FORUMS: list search recent posts

Evidence of XML Importer Found in Final Cut Pro X

COW Forums : Apple Final Cut Pro X Debates

<< PREVIOUS   •   VIEW ALL   •   PRINT   •   NEXT >>

Craig Seeman
Re: Evidence of XML Importer Found in Final Cut Pro X
on Jun 28, 2011 at 4:25:59 pm

Kinda makes you wonder why the alleged quote by Randy Ubillos saying it wasn't a high priority. Wouldn't it have made more sense to say that it's under way or under development?

Apple has a serious communications issue. It's their biggest fatal bug IMHO.



Return to posts index

Mike Petty
Re: Evidence of XML Importer Found in Final Cut Pro X
on Jun 28, 2011 at 4:45:13 pm

I wonder what time the internal e-mail went out yesterday that directed that FCS support be re- hung on the site and also directed that a PR person is to be attached to Ubilos 24hours a day and if he opens his mouth again he sleeps with the fishes?


Return to posts index


Stephen Bakopanos
Re: Evidence of XML Importer Found in Final Cut Pro X
on Jun 28, 2011 at 6:16:51 pm

Hopefully some of the hysteria will die down now. Apple have messed up the release without a doubt, but it's becoming clear that they haven't abandoned pro users and that they do intend on making Final Cut Pro live up to the final part of its name. In time I can see it being quite a powerful program.


Return to posts index

Matt Callac
Re: Evidence of XML Importer Found in Final Cut Pro X
on Jun 28, 2011 at 6:17:13 pm

Chris Kenny already discovered this the day FCPX came out. It's here on his blog.

http://blog.nicedissolve.com/2011/06/is-python-the-future-of-fcpx-workflow/


Problem is most people aren't paying enough attention to the details. they're too busy assuming they know what apple is doing and planning to jump platforms.

-mattyc


Return to posts index

Tim Vaughan
Re: Evidence of XML Importer Found in Final Cut Pro X
on Jun 28, 2011 at 6:22:38 pm

By that logic, 2 lines up it says (void)importiMovieProject:(800)arg1. So they obviously haven't figured out if they want it to be iMovie Pro or FCP.

Tim
Now featuring AVID Media Composer
Apple XRAID, XServe, MacPro, Macbook Pro, XSAN, FCP Studio 7 (Sorry, no iMovie Pro)
Apple Monitors, Flanders Scientific Broadcast, Panasonic AG-AF100
Adobe Production Premium, Maxon Cinema 4d
Beer fridge fully loaded.


Return to posts index


Stephen Bakopanos
Re: Evidence of XML Importer Found in Final Cut Pro X
on Jun 28, 2011 at 6:27:50 pm

[Tim Vaughan] "By that logic, 2 lines up it says (void)importiMovieProject:(800)arg1. So they obviously haven't figured out if they want it to be iMovie Pro or FCP."

That makes no logical sense whatsoever. It just means that Apple intend to support multiple formats for import. The more formats it can support, the better. In fact, I'd say that's a pretty good measure of a "pro" app. Just because it can import iMovie files, doesn't make it iMovie.

FCPX has some serious professional underpinnings, which, as we can see, are yet to be fully exploited.


Return to posts index

Chris Kenny
Re: Evidence of XML Importer Found in Final Cut Pro X
on Jun 28, 2011 at 7:01:58 pm

[Tim Vaughan] "By that logic, 2 lines up it says (void)importiMovieProject:(800)arg1. So they obviously haven't figured out if they want it to be iMovie Pro or FCP."

Importing iMovie projects is already enabled. People have been extensively citing this to claim it's a not a pro app.

My guess is that iMovie importing is already enabled just because it's easier to do.

--
Digital Workflow/Colorist, Nice Dissolve.

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


Return to posts index

Stephen Bakopanos
Re: Evidence of XML Importer Found in Final Cut Pro X
on Jun 28, 2011 at 6:34:31 pm

[Matt Callac] "Problem is most people aren't paying enough attention to the details. they're too busy assuming they know what apple is doing and planning to jump platforms."

Spot on Matt. I wish some people would spend less time blogging and spreading FUD and more time actually learning how to use the program. Take this blog for example:

http://jefferyharrell.tumblr.com/post/6865416226/project-management-in-fcp-...

He spends multiple paragraphs whinging about not being able to filter out keyworded clips, before declaring it "impossible" to do. The reality of course, is that it is indeed possible. In fact, it's painfully simple - just click on a simple drop menu on top of the event browser (or hit CTRL+X). If he'd spent the hour that he probably spent composing that post, he might have actually worked it out for himself...


Return to posts index


TS O'Grady
Re: Evidence of XML Importer Found in Final Cut Pro X
on Jun 28, 2011 at 7:22:46 pm

Ten years ago FCP editors were told that FCP wasn't a professional program and although in some ways FCP was running circles around Avid and Media 100, it took years for the smear to wear off. I'm afraid we're going to have to go through that again. Unfortunately, this time it's the FCP editors who can't be bothered to do their own research, keep an open mind and spend some time with the program that are spreading the lie. It's always easier to be cynical and negative but I wonder if they can look past their self perpetuating anger and see, if there's a possibility they will be using FCP X in the future, how badly they are setting themselves up for the same ridicule.



Return to posts index

Aindreas Gallagher
Re: Evidence of XML Importer Found in Final Cut Pro X
on Jun 28, 2011 at 7:32:58 pm

yeah, but Jeffrey has made some pretty good points too - this one below is a bit holistic as it relates to apple's overall decision to make a trackless magnetic timeline, but it rings pretty true to me:

One of the new features Apple’s touting is what they’re calling the “Magnetic Timeline,” which they describe as an improvement over “traditional, track-based timelines.” Well Apple, love you guys, but we use traditional, track-based timelines for a reason. Ever had a project so organizationally complex you needed twenty tracks of video just to keep it straight? I have. So’s every editor who’s ever done even a reasonable-sized project. And it’s not just organizational convenience, either. Those “traditional tracks” Apple thinks are such dinosaurs map directly onto physical tracks. We need to be able to put music on tracks one and two, VO on three and foley and effects on four through eight. We require the ability to assign different tracks to different output channels, so the tape master that goes to the network meets their delivery specs.

The lack of tracks on the timeline isn’t an omission. It’s another choice. It’s another thing Apple had to sit down, think through, and decide to do. And it’s another way in which Apple’s created a product that’s literally unusable for commercial post.



http://www.ogallchoir.net
promo producer/editor.grading/motion graphics


Return to posts index

Andrew Richards
Re: Evidence of XML Importer Found in Final Cut Pro X
on Jun 28, 2011 at 8:01:58 pm

"Those “traditional tracks” Apple thinks are such dinosaurs map directly onto physical tracks. We need to be able to put music on tracks one and two, VO on three and foley and effects on four through eight. We require the ability to assign different tracks to different output channels, so the tape master that goes to the network meets their delivery specs."

Disagree. Legacy FCP could support a 1:1 relationship between tracks in the timeline and tracks in the output, but it wasn't a given. You had to set up the sequence settings and define what output each track was gong to map to. There is no reason this can't also be done in FCPX. Look at an audio element in the Inspector, and you can assign its tracks roles (though I say there aren't enough options here). Ultimately the tracks in that audio are being fed to virtual buses that will handle it a certain way. The difference is the removal of hard tracks in the FCPX timeline allows for more flexible handling of audio that still maps to specific output busses. That's the whole point of the Magnetic Timeline- collisions can be avoided when you abstract the role of the media from its physical placement in the timeline.

"Well Apple, love you guys, but we use traditional, track-based timelines for a reason. Ever had a project so organizationally complex you needed twenty tracks of video just to keep it straight? I have. So’s every editor who’s ever done even a reasonable-sized project. And it’s not just organizational convenience, either. "

Weak argument. 20 video layers as a form of organization sounds more like a workaround than best practice to me. Just because the limits of legacy FCP lent themselves to certain methods doesn't make those methods good, only familiar.

I'm not saying FCPX is ready for primetime, but I see a lot of knee-jerk reactions like this out there that only prove the user didn't approach the new editing metaphor with an open mind or an interest in learning it. If you go looking for a reason to hate something, you'll almost always be successful.

Best,
Andy Richards

VP of Product Development
Keeper Technology


Return to posts index


Aindreas Gallagher
Re: Evidence of XML Importer Found in Final Cut Pro X
on Jun 28, 2011 at 8:06:02 pm

okedoke - i like his style of writing tho, really fluid ranty, but nice and light and conversational at the same time. Also, I personally find many of his observations pretty compelling and I pretty much agree with him


http://www.ogallchoir.net
promo producer/editor.grading/motion graphics


Return to posts index

Craig Seeman
Re: Evidence of XML Importer Found in Final Cut Pro X
on Jun 28, 2011 at 8:12:48 pm

"We need to be able to put music on tracks one and two, VO on three and foley and effects on four through eight. We require the ability to assign different tracks to different output channels, so the tape master that goes to the network meets their delivery specs.""

And to add to Andrew's comments, this will all be handled in metadata.
Have you looked at Audio Role?
You can select music, effects, dialogue. It's nascent as they need to add Voice Over and probably a custom field but this will all mean that audio function assignments can happen. The function is directly assigned. Tracks were always a workaround for the functions we'd really want to assign directly to media. The track was a poor person's keyword as it were. Track 1 was X, Track 2 was Y, etc. Now X and Y, etc. are assigned to the media directly. This allows for much more complex and flexible relationships.

FCPX is like taking the old Spreadsheet rigid paradigm and moving it into a much more powerful Relational Database. People don't get the power behind it yet because FCPX isn't taking full advantage of it yet.



Return to posts index

Stephen Bakopanos
Re: Evidence of XML Importer Found in Final Cut Pro X
on Jun 29, 2011 at 4:29:25 am

[Andrew Richards] "The difference is the removal of hard tracks in the FCPX timeline allows for more flexible handling of audio that still maps to specific output busses. That's the whole point of the Magnetic Timeline- collisions can be avoided when you abstract the role of the media from its physical placement in the timeline."

This is indeed where the power of FCPX lies. Sure, it's got a limited feature set at the moment, but the potential for the future is huge. Those who want to write it of as a consumer product (i.e. iMovie Plus), are being incredibly closed minded.


Return to posts index


Craig Seeman
Re: Evidence of XML Importer Found in Final Cut Pro X
on Jun 28, 2011 at 8:05:59 pm

And I think trackless will make doing lots of layers MUCH EASIER to manage. Shots are either individually connected to the Primary Storyline OR They relate to each other as a Secondary Storyline which has a connection to the Primary Storyline. These are the two ways tracks/layers have been used yet previously there was no Connection to the master track. Everything was independent and one had to grab parts of track upon track to move things or make changes and maintain relationships.

It's precisely the trackless Connected Clip and Secondary Storyline that will make such layering very easy. It can then be Compounded LOGICALLY as needed so one can open and work in the Compounds as separate workspaces . . . yet remain connected to the Primary Storyline.

In some ways this change is similar to the move to nodal based compositing (at least in being a radical but improved workflow) and yet this trackless method may be a bit more intuitive for many (my personal judgement only).



Return to posts index

Aindreas Gallagher
Re: Evidence of XML Importer Found in Final Cut Pro X
on Jun 28, 2011 at 8:27:21 pm

ah yeah sure I mean look - on some level I'm just looking at that thing, I played with that thing, and I don't buy it; I don't think my lack of perception or understanding of the proposed methodology is the issue here - I have a brain in place, it is moist and functioning, I think i Grok at this point where FCPX wants to go with it, and, on a fundamental level, I don't buy it. I look at the editing system that preceeded it, the editing systems around it then I look at FCPX and I just don't buy it. Its a consumer app. Even if the methodology in it has within in it the potential for a generational quantum leap in the art of editing, a blinding set of insights that bounded fully formed from the mind of Randy Ubillos alone, with about four testers or whatever (do we all think there were enough betatesters for this system?) even if I'm fundamentally wrong, even if I don't get it, I don't think it matters - I think this software is toast professionally - I know Chris Kenny is going to jump up and down on my brainpan now for spreading FUD..
But: Nobody is going to buy what Randy is selling, because they are going to be pretty convinced, as I am, that he made this software for consumers. FCP7 will be gone from all broadcast environments it currenty resides in within the next 12 months. They are not going to replace it with FCPX, no way josé, no way no how, that would be like buying your car from a crazy guy who tells you he might have to take it back at some future point without warning. Its not going to happen. FCP7 is EOL - FCPX is unfit for purpose - Apple have shown themselves to a crazily unreliable software vendor = FCP is toast.

And would you look for gods sake I ranted again - I should go back up to asking stupid questions about premiere - which doesn't look half bad actually. weirdly close to FCP really, the timeline is the spitting image of it. It has a viewer!


http://www.ogallchoir.net
promo producer/editor.grading/motion graphics


Return to posts index

Andrew Richards
Re: Evidence of XML Importer Found in Final Cut Pro X
on Jun 28, 2011 at 9:14:27 pm

[Aindreas Gallagher] "And would you look for gods sake I ranted again - I should go back up to asking stupid questions about premiere - which doesn't look half bad actually. weirdly close to FCP really, the timeline is the spitting image of it. It has a viewer!"

Well considering Premiere was Randy Ubillos' old project prior to KeyGrip-cum-FCP, it stands to reason it would bear a striking resemblance. And while Randy wasn't there for the big shift to Premiere Pro back in 2003, copying the successful FCP UI since then to rise to credibility after its own scorched-earth rewrite also makes sense.

Your contention is essentially that the computer-based video editing UI metaphor invented in the early 1990s remains the ideal for all visual storytelling. Only time will tell if you are right.

Best,
Andy Richards

VP of Product Development
Keeper Technology


Return to posts index


Aindreas Gallagher
Re: Evidence of XML Importer Found in Final Cut Pro X
on Jun 28, 2011 at 9:30:50 pm

well yes, that is precisely correct. editing software has remained largely the same, 3D software, when you think about it, has remained the same both in how it exposes functionality - four up view - transform and manipulation tools - and the degree of functionality it exposes - a lot.

Saying the same as the 1990s side steps an inescapable point - the software looks the same because the professional editing environment, no more than the professional 3D environment, or indeed the professional print environment, have complex requirements, exposing functionality for the artist to deliver across multiple markets and output mediums in a high pressure environment - that is what maintains the complexity of the software and the tried and tested conceptual underpinnings of the software it self: multiple tracks, a source, a viewer, all of these things have real world counterparts, and all of them predate the editing software itself. Placed within the software, they are the distillation of hard won thought.

It is, I would argue, the height of mind blowing hubris for apple to flush all of this down the toilet in search of ever more of the consumer market.


http://www.ogallchoir.net
promo producer/editor.grading/motion graphics


Return to posts index

Alex Hawkins
Re: Evidence of XML Importer Found in Final Cut Pro X
on Jun 29, 2011 at 4:23:06 am

I thought this was pretty accurate though (not to mention fairly hilarious):

Anyway, let's sum up project organization in FCP X: It's apocalyptically bad. Seriously. It's like the program was specifically and maliciously designed to make it hard to do even the most basic tasks, like sorting your shots into bins so you can find things. Yes, Apple's apparent philosophy is that human beings shouldn't sort things; computers should sort things. Human beings should just tell the computer what we want. And if the computer had perfect knowledge, that'd work fine. But the computer won't ever have perfect knowledge, and if it did, the editor wouldn't. How many times have you been working on a corporate piece, say, and you're cutting together interview bites from multiple subjects? Do you ever know the subjects' names? Hell no. It's just "this guy with the glasses," "that girl with the bad haircut," "that cool chap in the bow tie." Do you want to have to sit down and methodically tell your editing system which shots have the guy with glasses and which have the girl with the hair? No, you don't. You just want to throw shit in bins, then browse through them to find the shots you want.

Both Avid and Final Cut Pro (the old one) work on the core principle of putting shit in piles. You can make as many piles as you want, easily, and you can put shit in them. This goes there, that goes there. Easy and quick.

FCP X is based on the core principle that you're a goddamn librarian. Every shot on your system has to have its own Dewey decimal number, and its own card in the card catalogue. Yes, once you completely and thoroughly annotate every f***ing frame in the three-hundred-and-seventy hours of rushes that go into your show, I'm sure FCP X will do a yeoman's job of finding what you want for you, as long as you, yourself, remember how things were annotated. But if you just want to put shit in piles and then find it again by browsing, like every editor in the universe does, FCP X will fight you tooth and nail every step of the way.


Alex Hawkins
Canberra, Australia


Return to posts index

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