[Craig Seeman]

So you would blamed FCP legacy for its $1000 price point because Avid was tens of thousands of dollars or would you blame Media 100 because it was thousands compared to Avid’s tens of thousands of dollars?

Or do you blame that digital video because it was significantly cheaper than 35mm film (or even 16mm film for news and indies)?

Or perhaps CMX was the problem?

I think the lower prices created more jobs and, apparently software only companies are still finding viable business models.

[Craig Seeman]

[Neil Goodman] “makes perfect sense to me from that view.”

In fact, from my personal perspective, despite having used FCPX from its beginning, I still have less years experience as an FCPX editor then as a linear editor or as an Avid editor or as an FCP legacy editor.

[Craig Seeman]

No argument from me on that. As to whether FCPX timeline is faster or not really depends on the kind of work you do. If you’re predominantly fighting magnetism and tracklessness it’ll be slower. If they way you work really takes advantage of magnetism, connected clip and connected storylines (I like to call them virtual tracks personally) then you’ll find FCPX faster.

My NLE work predates Avid (using CMX 6000) and started on Avid in its infancy (1989 or so) and, for me the FCPX timeline is a dream come true… even though I had to cringe a bit at what it was missing for some time. Obviously this speaks to how (and maybe what) I edit.

[Craig Seeman]

[Neil Goodman] “Steve’s presentation was well done and informative for people new to X but I feel like someone’s been giving this demo once every couple months for the last few years.”

Perhaps that’s indicative to how many new people need to hear it.

Another way to look at it, since these are less commonly used functions for some FCPX editors they can easily be forgotten so the reminders help.

Consider that an Avid editor can have as much as 28 years experience on Avid and many have more 7 years experience. Premiere in it’s Pro incarnation about 15 years (give or take). Final Cut Pro (legacy) about 11 years and users stayed with it beyond that.

On the other hand FCPX is 7 years at most for those who were their from the beginning. So there are many FCPX editors who’s ability to recall some of these may not be up to the level of the more experienced editors on other NLEs.

To put it another way, there may be many more Avid users and even Premiere Pro and FCP Legacy users who have important less common functions seared into their brains than FCPX editors and this point. These “reminders” from Steve are still useful to an FCPX editors whereas a similar dive into Avid would be unnecessary for a bigger plurality of Avid editors.

It’s not so much that it’s just for people new to FCPX but more FCPX don’t have such things burned into them like Avid, etc editors.

[Craig Seeman]

[Simon Ubsdell] “But that doesn’t change anything about the point I was making which was that he’s not showing how FCP X is “Smarter and Faster”, he’s only showing how you don’t have to let it slow you down unnecessarily.”

I think Steve was demonstrating the less common (but not uncommon) needs.

IF (big IF) your workflow involves moving lots of “layers” (tracks) around and dealing with things like clip collisions, MOST OF THE TIME, FCPX is faster. BUT (big BUT) you still need to know how to keep things in place sometimes.

Of course if your work involves keeping everything else in place when you move a clip then FCPX will involve extra steps to make things “independent” (not connected).

I think the fundamental design of the FCPX is that lassoing multiple clips and avoiding collision was common and slowing down the creative process by the mechanical process of working with those issues.

Of course if you already grok the magnetic trackless timeline you can still trip over yourself if you don’t remember how to keep things in place, use connected storylines, know how to move the connection point, etc. when you need to. This is what I think he’s addressing.

[Craig Seeman]

If only it had a trackless magnetic timeline…

[Craig Seeman]

Must have been some very late “extraction.” Odd to kill something from the release so late that it’s there and gone in documents a day or so apart. Otherwise there was some internal miscommunication. Apple internal miscommunication? Perish the thought!

[Craig Seeman]

And they “fixed” the Color Wheels it seems.

Color Correction

Color wheel sliders retain values at 100 IRE for white and 0 IRE for black, with the ability to move above and below using color correction controls

[Craig Seeman]

For today’s pointless prediction:

The new Blackmagic Pocket Cinema 4K will support at least one flavor of ProRes RAW quite possibly eschewing cDNG. It makes sense given the limits to data rate BMD may have faced in doing a small 4K camera.

This will mean Resolve 15 will be previewed with ProRes RAW support or otherwise and update to 14 coming soon.

I just don’t see Apple introducing RAW without someone nearly ready to go with it. I can’t see Apple playing this alone.

It would certainly be interesting to see other camera manufacturers announcing implementation.
A wild card possibility could be Panasonic since event the GH5 series can already do 4K at 400mbps.

[Craig Seeman]

Still not here
https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT202410
Wonderring why mentions of the ProRes variations relating to RAW don’t mention XQ.