[Bill Davis]

Which is all well and good.

FCP-X takes “Find Whatever” AND gives you a way to persistently group all the Whatevers together – and after you’ve done that, you can narrow that list down to only BLUE Whatevers, and make THAT persistent recallable data.

If you can’t see how that might be more useful that being limited to “find whatever” then fine.

Your choice.

“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]

[Walter Soyka] “You don’t, which was what Oliver was pointing out. Even when the Quicktime media file includes a reel number, FCPX ignores it. FCP7 did not.
“

Well as Tom points out, actually not.

I’d forgotten, but yes, REEL data is in there. It’s just not “front and center” in the display – but you can call is up by clip. So problem solved.

“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] “And please don’t bring up Apple and STANDARDS in the same sentence 😉 Apple has never expressed any interest in adhering to any actual sanctioned standards.”

Really?

Funny, I kinda remember driving RS-232 and 422 decks 10 years ago out of FCP. Those weren’t “standards?” (I won’t belabor the point with a dozen other easy similar audio and graphics standards examples, (cough) AIFF, TIFF, … oh never mind ;.)

I will admit that Apple has a penchant for doing their own “standards” development in-house.

With all the IP wars going on between the monster companies these days (hello KODAK!) I’m thinking that’s been a pretty darn smart long-range strategy.

YMMV.

“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] “To my knowledge, it’s not there. I don’t believe any of the P2 data comes across. With Alexa this data is carried in an XML, not the QT. Since FCP X doesn’t read old XMLs, you don’t get this info. Presumably Apple is leaning on the implementation of camera manufacturer plug-ins based on their SDK. That doesn’t help with the QT issue though. For example, I never use native H264 5D files and always convert first. When I do, I add TC and Reel IDs. Only the TC is recognized by FCP X.

Oliver
“

That it might not “automatically” look for “P2” data right now, but it DOES “look” for CF card data and SD card data, so it’s clearly capable of “reading cards” with finesse.

So this is merely a development issue, not a capabilities one.

And the FIRST thing on the design teams list was clearly not “cater primarily to the guys with $60,000 cameras” (Are you shocked at that in a $299 downloadable program? I’m not.

I’m comfortable that if they continue to get the fundamentals of the development really right, I think it’s going to grow into a tool that handles EVERYBODY’s FILES – regardless of origin- including all the meta-data variants. (why build it as a “resolution agnostic” tool otherwise?) but it’s not a Version 1 priority. Nor should it be in my estimation.

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,

But isn’t’ the very concept of a “REEL ID” a contextual thing? I mean it’s certainly important meta-data – to my knowledge there isn’t actually a STANDARD for what a REEL is in the modern scheme of thing.

For one person it’s a physical tape. For another it’s a CF card. For yet another, it’s a DISC IMAGE on a hard drive. And just to look at that last case, that DISC IMAGE can be cloned so that instead of residing on a particular drive, it might also simultaneously exist on a “home” server, and/or on a thumb drive on the road.

The point is that the very IDEA of a REEL ID, is going to be increasingly variable. One user may want it to be a 5 digit number. Another producer may want it to be 7 place alpha-numeric designation.

Presuming that’s true, EVERY NLE manufacturer is going to need to do the same thing that Apple has done (and is clearly not the FIRST to do) here. Which is to provide a function where WHATEVER data is generated has a “capture pathway” into the DB.

My opinion is that if it’s META-DATA by nature, all you can expect APPLE to do in the design phase is to provide ACCOMMODATION for any and all types of data that their range of users want to provide. Asking APPLE to be the entity that sifts and sort and pick winners and losers from among the REEL ID tagging schemes of a dozen manufacturers is a waste of time at this point, IMO. Also, parsing database information presented in a text stream (something ALL databases are built to do) is so simple that worrying about whether someone will write the correct “translator” to make a particular systems ID scheme work in FCP-X has got to be dismissively trivial. I can’t fathom that since it appears that there are hundreds of thousands of X owners already – all camera manufacturers won’t get around to making their camera ID data accessible to it.

So I guess I personally don’t want Apple spending their time trying to determine and accommodate this manufacturer or that manufacturers particular REEL ID scheme. I want them concentrating on the GUTS of the program. Which is where they appear to be at this stage.

Trust me. In a capable database like the one underpinning FCP-X – if you have meta-data generated from ANYWHERE – there WILL be an easy way to leverage it.

(Heck, if I can CUT and PASTE text within it. (and I can!) then PASTE exists – and if it exists, then I can PASTE anything. Which is just another way of saying “general data import!” at a basic level.

Maybe they’ll keep developing it so it someday has a dedicated “import text file” capability with some ordering or parsing of the data available on import – that would be nice. And would blow open the whole “can it read my XML (or even historical CMX files!) debate nicely. But I don’t think asking them to concentrate on a front end at this point over “key features” is wise.

But that’s just 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]

Haven’t had more than a cursory look since I’ve been busy. But it appears that once iCloud “syncs” your library – all your owned music shows up as iCloud links with a special icon in your music library. I don’t think it’s fully “resident” on your device at that point, but it does appear to start playing immediately on a click. Also, on that initial click, the icon changes – so maybe that’s an indicator that it’s now being transferred to local storage?

I don’t know more than that after my first 15 minutes playing with it.

Sorry.

“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,

It IS different. That’s part of the gestalt of FCP-X now. I’m operating a video editing software that lives next door to a database and each is directly linked to the other.

I can edit without interacting with the database much at ALL if I choose. And believe me with the changes to X, it’s been tempting to concentrate exclusively on EDITING operation to the exclusion of all else!

But I keep seeing flashes of how the database underpinnings can HELP me – if I just keep pushing myself to learn to value operating the database equally with operating my timeline.

Simple as that.

“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]

[Herb Sevush] “But the same can be said, with the exception of the word “new”, of many other editing apps out there, such as PPro. The difference being that PPro can handle corporate and web videos, and also handle more complex work flows.

What’s the advantage to a mid level user of buying software that doesn’t let him move up in complexity if the job comes his way? Why choose software that limits you to the work you are doing right now?

That was always one of Legacy’s strong suits, it’s ability to handle any editing task. You seem to be promoting FCPX’s limitations as a strength, and I don’t see it.

It’s like the old marketing trick of not fixing a bug and then calling it a feature.
“

Herb,

First, you’re right about PPro and other apps. They are perfectly capable of competing and even besting FCP-X in a variety of areas today. (tho, to my mind, not in any areas that affect it’s use as a GENERAL purpose editing tool, but clearly in quite a few well-discussed specialized areas.) FCP-Xs competitors may not have quite the same kind of relational database structure (as far as I understand things, anyway) but it’s not like they can’t create all these kinds of videos your mention – they certainly can.

So that’s not a separator today. Those legacy interface approaches do MORE than the six month old FCP-X approach does right now. Call that a given. The question that remains is what all the players in the overall category of NLE programs can reasonably be expected to do in such a fast evolving future?

I’m surely not qualified to speak on the financial fitness, the future plans, or the evolution path of any other editing platform because I don’t use or study them. So for all I know, they might remain in the battle forever. But I also know that while PPro did a pretty major re-write a few years back, I don’t’ believe that any other NLE has done BOTH as deep a teardown AND as radical a functional re-build as APPLE did with X. I think the proof of it is that no other product revision has caused such a stir. Incrementalism is always largely palatable to most observers. It seldom upsets anyone.

Apple upset EVERYONE with X. I think that’s great. It reminded me to look at WHY – and that helped me realize that things wouldn’t be the same in the future and that I’d better start my own changes to remain relevant.

Some think the “BIG CHANGE” strategy was a mistake. I think it was a bold bet that will pay off big time. The REASON I say that is because Apples big changes to FCP mirror so many systemic changes in how content is consumed and used today. I think the other video tools were designed for the era of movies and TV. And that FCP-X was clearly purpose designed for a kind of “post tv” era. (that’s not to say “TV” will go away. Just that VIDEO content is clearly increasingly likely to be something downloaded and used by individuals rather than broadcast or even projected in a theatre.

Those trends are pretty clear.

It also appears pretty clear to me that most of the major angst about Apple having RUINED FCP was pure BS. I say that with confidence because I use it every day now and it’s a solid, well functioning general purpose video editing tool right now. It has particular strengths and weaknesses like all other NLEs. But it does ALL the general editing tasks very well. (just like it’s competitors.)

Underneath that, it has an extraordinary team of seasoned NLE code craftspeople working inside the richest company in the world backstopping it’s development effort. In uncertain financial times, that counts for quite a bit in my mind.

So that’s my view.

Essentially the BUGS (to use your subjective term since I’m seeing nearly no actual software bugs in the program day to day) are more artifacts of the fact that the industry’s needs are moving rapidly from an old content distribution model to a new one. Today, only a tiny fraction of the video produced around the world ends up on TV. If in the long run, FCP-X ends up doing NONE of that work (something I doubt VERY much) it will won’t prevent it from succeeding wildly as a tool for the other 90% of the videos that people will pay to have made.

That’s the real game going on here, I believe.

More simply put, FCP-X is good right now. With the resources and backing in place at Apple, it is very likely to become GREAT over time. It will always (in my guesstimate) be pointed at where Apple feels video is going in terms of creation, distribution, and development – and it had to jettison some compatibility with what video creation USED TO BE like in order to become that.

I think Apple took the correct approach. I also believe they will add in a lot of what’s missing over time, not because the “pros” are making noise about it, but rather because they always look to meet their customers needs. I suspect that they want to add back in Multi-Cam not JUST to satisfy some mega-budget rock stars music video needs, but ALSO because cameras are so affordable now that LOTS of people want multi-cam for LOTS of general video purposes. If they make something that works well for the Stadium concert video crowd, they will likely also have something that works really well for someone who only has access to multiple iPhones covering an event somewhere and ALSO wants to do a multi-cam video of that.

If there’s a market for higher level tools, they’ll get added into the code. Either by Apple or the third party guys – but in ALL cases that stuff will be developed only if there’s a large enough need to make such development profitable. I do think the days of Apple building in capability just to gain “cache” with a splinter group like Hollywood is pretty much over. After all, how much more “cache” does Apple really need?

Just my 2 cents.

“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] “That, of course, was another decade, with different aspects and different business prospects than today.
Now, with the iThings and being a mega company they were not back then, I don’t see FCP X as a game changer, at all. It is merely a transitional product that will serve only those who embrace a simpler computing experience.
I’m not sure if it will represent the same as several former software products of them have done since that time.”

Fair enough. You see it one way. I see it another. Time will tell who’s vision is more accurate.

They certainly ARE a mega-company today. But I think they’re evolving in ways that FCP-X fits directly into.

For example, their nascent and evolving “cloud” strategy out of North Carolina came online in the form of “iTunes Match” earlier today. It’s moving auditory content into a searchable database where the data persists more in the cloud, and less as “duplicates” on personal hard drives. Since “songs” and “videos” are just both just alternate forms of digital data these days – perhaps the music service is just the “light data test case” to prove the concept for some future time when those servers will be just as as happy to host all our finished video projects alongside it’s bank of hollywood movies.

It’s a bit like where Vimeo Pro is going right now.

This is a very efficient model, btw. I know I gained BACK a significant amount of space on my portable devices she I signed up for iTunes Match earlier today because now there’s an alternative to duplicating my entire song library on each of my music devices. One copy of each song serves every device. That’s pretty efficient! It also means that as I add devices in the future, they simply connect to my “library” rather than having to re-download all the content as local files to get going.

*IF* they ever in some distant future, do something similar with video – wouldn’t a descendent tool based on FCP-X which links database search to visuals be pretty useful?

That would mean that regular pedestrian (as opposed to big shop connected systems who are already playing the “connected storage systems” game right now) video editing might migrate from a thing done on a closed system, toward something done via linked and connected discrete systems?

It’s beyond my brain to see how this WILL play out – but not how it MIGHT over time.

Like I say. We’ll see whether Apples plan is something we intuit right now – or something that we don’t have a real clue about at this point.

Fun to speculate tho.

“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]

Really?

Not the only, but to me, the best definition of “art” I ever encountered was one that defined it as something that when a human being is exposed to it – it CHANGES the person.

To me, that seems as defensible a definition as any.

I’d also accept others I’ve heard based around “singularity of vision” – or “the ability to produce something of a highly refined aesthetic” to be fine as well. Heck, even something about the ability to motivate others to extraordinary successes by force of will or personality (Sun Tzu was an “artist” of war in that context.) would be fine.

By any of those standards, most people would agree that Mr. Job’s life output quite often reached the level of “art.”

Feel free to disagree, but I suspect that history may regard any contention that Mr. Jobs wasn’t an “artist” particularly of and for his times – to be a bit pigheaded.

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