After a year has perception of FCPX changed?

[Andrew Kimery]

If Apple released a new version of FCP 10 (which would be called 10.1 because I believe they switched over to using the same version numbering system that they use for OS X) does anyone think that would wash away some of the stigma since it would be a new version and not the same 10.0 version that so many people hated? I wonder how many people see the point updates as Apple trying to patch a broken production where as a new version many times carries w/it the air of a fresh/revitalized product and new features.

Sure, it’s just psychological but so is stigma in general.

[Tony West]

[Bill Davis] “And I still find it exciting.”

I find it exciting also.

I didn’t at first. I had to get into “it’s” mode of editing. I can’t really put into words what that is.

All I know is the more I use it the more I can do what I want without even thinking about it.

I still say much of it comes down to the whole tracks thing.

If I have an interview with a player, I go to b-roll of him hitting the ball, I want to hear that bat crack and sound of the crowd under.

I can’t see the advantage of having that b-roll audio spread out in the time line. (i can spread it out if I want to)

As long as I can get to it and adjust it, that’s all I really need to do with it. So for me it’s faster to just have it consolidated as one clip that I can drag up and down the TL

Some folks want to see it spread out below. That’s fine.

I don’t. If I want it down there I can put it down there, but I don’t want it defaulted that way.

I want to grab “one” clip and move it fast.

For me, the only thing that matters with that b-roll audio is if it’s too low, too hot, or out of sync.

When you see it on TV you can’t say, “hey..it sounds like he had that b-roll sound consolidated in one trace instead of spread out below. That’s it………I’m turning off the game : )

For folks that spent years mastering their skills on legacy and now have to start over, I get it. That sucks

They tossed out the tape you still use. That sucks also.

I wish it worked for more people.

[Bill Davis]

[Chris Harlan] “Bill, I found this conversation very interesting because it has really helped me see why you like X so much. I can see how its organization can be very attractive. I can even see why–from your POV–you might think of it as being more mobile, because I see that for you it acts as a work suitcase/filing cabinet, combined with an artist’s pallet. So, I get what you are saying. But, there are a lot of other ways of looking at mobility, and claiming it as the sole property of FCP X is just not something I can agree with.”

Chris,

Thank you. I appreciate both the tone and the points you’ve made. And you made them without attaching them to personal attacks. I appreciate that.

I will only add a small point of clarification to something you mentioned that I think might confuse others.

In the X Event Browser and the Project Library – you are never “forced” to have all your assets or projects “open” by default. In the Event Browser, you hide or reveal the event you’re interested in by clicking on it, and in the display window, you can close or open events in the viewer just as easily. Essentially they are all “live and on-line” all the time – but the user controls the display of them.

I believe this is a fundamental feature of the way X sees everything as metadata. Since somewhat unlike Legacy, it isn’t built on a code base that has to “load” complex code subroutines to perform it’s functions, there’s little penalty for access to all of it’s interior assets.

It works the same way in the Project Library. Projects can be put in virtual folders and revealed or concealed from the user at will. These project folders are user named, so you can be as overt (Acme Projects) or obscure (101-5324) as you like.

But my larger point, actually is that I appreciate the discussion and your willingness to keep things from being personal. Thats good for the board since I increasingly think that the debate on FCP-X functions and features is the “signal” here – and the expressions of anger or hurt about the program, while surely entertaining for the lurkers – is not much more than “noise” at this point.

Nice Post – thank you.

“Before speaking out ask yourself whether your words are true, whether they are respectful and whether they are needed in our civil discussions.”-Justice O’Connor

[Bill Davis]

[Michael Gissing] “As long as you continue to peddle this myth, expect me to call bullshit.”

Peddle?

Huh?

I thought this was a discussion. I’m not here to “peddle” anything. And certainly not myths. I write about my reality. X is not a myth. My work with it is not a myth. That people have been “angry” about X is certainly not a myth.

You clearly find it to be another reason to try to vent. Venting is what happens when people use terms like the very last one in your post above.

I attempted to extract your thinking about where you see fatal flaws in X so that people here can learn.

You don’t want to discuss that, fine.

Moving on.

“Before speaking out ask yourself whether your words are true, whether they are respectful and whether they are needed in our civil discussions.”-Justice O’Connor

[Bill Davis]

[Tim Wilson] “….but the overwhelming majority of it had zeeeerooooo to do with bullet-point features, and everything to do with the bullet they felt had just been put in their heads, before they even KNEW about the missing features.”

I absolutely agree with this assessment.

The largest factor in the “horror” that surrounded the release of X was the emotional fallout.

To me the singular part of this assessment is the archly perceptive line “with the bullet they felt had just been put in their heads.”

It speaks of primal fear, confusion and uncertainty. Which matter. But what a thing “is” and how you “feel” about that thing have always been two separate things.

That a guy “hates” or “loves” Chevys over Fords has always been a part of car culture. But seldom has much to do with the actual performance of the machines. It’s mostly a complex and emotional thing.

And so it is with X to this day.

“Before speaking out ask yourself whether your words are true, whether they are respectful and whether they are needed in our civil discussions.”-Justice O’Connor

[Mitch Ives]

Tim, I agree with your points about those that felt betrayed and didn’t like the changes. I disagree with you about all the missing parts and bugs not being part of the problem… or at least aggravating the hell out of it..

I think there was a third (marginalized) category… people who wanted to remain objective and give FCPX the benefit of the doubt. How do you do that when the titler doesn’t work? How do you do that when the auto save stops working and you lose changes, because there is no manual save. How do you do serious work without broadcast monitoring? How do you give up powerhouse features like Kona or Black Magic boards. Living without Multicam? Multicam is almost a given today with all the cheap DSLRs and Go Pro’s out there. No the real question was: “how can they release something like this’?

IMO, all of these “two guys in a garage” mistakes gave fuel to the argument that this wasn’t a serious tool. Unnecessary fuel I might add. For a lot of people 10.0.3 was the first usable release, and 10.0.4 is the first version I can use with any certainty. It’s actually working rather well… finally!

No, I think Apple made a colossal blunder in releasing FCPX too early. But I think it’s a function of something more insidious than whether you like the FCPX workflow. I think it’s the new Apple under Tim Cook. He’s a ‘rush it out quicker guy” who brought us the failed iPhone 4 antenna. The botched initial release of Lion, and then the way too early release of FCPX.

I think time will tell, but want to bet that’ we’ll see more of this? The optimist in me would like to think the iPhone 4s is a good indicator that maybe they have learned from their mistakes and held the iPhone 5 until it’s really ready… but I’m probably deluding myself.

Mitch Ives
Insight Productions Corp.

“Criticism may not be agreeable, but it is necessary. It fulfills the same function as pain in the human body. It calls attention to an unhealthy state of things.” – Winston Churchill

[Bill Davis]

[Andy Neil] “A core function of FCPX is the parent/child relationship. This only exists in FCPX and I suspect is one of the key things that people like or dislike about the program.”

Andy,

Thank you for this.

I’d never thought about it in this light, but I’m going to spend some time thinking about it now.

This is really useful and I appreciate you distilling the thought and putting it out here for consideration.

“Before speaking out ask yourself whether your words are true, whether they are respectful and whether they are needed in our civil discussions.”-Justice O’Connor

[Chris Harlan]

[Bill Davis] “Thats good for the board since I increasingly think that the debate on FCP-X functions and features is the “signal” here – and the expressions of anger or hurt about the program, while surely entertaining for the lurkers – is not much more than “noise” at this point.
“

Yeah, but then Tim is going to stop paying us the big bucks.

[Jeremy Garchow]

[Bill Davis] “I believe this is a fundamental feature of the way X sees everything as metadata. Since somewhat unlike Legacy, it isn’t built on a code base that has to “load” complex code subroutines to perform it’s functions, there’s little penalty for access to all of it’s interior assets.

It works the same way in the Project Library. Projects can be put in virtual folders and revealed or concealed from the user at will. These project folders are user named, so you can be as overt (Acme Projects) or obscure (101-5324) as you like.
“

I know I sound like a broken record, I apologize.

For those of you lucky to have SANs that work with FCPX, you will be able to see just what SAN Locations can do to help manage media in FCPX. It works sort of like Event Manager X, but it has greater capability, is built in, and allows you to place media in any directory at any level of your SAN. All you have to do is mount/dismount (“add/remove”) and you don’t even have to quit FCPX to do it.

Whey they don’t have this capability built in to local access, ya got me, but there’s some sort of hint as to why this is built in to a SAN architecture and not the “local” architecture. Someone must be thinking ahead, even though the present is murky.

Yes, FCPX has had a rough start, but then you look at what is already in there that is beyond anything that is currently available in an “out of the box” NLE today. This is why I stick around. The cosmetics can, will, and already are changing.

The media management in FCPX is pretty good. It could be even better, but for 1 year old, it’s doing pretty well and you can see where Apple focused their initial energies in to this platform. There’s still a lot more “backend” work in the form of XML and probably with AVFoundation to get better hooks in to capture/export cards, but I bet all that’s coming as well. It’s not like FCPXML has remained stagnant since it’s inception in 10.0.2, and broadcast monitoring came once AVFoundation seemed to be beefed up with an OS update.

As long as everyone has the same media, sharing Projects and Events is fairly easy as well. The nice thing about the FCPX structure is that you simply add the proper file in the proper place, and X pretty much does the rest.

Then there’s the sharing of media and referencing of media in Events.

This is all new stuff, and it’s different than other NLEs, and seems to lend itself to larger workgroups.

I suppose perhaps there’s a need for iMovie workgroups, but I suppose there is or will be larger professional workgroups as well that will use FCPX.

So, while FCPX seems to have one man band written all over it for now, from my perspective, it doesn’t seem that it was conceived in that light.

Jeremy

[Tim Wilson]

[Chris Harlan] “[Bill Davis] “Thats good for the board since I increasingly think that the debate on FCP-X functions and features is the “signal” here – and the expressions of anger or hurt about the program, while surely entertaining for the lurkers – is not much more than “noise” at this point.
”

Yeah, but then Tim is going to stop paying us the big bucks.”

Ha! You’re lucky I don’t lay you all off.

See, I don’t think that “hurt” is noise. I think it’s part of what has become one of the many NEW signals here: trying to figure out which way the big ball is going to bounce. As others have noted, feelings have ALWAYS factored into this. Dramatically changing feelings about the company people FELT most strongly about? Signal. It WILL affect the future of the industry and the people in it. It already has.

And frankly, losing faith in Apple, even if for emotional reasons, becomes a rational consideration. Dig:

You have a finite amount of time and money. You take a piece of yellow legal paper (IT HAS TO BE YELLOW OR IT DOESN’T COUNT), draw a line down the middle, make a list on each side, and “I just don’t like those f*ckers anymore” HAS to factor in. It would be IRrational to give money to people you don’t like or trust.

The only thing that I personally assess as noise here is pointedly personal stuff, but even that is being dealt with far better than this time last year. A post or two and move on, rather than consuming whole threads…or whole days….

Otherwise, the more signals the merrier.

PS. My usual caveat: speaking empathetically about one side of the argument doesn’t reduce my empathy for yay-sayers, and indeed my belief that they represent a majority view. I’m just talking about what constitutes signal and noise. There is no arena of science or technology that doesn’t have a strong emotional component.

Tim Wilson
Associate Publisher, Editor-in-Chief
Creative COW Magazine
Twitter: timdoubleyou