-
What would really make you excited …
-
[Michael Hancock] “If these features were in the next version of FCPX it would improve my editorial life immensely.”
Amen!
– Oliver
Oliver Peters Post Production Services, LLC
Orlando, FL
http://www.oliverpeters.com -
[Shane Ross] “AVCHD formats and ANY camera that will repeat tapeless media naming when you change cards is a BIG issue”
That’s an issue of production company laziness or lack of time before going straight into the edit. They should have a routine to transcode and rename any of these suspect formats in order for any cross-platform workflow to work. Same as a film-to-tape transfer session in the old days. But, alas, it almost never happens. At least Resolve let’s you see the various possible options so you can visually decide which is the correct clip (if you know).
But yes, FCPX->Resolve could stand to be more seamless. Wes? Wes?
Have you had any where they automatically transcoded into the library as “optimized” media? If so, did those work any better?
– Oliver
Oliver Peters Post Production Services, LLC
Orlando, FL
http://www.oliverpeters.com -
[Oliver Peters] “User configurable workspaces”
Don’t we have these already?
[Oliver Peters] “Built-in masking for every effect”
And this?
Other than that, yours and Michael’s seem like pretty good lists for Apple to be getting busy with.
Simon Ubsdell
tokyo productions
hawaiki -
Over and over I see these same types of lists.
95% are “I had this feature in something else – now please give it to me again, just inside X.”
It’s tiresome.
What makes X singularly good at things – in my opinion – is that it DIDN’T just port a metric ton of existing features already out in the marketplace into a new wrapper and add a couple of shiny new features on top.
That’s the way software has developed for years. Yes, I get that if something is TRULY broken – it needs to be repaired if it can be. And it’s ALWAYS nice to get little interface improvements that make the software more familiar and instantly convenient for any class of editors.
But,
I remain ever hopeful that like ALL the larger changes of the past few years – when X gets another significant upgrade – it’s focused at least somewhat on breaking NEW ground – rather than on what these lists commonly represent – which is backtracking to make suite class editors – who are justifiably conditioned to a particular type of workflow – feel more comfortable.
It’s ITERATE backwards (which is what the “suite” folk typically want) vs INNOVATE forward. And I’m pretty convinced that few people will EVER change software simply because it’s “iterated” a bit better either forward or backwards than something else. Iteration barely moves the needle. But INNOVATION can.
That is if ANYTHING can. I’m increasingly suspicious we may be stuck pretty much where we area until the global economy sorts itself out a bit more – and companies start spending money again without so much angst over every single dollar. We’ll see.
My 2 cents.
Creator of XinTwo – https://www.xintwo.com
The shortest path to FCP X mastery. -
[Bill Davis] “Over and over I see these same types of lists.
95% are “I had this feature in something else – now please give it to me again, just inside X.””
To be fair to Michael and Oliver, I don’t think theirs are the sort of lists you are talking about at all.
They are very specific about specific ways that the specific functionality of FCP X qua FCP X could be improved.
I do not see them as asking for features from other applications to be grafted onto FCP X.
Simon Ubsdell
tokyo productions
hawaiki -
[Bill Davis] “I remain ever hopeful that like ALL the larger changes of the past few years – when X gets another significant upgrade – it’s focused at least somewhat on breaking NEW ground”
So what in your view would that be? Which was the original question.
I’d be most interested to hear what FCP X specialists like yourself actually think about this.
Simon Ubsdell
tokyo productions
hawaiki -
[Oliver Peters] “Have you had any where they automatically transcoded into the library as “optimized” media? If so, did those work any better?”
Yes…a feature that was a disaster transfer wise. The one where 80% wouldn’t transfer…and with multiclips where the other angle is a completely different location/subject. EIGHT cameras or footage types, all optimized. And when it got to me, 80% relinked incorrectly. That one ended up being a full res export/chop job.
It’s all prep beforehand. Tapeless media MUST have metadata added as it comes in. This is something FCP 7 and ONLY FCP 7 (and 6) did. Log and Transfer instantly attached the Tapeless Backup Folder name as the REEL. NOT ONE of any of the current NLE’s do that. Not one…only an 8 year old one. Not even FCX does that, and you’d think they would, being from Apple. But no…very useful feature lost. So when footage is brought in, REEL or TAPE ID or other unique identifier has to be manually added…and often is not. Only higher end productions with Assistant Editors tend to do this. One man bands often don’t think of this. I cut a feature done in PPro where this too was not done, and proxies were made incorrectly, so linking to camera masters was a long, slow, painful process.
So that would be a feature request. Automatic adding of a reel number to the footage upon import.
Shane
Little Frog Post
Read my blog, Little Frog in High Def -
[Michael Hancock] “21. Fully customizable interface. If I want the inspector to the left of the event browser, let me move it there.”
That is what I am talking about. The GUI of FCPX does has some flexibility but not as much as I need.
-
My 2cents is that Resolve 14 has added a lot of the features in Michael and Oliver’s list. The new collaboration tools, better on board grading, audio mixing with clip, track and bus based effects totally automatable. And more is coming. If anyone is likely to fill the wish lists in the next year it is Blackmagic for mine. Any list of mine must also included dedicated control hardware. If I have to use mouse & keyboards only then its almost a deal breaker.
Sure it runs the risk of totally confusing some by having such extensive facility but if you want all those things then send your lists to Blackmagic. I know they are listening.
-
[Bill Davis] “What makes X singularly good at things – in my opinion – is that it DIDN’T just port a metric ton of existing features already out in the marketplace into a new wrapper and add a couple of shiny new features on top.”
The last time I used FCPX the GUI could have used more customization. The GUI is very important when you consider you will be looking at it for hours on end.
Reply to this Discussion! Login or Sign Up