Daniel Rutledge
Forum Replies Created
-
I am a little dissapointed but not surprised that compound clips are such a problem. I remember when I first discovered that I could add sequences into a sequence and use them like clips in legacy. I thought that I had discovered this great new way of working. I quickly discovered the limitations of this workflow. I recently started switching my company’s edit facility over to FCP X. I Created a 15 minute cut that was completely finished and fairly complex. It contained a performance made up of three songs. My plan was to edit my interview footage into the same project, cut the compound clip into three pieces, and use the magnetic timeline to easily arrange the pieces. I never really got past the first step. As soon as I put my complex 15 minute project into a compound clip, my computer came to a grinding halt. I tried resolving the issue in a few ways, but it quickly became clear that what the OP posted was happening. It wasn’t really a huge inconvenience to cut sans compound clip. I could basically follow my original plan with all the elements loose in the project. When I made another huge compound clip at the end so I could a add a universal grade to the project, it actually performed worse than nested sequences in legacy. I managed to do what I wanted, but it took a lot longer than I hoped it would. I think the most irritating thing is that on the apple site, they sell the feature as something that can be used this way.
-
I would get both. Motion 5 is only $50. I never got that deep with Shake, mainly because it was killed early on when I started learning it. It is a great program, but it is 32 bit, so a lot slower. Also, as time goes by, you may find that your OS and hardware may not fully support it. There are also probably some odecs you cant work in already. I would lean towards motion for those reasons. Ultimately, if you are just getting started in motion graphics and compositing, the tool you learn on isn’t that important. I started with Aftaer Effects and when I decided to try Motion for some things, it was very easy to translate skills. Shake and Nuke were a little harder to switch to because they are node based as opposed to layers. But I usually managed to do what I wanted because concepts translate pretty universally.
-
Just to clarify what my conjecture and opinions are based upon, I am linking below to some articles (which I am not necessarily endorsing the full content of) which contain some interesting information. Mostly I am referring to the quotes from Apple designers and execs (or former designers and/or execs)
https://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2399599,00.asp
Some of the ideas I have expressed are based partially on concepts about the implementation of FCP X from this talk given by Evan Schectmann from Radical Media:
BTW – That talk was given before 10.0.3 was released.
Also see the videos dealing with future concepts in interface posted in a previous post above.
Just trying to establish that I am not some drunk guy sitting around making up fantasies. I have actually spent a lot of time thinking about this. I don’t think that it makes my opinion any more valid than yours, but there is some method behind my thinking.
-
David that quote the Bill posted is exactly what I was referring to. you may not like the new software and you may think that Apple has deserted the professional community, but why would he lie about the ten years.
Most software that I use doesn’t get rewritten from the ground up all that often. In fact the more complex the software, the less often you see major changes.I have the feeling that FCP is going to look this way for quite some time to come.
-
Okay Chris, if I misunderstood you then I’m sorry I did. I’m glad that it seems like we both are on the same page about fundamentally agreeing.
-
*contrasted*
I was writing from my phone.
-
Chris, I don’t want to go back and forth about this indefinitely. I feel like we have been in 98% agreement the whole time and that this has gotten to be be more about semantics. If you look at my OP it was specific about certain things that I liked about working in X for the first time on a real world job. My post was simply a review of the program that contracted my experience against my previous concerns as well as unfair criticisms leveled by the editing community at large. It seems like you took it to mean that any criticism was wrong and that even though you had legitimate criticisms, I was dismissing them as invalid. Although I may not share all of your points of view, I never called any of your concerns illegitimate. The only thing that we seem to disagree about is what the future of editing tools will be. Since it is all opinion, then it is impossible to resolve.
I guess we’ll just have to wait until the future happens to see what occurs.
-
My point isn’t that FCP X will be useful in ten years. In ten years there will be some guy on creative cow lamenting the demise of the seemingly iriplaceable magnetic timeline. In ten years X will be ready for retirement.
FCP 8 isn’t coming. X isn’t what I was expecting either, but I have enough respect for the substantial investment it took to develop it to give it a chance to succeed on its own merits.
-
Sorry, Michael Hancock wrote “never” and you quoted him in one of you posts. To be fair you were agreeing with him, but you didn’t actually write it yourself.
If you don’t like Fcp x and you only care about the next three weeks, then there’s really nothing to discuss. I must have written a half dozen times that I agree that there are some workflows that FCP X isn’t suited to. Yours is one of them. In that we are in agreement. I am sure that Avid and Adobe will continue to make products that are familiar to us all for at least the next several years.
I’m glad that you like your current setup.
-
I feel like on these forums people often just see parts of a post and zero in on statements in isolation, ignoring context. I never said that anyone was ready to switch over to an all touch workspace. Can you imagine how your back would feel after a ten hour editing session in which you had both arms out in front of you at a 90º angle manipulating icons. It just wouldn’t be practical. I personally only like using Wacom in PS and for certain things in AE. My tablet also works as a touch track pad. I never liked navigating menus with the pen, I pretty much use it exclusively for drawing. But I see that as a short coming on my part. Anyway, imagine if your Wacom tablet was like an iPad. You could use it like you use your current Wacom, you could use it to draw directly on compositions, you could take it to other rooms and still work on certain aspects of your project, you can use it as a control surface (something that iPads can already do), etc. The Wacom Cintiq already does a lot of these things. If I could afford to buy one just to see if I like it, I would. A motion graphics artist/animator that I know uses one exclusively. It seems like a lot of fun and also like an efficient way to work. I personally can’t imagine giving up the keyboard completely. One of the things I like about the new Final Cut is that the keyboard shortcuts are so much more powerful and streamlined. I think that is an area where Avid has always had FCP beat (until now). As a professional you need to be able enter precise time code and enter other information accurately in ways that I think would be cumbersome in even the most advanced touch system. Some day there will probably be a world without dedicated keyboards I am sure, just because I can’t imagine it doesn’t mean it won’t happen. Watch these videos (which you have probably seen before) but don’t imagine using the devices just as they are represented, try to picture incorporating them into your workflow as pieces of a bigger puzzle.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ceUiKNF7rNk
There are legions of kids heading off to film school next Fall. Many of them have only ever used iMovie, or at least started with it before using FCP in high school. They are going to open FCP X and think 1. This looks familiar 2. It can accomplish everything that the other programs can 3. it costs less and 4. I pretty much already know how to use it.
FCP X isn’t just looking at next year. It is designed as a foundation for the next ten years, just like FCP 1 was.
Also you say that Avid won’t do this or that to MC. Avid learned their lesson the first time around with FCP. Do you think that twelve years ago the people at Avid were sitting around talking about ways to make their product a piece of standalone software that cost 1/20 of what their least expensive integrated hardware and software system did at the time? No, that happened because they saw Apple first create a whole new market and then start encroaching on the higher end film and television market that once seemed like it was the personal property of Avid. Some of the older guys I have met have told me horror stories about dealing Avid when there was no competition. This one guy told me that the facilities manager at a place where he worked came back from a meeting with Avid reps crying, haha. They threatened to revoke the company’s Avid license because they had bought some piece of unapproved third-party software.
My point is, things used to be one way and they changed, then they changed again and again.
I’m not trying to talk anyone into liking FCP X, I’m just saying that you shouldn’t be close minded about it and try to talk other people into not liking it. I for one think it is a great improvement on workflow and I would love to see it succeed. I don’t believe that anyone who tries it in earnest, will say that it’s not professional, or that it is badly designed. I understand that at the moment it isn’t suited for a networked environment where media and projects are shared, but I am sure that will change (and quickly judging from the rate at which updates are released). Really, I don’t see any other workflow for which it is not suited.
I have to admit that I don’t understand Avid’s strategy with their entrance into the consumer software market. I was surprised when they bought Pinnacle back in 2005. I was even more surprised that they didn’t kill it. Maybe your right about the iPad app and Avid Studio (which looks like a cross between iMovie, Avid MC, and Final Cut Express). Maybe they have found a way to make money in the consumer market and that’s all there is to it. I still think that I’m right on this, but there’s no way of knowing. I guess I wouldn’t be surprised to find out I’m wrong
I wasn’t being facetious when I asked if you thought that editors would be working just as we have been for the last 20 years, 100 years from now. I really want to know what you think. You said “never” in reference to changing interface design. I was assuming that your “never” was figurative, and I was asking what you really thought.
Some contents or functionalities here are not available due to your cookie preferences!This happens because the functionality/content marked as “Google Youtube” uses cookies that you choosed to keep disabled. In order to view this content or use this functionality, please enable cookies: click here to open your cookie preferences.