-
Will FCX be around for a while?
-
[Robin S. Kurz] “since they factually did not.”
Sure they did. FCP 7 has no relationship to FCP X other than in name. FCP 7 was pulled from the market without advance notice and then returned after outcry on a limited basis. A similar thing happened with Aperture. You can now only have access to Aperture through the Mac App Store, if you had previous already owned it.
[Robin S. Kurz] “Like I said. Whilst on the subject of (pure, unsubstantiated) conjecture…
But then I guess you can show me “evidence of that in the real world”, right? :-))”Take a look around at broadcasters and corporations and compare the amount of installations of Adobe or Avid with FCP X. The numbers don’t favor Apple. In fact, when I freelance, I am frequently asked NOT to use FCP X because of project compatibility concerns, as these companies have shifted away from FCP.
– Oliver
Oliver Peters Post Production Services, LLC
Orlando, FL
http://www.oliverpeters.com -
[Robin S. Kurz] “Sorry, but the difference is HUGE. Not even close to the same from a (globally) organizational standpoint.”
We’ll have to agree to disagree. In the context that I stated, there is no difference in time and effort nor functional result. I say that as someone who does precisely a lot of this kind of work and uses FCPX along with the others, depending on circumstance. And yes, I use favorites/rejects when the approach is warranted.
– Oliver
Oliver Peters Post Production Services, LLC
Orlando, FL
http://www.oliverpeters.com -
[Robin S. Kurz] “Being which product exactly? Certainly not FCP. No idea what the continued “they killed FCP!” &%$ is all about, since they factually did not.”
They didn’t “kill it” but they “end of life’d it” — a difference without a distinction.
Apple executives did not run to everyone’s house and steal their copy of FCP7 in the middle of the night, and the operating system and hardware they produce continues to allow it to run – but yes they “killed it” in the way every reasonable person dealing with software understands the meaning of those words in context. Like a shark, software is either moving or it is dead.
And whether you choose EOL or “killed” there is no other example of a company that was currently producing the biggest selling product in it’s niche, and rapidly increasing it’s share of market at that time, running away from that success by producing a non-compatible successor. Premier totally re-invented itself when it became Premier Pro but that was because they had failed to achieve FCP’s type of success. No pure software company could commit that kind of software seppuku and survive; Apple could because it is a hardware company that makes software as bait. Which is precisely why it is fair and reasonable to worry about their future moves in a way you don’t when you look at Avid or Adobe.
Herb Sevush
Zebra Productions
—————————
nothin\’ attached to nothin\’
\”Deciding the spine is the process of editing\” F. Bieberkopf -
[Charlie Austin] ”
Telling people that X is a completely “new way of editing” is a pet peeve of mine. (what is a peeve anyway??) It’s not reinventing the process, as a editors we are doing the same thing in X as anything else. “The thing is, I don’t remember anyone EVER arguing this.
I remember in the early days constantly saying things like “Editing in X is different than what you might be used to.”
And one reader can read the word “editing” in that and think about operating the software – and another person reads the same sentence and reads the same word as referring to the sequencing of ideas. The term itself has more than one use. We all know that.
But considering how often what I said back then got instantly filtered through the very active opinion lynch mob of the day – I’d argue none of these word issues were actually driving the problem. if people were mentally inserting “completely” before the word “different” – that would not have surprised me one bit.
I’ve come to believe that real problem of those days were hurt, fear and insecurity. With a not insignificant overlay of moderate corporate warfare involved, too. On all sides.
Change is hard.
Creator of XinTwo – https://www.xintwo.com
The shortest path to FCP X mastery. -
[Robin S. Kurz] ” Shake, Soundtrack, even Color are still alive within FCP X. … The technology of all of the above is factually within FCP X.”
Sounds very interesting if true.
Could you show us some of the lines of code that are shared between these applications and FCP X or reference a reliable source to substantiate this?
Simon Ubsdell
tokyo productions
hawaiki -
[Joe Marler] “By contrast an experienced editor by necessity will immediately tackle J and L cuts, media management, multicam, etc. I’d like to see the novice who can figure out how to stabilize edited multicam clips on the timeline in FCPX.
Wouldn’t we have known during prepping our clips for Multicam editing that we should apply stabilization (or have the AEs do it!) via Open in Timeline) before our multiclips are created?
Part of the X zeitgeist for me was to learn to engage my editors brain prior to the storyline stage to think about candidate processes that I can globally apply to clips early – so I get the benefit of more “perfected” resources in all my subsequent uses.
Heck, to me that’s what X’s Reject Functionis all about. Perfecting resources for further use.
And in that same spirit, any shakey clip that needs to be stabilized in my current program – would just need to potentially be stabilized again for the intro, flashback or part two of a series if they showed up there – so rather than thinking “in the timeline” I’d likely prefer to correct it once upstream on the source and then it’s done for all global uses.
Color, sound, stabilization and more can become part of prep – just like keyword application – and doing so drives lots of backend efficiency.
A small part of learning to think of an X workflow on it’s own terms.
BTW I do these things all the time still (find myself still solving workflow challenges in X with non- X thinking.) but when I think it through later and can suddenly see how the database or a metadata manipulation can make things easier- I try to stop doing it the old way and re-condition my thinking.
I am in awe of those of you who can bounce around between the NLEs and keep your heads on straight about gaining and losing capabilities all the time as you switch. I imagine that would drive me nuts!
FWIW
Creator of XinTwo – https://www.xintwo.com
The shortest path to FCP X mastery. -
[Bill Davis] “And in that same spirit, any shakey clip that needs to be stabilized in my current program – would just need to potentially be stabilized again for the intro, flashback or part two of a series if they showed up there – so rather than thinking “in the timeline” I’d likely prefer to correct it once upstream on the source and then it’s done for all global uses.
“If you’ve got a 15 camera shoot of a 90 minute performance, then there is no way you are going to go through each camera and find out which shots might need stabilising should you decide to use it in the edit.
-
[Bill Davis] “Wouldn’t we have known during prepping our clips for Multicam editing that we should apply stabilization (or have the AEs do it!) via Open in Timeline) before our multiclips are created?”
This is so wrong it’s scary. Stabilization is something to be applied sparingly in that it often doesn’t work the way you expected and it changes the composition of the entire clip it is applied too, even if the fault you were seeking to fix is in only one place.
Imagine a 5 minute CU clip of a pot being put on a stove, ingredients added, and then the pot being taken away and in the middle of that shot there is a camera bump. This is one angle of a 5 camera multicam group.
According to your suggestion we should stabilize this whole shot before even knowing if we need that angle at the time of the camera bump.
What would happen to that clip if we tried that – well first the stabilizer would go a little crazy when the pot was brought into the frame as it sought to stabilize the moving pot, then it would settle down into a much tighter framing for the length of the clip in order to fix the bump, during which time it might or might not go a little wacky as a hand enters and leaves the frame with the introduction of each ingredient, and finally the shot would go wacky again as the pot was removed from the frame because the stabilizer would be trying to keep the pot stable at the expense of the stove around it.
So in order to stabilize something that might get used you ruin every other part of a shot that will more likely be needed. And I haven’t even mentioned the amount of time you’d be wasting stabilizing good portions of the shot.
Or to quote from Apple –
https://support.apple.com/kb/PH12564?locale=en_US
“Note: These operations act on whole clip selections, not on range selections. To get the highest-quality and fastest results, isolate the problem section by cutting the clip with the Blade tool in the Timeline. Then apply the correction to just the video footage that needs correcting.”
Herb Sevush
Zebra Productions
—————————
nothin\’ attached to nothin\’
\”Deciding the spine is the process of editing\” F. Bieberkopf -
[Bill Davis] “Wouldn’t we have known during prepping our clips for Multicam editing that we should apply stabilization (or have the AEs do it!) via Open in Timeline) before our multiclips are created?
Part of the X zeitgeist for me was to learn to engage my editors brain prior to the storyline stage to think about candidate processes that I can globally apply to clips early – so I get the benefit of more “perfected” resources in all my subsequent uses. “
That procedure can be a good idea for initial color correction. It is a lot easier to apply once to the base clip than to try and match dozens of little cut up clips on the timeline. However even in that case the final edited clips often need tweaking from a color and exposure standpoint.
Unfortunately doing stabilization or optical flow smoothing doesn’t work well on the base clips because it’s just too compute and time-intensive to run, and the final edited clip affects the fine-tuning parameters chosen.
The FCPX deficiency in how stabilization, optical flow and tracking plugins work is a dark, dirty corner of the product. Hopefully that will be fixed in the next version. Newbies to FCPX learn the product quickly at a superficial level because they’re not encountering things like that. They are likely not even doing split edits the “FCPX way”. They are mostly only tackling easy things. The magnetic timeline helps them, and the concept of the skimmer, event browser and even range-based ratings are logical and intuitive — especially to someone who hasn’t used a track-oriented editor.
Once the newbies progress to more advanced things, it becomes very hard indeed, and in some cases like these multicam behaviors, it is much harder than Premiere.
-
[Joe Marler] “The FCPX deficiency in how stabilization, optical flow and tracking plugins work is a dark, dirty corner of the product.”
? ? ?
What does that mean? Care to elaborate?[Joe Marler] “and in some cases like these multicam behaviors, it is much harder than Premiere.”
Couldn’t disagree more. Recently had to do a multicam with CC and it was a painfully frustrating, convoluted, unintuitive mess in comparison. If there’s one thing FCP X does better than anyone else, then that is multicam… by a long shot!
– RK
____________________________________________________
Deutsch? Hier gibt es ein umfassendes FCP X Training für dich!
Reply to this Discussion! Login or Sign Up