Joe Moya
Forum Replies Created
-
FCPX does not offer significantly more than it’s competitors…
It only offers significantly different…
If you want to see how background render should be done… you should get your hand on old AVID Liquid editing application… AVID was bought out by AVID not that long ago… so… I am going to bet some good money that the next version of AVID will have some sort of back ground rendering.
BUT… even if it doesn’t… it doesn’t make any difference because you can currently AMA link video files that require no rendering to edit – period*.
When you are through editing… you only render what you edited (or any portion of your edit)… with FCPX… it is a render all or nothing proposition. IMHO, that is not an advancement of the background rendering process… it is a resource hogging process that I feel certain FCPX will change sometimes in the future. Until then, I think AMA file linking has a distinct advantage over FCPX process of background rendering.
Whether something is SUPER easy or not is mostly dependent upon experience. And… since the experience level for FCPX is pretty low by default… then, the question becomes… Do I want to learn the FCPX application or move on and learn entirely different (and complete) editing application?
The reason customers are stuck on what FCPX can NOT do is because those limitations are serious deal killers for many.
*Note: Using AMA with certain large bandwidth intensive file formats do require a proxy-like/off-line editing that doesn’t make AMA linking practical… but, AVID does allow batch recovery of proxy/off-line files conversion using HD source material which makes it easy to edit THEN render for final output. BTW, this is a problem that all editing applications currently experience. And exactly how much of a problem it actually is depends on the hardware limitations and not software.
-
For starters…
It is what it is…and, post like yours will do less to help FCPX’s case… and,… I feel certain ADOBE and AVID would like to see more “Love it or Leave it” posts.
Contrary to your post that states… “Embrace what it is.”….
…I suggest the original poster take a serious look at embracing the competion by migrating to applications that can achieve exactly what FCPX does with no more degree of difficulty in learning that what FCPX will take (specially since you already know how to use FCP). Currently, both ADOBE and AVID are offering exceptional FCP owner conversion prices for their applications. It is pretty obvious, they see blood and are striking while the iron is hot.
As it stands, probably the biggest difference between ADOBE & AVID vs. Apple is that ADOBE and AVID are now definately entrenched in the professional editing market (…thanks to Apple’s recent FCPX move/changes). And this change/move does have the appearance that Apple has decided to seak a new direction that might (or might not) include the professional level editing market.
If anyone wants to make a statement that counts…. simply take your money to the competitors – ADOBE and/or AVID. And… If anyone wants ADOBE and AVID to capitalize even moreso than they probably already will because of Apple’s changes to FCP… you write “in your face” condescending posts that critisize those who are not happy with Apple.
-
I guess the old smiley face just doesn’t carry the stroke it use to…{heavy sigh} 🙂
-
I think it is less about getting a grip on FCPX…
But, FCPX is a non-starter because it has no.., nada, Zilch, ZERO… backward compatibility…
That alone is a BIG deal killer for lot of editing shops….
So, …now you have editors that are not even going to give it the benefit of the doubt and simply bad mouth it… and, I frankly don’t see any lip service, PR or marketing that is going to overcome that problem.
-
Nope…what I am saying is that FCPX is not re-thinking anything… much of what they call new is not new… it’s already been re-thought and being applied in ADOBE’s and AVID’s NLE’s.
However, FCPX does use new terms and unorthodox approaches to achieve the same results. It just seems to me AVID and ADOBE have done the same (and then some) but without all the monkey dust and loss of flexibilty.
-
“I’m not sure what’s supposed to ‘dumbed down’ about metadata and arranging the timeline via clip relationships, vs. bins and arranging the timeline by placing clips into generic tracks.”
That easy to answer… because that part is less about dumbing down and more about change for the sake of change. AVID does (more or less) the same thing… and… did it without making the kind of changes to the more common file managment structure that every NLE uses. Plus, leaves the file managment more flexible and acts less like a “black box” approach that FCPX seems to use.
Bins or Clips…call them what you like… makes no difference… it is all about how those bins and/or clips are linked… and, the degree of flexibile you need when defining clips/bins. FCPX approach will definately work… but, so will ADOBE’s or AVID’s approach to organizing video for editing.
Is FCPX’s approach easier..? perhaps… is it more flexible..? NO. To me the trade off is that FCPX choose simplicity over flexibilty. I firmly believe both simplicity and flexibililty could have been achieved by FCPX if they had had the narrower and more professional market in mind when they wrote FCPX application.
As for magnetic timeline… well, ADOBE has their version this “new” editing technique…but, it is far more flexible and MUCH less encroaching on the application’s existing methods. In essense, when ADOBE went from 32b to 64b they did not ignore history but also acknowledged it weaknesses… and, tried to find a common ground.
FCPX is defined by it’s lack of common ground from what FCP was to what it is now… no doubt, that makes Apple’s competitors very happy. By the same token, this lack of common ground could easily mistaken as “new”… but, to me… it is just difference for the sake of expanding their market share…but, does so at the expense of those they worked for the past year trying to appeal to. IMHO, that is not the best way to develop new market share… but, it definately is one way.
-
Increasing efficiency?
If you look at AVID’s AMA linking of ref. video files… it increases efficiency using an existing file management structure. FCPX decided to use metadata in a way that not only changes the venaculor but assumes that you even need to change the existing file management structure to achieve this “new” level of efficiency.
AVIDs AMA linking simply proves that to be not true…you didn’t need to go down the development road that Apple decided to achieve that is fundamentally the same results – linking source files via a meta-data index WITHOUT loosing the file management system that is more flexible and commonly used (…for a good reason… I might add).
If you are using the term “relational database” the way I have seen it used in practice… then, FCPX simple has very little “new” to add. The only thing it could add that perhaps AVID’s current file linking structure is that it is less flexible but most would consider to be easier to use… since the application does all the organizing for you… and… that… assume you like the way FCP organizes the files (and/or) their references in the first place. To me, that is a bit presumptious.
To say FCPX’s approach makes more sense is perhaps a bit “knee jerk”ish of a assumption… and, one that the competition will definately quickly point out it’s weaknesses. Until then, the competition doesn’t have to do anything… the change alone is seen as a weakness because it is not proven to be useful at ALL levels of usage by editors.
-
Where is the assumption that dumbing down an editing applications suddenly becomes a new paradyne… or, an innovation?
Does changing the UI and file management structure represent innovation or simply change? Perhaps the best way to answer that is too look at through the eyes of Apple’s competition.
Contrary to Apples current appoach, AVID and ADOBE have adobted changes in their applications that didn’t alienate it’s existing users. AVID in it’s last release even introduced a more mouse friendly UI to compete with FCP and ADOBE. And… ADOBE was always trying to keep up with FCP editing capabilities on various levels (such as audio and color correction).
Neither of FCP’s competitors enjoyed watching FCP capture marketed share… but, now they see opportunity to gain it back without near as much effort as Apple took to gain the market share.
FCPX’s innovation is (IMHO) actually only change…
Much of what you see in FCPX already exists in AVID and/or ADOBE. So far, FCPX’s biggest impact has been that it provides AVID and ADOBE the opportunity to show what it can do vrsus FCPX (or FCP). In effect, Apple has becomes AVID’s and ADOBE’s best advocate (even if by accident or indifference).
When I hear discussions about the new innovations and the implications of opportunities that FCPX provides. I have to put and EQUAL emphasis on opportunity and innovations that AVID and ADOBE currently provide. Specially, when much of FCPX capabilites are not that dissimilar to what FCPX claims as “new”. The biggest opportunity is that… Apple simply handed it’s marketing advantage’s it worked hard to achieve for the past 10 yrs. over to it’s competitors.
When I hear phrases that FCPX represents “the future”… I look at the competition and see they already have most of FCPX’s “future” AND gained this “future/new” without alienate it’s current user base. So… what does this mean… it means (in IMHO)… FCPX is less about innovation and more about simply change… a change that simply dumbs down the product so that it could appeal to a different (perhaps new) customer – nothing more.
Sooo…until FCPX gains it’s “new” customer base to match it’s “new” editing “paradyne”… AVID and ADOBE will be picking up the piece$.
Is Apple back to square one by introducing FCPX? I think the best answer is – not yet. But, they do seem to be trying very hard…. with ADOBE and AVID just watching from the sideline.
-
Ron has a good point…
I have done similar projects you are about to attempt… and, I would have never considered using a new version 1.0 of ANY editing application on something this potentially complex…specially if you plan on using multiple file formats that come from multiple camera sources… off hand, your color correction issues are going to be a nightmare with FCPX. Not to mention the file organization work flow and audio difficulties you might have since the application hasn’t proven itself – yet.
I think there would be a lot easier projects you should try first with FCPX…
-
Learn them both…
Adobe CS5 is stable enough to work with and is capable of doing a lot of compositing with editing combo-type projects. If you want to gain a good footing on CG, 2D work (and some basic 3D w/plug-ins) with editing capacity…then, Adobe’s Production Premium Suite is a very good option. Compared to AVID…Adobe has (IMO) much better color correction capabilities (probably soon to change with AVID’s next release…which is looong overdue).
AVID is still pretty much old school in it’s work flow process and UI… but, it is extremely stable. Which is probably the key reason it is still considered for major productions. In recent days, AVID has tried to shake the old school image but pretty much created a “almost pregnant” results. I suspect the next major release will make up for this attempt to compete with Adobe’s and FCP’s mmore intuitive UI. AVID is predominately keyboard editing…but, giving way to a more point and click editing application. Compared to Adobe… AVID (IMO) has stronger multicamera capabilities.
I don’t think you could go wrong with either… so much so, it would be best if you learned both. As for the learning curve neither should be much of a difference. But….because of Adobe’s UI… the learning curve would be mostly like less challenging than AVID’s.
Sidenote: What might surpise you is that many of the the new innvoation claims by FCPX already exist in either ADOBE or AVID.