[Stevo Chang]

It’s not so much panic and paranoia as it is the impact that the discontinuation of an entire pipeline of FCP is having on professionals who have spent time and money fitting FCP into their professional workflows. And at it’s core, it is the philosphical paradigm shift that Apple is proposing with FCPX.

Implementing FCPX is not as simple as installing FCPX and continuing working your professional workflow like any other day. It is the fact that we have to unlearn how to edit professionally, and learn to work within the limitations of a trackless iMovie platform that FCPX is based on.

And before anyone argues that FCPX is not iMovie, just look at the similarity between FCPX and iMovie UI and the fact that FCPX only imports iMovie project files and will never import FCP7 files, not to mention the price point of $299. All this clearly indicates that FCPX was built from the iMovie platform and is targeted for iMovie users who need more “oompf”.

With that being said, if you want to say FCPX is the future of editing, then you must say that iMovie is the future of editing. And the limitations of the iMovie platform is what irks most professionals.

The stripped down functionality of the iMovie platform forces professionals to convert to the limitations of the iMovie platform that is FCPX. And instead of working in the manual flexibility of FCP7, professionals working in FCPX must find workarounds and purchase plug-ins to do what FCP7 could do innately.

For most professionals, the conversion from an FCP7 pipeline to an iMovie-based FCPX pipeline is more arduous and costly than switching to Avid or Adobe platforms.

Now people can argue the technical pluses and minuses or the price of FCPX or the promise of updates all they want, but the main stumbling block is that not only does FCPX require technical re-training, but it requires a radical philosophical re-indoctrination of the editing process (such as changing project files to events, etc).

And when you look at the philosophy behind FCPX, and you look at its creators, you have to ask yourself where the creators of FCPX came from? They came from iMovie. And since FCPX is based on the iMovie platform, you have to ask, what is the philosophy of iMovie?

The answer is iMovie was built for the consumer, not the professional. Therefore, since FCPX is based on iMovie and built by the creators of iMovie, you can see that the philosophy of FCPX is that it is built for the consumer – not the professional. And based on this philosophy, the creators of the iMovie platform have done away with the manual flexibility that professionals require to do their jobs, interpretting them as ‘hinderances’ probably because the creators of iMovie/FCPX interpret manual flexibility as something consumers don’t require.

Not to get further into semantics here, but even the definition of a ‘professional’ has been philosophically re-defined by Steve Jobs, skewing the term ‘professional’ to bleed into Apple’s general consumerist base.

And that is the core of the “FCPX is a non-professional platform” argument and the reason why professionals are so upset. It is because the philosophy of FCPX and Apple’s definition of a professional has shifted, and is forcing professionals to either buy into the limitations of the iMovie platform, or get out. There is no middle ground.

*Just to clarify, when I say professional workflow, I mean all the other aspects of post-production that constitutes a professional production. I know that many of this forum’s members are one-man/woman shops that might require only the use of FCPX for their sound design and color grading needs, but for those of us who work in high-end post-production facilities, a professional workflow goes beyond just an editing suite.

[Stevo Chang]

Sweeet – thanks for the link to the demo! That clarifies my concern for OMF/XML output to ProTools.

[Stevo Chang]

From what I’ve gathered from FCPX, it looks like FCPX is based on iMovie’s UI and database infrastructure. So even though Apple claims in their FAQ that OMF/XML output will be re-instated in concurrent updates, I wonder if the ‘trackless’ nature of FCPX/iMovie infrastructure means it won’t translate as needed to the multiple track editing that sound designers require in their non-apple professional sound studio pipeline.

Essentially, my fear is that the iMovie-based programming infrastructure being the reason why FCP7 files can’t be imported into FCPX, might also be a problem in an FCPX OMF/XML export.

Also, as this CNN news story points out, Apple is moving towards a more closed system where all Apple services and software will be pushed through their Appstore. As a matter of fact, OSX Lion will only be available for purchase and install through the Mac Appstore just like FCPX:
https://www.cnn.com/video/data/2.0/video/business/2011/06/30/lake.apple.app.battle.cnn.html

I wonder if part of the reason for the stripped features of FCPX was to allow a manageable download from the App Store, and if future FCPX updates or “add-on features” such as Multi-cam will be monetized?

With the “paradigm-shift” that is FCPX, professionals have to speculate what the future of Apple computing will be since Apple’s intended path is to push everything through the App Store. How will this affect non-Apple developers? Will Adobe be forced to ‘strip down’ their products to develop for an App Store-driven OS so that Apple can take 30% commission off of that? And will Adobe and 3rd party developers be game with that? Or will they consider such development as too much of a quality-loss/financial loss and cease developing for the Apple platform altogether?

As you can see, the FCPX discussion has more far-reaching repercussions not just to the editing world, but the creative professional world in general — and the future of Apple computing as a whole. FCPX might just be the beginning.

Until Apple releases updates with the necessary plug-ins and the future of Apple computing becomes more clear, it might be safer to wait to see the outcome. But I wonder how long Apple can afford to wait as it seems that many professional shops aren’t waiting around and are already ditching the Apple platform altogether.

[Stevo Chang]

The new Final Cut Pro X FAQ page offers a workaround solution for digitizing tape:

“In addition, companies like AJA and Blackmagic offer free deck control software that allows you to capture from tape and output to tape.”

https://www.apple.com/finalcutpro/faq/

[Stevo Chang]

Yeah — it’s a trade-off between noise/desaturation and low-light setting.

My standards tend to be — on the 5D, I try to shoot no higher than 400ASA. But in low-light settings when i have to open my aperture wide open (which is often), i notice that there is still quite a bit of noise present.

The other factor contributing to noise is the CRI (Color Range Index) or quality of light. So if you use an Arri Fresnel or any studio-quality light for that matter, they tend to be a higher CRI (btwn 90-100) which is what you want to be shooting in. But a sodium-chloride street lamp, for instance has a much lower CRI (btwn 20-30) — and I’ve noticed that my subjects in lower CRI-quality lights tend to be much noisier, let alone the color shift associated with those lights.

To trim down on the noise, I tend to de-noise it in After Effects, which helps to a certain degree.

But yes, generally speaking, you want to be shooting at a slower ASA with high CRI-quality lights.

Hope this helps?

Director | Writer | DP | VFX Sup |
Aspiring Carpenter | Unintentional 1-man Crew

[Stevo Chang]

Hmm… i believe it is possible to connect your 5Dmk2 to a computer and view live-view mode from it… i believe it just requires installing the Canon EOS software onto your laptop:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f2tNw0HoWGI

There’s also a way to use your ipad or iphone as a monitor as well:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CXZ_AcgIyT8

But there’s a lag from real-time and what’s showing up on your monitor.

Hope this helps?

Director | Writer | DP | VFX Sup |
Aspiring Carpenter | Unintentional 1-man Crew

Some contents or functionalities here are not available due to your cookie preferences!

This happens because the functionality/content marked as “Google Youtube” uses cookies that you choosed to keep disabled. In order to view this content or use this functionality, please enable cookies: click here to open your cookie preferences.

[Stevo Chang]

Hmm… Yeah, i think the moment u utilize the composite/HDMI port, it automatically shuts the onscreen monitors off…

If you need a 2-monitor solution, u could always get an HDMI splitter which splits the HDMI signal into 2 outputs – thus letting u attach a second monitor to the solution.

Unless… I can’t remember WHERE i saw it, but someone rigged a video tap from their 5D’s eyepiece which left the on-board monitor “on”… but it was a custom build, so I don’t know where to purchase it…

Jag35 sells a pretty cheap HDMI-splitter – altho i’ve never personally used it:
https://jag35.com/index.php/hdmisplitter.html

If you need portable power, they also sell a portable battery pack for it, altho its AA and not lithium-ion:
https://jag35.com/index.php/hdmibattery.html

Hope this helps?

Director | Writer | DP | VFX Sup |
Aspiring Carpenter | Unintentional 1-man Crew

[Stevo Chang]

*squeak* *squeak*

Director | Writer | DP | VFX Sup |
Aspiring Carpenter | Unintentional 1-man Crew

[Stevo Chang]

No – I don’t take credit for Apple’s announcements via their FAQ page — we ALL should take credit for that!

I would like to think that regardless of one’s stance on the FCPX discussion, the fact that the conversation is continuing to be spoken, is the reason for Apple’s release of their FAQ. It is Apple’s attempt to show users that they hear our concerns.

I wish there was a more clear discussion that could be spoken between Apple and ALL users of the FCP-line. But the best we can do, is approach these forums in an attempt to have our concerns heard… and eventually answered.

At least releasing the FAQ page is a more direct response than through the New York Times, right? Plus, it shines some light on what “officially” can and cannot be accomplished with FCPX.

My major concern was that FCPX was a walled-off garden – and although it’s iMovie-esque UI might cause some issues with OMF’s and XML exports, at least there’s a way for FCPX to communicate to third-party post-production platforms. This is huge in my opinion!

[Stevo Chang]

Oops — i didnt mean ‘accidentally’ — i meant ‘incidentally’ — sorry – dont mean to hate!

Director | Writer | DP | VFX Sup |
Aspiring Carpenter | Unintentional 1-man Crew