DaVinci Resolve 8.1 — now with FCPXML roundtrip support

[Jeremy Garchow]

[David Lawrence] “They’re clearly not the same application, but how do you know they’re not sharing the same code base? Just curious.”

I read it on the internet? 😀

How do you know they are?

[David Lawrence]

[Jeremy Garchow] “[David Lawrence] “They’re clearly not the same application, but how do you know they’re not sharing the same code base? Just curious.”

I read it on the internet? 😀

How do you know they are?”

Well, I don’t know for sure… but you either believe that they wrote everything from scratch and all the similarities to iMovie are purely coincidental…

or there’s this! 🙂

_______________________
David Lawrence
art~media~design~research
propaganda.com
publicmattersgroup.com
facebook.com/dlawrence
twitter.com/dhl

[Jeremy Garchow]

I have to admit, I had to look this up as the reference escaped me.

.
.
.
.
.

If you’re still reading this after I said that, the ever truthful Wikipedia has this to say: “The principle is often inaccurately summarized as “the simplest explanation is most likely the correct one.” This summary is misleading, as in practice the principle is actually focused on shifting the burden of proof in discussions.[1] That is, the razor is a principle that suggests we should tend towards simpler theories until we can trade some simplicity for increased explanatory power. Contrary to the popular summary, the simplest available theory is sometimes a less accurate explanation.”

Wouldn’t it be simpler to say iMovie is FCPX?

PPro and AE have similar visual attributes. Same code? Or same paint?

[Walter Soyka]

[Jeremy Garchow] “Wouldn’t it be simpler to say iMovie is FCPX?”

Sure, but that would have been demonstrably untrue. FCPX does a lot more than iMovie.

[Jeremy Garchow] “PPro and AE have similar visual attributes. Same code? Or same paint?”

Isn’t the point here that iMovie and FCPX don’t just have similar visual attributes, though? They share the magnetic timeline user experience (if not the code), and most likely the same or very similar data structure (given the fact that FCPX imports iMovie projects and not legacy FCP projects).

Also, I think the similarity between AE and PrP is only skin-deep; beyond their different purposes and philosophies, they have different underlying data models and different underlying image processing systems. Further, I’ve found that a bunch of the PrP UI widgets don’t work exactly the same as the AE widgets they resemble (and I’ve submitted a stack of feature requests about reconciling these differences).

AE and PrP resemble each other in the same way that FCPX and Aperture resemble each other; they’re apps from the same developer that share UI guidelines. iMovie and FCPX share design and actual functionality.

This is not necessarily a bad thing. But as Simon points out, it does mean that Apple developers have been thinking about magnetic timelines for quite a while — meaning they would have had plenty of time to think about interchange with the rest of the industry if they had cared to.

Fortunately for us, Autodesk, BMD, Foolcut, and Philip Hodgetts are thinking about interchange for them.

Walter Soyka
Principal & Designer at Keen Live
Motion Graphics, Widescreen Events, Presentation Design, and Consulting
RenderBreak Blog – What I’m thinking when my workstation’s thinking
Creative Cow Forum Host: Live & Stage Events

[David Lawrence]

[Jeremy Garchow] “Wouldn’t it be simpler to say iMovie is FCPX?

PPro and AE have similar visual attributes. Same code? Or same paint?”

I was starting to write but I see Walter already answered so see his post above.

I know the truth hurts but if Apple were honest, they would have named their new NLE iMovie Pro, because that’s really, truly what it is. I mean, did they really think their most discerning, technically sophisticated users wouldn’t notice?

_______________________
David Lawrence
art~media~design~research
propaganda.com
publicmattersgroup.com
facebook.com/dlawrence
twitter.com/dhl

[Jeremy Garchow]

[Walter Soyka] “Isn’t the point here that iMovie and FCPX don’t just have similar visual attributes, though? They share the magnetic timeline user experience (if not the code), and most likely the same or very similar data structure (given the fact that FCPX imports iMovie projects and not legacy FCP projects).”

Can’t iMovie export XML? That should pretty much end the conversation, right? They are NOT the same.

Yes, they share ideologies, but they are not structured the same under the hood.

[Jeremy Garchow]

[David Lawrence] “I know the truth hurts but if Apple were honest, they would have named their new NLE iMovie Pro, because that’s really, truly what it is. I mean, did they really think their most discerning, technically sophisticated users wouldn’t notice?”

I could say the same thing, but change few words:

I know the truth hurts but if Apple were honest, they would have not named their new NLE iMovie Pro, because that’s really, truly what it’s not. I mean, did they really think their most discerning, technically sophisticated users wouldn’t notice?

[David Lawrence]

[Jeremy Garchow] “I could say the same thing, but change few words:

I know the truth hurts but if Apple were honest, they would have not named their new NLE iMovie Pro, because that’s really, truly what it’s not. I mean, did they really think their most discerning, technically sophisticated users wouldn’t notice?”

Why do you think it’s not? Just curious. I mean look at all the empirical evidence.

Data structure – Events/projects, skimming, no source monitor, range selection, project = sequence, no tracks, ripple only, magnetic timeline behavior, collision avoidance, the precision editor, themes, the freaking Ken Burns effect! etc, etc, etc…

You’re saying all of that was developed independently in a complete vacuum by the same lead developer. All new code all from scratch?

I don’t think so.

_______________________
David Lawrence
art~media~design~research
propaganda.com
publicmattersgroup.com
facebook.com/dlawrence
twitter.com/dhl

[Walter Soyka]

[Jeremy Garchow] “Can’t iMovie export XML? That should pretty much end the conversation, right? They are NOT the same. Yes, they share ideologies, but they are not structured the same under the hood.”

Not necessarily.

I’ve been arguing for some time that the FCPX to FCP7 one-way translation is relatively easy to do (you can translate the relative timing of clips to absolute time, discarding their relationships), but that the FCP7 to FCPX translation is substantially harder (since you can’t infer the relationships between clips from just their positions in absolute time).

I’d suggest that one of the following two claims is true:

• If iMovie’s data structure is the same as or very similar to FCPX’s, then Apple implemented the FCPX to FCP7 translation for iMovie, but chose not to implement it in FCPX.
• If iMovie’s data structure is not the same as FCPX’s, but is very similar to FCP7’s, then Apple solved the much harder FCP7 to FCPX problem, and only chose to implement it in FCPX via iMovie, not FCP classic.

Personally, I’d wager that iMovie uses a parent/child structure like FCPX, which makes its import into FCPX and its export to XMEML straightforward. I’d imagine they included XMEML support in iMovie because FCP7 still existed at the time, and I suspect they dropped it from FCPX floppy-disk-style because they EOL’ed FCP7.

I didn’t know that iMovie did XMEML until you pointed it out. This actually makes me more frustrated and confused about Apple’s thinking on interchange. iMovie can interchange with both FCPX and FCP7, but FCP7 and FCPX can’t interchange with each other?

Walter Soyka
Principal & Designer at Keen Live
Motion Graphics, Widescreen Events, Presentation Design, and Consulting
RenderBreak Blog – What I’m thinking when my workstation’s thinking
Creative Cow Forum Host: Live & Stage Events

[Jeremy Garchow]

[David Lawrence] “[Jeremy Garchow] “I could say the same thing, but change few words:

I know the truth hurts but if Apple were honest, they would have not named their new NLE iMovie Pro, because that’s really, truly what it’s not. I mean, did they really think their most discerning, technically sophisticated users wouldn’t notice?”

Why do you think it’s not? Just curious. I mean look at all the empirical evidence.

Data structure – Events/projects, skimming, no source monitor, range selection, project = sequence, no tracks, ripple only, magnetic timeline behavior, collision avoidance, the precision editor, themes, the freaking Ken Burns effect! etc, etc, etc…

You’re saying all of that was developed independently in a complete vacuum by the same lead developer. All new code all from scratch?

I don’t think so.

_______________________
David Lawrence
art~media~design~research
propaganda.com
publicmattersgroup.com
facebook.com/dlawrence
twitter.com/dhl
“

Not in a vacuum. Definitely not. I’m not a total doofus! I see the similarities visually, but that’s all we can see.

I do think they are bringing parity to the system just like fce and fcp. My colleague’s 12 years old kid was editing on iMovie, she brought home fcpx, and went right to work.

The things you mention might operate the same and look the same, but can you get iMovie to Resolve for instance?

Can Philip Hodgetts get iMovie to fcp7?

Are there 64 bit logic effects in iMovie?

I do think it was new code, yes.

And as I mentioned before, so what if it was iMovie pro? If it can do all I need including support my capture hardware, should I be ashamed or something? And if they’d wanted iMovie Pro, wouldn’t they have just called it iMovie pro? As people seem to be bringing up a lot lately, Apple doesn’t care about the ProApps money, so why is it even $299? Couldn’t they sell many more copies @ 49.99? I’m just not buying the hype that fcpx = iMovie. It just doesn’t add up to me, call me an optimist.