FORUMS: list search recent posts

FCP X - food for thought

COW Forums : Apple Final Cut Pro X Debates

<< PREVIOUS   •   VIEW ALL   •   PRINT   •   NEXT >>
Oliver Peters
FCP X - food for thought
on Sep 11, 2015 at 1:41:39 am

What if Randy left because there was no more for him to do?

What if the 3D text bolt-on was the same as the FCP 7 upgrade - something to appease the masses and to look like progress?

What if FCP X is essentially "done" and there's not much more there than new window-dressing and keeping up with the OS changes?

After all, we (or at least many of us on this forum) aren't the target user for FCP X (according to the Ubilos interview).

- Oliver

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


Return to posts index

Andrew Kimery
Re: FCP X - food for thought
on Sep 11, 2015 at 1:58:33 am

[Oliver Peters] "What if FCP X is essentially "done" and there's not much more there than new window-dressing and keeping up with the OS changes?"

Are you trying to make people's heads explode? lol


Return to posts index

Oliver Peters
Re: FCP X - food for thought
on Sep 11, 2015 at 2:01:38 am

[Andrew Kimery] "Are you trying to make people's heads explode? lol"

Well.... There is the weekend coming up. ;-)

Bear in mind, I'm not saying these are necessarily bad things nor harbingers of doom. It's just that it may simply be the way it is. We might never get things like better mixing or better keyframing.

- Oliver

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


Return to posts index


David Lawrence
Re: FCP X - food for thought
on Sep 11, 2015 at 2:01:25 am

[Oliver Peters] "What if Randy left because there was no more for him to do?

What if the 3D text bolt-on was the same as the FCP 7 upgrade - something to appease the masses and to look like progress?

What if FCP X is essentially "done" and there's not much more there than new window-dressing and keeping up with the OS changes?

After all, we (or at least many of us on this forum) aren't the target user for FCP X (according to the Ubilos interview)."


Good questions. I'd add - What if Apple's endgame for video looks like what they did with photography? What if the next step is a unification of iMovie and FCPX into a new app called "Movies" or "videos"?

_______________________
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

Oliver Peters
Re: FCP X - food for thought
on Sep 11, 2015 at 2:03:35 am

[David Lawrence] "Good questions. I'd add - What if Apple's endgame for video looks like what they did with photography? What if the next step is a unification of iMovie and FCPX into a new app called "Movies" or "videos""

Agreed. While Photos is nice, compared with even Aperture (which itself lagged behind Lightroom), Photos is truly crippleware.

- Oliver

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


Return to posts index

Brett Sherman
Re: FCP X - food for thought
on Sep 11, 2015 at 2:09:50 am

I feel like we've been over this ad nauseum. Why choose the Photos example and not Logic X? There are a LOT more parallels between Logic X/Garageband and FCP X/iMovie than Aperture/Photos. When Apple folds Logic X into Garageband then we should be concerned. Until then these are just paranoid ramblings.


Return to posts index


Oliver Peters
Re: FCP X - food for thought
on Sep 11, 2015 at 2:34:51 am

Let me be clear that I don't think anything is going to happen with FCP X for at least 5 years. But I think there is a basic "tell".

Aperture was originally developed by a pro design team that's no longer in place at Apple. Same for Motion to some extent. This was all before the iPhone. With iPhone and iCloud, photography creation, sharing and archiving has become a basic component of the iCloud ecosystem. When that was fully in place - and without internal champions for Aperture as a pro tool - Photos became the more suitable and streamlined app to replace both Aperture and iPhoto.

At this point in time, that isn't the case for video nor for music creation. It probably won't for awhile, if ever, simply because the platform isn't quite right. However, I firmly believe that if and when Apple gets to a point where either of those two elements are as ingrained as photography within the iDevice/iCloud ecosystem, then FCP X and/or Logic Pro X are probably gone, with some hybrid streamlined apps in their places.

I'm not sure that's anytime soon and maybe never. But in any case, I do believe it's the "tell" to look for.

However, the original point I was wondering about, was this. If FCP X is basically in the form that we have now, is that good enough for the next 5 or 10 years? For those of us asking for more features, like roles-based mixing - should we resign ourselves to the diminishing odds that it will ever occur?

- Oliver

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


Return to posts index

Claude Lyneis
Re: FCP X - food for thought
on Sep 11, 2015 at 3:29:39 am

With the iPhone 6s touting 4k, as predicted on this forum, how much computing power will be needed to edit it? Can they really squeeze that in to a Photos equivalent video editing program? I transition from Aperture to Light Room and while I love the power of Light Room, I miss the ease and efficiency of using Aperture. May FCPX live on.


Return to posts index

Bill Davis
Re: FCP X - food for thought
on Sep 11, 2015 at 7:37:48 am

Interesting speculation, Oliver. And I suppose the recent Creative Summit sojourn to Apple where a hundred of us met with many of the product managers and the ProApps development team could have been an elaborate hoax designed to continue the facade that the software is an on-going commercial product with enough value to the company to support the building, and dozens of developers all trained well enough to "talk the talk" with a group of industry pros?
It sure didn't look like an operation being shut down after running its course to me - but heck - I'm just a silly fanboy so maybe they put a big one over on me and all the others by mocking up everything from the lunchroom to the serious server room I barely glimpsed as the door was shutting and I was walking past - all just an elaborate stage set. If so I've got to hand it to the performers. They sure nailed it.

Plus they are really going to piss off their growing list of institutional customers. Over on one of the large public Facebook groups just tonight, someone tried the "no pros use X" line - and the result was a hoot. Folks from CBS, PBS, Hollywood, and serious players from all over the world chimed in with reports of whole shops switching to it and the biggest problem with X for some of the biggest operations being cited was not being able to find enough qualified X editors to hire.

No reason to keep going with s product like that, I suppose.

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


Return to posts index


Walter Soyka
Re: FCP X - food for thought
on Sep 11, 2015 at 10:57:52 am

[Bill Davis] "I suppose the recent Creative Summit sojourn to Apple where a hundred of us met with many of the product managers and the ProApps development team could have been an elaborate hoax designed to continue the facade that the software is an on-going commercial product with enough value to the company to support the building, and dozens of developers all trained well enough to "talk the talk" with a group of industry pros? "

Once you meet the developers, they've got you!

It turns out that pretty much everyone building the tools we love -- whether he or she comes from Apple, Adobe, Autodesk, Avid or BMD -- is smart, hard-working, committed, and passionate about helping their creative customers do the best work they can.

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


Return to posts index

Oliver Peters
Re: FCP X - food for thought
on Sep 11, 2015 at 12:15:19 pm

Bill, one condition doesn't negate the other. There was also nothing said about shutting anything down.

Oliver

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


Return to posts index

Herb Sevush
Re: FCP X - food for thought
on Sep 11, 2015 at 1:37:46 pm

[Bill Davis] " I suppose the recent Creative Summit sojourn to Apple where a hundred of us met with many of the product managers and the ProApps development team could have been an elaborate hoax designed to continue the facade that the software is an on-going commercial product with enough value to the company to support the building, and dozens of developers all trained well enough to "talk the talk" with a group of industry pros?"

Many years ago, after Autdodesk bought up Discreet, who had bought D/Vision and renamed it edit*, there was a big meeting at NAB with hundreds of edit* users with big time presentations to roll out the new, long awaited, and very impressive upgrades. After the big meeting there was a special closed door meeting with editors who were influential in the users groups, I believe David Weiss was there, and somehow I was invited. We met with both Autodesk and Discreet brand managers, our input was solicited, we were told the plans for the upcoming year, promises were made about allocation of resources, and everything was very Kumbaya. 6 months later Autodesk announced that edit* was EOL.

This does not mean that FCPX will be EOL'd.

It means that sometimes there are much larger forces at work than an outsider can ever be aware of and I don't put any stock in developer meetings - because developers don't control the purse strings and it's like asking the actors on a set if the movie is gonna be any good - even though they are intimately involved in the project they have no way of knowing.

We are all reading tea leaves without a license.

I think the only thing one can logically surmise is that future development will match past development, until such time as it doesn't, and then things will change either for the better or the worse.

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


Return to posts index


David Cherniack
Re: FCP X - food for thought
on Sep 11, 2015 at 3:27:23 pm

[Herb Sevush] "Many years ago, after Autdodesk bought up Discreet, who had bought D/Vision and renamed it edit*, there was a big meeting at NAB with hundreds of edit* users with big time presentations to roll out the new, long awaited, and very impressive upgrades. After the big meeting there was a special closed door meeting with editors who were influential in the users groups, I believe David Weiss was there, and somehow I was invited. "

Sigh...I was there, too. Recalling the glowing future that was painted for us, juxtaposed against the black days that followed the EOL announcement, I'd say whatever fanboi tendencies existed in any of us were forever obliterated by the hard realities of the business decision. No one should suffer any illusions that it will be any different with any other NLE.

David
http://AllinOneFilms.com


Return to posts index

Andy Field
Re: FCP X - food for thought
on Sep 15, 2015 at 4:30:28 am
Last Edited By Andy Field on Sep 15, 2015 at 4:32:48 am

CBS BBC and others are installing X for one reason

It is inexpensive

No yearly licensing ..pay once and done

I work in one of the big networks and see the decisions from the inside. Many more inexperienced one man/woman bands doing simple cut cut field editing with simple two channel news sound mixes. You can most of that on an iPhone with iMovie

They can't find experienced X editors because

A. They aren't paying experienced editor rates
B. Experienced editors are doing long form narrative or doc work on larger more complex mixes requiring in app track managemement CC. Effects round tripping. Etc. ...something the experience folk feel more comfortable doing in other NLE's instead of learning a new paradigm

For large news operations...X is primarily a budget decision foisted on staff that must learn and use it ...I know staffers who say they have no choice. Companies area saying. "Live with it"

Andy Field
FieldVision Productions
N. Bethesda, Maryland 20852


Return to posts index

Jeff Markgraf
Re: FCP X - food for thought
on Sep 16, 2015 at 6:13:51 am

Hi Andy.

You probably can't name your network, but I'm curious which part of the network you work in: news or entertainment or sports or "other?" Sounds like news.

I ask because I find that different divisions, at least here in LA, tend to have different needs and decidedly different points of view regarding editorial. Even with increasingly harsh cost cutting, getting network people in LA to wrap their heads around FCPX is still incredibly difficult.


Return to posts index


Andy Field
Re: FCP X - food for thought
on Sep 17, 2015 at 2:47:45 am

I work in news....and we are increasingly getting away from in house expensive to maintain server systems (aka Avid/Unity) and more portable field based one man band shoot and edit on the fly operations. FCP X is inexpensive and perfect for young not set in their ways predictors. Premiere pro is a close second and an easier transition for legacy FCP or Avid editors.

Andy Field
FieldVision Productions
N. Bethesda, Maryland 20852


Return to posts index

Tim Wilson
Re: FCP X - food for thought
on Sep 11, 2015 at 6:52:29 pm

[Oliver Peters] "What if Randy left because there was no more for him to do?"

I think as far as Randy was concerned, that was EXACTLY the case. Not because of anything about X, but because of Randy.

There's always been a cycle for his primary engagement, and it looks to be about 5 years long. He came to the end of that cycle working on X, and has moved on.

You can see the pattern from the beginning. He birthed Premiere, waited until it was weaned and walking, then moved to Final Cut.

Final Cut really didn't change substantially after Apple bought it and made it Mac-only. It really didn't change substantially, EVER, until it became X. In the meantime, Randy moved his primary focus off FCP roughly - what's that you say? - five years along.

So while not meaning to diminish the role he DID take in Legend's ongoing development, he did indeed shift focus to iMovie.

I have of course strongly objected to the idea of X as iMovie Pro from the very beginning, but somewhere in the iMovie development is where a new idea clearly began to bloom, reaching full flower in X.

There's an obvious overlap in any case, which means that this may be the longest he's stayed with any generally related set of projects. If anything, then, he left LATER than usual this time.

That said...


[Oliver Peters] " If FCP X is basically in the form that we have now, is that good enough for the next 5 or 10 years?"

Five years, definitely. There are plenty of people still using Legend. Even the 2009 release hadn't been substantially updated since...when? Reports from that forum suggest 2007 at BEST, and maybe not since 2005 with multicam. Codecs -- including Pro Res, admittedly large-ish...but still -- and really not much else.

So, for most people, the last structural, non-Pro Res revision of Legend was...2005. And that thing is a dog with fleas, full of bloated code, and a profoundly NOT Mac-like product experience. Maybe the ugliest thing Apple ever put their name on.

X is nimble, modern, and adorable. Ten years from now seems well within reach.

Which also begs the question -- if X is on a ten year plan, what's supposed to happen AFTER Year 10?

In the meantime, Legend has lasted as long as it has because, other than codecs, features are irrelevant.

I say this as a former product manager and corporate marketing weasel whose life was judged largely on features...but what I found people REALLY cared about was performance and efficiency.

I mean, Oliver, you presented an carefully considered, elegantly elucidated list of features that I think was on the money, and the conversation quickly turned to things like it runs or doesn't run on my hardware, it's fast or it isn't, beach ball or no beach ball, etc etc -- AND tracks/no tracks, easy to organize for maximum efficiency, etc.

Performance. Efficiency.

The flip side for my corporate life was, "You know what our customers want? Codecs, performance and stability," which received the reply, "True, but you can't SELL that and ONLY that." Which is also true....and yet, apparently not.

As we enter Year 5 of the 10 Year Plan, though, it's time to reckon that we're MUCH more than halfway through the feature set rollout. The iterations in Legend were very much front loaded. Through version 3 happened really fast...and after that, happened really slow.

So if you say yes to Pro Res as a major feature, then I say okay, along with multicam, that makes two MAJOR features in the second half of Legend's life.

Which shines another angle of light on Oliver's question: if there are only 2 big ones left, what might they be?

My theory remains that it doesn't matter. People will still use X for the same reasons they always have, without respect to whether a single new feature ever arrives.


Return to posts index

Bill Davis
Re: FCP X - food for thought
on Sep 11, 2015 at 7:55:36 pm

[Tim Wilson] "My theory remains that it doesn't matter. People will still use X for the same reasons they always have, without respect to whether a single new feature ever arrives.
"


On this we perfectly agree.

For the users who have learned it deeply. Editing on X "as it is right now" is an unfettered joy.

Disclaimer string so as not to "trigger" certain people.
(For me. On my setup. On my type of work. On my deadlines. On my terms. With my brain.
As I've trained it. Today.)


In fairness, I'm kinda high on X right now due to my latest editing experience with it. First major project on my new hardware..

Talk about frictionless!

Even the one major glitch I had during editing - big imported Photoshop multilayer graphic screens from the designer that would cause X to crash - hardly slowed my work at all - because the few times that happened, the SSD would re-boot super fast and as always with X, none of my work was missing INCLUDING actions that were in process at the time of the crash! A lossless crash consuming 10 seconds? I can definitely live with that now and then.

So sue me for being a bit emotional. My current X experience has been REALLY sweet.

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


Jim Wiseman
Re: FCP X - food for thought
on Sep 12, 2015 at 6:51:41 am
Last Edited By Jim Wiseman on Sep 12, 2015 at 7:13:05 am

Randy Ubillos was one of the main members of the original Aperture team. One of the reasons its workflow is still the best of all of those in that space. Much better than Lightroom. Randy has never stayed on any project for more than 5 years (yes Tim). He is an innovator and is on to the next thing. My biggest gripe with Apple is not continuing support of Aperture once he moved to FCPX and other projects. I still use Aperture although it has needed some feature improvements like lens correction. Minor stuff considering how intuitive it was to work with. Apple could have continued with Aperture for pros and Photos for casual users. One of Apertures greatest strengths was its use of Libraries. Now I will be breaking them up gradually and "Folderizing" my photos ala Lightroom. Far inferior from a management standpoint. Can still use Aperture in the "by Reference" model and more easily move to Lightroom (Gack!) that uses that Finder folder model.

Nikon has abandoned Capture NX2 as well, the best RAW converter for Nikon NEFs. Refused to pay licensing to Google for the NIK U-Point technology and other code. I still use that for serious conversions from my Nikons. Unfortunately, new Nikons will not work with it. They have come up with a very lame RAW converter.

Software companies have got to come up with a way to release great software without relying on the coercion of rental and disappearing projects or the dumbing down of tools to appeal to the mass market. It is going to affect the pro market more than any other. I would be happy topay outright or buy hardware to get perpetual licenses. I certainly hope FCPX continues serious development. My guess is it will. Also trying Resolve as soon as it goes Golden Master.

Jim Wiseman
Sony PMW-EX1, Pana AJ-D810 DVCPro, DVX-100, Nikon D7000, Final Cut Pro X 10.2.1, Final Cut Studio 2 and 3, Media 100 Suite 2.1.6, Premiere Pro CS 5.5 and 6.0, AJA ioHD, AJA Kona LHi, Blackmagic Ultrastudio 4K, Blackmagic Teranex, Avid MC, 2013 Mac Pro Hexacore, 1TB SSD, 64GB RAM, 2-D500, Helios 2 w 2-960GB SSDs: 2012 Hexacore MacPro 3.33 Ghz, 24Gb RAM, GTX-680, 960GB SSD: Macbook Pro 17" 2011 2.2 Ghz Quadcore i7 16GB RAM 250GB SSD, Multiple OWC Thunderbay 4 TB2 and eSATA QX2 RAID 5 HD systems


Return to posts index

Andrew Kimery
Re: FCP X - food for thought
on Sep 13, 2015 at 6:27:12 am

[Jim Wiseman] "Software companies have got to come up with a way to release great software without relying on the coercion of rental and disappearing projects or the dumbing down of tools to appeal to the mass market. It is going to affect the pro market more than any other. I would be happy topay outright or buy hardware to get perpetual licenses."

I can only imagine the uproar if Adobe announced that its software would only run on Adobe brand computers or required Adobe brand I/O cards to work. I certainly do not miss the days of closed ecosystem hardware. I have Avid, PPro, FCP 7, FCP X and Resolve 11 installed on my Mac and they can all use the same I/O hardware. Wouldn't have been possible even just 5yrs ago and I say good riddance to those days (though I am forcefully tied to BM I/O as long as I want to run Resolve).

I do agree that it would be to the benefit of all of us if the software industry can turn around the race to the bottom that's already started.


Return to posts index

Jim Wiseman
Re: FCP X - food for thought
on Sep 15, 2015 at 5:54:00 am
Last Edited By Jim Wiseman on Sep 15, 2015 at 6:06:03 am

A couple of faults with this logic, Andrew. The Mac runs most software that Windows does, including Adobe. You don't have to run Apple hardware or software if you don't want to. I am free to rent Adobe Creative Cloud, but for all the reasons that read like an overflowing dead letter box, I never will.

The second is that Adobe nor Microsoft had Steve Jobs who saw that the synergy between creating a company that developed hardware and software in tandem multiplied the value of each. Controlling a platform designed to promote the strengths of both of these elements would create a tremendous advantage. Adobe will never make hardware, so as an alternative you are stuck with Microsoft and Intel, and numerous embodiments thereof. Frankly, I doubt that any major computer platform/software developer will match the potential of Apple as long as we are practicing this art/craft. Whether Apple is no longer completely hypnotized by the profits of the iPhone is another factor. But I would rather throw my lot in with a company that is extremely profitable, by almost any measure, than with one that is marginal.

The race to the bottom is concerning. For those working the high to middle high-end, it would seem they are the ones most vexed by this. Glad my high-end was a few years ago. Now I just want to get some work done with as little interference from the corporations-that-be as possible using my own media assets and paid for software, access to which I can count on. That is looking like Apple/FCPX and a possible curveball from Blackmagic Resolve/Apple, with Media 100 backing up home plate like an alert, if slightly arthritic, third baseman. Adobe could have won the World Series, but their potential winning home run was stabbed before going over the fence. I was betting on them. Should have paid more attention to their hitting coach. Or the fans.

Jim Wiseman
Sony PMW-EX1, Pana AJ-D810 DVCPro, DVX-100, Nikon D7000, Final Cut Pro X 10.2.1, Final Cut Studio 2 and 3, Media 100 Suite 2.1.6, Premiere Pro CS 5.5 and 6.0, AJA ioHD, AJA Kona LHi, Blackmagic Ultrastudio 4K, Blackmagic Teranex, Avid MC, 2013 Mac Pro Hexacore, 1TB SSD, 64GB RAM, 2-D500, Helios 2 w 2-960GB SSDs: 2012 Hexacore MacPro 3.33 Ghz, 24Gb RAM, GTX-680, 960GB SSD: Macbook Pro 17" 2011 2.2 Ghz Quadcore i7 16GB RAM 250GB SSD, Multiple OWC Thunderbay 4 TB2 and eSATA QX2 RAID 5 HD systems


Return to posts index

Andrew Kimery
Re: FCP X - food for thought
on Sep 15, 2015 at 4:22:13 pm

[Jim Wiseman] "A couple of faults with this logic, Andrew. The Mac runs most software that Windows does, including Adobe. You don't have to run Apple hardware or software if you don't want to. I am free to rent Adobe Creative Cloud, but for all the reasons that read like an overflowing dead letter box, I never will."

My point was you have to own a Mac if you want to run Apple's software. No mandatory Mac purchase would mean no free OS, no pay once, upgrade forever ProApps, etc.,. Apple came down like a ton of bricks on Psystar (the hackintosh company) because Apple's business model is centered around selling hardware. If Apple's software was cross platform I would probably be running a new PC tower right now as opposed to stretching as much life as I can out of a 2009 MP while figuring out what my next major computer purchase is going to be.

[Jim Wiseman] "The second is that Adobe nor Microsoft had Steve Jobs who saw that the synergy between creating a company that developed hardware and software in tandem multiplied the value of each. Controlling a platform designed to promote the strengths of both of these elements would create a tremendous advantage. Adobe will never make hardware, so as an alternative you are stuck with Microsoft and Intel, and numerous embodiments thereof. "

Two different paths where one isn't inherently better than the other though. I'm not sure what hardware synergy would have been applicable to Adobe. Hardware accelerator cards? Isn't that what Media100 hung their hat on and got killed once 'off the shelf' computers became fast enough? Entire computers? They would have been crushed like the rest of the PC makers in the race to the bottom started by Dell. I/O cards? That's such a booming market that the leaders (AJA and BM) have branched out into cameras, field recorders, etc.,. Even Avid, which for a couple of decades required it's own hardware, finally opened up to third part I/O out of necessity.

Apple provides a great ecosystem provided that one only want/need what's provided by Apple's ecosystem. On the flip side one has a plethora of options outside of Apple's ecosystem but one has to make choices and one probably won't end up with a an experience as seamless as Apple's. To each their own.

[Jim Wiseman] "But I would rather throw my lot in with a company that is extremely profitable, by almost any measure, than with one that is marginal."

Though the profits come from a different source so how important is your business? One one hand Apple has a ton of money, but on the other hand BM, Adobe, Avid, etc., all depend on post/production for their very existence. No right answer, just different pros/cons.

For myself I don't feel comfortable hitching my wagon to any one star (which is why I'm not a fan of the 'ecosystem' trend that's happening). I very much like Walter Soyka push for more open standards so it's easy/easier to transfer projects between different venders.

[Jim Wiseman] "The race to the bottom is concerning. For those working the high to middle high-end, it would seem they are the ones most vexed by this. Glad my high-end was a few years ago. Now I just want to get some work done with as little interference from the corporations-that-be as possible using my own media assets and paid for software, access to which I can count on."

I think it should be concerning to everyone because races to the bottom almost always result in reduced competition which is bad for consumers. The fear you, and others, have expressed about what if all software goes subscription only is a direct result of the race to the bottom of software prices. For example, if Apple wasn't giving way OS X would Microsoft have shifted Windows to a subscription model?


Return to posts index

Shawn Miller
Re: FCP X - food for thought
on Sep 15, 2015 at 6:23:09 pm

[Andrew Kimery] " For example, if Apple wasn't giving way OS X would Microsoft have shifted Windows to a subscription model?"

Probably. I don't think OSX does much to move them one way or another, other than being another Office delivery platform. I get your point though, Andrew. When consumers are protected from the costs of developing quality software by subsidized offerings, they tend to expect that applications should be good and inexpensive... with free updates. That's why I continue to believe that the only companies that will offer perpetually licensed software in the future will be; very small shops, niche developers, open source projects and companies that can subsidize dev costs with other revenue streams.

Shawn



Return to posts index

Jim Wiseman
Re: FCP X - food for thought
on Sep 16, 2015 at 2:54:26 am
Last Edited By Jim Wiseman on Sep 16, 2015 at 3:42:23 am

[Andrew Kimery] "My point was you have to own a Mac if you want to run Apple's software. No mandatory Mac purchase would mean no free OS, no pay once, upgrade forever ProApps, etc.,. Apple came down like a ton of bricks on Psystar (the hackintosh company) because Apple's business model is centered around selling hardware. If Apple's software was cross platform I would probably be running a new PC tower right now as opposed to stretching as much life as I can out of a 2009 MP while figuring out what my next major computer purchase is going to be."

I know that was your point, Andrew. And that is precisely my point. I like that model. So does Blackmagic. I would be using Macs regardless. I am sold on UNIX based OSX and reliable Mac CPUs. The hardware plus software model is inherently more flexible and hence has greater profit potential than one or the other alone. One begets the other. Results in larger R&D budgets. Apple is obviously making beaucoup bucks on hardware, but the profits from iTunes and the App Store are certainly nothing to sneeze at. Ask the music industry. Regarding the software we are interested in, FCP Legacy sold an awful lot of Macs and I'm sure was profitable on it's own. It drove me out of the Avid business in Hawaii. If that is an unfair competitive model, it is one that Jobs & Co. came up with and an awful lot of people seem to have liked. I have no doubt that Apple is doing well with Mac sales and FCPX and other software they and others have developed. FCPX probably has more upside than Legacy. That doesn't keep you from running Adobe or Microsoft applications on the Mac or other platforms either. Adobe and MS were featured presenters at the intro of the iPad Pro. There is a reason those companies are cross platform. There is a huge and growing market in Apple devices. To your other point, speaking of being hit by a ton of bricks, that is exactly how I felt when Adobe announced subscription only.

[Andrew Kimery] "Two different paths where one isn't inherently better than the other though. I'm not sure what hardware synergy would have been applicable to Adobe. Hardware accelerator cards? Isn't that what Media100 hung their hat on and got killed once 'off the shelf' computers became fast enough? Entire computers? They would have been crushed like the rest of the PC makers in the race to the bottom started by Dell. I/O cards? That's such a booming market that the leaders (AJA and BM) have branched out into cameras, field recorders, etc.,. Even Avid, which for a couple of decades required it's own hardware, finally opened up to third part I/O out of necessity."

There is a great deal of difference between add in cards and Computers and OS. I'm very happy to have AJA and Blackmagic dominating I/O. I put together a lot of ABVB Avid systems with external chassis, and no one was happier to see them go. (Other than the profit margins!) We are going to a file based world at any rate. Only MS could have had the resources to do a CPU/hardware business combined with their software, but they were happy to have the monopoly on only the OS and were quite content to let others build the hardware, a business at which they have never been very successful. Jobs put together the talent, capital and vision to do both. Grant Petty is on a similar path.


[Andrew Kimery] "For myself I don't feel comfortable hitching my wagon to any one star (which is why I'm not a fan of the 'ecosystem' trend that's happening)."

I am certainly not falling for any one ecosystem, especially in the area of software. As long as it runs on my Macs, I'm happy. All the software I need does. You can see what I'm currently using below, and it looks like Resolve 12 will be next. Pretty sure I have a path to the future in there somewhere, and I'm also quite sure Apple will be around as the platform.

[Andrew Kimery] "I think it should be concerning to everyone because races to the bottom almost always result in reduced competition which is bad for consumers. The fear you, and others, have expressed about what if all software goes subscription only is a direct result of the race to the bottom of software prices. For example, if Apple wasn't giving way OS X would Microsoft have shifted Windows to a subscription model?"

I still believe that Adobe could make very good profits selling perpetually licensed software along with rentals for those for whom it makes sense. I bought licenses every year. Most all creatives did. They have lost customers with rental, even though the ones that remain are in a true sense, captured. Microsoft has such a lock on the enterprise and other users that they could easily be profitable providing the Windows OS for many years to come. Where else will enterprise customers get their OS? Or Office? Their biggest problem is having missed most of mobile where the majority of the profits are headed. We'll have to see how that misjudgement works out for them. At any rate, it is what it is, and we will have to deal with it as will all of these companies. I'm afraid it is just straight up capitalism, with all of it's virtues and faults.

Jim Wiseman
Sony PMW-EX1, Pana AJ-D810 DVCPro, DVX-100, Nikon D7000, Final Cut Pro X 10.2.1, Final Cut Studio 2 and 3, Media 100 Suite 2.1.6, Premiere Pro CS 5.5 and 6.0, AJA ioHD, AJA Kona LHi, Blackmagic Ultrastudio 4K, Blackmagic Teranex, Avid MC, 2013 Mac Pro Hexacore, 1TB SSD, 64GB RAM, 2-D500, Helios 2 w 2-960GB SSDs: 2012 Hexacore MacPro 3.33 Ghz, 24Gb RAM, GTX-680, 960GB SSD: Macbook Pro 17" 2011 2.2 Ghz Quadcore i7 16GB RAM 250GB SSD, Multiple OWC Thunderbay 4 TB2 and eSATA QX2 RAID 5 HD systems


Return to posts index

Brett Sherman
Re: FCP X - food for thought
on Sep 14, 2015 at 2:27:32 pm

[Oliver Peters] "Aperture was originally developed by a pro design team that's no longer in place at Apple. Same for Motion to some extent. This was all before the iPhone. With iPhone and iCloud, photography creation, sharing and archiving has become a basic component of the iCloud ecosystem. When that was fully in place - and without internal champions for Aperture as a pro tool - Photos became the more suitable and streamlined app to replace both Aperture and iPhoto."

Photography is becoming more of a niche market. I know our organization rarely hires photographers anymore and we used to hire them all the time. I think Apple rightly predicted there is an increasingly small number of professional photographers out there. Now, there still remain a lot of hobbyists that would use Aperture. And whether Apple was wise to give up this market is subject to debate.

I just don't see this happening to the video/audio world. Why? Because these things are just simply a lot more complicated than photography is. This is not to take away from the artistic skills of professional photographers or say there is never a use for a professional photographer. But, if you've ever tried sending out a camera with a non-professional (I have) you get somewhat salvageable photos, and totally useless video. Photographers often only need one moment to capture something. As a videographer, you need, at a minimum, dozens of shots plus interviews because you have a narrative to build.

What the future holds is hard to say. Certainly a concentration of more tasks on a single video professional (of course, I'm already there). But I don't see it on a parallel track with photography.


Return to posts index

Oliver Peters
Re: FCP X - food for thought
on Sep 14, 2015 at 5:29:17 pm

[Brett Sherman] "What the future holds is hard to say. Certainly a concentration of more tasks on a single video professional (of course, I'm already there). But I don't see it on a parallel track with photography."

Agreed. This would also explain why there's still Garage Band and Logic Pro X. More complex and a different mindset on the creative side of things.

- Oliver

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


Return to posts index

Jim Wiseman
Re: FCP X - food for thought
on Sep 11, 2015 at 10:18:27 pm

Aperture is far better at organization than Lightroom. Much more intuitive in operation. I'm trying out LR, and frankly, I'm staying with Aperture 3.6 as long as I have a machine that runs it. I find LR's "Rooms" approach extremely cumbersome, and it's organizational capabilities merely a reflection of the Finder. Will only move when I have to. I have purchased a perpetual license version CD of LR5 and upgraded to latest perpetual LR 6.1.1. Never would rent it, or anything else.

Jim Wiseman
Sony PMW-EX1, Pana AJ-D810 DVCPro, DVX-100, Nikon D7000, Final Cut Pro X 10.2.1, Final Cut Studio 2 and 3, Media 100 Suite 2.1.6, Premiere Pro CS 5.5 and 6.0, AJA ioHD, AJA Kona LHi, Blackmagic Ultrastudio 4K, Blackmagic Teranex, Avid MC, 2013 Mac Pro Hexacore, 1TB SSD, 64GB RAM, 2-D500, Helios 2 w 2-960GB SSDs: 2012 Hexacore MacPro 3.33 Ghz, 24Gb RAM, GTX-680, 960GB SSD: Macbook Pro 17" 2011 2.2 Ghz Quadcore i7 16GB RAM 250GB SSD, Multiple OWC Thunderbay 4 TB2 and eSATA QX2 RAID 5 HD systems


Return to posts index

Gary Huff
Re: FCP X - food for thought
on Sep 11, 2015 at 10:00:36 pm

[David Lawrence] "What if Apple's endgame for video looks like what they did with photography? What if the next step is a unification of iMovie and FCPX into a new app called "Movies" or "videos"?"

They'll definitely call it "Movies". :-D


Return to posts index

Mark Dobson
Re: FCP X - food for thought
on Sep 11, 2015 at 10:15:49 am

[Oliver Peters] "What if the 3D text bolt-on was the same as the FCP 7 upgrade - something to appease the masses and to look like progress?

What if FCP X is essentially "done" and there's not much more there than new window-dressing and keeping up with the OS changes?"


3D text was so 'so what' and if a third party company had developed it I wouldn't have bought it. I've used it once professionally and think I'll leave it at that.

As to the overall development of FCPX, I'd say that the software is now at the level it should have been when it was launched all those years ago. And I know all about that because I've been using it solidly since then and have had too many totally frustrating experiences to mention. As I look back now I'm amazed at how undeveloped the software was at launch. And I have every sympathy for those jumped away to other platforms.

But as I work on it now I find it is an almost stable proposition, sure it still crashes and goes weird from time-to-time but generally it is as well behaved as my ageing dog ( Springer Spaniel 17 years old ). But it has only been my inertia, call it laziness, that has kept me using FCPX. I just couldn't bear to have to learn a new set of commands and editing conventions on another editing package.

So really I'd have to agree with you Oliver, that FCPX is basically built and on a general service cycle with each OS upgrade. I would change my opinion if there was a substantial upgrade on the audio side or if the measly set of tools that have been provided for file selection and analysis were expanded.

But either way this is the horse that's going to carry me through the next few years. I've invested too much in plugins to start again and as I sit here editing on the 27" 5k iMac life isn't really that bad.


Return to posts index

James Ewart
Re: FCP X - food for thought
on Sep 11, 2015 at 11:32:27 am
Last Edited By James Ewart on Sep 11, 2015 at 11:42:46 am

Over here in the UK from my bubble I am beginning to sense that FCPX will remain 'Niche'. Many companies I know waited and waited and waited and then went with Premiere even in the last year.

Why? Because they couldn't be bothered to learn from scratch new workflows and ways of thinking about editing when their previous workflows suited them very well. How can I argue with them on that?

May hell freeze over but Aindreas may yet be proved right.

We're sitting waiting for upgrades whereas in reality all they have done with X is fixed what was wrong with it in the first place.

Is that fair?


Return to posts index

Mathieu Ghekiere
Re: FCP X - food for thought
on Sep 11, 2015 at 7:20:36 pm

James,

I just teached 5 'teachers' coming from fcp7, FCPX. So they can learn their students.
The first hour of my lesson I get Some resistance.

Once they see FCPX's organisational tools, the speed of editing with the Magnetic timeline, the 'philosophy' (and genius) of Roles, All that resistance faded away quickly. I literally heard gasps.

I talked with a cameraman that asked me: ow you stayed with final cut? I teach Avid.
I talked with him about what you can do with X (the concept of keywords vs bins and its many benefits) and you could see the look in his eyes change. Like 'this sounds damn interesting, maybe I should check it out"

On another forum (R-E-D), someone said he wanted to try out FCPX while not informing his client about it and ideally not have the client notice that he was using (learning...) brand new software. I paraphrase:
"Imagine my surprise when the client came after the first week and asked why this was all going so much faster! Then it clicked for me that something must have been up."

Was is Craig Seeman (not sure anymore?) who edited the culture show on FCPX with a director who started the sessions with claiming he was sceptical of Craig using that new Final Cut Pro. And when they finished for the first time in 4 days instead of 5, the director went home praising X...

What will make people change? Once more and more of these stories of people editing faster gets out, the more people will start to take notice. In my experience, a lot of people STILL don't know ANYTHING about the advantages of X. I'm not starting a discussion on who's to blame for that (I think Apple could do more focused marketing but some people should stop write it of because they heard someone else writing it of based on a version 4 years ago...)

I notice, again and again, when I'm doing a demo for a full room of people, teaching my colleague, talking to a cameraman or giving a workshop of X, that almost all of them take X more seriously (a lot of them even changing a 180 degrees in opinion) once they see what it can do and see the software being used by someone who already makes use of all specific X advantages (Roles, Timeline Index, Keyword Collections, Magnetic Timeline,...)


Return to posts index

James Ewart
Re: FCP X - food for thought
on Sep 11, 2015 at 11:44:28 am

Because Apple are not exactly coming our of their corner with all guns blazing are they? (Excuse the mixed metaphors).


Return to posts index

Joseph W. Bourke
Re: FCP X - food for thought
on Sep 11, 2015 at 1:29:22 pm

Possibly because there's too much money to be made making hundred dollar digital pencils?

Joe Bourke
Owner/Creative Director
Bourke Media
http://www.bourkemedia.com


Return to posts index

Jarrod Fay
Re: FCP X - food for thought
on Sep 11, 2015 at 2:44:59 pm

Personally, I like the fact that Apple makes tons of money on other products. If they only made editing software (and were in Avid's financial situation) I would be much more concerned about the future of their NLE.

---> Jarrod


Return to posts index

Joseph W. Bourke
Re: FCP X - food for thought
on Sep 11, 2015 at 3:45:04 pm

Good point, Jarrod, but doesn't it give one pause for thought that the lower revenue yielding products are always the first on the EOL list?

Joe Bourke
Owner/Creative Director
Bourke Media
http://www.bourkemedia.com


Return to posts index

Jim Wiseman
Re: FCP X - food for thought
on Sep 12, 2015 at 6:58:29 am

Better than the whole company being EOL.

Jim Wiseman
Sony PMW-EX1, Pana AJ-D810 DVCPro, DVX-100, Nikon D7000, Final Cut Pro X 10.2.1, Final Cut Studio 2 and 3, Media 100 Suite 2.1.6, Premiere Pro CS 5.5 and 6.0, AJA ioHD, AJA Kona LHi, Blackmagic Ultrastudio 4K, Blackmagic Teranex, Avid MC, 2013 Mac Pro Hexacore, 1TB SSD, 64GB RAM, 2-D500, Helios 2 w 2-960GB SSDs: 2012 Hexacore MacPro 3.33 Ghz, 24Gb RAM, GTX-680, 960GB SSD: Macbook Pro 17" 2011 2.2 Ghz Quadcore i7 16GB RAM 250GB SSD, Multiple OWC Thunderbay 4 TB2 and eSATA QX2 RAID 5 HD systems


Return to posts index

Michael Phillips
Re: FCP X - food for thought
on Sep 11, 2015 at 3:47:50 pm

I asked a hypothetical question on the Avid Editors of Facebook which company could best weather the EOL of their NLE as part of the overall company offerings. For me, easily the top of the list would be Apple. In the middle was Adobe, and I put Avid at the bottom of the list as everything Avid offers is mostly tied to the NLE. It is a rare thing to see an ISIS and/or Interplay without an Avid NLE on it. I still only know of one ISIS in China that has no Avid NLE on it.

Which then sort of begs a follow up hypothetical question. What if Adobe and FCPx worked equally well as Media Composer on ISIS and/or Interplay- how committed would Avid be to its own NLE?

I am referring to video NLE's Media Composer, Symphony option, and NewsCutter. Pro Tools is a different conversation.


The discussion becomes interesting as well with Blackmagic - but I suspect it would be fine as well as "editing" is a growth market for them in addition to the color correction. And I don't think EditShare is dependent on Lightworks for its other offerings that are mainly used with other NLEs and workflows.

Always an interesting conversation to have after 3-4 beers and a shot.

;)


Return to posts index

Craig Seeman
Re: FCP X - food for thought
on Sep 11, 2015 at 10:19:45 pm

[Michael Phillips] "The discussion becomes interesting as well with Blackmagic - but I suspect it would be fine as well as "editing" is a growth market for them in addition to the color correction. And I don't think EditShare is dependent on Lightworks for its other offerings that are mainly used with other NLEs and workflows. "

... and then when Blackmagic buys EditShare...



Return to posts index

Andrew Kimery
Re: FCP X - food for thought
on Sep 12, 2015 at 12:06:31 am

[Michael Phillips] "
Which then sort of begs a follow up hypothetical question. What if Adobe and FCPx worked equally well as Media Composer on ISIS and/or Interplay- how committed would Avid be to its own NLE? "


With the whole Avid Everywhere ecosystem they are trying to market and build I think they would still be very committed to their own NLE. I know Avid has recently touted increased compatibility with X and PPro on ISIS, but I think the edge is always going to go to Avid's NLEs because of it's unique project structure (bins in folders on the Finder level vs a singular, project file approach). I would be surprised if Avid became just another shared storage vendor (especially now that shared storage vendors are popping up all over the place).

I don't think there is any real comparison to EditShare because EditShare doesn't seem to have the resources (or motivation?) to really propel Lightworks forward to a wider audience. Many people, myself included, were excited when EditShare first announced they were taking over Lightworks but the Mac beta took forever to get out and Resovle has swooped in and taken over the low cost/free NLE sector.


-Andrew


Return to posts index

Oliver Peters
Re: FCP X - food for thought
on Sep 12, 2015 at 12:30:45 am

Of course - a bit off topic - it's kind of funny that neither current Jobs movie will have been cut with any form of FCP.

- Oliver

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


Return to posts index

Santiago Martí
Re: FCP X - food for thought
on Sep 12, 2015 at 4:44:46 am

For me FCPX is more like those free to play games with in app purchases. You have a basic starting point and then you can add plugins for more specific tasks.

Santiago Martí
http://www.robotrojo.com.ar
Red Epic Dragon, Sony FS7, Sony a7S, Red Pro Primes, Adobe CC, Assimilate Scratch


Return to posts index

Andrew Kimery
Re: FCP X - food for thought
on Sep 12, 2015 at 6:28:17 am

[Santiago Martí] "For me FCPX is more like those free to play games with in app purchases. You have a basic starting point and then you can add plugins for more specific tasks."

I recently had a conversation on Facebook along these lines. I was talking with an X user that liked the software but wish Apple covered more bases from a first party perspective. My 2 cents was that given the $299 price point there's only so many bases you can expect Apple to cover (and it's by design). If you need/want specialized tools then you can most likely find them from a third party and if you don't then you aren't being charged 'extra' for features you don't need.

There are pros/cons to this route vs more features coming directly the NLE maker but I don't think either way is inherently better than the other. Just two ways to skin the cat.


Return to posts index

Craig Seeman
Re: FCP X - food for thought
on Sep 12, 2015 at 1:47:50 pm

[Andrew Kimery] "My 2 cents was that given the $299 price point there's only so many bases you can expect Apple to cover (and it's by design). If you need/want specialized tools then you can most likely find them from a third party and if you don't then you aren't being charged 'extra' for features you don't need. "

Although there has been, at times, concern that Apple's hooks may have severe limitations such as interface design (one example I've heard cited).



Return to posts index

James Ewart
Re: FCP X - food for thought
on Sep 12, 2015 at 4:03:37 pm

but if Resolve is free?


Return to posts index

Bill Davis
Re: FCP X - food for thought
on Sep 12, 2015 at 7:32:53 am

[Oliver Peters] "Of course - a bit off topic - it's kind of funny that neither current Jobs movie will have been cut with any form of F"

Not really much weirder than Thomas Grove Carter cutting that big new zillion dollar Android spot on X.

I suspect most of his client communication with the Android team originated from an iPhone.

And so it goes.

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


Return to posts index

Michael Phillips
Re: FCP X - food for thought
on Sep 12, 2015 at 12:38:57 pm

I am not questioning the dedication to the NLE, as it confirms the original hypothetical question that for Avid, the NLE is a fundamental underpinning to the overall business model and without it, Avid would less likely to survive compared to other companies offering NLE's in their lineup.

There's a whole other conversation to have about market growth, etc.

Michael


Return to posts index

Scott Witthaus
Re: FCP X - food for thought
on Sep 14, 2015 at 8:56:50 pm

[Michael Phillips] "What if Adobe and FCPx worked equally well as Media Composer on ISIS and/or Interplay- how committed would Avid be to its own NLE? "

Under the bus in a heartbeat....IF they were to become profitable in the way you describe.

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


Return to posts index

James Ewart
Re: FCP X - food for thought
on Sep 12, 2015 at 11:17:27 am

Do you think Resolve will end up a front runner? It looks like a really nice interface. Anything in particular stopping people using it more at the moment?


Return to posts index

Steve Connor
Re: FCP X - food for thought
on Sep 12, 2015 at 12:19:04 pm

[James Ewart] "Anything in particular stopping people using it more at the moment?"

Realtime playback on anything but the fastest system can be bad, especially 4K.


Return to posts index

James Ewart
Re: FCP X - food for thought
on Sep 12, 2015 at 1:26:43 pm

[Steve Connor] "Realtime playback on anything but the fastest system can be bad, especially 4K."

But ... it's FREE!!

That's a bit of a game changer. Downloaded onto an old Imac to see what it can do on that.


Return to posts index

Oliver Peters
Re: FCP X - food for thought
on Sep 12, 2015 at 1:27:37 pm

One thing to factor in with FCPX is that it is tightly integrated with key a/v architectures of the OS. Unlike Avid and Adobe, which have to be cross-platform, there's no abstraction layer. This reduces the engineering load on the ProApps team, but it also has the negative effect of them having to quickly react and be attuned to changing the app when the OS changes.

The engineers can't simply say, "Don't upgrade until we qualify a new version." That would be impossible within the Apple corporate environment. Apple appears to be on a track to update the OS annually. Often these changes negatively affect folks in the post world; therefore, a lot of effort that could go to features is being consumed by OS support.

The second part is how Apple allocates engineering resources. We constantly hear of how part of a given team has been shifted over to shore up development resources on one app or OS change or another. I would presume this also affects the ProApps team, assuming that an FCPX engineering unit might be sent over to help get the watch or TV off the ground. It may also have a positive effect, with common teams working across the board on interface design and aesthetics of all products.

None of these issues are necessarily good or bad - just that these are issues that impact what we'd love to see in X, versus how other companies operate.

- Oliver

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


Return to posts index

Aindreas Gallagher
Re: FCP X - food for thought
on Sep 13, 2015 at 1:04:19 am

[Oliver Peters] "One thing to factor in with FCPX is that it is tightly integrated with key a/v architectures of the OS."

[Oliver Peters] "The second part is how Apple allocates engineering resources. We constantly hear of how part of a given team has been shifted over to shore up development resources on one app or OS change or another. I would presume this also affects the ProApps team, assuming that an FCPX engineering unit might be sent over to help get the watch or TV off the ground. It may also have a positive effect, with common teams working across the board on interface design and aesthetics of all products."

It's definitely a very different idea of a software editing team. Where you need that software team to support you. One thing I understand is the genteel Al Mooney Doctor Who fan Fincher Coen express behind premiere pro. That is a living mortal army. Although the space bar play has been dodgy for months.

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


Return to posts index

Oliver Peters
Re: FCP X - food for thought
on Sep 14, 2015 at 1:09:49 pm

Where Adobe and Avid score points all over Apple is communication with the community. That's quite obvious in this link Dennis posted about Murch at IBC.

http://www.tvbeurope.com/walter-murch-talks-premiere-pro/

It goes to your point about Al, too. This is something that the FCP team had in the early days and lost over the subsequent years. The "tablets from on high" attitude tends to alienate users who might otherwise be happy to deal with various issues within the product.

The fact that what should be public events, when a group of editors meets with Pro Apps in Cupertino, is shrouded in secrecy and most of the participants quake in their shoes to reveal the details, says a lot.

Oliver

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


Return to posts index

James Ewart
Re: FCP X - food for thought
on Sep 14, 2015 at 1:51:20 pm

[Oliver Peters] "Where Adobe and Avid score points all over Apple is communication with the community. That's quite obvious in this link Dennis posted about Murch at IBC."

This is what I hate most.


Return to posts index

Bret Williams
Re: FCP X - food for thought
on Sep 14, 2015 at 1:13:19 pm

Lack of anything interesting going on within the app itself. It is a great cuts, dissolves, trimming app, but there just isn't any effects. You can get some free generators and transitions with Universe free, but there aren't any text animations not even a way to build text animations. The transitions included are blah and there aren't any effects or generators worth noting. Fusion looks very powerful, but its not it integrated into the app like motion or AE.

So it's free, and they certainly have a good base plus an overkill CC for most things but all the little extras you get with AE/Premiere or X/Motion are severely missing. And unless you're a company with dedicated audio and graphics artists you're going to be renting Adobe anyway for your graphics needs.

And so far I've spent hours trying to make sense of their audio tracks/system. I suppose it's like Premiere because it's not like 7. Why does everyone need to overcomplicate audio? 7 had it right. None of the multichannel track mess. I prefer 7s straightforward 1 track, 1 channel system where everything was pananble. I can't speak for Premiere but Resolve's audio is still lacking and confusing. I'm not a fan of being able to put a 4 channel or more clip on one track. Or not being able to pan a single channel clip unless it's in a stereo track and the single channel clip itself has been deemed a stereo clip. Its a mess.


Return to posts index

Herb Sevush
Re: FCP X - food for thought
on Sep 14, 2015 at 1:32:15 pm

[Bret Williams] " Why does everyone need to overcomplicate audio? 7 had it right. None of the multichannel track mess. I prefer 7s straightforward 1 track, 1 channel system where everything was pananble. I can't speak for Premiere but Resolve's audio is still lacking and confusing. I'm not a fan of being able to put a 4 channel or more clip on one track."

Agree totally. This was Ppro's biggest failing when it first came out, and it has since been corrected so that you can force it to act like FCP7 most of the time, but this fascination with "all-in-one" audio tracks still persists and seems to be in the core of Ppro's DNA.

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


Return to posts index

Bret Williams
Re: FCP X - food for thought
on Sep 14, 2015 at 2:02:30 pm

Have you tried Resolve's? It looks like the same complexity but without the benefit of aux sends and all that. Not a fan of track mixing at all either which might be why FCP X's system doesn't give me much of a problem. But for track mixing I've always strayed away from the idea because when I moved clips around from track to track, the mix was totally shot, requiring even more upfront organization and more hoops to jump through.

If anyone has made sense of the audio clip attributes / timeline track types where it can at least act sort of normal, I'd love the enlightenment.

I recently thought I'd port of the most basic of edits to resolve. A simple interview shot on 4k utilizing synchronized clips. So audio channels were camera mics. 2 other were linked/synced and were from a zoom or whatnot. I took the 4k and made it look like 2 angles, panned them, zoomed in, etc. and that all worked pretty well. Keyframes were retained as were speed changes but sizing was not. I guess you shouldn't use "none" in X as spatial conform attributes. It doesn't come across. But the audio was a complete mess. In fact, in some places the wrong audio was connected. In other places it seemed like the right audio was connected, but there were multitudes of connected audio tracks nested together. A mess.


Return to posts index

Oliver Peters
Re: FCP X - food for thought
on Sep 14, 2015 at 5:25:48 pm

[Herb Sevush] "Agree totally. This was Ppro's biggest failing when it first came out, and it has since been corrected so that you can force it to act like FCP7 most of the time, but this fascination with "all-in-one" audio tracks still persists and seems to be in the core of Ppro's DNA."

I'm not a fan of how PPro or Resolve do audio. One of the first things I find myself doing with new PPro jobs is setting the audio configuration of source media BEFORE ever editing them to a timeline.

Like others, I find this less problematic with X, mainly because it's easier to deal with on the timeline than it is in PPro. I like the FCP7 and Avid MC way of dealing with it, but I like submix busses that PPro offers.

Overall, the big selling point of X's approach to audio is that you collapse complex audio into a container to hide the complexity. If others could figure out how to do something like that with a cluster of 8 mono source channels within a track-based architecture, for example, you might have the best of both worlds.

- Oliver

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


Return to posts index

James Culbertson
Re: FCP X - food for thought
on Sep 16, 2015 at 10:02:57 pm

What if the debate were actually over, and we had nothing left to do but edit? I have not checked in for a couple of months, but I see I have not missed anything.


Return to posts index

Michael Gissing
Re: FCP X - food for thought
on Sep 16, 2015 at 11:54:19 pm

The debate is over when someone makes the perfect NLE that suits everyone. Not happening!


Return to posts index

Scott Witthaus
Re: FCP X - food for thought
on Sep 17, 2015 at 2:08:43 am

[James Culbertson] "What if the debate were actually over, and we had nothing left to do but edit? I have not checked in for a couple of months, but I see I have not missed anything.
"


You're right, James. Same sh**, different day. I can't figure out what the "debate" is anymore either.

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


Return to posts index

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