Predictions for FCPX in 2013

[Marcus Moore]

The areas I’d like to see advancement in are

• audio mixing either within FCPX or with tight Logic integration
• collaborative workflow
• better visual project organization using Roles data
• rock solid and redundant backups for those who need it (I’ve personally never lost data but feel for those who for whatever reason are)
• roundtrip to motion
• bring back iChat theatre to FCPX
• more metadata options for Events, like person detection and dialogue transcription

and BONUS:

• a new MacPro so people can stop grousing about it.

[Craig Seeman]

The hard thing about predicting which features are coming when, is that Apple’s feature progression isn’t “linear” for the user. I think that’s because Apple’s approach is based on the logical progression for the programmer.

I could probably just post to link to Richard Taylor’s Feature Requests and simply say “everything.”
https://fcpx.tv/top.html

But what I’d like to, in addition to what Marcus posted:

• Tracking in Color grading
• Multiple Scopes
• Timeline clips in both Viewers for grading
• Ganging in the Viewers
• better Roles targeting while editing
• x264 encoder implementation in Compressor (and FCPX) for encoding
• see Source Timecode in the timeline
• full import and use of metadata created by cameras (lens type, f-stop, etc)

[Craig Seeman]

[Marcus Moore] “• a new MacPro so people can stop grousing about it.”

Although I think the grousing will escalate once it’s released. Some people will hate it because it’s not a tower. Even if it has 16 core Xeons with an nVidia Quadro K5000, people will complain because there’s no internal HDD expansion nor 4x PCIe slots. That you can rack mount it or more easily transport it than the current 40+lbs current behemoth will have no comprehensible value. Sorry if I’m being a bit sarcastic but I think there’s at least a “half truth” in that.

[Marcus Moore]

I think the form and implementation of what this new MacPro will be is [besides FCPX development] the most engaging question for me this year.

In practice I only see two forms the product can take- either one similar to what exists now, with all the up to date CPU, GPU, RAM, and I/O that the current MacPro lacks.

The only alternative would be a modular design tied together by Thunderbolt, but until we’re at 100GB/s, that’s not going to happen.

[Marcus Moore]

I’m working on a blog post about this-

I think the biggest deciding factor for where development will take the application this year is if Apple thinks it has another year of filling the holes in functionality that keep legacy users from moving over, OR if they think they’re ready for a 10.1 update.

If we continue along our current path, then updates will continue to be free, and the features added will continue to build on reintegrating and improving the legacy feature set.

But if the goal is 10.1- then that will be a paid update, and obviously the dev team will have to present a compelling set of features which would merit another $299 from users. And these would have to be NEW features that expand beyond those found in FCP7. But I would consider any major advances in collaborative workflow “new” since those were part of Final Cut Server, and not FCP itself.

[Craig Seeman]

[Marcus Moore] “but until we’re at 100GB/s, that’s not going to happen.”

Though this is interesting:

Fiber Optic Thunderbolt Cables Begin Mass Production, Available Up to 30m in Length
https://www.macrumors.com/2012/12/31/fiber-optic-thunderbolt-cables-begin-mass-production-available-up-to-30m-in-length/

Not to say that that means that optical Thunderbolt at 10Gbps is close but…

[Marcus Moore] “In practice I only see two forms the product can take- either one similar to what exists now, with all the up to date CPU, GPU, RAM, and I/O that the current MacPro lacks.”

I’d be surprised if Apple were that conservative with the design.

[Marcus Moore]

[Craig Seeman] “I’d be surprised if Apple were that conservative with the design.”

Similar form, but not the same. But I’ve yet to see anyone suggest what an “alternate” platform would look like. Either its an integrated design [like the current MacPro], or a modular design. Since modular isn’t possible at this stage- that just leaves integrated.

[Craig Seeman]

[Marcus Moore] “But if the goal is 10.1- then that will be a paid update, and obviously the dev team will have to present a compelling set of features which would merit another $299 from users. And these would have to be NEW features that expand beyond those found in FCP7.”

So many of the feature lists many of us have are focused on improvements of previously existing features or improvements on currently implemented features.

[Marcus Moore] “But I would consider any major advances in collaborative workflow “new” since those were part of Final Cut Server, and not FCP itself.”

But some would consider that yet another reintroduction of something people have lost. While paying for that would be worthwhile for any facility who would otherwise like to implement FCPX, I’d imagine they’d have to add some other amazing things to get the rest of the masses to jump in and on up.

What other entirely new features do you envision in addition to server based implementation?

[Craig Seeman]

[Marcus Moore] “But I’ve yet to see anyone suggest what an “alternate” platform would look like. “

I’ve made a number of posts on this but maybe my thoughts fall into one of your two categories.
I’ve called it a “pizza box’ of sorts but that might well be considered a narrower tower if you put it on its side. I think they’ll be one or two 16 lane PCIe slots but no 4 lane PCIe slots as that’ll be Thunderbolt. I have mixed feelings about internal HDD storage, while I’d certainly like that, I can imagine Apple getting rid of that as well due to Thunderbolt. I have more details to add but I’ve posted it before. I can post it again if you’d like.

[Marcus Moore]

If someone who was using Final Cut Server can now get all that functionality at $299 bundled with FCPX, I don’t see anyone complaining… Ok, Well, I can, but whatever…

[Craig Seeman] “What other entirely new features do you envision in addition to server based implementation?”

There’s no single feature that would merit a paid upgrade. But here’s a short list of what I’d consider “new” to the FCP platform.

• bus-based mixing- allowing you to assign roles to different sub-mixes for grouped audio fx and levels
• dialogue transcription- already found in in some other NLEs [I can’t remember which], but would go hand in hand with FCPXs metadata-based foundations
• person identification- like in iPhoto
• connect clip rules – allowing you to assign behaviours so that connected clips can automatically match any trim, roll, etc. adjustments you make to the primary storyline element, or vice-versa
• more render tasks pushed into TRUE background processes, like exporting is now
• audio repair – FCPX would find “room tone” for any audio clip, and if you want to eliminate a breath, or “um”, just range select it and hit “repair”. Non-destructive of course

I have more as part of my blog post, I plus more expanded ideas on these, but I don’t want to blow my own article completely…