-
Steve Kanter: What FCPX CAN Do
-
[Walter Soyka] “”Pro” has become a very broad term, and I think the lack of precision in the word is the root of a lot of the disagreement here”
Not really a “Pro” or professional is someone that makes money “Cash” “bling bling” with what they do. 🙂
But again you have you volunteers hmmm might havebto rethink that one. -
So you have some inside knowledge or programming. Know how that this can be done?
I don’t! But your statement clearly states that it is possible to import Final Cut Pro 7 and lower into Final Cut Pro X but the Final Cut Pro team was to lazy to provide there customers with this option?
That is a pretty ballsy statement… especially since many none Apple humans stated the opposite even here on the Cow!
Then there should be no worries a 3rd party will provide us with this tool to make a extra buck! 😉 -
[Geoff Dills] “I was NOT referring to all professionals. Obviously a real pro examines the software carefully first. Discovers if it can fit his needs. If it does, great. If not, move on. I thought that’s who we’re dealing with. Except one pro decided to take offense and I apologize. But David, the blatant attack on me was over the top. Rein it in a bit.”
Geof,
I’m a 27 year veteran of the film and video Industry, working entirely and continually at the sharp end of international production and post. I’m a fully paid up professional. I totally understood your viewpoint and agree in part that some people are reacting negatively to FCPX simply because it points to a future where the barriers to entry into this Industry have been largely removed – at least in terms of equipment and learning curve to operate that equipment.
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), as it doesn’t fit either their workflow or business model. Whether it ever will is a moot point and at this time we’re all just guessing if it will or won’t. It was the same with FCP1, that’s why I’m keeping a keen eye on FCPX.
I think you may have touched a raw nerve with the use of the word pro. Some of the comments, plus the amount of time and energy certain COW members are spending denigrating this software points to other motivations. “Me thinks they doth protest too much”.
My advice; just ignore anyone who mentions the editing elite or top editors or the best editors in town. The truth is the best guys and gals in town are busy and not attending meetings or writing on the internet or testing new software – that’s the job of their assistants and of course a boat load of wannabe’s, nobodies and folk stuck at the airport (like me), or watching a render bar on their screen.
I see no reason for you to aplogize. None whatsoever. Indeed, it is you that should receive an apology from David Roth Weiss for his rude and personal attack on you. I don’t care what side of the argument people are on, just that they conduct themselves in a polite and friendly tone – that’s exactly what professionals do.
Liam.
Liam Hall
Director/DoP/Editor
http://www.liamhall.net -
[Bill Davis] “Sometimes remodeling is smart (as Avid, PP and Vegas continue to do. Sometimes people with a nice piece of property decide that the old house is getting long in the tooth and a scrape is required.”
A nice analogy Bill. To take it further, Adobe knocked Premiere Pro down and rebuilt it twice on the Mac platform in the last 5 years (CS3 and CS5). The key though is that we didn’t build something completely different that threw the owner of the house off. Adobe built a new house that fit within the confines of the property.
I think what has been a challenge for FCP users is that in one fell swoop, Apple changed the architecture, the interface and the workflow. And on top of that, they lost several very key features. It will be interesting to see what the next 6 months holds for the industry.
Dennis – Adobe
-
[Craig Seeman] “Autodesk (Discreet) like Edit*, Cleaner, Combustion? “
well.. yeah. I still argue that Apple is a different, more dangerous crazy.
on combustion – remember paint and effect before it? you could paint on 3DSMAX models as displacement maps with it?
annnd before that it was illuminaire paint? from denim software? we bought that package back in my old station in 98. I remember the box arriving. animatable vector based paint tools. I thought that was amazingly cool.
Our engineers also later plunked a pile of cash down on 844X as the main online.
They also bought an *edit. We didn’t have much luck.
http://www.ogallchoir.net
promo producer/editor.grading/motion graphics -
[Bill Davis] “I understand your point, but I think you’re defining it too narrowly.”
I went off and had a nice long think about your argument here. I have reconsidered my position, but I don’t think I’ve changed my mind all that much. I’d love to discuss this a little more, in case there’s something I’ve missed.
[Bill Davis] “You say “All FCP users must either continue work on EOL software, or migrate to another platform (be it Avid, FCPX, Premiere Pro, or something else entirely).” and that is certainly ONE way to interpret it. Another equally valid view is to say “All FCP users must make the choice to continue using traditional editing paradigms as represented by Avid, FCP-Legacy, Premier Pro, or something else entirely, or accept that to move into a world where superior data flexibility and new capabilities NOT POSSIBLE under legacy software architecture is finally possible, they must accept that they will lose current capabilities as they adapt to the new architecture.””
Until FCPX offers feature parity with Avid, FCP7, and PrP, many editors can’t simply choose one or the other because of the paradigm it offers. When and if FCPX offers a toolset with important features like reference monitoring and interchange, then I think we’ll be able to choose a platform based on its editorial model. Until then, FCPX is automatically disqualified from many workflows.
I’m very curious about your statement “to move into a world where superior data flexibility and new capabilities NOT POSSIBLE under legacy software architecture is finally possible, they must accept that they will lose current capabilities as they adapt to the new architecture.”
I think it’s possible to change the legacy software architecture without changing the user interface or editorial paradigm. Look at Premiere Pro, which had an invisible overhaul for CS5.
Let’s put that aside for a moment, though, and talk about the history and future of NLEs, because perhaps you consider the user interface and editorial paradigm to be part of the legacy architecture.
Let me first lay out my over-simplified view of the NLE development. CMX600 and its ilk represent the first generation of NLEs (customized hardware). Avid started the second generation (desktop computer with special hardware). FCP and its spiritual successor, Premiere Pro, are in the third (software-only, video hardware support). FCPX forks off from previous NLEs in the fourth generation (software-only, new abstract editorial model).
I don’t think that there’s anything inherent in the self-organizing, trackless, magnetic, relative timeline in FCPX that gives it new capabilities that the previous standard manually-organized, tracked, absolute timeline had. Am I missing something here?
I do think that FCPX’s pervasive metadata opens up new capabilities by essentially placing an asset management solution within the NLE, but I don’t see any reason why this couldn’t be added to a third-generation NLE. (Even better would be separating asset management from editorial, because though they are linked, I think they should be separate functions.)
What is possible with a fourth-generation tool that is not possible with a third-generation tool?
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 -
Yes I know that feeling as well from several events.
Many years ago I was asked to do an one hour presentation how to do 3D animation on a Mac connected to SGIs using Pixar’s Renderman. I had ‘trained’ myself over and over for this presentation.
But at the conference nothing worked for the first half hour. And because of that I made a real lot of mistakes mixing my needed spontaneous dialog to the pretty big audience and the need to get some stuff fixed on the two stage computers the same time.
I had luck. I fixed the stuff and got (because of a free slot) more than half an hour more to do the presentation. Was finally a huge success with standing ovations. After that I went to the hotel to change my cloths – because the current were wet of sweat.
Doing a live presentation is a kind of complex multitasking.Anyway the presentation showed that there is some potential with FCPX if you do it the ‘right way’ and don’t get nervous or stressed while finding this way.
It also showed that the old Apple slogan ‘Think different’ is back again. This maybe good, fun and opportunities for some, maybe a ‘no go’ for others (at the moment I belong to the others)
Maybe the show just had the wrong title and therefore expectation was different.As Dennis said (even though he is from Adobe 🙂 )
...Adobe built a new house that fit within the confines of the property.I think what has been a challenge for FCP users is that in one fell swoop,
Apple changed the architecture,
the interface and the workflow.
And on top of that, they lost several very key features.
It will be interesting to see what the next 6 months holds for the industry.
We either are interested and try, interested and wait or switch. In any case we should read, discuss and keep our eyes open.Funny thing is that the presentation obviously wasn’t edited with FCPX, otherwise they didn’t need PluralEyes (which I like). Below an example of what can happen using FCPX’s sound sync.
https://www.spherico.com/filmtools/FCPX/BWAV_Short.mp3
It’s not meant as FCPX bashing – it’s one of the thing you CAN’T do with FCPX reliable.At the end of the day it’s your choice how to go further the one or other road.
My 2 cents
AndreasSpherico
https://www.spherico.com/filmtools -
[Aindreas Gallagher] “illuminaire paint? from denim software? we bought that package back in my old station in 98… Our engineers also later plunked a pile of cash down on 844X as the main online. They also bought an *edit. We didn’t have much luck.”
Yikes! Aindreas, if your old station was an FCP shop, please find out what they’re migrating to next so we can all run the other way…
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 -
yeah, they had the 844X and a lightworks offline – I were the first one to order FCP into the station in 2002 at version 3 for the graphics department.. had it on a blue and white G3 with 5 or 10 gigs of external scsi, I think it was, AE 4.1 running on the ICEboard. that card was huuuge. I loved every single plugin with it. The colour ramp plugin it came with was savage. But there were so many extension conflicts it took three days of trial and error to get a working set, well two – one for video editing and one for everything else.
Conflict extensions – man, now they were crazy. I do not miss them at allll.
http://www.ogallchoir.net
promo producer/editor.grading/motion graphics -
[Aindreas Gallagher] “on the camera analogy – it’s like asking canon to collapse their offerings into a single camera that can function as a mission critical professional dslr, while also being capable of being picked up and operated as an enhanced point and shoot for someone vaguely conversant with cameras.
Companies have product ranges with gradations of complexity for a reason.”Well that is happening right now! Especially Canon.
Reply to this Discussion! Login or Sign Up