-
What would really make you excited …
-
[Steve Connor] “I’d love to see the return of tracks”
Seriously?
Scott Witthaus
Owner, 1708 Inc./Editorial
Managing Partner, Low Country Creative LLC
Professor, VCU Brandcenter -
More seamless integration with Motion and Logic. Buy Affinity and integrate.
sw
Scott Witthaus
Owner, 1708 Inc./Editorial
Managing Partner, Low Country Creative LLC
Professor, VCU Brandcenter -
[Bill Davis] “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. “
Isn’t this how we ended up with the big 3D text update? Tons of resources poured into something nobody seemed to be asking for? Or maybe there was a massive clamoring for 3D text and I wasn’t aware of it. But the reaction online didn’t seem overwhelmingly positive. Personally – I’ve used 3D text once. I’d rather they look at my list or Oliver’s list and implement even one thing – I’d use that implementation at least once a day!
[Bill Davis] “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. “
Who are these wild eyed advocates? Are they hidden away inside Apple, operating in a vacuum? Are they users? If it’s the users, who they pick to listen to and how do they find them? I can’t remember ever seeing you post about what you would change about FCPX. You seem perfectly content with the software as it is, and fight against anybody that suggests otherwise and lists needed improvements, especially if those improvements include adding a feature found in another NLE. If you’re perfectly happy with how it is now, and see no way to push the software forward, then what do you care if others want to integrate features they used in other software? You might love them and they might make you 20% more efficient!
I try to make my feature request lists based on what I think could realistically be done in the software. Otherwise I’d put “automatically pick the most emotional shot from every take and edit my story for me while I make coffee”. Wouldn’t that be awesome? Of course! But it’s not realistic. But asymmetrical trimming? That should be totally possible.
If you want an idea that might be a little more innovative than my original list, here’s an idea I’ve been kicking around – use metadata to automatically create string outs, audition clips, and first edits. You can have someone on set logging takes, scene numbers, etc…with a spreadsheet like Shot Notes X. Import your footage and marry that metadata to your clips. Now you have all of your scene numbers and takes in FCPX as metadata. Why not have the software automatically create audition clips on a per scene/take basis? Or Scene/Framing/Take, if you want to group all of Scene 1 Wide takes together?
Then the software strings those audition clips out based on scene number, so your rough cut is done automatically. Of course you’ll change it, but at least it’s all in a sequence laid out per your script, with all takes grouped together so you can instantly cycle through them all, in a matter of seconds. It’s just grouping based on metadata – it should be possible, and could shave hours or days off assembly time, and would make audition clips actually useful.
And while we’re using metadata for grouping, how about creating “selects” clips from keywords or metadata you’ve added? Here’s how I could see it working. Every keyword has a “selects” clip automatically created. It’s like a compound+audition clip of every shot with that keyword on it. You can scrub the selects clip in your event browser to find the shot you want, then edit the selects clip into your sequence, but when you “activate” it on your timeline a temporary string out of every clip with that keyword pops up over your timeline, so you can see your edit in place with all of the available keyword shots above it in a string out, so you can quickly shuttle through them without having to leave your timeline. Whenever you select a clip in that string out (or a range of a clip) you can hit play and it will play around your edit so you can see it in place. No more going back to the browser and finding the shots you want, or making string outs and cutting/pasting from sequence to sequence, or flipping to icon view and scrubbing an event. Everything is available in your sequence, able to be reviewed in context, and swapped out instantly, based on the metadata you added before you started the edit. It’s a combination of your presorting style and Simon’s “everything in a sequence” (sort of). When you finish your edit you collapse or commit all the selects clips so you can send your edit out for color/sound.
There’s tons of automation I’d like to see added using the metadata FCPX has access to, which would be incredibly useful with Watch/Live folders, where it automatically imports files dropped into folders you’re watching, then applies workflows you define (add roles, add color tagging, if the folder has a log/shot notes file it automatically applies it to the imported clips and creates audition clips based on scene/take/framing/whatever, create sync clips based on timecode, etc…). Basically, stream line and automate as much of the boring stuff you have to do before you actually edit. None of that is available in other NLEs, and FCPX’s extensive metadata means it might be possible to do.
Back to the original question – if feature requests based on real work experience are too bland or backwards thinking, what exactly do you want Apple to do to move the software forward? What exactly is the next big innovation you’re looking for?
—————-
Michael Hancock
Editor -
[Michael Hancock] “If you want an idea that might be a little more innovative than my original list, here’s an idea I’ve been kicking around – use metadata to automatically create string outs, audition clips, and first edits.”
https://www.engadget.com/2017/06/21/ai-film-editor-can-cut-scenes-in-seconds-to-suit-your-style/
This goes one better! “AI Automatic Editing”.
Simon Ubsdell
tokyo productions
hawaiki -
[Scott Witthaus] “Buy Affinity and integrate.”
Good grief! Nooooooo… Just another company to kill? Look what they did with Color. An “Applization” of Serif would destroy any innovation that they are headed in.
– Oliver
Oliver Peters Post Production Services, LLC
Orlando, FL
http://www.oliverpeters.com -
In the 4k era, using proxies is more important than ever. Likewise maintaining a “lean library” for collaborative remote editing is also more important than ever, as is using a proxy-only workflow.
The current product does not well support using these together. Relink is unreliable when using external proxies and can lock up the app. The only workaround is rename the portable drive volume name to match the original volume name where the proxies were generated. There is also no built-in UI support for non-video elements such as graphics or audio in a proxy-only workflow.
Since proxies are stored by default in the library they must be created or moved outside the library to keep the size small and portable. There is no direct UI support for this but requires a cumbersome, error-prone procedure which is discussed in Ripple Training’s 10.3 Media Management Class. There are hack workarounds such as manually moving proxies outside the library and recreating aliases but procedures like this should not be necessary: https://www.fcp.co/final-cut-pro/tutorials/1828-cheating-final-cut-pro-x-proxies-to-store-where-you-want-by-using-aliases
There should be well-thought-out direct UI support for external proxies and proxy-only workflow, also relink should be more reliable and not choke when using external proxies and a different volume name.
-
I think that the context of the original question is what would get people to embrace FCPX if they haven’t already. From my perspective, I was an early adopter. I’ve cut a lot of stuff in X. Over the last six years, it’s less and less functional for my needs on a wide range of productions. I now use X on a very limited basis and it’s usually only laptop-based edits.
My clients in many cases pointedly tell me not to use X, because there is no support structure around it. I.e. other freelancers in the area don’t know it, it doesn’t work on PCs, it’s not great in collaborative environments, they want After Effects integration, you name it. The reasons are many and they are not entirely irrational or invalid.
I don’t see one-man bands as the future of video. I see a lot of reformulation, though. Large facilities failing, but also smaller shops growing. It’s very different from market to market, making it hard to generalize.
So I think just a few of these changes would go a long way to making X a better, more-appealing product for a wider range of uses.
– Oliver
Oliver Peters Post Production Services, LLC
Orlando, FL
http://www.oliverpeters.com -
I think the ability to import and create proxies for Arriraw (both .ari file seq, and mxf), Panasonic Raw, Canon Raw, and Sony F65/F55 raw would help as these are getting more prevalent even for smaller productions.
Switching between proxies in the library and actual media files outside, and seamless tracking of external files would help too. so, if the drive/s with Arriraw files has been unmounted, the timeline should link to proxies inside the library but still remain aware of the availability or not, of external files.
Currently DaVinci Resolve is probably the only NLE which can handle nearly any or all of the pro formats, and track them externally.Also, an ACES workflow, support for LUTs, and the ability to export out clips for VFX/CGI with filenames and metadata preserved.
Then, preservation of metadata from DNxHD ,mxf files (at the moment, reel names get lost).Resolve conform from FCP X has worked flawlessly for a couple of projects I’ve handled, even with AVCHD clips, and zero TC and repeat filenames. Provided, the clips were inside the library, and I imported the FCP X XML and asked Resolve to import clips along with XML. Compound clips get a bit tricky sometimes.
———————————–
Neil Sadwelkar
neilsadwelkar.blogspot.com
twitter: fcpguru
FCP Editor, Edit systems consultant
Mumbai India -
LOL. I saw that – I don’t want the software to actually make edit choices for me! Just group my clips, throw them in a sequence and I’ll take over from there. Basically – anything that removes or reduces the tedious parts of editing and gives me more time with the creative parts.
I should keep trying your method of dropping everything into a sequence and paring it down from there, instead of logging first then cutting.
—————-
Michael Hancock
Editor -
[Oliver Peters] “[Scott Witthaus] “Buy Affinity and integrate.”
Good grief! Nooooooo… Just another company to kill? Look what they did with Color. An “Applization” of Serif would destroy any innovation that they are headed in.
– Oliver”
That would not be good news for the PC side of the base… the suggestion alone brings back bad memories of the Emagic acquisition.
Shawn
Reply to this Discussion! Login or Sign Up