-
FCPX Documentary on Kickstarter!
-
[andy patterson] “If FCPX had been released back in 2001 it might be worth glorifying but that is not the case.
“In your, Premiere Pro glorifying, opinion
-
[Neil Goodman] “Not to mention a kickstarter?, like i thought that was the whole point of the software, you can make videos now for cheaper than ever…but we still need your money to make this documentary afterall. “
Come on now, I know you know better than that.
Anybody that has ever worked on a documentary knows that the main cost for a doc is paying for “rights” to material like music, video clips, and photos. He even says that in the pitch. He doesn’t say anything about “I need this money to pay for a colorist”
What does a NLE have to do with CNN asking for 4k for a one minute clip of the president.
-
[Steve Connor] “[andy patterson] “If FCPX had been released back in 2001 it might be worth glorifying but that is not the case.
”In your, Premiere Pro glorifying, opinion”
When do I glorify Premiere? Please name one time. I think you made a boo boo. Having said that I bad mouth Premiere Pro more than I bad mouth FCPX. Learn to accept reality.
-
[andy patterson] “Will the movie ask Randy questions like, why did it take FCPX so long to catch up to Fast/Pinnacle/Avid? Randy did not invent GPU acceleration for NLE. He also did not invent background rendering. “
I hope not, because when it comes to innovation the things you listed are not where I would start.
What makes X “innovative” for me is the concept of “connected clips”. I don’t know how this always gets left out of the X discussion. The entire concept of the timeline is based on this. As far as I know, the products you named did not have this function so there is no need for X to “catch up” to them in this core timeline functionality.
before X, you were making 2 decisions in the timeline for position placement of a clip. 1. Where you wanted the clip vertically (picking a track) and 2. where you wanted the clip Horizontally in the timeline.
With X you are only selecting the horizontal part (you have the option to change that in Lanes mode but it’s not required) So instead of doing 2 things you are doing 1.
Another thing that is “innovative” in X is the ability of clips to move on their own out of the way of a clip that you are moving into it’s area. Before X, you had to move the clip yourself out of the way.
Now X has other tools that are cool like the skimmer and background rendering and many more, but that’s not why most people decide to use X or not use X.
It’s that fundamental concept of how the timeline works through connected clips that people either like or don’t like. it’s what makes X different. Either for the better or worst.
I hope this helps.
-
[Tony West] “before X, you were making 2 decisions in the timeline for position placement of a clip. 1. Where you wanted the clip vertically (picking a track) and 2. where you wanted the clip Horizontally in the timeline.
With X you are only selecting the horizontal part (you have the option to change that in Lanes mode but it’s not required) So instead of doing 2 things you are doing 1.
“I thought you were going to say the two decisions being made were one for video tracks and the other for audio tracks. In X aren’t you making both horizontal and vertical decisions when you are deciding whether or not a clip is part of the primary storyline or a connected clip/secondary storyline?
-
[Tony West] “….X has other tools that are cool like the skimmer and background rendering and many more, but that’s not why most people decide to use X or not use X…It’s that fundamental concept of how the timeline works through connected clips that people either like or don’t like. it’s what makes X different….”
This is often said but I don’t fully agree, and I hope the documentary does not focus excessively on the timeline aspect. I’ve heard of several Premiere editors who use FCPX for content organization then edit in Premiere. Even FCPX advocate Sam Mestman said he’s not convinced the magnetic timeline is as big an advantage as the database, skimming and organizational features.
FCPX was apparently a convergence of several concepts: (1) The software should help organize the data, not just run the timeline. This includes deeply integrated database functionality (2) A fluid, extremely high performance skimmer can facilitate high-speed visual browsing of the media (3) The skimmer performance and Event Browser functionality largely make the traditional two-monitor view of source and program monitors unnecessary (4) The software should assist the user with physical media management and minimize missing media cases (5) It should have improved native codec support and high-performance playback like Premiere and not mandate transcoding to ProRes except in special cases (6) Overall UI should be simplified and use “reveal as needed” elements (7) Magnetic timeline, including the “storyline” concept of embedded or collapsed content rather than stacked up tracks
During the FCPX conceptual phase, did separate individuals advocate each of these and a blend was achieved? Or did one or two people equally promote all these individual elements? In hindsight which of these were most/least successful?
In Walter Murch’s book Behind The Seen, he discusses the burden of organizing, logging and trying to stay in control of the huge volume of material. He lamented the time-consuming need to make a huge assembly edit and start trimming that down. Using legacy FCP on Cold Mountain, he tried to manage the material by printing out filmstrip thumbnails and pasting these next to his workstation. He wrote metadata on post-it notes. He entered metadata in Filemaker Pro which he queried while editing to find clips. This is essentially a crude, manual version of FCPX: https://designingsound.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/walter_murch.jpg
When reading this book it almost seemed like Apple used that and similar feedback to partially form the feature list and conceptual approach for FCPX. It would be interesting to know if that played any part.
-
Tony, I am not saying there are not cool features in FCPX. I am saying Fast Multimedia (sold to Pinnacle then sold to Avid) had background rendering and GPU acceleration long before anyone else. One could claim Canopus had GPU acceleration about the same time as FAST Multimedia because the Xplode Transition were GPU accelerated. Let’s be honest GPU acceleration is kind of cool. I also think Randy was using Adobe’s Bridge and simply ripped of the idea of keyword collection and favorites from Adobe. That question would be worth asking.
-
[Bill Davis] “And truth be told, it starts with a rehash of a LOT of the negative X stuff. Nobody seemed to sugercoat anything in what I watched. There was criticism galore. And, of course, the vast majority of the people in it are people I actually know. S”
Some of those people you actually know have badmouthed Avid and Premiere Pro repeatedly.
[Bill Davis] ” Obviously since it was recorded at an X specific event – most of those appearing represent people who stuck with it long enough to get past their initial shock. But they really didn’t come across as fanboy zombies.”
That would be your opinion. I think the people interviewed were going to use FCPX regardless. What I am saying is if Microsoft had released FCPX many of the FCPX users would have considered it a piece of crap and never even tried it. On the other hand if Apple released a NLE very much like Avid’s Liquid many FCPX users would brag about how great it is. In other words what ever Apple does it is the cat’s meow. Having said that I am not saying all FCPX user would have that thought process.
[Bill Davis] “Look, this is really no different from Poker Players going to see a documentary about other Poker Players that includes people they know.”
I don’t think the movie is going to discuss how editing has changed from 3/4″ inch decks and a switcher to the Video Toaster to the Avid Media Composers. I don’t doubt the movie will show how FCPX users were victimized and ridiculed. People on these forums claim Premiere Pro uses laggy code base, an antiquated titling system and a cringe worthy GUI. Even though I see many FCPX bulling other NLE I am willing to bet The Off The Tracks movie will probably suggest that FCPX users are the real victims. That is my guess. I am willing to bet the movie will not be like poker players discussing their strategies as much as it will be like the Bicycle card company and a few followers glorifying Bicycle poker cards against the competition.
[Bill Davis] “Should be interesting around here when it comes out!”
Is anyone that works for Adobe, Avid or NewTek going to be interviewed? There is a difference between discussing NLE systems as opposed to glorifying a NLE.
-
[Andrew Kimery] ” In X aren’t you making both horizontal and vertical decisions when you are deciding whether or not a clip is part of the primary storyline or a connected clip/secondary storyline?”
You are leaving out the step of patching a track. I’m not patching a track. If I have music that I want to go below the primary and I hit q it’s going to automatically go below. If there is already vo there it would automatically drop it below that.
-
[Joe Marler] “I’ve heard of several Premiere editors who use FCPX for content organization then edit in Premiere.”
But why are they doing that? Why don’t they just finish in X? Is one of the reasons because they don’t like how the timeline works in X? (which is exactly what I said)
When X came out I didn’t see people complaining about the “database” or the” skimmer” (why would you complain about those things) They were complaining about the “timeline”.
Look at the trailer. Didn’t you see Michael Matzdorrff say “why don’t I understand this”
Do you really think he didn’t understand the “skimmer”? I don’t think that’s what he was talking about.
Reply to this Discussion! Login or Sign Up