FORUMS: list search recent posts

Development

COW Forums : Apple Final Cut Pro X Debates

<< PREVIOUS   •   VIEW ALL   •   PRINT   •   NEXT >>
James Ewart
Development
on Oct 25, 2013 at 6:00:13 pm

Can anybody give me any idea how long the boffins Apple will have been working on FCPX. How many years ago will this work have started?

Is the Architecture actually based upon Imovie?

Don't get me wrong I am a convert just wondering how long this stuff takes.


Return to posts index

Steve Connor
Re: Development
on Oct 25, 2013 at 6:06:00 pm

[James Ewart] "Is the Architecture actually based upon Imovie?"

No!

Steve Connor

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


Return to posts index

James Ewart
Re: Development
on Oct 25, 2013 at 6:15:43 pm

Don't get me wrong I am a "convert" and the deeper I look the more complex and profound I realise it is. I open legacy and it feels like going back in time so very very far. For me, who used to checkerboard (in dubbing parlance) so much I have realised some clever guys and girls must have looked at how many of us worked and realised the expand audio function solved so may problems. But they have looked so very far and deep into the future the development of the software, it must have cost so much and I started thinking how long would it take and how much would it cost to create software this brilliant and complex from the ground up.

There is so much to it.

Of course here in UK, conservative and resistant to anything new and to change most people still don't get it

How many years must they have been working on this?

How did they keep it such a secret?

And to sell it for 200 quid?

Wow.


Return to posts index


Nikolas Bäurle
Re: Development
on Oct 25, 2013 at 6:13:47 pm

FCPX has absolutely nothing in common with imovie, other than some UI elements. FCPX is based on AV Foundation, the old iMovie is Quicktime. The new Mavericks iMove is most likely AV Foundation, not sure. That was actually one of the first complaints against X, since it looked like imovie... I still heard this argument 2 weeks ago:-)))


Return to posts index

Bret Williams
Re: Development
on Oct 25, 2013 at 6:28:04 pm

You don't think they borrowed a lick of code from iMpvie '09, which was a complete rewrite? I don't know if that one was AV foundation or not, but they had to start around then. I'm not a programmer, but I'm sure there are functions and code that can be converted or cross appropriated in some way. Wouldn't AV foundation just be the part that deals with the media processing and throughput? What about all the basic interface code? Dealing with databases and time code and moving elements around? You can import an iMovie project but not a legacy project. It was obviously built to be an obvious higher end iMovie. The entire convention of how the two apps operate and deal with media is essentially the same. iMovie had much more real time processing power than legacy. It was probably converted to AV foundation before X was released. Gotta think it was the idea, if not a lot of code, that was expanded upon at the time. They probably have two completely divergent paths now with a compatibility set that they adhere to.


Return to posts index

James Ewart
Re: Development
on Oct 25, 2013 at 6:31:47 pm

Well we are all hoping and praying they have committed and this is not an experiment are we not?

I do not want to go to Adobe much and for some reason, having learnt to be multi skilled with FCP 1.2 onwards and being from a producer/director background I cannot get my head round Avid at all.


Return to posts index


Nikolas Bäurle
Re: Development
on Oct 25, 2013 at 7:08:59 pm

Bret, i did write ..."other than some UI elemets", but your right, its probably most of the UI. I've never used imovie other than on my ipad, i didn't know it had better real time processing power than Legacy. Well, i never really cared to check. FCP7 feels crappier every day, but I still have to use it Arrghhh!!!

"Always look on the bright side of life" - Monty Python



Return to posts index

Bret Williams
Re: Development
on Oct 25, 2013 at 7:47:50 pm

When X was demoed, many went to look at iMovie on their computer. When you rearranged things, it was very similar looking and it was all about connected clips and events. And built in was all the cool stuff they were hyping about X! The automatically adjusting waveforms. The magnetic timeline. The precision editor. The RT audio and video filters. It was all there in iMovie! The more you looked at it, whether built on the same code or not, X, back then, it was obviously iMovie with more cool stuff and missing a lot of stuff that seemed to be pretty integral to a Pro App. I don't think it's any coincidence that X had all the features of iMovie, but was missing many (added later) of legacy. If they really had built it from the ground up, seems like they would have started with a lot of stuff that was originally omitted. I think they either started with full iMovie compatibility in mind or with the iMovie code base. There's not much other explanation. But in a way it was a good thing. Everything they've added back has been in a better way like scopes and multicam. Even the drop shadow is better. I'll bet iMovie didn't have a drop shadow effect.


Return to posts index

Bret Williams
Re: Development
on Oct 25, 2013 at 6:18:16 pm

I would assume the idea came across sometime after iMovie '09, which is when Apple ticked off a lot of people by redoing iMovie and removing a lot of features. FCP was getting long in the tooth and the FCP update that year was barely much of anything. Soon after it was rumored that the pro division had been canned. At the time that was considered a ridiculous rumor, but in looking back it probably had a bit of truth. They probably scaled back at that point to just the core needed for FcpX.

My guess is it was in development for 2 years before it's release. But that it wasn't a smooth 2 years. The story is that it started as a logging/metadata app for the front end of FCP called "first cut", but when Jobs saw it he decided it would be the replacement. That's probably when he was quoted as saying the next version of FCP would be awesome. I'm sure he was excited in his way. From there my guess is the next year was a push to have something by a certain time and that resulted in the hijacked show and then disastrous launch.

2011 was odd. I felt like everything Apple did was this rush to put things on a specific course before Steve died. Lion, Siri, FcpX (and instantly EOLing the pro suite.

There's a minor history on FCPX out there I'm sure you can find.


Return to posts index


James Ewart
Re: Development
on Oct 25, 2013 at 6:26:05 pm

FCPX has changed my life. But I am 52 and it took me a year.

but I still don't like the curved edges and find drag and drop from Event browser a bit clunky still.

Just settling in to watch "The Epic of Everest" from Curzon on demand. if ever you are in the Uk their cinemas in London are wonderful and if you can access watch on demand outside UK I also recommend it.

The best movies.

Have a good weekend all

http://www.jamesewart.co.uk


Return to posts index

Chris Kenny
Re: Development
on Oct 25, 2013 at 6:37:14 pm

[James Ewart] "Can anybody give me any idea how long the boffins Apple will have been working on FCPX. How many years ago will this work have started?"

I would guess Apple started the transition to working on the new codebase as they were finishing up FCP 7, which would have been a couple of years before the release of X.

[James Ewart] "Is the Architecture actually based upon Imovie?"

It doesn't appear to be. FCP X uses a largely GPU-based 'float' processing pipeline which is not the case for iMovie (or at least wasn't when FCP X shipped) and uses AVFoundation for file access, video I/O and manipulating timed media, where iMovie uses (or at least used) QuickTime. Any superficial similarities between FCP X and iMovie were likely just a consequence of the general direction of Apple's thinking about editing user interface.

It's quite likely FCP X borrowed some code from Motion, however. And while I haven't really been keeping tabs on iMovie, it wouldn't surprise me if iMovie started borrowing code from FCP X — that would make sense, as Apple seems to be trying to unify its consumer apps more across iOS and OS X (we just saw a big push in this direction with iWork), and that would require the OS X version of iMovie to ditch QuickTime, as it's not present on iOS.

--
Digital Workflow/Colorist, Nice Dissolve.

You should follow me on Twitter here. Or read our blog.


Return to posts index

James Ewart
Re: Development
on Oct 25, 2013 at 6:43:50 pm

wot no QuickTime?

Weirdly I have been thrown a load of stuff shot in FlipCam SD for a theatre and they have maximum file sizes of 45MB and I am struggling to get them down to his size on Export with FCPX.

"We've never had this problem before they say" and of course they are dinosaurs but it can be a challenge as many clients are still a fair bit behind. But it becomes "my problem".

Thank God for MpegStreamclip..I do not know what I would do.

I have always found Compressor crap.

What they do not think about is those of us "professionals" whose clients are not.

http://www.jamesewart.co.uk


Return to posts index


James Ewart
Re: Development
on Oct 25, 2013 at 6:51:42 pm

And how much did a project like this cost?


Return to posts index

Ronny Courtens
Re: Development
on Oct 25, 2013 at 8:14:33 pm

Was FCPX based on iMovie? No. Is the new iMovie based on FCPX? Absolutely yes.
The new iMovie X is getting much closer now to FCPX than ever before. I now call it FCPXpress (-:

If you play around with it you even discover some things that some of us have been asking for FCPX (this little list is from TPayton + some by me):

- Rethought UI - Flatter, square corners, less depth on timeline.
- No more separate „Projects" folders. Project files reside in the Events folders.
- Individual import progress indicators in the Event for clips that are being imported.
- "Used Media" range markers on clips in Event.
- Greatly improved performance (scrolling filmstrips)
- Titles based on Motion templates (some are the same as in X)
- Blazing fast Motion Template performance (iMovie X is monumentally faster at editing titles than current FCPX)
- Notifications after completed exports
- Video fade-in fade-out handles
- Length indicators for handles
- An extra audio track (yes, a track) that is not connected to the Storyline

It runs on the same Framework as FCPX, you can share templates between them, it has the same (but simplified) retiming and stabilization features, etc...

I have found it quite performant, playing three layers (PIP) of non-optimized 1080p30 MPEG4 with effects and titles on top in realtime and without any hiccups... on the most basic Mini with 2 GB RAM.

Here's an iMovieX timeline:



- Ronny


Return to posts index

Steve Connor
Re: Development
on Oct 25, 2013 at 8:32:55 pm

[Ronny Courtens] "I have found it quite performant, playing three layers (PIP) of non-optimized 1080p30 MPEG4 with effects and titles on top in realtime and without any hiccups... on the most basic Mini with 2 GB RAM.
"


It will also import and play 4K XAVC footage!

Steve Connor

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


Return to posts index


Charlie Austin
Re: Development
on Oct 25, 2013 at 9:04:27 pm

[Ronny Courtens] "- An extra audio track (yes, a track) that is not connected to the Storyline"

Actually, it's not a track really, it's more like a hidden secondary, always in position mode, permanently connected to the first frame of the timeline. (if you drag a clip out of that region it becomes a connected clip, just as it would in an X secondary) ...I guess it is kind of a track huh? lol Who knows if that'll show up in X for the next release, or ever, but it's a cool idea... So, if it were to appear, obviously with more control, then at some point you could cut in the X timeline with any combination of:

Magnetism
Fixed "tracks"
Ripple Mode (MC Style)
"Free" mode (FCP 7/Pr)
Maybe a Role based "Z-Order" sorting (no hints of this, but I know a lot of folks want it)
Connections or disabled connections



Anything else? Seems to me like the best of, uh... everything.

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


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


Return to posts index

Ronny Courtens
Re: Development
on Oct 25, 2013 at 9:14:51 pm

Correct, Charlie. When you insert a clip at the start of the timeline the cops on the "track" are pushed backwards. So no, no real independent track.

- Ronny


Return to posts index

Aindreas Gallagher
Re: Development
on Oct 25, 2013 at 11:47:59 pm

so that largely resolves music based edits then right?

seriously though - exactly how seductive is that tagging system? bins spontaneously made out of free form compound attribute phrases from recall?
are you kidding me?

In a way - why aren't more settled industry production participants (without anonymity and weird training aspects) simply and calmly putting FCPX obviously to work in visible uncontentious scenarios? Why aren't they doing that? It's easy to do and it affirms the software. below the line is everywhere.

Why isn't it just being put selectively to work to analyse it? Isn't anyone curious at all? Given it desperately needs the analysis?

if the industry keeps calling FCPX the red headed step child, and keep stomping, the entire red headed child is potentially likely to die.

bad, say hulk, that loss to all.

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


Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: Development
on Oct 26, 2013 at 5:06:10 am

[Aindreas Gallagher] "so that largely resolves music based edits then right?"

A COW user showed me in early Larry Jordan training, like, the first fcpx training to hit the market, the disconnected "Soundtrack" was in a training module, but that feature never made it to the fcpx official release and was later ammended, so it must have been an iMovie Pro leftover.

[Aindreas Gallagher] "Why aren't they doing that? "

How do you know "they" aren't? :)


Return to posts index

Aindreas Gallagher
Re: Development
on Oct 25, 2013 at 8:14:54 pm

Chris Kenny back in the house by god.

sure will we not start talking about first cut and that fateful presentation by ubillos to steve jobs all over again? :)

because somehow I don't feel we fully covered that. ahem.

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


Return to posts index

Richert Goyette
Re: Development
on Oct 25, 2013 at 7:59:43 pm

I understand that there was substantial debate about the direction of Final Cut Pro in 2009 and early 2010 and once Steve Jobs made the decision to go where the puck was going to be (FCPX), a number of disaffected video engineers were laid off in Austin and LA. So, that may help with the framing of the time. And, I agree, they must have used some of the architecture from iMovie '08 so as not to reinvent the wheel.



Return to posts index

Charlie Austin
Re: Development
on Oct 25, 2013 at 8:11:27 pm

FWIW, In some interviews I've read, they say when they wrote X they took some concepts from the old iMovie, but the code and workflow etc was completely different. AV Foundation (X) vs Quicktime (iMovie)

However, after playing with iMovie for a couple hours, it seems like the opposite is true now, and the new iMovie is kind of based on FCP X. Open it it up and mess with it a bit and you'll see what I mean. It looks similar, but it's a *lot* different than the previous version. Also, the "Trailer" templates are actually really cool. If I could get XML out I'd just use those at work. LOL (I'm only half kidding....)

So... FCPX isn't "iMovie Pro" at all, but maybe iMovie is now FCPX Lite. :-)

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


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


Return to posts index

Aindreas Gallagher
Re: Development
on Oct 25, 2013 at 8:42:21 pm

I'm late at work - me me - I want a go at this. so maybe as early as 2006-2007?

http://isachin.com/2011/06/30/why-apple-built-final-cut-pro-x/

way, way back I used to post that link as something inflammatory - I'm not now - but it would make you think that apple were starting the initial intellectual shift surprisingly early - folklore (and god knows how many old posts) have it that the entire paradigm was accidentally first presented as a seed to steve jobs by randy ubillos (the FCP Jony Ives) as what he called 'first cut' - in late 2006.
it was sort of something like adobe prelude is now - as a wildly ahead of its time enhanced logger with editing assembly, database tagging stuff - this was before imovie 08. That's basically the understood inception point.

after the demo Jobs apparently turned around and told him to flatout make it the basis for broad scale video editing going forward. So ubillos did. It was first executed in imovie 08 -
thats where the "its imovie" stuff comes from. Basically Ubillos walked in with a thing and jobs made a taste call that it was a basis for something much broader.

If you look back two years you will find absolutely no one on this forum going completely bonkers on the topic.

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


Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: Development
on Oct 25, 2013 at 10:44:53 pm

iMovie used to be 32bit vs FCPX 64bit.

That has probably changed with this new version, though.


Return to posts index

Charlie Austin
Re: Development
on Oct 25, 2013 at 10:54:18 pm

[Jeremy Garchow] "That has probably changed with this new version, though."

It has. It's 64 now..,

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


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


Return to posts index

Simon Ubsdell
Re: Development
on Oct 26, 2013 at 2:24:05 pm

[Charlie Austin] "[Jeremy Garchow] "That has probably changed with this new version, though."

It has. It's 64 now..,"


Aha!!!!!

Therefore by the impeccable logic that has so often been so devastatingly deployed by the "FCP X is not based in iMovie" crowd, the only possible conclusion we can draw from this is that the new "iMovie" has absolutely nothing in common with the old "iMovie".

Nothing.

Not one shred of code.

Not one single point of comparison.

Now that's weird.

But so obviously true as not to require any further discussion.

For those of you to young to remember, it was always definitively argued that because FCP X was 64 bit and iMovie was only 32 bit there was self-evidently nothing that they could possibly have in common.

Despite the apparently self-evident fact that the entire design underpinning of both products was identical at the point of X's launch.

Instead we now have the rather bizarre scenario of folks arguing that the new iMovie is based on X - and of course wouldn't look remotely like X if X hadn't come first!!!!!

The world is a very strange place ...

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


Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: Development
on Oct 26, 2013 at 3:00:53 pm

[Simon Ubsdell] "The world is a very strange place"

Yeah.

Like it was said two years ago, this stuff doesn't really matter, does it? So what if X is based off iMovie or vice versa.

iMovie can now take Motion templates. Perhaps iMovie, in a shocking turn of events, is now iMovie Pro


http://blog.alex4d.com/2013/10/23/fcpx-motion5-imovie-2013/

Jeremy


Return to posts index

Simon Ubsdell
Re: Development
on Oct 26, 2013 at 5:26:54 pm

[Jeremy Garchow] "Like it was said two years ago, this stuff doesn't really matter, does it?"

Revisionist ;-)

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


Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: Development
on Oct 26, 2013 at 6:17:11 pm

Don't make me go look it up!


Return to posts index

Simon Ubsdell
Re: Development
on Oct 26, 2013 at 6:54:41 pm

[Jeremy Garchow] "Don't make me go look it up!"

Just kidding ;-)

I could never get you to admit how vitally important the whole question was!

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


Return to posts index

Chris Harlan
Re: Development
on Oct 26, 2013 at 6:50:54 pm

[Jeremy Garchow] "Perhaps iMovie, in a shocking turn of events, is now iMovie Pro"

LOL


Return to posts index

Charlie Austin
Re: Development
on Oct 26, 2013 at 6:56:04 pm

[Chris Harlan] "[Jeremy Garchow] "Perhaps iMovie, in a shocking turn of events, is now iMovie Pro"

LOL"


After playing with it the other day, and having a fairly simple home video release spot to cut, I actually wanted to just do it in iMovie. :-) Unfortunately, my evil plan was foiled when I discovered there's no XML export or anything like that in iMovie. What was Apple thinking! This is clearly not professional software! ;-)

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


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


Return to posts index

Charlie Austin
Re: Development
on Oct 26, 2013 at 4:55:21 pm

[Simon Ubsdell] "For those of you to young to remember, it was always definitively argued that because FCP X was 64 bit and iMovie was only 32 bit there was self-evidently nothing that they could possibly have in common.

This argument was likely made by the same people who argue that FCPX was perfect when it was initially released, and to this day has absolutely no problems or shortcomings at all. It's pretty self-evident that those people were/are wrong. ;-)

[Simon Ubsdell] "Despite the apparently self-evident fact that the entire design underpinning of both products was identical at the point of X's launch.
Instead we now have the rather bizarre scenario of folks arguing that the new iMovie is based on X - and of course wouldn't look remotely like X if X hadn't come first!!!!!"


It's pretty obvious, to anyone with eyes, that the design of FCP X was based on iMovie. Timeline, UI, event/project structure, skimming, magnetism, etc, etc. But, and I say this as someone who enjoys poking around in app packages, the guts of the 2 were very different. QtKit vs A/V foundation and totally different Plugin architecture were the biggies, but there were an enormous amount of fundamental differences, despite the similar look and feel.

Now, other than the vastly simplified UI, not so much. Maybe iMovie and X have a symbiotic, leapfrogging relationship...
A- Try out concepts in iMovie 8 -> build a brand new app, FCPX, based on those concepts.
---launch FCPX and make improvements over time. Meanwhile...
B- Rewrite new iMovie based on FCPX code and try out new concepts -> Use new concepts in FCP X ???
---I guess we'll see in December... Maybe they'll put "Pro Quality" Trailer Templates in X, and we'll all be out of jobs. lol

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


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


Return to posts index

Simon Ubsdell
Re: Development
on Oct 26, 2013 at 5:26:06 pm

[Charlie Austin] "Now, other than the vastly simplified UI, not so much. Maybe iMovie and X have a symbiotic, leapfrogging relationship...
A- Try out concepts in iMovie 8 -> build a brand new app, FCPX, based on those concepts.
---launch FCPX and make improvements over time. Meanwhile...
B- Rewrite new iMovie based on FCPX code and try out new concepts -> Use new concepts in FCP X ??? "


That sounds like the most sensible description for sure.

But there will always be folks to whom it is an article of faith that the two could never have had anything in common.

In the case of FCP X, sure the guts are different, but what is really distinctive about X as against every other NLE out there? Its fundamental design concepts. And to argue that these didn't derive directly from the iMovie development path has always struck me as highly perverse.

How you build an app is one thing - what you are building is quite another thing. Two apps can be built entirely differently and yet be driven by an identical design concept.

(Coincidentally, I'm doing that exact same thing this week (albeit on a scale vastly more modest than X) with one of my commercial products - taking it from something only accessible to X users and making a version that will work in Premiere and Ae. Entirely different build methods - the same end product.)

[Charlie Austin] "Maybe they'll put "Pro Quality" Trailer Templates in X, and we'll all be out of jobs."

They're already much too good for my liking ;-)

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


Return to posts index

James Ewart
Re: Development
on Oct 26, 2013 at 5:31:39 pm

...and all I asked was "Does anybody know how long ago they started building this thing?".
seems about 2 years before the first "Beta" release in 2011. I wonder if they will dare release 10.1 without more thorough testing. Trouble is how can they when it's all so secret? How can they test thoroughly without releasing official Beta and testing broadly? I think that's a problem for Apple. Is it Paranoia? or stupidity?


Return to posts index

Marcus Moore
Re: Development
on Oct 26, 2013 at 10:05:46 pm

Apple has their Beta testers. They just know how to keep quiet.



Return to posts index

James Ewart
Re: Development
on Oct 27, 2013 at 5:19:28 am

These Beta testers who are so discreet are clearly not Apple's greatest asset. Pretty much every new OS and software edition is full of bugs...we are the real Beta testers. How much do they get paid??


Return to posts index

Marcus Moore
Re: Development
on Oct 27, 2013 at 1:26:51 pm

I'm not sure they do get paid.

With any small section of beta testers, all combinations of software, hardware, and plug-ins aren't going to be represented.

So it's natural that a few things are going to come up once something gets released to the entire user base.

NO software comes out of Beta completely free of bugs. Ever.



Return to posts index

Marcus Moore
Re: Development
on Oct 26, 2013 at 5:37:24 pm

[Charlie Austin] "This argument was likely made by the same people who argue that FCPX was perfect when it was initially released, and to this day has absolutely no problems or shortcomings at all. It's pretty self-evident that those people were/are wrong. ;-)"

There's nothing worse for FCPX's rep than an evangelist who doesn't acknowledge the programs shortcomings.



Return to posts index

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