-
Long time editor’s frustration with FCPX
-
[Bill Davis] “And honestly, if you’re willing to trade the efficiency and extra productivity for some vague “appearance to others of professionalism” then I doubt X will ever be the tool for you.
“So true. Who cares what it looks like? My clients hire me for the finished product, not how it gets there. They trust me for taking care of their project, workflow and budget, and when I said I was ditching Avid, they were cool. When I said I was ditching FCP7, they were cool. They just care about their product and the process and price getting there. For me, X is the best tool for the my clients based on my judgement, not theirs.
This “Fischer Price” argument is ridiculous. If you are worried about the look more than the process and final product, there is a problem. You should be editing on a Q-Box, Smoke or Flame (DS, if you can find one). They looks WAY more complicated, therefore better, right?
Scott Witthaus
Senior Editor/Post Production Supervisor
1708 Inc./Editorial
Professor, VCU Brandcenter -
[James Ewart] “It is so gratifying to still have Aindreas here on tippy toes peeking over the garden fence”
True. Unfortunately Aindreas (self admitted in this thread somewhere, I believe) has little to no experience on X, so it’s very difficult to take his criticism seriously. But his posts are certainly entertaining!
Scott Witthaus
Senior Editor/Post Production Supervisor
1708 Inc./Editorial
Professor, VCU Brandcenter -
There’s something about FCPX he just can’t quite bring himself to turn his back on. A persistent nagging doubt perhaps? We’re all still here. How can that possibly be?
-
I hear what you’re saying, David (and Andy) but I think that Project deserves the term. It is much more than a sequence of events (heh heh).
I hope to have some screen grabs on Monday, if not Monday it’ll have to be the week after, but I’ll show you what I mean. I will come back to this as I think there are “important” distinctions to make, and Apple choosing to name a sequence a Project isn’t a folly or blunder, but It is best to approach this notion with an open mind, and buck convention. This is not to say that you, personally, aren’t open minded. I get the sense that you are. It took me a long time to reach this conclusion, even after using X for a couple of years professionally. It really started once the Library system was in place.
-
I just call old sequences and new projects “Timelines” now.
It seems to be universal across platforms.
Everyone knows what a timeline is. In FCPX it just happens to be called a project now.
And yes I do still find it a bit irritating but less so these days.
-
The reason against using the word “projects” for sequences is that it confuses the discussion with the larger Job or Session that you are working within. Typically one Library would equal one Job (normally called a project), however that’s not necessarily so. One production/job/session/project could involve several Libraries. So it becomes confusing as to what this overall “thing” is to be called.
FWIW – I believe Vegas also calls their sequence a Project, however you can only have one of these with any given instance of Vegas. You can open multiple instances of Vegas at the same time, each with its own Project (sequence). In Vegas this came about because the mentality was one of a DAW, where you typically only mix one timeline/sequence/track sheet at a time. This is not the case in an NLE, where you often move among two or more sequences to build your final version of the edit.
In Adobe Anywhere, they adopted the term Anywhere Production, to define the overarching job. This is separate from an Premiere Pro project, which is within the Production. A Production can include project files from Premiere, Prelude and After Effects.
– Oliver
Oliver Peters Post Production Services, LLC
Orlando, FL
http://www.oliverpeters.com -
Solved it!
-
Folks
Sorry to have offended anyone. (amazing how often every thread devolves into that phrase) I’ve been on FCPX from the beginning. I’m certainly not taking potshots from the sideline.
Here’s the gist of what I was saying. Despite FCPX being a singularly powerful and paradigm busting editing platform, there is something highly irritating (TO ME) about the FCP interface, from the nomenclature to the look and feel. And that’s despite the best scopes, metadata and multicam among competitors. That’s my impression after a couple of years of nearly non stop use. It’s difficult to explain exactly what it is . . but for a company (Apple) that is so utterly attuned to how software and hardware makes you “feel” there is something off the mark in its interface for this professional editor. FWIW, Resolve, especially in the grading app gives me exactly the opposite impression. It’s delight to discover more and more potential the deeper you dig.
In a world . . . (trailer music please) where the editing profession has become significantly devalued . . . FCPX reinforces the feeling that “editing” is less a craft and more of a commodity.
That’s it. Apologies for using the inflammatory “Fisher Price” metaphor.
David.
-
[Oliver Peters] “you do know that you can open and close any of the tabs”
You mean like this?
Or would closing the viewer and/or timeline, too, pose some sort of advantage that I’m not aware of? I haven’t used the most recent versions of PPro very much, but if nothing has changed, then I don’t see how you could unclutter IT anywhere near as much as this. But I could be wrong.
[Oliver Peters] “Another beauty of the PPro interface is that it has huge advantages for developers, because custom panels can be created that are integrated right into the UI – also not possible with X, that we know of.”
Erm… I think you may want to read up on FX Plug 3? It’s actually very much possible and is being done all over the place. Some integrated, some modular. Their choice. The fact that many aren’t doing it or haven’t (yet), doesn’t actually mean it’s not possible. You can develop unique plug-ins that include onscreen controls and custom UI elements—all running seamlessly in FCP. The custom window API gives you a window to draw into which looks like other windows in FCP.
[Oliver Peters] “I do agree that Apple’s changing of the terminology was a poor move. Trying to use their language in discussions and training around X and editing are very confusing to old and new users alike. “
Funny how I have yet to hear so much as a single student (we’re talking a near 4-digit number over 4 years) say that X’s terminology is somehow incomprehensible or confusing to them. I explain Library, Event and Project (that I’ll even interchangeably call “Timeline” anyway… so?)… done. Never once has anyone, of any experience level, asked me what I meant by any of it. Ever.
Go figger.
– RK
____________________________________________________
Deutsch? Hier gibt es ein umfassendes FCP X Training für dich! -
[Robin S. Kurz] “I haven’t used the most recent versions of PPro very much, but if nothing has changed, then I don’t see how you could unclutter IT anywhere near as much as this. But I could be wrong.”
Maybe you should explore more 😉 Exactly that.
[Robin S. Kurz] “It’s actually very much possible and is being done all over the place. Some integrated, some modular. Their choice.”
I have yet to see a developer like a MAM company create a dockable or floating panel for their tool that works right inside FCP X as a window into their application. Examples? I’m not talking about plug-ins. That’s certainly possible, such as with Color Finale. Not the same thing at all.
[Robin S. Kurz] “Never once has anyone, of any experience level, asked me what I meant by any of it. Ever. “
Our experiences differ.
– Oliver
Oliver Peters Post Production Services, LLC
Orlando, FL
http://www.oliverpeters.com
Reply to this Discussion! Login or Sign Up