-
Is FCPX the Othello of NLEs?
I’m not talking about Shakespeare’s tragic Moor, but rather the Othello board game, who’s slogan was “Minutes to learn, a lifetime to master,” or something to that effect. I mention this because I have finally been digging a bit deeper into FCPX in preparation for my re-certification exam as a trainer.
Though I’ve been a bit of a hater, there are some features that I really like about the new Final Cut, IF they were options, rather than replacements. For example, the connected clip idea is great, as long as you are not FORCED to use them in all instances. Sometimes editors want b-roll to float.
What I find most frustrating overall, however, is that the design of the workflow seems to be quite short-sighted. I think that FCPX has enough impressive features to get people interested, and to get many people (both experienced and beginners) to get up-and-running quickly. The problems occur, however, when you extrapolate to the realm of the power-user.
No matter what your level is coming in, I think it’s fair to assume that most users would like FCPX to be an application you could become prolific with. Ideally, we’d all like to have dozens of clients or projects to work on. And no matter how you look at it, FCPX is not designed for that.
The mere fact that ALL of your events, projects, and clips are present and available at all times (whether you like it or not), is concerning. What’s even more concerning is that Apple does not view this as a limitation, but as an advantage. If this was just an option, which you could turn on and off, it would be great. But it’s absurd to force this short-sighted workflow on all users, at all times.
This may not seem like a problem for your first 5 to 10 projects, but what happens a year or two in, when you hopefully have 100 projects or more. That’s awfully messy, and likely to cause significant slowdown. Expecting the editor to create a convoluted system of keywords and meta-data is not a viable solution, and would clearly create WAY more busy-work than a more traditional project structure.
I use this as just one example of what I consider to be a philosophical flaw in the FCPX design, which is unlikely to ever change. Apple seems to prefer it this way, treating everything like it’s iTunes.
This is why I wonder whether they are many who are FCPX users now, who will eventually lose interest AFTER they become more familiar with it. Will they jump ship once they realize FCPX’s potentially frustrating limitations? Since these limitations have nothing to do with XML or multi-cam editing, are these concerns even on Apple’s radar? I’m guessing no.
I think the danger is that Apple has created a program that is fairly easy to jump right into, but does not have much “long-term relationship” potential.
Professor, Producer, Editor
and former Apple Employee -
64 Replies
-
Isn’t it pretty easy to manually take events offline? Just have a “live” events folder and another you call “offline” or something and move the events there when they’re done or on hold or whatever. Seems like it would be pretty easy for Apple to add in an “Event Manager” concept. It would be slightly hidden for power users, and simpler users wouldn’t see it.
As for the Keywords, I felt that way until I realized it’s no different than creating bins and dragging clips to them. Except you can’t really have bins within bins within bins. And really, NLEs were meant to be used more this way originally. There used to be a time 15-18 years ago when drive space was quite expensive as was an hour in an edit facility. We logged every shot by hand, then maybe entered it in a shot logger program. Exported out bins for the editor. Then as editors we only digitized the selects, which were very descriptive with comments and log notes, etc. If we could afford to load in larger chunks at offline resolutions (something I’ve hardly ever done in nearly 20 years of NLE editing) we’d do a lot of online logging with sub clips. FCP classic eventually let you add marker ranges which, tend to look a lot like the little range bars in FCPX. You can label those ranges and search for the keywords and all that stuff in FCP classic. Just not as smoothly.
OT: the great thing about digitizing tapes for me was that by the time everything was digitized, I was pretty familiar with the material and I’d personally watched a good bit in real time. At the same time we would batch digitize the client and I would discuss the script and graphics and such. Now, you plug in a client’s drive and start editing with hardly any forethought or pre conceptualizing. Sometimes for the first couple days of a project, I feel like I’m doing someone else’s job although I’m not sure if it’s a producer or a PA. Things have become a bit blurred.
-
Get Event Manager X. $5. Controls what projects and events appear in the the application.
All the best,
Tom
Class on Demand DVDs “Complete Training for FCP7,” “Basic Training for FCS” and “Final Cut Express Made Easy”
Coming in 2011 “Complete Training for FCPX” from Class on Demand
“Final Cut Pro X for iMovie and Final Cut Express Users” from Focal Press -
[Bret Williams] “As for the Keywords, I felt that way until I realized it’s no different than creating bins and dragging clips to them. Except you can’t really have bins within bins within bins. And really, NLEs were meant to be used more this way originally.”
This was actually something that I originally planned to add to my original post, but it started getting kinda long. The fact that you cannot have sub-folders is a another big sticking point for me. I have worked on projects with 80 source tapes, and a multi-level folder hierarchy was the only way to maintain order.
I agree with your point of how NLEs were originally were meant to work (economical digitizing of only what you needed). I worked like that when I started with an 18GB NuVista Avid system. But they evolved beyond that in the early 2000s. FCP was a big part of that. My preferred workflow became digitizing entire tapes via machine control while doing other work, and then being able to scrub and log my footage after it was already in the machine. This is certainly not everyone’s preferred method, but those versions of FCP never took away the option of capturing “1990’s style.”
I like the idea of an Event Manager, especially if it would save your settings until the next time you launch. I also do not believe that a folder system and event system couldn’t coexist.
Professor, Producer, Editor
and former Apple Employee -
If you have a SAN, you can add a SAN location to fcpx and choose to have as many or as few Events/Projects as you want to that location. This allows you to open one project at a time by closing and adding different SAN locations (and they are allowed anywhere in a folder hierarchy, not just root level). I think this will become useful for those that want to figure out Xsan in lion.
Event Manager X is worth every bit of $5 (incidentally, it doesn’t work with SAN locations).
You can put folders in folders and keyword collections in those folders. You can’t put a keyword in a keyword, though.
Range based organization is a bit different than clip organization, and yes it’s different than bins.
-
The layout, design and presence of the project browser is the weakest link. You can manage projects through Event Manager or manually, but what about single complex projects where you accumulate 50-100 sequences in a single production? I’m not talking about features. What about spot work? You cut 10 commercials as part of a campaign, but because you have to cut various versions until the client or director locks the cut, you can easily accrue 3-5 versions per commercial. FCP X in its parent form is ill-equipped to handle this.
Oliver
Oliver Peters Post Production Services, LLC
Orlando, FL
http://www.oliverpeters.com -
[Oliver Peters] ” What about spot work? You cut 10 commercials as part of a campaign, but because you have to cut various versions until the client or director locks the cut, you can easily accrue 3-5 versions per commercial. FCP X in its parent form is ill-equipped to handle this.”
It can handle it, it’s just not as easy as a tabbed sequence system. It’s true.
There is the compound clip in the Event situation, but it’s certainly a workaround and causes bloat as has been pointed out.
As efficient as the event browser is, the project browser is much more clunky. Even if you could load 3 Projects in a single click it’d be helpful.
-
It can handle it, it’s just not as easy as a tabbed sequence system.
Have you tried to build up 50 timelines? If so what’s the response like?
Oliver
Oliver Peters Post Production Services, LLC
Orlando, FL
http://www.oliverpeters.com -
[Oliver Peters] “Have you tried to build up 50 timelines? If so what’s the response like?”
I haven’t had 50, but I’ve had 22 and you’re right, it’s not fun.
I have hypothesized that when opening new Projects, it actually hides a “loading” process.
So if you have loaded all 50 sequences, it slows down. A quit and restart fixed it until you have eventually reloaded all the different Projects.
I cut spots too. I have also been finding having a bunch of Projects is a bit goofy.
I have been trying to pair down the amount of projects as much as possible by exploring audition clips, or in the case of 30 second spots, just have multiple spots in one Project.
It’s certainly a work around, no question.
-
So far, what seems to mitigate the initial launch time is to stick all unnecessary projects into folders within the project browser and leave those closed until you need them. I believe it’s a RAM or resources issue, since the project browser allows you to skim through any visible projects.
Oliver
Oliver Peters Post Production Services, LLC
Orlando, FL
http://www.oliverpeters.com -
[Oliver Peters] “So far, what seems to mitigate the initial launch time is to stick all unnecessary projects into folders within the project browser and leave those closed until you need them. I believe it’s a RAM or resources issue, since the project browser allows you to skim through any visible projects.”
I think we are getting to the same conclusion. When opening a Project, it is loading a lot of data and not just media.
Having flattened, skimmable access to the media is probably pretty “easy”, but loading all the data of the timeline (markers, index, Roles, effects, containers) and perhaps building an XML of that takes some time. When you switch Projects, all of that is loaded (my theory, not based in any concrete programming truth or knowledge).
If you have been following Andreas Kiel’s subtitle tests, he finds FCPXML to be very slow at the moment, which is odd as he finds it very sparse as well in terms of the information available as well as documentation.
Jeremy
Reply to this Discussion! Login or Sign Up