FORUMS: list search recent posts

Death of Aperture-FCPX Next?

COW Forums : Apple Final Cut Pro X Debates

<< PREVIOUS   •   VIEW ALL   •   PRINT   •   NEXT >>
Greg Jones
Death of Aperture-FCPX Next?
on Jun 27, 2014 at 6:39:09 pm

This is precisely why I would be nervous about using FCPX. Forgot the fact about lack of tracks, audio mixer, etc. The fact that Apple just drops apps without thinking makes me nervous. I love their hardware, but they don't have a very good track record on keeping software around.

http://www.macrumors.com/2014/06/27/aperture-development-stops/

Greg Jones
D7,Inc.

RIP Shake
RIP Final Cut Pro
RIP Aperture


Return to posts index

Marcus Moore
Re: Death of Aperture-FCPX Next?
on Jun 27, 2014 at 6:50:42 pm
Last Edited By Marcus Moore on Jun 27, 2014 at 6:53:23 pm

This is exactly the type of rumour mongering that I hoped would be avoided by Apple specific mentioning of continued development of Logic and FCPX in the Aperture press release. And then releasing an update today.

As I mentioned in another thread- it could well be that recoding Aperture for the new iCloud Drive based nature of Apple Photo management going forward was just too much work, and it was smarter to start from scratch.

Was Aperture even Cocoa yet?


Return to posts index

Greg Jones
Re: Death of Aperture-FCPX Next?
on Jun 27, 2014 at 6:58:46 pm

I will give Apple credit for saying you can use your existing Aperture Library in the new photo app. They must have learned their lesson from the launch of FCPX.

Greg Jones
D7,Inc.

Greg Jones
Orlando,Fl.
http://www.d7-inc.com


Return to posts index


Shane Ross
Re: Death of Aperture-FCPX Next?
on Jun 27, 2014 at 7:21:04 pm

Comment from Twitter:

"So why would Apple not kill/merge #fcpx and iMovie into “Movies” app like they did with the photos app?" But then followed with a good reason: "That new Mac Pro." The best "dongle" for FCX is that spendy tube.

Altough that does seem like it might happen...might be the death of iMovie, rather than the death of FCX

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


Return to posts index

Bill Davis
Re: Death of Aperture-FCPX Next?
on Jun 27, 2014 at 9:08:54 pm

I sincerely doubt that Shane.

X is, IMO, way too deep for the casual editor who just wants to enjoy curating and messing with personal content.

Forcing a casual editor into a world with Roles and XML and Scopes is just silly.

In my thinking, Aperture might have been more likely to see an update if Adobe hadn't exempted Lightroom from the CC model. Funny how CC was required for progress for everyone except the still photo folks.

And remember, the voices have endlessly piped up on how Apple is nuts to do (insert initiative here) and that they'll go broke, or be sold or fail miserably over and over and over, only to have Apple out think and out innovate in the marketplace time and time again.

I have no clue what they're planning with still image management technology - but based on their overall track record, I'm VERY excited to see what happens. It's not like they don't understand the biggest parts of the still image puzzle, which to my thinking are metadata management, high quality image processing, and automating all sorts of processes that were once done by hand (like, foe example, basic flesh tone calibration) but that they realize can be done in a more automated fashion in the modern era.

It's also crystal clear to me that the original metadata centric foundations of X were designed to allow it to do precisely what it's slotting into so well. Manage complexity and make editing easier when an editor has to balance time against complexity. Particularly if whey want to devote more of their scarce minutes or hours to creativity rather than hopping in and out of discrete workspace modules or shuffling clips around in old style destructive timelines.

If you can manage your deadline such as with a movie release or a season of TV where the delivery date is months or years down the road, then X may be a great convenience but it's probably not a necessity.

But if you have to mirror modern business practices where shortening production schedules often leads to a competitive advantage - that's when X can really rock your world.

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

Herb Sevush
Re: Death of Aperture-FCPX Next?
on Jun 28, 2014 at 2:35:46 am

[Bill Davis] "or shuffling clips around in old style destructive timelines. "

Now when did this phrase come into use ? I've noticed it on this forum for the past few months and I'm wondering what exactly it's supposed to mean. I've been working on timelines for almost twenty years and I don't recall them destroying anything, at least not intentionally.

Now destructive editing in audio means that you can't reverse the process, your actually changing the media your working on, the phrase "destructive" is actually describing a process. Similarly destructive editing in photoshop is when you flatten layers and, again, intentionally change the nature of the media in a way that can't be reversed. But "destructive" timelines -- other than the careless actions of an incompetent editor who doesn't know what he's doing I don't see how any timeline can be accurately called destructive, and even in that case it's the editor who's destructive and not the timeline.

Really Bill, I thought we had gotten past the name calling thingy.

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: Death of Aperture-FCPX Next?
on Jun 28, 2014 at 1:45:46 pm

Herb, it's just a linguistic convention, nothing more than that.

ts like saying that knocking over a little kids nice arrangement of building blocks is "destructive" - everyone understands and agrees with that. And nobody presumes you have to reduce those wooden blocks to sawdust to be allowed to use the term.

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: Death of Aperture-FCPX Next?
on Jun 28, 2014 at 4:53:47 pm

[Bill Davis] "Herb, it's just a linguistic convention, nothing more than that."

No, its not a linguistic convention, it's a distortion of a linguistic convention, used only by editors who need to feel better about their choice of NLE. Nowhere else on the COW does anyone label any timeline "destructive." If you were interested in describing a real as opposed to imaginary difference you could call Legacy timelines "fixed track timeline" as opposed to either floating track or magnetic timelines. That actually describes the difference. Destructive is just a pejorative justified by it's use in other situations that are not relevant to the distinction between timelines. Conventions serve a purpose when useful, this one is merely mud slinging, like calling FCPX iMovie Pro.

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


Return to posts index

Oliver Peters
Re: Death of Aperture-FCPX Next?
on Jun 28, 2014 at 7:18:22 pm

[Herb Sevush] "No, its not a linguistic convention, it's a distortion of a linguistic convention, used only by editors who need to feel better about their choice of NLE."

Non-destructive timelines are the very essence of an NLE, going all the way back to the CMX 600.

- Oliver

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


Return to posts index


Oliver Peters
Re: Death of Aperture-FCPX Next?
on Jun 28, 2014 at 7:27:22 pm

[Oliver Peters] "Non-destructive timelines are the very essence of an NLE, going all the way back to the CMX 600."

Ironically, FCP X actually is DESTRUCTIVE. You can open a clip in its own timeline and completely destroy the essence within that master clip "container". Once you do this, the only solution is to re-import the clip.

- Oliver

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


Return to posts index

Bill Davis
Re: Death of Aperture-FCPX Next?
on Jun 28, 2014 at 10:31:06 pm

Ok guys,

Then give me a nice alternative term for what happens when an editor used to drop a clip (or the horror, a group of clips) into a Legacy timeline and the underlying tracks and clips all got instantly overwritten.

You say that's not "destructive" then what is it. Did we need an alternate term all along? "clip obliviation"?

or perhaps "clip transubstantiative?"

I put the clip there. I did something. And unless I played track tetris, the clip that I'd put there was GONE.

To me - that's "destructive" behavior.

That the underlying media didn't get destroyed is a silly distinction. My arrangement of said clip was, in fact, well and truly destroyed.

I'm sorry the term angers you, Herb.

And I'm still sympathetic to the loss of your beloved Legacy. But I don't feel the slightest hesitation to use "destructive" in relation to what happened on my timelines for a decade as a Legacy editor.

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

Oliver Peters
Re: Death of Aperture-FCPX Next?
on Jun 28, 2014 at 10:46:33 pm

[Bill Davis] "overwritten"

I think that's descriptive enough. Yes, you overwrite. No, it's not destructive.

- Oliver

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


Return to posts index


David Lawrence
Re: Death of Aperture-FCPX Next?
on Jun 29, 2014 at 1:49:36 am

[Oliver Peters] "I think that's descriptive enough. Yes, you overwrite. No, it's not destructive."

Yep, exactly right.

"Destructive" in the NLE context is actually a technical term. It should be used accurately.

_______________________
David Lawrence
art~media~design~research
propaganda.com
publicmattersgroup.com
http://lnkd.in/Cfz92F
facebook.com/dlawrence
twitter.com/dhl
vimeo.com/dlawrence/albums


Return to posts index

Walter Soyka
Re: Death of Aperture-FCPX Next?
on Jun 29, 2014 at 2:16:27 am

[David Lawrence] ""Destructive" in the NLE context is actually a technical term. It should be used accurately."

I kind of see Bill's point. Clip collisions are (often needlessly) destructive in (most) tracked NLEs.

That makes sense on video tape, which can actually only hold a single stream in a video track, but this limitation is artificial with computers. There's no reason that a track couldn't hold multiple overlapping clips for later collision resolution.

FCP X handles clip collision truly non-destructively in all cases, so I think the distinction is valid.

Walter Soyka
Designer & Mad Scientist at Keen Live [link]
Motion Graphics, Widescreen Events, Presentation Design, and Consulting
@keenlive [twitter]   |   RenderBreak [blog]   |   Profile [LinkedIn]


Return to posts index

David Lawrence
Re: Death of Aperture-FCPX Next?
on Jun 29, 2014 at 5:28:53 am

[Walter Soyka] "Clip collisions are (often needlessly) destructive in (most) tracked NLEs.

That makes sense on video tape, which can actually only hold a single stream in a video track, but this limitation is artificial with computers. There's no reason that a track couldn't hold multiple overlapping clips for later collision resolution.

FCP X handles clip collision truly non-destructively in all cases, so I think the distinction is valid."


I disagree. It's an incorrect use of the term.

There's a technical difference between overwriting and destructive editing. They're simply not the same thing.

NLEs have always been non-destructive by their very nature.

If a clip collision deleted a chunk of the clip from the file on disk, then it would be considered destructive. Overwriting something accidentally on the timeline does nothing of the sort.

In fact, one of the things I find so frustrating about the magnetic timeline is that it's sometimes over-protective of clips. For example, it doesn't allow a simple audio cut and overwrite paste directly from the primary into the primary. This is something I easily do hundreds of times an hour when cutting dialogue on a tracked timeline. Even the simplest text editor can overwrite paste.

I agree that there's no reason a single track couldn't hold multiple overlapping clips. IIRC, Vegas has an overlap mode and I've also seen this in some DAWs. There are many interesting UI possibilities that could be explored. FCPX's clip-collision handling isn't the only solution to the problem (if it's even a problem).

_______________________
David Lawrence
art~media~design~research
propaganda.com
publicmattersgroup.com
http://lnkd.in/Cfz92F
facebook.com/dlawrence
twitter.com/dhl
vimeo.com/dlawrence/albums


Return to posts index


Walter Soyka
Re: Death of Aperture-FCPX Next?
on Jun 29, 2014 at 10:20:26 am

[David Lawrence] "I disagree. It's an incorrect use of the term. There's a technical difference between overwriting and destructive editing. They're simply not the same thing."

I'm not familiar with the term "destructive" in the context of editorial. What is an example of the correct use of the term "destructive editing?"

Is film editing destructive? Those cuts are real!

Is linear tape-to-tape editing destructive? Once tape is recorded, its previous contents cannot be restored.

What's the difference between a timeline operation that causes an overwrite of something that was in a timeline track and what is certainly properly called a destructive Photoshop operation that causes an overwrite of pixels that were in the raster (as opposed to a non-destructive operation in which the pixel modification is performed by a separate layer)?

I use media servers that allow overlapping clips as you are describing with Vegas. Don't overlapping clips show what is "destroyed" in what you are calling an overwrite -- a prior editorial decision? (Clip extents and placement in time.)

I see your point, too, David, but I'm not sure that the term "destructive editing" was ever a thing. I think Bill's definition actually matches the use in Photoshop pretty closely.

Walter Soyka
Designer & Mad Scientist at Keen Live [link]
Motion Graphics, Widescreen Events, Presentation Design, and Consulting
@keenlive [twitter]   |   RenderBreak [blog]   |   Profile [LinkedIn]


Return to posts index

Oliver Peters
Re: Death of Aperture-FCPX Next?
on Jun 29, 2014 at 1:09:05 pm

[Walter Soyka] "Is film editing destructive? Those cuts are real!
Is linear tape-to-tape editing destructive? Once tape is recorded, its previous contents cannot be restored.
What's the difference between a timeline operation that causes an overwrite of something that was in a timeline track"


The difference is that mistakes in the first two examples couldn't be fixed with an "undo". In some cases - like negative cutting - mistakes destroyed actual irreplaceable media.

- Oliver

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


Return to posts index

David Lawrence
Re: Death of Aperture-FCPX Next?
on Jun 29, 2014 at 5:57:56 pm

[Walter Soyka] "I'm not familiar with the term "destructive" in the context of editorial. What is an example of the correct use of the term "destructive editing?""

[Walter Soyka] "I see your point, too, David, but I'm not sure that the term "destructive editing" was ever a thing. I think Bill's definition actually matches the use in Photoshop pretty closely."

The term is meaningless in the context of editorial. It's a technical term that only applies in the sense of media engineering and software design.

This is why Bill's definition is wrong. He's misapplying a technical term and and it makes it look like he doesn't understand its real meaning. It's not helpful to readers.

The notion that an open, tracked timeline is somehow "destructive" as opposed to the magnetic timeline is simply bogus.

Period.

_______________________
David Lawrence
art~media~design~research
propaganda.com
publicmattersgroup.com
http://lnkd.in/Cfz92F
facebook.com/dlawrence
twitter.com/dhl
vimeo.com/dlawrence/albums


Return to posts index

Franz Bieberkopf
Re: Death of Aperture-FCPX Next?
on Jun 30, 2014 at 1:56:48 pm

[Walter Soyka] "I'm not familiar with the term "destructive" in the context of editorial. What is an example of the correct use of the term "destructive editing?""

Walter,

I would have thought this basic lexicon was plainly uncontroversial.

http://classes.berklee.edu/mbierylo/mtec111_Pages/audio_edit.htm#destructiv...
http://www.audiorecording.me/editing-audio-files-non-destructive-vs-destruc...


Franz.


Return to posts index

David Lawrence
Re: Death of Aperture-FCPX Next?
on Jun 30, 2014 at 5:11:59 pm

[Franz Bieberkopf] "I would have thought this basic lexicon was plainly uncontroversial.

Thank you, Franz.

_______________________
David Lawrence
art~media~design~research
propaganda.com
publicmattersgroup.com
http://lnkd.in/Cfz92F
facebook.com/dlawrence
twitter.com/dhl
vimeo.com/dlawrence/albums


Return to posts index

Walter Soyka
Re: Death of Aperture-FCPX Next?
on Jun 30, 2014 at 5:50:39 pm

[Franz Bieberkopf] "I would have thought this basic lexicon was plainly uncontroversial."

I did think that, so imagine my surprise.

I'm not in front of a computer at the moment, but I will come back to you with an example of what I'd consider a destructive editorial operation and show what it would look like if it were non-destructive.

I'll note now, though, that I think characterizing an open timeline as destructive and a magnetic timeline as non-destructive is inaccurate, as both models are capable of destructive operations.

Walter Soyka
Designer & Mad Scientist at Keen Live [link]
Motion Graphics, Widescreen Events, Presentation Design, and Consulting
@keenlive [twitter]   |   RenderBreak [blog]   |   Profile [LinkedIn]


Return to posts index

Herb Sevush
Re: Death of Aperture-FCPX Next?
on Jun 29, 2014 at 4:35:23 pm

[Walter Soyka] "Clip collisions are (often needlessly) destructive in (most) tracked NLEs."

This is true, but the first distinction is that clip collisions are entirely avoidable, it is the editor's choice to make them happen or not. It does take more steps to avoid unwanted collisions (not all collisions, maybe not even most collisions, are unwanted) which is why the claim is made that X is faster, because indeed in the instance of avoiding unwanted clip collisions it is much faster. But this does not make fixed track timelines destructive, it simply makes them slower.

Of course as David Lawrence has pointed out, the inability to cause wanted clip collisions makes X slower when dealing with audio inserts. As so often with X, what it gives with one hand it takes away with the other.

On an historical note EMC, almost 20 years ago, handled clip collisions differently by keeping both audio and video clips available as an "under-layer" when new material was added. You could highlight a new clip, hit a key, and the layers would reverse, bringing the bottom layer to the top. This was non-destructive and could be reversed as often as you wished. There were problems with working this way, I don't believe it could handle more than 2 layers, and it could get very confusing as there was little to help you identify which layer you were looking at, but it worked. You could at any point flatten the timeline, a destructive act, much like flattening layers in Photoshop.

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


Return to posts index

Oliver Peters
Re: Death of Aperture-FCPX Next?
on Jun 28, 2014 at 10:47:59 pm

[Bill Davis] "Then give me a nice alternative term for what happens when an editor used to drop a clip (or the horror, a group of clips) into a Legacy timeline and the underlying tracks and clips all got instantly overwritten."

Actually maybe the correct term is "stupid editor". ;-) Especially if the editing method is to drag & drop from the browser to the timeline!

- Oliver

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


Return to posts index

Herb Sevush
Re: Death of Aperture-FCPX Next?
on Jun 29, 2014 at 1:13:17 am

[Bill Davis] "Then give me a nice alternative term for what happens when an editor used to drop a clip (or the horror, a group of clips) into a Legacy timeline and the underlying tracks and clips all got instantly overwritten."

Incompetence, if the editor didn't want the clips to be replaced. If the editor wanted the clips to be replaced, I would call it editing.

[Bill Davis] "I put the clip there. I did something. And unless I played track tetris, the clip that I'd put there was GONE.
To me - that's "destructive" behavior."


Yes, the editor was being destructive, but the timeline was acting just fine.

The term destructive is used, non pejoratively, to describe a function of certain types of software. To flatten the layers in Photoshop there is no other choice than to loose all the layers. It is a function of the software, so flattening in Photoshop is rightfully described as a destructive process. In an NLE the timeline doesn't force you to overwrite clips, that's a choice an editor makes. For 20 years the term overwrite has been sufficient to describe the act, nobody ever called the action destructive till now. What has changed -- it certainly isn't the nature of a fixed track timeline. The term "destructive timeline" is used solely by FCPX editors as a pejorative to make their chosen NLE seem superior.

[Bill Davis] "And I'm still sympathetic to the loss of your beloved Legacy."

Legacy was never my beloved. *edit was my beloved, Legacy was just a case of love the one your with.

[Bill Davis] "But I don't feel the slightest hesitation to use "destructive" in relation to what happened on my timelines for a decade as a Legacy editor. "

I have no problem believing you when you say that your timelines were a scene of carnage, of that I have no doubt. It's just that I don't blame the software.

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: Death of Aperture-FCPX Next?
on Jun 29, 2014 at 2:43:48 am

Ok then. Clearly I am and continue to be a talentless, hack. You've found me out Herb. Congrats. I'll get right on refunding that two decade of income the idiot clients paid me for making their videos.

Actually, on reflection, I realize that my solice is that I get to remain happy as a delighted X editor getting improved software regularly - while you appear to remain pissed off and strangely sensitive to someone using a word you don't approve of to describe a piece of 4 year obsolete software.

I actually think I'm fine with my relative position here.

Have a great weekend.

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: Death of Aperture-FCPX Next?
on Jun 29, 2014 at 4:19:36 pm

[Bill Davis] "Clearly I am and continue to be a talentless, hack."

My your getting touchy. I've never seen your work, outside of a nice music video you demo'd, I have no opinion of your abilities, other than to recognize that you've been supporting yourself in video for many years, which is no mean accomplishment. I was discussing technique and your own proclaimed problems with dealing with traditional timelines. By the way bad technique does not equal bad editor -- Dave Winfield had a terrible hitch in his swing, awful technique, yet he's a hall of famer.

[Bill Davis] "while you appear to remain pissed off and strangely sensitive to someone using a word you don't approve of to describe a piece of 4 year obsolete software."

The term "destructive timeline" was not solely aimed at legacy, it was aimed at every fixed track timeline I'm aware of. I'm currently using PPro, which exhibits those same timeline behaviors as Legacy, as Avid, as Lightworks, as Media 100.

And I'm pissed off because you are actively corrupting the language of media workers. "Destructive" has a specific, non pejorative meaning when dealing with DAW's and imgage editors, and your use of it in this context confuses that useful term.

I first brought this poor choice of wording to your attention assuming you hadn't thought it through, but now you stand on your right to be wrong. Well you certainly have that right, you can call black white all you wish, but I will jump in here whenever you do to try and argue for logic and reason.

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: Death of Aperture-FCPX Next?
on Jun 29, 2014 at 6:53:20 pm

[Herb Sevush] "And I'm pissed off because you are actively corrupting the language of media workers. "Destructive" has a specific, non pejorative meaning when dealing with DAW's and imgage editors, and your use of it in this context confuses that useful term.

I first brought this poor choice of wording to your attention assuming you hadn't thought it through, but now you stand on your right to be wrong. Well you certainly have that right, you can call black white all you wish, but I will jump in here whenever you do to try and argue for logic and reason."


Your plea to freeze the language into your preferred context is understandable, but in my opinion, seriously weak.

It instantly brings to mind my experience some years ago when I gave some advice to a poster somewhere who had asked for advice about editing a "commercial." I gave him the advice that length was critical and that he should aim for precisely 29.5 seconds for a 30 - or 59.5 seconds for a 60.

His quick response was "why? It's a commercial for the web."

I realized that he was right and I was wrong. For me, the term was frozen in it's very specific meaning by the boundaries of the media world that existed when I learned it. But that world had changed. And yes, a web commercial could be :35 or :83 the way things had changed.

In introducing the magnetic timeline with clip collision avoidance, Apple has demonstrated that there IS a new pragmatic difference in "destructiveness" in the two approaches to timeline operations.

You may wish to freeze the term at it's traditional meaning all you like. But as with "commercial" I choose not to.

Language is a living thing.

Deal with that.

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: Death of Aperture-FCPX Next?
on Jun 30, 2014 at 12:47:22 pm
Last Edited By Herb Sevush on Jul 1, 2014 at 6:23:55 pm

[Bill Davis] "Language is a living thing. "

I see, language is a living thing. And you're trying to differentiate between an NLE that allows you, although it doesn't force you, to do clip overwrites when moving clips around a timeline, with another that doesn't allow you to do it, even if you want to.

Well then I might call one a "free timeline NLE" and the other " a restricted timeline NLE." or maybe one NLE is "free choice" and the other is "no choice". But since language is a living thing maybe I'll call one a bicycle timeline and the other a tricycle timeline. Or maybe we should use some current consumer electronics terminology and call one a pro timeline and the other an enthusiast's timeline, because, you know ... language is a living thing.

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


Return to posts index

Craig Alan
Re: Death of Aperture-FCPX Next?
on Jul 1, 2014 at 4:34:40 am

Ok Bill, have to disagree. I can have students doing basic rough cuts with about a one minute explanation. When they are ready, another 60 seconds to learn to adjust audio levels. Another for titles. Etc. It's way easier than iMovie. And after I have showed one student I can have them teach each other. Now $300 may be a bit much for non-pros. For the most part the advanced stuff stays out of your way unless you know how to use it or unless you go looking. Now students that knew FCP 7 do have some trouble with the connected clips and other replacements for tracks. But they all like the magnetic features of the primary. And for the most part not too many used more than two visual tracks and maybe three tracks of audio - dialog, music, sound effects. It's a great program for beginners. With lots of room to grow.

Mac Pro, macbook pro, Imacs (i7); Canon 5D Mark III/70D, Panasonic AG-HPX170/AG-HPX250P, Canon HV40, Sony Z7U/VX2000/PD170; FCP 6 certified; FCP X write professionally for a variety of media; teach video production in L.A.


Return to posts index

Marcus Moore
Re: Death of Aperture-FCPX Next?
on Jun 27, 2014 at 9:14:02 pm

Let's not forget that iMovie IS FCPX, just with a reduced UI wrapper.


Return to posts index

Bill Davis
Re: Death of Aperture-FCPX Next?
on Jun 27, 2014 at 10:49:00 pm

I prefer to think of it as iMovie is the idea scratchpad that Randy U uses to allow the team to test concepts before they refine the ideas that end up in FCP X.

But that's just me.

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

Scott Witthaus
Re: Death of Aperture-FCPX Next?
on Jun 28, 2014 at 11:26:58 am

[Marcus Moore] "Let's not forget that iMovie IS FCPX, just with a reduced UI wrapper."

Yup. Just like Symphony was actually MC Xpress Pro.

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


Return to posts index

David Mathis
Re: Death of Aperture-FCPX Next?
on Jun 27, 2014 at 7:00:30 pm

When did Aperture receive its last update? Just curious.

"I am no longer pixilated!" -- Dave, former nut house patient


Return to posts index

Rick Lang
Re: Death of Aperture-FCPX Next?
on Jun 27, 2014 at 7:30:58 pm

Last Aperture minor version update I have: 3.5.1 November 12, 2013

Rick Lang

iMac 27” 2.8GHz i7 16GB


Return to posts index

Andy Neil
Re: Death of Aperture-FCPX Next?
on Jun 27, 2014 at 7:09:34 pm

[Greg Jones] "This is precisely why I would be nervous about using FCPX."

It's a pretty ridiculous claim if you consider for a moment. Apple is releasing a new photo app. A replacement for Aperture, it seems. It's not like they're getting out of the photo editing business. Just like when they EOL'd FCP7, it was because they'd released FCPX. Why would they have parallel development on competing apps?

And Apple isn't the only company to do the same exact thing. Remember Liquid? Or Soundbooth?

Andy

https://plus.google.com/u/0/107277729326633563425/videos


Return to posts index

Craig Seeman
Re: Death of Aperture-FCPX Next?
on Jun 27, 2014 at 7:15:54 pm

From Macworld

The Photos app, previewed at the 2014 Worldwide Developers Conference, will become the company’s main photographic focus for both professionals and consumers. As it grows, Apple intends the single app to serve the needs of both consumers and professionals.



Return to posts index

Mitch Ives
Re: Death of Aperture-FCPX Next?
on Jun 27, 2014 at 8:50:16 pm

[Craig Seeman] "As it grows, Apple intends the single app to serve the needs of both consumers and professionals."

Read that statement like a lawyer. "As it grows"... so they'll gut it like FCPX, Pages, Numbers and Keynote, and then sometime before I start collecting Social Security, they'll add the missing features back in. Really?

How many times does this have to happen before we start understanding how to speak Apple?

Mitch Ives
Insight Productions Corp.

"Criticism may not be agreeable, but it is necessary. It fulfills the same function as pain in the human body. It calls attention to an unhealthy state of things." - Winston Churchill


Return to posts index

Greg Jones
Re: Death of Aperture-FCPX Next?
on Jun 27, 2014 at 7:16:25 pm

[Andy Neil] "It's a pretty ridiculous claim if you consider for a moment. Apple is releasing a new photo app. A replacement for Aperture, it seems. It's not like they're getting out of the photo editing business. Just like when they EOL'd FCP7, it was because they'd released FCPX. Why would they have parallel development on competing apps?

And Apple isn't the only company to do the same exact thing. Remember Liquid? Or Soundbooth?"


I agree

Greg Jones
Orlando,Fl.
http://www.d7-inc.com


Return to posts index

Mitch Ives
Re: Death of Aperture-FCPX Next?
on Jun 27, 2014 at 7:44:55 pm

[Andy Neil] "Apple is releasing a new photo app. A replacement for Aperture, it seems. It's not like they're getting out of the photo editing business."

Seriously? It's not a replacement for Aperture... it'll be an "iToy" version. Why else would Apple work with Adobe to transition you over to Lightroom if you need the capabilities of Aperture? It'll be like Pages and the rest... a shadow of it's former self...

Mitch Ives
Insight Productions Corp.

"Criticism may not be agreeable, but it is necessary. It fulfills the same function as pain in the human body. It calls attention to an unhealthy state of things." - Winston Churchill


Return to posts index

Andy Neil
Re: Death of Aperture-FCPX Next?
on Jun 27, 2014 at 7:52:15 pm

[Mitch Ives] "Seriously? It's not a replacement for Aperture... it'll be an "iToy" version. "

Oh, I didn't realize you've seen it already. I thought Apple made all their beta testers sign NDAs?

Andy

https://plus.google.com/u/0/107277729326633563425/videos


Return to posts index

Mitch Ives
Re: Death of Aperture-FCPX Next?
on Jun 27, 2014 at 7:56:03 pm

[Andy Neil] "Oh, I didn't realize you've seen it already. I thought Apple made all their beta testers sign NDAs?"

I read the info... you obviously didn't... you can remove the stupid smile now...

Mitch Ives
Insight Productions Corp.

"Criticism may not be agreeable, but it is necessary. It fulfills the same function as pain in the human body. It calls attention to an unhealthy state of things." - Winston Churchill


Return to posts index

Andy Neil
Re: Death of Aperture-FCPX Next?
on Jun 27, 2014 at 8:14:44 pm

[Mitch Ives] "I read the info... you obviously didn't"

Oh I read it. The Apple statement which says that Aperture users will be able to migrate their photos to the new program. And the pure speculation on the part of a mac rumors website that it won't offer professional features. And even they hedged their bets a little by saying it was "unlikely" to offer robust features.

Maybe it's just me, but I don't see the point of getting up in arms over the speculation of something I haven't even seen yet. This is the iMovie Pro crap all over again. You don't know what this new program will offer or not offer, or what the development strategy will be, so all you're really doing is resolving to hate it no matter what.

I can see being cautious or nervous about it especially if you use Aperture significantly, but proclaiming it an iToy without any specific knowledge is silly.

Andy

https://plus.google.com/u/0/107277729326633563425/videos


Return to posts index

Mitch Ives
Re: Death of Aperture-FCPX Next?
on Jun 27, 2014 at 8:47:33 pm

So MacNN is a rumor site? Since when?

Mitch Ives
Insight Productions Corp.

"Criticism may not be agreeable, but it is necessary. It fulfills the same function as pain in the human body. It calls attention to an unhealthy state of things." - Winston Churchill


Return to posts index

Brent Cook
Re: Death of Aperture-FCPX Next?
on Jun 27, 2014 at 8:41:14 pm

Why else would Apple work with Adobe to transition you over to Lightroom

I don't see this mentioned anywhere else and I'm sure if it were included in Apple's statement it would be mentioned everywhere. I'd be surprised if Apple helped users switch to an Adobe product, especially if their intent is to have this Photos app eventually be used by professionals


Return to posts index

Ronny Courtens
Re: Death of Aperture-FCPX Next?
on Jun 27, 2014 at 8:44:54 pm

Some more details here:

https://www.apertureexpert.com/tips/2014/6/27/aperture-dead-long-live-photo...

- Ronny


Return to posts index

Mitch Ives
Re: Death of Aperture-FCPX Next?
on Jun 27, 2014 at 8:57:53 pm

[Ronny Courtens] "Some more details here:

https://www.apertureexpert.com/tips/2014/6/27/aperture-dead-long-live-photo....."


Nice article... seems to support my contention about it not being an Aperture replacement for some time.

I read the comments... interesting how everybody said "I don't want to be forced to store my photos in the cloud". Apple might want to make Photos work without jamming the cloud down our throats... just a thought.

Mitch Ives
Insight Productions Corp.

"Criticism may not be agreeable, but it is necessary. It fulfills the same function as pain in the human body. It calls attention to an unhealthy state of things." - Winston Churchill


Return to posts index

Brent Cook
Re: Death of Aperture-FCPX Next?
on Jun 27, 2014 at 8:58:15 pm

I don't see it mentioned there, except by someone in the comments.


Return to posts index

Mitch Ives
Re: Death of Aperture-FCPX Next?
on Jun 27, 2014 at 8:46:07 pm

[Brent Cook] "I don't see this mentioned anywhere else and I'm sure if it were included in Apple's statement it would be mentioned everywhere. I'd be surprised if Apple helped users switch to an Adobe product, especially if their intent is to have this Photos app eventually be used by professionals"

Its in everything I'm reading, including MacNN. MacNN is a pretty reliable source and not a rumor site...

Mitch Ives
Insight Productions Corp.

"Criticism may not be agreeable, but it is necessary. It fulfills the same function as pain in the human body. It calls attention to an unhealthy state of things." - Winston Churchill


Return to posts index

Brent Cook
Re: Death of Aperture-FCPX Next?
on Jun 27, 2014 at 9:09:58 pm

I'm not familiar with that site, but it does say it there. Thanks.


Return to posts index

Mitch Ives
Re: Death of Aperture-FCPX Next?
on Jun 27, 2014 at 8:52:09 pm

[Brent Cook] "I don't see this mentioned anywhere else and I'm sure if it were included in Apple's statement it would be mentioned everywhere. I'd be surprised if Apple helped users switch to an Adobe product, especially if their intent is to have this Photos app eventually be used by professionals"

Jeez, is anybody doing any research? Forget the rumor sites if you want. When it appears on MacNN then it came from Apple. They are real damned careful about what they print...

Mitch Ives
Insight Productions Corp.

"Criticism may not be agreeable, but it is necessary. It fulfills the same function as pain in the human body. It calls attention to an unhealthy state of things." - Winston Churchill


Return to posts index

Robert Gilman
Re: Death of Aperture-FCPX Next?
on Jun 27, 2014 at 8:57:43 pm

My research suggest that techcrunch got that meme going. They now say at the bottom of http://techcrunch.com/2014/06/27/apple-to-cease-development-of-aperture-and... that:

"Article updated to clarify that there is no official workflow for migrating to Lightroom."


Return to posts index

Mitch Ives
Re: Death of Aperture-FCPX Next?
on Jun 27, 2014 at 9:03:33 pm

[Robert Gilman] "My research suggest that techcrunch got that meme going. They now say at the bottom of http://techcrunch.com/2014/06/27/apple-to-cease-development-of-aperture-and..... that:

"Article updated to clarify that there is no official workflow for migrating to Lightroom.""


That part never made sense, but it's still reported everywhere else. To me it's a red-herring.

The real story is that EVERYONE is saying that it'll be no replacement for Aperture for some time. Sound familiar? Same process as FCPX, Pages, Numbers, Keynote. So, whether Apple works with Adobe or not, we'll all be forced into an Adobe subscription until Apple fills in the missing features. And even then, if it requires using the cloud, then some people will be forced to stay with Adobe.

If I were a cynic, I'd say Photos is designed to force us into larger storage, paid iCloud subscriptions... but then that would be silly, huh?

Mitch Ives
Insight Productions Corp.

"Criticism may not be agreeable, but it is necessary. It fulfills the same function as pain in the human body. It calls attention to an unhealthy state of things." - Winston Churchill


Return to posts index

Oliver Peters
Re: Death of Aperture-FCPX Next?
on Jun 27, 2014 at 9:15:40 pm

First of all, remember that if you own Aperture today, it will likely continue to work for a long while. The question will be whether Apple pulls it off of the App Store, once Photos is alive.

As Adobe found out in having to offer a Photoshop/Lightroom bundle, the photographer's world is different than that of the video editor. You can't easily extrapolate from Aperture what will happen with FCP X and/or Logic Pro X. While Aperture has nominally been part of ProApps, it really hasn't been positioned in that group by Apple for years. Many of the pro photographers abandoned Aperture for Lightroom years ago. So it's a different ballgame.

For all we know, Apple is learning from its FCP X experience, where the biggest mistake was calling it Final Cut Pro instead of something else. Photos may well be just as "pro", but this move is really about the cloud, which is much friendlier to photo media than to movies or music. It's also about merging the iOS and OSX worlds in ways that make sense.

- Oliver

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


Return to posts index

Marcus Moore
Re: Death of Aperture-FCPX Next?
on Jun 27, 2014 at 9:19:09 pm

It was already apparent Apple had learned from the FCPX launch based on Logic Pro X.


Return to posts index

Marcus Moore
Re: Death of Aperture-FCPX Next?
on Jun 27, 2014 at 9:22:33 pm

Hey Mitch-

I'm just curious about you keep referencing Pages, Numbers, and Keynote. Yes they were missing some higher level features at launch. But now, only about 6 months later- haven't those issues around Applescript support, interface, etc. been addressed?

Is there anything specific you're still missing?


Return to posts index

Bret Williams
Re: Death of Aperture-FCPX Next?
on Jun 28, 2014 at 4:45:07 am

How's this? Keynote can no longer output alpha channel animation or proRes 4444 codec videos. I used Keynote to make animated 3D charts for video all the time. I have to keep keynote 09 around for that. 09! That's as old as Final Cut 7!


Return to posts index

Bill Davis
Re: Death of Aperture-FCPX Next?
on Jun 27, 2014 at 9:28:26 pm

[Mitch Ives] "o, whether Apple works with Adobe or not, we'll all be forced into an Adobe subscription until Apple fills in the missing features."

Uh, no Mitch.

You can still purchase and own Lightroom as a standalone.

It's all of $79.

So the only Apple risk is that people leave Aperture for Lightroom - AND then that subsequently they don't find enough value in whatever Apple creates to come home afterwards. And as we've seen with Legacy, people are happy to keep working on something that works and wait to see how things shake out.

Personally, I've been using Lightroom for about 3 years now and like it a lot. But It's not the holy grail. Over the past few years, I've often had to launch Photoshop from within Lighroom to get something done that's beyond Lightroom's capabilities. Consistent with my lack of support for the rental model - I let Photoshop lapse so I'm not paying for a product I rarely use - and while I briefly considered firing up my licensed copy of Aperture - honestly, Pixelmator is doing all that I need.

Everyone here knows I feel they hit a huge home run with FCP X. And if they innovate with whatever Apple's new Photo system turns out to be - I might be able to let the last of my Adobe software go.

I don't hate the cloud in general, I embrace it. It's made my client liaison work hugely easier.

But I'm pretty firm about supporting companies who's vision aligns with my own. And tool ownership is a small thing that I truly believe in - tho I certainly understand others who are happy to trade lower present day costs for much higher lifetime tariffs.

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

Andrew Kimery
Re: Death of Aperture-FCPX Next?
on Jun 28, 2014 at 12:14:49 am

[Bill Davis] "tho I certainly understand others who are happy to trade lower present day costs for much higher lifetime tariffs."

The lower cost of entry today is a fact while the much higher cost over time is only a possibility. For example, someone could buy a month (or a year) subscription to CC, do what they need to do, then never need to subscribe to it again.


Return to posts index

Bill Davis
Re: Death of Aperture-FCPX Next?
on Jun 28, 2014 at 12:42:53 am

Andrew,

I'm not sure I buy into the reasoning.

In the case of a long time Adobe software user, perhaps someone could buy a month or two of CC and become productive enough with the new iterations to make it worthwhile. But if you don't already have operating expertise, I find that highly unlikely. For a new user confronting the Creative Cloud possibilities, I'd argue it's more like a YEAR or two to get even basically competent with the slew of apps it represents.

Essentially, CC is NOT a service for part time or sample users. It's a service that presumes that you'll INVEST in learning the apps in depth - and that means months and months and months of subscription.

Then if you opt out for a while, and the most vaunted attribute of the service proves correct - that they can rev apps more agilely and more rapidly - then you came back needing to re-learn at least some stuff.

Face it, dive in/dive out use is NOT the goal of CC. Perpetual rental income is.

And for that reason I think it's fair to compare the cost of CC on a realistic at least year long "buy AND learn" basis to the ownership cost of X.

I think it's fair to note that a year of CC suite subscription to fully learn just PPro would be significantly more costly than simply buying X. And to explore the slew of other niche apps in the suite would likely take very significantly longer.

Simple at that.

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

Andrew Kimery
Re: Death of Aperture-FCPX Next?
on Jun 28, 2014 at 7:54:10 am

[Bill Davis] "I'm not sure I buy into the reasoning."

It's the reality I'm living right now and I think it's going to be a growing reality for many freelance editors in major markets. In the last 12 months or so my gigs have been Avid, Avid, FCP 7 and PPro. Once PPro is done I'm not sure what my next gig will be but I'd most likely say Avid. Maybe I'll keep using PPro, maybe I won't, but so far for me the CC model has been less expensive than the CS model and subscribing to CC has netted me significantly more money than avoiding CC would have.

With all three of the Big A's having their own unique problems (and a company like Blackmagic seemingly having a hot hand right now) I think in the coming years freelancers are going to need to know at least two NLEs (probably three) if they want stay flexible enough to shift with the market place.

[Bill Davis] "Essentially, CC is NOT a service for part time or sample users. It's a service that presumes that you'll INVEST in learning the apps in depth - and that means months and months and months of subscription. "

I didn't mean to imply that someone w/no prior experience at all could learn all the apps in depth in a month. Only picking up a month subscription was for someone that already had at least basic working knowledge of the software and could hit the ground running.

[Bill Davis] "Face it, dive in/dive out use is NOT the goal of CC. Perpetual rental income is."

Dive in/dive out is not the goal of any company. You think Apple doesn't want you buying only Macs from now until the day you die?

[Bill Davis] "Then if you opt out for a while, and the most vaunted attribute of the service proves correct - that they can rev apps more agilely and more rapidly - then you came back needing to re-learn at least some stuff. "

Learning time is going to be minimal (if even required) unless they redo the whole program again. I'd never used PPro before I started my current gig and in less than two weeks I was pretty comfortable on it (and that included learning things like syncing multiple A/V sources and creating a whole post workflow). After a month a I was cutting nearly as fast as I do on Avid and FCP 7 (though I still had to look up/hunt for advanced features or settings at times).

Even PS and AE are easy to pick up again even though many times I go months without opening them up.


Return to posts index

Dennis Radeke
Re: Death of Aperture-FCPX Next?
on Jun 28, 2014 at 12:39:53 pm

[Bill Davis] "I think it's fair to note that a year of CC suite subscription to fully learn just PPro would be significantly more costly than simply buying X. And to explore the slew of other niche apps in the suite would likely take very significantly longer.

Simple at that.

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."


Undoubtedly, it's just me, but I do note my own sense of irony of the last part of your quote combined with your signature that advertises a paid way to learn editing. ;-)

I agree that learning does require a certain investment of time, but I think you set the table to the disadvantage of the user. Ultimately, creativity is FUN and therefore is not a chore and definitely doesn't take a year to get started. Yes, expertise only comes with practice and hardwork but the journey is half of the fun.

[Bill Davis] "Face it, dive in/dive out use is NOT the goal of CC. Perpetual rental income is."

Rather, I'd describe it as choice. Yes, dive in/out on a monthly basis and you'll pay a bit more. We certainly incentivize a user to do a year. Really, that is the way with many things - If you buy the car with XYZ options, I will give you a better discount and so forth...

Perhaps at the end of the day, we're just expressing....

...my 2 cents,
Dennis - Adobe guy


Return to posts index

Bill Davis
Re: Death of Aperture-FCPX Next?
on Jun 28, 2014 at 1:21:24 pm

Well Dennis, it isn't as ironic as it would be if I RENTED out training materials and didn't let anyone buy them...but I take your point. ; )

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

Dennis Radeke
Re: Death of Aperture-FCPX Next?
on Jun 28, 2014 at 1:40:33 pm

Touche! ;-)

[Bill Davis] "Well Dennis, it isn't as ironic as it would be if I RENTED out training materials and didn't let anyone buy them...but I take your point. ; )"

You mean like Lynda.com?


Return to posts index

Bill Davis
Re: Death of Aperture-FCPX Next?
on Jun 28, 2014 at 2:20:06 pm

Just so.

And if there was some magical way that the Lynda system could lock one out of being able to access anything you had learned there simply because you failed to keep paying a perpetual rent, then I would have a philosophical (and practical!) problem with that model as well.

This, of course, has nothing to do with my opinion of the people who must champion these corporate decisions. And I truly appreciate You, Todd, and my old friend Kevin's willingness to come here and discuss them.

You guys are great.

But a business model that allows no option but forced perpetual rental of mission critical professional tools still sucks, IMO.

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

Mitch Ives
Re: Death of Aperture-FCPX Next?
on Jun 28, 2014 at 1:04:46 am

[Bill Davis] "You can still purchase and own Lightroom as a standalone.

It's all of $79."


This is good news Bill. I'm in. I'll buy LR today.

Adobe called yesterday and gave me the full court press on CC. I literally couldn't get off the phone. He mentioned the $10/month for PS and Lightroom. Funny he never mentioned buying it for $79.

I think you're right, once people get used to LR, why would they switch to Photos, unless it's spectacular? I hope it is, but I won'd hold my breath.

As for the cloud, I want to be in charge of when I use it. I don't want Apple to force me to use it. This is still America right? I get to choose?

I'm using Pixelmator too. I think I got that idea from you.

I'm with you on the ownership versus renting. Renting is like being on crack. How do you ever get off?

Mitch Ives
Insight Productions Corp.

"Criticism may not be agreeable, but it is necessary. It fulfills the same function as pain in the human body. It calls attention to an unhealthy state of things." - Winston Churchill


Return to posts index

Rick Lang
Re: Death of Aperture-FCPX Next?
on Jun 28, 2014 at 6:24:05 am

[Mitch Ives] "As for the cloud, I want to be in charge of when I use it. I don't want Apple to force me to use it. This is still America right?"

I agree and I’m in Canada. Surely I don’t want all my photos in the cloud, only those I select that I want to share. All the photos in the cloud forces one to buy a lot more cloud storage. What’s to like about that?

If Photos forces everything in the cloud, that’s a showstopper from a financial standpoint as well as distaste for all things that belong to me being kept ‘safe’ by someone else. The only thing that I subscribe to keeping safe is money in the bank and as we know, that’s hardly safe at all. If Lightroom has an option not to use their cloud and Photos forces everything to the cloud, I’m switching.

Rick Lang

iMac 27” 2.8GHz i7 16GB


Return to posts index

Bill Davis
Re: Death of Aperture-FCPX Next?
on Jun 28, 2014 at 7:32:42 am

Well, there's a LOT to like about Lightroom. But there are dificiencies as well. It excels at the basic initial tasks of importing, sorting and rating photos to pick selects from large groupings. Then it has a basic suite of touch up tools to let you quickly enhance and repair your selected raw files.

But it's internal semi round trip link to Photoshop (the return file shows up as a separate tiff alongside the unretouched original) is a good indication that Adobe did not try to make it anywhere near a full fledged photo editor.

It also sports a good bit of what I think of as feature creep, with stuff like a slide show generator and "order me a photo album" crap that I just ignore.

That said, it's fast, great at what it does and not overly complex once you get beyond figuring out whether and when to split off sub catalogs.

What could send me to Photos is if Apple figures out a clever way to let me not just retouch and organize my stills, but makes them accessible directly via the FCP X media browser across all my apple devices.

Right now, Lightroom work is a separate operation and when it's done I'm plopping photos to the desktop and importing them to X as a totally separate operation. If I miss one, it's launch Lightroom again and go through the whole dance over.

I suspect Apple has a big opportunity to improve that workflow.

We'll see.

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

Dennis Radeke
Re: Death of Aperture-FCPX Next?
on Jun 28, 2014 at 12:08:29 pm

[Bill Davis] "But it's internal semi round trip link to Photoshop (the return file shows up as a separate tiff alongside the unretouched original) is a good indication that Adobe did not try to make it anywhere near a full fledged photo editor."

Bill, I think you miss the intention here. Lightroom's focus is the image itself and how to bring it to life as well as organize it. It's integration with Photoshop is very deliberate because photoshop has so much more (much of which isn't related to photo editing). Layers is one giant example. Layer Styles, Text engine, 3D are three more examples.

Lightroom - for Photographers exclusively
Photoshop - for all folks who want to manipulate or create still images

So, if you want to take your image and make a composite or composition out of it, you want to take it to Photoshop and have a separate physical file to work on.

...and just for fun, you can drag and drop images from Lightroom into Premiere Pro, no problem.

Dennis - Adobe guy


Return to posts index

Mitch Ives
Re: Death of Aperture-FCPX Next?
on Jun 29, 2014 at 1:29:41 am

[Bill Davis] "Well, there's a LOT to like about Lightroom. But there are dificiencies as well. It excels at the basic initial tasks of importing, sorting and rating photos to pick selects from large groupings. Then it has a basic suite of touch up tools to let you quickly enhance and repair your selected raw files.

But it's internal semi round trip link to Photoshop (the return file shows up as a separate tiff alongside the unretouched original) is a good indication that Adobe did not try to make it anywhere near a full fledged photo editor.

It also sports a good bit of what I think of as feature creep, with stuff like a slide show generator and "order me a photo album" crap that I just ignore.

That said, it's fast, great at what it does and not overly complex once you get beyond figuring out whether and when to split off sub catalogs.

What could send me to Photos is if Apple figures out a clever way to let me not just retouch and organize my stills, but makes them accessible directly via the FCP X media browser across all my apple devices.

Right now, Lightroom work is a separate operation and when it's done I'm plopping photos to the desktop and importing them to X as a totally separate operation. If I miss one, it's launch Lightroom again and go through the whole dance over.

I suspect Apple has a big opportunity to improve that workflow.

We'll see."


All good info, thanks Bill. I also agree that Apple has a huge opportunity here if they see it?

Mitch Ives
Insight Productions Corp.

"Criticism may not be agreeable, but it is necessary. It fulfills the same function as pain in the human body. It calls attention to an unhealthy state of things." - Winston Churchill


Return to posts index

Oliver Peters
Re: Death of Aperture-FCPX Next?
on Jun 29, 2014 at 1:45:57 am

[Bill Davis] "It also sports a good bit of what I think of as feature creep, with stuff like a slide show generator and "order me a photo album" crap that I just ignore.
"


FWIW - this was adding because Aperture had it first.

- Oliver

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


Return to posts index

Oliver Peters
Re: Death of Aperture-FCPX Next?
on Jun 29, 2014 at 1:48:01 am

[Bill Davis] "But it's internal semi round trip link to Photoshop (the return file shows up as a separate tiff alongside the unretouched original) is a good indication that Adobe did not try to make it anywhere near a full fledged photo editor."

PS - also added because that's how Aperture did it.

- Oliver

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


Return to posts index

Bill Davis
Re: Death of Aperture-FCPX Next?
on Jun 29, 2014 at 3:13:39 am

Interesting, Oliver.

I barely used Aperture before I started working with a group of pro photographers here in town trading my video expertise for introduction to their RAW photo workflows.

They led me to Lightroom well before the Adobe rental mess.

I'm delighted that they've exempted LR from the cloud only straight jacket, but wary of the new Photoshop bundle since even tho it essentially makes a 1 year Photoshop license only about $40 over the purchase cost of LR alone, it would suck me into becoming yet another CC "signup" just a few months after i cut those ties - plus seduce me into spending more time gaining skill on a rental app I'd like to replace with something "ownable" ASAP.

BTW, isn't it interesting that the new deal requires the $120 payment for the "rental" year up front?

Odd how all this is needed to keep the photo side happy, while the video side gets the "this way or no way" treatment.

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: Death of Aperture-FCPX Next?
on Jun 29, 2014 at 3:27:06 am

[Bill Davis] "I barely used Aperture before I started working with a group of pro photographers here in town trading my video expertise for introduction to their RAW photo workflows. "

The frustrating part about Aperture is that Apple essentially invented the genre of this software and then neglected it. Although, I, too, believe Photos might still be sufficiently "pro" to make everyone happy. However, for the folks who actually used the photo books function, I'll bet that goes away.

FWIW - the same "edit in" plug-in path that lets you use Photoshop with Aperture (like with Lightroom), also works with a number of other apps, including MB Looks and various DFT products, like Tiffen Dfx, Film Stocks, etc. There also used to be a nifty plug-in that worked between Aperture and FCP "legacy". You could select a set of photos in order and export them as a sequence (complete with dissolves and sequence codec settings) to FCP. Once in FCP, adjust timing and add moves.

[Bill Davis] "Odd how all this is needed to keep the photo side happy, while the video side gets the "this way or no way" treatment."

Seems interesting to me as well. Probably because there are a lot more users there and many more fit into the high-end amateur camp than on the video side.

- Oliver

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


Return to posts index

Brent Cook
Re: Death of Aperture-FCPX Next?
on Jun 29, 2014 at 5:03:44 am

[Bill Davis] "But it's internal semi round trip link to Photoshop (the return file shows up as a separate tiff alongside the unretouched original) is a good indication that Adobe did not try to make it anywhere near a full fledged photo editor."

Dennis already addressed this, but I'll add my .02. Lightroom is a RAW image processor and organizer. It's not intended at all to be a full fledged photo editor. Why would it when there is photoshop? RAW processor means that it only writes a set of instructions for processing the data. Only when you export a jpg or tiff does it bake those edits into the final output. When you send a file to PS for more advanced editing/retouching, PS is actually altering the pixels and/or adding layers which are outside the scope of a RAW image processor. It wouldn't make sense to replace your digital negative with a tiff or psd file, which is why it is added along side the RAW file. I wouldn't have it any other way.

[Bill Davis] "Then it has a basic suite of touch up tools to let you quickly enhance and repair your selected raw files."

Maybe you haven't used a recent version of LR. It has quite a huge selection of powerful editing tools. The spot healing tool now works like the tool in PS (you can paint in your healing edit instead of just a single round spot), it has graduated/radial filters, adjustment brush (which was huge for me), and over the years the array of color/tonal tools, sharpening, noise reduction, have been improved a ton. I do 90+% of my photo editing in LR. I've been using it since the original beta version.


Return to posts index

Brent Cook
Re: Death of Aperture-FCPX Next?
on Jun 27, 2014 at 9:14:19 pm

[Mitch Ives] "Jeez, is anybody doing any research?"

Was this necessary? You replied to my same comment respectfully and then this? I've looked at 5 or 6 other sources (first page of google search and what I would not consider rumor sights) and it is not mentioned in any of them yet you claim it's mentioned everywhere. Maybe google works differently for each of us.


Return to posts index

Mitch Ives
Re: Death of Aperture-FCPX Next?
on Jun 27, 2014 at 9:20:38 pm

[Brent Cook] "Was this necessary? You replied to my same comment respectfully and then this? I've looked at 5 or 6 other sources (first page of google search and what I would not consider rumor sights) and it is not mentioned in any of them yet you claim it's mentioned everywhere. Maybe google works differently for each of us."

Wasn't clear. I was responding to a series of posts questioning my statement. FWIW, it was in the first four I read. Could be a case of everybody quoting each other though, I suppose.

As for Goggle working differently... wouldn't surprise me... ;-)

Mitch Ives
Insight Productions Corp.

"Criticism may not be agreeable, but it is necessary. It fulfills the same function as pain in the human body. It calls attention to an unhealthy state of things." - Winston Churchill


Return to posts index

Oliver Peters
Re: Death of Aperture-FCPX Next?
on Jun 27, 2014 at 11:17:34 pm

Actually Stu Maschwitz has an interesting take.

http://prolost.com/blog/2014/6/27/the-battle-for-all-the-photos.html

Seems like this is partially a play against Google.

- Oliver

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


Return to posts index

Dennis Radeke
Re: Death of Aperture-FCPX Next?
on Jun 28, 2014 at 12:00:37 pm

[Andy Neil] "And Apple isn't the only company to do the same exact thing. Remember Liquid? Or Soundbooth?"

Well, I think the idea that software does get EOL'd for some reason is completely valid, but the two cases you mentioned each have good reasons and don't I think make your case particularly well. Liquid was a Pinnacle product (and before that FAST multimedia) that was ultimately bought by Avid where many NLE's end up and then slowly disappear. If you're Avid, you focus on MC, plain and simple.

For Adobe's Soundbooth, it was a reaction to customer usage. The concept of Soundbooth was to make an audio tool for video folks. however, usage of Soundbooth was low and the feedback from users was, 'give us all of the mixer stuff and the more sophisticated UI' which of course is what Audition is all about. Therefore, Adobe focused on Audition integration and hasn't looked back.

Dennis - Adobe guy
...and former Pinnacle employee (Liquid guy)


Return to posts index

Andy Neil
Re: Death of Aperture-FCPX Next?
on Jun 28, 2014 at 4:12:33 pm

The implication that my examples don't serve my argument is that Apple doesn't have as good a reason for EOL'ing Aperture as Adobe had for Soundbooth or Avid had for Liquid. If the new Photos offers professionals and casuals what they each need from a single app, then isn't that a good reason?

I remember Pinnacle Liquid because I worked with the Pinnacle folks at the facility I ran, putting Liquid through it's paces in 2004 or so. I was entertaining solutions to replace our Avid Newscutters (ironically) and Liquid was one of my top choices.

It had some clunky features like overly cumbersome buttons and a UI that I wasn't as sleek as Avid or FCP for that matter, but it also innovated in ways that blew Avid and Apple away. Color correction by adjusting inside the scopes, surround sound implementation, background rendering, far better real time than Newscutter at the time.

When Avid bought Pinnacle, I was sort of happy because I thought they would use Liquid to fuel innovations in Media Composer. Instead, they trotted Liquid out as it's own product for 5 years and then killed it with as little concern for their user base as Apple is accused of having. My point was that every company has reasons to EOL software, Adobe and Avid included. Oftentimes it's usually a means to focus their product line so they don't have competing products. Does it make sense that Adobe killed Soundbooth for Audition? Sure. Just as it makes sense that Avid killed Liquid to stay focused on Media Composer (but why leave all that Pinnacle innovation on the cutting room floor?). It just seems to me that people are far more willing to eviscerate Apple for doing the same thing as every other software company.

Andy

https://plus.google.com/u/0/107277729326633563425/videos


Return to posts index

Craig Seeman
Re: Death of Aperture-FCPX Next?
on Jun 28, 2014 at 4:27:44 pm

[Andy Neil] "It just seems to me that people are far more willing to eviscerate Apple for doing the same thing as every other software company."

Although one might understand why that happens. Keep in mind I'm generally happy with Apple's software and especially FCPX.

At the time FCP legacy was EOL'd, FCPX was not yet an adequate replacement for many people. Given that Apple has mentioned nothing of Photo's feature set for the Yosemite version, people are concerned about what will come and how long it will take to regain certain features. There's a lack of confidence in Photo.

I understand that people at WWDC who participating in workshop(s) around Photo or have seen the video of those workshops, have some confidence. Unless one finds that info or hear's such accounts, one is likely to have some angst. Apple isn't doing anything to address that beyond the brief PR statement people see on the news sites.

Hearing nothing beyond that and, based on the FCPX release, people are ready to eviscerate Apple. I'm one of those "Apple trusting" folks but I'm sympathetic with those that don't. Apple's PR does not instill confidence.

Personally I think Apple might want to more publicly show off the potential that it seems some at WWDC were introduced to (and I'm talking about the Yosemite version, not iOS 8 version).



Return to posts index

John Godwin
Re: Death of Aperture-FCPX Next?
on Jun 28, 2014 at 4:31:13 pm

I still miss Liquid, it was waaay ahead of it's time. I still think one of the reasons I like FCP X so much is that it's sort of Liquid-like …

Best,
John


Return to posts index


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