Creative COW's LinkedIn GroupCreative COW's Facebook PageCreative COW on TwitterCreative COW's Google+ PageCreative COW on YouTube
APPLE FINAL CUT PRO:HomeFCP ForumFCP XFCPX TechniquesFCP TutorialsFC ServerBasics ForumPodcastFAQ

Re: Who would like a unified interface for FCS?

COW Forums : Apple Final Cut Pro

Social ShareSend Email MessageShare on FacebookShare on TwitterShare on LinkedInComment
Respond to this post   •   Return to posts index   •   Read entire thread

Jeremy GarchowRe: Who would like a unified interface for FCS?
by on Oct 4, 2010 at 3:48:20 pm

I'm with Brett. Motion and STP should just wrap right in to FCP. Audio editing in FCP is horrendous. Most of the filters aren't rt. Are you kidding me? Audio is the "easiest" thing to process with today's monster computers and we can't get rt audio effects? M100, back in the day on OS9, had totally awesome real time audio GUI filters that were completely intuitive, completely useful and completely built in to M100. It had separate busses and effects processing built right in to it along with a master track. It was really really useful. STP could be that for FCP. No professional audio mixer that I work with uses STP, they use ProTools. So, that being said, seeing STP get wrapped in to FCP makes a lot of sense because if we send out for a sound mix, it's an OMF to ProTools anyway. I just don't see a reason to keep STP as a separate application.

Motion in FCP also makes sense. Real time WYSIWYG text, ability to draw masks, shapes, and simple compositing, keying? This is all becoming part of my edit these days. Things are getting more and more complex and simply placing to clips together at the right time is just a part of what I do these days. Wrapping Motion in to FCP would be a huge help for me. Again, if working with a professional motion graphics artist, 99.75% of the time they are using After Effects for the type of work that we require. So, keeping Motion a separate application would also benefit me the editor more than most of the graphic designers I work with would benefit by leaving it a stand alone application.

I'm on the fence about having Color in the application. I think aspects of it would be good to have (like the Primary in room), but that one I think needs to stay a separate app. Tighter XML integration would help get from FCP to Color and back, though.

I don't care what you call it. If you call it Motion and STP get wrapped in to FCP, or if you call it adding more advanced features in FCP like rt audio mixing capabilities with a GUI, and the ability to draw masks and shapes freehand, and a real time text generator that doesn't suck and isn't outside of the FCP app, and for goodness sakes a real keyer that is worth something. I don't see how everyone on the this entire Creative Cow FCP forum couldn't benefit from having those capabilities built right in to FCP. Some better finishing tools would be an awesome addition to FCP.

I'd highly welcome an all in one. A nicely organized application, perhaps setup in rooms/tabs, kind of like Color.

XML needs to be fixed and locked down.

I use MXF4mac for native MXF editing and now couldn't live without it. I guess it'd be nice to see that in FCP, but I highly doubt Apple will move away from a QT model.

I could see huge benefits to better tools in FCP that don't involve leaving the application.

Posts IndexRead Thread
Reply   Like  
Social ShareSend Email MessageShare on FacebookShare on TwitterShare on LinkedInComment

Current Message Thread:



Creative COW LinkedIn GroupCreative COW Facebook PageCreative COW on Twitter
Social ShareSend Email MessageShare on FacebookShare on TwitterShare on LinkedInComment
© 2016 All rights are reserved. - Privacy Policy