[David Lawrence]

[Bill Davis] “But the way you, yourself have phrased this: that there are “problems with the way the software operates” is precisely what gets my hackles up. You may not LIKE or prefer the way it functions – and that’s totally fine. But that is NOT the same as there being “problems” with how it functions.”

Bill – a long time ago before I became a full-time video maker, I was a software and UX designer. So I can say with absolute confidence, based on direct experience that all software has problems.

There are brilliant things about FCPX. And there are things about FCPX that are completely, undeniably, lame.

And this is also true about FCP7 and Premiere Pro, and Avid, and Vegas, and Resolve, and Edius, and Lightworks, and every other piece of software on the market.

All software has problems. That’s not a value judgment, it’s simply a fact.

I think it’s wonderful you’ve found a piece of editing software you LOVE. Enjoy it. But even if it doesn’t affect you, I assure you it has problems, just like every single piece of complex software ever written by human beings has problems.

FCPX is not precious and if you want it to get better, it good to be open to thoughtful critique of how it operates. That’s my intention when I write.

So let your hackles fly. I’m just calling it as I see it!

_______________________
David Lawrence
art~media~design~research
propaganda.com
publicmattersgroup.com
https://lnkd.in/Cfz92F
facebook.com/dlawrence
twitter.com/dhl
vimeo.com/dlawrence/albums

[David Lawrence]

[tony west] “That’s what get’s me though David. The people in that room were reacting to what they saw in realtime.

Before they were told by others that they should hate it, they liked it : )”

I responded the same way too, Tony. I wasn’t in the room at NAB but a buddy of mine was and he msged me photos and texted what he was seeing as it happened. I watched the demo on YouTube the instant it hit and was thrilled. I remember calling my partners in LA with excitement about the new version of FCP we’d be upgrading our studio to, and how powerful and cheap it was going to be.

And then a couple months later it was released. I downloaded it, opened it up and my jaw hit the floor.

What I (and I think a lot of other people) assumed was that the demo was showing off the big new features. What I imagined was that this new version would have all the capabilities of FCP7 but done a new way with these amazing new features added.

I was shocked that the NAB demo (which was framed as a sneak peak) was basically all the program did. That many professional features I depended on were completely stripped away. The final blow was seeing that it couldn’t open any of my FCP projects but opened iMovie projects just fine. I was pissed. That led me and my brother to make a certain YouTube Hitler meme video that went viral, lol.

[tony west] “I had forgotten how bad a job the presenter did. Just in terms of how nervous he was and stumbling all over his words.

How he didn’t even have the program there to actually show how it worked. He just described how it worked and kind of poorly.”

The presenter is Peter Steinauer, Apple’s Senior Software Engineer/Application Architect for Video Applications. FCPX is his baby. Watching this clip, he doesn’t seem nervous or stumbling to me at all. Quite the opposite. I now find his presentation arrogant, condescending and revealing. Especially this section:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-77beFICSlI#t=21m05s

Here he’s comparing a FCP7 timeline with the same timeline in FCPX. Of course, what he’s conveniently not telling the audience is that it’s impossible to open the FCP7 timeline in FCPX. How do you think the crowd would have reacted to that minor detail?

Then there’s this statement:

This is what that same sequence looks like in the new Final Cut Pro. Every single edit that was in the previous one is in this. Every single cut at every single frame is in this sequence, (note – he calls it a sequence not a project!) but because of compound clips, clip connections and the magnetic timeline I’ve got a much more easy to understand sequence that I can actually do more interesting things with…

Much more easy to understand? What a joke! The FCP7 timeline is a crystal clear map of the final program. Every media element is visible and at the editor’s fingertips. It’s impossible to tell WTF is happening in the FCPX timeline because so much is hidden. And btw, there’s no way to see the hidden media in context because compound clips open in their own timelines.

The FCPX timeline looks simpler, but is it easier for an editor to read and understand? No way!

This demo is being given by an engineer, not a video editor. The presenter’s assumptions and language the reveal this. What we wind up with are UX design decisions reflecting engineering values. To an engineer, the FCPX timeline is more clear because it’s simpler. But a video editor might well say that it’s less useful, because it hides so much vital information. To an engineer, the clip connections, compound clips, and the magnetic timeline, make “interesting” things possible like moving chunks around without “damaging” the program. A video editor might say that’s great, but what about the times it gets in the way?

I don’t mean to imply that there aren’t innovative ideas here. There definitely are. But there are also some unnecessary design flaws and unintended consequences that could have easily been avoided. Maybe they’ll get addressed sometime in the next five years, lol!

And don’t get me started on the demo of the precision editor. From the language he uses, it seems clear these developers have no idea how experienced editors do precision trimming (hint, it’s usually done by feel with looping and the keyboard).

[tony west] “When Evan showed up, it was impossible to make the argument that he had never seen that program.”

I’m sure they gave out preview copies, but I sincerely doubt they incorporated any critical feedback. The bottom line is Apple built the video editor they wanted to build.

And I say hooray for that. It was a mess when they released it but ever since they fixed libraries, it’s been quite fine and great choice for everyone who likes it. And it’s certainly made the NLE playing field a lot more interesting!

_______________________
David Lawrence
art~media~design~research
propaganda.com
publicmattersgroup.com
https://lnkd.in/Cfz92F
facebook.com/dlawrence
twitter.com/dhl
vimeo.com/dlawrence/albums

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.

[David Lawrence]

[Bill Davis] “So what other conclusion can I come to but that there is a rediculously large group of editors out there who still “don’t get” X?”

You know Bill, there’s actually a ridiculously large group of very smart editors who really do “get X” and don’t like how the software operates for very real reasons.

I think if you were able to acknowledge the fact that maybe there are some real problems with way the software operates without calling those of us who point them out stubborn idiots, it would do wonders for the credibility of your argument. Just sayin’.

_______________________
David Lawrence
art~media~design~research
propaganda.com
publicmattersgroup.com
https://lnkd.in/Cfz92F
facebook.com/dlawrence
twitter.com/dhl
vimeo.com/dlawrence/albums

[David Lawrence]

Whew! A sigh of relief!

_______________________
David Lawrence
art~media~design~research
propaganda.com
publicmattersgroup.com
https://lnkd.in/Cfz92F
facebook.com/dlawrence
twitter.com/dhl
vimeo.com/dlawrence/albums

[David Lawrence]

[Andrew Kimery] “Now, I’m fully aware that is the debate forum and I did pause for a second before I posted the video but I ended saying to myself, “Nah, this is so benign that there’s no way people are going to read into it.” Obviously I was wrong and I’ll never de-value the ability of this forum to turn anything into a debate ever again. ;)”

Which is exactly why the name of this forum is still perfect!!! 😉

_______________________
David Lawrence
art~media~design~research
propaganda.com
publicmattersgroup.com
https://lnkd.in/Cfz92F
facebook.com/dlawrence
twitter.com/dhl
vimeo.com/dlawrence/albums

[David Lawrence]

[James Culbertson] “Interesting.

In practice, in my experience, the magnetic (and trackless) timeline is more important for its new more efficient (and freeform) way of allowing us to edit. Any problems it may or may not solve are secondary to me. Classic law of unintended consequences I guess.

In any case, this debate is entirely about personal preference. Nothing wrong with that; it is always interesting to hear how others experience things.”

Absolutely! 🙂

FCPX has come a long way since 2011. I like the fact that it now brings a new professional choice to the table. It’s great that editors like yourself have found a better way to work. I also like the fact that it’s been a catalyst for competing NLE vendors to really step up their game. I even use it myself now – well, the ingest and organizing parts at least. But that “editorial engine”… for me it’s still a backwards steering bike. Totally a preference thing!

_______________________
David Lawrence
art~media~design~research
propaganda.com
publicmattersgroup.com
https://lnkd.in/Cfz92F
facebook.com/dlawrence
twitter.com/dhl
vimeo.com/dlawrence/albums

[David Lawrence]

[James Culbertson] “David, Why do you assume that they created the magnetic timeline just for clip collisions or to solve a problem? Did someone at Apple say that?”

I’m not assuming, this is exactly what Apple told the professional editing community when they revealed FCPX at NAB 2011. Here’s the proof:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-77beFICSlI#t=15m35s

Some things to notice:

“I have no way of establishing relationships between primary and secondary content”

A laughable demo. Let’s make a sloppy selection and intentionally throw sync. Psst – ever heard of grouping clips? It works really well for keeping them together.

Plus, their notion of “primary” and “secondary” content is so full of assumption I don’t know where to begin. What do they mean by “primary? What do they mean by “secondary?” Do they understand that for many editors, establishing these relationships is a fluid, constantly shifting process? I have a feeling if they bothered to talk to someone like Herb S., they’d be surprised by how he thinks about “primary” and “secondary” content. Especially with audio.

Notice how many times he uses the word “problem”.

“in this situation, you’ve got a problem. You’ve got a collision in this track”

Clip collisions are a “problem”. Timelines are “fragile”. Editors are “mistake”prone. This is Apple’s language and these are the Apple’s assumptions which they propose to solve with the magnetic timeline.

What they fail to mention (or seem to understand) are the new problems the magnetic timeline creates for certain established workflows. If the engineers and UX designers had bothered to actually talk to FCP users during development, they might have made a much better, more universally accepted program.

This demo is classic marketing fluff. And despite the applause you hear at this sneak, the eventual release alienated a significant portion of the professional editing community for good reason.

_______________________
David Lawrence
art~media~design~research
propaganda.com
publicmattersgroup.com
https://lnkd.in/Cfz92F
facebook.com/dlawrence
twitter.com/dhl
vimeo.com/dlawrence/albums

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.

[David Lawrence]

[tony west] “That line implies that others may have had a “problem” with clip collisions. Unlike you. (In a way it’s a little like what you accuse Bill of doing but in the reverse, to stay with the thread : )

BTW I enjoy reading your post David, I hope this is not taken as a swipe.

I don’t think people saw it as a “problem”. That was just the way people cut. We ALL cut that way. Now there is a different option.”

Hi Tony, appreciate the comment, no swipe taken 🙂

I wasn’t meaning to imply that other editors have “problems” with “clip collisions”. I agree with you that this is simply something we all learn to deal with.

Actually, my dig is at Apple for their assumption that clip collisions are such a big problem for so many editors that the whole timeline UI should be designed around solving it!

I don’t mean to suggest that creating a new timeline model that addresses clip collisions is a bad thing. Just the opposite, I think it’s a brilliant idea in theory. But I think Apple blew an opportunity to do a better job by not talking to and understanding their users. The magnetic timeline solves problems, but it also creates new ones. The UI design seems very engineer-driven rather than user driven to me. My point being, data models don’t usually make for the best user experience design.

_______________________
David Lawrence
art~media~design~research
propaganda.com
publicmattersgroup.com
https://lnkd.in/Cfz92F
facebook.com/dlawrence
twitter.com/dhl
vimeo.com/dlawrence/albums

[David Lawrence]

[Bill Davis] “The largest barriers to X understanding are editor intransigence and ignorance, NOT how the software operates.”

Yep, clearly anyone who doesn’t “get” X must be a stubborn idiot. Thanks for clearing that up!

_______________________
David Lawrence
art~media~design~research
propaganda.com
publicmattersgroup.com
https://lnkd.in/Cfz92F
facebook.com/dlawrence
twitter.com/dhl
vimeo.com/dlawrence/albums

[David Lawrence]

Fascinating video, thank you Andrew.

With regards to FCPX, I think the reason many editors (myself included) find the transition difficult is because it involves more that just re-adapting muscle memory. If it were just a matter of learning new keystrokes, it would be easy.

But FCPX also requires learning a unfamiliar and inconsistent object behavior model in the timeline. To use FCPX well, an editor needs to understand not just how to place objects in the timeline space, but also the hierarchical relationships between the objects, as well as between objects and containers, and between the containers themselves. In essence, the editor needs to internalize the FCPX timeline data model, in order to get good at using it.

Clearly, many editors willing to make the effort are happy with their efficiency after they get to that point. But speaking as someone who’s never considered “clip collisions” a problem, for me, the magnetic timeline is still a backwards steering bike. 😉

_______________________
David Lawrence
art~media~design~research
propaganda.com
publicmattersgroup.com
https://lnkd.in/Cfz92F
facebook.com/dlawrence
twitter.com/dhl
vimeo.com/dlawrence/albums