[Mike Warmels]

Well for one, using proxies is really the low end of editing for me. I mean, we did that like 20 years ago. I can’t bear to look at it anymore. All software is and should be fast enough run footage in real quality. It does in AVID and PPro, so I think FCPX should be able to do that. That professionalism, I think.

And yes, you are mistaken about the backward compatibility in AVID. It’s always been that way, and I have been working with AVID for twenty years. Everything works back and forth between 8.4 (current version) as far back as 5.5.5. However, some effects have changed, like color correction. Older versions see the new ones, but you’d have to change it.

Some facility houses work with ISIS and older versions. While I work on my 8.4 system, I just take my projects to their 7.x system and I can start working instantly. It’s simple: AVID’s media system is always the same. It’s the effects, the plug in etc that change, but the core media management system and projects are always the same.

Now, as it comes to transcoding in FCPX. I have had great performance issues using XD-Cam directly when I have som 20+ discs for a project. Or even the Quicktime version of MPEG2 HD422… slow slow… So I transcode it all.

However, FCPX cannot optimise XD-Cam material. I tried and it won’t. I have heard people here say that is because Apple considers it a native codec for FCPX. So whether you want to or not: FCPX won’t do optimisation of XD-Cam footage. Too bad Apple wants to do the thinking for you.

[Mike Warmels]

Yes, I agree, I think the roles concept is very nice. Especially is ProTools, Nuendo and other sound mixing software can immediately use them. It would save a lot of them. But, as you said, ONLY if it gets fully implemented. It seems more a cosmetic thing at the moment. The only reason why it doesn’t feel very modern is that it kinda harks back to old film editing…

The “why would you want that” is maybe very specific to my work environment where television directors do a lot of rough cutting themselves (like I do) but very rarely have the discipline to assign roles beforehand. That just cause a lot of extra work for the editors.

And also, if we ever get color coding for these clips it would be nice to do it in colors you as an editor prefer. But with that we’re coming to the UI customisation, which is basically not present in FCPX. One of the things FCPX could adopt from FCP7 or AVID is that it would be taking editors seriously if they can customise the window lay-out to suit their own preferences. It’s one of the things I like about AVID: every editor has its own set-up, way of working. You arrive at a set somewhere, insert your settings and poof: it’s like you’re on your own set. With everything set to the way you like it.

[Mike Warmels]

Thanks, Jeff. I often find FCPX users a little UNDERcritical about their NLE.

And sure AVID has it quips and quirks… I NEVER use AMA myself, simply BECAUSE it is unreliable. It often loses it links (but so does FCPX sometimes). I transcode everything and work form there, and that system is very solid. AVID has come a long way since the mid-90’s BTW. The FCP7 and PPro have certainly been a great contributor to its improvements (including patches to older versions), which I hope for all NLE’s: use what’s better in the competitor.

Now you might say: transcoding everything costs. But I convert everything to Apple Pro Res before starting to cut on FCPX too. Having too many issues with some codecs. Once I start cutting, I want to move. Transcoding or importing can all be done at night when I’m sleeping.

But yes, I doubt there’s a chance for patches for older versions. Apple could easily solve this problem to make Libraries downward compatible (as AVID has). Then editors working in a larger environment could just work in the version they’d like. If that would be the case, I’d have been on 10.2 since it came out.

So all in all, I agree with you on the immaturity thing (as a descriptive analysis, that’s exactly what I meant). And yes, Bill is a lucky man indeed. And I am happy for him that it works so well. But as I said before, I know of lot of editors who run into the performance issues of FCPX as well. Maybe I should go over and cut with him. 😉

[Mike Warmels]

It has nothing to do with half empty, Bill.

I have no problems with the FCPX workflow or the way of editing, or the magnetic timelines. I do have a problem with FCPX performance. I am happy to hear that your set-up is working fine. Mine was done by a professional company specialised in Apple audio and video, an Apple authorised reseller. I am in constant contact with a lot of editors working on FCPX on a daily basis. And all the feedback I get is that they do run into the same problems. So I get a lot of workarounds: don’t have your Inspector on while editing, especially not with the Audio Tab open, switch off you AJA card because using your broadcast monitor can slow it down, switch off waveforms etc etc… I find all that stuff very silly, it basically comes down to saying: “please don’t use all the wonderful FCPX features because they may not work very well.”

Like you, I make a living out of this kind of work. And I find it frustrating that apart from the many, many workarounds (almost needs as much time to learn FCPX really well as it is to learn AVID) FCPX needs so much more power and disc speed to get a, in my case, very mediocre performance.

I need to use my internal SSD harddrive to store the Libraries and the Cache (with fills up so quickly even my harddrive ends up full after cutting four episodes of a fashion tv show). I need to use Thunderbolt external drives. It needs the fastest discs, the fastest computer and yet… it’s the tortoise compared to the old hare of AVID, which wins on much slower discs.

Maybe it’s that I work on somewhat more complex projects. On smaller films FCPX runs like a charm, but when it gets bigger, more footage etc… it slows down.

Now, I know I am on a older FCPX (I explained that before why I cannot yet upgrade), 10.1.4, and I’m sure 10.2 runs better. But this is then another thing: why are older versions immediately abandoned as obsolete? Why are there no patches to fix the older versions? Even on older AVIDs you get support and bug fixes, why not on older FCPX versions?

Anyway, back to cutting on FCPX!

[Mike Warmels]

Oh that one. yes that is a very handy tool to get some overview over the timeline. It doesn’t help you assign the roles though. And it also doesn’t change the fact that role assignments between clips in the browser and used section from that clip in the timeline are not connected for some reason. But you are right, you have to do all that up front and work disciplined. On a side note, if this is important here, what’s the problem with working with tracks? I don’t get it. I see many editors and tutorial as talking about cleaning up the timeline to get most of the similar tracks on approximately the same vertical position. That’s almost like assigning tracks.

What I do find a missed opportunity in this subsection is that you cannot give the different roles their own color. That would by far improve the overview of the timeline itself. Now you can only see at “one glance” what is what by:

1. Opening the subsection
2. Select the roles tab
3. Click on the separate roles.

Again: a lot of work for something that could be very simply adjusted. Obviously it is all there: FCPX can recognise where the roles are. Why not allow us to give it a separate color. Again: one the quite immature things of FCPX. (especially since other and older NLE CAN do this).

[Mike Warmels]

Good stuff. I edited a show on him many years ago. Nice toys too!

[Mike Warmels]

I have no problems with FCPX architecture. I hate the fact that it slows down so much, that it’s unpredictable in its bugs, in things that seem simple but have many weird pitfalls, that you need so many workarounds and that there are things that it can handle for like 90% but the other 10% causes huge time delays. And I find it bothersome that there is hardly any support.

There’s a endless list of little things that make FCPX not entirely reliable in some basic features: the audio meters – what are they peaked to? There’s no reference. Color correction: if you change the black or highlights in Exposure, the midtowns also vary, audio synchronisation using timecode – works great expect if there are variations in tracks of the seperately recorded audioclips, etc etc etc. It goes on and on.

So to work with it: fine, it has its merits, some very nice features, some very good, others are meh but okay to work with if you have the speed.. And I often don’t, so to work ON it usually means a lot of time delays, work arounds, the occasional crash and mysterious things that don’t work for some reason etc. etc. That is my main gripe with FCPX. And the usual answer I get it: it will be fixed in the next update, hopefully.

[Mike Warmels]

You have me confused. I may not be working with FCPX as long and intensively as you have, but I am sure FCPX doesn’t have timelines, only Projects. So I doubt I’ll be able to find a subsection to something that doesn’t exist. In fact, I doubt the word ‘subsection’ exists in the FCPX vocabulary. So I have no idea if I have looked into that. What do you mean by it?

[Mike Warmels]

Oh yes, about the 96 tracks. Now, I haven’t done the audio exports using X2Pro myself yet. Editors have done that but this is how I viewed it from my end:

1. I cut together a (not very) rough cut of a 30 minute show. I had all the roles assigned prior to editing (I do know how to work with discipline).
2. The XD-Cam footage was converted to Apple Pro Res by the broadcaster, who is producing the show. And as they say, they can only do that including duplicate tracks. XD-Cam has four, they duplicate those, so you get 8 tracks per clip. Why this is the case, I have no idea.
3. My editor and me unselected the audio tracks we didn’t need in the cut (we usually only need three)
4. After finishing the cut audio was exported using X2Pro (just like Mike Matzdorff did on Focus) for mix on ProTools.

Now, when I came in to check out the mix the first time I just wanted to see what the sound editor got from us. Familiar with what FCP7 and AVID produces, I just wanted to know what you get, since FCPX can’t do these AAF exports itself (silly!!!) but you have to use third part software.

And lo and behold: for every XD-CAM clip there were 8 tracks!! You can can imagine if you do the little magic audio fading trick as it has to be done in FCPX (just to see if the audio cut can be made) you automatically get 16 tracks. One of the great advantages of not having audio cross fades (another great feature of FCPX). So when one adds an atmo from another track to cover up the cut for instance, it’s 24 tracks. And so on…

So maybe they’re doing something wrong in X2Pro, I dunno, I don’t use that particular software myself yet. (but I can hardly imagine that since dozens of editors do this everyday in that location using X2Pro). But personally it makes sense, since FCPX is clip based and not timeline based, like the other NLE’s. So if you export clips, you get what’s IN the clips, which is 8 tracks per clip.

(I see the same thing in consolidating – FCPX doesn’t consolidate the used footage in the timeline with handle length, but includes the ENTIRE CLIP used – really smooth if you’re using a few quotes from an half hour interview).

[Mike Warmels]

You won’t believe how much I look forward to that. I keep pushing them to upgrade, but they have to upgrade 10 editing suites and the SAN system… And you don’t want to piss off your client, even though it is costing them more money now. Money I’d rather spend on development and filming, instead of waiting for a beach ball.