[Bill Davis]

While there’s nothing “wrong” with doing finder copies of stuff as is outlined here – X actually has a purpose built construct called MOVE PROJECT that is another useful tool for managing disc space and drives.

Under the Files Menu, it lets you specify that everything related to a particular project (inducing the event references if you elect so) will be moved “en masse” to a new location. When they are moved, as long as all the links are in tact (and the MOVE command preserves them perfectly) then you can use the project just like it’s on the root drive – since it shows up in the Project Library just like any other project. When the drive is available the projects show up – when the drive is off, they don’t. This makes it very easy to clear space on your primary computer when needed. It’s essentially cloning everything about your project onto a new location.

The caveat is that when the move is finished, the project is cleared out of the old location.

So it’s truly a MOVE not a BACKUP, but useful none the less.

For me this makes primary editing on my laptop a joy. Since this plus disk images (either generated in the Imaging capability built into X or via Disk Utility) make it really easy to work on multiple projects without clogging my laptop drives.

Just food for thought.

“Before speaking out ask yourself whether your words are true, whether they are respectful and whether they are needed in our civil discussions.”-Justice O’Connor

[Bill Davis]

[Chris Harlan] “And few people are trashing the kid. Mostly people are trashing the parent’s decision to murder the Trophy winner in his sleep.”

We are video editors, not tabloid editors.

It’s dead. Get over it.

“Before speaking out ask yourself whether your words are true, whether they are respectful and whether they are needed in our civil discussions.”-Justice O’Connor

[Bill Davis]

[Mitch Ives] “My point exactly. At the risk of lowering the bar too far for people like Bill and Steve, my problem isn’t with the interface or the design criteria, it’s with the amateurishly unfinished nature of it. It was released with a titler bug that two guys writing software in a garage would have caught. Seriously?”

BS. Pure and simple. Mitch, we’re friends. But you’re assessment here is just plain wrong. There’s nothing “unfinished’ about software that has let me meet five different delivery deadlines with paid work over the past month. It’s finished, it works fine on my hardware. Period. Features for the future is a reasonable issue of contention. But if it’s not “operating” for you – you’ve got something wrong. Because it’s operating for me fine.

[Mitch Ives] “The AutoSave doesn’t work, which wouldn’t be a problem if we had manual save, but we don’t. This is causing a lot of issues for a lot of people, as evidenced by the threads in this forum.
“

Again, sorry, but I have to disagree totally. AutoSave has not just worked well for me, it’s worked AMAZINGLY well. Whenever I start doing really complex or fast operations (particularly when I start chaining my mind rapidly, doing, undoing, then re-doing things – which yes, sometimes causes it to crash.) X recovers about as flawlessly as any software I’ve ever seen.

I”ve done that half a dozen times in the past month of high pressure work. And each and every time when the software re-loads, I’m back to almost the EXACT state of the project the second before the crash.

I’m NEVER seen “auto save” work like this before. And I think it’s one of the best features of the whole product.

I suppose it requires some consistently in setup, system config, and hardware – but as you know, I’m not the best hardware guy on the planet and I’m running nothing but Apple Store basic rigs here. Nothing hot-rodded. I’m on a stock i7 MacBook Pro 15 running Lion – And X under Lion is the most graceful crash recovery construct I’ve ever seen.

FWIW.

“Before speaking out ask yourself whether your words are true, whether they are respectful and whether they are needed in our civil discussions.”-Justice O’Connor

[Bill Davis]

Mitch,

I’m not a database pro by any stretch. ..

But this is totally consistent with the development path I’ve seen with every database I’ve ever used.

I have about 15 years into Filemaker Pro – (admittedly at a very casual user level) and this is precisely the path that took.

First release was basic plumbing in a “flat file” construct . Eventually, they added “limited” relational capabilities – largely lookup from other content pods. Then, they added more and more features over the years to the point where large swaths of users didn’t need any other tool.

Now, 15 years later, “consensus” capabilities have showed up as persistent icons baked into the interface.

Relational database processes where changing one thing effects subsets of linked “other things” is in no way trivial.

I’m happy to wait for “finished” rather than live through “fast but broken.”

But I’m NOT willing to wait to learn the software approach just so it’s “perfect.’

I’m had so much re-learning and re-understanding to do approaching X that I’m delighted that they chose to push it out the door at NAB.

This way, I’m not waiting to learn and use the tool (as I’m doing very successfully now with my paid work) until they can perfect the things that would be nice, but aren’t necessary.

I’m now 8 paid gigs into it – with three additional new ones on the books – and those jobs happen to all be larger and more complex than the early ones.

That’s the context where “show unused clips” is so trivial to me as to be inconsequential.

FCP-X is WAY more than earning it’s keep in my practice just the way it is right now.

And that’s really all the matters to me.

“Before speaking out ask yourself whether your words are true, whether they are respectful and whether they are needed in our civil discussions.”-Justice O’Connor

[Bill Davis]

[Michael Hancock] “[Bill Davis] “Paragraph 1 – you said “they paid full price for everything.” So in my book, they OWN everything. It’s theirs, not yours. Period. ”

From a legal perspective, that’s wrong. Unless you have a contract that explicitly states Work for Hire or that the client retains ownership, the footage and project files belong to the OP.

[Mark Suszko] “Contractually speaking, if you want to “own the donut”, and your other work product, you need that in writing, in advance, next time. And always get paid before you hand over the key element.”

Nope. They own the finished spot you give them to air. Everything else is owned by you. They have no legal claim over it.
“

We can all play “amateur IP attorney” all we like. And yes, it’s true hat Title 17 is specific about “work for hire” ownership. – but in the present climate I think focusing on that is a huge mistake. It’s “inside baseball” in nearly all common business situations. I have nothing against anyone who wants to read up on the letter of the law, school themselves in “work made for hire” and “fair use” et al. It’s an excellent grounding. But in actual business transactions focusing on that will (at best) result in won skirmishes and lost wars.

You want to focus on the war. Which is building a profitable business.

So I view every work I do as exclusively the CLIENTS properly. With very few and very specific exceptions, I’ve learned the hard way that defending IP claims in my work is a losers game. I don’t want to have to budget for legal hassles, copyright defense or litigation. And those are necessary if you institute policies that favor ownership disputes.

I don’t’ want to do that. So the best way is to try to NEVER dispute ownership. And a policy of vesting ownership with the commissioning party in every possible transaction handily diffuses the bomb.

It also paints me in a VERY favorable light with clients. I’m the easiest guy to work with because I never dispute the ownership of anything. If you’re my client, large or small, and you want it? It’s yours. Uncontested.

And the funny thing is that I’ve learned that THIS actually protects me more than the iron-clad contract. Because the vendor who causes fewer hassles is the one that’s most often selected. Particularly today when anyone can work with anyone anywhere. 99 times out of 100, there will NEVER be a dispute. Win/win.

I’m delighted to give away the rights to my work with full payment because I believe that the knowledge I gained in doing the work in the first place is WAY more valuable than the work itself. Every successful commission makes me a better creator. Every successfully delivered job ends with me in possession of MORE KNOWLEDGE than I had when I started it.

I can create tangible work from ideas. But the tangible work, itself, isn’t the prize. The ability to create it is. And that can’t be “assigned” to anyone.

Now when I create for myself, that’s a different ballgame. I defend my IP on that to the teeth. But when I do commission work for others, the full ownership rights to the completed work always go with the commission.

And my life stays simpler because of it.

FWIW.

“Before speaking out ask yourself whether your words are true, whether they are respectful and whether they are needed in our civil discussions.”-Justice O’Connor

[Bill Davis]

[Oliver Peters] “Hmmm…. Is that why Walter Murch had to recut “Wolfman” on Media Composer instead of FCP?

– Oliver”

Well, isn’t that like saying that (insert director or editor here) “had” to cut (insert film here) back in 2005 on AVID instead of FCP.

Nobody here has ever alleged that X sprung forth fully realized and developed and with all the capabilities of the previous version.

The whole POINT of X was to take a completely fresh approach to NLE design.

It’s not “just another AVID” – and actually, neither was Legacy for it’s first 3 years.

Just as FCP v.1.0 was a perfectly useful editing tool with ample room for improvement – X is nothing more or less than the same. Murch, Schoonmaker, or Wall, or any other talented editor would have been vastly dissatisfied editing a movie on Legacy 1.0 – but probably find doing so by V3, or V4, and by V5, all the bottlenecks had dropped away and the software earned it’s consideration in the toolset of nearly all professional editors.

Only time will tell if X follows that path.

What really is getting tedious is those who still insist on treating X like some freshman high school athlete who’s older brother won the Heisman Trophy so everybody relentlessly trashes the kid for not being “as good” as the elder sibling.

They are different people. With different strengths and weaknesses, just with similar DNA.

Period.

“Before speaking out ask yourself whether your words are true, whether they are respectful and whether they are needed in our civil discussions.”-Justice O’Connor

[Bill Davis]

[Christian Schumacher] “Does this sound “MUCH better” to you? It does not to me…Sorry, Bill.
“

Yes.

While it requires more thinking, understanding and intent – it simultaneously provides a gateway to vast amounts of organizational power that would be obscured to the new user if they got stuck just thinking “like all other NLEs – “show rejected” is one of the two or three designer specified commands you’re expected to use.

Again, begs the central question of this forum – Is X a new precision tool – or a “dumbed down” version of all the other NLE approaches?

Mark figured out one way to use the database to find “unused clips” – I found a slightly different way that both employ existing capabilities and share some.

Sounds like the mark of a pretty flexible and capable tool to me.

“Before speaking out ask yourself whether your words are true, whether they are respectful and whether they are needed in our civil discussions.”-Justice O’Connor

[Bill Davis]

[Michael Gissing] “Those same teenagers couldn’t be bothered with clip naming in FCP7 other than ‘untitled_1’ ‘untitled_2’. Thank goodness FCP added the number after the untitled. I have absolutely no faith that these self same newbies will be doing Hollywood heavy type databasing, even if FCPX forces them to do some.”

I absolutely agree with regard to 49 out of 50 teenagers who will likely use X to cut something in the next 5 years.

It’s that 50th guy or gal we all have to watch out for.

As it has ever been.

“Before speaking out ask yourself whether your words are true, whether they are respectful and whether they are needed in our civil discussions.”-Justice O’Connor

[Bill Davis]

[Oliver Peters] “Unfortunately, listening to its customers doesn’t seem to be part of Apple’s equation. If it were, we would have some choices within the app, which was the basis of your original post, I believe. Those who have been sitting on the fence in wait for that release will probably decide. “

I don’t want to belabor this thread, but I can’t resist pointing out that it circles back to the same position taken by nearly all the critics.

That “listening to it’s customers” is kind of dog whistle code for “*I* am the customer you must serve” – and I have no quarrel with any and every pro speaking up to indicate what they need and how X falls short of meeting those needs.

But again, just because your kind of pro needs something, that does NOT mean that all editors do. Maybe Apple was listening to customers – but not exclusively customers like you? With 2 million paid seats, there’s a LOT of diversity out there.

I remember clearly at the last TWO or THREE Supermeets Brian Meany and others on the FCP engineering team set up an interview camera outside the meeting at NAB and interviewed a significant cross section of actual users.

What if the truth of the matter is that the bulk of the users simply aren’t folks like you?

What if they saw growth in other areas – and NOT in high end seats like yours? What if they have studies in hand that speaks of a shrinking market for the ecosystem that supports the TV station or Movie studio set and explosive growth of video on the internet and the corporate use of video and motion graphics in business?

If so, then not worrying over much about meeting your needs might just be a reflection of the fact that the overall path to success starts out with a focus on general editing, and when that’s done right, they’re willing to grow it into the professional space exactly like they did with the original release?

Anyway, I’ve beat this too much. If you have comments, I’d love to hear them and let you have the last word. I truly appreciate the sounding board and the opportunity to test my ideas against others like yourself here.

Thanks for reading and giving my thoughts consideration.

Peace.

“Before speaking out ask yourself whether your words are true, whether they are respectful and whether they are needed in our civil discussions.”-Justice O’Connor

[Bill Davis]

[David Roth Weiss] “While $299 is attractive, that in and of itself is not the game-changer you’d like it to be.”

Once again, if you are correct, then FCP-X will wither and die. The high level editors will be as dissatisfied as you are – and it won’t succeed.

If I’m right, and there are legions of new people who want to do their own video creation at all levels of expertise from personal art projects to high end corporate videos – and they find the toolset in X both useful and powerful enough to enable their success. X will simply strip away the folks who had to pony up #1k to use Legacy for tasks not at the “hollywood” level – and Adobe and Avid will have to survive on those for whom Creative Suite or Avid Prrices are not a barrier.

Those companies got a bump from the initial Legacy EOL flurry and their smart, opportunistic marketing. But that’s kinda over. Now the real game begins. The long game. The one where all three packages (and others) go head to head for success in sales and adoption.

No telling how many seats will migrate. If it’s hundreds or even thousands nothing much will change.

I’m convinced it won’t be “hundreds of thousands” out of the 2 million paid seats that Legacy earned.

And if X keeps developing, it will form a powerful alternative because of all three aspects. Price, general editing capabilities and support.

What will be really interesting is if the Apple engineers working with the new platform are truly looking down stream and imagining new features that the re-build makes possible.

Looking just at the Project Library – and at iCloud – what if they decide to marry those and do to broadcasting what they just did to book publishing. Something truly disruptive? It’s not outside the realm of possibility over, say, a decade of X development.

Yeah, that doesn’t address issues here and now for an editor going to work tomorrow. But Apple does have a rep for the long range, transformative play.

Food for thought.

“Before speaking out ask yourself whether your words are true, whether they are respectful and whether they are needed in our civil discussions.”-Justice O’Connor