Christian Schumacher
Forum Replies Created
-
[Andy Field] “Bottom Line — if you liked FCP 7 and are proficient – this is a very easy switch with the advantage of editing anything in any timeline quickly.
“And under Adobe there’s a long developing path for the software, while the same isn’t true of Apple – the only thing they did was to give X a ten year life plan.
https://blogs.adobe.com/premierepro/2015/09/premiere-pro-cc-ibc.html
-
[Tom Sefton] “I’m doing a project at the moment with over 20hrs of footage per week where there simply isn’t the time or storage space available to duplicate to ProRes LT or similar “
That user case above conveys my logic much better than I do. Why does FCPX has so few options? Why do FCPX has this “my way or the highway” attitude? Isn’t it a NLE? Shouldn’t it behave like one? I mean we are all editing picture and sound, correct? In FCP 7 and Avid you control globally how to present your footage with playback control and render quality control. FCPX should give you something like that. It doesn’t. And that happens in part because of the users being comfortable with knowing all the workarounds. FCPX user base could use some criticism amongst them. Maybe dropping the evangelic tone and be more vocal about its flaws?
-
[Charlie Austin] “Those are all areas where X can definitely use more work/functionality. ganging I’m on the fence about,”
I mostly can’t use ganging if it isn’t 50×50. When versioning an online I have to equally get pixel by pixel besides each other. If it is just referencing or you need them to play together, it’s better the way you do indeed. As to this realtime play problem, in MC you can forward ten frames rapidly by pressing “2” on the keyboard and both move along. That’s one thing that shines in MC, its standard keyboard layout, the only thing I change when working on it are the next edit-previous edit buttons. It’s so simple and effective that I have that incorporated in Premiere, as some operations are now similar. In FCPX and 7 though I use theirs defaults. I usually try to learn the application way, but in Premiere it works almost perfectly with Avid’s and like I said it is the most effective. I wouldn’t use MC keyboard on FCPX but I could use a lot of things from Avid there, like the user interface rendering of the timeline itself. I mean the square blocks of the clips and how they are displayed, and no it’s not just tracks where you arrange the elements accordingly, I’m talking about when one expands a timeline in MC (like shift+z to you FCP people) you can spot a needle in a haystack, I mean in a glance you actually see single frame bits in a several minute long timeline. I wish FCPX would let me control more the appearance of the timeline and clips, not to behave like MC but to be more effective in displaying its timeline. Like you said, Charlie; FCPX could use more functionality. I know you don’t think it’s perfect. Should you and other users strive for perfection? Maybe not exactly that, but it wouldn’t hurt if we ask for some improvements. The thing is sometimes the inspiration it’s right next door, just saying!
-
My take is bad design decisions are counter intuitive and harm the supposedly greater speed of FCPX. That’s what I’m trying to address. And I’m not seeing this as a case of trying to cram old practices into FCPX, People working in it are doing what it’s suppose to do; Tagging clips, keywording selects and editing them in projects – using the primary! But you have revisions, new files popping up, collaborations with another pear, etc, You get the idea, no doubt some jobs are more intense than others. That’s the point I’m trying to make; FCPX is being advertised as a speed boost in your workflow, but the optimised experience immensely depends on very specific factors. I argue if wouldn’t it be even faster if you could go through the footage and then use a window layout for multiple keywords collections? And wouldn’t be faster if I could match frame back to one of those keywords collections windows? Does it make sense that some people could need frame dupes on timelines, ganging viewers, a/v lockings, tc readings, more options, modifiers? Or -shudder- keyword functionality on timeline clips? Sometimes I wonder if I am spouting blasphemy. FCPX should really bring some stuff from the competition and, at the same time, work to enhance the current paradigm. That would be quite a boost!
-
If a lot of the stuff I brought up just isn’t an issue why, wait how should I put this? Why are they an issue? It’s these sort of problems that is driving people away from FCPX Charlie, and people want that stuff to work. Maybe not you. you find it perfect, right? 😀 Regarding roles being affected on the timeline only, I agree to a certain point, because this should be an option out of many apple decided not to include in the application. And that is a shame if you ask me. FCPX relies heavily on roles so it will be fundamental to apply a role on a timeline at the master level. I can’t believe you haven’t heard that before or wouldn’t know what this would accomplish. Weird. And did you never really hear nobody asking for setting keywords on timelines? Or for what purpose people would want this? Even weirder. How about the lack of windows layouts? Let me guess; never! The match frame throwing you away from your keywords? That one too? The frame buffer sticking in the viewer between the timeline and browser? C’mon that’s not existant. Maybe any severe memory leaks? Hmm?
-
[Bill Davis] “Not sure I can see the foundation for your reasoning, Christian. The experience of using X has been one of continuous utility and speed improvement since the day it was released. “
Using FCPX since 2012 I have seen two companies trying to use it. It didn’t work out for them unfortunately. I personally own FCPX and use it now and then for personal projects. But I’m cautious and still running 10.1.3 and 10.9.5. Maybe sometime in 2016 I’ll consider 10.10.5 and FCPX 10.2.x Please, consider this if you want to know if I’m qualified to talk about FCPX. I like the timeline index, scopes and proxies built in. And depending on what you’re editing it is fast. But the biggest problems with it for me are split in two (see later why) 1) Editing – It’s fine in theory and its implantation is pretty good, but this should be waaay better developed by now to be truly seen as revolutionary. Primary vs secondary with its constrains like lack of keyboard shortcuts and no locks whatsoever, it’s a mouse fest really and spotty connection points abound, at the end it’s all as clumsy as track patching can be 2) Tagging – The better part of FCPX! But for me it sort of falls apart when one cannot set keywords on timelines. Still stumped on why they haven’t done this yet and what else? Does Roles applied on timelines reflect back to the master clips? No, right? That’s half baked for apple’s capabilities in my opinion. There seems to be something beyond glitchy between the browser where you work on the clip tagging and the timeline where you work on editing these clips, and it’s not just the lack of a windows layout system – or the match frame throwing you away from your keywords or the frame buffer stickiness in the viewer – it’s the overall experience of a somewhat schizofrenic procedure. They have to fix that. There’s still hope for treatment though, with the size of apple’s pockets they could turn this wacko into a sane person. Or they could improve the export times – rimshot 😀
-
[Tom Sefton] “The only thing I know from current experience is that editing r3d based projects in 4, 5 and 6K is sluggish on fcpx and fast on premiere cc.”
That’s not your case, Tom! Excuse my ramblings and thanks for the honest report, but I was wondering and hoping if someone could expand on this; Why is there this persistent future promise regarding apple/final cut? I heard the other day people saying that FCPX is the only nle truly future proof? These people claim FCPX is fresh new code and the most prepared for raw files and upcoming codecs. This sounds old news actually, who can remember the ‘phenomena’ rumour in which apple would bring a ‘kill them all’ application? What really happened at the end? A few lines of code from Shake are now used in FCPX and Motion. That’s the sound of reality sinking in.
-
[Robin S. Kurz] “Personally, I already dared predict their demise within about two years tops a couple of years back”
Like predictions, Robbie? Here’s one; Media Composer will outlive FCPX by many, many years. FCPX is going to be replaced by FCPVR -or something to that effect- and the old fart Media Composer will be here! And do you know what I also dare to say? MC will probably be here when the next FCPVR is EOL’d as well. Maybe not as Avid’s, I grant you that. But it will be funny to watch, I mean all FCPX users being stuck with the latest ‘good’ release, in the exact same sense that FCP7 users were back in the day. Only then FCPX users will understand how it feels to be tied to a workflow and talent pool like FCP Studio users were – and many still are today.
-
What I miss when in FCPX is REVERSE MATCH FRAME which is directly derived from this trackless discussion but not yet mentioned. AVID and FCP 7 have it. PP CC will have it next. This is a core operation for many editors. You can workaround it with used ranges, timeline index and trim tool to read tc, but not as fast as using reverse match framing.
-
https://www.barefeats.com/hard167.html
Insight #1: The ARC-8050 posted the fastest transfer speeds of any Thunderbolt multi-drive enclosure we’ve tested to date.
Insight #2: Like all Thunderbolt devices, the transfer speed of 10 gigabit per second translates to something less than 1000MB/s — even if you load it up with eight 6Gbps SSDs capable of a combined speed of 4000MB/s. And, as you can see, even with eight 6Gbps HDDs capable of a combined speed exceeding 1200MB/s, they don’t come close.
On topic:
https://barefeats.com/mp12c346.html
Why go through this exercise when a new Mac Pro is imminent? Because many professionals are trying to decide whether to stick with their existing Mac Pro tower or replace it with the soon-to-be-released Mac Pro “un-tower.” If you have a significant investment in internal and external addons that are not compatible with the new Mac Pro, you may hesitate to make the leap to the new form factor. In other words, the cost of switching can be much more than the cost of the new Mac Pro itself.
As you can see from the results, the current architecture, though bus speed limited, is still capable of being pushed to go faster. And based on Geekbench results which ‘escaped’ for the new Mac Pro, a pumped up 12-core Mac Pro tower should easily beat the top 2013 12-core Mac Pro “un-tower” when running CPU intensive pro apps.