-
Prognostications on FCPX compared to OSX and iOS from Alex4D
-
[Walter Soyka] “Further, I think that speculating only about FCPX’s future while tacitly assuming static competition is myopic and gives no credit to other NLE developers.”
To a point, Walter. The thing is the moment most users make their decisions about tool adoption, they turn away from “assessment” and move on to mastery. They may keep an eye on the others, but the only real decision is if the new tool continues to meet their needs.
X slammed new emphasis into this market. It’s not that other programs didn’t do this stuff – they did. X just re-ordered the priorities and forced many of us who saw our NLE as exclusively “an editing app” and forced us to broaden our thinking about that.
It edits just fine. Not perfectly for every single editor – particularly if they’ve developed habits they won’t or can’t adapt – but it edits just fine. So the real places of interest aren’t necessarily in the timeline anymore – they’re around it, IMO.
Everyone has been in one NLE or another when the competition has announced something zippy and enticing. But it’s rarely worth jumping ship to chase any single feature regardless of how compelling it might be – if for no other reason than most of the other NLE programs sooner or later typically add the same capabilities.
The fun of this discussion is that it’s exploring those “other things” like media management, and connectivity.
This is the fresh territory – to my eyes – we’re all having to explore.
And while PrPro and AVID are certainly spending time, resources and effort to explore the same territory – they are also, from what I can see, trying to maintain backwards compatibility with their classic approaches – something Apple was willing to risk.
That’s the message AVID and Premier have kept sending out in the transition. “Come over here – we’re more like what you had before. You’ll be more comfortable.”
And for that to be a successful long-term strategy – they’ll have to find a way to continue to make their users feel simultaneously “comfortable” and also secure that they’re not missing something else by not heading as rapidly into the new territory that Apple was willing to redesign their vehicle to get to.
I can see your point. Maybe Apples’ competition are heading there just as rapidly, via a path I can’t see. But it puzzles me how they can do that easily if they keep believing that “job 1” is taking care of existing customers who are driving traditional sedans and can only use the superhighways they’re used to traveling on.
That’s certainly the fast way to travel. But if “on road” is the main value you peruse, then you can only end up where the road builders decide you want to go.
Fun to speculate.
“Before speaking out ask yourself whether your words are true, whether they are respectful and whether they are needed in our civil discussions.”-Justice O’Connor
-
[Walter Soyka] “I’m with you that all the ingredients seem to be there. I’m not 100% convinced that Apple will have the will to go collaborative, as I’d see that as a huge reversal of focus-on-the-individual trend that so many here have noted, but it would certainly be useful and it certainly could happen.”
More on this. Let’s bring it back to hardware/software.
I’m not 100% convinced of anything in the NLE space, but I think that fcp and now FCPX is partially created to sell hardware, just as any NLE company develops new features, applications, and workflows to sell more upgrade copies (or now Adobe’s subscription service which has benefits, Lightroom showed up for “free” today).
Collaboration, true collaboration (within the same space, and not the cloud) requires software and hardware, and depending on the requirements, it can be big hardware, or not terribly big hardware. Depending on what is managing your SAN (or not) it takes some work, set up, and know how.
XSan client software is built in to every single Lion install. Running an Xsan network requires a metadata master which is a computer that is connected to fast storage. Conceivably with thunderbolt (sorry Franz), this cost will come down, and the metadata master can be a mac mini connected to a raid or two that can get 500+ MB/sec each. You then need a way to “serve” the data which could be fibre/10 GigE/1 GigE.
I’m not saying this is easy or ultra cheap, but it is certainly more affordable than ever, and it will sell more Macs if the collaboration is built right in to the entire system, especially if you don’t need to buy a MacPro just to manage data calls.
If you ever have a chance to see someone with a SAN that’s running fcpx and is using San Locations, you will see with those tools that are already working very well in the application today (since 10.0.1 or whenever San Locations showed up). With X’s “in the app” methods of moving Events and Projects in the app and then a simple rearrange with San Locations with absolutely zero reconnect time and media management across multiple machines is a plus. With San Locations, you don’t even need to quit fcpx to load new Projects and Events.
I’m not saying this as an Apple fanboy, I am saying this as someone who is genuinely interested in the capability that is already there. From what I can gather Autodesk uses similar ideas in their system (not currently in Smoke prerelease) so perhaps Apple “stole” it.
It is also very apparent that development time was spent here as the Event/Project structure is totally and completely suited for this workflow, yet how many people have and use a SAN let alone XSan? Why would Apple devote this much time to it? They don’t advertise it and no one talks about it, yet it’s one of the great functions of fcpx? You don’t even need XML in this case to move media, all organization, and timelines really easily and quickly all from within the application. Motion Templates are more tricky, but Spherico helps with that: https://www.spherico.de/filmtools/MTT/index.html
-
“we speculate more about FCPX than other NLEs”
Yes we do – because – if you read Walter Biscardi’s blogs – FCP Legacy was about as good as it gets with NLE’s — an endless sea of affordable plugs in – – ease of editing – played well with others – There’s a reason it became one of the best selling, most used NLE’s.
Yes it got long in the tooth — and needed a face lift. But a year after FCP X – it’s still not the tool many of us need – and we’d sure like it to be without tossing a decades worth of experience, muscle memory and marketable skills.
Andy Field
FieldVision Productions
N. Bethesda, Maryland 20852 -
[Andy Field] “Yes we do – because – if you read Walter Biscardi’s blogs – FCP Legacy was about as good as it gets with NLE’s — an endless sea of affordable plugs in – – ease of editing – played well with others – There’s a reason it became one of the best selling, most used NLE’s.
Yes it got long in the tooth — and needed a face lift. But a year after FCP X – it’s still not the tool many of us need – and we’d sure like it to be without tossing a decades worth of experience, muscle memory and marketable skills.”
I certainly respect Walter’s view – but I don’t always agree with it. He does one kind of work. I do another. His experience are no more directly relevant to me than mine are to him.
Legacy was a great tool and I relied on it from April of 1999 to one year ago. Well over a decade of development, success and comfort. But I never made a movie or an episodic television program during that time.
Instead I wrote, shot, directed and produced more than 300 corporate videos. Legacy was flexible enough to meet my needs and Walters.
But my needs are NOT the same as his anymore. My industry has moved on.
A decade ago, my typical clients commissioned 30-75 minute programs. The average length requested by my clients today is usually 3 to 5 minutes and seldom more than 10.
Thats just the way it is.
Other than in-flight entertainment, nobody wants to watch 45 minute videos on their iPad – they want ten 4.5 minute standalone videos instead. And they want them sourced on the web or via their corporate server and searchable.
X is a much superior tool for producing the kind of content I actually need today.
Simple as that.
“Before speaking out ask yourself whether your words are true, whether they are respectful and whether they are needed in our civil discussions.”-Justice O’Connor
-
Interesting article for sure and like some said, discussing imaginary software or what could be is a powerful vehicle for making it a reality.
For the article, I will only comment and say that I don’t think anything the author listed there as something that Apple can do that the competition can’t do as well.
Dennis – Adobe
-
That’s great news. If Apple do go in this direction we need the people at Adobe, Avid and Autodesk to keep them on their toes by following them (or leading the way)..
Despite the fact that Apple hardly acknowledge their competitors, X might go down in history as the time when competitors forced their hand. But Apple’s perversity sent the post world into confusion.
___________________________________________________
Alexandre Gollner,
Editor, Zone 2-North West, Londonalex4d on twitter, facebook, .wordpress.com & .com
-
[Bill Davis] “To a point, Walter. The thing is the moment most users make their decisions about tool adoption, they turn away from “assessment” and move on to mastery. They may keep an eye on the others, but the only real decision is if the new tool continues to meet their needs.”
Yes — but a lot of the dialogue here is still about whether to adopt FCPX or not, even a year after its arrival.
[Bill Davis] “That’s the message AVID and Premier have kept sending out in the transition. “Come over here – we’re more like what you had before. You’ll be more comfortable.””
Some users are saying that, but neither Avid nor Adobe really are.
Avid markets themselves as the industry standard [link]: “Media Composer is the top choice for professional film and video editing in the industry.”
Adobe markets performance and broad integrated tool set [link], “Adobe® Premiere® Pro CS6 software combines incredible performance with a sleek, revamped user interface and a host of fantastic new creative features… Ready to switch to the ultimate toolset for video pros?”
Neither want to be considered FCP8, because both embody a different philosophy about post production than FCP did.
[Bill Davis] “And for that to be a successful long-term strategy – they’ll have to find a way to continue to make their users feel simultaneously “comfortable” and also secure that they’re not missing something else by not heading as rapidly into the new territory that Apple was willing to redesign their vehicle to get to. I can see your point. Maybe Apples’ competition are heading there just as rapidly, via a path I can’t see. But it puzzles me how they can do that easily if they keep believing that “job 1” is taking care of existing customers who are driving traditional sedans and can only use the superhighways they’re used to traveling on. That’s certainly the fast way to travel. But if “on road” is the main value you peruse, then you can only end up where the road builders decide you want to go.”
All NLEs were sedans, but Apple scrapped theirs and made a Jeep (or a rocketship), so now they can go wherever they want and everyone else is stuck on the road?
I see this as a variation on the “Only Apple innovates” argument that I’m pushing back against.
Some believe creativity can only occur when all constraints are lifted. Others (and I fall into this category) believe that constraints focus creativity. I think that all four As have a lot of room for advancement within their respective philosophies and sets of constraints.
Speculation about FCPX’s glorious future is used as an argument for FCPX, and it’s often coupled with the twin assumptions that the competition is standing by flat-footed, and that by shedding its legacy constraints, Apple and only Apple are well-prepared for the future.
Let’s look back at the original article. The first half is about how Apple had to catch up. The second half, using iOS as a template, is about possibile “superseding features” we could see in FCPX — the ones that “competitors will find very hard to compete with.”
Let’s look at those features:
- An internal store for FCPX effects, clip content, tutorials and online communities, eventually leading to third-party FCPX UIs for specialized uses and industries
- Multi-user editorial collaboration
The FCPX in-app store is going to lead to new UIs for specialized uses? Apple doesn’t let the user even rearrange panels in the interface; are they really going to let developers take it over? And Apple is the only firm that can create a store? Was Mr. Gollner aware that Adobe, perhaps too far ahead of their time, actually had a stock photography store integrated in Creative Suites 2 and 3, starting seven years ago?
Was the Adobe collaborative editing concept demo at NAB a moon-landing fake? Should someone tap Avid on the shoulder and let them know that the Unity collaborative editing systems they’ve been selling for 13 years don’t really exist?
The claim that “Adobe, Avid and Autodesk aren’t in a position where they can completely change their core editing technology and metaphor” is somewhat bizarre, since — just like Apple — Adobe, Avid and Autodesk have all just seen massive change: Adobe with a Premiere Pro rewrite to go 64-bit and create the Mercury Engine; Avid with a 64-bit rewrite of MC; Autodesk with a platform port and philosophy/UI overhaul.
FCPX is unique, and FCPX has enormous potential — but that is not the same as saying that FCPX is unique in that it has enormous potential.
Walter Soyka
Principal & Designer at Keen Live
Motion Graphics, Widescreen Events, Presentation Design, and Consulting
RenderBreak Blog – What I’m thinking when my workstation’s thinking
Creative Cow Forum Host: Live & Stage Events -
[Walter Soyka] “[Bill Davis] “That’s the message AVID and Premier have kept sending out in the transition. “Come over here – we’re more like what you had before. You’ll be more comfortable.””
Some users are saying that, but neither Avid nor Adobe really are. “
For the most part Avid users have typically been happy with the product and never saw any reason to change. Some moved to FCP because they were forced by market or client demands and ended up liking the experience. Others were curious and also liked the change. Thus the success of legacy among those pro users, together with a rather malleable framework to build workflows around. There’s also a large chunk of Avid-turned-FCP users who have never liked FCP and are more than happy to see the marketplace change a bit back to Avid.
The real battle is for the hearts and minds of the next wave of pro editors. Avid is trying to cover all bases, while Adobe is trying to give users some of the FCP workflow experience. This may ultimately be the right approach or it could be a strategy that runs out of road in a few years. That’s the gamble Apple has made, with the plan of building a product intended to hit its stride in a few years, rather than today. There are many things Avid can do today, which FCP X can’t touch. But are those necessary any longer? Like Stereo3D or film negative cut lists? Clearly not enough to warrant building those directly into X.
This means many users are re-evaluating what an NLE *should* be and what can we *give up* in order to have something better later.
– Oliver
Oliver Peters Post Production Services, LLC
Orlando, FL
http://www.oliverpeters.com -
[Bill Davis] “The average length requested by my clients today is usually 3 to 5 minutes and seldom more than 10.”
Bill – glad it’s working for you – but for us – it doesn’t matter if it’s a 30 second commercial or 30 minute program – FCP 7 still provides the ease and flexibility we need. Just the audio mixing and automatic keyframing that’s missing in X is enough to keep us away.
AVID is fine – takes some relearning – but feels clunky and and dusty ..and the Texas two step with AMA (which is spotty at best) seems like a step backwards from the “throw everything and the kitchen sink” at Premiere 6 Timeline and it just works.
Adobe Premiere is promising – fast – and if they can encourage the vast universe of FCP7 plug in providers to do the same with Premiere – can be the FCP 8 we’d hoped for —
A few issues that Adobe’s incredibly responsive support team are working on will go a long way to making that transition attractive to many legacy editors
Andy Field
FieldVision Productions
N. Bethesda, Maryland 20852 -
[Andy Field] “AVID is fine – takes some relearning – but feels clunky and and dusty ..and the Texas two step with AMA (which is spotty at best) seems like a step backwards from the “throw everything and the kitchen sink” at Premiere 6 Timeline and it just works.”
Think of AMA as a slightly better Log & Transfer. That was the design and intent. Not as a drag & drop, direct editing method.
Unfortunately the Premiere approach breaks down pretty quickly when you have to send a sequence that’s a mixed bag of native codecs elsewhere. Hence the reason the Send to SG function renders intermediate DPX files first. The approach also means that your export – when you are under a time crunch – can be inordinately long.
It’s a question of when you choose to pay the render tax.
– Oliver
Oliver Peters Post Production Services, LLC
Orlando, FL
http://www.oliverpeters.com
Reply to this Discussion! Login or Sign Up