FORUMS: list search recent posts

Long time editor's frustration with FCPX

COW Forums : Apple Final Cut Pro X Debates

<< PREVIOUS   •   VIEW ALL   •   PRINT   •   NEXT >>
David Berez
Long time editor's frustration with FCPX
on Apr 17, 2015 at 2:13:06 am

Long time reader, a very rare poster. First off, thanks to the Cow Community. Without a doubt the most impactful change in my 30 plus years of editing is the online communities. Its not hard to remember when problems in the edit suites were fixed by calling in the video engineer (if you were lucky enough to have one on staff). The Cow community has been my "video engineer" for many years now and for that I'm very grateful. Hopefully, I've returned a few favors along the way as well.

Not sure why tonight is the night that my frustration with Apple has boiled over. Perhaps it's waiting for a real update with a role mixer or roundtripping with Motion but instead seeing that Apple has decided to reintroduce Video Toaster-like 3D fonts circa 1990. WTF?

I'm actually a pretty strong proponent of FCPX. Once I mastered the magnetic timeline (took some real effort coming from all those years of tracks) I think its incredibly ingenious and I can edit infinitely faster than ever before. Editing became fun again and the flow I experienced once the lightbulb went off is addictive. Implementing the magnetic timeline was a conceptual breakthrough, the kind that I have come to expect from Apple.

What I cannot stand, absolutely detest about FCPX is the interface. It's childlike and insulting.

Here's why. I have spent the better part of thirty years staring at and working in nonlinear systems from Immix to Avid to PP, an FCP. And not one of them has made me feel the way that FCPX makes me feel . . . and that is CHEAP. It's a toy interface, like iMovie, like something made for a high school videography class. I remember the first time I opened FCPX. I was furious. Not because it was different but because it was so so . . . immature. The interface just screamed "editor? bah! anyone is an editor now." Seriously, I just felt so professionally debased. And after cutting dozens if not hundreds of programs, I am NOT a beginner. I am a professional and I deserve to use, hell, to live . . in a professional interface. Everyday I spend working in the FCPX interface makes me feel smaller, less professional. I jump into Resolve or AE and its like getting my mojo back.

FCPX is like sheathing a RED EPIC in Fisher Price plastic.

And its not about its capabilities . . not at all. Some elements of the software are just so damn elegant. I'm almost an FCPX evangelist, the way Apple has reimagined the timeline after all these years is groundbreaking but I am so ready to leave because of the crappy, two bit interface. I drool with envy when looking at Resolve 12 and I hope it lives up to its hype. I need my dignity back.

Anyone else feel this way?

Rant over.


Return to posts index

David Lawrence
Re: Long time editor's frustration with FCPX
on Apr 17, 2015 at 3:03:02 am

David, what specifically in the interface makes you feel the way you describe? I get where you're coming from and am curious about specifics and what you would change.

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


Return to posts index

Douglas K. Dempsey
Re: Long time editor's frustration with FCPX
on Apr 17, 2015 at 3:42:46 am

MY own single biggest interface complaint is the buffoonishly-named terminology. I've been told, "who cares what they call things, as long as it works" but it is in this area that I am made to feel silly.

I STILL find it nearly impossible to converse with a newcomer about FCPX without stumbling over the concepts, "When you start a new Project ... er, what I mean is, when you start a new JOB...we can't call it a project because that actually means a new sequence in FCPX."

I maintain that the single biggest giveaway that Apple is pandering to "everyone else" is the concept of "Events." If we can chuckle that the standard NLE is a mixed metaphor based on film & the editing bench or flatbed (Tracks), on tape editing (Play and Record 'Monitor' windows) and computers (Hierarchical Folders as "Bins") ... then we must laugh outright at the concept of "Events" which is based on the Kodak Family Scrapbook. The idea that you can or would sort clips as events comes straight from iMovie and iPhoto and presumes you are a hobbyist who hauls out your camera for a birthday or a wedding. And so you of course will chuck all these "events" into a family "library" and then on the weekend, open up your "make-a-movie" software and begin a new "project."

No matter how many times I use the app, I must consciously read, think about and decide when I am creating a Library, or a Project or an Event. And given the way I work, I find that I must have an "Event" in every "Library" called "Edits" which contains all of my "Projects" for that Library. My head spins just trying to type that sentence!

To me, that is the Fisher Price aspect David alludes to.

Doug D


Return to posts index


David Mathis
Re: Long time editor's frustration with FCPX
on Apr 17, 2015 at 3:54:54 am

I hear you. Had to watch a few videos to figure out what a library was and how everything interacted with each other. Then it made sense though my head felt like it was on a deranged merry go round.

I do like the interface, clean and not cluttered. Wish there was a way to save custom layouts but those keyboard shortcuts work, at least for now. There could be a few more buttons here and there. I do see how others would perceive the interface as a toy tough.

I am interested in testing Resolve once it is available but not ready to jump ship just yet.


Return to posts index

tony west
Re: Long time editor's frustration with FCPX
on Apr 17, 2015 at 1:56:54 pm

[Douglas K. Dempsey] "The idea that you can or would sort clips as events comes straight from iMovie and iPhoto and presumes you are a hobbyist who hauls out your camera for a birthday or a wedding."


But who would presume I was a hobbyist? Everybody that knows me knows I'm working on the NHL Playoffs right now. They don't think I'm at a wedding because they know what I do for a living.

Doesn't everyone else's family and friends know what they do also?

The word "Events" doesn't bother me at all. First off I'm not even looking at that word on the screen.
When I create a Library it doesn't say "Event" up there it has a date. (until I change it)

For me I find the date a powerful search engine by itself.

I have a Library called "Scenics 2015" It's all shots that have been taken from around town.

In this case all I need is the date. I don't need shots that were taken in January for an April game.

It could be the best shot of the Arch ever, but if folks are wearing their winter coats and there are no leaves on the trees it's unusable.

I could go to Scenics 2014 April (event) and get away with those shots.

Within the events I tag baseball or hockey and so on.

It makes sense to me.


Return to posts index

TImothy Auld
Re: Long time editor's frustration with FCPX
on Apr 17, 2015 at 10:38:10 pm

If your are attacked on this forum it is usually because you are asking the right question.

Tim


Return to posts index


Gary Huff
Re: Long time editor's frustration with FCPX
on Apr 18, 2015 at 3:07:53 am

[tony west] "But who would presume I was a hobbyist? Everybody that knows me knows I'm working on the NHL Playoffs right now. They don't think I'm at a wedding because they know what I do for a living.
"


WOOSH!


Return to posts index

tony west
Re: Long time editor's frustration with FCPX
on Apr 18, 2015 at 4:20:26 am

[Gary Huff] "[tony west] "But who would presume I was a hobbyist? Everybody that knows me knows I'm working on the NHL Playoffs right now. They don't think I'm at a wedding because they know what I do for a living.
"

WOOSH!

"


More like........cha ching


Return to posts index

Mitch Ives
Re: Long time editor's frustration with FCPX
on Apr 19, 2015 at 2:47:51 pm

[Douglas K. Dempsey] "No matter how many times I use the app, I must consciously read, think about and decide when I am creating a Library, or a Project or an Event. And given the way I work, I find that I must have an "Event" in every "Library" called "Edits" which contains all of my "Projects" for that Library. My head spins just trying to type that sentence!"

I can relate...

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


James Ewart
Re: Long time editor's frustration with FCPX
on Apr 19, 2015 at 2:52:16 pm

[Mitch Ives] " "No matter how many times I use the app, I must consciously read, think about and decide when I am creating a Library, or a Project or an Event. And given the way I work, I find that I must have an "Event" in every "Library" called "Edits" which contains all of my "Projects" for that Library. My head spins just trying to type that sentence!""

Same with Project, Bin, Sequence no?

Pus scratch disks, audio/video preferences.

I mean which is easier to remember to do?


Return to posts index

Douglas K. Dempsey
Re: Long time editor's frustration with FCPX
on Apr 19, 2015 at 3:23:01 pm

James, don't get me wrong. I did get over it right away, because I love X. And the whole Library package file concept is one of my big arguments "For" when pitching X or not.

But the consumer "Baby's First Birthday" logic of Events is a blemish and non-users who scoff are not wrong.

As someone who grew up making "projects" with blocks and toys, car models, carpentry and tools, drawing, painting and graphics ... The sudden misappropriation of the umbrella term Project, now used as the term for an iteration WITHIN a particular project ... Sorry, but it's "newspeak" -- trying to make words mean something they are not.

I never had an issue with Apple's "ad-speak " when they said "Think Different" rather than the grammatical "differently." That is marketing shorthand. But, as Oliver and others have agreed here, the confusing use of Project makes it a chore to communicate with ordinary humans when talking about X.

Doug D


Return to posts index

James Ewart
Re: Long time editor's frustration with FCPX
on Apr 19, 2015 at 4:23:33 pm

[Douglas K. Dempsey] "James, don't get me wrong. I did get over it right away, because I love X. And the whole Library package file concept is one of my big arguments "For" when pitching X or not.

But the consumer "Baby's First Birthday" logic of Events is a blemish and non-users who scoff are not wrong.
"


I agree it's annoying. Or was.


Return to posts index


Mitch Ives
Re: Long time editor's frustration with FCPX
on Apr 19, 2015 at 3:48:15 pm

[James Ewart] "[Mitch Ives] " "No matter how many times I use the app, I must consciously read, think about and decide when I am creating a Library, or a Project or an Event. And given the way I work, I find that I must have an "Event" in every "Library" called "Edits" which contains all of my "Projects" for that Library. My head spins just trying to type that sentence!""

Same with Project, Bin, Sequence no?

Pus scratch disks, audio/video preferences.

I mean which is easier to remember to do?"


Actually, I didn't say that. That was someone else statement. My comment was "I can relate".

I stand by it. I think Apple could have done better. I also think that since so many other people have agreed, that it's being fairly universally felt.

Was it necessary to change the terminology... no. Is it the end of the world... no. Would I like something that makes more sense... yes. Am I losing sleep over it... no.

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

Jeremy Garchow
Re: Long time editor's frustration with FCPX
on Apr 19, 2015 at 3:11:55 pm

Except, this is now much easier as fcpx auto collects all Projects in a smart collection library wide.

I must have not been the only one to ask for library wide collections. You can even set the collections to sort out the word "snapshot" to keep all the current Projects in front, and subsequently have another that only grabs "snapshots" in case you need to go back to that *clears throat* version of the Project.


Return to posts index

David Berez
Re: Long time editor's frustration with FCPX
on Apr 17, 2015 at 12:22:49 pm

David,

That is a good question and I struggle a bit to give specifics but here are a few.

- The Library/Event/Project nonsense of course.
- The cartoonish icons for the effects and transitions. This is especially egregious . . imagine sitting with a feature director behind you trying to hide the "earthquake effect." It's asinine, my editing interface shouldn't embarrass me but it does. That is galling and infuriating and we (the professional FCPX editing community) should show up with torches and pitchforks at Apple HQ. What happened to class?
- There is something about the font, but I'm not savvy enough o know what it is.
- The cheesy icons . . keys, stars, wands, etc.
- And the waveforms . . . ugh! Cartoonish.
- Locked in windows

And yet . . . I appreciate so many of the innovations . .timeline index, magnetic timeline . . amazing multicam, automated renaming of clips, metadata workflows, third party plugins . .

But the Fischer Price packaging is killing me. Bottom line, after 20 something years of non linear editing interfaces I should not be embarrassed to share my screen with my clients. How the heck do we justify our professional rates when the interface looks like it was designed for 14 year olds?

BM is doing a good job of ripping off FCPX feature for feature. Maybe Resolve 12 will be mature enough to jump ship.

David
Post Office Editorial



Return to posts index


Craig Seeman
Re: Long time editor's frustration with FCPX
on Apr 17, 2015 at 1:20:03 pm

[David Berez] "- The cartoonish icons for the effects and transitions."

Yet this is one of the things I like about the interface. No doubt a Ubillos thing going back to his work on Premiere. I hate having to decipher cryptic and often conflicting names of FX and Transitions from different developers. I like seeing the visual representation and I love being able to preview the effect rather than the endless add followed by delete I had to do with other NLEs.

[David Berez] "- And the waveforms . . . ugh! Cartoonish."

I guess the folks at Blackmagic would disagree since they use the same representation in Resolve.
I like that they're dynamically interactive to applied audio FX.

And, if at any given point they are a bother, you can disable them whether in Browser or Timeline.



Return to posts index

David Berez
Re: Long time editor's frustration with FCPX
on Apr 17, 2015 at 1:33:19 pm

Craig,

Yep, that's true about the waveforms. And the dynamic nature of them is cool. Love seeing them change with effects applied. As someone else pointed out, U/X is such a personal thing. I guess having spent a lot of time in Resolve lately . . I'm really taken with that software (the grading portion). Its just clever and does not feel dumbed down. It feels like software a dedicated professional would use.

By contrast, FCPX is very clever and immensely powerful too, (almost exclusively a RED workflow) but there are days (many of them) where I feel I should apologizing to my clients for the look and feel. That pisses me off. The software underneath is way more sophisticated and powerful than the interface would leave you to believe.

David



Return to posts index

Craig Seeman
Re: Long time editor's frustration with FCPX
on Apr 17, 2015 at 2:17:53 pm

I think the key difference between Apple's UI and others is that it's designed to be easily manageable on a 15" Retina or a single screen iMac.

Other interfaces allow you to have lots of things open whereas Apple is geared towards single screen. Probably one of the bigger limitations in in FCPX is what you can put on a second monitor.

For some, it can get tiring opening and closing windows. It would be nice to keep the main monitor for Viewer(s) and Timeline and the second monitor for everything else such as Browser, Scopes, Inspector, FX Browsers, all open and just keystroke to the window you want to use.

Resolve handles this by having separate work spaces for editing, grading, export. FCPX handles it by having windows open and close as needed.



Return to posts index

Brian Seegmiller
Re: Long time editor's frustration with FCPX
on Oct 3, 2015 at 6:48:48 am

Why are you apologizing? Are these people scoffing at it or is it just you? The transitions in X are pretty good and if you don't like it you can tweak it in Motion.


Return to posts index

James Ewart
Re: Long time editor's frustration with FCPX
on Apr 18, 2015 at 5:58:34 am
Last Edited By James Ewart on Apr 19, 2015 at 2:56:32 am

[David Berez] "But the Fischer Price packaging is killing me. Bottom line, after 20 something years of non linear editing interfaces I should not be embarrassed to share my screen with my clients. How the heck do we justify our professional rates when the interface looks like it was designed for 14 year olds?"

I think it's just an issue you have to come to terms with David. I kind of getting where you coming from. It does not (added after re reading and an edit) feel like you are a the controls of some mighty thing that nobody else can understand or do. It is almost within reach of (in fact is) iMovie users who want to do some simple stuff. It doesn't make you feel grown up or professional enough. I am no taking the piss here, I felt the same but didn't know quite how to put it into words.

What can I say. You get used to it. Then don't notice it. The you look at other NLE interfaces one day and they all look rathe fussy and unnecessarily old school "source record"

I was embarrassed that my 'pro' interface looked to the untrained eye like iMovie.

I got over it. You will too.


Return to posts index

David Cherniack
Re: Long time editor\'s frustration with FCPX
on Apr 17, 2015 at 4:37:44 am

I feel your pain. I've written about this before. When I opened the interface and started playing with the app I was immediately struck by the feeling that Apple designed the UI for newbies who have never edited before. That's fine. It just wasn't for me. Nor was I enamoured by the idea of the magnetic timeline. I edit fast and effectively with tracks. And keyword collections, which most interested me, turned out to be a highly restricted version of how I integrate a text database into my editing. So I moved on. But if you love the under the hood functionality of X then my unsolicited advice is to use keyboard shortcuts and learn to live with the UI until something more appealing comes along.

David
http://AllinOneFilms.com


Return to posts index

Lance Bachelder
Re: Long time editor\'s frustration with FCPX
on Apr 17, 2015 at 6:44:23 am

I actually like the interface and fell it has now a certain sophistication not to mention the most beautiful scopes of anything out there.

Funny but I feel the same way you do but about Premiere CC - the past couple of revs it's gotten completely cartoony with weird chicklet style buttons and sliders in the newest announced rev. I hate the new look and am glad I made the switch full-time to FCPX. That said I too struggle with the whole Library/Event?Project thing - don't like it at all.

It was at a Vegas premiere that I resolved to become an avid FCPX user.

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


Return to posts index

Mark Dobson
Re: Long time editor's frustration with FCPX
on Apr 17, 2015 at 7:58:04 am

Great post David.

I actually feel, despite the 3D titles, that this is a major update in terms of stability and smoothness of operation. Anyone who has stuck with FCPX over the period must be rewarded with these benefits when one remembers the buggy, spinning ball, crashes of the early days when to even get out of an edit alive was an achievement.

I understand the points you have made about the the appearance of the interface and think that this one factor is what put a lot of people off from evan trying the software out.

I guess I've just got used to it now but in the ( almost ) four years I've been editing with FCPX the actual interface is the component that has changed the least. We still have very inflexible elements such as the audio meters, the way that the effects browser eats into the timeline, the inability to save different layouts as we could with FCP7 and for me the most frustrating thing is the clip duration and height settings frequently reverting to their default setting. ( anyone else have this problem? )


Return to posts index

Bret Williams
Re: Long time editor's frustration with FCPX
on Apr 17, 2015 at 11:37:14 am

If I'm having those issues I haven't niticed.

Am I the only one who doesn't notice any special performance increases? In fact it's more like a 5-10 crash a day fest. Still as laggy as ever.


Return to posts index

Darren Roark
Re: Long time editor's frustration with FCPX
on May 13, 2015 at 8:09:44 pm

[Bret Williams] "Am I the only one who doesn't notice any special performance increases? In fact it's more like a 5-10 crash a day fest. Still as laggy as ever."

Hi Brett,

I tried trashing the usual troubleshooting files on the multicam Red feature I've been working on and it was still torturously slow to open it. I tried project repair from Digital Rebellion and it got it back to normal. No more crashing.


Return to posts index

Steve Connor
Re: Long time editor's frustration with FCPX
on Apr 17, 2015 at 8:02:23 am

Strangely enough I don't really care if the interface looks like it's for beginners, or what they call the elements as long as it functions the way I want it to.

I'd rather the "toy" interface of FCPX than the never changing 1980's Avid interface!


Return to posts index

Kannan Raghavan
Re: Long time editor's frustration with FCPX
on Apr 17, 2015 at 10:36:27 am

I get you Steve:) After moving to FCP X and PrPro CC from legacy, had to edit a project on MC. Jeez. This was after being a MC editor till 2002. The interface looked so old. Ancient. Felt like I was using a machine in a museum. I know guys using MC swear by it, but I'll never go back to MC. PrPro CC it is:)

Kannan Raghavan
The Big Toad Films Pte. Ltd.


Return to posts index


Bret Williams
Re: Long time editor's frustration with FCPX
on Apr 17, 2015 at 2:54:34 pm

How does this look like a toy?



Return to posts index

Mark Smith
Re: Long time editor's frustration with FCPX
on Apr 17, 2015 at 12:13:37 pm

Interface preferences are such personal things. I have a hard time looking at Adobe interfaces because they are so detailed and cluttered to me. FCPX is much more comfortable for me to look at and the app does what I want it to do, so I am happy. Qualifier: Editing is not my primary activity by a long shot, so maybe some things haven't had a chance to get under my skin yet.
The nomenclature shift with FCPX was sort of a pain and I still find myself explaining it to my spouse who is quite a good editor with years of legacy work behind her. Once she has a library set up, none of it matters to her, as she is off to work. The word event was a bit troublesome for me, as in 'event photographer' but I think of events as things that happened on certain days and since I already tended to organize material by calendar date anyway, that wan't much trouble for me in the end.
The reason why I continue with X is because I love how so many of the mouse clicky things in Legacy were squeezed out , simplified so that now I feel like the editing process lets me focus more on what I want to do as editor.


Return to posts index

Scott Witthaus
Re: Long time editor's frustration with FCPX
on Apr 17, 2015 at 12:40:28 pm

Interesting. I have the 30 year badge too. I find the simple elegance of X wonderful.

I am doing a Premiere Cc job now and I have come to loathe the interface. Crowded, dim and seemingly forced to look "techy". Don't get me started on the title tool (I am making a list for a later post). Or media import. Or going back to tracks. But that's for later and I want to give PP a fairer shake.

Give me the clean simple interface combined with the power of X any day, cartoonish or not.

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


Return to posts index

Dennis Radeke
Re: Long time editor's frustration with FCPX
on Apr 20, 2015 at 11:44:26 am

Hi Scott,

I appreciate your passion for FCPX. In an effort to help you loathe Premiere Pro less I would just point out a few things.

crowded - you can remove or move any of the panels. They are all 'dockable' and if you don't need them, simply close them and it will automatically be saved as a part of your workspace
dim - You can adjust the brightness of the interface. Most UI's including FCPX are dark to help the user focus on the media itself, but there are controls to help adjust to your personal preference.
media import - You definitely should use the Media Browser panel if you're not already. Dock your favorite or current Media directories as favorites. If you're still using cmd+I to import media into Premiere Pro, then I can completely understand your frustration (with any NLE that does that).
title tool - The internal title tool is extremely powerful but the details and the UI make it needlessly complicated. You can check out Tim Kolb's excellent presets via s4t but also pick up some tutorials on how to leverage this more effectively. That said, I think we acknowledge that we need to do some work on this tool in the future to make it more accessible and reactive to the user in the future. I'd also point out that you can use Photoshop as an excellent title tool if you prefer (file>new>new photoshop file)

Cheers,
Dennis - Adobe guy


Return to posts index

Scott Witthaus
Re: Long time editor's frustration with FCPX
on Apr 20, 2015 at 12:30:59 pm

[Dennis Radeke] "help you loathe Premiere Pro less I would just point out a few things."

Thanks Dennis -

Like I said before, I am going to give Premiere a fair shake. I think too many folks on these type forums trash another product without ever using it.

I appreciate your response. I posted on the Adobe forum and got no Adobe response. Post on an X forum, and I get an official employee to respond! Go figure! ;-)

I do prefer X by a wide margin over Premiere (so far), but the realities of my region are that I need to know both (Avid is no longer in the picture). Hopefully by the middle of May when this next gig is done, I will have an even more rounded view of the two products. It will be fun because I am going to be cutting different projects at the same time using X for one and Premiere for the other.

regards -

Scott

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


Return to posts index

Scott Witthaus
Re: Long time editor's frustration with FCPX
on Apr 20, 2015 at 8:42:00 pm

[Dennis Radeke] "media import - You definitely should use the Media Browser panel if you're not already. Dock your favorite or current Media directories as favorites. If you're still using cmd+I to import media into Premiere Pro, then I can completely understand your frustration (with any NLE that does that)."

Doing it this way, I still have to drill down through the folder structure to get to the media I want to use, correct?With this 4K job I am in right now (using X) I would have to do a lot of "drilling" to get to the files. With X, I can point to the folder and just tell it to not make collections from folders and it tosses all the XML files and just gets the media. MUCH faster and less chance for missing files. Am I missing an "ignore folders" command in Pr? I even went to Lynda.com to see of I can find that....

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


Return to posts index

Oliver Peters
Re: Long time editor's frustration with FCPX
on Apr 20, 2015 at 8:50:41 pm

[Scott Witthaus] "With this 4K job I am in right now (using X) I would have to do a lot of "drilling" to get to the files. With X, I can point to the folder and just tell it to not make collections from folders and it tosses all the XML files and just gets the media."

Scott - in both X and PPro this depends on the camera SDK that is installed, whether it is third party or built-in. In the case of PPro's Media Browser, there's a filter to pick different camera file types instead of just generic files. If it is one of these choices - P2 or RED, as an example - filtering occurs without drilling into each individual clip folder. That's why the recommendation is to use the Media Browser instead of import via the Finder. PPro's Media Browser works more or less like X's import module.

- Oliver

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


Return to posts index

Oliver Peters
Re: Long time editor's frustration with FCPX
on Apr 20, 2015 at 8:51:43 pm

[Scott Witthaus] "With this 4K job I am in right now (using X) I would have to do a lot of "drilling" to get to the files. With X, I can point to the folder and just tell it to not make collections from folders and it tosses all the XML files and just gets the media."

Scott - in both X and PPro this depends on the camera SDK that is installed, whether it is third party or built-in. In the case of PPro's Media Browser, there's a filter to pick different camera file types instead of just generic files. If it is one of these choices - P2 or RED, as an example - filtering occurs without drilling into each individual clip folder. That's why the recommendation is to use the Media Browser instead of import via the Finder. So basically the Browser works more or less like X's import module.

- Oliver

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


Return to posts index

Dennis Radeke
Re: Long time editor's frustration with FCPX
on Apr 20, 2015 at 9:41:10 pm

[Scott Witthaus] "Doing it this way, I still have to drill down through the folder structure to get to the media I want to use, correct?"

Not normally. Media Browser is designed specifically for file-based cameras so that you can cut through the folder structure and express just the video essence that you care about.

In the image below, you can see what camera based formats Media Browser natively recognizes as well as how to turn 'off' this capability and folder dive if the need arises.



By selecting "file directory" (off by default) it allows you to see the folder structure. In this case, this is RED media. Look at the difference when I have RED selected.



It has revealed just the video media and none of the other file types that might be in the folder. If you import RED media, it also brings over any RMD data for color and allows you to access it in the source settings of RED clips.

Also notice on the left hand side of either image. You'll see that I've got local drives (which can include network mounted volumes) and above it Favorites. The favorites option is to have folders of media you hit immediately at your finger tips to prevent diving down folders. To make a folder a favorite, right click on the folder you want and "Add to Favorites"

Hope this helps,
Dennis


Return to posts index

David Mathis
Re: Long time editor's frustration with FCPX
on May 13, 2015 at 10:34:38 pm

Thanks for sharing this. Preimere has made significant progress, now if I can get the mental block over rental only out of my head.


Return to posts index

Dennis Radeke
Re: Long time editor's frustration with FCPX
on May 14, 2015 at 2:20:41 pm

yeah, you're going to have to figure that one out for yourself. If I made a list of reasons why it makes sense, I'd start a whole 'nuther conversation which would be the umpteenth repeat of similar threads, right?

Good luck and thanks,
Dennis - Adobe guy


Return to posts index

tony west
Re: Long time editor's frustration with FCPX
on Apr 17, 2015 at 1:29:26 pm

[David Berez] " I drool with envy when looking at Resolve 12 "

Why?

Doesn't the 12 UI look "toy like" also? I mean...............it's trying it's best to be like X

What makes X look simple is when the audio and the video are together as one clip.

The timeline looks simplified that way, but you can expand your audio out and it looks like 12 or other track based NLE's

Do you expand your audio out or do you just leave it together?

You can take a very complicated project and with it all "compressed" it doesn't look like anything in X
Especially if you use compound clips.

I remember when they first introduced X and took a complicated timeline and then looked at the same info in the X timeline, and then said "doesn't that look great". The flip side to that is that it looks easy that way. Like you are not working on anything that takes a lot of skill.


Return to posts index

Craig Seeman
Re: Long time editor's frustration with FCPX
on Apr 17, 2015 at 1:31:38 pm
Last Edited By Craig Seeman on Apr 17, 2015 at 1:40:02 pm

Also 30 years plus as an editor and with NLEs dating back to CMX6000.

I like the way various windows open and close as needed. I do wish I could move them to other places. I'd like my Scopes, Time Line Index, FX to open where the Inspector is a times so my timeline doesn't get shoved left and right. I'd like the Viewer to be locked to a size without getting shoved around by opening and closing windows. There's so much space for user created buttons next to the time display.

I don't find anything Fisher Price about it even given the limitations on customization. I much prefer the minimalist look of things, the contextual opening and closing of things. I think, very fundamentally, Apple design ethic in all their hardware and software is to tend towards minimalism so that's not going to change any time soon. As they add more, they'll be done contextual. They are very much the opposite of window/palate happy Adobe.



Return to posts index

Nick Toth
Re: Long time editor's frustration with FCPX
on Apr 17, 2015 at 2:02:38 pm

30 years plus here also. Have been using FCP X since day one.

No problem with the interface or the naming conventions.

I have never had a client who cared about anything but time and budget.

3D Text is nicely implemented. Will use it where appropriate and necessary.

Back to work...

anickt


Return to posts index

Oliver Peters
Re: Long time editor's frustration with FCPX
on Apr 17, 2015 at 4:08:38 pm

I use all of these tools and don't have any particular problem with the FCP X or PPro interfaces. For those of you complaining about the PPro interface, you do know that you can open and close any of the tabs and save custom workspace layouts (not possible in X), right? So you can make it as cluttered or uncluttered as you like. Plus you can create optimized workspaces for doing effects, editing, mixing, etc.

Another beauty of the PPro interface is that it has huge advantages for developers, because custom panels can be created that are integrated right into the UI - also not possible with X, that we know of. This was evident at NAB, where a number of MAM companies showed integration with windows right inside PPro. This has also been true in AE, if you look at how tools like Type Monkey and Layer Monkey have been implemented.

I do agree that Apple's changing of the terminology was a poor move. Trying to use their language in discussions and training around X and editing are very confusing to old and new users alike. If you work in a bubble and only use Apple software, then it's fine, I guess. But if you have to work with other users and other applications, it's an issue, through not a deal-breaker.

- Oliver

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


Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: Long time editor's frustration with FCPX
on Apr 17, 2015 at 4:21:30 pm
Last Edited By Jeremy Garchow on Apr 18, 2015 at 2:44:55 am

[Oliver Peters] "I do agree that Apple's changing of the terminology was a poor move. Trying to use their language in discussions and training around X and editing are very confusing to old and new users alike. If you work in a bubble and only use Apple software, then it's fine, I guess. But if you have to work with other users and other applications, it's an issue, through not a deal-breaker."

I often think that these types of statements aren't thought through enough.

People rely on the old terms because they are familiar with them, which is completely understandable. If you start to use fcpx like it supposed to be used, and use it for it's strengths, the Event/Project/Library terms make a ton of sense.

"Event" is the only one that could be a little misconstrued, but If you have a Library for a client, and in that Library you have several different jobs (or events) and in those Events, you could have multiple Projects. It makes perfect sense to me, and I use them a lot. Before, with 7 or Pr, I have a traditional projects, and if I had different (but related) projects that I was working on for that client, I would sometimes make a new project file, which means I have multiple files to track. This is alleviated with FCPX. I also barely duplicate timelines anymore, I simply snapshot the current timeline, and version up the number on the current timeline (the snapshot retains the previous version number). It's easier and faster.

More so than anything else, if I work in other NLE's I miss X's organization tools when I don't have them. I can work around timeline issues in any program, but the Library/Event/Project system, and now that Smart Collections can used across all Events in one Library, is something I think Apple got very right, even if it's not perfectly named.


Return to posts index

David Lawrence
Re: Long time editor's frustration with FCPX
on Apr 17, 2015 at 6:23:16 pm

[Jeremy Garchow] ""Event" is the only one that could be a little misconstrued, but If you have a Library for a client, and in that Library you have several different jobs (or events) and in those Events, you could have multiple Projects."

I don't have any problem with "Events" but I think renaming sequences "Projects" was a colossal blunder.

"Sequence" and "Project" are terms that have very specific, commonly understood, technical meaning throughout the entire industry for decades.

From a UI design perspective, a label switch this profound isn't just confusing, it's wrong; because it breaks a decades long mental model and it goes against all other uses of the terms.

Apple could easily have called "Projects" "Sequences". By choosing to reinvent the basic nomenclature of NLEs, they appear arrogant, out-of-touch, and have made industry acceptance of FCPX that much harder.

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


Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: Long time editor's frustration with FCPX
on Apr 17, 2015 at 8:44:07 pm

[David Lawrence] "I don't have any problem with "Events" but I think renaming sequences "Projects" was a colossal blunder."

We will agree to disagree. Colossal blunder?

[David Lawrence] "From a UI design perspective, a label switch this profound isn't just confusing, it's wrong; because it breaks a decades long mental model and it goes against all other uses of the terms."

But of course. You don't think that's on purpose? You don't think by changing the terms, you might have people change their frame of reference? Isn't it OK to have a look at what the relationship of media to sequence to container may be? If you read the FCPX manual, timeline is listed all over it. If it's really that confusing, and someone opens the manual, they will figure out rather quickly what a Project might mean.

[David Lawrence] "Apple could easily have called "Projects" "Sequences". By choosing to reinvent the basic nomenclature of NLEs, they appear arrogant, out-of-touch, and have made industry acceptance of FCPX that much harder.
"


I think that Apple has a much bigger hill to climb than Project vs Sequence terminology and if we, as professionals, can't figure the difference between those two terms, we shouldn't be here. I would assume that Apple thinks an FCPX user, can figure out what a Project, what an Event, and what a Library can do and how they work. Cameras have all different kinds of terminology for the same thing. Cam Ops get over it and get to work and none of them are all wrong or all right.

Some people might not know what lift and gain means, but they could tell you what shadows and highlights are. Are they wrong, or is it just a different frame of reference? If I asked someone to lift the gamma, they might not know what that means as there might not be a control in their device that says "gamma" or if there is, it might not do what they want it to do, but I might be able to say, please raise the midtones and they would know exactly what I was talking about.


Return to posts index

David Lawrence
Re: Long time editor's frustration with FCPX
on Apr 18, 2015 at 3:33:17 am

[Jeremy Garchow] "But of course. You don't think that's on purpose? You don't think by changing the terms, you might have people change their frame of reference? Isn't it OK to have a look at what the relationship of media to sequence to container may be? If you read the FCPX manual, timeline is listed all over it. If it's really that confusing, and someone opens the manual, they will figure out rather quickly what a Project might mean."

I don't think this particular change was in any way necessary or beneficial to understanding the new model. I mostly agree with Andy:

[Andy Neil] "Personally, I think their naming convention should've been this:

Library ----> Project -----> Sequence

where project is used in place of event and makes a helluva lot more sense in that context."


[Jeremy Garchow] "I think that Apple has a much bigger hill to climb than Project vs Sequence terminology and if we, as professionals, can't figure the difference between those two terms, we shouldn't be here. I would assume that Apple thinks an FCPX user, can figure out what a Project, what an Event, and what a Library can do and how they work. Cameras have all different kinds of terminology for the same thing. Cam Ops get over it and get to work and none of them are all wrong or all right.

Some people might not know what lift and gain means, but they could tell you what shadows and highlights are. Are they wrong, or is it just a different frame of reference?"


I get where you're coming from, but I think it's a bigger problem for FCPX than you realize. It's not about whether we as professionals can wrap our heads around Apple's name change, it's the fact that Apple is disregarding well established, decades old industry standards and asking us to deal with a confusing, unnecessary change in the first place.

I don't think your analogy of lift vs gain really works. Lift and gain are different but related properties.

An imperfect but better analogy for what Apple has done renaming sequences to projects would be if Apple one day decided instead of calling files "files", they would now be referred to as "folders". Imagine the confusion!

But don't take my word for it. Let's look at what the definitive source of good Mac OS UI design has to say about the subject.

From Apple's Mac OS X Human Interface Guidelines: (link)

Consistency

Consistency in the interface allows users to transfer their knowledge and skills from one app to another. Applying the principle of consistency does not mean that your app must look and behave the same as all other apps. Rather, the principle of consistency holds that an app should respect its users and avoid forcing them to learn new ways to do things for no other reason than to be different.

When thinking about how your app handles consistency, consider the principle in the following contexts. Specifically, is your app consistent with:

  • OS X standards? For example, does the app use the reserved and recommended keyboard equivalents for their correct purposes? Does it use standard UI elements correctly and integrate well with the Finder, the Dock, and other OS X features that users appreciate? For more information about these items, see Keyboard Shortcuts and Integrating with OS X.
  • The app itself? Does it use consistent terminology for labels and features? Do icons mean the same thing every time they are used? Are concepts presented in similar ways across all modules? Are similar controls and other UI elements located in similar places in windows and dialogs?
  • Earlier versions of the app? Have the terms and meanings remained the same between releases? Are the fundamental concepts essentially unchanged?
  • People’s expectations? Does it meet the needs of the user without extraneous features? Does it conform to the user’s mental model? For more information on this concept, see Mental Model.


Changing "sequences" to "projects" completely violates the established mental model of how NLEs work throughout the entire industry.

Apple not only breaks industry standards, it violates its own UI guidelines with this change.

As we've seen, it's completely unnecessary and frankly, indefensible, even if you like how FCPX works.

This is why I call it a colossal blunder. It makes it seem like FCPX developers are off in their own little bubble, either unaware or too self-absorbed to care about common standards for technical language and its meaning.

It's hard enough to introduce something new. Mistakes like this make gaining industry acceptance even harder.

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


Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: Long time editor's frustration with FCPX
on Apr 18, 2015 at 2:12:12 pm

I hear what you're saying, David (and Andy) but I think that Project deserves the term. It is much more than a sequence of events (heh heh).

I hope to have some screen grabs on Monday, if not Monday it'll have to be the week after, but I'll show you what I mean. I will come back to this as I think there are "important" distinctions to make, and Apple choosing to name a sequence a Project isn't a folly or blunder, but It is best to approach this notion with an open mind, and buck convention. This is not to say that you, personally, aren't open minded. I get the sense that you are. It took me a long time to reach this conclusion, even after using X for a couple of years professionally. It really started once the Library system was in place.


Return to posts index

James Ewart
Re: Long time editor's frustration with FCPX
on Apr 18, 2015 at 2:19:57 pm

I just call old sequences and new projects "Timelines" now.

It seems to be universal across platforms.

Everyone knows what a timeline is. In FCPX it just happens to be called a project now.

And yes I do still find it a bit irritating but less so these days.


Return to posts index

Oliver Peters
Re: Long time editor's frustration with FCPX
on Apr 18, 2015 at 2:41:36 pm

The reason against using the word "projects" for sequences is that it confuses the discussion with the larger Job or Session that you are working within. Typically one Library would equal one Job (normally called a project), however that's not necessarily so. One production/job/session/project could involve several Libraries. So it becomes confusing as to what this overall "thing" is to be called.

FWIW - I believe Vegas also calls their sequence a Project, however you can only have one of these with any given instance of Vegas. You can open multiple instances of Vegas at the same time, each with its own Project (sequence). In Vegas this came about because the mentality was one of a DAW, where you typically only mix one timeline/sequence/track sheet at a time. This is not the case in an NLE, where you often move among two or more sequences to build your final version of the edit.

In Adobe Anywhere, they adopted the term Anywhere Production, to define the overarching job. This is separate from an Premiere Pro project, which is within the Production. A Production can include project files from Premiere, Prelude and After Effects.

- Oliver

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


Return to posts index

Steve Connor
Re: Long time editor's frustration with FCPX
on Apr 18, 2015 at 4:17:58 pm

Solved it!



Return to posts index

Scott Witthaus
Re: Long time editor's frustration with FCPX
on Apr 21, 2015 at 10:54:35 am

[Steve Connor] "Solved it!"

Exactly what I do. Or an event just called "cuts".

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


Return to posts index

tony west
Re: Long time editor's frustration with FCPX
on Apr 19, 2015 at 1:00:32 am

[James Ewart] "I just call old sequences and new projects "Timelines" now."

Plus 1 on this James


Return to posts index

David Lawrence
Re: Long time editor's frustration with FCPX
on Apr 18, 2015 at 5:52:07 pm

[Jeremy Garchow] "I hear what you're saying, David (and Andy) but I think that Project deserves the term. It is much more than a sequence of events (heh heh).

I hope to have some screen grabs on Monday, if not Monday it'll have to be the week after, but I'll show you what I mean. I will come back to this as I think there are "important" distinctions to make, and Apple choosing to name a sequence a Project isn't a folly or blunder, but It is best to approach this notion with an open mind, and buck convention. This is not to say that you, personally, aren't open minded. I get the sense that you are. It took me a long time to reach this conclusion, even after using X for a couple of years professionally. It really started once the Library system was in place."


Thanks Jeremy, really curious about your thoughts. Looking forward! :)

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


Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: Long time editor's frustration with FCPX
on Apr 21, 2015 at 12:10:17 am

[David Lawrence] "Thanks Jeremy, really curious about your thoughts. Looking forward! :)"



I thought I could get this together today, but it will have to wait.

I will make the effort to come back to this.


Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: Long time editor's frustration with FCPX
on May 13, 2015 at 3:30:15 pm

[Jeremy Garchow] "[David Lawrence] "Thanks Jeremy, really curious about your thoughts. Looking forward! :)"



I thought I could get this together today, but it will have to wait.

I will make the effort to come back to this.
"


Just checking in, I haven't forgotten about this, I just can't find the time to do it right!


Return to posts index

David Lawrence
Re: Long time editor's frustration with FCPX
on May 13, 2015 at 9:04:03 pm

[Jeremy Garchow] "Just checking in, I haven't forgotten about this, I just can't find the time to do it right!"

Thanks Jeremy, appreciate it. Glad you're busy and no rush! :)

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


Return to posts index

Andy Neil
Re: Long time editor's frustration with FCPX
on Apr 17, 2015 at 10:48:49 pm

I also was never a fan of Sequences being called "Projects," but I've never had a problem with the term, "Library" and in fact, think it's highly appropriate to X's workflow. "Event" is such a vague term that I think people are unsure how to consider them.

Personally, I think their naming convention should've been this:

Library ----> Project -----> Sequence

where project is used in place of event and makes a helluva lot more sense in that context.

Andy

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


Return to posts index

Bill Davis
Re: Long time editor's frustration with FCPX
on Apr 20, 2015 at 12:59:49 pm

But does it?
Tony West was describing his documentary workflow to me a couple of years ago and opened my thinking a lot about the differing organizational needs of different users. Lets say I go out to shoot two interviews on a particular day - I might shoot one in the morning - and leave the subjects home with a bunch of stills to scan related to that interview. Let's further imagine the interviewee is disabled and in the interview, poignantly described how he misses hiking by the local creek. So I make that hike and record Nat sound to bolster the idea.
I stop for lunch, then I have a PM interview with his former Coach at the high school. I get B-roll of the school, trophy case shots and an OTS of someone paging through the yearbook.

To my thinking, each interview fits comfortably under the EVENT label. They are not separate projects at all. Nor are they Sequences. Not yet. Under the Event bucket I can curate all the interview, stills, b-roll, sound, etc that related to the mornings work, and ALSO the afternoon shoot as a separate Event - (because it IS) keeping the assets grouped logically, yet never losing sight that they are building blocks of the whole.

Those interviews are not self contained "projects" at all. And sequences doesn't fit either.

Remember, the fundamental change I'm facing is the shift from thinking folders on a desktop - into a database model of asset storage. One that has to accommodate a wide range of users with vastly different needs. I know that EVENT might trigger visions of weddings, or birthday parties for some, but fiundamentally it's a THING that happens at a particular time and place. And that pretty perfectly describes what happens when all sorts of productions go out to shoot something.

My 2 cents.

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


Return to posts index

Craig Alan
Re: Long time editor's frustration with FCPX
on May 27, 2015 at 3:17:58 am

[David Lawrence] ""Sequence" and "Project" are terms that have very specific, commonly understood, technical meaning throughout the entire industry for decades."

I agree and Apple's disregard for industry standard is misguided.

"Library" as a name for the master folder is a bit more complicated. A library is a master container so in this sense it's name is descriptive. However, if you organize your libraries so that each is its own "project" container then it seems a bit off. A brick and mortar library in the real world holds all available media which is rather poor organization for a NLE and was exactly how FCP X started out - one large library that held all your media.

I think "timeline" is a better term than "sequence". When you open a FCP X "project", what you open is a timeline.
It may even be blank or hold one compound clip.

Let's be honest a bin or an event is just a folder and different folks organize their media differently. Some by events, or days of production, or camera angle or subjects or whatever. It changes often by the nature of the project at hand.

I know what Panasonic means by auto white balance. The camera sets the white balance when you aim at white card and press the AWB button. But every other manufacturer calls this a manual white balance. And that is the industry standard name. Stupid decision on Panasonic's part. A project is a timeline? No, it's not.

I would call the library a project folder. I would call the event a media folder. I would just allow an editor to create folders inside the project folder which anyone who uses any computer understands. And I would call a timeline a timeline.

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


Return to posts index

Steve Connor
Re: Long time editor's frustration with FCPX
on Apr 17, 2015 at 4:38:36 pm

[Oliver Peters] "For those of you complaining about the PPro interface, you do know that you can open and close any of the tabs and save custom workspace layouts (not possible in X), right? "

Very true, PPro's interface is MUCH better than it used to be, it is possible to keep it much simpler and call on layouts when you need them. I wish FCPX had more options for this


Return to posts index

Scott Witthaus
Re: Long time editor's frustration with FCPX
on Apr 17, 2015 at 5:13:45 pm

[Oliver Peters] "For those of you complaining about the PPro interface, you do know that you can open and close any of the tabs and save custom workspace layouts (not possible in X), right? So you can make it as cluttered or uncluttered as you like."

Can I change the looks of the icons so it's not like trying to read some ancient language off a stone tablet?

;-)

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


Return to posts index

Aindreas Gallagher
Re: Long time editor's frustration with FCPX
on Apr 17, 2015 at 8:07:25 pm
Last Edited By Aindreas Gallagher on Apr 17, 2015 at 8:08:40 pm

actually yes - it's possible to directly access many of the interface tool and button icons in PPro and adjust them (as in adjust/remake them in PS). Quite a few people did around CS6 Ppro time when the contextual slip slide roll tools were felt a little overbearing. When the adobe team heard about the modifications they published a blog linking to the designed files. Nevermind the ability for third parties to create entire custom interface segments. ITV is running custom PPro panels for asset and meta data management.

See? It's a hotrod where you can pop the hood. your one looks quite pleasing (arguably) but it's a big old lump of aluminium without any screws..

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


Return to posts index

Scott Witthaus
Re: Long time editor's frustration with FCPX
on Apr 17, 2015 at 8:22:05 pm

Thanks Aindreas. The standard interface sucks, but it's good to know it can get less sucky.

Seriously I have this gig and then another 11 days on Pr CC in May so I am hoping I will see the strengths and differences of each. I am putting together a list! Either way, as alot of us say, it's good to know all three A's.

[Aindreas Gallagher] "It's a hotrod "

Hardly, when compared to X, but I will give it a fair shake!

;-)

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


Return to posts index

Aindreas Gallagher
Re: Long time editor's frustration with FCPX
on Apr 17, 2015 at 8:50:14 pm

[Scott Witthaus] "it's good to know all three A's."

I'm only trying, in my small way, to push for a situation where, as the song goes, three become one, and then Andy doesn't actually have to bother his ass. Andy is surprisingly lazy.

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


Return to posts index

Andy Neil
Re: Long time editor's frustration with FCPX
on Apr 17, 2015 at 10:44:46 pm

[Aindreas Gallagher] "it's possible to directly access many of the interface tool and button icons in PPro and adjust them (as in adjust/remake them in PS)."

I would love to be pointed in the direction of how this is done because that's pretty amazing/scary if true.

Andy

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


Return to posts index

Walter Soyka
Re: Long time editor's frustration with FCPX
on Apr 21, 2015 at 1:14:23 pm

[Andy Neil] "I would love to be pointed in the direction of how this is done because that's pretty amazing/scary if true."

All Premiere icons are PNG files. They're located in a PNG folder inside the application bundle on Macs and alongside the executable on Windows.

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

James Ewart
Re: Long time editor's frustration with FCPX
on Apr 18, 2015 at 6:09:25 am

It is so gratifying to still have Aindreas here on tippy toes peeking over the garden fence. You don't need to peek though Aindreas. Just come on in through the gate - it's not locked.

You're still invited!


Return to posts index

Scott Witthaus
Re: Long time editor's frustration with FCPX
on Apr 18, 2015 at 1:15:37 pm

[James Ewart] "It is so gratifying to still have Aindreas here on tippy toes peeking over the garden fence"

True. Unfortunately Aindreas (self admitted in this thread somewhere, I believe) has little to no experience on X, so it's very difficult to take his criticism seriously. But his posts are certainly entertaining!

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


Return to posts index

James Ewart
Re: Long time editor's frustration with FCPX
on Apr 18, 2015 at 1:29:00 pm

There's something about FCPX he just can't quite bring himself to turn his back on. A persistent nagging doubt perhaps? We're all still here. How can that possibly be?


Return to posts index

Robin S. Kurz
Re: Long time editor's frustration with FCPX
on Apr 18, 2015 at 5:11:48 pm

[Oliver Peters] "you do know that you can open and close any of the tabs"

You mean like this?



Or would closing the viewer and/or timeline, too, pose some sort of advantage that I'm not aware of? I haven't used the most recent versions of PPro very much, but if nothing has changed, then I don't see how you could unclutter IT anywhere near as much as this. But I could be wrong.


[Oliver Peters] "Another beauty of the PPro interface is that it has huge advantages for developers, because custom panels can be created that are integrated right into the UI - also not possible with X, that we know of."


Erm... I think you may want to read up on FX Plug 3? It's actually very much possible and is being done all over the place. Some integrated, some modular. Their choice. The fact that many aren't doing it or haven't (yet), doesn't actually mean it's not possible. You can develop unique plug-ins that include onscreen controls and custom UI elements—all running seamlessly in FCP. The custom window API gives you a window to draw into which looks like other windows in FCP.


[Oliver Peters] "I do agree that Apple's changing of the terminology was a poor move. Trying to use their language in discussions and training around X and editing are very confusing to old and new users alike. "


Funny how I have yet to hear so much as a single student (we're talking a near 4-digit number over 4 years) say that X's terminology is somehow incomprehensible or confusing to them. I explain Library, Event and Project (that I'll even interchangeably call "Timeline" anyway... so?)... done. Never once has anyone, of any experience level, asked me what I meant by any of it. Ever.

Go figger.

- RK

____________________________________________________
Deutsch? Hier gibt es ein umfassendes FCP X Training für dich!


Return to posts index

Oliver Peters
Re: Long time editor's frustration with FCPX
on Apr 18, 2015 at 5:40:10 pm

[Robin S. Kurz] "I haven't used the most recent versions of PPro very much, but if nothing has changed, then I don't see how you could unclutter IT anywhere near as much as this. But I could be wrong."

Maybe you should explore more ;-) Exactly that.



[Robin S. Kurz] "It's actually very much possible and is being done all over the place. Some integrated, some modular. Their choice."

I have yet to see a developer like a MAM company create a dockable or floating panel for their tool that works right inside FCP X as a window into their application. Examples? I'm not talking about plug-ins. That's certainly possible, such as with Color Finale. Not the same thing at all.

[Robin S. Kurz] "Never once has anyone, of any experience level, asked me what I meant by any of it. Ever. "

Our experiences differ.

- Oliver

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


Return to posts index

Dennis Radeke
Re: Long time editor's frustration with FCPX
on Apr 20, 2015 at 11:32:16 am

[Oliver Peters] "
I have yet to see a developer like a MAM company create a dockable or floating panel for their tool that works right inside FCP X as a window into their application. Examples? I'm not talking about plug-ins. That's certainly possible, such as with Color Finale. Not the same thing at all."


Jumping in mid-conversation here...

Dockable panels (internally we call them Content Panels) are a core part of Adobe's open architecture strategy. I would guess we have at least a dozen panel integrations with MAMs alone (probably more) and over 50 in total with various companies. You can even check out Pond5 Adobe Plugin to see how easily they can work with things like stock footage companies.

I would point to this as one of the key reasons we have made serious inroads into broadcast, sports, etc. over the last few years. It's not just about the editor itself per se, but about connecting to the larger workflow within the facility. The Content panel by the way is HTML5 so easy to develop.

HTH,
Dennis - relaxing Adobe guy after NAB...


Return to posts index

Steve Connor
Re: Long time editor's frustration with FCPX
on Apr 18, 2015 at 5:40:37 pm

[Robin S. Kurz] " I haven't used the most recent versions of PPro very much, but if nothing has changed, then I don't see how you could unclutter IT anywhere near as much as this. But I could be wrong."



Return to posts index

Robin S. Kurz
Re: Long time editor's frustration with FCPX
on Apr 18, 2015 at 5:47:36 pm
Last Edited By Robin S. Kurz on Apr 18, 2015 at 5:49:06 pm

[Steve Connor]...."

Well then, there you go. So then I guess I don't know what we're talking about. Merely the fact that being able to undock and randomly shuffle things around at will being a supposed "advantage"? The one with the most tabs and windows wins? Well, I don't see it that way. At least certainly not in the context of the FCP X interface. Though I would move the scopes out of the canvas window, as I've said before, but that's pretty much it. I find the whole personalization thing highly overrated (and often a tedious pain when its not solely your editing station), which was ever so true with e.g. FCP 7, but to each his own.

- RK


Return to posts index

Steve Connor
Re: Long time editor's frustration with FCPX
on Apr 18, 2015 at 5:57:53 pm

[Robin S. Kurz] "The one with the most tabs and windows wins? Well, I don't see it that way. At least certainly not in the context of the FCP X interface. Though I would move the scopes out of the canvas window, as I've said before, but that's pretty much it. I find the whole personalization thing highly overrated (and often a tedious pain when its not solely your editing station), which was ever so true with e.g. FCP 7, but to each his own.
"


The ability to save your own workspaces makes multi-user easier and more options surely have to be better than less options.

But as you say each to his own


Return to posts index

Oliver Peters
Re: Long time editor's frustration with FCPX
on Apr 18, 2015 at 5:58:52 pm

[Robin S. Kurz] "Merely the fact that being able to undock and randomly shuffle things around at will being a supposed "advantage"?"

The question was whether PProCC could be uncluttered. And yes it can. This is an advantage because the UI can be considerably customized in ways that FCP 7 would let you do, but FCP X does not let you.

[Robin S. Kurz] "I find the whole personalization thing highly overrated (and often a tedious pain when its not solely your editing station)"

And others find it critical to their use of a software application. Custom layouts can be saved and different users can have different configurations. Many find this to be an advantage. Personalization of the UI comes up pretty high on most FCP X user wish lists.

- Oliver

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


Return to posts index

Richard Herd
Re: Long time editor's frustration with FCPX
on Apr 21, 2015 at 6:48:35 pm

[Robin S. Kurz] "I find the whole personalization thing highly overrated "

Funny! The first thing I do is make "my" set up, and I save it as "Richard."


Return to posts index

James Ewart
Re: Long time editor's frustration with FCPX
on Apr 18, 2015 at 7:19:25 pm
Last Edited By James Ewart on Apr 19, 2015 at 10:17:02 am

On second thoughts ..forget it.



Return to posts index

Robin S. Kurz
Re: Long time editor's frustration with FCPX
on Apr 19, 2015 at 4:14:45 pm

[James Ewart] "Your experience of teaching students is hardly representative of an industry but you seem to stake some claim to authority."

Aside from never having even suggested that nor did I speak of "of an entire industry", when you have taught several hundred people, then I'd say you, too, may consider yourself an "authority" as far as NEW LEARNERS are concerned, yes. The actual topic. I was merely sharing my personal and what I think to be comparatively extensive experience. No idea how that could qualify as "disrespectful" to anyone by any stretch, sorry. Rather ad hominem imho.

And that's completely aside from the fact that I'm far from the first or only person to make that statement or observation. I know e.g. Scott feels the same way and I'm fairly sure Bill has reported similar experiences. I don't recall you questioning their motivation. Hmmm...

An easy 30+% of my students are highly experienced editors btw. As I already alluded to, but you appear to have missed. Many switchers, "curious veterans" and a fair amount of newbies, yes.

I also have no idea what could possibly be so "confusing" about the simple terms Library, Event and Project, sorry. Unless you can tell me of another NLE that uses the exact same type of hierarchy/organization and has some other established, industry-wide nomenclature for it. And if Project is too confusing for you, simply call it TIMELINE like I do... and you apparently already do also. So? "Library" and "Event" are THAT obscure to you? What are you going to call them? Project and Bin? Sorry, but they're not. They are FAR more complex than that, which is why THAT would in fact be completely false and misleading. Oh the irony. A new paradigm requires new terminology. If everything were in fact the same, then you could stick with what you had... but it's not.

I simply find the notion that the three words somehow pose some sort of actual, perceptual hurdle as far as learning FCP X. A very slippery slope and a true fallacy of false cause imho, that's all. If that's your biggest issue (i.e. big enough to actually waste any time on pondering) with X, then I'd say you're in pretty good shape! :D

- RK

____________________________________________________
Deutsch? Hier gibt es ein umfassendes FCP X Training für dich!


Return to posts index

Dave Stoelk
Re: Long time editor's frustration with FCPX
on Apr 18, 2015 at 1:53:47 am
Last Edited By Dave Stoelk on Apr 18, 2015 at 3:46:39 am

Look. Here's the deal. Apple saw the writing on the wall and went down this path--FCPX.

FIRST: Did Apple botch the initial launch of FCPX? Yep. Did apple release the first version of FCPX (leap frogging FCP8 / 9) too soon, without fully developing the software? Yep. Did they alienate some "pro" editors? Yeah. Sure.

But, we're here.

SECOND: Yes, there's a "Fisher Price" aspect to the software and a healthy patina of "pro-sumerism" in the interface. Why?

Well, Apple realized there are only, what, MAYBE, 20-thousand "professional editors" on this planet? That is to say, MAYBE there are 20 thousand people who make their entire living cutting on NLE's?

Avid could sell "big iron" software to that small population and pull a profit. And, Apple did the same thing with FCP 1 thru 7--selling to "pros." Same with Premiere.

BUT... Apple, as I said, saw the writing on the wall. This social media revolution took off. Instead of a few 10 thousand "professionals," there are MILLIONS of people (mainly young folk) who would like to edit stuff for YouTube and the like. So, Apple made an NLE (admittedly based on iMovie) to cater to this crowd. And they only charge $300, instead of several thousand.

The interface is a bit "fruity," and it uses terminology that the aforementioned "pros" would never use. But, it just doesn't matter. It works. And, Apple is laughing all the way to the bank.

I've worked in broadcasting for years. Our audience dwindled. Suddenly, I look up and see KIDS getting millions of "hits" on social media and YouTube. And, the NLE of choice is... guess what? FCPX.

There's this young woman named "Miranda Sings." (Look her up.) She's a MILLIONAIRE! She posts simple YouTube videos and young tweens flock to her media. And, advertisers took notice, and began paying Ms. Sings big bucks. (The same bucks that used to be paid to us broadcasters.)

Why did I go off on this Miranda Sings tangent? Well, guess which software she uses? Yep. The "Fisher Price" model.

And... there are many more editors--100's of thousands--behind her doing the same thing. Now... Are these people "amateurs?" Hmmm... I dunno. When your bank account has seven figures on the bottom line, I'd say that makes you a "professional."

In short, Apple made an NLE for the masses. And... if you look under the hood, it has some powerful tools for the "old pro's."

Me? Well, I billed several hundred thousand dollars last year using FCPX--as a part time gig! I edit in my den! Many of my clients are Fortune 500 companies. They accepted by work as it came off FCPX. (Granted, I didn't have to share within my work flow.)

(By the way, I trained on Avid back in 1998. And I came proficient on FCP7. And, then... I stumbled upon "X.")

I'm tired of being an FCPX apologist. I think the interface is elegant. Simple. Intuitive. And it bravely broke away from "analog conventions" that were impressed upon early NLE's--like "tracks" and "dual viewers."

Maybe I'm just an "amateur." I'm comfortable with that title.


Return to posts index

Andy Neil
Re: Long time editor's frustration with FCPX
on Apr 18, 2015 at 4:16:57 am

[David Berez] "FCPX is like sheathing a RED EPIC in Fisher Price plastic."

[Dave Stoelk] "SECOND: Yes, there's a "Fisher Price" aspect to the software and a healthy patina of "pro-sumerism" in the interface. Why?
"


I really can't understand this complaint. There's nothing Fisher Price about FCPX. It's uncluttered, but that's not un-pro. It's icons are fine. Oh, there's a key icon. How cheesy. Do you realize that the icon on the Avid for Lift is a stick figure muscle man holding a barbell? How is that more professional?

FCPX is different. A lot different looking than Avid or Premiere, but just as professional.

Andy

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


Return to posts index

Bill Davis
Re: Long time editor's frustration with FCPX
on Apr 18, 2015 at 4:17:56 am

David,

Then honestly, you just shouldn't use X.

Premier is a great version of FCP 8 - with plenty to like.

And honestly, if you're willing to trade the efficiency and extra productivity for some vague "appearance to others of professionalism" then I doubt X will ever be the tool for you.

For me, getting done with my work significantly faster is ALL I care about. I'd rather put myself to sleep with a good novel than spend any more all nighters just because want someone else to think something about the tools i use to edit.

But to each their own.

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


Return to posts index

Scott Witthaus
Re: Long time editor's frustration with FCPX
on Apr 18, 2015 at 1:05:09 pm

[Bill Davis] "And honestly, if you're willing to trade the efficiency and extra productivity for some vague "appearance to others of professionalism" then I doubt X will ever be the tool for you.
"


So true. Who cares what it looks like? My clients hire me for the finished product, not how it gets there. They trust me for taking care of their project, workflow and budget, and when I said I was ditching Avid, they were cool. When I said I was ditching FCP7, they were cool. They just care about their product and the process and price getting there. For me, X is the best tool for the my clients based on my judgement, not theirs.

This "Fischer Price" argument is ridiculous. If you are worried about the look more than the process and final product, there is a problem. You should be editing on a Q-Box, Smoke or Flame (DS, if you can find one). They looks WAY more complicated, therefore better, right?

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


Return to posts index

David Berez
Re: Long time editor's frustration with FCPX
on Apr 18, 2015 at 4:37:36 pm

Folks

Sorry to have offended anyone. (amazing how often every thread devolves into that phrase) I've been on FCPX from the beginning. I'm certainly not taking potshots from the sideline.

Here's the gist of what I was saying. Despite FCPX being a singularly powerful and paradigm busting editing platform, there is something highly irritating (TO ME) about the FCP interface, from the nomenclature to the look and feel. And that's despite the best scopes, metadata and multicam among competitors. That's my impression after a couple of years of nearly non stop use. It's difficult to explain exactly what it is . . but for a company (Apple) that is so utterly attuned to how software and hardware makes you "feel" there is something off the mark in its interface for this professional editor. FWIW, Resolve, especially in the grading app gives me exactly the opposite impression. It's delight to discover more and more potential the deeper you dig.

In a world . . . (trailer music please) where the editing profession has become significantly devalued . . . FCPX reinforces the feeling that "editing" is less a craft and more of a commodity.

That's it. Apologies for using the inflammatory "Fisher Price" metaphor.

David.



Return to posts index

Mark Dobson
Re: Long time editor's frustration with FCPX
on Apr 18, 2015 at 6:49:48 pm

[David Berez] "That's it. Apologies for using the inflammatory "Fisher Price" metaphor."

Yes, that was what did it!

Seriously though you are not alone in your reaction to the 'look' of the interface which whilst there have been a few cosmetic changes has not altered since FCPX launched all those years ago. My initial reaction was not good ( yes it did look like an expanded version of iMovie ) but like you I've learnt to really appreciate this NLE app.

Just re-read some of the 'vintage' comments on this forum.

[David Berez] "And its not about its capabilities . . not at all. Some elements of the software are just so damn elegant. I'm almost an FCPX evangelist, the way Apple has reimagined the timeline after all these years is groundbreaking but I am so ready to leave because of the crappy, two bit interface. I drool with envy when looking at Resolve 12 and I hope it lives up to its hype. I need my dignity back."

. . . . And who doesn't appreciate a nice bit of irony


Return to posts index

Bill Davis
Re: Long time editor's frustration with FCPX
on Apr 18, 2015 at 9:49:34 pm

[David Berez] "In a world . . . (trailer music please) where the editing profession has become significantly devalued . . . FCPX reinforces the feeling that "editing" is less a craft and more of a commodity.
"


So essentially, this is a plea to keep the barriers to creative tool access artificially high so as to restrain competition amongst the existing priesthood?

Good luck with that.

That Jeff Goldblum line in the original Jurassic Park about "life finding a way" comes to mind. Creativity finds a way too.

I was just cutting down the FCPWorks session by the young guys who are in post on the 6k Indy feature "Suburban Cowboy" and one of the two Co-directors, Dragon, is a highly sought after and well known EDM DJ. He's all about sound and LOGIC. But he also wanted to explore filmmaking. So X allows him to do just that. And from what I saw, pretty darn well.

THIS is our competition now. Not somebody in a room where you bring your outside world expertise and have to exclusively rely on a priest in the special chair to allow you access to the tools of the trade (In 1/4 hour increments) but young guys who've happily learned to speak metadata and looks as their native language - even tho they skipped over sync pops and OMF because those are largely irrelevant to them - What isn't is their understanding how to get greenlit because they have their fingers on the pulse of interesting content.

It's been inevitable that after a decade of the tools percolating down, the 30 somethings of today just don't see the industry the way we did 30 years ago.

And my 2 cents worth is that over the course of history, "protectionism" is just about the WORST way to keep any industry from evolving. And everything stripped away - while I seriously doubt that's at all what you're thinking about, David, it's kinda the inevitable result of what's being argued for here.

Keep it complex. Because that will keep the riff raff out. Except that it won't.

It never has. And often the "riff raff" are exactly the guys who drive past the existing goalposts.

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

David Berez
Re: Long time editor's frustration with FCPX
on Apr 19, 2015 at 4:08:50 pm

Oh for goodness sakes Bill,

I'm remembering why I never post on the Cow anymore. Every post is an opportunity for the same twelve cranks to whip the same dead horse. How many posts are you going to make restating the same old trope . . "old editors don't get it, we're stuck in amber . . we don't want to learn anything new and that YOU, BILL DAVIS are the apothesis of the new age, fluid, open, flexible, inviting to new young guns . . really, enough, get over yourself. No one is suggesting that we need to keep the riff faff out. That door was opened long ago. (that was a joke)

I work in FCPX everyday. It has reimagined the timeline interface which many of us honestly thought wasn't possible. It's cool and a breakthrough and all that. But, for this old dog . . there is something off-putting about the user experience. No one can argue the designers intentionally buried elements that professional editors need (source TC anyone) to make it more inviting. . I don't need my editing interface to be exceedingly simple to make the lowest common denominator feel welcome. . . . I just need it to fast, stable and powerful . . . which thankfully it is. That's why I continue to use it.



Return to posts index

Robin S. Kurz
Re: Long time editor's frustration with FCPX
on Apr 19, 2015 at 4:20:52 pm

[David Berez] ". . we don't want to learn anything new and that YOU, BILL DAVIS are the apothesis of the new age, fluid, open, flexible, inviting to new young guns"


Erm... in comparison? Yeah, I'd say so. I'd also say he pretty much hit the nail on the head. Some people just can't take the mirror when it's held up.


[David Berez] "I don't need my editing interface to be exceedingly simple to make the lowest common denominator feel welcome."


Oh right. It's not an elitist thing. Gotcha. :)


[David Berez] "I just need it to fast, stable and powerful . . . which thankfully it is."


Huh? Now I'm confused.

- RK


Return to posts index

Bill Davis
Re: Long time editor's frustration with FCPX
on Apr 19, 2015 at 5:01:51 pm

Look David, you stepped up to the public podium to offer a view. Largely that the main problem with X is that it looks and operates too simply to be taken seriously. If you didn't expect pushback on that you don't know this forum very well. I get that having said that you immediately made sure to praise all the things about X that make the "too simple" observation moot, but some of us know that lots and lots of people come through here and leave with nothing but their per-conceived "talking points" reinforced. I really don't want to spend the next few years talking about X in professional circles and having to waste time explaining why it's not "too simple" for pro work. And left unaddressed, I've seen comments such as yours take on a life of their own. The truth is that making complex things appear simple is brutally hard. The years I wrote my magazine column over my desk hung a snippet paraphrasing Blaise Pascal's brilliant observation "I would have written you a shorter letter, if I had more time"
I think that's the idea worth advancing. Not yours. I totally understand the perception that caused you to post the original argument - and your perception is, of course valid. But I also think it's shortsighted. 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

Mark Dobson
Re: Long time editor's frustration with FCPX
on Apr 19, 2015 at 5:29:51 pm

[Bill Davis] "I really don't want to spend the next few years talking about X in professional circles and having to waste time explaining why it's not "too simple" for pro work. And left unaddressed, I've seen comments such as yours take on a life of their own. The truth is that making complex things appear simple is brutally hard. The years I wrote my magazine column over my desk hung a snippet paraphrasing Blaise Pascal's brilliant observation "I would have written you a shorter letter, if I had more time""

Chill Bill

The guys just expressing his opinion and really doesn't need to have FCPXatic diktats shoved at him.

At it's best this forum, as demonstrated in most of the responses to this post is a great place to kick ideas around and discuss.

[Bill Davis] "I think that's the idea worth advancing. Not yours. "

And I don't think people respond well to being told to sit in the corner with a dunce cap on.


Return to posts index

Andrew Kimery
Re: Long time editor's frustration with FCPX
on Apr 18, 2015 at 10:31:44 pm

[David Berez] "It's difficult to explain exactly what it is . . but for a company (Apple) that is so utterly attuned to how software and hardware makes you "feel" there is something off the mark in its interface for this professional editor. "

It's not about how the user wants to feel though, it's about how Apple wants the user to feel. X is Apple's vision of a professional-grade NLE just as the nMP is Apple's vision of a professional-grade tower. Generally speaking, Apple doesn't go to users, users go to Apple (and obviously this has worked out well for them).

I didn't totally understand Apple's philosophy until I read the Jobs' biography. To Jobs, Apple's products, on a basic level, are no different than a finished book, song or piece of art. The end user gets to appreciate it, not modify it. Since the days of the Apple 1 Jobs hated giving users the option to mess with what he perceived as his art, his vision. He wanted to release computing appliances that people used, but didn't muck around with. He always had to make concessions though given the reality of the marketplace (and technology). His first true taste of a computing appliance was with the iPhone but, it's also echoed in the iMac, the nMP and, especially, the new MacBook.


Return to posts index

Oliver Peters
Re: Long time editor's frustration with FCPX
on Apr 18, 2015 at 11:07:57 pm

[Andrew Kimery] "To Jobs, Apple's products, on a basic level, are no different than a finished book, song or piece of art. The end user gets to appreciate it, not modify it. Since the days of the Apple 1 Jobs hated giving users the option to mess with what he perceived as his art, his vision. He wanted to release computing appliances that people used, but didn't muck around with."

That was the inherent philosophical difference between Jobs and Wozniak.

- Oliver

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


Return to posts index

Erik Lindahl
Re: Long time editor's frustration with FCPX
on Apr 18, 2015 at 11:35:15 pm

Not to be harsh but the AVID GUI looked like complete garbage last time I checked. They don't even have anti-aliased fonts for crying out loud. I don't know if garbage looking GUI = professional (even if it often has in the past).


Return to posts index

Nick Papadopoulos
Re: Long time editor's frustration with FCPX
on Apr 20, 2015 at 9:20:53 am
Last Edited By Nick Papadopoulos on Apr 20, 2015 at 9:29:05 am

If by professional you mean busy and complicated then you are lucky because there are so many options for professionals now with resolve, avid and premiere. One finds it child-like, another feels its spot on and clean cut. I don't understand why frustrate over this?

For me all I need is up front and everything I don't is tucked away. Sure it's not a perfect tool, but it fits my mentality and aesthetic. As for the naming conventions, why would one be happy when Apple changed the whole concept of editing but that same one is frustrated when it renamed certain functions and objects to better fit the purpose?

Rethinking an interface should start from the bottom up and naming (re-naming) UI and functional elements are no exception.

Also, if one feels debased as a professional editor, just because the shadows of a UI or rounded corners are not to his liking and that redesign might make a tool accessible to more people perhaps it is something that should get him or her thinking. It's a tool. Telling a nice story is not something "everyone" can do, not matter the tool they use.


Return to posts index

Jason Porthouse
Re: Long time editor's frustration with FCPX
on May 15, 2015 at 5:23:59 pm

One of the things I've noticed in using Avid on a job recently is just how much time and head space is taken up doing all the little things that X does for you - patching audio, selecting clips (i.e not being able to skim) and the like - it really is much slower for my style of editing.

Then I use X and rail against the niggles that mar an otherwise brilliant editing package - the way the screen layout changes with opening and closing scopes etc. I get why, it's just frustrating as it seems to work agains muscle memory in the way a fixed UI doesn't. Ditto with Apples interesting take on centering when zooming in and out (and the scale of the zoom which is way too severe IMHO) - all little things which should be resolved but seem to be forgotten or unimportant. But those are minor things really - the pea under the mattress. I do find more and more that Avid feels like a cumbersome old thing compared with X. I'm cutting a doc next month where X would be perfect - but theres no chance the client will go for using it, they're too wedded to Avid. Such is the freelance life.

_________________________________

Before you criticise a man, walk a mile in his shoes.
Then when you do criticise him, you'll be a mile away. And have his shoes.



Return to posts index

Mike Warmels
Re: Long time editor's frustration with FCPX
on Jun 2, 2015 at 11:24:29 am

Ha, interesting. I am happy if I can do AVID again.

I find AVID much faster and sleeker than FCPX on hardcore editing and cutting, shaping and reworking: you can see everything at one glance. The timeline centers on your playhead the moment you stop, you know where you are. In-Points in your timeline make you go back to where you were instantly, audio work is much directer and faster and present ON your timeline (no opening up and closing audio), you can customise your window layout depending on what kind of work you do (color, audio, editing) with one key stroke and most of all: I think the AVID mediamanagement system is much, much better: it always runs smoothly, while FCPX is doing all these things in the background and gets very slow after 1,5-2 hours of editing. Especially if you have several layers of video/graphics/titels etc...

FCPX is an adolescent in the NLE: frivolous, fun, elegant sometimes, but also erratic and undeveloped.

But it's a different time. I've recently worked with several FCPX editors who hated FCP7 and love FCPX. But they never ever editing in a three-point editing system. It's hard comparing then. I used FCP7 in an AVID like set-up and it could work faster on it than on FCPX.


Return to posts index

Oliver Peters
Re: Long time editor's frustration with FCPX
on Jun 2, 2015 at 1:14:54 pm

"So is an empty timeline with no content a project or still a timeline?"

The empty timeline window is just that - a timeline window or pane of the UI. In X, the content within that pane is the project.

- Oliver

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


Return to posts index

James Ewart
Re: Long time editor's frustration with FCPX
on Jun 2, 2015 at 4:56:08 pm

[Oliver Peters] "The empty timeline window is just that - a timeline window or pane of the UI. In X, the content within that pane is the project."

So to ask you the same question I asked Jeremy. What is a project over and above being a Timeline?


Return to posts index

Oliver Peters
Re: Long time editor's frustration with FCPX
on Jun 2, 2015 at 1:24:28 pm

[Mike Warmels] "I find AVID much faster and sleeker than FCPX on hardcore editing and cutting, shaping and reworking..."

One of the things that gets overlooked in these speed arguments is the design of user interaction with keystrokes. Part of what people like about MC is that when you perform a function or engage a keystroke, the place where you are left for the next action is a more functional point than with other NLEs.

An oft-sited example is the number entry. If you enter a number value and hit enter, that value is stored so that when you hit enter again, it applies the same value until a different entry is made. Let's say that you mark an in point and then type in +2:00 and Enter to advance 2 seconds. Then mark out. Make the edit. Now move farther down on the sequence and mark-in. Simply hit Enter and it automatically advances +2:00 from the point. Just one little example of the value of 25+ years of accumulated user input and product development.

- Oliver

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


Return to posts index

James Ewart
Re: Long time editor's frustration with FCPX
on Jun 2, 2015 at 4:59:23 pm

[Oliver Peters] "Just one little example of the value of 25+ years of accumulated user input and product development."

Would the playhead being in the middle of the timeline be too difficult a thing to do for Apple instead of constantly having to use the hand tool? (I'm sure there's a shortcut somebody's going to tell me I don't know about here). Having the playhead disappear out of the Timeline "window" is annoying too isn't it.


Return to posts index

Robin S. Kurz
Re: Long time editor's frustration with FCPX
on Jun 2, 2015 at 5:06:08 pm
Last Edited By Robin S. Kurz on Jun 2, 2015 at 5:07:11 pm

[James Ewart] "Would the playhead being in the middle of the timeline be too difficult a thing to do for Apple"

So how many times have you been here about that?

http://www.apple.com/feedback/finalcutpro.html

And btw: it DOES in fact center in the timeline, if the playhead leaves the window and is stopped. If it did even when it didn't leave the window, I personally would find that highly annoying.

- RK

____________________________________________________
Deutsch? Hier gibt es ein umfassendes FCP X Training für dich!


Return to posts index

James Ewart
Re: Long time editor's frustration with FCPX
on Jun 2, 2015 at 5:22:55 pm

[Robin S. Kurz] "So how many times have you been here about that?"

At a guess I would day I have left feedback on that particular matter about ten times over the years.


Return to posts index

Robin S. Kurz
Re: Long time editor's frustration with FCPX
on Jun 2, 2015 at 5:42:50 pm
Last Edited By Robin S. Kurz on Jun 2, 2015 at 5:46:07 pm

[James Ewart] "about ten times over the years."

Interesting.

Oddly, if I'm playing a video, then I'm actually looking at the canvas not the timeline, so I couldn't actually care less about what the playhead is doing during that time. Only when I stop it and look back at the timeline. In which case, as I pointed out, it centers as needed. Assuming it left the window. And even if I for some reason need to scroll left or right or change the zoom-level during playback (all of which I can do while playing because it doesn't scroll while playing), then I can, seeing that I have a Magic Mouse and/or (Magic) Trackpad and it's not constantly trying to recenter i.e. auto-scroll.

I other words: I personally have no clue what all the fuss (or as some have said: pointless niggle) is about, other than for the sake of (IMO) useless eye-candy.

So maybe that's Apple's exact reasoning behind why they don't auto-scroll? It would certainly would make perfect sense to people like me (and keep them happy at the same time). So maybe we're the (apparently quiet) majority?

- RK

____________________________________________________
Deutsch? Hier gibt es ein umfassendes FCP X Training für dich!


Return to posts index

James Ewart
Re: Long time editor's frustration with FCPX
on Jun 2, 2015 at 7:14:15 pm

[Robin S. Kurz] "I other words: I personally have no clue what all the fuss (or as some have said: pointless niggle) is about, other than for the sake of (IMO) useless eye-candy."

If you don't get it then all good for you.


Return to posts index

Robin S. Kurz
Re: Long time editor's frustration with FCPX
on Jun 3, 2015 at 10:06:41 am

[James Ewart] "If you don't get it then all good for you."

Feel free to explain which benefit I would have then.

- RK

____________________________________________________
Deutsch? Hier gibt es ein umfassendes FCP X Training für dich!


Return to posts index

James Ewart
Re: Long time editor's frustration with FCPX
on Jun 3, 2015 at 4:44:18 pm

[Robin S. Kurz] "Feel free to explain which benefit I would have then."

I can't because it's not something you feel you need. I like to be able to see what's going on in the timeline as I am viewing and make mental notes or written notes as it's playing through with a client when I don't want to stop. I find it weird not being able to see what's happening in the timeline in sync with what I am viewing. Personal preference. The way I like to work.
Most NLEs have a scrolling timeline. Lots of people find it useful including me.


Return to posts index

Robin S. Kurz
Re: Long time editor's frustration with FCPX
on Jun 3, 2015 at 5:16:31 pm
Last Edited By Robin S. Kurz on Jun 3, 2015 at 5:31:01 pm

[James Ewart] "I like to be able to see what's going on in the timeline as I am viewing and make mental notes or written notes as it's playing through with a client…"

Surely by TIMECODE, no? Something you can of course see at all times. Otherwise simply ⇧Z before (or even after) you play, use the scrolling (as described before), hit ⌘+ or ⌘- during playback... there are already many ways to get what you're looking for, albeit be it "manually". It's not FCP 7 where any and everything you do during playback stops playback. Nor is it e.g. Logic Pro that has far less overhead to deal with.

Certainly solutions that I far prefer over potential dropped-frames due to GPU/CPU cycles needed for redrawing (unneeded) timeline elements. It's certainly far easier for an Avid (or the aforementioned Logic) for example, considering it offers only a fragment of the visual information in the timeline as FCP does.

- RK


Return to posts index

James Ewart
Re: Long time editor's frustration with FCPX
on Jun 3, 2015 at 6:18:45 pm
Last Edited By James Ewart on Jun 12, 2015 at 2:16:23 am

[Robin S. Kurz] "Surely by TIMECODE, no? "

You argue and pick for the sake of it.

I like to see the timeline as the plays in sync.

You don't. That's okay. But I do.

You are a perpetual antagonist on this thread Robin.



Return to posts index

Robin S. Kurz
Re: Long time editor's frustration with FCPX
on Jun 3, 2015 at 6:25:59 pm

[James Ewart] "You are a perpetual antagonist on this thread Robin."

:-D Sure James. Fortunately it's of course not because you don't like the uncomfortable questions (that you are unable to answer like an actual adult). What you need is an echo-chamber. I get it. Off you go then.


Return to posts index

Neil Goodman
Re: Long time editor's frustration with FCPX
on Jun 4, 2015 at 3:43:31 am
Last Edited By Neil Goodman on Jun 4, 2015 at 3:45:00 am

[Robin S. Kurz] "Surely by TIMECODE, no? Something you can of course see at all times. Otherwise simply ⇧Z before (or even after) you play, use the scrolling (as described before), hit ⌘+ or ⌘- during playback... there are already many ways to get what you're looking for, albeit be it "manually". It's not FCP 7 where any and everything you do during playback stops playback. Nor is it e.g. Logic Pro that has far less overhead to deal with.

Certainly solutions that I far prefer over potential dropped-frames due to GPU/CPU cycles needed for redrawing (unneeded) timeline elements. It's certainly far easier for an Avid (or the aforementioned Logic) for example, considering it offers only a fragment of the visual information in the timeline as FCP does.
"


Wholy crap - are you serious with this? Ae you trying to troll?

every other NLE since pretty much the beginning has had a scrolling timeline, or if not smooth scrolling one that at least keeps up.

FCPX doesnt for whatever reason. James wishes it would because its something that over the years and years of using NLE's prior to FCPX, you grow accustomed to if its the way you fancy to work. Simple as that.

He likes it, you dont, you sound as if you wish they wont add features to FCPX that you dont think are necessary just because you dont need it. Sure you can use timecode, but why? sure you could zoom out, but why if is not your preference to? Its something simple that can definitely be implemented so why not?

Why argue against it?


Return to posts index

Robin S. Kurz
Re: Long time editor's frustration with FCPX
on Jun 4, 2015 at 8:38:02 am

[Neil Goodman] "Wholy crap - are you serious with this? Ae you trying to troll? "

Gee. At least I'm glad that I get the WHOL [sic] crap. And yes I am. And yes, you clearly are.


Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: Long time editor's frustration with FCPX
on Jun 3, 2015 at 5:31:56 pm

[James Ewart] "Most NLEs have a scrolling timeline. Lots of people find it useful including me."

Why not just shift-z before you play? I do this routinely, it's an old habit left over from the legend of fcp7 And then when you stop, hold z and drag a window to zoom in on the particular part of the timeline you need to work on? Also, FCPX allows a lot more real time interaction with the timeline than fcp7 ever did. You can zoom in and out without having to worry about losing playback. FCP7 would choke most of the time you would try and adjust anything right in the timeline.


Return to posts index

James Ewart
Re: Long time editor's frustration with FCPX
on Jun 3, 2015 at 6:09:37 pm

[Jeremy Garchow] "Why not just shift-z before you play? "

Don't like it ...too zoomed out.


Return to posts index

Robin S. Kurz
Re: Long time editor's frustration with FCPX
on Jun 3, 2015 at 6:14:56 pm

[James Ewart] "Don't like it ...too zoomed out."

Then you'll clearly want to ignore the various other options, yes.

____________________________________________________
Deutsch? Hier gibt es ein umfassendes FCP X Training für dich!


Return to posts index

Steve Connor
Re: Long time editor's frustration with FCPX
on Jun 3, 2015 at 6:15:54 pm

[James Ewart] "Most NLEs have a scrolling timeline. Lots of people find it useful including me."

Perhaps now Apple seem to have improved the redraw of icons and waveforms, we might see a scrolling timeline appear in a future update?


Return to posts index

Mike Warmels
Re: Long time editor's frustration with FCPX
on Jun 3, 2015 at 7:19:07 am

I doesn't have to scroll... it just has to center when you stop. Because when you're watching you canvas when you go over a sequence and you see something you don't like, you hit the spacebar. In AVID the playhead centers at the point you stopped, at the spot where you want to make changes.

In FCPX you have to switch to HAND TOOL and find where your playhead has gone. It certainly doesn't center for me. So I either have to zoom out a lot and zoom in again (usually ending up with the playhead somewhere far left or far right in the timeline). Pressing buttons... a lot.

Is it so strange to want your playhead in the centre when you stop playback? AVID does it, Premier does it, FCP7 did it... When I start changing things I'd like to see what clips are before and after the spot I want to change.

I would prefer to use the sideways functions of my scroll mouse, but moving left to right is extremely slow using the left-right function of the scroll wheel compared to the hand tool... (why? I don't know).


Return to posts index

Steve Connor
Re: Long time editor's frustration with FCPX
on Jun 3, 2015 at 8:00:38 am

[Mike Warmels] "Is it so strange to want your playhead in the centre when you stop playback? AVID does it, Premier does it, FCP7 did it... When I start changing things I'd like to see what clips are before and after the spot I want to change.
"


Not quite sure what happens on your system but when I stop playback in FCPX it centres at the point I've stopped


Return to posts index

Mike Warmels
Re: Long time editor's frustration with FCPX
on Jun 3, 2015 at 2:18:51 pm

Well, it simply doesn't. When I stop, it usually ends up all the way left in the timeline.


Return to posts index

Craig Alan
Re: Long time editor's frustration with FCPX
on Jun 8, 2015 at 3:02:33 pm

try fcp>preferences>editing>timeline>check the options you want

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


Return to posts index

Robin S. Kurz
Re: Long time editor's frustration with FCPX
on Jun 3, 2015 at 10:11:19 am
Last Edited By Robin S. Kurz on Jun 3, 2015 at 11:24:31 am

[Mike Warmels] "I doesn't have to scroll... it just has to center when you stop."

It does. If it isn't for you, then you are simply using an age old version... which would explain a lot of other things, too.


[Mike Warmels] "In FCPX you have to switch to HAND TOOL and find where your playhead has gone."

Huh?? Even in the first versions it would stop and position the playhead on the left of the timeline if it left the window on playback, nowhere else. And even then you certainly don't need THE HAND TOOL for scrolling. That's what the Magic Mouse is for or even SHIFT and the scroll-wheel of whatever mouse you have. If its too slow, set it in the prefs as needed.

- RK

____________________________________________________
Deutsch? Hier gibt es ein umfassendes FCP X Training für dich!


Return to posts index

Mike Warmels
Re: Long time editor's frustration with FCPX
on Jun 3, 2015 at 2:20:26 pm

I don't have or like the magic mouse. But my playhead ends up at the left. And after zooming out and in again, it usually ends up in the far right. It's FCPX10.1.4... not really age old I would say.


Return to posts index

Robin S. Kurz
Re: Long time editor's frustration with FCPX
on Jun 3, 2015 at 2:43:06 pm

[Mike Warmels] "I don't have or like the magic mouse."

But you have a mouse with scroll-wheel and a shift-key, no?


[Mike Warmels] "It's FCPX10.1.4..."

So I was right. It's not the most current version. Fact is, it stops in the middle with the current version. I see little point in arguing over past versions. Unless you want to complain about FCP not having multiple scopes and freeform masks, too. Or even no RED support or paste attributes because you're using v10.0.5.

- RK

____________________________________________________
Deutsch? Hier gibt es ein umfassendes FCP X Training für dich!


Return to posts index

Mike Warmels
Re: Long time editor's frustration with FCPX
on Jun 3, 2015 at 2:50:21 pm

Well, three weeks ago it was the current version.

I can't upgrade unfortunately because I have large customer who uses 10.1.4. And since they work on SAN, and that doesn't work with Yosemite yet, upgrade causes problems. Because Apple if so professional that the FCP versions are not downward compatible... smooth.


Return to posts index

Robin S. Kurz
Re: Long time editor's frustration with FCPX
on Jun 3, 2015 at 3:10:58 pm

[Mike Warmels] "versions are not downward compatible... smooth."

Right. They're completely alone as far as that's concerned, right? Complete lone wolf.

And sorry: wrong again. You could easily just export an XML v1.4 for another system on FCP <10.2.x. Oh well.

But then that has no bearing on my original point either.

- RK

____________________________________________________
Deutsch? Hier gibt es ein umfassendes FCP X Training für dich!


Return to posts index

Mike Warmels
Re: Long time editor's frustration with FCPX
on Jun 3, 2015 at 3:12:12 pm

Which was?


Return to posts index

Robin S. Kurz
Re: Long time editor's frustration with FCPX
on Jun 3, 2015 at 3:19:21 pm

I'm sure you can figure it out.

(Spoiler: it has to do with you arguing from the past i.e. based on obsolete information and/or lack thereof)


Return to posts index

Mike Warmels
Re: Long time editor's frustration with FCPX
on Jun 4, 2015 at 3:05:24 pm

I wonder though: do you guys immediately update/upgrade when something comes out.

Most people I know, me included, wait a while. AJA and Black Magic drivers can suddenly not be functioning again (I've had that so I had to wait for an update), SAN systems may not naturally work with the set-up one has (like a SAN system still working on Mavericks).

To say things I run into with 10.1.4 are old and obsolete, if find tad weird... 10.2 has only been out for six weeks and has had its first update. I never update immediately... my entire system needs to work and updates for other equipment or drivers can only begin to be developed at the moment of release.


Return to posts index

Andy Neil
Re: Long time editor's frustration with FCPX
on Jun 4, 2015 at 4:34:35 pm

[Mike Warmels] "I wonder though: do you guys immediately update/upgrade when something comes out. "

I have FCPX on two systems. My Mac Pro tower (which contains my Avid and Adobe CC as well), and my laptop, which just has FCPX.

After a release, I typically wait to hear from the early adopters for any up front issues. But I'll update the laptop within a couple days to run my own tests on it. I won't update the tower until I have a need to cut with it or until I've fully vetted the program on the laptop. Of course, I always zip and archive my previous version so if things blow up on the tower, I can revert to the older program. One of the benefits of having sandboxed programs.

I'm never in a hurry to upgrade, unless I have need for a new feature in a release. Best to see what bugs pop up and let Apple address them before jumping in.

Andy

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


Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: Long time editor's frustration with FCPX
on Jun 4, 2015 at 5:13:52 pm

[Mike Warmels] "I wonder though: do you guys immediately update/upgrade when something comes out. "

I don't, especially OS upgrades.

I am not looking forward to the once a year OS updates from Apple.


Return to posts index

Mike Warmels
Re: Long time editor's frustration with FCPX
on Jun 4, 2015 at 6:36:17 pm

Me neither... I still haven't updated to the last Yosemite update...not all my software is supported yet...

So the same with FCPX 10.2... Just a little longer.


Return to posts index

Kevin Ryan
Re: Long time editor's frustration with FCPX
on Sep 23, 2015 at 7:28:50 pm

I stumbled onto this thread while searching for others complaining about a certain feature of FCPX. I know my particular question/complaint will be nothing new, and there may be dozens of threads about this on here, so I apologize in advance if that's so.

Is there ANY way to move the Inspector tab/window to a second monitor? Or at least to make it so that my Inspector window opens to the full height of my monitor, without reducing my timeline and effects windows to tiny slivers at the bottom of my screen? It is infuriating to have to continually scroll to the very bottom of the Inspector to access the Compositing/Opacity controls. Or any other controls for that matter as I begi to add effects.

Likewise, it is annoying to have to continually click between the video and audio controls. I'd just like to have them both open and parked on another monitor, with all controls constantly accessible.

I actually love FCPX, having spent years happily working with FCP7. I fully endorse the magnetic timeline and many of the other features. But the lack of control over the layout is absolutely dumbfounding. I have to engage in a ridiculous amount of mouse-clicking and mouse-movement that is completely unnecessary and which slows me down. I can't be the only one.

I understand the designer's intentions, making it "simple" and uncluttered. However, there should be an option (buried deeply within the preferences if need be) that would allow for undocking and customization of the control windows.

Have Apple ever released an official explanation/defense regarding this?


Return to posts index

Andy Neil
Re: Long time editor's frustration with FCPX
on Sep 23, 2015 at 9:22:21 pm

There are currently very limited options for the UI layout, mostly just single and double monitors. However, I might be able to help you a bit with your mouse clicking.

You can assign keyboard shortcuts to next and previous tab in the inspector. Just open up the custom keyboard controls (CMD+OPT+K). Then type "inspector" in the search bar. Find the Next/Previous tab key and assign your preferred shortcut.

The Inspector has to be active for the shortcut to work, but you can make it active with CMD+OPT+4.

Andy

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


Return to posts index

Oliver Peters
Re: Long time editor's frustration with FCPX
on Sep 23, 2015 at 9:48:16 pm

[Kevin Ryan] "But the lack of control over the layout is absolutely dumbfounding"

Generally the answers to your questions are "no". However, there are a number of ways to come up with different screen layouts.

https://digitalfilms.wordpress.com/2014/02/14/fcp-x-screen-layouts/

I run with two monitors and have now mapped the various configurations across the function keys, including those, which are already mapped to modifier keys. The layout switching is fast and let's me work in task-oriented workspaces (sort of).

- Oliver

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


Return to posts index

Thomas Frank
Re: Long time editor's frustration with FCPX
on Oct 15, 2015 at 9:05:23 pm

Its mind blowing how a experience user can't get around understand how FCPX works but someone new that never touched NLE has no issues.

Maybe it has something to with stubbornness?



Return to posts index

David Lawrence
Re: Long time editor's frustration with FCPX
on Oct 15, 2015 at 10:14:05 pm

[Thomas Frank] "ts mind blowing how a experience user can't get around understand how FCPX works but someone new that never touched NLE has no issues.

Maybe it has something to with stubbornness?"


Nope. It has nothing to do with understanding and everything to do with style, need and preference. ;)

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


Return to posts index

Andrew Kimery
Re: Long time editor's frustration with FCPX
on Oct 15, 2015 at 10:27:14 pm
Last Edited By Andrew Kimery on Oct 15, 2015 at 11:08:33 pm

[Thomas Frank] "Maybe it has something to with stubbornness?"

Growing up in the US I learned to drive on the righthand side of the road with the stick for the manual transmission in my right hand and four-way stops at intersections. When I visited England and drove a rental car I was now driving on the left hand side of the road with the stick in my left hand and roundabouts were common at intersections.

My struggles were most certainly not rooted in stubbornness because I had a strong desire not to injure, kill or maim myself or those around me. ;)



EDIT: grammar (sure there are more mistakes I missed).


Return to posts index

Tim Wilson
Re: Long time editor's frustration with FCPX
on Oct 15, 2015 at 10:29:48 pm

[Thomas Frank] "Maybe it has something to with stubbornness?"

On the contrary. I think it's only stubbornness that assumes that somebody's choice of non-X might be something other than a mental defect or personality flaw. LOL

Or that choosing non-X is somehow a statement of disrespect for X.

Or stubbornness in not acknowledging that many people use X and non-X together, productively, maybe even happily, making any personality-based dichotomies irrelevant.

Certainly in practice, it's simply not true that young and bold = X, and old and timid = non-X. Oliver has noted before that his high-school students generally gravitate toward Premiere. The student body of the USC School of Cinematic Arts is using Media Composer without their heads exploding.

As far as "intuitive," let's be clear. The most recent intuitive interface that any of us has encountered is our mother's breast. Everything after that is learned.

I believe that anecdotal evidence is real enough, but there's simply not enough anecdotal evidence to conclusively establish that X is somehow "easier" to learn.

Which suggests that we might perhaps open the discussion over whether adopting X is not bold at all, but simply the "easy" way out. LOL

Everything swings both ways, my friend.




Return to posts index

Robin S. Kurz
Re: Long time editor's frustration with FCPX
on Oct 16, 2015 at 9:54:45 am
Last Edited By Robin S. Kurz on Oct 16, 2015 at 9:56:33 am

[Tim Wilson] "I think it's only stubbornness that assumes that somebody's choice of non-X might be something other than a mental defect or personality flaw."

But then he never spoke of choice, but rather just mere understanding. Whether someone chooses to use X after in fact actually understanding the mere basics of X and actually using it is a whole other topic.

[Tim Wilson] "Oliver has noted before that his high-school students generally gravitate toward Premiere. The student body of the USC School of Cinematic Arts is using Media Composer without their heads exploding."

That of course being anecdotal. As well as my having written of my last four years of teaching X (after five+ years of teaching PPro and 7) several times also, showing the opposite i.e. what I believe Frank's real point was. My students of all ages need only days to learn to use X proficiently (especially if they are completely new to editing/NLEs), as opposed to WEEKS with others (all three A's are taught and available). And when assigned open projects, 8 out of 10 choose to do them with X. The other two will use PPro, usually because they have a PC at home and therefore PPro. To date I have yet to see a single one choose Avid. Scott having reported more or less the exact same thing from experience at his school as well btw. Go figger.

- RK

____________________________________________________
Deutsch? Hier gibt es ein umfassendes FCP X Training für dich!


Return to posts index

Craig Alan
Re: Long time editor's frustration with FCPX
on Oct 16, 2015 at 3:48:07 pm

I've taught beginners both FCP 6-7 and now X. X is a much easier initial learning curve. I have HS kids editing a rough cut in 2 minutes and then can teach the basics of audio editing in about 5. Titles and transitions in a 1 min. Now this is 1 on 1 teaching with simple demo and being around if they forget a step. Which I find is way better than a group lesson where every student is trying to follow a teacher that always assumes everyone is on the same step but as soon as someone misses a step is lost. This is a student body that for the most part has trouble with directions and attention span. That said, I found learning FCP X was easier for me only because I already had a basic understanding of what a NLE does. It's not that different in terms of what it does, just a different UI. I think for advanced editors working with many layers of media that traditional tracks are a better fit; but for modest complexity projects, it's pretty equal with X being a faster initial learning curve for new editors. My only reservation about having made this choice is that it is the exception to some standard UI components of NLEs. But I have no way to fund monthly payments Adobe and found AVID the hardest to learn and manage of the three majors.

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


Return to posts index

Robin S. Kurz
Re: Long time editor's frustration with FCPX
on Oct 16, 2015 at 5:12:43 pm

I guess that makes it 3:1 then. ;D

[Craig Alan] "I think for advanced editors working with many layers of media that traditional tracks are a better fit;"

Really? How so? I really don't see any difference as far as that's concerned. In fact, I'd say that the Clip Skimmer by itself is one component that makes multi-layer editing (e.g. a large PS file) exponentially easier and faster.

BTW, Mr. Murch himself even says:

[Walter Murch] "I think [Apple] saw not only the future future, but almost the immediate future. Which is: you are not going to graduate from high-school now without making a movie. […] And Apple's Final Cut 10 is positioned very nicely to fill that need."

And again, as a teacher of both old and new, I think he's clearly a very smart and astute man, and he doesn't even use X. People can scoff at those supposed "skateboard video" makers all they like, but from what I'm seeing, the next (and ultimately far more relevant and important) generation is very prone to go with FCP X after getting to know it. And be it just for financial reasons alone. But also because the "pros" of yesteryear had and have entirely different needs, workflows and expectations. Some of which Apple plain isn't looking to fill by default. But seeing what I get instead and what BTO options I have, if needed, I see no shame in that.

[Walter Murch] "I think, frankly, [Apple] are just not interested in babysitting professionals"

Something I also find easy to believe and is also quite understandable. IMHO meaning "pros" that are only happy if they get a pre-configured system slapped on their desk and a phone number to call if ANYTHING goes wrong or not the way they expect/want. So as not to have to deal with "unnecessary technical details or options". And no, that company isn't Apple, but for lots more $$ there are alternatives. Again, "pros" with specific (maybe even niche) needs, but certainly not professionals in general.

- RK

____________________________________________________
Deutsch? Hier gibt es ein umfassendes FCP X Training für dich!


Return to posts index

Tim Wilson
Re: Long time editor's frustration with FCPX
on Oct 16, 2015 at 6:52:07 pm
Last Edited By Tim Wilson on Oct 16, 2015 at 7:50:32 pm

[Robin S. Kurz] "That of course being anecdotal."

Of course. :-) Exactly my point. Anecdotes are of limited use, but there are a million of 'em. The idea that any one experience is "THE" experience is nonsense.

I'll go further and say that they're entirely useless for anyone besides the one telling the anecdote. That's why statements like "young people choose X" and "only old stubborn people stick with what they've been using." Absolutely, entirely false.

Unless it's true for YOU. In which case it's entirely true. But mostly, in the way that most people use such generalizations, absolutely false.


[Robin S. Kurz] "To date I have yet to see a single one choose Avid. "


Except for people who would like to work at the highest levels of Hollywood-style workflows. As has been noted MANY times here, the market share of Avid has gone UP.

Anecdotally. :-) But that was certainly the trend that was actually, verifiably counted -- ie, NOT merely anecdotally, but surveyed and counted -- by ACE, a group at the heart of those workflows.

Don't want to work in Hollywood/Pinewood? Maybe don't bother.

It is all very good to pick on Avid, but having worked with thousands, yes THOUSANDS, of Avid editors when I worked at both Boris FX and Avid itself, I can assure you that nobody is more familiar with the limitations of Media Composer, or complains more loudly about them, then full time Avid editors. If it had not been for Adobe After Effects in particular, the avid ecosystem would have collapsed many years ago

But it also doesn't change the fact that there are contexts where Avid works better than others, as indeed contexts where Premiere, and yes, X, works better.

I just find it...let's say "interesting"... that the only people who tend to say "one tool to rule them all" are X-philes. And for them, perhaps it is.

And perhaps they are skipping over a tool that could work better if they could get over their a priori objections on principle.

Rather like they suggest everyone else do.

And which, in fact, most people have done. Very few of us live in an either/or world.

Anecdotally. :-)

Note again that I was a very early advocate not just for FCPX, and ALSO for the immediate EOL for FCP 7. It was long past the point at which it needed to die, imo (not that it's dead for the many people still using it), and I am in fact a "burn the boats" kind of guy. :-) If you believe it's the future, go all in, and don't look back.

So please don't take what I said as in any way critical of FCPX or your feelings about it...which was also my point. None of these choices should be taken as a judgement on one's own self worth. :-)

I just don't think it furthers the discussion to overgeneralize to the point of demonstrable inaccuracy. Talking about what works for each of US, though -- that's the heart of the matter. The more of that, the better.


Return to posts index

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