Simon Ubsdell
5
COW Coins
Forum Replies Created
-
[Ben Holmes] “Yes, but that’s iMovie, and this is FCP X!”
I think you’re missing my point which is certainly not to have that old debate again (although to suggest that there are no useful parallels to be drawn is clearly flying in the face of the evidence IMO).
I was suggesting that the iMovie/XML model is instructive inasmuch as it shows that the magnetic timeline doesn’t easily lend itself to edit interchange formats – which is kind of what one is led to suspect a priori. In other words iMovie’s XML export isn’t hamstrung because it’s iMovie but because there are inherent issues arising from the implementation of the magnetic timeline. Note also that in pre-iMovie 08 you could get a fairly decent timeline out of iMovie and into FCP, again suggesting that the magnetic timeline was the sticking point.
Which is not to say that this won’t all be resolved come release date and of course the screenshots might be worthless as evidence …
[Ben Holmes] “Pro snobbery”
No pro snobbery from me – I think iMovie is amazingly good, in fact much too good for it’s supposed consumer target market.
Simon Ubsdell
Director/Editor/Writer
http://www.tokyo-uk.com -
[Ben Holmes] “It’s hardly difficult to implement.”
Why do we think this is so? It could well be that the magnetic timeline represents all sorts of interesting challenges in respect of supporting traditional edit interchange formats which may be much harder to resolve than we think.
It’s worth observing that the XML export from iMovie is very limited indeed for reasons that seem to me to be directly related to the magnetic timeline. (In particular L-cuts and J-cuts are completely ignored as well as pretty much anything other than the raw video edits along with their attached audio. Note these limitations are specifically described in the export dialogue.)
[Ben Holmes] ” Apple love to simplify menus with sub-menus”
But then why isn’t the iMovie option hidden in the import File menu as well?
But, hey, just playing devil’s advocate here so don’t shoot me!
Simon Ubsdell
Director/Editor/Writer
http://www.tokyo-uk.com -
[John Pale] “How do we know we even need to import XML files anymore?”
Whether or not XML has been consigned to the dustbin (trashcan) of history, it is pretty obvious there is no EDL support, no OMF support and no AAF support. As yet.
Perhaps one of the more pertinent reasons to temper the giddy optimism that seems to be going the rounds right now.
Simon Ubsdell
Director/Editor/Writer
http://www.tokyo-uk.com -
[Andy Mees] “Got to wonder how FCP X will pass timelines to Resolve 8”
You could always pass it back through iMovie – XML just about works there. 😉
And hey, what’s wrong with “late night blathering” all of a sudden? Isn’t that what this thread is all about!
Simon Ubsdell
Director/Editor/Writer
http://www.tokyo-uk.com -
[Geoff Dills] “couldn’t all that be done importing under the “File” selection?”
I’d be pretty confident that the File option applies only to Video, Sound or Still Image files, as per current practice in most apps.
Simon Ubsdell
Director/Editor/Writer
http://www.tokyo-uk.com -
[Hector berrebi] “no sign of XML imports/exports yet”
It does look very much from the pics as though this will be missing, along with OMF, AAF and EDL, for both import and export. Quite a big deal for a lot of us!
But hey, at least we can import from iMovie, so that’s all right then 😉
Simon Ubsdell
Director/Editor/Writer
http://www.tokyo-uk.com -
You can get round this problem by resetting the preferences – go to the Project Pane and select Create Layers at Current Frame (rather than start of Project which is what you’ve obviously got selected).
However, you should try out the Write-on option for this as it’s a really easy and controllable way of achieving what you’re trying to do. Open up the Paint Stroke HUD and select Write On and draw across the area that you want to reveal/hide. You can then edit the results very powerfully in the Behaviours tab for that stroke. I think you’ll get far better result that way than trying to hand animate it – smoother anyway, if that’s what you’re going for.
Simon Ubsdell
Director/Editor/Writer
http://www.tokyo-uk.com -
[David Roth Weiss] “Please, let me know, what do you think I should have written?”
Look, David, I know you’re fantastically knowledgeable when it comes to FCP and many other matters come to that (and I’ve benefitted from that knowledge frequently, as we all have), but that’s why I am surprised at your position in this case!
I’d say that your particular problem could have been down to corrupt media or a corrupt project (which can cause serious difficulties in STP as it can in many other applications, as I’m sure you know, but which are usually fairly easy to resolve), but without knowing a lot more about the details I couldn’t say for sure.
But if someone had written in the FCP forum that they were new to FCP and were having problems that led them to believe that the software itself was fundamentally defective (as you appear to be suggesting in the case of STP), I am sure you would have dealt with them appropriately!
Simon Ubsdell
Director/Editor/Writer
http://www.tokyo-uk.com -
[Tom Daigon] ” I have NEVER had any of the variety of problems mentioned in this thread”
I entirely second that – I use STP pretty much everyday (for short form work from 30 seconds up to about 10 minutes) and it works perfectly. In fact, I also have ProTools, the industry standard for audio post (which I have used professionally for more than ten years), but I would always prefer to work in STP given the choice both for speed and functionality.
Compared to ProTools 9, it’s insanely good value. The list of features that you have built in that in ProTools 9 would cost you many hundreds if not thousands of dollars extra in PT, are simply amazing: noise reduction; reconform (incredibly good and useful!), 5.1 mixing (yes, PT will charge you around $2K extra for the privilege!); a wealth of great sounding plug-ins (the basic PT will give you just one type of EQ and one type of compressor, all the rest you have to buy); a great library of sound effects and music loops. I would also say that PT is just a liable, if not more so, to instability. (ProTools has so far cost me thousands of dollars, whereas STP has cost me effectively none since I didn’t actually choose to buy it!)
So I’m amazed to see this thread where people have queued up to chorus: “I tried it once and it doesn’t work”. If the same comment were to be made on the FCP forum it would justifiably be shot down in flames, but because it’s about STP which non-one knows anything about it’s apparently fine to say it.
Looks like you’ll all get your wish, though. I have no doubt Apple will hear your comments and a really great product will go the way of Shake and be no more. What’s the point in Apple developing it any further when no-one can be bothered to learn it properly?
Simon Ubsdell
Director/Editor/Writer
http://www.tokyo-uk.com -
[David Roth Weiss] “What can we actually point to among the Pro Apps that Apple has developed enthusiastically?”
Yup, totally agree with all of that, sadly. You get the sense that they like the initial idea of being involved in pro-app-Land a lot more than the unglamorous reality of continuous dogged product development.
I mean, what were they thinking when they got involved with Shake, for example? That was never going to work out, was it?! Color seems to be the exact same thing all over again.
STP is another product that could be so good with a bit more care and attention – but I can’t see that happening either.
I do see the so-called uber-app that so many have called for so long simply taking over from the more serious stuff.
Simon Ubsdell
Director/Editor/Writer
http://www.tokyo-uk.com