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

Why one user Switched to FCPX

COW Forums : Apple Final Cut Pro X Debates

<< PREVIOUS   •   VIEW ALL   •   PRINT   •   NEXT >>
Steve Connor
Why one user Switched to FCPX
on Feb 12, 2018 at 11:41:36 am

Just saw this on FCP.co and thought I'd beat Bill and post it on here first ☺

A genuine, agenda free, video about the benefits of FCPX







"Traditional NLEs have timelines. FCPX has storylines" W.Soyka


Return to posts index

Nick Toth
Re: Why one user Switched to FCPX
on Feb 12, 2018 at 2:15:39 pm

Bah! FCPX is only for making YouTube videos....

Who are the richest Youtubers?
No. 7 (tie): Germán Garmendia — $5.5 million. ...
No. 7 (tie): Markiplier — $5.5 million. ...
No. 5 (tie): Tyler Oakley — $6 million. ...
No. 5 (tie): Rosanna Pansino — $6 million. ...
No. 4: Smosh — $7 million. ...
No. 3: Lilly Singh — $7.5 million. ...
No. 2: Roman Atwood — $8 million. ...
No. 1: PewDiePie — $15 million. YouTube/Screenshot.


Return to posts index

greg janza
Re: Why one user Switched to FCPX
on Feb 12, 2018 at 4:23:20 pm
Last Edited By greg janza on Feb 12, 2018 at 4:40:18 pm

There appears to be trend of folks blaming Adobe for a litany of problems but when you examine these so called "bugs" in detail the culprit is almost always operator error.

For the record, the publish to you tube function works just fine in Adobe Media Encoder. Also it was stated in the video that he's spending hours rendering 4k videos and so it's also fair to assume that he's using an under powered system for his editing.

I'm all for people using whatever software to improve their workflows but let's not confuse operator error with bugs in particular programs.

And why can't these videos be more concise? There's almost always a worthless preamble that delays the point of the video. This one doesn't actually start until 1:06.


I Hate Television. I Hate It As Much As Peanuts. But I Can’t Stop Eating Peanuts.
- Orson Welles


Return to posts index


Gregor Queck
Re: Why one user Switched to FCPX
on Feb 12, 2018 at 5:32:58 pm



. . .


Return to posts index

Neil Goodman
Re: Why one user Switched to FCPX
on Feb 12, 2018 at 6:57:09 pm

No diss on youtubers but the #1 reason I choose an NLE has nothing to do with a Share button. That might be the 500 reason on my list.


Return to posts index

Shane Ross
Re: Why one user Switched to FCPX
on Feb 12, 2018 at 7:51:53 pm

I concur. I thought the main reason for switching being the SHARE option was pretty silly. And sitting around for hours waiting for this? GO for a walk...work on something else. Something

And I always, ALWAYS like to export masters in a high-end format, such as ProRes, for archiving. In case I need the master later for ANY reason (and typically I do...often). SO I always export a master, and then compress that, and then upload.

But that's me.

Shane
Little Frog Post
Read my blog, Little Frog in High Def


Return to posts index


Brett Sherman
Re: Why one user Switched to FCPX
on Feb 13, 2018 at 1:53:31 pm

[Shane Ross] "And I always, ALWAYS like to export masters in a high-end format, such as ProRes, for archiving. In case I need the master later for ANY reason (and typically I do...often). "

Yeah. This is REALLY easy with FCP X. I set up an export with MP4. Then do a Multitrack Quicktime with audio roles and no titles for archive. Get my MP4 upload to FB and/or Youtube and then by the time I'm done with that, I have my Multitrack Quicktime for archive which I can re-edit into other pieces because I can control the audio tracks.

--------------------------
Brett Sherman
One Man Band (If it's video related I'll do it!)
I work for an institution that probably does not want to be associated with my babblings here.


Return to posts index

Martin Curtis
Re: Why one user Switched to FCPX
on Feb 16, 2018 at 12:28:38 am

[Neil Goodman] "No diss on youtubers but the #1 reason I choose an NLE has nothing to do with a Share button. That might be the 500 reason on my list."

But that's what was important to him. That was the catalyst for him to change. As he dived deeper, he found many reasons to stick with FCPX which may keep him using it even if Adobe sorts out their sharing feature.

For the record, I hate the word "share" used in this context. It's an export, Apple, an export.


Return to posts index

Neil Goodman
Re: Why one user Switched to FCPX
on Feb 16, 2018 at 3:14:15 pm

[Martin Curtis] "[Neil Goodman] "No diss on youtubers but the #1 reason I choose an NLE has nothing to do with a Share button. That might be the 500 reason on my list."

But that's what was important to him. That was the catalyst for him to change. As he dived deeper, he found many reasons to stick with FCPX which may keep him using it even if Adobe sorts out their sharing feature.

For the record, I hate the word "share" used in this context. It's an export, Apple, an export."


I completely understand as it applies to him - I was just stating my opinion that for me exporting is the least of my worries. For some people like myself - the only exporting we do is same as source - then someone else takes it from there.


Return to posts index


Tim Wilson
Re: Why one user Switched to FCPX
on Feb 16, 2018 at 11:18:00 pm

[Neil Goodman] "the only exporting we do is same as source - then someone else takes it from there."

Yes, exactly. This is EXPORT. Once the Exporting is complete, a new process begins. That file may move or be copied, but in any case, something's gonna happen to it. It's an INTERIM step. LOTS of things are going to happen after that.

But with Share, the goal is to be done, done, DONE, with the movie I've exported resting safe and sound on YouTube, Instagram, Facebook, Twitter, AND Snapchat, complete with hashtags and other relevant stuff.

I mention that because this is in fact part of the Share feature set in Premiere Pro. This is kind of an Adobe thing, where there are features built into Photoshop for doctors and geologists -- well, there's a huge class of people whose final destination for their videos isn't TV or film, but online platforms who might in fact have bigger audiences.

(F'rinstance, I'm pals with a fashion vlogger. She shoots with pro cameras and lighting in an actual studio with a full crew, and her YouTube channel has 11 million subscribers. That's more than the NFL, Marvel Comics, or HBO, so I'll ask YOU: how many people subscribe to YOUR work?)

So the "Share" feature set is a mini-encoder hub if you will, where each platform might have different rules for hashtags (the number of hashtags, which work on which platform, the fact that you NEED to use spaces on Tumblr, SHOULD on YouTube, but CAN'T on Instagram), ideal aspect ratios, and much more.

Additionally, Premiere Pro's Share feature set includes built-in analytics, so that you can see how many SHARES you're getting for each of the videos you've SHARED.

I'm not suggesting that Apple is dropping the ball by failing to have this extensive a feature set. Nor am I suggesting that Premiere Pro is any way less capable as a feature film or television editing environment because it has robust social media sharing.

But I AM saying that many of the people who Share for a living might never get around to exporting!

And indeed, to Neil's point, most people who Export will never, ever, ever, ever, ever Share.

They are not even vaguely the same. They are almost exactly the opposite in every meaningful away.

And I'm definitely saying that Apple would be remiss if they failed to recognize this. Well, lo and behold, they DO recognize this. You can decide for yourself if either or both of their Export and Share feature sets are robust enough for you, but no amount of robustness in one can make up for deficiencies in the other. Any workarounds are excruciating at best, which is why, as developers understand the world they're sending their products out into, they're accommodating the realities on the ground.

It's also no big deal that Apple is behind on this. They've been behind on almost everything, and it tends to work out for them just fine.

But if it looks to anyone that Apple is running needlessly ahead into yet another avenue of irrelevance for "professional" production, I'll suggest that this is a measure of how much further behind you are than you thought. 😎😂

Which, as always, may have nothing to do with whether or not they're meeting YOUR needs or not. But the market NEEDS BOTH Share and Export, and they're gonna need a lot more from both feature sets, from every developer, and they need it yesterday.


Return to posts index

Oliver Peters
Re: Why one user Switched to FCPX
on Feb 17, 2018 at 1:53:35 pm

[Tim Wilson] "But with Share, the goal is to be done, done, DONE, with the movie I've exported resting safe and sound on YouTube, Instagram, Facebook, Twitter, AND Snapchat, complete with hashtags and other relevant stuff."

Here's the danger in promoting that concept. It lulls the user into believing that the "shared" export to YouTube, Vimeo, etc. is an adequate final product. They believe that the working Library/Project is a safe "master" to which they can return should changes be required in the future.

Unfortunately these forums are littered with threads by panicked users who can't access their project file any longer, because it is corrupt, or a version has been updated, or a plug-in is now missing. Considering your "shared" export as any sort of "master" is a recipe for disaster.

- Oliver

Oliver Peters - oliverpeters.com


Return to posts index

Tim Wilson
Re: Why one user Switched to FCPX
on Feb 17, 2018 at 4:34:04 pm

[Oliver Peters] "Here's the danger in promoting that concept."

I'm not promoting the concept. That IS the concept. 😂


[Oliver Peters] "Considering your "shared" export as any sort of "master" is a recipe for disaster."

But the concept of "master" and "sharing" don't have anything to do with each other. This is yet vector another along which "Share" and "Export" are actually the opposite of each other. A master is something you hang onto. "Share" is by its nature ephemeral. Instagram Stories last 24 hours. A video on Snapchat vanishes after it's been seen.

Note again that I'm not just talking about kids on phones. Huge money is going into these platforms from companies whose money you'd be happy to take, and very likely are. Among the folks producing original content are A+E Networks, Discovery, ESPN, NBCUniversal and Turner (owner of CNN, TBS and TNT). WSJ reports that Fox and CBS are sniffing around because the numbers are insane.

NBC does a twice-daily newscast for Snapchat in vertical orientation that's getting 29 million viewers. So sez NBC, so you can take that for what it's worth, and having invested $500 million in Snapchat's IPO, they have a stake in promoting the platform for its own sake....but it's not like 29 million people are watching NBC Nightly News. It's the top-rated newscast on broadcast, and pulling in 7 million, give or take. Those folks are more thoroughly monetized for now for sure, but there's a there there, even for grown-up, mainstream media creation.

It does raise a question, though. To what extent does NBC archive their 2-5 minute Snapchat news elements that disappear after viewing? I mean, ALL newscasts are ephemeral, right? Except to the extent that they're not. Nobody has bigger archives than news organizations.

So you're right that especially for producers like the ones who frequent these forums, social platforms represent a gray area, and in fact best practices are still going to include real live archiving. YouTube is not the best place for archiving.


[Oliver Peters] "these forums are littered with threads by panicked users who can't access their project file any longer, because it is corrupt, or a version has been updated, or a plug-in is now missing"

And you left out, "The original application won't launch on the new OS that all my machines are running."

'twas ever thus, though, from the dawn of the nonlinear age. How often did you or your clients have to go back to the VIDEOTAPE master, redigitize the section that needed changing, rebuild in the NLE, then insert edit back to tape. Not because anyone involved was less than thorough on the backup, but because of some weird thing that was entirely outside anyone's control.

This is why people who NEED access to old stuff are doing a combination of freezing machines in legacy states AND updating projects with each new version. You need BOTH approaches if you're going to be truly ready for anything.

But sure, I agree that people who count on YouTube as the only place that their finished project lives are asking for trouble.

Then again, you could say the same thing about any online repository, for anything. Surely you know folks who figured that Wordpress is the only backup for their writing that they needed, only to discover some bizarre corruption or inability to get at their accounts. If only they'd saved Word files to their own computers! And, uhm, Dropbox, and probably a couple of other places.

THAT aspect of what you're talking about has nothing to do with misunderstanding the relative values of permanence and ephemerality of Export and Share.

Nor does it change the fundamental workflow differences of the two. Ideally, the thing you have in front of you when you click the Share button is in fact your master file, but that's never going to be the case every time for everyone. It certainly doesn't make a robust "Share" feature set any less critical for some people to have, even if other folks will never need it, and might indeed encounter nightmares if they implement "Share" workflows where they should be using "Export" workflows.

Ain't none 'a this either-or, though. That's my point, and indeed the point that Apple, Adobe, and Bill have been making all along. "Professional" media production doesn't mean just one thing anymore. It'd be a lot easier to talk about and develop for if it only meant 10 things, and we could agree on what those 10 things are, but it could now mean almost anything. It has to. Not because I'm promoting such notions. Because that's just how it is.

And yeah, this is yet another area where new platforms don't obviate old best practices, but when Robert Burns wrote "The best laid schemes o' Mice an' Men / Gang aft agley / An' lea'e us nought but grief an' pain / For promis'd joy", he could just as easily have been speaking of Export, mastering, and archiving as Share. 😂


Return to posts index

Bill Davis
Re: Why one user Switched to FCPX
on Feb 16, 2018 at 4:14:57 pm

[Martin Curtis] "For the record, I hate the word "share" used in this context. It's an export, Apple, an export."

This is interesting to me.

I see it differently.

Export, at least the way I had been conditioned to think of it prior to FCP X - was largely creating a new, fixed asset on a desktop.

The word itself could be either, obviously. But it's how I was trained to consider it back when the concept I was learning was to create your MASTER as a unique stand-alone file on the root level of your system.

So when Apple elected to go with "share" - it put me "conceptionally" in mind of sending someone an email or, perhaps making a photocopy and handing it to them.

Seemed more to me like what I was doing when I uploaded a copy of my project to an on-line service.

Export and share are BOTH perfectly suitable linguistically. But for me, "export" was already in use by the software of the time - so using a newer term was signaling internal changes in the process. New thinking, so to speak.

Not sure this is a "right or wrong" thing - more just a "how communications happens" thing.

Like I said - interesting.

Creator of XinTwo - http://www.xintwo.com
The shortest path to FCP X mastery.


Return to posts index

Mark Suszko
Re: Why one user Switched to FCPX
on Feb 16, 2018 at 5:10:06 pm

"Share" Semantically, for me, means an export customized to a particular deliverable.

"Export", - unless you opt for a different transcoding in the export dialogue - sends a flattened copy of the work product on the timeline, in whatever codec it currently is using.


Return to posts index

Bill Davis
Re: Why one user Switched to FCPX
on Feb 16, 2018 at 5:45:49 pm

[Mark Suszko] ""Share" Semantically, for me, means an export customized to a particular deliverable.

"Export", - unless you opt for a different transcoding in the export dialogue - sends a flattened copy of the work product on the timeline, in whatever codec it currently is using."


That makes great sense to me.

The only issue I can see is is it a "share" or an "export" if you're taking, for example - a ProRez 422 export from a laptop timeline where you've been working in proxy (so you might not be working in the delivery format at all) and creating a higher resolution "sorta mezzanine" file via pointer swapping - that you THEN want to host on a service that will take that "sorta mezzanine" file and transcode it further into versions for end user delivery.

There's a LOT of complexity in the modern workflow - and yet only a few words we use to describe the types of files (and the states of those files) that we are creating.

What is a "Master?" That's becoming about as soft and fuzzy a term now as is "Final".

Maybe we don't have quite enough discrete terms to distinguish things in order to keep our communications as clear as we'd like.

OTOH, perhaps we're in a space where the language we have will just have to do - and we'll rely on users undersigning in the specific contexts to get the jobs done.

Like I said originally, all this extremely rapid change is making things very interesting!

Creator of XinTwo - http://www.xintwo.com
The shortest path to FCP X mastery.


Return to posts index

greg janza
Re: Why one user Switched to FCPX
on Feb 16, 2018 at 7:03:49 pm

[Bill Davis] "There's a LOT of complexity in the modern workflow - and yet only a few words we use to describe the types of files (and the states of those files) that we are creating."

I don't think it's all that complicated. Share and export are one in the same. Master files are whatever the deliverable requirement is and exports are usually h264's. why make it more convoluted than it actually is?

I Hate Television. I Hate It As Much As Peanuts. But I Can’t Stop Eating Peanuts.
- Orson Welles


Return to posts index

Oliver Peters
Re: Why one user Switched to FCPX
on Feb 16, 2018 at 8:08:48 pm

Re: "Share"

I don't think we have to overthink this. It's simply the terminology Apple has chosen to use across nearly all of its applications. Although in most, they have both a "share" and an "export" function, which tend to do different things.

- Oliver

Oliver Peters - oliverpeters.com


Return to posts index

Bill Davis
Re: Why one user Switched to FCPX
on Feb 17, 2018 at 11:33:58 pm

I think I’m firmly with Tim on this one.

Dismissing this area of new language and change is potentially dismissing EXTERMELY important new thinking in a rediculously fast moving digital landscape.

Master is Master
Share is Share
Final... is gasping and near death (beyond it’s use as a working editors joke in the sense of a file on your desktop labeled: Final Final - Rev C.)

It’s s new world, like it or not.

Creator of XinTwo - http://www.xintwo.com
The shortest path to FCP X mastery.


Return to posts index

Joe Marler
Re: Why one user Switched to FCPX
on Feb 13, 2018 at 12:56:52 am

Re Philip Bloom's statement about smug FCPX and Resolve users who "never have issues", I personally have never used any NLE which never crashed. I've had FCPX crash a lot, although it seems to crash *less* than Premiere.

NLEs have a difficult challenge. The combination of myriad code paths and codecs, stringent real-time latency windows, when combined with complex workloads form a murky multi-dimensional space where software load paths intersect with features, hardware and user actions.

Lurking in there are hidden "islands of instability". A certain combination of user actions, hardware, codec and system state can cause repeated crashes. Another user doing almost the same action on almost the same hardware may never experience that.

From the standpoint of software development and testing, it is a grinding, tedious job to ferret out all those problem areas. Maybe Apple does a better job, or maybe they have an advantage because of fewer total test permutations via less hardware variation. OTOH it seems Avid (which also runs on Mac and Windows) has a better reputation for reliability.

It's very difficult to objectively measure software reliability across products. However since Mac users can opt to send application crash data to Apple, this would include both Premiere and FCPX crashes. Adobe being only an app vendor wouldn't have that data. I wonder if the Apple system people forwarded this data to the Pro Apps development team.

That said, in the book "Behind the Seen: How Walter Murch Edited Cold Mountain Using Apple's Final Cut Pro", by Charles Koppelman, Murch was asked was he scared of FCP crashing or losing data. He response was Avid crashed and corrupted data so much (at least back then) that FCP could not possibly be any worse, and he figured they could afford more workstations so at least a few would be up and running.


Return to posts index

Dominic Deacon
Re: Why one user Switched to FCPX
on Feb 13, 2018 at 6:13:18 am

[Joe Marler] " I personally have never used any NLE which never crashed. I've had FCPX crash a lot, although it seems to crash *less* than Premiere."

I have. I'm a bit out of the loop with where the software is at these days but I edited a couple feature films a few corporate videos on Edius over a few years back and from memory I don't think it crashed once.


Return to posts index

Paul Golden
Re: Why one user Switched to FCPX
on Feb 12, 2018 at 7:10:31 pm

[greg janza] "Also it was stated in the video that he's spending hours rendering 4k videos and so it's also fair to assume that he's using an under powered system for his editing."

Here's the issue with Adobe: they write (or don't re-write) software that can work on reasonably modest machines. Much of Adobe software (AE, Premiere) are resource hogs that are often grossly inefficient. Real-time playback in After Effects on basic uncomped video clips? Good luck!

FCPX can be blazingly fast when it comes to many tasks including output, filtering, real-time effects with even 5 year old hardware. I have a new iMac Pro and I'm still underwhelmed by AE or Premiere performance.


Return to posts index

Shawn Miller
Re: Why one user Switched to FCPX
on Feb 12, 2018 at 9:43:36 pm

[Paul Golden] " Real-time playback in After Effects on basic uncomped video clips? Good luck!"

Well... to be fair. AE isn't an NLE, and it was never designed for real time playback. It needs to cache frames like any other compositing application - maybe AE will cache frames on import like Nuke or Fusion one day... but I think it will be a while before you see a compositing application that runs on desktop hardware perform anything like an NLE.

Shawn



Return to posts index

Paul Golden
Re: Why one user Switched to FCPX
on Feb 12, 2018 at 10:23:03 pm

Nonsense. Have you looked at Motion? It can play back footage in real-time at speed without pre-caching. This is not inherent to NLE vs compositing software. Besides, what's really the difference between a timeline based comp software and and a timeline based NLE? They just have different feature sets, but they're all capable of compositing to a large extent. Yes, AE has a more robust tool set for comping, but the basic nature of playback should be similar for things that don't have tons of layers.


Return to posts index

Shawn Miller
Re: Why one user Switched to FCPX
on Feb 12, 2018 at 11:54:18 pm

[Paul Golden] "

Nonsense. Have you looked at Motion? It can play back footage in real-time at speed without pre-caching. This is not inherent to NLE vs compositing software. Besides, what's really the difference between a timeline based comp software and and a timeline based NLE? They just have different feature sets, but they're all capable of compositing to a large extent. Yes, AE has a more robust tool set for comping, but the basic nature of playback should be similar for things that don't have tons of layers."


AFAIK, Motion also caches frames before and after the playhead, like other applications. Maybe someone smarter than me (Like Simon Ubsdell) can correct me if I'm wrong. High end compositors also get real time performance by caching, they just use beefy hardware and better background processing to get there.

[Paul Golden] " Besides, what's really the difference between a timeline based comp software and and a timeline based NLE? "

That's a good question, Paul... there is a lot of overlap between the two different application types in terms of capability, but the differences are pretty important (real time playback vs access to deep color information being at the top of the list). It's a bit like saying that vector drawing applications and bitmap editors are really the same thing because they can handle the same file types.

[Paul Golden] " ...but the basic nature of playback should be similar for things that don't have tons of layers."

Try compositing two 4k, half float, OpenEXR sequences in Motion and then try it in your NLE of choice... then tell me what the results are - I don't think it's as simple as anything that can play video can do it in real time. ☺ Come to think of it... even Nuke Studio's preferred format is 16Bit DPX sequences, that's if you want real time playback with their recommended hardware.

Shawn

Shawn



Return to posts index

Neil Goodman
Re: Why one user Switched to FCPX
on Feb 12, 2018 at 11:12:31 pm

[Paul Golden] "Here's the issue with Adobe: they write (or don't re-write) software that can work on reasonably modest machines. Much of Adobe software (AE, Premiere) are resource hogs that are often grossly inefficient."

This is true but have you ever tried FCPX on a cheesegrater MacPro? or a pre 2013 macbook pro? Not fun IMO.


Return to posts index

Paul Golden
Re: Why one user Switched to FCPX
on Feb 12, 2018 at 11:23:32 pm

I have a "cheese grater" 4,1 (upgraded to 5,1), a nMP 2013 and an iMac Pro. (I have a 2,1 cheese grater, but that really can't do any editing justice at this time.)

The iMac Pro is (obviously) the best for 4K+ timelines, and the 5,1 gives respectable 4K performance with a Caldigit RAID, although it's happier with 1080 projects at this point. The nMP is also fine for 4K, but not so good for Resolve as the iMac Pro. But I never felt any of them particularly sluggish using FCPX compared to other NLEs.

FCP7 was definitely past it's prime by the time they put it out to pasture, but FCPX keeps getting faster & faster. Premiere feels like FCP7.5 at this point.


Return to posts index

Neil Goodman
Re: Why one user Switched to FCPX
on Feb 13, 2018 at 12:43:40 am

[Paul Golden] " Premiere feels like FCP7.5 at this point."

totally agree. Least fav of the big 3 but FCPX runs like poo on this cheesgrater, not that Premiere works any better.


Return to posts index

Paul Golden
Re: Why one user Switched to FCPX
on Feb 13, 2018 at 12:48:13 am

Have you updated your graphics card lately? Some of the new 4gb+ cards will make things quite a bit more zippy if you're looking for a bit more life out your aging MacPro. FCPX is all about the GPU.


Return to posts index

Neil Goodman
Re: Why one user Switched to FCPX
on Feb 13, 2018 at 1:43:25 am

[Paul Golden] "Have you updated your graphics card lately? Some of the new 4gb+ cards will make things quite a bit more zippy if you're looking for a bit more life out your aging MacPro. FCPX is all about the GPU.
"


Wish I could - Its my rig at work. 50 something bays all stuck in 2010.


Return to posts index

Oliver Peters
Re: Why one user Switched to FCPX
on Feb 13, 2018 at 1:59:08 am
Last Edited By Oliver Peters on Feb 13, 2018 at 2:00:56 am

[Neil Goodman] "50 something bays all stuck in 2010."

You might enlighten the crowd here how your set-up works (or doesn't) with Premiere Pro. Shared storage? Media formats?

- Oliver

Oliver Peters - oliverpeters.com


Return to posts index

Neil Goodman
Re: Why one user Switched to FCPX
on Feb 13, 2018 at 3:20:03 pm

[Oliver Peters] "You might enlighten the crowd here how your set-up works (or doesn't) with Premiere Pro. Shared storage? Media formats?"

Were hooked up to an ISIS using mostly prores proxy or prores LT/422 depending n the source. Sometimes lots of mixed formats. Sort of typical shortform workflow except we get a lot of random formats from clients.

Even with Proxy its flaky.


Return to posts index

Bill Davis
Re: Why one user Switched to FCPX
on Feb 13, 2018 at 6:28:42 pm
Last Edited By Bill Davis on Feb 13, 2018 at 6:29:26 pm

Their business model is doing 2018 work on 2010 hardware?

That just seems kinda nuts.

The hardware advances in speed and efficiency I’ve seen in the last 8 years have been nothing short of immense. I remember how my own FCP X work took a huge efficiency leap when I revved my hardware in late 2015.

You have my sympathy, Neil.

That’s got to be terribly frustrating day to day.

Creator of XinTwo - http://www.xintwo.com
The shortest path to FCP X mastery.


Return to posts index

Shane Ross
Re: Why one user Switched to FCPX
on Feb 13, 2018 at 6:44:02 pm

[Bill Davis] "Their business model is doing 2018 work on 2010 hardware?

That just seems kinda nuts."


When you have 50 edit bays...upgrading machines, and then typically the shared storage as the new machines won't mesh with the older servers...can be a HUGE expense. Hundreds of thousands of dollars. So yeah, it might take a while to build up the capital to afford to do that. It's easier when you are a sole operator, or have a handful of machines.

Shane
Little Frog Post
Read my blog, Little Frog in High Def


Return to posts index

Steve Connor
Re: Why one user Switched to FCPX
on Feb 13, 2018 at 6:59:17 pm

[Shane Ross] "When you have 50 edit bays...upgrading machines, and then typically the shared storage as the new machines won't mesh with the older servers...can be a HUGE expense. Hundreds of thousands of dollars. So yeah, it might take a while to build up the capital to afford to do that. It's easier when you are a sole operator, or have a handful of machines.
"


Yes but it's nearly EIGHT YEARS! If they hadn't written off the costs and covered the financing years ago then that IS nuts!

Assuming of course that they got them in 2010 :)

"Traditional NLEs have timelines. FCPX has storylines" W.Soyka


Return to posts index

Neil Goodman
Re: Why one user Switched to FCPX
on Feb 13, 2018 at 7:14:35 pm

[Steve Connor] "[Shane Ross] "When you have 50 edit bays...upgrading machines, and then typically the shared storage as the new machines won't mesh with the older servers...can be a HUGE expense. Hundreds of thousands of dollars. So yeah, it might take a while to build up the capital to afford to do that. It's easier when you are a sole operator, or have a handful of machines.
"

Yes but it's nearly EIGHT YEARS! If they hadn't written off the costs and covered the financing years ago then that IS nuts!

Assuming of course that they got them in 2010 :)"


Really has naught to do with cost - but expandability and upgrades which is lacking in Apple's current hardware run. For example, we all have Aja cards, need a place to stick those cards and our TD wont invest in anything without a roadmap for upgrades and expandability so we can future proof.

Hopefully the yet to be announced MPro of the future can fix these issues.


Return to posts index

Steve Connor
Re: Why one user Switched to FCPX
on Feb 13, 2018 at 7:52:03 pm

[Neil Goodman] "but expandability and upgrades"

Have they expanded and upgraded the 2010 Mac Pros? FCPX used to run very well on my 2008 Mac Pro with Sapphire 7950 card

"Traditional NLEs have timelines. FCPX has storylines" W.Soyka


Return to posts index

Neil Goodman
Re: Why one user Switched to FCPX
on Feb 13, 2018 at 10:32:00 pm

[Steve Connor] "Have they expanded and upgraded the 2010 Mac Pros? FCPX used to run very well on my 2008 Mac Pro with Sapphire 7950 card
"


I cant speak to everyone's individual computers but this one is a 5.1 2.4 quad with 32 gigs of ram and just the ATI 5870 which is surely part of the problem.

We're not using FCPX here although it is installed and I have seen how it runs which is about what youd expect with a 1gb GFX crd


Return to posts index

Bob Zelin
Re: Why one user Switched to FCPX
on Feb 13, 2018 at 8:31:29 pm

Hi Neil -
Mr. Doom and Gloom here.
you write -
"Hopefully the yet to be announced MPro of the future can fix these issues."

I will faint if that happens. No manufacturer (AJA, Blackmagic) is going to be excited to write NEW drivers for free for eight year old hardware. And even if that happened, with the release of macOS 10.13 High Sierra and SIP (System Integrity Protection) it's a nightmare to install drivers for even current hardware like ATTO, Promise, Sonnet, etc. Apple is becoming more and more uncooperative with third party manufacturers (think NVidia) - why ? I don't know - probably money. So at this moment, if you think the "new" non existant Mac Pro will be what "we all dream of" - a new computer from Apple that can run any third party hardware that we desire - well, I think that is a big pipe dream as of 2018. Not that the computer won't ultimately come out - but a dream that you will be able to install legacy hardware or anything else that your company desires to put into this new Mac.

Bob Zelin

Bob Zelin
Rescue 1, Inc.
bobzelin@icloud.com


Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: Why one user Switched to FCPX
on Feb 17, 2018 at 5:59:17 pm

[Neil Goodman] "For example, we all have Aja cards, need a place to stick those cards and our TD wont invest in anything without a roadmap for upgrades and expandability so we can future proof. "

When we moved to a nearly all thunderbolt infrastructure, we kept our pcie fiber cards and AJA pcie cards. They still work, many years later. Much longer than expected.

When we ditched all forms of tape capture/layoff, and all the infrastructure of THAT (patch bays, most AV Routing, and granted we are small, not large, facility) we switched to thunderbolt a/v output devices (but still have our PCIe cards in thunderbolt pcie chassis).

So future proofing in this sense, is more like legacy dragging. So far, Thunderbolt hasn’t stopped us from dragging a legacy, it has opened up more connectivity between disparate machines and devices (laptops/iMacs/whatevers hooked to fiber that was impossible before, etc).

It is a big decision to decide which legacy to drag, including the the new legacy a recent purchase inevitably represents.


Return to posts index

Tim Wilson
Re: Why one user Switched to FCPX
on Feb 17, 2018 at 6:36:34 pm

[Jeremy Garchow] "So future proofing in this sense, is more like legacy dragging. "

VERY well said. I've never heard it expressed like this, but it's perfect.


[Jeremy Garchow] "....including the the new legacy a recent purchase inevitably represents."

The most fundamental shift in the past decade, certainly the most representative state of the current decade, is the shift away from new computers. This entire industry, both hardware and software, used to be driven by new computers every 12-18 months. In the early days of the COW, I'd say very nearly 100% of the folks here were swapping in at least one new box or laptop, or both, every single upgrade cycle.

Now, it's not uncommon to skip multiple upgrade cycles, all of which are coming much farther apart. Can you imagine trying to run a cutting edge business with even a 5 year old box in 2002? Yet the number of 2011, and even 2008, computers that are out there doing the heaviest of heavy lifting is quite remarkable to me.

I think we're all still figuring out what it means to live in a world where we're buying stuff so much less often. 😄 Heck, even Apple is running into (relatively little, but still measurable) trouble because people are even skipping upgrade cycles on phones. I don't think it has anything to do with the economy, but more of a recognition that the stuff we have works pretty well, and moving to new platforms/devices/operating systems without NEEDING to causes more problems than it solves.

Don't have a problem that needs solving? Want to avoid new problems? Easy. Don't buy new stuff. 😂


Return to posts index

greg janza
Re: Why one user Switched to FCPX
on Feb 17, 2018 at 7:40:13 pm

[Tim Wilson] "I think we're all still figuring out what it means to live in a world where we're buying stuff so much less often."

I completely agree. My switch to a PC work environment was predicated on this notion that my upgrade needs will be fewer overall and when they do arise I can swap out components and not be required to purchase an entire new system.

I Hate Television. I Hate It As Much As Peanuts. But I Can’t Stop Eating Peanuts.
- Orson Welles


Return to posts index

Andrew Kimery
Re: Why one user Switched to FCPX
on Feb 20, 2018 at 3:30:58 am

[Tim Wilson] "Now, it's not uncommon to skip multiple upgrade cycles, all of which are coming much farther apart. Can you imagine trying to run a cutting edge business with even a 5 year old box in 2002? Yet the number of 2011, and even 2008, computers that are out there doing the heaviest of heavy lifting is quite remarkable to me. "

I've been noticing this for a while too, and I it boils down to a few things

1. People/businesses continue to cross the 'good enough' threshold when it comes to computing power so the

2. Making a CPU faster isn't as straight forwards as just cranking up the hertz anymore.

3. (and this one is obviously Mac-centric) Apple hasn't released a widely compelling replacement for the cheese grater MP. If the 2013 MP was a cheese grater with modern CPUs, GPUs, I/O, etc., I doubt there'd be so many people running 5, 6, 7 year old Mac Pros (and figuring out how to put modern CPUs, GPUs, I/O, etc., in them).

If Apple kept releasing cheese grater MPs with new CPUs, new GPUs, Thunderbolt, etc., I don't anyone


Return to posts index

greg janza
Re: Why one user Switched to FCPX
on Feb 20, 2018 at 4:18:28 am

[Andrew Kimery] " Apple hasn't released a widely compelling replacement for the cheese grater MP."

This has been the achilles heel of staying with Apple. Users are at the mercy of Apple's model release schedule due to their systems being almost completely closed. And even when a new model comes out (i.e., the new imac pro) another decision needs to be made of whether to commit to purchasing at that price point.

Lately it seems that the decision of whether to upgrade has been primarily motivated by whether one's system can smoothly function with 4k media. And once 4k ready, the upgrade focus subsides. At least that's my hope since I have no interest in moving to 6k as a baseline anytime soon.

I Hate Television. I Hate It As Much As Peanuts. But I Can’t Stop Eating Peanuts.
- Orson Welles


Return to posts index

Bill Davis
Re: Why one user Switched to FCPX
on Feb 20, 2018 at 9:11:43 pm
Last Edited By Bill Davis on Feb 20, 2018 at 9:13:17 pm

[Andrew Kimery] "3. (and this one is obviously Mac-centric) Apple hasn't released a widely compelling replacement for the cheese grater MP. If the 2013 MP was a cheese grater with modern CPUs, GPUs, I/O, etc., I doubt there'd be so many people running 5, 6, 7 year old Mac Pros (and figuring out how to put modern CPUs, GPUs, I/O, etc., in them)."

I think there's truth to this.

Perhaps Apple is simply more interested in the younger market - where it's reasonable to assume there's less a fixed base of operation. The up and comers are likely statistically less likely to have an office and a desk in a leased space - and more likely to be moving around while they establish their careers.

Facilities are ALL about desks in fixed buildings.

So Apple simply focused on both portable MacBook Pro - and easily transportable (iMac) style units to fit the majority of their likely younger and less "facility bound" customers needs initially. And now that those markets are very well served - they'll move more toward the "fixed base operator" style of machines.

One thing I hadn't thought of before, is that if they DO decide to re-invigorate their desktop "fixed base" game - there is now a whole army of young (and not so young!) potential operators for those seats waiting in the wings.

FWIW.

Creator of XinTwo - http://www.xintwo.com
The shortest path to FCP X mastery.


Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: Why one user Switched to FCPX
on Feb 21, 2018 at 6:51:42 pm

[Tim Wilson] "I don't think it has anything to do with the economy, but more of a recognition that the stuff we have works pretty well, and moving to new platforms/devices/operating systems without NEEDING to causes more problems than it solves. "

Well, when you say "economy" do you mean overall growth (or loss), or overall price of goods and services (including video services)?

I think that while yes, computer refresh is down, productivity with that one machine is up. Way up.

I remember the new computer every 18 months cycle. It was the time of g3 to g4, or single core to dual core, or SCSI to PCI to PCIe. There were real infrastructure changes that would ripple out to almost everything you owned. There were shifts like editing uncompressed SD to editing uncompressed HD and changing the entire infrastructure to accommodate. Buying a new computer also meant buying the new infrastructure around it.

Now, all of that is done with a single cable and perhaps an adapter or breakout box. It is a bit of a different world. Specialization is greatly reduced. One computer can do a whole lot more these days than those days, and ironically, the profit margins of yore could do a whole lot more than the profit margins of today. So while having stuff that works pretty well today is good, it means that you have to do a whole more with it in order for it to turn the business crank. There are also real world limits of processing power, corporate responsibility (waste, power management, etc) now that everything a chip in it, as well as having to buy everything else you need to run your business these days.


Return to posts index

Michael Gissing
Re: Why one user Switched to FCPX
on Feb 22, 2018 at 2:03:03 am

[Jeremy Garchow] "One computer can do a whole lot more these days.."

All the more reason why having to buy a new case, screen, keyboard etc is silly when the most likely thing that needs to adhere to the old 18months churn is the GPU.


Return to posts index

Bill Davis
Re: Why one user Switched to FCPX
on Feb 17, 2018 at 11:42:18 pm

I’m henceforth adopting the phrase “legacy dragging.”

It’s beyond brilliant.

This post Is a searchable record for future generations that I got it from Jeremy Garchow.

Creator of XinTwo - http://www.xintwo.com
The shortest path to FCP X mastery.


Return to posts index

Oliver Peters
Re: Why one user Switched to FCPX
on Feb 13, 2018 at 10:17:26 pm

[Steve Connor] "Yes but it's nearly EIGHT YEARS! If they hadn't written off the costs and covered the financing years ago then that IS nuts!"

Remember that upgraded 2010 Mac Pro towers STILL test out favorably against 2013 Mac Pros. Still the only "current" Apple Mac Pro. So just because they are 8 years old, in and of itself, doesn't justify a change. Of course, if you made a change today to newer Apple workstations, it would be to iMac Pros. This cascades, because then you also have to change all the peripheral gear, too.

- Oliver

Oliver Peters - oliverpeters.com


Return to posts index

Bill Davis
Re: Why one user Switched to FCPX
on Feb 14, 2018 at 1:59:37 pm

[Shane Ross] "So yeah, it might take a while to build up the capital to afford to do that. It's easier when you are a sole operator, or have a handful of machines.
"


Unquestionably.

But my point is if that investment yields a 10% or 15% increase in efficiency it’s one thing.

But if it boosts it by 50% that’s entirely another.

My point is that I sincerely feel that the combination of FCP X “and” new hardware has easily done that for me.

Of COURSE this presumes a lot of things and isn’t a universal perscription. Type of work, experience and/or training of staff, network infrastructure, management interest, availability of capital, etc, etc, etc will all factor in.

ALL I’m saying is that looking back for this ONE user (doing only my type of work) that combo (software, hardware AND user experience upgrades all together) is what I see as the key to what I’ve experienced.

If an editor has to face a deficit in ANY of those areas, it’s going to be more difficult for them to experience what we all desire - tools that help us thrive.

That’s why I was expressing sympathy for Neil.

Sitting down to 8 year old hardware - facing today’s production pace - sounds like a difficult place to be.

That’s all.

Creator of XinTwo - http://www.xintwo.com
The shortest path to FCP X mastery.


Return to posts index

Neil Goodman
Re: Why one user Switched to FCPX
on Feb 13, 2018 at 7:08:59 pm

[Bill Davis] "Their business model is doing 2018 work on 2010 hardware?

That just seems kinda nuts.

The hardware advances in speed and efficiency I’ve seen in the last 8 years have been nothing short of immense. I remember how my own FCP X work took a huge efficiency leap when I revved my hardware in late 2015.

You have my sympathy, Neil.

That’s got to be terribly frustrating day to day."


Appreciate the sympathy Bill - its not as bad as it sounds and somehow we still manage to push out award winning Trailers,TV spots and commercials everyday and under intense deadlines.

Want to know the reason why they wont upgrade the machines?

Because it is an Apple ecosystem and they havent come out with anything expandable since then!

This company wont spend all that money on 50 plus bays unless there is a roadmap for upgrade and expansion and our tech director knew the trashcans were a deadend before they came out. So here we are stuck with Cheesegraters. Ive tried to sing the gospel of the Imac and Imac Pro but no ones listening and Im just a lowly offline editor in a big pond.


Return to posts index

Oliver Peters
Re: Why one user Switched to FCPX
on Feb 13, 2018 at 9:53:12 pm
Last Edited By Oliver Peters on Feb 13, 2018 at 10:01:58 pm

[Neil Goodman] "Were hooked up to an ISIS"

Honestly, I'd blame the ISIS more so than the Macs or Premiere. Your systems probably work well with Media Composer.

- Oliver

Oliver Peters - oliverpeters.com


Return to posts index

Neil Goodman
Re: Why one user Switched to FCPX
on Feb 13, 2018 at 10:37:52 pm

[Oliver Peters] "Honestly, I'd blame the ISIS more so than the Macs or Premiere. Your systems probably work well with Media Composer.
"


You are correct, Media Composer 8.6 works great on this box - no issues at all. Unfortunately Avid projects are far and few between with only a handful of clients requesting we do our projects in Media Composer. Pretty much Premiere for everything else.

You think ISIS work worse as shared storage with PPro and FCPX than it does with Avid? Id figure performance would be the same because technically its just storage?


Return to posts index

Oliver Peters
Re: Why one user Switched to FCPX
on Feb 13, 2018 at 10:58:13 pm

[Neil Goodman] "You think ISIS work worse as shared storage with PPro and FCPX than it does with Avid? Id figure performance would be the same because technically its just storage?"

Nope. I think it's absolutely worse with Premiere and FCPX. First of all, Avid's current storage is Nexis, and according to Avid, they've worked hard to make the other NLEs equal clients. So definitely ISIS is tweaked more for Avid.

Second, you are generally dealing with Avid-optimized media, that also helps. In my experience, both Premiere and FCPX don't perform nearly as well on shared storage than they do on local storage. Are your systems connected to ISIS as 1GigE or 10GigE? I would image that if you have 50 machines cranking with anything other than low-res proxies, your system will choke.

All 3 NLEs work best with media for which they are optimized. I'm actually pleasantly surprised that Avid, via AMA, is relatively responsive on non-Avid, NAS shared storage - often more so than FCPX and Premiere. I've also found lately that Premiere on shared storage is actually quite responsive with media from Canon C300 and RED cameras and not so much with ProRes.

With both FCPX and Premiere, we've lately taken to using their internal proxy workflow, because of shared storage performance (QNAP, 10GigE).

- Oliver

Oliver Peters - oliverpeters.com


Return to posts index

Neil Goodman
Re: Why one user Switched to FCPX
on Feb 13, 2018 at 11:38:36 pm

[Oliver Peters] "Nope. I think it's absolutely worse with Premiere and FCPX. First of all, Avid's current storage is Nexis, and according to Avid, they've worked hard to make the other NLEs equal clients. So definitely ISIS is tweaked more for Avid.

Second, you are generally dealing with Avid-optimized media, that also helps. In my experience, both Premiere and FCPX don't perform nearly as well on shared storage than they do on local storage. Are your systems connected to ISIS as 1GigE or 10GigE? I would image that if you have 50 machines cranking with anything other than low-res proxies, your system will choke.
"


Not sure if its 1 Gig or 10 tbh - and admittedly Im not a super technical person - just show up and cut - never had to maintain a computer myself.

Its interesting that the NEXUS is that much different with NLES - I saw some people order new NEXUS gear only to have ISIS gear showup, with a NEXUS sticker slapped on? Might've been old stock.

What would be the best codec for our AE's to use for Premiere Proxies? Maybe I can pass on some info.


Return to posts index

Oliver Peters
Re: Why one user Switched to FCPX
on Feb 14, 2018 at 12:23:06 am

[Neil Goodman] "What would be the best codec for our AE's to use for Premiere Proxies? Maybe I can pass on some info."

I use the internal Premiere Pro CC 2018 proxy workflow. We pick the option for 1280x720 ProResProxy.

- Oliver

Oliver Peters - oliverpeters.com


Return to posts index

greg janza
Re: Why one user Switched to FCPX
on Feb 13, 2018 at 2:42:54 am

[Paul Golden] " I have a new iMac Pro and I'm still underwhelmed by AE or Premiere performance."

Again, much like the original post, your inefficiency relates back to your particular setup and not the Adobe software. Many Adobe users, including myself, have no latency issues and the software works as advertised.

I Hate Television. I Hate It As Much As Peanuts. But I Can’t Stop Eating Peanuts.
- Orson Welles


Return to posts index

Eric Santiago
Re: Why one user Switched to FCPX
on Feb 14, 2018 at 4:47:13 pm

[greg janza] "Again, much like the original post, your inefficiency relates back to your particular setup and not the Adobe software. Many Adobe users, including myself, have no latency issues and the software works as advertised."

I can attest to this that its the setup.
I run a 2012 Mac Pro with Quadro FX4800/4000.
I am able to work in CC 2018 After Effects using Superluminal Stardust for long periods of time without having to reboot.
I also run FCPX 10.3.4 and PPro CC2017 with no hiccups.
This is my daily machine till I upgrade (at work).
Sure I run into issues but as long as I maintain the OS and avoid stupidity, this baby still works :)


Return to posts index

Bill Davis
Re: Why one user Switched to FCPX
on Feb 13, 2018 at 12:44:20 am

Good for you, Steve!

Saw the article this early this morning when I woke up - but I had 40 clips going up to Frame.io today - and in the free time I between things - was discussing it mostly in other places.

It certainly is nice to see the burgeoning acceptance of X by this new generation of video professionals.

The long term success of this software isn't going to rest on guys like me. It's going to be determined by dudes like this guy - doing today's work in today's style.

What blows my mind is that he made the initial mental switch in 24 hours! (from the video inserts, 24 obviously frustrating hours!)

It was a hoot watching all the initial "just show me what I'm USED TO DOING but in THIS software" stuff.

SO typical.

I'd LOVE to chat with him a year from now when he's WAY farther into the depth of the software. That would be VERY interesting.

And so it goes.

Creator of XinTwo - http://www.xintwo.com
The shortest path to FCP X mastery.


Return to posts index

Scott Witthaus
Re: Why one user Switched to FCPX
on Feb 13, 2018 at 1:06:06 pm

Interesting video. A couple thing stood out to me:

What this guy and video does illustrates just part of the huge and growing visual storytelling market out there. Is he a pro? Hell yes he is a "professional" because he is making money at his trade. So when people make comments stating that "pro's" are limited to Hollywood and broadcast, it is absolutely false. Perhaps Apple understands this and is targeting this market first over the Hollywood and broadcast niche (because of course you need a $1k iPhoneX to shoot 4k video with and edit in FCPX).

It was fun to watch his "ah-ha" moment on the system. I recently finished teaching 45 students the basics of X, some who had experience on Premiere, but the majority were totally new to NLE's. I promised all of them would be editors by the end of that 2-hour class. Much to their surprise, they were importing, editing, adding music and effects (yes, some found the cheesey iMovie effects like "boogie-lights" text effect) all within that 2 hours. And the next week they shot and finished an assignment on their own without sending me one panicky email over the weekend like I used to get. I say it every year that Apple did something very right with this software to allow the learning process to be so much faster than when I taught Legacy. The Premiere students spent the first half hour being frustrated trying to force X to work like Premiere. After I coached them off of that ledge, they caught up with the rest of the class with several saying they just might switch over.

His comments about still doing docs on Premiere was interesting and I will be curious to see if he changes his mind going forward. I am halfway through and hour long doc and I feel I am way ahead of where I would be using a more traditional NLE. Now, maybe I will hit the wall on X in the future, but with 20 minutes or so left to cut, I don't see that wall on the horizon. In fact we (my producer and I) just finished cutting a trailer for fundraising where I did some CC in X (color board. Still on 10.3.4 and won't upgrade until we are done) and the producer liked it so much, he was musing if we could do the CC in X and how much that would pare the budget. I told him to slow down....

Anyway, thanks for sharing the video and now I realize I need to say "dude" more and wear a heavy winter jacket inside... ;-)

Scott Witthaus
Senior Editor/Visual Storyteller
https://vimeo.com/channels/1322525
Managing Partner, Low Country Creative LLC
Professor, VCU Brandcenter


Return to posts index

Mark Suszko
Re: Why one user Switched to FCPX
on Feb 13, 2018 at 8:12:56 pm

Tell me if I'm wrong, but in both Premiere Procc and FCPX, you can set up batch rendering to multiple file outputs. In Adobe Media Encoder, you can have it simultaneously be cranking out the ProRes 422 master AND the youtube video for upload, and this is also possible to set up in FCPX. Or am I wrong?

Sure, you likely take a performance hit but I'm guessing getting both done at once is still a bit faster than rendering them out sequentially? Tell me if I'm off base here; I can take it.


Return to posts index

Brett Sherman
Re: Why one user Switched to FCPX
on Feb 13, 2018 at 9:18:12 pm

I don't think he was saying the feature wasn't there in Premiere. He was saying it just didn't work reliably. So he'd have to upload manually.

--------------------------
Brett Sherman
One Man Band (If it's video related I'll do it!)
I work for an institution that probably does not want to be associated with my babblings here.


Return to posts index

<< PREVIOUS   •   VIEW ALL   •   PRINT   •   NEXT >>
© 2018 CreativeCOW.net All Rights Reserved
[TOP]