How many here really dislike audio tracks and the viewer?

[Paul Dickin]

[Bill Davis] “a “push poll.””
Hi
+ 1

So, d) None of the above.

Randy ≠ Apple.
Apple’s ProApps marketing and customer relations sucks.
As long as Randy has a heart and continues to put it into this business, as a 20+ year veteran instigator of the NLE revolution he’s worth hearing out.

[Oliver Peters]

B

In fact, simply create a toggled preference. Add source viewer as a window, like scopes or angle editor. Give choice of magnetic versus “traditional” timeline. That would be both video and audio tracks and NOT magnetic.

And while they are at it, add a preference to disable all GUI animations.

Oliver

Oliver Peters Post Production Services, LLC
Orlando, FL
http://www.oliverpeters.com

[Tony West]

I have been taking my own poll myself David. In covering sports I travel from state to state and even when I stay at home, out of state folks come here to cover their teams. I ask them all about X. It’s starting to take off. BTW, most of us that work in sports do other work also.

Since I’m coming in direct contact with people from around the country multiple times a week I think that give s me a unique opportunity to get a feel from many different people.

Also folks that don’t get speed you must not work in sports or news.
We can’t walk out to the mound and ask the players to hold up the game while we work.
The game is the game. Working under the gun is often quite challenging, rather than, take as much time as you need.

The rub was that no matter how long you had been in the game and no matter what you worked on, if you saw potential in this product or enjoyed working with it you were all of the sudden not a “pro”
As insulting as that was, it’s how some feel. Thus the debate. Let’s do it.

The angle from many has been that this product was aimed at half a– editors, amateurs and some even said “hobbyist”
I never found that credible, and I really don’t after yesterday.

Look at that demo for Multi-cam. Look at that crew. The Porsche Cayenne crane cam? Are you freakin
kidding me? What do you think those guys day rate is? What about that copter pilot, or even that guy with the wrap around gropro set-up? They had the ALEXA out there. You would really have to stretch your imagination to say that those guys are “hobbyist”
They are some of the top people in the game using the top gear in the game.

You know why? Because that’s who they are aiming at.

That demo that they made in X looked AWESOME btw.

I’m not convinced they weren’t already working on this before. Look back at that first demo last year.
Same cars, same track some of the same angles. Did they hire that crew back and reshoot because people complained and spent all that money, or was this stuff in the can because they knew were they were going?

64 camera angles. The only thing I work on with those kind of numbers is the Olympics.

I got used to not having that viewer. I like looking at one BIG screen now instead of two smaller ones.
I want to see stuff big. If I could work on a 52 inch screen that would be ideal for me.

I vote A : )

[Herb Sevush]

[tony west] “I got used to not having that viewer. I like looking at one BIG screen now instead of two smaller ones.
I want to see stuff big. If I could work on a 52 inch screen that would be ideal for me.”

If you have monitor out you can have source and timeline viewers and watch your material all day on any size screen you want. You want 52 inch screen, go for it. No reason to give up source viewers. As multi-cam has now demonstrated X works very well with 2 viewers. Maybe Apple should just allow for single angle multi-cam and make everyone happy.

Herb Sevush
Zebra Productions
—————————
nothin’ attached to nothin’
“Deciding the spine is the process of editing” F. Bieberkopf

[Marvin Holdman]

b) I’d be pleased

For no other reason than it would give us more choices for how we wanted to work with our media and it would mean that Apple might actually be listening to editors when they say, “Please give us the ability to customize our tool sets”. That being said, I think features such as this will likely be added via third party apps (if ever) and that still leaves me a bit concerned. As anyone who works with a system that is third party dependent for functionality will tell you, upgrades become much more complex when you add more vendors to the mix. Look at the current state of FCPX. Sony, perhaps the biggest equipment manufacturer on the planet is still saying they are “working” on making XDCAM and FCPX work together natively (vs. re-wrapping media). If they can’t develop products concurrently, what chance do you think the others vendors have?

For all the pros and cons that third party functionality brings to the table, I still say the ultimate decider for choosing this path is Apple’s ability to make more “app” sales and shed development and support for their product. Totally sound business decision, but not the best design decision for creating complex functionality that is forward robust. Perhaps the industry will become better at coordinating development. I certainly hope that will be the case, but how many years has that model existed on the Windows/PC side of the fence? And how many can honestly say that upgrading OS/Application/Plug-ins is a smooth process? Face it, one of the biggest things FCS had going for it is the fact that the hardware/OS/application came from the same company. That being said, upgrades are always a challenge (even with Apple’s old paradigm) but I still have to wonder if the new third party functionality model is going to be better or worse.

All that being said, it’s always easier for individuals to deal with the issues I just described (staying current with hardware/software/plug-ins) but for facilities, it’s a different story.

Sorry for the digression, just stream of thought for the morning. Fingers are frisky today.

Marvin Holdman
Production Manager
Tourist Network
8317 Front Beach Rd, Suite 23
Panama City Beach, Fl
phone 850-234-2773 ext. 128
cell 850-585-9667
skype username – vidmarv

[Tony West]

I hear you Herb.

but let me ask you, are you looking at booth your viewer screen and canvas screen simultaneously?

Both at the same time, all the time or one or the other?

I guess I only look at one at a time for the most part so it doesn’t matter as long as they switch quickly.

[Simon Ubsdell]

[Marvin Holdman] “I still have to wonder if the new third party functionality model is going to be better or worse.”

To which I have only two words to say:

Automatic Duck.

(With all due respect to the excellent folks involved).

It’s an unsustainable business model. Who in their right minds is going to build an editing business that relies on the ability of small third parties to a) stay in business, b) keep their products up-to-date, c) create products that are 100% reliable and robust (again with apologies to all the excellent third parties who are doing their best), d) read Apple’s mind, etc., etc.?

Not me.

Unless Apple bring all the essential functionality into the app – and right at the head of that list has to be OMF – I can’t see my business adopting FCPX.

Simon Ubsdell
Director/Editor/Writer
http://www.tokyo-uk.com

[Herb Sevush]

[tony west] “are you looking at booth your viewer screen and canvas screen simultaneously?”

When comparing eye lines I need to look simultaneously, also when checking color matching between shots. If a single viewer could shift just by reading my mind that would be fine, but having to use a keystroke for that action would get to be a drudge.

For Multi-Cam, which is most of what I do, you have to have both up simultaneously, which is why X uses a viewer window in that mode. By acknowledging that it’s possible to have a viewer window at all, X now begs the question – why not give the editor the option in normal editing modes? I’m not saying you should be forced to give up your screen real estate, but it should be up to the editor – which seems to go against the grain of the X design philosophy, but who knows?

Herb Sevush
Zebra Productions
—————————
nothin’ attached to nothin’
“Deciding the spine is the process of editing” F. Bieberkopf

[Jim Glickert]

My answer: B. I would be pleased. To be honest, though, it wouldn’t lead me to purchase FCP X.

The lack of a source viewer was one of two principal reasons I declined to purchase FCP X. The other was the introduction of the magnetic timeline. The way in which I edit my videos makes the use of a source viewer and non-magnetic timeline important to me. I mostly enjoyed using FCP for the last four years, and grew very comfortable with it. I didn’t see the need to scrap it.

Now that I’ve purchased Premiere Pro and After Effects, I have even less interest in FCP X. Premiere Pro works great, and was pretty easy to learn. After Effects is extremely powerful, and its integration with Premiere Pro is outstanding. Motion 4 was nice, but I found it to never work well with FCP, and it crashed all the time.

FCP X would have to change dramatically in order for me to purchase it. Even then, I can’t imagine dumping Premiere Pro and After Effects.

[Craig Seeman]

Third party development allows for competitive alternatives to perform a function.
In app development locks one into a single method.
Apple though, has had a history of taking a “third party” product’s concept and building in the features.
Built in sync vs Plural Eyes is an example.

Are you assuming that just because Apple doesn’t have a key feature now means they wont’ incorporate it later because a third party fills the role at the moment?

Remember there was a third party app for multicam before FCP legacy built that in too.