FORUMS: list search recent posts

FCP X can't do "pro" is officially vaporized.

COW Forums : Apple Final Cut Pro X Debates

<< PREVIOUS   •   VIEW ALL   •   PRINT   •   NEXT >>
Bill Davis
FCP X can't do "pro" is officially vaporized.
on Mar 8, 2016 at 6:19:00 pm

I was going to let Ronny or somebody else post this, but heck, having argued for 4 years + against the voices arguing that X wasn't and would never be "pro" enough - I figured I've earned the honors.

Here's what "not pro enough" looks like in 2016.

http://www.fcp.co/final-cut-pro/articles/1781-how-swiss-tv-went-fcpx-final-...

Notice that what closed the deal was not anyones "opinions" but rather detailed and exacting engineering tests - where the decisions are based on ONE thing - performance.

Case closed.

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

Robin S. Kurz
Re: FCP X can't do "pro" is officially vaporized.
on Mar 8, 2016 at 6:33:51 pm
Last Edited By Robin S. Kurz on Mar 8, 2016 at 6:35:58 pm

On a completely OT note: you need some sort of separator between your posts and your signature. I'm always stumbling over the signature thinking "What does that have to do with... oooooh, riiiight..." ;-)

__________________________________________________________ (<—royalty free copy/paste if you like :D)

ON-T: had already seen it and yes you're right that their criteria for choosing X is very telling I'd say. Good for them! :)

- RK

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


Return to posts index

Bill Davis
Re: FCP X can't do "pro" is officially vaporized.
on Mar 8, 2016 at 9:55:17 pm

Must be some weird formatting thing. Sorry.

I'll be changing my sig at or near NAB anyway, so the confusion won't last long!

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


Steve Connor
Re: FCP X can't do "pro" is officially vaporized.
on Mar 8, 2016 at 7:04:17 pm

[Bill Davis] "I figured I've earned the honors.
"


Sadly the honours went to Mathieu who posted the link earlier :(

[Bill Davis] "Case closed."

I think everyone on here closed this case a while ago, most of the ongoing arguments are now personal preference or semantics. I'm not sure anyone on here has claimed that it isn't "Pro" enough for a while.

In the wider world of Editors though there is a lot of work to be done and this excellent article will go a long way to help.


Return to posts index

Bill Davis
Re: FCP X can't do "pro" is officially vaporized.
on Mar 8, 2016 at 7:12:56 pm

You are of course, correct, Steve.

I don't actually care who posts first - and while I framed my first comment in the thread as that "tongue in cheek" - I'm just delighted the info is getting out there. I just flew back from SoCal and the FCPExchange event and the mood in the room - including existing X editors working in the LA TV shops and non-X editors who were just kicking the tires - there has undeniably been a HUGE about face on how they look at X.

It's one thing for dumb solo editors like me to LOVE the system. It's quite another when engineering teams from massive national broadcast operations put it through rigorous real world tests and confirm what us little guys have been saying all along. Operated with expertise, editorial operations using FCP X can be wicked fast.

I just felt it needed it's own thread to be discussed properly, not to be buried in the comments section of another post. 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

Mathieu Ghekiere
Re: FCP X can't do "pro" is officially vaporized.
on Mar 8, 2016 at 11:11:10 pm

[Steve Connor] "Sadly the honours went to Mathieu who posted the link earlier :(
"


Well, that's nice, but I just saw the story appear on Fcp.co, and I thought it was a bit pointless to have a thread that was teasing for another article (with all due respect, Bill) instead of just posting the article when it was ready. So at least, if the article was in the thread, people could discuss it, which was probably the whole point.

As Bill knew the article was coming, he did have early honors or whatever. I just did my daily visit to fcp.co and wanted to get the discussion going ;-)
With this thread also, I think it's a bit confusing to have 2 threads talking about the same article.

It's a great article, and detailed. I think for a lot of post-houses it can be an eye-opener to see a big network switching to it, and being happy about the performance they are getting, even on older hardware, which surprised me.
But it's clear that Sam Mestman is doing great things. Even his tutorials from late 2012 about how to work with RED Raw Media in FCPX, and Audio Components, in FCPX 10.0.6 were great and of a really high level. Cheers to him and Ronny and their teams for doing excellent work and sharing it with the community!
Although I'm just an editor and I don't know anything about the whole networking stuff, I can attest that there is a big difference between the theoretical speeds a NAS server can give you, and giving you reliable performance with FCPX. For that alone, the article was a very interesting read, and I sent it trough to a couple of people managing the facility where I work (where I made them switch to FCPX completely since 10.0.6, because I had tested it since 10.0.3 and fount it to be 'ready' for us at 10.0.6, and seeing that I could get much better results, faster).

https://mathieughekiere.wordpress.com


Return to posts index


Andrew Kimery
Re: FCP X can't do "pro" is officially vaporized.
on Mar 8, 2016 at 7:09:09 pm

Article already posted in the 'teaser' thread you started the other day. ;) https://forums.creativecow.net/readpost/335/87610


Haven't had a chance to read it yet but no matter what's written or who uses it, X, like anything else, will always have its detractors. And 'pro', being more of an opinion than fact, isn't something that can be proven or disproven so there will always be a contingent that sees it, and those that use it, as less than worthy. Back around IBC I think someone in an editor group on FB posted about Walter Murch using PPro on his current project and a surprising number of people came out and were very disparaging towards Mr. Murch because of his choice. Never thought I'd see the day when other editors would dog pile like that on someone like Walter Murch, but there are a lot of outspoken keyboard warriors out there I guess.


Return to posts index

Bill Davis
Re: FCP X can't do "pro" is officially vaporized.
on Mar 8, 2016 at 7:25:14 pm

[Andrew Kimery] "Haven't had a chance to read it yet but no matter what's written or who uses it, X, like anything else, will always have its detractors."

Absolutely, Andrew. But those detractors need to understand the reality of what they are arguing for and against.

Ronny and the Swiss National TV Team were scrupulous in their tests to base their decisions on provable metrics. X running on LumaForge simple outperformed the competition. That's not opinion, thats fact.

They did not just do theoretical testing, but as the videos show - they installed the new system and use it in high stress real-world editing tasks. And that's where it shone brightest.

There is nothing wrong with not "liking" how X works. That's totally fine. But holding the opinion that it can't function as well (or actually, much better) than AVID or Premiere Pro or anything else in a large facility environment has been simply disproven.

Who knows, perhaps another NLE manufacturer has capabilities that equal this up THEIR sleeves for NAB. But if so, we'll have to wait to hear about it.

Right now, X/Sharestation appears to have successfully trounced the existing "big facilities" players at their own game.

A fact worth noting since that was the exact arena where early nay-sayers hung their biggest criticism.

That's all.

Be interested to hear your thoughts after you've read/watched the whole piece. It's pretty unconditional.

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

Steve Connor
Re: FCP X can't do "pro" is officially vaporized.
on Mar 8, 2016 at 7:31:01 pm

[Bill Davis] "Right now, X/Sharestation appears to have successfully trounced the existing "big facilities" players at their own game.

A fact worth noting since that was the exact arena where early nay-sayers hung their biggest criticism."


I look forward to comments from Avid Unity users on this


Return to posts index


Neil Goodman
Re: FCP X can't do "pro" is officially vaporized.
on Mar 9, 2016 at 6:13:06 am

[Steve Connor] "[Bill Davis] "Right now, X/Sharestation appears to have successfully trounced the existing "big facilities" players at their own game.

A fact worth noting since that was the exact arena where early nay-sayers hung their biggest criticism."

I look forward to comments from Avid Unity users on this
"


Very cool and detailed article - Glad people are finding the tools that work well for them

But other than the speed and reliability that their new shared storage setup brings to the table - Its still not the same functionality that an Isis/Unity brings to the table.

Hopefully Apple can figure out a way to do it.


Return to posts index

Bill Davis
Re: FCP X can't do "pro" is officially vaporized.
on Mar 9, 2016 at 3:50:54 pm

But Apple may not be interested in bring that SAME functionality to X. The larger point of X is that there's new functionality on the table. The efficiency of keywords diminishes the utility of folders. Roles diminishes (I'd say obliterates)the requirement for tracks. Time and again we've seen that if all you can see yourself wanting is "bin locking" grafted onto X - that's not necessarily the path to vastly better software. I personally am happier with Apple approaching the X development effort with a "imagine what's possible" attitude rather than a "give the client incremental improvements over the status quo" orientation. Seems like cooler stuff comes from the former more readily than the latter. 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

Steve Connor
Re: FCP X can't do "pro" is officially vaporized.
on Mar 9, 2016 at 4:00:29 pm

[Neil Goodman] "But other than the speed and reliability that their new shared storage setup brings to the table - Its still not the same functionality that an Isis/Unity brings to the table. "

For us Editors who've never worked on a Unity system what extra functionality does it have over this FCPX based system?


Return to posts index


Michael Hancock
Re: FCP X can't do "pro" is officially vaporized.
on Mar 9, 2016 at 4:50:53 pm

Everybody works in the same project. No XMLing sequences or duplicating libraries or copying things from one library to another. You make one project and everyone works in it at the same time. It simplifies things, and with bin locking it protects people from saving over your work or you saving over theirs.

EXAMPLE: I'm the first to open the bin "Edits_March9_2016", so I own it. That means I can make changes to it, I can edit the sequences in it, etc... Anybody else in the project can open it and copy stuff out of it, or open the sequences and watch them, but any changes they make will not be saved (but they will be give the open to save the bin as a copy). It's a locked bin to them - they cannot change it. Only the owner can.

This is incredibly powerful in practice. You can have assistants syncing audio, adding production notes, marking takes, etc..., all in the original project. Meanwhile, the editor(s) are cutting away. When an assistant finishes syncing audio, setting up group clips, adding notes, marking takes, etc they just save the bin and close it. Then the editor can open it up and they have instant access to the sync clips, metadata, markers, notes, etc.... You don't have to worry about "last to save wins" or everyone keeping their own copy of the project and having to copy from one to another. It greatly simplifies things in that regard and the bin locking helps to protect people's work from being overwritten.

Another example - If you want to see how and edit is shaping up while the editor is working on it you just open their bin and play the sequence. You'll see the most recently saved version. If they change the sequence and save the bin while you're watching it you just close the bin and reopen it and you'll see their changes. Because the bin is locked you can't delete their sequence, change it, or accidentally (or intentionally) save over it.

It's can be hard to understand just how powerful and efficient it is until you get a chance to see it in person or use it. And no other NLE, that I'm aware of, provides anything close to it.

----------------
Michael Hancock
Editor


Return to posts index

Bill Davis
Re: FCP X can't do "pro" is officially vaporized.
on Mar 9, 2016 at 5:41:19 pm

Excellent description of the AVID approach to collaboration. For the FCP X approach, look up the stories on how the teams on Focus, Whisky Tango Foxtrot and the coming major features done in X approach collaboration. It's not the same as the AVID approach, but it seems to allow multiple stakeholders to access and express their ideas about an evolving edit in progress without the need to hang the core of everything on a single machine on a single desktop and require everyone to work there. It "seems" from what I've read to be a different path to the same place. Edits as metadata rather than edits as actual changes to a central file. But I'm not a facility editor so I may have this wrong. Anyone know more about the different approaches beyond the "we have this feature and the other guys don't" which may or may not turn out to be the critical aspect of how some editors will prefer to work in the future.
Interesting discussion.

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

Steve Connor
Re: FCP X can't do "pro" is officially vaporized.
on Mar 9, 2016 at 6:27:15 pm

[Bill Davis] "Anyone know more about the different approaches beyond the "we have this feature and the other guys don't" which may or may not turn out to be the critical aspect of how some editors will prefer to work in the future.
Interesting discussion."


Exactly I'm keen to see what the "Big Brains" on here make of the two workflows


Return to posts index


Andrew Kimery
Re: FCP X can't do "pro" is officially vaporized.
on Mar 9, 2016 at 6:29:52 pm

I'm going to preface this by saying I haven't had a chance to read the article yet (hoping to have time at lunch today) so apologies if I'm missing pertinent info that was covered in the FCP.co piece.

[Michael Hancock] "It's can be hard to understand just how powerful and efficient it is until you get a chance to see it in person or use it. And no other NLE, that I'm aware of, provides anything close to it.
"


To add to this, the folders and bins that make up an Avid project are just as folders and bins in Finder/Windows Explorer (as opposed to a single 'project file' like with other NLEs) which means you can modify Avid projects (while people are working in them) just by moving folders and/or bins around at the desktop level. Very handy if you need to share bits and pieces, of even entire projects, with other people.

For example, most shows will have a 'mother' project run by the AEs and that's where all the media for all the episodes gets ingested and lives. Then a project for each individual episode gets created and populated with just the media needed for that episode (this is the project all the editors assigned to that episode will work out of). Say some new, non-episode specific media comes in like a new GFX package. All the projects need this new GFX package and instead of having to open up each episode project one by one to add the new GFX you just copy and paste a single bin, containing the GFX, from the Mother project into each episode project. It's super quick and you don't have to interrupt any of the editors in order to do it. Or say one editor has a 'toolkit' bin (some go to SFX, custom FX, transitions, light leaks, film grain, etc.,) and wants to share it with everyone else. All they have to do is copy and paste that bin from their project into all the other projects and just like that everyone gets their own copy. Sure, all the editors could do the Open Bin command, navigate to the correct bin, open it and copy out what they need but doing it at the desktop level is much quicker and easier.

This ability to work 'behind the scenes' at the desktop level is really what sets Avid apart from all the other NLEs and makes sharing/collaborating inherently easy. Adobe, for example, has done a lot of work to allow you to use the Media Browser in PPro to 'step into' other PPro projects but it's still cumbersome in comparison and it only goes oneway. I mean, I can pull assets from PPro Project A into PPro Project B but I cannot push assets from PPro Project B into PPro Project A.

As I recently mentioned in another thread I'm currently doing some AE work on a doc in PPro and I'm splitting the load between two Macs attached to some Promax shared storage. This is about as simple a shared storage setup can get (one user, two machines) yet part of my workflow is having to keep track of what I did in Project A on Mac 1 and what I did on Project B in Mac 2 so that everything ends up back in Project A without me accidentally skipping or repeating steps (I'm ingesting, organizing, prepping, and exporting about 30 days worth of multicam shoots). If I could work in one project in PPro like I could in Avid it would certainly streamline my process.


[Bill Davis] " but it seems to allow multiple stakeholders to access and express their ideas about an evolving edit in progress without the need to hang the core of everything on a single machine on a single desktop and require everyone to work there."

I'm not sure I follow Bill. The whole gist of a multi-editor environment is that everything is not on a single machine... unless by single machine you mean the shared storage server that everyone is plugged into. The way Avid's projects are structured and they way it manages media (assuming you are allowing Avid to manage the media as opposed to connecting to it via AMA) also facilitates easy of use where editors aren't working from the same storage pool. For example, a couple years ago I worked on a doc with another editor and he worked from home while I worked at the office. We had mirrored copies of the footage and we would email bins back and fourth to share cuts, new media, etc., I was the point person at the office so when new media came in I would ingest it then (assuming it wasn't a ton of new media) I'd upload the MXFs from Avid and a bin to the other editor via Dropbox. The only media that was a bit of a pain were stills because the stills existed outside of Avid's media pool so if we weren't careful we'd have to do a re-link dance sometimes.

The functional equivalent could have been achieved with other NLEs but it would have involved more steps than just dragging & dropping via the Finder.


Return to posts index

Bill Davis
Re: FCP X can't do "pro" is officially vaporized.
on Mar 9, 2016 at 6:40:43 pm
Last Edited By Bill Davis on Mar 9, 2016 at 6:41:51 pm

[Andrew Kimery] "I'm not sure I follow Bill. The whole gist of a multi-editor environment is that everything is not on a single machine... unless by single machine you mean the shared storage server that everyone is plugged into. "

I was just responding to the description that Michael posted which seemed to show a single editor owning a bin, but other editors able to access the content for review and notes.That seems to me to represent one form of collaborative editing. Obviously, since X doesn't do that type of bin locking, the teams editing collaboratively must have developed another way to collaborate which satisfies their need to revision, review, re-edit and master their content. Because at the end of the day, the movies edited in X got turned over to post and onto the big screen the same way that AVID and Premiere Pro projects have.

So obviously it's a matter of what you're used to and how you "prefer" to work - not a work stopping lack on any editorial system today.

It sounds like bin locking is a great productivity enhancing system. The entire article originally referenced is also about productivity enhancement. It's up to the facility folks to judge which approach has the option to drive the MOST productivity into the production process, and purchase accordingly.

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

Andrew Kimery
Re: FCP X can't do "pro" is officially vaporized.
on Mar 9, 2016 at 7:04:12 pm

[Bill Davis] "I was just responding to the description that Michael posted which seemed to show a single editor owning a bin, but other editors able to access the content for review and notes.That seems to me to represent one form of collaborative editing. Obviously, since X doesn't do that type of bin locking, the teams editing collaboratively must have developed another way to collaborate which satisfies their need to revision, review, re-edit and master their content. Because at the end of the day, the movies edited in X got turned over to post and onto the big screen the same way that AVID and Premiere Pro projects have.
"


Ah, thanks for the additional info Bill. I agree that there are different ways to skin the cat yet still get at the same, or similar, functional end result. I know a while back someone posted a patent from Apple that seemed to suggest possible collaboration via something similar to compound clips to allow multiple editors to edit in the same timeline at the same time. Certainly an intriguing idea. Whatever Apple, Adobe, Blackmagic, and even Avid come up with to further collaborative editing I'm all for since that is a common workflow in my neck of the woods (even on smaller projects).

[Bill Davis] "It's up to the facility folks to judge which approach has the option to drive the MOST productivity into the production process, and purchase accordingly."

Totally agree. A good workflow is more than the sum of its parts and the trick in each situation is to get the most amount of Pros with the least amount of Cons. To go back to my previous example of the gig I'm doing now. Do I wish PPro was more like Avid in terms of multi-user collaboration? Yes. Do I wish I was working on Avid instead of PPro on this project? No. Looking at it as a whole PPro is a better fit for this gig than Avid.


Return to posts index


Robin S. Kurz
Re: FCP X can't do "pro" is officially vaporized.
on Mar 9, 2016 at 7:21:54 pm
Last Edited By Robin S. Kurz on Mar 9, 2016 at 7:22:25 pm

[Andrew Kimery] "Do I wish PPro was more like Avid in terms of multi-user collaboration? Yes. Do I wish I was working on Avid instead of PPro on this project? No. "

I was just going to point to the part in the article where he says "When classic FCP went EOL the Post Production department at RTS had the choice of going back to Avid, which was a prospect that no-one here was truly excited about…".

So better/superior collaborative editing or not, if no one wants to put up with the rest, there's little good that that will do you.

We have a 12 machine FCP X suite btw, and if sharing is needed then current edits are simply copied to a joint library on the Xsan, which also just simply needs to be reloaded to get the most current version. Even if there is no "live" updating. MEDIA can be shared at will either way. So really if a simple reload or a few more clicks are worth a 5-6 digit $ amount to you, I see no reason why FCP X shouldn't be an (obvious) option for those scenarios. I have yet to hear anyone complain. Even if it could be even MORE convenient, as always, sure. We'll see what the future brings.

- RK

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


Return to posts index

Tim Wilson
Re: FCP X can't do "pro" is officially vaporized.
on Mar 9, 2016 at 8:06:53 pm

[Andrew Kimery] " A good workflow is more than the sum of its parts and the trick in each situation is to get the most amount of Pros with the least amount of Cons. To go back to my previous example of the gig I'm doing now. Do I wish PPro was more like Avid in terms of multi-user collaboration? Yes. Do I wish I was working on Avid instead of PPro on this project? No. Looking at it as a whole PPro is a better fit for this gig than Avid."

It really is a matter of meeting the goals of how you want to work, and not just ticking boxes on a list of features.

I recently wrote what I think is a pretty nifty article about one kind of workflow enabled with an FCPX-centered feature film workflow, specifically designed for the ways that those directors wanted to work.

Andrew, to your point, I remain equally enthralled by the approach that Kirk Baxter elucidated for Gone Girl, and which Fincher's team is using for House of Cards and other projects.

Tim Miller obviously talked about very much the same kind of thing with Deadpool, but back in the 80s and early 90s, I was totally obsessed with Fincher's music videos in particular (which I've written about here before).

As someone then primarily working in the field of nature and science documentary and TV magazine production, I can't say how much Fincher necessarily influenced me at the time, but I'm not sure that any filmmaker has ever had me as tightly in his or her grip as Fincher did then. Combined with an affinity for After Effects, I find the issues as laid out around Gone Girl to be the ones that sound the most like how *I* would want to work...

...if I wanted to work for living. LOL Which I emphatically do not. LOL I would much rather talk about working than actually work.

Anyway, here's that piece, which is worth a speedy re-viewing if you haven't seen it in a while.









To speak more specifically to Ronny's epic article....

[Bill Davis] "against the voices arguing that X wasn't and would never be "pro" enough"

My emphasis added to underscore that "wasn't" and "would never be" are two different things.

I'm not sure that there's ever been anyone arguing that it would NEVER be pro enough, at least in the COW. (If I'm wrong, please include a link correcting me.)

But if we can indeed consider that argument vaporized, I hope that we can ALSO officially vaporize any notion that X was ALWAYS "pro" enough. It was, originally, in many cases simply not.

As Patrice told Ronny, "Moving to FCP X was out of the question for us if it didn’t do multicam."

Of course, Patrice goes on to say, "So we said: Apple seems to be working very hard on this, let’s wait a little bit and see how it evolves."

But again, originally, "Moving to FCP X was out of the question for us." It took just shy of 5 years for the twain to meet, a not insignificant interval.

In the meantime, they weren't haters. They weren't dinosaurs. Their needs were simply not being met. They were right to wait, but people who could wait no longer for new software were also reasonable to move on. The "not-quite-pro-enough/not-quite-yet"-ness of X was real.

So can we have a deal? Agree to obliterate the notion that X isn't pro enough NOW, and ALSO also obliterate the notion that X was ALWAYS a viable option?

After all, it's just a matter of agreeing with Apple, who acknowledged that X originally lacked features that Apple had themselves identified as essential for professional production in versions of FCP dating back to 2005. Hopefully, agreeing with Apple isn't too much of a stretch.

Let me say again how much I enjoyed this article, though. Ronny Courtens is a god.

Ronny, if you're reading this, YOU'RE A gOD. (Sorry man, gotta be a small g. LOL)

Congratulations to the big giant brains from around the world who put together what looks to be a remarkable solution.


Return to posts index

Bill Davis
Re: FCP X can't do "pro" is officially vaporized.
on Mar 10, 2016 at 3:56:08 am

[Tim Wilson] "[Bill Davis] "against the voices arguing that X wasn't and would never be "pro" enough"

My emphasis added to underscore that "wasn't" and "would never be" are two different things. "


Don't have time to go back and pull quotes Tim but there were voices arguing loudly here right up to the release of Focus that Apple was TOTALLY jettisoning professionals, that FCP X was aimed at prosumers and web kiddies exclusively - and that the software was and always would be useless from any professional perspective. It was gleefully pronounced with poetic flourish here almost weekly.

There's no reason to point fingers. But the folks who have been here for the duration know who spoke in those terms the most loudly.

Happy to finally have that perspective proven to have been the result of a lack of vision, nothing more.

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

Steve Connor
Re: FCP X can't do "pro" is officially vaporized.
on Mar 10, 2016 at 7:23:39 am

[Bill Davis] "there were voices arguing loudly here right up to the release of Focus that Apple was TOTALLY jettisoning professionals, that FCP X was aimed at prosumers and web kiddies exclusively - and that the software was and always would be useless from any professional perspective. It was gleefully pronounced with poetic flourish here almost weekly. "

By one person in particular, who doesn't post here anymore and possibly a couple of others who also aren't regular visitors. This hasn't been the tone of this forum for quite some time, do you think it might be time to let it go now?


Return to posts index

Andrew Kimery
Re: FCP X can't do "pro" is officially vaporized.
on Mar 10, 2016 at 7:46:46 am

Apologies, over the course of the day this morphed from a small post into a dissertation.

FOR GREG
[Greg Jones] "I think 'Pro' software is any software that can be used to make money, period. So whether one uses FCPX, IMovie, Premiere Pro, Sony Vegas, Windows Movie Maker, etc. It can be considered 'Pro'. Just my 2 cents."

Iv'e always seen it kinda the opposite. If you do something to make a living you are a 'pro' in that field by default. Tools though, are deliberately stratified in terms of quality, feature set and price but anyone is free to use them as they see fit (such as a pro using a consumer grade tool as part of their workflow). For example, I used to use iDVD to make DVDs for clients but I'd never consider iDVD a professional grade DVD authoring app. I was a pro using a consumer app because it fit my needs (later my needs changed and I bought DVD Studio Pro). I've walked by some amazing buskers drumming on buckets but I'm not going to put an orange, Home Depot bucket in the same category as a floor tom from Pearl. ;)



FOR MY MAIN MAN BILL D
[Bill Davis] "I was just responding to the description that Michael posted which seemed to show a single editor owning a bin, but other editors able to access the content for review and notes.That seems to me to represent one form of collaborative editing."

I just wanted to revisit this for a second. That certainly is one way to collaboratively edit, but Avid allows for complete fluidity where anyone with read/write access (as opposed to just read-only) can push and pull media, sequences, folders, bins, whatever from any project to any project.

The ability to 'pull' media into a project we are working in is normal and it's how most people think of sharing/working collaboratively. I ask you for your current cut, you give it to me in some form (ex. as an XML) and I import it (I 'pull' it) into my project. Adobe has short cut this process a little bit by allowing me to go directly into your project and copy/pull out what I want via the Media Browser. This saves the intermediate step of me asking you to stop what you are doing and export something for me but sometimes it's flakey and doesn't work without a restart of one, or both, of the projects. FCP 7 allowed you to open up multiple projects at once but you had to be careful not to overwrite the other persons project and copying sequences from one project into another can cause media management problems down the line for certain workflows. With Avid everyone is already in the same project so if I want your latest cut I just open up your cuts bin. If I need something outside of my project I can either use the Open Bin command to open up a bin from another project or I can copy the folder/bin I need from one project to another via the Finder/Windows Explorer.

What is unique to Avid, AFAIK, is it gives you the ability to 'push' media into someone else's project, not just pull media into your own project. If I have something in my project I want to give to you (new media, a current cut, etc.,) I can just copy/paste the folder/bin from my project to yours via the Finder and 'poof' it will show up in your project. If new GFX come in the AEs can just drag/drop an updated GFX bin into the target project's folder, thus overwriting the existing GFX bin, and presto all the editors now have the new GFX in their project.

Being able to unobtrusively manipulate projects at the Finder level in a heavily collaborative environment is amazing. I came up as an AE which is a big reason why I'm so in love with this functionality from Avid. I didn't have to ask editors to export things that I needed from them or to import things they needed from me. It can all just happen in the background as they are editing. When you have 3-4 editors working on an episode together plus AEs getting in new media on a daily basis plus story producers doing string outs there is a lot of collaborating and sharing on. Even something mundane like ingesting media can be made simpler by being able to work out of a single project. If you are working the night shift and have a ton of new media to ingest you'll want to press into service any machine that can be plugged in (the most machines I've ever had ingesting concurrently is 12 or 13). With Avid I could capture everything into a single project where as of I was in another NLE I would've had to make a new project for each station and then consolidated all the media into a single project at the end of the night. Show stopping? No. Easier to just manage 1 project instead of 12? Yes.


FOR ROBIN
[Robin S. Kurz] "
So better/superior collaborative editing or not, if no one wants to put up with the rest, there's little good that that will do you."


And the inverse is also true. I know many people that like the background processing and metadata-centric tools in X but they didn't want to put up with the rest... Like I said, it's about maximizing the Pros and minimizing the Cons for your specific situation, and one man's steak is another man's cardboard. In the last 8-12 months I started seeing reality show jobs in LA looking for PPro editors so obviously there are people in that market that value PPros Pro's more than Avid's Pro's. I don't know any of them personally though so I don't know what exactly went into their decision making.


[Robin S. Kurz] "We have a 12 machine FCP X suite btw, and if sharing is needed..."

I might be reading too much into your choice of the word "if", but in the examples I've mentioned there is no "if sharing is needed". Sharing and collaboration is a mandatory part of the workflow with editors and assistant editors (and sometimes story producers) sharing cuts, new media, etc., multiple times a day.


[Robin S. Kurz] "So really if a simple reload or a few more clicks are worth a 5-6 digit $ amount to you, I see no reason why FCP X shouldn't be an (obvious) option for those scenarios. I have yet to hear anyone complain."

I agree, at this point in time it should be considered as an option. Though I've yet to hear anyone try to roll out FCP X at a facility that does a lot of highly collaborative work like reality TV shows. 10yrs ago we had places like PieTown Productions and Bunim/Murray that were the canaries in the coal mines with FCP Legend when the common thought was that it was impossible to create a viable workflow around FCP in a demanding, multi-user environment like reality TV. If X exists somewhere like that I'd love to read about it. Hell, if it exists in LA I'd love to get a guided tour and spend a day learning all the in's and out's. A decade or so ago places dropped Avid (and it's superior multi-editor abilities) for FCP but the astounding cost difference back then played a big factor in those decisions. Now many of those places have switched back to Avid (or switched to Avid for the first time) and the cost-per-seat difference is minimal compared to in the past.


[Robin S. Kurz] "Even if it could be even MORE convenient, as always, sure. We'll see what the future brings."

And everything will be getting better, more convenient, new features, etc., not just X.

FOR STEVE
[Steve Connor] "
By one person in particular, who doesn't post here anymore and possibly a couple of others who also aren't regular visitors. This hasn't been the tone of this forum for quite some time, do you think it might be time to let it go now?"


I dunno... now I kinda want to find someone who's been in love with Premiere since Version 1 and had to wait two and a half decades for Kirk Baxter to use it on Gone Girl in order to get external validation for their choice of NLE...

Maybe the guys behind Bandito Brothers, who have been using PPro since '05 or so, should be calling out all the johnny-come-lately PPro users? I know Vashi Nedomansky has been using PPro for a long time (I think he even worked at Bandito Brothers) but I can't call him a homer because I think he's flat out said PPro used to suck.

In some what seriousness though, I think the truth is somewhere between Tim and Bill.


Return to posts index

Ronny Courtens
Re: FCP X can't do "pro" is officially vaporized.
on Mar 10, 2016 at 8:34:47 am

Andrew Kimery: Though I've yet to hear anyone try to roll out FCP X at a facility that does a lot of highly collaborative work like reality TV shows.

Hey Andrew,

We have implemented FCP X in quite a lot of facilities that do highly collaborative work. I'm going to publish some more stories in the coming two months, most of them dealing with collaborative editing using FCP X. One is about Endemol Shine Africa where they do sitcoms, reality and entertainment using only FCP X in a collaborative environment, another is about two Warner divisions who have switched to FCP X for reality productions. And you may have missed this one: http://www.fcp.co/final-cut-pro/articles/1687-final-cut-pro-x-in-enterprise...

- Ronny


Return to posts index

Andrew Kimery
Re: FCP X can't do "pro" is officially vaporized.
on Mar 10, 2016 at 6:35:22 pm

[Ronny Courtens] "Hey Andrew,

We have implemented FCP X in quite a lot of facilities that do highly collaborative work. I'm going to publish some more stories in the coming two months, most of them dealing with collaborative editing using FCP X. One is about Endemol Shine Africa where they do sitcoms, reality and entertainment using only FCP X in a collaborative environment, another is about two Warner divisions who have switched to FCP X for reality productions. And you may have missed this one: http://www.fcp.co/final-cut-pro/articles/1687-final-cut-pro-x-in-enterprise....."


Thanks Ronny. I'm certainly looking forward to the forthcoming articles.


Return to posts index

Robin S. Kurz
Re: FCP X can't do "pro" is officially vaporized.
on Mar 10, 2016 at 11:20:06 am

[Andrew Kimery] "I might be reading too much into your choice of the word "if", but in the examples I've mentioned there is no "if sharing is needed". "

I was not talking about your example, no. I can hardly speak for that. In my case that amount of sharing isn't needed, since mainly individual, single-person projects are produced. But again, even when it is needed, I think the minor amount of additional "effort" (if that what a few clicks actually represent for anyone) to have nearly the same result, only for tens if not hundreds of thousands of $$ less, it's a small (huge) price to (not) pay. :)

We are also using Keyflow Pro btw., which even introduces a whole other level of sharing options and media management that no other NLE that I know of and use or have used can offer.

But aside from all that, I think one needs to first and foremost keep in mind that we're not even talking about STANDARD features or options in Avid, but we are with FCP X. So really it's not even a reasonable comparison to begin with. Without all the additional, massively expensive soft and hardware, Avid's sharing capabilities are no better than anyone else's. Unless I missed something since I last used it (v6?).


[Andrew Kimery] "And the inverse is also true. I know many people that like the background processing and metadata-centric tools in X but they didn't want to put up with the rest..."

Yes. But we are/were talking specifically about collaborative editing, which I think is one of those things that will be much more of a deciding factor in more cases than just some metadata or background processing. So if, as I described, you're not needing to abandon an entire workflow but rather just have to adjust it a little and maybe give up on some smaller "nice to have" options AND are saving massive amounts on a whole welter of costly additions just to get there at the same time, then...

But hey, if one has that kind of cash to burn and the work to make it profitable in the end, great! I just don't believe the percentage of those businesses will ever even get close to a full one percent of the market. If anything it will get that much less as other NLEs start providing real alternative workflows. In which case I really have to wonder what e.g. Avid is going to be left with, since that is the only niche they have left that is actually making any money. We'll see.


[Andrew Kimery] "Though I've yet to hear anyone try to roll out FCP X at a facility that does a lot of highly collaborative work like reality TV shows. "

Ronny beat me to that one. :)

- RK

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


Return to posts index

Michael Hancock
Re: FCP X can't do "pro" is officially vaporized.
on Mar 10, 2016 at 12:07:15 pm

[Robin S. Kurz] "But aside from all that, I think one needs to first and foremost keep in mind that we're not even talking about STANDARD features or options in Avid, but we are with FCP X. So really it's not even a reasonable comparison to begin with. Without all the additional, massively expensive soft and hardware, Avid's sharing capabilities are no better than anyone else's. Unless I missed something since I last used it (v6?)."

[Robin S. Kurz] "But aside from all that, I think one needs to first and foremost keep in mind that we're not even talking about STANDARD features or options in Avid, but we are with FCP X. "

What massively expensive software and hardware are you referring to, or nonstandard features that are required for Avid?

If you're looking for a shared storage solution for FCPX or Avid, a lot of them include Avid project sharing now. You aren't required to go with a Unity system. Facilis Terrablock, EditShare, EVO, Indiestor - I think I even saw on the LumaForge site that they have bin locking now for Avid, and I know I'm forgetting a lot of them.

If you're looking for a shared storage solution for FCPX, you're probably going to end up with something that also supports Avid style project sharing, so the only difference in cost is the NLE. And in the grand scheme of things the NLE cost is minimal compared to the upfront cost of shared storage, which is a healthy investment regardless of your NLE.

And without the shared storage, I would say Avid's sharing capabilities, sneakernet style, (like FCPX or Premiere) are still a little easier simply because of how the project is presented at the finder level. It's not a self contained project like Premiere, or a package like FCPX. It's a folder, and each bin is a separate file. You don't have to use Media Browser to move stuff over, or export XMLs and import them or copy from only library to another from within the app. You just email the bin you want to share. If they need new media you'll have to send that, but that's the same with every NLE.


[Robin S. Kurz] "We are also using Keyflow Pro btw., which even introduces a whole other level of sharing options and media management that no other NLE that I know of and use or have used can offer."

Can you expand on that? Sounds interesting. I've looked into Keyflow in the past but haven't checked them out in a while. What type of sharing options and media management capabilities is it providing?

----------------
Michael Hancock
Editor


Return to posts index

Robin S. Kurz
Re: FCP X can't do "pro" is officially vaporized.
on Mar 10, 2016 at 1:42:50 pm

[Michael Hancock] "What type of sharing options and media management capabilities is it providing?"

This is by far the most comprehensive (and best presented) demo that I know of, even if (obviously) he doesn't cover everything (and it's an older version):







- RK

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


Return to posts index

Andrew Kimery
Re: FCP X can't do "pro" is officially vaporized.
on Mar 10, 2016 at 7:06:31 pm

[Robin S. Kurz] "I was not talking about your example, no. I can hardly speak for that. In my case that amount of sharing isn't needed, since mainly individual, single-person projects are produced. But again, even when it is needed, I think the minor amount of additional "effort" (if that what a few clicks actually represent for anyone) to have nearly the same result, only for tens if not hundreds of thousands of $$ less, it's a small (huge) price to (not) pay. :) "

I agree that worth is in the eye of the beholder. Bill, for example, really likes how the Share to Vimeo feature in X saves steps (even though they are minor steps) when you need to get something up to Vimeo. For me it's not really a feature I care about because I rarely use streaming sites like Vimeo. The few extra clicks don't bother me because I do them so infrequently, but if I uploaded to Vimeo frequently I'm sure I would find more value in having the process streamlined.

I'm not sure where the 10's-100's of thousands of dollars price difference comes from these days. Prices, at least in the States, don't vary nearly that much. ISIS is pricier but 3rd party shared storage venders offer ISIS-style bin locking. The downside, from what I've read, is that there is a bit of a cat and mouse game between Avid and the third parties where Avid will update code to break 3rd party bin locking and then the 3rd parties will have to roll out their own update to enable it again. This can lead to some flakiness with bin locking on 3rd parties from what I've read? How bad is it? I dunno, but I guess you can see the extra cost for ISIS in that you are running on 'official' hardware that won't have those issues. At least that the gist I've gotten from integrators that deal with this stuff on a daily basis.

[Robin S. Kurz] "But aside from all that, I think one needs to first and foremost keep in mind that we're not even talking about STANDARD features or options in Avid, but we are with FCP X. So really it's not even a reasonable comparison to begin with. Without all the additional, massively expensive soft and hardware, Avid's sharing capabilities are no better than anyone else's. Unless I missed something since I last used it (v6?).
"


Of course they are standard features in Avid. Whether I'm working alone or in a group or with a guy on the other side of town Avid works the same way. As a solo editor I can move things around via the Finder, use the Open Bin command to open a bin up from another project, etc.,. One of the nice things about Avid is that working in a group is the same experience as working solo since in both scenarios everything can be contained in a single project. With other NLEs there is an additional layer of managing multiple projects that comes into play.

Again, the perceived value of all of this depends the users and the situation. I've worked in large multi-user environments with FCP Legend and Avid, and a small multi-user environment with PPro and I could make an argument for, or against, any of them.


Return to posts index

Bill Davis
Re: FCP X can't do "pro" is officially vaporized.
on Mar 10, 2016 at 10:37:23 pm

[Andrew Kimery] "I agree that worth is in the eye of the beholder. Bill, for example, really likes how the Share to Vimeo feature in X saves steps (even though they are minor steps) when you need to get something up to Vimeo. For me it's not really a feature I care about because I rarely use streaming sites like Vimeo. The few extra clicks don't bother me because I do them so infrequently, but if I uploaded to Vimeo frequently I'm sure I would find more value in having the process streamlined"

Just to clarify I use Vimeo almost exclusively for client screeners. It's common for me to have projects with stakeholders in diverse geographical locations with a variety of gear and wildly differing technical expertise.
Heck I had two just last week worry that a file on a thumb drive was too complex and asked if I could burn and mail them a DVD! With clients spread all over the country and often on the road, a single direct one click upload from inside X lets Vimeo do the transcoding for versions ranging from mobile to high-Rez, handles pass-wording for sensitive client content, and is so easy that nobody has a problem WATCHING anything, even those rare folk who don't exactly know how to navigate and play a file after they hit the the Download button.

Joys of technology and all.

I'm exploring Frame.io for collaboration, but doubt I'll give up Vimeo Pro simply because it's so client transparent.

Just for the record.

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 Roth Weiss
Re: FCP X can't do "pro" is officially vaporized.
on Mar 17, 2016 at 9:44:07 pm

[Bill Davis] "there were voices arguing loudly here right up to the release of Focus that Apple was TOTALLY jettisoning professionals, that FCP X was aimed at prosumers and web kiddies exclusively - and that the software was and always would be useless from any professional perspective. It was gleefully pronounced with poetic flourish here almost weekly. "

If by chance you are referring to me Bill, you're projecting again, because you will NEVER find a single instance anywhere on this planet where I said "never" about anything relating to the future FCP X, other than perhaps the fact that it would never be in my toolbox.

So please, pardon my intrusion, don't let me interrupt your incessant circle-jerk here. Feel free to carry on patting yourself on the back for sticking with X through thick and thin for last five years, because I do have great admiration for consistency and loyalty.

David Roth Weiss
Director/Editor/Colorist & Workflow Consultant
David Weiss Productions
Los Angeles


David is a Creative COW contributing editor and a forum host of the Apple Final Cut Pro forum.


Return to posts index

Robin S. Kurz
Re: FCP X can't do "pro" is officially vaporized.
on Mar 17, 2016 at 10:35:21 pm

[David Roth Weiss] "because you will NEVER find a single instance anywhere on this planet where I said "never" about anything relating to the future FCP X"

Yet you felt spoken to. Go figure.


Return to posts index

David Roth Weiss
Re: FCP X can't do "pro" is officially vaporized.
on Mar 17, 2016 at 11:32:51 pm
Last Edited By David Roth Weiss on Mar 18, 2016 at 12:29:37 am

That's a non-sequitur Robin. If you require a definition I'll be happy to provide one.

And, people use non-sequetors to deflect attention from their own inability to formulate an adequate response to the question or statement that came before.

David Roth Weiss
Director/Editor/Colorist & Workflow Consultant
David Weiss Productions
Los Angeles


David is a Creative COW contributing editor and a forum host of the Apple Final Cut Pro forum.


Return to posts index

Bill Davis
Re: FCP X can't do "pro" is officially vaporized.
on Mar 18, 2016 at 6:54:17 pm
Last Edited By Bill Davis on Mar 18, 2016 at 6:56:15 pm

David,
It wasn't you.
Your opinions about X, in my estimation, have long been pretty irrelevant to me.
From the early days, it was obvious you were just interested in defending the status quo - arguing that what was so awful about X was that it wasn't Legacy 8. And worse, you felt that made it unworthy of study or understanding.
Plenty here questioned it as strongly, but also showed that they examined it closely enough to understand what they were talking about. Others fell into "it's crap" camp , but their posts were well, more interesting?
So you didn't really come to mind as someone I needed to address when I wrote that.
Sorry.

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

Mathieu Ghekiere
Re: FCP X can't do "pro" is officially vaporized.
on Mar 9, 2016 at 9:50:49 pm

Very interesting, Michael, thanks.

It would be nice if Apple would do something with this patent they had for FCPX, with 'Guards':

http://blog.alex4d.com/2011/07/18/secret-fcpx-xml-multi-user-editing/

It's been a long time in the code of FCPX already, so I'm wondering what Apple has in store for the future for FCPX.

https://mathieughekiere.wordpress.com


Return to posts index

Ronny Courtens
Re: FCP X can't do "pro" is officially vaporized.
on Mar 10, 2016 at 7:48:28 am

Hey Neil,

Although project sharing has been possible with FCP X for a long time, I'm pretty sure there will be a few very interesting develompents in this field in the near future. And these will not involve needing exclusive and overly expensive hardware solutions.

- Ronny


Return to posts index

Steve Connor
Re: FCP X can't do "pro" is officially vaporized.
on Mar 10, 2016 at 10:49:12 am

[Ronny Courtens] "And these will not involve needing exclusive and overly expensive hardware solutions."

Apart from an overly expensive Mac :)


Return to posts index

Ronny Courtens
Re: FCP X can't do "pro" is officially vaporized.
on Mar 10, 2016 at 12:04:08 pm

Steve Connor: : "Apart from an overly expensive Mac"

LOL! True, Steve, but you can buy a helluva lot of Macs for the price of an enterprise-level shared storage system.

- Ronny


Return to posts index

Robin S. Kurz
Re: FCP X can't do "pro" is officially vaporized.
on Mar 10, 2016 at 1:35:51 pm

[Steve Connor] "Apart from an overly expensive Mac :)"

So I take it you missed this?







You know of course which of the two is in fact more expensive, right? Oh, and STILL doesn't deliver the needed performance. Hmmm... how does that work out to an "overly expensive Mac"? :D

- RK

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


Return to posts index

Steve Connor
Re: FCP X can't do "pro" is officially vaporized.
on Mar 10, 2016 at 2:11:03 pm

It was a joke Robin, hence the smiley face


Return to posts index

Walter Soyka
Re: FCP X can't do "pro" is officially vaporized.
on Mar 10, 2016 at 2:18:38 pm

[Robin S. Kurz] "So I take it you missed this?" (12" Macbook cutting 4K YouTube demo)

Robin, earlier you said, "We have a 12 machine FCP X suite." I assumed you meant twelve Macs with shared storage, not one twelve-inch Macbook.

http://instantrimshot.com/index.php?sound=rimshot&play=true

In all seriousness, what are your machine specs? Do you use a low-spec itty-bitty laptop for editorial or would you seriously recommend it?


[Robin S. Kurz] "You know of course which of the two is in fact more expensive, right? Oh, and STILL doesn't deliver the needed performance. Hmmm... how does that work out to an "overly expensive Mac"? :D"

You did notice Steve's smiley, right?

If we're talking about shared storage ($$$), we're talking about real facilities and real money, and we're not talking about individual Macs ($), right? Even if shared storage is "expensive," hardware and software costs pale in comparison to labor costs ($$$$$).

Twelve nice-ish Macs, maybe usable for 3 years?
12 * $4000 = $48,000 (2.5%)

Some kind of nice shared storage infrastructure for them, maybe also usable for 3 years?
Guessing = $80,000 (4.1%)

Twelve cheap-ish editors, over 3 years?
12 * $50,000/yr * 3 years = $1,800,000 (93.4%)

Please correct my numbers where I'm wrong, but until we start moving decimal points, the system cost is only drops in the bucket. Extra money on the system upfront that would save more money on the labor over time is well-spent.

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

Robin S. Kurz
Re: FCP X can't do "pro" is officially vaporized.
on Mar 10, 2016 at 2:43:08 pm

[Walter Soyka] "In all seriousness, what are your machine specs?"

All current gen 5K iMacs. We have various other Macs also btw, some even 8+ years old and running great. AND editing.

It's one of two schools. University of applied sciences.


[Walter Soyka] "Do you use a low-spec itty-bitty laptop for editorial or would you seriously recommend it?"

I think you're confusing two entirely different, unrelated posts of mine. But, yes, I do in fact use a MacBook Pro for editing. In fact exclusively until recently.


[Walter Soyka] "You did notice Steve's smiley, right?"

Well, MINE are clearly not always interpreted correctly either. ;) Coulda been a "just kidding" or a "know what I mean?". I guess I went for the wrong one. Ah well. My bad. :)

- RK

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


Return to posts index

Walter Soyka
Re: FCP X can't do "pro" is officially vaporized.
on Mar 10, 2016 at 2:52:40 pm

[Robin S. Kurz] "Well, MINE are clearly not always interpreted correctly either. ;) Coulda been a "just kidding" or a "know what I mean?". I guess I went for the wrong one. Ah well. My bad. :)"

My apologies for misconstruing.

I mainly wanted to start a conversation about the economics of shared storage. I need more persuasion before I believe that Avid's (or Adobe's) enterprise-system costs are too high.

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

Bill Davis
Re: FCP X can't do "pro" is officially vaporized.
on Mar 10, 2016 at 4:08:14 pm

Well...

http://lumaforge.com/jellyfish/

The latest hardware solution from the team that did the RTS install.

I'd say things are going to be getting VERY interesting in the small shop collaborative space.

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

Neil Goodman
Re: FCP X can't do "pro" is officially vaporized.
on Mar 18, 2016 at 4:15:15 am

[Robin S. Kurz] "So I take it you missed this?
"


Great - a 12 inch laptop? Who wants to edit on that?

All the people that brag about 4k native raw blah blah blah on an etch a sketch and all that - I'm like who the ef really cares?


Return to posts index

Robin S. Kurz
Re: FCP X can't do "pro" is officially vaporized.
on Mar 18, 2016 at 8:48:30 am
Last Edited By Robin S. Kurz on Mar 18, 2016 at 8:59:28 am

So you didn't get that actual point. That's okay.

But yeah, there are in fact a LOT of people that want to able to do that, sorry to say. Be it e.g. for on-set dailies or actually editing, yes, with an external screen or not. In the latter case whether it's a 2, 12, or even 17 inch whatever becomes completely irrelevant. Until recently my main machine was a MBP, too. Loved it and still love it as my secondary.

- RK


Return to posts index

Bill Davis
Re: FCP X can't do "pro" is officially vaporized.
on Mar 18, 2016 at 7:05:18 pm

[Neil Goodman] "Great - a 12 inch laptop? Who wants to edit on that? "

Me on an airplane? Me when I have the X interface reduced to just the Event browser and I'm focused on doing prep like audio synchronization, multicam prep and/or keywording? Me when I pull into a parking lot of a wifi coffee shop to fix and upload an alt cut to a client on a deadline?

Basically, me?

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


Return to posts index

Steve Connor
Re: FCP X can't do "pro" is officially vaporized.
on Mar 18, 2016 at 7:44:49 pm

[Bill Davis] "Me on an airplane? Me when I have the X interface reduced to just the Event browser and I'm focused on doing prep like audio synchronization, multicam prep and/or keywording? Me when I pull into a parking lot of a wifi coffee shop to fix and upload an alt cut to a client on a deadline?
"


Out of all the NLEs the interface on FCPX is perfectly suited to use on a laptop, still waiting for the iPad version though :)


Return to posts index

Robin S. Kurz
Re: FCP X can't do "pro" is officially vaporized.
on Mar 19, 2016 at 1:17:11 pm

[Steve Connor] "still waiting for the iPad version though :)"

I believe that's actually called "iMovie for iPad", yes. 100% FCP X compatible, brilliant on an iPad Pro.

- RK

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


Return to posts index

Walter Soyka
Re: FCP X can't do "pro" is officially vaporized.
on Mar 10, 2016 at 2:27:29 pm

[Ronny Courtens] "And these will not involve needing exclusive and overly expensive hardware solutions."

If we're talking about Avid's ISIS, it's not exclusive. You can use other NLEs on ISIS, and you can buy other shared storage solutions that support Avid's bin locking.

As for overly expensive, yes, starting at ~$18k for 14TB of usable space is a bit steep.

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

Michael Hancock
Re: FCP X can't do "pro" is officially vaporized.
on Mar 10, 2016 at 2:35:40 pm

[Walter Soyka] "As for overly expensive, yes, starting at ~$18k for 14TB of usable space is a bit steep."

I agree that Avid's storage is overpriced compared to most other options, but $18K is more of a starting point in negotiations.

You can buy an ISIS 1000 from Videoguys for $14K, and if you use one of their 5% off discount codes you're under $13,300. For a small post house with a couple editors, wanting to use Avid, that's very affordable.

----------------
Michael Hancock
Editor


Return to posts index

Walter Soyka
Re: FCP X can't do "pro" is officially vaporized.
on Mar 10, 2016 at 2:46:49 pm

[Michael Hancock] "You can buy an ISIS 1000 from Videoguys for $14K, and if you use one of their 5% off discount codes you're under $13,300. For a small post house with a couple editors, wanting to use Avid, that's very affordable."

Especially when you consider what you get with a real collaborative editorial workflow, instead of frame it purely in what you're spending on a quantity of spinning rust.

Robin suggested above that the difference with such a system was thousands of dollars versus a few clicks. I wonder if that's overly reductive. Using the skimmer "only" saves you one click, but I think we're all agreed that the skimmer is a way more powerful feature in practice than it is in theory.

I view Avid's bin sharing the same way. The fact that Media Composer just works, whether you're one user, two users, or a dozen users, is also more powerful in practice than it is theory.

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

Robin S. Kurz
Re: FCP X can't do "pro" is officially vaporized.
on Mar 10, 2016 at 3:02:25 pm

[Walter Soyka] "Robin suggested above that the difference with such a system was thousands of dollars versus a few clicks. I wonder if that's overly reductive."

I actually wrote nearly the same functionality. What certain functionality is worth to the individual is for the individual to decide. Simply for ME and the people I work for and with it's imply not an option, be it financially or (most of all) practically. The pros simply don't outweigh the cons, regardless of price. That's just the last nail in the coffin.


[Walter Soyka] "The fact that Media Composer just works, whether you're one user, two users, or a dozen users, is also more powerful in practice than it is theory."

I find that to be a rather ironic statement in light of the fact that, except for one, every Avid was just recently removed entirely from our school (after something like 10+ years), because the sys admins deemed them far too unstable and support hungry overall in comparison to FCP and Premiere. Especially since they didn't dare install either of the latter on the same machine, making it completely unfeasible to just maintain single machines that couldn't be used for anything else. It's been removed from the curriculum as well. YMMV.

- RK

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


Return to posts index

Andrew Kimery
Re: FCP X can't do "pro" is officially vaporized.
on Mar 10, 2016 at 7:08:38 pm

[Robin S. Kurz] ". Especially since they didn't dare install either of the latter on the same machine, making it completely unfeasible to just maintain single machines that couldn't be used for anything else. It's been removed from the curriculum as well. YMMV.
"


That seems excessively cautious. I've worked on many machines that have Avid installed side-by-side with other NLEs. Heck I have FCP Legend, X, PPro, Resolve. Avid and Lightworks installed on my MacPro and it hasn't imploded yet. ;)


Return to posts index

Neil Goodman
Re: FCP X can't do "pro" is officially vaporized.
on Mar 10, 2016 at 7:20:07 pm

[Andrew Kimery] "That seems excessively cautious. I've worked on many machines that have Avid installed side-by-side with other NLEs. Heck I have FCP Legend, X, PPro, Resolve. Avid and Lightworks installed on my MacPro and it hasn't imploded yet. ;)
"


Same - all the facilities now adays have everything on one box. Some with sperate installs on seperate machines but you can toggle between boxes from one bay. They seem to be getting along fine. Not sure why your facility is having difficulty with it.

Havent had an Avid crash or ISIS hiccup in about a year. FCP X has gone poof on me a few times and PPro is somewhat flakey (audio dropouts mostly) on a few systems ive triedit on.


Return to posts index

Robin S. Kurz
Re: FCP X can't do "pro" is officially vaporized.
on Mar 11, 2016 at 2:31:44 pm
Last Edited By Robin S. Kurz on Mar 11, 2016 at 2:37:54 pm

[Neil Goodman] "Havent had an Avid crash or ISIS hiccup in about a year. FCP X has gone poof on me a few times and PPro is somewhat flakey (audio dropouts mostly) on a few systems ive triedit on."

Which ironically pretty much makes my point and mirrors our exact experience, yes. Once (if) you got Avid up and running smoothly, you suddenly had all sorts of other issues elsewhere. Flakiness etc. just as you describe. And yes, after many many years of dealing with this, once things were separated everyone suddenly purred right along (e.g. FCP hasn't crashed in well over a year). But, as I said, it simply wasn't feasible to park all kinds of hardware off to one side JUST for the Avids, which no one wanted to use anyway when given the choice (in part due to the constant headaches and instabilities... but mostly because they find the interface and handling unintuitive and confusing in comparison. Oh, and because we shoot in 4, 5, and even an occasional 6K.). They were partly older versions, too, since no one dared touch them once they were up. The trusty adage of "If it ain't broke…" was number one. The other machines, in comparison, were maintained regularly without any issues worth mentioning. Again, YMMV.

- RK

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


Return to posts index

Scott Witthaus
Re: FCP X can't do "pro" is officially vaporized.
on Mar 11, 2016 at 2:34:48 pm

[Neil Goodman] "Havent had an Avid crash or ISIS hiccup in about a year."

Now you've done it! :-)

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


Return to posts index

Robin S. Kurz
Re: FCP X can't do "pro" is officially vaporized.
on Mar 11, 2016 at 2:15:55 pm

[Andrew Kimery] "That seems excessively cautious."

Well, I can only relay what I was told and what I experienced myself. Mind you, they have massive amounts of external hardware as well. So this is not about just installing an app or two. Meaning all kinds of drivers, cards and what not need to work along side as well. That's where it gets tricky. The biggest issue being that if you installed something for A, B would suddenly not be able to access C or D without a restart, reinstall, whatever. Stuff like that. And Avid was apparently always identified as the culprit, which, again, is why they moved them into their own "safe" space by themselves. WORST part being that Avid was and is always by far the furthest behind as far as "qualifying" their systems for newer OS X versions and/or certain drivers. So again, all other apps suffered while you waited.

All I know is that a huge sigh of relief went through various levels when Avid was taken from the list of requirements. Aside from the fact that none of the students ever used Avid when given the choice. Nor do any of their employers use one, aside from maybe a few scattered installs kept for legacy project reasons.

- RK

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


Return to posts index

Andrew Kimery
Re: FCP X can't do "pro" is officially vaporized.
on Mar 12, 2016 at 12:49:21 am

[Robin S. Kurz] "Well, I can only relay what I was told and what I experienced myself. Mind you, they have massive amounts of external hardware as well. So this is not about just installing an app or two. Meaning all kinds of drivers, cards and what not need to work along side as well. That's where it gets tricky. "

Yeah, the more components in a system the more places for failure or conflict.

In a previous post you mentioned you hadn't touched MC since v6, is the lab question on v6? That might account for some of the issues (Avid changed a lot in 6 but seemed to get everything much more solid in 6.5). It's neither here nor there but I'm just curious.


Return to posts index

Gary Huff
Re: FCP X can't do "pro" is officially vaporized.
on Mar 9, 2016 at 1:09:41 pm

[Bill Davis] "But those detractors"

Who are "those"? Oh, yes...the infamous "they".


Return to posts index

Chris Harlan
Re: FCP X can't do "pro" is officially vaporized.
on Mar 18, 2016 at 7:11:04 am

They?! Why, they is a plain and fancy they. That's who "they" is. Caught you, didn't they? Tied a tin can to your tail, led you in and waltzed you out again. Oh, my what a bunch.







Return to posts index

Greg Jones
Re: FCP X can't do "pro" is officially vaporized.
on Mar 8, 2016 at 11:17:36 pm

I think 'Pro' software is any software that can be used to make money, period. So whether one uses FCPX, IMovie, Premiere Pro, Sony Vegas, Windows Movie Maker, etc. It can be considered 'Pro'. Just my 2 cents.

Greg Jones


Return to posts index

Robin S. Kurz
Re: FCP X can't do "pro" is officially vaporized.
on Mar 9, 2016 at 5:35:15 pm

[Greg Jones] "I think 'Pro' software is any software that can be used to make money, period. "

Then maybe more along the lines of "Not suited for a 'pro' environment/workflow!" over which has been ranted endlessly here? In which case I hope you'd agree that apps such as IMovie or Windows Movie Maker are in fact not suited for. Meaning in terms of things such as passing off for mixing on a DAW etc. as described in the article. So it's not quite as cut'n'dry. ;)

- RK

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


Return to posts index

Herb Sevush
Re: FCP X can't do "pro" is officially vaporized.
on Mar 9, 2016 at 11:24:13 pm

From the article -

When classic FCP went EOL the Post Production department at RTS had the choice of going back to Avid, which was a prospect that no-one here was truly excited about, or we could adopt Final Cut Pro X. Premiere was out of the picture for various reasons.

So the evaluation was strictly Avid vs X, not Ppro vs X. I wonder what were those various reasons?

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


Return to posts index

Andrew Kimery
Re: FCP X can't do "pro" is officially vaporized.
on Mar 10, 2016 at 12:21:21 am

[Herb Sevush] "So the evaluation was strictly Avid vs X, not Ppro vs X. I wonder what were those various reasons?"

The Swiss don't like subscriptions?


Return to posts index

Ricardo Marty
Re: FCP X can't do "pro" is officially vaporized.
on Mar 10, 2016 at 4:40:41 am

I didnt know i was swiss

Ricardo Marty


Return to posts index

Ronny Courtens
Re: FCP X can't do "pro" is officially vaporized.
on Mar 10, 2016 at 7:31:20 am

Hey Herb,

In such operations there are many different factors that can swing decisions in one or the other direction.

Premiere was an option. But none of their editors use Premiere and they found it didn't offer anything particulary interesting or unique that would make it worth re-training their editors and rethinking their workflows. Avid was the easiest option. All their editors know Avid, and they have the infrastructure for it because news is cut on Avid. But no-one in Post Production wanted to go back to it. The third option, Final Cut Pro, seemed to fit best into their existing workflows for the reasons they have mentioned in the article and which I'm not going to repeat. And the editors found it really easy to make the transition from the old version to the new one. The only barrier was their concern about Apple's commitment to the application. As soon as we took away any doubt about this at management level, the choice was easy.

- Ronny


Return to posts index

Tony West
Re: FCP X can't do "pro" is officially vaporized.
on Mar 10, 2016 at 7:58:54 am

I wondered the same thing Ronny that Herb did. Thanks for the explanation.


What I found interesting was how they embraced everything that is the strength of X

That skimmer was mentioned countless times and the timeline with connected clips. The organization.
It just simply comes down to if you think that timeline is a strength or not.

If you think it is a weakness the program will never be for you. No matter if It had Multi-cam or not.

His breakdown of why he felt Apple was committed to top pros was good also. Many that were obvious to me from the beginning.


Return to posts index

David Mathis
Re: FCP X can't do "pro" is officially vaporized.
on Mar 10, 2016 at 8:00:17 pm

Someone on You Tube had this to say: So cute to watch them try and pretend it's actually a useful program. Those types of comments makes me wonder whether these people actually used the software or basing their "opinion" on what others have said without using the software, kind of like those talking points on your cable news network of choice.


Return to posts index

Nick Toth
Re: FCP X can't do "pro" is officially vaporized.
on Mar 10, 2016 at 8:39:34 pm

Like Ronny Courtens said on FCP Radio recently - trust someone you know, not somebody on the internet.

I've been editing for over 30 years and there is not a project that I have done (from commercials to corporate to TV) that I couldn't do in FCPX and it would be a lot more fun.

And quicker - the first time I did something on FCPX the first thought that came into my head at the completion of the project was "I shouldn't be done yet".


Return to posts index

Andrew Kimery
Re: FCP X can't do "pro" is officially vaporized.
on Mar 10, 2016 at 8:49:35 pm

[David Mathis] "Someone on You Tube had this to say: "

Starting with that statement will never lead to anything worthwhile. ;)


Return to posts index

Bill Davis
Re: FCP X can't do "pro" is officially vaporized.
on Mar 10, 2016 at 10:45:07 pm

Yep.

Damn 25 year old makeup video pitch girl or video game player hauling in seven figures... What the heck could THEY know about the video industry?

; )

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


Return to posts index

Andrew Kimery
Re: FCP X can't do "pro" is officially vaporized.
on Mar 10, 2016 at 11:45:09 pm
Last Edited By Andrew Kimery on Mar 11, 2016 at 12:27:09 am

[Bill Davis] "Damn 25 year old makeup video pitch girl or video game player hauling in seven figures... What the heck could THEY know about the video industry?

; )"


My joke was about the cesspool known as YT's comments section... with that being said I doubt Michelle Phan (who's a makeup artist not just a pitch girl) or PewDiePie would have much to say about X vs MC or LumaForge vs ISIS in a large post production facility. Maybe they do both love to geek out over production technology (I don't know), but as on camera talent it's not something that has to be in their respective wheelhouses in order to be successful. If you want to name drop a successful YouTube celeb that can lead a conversation about production, post, crowd funding, creating original online content with slick production values, etc., you need to drop Freddie Wong's name.

;)

Oddly enough I'm starting to work on a feature doc with a couple of people that have found a lot of success on YouTube (not PewDiePie level, but over 10 million subscribers and over 1 billion views) and when I asked why they wanted to make it a feature doc (as opposed to a web series) they basically said they've already been there/done that in the digital space. They want to go beyond YouTube and do something that could be seen as more prestigious/legitimate (my words, not theirs). It's admirable and also risky because as a web series coming from them this would most be a slam dunk but going the feature route introduces a lot more uncertainty.


EDIT:
It seems like whenever I'm working w/'old media' people they are trying to expand into new media and whenever I'm working with 'new media' people they are trying to expand into old media. I guess the grass is always greener...


Return to posts index

Bill Davis
Re: FCP X can't do "pro" is officially vaporized.
on Mar 11, 2016 at 3:33:46 am

Subscribers? Meh. Folks can get subscribers by dressing up cats. I'm more an MKGHD guy. Trusted on tech knowledge. Edits his shows on FCP X now - AND (and this is the closer for me) got Interviewed on tech trends by none other than Neil Degrass freekin' Tyson.

To me that's kinda the modern definition of 'mic drop' killin it.

YMMV

; )

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

Steve Connor
Re: FCP X can't do "pro" is officially vaporized.
on Mar 11, 2016 at 7:24:36 am

[Bill Davis] "Subscribers? Meh. Folks can get subscribers by dressing up cats. I'm more an MKGHD guy. Trusted on tech knowledge. Edits his shows on FCP X now - AND (and this is the closer for me) got Interviewed on tech trends by none other than Neil Degrass freekin' Tyson.

To me that's kinda the modern definition of 'mic drop' killin it."


So one moderately successful YouTuber using FCPX is "Killin it"?


Return to posts index

Bill Davis
Re: FCP X can't do "pro" is officially vaporized.
on Mar 11, 2016 at 6:38:12 pm

[Steve Connor] "So one moderately successful YouTuber using FCPX is "Killin it"?"

Sure.

Light Jazz isn't nearly as popular as Pop. But even if you don't care at all for his music, I bet Kenny G can grab a clarinet and stop a room in it's tracks via expertise.

Same same.

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

Chris Harlan
Re: FCP X can't do "pro" is officially vaporized.
on Mar 18, 2016 at 7:17:33 am

So, if I'm following correctly, you're saying that FCP is the Kenny G of the NLE world?


Return to posts index

Bill Davis
Re: FCP X can't do "pro" is officially vaporized.
on Mar 18, 2016 at 7:23:19 pm

Perhaps surprisingly correct, Chris. But in a universe where every other NLE is a traditional OomPah German beer hall band - playing to a crowd that demands that all bands play music the way it's TRADITIONALLY been played.


Return to posts index

Andrew Kimery
Re: FCP X can't do "pro" is officially vaporized.
on Mar 11, 2016 at 8:27:57 am

[Bill Davis] "Subscribers? Meh. Folks can get subscribers by dressing up cats. "

One post ago you brought up Michelle Phan (makeup demos) and PewDiePie (plays video games & gives questionably humorous running commentary) as examples of people who apparently have insight into the video industry due to their massive YouTube success (i.e. the amount of subscribers and views they've racked up) but now you are saying subscriber numbers aren't relevant?


Return to posts index

Bill Davis
Re: FCP X can't do "pro" is officially vaporized.
on Mar 11, 2016 at 6:50:19 pm

[Andrew Kimery] "YouTube success (i.e. the amount of subscribers and views they've racked up) but now you are saying subscriber numbers aren't relevant?"

I NEVER said they weren't relevant. Their relevance to the discussion of changing markets and modes of video influence is PRECISELY why I referenced them in my original post.

My follow up was a commentary on how despite the success of those folk in generating massive numbers of views - neither one resonates with me SPECIFICALLY as someone who might have insight into the utility of EDITING software.

Marques Brownlee on the other hand, has influence specifically in modern communications TECHNOLOGY. Including the use of items like laptops and modern cel phones - things now moving into the CENTER of the global video production game.

So I think he's a more credible cite when discussing the utility of modern NLEs to produce stuff like YouTube content.

You are, of course, perfectly free to disagree.

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


Return to posts index

Andrew Kimery
Re: FCP X can't do "pro" is officially vaporized.
on Mar 11, 2016 at 11:21:47 pm

[Bill Davis] "My follow up was a commentary on how despite the success of those folk in generating massive numbers of views - neither one resonates with me SPECIFICALLY as someone who might have insight into the utility of EDITING software.
.
.
.
So I think he's a more credible cite when discussing the utility of modern NLEs to produce stuff like YouTube content. "


The switching of gears is what lost me but I get what you are saying now.


[Bill Davis] "You are, of course, perfectly free to disagree."

Me, disagree with you, never! ;)


Return to posts index

Tony West
Re: FCP X can't do "pro" is officially vaporized.
on Mar 11, 2016 at 1:43:22 pm

[Andrew Kimery] " also risky because as a web series coming from them this would most be a slam dunk but going the feature route introduces a lot more uncertainty.
"


If they decide to four wall, what's really helped me take the risk out is to pick up a sponsor or two.

Since my film is about nuclear workers I have two groups that help workers that have gotten behind me.

I also have a environmental group.

Maybe have them look at their subject and see who would want to back them.

Have those DVD's ready to sell after. That$ huge. or you-uge: )

The biggest challenge is dealing with chain theaters that make it hard for independent films to do basic business.


Return to posts index

Mike Warmels
Re: FCP X can't do "pro" is officially vaporized.
on Mar 11, 2016 at 9:31:13 pm

Well, I dunno, guys.

I've been working on FCPX for well over year now, doing a lot of television shows. But I find FCPX a true minefield when it comes things like synchronising audio, where some things mysteriously don't work in particular clips, the whole export to AAF audio post production is causing a lot of editors I work with sever headaches, figuring out how to work with third party software, sound editors going berserk over the excessive amount of audio tracks getting handed over to them through X2Pro (where often left and right channels of music are like 15 tracks apart).

It seems to me everything we need rig something a little special FCPX should officially be able to do, it's like opening Pandora's Box... a lot weird stuff happens.

But for me, the biggest bother of working on FCPX is still its performance. I work on a Mac Pro trashcan, using only thunderbolt external hard drives, having my libraries and chase on my internal SSD harddrive... working only with Apple Pro Res encoded footage... but as soon as a Library gets a little bigger (I do a lot of 5-6 parts series of 30 minutes where I work on them in one Library, because I need all the footage for all of it) it gets slower. And by that I mean with every new project (timeline) I make (using duplicates for each new version of the cut) it gets slower. When there are a few more layers or a larger number of graphics (like name titles, borders etc.) it gets slower.

And with every duplicate, copy or change to say, a synchronised clip, I get that bloody beach ball again.

Two weeks ago I got the chance to work on AVID again. And after my first cut I duplicated the sequence for a new version after changes from my client. And really, I thought it died on me. It didn't do anything... or so I thought. After a closer look the duplicate sequence was there, duplicated AND in the timeline window. IT duplicated so fast, like in the blink of an eye, I just wasn't used to that kind of speed anymore.When I do stuff like that on FCPX the beach ball is telling me FCPX is working on it. I've gotten used to the delayed response of FCPX...

So no... I work on it every day. But it means looking at beach balls a lot. And a lot of editors I work complain about its slowness, it sloppy programming (why does the graphic display of audio levels in the timeline differ when you change zoom? why does the timeline graphic in the browser not fit the place of audio when you go to the end of the clip? why does it miss a couple of frames when you select a larger number of clips in the timeline...).

I see the harm of FCPX and I know a lot of you guys enjoy the hell out of it. But frankly... I don't see it.


Return to posts index

Mike Warmels
Re: FCP X can't do "pro" is officially vaporized.
on Mar 11, 2016 at 9:35:33 pm

I meant: "I see the CHARM of FCPX..."


Return to posts index

Tim Wilson
Re: FCP X can't do "pro" is officially vaporized.
on Mar 11, 2016 at 11:39:10 pm

[Mike Warmels] "I meant: "I see the CHARM of FCPX...""

I thought "see the HARM" of it was one the best things I've read. LOL


Return to posts index

Michael Gissing
Re: FCP X can't do "pro" is officially vaporized.
on Mar 12, 2016 at 12:16:17 am

[Mike Warmels] "I meant: "I see the CHARM of FCPX...""

[Tim Wilson]I thought "see the HARM" of it was one the best things I've read. LOL

I see there is still a reason to visit this forum from time to time. So glad that FCP X can't do "pro" is now officiously vaporized.


Return to posts index

Andrew Kimery
Re: FCP X can't do "pro" is officially vaporized.
on Mar 12, 2016 at 12:32:44 am

[Michael Gissing] "So glad that FCP X can't do "pro" is now officiously vaporized."

So does that mean we can call it Final Cut Finally Pro? ;)


Return to posts index

Bill Davis
Re: FCP X can't do "pro" is officially vaporized.
on Mar 12, 2016 at 1:07:15 am

Just noting once again my absolute satisfaction that while the industry dithered about its "professionalism and sought comfort in those "proven workflows" - some of us had four years to study and adapt to X. Which has been AMAZING.

I'm currently deep into my keyword strategy design for my 6 day shoot with dozens of primary, secondary and tertiary interview subjects including district admins, teachers, students, parents and coaches - classroom walkthroughs, debriefs and hours and hours of classroom b-roll coverage where I have to manage things like a small subset of students who's parents didn't file their releases on time - and trust me, I KNOW the internal X range-based database is going to drive MASSIVE complexity OUT of my work over the next month.

And it will because I've had 4 years to study show to best use it.

It's nowhere near as big a job to unwind complexity, when you have a superb tool designed to do precisely that!

Fun? Yes. This project will be fun. And X will solve hundreds of real problems for me as a Videomaker every day I'm working in it. Making my work faster and easier.

All for $300 bucks - once - 4 years ago.

Single smartest purchase I have EVER made, if you ask me.



Return to posts index

Bill Davis
Re: FCP X can't do "pro" is officially vaporized.
on Mar 12, 2016 at 12:41:51 am
Last Edited By Bill Davis on Mar 12, 2016 at 1:12:23 am

>Quote: So no... I work on it every day. But it means looking at beach balls a lot. And a lot of editors I work >complain about its slowness>

So in your reconnning, all the rest of us are having an experience like yours and are just being silent because What? ... We're willing to live with beach balls and have things not work or be unresponsive
and that's OK because we're all just too inexperienced to know better? The folks at Warner Bros and Paramount, and at RTS and the BBC are all in a grand conspiracy to keep silent about X's massive flaws? Is that it? - because again What?
Yes individuals have problems with software builds and particular installations. That has never and likely will never change. But if the overall industry is telling you that X is capable of fast, efficient workflows. And you aren't experiencing that - the likelihood is that there's something WRONG with your system or how you are using it.

It's as simple as that.

If there are 3 million users of something (guessing here) and most of the reports are of smoothe workflows - and yours isn't smooth- then the smart money HAS to be on something wrong in YOUR shop.

I'd get in the phone to somebody like Bob Zelin and pay him to figure out whats wrong.

Life's too short to work with sub standard systems. And the vetted case studies say X - configured and operated properly - is far from sub-standard. Period.

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

Andrew Kimery
Re: FCP X can't do "pro" is officially vaporized.
on Mar 12, 2016 at 1:53:07 am

[Bill Davis] "Life's too short to work with sub standard systems. And the vetted case studies say X - configured and operated properly - is far from sub-standard. Period."

The amazing thing about this post Bill is its versatility. Just change "X" to "Avid" and you came up with the solution for Robin Kurz's problem too! ;)


Return to posts index

Robin S. Kurz
Re: FCP X can't do "pro" is officially vaporized.
on Mar 12, 2016 at 12:00:40 pm
Last Edited By Robin S. Kurz on Mar 12, 2016 at 12:04:40 pm

[Andrew Kimery] "In a previous post you mentioned you hadn't touched MC since v6, is the lab question on v6? That might account for some of the issues (Avid changed a lot in 6 but seemed to get everything much more solid in 6.5). It's neither here nor there but I'm just curious."

No, Andrew, I said I hadn't USED it (as in "in production") and that I was guessing it may have been v6 that (last) time. Could've been v7. But since the Avids were moved in the school, they finally dared to update them more often and AFAIK are v8.x, where it now ends. Especially since, as I mentioned, we shoot in 4, 5 and even some occasional 6K, in which case they're useless for the latter, no matter which version.


[Andrew Kimery] "Just change "X" to "Avid" and you came up with the solution for Robin Kurz's problem too!"

Yeah. Somehow I knew that was going to be used as an excuse, since I don't see how that (with or without the token smily) can be interpreted as anything but "PEBCAK!". Easy explanation when you have no clue who the sys admins are (in that case not me) and whom they spoke with for hours on the phone and in person to get things resolved but couldn't. Sure. Avid is rock-solid and bug-free! Only incompetence can take it down. Well known fact.

Never mind that Avid themselves recommended the move in the end, too, after apparently running out of options. Go figure.

- RK

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


Return to posts index

Andrew Kimery
Re: FCP X can't do "pro" is officially vaporized.
on Mar 12, 2016 at 4:07:06 pm

[Robin S. Kurz] "No, Andrew, I said I hadn't USED it (as in "in production") and that I was guessing it may have been v6 that (last) time."

Which is why I asked for clarification.

[Robin S. Kurz] "Yeah. Somehow I knew that was going to be used as an excuse, "

What excuse? My post was making fun of Bill, not advice for you. If I wanted to berate you w/a condescending post I would've done it many posts ago as opposed to trying to learn more about your situation. You had problems with Avid, you moved on to something you like better. Awesome. I really don't care what NLE people use as long as it works for them. I don't work for any of these companies or sell plug-ins or teach classes or anything else that would give me a vested interest in pushing one over the other.

Funny how you and Bill both reacted similarly to Mike's situation, yet when the same 'advice' is pointed in your direction you go off the deep end.


Return to posts index

Robin S. Kurz
Re: FCP X can't do "pro" is officially vaporized.
on Mar 12, 2016 at 4:13:48 pm

Clearly you missed that neither were they my systems, nor was it my decision to move away from them. Sorry, no ulterior motive to be found.


[Andrew Kimery] "… you go off the deep end."

Huh? Your reading interpretation skills are... interesting. Feel free to quote exactly where I "went off the deep end". :-D

- RK

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


Return to posts index

Andrew Kimery
Re: FCP X can't do "pro" is officially vaporized.
on Mar 14, 2016 at 7:01:43 am

[Robin S. Kurz] "Clearly you missed that neither were they my systems, nor was it my decision to move away from them. Sorry, no ulterior motive to be found."

You're right, I should have said the Avids at your school. From how matter-of-factly you spoke about the situation I thought you were more closely involved than you actually were.


[Robin S. Kurz] "Feel free to quote exactly where I "went off the deep end". :-D
"


Okay. See below.

[Robin S. Kurz] "Yeah. Somehow I knew that was going to be used as an excuse, since I don't see how that (with or without the token smily) can be interpreted as anything but "PEBCAK!". Easy explanation when you have no clue who the sys admins are (in that case not me) and whom they spoke with for hours on the phone and in person to get things resolved but couldn't. Sure. Avid is rock-solid and bug-free! Only incompetence can take it down. Well known fact."

My joke was poking fun at Bill, it wasn't a machiavellian dig aimed at the Avid problem you were describing.

What excuses did I make in favor of Avid? Where did I accuse anyone of being incompetent? Your school had atypical problems with their Avids. They weren't able to resolve said problems even with Avid's help. They moved on to a different solution. Problem solved. If I actually thought the sys admins involved were incompetent I would have said so. But I don't so I didn't.


Return to posts index

Mike Warmels
Re: FCP X can't do "pro" is officially vaporized.
on Mar 12, 2016 at 8:41:46 am

I didn't say that, Bill.

I have been coming here, hoping for some resolutions for these issues that we're having. And I have taken aboard all the advice you gave me so far. A lot of it was very good, but in the end the net result wasn't huge.

I spent well over $6000 on a MacPro trashcan and another $1000 on external Thunderbolt hard discs. It's nice and easy to say it's mediocre stuff. But I don't think it is: it's Apple's fastest computer, it's Apple own editing system. I use media and FCPX set up everything exactly the way you (and many others here) advised me to do on this very forum. But performance wise it's just not great. And I can't find what the problem is.
Now I can keep pouring money into it, buy another MacPro for $12,000 with 12 Cores (although generally it's only using one) but I doubt that will solve the problems.

Maybe, just maybe and that's just a though I had, FCPX is at it's heart not designed to work on PAL. I set up this reportage show by putting up titles for every clip with the exact required length, so I wouldn't get confused what item to cut next. Every clip was at a rounded number of minutes, it's total was 35 minutes. But when I selected all the title blocks FCPX gave a total of 34 minutes, 59 seconds and 23 frames... TWO FRAMES missing! That is bizarre. Of course, it has no impact on the actual editing but it did make think there's something wrong with FCPX's calculating skills features. Maybe it doesn't work well on PAL...

Again, just a thought. I'm not blaming you or anything. I just wish that after a year of getting dozens and dozens of consultations here and from editors in my country, it's just not up to par. And with some advice, I just can't work, like this one I got from a company selling and installing FCPX systems: "you should disconnect your AJA T-tap and work without your broadcast monitor..." At moments like that I can't stop thinking: "WTF... what's Pro about that?"

Comparing that to a much more complex NLE like AVID... it works like a charm on my set... always! And I keep wondering, why can't I get FCPX to work that way, while so many of you can...


Return to posts index

Bill Davis
Re: FCP X can't do "pro" is officially vaporized.
on Mar 12, 2016 at 4:34:47 pm

Mike,

I hear you.

And I appreciate that what you DON"T want is to have to keep putting on your system integrators hat when all you really want is to EDIT.

It's got to be terribly frustrating. And I feel for you.

But that doesn't change the fact that tons of people here get superb results with X running systems just like, or even less powerful, than yours.

So there has to be something happening that's gumming up your works.

Ronny is one of the best in the business at sussing out problems. I'd take him up on his generous offer to help you figure out what's wrong. Because something clearly IS wrong.

Maybe its how the files are configured, maybe some hardware glitch, perhaps some workflow process that's configured in a way that's slowing things down...

I have the distinct feeling X could be a GREAT NLE for you. But it will never be until you can get these issues resolved and experience it the way the rest of us are.

My hope is that that happens sooner rather than later for you.

Good luck.

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

Mike Warmels
Re: FCP X can't do "pro" is officially vaporized.
on Mar 15, 2016 at 1:00:55 pm

Well, Bill, you're absolutely right. I just want to edit and not fidget around. And to be honest, it's me that has the slightest problems. Unless I have to battle all the weird audio synching issues (which is often unexplained and causing slowness in the system).

It's a lot of editors finalising my projects and running into very similar problems (and not just on my projects).

But I did take up Ronny's generous offer. I hope to figure out how to up the performance. But as you point out: "Maybe its how the files are configured, maybe some hardware glitch, perhaps some workflow process that's configured in a way that's slowing things down..." , that is basically my main frustration. We often can't figure out what's causing the weirdness. As I said before: it feels like an NLE with so many little pitfalls that I never know what's next.

And I keep repeating it, similar issues are (on the exact same set and configuration) in AVID are almost absent. It has it quirks an quips, but it's always stable. And the settings of the project dictate what happens to all the media, how it's configured and how the project performs. And that is what's does it for me.

But... I have a lot projects that have to be cut and finished in FCPX. So, yeah... hopefully Ronny's advice will help me out.


Return to posts index

Mike Warmels
Re: FCP X can't do "pro" is officially vaporized.
on Mar 12, 2016 at 9:23:29 am

Yeah, me too. FCPX has a lot of do's and don'ts, many little pitfalls you have to avoid. And with this huge knowledge base of experienced editors helps one learn about this little things. They can help prevent a lot of trouble.

Of course, I wish things would just WORK without having to avoid all these little pitfalls, but I am grateful to all the helpful advice.


Return to posts index

Ronny Courtens
Re: FCP X can't do "pro" is officially vaporized.
on Mar 12, 2016 at 7:12:29 am

Hey Mike,

The projects you describe are relatively simple compared with what they do at RTS, or even what we do on a daily basis. And we don't see any of the issues you describe. So either you are using a completely different FCP X than the rest of us, or there is something wrong with your setup or your workflows. If you send me an e-mail with your system specs, OS version and FCP X version, I will be very happy to help you solve the issues you say you are experiencing: ronnycourtens@mac.com

- Ronny


Return to posts index

Mike Warmels
Re: FCP X can't do "pro" is officially vaporized.
on Mar 12, 2016 at 8:27:51 am

You are right, Ronny. The projects ARE very simple. That's why I am so disappointed with it.

And my system is pretty simple: late 2013 Mac Pro trashcan, 6 core, D700 video graphics card. I use AJA T-tap to feed video to my Flanders broadcast monitor and I use Thunderbolt 4T La Cie external hard drives. Libraries and cache are on the internal hard drive. All the footage is HD Apple Pro Res. I don't import media into the library, I leave everything where it is.

But again, when working on projects with little footage and few projects (or duplicates of projects) it generally runs fine. But when more footage (20 hours plus is relatively normal for a short reportage like series) is being used, I get the feeling all that all the application is doing is generating wave forms... endlessly. I think that is what is causing the delays.

A simple thing like PLAY or PLAY AROUND... it usually takes almost a second before it actually plays. It's not instant. But that is the least of the problems. After a few hours of editing, everything gets slow.

I am a director and I cut his shows into rough cuts, working a lot with exchanging projects and media (not at the same time), but the 20+ editors I work with battle with these issues everyday in a different facility working with SAN. So it's not just me.

There must be some trick to make FCPX work like a charm, because a lot of you are happy with it. I've basically followed every advice I got on this forum, but the improvements are slight. To me there's nothing intuitive about waiting for beach balls to spin before my eyes. Or trying to figure out why sometimes clips mysteriously go offline, or only half of a clip can be viewed in the browser while it's fine when viewed in Finder, or why synchronised audio gets mysteriously compressed into one track... I have to keep Inspector open to check all audio that is synchronised, but keeping it open, makes FCPX even slower (wave forms!!!).

So I fight my way through these edits, it has nothing to do with the interface, it's certainly not all bad. But the full speed, hammering away, undelayed cutting and chopping like I can do on AVID, nope... that's not happening in FCPX.


Return to posts index

Robin S. Kurz
Re: FCP X can't do "pro" is officially vaporized.
on Mar 12, 2016 at 11:37:37 am

[Ronny Courtens] "The projects you describe are relatively simple compared with what they do at RTS, or even what we do on a daily basis. And we don't see any of the issues you describe. So either you are using a completely different FCP X than the rest of us, or there is something wrong with your setup or your workflows."

I can only second that whole-heartedly. I work near exclusively in PAL and in fact am currently working on near 30 hrs. of material with all of that even TRIPLED. The original 2K Cineform, optimized, AND proxy. 52 individually edited scenes, all with a minimum of three versions of the edit. And… all that on a 2012 MBP with a TBo RAID. I don't see any of what Mike describes. Not on any of the many systems I otherwise work on either. Will it slow down every once in a while if it's been open all day? Sure, sometimes. But a simple restart of FCP will always return it to its full performance. A matter of maybe 20 seconds.

The part I by far get the least is the thing about the AAFs being bad??! I have used X2Pro countless times and have even heard here and there that the audio guy wishes he could ALWAYS get such clean timelines. Something that is in fact mirrored in the article also:

"Our audio people say that, if Roles are applied correctly, the AAF that comes from FCP X via X2Pro is cleaner than any other AAF because all the audio tracks are clearly organized based on the Roles that were applied to them in FCP X."

Could it be that you're not familiar with the point (and importance!) of ROLES, Mike? Are you ignoring them altogether? Because that's the only possible reason I can think of why your AAFs shouldn't in fact be more than perfect.

- RK

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


Return to posts index

Mike Warmels
Re: FCP X can't do "pro" is officially vaporized.
on Mar 15, 2016 at 12:54:28 pm

Well, sound editors often show me what they get. And mostly it's a big mess. Someone must be doing something wrong, no doubt. But often they're getting somewhere between 36 and 96 tracks, where 14 should be sufficient. And they use the roles, that kind of works, but the amount of tracks and the organisation is often still messy. Compared to an AVID AFF, where the sound editors only get what was used.

Partly that may have to do with the workflow. A lot of television director precut their shows, add their own music etc. And they forget to add roles for instance. Which means changing them in the timeline. We've discussed this before, but I find it strange that if you change the roles in the source clip, it doesn't change it in timeline.

And... same thing happens when some people import MP3 music (44 Khz). When they use X2PRo all that music ends up being 44 KHz in a 48 KHz show. Now, of course, people should first convert the audio, track by track before importing it. But you know how it goes.

The thing is: you don't notice it in the timeline that the frequency is different (only in Inspector but you'd have to check every used clip, one by one). If you don't leave FCPX it's never a problem. But it's strange that in a 48KHz project or library the audio doesn't get converted upon import. Or that FCPX doesn't convert it either. Plus, to change the frequency, you have to import new tracks and put them all back by hand. I wish you could just replace them (like you could in FCP7).

So for me, that's major difference between AVID and FCP7. In FCPX you have to do a lot of thinking yourself on stuff like codec, audio frequencies. In AVID and FCP7 you have specs on the project and the application converts everything to the specs of that project. Which is, if you ask me, a much more convenient way of working if you're editing, adding footage, music, stills etc. while you're on the go. I mean, that's what machines are for, right? To do the heavy lifting.


Return to posts index

Michael Hancock
Re: FCP X can't do "pro" is officially vaporized.
on Mar 15, 2016 at 1:34:24 pm

[Mike Warmels] "We've discussed this before, but I find it strange that if you change the roles in the source clip, it doesn't change it in timeline. "

I encourage you to make a feature request that there be an "Update Project/Sequence" option that ripples changes to source clips into the selected project/sequence (like Avid's Update Sequence). I wouldn't want source clip changes/roles to automatically be applied to all projects. But the option to apply them to selected projects? Yes please. I've requested it several times already, but having multiple people request it would be even better.

You can submit feature requests here: http://www.apple.com/feedback/finalcutpro.html

----------------
Michael Hancock
Editor


Return to posts index

Mike Warmels
Re: FCP X can't do "pro" is officially vaporized.
on Mar 15, 2016 at 3:28:51 pm

Good point.

I can imagine certain situation where you don't want ripple effects on roles. Like when you use an ambient as a sound effect. But on the other hand: music is always music... and sound effects are always sound effects.

Especially with the whole X2Pro, third party exports where correct roles are VITAL... I think it would be a necessary feature.


Return to posts index

Michael Hancock
Re: FCP X can't do "pro" is officially vaporized.
on Mar 15, 2016 at 3:40:01 pm

[Mike Warmels] "music is always music... and sound effects are always sound effects.
"


99.99% of the time, yes. Which is why I've also requested that you be able to assign a role to a keyword, so as soon as you drop your footage into the keyword collection it assumes that role.

But since you can have a clip in multiple keyword collections, I would like to see the program become aware of which collection you edit from. So if you edit from the Music keyword collection the audio is cut into your timeline as Music. But if you have a music track you want to also use as SFX you could drop it into your SFX keyword collection, with the SFX role added to the keyword, and when you edit the music from that collection it carries the SFX role into the sequence. So you could have multiple roles assigned to one clip, and the role that is applied it tied to a keyword collection.

There is a ton of possibilities with roles, keyword collections, events, etc..., but Apple doesn't seem interested in exploring or expanding on any of them. It's very frustrating and reminiscent of Avid in a lot of ways. They develop an incredible and powerful concept but it's implemented in a very basic way, and it's never improved upon.

----------------
Michael Hancock
Editor


Return to posts index

Mike Warmels
Re: FCP X can't do "pro" is officially vaporized.
on Mar 15, 2016 at 3:45:07 pm

Yes, I agree.

Well, for me the problem is that once something is in the timeline, it cannot automatically be corrected. You have to do everything again. If it's a small sequence, it's okay. If not... a lot of work.


Return to posts index

Michael Hancock
Re: FCP X can't do "pro" is officially vaporized.
on Mar 15, 2016 at 4:09:12 pm

You can use the timeline index to make it faster, if you haven't explored it much.

Example: If you have a keyword collection called "BRoll" and you didn't tag those cilps as NAT or BRoll or whatever role you want them to have (audio or video), you can use the timeline index to quickly do that to your sequence. Go to the Tags column, search for BRoll, select everything, then apply a role. Or if it's just one specific clip you can search the Clips column, select all instances of that clip in the timeline index (which selects all the clips in your sequence), then apply a role and it will be applied to all of them.

It helps a lot, but it's still not as elegant as updating a sequence would be, or applying a role directly to a keyword at the event level.

----------------
Michael Hancock
Editor


Return to posts index

Bill Davis
Re: FCP X can't do "pro" is officially vaporized.
on Mar 18, 2016 at 8:01:20 pm

Maybe this will help.
X is ALL about the flow of metadata.
It flows along a path. I think of it as "downhill" as a convenience.
Import to Event - what you change or add there joins the metadata pool and flows into the Project. And what you change or add there flows out via Share.
So "where" you do things matters.
A improperly trained Producer who is unskilled at Roles application - WILL cause problems. And these problems are no different from those an improperly trained sound mixer or camera operator can cause. Sometimes those problems are correctable but sometimes they cause things to have to be totally re-done! And that sucks. But the smart solution isn't to change the program to be able to re-address and fix anything that can possibly go wrong - because that just causes the program to add complexity to try to address ALL the forms of upstream incompetence and the program bloat potential becomes huge. The smart solution is to TRAIN the producer (or whoever needs to assign roles at the proper place in the workflow) in how to do the job properly.
Period.
Just my 2 cents. YMMV

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

Mike Warmels
Re: FCP X can't do "pro" is officially vaporized.
on Mar 18, 2016 at 8:21:01 pm

Yes, what you say makes sense, of course.

However, it seems with FCPX' sensibilities, the skilled path is a pretty narrow one. It seems all pretty straight forward and simple to get into. But when you get deeper into it, it isn't as simple as FCPX makes it appear. It's deceptive in that way, because FCPX accepts everything you feed it (be it MXF, MP4, Apple Pro Res, AVCD, MP3, 48Khz, 44 Khz) and seems to handle it all within one timeline. But it doesn't handle everything as well as it accepts it. And that means everyone working on it (even producers or directors that make rough cuts) must be very very skilled. I.e. knowing ALL the pitfalls. And if you don't, there's serious trouble down the road.

Currently I'm having these issues with the synchronised audio. Where multiple audiotracks get compressed into one. Now I put it all together, checked and it looked fine. But... I forgot to double check them in the Inspector while editing with them. So an entire cut was made, without access to the separate audio tracks.

Now, I've tried to solve it, but I can't get the synchronised tracks to work in the "synchronised clip" at all. So a) it's incorrectible in the cut because FCPX made some error with it. and b) I can't fix it either without putting every clip back by hand and by cutting and pasting from the synchronised clip opened in the timeline...

I've had similar issues with synchronised audio before. And eveytime I think I learned the pitfalls and new one present themselves. To me that doesn't feel very "pro". It's a often buggy ride.


Return to posts index

Bill Davis
Re: FCP X can't do "pro" is officially vaporized.
on Mar 18, 2016 at 8:34:51 pm

Let me ask you Mike... Who trained you in X?
Did your employer provide it? Did you do the Ripple stuff? Or Lynda.com or Larry Jordan?
I honestly ask because it sounds like your team is having lots of trouble with a lot of blind alleys and dead ends. So I wonder who helped you guys make the switch?
Not to diss anyone in the training space at all, but really just to try to understand why a facility like yours and one like RTS can have such wildly different experiences with the same tool?

I know guys in operations large and small and few seem to have the grief you do with X

And knowing why might help us help more folks like you get over the hump.

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

Mike Warmels
Re: FCP X can't do "pro" is officially vaporized.
on Mar 18, 2016 at 8:46:52 pm

Not one person in particular. Some Larry Jordan stuff, some trial by error stuff, I consult a lot of internet tutorials to see how to do things, I had some great advice from Creative Cow people and I sat a lot with FCPX editors finishing my cuts , where we also talked a lot about how to do things (better of clever).

Now, I am not in a big corporation. I just have a stand alone set on which I run AVID and FCPX (and in the past FCP7 for years).

But my client has a ten suite operation and I frequently work in another post-production facility that has another eight or so. There's a bunch of editors that hasn't worked on anything else but FCPX and they like it fine. But when I ask about the usual issues (the slowing down of FCPX in the course of the day, the sometime odd graphic displays (like waveforms in music that don't match the sound at the end of the graph), or the audio synchronisation issues (that you helped me out with before), or the sometimes overlong relink media times), they all recognise that. But they don't have issues with it.

I do... since I never had such weird issues on FCP7 and AVID.


Return to posts index

Andrew Kimery
Re: FCP X can't do "pro" is officially vaporized.
on Mar 15, 2016 at 2:09:22 am

Thanks for the tips Tony.


Return to posts index

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