Stephan Walfridsson
Forum Replies Created
-
[Simon Ubsdell] “but it’s not remotely clear what you’re saying “can’t be done””
In my head it is… 😉
To be clear I specifically didn’t say that anything can’t be done. Just that the logic behind the design is better suited at certain types of workflows. So when Jeremy asked “There has to be a logical explanation for how this works?” I tried to answer that question.
To clarify even further:
I don’t think that the logic behind the design is aimed at streamlining workflow with separate jobs (projects) containing multiple timelines, based on a limited set of media. It seems to me to be more focused on efficient handling of large quantitys of media that you need random access to at random times, to create one off “storylines” that build from the entire base of source media.It’s not a design flaw, it’s a design choice.
Stephan
-
[Jeremy Garchow] ” There has to be a logical explanation for how this works?”
I’m going to go out on a limb here and risk being shot down by people mistaken me for a little chicken.
I think that the logic is pretty obvious. Just put your self in the shoes of let’s say a DSLR shooter making cool skate movies. You would gather everything you shoot in Events, call one “Pasadena Skateboard Park June 21 2011” and another “Practicing at the mall”.
You decide that you want to make a short film where you intercut footage from the different Events. Easy, create a new project, let’s call it “Summer of Skate”. You start adding clips to your storyline, add b-roll and edit away. Use Compound clips to keep finished sequences (as in “parts of your story”) locked and Auditions to try out different jumps in one sequence.
A few weeks later you want to create another film focusing on just the Pasadena stuff so you create a new project and edit away.
Basically I don’t think that the logic is aimed at handling complex projects (in the old nomenclature). Not saying that it can’t be done.
Stephan
-
[David Roth Weiss] “It’s a bit like religion Stephan, you have to believe first, then your prayers will be answered.”
Amen!
The believers sure do seem to be filled with divine joy.
Stephan (atheist)
-
[gary adcock] “Why is working with Metadata so difficult for people to understand, we are talking about quantum leap in the underlying technolgy for handling media.”
I don’t see anything that is far off from what they do in iPhoto or iTunes already. Well sure, compared to iPhoto you have the added dimension of time. And metadata is just a fancy word for information, you know.
[gary adcock] “I have never seen any application ( not just an NLE) that is as fundimentialy different from the ground up that anything else on the market. “
Really? I think it looks and functions quite a lot like iMovie. And btw different isn’t by definition the same as better…
[gary adcock] ” its about building for the future.”
Did you read what I wrote? My comment was that I was questioning where Apple intends to take FCP X in the future. What are they trying to build.Stephan
-
[gary adcock] “This is a really powerful, forward looking application, and like many 1.0 releases there are pieces that are not fully enabled.
“
But isn’t the big question where Apple is heading with this new product? I’m sure the next version of FCP X will have a lot of new features. But I seriously doubt that they will be the features that are important to me, being a member of a niche market.Final Cut Pro and the studio bundle has always evolved towards the high end professional market. Color, DVD Studio PRO, Cinema tools and Compressor were/are not really useful or even accessible for the average Joe. But they added value for the professionals. This new product seems aimed at a different market. I’m absolutely not saying that democratization of video creation is a bad thing. But when implementing export to Vimeo is more important than exporting an EDL it shows where Apple’s focus is.
They have created great value in the FCP brand and they are using that brand to push a product that to me appears aimed at the broader consumer/prosumer market. It makes perfect business sense. And in that sense I applaud them for doing it.
Stephan
-
Or why not just call it iMovie Pro? That’s essentially what it is.The UI and magnetic timeline is from iMovie. The entire media handling structure based on Events is from iMovie. They chose to implement importing of iMovie projects and Events, but skipped any kind of backwards compatibility with FCP 7.
But to be fair the I and O shortcuts are from FCP.
Stephan
-
It seems that you can have any number of different cuts. They are just called projects. And all the cuts you ever did are always present, even years later. (Unless they are on a separate drive and that drive isn’t connected.)
Auditions seem great for trying out different takes, but not try out completely different edits.
Stephan
-
[Paul Dickin] “Underneath the hood Apple is doing EVERYTHING differently, so the old concepts of QuickTime media and XML projects is totally GONE.”
[Paul Dickin] “quite unlike the project concept we have known.”
But Paul I’m not talking about under the hood stuff. I’m talking about how media and projects are handled on the UI level. I really don’t care how Apple chooses to implement project handling on the OS level. I work with projects. My clients bring me projects to edit.
FYI I have read the AV Foundation documentation, and I do understand the technical jargon. I have developed a number of in house applications using Cocoa frameworks.
(And btw the media is still stored as QT media.)
Stephan
-
How did you create the mask?
Are you freezing the image after you applied the mask? If so, try freezing the image first and applying the mask to the freeze frame.
Stephan
-
Why didn’t they just call it iMovie Pro…
(Running to take shelter as the sky falls….)
😉
Stephan