FORUMS: list search recent posts

Apple gives up another network client

COW Forums : Apple Final Cut Pro X Debates

<< PREVIOUS   •   VIEW ALL   •   PRINT   •   NEXT >>
Andy Field
Apple gives up another network client
on Oct 13, 2012 at 2:53:57 am

SNL picks Adobe Premiere to replace FCP

http://bit.ly/TlKN5q


Return to posts index

Rich Rubasch
Re: Apple gives up another network client
on Oct 13, 2012 at 3:02:34 am

AND, this is a fantastic read. What a crazy schedule...only thing the guy left out is how much he makes for that insane schedule.

Hopefully more than a credit.

Got me thinking more about Premier however...but I need (ok want) Apple hardware to run it on...6 systems GigE Ethernet all connected, all sharing all happy. Like I have now.

Rich Rubasch
Tilt Media Inc.
Video Production, Post, Studio Sound Stage
Founder/President/Editor/Designer/Animator
http://www.tiltmedia.com


Return to posts index

Shane Ross
Re: Apple gives up another network client
on Oct 13, 2012 at 6:41:48 am

SNL pays. And Union too.

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


Return to posts index


Michael Phillips
Re: Apple gives up another network client
on Oct 13, 2012 at 12:33:58 pm

I think the subject title is backwards. Should be: "Another Network Give Up On Apple" - I don't believe it bothers Apple one bit that these shorts are now being edited on something other than Final Cut. One quick look in the iTunes store has a lot of SNL content for sale to the masses for a 30% equity stake. And while these stories may influence others to move from Final Cut - if I was offered either 30% of the content on iTunes being offered regardless of NLE system being used, or all the revenue from Final Cut Pro sales, I would go for the former.

I have always felt that once Apple got into distribution, its interested in FCP started to wane. And now it allows them to go for volume sales with FCPx on their own time and schedule, and are still making more revenue than ever with that compared to FCP7 with a lot less of the service and support expected by the higher end pro markets.

There are various blogs on number of app sales to make the top 10 lists on iTunes - most of them have at or more than 10,000 per day. And while actual total number of FCP customers over a 10 year span is hotly debated, assuming ~2.5M renewing customers, brings sales to ~685 per day average.

Now my numbers and perhaps math may all be wrong, but even if they are someone right - Apple did the right thing for the business they want to be in (making a lot of money).

Michael


Return to posts index

Andy Field
Re: Apple gives up another network client
on Oct 13, 2012 at 1:16:27 pm

The point wasn't about Apple's massive profits selling othe people's stuff on iTunes. It was about taking a decade of customer good will and loyalty and tossing it in the trash and creating a product that can no longer meet the needs of a large part of an industry

Andy Field
FieldVision Productions
N. Bethesda, Maryland 20852


Return to posts index

Michael Sanders
Re: Apple gives up another network client
on Oct 13, 2012 at 3:00:28 pm

[Andy Field] "The point wasn't about Apple's massive profits selling othe people's stuff on iTunes. It was about taking a decade of customer good will and loyalty and tossing it in the trash and creating a product that can no longer meet the needs of a large part of an industry"

But there's the problem. To many people - one year one - won't look at FCP X because they are still pissed at Apple for not making FCP 8. What your really saying is "Thanks Apple for not giving us a low cost edit option" which is basically what FCP did otherwise we'd still be dealing with Avid costs ££££'s

As I was trying to explain to someone the other day. Whilst everyone might not like FCP X lets at least give them kudos for saying "what if".

Michael Sanders
London Based DP/Editor


Return to posts index


Marcus Moore
Re: Apple gives up another network client
on Oct 13, 2012 at 3:27:56 pm

I'm a big FCPX supporter, and have been using the software primarily now since March.

That said, I don't begrudge any company for moving to another platform. The simple fact is that FCPX is not yet ready for every workflow. Companies have to produce work, and you can't wait for the software/hardware to be ready. You have to go with the option that fits your needs.

We're going to keep seeing these articles for a little while longer, but I don't think this will last. I personally don't believe that Apple has any intention of abandoning the upper tier broadcast/film market long-term. Every update to FCPX brings back more of the features that are necessary for those markets.

What we have here is a unfortunate alignment of transitions in 2 product cycles. On the hardware side, we're waiting for whatever the MacPro replacement is going to be in 2013. On the software side, Apple decided to completely re-write FCP and ruffled a lot of feathers. It really too bad they're both happening a the same time because the backlash from one is just adding fuel to the fire about complaints on the other.

FCPX continues to reintegrate (and IMHO improve) legacy features. New Pro hardware next year. If AFTER Apple's cards are on the table anyone wants to make claims about who their products are meant for, then be my guest.

Finally, and I can't say it enough, FCPX was an unmitigated marketing disaster. A one year open beta program, with a clear timeline for transition, would have made FCPX more of an exciting future prospect, rather than the scary/disappointing/incomplete product is was at launch. Apple is STILL not brining it's A game to this problem, and they need to. Otherwise, the perception of FCPX's failings are going to linger long after it addresses them technically.



Return to posts index

Craig Seeman
Re: Apple gives up another network client
on Oct 13, 2012 at 4:05:23 pm

Well said Marcus.

Personally I can't emphasize enough how generally unprofitable the "TV Broadcast/Feature Film" niche is for the NLE market. The number of $2500 or $1500 sales probably can't even sustain the R&D if the developers were primarily dependent on that niche. Avid is primarily a hardware company. Adobe changed its business model to subscription which gives them a sustained cash flow.

When you consider how many keep old version alive rather than upgrade, the revenue model in grown and upgrades may extend the lack of sustainability. Adobe addressed that with subscriptions which means the upgrades are now paid for across the board and if you cancel the subscription you lose use of the software altogether.

Apple is building a new post eco system with FCPX and it will take a bit longer before the feature set is there for some professional niches. Ironically there are many who fault the reliance on third party apps but, as Apple has learned through its other mass products, the eco system is key. Have a product that many developers see revenue stream opportunities is going to expand that. Admittedly Apple still has a lot of improvements to make with API and related for plugin development as well as with XML but I can't help but think these are under the hood focuses.

Basically it'll be very attractive to develop for FCPX given the high sales numbers. Over time both the FCPX feature set and third party support will make it competitive. Just as many professional After Effects users had Premiere sitting on the their systems, there's likely a large number of facilities with dormant copies of FCPX that will be revisited as updates and third party support add professional tool sets. The key to Apple's profit though, will be the push to newer hardware to run it on.

Personally I think there was no interim MacPro update of note because Apple wants to flush out old systems with the newly designed MacPro replacements next year. It would almost be that FCPX as it currently is, is just the prelude to where FCPX and the MacPro replacement will be when the time comes.



Return to posts index

Herb Sevush
Re: Apple gives up another network client
on Oct 13, 2012 at 4:58:12 pm

[Craig Seeman] "Personally I think there was no interim MacPro update of note because Apple wants to flush out old systems with the newly designed MacPro replacements next year."

Funny, I don't recall you saying this last year when the non-release of the all but certain "new" macpro never materialized. I seem to recall you as being one of the "anyone who thinks there won't be an upgrade is a fool" crowd. Oh, but wait, now we're supposed to believe in next year's MacPro - which will probably be the iphone6.

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


Return to posts index


Craig Seeman
Re: Apple gives up another network client
on Oct 13, 2012 at 5:45:42 pm

[Herb Sevush] "Funny, I don't recall you saying this last year when the non-release of the all but certain "new" macpro never materialized."

I did but I'm not about to search through the threads to prove it. I posted extensively on how I thought Apple was flushing old systems given that people tend to hold on to MacPros 3-6 years.

[Herb Sevush] "I seem to recall you as being one of the "anyone who thinks there won't be an upgrade is a fool" crowd."

That's still true. There will be an upgrade and it will be a "beast." I suspect it will have limited internal expansion.



Return to posts index

Marcus Moore
Re: Apple gives up another network client
on Oct 13, 2012 at 5:08:23 pm

I think there's a big analogy to be made with AE. While AE is capable on it's own to do lots of work- it's real strength in market is the verbose plug-in support which allows it to expand into areas that aren't necessarily worthwhile for Adobe to build-in to the software.

If Apple can create a solid foundation in FCPX that 3rd parties can build on, then everyone's needs are met without having the software bloat (and cost) of a features you don't use in your specific workflow.

And while I know that using a 3rd party plug-in for importing FCP7 projects into X might seem a real user deficiency, just ask anyone who has had a problem with translating their projects using 7toX how fast Philip and Intelligent Assistance can react and get a new build out to the appStore. If this was built in functionality, then those same users would have been waiting on average 3 months for improvements to come with FCPX's updates.

On the MacPro side. Someone can correct me if I'm mistaken, but after looking at Intel's Xeon website- how was anyone expecting a new MacPro to integrate USB3 and TB; since those technologies aren't embedded into the chip. Seemingly this is why it took until IvyBridge for the laptops to get USB3, since it was the first chipset with support built in. So if that's the case, then it wont' be until the next Xeon (Hasslebridge?) that we'll see that, which should line up with a late '13 launch of the MacPro replacement, AND the feasibility of producing 27" Retina screens in volume. It seems to me they decided to take the short term hit and wait until they could make a big splash next year. Rather than providing a confusing no USB3/Thunderbolt update as an interim step toward the real relaunch of the product in whatever form it's going to take next year.



Return to posts index

Craig Seeman
Re: Apple gives up another network client
on Oct 13, 2012 at 3:29:56 pm

Some people can't see beyond the present.
While I too may not be able to predict the future reliably, FCPX is only about 16 months old and it's developing fairly quickly and the feature sets announced for the nearing update aren't all "consumer."
It's creeping into more broadcast work. In a few cases large scale in many more instances a case by case bases. You don't hear about them because the backlash has been so negative that they feel they're rather stay out of it.



Return to posts index


Charlie Austin
Re: Apple gives up another network client
on Oct 13, 2012 at 5:53:57 pm

[Craig Seeman] "It's creeping into more broadcast work. In a few cases large scale in many more instances a case by case bases. You don't hear about them because the backlash has been so negative that they feel they're rather stay out of it."

That's actually where I'm at right now. I know there are a lot of folks, like me actually, who are generally interested in, or are using FCP X in broadcast/theatrical contexts. We like it, we know there are still some issues that need to be addressed, and we believe they will be. I mean, I like it enough to have written a little article here, and I waded into the forums to try to explain what I like about it. And I totally get that there are some workflows for which FCP X isn't suited to yet. Hell, I'm still not convinced that it's 100% ready for our workflow, but... I believe it will be.

After a while though, reading all the "Apple has abandoned us!" laments, and the "it's not a pro app!", "It's dumbed down!", "it has no tracks!", "Another FCP user switched to Premier!" posts and comments gets old. Apple clearly screwed up on the release of X big time. And honestly the 1.0 version pretty much sucked. But that's the past. The current version does not suck at all. In the present, I can cut stuff, get it approved, and send AAF audio (nicely split out and trimmed for me by software) and EDL's out to finish. It works. Not perfectly, but it's gets better every time there's an Apple or 3rd party update, which is fairly often. There are a handful of things I miss from FCP 7. But despite it's imperfections, there are way more things about X that I discover on a day to day basis which are, to me, way better than 7, or Pr, or MC. It makes my job, editing, easier.

So I'm just working, and I'll stay out of the arguments for a while. Though, to swing this back on topic... Seems like the SNL folks would have switched even if X hadn't come out. The whole back and forth to AE shuffle had nothing to with FCP X. If you're gonna spend all that time in AE, why not switch? Makes perfect sense for them to do so.

IMO, the part of the article that reads: "The turning point, says Epstein, came when Apple released Final Cut Pro X... this just isn't going to work..." is kind of a red herring don't you think? FCP X would have worked just like 7... at least as far as AE is concerned. The article could just as easily have read "The turning point, says Epstein, came when CS5.5 came along with Dynamic Linking" Would have been a little more accurate that way ;-)

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


~"It is a poor craftsman who blames his tools."~


Return to posts index

Herb Sevush
Re: Apple gives up another network client
on Oct 13, 2012 at 6:14:30 pm

[Charlie Austin] "The whole back and forth to AE shuffle had nothing to with FCP X. If you're gonna spend all that time in AE, why not switch? "

Inertia, training costs, PPro still lacking in a number of area's compared to legacy - it is quite obvious that had Apple continued development of FCP 7 they would NOT have switched; the switch came around because Apple decided to knock the ground out beneath them, and once they realized they would have to make a total change in their editing environment not matter which way they went then PPro / AE with dynamic link made the most sense.

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


Return to posts index

Charlie Austin
Re: Apple gives up another network client
on Oct 13, 2012 at 7:45:54 pm

[Herb Sevush] " and once they realized they would have to make a total change in their editing environment not matter which way they went then PPro / AE with dynamic link made the most sense."

Fair enough, though in my opinion using FCP X is not a total change in the editing environment. I realize there is some disagreement on this point... ;-)

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


~"It is a poor craftsman who blames his tools."~


Return to posts index


Herb Sevush
Re: Apple gives up another network client
on Oct 14, 2012 at 4:50:29 pm

[Charlie Austin] "in my opinion using FCP X is not a total change in the editing environment."

I didn't mean because of the nature of FCPX, I meant that X is a change from Legacy to the same extent that PPro or Avid is a change from legacy - none of them can be considered direct upgrades, all require some degree of retraining and retooling, and none are directly file compatible with FCP7. It is true that X is the least compatible, but in the sense I was talking about degrees of difference is irrelevant. The idea is that once you accept that you're going to change from FCP7, X is no more a "natural" choice than any other OSX NLE out there.

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


Return to posts index

Michael Phillips
Re: Apple gives up another network client
on Oct 13, 2012 at 3:02:43 pm

I am not arguing that point either - there are plenty of public companies that end of life products that are near and dear to some targeted group of any market. Apple is not alone - Avid has done it on many products, Autodesk as well as others, and many went out of business - they have either been eliminated, morphed or integrated into other solutions for whatever "fiscal" reasons determined by the company. And while "the industry" may seem large to those in "the industry" it pales in comparison to the size of any consumer market proving to pay a premium for a brand. The NLE portion of the "the industry" is even smaller. A lot of the market sizing I have seen has most of its growth in storage and asset management.

So while I understand your point, I am just saying that regardless of what anyone thinks about their product planning, Apple can afford not to care.

They still have an NLE, and they can continue development on that product in any direction they choose - most likely the most profitable based on ROI. But if they ever felt compelled to be in higher end post/broadcast space again, $100B will either buy a solution (as they did with FCP) or scale development on what they own quickly enough.

Professional NLE owners are fickle and demanding. The upgrade to later versions is not as high as most people think - Now due to support, development and related issues, a new OS (by the same company) would prompt up an upgrade as an older version was no longer supported. Now one can choose not to upgrade the OS, but there were enough other compelling features in the OS to move up. There was an interesting article on how the iOS 6 Maps and iPhone 5 connector did not affect sales of either one overall. I am sure the upgrade revenue numbers are far higher on those two products than all of the FCP numbers including the Apple hardware they were used on.

And I feel for all those that based their workflow, infrastructure, etc. on such a product. It was/is a great versatile tool that made its way into more productions than one can imagine. But I often wondered how well it would have done had it been its own company responsible for its own P&L based on the price of the product itself without the additional halo effect revenue it generated in hardware, OS, monitor sales, etc. But that halo effect is applied to FCPx with much larger total addressable market.


Return to posts index

tony west
Re: Apple gives up another network client
on Oct 13, 2012 at 3:34:47 pm

[Andy Field] "It was about taking a decade of customer good will and loyalty and tossing it in the trash and creating a product that can no longer meet the needs of a large part of an industry"


Is it incapable of meeting the needs or do some just not like HOW it goes about getting
from A to B?

Is it style or substance?

In the article he talked about how much of his work was with After Effects.

"The turning point, says Epstein, came when Apple released Final Cut Pro X. "We thought, 'Well, this just isn't going to work at all.' So much of what I do is After Effects-specific, so when CS5.5 came along with Dynamic Linking"

That tie in would have been there weather Apple made X or not?

Someone will post an article about moving to PPr6
Then an article like Craig's X in action.

back and forth back and forth.


Return to posts index


Tim Wilson
Re: Apple gives up another network client
on Oct 13, 2012 at 8:02:15 pm

[Sorry for the long post, even by my standards. But hey, it's a Saturday. Drink an adult beverage. Enjoy.]

[Herb Sevush] "...once they realized they would have to make a total change in their editing environment not matter which way they went then PPro / AE with dynamic link made the most sense."

I don't agree at all. FCPX merely provided an opportunity for them to see that FCP 7 had not been the best choice for them for a while now, and in some ways, NEVER was.

SNL's original impetus in choosing FCP was that it supported HD on a Mac before Avid did. Dan Dome was the architect of this, and wrote an article for us about it. If Avid had HD on Mac when SNL was ready to HD, they would very likely have stuck with Avid.

It turns out that Dan took his experience and skills to the Tonight Show with Conan, and then to Conan's new show, where they famously made the move to Premiere before SNL did, and for exactly the same reason SNL did: After Effects integration. Premiere would probably have been a better choice when SNL first chose FCP, and DEFINITELY since CS 5.5.

It's simple math. Especially for high-speed turnaround short form, there's a direct correlation between the importance of After Effects and the likelihood that you NEED to be using Premiere Pro. It was insanity that they weren't already doing this.

All Apple did was provide the opportunity for them to see it.

I think that's the big revelation of the past 18 months for a lot of people, that FCP may NEVER have been their best choice, EVER.

Or if it ever was, the fork in the road (using the example above, CS 5.5) may have come a while ago. This is nothing more than course correction, even if getting on course carries difficult workflow and emotional transitions between here and there, and never overcomes the feeling of loss.

With no downside for Apple. Apple got paid when the SNL guys (and you and you and you) downloaded FCPX, and the SNL guys (like you and you and you) remain adamant that they'll only consider options on Macs. Which means that Apple got paid $295 and didn't lose a customer. They won.

Look, Apple has made torching its customer base a foundation of its business model: we're willing to lose every single current customer to get all the future ones. It started with Macintosh, and it works. You love Apple's ruthless commitment to its vision for every other product you own. It just might not be working for you this time.

But for millions of others, it just might be. To Charlie and Craig's points a few posts earlier, outside this forum, the "Apple doesn't care about pros" meme is largely played out. The second most popular forum at the COW is the FCPX TECHNIQUES forum, and while not 100% Kumbaya, is mostly focused on getting actual work done -- not sk8rboi videos, but the same kind of professional work that the COW was founded on.

Even in this forum, the positive perspectives (whether "it's working" or "it's not there yet, but there are things about it that look interesting") now outweigh the negatives by quite a long shot.

The thing is, I guarantee that a bunch of razor-sharp children making more than you or me ever will have a bunch of spreadsheets. They carefully, and I'll bet accurately, predicted the outcomes of launching FCP "in this state," including:

--Nothing. Some people have been led to believe that there's nothing for them in FCPX "in this state." (There's another spreadsheet that predicts what features will make them go ahead and download when FCPX reaches "that" state.)
--People download and love it.
--People download it and hate it enough to choose another Mac NLE.
--People download it and hate it enough to leave Mac altogether....but they're not going to give up their iPhones or iPads, so we'll keep getting their app money until the sun goes nova.

There's a theoretical slice that indicates people who hate FCPX enough to throw away their iphones, but seriously man....

This NEXT one is what I guarantee was the largest slice of the Keynote pie chart:

--Hating it for now, or at least not liking it...and publicly freaking out about it because that's what people do...but waiting to make an actual move to another NLE to see what Apple brings in the next version or two, because Apple fans do. They would rather stay with Apple no matter what, and have confidence that Apple will figure this out.

Apple not only gambled that this was the biggest slice of the pie, but they made unprecedented moves to ensure it, including direct outreach to customers, and crisp statements explicitly acknowledging what you were expecting and wasn't going to be there, and indicating when those things would be added.

None of this ever happened before. By itself it indicates that Apple DOES care about this market -- but as always with Apple, they care about this market as Apple WANTS the market to be, not what it is right now. Apple plays a long game.

But do you see the pattern here? EVERYBODY PAYS APPLE EVENTUALLY. A LOT. Even if they leave Mac.

So what happens if you download FCPX again in 2 years because you're hearing good things? That would be about the right timeframe -- FCP didn't really get traction until version 3, which was 3 years into the game, and it's not inconceivable that they might be past the stage of free upgrades for X when you're tempted to give it another try.

Apple already has another spreadsheet underway for this, with the exact same fields as before. They'll just update it along the way.

The spreadsheet has already told them that they grew their NLE business by an order of magnitude or more in that time, so here's Apple's worst possible outcome for that increasingly tinier slice of legacy customers:

--They download FCPX and NOW hate it enough to make their move.

Bottom line: Apple gets paid TWICE by the people who hate FCPX the most.

Even if they NOW leave the Mac platform, the slice of people who will hate FCPX enough to leave iOS is as theoretical as the Higgs boson, which for the record is still not PROVEN to exist.

Apple wins, no matter what the outcome.

My antipathy for Apple is well known, but I've never said that they aren't geniuses. They are. I admire the shit out of almost everything they do, even if I choose to use other people's stuff. And I'm telling you that in 100 years, people will still be studying FCPX as the best roll-out the world had ever seen to date.

And for the record, the marketing and roll-out for X were beyond flawless. They had that Apple elegance that every company dreams of, even as they admit to themselves that they have neither the vision to even imagine it, nor the balls to pull it off.

Even though they CALL it marketing (which drives me insane) the issue some people have is ACTUALLY with the product life-cycle management aspects of it, and fewer and fewer people are finding that an insurmountable obstacle by the minute.

See, Apple doesn't care if you've been complaining about THIS thing. Look at iPhone 4. They care if you still love them enough to PAY THEM for the NEXT thing. And for the thing they love most, their iOS business, you DO love them that much.

And all the love you shower on them won't make Apple hesitate for a minute longer to burn you to the ground when they feel that's what it takes for for them to achieve their vision.

Tim Wilson
Vice President, Editor-in-Chief
Creative COW

Tim Wilson
Vice President, Editor-in-Chief
Creative COW



Return to posts index

Marcus Moore
Re: Apple gives up another network client
on Oct 13, 2012 at 8:38:49 pm

I alternately thought you were insane and dead-on in this. Bravo.



Return to posts index

Craig Seeman
Re: Apple gives up another network client
on Oct 13, 2012 at 8:45:56 pm

Speaking of burning the users to the ground, it can happen in their mass produced devices as well.
Consider the new dock connector in the iPhone 5. For the biggest fans, who bought a small fortune in peripherals, they're faced with replacing them all or having to buy a fairly expensive adaptor. So how have iPhone 5 sales been compared to 4S? I'm sure you know the answer.

What I seem to see in the "professional" market place is that, as Tim alludes too, they're selling a large number of FCPXs. In any given facility there's probably one seat, probably sitting on a computer that already has CS or MC (or even those still going one last round with 7). At some point one "brave" editor who may have been honing their chops on X with their copy at home, steps forward and says, "I think I can deliver with this," and some facility manager/producer begrudgingly allows them to give it a go.

Maybe in a lot cases it's still an awkward fail but some number show it as viable. With each major update to FCPX, one more brave soul says maybe this can work now, having developed the chops at home. With each round a few more bite into the Apple and say it finally tastes good enough.

These facilities aren't about to jump wholesale into FCPX but each of the above occurrences lands one more beachhead for Apple. At some point, maybe within the next year or so, some places will reach a tipping point if they really see improved productivity coming out of the FCPX room. As a very few facilities hit that tipping point, a few others will start to look. And so it goes.

As long as Apple lands a few beachheads, just a seat or so in a facility, they have opportunity.

I don't doubt what we're seeing in the Techniques Forum are the signs of the beachheads forming. Like any battle to establish beachheads, there are heavy casualties for a time. We're also seeing that for sure. Don't discount those beachheads though.



Return to posts index


Craig Seeman
Re: Apple gives up another network client
on Oct 13, 2012 at 9:07:59 pm

I think this speaks to something Apple is "tuned" into. I'd say Apple fans but it's too widespread to be that simple.

I think there's a very large portion of the public that embraces change even it's at some significant cost. This may well be the case with FCPX as well. I think the negative slapback is from a very vocal segment that does not eagerly embrace change. That may include the Broadcast/Feature Film niche.

Yes, I'm oversimplifying because when something new does not meet one's needs one moves on. It does have something to do with the small number of "professionals" who are willing to either stick with FCPX or willing to give it another run with each major update.

BTW in that vein I can't help but think the biggest thing to happen to FCXP will be the MacPro replacement. Just a hunch based on the success of the MacBookAir and MacBookPro Retina.



Return to posts index

Charlie Austin
Re: Apple gives up another network client
on Oct 13, 2012 at 9:05:07 pm

[Craig Seeman] "These facilities aren't about to jump wholesale into FCPX but each of the above occurrences lands one more beachhead for Apple. At some point, maybe within the next year or so, some places will reach a tipping point if they really see improved productivity coming out of the FCPX room. As a very few facilities hit that tipping point, a few others will start to look. And so it goes."

I concur. And honestly, the exact same scenario played out with FCP "Classic". I was a movie promo beachhead. :-) Cutting (and finishing using some very convoluted workarounds) stuff on version 1, Switching my bay over and beta testing with versions 2&3, and by version 3 other trailer companies in L.A. were trying it, and our whole company switched from Avid. Others followed. Will the same thing happen? Who knows. It's a different market now, but it wouldn't surprise me.

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


~"It is a poor craftsman who blames his tools."~


Return to posts index

craig slattery
Re: Apple gives up another network client
on Oct 13, 2012 at 10:53:19 pm

[Craig Seeman] "At some point one "brave" editor who may have been honing their chops on X with their copy at home, steps forward and says, "I think I can deliver with this," and some facility manager/producer begrudgingly allows them to give it a go."

Check out my post, 'FCPX in Action' three day ago.


Return to posts index

Craig Seeman
Re: Apple gives up another network client
on Oct 13, 2012 at 11:18:19 pm

[craig slattery] "Check out my post, 'FCPX in Action' three day ago."

Yes. I read it. Your case is a good example. I've been hearing many other stories similar to yours. As Tim Wilson alludes to the popularity of the Techniques forum, I think you're in good company.



Return to posts index

Charlie Austin
Re: Apple gives up another network client
on Oct 13, 2012 at 8:53:25 pm

I'm with Marcus as well. Great post. :-) On an unrelated note... You emailed me a while ago and all my replies bounced... weird. Probably a moot point now though. :-)

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


~"It is a poor craftsman who blames his tools."~


Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: Apple gives up another network client
on Oct 14, 2012 at 6:53:51 am

Just in case anyone is keeping score, Apple has a free trial so you don't have to pay them while you decide if you're going to hate them. It's a win/lose.

http://www.apple.com/finalcutpro/trial/


Return to posts index

Bret Williams
Re: Apple gives up another network client
on Oct 14, 2012 at 2:33:39 pm

To add to the Apple wins either way debate (because most buy a copy before they dismiss it) Premiere doesn't get much added benefit either way because most professionals already had After Effects and Premiere as part of either the Master Collection, the Production Bundle, or now part of a subscription service.


Return to posts index

Herb Sevush
Re: Apple gives up another network client
on Oct 14, 2012 at 5:13:01 pm

[Tim Wilson] "FCPX merely provided an opportunity for them to see that FCP 7 had not been the best choice for them for a while now, and in some ways, NEVER was. "

Most companies do not take stock once a week and say to themselves - "if I were starting fresh today, what would be the most logical system to buy," and then act on that information. Inertia, comfort factor, safety of proven workflows will almost always win out over small efficiencies with newer workflows. If FCP 8 had come out these guys would be working with it despite PPro / AE dynamic link. They had a system that worked, which almost always trumps an unproven system that might work better.

[Tim Wilson] "Apple got paid when the SNL guys (and you and you and you) downloaded FCPX, and the SNL guys (like you and you and you) remain adamant that they'll only consider options on Macs. Which means that Apple got paid $295 and didn't lose a customer. They won."

As long as you understand that I am not one of the "you's". I haven't paid them a cent for FCPX, and it is highly likely that I have already bought the last Mac I will ever buy, and all because of the way they handled the X rollout. While I am used to being a contrarian, I doubt I am their only net loss, and it didn't have to be this way.

[Tim Wilson] "Even if they NOW leave the Mac platform, the slice of people who will hate FCPX enough to leave iOS is as theoretical as the Higgs boson, which for the record is still not PROVEN to exist."

Just call me Higgs. I have an iphone and when my contract is up in January I will be getting an Android. I have tried very hard to find an alternative MP3 player to my ipod but after much searching, purchasing, and hours of file conversions I have given up that ghost and for the moment will have to stick with it - but if ever a reasonable alternative shows up, I am gone. Until I get my next workstation I will buy no software that isn't cross platform. I had a Mac mini for my personal stuff but I'm now using an HP laptop. I have a Kindle for books, don't have an Ipad, and if I do get a tablet it won't be designed in Cupertino.

[Tim Wilson] "Look at iPhone 4. They care if you still love them enough to PAY THEM for the NEXT thing. And for the thing they love most, their iOS business, you DO love them that much."

Other than my family and the Yankees, I don't love anybody that much.

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


Return to posts index

Craig Seeman
Re: Apple gives up another network client
on Oct 14, 2012 at 6:32:09 pm

[Herb Sevush] "I doubt I am their only net loss, and it didn't have to be this way."

Given in the increase in Mac marketshare and overall sales of FCPX (as last reported although not regularly updated) actually Apple is having a net gain. Gain in numbers, sales, marketshare.

While none of this may be due to FCPX, I think it's part of their calculus in changing direction to increase Mac sales. We'll have to see how the new iMacs and the MacPro replacements that follow, fare, but so far the NET is GAIN for Apple.



Return to posts index

Herb Sevush
Re: Apple gives up another network client
on Oct 14, 2012 at 7:20:55 pm

[Craig Seeman] "but so far the NET is GAIN for Apple."

Craig, I know that, I'm just stating the simple fact that I am a net loss - I don't give a rat's behind what the rest of the world does. If they had handled the X rollout differently they would have been at least +1 in their net gain. I know they don't care, but I don't look at things from Apple's perspective, I look at things from my perspective.

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


Return to posts index

Craig Seeman
Re: Apple gives up another network client
on Oct 14, 2012 at 7:33:00 pm

It really depends on how one manages one's own business.
If Apple products can improve my productivity and give me a better ROI then that's the basis of my purchases.



Return to posts index

Herb Sevush
Re: Apple gives up another network client
on Oct 14, 2012 at 7:40:39 pm

[Craig Seeman] "If Apple products can improve my productivity and give me a better ROI then that's the basis of my purchases."

Absolutely. In my case they don't. I have to stop writing now because the latest update of Itunes has wiped out by my phone and my ipod and I have to see what the geniuses at the apple store can do. Bye.

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


Return to posts index

Tim Wilson
Re: Apple gives up another network client
on Oct 14, 2012 at 8:51:31 pm

[Herb Sevush] "Inertia, comfort factor, safety of proven workflows will almost always win out over small efficiencies with newer workflows. If FCP 8 had come out these guys would be working with it despite PPro / AE dynamic link. They had a system that worked, which almost always trumps an unproven system that might work better. "

If you're saying that inertia is a good technology management model :-) I think that Apple would agree to a point. They've been saying as clearly as they can for 18 months now that the legend of FCP will be more useful for many people than "today's" version of X.

"Today" being a moving target of course. There have already been substantial improvements to X, and the end of the year timeframe will put X quite close to the 18-24 month release cycle that Apple has been on for a while now.

And for the record, my gut tells me that the next release will be massive. It still won't work for some people, though, and for others, the light has dawned: other environments are better suited, regardless of what X is or isn't.

Just another way in which Apple NOT going forward with FCP 8 may be the best thing that ever happened to 21st century NLE-ing....even if an unmitigated, life-changing disaster for individuals within it. The opportunity to reboot one's entire NLE experience.


[Herb Sevush] "As long as you understand that I am not one of the "you's". I haven't paid them a cent for FCPX"

You'll note that "not downloading it" was the first slice on my imaginary pie chart.

You're quite right, though, that I missed a couple of slices...and I normally NEVER miss a slice of pie. Those slices could be,

--doesn't need to download to know that they're done with FCP
--doesn't need to download to know they're through with Mac
--doesn't need to download to know they're through with Apple.


[Herb Sevush] "Call me Higgs."

I should know better than to speak for you, even rhetorically. LOL


[Herb Sevush] "If they had handled the X rollout differently they would have been at least +1 in their net gain."

Only to the extent that it would have fed the inertia that kept you from seeing that better alternatives were available.

Right?

Because X is X regardless of how it was rolled out, and I don't think you're making your next move based on pique about something that happened 18 months ago. It's already rolled out, man, and I can only assume that your decisions are being made based on what's in X or likely to be, vs. what's available elsewhere.

Or are you saying that X has given you a new perspective on Apple's vision not taking you or anyone else in particular into account, and that your next move is based on finding the best alternative that's not Apple, period.


[Herb Sevush] "I have to stop writing now because the latest update of Itunes has wiped out by my phone and my ipod and I have to see what the geniuses at the apple store can do"

Yet another reason to consider Samsung, their wiseass attitude in the "It doesn't take a genius" campaign for the Galaxy S III. And yes, in general, attitude (eg, arrogance vs. wiseassery) factors in for me just below technology itself. As with the legend of FCP vis a vis CS6, I wish I had looked at Android sooner. LOL YMMV JKLMNOP


Return to posts index

Herb Sevush
Re: Apple gives up another network client
on Oct 14, 2012 at 9:57:52 pm

Well they were to busy to see me at the Apple store so I have time to write this because I can longer tolerate watching my Yanks be so good at not hitting a baseball.

[Tim Wilson] "They've been saying as clearly as they can for 18 months now that the legend of FCP will be more useful for many people than "today's" version of X. "

I don't understand this line - when did apple say Legacy would be better than X, and if they did why did they stop selling legacy? From what I'm haring Apple has totally discontinued selling Legacy and there is now a booming price war for FCP7 license numbers.

[Tim Wilson] "The opportunity to reboot one's entire NLE experience."

I have no desire to reboot my NLE experience, that has happened often enough to me in the past to take the edge off the experience, I just want to deliver my shows with as little trouble as possible.

[Tim Wilson] "I can only assume that your decisions are being made based on what's in X or likely to be, vs. what's available elsewhere."

Yes, and also at what precise point staying with legacy is less efficient than switching to something else. Other than Avid nothing meets my needs as well as legacy, and I've been avoiding Avid for almost 20 years - for at least one more year I will kick that decision down the road and hope something else, even X, tempts me.

[Tim Wilson] "Or are you saying that X has given you a new perspective on Apple's vision not taking you or anyone else in particular into account, and that your next move is based on finding the best alternative that's not Apple, period."

It's not that absolute, but I will say that I now put a large negative next to any software that is not cross platform. It's possible that enough large positives for something might outweigh that fact, but it will take some serious convincing. Having now experienced the burn your customers to the ground attitude of Apple I am much more warry about buying any of their products. Still I do own an Ipod.

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


Return to posts index

Sandeep Sajeev
Re: Apple gives up another network client
on Oct 15, 2012 at 10:46:42 am

If you've been around for a while, you've seen all the major current players in the NLE space screw over their customer base. It's true for Avid, Adobe, Autodesk and Apple at least, I don't have any history with Vegas, Edius etc so can't speak to that.

Everyone gets pissed for a while and then we move on to whichever company is playing nice at that particular moment.

So I don't really understand the prolonged group whinge about FCPX. It's been a year, and it's unlikely to morph into FCP 8 in the next update.

It is what it is.


Return to posts index

Craig Seeman
Re: Apple gives up another network client
on Oct 15, 2012 at 2:24:42 pm

People only seem to be of the "what have you done to me lately" mindset.
Avid nearly dumping Mac when it was the majority of their user base.
Adobe Premiere leaving the Mac for a time
Autodesk dropping Edit, Cleaner, CineStream, Combustion

Of course there are "excuses" for each but somehow those excuses are OK or long forgotten.
While we can't pretend FCPX is FCP7, Apple is working fast to make it a Pro App and Thunderbolt is important to many "mobile" professionals.

Every company looks at upsetting their "apple cart" to expand their bottom line.



Return to posts index

Andrew Kimery
Re: Apple gives up another network client
on Oct 15, 2012 at 6:47:38 pm

[Craig Seeman] "People only seem to be of the "what have you done to me lately" mindset.
Avid nearly dumping Mac when it was the majority of their user base.
Adobe Premiere leaving the Mac for a time
Autodesk dropping Edit, Cleaner, CineStream, Combustion

Of course there are "excuses" for each but somehow those excuses are OK or long forgotten.
While we can't pretend FCPX is FCP7, Apple is working fast to make it a Pro App and Thunderbolt is important to many "mobile" professionals.

Every company looks at upsetting their "apple cart" to expand their bottom line."

One man's "excuses" is another man's "context". ;)

Avid thought about dumping Mac because the whole platform had been on a downward slope for a long time and Macs were surpassed by PCs in terms of performance. But once the Mac-faithful came out w/their pitchforks Avid back pedaled (and we entered the era of their being feature disparity between PC Avids and Mac Avids).

Adobe went PC only for a time with Premiere because their Mac sales were so poor that it didn't make sense to develop cross platform anymore. On top of that Adobe was reacting to the same hardware stagnation that Avid was. The G4 era CPUs were well beyond long in the tooth by the time the G5s came out.

With all that being said I'm in total agreement that Apple is not the only company to upset its user base. Though they are a very healthy company, with a very healthy product and a very healthy user base which makes their decision different in context than what Adobe or Avid did.




Return to posts index

Herb Sevush
Re: Apple gives up another network client
on Oct 15, 2012 at 7:35:31 pm

[Andrew Kimery] "With all that being said I'm in total agreement that Apple is not the only company to upset its user base."

The difference is that these other companies made changes due to factors outside of their control - diminished user base, lack of proper hardware, poverty - and changed course when either pressured by their user base or when those outside factors changed.

In contrast, as so many here have noted, Craig among them, Apple makes almost a fetish about creative destruction; according to the Apple cognoscenti anyone who deals with Apple should know upfront that they will turn on a dime when it suits their collective "vision", and those not nimble enough to see the turns coming are expected to get run over and like it.

Personally, I would not knowingly chose to work with such a partner.

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


Return to posts index

Craig Seeman
Re: Apple gives up another network client
on Oct 15, 2012 at 8:06:49 pm

[Herb Sevush] "The difference is that these other companies made changes due to factors outside of their control - diminished user base,"

Ahh the shrinking of the size of the TV Broadcast/Feature Film niche compared to the overall video post industry which actually is growing faster in other areas.

[Herb Sevush] "Apple makes almost a fetish about creative destruction; according to the Apple cognoscenti anyone who deals with Apple should know upfront that they will turn on a dime when it suits their collective "vision", and those not nimble enough to see the turns coming are expected to get run over and like it. "

I suspect the next big jump with be the MacPro replacement. There are PCIe chassis already on the market though. Keep in mind Apple behaves like this because they believe the "new thing" is far more attractive than the "old thing" and generally they're right (with some course corrections along the way sometimes). Yes it can be painful. Yes it's reasonable for some people to not want that as part of their business model.
Sometimes Apple is very good about transition periods (OS9 to OSX for example) and sometimes not (FCP7 to FCPX).



Return to posts index

Franz Bieberkopf
Re: Apple gives up another network client
on Oct 15, 2012 at 9:14:10 pm

[Craig Seeman] "Ahh the shrinking of the size of the TV Broadcast/Feature Film niche compared to the overall video post industry which actually is growing faster in other areas."

Craig,

You know that's going to need a cite ...

Franz.


Return to posts index

Andrew Kimery
Re: Apple gives up another network client
on Oct 16, 2012 at 4:32:56 pm

[Craig Seeman] "Ahh the shrinking of the size of the TV Broadcast/Feature Film niche compared to the overall video post industry which actually is growing faster in other areas."

When you say that are you referring to the medium or that style of content? I agree that broadcast/cable and movie theaters as mediums of content delivery will continue to be disrupted but as far as that style of content goes I don't see it, nor demand for it, shrinking. For example, Hulu, YouTube, Amazon, Netflix and possibly even Microsoft (for Xbox Live) are producing, or looking to produce, their own original TV shows and/or movies. People, consumers, want this style of content they just dislike the rigidity of the traditional old media delivery timetables.




Return to posts index

Craig Seeman
Re: Apple gives up another network client
on Oct 16, 2012 at 4:54:32 pm

It's actually a combination of changes going on now.
Certainly one change are the methods of distribution.
It can impact production workflow. serialized VOD may not have the same tight weekly schedule of broadcast. Feature VOD is also impacted.
Also though, as video production becomes more important as a language of communication, other styles or variations and targeted objectives are growing.

Overall video production is growing rapidly. TV/Film may even be growing. I believe they are a smaller piece of the pie though as other forms of video are growing more rapidly. I think this is impacting what a "facility" itself is (or at least how technically constituted).



Return to posts index

Chris Harlan
Re: Apple gives up another network client
on Oct 16, 2012 at 5:48:59 pm

[Andrew Kimery] "For example, Hulu, YouTube, Amazon, Netflix and possibly even Microsoft (for Xbox Live) are producing, or looking to produce, their own original TV shows and/or movies. People, consumers, want this style of content they just dislike the rigidity of the traditional old media delivery timetables."

That's what I'm seeing as well.


Return to posts index

Andrew Kimery
Re: Apple gives up another network client
on Oct 16, 2012 at 9:01:42 pm

Craig,

I certainly agree that many things are changing and new areas of video production are rapidly growing (though when you start from zero it's very easy to show year over year growth ;) ). For instance, I think we are entering a new age of corporate video where companies can talk directly to customers or other businesses like never before. A trend now seems to be companies making pseudo-documentaries about themselves or their brand and 'airing' them the company's official YouTube channel. So, they'll still work with ad agencies and buy airtime for their 30sec spots but there is a flexibility in corporate communication now that wasn't really there 5-10yrs ago.

I spent the better part of the last six years editing (among other duties) in house at MTV producing mainly original web content for a variety of MTV properties (Gametrailers.com, Spike.com, ComedyCentral.com etc.,) so I feel like I have a good idea of the highs and lows of trying to produce 'broadcast quality' content for the web in a sustainable and profitable fashion. While it's impressive, and something new, to see YouTube stars making 70 or 100 grand a year they are usually solo talents with little to no overhead which is a business model that doesn't translate into the kind of work I do (and I imagine it doesn't translate well into the kind of work the vast majority of people in video/film/tv production do).

There are certainly more options today than ever before but how many of those options are sustainable from a business stand point (at least currently)? I think there will always be outliers and one-off success stories, but for the most part I don't think the fundamental way the vast majority of our motion picture entertainment is made will change very much. Today content creators bang on the doors of CBS or HBO to get their projects made and tomorrow they may be banging on the doors of Netflix or Hulu but the act of a content creator that has an idea but little else looking for a 'benefactor' that has money and/or distribution won't change a whole heck of a lot, IMO.




Return to posts index

Sandeep Sajeev
Re: Apple gives up another network client
on Oct 16, 2012 at 9:08:44 pm

Just to follow up, the YouTube revenue rates are between 80 cents to 2 dollars per 1000 views.


Return to posts index

Craig Seeman
Re: Apple gives up another network client
on Oct 16, 2012 at 9:18:27 pm

Definition of "success" changes/grows.
Communication becomes more fragmented but there's much more content being produced and it's more targeted. This is both corporate and entertainment.



Return to posts index

Craig Seeman
Re: Apple gives up another network client
on Oct 15, 2012 at 7:58:18 pm

[Andrew Kimery] "With all that being said I'm in total agreement that Apple is not the only company to upset its user base. Though they are a very healthy company, with a very healthy product and a very healthy user base which makes their decision different in context than what Adobe or Avid did."

Yes. Apple is certainly in a situation where they can take a hit in a niche market especially if they feel the new direction will be more profitable. They've chosen to remain the NLE business and continue with Desktops obviously. It's apparent they're shifting business models. One might guess they're trying to make viable a market which is really not very good. Avid sells hardware. Adobe has a wide range of integrated media software. Each is making shifts to remain viable (well, some hope Avid is). They have different business models so they're not going to approach using the same model.



Return to posts index

Aindreas Gallagher
Re: Apple gives up another network client
on Oct 15, 2012 at 10:05:44 pm

[Craig Seeman] "They've chosen to remain the NLE business and continue with Desktops obviously."


not even a little bit obvious - either part of that sentence. the macpro has a vague promise for something next year.

As for FCPX , lets grind up the organ again - apple chose to be in the monetisation of its undifferentiated users business through the appstore. they originally, and specifically pitched this 299 software, like a canon rebel, at prosumers. the original ads all pitched at imovie users. there was no grand plan, they just went for a buck on something that earns them a decimal point in earnings either way.

FCPX has no professional presence, no moves, bar three outliers apple could cobble together, are underway in its direction, indeed all moves have been like Raudonis towards Avid, or AP and other large iron centres, towards premiere.

FCPX, a year and a half in, has all the industry presence of its effects backbone motion. motion that no one ever cared about outside of ripple training.

Which is to say, utterly none.

No clients request it, it appears on no jobs boards, it features in no post houses, in a schrodinger's cat sense, if it wasn't discussed to the extent that it is on this forum, it might as well not exist as a means to be paid to edit.

And - this is most critical - in its dark early days - who championed FCP?

US.

Who rather hates this imovie derived cheap, timeline mess of a product pitch to anyone that ever messed with imovie?

90% of us. the industry from big iron, to the smallest shop rather hates this software.

It is rejected en masse as far as the eye can see.

I do like to take a crowbar to this software, but that is true - FCPX is utterly rejected by precisely the people who brought its predecessor to prominence, because it is an irritating, intellectually reductive, detestable prosumer mess.

FCPX does not have enough friends to survive.

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


Return to posts index

Charlie Austin
Re: Apple gives up another network client
on Oct 15, 2012 at 10:41:34 pm

[Aindreas Gallagher] "FCPX is utterly rejected by precisely the people who brought its predecessor to prominence, because it is an irritating, intellectually reductive, detestable prosumer mess."

No, it's not. So there. :-p

Actually, your post reminded me of an article I had read when X first appeared. I hunted it down, here's an excerpt:

..Or is (the backlash) coming from non-Final Cut Pro users who see the $299 writing on the wall and realize that they’ll soon very likely have to learn something dramatically new and different from outside their comfort zone? Apple’s previous Final Cut Pro versions have not stopped working, nor has Apple stopped work on FCP X – in fact, they’ve just started working with a paradigm-shifing, extremely strong and powerful foundation upon which to build. Have a minute of patience, please. I heard the same sort of whining when we went from Mac OS 9 to Mac OS X and some had to be dragged kicking and screaming. People stopped crying over Mac OS 9 in short order, too.

Or... perhaps some editors feel a little bit threatened that “non-pro” users will be able to edit so well for so little? And/or perhaps it’s coming from Apple’s now price-demolished competition who simply cannot crunch their numbers and make them come out profitably if Apple is going to offer Final Cut Pro X for $299?


:-)

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


~"It is a poor craftsman who blames his tools."~


Return to posts index

Aindreas Gallagher
Re: Apple gives up another network client
on Oct 15, 2012 at 11:26:54 pm

the point stands:

editing is not reading, it is not gardening, it is not embroidery.

Editing is a highly competitive paid pursuit.

No one pays you to edit with FCPX. Outside of mathematical rounding errors, no facility offers FCPX to clients. FCPX is completely non-existent editing software.

Its just a weird, one off appstore cash grab by apple.

this isn't a coincidence, or a blip, this is software going about as far as motion, and that never went anywhere.

the people in the big shops, who only ever tolerated FCP6-7 - they have dumped the whole thing.

they've gone back to avid.

the little people, - read; a lot of us - who were getting inroads via FCP - would never touch FCPX because (A) it's stupid software (B) it killed the entire FCP gig and (C) it proves apple are gone beyond the pale as someone you could ever be stupid enough to trust in the medium term.

FCPX is on the whole, pretty horribly confused software, and it has no friends, in any direction. none.

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


Return to posts index

Marcus Moore
Re: Apple gives up another network client
on Oct 16, 2012 at 1:15:37 am

I get paid to edit in FCPX, and I find your solipsistic, self-centered viewpoint franking insulting.

Today's FCPX user is tomorrow's Pro, and they'll continue to use it if it grows with them; the same way Legacy FCP did, the same way Premier did, and the same way Avid did way back (and yes, I was there and using it myself).

It's lame ducks like you poisoning the well with your apparent bias that makes it really hard for people like me who've given the software a chance-- and found it not only not awful, but pretty remarkable in a lot of respects. But you know what, when I DO get to sit down with those people and show them FCPX- not one of them has left the meeting thinking I was crazy.

After 20 years of NLEs chasing the same paradigms, I'm thrilled... ABSOLUTELY THRILLED to see someone innovate in this space. Even if everything FCPX proposes doesn't end up working out, even if FCPX eventually does go under, I'm glad someone took the chance on trying something new.

If you don't like it, fine. You've got your own way to work. Awesome. But personally I'm glad that there's more than one binary process now. Editors have a choice, and that differentiation in the market can only make all products stronger.



Return to posts index

Chris Harlan
Re: Apple gives up another network client
on Oct 16, 2012 at 5:02:24 am

[Marcus Moore] "I get paid to edit in FCPX, and I find your solipsistic, self-centered viewpoint franking insulting.
"


Just a reminder that we come here to argue, so shut your festering gobutit and enjoy:







Return to posts index

Christian Schumacher
Re: Apple gives up another network client
on Oct 16, 2012 at 3:34:27 pm

[Marcus Moore] "Today's FCPX user is tomorrow's Pro, and they'll continue to use it if it grows with them; the same way Legacy FCP did, the same way Premier did, and the same way Avid did way back"

While this can be reasonable sometimes, I don't think you can solely rely on past behavior to predict the future.
Specially if that timeframe is longer than an entire decade and we're talking about computer technology here.

As to foretell how Apple will further advance with its professional NLE, we should rhetorically ask ourselves:
-How Apple Pro Apps are being developed TODAY? (meaning Logic and Aperture)
-What are Apple's priorities regarding their hardware TODAY?


Return to posts index

Herb Sevush
Re: Apple gives up another network client
on Oct 16, 2012 at 3:48:32 pm

[Marcus Moore] "After 20 years of NLEs chasing the same paradigms, I'm thrilled... ABSOLUTELY THRILLED to see someone innovate in this space. Even if everything FCPX proposes doesn't end up working out, even if FCPX eventually does go under, I'm glad someone took the chance on trying something new."

People have been trying something new with NLEs for the bast 25 years or so. You want different, try Vegas, it's very different. Try Lightworks. Hell, dig up an old EMC2 and I'll show you something really different.

X is not the first "new" thing to come down the pipe, it's only the latest. The big difference here is that no one ever took a market leading application and dumped it in the toilet before - that's Apple real innovation.

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


Return to posts index

Marcus Moore
Re: Apple gives up another network client
on Oct 16, 2012 at 4:10:16 pm

You wouldn't believe how much money I made this year in the toilet. The most in my 20 year career.



Return to posts index

Herb Sevush
Re: Apple gives up another network client
on Oct 16, 2012 at 4:50:50 pm

[Marcus Moore] "You wouldn't believe how much money I made this year in the toilet. "

I consider this one of the most entertaining lines of the year, and I am already congratulating myself on not responding to it as I could. Might I suggest that you use this as the banner for your website?

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


Return to posts index

Marcus Moore
Re: Apple gives up another network client
on Oct 16, 2012 at 4:56:23 pm

I would, but unfortunately in the 7 years I've been on my own I've never needed to advertise. ;-)



Return to posts index

Charlie Austin
Re: Apple gives up another network client
on Oct 16, 2012 at 4:12:00 pm

[Herb Sevush] "The big difference here is that no one ever took a market leading application and dumped it in the toilet before - that's Apple real innovation."

lol... This isn't directed specifically at you Herb, It just popped into my head reading your comment, but there really do seem to be a lot of jilted lovers in FCP land these days. ;-) Be honest though, the one you loved was getting long in the tooth and their looks were really only still there due to lots of plastic surgery. Great personality, arguably the best of all the old dames, but now she's left you. You could take up with one of her old friends but.... there's someone new and available. And the new girl is really great. Immature and a little annoying, but a real stunner. And in the edit room, she's got some serious... skills. One can mourn a lost love for a while, but at some point... :-)

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


~"It is a poor craftsman who blames his tools."~


Return to posts index

Herb Sevush
Re: Apple gives up another network client
on Oct 16, 2012 at 4:45:50 pm

[Charlie Austin] "One can mourn a lost love for a while, but at some point."

Charlie I'm not looking for love, I'm looking for a business to partner with.

I have a successful workflow with 7, it does indeed need an update, but instead the program was discontinued and an entirely different program, that in no way meets my workflow needs, was offered to me instead.

Those aspects that need upgrading for 7 get more serious over time, X still does not meet my workflow needs, and my only real option at the moment is Avid, a system I've been avoiding for almost 20 years.

I don't think this is hard to understand, I don't need an NLE to wipe my brow or make me chicken soup but I do need a time code window and the ability to work with multiple audio tracks disconnected from their video sources, and I want to visually organize my work with tracks that stay where I put them.

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


Return to posts index

Sandeep Sajeev
Re: Apple gives up another network client
on Oct 16, 2012 at 4:54:44 pm

So why not move across to Avid? What's holding you back?


Return to posts index

Herb Sevush
Re: Apple gives up another network client
on Oct 16, 2012 at 5:24:27 pm

[Sandeep Sajeev] "So why not move across to Avid? What's holding you back?"

Historically first cost and then a perceived stodginess in the way the software operates. I tend to like to throw a lot of things at a timeline and see what sticks, Avid always struck me as having a slower more structured approach. But Avid costs have come down and I know I can learn to adapt my style to their interface so at the moment the last factor is the way we record the shows for my main client.

For the last 2 years we have been using KiPros recording ProRes for our multicam studio show. I know that KiPros can also record to DNxHD, but only in a quicktime wrapper. We shoot around 14 Terrabytes worth of material and having to re-wrap that seems a bit much and I've been told that cutting purely with quicktime is a major strain on Avid systems. Recently I was told by some of the folks at AJA that they are going to update the KiPros to enable them to record DNxHD in an MXF container. If and when that happens I'm off to Avid land, unless there is a better option.

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


Return to posts index

Chris Harlan
Re: Apple gives up another network client
on Oct 16, 2012 at 5:46:55 pm

[Herb Sevush] "Historically first cost and then a perceived stodginess in the way the software operates. I tend to like to throw a lot of things at a timeline and see what sticks, Avid always struck me as having a slower more structured approach."

Yeah, I'm finding my new adventures in Avidland a mixed bag. I'm still going back and forth between FCP7 and MC6 (and Pr6), and I find I miss a lot of FCPs features. The odd thing is that I now find myself missing some of Avid's features while back in 7. Keyboard trimming IS better. The utility of the Source monitor is MUCH better. If I could conbine the two, at this stage of my development, I would build all my sellects in Avid, do a cut in FCP7, fine tune with Avid, make revisions with FCP7, and then fine tune again with Avid. Also, I'm not a Colorist, but I like the color tools in Symphony quite a bit.

Pr sits astride these two nicely, btw. Maybe X will too, down the road.


Return to posts index

Tim Wilson
Re: Apple gives up another network client
on Oct 16, 2012 at 5:55:59 pm

[Chris Harlan] " If I could conbine the two, at this stage of my development, I would build all my sellects in Avid, do a cut in FCP7, fine tune with Avid, make revisions with FCP7, and then fine tune again with Avid. Also, I'm not a Colorist, but I like the color tools in Symphony quite a bit. "

Can't you do this? Especially for straight cuts, handling projects between FCP 7 and MC/Symphony is pretty smooth. Just a variation on offline and online.

Right? Or am I misunderstanding (again)?


Return to posts index

Chris Harlan
Re: Apple gives up another network client
on Oct 16, 2012 at 6:08:11 pm

[Tim Wilson] "[Chris Harlan] " If I could conbine the two, at this stage of my development, I would build all my sellects in Avid, do a cut in FCP7, fine tune with Avid, make revisions with FCP7, and then fine tune again with Avid. Also, I'm not a Colorist, but I like the color tools in Symphony quite a bit. "

Can't you do this? Especially for straight cuts, handling projects between FCP 7 and MC/Symphony is pretty smooth. Just a variation on offline and online.
"


Oh yeah. Certainly. I've actually been doing that as part of my re-aquaintanceship with Avid. I've been using the Boris translation tools to do so. As a practical sustained procedure, however it has limits. It doesn't work with AMA, so the time and disk space involved in transcoding becomes an issue. And, once you get involved in plugins there are all kinds of potential translation issues. If you stick with Continuum only, you do pretty well--IF you have the same version installed on each piece of software--but other plugins become an issue.

Still, I have a good time bouncing things around between all three programs, and when I don't have a looming deadline and its on my dime and not the client's, I'll continue to do so.


Return to posts index

Sandeep Sajeev
Re: Apple gives up another network client
on Oct 16, 2012 at 6:52:17 pm

Transcoding and Re-wrapping are a pain. A few months ago I was given 10 TB of H264 rushes for 2 spots for a sportswear company. FCPX would have been a big help on this project allowing me to sort, tag, mark, organize and just get to know the footage in my editing tool. Then I could have left the machine running overnight and it would have transcoded away in the background.

As an aside, I think Smoke has this down pat, it transcodes your footage even if you've quit the app.

So I think for shows with large amounts of data, X can really help. However if you have a problem with the actual cutting experience (which I think is what you really dislike in X?) then it's all moot.

Hopefully some of the cool organisational stuff in X makes it across to the other NLE's as well, so that editors across the board can enjoy some of the benefits. For eg, Skimming in the Filmstrip View has practically eliminated the need for me to click on clips in the Event Browser, and that has really helped my fingers. On large projects that's a considerable benefit. Smart Collections and Keywords are another.

I like Media Composer, but AMA dodginess holds it back for my workflow as I too have a large amount of ProRes material that comes in. Premiere seems cool, but I haven't spent anytime on it yet and I have heard some horror stories about its Media Management so am holding off for a bit.


Return to posts index

Charlie Austin
Re: Apple gives up another network client
on Oct 16, 2012 at 5:18:02 pm

[Herb Sevush] "I don't think this is hard to understand, I don't need an NLE to wipe my brow or make me chicken soup but I do need a time code window and the ability to work with multiple audio tracks disconnected from their video sources, and I want to visually organize my work with tracks that stay where I put them."

I totally get it Herb, and as i said, it just popped into my head when reading your post so it honestly wasn't directed at you. Hopefully X will get the features you need soon, because I understand your reluctance to move to MC. A while ago, before I discovered that X actually was useable, I grabbed the trials of both Pr and MC just to see where they were at as it's been a while since I'd used either one. Pr was ok I guess, but MC was still the cluttered, bloated, archaic mess that it had been last time I used it. More so really, since they've bolted a slew of new "features" onto it. So... I feel your pain. ;-)

I'll say again though, as an audio guy who started recording stuff on 1/4" sound on sound machines, and ended up as a post audio mixer here in L.A before I accidently became an editor... working with audio in X is a thousand times better than in 7, or any NLE that I've used for that matter. Despite the lack of tracks and "faders". I'm really looking forward to whats coming next....

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


~"It is a poor craftsman who blames his tools."~


Return to posts index

Chris Harlan
Re: Apple gives up another network client
on Oct 16, 2012 at 5:31:33 pm

[Charlie Austin] "'ll say again though, as an audio guy who started recording stuff on 1/4" sound on sound machines, and ended up as a post audio mixer here in L.A before I accidently became an editor... working with audio in X is a thousand times better than in 7, or any NLE that I've used for that matter. Despite the lack of tracks and "faders". I'm really looking forward to whats coming next...."

You keep saying that, Charlie, but I don't see it. And I've got a very similar history to yours, including cutting blocks and razor blades with 1/4". It may fit your style and approach more neatly, but 1000X better? Audio is currently one of the three major things that is keeping me away from X. You've made this claim a number of times, so I'd like you to detail WHY you think it, because I'm just not seeing it. So, maybe you could start a thread "Why FCP X audio is better than its competitors." I'll give you a pass on the 1000X. And, hey--I think it would be terrific if you are right. I'm very willing to be schooled and shown the errors of my way. But given what I can see currently, I can only see a case for "Charlie Austin enjoys the FCP X Approach to Audio more than other Approaches," not "FCP X Audio is WAY better." So, school me.


Return to posts index

Charlie Austin
Re: Apple gives up another network client
on Oct 16, 2012 at 6:43:54 pm

[Chris Harlan] "So, maybe you could start a thread "Why FCP X audio is better than its competitors." I'll give you a pass on the 1000X. And, hey--I think it would be terrific if you are right. I'm very willing to be schooled and shown the errors of my way. But given what I can see currently, I can only see a case for "Charlie Austin enjoys the FCP X Approach to Audio more than other Approaches," not "FCP X Audio is WAY better." So, school me."

LOL... I guess I was being a little hyperbolic there. I think your description is more accurate. :-) Maybe a separate thread would be good, but here are a few things off the top of my pointy head. ;-) I should start by saying that I almost never used the faders/"automation" in FCP 7. It'll be nice if/when that comes back, but I don't miss it at all. YMMV on that one. I should also point out that I don't use the primary story line at all, and always break the audio off from the video, so my timelines pretty much behave just like they did in 7. What I like about X's approach is mostly related to editing, and honestly, you can do similar stuff in 7, but it's way easier in X for me. Anyhoo... what I think is better...

-The clip based paradigm vs. track based. Soloing bits of audio is a pleasure for me. Say I have 2 clips butted up against each other but I just want to hear the first one:

In 7, I move the second clip off the track, follow the track I want to solo all the way back to the beginning of the sequence, solo it, move back to the clip and play it. Then I want to hear the second clip too, so I either un mute the track I moved it to, or move it back to the soloed track and play it. Then maybe I want to hear the FX under those clips too... back to the head, un mute that... etc. click click move click click on and on.

In X, I hover over the clip I want to solo, press C to select it and option-S to solo it. To hear the other clip I right click it and "add to soloed clips". Same for the FX or anything else. Or just select of bunch of random clips wherever they are relative to other clips and solo 'em. It's really nice.

Or I can disable clips to mute them which sometimes works for what i want to hear, but In X enabling/disabling a clip only requires one keystroke, V, instead of the CNTRL-B stretch.. faster.


-The Audio filters in X are better, many of the Logic plugins are there in addition to the usual AU stuff. Things I might have had to round trip to STP I can do right in the timeline. Faster.


-The "Audio Enhancements" inspector tab for each clip in X is awesome, especially the "Loudness" settings. I don't know about you, but in 7 I often have to double/triple/quadruple, or throw the DynamicsProcessor filter on quiet audio clips to get them to the right level for a specific mix. Not in X. Open the tab, make a couple quick adjustments, done. The Hum and BG Noise removal adjustments are nice too. 3 common audio fixes in one place, easy. Also available for compound clips, so you can put all your crappy dialog in one clip and effect it all. Faster.


-In X, you can move audio clips in subframe increments, not just the keyframes, the clips. This makes cheating dialog and cutting music really precise, way better than 7.


-The fade handles on each clip are awesome. While I am used to being able to just throw a dissolve effect between adjacent audio (and video for that matter) - in X you need to create a secondary storyline to do that, which isn't that big a deal really - grabbing the fade handles is super fast and gives you much finer control than in 7. Just right click to change the fade type.


-Keyframes in audio clips really are 1000 times better than 7. Really easy to grab/select/add/delete and they move where you want them to. They're way too fiddly in 7 for me.


-related to keyframes... In X you can do range based audio level changes. To dip MX under some DIA in 7, you can switch gears, grab the fader and play through the section and mix it, or you need to either create 4 keyframes and then grab the level bar thing and lower the audio between them, or cut the MX clip on either side of the dialog, add dissolves (or not) and lower the section.

In X, hit R, select the range in the MX clip you want to lower, and CNTL +/- to get the level, it adds the keyframes, which you can of course adjust if you want. faster.


... so, I just previewed this, and it's a freaking book and I have more to blather about. :-o I guess I'll stuff it in a new thread and continue huh? Anyone interested in my blathering? :-)

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


~"It is a poor craftsman who blames his tools."~


Return to posts index

Chris Harlan
Re: Apple gives up another network client
on Oct 16, 2012 at 7:25:01 pm

Nice list. I agree with a number of the things you say. I can see why you might prefer it, though for me its missing quite a lot still. I would say there are three things that I would need to see before I could see it as being better than 6/7.

1: A mixer with Master channels. It would also be nice to see them take it to the level of Adobe and include busses and subs.

2. Support for Control surfaces.

3. Some sort of organizational device that allows me to see at a glance the position of all my audio types. Right now, in all other NLEs that is track position. In the case of X, color-coding of roles would probably be sufficient.

Sync info is also important, but maybe not directly related to the "better-ness" of the audio component.

So, yes--I agree there have been some improvements, and maybe this next round will take it the whole 9 yards, but right now Audio in X is, overall, a step backwards for me.


[Charlie Austin] "In 7, I move the second clip off the track, follow the track I want to solo all the way back to the beginning of the sequence, solo it, move back to the clip and play it. Then I want to hear the second clip too, so I either un mute the track I moved it to, or move it back to the soloed track and play it. Then maybe I want to hear the FX under those clips too... back to the head, un mute that... etc. click click move click click on and on.
"


In 7, I just un-enable the clip I don't want to hear. As you say, click, click.


[Charlie Austin] "In X, I hover over the clip I want to solo, press C to select it and option-S to solo it. To hear the other clip I right click it and "add to soloed clips". Same for the FX or anything else. Or just select of bunch of random clips wherever they are relative to other clips and solo 'em. It's really nice.
"


That sounds cool.


[Charlie Austin] "-The Audio filters in X are better, many of the Logic plugins are there in addition to the usual AU stuff. Things I might have had to round trip to STP I can do right in the timeline. Faster.
"


Agreed. Much better.


[Charlie Austin] "-The "Audio Enhancements" inspector tab for each clip in X is awesome, especially the "Loudness" settings. I don't know about you, but in 7 I often have to double/triple/quadruple, or throw the DynamicsProcessor filter on quiet audio clips to get them to the right level for a specific mix. Not in X. Open the tab, make a couple quick adjustments, done. The Hum and BG Noise removal adjustments are nice too. 3 common audio fixes in one place, easy. Also available for compound clips, so you can put all your crappy dialog in one clip and effect it all. Faster."

I think I'd like that as well. Just FYI, there is a loudness solution in 7 that goes beyond +12db. You access it through Modify Audio and it allows you to by-bass the need for doubling up.



[Charlie Austin] "-In X, you can move audio clips in subframe increments, not just the keyframes, the clips. This makes cheating dialog and cutting music really precise, way better than 7.
"


Agreed! No question--an improvement.


[Charlie Austin] "-The fade handles on each clip are awesome. While I am used to being able to just throw a dissolve effect between adjacent audio (and video for that matter) - in X you need to create a secondary storyline to do that, which isn't that big a deal really - grabbing the fade handles is super fast and gives you much finer control than in 7. Just right click to change the fade type.
"


Agreed. I like those.

[Charlie Austin] "-Keyframes in audio clips really are 1000 times better than 7. Really easy to grab/select/add/delete and they move where you want them to. They're way too fiddly in 7 for me.
"


I use the faders a lot, and not the key-framing tool. But I agree, they are fiddly. I prefer a control surface for mixing as you can be controlling several tracks at the same time. I can be bumping DIA and dropping MU simultaneously.


[Charlie Austin] "related to keyframes... In X you can do range based audio level changes. To dip MX under some DIA in 7, you can switch gears, grab the fader and play through the section and mix it, or you need to either create 4 keyframes and then grab the level bar thing and lower the audio between them, or cut the MX clip on either side of the dialog, add dissolves (or not) and lower the section.
"


Some nice advantages. Of course, if you want to use a control surface, you are SOL.


Return to posts index

Charlie Austin
Re: Apple gives up another network client
on Oct 16, 2012 at 8:25:39 pm

[Chris Harlan] "Nice list. I agree with a number of the things you say. I can see why you might prefer it, though for me its missing quite a lot still. I would say there are three things that I would need to see before I could see it as being better than 6/7.

1: A mixer with Master channels. It would also be nice to see them take it to the level of Adobe and include busses and subs.


Agreed. In my case it's not an issue since most everything I do gets mixed at a dedicated post facility. Most of what i do is offline, which colors my perception/needs to a great extent. But you're right. I really think if they can utilize the power of roles with an actual mixer stolen from Logic or something, it'll be amazing. We'll see...

[Chris Harlan] 2. Support for Control surfaces.

Would be nice, yes.

[Chris Harlan] 3. Some sort of organizational device that allows me to see at a glance the position of all my audio types. Right now, in all other NLEs that is track position. In the case of X, color-coding of roles would probably be sufficient.

Yeah, it's real close, and as you know you can see all of one role at a time, but color coding/grouping multiple roles would be (will be??) awesome.

[Chris Harlan] Sync info is also important, but maybe not directly related to the "better-ness" of the audio component.

Agreed, once you break the audio off the picture you need to pay attention. Of course if you leave it attached it'll never lose sync. I'm just used to breaking it out, but now that I'm more comfortable I'm starting to mess with storylines and other X "innovations" more, maybe leaving sync audio, (usually DIA) attached to the pix might be nice.

[Chris Harlan] So, yes--I agree there have been some improvements, and maybe this next round will take it the whole 9 yards, but right now Audio in X is, overall, a step backwards for me.

Makes sense, as you said, if you need a Control surface you're currently SOL. My MCU is very sad these days... :-)


[Chris Harlan]

[Charlie Austin] "In X, I hover over the clip I want to solo, press C to select it and option-S to solo it. To hear the other clip I right click it and "add to soloed clips". Same for the FX or anything else. Or just select of bunch of random clips wherever they are relative to other clips and solo 'em. It's really nice."

That sounds cool.


Yeah, That's one thing I seriously love. Drives me nuts not having it in 7...


[Chris Harlan]

[Charlie Austin] "-The "Audio Enhancements" inspector tab for each clip in X is awesome, especially the "Loudness" settings. ..."

I think I'd like that as well. Just FYI, there is a loudness solution in 7 that goes beyond +12db. You access it through Modify Audio and it allows you to by-bass the need for doubling up.


True. But the cool thing about the X settings is, in addition to cranking the loudness a ridiculous amount, you can select the degree of normalization as well. So a dialog line that's too quiet overall, and also starts loud and falls off, can be simultaneously cranked overall and normalized. Really useful.

[Chris Harlan]
I use the faders a lot, and not the key-framing tool. But I agree, they are fiddly. I prefer a control surface for mixing as you can be controlling several tracks at the same time. I can be bumping DIA and dropping MU simultaneously.
...
[Charlie Austin] "related to keyframes... In X you can do range based audio level changes. To dip MX under some DIA in 7, you can switch gears, grab the fader and play through the section and mix it, or you need to either create 4 keyframes and then grab the level bar thing and lower the audio between them, or cut the MX clip on either side of the dialog, add dissolves (or not) and lower the section.
"

Some nice advantages. Of course, if you want to use a control surface, you are SOL."


Yep, though the fact that you can do range based keyframing, and the fact that the audio level slider moves as you play through volume changes, gives me a little clue that mixing of some sort is coming. With roles, it seems like you'd be able to "assign" a specific role(s) to a specific fader(s) or buss or whatever.

There's a bunch of other stuff I left out... Compound clips and the ability to add effects and/or keyframed levels to them, sort of like a mix group/buss. The dynamic waveforms I really like. And the fact that I can cut clips, extend, move, change levels, solo, mute them etc., with out ever stopping playback is really really nice.

Oh, and the evil magnetic timeline. Just cut stuff in, move it, copy, paste etc and never have to worry that i'm gonna write over something I don't want to. It took a while, but letting go of traditional fixed tracks has made editing way easier for me. All i need to think about is "I want this clip to go here" and put it in. No patching or rearranging beforehand, just make the cut and move on...

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


~"It is a poor craftsman who blames his tools."~


Return to posts index

Steve Connor
Re: Apple gives up another network client
on Oct 15, 2012 at 11:47:42 pm

Sadly Aindreas, FCPX is a vision of the future, Adobe have already adopted a version of the skimmer and I'm sure the magnetic timeline is next. Then they'll add a few layers of chrome and you'll be forced screaming into the arms of Avid.

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


Return to posts index

David Lawrence
Re: Apple gives up another network client
on Oct 16, 2012 at 12:50:53 am

[Steve Connor] "Sadly Aindreas, FCPX is a vision of the future, Adobe have already adopted a version of the skimmer and I'm sure the magnetic timeline is next. Then they'll add a few layers of chrome and you'll be forced screaming into the arms of Avid."

The skimmer is a good thing. Glad to have it in PrP.

And speaking of chrome, I noticed this interesting setting in the Audition preferences:



Adobe lets you turn off the gradients (which are pretty subtle to begin with) if you want a completely flat Audition UI. Go ahead Apple, feel free to copy.

As far as a magnetic timeline in PrP, you could probably count the feature requests on one hand.

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


Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: Apple gives up another network client
on Oct 16, 2012 at 12:27:11 am

[Aindreas Gallagher] "And - this is most critical - in its dark early days - who championed FCP?

US."


'US' was a teeny tiny microcosm of the editing community.

It was a joke to the "pros" of the time.

About three years after that, it was no longer a joke, but a topic of conversation, and worth a mention.

You have to remember XML wasn't included until v4, 4 years after FCP's initial announcement.


Return to posts index

Charlie Austin
Re: Apple gives up another network client
on Oct 16, 2012 at 12:43:18 am

[Jeremy Garchow] "'US' was a teeny tiny microcosm of the editing community.

It was a joke to the "pros" of the time.

About three years after that, it was no longer a joke, but a topic of conversation.

You have to remember XML wasn't included until v4, 4 years after its initial announcement."


I think the majority of people who use, love, and are horrified by the passing of FCP "classic" probably started using it around version 3 or later. They don't remember the sneers and derision that greeted the first couple versions. Or the lack of "pro" features and complete lack of interoperability with other systems. I get deja vu a lot these days. :-) I've been using FCP professionally since version 1.something or other. I still use it and love it. But honestly, I won't be sad to see it go. Final Cut is dead. Long live Final Cut. lol

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


~"It is a poor craftsman who blames his tools."~


Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: Apple gives up another network client
on Oct 16, 2012 at 2:50:41 am

[Charlie Austin] "I think the majority of people who use, love, and are horrified by the passing of FCP "classic" probably started using it around version 3 or later. They don't remember the sneers and derision that greeted the first couple versions. Or the lack of "pro" features and complete lack of interoperability with other systems. I get deja vu a lot these days. :-) I've been using FCP professionally since version 1.something or other. I still use it and love it. But honestly, I won't be sad to see it go. Final Cut is dead. Long live Final Cut."

Yes.

but some would say, Death to Smoochy.


Return to posts index

Sandeep Sajeev
Re: Apple gives up another network client
on Oct 16, 2012 at 5:52:48 am

I agree that most large Post houses have yet to be convinced of X as a viable editing tool. So for editors whose work is dependent on these facilities -either full time or freelance, X is not even on the radar.

I use it quite a lot now, but all my work is agency driven and they don't really care what you use as long as it can eventually go out to the Flame and ProTools. But having used it for a while I can say that there are some jobs for which it is fantastic.

I have a friend who's directing a series of concerts to be aired in-flight on a major airline, and based on the production I recommended that he use a couple of FCPX seats as his editing setup. Multicam, background Transcoding, Metadata Management, Smart Collections etc would have been of a great benefit to his team, but he decided to go with Premerie instead. 'Everyone says it sucks' was his rationale. So your point as to lack of presence and negative perception is very valid.

But it is a good editor. This is why there are people who defend it. I have cut on Edit*, Media 100, Media Composer and Final Cut Pro and I don't find X's toolset to be lacking in any significant way. But it did take me a couple of months of seriously plugging away a couple of hours a day to get to the point where I was comfortable using it on a real job.

What are you cutting on these days btw Aindreas?


Return to posts index

Chris Harlan
Re: Apple gives up another network client
on Oct 16, 2012 at 6:22:47 pm

[Aindreas Gallagher] "FCPX, a year and a half in, has all the industry presence of its effects backbone motion. motion that no one ever cared about outside of ripple training.

Which is to say, utterly none.

No clients request it, it appears on no jobs boards, it features in no post houses, in a schrodinger's cat sense, if it wasn't discussed to the extent that it is on this forum, it might as well not exist as a means to be paid to edit.
"


Aindreas, you keep attacking Motion as if no one ever uses it or cares about it. I've just got to disagree with you. Its not AE, but it is a really terrific tool, particularly when combined with FCP6-7. My suggestion is that if you stop seeing it as a competitor to AE and start seeing it as a complex and fairly advanced Titling and masking tool that sits inside FCP 6/7 via round-tripping, you'll recognize its utility. Avid does something similar with Avid FX. I've been grateful to Motion many times.


Return to posts index

Herb Sevush
Re: Apple gives up another network client
on Oct 16, 2012 at 6:28:46 pm

[Chris Harlan] "My suggestion is that if you stop seeing it as a competitor to AE and start seeing it as a complex and fairly advanced Titling and masking tool that sits inside FCP 6/7 via round-tripping, you'll recognize its utility. Avid does something similar with Avid FX. I've been grateful to Motion many times."

I agree with this but -- in another way Motion seems to be an apt parallel for X. When it was introduced by Apple they focused on it's unique features - the behaviors that required no keyframing - and hyped it as being more advanced than AE. I use it all the time, my compositing needs are modest and AE is a full course meal, but other than fade outs I almost never use the behaviors - like most people I use keyframes because it turns out that this old way of doing things is actually necessary. As a revolutionary compositor Motion is an utter failure, as a simple editor's compositor, titling and masking tool it's great.

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


Return to posts index

Chris Harlan
Re: Apple gives up another network client
on Oct 16, 2012 at 6:52:25 pm

[Herb Sevush] "I use it all the time, my compositing needs are modest and AE is a full course meal, but other than fade outs I almost never use the behaviors - like most people I use keyframes because it turns out that this old way of doing things is actually necessary. As a revolutionary compositor Motion is an utter failure, as a simple editor's compositor, titling and masking tool it's great.
"


Yes and no, for me. Behaviors can be interesting to start with and most of them can be instantly converted to normal key framing. Things like gravity and repel are a little different, but can be very interesting to use. What was really revolutionary about it at the time of its introduction was that it used VRAM heavily, which created instant previewing. Nothing else was doing that at the time, and it put it miles ahead, in certain areas, than even AE. That's easy to forget now that everything has caught up or passed by. At the time, though, it was pretty cool!


Return to posts index

Aindreas Gallagher
Re: Apple gives up another network client
on Oct 17, 2012 at 11:58:17 pm

[Chris Harlan] " start seeing it as a complex and fairly advanced Titling and masking tool "

sure god chris - I think I've said this before, but here is my lament:

I ended up hacking a bodge for all of the GMT promo endboards across the entire bloody schedule of Aljazeera English to be produced, using a database motion companion application available at the time - that fed into Motion via an excel sheet. Motion would output five second endboard with alpha .mtn thing clip slugs based on the schedule GMTs in the excel sheet provided by scheduling.

This hilariously, was because the pres system at the time, at launch, that barely worked, called octopus (?) if I remember, couldn't manage it - there were no front desk style chyron time title overlays that could be triggered. there was *no* pres titling triggered off the schedule. We had to burn in every single GMT time variable on end programme title lower third for every promo we cut, in the suite.
Each promo master had to be strung out with 12-20 different GMT broadcast time duplicates, with endboard slugs generated from motion, laid to hdcam tape with paper notes (four bloody time zone broadcasts for each showing) for every single promo made each week with maybe twenty odd promos as 15 and 30's pushed out each week in the four suites across all the docs and specials.

I do, I swear to you, know that motion as titler!

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


Return to posts index

Chris Harlan
Re: Apple gives up another network client
on Oct 18, 2012 at 3:30:43 am

[Aindreas Gallagher] "I do, I swear to you, know that motion as titler!
"


ROTFL


Return to posts index

Walter Soyka
Re: Apple gives up another network client
on Oct 16, 2012 at 10:00:10 pm

[Aindreas Gallagher] "FCPX, a year and a half in, has all the industry presence of its effects backbone motion. motion that no one ever cared about outside of ripple training. Which is to say, utterly none. "

Motion -- the fast, easy-to-use motion graphics application -- is a very interesting example worth studying in this discussion.

I'd encourage anyone to go back and read the Motion launch press release [link], and then ask themselves if Motion "redefined motion graphics," or if it did "what Final Cut Pro did for non-linear editing — bring the ability to create pro-quality results to the masses." So, keeping in mind that Motion was not always positioned as FCP's titler, why hasn't Motion made a run at After Effects, the product that actually defined desktop motion graphics?

I've made my "Motion has a high floor and a low ceiling" argument here several times before, but let's go into a little more detail on that.

The biggest structural decision that limits Motion's flexibility is its one-project, one-timeline structure. Layer groups and clone layers are nice, but they are not substitutes for precomps. There is no way to organize assets within the project.

Apple was so obsessed with making animation easy via behaviors that making it powerful and flexible via keyframes took a back seat. Of course, Motion has support for keyframing; unfortunately, Motion keyframes are simply painful to use. There are no keyboard shortcuts for setting keyframes, navigating keyframes, or filtering keyframe views. On the subject of views, the graph editor is nice enough, but a keyframe-only (no curves) view is sorely missed.

Motion has no support for expressions or scripting, meaning that automation within a project is impossible.

Third-party support is less than robust. There are no Motion plugins that extend the UI, and only a few which add any generative effects. The bulk of third-party effects for Motion are either relatively simple image filters (which are no doubt necessary but sadly insufficient) or template-based.

Motion has steadily added features in every release since its launch, but it has never altered its core philosophy, so these structural design decisions continue to restrict its potential.

This is not to say that there weren't good ideas in Motion, too -- Apple did GPU acceleration before it was cool in 2004, the UI was kind of a playground for future Apple products, the particle systems and replicators were always nice, and behaviors suddenly sound like advanced computer graphics if you call them simulations.

So that brings us back to FCPX, and whether it will be successful like FCP Legend or successful like Motion.

In some ways, this is a difficult comparison; design applications like Ae/Motion have more of an impact on their output than NLEs, on account of what their different toolsets make easy, difficult, or downright impossible. You can argue that there are animations you can make in Ae that you simply cannot make in Motion; I think it's a losing argument to suggest that there are cuts you make in FCP Legend that you can't make in FCPX.

That said, is Apple repeating mistakes it made with Motion? Does it matter that the interface and philosophy is so different from the norm? Does it make easy things easier and hard things harder? Does it fail to provide fine-grained controls in critical areas? Does it matter that you can't extend the UI? Does it trade away a lower ceiling to get a higher floor?

Personally, I think FCPX's success will look like neither FCP Legend nor Motion, but something completely new -- a much broader play at a larger (and more forgiving) market.

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: Apple gives up another network client
on Oct 17, 2012 at 12:56:58 am

Walter I agree with pretty much everything you are saying here. I would mention, however, that though Motion started as a stand-alone, it did not stay that way for long. The Studio concept came pretty fast, and I tend to think of FCS as being a single loose unit. I think the majority of hopes for FCP 8, was that Soundtrack Pro, Color and Motion would be welded into one super unit. Some of that happened with X, but not enough. Its sad, now, to see Motion and X even further apart.


Return to posts index

Walter Soyka
Re: Apple gives up another network client
on Oct 17, 2012 at 2:27:39 am

[Chris Harlan] "I would mention, however, that though Motion started as a stand-alone, it did not stay that way for long. The Studio concept came pretty fast, and I tend to think of FCS as being a single loose unit."

All fair.


[Chris Harlan] "Its sad, now, to see Motion and X even further apart."

In terms of round-tripping, yes, but in other ways, I think that FCPX and M5 are much closer.

The fact that FCPX and M5 share a common renderer and have the rigging/publishing feature is really, really cool: this lets users and artists build not only their own templates for lower thirds, but also build their own effects and transitions.

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: Apple gives up another network client
on Oct 17, 2012 at 3:50:29 am

[Walter Soyka] "[Chris Harlan] "Its sad, now, to see Motion and X even further apart."

In terms of round-tripping, yes, but in other ways, I think that FCPX and M5 are much closer.

The fact that FCPX and M5 share a common renderer and have the rigging/publishing feature is really, really cool: this lets users and artists build not only their own templates for lower thirds, but also build their own effects and transitions."


I think this is terrific, and one of the areas I feel I'm missing out on by not snuggling up with X. I really do hope that somewhere along the line I can become an X advocate. Some of the features are fantastic.


Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: Apple gives up another network client
on Oct 17, 2012 at 2:15:26 am

First, I'm not a motion graphics expert (or Motion or Ae), so there's the caveat. I have been using Ae longer than any other video tool, though.

[Walter Soyka] "So, keeping in mind that Motion was not always positioned as FCP's titler, why hasn't Motion made a run at After Effects, the product that actually defined desktop motion graphics?"

It's easy. It wasn't that good. If I remember correctly, simple things like the interaction of layers with differing opacity didn't behave like they should, and perhaps transfer modes were weird. There was lots of crashing.

Motion is great for a lot of things. I don't think it's an Ae replacement and honestly, I don't think it's trying to be.

Since that original announcement, Motion now has cameras, lights, and 2.5D perspective, and the UI is pretty useful to use.

The latest version of Motion (the one that now costs $50 on the App Store) has a really nice skin. I like it. The rigging capabilities are pretty damn cool, and although it's easy, it's not easy. It should be just the right amount of geek to get some pros interested. Other pros will wait and buy a plug in that might do similar things. The UI compared to FCPX is very similar. If you could open Motion from FCPX, this could almost be a plugin or "room" of FCPX (is Logic next?). Will FCPX and Motion be more connected one day? Maybe. I don't know. With this redesign of both applications, I would think that they might be. Effects are already "connected" so I could see Apple taking it further if they wanted to.

The rigging is already eons more useful than some behaviors and keyframeless animation.

Motion is one project at a time just like Ae is one project at a time. You can literally drag one motion project in to another, though.

The Finder is Motion's organizer.

There are (a few) keyframe commands. See here:



keyframes.png

There is a keyframe view that's not the editor. See here:



keyframe_view.png

I'm not saying this is better or worse than Ae, but they have made significant improvements in Motion.

I still use Ae, it's where I am most comfortable.


Return to posts index

Walter Soyka
Re: Apple gives up another network client
on Oct 17, 2012 at 4:10:50 am

[Jeremy Garchow] "Motion is great for a lot of things. I don't think it's an Ae replacement and honestly, I don't think it's trying to be."

Motion is great for a lot of things. I am hard on it when comparing it to Ae, but as a (practically) NLE-native titler/effects package, it's outstanding.

I think that the FCPX/M5 integration is very cool and one of the best new features in the package. I think this workflow is superior to Pr/Ae dynamic link for a great many cases (and you know I love Pr/Ae dynamic link).


[Jeremy Garchow] "Since that original announcement, Motion now has cameras, lights, and 2.5D perspective, and the UI is pretty useful to use."

As I mentioned, Motion has consistently added features, and the 3D environment was one of the ones I had in mind. If you make a feature comparison checklist, Motion wouldn't look that bad next to Ae. It's the philosophical differences that most separate them.


[Jeremy Garchow] "Motion is one project at a time just like Ae is one project at a time. You can literally drag one motion project in to another, though."

Ae projects allow more than one comp, and you can import entire Ae projects into other projects, too.


[Jeremy Garchow] "There are (a few) keyframe commands."

Yes, my bad! Many apologies for my error here. I was an early Motion adopter (loved that realtime performance!), and I started writing my post about Motion v1, but I missed this when rewriting it to try to make it more generalized.

Shortcuts for adding keyframes and navigating keyframes were some of cool new features early on, probably in v2 if I recall correctly. They were still a bit limiting, in part because the keyframe editor was disconnected from the timeline and in part because they only worked on keyframes for the selected layer, not on all visible keyframes. Keyframe management always seemed like an afterthought.

It does look a bit different (better?) in M5, but I haven't done any keyframe animation in the current version.


[Jeremy Garchow] "There is a keyframe view that's not the editor."

That little summary shows where all keyframes for a specific layer are, but it does not show what property the keyframes are for. In other words, it's a single line that smushes all keyframes on a layer together. If that twirled down (does it in M5?), it would be very useful. As it stands, it adds only limited value.


[Jeremy Garchow] "I'm not saying this is better or worse than Ae, but they have made significant improvements in Motion."

I used Motion quite a bit over its first few versions, and as I said before, Motion made real improvements in each release -- but the application's overall approach is unchanged from day one.

Bringing this back to my original response to Aindreas, I'd expect this pattern to continue with FCPX. If the thing missing from FCPX that you need is a feature, you might well get it; if it's a philosophy, don't hold your breath.

I think the market for FCPX's philosophy is significantly larger than the market for Motion's philosophy.

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: Apple gives up another network client
on Oct 17, 2012 at 4:40:53 am

[Walter Soyka] "That little summary shows where all keyframes for a specific layer are, but it does not show what property the keyframes are for. In other words, it's a single line that smushes all keyframes on a layer together. If that twirled down (does it in M5?), it would be very useful. As it stands, it adds only limited value."

Yes, you can click on it and change values (it also lists values), but it's still not very handy, and doesn't hold a candle to Ae's kb shortcuts to parameters (t for opaciTY, etc).

Really, Motion doesn't hold a candle at all to Ae. They are just different.

[Walter Soyka] "Bringing this back to my original response to Aindreas, I'd expect this pattern to continue with FCPX. If the thing missing from FCPX that you need is a feature, you might well get it; if it's a philosophy, don't hold your breath."

If you're saying to not wait around for tracks in FCPX, I agree.


Return to posts index

Chris Harlan
Re: Apple gives up another network client
on Oct 17, 2012 at 5:49:10 am

[Jeremy Garchow] "[Walter Soyka] "Bringing this back to my original response to Aindreas, I'd expect this pattern to continue with FCPX. If the thing missing from FCPX that you need is a feature, you might well get it; if it's a philosophy, don't hold your breath."

If you're saying to not wait around for tracks in FCPX, I agree.
"


Yup. If Roles gets sophisticated enough, however, I could manage with that.


Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: Apple gives up another network client
on Oct 17, 2012 at 3:01:47 pm

[Chris Harlan] "Yup. If Roles gets sophisticated enough, however, I could manage with that."

A combination of the Timeline Index to help sort and select, along with Roles to help show you where things are will be the best of all worlds. I have spent enough time with FCPX to see how this could work, I just hope I'm not misreading Apple's intentions.

Jeremy


Return to posts index

Chris Harlan
Re: Apple gives up another network client
on Oct 17, 2012 at 5:46:40 am

[Walter Soyka] "[Jeremy Garchow] "There is a keyframe view that's not the editor."

That little summary shows where all keyframes for a specific layer are, but it does not show what property the keyframes are for. In other words, it's a single line that smushes all keyframes on a layer together. If that twirled down (does it in M5?), it would be very useful. As it stands, it adds only limited value.
"


Ever since--I think--Motion 3, there has been a fairly robust keyframe editor that is available as an alternate tab in the full timeline view. All events are labeled, though perhaps a bit cryptically. It works well with the keyframe recorder, so that you can set broad parameters very quickly, and then fine tune. You can also filter what parameters are visible. Its quite usable, though NOT as we are all agreeing, AE.


Return to posts index

Walter Soyka
Re: Apple gives up another network client
on Oct 17, 2012 at 12:52:18 pm

[Chris Harlan] "Ever since--I think--Motion 3, there has been a fairly robust keyframe editor that is available as an alternate tab in the full timeline view. All events are labeled, though perhaps a bit cryptically. It works well with the keyframe recorder, so that you can set broad parameters very quickly, and then fine tune. You can also filter what parameters are visible. Its quite usable, though NOT as we are all agreeing, AE."

Motion's keyframe editor (curve editor) was there from the beginning. Motion has always had keyframes, as I mentioned in my first post -- but working with them has always been challenging when compared to other apps.

I don't want to get too bogged down in a conversation about Motion vs Ae, because I do share the group opinion here -- Motion does some things very well, but it does other things relatively poorly, and there are still other things it doesn't do at all. I have quite a lot of good things to say about Motion, too, and I only raised my specific critiques because they illustrate the high floor, low ceiling point, and I want to explore if that applies to FCPX or not.

I think the "Motion is great for what it is, but it's not Ae" theme that we all agree on is a key part of Aindreas's point. As FCP Legend matured, people largely stopped saying "FCP is great for what it is, but it's not Avid." Motion never had a Cold Mountain moment (which is like jumping the shark, only good). Here we are, 8 years after its launch, saying that Motion is a nice titler that is just not ideal for motion graphics -- when mograph was its original raison d'être!

Although I don't agree with all his hyperbole, I think Aindreas has a fantastic point in saying that there's no guarantee that FCPX will develop like FCP Legend did (becoming all things to all people). It might develop more like Motion (very good in key areas while disregarding others). If Apple wants FCPX to develop like FCP, they need to pay attention to FCPX's low-ceiling areas, but is Apple really in the all-things-to-all-people business?

Personally, I think that FCPX's improving interchange options are a good way out here. As long as the edit is portable, FCPX can be used for its strengths while mitigating its weaknesses in a way that was never applicable to Motion. I think that if this kind of interoperability work continues (and expands beyond the edit into events as well), the question of whether FCPX itself has a low ceiling becomes irrelevant.

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: Apple gives up another network client
on Oct 17, 2012 at 2:10:30 pm

Walter, I was just responding to your earlier statement that the keyframe editor effects only a single layer. In one view that's true, in another its not. You can see all keyframes at one time if you want to. I'm not trying to make any larger point than that.


Return to posts index

Walter Soyka
Re: Apple gives up another network client
on Oct 17, 2012 at 2:23:39 pm

[Chris Harlan] "Walter, I was just responding to your earlier statement that the keyframe editor effects only a single layer. In one view that's true, in another its not. You can see all keyframes at one time if you want to. I'm not trying to make any larger point than that."

Sorry, I was really unclear (again) above. The "they" referred to keyboard shortcuts, not the keyframe editor. The keyboard shortcuts for keyframe navigation only work on the keyframes of the selected layer, not on all visible keyframes of all layers in the keyframe editor.

In other words, you can see keyframes in the editor that you can't easily navigate to with the keyboard, as you must first use the arrow keys to select the layer, then use the Shift-K / Opt-K to move back and forth. This is so slow as to practically force mouse usage.

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: Apple gives up another network client
on Oct 17, 2012 at 2:53:27 pm

[Walter Soyka] "I think the "Motion is great for what it is, but it's not Ae" theme that we all agree on is a key part of Aindreas's point. As FCP Legend matured, people largely stopped saying "FCP is great for what it is, but it's not Avid."
"


That took a long time. As I mentioned earlier, FCP didn't get XML until v4. v4!

FCPX already has XML. Sure, it's limited at the moment, but it's there and I'm sure will only get better.

As of this writing today, it's easier to get to Resolve from FCPX than it is from Pr CS6 when adherining to a clip level edit.........

[Walter Soyka] "Motion never had a Cold Mountain moment (which is like jumping the shark, only good). Here we are, 8 years after its launch, saying that Motion is a nice titler that is just not ideal for motion graphics -- when mograph was its original raison d'être!"

So you are saying you can't produce motion graphics in Motion, or that it's not ubiquitous as Ae?

Motion does allow tracking/masking/matting in decent conjunction with FCP. Since Legend's tools are no good for this, this is worth the price of admission right there.

I just don't think Motion is as all-around capable as Ae, and therefore the users are different. Just like FCP Legend was more capable than say, Pr Pro v5 or 5.5 (and some of Cs6). I don't think we can lump Motion of FCP together and interpolate an FCPX development direction.

FCP was Apple's money maker out of all the ProApps, and I am sure they are trying to do that again. Motion is fine, the new integration with FCPX makes it good enough to stick around for a while. It's a tool, not a platform.

[Walter Soyka] "Although I don't agree with all his hyperbole, I think Aindreas has a fantastic point in saying that there's no guarantee that FCPX will develop like FCP Legend did (becoming all things to all people). It might develop more like Motion (very good in key areas while disregarding others). If Apple wants FCPX to develop like FCP, they need to pay attention to FCPX's low-ceiling areas, but is Apple really in the all-things-to-all-people business?"

FCP Legend developed slowly. Very slowly. If Apple keeps it up, FCPX will develop (and already has developed) more quickly than Legend. Will it be all things to all people? Who cares? This market is fragemented, and I am not just talking about NLE sftware. Look at production hardware, it is an absolute mine field.

Last weekend, our team shot a project that involved 5 cameras. All of these cameras were good for different things. One had an intervalometer and was good for timelpase, two had tc and pro audio, so those were handheld picking up talent and dialogue, the other two were smaller and could fit anywhere and could pick up wider lock down angles, or thrown on a ligher weight slider for more dynamic broll with minimal reconfiguration.

Gone are the days where you show up with one really expensive general purpose camera and capture it. You show up with a sh*t load of differing monetary value cameras and point them everywhere. Even on the high end of things, there's no reason why you can't have multiple Reds or Alexas. They are great value cameras when you are operating at that level.

This creates mountains of footage, and the edit times are ever shorter. Say what you want about the level of pro of FCPX, but FCPX cuts through this type of organization like a hot knife through butter. Syncing all of these cameras, making sense of all the footage, and organizing it in differing ways that extend beyond a one location bin are fast, relatively easy, and most all extremely helpful and useful. And here's the kicker, I don't need a third party application to do this. FCPX can do all of this syncing and organizing right in the application. Other NLE's I might have to get the footage in, bring it back out to a third party app and sync it all, and then bring it back in. Which one is better? It's a personal decision.

So, is FCPX underdeveloped? Perhaps in certain areas, in other areas, it is like no other NLE and I mean that in a good way. The SAN level control of FCPX also points to big, pro level ideas, but whatever...it doesn't matter unless it matters to you and your workflow.

[Walter Soyka] "Personally, I think that FCPX's improving interchange options are a good way out here. As long as the edit is portable, FCPX can be used for its strengths while mitigating its weaknesses in a way that was never applicable to Motion. I think that if this kind of interoperability work continues (and expands beyond the edit into events as well), the question of whether FCPX itself has a low ceiling becomes irrelevant."

Yes. I'm just not sure the ceiling matters even today.


Return to posts index

Herb Sevush
Re: Apple gives up another network client
on Oct 17, 2012 at 3:18:13 pm

[Jeremy Garchow] "So you are saying you can't produce motion graphics in Motion, or that it's not ubiquitous as Ae? Motion does allow tracking/masking/matting in decent conjunction with FCP. Since Legend's tools are no good for this, this is worth the price of admission right there."

Years ago on a very different forum a wonderful editor named Ron Shook came up with a useful distinction between an editor's compositor and a compositor's compositor (he was actually talking about MoGfx, but the distinction didn't exist then). Back then he was referring to Boris FX vs AE. According to that distinction it isn't that one is better than another, merely that they were targeted differently. If you spend 40 hours a week editing and 2 hours a week creating EFX, then the depth and learning curve of AE is actually counter productive. If you are paid to create MoGfx then the limitations of Boris FX, and now Motion, is very unproductive. As an editor who occasionally has to create EFX I find this to be true and use Motion all the time when working with FCP.

However anyone who says that this was Apple's intent all along doesn't remember the rollout at NAB - Apple had their sights set on AE and announced that they had a revolutionary new was to create AE type of effects without the difficulty and learning curve. The parallels in marketing between the Motion and FCPX rollout are there for all to see. This doesn't mean that because they failed to capture the market with Motion that they will fail again now. It does mean however that Apple is not failure proof.

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


Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: Apple gives up another network client
on Oct 17, 2012 at 3:31:05 pm

[Herb Sevush] "However anyone who says that this was Apple's intent all along doesn't remember the rollout at NAB - Apple had their sights set on AE and announced that they had a revolutionary new was to create AE type of effects without the difficulty and learning curve. The parallels in marketing between the Motion and FCPX rollout are there for all to see. This doesn't mean that because they failed to capture the market with Motion that they will fail again now. It does mean however that Apple is not failure proof."

I don't get it.

Just because Motion didn't take over Ae's marketshare doesn't mean it was a failure.


Return to posts index

Herb Sevush
Re: Apple gives up another network client
on Oct 17, 2012 at 3:56:13 pm

[Jeremy Garchow] "I don't get it. Just because Motion didn't take over Ae's marketshare doesn't mean it was a failure."

It failed to achieve Apple's goals. For a product that was brought to market with so much fanfare, the fact that it is now solely an adjunct to other software is not my definition of a success. The only people who use it are a subset of FCP editors, so for a company that makes software to sell hardware, the fact that it has not sold a single machine makes it a failure for them.

It's not a failure as an app, I use it successfully all the time, however it's failure to achieve market share has limited it -- there is no 3rd party eco system at all to supplement it, Apple's support is luke warm, and many of the things it couldn't do on release have never been, and apparently never will be addressed.

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


Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: Apple gives up another network client
on Oct 17, 2012 at 5:05:44 pm

[Herb Sevush] "t failed to achieve Apple's goals."

I guess I never knew what those goals were.


Return to posts index

Herb Sevush
Re: Apple gives up another network client
on Oct 17, 2012 at 6:54:11 pm

[Jeremy Garchow] "I guess I never knew what those goals were."

They were quite clear at the launch that they wanted Motion to be the pre-eminent MoGfx program out there - they wanted to knock off AE, just the same way they want FCPX to be the market leader in NLEs. They weren't shy about it. Also, as Craig and others have often pointed out, they make software to sell hardware. They didn't launch Motion to be the titler program for Final Cut, they wanted a market leader that you would have to buy Apple hardware to use.

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


Return to posts index

Craig Seeman
Re: Apple gives up another network client
on Oct 17, 2012 at 7:28:58 pm

Sans any hard facts about Apple's marketing strategy my gut informs me (I think that's what the growling means) that Herb may be right on this.

On this forum, many have alluded to the fact that many people bought After Effects without any real consideration for Premiere Pro, at one time.

I don't doubt that Apple might have thought that some people would buy hardware to support a motion graphics program rather than an NLE. I can't help but consider that Apple thought Motion's real time playback (and the supporting GPU needed) would bring people into the Mac family... or at least discourage them from moving to Windows (After Effects being cross platform).



Return to posts index

David Lawrence
Re: Apple gives up another network client
on Oct 17, 2012 at 7:41:13 pm

[Craig Seeman] "Sans any hard facts about Apple's marketing strategy my gut informs me (I think that's what the growling means) that Herb may be right on this."

Here's the 2004 Press Release:

http://www.apple.com/pr/library/2004/04/18Apple-Introduces-Motion.html

Key quote:
“Motion opens the door for everyone to create professional-quality motion graphics by eliminating the need for complex timelines and keyframes," said Rob Schoeben, Apple’s vice president of Applications Marketing. “With its revolutionary technology, breakthrough ease-of-use and low $299 price tag, Motion may do for motion graphics what Final Cut Pro did for non-linear editing—bring the ability to create pro-quality results to the masses.”

Sounds familiar, doesn't it? I'm with Aindreas on this.

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


Return to posts index

Chris Harlan
Re: Apple gives up another network client
on Oct 17, 2012 at 7:53:36 pm

[David Lawrence] "[Craig Seeman] "Sans any hard facts about Apple's marketing strategy my gut informs me (I think that's what the growling means) that Herb may be right on this."

Here's the 2004 Press Release:

http://www.apple.com/pr/library/2004/04/18Apple-Introduces-Motion.html

Key quote:
“Motion opens the door for everyone to create professional-quality motion graphics by eliminating the need for complex timelines and keyframes," said Rob Schoeben, Apple’s vice president of Applications Marketing. “With its revolutionary technology, breakthrough ease-of-use and low $299 price tag, Motion may do for motion graphics what Final Cut Pro did for non-linear editing—bring the ability to create pro-quality results to the masses.”

Sounds familiar, doesn't it? I'm with Aindreas on this.
"



I think you guys are all making way too much out of this. I totally get where you are coming from, especially the AE folk. AE folk have always crapped on Motion, and probably rightfully so.

I can only say that for me, at the time, it WAS a revolutionary tool. It was really cool to get near realtime feedback on a G5. Behaviors were fun to play with. I really enjoyed using it. It made creating GFX fun again. Oh, oh. See, maybe the X parallel isn't so far off. I guess the reason that Motion worked for me is that it let me do as much or more than I needed to, and X doesn't work for me because it doesn't (yet) let me do all I need to do.

I've done quite well with Motion. So I get peeved, a bit, when people speak ill of her, even when she probably deserves it.


Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: Apple gives up another network client
on Oct 17, 2012 at 8:15:24 pm

[Chris Harlan] "I've done quite well with Motion. So I get peeved, a bit, when people speak ill of her, even when she probably deserves it."

But she really doesn't. Motion is perfectly capable.

It is not better than Ae. Ae has a lot more going for it.

Somehow, I think Apple knows this and knows where FCP fits in to this. My guess is that we will see more development in FCPX.


Return to posts index

Shawn Miller
Re: Apple gives up another network client
on Oct 17, 2012 at 8:16:52 pm

[Chris Harlan] "I've done quite well with Motion. So I get peeved, a bit, when people speak ill of her, even when she probably deserves it."

Completely understandable, lest anyone forget... AE was in the same position for years before anyone took it seriously as a tool for VFX artists. It wasn't until post houses like The Orphanage started admitting to using it in their pipelines, that AE got ANY (grudging) respect or acknowledgement from high-end professionals. Honestly, you can still get poked at by Nuke, Fusion, Flame, Inferno and Shake (yes, Shake) artists for admitting to using AE for compositing. So you're in good company, I think. :-)

Shawn



Return to posts index

Chris Harlan
Re: Apple gives up another network client
on Oct 17, 2012 at 8:28:01 pm

[Shawn Miller] "Honestly, you can still get poked at by Nuke, Fusion, Flame, Inferno and Shake (yes, Shake) artists for admitting to using AE for compositing. "

Yeah, I've seen that first hand, but not for a few years. I particularly remember a Fusion guy snorting aloud when somebody mention AE. Of course, that was in a very different decade.


Return to posts index

Walter Soyka
Re: Apple gives up another network client
on Oct 17, 2012 at 8:23:37 pm

[Chris Harlan] "I think you guys are all making way too much out of this. I totally get where you are coming from, especially the AE folk. AE folk have always crapped on Motion, and probably rightfully so."

I did some good work with Motion. Contrary to what one might think from my posts here, I don't dislike Motion. I just don't consider it comparable to Ae, and that's ok. Different tools for different purposes.


[Chris Harlan] "I can only say that for me, at the time, it WAS a revolutionary tool. It was really cool to get near realtime feedback on a G5. Behaviors were fun to play with. I really enjoyed using it. It made creating GFX fun again. Oh, oh. See, maybe the X parallel isn't so far off."

This is exactly the point here: that FCPX and Motion are alike in some interesting ways.

I think that Motion succeeded in meeting its design goals: giving its users the ability to do good-looking motion graphics more quickly and easily than before. Motion just never won broad acceptance in the professional design space.

Does that make Motion a bad product, or does that doom FCPX? Absolutely not. It's just a possible model for a scenario where FCPX does not become legendary in some circles. Nothing more.

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

Tim Wilson
Re: Apple gives up another network client
on Oct 17, 2012 at 8:41:15 pm

[Chris Harlan] "I've done quite well with Motion. So I get peeved, a bit, when people speak ill of her, even when she probably deserves it."

I think that we have a little bit of the same phenomenon we see with FCPX, where people who like Motion are generally not inclined to spend a lot of energy on threads like this, whether because saying nice things puts them in an uncomfortable position, or because they're busy just USING the thing.

The most-viewed clip in the Creative COW Videos section isn't one of the tens of thousands of demo reels or shorts -- it's the commercial that Stephen Smith made for his COW training DVD "Moving with Motion." Even though he did this in 2009, and DVD training as a whole is obviously no longer where the business is mostly at, we're still selling quite a few of these, and people are providing very positive feedback.

I have a front-row-ish seat to some of this. My predecessor as the Boris RED product manager actually left to become the head of the team for what became Motion. (He was especially proud of the particle engine, which he felt was Motion's stealth technology, powering many other feeatures that don't look anything like particles.) In the Boris office, I sat next to Gabriele de Simone, an early adopter of Quartz technology who left Boris to start Noise Industries.

(He also lived around the corner from me, and signed my will as a witness. LOL I love this guy.)

And as a plug-in developer, Boris has obviously been working closely with Adobe since he shipped his first product in 1995, and his After Effects plug-ins remain among the most popular. You can't even imagine how skilled those guys are with AE's most intimate creative and technical features, and I spent a ton of time visiting AE groups for him. Needless to say, Boris also opened up a line of Motion plug-ins.

Not shocking, since Boris pioneered keyframeless vfx in 1995. This was a big part of why I bought the very first version - it was just eeeeeeasier than AE, which I still used for jobs that required *precision.* That to me is the threshold -- the more you need precision, the more likely that your motion graphics needs will be met better by After Effects. (At least among the options we're most immediately talking about here.)

There are a bunch of other sides my perspective of this, including working with vfx technologists in titling, compositing and 3D animation when I was at Avid....where Steve Bayes was part of hiring me, then left to wind up in my old job at Boris, then moved to Apple to become the Sr. Product Manager of FCP, the position he still holds.

(BTW, we almost never talk about the irony of Avid Symphony's original primary product designer now being the Sr. Product Manager of FCPX, but it's true.)

My typically overlong point being, I was a paying customer for all of the above, for use in my own video production company, and worked as a corporate weasel for and with guys working on ALL this stuff. It's a big freaking world, except when it's a crazy small one, and there a ton of great choices in it. Motion is definitely on the list, and for some tasks and users, it's a stupendous choice.

But I think that Apple underestimated the value of precision for motion graphics artists. It doesn't matter if they can work ten times faster to get work that's really good, if they can't get EXACTLY what they need.

Video will never have the complexity of more than intro-level mograph, and the relationships between the pieces are fairly straightforward. It's much more amenable to what FCPX is trying to do for editing than Motion hoped to do for mograph, but balancing the needs for precision and speed are the same.

Tim Wilson
Vice President, Editor-in-Chief
Creative COW



Return to posts index

Chris Harlan
Re: Apple gives up another network client
on Oct 17, 2012 at 8:48:33 pm

That musical chairs procession you just illuminated explains SO much!


Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: Apple gives up another network client
on Oct 17, 2012 at 8:05:42 pm

[David Lawrence] "Sounds familiar, doesn't it? I'm with Aindreas on this."

Wow, even the VP of Applications Marketing 'sort of' believed in Motion.

it MAY do for motion graphics what FCP did for editing. MAY being the operative word.

At least they were realistic about it then. I don't see anything in that release about taking down After Effects?

Jeremy


Return to posts index

Chris Harlan
Re: Apple gives up another network client
on Oct 17, 2012 at 8:22:19 pm

[Jeremy Garchow] "Wow, even the VP of Applications Marketing 'sort of' believed in Motion.

it MAY do for motion graphics what FCP did for editing. MAY being the operative word.

At least they were realistic about it then. I don't see anything in that release about taking down After Effects?
"


I think the reason that this whole conversation seems odd to me is that I perceive Motion as being part of FCP and one of the reasons I like FCP so much. I think of Soundtrack Pro as belonging to FCP as well.


Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: Apple gives up another network client
on Oct 17, 2012 at 8:26:45 pm

[Chris Harlan] "I think the reason that this whole conversation seems odd to me is that I perceive Motion as being part of FCP and one of the reasons I like FCP so much. I think of Soundtrack Pro as belonging to FCP as well."

Totally.

Similarly, I think Pr will gain traction because they have After Effects in the suite (and Adobe is putting in yeoman's work on Pr).

It makes a lot of sense.


Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: Apple gives up another network client
on Oct 17, 2012 at 8:33:25 pm

[Jeremy Garchow] "Similarly, I think Pr will gain traction because they have After Effects in the suite (and Adobe is putting in yeoman's work on Pr). "

Let me rephrase:

Similarly, I think Pr will gain traction because it's in the suite with After Effects (and Adobe is putting in yeoman's work on Pr).


Return to posts index

Chris Harlan
Re: Apple gives up another network client
on Oct 17, 2012 at 8:38:27 pm

[Jeremy Garchow] "Similarly, I think Pr will gain traction because they have After Effects in the suite (and Adobe is putting in yeoman's work on Pr).

It makes a lot of sense.
"


Yeah, that's what has got me into the CS6. I like that whole concept, and I like working in it. I cut some nice action spots in Pr from a series I'd been cutting in 7 and really liked it.

The Suite aspect of Avid is not quite as well developed, but its kind of fun for me to be back in AvidFX since I did a lot of Boris work early on. I wish there were tighter integration, though, between ProTools and MC.

So, yes--I hadn't really thought about it much, but the suite aspect is very important to me. Maybe if X irons out the few kinks that keep me away and integrates with something like Logic, I'll take it for a serious sled down the hill.


Return to posts index

Charlie Austin
Re: Apple gives up another network client
on Oct 17, 2012 at 8:36:13 pm

[Chris Harlan] "I think the reason that this whole conversation seems odd to me is that I perceive Motion as being part of FCP and one of the reasons I like FCP so much. I think of Soundtrack Pro as belonging to FCP as well."

I wouldn't be at all surprised if thats the "plan" for X as well. You can already right click on many generators and effects in the browser and choose to "open in Motion" or "open a copy in Motion". Large chunks of Motion are already built into X, it's probably not too much of a stretch to think they'll add that "open in Motion" ability to effected clips in the timeline.

And audio wise, all the Logic plug-ins are already there as well. And roles can be nicely organized into tracks, X2Pro does it really well. How cool would it be to choose to "open in Mixer" and have it pop up in a Logic style window all organized for you? So you can dispense with worrying about tracks and patching and al that crap while editing, and just pop into the other "mode" to mix it? One can dream I guess, but it seems like a lot of the groundwork is there to do something like that...

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


~"It is a poor craftsman who blames his tools."~


Return to posts index

Chris Harlan
Re: Apple gives up another network client
on Oct 17, 2012 at 8:43:17 pm

[Charlie Austin] "[Chris Harlan] "I think the reason that this whole conversation seems odd to me is that I perceive Motion as being part of FCP and one of the reasons I like FCP so much. I think of Soundtrack Pro as belonging to FCP as well."

I wouldn't be at all surprised if thats the "plan" for X as well."


I'd be thrilled if it is. I don't see anything that can't be addressed that would keep me from being an X user. Whether it will be or not is another question. But I'm perfectly content to wait on the sidelines for the time being. And I've been enjoying Pr and MC quite a bit, though my heart still belongs to 7.


Return to posts index

Sandeep Sajeev
Re: Apple gives up another network client
on Oct 17, 2012 at 8:43:39 pm

They should stop dicking around with Open in Motion, Send to Motion workflows and just build that functionality into X. It's ridiculous that they didn't do this right from the start.

Add 50 bucks to the cost of X if necessary.


Return to posts index

Chris Harlan
Re: Apple gives up another network client
on Oct 17, 2012 at 7:41:34 pm

[Craig Seeman] "I can't help but consider that Apple thought Motion's real time playback (and the supporting GPU needed) would bring people into the Mac family... or at least discourage them from moving to Windows (After Effects being cross platform)."

I think that's right. It was a very nifty feature for the time. People, who now take that kind of visual feedback for granted, seem to forget the slog that RAM preview only was just a few years ago.


Return to posts index

Steve Connor
Re: Apple gives up another network client
on Oct 17, 2012 at 7:45:13 pm

[Craig Seeman] " I can't help but consider that Apple thought Motion's real time playback (and the supporting GPU needed) would bring people into the Mac family... or at least discourage them from moving to Windows (After Effects being cross platform)."

I don't imagine they spent all that time developing Motion from the ground-up if they had anything but that intention. Although it might just have been easier to buy Adobe and make their products all Mac only!

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


Return to posts index

Chris Harlan
Re: Apple gives up another network client
on Oct 17, 2012 at 7:38:37 pm

[Herb Sevush] "[Jeremy Garchow] "I guess I never knew what those goals were."

They were quite clear at the launch that they wanted Motion to be the pre-eminent MoGfx program out there - they wanted to knock off AE, just the same way they want FCPX to be the market leader in NLEs. They weren't shy about it. Also, as Craig and others have often pointed out, they make software to sell hardware. They didn't launch Motion to be the titler program for Final Cut, they wanted a market leader that you would have to buy Apple hardware to use.

Herb Sevush
Zebra Productions"


Yeah, but they wrapped it up into FCS pretty dang fast. Same with Soundtrack. I don't think you could buy it as a stand-alone for more than a year or two, until now of course. Whatever their plans were at the outset, it pretty quickly evolved into the notion of being a part of the Suite. Personally, when I think of FCP I'm actually thinking of the entire suite, not just the editing component. Motion was part of that suite for quite a bit longer than it was a stand-alone.

I also think it gets a bad rap, because a lot of AE folk just plain hate it. Maybe thats an analog with X as well. I've created some blow away GFX with Motion, that have been appreciated by AE folk, only to be dissed by them when they find I created them in Motion. They tend to get angry at it. And, I get that. Its no threat to high end gfx, but it sure is to the middle ground. Or what used to be the middle ground.

I'm from TV and old enough to remember when GFX meant Chyron or the like, and there was no big separation between video editor, GFX creator, and FX editor. So, from my perspective, things like Motion are simply restoring a balance that was lost for awhile.


Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: Apple gives up another network client
on Oct 17, 2012 at 8:01:28 pm

[Herb Sevush] "They were quite clear at the launch that they wanted Motion to be the pre-eminent MoGfx program out there - they wanted to knock off AE, just the same way they want FCPX to be the market leader in NLEs. They weren't shy about it. Also, as Craig and others have often pointed out, they make software to sell hardware. They didn't launch Motion to be the titler program for Final Cut, they wanted a market leader that you would have to buy Apple hardware to use."

Pretty lofty goals, then. I don't remember any of that marketing, but all I really cared about was FCP, and then Color.


Return to posts index

Walter Soyka
Re: Apple gives up another network client
on Oct 17, 2012 at 3:35:17 pm

[Jeremy Garchow] "That took a long time. As I mentioned earlier, FCP didn't get XML until v4. v4!"

Half red herring. XML ushered in a new set of workflows, but EDL was initially more important. Legend climbed Cold Mountain on v3 without XML.


[Jeremy Garchow] "FCPX already has XML. Sure, it's limited at the moment, but it's there and I'm sure will only get better. As of this writing today, it's easier to get to Resolve from FCPX than it is from Pr CS6 when adherining to a clip level edit........."

But new, different XML that incompatible with prior XMEML workflows.

Isn't the assumption that key limitations will get better one of the points Aindreas is raising with his comparison? The argument here is that some things get better and some things don't. Will FCPXML improve? I sure hope so. Does SAN support indicate plans for collaborative editing? That'd be really cool. Will Motion get expressions? It hasn't yet...

Premiere has a host of interchange problems all its own.


[Jeremy Garchow] "So you are saying you can't produce motion graphics in Motion, or that it's not ubiquitous as Ae?"

I'm just saying, big picture, that Motion shows a different development path than FCP Legend did.


[Jeremy Garchow] "FCP Legend developed slowly. Very slowly. If Apple keeps it up, FCPX will develop (and already has developed) more quickly than Legend. Will it be all things to all people? Who cares? This market is fragemented, and I am not just talking about NLE sftware."

Motion and Aperture both developed very quickly. Then they both stalled.

I don't have a horse in this race. There's a lot I like in FCPX, and there's a little bit that I dislike a lot, but I could say that of any of a number of other tools that I use on a regular basis.

The only thing I care about here is whether my clients adopt FCPX, because that will fundamentally change my approach to their graphics work (less so for the bit of finishing I do). I am seeing the same thing Aindreas is reporting: to date, not a single one of my clients has adopted FCPX. I agree that the market is fragmenting, and I am very curious to understand which way my particular part of the market will go.

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: Apple gives up another network client
on Oct 17, 2012 at 4:59:33 pm

[Walter Soyka] "Half red herring. XML ushered in a new set of workflows, but EDL was initially more important. Legend climbed Cold Mountain on v3 without XML."

I thought Murch has access to XML at that time.

Also, did After Effects ever have a "Cold Mountain" moment? Does it need it? Does Motion? Does FCPX?

The only point I see AIndreas making is that no one is hiring "FCPX editors".

We have a story some where else on this forum that a BBC editor asked BBC to install FCPX, and they did.

Isn't that how FCP Legend came to be the Legend of FCP? There weren't big facilities using it right away. Editors doing side projects used it at home, and then started asking why they couldn't use it at the facility. At least that's my anecdotal experience.

One of the reasons Cold Mountain was so "revolutionary" was the use of firewire, DV, laptops and some desktops using off the shelf storage, in a remote Romanian (?) location. All of that is de riguer now.

I have a buddy who just finished a surf event production in Fiji where the break is two miles off of the coast and blasted it out to the world to watch. Portable and lightweight capability is here.

[Walter Soyka] "But new, different XML that incompatible with prior XMEML workflows."

Incompatible how? I can put an FCPXML in to Resolve and puke out an XMEML. Same with RCXPro and Xto7. I am sure there will be more options in the future.

[Walter Soyka] "Isn't the assumption that key limitations will get better one of the points Aindreas is raising with his comparison? The argument here is that some things get better and some things don't. Will FCPXML improve? I sure hope so. Does SAN support indicate plans for collaborative editing? That'd be really cool. Will Motion get expressions? It hasn't yet..."

What I'm saying is that there already IS a lot in FCPX that happened within a few months of launch. Collaborative editing IS already there in some capacity. XML interchange IS already there in some capacity. Because it doesn't have tracks, people say it's a failure, dead on the vine, doesn't care about Pro workflows. Even the folks that like it say that it needs some work. Is that to be expected for a new application?

What's everyone else's excuse (Avid/Adobe, etc)?

[Walter Soyka] "Premiere has a host of interchange problems all its own."

Yeah, and how long has that application been around? Long enough for it to not be so much of a problem...

[Walter Soyka] "Motion and Aperture both developed very quickly. Then they both stalled."

Again, are these comparable to FCP? I don't think so. Even though they fall under the "ProApp" umbrella, I just don't see them as extensible of tools as FCP Legend or even X. FCP Legend stalled in development too.

[Walter Soyka] "The only thing I care about here is whether my clients adopt FCPX, because that will fundamentally change my approach to their graphics work (less so for the bit of finishing I do). I am seeing the same thing Aindreas is reporting: to date, not a single one of my clients has adopted FCPX. I agree that the market is fragmenting, and I am very curious to understand which way my particular part of the market will go."

If FCPX is adopted by your clients, why will it change your approach? I don't understand.

Of your clients, has anyone adopted anything new, and by that I mean, completely tossed FCP Legend and started over from scratch?

You mentioned red herrings and brought another open up, I could easily say that many haven't moved to Avid or Adobe, just as easily as I could say that many haven't moved to FCPX. Many people haven't moved from FCP Legend quite yet.


Return to posts index

Walter Soyka
Re: Apple gives up another network client
on Oct 17, 2012 at 5:41:08 pm

[Jeremy Garchow] "I thought Murch has access to XML at that time."

v4 had just come out, but Murch used v3. Cinema Tools was important.

http://www.digitalcontentproducer.com/dcc/revfeat/video_final_cutting_cold/


[Jeremy Garchow] "Also, did After Effects ever have a "Cold Mountain" moment? Does it need it? Does Motion? Does FCPX?"

Good point. I don't think Ae climbed Cold Mountain -- it never had to. It created a new market (which FCPX may also do).

Flame is 20 years old now, a year or two older than Ae, and when it came out, Flame work was simply unaffordable to entire swaths of the market. Ae came into that empty space; it's used on all levels of production today, but it has not really competed head-to-head with Flame for the same work.

FCP made a similar grab underneath Avid, but it also went head to head with it, and it had to justify that it could do the "big" work even though it was cheaper and different. That's what Cold Mountain did for FCP Legend.


[Jeremy Garchow] "Isn't that how FCP Legend came to be the Legend of FCP?"

Yes! But Aindreas is posing the question: will FCPX follow in Legend's footsteps, or Motion's?

In other words, why did FCP become legendary in its space, but Motion did not?


[Jeremy Garchow] "What I'm saying is that there already IS a lot in FCPX that happened within a few months of launch. Collaborative editing IS already there in some capacity. XML interchange IS already there in some capacity. Because it doesn't have tracks, people say it's a failure, dead on the vine, doesn't care about Pro workflows. Even the folks that like it say that it needs some work. Is that to be expected for a new application?"

Likewise, a lot happened with Motion and Aperture in the first few versions. But there was a lot that didn't happen, too, and it hurt them versus Ae and Lr.

I agree with you that it's reasonable to think there is much more in store with FCPX. I just don't disagree with Aindreas that it's a certainty.


[Jeremy Garchow] "What's everyone else's excuse (Avid/Adobe, etc)?"

Worthy of a new thread!


[Jeremy Garchow] "Again, are these comparable to FCP? I don't think so. Even though they fall under the "ProApp" umbrella, I just don't see them as extensible of tools as FCP Legend or even X. FCP Legend stalled in development too."

They are comparable in some ways, but not in others.

I have abused the term "development" -- I'm not just talking about the programming, but rather a combination of programming, design, and market adoption.


[Jeremy Garchow] "If FCPX is adopted by your clients, why will it change your approach? I don't understand."

FCPX/M5 integration. I'd provide Motion rigs to my editorial clients for their graphics packages.

Stand-alone elements will still be C4D/Ae.


[Jeremy Garchow] "Of your clients, has anyone adopted anything new, and by that I mean, completely tossed FCP Legend and started over from scratch?"

Not really. Most of the editors I am working with are not excited about FCPX (perhaps they haven't given it a fair shake). I have been fielding some questions on Premiere from editors I know, but that could be bias as they know I am an Ae guy. Almost all production I'm seeing is still wherever it was (Avid or Legend).

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

Charlie Austin
Re: Apple gives up another network client
on Oct 17, 2012 at 7:25:55 pm

[Walter Soyka] "[Jeremy Garchow] "Of your clients, has anyone adopted anything new, and by that I mean, completely tossed FCP Legend and started over from scratch?"

Not really. Most of the editors I am working with are not excited about FCPX (perhaps they haven't given it a fair shake). I have been fielding some questions on Premiere from editors I know, but that could be bias as they know I am an Ae guy. Almost all production I'm seeing is still wherever it was (Avid or Legend)."


My guess is the people haven't given it a fair shake, especially editors who are seen as "real pro's". It really is the Cold Mountain effect, though at that time everyone was talking about how cool FCP was, and it had already made inroads into places that "pro's" took seriously. ;-)

Now, - think mainly due to the way Apple launched X, - "everyone" says it sucks. With classic, people were willing to work through the bugs, and there were tons, because it was so much cheaper, and really easier to use than MC, which was the standard. Now in many ways, FCP Classic is the standard, and X is getting the same hate from *classic* editors that Classic did from Avid editors.

So X has not only the normal "I hate the new thing" mindset to contend with, but also all the negative ranting from people who maybe opened it up when it came out, saw that it looked like iMovie and crashed a lot, and proclaimed it awful, unprofessional, and dead. They're still proclaiming. As a result, nobody "influential" in their eyes is using it, so they're not gonna try either. There are some folks who need something specific to their workflow that isn't there yet for sure. But I think a lot of folks aren't giving X a fair shake not because it sucks, but because many people, most of whom have no idea what they're talking about, say it sucks. When I tell the guys at the post house we use that I'm cutting in X, they're genuinely surprised. Same with other editors in our little Hollywood promo niche. They've heard it's not useable.

Eventually, a Cold Mountain moment will occur. I mean, it actually sort of has... there are quite a few high profile people using X, but the wall of negativity is so high that everyone seems to discount them. Maybe it'll take 2 or 3 Cold Mountain moments to overcome it. I'm trying to do my part. Not because I'm some fanboi, but because X is pretty awesome. I really like cutting in it, warts and all. I don't have any desire to wade back into the world of MC and Premiere. I'm a pro, I work for big fancy movie studios, and I prefer FCP X. I think some people are listening too. :-)

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


~"It is a poor craftsman who blames his tools."~


Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: Apple gives up another network client
on Oct 17, 2012 at 7:50:29 pm

[Walter Soyka] "v4 had just come out, but Murch used v3. Cinema Tools was important.

http://www.digitalcontentproducer.com/dcc/revfeat/video_final_cutting_cold/
"


In that same article, here's his quote:

"But Final Cut Pro does represent a wonderful 100th birthday present for modern film editing, which really began around 1903. The notion of non-proprietary software systems that can run on CPUs, without special hardware, combined with Apple's courageous decision to use the XML protocol, which is wide open to all third-party developers to interface with, is huge. "

Maybe he had access to an early v4 build or something. I don't know.

[Walter Soyka] "Yes! But Aindreas is posing the question: will FCPX follow in Legend's footsteps, or Motion's?

In other words, why did FCP become legendary in its space, but Motion did not? "


It was a "better" application, and by better I mean more useful. Of course the marketing is going to tell you Motion is going to take over the world. We all know that it's not true.

[Walter Soyka] "Almost all production I'm seeing is still wherever it was (Avid or Legend)."

Yep...

No reason to jump quite yet.


Return to posts index

Chris Harlan
Re: Apple gives up another network client
on Oct 17, 2012 at 7:59:28 pm

[Jeremy Garchow] "n that same article, here's his quote:

"But Final Cut Pro does represent a wonderful 100th birthday present for modern film editing, which really began around 1903. The notion of non-proprietary software systems that can run on CPUs, without special hardware, combined with Apple's courageous decision to use the XML protocol, which is wide open to all third-party developers to interface with, is huge. "

Maybe he had access to an early v4 build or something. I don't know"


Yes, I think I read somewhere that he did.


Return to posts index

Aindreas Gallagher
Re: Apple gives up another network client
on Oct 17, 2012 at 6:01:13 pm

[Jeremy Garchow] "If FCPX is adopted by your clients, why will it change your approach? I don't understand.

Of your clients, has anyone adopted anything new, and by that I mean, completely tossed FCP Legend and started over from scratch?

You mentioned red herrings and brought another open up, I could easily say that many haven't moved to Avid or Adobe, just as easily as I could say that many haven't moved to FCPX. Many people haven't moved from FCP Legend quite yet.
"


I can take that - its a sort of a straw man argument anyway - any movement from FCP, that there has been, has been to either Avid say in the case of Mark Raudonis or Premiere in the case of Associated Press's entire editing operation, there has been absolutely no moves of any significance towards FCPX.

Also FCPX is not comparable as an option to either of them, its a weirdo, non-standard piece of kit, relying heavily on imovie originated metaphors that bears no comparison to its predecessor or its two main competitors. Avid has a sizeable long standing installed base, and premiere basically gets called FCP8 quite often - its not really true, but its not far off either.

there is no standing skills base for FCPX, and it ignores a wide number of standing conventions.

I brought up the comparison to Motion because Motion never went anywhere, it never appeared on jobs boards, and no one ever bothered putting it on their CVs - it was just motion in the suite. With motion Apple rejected a lot of existing practise and threw in all kinds of stuff like behaviours and so on. They said it was going to revolutionise motion graphics. It didn't. it was completely ignored.

I say FCPX is Motion. Its completely non-standard, its got simplified operations and a weird methodology, on top of that it has received hideous press, and while I know I'm vocal at it on this forum, it is pretty broadly disliked software. Hence all those stories at release about "editing world explodes in disgust at bloody awful software, shakes fist at apple"

more fundamentally I return to my basic point - this software lacks friends.

Its broadly disliked, has shown zero market penetration (one BBC magazine editor doth not a spring make), it never appears in jobs listings, whereas as FCP7, Avid, and now quite regularly Premiere 6 do.

It's toast. I'm calling it a bit early, but we'll know for certain within this year if its formally dead in the market - or at least as dead as say vegas, or edius. Quite a few editors cut quietly on vegas, tout its realtime abilities, but the point is no one cares.
It's going to be like that for FCPX pretty soon - no one is really going to care, because there is no reason to.
Guys boosting it like Bill and craig will be like guys boosting Edius.

I think apple is permanently out of the mainstream of editing. software too weird, software too stupid.

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


Return to posts index

Steve Connor
Re: Apple gives up another network client
on Oct 17, 2012 at 6:26:24 pm

[Aindreas Gallagher] "It's toast. I'm calling it a bit early, but we'll know for certain within this year if its formally dead in the market - or at least as dead as say vegas, or edius. Quite a few editors cut quietly on vegas, tout its realtime abilities, but the point is no one cares. "

I really wasn't aware that Vegas and Edius were dead, I'm sure there are quite a few Editors who do actually care about these two tools.

I think you're meaning to say that FCPX may be dead in YOUR market and based on current trends that could very well be a possibility.

However you are aware that there is a whole world beyond your market aren't you? A world beyond the boutique suites of Soho and beyond.

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


Return to posts index

Richard Herd
Re: Apple gives up another network client
on Oct 17, 2012 at 8:11:26 pm

[Steve Connor] "the boutique suites of Soho "

I could never wear racing strips on a shirt, nor could I drive a moped. They're dead to me.


Return to posts index

Aindreas Gallagher
Re: Apple gives up another network client
on Oct 17, 2012 at 11:15:19 pm

you know what I mean though - when you talk about editing as a thing a place does where they put down seats and pay the heating, or a thing where they ask you what you can use - there have been two applications - AVID and FCP, you don't see places with multiple suites running vegas, I dimly understand that there is a lot of great stuff in vegas, some of the killer features get posted here occasionally as prior art. but vegas sort of doesn't matter in the broader scheme of things. and it hasn't for its fairly long existence.

its not what the courses in the colleges teach.

I'm saying that this is FCPX's destination, and its approaching it more rapidly than people might think.

its timeline particularly is off in the crazy weeds, and apple being apple, as a fundamental - this is our philosophical call thing - its likely going to stay there.

that is completely outside the issue of the editor's innate skill and craft - brilliant people, with the latitude to cut completely on their own kit, who have made FCPX their own, are choosing and crafting approaches with a tool that suits them - there are plenty on here who could lay me to waste as a neophyte editor, using nothing but a scissors and some twine, as it were.

I just think apple have sent this software far out to a weird, peripheral, motion application type orbit, and it really is not coming back.

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


Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: Apple gives up another network client
on Oct 17, 2012 at 7:52:51 pm

[Aindreas Gallagher] "I can take that - its a sort of a straw man argument anyway - any movement from FCP, that there has been, has been to either Avid say in the case of Mark Raudonis or Premiere in the case of Associated Press's entire editing operation, there has been absolutely no moves of any significance towards FCPX."

So you say.

We know of a few, but we don't know what we don't know. It seems to me, also anecdotal, that many people who started on FCS are moving to Premiere, those who have started on Avid are moving back to Avid. There are, of course, exceptions to those rules. I also think this is geographic. Again, it's just anecdotal, or straw man, or whatever convenient allegory you'd like to assign to it.

There are also plenty of people moving to FCPX.

[Aindreas Gallagher] "Also FCPX is not comparable as an option to either of them, its a weirdo, non-standard piece of kit, relying heavily on imovie originated metaphors that bears no comparison to its predecessor or its two main competitors. Avid has a sizeable long standing installed base, and premiere basically gets called FCP8 quite often - its not really true, but its not far off either."

Yes, their designs haven't changed too much from inception.

Is Prelude a standard piece of kit? Is Dynamic Link a standard piece of kit? Standards will change. My 5 camera example earlier in this thread is a perfect example of how FCPX rises to the needs of modern production and does it in a way that is better than others. Yes, I said it, better.

[Aindreas Gallagher] "there is no standing skills base for FCPX, and it ignores a wide number of standing conventions."

*shrug* What do you expect for a new program? Are you saying a person who edits on FCPX, and perhaps started in Avid, doesn't have an editing skill set? I don't get this argument either.

[Aindreas Gallagher] "I brought up the comparison to Motion because Motion never went anywhere, it never appeared on jobs boards, and no one ever bothered putting it on their CVs - it was just motion in the suite. With motion Apple rejected a lot of existing practise and threw in all kinds of stuff like behaviours and so on. They said it was going to revolutionise motion graphics. It didn't. it was completely ignored."

Some products are more successful than others. Let's face it, FCP was the darling of the suite. Color helped bring color correction to many more people than before, Motion was a tool in the suite, just like Cinema Tools, and DVDSP, and the people that needed those tools used them. Just because someone tells you to go jump off a bridge doesn't mean you are going to jump off of a bridge. Marketing is marketing.

On Avid's site, it tells me Media Composer is going to allow me to edit faster in more ways than ever....hmm.

[Aindreas Gallagher] "I say FCPX is Motion. Its completely non-standard, its got simplified operations and a weird methodology, on top of that it has received hideous press, and while I know I'm vocal at it on this forum, it is pretty broadly disliked software. Hence all those stories at release about "editing world explodes in disgust at bloody awful software, shakes fist at apple""

[Aindreas Gallagher] "more fundamentally I return to my basic point - this software lacks friends.

Its broadly disliked, has shown zero market penetration (one BBC magazine editor doth not a spring make), it never appears in jobs listings, whereas as FCP7, Avid, and now quite regularly Premiere 6 do."


I guess I see this as a no brainer. We all know FCPX's shortcomings, we also know what is coming in terms of features, and I am sure there are some coming that we don't know. There is no way FCPX can replace FCS at this time, or Avid, or CS6. It's not up to speed. It makes sense that there's no "job listings" quite yet. A facility would have to be crazy to switch to such a new piece of software all at once.

This does not mean it's dead on the vine, it is merely a seed, just like Prelude, or Speedgrade, or maybe even Smoke 2013.


Return to posts index

Charlie Austin
Re: Apple gives up another network client
on Oct 17, 2012 at 7:59:30 pm

[Aindreas Gallagher] "...any movement from FCP, that there has been, has been to either Avid say in the case of Mark Raudonis or Premiere in the case of Associated Press's entire editing operation, there has been absolutely no moves of any significance towards FCPX.

I will attempt to reply in the style of, uh... you...

Never heard of the guy. And why should I care what some news agency cuts on? I work on projects in a specific market. Nothing else matters.

[Aindreas Gallagher] Also FCPX is ... a weirdo, non-standard piece of kit, relying heavily on imovie originated metaphors that bears no comparison to its predecessor or its two main competitors... there is no standing skills base for FCPX, and it ignores a wide number of standing conventions.

Anyone who professes to be an editor has the "skills base" to use FCPX, clearly those who aren't using it lack any real skill. MC and Premiere? Both based on conventions dating from the 19'th century. Lame.

[Aindreas Gallagher] Its broadly disliked, has shown zero market penetration ...blah blah blah, Avid, blah blah blah, Premiere 6.. blah blah blah, It's toast. I'm calling it blah blah blah, dead as say vegas,blah blah blah, no one cares. blah blah blah, FCPX blah blah blah, out of the mainstream of editing. software too weird, software too stupid."

I think you are wrong. Since people I know disagree with you, and since I do not know you or anyone you know or any of your clients... I am right.


How was that? ;-) xoxo

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


~"It is a poor craftsman who blames his tools."~


Return to posts index

Aindreas Gallagher
Re: Apple gives up another network client
on Oct 17, 2012 at 11:17:53 pm

touché.

Still.

You won't work in the primary though eh? how crazy a statement about the state of the FCPX timeline is that?

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


Return to posts index

Charlie Austin
Re: Apple gives up another network client
on Oct 17, 2012 at 11:43:24 pm

[Aindreas Gallagher] "touche.

Still.

You won't work in the primary though eh? how crazy a statement about the state of the FCPX timeline is that?
"


lol... I couldn't resist, I know you're not thin skinned so... :-)

And I actually think that the fact I don't have to work in the primary means that X is not as inflexible as some make it out to be. I can pretty much do whatever I want. The more i use it, the more I realize that there really isn't anything I can't do in this app that I could do in 7. I've had to figure out slightly different ways to do some things, but only because it's *not* FCP 7. I'd have to do the same thing no matter what new NLE I started using. The caveat being that I don't need to edit to or capture from tape. If ya need that then it's probably not gonna work. We get nothing from the studios on tape anymore. They do still deliver stuff for broadcast on tape, but we typically don't finish stuff here so it's not a problem.

I do agree that there are some big shops that will ditch FCP for MC or Pr, though I think it's more, as Tim said the other day, because maybe they shouldn't have moved to FCP in the first place. So your point is valid. I mean, even now FCP "classic" has compatibility issues with finishing/delivery places. I don't think there are many people, or any at all here in LA who're using FCP as a finishing tool. I'm sure there are some, but the people who finish stuff that we do, feature trailers and TV spots, don't. I posted earlier about some EDL's i sent out from 7 that were just crap, unusable. The one I sent out from X was just fine. Go figure.

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


~"It is a poor craftsman who blames his tools."~


Return to posts index

Chris Harlan
Re: Apple gives up another network client
on Oct 18, 2012 at 3:28:54 am

[Charlie Austin] "I don't think there are many people, or any at all here in LA who're using FCP as a finishing tool. I'm sure there are some, but the people who finish stuff that we do, feature trailers and TV spots, don't. "

I don't know, man. I have to disagree. I see an awful lot of stuff get finished in FCP. National broadcast spots. You're right that there's not as much color work done, but I can name a dozen places (including one where you used to work) that finish many of their promos and commercials on FCP. Its certainly an overall distant second, but to say "not many, or any at all" does not jive with my experience.


Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: Apple gives up another network client
on Oct 18, 2012 at 3:37:03 am

[Chris Harlan] "You're right that there's not as much color work done, but I can name a dozen places (including one where you used to work) that finish many of their promos and commercials on FCP."

What is the source material?


Return to posts index

Chris Harlan
Re: Apple gives up another network client
on Oct 18, 2012 at 3:55:55 am

[Jeremy Garchow] "[Chris Harlan] "You're right that there's not as much color work done, but I can name a dozen places (including one where you used to work) that finish many of their promos and commercials on FCP."

What is the source material?
"


I'm not sure what you mean. All kinds of different sources, ranging from ProResHQ of five or six raw camera feeds for promos for talk/interview shows to completed, color-corrected films, and some not so color-corrected films. It gets used, or got used, for talk show gag materials and magazine stories, for much BTS and special feature work for DVDs and EPKs. I'm not saying it is the end-all, be-all, but things DO get finished on it and air nationally all the time.


Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: Apple gives up another network client
on Oct 18, 2012 at 3:59:41 am

[Chris Harlan] "I'm not sure what you mean. "

You answered it. I was just wondering the state of the color of the footage when you receive it.


Return to posts index

Chris Harlan
Re: Apple gives up another network client
on Oct 18, 2012 at 4:14:42 am

[Jeremy Garchow] "Chris Harlan] "I'm not sure what you mean. "

You answered it. I was just wondering the state of the color of the footage when you receive it.

"


Cool. Me personally, most of the time I do a lot of scripted action, drama, and comedy promos, and when I get my final material for finishing it has been made beautiful by Resolve or something else. So, even though I might be finishing it on FCP, I'm not really finishing it on FCP. But I've also done enough big money unscripted daytime TV, where 5 sets of promos have to be pumped out each week, week after week, to know that most of those get finished on whatever they were cut on, usually MC or FCP. Now a lot of that stuff is shot on a soundstage in a very controlled environment, so there is a lot of color management going on in the actual "taping" process, but those deadlines are very real and very tense, so there isn't much time for an offline/online process.


Return to posts index

Charlie Austin
Re: Apple gives up another network client
on Oct 18, 2012 at 5:48:39 am

[Chris Harlan] "I don't know, man. I have to disagree. I see an awful lot of stuff get finished in FCP. National broadcast spots. "

I stand corrected. Maybe I'm just out of the loop lately... We do finish some stuff out of 7 as well, but the majority of our material gets sent out to to post facilities using Avid or Smoke or something. New Wave, SSI etc. Guess i need to get out of my bay more often. ;-)

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


~"It is a poor craftsman who blames his tools."~


Return to posts index

Chris Harlan
Re: Apple gives up another network client
on Oct 18, 2012 at 6:00:09 am

[Charlie Austin] "We do finish some stuff out of 7 as well, but the majority of our material gets sent out to to post facilities using Avid or Smoke or something."

No, I agree the majority of stuff gets finished on something else. Heck, the majority of stuff gets cut on something else. But for the record's sake, I just wanted to chime in about the semi-notable minority.


Return to posts index

Shawn Miller
Re: Apple gives up another network client
on Oct 17, 2012 at 6:16:08 pm

[Jeremy Garchow] "Also, did After Effects ever have a "Cold Mountain" moment?"

Yes, I think AE has had several of these moments over the years, in high-end commercial work, music videos and feature film... otherwise, I don't think the adoption would be nearly as wide.

[Jeremy Garchow] Does Motion? Does FCPX?

IMO, yes. FCPX may not need it as much as Motion. But I do think that Motion needs a "Cold Mountain moment" as well as a Mark Christiansen, a Stu Maschwitz, a VideoCopilot.net, an intensive course on FXPHD (or similar), and a post house like The Orphanage (R.I.P) to help drive its popularity. I might be wrong here, but I feel as if I haven't seen Motion used to it's fullest potential yet. If people were producing MoGraph or VFX work on par with what we normally associate the AE, then I think Motion would gain a lot more traction. Otherwise, it might as well be HitFilm (formerly Alam DV); a lot of great features... but relatively obscure and underpowered.

Just my opinion,

Shawn



Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: Apple gives up another network client
on Oct 17, 2012 at 7:59:21 pm

[Shawn Miller] "IMO, yes. FCPX may not need it as much as Motion. But I do think that Motion needs a "Cold Mountain moment" as well as a Mark Christiansen, a Stu Maschwitz, a VideoCopilot.net, an intensive course on FXPHD (or similar), and a post house like The Orphanage (R.I.P) to help drive its popularity. I might be wrong here, but I feel as if I haven't seen Motion used to it's fullest potential yet. If people were producing MoGraph or VFX work on par with what we normally associate the AE, then I think Motion would gain a lot more traction. Otherwise, it might as well be HitFilm (formerly Alam DV); a lot of great features... but relatively obscure and underpowered.

Just my opinion,"


And what if it did turn in to Alam DV? Would Apple go under? Would the post production community lose out? No, it wouldn't. I don't think that Motion deserves, or even wants, a Cold Mountain moment. Well wait, this just came to mind: http://provideocoalition.com/index.php/mspencer/story/billy_fox_and_motion/

And that's what Motion is good for. Editors doing some compositing. It's not that sexy.

Motion is fine for a lot of things, but it is not Ae and probably never will be.

After Effects has ALWAYS operated on a higher level than Motion. Ae is a 20 year old juggernaut.


Return to posts index

Shawn Miller
Re: Apple gives up another network client
on Oct 18, 2012 at 12:09:01 am

[Jeremy Garchow] "And what if it did turn in to Alam DV? Would Apple go under?"

Obviously not, but it would be a shame if Motion didn't gain any real traction outside of FCPX. I want to see Motion grow into a fully featured tool that can compete with AE. It might sound odd coming from me (a Windows based AE user), but AE needs more competition in this space, and currently, there just isn't anything for less than $3k that does that... not good.


[Jeremy Garchow] "Would the post production community lose out? No, it wouldn't."

I disagree, where competition is thin, (generally) end users lose. I like having options, and I like to see competing products make each other better. I've been in the process of learning Nuke, but it's not really a good option for me (motion graphics wise), if something should happen to AE. In the process of learning it (Nuke), I discovered something discomforting... nothing really does what AE does. It's such a great multipurpose tool for VFX and a powerful mograph tool; I have virtually no options if anything happened to it... I really like AE, I don't like the idea of it being the only serious mograph game in town. I would love to see another AE/Combustion dynamic, where you had two similarly priced applications that had lots of overlap in fierce competition... unfortunately, Autodesk didn't see it that way.

[Jeremy Garchow] "I don't think that Motion deserves, or even wants, a Cold Mountain moment. Well wait, this just came to mind: http://provideocoalition.com/index.php/mspencer/story/billy_fox_and_motion/."

This is a good start, I hope to see more people using Motion for things like this, and I hope that a larger Motion user base sparks more utility and innovations from Apple. I feel like they gave up too quickly. Actually, I would be beyond jazzed if Autodesk jumped back into this space with a sub $1k version of Toxic... I want to see more heat in this market.

[Jeremy Garchow] "And that's what Motion is good for. Editors doing some compositing. It's not that sexy."

Yes, agreed... I think it could be more though.

[Jeremy Garchow] "Motion is fine for a lot of things, but it is not Ae and probably never will be."

No doubt... but wouldn't it be great if Apple didn't kill Shake for nothing? Wouldn’t it be fantastic if they actually got serious about VFX and Motion Graphics?

Shawn



Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: Apple gives up another network client
on Oct 18, 2012 at 1:14:37 am

[Shawn Miller] "Obviously not, but it would be a shame if Motion didn't gain any real traction outside of FCPX. I want to see Motion grow into a fully featured tool that can compete with AE. It might sound odd coming from me (a Windows based AE user), but AE needs more competition in this space, and currently, there just isn't anything for less than $3k that does that... not good. "

That's a fantastic perspective. Thank you.

[Shawn Miller] "I disagree, where competition is thin, (generally) end users lose. I like having options, and I like to see competing products make each other better. I've been in the process of learning Nuke, but it's not really a good option for me (motion graphics wise), if something should happen to AE. In the process of learning it (Nuke), I discovered something discomforting... nothing really does what AE does. It's such a great multipurpose tool for VFX and a powerful mograph tool; I have virtually no options if anything happened to it... I really like AE, I don't like the idea of it being the only serious mograph game in town. I would love to see another AE/Combustion dynamic, were you had two similarly priced applications that had lots of overlap in fierce competition... unfortunately, Autodesk didn't see it that way."

Yes, I agree completely about the loss of Ae. Luckily, Adobe is in good financial standing and doesn't appear to be going anywhere. But, even for 3 grand, Smoke is capable. It would take a lot of getting used to, but it's good. You'd have to buy a lot less plug ins as well. ;)

[Shawn Miller] "No doubt... but wouldn't it be great if Apple didn't kill Shake for nothing? Wouldn’t it be fantastic if they actually got serious about VFX and Motion Graphics? "

I don't know. This guy seems to think that you don't want Apple to get serious about it: http://digitalcomposting.wordpress.com/2011/06/28/x-vs-pro/


Return to posts index

Shawn Miller
Re: Apple gives up another network client
on Oct 18, 2012 at 3:30:37 am

[Jeremy Garchow] "Yes, I agree completely about the loss of Ae. Luckily, Adobe is in good financial standing and doesn't appear to be going anywhere."

Agreed... but you never know. :-)

[Jeremy Garchow] "But, even for 3 grand, Smoke is capable. It would take a lot of getting used to, but it's good. You'd have to buy a lot less plug ins as well. ;)"

I can't say I haven't been curious about Smoke. I'll be keeping an eye on how 2012 is received. Now, if I could just bring myself to trust Autodesk. ;)

[Jeremy Garchow] "I don't know. This guy seems to think that you don't want Apple to get serious about it: http://digitalcomposting.wordpress.com/2011/06/28/x-vs-pro/"

I have a lot of respect for Ron Brinkmann. I can only hope that his perspective will be proven wrong over time.

Shawn



Return to posts index

Charlie Austin
Re: Apple gives up another network client
on Oct 17, 2012 at 6:22:57 pm

[Jeremy Garchow] "Incompatible how? I can put an FCPXML in to Resolve and puke out an XMEML. Same with RCXPro and Xto7. I am sure there will be more options in the future."

Random side note... I just sent 3 spots to finish, one cut in X for one project, 2 cut in 7 for another. For the X spot I sent an aaf from X2Pro, and a cuts only EDL-X EDL... worked perfectly.

For the other 2 FCP 7 spots, I sent an omf and edl's generated from within FCP 7. Audio was fine, EDL's were totally messed up, all sorts of zero frame edits, they were useless. Granted, it wasn't cuts only, and EDL-X has some issues with transitions in EDL's also, but still, after all the years 7 has been out it still didn't work.

Point is... the nice thing about the EDL-X problems is that I can (and have) email the developer, send him the problematic files, and he'll hopefully be able to sort 'em out and fix them. There's something to be said for 3'rd parties providing critical features. Same is true of X2Pro, and all the Intelligent Assistance apps. Any time I've found a bug or had a problem, I've had a fix/workaround almost instantly. Not the case if it was a problem with an in-app feature, ya gotta wait for the next version, which doesn't help when the deadline is uh... now. ;-)

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


~"It is a poor craftsman who blames his tools."~


Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: Apple gives up another network client
on Oct 17, 2012 at 8:41:47 pm

More from that Murch article:

"“We've gotten some abuse from our brethren suggesting that we're hurting jobs by talking about Final Cut Pro since so many editors and assistants have built their careers as Avid editors and have perfected their technique on that interface,” says Cullen. “But what we discovered is that the only real adjustment was in the way of thinking about the tools you use to edit. For instance, it's been suggested that an Avid editor would hate the fact that you can't customize the Final Cut Pro keyboard, and that was a pain, at first, because things just weren't where we were used to them being. But we found out that once you do get used to the keyboard, it's actually easier, and now that we understand the Final Cut keyboard layout, we'll never go back. Avid's keyboard is one layer ‘deep,’ whereas Final Cut's keyboard is four levels deep. Every key is used for one tool at the top level, but then, by holding down the shift key and that same tool key, we could get another tool, and so on. Once we got used to that way of working, it was actually more efficient, and this type of clarity is pervasive in all aspects of Final Cut Pro.”


A typical, epic-style battle scene from the film. Over 600,000 feet of film were digitized during the course of Murch's editing work on the movie.
Murch adds that, at the end of the day, Final Cut Pro was also “significantly” cheaper to use for a major feature. Cullen worked with Digital Film Tree to set up four FCP workstations and a workflow for the Cold Mountain project at the cost of what Murch claims is approximately “the cost of a single high-end Avid edit station.”"

Dat price...


Return to posts index

Walter Soyka
Re: Apple gives up another network client
on Oct 17, 2012 at 2:11:51 pm

Let me try again. I think I was coming across as argumentative when I was trying to expand on this question.

[Aindreas Gallagher] "FCPX, a year and a half in, has all the industry presence of its effects backbone motion. motion that no one ever cared about outside of ripple training. Which is to say, utterly none. No clients request it, it appears on no jobs boards, it features in no post houses, in a schrodinger's cat sense, if it wasn't discussed to the extent that it is on this forum, it might as well not exist as a means to be paid to edit."

The context: if you are paid to deliver finished programs, this does not apply to you. Result are the only thing that counts there, and you can use whatever application you see fit: FCP Legend in 2001, Motion in 2004, FCPX in 2011. If, however, you are a freelancer being paid to work within a specific pipeline, then your application-specific knowledge is important.

After eight years on the market, there are virtually no Motion-specific jobs of this kind.

The question: what has to change in order for freelancers to be able to sell FCPX skills?

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: Apple gives up another network client
on Oct 17, 2012 at 2:27:46 pm

[Walter Soyka] "The question: what has to change in order for freelancers to be able to sell FCPX skills?"

1-word answer: Hardware.


Return to posts index

Aindreas Gallagher
Re: Apple gives up another network client
on Oct 19, 2012 at 9:14:48 pm

[Richard Herd] "1-word answer: Hardware."

that is an incorrect answer. what has hardware got to do with the price of bread in this particular argument?

the complete absence of FCPX in paid for jobs, either in the people offering them, or the people applying for them is - in absolutely no way - predicated on available hardware.

FCPX is simply non-existent software, if you want to be paid to edit. As software, it turned out far too weird. Almost laughably weird in retrospect.

(lets all dis-connect our secondaries from the primary, unless we're doing a music edit - my god, evacuate the primary - it doesn't work - detach the audio - we've lost sync? light the flares!!! where is the colour corrector? IT's SQAURE? Help me Jesus - who came UP with this semantic mess?)

LAFCPUG (wrong name now) tossed FCP - their name and focus has changed - everyone tossed it. It's motion. Apple went off into their own weeds. they are more than able to do that.

FCPX Is not an editing platform, its not an editing solution, it represents no editing practise - its just very slightly weird apple software.

It is motion to after effects, aperture to lightroom.

Apple gave in to their worst instincts, ignored the industry, and came out with a personal sonata that no one cared about the minute they heard it.

FCPX will be on the appstore for a long, long time, at least as long as aperture or motion, but it is of a piece as a half dead internal proof of apple methodology sent to apple, by apple, for apple, where they assert their point of view, and ignore all external signals.

FCP as was, with its basic logic and craft built in, that apple bought, is the outlier.

Apple couldn't make professional software, to sustain professional craft, to save its life.

As people tasked with correctly perceiving needs and producing software, in a timely fashion, for creative mission critical industries, Apple are either the titanic, or the iceberg.

take your pick.

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


Return to posts index

Steve Connor
Re: Apple gives up another network client
on Oct 19, 2012 at 10:17:28 pm

How about a yawn emoticon, could we have one of those? We could use it when people say the the same thing over and over and over again

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


Return to posts index

Craig Seeman
Re: Apple gives up another network client
on Oct 19, 2012 at 10:27:08 pm

Especially when the ignore seemingly very high sales numbers (when last reported) and the popularity of the FCPX Techniques forum and the constituency therein as reported by Tim Wilson.

While there may be a scant few FCPX facilities, it would seem, as some of us see here and elsewhere on the interwebs, there seems to be places where single seats of FCPX are now being thrown into the "professional" (and that includes Broadcast) environment.



Return to posts index

Franz Bieberkopf
Re: Apple gives up another network client
on Oct 19, 2012 at 11:07:02 pm

[Craig Seeman] "... seemingly very high sales numbers (when last reported)..."

Craig,

"Numbers" have never been "reported" (unless you're using some new meanings of those words).

Franz.


Return to posts index

Craig Seeman
Re: Apple gives up another network client
on Oct 19, 2012 at 11:18:25 pm

I believe SCRI had a percentage of facilities (I forget the exact wording) of FCPX installs.



Return to posts index

Franz Bieberkopf
Re: Apple gives up another network client
on Oct 19, 2012 at 11:23:49 pm

[Craig Seeman] "I believe SCRI had a percentage of facilities (I forget the exact wording) of FCPX installs."

Craig,

A vague guess by an unknown third party is not "reported numbers".

Franz.


Return to posts index

Craig Seeman
Re: Apple gives up another network client
on Oct 19, 2012 at 11:25:40 pm

SCRI wasn't a "vague" guess. I've posted their reports here. They do facility surveys and they had a percentage of facilities that had FCPX seats. They weren't claiming regular use (or any use) but that the facility penetration of FCPX (sitting somewhere on some system) was very high.



Return to posts index

Craig Seeman
Re: Apple gives up another network client
on Oct 19, 2012 at 11:36:34 pm

In Apple's April briefing with Larry Jordan and others Apple mentioned there were more FCPX installs than FCP7 installs (note that's only FCP7, not all FCPs though)). SCRIs numbers were something like 52% of the facilities purchased FCP within the last 12 months.



Return to posts index

Franz Bieberkopf
Re: Apple gives up another network client
on Oct 19, 2012 at 11:41:31 pm

[Craig Seeman] " In Apple's April briefing with Larry Jordan and others Apple mentioned there were more FCPX installs than FCP7 installs ..."

Craig,

There was a thread on that too ... I think the consensus was that they were comparing purchases of 7 (not upgrades, mind you) to purchases of X.

But, you know, it was vague ...

Franz.


Return to posts index

Franz Bieberkopf
Re: Apple gives up another network client
on Oct 19, 2012 at 11:54:48 pm

[Craig Seeman] "52% of the facilities purchased FCP within the last 12 months."


Additionally,

Further in the thread you also clarify your own thoughts:

[Craig Seeman] Also it's not clear that the number is specifically FCPX. Many facilities are still on FCP7 or 6 given the comments about the diminished 7 uptake which is believable."

Franz.


Return to posts index

Franz Bieberkopf
Re: Apple gives up another network client
on Oct 19, 2012 at 11:38:29 pm

[Craig Seeman] "I've posted their reports here. They do facility surveys ..."

Craig,

You are being a bit ingenuous. This says nothing about who they are, what their resources or objectives are. They've been soliciting people with chances to win iPads though (twice! in the last month):

http://scri.com/nbcur.shtml/

[Craig Seeman] "SCRI wasn't a "vague" guess."

Here is the thread:
http://forums.creativecow.net/thread/335/32053#32104

It includes this:

[Craig Seeman] "Short of paying $1500 for the report, we are looking at coffee grounds. There's a lot that's not being clearly defined. 52% of "something" in broadcast and professional facilities have FCPX installed."

So we've agreed it's vague.

Franz.


Return to posts index

Aindreas Gallagher
Re: Apple gives up another network client
on Oct 19, 2012 at 11:28:04 pm

[Steve Connor] "over and over and over again
"


you and me both connor.

I say this software is a mess made for confused reasons that don't favour editing as a craft. I'll kick it ad infinitum.

when I stop kicking it - it's market dead. which it deserves to be.

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


Return to posts index

Jim Giberti
Re: Apple gives up another network client
on Oct 15, 2012 at 12:45:18 am

[Tim Wilson] "And for the record, my gut tells me that the next release will be massive. "

I'm thinking the same thing given their last communique and the time it's taking. There are so many small things that need evolving and a few big things that really need to happen, that I won't even try and speculate. But I'm hopeful that they've been listening and have had ample time to get this closer to the kind of grown-up app it could be at the 1+ year mark.


Return to posts index

Richard Herd
Re: Apple gives up another network client
on Oct 15, 2012 at 4:14:45 pm

[Tim Wilson] "will be massive. It still won't work for some people"

And it will be a de facto beta testing period. I think it was DRW who posted (months ago) on how to properly upgrade software. I can't find the link. It's more important than ever to follow his model with app store. Folks working in x.0.5 ought to keep a working partition if not full on drive and or system of that system and run them simultaneously, so as bugs are discovered, you can still go back to x05.

my $0.02.


Return to posts index

Richard Herd
Re: Apple gives up another network client
on Oct 15, 2012 at 4:06:45 pm

[Tim Wilson] "what happens if you download FCPX again in 2 years because you're hearing good things? That would be about the right timeframe -- FCP"

I say 5 years because of deprecation schedules.


Return to posts index

Craig Seeman
Re: Apple gives up another network client
on Oct 15, 2012 at 4:19:12 pm

[Richard Herd] "I say 5 years because of deprecation schedules."

That would have greater impact on Mac sales than FCPX sales.
BTW you might guess that's why there was no interim MacPro update.
I think Apple is pushing the pent up demand for 2013 MacPro replacement. They really want to push turnover of old hardware. There's plenty of people still using 2006-2008 MacPros.



Return to posts index

Richard Herd
Re: Apple gives up another network client
on Oct 15, 2012 at 4:22:27 pm

[Craig Seeman] "That would have greater impact on Mac sales than FCPX sales.
"


Yup. Agreed. Editors who download X.1 but who have not purchased new hardware will defect.


Return to posts index

Craig Seeman
Re: Apple gives up another network client
on Oct 15, 2012 at 4:41:01 pm

[Richard Herd] "Yup. Agreed. Editors who download X.1 but who have not purchased new hardware will defect."

Defect? From what?
We're talking about people using other NLE but on Mac
If they're running old Macs they're going to have to buy new systems either way.
If one is sitting on an old Mac and not buying a new one it's not a "defection" as far as Apple is concerned (or any business). It's whether you buy or not.

If people already find FCPX compelling they're not going to defect. They're going to upgrade because those are the very folks sitting on old Macs who are likely waiting for new desktops.



Return to posts index

Richard Herd
Re: Apple gives up another network client
on Oct 15, 2012 at 9:51:38 pm

[Craig Seeman] "Defect? From what?
"


From Apple.

If you're working totally in Adobe especially with Dynamic Link -- never needing the OS -- then Apple seems irrelevant. (Other folks have discussed the hardware stuff all over the forum.)


Return to posts index

MIke Guidotti
Re: Apple gives up another network client
on Oct 18, 2012 at 12:46:08 pm

[Andy Field] "The point wasn't about Apple's massive profits selling othe people's stuff on iTunes. It was about taking a decade of customer good will and loyalty and tossing it in the trash and creating a product that can no longer meet the needs of a large part of an industry"

A lot of people on here treat apple like some girlfriend/boyfriend that cheated on them. Apple is not your friend or business partner. Unless you bought a service contract, after your point of sale (POS haha) purchase, they have made all the money off you they are going to make. In the end they created a cheaper product that they could sell more of which from a business standpoint was the right thing to do. Apple is a manufacturing business not a service business. They make money by shipping units.


Return to posts index

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