-
Todays FCP X announcement
-
[Brad Davis] “This also further my previous conclusion 8 months ago that the entire FCS was dumped because of legal and licensing of the previous software more than anything.”
Maybe I came from a different direction but I reached a similar conclusion. It’s the only thing I can think for the sudden cessation of sales, something Apple has never done before (IIRC) for any software or service. They generally have a long EOL with continued sales.
[Brad Davis] “FCPX is never going to be a “complete package” as FCP 7 was. “
[Brad Davis] “If you want the bells and whistles beyond what’s provided, your on your own.”
This does seem to be part of the business model. Different but not worse (although some would seem to believe that). What it means is that we may see multiple different ways to perform certain functions coming from different third party developers. I like that. Key is speaking a common language through the new XML for example. It allows Apple to focus on improved core functionality and connectivity (no R&D team has infinite time and resources). -
[David Lawrence] “Tracks are the most natural and efficient way to represent multiple concurrent channels of media relative to absolute time.”
It depends on the duration. I can see time with connected clips and secondary storylines. If different parts of disparate time distance need to be “relative” I can make them a secondary storyline. I have choice. Clips apart in time may or may not be relative. I can make that “connection” as I see fit.
Tracks serve certain functions for me:
B-roll
compositing
alternate cuts of a section
display of common functions (titles, fx, vo, sfx, etc).All these are handled in FCPX. As I note above, if I need them disparate time elements to be “relative” I can do that. I have the choice. Tracks are not enforced. I am free to define the use depending on the project needs at hand.
I prefer to think of FCPX as “virtual tracks” rather than “trackless,” which I think was another example of bad marketing on Apple’s part.
What I find missing in FCPX is that Secondary Stoylines don’t have many of the editing features Primary Storylines have. I suspect that will change as FCPX evolves.
I’d like to see a “track tool’ which would make disparate clips into a secondary storyline if I need them connected horizontally. It would be nice to integrate that into Roles so one could select all VO for example and “make secondary storyline” from them.
I have no reason to be locked into spreadsheet like tracks.
-
[Oliver Peters] “”If you do that with FCP7, the clip will go offline and gets automatically reconnected.”
Huh? No it doesn’t. People in FCP 7 SAN environments do this all the time.”
Just because people do this all the time, doesn’t mean that’s not what happens. You can see it happen when access through the network to the clip is slowed just enough. When the connection is fast enough, there is barely a dip to black when the file is changed and then the new file is connected, but the save procedure breaks the connection to the original file and FCP automatically relinks to the new save, usually in the blink of an eye.
I was merely pointing out that it’s exactly how FCPX works now.
Andy
https://www.timesavertutorials.com
-
[Andy Neil] “but the save procedure breaks the connection to the original file and FCP automatically relinks to the new save, usually in the blink of an eye.”
Well, I’ll have to take your word for that. I’ve never seen it happen on Xsan, FibreJet or Maxx Digital’s FinalShare with FCP 6 or FCP 7. That’s with several years worth of use. Other issues, yes, but not that.
[Andy Neil] “I was merely pointing out that it’s exactly how FCPX works now.”
Except that in FCP 6 or 7, I can have two editors simutaneously access the same capture scratch folder of media. With FCP X you cannot have two editors simultaneously access the same Event folder.
– Oliver
Oliver Peters Post Production Services, LLC
Orlando, FL
http://www.oliverpeters.com -
[Oliver Peters] “With FCP X you cannot have two editors simultaneously access the same Event folder.”
Which is why in collaborative environments, you don’t copy files to a specific event folder. Instead you link to those files from both machines.
Andy
https://www.timesavertutorials.com
-
Andy, I think that a major issue here is the language. Regardless of how similar things might be in reality, it is a new language, new steps, new methods, and only FCPX people will understand. Try having an audio engineer or a colorist access your media and they will be lost completely. FCPX is not for serious collaboration. It is for one FCPX user to work on a project with maybe a couple other FCPX users. There is still nothing that I have heard in this back and forth that could convince me that FCPX is a good choice for a collaborative production workflow.
This is not an issue of laziness either. There is a universal language among all of post production and FCPX breaks that. It’s not just about the main editor, which is something that FCPX seems to neglect.
As for all this talk about tracks being spreadsheets as bad, as imposing… Editors biggest jobs are organization. We like spreadsheets.
As for the automation of assigned roles, sorry for being a skeptic but I don’t trust it. When I hand over a project to do my mix in Pro Tools, I will have spent more time double checking to make sure it got than automation right than I would have had I just placed the audio in the track I want from the start. The last thing I would ever want is a phone call from a confused audio technician about why my tracks don’t make sense and having to explain to him how FCPX role assignments got it wrong.
Panasonic HPX170 P
2011 Macbook Pro 17″, 2.3 Ghz Quad Core, 8GB RAM
Matrox MXO2 LE with MAX
Adobe Premiere Pro CS5.5, Final Cut Pro Studio 3, Avid Media Composer 3.5.4
The College of WIlliam and Mary -
[Matthew Sonnenfeld] “As for all this talk about tracks being spreadsheets as bad, as imposing… Editors biggest jobs are organization. We like spreadsheets.”
Databases are far more powerful. Over time, regardless of NLE, the power editor or their assistances, will be database proficient. I suspect other NLEs will catch up but FCPX is taking the lead in that department. It really needs a facility level management tool though.
-
[Matthew Sonnenfeld] “I think that a major issue here is the language. Regardless of how similar things might be in reality, it is a new language, new steps, new methods, and only FCPX people will understand.”
I’m sorry to disagree with you Matthew, but you’re just wrong about that. There is no language barrier with FCPX except inside the program itself. If an audio engineer accesses my media, it’s no different than then the media he/she accesses from any other NLE. You think if you edit in FCPX you have to translate everything to everyone else, but that’s just not the case. If I export OMFs or AAFs out of X for a pro tools session, they show up as organized tracks (organized by role).
[Matthew Sonnenfeld] “As for the automation of assigned roles, sorry for being a skeptic but I don’t trust it. When I hand over a project to do my mix in Pro Tools, I will have spent more time double checking to make sure it got than automation right than I would have had I just placed the audio in the track I want from the start.”
This is because you don’t understand what it’s doing. It’s very easy to understand how FCPX assigns roles. I’m convinced that if you took the time to understand the roles feature, you would be just as comfortable as I am using it. I’ve been in this game for over a decade. I’m very comfortable editing in the traditional mode. I also was not a fan of FCPX’s paradigm at the beginning. But after practice, I found that there are several aspects of editing in FCPX that are quite a bit faster than the traditional way. Roles is one of those aspects.
I’m not trying to convince you of anything; the past months on these boards have cured me of that. I just want to make sure that incorrect information regarding FCPX doesn’t get spread as gospel to those who haven’t yet made up their mind. And your concerns about the roles feature with regards to outside collaborators are unfounded. Roles are neither difficult nor time-consuming.
Andy
https://www.timesavertutorials.com
-
[Andy Neil] “Which is why in collaborative environments, you don’t copy files to a specific event folder. Instead you link to those files from both machines.”
I completely understand that. Unfortunately it’s the Event that holds the metadata. In FCP 7 both editors could work from copies of the same project, so they both had access to common logging metadata, comments, etc. Is there an equivalent in FCP X?
– Oliver
Oliver Peters Post Production Services, LLC
Orlando, FL
http://www.oliverpeters.com -
I’m sorry but that’s not how VFX shares media, we do it with XMLs and with Avid AAFs and relinking to the original media.
We never export out of final cut do to quality concerns (8bit and such). Until we can get DPX or OPENEXR out of final cut at original quality it is not going to be doing any media export for us, it’s strictly offline quality.
Reply to this Discussion! Login or Sign Up