-
Email Exchange with Randy Ubillos, FCP X Designer
-
Whoa, whoa…FCPX can’t even import with timecode? Uh, that is bad times for a lot of reality shows…How am I supposed to demarcate where specific dialogue is?
-
The 1.0 argument would make sense, if the new product did not contain the words “Final Cut Pro”. FCP 7 was a very mature product, having been through through numerous upgrades and improvement over it’s 10-yr plus history.
All of a sudden Apple is saying were back to 1.0??? How can anyone take this excuse seriously. Let’s get real. Call it something else and treat it as a 1.0 release. But to call it Final Cut Pro? Please.
-
“But we’re not asking FCX to infer the timeline from the video out. ”
I was only refering that your comment if one can play it then the intent is there.
“The relationships between the Audio and Video are explicit in the FCP timeline. Either the audio is linked with the video, or it is free floating.That’s how it should be carried over. There’s no need to look for further “intent”. And if you want to, you can always link them after the fact, can’t you?
Unless you’re saying there’s no way to put audio in a FCX timeline without linking it to some video. This is not my perception of how FCX works.”I seems as though you misunderstood my whole post. I’m not talking about a video clip’s own audio. I’m talking about all of the other elements, whether they be additional sound: voice over, extra dialogue, music, sound effects; or visual: titles, overlays, inserts, cutaways, etc.
The point I was making is about how these secondary elements connect to the backbone of the edit. I can only infer so much about their relationship from their position in a traditonal timeline. The FCP X timelines contains more information about their intended relationship (which exist mostly in the editor’s head in the case of a traditional timeline). That’s not an opinion that’s a fact. The opinion would be whether it’s a good thing for the intended relashionship to be explicitely spelled out in the edit. I certainly think it is, especially since it does not require any extra effort to make it explicit. If I go back to my timeline weeks later (or after a long weekend) or pass the edit to another editor, it’s much less likely the relationships between those elements will be misinterpreted.
“Do I sometimes grab a section of my FCP timeline and miss a bit of audio? I suppose, but it’s pretty rare. I usually lasso the section I want to move and slide it where I want.”
You wouldn’t even need to lasso in FCP X to move multiple clips. Since the relationships are defined in the timeline, you can just move the base clip. How about you use a slide or slip edit, and that makes a sound effect out of sync with the video? Won’t happen with FCP X either: the connected clips move with their master clip, no matter what tool or method you use. That’s just one example, maybe you never use the slide tool, but no matter what your methods are, there is something to be gained from having a smarter timeline. Some people fear that automating part of the timeline removes power from the editor (dumbsmit down), but that’s bullshit. Since the editor is the one who defines the connections and therefore the behaviour of the timeline, it only means you don’t have to micromanage every last element, saving time and keeping your focus on the essence of the edit. You’re still having frame accurate control over your video (and much more on your audio). I’ve tried to think of an operation where this would lead to unwanted behaviour, but I haven’t found one yet.
I’m pissed off about the whole lot of missing features and Apple’s refusal to present a roadplan. But the changes to the timeline, along with some other changes, certainly makes me positive about the release.
-
Who’s making these absurd claims? I see timecode on the files I import.
People should really examine the program before making claims. -
There’s nothing wrong with innovation and it rightfully will and should be the replacement for FCP7 . . . EVENTUALLY. FCS2009 should not have been pulled. It may take the better part of a year before FCPX reaches feature parity. Apple envisions this as the NEXT Final Cut. It’s just not ready yet.
-
An interesting thread, among the many on this topic.
In response to the low priority of opening legacy projects expressed by Mr. Ubilos I have this point to draw.
My company works with brands, several very large brands with years of footage acquired for each. Not only is it very important to be able to open old projects on a regular basis and share sequences from them towards new projects, it’s absolutely vital to source the logged footage that exists in our legacy library projects. The man hours that goes into the effort of logging the nuances of this footage is a huge investment for us and it vital to serving the brands we create content for. If there is no way to port these logs and sequences of selects strings than migrating to FCPX is a non-starter. It’s not at all about switching programs in mid project, it’s about all the intellectual capital that is organized in a programs architecture that is unable to be mined. So I agree with others that until Apple talks to the pro-users directly and tells us that there will be the ability to import bins and sequences from legacy projects there is no way we can consider this product.
Furthermore, aside from the working speed provided by a 64-bit version of FCP, there is NOTHING that I can’t accomplish creatively with virtually any other NLE application that requires I use FCPX. You shouldn’t be able to watch a professionally produced product and say, that looks like FCPX. I can solve any problem I need to with what ever tool I use, it will just be a different approach. I don’t see how FCPX as made any other tool I could use obsolete. Therefore cutting off legacy project and product support is a very arrogant move on Apple’s part. I can find a tool that will open my important legacy libraries, it just isn’t apparently FCPX.
-
I like FCPX but I’m certainly sympathetic to your situation because I have the same issue. I have corporate videos and local cable spots that clients request revisions on going back a number of years.
At some point FCP7 will break due to changes in OS and/or hardware and I will no longer be able to revise those projects unless either Apple provides import or I move to another NLE.
Keep in mind Randy Ubillos said it wasn’t’ a priority, not that it wouldn’t happen. Apparently it’s not something they thought the first release would need. It’s not mission critical at the moment because I can still use FCP7 for that but some of may face the crossroads as soon as Lion arrives. At that point one will not be able to buy a Snow Leopard Mac and another FCS2009 seat. Apple has allowed for no transition period apparently.
-
We all know the only real dongle for FCP is a Mac. Maybe we could even get them to unlock already owned systems to be copied legally on any computer you or your company owns, dunno but extra seats will likely be available for quite some time on ebay I’ll wager.
Maybe they’ll update it fast enough that we don’t have to wait until FCP 7 just doesn’t run anymore. In the presentation they said they’d be updating it faster than before.
There is a roadmap I’m sure, and they will be adding or a third party will supply software to do what we must. If there’s a market, somebody is going to fill it. Some think it will be FCP’s competition. Some don’t. We’ll see. I like much of what I see in X. 64 bit, background renders et all. Facial recognition might even be in the cards with this new platform, they have it in the photo apps already… And that’s what it is a new platform. For starters, there has to be XML in the code of FCP X or Automatic Duck couldn’t have latched on to it… I believe they had that for sale within hours of FCP X’s release.
I seriously believe waiting and playing around with X for the cost of a nice dinner for 4 is a good idea if you can. And most can. For how long will be up to Apple, they say it will be faster. We’ll see eh?
Jerry
Apple Certified Trainer, Producer, Writer, Director Editor, Gun for Hire and other things. I ski. My Blog: https://blogs.creativecow.net/Jerry-Hofmann
Current DVD:
https://store.creativecow.net/p/81/jerry_hofmanns_final_cut_system_setup8-Core 3.0 Intel Mac Pro, Dual 2 gig G5, AJA Kona SD, AJA Kona 2, Huge Systems Array UL3D, AJA Io HD, 17″ MBP, Matrox MXO2 with MAX – Cinema Displays I have a 22″ that I paid 4k for still working. G4 with Kona SD card, and SCSI card.
-
I don’t mind learning new software, although I have better things to do with my time, honestly, and it’s a bit of a hassle. In fact, there’s stuff I need to put off or not do if I must re-learn an application. Always pissed me off that they changed the Compressor interface with every iteration, or DVD SP, for that matter.
Anyway, I can deal with that.
If FCP-X will not allow for opening old FCP projects down the road, though, that’s quite serious. I have years worth of old material that I need to go back to on a regular basis.
I have been Apple’s biggest loyalist, apologist and evangelist for a long, long time, but I will move on faster than a thunderbolt if they can’t fix this. For about it being insensitive to real world needs and arrogant, in general. It’s just plain stupid.
-
I don’t mind learning new software, although I have better things to do with my time, honestly, and it’s a bit of a hassle. In fact, there’s stuff I need to put off or not do if I must re-learn an application. Always pissed me off that they changed the Compressor interface with every iteration, or DVD SP, for that matter.
Anyway, I can deal with that.
If FCP-X will not allow for opening old FCP projects down the road, though, that’s quite serious. I have years worth of old material that I need to go back to on a regular basis.
I have been Apple’s biggest loyalist, apologist and evangelist for a long, long time, but I will move on faster than a thunderbolt if they can’t fix this. For about it being insensitive to real world needs and arrogant, in general. It’s just plain stupid.
Reply to this Discussion! Login or Sign Up