And another thing… Conspiracy theories

[Steve Connor]

[Gustavo Bermudas] “but in reality, it’s a rewrite to a 64 bit platform,”

No it’s not, it’s a completely new piece of software, they chose to use an old name

Steve Connor

There’s nothing we can’t argue about on the FCPX COW Forum

[Gustavo Bermudas]

[Steve Connor] “No it’s not, it’s a completely new piece of software, they chose to use an old name”

Then this is becoming a philosophical argument that could go either way, my point is, if they decided to call it the same, then it is (at least at a market perception level)

In a previous post I got people upset by calling it iMovie 10, but, honestly, it’s obvious they use the iMovie codebase to port it to 64 bits, probably iMovie already was, hence the opening asking you to import iMovie projects and the un-ability to open FCP ones, so, I don’t think I was that far off then…

[Craig Seeman]

You’re confusing marketing with feature set.
We can argue about the marketing but the software feature set is its own.

[Gustavo Bermudas] “it’s obvious they use the iMovie codebase to port it to 64 bits,”

Not true at all from what I know. iMovie on Mac desktop was Quicktime based. FCPX is CoreMedia AVFoundation based. Some UI elements were used but that’s far from using the iMovie code base.

[Gustavo Bermudas] “hence the opening asking you to import iMovie projects and the un-ability to open FCP ones”

Ubillos actually wanted to call what became iMovie “First Cut” and was “overruled” in the reports I’ve read on the history. I’ve had a couple of clients that use iMovie as a sort of “selects/rough cut” software to be imported into FCPX. It’s a step towards metadata import rather than the old “enter the client’s time code selects” method. The drawback is the client has to be Mac based. If they have a Mac they have iMovie though.

[Steve Connor]

[Gustavo Bermudas] “In a previous post I got people upset by calling it iMovie 10, but, honestly, it’s obvious they use the iMovie codebase to port it to 64 bits, probably iMovie already was, hence the opening asking you to import iMovie projects and the un-ability to open FCP ones, so, I don’t think I was that far off then…
“

Not true at all I’m afraid

Steve Connor

There’s nothing we can’t argue about on the FCPX COW Forum

[Gustavo Bermudas]

So how would you export for example a DM&E for a trailer you just cut, that’s a common deliverable? Or split audio?

[Marcus Moore]

When you assign Role metadata to clips, those clips become essentially an invisible “track” when placed in the Project timeline.

Using one of the preset Roles like “Dialogue”, if you had 3 people in a scene, all that dialogue is grouped together on export; and when it’s imported into the DAW, it will show up as Dialogue 1, Dialogue 2, and Dialogue 3. If you want more granularity, use SubRoles to label each characters dialogue with “Dialogue Mike”, “Dialogue Sue”, and “Dialogue Phil”. When Brought into a DAW, all that info is brought over, converting them into tracks for the engineer. You can create as much granularity as you want- and because the Role information is carried over to the DAW, there’s no longer need for accompanying emails along with your OMF to tell the audio guy what stuff is on which tracks.

If you’ve done your mix IN FCPX, but need to supply DM&E, FPCX will export AIFF or WAVs for each Role, OR a multichannel Quicktime file.

The biggest issue with Roles at the moment is that the information isn’t being used to organize the clips visually in the timeline. Once that’s done, the FCPX Project window would look very “Track-like”, except that Roles can be multiple “Lanes” deep, or contain stereo or surround elements without them needing to be spread across multiple Tracks. It’s up to the editor how tightly organized the elements need to be.

[Misha Aranyshev]

Sounds cool before you check it against the real world. How do you assign Roles to the 8-track BWF-P imported to FCPX?

[Bill Davis]

[Herb Sevush] “So I guess what we’ve learned is you don’t exhibit much of that on this forum.
“

Yeah, well. Likely guilty as charged.

I’ve got as healthy an ego as anyone here. And sure, sometimes that probably comes across as arrogance or a lack of humility.

Then again, I was among the first, (if not actually the very first) voice on this forum that took a very public position that FCP-X was a worthy video editing package. I took that stand in the face of overwhelming opposition from a host of other editors who trashed me soundly for espousing that.

The humbler and smarter voices sat back. Or struck a more neutral and consiliatory tone – and they probably advanced the debate more than you or I did – but I don’t generally do that. I enjoy a good argument. It’s a character flaw I guess.

Or course, now that X is gaining quite a bit of traction and rapidly becoming seen for what it really is – maybe what you see as arrogance was just the fact that since I came from a perspective somewhat outside the norm of a seat in a large edit shop – I had a slightly clearer view of what X might potentially mean to the wider industry when compared to someone who couldn’t see past the “it’s NOT FCP-8 – so we’re all SCREWED!” view.

I’m wrong a lot. And people point that out a lot.

Which is fine.

But I think the record shows that I’ve also been right quite a bit. Not perfectly right. Not singularly right. Not even always as equally right as others here who came to understand the actual capabilities of the software just as I did.

But I was right in thinking and saying that X had a LOT to offer to the editing industry.

So I take solace that a good bit of what I said in those early days, is coming to pass.

X is, in fact, an extremely capable editing program. Fast, sure, flexible and fun to drive, if still imperfect.

IIRC your original opinion was kinda that it’s crap on a stick and would never amount to anything because it was too radical and screwed up to ever work for anyone. (Actually, that view may have been largely the province of the “old” Aindreas, who apparently has mellowed lately since I don’t recall him equating FCP-X with the end of editing civilization as we know it any more. Odd, but I kinda miss those days!)

But you were surely pretty early and pretty vocal in the leading ranks of the X “condemners”

How’s that view holding up for you today?

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.

[Marcus Moore]

You can assign unique Roles to individual elements of any multi-channel audio file.

[Herb Sevush]

[Bill Davis] “But you were surely pretty early and pretty vocal in the leading ranks of the X “condemners”

How’s that view holding up for you today?”

Going back to find that old quote of yours I went through a lot of the old discussions. Unless something else turns up that I didn’t see I would say I was wrong on a lot of my suspicions about Apple but I’m quite comfortable with everything I said about X.

I was overly worried that Legacy wouldn’t run on updates to the OS and I mistrusted Apple’s timetable to bring missing features back to X. the lesson being that anger can lead to mistakes in judgement.

I never said that X wouldn’t work or would be a failure. There were a few features that sounded wonderful to me, like auditions, and I even speculated, in the thread that your quote came from, that multicam, when and if it came to X, would be excellent based on the data base driven model that is in X. What I did say about X was that it was the solution to problems that I never had (still true for me) that it’s entire philosophy of how editing should be done seemed to be the exact opposite of mine (still true for me) that different is not necessarily better (still believe that) and that I wouldn’t want to trade the visual organization of audio tracks for a one button send to vimeo feature (and I still wouldn’t.)

So all in all I’m quite comfortable with my remarks about X from two years ago, while my remarks about Apple were overly critical.

In answer to your previous questions to me on this thread Avid is the lead horse in my “switching” NLE race, as it is the only program that does everything I need done right now. After a brief surge to the front Adobe has fallen to the back of the pack and depending on what Apple brings forth in the fall in terms of updates to X and prices for the MacPro X is still in the hunt. I’m comfortable with all of my options but none of them are perfect, and neither was Legacy.

Herb Sevush
Zebra Productions
—————————
nothin’ attached to nothin’
“Deciding the spine is the process of editing” F. Bieberkopf