[David Lawrence]

[Aindreas Gallagher] “Jeffrey Harrell’s work. He’s rather a stylish editor. I also love the ncely judged scanline overlays on the close up stuff, and the social network pastiche with that Jobs quote is just outright genius. I think he did it in… a day or two.

He’s also the guy that just ripped adobe a new one over the timecode thing. Formidable chappie.
Something of a Zola truth to power type even.”

Yep, one smart and articulate dude. Here’s his site. And here’s what he wrote on June 23.

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

[David Lawrence]

[Andrew Kimery] “I disagree to a degree. I think it has ‘Steve Jobs think’, not group think, written all over it. I think Steve had a vision of how editing should be and that’s the direction FCPX went in. I’ve read accounts from people that gave notes nearly a year before FCPX was launched and they were being ignored.”

I think you’re exactly right about Steve Jobs. I would argue he was the leader of the group. 😉

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

[David Lawrence]

[Jim Giberti] “I was going to ask, “How could they misjudge the industry that badly?” but then I remembered how much negative feedback they supposedly got from the pros that did preview it. Pretty perplexing.”

I think it’s actually pretty simple. FCPX has engineering groupthink written all over it. It’s easy to imagine they convinced themselves that their new model was better, without understanding the limitations or getting any early feedback. By they time they started showing it around, it was probably too late to make any significant changes.

I have to tip my hat to you, Jim. The hoops you’re jumping through to make FCPX work your way are both clever and a little scary. Are you using the Position Tool a lot with your new project template?

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

[David Lawrence]

[Jim Giberti] “I wonder if they’ll try and make some news at NAB?”

After last year’s fiasco, I imagine they’ll be very careful. I’ve heard from several sources that they apparently thought they hit it out of the park at the NAB sneak peak and were completely blindsided by industry response after the June 21 release. I get the impression they’ve been scrambling ever since then.

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

[David Lawrence]

[Simon Ubsdell] “I think the big problem is they just don’t have the resources …”

Ironic, given they’re the biggest, most successful tech company on planet earth, isn’t it?

I don’t think it’s about resources, I think it’s about priorities. Testing doesn’t seem to be very high on the list these days.

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

[David Lawrence]

[Steve Connor] “David, there is a much easier way, I must say though, No range export is simply stupid, I fully expect it will be added in soon. “

Thank you Steve, that’s all I’m trying to say.

[Steve Connor] “My workaround is to leave an empty “Scratch Project” on my drive and cut and paste the section I want to export to that. I then delete the section when I’m done, it’s very easy to do and it doesn’t take up any space, but it’s still a step that could be easily avoided with a simple command.”

This is a much smarter workaround. Hopefully, you won’t need it soon.

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

[David Lawrence]

[Bill Davis] “To your first line, yes there are. And you can do that within X. The process is different, but every bit as easy. Remember, it’s all metadata. So duping a Project is just copying metadata code. No media or anything large and unwieldy. So what’s the problem?”

The problem is when you duplicate a project (I assume you’re talking about command-D, if there’s another way please let me know) you’re making a copy of the entire project database. The duplicate CurrentVersion.fcpproject is the exact same size as the source. It’s not metadata at all. It’s a full copy of the entire project database and everything it contains.

If a project is 10MB, the duplicate CurrentVersion.fcpproject is 10MB. If your project bloats to 10GB, your duplicate project will be 10GB.

All to export a 5-second asset that might be thrown away after one quick viewing? I’m sorry, being forced to duplicate the entire project database isn’t “different” or “every bit as easy”. It’s mind numbingly stupid.

[Bill Davis] “I don’t imagine you have a problem copying a resume or script to make revisions. So why the reluctance to copy the pointers represented by a project?”

They’re not “just pointers”, Bill. You’re copying the entire database structure and content. It’s a bit more complex then you seem to realize. On top of that, FCPX’s database handling is currently a mess and seems to corrupt if you look at it the wrong way. Given the fragility of 10.0.3, the workflow you suggest sounds like an invitation for trouble.

[Bill Davis] “If you can’t see how you can do the same thing in a new way that’s actually no more complex than the old way – then there’s probably little I can do to convince you.”

The reason you can’t convince me is because you can’t do the same thing. In FCP7, mark in and out on the timeline, then export (in whatever format you want) from the file menu. Done. In FCPX, duplicate the entire project database (no matter how big, maybe it’s in the GBs), then open the duplicate, then trim the duplicate, then “share”. This is NOT the same thing. It’s a bunch of extra work and a bunch of extra file overhead.

[Bill Davis] “Versioning in document creation is real and is being coded into al sorts of modern software. And it requires us to adjust our thinking.

Perhaps you’ll never want those particular benefits. But I can see the usefulness. So I want it.”

You’re making a false assumption about why one might export a range. I’m not talking about versioning. I’m talking about saving an asset. Different intent. Different use. Maybe it’s a one-off that will be used and thrown away. Who knows? I export ranges all the time. Being forced to duplicate the entire project database just to spit out an asset is stupid and wasteful.

[Bill Davis] “Similarly if Duplicate Project gets me the same result as “range export” and keeps, as a simple example, my access to change and undo available in both versions – (impossible in Legacy’s export) then that’s something I might find useful even if you don’t.”

Glad you like it, hope you never have an experience like Jim Giberti’s. I don’t see value. All I see is extra work, a bloated project library, and risk of corruption. All because Apple forgot one the most basic features an NLE can have.

It’s a flaw. It has nothing to do with The Cloud, versioning, or anything else. It’s an easily fixable flaw. Apple just needs to fix it.

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

[David Lawrence]

[Richard Herd] “here was this dude does:
https://www.macprovideo.com/hub/final-cut/gang-sync-in-fcp-x“

Only 12 steps instead of one. Sweet!

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

[David Lawrence]

[Bill Davis] “A single choice that only allows you to “chop off” a chunk of your video – removing it from further revision and refinement is, in my opinion an increasingly limited construct.”

There are thousands of reasons why an editor might want to export a range as new asset. That’s all we’re talking about. Save a new piece of media. The idea that it’s “removed from further revision and refinement” is a completely meaningless statement.

[Bill Davis] “Duplicate the timeline in it’s current state, truncate it as you like, and simultaneously maintain all the source connectivity, control and ability to revise and amend – is, in my humble opinion, a vastly superior model that will meet the needs of many more types of editors as we increasingly move into a persistently connected future.”

The idea of duplicating an entire project to spit out a 5-second clip is laughable. Want to do that every time you need an asset? Knock yourself out. Vastly superior? Um, no.

Bill, with all due respect, you’re way over thinking this. Range export is a very very simple production need. It has nothing to with delivery or distribution.

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

[David Lawrence]

[Bill Davis] “And are worth jettisoning if the trade-off is eventually building something new that meets MORE needs than the former program did.”

Nope. They’re essential NLE functions. Good design doesn’t drop the essentials, it builds or improves on them. Calling it a trade-off is a false assumption. There’s no trade-off. All these essential features could be included without any change to the way the program works.

[Bill Davis] “An hour ago I was able to update a corporate video for a national health care client with a single click using the “share” menu in X and Vimeo Pro. No creating a standalone file. No FTP, No YouSendit, No hassles. “

Not impressed. I’d gladly trade the “share” to Vimeo button for range export — a function which is far more useful and necessary on an everyday basis.

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