APPLE FINAL CUT PRO: Apple Final Cut Pro X FCPX Debates FCP Legacy FCP Tutorials

Re: Range-based keywording: unique to FCP X?

COW Forums : Apple Final Cut Pro X Debates

Respond to this post   •   Return to posts index   •   Read entire thread

Walter Soyka
Re: Range-based keywording: unique to FCP X?
on Apr 3, 2012 at 7:49:21 pm

[Bill Davis] "That's NOT how X is designed, Richard. What you're describing is how Legacy was designed. "

I disagree. FCP was not a DAM. It didn't track metadata like FCPX does. These questions around asset management are new to most of us, unless you were using CatDV, FCSvr, or the like.

[Bill Davis] "When legacy was born, storage was expensive and computers were slower. Today, storage is cheap and computers and networks are ever faster. X is building toward that future. All your past editing decisions - preserved - constantly on - and available to you to use or modify as you like."

Soyka's Law -- Expectations rise at the same rate as capabilities. Applied here, storage is cheaper, but files are bigger.

With respect to its DAM, FCPX's current design simply doesn't scale. That's not forward-thinking design. It's either bad design -- or it's completely immature.

I have 24 TB of storage online, and it's not nearly to hold all my work. I have a dozen or so 1.5 TB LTO5 tapes holding archives. Keeping all media for all projects from all time online isn't practical for everyone. Building the storage infrastructure would be mind-boggling complicated and expensive.

Jeremy seems to have a lot of confidence that future updates to FCPXML will allow third parties to deal with this. I'd love to see that, and I think that third-party developers are offering some really innovating solutions (like VirtualMXF), but I also think that splitting DAM duties between FCPX and a third-party app reduces the power of having a DAM in an NLE in the first place.

I hope that this is an area that Apple intends to develop themselves in the future, because this is one of those maddening close-but-not-quite features.

We discussed this a couple months ago [link]. Here's what I wrote then:

IBM sees three dimensions to Big Data [link]: volume, velocity, and variety.

Volume means we're amassing more data than ever before. Velocity means we're amassing it faster. Variety means our data is not all neatly structured as an individual datum we can stuff in a spreadsheet or database; assets like text, graphics, audio and video are totally unstructured.

FCPX starts to treat variety, creating some structures that the user can apply to their unstructured data. However, as long as this is a manual process for humans, the twin threats of volume and velocity threaten to overwhelm our ability to keep up on variety.

I suppose you could argue that FCPX is starting to treat velocity, with native format support, but that's still far from perfect [link].

FCPX offers no tools at all for managing volume.

You wrote a great line about FCPX and metadata a couple months ago:
[Bill Davis] "And what sets X apart from the competition? The elevation of data handling into a role arguably equal to image manipulation."

I think this is true, but Apple needs to push very, very hard to make sure that the tools they're providing for data handling are as suitable to the task as the tools for image manipulation.

If metadata is going to be a true advantage for Apple and for FCPX in ongoing projects versus one-offs, they must really innovate that toolset.

Walter Soyka
Principal & Designer at Keen Live
Motion Graphics, Widescreen Events, Presentation Design, and Consulting
RenderBreak Blog - What I'm thinking when my workstation's thinking
Creative Cow Forum Host: Live & Stage Events

Posts IndexRead Thread 

Current Message Thread:

© 2019 All Rights Reserved