-
Why do users say FCP X is fast? Some new numbers.
-
[Aindreas Gallagher] “But It’s like you’re on the starship enterprise bill. You know, like FCPX has a neural net Data SQL database only the chosen can fully perceive.
Or maybe it’s just some software amongst many that some people really don’t respect at all. And they really don’t. And they are exactly as intelligent as you.
But you do respect it, and that’s all cool Bill.”I was going to try to figure out where there was anything useful in these randomly assembled words… then I realized that it’s truly not worth the effort.
Have a nice day.
Know someone who teaches video editing in elementary school, high school or college? Tell them to check out http://www.StartEditingNow.com – video editing curriculum complete with licensed practice content.
-
My take is bad design decisions are counter intuitive and harm the supposedly greater speed of FCPX. That’s what I’m trying to address. And I’m not seeing this as a case of trying to cram old practices into FCPX, People working in it are doing what it’s suppose to do; Tagging clips, keywording selects and editing them in projects – using the primary! But you have revisions, new files popping up, collaborations with another pear, etc, You get the idea, no doubt some jobs are more intense than others. That’s the point I’m trying to make; FCPX is being advertised as a speed boost in your workflow, but the optimised experience immensely depends on very specific factors. I argue if wouldn’t it be even faster if you could go through the footage and then use a window layout for multiple keywords collections? And wouldn’t be faster if I could match frame back to one of those keywords collections windows? Does it make sense that some people could need frame dupes on timelines, ganging viewers, a/v lockings, tc readings, more options, modifiers? Or -shudder- keyword functionality on timeline clips? Sometimes I wonder if I am spouting blasphemy. FCPX should really bring some stuff from the competition and, at the same time, work to enhance the current paradigm. That would be quite a boost!
-
Christian, in my experience, most of the time (not always) changing an excisting edit in FCPX is a lot easier then in a lot of track based NLE’s because of the magnetic timeline. Sometimes it can work against you, but changing some orders and stuff, and have all the rest stay the same and connected to each other is a great time-saver.
About match framing back to a keyword collection: I get the point (I misunderstood you before I think), but a clip can have multiple keywords (which is actually great), so to which collection should it match frame back to then?
On the timeline you could always work with compound clips and/or markers if that helps. You can do a search for markers and stuff trough the Timeline Index.
A lot of learning how to work with the magnetic timeline, primary vs secondary, is based in my experience on muscle memory. After a big while with X you start THINKING in terms of primary and secondary and secondary timelines. This just takes your muscle memory to switch and change.
FCPX is not ALWAYS faster, but most people who use it for a long time (I also switched from FCP 7 after I first hated X and even asked for a refund) notice that once you start learning it as used, you don’t miss a lot of stuff you thought you would miss more. Like I thought 2 viewers would be handy, but I notice that I as good as never use the Event Viewer now it’s there. (it’s not the same as the old 2 viewer system though). I just don’t have a problem with the one viewer anymore. Although, I can understand people NEEDING a certain functionality if you workflow depends on it AND if every other way in X takes you more time from start to finish.
But what I wanted to say: a lot of people who use it a lot notice that X is faster and easier in MOST cases. Not all. But like Charlie said: a lot of us rather have the missed functionality of X than what we perceive as the missed functionality in the other Track based NLE’s.
Again, I don’t think X is perfect. But even with it’s imperfections I like it more and think it’s faster then other NLE’s.Regards,
-
[Christian Schumacher] “I argue if wouldn’t it be even faster if you could go through the footage and then use a window layout for multiple keywords collections? And wouldn’t be faster if I could match frame back to one of those keywords collections windows? Does it make sense that some people could need frame dupes on timelines, ganging viewers, a/v lockings, tc readings, more options, modifiers?”
Those are all areas where X can definitely use more work/functionality. ganging I’m on the fence about, I had Pr lose sync when ganging a couple things the other day, (was kind of odd as the 2 were exactly the same) and you can’t play both in real time anyway. Comping/nesting the sequence (in any NLE) and sticking it the timeline at ~25% scale is, to me, a better way to do it.
————————————————————-
~ My FCPX Babbling blog ~
~”It is a poor craftsman who blames his tools.”~
~”The function you just attempted is not yet implemented”~ -
sure that’s fine –
the basic gist would be that the software isn’t as mystically advanced as you think it is, you seem over-invested in your perception of the software, you defend it by saying that people who dislike it as software don’t understand it, implying superior knowledge on your part, but the fact is it’s pretty easy to get a handle on – it’s just that lots of people disregard it as poorly designed software – and those people are just as smart as you!
simples!
A
https://vimeo.com/user1590967/videos http://www.ogallchoir.net promo producer/editor.grading/motion graphics
-
I think this says it all… A marriage between software and hardware is a wonderful thing.
A world without string is chaos.
-
[Aindreas Gallagher] ” it’s just that lots of people disregard it as poorly designed software – and those people are just as smart as you!
simples!”
You know, I think it may be simpler than that. They just don’t LIKE it. I think there’s room for that.
Spoiler alert: a simile that’s not a car simile! I don’t like eggs. I can tolerate them if you bury them under a pile of tortillas, guacamole, enchilada sauce, beans, salsa, guacamole, and sour cream — but that particular pile of food is better without the eggs…and I understand eggs completely. I’m not afraid of them. I just don’t LIKE them.
And before Sam I Am pipes up, yes, I’ve had them green with ham, but 60 years later, I get to say, “I just don’t LIKE them.”
Four years later here, I STILL don’t think adequate shrift is given to “it looks neato for you, I acknowledge what you’re saying, but it doesn’t work for me.”
Or, “There are no needs in my present NLE that X addresses, so I don’t feel it’s worth the effort to build that much new muscle memory. Yes, it’s doable — I obviously learned how to do it with THIS one, and the amount of change I’ve put myself through for 30 years is unimaginable to many of you — but I don’t feel the need THIS time.”
Or, “I just don’t like it.”
While this is by no means the case for every one of its proponents, I distressingly often still catch a whiff of disapproval for any of these very legitimate reasons.
One of the ways I see this is in the implication that people are being “held back” for psychological reasons as well as cognitive ones — or more often, to the EXCLUSION of rational reasons. You know what? It can often be the case. I don’t think most of us have begun to reckon with the fact that what seems like our most discretionary choices — career, where we live, our life partners — could possibly among the ones most driven by pre-rational forces.
It’s no big deal, though. Not even worth pursuing. The fact that they ARE driven by unexamined internal dynamics is why most of the time, most of these choices work for most of us.
But it grinds any reasonable discussion to a halt to fail to acknowledge that there are equally compelling psychological reasons for adopting X that have little to do with rational ones. Which is also okay. If it works for you, who cares why?
It only matters to the extent that those forces are invoked in discussions like these, and the belief that only the OTHER guy is subject to them. The internal components that latch on to innovation as a higher good are every bit as real as the drive to attain the deepest possible expertise.
To put it another way, the two deepest human impulses are migration and settlement — including migration TO a place to settle. Our species would long ago fallen into ecological irrelevance without both of those impulses constantly in full effect.
(Not that global ecosystems mightn’t have been just as happy had we failed at the task of maintaining relevance.)
So there’s my semi-annual rant on the topic out of the way for another six months, but I think it’s ultimately one of the most interesting angles on this that has yet to be discussed. What are the pre-rational dynamics that have driven me to X, just as surely as there are some that drive others away.
And to Aindreas’ point, the fact is that much of the time, it’s simpler than that. But if we’re going to talk about it, let’s talk about it. If not, let’s not.
-
Fine.
I’m a dunce with a superiority complex.. Lets call that a given.
X is STILL exceptional editing software that has broken new ground and enables editors in a VAST swath of disciplines to cut faster and easier than they could before Apple created it.
And that includes huge segments of the professional editing markets.
I’m dumb. X is very, very smart. But it takes flexibility and and open mind in the editor assessing it.
Something you’ll sadly never regain after the investment you’ve made bashing it at every turn for nearly 5 years. That’s sad really. But it only effects you.
It IS simple.
Know someone who teaches video editing in elementary school, high school or college? Tell them to check out http://www.StartEditingNow.com – video editing curriculum complete with licensed practice content.
-
[Pete Hickerson] “A world without string is chaos.”
Except I don’t think that that’s true at all, and I wonder if, in practice, you do either.
One of the most compelling parts of FCP back in the day, certainly virtually the ONLY one that mattered for its professional adoption, was the extent to which it’s extensible through parties that have nothing to do with Apple. And in some cases Apple was actively undermining.
I think of SDI through Aurora, Cinewave, AJA, and Blackmagic. I think of HD over any I/O rather than FireWire. Today, it’s GPU.
For 10 years before Macromedia developed Final Cut for both Mac and Windows, storage ruled. Apple’s run at storage was only passingly successful, so they dropped it.
Which is why I think that the FCPX-Mac connection is overstated. As many others on the thread have pointed out, even the speed advantage that kicked us off simply vanishes when you assess tasks that different than the ones FCPX is optimized for.
Otherwise, we’re moving right back to the closed model that FCP so compellingly blew up. To the extent that Steve tried to tie up these very strings, I think that Tim Cook has aggressively been working to cut at the same time FCPX takes advantage of them. Apple has never been more open to third parties in every part of their product strategy, including iOS. They want to run the table, which they can’t do if they pursue stringing people up as their highest priority.
In any case, the number of us here who can live without Apple assigning meaningful resources to third parties approaches zero. The number of us who actually LIVE without them is LESS than zero.
-
[Aindreas Gallagher] “it’s just that lots of people disregard it as poorly designed software”
So what you are essentially saying is that you are much “smarter” than me/FCPX users because I/we don’t realise what “poorly designed” software FCPX is even though I/we use it most days.
Well I’ll drink to stupidity then. Ignorance is bliss.
Cheers
Reply to this Discussion! Login or Sign Up