-
10.2.3 Update is here
-
[Robin S. Kurz] “Will the addition of some sort of “Send to” be happily accepted? Sure! Is it somehow the all governing, make-or-break feature it’s being made out to be? Nope.”
I don’t think it’s a make or break feature, but gosh, it would be nice for a lot of workflows.
Round-tripping and rigging are designed to solve different problems, as Jeremy and I have outlined above. While rigging is definitely a worthy feature that saves time for cases like titling and more filter-style effects work, I also appreciate the classic round-trip integration options that Adobe/Avid/Autodesk offer.
[Robin S. Kurz] “Wow. Now that’s what I call intuitive and user-friendly. How could I think something (normally simple) like that is far better implemented with X/Motion. ;-D”
Robin, spare me the sarcasm and condescension.
I actually like the FCPX/Motion integration. I think it is absolutely brilliant. I have done identity systems in Motion and transitioned several projects from FCP7 over to FCPX specifically to take advantage of the publishing/rigging functionality.
Adobe’s publishing implementation is clearly primitive in comparison. However, because Ae’s expressions systems is so powerful, users at least have the option of extending that functionality to suit their needs. There are a number of broadcasters doing exactly that with my workflow.
Walter Soyka
Designer & Mad Scientist at Keen Live [link]
Motion Graphics, Widescreen Events, Presentation Design, and Consulting
@keenlive | RenderBreak [blog] | Profile [LinkedIn] -
[Steve Connor] “Because some of you can’t bear any criticism of FCPX?”
Odd,
Seems to me for going on 5 years now, that’s a HUGE part of what I’ve continually dealt with right here.
That’s not exactly in the “can’t bear” category, is it.
I’d simply consider myself a glutton for punishment if it wasn’t for the fact that so much of the “professional” criticism leveled at the program hadn’t turned out to be so abysmally and woefully WRONG from day one.
It’s amusing to me that the best the early haters can now do is say that “well, it wasn’t at good then as it is now.” Which is EXACTLY the truth about EVERY NLE. Period.
On day one, I had keywords, magnetism, the database, agile share, and dozens and dozens of other things that I found interesting and valuable.
That ostensible “kiddie” program vociferously tagged as “crippled and lame” by so many here is now cutting pro work on every continent. And a good number of the the fellow professionals I tried to interest in it, are STILL seeing it through mud colored glasses, trying VERY hard to find reasons to keep dismissing it.
Perfect for everyone? Nope. Perfect for no one? (the angst driven hue and cry in years 1-3) Even more Nope.
Fancy that.
Know someone who teaches video editing in elementary school, high school or college? Tell them to check out http://www.StartEditingNow.com – video editing curriculum complete with licensed practice content.
-
[Tony West] ” I think they want you to do almost everything inside X
“I think you’re exactly correct on this Tony.
I can’t remember who I had the discussion with, but during the Creative Summit in Cupertino last year, I remember a conversation where the “outside IN” verses “Inside OUT” theory was discussed.
Basically X being seen by Apple as the single focus of your workflow with much of the capabilities of programs like Motion and Compressor already inside the main NLE which can be viewed as your central work hub. Rather than a design where you are EXPECTED to leave the NLE in order to do anything beyond the basics. The “many co-equal” programs with no hub seems to fit the ADOBE model with a wide array of Standalone programs that exist to run separately, AE, Prelude, Audition, etc, etc, – separate and distinct from the NLE. Each with their own look, feel, and learning curve. They all share, but you are expected to master multiple separate programs to get your work done.
In X, most of ones “daily array” of tools is expected to live permanently directly inside the program, itself – with many, many editors successfully producing work without ever needing to go outside of it.
Basically, in X there’s no need for Prelude, for example, because that’s built in – far less need for Audition, because of all access to the Logic code already in X – and AE becomes less critical, since there is a major subset of Motion already accessible inside X itself – and so on.
The Inside Out verses Outside In thing is an Interesting way to look at it, anyway.
Know someone who teaches video editing in elementary school, high school or college? Tell them to check out http://www.StartEditingNow.com – video editing curriculum complete with licensed practice content.
-
[Bill Davis] “The Inside Out verses Outside In thing is an Interesting way to look at it, anyway.
“It’s also kind of rediculous if you need to move to a compositor, like Motion.
There things in Motion that can’t be published to an effect, or group of effects, or drop zone.
I enjoy publishing and rigging, but it would be nice to move more over to Motion, and then publish that back to fcpx.
It would also add a viable alternative for After Effects for my needs.
-
[Bill Davis] “The Inside Out verses Outside In thing is an Interesting way to look at it, anyway.”
I wouldn’t consider the specialist vs generalist balancing act by NLEs anything new though. For example, I think that PPro and FCP (both Legend and X) seem to have always existed in the realm of NLEs that had ‘good enough’ compositing, audio mixing, etc., to meet the needs of many editors. As opposed to Avid which sitll seems more weighted in the ‘offline’ world and Resolve and Smoke which are trying to expand beyond being online/finishing tools.
Apple obviously ditched its suite concept when it launched X (which makes sense given X’s primary demographic) but on the flip side it would be nuts for Adobe not to try to leverage connectivity between its major apps (it’s not like AE or PS is going to get killed off like Apple Color or DVD SP). With that being said, Adobe is still incorporating features from AE and Speed Grade into PPro so they are simultaneously allowing you to do more inside PPro while also increasing the connectivity it has with other Adobe applications. A caveat to what I just being that, AFAIK, there were no improvements with connectivity between PPro and SG in the 2015 version which, coupled with the enhanced color grading features added to PPro 2015, suggests that the continued development/existence of SG might be up in the air (as I’ve stated in other threads, it’s got to be exceedingly difficult for SG to gain traction when Resolve is free and already so well established).
Of course too much vs too little functionality changes on a user by user basis and that’s the difficult part of software makers. Too many features and some users will complain about bloat and feature creep and too few features and some users will complain that the software isn’t useful enough.
-
[Bill Davis] “It’s amusing to me that the best the early haters can now do is say that “well, it wasn’t at good then as it is now.” Which is EXACTLY the truth about EVERY NLE. Period.”
That totally misses the point and you know it. X was missing many features that had become ‘common place’ in pro NLEs when Apple launched it and that fact plus the simultaneous pulling of FCP 7 from store shelves led to much of the ire. If Apple wouldn’t have pulled FCP 7 I think people would have been more forgiving of X’s short comings or if Apple would have launched X with things like multicam, FCP Legend project importing, OMF, full quality baseband video out, Send to Motion (sorry, couldn’t resist), etc., I think people would have been less pissed about FCP 7 getting yanked.
I guess another way to look at this would be if your choice of NLE today was capped at what was available in 2011 which one(s) would you choose? I’d take FCP 7 or whatever version of Avid was around at the time. Neither X nor PPro 5.5 were at points where I would pick them for day in and day out use.
Speaking of all NLEs getting better, in the earlier days of X’s life many of its supports would say, “It’ll get better” when people pointed out missing features and my response to those supporters was similar to yours here, Bill. Of course X is going to get better. And so will Avid and Premiere and Resolve, etc.,. To me the question never was “Will X get better?” because of course it will get better (whether or not it gets good enough for person X, Y or Z is another matter). The question I had was, “Will X get better fast enough to get people to consider it over NLEs like Avid or PPro which will also continue to get better (and which people might already be using or are more predisposed to use)”?
-
[Bill Davis] “I’d simply consider myself a glutton for punishment if it wasn’t for the fact that so much of the “professional” criticism leveled at the program hadn’t turned out to be so abysmally and woefully WRONG from day one.”
+1
… and many insisting on staying that way to this day with such passion and vigor. Wow. And then actually turn to calling others “fanboy”. 😀– RK
____________________________________________________
Deutsch? Hier gibt es ein umfassendes FCP X Training für dich! -
[Bill Davis] “Rather than a design where you are EXPECTED to leave the NLE in order to do anything beyond the basics. The “many co-equal” programs with no hub seems to fit the ADOBE model with a wide array of Standalone programs that exist to run separately, AE, Prelude, Audition, etc, etc, – separate and distinct from the NLE. Each with their own look, feel, and learning curve. “
Not true at all, Adobe are building powerful tools INTO PPro itself, Lumetri Colour is fantastic, a lot of the AE filters are in PPro and the keyframe editing in PPro when you are compositing is excellent. Plus the audio tools, including two mixers, mean there is also less reason to leave PPro. But of course if you you DO need to these there is proper roundtrip between the Adobe Apps.
-
[Andrew Kimery] “That totally misses the point and you know it. X was missing many features that had become ‘common place’ in pro NLEs when Apple launched it”
AND at the same time it lost those things it SIMULTANEOUSLY had introduced brand new and EXTREMELY exciting concepts – that some of us with a bit of foresight – were quite happy to temporarily trade for what was lost.
Other editors did not see that. They saw ONLY a glass half empty. And IMO, bitched about it for far longer than was sensible.
Which is fine. Pessimism is long standing human tradition. As are feelings of abandonment, rejection, and loss. But the trick in life is that when you run into them – put them behind you as soon as you can.
Dwelling in them is something I find counter-productive. (Tho I”m certainly not the arbitrator of how long anyone needs to mourn anything.)
I simply find life more enjoyable from an optimistic outlook. Particularly when the result of my initial optimism is increased mastery of a system that keep giving me reasons to be more and more optimistic.
X for me, has been a happy spiral UP. NOT a sad spiral down. Big win to my thinking.
Know someone who teaches video editing in elementary school, high school or college? Tell them to check out http://www.StartEditingNow.com – video editing curriculum complete with licensed practice content.
-
[Bill Davis] “AND at the same time it lost those things it SIMULTANEOUSLY had introduced brand new and EXTREMELY exciting concepts – that some of us with a bit of foresight – were quite happy to temporarily trade for what was lost.”
But if it lost what you needed then it doesn’t really matter what it added. That goes directly to the comment of “well it got better over time” which means it gained back functionally that person X needed and if it would’ve launched w/said functionality the person probably would been more receptive to it. If the person had said that X sucks today as much as it did at launch *that* would’ve been a truly nonsensical, irrational statement.
In my case, when X launched I did a lot of multicam work, color grading for broadcast (meaning preview quality video-out wasn’t acceptable) and I finished shows to tape. It didn’t matter how cool I thought things like the metadata improvements or background process were because I needed multicam, baseband video out and finishing to tape for my day to day operation. X could’ve cooked me breakfast and driven me to work and it still wouldn’t have mattered because it was missing functionality that was core to my workflow at the time. As X got better so did Avid and Premiere Pro (and Resolve) and if I had to guess I’d say that people that switched from FCP 7 to Avid or PPro are less likely to switch again so soon to another NLE.
I’m totally with you about the never ending bitching (I still run across people that complain about FCP Legend) which is why I typically ignore the perpetual bitchers.
Reply to this Discussion! Login or Sign Up