-
What would really make you excited …
-
[Michael Gissing] “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.”
I agree. DR 14 looks awesome. I think BMD is going to force Adobe to up the ante of Premiere Pro at NAB 2018.
-
+1 Oliver!
—————-
Michael Hancock
Editor -
[Simon Ubsdell] “Don’t we have these already?”
No. While you can come up with a number of configurations, they are only Apple’s defined layouts. For example, if you want the inspector pane on the left part of the UI or the timeline above the viewer, you can’t do that. If you have three displays, you can’t spilt up the UI across three screens. IOW, total user customization.
[Simon Ubsdell] “And this?”
There is masking, but not as a built-in attribute of every effect.
– Oliver
Oliver Peters Post Production Services, LLC
Orlando, FL
http://www.oliverpeters.com -
[Bill Davis] “95% are “I had this feature in something else – now please give it to me again, just inside X.”
It’s tiresome. “
Or it’s funtionality that we need…which is why the other NLE’s are better suited for other workflows. If you want people to see FCX as the tool of the future, why wouldn’t you want it to do what people need? See, for you, it does what you need and you can’t seem to fathom WHY people would want all that other stuff. “WHY do they need that? I mean, FCX is perfect already!” Or “why does it need that? That’s antiquated thinking and FCX is so streamline that it doesn’t need to do that…in fact, that doesn’t need to be done at all!” or about about “let someone make a plugin for that if you really need it. Don’t touch FCX…it’s perfect!”
[Bill Davis] “It’s ITERATE backwards (which is what the “suite” folk typically want) vs INNOVATE forward.”
See? “Why on earth would you need that? That’s backwards thinking.” Look beyond your needs, Bill. And stop thinking that what we need is antiquated…outdated…backwards. Not every new thing is good. Just because it’s new, doesn’t make it better.
[Bill Davis] “backtracking to make suite class editors – who are justifiably conditioned to a particular type of workflow – feel more comfortable. “
I was going to respond to this, but I’m done with you, Bill. You may be a nice guy and talented, but BOY do you keep insisting that FCX is God’s gift to post, and anyone who doesn’t think so is sadly lost, anyone that insists on doing things their old ways (that still work) are dinosaurs. You insult a huge group of people every time I check this forum. Just going to have to not read anything you say anymore..
Shane
Little Frog Post
Read my blog, Little Frog in High Def -
[Shane Ross] “Bill Davis] “It’s ITERATE backwards (which is what the “suite” folk typically want) vs INNOVATE forward.”
See? “Why on earth would you need that? That’s backwards thinking.””When computer-assisted video editing started, there were plenty of things that were viewed as superior to film editing workflows. Yet, that was incorrect. When NLEs took hold, at lot of the design was based on film editing, as much as video editing. Thus, a hybrid evolved. So letting go of the past isn’t always a successful strategy (Mac Pro, cough, cough).
– Oliver
Oliver Peters Post Production Services, LLC
Orlando, FL
http://www.oliverpeters.com -
[Oliver Peters] “So letting go of the past isn’t always a successful strategy (Mac Pro, cough, cough).”
Non up-gradable parts and soldered on memory is the future : )
-
Just get what I’m representing here RIGHT, Shane.
Imagine that an imaginary software engineer has 100 hours of work to spend.
When I read those lists of “requests” what I saw looked to be people arguing for him or her to proceed about 80-20 weighed towards things that are already well understood because those functions are already present in software that editors are already aware of, just not in EVERY software implementation. So they are EXISTING but perceived as MISSING by a broad class of editors.
They don’t interest me and I know EXACTLY why. Because as an individual editor, my workflow needs very few of them to succeed.
You don’t think I get that, but I totally DO. It’s just not of ANY interest to me to advocate for what doesn’t interest me. No more than I’d expect you to be interested in, say, some one button “burn to thumb drive” capability that might make a wedding and event shooter DROOL. You are NOT that, so let THEM advocate for their needs, right?
I actually think I conceptually understand your 80/20 split pretty well. It has NOTHING to do with anyone thinking you are a DINOSAUR one little bit. So please stop with that crap. Every single thing on Olivers list is rational and completely useful for many editors and to think I don’t get that is insulting.
But based on what you wrote here, you don’t understand MY 80/20 at all. First, you blew up and accused me of being 100/0 which is pissy. Again, please stop.
Here’s my reality.
That imaginary engineer up at the top of this? I want him or her to go 80/20 the OPPOSITE of how YOU want them to go 80/20. Innovate 80 and fix 20 for the people who want to come into my program of choice and try to re-make it in the image of THEIR preferences. Fix 80 then innovate 20 is NOT GOOD ENOUGH anymore IMO. We need MORE wild eyed advocates for innovate 80 and fix 20. It’s how the bar gets moved now. And THATS what I want.
I know I’ll never get that. Too much resistance to ANY change out there. But MAYBE by caterwauling about my 80 – the split has a better chance of inching toward 50/50. Which is the traditional standard of fair to all, right?
Right there, if you or Oliver or Simon or anyone else to wants an NLE company to balance old and new thinking – and AGREE a split is good – it’s VALID to argue for a different split.
And that’s what I’m doing. Representing a different but EQUALLY rational view here.
I’m not arguing that the 20 on EITHER side is invalid. But by reducing my writing to ALL about my 80 and pretending I have NO respect for the 20 – that’s what YOU are doing here. And I don’t appreciate it one bit.
It is perfectly correct to say I do NOT have at the TOP of my request list for FCPX to become SAFER and More comfortable for your class of editors. I perhaps even want it to maybe be MORE dangerous in the search of more speed and performance. It’s parents have proved that they can make it acceptably safe and then some. Now I prefer to wish it to stay true to its heritage of innovation.
That’s way more interesting to me,
If you don’t like that – so be it. There are plenty of safe choices around.
Block or ignore me if you choose.
But at least know why.
Creator of XinTwo – https://www.xintwo.com
The shortest path to FCP X mastery. -
[Bill Davis] “They don’t interest me and I know EXACTLY why. Because as an individual editor, my workflow needs very few of them to succeed.
You don’t think I get that, but I totally DO. It’s just not of ANY interest to me to advocate for what doesn’t interest me. No more than I’d expect you to be interested in, say, some one button “burn to thumb drive” capability that might make a wedding and event shooter DROOL. You are NOT that, so let THEM advocate for their needs, right?”
The GUI of FCPX could use more customization. If FCPX does get more customization for the GUI layout I think you would be the first to do a video tutorial explaining how the new GUI features makes your workflow much more proficient.
[Bill Davis] “That imaginary engineer up at the top of this? I want him or her to go 80/20 the OPPOSITE of how YOU want them to go 80/20. Innovate 80 and fix 20 for the people who want to come into my program of choice and try to re-make it in the image of THEIR preferences. Fix 80 then innovate 20 is NOT GOOD ENOUGH anymore IMO. We need MORE wild eyed advocates for innovate 80 and fix 20. It’s how the bar gets moved now. And THATS what I want.”
You may not need the items on other people’s wish list but what is it that you want added to FCPX? If you cannot think of anything then why not let Apple add the wish list features other people need to make their workflow more proficient? Why be opposed to any improvements that will make your fellow FCPX users more proficient?
[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 – 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.”
What amazing new innovation are you hoping for from Apple? Is Apple working on touch screen options for FCPX? Touch screen is already here but I imagine when OS X finally gets touch screen support it will be amazing, revolutionary and innovative. Keep in mind Apple did not invent metadata, background rendering, GPU acceleration, 64 bit, Quick Sync, keyword collections and the list goes on. I know you think FCPX was amazing, revolutionary and innovative when it first launched but I would have to question why? I honestly think from what I have read Randy actually used Adobe Bridge and liked the keyword and keyword collection features of Adobe Bridge. As sated by others FCPX was supposed to be like Adobe Bridge/Prelude for FCP 8 but they ended up making it a full NLE and called it FCPX. The trackless paradigm was implemented by Apple but not everyone agrees it is always the best option. Why not just let Apple add the feature requests listed in this thread?
-
[Oliver Peters] “There is masking, but not as a built-in attribute of every effect.”
You may be right but I’m finding it hard to discover an effect that doesn’t come with built-in masking, both “Shape Mask” and “Color Mask”. Apart from a handful like the Keyer and the Luma Keyer where it makes some sense not to have them.
On the UI front, I imagine Apple have now gone as far as they will ever concede to going – they’re not keen on letting the user make a mess of their beautifully conceived designs.
Simon Ubsdell
tokyo productions
hawaiki -
[Bill Davis] “Right there, if you or Oliver or Simon or anyone else to wants an NLE company to balance old and new thinking – and AGREE a split is good – it’s VALID to argue for a different split.
“I think you are possibly unfairly characterising the type of things that are being asked for, which in general seem to me to be about improving the specific experience of FCP X itself rather than imposing “old ways of thinking”.
A while back I took Apple to task on this forum for what I thought were weaknesses in the 5.3 redesign, most especially the fact that with a fixed width Inspector the granularity of the effects sliders was severely compromised.
Subsequently, in version 10.3.3, Apple took note of this and implemented the “ability to expand the width of the Inspector to view and adjust effect parameters”.
This is exactly the kind of improvement that some FCP X users are looking for and Oliver’s and Michael’s lists seem to be made up of very much this type of specific request.
Simon Ubsdell
tokyo productions
hawaiki
Reply to this Discussion! Login or Sign Up