or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Software › Mac Software › Apple posts Final Cut Pro X FAQ: FCP7 will work with Lion, import not possible
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Apple posts Final Cut Pro X FAQ: FCP7 will work with Lion, import not possible - Page 3

post #81 of 135
Did you just wake up from a coma?

Quote:
Originally Posted by dacloo View Post

They can open FCP7 projects with FCPX, they can open FCPX projects with FCPX.
What's the problem?
No pro switches to a radically new architecture during a production.
So there's no problem.
post #82 of 135
Quote:
Originally Posted by IronHeadSlim View Post

Did you just wake up from a coma?

Amazing eh?
Been using Apple since Apple ][ - Long on AAPL so biased
nMac Pro 6 Core, MacBookPro i7, MacBookPro i5, iPhones 5 and 5s, iPad Air, 2013 Mac mini, SE30, IIFx, Towers; G4 & G3.
Reply
Been using Apple since Apple ][ - Long on AAPL so biased
nMac Pro 6 Core, MacBookPro i7, MacBookPro i5, iPhones 5 and 5s, iPad Air, 2013 Mac mini, SE30, IIFx, Towers; G4 & G3.
Reply
post #83 of 135
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fake_William_Shatner View Post

>> The CHANGES to workflow/production are going to be staggering once those types of capabilities become ubiquitous -- kind of like when we were first able to easily search for things on our hard drive. But it takes a LOT of infrastructure to make this work;
Face Recognition
Speech to Text that works
Voice recognition that identifies the speaker.
XML and a text-based file system to allow these different features to communicate.
Some sort of "cloud" infrastructure that allows editing, reviewing and grabbing files to be transparent.
True multi-threaded multi-core support that allows for networked computers to "pitch in" without getting in the way of dedicated work (Grand Central),
All image and sound manipulations to be processed in optimized engines that can take advantage of graphic cards or OTHER computing power (Open GL, Open GL, etc.)

This post is interesting and certainly makes a good case for the direction FCX is heading.

My problem with all this, though, is that it all smells a little too much like the sort of stuff that sent Microsoft into a tailspin - the annoying autocorrect features and 'it looks like you're writing a **** - do you want me to format it for you' stuff that is great in theory but requires intelligent technology to advance significantly before it actually works.

The difference is that in Microsoft's case, the desire to progress at all costs led to terrible bloat. They added the annoying 'innovative' suff on top of the old, reliable functionality. Apple, above all, hates bloat, so they're cutting instead. And, though techology has moved on, the fact remains that intelligent computing has a long way to go before it's up to the task of second guessing humans. And that's going to be a problem, because, in Apple's case, the old, reliable stuff isn't there any more.

What worries me is that FCX is not the only instance of Apple heading in this direction. The latest version of XCode has similar issues and an equally high percentage of detractors in the relevant community. They have removed or made common features difficult to access while adding in 'intelligent' features that really don't work. These are not things the user just needs to get used to - the new version of XCode has been out for months and is simply not as usable as the previous version. The same could be said for the direction the last iPhoto release went in.

What is more, even if you ignore the 'intelligent' aspect of Apple's recent software, I'm detecting that Apple is making more silly mistakes even in it's general interface design. There are some blatently silly design decisions in XCode (tiny icons for frequently used features, immovable frames that are narrow where they should be wide) and iPhoto (having to enter 'edit' mode to zoom into an image). What's more, they are clearly streatched thin in major software categories - iWork has been overdue for an update for a year now.

All this adds up to an Apple that looks very good in their main money generating areas - iOS essentially - but cracks are definitely beginning to show elsewhere. I no longer have faith that Apple sees the best path for their professional and perhaps even their more general software.

And that matters more than it might seem, because, for all their great design and marketing savvy, at the core of the Apple brand are cool people doing creative things. People who other people aspire to be. If Apple gives them the middle finger, it wont be an immediate problem, but it will lead to a slow but inevitable errosion in the Apple brand image. One that no amount of clever marketing will be able to disguise.
post #84 of 135
Quote:
Originally Posted by Swift View Post

My perspective on that is, the revolution is going on whether you get to edit a new series about the Kardashians or not. Web streaming video, file video, is the new reality. Broadcast TV, cable, and all the reasons that industry was once a 'license to print money,' are a stale industry.

I'm surprised the TV industry didn't catch on sooner. With web streaming, the content providers have much more control over what they can force users to watch. For example, no more recording shows for offline viewing. And no more skipping of commercials. If the browser reloads the page, then the user gets to watch even more commercials before he can return to what he was watching before. If the user tries to rewind or fast forward, the studio can either prevent skipping or force users to watch more commercials first. If the user pauses the video, the studio can replace the still frame with ads and banners. If users have slower internet connections, it just means they will spend more time viewing the commercials.
post #85 of 135
"Instead, assume that there are many, many smart people on the team responsible for this product, people who have likely been obsessing over it for many years. Assume that there is a roadmap many years long in either direction. Assume that at least most of the backlash over the release of Final Cut Pro X was anticipated, and that Apple probably believes quite firmly they have in mind the best interests not only of the editors who use their software, but also of the medium as a whole. It’s not hyperbole to say that Apple writes history with their products. So let’s take it as read that some interesting thought has gone into this process."

"I will speculate that Final Cut Pro has just ceased to be about the craft of editing because Apple has little interest in the craft of editing. I will argue that Apple has a giant interest in the craft of distributing, of publishing. This is where it aims to enable an entirely new market of content built on its new infrastructure. YouTube is a distribution platform that has changed the world by changing the face of media by changing the mechanisms for distribution. Apple aims to do the same by positioning itself as the de facto tool for content generation and distribution, content which will in turn benefit its distribution method for external content. Apple created iTunes first as a tool for collecting one’s “own” media, and THEN evolved into a platform for distributing external media (very valuable content) through the store. With Final Cut Pro X, Apple aims to establish a platform through which users can generate content internally and therefore become even more accustomed/adaptable to the mechanisms of media consumption."

“Final Cut Pro: The New Class”
post #86 of 135
Quote:
Originally Posted by delany View Post

This post is interesting and certainly makes a good case for the direction FCX is heading.

My problem with all this, though, is that it all smells a little too much like the sort of stuff that sent Microsoft into a tailspin - the annoying autocorrect features and 'it looks like you're writing a **** - do you want me to format it for you' stuff that is great in theory but requires intelligent technology to advance significantly before it actually works.

So far, with FCPX, Apple seems to be giving several options when importing media:
1) No Analysis and no Autocorrection
2) Analysis and Autocorrection of some things (background noise and hum removal) this seems to work well
3) Analyze and do nothing.

At anytime you can Analyze any clips that haven't been analyzed, Then apply or remove the optional corrections.

All in all it seems flexible and capable!

...then this little paperclip pops up...

Quote:
The difference is that in Microsoft's case, the desire to progress at all costs led to terrible bloat. They added the annoying 'innovative' suff on top of the old, reliable functionality. Apple, above all, hates bloat, so they're cutting instead. And, though techology has moved on, the fact remains that intelligent computing has a long way to go before it's up to the task of second guessing humans. And that's going to be a problem, because, in Apple's case, the old, reliable stuff isn't there any more.

What worries me is that FCX is not the only instance of Apple heading in this direction. The latest version of XCode has similar issues and an equally high percentage of detractors in the relevant community. They have removed or made common features difficult to access while adding in 'intelligent' features that really don't work. These are not things the user just needs to get used to - the new version of XCode has been out for months and is simply not as usable as the previous version. The same could be said for the direction the last iPhoto release went in.

What is more, even if you ignore the 'intelligent' aspect of Apple's recent software, I'm detecting that Apple is making more silly mistakes even in it's general interface design. There are some blatently silly design decisions in XCode (tiny icons for frequently used features, immovable frames that are narrow where they should be wide) and iPhoto (having to enter 'edit' mode to zoom into an image). What's more, they are clearly streatched thin in major software categories - iWork has been overdue for an update for a year now.

All this adds up to an Apple that looks very good in their main money generating areas - iOS essentially - but cracks are definitely beginning to show elsewhere. I no longer have faith that Apple sees the best path for their professional and perhaps even their more general software.

And that matters more than it might seem, because, for all their great design and marketing savvy, at the core of the Apple brand are cool people doing creative things. People who other people aspire to be. If Apple gives them the middle finger, it wont be an immediate problem, but it will lead to a slow but inevitable errosion in the Apple brand image. One that no amount of clever marketing will be able to disguise.

I agree some of the interface decisions in things like XCode 4 and Pages are head scratchers.

I suspect that Apple sees a time when multi touch and stylus will see a lot more use on devices attached to the desktop machines -- and are experimenting to see what works.

In FCPX, for example there are some controls that are so small that you can hardly see them without zooming in, which, thankfully, is easy. Other things like the controls for adjusting a shape mask are so big that you could do it with a toe or an elbow.
"...The calm is on the water and part of us would linger by the shore, For ships are safe in harbor, but that's not what ships are for."
- Michael Lille -
Reply
"...The calm is on the water and part of us would linger by the shore, For ships are safe in harbor, but that's not what ships are for."
- Michael Lille -
Reply
post #87 of 135
It amazes me from such the overwhelming positive response to the Final Cut Pro X keynote at NAB that none of the attendees, and I would assume many were professionals, have yet to express the disdain that is shown here.

As far as I can tell only a couple of attendees have published any reviews after trying the product to date and both were quite favorable.

Certainly, because of anonymity, anyone can declare that they are a professional. But how anybody, even the best in the business, could declare such overt opinions not having spent a second trying the software is beyond me. And for those that did, making a judgement call even after a couple of hours is equally mindboggling.

Obviously, at least to me, most here are simply trolling. As evidenced, even after being corrected, they continue to propagate their lies.

Again, I challenge anyone who declares otherwise to tell the likes of David Leitner that his experience on Final Cut Pro X is not worthy of consideration. For you so-called professionals who profess to have tried FCPX publish your findings. But you'll have to identify yourselves. Otherwise, they are not worth a plug nickel.

* http://www.filmmakermagazine.com/new...first-musings/
post #88 of 135
Quote:
Originally Posted by Onhka View Post

It amazes me from such the overwhelming positive response to the Final Cut Pro X keynote at NAB that none of the attendees, and I would assume many were professionals, have yet to express the disdain that is shown here.

As far as I can tell only a couple of attendees have published any reviews after trying the product to date and both were quite favorable.

Certainly, because of anonymity, anyone can declare that they are a professional. But how anybody, even the best in the business, could declare such overt opinions not having spent a second trying the software is beyond me. And for those that did, making a judgement call even after a couple of hours is equally mindboggling.

Obviously, at least to me, most here are simply trolling. As evidenced, even after being corrected, they continue to propagate their lies.

Again, I challenge anyone who declares otherwise to tell the likes of David Leitner that his experience on Final Cut Pro X is not worthy of consideration. For you so-called professionals who profess to have tried FCPX publish your findings. But you'll have to identify yourselves. Otherwise, they are not worth a plug nickel.

* http://www.filmmakermagazine.com/new...first-musings/

Oddly, I can't find the link... But there was video of a panel discussion with about 10 Pos at the FCPUG Supermeet, a day before the Apple presos.

Several of the pros (likely saw the early pre-announce at Apple HQ) were highly critical of FCPX and specifically pointed out things FCPX couldn't do and that FCPX would not fit into the workflow for many pros.

Others were totally impressed and said the could begin using it immedistely.

Most saw it as an incomplete product, but that it defined the future of video editing and srory-telling.

I suspect they (the panel) were fairly representative of the opinions/feelings that we see expressed here and on other blogs/forums.
"...The calm is on the water and part of us would linger by the shore, For ships are safe in harbor, but that's not what ships are for."
- Michael Lille -
Reply
"...The calm is on the water and part of us would linger by the shore, For ships are safe in harbor, but that's not what ships are for."
- Michael Lille -
Reply
post #89 of 135
Quote:
Originally Posted by boeyc15 View Post

To give some perspective for everyone, how well did adobe and avid translation to 64 bit? Their feature upgrade time line etc? Just curious, I have no idea.

Also, could you expand on 'comprehensive architecture'? What is missing from the 'core architecture' that they did not at least attempt to address in their fax? Again curious, I'm not a editor, just trying to understand.


Avid DS has been 64 bit since 2007. What a wonderful system. There was no real transition to speak of.

Media composer V5.5 is said to be the last version of Avid in 32 bit.
turtles all the way up and turtles all the way down... infinite context means infinite possibility
Reply
turtles all the way up and turtles all the way down... infinite context means infinite possibility
Reply
post #90 of 135
Quote:
Originally Posted by TenoBell View Post

"I will speculate that Final Cut Pro has just ceased to be about the craft of editing because Apple has little interest in the craft of editing. I will argue that Apple has a giant interest in the craft of distributing, of publishing. This is where it aims to enable an entirely new market of content built on its new infrastructure. YouTube is a distribution platform that has changed the world by changing the face of media by changing the mechanisms for distribution. Apple aims to do the same by positioning itself as the de facto tool for content generation and distribution, content which will in turn benefit its distribution method for external content. Apple created iTunes first as a tool for collecting ones own media, and THEN evolved into a platform for distributing external media (very valuable content) through the store. With Final Cut Pro X, Apple aims to establish a platform through which users can generate content internally and therefore become even more accustomed/adaptable to the mechanisms of media consumption."

Final Cut Pro: The New Class

This is a very smart piece you link to. Gruber also linked to it. Worth reading the whole thing. It implies that the future of moving picture will be in everybody's hands now, not a centralized entertainment industry. FCP X is designed for the masses -- i think that is the implication. He seems to be saying that Apple wants to sell content from the masses to the masses. Could they be thinking of fodder for their Apple TV set?

I have no problem with all this, but I need real tracks on a real timeline. At least I'm pretty sure I do, haven't tried X's alternative metaphor because, interestingly, it is not in the Apple store yet. Are they holding it back for some reason?
post #91 of 135
Quote:
Originally Posted by Flaneur View Post

This is a very smart piece you link to. Gruber also linked to it. Worth reading the whole thing. It implies that the future of moving picture will be in everybody's hands now, not a centralized entertainment industry. FCP X is designed for the masses -- i think that is the implication. He seems to be saying that Apple wants to sell content from the masses to the masses. Could they be thinking of fodder for their Apple TV set?

I have no problem with all this, but I need real tracks on a real timeline. At least I'm pretty sure I do, haven't tried X's alternative metaphor because, interestingly, it is not in the Apple store yet. Are they holding it back for some reason?

I think he's right at the core. What we've seen recently with technologies like Blu-ray is a lack of consideration for smaller publishing houses. When Steve said it was a "...bag of hurt" he wasn't just talking about the implementation into computer but the whole ideology behind it.

Sure we got HD video but we also got a format with such a preponderance of DRM it actually against licensing mandates to ship a disc without DRM.

With the network (Internet) become more pervasive it yields more connected homes which means that the playback of digital files need not be locked tight on a disc behind licensing/extortion schemes.

Final Cut Pro X eschews the old in favor of file based capture, digital export to files that can be downloaded or streamed and a move away from older tape based ideology.

It's about time.
He's a mod so he has a few extra vBulletin privileges. That doesn't mean he should stop posting or should start acting like Digital Jesus.
- SolipsismX
Reply
He's a mod so he has a few extra vBulletin privileges. That doesn't mean he should stop posting or should start acting like Digital Jesus.
- SolipsismX
Reply
post #92 of 135
Quote:
Originally Posted by hmurchison View Post

I think he's right at the core. What we've seen recently with technologies like Blu-ray is a lack of consideration for smaller publishing houses. When Steve said it was a "...bag of hurt" he wasn't just talking about the implementation into computer but the whole ideology behind it.

Sure we got HD video but we also got a format with such a preponderance of DRM it actually against licensing mandates to ship a disc without DRM.

With the network (Internet) become more pervasive it yields more connected homes which means that the playback of digital files need not be locked tight on a disc behind licensing/extortion schemes.

Final Cut Pro X eschews the old in favor of file based capture, digital export to files that can be downloaded or streamed and a move away from older tape based ideology.

It's about time.

DRM will always exist in some form, unless you get a pirated copy. It's only a bag of hurt when it doesn't benefit Apple, or at least more heavily in their odds.

Example, the purchased Tv shows I have in iTunes I can't open in anything other than iTunes. Keeps it locked to Apple's ecosystem, not without cracking it somehow (which is probably no different than MS' Marketplace for example, it's not any better either). Still locked like lots of other media.
post #93 of 135
What I object to are licensing terms like those that Sony foisted upon people that
states I "must" use DRM if I wish to publish on Blu-ray.

I have to choice to download video content from multiple providers with neither being
the defacto standard so the lock in is a bit more palatable IMO than telling someone that
wants to deliver a Blu-ray disc of of corporate promotional items or whatever getting told
they have to lock down their disc.

I have a Blu-ray player but frankly I hope it's the last optical format I have to put up with and I wouldn't care if it never used another Sony product.
He's a mod so he has a few extra vBulletin privileges. That doesn't mean he should stop posting or should start acting like Digital Jesus.
- SolipsismX
Reply
He's a mod so he has a few extra vBulletin privileges. That doesn't mean he should stop posting or should start acting like Digital Jesus.
- SolipsismX
Reply
post #94 of 135
Quote:
Originally Posted by IronHeadSlim View Post

There was no need for the last line of the first post. He had already made his point.

I am insulting everyone who adds ad hominem attacks that make no point.

Like yours?
post #95 of 135
A little off-topic and a newbie question to be sure, but what is the best software I can use to work with vob files? I would like to import them without transcoding (or at least transcoding without losing quality) and then edit them. Can I use FCP X for it, or some other progam?
post #96 of 135
Quote:
Originally Posted by delany View Post

This post is interesting and certainly makes a good case for the direction FCX is heading.

(clipped but also good stuff!)
And that matters more than it might seem, because, for all their great design and marketing savvy, at the core of the Apple brand are cool people doing creative things. People who other people aspire to be. If Apple gives them the middle finger, it wont be an immediate problem, but it will lead to a slow but inevitable errosion in the Apple brand image. One that no amount of clever marketing will be able to disguise.

^^^ Nice take on the current Apple software conundrum ^^^

I'm also seeing some odd choices by Apple in re: their very own HUD guidelines not being honored.

Usability first for example. It is well known by Apple even, that color added to shapes, as with icons, helps users differentiate and choose faster. It is why logos and corporate image branding is such a demanding art (my 1st profession actually).

Then why does Apple pull color out of it's most used application, iTunes? I personally have no problem with it, but many others do.

Naturally nobody wants the cheesiness of Microsoft or personalized Android screens... but a little color goes a long way.

Stranger yet is when Apple does go the "chee-wiz" route and adds faux leather and torn pages to calender, address book, etc... and you go, "WTF"?

Microscopic interface buttons and text is also starting to where thin.

Whatever did happen to resolution independence? It was there at one time, waiting to be turned on similar to XML in/output in FCPX (whoo... got back on topic with that one ).

The above notes do pertain to FCPX, because you do have to ask why Apple doesn't give the "option" of having different views. Stacked view, then with a click, traditional track line. Imagine OSX if we could only view files in CoverFlow? While nice, there are times list, icon, or column view are the better "choice".

Choice. An all encompassing word. Maybe better would be a selective word like alternative. At the moment regardless of noun, it appears at Apple there are the pre-qualifying adjectives, "limited" or "exclusive" to deal with within their software offerings. Or not...?

PS: I WILL find a way to change that faux-leather look!!!!
Knowing what you are talking about would help you understand why you are so wrong. By "Realistic" - AI Forum Member
Reply
Knowing what you are talking about would help you understand why you are so wrong. By "Realistic" - AI Forum Member
Reply
post #97 of 135
Quote:
Originally Posted by steveH View Post

Out here, the mini stores don't have any on display, the full-size stores all do.

Well I haven't seen one in the big european stores at least...
post #98 of 135
Quote:
Originally Posted by Apple ][ View Post

I think that people are wasting their time signing any petition. Apple knows fully well what it is doing and I'm sure they were aware of some backlash coming. They made their strategic decision and I doubt that they will budge.

Nature, the free market and capitalism will solve any problems. Those people who don't like the new Final Cut Pro X or find it unusable will migrate towards something else and those people who like the new Final Cut Pro X will use it.

I'm don't really do video, I'm more into music. If Apple comes out with a new Logic that is completely different, I will simply have to choose if I will continue using it or if I will move to something else. If a new Logic version ends up looking more like Garageband and it is targeted more towards talentless people uploading their crappy, amateurish music on youtube, then I will probably move to something else.

I think you miss the point about migration. I also do music but with DP7, I recently had to abandon tc electronic because of all theie shenanigans, it took me months. I held off moving to logic for similar reasons. A professional studio is only going to make these decisions on a very large time scale so they don't chop and change - its a huge waste of man hours for a start and of no added value. Hence loyalty in music and video software at least at the high end is part of the course.

Think of these video guys with huge archives of huge files - it doesn't bare thinking about. This reminds me of office 2007 not being able to save as the 95 version or whatever but even that could OPEN the older docs. Just times that by GB files with no way to migrate. Fantastic, way to go apple.

ps I am a big apple fan normally.
post #99 of 135
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jonamac View Post

How would option 2 have helped you? The 'pros' would all still be up in arms.

Point I was making is that Apple positioned FCPX as a the next version of FCP7 when clearly it's not. It's an entirely new product. Even with all the upgrades they are promising you still won't be able to import your FCP7 files into FCPX. Pro users can't just switch like that. They need an upgrade path, time to transition, etc. Whatever they call it it's not FCP as we know it.

Apple always tries to hide the bad news, hope nobody will make too much of a fuss. Well it backfired this time. I maintain that they should have said "We are retiring FCP with version 7, we'll keep supporting it and bug fixing for the next x years, in the meantime here's our new product xxx (whatever they call it). It's the future. When you finished all your current projects why not move across in your own time".
post #100 of 135
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dick Applebaum View Post

Oddly, I can't find the link... But there was video of a panel discussion with about 10 Pos at the FCPUG Supermeet, a day before the Apple presos.

Several of the pros (likely saw the early pre-announce at Apple HQ) were highly critical of FCPX and specifically pointed out things FCPX couldn't do and that FCPX would not fit into the workflow for many pros.

Others were totally impressed and said the could begin using it immedistely.

Most saw it as an incomplete product, but that it defined the future of video editing and srory-telling.

I suspect they (the panel) were fairly representative of the opinions/feelings that we see expressed here and on other blogs/forums.

Try this link. http://www.filmmakermagazine.com/new...first-musings/

Could you supply the link to the video of the panel discussion?

Interesting that you, "…suspect they (the panel) were fairly representative of the opinions/feelings that we see expressed here and on other blogs/forums," even before the product was available or even shown?
post #101 of 135
Quote:
Originally Posted by Flaneur View Post

This is a very smart piece you link to. Gruber also linked to it. Worth reading the whole thing. It implies that the future of moving picture will be in everybody's hands now, not a centralized entertainment industry. FCP X is designed for the masses -- i think that is the implication. He seems to be saying that Apple wants to sell content from the masses to the masses. Could they be thinking of fodder for their Apple TV set?

I think this a smart guy trying make sense of it all but Garageband has not revolutionised the distribution of music (though it might have helped some beginners to start producing music and thus might have kickstarted some 'professional' careers, with professional meaning people gaining an audience, paying or non-paying).

I think Apple simply overshot, they went into the right direction but went too far (for the time being, hopefully reality catches up to them).
post #102 of 135
Yes.


But he started it.


Quote:
Originally Posted by lowededwookie View Post

Like yours?
post #103 of 135
Quote:
Originally Posted by noirdesir View Post

I think this a smart guy trying make sense of it all but Garageband has not revolutionised the distribution of music (though it might have helped some beginners to start producing music and thus might have kickstarted some 'professional' careers, with professional meaning people gaining an audience, paying or non-paying).

I think Apple simply overshot, they went into the right direction but went too far (for the time being, hopefully reality catches up to them).

I work close to a hotel/convention center that have housed some pretty notable musicians and it is amazing the number that carry an Macbook Pro and/or an iPad and use Garageband.

Katy Perry, in particular might have a varying opinion for example. If I am not mistaken, her "Teenage Dream" was created in GarageBand for iPad. Usher apparently uses it too.
post #104 of 135
Quote:
Originally Posted by Flaneur View Post

It implies that the future of moving picture will be in everybody's hands now, not a centralized entertainment industry. FCP X is designed for the masses -- i think that is the implication.

That's fine. Wonderful actually. But does the centralized entertainment industry have a place in this glorious future? According to many on this board, Avid is stodgy and behind the times and Premiere is akin to Windows Movie Maker, and pros use FCP exclusively.
post #105 of 135
Quote:
Originally Posted by Flaneur View Post

...the future of moving picture will be in everybody's hands now, not a centralized entertainment industry. FCP X is designed for the masses -- i think that is the implication. He seems to be saying that Apple wants to sell content from the masses to the masses. Could they be thinking of fodder for their Apple TV set?

And the LaserWriter put publishing in the hands of the masses. And don't forget that Big Lots, with their $9.99 socket wrench set (with accompanying pliers and multi-tip screwdriver) put fixing one's own car into the hands of the masses.

Please... this romantic notion that the release to the masses of an art form or heretofore unattainable plateau is the harbinger of a new renaissance is merely a sales tactic. An artful one, but a sales pitch that cuts to the core of everyone who holds shoulda, coulda, woulda in the back of their head. It's the same as the home studio/music industry's promise of self fulfillment.

The "future" of moving picture has been in everybody's hands for the last 20 years. You can sit around a not create because your waiting for technology to catch up to your grandiose (but unrealized) plans, or you can do what creators do: CREATE with what you got!

As for content from the masses to the masses, it's already happening without Apple skimming $$ of the top. YouTube is free; can Apple re-bottle that pipeline? Dunno.

gc
post #106 of 135
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shaun, UK View Post

Point I was making is that Apple positioned FCPX as a the next version of FCP7 when clearly it's not. It's an entirely new product. Even with all the upgrades they are promising you still won't be able to import your FCP7 files into FCPX. Pro users can't just switch like that. They need an upgrade path, time to transition, etc. Whatever they call it it's not FCP as we know it.

Apple always tries to hide the bad news, hope nobody will make too much of a fuss. Well it backfired this time. I maintain that they should have said "We are retiring FCP with version 7, we'll keep supporting it and bug fixing for the next x years, in the meantime here's our new product xxx (whatever they call it). It's the future. When you finished all your current projects why not move across in your own time".

I can't seem to use AI's multi-quote response, so this post is kind of kludged together.


Let me see if I can address your 2 major points:


1) No Upgrade path and transition time

As discussed in my posts below, I believe that it is possible that a migration tool (FCP7 to FCPX) could be provided that would be equivalent to the migration capability from FCP7 to Premiere.

Apple, or a 3rd-party could supply this -- better Apple, IMO.

This weekend, I am gonna' play around with the needs of a FCP7 to FCPX migration. If it is possible, and nobody else does it, I will write one and make beaucoup big bucks


2) The way the announcement was made, hiding the bad news and it backfiring on Apple

What if Apple had just released FCPX as a "prototype" of a future replacement for FCP7 -- that some "pros" could begin using right away. What an equivocating dud of an announcement that would have -- "Oh yeah, great! I am real busy right now, but I'll have a look when I get around to it" would likely been the response of most pros, blogs and the media in general.

End of story...

By doing the announcement, as they did, Apple said: Listen! Here is where we see the future of video editing. We are going there as fast as we can.


It certainly got everyone's attention! Everyone (including Conan) seemed to have an opinion (or 12) and would tell anyone who would listen. AI members, who hadn't posted in years weighed in. The financial news was full of the FCPX controversy.

So, now, everyone knows where everyone else stands and why!



Now if Apple were to gracefully backpedal and:
-- make FCS available again-- say, for two years
-- offer a "best effort" FCP7 to FCPX migration tool


Would this whole scenario help Apple to accomplish the objectives they have set for adoption of FCPX?

Could they have done it better?

Hmmm.....


Quote:
Originally Posted by Original AI Article

Import
Can I import projects from Final Cut Pro 7 into Final Cut Pro X?

Final Cut Pro X includes an all-new project architecture structured around a trackless timeline and connected clips. In addition, Final Cut Pro X features new and redesigned audio effects, video effects, and color grading tools. Because of these changes, there is no way to translate or bring in old projects without changing or losing data. But if youre already working with Final Cut Pro 7, you can continue to do so after installing Final Cut Pro X, and Final Cut Pro 7 will work with Mac OS X Lion. You can also import your media files from previous versions into Final Cut Pro X.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dick Applebaum View Post

Based on limited FCPX experience and tutorials the highlighted text is true... as far as it goes.

But I think that with a "best effort" attempt Apple could provide a separate migration tool that took an FCP7 project and created a corresponding FCPX project:

-- The media from FCP7 could be copied (or optionally pointed to) and used to create equivalent events
-- Missing FCP7 organizational constructs such as bins and multi-sequence-projects could be handled with FCPX collections and naming conventions: ProjA,Seq1,Seq2 become ProjA-Seq1, ProjA-Seq2...
-- I believe the FCPX storyline construct could provide a reasonable approximation of the multiple track construct of an FCP7 sequence (FCPX doesn't have multiple tracks, but clips can be positioned above and below the storyline)
-- The clips in FCPX would maintain the same length and juxtaposition as the original FCP7 sequence.
-- Clips without equivalent FCPX effects could be tagged with an FCPX "To Do" marker to indicate what has been abandoned and what needs to be done done, e.g. "Missing XYZfx Karaoke Bouncing Ball effect".

With a migration tool, as described above, Apple could do the necessary grunt work/heavy lifting to move a legacy FCP7 project to FCPX.

As the robustness of FCPX grows the migration tool could be expanded to accomplish a more complete migration -- New 3rd-party FCPX effects could be applied with the same parameters as their FCP7 equivalents.

I assume that Apple must provide this tool, because I don't believe Apple has supplied a programmatic way for 3rd-parties to generate FCPX projects and position clips in the storyline (and other positions above and below).

Done properly, I believe that this would provide a level of comfort to pros with many legacy FCP7/FCS projects -- it gives them a path forward migrate legacy projects to the new technology as and when needed.


Quote:
Originally Posted by digitalclips View Post

I just updated the link about migration to a better page.

Yes I too would hate to see this go that way, especially to Adobe LOL. You could be rich if you create a utility from 7 to X

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dick Applebaum View Post

That's a pretty good list!

Well... Shit, Oh Dear...

I just watched the video that demonstrates conversion from FCP to Premiere and back.

As I posted earlier I believe Apple could provide a similar migration tool.

With what I know about FCPX it could handle the import of an FCP7 sequence equally as well as Premiere.

For now, some of the effects in FCPX may be missing -- but that should change quickly (there is quite a bit of activity on the <pro-apps-dev@lists.apple.com> mailing lists).


If that's all it takes then Apple will be remiss [crazy] if they don't supply (or let a 3rd-party supply) a migration tool -- "all-new project architecture structured around a trackless timeline"... shmimeline, Indeed!
"...The calm is on the water and part of us would linger by the shore, For ships are safe in harbor, but that's not what ships are for."
- Michael Lille -
Reply
"...The calm is on the water and part of us would linger by the shore, For ships are safe in harbor, but that's not what ships are for."
- Michael Lille -
Reply
post #107 of 135
Quote:
Originally Posted by Onhka View Post

I work close to a hotel/convention center that have housed some pretty notable musicians and it is amazing the number that carry an Macbook Pro and/or an iPad and use Garageband.

Katy Perry, in particular might have a varying opinion for example. If I am not mistaken, her "Teenage Dream" was created in GarageBand for iPad. Usher apparently uses it too.

GarageBand sounds like crap. Find an acoustically designed recording studio control room and play back GB material through a high quality monitoring system and anybody can hear how bad it is. I have a couple such rooms and have had to clean up and improve upon as much as possible GB tracks. As a scratchpad tool for jotting down ideas and trying out moving the bridge 8 bars later, it's fine, but as a production tool for material that is going to be released to an end user, it's woefully inadequate. Really.

One might go to GB for a particular sound in the same way you might boot up that old Ensoniq Mirage for some stale, gritty, low bit depth sample loops, but it's not a go to device in the studio.

gc
post #108 of 135
Quote:
Originally Posted by GordonComstock View Post

GarageBand sounds like crap. Find an acoustically designed recording studio control room and play back GB material through a high quality monitoring system and anybody can hear how bad it is. I have a couple such rooms and have had to clean up and improve upon as much as possible GB tracks. As a scratchpad tool for jotting down ideas and trying out moving the bridge 8 bars later, it's fine, but as a production tool for material that is going to be released to an end user, it's woefully inadequate. Really.

One might go to GB for a particular sound in the same way you might boot up that old Ensoniq Mirage for some stale, gritty, low bit depth sample loops, but it's not a go to device in the studio.

gc

Garageband was never position for high-end production. What the fuck is your problem?
post #109 of 135
Quote:
Originally Posted by Onhka View Post

Garageband was never position for high-end production. What the fuck is your problem?

My problem is the professional patina that people try to put on GB. You apparently agree with me. WTF is your problem?
post #110 of 135
Quote:
Originally Posted by Onhka View Post

Try this link. http://www.filmmakermagazine.com/new...first-musings/

Could you supply the link to the video of the panel discussion?

Interesting that you, "suspect they (the panel) were fairly representative of the opinions/feelings that we see expressed here and on other blogs/forums," even before the product was available or even shown?

Here's the link to the panel discussion:

http://vimeo.com/channels/editorslounge

The video is the top left one -- with all the guys on stools!
"...The calm is on the water and part of us would linger by the shore, For ships are safe in harbor, but that's not what ships are for."
- Michael Lille -
Reply
"...The calm is on the water and part of us would linger by the shore, For ships are safe in harbor, but that's not what ships are for."
- Michael Lille -
Reply
post #111 of 135
Quote:
Originally Posted by Flaneur View Post

It implies that the future of moving picture will be in everybody's hands now, not a centralized entertainment industry. FCP X is designed for the masses -- i think that is the implication.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Conrail View Post

That's fine. Wonderful actually. But does the centralized entertainment industry have a place in this glorious future? According to many on this board, Avid is stodgy and behind the times and Premiere is akin to Windows Movie Maker, and pros use FCP exclusively.

I consider myself more of a dilettante with video editing than a Prosumer.

I do videos for friends and family... often for my own amazement, or just because I want to find out and understand how something works, or how it's done.

I have lots of hours in FCP/FCS and sat through hours of tutorials, and manual reading, etc. -- with no formal education or experience with video editing.

I am technically oriented, not creative -- but when I see something creative, that grabs me, I want to understand: "How can I do that?"


All that said! I realize that there there are pros out there that I could learn from -- learn a lot from!

But, the more I learn about video editing, it seems there are:

1) technicians, like me, who know their way around the tool they use -- some better than others

2) creatives that know to take raw media and juxtapose, combine and modify them in such a way that sets a mood; creates anticipation, grabs your attention and involves you in their offering -- for lack of a better word, I call them story-tellers.


A simple analogy might be the comparison of a good typist to a good author...

But this isn't exactly complete, or a valid comparison.


A lot of the "creative" part of story telling comes from the producer who knows what he wants; the cameramen who shoot the actual footage; and finally the creative pro video editor / story teller. *

* this encompasses specialists in sound, coloring, effects, etc.

He is the one that turns the raw media into a composition that tells the story that was originally intended -- often using his own creativity to enhance the story beyond what was originally perceived.

To me the technicians, like myself, need to become proficient in the tools they use and be flexible to learn/use new tools as they become available -- or risk being left behind.

The creatives, do what they do, regardless (or in spite of) the tools they use -- they will always be in demand.


That's my 2 cents worth.


P.S. I want to learn story-telling. I believe there courses, at places like USC, that teach this.

Attending on-site college courses is not practical for me. Can anyone here recommend any good online courses in creative video editing and story-telling?

I know that this will not make me a "creative" -- but I would like to improve my video story-telling.


P.P.S.


As an example of something that grabbed me (in the late 1940s and still does) -- here is a video of the Gillette Cavalcade of sports. The leadin is what grabs me -- the first 25 seconds where they show a divided TV screen with several sports playing at the same time: If you had TV in the 1940s, you watched this show -- it was one of the few shows available among hours of test patterns.


Gillette Cavalcade of Sports - Boxing

Here is my 2009 FCP equivalent (the first 20 seconds or so):

Gile ette Red Bulls 2009 Season


It took me days to figure out how to do that -- I had never done much compositing.

Actually, the hardest part was finding the music


FInally, my granddaughter is creative -- proficient in some parts of photography, GarageBand, the latest iMovie, She is playing with FCPX.

I can see her having a good career in this "field" -- if it interests her.
"...The calm is on the water and part of us would linger by the shore, For ships are safe in harbor, but that's not what ships are for."
- Michael Lille -
Reply
"...The calm is on the water and part of us would linger by the shore, For ships are safe in harbor, but that's not what ships are for."
- Michael Lille -
Reply
post #112 of 135
Quote:
Originally Posted by Onhka View Post

Garageband was never position for high-end production. What the fuck is your problem?

Quote:
Originally Posted by GordonComstock View Post

My problem is the professional patina that people try to put on GB. You apparently agree with me. WTF is your problem?

Here's an example of GarageBand in the hands of a creative:

God Be With You (till we meet again) by Mystified

She does all the vocal parts as voiceovers -- AFAICT there are 4 voices singing at some parts.


Here's another example using GarageBand and iMovie in the hands of a creative:

If I Were A Boy - Beyoncé - ( SheenaMelwani )

What's interesting is the sound and video were captured in a studio, then GarageBand and iMovie were used to cut the video and publish it to YT,

Sheena does all the piano, vocal and editing in GarageBand and iMovie.

Sheena has since upgraded to Logic and will upgrade to FCPX.


My purpose in mentioning these is that I am convinced:

1) A pro can get the "results" regardless of the tool

2) A pro will select the best tool (available to him) for the job at hand

2) You don't need pro tools to get pro results


...so, both your WTFs aside -- what is important is the "pro" person
"...The calm is on the water and part of us would linger by the shore, For ships are safe in harbor, but that's not what ships are for."
- Michael Lille -
Reply
"...The calm is on the water and part of us would linger by the shore, For ships are safe in harbor, but that's not what ships are for."
- Michael Lille -
Reply
post #113 of 135
Quote:
Originally Posted by BestKeptSecret View Post

A little off-topic and a newbie question to be sure, but what is the best software I can use to work with vob files? I would like to import them without transcoding (or at least transcoding without losing quality) and then edit them. Can I use FCP X for it, or some other progam?

You can use MPEG Streamclip - I can't remember if you still need the MPEG-2 Quicktime codec. It will allow you to cut VOB and export the same, then put back into DVDSP if you want. It isn't frame-accurate though - the cuts go back to the start of the nearest GOP. It's not a huge deal but it can be as much as a couple of seconds away from where you want.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dick Applebaum

for lack of a better word, I call them story-tellers.

Another word would be the director. A lot of the places where FCPX is lacking is in the technical things, which don't really matter for the purpose of story-telling (besides multi-cam).

It makes a huge improvement in terms of just getting the footage (it's compatible with) in to start working. Nobody wants to even think about transcoding really because it's time-consuming and boring so getting that stage done without even thinking about it is great.

The Supermeet demo showed some nice features to help story-telling like for L/J edits. Having to push things around to prepare to make an edit slows you down.

You can see in the video of the people you posted what the real issue is. The one person who previewed it (though the others clearly had inside info) and thought it was awesome couldn't commit to saying he was prepared to install it in his facility because the answer was no - there's no volume licensing for a start. I don't think people have any problems with the new timeline and story-telling features, they are long overdue. The problem is that it just doesn't fit into collaborative workflows yet.

It may at some point but nobody knows when and right now, Apple don't have a product that does fit. There are also problems Apple hasn't said will even be fixed.

At the end of the day, people can go on about revolution and attach it to every dangerous move Apple makes. It's still just video editing. You film a bunch of stuff, you cut it up and you put it in a certain order to tell a story. Will their software make people produce better output? Not likely because that skill comes from the director. Having a program that doesn't get in your way certainly helps but what's the point if you can't actually integrate it into your workflow? That's the definition of unusable. Sure, when most of the issues get fixed, the fans will go 'see told you so, Apple know what they are doing' and everyone else will just go .
post #114 of 135
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dick Applebaum View Post

Here's another example using GarageBand and iMovie in the hands of a creative:

If I Were A Boy - Beyoncé - ( SheenaMelwani )

What's interesting is the sound and video were captured in a studio, then GarageBand and iMovie were used to cut the video and publish it to YT,

Sheena does all the piano, vocal and editing in GarageBand and iMovie.

Sheena has since upgraded to Logic and will upgrade to FCPX.

Do we have to go here?

Throughout this video, you can see a Digidesign ProControl in the background. It happens to be a 16 fader model, exactly like the two I own; both propped up against the wall since they've been replaced by D-Commands. The application on the video monitors is Pro Tools. The red button on the ProControl transport means that ProTools is recording. The record status lights indicate that 3 tracks are being recorded, one of them stereo (the keyboard?). The mic she's singing into is a U-87. I own a couple of them.

So she's singing into a 3k+ mic, connected to $2k MindPrint DTC mic pre and recording it into a $30k+ ProTools rig just for the sake of the video --because she uses GarageBand. Well, maybe she's smart enough to use PT as a front end and GB just for some manipulation (?).

If mixed in ProTools, then there's less excuse for the audio. IT'S TERRIBLE. Really, it is. You MUST listen to it on something better than a laptop's speakers or desktops with no tweeter response above 2k. The track is full of awful artifacting and the sampled piano is pitiful. At least jack this into a mid level stereo system and listen to it --anybody-- and you'll cringe; both at the track and at what laptop speakers and headphones don't translate.

I'm more willing to attribute the poor audio quality to YouTube and multiple generations of compression than to GB (or pitiful Protools skills), but that can be so hard to tell.
post #115 of 135
Quote:
Originally Posted by GordonComstock View Post

Do we have to go here?

Throughout this video, you can see a Digidesign ProControl in the background. It happens to be a 16 fader model, exactly like the two I own; both propped up against the wall since they've been replaced by D-Commands. The application on the video monitors is Pro Tools. The red button on the ProControl transport means that ProTools is recording. The record status lights indicate that 3 tracks are being recorded, one of them stereo (the keyboard?). The mic she's singing into is a U-87. I own a couple of them.

So she's singing into a 3k+ mic, connected to $2k MindPrint DTC mic pre and recording it into a $30k+ ProTools rig just for the sake of the video --because she uses GarageBand. Well, maybe she's smart enough to use PT as a front end and GB just for some manipulation (?).

If mixed in ProTools, then there's less excuse for the audio. IT'S TERRIBLE. Really, it is. You MUST listen to it on something better than a laptop's speakers or desktops with no tweeter response above 2k. The track is full of awful artifacting and the sampled piano is pitiful. At least jack this into a mid level stereo system and listen to it --anybody-- and you'll cringe; both at the track and at what laptop speakers and headphones don't translate.

I'm more willing to attribute the poor audio quality to YouTube and multiple generations of compression than to GB (or pitiful Protools skills), but that can be so hard to tell.


I didn't mean to imply that GarageBand and iMovie were the only tools.

Nor, did I mean to imply that the studio or equipment were the only tools available.

This particular video was a "cover" -- an artist's version of someone else's song/video. It was not targeted to be sold as a Music Video -- rather it was targeted to be uploaded to YouTube as a promotional. There "rules" and "freedoms" within the industry that permit Artists to do "covers" without permissions/royalties -- but they cannot be sold or formally "published".


So why the studio?

Sheena and her team have been working on here first Album. It will consist of songs Sheena has written (words and music) and performs (vocal and piano). I suspect it will contain both Music Videos and songs (audio only).

I suspect when they produce/capture the actual performance they will use the best equipment and people available to them.

I suspect that when they cut the Music Videos and the audio (only) songs, they will use the best talent and hardware/software editing solutions available.


Sheena is a creative artist who used the tools available (GarageBand and iMovie) to edit and package the "cover" for YouTube. Anything else would be overkill.

She has started using Logic because she needs capabilities beyond GarageBand. She will use FCPX because she needs editing capabilities beyond iMovie.


Will Sheena do the post and packaging on the deliverables of her Album. No! But she will have an appreciation for what is involved and what is possible from post -- and she will get the results she wants to showcase her talent. She will be able to communicate with the "pros" that will make it happen.
"...The calm is on the water and part of us would linger by the shore, For ships are safe in harbor, but that's not what ships are for."
- Michael Lille -
Reply
"...The calm is on the water and part of us would linger by the shore, For ships are safe in harbor, but that's not what ships are for."
- Michael Lille -
Reply
post #116 of 135
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dick Applebaum View Post

Sheena is a creative artist who used the tools available (GarageBand and iMovie) to edit and package the "cover" for YouTube. Anything else would be overkill.

No. Anything else would not be overkill. What are you listening to this on?
post #117 of 135
Quote:
Originally Posted by GordonComstock View Post

No. Anything else would not be overkill. What are you listening to this on?

Lets see...

iPhone, iPod, iPad, iMacs, Sony HDTV...

I can listen to it on a vintage B&O with McIntosh speakers, either of 2 Boses with folded horns... even an iPod HiFi when were at a picnic at the park (or want to piss off the neighbors).

Admittedly, my 71-year old ears are not what they used be -- but even they can tell the difference between what YouTube has to offer and what's possible!

What do you suggest -- I am not investing in any more audio equipment.
"...The calm is on the water and part of us would linger by the shore, For ships are safe in harbor, but that's not what ships are for."
- Michael Lille -
Reply
"...The calm is on the water and part of us would linger by the shore, For ships are safe in harbor, but that's not what ships are for."
- Michael Lille -
Reply
post #118 of 135
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dick Applebaum View Post

Here's the link to the panel discussion:

http://vimeo.com/channels/editorslounge

The video is the top left one -- with all the guys on stools!

Thanks for the link.

Confirms everything I have been saying. Only one of the group had been apprised of FCPX and he was amazed at what he witnessed. Yet the biggest critic had never seen the product, knew nothing about it, but was more than willing to express his distain for it.

Sounds like many would reside here.
post #119 of 135
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dick Applebaum View Post

Oddly, I can't find the link... But there was video of a panel discussion with about 10 Pos at the FCPUG Supermeet, a day before the Apple presos.

Several of the pros (likely saw the early pre-announce at Apple HQ) were highly critical of FCPX and specifically pointed out things FCPX couldn't do and that FCPX would not fit into the workflow for many pros.

Others were totally impressed and said the could begin using it immedistely.

Most saw it as an incomplete product, but that it defined the future of video editing and srory-telling.

I suspect they (the panel) were fairly representative of the opinions/feelings that we see expressed here and on other blogs/forums.

I watched the video again. As I said previously, only one of the pros had seen FCPX before NAB. The others knew virtually nothing about any of its feature.

And remember, this event was recorded prior to NAB 2011 when Apple keynoted FCPX.
post #120 of 135
Quote:
Originally Posted by Onhka View Post

I watched the video again. As I said previously, only one of the pros had seen FCPX before NAB. The others knew virtually nothing about any of its feature.

And remember, this event was recorded prior to NAB 2011 when Apple keynoted FCPX.

I hope you watched all 4 parts.

There was a lot of speculation on the commoditization/future of post as the pros know it today.

I suspect everyone on the panel had some inside information on fCPX -- if only from cohorts who had been briefed by Apple and were under NDA. The most critical guy (2nd from the left) seemed to have his facts straight and seemed fair! As did the gentleman with long gray hair (2nd from the right after the moderator) who had just finished a Book about/for Avid.

I found an article that says the FCP7 import is already built into FCPX -- just not activated. Here's the translation from Mac Magazine Brazil (scroll down to the second article):

http://translate.google.com/translat...%26prmd%3Divns

ping
"...The calm is on the water and part of us would linger by the shore, For ships are safe in harbor, but that's not what ships are for."
- Michael Lille -
Reply
"...The calm is on the water and part of us would linger by the shore, For ships are safe in harbor, but that's not what ships are for."
- Michael Lille -
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Mac Software
AppleInsider › Forums › Software › Mac Software › Apple posts Final Cut Pro X FAQ: FCP7 will work with Lion, import not possible