New paper on transitioning from FCP7 to X

[Craig Seeman]

Nothing heart stopping. Maybe heart throbbing for some.

[Marvin Holdman]

Very happy to finally see a white paper on this. Wish it had been released back in June. As I read through it, I still wonder why the need to change the terminology? I don’t understand the purpose/advantage of change in terminology. This document very nicely sums up, in a side by side comparison, the “old way” and “new way” of referring to this stuff.

Genius is usually obvious, but all of this only makes me ask “Why?”.

Marvin Holdman
Production Manager
Tourist Network
8317 Front Beach Rd, Suite 23
Panama City Beach, Fl
phone 850-234-2773 ext. 128
cell 850-585-9667
skype username – vidmarv

[Erik Lundberg]

Because we can^H^H^H care?

I so wish they could’ve kept in line here, and showed us they knew how to do this naming thing right. I can see the trouble in translating the old term ‘Project’ into anything at all in FCPX. BUT THEN WHY USE IT? Why not just call it ‘timeline’ or ‘sequence’ or something similarily archaic that would have made sense?

Whining? Absolutely? I could learn to wrangle my terminology backwards? Yup! All our editors/producers could too? Absolutely! If we in the end chose to incorporate FCPX into real work, will we? You bet!

But we shouldn’t have to.

Erik Lundberg

Technical Director, Media Technology, University of Gothenburg, Sweden

[Craig Seeman]

Somewhere I think there’s an Abbot and Costello “Who’s On First” routine with FCPX naming convention with words like Project.

I really think Apple should have used Esperanto to avoid all this confusion.

[Erik Lundberg]

We’ll all have to learn to not just distinguish between ‘source’ and ‘canvas’, but between ‘project’ and ‘project’. Sneaky, this word game.

Erik Lundberg

Technical Director, Media Technology, University of Gothenburg, Sweden