-
And the lightbulb goes on…
-
I’ll be interested in hearing how it goes on the Warner Brothers project.
Chris Conlee
-
who isn’t?
https://vimeo.com/user1590967/videos http://www.ogallchoir.net promo producer/editor.grading/motion graphics
-
Honestly? Probably just about EVERYBODY, except for those on this list.
Chris Conlee
-
[Chris Conlee] “This sort of mirrors my experience in the Los Angeles market. I think it would take a real fan with real power to bring it on a network show, as the general consensus seems to be: FCP X is for consumers, and therefore isn’t even part of the conversation anymore. I know editors who’ve bought it to edit their daughter’s wedding videos with, but it never enters their conscience that it could be used for more than that, because they’re so accustomed to using Avid at work.
“It is like deja vu all over again. Discrete Edit, Fast, Media 100 (which was great in it’s day) were all phased out by FCP by the time version 4 came out. It was only four years old by then, and FCP X is only two and a half years old now. It wasn’t really until 2005 where I was working 50/50 Avid/FCP jobs while an assistant. FCP took time to mature and become trustworthy and as for how far FCP X has come in two and a half years it’s a good sign.
Whoever said on this thread “Once you realize how much harder you are working it gets old quick” hit the nail on the head. When I am forced to work on other systems, all the steps necessary to even begin editing are really tiresome. In the fifteen years working with different NLEs, I just like FCP X better.
-
I haven’t a clue really.
either way, apple need to generate substantive market visibility before the end of year – that’ll be year three ending in the cold – they’re not sitting in the wings of avid with FCP ten years ago.
this just is not that market. people are calling it this year – and no one is calling FCPX so far.FCPX can’t just sit there waiting for the world to somehow come to it. It’s not happening.
https://vimeo.com/user1590967/videos http://www.ogallchoir.net promo producer/editor.grading/motion graphics
-
Well, believe it or not, I’m actually quite agnostic when it comes to computers AND nonlinear editors. I’ve run so many on Amigas, Windows, and Macs, that I honestly don’t care, as long as the software has the tools I need to do the job. I’m watching Lightworks closely, because I like its console and some of its workflow is pretty slick. But I also LOVE Media Composer and don’t see myself getting completely away from it in the feature and episodic worlds.
I’ve gotten fairly used to FCP legacy over the years as well, and it’s perfectly fine. I played with FCP X and honestly didn’t get it. But I’ll probably play with it some more; maybe when I go on hiatus I’ll pick it up and play with it some more. We’ll see.
In the meantime, I think competition is good, and if folks are finding this tool does what they need, and they like it better, then that’s a wonderful thing in my book.
Chris Conlee
-
[Andrew Kimery] ” If there are people running X in large shared storage, multi-editor environments please let me know ’cause I would love to see how they do things.”
Can we walk this back a step?
FCPX, dare I say, is more like FCP7 than ever when it comes to structure. Sure, you have to use your imagination and pretend Libraries are FCP7 Projects, Events are FCP7 Bins, and Projects are FCP7 Sequences.
Yes, there are other considerations to think about in media management (FCPX Optimized and Proxy files being in the Library and nowhere else at the moment), but even with those limitations, there are some really easy media management options in FCPX for a shared environment, and it stems from being Library based.
FCPXML has come forward a bit. It can cause a bit of Event duplication, but if you use intermediate Libraries, you can avoid a lot of it.
So, while it’s not perfect, I am wondering at least from a sharing standpoint, what is so different about FCPX and FCP7? I would think that if you can generate FCPXMLs, or can send a Library to someone on the same network, it is very similar to how FCP7 would work in that each editor is an island unto themselves.
-
[Jeremy Garchow] “Yes, there are other considerations to think about in media management (FCPX Optimized and Proxy files being in the Library and nowhere else at the moment), but even with those limitations, there are some really easy media management options in FCPX for a shared environment, and it stems from being Library based.”
Funny thing, when I prep a long form job that will be cut in FCP 7 I prep it in FCP X. I just make sure that create optimized is on, sync all the footage, then use Xto7 to send the stringouts. Once in 7 I can make bins pretty easily using the timelines. It’s so much easier than waiting for compressor batches. Then I wonder, why don’t they just cut in FCP X? But I get it, people are comfortable with what they know.
I think it will take a bit of time for the new “library” aka “project” structure of 10.1 to gain trust.
-
[Jeremy Garchow] “So, while it’s not perfect, I am wondering at least from a sharing standpoint, what is so different about FCPX and FCP7? I would think that if you can generate FCPXMLs, or can send a Library to someone on the same network, it is very similar to how FCP7 would work in that each editor is an island unto themselves.”
I’ve never used FCP Legend on as large a scale as I have Avid so I can’t make ‘7 to X’ workflow guesstimate. To be honest, even on the smaller scale that I used it on (12 editors, 60TB Xsan, mostly a mix of daily web content and a weekly cable news magazine show) it was such a PITA that I’d never choose to use on bigger projects like I mentioned previously. Obviously people like Mark Raudonis and his team (as well as others) figured out how to use FCP Legend effectively in large scale facilities and my hat’s off to them.
When I was using FCP Legend in a multi-editor environment we made it work (ex. we never missed a deadline even when turnaround on the TV show was just 48hrs on occasion) but it was never what I would call smooth nor elegant. We were obviously shoehorning FCP into a role it wasn’t very well suited for. After 5yrs of that I ended up back on Avid on a reality show and the difference was night and day. I was giddy as a school girl being back in Avid’s multi-editor environment. Sure Avid still treats stills as video, the FX mode is horribly antiquated and resolution & frame rate are set at the project level (WTF Avid, it’s 2014!) but there’s nothing I’d rather use currently than Avid + ISIS if I’m doing something like a big reality show (ScriptSync is also ridiculously useful).
In the next day or so I’m going to write up my basic big project, Avid multi-user workflow and spin this discussion off into it’s own thread to see how you guys would try and use X to tackle a similar scenario. My initial assumption is to agree with Steve Connor that X has a long way to go in this regard but I’d still like to get an idea of where X is at.
-
[Andrew Kimery] “In the next day or so I’m going to write up my basic big project, Avid multi-user workflow and spin this discussion off into it’s own thread to see how you guys would try and use X to tackle a similar scenario”
Great idea, there is often a lot of good discussion here about how FCPX might and does function in a multi-user environment.
Avid clearly leads in this area at the moment
Steve Connor
There’s nothing we can’t argue about on the FCPX COW Forum
Reply to this Discussion! Login or Sign Up