-
Version 1.0 is the new 0.9 – CNet Article
-
[David Lawrence] “The bloat problem seems deeper than an XML optimization bug. An XML export is simply a list that gets generated at export time reflecting the current state of the timeline. “
Axel, then, whatever is underlying language is. Magic and unicorns, SQLite, MS-DOS
If read those tests, it’s caused from over duplication (and then not deleting) of certain elements. This duplication shows up in XML exports, even if it’s not in the timeline. It’s not optimized and can be fixed.
With multicam coming (you know that consumer feature) and I would imagine some sort of compound clip container (multi clip), this bug will get squished.
Or not.
Puppies!
-
[Craig Seeman] “Perhaps the next leaps with Motion didn’t happen because of FCPX. There may have been a major rethink which slowed things down. Personally when Apple EOLd Shake I thought we were going to see more of Shake creep into Motion. I thought they’d add a nodal option for example.”
Looking at what’s happened with Motion, how do you retain so much optimism for FCPX?
Perhaps the next leaps didn’t happen with Motion because there are no more next leaps — just next steps.
Apple had Shake, they had the entire Nothing Real development team, and they had Motion. When Apple EOLed Shake in 2006, everyone assumed that some of its capabilities would work its way into Motion. Five years later, the Nothing Real team is gone, Phenomenon isn’t real and probably never was, and not only has Motion not gotten anything from Shake, it’s even lost basic compositing tools like Channel Swap [link] in the latest release.
I don’t know what Apple’s plans are for FCPX, but it’s possible that just as Motion never became what Shake was, FCPX will never become what FCP/FCS/FCSvr was. Maybe FCPX will get built-in XSAN project sharing — but then again, maybe it won’t, just like Motion never got nodes.
We’re all just reading tea leaves and making guesses.
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] “Looking at what’s happened with Motion, how do you retain so much optimism for FCPX?”
Because Apple decided to create a new program from the ground up and all the resources it takes to do that relative other options such as killing it entirely. It would make sense that other things have to wait if they are to interrelate with the new program with some very fundamental code changes. Most of the changes they did with Motion related to its function with FCPX.
-
[Michael Hancock] “If the guy in that thread is just holding it wrong, how does he get around the problem? Markers can be very valuable – best practice to just not use them, I suppose?
“That’s one spin.
An equally valid one is to simply realize that “they’ve changed how the thing shoots and if you hold it like you used to – you’ll get shot” In that context, you re-learn pretty fast how to hold the thing differently and you’re incredibly happy you learned the new stuff at the rubber-band gun stage and not with a loaded pistol!
It’s also helpful that the loudest yellers who seemed to think that Apple was about to come to everyone’s house and de-install all working copies of 7 were a bit premature, huh? Here we are months after the “end of life” scare – and most folks are doing just fine, thank you very much. Plenty of time to look around and decide when and if it’s time to make a move.
Yeah, markers can be useful. I’ve seen people who have built ENTIRE workflows that are totally dependent upon them. (timelines with so many that it looked like somebody with a bad cold sneezed markers everywhere!) Personally I never did. I used them rarely, on maybe 10% of my projects. And with my new workflow in X, where “marking” stuff is more a matter of range selection and key wording, rather than littering my timelines with markers that point to things, but don’t do much else – I’m pretty happy I never came to depend upon them overly much.
But that’s a personal thing. And I totally get it that it’s annoying for someone who’s become addicted to how they worked in Legacy. And all I can say is if you liked markers – you should LOVE range selection and key wording – since takes the concept of “this area of my media is important to me” and applies a warp engine to it.
Thankfully I had plenty enough to re-learn with my migration to X – and I’m delighted that new marker use habits wasn’t amongst them.
“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’Connor
-
Since I’m not an engineer I’m clearly just guessing.
(As I suppose we all are.)
So I’ll shut up and wait with everyone else to see what happens during development.
(It can’t be any worse that waiting for Legacy V3 to fix all the stuff (IIRC) that broke between 1 and 2!)
“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’Connor
-
Walter Soyka – “We’re all just reading tea leaves and making guesses.”
That’s one of my biggest problems with all this. How do you make a responsible business decision based on “tea leaves”? It’s one thing to gamble your money as an independent producer, it’s quite another to spend someone else’s money based on shady marketing promises. All in all, the last couple of months has done nothing but move Apple further from any business implementation beyond solo independents. Perhaps that’s what they see as the ENTIRE future of this business, but I can’t help but think that’s a VERY naive viewpoint. Fact of the matter is, while the TREND may be a downsizing of larger shops, it doesn’t mean that they will all disappear. Some projects/business models require teams environments working in some centralized form of a business. This will NEVER go away. For a tool to be considered in that type of environment, it must not only be functional technically, but also viable from an administrative standpoint (think acquisition process). This product lacks most everything required to make it a viable implementation (history, road map forward, support, foreseeable cost of continuing usage).
While I can see SOME of the points that Craig is making in his “Just wait, it’ll be great” argument, the fact is even if the next release is earth shattering, it will be at least 2 years before it can be seriously considered for implementation in just about any facility that I can see existing at that point. While it’s true that any business has the right to make their own decisions, based on whatever whim they desire, it seems a bit irresponsible for Apple to do so much damage to this industry by EOL’ing what has been a major implementation for so many business’s.
Marvin Holdman
Production Manager
Tourist Network
8317 Front Beach Rd, Suite 23
Panama City Beach, Fl
phone 850-234-2773 ext. 128
cell 850-585-9667
skype username – vidmarv -
[Marvin Holdman] “It’s one thing to gamble your money as an independent producer, it’s quite another to spend someone else’s money based on shady marketing promises.”
For an independent producer it’s not too difficult as I think you imply. It’s not a problem to buy Avid or Adobe and FCPX is only $300. This is especially so given Avid’s move to more open hardware support.
It’s certainly a bit more difficult when a facility has to consider the cost of x seats and training x personal and the ability to hire freelancers.[Marvin Holdman] “it seems a bit irresponsible for Apple to do so much damage to this industry by EOL’ing what has been a major implementation for so many business’s.”
Any number of companies have done “irresponsible” things. I don’t want to rehash that. Apple is a business. Granted they may risk future CPU sales as a result of their decision because of brand perception. Actually it’s not the EOL by itself that was the problem it’s pulling it sales suddenly which created a serious problem for facilities who needed more seats to carry them over. This damaged the “wait and see” process for many. The way Apple handled it was uncharacteristic as they generally leave EOL products available before sales terminate. I can’t help but think there was another factor driving this decision. We don’t know what the real “responsibility” they were dealing with.
-
[Craig Seeman] “Because Apple decided to create a new program from the ground up and all the resources it takes to do that relative other options such as killing it entirely. It would make sense that other things have to wait if they are to interrelate with the new program with some very fundamental code changes. Most of the changes they did with Motion related to its function with FCPX.”
But just because they’re creating FCPX from the ground up doesn’t mean it will ultimately fill the niches that FCP Classic did — just as Motion was created from the ground up, but never became what Shake was.
There are no Shake studios that adopted Motion on a wait-and-see basis. They stayed on Shake or moved to Nuke. Good for them, too, because as much as we may have all wanted Motion to assume Shake’s feature set, Apple had something different in mind for it.
All I’m saying is we don’t know if FCPX is the iPhone (big, continuous improvement that radically alter the capabilities of the platform) or Motion/Aperture (small, incremental improvements that make the product more useful, but do not radically extend its feature set into new areas).
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 -
[Marvin Holdman] “This product lacks most everything required to make it a viable implementation (history, road map forward, support, foreseeable cost of continuing usage). “
Minus history, it sounds like FCP alright. What’s changed? Apple never had any of these things, really, so why all the fuss now?
Will everyone please remember where we came from?
Jeremy
-
[Walter Soyka] “All I’m saying is we don’t know if FCPX is the iPhone (big, continuous improvement that radically alter the capabilities of the platform) or Motion/Aperture (small, incremental improvements that make the product more useful, but do not radically extend its feature set into new areas).”
We don’t know of course. I just can’t see the business model behind investing the R&D for FCPX and not doing something more with it aggressively. I don’t think Aperture was designed to sell hardware so it’s not a highly motivated product. As I said, I think Motion’s motivation hinges on FCPX. That’s why it’s only $50. Given what we’re seeing with FCPX development between the addition of Roles (not announced in advance), the addition of Multicam and Broadcast monitoring (announced because they’re really pedestrian features that are “catchup”) and what I personally suspect will be unannounced surprises, this is already moving faster than Motion.
Reply to this Discussion! Login or Sign Up