-
Thoughts on FCPX from Oliver Peters
-
[Carsten Orlt] “Why do some take it so personally? Switch over prices for Premiere and Avid are very low right now.”
Actually Carsten, you’re the only one posting in this thread who seems to be taking it personally. Perhaps you could explain exactly why you feel compelled to defend FCP X?
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.
-
Good point. I think the betrayal is a result of perspective and history.
On the first go round, FCP was truly new, being built by a company’s first foray into the editing profession. As it grew, spurred by the input of an interested community, a whole ecosystem developed around it, almost like slow growing coral clinging to a common foundation.
But now Apple has put a giant glass box around that coral, and cut off all future for it – no path for migration or transition, just a “new beginning.”Some regard Apple’s upgrade (and that must never be forgotten – it was an upgrade) as fresh and exciting. But these are the individuals or those who cater to individuals.
For those who built pipelines around FCS, pipelines that employed artists and developers over a broad range of disciplines, this upgrade is devastating – especially in this economy. It forces a migration, but a migration away from a company that has no shame in disrupting its most loyal clients.So, yes, FCP X does face another upward climb, but ironically, it doesn’t have the benefit of coming from a naive company that needs to learn the ropes. And that is another hurdle. FCP X now shares a name with another product – the product that Apple, after two years of “development,” broke.
Even Henry Ford didn’t go out and shoot all his horses.
-
[Ben Scott] “if you like sequences as a way to try things out
create new compound clips in the events browser
serves exactly the same function”
That is not at all what I mean, Ben. But thank you for the suggestion.
-
I’m not defending X, I’m simply opposing the notion that Apple destroyed livelihoods and the art of editing.
And I’m of the opinion that if you feel this way there is not much use in repeating the same argument again and again. Do something about it.
I for example had a very good and hard look at the competition and even though X is not usable yet the competitors don’t do it for me. So 7 it is for now, and if they can’t get X going I’ll take another look around.
-
David – thanks for linking the blog post and the kind words.
Ben – the issue with split edits is the following. In FCP 7, you can separately “roll” the edit point for picture or sound cuts or both in any combination. In FCP X, you first have to position the a/v edit point using the Precision Editor. This is principally a video-oriented edit. Then open the clip to access audio. Now you can roll the in or out point of the audio track. Unless I’ve missed something, I don’t see how to roll the picture cut point (leaving the audio cut in the same position) without fighting the Magnetic Timeline.
At this point, I like a lot of FCP X, but it just is less functional for most of my work than FCP 7. But I try to never say never. As a freelancer, I can certainly see some clients in the future move in that direction and I’ll have to adapt. For now though, most will stick with FCP 7, because they really didn’t have that many issues with it to begin with.
Interfaces that change as much as this one has are a gamble. Historically, most have fallen by the wayside or changed back to the standard source/record/bin/timeline configuration. Non-standard interfaces include the original Premiere (also a Ubilos product), Quantel Harry (which used a vertical filmstrip metaphor) and Jaleo (now SGO Mistika – which uses a type of trackless timeline). You could also count the original Lightworks interface in this as well. Time will tell whether Apple has this same problem among advanced users.
Many users have taken this personally, because if you have been editing 10 years or less, you’ve probably never cut with anything other than FCP. For users in that group, what Apple has done may have seemed inconceivable. If you’ve gone through several of these shifts in the past, then it’s just another twist in the business.
I don’t think any of this is wrong, since Apple is one of the few companies in our space, that doesn’t need us for survival. I just differ from a lot of others who think Apple will return many of the missing features. I just don’t think that will be the case, because I believe the software is sufficiently different – and Apple is in a “different place” – so many of the desired features won’t come back. We’ll know in a few months.
– Oliver
Oliver Peters Post Production Services, LLC
Orlando, FL
http://www.oliverpeters.com -
What is really very interesting is that what they built into the software in terms of media management is not geared to the individual user but to the largest possible facilities working in the largest environments.
News is a great example.
Features is another.
With the ability to customize a database a feature editor with his or her assistants could easily construct a database language for any film.
That means using keywords, actor, scene number, any criterial you want. That can be much more efficient than sorting in bins (which is what we are used to).
Tagging vfx shots is another example. Tracking all the stuff that happens over months can be done in the software.
Really the only missing link is a way to reconform.
I might be wrong about what I said about cutting features in FCP x. Audition is a great way to see multiple takes within the sequence an timeline without having to hunt. You cut have six takes of a line in audition an very quickly see how those choices could work within a scene.
That is something that can have me focusing on creativity instead of data management.
One external monitor and XML and this software on a San in lion could be a very powerful tool to edit a feature with.
______________________________
The shortest answer is doing.
Lord Herbert
https://vimeo.com/battistella -
[David Battistella] “What is really very interesting is that what they built into the software in terms of media management is not geared to the individual user but to the largest possible facilities working in the largest environments.”
I’m not so sure, because there is no multi-user-accessible database, as you have in Final Cut Server or Avid Unity/Interplay. It’s all under the hood. As a matter of fact, I routinely work at a 4-seat FCP 7 / FC Server shop and there’s little comparison between what we can do there versus what FCP X offers. Down the road, maybe. I just think Apple has changed focus.
[David Battistella] ”
That means using keywords, actor, scene number, any criterial you want. That can be much more efficient than sorting in bins (which is what we are used to).”Right now I would say it’s too structured, but I could easily see it as a matter of taste, as well. OTOH, Media Composer has had a custom sift feature for most of its life and this sort of filtering is much more functional than anything FCP 7 did. Bear in mind that editors routinely rearrange what clips are in bins. You can’t do that in FCP X. Dragging a clip between events, duplicates the media as well as the clip. You really have to work with the keyword and smart collections, since FCP X prevents any other type of manual bin arrangement.
[David Battistella] “Audition is a great way to see multiple takes within the sequence an timeline without having to hunt. You cut have six takes of a line in audition an very quickly see how those choices could work within a scene.”
In theory yes, but in practice no. For example, if I cut a scene, I will use pieces of many of the different takes. It’s mostly a line-by-line decision, with reactions shots thrown in between. I will cut a scene the way I think it should go together without the director involved. Then the scene is reviewed by the director and we make changes. There is simply no way to make an audition clip for let’s say all 50 elements that might be the scene. Also it’s unnecessary, since a director will often ask to review the alternate coverage for a performance and not cut in context into the timeline. This is where Avid ScriptSync excels, because you can click on a line of dialogue and quickly review all coverage for that line.
– Oliver
Oliver Peters Post Production Services, LLC
Orlando, FL
http://www.oliverpeters.com -
I’m just thinking in terms if a new tool and what it “could” or “couldn’t” do, rather than try to wedge it into working in an existing workflow methodology.
I’ve resolved myself to the fact that it is a new approach and I’m exploring what the thinking is behind that approach.
Avid, lightworks, FCP 7 and premiere are all available to work in a defined method (a well defined method for certain).
Rather than judging to soon or too harshly my inital approach is to embrace. I’m interested in trying to deconstruct the tool before I condemn it.
So far I am finding a lot that I like.
Bin sifting in AVID was good, buy not really comparable to what FCPX is offering.
If itoves toward “check in check out files” like you would on FCP server, then I think it’s a bit better than existing San setups because it’s managing that stuff for you. Freeing you to edit.
______________________________
The shortest answer is doing.
Lord Herbert
https://vimeo.com/battistella -
Many of us dont have the temporal luxury to “just explore” all the nle alternatives.unfortunately. Sometimes Im learning new software (i.e. Cameratracker in AE) because I have a project that needs it. With the clock ticking I need to make a decision about the best way to go (based on minimal research and gut instincts) and start learning a new system that does what I need it to do. Luckily the ducks lined right up for Adobe CS5.5 for me. I used AE for years. PrP was very similar to FCP (what FCP 8 should have been) and it was reborn with the power and capabilities I need for my work flow. AS a student or a hobbyist I might try to spend the time necessary to get familiar with other vendors. But that just isn’t going to fit into my timetable. All my energy is focused on building new muscle memory with Adobe.
Tom Daigon
Avid DS / PrP / After Effects Editor
http://www.hdshotsandcuts.com -
[David Battistella] “I’m just thinking in terms if a new tool and what it “could” or “couldn’t” do, rather than try to wedge it into working in an existing workflow methodology.
I’ve resolved myself to the fact that it is a new approach and I’m exploring what the thinking is behind that approach.”
Yes. Agreed.
[David Battistella] ” like you would on FCP server, then I think it’s a bit better than existing San setups because it’s managing that stuff for you. Freeing you to edit.”
This is true.
Unfortunately, the Final Cut Server situation has also now ingrained a new mistrust of Apple into me. I work a lot at a company that invested heavily in an FC Server-based environment 1 1/2 years ago. (FC Server, Xserve, Mac OS X Server, FiberJet shared storage) That’s ultimately a lot of money (actual dollars and time investment) that’s been thrown away. The irony is that the combo of FCP7 and FC Server works really, really well and does exactly what this facility wanted. It gives you not only asset tracking, but also centralized media management and project management.
Since there will be no further development with FC Server – and it’s locked into an FCP7 environment – they are having to consider a migration to something else. Not only is there the additional cost of the asset management tool replacement, but also the migration of taking their FC Server assets into a new environment. The hardware is fine, but you’d still have to spend time in reconfiguring the way the storage is now allocated. Of course, they can simply “freeze” the installation in its current state, which is likely what will happen, but the longer you way to change, the more costly it becomes.
It’s things like this that make me reluctant to consider any Apple software product ever again for use beyond the needs of an individual user. I wish I didn’t feel that way, but I do.
– Oliver
Oliver Peters Post Production Services, LLC
Orlando, FL
http://www.oliverpeters.com
Reply to this Discussion! Login or Sign Up