-
Who would like a unified interface for FCS?
-
[David Johnson] “[Rafael Amador] “eliminate Compressor, as an stand alone application and I would implement a proper export option in FC/QT, instead of the crappy “QT conversion” (the only magic of Compressor, apart of the high quality filters, is that offers a bunch of presets to people unable to build their own one).
Couldn’t agree more that having to go to a separate app to output your work is silly … me thinks the last part of Rafael’s comment refers to one of the many places Apple has tried to be all things to all people … are we talking about “pro apps” or not?”
I could not disagree more. Sure better integration of compressor into the apps is needed but there still needs to be a stand alone compressor.
It used to be that most everything was delivered via tape or DVD format. Its not like that these days. One might deliver the project first on the web, then later on a DVD then even later the client may want a good quality version to put on a iPad and also for the iPhone or any other electronic device. Each of those deliverable methods have different compression needs.
Should one have to go back to FCP every time he is asked to deliver in a different format. NO. I make it a practice to archive to hard drive the things I edit in the original codec they were edited. This allows me to pull those finished edits and pull them into compressor and output them into any format I need.
Compressor is really the most underutilized app in the Final Cut Studio.
**Hindsight is always 1080p**
-
[Rafael Amador] “So for my self, improving Final Cut and the round-tripping would be the way to go.”
Precisely, absolutely, spot on. Adobe has received a ton of praise for the CS5 Suite. Why? Because the applications work seamlessly together. Adobe did not create a unified, bloated app to try to do everything. They have applications specifically tailored to do a task and they do their tasks very well. And they also talk to each other seamlessly.
This is what Apple has to address, a more seamless workflow between the apps so they all talk to each other better.
And actually I MUCH prefer to keep Compressor as a stand alone app. Generally when we use Compressor we’re doing a batch of multiple compressions. So I can throw multiple movies, multiple presets and let it render the Batch.
If this was a direct Export from FCP, I wouldn’t be able to do this. I’d have to render one at a time and only from the current project I have open. How do I pull in multiple files from multiple projects at the same time and tell it to make a BluRay, DVD, H.264 high, low and mid quality all at the same time from 6 different files from FCP? Keeping Compressor as a stand alone is definitely the way to go.
I don’t use “QT Conversion” within FCP, it’s clunky and doesn’t work. Export QT Reference File, then bring that into Compressor.
Walter Biscardi, Jr.
Editor, Colorist, Director, Writer, Consultant, Author, Chef.
HD Post and Production
Biscardi Creative Media“Foul Water, Fiery Serpent” Winner, Best Documentary, LA Reel Film Festival.
-
This whole discussion cracks me up.
Do you guys think anybody at Apple is listening?
Apple stock is closing in on 300 a share
and IT’S NOT BECAUSE OF FINAL CUT or any of their other
“PRO APPS” FCP is a side show that is gonna go away.
Take it for what it did for most here, ie: Got you into the BIZ
Now it’s time too move on to other things and maybe latch onto
the other EVIL A’S Their stuff is just as cheap now, Storage
is .10 a gig. So what’s the issue? All this mental gymnastics
of What I want, What Apple should do, What I Want, What Apple
should do, is not impressing anyone except maybe yourselves,
with who can come up with the most arcane set of “I WANTS”
Nobody at Apple cares or is listening, except maybe they want to lance the boil on their butt.Neil Hurwitz
-
[Zane Barker] Sure better integration of compressor into the apps is needed but there still needs to be a stand alone compressor.
I see that my “having to go to a separate app to output your work is silly” is easily interpreted as an argument against stand-alone compression tools, but as part of a case against combining all the pro apps, what I was getting at is that advanced exporting/compression is the only of the pro app functions that seems to make sense to integrate into FCP. I see no reason why the functions of Compressor available as part of FCP would necessarily have to mean those functions are not accessible without running FCP. Then again, I’m not a software coder.
[Zane Barker] “Should one have to go back to FCP every time he is asked to deliver in a different format. NO. I make it a practice to archive to hard drive the things I edit in the original codec they were edited.”
So do I and most editors, but it sure would be nice to finish an edit and have the option to directly export files for full-rez master, DVD, web, iPad, iPhone, etc., etc. all at once from inside FCP … with the control over each that Compressor allows, yet with the close integration of a batch export. Perhaps what I’m really saying is do away with batch export and replace it with Compressor-like functionality … sure, I’d like to the option to compress without opening FCP, but in today’s world, having to use a separate app to generate common deliverables seems like having to use a separate app to master to tape.
-
[David Johnson] “but it sure would be nice to finish an edit and have the option to directly export files for full-rez master, DVD, web, iPad, iPhone, etc., etc. all at once from inside FCP”
Yes I agree thats why I also said this
[Zane Barker] “Sure better integration of compressor into the apps is needed but there still needs to be a stand alone compressor. “
The biggest thing that the new FCS needs is to be FULLY 64 bit. I want to use the full potential of my hardware!
**Hindsight is always 1080p**
-
I think the definition of an NLE has been expanding since they were first developed. FCP is already more than an editor. It also does effects, compositing, and audio, and it doesn’t do any of these well. I agree with most of the other posters that a single app to handle the entire range of post-production tasks could be pretty unwieldy.
That said, what I’d like to see from FCS is not necessarily a unified application; I’d like to see a unified data model.
When working on a project, there’s only one edit — but that’s not how FCS currently sees it. There are separate editorial timelines, color timelines, and sound timelines.
I’d like to see them brought together, with each application in the suite working on the same project in its area of strength. Let FCP handle the editorial, let Color handle the color, and let Soundtrack handle the audio — but there should be a database working in the background to manage the same media and the same sequences across the entire suite. An editorial change in FCP should be reflected in Color without reconform, because FCP and Color should be fundamentally working on the same sequence.
Take it a step further, and let it work across a network, so a facility can really collaborate on an edit. This is essentially what I had hoped Final Cut Server would be — middleware to tie all the post specialities together.
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 -
Hi Neil,
I don’t understand much about companies and enterprises, but with the actual situation in the world, I wouldn’t understand a company that close a profitable department and trash one million customers.
I don’t believe that Apple is building all that new multimedia gear to play movies made in PP.
rafael -
The only part of FCS I’d consider integrating into Final Cut Pro is Cinema Tools. Regarding interface redesign the obvious candidate is Color. The GUI of every grading app on the market – Discreet Lustre, Nucoda Film Master, IRIDAS Speed Grade, Baselight, Resolve is pure abomination. But they used to cost your kidney and olor was cheap. Now the big boys come down in price. To compete Color has to be faster and the big part of the speed is the efficiency of the interface.
-
[Walter Soyka] “I’d like to see a unified data model.
…Let FCP handle the editorial, let Color handle the color, and let Soundtrack handle the audio — but there should be a database working in the background to manage the same media and the same sequences across the entire suite. An editorial change in FCP should be reflected in Color without reconform, because FCP and Color should be fundamentally working on the same sequence.”
Hi
+1
Lots of different tools, and viewing modes (= GUIs) appropriate to the use of those tools. No ’round-tripping’ ever.
Just one database, just one edit. -
[Walter Soyka] “I’d like to see a unified data model.
…Let FCP handle the editorial, let Color handle the color, and let Soundtrack handle the audio — but there should be a database working in the background to manage the same media and the same sequences across the entire suite. An editorial change in FCP should be reflected in Color without reconform, because FCP and Color should be fundamentally working on the same sequence.”I agree. The project should be the central point around which everything else revolves. You have the project manager. Time to edit: in come editing (FCP) tools). Time for motion graphics on a portion: in comes Motion tools. etc. I can see the different tools moving in and out like screens in spaces while a clip window stays central.
I say this as someone who does not own a bazillion dollar company nor have any programming skills. Or that many editing skills.
Reply to this Discussion! Login or Sign Up