[Andrew Richards]

[Ray Wang] “Events, projects/folders, timeline, metadata (keyword, favorites) were all there in iMovie and I believe iMovie11 is 64bit.”

iMovie ’11 is 32 bit, based on QuickTime (which has 32 bit dependency), and does not include any of the keywording or metadata features seen in FCPX. It does have Favorites though. iMovie ’11 does support folders in the Project Library, but not in the Events Library.

Really, the only DNA the two share is in the basic Events/Projects dichotomy and in the general layout of the UI. Oh, and skimming.

Best,
Andy

[Andrew Richards]

The big quirks are that there isn’t 64 bit kernel support and the Finder isn’t “tape-aware”.

You may have to boot your Mac Pro into 32 bit mode depending on its age. Also, the Finder often gets tripped up on LTFS because it times out waiting for a copy to finish, and all the background Spotlight and .DS_Store stuff is bad news on LTFS.

Boot to 32 bit kernel and interact with tapes via the command line instead of the Finder for better results. You can also look at BRU PE, they recently added LTFS support.

Best,
Andy

[Andrew Richards]

Oh, well, yeah. I was hoping it could become friendly with shared-disk filesystems (like StorNext). I guess Avid has to make a living somewhere. Still addressing storage like it’s 1989.

Best,
Andy

[Andrew Richards]

Yes it will? Details!? Haven’t seen it mentioned anywhere…

Best,
Andy

[Andrew Richards]

[Sean Thomas] “Where’s the magnetic timeline? :-)”

On the cutting room floor.

Best,
Andy

[Andrew Richards]

I want to know if MC6 will support shared filesystem storage.

Best,
Andy

[Andrew Richards]

Honestly, why is it a slap in the face? Is it a slap in the face to professional Photoshop users that Photoshop Elements files can be imported in to Photoshop CS5? Or likewise for Premiere CS5 importing projects from Premiere Elements?

Best,
Andy

[Andrew Richards]

[Tom Wolsky] “I haven’t tried it, still to early, but we need to find a good workflow for dialog and interviews without a gang function.”

From Apple’s own documentation for FCP7:

Final Cut Pro has several options for synchronizing, or ganging, the Viewer and Canvas/Timeline playheads together, so that if you move one, the other moves by the same amount. When the playheads are synchronized, you can control the playheads from the Viewer, Canvas, or Timeline. Playhead sync only works between the Canvas and Timeline windows and the Viewer window.

Why Synchronize Playheads?

Reasons for using playhead sync include:

• Automatically opening sequence clips in the Viewer to quickly make filter adjustments (for example, adjusting each sequence clip’s Color Correction filter).
• Using the Viewer as an alternative to the Trim Edit window, to look at prospective new In and Out points for a sequence clip. Although the end result is the same, this method provides a different experience than editing in the Timeline or the two-up view you see in the Canvas while trimming.
• Temporarily syncing a Browser clip to a sequence, using any sync relationship you want.
• Enabling real-time multiclip editing. When the Multiclip Playback option is selected, the Open playhead sync option is automatically selected.

You can see implicit agreement about ganging being obsolete in the new UI if you consider the following:

• Filter adjustments and keyframing is handled in the Inspector and Timeline, not in dedicated tabs of a dedicated Viewer.
• The Precision Editor is the new way to fine tune an existing edit in the Timeline, though I say they need a two-up display on all the time while this is engaged (presently it is only there wile the Trim tool is actively manipulating a clip).
• Multi-clip is coming, and will probably use some variation on the two-up look you get during Trim operations.

Not saying there aren’t other uses for ganging, but if that is all Apple thinks of ganging you can see why they would consider it obsolete when everything else is designed to work sans-Viewer.

Best,
Andy

[Andrew Richards]

[Herb Sevush] “Actually one of the reasons I started this thread WAS to discus the semantics. I believe the designer’s choices in the naming of things tells a lot about their vision for X, precisely because those names are so different from industry norms. I realize that no one is married to the designers intent, but I find it useful in evaluating what the future development might be.”

Certainly, and I posted at length attempting to translate the semantics elsewhere on the thread. I don’t think there is a lot to read into the names of UI elements though. What about the Canvas in legacy FCP? Its name has no industry norm to align with.

I agree the designers introduced an artificial barrier to understanding and a far more abstract metaphor, but I wouldn’t read much into the names of the UI elements in terms of hints at future development.

Best,
Andy

[Andrew Richards]

[Herb Sevush] “The idea that a single Event is at the heart of the editing process is a strange one. It does seem like it relates to the story about the Imovie vacation video.”

Don’t get caught up in the semantics though, they are only named Events. Functionally speaking, they are logical containers for media that you can chose to correlate to any organization scheme you wish. There is a date and time default in the UI for sorting Events, but that can be disabled.

Compartmentalize what the interface elements are called from what they can do, and FCPX starts to look a lot less consumery.

Best,
Andy