-
FCP X and the Future of Editing
-
[Bill Davis] “I’m still astonished at the rigidity of the group who simply can’t be happy with a world where there are THREE major editors that all work nearly the same, traditional way – and have to push back at every opportunity to belittle the ONE software approach that gives a user the choice of a different organizational structure. You all just can’t have been THAT hurt by the discontinuation of Legacy can you? So much that way more than a year later you’re still pissed? Wow. Personally, I’m actually having more fun editing than ever! Largely because X makes it simply more enjoyable. I’m working faster, I have the ability to try things with impunity since there’s no big render penalty any longer – and I’m able to comp, deploy and get feedback faster than at any time in my career.”
I am sincerely glad that FCPX works for you. But it doesn’t work for me, and I think it could be a lot better for both of us than it is today.
I learned my lesson from the PIOP thing — I don’t want to suggest any features for FCPX that will break what’s good about it. You shouldn’t have to hate FCPX so I can like it. For all the credit Apple has gotten for their forward-thinking, both in this article and all over this forum, this latest release of FCPX has shown a startling lack of curatorial courage.
Since we apparently have to be very careful what we wish for, now I want SIOPs instead of PIOPs, so FCPX doesn’t lose user data by design, but also so that FCPX ranges still work as originally intended. Despite my grousing about the self-collapsing timeline, I don’t really want to undo the magnetic timeline. I want to “plus” it. Add David Lawrence’s multiple primaries, and we can all enjoy magnetism where it works better, and tracks where it doesn’t — and it’s all compatible with the parent/child data model.
I’m not really upset that Legacy is gone; in retrospect, I didn’t realize how poorly it worked for me. The FCP7 EOL and FCPX launch was a bit of a wake-up call for me (and, it seems, the industry at large).
I’m now looking for an NLE that fits my editorial needs as well as Ae fits my graphical ones. Premiere is my go-to NLE today, and it’s working nicely for me, but it’s far from perfect (lack of proper native intermediate codec, abysmal media management, close-but-no-cigar finishing capabilities, limited interchange outside of the suite, schizophrenic track targeting, miscellaneous UI gotchas). FCPX’s strengths don’t really suit my work, so it’s of limited value to me; likewise with Media Composer. After a couple months off, I’m working hard at Smoke again, and I think it has a lot of potential for my work, but I will need a lot of practice before I could work faster there than I could in Ae/Pr, and even then, I think it will supplement but not replace my existing toolset.
[Bill Davis] “The OP in the original article pretty much gave cogent reasons for his opinions. Whats the point of arguing that he shouldn’t like what he likes? That just seems silly.”
The article wasn’t positioned as an opinion piece about software the author liked; it was another in a line of technically inaccurate, Only Apple Innovates, Newer Is Better, FCPX Is The Future analyses that wraps up a speed-editing challenge comparing FCPX to FCP7 instead of Pr CS6.
I actually agree with Mr. Leitner’s main point: Apple is the only one who has completely rethought the editorial paradigm from the ground up. I just don’t think that means that Apple is the only NLE developer that’s forward-looking. Smoke 2013 offers a re-imagined editorial/FX/compositing workflow; Adobe Anywhere shows a new approach to collaboration.
[Bill Davis] “The only thing WEIRD about that is that it makes those who hate the software so deeply have to confront the fact that the tool – as it stands right now – satisfies an ever widening swath of editors. Sooner or later, some of you are going to have to drop all the angst and simply deal with that reality. But I’m not holding my breath. ; )”
What does “dealing with that reality” mean? I have an academic interest in how FCPX appeals to “an ever widening swath of editors,” but I have a personal interest in how it appeals to me.
If there weren’t things to like in FCPX, I don’t think there’d be any angst. I think it’s like Tim W. mentioned in the other thread — it’s not just about what FCPX actually is; it’s still a bit about what we had each hoped it would be.
Walter Soyka
Principal & Designer at Keen Live
Motion Graphics, Widescreen Events, Presentation Design, and Consulting
RenderBreak Blog – What I’m thinking when my workstation’s thinking
Creative Cow Forum Host: Live & Stage Events -
[Franz Bieberkopf] “My favourite part was this though (and it was hard to choose):
“As an NLE designer today, where would you draw the line between professional and nonprofessional? Which features would you include or deny?”
This is the real point – aren’t we all NLE designers? Haven’t the old distinction been creatively disrupted? Isn’t there a bit of the “Pro” Software Designer in all of us? In short, why rely on the professionals at Apple when there’s been such dramatic democratization of the tools and resources?”
I’ve been giving this a bit of thought, and the author poses a very interesting question.
If you were designing an NLE from scratch, what would your design philosophy be?
Walter Soyka
Principal & Designer at Keen Live
Motion Graphics, Widescreen Events, Presentation Design, and Consulting
RenderBreak Blog – What I’m thinking when my workstation’s thinking
Creative Cow Forum Host: Live & Stage Events -
[Walter Soyka] “If you were designing an NLE from scratch, what would your design philosophy be?”
It’s absolutely a valid question. In fact, it’s THE QUESTION in this whole ongoing debate. Apple clearly chose to set out in a very “non-standard” direction in the belief that the “standard” direction was no longer suited for a file-based production world. Whether or not that’s really true is highly debatable. Maybe they just wanted to shake things up and thought they were being innovative, rather than really worry if their approach was best suited or not. We may never know, nor does it really matter.
I would point out that a lot of folks around here keep answering some of the objections to the design with “look how many years it took to get to FCP7”. The truth of the matter is that the core design and most of the organization and editing features were in place at FCP 1 or 2. The rest were feature additions, codecs and stability fixes. By that measure, what we see today is about where FCP X will sit for a while. Maybe some additional features, like a mixer, but don’t expect to see huge changes from what’s there now.
It’s my belief after batting these questions around – and in doing real work with X – that Apple set out with a design philosophy of creating a more-malleable, “platform-style” application. If you want to make it a news/server-oriented tool, add ABC add-ons. Want to make it a film-oriented tool, add XYZ. And so on. By design, this means many workflow essentials are left out and in fact will probably never be added by Apple.
It also means there are some core limitations in structure and design that make it unsuited for some productions without significant workarounds (IMHO). I don’t see that changing. If you like it today – great! Apple designed something that fits for you. If you don’t like it today, move on – as it may never be the tool that’s best for you.
In my own workflows, I’ve found it to be a good tool for some types of projects, but I’ve come to the conclusion that it will never be the best tool for all of the work I do. I did have that feeling about FCP7. For me, the multi-NLE approach seems to be something I’m struck with from here on for a while.
– Oliver
Oliver Peters Post Production Services, LLC
Orlando, FL
http://www.oliverpeters.com -
[Walter Soyka] “If you were designing an NLE from scratch, what would your design philosophy be?”
Storyboard.
jPo
“I always pass on free advice — its never of any use to me” Oscar Wilde.
-
[Walter Soyka] “it’s not just about what FCPX actually is; it’s still a bit about what we had each hoped it would be.”
Here we agree, Walter.
But I’m still of the opinion that theres a rigid and loud class of the “hurt” =still angry because they so deeply hoped that it would be “legacy with improvements” that they STILL can’t get over the emotional burden of loss and see the software for what it is – rather than what they so fervently hoped it would be.
I’m all for analysis and critique of the program as it currently exists – and you’ve added a LOT of value to that discussion.
I’m just tired of the same hand full of people trying so VERY hard to make the reality of X align with their emotional anger about their personal “loss.”
At some point, it’s time to move on from that. And I keep hoping that when we see article for or against it – we’ll start to get something OTHER than the same voices so deeply desperate to pick it apart.
If they had significant reasoned thinking to back up their opinions, I’d defer. But most of the time it just seems to me that the heaviest criticism still comes from those who don’t spend time with nor understand the program very well.
Unless somebody pushes back against the tide of the whiners – I’m afraid we’ll have MORE pressure to “fix” what isn’t wrong with it – and we’ll get MORE of the PIOP vs SIOP hassles where to calm down those are constantly struggling with their sense of loss – we get sops to their feelings that aren’t as well thought out as they might be.
People (and companies) typically make WORSE decisions under pressure than they do when given time to refine and reflect prior to acting.
True of people. True of big companies as well, I suspect.
FWIW.
Know someone who teaches video editing in elementary school, high school or college? Tell them to check out http://www.StartEditingNow.com – video editing curriculum complete with licensed practice content.
-
[Walter Soyka] “If you were designing an NLE from scratch, what would your design philosophy be?”
Well, if I wanted to build a sustainable business around it – the answer would be simple.
First I’d gather some REAL data on what the market is and where it’s likely going.
Using that data, I’d figure out what the largest potential market would be in the future where I could satisfy the greatest number of potential customers.
Then I’d build a product designed to meet the majority of their needs at the most affordable price possible.
I’d make it modular – upgradable – extensible – and built on the most modern technological underpinnings possible, even if I had to jettison internal technology that has worked in the past, but is in decline in the modern era.
In other words, I’d design it for the present and the future – and not worry overmuch about the past.
I’d balance a “walled garden” approach in the general interface so that people would acclimate to it and approach the use of the program with consistency – and make sure that around that garden there are lots of ways to innovate significantly and rapidly without tearing down the core of the program and requiring my users to re-learn that core.
If my extensible capabilities were rich enough – then I’d rely on the market to address smaller niche markets while I’d concentrate on improving the core.
Which all kinda describes exactly what I think Apple did with X.
FWIW.
Know someone who teaches video editing in elementary school, high school or college? Tell them to check out http://www.StartEditingNow.com – video editing curriculum complete with licensed practice content.
-
[Walter Soyka] “Since we apparently have to be very careful what we wish for, now I want SIOPs instead of PIOPs, so FCPX doesn’t lose user data by design, but also so that FCPX ranges still work as originally intended.”
Walter, I got into this a bit with Jeremy in another thread and was wondering about your opinion. I would argue that selecting ranges and marking In (and/or) Outs are very different editorial intentions. I believe oversimplifying/overloading the range selection UI is the reason so many users clamored for PIOPs in the first place, and why PIOPs are now a mess.
Rather than try to add force a range selection UI to have marker-like functions, wouldn’t it be easier to design a special flavor of markers specifically for In (and/or) Out points? Folks who just want to use the range tool could ignore them. Folks who like marking Ins/Outs would have them as an additional tool. I see no reason why it couldn’t be implemented in a way that works for everyone.
_______________________
David Lawrence
art~media~design~research
propaganda.com
publicmattersgroup.com
facebook.com/dlawrence
twitter.com/dhl -
I read an article about how the Autodesk team went about redesigning the Smoke interface. They sat a lot of experienced editors in front of Smoke and watched them try to edit something without any pre training. They said how painful it was to watch experienced story tellers struggle with the interface and set about redesigning the UI to something that was familiar yet powerful.
Unless you were targeting a different market then designing an NLE that lacked many of the basic conventions of editing UI without involving experienced editors would be silly.
-
[Bill Davis] “Using that data, I’d figure out what the largest potential market would be in the future where I could satisfy the greatest number of potential customers.”
So you’d build an NLE geared for easy adaption by consumers? 😉
-
[Oliver Peters] “In my own workflows, I’ve found it to be a good tool for some types of projects, but I’ve come to the conclusion that it will never be the best tool for all of the work I do. I did have that feeling about FCP7. For me, the multi-NLE approach seems to be something I’m struck with from here on for a while.”
I’m in the same place. 7 seemed to solve all of my problems, and I’d hoped that it would eventually take over the world. Now I’m bouncing back and forth between Avid and Premiere (and 7), and see that as being the way it will be for some time to come. I don’t really mind, and have found the whole venture broadening, but yes–there was a simplicity to being settled on a single NLE. Of course, before FCP it wasn’t that way for me. I had to move around between all kinds of systems, and was fairly used to that. So maybe my complacency with FCP was actually a kind of trap.
Reply to this Discussion! Login or Sign Up