FORUMS: list search recent posts

Quiet in here...

COW Forums : Apple Final Cut Pro X Debates

<< PREVIOUS   •   VIEW ALL   •   PRINT   •   NEXT >>
Charlie Austin
Quiet in here...
on Jan 21, 2013 at 6:19:01 am

...Too quiet. < Bernard Herrmann string section goes here >

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


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


Return to posts index

Bernard Newnham
Re: Quiet in here...
on Jan 21, 2013 at 10:13:18 am

They've all gone to build PCs.

Bernie


Return to posts index

Lance Bachelder
Re: Quiet in here...
on Jan 22, 2013 at 4:12:06 am

I left and built an uber PC just for CS6 and Vegas. I'm talking multiple SSD's, nVidia GTX graphics etc...

After using Premiere on some paying gigs I can honestly say it's the worst piece of crap I've ever seen - even simple things require so many extra clicks, windows, dialog boxes - just a horrible NLE.

After watching John's new FCPX videos I moved my latest show from Premiere to FCPX and NEVER looking back. It really is great software at this point and can only get better with each update.

I predict FCPX will soon be back on top in the "pro" editing world as more folks see just how deep, yet easy and fun it is to use.

Happy to be "back" and looking forward to my new BTO 27" iMac and Pegasus drive :)

PS - Yes I'm still running my PC but only for Sony Vegas 12, Blu-ray authoring and Cinnafilm Dark Energy.

Lance Bachelder
Writer, Editor, Director
Irvine, California



Return to posts index


Aindreas Gallagher
Re: Quiet in here...
on Jan 22, 2013 at 11:16:31 pm

[Lance Bachelder] "even simple things require so many extra clicks, windows, dialog boxes - just a horrible NLE.
"


just out of curiosity - I remember you were taking the mickey out of Phillip Bloom for even considering PPro 6 three months or more ago - you said he was "just" a camera guy I believe, although Stu Maschwitz is extremely positive on PPro too - and I remember him most for coding Magic Bullet, and setting up the orphanage - but when in your absence did you take a positive stance on PPro - to the extent that you were happy executing paying work on it?

Also I kind of don't get the "windows" issue - Larry jordan recently has spoken quite a bit about how much he really does like Adobe's take on the single brick editing interface in PPro, where say the tilde key hover can explode any onscreen tab to fullscreen? also - what are the instances of these dialogue boxes you are talking about?

for myself I'm really unhappy with the archaic project format options PPro presents for new editing projects.

Seeing three flavours of DV, two flavours of DVCPRO HD and the ever glorious HDV is just confusing and depressing. every single time.

It would literally put you off the thing - its a bad time machine of editing formats in presentation terms. you nearly wouldn't notice...

native AVCHD. native AVC INTRA, native ARRI, native Canon XF, native RED 3D - how did you get on with these formats by the way? How is it with AVC on the win side?

still though - if adobe really have actually crafted a true version of an open timeline, and you would think they need to given they have no native intermediate codec, surely we should be almost seeing a simple classy request for frame rate and dimension, almost like Avid, but instead of DNX, they are saying, our open timeline coding backs it up.

Or - they could include an intermediate codec option for the timeline - If they could actually be bothered to craft or buy one. hello cineform.

Still - I'm easily confused - I don't get why they are asking me if I want a HDV sequence?
Why aren't they just saying "here - have the timeline to end all timelines, it eats everything, just declare frame rate and dimension, we're so sure of it, we never bothered to code anything like PRORES."

Because who in God's name wants a HDV sequence? Given Adobe have apparently constructed a timeline that needs no codecs?
just insane video cards and a landfill of RAM - which is fine, but if I turn up with that, don't ask me if I want a HDV preset.

That would make anyone cry.

Am I being stupid about this?

Anyway - thought I should slag it a little too. I really like the timeline though. And the custom GUIs in effects. And the fact that they mean it, and are trying like hell to deliver for professionals.

cheers,

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


Return to posts index

Steve Connor
Re: Quiet in here...
on Jan 23, 2013 at 12:08:47 am

[Aindreas Gallagher] "Because who in God's name wants a HDV sequence? Given Adobe have apparently constructed a timeline that needs no codecs?
just insane video cards and a landfill of RAM - which is fine, but if I turn up with that, don't ask me if I want a HDV preset.

That would make anyone cry.

Am I being stupid about this?"


Not at all, I've tried to like PPro and there is MUCH to like about it, but like you I don't understand why you still get a list of these codecs every time you start a project. It feels brand new and a very old all at the same time. (Unlike Avid which just feels old, but in a good way if you're an Avid Editor!)

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


Return to posts index

Dennis Tzeng
Re: Quiet in here...
on Jan 23, 2013 at 12:12:41 am

The presets when setting up a sequence in Premiere Pro are there to optimize playback. Whenever mixing footage with different codecs/resolutions/framerates I choose the preset of the footage that I have the most of. You can also customize your sequence settings after selecting the preset if it's not exactly what you want. A single true open timeline with just selecting resolution and framerate would be great but this method doesn't bother me. I've mixed DSLR, XDCAM HD, XDCAM EX, AVCHD, DVCPRO HD, and RED with different framerates and resolutions on the same timeline and haven't had any problems.

Dennis



Return to posts index


Aindreas Gallagher
Re: Quiet in here...
on Jan 23, 2013 at 12:23:58 am

I'm playing a little dumb, but it really does look awful.
If software had PR handlers - they would be screaming.

It completely confuses the issue of what Premiere actually is - a hackneyed editor of decade old codecs, or a blade sharp contemporary editor with realtime Avid style JKL trimming that is as fun as you imagine it might be?
either way - any sane person would freak out when presented with the premiere options - it looks awful.

DV? seriously? three versions of it? **Tape DV**??
As PPRO 6 primary sequence options in 2013?

that is just freaky, weird and embarrassing.

And why don't they have an intermediate codec anyway?

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


Return to posts index

Lance Bachelder
Re: Quiet in here...
on Jan 23, 2013 at 6:38:25 am

I'm kinda spoiled from over a decade of using Sony Vegas and usually sound design and mix as I cut picture - this was extremely painful in CS6 - in Windows version I found it took too long just to stop the playhead using the spacebar or JKL. The timeline also felt very clunky and small, like I would be zooming in and out constantly just to make cuts etc. Much more than even FCP7. Also the myriad of dialog boxes - for instance, we had 4 tracjs on audio with each video clip and the sound guy really screwed up on the set when sending the boom and lag to the camera - meaning no consistency as far as what track the mics were on from clip to clip - in Premiere you have to right click and select audio channels and you can disable the unused ones, in this same window there is a preview button but it was always greyed out so you have to turn of channels then go back and listen then if that didn't work go back into the dialog box again. Optionally you can just unlink and kill the tracks you don't want etc. But I found it unusable to try to mix, normalize or get clean dialog on the timeline - I guess you can send the cut to Audition and do the work there but an extra step when you just want to get through the cut with clean audio.

Conversely, in FCPX you have this beautiful audio tab that has all 4 channels right there to scrub, demo and just simply uncheck the bad tracks - you can also quickly fix volume. EQ and noise in the same window with just a couple of clicks - even before you start editing! Brilliant and even better than Vegas.

I was forced to use Premiere on the last gig and swear I will never use it again for anything and will pass on future jobs that require its use. There are some cool things about CS6 - the bins, scrubbable thumbnails at huge sizes and Media Browser all help when checking out footage - but they pale incomparison to FCPX and Keyword Collections etc.

Lance Bachelder
Writer, Editor, Director
Irvine, California



Return to posts index

Lance Bachelder
Re: Quiet in here...
on Jan 23, 2013 at 6:46:21 am

To clarify - it was really the John Davidson videos that changed my mind about FCPX - it was a revelation! I now have the previous doc I was cutting in Premiere living in FCPX and set-up 100% in Davidson fashion and it rocks. The use of Compound Clips as Comps is just insane and why has no one else thought of this? Everything about his videos is truly revolutionary and once you put it into practice it kinda makes EVERY other NLE seem stupid. The light goes on and you realize why Apple did what they did and how it fully utilizes all the great features of OSX.

Thanks John Davidson! Apple owes you a couple of thousand shares of stock! I now believe FCPX will become the go to NLE here in Hollywood and elsewhere very soon.

Lance Bachelder
Writer, Editor, Director
Irvine, California



Return to posts index


Aindreas Gallagher
Re: Quiet in here...
on Jan 23, 2013 at 12:29:50 pm

[Lance Bachelder] "I now believe FCPX will become the go to NLE here in Hollywood and elsewhere very soon.
"


righto.

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


Return to posts index

Marcus Moore
Re: Quiet in here...
on Jan 23, 2013 at 6:17:47 pm

I don't believe it. The NLE space isn't Highlander. No one's going to come together around 1 platform, or even 2. Everyone isn't going to move to a Mac, and not everyone like some of the core concepts behind FCPX- and that's fine. It's great to have choice and competition in the space- otherwise no one is compelled to improve.



Return to posts index

Lance Bachelder
Re: Quiet in here...
on Jan 25, 2013 at 2:07:20 am

It isn't Highlander.. it's Star Wars, and even though it's been stuck in a murky swamp for a couple of years, a newer, sleeker, more powerful version is emerging.... dressed in black and ready to kick some A_______

Lance Bachelder
Writer, Editor, Director
Irvine, California



Return to posts index


Bret Williams
Re: Quiet in here...
on Jan 21, 2013 at 2:30:01 pm

Yeah, I do miss the multitudes of posts about using h264 footage, or jpegs over 4000 pixels giving out of memory errors, or problems mixing frame rates in the same timeline.


Return to posts index

Bill Davis
Re: Quiet in here...
on Jan 21, 2013 at 6:05:29 pm

I don't suppose the lull is because for most users, the "or not" part of the debate is kinda fading?

We all kinda now know the types of editing X does really well.

The next big discussions will arrive as X evolves. And I'm looking forward to those.

Even if some of them go like the minor debacle of loud voices demanding a feature like persistent selections. Getting it. Then deciding that it might NOT actually be a good thing in the overall scope of things.

I'm confident that we'll be pseudo-raging again here before long. It's kinda what passionate people in ad-hoc families do.

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

Joseph W. Bourke
Re: Quiet in here...
on Jan 21, 2013 at 6:06:20 pm

You know...this may be a signal that this forum has outlived its' usefulness. It's no longer a fight between the yea-sayers and the nay-sayers. People have either moved on to a new platform, or new software, or both, and people have either hunkered down with what they're currently finding still works for them, or are busy enough with the new tool that they don't have time to argue about it.

Ultimately, it's all about working with these tools, not standing around arguing about them. Let's hope that in this new year we all can stay busy with more work than we can handle, no matter what tools we choose.

Joe Bourke
Owner/Creative Director
Bourke Media
http://www.bourkemedia.com


Return to posts index


Gary Huff
Re: Quiet in here...
on Jan 21, 2013 at 6:56:58 pm

[Joseph W. Bourke] "Ultimately, it's all about working with these tools, not standing around arguing about them. Let's hope that in this new year we all can stay busy with more work than we can handle, no matter what tools we choose."

Well, no, because as Bill has stated many times before...those of us who didn't choose FCPX will soon be out of work because it's so much better at something or another.


Return to posts index

Bill Davis
Re: Quiet in here...
on Jan 21, 2013 at 8:01:01 pm

[Gary Huff] "Well, no, because as Bill has stated many times before...those of us who didn't choose FCPX will soon be out of work because it's so much better at something or another."

I'd kinda like to see just ONE citation of my every saying on this board that X would put an editor who didn't adopt it "out of work."

I have said the concepts in X could change some of the nature of editing because many of the X concepts I see as Apple's responses to larger changes in metadata, production, equipment evolution and delivery in the market place. But a good editor is valuable no matter what tools they use. And I staunchly have ACTUALLY expressed that appreciation here dozens of times.

So please, Gary, if you're going to attribute ideas to me - it would be polite if they were actually linked to MY ideas. Okay?

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

Shane Ross
Re: Quiet in here...
on Jan 21, 2013 at 8:04:19 pm

I like keeping this place as a "this vs that" when it comes to NLEs. Why would you chose FCX over Adobe or Avid for certain workflows. Or how has FCX improved this time?

FCX will be debated in my neck of the woods for quite a while. Mainly, "Is it ready yet?"

"Nope, not yet...getting closer."

And then when someone does use it here for the type of stuff we do...I'm sure the debate will explode again.

But it's not quiet...I see lots of discussions happening here. And I'm facinated that Andreas, who's one of the loudest critics of FCX, constantly uses it, or tries to understand it. Hasn't turned a blind eye to it like I have.

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


Return to posts index


Bill Davis
Re: Quiet in here...
on Jan 21, 2013 at 10:00:15 pm

[Shane Ross] "Hasn't turned a blind eye to it like I have.
"


Dunno, Shane.

You *say* you've turned a blind eye to it. But you're clearly still using your other eye to scan this neck of the woods. That actually indicates quite a lot in the overall scheme of things, methinks.

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

Shane Ross
Re: Quiet in here...
on Jan 21, 2013 at 10:24:00 pm

I keep my eye on it. I was one of the first skeptics of FCP classic...even though I used it a lot for side work. DV projects and short films and corporate video. Even though I used it, I didn't think it'd measure up to Avid.

Until FCP 4.5 came out, and surpassed Avid in one key area...DVCPRO HD 720p. I then leapt on board, and championed it. Developed many broadcast workflows utilizing it, and convincing a major network to switch to FCP 7.

So I'm keeping my eye on FCX. Even though I don't use it, and have no clue about the lingo you all use half the time (Primary storylines vs Secondary, etc). It's stupid to ignore such things.

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


Return to posts index

Bret Williams
Re: Quiet in here...
on Jan 21, 2013 at 10:54:36 pm

I remember giving a little speech at the local Avid users group 12 years ago about when and why to use after effects vs. the Avid text tool and basic animation tools. I made a few distinctions: composite modes, resolution independence, animated text tracking (remember how big that was) and 1 or 2 others I don't remember. But I do remember going home and realizing every one of the points I made was fully functional in FCP 1.x!


Return to posts index

Craig Alan
Re: Quiet in here...
on Jan 22, 2013 at 2:48:14 am

In education, the debate is alive and kicking. There is a lot of money on the line: What NLE should we teach/invest in? Labs have many computers and funding is often tied to teaching "professional practices." Do you really want to be teaching a program that the "industry" does not embrace? Or is FCP X the future and new editors should get on board?

The problem with FCP X from an educational P.O.V. is that it is so fundamentally different than other NLEs. Adobe Premiere Pro, AVID, FCP 7, all have interfaces that are variations on the same playing field (the track based timeline). Not so X.

The 'browser' component of all these programs is different and it was what made FCP legacy more Mac-like than the other choices. AVID has its own very specific way of organizing media. I don't think the debate about FCP X is about its media organization -- most seem to agree that in many ways this, or some evolution of this, will be the future. With missing features coming out fast, I think the only real debate about FCP X legitimacy is the lack of traditional tracks. I think magnetism can be seen as a worthwhile feature that each NLE will most likely offer in some form, most likely not by default.

An ex student of mine recently enrolled in film school. The film school, which offers a BA, has rejected FCP X. They are teaching AVID. He is learning AVID. He has a Macbook Pro. He has a copy of FCP X on his Macbook Pro. Guess what program he used for an assignment that was due sooner than later (not for his editing teacher)? FCP X. He likes FCP X; he’s learning AVID; he is most comfortable in FCP 7. It is not particularly practical to teach 3 or 4 different editing programs at most schools. Thus the debate goes on. If FCP X became widely accepted in pro circles, it would be an easy pick. It has a faster learning curve for anyone who has never edited before. It can be tiered with Imovie. It is fast and very appropriate for 99.99% of school projects. It is fairly cheap to install. It’s default behavior to allow all media to be constructively and destructively available for all projects/users is misguided, but it is no longer hard to find workarounds from the gurus. But if the industry rejects FCP X, schools will most likely reject it too.

This forum is the best most comprehensive most informed place to follow the debate that might be old news for most of you. But it is still relevant and I think needed.
I have decided to give FCP X a try. I think AVID is a bit too hard for many students, though I recommend it to students who express an interest in the field and do have copies of it. That left premiere and FCP X, both not really established in Hollywood. But both are gaining traction in broader professional circles. Will AVID be the lone survival in Hollywood? I doubt it. Time will tell.

MacPro4,1 2.66GHz 8 core 12gigs of ram. GPU: Nvidia Geoforce GT120 with Vram 512. OS X 10.6.x; Camcorders: Panasonic AG-HPX170, Sony Z7U, Canon HV30/40, Sony vx2000/PD170; FCP 6 certified; write professionally for a variety of media; teach video production in L.A.


Return to posts index

Julian Bowman
Re: Quiet in here...
on Jan 22, 2013 at 6:50:56 am

I love this specific forum because it has become a catch all for a lot of useful information and debate and (with one exception) intelligent and informed opinion on editing and NLEs as a whole.

I find it funny when the ''change its name' threads periodically appear, usually from acolytes with thin skins it seems.

In the end I have pitched in with FCP X mainly because OS updates were starting to make 7 dodgy on my machine and because CS6 had just as many flaws (to me) as X but all my plugins and that side of my investment worked with X.

This debate about X being a new paradigm yada yada, just don't get it. They have chosen a slightly different way of doing stuff, renamed everything needlessly, added some cool new features but at the same time removed a load of really sensible stuff and seem to be coding it based on home users rather than long term editors (not saying it doesn't have professional elements, just doesn't seem designed at its core with professional real life use at its heart). So I'm here, for better or for worse (damn 8s father sending her to that convent!!!) and I really hope Apple spend the next year sorting out the stupidness that is inherent:

+/-3db
Don't stop playing in thumbnails when I jump forward in them
sequence tabs rather than the current limp version
Clicking anywhere on the timeline jumps to that point - have a specific area to be active and one not active for those of use mouse jockeys who click on screen to deselect stuff or just refocus ourselves
Clear all filters/effects
Favourite filters / effects folders we can compile
Redesign the truly horrible (IMO) key framing system. I hear complaints about 7s but this one is torrid (can give many examples, not going to here, but something I do a lot and used to enjoy has now become a frustrating exercise in head/wall banging)
Audio cross fade filter
Jump forward 1 second not 10 frames (truly truly abhor this change, actually effects me many times each edit)
Sequences (projects?) section as a list instead of this obsession with silly thumbnail film strip things so I can see 20 on the screen at once, not 4
Clips in timeline can have one image in the clip instead of multiple headache inducing images or none - great we have a choice (about 7 in fact) but why not the choice for one little image per clip - all or nothing? Really?

And so on, my list of irritations got so long I gave up.

Anyway, if it wasn't for this forum (despite the best efforts of one individual to be as pompous condascending passive aggressive and generally irritating and nausea inducing as possible in an attempt to drive everyone away) I would never have even considered FCP X and wouldn't have been as informed as I am.

So hopefully This forum will just remain and people will stop feeling insulted by its name. Great forum, and X didn't change the world, just pissed a lot of people off, me included and I'm married to the little minx now.

FCP X - 2 steps forwards, 2 steps back, does a little shimmy when I wanted it to do a little swoosh



Return to posts index

Aindreas Gallagher
Re: Quiet in here...
on Jan 22, 2013 at 8:37:21 pm

[Julian Bowman] "Redesign the truly horrible (IMO) key framing system. I hear complaints about 7s but this one is torrid (can give many examples, not going to here, but something I do a lot and used to enjoy has now become a frustrating exercise in head/wall banging)"

that I really agree with - they need to re-think the keyframing apparatus. I once even tried to mock up some kind of improvement:

http://forums.creativecow.net/readpost/335/43315

It's the problem with out of range keyframes that strikes me in this incarnation - because the whole keyframe apparatus is slapped onto the clip like a leaning tower of Pisa, trimming the clip can very easily hide, and make inaccessible, keyframes - unless you actually extend the clip again to reveal them and pull them back in. Thats not exactly ideal.

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


Return to posts index

Marcus Moore
Re: Quiet in here...
on Jan 22, 2013 at 1:11:35 am

Yeah. I think we're going to be into a slower period for a few months- development-wise.

Though we might see another FCPX update in a month or so, I'm inclined to think it's going to be another maintenance update, since they didn't pre-announce any new features with 10.0.7 [which they did for 10.0.3 and 10.0.6]. It could be a ramp up to a substantial update at NAB in April. I'd like to think so since I'm going to be there this year...



Return to posts index

Michael Gissing
Re: Quiet in here...
on Jan 22, 2013 at 2:13:51 am

I think Joseph is right. Many have moved on. I am finishing my PC build and installing CS6 & da Vinci Resolve when the software gets here tomorrow. The transition from FCS3 to CS6 will then happen until FCP Legend is no more. The majority of my clients are doing the Legend to CS6 move so I have waited for 18 months to see which way the market is headed. In my area & client base FCPX hasn't made any impression yet and even if it does, I don't see it being useful for grade & finish work anyway so I will just be getting AAF, XML & media. My AVID clients have remained with AVID and a few FCS people have gone to AVID so da Vinci & CS6 makes more sense than AVID to Legend. DnxHD will be my main codec from them so PC is fine. However the surprise is that a remarkable number are staying with Legend.

It made no sense to me to do anything with my late 2009 MacPro for CS6 or da Vinci so I have left it set with Snow Leopard and FCS3 and built a specific Win machine. Everything I have read about CS6 says the Win version works better and the choice and price of CUDA graphics cards make it a no brainer. I also have an editor who wants to hire the MacPro later in the year to edit a feature once most of my work has transitioned to CS6 & da Vinci for finishing & playout to HDCam (yes it is still the delivery requirement I must supply). So there is no incentive to upgrade Mac OS or change anything about the hardware.

So if it is quiet, I think that is because after nearly 20 months of FCPX we have a better idea where it is designed to sit in various workflows. Regardless of whether it gets a toe hold in my area of broadcast docos, I think I have seen enough of the development direction to realise it isn't suited to me for grade and finish work and whether I will ever need to have it in house, even as a means to output XMLs or AAFs we shall see.


Return to posts index

Charlie Austin
Re: Quiet in here...
on Jan 22, 2013 at 5:30:17 am

[Michael Gissing] "So if it is quiet, I think that is because after nearly 20 months of FCPX we have a better idea where it is designed to sit in various workflows. "

Hmm. I just thought it was because everyone had a long weekend. Weird. ;-)

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


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


Return to posts index

Marcus Moore
Re: Quiet in here...
on Jan 22, 2013 at 2:41:35 pm

Agreed. It's been quiet in here for a few days.

And just to counter Micheael- and I'm not saying you're wrong or anything- just two different sets of anecdotal evidence.

With my client base. One of them is fully on FCPX now, another is in the process of moving over, and a 3rd is considering the FCPX switch after reviewing the Magic Feather videos.

The rest of my client base here in TO is hanging onto FCP7 for the time being.



Return to posts index

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