[Bill Davis]

Here’s a small example.

I recorded a VO. As is typical, there were good takes and bad. In legacy, that meant that I had to put the whole thing on the timeline and edit the whole down via an initial edit.

The result was a group of individual clips laid out in time with only what I wanted (a typical timeline edit.)

If I were to delete any of those clips – the data about their trimming and duration disappears with them since the timing data is related only to the TIMELINE. Back in the browser, the original source clip has no idea that I’ve decided (even if only temporarily) that I’m only interested in a small part of the larger clip.

So compare that process with what happens in X.

In the Event browser, I skim and JKL my way to setting in and out points to define each “good” snippet of my master clip. After setting the edit points, I mark each one with a single keystroke (F) to make them (temporarily) a Favorite. That preserves the SELECTION data in a persistent form in a table that I can access as long as I need it. It’s like a virtual snapshot of all my edit decisions. That decision info is PRESERVED by the NLE as metadata.

When I do this, the original clip shows my decisions by putting a green bar on that part of the clip INSIDE the Event Browser, which gives me visual feedback on what part of my overall clip I’ve selected, how many sub-selections I’ve made in in the master clip, etc. That green bar, by the way, is something you can click on as one way among others to “recapture” the selection decision should I want to alter or amend it later, so it’s a useful tool in itself. This also demonstrates that the current data about EACH selection tag is clearly flowing between the browser and the timeline dynamically – in ways impossible in Legacy. (a color tag, for example, set in the timeline didn’t EVER reflect back to it’s source in the Browser.)

My next step would be to open the disclosure triangle for the clip in the event browser, where I’m presented with a nice table showing all my tagged “favorites” for that particular VO clip. This shows the metadata my “selections” have generated. It’s an editable table kinda like an excel spreadsheet, and like one I can sort, or arrange clips into new orders if I choose. If I select all or any of those tags with the traditional “command click” on multiple selections, and drag the group into the timeline — BINGO, those clips arrive in the new “timeline” container as an already completed rough edit in a single step. One that reflects all the choices I made earlier ready for refinement or trimming as needed.

Still I understand that this in itself is not that different than what you can do, (albeit with more physical “cut and edit” trimming) in Legacy.

But in legacy, this is about ALL you can do with a clip in terms of using it’s metadata in useful ways. In X, it’s just where it begins. Because now that my “selects” are defined in the database, I can not only sort or search or manipulate that data on the CLIP level, I can work with it on a GROUP of clips. I can tag groupings of clips just like clips. (Clip Collections) Something simply not possible in Legacy.

In X, even if I make a bad mistake and delete or screw up my timeline, my original “selects” (however I’ve re-named them as clips or groups subsequently) are preserved in the Event Browser. So it’s a nice hedge against deleting a timeline clip accidentally. Your decisions at the clip level PERSIST in X.

On the Legacy timeline, ALL I could do was move those clips around, or cut and paste them into new timelines. I couldn’t sort them, or label them in groups, or manipulate them in any but the most rudimentary ways. And outside of saving “versions” of the timeline, none of the position information about scene edit decisions would STICK in the legacy timeline.

In X, just like in any database, once you tag something into a particular “class” that’s just the start. We’re used to databases where “first name” might be a field, but that field can be used to display that data as part of a a name tag, an address label, or as the salutation on a letter – whatever else you want the NAME field to apply to – you just hook it up. In X, that’s just the same with clips. Once you define a clip with a “TAG” you can use it in conjunction with other tags to reorder and re-use the tagged clips to your hearts content. You can apply additional tags to already tagged clips to assemble them in sub-classes, append some or all with additional sort criteria, and search those tags all day long. If you can FIND them by tag, you can USE them by tagged groups. So the essential difference is that decisions you make in X can be made persistent and those decisions can be combined with other decisions in new ways. Also, like with all databases, your tags are so flexible they can come and go as you like!

So after I use the “Favorite” tag to define some group of VO clips as in my example above, I can apply a NEW tag to the arrangement, Delete the Original “Favorites” Tag from the set, and now use “Favorite” tag to define the some OTHER criteria I want to use later.

In legacy a clip would have a name set at the Capture Scratch level, but that and the master clip meta-data and and perhaps a color tag while it lived in the timeline was all that Legacy was set up to store and keep track of. Metadata is a whole different ballgame in X.

In short, in X, clips can be appended with an unlimited array of tags, those tags can be manually or automatically generated through user actions (dropping clips into a smart collection automatically applies that collections tags to all the dropped clips) and so forth.

Does that help outline some (among many) of the differences?

Sorry for running on, but it’s a complicated topic and this really just scratches the surface.

Hope it helps.

“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]

[Frank Gothmann] “Graphic designers, once Apple’s core business, hate glossy screens yet this is all Apple produces these days because these once vital markets are not vital anymore.”

Wow, does this mean that the 15″ MacBook Pro I ordered six months ago with it’s MATTE screen and that I’m doing all my FCP-X editing on is an apple mistake?

I have to admit that I was completely surprised when I discovered that my laptop running FCP-X was actually a BETTER tool for general purpose editing than my MacPro with Cinema display. It was totally counter-intuitive. But it was also TRUE for me. When I fire up my old MacPro/30″ Cinema Display system with Legacy, I actually spend most of my time cringing at how inefficient it feels.

That could absolutely be something you haven’t experienced yet – and its also perfectly possible that your fire-breathing desktop system may run rings around my laptop.

But the larger point is that *I* couldn’t depend on my laptop as my primary edit system six months ago.

Now with X and a firewire drive, I can.

That presents an advancement for me. One that’s probably not significant for someone being paid to sit at an edit desk in someone else’s enterprise – but for someone like me, it means the next time I fly off to San Diego to shoot for one of my west coast clients, the hotel room will not only be the shooting base, but the edit suite as well.

It’s a change I embrace, because frankly, an editing system that goes where I do, is more flexible and enjoyable to operate than one that requires me to sit where it’s installed.

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]

Okay.

If a post of mine, is, in fact a “total failure”, it won’t be the first time for me. (I’ve had my share along the way. )

You clearly didn’t understand the why or wherefore of what I wrote. If that’s universal, then everyone will forget about it or ignore it and go about their business.

It’s up to the readers to figure out if my push back for people to give FCP-X consideration as the start of a new way of looking at editing tasks built around where I think the industry is going is worth considering or not. And if the fact that I refer to the history I’ve lived through about how editing software typically evolves turns out not to be germane to your thinking, that’s cool too. Perhaps it will be useful for someone else. Or not.

Your post was largely about a FUTURE you envisioned, if I read it right. Why is it OK for you to refer to the future, but NOT OK for me to refer to the past?

But if you think I’ve got something all wrong, then for everyone’s benefit, don’t stop at just saying that my post is a “total failure” without saying WHY you hold that opinion. Tell us WHY you think history isn’t instructive in this case. That’s something that might be useful here.

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]

Naw, it’s simpler than that.

A company succeed by meeting it’s customers needs.

If what you’re offering meets the needs of MORE customers than your competitors, then you typically do better than your competition.

FCP Legacy did precisely that. It satisfied MORE customers needs than did it’s competition over time. Not at first, and not in every case — but over all, it gauged the needs of the class of “people who want or need to edit video” better than any other solution and provided tools that satisfied them, one editor at a time. It started with the DV Firewire pioneers while ignoring the high-end crowd until it developed enough breath to take on the widest needs of the largest group of editors. Even inside that focus it didn’t do some major tasks like multi-cam until well after other tools did. But it STILL won in the end, because it kept growing in capability and when it did introduce it’s features, they were solidly design and satisfying for the intended audience.

It succeeded precisely because it had people successfully cutting wedding videos, corporate training films and feature films using the same tool, even tho each of those have significantly different budget and creative requirements.

In the long run, I’m contentedly betting FCP-X will do exactly the same thing.

We’ll see.

“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]

Gotta love auto-spell-correct!

Migration to Migrane? – sounds like unusually lame Lifetime TV movie.

At least this wan’t one of those ghastly thumb typing errors that imbues an innocent email with some unintended lechery or the like.

Whew!

“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]

But Simon,

How many people proficient with FCP-Legacy – the group generally hanging in this forum – have ever had any significant experience with iMovie?

Why would they when they already have a significantly more powerful tool that they know how to use that does all the basics and a LOT more.

It’s like asking a person who’s grown up using a power drill to reach for a hand crank drill for their next project. People DO that, of course, but not very often.

To put down the big power drill and perhaps learn something that presents a new approach to the concept of drilling – a Dremel perhaps? THAT makes sense, particularly if precision is suddenly more valuable than power – but I doubt there is a great cadre of FCP-Legacy/iMovie experts out there who can base their migraine to X on existing iMovie expertise.

But I could be wrong.

“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 Conlee] “I haven’t sprung for FCP X yet, because nobody has yet walked in with a FCP X job that needs help.”

And I doubt they will for a while, Chris.

But just understand that since X is quite plainly NOT the same kind of editing approach as we’re all mostly used to – trying to jump over it’s learning curve can be a bit disorienting for many people at first.

Which means that if you ever DO need to use it, it might be wise to explore it well before you reach that stage.

Just a suggestion.

Take it for what it’s worth.

“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] “Bill, what you describe as robust wouldn’t even have been considered so back in 1998. “Robust” would be the ability to re-write or reassign TC for any source material, monitor and match timecode across tracks or synced items, monitor and match timecode at different frame rates. I should be able to, using time code, replace a temp source with a master with matching code in any given timeline. I should be able to monitor in and outs of any given clip or a whole group of clips at the same time. I should have sync markers that demonstrate the number of frames paired or locked items are out of sync, and in what direction. I should have indicators that show sync or lack-there-of across all layers/tracks/or what-you-will. I should be able to generate an EDL, and of course, I should be able to read one and attach material to it. That’s robust.

I agree with you that FCP X has more timecode support that a hobbyist might need, but to call it robust is absurd.”

Chris,

Thank you for the details. I have absolutely no problem with a single thing you listed in your first paragraph above. Those make a perfectly rational list of requirements for someone doing the specific work you do.

It’s no more surprising to me than a watch repair person needing a screwdriver with an almost microscopically small tip. Tools should be available to fit the task at hand.

I will note that in the larger world, very, VERY few toolboxes on the planet include a screwdriver that fine. Because the need is so specialized.

The modern NLE is DECREASINGLY a specialists tool. Apple understood that first. They’ve revised their flagship product away from a “specialists” orientation – and toward, IMO, an empowerment tool for a wider audience that rarely needs watchmaking tools, and seems to be pretty accepting of the re-invention of traditional ones.

Perhaps connecting the “meta-data” stuff in X is a bit like powered compressors showing up on construction job sites where hand tools once ruled?

We’ll see.

“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]

We all naturally shoehorn our opinion of any tool into the kind of editing we personally need to do.

I’m more fascinated about whether Apple simply took a broader view and started with the essential question of what the entire classification of “people who edit” might look like today compared to what that looked like in the past.

In the past, it was a very specialized occupation. if you couldn’t talk yourself into a room with enough economic clout to be full of Grass Valley and Ikigami toys, you couldn’t play. Period.

But today? Totally different picture. So given that reality – what does the landscape of “all editors” look like? If you distributed them on a “line of needs” from simple to complex, with someone doing their first home video at one end, and Walter Murch (top experience, top budget) at the other – what does “the middle” of that line look like? With 2,000.000 paid FCP-legacy seats out there what does the AVERAGE existing FCP editor need to empower successful work?

I don’t know if it was by design, but I suspect that something like this methodical approach was a part of the X design discussion. What’s the point of starting out with a tool that is focused on the needs of the top 10% of the users requirements? It makes NO sense. What does make sense, is to understand that middle. Build a great core tool that satisfies the broadest range of people on both sides of the mid point – then grow outward over time.

Right now, FCP-X does an absolutely superb job for nearly all kinds of the editing tasks required by a very broad swath of that middle. From Corporate videos to Web videos to Digital Signage and beyond, it’s a fresh new tool with huge and exciting and growing capabilities.

If you’ve used it yourself, you quickly see that it can satisfy the MAJORITY of video editing tasks in the broad middle of the market today. As those needs get more specialized at the top and more esoteric end, it shows that it’s not fully developed. And that frustrates some. Which is perfectly fair. The development team obviously de-emphasized the top tier esoteric stuff like ProTools Exchange or Broadcast specific tools – precisely because only a small fraction of the people along the use curve line NEED those tools.

The funny thing is that the MIDDLE of the line is also where virtually ALL the growth is in modern video editing. There aren’t massive numbers of editing seats expanding in Broadcast, OR in “movie making.” Broadcast is increasingly LOSING eyeballs to the net. And in movie making, there are so many people who want each seat at the table, that the odds of anyone getting one are pretty long.

Yet at the same time, there are new venues CRYING for video content. The whole web is starting to look like the TV industry in 1952 – way more demand than supply when it comes to quality work. Same with the corporate space. Every boardroom in the US is talking about corporate communications – because communications is how you teach, train, motivate and inspire teams. And video is truly a “killer app” in that space.

A PRO is someone with PRO knowledge. The tool is just the enabler.

I believe FCP-X is an amazing enabler of visual communications – among others – as it stands – right now.

And it’s only going to get better.

My 2 cents, anyway.

“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]

Tony,

Precisely the kind of practical idea I was hoping to spread.

Thanks.

“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