FORUMS: list search recent posts

The Next FCPX Update

COW Forums : Apple Final Cut Pro X Debates

<< PREVIOUS   •   VIEW ALL   •   PRINT   •   NEXT >>
Gerry Fraiberg
The Next FCPX Update
on Jan 25, 2015 at 2:38:48 pm

Now that Apple has updated Logic Pro to 10.1, can the next update to FCPX be far behind?



Return to posts index

Marcus Moore
Re: The Next FCPX Update
on Jan 25, 2015 at 8:01:23 pm

I wouldn't try to correlate FCP and Logic updates. They're on their own development schedules, and (to my understanding) entirely separate teams on different continents


Return to posts index

David Mathis
Re: The Next FCPX Update
on Jan 25, 2015 at 9:09:53 pm

My guess the next update will be a feature based one. Really would like to see keyframing and trimming improvements.


Return to posts index


Helmut Kobler
Re: The Next FCPX Update
on Jan 25, 2015 at 10:15:55 pm

And performance improvements with the interface! FCP X's UI is just plain slow many a time...and i'm not talking about big sprawling projects either.

I have a 6 core 2013 Mac Pro with D500s and 32GB of ram, cutting a 3 minute project using a couple layers of prores 422 footage off of a Thunderbolt 2 8 drive RAID...and the interface is often laggy. Selecting clips, trying to trim them, sometimes skimmer responsiveness, inspector responsiveness (moving in and out of the color corrector, for instance).

I'm surprised this hasn't been addressed more aggressively by Apple, but letting things fester is generally Apple's M.O. these days....

-------------------
Los Angeles Cameraman
Canon C300 (x2), Zeiss CP.2 lenses, P2 Varicam, etc.
http://www.lacameraman.com


Return to posts index

Steve Connor
Re: The Next FCPX Update
on Jan 25, 2015 at 10:21:28 pm

[Helmut Kobler] "I have a 6 core 2013 Mac Pro with D500s and 32GB of ram, cutting a 3 minute project using a couple layers of prores 422 footage off of a Thunderbolt 2 8 drive RAID...and the interface is often laggy. Selecting clips, trying to trim them, sometimes skimmer responsiveness, inspector responsiveness (moving in and out of the color corrector, for instance).

I'm surprised this hasn't been addressed more aggressively by Apple, but letting things fester is generally Apple's M.O. these days...."


Are other people seeing this as well? I get it, but I assumed it was that fact that I'm using a 2008 MPro


Return to posts index

Dave Jenkins
Re: The Next FCPX Update
on Jan 25, 2015 at 10:35:57 pm

Yes, I have the same computer. 6 core 2013 Mac Pro with D500s and 32GB of ram and sometime I have trouble getting the timeline (project) to be the applications focus. Zooming in and out almost always requires the audio waveforms to rebuild, etc...

Dajen Productions, Santa Barbara, CA
Mac Pro 3.5MHz 6-Core Late 2013
FCP X


Return to posts index


Helmut Kobler
Re: The Next FCPX Update
on Jan 25, 2015 at 10:41:43 pm
Last Edited By Helmut Kobler on Jan 25, 2015 at 10:50:40 pm

I assumed that when I was using a 2009 Mac Pro too.

And then I used a 2013 iMac for a while, and didn't notice it as much...a little but not as much.

Now it seems to be there all the time. I don't know if the last version or two of FCP X took a step back in terms of performance, but it's really annoying to invest in Apple's best equipment and software, and have it all run like a 6 year old set up.

Apple: the company that used to delight, and now more often just disappoints.

-------------------
Los Angeles Cameraman
Canon C300 (x2), Zeiss CP.2 lenses, P2 Varicam, etc.
http://www.lacameraman.com


Return to posts index

Nick Toth
Re: The Next FCPX Update
on Jan 26, 2015 at 2:21:43 pm

The 10.1.X interface definitely lags worse than previous versions. I've sent feedback to Apple and apparently they are aware of it. I hope the next update addresses the issue.

anickt


Return to posts index

tony west
Re: The Next FCPX Update
on Jan 26, 2015 at 5:09:52 pm

[Helmut Kobler] " I don't know if the last version or two of FCP X took a step back in terms of performance,"

That's how I feel. Earlier versions ran better on my same computer.


Return to posts index


Michael Hoefler
Re: The Next FCPX Update
on Jan 26, 2015 at 2:06:14 pm

I am seeing the laggy behaviour too. Same Mac Pro 6 Core, 32GB 2x D500.
This is really sad. It is a huge difference to Premiere CC 2014. I can edit a whole day within Pr with no lag of responsiveness.
I don't want new features. I want speed and want to be free of the strange UI behaviours.

Michael


Return to posts index

Mitch Ives
Re: The Next FCPX Update
on Jan 26, 2015 at 4:03:33 pm

Yep, seeing it on a fully loaded 8-core with a TB2 disk array capable of over 900. It's gotten worse in the latest version. Maybe Apple could pretend for a moment that this is as important as some iPhone issue?

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

David McClellan
Re: The Next FCPX Update
on Jan 26, 2015 at 5:58:52 pm

Yeah it lags. We need a decent sized feature update big time. I find that when it gets laggy doing a full restart sometimes helps. But you already knew that.

-DM

2013 MacPro 3.5 GHz 6-Core Intel Xeon E5 64BG Ram
LG 31MU97 4K Display
2013 MacBookPro Retina


Return to posts index


Steve Connor
Re: The Next FCPX Update
on Jan 26, 2015 at 8:14:35 pm

I was hoping that upgrading to a new MP would help a lot.

I did an edit in iMovie today to see how that works and it's MUCH snappier with exactly the same AVCHD material. Hopefully when FCPX gets it's new look interface (assuming it does) it will improve the speed.


Return to posts index

Chris Frantz
Re: The Next FCPX Update
on Jan 27, 2015 at 12:20:07 am

Just chiming in here, FCPX lags embarrassingly slow on brand new hardware, with fiber attached storage nonetheless. Didn't use to be nearly this bad, I can move more quickly in FCP7 then 10 at this point. It is kind of strange watching Apple take such a beating from Adobe on this stuff. I can't think of any other division in their company they're getting so thoroughly owned in.


Return to posts index

Tim Wilson
Re: The Next FCPX Update
on Jan 27, 2015 at 12:46:07 am

[Mitch Ives] "Maybe Apple could pretend for a moment that this is as important as some iPhone issue?"

Actually, I think they have.

I spent all day on hold, and when I finally got someone on the line to tell them about this, they said, "We've tested FCPX thoroughly, and found no problems with it here. You're obviously holding it wrong."


Return to posts index


David McClellan
Re: The Next FCPX Update
on Jan 27, 2015 at 1:04:09 am

I have to say that I really like FCP X and have warmed to the new paradigm they have created. However - if there is not an update that addresses the issues I have with media management and the overall laggy feel after working on complex projects - I am likely to punt and move to PP on the next project.

-DM

2013 MacPro 3.5 GHz 6-Core Intel Xeon E5 64BG Ram
LG 31MU97 4K Display
2013 MacBookPro Retina


Return to posts index

TImothy Auld
Re: The Next FCPX Update
on Jan 27, 2015 at 3:00:15 am

Though I have used FCPX on a few projects I wouldn't call myself an avid FCPX user. But as a potential user I have to ask myself if Apple is really still developing this software. And if they are then why are we still talking about a feature update when there hasn't really been one in two years or more?

Tim


Return to posts index

Marcus Moore
Re: The Next FCPX Update
on Jan 27, 2015 at 3:15:26 am

FCPX had a major feature update 13 months ago, and a minor feature update 6 months ago- and 3 additional maintenance updates in the past year.

That's active development.


Return to posts index

Herb Sevush
Re: The Next FCPX Update
on Jan 27, 2015 at 3:03:26 pm

[Marcus Moore] "That's active development."

After Apple published their white paper listing all the things they were going to do to bring X up to speed after the initial release I will admit I was very skeptical. However they did exactly what they promised they would do and within the time frame they specified. Since then, as far as I can tell, they've changed the structure of the library database and changed the whole "persistent in and out point" thingy on clips. Not counting handling new codecs and surface GUI changes, which is maintenance type stuff - what has come off your own "requested feature" list in the past 15 months? Or is X perfect and not in need of improvement?

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


Return to posts index

David McClellan
Re: The Next FCPX Update
on Jan 27, 2015 at 3:30:51 pm

[Herb Sevush] " Or is X perfect and not in need of improvement?"

Surely you jest...

-DM

2013 MacPro 3.5 GHz 6-Core Intel Xeon E5 64BG Ram
LG 31MU97 4K Display
2013 MacBookPro Retina


Return to posts index

Marcus Moore
Re: The Next FCPX Update
on Jan 27, 2015 at 5:10:40 pm

No one who's read my posts or blog from the last couple years would confuse me with someone who's satisfied with the status quo. After just completing a whole season of a show, I'm thrilled with how flexible Roles are, and how that model streamlined audio in my work. But at the same time working thru 39 episodes showed me where all the holes still are in process- things that haven't changed since Roles made their first appearance in 10.0.1. If you'd like to see how hard I've though about this just read this post here-

http://disproportionatepictures.blogspot.ca/2014/10/roles-redux-part1.html

Without question FCPX is the most immature of the "big 3" NLEs cause... well, it is.

I've done enough construction to know you can't build well on a weak foundation. So my personal belief is that a lot of stuff has been punted in development because of the big Library model switch. I'm thrilled with the results in that regard, so I've been willing to cut them some slack with whatever is coming down the pipe next. That said, I'll be as disappointed as anyone if we don't see some great new stuff this year.

As for improvements from the last year outside of codec and Library stuff that have really made a difference to me?

• Improved Retiming tools (way better than 7)
• Join thru edits returns (yay!)
• used/unused media indicators (while duplicate frames in timeline are stil needed I've found this even more useful)
• "unused media" Viewer
• XML improvements
• "White puck" pervasive selection which saves me tons of time manually selecting items to edit attributes
• improvements to VO tool (auditions & countdown)
• multicam improvements

Those are just the ones off the top of my head scanning thru the FCPX release notes.

What do I want to see this year?

• Roles, Roles, Roles. Faster assignment, use for Project timeline organization, use for mixing.
• Improved RED support- 3rd party GPU support, HDRX support.
• Performance and stability improvements.
• Improved trimming tools
• Motion integration

it's not a long list, but each one of those is a big job, and in varied areas of the software.


Return to posts index

David McClellan
Re: The Next FCPX Update
on Jan 27, 2015 at 6:17:08 pm

MEDIA M A N A G E M E N T....
Jeezus - if you are able to select each clip individually in the timeline by hand and export it to a new file - then open a new project and recreate your old timeline shot by shot - why can't this process be automated in the click of a button for the thousand or so edits in my film? Just give me a decent way to media manage -- at LEAST something like 7 - but better. That is NOT too much to ask for. And it should not be third party. It should be integrated into what is already there. If I can do it myself one clip at a time - the COMPUTER should be able to do it for me in one click.

-DM

2013 MacPro 3.5 GHz 6-Core Intel Xeon E5 64BG Ram
LG 31MU97 4K Display
2013 MacBookPro Retina


Return to posts index

Bill Davis
Re: The Next FCPX Update
on Jan 28, 2015 at 7:42:38 am

Isn't this EXACTLY what a snapshot is? I'm confused.

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

Marcus Moore
Re: The Next FCPX Update
on Jan 28, 2015 at 12:20:02 pm

No, Bill. I think he's referring to Media Managing a project for archiving or transfer to an online house.

Right now you can consolidate the media for a Project- but unlike in FCP7, there are no options to trim the media (with handles).

For my own part, drive storage has become so cheap that I'm typically not bothered about this. Also, some media formats like RED, I don't think would allow for trimming.

Still I can certainly imagine circumstances where this would be needed, so I think it would be a good option to provide. And considering the road that development has been going down this past year, specifically the updates in 10.1.2 for consolidation-- I wouldn't be surprised if it's coming.


Return to posts index

David McClellan
Re: The Next FCPX Update
on Jan 28, 2015 at 10:37:13 pm

If your media library on your rough cut of your film can be reduced form say 1.5TB of mostly crap footage down to say 200-300 GB -of just what is being used -- well then that is quite a difference - and has nothing to do with prices of hard drives. If you have to export say roughly 18-20 or so segments of your film in order to go out to the effects team to do their thing - again - right now my choices are 1. do it one clip at a time and rebuild for them - not ideal -- 2. export whole sequences as a single baked in movies - (and lose all of the cuts in the process) - or 3. Buy Clip Exporter 2 - which kinda sorta does this - but that is all that it really does. It doesn't media manage any audio at all and has limited functions and costs $120 or so.

That is just one practical example - since i am doing that right now on a film -- But there are many other reasons to have a fully functional Media Manager that exports your timeline as individual clips with handles of your liking inside FCP X.

-DM

2013 MacPro 3.5 GHz 6-Core Intel Xeon E5 64BG Ram
LG 31MU97 4K Display
2013 MacBookPro Retina


Return to posts index

Marcus Moore
Re: The Next FCPX Update
on Jan 29, 2015 at 2:12:32 am

No, I understand, and as I said I think they're only one step away from this with a trimmed media option in a conform. Let's hope it happens.


Return to posts index

David McClellan
Re: The Next FCPX Update
on Jan 29, 2015 at 3:30:55 am

One would hope. I can tell you that they updated Logic with some really kickass stuff. And I actually LIKE cutting in X.1. I wouldn't go so far as to say it was enjoyable.... but it is a much better experience overall than 7 after the 5 day learning curve. It would be a shame for them to not have more forward momentum after they basically reinvented the editing paradigm. I'm a user and a fan.

-DM

2013 MacPro 3.5 GHz 6-Core Intel Xeon E5 64BG Ram
LG 31MU97 4K Display
2013 MacBookPro Retina


Return to posts index

Bill Davis
Re: The Next FCPX Update
on Jan 29, 2015 at 8:15:42 pm

[Marcus Moore] "No, Bill. I think he's referring to Media Managing a project for archiving or transfer to an online house.
"


I still don't get it.

Archiving is a snap with X no matter how complex your cut. Because it's ALL metadata. If you learn to work with referenced media - everything from a snapshot to an XML export is a snap.

As to transfer to an online house, Mike Matzdorff never said it was any kind of issue on Focus when he was working with Lightiron in LA.

If they can do it so easily, why is it a big problem for everyone else? Is this another case of people think they need to stick to exactly the same workflow they've been using for 10 years and not willing to re-think things?

Seems to me that those who don't have that mindset never have that big a problem with X.

Honestly, "media with handles" sounds like what I was doing back when my largest hard drive was 500 megs. Not something particularly relevant in a world where I can carry 4TB in a drive the size of a paperback book - AND I have a tool like X where since everything is built in metadata references and there's no penalty of working across differently razzed sizes of matched media pools - I can cut in one rez and just switch the pointers to original media with a click.

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: The Next FCPX Update
on Jan 29, 2015 at 9:10:23 pm

[Bill Davis] "Honestly, "media with handles" sounds like what I was doing back when my largest hard drive was 500 megs. Not something particularly relevant in a world where I can carry 4TB in a drive the size of a paperback book"

What if you need to back up to LTO tapes, the best current archiving medium, but one that is both much slower and more limited in size than your 4TB hard drives?

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: The Next FCPX Update
on Jan 30, 2015 at 8:41:10 pm

Herb,
With the rate of development in storage capacity and speed, I just don't understand the necessity. Any modern NLE should allow an editor to open a working copy of the entire projects assets in reduced rez for revisions, then apply those changes to the original Rez source files for finishing. To my thinking, restricting an editor to a cut with nothing but "handles" is a poor old workflow born of an era when storage and throughput was a challenge.

Cut on ProRez or even Proxy with access to the entire pool of source material - and just swap pointers to the original media for master output just makes more sense. I'll bet you dollars to doughnuts that in a lab somewhere some storage engineer is close to something that's going to make LTO look like 8track car audio soon.

The wealth transfer potential for the companies that crack this is just too great to allow otherwise. Heck, I'm just an microorganism in the scale of this industry, and right now I have the capacity to store maybe half a dozen uncompressed feature length films shot in 6k with maybe a 20:1 shooting ratio in my personal studio.

And, the Costco down the street has enough retail data storage on its shelves to store 100 feature shoots.
And there are 100 similar stores in every medium sized town in the world.

This is no longer the era of digital storage scarcity.

No, I'm NOT suggesting that Hollywood start archiving via Costco, just saying that the storage landscape has and continues to change tremendously. So workflows that relied on 15 year old techniques are fair game to question.

That's all.

Know someone who teaches video editing in elementary school, high school or college? Tell them to check out http://www.StartEditingNow.com - video editing curriculum complete with licensed practice content.


Return to posts index

Herb Sevush
Re: The Next FCPX Update
on Jan 30, 2015 at 11:00:38 pm

[Bill Davis] " I'll bet you dollars to doughnuts that in a lab somewhere some storage engineer is close to something that's going to make LTO look like 8track car audio soon."

The argument that X shouldn't bother to figure out how to do this because it probably won't be necessary 3 years from now does nothing for someone who has deliverables today. Of course it would be better to archive ALL of the material, but sometimes it's still impractical for a given budget and workflow. Your arguing from the myopia of your own workflow - you don't need it, ipso facto it's not essential. It was your same reasoning about the whole topic of exporting EDLs. Given the business model Apple has constructed around X it wouldn't surprise me to see a third party solution, as this seems to be their method for handling these kind things.

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


Return to posts index

Andrew Kimery
Re: The Next FCPX Update
on Jan 31, 2015 at 3:04:14 am

[Bill Davis] "I'll bet you dollars to doughnuts that in a lab somewhere some storage engineer is close to something that's going to make LTO look like 8track car audio soon. "

There certainly are. There a lot of brilliant stuff going on in labs all over the world. 3D printing. Virtual reality. Advances in medicine.

The big problem with stuff in the lab though is that it's in the lab. Things in the lab probably have 5-10 years before they become commercial (if they ever become commercial) and even then it's a few more years to see if they become integrated, battle tested and financially successful. I remember reading about InPhase Technologies and their holographic storage (which sounded awesome in 2006) but they were never able to get anything of substance out the door and they filed for bankruptcy in 2011. Meanwhile this archaic, spinning disk HDD technology just keeps on getting better, faster and cheaper.

What may or may not happen in the next 5-15 years doesn't really solve the problems of today.

The great thing about LTO is it works now and the tech is designed to be three generations forward/backward compatible. It's been around long enough (and trusted enough) that it's not going to be a flash-in-the-pan solution like Jaz drives.


Return to posts index

Chris Frantz
Re: The Next FCPX Update
on Jan 29, 2015 at 9:20:24 pm

[Bill Davis] "As to transfer to an online house, Mike Matzdorff never said it was any kind of issue on Focus when he was working with Lightiron in LA."

[Bill Davis] "f they can do it so easily, why is it a big problem for everyone else? "

Welp, one person with an NDA and direct contact with the team at Apple didn't complain while doing a big-budget feature. We must all be doing something wrong. We have 200 TB on an XSAN, and LTO tape backup but space is still a commodity, and will be going forward. Proper archiving options would be a welcome addition, as every other software has this. This will be one of the features that people will defend Apple not implementing until they do, and then championing it soon afterwards. And what world are you cutting in that "media with handles" isn't relevant? Every time anyone does graphics, color, anything it gets handles.


Return to posts index

Tim Wilson
Re: The Next FCPX Update
on Jan 29, 2015 at 9:34:59 pm

[Chris Frantz] "This will be one of the features that people will defend Apple not implementing until they do, and then championing it soon afterwards. "
See also:
  • A compressed proprietary codec that offers workflow advantages, especially over camera codecs. "Avid DNxHD? Makes no sense!" Then four years later, "PRORES IS AWESOME." Haha! Avid sucks!".

  • Multicam. Who needs THAT? Certainly not anyone using an Apple NLE. Too specialized. EXCEPT (how many years later?) LOOK HOW AWESOME IT IS."


See also:
  • Phones with big screens. "Who would carry a phone THAT big? It's ridiculous. I'd NEVER do that. EXCEPT LOOK AT THIS BIG NEW IPHONE. IT'S AWESOME."


  • Phones with high resolution screens. "Your eyes can't even tell the difference! Except Look At MY AWESOME RETINA SCREEN (tm)! What? Yours still has higher resolution? YOUR EYES CAN'T EVEN TELL THE DIFFERENCE."


Sorry, couldn't resist. Well, I could have, but what fun would THAT be? LOL


Return to posts index

David McClellan
Re: The Next FCPX Update
on Jan 29, 2015 at 9:31:37 pm
Last Edited By David McClellan on Jan 29, 2015 at 9:44:52 pm

How is a 1.38TB FCPX library of my project all metadata? How do I drop box this massive wad of unused stuff up to my FX team in Toronto when the library is bloated as shit? My used footage is not 1.38TB - that library is 85% garbage that at this point in the project should be MEDIA MANAGED OUT to lean out the library and make it easy to 1. back up - 2. give to other people working on project and 3. limit the amount of media used in the working project for finishing. Today I am tasked with isolating and exporting 18 sequences -- not shots - SEQUENCES - in a feature film - that have to be exported where each individual shot inside the sequence has 8 frame handles on either side. Then they have to be rebuilt in a timeline and sent with an XML up to the FX team via drop box. Do you get it now? There is no quick and easy way to do this inside of FCP X. In 7 it was a matter of 1. duplicate project 2. Isolate each sequence cutting out the unused footage from the rest of the film and 3. media managing the sequences into a new project -- with handles. Then sending that smaller package out to the fx team. Got it? At most a half hours worth of work. IN X - Even if I just use the sequences I need to send and put them in separate timelines in a new project in a new library in FCP X - minus the rest of the film -- - it STILL keeps all of the excess unused media handles in the shots (clips) - and these fools ran the cameras the whole time without cutting so many shots have multiple takes on them and the library is therefore WAY BLOATED.

-DM

2013 MacPro 3.5 GHz 6-Core Intel Xeon E5 64BG Ram
LG 31MU97 4K Display
2013 MacBookPro Retina


Return to posts index

Marcus Moore
Re: The Next FCPX Update
on Jan 29, 2015 at 9:52:29 pm

I'm sorry Bill- but I think your handwaving of media management is misplaced. And I say that as someone who's NEVER dealt heavily with Managed Media backups.

Besides the LTO issues that have already been brought up....

As easy as you can say that someone is being backwards about wanting to be able to trim media because drive space is cheap, I could just as easily say you're not looking to the future, where it will be more feasible to transfer media files online between collaborating members of a production. And here again we'll be back to constraints of bandwidth speeds and file sizes- and where the difference between 1.2TB of untrimmed media and 250GB of Managed Media will make A LOT of difference.


Return to posts index

Andrew Kimery
Re: The Next FCPX Update
on Jan 29, 2015 at 10:30:12 pm
Last Edited By Andrew Kimery on Jan 29, 2015 at 10:47:45 pm

[Bill Davis] "
I still don't get it.

Archiving is a snap with X no matter how complex your cut. Because it's ALL metadata. If you learn to work with referenced media - everything from a snapshot to an XML export is a snap.

As to transfer to an online house, Mike Matzdorff never said it was any kind of issue on Focus when he was working with Lightiron in LA.


Do you have a link to the article where Mike talks about the offline/online process for Focus? You can certainly send a single QT file plus XML or EDL for color grading but sending a trimmed project with handles is easier and more flexible in my experience. It's certainly my preferred method of working (both when I'm an editor handing off a project and when I'm coloring and receiving someone else's project).


Honestly, "media with handles" sounds like what I was doing back when my largest hard drive was 500 megs. Not something particularly relevant in a world where I can carry 4TB in a drive the size of a paperback book - AND I have a tool like X where since everything is built in metadata references and there's no penalty of working across differently razzed sizes of matched media pools - I can cut in one rez and just switch the pointers to original media with a click.
"


Not everyone has the same needs as you do Bill. Trust me, if you were working on projects that routinely shot hundreds (if not thousands) of hours of footage, or round tripped media between you and colorists or VFX artists, you'd have a different mindset. Not to mention media has gotten larger in size too.

In 2006/2007 I started working at web company and they had 4TBs of shared storage. At the time I thought it was huge and most of their media was DV25 so 4TB went a long way. Once HD came around they started doing more in DVCProHD (and later ProRes) and sudden 4TB wasn't nearly as big. By the the time I left in 2010/2011 they generated 1-2TB a week of new media, had 60TB of online storage (not Cloud storage, but an xSan of active storage used by the editors), 25TB of nearline storage (an older, slower xSan) and about 100TB of offline storage (mirrored HDDs and later mirrored LTO). The offline storage was for archived, media managed projects. Media managing the projects typically reduced their footprint by a factor of 10 (if not more) so, yeah, even new-media web companies can benefit from something as old and archaic as trimming a project down to just media used.

I recently used Avid's consolidate function (same as FCP Legend's Media Manger) so I could hand off a copy of my timeline to a producer so she could work on a timing sheet for all the archival footage we used. Certainly much easier to hand off a few hundred gigs of media vs 6TB.

I could go on, but suffice it to say I don't see now *not* having this functionality is superior to having this functionality.


Return to posts index

Bill Davis
Re: The Next FCPX Update
on Jan 30, 2015 at 9:01:37 pm

Look,

I'm trying to extrapolate from the changes I've seen over the past 15 years ahead another 5. I've just seen WAY too many production processes that I depended upon - and that we're mission critical for my work - fade into irrelevance when I wasn't looking. Particularly in regards to project backup and aeprchiving.

And I've got the Zip drives, SyQuest drives, DC2000 tapes and about 300 each 3.5" "floppies" and another 300 DVCAM 120s to show for it. Archives of media "with handles" will be important until the moment they join the rest of that old stuff. And i believe the handwriting is on the wall for that way of "scarcity thinking" of digital assets.

Time will tell if I'm crazy or just a slightly better extrapolator in this.

Heck, just this morning I was reading a Facebook feed link to a heavily footnoted artical where some very rational sounding guy was arguing that driverless, automated Google powered Über cars would seriously start killing off the taxicab industry in the next FIVE years.

Extrapolate 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

Walter Soyka
Re: The Next FCPX Update
on Jan 30, 2015 at 9:41:56 pm

[Bill Davis] "And i believe the handwriting is on the wall for that way of "scarcity thinking" of digital assets."

I keep trying to pass this off as Soyka's Law: "Expectations rise at the same rate as capabilities."

Maybe someday it will catch on!

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

Marcus Moore
Re: The Next FCPX Update
on Jan 30, 2015 at 9:47:11 pm

Indeed. HD space may be getting cheaper, but frame sizes, frame rates, and data rates are going up.

And as I said, digital distribution of media assets will take all this stuff back to zero, especially in places like the US where bandwidth isn't cheap and hardly ever unlimited.


Return to posts index

Shawn Miller
Re: The Next FCPX Update
on Jan 30, 2015 at 10:12:18 pm

[Walter Soyka] "I keep trying to pass this off as Soyka's Law: "Expectations rise at the same rate as capabilities.""

lol - I might argue that expectations seem to rise slightly faster than capabilities. I call this the "Can't you just" request. :-)

Shawn



Return to posts index

Walter Soyka
Re: The Next FCPX Update
on Jan 31, 2015 at 10:48:17 am

[Shawn Miller] "lol - I might argue that expectations seem to rise slightly faster than capabilities. I call this the "Can't you just" request. :-)"

Shawn, Soyka's Law does not stipulate that expectation must be less than or equal to capability; just that advances in capability are met with equal advances in expectation.

Sounds like there's room in here for Miller's Corollary.

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

Jeremy Garchow
Re: The Next FCPX Update
on Jan 31, 2015 at 5:42:36 am

[Walter Soyka] "I keep trying to pass this off as Soyka's Law: "Expectations rise at the same rate as capabilities.""

What happens when capabilities fragment in to different levels of expectation?


Return to posts index

Walter Soyka
Re: The Next FCPX Update
on Jan 31, 2015 at 10:53:34 am

[Jeremy Garchow] "What happens when capabilities fragment in to different levels of expectation?"

I think that my statement is true at both macro and micro levels, but it's apples and oranges to consider macro capabilities and micro expectations together.

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

Andrew Kimery
Re: The Next FCPX Update
on Jan 30, 2015 at 10:33:06 pm

[Bill Davis] "The wealth transfer potential for the companies that crack this is just too great to allow otherwise. Heck, I'm just an microorganism in the scale of this industry, and right now I have the capacity to store maybe half a dozen uncompressed feature length films shot in 6k with maybe a 20:1 shooting ratio in my personal studio."

Math isn't my strong suit so someone feel free to correct me if I misplaced a decimal point or something.

According to the AJA Data Calc app (which only goes up to 4k) an hour of 10bit RGB 4k footage (full 4k, not UHD) at 23.98fps will eat up about 4.5TB of space. A 90 minute long movie with a 20:1 shooting ratio is 30hrs of footage so that's 132TB and times 6 makes it 792TB total. Keeping in mind how manufacturers calculate space (i.e. a 1TB drive doesn't really hold 1TB of data) and that you need head room to keep the storage from slowing down I'll just round up and say 1PB of space is required to store maybe half a dozen uncompressed feature length films shot in 4k (not 6k, just lowly 4k) with maybe a 20:1 shooting ratio.

This jives with the numbers Michael Cioni shared when talking about Light Iron doing the online for "The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo". They used DPX sequences for the online and the 2hr38min film came in at about 9.7TB in size. The RED RAW footage (of which there was over 400hrs shot during the production) came in at 40MB per SECOND where as the DPX files were 45MB per FRAME or a little more than 1gig per second. Yikes.
http://www.lightiron.com/about/news/creative-cow-4k-di-girl-dragon-tattoo

[Bill Davis] "I'm trying to extrapolate from the changes I've seen over the past 15 years ahead another 5. I've just seen WAY too many production processes that I depended upon - and that we're mission critical for my work - fade into irrelevance when I wasn't looking. Particularly in regards to project backup and aeprchiving. "

I get that Bill, I'm just trying to understand why handing off a trimmed sequence with handles to the colorist or the VFX team is an *inferior solution* compared to handing off a sequence with full length clips of all the media in said sequence. What does handing over a bunch of extraneous media do other than slow down the process? Sure computers are getting faster and drives are getting bigger but codecs are getting more processor intensive and frame sizes, frame rates and shooting ratios are getting bigger.

On a related note, when someone cutting in X sends and OMF/AAF out to to get mixed does the audio have handles on it?


Return to posts index

Michael Gissing
Re: The Next FCPX Update
on Jan 30, 2015 at 11:46:29 pm

[Andrew Kimerey] "On a related note, when someone cutting in X sends and OMF/AAF out to to get mixed does the audio have handles on it?"

Honestly I can't understand anyone who works in a collaborative workflow not seeing the advantage of media management and sending new truncated versions with handles to either sound post or grade. Data transfer and drive speed and capacity have not increased as fast as is needed to obviate media management and as we are now pumping out 4k, it now takes longer to get media files onto an external drive for grading at another facility.

Andrew is right. X2Pro media manages and sends truncated audio files with handles. It would be stupid to send original video and audio files to sound post. A typical AAF or OMF would have about 2-3 gigs of audio. Unmanaged that would balloon to many TBs of drive space to shift a tiny amount of audio. As I receive OMFs via the internet it would take a week to send the audio if it wasn't media managed by X2Pro. Impractical and stupid. If a third party can MM audio from X then why can't X??

The fact that FCPX doesn't have proper media management is still a big minus for most of the editors I work with. I can imagine Bill would change his tune the first time he works collaboratively on a long form 100:1 ratio documentary with audio post in another city and a grader in another country. These are common workflows and an NLE that ignores such basic function continues to fail the needs of many in our industry.

Ironically FCP7 never really got media management right but it is simply lazy of Apple to not give such basic functionality in the vain hope that one day we might not need it. It is very much needed now and the lack of it still limits X's inroads into FCP Legend, regardless of whether it is more fun to cut with.


Return to posts index

Andrew Kimery
Re: The Next FCPX Update
on Jan 31, 2015 at 2:49:27 am

[Michael Gissing] "The fact that FCPX doesn't have proper media management is still a big minus for most of the editors I work with. I can imagine Bill would change his tune the first time he works collaboratively on a long form 100:1 ratio documentary with audio post in another city and a grader in another country. These are common workflows and an NLE that ignores such basic function continues to fail the needs of many in our industry. "

It's funny you mention that. As I was sitting in traffic on my way home today I was thinking about a documentary I did a few years ago where we had about 50 interviewees and the average interview was about an hour long. Without trimmed media that would've been a 50 hours of footage just for the interviews alone. Toss in the broll and it probably could've doubled that amount. So, approximately 100 hours of media to pass off to the colorist for a 1 hour long documentary? That seems reasonable. ;)


Return to posts index

Bill Davis
Re: The Next FCPX Update
on Feb 1, 2015 at 12:40:04 am

Insert Cool Hand Luke quote here.

Nobody's suggesting anyones going to be sending all 15 takes of scene 123 to audio or a grader for gosh sakes. How about Just the material IN THE PIECE BEING GRADED. Which, unless I'm sorely confused does not require anyone consider the shooting ratio at all. IIRC, the reason for "handles" in the first place was to allow transitions between two streams of content and minor re-trimming.

Nowadays the editor, working in a referential modern NLE has a digital descriptions of not just the transition, but the individual component streams invilved in said transition as well. You're sending off a metadata file and the matching original media - of the movie. Not of the whole shoot for heavens sake.

All but 5% stays in the producers or editors vault. And likely 80% of that is gonna get tossed when the producer gets tired of paying to store the outtakes. As always, right? So what's the big deal?

It just seems to me that the "handles" are now all just metadata. So the command you need today is Include the "original media" for every frame in the program. Adding 5 second arbitrary "handles" just somehow seems old- imprecise. But who am I to say. I don't do movies. And maybe there is an actual "non-historical" reason someone needs 120 extra seemingly useless extra frames tacked oto each side of every cut, because that's the way it's done. If so, fine. Just seems kinda weird in a universe where we can be precise to the 48,000th of a Hertz.

That's all.

Know someone who teaches video editing in elementary school, high school or college? Tell them to check out http://www.StartEditingNow.com - video editing curriculum complete with licensed practice content.


Return to posts index

David McClellan
Re: The Next FCPX Update
on Feb 1, 2015 at 1:14:53 am

[Bill Davis] "All but 5% stays in the producers or editors vault. And likely 80% of that is gonna get tossed when the producer gets tired of paying to store the outtakes. As always, right? So what's the big deal?"

The big deal is that you CAN NOT DO THIS IN FCP X!!!! You teach FCP? is that right? Teach me how to do this in X? How do I get my movie down to the 5% that is actually in my timeline. With or without handles. Forget the handles and why effects teams require them... Just get me to a condensed timeline that I can send -- with CONDENSED MEDIA.

-DM

2013 MacPro 3.5 GHz 6-Core Intel Xeon E5 64BG Ram
LG 31MU97 4K Display
2013 MacBookPro Retina


Return to posts index

Bill Davis
Re: The Next FCPX Update
on Feb 1, 2015 at 8:52:05 am

I guess I don't understand, then. My friends Sam Mestman and Mike Matzdorff in LA somehow managed to do this for Focus, and while they had a few issues related mostly to working before the 10.1 Libraries were in place, in my conversations with them since then, they're more committed to X than ever and are crystal clear that it's their preferred tool for feature work on multi, multi million dollar A-list features.

Seems weird to me that they got picture, sound, EFX, and all the scenes they needed to Lightiron without any big problems - and Michael Cioni - before he sold it - also said the same metadata based workflows I'm referencing are precisely what he sees as one of the brightest spots in the future of Hollywood post.

Maybe I don't "get" this stuff. But you'll have a hard time convincing me that they don't.

You guys seem to be saying that X has fatal workflow flaws for big time productions. But they are doing them right now, so yes, I'm confused.

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: The Next FCPX Update
on Feb 1, 2015 at 4:49:48 pm

[Bill Davis] "Seems weird to me that they got picture, sound, EFX, and all the scenes they needed to Lightiron without any big problems - and Michael Cioni - before he sold it - also said the same metadata based workflows I'm referencing are precisely what he sees as one of the brightest spots in the future of Hollywood post."

Any links to the discussions about the workflow Bill or is everything you're referencing private communications? From what I've read sound coming out of FCPX can be trimmed w/handles so it's just a question of why can't picture be too.


[Bill Davis] "You guys seem to be saying that X has fatal workflow flaws for big time productions. But they are doing them right now, so yes, I'm confused."

Fatal? No. Could be better? Yes. It's shades of gray, not black and white, like finding a really great pair of shoes best suited for the task at hand. Could I go running in a pair of high tops? Sure. Would the all around experience be improved if I was wearing a pair of properly fitting running shoes? Yes.

Oh, and careful Bill, you are close to sounding like Hollywood movies are the epitome of post production workflow. ;)


Return to posts index

Michael Gissing
Re: The Next FCPX Update
on Feb 1, 2015 at 5:50:00 am

[Bill Davis]"You're sending off a metadata file and the matching original media - of the movie. Not of the whole shoot for heavens sake. "

You really need to do a big job with a collaborative workflow to understand that even if that were easily possible with X it still isn't enough media management.

So often Bill, you make sweeping claims about workflows you just don't use or get. It is OK to recognise a short fall in X when it is deserved.


Return to posts index

Andrew Kimery
Re: The Next FCPX Update
on Feb 1, 2015 at 6:31:08 am

[Bill Davis] "Nobody's suggesting anyones going to be sending all 15 takes of scene 123 to audio or a grader for gosh sakes. How about Just the material IN THE PIECE BEING GRADED. "

How do you do that without a media trim function? If my master clip from an interview is 60 minutes long, but only 30 seconds is used in the edit, how do I send *just* the 30 seconds used in in the edit w/o a media trim function? I can't. The whole 60min master clip goes with it even though I just need 30 seconds.

Sure, I can export a QT movie of the finished timeline and an EDL or XML for the colorist but that's not nearly as convenient or easy to work with as a media managed sequence with handles.

[Bill Davis] " And maybe there is an actual "non-historical" reason someone needs 120 extra seemingly useless extra frames tacked oto each side of every cut, because that's the way it's done. If so, fine. Just seems kinda weird in a universe where we can be precise to the 48,000th of a Hertz."

In my experience audio mixers like fat handles because it gives them plenty of room to grab nat sound, room tone, etc., to use in the mix. It also gives them wiggle room to adjust for changes that will inevitably happen (because as we all know calling an edit "locked" is a misnomer).

[Bill Davis] "It just seems to me that the "handles" are now all just metadata. "

No, handles are media. I'm sending a copy of media to someone else so they can work with my media and handles control how much of my media I'm sending to them. If there isn't a trim function them I'm sending a whole lot of extraneous material because, as previously stated, I can't just send them the 30 second portion of the hour long clip I used in the edit ,I have to send the whole hour long clip.


[Michael Gissing] "You really need to do a big job with a collaborative workflow to understand that even if that were easily possible with X it still isn't enough media management."

It doesn't even have to be a big job but just a collaborative job. I've worked on tiny web projects and the editor gave me media managed copy of his FCP 7 sequence to color.

Or just look at something as simple as making a highlight reel to handoff to someone else. Put your selects in a timeline, consolidate/media manage the timeline (probably w/o handles since you are pulling selects), and, boom, you have a nice selects reel for someone with media that has source timecode and source media name.


Return to posts index

Bill Davis
Re: The Next FCPX Update
on Feb 1, 2015 at 8:34:41 am

Isn't this X's Consolidate Media function with the "Include used media only" option selected?

That's pretty much what the manual says it does.

What am I missing here?

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

Marcus Moore
Re: The Next FCPX Update
on Feb 1, 2015 at 1:50:08 pm

As has been the entire topic of this section of the thread, this is all about trimmed media- nothing more or less. It may not be pertinent to your workflow, or usually mine, but dismissing it outright is, I think, a mistake Bill.

And while Mike M, or LightIron might praise FCPX Media Management (and there's lots to praise- see Oliver's new thread above)- this does not implicitly mean they're happy that there's no trimmed media function available (when it's applicable).

Actually, I realized last night that I DO used trimmed media, as I suspect many Pro FCPX users do- when creating their AAFs from X2Pro. Why should it be any less relevant to trim video media when sending it downstream to VFX or a Colourist, when we do it for Audio Engineers.


Return to posts index

David McClellan
Re: The Next FCPX Update
on Feb 1, 2015 at 9:33:35 pm
Last Edited By David McClellan on Feb 1, 2015 at 9:36:30 pm

[Bill Davis] "Isn't this X's Consolidate Media function with the "Include used media only" option selected?

That's pretty much what the manual says it does.

What am I missing here?"


You are missing the fact that X's Consolidate Media function with the "Include used media only" option does not TRIM the media to just what you are using. It just takes all of the clips you are currently using - includes all of the extraneous material on those clips - and it moves that entire clip - the used part ant the unused part - to a new library. So if you have long takes - you are stuck with them in the library.

Do you understand it now? There is no option or way in X to TRIM or DELETE UNUSED MEDIA from your project. And for various reasons that have been touched upon here in this thread - there needs to be.

-DM

2013 MacPro 3.5 GHz 6-Core Intel Xeon E5 64BG Ram
LG 31MU97 4K Display
2013 MacBookPro Retina


Return to posts index

Michael Gissing
Re: The Next FCPX Update
on Feb 1, 2015 at 10:29:02 pm

[Bill Davis] "Isn't this X's Consolidate Media function with the "Include used media only" option selected?

That's pretty much what the manual says it does.

What am I missing here?"

A critical function for many workflows where fast turnaround or remote working with others is normal.


Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: The Next FCPX Update
on Feb 2, 2015 at 6:05:03 pm
Last Edited By Jeremy Garchow on Feb 3, 2015 at 3:13:47 am

I think with FCP Legend this was much easier. All formats were consolidated in to some sort of .mov, usually ProRes, along with other available codecs.

This allowed, as Quicktime does, to reach in to files, grabs the necessary frames, and make new files that were trimmed.

Now, with FCPX supporting so many native formats, this process is a lot more difficult. If your program had Red Raw, Sony MXF, Panasonic MXF, quickime .mov, AVCHD transport streams, FCPX would have to know how to reach in to every one of those files, and then recreate with 100% accuracy, the native file formats of those files. This is a very tall order.

Adobe Premiere can not do this either. If you have native file formats, Premiere simply does the exact same thing as FCPX, and this to copy all the files, in their entirety to a new location.

What Premiere can do, is consolidate and transcode, and this will take all of the native file formats and move them to a "mezzanine" codec. This is fine for some workflows, not fine for others. Here's a video.


Return to posts index

Michael Gissing
Re: The Next FCPX Update
on Feb 2, 2015 at 10:38:40 pm

I understand the issues with proprietary codecs Jeremy. This whole discussion has been a reaction to Bill's assertion that Media Management that allows file trimming is just unnecessary. It is a reaction to his lack of understanding of some workflows.

All NLEs have degrees of limitation in this area. For me it isn't a biggy as so few editors I work with have moved to X but it is fair to criticize surely where X is behind the game, rather than just leap in and say no-one needs such a feature when discussing what would be nice in an upgrade. It is hard to have an adult discussion under such circumstances.


Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: The Next FCPX Update
on Feb 2, 2015 at 10:49:26 pm

[Michael Gissing] "This whole discussion has been a reaction to Bill's assertion that Media Management that allows file trimming is just unnecessary. It is a reaction to his lack of understanding of some workflows. "

I think you have to take it further than that and wonder why X doesn't have this capability built in, especially when comparing it to what FCP Legend was doing.

Premiere just added this capability not long ago, and that software is much more mature than X.

With FCPX right now, it is very easy to make a copy of the untrimmed media that is in your cut, and hand it off. It won't necessarily be internet deliverable, but X does have this capability.

Jeremy


Return to posts index

Shawn Miller
Re: The Next FCPX Update
on Feb 3, 2015 at 12:27:58 am

[Jeremy Garchow] "Premiere just added this capability not long ago, and that software is much more mature than X."

Do you mean the ability to output sequences with trimmed media via the media manager? I think that's been around since Premiere Pro 1.0... or maybe 1.5... it was a while ago.

Shawn



Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: The Next FCPX Update
on Feb 3, 2015 at 1:02:29 am

Consolidate yes, (like what happens in Ae or fcpx, a full file copy, not trim), but not consolidate, trim, and subsequently transcode.

That was introduced sometime in Pr CC.

Watch that video I linked to. If you don't select the consolidate and transcode option, the "handles" option turns off.


Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: The Next FCPX Update
on Feb 3, 2015 at 1:08:37 am

[Jeremy Garchow] "That was introduced sometime in Pr CC.
"


Actually it was CC 2014. It's a very new option.

http://provideocoalition.com/ssimm/story/kicking-the-tires-on-the-adobe-pre...


Return to posts index

Walter Soyka
Re: The Next FCPX Update
on Feb 3, 2015 at 1:33:47 am

[Jeremy Garchow] "Actually it was CC 2014. It's a very new option. "

That's consolidate and transcode.

Trimmed consolidation was available for select media formats in prior versions, but Premiere wouldn't handle transcoding for you until the last big release. The media had to be a suitable format already to use the feature with previous releases.

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

Jeremy Garchow
Re: The Next FCPX Update
on Feb 3, 2015 at 1:49:57 am

[Walter Soyka] "That's consolidate and transcode."

Isn't that what we are taking about here? Again, Legend was really good at this becuase very thing was already transcoded and QTKit allowed this kind of management.

[Walter Soyka] "Trimmed consolidation was available for select media formats in prior versions, but Premiere wouldn't handle transcoding for you until the last big release. The media had to be a suitable format already to use the feature with previous releases.
"


Right, so it had to be a perfect setup, and it didn't work very well. With mixed format timelines (something Pr and now FCPX is very good at) the trim function didn't work, but instead copied the entire source file, just like FCPX does now.

Even now, today, you cannot trim without a transcode in Pr. You can consolidate, but, not trim the media files, which is what X can do too.


Return to posts index

Walter Soyka
Re: The Next FCPX Update
on Feb 3, 2015 at 2:27:31 am

[Jeremy Garchow] "Isn't that what we are taking about here? Again, Legend was really good at this becuase very thing was already transcoded and QTKit allowed this kind of management. "

We're talking about outputting used media with handles. That may or may not require transcode.


[Jeremy Garchow] "Right, so it had to be a perfect setup, and it didn't work very well. With mixed format timelines (something Pr and now FCPX is very good at) the trim function didn't work, but instead copied the entire source file, just like FCPX does now. "

Agreed. Before, you could have Premiere's native workflow, or you could have trimmed/handled/consolidated projects, but not both. You could have used Prelude to prep your assets before the edit so you'd have a trimmable project, but you'd lose the big benefit of the native workflow.

This was a really important feature to add, as there was a big fat hole in the workflow before.


[Jeremy Garchow] "Even now, today, you cannot trim without a transcode in Pr. You can consolidate, but, not trim the media files, which is what X can do too."

I'm not in front my system -- does it do this even for the intraframe formats it used to trim?

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

Jeremy Garchow
Re: The Next FCPX Update
on Feb 3, 2015 at 3:23:53 am

[Walter Soyka] "[Jeremy Garchow] "We're talking about outputting used media with handles. That may or may not require transcode.
"


It's going to require a transcode. At some point, you are going to have to make new frames. You won't be able to trim a red project, for example, as you can't write new r3d frames, but you can decode then transcode those frames to new frames.

[Walter Soyka] "I'm not in front my system -- does it do this even for the intraframe formats it used to trim?"

If you watch this video starting at about 1m40s you'll see it in action. You can do, what I'm sure you're familiar with, an Ae (or FCPX) style "collect files" that simply copies all source files at length, or you can consolidate and transcode with handles. You can not trim and add handles without a transcode, because it is difficult to impossible to do this for every format.


Return to posts index

Walter Soyka
Re: The Next FCPX Update
on Feb 3, 2015 at 5:33:19 am

[Jeremy Garchow] "It's going to require a transcode. At some point, you are going to have to make new frames. You won't be able to trim a red project, for example, as you can't write new r3d frames, but you can decode then transcode those frames to new frames. "

I get that. I'm just saying that there are production formats that do not necessarily require transcode. If you're recording everything from your cameras to ProRes, for example, you should be able to trim without transcoding.

Previous versions of Pr trimmed without transcoding for a handful of formats -- just like smart rendering -- but now it sounds like it does not.

I meant to point this feature out, but I didn't mean to be so pedantic. I'd agree with you that in many (most?) workflows, trimming without transcoding is useless.

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

Jeremy Garchow
Re: The Next FCPX Update
on Feb 3, 2015 at 2:26:09 pm
Last Edited By Jeremy Garchow on Feb 3, 2015 at 4:33:56 pm

[Walter Soyka] "I get that. I'm just saying that there are production formats that do not necessarily require transcode. If you're recording everything from your cameras to ProRes, for example, you should be able to trim without transcoding.
"


Lets put it this way. Name a program besides the Legend of FCP3, that can do this today especially with ProRes, that extracts frames, copies them, and makes new clips in the same container and format, without a transcode or rewrap.

[Walter Soyka] "Previous versions of Pr trimmed without transcoding for a handful of formats -- just like smart rendering -- but now it sounds like it does not.

I meant to point this feature out, but I didn't mean to be so pedantic. I'd agree with you that in many (most?) workflows, trimming without transcoding is useless."


I don't think it worked really well in earlier versions of Pr, and Adobe added a lot of capability at user request; but I think you have to look deeper than that, and have a good look at what is actually possible. X does have some capability built in, just not all capabilities, and right now, adding a trim option seems like it could be possible, but everything would have to be ProRes or transcoded to a singular codec, and now we are back to FCP7, where multiformat editing was a much bigger P.I.A. So, I wouldn't say the word useless, I'd say it's not possible all of the time. Adobe pioneered the multiformat timeline, FCPX, is also pretty decent, and with that comes a tradeoff.


Return to posts index

Walter Soyka
Re: The Next FCPX Update
on Feb 3, 2015 at 3:01:51 pm

[Jeremy Garchow] "Lets put it this way. Name a program besides the Legend of FCPS, that can do this today, especially with ProRes, that extracts frames, copies them, and makes new clips in the same container and format, without a transcode or rewrap. "

Doesn't MC do this with DNxHD?

FCP7 is still somehow a serious competitor to FCPX with this workflow, and is one of the four big NLE apps (FCP7, FCPX, MC, Pr) people are using, so it doesn't seem fair to exclude it from consideration.


[Jeremy Garchow] "I dont think it worked real well in earlier versions of Pr and Adobr added a lot of capability at user request."

I think it did work, but the supported formats were really restrictive, so maybe that's the "real well" part. Who works exclusively with DVCPRO HD anymore?


[Jeremy Garchow] " And right now, adding a trim option seems like it could be possible, but everything would have to be ProRes or transcoded to a singular codec, and now we are back to fcp7, where multiformat editing was a much bigger P.I.A."

If you're already optimizing media to ProRes, what's the big deal? FCPX is multi-faux-mat. That's not a criticism; on the contrary, I think it's a really smart approach because you can get the best of both worlds.

Also, the only technical requirement for consolidate/trim without transcode is intraframe compression (and you could probably do it with interframe compressed material if you padded the requested handles to fit the GOPs). You wouldn't have to transcode everything to a common codec unless you were doing it as a courtesy to the next application in the tool chain.


[Jeremy Garchow] "So, I wouldn't say the word useless, I'd say it's not possible all of the time. Adobe pioneered the multiformat timeline, FCPX, is also pretty decent, and with that comes a tradeoff."

Now that we have multiformat timelines, we need consolidate with transcode. It's kind of a new need, because the last generation of NLEs dealt with a single codec only by design. When you know for a fact that everything on your timeline is DNxHD or ProRes, you can take shortcuts.

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

Jeremy Garchow
Re: The Next FCPX Update
on Feb 3, 2015 at 5:21:31 pm

[Walter Soyka] "Doesn't MC do this with DNxHD?

FCP7 is still somehow a serious competitor to FCPX with this workflow, and is one of the four big NLE apps (FCP7, FCPX, MC, Pr) people are using, so it doesn't seem fair to exclude it from consideration."


MC does it with DNxHD with a transcode or rewrap. It does not extract native frames (via AMA or whatever) and rewrite native frames. At some point, you are going to have to go down to DNxHD in either 1080 or 720. Pr at least gives you the potion to keep native frame size and frame rate of the individual clips (as does FCPX) on transcode.

[Walter Soyka] "I think it did work, but the supported formats were really restrictive, so maybe that's the "real well" part. Who works exclusively with DVCPRO HD anymore?"

This is part of my point in why copying all of the clips is not that far fetched or a bad idea. Who works exclusively in any one format anymore?

[Walter Soyka] "If you're already optimizing media to ProRes, what's the big deal? "

But what if you are NOT optimizing to ProRes? I don't optimized to ProRes hardly ever in FCPX. I find there is little need, and it is a waste of disk space. None of the cameras, Alexa excluded, that I routinely work with shot in ProRes or .mov, and FCPX is handling them just fine.

[Walter Soyka] "Also, the only technical requirement for consolidate/trim without transcode is intraframe compression (and you could probably do it with interframe compressed material if you padded the requested handles to fit the GOPs). You wouldn't have to transcode everything to a common codec unless you were doing it as a courtesy to the next application in the tool chain.
"


It's not that easy, especially with formats like MXF which have their own metadata requirements, and not to mention, proprietary codecs, and different atom structures. So you could flip it all around to a new generic MXF file, but that's a rewrap and doesn't get you back to the original media very easily (you aren't simply going to reconnect an op1a MXF to an op-atom MXF). So a transcode solves all of that, if you need to trim media, but it takes away any metadata workflows with RAW formats, and creates more media.

I'm just saying, there's a good reason why this capability isn't in FCPX for now as it's not as easy as it could be, and without QTKit, it might not be possible at all with current AVFoundation limitations.

[Walter Soyka] "Now that we have multiformat timelines, we need consolidate with transcode. It's kind of a new need, because the last generation of NLEs dealt with a single codec only by design. When you know for a fact that everything on your timeline is DNxHD or ProRes, you can take shortcuts."

Sort of. With ProRes, it's harder to do this if you aren't on a Mac. With DNxHD, it'a hard to send to other people in a the sneeze of MXF files that Avid creates. Adobe's MXF solution (or GoPro .mov) does solve a lot the format problem, but it's not an end all solution. Collect files, which Adobe and X do quite well, is a much more thorough solution. It ensures nothing gets left behind, and you can always match back to the original edit. You can trim the media during the color grade and archive that.

Jeremy


Return to posts index

Walter Soyka
Re: The Next FCPX Update
on Feb 3, 2015 at 5:55:25 pm

[Jeremy Garchow] "It's not that easy, especially with formats like MXF which have their own metadata requirements, and not to mention, proprietary codecs, and different atom structures. So you could flip it all around to a new generic MXF file, but that's a rewrap and doesn't get you back to the original media very easily (you aren't simply going to reconnect an op1a MXF to an op-atom MXF). So a transcode solves all of that, if you need to trim media, but it takes away any metadata workflows with RAW formats, and creates more media."

Copying frame data from one container to another, even if they're of the same type, is essentially re-wrapping, so even in the optimal scenario it's not possible to trim media without re-wrapping.

Proprietary codecs have their downsides, but in a well-designed container format, you should still be able to copy frame data from one container item to another without actually having to know how to decode it.

You're describing what's possible with today's tools. I'm describing what's possible from a data perspective. Pretty much the only time that recompression is strictly necessary is when you're modifying pixels.

We just don't have good tools for doing any of this. We're asking for them. Adobe, Apple and Avid aren't delivering. I have high hopes for MOX [link], but it's an uphill battle.


[Jeremy Garchow] "I'm just saying, there's a good reason why this capability isn't in FCPX for now as it's not as easy as it could be, and without QTKit, it might not be possible at all with current AVFoundation limitations."

That good reason is that it wasn't a priority. This is something a media framework (AVFoundation, MediaCore, etc.) could provide, if required.


[Jeremy Garchow] "Collect files, which Adobe and X do quite well, is a much more thorough solution. It ensures nothing gets left behind, and you can always match back to the original edit. You can trim the media during the color grade and archive that."

Collect files is a sledgehammer. Trim is a scalpel. Different use cases.

Personally, I prefer the collect files philosophy, too, but it's not always practical. After that, I prefer consolidate and transcode. If you're going to make a whole set of new media, you may as well make it all as easy to handle as possible.

What are we debating exactly?

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

Jeremy Garchow
Re: The Next FCPX Update
on Feb 3, 2015 at 7:18:18 pm

[Walter Soyka] "What are we debating exactly?"

That trimming media is somehow, easy.

Invariably, these debates always end up that X can't do what "Y" can do, so I think it's best to look over at Y, and wonder why.

Or, why can't X do this when Legend did? Often the reason is because "it's not that simple" rather than "WTF, Apple?".

There are good, technical, reasons for not having the trim and consolidate function at this time. One of them being that FCPX is, pretty much, a native format editing application, unlike FCP7, and it runs on an entirely different architecture with a different workflow. QTKit was pretty good at reaching and grabbing the necessary frames, and pulling them out to a new container without a transcode cycle. AVFoundation doesn't seem very capable of this at this time, and who knows if it will ever get there.


Return to posts index

Walter Soyka
Re: The Next FCPX Update
on Feb 4, 2015 at 4:46:11 am

[Jeremy Garchow] "That trimming media is somehow, easy."

None of this is easy. Whether it's worth the effort to develop is a separate question.


[Jeremy Garchow] "There are good, technical, reasons for not having the trim and consolidate function at this time. One of them being that FCPX is, pretty much, a native format editing application, unlike FCP7, and it runs on an entirely different architecture with a different workflow. QTKit was pretty good at reaching and grabbing the necessary frames, and pulling them out to a new container without a transcode cycle. AVFoundation doesn't seem very capable of this at this time, and who knows if it will ever get there."

I know that we have gone off on a tangent about smart trimming, but really, who is asking for that? I think just about everyone here asking for trimming would be quite happy with ProRes-transcoded trims of native media (or smart trims of ProRes material, which can surely be done today, even with AVFoundation [link].

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

Jeremy Garchow
Re: The Next FCPX Update
on Feb 4, 2015 at 3:23:53 pm

I think smart rendering and trimming are related but very different.

One basically marries together a linear block of media in a set frame rate and frame size that is not related to the original media at all. Yes, X seems to have this capability.

A consolidate/trim is a an exact subset of media that is directly related via metadata, to a larger media pool. While the actual technical process is related, the end result is very different.


Return to posts index

Steve Connor
Re: The Next FCPX Update
on Feb 5, 2015 at 4:07:28 pm

Here's a nice perspective on a year with the new MP and FCPX, from Peter Wiggins

Bill, please note what he mentions at the end!

http://www.fcp.co/final-cut-pro/articles/1595-the-mac-pro-and-final-cut-pro...


Return to posts index

Bill Davis
Re: The Next FCPX Update
on Feb 7, 2015 at 9:53:58 pm

[Steve Connor] "Here's a nice perspective on a year with the new MP and FCPX, from Peter Wiggins

Bill, please note what he mentions at the end!

http://www.fcp.co/final-cut-pro/articles/1595-the-mac-pro-and-final-cut-pro....."


I did.

Peter's a good guy. I used an example of his workflow on my Virtual Users Group appearance with his permission.

In this whole debate, I've come to believe that Jeff Margraff decoded my position pretty well. I'm entirely file/card based. So I don't do hour long captures. If I did, the pain of lacking more traditional media management options would effect me more. So it's not really on my personal radar as a big deal.
But I understand that this doesn't mean it's not for others.

I remember a personal conversation with the late and very much missed Ralph Fairweather at NAB many years ago where he was talking about just digitizing full DVCAM tapes to use Final Cut Pro V2 to manage the clips afterwards, rather than doing sectional log and capture.

(For those of you who weren't around in that era, Ralph was the quasi official conduit between the original Apple development team and those of us trying to learn the software in the early days - appearing on the very early FCP editing websites like 2-pop to help us solve out problems back when the program was very young.)

I never warmed to that "grab it all and sort it out later" workflow. Likely because in the early days, storage was expensive and I couldn't afford to fill up hard drives willy nilly.

So it's another example of "how I need to do it, isn't the same as how the other editor needs to do it."

But that acknowledged, it's often useful to look at the TRENDS. Is the trend long, unbroken captures - or, as Jeff suggests, more card and file captures in smaller discrete chunks? I think it's clearly the latter. But the needs of those who work with the former have to be respected.

FWIW.

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

Bill Davis
Re: The Next FCPX Update
on Feb 2, 2015 at 7:08:04 pm
Last Edited By Bill Davis on Feb 2, 2015 at 7:21:09 pm

I run across Mike most weeks on back channel chats. He's been working on an iBook about the Focus workflow. I'll ask him about how it's coming this week. I'd ask him to drop by here to answer questions directly, but the reputation for a heavy dollop of hostility to X (deserved or not) around here is still a thing around the X community. There aren't all that many folks like me who are OK with continuing to hang in places where every time you stop by the default is to need to spend energy explaining why your editing choice isn't fundamentally stupid. ; )

Also, regarding the "handles" thing - here's Richard Taylor's process for adding them in X.

Yes, I know. Its surely a HORRIBLE kludge. It's not like you've done it in the past. Or how you want to do it. And FCP X can't get THIS right either. And yes, it will likely eat up a few minutes of the hours you're currently saving as an X editor in your average week. And yes, it will be better once we can all simply whisper "all clips - add 10 frame handles.".

But if you're one of us silly fools who actuallylike editing in X, and you just want to get this done to your clips before exporting them - Richard shows a clever and pretty fast way to do that as a batch process with minimal keystrokes using dashboard trimming, and, cleverly the reverse retiming function.

http://www.lafcpug.org/tutorials/basic_fcpx_batchaddhandle.html

Have a nice day.




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

Jeff Markgraf
Re: The Next FCPX Update
on Feb 6, 2015 at 12:54:40 am

Jumping into this thread a little late, but…

I get the frustration. Avid has had consolidate media with handles forever. One of the knocks on FCP Legacy was that they were late to the consolidate party and their implementation was, shall we say…less than reliable. For sure, the ability to transfer only the used media was important, especially when pulling only a short bit from an hour's worth of loaded footage.

And this is where I think I see the disconnect in this discussion.

Much of the media ingesting I did in past years was of the "put in the tape and capture the whole thing" variety. When I had 10 tapes full of synched dailies, they were rarely logged, and I rarely had the time to sit and log the tape in a bin and then batch capture each take. So I often ended up using lots of short bits from one tape. To have to copy over that whole one hour file just for the 3 minutes I may have used would have been ridiculous.

But virtually all media I deal with these days is shot to cards or drives. It comes in short bursts, with a new clip created with each take (or other camera start/stop). Yes, some directors like to let the camera "roll" for ten minutes at a time. But mostly the files are no more than a few minutes long.

So the idea of copying a 2 minute take, of which I've used 40 seconds, doesn't seem like such a big deal. It's not as if I'm forced to copy the unused takes.

Now, I know that transferring 10 minutes of R3D 4k footage is a pain compared to 1 minute of that footage. But, really, if I'm transferring that kind of footage, then I'm copying to a drive and shipping or messengering the drive to the next guy. It's not as if I'm uploading 50 gigs of footage (unless I'm a big boy with my own T1 line or some other studio-grade file transfer system in place).

Now, in promo land, I often work with pulling clips from one or more 48 minute episodes of a show. That's 20 or 30 gigs per episode. In that case, I'd sure like to be able to trim that deliverable footage to the few gigs I actually used. So hello Clip Exporter or Primaries Exporter. Should this functionality be included in X? Ideally. But there's a way around it for now.

I'm inclined to go with Jeremy here in guessing that if it were simple, X would already have this built in. Otherwise, one is forced to go to the "Apple has forsaken the pro user" argument, which is just stupid.


Return to posts index

Walter Soyka
Re: The Next FCPX Update
on Feb 6, 2015 at 2:14:25 pm

[Jeff Markgraf] "I'm inclined to go with Jeremy here in guessing that if it were simple, X would already have this built in. Otherwise, one is forced to go to the "Apple has forsaken the pro user" argument, which is just stupid."

Apple doesn't just pick low-hanging fruit. If it were important to them, it would have shipped. If they only developed what was simple, FCPX would not be the impressive product that it is.

Development prioritization weights user benefit against developer cost. Assuming some fixed development budget, choosing to develop feature A means postponing feature B. I argue this is a relatively simple feature, but not worth taking time away from other development. This doesn't mean I must think Apple has forsaken the pro user.

Apologies in advance if I'm being overly argumentative, but I'm curious what you guys think the too-hard-to-be-worth-it part is. Exporting a consolidated, trimmed sequence is doing stuff NLEs already do, systematically for every clip in the project.

FCPX can already read media and transcode it to ProRes. It can already smart-render, I think. It can already relink clips from one source file to another. It can already output only a section of finished media from a longer source.

What's the missing link?

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

Marcus Moore
Re: The Next FCPX Update
on Feb 6, 2015 at 2:25:36 pm

They've seemingly been edging towards this for the last few updates. 10.1 obviously changed the whole architecture underlying media management- so it was likely smart to postpone any development on this front post 10.1. 10.1.2 expanded the depth and easy of exporting XMLs for Event and/or Project, as well as simplifying media storage location and media consolidation.

Really the only thing missing here is media trimming, with optional ProRes Transcoding on command.


Return to posts index

Walter Soyka
Re: The Next FCPX Update
on Feb 6, 2015 at 2:56:14 pm

[Marcus Moore] "They've seemingly been edging towards this for the last few updates. 10.1 obviously changed the whole architecture underlying media management- so it was likely smart to postpone any development on this front "

Makes a lot of sense. The complexity of what they did in 10.1 shouldn't be underestimated.

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

Jeremy Garchow
Re: The Next FCPX Update
on Feb 6, 2015 at 4:10:24 pm

Ironically (or not!), through this whole discussion, I have been working with this type of method (needing to send an edit with media to graphics) and FCPX has been working flawlessly. Each 30 second spot results in 30-60GBs of material (there's a decent amount of time-lapse and slow motion in these spots, so the files are large). After Effects has given me some issues with collect files, and if it dumps out in the middle for some reason (I get an inordinate amount of "file not found" errors), the resulting project is some sort of hybrid between collected files and not collected files. It's frustrating.

For yucks, I have sent these Ae comps to Pr to test out the Project Manager. It seems to go OK, for some reason it doesn't transcode certain individual files, but will transcode other individual files of the same make up, and Pr appends .mov to the end of files, sometimes giving them two extensions such as filename.mxf.mov. Surely, I'm holding something wrong.

Those trimmed files (with 2 second handles) result in 10GBs of ProRes files, so no matter what, I am not uploading this stuff, but rather transferring to a drive. I'd rather use the method that works the most reliably most of the time, and so far that's been FCPX. :-P :-0 :-)

Jeremy


Return to posts index

Walter Soyka
Re: The Next FCPX Update
on Feb 8, 2015 at 10:51:49 am

Jeremy, if you're seeing issues with Ae's collect files or Pr's project manager, please consider filing bug reports so they can get fixed.

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

Jeff Markgraf
Re: The Next FCPX Update
on Feb 6, 2015 at 6:05:22 pm

Well, yes.

Didn't mean to suggest that Apple can't or won't do "difficult." I think, as I discussed above, that the consolidation-style media management isn't seen by Apple as particularly important, what with the preponderance of small-ish files coming from modern cameras. If they saw this as an important feature, they'd get on it. I would assume it doesn't meet their cost-benefit threshold for now.

So it would seem ripe for a third party to do this. Like Primaries Exporter. Or a video-enabled version of X2Pro. I'm not a techie, so I don't know if there's an issue truncating R3D files or the various long-GOP files without first transcoding to ProRes or some such all I-frame format. After all, Avid's consolidation works on its own MXF files and doesn't deal with other formats. Maybe there's a reason (besides Avid's usual…Avid-ness!).


Return to posts index

Andrew Kimery
Re: The Next FCPX Update
on Feb 9, 2015 at 12:07:26 am

[Bill Davis] "But if you're one of us silly fools who actually like editing in X, and you just want to get this done to your clips before exporting them - Richard shows a clever and pretty fast way to do that as a batch process with minimal keystrokes using dashboard trimming, and, cleverly the reverse retiming function."

Unless I'm misunderstanding the video, that's not what we are talking about. That example changes all the edits in the timeline by adding more media to the beginning and end of each clip. What we are talking about is being able to trim down to just the media used in the timeline with a user determined amount of handles on both sides of each edit point (the edit points themselves are not changed). The handles allow for flexibility down the line so that if (more likely when) a few edits are tweaked here or there the online/grading person can mirror those changes on their end w/o requiring the editor to send over new media.

I know it's not as amazingly innovate as Publish to Vimeo, but it certainly has its place and can save a lot more time than than just a few minutes (both for the person sending the media and the person receiving the media). Can workflows work even if they are more labor intensive than they need to be? Sure. I mean, Avid is used on a t-o-n of multicam shows but it's multicam prep (same as FCP Legends) b-l-o-w-s compared to X and PPro. Can the guys working on Focus successfully post a Hollywood feature w/o a consolidate and trim media function? Sure, but that doesn't mean their workflow couldn't be improved by, say, having a robust consolidate and trim media function (interesting how the Hollywood workflow gains more relevance when X is involved as opposed to when FCP Legend, PPro or Avid are involved but that's a whole other thread...).

[Jeff Markgraf] "So the idea of copying a 2 minute take, of which I've used 40 seconds, doesn't seem like such a big deal. It's not as if I'm forced to copy the unused takes. "

For scripted I can see that, but for doc/unscripted there are still 30-60min long takes. Even on a feature though I can see the media adding up when you are talking about a couple thousand edits and each edit carries with it extraneous media. Again, not show stoping but not ideal either. The process on your end takes longer, copying it to/from the transfer drive takes longer, it eats up more space at the online facility, etc.,.


[Jeff Markgraf] "I'm not a techie, so I don't know if there's an issue truncating R3D files or the various long-GOP files without first transcoding to ProRes or some such all I-frame format. After all, Avid's consolidation works on its own MXF files and doesn't deal with other formats. Maybe there's a reason (besides Avid's usual…Avid-ness!)."

I'm not a techie either, though FCP Legend could perform a consolidate and trim with handles to GOP media, but all GOP media was re-wrapped into the MOV container on import in order for FCP to be able to recognize it. Doing it with camera native file formats might be more complicated, but to a laymen like myself I feel like if the NLE can decode the media down to the frame then it should be able to to export it frame accurately as well and if it can export it frame accurately what's the big deal about giving the user the ability to add handles?

Even if the feature only worked on some codecs I would still like the option to use those codecs and get consolidate and trim. "It's not a requested enough feature to be worth our while" is certainly a viable (if disappointing) excuse because at the end of the day no company can offer a product that's all things to all people. As users all we can do is ask and hope for positive response.


Return to posts index

Jeff Markgraf
Re: The Next FCPX Update
on Feb 9, 2015 at 6:19:05 am

Andrew -

I agree that it would be nice to have the trim media function available. Even though I don't need it much any more, I know it's important for others. Even if it's only available for certain formats, such as ProRes, one can make a decision about what format to shoot, or whether to optimize, in light of the need to consolidate.

Regarding your suggestion that since an NLE can decode such a file with frame accuracy, it should be able to truncate and output the same way: I don't think it's nearly that simple. From my admittedly basic understanding, reading a long gop file requires reading an I frame, then creating groups of b and p frames both in front of and after the I frame. Editing on anything other than an I frame requires decoding the whole group in order to make a new I frame at the frame used for the edit. I'm sure Oliver or Jeremy or another big brain will jump in here to correct me if I've gotten this wrong.

I think there's also an assumption here that Avid DnX files are long gop files. I don't think they are. I don't think MXF is synonymous with long gop. If they are in fact all I frame, then consolidating is as easy as it would be with ProRes.


Return to posts index

Michael Gissing
Re: The Next FCPX Update
on Feb 9, 2015 at 7:51:23 am

Jeff, mxf is just a wrapper like .mov. DNxHD codec family is very much like ProRes. Compressed but not GOP.

DNxHD can also be .mov wrapped. To the issue of truncating, as Andrew has pointed out, the doco world still has long shots and huge ratios. They are rarely r3d or anything other than ProRes, DNxHD or GOP/AVC type codecs where truncating has been normal in Legend and is missed by some but not all in X.

I guess expressing a desire for this functionality is mopping up the last of the functionality of Legend that is still useful in current workflows for many. Again a third party developer may pick up the slack. I think it is fair to point out where slack remains however.


Return to posts index

Andrew Kimery
Re: The Next FCPX Update
on Feb 9, 2015 at 7:58:45 am

[Jeff Markgraf] "Editing on anything other than an I frame requires decoding the whole group in order to make a new I frame at the frame used for the edit. I'm sure Oliver or Jeremy or another big brain will jump in here to correct me if I've gotten this wrong.
"


FCP Legend could consolidate and trim w/handles interframe codecs (HDV, XDCAM family, etc.,) though those codecs were wrapped into MOV upon ingest into FCP. If you made a QT reference movie then any interframe codecs in the timeline got exported out as new media which makes sense because, as you said, the GOP cadence can't be interrupted.

I don't know how much more complicated it is to, say, work with native XDCAM HD files vs ones re-wrapped into MOV but an NLE can natively import, edit and export an interframe codec like XDCAM HD then I don't see why it can't perform a consolidate and trim with handles as that's basically just a batch export of every clip in the timeline. Granted, at least the way FCP Legend worked, for intraframe codecs it was basically creating a copy of just the used portion of the source QT file (so no recompression occurred) where as with the interframe codecs new media had to be created so another round of compression happened. Whether or not the media would take a quantifiable quality hit probabley depends on the source.

To Jeremy's point, this maybe a limitation of AV Foundation compared to QTKit in which case the solution to the problem could be much more complicated (if possible at all).

[Jeff Markgraf] "I think there's also an assumption here that Avid DnX files are long gop files. I don't think they are. I don't think MXF is synonymous with long gop. If they are in fact all I frame, then consolidating is as easy as it would be with ProRes."

AFAIK Avid's codecs are intraframe though Avid does support some interframe codecs natively (like XDCAM). I haven't worked with native interframe codecs in Avid so I don't know if they present any unique problems when consolidating or not.


Return to posts index

Walter Soyka
Re: The Next FCPX Update
on Feb 9, 2015 at 1:52:53 pm

[Andrew Kimery] "To Jeremy's point, this maybe a limitation of AV Foundation compared to QTKit in which case the solution to the problem could be much more complicated (if possible at all)."

Careful! There's a hidden Apple-doesn't-care-about-pros argument in there. AVFoundation started life as the iOS mobile media framework, and since has been extended to the desktop. QTKit started life as a multimedia authoring framework. If FCPX can't trim media, it's the iPhone's fault! (I kid, somewhat. My relationship with AVFoundation/QTKit is complicated.)

It seems almost silly to say, but let's also not forget that Apple develops AVFoundation, too, and if they wanted to include these features, they could. They also developed QTKit and so they know a thing or two about how to do this stuff that's "missing."

Speaking of replacing old code with new, here's a classic from developer Joel Spolsky on re-writing code from scratch. It's called "Things You Should Never Do, Part I [link]."

tl;dr of all my posts in this thread -- If trimming were critical to Apple's vision for FCPX, we'd probably have it already. It's nowhere near as hard to implement as, say, a roles-based mixer. It's just a question of balancing priorities. Trimmed consolidation would be cool to have, but unless trimmed media is a strict workflow requirement for you, this is a tempest in a teapot. FCPX is not that "far behind;" Pr just got this a couple months ago!

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

Andrew Kimery
Re: The Next FCPX Update
on Feb 9, 2015 at 9:27:09 pm

[Walter Soyka] "Trimmed consolidation would be cool to have, but unless trimmed media is a strict workflow requirement for you, this is a tempest in a teapot. FCPX is not that "far behind;" Pr just got this a couple months ago!"

I feel like most of what we talk about are tempests in teapots. If someone waved a magic wand and 2 of the 3 Big A's disappeared from the face of the Earth we could still all make do. If only Avid survived I'm sure Bill would figure how to make Avid work for his needs and if only X survived I'm sure I would figure out how make X work for my needs.

We debate about the quote unquote little things because as this stage in the game its the little things that matter. It's kinda like a pro swimming event where the difference between 1st place and 8th place is bout half a second. All the competitors are great swimmers no doubt, but the little things make a difference and a swimmer thats good at event X might not be very good at event Y.


Return to posts index

Walter Soyka
Re: The Next FCPX Update
on Feb 9, 2015 at 1:40:18 pm

[Jeff Markgraf] "From my admittedly basic understanding, reading a long gop file requires reading an I frame, then creating groups of b and p frames both in front of and after the I frame. Editing on anything other than an I frame requires decoding the whole group in order to make a new I frame at the frame used for the edit."

This is true if you're talking about inputting and outputting native long GOP media.

Long GOP cannot be arbitrarily split; the cuts have to fall on closed GOP boundaries. It's also possible to close an open GOP by re-encoding just a few dependent frames instead of the entire asset.

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 Steiner
Re: The Next FCPX Update
on Feb 20, 2015 at 2:22:02 pm

For me, top of the list for an update is avid-like script integration (even without automatic speech-to-script sync)

for fiction work with a lot of takes with different tones and such, I just can't do without - too much time searching for one line in all takes to compare and choose the best one.

it's basically forcing me to use avid...


Return to posts index

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