-
FCP X Design Influences
-
BTW – since we are talking about UI design, I’m not sure how many here have seen the new Lightroom import module. A complete step backwards bordering on POS. It’s adopted a very “dumbed down” iOS style, which doesn’t match any other CC interface nor the rest of Lightroom. Plus it’s a lot slower and less intuitive. I’m not sure what Adobe was thinking, but there’s an example of making a huge change that doesn’t work. FCPX’s change worked – for better or worse – precisely because they cut the chord.
Oliver
Oliver Peters Post Production Services, LLC
Orlando, FL
http://www.oliverpeters.com -
[Oliver Peters] ” It’s adopted a very “dumbed down” iOS style, which doesn’t match any other CC interface nor the rest of Lightroom.”
[Oliver Peters] “I’m not sure what Adobe was thinking, but there’s an example of making a huge change that doesn’t work. FCPX’s change worked – for better or worse – precisely because they cut the chord.”
Do you think it might have anything to do with their recent focus on mobile apps for iOS?
_______________________
David Lawrence
art~media~design~research
propaganda.com
publicmattersgroup.com
https://lnkd.in/Cfz92F
facebook.com/dlawrence
twitter.com/dhl
vimeo.com/dlawrence/albums -
“Do you think it might have anything to do with their recent focus on mobile apps for iOS?”
I do and that concerns me. If they implement this approach across the board, it will be contrary to what Adobe users like about their apps. Of course look is one thing, but a performance drop is inexcuseable.
Oliver
Oliver Peters Post Production Services, LLC
Orlando, FL
http://www.oliverpeters.com -
“[Oliver Peters] ” It’s adopted a very “dumbed down” iOS style, which doesn’t match any other CC interface nor the rest of Lightroom.”
[Oliver Peters] “I’m not sure what Adobe was thinking, but there’s an example of making a huge change that doesn’t work. FCPX’s change worked – for better or worse – precisely because they cut the chord.”
[David Lawrence] Do you think it might have anything to do with their recent focus on mobile apps for iOS?”
No, our decision was based on a number data points and customer input, but obviously the greater customer feedback has been negative and we are looking at addressing this as soon as possible.
Dennis – Adobe guy
-
[Dennis Radeke] “No, our decision was based on a number data points and customer input, but obviously the greater customer feedback has been negative and we are looking at addressing this as soon as possible”
Hopefully it gets fixed fast. I would suggest that if this sort of change were to be made in Premiere, you’d lose a lot of the gains you have made.
– Oliver
Oliver Peters Post Production Services, LLC
Orlando, FL
http://www.oliverpeters.com -
I would think that if you want to talk about single vs dual monitors, you’d have to look at pixel count. You can get one $1500 iMac that has the resolution of what used to be two (or more) monitors, if you talk about the pixel count and not diagonal measurement. If you spend $1800 you get even more resolution.
So as far as single screen design, I would think that if you take the actual pixel count in to the size of the screen, a single monitor design makes a bit of sense, and probably where Apple is focusing their efforts.
I would imagine that 4k (and higher) display monitors will come whenever they can be manufactured cheap enough to make them compelling, or when the next display port revision comes around adding higher resolution and refresh rates (and connectors).
-
[Jeremy Garchow] “I would imagine that 4k (and higher) display monitors will come whenever they can be manufactured cheap enough to make them compelling, or when the next display port revision comes around adding higher resolution and refresh rates (and connectors).”
I agree that’s what Apple was thinking. However, higher pixel count isn’t necessarily better. Apple’s Retina screens don’t necessarily give you more screen real estate. They give you denser real estate. More PPI. Depending on how you set the scaling of the screen, you may get more, but then everything is too small.
The other issue is that screens are still locked to 16:10 (or 16:9) so more pixels means more vertical space, which usually isn’t where you want the extra room. I know a few editors that have gone to the wider LG screens, but then you are still locked into a single-screen UI layout. Although the layouts in FCPX are not as versatile as in FCP “classic” and in PProCC, I think Apple did a nice job of getting the best of both worlds within the constraints they imposed on FCPX.
– Oliver
Oliver Peters Post Production Services, LLC
Orlando, FL
http://www.oliverpeters.com -
[Oliver Peters] ” agree that’s what Apple was thinking. However, higher pixel count isn’t necessarily better. Apple’s Retina screens don’t necessarily give you more screen real estate. They give you denser real estate. More PPI. Depending on how you set the scaling of the screen, you may get more, but then everything is too small.”
I think we are saying the same thing. Pixel count. On my laptop, for example, I can get the same resolution on my 15″ retina than I did on my 17″ Powerbook. It’s the same amount of pixels, albeit on a smaller display (and yes, some things appear “smaller”) but I can fit and arrange things exactly as they were on my 17″ Powerboook. I cannot do this at retina relocation as the displayed pixel count is smaller. On a larger 5k Retina screen, I will have over quadruple the amount of pixels, provided I scale out of retina resolution. That’s a lot.
[Oliver Peters] “Although the layouts in FCPX are not as versatile as in FCP “classic” and in PProCC, I think Apple did a nice job of getting the best of both worlds within the constraints they imposed on FCPX.”
What I like about FCPX is that there isn’t a lot of dead space. You open the tools you need at the time, and then close them up, or put them away when you’re done. With other UI, there’s a lot of wasted space, just sitting there not doing much are adding any significant feedback or tools. There are a multitude of shortcuts to assign to the FCPX interface, but people have to take the time to assign them, and therefore use them. Of course, there’s still room for improvement, but even though I have multiple monitors, I find that I use one monitor most of the time. I really want one huge one, and I’d be good for all of my professional applications. If I had 5k raster of working space, I’d be good with pretty much any interface. That’s a whole lot of pixels. I’d also probably need a new computer, which is a bummer.
-
[Jeremy Garchow] “but even though I have multiple monitors, I find that I use one monitor most of the time”
The layout I’ve migrated to in several set-ups (home and a few freelance spots) is a single 27″ that is centered and then one 20″ off to the left. In some cases, a video monitor off to the right. This works well, because your working area is centered and the browser (“bins”) can be on the other monitor on the left.
I’ve mapped various panel/layout shortcuts to the function keys, so it’s very easy to shift between the UI on one monitor or spread out across two. I switch it up, depending on the task. One thing I’d love to see is a way to make the timeline window completing fullscreen, without part of the browser still in the way. Just hide it.
– Oliver
Oliver Peters Post Production Services, LLC
Orlando, FL
http://www.oliverpeters.com -
Nice if we had a dual track development effort where one interface was headed toward on-going mobile development and the other could remain focused on professional editing.
An FCP X Mobile if you will.
wait a second…. iMovie for iOS! AND the desktop – with easy linkage to FCP X like Mark and Steve talked about in this…
https://www.aotg.com/media/58275/macbreak-studio-ep-332:-from-imovie-ios-to-fcpx
OK. I’m good.
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.
Reply to this Discussion! Login or Sign Up