-
Steve Kanter: What FCPX CAN Do
-
Walter,
First off, I want to say how much I appreciate the first line you posted. All too often here posters (myself firmly included) simply read and react. I’m honored you gave my position careful consideration.
In that spirit, rather than toss off a quick reaction, I’m going to give your ideas the same consideration you honored mine with.
More to come later for any who are still interested.
“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’Conner
-
[Chris Jacek] “The only problems with converting previous projects is that FCPX lacks functionality that FCP7 did (i.e., how could you convert a multiclip sequence). This is what makes Apple’s claim about “FCPX being too complicated” laughable. It is the FCP7 project that would be too complicated.”
I think the problem with converting an FCP7 timeline to FCPX is guessing the editor’s intent (which FCPX gleans as you construct the edit) from the legacy timeline alone. FCPX would have no way of looking at an FCP7 timeline and figuring out how to translate absolutely placed clips on discrete tracks into primary storylines, secondary storylines, and connected clips.
Without properly translating the timeline and correctly guessing the editor’s intent, all those cool new editorial features in FCPX won’t work right.
This suggests to me that FCPX will never ingest an edit from any other system, because no other system represents editorial like FCPX does. This is why I’ve suggested that Apple made a conscious decision to change the editorial paradigm rather than support any legacy work.
Perhaps someone will come up with a tool that allows an editor to “magnetize” a timeline, but that could be very complicated endeavor, too. Since an improperly magnetized timeline would cause FCPX the same trouble that an unmagnetized timeline would, I’d be surprised if Apple opens up import the way they have announced they will for export. I’d love to be wrong here.
Of course, getting the edit out via XML is easier — you can flatten out the relative trackless timeline and throw out clip connection metadata and get a standard absolute tracked timeline.
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 -
I, like many professional editors, do many marketing videos. I have no problem whatsoever with marketing. I can usually judge when someone is being deceptive. As long as the marketing is genuine/honest, I think it’s valuable.
All the “A”s market to us. Consultants, VARs, trainers do it too. None of them sell their services if there’s no market demand. FCPX is in demand in part of the market and it’s a market which has money to spend.
I saw Evan Schechtman from OutPost Digital go through FCPX at an event in NYC and he wasn’t selling anything and it matches much of what I’m seeing in the other videos.
As someone playing with FCPX daily my experience matches what they are showing and saying.
-
“The only questions left, IMO, is who needs to stay where editing IS for very defensible and sensible business reasons – who is ready to buy into the possibilities that FCP-X might hold for a better future – and who’s going to get STUCK unable to decide what they should do – and for how long.
That’s a pretty simple array of choices.
IF you edit, you HAVE to take one of those three paths. Apple has decided that for you. Like it or not.”
This implies that FCPX is not only the “future” of editing, but also the only future. It’s a good bet that an exciting alternative is waiting right around the corner, and it isn’t being made by Apple.
Considering Apple’s track record; the fact that they have made their reputation marketing software created and designed by others, and that they have never before internally created any software of any importance in the field of visual media creation, betting that this first time effort is going to be a field leader seems rather far fetched.
If one is going to bet on innovation in this field, Avid and Adobe have the track record to bet on.
Herb Sevush
Zebra Productions -
[Andree Franks]And I am referring to the previous post with my sarcasm, well I am telling I could not do my job with Avid, I had to use something in the lines of Maya or Cinema 4D.
Do you get where I am going with this?I do get what you are trying to say, and it’s completely weird.
-
[Walter Soyka]I think the problem with converting an FCP7 timeline to FCPX is guessing the editor’s intent (which FCPX gleans as you construct the edit) from the legacy timeline alone.
Despite the fancy bells and whistles with FCPX’s timeline, it’s still, as Chris said:
It is still in-points, out-points, timecode, etc
That would be like Apple releasing a new version of Pages and that it couldn’t import documents from Pages ’09 because the new Pages uses auto correct.
-
[Gary Huff] “Despite the fancy bells and whistles with FCPX’s timeline, it’s still, as Chris said:
It is still in-points, out-points, timecode, etc
That would be like Apple releasing a new version of Pages and that it couldn’t import documents from Pages ’09 because the new Pages uses auto correct.”
Gary, I’d agree that it’s a shame that Apple has chosen not support any sort of legacy compatibility, and I certainly understand the consequences for shops like mine with years of FCP legacy. However, an FCPX edit it is not just in-points, out-points, timecode, etc., and that is the root of the problem here.
FCPX needs more data about the edit that is available in the FCP7 timeline in order to make the magnetic timeline work. If FCPX were to open an FCP7 timeline, it would have to lose storylines, clip connections, and trackless magic.
You cannot automatically magnetize a legacy timeline, because the information about the relationships between clips that FCPX relies on is not expressed. If you tried automatic magnetization, the first time that the computer or editor guesses wrong about a storyline or clip connection, it would totally break the FCPX editorial experience. The tools just wouldn’t seem to be working right.
Apple made a huge design decision with FCPX, and legacy compatibility is one of the things they were willing to trade for it.
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] “You cannot automatically magnetize a legacy timeline, because the information about the relationships between clips that FCPX relies on is not expressed. If you tried automatic magnetization, the first time that the computer or editor guesses wrong about a storyline or clip connection, it would totally break the FCPX editorial experience. The tools just wouldn’t seem to be working right.
Apple made a huge design decision with FCPX, and legacy compatibility is one of the things they were willing to trade for it.
“Walter,
I am not a computer programmer, nor do I play one on TV, but I’ll go out on a limb and will suggest that eventually somebody, probably not Apple, will make an application or plugin or utility that will enable users to import legacy projects into FCP X.
I’ll bet ya $1 if you’d care to make a wager?
David Roth Weiss
Director/Editor/Colorist
David Weiss Productions, Inc.
Los Angeles
https://www.drwfilms.comDon’t miss my new tutorial: Prepare for a seamless transition to FCP X and OS X Lion
https://library.creativecow.net/weiss_roth_david/FCP-10-MAC-Lion/1POST-PRODUCTION WITHOUT THE USUAL INSANITY ™
Creative COW contributing editor and a forum host of the Business & Marketing and Apple Final Cut Pro forums.
-
[David Roth Weiss] “Let’s see, by pointing out that you too are guilty of invalidating the concerns and motivations of those who disagree with you, I’m being patronizing? Not sure how that follows… It’s like the opposite of patronizing where I come from.
And, I asked you to be specific and to point to what I said about Geoff Dills that was false, but you didn’t or couldn’t give me an answer. Just put up and I’ll apologize to him post haste.
But, more importantly Liam, what do you think actually qualifies Geoff Dills to analyze the motivations of professional editors? That’s the point I raised with him, and I still want to know the answer. Raising that question hardly qualifies as an attack.”
Trust me David, even my cat thinks you’re coming across as a bit cranky here…
I haven’t invalidated anyone’s concerns. I’m not going to be drawn in to a tit-for-tat row over this, but I do feel you need to reread what I wrote:
[Liam Hall] “People are rightly annoyed at Apple for discontinuing FCPX (I am), and it is understandable that most professional editing houses will look at this software and dismiss it instantly (mine did)
Obviously, I meant FCP7…
Anyway, everyone should be allowed their voice. If Geoff thinks some people have a vested interest in denigrating this software then that’s fine, it is his opinion. It’s a perfectly valid one and he doesn’t need to win an Oscar in order to express it.
In life, and in particular on the internet, it is always sensible to consider the source though, I do think you were being more than a little arrogant to dismiss Geoff’s comments in the way you did.
I don’t feel threatened by amateurs or hobbyists using FCPX. Some people on here act like they might indeed be. That’s my opinion and I don’t need to waive my resume around in order to express that either.
Anyway, as is often said on the net; opinions are like arse-holes, everyone’s got one and I’ll add – there’s no need to act like one.
Kind regards and happy shooting,
Liam.
Liam Hall
Director/DoP/Editor
http://www.liamhall.net -
[Herb Sevush] “they have never before internally created any software of any importance in the field of visual media creation”
Motion is very good and unlike FCPX has gotten a good reception at about 4 stars in the App store.
Reply to this Discussion! Login or Sign Up