Marcus Moore
Forum Replies Created
-
I think it’s a shot in the dark. There’s clearly some low hanging fruit for the FCPX dev team to tackle.
But whether we get another feature-rich update early next year or not, I have a hard time imagining a scenario where 10.1 doesn’t appear this Summer.
Last year I was extreemely doubtful about 10.1- there was too much left to do. But for 2013, I just don’t think there’s another year of holes to be filled.
-
[John Heagy] “Restoring the singularity of Events to shared storage is key to multi-user editing. In my opinion.
So how does Apple do that? “
Well, as I understand it, FCPX is built on the same database structure as FinalCutServer was, so theoretically anything that people USED to do with FCS is possible with FCPX, but as we’ve seen, the dev team doesn’t seem interested in merely reintegrating old functionality.
I never worked with FCS, so I’m not sure of it’s limitations.
From a practical working perspective, an Event being used by multiple users simultaneously needs to be able to leverage the input from multiple users across all users, while at the same time allowing an individual editor to filter out the information he needs from all that metadata. Events need to be able to be updated with footage or logging info, and have that perpetuate down to all users without screwing up the database.
Perhaps it could be possible to assign logging info to a specific user. So you could have a MASTER metadata file, with information considered universal to all jobs using the Event [names, places, etc.], and then have USER metadata files generated when an editor adds his own notes, favourites, or ratings to the material. that way two editors can have their own separate subsets of metadata for the Event for their own specific jobs, and if a 3rd job is started by another editor, that editor could choose to leverage just the MASTER metadata, one of the USER metadata file, or all of it depending on what is relevant to the new job.
I’d give huge bonus points for Apple considering virtual studios as well, allowing editors working in different cities to have local copies of the footage, with the Events syncing over iCloud. Perhaps even have new footage added to the Even that a remote editor doesn’t have automatically download as ProResProxy until the original full-size file can be transferred.
-
That’s still an “integrated” design, with Thunderbolt as a faster optional expansion port; but in a rack-mountable form, if I’m imagining it correctly.
-
If someone who was using Final Cut Server can now get all that functionality at $299 bundled with FCPX, I don’t see anyone complaining… Ok, Well, I can, but whatever…
[Craig Seeman] “What other entirely new features do you envision in addition to server based implementation?”
There’s no single feature that would merit a paid upgrade. But here’s a short list of what I’d consider “new” to the FCP platform.
• bus-based mixing- allowing you to assign roles to different sub-mixes for grouped audio fx and levels
• dialogue transcription- already found in in some other NLEs [I can’t remember which], but would go hand in hand with FCPXs metadata-based foundations
• person identification- like in iPhoto
• connect clip rules – allowing you to assign behaviours so that connected clips can automatically match any trim, roll, etc. adjustments you make to the primary storyline element, or vice-versa
• more render tasks pushed into TRUE background processes, like exporting is now
• audio repair – FCPX would find “room tone” for any audio clip, and if you want to eliminate a breath, or “um”, just range select it and hit “repair”. Non-destructive of courseI have more as part of my blog post, I plus more expanded ideas on these, but I don’t want to blow my own article completely…
-
[Craig Seeman] “I’d be surprised if Apple were that conservative with the design.”
Similar form, but not the same. But I’ve yet to see anyone suggest what an “alternate” platform would look like. Either its an integrated design [like the current MacPro], or a modular design. Since modular isn’t possible at this stage- that just leaves integrated.
-
I’m working on a blog post about this-
I think the biggest deciding factor for where development will take the application this year is if Apple thinks it has another year of filling the holes in functionality that keep legacy users from moving over, OR if they think they’re ready for a 10.1 update.
If we continue along our current path, then updates will continue to be free, and the features added will continue to build on reintegrating and improving the legacy feature set.
But if the goal is 10.1- then that will be a paid update, and obviously the dev team will have to present a compelling set of features which would merit another $299 from users. And these would have to be NEW features that expand beyond those found in FCP7. But I would consider any major advances in collaborative workflow “new” since those were part of Final Cut Server, and not FCP itself.
-
I think the form and implementation of what this new MacPro will be is [besides FCPX development] the most engaging question for me this year.
In practice I only see two forms the product can take- either one similar to what exists now, with all the up to date CPU, GPU, RAM, and I/O that the current MacPro lacks.
The only alternative would be a modular design tied together by Thunderbolt, but until we’re at 100GB/s, that’s not going to happen.
-
The areas I’d like to see advancement in are
• audio mixing either within FCPX or with tight Logic integration
• collaborative workflow
• better visual project organization using Roles data
• rock solid and redundant backups for those who need it (I’ve personally never lost data but feel for those who for whatever reason are)
• roundtrip to motion
• bring back iChat theatre to FCPX
• more metadata options for Events, like person detection and dialogue transcriptionand BONUS:
• a new MacPro so people can stop grousing about it.
-
Good to hear. Carry on…
-
I’ve been cutting 3-cam multicam interviews for weeks running 10.0.7 and 10.8.2 without issue.
What do you see in the angle-windows when you’re in the angle editor vs the project timeline- are they still black?