Robin S. kurz
Forum Replies Created
-
[Jeremy Garchow] “And why doesn’t every DAW support the open and free to use fcpmxl, or provide a free translation tool?”
Exactly. As far as I can see, Apple has in fact done their homework and even continue to do so. So how is it asking too much to now have others do their’s (many of which are and don’t seem to have a problem with it)?? That’s the “standard” logic I’m having a really hard time following. But then I guess some people would have thought it a much better idea to “standardize” FCPXML 1.0 and leave it at that?
Especially since it’s funny how e.g. Adobe has found time to fiddle with (as in change) the XMEML they export several times, but never found any time to simply support FCPXML. Even AFTER they bought Automatic Duck who were already doing it! Meanwhile FREE software such as Resolve support the new FCPXML the day after it is released.
It’s a mysterious world, no?
– RK
____________________________________________________
Deutsch? Hier gibt es ein umfassendes FCP X Training für dich! -
[Michael Gissing] “when it comes time to hand over I find this incredulity that the editor should be responsible to hand over exactly what the post facility needs to effectively and efficiently do the finishing work.”
So remind me… when, how and where do I not have that ability with FCP X again? Be it via XML or with 3rd party apps? I’m very curious.
[Michael Gissing] “X seems to be the most limited NLE in terms of being able to output formats that sound post in particular want.”
I’m sorry… which would those be again?
[Michael Gissing] “why does the editor have to buy third party software for the very occasional job of exporting interchange formats, particularly AAF/ OMF for audio.”
Funny. Because I am constantly asking myself why other editors feel they have to rent their own work and pay continuous ransom money just to continue to be able to access it. Literally thousands more. Just one of life’s mysteries I guess. ???? Somehow I’m not bothered by having to pay 10 bucks more, maybe even 100 here and there (as in one time expense)… or not. My choice. That’s assuming I actually ever need to feed to a ridiculously inferior format from the 80’s for some ungodly reason. Which I fortunately never have had to (since the people asking didn’t even grasp that they could just as well take an XML and get MUCH better results). Horses for courses I spose.
I like my license “built-in” and paying much less for it. But I guess that’s just me.
[Michael Gissing] “accept that I do know what I want and why I want it.”
And I can’t think of a single thing that FCP i.e. XML can’t give you. But hey, if the “built-in” aspect is so utterly essential to you and not just a (rather worn) talking point, you’re free to pay thousands to get it elsewhere, no? I for one know which I prefer. To each his own.
– RK
____________________________________________________
Deutsch? Hier gibt es ein umfassendes FCP X Training für dich! -
[Michael Gissing] “Apple have gone part of the way with xml although any hope that there could be a standard in xml seems impossible.”
You do know what the “X” stands for and why that is exactly the whole point, right?
[Michael Gissing] “In other areas standards have been agreed to like AAF, OMF AES-31, EDL etc.”
Okay, now that’s an apples and oranges comparison if I’ve ever seen one. Those are not only completely inflexible (i.e. not extensible beyond what information they already support), but therefore painfully limited exchange formats — some not having changed since the 80’s or 90’s. XML is not only 100% open, it also has any and everything covered that all of them combined have covered… plus a few hundred percent of other things on top, with the support growing with each new version. So why in the world would I ever consider any of them when given the choice?? That makes no sense to me, sorry. For purely nostalgic reasons?
[Michael Gissing] “I don’t think it is advantageous to leave all that to third party developers as these are critical to stable commercial workflows. “
So which of the relevant 3rd party tools or their workflows could in any way be considered “unstable“, have ever been, or are sure to have been more “stable” if Apple were the ones updating them instead? For you having to wait three months instead of maybe three days or even weeks for a critical update to just that particular functionality is more advantageous? Right.
[Michael Gissing] “There are suddenly many developers that need to react.”
Which they did… a mere day after the update came out, if not the same day. Never mind that beyond that they can react exponentially faster and more often than Apple to address any specific issues there might be with any particular tool or function, within which the brilliance lies. The Intelligent Assistance to Apple update ratio alone is an easy 10:1. Therefore, if you consider these matters “critical to stable commercial workflows”, then you’re in fact unwillingly making my exact point.
And how is that in any way different than if PPro, Avid or who ever else updates their (completely closed, proprietary) file format btw? And exactly which 3rd party app do you know of that can open e.g. a PPro or Avid project WITHOUT potentially losing the vast majority of information (e.g. filters, titles etc. etc.) in the process? Ever compare an FCP X roundtrip to Resolve to any of the above?? You should.
[Michael Gissing] “OMF and dear old EDL are stable and reliable fall backs”
:-)))) Right.
Again… if you’re willing to potentially lose 50+% of what makes up your project, sure. Good luck with that.[Michael Gissing] “If interchange is possible only via a new variant of fcpxml”
Only it’s not, sorry. You can export in the current AND the last (way over a year old) version of FCPXML. As always. No problem. Which is why I’d say the whole thing is a complete non-issue. Unless you can tell me how to get to and from any other NLE at anywhere near the level of reliability than you can with X via (even the old) FCPXML? Or is the fact that others choose to only support (if even) the old XMEML but (surprise surprise) not FCPXML and don’t even have their own exchange format, somehow much better/smarter/more developer friendly, I’m just not seeing it? Something that would make the exchange with FCP X and various other apps that support it that much easier, cleaner and smoother btw (i.e. actually useful). But e.g. Adobe is apparently as interested in that as they are in fixing long standing bugs, from what I’m hearing.
Oh yeah… having to rent your entire workflow from them, not just the editing part to actually get things done (since you lose most everything trying to go elsewhere), means more money in their pocket. Silly me.
What’s Apple making off using an open XML and not a limited, proprietary file format? Oh, right… ????
-
You need to use a timeline markers after and before each fade and set them to “Build In” and “Build Out” respectively. Whether “- optional” or “- mandatory” is up to you.
– RK
____________________________________________________
Deutsch? Hier gibt es ein umfassendes FCP X Training für dich! -
[Christopher McDonell] “the previous version of Motion doesn’t work on it.”
Again… I don’t see why you would even want to install it (Mavericks) then, especially when it breaks essential functionality, but oh well. If you were using X on the other hand, it’d of course be a no-brainer.
[Christopher McDonell] “But I can’t imagine limiting oneself to an age old [software] when there have been so many great advancements that make the overall [editing] experience that much better.”
Oh the irony. ????
– RK
____________________________________________________
Deutsch? Hier gibt es ein umfassendes FCP X Training für dich! -
[Tim Wilson] “I take back everything I said.”
Er… right. If only you had actually said anything we’d know what that means. ????
– RK
-
[Steve Connor] “How can it be a fail when you can do this with it?”
Exactly! *mic-drop*
____________________________________________________
Deutsch? Hier gibt es ein umfassendes FCP X Training für dich! -
[Bob Woodhead] “AT THIS POINT, it is a fail.”
You apparently missed that it was just released along with a brand new TouchBar API that few have had any time to actually work with yet? But then I guess you can name so much as one 1.0 product that was 100% stellar from day one for comparison? Otherwise that’s no different than if you e.g. had complained “There are only a 100 apps!” in the App Store the day (or a week) after it launched. I.e. painfully near-sighted, no? Especially by actually whittling it down to a single app and use case for an overall judgment. Wow.
[Bill Davis] “Scores of other editors couldn’t see beyond what was missing – and stopped looking.”
And never mind that nearly everything that was allegedly missing that those “pros” lamented about, was added within a mere 6 months of the initial release (all the while FCP 7 functioned just fine). But there’s no stopping people from living in “the evil (5+ year old) past”, if only for the sake of argument and to reiterate how much of a “demanding pro” they were and are. No matter how jejune it comes across. ????
– RK
-
[Jeremy Garchow] “Why would I buy dongles for all of those separately and why would I buy an extra power adapter from Apple?”
Was wondering the exact same thing.
– RK
____________________________________________________
Deutsch? Hier gibt es ein umfassendes FCP X Training für dich! -
[Tangier Clarke] “Is it merely Apple’s intent is to provide the brain (FCP X) and let the third party developers provide the choice to the masses? “
Yepp. And that’s a brilliant strategy, too, imho.
– RK
____________________________________________________
Deutsch? Hier gibt es ein umfassendes FCP X Training für dich!