FORUMS: list search recent posts

Who would like a unified interface for FCS?

COW Forums : Apple Final Cut Pro Legacy

<< PREVIOUS   •   FAQ   •   VIEW ALL   •   PRINT   •   NEXT >>
Morten Ranmar
Who would like a unified interface for FCS?
on Oct 3, 2010 at 10:29:37 am

As several rumors have said, Apple might be working on a unified interface to combine its studio apps into one single application. Personally I believe this could lead to great improvements for workflow, if they can create a application that is stable, and compatible with other editors and high-end finishing apps.

I often find myself trying to do everything in Final Cut Pro; including basic motion graphics, sound editing to colorgrading - but there are a lot of short-comings, so I eventually find myself round-tripping between the apps, using a lot of time and creating a lot of confusing project files. To be honest I do not use Motion, Soundtrack Pro, and Color for my high-end work; here I rely on specialized applications like After Effects, Nuke, and Protools, to get the job done.

For one thing, I don't think that Apple wants to end up with a bunch of high-end applications in the Studio bundle. They tried that with Shake and Color, and the approach does not go in harmony with being a peoples product company. But I do believe that they want to bring professional video tools to the masses that go en par with their Mac Pro computers, and show the world that they are a media company.

Personally I would be satisfied if they could create an extended version of Final Cut Pro, that apart from fully embracing tape-less workflows, gives us fast and good basic compositing tools, more audio tracks with exact waveform editing and good plugin effects, and better color-grading tools - of course all in realtime or enhanced RT processing. In my opinion they can throw away Motions "3D compositing", Soundtrack Pros audio file editing, and Colors alienated interface - and concentrate on creating a product that saves us time, and integrates with professional industry standards.

For those that do not want the cluttering of combining the apps, they could create an enhanced version of Final Cut Express, that gives you professional editing at a basic level.

- No Parking Production -

2 x Finalcut Studio3, 2 x MacPro, 2 x ioHD, Server w. X-Raid


Return to posts index

walter biscardi
Re: Who would like a unified interface for FCS?
on Oct 3, 2010 at 10:38:20 am

I would not want a unified interface. I prefer the apps to be kept as individual apps rather than one big bloated app.

Like Adobe CS5 which features Adobe Premiere, Adobe Photoshop, Adobe After Effects, Adobe Soundbooth, Adobe Encore and more. Can you imagine the complete mess you would have if you took all of those and mashed them into one app?

You would end up with a completely bloated app that featured everything in one but could not do everything well. And I can't imagine how long it would take to open the app, how much RAM you would require to run it at a decent speed, and how it would ultimately slow down your computer to run a "super app."


[Morten Ranmar] "In my opinion they can throw away Motions "3D compositing", Soundtrack Pros audio file editing, and Colors alienated interface - and concentrate on creating a product that saves us time, and integrates with professional industry standards."

Motion 3D compositing is very slick and one of the things it does pretty well.

Soundtrack Pro is used in our facility quite a bit, would hate to see that go.

Have you actually learned Color? Quite a simple interface to use and quite honestly, some of that interface would be good to bring into FCP.

Final Cut Pro doesn't integrate into Professional Industry Standards? Since when? That's quite the statement for a product that has delivered hundreds of network broadcast HD programs from our shop alone and we're just a small production company. I would say Final Cut Pro is quite the Professional Standard these days.

It's not perfect, but I would definitely not call it wanting of professional standards by any means, nor would I ever advocate a "super bloated app" in exchange of a suite of apps that work well together.

Walter Biscardi, Jr.
Editor, Colorist, Director, Writer, Consultant, Author, Chef.
HD Post and Production
Biscardi Creative Media

"Foul Water, Fiery Serpent" Winner, Best Documentary, LA Reel Film Festival...

Blog Twitter Facebook


Return to posts index

Morten Ranmar
Re: Who would like a unified interface for FCS?
on Oct 3, 2010 at 11:30:21 am

Walter Biscardi wrote: Have you actually learned Color? Quite a simple interface to use and quite honestly, some of that interface would be good to bring into FCP.

Yes I have used Color occasionally and it does offer great tools, but without any realtime. So the problem is you have to render before you see if a grading works or not. Sure the interface does have its benefits - but try to launch it on a MBP, and you will not be able to use it. Also there is too much mouse clicking involved if you want to create a custom mask. And it renders so sloooowwwwwwww....

Walter Biscardi wrote: Final Cut Pro doesn't integrate into Professional Industry Standards? Since when? That's quite the statement for a product that has delivered hundreds of network broadcast HD programs from our shop alone and we're just a small production company. I would say Final Cut Pro is quite the Professional Standard these days.

What i meant was that if you look at the complete FCS package, these apps do not integrate perfectly with industry standards: Bad Photoshop file support, no image-sequence import, bad AAF and OMF integration, missing export of MPEG2 formats, YUV vs. RGB round-tripping problems, proprietary plug-in format - just to mention some...

- No Parking Production -

2 x Finalcut Studio3, 2 x MacPro, 2 x ioHD, Server w. X-Raid


Return to posts index


walter biscardi
Re: Who would like a unified interface for FCS?
on Oct 3, 2010 at 12:12:19 pm

[Morten Ranmar] "Yes I have used Color occasionally and it does offer great tools, but without any realtime. So the problem is you have to render before you see if a grading works or not."

No, that's incorrect. With a properly configured system you get realtime playback to an external monitor. It's not full frame rate playback, but you can play back the scene in full quality to an external monitor. Color would be useless if you couldn't.

I typically get 11 to 20 frames per second playback to the external monitor and that easily tells me if a grade is working or not. This with an ATI 4870 Graphics card and an AJA Kona 3 card.

You can also configure Color to get more or less frames per second during grading depending on what you're doing.


[Morten Ranmar] "Sure the interface does have its benefits - but try to launch it on a MBP, and you will not be able to use it."

I have, but only for training. A friend of mine who is a Colorist uses a MacBook Pro on the road with Color and is also running Resolve on it right now.

I would not recommend Color for laptops, but people in the Color forum post about using it on MBP's all the time so a lot of folks are using it successfully on laptops.


[Morten Ranmar] "Also there is too much mouse clicking involved if you want to create a custom mask. And it renders so sloooowwwwwwww...."

The complexity of drawing a mask is directly proportional to the complexity of the item you are trying to mask. Of course there is a lot of mouse clicking when you're drawing a shape.

Do what we do, we use a tablet for everything. Greatly speeds up your workflow over a mouse for all applications you use on a Mac. You can draw and alter mask shapes with ease in FCP, Color, AE, Photoshop, Illustrator, Motion, etc.....

As for renders, that's all relational to your computer (if you're on the MacBook Pro you're out of luck there) and your graphics card and most importantly, what you have done in your grade.

If it renders too slow for you, then go with a plug-in for FCP like Magic Bullet Looks or Colorista. These will render faster or slower depending on what you're doing with the clip and how many instances of the filter you have to apply. Don't forget to add the Broadcast Safe and Levels filters though which will also add render time.


[Morten Ranmar] "
What i meant was that if you look at the complete FCS package, these apps do not integrate perfectly with industry standards: Bad Photoshop file support, no image-sequence import, bad AAF and OMF integration, missing export of MPEG2 formats, YUV vs. RGB round-tripping problems, proprietary plug-in format - just to mention some..."


Bad Photoshop support? Been using Photoshop with FCP since 2001. Photoshop projects import into FCP as a layered sequence so you can manipulate each layer independently. That's pretty good support in my book.

OMF export is fully supported. Automatic Duck and BorisFX add AAF export and they work very well. Not everyone needs these features and we didn't even start using AAF until a few years ago.

Missing export of MPEG-2? That's what Compressor is for. It's in the FCS package. Set up the flavor of MPEG-2 you require and go.


[Morten Ranmar] "YUV vs. RGB round-tripping problems, proprietary plug-in format - just to mention some..."

YUV vs. RGB is one thing that I agree with you, but of course workarounds have been documented on this forum for year. And quite frankly I'm not sure if there ever will be a solution from Apple on this one.

Proprietary plug-ins, you mean like After Effects and Avid? FCP is supposed to be different? I think if you look at all the plug-ins available, FCP probably has more third party plug-ins than any other app out there. AE and Motion might have more, but it's probably close.

Walter Biscardi, Jr.
Editor, Colorist, Director, Writer, Consultant, Author, Chef.
HD Post and Production
Biscardi Creative Media

"Foul Water, Fiery Serpent" Winner, Best Documentary, LA Reel Film Festival...

Blog Twitter Facebook


Return to posts index

Tom Wolsky
Re: Who would like a unified interface for FCS?
on Oct 3, 2010 at 12:13:09 pm

And you think these things would be improved with a single, integrated application? I don't think so. I would think quite the opposite is more likely to happen. It's interesting that almost everything you mention is not related to FCS but to its inteoperability with third party applications, how this would change with a single, unified FCS application I have no idea.

All the best,

Tom

Class on Demand DVDs "Complete Training for FCP7," "Basic Training for FCS" and "Final Cut Express Made Easy"
Author: "Final Cut Pro 5 Editing Essentials" and "Final Cut Express 4 Editing Workshop"


Return to posts index

Morten Ranmar
Re: Who would like a unified interface for FCS?
on Oct 3, 2010 at 12:31:53 pm

If Apple didn't have to focus on trying to keep 4-5 applications in the suite updated, and instead focused on creating one single app that does not try to do everything, but offers state of the art editing, with basic motion graphics and titling (better and more integrated that today), enhanced sound track editing, and more tools for color correction and grading - and then offered the right tools for integration with other developers apps right in the box - I think it would become a better product.

More important I truly believe that the other approach - buying up 3rd party apps, and trying to integarte them in non-effective round-tripping routines, will cause Apple to loose ground on the market, and ultimately become the death of FCS.

Just MHO

- No Parking Production -

2 x Finalcut Studio3, 2 x MacPro, 2 x ioHD, Server w. X-Raid


Return to posts index


Tom Wolsky
Re: Who would like a unified interface for FCS?
on Oct 3, 2010 at 12:54:14 pm

Completely disagree. You would have one bloated inferior application rather than specialist applications. Many production company have specialists who work as colorists, motion graphics artists, sound mixers. Why should they all be working in the same application with a clutter of features and tools that mean nothing to them.

All the best,

Tom

Class on Demand DVDs "Complete Training for FCP7," "Basic Training for FCS" and "Final Cut Express Made Easy"
Author: "Final Cut Pro 5 Editing Essentials" and "Final Cut Express 4 Editing Workshop"


Return to posts index

Rafael Amador
Re: Who would like a unified interface for FCS?
on Oct 3, 2010 at 12:46:47 pm

Sure an "All in one" application would have many advantages. But I think this Is not just about defining an interface; is about defining our profession. An "expert" on such a application should be an skilled video editor, audio technician and graphic designer.
As a video editor my tool is Final Cut. I have nothing to do with Motion or Soundtrack.
I would like to integrate Color as a plugin to work in the time-line.
I would also eliminate Compressor, as an stand alone application and I would implement a proper export option in FC/QT, instead of the crappy "QT conversion" (the only magic of Compressor, apart of the high quality filters, is that offers a bunch of presets to people unable to build their own one).
So for my self, improving Final Cut and the round-tripping would be the way to go.
Rafael
PS: I work with Color in a MBP (external monitoring) and works great. Renders fairly fast, as Walter points, compared with many FC plugins.

http://www.nagavideo.com


Return to posts index

David Johnson
Re: Who would like a unified interface for FCS?
on Oct 3, 2010 at 1:27:07 pm

I agree with Walter, Tom and Rafael ...

[Walter Biscardi] "You would end up with a completely bloated app that featured everything in one but could not do everything well."

[Tom Wolsky] "...things would be improved with a single, integrated application? I don't think so. I would think quite the opposite is more likely to happen."

It might even be appropriate to change Walter's "everything" to "anything". And, what about the 75% of the time inside of FCP you're not working on authoring a DVD? Or, what about the people who choose to use other tools like After Effects instead of Motion? Why bog us down with a bunch of stuff we don't need and that would inevitably get in the way whether in terms of interface or resources?

[Rafael Amador] "integrate Color as a plugin to work in the time-line."
Seems to make sense since, for most, coloring isn't a task that's separate from editing the way motion graphics and DVD authoring are.

[Rafael Amador] "eliminate Compressor, as an stand alone application and I would implement a proper export option in FC/QT, instead of the crappy "QT conversion" (the only magic of Compressor, apart of the high quality filters, is that offers a bunch of presets to people unable to build their own one).

Couldn't agree more that having to go to a separate app to output your work is silly ... me thinks the last part of Rafael's comment refers to one of the many places Apple has tried to be all things to all people ... are we talking about "pro apps" or not?


Return to posts index


Bret Williams
Re: Who would like a unified interface for FCS?
on Oct 3, 2010 at 2:52:15 pm

I'd like to see more crossover of the apps, not a unified bloated fcp. I,d like to see FCP get a lot of the tech of motion. For example the grouping and keyframing tech. Just replace things that both do, with the superior interface and methodology. For cameras and 3D you,d still go to motion. Ditto with audio function and soundtrack. DVDSP just needs an overhaul.

Bret Williams
Web Design . Motion Graphics . Video Editing
http://www.bretwilliams.com


Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: Who would like a unified interface for FCS?
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.


Return to posts index

Andy Mees
Re: Who would like a unified interface for FCS?
on Oct 4, 2010 at 4:07:43 pm

I'd prefer the universal FCS project approach ... and sure, if that native project format is an open and extensible format such as XML then all the better.
In such a scenario I'd see "round tripping" as no more than manipulating the current project inside any of the FCS apps ... and no need to reinvent any of the job specific GUI's (FCP, MOTN, COLOR, STP) just in order to make them sit prettier inside a single app approach.

If wishes were horses eh?


Return to posts index

Bret Williams
Re: Who would like a unified interface for FCS?
on Oct 5, 2010 at 4:38:54 am

I didn't mean to suggest that those apps should disappear, just that the tech that crosses over should be exactly the same. Keframing in FCP the same as Motion. Audio filters and adjusting the same as soundtrack, etc. A subset of the others apps should be available from within FCP in other words.


Return to posts index

Zane Barker
Re: Who would like a unified interface for FCS?
on Oct 3, 2010 at 8:04:24 pm

[David Johnson] "[Rafael Amador] "eliminate Compressor, as an stand alone application and I would implement a proper export option in FC/QT, instead of the crappy "QT conversion" (the only magic of Compressor, apart of the high quality filters, is that offers a bunch of presets to people unable to build their own one).

Couldn't agree more that having to go to a separate app to output your work is silly ... me thinks the last part of Rafael's comment refers to one of the many places Apple has tried to be all things to all people ... are we talking about "pro apps" or not?"


I could not disagree more. Sure better integration of compressor into the apps is needed but there still needs to be a stand alone compressor.

It used to be that most everything was delivered via tape or DVD format. Its not like that these days. One might deliver the project first on the web, then later on a DVD then even later the client may want a good quality version to put on a iPad and also for the iPhone or any other electronic device. Each of those deliverable methods have different compression needs.

Should one have to go back to FCP every time he is asked to deliver in a different format. NO. I make it a practice to archive to hard drive the things I edit in the original codec they were edited. This allows me to pull those finished edits and pull them into compressor and output them into any format I need.

Compressor is really the most underutilized app in the Final Cut Studio.

**Hindsight is always 1080p**


Return to posts index

David Johnson
Re: Who would like a unified interface for FCS?
on Oct 4, 2010 at 1:52:36 am

[Zane Barker] Sure better integration of compressor into the apps is needed but there still needs to be a stand alone compressor.

I see that my "having to go to a separate app to output your work is silly" is easily interpreted as an argument against stand-alone compression tools, but as part of a case against combining all the pro apps, what I was getting at is that advanced exporting/compression is the only of the pro app functions that seems to make sense to integrate into FCP. I see no reason why the functions of Compressor available as part of FCP would necessarily have to mean those functions are not accessible without running FCP. Then again, I'm not a software coder.

[Zane Barker] "Should one have to go back to FCP every time he is asked to deliver in a different format. NO. I make it a practice to archive to hard drive the things I edit in the original codec they were edited."

So do I and most editors, but it sure would be nice to finish an edit and have the option to directly export files for full-rez master, DVD, web, iPad, iPhone, etc., etc. all at once from inside FCP ... with the control over each that Compressor allows, yet with the close integration of a batch export. Perhaps what I'm really saying is do away with batch export and replace it with Compressor-like functionality ... sure, I'd like to the option to compress without opening FCP, but in today's world, having to use a separate app to generate common deliverables seems like having to use a separate app to master to tape.


Return to posts index

Zane Barker
Re: Who would like a unified interface for FCS?
on Oct 4, 2010 at 1:56:43 am

[David Johnson] "but it sure would be nice to finish an edit and have the option to directly export files for full-rez master, DVD, web, iPad, iPhone, etc., etc. all at once from inside FCP"

Yes I agree thats why I also said this

[Zane Barker] "Sure better integration of compressor into the apps is needed but there still needs to be a stand alone compressor. "

The biggest thing that the new FCS needs is to be FULLY 64 bit. I want to use the full potential of my hardware!

**Hindsight is always 1080p**


Return to posts index

walter biscardi
Re: Who would like a unified interface for FCS?
on Oct 3, 2010 at 9:29:31 pm

[Rafael Amador] "So for my self, improving Final Cut and the round-tripping would be the way to go."

Precisely, absolutely, spot on. Adobe has received a ton of praise for the CS5 Suite. Why? Because the applications work seamlessly together. Adobe did not create a unified, bloated app to try to do everything. They have applications specifically tailored to do a task and they do their tasks very well. And they also talk to each other seamlessly.

This is what Apple has to address, a more seamless workflow between the apps so they all talk to each other better.

And actually I MUCH prefer to keep Compressor as a stand alone app. Generally when we use Compressor we're doing a batch of multiple compressions. So I can throw multiple movies, multiple presets and let it render the Batch.

If this was a direct Export from FCP, I wouldn't be able to do this. I'd have to render one at a time and only from the current project I have open. How do I pull in multiple files from multiple projects at the same time and tell it to make a BluRay, DVD, H.264 high, low and mid quality all at the same time from 6 different files from FCP? Keeping Compressor as a stand alone is definitely the way to go.

I don't use "QT Conversion" within FCP, it's clunky and doesn't work. Export QT Reference File, then bring that into Compressor.

Walter Biscardi, Jr.
Editor, Colorist, Director, Writer, Consultant, Author, Chef.
HD Post and Production
Biscardi Creative Media

"Foul Water, Fiery Serpent" Winner, Best Documentary, LA Reel Film Festival...

Blog Twitter Facebook


Return to posts index

Scott Sheriff
Re: Who would like a unified interface for FCS?
on Oct 3, 2010 at 6:31:37 pm

I think a unified application is a bad idea. This would be like ditching the big roll around toolbox in favor of a Leatherman tool or Swiss Army Knife. Being all things to all people is always a compromise, and I don't really want to work with compromise tools, and can't really see how this would improve the workflow in a positive way.

If I'm doing Mograph work, I really don't want or need extensive sound and CC tools, or if I'm mixing I don't want the overhead, or clutter of editing, CC and DVD authoring tools also being open.

In the 'real world' most of these departments and operations would be physically located in separate rooms, for good reason. The FCP suite of aps should mimic the real world, and not merge them into one big noisy inefficient 'room'.

Scott Sheriff
Director
SST Digital Media
http://www.sstdigitalmedia.com


Return to posts index

Neil Hurwitz
Re: Who would like a unified interface for FCS?
on Oct 4, 2010 at 12:26:37 am

This whole discussion cracks me up.
Do you guys think anybody at Apple is listening?
Apple stock is closing in on 300 a share
and IT'S NOT BECAUSE OF FINAL CUT or any of their other
"PRO APPS" FCP is a side show that is gonna go away.
Take it for what it did for most here, ie: Got you into the BIZ
Now it's time too move on to other things and maybe latch onto
the other EVIL A'S Their stuff is just as cheap now, Storage
is .10 a gig. So what's the issue? All this mental gymnastics
of What I want, What Apple should do, What I Want, What Apple
should do, is not impressing anyone except maybe yourselves,
with who can come up with the most arcane set of "I WANTS"
Nobody at Apple cares or is listening, except maybe they want to lance the boil on their butt.

Neil Hurwitz


Return to posts index

Rafael Amador
Re: Who would like a unified interface for FCS?
on Oct 4, 2010 at 5:56:14 am

Hi Neil,
I don't understand much about companies and enterprises, but with the actual situation in the world, I wouldn't understand a company that close a profitable department and trash one million customers.
I don't believe that Apple is building all that new multimedia gear to play movies made in PP.
rafael

http://www.nagavideo.com


Return to posts index

walter biscardi
Re: Who would like a unified interface for FCS?
on Oct 4, 2010 at 12:56:04 pm

[Neil Hurwitz] "FCP is a side show that is gonna go away."

I love these statements. Completely based on..... nothing.

It might be true that Apple will get out of Studio, but do you honestly think it would go away? I would actually PREFER for Apple to sell the Studio suite to someone who can actually give us updates on a regular basis, lay out a roadmap for the next two or three years so we know where the product is going, integrate the products to work better with each other.

Apple can't do this because they keep re-allocating resources to their iOS products. So give away the entire Studio to someone who can actually move FCP forward in a more timely manner and make it cross platform. It started on Windows so offer the suite to folks on both platforms. Would certainly save me a lot of money over buying $8000 Mac Pros every other year.

My vote would be The Foundry.


[Neil Hurwitz] "Do you guys think anybody at Apple is listening?"

Actually yes, they do read these forums and many other forums relating to Apple products. There are folks assigned to do this very thing.


Walter Biscardi, Jr.
Editor, Colorist, Director, Writer, Consultant, Author, Chef.
HD Post and Production
Biscardi Creative Media

"Foul Water, Fiery Serpent" Winner, Best Documentary, LA Reel Film Festival...

Blog Twitter Facebook


Return to posts index

Neil Hurwitz
Re: Who would like a unified interface for FCS?
on Oct 5, 2010 at 3:11:02 pm

Walter,
We are actually closer in opinion then you might imagine.
My statement should have been "FCP will go away as an Apple Product"
Apple has 40 billion plus in revenue. As someone else has stated here, there are 1 million FCP users (?) so that represents at retail 1 billion to Apple over the course of FCP's lifetime.
If all those updated to a New Super Duper FCP at lets say 300.00 per
(you and I both know that nobody is gonna want to buy it again and will scream hell and high water if there is no cheap upgrade path)
That represents maybe another 300 million to Apple, A lot of money
to most, but not to a 40+ billion dollar a year company.
We are talking about a small niche piece of software that I just don't see Apple putting a lot of resources into.
It is what it is.
Like you mentioned there are other products out there that already do what most are asking for, They just cost more. (But way, way, less than a CMX or Kscope) It would be a smart move for Apple to sell this program, They could even restrict by contract,
it's future development to only run on Apple OS's Thus insuring future sales of their hardware. As far as Apple having employees
who read these forums and such, that may be true but do they
have the experience and knowledge to know what is being talked about
and the ability to effect any change? If you remember years ago
all Avid users railed against Avid and Avid did nothing until
they saw other fingers deep in their rice bowl. Apples FCP rice bowl is not deep enough or strategic enough for them to care, They, for sure, are more interested in making all think they need an IPAD
more than an extra roll of toilet paper in the bathroom.

Neil Hurwitz


Return to posts index

Rafael Amador
Re: Who would like a unified interface for FCS?
on Oct 5, 2010 at 3:32:08 pm

[Neil Hurwitz] "As someone else has stated here, there are 1 million FCP users (?) "
More than one million licenses (that was almost 2 years ago), so few millions copy working.



I don't consider at all FC as "a small niche piece of software,
but in MHO, the issue is not just about money. Is about defining APPLE.
Without FC, Macs will disappear.
rafael

http://www.nagavideo.com


Return to posts index

walter biscardi
Re: Who would like a unified interface for FCS?
on Oct 5, 2010 at 3:51:26 pm

[Rafael Amador] "Without FC, Macs will disappear."

I doubt that. Without FCP Mac PROs might disappear, but not Macs now that Apple has made the iGeneration uber cool to own MacBooks Pros, iMac, iPad, etc.....

FCP has very little to do with the sales of all the consumer grade hardware. The iPod generation does.

Walter Biscardi, Jr.
Editor, Colorist, Director, Writer, Consultant, Author, Chef.
HD Post and Production
Biscardi Creative Media

"Foul Water, Fiery Serpent" Winner, Best Documentary, LA Reel Film Festival...

Blog Twitter Facebook


Return to posts index

Rafael Amador
Re: Who would like a unified interface for FCS?
on Oct 5, 2010 at 4:08:55 pm

Sure Walter.
I'm talking about MacPRO/MBP.
The rest will survive as long as they keep fashionable.
Anyway, what I mean is that for Apple to get rid of FCS is not just stop selling a product.
rafael

http://www.nagavideo.com


Return to posts index

Walter Soyka
Re: Who would like a unified interface for FCS?
on Oct 4, 2010 at 2:14:00 am

I think the definition of an NLE has been expanding since they were first developed. FCP is already more than an editor. It also does effects, compositing, and audio, and it doesn't do any of these well. I agree with most of the other posters that a single app to handle the entire range of post-production tasks could be pretty unwieldy.

That said, what I'd like to see from FCS is not necessarily a unified application; I'd like to see a unified data model.

When working on a project, there's only one edit -- but that's not how FCS currently sees it. There are separate editorial timelines, color timelines, and sound timelines.

I'd like to see them brought together, with each application in the suite working on the same project in its area of strength. Let FCP handle the editorial, let Color handle the color, and let Soundtrack handle the audio -- but there should be a database working in the background to manage the same media and the same sequences across the entire suite. An editorial change in FCP should be reflected in Color without reconform, because FCP and Color should be fundamentally working on the same sequence.

Take it a step further, and let it work across a network, so a facility can really collaborate on an edit. This is essentially what I had hoped Final Cut Server would be -- middleware to tie all the post specialities together.

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


Return to posts index

Michael Aranyshev
Re: Who would like a unified interface for FCS?
on Oct 4, 2010 at 8:51:26 am

The only part of FCS I'd consider integrating into Final Cut Pro is Cinema Tools. Regarding interface redesign the obvious candidate is Color. The GUI of every grading app on the market – Discreet Lustre, Nucoda Film Master, IRIDAS Speed Grade, Baselight, Resolve is pure abomination. But they used to cost your kidney and olor was cheap. Now the big boys come down in price. To compete Color has to be faster and the big part of the speed is the efficiency of the interface.


Return to posts index

walter biscardi
Re: Who would like a unified interface for FCS?
on Oct 4, 2010 at 12:52:03 pm

[Michael Aranyshev] "Regarding interface redesign the obvious candidate is Color. The GUI of every grading app on the market – Discreet Lustre, Nucoda Film Master, IRIDAS Speed Grade, Baselight, Resolve is pure abomination. But they used to cost your kidney and olor was cheap. Now the big boys come down in price. To compete Color has to be faster and the big part of the speed is the efficiency of the interface."

Can't disagree more. The interface is very fast and intuitive. Actually Resolve is even faster using Nodes to replace the Secondaries.

I have found anyone who doesn't like these interfaces are Editors used to the very basic interface of an NLE. Guess what. Color applications were not designed for editors. So if you want to use a color enhancement tool, learn how to be efficient in it.

Apple and BMD have give you the choice of using a professional color enhancement tool. If you don't like the way it works, then use a plug-in like Colorista, Magic Bullet Looks and others available for Final Cut Pro. These have very simple interfaces designed for an editor.

Walter Biscardi, Jr.
Editor, Colorist, Director, Writer, Consultant, Author, Chef.
HD Post and Production
Biscardi Creative Media

"Foul Water, Fiery Serpent" Winner, Best Documentary, LA Reel Film Festival...

Blog Twitter Facebook


Return to posts index

Michael Aranyshev
Re: Who would like a unified interface for FCS?
on Oct 4, 2010 at 1:08:15 pm

Guess what? Dial your patronizing tone down a bit, Walter. There used to be times companies actually researched what works in a GUI and what doesn't and they came up with some pretty objective criteria. The GUI of any current grading software doesn't make sense because it breaks too many rules. Not because it is targeted only to the most enlightened ones.


Return to posts index

walter biscardi
Re: Who would like a unified interface for FCS?
on Oct 4, 2010 at 2:09:52 pm

[Michael Aranyshev] "Guess what? Dial your patronizing tone down a bit, Walter. There used to be times companies actually researched what works in a GUI and what doesn't and they came up with some pretty objective criteria. The GUI of any current grading software doesn't make sense because it breaks too many rules. Not because it is targeted only to the most enlightened ones."

The GUI for color enhancement software WAS researched and designed with the target users. Colorists. Just because editors can now use the same tools doesn't mean the GUI has to change to please the editors.

The GUI for Resolve was further redesigned with Colorists and it's incredibly simple for editors to pick up.

What you're asking is for all the color enhancement companies to completely redesign their GUI interfaces for editors instead of editors taking the time to learn the GUI interfaces and find out why they are so efficient in the tasks that they do.

Walter Biscardi, Jr.
Editor, Colorist, Director, Writer, Consultant, Author, Chef.
HD Post and Production
Biscardi Creative Media

"Foul Water, Fiery Serpent" Winner, Best Documentary, LA Reel Film Festival...

Blog Twitter Facebook


Return to posts index

Paul Dickin
Re: Who would like a unified interface for FCS?
on Oct 4, 2010 at 9:01:06 am

[Walter Soyka] "I'd like to see a unified data model.
...Let FCP handle the editorial, let Color handle the color, and let Soundtrack handle the audio -- but there should be a database working in the background to manage the same media and the same sequences across the entire suite. An editorial change in FCP should be reflected in Color without reconform, because FCP and Color should be fundamentally working on the same sequence."

Hi
+1
Lots of different tools, and viewing modes (= GUIs) appropriate to the use of those tools. No 'round-tripping' ever.
Just one database, just one edit.



Return to posts index

Martin Curtis
Re: Who would like a unified interface for FCS?
on Oct 4, 2010 at 11:17:09 am

[Walter Soyka] "I'd like to see a unified data model.
...Let FCP handle the editorial, let Color handle the color, and let Soundtrack handle the audio -- but there should be a database working in the background to manage the same media and the same sequences across the entire suite. An editorial change in FCP should be reflected in Color without reconform, because FCP and Color should be fundamentally working on the same sequence."


I agree. The project should be the central point around which everything else revolves. You have the project manager. Time to edit: in come editing (FCP) tools). Time for motion graphics on a portion: in comes Motion tools. etc. I can see the different tools moving in and out like screens in spaces while a clip window stays central.

I say this as someone who does not own a bazillion dollar company nor have any programming skills. Or that many editing skills.


Return to posts index

adam taylor
Re: Who would like a unified interface for FCS?
on Oct 4, 2010 at 12:23:21 pm

Speaking as a jack of all trades, i don't think a unified solution is going to work.

I like having separate apps for different aspects of my work. I don't think its reasonable to expect one app to be the master of every discipline. And to think its ever going to be so, its just wishful thinking.

I like to be able to pick the right tool for the job, and if that means i edit my video in fcp, but cut and mix audio in Protools, whilst using After Effects to create motion graphics,and Cinema4d to bring in a 3rd dimension to my ideas, then i'm happy working that way.

The other thing i tend to do, is to have my audio software running on a separate mac from the video software. Protools is notoriously slow at updating, so i avoid any conflicts by keeping everything on different machines. Using a KVM matrix means i can use the same dual-screen monitors and my wacom/keyboard regardless of the mac powering them. It also means i can be rendering on one mac whilst dubbing on another. It also gives me a backup system should one mac develop a fault.

I'd hate to be reliant on one app/one mac for my entire workflow. Thats just silly.

I want the software developers to be refining their own products to be as good as possible, rather than being as all encompassing as possible. Forget one size fits all - i'm a big guy, and one size certainly does not fit all...ever!

adam

Adam Taylor
Video Editor/Audio Mixer/ Compositor/Motion GFX/Barista
Character Options Ltd
Oldham, UK

http://www.sculptedbliss.co.uk


Return to posts index

John Perez
Re: Who would like a unified interface for FCS?
on Oct 4, 2010 at 2:31:58 pm

I'd still like Apple to keep them as separate applications....BUT with each application having a unified (or very similar) GUI.

As long as the round tripping is vastly improved (with as little re-rendering required as possible) and some key features (most editors need these days) are borrowed from Motion and duplicated in FCP (masking, tracking, better basic animation etc) then this would be the best of both worlds.

If you want a single application that does everything then Smoke for Mac is the baby for you.



Return to posts index

walter biscardi
Re: Who would like a unified interface for FCS?
on Oct 4, 2010 at 6:39:57 pm

[John Perez] "If you want a single application that does everything then Smoke for Mac is the baby for you."

Ah, there's the rub. Who wants to pay for a Smoke today for a unified application? Is Smoke still $15,000 plus $2,000 for the maintenance agreement?

So in order to make some folks here happy, Apple is supposed to develop a more powerful, unified application that still costs $999 but performs like a $15,000 app.

See there's the problem I have with folks who complain about all the shortcomings with Final Cut Pro. We know what the shortcomings are, we know how to work around them, we know which tools to use to offset those shortcomings. And we still don't come close to $17,000 per computer for software to make this happen.

Creating a more tightly unified suite will cost far less than creating one, bloated "super app." Unless everyone here is ready to pony up $10,000 or more for the new Apple Super Duper Final Cut Studio.

Walter Biscardi, Jr.
Editor, Colorist, Director, Writer, Consultant, Author, Chef.
HD Post and Production
Biscardi Creative Media

"Foul Water, Fiery Serpent" Winner, Best Documentary, LA Reel Film Festival...

Blog Twitter Facebook


Return to posts index

Craig RussillRoy
Re: Who would like a unified interface for FCS?
on Oct 4, 2010 at 5:54:30 pm

I am all for it - I respect walters concerns of it taking amillion years to open but having worked om smoke recently that opens in 30 seconds - as smoke weighs in at 2gb and fcp at 50gb we need to rethink the game, why not have the option to stack or float the apps and allow 64bit magic do the rest - after working on fcp for a decade it has paid my wage many times and I still show respect to the old girl.

I think the next version will need to compete with avid and adobe but with a loyal fan base offering a prosumer version could de value our services.

Don't get me wrong there is fcp in every agency and our loyal clientele come for the staff not the kit so if the awesome version of the studio can do stuff faster and less of a workaround that works for me.

Taking about transcoding - I really fell this should be a seperate app to free up fcp - look at burn for autodesk - background encoding ...


Return to posts index

Tom Wolsky
Re: Who would like a unified interface for FCS?
on Oct 4, 2010 at 6:07:24 pm

Check info on FCP. It's nowhere near 50G. Most of that is Soundtrack media which doesn't load in the application anyway. My FCP is 518.5MB.

All the best,

Tom

Class on Demand DVDs "Complete Training for FCP7," "Basic Training for FCS" and "Final Cut Express Made Easy"
Author: "Final Cut Pro 5 Editing Essentials" and "Final Cut Express 4 Editing Workshop"


Return to posts index

Craig RussillRoy
Re: Who would like a unified interface for FCS?
on Oct 4, 2010 at 6:14:22 pm

Hi Tom your a 100 percent right ;-)


Return to posts index

Rafael Amador
Re: Who would like a unified interface for FCS?
on Oct 5, 2010 at 1:44:23 pm

This is awhat an Smoker user wrote in this forum less than one week ago (http://forums.creativecow.net/readpost/8/1105309)

" So a decision was made to go FCP and Smoke. However we are finding that the Smoke isn't actually doing very much 'onlining'& is really just a v.expensive import/playout machine."
Rafael

http://www.nagavideo.com


Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: Who would like a unified interface for FCS?
on Oct 5, 2010 at 2:03:10 pm

Yeah, but the context of that is vague. Smoke, it seems, has a steep learning curve. I doubt you can sit down and edit super fast with no training or experience on the interface. If you're used to FCP then Smoke represents a bit of a learning environment.

The video tracks with layers inside them is really sweet, though. I'd really like to get a Smoke on the Mac
demo sometime.

And Walter, your point about cost is s good one, but I'd be willing to pay more for more robust features. After buying FCP and all the plug ins I need to make it work for all I need to do (Including After Effects as my main 'plug in') the cost would even out over time vs productivity in mostly one application.

The idea that was mentioned to make FCP Express more of what FCP is now and then have a more fully featured FCS is intriguing. That would keep the cost of entry down for those that don't need the better finishing tools.


Return to posts index

adam taylor
Re: Who would like a unified interface for FCS?
on Oct 5, 2010 at 2:15:26 pm

Its not as if there is not an option for people right now.

As has been said - Smoke for Mac is on the market. If the marketing hype is to be believed, then it will do pretty much everything that is being requested.

And as many have stated, they would pay more for a stable all in one product.

So whats holding you all back?

Why sit there complaining that Apple hasn't listened to your wishlist and created iSmoke?...just go buy the competitions offering.

You may love Apple, whereas Apple loves mainly your wallet - its your purchases that help keep them where they are, not your unwavering devotion.

If you are unhappy in your relationship - mend it or move on. Although depending on how you deal with it, a divorce could be cheaper!

adam

Adam Taylor
Video Editor/Audio Mixer/ Compositor/Motion GFX/Barista
Character Options Ltd
Oldham, UK

http://www.sculptedbliss.co.uk


Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: Who would like a unified interface for FCS?
on Oct 5, 2010 at 3:57:10 pm

[adam taylor] "If you are unhappy in your relationship - mend it or move on. "

It takes two to tango.


Return to posts index

adam taylor
Re: Who would like a unified interface for FCS?
on Oct 5, 2010 at 4:00:36 pm

touche

Adam Taylor
Video Editor/Audio Mixer/ Compositor/Motion GFX/Barista
Character Options Ltd
Oldham, UK

http://www.sculptedbliss.co.uk


Return to posts index

walter biscardi
Re: Who would like a unified interface for FCS?
on Oct 5, 2010 at 3:48:38 pm

[Jeremy Garchow] "And Walter, your point about cost is s good one, but I'd be willing to pay more for more robust features. After buying FCP and all the plug ins I need to make it work for all I need to do (Including After Effects as my main 'plug in') the cost would even out over time vs productivity in mostly one application."

You and I both would pay more for more features and a more robust platform. Like me adding Davinci Resolve because at $999 it's a no brainer to add it to have it in the toolbox even if we just use it a few times during the year.

But we are definitely in the minority when many folks balk at $99 for a plug in and want everything to be free.

Walter Biscardi, Jr.
Editor, Colorist, Director, Writer, Consultant, Author, Chef.
HD Post and Production
Biscardi Creative Media

"Foul Water, Fiery Serpent" Winner, Best Documentary, LA Reel Film Festival...

Blog Twitter Facebook


Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: Who would like a unified interface for FCS?
on Oct 5, 2010 at 4:19:45 pm

[walter biscardi] "But we are definitely in the minority when many folks balk at $99 for a plug in and want everything to be free."


Yeah, that's a whole different problem unto itself. When people want things to be free, they should be expected to work for free. Just sayin', it's only fair, right?


Return to posts index

walter biscardi
Re: Who would like a unified interface for FCS?
on Oct 5, 2010 at 4:43:18 pm

[Jeremy Garchow] "When people want things to be free, they should be expected to work for free. Just sayin', it's only fair, right?"

THAT my friend is brilliant! :)

Walter Biscardi, Jr.
Editor, Colorist, Director, Writer, Consultant, Author, Chef.
HD Post and Production
Biscardi Creative Media

"Foul Water, Fiery Serpent" Winner, Best Documentary, LA Reel Film Festival...

Blog Twitter Facebook


Return to posts index

Walter Soyka
Re: Who would like a unified interface for FCS?
on Oct 5, 2010 at 2:25:25 pm

Smoke has its place, but it's not for everyone. Like any tool, it's not appropriate for all situations. I'm considering getting a Smoke myself for fast-turnaround work, but I don't expect it to completely replace FCP, AE, and DaVinci in my business.

Smoke on Mac in particular is a good example of the jack-of-all-trades, master-of-none trade-off in an all-in-one app. Smoke is primarily an editor, but I don't know very many people who cut from scratch in Smoke. It's a compositor, but (particularly without Batch on Mac) it's somewhat limited, so serious compositors use Nuke. It's an effects package, but it's not After Effects. It's a color corrector, but with only 3 secondaries, so it's no Color or DaVinci.

So why do people use it? Smoke's primary advantage comes from always having that entire toolkit at your disposal. It's high quality, and it's fast, but it's not cheap. If you need high quality and low cost, today's FCS sacrifices speed with separate tools for each job.

Smoke's secondary advantage is outstanding integration with the rest of the Autodesk suite -- sharing media and metadata with Flame, Flare, and Lustre.

FCS has neither an all-in-one tool nor a seamless pipeline. The capabilities are mostly there, but the integration falls completely flat. I don't really care if it's a single app or a tightly-integrated suite, but hopefully Apple will re-evaluate our workflows and smooth out the pro apps pipeline.

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


Return to posts index

<< PREVIOUS   •   VIEW ALL   •   PRINT   •   NEXT >>
© 2020 CreativeCOW.net All Rights Reserved
[TOP]