[Jeff Markgraf]

Thanks, guys. Interesting responses.

It seems there are a couple of major themes for PPro fans: AE integration, color correction tools, audio bussing and UI flexibility. Of this group, only the audio stuff is particularly relevant or interesting to me.

I definitely agree that track-based functions would be a huge addition to X. While compound-clipping the audio is a workaround of sorts, it leaves much to be desired. I think if the compound clip could be opened in place (ala Resolve), this method would be more useful. But, still, the oft-requested roles-based mixer would be a great thing. Let’s hope…

As far as the other points…well, as I said, not important to me.

It’s not that I don’t do compositing in X. Quite the contrary, I do it all the time, especially for “rough cuts” for the execs that aren’t really rough cuts at all. I find compositing in X to be a joy compared to any other NLE I’ve used. Anything more complex could certainly be handled by Motion, or by getting a finished file from an AE artist. As an “I don’t do AE” editor, I wouldn’t presume to start tinkering too much with an AE composition in my timeline, so the PPro-AE link doesn’t do much for me. But I can certainly see the appeal for the editor/mograph combo.

Same with color correction. Between the native color board & filters and some rather reasonably priced plugins, I can do most of the correction I need. Anything fancier would go to a professional colorist who would use the tool of his/her choice. And since Resolve is free, I can send to it pretty easily if I want to dabble with a real CC tool.

As far as UI, meh. I just don’t have a problem with the one screen layout. In the past, I’ve customized my Avid layout to make it easier for me. This primarily entails consolidating my most needed windows & tools onto one screen. Since embracing X, I’ve actually started working with Avid on one screen, as long as the monitor is at least 24″ (preferably 27″). This is largely because I prefer to edit with the picture monitor directly above the edit screen, with the edit screen at table level (not raised on a bridge as so many seem to do). Less constant head turning. Everything in one basic sightline. Perhaps because I come from a linear online editing background, this layout is comfortable and sensible to me. It may be why I have zero problem with the idea of one UI video window that switched between “source” and “record” as needed. That’s how it worked in every edit bay I ever worked in until Avid came around. Interestingly, PPro out of the box is more friendly to my setup than Avid will ever be.

Totally get where you guys are coming from, though.

What I’d really like to see here is some discussion of specific editing features. Some examples:

– I find that using command-arrow for trimming a clip but option-arrow for moving a clip to be ridiculous. Why to the same keystrokes? Just like Avid, just like FCP Legacy and just like X. What’s the logic? Not to mention, no keyboard-direct means of slipping/sliding a clip (again, as with Avid, etc.) Why?

– Accessing the clip transform controls in the source window: why always having to turn down a disclosure triangle? Why not have the x-y-z transform parameters always in the open? It’s a little thing, but twirling those little triangles all day long really gets tiresome. What’s the logic here?

– Why is “make a new title from current” not the default title tool behavior? Under what circumstance would I ever want multiple instances of the same title in my timeline? I don’t get it.

See, it’s the little things like these that I find aggravating about PPro. So, to re-ask and focus the original question: what are the “little editing things” that make PPro a better tool for you?

[Jeff Markgraf]

Aindreas wrote,

[Jeff Markgraf] “They’re not even funny any more. ”

well, typing it still entertains me at any rate. It was either this or getting a rise out of Jeremy Corbyn supporters. Coin flip..

I looked up Corbyn. A Labor candidate who seems to have come out of nowhere to lead the pack. So is Aindreas snarking as a supporter or a detractor? Is Corbyn analagous to Trump or Sarah Palin or none of the above?

I feel like I did way back in the day when The Two Ronnies started playing in the US: didn’t get all the jokes, and it was already several years out of date, anyway.

[Jeff Markgraf]

Wish I knew enough about UK politics to fully appreciate the Jeremy Corbyn snark. 🙂

Andreas, I must say that I genuinely look forward to your posts. As a result, I am more disappointed than I might otherwise be when they don’t measure up to your usual standard. I think you know when you’re just lazily trolling, as you seem to be doing lately in this forum.

Maybe you’re too buried in work to put the effort into it. If so, then good for you – busy with work is good. But I miss those earlier days when there was some really valuable insight buried inside the purple prose. It strikes me that you are exactly the kind of poster who can cut to the heart or what’s good and what’s not so good in an NLE, X or other. A humorous companion, if you will, to Walter & Oliver and Jeremy (the Chicago Jeremy, not the Labour Party Jeremy).

How about it?

[Jeff Markgraf]

Walter –

Actually, I don’t think there was much actual substance. Lots of amusing AG words (he does have a wonderful way with a phrase!), but not much to say.

I don’t think apple knew what they were doing with X. I think they invoked a number of aspirational database operations as a parlour game inside an incredibly powerful company and they can’t shake it off. FCPX is never going to be real.

C’mon. Apple didn’t know what they were doing? A parlor game? That’s not analysis, that’s click bait.

…a library container and a ludicrous conceited 3D text engine.

I think we can all agree the current library structure was a much-needed correction. This isn’t news, It is, however an important course correction that came directly as a result of user feedback (I’m talking about you, ABC On-Air Promo).

It has been suggested by several here that the 3D text feature no one asked for is likely the base for some wicked 3D capabilities we have yet to see. Let’s hope so. I choose to be optimistic.

There will never be bussing, programmable roles, or any of that – apple are doing anything on their whim in an afternoon. It’s a ridiculous piece of software.

To quote Peter Noone, “second verse, same as the first.” I have no reason to think there won’t be audio bussing, more capable roles, and a number of other frequently-asked-for features. Why wouldn’t there be? Because it hasn’t happened fast enough for Andreas?

software that is built to die over the next three years.

I can’t even begin to respond to this bit of unbridled butthurt. I get it – people are mad at Apple. Boo hoo. I’ve never been able to muster the sheer tidal wave of vitriol directed at, and deserved by, Avid, and direct it at Apple. Not even in the same league.

Look – I get it. FCPX has a lot of feature improvements still left on its plate. And not to deflect, but let’s compare to Premiere Pro for a moment. I’ve finally had to start using PPro for real work after years of being able to ignore it. To say I am unimpressed is an understatement. This is the result of 2+ years of “mad development?” I guess if I were an AE artist who edits, I might be impressed. As an editor who has to work fast and has graphics people to do graphics, I don’t see the big deal. I know FCP Legacy can’t deal with modern codecs and frame sizes, but at least it was fast. Even Avid has finally started to get its act together, and it was always fast within its specific limitations. PPro just feels fiddly and clunky. Nothing fatal or in and of itself a deal breaker, but extra keystrokes and weird combinations that add up to a lot of wasted time and mental energy over the course of a day or a week on deadline. My experience so far with PPro has been buggy and sluggish. FCP 8? Hardly. I’d like to join the Adobe party, but PPro just doesn’t do it for me.

No one anywhere thinks FCPX is real.

Can we just stop with this nonsense? Of course it’s real. Plenty of professional editors doing professional work with it, making professional money. There hasn’t yet been an editor that I’ve sat down with and put X through its paces who didn’t come away impressed. Hard core Avid people, people who mourn the loss of FCP Legacy. In Hollywood, no less.

If AG and his peeps would like to talk about features or editing philosophy, good, bad or indifferent, that would be great. But this last post, and similar posts before it, add nothing to the discussion. They’re not even funny any more.

In answer to your question: no, I am not completely happy with Apple’s FCPX development pace of late. But considering how long I waited for various Legacy features, and especially considering how much I (and many others) have suffered at the glacial pace of Avid development and corporate arrogance over the decades, I think I’ll give Apple a few more years to make good on their promise. I can work with it fine for now, but I surely do with they’d hurry up with the new goodies. Heck, I’d be happy to pay another $299 to make it happen now. Still a bargain.

[Jeff Markgraf]

[David Roth Weiss] “it’s easier to remember where things are when you have tracks”

Umm, no, not necessarily. I just got done doing fixes on some numbskull’s promo (cut on Avid) that had 22 (!!) audio tracks, 3 of which were stereo way down at the bottom. Stereo sfx and inexplicably dual mono VO and SOT tracks spread willy nilly over the 22 tracks. An absolute mess. Couldn’t keep track of what was where and why.

Been cutting on Avid for a long time. Oh how I wished I were in FCPX and didn’t have to play Track Tetris on a deadline. What a waste of time. This kind of timeline is where X really shines with the trackless and magnetic timeline. Clean, organized and easy to work with.

Gotta go with Bill on this one.

[Jeff Markgraf]

[Alex Hawkins] “I think this is as honest an assessment as I’ve seen over the past 2 years.”

I think this is as ludicrous an assessment as I’ve seen over the past 2 years.

There. Fixed that for you.

[Jeff Markgraf]

[Aindreas Gallagher] “No one anywhere thinks FCPX is real.”

Ridiculous.

Andreas, you’re not even trying anymore. Your posts used to be amusing, even as they became increasingly misguided. Now…meh. Low-quality bait. Unless this is just so meta, we poor plebs can’t even keep up (in which case, I congratulate you).

Meanwhile, those of us doing real work with X will continue to do so as we occasionally LOL in your general direction, for old times’ sake.

[Jeff Markgraf]

Sigh. I guess there was a time when the “beat up on Bill” game was sometimes amusing. Now it just seems tired and a little sad.

But – on to actual discussion!

I find Premiere to be a little sluggish on two different systems: 4-ish-year-old Mac Pro towers running Mavericks with BMD cards and connected to a Facilis TerraBlock via fiber, and on a new MacPro with AJA T-Tap and local T- Bolt 2 storage. The BMD/TerraBlock system in particular has constant problems with sticky audio or video playback.

FCP X runs fine on both a retina MBPro and on the MacPro tube. Sometimes a slight playback delay when the timeline has lots of compound clips. Never as bad as some here have reported.

Avid runs fine on the BMD/TerraBlock systems, and seems fine on the MBPro and MacPro tube. Doesn’t feel as smooth as on an Avid with Nitris or Mojo I/O. I think there’s a secret sauce that Avid withheld when they opened it up to 3rd party video cards. (Frankly, none of the newer systems feels as lightning fast as the old ABVB Avids running on OS9 back in the day. But then, very few systems seem to run that fast anymore. Not that I’d want to go back to Meridien boards and shuttle docks…)

I find it puzzling that so many here report terrible X performance on their systems, especially compared to notoriously finicky Avids and Premiere. (I still don’t get the Premiere love. I use it, but I surely don’t like it.)
X does seem to be prone to specific system issues.

Not sure how to accomplish it, but I’d really like to see if there’s anything in common with these problematic installations. Some users just don’t have good luck with X, while others (Bill, Jeremy G, Robin K, me…) don’t seem to have many issues. What’s the common factor?

Mind you, I’m only talking about smooth versus bad or buggy operation here. UI design and philosophy and user preference is a different matter.

[Jeff Markgraf]

[Oliver Peters] “I follow the “you will be judged by your timeline” mantra”

LOL. So true. Coming from the old days of linear editing and GVG’s Auto Clean function (blessed be its name), I completely get the clean timeline compulsion. As someone who manually brings all b-roll down into V1 in my Avid timelines, I find that connecting clips in X forces me to accept a…shall we say, different timeline aesthetic. 😉 (As an aside, I surely do wish Avid had an equivalent to FCP Legacy’s option-up or down arrow to move clips vertically into or out of tracks. So much unnecessary mousing and undoing-redoing with command-drag.)

I understand your point now. I hadn’t considered all those unused pieces of angles going across in an XML. I assume you or someone else has done a test to see if all those hidden angles really do go across…

Given the ability to flatten or finalize an audition, it would seem like a fairly easy thing to achieve at at timeline level.

[Jeff Markgraf]

Interesting list. Concur with 5, 12, 17 & 18 in particular.

Really don’t care much about the UI things. Interestingly (well, interesting to me, at least 😉 ), I find that these days I end up customizing my Avid interface to be more like the 1 screen layout of X. Go figure.

I guess because I don’t usually do graphics heavy editing (I have graphics people who do the graphics), I don’t see such a need for a send-to-motion, though a tight X-Motion-Logic integration might be nice.

What I really don’t get, though, is the frequent call for flattening a multi-cam. Why? What is gained? Is it a performance thing for older hardware? Genuinely puzzled.