[David Lawrence]

[Herb Sevush] “The article was written for a website specializing in consumer electronics reviews. In it the author clearly separated the world of consumer software from such items as car brakes and IBM mainframes. No one is going to confuse an NLE with lifesaving car parts, but the question remains where on the line between an iphone ap and an IBM mainframe does an NLE reside?”

Good points, Herb. One way to answer that question is to look at what markets the NLE serves. Though it didn’t start that way, FCP legacy evolved into an enterprise-class ecosystem capable of supporting the needs of Fortune 500 level companies. Expecting users like this to be beta-testers for mission critical software isn’t a winning strategy for keeping them as customers.

The rules for the consumer space and the enterprise space are very different.

_______________________
David Lawrence
art~media~design~research
propaganda.com
publicmattersgroup.com
facebook.com/dlawrence
twitter.com/dhl

[David Lawrence]

[Christian Schumacher] “Yup, they seem to enjoy this “Storyline” concept…that’s worrying.”

[Oliver Peters] Or maybe they’ll figure out how to do it right and keep tracks. That way they can show the video guys how to fix their mess.”

Or maybe it’s just a copy and paste error on the web site.

_______________________
David Lawrence
art~media~design~research
propaganda.com
publicmattersgroup.com
facebook.com/dlawrence
twitter.com/dhl

[David Lawrence]

[Franz Bieberkopf] “From the linked promo page:

“Final Cut Pro offers unlimited cutaway shots …”

I mean, think of the possibilities!”

I know, totally amazing isn’t it? Truly revolutionary! I had no idea you could do that with an NLE!

Not to mention:

“As an iMovie user, you’re already familiar with some features in Final Cut Pro X — such as skimming and the Magnetic Timeline — so you can start working right away.”

But remember, it’s all just coincidence. As we know, FCPX was designed and built from the ground up especially for professional editors. Apple would never be so cynical to monetize the iMovie user base at the expense of their professional user’s needs. 😉

_______________________
David Lawrence
art~media~design~research
propaganda.com
publicmattersgroup.com
facebook.com/dlawrence
twitter.com/dhl

[David Lawrence]

[Oliver Peters] “What I completely resent in all of this is that none of us has a clue as to what will of will not bloat the Events and Projects folders. Apple is completely unwilling (or so it seems) to generate any sort of best practices tutorials or documentation. They seem to want to rely on the 3rd party training resources. Those are all great at the very basic level, but inadequate for anyone who needs to do something complex with the software. This application is the most unintuitive product they’ve created in a long while if you want to do more than just slap some cuts together.”

Well said.

_______________________
David Lawrence
art~media~design~research
propaganda.com
publicmattersgroup.com
facebook.com/dlawrence
twitter.com/dhl

[David Lawrence]

“[Aindreas Gallagher]“It was not conceived as broad scale editing software product – it was intended to monetise casual enthusiast video work within their growing consumer base. “

[Andrew Richards] I agree this is undoubtedly one reason they did it the way they did it, but I disagree it is the reason, or even the top reason. It is the reason best suited to cynical analysis though.”

Very cynical indeed. Monetizing the iMovie user base was obviously a very low priority in Apple’s design and marketing decisions.

_______________________
David Lawrence
art~media~design~research
propaganda.com
publicmattersgroup.com
facebook.com/dlawrence
twitter.com/dhl

[David Lawrence]

[Herb Sevush] “Iphones do not a revolution make, although they are great for recording one when it happens.”

great line, Herb!

_______________________
David Lawrence
art~media~design~research
propaganda.com
publicmattersgroup.com
facebook.com/dlawrence
twitter.com/dhl

[David Lawrence]

[Jeremy Garchow] “I would disagree. It is at your fingertips, it’s just wrapped in a different package. It’s fine if you don’t like the wrapping paper, I find that it’s kinda cool and most importantly, useful. Shoot me. “

I don’t want to shoot you, I want to help you avoid pain when a year from now your client asks you to change to one of your versions and you have to hunt thru cover flow to try reassemble it all over again 😉

But seriously, I’m happy auditions work with your versioning workflow. To each his own. I just think the tradeoffs are worth examining, especially in the context of this thread on project bloat.

We’re only now starting to take in the full consequences of Apple’s radical change to sequence architecture. The bloat issue is real and it’s very disturbing. I sincerely hope it’s a bug/implementation issue and the engineers are on top of it, but this looks like something that’s pretty deep. Apple’s response and how long it takes them to address it will be telling.

_______________________
David Lawrence
art~media~design~research
propaganda.com
publicmattersgroup.com
facebook.com/dlawrence
twitter.com/dhl

[David Lawrence]

[Jeremy Garchow] “Guys, relax. It’s an alternative way to do things. Don’t worry, you won’t use it.”

No worries, just interested in understanding new workflows 😉

[Jeremy Garchow] “Do you guys ever version anything like Chris does? You need to make multiple versions of the exact same timeline?”

I rarely version completely identical timelines. My most recent job is a more typical scenario – two pairs of short videos, an A and B version of each video with a minor editorial change in one section. Each video is in two languages so there’s four videos total.

My workflow: edit English A version, duplicate sequence, make English B version, dupe English A sequence, replace V/O with German, dupe German A sequence, edit in B video and German V/O. Simple, straightforward and typical.

I suppose in FCPX I could do two versions, English and German and use auditions to make the A/B changes. But the differences between A and B require a few edits so I’d have to compound the changes to be able audition them.

[Jeremy Garchow] “Auditions are crucial here, you don’t have to use another Project, therefore you don’t have to load another Project or create a whole other set of render files, which is how this conversation got started.”

Sure. I see the utility of the your example, but the tradeoffs are worth discussion. It’s true you change fewer sequences in your example but you give up having every version always ready at your fingertips. I don’t mind doing the work to make more changes. It’s billable time so I get paid to do it. The benefits of having all versions complete and ready are especially important when the client asks me to redo “German version B” a year later.

Do you really want to be going thru auditions and rebuilding a piece a year after the fact? What if you have multiple differences? At what point do you decide that a version is different enough that it warrants a new project?

Like everything in FCPX, I’m sure audition-based versioning is great for many specific uses. But I really question if giving up the flexibility of multiple sequences per project was worth it.

_______________________
David Lawrence
art~media~design~research
propaganda.com
publicmattersgroup.com
facebook.com/dlawrence
twitter.com/dhl

[David Lawrence]

[Jeremy Garchow] “This is where the Audition feature can be used in fcpx. One sequence, different outs per audition. Instead of switching sequences, you switch audition clips. Yeah, it’s a different way of thinking. Only what changes is what is rendered.”

[Simon Ubsdell] “Compared to this standard practice auditions feel clunky – what you want to get at is hidden away in a sub-menu rather than laid out graphically in front of you.”

Agreed. I also don’t understand how they would help if you needed to make additional editorial changes to your project based on the audition changes. How would you keep these unique instances of the project without duplicating it? And what if you don’t want to switch audition clips every time you need to output?

I don’t see how this workflow helps if you need to keep multiple unique versions of finished sequences always available. Am I missing something?

_______________________
David Lawrence
art~media~design~research
propaganda.com
publicmattersgroup.com
facebook.com/dlawrence
twitter.com/dhl

[David Lawrence]

[Oliver Peters] “it’s stunning at just how slow the UI is in general. “

Some of the UI sluggishness seems to come directly from the animation effects, heavily used throughout the UI. Animation by its very nature takes time, so even if the system is responding instantly, time must be used to display the animation.

Just one example – when pressing arrow keys to go to next/previous edit, the cursor sliiiides to the next edit point. It takes a second.

Contrast this with Avid MC — next/previous edit, even stepping in and out happens instantly. The UI feels responsive because as much as possible, it displays the results of the user’s action as quickly as possible. This is UI 101.

I have to sincerely ask — what is the professional justification for fancy FCPX animation? Outside a Core Animation demo, what practical purpose does it serve? It is completely inappropriate in a professional application, and at the very least, there should be a preference to turn it off.

_______________________
David Lawrence
art~media~design~research
propaganda.com
publicmattersgroup.com
facebook.com/dlawrence
twitter.com/dhl