[Bill Davis]

I’m imagining they might take something akin to the “syncronize audio” function but apply it globally to a group of clips – then create a “‘ visual representaton” of clip switching that you’d use to make your “take” selections on the fly, and when you’re happy, you’d collapse the result to a “connected multiclip” of some sort.

That would actually be a lot like Multicam in FCP Legacy, but without all the extra steps of pre-designating “angles” for each clip in advance.

And would preserve the “magnetic” nature of things since the resulting “switched clip” could then be cut and edited just like any other connected clip.

But right now only Randy, Brian and the larger FCP-X team know for sure.

One good thing is that we know FCP-X will have multicam soon. They wouldn’t have “pre-announced” it if it wasn’t well underway.

“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]

Dennis,

I also applaud “openness” as a general way of doing business. And I admire Adobe for clearly putting a premium on this kind of R&D effort. It will clearly move the high dollar “feature film” oriented end of the industry forward.

And for those who aspire to work in that space, a move to Adobe might be a very smart move.

I am cautious, however, that that’s going to be the bulk of the “day to day” editing done over the next few decades. A few hundred feature films make a whole lot of money, but for every one of them, there are likely tens of thousands of “everyday” business videos created to drive financial results. I suspect that FCP-X is targeting this larger, more diverse group of productions with X.

So good luck with the part of the industry that regularly does ADR and has the time to do 3D wireframe analysis of scenes – if I worked in that space, Premier might well be my next editing software. But I’m just a lowly “day to day” editor that works largely in corporate messaging. So different strokes.

BTW, since you’re inside Adobe, if anyone from marketing ever asks for consumer feedback, please let them know that I actually considered the “switch” back in the first weeks of the FCP-X launch – but after quite some time on the Adobe web site I got put off by the complexity of the “bundling” options. The stand alones seemed high priced compared to the bundles but the array of bundles seemed way too complex for me to make an easy decision as to what would best fit my needs. (I couldn’t rapidly figure out which one represented the most “I need that” combined with the fewest “I don’t need that” options and it made me spend a lot of time trying to figure out the nature of the products I was unfamiliar with so that I could even TELL if I wanted it or not. . I absolutely respect the business need to drive incremental sales – but as that moved toward customer confusion, it became a barrier – and the decision “window” closed for me.

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]

Quoting:

Bill- How did you feel about Apple’s intro of FCPX at NAB.

‘STAAAAAAAAAY TUUUUUNNNNNNEEEDDDDD!

Apple was trying to launch a new version of a product that totally disregards many the basic needs of their MOST LOYAL CUSTOMERS.

What a DISASTER!

Jerry

MacPro 2.93 Quad
FCP7
Sony Z-1
GV-HD700

I understand your feelings. And I’m sympathetic that you feel it was a “disaster” for you.

For me it hasn’t been. It’s been an extremely interesting and largely exciting exploration of something new and different.

To my thinking, Apple, with FCP-X has introduced something very interesting to the timeline in a way that’s unique. Modularity. The “connected clip” essentially provides an alternate to the stacked track in that it collapses the track structure into discrete modules that have their own internal structure – and the “magnetic” nature of the timeline, allows you the option to keep those modules contiguous should that meet your needs. (You can obviously make them discontinuous via “gap clips” but that’s your option, not the fixed default choice.)

I find that fascinating. It’s expanded my thinking about what the structure of an editing display might be.

At the core, there’s plenty of room in the marketplace for both these approaches – and hopefully many more!

“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] “Just for sake of comparison, can you imagine a time when a symphony score in front of a conductor is written without a staff and scales and without clear indication of which instruments are playing specific parts?
“

I dunno, Oliver.

It seems to me that while yes, symphonic style music requires a strict communications structure, that structure is necessitated by the requirement of the communications complexity that’s particular to that large group dynamic. Personally, while I love massed sounds and group efforts, I find myself equally drawn to the creative spirt of the “singer songwriter” – the artist who creates and realizes an artistic expression more personally. Heck, seems to me that the most enjoyable music of the last 50 years, for the largest audience, has been written largely by individuals or small, small teams. Not by committee.

And while formal, structured music will never go out of style, at some point, the written “structured” part of the creation effort came AFTER the more free-form geniuses laid down their work.

I’m reminded of “Standing in the Shadows of Motown.” James Jamerson didn’t work from structured charts. He closed his eyes in session after session, and imagined dozens upon dozens of transcendentally brilliant tracks that still inspire the best players of today.

From the cubists to the impressionists, sure they understood the structure of their form and art (tho it’s arguable that John Coltrane came from somewhere in outer space and actually didn’t!) But many of the truly transcendent artists of the past had to DECONSTRUCT structure in order to move their art forward.

I have absolutely no clue whether the “trackless” structure of X will ever inspire some kid to do something weird that changes some fundamental nature of video cutting.

Or not. Nobody knows. But to imply — as many seem to do here — that the ONLY way to do quality cutting is to lock your brain into a stack of vertical time stripes seems …. I dunno…instinctively questionable to me.

And it’s certainly arguable that “time on a line” will turn out to the the best editing structure that’s ever going to be possible for all time and for all cases. But hey, what if thats NOT actually true? How will we ever know if we don’t get to try something different and see? Finally, with X. We have an option.

But what do I know.

It seems I’m actually finding I *like* a little radical change in my editing software.

Who knew!

“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]

Interesting.

A list of features that may or may not make it into some potential future version of the software?

Makes me wonder if they recently hired the marketing team from RED. ; )

I have no quarrel with Adobe’s marketing team being super aggressive with stuff like this, but I’m also kinda surprised they don’t seem to feel that the current product is so strong that this kind of aggressive “pre-announcing” of distant potentials is needed.

In the end, people will cut on what they find comfortable.

The “big suite” team will split between Adobe and AVID. The Vegas people are loyal to a fault, so they won’t go anywhere. And FCP-X will get everyone who wants something different from what we’ve all had for the past 12 years.

It’ll be interesting to see how it all works out.

“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]

Not sure if it’s “redefined” what a software crash means…

but it’s certainly changed the category of what a software crash represents in my brain from “often catastrophic” to “momentarily annoying.”

And I can certainly live with 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]

To put it as simply as possible.

At first the “magnetism” was a pain in the ass. It was unexpected, counter-intutitive, and would throw things out of whack when I least expected it.

Then, slowly, I started to EXPECT the magnetic behavior.

I simply started to understand when it would be a problem — and when it would be a blessing — and that the entire operating style of X is subtly based on CONTEXT rather than universal, fixed commands.

It was my brain becoming accustomed to thinking in THIS context I must “replace with gap” instead of “click and delete.” Once that new thinking started to myelinate, I found it simpler and simpler to get the results out of X that I’d been getting out of Legacy all these years.

I guess I had to start “learning how to learn” X. For me, that was spending almost a full month reading and studying before I started operating – but that fits my learning style. I need to see the overview before I can grasp how the specifics fit.

That’s probably also why I was so frustrated by so many people who were yelling about all the details that were driving them crazy. I was busy looking at the overview, and never felt I could understand the details unless I could first come to grips with the context of the whole.

Perhaps talented editors, as a class, have a more “details” oriented learning style than I do. As I said, I’m more a “program creator” who happens to edit, than a specific editor. So my default thinking is more global than task based.

That’s also why there are so many people who are much better editors than I am!

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]

Somebody, (maybe Steve Martin or Larry Jordan) wrote something I came across on why the version numbers are so different in X.

It’s related to an internal Apple initiative to keep versioning consistent across all of their software platforms.

IIRC, 10.01 is now kinda equal to 10.1 in the old numbering.

So internally they weren’t trying to signal “extremely minor update” with the designation.

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]

Walter,

I know that many use Avid and Premier and Vegas – and have no quarrel with them for doing so INCLUDING switching from FCP if that makes sense for them – but at the core I honestly don’t see myself as an “editing professional” so much as a guy who makes his living by solving business problems for my clients – most often by using video to drive results.

This is subtly different from many here who clearly see their roles as deciding upon and operating EDITING software.

I have little interest in maintaining “brain share” of how multiple NLEs operate. I’m naturally curious about them, but the idea that I would need to learn three complex systems to do the same job seems to me insanely non-productive.

Also the idea that I need to “compare and contrast” multiple software is tiresome. The EOL of FCP Legacy had me thinking that I might need to. But instead I discovered that I could migrate to X and in spite of the initial negative “hue and cry”, I’m discovering that as I learn it’s ways, it’s working out a lot better than I expected.

Once I cleared the initial very high bar of re-education with X, I’m getting great satisfaction with it as a primary editing tool.

So when someone says “Premier does that too and has done that longer” my response is “Great, but so what?” It’s like someone saying “that sentence would be more elegant in French” My response would be “That’s fine. But I don’t speak French, I speak fluent FCP-7 and I’ve now got conversational FCP-X. And since I’m not a professional language teacher, I find those to be ample languages for me, for now.

I might have learned AVID, or VEGAS if FCP-X had failed for me. But it hasn’t. At all.

My personal migration from FCP Legacy to FCP-X has been both better and worse than I expected. But in the final analysis, I’m at the point where it’s won me over. Me. Not anyone else. Just me.

What I will note, however, is that the assertion that it’s fatally flawed as a general purpose editing tool is bogus. I can assert that with confidence because now that I’ve learned the basics of HOW to use it, it working very well for me.

Those of us who didn’t give up on it too rapidly, are beginning to feel like we might have made a very good call.

Simple as that.

And on the subject of what FCP-X “might” have been – I’ll just notice that as a 1.0 it’s honestly “light years” ahead of where Legacy was at 1.0. (something I also say with confidence since I was cutting on Legacy back at 1.0 when it didn’t even support JKL timeline transport!)

This is different. It’s young. And yeah, I believe it’s the future. As to your concern about whether the underlying metaphor REQUIRED change, that’s to my thinking, far to “inside baseball” for me.

What it IS is making me happy enough. Like that very lucky day I met my wife, I could have looked at something she wasn’t (rich) and focused on that. But her “core” shown as something of rare and precious value. So that’s where I made my bet. It’s sill paying off more than two decades later.

With luck, maybe I’ll get the next 10 years out of FCP-X. That would be nice.

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]

Well…

I guess asking a guy who drives a Rolls Royce how he likes driving a Cadillac might be instructive, but I was actually kinda asking how a guy who drives a limo daily liked driving, say, a Miata.

That’s not at all the same question, is it?

If you have to drive six people around, the Miata is stupid. But that doesn’t make a Miata, ipso facto, stupid.

And in this case, some of us are hoping that the Miata may get “upgraded” to becoming a Porsche given development time.

But you’re correct that it’s NEVER likely to be a Fleetwood Brougham. And if that’s what you need, you’re correct to have switched.

Happy Motoring.

“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