Insight FCP X vs. Avid

[Andrew Kimery]

I wasn’t aware that the underlying framework (whether it’s QT or AV Foundation) could have so much impact on the GUI. The geek in me is curious to learn more.

I agree that Apple is very good at making user friendly devices and software but working professionals should want the best app they can get not necessarily the app with the lowest learning curve, IMO (and FCP’s learning curve was already pretty low compared to other NLEs). Efficiency, not necessarily simplicity, should be the goal I think. As Alan Keyes said, simple should be simple and complex should be possible.

Only time will tell though and it will be interesting to see what path all the NLEs take, not just FCP X. Maybe FCP X falls totally out of favor w/the traditional pro market or maybe Adobe & Avid come to a realization that Apple was headed down the right path but just pulled the trigger way too early.

-Andrew

3.2GHz 8-core, FCP 6.0.4, 10.5.5
Blackmagic Multibridge Eclipse (6.8.1)

[Craig Seeman]

[Andrew Kimery] “I wasn’t aware that the underlying framework (whether it’s QT or AV Foundation) could have so much impact on the GUI. The geek in me is curious to learn more.”

In fact I think some ways AV Foundation has made some things harder for the programers and I think that’s why we’re seeing such major holes in the program. Given that it’s new it’s not like the programers have had years of experience with it like it might have been with Quicktime.

AV Foundation is used in iOS and if FCPX has a cousin it’s iMovie on iPad, which uses AV Foundation and not iMovie on desktop which uses Quicktime. Basically I think iMovie for iPad was the programmer’s “learning environment” and they’re still new at this.

I do think they will bring back some older paradigms as they figure out how to implement. I suspect this might be why multicam is missing. I also think Secondary Storylines can become more “track like” as time goes on.

I also think this is why timecode and time in general plays a different role. Note that you can’t do a very simple thing like change the timecode numbers in the timeline. There’s no ability to start at a different hour or at 59:00 for example. Apple has said something to the effect that that will be introduced as and export option . . . which means you still won’t be able to do that on your working timeline. I think AV Foundation handles time in a completely different manor than Quicktime or any other foundation used in an NLE. This is why clip connections are so important. Time is always relative to other media objects and not on an absolute grid.

I don’t think the entire GUI is influenced by or a result of AV Foundation but I do think it’s the root cause that they developed the “trackless, magnetic” timeline though.

[Chris Kenny]

[Andrew Kimery] “Apple could have given FCP 10 the familiar look and feel of previous FCP versions and still switched everything around under the hood just like they’ve done with their operating systems. “

Huh? OS X has a very different UI from OS 9.

[Andrew Kimery] “Apple chose to launch with things like “Share to Facebook”, iMovie compatibility and iTunes & iPhoto integration instead of things like OMF or baseband video out support. Apple chose to sever the ties that they did.”

Apple chose to launch with a feature set targeted at the largest possible user base and then expand into more niche markets. This is the same thing they did with FCP the first time around.

—
Digital Workflow/Colorist, Nice Dissolve.

You should follow me on Twitter here. Or read our blog.

[Andrew Kimery]

Craig,

It’s kinda weird. My primary interest in FCP 10 right now is from my geek side while my editing side looks on w/the disinterest of a husband purse shopping with his wife.

[Chris Kenny] “Huh? OS X has a very different UI from OS 9.”
I was being vague again. I was meaning to reference that Apple has taken OS X from 32-bit to 64-bit w/o changing the look and feel. And even though OS 9 and OS X have a lot of differences they still function basically the same way when it comes to the end user. It’s only now with Lion that we are starting to see the beginnings of Apple testing the waters of a mouse-less desktop OS w/the public. The magic mouse might be the last mouse Apple ever makes.

[Chris Kenny] “This is the same thing they did with FCP the first time around.”
That argument has never held water for me. Apple started from square one w/FCP 1.0 and there’s no reason they had to back to square one w/FCP 10. Why make an app that, out of the gate, can pretty smoothly take the torch from FCP7 and then add features that expand it out into a broader market? Seems like a better, less incendiary, way to release an app. Unless, of course, the traditional pro is closer to a tertiary market than a primary one.

A week or so after FCP 10 came out one of the original FCP team members was interviewed (wish I could find the link) and he said that the goal, even back then, was to aim for Avid’s market, not the lower end of the market. FCP, like any newcomer, had to rise through the ranks so it makes sense that it was a grass roots type movement that elevated FCP up the post production pyramid. I don’t see the benefit of Apple burning those inroads unless they are rather indifferent to traveling those paths again.

I’m not saying that’s good nor bad just that that’s the way I think it is.

-Andrew

3.2GHz 8-core, FCP 6.0.4, 10.5.5
Blackmagic Multibridge Eclipse (6.8.1)

[Chris Kenny]

[Andrew Kimery] “I was being vague again. I was meaning to reference that Apple has taken OS X from 32-bit to 64-bit w/o changing the look and feel. “

Obviously moving from 32-bit to 64-bit is not strictly related to look-and-feel. But FCP 7 wasn’t just using APIs that had their roots in the OS 9 era, it also had a UI that had its roots in the OS 9 era. So it’s unsurprising that Apple decided to modernize the UI in the process of rewriting the app.

[Andrew Kimery] “And even though OS 9 and OS X have a lot of differences they still function basically the same way when it comes to the end user. “

I think you’re understating the differences. People freaked out about the OS X UI. In fact, it was subject to criticisms almost eerily similar to those now being leveled at FCP X — it was, supposedly, too oversimplified, had too much eye candy (animations, etc.), discarded valuable spatial organization features, removed user control, etc. Some people claimed that Apple had ruined the Mac and that they were leaving for Windows.

[Andrew Kimery] “Why make an app that, out of the gate, can pretty smoothly take the torch from FCP7 and then add features that expand it out into a broader market?”

It’s a combination of things. First, as people keep pointing out in the “urgency” thread, FCP 7 was getting old. Apple wanted to get something to market as quickly as possible, and shipping the initial release with more features would have delayed it. Secondly, Apple isn’t just interested in today’s editors, they’re interested in tomorrow’s editors. They were clearly asking themselves what they could do to leapfrog other NLEs, and metadata-first organization and a timeline based on clip connections are what they came up with.

—
Digital Workflow/Colorist, Nice Dissolve.

You should follow me on Twitter here. Or read our blog.

[Thomas Frank]

[Andrew Kimery] “That argument has never held water for me. Apple started from square one w/FCP 1.0 and there’s no reason they had to back to square one w/FCP 10. Why make an app that, out of the gate, can pretty smoothly take the torch from FCP7 and then add features that expand it out into a broader market? Seems like a better, less incendiary, way to release an app. Unless, of course, the traditional pro is closer to a tertiary market than a primary one.”

This is not 100% accurate before it was Final Cut Pro it was Premiere.
You know what would be funny and crazy? If Avid and Adobe rolled out a similar product! lol
What you guys think of Smoke as a editing tool??