FORUMS: list search recent posts

FCPX is so completely weird, it makes Motion look sane. And no one will hire you by the hour for either of them.

COW Forums : Apple Final Cut Pro X Debates

<< PREVIOUS   •   VIEW ALL   •   PRINT   •   NEXT >>
Aindreas Gallagher
FCPX is so completely weird, it makes Motion look sane. And no one will hire you by the hour for either of them.
on Oct 19, 2012 at 11:00:13 pm

well, its true.

And I reject the flamebait charge being directed against me based on - look at that rhino charging through -

bottom line, Apple have history with slightly weird inconsequential software they thought was quite important - motion.

FCP was a bought in outlier, we're now back to their weird semi-pro software schtick that no one cares about.

I don't care about motion or rigging, no one does. And FCPX is, can we please just say this, weird software.

Honestly - do a pepsi test, I've done a few, in some cases I have found certain well heeled, unprepared, editors speechless by how utterly insane FCPX is.

Honestly? I think Apple are still in the process of figuring out that they don't actually make pro software. they just decided to keep saying that they do.

In truth, Apple just make whatever comes into their heads, because they can.

they can sell it on some level sure - but they service no professional software market of any description.

As a market, editing within Apple is being made subject to ipod nano level throwaway experimentation. Apple are just messing around in the decimal points of their earnings.

The point is that if the entire venture of FCPX, in all of its total methodology weirdness fails, apple will not lose a second.
Just as they never did with the total market failure of motion.

Or aperture, which was initially quite good.

How is it a good idea if a company can do anything to their pro software and bear no financial brunt?

I am now going to raise the simple point. This is not the case with Adobe or Avid.

Both companies are existentially and profit tied to the real, ongoing provision and advancement of industry critical tools.

we are actually trying to figure out how it works together. Given that we all have our chips in the game.

they do not get to go nuts whenever they like because they are made of gold.

its a question of trust.

So, basically, cast your rational vote accordingly.


(as an aside - Premiere Pro 7? two releases ahead? with matured adobe anywhere? seriously?)

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


Return to posts index

Marcus Moore
Re: FCPX is so completely weird, it makes Motion look sane. And no one will hire you by the hour for either of them.
on Oct 19, 2012 at 11:38:30 pm

Holy shit! You DON'T like FCPX...? Has the world turned upside down? My mind is blown by this brand new information!

* PS I'm hired at least 40hrs every week to do exactly what you say no one does.


Return to posts index

Aindreas Gallagher
Re: FCPX is so completely weird, it makes Motion look sane. And no one will hire you by the hour for either of them.
on Oct 19, 2012 at 11:52:28 pm

[Marcus Moore] "You DON'T like FCPX...?"

incorrect marcus - I simply don't respect it as software.


[Marcus Moore] "'Im hired at least 40hrs every week to do exactly what you say no one... "

Well done. I get paid too.

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


Return to posts index


Marcus Moore
Re: FCPX is so completely weird, it makes Motion look sane. And no one will hire you by the hour for either of them.
on Oct 20, 2012 at 12:31:51 am

The point is your assertion is simply wrong. I get paid using software you say noone gets paid to use. And I'm not the only one, as many, MANY people on this board have attested in the past.

We can agree it doesn't have wide-spread support in the industry. But that entirely another thing from saying no one gets paid to use it. You're flat wrong. And if that's what you're telling people, then that's a misrepresentation I don't appreciate.



Return to posts index

Walter Soyka
Re: FCPX is so completely weird, it makes Motion look sane. And no one will hire you by the hour for either of them.
on Oct 20, 2012 at 2:03:39 pm

[Marcus Moore] "* PS I'm hired at least 40hrs every week to do exactly what you say no one does."

Sincerely curious, Marcus -- are you saying that you are being hired specifically as an FCPX editor here? Is there a production company or agency you're working with that has a specific need for FCPX freelance talent?

Or are you saying you are hired as an editor, free to use any tool you want, and you choose FCPX because it works best for your needs?

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

Oliver Peters
Re: FCPX is so completely weird, it makes Motion look sane. And no one will hire you by the hour for either of them.
on Oct 20, 2012 at 3:34:09 pm

[Walter Soyka] "Sincerely curious, Marcus -- are you saying that you are being hired specifically as an FCPX editor here? Is there a production company or agency you're working with that has a specific need for FCPX freelance talent? "

I'm not sure about Marcus, but from what I see in my circles, clients (producers, agencies, post houses) assume all editors know FCP 7. To some extent they assume you know After Effects and Photoshop, too. I have yet to run across anyone requesting PPro or FCP X chops. The only jobs I've been hired for because of specific software chops have been Media Composer jobs, where the prod co/post house was Avid-centric. That's largely because so many younger editors only know FCP 7, but never learned Media Composer. As more houses adopt Adobe, I suspect the FCP 7 assumption will shift (in these clients' minds) to a Premiere Pro assumption.

That being said, I'm done quite a few jobs in the last few months where the client didn't care and was willing to be part of the FCP X "grand experiment". In those cases, I've used FCP X.

- Oliver

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


Return to posts index


Aindreas Gallagher
Re: FCPX is so completely weird, it makes Motion look sane. And no one will hire you by the hour for either of them.
on Oct 20, 2012 at 4:01:48 pm

[Walter Soyka] "are you saying that you are being hired specifically as an FCPX editor here? Is there a production company or agency you're working with that has a specific need for FCPX freelance talent?

Or are you saying you are hired as an editor, free to use any tool you want, and you choose FCPX because it works best for your needs?
"


that's really my point - pretty much everyone here espousing FCPX has the latitude to employ their own editing system as a sole operator, thats fine, but it doesn't represent the vast majority of paid for use cases for editing - I kind of said this below, so I'll just re-post, this explains my point pretty well:

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

Bill Davis
Re: FCPX is so completely weird, it makes Motion look sane. And no one will hire you by the hour for either of them.
on Oct 20, 2012 at 8:23:04 pm

[Aindreas Gallagher] "so I'll just re-post, this explains my point pretty well:

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.."


And in 2002 that was EXACTLY the state of the industry - but the ONLY name on the "approved big shop editing choice" was AVID.

It took Legacy 3 to 5 years to destroy that reality. They did it with two things. A) solidly iIncreasing features and B) a significant price advantage.

Just an observation from someone who. like many others, watched it all happen.

Know someone who teaches video editing in elementary school, high school or college? Tell them to check out http://www.StartEditingNow.com - video editing curriculum complete with licensed practice content.


Return to posts index

Oliver Peters
Re: FCPX is so completely weird, it makes Motion look sane. And no one will hire you by the hour for either of them.
on Oct 20, 2012 at 8:44:14 pm

[Bill Davis] "And in 2002 that was EXACTLY the state of the industry - but the ONLY name on the "approved big shop editing choice" was AVID."

Ironically, we may be coming right back to that same point. Right or wrong, Avid has stayed pretty solidly focused on what an editing application should be. At least in the eyes of its customer base.

The key issue - which Aindreas brought up at the end of the OP - is TRUST. For many folks, Apple burned that bridge. I personally know corporate clients who now live with an internal edict that future bids WILL NOT include any Apple products. Not just because of FCP X, but the whole path from Xserve to X that has left enterprise customers, who put all their eggs in Apple's basket, quite shaken.

I don't for a minute believe Apple has any conscious intention to negatively affect the workflows and business models of their professional costumers. However, I have no confidence that the goals of Apple are aligned with the goals of professional customers. So, even as many of us continue down the path of using FCP X, it's only with a CYA mentality, that leaves us equally ready to jump ship if the need arises, depending on Apple's next moves.

- Oliver

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


Return to posts index


Bill Davis
Re: FCPX is so completely weird, it makes Motion look sane. And no one will hire you by the hour for either of them.
on Oct 20, 2012 at 9:41:45 pm

[Oliver Peters] "The key issue - which Aindreas brought up at the end of the OP - is TRUST. For many folks, Apple burned that bridge. I personally know corporate clients who now live with an internal edict that future bids WILL NOT include any Apple products. Not just because of FCP X, but the whole path from Xserve to X that has left enterprise customers, who put all their eggs in Apple's basket, quite shaken."

So here's the counter question.

Which "trust" will be more critical and more lasting. The "trust" built between one decision maker in an enterprise and a vendor ... or the "trust" built between the individual editor and the tool they prefer to use to execute their creative vision?

Once upon a time, the tools and equipment was so expensive that the employer HAD to provide and control the tools.

Today?

Then you add the rich irony is that what the very exemplar "corporate client" referenced above managed to "ban" - is the vision of editing from one company on the planet to become the most successful in the world by rejecting precisely that exact type of defensive thinking!

I'd be interested if that company is REALLY walking this talk by also banning those other pesky Apple products such as iPhones and iPads from it's hallways.

My bet is that we're increasingly in an era where editors see their tools more as an extension of their personal lives and preferences, as opposed to what sits on their boss-provided desks. And that like a master guitar player, nobody really cares much what a really good editor uses to assemble their images.

We shall see.

Know someone who teaches video editing in elementary school, high school or college? Tell them to check out http://www.StartEditingNow.com - video editing curriculum complete with licensed practice content.


Return to posts index

Oliver Peters
Re: FCPX is so completely weird, it makes Motion look sane. And no one will hire you by the hour for either of them.
on Oct 20, 2012 at 10:11:37 pm

[Bill Davis] "So here's the counter question."

I get what you are saying and don't really disagree. However you and I are both freelance, independent contractors. To a large extent, based on our various posts in this forum, I take it that each of us has some control over the tools we choose. I'm not sure that's true of most of the pro editing world.

Ignoring the actual user numbers, I'd be willing to bet that the vast majority of pro editors work at fixed facilities, even if they aren't staff. Most broadcast, film, corporate and commercial work is done by editors who show up at a job or freelance at a post house and use the tools provided to them. Among working pros, I think it is still the exception (and will continue to be so) that editors are handed a project and then left to their own devices.

Even when that's the case, there's still an expectation of project interchange. For example, if I farm out graphics to a designer/animator or to a sound editor/mixer, I have an expectation that they will be using Photoshop, After Effects and Pro Tools, respectively. The reason is so that I can take those project assets at the end and use them down the line, quite possibly with a different designer/editor/mixer. That doesn't mean some folks aren't successfully using Logic or Pixelmator or Corel Draw, but they tend to be the exception to the rule.

- Oliver

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


Return to posts index

massimo verona
Re: FCPX is so completely weird, it makes Motion look sane. And no one will hire you by the hour for either of them.
on Oct 23, 2012 at 6:17:19 am

accidental duplicate post.


Return to posts index


Marcus Moore
Re: FCPX is so completely weird, it makes Motion look sane. And no one will hire you by the hour for either of them.
on Oct 20, 2012 at 6:25:43 pm

I've worked at a freelancer since 2006. I have 6-8 regular clients, as well as some occasional sidebars.

My primary client (maybe 1/3 income) is a producer who left another company. Between him, myself, and another editor, we work in a virtual office. So the other editor and I able to drive the technological decisions going forward. So we both pushed for all of the work for the company to be done in X.

One of my other clients, who I used to work for full time before I went freelance, were very skeptical of FCPX, but I have been informing and demoing features for them, and they will likely be moving entirely to X down the road.

Most of the rest are only worried about final masters, so I have complete freedom there.

Only one client do I still work in 7 for, and that's because they usually version my work once I give it to them, and they haven't switched over, so they need FPC7 files. They haven't identified a post-FCP7 course yet, but they have already been talking with me about demoing X next spring to see if that's they way they want to go. Which is what I will be recommending.

So do I seek out ads for FCPX editors? Nope. But I've never been in that scenario, looking for work. I've never advertised, and all my work comes thru referral of existing clients.

From my perspective, most of the resistance to X from clients is all based on negative commentary, rather than any nuts and bots appraisal of the product. As I've said before, X demos VERY well in ways that clients respond to. I am careful to point out it's limitations, but those have so far not been deal-breakers in my business sector, which crosses the spectrum from corporate to broadcast.



Return to posts index

Don Scioli
Re: FCPX is so completely weird, it makes Motion look sane. And no one will hire you by the hour for either of them.
on Oct 19, 2012 at 11:52:03 pm

You know, I would have agreed with you on versions 1-4, but with version10.05, I jumped in with both feet, editing a promo video for a large medical company, 2 political spots for California state candidates with buy budgets over 200K, and our latest feature doc, with many hours of field footage....and it performed magnificently...and fast as hell and no crashes...all this on a early 2008 Mac Pro 3.2 GHZ.

I was blind but now I see.

I was an earlier disbeliever, a ridiculer, I dissed FCPX with the best, but now it is the future. Even ESPN uses it, and they are cutting edge.

As way of background, I have an MA from USC Cinema, won an Academy Award, learned to edit on a Moviola, then Steenbeck, then CMX, then Avid, then Cinestream, then FCP1-7 now X, and it is the best so far.... but you have to bite the bullet and learn it and use it for a paying project, no dicking around, as i did earlier. Is it weird, yes, in the beginning, but after doing an online course and plowing in, it's now very familiar. There is no way I could have done a rough cut of a 60 minute doc in one week the old way...skimming though the footage in FCPX is fast, powerful and very useful for keeping track of scenes and talent.

Beware of the analogy but it is the Ginshu knife of editorial, I have FCP7, Premiere , Avid 6 and I prefer X to all of them. Sure there are a few rough edges like sound and titles, but one can work around these issues. I suppose if you are working in a traditional post house environment, there may be some pushback to new unproved products, but hey, I don't have to, and for indy producers, this is a great way to go. Just give it a shot.


Return to posts index

Bill Davis
Re: FCPX is so completely weird, it makes Motion look sane. And no one will hire you by the hour for either of them.
on Oct 19, 2012 at 11:59:30 pm

Appears that BB King is STILL the only human being who can play the same single note over and over and over again and still be entertaining.

Know someone who teaches video editing in elementary school, high school or college? Tell them to check out http://www.StartEditingNow.com - video editing curriculum complete with licensed practice content.


Return to posts index


Aindreas Gallagher
Re: FCPX is so completely weird, it makes Motion look sane. And no one will hire you by the hour for either of them.
on Oct 20, 2012 at 12:05:43 am

[Bill Davis] "Appears that BB King is STILL the only human being who can play the same single note over and over and over again and still be entertaining.
"


you are, god love us both, one to talk.

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


Return to posts index

Bill Davis
Re: FCPX is so completely weird, it makes Motion look sane. And no one will hire you by the hour for either of them.
on Oct 20, 2012 at 12:46:59 am

[Aindreas Gallagher] "you are, god love us both, one to talk."


I am, aren't I!

Of course, after many months neither of us has bent a bit.

The difference from my perspective, is that I'm relentlessly arguing FOR something while you're equally relentlessly arguing AGAINST it.

Anyone can tear down anything. It's easy. Building stuff? Not so much.

I'm therefore totally fine with my relative position in the discussion.

Oh, and for HEAVENS SAKE whatever else you do, don't read Mr. Scioli's post above. Your head will likely explode.

Know someone who teaches video editing in elementary school, high school or college? Tell them to check out http://www.StartEditingNow.com - video editing curriculum complete with licensed practice content.


Return to posts index

David Powell
Re: FCPX is so completely weird, it makes Motion look sane. And no one will hire you by the hour for either of them.
on Oct 20, 2012 at 2:07:52 am

I decided to jump in head first and am using it on a paying job (because I have to) I went through both LJ and Ripple training, before and while cutting the project. Coming from Avid (my preference) and Legacy which I know inside and out, I can't see how this workflow speeds me up after I've laid down footage on the timeline.

Mainly, it seems as magnetic timeline forces me to do everything in several steps that should only take one. This is specifically regarding trimming. I am open to learning of course, but it seems that without tracks and patching I have to go to the mouse to select every trim thats not on the primary story line. There doesn't seem to be an extend edit function or dynamic trimming (avid's is awesome) either that I can find, which saves a huge amount of time. Though I like the way the multi clip function works, the fact that I can't match frame to the source angle or overwrite on top of audio makes it a real chore.

And speaking of match framing, I hate that it doesn't work unless I have the event selected at top level. All these little things and the excessive mouse use on the TL take the joy out of editing for me Of course I've always thought that legacy's trim sucked and many FCP users are mouse jockeys anyway, but I don't understand why proficient avid users would like this program.

I'm really hoping that these problems are just gaps in my knowledge as there are some things I do like about the program, but if Avid ever got bg transcode, I don't see what advantage this program would ever have other than the $300 entry price.


Return to posts index

Steve Connor
Re: FCPX is so completely weird, it makes Motion look sane. And no one will hire you by the hour for either of them.
on Oct 20, 2012 at 7:15:47 am

[David Powell] "I'm really hoping that these problems are just gaps in my knowledge as there are some things I do like about the program, but if Avid ever got bg transcode, I don't see what advantage this program would ever have other than the $300 entry price."

It takes a while to get used to and there's certainly a pain barrier to work through, but like any programme learning the shortcut keys will help.

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


Return to posts index

David Powell
Re: FCPX is so completely weird, it makes Motion look sane. And no one will hire you by the hour for either of them.
on Oct 20, 2012 at 7:49:41 am

Well I've went through all the edit hotkeys and none of these features that I listed exist. If they did, I'd sure like to know. Perhaps I'll ask in the technique forum. I'm pretty savvy on how to search the hotkeys list (a function I love in FCP7 and X) and I don't see an extend edit that corresponds to the playhead in real time, dynamic trimming, or a way to get to "roll" without having to use the mouse. It seems to function much like the smart tool in Avid though still needing more steps to complete tasks.

For instance by hovering a certain height with the mouse using Avid's smart tool, one can choose weather to ripple or make a gap. In X I'd have to hit the P key then pull the clip back. Its seems like a small thing, but over the course of hours, all those extra moves add up. This was why trimming was/is so much better in Avid then Legacy. But many Legacy users are excited about features that other NLEs were already implementing before X and still do better.


Return to posts index

David Lawrence
Re: FCPX is so completely weird, it makes Motion look sane. And no one will hire you by the hour for either of them.
on Oct 20, 2012 at 8:48:17 am

[David Powell] "I don't see an extend edit that corresponds to the playhead in real time, dynamic trimming, or a way to get to "roll" without having to use the mouse. It seems to function much like the smart tool in Avid though still needing more steps to complete tasks. "

If you like Avid's dynamic keyboard trimming, make sure to check out Premiere Pro CS6. I think you'll be impressed.

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


Return to posts index

Nathan Adam
Re: FCPX is so completely weird, it makes Motion look sane. And no one will hire you by the hour for either of them.
on Oct 20, 2012 at 2:13:45 am

Long time lurker. FCP 3-7. Bought and love PP CS6/FCP 8.
I was here the that fateful morning in June '11....then logged in again every day for a year just to enjoy Aindreas rants.

But...once 10.0.5 came out...and the whole thing started working reasonably well...I have to admit, editing a multicamera weekly music show, X just smokes 7.

Definitely still some changes I'm hoping to see...but geez if editing this kind of a show isn't waaayyy faster in X. It's night and day. And, yes, they still pay me well to do it.


Return to posts index

Dave Jenkins
Re: FCPX is so completely weird, it makes Motion look sane. And no one will hire you by the hour for either of them.
on Oct 20, 2012 at 3:50:45 am

I am cutting my first project in X and so far it's more stable that FCP7. I like it a lot better than Premiere Pro CS6. I don't fully understand the program yet but I like some things and I think if they continue to improve it, it could become a good edit system.

Dajen Productions, Santa Barbara, CA
MacPro Two 2.66GHz Quad Core - AJA Kona LHe
FCS 3 OS X 10.7.4
FCP X, Adobe CS6, Logic Pro, Squeeze, Filemaker


Return to posts index

Greg Andonian
Re: FCPX is so completely weird, it makes Motion look sane. And no one will hire you by the hour for either of them.
on Oct 20, 2012 at 4:13:18 am

[Bill Davis] "Anyone can tear down anything. It's easy. Building stuff? Not so much."

That's actually my view of the whole FCP 7 to X transition:

Apple tore down the old Legacy version very quickly, and doing it wasn't hard for them at all.

Now, building something equally good to take its place... THAT's the part they haven't quite figured out yet.

;)

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


Return to posts index

Bill Davis
Re: FCPX is so completely weird, it makes Motion look sane. And no one will hire you by the hour for either of them.
on Oct 20, 2012 at 4:47:44 am

[Greg Andonian] "Now, building something equally good to take its place... THAT's the part they haven't quite figured out yet.

;)
"


No problem with this perspective. I totally get that it misses the mark for many specific editors needs, tho I also suspect that while it presents real problems many editors, particularly those who are uncomfortable or unwilling to alter their habits - a significant number of editors have formed their opinions as the result of widespread misunderstanding of the intrinsic X workflow.

You say they "haven't quite figured out" something equally good yet. And I'd agree. X at less than 2 years, isn't nearly the comprehensive video editing suite Legacy was at 10 years of development. But as many here (including myself) who were with Legacy from version 1 - I can tell you that X at less than 2 years old is MILES ahead of where Legacy was at the same age.

And you're starting to hear story after story right here about people who have taken the time to learn it who are having excellent success with it in real world editing circumstances.

I know for a fact that the complex multi-cam stuff I was able to do with it a few months ago would have reduced Legacy V 2 into a smoking puddle of goo.

So again, I'm curious as to what it NOT doing that you need it to do? I'm genuinely interested since for a lot of us, it's doing everything we need and a whole lot more.

I'm not arguing that it's perfect. And it's certainly NOT equal to what Legacy had become after a decade of refinement.

But what I find it to be is a kick ass solid general purpose video editing tool built to solve the most common editing issues I face in day to day use.

So what's it "missing" from your perspective? I'd genuinely like to know.

Know someone who teaches video editing in elementary school, high school or college? Tell them to check out http://www.StartEditingNow.com - video editing curriculum complete with licensed practice content.


Return to posts index

Herb Sevush
Re: FCPX is so completely weird, it makes Motion look sane. And no one will hire you by the hour for either of them.
on Oct 20, 2012 at 5:55:08 pm

[Bill Davis] "I know for a fact that the complex multi-cam stuff I was able to do with it a few months ago would have reduced Legacy V 2 into a smoking puddle of goo."

Other than transcoding various camera codecs, which is a major strength of X, there was nothing in your description of the edit or in the final piece itself that wouldn't have been child's play in Legacy multicam.

Music video editing is the simplest, least demanding form of multicam editing, and I have no doubt that X is great at it. However it's in the more complex uses of multicam, where you make as many time edits and changes in audio track assignments as you do simple camera angle switches that Legacy shines and X lacks certain basic tools.

Nice piece by the way, loved the guitar cam.

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


Return to posts index

Bill Davis
Re: FCPX is so completely weird, it makes Motion look sane. And no one will hire you by the hour for either of them.
on Oct 20, 2012 at 8:33:38 pm

[Herb Sevush] "Other than transcoding various camera codecs, which is a major strength of X, there was nothing in your description of the edit or in the final piece itself that wouldn't have been child's play in Legacy multicam."

Really? I didn't realize that Legacy could start multi-cam editing mixed DSLR and GoPro files virutally instantly on load - without any prep at all - on a laptop. Whenever I worked in multi-cam with legacy, unless everything was pre-processed - it choked. You must have seriously better hardware or a smarter workflow than I ever had pre-X.

Know someone who teaches video editing in elementary school, high school or college? Tell them to check out http://www.StartEditingNow.com - video editing curriculum complete with licensed practice content.


Return to posts index

Herb Sevush
Re: FCPX is so completely weird, it makes Motion look sane. And no one will hire you by the hour for either of them.
on Oct 20, 2012 at 10:09:56 pm

[Bill Davis] "Really? I didn't realize that Legacy could start multi-cam editing mixed DSLR and GoPro files virutally instantly on load - without any prep at all - on a laptop."

Bill, seriously, did you even read the piece you quoted me on - it says "OTHER THAN TRANSCODING" - so I acknowledged, right at the top, that X makes it possible to work with all those mixed codecs whereas Legacy would require me to transcode them first. I also said this was a major strength of X.

I have a Compressor droplet set for transcoding to ProRes, which works in the background, so with what I consider the fairly small amount of footage I'm guessing you were working with, even with 14 cameras, it wouldn't be that big a deal. And yes I could do that on a laptop. And since I'm guessing you weren't working with time code, I would run the files thru Plural Eyes, and they would be sunk just like in X.

Once your files are in sync, can you permanently assign the individual clips the same time code, so you can always find sync points even outside the multi-clips. Can you assign Aux time code to the clips, for secondary sync groupings, and then have multi-clips created using Aux sync? In other words does X give you the same ability to create change and manipulate the time code of clips that Legacy does? I'm honestly asking as I don't know the answers to these questions.

Other than avoiding the need to transcode, which I agree can be a major consideration under tight deadline pressure, what advantage did X have over Legacy in cutting your specific project?

And by the way, was your turnaround so fast that the few hours to transcode would have made a difference in your case?

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


Return to posts index

Bill Davis
Re: FCPX is so completely weird, - answering Herb about the Multicam project in the other thread.
on Oct 20, 2012 at 10:55:23 pm

[Herb Sevush] "Other than avoiding the need to transcode, which I agree can be a major consideration under tight deadline pressure, what advantage did X have over Legacy in cutting your specific project?
"


I presume you're talking about the multi-cam thing I was discussing in the other thread?

Keywording to "bucket" the clips into song/takes with the biggest win. Setting up a folder let me tag any clip I dropped into it as part of a Song and Take was hugely efficient since it resulted in a folder where everything about that "take" was isolated. Command A and "Make Multi-clip" instantly set up my post switch session in seconds.

Next, the "no arbitrary beginning or end" nature of X's magnetic timeline meant when I ran across the "street scene" that the steadicam guy had captured without my knowing it, I could toss it at the head of my timeline to add an opening sequence and the magnetic timeline let me keep working without worrying about any downstream damage.

Also, it was great to be able to see a possible cutaway shot that might not have been IDEAL slap it into an AUDIITION - knowing that if I saw other candidates, I could add them to the audition and decide later which might be best. With that much footage, it was like having a visual scratch pad attached to the points where I had problems in my developing edit.

[Herb Sevush] "And by the way, was your turnaround so fast that the few hours to transcode would have made a difference in your case?
"


Funny you mention this. Originally I had all the time in the world. No deadlines so it was easy to let the transcoding happen over night. But oddly, I'd done a very rough cut for the not-for-profit to review, and a combination of unresponsiveness on their part and my getting busy with real work derailed this project for nearly three months.

When one of the participants asked me about how it was coming at a meeting a couple of weeks ago, I realized that I'd let it slide, and agreed to get it prepped for a public showing. But when I went to resurrect it, I realized it'd deleted the Original media files (a HUGE bucket of data) and had been working exclusively with proxies - so X's "go ahead and work while the clips are re-processing" saved me HOURS of waiting.

That's one of the things I like MOST about X compared to Legacy. Legacy was always change - then render - then continue oriented. X is work first - THEN render (if required) - oriented.

As always, X gets some things VERY right - and misses some things that some other editors must have.

I still feel lucky to be able to use it.

There's were plenty of other wins and losses along this particular project's path, but my original question was really "will X choke with lots of mixed cameras and lots of complexity" and I got my clear answer. NO.

Know someone who teaches video editing in elementary school, high school or college? Tell them to check out http://www.StartEditingNow.com - video editing curriculum complete with licensed practice content.


Return to posts index

Herb Sevush
Re: FCPX is so completely weird, - answering Herb about the Multicam project in the other thread.
on Oct 21, 2012 at 3:34:31 am

[Bill Davis] "I presume you're talking about the multi-cam thing I was discussing in the other thread?"

Yes.

[Bill Davis] "Keywording to "bucket" the clips into song/takes with the biggest win. Setting up a folder let me tag any clip I dropped into it as part of a Song and Take was hugely efficient since it resulted in a folder where everything about that "take" was isolated. Command A and "Make Multi-clip" instantly set up my post switch session in seconds."

Organization is always crucial, but since I haven't tried X I don't know if I'm really missing anything there.

As far as making a multi-clip in Legacy you select the clips you want, hit the hotkey, done. I don't think X is any faster in that respect, although I do suspect that being able to edit the multi-clip after you've created it is a big advantage for X over Legacy.

[Bill Davis] "Next, the "no arbitrary beginning or end" nature of X's magnetic timeline meant when I ran across the "street scene" that the steadicam guy had captured without my knowing it, I could toss it at the head of my timeline to add an opening sequence and the magnetic timeline let me keep working without worrying about any downstream damage."

You can insert a take and ripple a timeline without any downstream damage with any timeline I've ever seen or heard about. If your afraid of rippling you can throw it at the end of your timeline to work on later. Don't see what this has to do with X.

[Bill Davis] "Also, it was great to be able to see a possible cutaway shot that might not have been IDEAL slap it into an AUDIITION - knowing that if I saw other candidates, I could add them to the audition and decide later which might be best. With that much footage, it was like having a visual scratch pad attached to the points where I had problems in my developing edit."

I've loved the idea of auditions since I first hear about them. Currently I stack extra takes on additional video tracks and flip between them using the enable/disable hot key, but it's definitely not as slick.

[Bill Davis] "Legacy was always change - then render - then continue oriented. X is work first - THEN render (if required) - oriented."

Yes, a big advantage for both X and PPro.

[Bill Davis] "There's were plenty of other wins and losses along this particular project's path, but my original question was really "will X choke with lots of mixed cameras and lots of complexity" and I got my clear answer. NO."

I'm glad you had such a positive experience with it, but I was responding to this quote from your previous post:

[Bill Davis] "I know for a fact that the complex multi-cam stuff I was able to do with it a few months ago would have reduced Legacy V 2 into a smoking puddle of goo."

Given your description of the project, you could have easily transcoded everything into ProRes and then cut it in Legacy without missing a beat. I suspect you never tried using the multicam feature in Legacy, and that you have as much knowledge of how it would handle your edit as I do of how X would handle mine. I see no smoking puddle of goo, just a statement made in ignorance.

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


Return to posts index

Bill Davis
Re: FCPX is so completely weird, - answering Herb about the Multicam project in the other thread.
on Oct 21, 2012 at 4:27:02 am

[Herb Sevush] "Given your description of the project, you could have easily transcoded everything into ProRes and then cut it in Legacy without missing a beat. I suspect you never tried using the multicam feature in Legacy, and that you have as much knowledge of how it would handle your edit as I do of how X would handle mine. I see no smoking puddle of goo, just a statement made in ignorance."

I think you missed my clear reference to Legacy V2! I was comparing where X is now - to where Legacy was at the same place in it's development - less than 2 years young. We can only imagine where X will be after the same 3 to 4 years it took legacy to grow out of being something most editors dismissed - to eventually grow into something that most editors ended up building careers on.

Your tendency is to always to compare what X is now - to the Legacy you find it necessary to hold onto.

I know this speaks to your on-going anger at Apple. But honestly, many of us didn't want to keep pining for the gal who left us - and have moved on. I know some can't. And some just won't.

I do suspect there are fewer and fewer folks who find it satisfying to compare everything the'll ever do to what used to be. It's been way over a year. Time to accept while Legacy was cool for it's era, it's now gone.

The editing world knows that Apple reset the clock.

I'm glad to live in the present and look forward to the future. And am delighted to have moved on from the past.

YMMV.

Know someone who teaches video editing in elementary school, high school or college? Tell them to check out http://www.StartEditingNow.com - video editing curriculum complete with licensed practice content.


Return to posts index

Herb Sevush
Re: FCPX is so completely weird, - answering Herb about the Multicam project in the other thread.
on Oct 21, 2012 at 3:58:52 pm

[Bill Davis] "I think you missed my clear reference to Legacy V2! I was comparing where X is now - to where Legacy was at the same place in it's development - less than 2 years young. We can only imagine where X will be after the same 3 to 4 years it took legacy to grow out of being something most editors dismissed - to eventually grow into something that most editors ended up building careers on."

Yes, I totally missed it - I couldn't figure out what the V2 was - thought it might be a reference to German WW2 rockets but then thought that might be a little OT, and just dismissed it as a typo. And your correct, your project would have reduced Legacy V2 into a smoking puddle of goo, especially because you would be working on old motorolla chips in OS9 and it lacked any sort of multicam whatsoever.

Any pro NLE still in existence is better than FCP V2 - Vegas, Media 100, Edius - hell I could go dig up my old *edit software that was EOL'd in 2004 and it would run rings around FCP V2. X would also run rings around Avid V2 - Avid was still off-line only back then. So does that mean X is so flawed and underwhelming that you have to compare it operationally to 10 year old software.

It's reasonable to talk about the future of X and compare it to the history of FCP, it's ridiculous to make an operational comparison between the two to draw any meaningful conclusions.

[Bill Davis] "Your tendency is to always to compare what X is now - to the Legacy you find it necessary to hold onto. "

Operationaly yes, although I tend to compare X to PPro 6 and Avid 6.5 - I prefer comparing the dead to the dead and the living to the living. When speculating about the future, then reflections on history are quite useful, although often misleading.

[Bill Davis] "I know this speaks to your on-going anger at Apple. But honestly, many of us didn't want to keep pining for the gal who left us - and have moved on. I know some can't. And some just won't. "

Talking as someone who has evangelized for anything apple since moment one, I don't know where your "many of us" comes from. At what point were you an "us." ?

[Bill Davis] "The editing world knows that Apple reset the clock. "

Reset the clock, jumped the shark, lost it's mind -- a lot of choices there.

[Bill Davis] "I'm glad to live in the present and look forward to the future. And am delighted to have moved on from the past."

That covers it - you've got them all - the ghosts of Xmas past, present AND future. Now where or where is Tiny Tim?

The argument that X is still young and developing works so long as you acknowledge that the reasonable response is that OK, when it grows up, give me a call. If it's still so young in it's development cycle then why would I use it now? The better argument is the one you often make, that it works great right now for lots of editors. I buy that, you cut a nice piece with it, fine. But all this jabber about how FCP's development is a blueprint for how X will develop is just wishful thinking - it could work that way, and on the other hand Apple can just decide to jump the shark again, or reset the clock, and the future will take a turn you never expected.

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


Return to posts index

Bill Davis
Re: FCPX is so completely weird, - answering Herb about the Multicam project in the other thread.
on Oct 21, 2012 at 8:14:04 pm

[Herb Sevush] "So does that mean X is so flawed and underwhelming that you have to compare it operationally to 10 year old software."

Uh NO. I'm not comparing the software. I'm comparing the software development cycles. These things are not the same. ; )

[Herb Sevush] "At what point were you an "us." "

At no point. But the class of "we're using X and are happy" is totally an "us". And a happy and productive "us" at that!

[Herb Sevush] "Reset the clock, jumped the shark, lost it's mind -- a lot of choices there."

But the "reset the clock" is factual. We know they re-coded from square one. The others are opinions. And facts and opinions are very different things.

[Herb Sevush] "the reasonable response is that OK, when it grows up, give me a call. If it's still so young in it's development cycle then why would I use it now? "

Ah - an excellent question. And my answer is that when I started learning it, I found two things to be striking. First, even after 20 years in an editing chair - it kept surprising me. It really WAS a whole different take on editing.

And even more important - it took me months and months of study and practice to unlearn so much muscle memory and re-learn the new paradigm such that I could edit as (or more!) efficiently than I could before.

So here's my answer to anyone asking "Why should I learn it before it grows up?"

Because it takes quite a bit of time and effort to gain mastery to the point where you fully benefit from all the new editing approach.

If you wait to begin to understand it - and it's singular capabilities do ever gain traction - you'll be starting from WAY back in the pack on a race that I see as much more a marathon than a sprint.

In short - I believe there's a big penalty for starting very late in races that take place over long periods.

For the racer to finish well, it takes VASTLY more effort to come from behind - then to simply start e early so you can learn at a comfortable pace.

Honestly, Herb, if X had been as "simplified" as so many thought at first, the "wait and see" process would be just fine. But it's not. X's depth requires a LOT of study to unlock. Particularly for the very experienced editor who has a brain full of preconceptions about how "all editing software" must operate.

Know someone who teaches video editing in elementary school, high school or college? Tell them to check out http://www.StartEditingNow.com - video editing curriculum complete with licensed practice content.


Return to posts index

Herb Sevush
Re: FCPX is so completely weird, - answering Herb about the Multicam project in the other thread.
on Oct 21, 2012 at 10:55:33 pm

[Bill Davis] "If you wait to begin to understand it - and it's singular capabilities do ever gain traction "

And if you put the time in and it doesn't gain traction, well then you've wasted a lot of valuable time. I've cut with a lot of different systems, I'm not senile yet, I figure I'll manage OK if I need to learn it. Bio Chemistry is hard; NLEs - not so much.

[Bill Davis] "In short - I believe there's a big penalty for starting very late in races that take place over long periods."

Actually Bill it's in sprints that a fast start is essential, in marathons it doesn't mean very much.

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


Return to posts index

Bill Davis
Re: FCPX is so completely weird, - answering Herb about the Multicam project in the other thread.
on Oct 22, 2012 at 1:14:44 am

[Herb Sevush] "And if you put the time in and it doesn't gain traction, well then you've wasted a lot of valuable time."

Totally false. You'd only be e "wasting" your time if you couldn't deliver paid work with it.

I (and many others) are delivering paid work with it right now.

Using a tool to make your living is most folks' direct opposite of "wasting time."

[Herb Sevush] "Actually Bill it's in sprints that a fast start is essential, in marathons it doesn't mean very much."

You may be comfortable running a marathon where you can wait a YEAR before you leave the starting blocks.

I'm kinda not.

Know someone who teaches video editing in elementary school, high school or college? Tell them to check out http://www.StartEditingNow.com - video editing curriculum complete with licensed practice content.


Return to posts index

Bob Woodhead
Re: FCPX is so completely weird, it makes Motion look sane. And no one will hire you by the hour for either of them.
on Oct 20, 2012 at 3:50:32 am

From what I've heard, admitting your problem is the first step of the 12 Steps. Only thing is, I'm not looking to kick the habit (yet).

So yes, this is my first public admission of using FCPX for paying work. In fact, it's been pretty much paying the mortgage, kids' college, car loan, and beer addiction since 10.0.5 came out. I do try to close the laptop lid when I'm editing afield, and someone walks past (I tell them I'm on carpal tunnel break), or just get my fix in the privacy of my suite. But I can only hide my guilt for so long, so I'm coming out of the tape closet.

Here's my decision tree:

- Legacy is dead. Nail. Coffin. Pushing up daisies. Ex-parrot.

- Smoke '13. Gave it some test runs, and while I'm sure the tools are superb for "finishing", I can't see being happy in it's interface for the range of projects I do.

- PPro. Man, did I have HUGE hopes for NAB this year. I wanted Adobe to come of the gate, and knock 'em flat. Instead, while a very good showing, I had to stifle a bit of a yawn. Honestly, my #1 gripe are the lack of transitions (and yes, I've dithered some with Red integration, but find it still too cumbersome and I have not-so-fond memories of Boris flakiness in the past). Dynamic linking is pretty good, and I've been on AFX since the days of CoSA. But publishing custom effects through Motion can really streamline repeating themes, without the need to open an AFX project, find what you need, copy/paste/yadda/yadda to use it in this here other PPro timeline. If I'm doing a big gfx job, I just fire up AFX anyway & render out. PPro still track based audio. ugh. Not that FCPX is any better at audio at this point. And I'm sorry, but rendering EVERY TIME for output just don't fly.

- Avid. Well, I was on Avid for about 5 years after my Quantel days. Faster n' a greased snake through a waterfall for basic editing. Hated compositing in it. I have to admit to an irrational dislike for Avid. I fully respect it, and while I'm sure it's in the top 2 or 3, I just don't want to use it. And I can decide what I want to use. Yea.

- FCPX. Weird. Like driving a left-handed car on a right-hand road, backwards, and you steer with the gearshift and shift with a wheel. But once I came to grips with the connect-the-dotty-magnets edit style, I found I could push pixels pretty quickly. Sure, I'd MUCH RATHER be on FCP 8.0, but that ain't gonna happen. Apple's got more cash than God, the plugin folks seem to be pretty interested in dev for it, and you have to admit, love it or hate it, the database part of it really kicks ass & takes no prisoners.


So since Avid & Smoke are non-starters for different reasons, and PPro still ain't there yet, I might as well get pretty damn good on X until someone delivers something I'd rather work on. Now, EVERYONE HAS DIFFERENT NEEDS & CONSTRAINTS. So what's good for me may make Aindreas convulse until he's taken away for a calming electroshock session. If I was working in LA cutting episodic, I'm damn sure I'd be whistling while working on Avid. If I was doing agency work, and wanted to baffle the clients while they nosh on kibble, I'd be flying through Smoke screens, until their eyes glazed over with diamond displays (while making sure their markup was preserved). If I didn't have to worry about tossing shiny baubles onscreen every few transitions, and had time to re-render for version xx output, well, I'd be dynamically pushing links from PPro to AFX, and thinking cloud-like thoughts.

So call me.... Still Waiting for the Better NLE.

"Constituo, ergo sum"

Bob Woodhead / Atlanta
CMX-Quantel-Avid-FCP-Premiere-3D-AFX-Crayola
"What a long strange trip it's been...."


Return to posts index

Bret Williams
Re: FCPX is so completely weird, it makes Motion look sane. And no one will hire you by the hour for either of them.
on Oct 20, 2012 at 5:52:19 am

Welcome Bob. I'm in ATL too and X is making grounds for sure. I'm not sure why you'd be embarrassed to use it in the field. I'm happily editing stuff for the big corporates here. I know of one that is probably going to be installing X soon in their suites alongside 7. Be using it with their omneon(harmonic) mediagrid.

Before reading your post I just wrote an even lengthier one. I forgot I played with Smoke 13 too. But yeah, they've got a long way to go if they want the editorial or corporate market. And for what price? I still don't think they get it. You filled in a lot of holes and reasons I forgot to mention. Nice post.


Return to posts index

Bret Williams
Re: FCPX is so completely weird, it makes Motion look sane. And no one will hire you by the hour for either of them.
on Oct 20, 2012 at 5:39:03 am

As for FCP X vs. Legacy, yeah, legacy has more depth as far as integration with workflows and other tools, but it just doesn't seem like a professional tool in todays world so what's the point? I mean, it felt archaic 2-3 years ago. I'm using FCP X whenever my clients will allow it. I do a lot of corporate outsource work, so if they don't need the project files (recurring shows and such) I do it in X. I guess CS6 is pretty capable, but lags behind 7 in some ways, ahead in the "use any format", but then is a hassle when it comes to rendering output and finishing stage because it doens't have it's own codec. ProRes is still the codec in X. So in playing with both (Avid is out, been there, done that, bored) I'm using X when I can.

I feel X is more of a professional tool for a few reasons:

X has big boy scopes. Lots of them. But just one at a time :(
X can handle just about any format I use natively
X can actually use a still bigger than 4000pixels
X has a real title tool where you actually type right there on the screen & monitor
X has grown up color correction with primary/secondary and masks inner/outer. No mask tracking :(
X deinterlaces properly and at the raw media level - not a filter
X has pretty awesome audio filters that actually work
X has awesome sub frame audio trimming (down to the 100th of a frame I think)
X has compound clips that do what they should and work the way you expect
X actually ADDS interlacing and pulldown when appropriate and can mix rates seamlessly. Like a 24p in a 29.97i (interlaced pulldown) timeline. Or 60p in a 29.97i timeline
X actually has an Avid-like project management. In many ways better. Just no user mgmt. :(
X has the best logging and media browsing tools
X has the best multicam implementation with audio angle sync
X is 64bit, blah blah
X has grown up database features like the timeline index where I can in a few keystrokes, change the duration of every dissolve to the same length, or find and replace title text where I can search all the titles and replace a misspelled word across hundreds of titles if need be
X's timeline. I'm not so keen on the horizontal magnetic stuff, but I LOVE the vertical magnetics. Stuff moving out of the way is such a ridiculously cool invention for the way I work. Not having to be so precise in the viewer with ins/outs and mapping tracks for 3 point editing takes the editing out of the bin and into the timeline. it's fun to just scrub roughly in the event, and them just toss it in the timeline with Q key. You're not going to overwrite anything. Toss it in there and edit in the timeline.

For such a simple looking app, it's ridiculously deep. It may still be in it's infancy, and it may never grow up fully, I don't know. But the more I use it, the more I realize they truly did go back to the drawing board to try to figure some things out.

Just recently I was doing a common effect, where I take the speaker, slide him over to one side to reveal behind him a background with tons of graphics, layers, bullet points, etc. In 7, most likely he'd be on the bottom layer, so to achieve this, I'd have to cut a chunk of him, put it on the top layer, and build my stack of layers underneath him. Kinda messy and prone to error during reedits, color grading, etc. But in X, I was about to do the same thing, when I realized, just slide him aside, and put the stack of tracks underneath the primary. Other times I have stacks of layers of graphics that come out above/in front of him.

Once again, I was kinda surprised at how if I quit thinking like the old ways, I found this new "completely weird" editing software actually makes much more sense than the old methods.

CS6 and Avid are great and powerful and all, and are just continuing down the same path of adding more bloat here, a little more bloat there. It's actually fun and refreshing to start anew.

Whether Apple takes it seriously and whether it works out, I really can't say. But who cares. It's not the end of the world. Premiere may quit support Apple again tomorrow, and Avid might be out of business. Who knows. If Adobe Premiere isn't the hands down defacto standard editing software after all the years they've been at it, and with integration of tools that ARE the defacto standard like PS, AE, AI, then I'm not sure what they're doing over there. Here Apple makes computers, phones, pads, software and they just spend probably a small resource to make X and after all the hatred, it is still a competitor and growing it's user base and has a few fresh new ways of thinking. In reality, that's a bit more impressive than Adobe putting all it's resources toward software tools every day, all year, and they still aren't really doing anything new or earth shattering or flat out owning the market. I mean, oh yay, after adding 2.5D 10 years ago in AE, they FINALLY added extrusions! Woo hoo! I was kinda thinking they would've added them about 9 years ago ya know?

But anyway....


Return to posts index

Dennis Radeke
Re: FCPX is so completely weird, it makes Motion look sane. And no one will hire you by the hour for either of them.
on Oct 20, 2012 at 12:59:22 pm

[Bret Williams] "Premiere may quit support Apple again tomorrow, "

Definitely not. Ain't gonna happen. Count on Mac support.


As for the FCP X more pro list, I like it. Of course, what one person's 'pro' is not anothers but it is a good list. I will point out that most of these FCP X vs. Legacy features are catch up to the rest of the industry. Then again some are new ideas on old themes (like multi-cam), so it's all good.


Return to posts index

Bret Williams
Re: FCPX is so completely weird, it makes Motion look sane. And no one will hire you by the hour for either of them.
on Oct 22, 2012 at 7:41:13 am

Still, better scopes, better sub frame audio, compound clips, timeline index, auditions, magnetics (especially the vertical stuff), logging/key wording, scrubbing. The titler is pretty amazing. Editable transitions through motion. And the built in transitions are plentiful and such high quality with ease ins/outs and motion blur.

I don't think they're just playing catch up. They've made some pretty good leaps forward too. But still, all the cool stuff happens in after effects anyway.


Return to posts index

Herb Sevush
Re: FCPX is so completely weird, it makes Motion look sane. And no one will hire you by the hour for either of them.
on Oct 20, 2012 at 6:01:11 pm

[Bret Williams] "X has the best multicam implementation with audio angle sync"

Can you explain what you mean here, I'm not understanding this?

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


Return to posts index

Bret Williams
Re: FCPX is so completely weird, it makes Motion look sane. And no one will hire you by the hour for either of them.
on Oct 22, 2012 at 7:31:04 am

Basically it has plural eyes built in. Highlight your discreet audio file, your camera angles with cam mic audio, and choose make multicam clip, then use audio to sync, and you instantly have a multicam clip with perfectly synced audio. I use it quite frequently for 3 7D shoots with zoom audio.

Why Premiere doesn't do this, I don't know. They demoed something similar over a year ago, but they had to dive into the terminal to make it happen. I guess it never made it into CS6.


Return to posts index

Herb Sevush
Re: FCPX is so completely weird, it makes Motion look sane. And no one will hire you by the hour for either of them.
on Oct 22, 2012 at 2:01:35 pm

[Bret Williams] "Basically it has plural eyes built in."

Built in Plural Eyes is very nice. As a matter of curiosity can the X-Multicam sync to Aux timecode like Legacy?

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


Return to posts index

Gary Huff
Re: FCPX is so completely weird, it makes Motion look sane. And no one will hire you by the hour for either of them.
on Oct 21, 2012 at 2:21:18 pm

[Bret Williams] "Premiere may quit support Apple again tomorrow, and Avid might be out of business. Who knows"

I think a far more likely scenario is that, if anything, Apple drops OSX and moves over solely to iOS.


Return to posts index

alban egger
Re: FCPX is so completely weird, it makes Motion look sane. And no one will hire you by the hour for either of them.
on Oct 21, 2012 at 2:58:11 pm

[Gary Huff] "I think a far more likely scenario is that, if anything, Apple drops OSX and moves over solely to iOS."

They are already half way there.....but if it is a bad thing is the other question, because we don´t know what a desktop-iOS is capable of. And in 1970 nobody could imagine doing anything with a little grey plastic-thingy with two buttons called mouse, let alone a trackpad....so maybe touchscreen editing will be superior to our conventional current ways.
I couldn´t even imagine a phone without buttons in 2005, even 2007 when I saw the first iPhone...and now I couldn´t leave home without one.



Return to posts index

Bret Williams
Re: FCPX is so completely weird, it makes Motion look sane. And no one will hire you by the hour for either of them.
on Oct 22, 2012 at 7:23:52 am

I think the next step will be to reverse the launchpad and the finder. The launchpad will basically be your desktop, and the finder will be something the "power" user delves into.


Return to posts index

Steve Connor
Re: FCPX is so completely weird, it makes Motion look sane. And no one will hire you by the hour for either of them.
on Oct 20, 2012 at 8:00:41 am

[Aindreas Gallagher] "they can sell it on some level sure - but they service no professional software market of any description."

Of course it does, plenty of Professionals are using it, I'm not sure why you keep rolling this argument out, it's simply not true.

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


Return to posts index

Oliver Peters
Re: FCPX is so completely weird, it makes Motion look sane. And no one will hire you by the hour for either of them.
on Oct 20, 2012 at 2:11:30 pm

[Steve Connor] "I'm not sure why you keep rolling this argument out, it's simply not true."

Because the forum traffic was low this week and Aindreas wanted to liven things up by doing a little bomb-tossing for our weekend enjoyment ;-)

- Oliver

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


Return to posts index

Aindreas Gallagher
Re: FCPX is so completely weird, it makes Motion look sane. And no one will hire you by the hour for either of them.
on Oct 20, 2012 at 3:51:45 pm

you win the hamper.

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


Return to posts index

Jim Giberti
Re: FCPX is so completely weird, it makes Motion look sane. And no one will hire you by the hour for either of them.
on Oct 20, 2012 at 11:12:54 pm

I'm finding it more fun every project I start in X...painfully aware of things like no trackable masks that Bret mentioned, and about a hundred other obvious things that need to grow up now.

Because it is a very slick interface, once you adapt, because it does so much, so well, once you adapt; I have great hopes for what it will do when they really get at the detail stuff.
Which hopefully they've been doing for 6 months now.
Waiting for the upgrade.


Return to posts index

Shane Ross
Re: FCPX is so completely weird, it makes Motion look sane. And no one will hire you by the hour for either of them.
on Oct 21, 2012 at 12:27:41 am

I'm no fan of FCX, but I fail to see the point of ragging on it all the time. You don't like it...fine, don't use it. Many professionals are using it, in professional ways. So that statement makes no sense.

Yeah, Apple has a huge trust issue with me. Because of their history of taking great things and killing them (Shake, FCP Server, FCP). But here I am cutting on Avid Media Composer and I swore I wouldn't be back after all the crap they pulled...for years!

Never say never.

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


Return to posts index

Aindreas Gallagher
Re: FCPX is so completely weird, it makes Motion look sane. And no one will hire you by the hour for either of them.
on Oct 21, 2012 at 3:51:52 pm

i have no excuse, its habit at this point.

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


Return to posts index

craig slattery
Re: FCPX is so completely weird, it makes Motion look sane. And no one will hire you by the hour for either of them.
on Oct 20, 2012 at 11:01:48 pm

[Aindreas Gallagher] "FCPX is so completely weird, it makes Motion look sane. And no one will hire you by the hour for either of them."

I just want to be clear, are you saying you don't like it?


Return to posts index

Jim Giberti
Re: FCPX is so completely weird, it makes Motion look sane. And no one will hire you by the hour for either of them.
on Oct 20, 2012 at 11:18:36 pm

[craig slattery] "I just want to be clear, are you saying you don't like it?
"


I know what you mean about Mr. Amorphous.
I've grown tired of trying to read his tea leaves.


Return to posts index

Baz Leffler
Re: FCPX is so completely weird, it makes Motion look sane. And no one will hire you by the hour for either of them.
on Oct 21, 2012 at 1:21:08 am

Well this is my opinion...

Apple should have -

1. Release FCPX as iMovie Pro

2. Continued development of Final Cut Pro

3. Eventually have iMovie Pro replace Final Cut Pro (6 years...?)

The effect would have been -

1. This would not have alienated a captured professional market

2. Prevented large amounts of cash going off to the competitors

3. Allow the next generation of editors to respect Apple as a Pro App supporter

4. Maintain a continued market for the Mac line of computers

You can add many others but I am trying to be brief here.

What I fail to understand is that if Apple have sooooo much money why did they choose the path they did? Is it because they thought they we so great they could do anything they wanted and the people would follow?

Remember, the Roman Empire was once great and they fell; I suspect for similar reasons why Apple will one day (soon) be filing for a divorce with the rest of the world. Pride will be their demise.

Baz (FCP 7, Avid MC 6, Adobe Premiere, FCPX) (in that order)


Return to posts index

Jim Giberti
Re: FCPX is so completely weird, it makes Motion look sane. And no one will hire you by the hour for either of them.
on Oct 21, 2012 at 1:30:49 am

[Baz Leffler] " I suspect for similar reasons why Apple will one day (soon) be filing for a divorce with the rest of the world. "

I see Wes Anderson directing that story. Jason Schwartzman arguing before the judge.


Return to posts index

Herb Sevush
Re: FCPX is so completely weird, it makes Motion look sane. And no one will hire you by the hour for either of them.
on Oct 21, 2012 at 3:11:28 am

[Baz Leffler] "Remember, the Roman Empire was once great and they fell"

That took about 600 years in the west and about 1500 years in the east, so given that range I figure Apple will sign up for that analogy.

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


Return to posts index

Bill Davis
Re: FCPX is so completely weird, it makes Motion look sane. And no one will hire you by the hour for either of them.
on Oct 21, 2012 at 4:31:35 am

[Baz Leffler] "Remember, the Roman Empire was once great and they fell; I suspect for similar reasons why Apple will one day (soon) be filing for a divorce with the rest of the world. Pride will be their demise."

Wow, you kinda saw my analogizing and raised me some serious anthropomorphizing.

Now Apple is both an empire and a single hive mind capable of a human emotion like pride.

Is this that Citizens United thing again? Is Apple actually a "people" after all?

Know someone who teaches video editing in elementary school, high school or college? Tell them to check out http://www.StartEditingNow.com - video editing curriculum complete with licensed practice content.


Return to posts index

alban egger
Re: FCPX is so completely weird, it makes Motion look sane. And no one will hire you by the hour for either of them.
on Oct 21, 2012 at 8:21:58 am

[Baz Leffler] "1. Release FCPX as iMovie Pro

2. Continued development of Final Cut Pro"


1. They could alsio have called it Edius/Liquid/Filemaker pro

2. They did. And when they saw the media-world is going somewhere else, they adapted.

The one HUGE mistake they made was EOL-ing FCP. Had they kept FCP7 officially alive and given users time to switch, it would have been different. They opted to go the tough way for everyone. I have no idea what their reasoning was (licensing of FCP? manpower?), but I guess they are typically american: once a project is failing, drop it and put 100% into the new. That is how they handle products, be it hardware, software or even tv-series. If you don´t reach your sales you are dropped.

So is FCPX in danger? Of course, once they would see it doesn´t´sell they might drop it.But I doubt it will ever sell low, given its features to an extremely good price.



Return to posts index

alban egger
Re: FCPX is so completely weird, it makes Motion look sane. And no one will hire you by the hour for either of them.
on Oct 21, 2012 at 6:12:06 am

Haha Aindreas you are the Rhino charging through the house.
I have said this before and say it again: I have the feeling some of you who are charging by the hour maybe don't like FCPX, because you would use less hours?! You seem like the coaldiggers on electrictrains.

Secondly....I simply don't see the point in your post. There have been tons of discussions all ending up the same way.

We use FCPX and yes we are a small team, but we have gotten our few freelancers to use FCPX and we even have directors who now bought FCPX so they can review rushes, roughcuts etc, and they all LOVE it once they get a decent training with me. Who we are? Very small but we use FCPX and Motion (and AFX and ProTools and Resolve) for clients like Red Bull, Swarovski, Garmin etc. So stop calling us amateurs and yourself soooo professional. You start pissing me off with your biased trolling.

I also wonder if you all get paid by the hour how come so many here have time to be active in dozens of threads with dozens of lengthy FCPX-bash-posts......are your machines rendering so much to give you time for trolling? I have too much work to do in FCPX....and since it never renders.....or never stops me while rendering....

Haven't you been the guy who said there was no FCPX at the Olympics? Well by now I know of several networks using it there. Belgian national TV comes to my mind and a few agencies who made nice promotional stuff. So what is your agenda being the Rhino? Paid for it?

Can't you just understand that FCPX is a tool that works for many? If I am a cab-driver who has a BMW I don't go to the Mercedes forums and tell them their cars are unusable. But why do some here do this? I just don't get it.



Return to posts index

Aindreas Gallagher
Re: FCPX is so completely weird, it makes Motion look sane. And no one will hire you by the hour for either of them.
on Oct 21, 2012 at 4:02:11 pm

[alban egger] "So stop calling us amateurs and yourself soooo professional. You start pissing me off with your biased trolling."

yes, thats what I said alright, and i was talking to you the whole time Alban. You're on to me.

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


Return to posts index

Mitch Ives
Re: FCPX is so completely weird, it makes Motion look sane. And no one will hire you by the hour for either of them.
on Oct 23, 2012 at 11:29:13 am

Your point aside, having worked with both Motion 5 and FCP X for the last two weeks solid, I have to say that Motion 5 feels a lot more solid to me. Motion 5 seems less flaky... clicking on something always works, no work-a-rounds needed. Overall it seems more responsive (and quicker).

This is not to say that I don't like FCP X, just that Motion 5's longer development time seems to be showing. It seems more polished overall. I'm looking forward to FCP X getting to that point...

Mitch Ives
Insight Productions Corp.

"Criticism may not be agreeable, but it is necessary. It fulfills the same function as pain in the human body. It calls attention to an unhealthy state of things." - Winston Churchill


Return to posts index

joachim hoge
Re: FCPX is so completely weird, it makes Motion look sane. And no one will hire you by the hour for either of them.
on Oct 24, 2012 at 7:00:17 am

At least we have have R3D native editing from today. It looks like FCX has a much better meta data implementation than Premiere. After 18 months in Premiere I can go back to Final Cut. Loki g foreward to learn more about X


Return to posts index

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