-
Prem vs FCPX – Panels
-
[Oliver Peters] “The usual COW tangents in this thread, I’m afraid. But, back on point, wouldn’t 3rd party panel integration offer some benefits to FCPX users?”
Maybe. It seems like adding a panel would only work with Adobes tabbed layout. I’m not sure how it would fit into FCP X’s no-tab design. I think there are cases that I think tabs would be useful – for example different timelines in different tabs so you wouldn’t have to cycle through timelines to find the one you want. But I just can’t imagine Apple changing the layout structure of FCP X that radically for better or worse.
I think I’d be happy if plug-ins could have more customization within the Parameters window. I just don’t like the pop-up interface design of things like Neat Video or Color Finale. You have to keep launching the window when moving from clip to clip and they tend to get in the way, so I’m moving them around a lot. It’s definitely not ideal.
————————–
Brett Sherman
One Man Band (If it\’s video related I\’ll do it!)
I work for an institution that probably does not want to be associated with my babblings here. -
[andy patterson] “Don’t back out on me, dude. “
Ahem…”dude”…Did I suddenly get time-warped back to middle school? Good heavens. Take a pill. Or something. No trolling here. I leave that to the usual suspects on this board.
My initial post stands on its own. Even so, Jeremy and Robin spelled out the specifics very well (each in his own inimitable way). I would only add, since there seems to be some confusion, that my comments refer to UI and UX, not capabilities.
Feel free to configure PPro panels any way you like. PPro will never have X’s timeline. It’s ever-increasing collection of windows/panels/whatever you wish to call them will never work in the context-sensitive simplicity that is built into the very design of X. The endless, convoluted twirldowns within twirldowns inside panels and submenus will continue to be the exasperating experience of daily editing that it is today and has been for years.
PPro’s UI/UX philosophy is antithetical that of FCPX. PPro can’t be made to effectively “mimic” X, let alone behave like it. I don’t think X can mimic PPro, let alone behave like it. Why would I even want to try such a thing?
If I find some benefit in using PPro, I’ll simply use PPro. I’ve used it for years. Almost never by choice, but I don’t always have a choice. Same with Avid. 20 years of Avid, and it’s still Avid, for better and for worse.
Clearly, I prefer FCPX, warts and all. It’s simply a better tool in almost all circumstances, for me. In those rare situations where PPro or Avid is the better tool, I’ll use it, if possible. But it’s ridiculous to pretend that Avid’s UI isn’t straight out of the 90s, with seriously flawed attempts to graft on pathes to accommodate modern workflow needs. And it’s ridiculous to pretend PPro, in spite of having been recoded for 64 bit hardware, isn’t still just a gussied up version of the original amateur editing app for graphics guys and computer geeks it started out as 20+ years ago. Much more capable, but still built on the same philosophical underpinnings.
TL;DR: Poor UI/UX does not necessarily equal lack of capability, merely poor usability.
Hope I didn’t let you down, dude.
-
[Oliver Peters] “most users’ experience is exactly the opposite.”
FWIW, except for the PSD issue, my experience pretty much mirrors Jeremy’s. Across three different systems (all MacPro trashcans) and two different versions (CC2015 snd CC2017). Nasty habit of crashing on deadline. Almost as if it were alive and malicious… 😉
-
[Jeff Markgraf] “Almost as if it were alive and malicious… ;-)”
I guess you guys just aren’t living right ☺
– Oliver
Oliver Peters Post Production Services, LLC
Orlando, FL
http://www.oliverpeters.com -
[Brett Sherman] “I think I’d be happy if plug-ins could have more customization within the Parameters window. I just don’t like the pop-up interface design of things like Neat Video or Color Finale. You have to keep launching the window when moving from clip to clip and they tend to get in the way, so I’m moving them around a lot. It’s definitely not ideal.”
I’d be willing to bet Apple’s not happy with it either. It’s clearly a workaround that developers figured out to get around the other issue. Maybe Simon will comment on this, since Hawaiki Color uses a viewer overlay, which is an other solution, though not one that would work universally.
– Oliver
Oliver Peters Post Production Services, LLC
Orlando, FL
http://www.oliverpeters.com -
[Jeff Markgraf] “The endless, convoluted twirldowns within twirldowns inside panels and submenus will continue to be the exasperating experience of daily editing that it is today and has been for years.”
You mean like those in FCPX’s inspector?
– Oliver
Oliver Peters Post Production Services, LLC
Orlando, FL
http://www.oliverpeters.com -
[Jeff Markgraf] “Hope I didn’t let you down, dude.”
Best response ever. 😉
Scott Witthaus
Senior Editor/Post Production Supervisor
1708 Inc./Editorial
Professor, VCU Brandcenter -
[Robin S. Kurz] “So how is just a plain ol’ import of a PDF (as described) not enough?”
See the problem in the attached image? (I have a 20″ and a 27″ so the screen sizes are different.) Even when I enable the event viewer, I can’t see a script, source clip and timeline in X. I can in Premiere.
– Oliver
Oliver Peters Post Production Services, LLC
Orlando, FL
http://www.oliverpeters.com -
[Brett Sherman] “I’m not sure how it would fit into FCP X’s no-tab design.”
In theory, isn’t the new browser layout basically the same concept as Adobe panels (tabs)? “Panel” 1 = Libraries, “Panel” 2 = Photos/Audio, “Panel” 3 = Titles/Generators.
– Oliver
Oliver Peters Post Production Services, LLC
Orlando, FL
http://www.oliverpeters.com -
Latin is a dead language. Move on, dude.
Reply to this Discussion! Login or Sign Up