FORUMS: list search recent posts

Excellent blog on FCP X workflow shortcomings

COW Forums : Apple Final Cut Pro X Debates

<< PREVIOUS   •   VIEW ALL   •   PRINT   •   NEXT >>
Andy Field
Excellent blog on FCP X workflow shortcomings
on Sep 2, 2013 at 6:47:52 pm

....and this is written by one of X's biggest fans. Come on Apple fix this stuff and end the "or not" debate. Spot on article Oliver!

http://digitalfilms.wordpress.com/2013/08/24/the-nle-that-wouldnt-die-ii/


Return to posts index

Brett Sherman
Re: Excellent blog on FCP X workflow shortcomings
on Sep 2, 2013 at 7:27:21 pm

I don't think you'll find any disagreement here that Apple needs to fix things. But, let the perfect NLE throw the first stone. :)



Return to posts index

Craig Seeman
Re: Excellent blog on FCP X workflow shortcomings
on Sep 2, 2013 at 8:09:23 pm

And if you want a big list of wants, try this one.
http://fcpx.tv/top.html



Return to posts index


Andy Field
Re: Excellent blog on FCP X workflow shortcomings
on Sep 2, 2013 at 9:32:43 pm

That is quite a list...seriously how are X users getting what they want accomplished with all that missing ?


Return to posts index

Craig Seeman
Re: Excellent blog on FCP X workflow shortcomings
on Sep 2, 2013 at 11:18:11 pm

That such lists exist as Taylor's and Peter's are a testament to the brevity of the what needs to be done for FCPX.

An equivalent tome for Premiere Pro would be the length of the Upanishads and for Avid it would be as ancient.

;-)



Return to posts index

Andy Field
Re: Excellent blog on FCP X workflow shortcomings
on Sep 3, 2013 at 5:28:34 am

Not be contrary, but there's more than 100 items on that list...have they fixed most of them?

Andy Field
FieldVision Productions
N. Bethesda, Maryland 20852


Return to posts index


Bill Davis
Re: Excellent blog on FCP X workflow shortcomings
on Sep 2, 2013 at 11:39:24 pm

[Andy Field] "That is quite a list...seriously how are X users getting what they want accomplished with all that missing ?"

Go back and read Oliver's piece again. This time, count the times he uses a form of "I prefer" when pointing out an FCP-X "lack."

I respect Olivers' opinions a lot - but you have to understand where he's coming from. From what I've read, he works with clients and with systems centered largely around collaborative workflows in large facilities.

And everyone already understands that the initial FCP-X design didn't put that rarified class of editors at the top of their priority list.

You'd also be missing out if you don't see how a growing list of editors who chose NOT to fight how X has changed things starting to see big gains in production efficiency using the X model provided that their workflows accommodate what it does so brilliantly.

Honestly, look at the top "subheads" that Oliver concentrated on. ..

DVD creation? Really. This is the top of the heap? I completely understand that many people REQUIRE DVD creation for clients or just for their comfort zone. But honestly, if you're still okay with carving out a couple of hours to burn your work onto plastic - good luck with that.

Batch Export? Not broadly defined batch export ala Automator, but a specific batch export of source clips as "dailies" - Again Olivers words... "this is a throwback to film workflows and is most often the case with RED and ALEXA production.

What this actually tells us again is that it's not as easy to duplicate old workflows in X that people used in Legacy. And I have absolutely no quibble with that contention. He's completely correct. It IS harder to re-create older workflows. Why? Because X does not "think" in terms of old workflows. It presents opportunities for NEW ones. The new ones are more tailored to new needs - and less tailored to older workflow needs. Which has been the FCP-X "brand" from day one.

Timecode and Reel IDS.
(Just cut and paste the above comment here.)

Log and Transfer.
Again, Oliver is refreshingly and totally up front. "I just don't like the way it does it." Not that it can't. Just that he prefers a different process. Which is cool. If X gets as score of 50 on a process, and another NLE gets a score of 80 - AND if that process is where you live or die, then you should consider using the other software. Oliver's basic criticism seems to be about "embedding name and ID changes into the media file, but rather into it's own database." Well, that's kinda defines the entire POINT of the X workflow. Everything hovers around and relates to the database. Do you lose some capabilities with this approach? Sure. But you gain so vastly many more possibilities that the idea that I'd give up what X does so well - in favor of the things it doesn't seems to me to miss the whole point of the X rebuild. Which just to remind everyone was NOT to keep doing things the same way in an industry that increasingly does NOT look the same as it used to.

I could go on, but why bother. Look through Olivers excellent post and count up the "I prefers" and the "for me"'s. This is solid writing differentiating things that fall into opinion rather than fact. That's good writing. It separates the two concepts. To the extent a reader fits Oliver's type of editing perspective, the opinions will carry weight. But to the extent any readers day to day editing experience DIFFERS from Oliver's type of editing, - then those same opinions should carry LESS weight.

X is a change. It's for editors who want to change. For editors who come to see benefits in new approaches. It's much, MUCH less a solution for editors who want to keep doing with they're already doing the same way they're already doing it. We've all known that for two years now.

Essentially, I always very much enjoy reading Olivers perspectives, but as with all writers it helps to understand more than just the "surface" thoughts - context matters.

Oliver is doing excellent comparative analysis for a class of editors who absolutely MUST keep one foot firmly planted in existing and even historical workflows - while also moving forward.

He undersands X really well, but he understands it (as do ALL of us) in the context of his practice and requirements.

He solves problems in this article by seeing where X is "half empty" for a particular class of editors - and his writing is very valuable for that perspective. And in this article, as clearly noted, he's ignoring most anything on the other side of the ledger.

Just understand that when you read something like this, you make a HUGE mistake if you think it's the "whole story." Because it's not.

Honestly, the class of editors Oliver is addressing is NOT the largest nor the fastest growing body of editing practitioners. If it was, AVID would be financially healthy and Premier wouldn't be having any issues with Creative Cloud, since virtually no "big shop" situation would see monthly licensing as anything but a line item stuck down near their monthly craft services bill.

This is the latest in a kinda long string of posts from you, Andy, where you seem to be trying to "knock down" the X approach in favor of Premier.

I'd be curious as to why?

Did X piss you off somehow? Do you own a lot of stock in Adobe?

Honestly, I just don't get it.

I know I spend ZERO time in the "Premier or Not" forum telling everyone that X is GREAT at this or that - or writing about what Premier does that's WORSE than the way X does the same thing.

But maybe that would be worth my time.

I'll think about that.

Fair being fair and 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

Oliver Peters
Re: Excellent blog on FCP X workflow shortcomings
on Sep 3, 2013 at 1:04:20 am

Thanks for the kind words. Bill, I know we frequently have a different take on X, but your general POV on my post isn't far off.

Just to clarify, most of my work is within smaller facilities (2-4 editors). There are collaborative needs, though usually in the form of accessing older projects - or passing along your project to someone else in the chain. I also do many projects where I'm the editing/conforming part of a larger chain, with someone else mixing and/or grading.

My intent was not with the mindset of "look how bad X is". Rather, I was trying to point out areas where FCP7/FCS continues to be a good toolkit and why. Less a "better than" and more and "also used".

- Oliver

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


Return to posts index

Dan Stewart
Re: Excellent blog on FCP X workflow shortcomings
on Sep 3, 2013 at 1:09:08 am

YOU JUST DON'T WANT TO CHANGE OLIVER

Take a look at yourself.



Return to posts index


Oliver Peters
Re: Excellent blog on FCP X workflow shortcomings
on Sep 3, 2013 at 2:58:52 pm

[Dan Stewart] "YOU JUST DON'T WANT TO CHANGE OLIVER"

Wow. Seems like you forgot the smiley face. No need to shout. Clearly you haven't read anything I've written over the past two years. Considering the fact that I am currently one of a handful of editors doing an full-blown feature film using X, I see a lot of irony in your comment.

- Oliver

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


Return to posts index

Andy Field
Re: Excellent blog on FCP X workflow shortcomings
on Sep 3, 2013 at 4:16:10 am

Bill, as you are an avid reader of my posts, you'll certainly know that I have used X...and desperately want it to be more useful for the small edit world I live in that isn't relevant to your work. My last line was - "come on Apple, fix this" so we can get rid of the "or not" part of this forum. Does that sound like a basher? I want to be able to do the work ..and have to do the kind of work that Oliver outlined he can't do efficiently (or at all) with just X.

Andy Field
FieldVision Productions
N. Bethesda, Maryland 20852


Return to posts index

Bill Davis
Re: Excellent blog on FCP X workflow shortcomings
on Sep 4, 2013 at 7:21:58 pm

[Andy Field] "My last line was - "come on Apple, fix this""

If you can't see how that very line of yours can most easily be read in "angry whining" mode, then I can't help you.

That may have been 180 degrees from your intent. But it's NOT how your original post came across.

It came across as a clear slam at X and delivered the impression that you feel the software isn't ready for pro use.

And that's kinda being established as your "brand" here. At least in my mind.

I don't recall a thread that you've started here that was anything but frustrated and critical of X as a tool.

If that's NOT your position - then you might want to review your past couple of months posts and see how they conform to your true feelings.

Look, it's both easy and seductive to demonstrate ones mastery of a subject through the process of picking at what isn't right with it. It's the boyfriend who disses what the girlfriend is wearing then is astonished when she gets mad. "But you KNOW I love you" he says. Missing that his actual words have been dismissive (or even cruel) however unintentional. After all, he's just trying to "help" her with his honesty, right?

And so it goes.

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


Chris Harlan
Re: Excellent blog on FCP X workflow shortcomings
on Sep 5, 2013 at 3:35:31 am

[Bill Davis] "[Andy Field] "My last line was - "come on Apple, fix this""

If you can't see how that very line of yours can most easily be read in "angry whining" mode, then I can't help you.
"


And if Bill can't help you, who possibly can?


[Bill Davis] "And that's kinda being established as your "brand" here. At least in my mind.
"


Yeah, but your "brand" is that anybody who isn't having puppies with X is a hater.


[Bill Davis] "It's the boyfriend who disses what the girlfriend is wearing then is astonished when she gets mad. "But you KNOW I love you" he says."

Yes, Bill. X does make your butt look big.


Return to posts index

Mark Dobson
Re: Excellent blog on FCP X workflow shortcomings
on Sep 3, 2013 at 7:50:32 am

[Oliver Peters] "My intent was not with the mindset of "look how bad X is". Rather, I was trying to point out areas where FCP7/FCS continues to be a good toolkit and why. Less a "better than" and more and "also used"."

I really don't have a problem with having to use components of Final Cut Studio to tie in with my work with FCPX. It was always part of the FCPX design philosophy that external programmes would compliment the the core FCPX editing functions.

And the range of support software for FCPX is pretty impressive now.

I still use Final Cut Studio for importing files and I still use DVD Studio Pro to create DVD's with complex menu structures. Having said that the majority of the work we produce is now delivered electronically, a quick click and it's gone.

The problem will occur in a few years time, when Mavericks is a distant memory and Final Cut Studio is no longer supported, but I might have retired by then and be living by a loch on the West Coast of Scotland or maybe somewhere warmer.


Return to posts index

Ronny Courtens
Re: Excellent blog on FCP X workflow shortcomings
on Sep 3, 2013 at 12:19:47 pm

I have really appreciated reading Oliver's blog, as always, and not for one moment have I seen his story as a statement about any workflow shortcomings in FCPX. So I honestly don't know where the OP is getting this idea.

Editors use a range of different tools because there is not one tool that does everything every single job requires. FCPX is great NLE, we start and finish 70% of all our work right inside the app. For jobs with intensive VFX and grading requirements we have established a seamless workflow around FCPX for editing and Smoke and Resolve for finishing. With this combination there is nothing we cannot achieve.

OTOH I'm looking forward to what Motion X will bring. Logic X is already very promising on the audio side, so we may see a brand-new integrated FCS suite coming around in the near future. Things are looking bright on the X-side, and if we ever would need to make a customized DVD again we still have DVDSP (-:

- Ronny


Return to posts index


Oliver Peters
Re: Excellent blog on FCP X workflow shortcomings
on Sep 3, 2013 at 12:29:31 pm

Regarding DVDs, even Adobe has had to maintain support for Encore CS6 as a way to cover that need for some customers. Creative Cloud does not include an updated DVD/BD authoring application.

We live in a world of hybrid workflows to accommodate legacy, current and even future workflows. It's pretty unrealistic to expect a single tool to serve all those needs, simply because of the sheer complexity from a programming standpoint. That being the case, it's good that FCS continues to offer value.

Think of it as a giant "plug-in" for FCP X ! Or maybe the other way around.

;-)

Oliver

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


Return to posts index

Simon Ubsdell
Re: Excellent blog on FCP X workflow shortcomings
on Sep 3, 2013 at 1:47:03 pm

Terrific post!

Reminds me of all the reasons why the FCS suite was and remains the best all-purpose toolbox around.

I can't see being able to let go of it for a good while yet - it's just way too useful for so many different situations.

Even if it's not your primary editing tool.

I certainly didn't read this as a post knocking FCP X - Oliver is one of its most loyal champions, as he is of anything that delivers useful functionality. He's just honest about the gaps.

Simon Ubsdell
http://www.tokyo-uk.com


Return to posts index

Herb Sevush
Re: Excellent blog on FCP X workflow shortcomings
on Sep 3, 2013 at 3:49:42 pm

[Bill Davis] "Oliver's basic criticism seems to be about "embedding name and ID changes into the media file, but rather into it's own database." Well, that's kinda defines the entire POINT of the X workflow. Everything hovers around and relates to the database. Do you lose some capabilities with this approach? Sure. But you gain so vastly many more possibilities that the idea that I'd give up what X does so well - in favor of the things it doesn't seems to me to miss the whole point of the X rebuild. Which just to remind everyone was NOT to keep doing things the same way in an industry that increasingly does NOT look the same as it used to."

Your idealization of the FCPX database structure leads you to make some highly questionable points. There is nothing about the X database structure that prohibits it from embedding the info into both it's own Dbase and the Quicktime file itself other than a lack of will to do so. It is not an "either or" idea, it could do both, in the future it might do both, at the moment it doesn't and that is a limitation, not a feature. There is nothing about limitations like this that are inherently "future oriented," they are just limitations. As a well known forum poster might put it, "Simple as that."

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


Return to posts index

Charlie Austin
Re: Excellent blog on FCP X workflow shortcomings
on Sep 3, 2013 at 4:47:54 pm

[Herb Sevush] " There is nothing about the X database structure that prohibits it from embedding the info into both it's own Dbase and the Quicktime file itself other than a lack of will to do so."

Probably true, but honestly, I always found FCP Classics ability to modify files kinda of buggy anyway. QTEdit, from digital rebellion is way more powerful and user friendly for this sort of task. That's what I use these days. I honestly prefer an app designed for a specific task rather than the swiss army knife approach, but I understand why some prefer it all to be built in.

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


~"It is a poor craftsman who blames his tools."~
~"The function you just attempted is not yet implemented"~


Return to posts index

Herb Sevush
Re: Excellent blog on FCP X workflow shortcomings
on Sep 3, 2013 at 4:56:26 pm

[Charlie Austin] "Probably true, but honestly, I always found FCP Classics ability to modify files kinda of buggy anyway. QTEdit, from digital rebellion is way more powerful and user friendly for this sort of task."

I've never had any issues changing tc or reel#s from within FCP, so I don't know what buggines your referring to, and yes it's a lot more convenient to do it within the NLE.

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


Return to posts index

Charlie Austin
Re: Excellent blog on FCP X workflow shortcomings
on Sep 3, 2013 at 5:03:41 pm

[Herb Sevush] "I've never had any issues changing tc or reel#s from within FCP, so I don't know what buggines your referring to, and yes it's a lot more convenient to do it within the NLE."

Well, to be fair it may have to do with modifying master files on a shared drive, but I've had master files become unusably corrupted doing this in the old FCP. I've also had the modified reel names not "stick" for lack of a better term. As a result, I've never really trusted it, though it's mostly worked fine with local files. QTEdit is pretty awesome, as it lets you do all sorts of metadata manipulation. Again, personal preference...

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


~"It is a poor craftsman who blames his tools."~
~"The function you just attempted is not yet implemented"~


Return to posts index

Walter Soyka
Re: Excellent blog on FCP X workflow shortcomings
on Sep 3, 2013 at 10:14:16 pm

[Bill Davis] "Timecode and Reel IDS.
(Just cut and paste the above comment here.)"


Ok :)

[Bill Davis] "What this actually tells us again is that it's not as easy to duplicate old workflows in X that people used in Legacy. And I have absolutely no quibble with that contention. He's completely correct. It IS harder to re-create older workflows. Why? Because X does not "think" in terms of old workflows. It presents opportunities for NEW ones. The new ones are more tailored to new needs - and less tailored to older workflow needs. Which has been the FCP-X "brand" from day one."

I'll grant you that "reel" and "timecode" may be old words -- but the ability to uniquely identify a specific frame within a uniquely identified and specific container is the basis for interchange. It is still 100% relevant today.

Axing tracks for the magnetic timeline is a nice example of creative destruction. Ignoring really important metadata (in the container format Apple themselves invented, no less) doesn't strike me as a good example of clearing out the old to make way for the new.

(In fairness, while modifying TC in Premiere Pro is really straightforward, modifying reel ("Tape Name") is a little more confusing because Premiere can show two reel metadata fields -- one for the clip in the bin, and a separate one for the file on-disk. You can make the changes, but it's easy to get tripped up.)

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


Return to posts index

Charlie Austin
Re: Excellent blog on FCP X workflow shortcomings
on Sep 3, 2013 at 10:20:12 pm

[Walter Soyka] "Ignoring really important metadata (in the container format Apple themselves invented, no less) doesn't strike me as a good example of clearing out the old to make way for the new."

Just to nit-pick… X doesn't ignore the Reel Name (embedded in the QT TC track) anymore, you just can't change it from within X. I could be mistaken, but now that I think of it I'm not sure you can do anything destructive to master files from within X...

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


~"It is a poor craftsman who blames his tools."~
~"The function you just attempted is not yet implemented"~


Return to posts index

Walter Soyka
Re: Excellent blog on FCP X workflow shortcomings
on Sep 3, 2013 at 10:24:22 pm

[Charlie Austin] "Just to nit-pick… X doesn't ignore the Reel Name (embedded in the QT TC track) anymore, you just can't change it from within X. I could be mistaken, but now that I think of it I'm not sure you can do anything destructive to master files from within X..."

Yes, totally true. I was excited about that addition! Sorry I was so unclear.

I think it shouldn't be easy to accidentally make a destructive change to a file -- but it shouldn't be hard to do it on purpose, either. And if you wanted to, you could preserve the original metadata elsewhere in the file.

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


Return to posts index

Charlie Austin
Re: Excellent blog on FCP X workflow shortcomings
on Sep 3, 2013 at 10:28:10 pm

[Walter Soyka] "Yes, totally true. I was excited about that addition! Sorry I was so unclear."

No biggie, just wanted to clarify for those reading who may not be aware of that recent change… ;-)

[Walter Soyka] "I think it shouldn't be easy to accidentally make a destructive change to a file -- but it shouldn't be hard to do it on purpose, either."

I'm with you on that…

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


~"It is a poor craftsman who blames his tools."~
~"The function you just attempted is not yet implemented"~


Return to posts index

Oliver Peters
Re: Excellent blog on FCP X workflow shortcomings
on Sep 3, 2013 at 10:28:23 pm

The irony is that this inflexibly with media files is a direct copy of what Avid has always done. Capturing into a walled-off media database was a hallmark of Avid's rock solid media management and something they've been trying to loosen up with AMA. Ultimately both Media Composer and FCP X now have a very similar database/media-handling architecture.

- Oliver

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


Return to posts index

John Heagy
Re: Excellent blog on FCP X workflow shortcomings
on Sep 4, 2013 at 4:04:56 pm

[Oliver Peters] "The irony is that this inflexibly with media files is a direct copy of what Avid has always done"

Yes but FCPX lacks the collaboration that Avid's "walled garden" enabled. FCPX is walled off but with little benefit.

Regarding Tape/Reel metadata and Avid... Avid does embed Tape in the mxf file if it's a tape based workflow. This is indicated by the resulting Avid.mxf file name starting with this Tape name. There is a TapeMOB ID created in this case and is something we are trying to preserve in file based workflows. One can, like Oliver says, add the Tape ID after the file is created but then there is no TAPMOB in the file, just a database entry. We prefer the file have the Tape ID embedded so there's no orphaning potential.

John


Return to posts index

Brett Sherman
Re: Excellent blog on FCP X workflow shortcomings
on Sep 4, 2013 at 9:37:59 pm

[Oliver Peters] "The irony is that this inflexibly with media files is a direct copy of what Avid has always done."

There are some similarities. But as someone who left Avid a long time ago partially for the way it manages media, I find FCP X more workable. Now I could be not up on the way Avid organizes things. But Avid just threw everything together in the same folder. Because they were MXF files, you couldn't view them without Avid. So there was no OS structure to the media.

The same is not true with FCP X which actually uses folders and files that the OS recognizes. Not to mention you can just drop a file in the "Original Media" folder and it shows up in the event. There is a lot more manual manipulation at the OS level that can happen with FCP X. I use NeoFinder to generate a visual catalog of all my material. You couldn't do the same with Avid.



Return to posts index

Oliver Peters
Re: Excellent blog on FCP X workflow shortcomings
on Sep 4, 2013 at 10:23:44 pm

[Brett Sherman] "There are some similarities"

Correct. Both apps allow you to link to external media. This is AMA in Avid, aliases in an FCP X Event folder. Both apps can import media into media folder controlled by the app (Events and MXF). Since MC7, both AMA and MXF media is managed, just like with FCP X.

[Brett Sherman] "But Avid just threw everything together in the same folder."

Avid places these into a numbered subfolder within a common MXF folder. These subfolders can be reorganized by the user at the Finder level. The limitation is these should be numbered subfolders. So it requires a bit of manual work, but it's actually quite easy with Media Composer to segregate media by project into separate numbered subfolders.

I would point out that Finder-level manipulation of the media is precisely what Apple would rather no user do and why the new structure is the way it is. They were tired of answering stupid support calls from users who messed things up ;-)

[Brett Sherman] "you couldn't view them without Avid."

There are several third-party tools (including the free MXF Player) that let you view this media.

[Brett Sherman] "Not to mention you can just drop a file in the "Original Media" folder and it shows up in the event."

With Avid you can externally create MXF media (such as with DaVinci Resolve or Baselight FilmLight), place a folder of that media into the MXF folder and then bring them into Media Composer.

[Brett Sherman] "I use NeoFinder"

I'm not familiar with this application. But, with Automatic Duck Media Copy I can select all media used in a sequence and copy it into a new, separate folder for archiving. Works for FCP 7, too.

As we both said, similar. Sure, with some differences. My point was that Apple looked at what was perceived as a better way of doing things and copied it, with some updates.

- Oliver

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


Return to posts index

Bill Davis
Re: Excellent blog on FCP X workflow shortcomings
on Sep 6, 2013 at 7:08:42 pm

[Oliver Peters] "They were tired of answering stupid support calls from users who messed things up ;-)"

This actually made me laugh out loud.

Then when I stopped chuckling, I realized that it was probably spot on accurate as well.

The eternal battle of whether you enable just the professionals who have lots of paid time to learn the tricks of file management and structure - or you think that it's better for the video editing industry to distribute more power for more classes of users.

Sure it makes the "pro editor" classification fuzzier. But it also broadens the bast of those who have an interest in the topic, and I think there's more progress in any industry that has a broader base, compared to one that keeps it's "priesthood" narrowly cosseted.

Here we all are. We don't want the amateurs taking away OUR editing jobs. But when we need to re-touch a photo, sweeten an audio track, tweak the titles, or manage our personal or business contacts and correspondence, we would be LIVID if w couldn't get our hands of effective software that lets us do all that - even if we aren't fully "professional" in all those areas.

Cognitive dissidence much?

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

Chris Harlan
Re: Excellent blog on FCP X workflow shortcomings
on Sep 5, 2013 at 3:37:01 am

[Brett Sherman] "Now I could be not up on the way Avid organizes things. "

That would be correct.


Return to posts index

Brett Sherman
Re: Excellent blog on FCP X workflow shortcomings
on Sep 5, 2013 at 1:56:47 pm

A bit of a diss, but whatever. I'm still not convinced Avid's media management for my purposes (where I have to retain and reuse media over 10 years time) is efficient. Sometimes it's easier to just find the file outside the NLE and copy it. It's just plain harder with Avid to do this. Numbered folders just don't tell me anything, especially 8 years after I've last opened the project.



Return to posts index

Oliver Peters
Re: Excellent blog on FCP X workflow shortcomings
on Sep 5, 2013 at 3:08:15 pm

[Brett Sherman] "I'm still not convinced Avid's media management for my purposes (where I have to retain and reuse media over 10 years time) is efficient."

I wasn't saying that it was. Merely that Apple copied a good idea that was already established in concept. They may or may not have improved upon that. Time will tell. Quicktime is no longer part of Apple's media architecture; so, while what you are doing works today, there's no guarantee that it will work tomorrow and even less that it will maintain cross-platform compatibility down the road.

- Oliver

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


Return to posts index

John Heagy
Re: Excellent blog on FCP X workflow shortcomings
on Sep 5, 2013 at 4:16:08 pm

[Oliver Peters] "Quicktime is no longer part of Apple's media architecture;"

Yes and no. The Quicktime file format - no. Apple seems committed to .mov. The Quicktime API - yes, and will eventually be fully replaced with AVFoudantion on Macs. There is currently no substitute on the horizon that will replace QT on Windows which Apple doesn't seem to understand the importance of.

John


Return to posts index

Oliver Peters
Re: Excellent blog on FCP X workflow shortcomings
on Sep 5, 2013 at 4:46:51 pm

[John Heagy] "The Quicktime file format - no. Apple seems committed to .mov. The Quicktime API - yes, and will eventually be fully replaced with AVFoudantion on Macs."

Not eventually. It has been in FCP X. FCP "legacy" operated as a front end application that lived on top of the Quicktime engine under the hood. FCP X lives on top of AV Foundation. QT is a 32-bit architecture, which FCP X does not use, other than to be able to read QT files and to wrap ingested/optimized files (for now). So the format as a container (.mov) lives on, and a media player called Quicktime continues to exist, but it is no longer a meaningful part of the application. You'll note that render files - even though they use the ProRes codec - are a completely opaque, proprietary file format.

- Oliver

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


Return to posts index

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