[Erik Lundberg]

Yup. Upside down seemes like the new way. Sure Red Giant will fix this shortly, but an interesting new feature none the less…

Erik Lundberg

Technical Director, Media Technology, University of Gothenburg, Sweden

[Erik Lundberg]

The problem of keeping elements in sync in fcpx is one of the most flabbergasting “features” of the software.

I simply don’t get it. Why was timecode overlays not implemented from day one? Because? Or sync indication in the timeline?

Ok. Don’t answer it. I know. Rethorical question. I’ll be quiet now.

Erik Lundberg

Technical Director, Media Technology, University of Gothenburg, Sweden

[Erik Lundberg]

[Erik Lundberg] “the horisontal axis”

And pardon my swedish-infested brain for not being able to spell stuff in foreign languages at this hour. Been a long week.

Erik Lundberg

Technical Director, Media Technology, University of Gothenburg, Sweden

[Erik Lundberg]

[Lance Bachelder] “2. Waveforms! Need to see STEREO and MONO waveforms and would like to see entire waveform not just half if possible.”

Hm. I think you’re actually seeing the entire waveform, and not just half of it. Zoom in closely, and yup- the negative wave is mirrored on the horisontal axis (look at the bouncy-ball behaviour of the graph). It’s the only way I can interpret it. Which, I say, is just as worthless, or in some cases maybe even worse than just seeing half of it.

I kind of like to know if I’m looking at the positive side or the negative side of the waveform.

Erik Lundberg

Technical Director, Media Technology, University of Gothenburg, Sweden

[Erik Lundberg]

[Marvin Holdman] “If they were soley dependent on this application to keep the company alive, I would agree with you, but this is a small, small part of their picture and they have the means to continue development regardless of sales.”

Or they wont. I agree they have the means. But you don’t get to earn more money than anybody else by working on stuff nobody uses. I don’t think thats the SOP for apple. If there’s no benifit (or expected benifit) to the stock holders for developing, if they don’t feel the demand, if nobody cared enough to use it, write wish lists for the next product update? If all they met was (nearly) no sales and silence from the target market segment (very unlikely, I know), would they hesitate? I hardly think so.

And- If we didn’t use it, REALLY used it, under real conditions, if all this software got tested in was in lab, would you really trust the development team to make it into a state of the art NLE? I’m not sure.

Erik Lundberg

Technical Director, Media Technology, University of Gothenburg, Sweden

[Erik Lundberg]

[Richard Herd] “Interesting, because I find the keyword feature to be the best thing about X, and it is the earliest part of editing, for me.”

I agree that the database structure and asset management parts of FCPX is a very good step on the way of a really nice part of the deal. But I’d say it’s one of those things that need to mature a bit. And, as we don’t use only one tool, we’d need an asset management that was equally good for (and translated well into) the other software we’re using. Metadata and structuring is only good if you can keep it consistent through the workflow. And I’m not convinced that we’re able to keep such a consistency going in and out of FCPX. And several editors/producers/decisionmakers should be able to contribute to keywords and metadata for the same assets. Asset management should not be decentralized.

But for an intra-software organisational tool- the keywording and asset management of FCPX works great. If only…

Erik Lundberg

Technical Director, Media Technology, University of Gothenburg, Sweden

[Erik Lundberg]

[Ben Scott] “think this sounds very convoluted

FCPX is perfectly able as an editing package, yes avid has slightly better trimming for more experienced editors”

I’m not sure it would be convoluted at all. The choice of editing platform should be done based on the needs of the project, at the current stage. Mostly, the things we really would benefit from FCPXs capabilities are in the final stages of the project. The mindset of the editing process in that stage (after lock down) is a quite different one than earlier on in the process. I’m not confident enough (at this stage, I should add- this will most certainly change) to let our entire workflow to FCPX. And I am rather certain we can benifit from both tools either way.

[Ben Scott] “I would also say it is crazy for your staff to learn 2 massive pieces of software to achieve the same outcome, go with one not 2.”

Crazy? I don’t think so. Most of our editors has previous experience with MC, and I’m confident in their abilities to adapt and learn new things too. So I’m not really worried there. I’m certain some will like FCPX more and others be in favour of MC. In the end- the tool that gets the job done will be used. Why not benefit from the pros of both, and the cons of none?

This said (again)- in a few months- I might have changed my mind about this completely, as things change and evolve. And when taking this sort of mixed workflow (with multiple NLEs doing different tasks for the same project) to battle- it might prove to be a disaster. But I’m tempted. We’ve done similar things in the past (working on FCP and SphereOUS in the same project) with mixed results, but technology has improved, and I think I’m more skilled now than then to make informed decicions.

On the other hand- they say you’re experienced when you recognise mistakes as you do them all over again.

Erik Lundberg

Technical Director, Media Technology, University of Gothenburg, Sweden

[Erik Lundberg]

[Marvin Holdman] “1. Want to participate in Apple’s great experiment and work with point zero software or 2. Want to build your business dependent workflows around more robust and developed software packages while waiting and seeing where the FCPX train is going.”

Marvin- I agree with what you say, but I really like to have it all. I’d say FCPX has to grow up a bit (more) before I can trust it as the sole editing application for us. On the other hand I really really want FCPX to mature into a brilliant AND robust editing application for ALL purposes. It won’t get there if nobody uses it. Then it’ll merely die a quick and gruesome death. So I’m all for using it, but I will try and find where it does good things to our workflow, and keep it out of other areas, where other tools are the goto solution.

Erik Lundberg

Technical Director, Media Technology, University of Gothenburg, Sweden

[Erik Lundberg]

I’ve been playing with FCP X in my spare time (the little I have of that kind) since the release in june. And I’m constantly changing my mind back and forth. I see great potential in it, and I’m really eager to see what problems apple will solve and features they will add in the near future. At the same time I’m really frustrated by the fact that the software don’t do some of the things we really need in our workflow today. But I still have high hopes that this WILL shortly be a splendid peace of software that we can use to do really creative stuff on a day to day basis, and that it will support our workflows of today AND tomorrow.

And be flexible like nothing else. Please be.

Erik Lundberg

Technical Director, Media Technology, University of Gothenburg, Sweden

[Erik Lundberg]

To “delete” a Role, simply don’t use it anywhere, and restart FCPX. “Boom”. Goners. Seemes to work every time for me, apart from the pre defined (=’Video’ ‘Titles’ ‘Dialogue’ ‘Music’ ‘Effects’).If the behaviour doesn’t change, it implies that we should just create the Roles we need.

This of course makes it hard to share custom Roles, unless the edit suites share database (which I don’t think they do, yet). I might be mistaken. And I can’t really check with apple.com right now since they’re down at the moment for putting up new shiny signs of new shiny toys.

Erik Lundberg

Technical Director, Media Technology, University of Gothenburg, Sweden