[Gary Huff]

[Bob Tompkins]Where is the headline that says “Apple profits hurt by Premiere migration”?

Bob, this seems like trolling to me.

[Gary Huff]

[Tim Wilson]I by no means think that this is going to represent the majority of people looking for their post-FCP landing pad. Not even close. I also don’t see a lot of people throwing their Macs away. But moving in the direction of Windows is already appearing as a viable option in mainstream discussions, and an increasingly mainstream choice.

I just purchased my first MacBook Pro ever this year and I will admit that it is, hands down, the best laptop that I’ve ever had. Could it be better? Absolutely (NVIDIA…hint, hint), but it’s a great machine.

Windows 7 x64 is, in my opinion, very comparable (I also run a desktop Windows box that I built myself). I use both it and OSX every single day. I switch back and forth with no problems. Each has its strengths and weaknesses.

Kudos to Microsoft for the work they did on it, and for making their platform just as viable for our kind of work as Apple’s OSX. I would love it even more if Adobe and other developers had Linux versions as well, which would drive innovation even more (oh well, I can dream, right?).

It’s all about what you have invested in and what you are comfortable with. Windows PC’s are great because they are constantly pushing the envelope, specs-wise. Apple PCs are great because they offer a well-thought out design. Pick what you want to work with, they are both more or less the same in the end.

And that’s great we have the choice.

I would love for Apple to release a new Mac Pro with the option to have dual Xeon i7 CPUs for 12 cores of power, along with options for either ATI or NVIDIA solutions. But if that doesn’t happen, I can easily build a Windows box like that and I can edit on it just fine.

[Gary Huff]

[Tom Daigon]In order to do any reliable color correction you really need to monitor the HD-SDI output on a professional external monitor. Using your computer screen will never allow you to see what the true nature of the color is. Any other way is just a crap shoot unfortunately.

Tom, I agree with you 100%, but do you have any suggestions for those who aren’t currently in the market (i.e. not enough money) for an SDI output card and monitor? Are there any suggestions for a cheap-ish (around $500 or so) monitor or ways to calibrate an already existing computer display to get somewhat close?

[Gary Huff]

[Jamie Franklin]I don’t know…reflecting on the last year on the run up to fcx you have to ask…why go through NAB, why go through the pains of mischaracterizing the software with intent, and “more to come” “this is just a taste” yadda yadda…

I have no idea what is going on internally at Apple regarding this, but there are definitely advanced features that aren’t for the typical “enthusiast” users.

Having thought about it for a while now (and using it for a small, “throw-away” project), I believe that FCPX is Final Cut Pro in name only. It really is iMovie X, or, less snidely, the professional version of iMovie, not the successor to Final Cut Pro. As has been pointed out, FCPX is the first editor strictly from Apple. FCP was previously built on a codebase from another software company. That, to me at least, explains the “Import iMovie” function and the lack of support for legacy FCP projects. It represents a clean break.

Now, perhaps Apple is really interested in offering a fully functional, useful editor for the pro market, or perhaps they simply want to target the higher end prosumer users only and if some pros happen to like it, great! I think the big questions will rely on what updates we see for the software and how open Apple is to listening to user feedback. Frankly, I would love for FCPX to end up being a strong contender amongst Adobe and AVID, as I feel the competition is a big win for all of us. However, even if Apple is planning on making it the killer app that everyone wanted, that could change at any moment given the whim of corporate decision-making (witness: HP). So only time will tell.

[Gary Huff]

I guess we’re at a standstill then until a FCP7/XML project importer comes out.

[Gary Huff]

[Walter Soyka]I pulled “that would be dumb” directly from one of your subsequent responses to me.

Here’s the original context:

No one is saying that an importer will do a 100% perfect job time in and time out. That would be dumb.

I thought I was pretty clear that the “dumb” would be anyone claiming that a FCP7 importer would be able to do a perfect job all the time. My point being would that it would be dumb to say that, which is why no one is. If you still insist that I called you dumb, then I’m simply flummoxed.

I’m asserting that the data in an FCPX timeline is a superset of the data in an FCP timeline.

How does that suggest an ignorance of software development?

Because you couch it in terms that FCPX is developing “context” for connecting your clips instead of just following a pre-determined IF…THEN…ELSE path that can be applied at, really, any time instead of merely at the initial moment of arrangement. You seem unable to understand how this would be a accomplished from a strictly programming point of view, which makes your perception of how an importer would work very limited.

[I]t also represents some information about how the edit was actually constructed, via storyline designation and clip connections, then it uses that information to guide the mechanics of subsequent editorial.

See? Again with couching a simple process in language that implies FCPX is something of being “aware” of what is going on. It connects clips based on its proximity to others and where on the timeline it is placed. Why can you not conceive of being able to time-shift this process?

I think that editorial is a creative process in and of itself. FCPX does not automatically link things willy-nilly with a series of if-then-else statements. It links them according to the decisions the editor makes,

Again with the language that suggests that FCPX is aware. It is not. All of the features you listed are ways of doing the same thing as before, just in different ways. Perhaps FCPX makes some mistakes on an import, but how hard is it to fix, really? Once you have a timeline that plays back normally, why does it seem to you to be such a huge deal to re-arrange things?

and the specific FCPX tools he or she uses, while editing: cut it into the primary storyline?

The primary storyline is easily analogous to “V1”, so I fail to see the issue. Whatever is on top is seen instead of what is in the primary storyline. So regardless of whether you made V3 the “primary” it is still layered.

pull it out of the storyline? Connect it? Change the connection point? Position it? Compound it? Storyline it?

Again, you are simply putting too much stock into this. You seem to think it is something new rather than a re-writing of what we basically already know. All the video you do in FCP7 is layered. All the video you do in FCPX is layered. How it gets layered is beside the point. In FCP7, a video on V3 is going to be shown instead of the video on V1. In FCPX, the video in the primary storyline is not going to be shown if there is video placed on a layer that is above it, regardless of what terminology Apple uses to describe that upper layer.

This whole thread started because someone can take the FCPX timeline and duplicate it in After Effects. Why are you still unable to grasp this concept when the evidence is right there in front of you?

[Gary Huff]

[Jeremy Garchow]Until you see it, you don’t realize just how fast it is.

That’s the thing…I have seen it and find it simply different, not faster.

And dumping into two bins at the same time is not impressive. What’s the need for that in the type of production paradigm that I’m talking about? When you can already have everything sorted by time, why even take the 15 minutes that you could use editing to sort through the clips when you already have a good general idea of where things are (remember: fast turnaround)?

[Gary Huff]

No waiting for drag and drop? What do you mean by waiting? I have to type in a keyword, surely that’s at least as long if not a bit longer than “drag ‘n drop”.

All clips available all the time, no double clicking, no watching in a separate window, you simply start skimming it want to start editing. You simply can’t do it in FCP7, or any other editor as far as I know.

Frankly, having used both, I find it more annoying to skim in the “bin” window than the process currently used, mostly because they are thumbnails.

[Gary Huff]

[Jeremy Garchow]Why? Because assigning useful metadata extremely fast slows you down? I don’t get it.

But you’re not assigning any level of metadata at a fast level that is that useful. Select clips “interview”, select the next batch “b-roll”. And you’re done. That’s not that different or more useful than creating two bins called “Interview” and “B-Roll” and moving your footage into them.

But that’s not the power of metadata by any stretch. The power comes from more detailed descriptions and selection moments inside clips and whatnot.

And who is going to spend the time to do that? You said you organized 1000 clips, but in very rough and down-and-dirty form. Now what if you wanted to explicitly label every single one with very detailed keywording, including labeling selections within clips. Are you going to do that yourself? How long is that going to take and how long are you willing to spend doing it?

[Gary Huff]

[Robert Brown]I personally think Apple will long for the day when it had a dominant video app that had to be run on macs. I think this opens a Pandora’s box for them but maybe I’m wrong.

I don’t think Apple will at all. The vast majority of computer use is Internet, and if the masses want small, light, connected devices running iOS to do that, Apple will be just fine and won’t have a care at all for that.