FORUMS: list search recent posts

FCP X 10.1.2 released...

COW Forums : Apple Final Cut Pro X

<< PREVIOUS   •   VIEW ALL   •   PRINT   •   NEXT >>
Robin S. Kurz
FCP X 10.1.2 released...
on Jun 27, 2014 at 6:19:16 pm

... in case you hadn't noticed yet. ;-)

(yes, and Motion and Compressor, too, of course)


Return to posts index

Craig Alan
Re: FCP X 10.1.2 released...
on Jun 27, 2014 at 7:12:07 pm

Can't we already store optimized media at any location? All my libraries use aliases.

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


Return to posts index

Robin S. Kurz
Re: FCP X 10.1.2 released...
on Jun 28, 2014 at 11:43:05 am

"Can't we already store optimized media at any location?"

Erm... no. Until now ALL optimized AND proxy media went into the library. You're confusing it with ORIGINAL media.


Return to posts index


Craig Alan
Re: FCP X 10.1.2 released...
on Jun 28, 2014 at 6:17:38 pm

Yes, I see that now. We have been using P2 footage throughout our transition to FCP X. With P2, there is no need to transcode, only rewrap. If optimized is selected in the import window, a transcoded version is put in the library in the Transcoded>High Quality Media folder. However, FC would actually use the original media rewrapped as QT outside the library in whatever folder is selected upon import. I know this by choosing 'reveal in finder' in the inspector. The high quality version has larger file sizes even though both are QT. There is no difference in quality. I have checked with many sources and was told AVC-Intra 100M 1080p30/24, Linear PCM is a perfectly good codec for editing - no advantage to transcoding to prores 422. Fortunately, we left optimized unchecked in the large majority of imports. The rest can be erased. When I erased the one import where optimized was selected by mistake, no files went off-line. No need to relink anything. So in 10.1.1, FC already had the ability to use alias files and reference media outside the library. And in fact would do this by default regardless if we optimized or not.

The above worked this way with a library that had already been updated to 10.1.2 before I did this test. I will check if this is the case with 10.1.1 when I get to work on Monday. I need to go through all our raids and back-up projects I think need to archived and trash the rest anyway. As I do this, I will trash any transcoded versions of our original media.

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


Return to posts index

Tim Jones
Re: FCP X 10.1.2 released...
on Jun 27, 2014 at 7:59:00 pm

Be sure to backup your library bundles before you upgrade as there's no turning back once the library bundles are "upgraded".

Where I come from, a feature change such as this should get the middle number changed, not the last number:

Version number . Feature Level . Bug Level

For most apps, changing 10.1.1 to 10.1.2 indicates that a bug (or three) was fixed, not that a major feature change was made...

Tim
--
Tim Jones
CTO - TOLIS Group, Inc.
http://www.productionbackup.com
BRU ... because it's the RESTORE that matters!


Return to posts index

Robin S. Kurz
Re: FCP X 10.1.2 released...
on Jun 28, 2014 at 11:45:09 am

It has never been that way with Apple. Aside from there actually being very little (i.e. nothing) along the lines of "majorly new".


Return to posts index


James Ewart
Re: FCP X 10.1.2 released...
on Jun 29, 2014 at 6:39:18 pm
Last Edited By James Ewart on Jul 1, 2014 at 7:10:15 am

I'd quite like to be able to store my proxy media in the managed library and other media elsewhere however.

Nitpicking I know. Media Management is beautiful unfortunately in the UK the Avid community have seen the early release as an opportunity to go back to what they know.

So much negative stuff from editors who have not taken the trouble to learn it.

FCPX is dead in the water here pretty much apart from a very small community


Return to posts index

Robin S. Kurz
Re: FCP X 10.1.2 released...
on Jun 29, 2014 at 9:20:33 pm

Stope??

And you might not want to carelessly apply your immediate surroundings to the rest of the world as some sort of global or even vaguely representative yardstick of an entire industry. FCP X is lightyears from "dead in the water". If anything, then that actually describes Avid quite fittingly IMHO. They are way out of the loop and have been for a very long time. I work for and with a lot broadcasters and schools throughout Europe. Avid is not even a faint consideration for any of them for the future. Most haven't even updated the MCs they have in years. It's FCP X and/or Premiere all the way.


Return to posts index

James Ewart
Re: FCP X 10.1.2 released...
on Jun 30, 2014 at 6:42:53 pm
Last Edited By James Ewart on Jun 30, 2014 at 6:54:39 pm

Apologies "Store"

But yes in the UK I have found only one facilities house taking it seriously and most editors still seem to have jumped on the bandwagon from the very early bad press from the initial "Beta" version.

I am using FCPX and enjoying it but I assure you in the UK people are very wary (as they were with FCP1 thru 3) and perhaps being typically British and conservative about it.

As regards 'Dead in the water" unfortunately that seems to be the case here at the moment.

If you know different could you name some facilities houses and broadcasters adopting it in the UK because that would be very useful to me.


Return to posts index


Robin S. Kurz
Re: FCP X 10.1.2 released...
on Jun 30, 2014 at 7:04:39 pm

No offense, but, as I hinted previously, to take what is happening in your immediate vicinity as any type of a yardstick for an entire industry is rather short-sighted and a tad arrogant, don't you think? I'm pretty sure any American alone (especially if in L.A. or N.Y.) would scoff at that notion either way. And why is the broadcast industry in itself any deciding factor at all for the popularity, let alone usability of any given NLE? Broadcast makes up only a tiny percentage of the entire media/editing/NLE using market and your share of it even that much smaller. I don't see why I as an end user should really care either way, unless of course I'm in fact working FOR or directly WITH them and they require I use something else. Which has yet to happen to me personally. FCP, all versions included, is still the market leader by the way. I use what offers me the biggest bang for my buck, and that's currently FCP X by a long shot, as it is for many in MY vicinity.

But to answer your question, there are many. The currently most prominent of course being The E. W. Scripps Company, Azteca and others.


Return to posts index

James Ewart
Re: FCP X 10.1.2 released...
on Jun 30, 2014 at 7:49:07 pm
Last Edited By James Ewart on Jun 30, 2014 at 7:50:11 pm

No offence taken.

Just pointing out that what was once a bastion of technical excellence has (for whatever reason) largely ignored FCPX. Of course I understand the UK is not the centre of the world when it comes to film making and the creative industry (far from it).

I am FCPX all the way.

But it may be interesting to users in other places in the World that the BBC has, to my knowledge, only one working FCPX work station that is operational for broadcast use in its entire facility base. And, much as I do not know why, there may be a reason for that.

I decided to bite the bullet and learn FCPX from the ground up because I reasoned Apple were not idiots. I am pleased I did.

I just wonder why the BBC and other broadcasters have not also followed suit. It has a stigma maybe?

What US, European, Chine or Japanese broadcasters have adopted FCPX and if not ... why not?


Return to posts index

Robin S. Kurz
Re: FCP X 10.1.2 released...
on Jul 1, 2014 at 11:36:47 am

[James Ewart] "What […] broadcasters have adopted FCPX"

Like I said, The E. W. Scripps Company would be the most recent example: http://www.apple.com/final-cut-pro/in-action/scripps/

Or Azteca, "one of Mexico’s leading broadcasters and its second-largest mass media company": http://www.apple.com/final-cut-pro/in-action/azteca/

And as far as the BBC is concerned, FCP X may not be used BY them so much, but it sure is being used FOR them: http://www.fcp.co/final-cut-pro/news/1140-using-final-cut-pro-x-to-edit-a-d...

In fact, I think that the really BIG broadcasters are the *worst* possible example to follow, no matter what area we're talking about. Because they are obviously the ones to move the slowest by far. They themselves follow the masses in the end, but don't innovate or really decide much on their own. They may STEER a little, yes. Primarily due to their size (and buying power). But again, I don't see them as any measure for *the masses* that ultimately decide on the success or failure of products. Change, even the slightest bit, is a HUGE thing for them. Not done easily, quickly or gladly. The biggest public broadcasters here in Germany (a lá BBC) that I deal with on a regular basis still master most of their stuff TO TAPE! Nuff said. ;)

I personally think it's the schools and the SMALL and newer production companies and independents that one needs to measure any success by, and that over time. And I see FCP X a LOT in those areas. Maybe not exclusively and maybe not everywhere, but the numbers are growing quite steadily. It's both technically AND economically the perfect product for them. And now that the initial vitriol and ad hominem rants over the release are dying down to just a whisper, more and more are warming up to it. (I teach on the side and media academies and training certers I work for have been *increasing* their request for FCP X training quite noticeably over the last 6-12 months)

I personally believe that history will repeat itself as far as FCP is concerned. As with legacy FCP (which was also VERY poorly received in its beginning, don't forget that, and didn't even have audio meters etc. for the first few versions), X just needs its time to mature and sink in, in part because it's also as much a slap in the face to the status quo as I recall 1.0 was, and them there "pros" do not take kindly to that! ;)

We'll see. I guess I'm just lucky that I'm the boss here and don't have to cater to other people's beliefs and misconceptions, but can choose what fits me best.


Return to posts index


James Ewart
Re: FCP X 10.1.2 released...
on Jul 1, 2014 at 1:16:17 pm

I think you're probably right. I hope so too. I


Return to posts index

Jeff Markgraf
Re: FCP X 10.1.2 released...
on Jun 30, 2014 at 8:24:52 pm

Robin & James - I think you're both right.

You should see the looks I get here in Hollyweird when I say I'm using FCPX. I use Avid or FCP Legacy in every single gig I take at the network or at a promo or post house. Their gig, their equipment, their rules. (One post house I know switched to PrPro to accommodate an animation-heavy show that is no longer in production.)

But I use X for my own projects (currently a movie and a documentary) because I took the plunge when it launched and I really like the program.

I know of very few people here using X. But then these same people are typically using a version of Avid that is at least 5 or 6 years old on hardware that is at least 4 or 5 years out of date. Hollywood editors HATE to change anything. And it's not just video. Good luck finding a current version of ProTools at any major audio post facility here in town (at least the ones that are left, what with Todd-AO closing down). They're all 1 or 2 versions behind.

Because no one wants to take a risk on anything. Too much money at stake. New software = bugs/confusion = downtime = lost money = angry clients who barely understand the technology of their chosen business in the first place.

So yes, Hollywood (and by extension NY, London, etc.) is but a small percentage of the worldwide market for NLEs and the like. But it throws around its weight way out of proportion to its numbers. Remember, no one ever got fired for choosing IBM.


Return to posts index

Craig Alan
Re: FCP X 10.1.2 released...
on Jun 29, 2014 at 9:41:49 pm

you can. First set your storage location in a folder outside the library then consolidate the proxy files in the library.



or import to your normal out of library location and then import again setting in library for proxy.

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


Return to posts index


James Ewart
Re: FCP X 10.1.2 released...
on Jul 1, 2014 at 7:14:22 am

Hi thanks Craig. Trouble is the Original Media go in with it. No option for leaving Original Media in place. Or am I mssing something.

Regards

James


Return to posts index

Robin S. Kurz
Re: FCP X 10.1.2 released...
on Jul 1, 2014 at 11:07:45 am

You're missing something. ;) Or rather you're confusing the options. Whether your media is left in place or copied into the library where the event resides is decided UPON IMPORT in the import window.



The library properties (⌃⌘J) is where you can decide on where everything else goes OR change their location by defining a new directory (or simply the library itself) and consolidating. So if you e.g. copied your media to the library but want them elsewhere later, simply set that location in the library properties and hit consolidate. Yes, in THAT case everything (optimized and proxy) go with it. Which is why you need to know what and where when you import.



Return to posts index

James Ewart
Re: FCP X 10.1.2 released...
on Jul 1, 2014 at 1:19:09 pm
Last Edited By James Ewart on Jul 1, 2014 at 3:14:40 pm

Thank you.

And yes it's because when importing for camera cards it does not give the option to Leave Files in Place. I would kind of like to tell it to put the Original Media in one place and the Proxies in the Library but no big deal and maybe that would get too confusing anyway.


Return to posts index


Robin S. Kurz
Re: FCP X 10.1.2 released...
on Jul 1, 2014 at 1:58:58 pm

Erm... it doesn't give you that option because why in the world would you want to leave the material on the camera/card?? Aside from of course being horribly SLOW, the moment you removed it, everything would (obviously) go offline. That's a "protecting you from yourself" feature.

But again... you CAN theoretically do what you want. Set your import folder, import the footage, then simply switch back to the library before generating any optimized, proxy and/or render media. Whether there is sense in extending the storage options to include additional options for each folder (to avoid the switch) is debatable. But who knows what the next update will bring.

But the whole point is to make collaborative editing that much better. In which case if e.g. you and someone else were to work off of the same original material or even the same project as a whole, but both had their own optimized and/or proxy media LOCALLY that only either or could access, that would make things an unnecessary mess. If it even worked to begin with. From that perspective it makes total sense to do it the way they are doing it, to avoid unnecessary issues.


Return to posts index

James Ewart
Re: FCP X 10.1.2 released...
on Jul 1, 2014 at 3:12:37 pm

Of course I understand why it would be a bit silly to be able leave stuff 'in place" on the card. Much as it may not be apparent to you, I am not a complete moron.

I just would like to be able to pick from the start where my media goes rather than a two step process which is what i am doing as we speak.

No big deal.

Thanks for the feedback.


Return to posts index

Robin S. Kurz
Re: FCP X 10.1.2 released...
on Jul 1, 2014 at 3:22:45 pm

[James Ewart] "I am not a complete moron."

I was in no way suggesting that. But the fact is, you said

[James Ewart] "when importing for camera cards it does not give the option to Leave Files in Place"

... which can only lead one to think that is what it is you want to do, no?

In any case, no, you can't do what it is you want without copying the material from the camera/card to disk first in some way, shape or form before importing. Or switching half way. But seeing that you're not a moron, I take it you've understood that now. ;-)


Return to posts index

James Ewart
Re: FCP X 10.1.2 released...
on Jul 1, 2014 at 3:34:09 pm

Erm ... not so fast please.

The context was wanting to be able to import Proxy Media only into the Library and Optimised and Original Media into an external folder.

When I wrote "when importing from camera cards it does not give the option to Leave Files in Place" I never said that was what I wanted to do. This was with reference to your previous reply where you suggested Leaving files in Place and just selecting Proxy media to import into the Library.

I was pointing out that your suggestion was not always possible, for example when Importing from cards. Never did I suggest that was what I wanted to do. You made that assumption.

Thanks


Return to posts index

Robin S. Kurz
Re: FCP X 10.1.2 released...
on Jul 1, 2014 at 3:36:21 pm

Okay. Fine. I was missing "the big picture".

Well, either way, you know how it works now.


Return to posts index

Craig Alan
Re: FCP X 10.1.2 released...
on Jul 1, 2014 at 5:46:47 pm

I see, now, where you are coming from James. If you read the storage-location-modify-settings-window carefully you will see that you can set a NEW place to store an import but leave-all-the previous-imports-in previous locations. You can always consolidate the bunch to any location.



So, yes, a two-step process or actually a three-step process because otherwise your next import will now be stored in the last location you selected unless you switch the location back again.

I guess Apple has decided you would want all these media types in one place or another. To be fair, when you choose anything outside of the library, FC creates alias files to point to your selected location.

So why exactly would you prefer proxies to be in the library? (I'm sure there would be times when you would want these media types in different locations, but not sure of the pros and cons). Is "managed" media, that is media in the library, faster than using references? I thought keeping the library small makes it faster?

But, all that said, I think? this would work to do what you want:
1) import everything into the library.
2) change the storage-location-modify-settings-window to your preferred external location.
3) in the consolidate window deselect proxy media.
That should move all media out of the library except proxy media.

Kinda of weird workflow though.

If this is for sharing purposes just leave all media in an external location and export and import xml files to your colleagues. Am I missing something?

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


Return to posts index

Robin S. Kurz
Re: FCP X 10.1.2 released...
on Jul 1, 2014 at 6:10:40 pm

[Craig Alan] "So, yes, a two-step process or actually a three-step process because otherwise your next import will now be stored in the last location you selected unless you switch the location back again."

For that one library and the events contained within, yes. Not for others or new ones.

[Craig Alan] "I guess Apple has decided you would want all these media types in one place or another."

As I said in the other thread, this is clearly geared towards improved *collaborative* editing, since you wouldn't want everyone to be using their own optimized, proxy, render, cache etc. files if they've already been created once before. This way if I generate those files, anyone else using the same source files (this is assuming the "stored centrally on a server" scenario) will automatically have i.e. can use the same optimized, proxy etc. files after I've created them.

[Craig Alan] "So why exactly would you prefer proxies to be in the library?"

Imagine having an MBP with a small amount of local/internal storage, but you want to take your footage with you to edit without having to lug around external drives for the the original media. If you have the original/optimized media on external storage but just the proxies locally, you can edit on the road with the proxies and reconnect to the original/optimized media for output when finished and back at the studio. Have done it and absolutely LOVED it. :)

[Craig Alan] "Is "managed" media, that is media in the library, faster than using references? I thought keeping the library small makes it faster?"

The overall size of any given library isn't a deciding speed factor. If the media is on a fast drive and the library doesn't have an endless amount of events, it's irrelevant whether the footage resides within the library or not. Rather the amount of overall open libraries and events are the RAM (and therefore speed) gobblers.

[Craig Alan] "That should move all media out of the library except proxy media."

Great tip. Hadn't thought of that. And yes, that's probably the easiest/quickest route.


Return to posts index

Craig Alan
Re: FCP X 10.1.2 released...
on Jul 1, 2014 at 7:05:43 pm

[Robin S. Kurz] "[Craig Alan] "So why exactly would you prefer proxies to be in the library?"

Imagine having an MBP with a small amount of local/internal storage, but you want to take your footage with you to edit without having to lug around external drives for the the original media. If you have the original/optimized media on external storage but just the proxies locally, you can edit on the road with the proxies and reconnect to the original/optimized media for output when finished and back at the studio. Have done it and absolutely LOVED it. :)"


I thought of this. But you don't need any of the other files, now stored out of the library, like cache? There are times I want to take a project home with me and it's been a bit of a chore.

And if you were editing in optimized or original media can you go back forth those and proxy?

If you put the library with just proxies in the cloud like dropbox or whatever - would this work and limit how long it takes to upload? Although we will edit projects in the studio we will also have a lab for teaching editing and it would be nice if students could use the projects they are working on in the studio.

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


Return to posts index

Robin S. Kurz
Re: FCP X 10.1.2 released...
on Jul 1, 2014 at 7:17:19 pm

[Craig Alan] "But you don't need any of the other files, now stored out of the library, like cache?"

No, those can be (re)created as needed. The only things you definitely need are either the original/optimized or proxy media, depending on what you've set FCP to. Everything else is recreatable as needed.

[Craig Alan] "There are times I want to take a project home with me and it's been a bit of a chore."

With the current model I don't actually see how that could be.

[Craig Alan] "And if you were editing in optimized or original media can you go back forth those and proxy?"

Sure. That's kinda the whole point. :)

[Craig Alan] "If you put the library with just proxies in the cloud like dropbox or whatever - would this work and limit how long it takes to upload?"

That depends on the format of your original media. Proxy is small (in comparison to other flavors of ProRes) but not TINY.

[Craig Alan] "Although we will edit projects in the studio we will also have a lab for teaching editing and it would be nice if students could use the projects they are working on in the studio."

I'm not sure what you're asking/intending.


Return to posts index

Craig Alan
Re: FCP X 10.1.2 released...
on Jul 2, 2014 at 12:39:45 am

What I'm trying to do is be able to edit a project that was created in the studio at another location. All the editing decisions are stored in the XML which can be exported and stored on a flash drive or sent via email or dropbox or whatever. That leaves a copy of the original media. Now either both locations need these files or they need to be sent or accessed somehow. For myself I could bring the original media cards home with me and make a copy on my home system and leave a copy on my work station and then email the xml back and forth as needed. Unless there is a problem with the xml file I should be good to go. 10.1.2 can now read P2 footage natively so even the copy should be pretty fast since it does not need to be transcoded or rewrapped.

But I can't think of a way to have the original media for hundreds of projects at two locations. The cloud is just too slow.

If we set up some sort of remote access can the media lab computers log into the studio computers and see media on the attached raids?

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


Return to posts index

Robin S. Kurz
Re: FCP X 10.1.2 released...
on Jul 2, 2014 at 10:27:18 am
Last Edited By Robin S. Kurz on Jul 2, 2014 at 11:20:24 am

[Craig Alan] "For myself I could bring the original media cards home with me and make a copy on my home system and leave a copy on my work station and then email the xml back and forth as needed."

First off I would make archives of everything with FCP X and move those around AND import from them. Not only does that give you a (unchangeable) backup, but also let's you use "Reimport from Camera/Archive" should anything be missing. Then when you set up your library, simply have *everything* stored externally. That way you simply need to transfer the (now very small, manageable) library itself, instead of an XML, which ensures that you aren't losing anything in translation. If footage is offline in either location, simply use the above command. I'd venture to say that moving e.g. libraries around will be a cinch with the upcoming iCloud Disk, too, btw.

[Craig Alan] "But I can't think of a way to have the original media for hundreds of projects at two locations. The cloud is just too slow."

Like I said, I'd archive everything. That's kinda what it's for.

[Craig Alan] "If we set up some sort of remote access can the media lab computers log into the studio computers and see media on the attached raids?"

I don't understand, if "the cloud" is too slow, how a remote connection could be any better? BOTH are limited by the exact same component: your connection speed. But I don't think either scenario is in any way feasible.


Return to posts index

James Ewart
Re: FCP X 10.1.2 released...
on Jul 2, 2014 at 7:21:00 am
Last Edited By James Ewart on Jul 2, 2014 at 7:22:47 am

So when we get back to base, as the Optimised/Original Media has been consolidated out of the Library, when we reconnect the external drive with this folder on it the Library will automatically see these files and link them back to the project?


Return to posts index

Robin S. Kurz
Re: FCP X 10.1.2 released...
on Jul 2, 2014 at 9:18:44 am

If the project/event was connected to said directory previously and the path, names, etc. for the footage in question hasn't changed, but rather the volume as a whole has merely gone offline, yes, of course. FCP looks for files at their last known location. If they're there, they're online, if not, they're offline. Even "hot-pluggable" if you will, you wouldn't even need to quit FCP first.


Return to posts index

James Ewart
Re: FCP X 10.1.2 released...
on Jul 1, 2014 at 6:25:36 pm
Last Edited By James Ewart on Jul 1, 2014 at 6:28:35 pm

Thank you, yes it has also occurred to me that perhaps I am attempting a workflow that seems intuitive to me but is based upon old habits and that there is a reason I have not understood for it being the way it is. That said there does seem to have been a bit of an ongoing back peddle by Apple to more traditional workflows because, although they clearly have brilliant minds, they could not possibly be expected to second guess how we all work in our different ways.

Makes you realise they knew from the start this was going to be a journey which is why Legacy still runs on Mavericks. Will FCPX run on Yosemite?

Me - I cut in Proxy.

http://www.jamesewart.co.uk


Return to posts index

Robin S. Kurz
Re: FCP X 10.1.2 released...
on Jul 2, 2014 at 9:51:45 am

[James Ewart] "That said there does seem to have been a bit of an ongoing back peddle by Apple to more traditional workflows because"

No idea what gives you that notion. I only see logical refinements to what they have been doing since day one. And X's media management isn't even that much different than what others are doing. Only arguably better IMHO. But yes, Apple is listening better than ever. No shame in that. But I don't recognize any "back peddling" by any stretch. The way it is now would have been a god send for us back when I was still working at a broadcasters with multiple networked seats. None of the constant issues we had regularly when it came to sharing, exchange, media management etc. would have ever cropped up.


Return to posts index

James Ewart
Re: FCP X 10.1.2 released...
on Jul 2, 2014 at 12:23:32 pm

I suppose because first they had Projects outside Events and then put Projects into Events where they always should have been and then introducing Libraries in which everything exists is much more like FCP7 (Projects and Bins) than it was when it was launched. Next we will be able to have multiple Projects open at once so we can toggle between them probably. Just like we do in Legacy with Sequences. It's great that they are listening but it's so very long. How long to get where we are now? Is it nearly four years?


Return to posts index

Tim Jones
Re: FCP X 10.1.2 released...
on Jul 2, 2014 at 3:20:06 pm

I consider that listening to their customers. I know that 3 of my feature requests have been implemented over the life of the new product. While I have no misconceptions that my requests were unique, it is obvious that Apple's Pro Dev team are listing to the users' feedback.

After all, that's what the "Provide Final Cut Pro Feedback..." application menu item is for :) .

Tim
--
Tim Jones
CTO - TOLIS Group, Inc.
http://www.productionbackup.com
BRU ... because it's the RESTORE that matters!


Return to posts index

Robin S. Kurz
Re: FCP X 10.1.2 released...
on Jul 2, 2014 at 4:20:40 pm

Sure. Like I said, they are most definitely listening. But I know for a fact that certain things have been long planned. Features and functions which user feedback has helped further form and optimize in the making, but not create per se, as I stated above. ;) So yes, feedback is important on every level.

There are certainly some things that were first considered due to feedback. What we will never know for sure. :)

Keep in mind that some feature's stand on their own, other's require that huge parts of the rest of the app need to be changed/adapted for them to work right consistently, which is why some of the seemingly smallest things will take far more time and effort to implement than you would suspect. One such component e.g. being the underlying XML...


Return to posts index

Robin S. Kurz
Re: FCP X 10.1.2 released...
on Jul 2, 2014 at 3:20:02 pm

It's been exactly 3 years as of the 21st. And you clearly don't know/remember how long legacy FCP needed before it was widely accepted. Roughly FOUR if not FIVE YEARS, so I'd say we're doing pretty well.

And you've been able to easily cycle though any number of projects that you have opened since day one. Be it via the Timeline History buttons or their respective shortcuts. I personally am glad to be rid of the unnecessary screen clutter of tabs. You only need them if you *don't* have shortcuts or buttons, which legacy in fact never had. So it's in fact an improvement. Habit ≠ Good or better.

And like I said, you describe what I consider to be a logical progression. Start small and work your way up and make it that much better on the way. I'd say that was the plan from day one, with a little input from users here and there accordingly. But still it all has extremely little to do with how legacy FCP worked. Other than maybe a few optical similarities. If you were a programmer you'd also know how complex such seemingly minute changes are on a coding level.


Return to posts index

James Ewart
Re: FCP X 10.1.2 released...
on Jul 2, 2014 at 4:50:53 pm
Last Edited By James Ewart on Jul 2, 2014 at 5:52:25 pm

"And you clearly don't know/remember how long legacy FCP needed before it was widely accepted".

Well that's another assumption you got wrong.

I took delivery of FCP version 1.2 in the UK. It required four updates until version 1.2.5 until it worked properly in PAL and was, I remember very well, very poorly received because it did not do the job properly. Then when (with about version 3?) Walter Murch used it to cut Cold Mountain it began to be widely adopted and taken seriously.

So yes I find it incredibly frustrating that once again they chose to launch Beta software and it is this long slow journey before the software is widely adopted.

In terms of workflow it has taken them three years to go back to the "Project, Bin, Clip, Sequence" concept that we now have back with "Library, Event, Clip, Project" in FCPX.

And of course (may I remind you I am not a complete moron - your patronising tone Sir, implies you have decided otherwise) I am not a programmer and cannot imagine how complex the task must be to create software like this, but I do wish when they released the software it was "fit for purpose" and properly thought-through in the first place.

It's great software. It should have been so when it was launched. A few bugs are fair enough. But make us pay for Beta Software without admitting it was Beta software? Bollocks to that.


Return to posts index

Craig Alan
Re: FCP X 10.1.2 released...
on Jul 2, 2014 at 5:52:32 pm

[James Ewart] "In terms of workflow it has taken them three years to go back to the "Project, Bin, Clip, Sequence" concept that we now have back with "Library, Event, Clip, Project" in FCPX. "

Perfect summary. I would have named them: Project (folder), Media (folder), Timeline(s). Cause even a consumer level kid knows the meaning of 'projects' and 'media'. And just about the first thing you learn about editing is you assemble your movie on a timeline.

Then only way 'events' make any sense to me is from old school history textbooks that puts events on a timeline.

Of course if BIN is obsolete then FOLDER is too since they are both names of physical storage containers which are not used for these items anymore (except some films are still shot on film). But no one puts media cards or even video tape in a "folder" or a "bin". Container is more accurate but a bit long.

"Case" would work. PROJECT CASE (THE LIBRARY) - MEDIA CASE(s) (THE EVENT FOLDERs)

It would also lend itself to a lot of punning: nutcase, bad case of, made my case, and if you like library, bookcase.

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


Return to posts index

Robin S. Kurz
Re: FCP X 10.1.2 released...
on Jul 2, 2014 at 5:58:24 pm

And I thought we were way past the (rather nonsensical IMHO) nomenclature gripe. If semantics is FCP's biggest problem, then I'd say we're doin' pretty well! :-D


Return to posts index

James Ewart
Re: FCP X 10.1.2 released...
on Jul 2, 2014 at 6:19:08 pm
Last Edited By James Ewart on Jul 2, 2014 at 6:20:32 pm

Well from my even more humble (naturally) perspective I agree. We are doing pretty well three years down the line. Finally.

Nomenclature is not nonsensical. Language is the key to civilisation and progress from year zero. Without us all knowing (in whatever language) what a doughnut is we make no progress, because we cannot communicate effectively. Apple have wrongly tried to rewrite the language of film editing. STUPID MOVE.

To use a word processing analogy it's like calling a "Sentence" a "String". A "Paragraph" a "Chunk". A "Comma" a "Tadpole". POINTLESS and counter productive.

Why do that?

These are established terms in film editing jargon. And incidentally I go back as far as cutting film with Moviolas and Steenbecks so I know where this terminology comes from.


Return to posts index

Robin S. Kurz
Re: FCP X 10.1.2 released...
on Jul 2, 2014 at 6:51:40 pm
Last Edited By Robin S. Kurz on Jul 2, 2014 at 6:52:28 pm

So, again, your proof and confidence for such a obscure matter-of-fact claim comes from where?

Either way I certainly enjoyed the equating of "doughnut" with that of some obscure, arcane niche terminology and its alleged "social importance" immensely. :D


Return to posts index

James Ewart
Re: FCP X 10.1.2 released...
on Jul 2, 2014 at 6:07:02 pm
Last Edited By James Ewart on Jul 3, 2014 at 4:44:25 am

Yeah why not just call it a bloody timeline.


Return to posts index

Robin S. Kurz
Re: FCP X 10.1.2 released...
on Jul 2, 2014 at 6:25:21 pm

[James Ewart] "but it is the single greatest barrier to entry for most people"

:-))))
Sorry, but that's just ludicrous conjecture. As a teacher at various schools and academies I can't confirm that even remotely. So I'd be very curious where you have gathered that "knowledge". Not once in the last 2+ years has a single student of mine spent so much as a second of their time thinking about it. It took me (an editor of 20+years) a full 5 mins. to adjust. There are truly much bigger fish to fry and that topic is just a silly, typical "old solipsistic pro" waste of time imo.

But again... if THAT'S X's biggest issue... hooray! ;-D


Return to posts index

James Ewart
Re: FCP X 10.1.2 released...
on Jul 2, 2014 at 7:35:26 pm
Last Edited By James Ewart on Jul 2, 2014 at 11:47:55 pm

Wow you are a clever guy. Just 5 minutes to adjust to the FCPX terminology after 20 years of other non linear systems?

Hats off to you.

You know everything already. Why are you wasting your time here Mr Einstein?



Return to posts index

Robin S. Kurz
Re: FCP X 10.1.2 released...
on Jul 3, 2014 at 7:34:28 am

Wow. Your response speaks novels. Reduced to 4th grade level personal attacks. Bummers. But I never actually expected a real answer, so all's good. :D


Return to posts index

James Ewart
Re: FCP X 10.1.2 released...
on Jul 3, 2014 at 8:41:59 am
Last Edited By James Ewart on Jul 3, 2014 at 8:42:26 am

Your patronising insulting tone deserved no less.


Return to posts index

Robin S. Kurz
Re: FCP X 10.1.2 released...
on Jul 3, 2014 at 9:07:33 am

Still waiting on that answer...


Return to posts index

James Ewart
Re: FCP X 10.1.2 released...
on Jul 3, 2014 at 12:17:33 pm

I'm not sure you need an answer to anything Professor. You seem to have all the answers already.

Your tone in this thread has been insulting, patronising and presumptuous from the outset.

I have no wish to engage in any further dialogue with an individual like yourself.


Return to posts index

Robin S. Kurz
Re: FCP X 10.1.2 released...
on Jul 3, 2014 at 12:22:43 pm
Last Edited By Robin S. Kurz on Jul 3, 2014 at 12:23:21 pm

Logical fallacies: The best escape-hatch known to man. :-D


Return to posts index

James Ewart
Re: FCP X 10.1.2 released...
on Jul 3, 2014 at 1:27:41 pm

There's no logical fallacy to it Herr Kurz. It's just that your manner is offensive and patronising. I put up with it and tried to ignore it for a few posts in the interests of the friendly and constructive atmosphere I usually encounter in the Creative Cow community. But every time you come back with another snide point scoring remark. And if you read back you yourself admit to being guilty of the very thing you accuse (yes accuse) me of. It ceased to become a constructive dialogue ages ago. I am bored with it. If you want to treat this as some kind of "victory" on your part then please feel free to bask away.

Capiche?

http://www.jamesewart.co.uk


Return to posts index

Robin S. Kurz
Re: FCP X 10.1.2 released...
on Jul 3, 2014 at 1:38:01 pm

Nice example of something we call "Freudian Projection". You're so caught up in your own vitriol...

... but do top it off with the last word. It's all yours. But don't bother to use it to substantiate your claims. We'll just take your good word for it. :-D


Return to posts index

James Ewart
Re: FCP X 10.1.2 released...
on Jul 3, 2014 at 2:08:23 pm

I’d hate to disappoint you professor. You are the expert (I assume you don't need me to substantiate that). Not only do you know everything about FCPX but you give clinical psychiatric diagnosis as well. You really are a clever guy - I guess you don't need me to substantiate that either. :-D

Who is “We” by the way? Is that the “We” that are better and cleverer than everybody else? "We" the intellectual elite? "We" the German nation perhaps? Who? Do tell.

In any event, that my friend is an excellent example of having a narcissistic personality disorder. Or, as WE say, being a twat. ;-D

I won't take up any more of your time. Your students must be wondering where you are.


Return to posts index

Walter Soyka
Re: FCP X 10.1.2 released...
on Jul 3, 2014 at 2:09:14 pm

[James Ewart] "Yeah why not just call it a bloody timeline."

I think there's a good reason for introducing new terminology. The FCP X magnetic timeline/sequence/project/whatever does not work the same way as traditional editorial open timelines do, and a new word for it underscores the difference.

For me, the biggest terminology hurdle was redefining the existing word "project."

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


Return to posts index

James Ewart
Re: FCP X 10.1.2 released...
on Jul 3, 2014 at 2:18:11 pm
Last Edited By James Ewart on Jul 3, 2014 at 7:06:48 pm

Thanks Walter. I do kind of get that. It does put people off though in my experience. You think to have retained the old "nomenclature" would have caused much confusion? Is it necessary for us to think about it so differently? Perhaps it is. There may well be a very good reason. I just haven't figured out how and why yet.

I can't help thinking occasionally they changed it just to be different and maybe that's not such a bad thing either.

Anyway I guess Mr Kurz is possibly right in that it is quite an old topic. It's just is still seems to put people off over here. It's so much easier to jump into PP and I know so many who have done so and another company who I work for a lot who are changing over to PP as we speak. They looked at Avid, looked at FCPX and decided the simplest switch would be to PP much as I tried to convince them otherwise.


Return to posts index

Robin S. Kurz
Re: FCP X 10.1.2 released...
on Jul 3, 2014 at 2:54:41 pm

[Walter Soyka] "I think there's a good reason for introducing new terminology. The FCP X magnetic timeline/sequence/project/whatever does not work the same way as traditional editorial open timelines do, and a new word for it underscores the difference."

Exactly. But in the end it's still just mere semantics either way. Name them by their name, use the old terminology (where even possible), just call them window or A, B and C. It's utterly irrelevant and doesn't make any difference in terms of understanding how FCP X works per se, how to find your way around and use it efficiently, let alone have any bearing on the quality of ones edit. IOW calling it a timeline or a sequence or a project or a window or uncle George has zero bearing on any of it. And as I said, if nomenclature is actually still anyone's biggest gripe, then X is clearly worlds better than suspected and has obviously come a long way for them to have to try that hard. A rather tired red-herring imho.

That said, pretty much everyone I know simply calls e.g. the project "timeline" at least half the time if not always. As do I. "Problem" solved. Anyone that's actually confused by that (which they aren't) obviously doesn't even know the first thing about NLEs to begin with and won't last long in any one of them, regardless of nomenclature.

I'd say that horse has been sufficiently flogged. I can think of a plethora of actual things that have actual relevance in the context of usability, that would actually be worth talking about.


Return to posts index

James Ewart
Re: FCP X 10.1.2 released...
on Jul 3, 2014 at 3:18:17 pm

"Anyone that's actually confused by that (which they aren't) obviously doesn't even know the first thing about NLEs to begin with and won't last long in any one of them, regardless of nomenclature."

There you go again Mr Kurz.


Return to posts index

Tim Jones
Re: FCP X 10.1.2 released...
on Jul 3, 2014 at 3:18:53 pm

Guys,

I won't want to come across as a net-nanny, but this thread has gone from simple discussion to insults and name calling. Can we please keep the bickering out of the lists? If you guys want to continue berating one another, please take if off-list.

Tim
--
Tim Jones
CTO - TOLIS Group, Inc.
http://www.productionbackup.com
BRU ... because it's the RESTORE that matters!


Return to posts index

Craig Alan
Re: FCP X 10.1.2 released...
on Jul 3, 2014 at 7:03:42 pm

[Robin S. Kurz] "That said, pretty much everyone I know simply calls e.g. the project "timeline" at least half the time if not always. As do I. "Problem" solved. "

Yes, and everyone here does the same. Even Apple will call it a 'timeline' in many of their tutorials/help articles. Because that’s what it is! It may not seem important; but it is. It’s a non-linear editor that allows you to edit in a non-linear way, but its endgame is a linear product. The word “timeline” defines that concept.

I think I might have started at least one branch of this thread or maybe a twig of it. Sorry it got all bent. In any case, I was not claiming that Apple's poor choice of names for components of their interface was a deal killer. But as an educator you know that ergonomics is important to efficiency. And I have to keep repeating to scores of students, "Timeline, which is called a ‘project’ in FC…" They need to know this not when they are using the app itself (except of course when they need to create a new “project”). But they need to know this in order to read and listen to tutorials on the program. It's the vocabulary being used and it is important to know. It's also important to know what the rest of the world calls it so they can use this knowledge in general. In short, the most important skill you can teach students is how to learn. And that often is the ability to decode instructions. And step one of decoding is learning vocabulary.

Having standards in any field or technology has its value. It allows for the use of multiple tools from different sources/companies that work together, increases efficiency, and maximizes value to the end users. Sometimes standards have to change or new ones invented. Changing the name of the ‘timeline’ to ‘project’ was not one of them. Because as video producers, we work on ‘projects’ and need to keep all the assets of our ‘projects’ organized.

Often however, companies use proprietary components in order (they think) to maximize profits. Right now several of the biggest tech companies are at war to dominate major parts of our “digital lifestyle,” by creating self-contained digital ecosystems. Namely: Google, Apple, Adobe.” If instead they would all work together using a set of standards that allow their products to interact seamlessly with each other, we would all win.

FC’s greatest weakness is not what it names things but its lack of integration with the broader media production eco-system. And I do think they are working on this problem and will solve most of it. And their advancing of all forms of metadata will then be a huge step forward. However, I do think that its poor choice of renaming things that did not need renaming was symbolic of a culture that wants to own the entire tool set. And for something as complex as media production, that is not going to happen.

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


Return to posts index

Robin S. Kurz
Re: FCP X 10.1.2 released...
on Jul 6, 2014 at 9:29:25 am

[Craig Alan] "And I have to keep repeating to scores of students, "Timeline, which is called a ‘project’ in FC…" "

I get the gist of the point, yes. Got it from the beginning actually. ;) I'm just saying, at least from the perspective of the students that I have (it's not my main source of income btw) and various colleagues I collaborate with, that the assertion that you'd have to say "that's a project" more than once would be insulting their intelligence. You also make it sound as if, if they were called Sequences, you wouldn't have to say anything or less otherwise.

Of course there are then those that will use the oh-so-tired logical fallacy of bandwagon to appeal to popularity (i.e. "normality") i.e. the fact that many people do something one way, as a cheap form of validation of that "normality" argument. The flaw in this argument (and I'm not saying you're making it) is that the popularity of an idea has absolutely zero bearing on its validity. Context is what makes for better or worse... but even then it's ultimately purely subjective.

Moving to another NLE I'll just hear students say "Oh, you call that xxx here, okay". Done. No bizarre philosophical, set-opinionated discussions break out. No brain-twister born, no rocket science.

[Craig Alan] "the most important skill you can teach students is how to learn."

Very true. And again, once students (or anyone I've trained for that matter) has managed to wrap their head around things such as the whole library, event, keyword, favorites, codecs etc. etc. concepts, the least of their problems is whether something is called a PROJECT or not. :) I'll say "Open the project" as well as "go into the timeline" and both are fully understood after 2 mins. Sure, there are always the ornery "rage against the machine" types (9 out of 10 times of course the ones coming from a different NLE) that insist - because THEY have a problem with it and have their bandwagon as "proof" - that it should be different. Only, being the most impertinent and vocal doesn't give ones claims any more validity either. :D

Sure, I had to wrap my head around some of the new terminology, too, and wouldn't have minded if things stayed the same (as far as they even could have), but... they didn't... life goes on. Seeing what I have in X, having to put up with such "huge problems" as nomenclature is a small price. :)

[Craig Alan] "Namely: Google, Apple, Adobe.” If instead they would all work together using a set of standards that allow their products to interact seamlessly with each other, we would all win. "

If their goal in doing so had any common ground, they might even. But then Google (fortunately) doesn't make an NLE either (not counting that weird online thing they have) and I'm personally glad to not have *anything* to do with them. But it would also be rather naive to think that the above could ever happen.

[Craig Alan] "its lack of integration with the broader media production eco-system."

Huh? How so? If anything, then AVID is by far the most closed island out there. They rely near exclusively on their own proprietary standards and formats. So I really don't see how Apple is in anyway guilty of being less integrated, sorry. Especially since FCPXML is completely open and exponentially more powerful/flexible than e.g. OMF, EDL, AAF etc. IMHO they're improving the landscape with it and setting the platform for a much *improved* integration. Not sure how it's Apple's fault that others refuse to implement it. Comparatively TINY companies have, therefore the motivation by big ones not to support it is pretty obvious if you ask me. And I have to wonder what Adobe's buying of Automatic Duck was all about, if they (apparently) aren't tapping into their expertise as exchange experts. Hmmm...

So what are you referring to exactly? And I'm not asking that to be facetious.

[Craig Alan] "However, I do think that its poor choice of renaming things that did not need renaming was symbolic of a culture that wants to own the entire tool set."

I personally think that's a gross overstatement, if not a somewhat odd assumption... but you're entitled to your take. ;) I think that history has shown many times over, that Apple has a culture of simply doing what they believe to be best/an improvement, yes. Not afraid to try new ally's and rethink this or that. I find that quite commendable actually. That has lead to (arguably mostly) huge successes and also failures. Jobs once said in an interview (roughly) "We just make what WE think is great and put it out there. If people love it, too, great. If not, oh well. On to the next". So to suggest there's some sort or dogma, arrogance or evil ulterior motive behind any of it, as opposed to honest curiosity and desire (and clearly a LOT of courage) to improve matters, is doing them a stark injustice imho. I think their biggest shortcoming is how (if even) they communicate things. Leaving too much up to interpretation and speculation. That will hopefully change in the future for the better.

But "wants to own the entire tool set" in the context of Apple strikes me as somewhat short-sighted. Especially since "owning" the NLE toolset (I'm not entirely sure what that even means) would be of no gain to them in any real sense. And doesn't that in fact completely contradict what they are doing?? Wouldn't they in fact not take the "easy way" if that were the ultimate goal? By simply making "FCP 8" and echoing everything everyone else is doing (as everyone else IS) just to appease the masses? We'll see. I'm pretty sure that FCP will find back to its original "glory". And that BECAUSE it is different.


Return to posts index

Craig Alan
Re: FCP X 10.1.2 released...
on Jul 6, 2014 at 9:18:20 pm

Hi Robin,

Any one who needs to discuss/explain/ask about an operation in FC gets caught in the problem of "project" meaning timeline. It was a stupid decision. Any one who has ever done any video editing in any app understands the concept of timeline and therefore "gets it" after the first introduction. New project means new timeline, got it, who cares; or in my case, got it, stupid. Just the same, they then inherit the need to constantly double name almost any time they use project to mean the film vs. project to mean the timeline.

Larry Jordan is perhaps the most successful FC/NLE teacher in the world. I listen to his tutorials. He runs up against this hurdle all the time.

"both are fully understood after 2 mins"

Make that <1 second every time you say project meaning timeline and any where from 1 second to 3 seconds to let the person know you mean the whole package or film you are working on (project might also include multiple versions, promos, ads, teasers, components being sent to other editors).

But aside from this unnecessary lack of ergonomics, there is another issue behind all this. Apple was using terms that they thought a consumer level end user would understand better than the professional terms being used; or put more globally, that was more ‘user friendly’. They were wrong. The more ubiquitous a term is the more someone can catch on to it through exposure. And it sent a mixed message to the pros that maybe Apple had no interest in developing an app that would serve their needs. The jury is still out on that one. Truth is there is no clear winner on this one. So the current mantra is you need to learn whatever you need to use right now and then be able to relearn as the need arises. Avid is dated and in financial trouble. Adobe's subscription plan means you might, in the future, be unable to access your "projects" and you'd be screwed if you fell behind in payments or if there was a billing error.

[Robin S. Kurz] "[Craig Alan] "its lack of integration with the broader media production eco-system." Huh? How so? If anything, then AVID is by far the most closed island out there. They rely near exclusively on their own proprietary standards and formats. So I really don't see how Apple is in anyway guilty of being less integrated, sorry. Especially since FCPXML is completely open and exponentially more powerful/flexible "

Please, Robin. From day one of FCP X release, the film and television industry, who had been using FCP 7 in larger and larger numbers, complained that you could not round trip a FCP X "project" to the sound editors, the colorists, the special effect artists. In other words, even if they could get their heads around the new timeline and even if they really liked the new metadata creation abilities, they could not use the program.

[Robin S. Kurz] "We'll see. I'm pretty sure that FCP will find back to its original "glory". And that BECAUSE it is different."

I agree partially. I think Adobe now has a very strong foothold in the professional NLE world and this will not go away any time soon. Hopefully when FC does catch up, the competition will mean that round tripping will be a given and subscription plans will be modified to include the ability to access old files/projects even if you do not choose to pay for new features. If a FCP 8 suite or self-contained app had been released with 64-bit support, with an updated color app, an updated sound app (logic), the library system we have with 10.1.2, the magnetic timeline with the position tool, the option to open an event viewer, with more mature use of roles, support for A/V out ... Adobe might well not have gotten a foothold and AVID might have become a dinosaur.

Apple could have done this. But it was not their priority. It’s not their bread and butter.

However, the writing is on the wall – they are developing apps that beginners and advanced users can use at a price that is a bit high for the consumer but affordable and different but powerful new features for the pros. The jury will decide when the missing pieces are all in place (if they get there) and the market share either continues to expand or doesn’t. The problem for the beginner or consumer level consumer is whether they want to spend the extra cash for features they will most likely never master. I think that’s fine. Any one here use all the features of MS OFFICE? The problem for the pros is whether the program best serves their needs after an initial learning curve. And for the pros will Apple continue to develop this app and whether they will pull the rug out from under them again. Fool me once …

FCP X in my opinion is not that revolutionary. For one simple reason: it produces the same product that every other NLE produces. 99% of the tool set serves the same functions even if they do it with different keystrokes and behavior.

I like the program and I’m all in. Because I’m all in and because it’s my nature and culture to analyze things I use, I have opinions about what works and could work better. Because I am a beginner, I often assume that there is a way of doing something that I haven't learned yet or a better way of doing something I haven't learned yet.

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


Return to posts index

Robin S. Kurz
Re: FCP X 10.1.2 released...
on Jul 9, 2014 at 11:45:58 am

[Craig Alan] "Any one who needs to discuss/explain/ask about an operation in FC gets caught in the problem of "project" meaning timeline."

Haven't seen or come across it once in all of three years myself.

[Craig Alan] "It was a stupid decision. "

You're entitled to your opinion. For me it's nothing more than a matter of semantics and rather silly solipsism.

[Craig Alan] "Larry Jordan is perhaps the most successful FC/NLE teacher in the world."

I highly doubt that. Whereby popularity isn't to be equated with quality or success either. He's been out of the loop (no pun intended) at Apple for quite a while now. Not without reason. But then that would be yet another appeal to "authority" anyway, a logical fallacy. ;)

[Craig Alan] "Apple was using terms that they thought a consumer level end user would understand better than the professional terms being used; or put more globally, that was more ‘user friendly’."

Nonsensical conjecture imho. Not sure who you can state something like that so as-a-matter-of-factly. Unless of course you can substantiate it. I'd say there's a "I think" or "possibly" missing in there. Glaringly so.

[Craig Alan] "Please, Robin. From day one of FCP X release, the film and television industry, who had been using FCP 7 in larger and larger numbers, complained that you could not round trip a FCP X "project" to the sound editors, the colorists, the special effect artists."

Yes, and even to this day. Go figure. Even though it hasn't been true for over two and a half years. So how does their ignorance qualify as an some sort of argument? And I'd say that utilities such as 7toX et al are a superb example for why outsourcing such things was a brilliant idea. And nearly all of them are available for less than just a MONTHS worth of CC, if you even need them, which the vast majority in fact don't. Not sure how that qualifies as a disadvantage by any stretch of the imagination. And those that do need them I hardly think are somehow burdened by such paltry additional investments. A complete red-herring imho.

[Craig Alan] " I think Adobe now has a very strong foothold in the professional NLE world and this will not go away any time soon."

There's no way of telling how successful (be it more or less) PPro is due to the CC model and I know that Adobe doesn't have numbers either, so any such claim is, once again, mere speculation, assumption and/or hearsay. But FCP still has the greatest share of the market across all versions as of last year. So either way, they have a lot of catching up to do first. And somehow suggesting any and/or all success they may or may not have had is somehow related to the differences in either NLE's export/exchange formats strikes me as a pretty amazing stretch.

[Craig Alan] "... Adobe might well not have gotten a foothold and AVID might have become a dinosaur. "

Coulda shoulda woulda. Once again: unsubstantiated conjecture and speculation. I have yet to see any substantial proof that the marketshare matters have changed in any big way. Maybe you have it?

[Craig Alan] "I often assume that there is a way of doing something that I haven't learned yet"

There you go. X is doing exactly that. Take it from me and other 20+ year editing veterans, it's a revolution AND (logical) evolution. I fear you're missing the reference to how it's been in those decades to recognize how and to what degree.


Return to posts index

Craig Alan
Re: FCP X 10.1.2 released...
on Jul 9, 2014 at 8:46:07 pm

[Robin S. Kurz] "You're entitled to your opinion. For me it's nothing more than a matter of semantics and rather silly solipsism."

Got me there. I did a search and apparently I'm the only one in the world who finds calling a timeline a project was a poor choice. No one, except me, has to explain that a "new Project" is a new timeline. And, in fact, you can make as many new "projects" as you need for every one of your projects and store them all in the same "event."

[Robin S. Kurz] "He's been out of the loop (no pun intended) at Apple for quite a while now. Not without reason"

And what reason would that be? Was this an opinion?

Funny, on Apple's site they list his Web tutorials first.




[Robin S. Kurz] "Nonsensical conjecture imho. Not sure who you can state something like that so as-a-matter-of-factly. Unless of course you can substantiate it. I'd say there's a "I think" or "possibly" missing in there. Glaringly so."

I try to avoid the "in my opinion" because unless it can be confused with something factual, or commonly accepted, what else could it be? If the speaker is a known expert then the IMO might let the audience know its a personal choice and he is not saying it would not work for someone else. When its used for dramatic effect, IMO it's rather pretentious.

[Robin S. Kurz] "Yes, and even to this day. Go figure. Even though it hasn't been true for over two and a half years. So how does their ignorance qualify as an some sort of argument? "

So the entire collective of broadcast and film editors are ignorant? I'm the one who uses "silly solipsism(s)"? For the last 2 1/2 years?

Name me the professional applications that starting 2 1/2 years ago, in a collaborative production environment, that a FCP X project could be efficiently round tripped to and from and exactly how this would be done.
I hope that FCP X does get adopted by the high end pros. And I know that third party developers have stepped forward to bridge many gaps. However, this means at each update things get broken and then need to be fixed. Resolve for example stopped working with the latest XML. So anyone using resolve needs to use a workaround with the new beta version of resolve.

When did Logic start using FCP X's XML?



Last year.

In the last week, John Davidson speaking about a collaborative workflow using FCP X:

Forum: Apple FCPX Techniques
User Name: John Davidson
Post Subject: Re: Sparse Disk Bundling, Revisited.

--------------------------------------------------

XML's don't retain smart folders, on screen text data, and effect keyframes. I don't know if it's technically considered a bug or just not information XML is capable of preserving.

But with libraries relatively small it isn't an issue.

[Robin S. Kurz] "And I'd say that utilities such as 7toX et al are a superb example for why outsourcing such things was a brilliant idea. And nearly all of them are available for less than just a MONTHS worth of CC, if you even need them, which the vast majority in fact don't."

I chose FCP X over CC because a subscription model would not work for us. I am NOT anti FCP X. But it would be foolish to claim that its launch did not allow Adobe Premiere to gain a much bigger foothold in profession editing circles. Do I have the latest marketshare in professional houses at my fingertips? No. Do you? I do know that many editors on the cow switched from FCP 7 to Adobe Premiere.


From: 10/2013
http://noamkroll.com/battle-of-the-nles-which-editing-software-will-prevail...

"The future of the three major video editing platforms – Avid, FCP X, and Premiere Pro is a topic that has been coming up a lot lately. Since FCP X was released and shook up the post-production world over two years ago, a lot has changed. Premiere Pro has developed really nicely and gained some ground with indie filmmakers and small companies, Avid has stayed on course and brought back former users despite financial trouble within the company, and FCP X has slowly and silently matured, while being given a second look by many users that had previously abandoned it."

"To me" that's a pretty good summary. And "I think" this latest update is a big step forward. "Personally" I'd like to see FCP X gain a bigger place in the professional world because its the one I'm learning and teaching. It is not my goal to become a freelance professional editor. Nor was it my goal when I began using FCP 3. But it was very helpful as a user of FCP 3-7 that full time pros used it. The info available was geared toward professional practices. That is of interest.

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


Return to posts index

Robin S. Kurz
Re: FCP X 10.1.2 released...
on Jul 10, 2014 at 12:42:28 pm

Point out to someone that the appeal to authority is a logical fallacy... and what do you get? :-))))


[Craig Alan] "I did a search and apparently I'm the only one in the world who finds calling a timeline a project was a poor choice."


Well there you go! :-D


[Craig Alan] "When its used for dramatic effect, IMO it's rather pretentious."


"for dramatic effect"... :-)))). Gotcha. Letting personal opinion and perception appear to be fact on the other hand is completely unostentatious. :-D


[Craig Alan] "So the entire collective of broadcast and film editors are ignorant?"


Not sure when, where or how I ever said "the entire collective". Because I in fact didn't, but oh well. I was in fact only referring to the ones still making the nonsensical claim. Fortunately that's not "the entire collective", no. Just the misinformed (ignorant if you like) exceptions that 9 out of 10 times aren't even a part of the "collective" they are referencing, but are just parroting indiscriminately whatever it is their self-defined authorities tell them. Go figure.


[Craig Alan] "Name me the professional applications that starting 2 1/2 years ago, in a collaborative production environment, that a FCP X project could be efficiently round tripped to and from and exactly how this would be done."


Name me the professional applications that I couldn't interface with two years ago. Be it with or without 3rd party utilities.

But then... what do I even care about 2+ years ago??! :-D Completely irrelevant. As if the fact that FCP and its ecosystem are constantly evolving were some sort of unique occurrence. I'm just happy to know that I'm working with an ever evolving and open standard such as XML instead of being stuck with some stagnant, inferior nonsense from the 80's such as EDL or the likes.


[Craig Alan] "I hope that FCP X does get adopted by the high end pros."


Erm... you appear to be missing a looooong list of exactly that. There have been a plethora of cases reported on e.g. fcp.co alone. I guess you need to reevaluate your sources. But then if I were lemming enough to actually make decisions based on how to best mimic what "the cool guys" are doing, I wouldn't have ever gotten a Mac or even touched FCP to begin with. Fortunately I don't work that way.

I for one am training one of the (if not THE) largest digital publishing houses in Europe next week. They, as with the vast majority of FCP 7 or earlier users at that level, simply have a massive backend that needs/needed to be sorted out first before they could make the jump, which takes a lot of time and testing. Literally years in certain cases. But they are extremely anxious to finally make the jump because FCP 7 has (understandably) become a useless PITA for them in their digital workflow. Never once were PPro or Avid ever considered either.

So, again, I don't know where you're getting your numbers or information that somehow no "high-end pros" (whatever that even means) are adopting X.


[Craig Alan] "When did Logic start using FCP X's XML?"


Actually... anyone, like myself, using AAF and/or ProTools doesn't in fact care. But it's great to have yet another, more direct alternative if needed, yes.


[Craig Alan] "But it would be foolish to claim that its launch did not allow Adobe Premiere to gain a much bigger foothold in profession editing circles."


Aside from not having made that claim either (I'm seeing a pattern here), it actually would be far more foolish to claim the opposite without anything substantial to support the "much bigger" claim, whatever that arbitrary, subjective measurement even means. Notice I'm not making either claim, so the burden of proof is in fact not on my side, sorry.

And as of CC it's practically impossible to make any definitive claims as to usage of any one CC app. Unless you simply want to count every single subscriber as a Premiere user, seeing that they potentially are. Otherwise you're reduced to a completely inconclusive guesstimate at best. And you obviously can't make any claims in terms of purchases. Which at least would make for a measurable, indisputable value to go from. But... you're left with mere hearsay, corporate PR or subjective impressions, nothing else.


[Craig Alan] "Do I have the latest marketshare in professional houses at my fingertips? No."


My point exactly. So unless you can quote the source and methodology of your "numbers" they simply don't mean anything and its nothing other than an opinion, assumption, conjecture or whatever... only without you prefacing it as such, since that's apparently pretentious. Your own personal perception within your action scope, from which nothing statistically useful or even vaguely conclusive can be derived. Let alone on a global scale. Quoting others that use the same "methodology" doesn't change that. There's also something called "confirmation bias" that clearly plays into it.


[Craig Alan] "Premiere Pro has developed really nicely and gained some ground with indie filmmakers and small companies"


Whilst FCP X has gained even exponentially more ground, therefore canceling out any real gains for PPro. In fact resulting in an overall relative loss. But FCP's gains being in broadcast, feature films and commercials.
(SCNR Had to give the same claim-game a shot :-D)


Return to posts index

Craig Alan
Re: FCP X 10.1.2 released...
on Jul 10, 2014 at 6:46:50 pm

I did not in fact appeal to (Larry Jordan's) authority. I pointed out listening to his turotiorials (as an example) you can hear the problem with Apple's choice of "project".

You claimed he was "out of the loop...for a reason." What's your problem with Larry? Does he work for Apple, no. But he is listed on Apple's FCP X site. One of only three training sites they list - the first they list.

Specifically, what opinion did I express as if it were a "fact."

You brought up the 2 1/2 years:

[Craig Alan] "Please, Robin. From day one of FCP X release, the film and television industry, who had been using FCP 7 in larger and larger numbers, complained that you could not round trip a FCP X "project" to the sound editors, the colorists, the special effect artists."

Yes, and even to this day. Go figure. Even though it hasn't been true for over two and a half years. So how does their ignorance qualify as an some sort of argument? So you stated that the high end pros that did not adopt FCP X were (as a collective) "ignorant."

[Craig Alan] " I think Adobe now has a very strong foothold in the professional NLE world and this will not go away any time soon."

There's no way of telling how successful (be it more or less) PPro is due to the CC model and I know that Adobe doesn't have numbers either, so any such claim is, once again, mere speculation, assumption and/or hearsay.

I never mentioned the CC model as the reason a percentage of pros moved to Adobe. Go back three years, and the choice of professional NLE was AVID or FCP. Every other program was a small niche. Now its AVID, FCP X, or Adobe Premiere.

[Robin S. Kurz] "My point exactly. So unless you can quote the source and methodology of your "numbers" they simply don't mean anything and its nothing other than an opinion, assumption, conjecture or whatever... only without you prefacing it as such, since that's apparently pretentious. Your own personal perception within your action scope, from which nothing statistically useful or even vaguely conclusive can be derived. Let alone on a global scale. Quoting others that use the same "methodology" doesn't change that. There's also something called "confirmation bias" that clearly plays into it."

Robin, you haven't given in this entire thread a single statistical fact. And aside from a gig you got teaching at an unnamed "largest digital publishing house in Europe," you have given only a single reference (e.g. fcp.co, which I do read btw) and not a single example of a broadcast TV show or major motion picture that was/is being edited on FCP X.

[Robin S. Kurz] "Whilst FCP X has gained even exponentially more ground, therefore canceling out any real gains for PPro. In fact resulting in an overall relative loss."

Where are your facts?

if I were lemming enough to actually make decisions based on how to best mimic what "the cool guys" are doing, I wouldn't have ever gotten a Mac or even touched FCP to begin with. Fortunately I don't work that way.

Well, we made the same decision, Robin. We stated the same number of statistical facts based on our intuition, experience with colleagues, and what was available on the net.

Here's a story from January of 2014:

http://nofilmschool.com/2014/01/hollywood-feature-film-edit-apple-final-cut...

Now maybe they got their facts wrong and this is not the first major Hollywood film to use FCP X.

Can you name another?

I'd be happy to hear about more and how they made out using the program for this film.

Everything below is my personal opinion (just to be clear)

I don't come here to prove how smart I am or to put down other posters. I think you do. This dialog between us has been a waste of time since I didn't learn anything. Not so, of all the other threads I read and/or posted.

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


Return to posts index

Robin S. Kurz
Re: FCP X 10.1.2 released...
on Jul 12, 2014 at 10:04:57 am

[Craig Alan] "So you stated that the high end pros that did not adopt FCP X were"


Wrong again. It was never about adopting. You're continuously confusing and interleaving the various points and arguments with each other at random, which is actually rather tiring, sorry.


[Craig Alan] "Robin, you haven't given in this entire thread a single statistical fact."


No idea why I should, seeing that I never made a single claim that would require it. Unlike you. And even though it's none of your business, that publishing house is in fact Alex Springer SE.


[Craig Alan] "Can you name another?"


Which part of "I don't care" did you not understand? :-D You're the one pointing to others for justification, not me. Remember? :D I'm not interested in the tired "My NLE is bigger than your NLE" line of discussion. If that were somehow actually relevant, why aren't you using LightWorks? [an entirely rhetorical question btw]


[Robin S. Kurz] Whilst FCP X has gained even exponentially more ground, therefore canceling out any real gains for PPro. In fact resulting in an overall relative loss.

(never mind the sentence immediately following that)

[Craig Alan] Where are your facts? "


Wow. If someone doesn't even get the most pithy sarcasm, which was even subtitled as such :-))))) , then I'm clearly in the wrong discussion. Aside from not really being interested in continuing to have words put in my mouth and having circular discussions, yes. Enjoy the last word. I'm out.


Return to posts index

Craig Alan
Re: FCP X 10.1.2 released...
on Jul 12, 2014 at 8:24:48 pm

Since I have the last word, I feel so empowered. Thank you!

http://www.axelspringer.de/en/cw_youtube_videoseite_en_18552354.html

I grew up hearing stories about that garage. Freaking mythic!

They definitely changed the world as we know it.

Job/Woz's garage move over. Orville and Wilbur's garage move over.

Now that they are moving to FCP X, it should cement X's place as a high-end NLE.

Murch move over.

[Robin S. Kurz] "I'm not interested in the tired "My NLE is bigger than your NLE" line of discussion."

No disrespect, intended. Your copy of FCP X is way bigger than mine. So believe me, I wouldn't go there.

[Robin S. Kurz] "Wow. If someone doesn't even get the most pithy sarcasm,"

Sorry, it went completely over my head. Too aligned with your POV to see the pithy in it.

Seriously Robin,

I think you have a really solid knowledge of FCP X and can help other users.
But you seem to have a need to put other people down.

It is not in the DNA of the Cow.

Spirited debate yes; personal put downs, no.

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


Return to posts index

Craig Alan
Re: FCP X 10.1.2 released...
on Jul 13, 2014 at 5:35:07 pm

An example:

Jeremy Garchow Re: Fascinating article on FCP.co today...
by Jeremy Garchow on Jul 10, 2014 at 8:43:24 am

[Herb Sevush] "then what's the big whoop-de-doo - story structure diagrams?"

Again, it's not that these things can't be done in other NLE's, it's that FCPX's particular (peculiar?) structure lends itself to this style of working. Many editors working on a Project (and I mean Project in the FCPX definition of the word), but staying separate in their own timeline interface.

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


Return to posts index

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