Is ProRes the big victim of FCPX?

[Andrew Richards]

I stand corrected! Good to know.

Best,
Andy

[C. Park seward]

[Dave LaRonde] “It just so happens we have two rooms full of file tapes containing news stories on both 3/4″ and Beta SP, and the wheels have been put in motion to go both tapeless and HD origination-capable from acquisition to the transmitter.

However, I have NO clue if any consideration has been made for archiving the old stories.”

Right, Dave. A lot of tapes with little or no migration plan.

Most of the Beta tapes I have seen are in good shape. The 3/4″ tapes are not so good. Sticky-Shed Syndrome (SSS) is the biggest problem. They get so sticky the transport can’t even pull the tape through. Dehydration usually fixes the problem.

I have sent you an email.

Best,
Park

[Tim Kolb]

[Tim Wilson] “One interesting possibility with FCPX is that there’s never been an NLE to support more metadata fields. “

How many does it support?

Premiere Pro supports more than I care to even attempt to count…three lists of EXIF data, Camera RAW, Dublin Core, Rights management, Photoshop, PDF, Content analysis, Broadcast audio extensions, Script, transcript, DICOM (each one of these things is a list of properties, not one).

I don’t think I’m sticking my neck out too far when I suppose there may be 500+ fields…Adobe has had this in place for several releases and it works across the suite with Bridge being an excellent editor.

FCPX handles more than that?

TimK,
Director, Consultant
Kolb Productions,

Adobe Certified Instructor

[Ben Scott]

so what your getting at tim is that there’s no DARK METADATA! (the metadata that gets passed through)

all archives go through migration, people should factor that in as a cost, they never do

its people that are the problem not the providers of wrappers

then again AV foundation seems so much better than quicktime and reading metadata into FCPx is good, shame you cant create smart collections or manage the mapping of fields from tapeless cameras to FCPx keywords

[Jeremy Garchow]

Let’s not forget MXF as a container is also an open standard.

The codecs still to this day are what’s proprietary as it takes muscle and know how and let’s you stand out in a crowd, or work with everyone (mpeg2).

While FCPx is incredible at making it’s own metadata, but it’s really bad at passing through what might be available in the camera original footage. Fcp7 was better and it still had a rather rough go of it natively, you’d need an outside app to translate the fields to FCPs own fields, sometimes doubling them up as FCP7 had limited fields. FCPx has even less available fields and essentially ignores the many fields that are present inside Panasonic’s implementation of MXF.

I do think, though, Tim hit it on the head. It will be up to codec/camera/whatever developers to write in support to FCPx. If you take a look at Apple as a company and what they have been doing to allow developers to write software, it’s pretty cool. After playing with FCPx for a while this week and reading what hooks seem to be semi present in FCPx it seems that this would be the way it’s going. Time will tell whenever those APIs are released, of course, if you get the API, you’re under NDA.

I am not worried about ProRes going anywhere, anytime soon. After truly diving in to FCPx this week and seeing what’s possible instead of what’s missing, it gave me a bit of hope. Sure there’s work to be done, but that’s what keeps us fed, right?

[Chris Kenny]

[Jeremy Garchow] “I do think, though, Tim hit it on the head. It will be up to codec/camera/whatever developers to write in support to FCPx. If you take a look at Apple as a company and what they have been doing to allow developers to write software, it’s pretty cool. After playing with FCPx for a while this week and reading what hooks seem to be semi present in FCPx it seems that this would be the way it’s going. Time will tell whenever those APIs are released, of course, if you get the API, you’re under NDA.”

FCP X allows arbitrary custom metadata fields. If Apple exposes this to third parties via an API, the possibilities are nearly endless.

—
Digital Workflow/Colorist, Nice Dissolve.

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

[Jeremy Garchow]

[Chris Kenny] “FCP X allows arbitrary custom metadata fields. If Apple exposes this to third parties via an API, the possibilities are nearly endless.”

That’s the hope.

[Hector Berrebi]

[Dave LaRonde] ” I haven’t been able to locate where I read it.”

was it here?

https://forums.creativecow.net/readpost/335/9241

Hector Berrebi
prePost Consulting

[Andrew Richards]

Oops, you’re right. Import is limited, rendering is selectable per Project.

Best,
Andy

[Miguel Concepcion]

I have a rookie FCP question:

I’m recording some footage from a videogame using Final Cut Pro X for one of my employers. He specifically requested that the files are ProRes. The thing is that he’ll be editing the clips on FCP 7. Seeing as how I’m not creating a project and just recording clips, there shouldn’t be a compatibility issue, right?