-
Evidence of XML Importer Found in Final Cut Pro X
-
“Those “traditional tracks” Apple thinks are such dinosaurs map directly onto physical tracks. We need to be able to put music on tracks one and two, VO on three and foley and effects on four through eight. We require the ability to assign different tracks to different output channels, so the tape master that goes to the network meets their delivery specs.”
Disagree. Legacy FCP could support a 1:1 relationship between tracks in the timeline and tracks in the output, but it wasn’t a given. You had to set up the sequence settings and define what output each track was gong to map to. There is no reason this can’t also be done in FCPX. Look at an audio element in the Inspector, and you can assign its tracks roles (though I say there aren’t enough options here). Ultimately the tracks in that audio are being fed to virtual buses that will handle it a certain way. The difference is the removal of hard tracks in the FCPX timeline allows for more flexible handling of audio that still maps to specific output busses. That’s the whole point of the Magnetic Timeline- collisions can be avoided when you abstract the role of the media from its physical placement in the timeline.
“Well Apple, love you guys, but we use traditional, track-based timelines for a reason. Ever had a project so organizationally complex you needed twenty tracks of video just to keep it straight? I have. So’s every editor who’s ever done even a reasonable-sized project. And it’s not just organizational convenience, either. “
Weak argument. 20 video layers as a form of organization sounds more like a workaround than best practice to me. Just because the limits of legacy FCP lent themselves to certain methods doesn’t make those methods good, only familiar.
I’m not saying FCPX is ready for primetime, but I see a lot of knee-jerk reactions like this out there that only prove the user didn’t approach the new editing metaphor with an open mind or an interest in learning it. If you go looking for a reason to hate something, you’ll almost always be successful.
Best,
Andy RichardsVP of Product Development
Keeper Technology -
And I think trackless will make doing lots of layers MUCH EASIER to manage. Shots are either individually connected to the Primary Storyline OR They relate to each other as a Secondary Storyline which has a connection to the Primary Storyline. These are the two ways tracks/layers have been used yet previously there was no Connection to the master track. Everything was independent and one had to grab parts of track upon track to move things or make changes and maintain relationships.
It’s precisely the trackless Connected Clip and Secondary Storyline that will make such layering very easy. It can then be Compounded LOGICALLY as needed so one can open and work in the Compounds as separate workspaces . . . yet remain connected to the Primary Storyline.
In some ways this change is similar to the move to nodal based compositing (at least in being a radical but improved workflow) and yet this trackless method may be a bit more intuitive for many (my personal judgement only).
-
okedoke – i like his style of writing tho, really fluid ranty, but nice and light and conversational at the same time. Also, I personally find many of his observations pretty compelling and I pretty much agree with him
http://www.ogallchoir.net
promo producer/editor.grading/motion graphics -
“We need to be able to put music on tracks one and two, VO on three and foley and effects on four through eight. We require the ability to assign different tracks to different output channels, so the tape master that goes to the network meets their delivery specs.””
And to add to Andrew’s comments, this will all be handled in metadata.
Have you looked at Audio Role?
You can select music, effects, dialogue. It’s nascent as they need to add Voice Over and probably a custom field but this will all mean that audio function assignments can happen. The function is directly assigned. Tracks were always a workaround for the functions we’d really want to assign directly to media. The track was a poor person’s keyword as it were. Track 1 was X, Track 2 was Y, etc. Now X and Y, etc. are assigned to the media directly. This allows for much more complex and flexible relationships.FCPX is like taking the old Spreadsheet rigid paradigm and moving it into a much more powerful Relational Database. People don’t get the power behind it yet because FCPX isn’t taking full advantage of it yet.
-
ah yeah sure I mean look – on some level I’m just looking at that thing, I played with that thing, and I don’t buy it; I don’t think my lack of perception or understanding of the proposed methodology is the issue here – I have a brain in place, it is moist and functioning, I think i Grok at this point where FCPX wants to go with it, and, on a fundamental level, I don’t buy it. I look at the editing system that preceeded it, the editing systems around it then I look at FCPX and I just don’t buy it. Its a consumer app. Even if the methodology in it has within in it the potential for a generational quantum leap in the art of editing, a blinding set of insights that bounded fully formed from the mind of Randy Ubillos alone, with about four testers or whatever (do we all think there were enough betatesters for this system?) even if I’m fundamentally wrong, even if I don’t get it, I don’t think it matters – I think this software is toast professionally – I know Chris Kenny is going to jump up and down on my brainpan now for spreading FUD..
But: Nobody is going to buy what Randy is selling, because they are going to be pretty convinced, as I am, that he made this software for consumers. FCP7 will be gone from all broadcast environments it currenty resides in within the next 12 months. They are not going to replace it with FCPX, no way josé, no way no how, that would be like buying your car from a crazy guy who tells you he might have to take it back at some future point without warning. Its not going to happen. FCP7 is EOL – FCPX is unfit for purpose – Apple have shown themselves to a crazily unreliable software vendor = FCP is toast.And would you look for gods sake I ranted again – I should go back up to asking stupid questions about premiere – which doesn’t look half bad actually. weirdly close to FCP really, the timeline is the spitting image of it. It has a viewer!
http://www.ogallchoir.net
promo producer/editor.grading/motion graphics -
[Aindreas Gallagher] “And would you look for gods sake I ranted again – I should go back up to asking stupid questions about premiere – which doesn’t look half bad actually. weirdly close to FCP really, the timeline is the spitting image of it. It has a viewer!”
Well considering Premiere was Randy Ubillos’ old project prior to KeyGrip-cum-FCP, it stands to reason it would bear a striking resemblance. And while Randy wasn’t there for the big shift to Premiere Pro back in 2003, copying the successful FCP UI since then to rise to credibility after its own scorched-earth rewrite also makes sense.
Your contention is essentially that the computer-based video editing UI metaphor invented in the early 1990s remains the ideal for all visual storytelling. Only time will tell if you are right.
Best,
Andy RichardsVP of Product Development
Keeper Technology -
well yes, that is precisely correct. editing software has remained largely the same, 3D software, when you think about it, has remained the same both in how it exposes functionality – four up view – transform and manipulation tools – and the degree of functionality it exposes – a lot.
Saying the same as the 1990s side steps an inescapable point – the software looks the same because the professional editing environment, no more than the professional 3D environment, or indeed the professional print environment, have complex requirements, exposing functionality for the artist to deliver across multiple markets and output mediums in a high pressure environment – that is what maintains the complexity of the software and the tried and tested conceptual underpinnings of the software it self: multiple tracks, a source, a viewer, all of these things have real world counterparts, and all of them predate the editing software itself. Placed within the software, they are the distillation of hard won thought.
It is, I would argue, the height of mind blowing hubris for apple to flush all of this down the toilet in search of ever more of the consumer market.
http://www.ogallchoir.net
promo producer/editor.grading/motion graphics -
I thought this was pretty accurate though (not to mention fairly hilarious):
Anyway, let’s sum up project organization in FCP X: It’s apocalyptically bad. Seriously. It’s like the program was specifically and maliciously designed to make it hard to do even the most basic tasks, like sorting your shots into bins so you can find things. Yes, Apple’s apparent philosophy is that human beings shouldn’t sort things; computers should sort things. Human beings should just tell the computer what we want. And if the computer had perfect knowledge, that’d work fine. But the computer won’t ever have perfect knowledge, and if it did, the editor wouldn’t. How many times have you been working on a corporate piece, say, and you’re cutting together interview bites from multiple subjects? Do you ever know the subjects’ names? Hell no. It’s just “this guy with the glasses,” “that girl with the bad haircut,” “that cool chap in the bow tie.” Do you want to have to sit down and methodically tell your editing system which shots have the guy with glasses and which have the girl with the hair? No, you don’t. You just want to throw shit in bins, then browse through them to find the shots you want.
Both Avid and Final Cut Pro (the old one) work on the core principle of putting shit in piles. You can make as many piles as you want, easily, and you can put shit in them. This goes there, that goes there. Easy and quick.
FCP X is based on the core principle that you’re a goddamn librarian. Every shot on your system has to have its own Dewey decimal number, and its own card in the card catalogue. Yes, once you completely and thoroughly annotate every f***ing frame in the three-hundred-and-seventy hours of rushes that go into your show, I’m sure FCP X will do a yeoman’s job of finding what you want for you, as long as you, yourself, remember how things were annotated. But if you just want to put shit in piles and then find it again by browsing, like every editor in the universe does, FCP X will fight you tooth and nail every step of the way.
Alex Hawkins
Canberra, Australia -
[Andrew Richards] “The difference is the removal of hard tracks in the FCPX timeline allows for more flexible handling of audio that still maps to specific output busses. That’s the whole point of the Magnetic Timeline- collisions can be avoided when you abstract the role of the media from its physical placement in the timeline.”
This is indeed where the power of FCPX lies. Sure, it’s got a limited feature set at the moment, but the potential for the future is huge. Those who want to write it of as a consumer product (i.e. iMovie Plus), are being incredibly closed minded.
Reply to this Discussion! Login or Sign Up