-
Resolve 11 – Is it me…
-
[Douglas K. Dempsey] “Haha, hey Charlie. We’re not jumping off the X ship just yet! But you gotta admit they’ve made some interface choices that ape X’s “modern NLE” look while retaining track-based editing.
“🙂 Oh, didn’t expect anyone to jump. lol
To me, it looks less like BM stealing stuff from X, and more like Resolve becoming a perfect companion. If the free version can spit out an ALE, or EDL or whatever, and fcpxml gets to a point where pretty much everything about a project gets translated, tags, fx, basic color etc, well… it sounds pretty promising to me. But what do I know… 😉 I just see things like this, from the ‘personal’ (lol) email Grant sent to me this AM.
There are new collaborative workflow tools in DaVinci Resolve 11 which allows an editor and multiple colorists to work on different workstations, sharing the same timeline and working in tandem as they complete shots. Another advantage of the enhanced editing features is the better round trip collaboration with Apple Final Cut Pro X™.
————————————————————-
~ My FCPX Babbling blog ~
~”It is a poor craftsman who blames his tools.”~
~”The function you just attempted is not yet implemented”~ -
Indeed, Charlie that is the serious reaction, as opposed to all the joking.
If you are in the process of “round-tripping” and find that you can fuss and tweak in Resolve, grade, go back to X when you’re ready … it just increases the comfort level as Scott mentions.
Doug D
-
Interesting if you want to ‘go back’ to tracks….the new folks using X never knew tracks and would have no reason to “go back”.
I just find it interesting the prominent mentions X gets in the articles.
Scott Witthaus
Senior Editor/Post Production Supervisor
1708 Inc./Editorial
Professor, VCU Brandcenter -
[Scott Witthaus] “the new folks using X never knew tracks and would have no reason to “go back”.”
Some not so new folks using X know tracks quite well, and also don’t want to “go back” 🙂
[Scott Witthaus] “I just find it interesting the prominent mentions X gets in the articles.”
It’s the only NLE mentioned in the email blast.
————————————————————-
~ My FCPX Babbling blog ~
~”It is a poor craftsman who blames his tools.”~
~”The function you just attempted is not yet implemented”~ -
Right. If you have come out of Avid, PPro of FCP Legacy, you may have a pang of nostalgia when you see the “track mapping” from Browser to Timeline, and some of the sliding and trimming.
But if you have “grown up in X” you already execute those techniques using mag timeline, gaps, secondary story lines, moving clip anchors and all the rest of it.
Doug D
-
[Charlie Austin] “[Scott Witthaus] “the new folks using X never knew tracks and would have no reason to “go back”.”
Some not so new folks using X know tracks quite well, and also don’t want to “go back” 🙂
[Scott Witthaus] “I just find it interesting the prominent mentions X gets in the articles.”
It’s the only NLE mentioned in the email blast.”
Oh boy, tracks! I actually watched one of their videos, and it seems to have better trim tools. I hope Red Giant will announce support. Still, there are a few things that X does pretty darn well. It is pro software not a toy ! My two cents, whatever it is worth.
Why get out the butter when there is no bread on the table?
* Edit *
I would probably do most of the editing in Resolve but ship that over to FCP X for additional finishing. Motion has the tools to build a nice looking lower third for use in X where I would add titles, lower thirds and transitions. That is, assuming I can export an XML out of Resolve to bring into X that works correctly. I think the three tools combined will make for a killer system on a small budget.Looking for a real alternative to Photoshop and Illustrator when I want to do some more classic looking title sequences. Any advice here would be greatly appreciated.
I am now waiting for Red Giant to take Universe from beta to full power. Will start out monthly and go to lifetime membership. Post has changed, again and for the better!
-
[Douglas K. Dempsey] “But if you have “grown up in X” “
that’s got to be open to question now tho. If apple have managed to sell X to a number that equates to around half of their installed prior FCP base, after three years, then you’d wonder where exactly this new generation much broader spread of X editors is coming from. Basically apple don’t seem to have effected a much broader uptake. there is no grand new video literacy taking place with X.
to quote tim wilson there below:
The one part I still stand by is that this is a ridiculously low number. I guess they have to say SOMETHING, I’d be embarrassed to have this be the flag I was trying to fly under…. (although he qualified that to soothe ruffled feathers a bit but still)
and then again:
But “only” 1 million downloads in 3 years says to me that X hasn’t yet caused the massive market shift away from pro users that many had feared. I think the Venn diagram overlap of “X users” and “Hardcore Pro users” out that 1 million is pretty dang big.
you’d have to agree – basically that meme, that has been perpetuated on here for god knows how long, that X was reaching out and behind recalcitrant current pros to build an entirely new broader base for editing, a generation that would “grow up using X” as you say there, is kind of shot.
that might also explain apple jettisoning the imovie import new project buttons, and all the PR push going directly back into high end workflows.
In a way apple are having to fight on exactly the same turf that they said they were sick of in 2007.
I still remember this post from a guy who had worked on FCP for a half decade, explaining their move with X:
https://isachin.com/2011/06/30/why-apple-built-final-cut-pro-x/
choice quotes:
“Apple doesn’t care about the pro space”
“The pro market is too small for Apple to care about it. Instead of trying to get hundreds or even thousands of video professionals to buy new Macs, they can nail the pro-sumer market and sell to hobbyists like me.”
“I know how to use Final Cut Pro because I worked on it for 6 years, but for most people it’s just too complex.”
“things changed in 2006 and 2007. Serious competitors to Final Cut Pro came from Adobe, Pinnacle, Sony, and others. People were choosing their hardware and software based on format support, or specific features they needed. That’s boring. Apple doesn’t play that game.”
You would nearly spit out your tea laughing at those quotes considering where apple have ended up with X in terms of numbers and “format support”.https://vimeo.com/user1590967/videos http://www.ogallchoir.net promo producer/editor.grading/motion graphics
-
[Aindreas Gallagher] “”Apple doesn’t care about the pro space”
“The pro market is too small for Apple to care about it. Instead of trying to get hundreds or even thousands of video professionals to buy new Macs, they can nail the pro-sumer market and sell to hobbyists like me.”
“I know how to use Final Cut Pro because I worked on it for 6 years, but for most people it’s just too complex.”
“things changed in 2006 and 2007. Serious competitors to Final Cut Pro came from Adobe, Pinnacle, Sony, and others. People were choosing their hardware and software based on format support, or specific features they needed. That’s boring. Apple doesn’t play that game.”
“Well that proves it, FCPX is clearly aimed at the Prosumers because that bloke said so.
Steve Connor
Class Bully
-
I would agree that the X has not proven to be the new paradigm; who could say that is has, in view of the numbers, as you point out. But “having grown up in X” doesn’t imply anything about numbers of users. It’s simply to say that, if you’ve never used tracks, you won’t know what you’re missing in X. And supporters of X, like me for my uses, feel that we are not missing much.
That has been my point about teaching to high school kids. They don’t seem to NEED a traditional NLE at their level. The argument has been at the pro level, whether you inevitably hit a functionality wall in X and must go to a track-based NLE.
I think many users on this forum have long since testified that it works in many situations, and the Debate now is not so much “FCPX or Not” — but more like “FCPX, When & Where?”
A lot of posting that goes on now is about that wall, and discussions on whether there is an acceptable workaround for a particular issue, or whether that issue is the road sign that says “Dead End” and it’s time to take another route.
Doug D
-
[Steve Connor] “Well that proves it, FCPX is clearly aimed at the Prosumers because that bloke said so.”
shhh…don’t tell Black Magic that. They would have to re-do all those e-mails and web pages!
Scott Witthaus
Senior Editor/Post Production Supervisor
1708 Inc./Editorial
Professor, VCU Brandcenter
Reply to this Discussion! Login or Sign Up