-
FCP X Design Influences
-
[Bret Williams] “I think the single screen mode is great if you’re having to edit on a laptop though.
“Since we’re talking about design influences, this has to be near the top of the list.
Because it’s the COW, we tend to talk more about things like multiple monitors and towers and such, but Apple has always pressed the advantages of FCP for laptops. As well they should. Both the 13″ laptop and the iMac are their bestselling form factors, of course.
The emphasis on laptop editing goes back to the very beginning, where the first advertising images of FCP were with a laptop and a DV camera. That was ALWAYS the point, that you DON’T need heavy iron.
(Worth remembering: Steve bought Final Cut to run on as a consumer app on iMacs when Adobe refused to sell him Premiere! The rest has been a happy bonus.)
Apple’s laptop-focused imagery continues into FCPX, where, as you point out, Bret, it may be even more germane today. When Apple wants to underscore the intimate connection between FCPX works and Alexa, what’s the picture they use? A laptop.
-
[Tim Wilson] “Because it’s the COW, we tend to talk more about things like multiple monitors and towers and such, but Apple has always pressed the advantages of FCP for laptops. As well they should. Both the 13″ laptop and the iMac are their bestselling form factors, of course.”
I wonder if a number of folks on the pro side of things are now “over” the initial enthusiasm of the FCPX design. Things like dual screens and dual viewers are for many just simply a better way to work. Are many – who are otherwise happy with X – still wishing that Apple would adopt some of the more widely accepted conventions?
When Apple revived dual viewers in FCPX, they really took an kluge approach. They didn’t really do dual viewers at all, but simply split the existing source/timeline toggle of the unified viewer in two. You have none of the functionality of a source viewer that you do in any other NLE.
– Oliver
Oliver Peters Post Production Services, LLC
Orlando, FL
http://www.oliverpeters.com -
[Oliver Peters] “I wonder if a number of folks on the pro side of things are now “over” the initial enthusiasm of the FCPX design. Things like dual screens and dual viewers are for many just simply a better way to work.”
I wonder every bit as much about the opposite: are there people who’ve lived the 2-monitor life who’ve now switched to single monitors because FCPX works better there (even though it obviously works well enough on 2).
I found Don’s observation on this count very interesting:
[Don Walker] “When using Premiere, I really want to be in a 2 screen layout. In FCPX, (where I spend 90% of my time) I feel most comfortable on my 27” iMac in a single screen environment. “
That makes sense. Premiere can work on one monitor, but may be better on 2. FCPX can work on 2 monitors, but may be better on one.
I’ll leave this part of the debate to the folks like you and Don who are actually using both (unlike, say, me, who uses neither LOL), but the sly part of me can’t help thinking that this is the heart of The Apple Way. “US adapt to how YOU want to do things? Silly boy. Here’s how YOU will adapt to how WE want you to do things.”
Again noting that the 2-screen approach that so many people used so productively was a detour in FCP/X’s original, and now-restored, vision as a unified, 1-screen experience.
This is really another aspect of Apple’s intent from the beginning to emphasize laptops as the primary ideal environment for FCP I just mentioned. In that context, I was talking about the liberation from heavy iron as a CPU thing, but its just as much about making liberation from multiple monitors an explicit design goal.
Looping back to Don’s experience as an example of using tools most effectively in the contexts that each was designed for….and in the case of FCPX, designing it SO thoroughly for one monitor that it can be kind of annoying on two. The application TELLS you that it was designed for one monitor.
-
[Tim Wilson] “That makes sense. Premiere can work on one monitor, but may be better on 2. FCPX can work on 2 monitors, but may be better on one. “
I find that neither and both statements are true. On both NLEs I have workspaces/layouts that are both single and dual screen configurations based on the task at hand. I frequently switch among multiple layouts – both single and dual screen in the course of a day. This is even more true with the default workspaces that Adobe set up in PProCC2015. The Assembly workspace is very much like the FCPX single-screen design.
[Tim Wilson] ” but the sly part of me can’t help thinking that this is the heart of The Apple Way. “US adapt to how YOU want to do things? Silly boy. Here’s how YOU will adapt to how WE want you to do things.””
Of course. That’s the essence of Apple.
– Oliver
Oliver Peters Post Production Services, LLC
Orlando, FL
http://www.oliverpeters.com -
[Tim Wilson] “I wonder every bit as much about the opposite: are there people who’ve lived the 2-monitor life who’ve now switched to single monitors because FCPX works better there (even though it obviously works well enough on 2).
“I am happy on one. But if I’m honest I would rather have an entire monitor for the browser a lot of the time..
-
[Oliver Peters] “I find that neither and both statements are true.”
If you see anything I say that is ONLY true, assume that my account has been hacked or that I have been possessed by pods from outer space. LOL
-
I like the single viewer approach much more than the dual views for non multicam editing. Back 20+ years ago when I was editing in linear suites, we only really looked at one monitor. The I square (CMX terminology) would switch between record machine and switcher, and the switcher would switch between sources, (on the ME that was controlled by the editor). Though we had other source monitors in the room (small B&Ws for the VTR’s) we really didn’t need them, because the majority of our focus was on the main edit monitor. I think that FCPX emulates that approach, and I prefer it. I do understand however that for ganging purposes you need the 2nd viewer, but I find the 1 viewer approach much more efficient.
In fact, if somebody can tell me how to make PP emulate that feature, I would be much more likely to spend more time on Premiere!don walker
texarkana, texasJohn 3:16
-
[Don Walker] “In fact, if somebody can tell me how to make PP emulate that feature, I would be much more likely to spend more time on Premiere!”
Under CC2015, use the Assembly workspace. It tabs the source and record views into a single viewer.
– Oliver
Oliver Peters Post Production Services, LLC
Orlando, FL
http://www.oliverpeters.com -
I spent 11 years at a fixed desk in an office. I had everything arranged perfectly. Program and Preview monitors, scopes, audio mixer to the left. Big CD Buyout library to the right. Hang up cork board to the left of the mixer for storyboards if I needed to reference visuals. It was my bespoke editing space. Probably about 10 x12 so 120 sq ft. Then came X. Program, preview, scopes And audio PLUS the cork board are all-on screen. (Addressing the corkboard, I import the agency storyboard frames into the Project as stills – keyword them as “storyboard” – and a click brings it into the browser. Bye, bye 4x 5 foot of needed wall space.)
CDs are gone, replaced by downloads.
I have my MacBook Pro – one portable drive – and an external ASUS USB 3 widescreen external monitor in my briefcase, but only pull it out for client sessions.
In the past week, I’ve edited parts of the same gig on a living room table, A coffee shop table, In my car (quick change and client upload) and on a 4 foot segment of my old desk area – but unlike in the past, I didn’t use ANY of the rest of the physical space I used to depend on. So why pay for it? It’s a big reason I just did a studio clearance sale and shed most of my gear.
The team for this video stretches from Florida to Phoenix to San Diego – literally spanning the US – and there’s nothing regarding workspace or infrastructure that I still need from my studio space to effectively get my work done.
As a preference, studios are fine. They are just no longer a necessity to do my kind of work. And modern laptop editing is at the core of this. YMMVKnow 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.
-
[Bill Davis] “As a preference, studios are fine. They are just no longer a necessity to do my kind of work. And modern laptop editing is at the core of this. YMMV
“Mobility is great and I love the flexibility of being able to edit anywhere, but I still love my 2 x 23″ cinema displays, studio monitor and reference speakers in the office.
Reply to this Discussion! Login or Sign Up