Long time editor’s frustration with FCPX

[James Ewart]

[Douglas K. Dempsey] “James, don’t get me wrong. I did get over it right away, because I love X. And the whole Library package file concept is one of my big arguments “For” when pitching X or not.

But the consumer “Baby’s First Birthday” logic of Events is a blemish and non-users who scoff are not wrong.
“

I agree it’s annoying. Or was.

[Bill Davis]

Look David, you stepped up to the public podium to offer a view. Largely that the main problem with X is that it looks and operates too simply to be taken seriously. If you didn’t expect pushback on that you don’t know this forum very well. I get that having said that you immediately made sure to praise all the things about X that make the “too simple” observation moot, but some of us know that lots and lots of people come through here and leave with nothing but their per-conceived “talking points” reinforced. I really don’t want to spend the next few years talking about X in professional circles and having to waste time explaining why it’s not “too simple” for pro work. And left unaddressed, I’ve seen comments such as yours take on a life of their own. The truth is that making complex things appear simple is brutally hard. The years I wrote my magazine column over my desk hung a snippet paraphrasing Blaise Pascal’s brilliant observation “I would have written you a shorter letter, if I had more time”
I think that’s the idea worth advancing. Not yours. I totally understand the perception that caused you to post the original argument – and your perception is, of course valid. But I also think it’s shortsighted. That’s all.

Know someone who teaches video editing in elementary school, high school or college? Tell them to check out http://www.StartEditingNow.com – video editing curriculum complete with licensed practice content.

[Mark Dobson]

[Bill Davis] “I really don’t want to spend the next few years talking about X in professional circles and having to waste time explaining why it’s not “too simple” for pro work. And left unaddressed, I’ve seen comments such as yours take on a life of their own. The truth is that making complex things appear simple is brutally hard. The years I wrote my magazine column over my desk hung a snippet paraphrasing Blaise Pascal’s brilliant observation “I would have written you a shorter letter, if I had more time””

Chill Bill

The guys just expressing his opinion and really doesn’t need to have FCPXatic diktats shoved at him.

At it’s best this forum, as demonstrated in most of the responses to this post is a great place to kick ideas around and discuss.

[Bill Davis] “I think that’s the idea worth advancing. Not yours. “

And I don’t think people respond well to being told to sit in the corner with a dunce cap on.

[Nick Papadopoulos]

If by professional you mean busy and complicated then you are lucky because there are so many options for professionals now with resolve, avid and premiere. One finds it child-like, another feels its spot on and clean cut. I don’t understand why frustrate over this?

For me all I need is up front and everything I don’t is tucked away. Sure it’s not a perfect tool, but it fits my mentality and aesthetic. As for the naming conventions, why would one be happy when Apple changed the whole concept of editing but that same one is frustrated when it renamed certain functions and objects to better fit the purpose?

Rethinking an interface should start from the bottom up and naming (re-naming) UI and functional elements are no exception.

Also, if one feels debased as a professional editor, just because the shadows of a UI or rounded corners are not to his liking and that redesign might make a tool accessible to more people perhaps it is something that should get him or her thinking. It’s a tool. Telling a nice story is not something “everyone” can do, not matter the tool they use.

[Dennis Radeke]

[Oliver Peters] ”
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.”

Jumping in mid-conversation here…

Dockable panels (internally we call them Content Panels) are a core part of Adobe’s open architecture strategy. I would guess we have at least a dozen panel integrations with MAMs alone (probably more) and over 50 in total with various companies. You can even check out Pond5 Adobe Plugin to see how easily they can work with things like stock footage companies.

I would point to this as one of the key reasons we have made serious inroads into broadcast, sports, etc. over the last few years. It’s not just about the editor itself per se, but about connecting to the larger workflow within the facility. The Content panel by the way is HTML5 so easy to develop.

HTH,
Dennis – relaxing Adobe guy after NAB…

[Dennis Radeke]

Hi Scott,

I appreciate your passion for FCPX. In an effort to help you loathe Premiere Pro less I would just point out a few things.

crowded – you can remove or move any of the panels. They are all ‘dockable’ and if you don’t need them, simply close them and it will automatically be saved as a part of your workspace
dim – You can adjust the brightness of the interface. Most UI’s including FCPX are dark to help the user focus on the media itself, but there are controls to help adjust to your personal preference.
media import – You definitely should use the Media Browser panel if you’re not already. Dock your favorite or current Media directories as favorites. If you’re still using cmd+I to import media into Premiere Pro, then I can completely understand your frustration (with any NLE that does that).
title tool – The internal title tool is extremely powerful but the details and the UI make it needlessly complicated. You can check out Tim Kolb’s excellent presets via s4t but also pick up some tutorials on how to leverage this more effectively. That said, I think we acknowledge that we need to do some work on this tool in the future to make it more accessible and reactive to the user in the future. I’d also point out that you can use Photoshop as an excellent title tool if you prefer (file>new>new photoshop file)

Cheers,
Dennis – Adobe guy

[Scott Witthaus]

[Dennis Radeke] “help you loathe Premiere Pro less I would just point out a few things.”

Thanks Dennis –

Like I said before, I am going to give Premiere a fair shake. I think too many folks on these type forums trash another product without ever using it.

I appreciate your response. I posted on the Adobe forum and got no Adobe response. Post on an X forum, and I get an official employee to respond! Go figure! 😉

I do prefer X by a wide margin over Premiere (so far), but the realities of my region are that I need to know both (Avid is no longer in the picture). Hopefully by the middle of May when this next gig is done, I will have an even more rounded view of the two products. It will be fun because I am going to be cutting different projects at the same time using X for one and Premiere for the other.

regards –

Scott

Scott Witthaus
Senior Editor/Post Production Supervisor
1708 Inc./Editorial
Professor, VCU Brandcenter

[Bill Davis]

But does it?
Tony West was describing his documentary workflow to me a couple of years ago and opened my thinking a lot about the differing organizational needs of different users. Lets say I go out to shoot two interviews on a particular day – I might shoot one in the morning – and leave the subjects home with a bunch of stills to scan related to that interview. Let’s further imagine the interviewee is disabled and in the interview, poignantly described how he misses hiking by the local creek. So I make that hike and record Nat sound to bolster the idea.
I stop for lunch, then I have a PM interview with his former Coach at the high school. I get B-roll of the school, trophy case shots and an OTS of someone paging through the yearbook.

To my thinking, each interview fits comfortably under the EVENT label. They are not separate projects at all. Nor are they Sequences. Not yet. Under the Event bucket I can curate all the interview, stills, b-roll, sound, etc that related to the mornings work, and ALSO the afternoon shoot as a separate Event – (because it IS) keeping the assets grouped logically, yet never losing sight that they are building blocks of the whole.

Those interviews are not self contained “projects” at all. And sequences doesn’t fit either.

Remember, the fundamental change I’m facing is the shift from thinking folders on a desktop – into a database model of asset storage. One that has to accommodate a wide range of users with vastly different needs. I know that EVENT might trigger visions of weddings, or birthday parties for some, but fiundamentally it’s a THING that happens at a particular time and place. And that pretty perfectly describes what happens when all sorts of productions go out to shoot something.

My 2 cents.

Know someone who teaches video editing in elementary school, high school or college? Tell them to check out http://www.StartEditingNow.com – video editing curriculum complete with licensed practice content.

[Scott Witthaus]

[Dennis Radeke] “media import – You definitely should use the Media Browser panel if you’re not already. Dock your favorite or current Media directories as favorites. If you’re still using cmd+I to import media into Premiere Pro, then I can completely understand your frustration (with any NLE that does that).”

Doing it this way, I still have to drill down through the folder structure to get to the media I want to use, correct?With this 4K job I am in right now (using X) I would have to do a lot of “drilling” to get to the files. With X, I can point to the folder and just tell it to not make collections from folders and it tosses all the XML files and just gets the media. MUCH faster and less chance for missing files. Am I missing an “ignore folders” command in Pr? I even went to Lynda.com to see of I can find that….

Scott Witthaus
Senior Editor/Post Production Supervisor
1708 Inc./Editorial
Professor, VCU Brandcenter

[Oliver Peters]

[Scott Witthaus] “With this 4K job I am in right now (using X) I would have to do a lot of “drilling” to get to the files. With X, I can point to the folder and just tell it to not make collections from folders and it tosses all the XML files and just gets the media.”

Scott – in both X and PPro this depends on the camera SDK that is installed, whether it is third party or built-in. In the case of PPro’s Media Browser, there’s a filter to pick different camera file types instead of just generic files. If it is one of these choices – P2 or RED, as an example – filtering occurs without drilling into each individual clip folder. That’s why the recommendation is to use the Media Browser instead of import via the Finder. PPro’s Media Browser works more or less like X’s import module.

– Oliver

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