Carbon in the first place or to have launched and then deprecated 64-bit Carbon gracefully.


[John Davidson] "I think if Mac versions had a better feature or system functions tailored to the platform, the nightmare would be specifically for PC people would would either want it desperately or call it a gimmick. For those who really commit to a platform (either way) customized options tailored to the platform would be a good thing."

Well, what if the PC versions had some better features or system functions tailored to Windows -- but different ones than the Mac? Or what if you like the Mac feature set on Photoshop, but the PC feature set on After Effects?

If you consider Adobe Creative Suite itself to be a platform, creating host-specific features destroys its value.

Imagine if you couldn't guarantee that your version of Photoshop would render a file the same way as the person who sent it to you, because you were on different platforms. Imagine if some files became essentially read-only because you were on a different platform and relied on a feature you didn't have. If they're not exactly the same app, they may as well be totally different apps (see Microsoft Office).

I am sympathetic to your point -- it'd be nice if the apps felt more like other apps on the platform -- but it's a slippery slope from there to pandemonium.


[John Davidson] "That consistancy across Apple apps is what makes using them so pleasant (and part of why I really dig FCPX)."

I'd say the same thing about the Adobe apps -- their consistency across apps and platforms is a plus for me.

I could also argue that Apple is among the worst UI-consistency offenders on the Mac platform today. OS X, the bundled apps, and the Pro Apps are all just a little bit different. Ironically, full-frame apps like Motion and FCPX are more traditionally PC-like than Mac-like, which has, until recently, encouraged separate floating windows.


[John Davidson] "And you totally busted me on CUDA/GCD. I was reaching, obviously :)."

The technical minutia aside, your larger points stands. There are a lot of great features on the Mac platform, and I do understand why you'd want a set of fully-native-feeling apps that can exploit those features. It would make your experience better, and thus the Mac platform as a whole more valuable.

I just think that those benefits are far outweighed by the negatives of splintering a fully cross-platform suite into two platform-specific suites.

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

John Davidson
Re: FCPX in action
on Oct 11, 2012 at 1:30:36 am

That logic is why Adobe programs on mac are limited and built for PC's. That dog will only go as fast as its slowest leg.

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


Return to posts index

Michael Gissing
Re: FCPX in action
on Oct 11, 2012 at 1:35:56 am

The underperformance of Adobe on Mac is largely an Apple problem. To be fair why should Adobe give as much effort to develop software for a minority hardware/OS platform. I think that the long association for many of us with Mac hardware & Apple software has made us forget that most people use Win software and hardware.

Hard to fault Adobe's logic. The fact that they do try to keep software parity shows they are keen to woo disgruntled FCP Legend users. Seems to be a good business strategy. Bitch to Apple about graphics card availability and cost.


Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: FCPX in action
on Oct 11, 2012 at 2:16:47 am

[Michael Gissing] "The underperformance of Adobe on Mac is largely an Apple problem. To be fair why should Adobe give as much effort to develop software for a minority hardware/OS platform. I think that the long association for many of us with Mac hardware & Apple software has made us forget that most people use Win software and hardware.

Hard to fault Adobe's logic. The fact that they do try to keep software parity shows they are keen to woo disgruntled FCP Legend users. Seems to be a good business strategy. Bitch to Apple about graphics card availability and cost."


But isnt this is slowly seeming to change? You can add "unqualified" CUDA cards to Macs and they work. Nvidia has been seemingly constantly updating Mac drivers in the recent years.

This goes well beyond Pr.

Walk into any major print/web design agency, Ps, Ai, Id, most of those machines are Macs.

Many Ae designers are on Macs.

There's an Adobe Mac history that goes way beyond Pr and includes the dark days when Pr wasn't even available on the Mac.

Getting in bed with Adobe is going to mean getting in bed with Nvidia, like it or not. Choosing the right card is often confusing. You can by the "pro" cards for a lot of money, or the gaming cards that offer similar performance for dramatically less price. Nvidia sets the price, Apple doesn't.


Return to posts index

Walter Soyka
Re: FCPX in action
on Oct 11, 2012 at 2:46:03 am

[Jeremy Garchow] "Walk into any major print/web design agency, Ps, Ai, Id, most of those machines are Macs. Many Ae designers are on Macs. There's an Adobe Mac history that goes way beyond Pr and includes the dark days when Pr wasn't even available on the Mac."

Photoshop, Illustrator, and After Effects were all originally Mac programs, and of of course, Macs do have a big design legacy.

And yet John Nack has said that Creative Suite sales are about 50/50, Mac/PC. (See the comments in his blog entry [link].)

I do wonder -- where are all these hidden PCs? Is this just a US/international thing, or are there more PCs in production than we think?

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


Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: FCPX in action
on Oct 11, 2012 at 4:07:45 am

[Walter Soyka] "I do wonder -- where are all these hidden PCs? Is this just a US/international thing, or are there more PCs in production than we think?"

I think it is international, precisely.

[Walter Soyka] "Creative Suite sales are about 50/50, Mac/PC."

I think you might have linked to the wrong blog post, but I'll take your word for it.

So Adobe simply can't give up the Mac platform unless the want to give up half their sales.

I'm not a business major, but....


Return to posts index

Michael Gissing
Re: FCPX in action
on Oct 11, 2012 at 4:05:48 am

If Adobe are saying 50/50 Mac to PC at the moment then I suspect that balance will be changing to PC with Apple's decisions about MacPro and hardware/GPU in general. The general vibe I am getting is that the switch to CS6 and PC at the same time is the preference of editors and facilities that I deal with as they need to both update hardware and NLE. In fact the hardware issue is part of the reason some say they don't want to go FCPX as it is Mac only. Oh the (big) Iron(y).

Apple are clearly responsible for being non standard with graphic cards in Intel based motherboards. Of course GPU card manufacturers have to charge more for a Mac only card. Apple is to blame for that.

Sure more people are going unauthorised with NVIDIA cards but that isn't exactly the Mac way. As Apple software is usually ATI OpenCL oriented then the graphics card issue is for me a major deal breaker and one of the main reasons behind my move to PC. More card slots is another and so is USB3 & esata built into motherboards. Price to performance is the final qualifier.

I see no point in arguing that Adobe are somehow doing themselves a disservice by not making their software more capable of exploiting Mac OS & hardware strengths. No-one is saying Apple should have a PC version of their software and it better perform as well on a PC. I think Adobe have a good idea where things are trending.


Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: FCPX in action
on Oct 11, 2012 at 4:28:07 am

[Michael Gissing] " I think Adobe have a good idea where things are trending."

"Things" meaning FCS3 refugees? Or hardware...or what? What trends?

What about the rest of Adobe customers who could care less about Pr, which most likely is probably a majority of their customers for now?

Look at what Ballmer says in Microsoft's annual letter to shareholders: http://www.theverge.com/2012/10/9/3480696/steve-ballmer-shareholder-letter-...

What happens when Microsoft pisses off some all their hardware partners?


Return to posts index

Michael Gissing
Re: FCPX in action
on Oct 11, 2012 at 4:33:08 am

Trending as in hardware and software choices by editors and facilities in our industry. Even this forum is a good indicator with many reports of people moving to CS6 AND PC.

Will Microsoft piss off hardware vendors? Sure some be annoyed that they plan to make more phones & tablets. Will they do an Apple and refuse to license their OS on third party hardware? I doubt they are that stupid.


Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: FCPX in action
on Oct 11, 2012 at 4:59:22 am

[Michael Gissing] "Trending as in hardware and software choices by editors and facilities in our industry. Even this forum is a good indicator with many reports of people moving to CS6 AND PC. "

Many? I'd say a few. Walter Biscardi just wrote a blog saying his sticking around on Macs for a bit longer. iMacs even.

As far as Adobe trends:

They have already started to Retina-ize the suite.

They have added support for Apple's newest MBPs (with CUDA).

They have added OpenCL support for the non CUDA set.

I imagine that none of this is easy or cheap, so it must be worth it to them as a company or they know something we don't.

I don't know how many people you work with, but I know of exactly one person who is interested in Windows AND CS6, and he's a DP. All my post buddies are slumming it on Macs and waiting around. Most of my Ae buddies won't even consider a PC, even with the greater performance carrot dangle. We all know that Ae is not exactly a performance darling.


Return to posts index

Michael Gissing
Re: FCPX in action
on Oct 11, 2012 at 5:36:53 am

Small sample group anecdotal surveys are not the sort of thing that big companies plan their future on. Of course Adobe will support Macs. Crazy not to.

This whole discussion centers around John Davidson's comment wondering why Adobe doesn't favour Macs and develop in ways that utilise the Mac OS. As Walter Soyka prudently pointed out, there is good reason to standardise the UI and layout.

I am simply expanding on that thought by offering the opinion that PC versions of CS6 are more likely to outnumber Mac versions as Apple let MacPros slide and the price performance ratio on PC is so attractive. Win7 is not a dog of an OS. Far from it. Anyway time will tell.


Return to posts index

Oliver Peters
Re: FCPX in action
on Oct 11, 2012 at 1:42:25 pm

What makes all these predictions so difficult is that we are projecting onto Apple the development path we saw with FCP "legacy". In fact, that was an exception to Apple's normal software development track record. With the exception of operating system software, Apple's application development strategy seems to have followed two paths:

a) Purchase or create software, develop it for a short cycle, pull out core technologies to use elsewhere, kill it off. Color, Shake and Final Cut Server are prime examples.

b) Purchase or create software, develop it for a short cycle until it reaches a point of "stasis" and then let it languish as "good enough for most users". iWork, iLife, Aperture and Logic (maybe) are examples.

The 12-year run that FCP 1-7 had didn't follow either path, but that's mainly because Jobs wanted to shore up Apple's position with pro creative users. But it's not 1999 any longer and Apple is in a different place. Apple hardware/OS as a platform is still highly preferred among pro creatives. Adobe, Autodesk and Avid have assured that Apple will continue there. Not because of Apple, but because it's a good business decision for them based on their own customer demand. When companies talk about a 50/50 PC/Mac footprint, they often mean among NEW USERS, not total installed base. So it's still Apple's market to lose.

When it comes to software, Apple designs for the easy user experience, not power and features. Sometimes they come up with something really innovative, like gestures and control surface support in Motion - only to find that no one really cares. In the end, Apple develops its own software to round out the attractiveness of the Mac ecosystem and platform. Hence, applications only get developed so far and then the engineers move on. Incremental improvements come down the pike, but not major new features.

This leaves us wondering... Will FCP X follow the FCP 1-7 development path - OR - will it follow the Aperture path? If the latter, then we won't see a lot of new features past whatever is released in this next version. Apple will remain content to view FCP X as a platform and let independent developers fill in the gaps. Native I/O based on FCP X XML will continue to be inadequate. Timecode/reel/etc issue will only marginally be addressed. If the former, then gambling on X will have been a good choice.

- Oliver

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


Return to posts index

Walter Soyka
Re: FCPX in action
on Oct 11, 2012 at 2:37:01 am

[John Davidson] "That logic is why Adobe programs on mac are limited and built for PC's. That dog will only go as fast as its slowest leg."

In this example, is the Mac or the PC the slower leg? You could make an argument for either one.

I imagine that Adobe, like most cross-platform developers, builds a common platform-independent codebase for the bulk of the app and writes platform-dependent wrappers for where it interfaces with the host OS.

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 slattery
Re: FCPX in action
on Oct 9, 2012 at 8:30:00 pm

[Gary Huff] "Which is funny, because I read of people's workflows on here and they all seem to be filled with work-arounds and attempts to "trick" the magnetic timeline to do what they want it to"

Nope! love the magnetic timeline.


Return to posts index

Robin lewis
Re: FCPX in action
on Oct 9, 2012 at 8:52:02 pm

It's a really complicated work around, press the 'P' button! I really like how the slip tool is now just the trim tool too yet I have yet do you know hoe to slip a shot fame by fame with the keyboard?


Return to posts index

Aindreas Gallagher
Re: FCPX in action
on Oct 9, 2012 at 9:45:42 pm

hey thats fair ball - do you want to maybe expand on how you use the primary? whats your approach given the serious differences to established NLEs?

I get that it's good for robustly and quickly structuring factual, that appears to be one of its primary goals - but I find it simply infuriating for short form and commercial myself - the overlaying of modalities and the default behaviour of the timeline with autolinking feels seriously over thought -
my b*tching aside -

do you want to give an indication to the manner in which you handle the programme segments in ingest, organisation and timeline versus your previous editor? genuinely curious - figure that would probably be pretty broadly interesting read as it were.
also do you approach geometrics for shot push pulls in FCPX as well as CC stuff?

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


Return to posts index

craig slattery
Re: FCPX in action
on Oct 10, 2012 at 1:24:48 pm

[Aindreas Gallagher] "do you want to give an indication to the manner in which you handle the programme segments in ingest, organisation and timeline versus your previous editor? genuinely curious - figure that would probably be pretty broadly interesting read as it were. "

The injest team at the BBC Production Village have 1000s of hours of footage to injest across many programs. They have a naming protocol that frankly only they can understand. Each item on our show would normally be a 2 day edit. In legacy FCP we import two folders, RUSHES and ARCHIVE. The clips within the folders have names that mean nothing to the end user. I never rename clips or create bins, the edits are quick turnaround so I just get stuck right in. Right from the get go FCPX has advantages. Scanning the footage I can see PTC’s, so I select each clip and simply tag it with a keyword PTC that creates a smart folder called PTC, Wow that was easy! So I selected all the shots of Tom walking around, tagged them, ‘Tom Walking’, I could see the clips for the interviews so I tagged them Multicam media. That took all of 2 minutes. We had two interviews both about 30 mins long, creating the multicam clips took like 4 mins each. (that was incredible, for that reason alone I was having a GREAT day).
So the item was this years RIBA Stirling Prize for Architecture, 6 buildings on the short list, Presenter Tom Dyckhoff, two interviews, self shot (All the directors that self shoot on our show have had camera training, but they are not clearly as good as the professionals, so you really have to mine the footage, plus they tend to over shoot. We also have a guy on the production team that shoots most of our second camera)
I began by recording the guide commentary (COM) then we blocked the structure.
I put gap clips on the primary story line to connect the COM, PTC’s I put on the primary story line and also the full length interview multicam clips. So that process was to create the structure, commentary would change and things may get moved around but we had the basis of the story, and it took 15 - 20 mins.

At this point I had a story that was about 50 mins long. In legacy FCP having two multiclips 20 mins long on the time line, the system would be shitting itself. X didn’t miss a beat. It was incredible. The hardest part of the edit was finding the story in the main interview. Rem Koolhass may be a ‘starchitect’ but he’s also a typical dry, slightly humorless Dutchman. Ideally we would have liked him to say something brilliant about his two buildings on this years short list but he didn’t. He did however have a grin on his face when he said ‘sublty’ and ‘Iconoclasm’ was a hard sell, especially to clients expecting an icon on the London skyline. So we ran with an argument that all the buildings on this years short list are perhaps not as showy as they have been in the past, and is this reflective of our straightened economic times.

Now that we had the interviews cut down and new com written, we just had to paint the item up. BTW to record the new VO I would alt-w (create gap clip) in the spot required, use the trim tool to expand it out, bit like using the select track tool in FCP 7 only super fast.

At this point our Executive Producer was asking to see the rough cut. This at 3pm on day two, she was out of the building so we had to email her a version. (straight from X nice feature) She came back with comments, she wanted to see more in the second interview and we had to loose one of the PTC’s she didn't like. So a little more re writing and scanning the second interview. (I had duplicated the project from day one, so we revisited that to find a juicy bit to put back into the cut.)

This is how I painted the item. One building on the list was the 2012 Olympic stadium. We had loads of archive of the stadium. The COM was already recorded and connected to a gap clip. I scanned the footage in the event library made rough selects and edited the clips directly to the primary storyline in front of the gap clip containing COM. I then slid the COM under the selected shots, deleted the gap clip and connected the music track. I then trimmed, slipped, rearranged, lengthened to my hearts content and didn't give a hoot about what was happening further down the time line. So Ok, the COM moves around when you move clips. On occasions we might have 2 or 3 com clips, they may get out of order as you move the clip it’s connected to. But when you get in the groove its so simple to slide it back or move it forward. Plus it looks cool when the clips bounce out of the way of each other to make room.

So that’s it, just before we finished the edit, we got a call from Scotland and they wanted us to add 40sec to our cut because one of their items had issues, so we did.
Fine trimming is the one downside. But only because its so easy, you just don't know when to stop!! I must have exported 4 or 5 QT’s because each time I’d play the item back I’d make another little tweak, or I’d rearrange a shot. Because nothing really stops FCPX from playing, you can move shots, extend, delete and it just keeps playing.
As I said before we exported the ProRes 422 QT down the line, used X2Pro for audio and it was completely seamless.



Return to posts index

Steve Connor
Re: FCPX in action
on Oct 10, 2012 at 2:10:43 pm

[craig slattery] "So that’s it, just before we finished the edit, we got a call from Scotland and they wanted us to add 40sec to our cut because one of their items had issues, so we did.
Fine trimming is the one downside. But only because its so easy, you just don't know when to stop!! I must have exported 4 or 5 QT’s because each time I’d play the item back I’d make another little tweak, or I’d rearrange a shot. Because nothing really stops FCPX from playing, you can move shots, extend, delete and it just keeps playing.
As I said before we exported the ProRes 422 QT down the line, used X2Pro for audio and it was completely seamless. "


Excellent post Craig, it doesn't sound like you're "going to great lengths to trick the program or make it conform to what you need"

Steve Connor
'It's just my opinion, with an occasional fact thrown in for good measure"


Return to posts index

Aindreas Gallagher
Re: FCPX in action
on Oct 12, 2012 at 8:30:32 pm

class - thats a brilliant work flow description craig - properly publicly informative, any edit system aside. also, it is **god help me** hard not to dig film strip on a fat second monitor. It really is.

pluck your eyebrows slattery, because that is a better apple sell workflow narrative than at least one out of three currently on the apple site. It also features the consonants 'B' 'B' and 'C'.

they appear to take nice workplace photos for their pieces.

I completely get (and quite a bit better now) the deeply useful cognitive run throughs apple have made in assembly for long form - what with increasingly out of control ratios of file based media input.
I don't do much long form at all, but the last time was insane with the volume of material.

there would have been a time when leaving the source clip as an unintelligible moniker would be unimaginable?

Its honestly interesting to consider that apple are providing a scenario that actually can, with filmstrip, skimming and tagging, allow the editor to hop skip and jump over formal clip by clip source viewer interrogation, naming and item categorisation - that with the rather ridiculous speed of footage interrogation and tagging, they've constructed a semantic pool staging area instead...

...given that uncontrolled ratio input and collapsed turnaround times are making that formal item/source viewing step nearly untenable?

Still...

curmudgeon - don't personally like it for my own short form commercial malarky tho.

SURPRISE.

- the kind of heft and movability apple are providing you, which they worked hard to derive, are a mess in short form and other scenarios where time is not quite such an issue, and the short circuit footage pool is not as desirable.
they've also short circuited a lot of basic timeline process to get there, and outside of optimised scenarios, it feels like a car on weird, if fast, automatic with large signs to direct work process.

It very much feels like an editor designed to do certain specific things and reward certain specific scenarios?

I find, (as bloody ever said everyone), that apple fundamentally fail to provide a basic universal canvas for an appraisal of what editing can be - they pre-judged and tooled it for a highly defined scenario that i find reductive. even if it is brilliant in that context.

I'll ask you it this way - given all the inputs you had craig, all the inferences that bled in to your skillset, that allow you to formulate FCPX behaviours to your liking, would you feel comfortable with all future editors blindly knowing nothing but the primary and secondary metaphor shortcuts? all pre-connected with default ripple?

In an apocalyptic scenario - if you had to pick one editing system to retain, to pass on a fundamental cognitive landscape to represent the infinite possibilities of time based editing - would you pick FCPX?

no, of course you wouldn't - that would be insanity.

I can feel you nodding in agreement already ;)

lets all go to PPro 6 (or avid) and protect the grammatical fundamentals of editing, and probably civilisation.

I thank you, try the veal.

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


Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: FCPX in action
on Oct 12, 2012 at 9:04:34 pm







Return to posts index

Steve Connor
Re: FCPX in action
on Oct 13, 2012 at 8:01:41 pm

I still find it so amusing that the inference in many of theses discussions is that somehow the way FCPX works, limits your creative possibilities as an editor.

Steve Connor
'It's just my opinion, with an occasional fact thrown in for good measure"


Return to posts index

Aindreas Gallagher
Re: FCPX in action
on Oct 14, 2012 at 12:03:04 pm

I'm not inferring it steve - I'm directly saying it. And I'm right too.

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


Return to posts index

Steve Connor
Re: FCPX in action
on Oct 14, 2012 at 3:05:53 pm

[Aindreas Gallagher] "I'm not inferring it steve - I'm directly saying it. And I'm right too.
"


Where's the emoticon for blowing a raspberry? I NEED an emoticon for that.

Steve Connor
'It's just my opinion, with an occasional fact thrown in for good measure"


Return to posts index

Christian Schumacher
Re: FCPX in action
on Oct 14, 2012 at 2:09:38 pm

[Steve Connor] "I still find it so amusing that the inference in many of theses discussions is that somehow the way FCPX works, limits your creative possibilities as an editor."


On the other hand, I'm amused by the inference in many of these discussions is that somehow the way FCP legacy works, limits your overall performance as an editor.


[craig slattery] "In legacy FCP having two multiclips 20 mins long on the time line, the system would be shitting itself. X didn’t miss a beat. It was incredible."


At least from v.6 onwards FCP can handle massive multi clip timelines populated with dozens of 8 or 9 or 10 or more angles, so I laugh out loud at what some "X switchers" are spreading around. Get a load of this; It comes across as pure prejudice! In order to prove their points -or rationalize their choices- people are willing to go very far. How many times do we read something that understates what legacy workflows are actually capable of, only to prop up X in its place? Boy, that's terribly common, so I know how you're feeling, Steve.


Return to posts index

Steve Connor
Re: FCPX in action
on Oct 14, 2012 at 3:29:25 pm

[Christian Schumacher] "so I know how you're feeling, Steve."

Misinformation and uninformed opinion does cut both ways

Steve Connor
'It's just my opinion, with an occasional fact thrown in for good measure"


Return to posts index

Bill Davis
Re: FCPX in action
on Oct 9, 2012 at 10:25:10 pm

[Gary Huff] "Which is funny, because I read of people's workflows on here and they all seem to be filled with work-arounds and attempts to "trick" the magnetic timeline to do what they want it to. It seems like a lot of effort just to use the NLE, and feels like, "I'm going to make this work if it kills me!" I'd prefer to work in something that doesn't require that right off the bat."

Gary,

I respect your opinion, but it's an increasingly uncommon one.

The OP, and others, and the user I know most about - myself - simply don't have ANY problem cutting with X. I use no "work arounds." at all. I simply use the software to make the programs I want. Period.

The obsession with magnetism is silly. Unless you're fetishistic about it, Magnetism will disappear as a issue in the first month. It simply becomes expected. Its a boon in a whole lot of assembly operations - - and when it doesn't suit what you need to do - you tap P and turn it off. It becomes expected and reflexive and consumes NO thought and present absolutely no barrier to an editor who's comfortable with the software.

As, I suspect with the OP, X has (just like most software) imply "disappeares" in a functional sense to the experienced editor. Precisely as AVID or Premier should "disappear" to their users. No experienced editor sits and thinks about using the software - we all just focus creating the program we need. The software disappears into the background. If it doesn't, you don't know it well enough.

I completely "get" that if you've become personally accustomed to a set of expectations as to how editing "must" work in order to be satisfied, and if X doesn't function for you in that narrow way - then it may not be a good choice for you. But that's not from lack of capabilities - it's from personal preference.

The OP cuts for the BBC broadcast chain. He came here to note that he ENJOYED the process of editing with X and he got his work done.

Period. He can't be "wrong" because he delivered the work - and didn't find any issues that prevented that.

The "take away" is that it's possible to use FCP-X for high-level broadcast work if you're willing and flexible enough to adapt to how it operates.

If you're NOT flexible enough to do that - it will fail for you because you'll keep focused on what it doesn't do the way you want it to - rather than focusing on how it actually works.

The OP simply is another confirmation of that.

Nothing more or less.

"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

Gary Huff
Re: FCPX in action
on Oct 9, 2012 at 11:18:42 pm

[Bill Davis] "I respect your opinion, but it's an increasingly uncommon one."

Not in my world. I routinely see "Final Cut Pro experience requires (NOT X)" and hear similar things dismissive of it. I do believe it is rather unfair as FCPX has come a long way since its debut, but I still see no reason to switch back to an NLE that ties my entirely into the OSX ecosystem with little tangible benefit over my current setup with Premiere CS6.

[Bill Davis] ""take away" is that it's possible to use FCP-X for high-level broadcast work if you're willing and flexible enough to adapt to how it operates."

Back to my original point, I routinely see "flexible" as involving workarounds and "tricks" in order to make FCPX "behave". I have no interest in tricking the NLE to work the way I need it to.

I wouldn't be surprised if there's a lot of going from FCP7 to FCPX, with no in-depth investigation of Premiere CS6 or AVID or Vegas Edius or any of the others. I guess that would make FCPX seem far more interesting than it actually is when comparing directly with FCP7. I have worked with FCP7 and Premiere since version 5 (non pro) and Vegas up to version 8 and a bit of FCPX. Premiere CS6 does what I need, and I enjoy editing in it, and nothing I've played with in FCPX or seen from the updates gives me any desire to switch.


Return to posts index

Bill Davis
Re: FCPX in action
on Oct 10, 2012 at 1:38:39 am

[Gary Huff] "and nothing I've played with in FCPX or seen from the updates gives me any desire to switch."

That's it right there in a nutshell.

If all you've done is "played with it" then sorry, but I believe you simply don't understand it well enough to make an informed decision.

You're clearly still at the stage where you want it to work like the other four NLEs you've spent your time coming to understand.

So you're correct that it's in your best interest to keep using one of those.

"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

Gary Huff
Re: FCPX in action
on Oct 10, 2012 at 2:04:15 am

[Bill Davis] "If all you've done is "played with it" then sorry, but I believe you simply don't understand it well enough to make an informed decision."

I'm sorry, how long is required for me to work on it to make an informed decision? I don't feel like spending time wrangling with it to make an edit, only to decide I need to do it in some other NLE and have to recreate the project from scratch (I don't feel like spending extra money just to get it to export properly where I can open it back up in a new NLE).

It's a combination of playing with it and reading people tout what it does for them here. None of it is impressive to me.

I did this project (possibly NSFW depending on how uptight your place of employment is) all in Premiere CS6 with color correction, including masks and secondaries, with Colorista II. For the infinite white I had to mask out the sides and color correct the background, then did an overall pass in AE. I was able to import the comps and then setup a nest sequence so I could turn the AE import on and off with the original footage (two camera angles, all synced up via PluralEyes) so I could render out non-correct versions for edit approval without having to spend render time when it wasn't needed.

I originally started this project in FCP7, but ported it back over to Premiere CS6 so I could save space on using the original camera files (no ProRes encodes). I'm sure FCPX could have edited this, but I don't believe I could have fixed the infinite white shots in FCPX (plus there were some tracking mask shots as well), but I could be wrong. Have no idea how easy it would have been to toggle between the two camera angles, both corrected and original footage.

But Premiere worked just fine for me, and the integration with AE is hard to ignore.


Return to posts index

Aindreas Gallagher
Re: FCPX in action
on Oct 9, 2012 at 11:43:06 pm

[Bill Davis] "it's an increasingly uncommon one. "

thats hard to buy. FCPX is still, outside of this noise chamber, and three aging cited cases on apple, a dead industry fish.
editing requires payment. and no one habitually pays for FCPX.
it is not editing software, because it does not describe editing as a means to payment by third party.

In the UK it never ever appears on production base, it is not on mandy worldwide where I have a google alert, none of the post houses are running it.

none of them bill. I'm comfortable making that statement and open to a counter.

FCPX has exactly one more big overhaul shot before it becomes about as important as vegas.

that's it Bill. After that you are, as it were, tinkering with it in the garage.

Apple have exactly one more do over, (which I personally half think they will ignore) -

But I honestly think FCPX is aperture soon to be - and god knows aperture is a half dead prosumer mess of what it was - killed at market by adobe, and still sitting like a zombie on the appstore for thirty quid, ladled with iphoto baubles.

Apple are not a company to be trusted to produce and iterate professional market software over a five or three year horizon.

Simple as that.

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


Return to posts index

Bill Davis
Re: FCPX in action
on Oct 10, 2012 at 1:53:22 am

[Aindreas Gallagher] "Apple are not a company to be trusted to produce and iterate professional market software over a five or three year horizon.

Simple as that."


I'll keep this simple and clear. Short words and short declarative sentences, OK.

If the future of video production turns out to be to keep doing what the industry has been doing for the past 40 years, then I accept that you will be proved correct. People will migrate to what you seem to crave. The same old tools you've always had - slowly revised and tuned to incrementally follow the new industry trends.

If, on the other hand, people increasingly come to understand that we're rapidly moving toward a world where content is increasingly ephemeral and demand for it is increasingly short lived - and therefore the ability to create, keyword for search, deploy and revise dynamically - becomes a superior strategy to the "plop out and cut off a master and move on" process of the past forty years - then X will likely continue to evolve and succeed.

We shall see.

"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

Gary Huff
Re: FCPX in action
on Oct 10, 2012 at 2:10:31 am

[Bill Davis] "If, on the other hand, people increasingly come to understand that we're rapidly moving toward a world where content is increasingly ephemeral and demand for it is increasingly short lived - and therefore the ability to create, keyword for search, deploy and revise dynamically - becomes a superior strategy to the "plop out and cut off a master and move on" process of the past forty years - then X will likely continue to evolve and succeed."

A lot of my projects, in this new world you keep speaking of (which I am right in the middle of) are self contained. For your point to make sense to me, I would have to keep every project ever listed in FCPX and on a permanently attached, massive storage RAID system. Not only is this expensive, but having all my projects forever contained in the single interface of FCPX will undoubtedly slow it wayyyyyyyy down to the point where it's unusable.


Return to posts index

Bill Davis
Re: FCPX in action
on Oct 10, 2012 at 4:28:14 pm

[Gary Huff] "For your point to make sense to me, I would have to keep every project ever listed in FCPX and on a permanently attached, massive storage RAID system."

Again this shows how deeply you misunderstand X.

There's absolutely NO baked-in need to "keep every project ... on a massive storage RAID."

It's a perfectly viable option - but NOT a requirement.

You can keep your projects on $200 Firewire 800 drives and load them as needed.
You can publish your "live masters" out to Vimeo Pro or YouTube where they're accessible to the world in the interim.

By keeping a simple iPhone size encode of an X project in the Share menu, I can "see and scrub" the latest version of any project with an incredibly small hard drive footprint - and IF I decide to work on it, it takes me about two minutes to load and re-link the high rez version via a plug in drive.

Look, I understand that you decided to stop exploring X. That's fine. It's also absolutely fine that you decided to rely on other tools.

What's NOT fine is to argue about a software's capabilities from a position of being ill-informed about how it actually functions.

That's all I'm saying.

"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

craig slattery
Re: FCPX in action
on Oct 10, 2012 at 8:20:44 am

[Aindreas Gallagher] "In the UK it never ever appears on production base, it is not on mandy worldwide where I have a google alert, none of the post houses are running it."

This maybe true, however there was a lot of interest in my edit. I had a bunch of colleagues popping in to check it out and I think a few myths were addressed. I was so impressed with the experience that we will have a dedicated FCPX suite cutting items throughout the next season. For now we have to stay with FCP7 for online but we are planning to replace the color grading suite with Da Vinci resolve so we can stay with FCPX all the way to TX. We have also told the small group of editors that cut for our show to get up to speed with FCPX. So there you have it.


Return to posts index

tony west
Re: FCPX in action
on Oct 10, 2012 at 11:11:08 am

Thanks for the post Craig,




Here it is in our remote truck for Major League Baseball



Return to posts index

Jim Giberti
Re: FCPX in action
on Oct 9, 2012 at 10:41:02 pm

[Gary Huff] "In your opinion. "

Of course it. This is a freaking opinion forum.


Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: FCPX in action
on Oct 10, 2012 at 12:08:29 am

What I find funny is that we have a story of FCPX being used in broadcast for a program airing on the BBC, yet Craig is being told how it won't work for him because of what you read about how FCPX works, Gary.

I can tell you a bunch of things that aren't quite right for me in Pr CS6 (I am putting work in with CS6 mind you), but I won't fault you for editing a program and putting it on the beeb. If it works for your needs, so be it. I'd be more curious about how you got around the stumbling blocks, not lamenting about how I read about how people are using the software.

This ship is sailing, don't you think? It might even be afloat with BBC approval no less.

Jeremy


Return to posts index

Gary Huff
Re: FCPX in action
on Oct 10, 2012 at 12:22:47 pm

[Jeremy Garchow] "What I find funny is that we have a story of FCPX being used in broadcast for a program airing on the BBC, yet Craig is being told how it won't work for him because of what you read about how FCPX works, Gary."

I never said it wouldn't work for him (I actually never said anything about his post, I simply responded to Robin's comments about: 'its faster, more fun and just feels better than all the other NLE.'). Anyone who wants to make it work for them can do so. No skin off my back. My point was that for me personally, it seems like people who are enjoying using it, and posting their workflow methods, are going to great lengths to trick the program or make it conform to what they need, and, frankly, I'd rather wrangle with the content and the edit itself than fight the NLE to make it do what I want.

I don't have anything against FCPX, on the contrary, I recommended it as a solution just a few months ago. But the fact remains that I find its touted "advantages" as dubious in nature, mixed in every now and then with something that comes across as a determined attitude to make it work in order to seemingly "vindicate" Apple in this new version.

Nor will I argue that Premiere is perfect, because no NLE is (just like there's no one camera that can do it all). But that it works cross-platform is a big plus, that it works with Dynamic Linkage to AE is a big plus (and, frankly, if FCPX/Motion worked in similar fashion, that would be worth a more detailed look), and I love the fact that it works with native media (which FCPX does too, but I'm not sure if it has the same support for everything that Premiere does). I don't have a massive RAID for all my projects, so I prefer the Premiere method of having self-contained projects that I can work with, instead of the database system that I have to use a 3rd party app to turn projects off and on in the list (thus making FCPX's keyword organization system of no value). I think most of those who are blown away by FCPX are going from FCP7 to FCPX, not from Media Composer 6 or Premiere CS5 and up over to FCPX, though if someone is, I'd be interested in hearing their reasoning.

Finally, I don't want Apple to muck it up with FCPX. I want them to make it useful, and as much of a viable alternative as the other NLEs. Competition is good, and I've always said that.


Return to posts index

Oliver Peters
Re: FCPX in action
on Oct 10, 2012 at 3:33:31 pm

Would one of you BBC guys please explain the BBC Production Village in a bit more detail? If this part of the Factual and Learning unit that was the poster boy for FCP 7 a few years ago? I realize the BBC actually uses a lot of difference NLE brands in its different units (news, sports, docs, dramas, etc.), but I was curious about the implementation of Premiere Pro versus FCP X. I know that announcement was made out to be a big deal, but I later heard it was really just in-house folks dealing with internet content and not broadcast content. Plus these were actually CS upgrade seats. So looking at it from the outside, I'd love one you to clear this all up a bit. Thanks.

- Oliver

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


Return to posts index

craig slattery
Re: FCPX in action
on Oct 10, 2012 at 3:44:07 pm

[Oliver Peters] " I realize the BBC actually uses a lot of difference NLE brands in its different units (news, sports, docs, dramas, etc.), but I was curious about the implementation of Premiere Pro versus FCP X"

Its not a case of Premiere versus FCPX, I spoke to my producer and said I wanted to try out FCPX on our show, she said, yes go for it, so we asked the village to set up a suite.


Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: FCPX in action
on Oct 10, 2012 at 4:30:22 pm

[Gary Huff] "My point was that for me personally, it seems like people who are enjoying using it, and posting their workflow methods, are going to great lengths to trick the program or make it conform to what they need, and, frankly, I'd rather wrangle with the content and the edit itself than fight the NLE to make it do what I want."

Can you be more specific? Since FCPX doesn't have tracks like other NLEs, it's going to work differently. This doesn't means it's a work around. I know some folks avoid the primary storyline for some types of edits, but that doesn't mean everyone does it. What other examples do you have?

[Gary Huff] "Nor will I argue that Premiere is perfect, because no NLE is (just like there's no one camera that can do it all). But that it works cross-platform is a big plus, that it works with Dynamic Linkage to AE is a big plus (and, frankly, if FCPX/Motion worked in similar fashion, that would be worth a more detailed look), and I love the fact that it works with native media (which FCPX does too, but I'm not sure if it has the same support for everything that Premiere does). I don't have a massive RAID for all my projects, so I prefer the Premiere method of having self-contained projects that I can work with, instead of the database system that I have to use a 3rd party app to turn projects off and on in the list (thus making FCPX's keyword organization system of no value). I think most of those who are blown away by FCPX are going from FCP7 to FCPX, not from Media Composer 6 or Premiere CS5 and up over to FCPX, though if someone is, I'd be interested in hearing their reasoning."

There are many advantages for any NLE. If working native is an advantage to you, then yes, no question Pr takes the cake. If Ae integration is an advantage, then yes Cs6 is a logical choice.

There are things you have to do to make any NLE run the way you need it to run. If buying a $4.99 application that helps keep your Events and Projects organized is too much to ask, then FCPX is not for you. There's no doubt about that.

My point is that without really using it, it's hard to see the benefits when on this forum there are a bunch of complaints from people that disagree both with the theory of FCPX, and disagree with it from a cursory level. As an example, as I'm sure you know that when you import and XML in Pr CS6 it creates duplicate copies of media in your project (just in the project, not in the finder). If you accidentally delete the wrong copy of media, that media is physically deleted out of your timeline with no record of it ever being there. To me, this is a catastrophic failure. As you say, nothing and nobody is perfect. This represents a limitation of the CS6 interface. As a shop that shares a common media and projects, this tends to make Pr projects a total and complete mess without exacting and careful measures. Since you can't have more than one Pr project open at a time, tracking all of these changes becomes fairly difficult rather quickly to keep track of it all. I haven't had any data loss problems with FCPX like this, and there's also methods in place if you DO have a SAN that tracks Events and Projects quite nicely.

It's all relative.

Jeremy


Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: FCPX in action
on Oct 10, 2012 at 5:43:07 pm

[Jeremy Garchow] "If you accidentally delete the wrong copy of media, that media is physically deleted out of your timeline with no record of it ever being there. To me, this is a catastrophic failure. As you say, nothing and nobody is perfect. "

I should add to this.

If Pr's relative advantages to MY workflow are such that working and knowing exactly how Pr fails and what I need to watch out for (i.e. workarounds) is enough to allow me to leverage what is great about Pr, then that is all that matters. This is the same for FCPX. You sometimes have to know what to watch out for, but once you do, the strengths of the program are enough to be a logical choice of NLE.

Jeremy


Return to posts index

Chris Harlan
Re: FCPX in action
on Oct 10, 2012 at 4:41:44 pm

[Gary Huff] "(and, frankly, if FCPX/Motion worked in similar fashion, that would be worth a more detailed look)"

Me too. The relationship between the two in Studio was terrific. If I needed to do a matte, all I had to do was toss the shot to Motion. One of the big sells for me picking up X, would be reestablishing that relationship.


Return to posts index

alban egger
Re: FCPX in action
on Oct 11, 2012 at 6:35:33 pm

First of all thanks Craig for explaining your workflow. It pretty much matches ours and we also have a similar experience of having an easier job, being quicker to adjust to customers`/ directors wishes etc.

It is a bit sad that this thread like so many others here, which starts as a story about BBC using FCPX turns into a CS6 - promo show (they are sponsoring the cow and Apple doesn´t, right?) and a PC-Apple religious-talk.

I have recently read the Belgian national TV was using FCPX at the Olympics in London, we use it for Austrian TV and Red Bull´s ServusTV, there are TV series in the US and germany edited in FCPX, so there is no doubt anymore, that it is a tool with as much entitlement to be in the industry (whatever that is nowadays). I don´t see it in danger of becoming a new Vegas, because within 1,5 years it is further than Vegas was after twice the time.

[Gary Huff] "And this "faster" thing is completely nebulous."

Is it nebulous? Maybe when you are paid by the hour or have an assistant who is paid by the hour.
Skimming and Keywording/SmartCollections alone save me HOURS every week. Hours I can use for other projects or simply to spend it elsewhere...or maybe even to give the project more time in the finishing (grading, audio) as I would otherwise have.

And I am not even considering auditions and the various export-tools ("e-mail to client out of the timeline" comes to mind), because I don´t use these on a daily basis.

FCPX is NOT perfect. Nor is any other NLE and NONE will ever be working for all. FCP7 wasn´t (never worked for me really), CS6 isn´t and Avid isn´t. They all have strengths and weaknesses. For me and my projects (documentaries up to 52´, commercials 60´´, image-clips 3´-8´, and Live productions) it is perfect. I cannot speak for 3D and not much for dialogue-based movies, it works great and we have now a couple freelancers who jumped ship and work in it also.

I played with CS6, but I wouldn´t feel to have the authority to tell anyone over there in their forum what CS6 is supposed to do which works in FCPX (and there is A LOT that is missing in CS6 when coming from FCPX).



Return to posts index

Walter Soyka
Re: FCPX in action
on Oct 11, 2012 at 7:07:30 pm

[alban egger] "First of all thanks Craig for explaining your workflow."

Indeed. Very nice to hear about!


[alban egger] "It is a bit sad that this thread like so many others here, which starts as a story about BBC using FCPX turns into a CS6 - promo show (they are sponsoring the cow and Apple doesn´t, right?) and a PC-Apple religious-talk."

But this is rather the point of the FCPX or Not forum, no? Craig gave an "FCPX" case (quite nicely, I might add), then Gary gave an "or not" case, and then off we go...

You've got a bunch of folks discussing their opinions and professional choices here; the insinuation that either position is bought and paid by a sponsor is a little ugly, don't you think? Or should we also assume that any pro-FCPX posts are bought and paid for by Apple as you are suggesting that pro-CS posts are bought and paid for by Adobe?

I do think the issue of platform is germane. If you want FCPX, you must have Mac. If you want a PC, you may not have FCPX. There are additional pros and cons that accompany each of these choices, and then there's the question of how cross-platform the cross-platform software is.

You're right that these have nothing to do with FCPX at the BBC, but they come up organically and it's a topic worth discussing for anyone who has to make the decision about what system to purchase. You know, anyone who has to decide "FCPX or Not." (Personally, I think FCPX AND Not is an interesting move.)

It's all one big ball of yarn, but ultimately, since everything in this forum eventually veers off-topic, I think we should make an effort to label the ON-topic posts...

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 Gissing
Re: FCPX in action
on Oct 11, 2012 at 9:53:16 pm

Thanks Walter. My sentiments entirely. And for Alban's edification, I have no deal with Adobe. The decisions I make based on the best workflow for my facility are entirely my own. I like to think out loud and without the robust debate and sharing of experiences I would be struggling to work out what is best for me.

The fact that BBC is using X successfully is significant news. It doesn't change my current decisions about hardware and software but it is another important part of the jigsaw.


Return to posts index

Bill Davis
Re: FCPX in action
on Oct 12, 2012 at 12:42:17 am

[Michael Gissing] "The fact that BBC is using X successfully is significant news. It doesn't change my current decisions about hardware and software but it is another important part of the jigsaw."

Well, to be technical "BBC isn't successfully using X." It's an editor at the BBC . I suspect more and more will over time. Because X is a fine editing solution for a lot of kinds of projects, as the OP has now learned. It also has some extremely innovative strengths in organization and workflow management.

That a particular editor is free to use it is the big deal here to my thinking. Two months after it was debuted, the conventional wisdom was it was such a disaster that anyone owning up to using it would be scoffed at. That's significant movement over time. And reflects another reality. Editing is increasingly moving away from something being done by a shop to something being done by a person. Not always. Not exclusively. But increasingly.

There's a discussion here about PC editing compared to Mac editing. I'd be very surprised if there were a way to magically assess the number of "edits" being done at any one moment - PCs would dominate. Because there are vastly more PCs on desks in corporations than Macs. And in many corporations, there are marketing folk and product managers and even admins who do some limited video manipulation and cutting as part of their day to day jobs.

The big question is whether those PCs will stay there and earn Premier installations, or whether something else will happen.

In the corporations I deal with, the company computer is increasingly the exception. The personal employee computer being used at work - is increasingly common. People want to use their own tools. So whether it's a personal laptop or ARM Based netbook, or increasingly a tablet - I think the trend to hyper-personal cloud based computing at work will continue to expand dramatically.

If X continues to become "acceptable" in large scale workflows such as the BBC example here - then it becomes simply what it should be. A personal choice. The editor doing the work SHOULD be able to decide their tool. Yes sometimes they must conform to larger workflows - but often they don't. If editor Tom or Editor Jane decides they like X and want to organize and pre-cut and deliver their work that way, they will.

If the management of an agency says "we use Avid here and that's all - they're also saying that they only want to tap the editing talents of those who use that tool.

If, as we keep saying, the software is just a tool - and the the EDITOR is the critical thing. Then requiring devotion to any particular software might become as odd (in some situations) as requiring an excellent piano player to play a particular brand of piano.

The way I see it, every time someone is able to view editing as a thing a person does - over a thing that a company does - X gains strength - because it's a uniquely capable personal editing tool that requires less resources in money, hardware horsepower, and even in necessary breadth of classical edit suite experience to get excellent quality results.

That's a good long range combination to my thinking. Tho I'm absolutely sure others here will violently disagree.

"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 Gissing
Re: FCPX in action
on Oct 12, 2012 at 12:55:43 am

Bill, professional piano players will have preferences but be able to play any brand. The big issue is of course collaborative workflow and I am certainly not displeased to see that such workflows can be relied on for this BBC example.

However it has taken nearly 18 months for such workflows to be considered reliable. X2Pro has only had it's new version out for a few weeks so that export to audio post is feasible.


Return to posts index

Oliver Peters
Re: FCPX in action
on Oct 12, 2012 at 12:59:08 am

[Michael Gissing] "X2Pro has only had it's new version out for a few weeks so that export to audio post is feasible."

I would also suggest that apps like Xto7 are still far from reliable and definitely not bullet-proof for anything mission critical. That's not a slam against Philip and Greg. They're trying incredibly hard within the limitations that are FCP X XML.

- Oliver

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


Return to posts index

alban egger
Re: FCPX in action
on Oct 12, 2012 at 7:37:41 am

[Walter Soyka] "the insinuation that either position is bought and paid by a sponsor is a little ugly, don't you think?
..
You're right that these have nothing to do with FCPX at the BBC, but they come up organically and it's a topic worth discussing for anyone who has to make the decision about what system to purchase. You know, anyone who has to decide "FCPX or Not." (Personally, I think FCPX AND Not is an interesting move.)"


What irritates me (and I have posted that before) that basically EVERY thread gets into a "FCPX or NOT" discussion, even if that was not the OP´s intention, and the same arguments are brought from the two sides. And maybe what irritates me most is the fact that many who write "against" FCPX are doing so without even knowing it or based on stuff they read on the web.

And sometimes it seems to me not very organical how the pro-CS6 arguments pop-up. They pop-up in the first two or three replys. I am not so naive to believe threads are not viewed by Adobe, Apple and Avid. If you go to dvxuser you will always have Panasonic in the back of your head when you walk away. Here it is Adobe.
I doubt it happens that way in Avid or CS6 parts of the Cow. Maybe the FCPX users are too busy to spill bad blood elsewhere. It just has a bad taste at the moment in this FCPX-or-not forum.



Return to posts index

Walter Soyka
Re: FCPX in action
on Oct 12, 2012 at 10:59:49 am

[alban egger] "What irritates me (and I have posted that before) that basically EVERY thread gets into a "FCPX or NOT" discussion, even if that was not the OP´s intention, and the same arguments are brought from the two sides."

Some of the endless rehashing does get tiresome, but if you tried to cut them off, we'd lose all the great digressions. This is about the only place they can happen. Where else can you discuss how an NLE's data model influences its interface or what EMC^2 was doing in early NLE history?


[alban egger] "And maybe what irritates me most is the fact that many who write "against" FCPX are doing so without even knowing it or based on stuff they read on the web. "

Fair enough. This doesn't do any good. Fortunately, there are many knowledgeable and open-minded posters here who use FCPX to correct any inaccuracies falsely posted by their less experienced brethren.

One who claims something is impossible shouldn't interrupt someone who is doing it. We may not always agree, but I am glad that there are people like you, Steve, Jeremy, John, Bill and now Craig here.


[alban egger] "And sometimes it seems to me not very organical how the pro-CS6 arguments pop-up. They pop-up in the first two or three replys."

Re-read the first few posts. Premiere came up because an FCPX user proclaimed FCPX's absolute superiority over every other NLE, not in response to Craig's good news about cutting BBC broadcast material with FCPX.


[alban egger] "If you go to dvxuser you will always have Panasonic in the back of your head when you walk away. Here it is Adobe."

I think you've got it backwards. These are self-selecting groups; of course Panasonic will advertise on a forum full of Panasonic camera users. Of course Adobe will advertise on a forum full of displaced NLE users. An ad or two from Apple here would probably go a long way toward convincing some folks here that they were serious about the market.

The thing that pretty much everyone in this forum has in common is that they are former FCP7 users who are looking for something new. Premiere Pro is the most FCP7-like NLE on the market today, so it seems natural to me that it will keep coming up as the primary alternative to FCPX for all of us former FCP7 users.


[alban egger] "I doubt it happens that way in Avid or CS6 parts of the Cow. Maybe the FCPX users are too busy to spill bad blood elsewhere."

It's this sort of back-handed remark about users of other NLEs that set off the tiresome and valueless FCPX or not back-and-forths and ad hominems. I'd rather skip that and read about the relevance of reel ID [link].

These arguments don't happen in the FCPX Techniques forum [link], which is analogous to the Adobe Premiere Pro forum [link] or Avid forum [link].

Neither are people there insulted with the suggestions that their intentions are less than honorable or their opinions not genuine.

Different forums for different discussions.

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


Return to posts index

Richard Herd
Re: FCPX in action
on Oct 11, 2012 at 10:11:45 pm

[alban egger] "dialogue-based movies"

It's works very well.


Return to posts index

Mark Dobson
Re: FCPX in action
on Oct 12, 2012 at 8:12:10 am

[craig slattery] "The Culture Show, Wednesday 10pm BBC Two 10 October 2012. This episode will contain to the best of my knowledge the very first item cut at the BBC Production Village in FCPX and will screen nationally. Yesterday I completed a 8 min item for our national Arts magazine program cut in FCPX, and the experience I have to say was a lot of fun."

Hi Craig,

Just wondering which section of this programme was cut on FCPX. I've just found it on iPlayer and am interested in looking at the cut you made.

Not that there should be any difference in the quality. I would have thought that FCPX was ideal for cutting documentary styled segments for programmes like this.

[craig slattery] " The item was cut in London and sent down the line to our Glasgow studio to be included in tomorrow nights show. In Glasgow the item will be dubbed and graded. We sent a Pro Res422 QT and an AAF from X2pro."

Presumably you carried out some primary grading before sending the piece down the line? Or was that all done in Glasgow?

Thanks for the post


Return to posts index

craig slattery
Re: FCPX in action
on Oct 12, 2012 at 9:42:41 am

[Mark Dobson] "Just wondering which section of this programme was cut on FCPX. I've just found it on iPlayer and am interested in looking at the cut you made."

The 1st item on the show after the menu.



[Mark Dobson] "Presumably you carried out some primary grading before sending the piece down the line? Or was that all done in Glasgow? "


No, all the grading is done by one professional grader in a grading suite. In London we grade in Color, not sure what they use in Glasgow.


Return to posts index

Mark Dobson
Re: FCPX in action
on Oct 12, 2012 at 9:52:33 am

Thanks Craig,

Looks like television to me!


Return to posts index

craig slattery
Re: FCPX in action
on Oct 12, 2012 at 9:56:51 am

[Mark Dobson] "Looks like television to me!"

Cheers. As I mentioned, not all our items are self shot. This one was and they can be a challenge. But this looks ok I think.


Return to posts index

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