FORUMS: list search recent posts

So where are we in the game?

COW Forums : Apple Final Cut Pro X Debates

<< PREVIOUS   •   VIEW ALL   •   PRINT   •   NEXT >>
Steve Connor
So where are we in the game?
on Sep 22, 2013 at 5:58:22 pm

As much fun as the Larry Jordan thread is, I was wondering what people thought the state of the game was after Adobe fumbled the ball with the CC release.

Do people think that Apple now have a chance of picking up the loose ball and running with it, if they put out a great 10.1 release?

It does seem like the game may be far from over.

Steve Connor

There's nothing we can't argue about on the FCPX COW Forum


Return to posts index

Marcus Moore
Re: So where are we in the game?
on Sep 22, 2013 at 6:02:28 pm

Adobe has showed it's hand for the year, with 2 big updates and a change in pricing structure.

While apple has released 3 largely maintenance updates, they haven't released any feature updates since last October. Until Apple releases 10.1 it's going to be a naturally lopsided comparison.

I think there is definitely a segment of people who were very likely going to move from FCP to PP but just will not buy into the subscription model. That may give FCPX an opportunity if 10.1 is a large and meaningful update. But FCPX will always have the stigma of being "different" (unless Apple reverses course on FCPX's core concepts which I don't think it will- and I don't want them to).



Return to posts index

Morten Ranmar
Re: So where are we in the game?
on Sep 22, 2013 at 6:42:58 pm

Apple needs to bring in some serious enhancements to relinking and media management, for me to dare use it again on a paying job.

I lost trust in it when all my media became offline, because of some minor meta-data added by Adobe, and I was not able to relink. When I reimported from the cards, everything was out of sync.

- No Parking Production -

2 x Finalcut Studio3, 2 x Prod. bundle CS6, 2 x MacPro, 2 x ioHD, Ethernet File Server w. X-Raid.... and FCPX on trial


Return to posts index


Ronny Courtens
Re: So where are we in the game?
on Sep 22, 2013 at 7:05:16 pm

So you know that Adobe's XMP ID overwrites all FCPX metadata making the media incompatible for re-importing, and yet you don't uncheck this option in PP or AE and then you blame FCPX for not being able to re-import media that you have screwed up with XMP ID? Okay...

- Ronny


Return to posts index

Steve Connor
Re: So where are we in the game?
on Sep 22, 2013 at 7:06:39 pm

This is an option that should be "off" by default if it modifies data in the file

Steve Connor

There's nothing we can't argue about on the FCPX COW Forum


Return to posts index

Walter Soyka
Re: So where are we in the game?
on Sep 22, 2013 at 7:17:13 pm

[Steve Connor] "This is an option that should be "off" by default if it modifies data in the file"

I agree wholeheartedly! Silently altering original files was not a great idea.

The default behavior will change to "off" with the October 2013 CC update:

http://blogs.adobe.com/aftereffects/2013/09/after-effects-cc-12-1-whats-new...

(This blog entry is about Ae, but that setting has historically been shared across Ae, Pr, En, Au, and AME.)

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


Morten Ranmar
Re: So where are we in the game?
on Sep 22, 2013 at 7:09:31 pm

Lesson was learnt. Yet I do blame FCPX for not giving me the option to force relink, like FCP7 used to do.

- No Parking Production -

2 x Finalcut Studio3, 2 x Prod. bundle CS6, 2 x MacPro, 2 x ioHD, Ethernet File Server w. X-Raid.... and FCPX on trial


Return to posts index

alban egger
Re: So where are we in the game?
on Sep 22, 2013 at 11:27:03 pm

What do you mean? No option to force relink? You can relink files in FCPX. For example when I have stockclips or stockmusic with watermarks I always simply force FCPX to relink the files to the final media.

About the original idea of this thread: I think the game is still open. FCPX has regained a lot of ground when you compar its perception from a year ago. At the same time they are still fighting with the terrible launch of the product. I STILL get calls and mails from people who ask me about rumours they heard in summer 2011!! Many of those were even untrue (like you canĀ“t have more than 1 stereotrack on export or that there is no J-K-L in FCPX) and seem still to be around. So Apple is not there yet.

At the same time Adobe Premiere seems not to be thatmuch of a killer-app itself, since so many who like tracks are still on FCP7.

I would expect the new Mac Pro bundled with FCPX 10.1 will be a different beast altogether and might win over many productionhouses again with its sheer power and speed in hardware and workflow.



Return to posts index

Oliver Peters
Re: So where are we in the game?
on Sep 22, 2013 at 11:33:41 pm

[alban egger] "What do you mean? No option to force relink? You can relink files in FCPX. For example when I have stockclips or stockmusic with watermarks I always simply force FCPX to relink the files to the final media. "

You can only relink when media parameters are exactly the same. Same TC, file names, duration. FCP X relinking is virtually non-existant when you compare how relinking works in X to Premiere Pro CC or even FCP "legacy". There is no "force" function at all. It either relinks and it works or more often than not - it doesn't. At least that's been my experience.

- Oliver

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


Return to posts index


Marcus Moore
Re: So where are we in the game?
on Sep 23, 2013 at 12:05:57 am

It's true. There's no force-relinking of media that's shorter, or using a different name, etc.

It should be a pretty each change to institute, though I wonder if it would reek havoc with the database when doing this with non-"import to Event folder" files.



Return to posts index

Lance Bachelder
Re: So where are we in the game?
on Sep 23, 2013 at 1:17:59 am

The really big negative for me with FCPX re-linking is its inability to search in anything but the root folder where the actual file lives - manually drilling down 3 levels to get to a file sucks.

On the other hand Premiere CC re-linking is awesome, fast and it will drill down into however many subfolders necessary until it finds the correct file.

I'm hoping for a pretty substantial upgrade to X - I haven't used it on a paying gig since CC was released in June and I'm loving cutting in Premiere. The new features coming in October are gonna make the suite that much better. Apple has their work cut for them for sure.

Lance Bachelder
Writer, Editor, Director
Downtown Long Beach, California
http://www.imdb.com/name/nm1680680/?ref_=fn_al_nm_1


Return to posts index

Bill Davis
Re: So where are we in the game?
on Sep 23, 2013 at 5:04:36 am

So, I'd love for somebody to explain how this simple re-linking is supposed to work since the ENTIRE clip data structure in X has evolved so far away from the dumb container/finder construct of Legacy.

Do you really think the easy ability to relink a shorter clip in X into a storyline that might have a dozen clips magnetically inter-connected won't screw anything else up? You OK with that? And what about all the compound clips hat might reference that new shorter clip? What do you want X to do with those?
And will you be OK if your Event Browser has all it's Compound Clips shortened, iand then ant any OTHER projects where you used those compound clip get messed up cuz THEY now have to little content for the way you used them originally?

Or might it be better to learn how X works and use the built in clip handling tools properly so you don't LOSE your links by being as careless and sloppy with clip storage and movement like we all were able to be in back in Legacy?

Yes, X takes learning to use well. But it's NOT that hard to learn to us it properly. I haven't "lost" a clip connection I didn't plan to break in well over a year. And I'm no editing rocket scientist.

X is NEVER going to get better by trying to work more like what it replaced. Time to face that reality and move along.

Honestly, the new way is MUCH more fun, if you just don't fight it so dammed much.

My 2 cents.

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


Walter Soyka
Re: So where are we in the game?
on Sep 23, 2013 at 7:31:18 am

[Bill Davis] "So, I'd love for somebody to explain how this simple re-linking is supposed to work since the ENTIRE clip data structure in X has evolved so far away from the dumb container/finder construct of Legacy. "

Maybe it would help if there were some metadata system for identifying unique frames in unique media containers. We could call them unique frame temporal addresses (UFTAs) and unique container IDs (UCIDs), and we could save them all in a database. That way, we could simply update the pointers from a specific reference frame in one container that corresponding frame in a different container. We could call that process media reference connection adjustment (MRCA).

Or maybe we could call that metadata timecode and reels, and we could call that process re-linking or conforming :)

Metadata is data about data. It's a level of abstraction that allows you to do powerful things like swapping out the underlying media without altering the structure of the edit itself. What's the part about that that you think is dumb?


[Bill Davis] "Do you really think the easy ability to relink a shorter clip in X into a storyline that might have a dozen clips magnetically inter-connected won't screw anything else up? You OK with that? And what about all the compound clips hat might reference that new shorter clip? What do you want X to do with those? And will you be OK if your Event Browser has all it's Compound Clips shortened, iand then ant any OTHER projects where you used those compound clip get messed up cuz THEY now have to little content for the way you used them originally?"

Any NLE has a problem if the clip you relink is too short for its original use.

The ability to relink a clip and have that relink flow through other edits might sound dangerous, or it might sound powerful.

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


Return to posts index

John Heagy
Re: So where are we in the game?
on Sep 25, 2013 at 10:55:54 pm

[Walter Soyka] "Maybe it would help if there were some metadata system for identifying unique frames in unique media containers."

This is why we still use Reel/Tape metadata in file based workflows. What you're talking about is content ID not just file ID. In our system every frame has a content ID that is a six digit Reel number followed by the TC. For example 123456_1023212. If that number is present in another file it's the same frame content wise.

Panasonic's global clip ID is the same except it's essentially a reel number for every master clip. The difference between this and a file UUID is that when subclips are made that ID passes to the subclip just like reel.

Content ID is essential when you do something like partial file restore which can generate multiple clips from the original. With our reel_TC, the content is known despite the file name changing. We don't rely at all on path or filename... just the content ID.

Reel gets a bad rape because people still think it means tape. Sometime things work just they way they are.

John


Return to posts index

Lance Bachelder
Re: So where are we in the game?
on Sep 23, 2013 at 9:22:03 am

All I was talking about was the fact that FCPX will not look any further than the folder it is in when you search - it will not drill down into sub-folders to find a clip, you must do the drilling manually - this makes FCPX's re-linking almost unusable compared to any other NLE.

Sony Vegas, for instance, will search and index every drive on a system and find every version of the off-line clip no mater how deep it is buried. While it is doing this search it will index the drive and find every other off-line clip and remember where they are.

FCP7 was far better than FCPX at this and I'm sure this problem is on the hit-list at Apple and will be fixed in the next update, even if Bill doesn't want it fixed...

Lance Bachelder
Writer, Editor, Director
Downtown Long Beach, California
http://www.imdb.com/name/nm1680680/?ref_=fn_al_nm_1


Return to posts index


Marcus Moore
Re: So where are we in the game?
on Sep 23, 2013 at 1:25:57 pm

The most prominent place where I find this would be useful is for graphics renders.

Plenty of times the timing of a shot will either change, or I'll just have forgotten to set an export range in AE or Motion, and end up with the standard 10 second length for the render.

As I refine the graphic, I usually remember to export a shorter range somewhere along the line. If I've already been using the temp, longer render file, I can't just do a replacement with the shorter version. Which if you've used the graphic a bunch of times for the lower3rd can be painful.

I think a force-relinking of the media obviously comes with several caveats- but it is necessary from time to time.

And a global or at least whole-drive search for missing media is definitely needed- and probably on the way.



Return to posts index

Oliver Peters
Re: So where are we in the game?
on Sep 23, 2013 at 1:33:40 pm

[Marcus Moore] "I think a force-relinking of the media obviously comes with several caveats- but it is necessary from time to time."

Another area is external color grading sessions, where XML roundtrips are often not possible. The graded footage is usually shorter in duration.

- Oliver

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


Return to posts index

Ronny Courtens
Re: So where are we in the game?
on Sep 23, 2013 at 6:07:15 am

[Lance Bachelder] "On the other hand Premiere CC re-linking is awesome, fast and it will drill down into however many subfolders necessary until it finds the correct file."

I don't think everyone agrees on this: http://forums.creativecow.net/thread/3/943725#946335

- Ronny


Return to posts index

Chris Harlan
Re: So where are we in the game?
on Sep 23, 2013 at 8:06:02 am

[Ronny Courtens] "I don't think everyone agrees on this: http://forums.creativecow.net/thread/3/943725#946335
"


If you look a little more closely, I think you'll find that the issue that you linked to has to do with relinking XML translations from FCP 7. My guess is that there is something in the XML that Premiere is having issues with, and that's why it is taking so long.


Return to posts index

Ronny Courtens
Re: So where are we in the game?
on Sep 23, 2013 at 9:38:52 am

You are correct, Chris, and I agree this may (or not) be a more complex matter.

I just wanted to state that it is easy to say general things like "workflow Y is perfect, fast and flawless" while in the real world you will have circumstances where it just isn't.

The same goes for relinking in FCPX. If I were to share only my personal experience I would say it is perfect, extremely fast and reliable because with all the relinking and media management we have done in the past year on literally hundreds of projects we never had one single issue with it. But I don't do that. Because we are very meticulous about our workflows and our media organization, and I know other people may not be.

FCPX doesn't let you "force" anything, so you have to know what you are doing from the start. Changing file names for original media is not an issue, as opposed to what has been said above. But FCPX will not let you relink to media for which you have changed the timecode or the duration or the audio channels. Because if it would let you do this, this would probably screw up your edit anyway. And I think that's a good thing.

- Ronny


Return to posts index

Bill Davis
Re: So where are we in the game?
on Sep 23, 2013 at 1:40:03 pm

"Because if it would let you do this, this would probably screw up your edit anyway. And I think that's a good thing."

A much simpler and more sensible way of saying what I was trying to say.

Many of us who succeed with X for day to day work have learned to move past what it isn't and enjoy what it is.

What if "more re-linking please" turns out to be the new "we need PIOPs!!!" and we end up with a pound of complexity to gain a few ounces of comfort?

Just learn the software and use it.

By all means make all the feature requests you like.

But telling the architects how to build the building -if you're not a qualified architect yourself - is pretty much how you end up with buildings that collapse.

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

Walter Soyka
Re: So where are we in the game?
on Sep 23, 2013 at 5:58:39 pm

[Bill Davis] "What if "more re-linking please" turns out to be the new "we need PIOPs!!!" and we end up with a pound of complexity to gain a few ounces of comfort"

I will continue my apologies to the FCPX community... but in my defense, Apple could have implemented PIOPs more simply than they chose to.


[Bill Davis] "But telling the architects how to build the building -if you're not a qualified architect yourself - is pretty much how you end up with buildings that collapse."

Yet ultimately architects design buildings for the people that inhabit them.

But to your point, with feature requests, this means not implementing exactly what users request (PIOPs, re-linking, whatever), but rather implementing what underlies the users' request (not easily losing markers, systemic media replacement, etc.).

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

Bill Davis
Re: So where are we in the game?
on Sep 23, 2013 at 6:15:39 pm

[Walter Soyka] "[Bill Davis] "What if "more re-linking please" turns out to be the new "we need PIOPs!!!" and we end up with a pound of complexity to gain a few ounces of comfort"

I will continue my apologies to the FCPX community... but in my defense, Apple could have implemented PIOPs more simply than they chose to.
"


Walter, you or anyone have NO apologies to make. You were among quite a few who I recall arguing that PIOPS were a "feature" that no editor could live without. You surely weren't anywhere near a lone voice.

Plus, you've always been even tempered and fair. And your analysis of things has always been extremely useful.

Apple did it the way they did it. For good, or bad. 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

James Ewart
Re: So where are we in the game?
on Sep 24, 2013 at 5:36:19 am

Back in Legacy you only had to innocently change the clip name and if you did not "rename file to match clip" the game was up for relinking in my experience.

I am probably not using the software in nearly as advanced a way as a lot of you but for me just being able to rename clips in the browser without FCPX "caring" because all the other metadata maintains the link has been bloody marvellous.


Return to posts index

James Ewart
Re: So where are we in the game?
on Sep 23, 2013 at 5:04:05 pm

I have never had anything so catastrophic...relinked many times...never realised it could go so pear shaped


Return to posts index

Herb Sevush
Re: So where are we in the game?
on Sep 23, 2013 at 1:56:37 pm

[Ronny Courtens] "and then you blame FCPX for not being able to re-import media that you have screwed up with XMP ID? Okay..."

Can other NLE's handle this situation - yes. Can FCPX handle this situation - if the answer is no, then that's a weakness in X. Part of a software's value is in helping you overcome your own, or your clients, stupidity. Pointing a finger and blaming someone else for not doing things properly may be very self satisfying, but it doesn't help you solve the problem once it's happened. Preventing problems is always to be preferred, but sometimes you have to solve the problem you have.

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: So where are we in the game?
on Sep 24, 2013 at 7:06:07 am

[Herb Sevush] "Can other NLE's handle this situation - yes. Can FCPX handle this situation - if the answer is no, then that's a weakness in X."

It can certainly be seen this way - particularly from someone who has little or no appreciation of the many other benefits you get from the same "rigid ID/Location database" requirments that may be causing you not to be able to work the way you have in the past.

A decent analogy is escaping me right now, but as more and more people here are coming to understand, the database nature of X is a nearly astonishing strength. It allows the clever editor almost unlimited access to their footage, sliced and diced, tagged, sorted, bucketed, and ORGANIZED via overlapping keyword ranges that can be anything from one letter or number simple, to huge text strings complex - and can accommodate nearly any organizational scheme you can dream up. And they allow you to call up what you like truly INSTANTLY.

But the ability to have this amazing structure is that the software MUST, MUST, MUST, know where every clip resides and the size, scope and nature of it and ALL the potential tags and pointers that the database must maintain right down to the FRAME ID level - It's the underlying REALITY of what the database is referencing and pointing to. So to simply SWAP one version of the CORE CLIP, with another that might be 10 frames shorter - likely encourages DISASTER. After all, if you have numerous whole clipTAGS that currently store frame 1:05:05:03 as their end point - and you go try to re-link that database to a clip that now stops at 1:05:04:25 - what exactly is the database supposed to DO about that? It's referencing a nonexistant location. You could conceivably have dozens of such database pointers being pointed to a digital locations that NO LONGER EXIST.

Sounds like an excellent recipe for disaster to me.

If you're building a database - and allowing everything in your entire metadata system to REFERENCE that database - then CHANGING it by gleefully re-inporting assets that used to have ONE dimension with ones that have different dimensions, is likely a nightmare to protect against.

Legacy didn't care, because you really weren't building much linkage between the Capture Scratch and the Timeline. Your clips didn't really TALK to anything. Now in X, you're clips seem kinda sorta like referential HUBS that the database tracks via ranges, pointers, references and markers.

So I think clip substitution with little regard to maintaing the nature and length of that clip is understandably a really BAD idea for a referential system like the one in X.

My musings anyway.

Heck, maybe they'll prove me wrong and find a way to seek out and alter all the reference numbers that use to be there but aren't anymore after wanton clip subbing.

Anything's possible, I guess.

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: So where are we in the game?
on Sep 24, 2013 at 1:52:49 pm

[Bill Davis] "It can certainly be seen this way - particularly from someone who has little or no appreciation of the many other benefits you get from the same "rigid ID/Location database" requirments that may be causing you not to be able to work the way you have in the past."

It might well be true that the overall strengths of the data base model are more significant than the weakness of it's inflexibility in re-linking, but that doesn't stop that inflexibility from being a weakness.

Every NLE has strengths and weaknesses, often the weaknesses are caused by the strengths, but when evaluating an NLE they are what they are.

One weakness doesn't abrogate X as a tool, but constantly denying the obvious lessons you as a defender.

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


Return to posts index

Craig Seeman
Re: So where are we in the game?
on Sep 24, 2013 at 2:29:35 pm

Adding to this, it's probably why media management doesn't yet split clips.
There's metadata that's held, often at the head but I believe sometimes at the tail of certain formats that would then have to be copied to the split clip and then pointed to throughout all instances using the split clip.

Apple may get there with process of duplicating and linking to that metadata throughout but it's not as simple as retaining used media was in FCP legacy.

My guess is once they do that, they'll then have the wherewithal to handle something akin to a "forced" relink in which the new metadata can be "rippled" throughout all instances.

I can even imagine people complaining how "slow" it is when that's done given that, depending on the complexity of the project, it may take some time other than "instant" to update the entire database.



Return to posts index

Walter Soyka
Re: So where are we in the game?
on Sep 24, 2013 at 3:00:50 pm

[Bill Davis] "But the ability to have this amazing structure is that the software MUST, MUST, MUST, know where every clip resides and the size, scope and nature of it and ALL the potential tags and pointers that the database must maintain right down to the FRAME ID level - It's the underlying REALITY of what the database is referencing and pointing to. So to simply SWAP one version of the CORE CLIP, with another that might be 10 frames shorter - likely encourages DISASTER. After all, if you have numerous whole clipTAGS that currently store frame 1:05:05:03 as their end point - and you go try to re-link that database to a clip that now stops at 1:05:04:25 - what exactly is the database supposed to DO about that? It's referencing a nonexistant location. You could conceivably have dozens of such database pointers being pointed to a digital locations that NO LONGER EXIST... So I think clip substitution with little regard to maintaing the nature and length of that clip is understandably a really BAD idea for a referential system like the one in X."

When I finally get around to releasing Keen Edit 3000, it will track clip relink history as metadata.

Just because re-linking is destructive now doesn't mean it should be in the future. A clip is an abstraction of a media element, and there's no reason why you couldn't associate multiple media files with a single clip, almost like a source-side audition.

This would be enormously useful in the contexts of versioning and grading -- especially if the active item in the clip could be programmatically selected in a given context via metadata.

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

tony west
Re: So where are we in the game?
on Sep 23, 2013 at 3:36:35 am

I thought it was funny watching Larry. He was down right giddy with X and the programs that he demoed with it.


X looks better to more people everyday.

Since there are companies that make their living "filing holes" in other people's software, and Apple making their own moves, pretty soon there won't be many holes left to fill.


It's looking real good for X


Return to posts index

Walter Soyka
Re: So where are we in the game?
on Sep 23, 2013 at 7:13:10 am

I think that the NLE market will remain fragmented for some time to come. I don't see it consolidating again like it did with FCP7 for the foreseeable future.

I am surprised at how much staying power FCP7 has. I had to use a bit of FCP7 a couple days ago for the first time in maybe a year. I don't miss it.

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

Ronny Courtens
Re: So where are we in the game?
on Sep 23, 2013 at 9:42:28 am

All generalizations and favoritisms aside I think no-one can deny that FCPX is rapidly gaining ground. When I look at another forum I frequent I can see a massive growth of active FCPX members, especially in the past few months (I just checked: about 1,000 new members in 2 months time, only on that one forum).

So is FCPX popular? Yes, undoubtably. Is it also being used successfully in feature films, in broadcast post, under highly demanding circumstances? Absolutely. Is it the perfect one-stop solution for every editing task? I guess not, nor will any other NLE ever be.

But FCPX keeps growing. And what I particularly like about this growth is that with every major update another glimpse of its underlying power is revealed. I honestly think we haven't seen the real FCPX yet. If it would end up to be just like the rest I would be disappointed. At this time it is a very decent professional NLE that easily stands up against any major competitor for most workflows, but I think this is just the starting point. And IMO that's the biggest difference with FCPX over other NLEs.

- Ronny


Return to posts index

Morten Ranmar
Re: So where are we in the game?
on Sep 23, 2013 at 2:43:00 pm

Another thing that prevents me from using FCPX as a professional, is the inability to use custom sequence settings, e.g.. 1024 x 768 (yes I know there is a work-around, but it is cumbersome).

I should also mention the lacking ability to keyframe color effects. Just needed that again today, and Premiere CC was there to answer my demands...

- No Parking Production -

2 x Finalcut Studio3, 2 x Prod. bundle CS6, 2 x MacPro, 2 x ioHD, Ethernet File Server w. X-Raid.... and FCPX on trial


Return to posts index

Bill Davis
Re: So where are we in the game?
on Sep 23, 2013 at 6:08:03 pm

[Morten Ranmar] "Another thing that prevents me from using FCPX as a professional, is the inability to use custom sequence settings, e.g.. 1024 x 768 (yes I know there is a work-around, but it is cumbersome).

I should also mention the lacking ability to keyframe color effects. Just needed that again today, and Premiere CC was there to answer my demands..."


Uh, a friend who does stage show iMAG commonly has to produce for content across 3 screens has a simple folder of alternate size still graphics up to 3072x1024.

Drop one of those "alternate raster" graphics into a fresh X storyline, and it sets the project resolution accordingly.

You feel thats difficult? Well, OK.

Color keyframing yep. AFIK, X can't do that.

It can, however color correct via range selection. And you can that in secondaries and store the results in the Event Browser, so you only correct once, and then can use that in as many projects as you like - so I think the way X handles that is significantly BETTER than how most NLEs do it. Yes, I suppose it' wouldn't be as useful for something like a shooter walking in and out between tungsten and daylight scenes with a camera on auto. But good shooters don't often do that.

So for me, a keyframed color balance is a pretty rare beast.

But bottom line, if you're unwilling to learn X to get all the amazing advantages of it - just because it can't do ONE particular function - then that's your call.

Hopefully, whatever NLE you prefer will someday catch up to all the other cool ideas that are driving more and more editors to explore it.

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

James Ewart
Re: So where are we in the game?
on Sep 23, 2013 at 6:26:54 pm

This has started to puzzle me. I import as original/optimised media (latter is recommended by Apple) and have render set to whatever but I don't want to compress hi rez to pro rez and then compress and "uncompress".

I think being able to set sequence (sorry "project") settings is imperative.

And changing the names was annoying at first.

What is the reason behind calling a Project an Event and a Sequence a Project? Different for differents sake?

Makes no sense to me.... and made getting my head round it all much harder.

?/


Return to posts index

David Eaks
Re: So where are we in the game?
on Sep 23, 2013 at 8:06:23 pm

I thought the same thing for quite a while, "why did they have to change the names?" (of projects and sequences). I've come to the conclusion that it needed to be different because they are not the same thing that they used to be. In that case, keeping the same naming convention would be misleading.

For example, If I sold beverages and decided to release a new and improved version of water... but it was actually vodka. It might be quite the unpleasant surprise when you go to take a nice, big, refreshing drink of my new bottled "water". Different things NEED to have different names.

That's my take anyway.


Return to posts index

Andrew Kimery
Re: So where are we in the game?
on Sep 23, 2013 at 7:55:11 pm

[Bill Davis] "It can, however color correct via range selection. And you can that in secondaries and store the results in the Event Browser, so you only correct once, and then can use that in as many projects as you like - so I think the way X handles that is significantly BETTER than how most NLEs do it.

Maybe I'm not understanding what you are saying but it's that just saving a custom filter (which FCP Legend, Avid and, I assume),PPro can all do)? And in Avid (and maybe PPro, I don't know) you can apply a CC effect that spans multiple clips (maybe even the whole sequence) by placing it on an empty, top video track (as opposed to FCP 7 where you had to apply the filter to each clip).


[Bill Davis]
Yes, I suppose it' wouldn't be as useful for something like a shooter walking in and out between tungsten and daylight scenes with a camera on auto. But good shooters don't often do that."



It can also be useful when fixing footage that was shot outside on a day with clouds rolling in and out (causing rapid exposure changes) or a long zoom that starts out properly exposed but ends up improperly exposed at the end of the move. You can also use it for creative effect (like those allergy commercials where everything is dull until they take the allergy pill then they would gets all bright and colorful).

Granted similar results could be obtained from grading multiple instances of the same clip differently and cross fading between them but that can be an inelegant solution.

[Bill Davis]
"So for me, a keyframed color balance is a pretty rare beast."


For you it might be a pretty rare beast but for Morten it sounds like something routine. What one person finds useful but another person finds mundane largely depends on what each person's specific workflow needs are.




Return to posts index

Oliver Peters
Re: So where are we in the game?
on Sep 23, 2013 at 8:49:40 pm

[Andrew Kimery] "Maybe I'm not understanding what you are saying but it's that just saving a custom filter (which FCP Legend, Avid and, I assume),PPro can all do)? And in Avid (and maybe PPro, I don't know) you can apply a CC effect that spans multiple clips (maybe even the whole sequence) by placing it on an empty, top video track (as opposed to FCP 7 where you had to apply the filter to each clip)."

What Bill is talking about is source-side color correction of the master clip before it's on the timeline. FCP7 could do this, but not MC. The exception is MC7, which now enables source-side LUTs. FCP X expands the source correction with range-based selection on the source side. OTOH, it doesn't support LUTs, except the default Log-C correction for newer Alexa files.

I will add though - as someone who does color correction all the time with every edit I do - source side correction for anything other than an overall setting is pretty pointless. Color correction is contextual from shot-to-shot. Yes, you can do it in X, but why? Range-based correction of the source would be unnecessarily time-consumming for riding iris changes and most likely incorrect once it's on a timeline. But heck, if that floats your boat I guess it's fine.

- Oliver

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


Return to posts index

Marcus Moore
Re: So where are we in the game?
on Sep 23, 2013 at 9:15:22 pm

[Andrew Kimery] "And in Avid (and maybe PPro, I don't know) you can apply a CC effect that spans multiple clips (maybe even the whole sequence) by placing it on an empty, top video track (as opposed to FCP 7 where you had to apply the filter to each clip)."

You can do this in FCPX too. Though it's not an advertised feature, you can make "adjustment layers" which effect everything below it with whatever filters you put on it.



Return to posts index

Aindreas Gallagher
Re: So where are we in the game?
on Sep 23, 2013 at 10:10:55 pm

the way PPro is throwing LUTs around is pretty mad tho - to some extent PPro and speedgrade is the now the wet dream that every FCP editor had for a long time.

On steve's thing - how is there not an avenue for X to seriously advance right now? I mean, everything is still in flux two years later, untold masses of people are still sitting on 7 - the keywording and tagging system is basically unmatched architecture, Shane ross even said that it was starting to give him pangs from an organisational standpoint - Apple pro apps have been cooking basically for more or less a year now right?
from a basic popcorn perspective, I'm beyond curious to see what they decided to do with the application two years in.

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


Return to posts index

Marcus Moore
Re: So where are we in the game?
on Sep 23, 2013 at 10:38:11 pm

My standpoint exactly. They've been working on whatever this update is since AT LEAST last October. I also find it interesting that there seems to be a pretty effective blackout on info on whatever it is. If guys like Larry aren't getting any solid info--

Intensely curious is my state of mind.



Return to posts index

Craig Seeman
Re: So where are we in the game?
on Sep 24, 2013 at 12:55:00 am

[Marcus Moore] "I also find it interesting that there seems to be a pretty effective blackout on info on whatever it is"

The rumor mills are completely quiet for the longest time. Remember the leaks popping up long before X came out. Cook really has locked things down.



Return to posts index

Marcus Moore
Re: So where are we in the game?
on Sep 24, 2013 at 1:49:33 am

I think he has. Not universally. I think it would be nigh-impossible to stop the leaks on iPhone and iPad hardware. There's just too many hands on it, and there's seemingly too much of a reward to those who can sneak out a component here or there.

But for software and Macs, they've been able to keep a pretty tight lid on things. Last year's thinning of the iMac was a big surprise. And no one but no one had any idea what the MacPro looked like before that video ran at WWDC.

Most recently Logic Pro X dropped out of the blue with no warning at all.

Especially with software, where the people who would conceivably see 10.1 would be the development team, and their immediate supervisors-- there HAVE to be some beta testers, but the two people I know of that could potentially have early access are in the dark as well.

Next month is going to be VERY interesting.



Return to posts index

Oliver Peters
Re: So where are we in the game?
on Sep 24, 2013 at 2:06:16 am

[Marcus Moore] "Especially with software, where the people who would conceivably see 10.1 would be the development team, and their immediate supervisors-- there HAVE to be some beta testers, but the two people I know of that could potentially have early access are in the dark as well."

When you only have 1 1/2 engineers working on it anymore, the lid is pretty tight ;-)

- Oliver

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


Return to posts index

Marcus Moore
Re: So where are we in the game?
on Sep 24, 2013 at 2:08:47 am

And that midget is lazy!

Baddum bum!



Return to posts index

Oliver Peters
Re: So where are we in the game?
on Sep 24, 2013 at 2:18:29 am

[Marcus Moore] "Baddum bum!"

LOL

- Oliver

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


Return to posts index

Scott Witthaus
Re: So where are we in the game?
on Sep 25, 2013 at 6:48:12 pm

[Oliver Peters] "When you only have 1 1/2 engineers working on it anymore, the lid is pretty tight ;-)"

and they stole the half one from Avid last week! Now they have none! ;-)

Scott Witthaus
Senior Editor/Post Production Supervisor
1708 Inc./Editorial
Professor, VCU Brandcenter


Return to posts index

Andrew Kimery
Re: So where are we in the game?
on Sep 24, 2013 at 2:49:27 am

[Oliver Peters] "What Bill is talking about is source-side color correction of the master clip before it's on the timeline.

Ah, thanks for the clarification, Oliver

[Oliver Peters]
I will add though - as someone who does color correction all the time with every edit I do - source side correction for anything other than an overall setting is pretty pointless. Color correction is contextual from shot-to-shot. Yes, you can do it in X, but why? Range-based correction of the source would be unnecessarily time-consumming for riding iris changes and most likely incorrect once it's on a timeline. But heck, if that floats your boat I guess it's fine.
"


I've tried source side a couple of times in special circumstances and it hasn't worked out well for me either. Even for simple interview setups all it takes is a reframing of the shot or nervous talent shifting towards or away from a light and your grade has to change.


[Marcus Moore] "You can do this in FCPX too. Though it's not an advertised feature, you can make "adjustment layers" which effect everything below it with whatever filters you put on it."

Thanks for the info Marcus, I did not know that. Being able to apply a filter globally like that certainly comes in handy at times.




Return to posts index

Marcus Moore
Re: So where are we in the game?
on Sep 24, 2013 at 1:15:13 pm

There are articles on how to roll your own adjustment layer (it's basically a blank title or graphics template generated in Motion) or if you don't want to bother, Color Grading Central and (I believe) Alex4D both have free ones you can download and install. CGC has two: an basic adjustment layer AND a pre-built Broadcast safe one- which is great, since ideally what you want is a BS filter which blanket covers everything, including effects and titles, which wouldn't be covered by dropping the effect on individual clips.



Return to posts index

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