FCP X 10.1.2 released…

[Robin S. kurz]

Nice example of something we call “Freudian Projection”. You’re so caught up in your own vitriol…

… but do top it off with the last word. It’s all yours. But don’t bother to use it to substantiate your claims. We’ll just take your good word for it. 😀

[James Ewart]

I’d hate to disappoint you professor. You are the expert (I assume you don’t need me to substantiate that). Not only do you know everything about FCPX but you give clinical psychiatric diagnosis as well. You really are a clever guy – I guess you don’t need me to substantiate that either. 😀

Who is “We” by the way? Is that the “We” that are better and cleverer than everybody else? “We” the intellectual elite? “We” the German nation perhaps? Who? Do tell.

In any event, that my friend is an excellent example of having a narcissistic personality disorder. Or, as WE say, being a twat. ;-D

I won’t take up any more of your time. Your students must be wondering where you are.

[Walter Soyka]

[James Ewart] “Yeah why not just call it a bloody timeline.”

I think there’s a good reason for introducing new terminology. The FCP X magnetic timeline/sequence/project/whatever does not work the same way as traditional editorial open timelines do, and a new word for it underscores the difference.

For me, the biggest terminology hurdle was redefining the existing word “project.”

Walter Soyka
Designer & Mad Scientist at Keen Live [link]
Motion Graphics, Widescreen Events, Presentation Design, and Consulting
@keenlive   |   RenderBreak [blog]   |   Profile [LinkedIn]

[James Ewart]

Thanks Walter. I do kind of get that. It does put people off though in my experience. You think to have retained the old “nomenclature” would have caused much confusion? Is it necessary for us to think about it so differently? Perhaps it is. There may well be a very good reason. I just haven’t figured out how and why yet.

I can’t help thinking occasionally they changed it just to be different and maybe that’s not such a bad thing either.

Anyway I guess Mr Kurz is possibly right in that it is quite an old topic. It’s just is still seems to put people off over here. It’s so much easier to jump into PP and I know so many who have done so and another company who I work for a lot who are changing over to PP as we speak. They looked at Avid, looked at FCPX and decided the simplest switch would be to PP much as I tried to convince them otherwise.

[Robin S. kurz]

[Walter Soyka] “I think there’s a good reason for introducing new terminology. The FCP X magnetic timeline/sequence/project/whatever does not work the same way as traditional editorial open timelines do, and a new word for it underscores the difference.”

Exactly. But in the end it’s still just mere semantics either way. Name them by their name, use the old terminology (where even possible), just call them window or A, B and C. It’s utterly irrelevant and doesn’t make any difference in terms of understanding how FCP X works per se, how to find your way around and use it efficiently, let alone have any bearing on the quality of ones edit. IOW calling it a timeline or a sequence or a project or a window or uncle George has zero bearing on any of it. And as I said, if nomenclature is actually still anyone’s biggest gripe, then X is clearly worlds better than suspected and has obviously come a long way for them to have to try that hard. A rather tired red-herring imho.

That said, pretty much everyone I know simply calls e.g. the project “timeline” at least half the time if not always. As do I. “Problem” solved. Anyone that’s actually confused by that (which they aren’t) obviously doesn’t even know the first thing about NLEs to begin with and won’t last long in any one of them, regardless of nomenclature.

I’d say that horse has been sufficiently flogged. I can think of a plethora of actual things that have actual relevance in the context of usability, that would actually be worth talking about.

[James Ewart]

“Anyone that’s actually confused by that (which they aren’t) obviously doesn’t even know the first thing about NLEs to begin with and won’t last long in any one of them, regardless of nomenclature.”

There you go again Mr Kurz.

[Tim Jones]

Guys,

I won’t want to come across as a net-nanny, but this thread has gone from simple discussion to insults and name calling. Can we please keep the bickering out of the lists? If you guys want to continue berating one another, please take if off-list.

Tim
—
Tim Jones
CTO – TOLIS Group, Inc.
https://www.productionbackup.com
BRU … because it’s the RESTORE that matters!

[Craig Alan]

[Robin S. Kurz] “That said, pretty much everyone I know simply calls e.g. the project “timeline” at least half the time if not always. As do I. “Problem” solved. “

Yes, and everyone here does the same. Even Apple will call it a ‘timeline’ in many of their tutorials/help articles. Because that’s what it is! It may not seem important; but it is. It’s a non-linear editor that allows you to edit in a non-linear way, but its endgame is a linear product. The word “timeline” defines that concept.

I think I might have started at least one branch of this thread or maybe a twig of it. Sorry it got all bent. In any case, I was not claiming that Apple’s poor choice of names for components of their interface was a deal killer. But as an educator you know that ergonomics is important to efficiency. And I have to keep repeating to scores of students, “Timeline, which is called a ‘project’ in FC…” They need to know this not when they are using the app itself (except of course when they need to create a new “project”). But they need to know this in order to read and listen to tutorials on the program. It’s the vocabulary being used and it is important to know. It’s also important to know what the rest of the world calls it so they can use this knowledge in general. In short, the most important skill you can teach students is how to learn. And that often is the ability to decode instructions. And step one of decoding is learning vocabulary.

Having standards in any field or technology has its value. It allows for the use of multiple tools from different sources/companies that work together, increases efficiency, and maximizes value to the end users. Sometimes standards have to change or new ones invented. Changing the name of the ‘timeline’ to ‘project’ was not one of them. Because as video producers, we work on ‘projects’ and need to keep all the assets of our ‘projects’ organized.

Often however, companies use proprietary components in order (they think) to maximize profits. Right now several of the biggest tech companies are at war to dominate major parts of our “digital lifestyle,” by creating self-contained digital ecosystems. Namely: Google, Apple, Adobe.” If instead they would all work together using a set of standards that allow their products to interact seamlessly with each other, we would all win.

FC’s greatest weakness is not what it names things but its lack of integration with the broader media production eco-system. And I do think they are working on this problem and will solve most of it. And their advancing of all forms of metadata will then be a huge step forward. However, I do think that its poor choice of renaming things that did not need renaming was symbolic of a culture that wants to own the entire tool set. And for something as complex as media production, that is not going to happen.

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.

[Robin S. kurz]

[Craig Alan] “And I have to keep repeating to scores of students, “Timeline, which is called a ‘project’ in FC…” “

I get the gist of the point, yes. Got it from the beginning actually. 😉 I’m just saying, at least from the perspective of the students that I have (it’s not my main source of income btw) and various colleagues I collaborate with, that the assertion that you’d have to say “that’s a project” more than once would be insulting their intelligence. You also make it sound as if, if they were called Sequences, you wouldn’t have to say anything or less otherwise.

Of course there are then those that will use the oh-so-tired logical fallacy of bandwagon to appeal to popularity (i.e. “normality”) i.e. the fact that many people do something one way, as a cheap form of validation of that “normality” argument. The flaw in this argument (and I’m not saying you’re making it) is that the popularity of an idea has absolutely zero bearing on its validity. Context is what makes for better or worse… but even then it’s ultimately purely subjective.

Moving to another NLE I’ll just hear students say “Oh, you call that xxx here, okay”. Done. No bizarre philosophical, set-opinionated discussions break out. No brain-twister born, no rocket science.

[Craig Alan] “the most important skill you can teach students is how to learn.”

Very true. And again, once students (or anyone I’ve trained for that matter) has managed to wrap their head around things such as the whole library, event, keyword, favorites, codecs etc. etc. concepts, the least of their problems is whether something is called a PROJECT or not. 🙂 I’ll say “Open the project” as well as “go into the timeline” and both are fully understood after 2 mins. Sure, there are always the ornery “rage against the machine” types (9 out of 10 times of course the ones coming from a different NLE) that insist – because THEY have a problem with it and have their bandwagon as “proof” – that it should be different. Only, being the most impertinent and vocal doesn’t give ones claims any more validity either. 😀

Sure, I had to wrap my head around some of the new terminology, too, and wouldn’t have minded if things stayed the same (as far as they even could have), but… they didn’t… life goes on. Seeing what I have in X, having to put up with such “huge problems” as nomenclature is a small price. 🙂

[Craig Alan] “Namely: Google, Apple, Adobe.” If instead they would all work together using a set of standards that allow their products to interact seamlessly with each other, we would all win. “

If their goal in doing so had any common ground, they might even. But then Google (fortunately) doesn’t make an NLE either (not counting that weird online thing they have) and I’m personally glad to not have *anything* to do with them. But it would also be rather naive to think that the above could ever happen.

[Craig Alan] “its lack of integration with the broader media production eco-system.”

Huh? How so? If anything, then AVID is by far the most closed island out there. They rely near exclusively on their own proprietary standards and formats. So I really don’t see how Apple is in anyway guilty of being less integrated, sorry. Especially since FCPXML is completely open and exponentially more powerful/flexible than e.g. OMF, EDL, AAF etc. IMHO they’re improving the landscape with it and setting the platform for a much *improved* integration. Not sure how it’s Apple’s fault that others refuse to implement it. Comparatively TINY companies have, therefore the motivation by big ones not to support it is pretty obvious if you ask me. And I have to wonder what Adobe’s buying of Automatic Duck was all about, if they (apparently) aren’t tapping into their expertise as exchange experts. Hmmm…

So what are you referring to exactly? And I’m not asking that to be facetious.

[Craig Alan] “However, I do think that its poor choice of renaming things that did not need renaming was symbolic of a culture that wants to own the entire tool set.”

I personally think that’s a gross overstatement, if not a somewhat odd assumption… but you’re entitled to your take. 😉 I think that history has shown many times over, that Apple has a culture of simply doing what they believe to be best/an improvement, yes. Not afraid to try new ally’s and rethink this or that. I find that quite commendable actually. That has lead to (arguably mostly) huge successes and also failures. Jobs once said in an interview (roughly) “We just make what WE think is great and put it out there. If people love it, too, great. If not, oh well. On to the next”. So to suggest there’s some sort or dogma, arrogance or evil ulterior motive behind any of it, as opposed to honest curiosity and desire (and clearly a LOT of courage) to improve matters, is doing them a stark injustice imho. I think their biggest shortcoming is how (if even) they communicate things. Leaving too much up to interpretation and speculation. That will hopefully change in the future for the better.

But “wants to own the entire tool set” in the context of Apple strikes me as somewhat short-sighted. Especially since “owning” the NLE toolset (I’m not entirely sure what that even means) would be of no gain to them in any real sense. And doesn’t that in fact completely contradict what they are doing?? Wouldn’t they in fact not take the “easy way” if that were the ultimate goal? By simply making “FCP 8” and echoing everything everyone else is doing (as everyone else IS) just to appease the masses? We’ll see. I’m pretty sure that FCP will find back to its original “glory”. And that BECAUSE it is different.

[Craig Alan]

Hi Robin,

Any one who needs to discuss/explain/ask about an operation in FC gets caught in the problem of “project” meaning timeline. It was a stupid decision. Any one who has ever done any video editing in any app understands the concept of timeline and therefore “gets it” after the first introduction. New project means new timeline, got it, who cares; or in my case, got it, stupid. Just the same, they then inherit the need to constantly double name almost any time they use project to mean the film vs. project to mean the timeline.

Larry Jordan is perhaps the most successful FC/NLE teacher in the world. I listen to his tutorials. He runs up against this hurdle all the time.

“both are fully understood after 2 mins”

Make that <1 second every time you say project meaning timeline and any where from 1 second to 3 seconds to let the person know you mean the whole package or film you are working on (project might also include multiple versions, promos, ads, teasers, components being sent to other editors).

But aside from this unnecessary lack of ergonomics, there is another issue behind all this. Apple was using terms that they thought a consumer level end user would understand better than the professional terms being used; or put more globally, that was more ‘user friendly’. They were wrong. The more ubiquitous a term is the more someone can catch on to it through exposure. And it sent a mixed message to the pros that maybe Apple had no interest in developing an app that would serve their needs. The jury is still out on that one. Truth is there is no clear winner on this one. So the current mantra is you need to learn whatever you need to use right now and then be able to relearn as the need arises. Avid is dated and in financial trouble. Adobe’s subscription plan means you might, in the future, be unable to access your “projects” and you’d be screwed if you fell behind in payments or if there was a billing error.

[Robin S. Kurz] “[Craig Alan] “its lack of integration with the broader media production eco-system.” Huh? How so? If anything, then AVID is by far the most closed island out there. They rely near exclusively on their own proprietary standards and formats. So I really don’t see how Apple is in anyway guilty of being less integrated, sorry. Especially since FCPXML is completely open and exponentially more powerful/flexible “

Please, Robin. From day one of FCP X release, the film and television industry, who had been using FCP 7 in larger and larger numbers, complained that you could not round trip a FCP X “project” to the sound editors, the colorists, the special effect artists. In other words, even if they could get their heads around the new timeline and even if they really liked the new metadata creation abilities, they could not use the program.

[Robin S. Kurz] “We’ll see. I’m pretty sure that FCP will find back to its original “glory”. And that BECAUSE it is different.”

I agree partially. I think Adobe now has a very strong foothold in the professional NLE world and this will not go away any time soon. Hopefully when FC does catch up, the competition will mean that round tripping will be a given and subscription plans will be modified to include the ability to access old files/projects even if you do not choose to pay for new features. If a FCP 8 suite or self-contained app had been released with 64-bit support, with an updated color app, an updated sound app (logic), the library system we have with 10.1.2, the magnetic timeline with the position tool, the option to open an event viewer, with more mature use of roles, support for A/V out … Adobe might well not have gotten a foothold and AVID might have become a dinosaur.

Apple could have done this. But it was not their priority. It’s not their bread and butter.

However, the writing is on the wall – they are developing apps that beginners and advanced users can use at a price that is a bit high for the consumer but affordable and different but powerful new features for the pros. The jury will decide when the missing pieces are all in place (if they get there) and the market share either continues to expand or doesn’t. The problem for the beginner or consumer level consumer is whether they want to spend the extra cash for features they will most likely never master. I think that’s fine. Any one here use all the features of MS OFFICE? The problem for the pros is whether the program best serves their needs after an initial learning curve. And for the pros will Apple continue to develop this app and whether they will pull the rug out from under them again. Fool me once …

FCP X in my opinion is not that revolutionary. For one simple reason: it produces the same product that every other NLE produces. 99% of the tool set serves the same functions even if they do it with different keystrokes and behavior.

I like the program and I’m all in. Because I’m all in and because it’s my nature and culture to analyze things I use, I have opinions about what works and could work better. Because I am a beginner, I often assume that there is a way of doing something that I haven’t learned yet or a better way of doing something I haven’t learned yet.

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.