-
FCP X 10.1.2 released…
-
[James Ewart] “That said there does seem to have been a bit of an ongoing back peddle by Apple to more traditional workflows because”
No idea what gives you that notion. I only see logical refinements to what they have been doing since day one. And X’s media management isn’t even that much different than what others are doing. Only arguably better IMHO. But yes, Apple is listening better than ever. No shame in that. But I don’t recognize any “back peddling” by any stretch. The way it is now would have been a god send for us back when I was still working at a broadcasters with multiple networked seats. None of the constant issues we had regularly when it came to sharing, exchange, media management etc. would have ever cropped up.
-
[Craig Alan] “For myself I could bring the original media cards home with me and make a copy on my home system and leave a copy on my work station and then email the xml back and forth as needed.”
First off I would make archives of everything with FCP X and move those around AND import from them. Not only does that give you a (unchangeable) backup, but also let’s you use “Reimport from Camera/Archive” should anything be missing. Then when you set up your library, simply have *everything* stored externally. That way you simply need to transfer the (now very small, manageable) library itself, instead of an XML, which ensures that you aren’t losing anything in translation. If footage is offline in either location, simply use the above command. I’d venture to say that moving e.g. libraries around will be a cinch with the upcoming iCloud Disk, too, btw.
[Craig Alan] “But I can’t think of a way to have the original media for hundreds of projects at two locations. The cloud is just too slow.”
Like I said, I’d archive everything. That’s kinda what it’s for.
[Craig Alan] “If we set up some sort of remote access can the media lab computers log into the studio computers and see media on the attached raids?”
I don’t understand, if “the cloud” is too slow, how a remote connection could be any better? BOTH are limited by the exact same component: your connection speed. But I don’t think either scenario is in any way feasible.
-
I suppose because first they had Projects outside Events and then put Projects into Events where they always should have been and then introducing Libraries in which everything exists is much more like FCP7 (Projects and Bins) than it was when it was launched. Next we will be able to have multiple Projects open at once so we can toggle between them probably. Just like we do in Legacy with Sequences. It’s great that they are listening but it’s so very long. How long to get where we are now? Is it nearly four years?
-
It’s been exactly 3 years as of the 21st. And you clearly don’t know/remember how long legacy FCP needed before it was widely accepted. Roughly FOUR if not FIVE YEARS, so I’d say we’re doing pretty well.
And you’ve been able to easily cycle though any number of projects that you have opened since day one. Be it via the Timeline History buttons or their respective shortcuts. I personally am glad to be rid of the unnecessary screen clutter of tabs. You only need them if you *don’t* have shortcuts or buttons, which legacy in fact never had. So it’s in fact an improvement. Habit ≠ Good or better.
And like I said, you describe what I consider to be a logical progression. Start small and work your way up and make it that much better on the way. I’d say that was the plan from day one, with a little input from users here and there accordingly. But still it all has extremely little to do with how legacy FCP worked. Other than maybe a few optical similarities. If you were a programmer you’d also know how complex such seemingly minute changes are on a coding level.
-
I consider that listening to their customers. I know that 3 of my feature requests have been implemented over the life of the new product. While I have no misconceptions that my requests were unique, it is obvious that Apple’s Pro Dev team are listing to the users’ feedback.
After all, that’s what the “Provide Final Cut Pro Feedback…” application menu item is for 🙂 .
Tim
—
Tim Jones
CTO – TOLIS Group, Inc.
https://www.productionbackup.com
BRU … because it’s the RESTORE that matters! -
Sure. Like I said, they are most definitely listening. But I know for a fact that certain things have been long planned. Features and functions which user feedback has helped further form and optimize in the making, but not create per se, as I stated above. 😉 So yes, feedback is important on every level.
There are certainly some things that were first considered due to feedback. What we will never know for sure. 🙂
Keep in mind that some feature’s stand on their own, other’s require that huge parts of the rest of the app need to be changed/adapted for them to work right consistently, which is why some of the seemingly smallest things will take far more time and effort to implement than you would suspect. One such component e.g. being the underlying XML…
-
“And you clearly don’t know/remember how long legacy FCP needed before it was widely accepted”.
Well that’s another assumption you got wrong.
I took delivery of FCP version 1.2 in the UK. It required four updates until version 1.2.5 until it worked properly in PAL and was, I remember very well, very poorly received because it did not do the job properly. Then when (with about version 3?) Walter Murch used it to cut Cold Mountain it began to be widely adopted and taken seriously.
So yes I find it incredibly frustrating that once again they chose to launch Beta software and it is this long slow journey before the software is widely adopted.
In terms of workflow it has taken them three years to go back to the “Project, Bin, Clip, Sequence” concept that we now have back with “Library, Event, Clip, Project” in FCPX.
And of course (may I remind you I am not a complete moron – your patronising tone Sir, implies you have decided otherwise) I am not a programmer and cannot imagine how complex the task must be to create software like this, but I do wish when they released the software it was “fit for purpose” and properly thought-through in the first place.
It’s great software. It should have been so when it was launched. A few bugs are fair enough. But make us pay for Beta Software without admitting it was Beta software? Bollocks to that.
-
[James Ewart] “In terms of workflow it has taken them three years to go back to the “Project, Bin, Clip, Sequence” concept that we now have back with “Library, Event, Clip, Project” in FCPX. “
Perfect summary. I would have named them: Project (folder), Media (folder), Timeline(s). Cause even a consumer level kid knows the meaning of ‘projects’ and ‘media’. And just about the first thing you learn about editing is you assemble your movie on a timeline.
Then only way ‘events’ make any sense to me is from old school history textbooks that puts events on a timeline.
Of course if BIN is obsolete then FOLDER is too since they are both names of physical storage containers which are not used for these items anymore (except some films are still shot on film). But no one puts media cards or even video tape in a “folder” or a “bin”. Container is more accurate but a bit long.
“Case” would work. PROJECT CASE (THE LIBRARY) – MEDIA CASE(s) (THE EVENT FOLDERs)
It would also lend itself to a lot of punning: nutcase, bad case of, made my case, and if you like library, bookcase.
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.
-
And I thought we were way past the (rather nonsensical IMHO) nomenclature gripe. If semantics is FCP’s biggest problem, then I’d say we’re doin’ pretty well! 😀
-
Yeah why not just call it a bloody timeline.
Reply to this Discussion! Login or Sign Up