-
DaVinci Resolve 8.1 — now with FCPXML roundtrip support
-
[Walter Soyka] “I suspect they dropped it from FCPX floppy-disk-style”
This made me laugh.
[Walter Soyka] “iMovie can interchange with both FCPX and FCP7, but FCP7 and FCPX can’t interchange with each other”
*shrug*. I dunno. Probably a conspiracy.
-
[Jeremy Garchow] ” I see the similarities visually, but that’s all we can see.”
Honestly, Jeremy, this is a bit disingenuous, isn’t it? You really believe that the only similarities are “visual”???
I do wonder (and I hope you won’t think me rude for asking the question) whether you’ve actually looked at iMovie to see how non-trivial the similarities are and how deeply they relate to function as opposed to mere cosmetics as you seem to be trying to imply.
Let’s just talk about the magnetic timeline – this is a very radical, never-before-seen departure for an NLE, as I don’t think I need to point out! The fact that it already existed in iMovie in fundamentally the same form – there are really very few significant differences (and if you can see any please point them out) – surely has to suggest that the heavy-lifting on this concept was done during the development of iMovie.*
And if the code had to be rewritten from the ground up, this happens all the time and is not really that big a deal. To take the example I’ve cited elsewhere, Luxology, the makers of Modo, managed to turn around the both the PC and Mac 64-bit versions of the app (in about a year) without breaking stride on the ongoing development of what is unarguably a considerably more complex application than FCPX. The rewriting of the code did not do anything to change the app fundamentally (or even superficially) – which is not to say it wasn’t also improved and enhanced at the same time. (And of course, we’ve seen this happen with many apps that have made the major code-rewriting transition to 64-bit – I just like this example because it shows what a small company without the massive resources of an Apple or an Adobe can achieve without appearing to break sweat.)
The fact remains that the design of FCPX – if not the code – had clearly all been worked out during the development of iMovie. To dispute this seems to me to be to fly in the face of unbelievably clear evidence. (And I think to see the real picture here it is important to look closely at what we can observe rather than draw inferences from how FCPX and/or iMovie may or may not interface with each other and the rest of the world – which will almost certainly be decisions arbitrarily arrived at by Apple rather than unambiguous pointers to the development of either app.)
* To be specific about what the two timelines have in common:
a) Rippling timeline, including the magnetic behaviour that means overlapping clips slide out of each other’s way – this really is massive and unprecedented, but clearly a design idea created in all its complexity for iMovie before we ever got to see it in FCPX;
b) Connected Clips (a huge concept that ia very radical but is entirely identical across the two apps);
c) Replace Mode (this is idiosyncratically not the same as Replace mode in any other NLE, but is the same in both iMovie and FCPX);
d) Audio and Video linked by default and placed in primary storyline but can be “Detached”;
e) idiosyncratic audio waveform display shared by both apps;
f) adjusting audio levels affects height of waveform (feature not seen anywhere else but shared between the two apps), also the waveform will display audio clipping (identically) when the level is raised too high;
g) handles on audio clips for interactively creating fades;
h) the Precision Editor (this is a big one, again it’s quite an unusual tool but the functionality is virtually identical between the two apps is is the name!);
i) the Range Selector (this is the default selection behaviour in iMovie which doesn’t the In/Out selection option, but the operation of the range selector is clearly functionally identical between the two apps).
I’m sure there are things I’ve missed – the similarities are so many and so deep-rooted it’s hard to remember them all. (That said, there are one or two things about the iMovie implentation of these ideas that I prefer – I was really hoping to see iMovie’s in-context menus in FCPX as I think these are a really elegant time-saver and oddly a much more “modern” approach than the old-fashioned Inspector model reverted to in FCPX. But this is one of the few genuine differences, apart from Secondary Storylines, which I think look to be a relatively recent and inadequately assimilated solution to one of the limitations of iMovie.)
Simon Ubsdell
Director/Editor/Writer
http://www.tokyo-uk.com -
[Jeremy Garchow] “Can’t iMovie export XML? That should pretty much end the conversation, right? They are NOT the same.”
I think if you looked at bit closer at XML export from iMovie you’d see how very limited it is (just read the export dialogue when you try it to see what gets left out, and it’s pretty much everything except the basic cuts). I’d say it’s a pretty safe bet that Apple left this out of FCPX because it looks a bit lame 😉
I reckon it’s stretching your argument pretty thin to try and suggest that the absence of iMovie’s XML export from FCPX is any kind of proof of their fundamental “unconnectedness”!
Simon Ubsdell
Director/Editor/Writer
http://www.tokyo-uk.com -
[David Lawrence] “or there’s this! :)”
Loving your photo of William of Occam! I confess I’d never quite pictured him that angry 😉
Actually I was referencing him because, despite the slightly erroneous way in which he is usually invoked (complexity of theories), I thought his reference to entea (entities) was very apposite in this case.
Don’t postulate separate entities unless necessity demands it.
In this case it seems clear to me that iMovie and FCPX are the same entity, and there is no compelling “necessity” for multiplying entities by postulating that they are fundamentally different.
The onus would be on those who disagree to demonstrate conclusively that they are fundamentally different – at least according to our friend William. And seeing how scary he can be, who would want to take issue with him?!
Simon Ubsdell
Director/Editor/Writer
http://www.tokyo-uk.com -
[Jeremy Garchow] “And as I mentioned before, so what if it was iMovie pro? … should I be ashamed or something?”
This is not the point I was making. I actually think iMovie is a great product and just like FCPX it’s really good fun, and very fast, to edit in.
[Jeremy Garchow] ” I’m just not buying the hype that fcpx = iMovie. It just doesn’t add up to me”
Odd use of the word “hype” in this case – I’m not sure that adherents of this view are marketing anything. Personally, I’d just like to know the truth of the matter as I think it has interesting ramifications for our understanding of where we are with FCPX and how it came into being in the form that it has – which seem to me to be pretty important questions.
But I’d genuinely like to hear a more detailed argument from you as to why it “doesn’t add up” – I don’t think a discussion of what interchange routes are possible (or rather available, which is not at all the same thing) really gets to the root of the issue.
Simon Ubsdell
Director/Editor/Writer
http://www.tokyo-uk.com -
https://www.apple.com/finalcutpro/imovie-to-finalcutpro/
Apple doesn’t mind you thinking they are related, but it’s strange how they aren’t pushing iMovie as a selects tool for clients anywhere in their marketing. It’s a great concept that seems to have been overlooked.
Personally I don’t care if they are related at a code level, it would seem to be a waste of resources if they weren’t. It also doesn’t make me think any less of FCPX if it is.
“My Name is Steve and I’m an FCPX user”
-
[Steve Connor] “https://www.apple.com/finalcutpro/imovie-to-finalcutpro/
Apple doesn’t mind you thinking they are related”
Interesting reading – everything about their language there seems to be telling you that FCPX is iMovie’s big brother. Though no doubt there will be sceptics who’ll tell you that’s just a marketing gimmick to get iMovie users to make the step up!
[Steve Connor] “Personally I don’t care if they are related at a code level, it would seem to be a waste of resources if they weren’t.”
I’d agree about the “waste of resources” point.
I too “don’t care” one way or the other – it doesn’t affect my opinion of FCPX in any way for better or worse and I don’t think it should.
But the reason I think this is an important question (odd that it’s never really been discussed at anything other than an emotional level) is what it may or may not tell us about how long FCPX has been in gestation and how it may or may not have mutated out of iMovie, and indeed why. At what point did someone decide that FCP8 was not going to happen and was that before or after the decision to upgrade iMovie (if that’s what it was)?
OK, so it’s all speculation – but I think it’s interesting speculation.
Simon Ubsdell
Director/Editor/Writer
http://www.tokyo-uk.com -
[Simon Ubsdell] ” At what point did someone decide…”
Hi
Apple (= Steve Jobs) had a big ‘not-for-turning>turning’ moment in early 2007.
Jan 9th 2007. At the iPhone announcement he said:
” ‘You don’t want your phone to be an open platform,’ meaning that anyone can write applications for it and potentially gum up the provider’s network, says Jobs.”May 30th 2007. This was being reported:
Steve Jobs: This is a very important trade-off between security and openness. We want both. We’ve got good ideas, and sometime later this year, we can open it up to third-party apps… “That was a big U-turn moment. Apple Inc going for exponential iOS development rather than as a subset of OS X…
As big a U-turn as Bill Gates’ “Internet Tidal Wave” memo in May 1995, when he binned his proprietary view of world networking (MSN) and embraced the web.
Ubilos showed off iMovie 8 later that year. I guess Ubilos had sole charge of ‘video edit/asset-stripping the Pro Apps’ strategy from that turning point.
-
[Simon Ubsdell] “Honestly, Jeremy, this is a bit disingenuous, isn’t it? You really believe that the only similarities are “visual”???
I do wonder (and I hope you won’t think me rude for asking the question) whether you’ve actually looked at iMovie to see how non-trivial the similarities are and how deeply they relate to function as opposed to mere cosmetics as you seem to be trying to imply.”
I haven’t played with iMovie much, no and it’s not a rude question. My point about AE and PPro having similar interfaces still stands. They have tabs, the organizing is similar, but yet they are completely different apps. Those tabs also stretch across photoshop and illustrator (and the whole Creative Suite).
As I have said before, they share ideologies, but this does not mean that the programs themselves are structured form the same code which is to say that while the method of FCPX stems from iMovie, it does not mean the FCPX the application has been in full development for the same time as iMovie. That is all. I will maintain it’s not iMovie Pro, even if the programs behave similarly. And really, I don’t care. Call it iMovie Pro. If iMovie Pro plugs in to an AJA card, then sweet for me.
If it is written from different code, you have to still make sure that code works, it’s not just copy/paste, add a secondary storyline feature. Do you have experience with working with software developers at all? Not that I am an expert, but I am just wondering if you know how hard it really is and how long something this complex takes. If FCPX and iMovie were the same, why isn’t FCPXML done? It takes a long time to go from concept to production. iMovie was/is the concept.
I hope you know, I am not denying what seems to be similar interfaces and methods, but that link that was sent by Steve Conor seems to point out some really major differences between the apps, including the timelines. They don’t even look similar, I just took you at your word.
And the long list of things you mention, is that what really separates a Pro Application from a consumer one? Audio adjustment? Waveforms? A range? These things do not a Pro application make.
And so what, test it on a million consumers before letting me take a shot at it. Siri is now in the hands of at least 4 million people. Think of the data gathering that will make Siri better, and maybe adaptable for something else that will make my professional life better. I am OK with all of that.
And I like most of the magnetic timeline so I’m weird.
-
[Jeremy Garchow] “And I like most of the magnetic timeline so I’m weird.”
I’m weird too Jeremy
“My Name is Steve and I’m an FCPX user”
Reply to this Discussion! Login or Sign Up