Apple’s ProApps- not a money loosing scenario

[Paul Neumann]

And just food for thought, how difficult is it to keep talented programmers interested in a project that is inconsequential to a successful company’s bottom line? I work for a large tech company and our best and most badass programmers fight to be working on the best and most badass projects. They want to put gold nuggets and brass rings on their resumes.

[Andrew Kimery]

[Marcus Moore] “How many years was PPro out in the wilderness for hobbyists and wedding videographers before it’s toolset was mature enough to tackle what it’s doing now?”

On one hand I agree, but on the other hand if Apple had released FCP 8, instead of FCP X, PPro would still be considered an also ran (and I’ve been enjoying my PPro usage over the last 8 months). In the past few years Adobe, Apple and Avid have all made decisions that concluded in snatching defeat out of the jaws of NLE victory and leaving users with a wide open playing field (including dark horses Resolve and Lightwave). Which on one hand is cool and will hopefully lead to increased competition and innovation, but on the other hand can also be unnerving because there is no ‘safe bet’ anymore.

[Craig Alan]

have you used as a NLE?

Mac Pro, macbook pro, Imacs (i7); Canon 5D Mark III/70D, Panasonic AG-HPX170/AG-HPX250P, Canon HV40, Sony Z7U/VX2000/PD170; FCP 6 certified; FCP X write professionally for a variety of media; teach video production in L.A.

[Charlie Austin]

[Craig Alan] “have you used as a NLE?”

R11? Yep. Not extensively, but I’ve cut with it to see how it works. It’s pretty cool, not quite ready for primetime, but it’s still in (public) beta so who knows. It has some nice features, but it has tracks. Eeew. 🙂

If I needed fixed tracks and was using Pr or MC and looking for an alternative I’d be more interested.

————————————————————-

~ My FCPX Babbling blog ~
~”It is a poor craftsman who blames his tools.”~
~”The function you just attempted is not yet implemented”~

[Bill Davis]

I take Ryan’s point, but I’m not sure it’s as simple as that.

Take, for discussions sake, the big web development news out there this week about the kudos that the British Government is getting on their Government services web presence redo. Everyone’s saying its hugely improved, (if imperfect in some still being revised areas.) Interest all around the world. I think a lot of the success has been the team and the tools. New team. Using Ruby on Rails, iirc. Organized around an adaptation of, I think, SCRUM/Agile concepts. (I might have some of this wrong since these are not areas of my expertise) but the point is that if you took that superb team and put them to work on a video app like X – could they do better than any other team?

Maybe, maybe not.

It seems like Software development expertise just isn’t always a simply transportable skill set.

Maybe you can take a great classical pianist and make them a great ragtime player with a little adaption time, but I’m a bit suspect of that.

It’s Michael Jordan playing baseball again.

BTW, the reading I accidentally did this week about the UK Web thing and the modern large scale software dev process caused me to think about how X has developed. Coding solutions then circling back to refine even fundamental assumptions if the process owners feel they can be improved. Sounded a lot like the X story to me.

Wish I knew more about this stuff, it’s fascinating watching the world being re-wired and re-imagined in so many practical and metaphorical ways for the information age.

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.

[Jamie Franklin]

[Craig Alan] “To say FCP X is broken is vague. It doesn’t work for _______?”

No one has been vague. The freedom of FCP7’s timeline vs compound clips, magnetics and roles has been very widely and (until recently closed system) the cause of a big shakeup in the NLE market. It didn’t happen…just because.

A lot of us had to freeze a system going on, holy jebus time flies, 6 years now…I have to say, there is some revisionism going on here on the arguments presented that had infrastructure panics when X released. Tapeless deliveries are in full swing. Weeeeeeee…but uhoh!, archiving, copyright, international and OMIGOD!!! still broadcast is requiring SR and or dolby encoded Hdcam. Good thing my trusty Mac Pro 1.1 32 bit system running my 667 32bit FCP7 snow leopard dinosaur keeps trucking. As it is the bread and butter next to a Smoke 2015 on a z820. And phew for it.

We are able to find alternatives to Apple now thanks to X, so that’s progress of a kind. But FCP7 is still such an amazing tool 6 years later for a reason. Nothing vague about it.

[Charlie Austin]

[Jamie Franklin] “The freedom of FCP7’s timeline vs compound clips, magnetics and roles… But FCP7 is still such an amazing tool 6 years later for a reason. Nothing vague about it.”

As someone who beta tested the early versions (2,3,4) of FCP, and was one of, if not the first editor in my little LA trailer niche to finish a spot cut on FCP, I agree on the goodness of FCP “classic” And there are certainly some workflows for which FCP X isn’t entirely suited. However, as someone who is proficient in both FCP old and new, I’ve gotta tell ya, the FCP X timeline feels so much more “open” than FCP 7 it’s not even funny.

I’m in 7 now and it’s driving me nuts. I’m not talking about the need to render stuff and other technical details which FCP 8 (PrCC) has quite nicely solved. I’m talking about the timeline. Cutting. Basic timeline operations. It is painfully limiting compared to FCP X. To me anyway. And I’m not cutting a cat video. I wish i was, FCP 7 is perfectly suited for that purpose. 😉

————————————————————-

~ My FCPX Babbling blog ~
~”It is a poor craftsman who blames his tools.”~
~”The function you just attempted is not yet implemented”~

[Jamie Franklin]

[Charlie Austin] ” How is the X timeline not open? Serious question… To me, if anything it’s more open.”

I have stated whats not my bag. Mags, roles, gaps, compound clips. The ease of use between dragging and futzing in 7 from bin to sequence is still a simplified and open playing field. There are frustrations in everything, but the liberty is just not there in X

Serious question. Screen layout in X. Can I customize it? Bin aka *cough hack* “libraries” on one screen. Sequence pancake and source viewer on another monitor and playback monitor out.

How do I do this in X? I have done the google and no success. Found something that was gobsmackingly ridiculous with mission control. But I’d rather poke out my eye.

Then, as I assume this is possible, cause it is “pro”, after painstakingly finding this solution, can I save the layout?

Edit: I see you can “Show Events” on a second window without any control. Thats something I guess. But not very customizable. And not remotely what I want in an nle

[Alex Gollner]

Thanks for getting more information from Horace, Marcus.

I’ve added a second update to the original post to include your Twitter conversation with Horace and this most recent post of yours.

@Alex4D

___________________________________________________
Alexandre Gollner,
Editor, Zone 2-North West, London

alex4d on twitter, facebook, .wordpress.com & .com

[Marcus Moore]

[Jamie Franklin] “Serious question. Screen layout in X. Can I customize it? Bin aka *cough hack* “libraries” on one screen. Sequence pancake and source viewer on another monitor and playback monitor out. “

Bins have no relation to Libraries. Bins are related to keyword/smart collections.

You can throw either the Viewers (Source/Record Windows) or the Event Library to a second computer display, and have a monitor out if you have an I/O box or HDMI out on the machine.

I used Legacy FCP for a decade, and while different, the FCP X timeline construction in my experience saves way more time than it burns in futzing, once you know how to use it.

My opinion on it is the polar opposite of yours- I think the foundation of the timeline is incredibly strong- it’s the details that need work.