or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Software › Mac Software › Apple updates Final Cut Pro X, Motion & Compressor in push to win back pro users
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Apple updates Final Cut Pro X, Motion & Compressor in push to win back pro users - Page 3

post #81 of 134
Quote:
Originally Posted by robogobo View Post


The guy said he loved Aperture but refused to update his OS to keep up with new features. That's his loss. Say what you want but Aperture is the superior DAM hands down, and the rest is about personal UI preference. It's silly to refuse to update your OS and expect to keep up with software releases. That's my point and the facts are self evident.

Another non-Aperure user... Aperture is not comparable to LR simply because LR performs better and has more advanced features...

post #82 of 134
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvin View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dick Applebaum View Post

No! When you import media into FCPX you have the option to copy the media (from a camera, camera card, archive, or the file system), For cameras or camera card, it makes sense to copy the media onto FCPX so you can take them off line (or copy the media to the file system before importing to FCPX). Then, when importing, uncheck the "copy media" box and FCPX will automatically create symlinks to the file system,

Oh, you mean it creates symlinks in the events folder. Yeah, I tried that out to see if it would allow opening videos in other apps but if you do anything to the source video, it breaks the link and it doesn't seem to let you relink it to anything other than that exact video. Maybe playing around with the relink Event source or something would fix that but like I say, FCP 7 used to just relink it all by itself. You could even relink a video to a totally unrelated video (different aspect, format) if you wanted, which is really quick and flexible.

Ahh... I see what's bothering you! It's different than FCP 7... first there's a good reason that it's different and significant advantages.

Consider this based on the underlying media:
  • FCPX, optionally, can automatically generate metadata (color balance, audio problems, camera shake, people, shot type, etc.)
  • The editor (or AE) can manually generate metadata (camera angle, keyword and smart collections, etc.)
  • The Editor can quickly skim the clips right in the event -- without first selecting them and moving them to an edit window
  • The Editor can define multiple, persistent ranges (in and out points) within a single clip in the event just using kb shortcuts
  • The Editor can select any or all of these ranges and identify them as keepers (favorites) or rejects and further rename the selections to indicate why
  • The Editor can, then, use these ranges to generate new (or assign to existing) keyword collections and smart collections based on whatever criteria he wants

Whew!

The image below shows some really basic manipulation of multiple ranges on a single clip -- all this is done within the event [event library].




Back to your original point -- FCPX does not allow you to use underlying media that, later has been modified outside of FCPX -- because FCPX builds an infrastructure on that media depending a specified format and content. If FCPX were to allow you to "relink a video to a totally unrelated video (different aspect, format)" it would obviate any work done or advantage gained.

You are correct! If you want to modify a media file externally -- save it as a new file within your hierarchy and import into a new or existing event... different, but easy!

Quote:
I suppose the more appropriate way to do it would be to open a source video in another app, save it out, create another event, copy the metadata over to it, then somehow replace the timeline entry with the new event. Is it possible to do that last step - replace an event in the timeline with another event without having to do it all manually again?


Correct! Say you had done sound or color work on the clip in another app. Save it as a new clip and import into a new or existing event. You can copy/paste clips (and their keyword and smart collections) to other events. Then, drag the new clip to whatever keyword or smart collections make sense.

As to the replacing the event in the timeline, you can kinda' do it:
  • Select the old clip in the time line
  • Drag the new clip to the timeline over the old clip and it will give you the option to replace or audition

There is a command to find a selected timeline clip in the event library... but, AFAICT, no command to find all the places where a clip is used in project timelines. Though, you can approximate this by assigning roles to clips in the timeline.

Quote:
Say for example, you have something in the timeline, you would right-click locate the source file in the Finder and open it in say Quicktime. Let's say the source is too big and you've only used a small part of it and want to delete the rest. You'd trim it in Quicktime and save as another smaller file somewhere. You then import that as a new event in the project. How do you replace the event in the timeline with the new event without doing it manually? Can you set a clip in the timeline to point to a new Event?


See above why you wouldn't necessarily want to do that. However, you can do it much faster and easier within FCPX. Say, select all the favorite ranges from the example clip above, append that to the timeline in a new project then export it to the file system.

Edit: For example: removing multiple ranges is not possible in a single QuickTime edit -- it is trivial within FCPX. BTW, this same multiple ranges capability is available when importing media into FCPX -- so you could have eliminated the undesired footage from the clip before input into FCPX.


Another thing to be aware of is that you can open event clips in a "pseudo time line", apply effects, (titles, color correction, watermarks, etc.), and combine with other clips to make compound clips... these "edited" clips are stored as new clips in the event library -- in addition to the original clips which are unchanged. This is by design -- because you do not, necessarily, want to replace the clip in all existing projects.

Quote:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dick Applebaum View Post

Reminds me of an old song by Utah Phillips... "My God, that's moose turd pie!",,, "It's good though."

lol.gif
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dick Applebaum View Post

Any offline media is flagged as missing without a dreaded modal dialog as in FCP 7.

It was annoying but it worked pretty well - except for the part where checking the boxes actually excludes the chosen box from relinking, when you expect it to do the opposite. I think they've gone a bit overboard with the offline icons in FCPX. I thought I'd started a nuclear war somewhere when I saw those for the first time - way too aggressive design. They could tone those down a bit. I know they have to make problems stand out but it draws your attention too much and almost forces you to fix it, which isn't necessary in all cases.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dick Applebaum View Post

Facial animation of a still image -- done on an iPad 1smile.gif

That's pretty cool. I take it this is done with face-tracking.

It's an iPad app...PhotoSpeak 3D... ...$0.99... you select a still, position overlays for the eyes and mouth... than record your voiceover -- it does the animation from there.

https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/photospeak-3d-talking-photo/id329711426?mt=8

Quote:
Quote:
Originally Posted by robdel 
What I do doesn't matter of course, but this is much bigger than just me. When a post-houses switches software, it means a multi-year commitment to a competing platform, and in many cases means switching hardware over to PC. Pros and companies that have made the investment and switched will not be coming back for years, if ever.

I think what individuals do matters if it reflects the feelings of a larger group and I'd say in this case, your feelings probably do reflect those of the wider community. As for it taking years to switch, you could well be right about that depending on the investments that have been made since the FCPX launch. If you get a CS6 cloud license for even design purposes, you'd actually get Premiere with it so you'd have to justify buying FCP X on top and the only way you'd do that is if it happened to blow it away in usability and performance, which is clearly not the case.

I think there's still some time for Apple to fix it, although 2 years is pushing it a bit. They are probably working their way to a 10.0.1 or 10.1 release, which might address the problems. They seem to focusing on the wrong things to fix though. They keep adding things without addressing the core design, which makes it seem like they don't want to change that single-user non-collaborative setup. It's weird to see the tables flipped so quickly. It used to be that Premiere was really looked down on, while FCP was on top and now it's just flipped right over. I like Adobe's products so I have no problem with that but I wish Apple would care more about their software - functionality , security, design and so on. Apple's biggest failings seem to be on the software side. The hardware is rarely a point of criticism. It's understandable as the bulk of their revenue comes from hardware but there is a link between them. Not as direct as is often suggested (i.e poor software from Apple = no Mac sales) but there's a link.

Edited by Dick Applebaum - 3/31/13 at 3:03pm
"...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 #83 of 134
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dick Applebaum View Post

FCPX does not allow you to use underlying media that, later has been modified outside of FCPX -- because FCPX builds an infrastructure on that media depending a specified format and content. If FCPX were to allow you to "relink a video to a totally unrelated video (different aspect, format)" it would obviate any work done or advantage gained.

I can understand that choice and it does have clear benefits. Perhaps all they'd need to add is a feature that allows you to almost duplicate an Event but using a different source clip. If you right-clicked an Event, it could say 'duplicate event from new source...' and then prompt you to choose the new source. Normally the new source would be the same length, aspect etc but it could be a different format. FCPX would then be able to prompt you about which metadata to copy (in/out points should be in the same place but there could be an offset option). Then in the timeline, you'd be able to switch the content no problem as the two Events would be related.

Because the metadata is so heavily tied to the app, it would also be better if media is never held inside Events folders. The same goes for cache and render files. With the media separate, it means that they can very easily let you export a project because they can package up the database file and the Events files as they don't have any media in them. You can then email that very quickly to someone else who has the same source files. They'd import that project and the Events that didn't exist (possibly update the ones that do) and if necessary just use the relink command if the media is in a different root directory. That other person can then work on the project and Events and email changes back again with the same process.

I think the biggest barrier to adoption though is the fact that people expect to be able to turn on a media drive, open an FCP 7 project in FCPX and it Just Works. It should have been possible to do it to a very close approximation to the original as even 7tox demonstrates. Given that FCPX can work with media on a separate drive, all it would have required was taking the in and out points from every clip in the original project, putting them in the timeline and then generating Events from the source media based on those in/out points with the most basic metadata and leaving the media where it was - possibly putting placeholders in for things it couldn't migrate. The fact that they continue to refuse to implement this is evidence that they believe people shouldn't be using old projects.

It's worse when it's easier to migrate to a competing app than Apple's own app. It would be like Microsoft updating Office and not opening .doc files. People would just move to OpenOffice.

It'll be interesting to see what they are going to do with the marketing to win people back. Presumably some of it will happen at NAB, next Monday.
post #84 of 134
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvin View Post


---

I think there's still some time for Apple to fix it, although 2 years is pushing it a bit. They are probably working their way to a 10.0.1 or 10.1 release, which might address the problems. They seem to focusing on the wrong things to fix though. They keep adding things without addressing the core design, which makes it seem like they don't want to change that single-user non-collaborative setup. It's weird to see the tables flipped so quickly. It used to be that Premiere was really looked down on, while FCP was on top and now it's just flipped right over. I like Adobe's products so I have no problem with that but I wish Apple would care more about their software - functionality , security, design and so on. Apple's biggest failings seem to be on the software side. The hardware is rarely a point of criticism. It's understandable as the bulk of their revenue comes from hardware but there is a link between them. Not as direct as is often suggested (i.e poor software from Apple = no Mac sales) but there's a link.

You've mentioned this in several of your posts. I am an amateur and a loner and only have access to FCPX and a single seat of FCP 7. So I have no experience in multi-user collaborative video editing -- the best I can do is simulate the environment across multiple Macs running FCPX.

FCPX has suport for multi-user collaboration using NAS:
  • One user at a time can access an event or project (analogous to a sequence) stored on NAS (check-in, check-out)
  • Multiple users can concurrently access the event media files -- including and originals and transcoded files on NAS -- whether the event is in use by another or not


The reason for the single-user event restriction is to protect one user's edits and metadata from being contaminated by others.

But, multiple, concurrent users can create their own single-user events and projects while concurrently sharing the media files.

Later, a single-user can access all the events and projects and combine them in anyway desired.


So, enlighten me please -- is this more restrictive than other NLEs, like Premiere? In what ways? How do they prevent one editor messing up others' work?

TIA, Dick

P.S. I have long experience in multi-user databases (dating back before relational dbs) -- so I understand the issues and how they are addressed... I just don't know what is, or isn't being done in collaborative multi-user video editing.
"...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 #85 of 134
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvin View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dick Applebaum View Post

FCPX does not allow you to use underlying media that, later has been modified outside of FCPX -- because FCPX builds an infrastructure on that media depending a specified format and content. If FCPX were to allow you to "relink a video to a totally unrelated video (different aspect, format)" it would obviate any work done or advantage gained.

I can understand that choice and it does have clear benefits. Perhaps all they'd need to add is a feature that allows you to almost duplicate an Event but using a different source clip. If you right-clicked an Event, it could say 'duplicate event from new source...' and then prompt you to choose the new source. Normally the new source would be the same length, aspect etc but it could be a different format. FCPX would then be able to prompt you about which metadata to copy (in/out points should be in the same place but there could be an offset option). Then in the timeline, you'd be able to switch the content no problem as the two Events would be related.

You can already do that easily... Just import the new clip into the existing event (or a duplicate event) -- and drag the new clip to the existing metadata collections... Or you could select the old clip in the event -- then repoint FCPX to use the new clip instead.

Quote:
Because the metadata is so heavily tied to the app, it would also be better if media is never held inside Events folders. The same goes for cache and render files. With the media separate, it means that they can very easily let you export a project because they can package up the database file and the Events files as they don't have any media in them. You can then email that very quickly to someone else who has the same source files. They'd import that project and the Events that didn't exist (possibly update the ones that do) and if necessary just use the relink command if the media is in a different root directory. That other person can then work on the project and Events and email changes back again with the same process.

The original media can stay within the file system. The transcodes, cache and render files have to go somewhere -- might as well default to the event and project folders -- as opposed to FCP 7 putting them all over the place 1smile.gif All the original media, transcodes, caches, renders are accessible through the file system -- in fact FCPX has a "show in finder" command. At the root level of every drive (except a NAS) are 2 folders FCP Events and ECP Projects... So they are easy to find! They include all the above media and automatic backup files (each event and each project is contained within a separate sub-folder).

The process you describe above is a recommended way of sharing:
  • Send the media files across or store on NAS
  • Import the media into events without copying -- FCPX creates symlinks in the event folder
  • Send the events across (email) with or without the transcodes as desired
  • Send the project across with or without the render files as desired

There, and back again!

Quote:
I think the biggest barrier to adoption though is the fact that people expect to be able to turn on a media drive, open an FCP 7 project in FCPX and it Just Works. It should have been possible to do it to a very close approximation to the original as even 7tox demonstrates. Given that FCPX can work with media on a separate drive, all it would have required was taking the in and out points from every clip in the original project, putting them in the timeline and then generating Events from the source media based on those in/out points with the most basic metadata and leaving the media where it was - possibly putting placeholders in for things it couldn't migrate. The fact that they continue to refuse to implement this is evidence that they believe people shouldn't be using old projects.

I agree and disagree... Apple wants (and trys) to do things 100% -- there is no way they could have migrated FCP 7 projects to FCPX, 100%... So everybody would have been bitching about that. It is easier for a user to accept a 80% best effort from a 3rd-party.

Also, originally XML was not available [finished] for FCPX so they couldn't have done it at the initial release. Right or wrong, Apple thought it was better to get FCPX out there warts and all -- than do nothing while missing another FCP 7/S upgrade...

P.S, As I understand it, FCPX XML is incredibly robust and complex (much more granular, different clip timing schemes, etc.) -- so the migration to/from FCP X is vastly more difficult than FCP 7.

Quote:
It's worse when it's easier to migrate to a competing app than Apple's own app. It would be like Microsoft updating Office and not opening .doc files. People would just move to OpenOffice.

It'll be interesting to see what they are going to do with the marketing to win people back. Presumably some of it will happen at NAB, next Monday.

Yeah, I hear you... but I think the reasons above [partially] explain why...

I understand that the migration of FCP 7 to Premiere or Avid are no great shakes -- except for the most basic of FCP 7 projects

What would really be something -- migrate a Walter Murch FCP 7 project with 50 media/effects tracks, 70 sound tracks and external Filemaker metadata to FCPX -- or any NLE... really...
Edited by Dick Applebaum - 3/31/13 at 6:41pm
"...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 #86 of 134
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dick Applebaum View Post

FCPX has suport for multi-user collaboration using NAS:
  • One user at a time can access an event or project (analogous to a sequence) stored on NAS (check-in, check-out)
  • Multiple users can concurrently access the event media files -- including and originals and transcoded files on NAS -- whether the event is in use by another or not

I mean concurrent remote users and then syncing, not concurrent local users but the same setup previously used would work for both.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dick Applebaum View Post

But, multiple, concurrent users can create their own single-user events and projects while concurrently sharing the media files.

Until someone changes the source media and breaks everyone's Events. FCP 7 users wouldn't have to do anything - any change to the source would be seamless or very easy to fix but I accept the reason they made that change. I just don't think it's better that's all.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dick Applebaum View Post

Later, a single-user can access all the events and projects and combine them in anyway desired.

Is it a simple process to merge multiple Events and projects? Is this still using the sparseimage idea of packaging up projects?

http://www.rippletraining.com/managing-fcp-x-events-projects-with-disk-images.html

You can only open one project at a time - I know technically they are all open but the tabbed way is quicker to jump between and you can actually have two open on-screen. Sparseimages aren't a good way to store media either. They are a single contiguous file and are well known to get corrupted during a system crash while they are mounted. This was one of the big problems with the old Filevault because it stored a user's home folder on a sparseimage. If the computer crashed, it could corrupt the open file and everything on it is effectively gone.

FCPX is supposed to be simpler (Final Cut for the rest of us people said) and suggestions to get round the limitations involve using Disk Utility to make sparse images, potentially storing hundreds of GBs of data in a single file and using command-line options to compact them if they get too big.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dick Applebaum View Post

So, enlighten me please -- is this more restrictive than other NLEs, like Premiere? In what ways? How do they prevent one editor messing up others' work?

I'd say it's definitely more restrictive because it doesn't have the same tolerance to more than one person working on the source media. Having an entire project contained in a simple few MB file that can be emailed and completely relinked to someone else's computer and files in seconds is just quicker than any of the ways to do it in FCPX.

Another issue is the lack of partitioning of Events by project. Having FCPX load every Event you've ever made for every project is a little crazy. It's not a problem at the start but after a couple of years, that Event library is going to get pretty bogged down and it does allow the possibility of using someone's copyrighted media in another project by accident. Some people have said that corrupted Events and projects have prevented FCPX loading at all. FCPX should be decoupled from the Events and Projects so it can be loaded in a default state. If one project or Event is corrupt, it shouldn't stop you using the program. Events could even be handled by another process like how Safari handles web rendering in another process and it is allowed to crash without taking out the main program.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dick Applebaum 
Send the events across (email) with or without the transcodes as desired
Send the project across with or without the render files as desired

Ok so this is using the Duplicate Projects and Event References option but because it requires using another drive, that's when I'd have to use a sparseimage. I'd have to create a new sparseimage every time I did that and email the sparseimage, which the other person would mount and copy the project and Events back off it and do the same in reverse.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dick Applebaum 
What would really be something -- migrate a Walter Murch FCP 7 project with 50 media/effects tracks, 70 sound tracks and external Filemaker metadata to FCPX -- or any NLE... really...

The complexity isn't in the number of clips or layers, it's only in the unique elements and the way they interact. If a migration app knows how to handle a single clip, it can then do any amount of clips, it just takes longer to process. At the most basic level, they should be able to put all the clips and layers in place and link it to the media. They should be able to do crossfades, audio levels, text overlays. I know what you're saying that they perhaps wouldn't want anything less than 100% but I'd say 0% is about as low as they could go.
post #87 of 134
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvin View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dick Applebaum View Post

FCPX has suport for multi-user collaboration using NAS:
  • One user at a time can access an event or project (analogous to a sequence) stored on NAS (check-in, check-out)
  • Multiple users can concurrently access the event media files -- including and originals and transcoded files on NAS -- whether the event is in use by another or not

I mean concurrent remote users and then syncing, not concurrent local users but the same setup previously used would work for both.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dick Applebaum View Post

But, multiple, concurrent users can create their own single-user events and projects while concurrently sharing the media files.

Until someone changes the source media and breaks everyone's Events. FCP 7 users wouldn't have to do anything - any change to the source would be seamless or very easy to fix but I accept the reason they made that change. I just don't think it's better that's all.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dick Applebaum View Post

Later, a single-user can access all the events and projects and combine them in anyway desired.

Is it a simple process to merge multiple Events and projects? Is this still using the sparseimage idea of packaging up projects?

http://www.rippletraining.com/managing-fcp-x-events-projects-with-disk-images.html

You can only open one project at a time - I know technically they are all open but the tabbed way is quicker to jump between and you can actually have two open on-screen. Sparseimages aren't a good way to store media either. They are a single contiguous file and are well known to get corrupted during a system crash while they are mounted. This was one of the big problems with the old Filevault because it stored a user's home folder on a sparseimage. If the computer crashed, it could corrupt the open file and everything on it is effectively gone.

FCPX is supposed to be simpler (Final Cut for the rest of us people said) and suggestions to get round the limitations involve using Disk Utility to make sparse images, potentially storing hundreds of GBs of data in a single file and using command-line options to compact them if they get too big.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dick Applebaum View Post

So, enlighten me please -- is this more restrictive than other NLEs, like Premiere? In what ways? How do they prevent one editor messing up others' work?

I'd say it's definitely more restrictive because it doesn't have the same tolerance to more than one person working on the source media. Having an entire project contained in a simple few MB file that can be emailed and completely relinked to someone else's computer and files in seconds is just quicker than any of the ways to do it in FCPX.

Another issue is the lack of partitioning of Events by project. Having FCPX load every Event you've ever made for every project is a little crazy. It's not a problem at the start but after a couple of years, that Event library is going to get pretty bogged down and it does allow the possibility of using someone's copyrighted media in another project by accident. Some people have said that corrupted Events and projects have prevented FCPX loading at all. FCPX should be decoupled from the Events and Projects so it can be loaded in a default state. If one project or Event is corrupt, it shouldn't stop you using the program. Events could even be handled by another process like how Safari handles web rendering in another process and it is allowed to crash without taking out the main program.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dick Applebaum 
Send the events across (email) with or without the transcodes as desired
Send the project across with or without the render files as desired

Ok so this is using the Duplicate Projects and Event References option but because it requires using another drive, that's when I'd have to use a sparseimage. I'd have to create a new sparseimage every time I did that and email the sparseimage, which the other person would mount and copy the project and Events back off it and do the same in reverse.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dick Applebaum 
What would really be something -- migrate a Walter Murch FCP 7 project with 50 media/effects tracks, 70 sound tracks and external Filemaker metadata to FCPX -- or any NLE... really...

The complexity isn't in the number of clips or layers, it's only in the unique elements and the way they interact. If a migration app knows how to handle a single clip, it can then do any amount of clips, it just takes longer to process. At the most basic level, they should be able to put all the clips and layers in place and link it to the media. They should be able to do crossfades, audio levels, text overlays. I know what you're saying that they perhaps wouldn't want anything less than 100% but I'd say 0% is about as low as they could go.


Whoa, Nellie!


Rather than reply point by point as we have been doing... there might be a better way... each makes an assumption about the other's point -- then responds to subsequent points based on that assumption... we end up talking past each other.


I now understand that you are interested in how multiple users can work concurrently on their own copy of a "job".

The "job" in FCP 7 would contain media, bins and folders, a project and sequences.

In FCPX that same job would comtain media, events and collections, and one or more projects (each representing a sequence).

I haven't used other NLEs -- but I assume they are similar in organization to FCP 7.

So, since I have both FCPX and FCP 7, and you appear to have FCP 7 -- I suggest that we use FCP 7 as the standard for describing how multiple users can work concurrently on their own copy of a "job". .

If this is OK, then tell me how (or show me with a small "job") what you want to do, and how you do it?

If you don't have a small "job" that you can share, tell me what to do and I will create one using FCP 7 and send it to you.

If you prefer to just describe the process -- that's fine too...


OK?


If yes -- assume you have a FCP 7 "job" (2 gigabytes in size when complete) and you live in Minsk and I live in Pinsk, then:
  1. What are the steps necessary to package up the job and send it to me so we can both work on it independently, concurrently?
  2. How do we coordinate each of our responsibilities, schedule, progress reviews, etc.?
  3. When we're each finished, how do I package up my parts and send them back to you?
  4. How do you consolidate our separate work efforts into a single FCP 7 package?
  5. How do you archive the project?
  6. How do you deliver the output to the client?

If you like, you can add steps to send parts of the "job" to 3rd-parties for effects, coloring, sound, etc.


If you will do that, I will make an honest effort to accomplish the same thing with FCPX, and describe all the steps necessary.

I will try to avoid depending on any technologies that concern you -- like sparse disk images.


I hope you are game for this -- I certainly am... I really think I will learn some things and gain from the experience!


TIA,

Dick
Edited by Dick Applebaum - 4/1/13 at 9:20am
"...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 #88 of 134
Quote:
Originally Posted by sapporobabyrtrns View Post

Another non-Aperure user... Aperture is not comparable to LR simply because LR performs better and has more advanced features...
I don't know how you can credibly make that statement as a non-Aperture user. I use both, and those "advanced" features are nothing more than I can do in Photoshop. So I still stand behind Aperture as the superior DAM, my point all along. And the OP was switching away not for advanced features but because he refused to update his OS to support new cameras, a foolish move IMO, and my other point all along.

And to say LR and Aperture are not comparable, well, are you high? They're direct competitors, of course they're comparable! I'll either be laughing at you when Aperture gets its next major update or crying when they can it altogether. Then it's off to Capture One.
post #89 of 134
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dick Applebaum View Post

If yes -- assume you have a FCP 7 "job" (2 gigabytes in size when complete) and you live in Minsk and I live in Pinsk, then:
  1. What are the steps necessary to package up the job and send it to me so we can both work on it independently, concurrently?
  2. How do we coordinate each of our responsibilities, schedule, progress reviews, etc.?
  3. When we're each finished, how do I package up my parts and send them back to you?
  4. How do you consolidate our separate work efforts into a single FCP 7 package?
  5. How do you archive the project?
  6. How do you deliver the output to the client?

If you like, you can add steps to send parts of the "job" to 3rd-parties for effects, coloring, sound, etc.

That's a good idea and I hear the weather in Pinsk is nice at this time of year. Minsk, not so much.

Let's say that we start with the source footage. It is 100GB in size and there are 100 clips that aren't named properly.

This source footage is sent to two people, one in Minsk, one in Pinsk because there's no time to wait for one person to sort the footage.

So these people work independently sorting through the media and dropping things into the timeline - say one is editing a promo and the other is editing a separate sequence. They don't transcode the footage with 3rd party software because FCPX is handling this.

They work through the separate edits and the guy in Minsk spots an issue with a few pieces of footage that needs to be corrected for both edits so he opens the footage in After Effects, corrects it and drops it back into FCPX and continues working.

During the process, how do they each send the projects without the footage to the other one and have it all link up? Don't want to have duplicates of 100GB of source footage for every edit nor do we want to send 100GB to each. Remember, each person has different transcodes so that might complicate sending just project and Event references. With the old system, it doesn't matter if the transcodes are different because it links them up anyway.

I think the part where the corrected media is sent to promo guy to link into the promo was covered earlier but I'm not sure how quickly that works in practise. I guess he'd locate the same source clip and Event, duplicate the event and put the corrected media in there and replace it in the timeline.

The finished product is no problem as long as one person can get finished versions of each project without sending loads of media back and forth.

As far as archiving, the old way is back up projects and the media and that's it. Literally copy from one place to another in the Finder. You can then open the project from anywhere and relink to any media whether it's on a local drive or has been split between drives. Say you ran low on space, how do you put 50GB of Events on one drive and 50GB of Events on another? This seems to be done in FCPX using a relocate Events command, which puts it in FCPX's folder structure? You'd then have to remember which drive each project was on.
post #90 of 134
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvin View Post


...


That's a good idea and I hear the weather in Pinsk is nice at this time of year. Minsk, not so much.

...

Ha! We just had a power failure in Pinsk! It's weird because we still have WiFi (AT&T U-verse) -- but nothing else. PG&E says power will be back in 3 hours...

Thank heavens I was using FCPX, not FCP 7 (uncle Henry). 1smile.gif

...More later...

Sent from my iPad...
"...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 #91 of 134
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvin View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dick Applebaum View Post

If yes -- assume you have a FCP 7 "job" (2 gigabytes in size when complete) and you live in Minsk and I live in Pinsk, then:
  1. What are the steps necessary to package up the job and send it to me so we can both work on it independently, concurrently?
  2. How do we coordinate each of our responsibilities, schedule, progress reviews, etc.?
  3. When we're each finished, how do I package up my parts and send them back to you?
  4. How do you consolidate our separate work efforts into a single FCP 7 package?
  5. How do you archive the project?
  6. How do you deliver the output to the client?

If you like, you can add steps to send parts of the "job" to 3rd-parties for effects, coloring, sound, etc.

That's a good idea and I hear the weather in Pinsk is nice at this time of year. Minsk, not so much.

Let's say that we start with the source footage. It is 100GB in size and there are 100 clips that aren't named properly.

Great!

Quote:
This source footage is sent to two people, one in Minsk, one in Pinsk because there's no time to wait for one person to sort the footage.

How is it sent -- what format and what media -- Camera cards, camera card images, files in the file system? How does it get from Minsk to Pinsk?


Michael Cioni said that they delivered Dailys for Girl with the dragon tattoo, via podcast (Sweden to LA).
Quote:
So these people work independently sorting through the media and dropping things into the timeline - say one is editing a promo and the other is editing a separate sequence. They don't transcode the footage with 3rd party software because FCPX is handling this.

Oh... I thought that you were going to do yours (both ends) in FCP7 and I would try the same in FCPX.

Quote:
They work through the separate edits and the guy in Minsk spots an issue with a few pieces of footage that needs to be corrected for both edits so he opens the footage in After Effects, corrects it and drops it back into FCPX and continues working.

During the process, how do they each send the projects without the footage to the other one and have it all link up? Don't want to have duplicates of 100GB of source footage for every edit nor do we want to send 100GB to each. Remember, each person has different transcodes so that might complicate sending just project and Event references. With the old system, it doesn't matter if the transcodes are different because it links them up anyway.

Step by step how do you do it in FCP 7... Remember, I am a loner and never had the need to do this!

Quote:
I think the part where the corrected media is sent to promo guy to link into the promo was covered earlier but I'm not sure how quickly that works in practise. I guess he'd locate the same source clip and Event, duplicate the event and put the corrected media in there and replace it in the timeline.

You show me yours (FCP 7) – and I'll show you mine (FCPX)!

Quote:
The finished product is no problem as long as one person can get finished versions of each project without sending loads of media back and forth.

Only changed media needs to be sent back and forth. Show me what you have in mind and I'll do it with FCP 7.

Quote:
As far as archiving, the old way is back up projects and the media and that's it. Literally copy from one place to another in the Finder. You can then open the project from anywhere and relink to any media whether it's on a local drive or has been split between drives. Say you ran low on space, how do you put 50GB of Events on one drive and 50GB of Events on another? This seems to be done in FCPX using a relocate Events command, which puts it in FCPX's folder structure? You'd then have to remember which drive each project was on.

Again, show me the detailed steps in FCP 7 and I will show you the corresponding steps FCPX.

Dictated (mostly) on my iPad!
Edited by Dick Applebaum - 4/1/13 at 10:04am
"...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 #92 of 134
Well, PG&E (Pinsk Garbage & Emissions) restored the power and I am checking out my drives including 2 Pegasus RAIDS. Everything has restarted completely except Safari and FCPX... FCPX is competing for a Pegasus RAID that is being verified. Safari is waiting for global warming...
"...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 #93 of 134
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dick Applebaum View Post

How is it sent -- what format and what media -- Camera cards, camera card images, files in the file system? How does it get from Minsk to Pinsk?

Say it was shot in Pinsk, it would just be copied off the camera locally via file transfer. The files would then be loaded onto storage media of some kind (can even be camera cards) and can be sent via snail mail. Assume the guy in Minsk needs the source footage to make the final output so it can't go over the network.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dick Applebaum View Post

Step by step how do you do it in FCP 7... Remember, I am a loner and never had the need to do this!

To do say a correction to footage in FCP 7, if it's in the timeline, you'd right-click and locate the source. You can then open that clip in another app and save out the corrected version. You can then give it the same filename as the source you are correcting, switch files round in the Finder and when you bring FCP to the foreground, it automatically updates the timeline.

If this corrected file was sent to Pinsk (not necessary as it can be switched when the project is sent back), it can actually be a proxy file sent via the web and this can be encoded with a separate app at any time. Guy in Pinsk then just does the same thing, switches the files in the Finder and FCP doesn't skip a beat (or might worst case have to convert it to the same format as the original).

In terms of the project sharing, they just hit save as... and then email it back and forth. If the filesystem is different from one guy to the other and the transcoded files are in different places, which is to be expected, the popup window would just ask to relink and it just relinks it all.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dick Applebaum View Post

Only changed media needs to be sent back and forth.

Assuming the fact they each have separate transcodes isn't a problem, how do you selectively send changed media from one person to another? No sparseimages remember and no snail mail for changes, just proxies.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dick Applebaum View Post

Again, show me the detailed steps in FCP 7 and I will show you the corresponding steps FCPX.

That was all the steps for archiving, you just copy things in the Finder. If you need to split it, you'd sort by size move half to one location, half to another. I suppose you could read a 12-page manual on how to do it in FCPX while it was copying but that step would be entirely optional. 1wink.gif
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dick Applebaum 
I am checking out my drives including 2 Pegasus RAIDS

Speaking of Pegasuses, I noticed you had one setup as a Time Machine backup - is that to backup the other one? Assuming it is do you use sparse images a lot for projects?
post #94 of 134
Well... everything's back online... Conveniently, OS X decided that this was a good time to metadata index the Pegasus with the most files...


But, I discovered something that is new in FCPX 10.0.8 (or I just hadn't noticed before). I had the Pegasus that was being verified and now being indexed opened for projects (23 projects) but closed for events (27 events with lots of clips). When i opened the the Pegasus in the events browser -- it then scanned the drive and built the thumbnails/cache. Before, it seemed to do that even when the Pegasus was online, but.not open.

I didn't lose anything and all is well here in Pinsk!
"...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 #95 of 134
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvin View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dick Applebaum View Post

How is it sent -- what format and what media -- Camera cards, camera card images, files in the file system? How does it get from Minsk to Pinsk?

Say it was shot in Pinsk, it would just be copied off the camera locally via file transfer. The files would then be loaded onto storage media of some kind (can even be camera cards) and can be sent via snail mail. Assume the guy in Minsk needs the source footage to make the final output so it can't go over the network.

I don't need to do a separate, offline file transfer to access the media -- but I can if it makes sense. I can access the card directly in FCPX. Normally, I just copy the card image to the HD. A full 8 GB AVCHD card from my Panny, usually expands to about 60 GB. The HD copy is fast and only takes 8 GB.

With FCPX, I can use Snail mail as you suggest... Though I might try to use the Internet. We could likely upload/download the 8GB card images faster than snail mail (and gain a backup in the process).

Note: At either end, the user can choose to decompress the card image into the fie system or access it directly with FCPX. Advantages/disadvantages to both: FCPX thinks the card image is a camera card so it copies the portions of selected clips into the event (no waiting to edit or organize). If you decompress the card into the file system (and wait) -- you can then access the files in the file system (FCPX creates symlinks). In either case you can begin editing immediately. Also, you can transcode the media to ProRes 422 or ProRes Proxy as part of the import process (in the background) again no waiting to begin editing or assigning metadata, etc.

Likely, for example, each user would import directly from the card image (copy into the FCPX event) and generate ProRes Proxy (also saved in the FCPX event) -- available on the HD file system.

Quote:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dick Applebaum View Post

Step by step how do you do it in FCP 7... Remember, I am a loner and never had the need to do this!

To do say a correction to footage in FCP 7, if it's in the timeline, you'd right-click and locate the source. You can then open that clip in another app and save out the corrected version. You can then give it the same filename as the source you are correcting, switch files round in the Finder and when you bring FCP to the foreground, it automatically updates the timeline.

In FCPX, if the footage is in the timeline, you right-click to show the clip in the event browser,,, then right-click the clip in the event browser to show it in the timeline... an extra step. (If you assign roles to timeline clips, you can export multiple clips, in multiple formats, to multiple locations/services with a single action).

The reason(s) for this is that you may have multiple copies of the same footage in multiple clips (including compound clips) in multiple events, and you need to find the proper one. I'll submit a feature request to accomplish both (event browser and finder location) with a single right-cick in the timeline.

As we discussed earlier, FCPX cannot access the "corrected" clip if you use it to overwrite the original clip. Rather you import it into the same event (or another event) and transcode as desired. Obviously, it does not automatically update the timeline footage... and you probably don't want to... What if there are several projects/sequences that use the same footage. Do you want them all to change without you knowing? What if you are doing a before and after?

But, it is trivial to replace the clip in the desired timeline -- just drag the "corrected" clip over the timeline clip and a popup menu will allow you to replace, replace form start, replace from end or add to audition. The latter is the best of both worlds in many cases -- as it lets you try different clips/edits/effects/corrections and be able to flip amongst them (right up to the final) export of the finished job.

Quote:
If this corrected file was sent to Pinsk (not necessary as it can be switched when the project is sent back), it can actually be a proxy file sent via the web and this can be encoded with a separate app at any time. Guy in Pinsk then just does the same thing, switches the files in the Finder and FCP doesn't skip a beat (or might worst case have to convert it to the same format as the original).

Send the file the same way with FCPX. As, noted above you can't automatically replace the file in the finder... Apparent advantage FCP 7. But, would you really just overwrite the original file and lose the ability to send it out for further correction? I suspect you wouldn't -- likely, you would copy the original somewhere, then overwrite it. What if the new clip is a different length -- does that screw up the sync with other tracks in your timeline?

Not trying to be flippant here, but most "pros" I've read or heard tend to want to do things for themselves -- and rail against FCPX for dumbing down the editorial process... I can think of few things more dangerous than having a simple change to a file in the file system ripple through every project/bin/sequence/timeline that uses it.

Quote:
In terms of the project sharing, they just hit save as... and then email it back and forth. If the filesystem is different from one guy to the other and the transcoded files are in different places, which is to be expected, the popup window would just ask to relink and it just relinks it all.

Same here, but you don't need to click "Save As"... it's automatic! But. you can choose whether you want to include the events and/or render files... likely neither for our example.

Quote:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dick Applebaum View Post

Only changed media needs to be sent back and forth.

Assuming the fact they each have separate transcodes isn't a problem, how do you selectively send changed media from one person to another? No sparseimages remember and no snail mail for changes, just proxies.

If the changed media is in the file system, you could just send it as you do above, with FCP 7.

If the file is copied into the event -- you can "show in finder" and sent as above.

Or, in either case, you could just select the clip(s) in the event browser and click "Share" -- likely email in our case.

Your desire to avoid sparse images is noted -- but in this case, as an expendable, not to be modified, image just for transport -- it is probably fine -- any problems just resend. Then copy into the file system or import at the receiving end.

But, if you had a lot of media you could use a a regular (non-sparse) compressed disk image -- I think this is thought to be reliable as many companies distribute their software this way.

Quote:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dick Applebaum View Post

Again, show me the detailed steps in FCP 7 and I will show you the corresponding steps FCPX.

That was all the steps for archiving, you just copy things in the Finder. If you need to split it, you'd sort by size move half to one location, half to another. I suppose you could read a 12-page manual on how to do it in FCPX while it was copying but that step would be entirely optional. 1wink.gif

In FCPX you can do as you do for FCP 7 -- if you wish. Also, you can do it within FCPX as a variation on the theme of versioning:
  1. Right-click the Project and select Consolidate Project Media...
  2. Right-click again and select Duplicate Project

Depending on whether you plan to make further changes, soon -- you can opt to include a copy of all the media in all referenced events or just the used clips. Additionally you can opt to include the render files, or not!

These are saved within separate folders in the FCP Events folder and The FCP Projects folder. You can compress them if you wish. I tested one project:
  1. Project File went from 378.71 GB-->1.28 GB (no unused clips or render files)-->201.KB Compressed
  2. Event File went from 14.7CG-->14.7GB (all clips used nothing saved)-->1.5 MB Compressed

Because render files are quickly (64 bit processesing, Open GL, GCD, etc.) and easily regenerated (in the background) -- it makes little sense to transmit render files... That means that it may be practical, with FCPX, to exchange more files than would be with FCP 7.
Quote:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dick Applebaum 
I am checking out my drives including 2 Pegasus RAIDS

Speaking of Pegasuses, I noticed you had one setup as a Time Machine backup - is that to backup the other one? Assuming it is do you use sparse images a lot for projects?

Yes, but it is for time machine BU of the Mac Internal drives only. I also have about 20 TB of eternal FW Drives that I use for offline backup (some of these are also backed up on the Pegasus drives too). Also we have a centralized media server for iTunes and iPhoto (about 3 TB total) and backups of the other Macs.

Until this exercise, I had created a sparse image maybe twice -- and not for FCP 7 or FCP X backup. I have used non-sparse disk image backups for years (since OS X's first release) and have had zero problems.
Edited by Dick Applebaum - 4/1/13 at 2:23pm
"...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 #96 of 134
On a different note...

Much to my pleasant surprise, I noticed that Apple has updated iOS Maps to provide 3D Flyover of Pasadena, CA (and most of the surrounding cities)...

So you can: visit the Rose Bowl; follow the historic Pasadena Freeway to Dodger Stadium and beyond to Olvera Street in LA; tour Santa Anita Race Track (where I learned to drive); see El Monte Airport (where I learned to fly) follow the Spanish Missionaries on their quest up Mission Blvd / El Camino Real... or just do a 3D Flyover of Heidi Fleiss...
"...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 #97 of 134
@Marvin

Thanks for your patience and perseverance -- I have enjoyed the exchange and learned quite a lot. Tomorrow, I will try out the process you defined using all FCP 7 -- then all FCPX. I have 2 iMacs side-by-side but only 1 FCP 7 seat so I can't run both ends concurrently. Further, FCPX won't run if FCP 7 is running anywhere on the same network... I really don't understand why that limitation is necessary -- actually it is a deterrent to migrating projects from FCP7 to FCPX.

Anyway, it likely will be a little kludgey stopping and restarting FCP 7 and FCPX. Also, I am a bit rusty with FCP 7, as I have been using FCPX almost exclusively since June 2011.

I will attempt to be objective and to run any time-sensitive activities on the same hardware for both FCP products.

I look forward to getting my "hands dirty" trying the process on both products... And gain some real-life exposure, and gain a better understanding of the advantages and disadvantages of each product and its underlying design.

If this thread is dead, I will PM you with what I learn.
Edited by Dick Applebaum - 4/1/13 at 5:52pm
"...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 #98 of 134
I emailed Steve Martin and asked him if he would do a "throwdown" about sharing projects in FCPX vs FCP 7... He responded with:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v0OcuJAajhU&list=UUnqmgMi2D6KQdFKGq0kKkdQ&index=23


and this:

https://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/macbreak-studio/id287113664?mt=2

Click show in iTunes then scroll down to the 6/12/12 podcast.

The user group meeting demonstrates using sparse disk images as virtual disks and the exchange medium. Some have expressed concern with sparse disk images. In lieu of that you can create a fixed (non-sparse) disk image and use it in the same way... there is an extra step involved at each end to compress and decompress the file at each end. It works fine -- and there should be no concern about thr reliability of this media as many companies distribute their software on disk images!
Edited by Dick Applebaum - 4/1/13 at 7:53pm
"...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 #99 of 134
Epilogue:

In my last post. I included links to a video and a podcast using FCP X to share a project. Between them, the videos showed how:
  1. to initially setup multiple Macs to share a common media base
  2. to work independently on each Mac -- each using his own copy of the common media but each creating his own project(s)
  3. each user could apply cuts, effects, etc. that would be made available to the others
  4. to periodically exchange their individual work product by sending their project files via dropbox
  5. a single user could access all users' projects concurrently

The videos did not show combining the projects into a single project... but that was implied -- open project A and copy selected material, Open project B and paste as desired... This would only be necessary if several users were working on different parts of the same project. If, say, one were working the video and the other on a trailer -- the projects would not need to be combined.


Also, not shown was how to take files from the source media, send them to an external app or service for processing/correction; incorporate the revised files into the user's events and project; share the changes with the other users.

This is rather trivial... For example, here's what I did with an FCPX clip:
  1. within FCPX right-click the desired clip and "Show In Finder"
  2. If necessary create an "External Media" folder outside the "Events" folder
  3. option-drag (copy) the desired clip{s) from the "Original Media" subfolder to the "External Media" folder
  4. send these clips to whatever app or service for processing (iMovie was handy, so I used it to create a negative of the video clip)
  5. save the returned, processed files in the same "External Media" folder -- I used different names, in case subsequent reprocessing of the "originals" is necessary.
  6. Right-click the returned file(s) to create a compressed copy
  7. Send the compressed files to the other users by whatever means is fastest based on file size

On receipt of the compressed copy, the other users copy it to the "External Media" folder on their machine - then double-click to decompress it.

Then all users create a New "External Media" Event (if necessary) and import the processed clips.

It is easier to do than to describe -- especially if you had planned for this -- and setup the folders and procedures in advance.

All users' media files are now in sync.

In a preceding post I stated that I would try to duplicate the process that @Marvin described with both FCP 7 and FCPX... I, now feel that this is unnecessary as all the requirements of the FCP 7 process have been demonstrated (or experienced/described) with FCPX.

I found it kind of funny that, at the user group, Steve Martin used his iPhone tethered to his MacBook to "share" the project with Mark Spencer...

"Greater love hath no man than to lay down his data plan for the good of his preso"...

Thanks: Steve, Mark and @Marvin
Edited by Dick Applebaum - 4/2/13 at 7:38am
"...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 #100 of 134
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dick Applebaum View Post

As we discussed earlier, FCPX cannot access the "corrected" clip if you use it to overwrite the original clip. Rather you import it into the same event (or another event) and transcode as desired. Obviously, it does not automatically update the timeline footage... and you probably don't want to... What if there are several projects/sequences that use the same footage. Do you want them all to change without you knowing? What if you are doing a before and after?

Send the file the same way with FCPX. As, noted above you can't automatically replace the file in the finder... Apparent advantage FCP 7. But, would you really just overwrite the original file and lose the ability to send it out for further correction? I suspect you wouldn't -- likely, you would copy the original somewhere, then overwrite it. What if the new clip is a different length -- does that screw up the sync with other tracks in your timeline?

It is pretty rare that footage is reused in multiple projects and sequences unless it's stock footage and even then it's not that likely, which is really why having a global Events library is unnecessary. Check how many times you've reused footage in any of your edits. Even if it's recycled, it would be duplicated before starting a new project:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2010714/Transformers-3-Did-Michael-Bay-recycle-footage-The-Island.html

There would be no overwriting when you switch files in the Finder. Assuming that the clip was used in multiple places and it was a correction, I would definitely want that correction to be applied to every sequence. If it was something I didn't want to be applied anywhere else, I'd know to make it a unique clip in which case, I'd relink the timeline segment.

That's another thing, FCP 7 allows you to reconnect an individual timeline segment to another clip directly and it even picks the closest in/out points.

Here's what I get with FCPX:



It's basically, ruler to the back of the hand, you can't do that so stop.

Here's what I get in FCP 7:



First you get a warning saying that there's something not right but it gives you a continue button as if to say, 'we don't like what you're doing here but you obviously have a good reason so we put a continue button'. When you hit continue, you get:



So it had a good go at matching the new clip to the old one and it does it almost exactly. Now in that above test that was replacing a clip with a completely different clip, which normally wouldn't be the case and yet FCP 7 just does what you ask it to do. If you want to change your frame size during an edit, no problem, if you want to switch source clips, no problem, if you want to relink a single timeline clip, no problem, if you want to relink every single clip to a batch of clips with the same name but in a different format, no problem. Every step of the way FCPX puts up barriers to stop you doing these things.

If you're not in an environment where these things happen, then it doesn't matter but it means FCPX is restricted to those environments. A more flexible system works for both. If Apple wants to expand their market then they need to make FCPX more flexible.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dick Applebaum View Post

But, it is trivial to replace the clip in the desired timeline -- just drag the "corrected" clip over the timeline clip and a popup menu will allow you to replace, replace form start, replace from end or add to audition. The latter is the best of both worlds in many cases -- as it lets you try different clips/edits/effects/corrections and be able to flip amongst them (right up to the final) export of the finished job.

There's no option to pull in the exact same offsets though. The choices for the beginning/end sets the clip to the start/end and audition just loads the whole thing. Say the clip in the timeline is from 20%-40% of the original clip, when I switch it with a new clip, I expect to be able to take the same 20%-40% of the new one, otherwise, I have to reposition it every single time I change the clip.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dick Applebaum View Post

Same here, but you don't need to click "Save As"... it's automatic! But. you can choose whether you want to include the events and/or render files... likely neither for our example.

lol.gif Yes, you could say it's automatic but it also means that you have to close down Final Cut, locate the project file in the Finder, send the project file, the other person has to close FCPX, put the project file into the right folder (switching out the old project if needed) and they have to relaunch (that was the method Steve Martin describes) OR you have to open Disk Utility, create a sparseimage, duplicate the project and references onto it and send that and they have to import from it. I'd say the whole save as..., send, open process that everyone has been doing for years now is slightly more efficient.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dick Applebaum View Post

If the changed media is in the file system, you could just send it as you do above, with FCP 7.

If the file is copied into the event -- you can "show in finder" and sent as above.

Or, in either case, you could just select the clip(s) in the event browser and click "Share" -- likely email in our case.

There would still be the problem above of getting it to fit exactly into the timeline without resetting to start/end. It wouldn't likely be possible to email, as email addresses have file size limits. It would go on a server and a link to it emailed - that saves filling up inboxes too. I'm surprised they don't have a Dropbox or iCloud integration for this.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dick Applebaum View Post

Your desire to avoid sparse images is noted -- but in this case, as an expendable, not to be modified, image just for transport -- it is probably fine -- any problems just resend. Then copy into the file system or import at the receiving end.

But, if you had a lot of media you could use a a regular (non-sparse) compressed disk image -- I think this is thought to be reliable as many companies distribute their software this way.

Yes, for packaging up projects, I have nothing against sparseimages in terms of reliability. My issue with sparseimages is mainly for working volumes for a few reasons: they can work fine for years so long as the operating system doesn't have a problem while it's mounted but if it does it can corrupt everything in an instant; they make delta backups difficult because any change to the large image (even a tiny project change) requires the whole thing to be backed up again and they have to be created and compressed manually.

That last step is my objection for packaging up projects. If Apple intended that to be part of the workflow, they would have simply had FCPX offer the option to create sparseimages - it's just a single line system call. The fact that people are resorting to this for everyday use is crazy. When have people ever had to use Disk Utility to supplement a video editing app? There's no reason why Apple can't have a project export to an archive of some kind. It's a clear admission that Apple didn't design the software to share projects and people are working around Apple's design and they need to fix it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dick Applebaum View Post

In FCPX you can do as you do for FCP 7 -- if you wish. Also, you can do it within FCPX as a variation on the theme of versioning:
  1. Right-click the Project and select Consolidate Project Media...
  2. Right-click again and select Duplicate Project

Consolidate media moves all the Events to the same location as the project. You could have an SSD boot drive that the project is on and a large external for Events. You'd likely have to move the project to the external first and then consolidate. But how do you split it up assuming the entire project doesn't fit on one drive?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dick Applebaum View Post

Because render files are quickly (64 bit processesing, Open GL, GCD, etc.) and easily regenerated (in the background) -- it makes little sense to transmit render files... That means that it may be practical, with FCPX, to exchange more files than would be with FCP 7.

Right, render files wouldn't have to be sent in either case. You shouldn't really have to render all that much if the media has been transcoded. I agree that FCPX is faster but it's also more prone to issues. There was an issue where it would put random green frames into exported footage. I actually experienced that in both Motion and FCPX. Can you imagine if that happened just as you were about to export for a deadline. They simply can't allow things like this to happen:

https://discussions.apple.com/thread/3134720?start=0&tstart=0

The latest 10.0.8 release says they fixed this for 3rd party plugins but it happened without using plugins. As soon as something like that happens, it's very hard to rely on it for anything important. I think this is down to GPU acceleration, which doesn't appear to be able to be turned off. If you have a dodgy graphics driver update then it could break your workflow. OS 10.8.4 will hopefully fix the graphics drivers regarding the safari rendering bugs.

What would be quite good is if they had a verify step and could tell if the decoded output had a massively different colour from the decoded input and warn about bad frames or changes in brightness etc. If at any point it detected a problem frame, it should revert to software mode for that exported section and redo it.
post #101 of 134
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvin View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dick Applebaum View Post

As we discussed earlier, FCPX cannot access the "corrected" clip if you use it to overwrite the original clip. Rather you import it into the same event (or another event) and transcode as desired. Obviously, it does not automatically update the timeline footage... and you probably don't want to... What if there are several projects/sequences that use the same footage. Do you want them all to change without you knowing? What if you are doing a before and after?

Send the file the same way with FCPX. As, noted above you can't automatically replace the file in the finder... Apparent advantage FCP 7. But, would you really just overwrite the original file and lose the ability to send it out for further correction? I suspect you wouldn't -- likely, you would copy the original somewhere, then overwrite it. What if the new clip is a different length -- does that screw up the sync with other tracks in your timeline?

It is pretty rare that footage is reused in multiple projects and sequences unless it's stock footage and even then it's not that likely, which is really why having a global Events library is unnecessary. Check how many times you've reused footage in any of your edits. Even if it's recycled, it would be duplicated before starting a new project:

Ahh... I feel like we're having a discussion on religion or politics -- where each will concede points to the other, but will not change our overall convictions which are based on personal experience and personal observation...

I think you have greater experience than me with NLEs... I do not know if you do video editing as your main profession -- I suspect that you do not. I do think that you are, likely, more qualified to speak as a "pro" video editor -- while I, admittedly, am not...

So until I learn differently, I am going to consider you to be a "pro"... and for this response -- group your issues with FCPX with those being voiced by other "pros'. It may be unfair, as some "pros" do movies and other "pros" do everything from: weddings, training, research, commercials, TV series, events, broadcast news...

With those caveats, here goes...

You said: "It is pretty rare that footage is reused in multiple projects and sequences unless it's stock footage and even then it's not that likely..."

Here, you "pros" can't have it both ways... either footage is not reused or it is reused. You cannot, on one hand claim that "It is pretty rare that footage is reused" -- and on the other hand claim that FCPX isn't "pro" because it doesn't allow you to directly open FCP 7 (and earlier) projects from 5-10 years ago -- because you need to change something or get access to some footage for a new project. My personal observation is that footage is reused all the time -- one only need look at commercials from the likes of Sears, Target, credit card companies, soft drinks, insurance companies, mobile phone companies -- even Apple. Not to mention things like movie trailers and episodes of TV series that at the beginning, replay footage from the last episode to bring you current -- giving rise to a genre of videos called "cliffhangers". Masterpiece Theater, Roots, 24, American Idol, etc. are examples of TV series (or miniseries) which reuse footage from prior episodes or even prior seasons.

Quote:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2010714/Transformers-3-Did-Michael-Bay-recycle-footage-The-Island.html

There would be no overwriting when you switch files in the Finder. Assuming that the clip was used in multiple places and it was a correction, I would definitely want that correction to be applied to every sequence. If it was something I didn't want to be applied anywhere else, I'd know to make it a unique clip in which case, I'd relink the timeline segment.

Here, you "pros" can have it both ways... with FCPX:
  • If you use a clip in several projects and later change that clip in the event library -- the the clips already used in the timelines of projects remain unchanged
  • You can create a compound clip in the event library. If you use that compound clip in several projects and later change that compound clip in the event library -- the the clips already used in the timelines of projects reflect the updated compound clip

    Quote:
    That's another thing, FCP 7 allows you to reconnect an individual timeline segment to another clip directly and it even picks the closest in/out points.

    Here's what I get with FCPX:



    It's basically, ruler to the back of the hand, you can't do that so stop.

    Here's what I get in FCP 7:



    First you get a warning saying that there's something not right but it gives you a continue button as if to say, 'we don't like what you're doing here but you obviously have a good reason so we put a continue button'. When you hit continue, you get:



    So it had a good go at matching the new clip to the old one and it does it almost exactly. Now in that above test that was replacing a clip with a completely different clip, which normally wouldn't be the case and yet FCP 7 just does what you ask it to do. If you want to change your frame size during an edit, no problem, if you want to switch source clips, no problem, if you want to relink a single timeline clip, no problem, if you want to relink every single clip to a batch of clips with the same name but in a different format, no problem. Every step of the way FCPX puts up barriers to stop you doing these things.

    We have discussed this before. You are trying to make FCPX work like FCP 7, rather than taking advantage of FCPX capabilities -- possibly gaining advantages in productivity... Avid doesn't need to work like FCP 7 to be considered "pro" -- why must FCPX? Just because FCPX is different does not mean that it is worse or not "pro"!

    With FCPX, you simply drag a clip over the timeline clip and wait for the popup menu to: replace entirely; replace from in; replace from out; add to audition. If you replace or add to addition and the new clip is of different length, the magnetic timeline adjusts for this without destroying sync with other clips. It is actually quite fast and easy.

    What do you do in FCP 7 when the repointed clip is a different length -- it, likely screws up the sync of subsequent clips in the same or other tracks. What if the repointed clip is in a different codec?


    I don't mean to be rude or disparaging... but you appear to want to make many of your editing decisions in the Finder and the file system -- rather than bringing them into the NLE where you can see what you are dealing with (and take appropriate action). Maybe this is born of necessity with FCP 7's reputation for losing connections and storing media all over the place. Isn't reconnecting or repointing media files supposed to be the exception rather than the rule? From what you describe, you could make your rough cuts and timeline with QuickTime and the Finder -- then import that into FCP 7 (or whatever) for a "final cut"... BTW, I had 3 uncle Henrys -- only one is still living (but he no-longer gives eggs).


    Quote:
    If you're not in an environment where these things happen, then it doesn't matter but it means FCPX is restricted to those environments. A more flexible system works for both. If Apple wants to expand their market then they need to make FCPX more flexible.

    That's your opinion... and I respect it!

    I also respect the opinions of other "pros" such as Steve Martin, Larry Jordan, Evan Schectman, Michael Wohl, Norman Hollyn, Michael Cioni, Walter Murch...

    Many of these "pros" say that if you, as a "pro" want to expand your marketability going forward you should consider, become proficient [adapt to?] FCPX as another tool.

    Quote:
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Dick Applebaum View Post

    But, it is trivial to replace the clip in the desired timeline -- just drag the "corrected" clip over the timeline clip and a popup menu will allow you to replace, replace form start, replace from end or add to audition. The latter is the best of both worlds in many cases -- as it lets you try different clips/edits/effects/corrections and be able to flip amongst them (right up to the final) export of the finished job.

    There's no option to pull in the exact same offsets though. The choices for the beginning/end sets the clip to the start/end and audition just loads the whole thing. Say the clip in the timeline is from 20%-40% of the original clip, when I switch it with a new clip, I expect to be able to take the same 20%-40% of the new one, otherwise, I have to reposition it every single time I change the clip.

    I think you are stretching here -- How often do most "pros" do this?

    Anyway, I think you can accomplish the same thing in FCPX:

    Do your In and out in the event browser or open the clip in the timeline from the event browser for more precise cutting. This redefines the event clip to your "20%-40%" cut. You can then copy, send for external processing, reimport and replace as discussed previously.

    Another, more flexible option with FCPX is to make multiple discontiguous persistent ins/outs within the single clip in the event browser. The entire clip is sent for processing, imported, etc... Then the new clip and the old are used to create a synchronized clip in the event browser. Open the synchronized clip in event browser timeline and you will see both clips displayed one above the other -- with the multiple, discontiguous cuts shown where they were made.

    Then you can easily snap the new ins/outs to the original and disable the original.

    Even better, you can precision edit the old and new cuts much as you would do b-rolls on a timeline clip... pretty flexible (if somewhat esoteric).

    Possibly, there are other ways to do what you want with FCPX -- but i haven't seen any... Nor have I heard anyone but you state that this was a requirement (or lack of it was an irritant).

    Quote:
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Dick Applebaum View Post

    Same here, but you don't need to click "Save As"... it's automatic! But. you can choose whether you want to include the events and/or render files... likely neither for our example.

    lol.gif Yes, you could say it's automatic but it also means that you have to close down Final Cut, locate the project file in the Finder, send the project file, the other person has to close FCPX, put the project file into the right folder (switching out the old project if needed) and they have to relaunch (that was the method Steve Martin describes) OR you have to open Disk Utility, create a sparseimage, duplicate the project and references onto it and send that and they have to import from it. I'd say the whole save as..., send, open process that everyone has been doing for years now is slightly more efficient.

    I'll concede that point -- but not the argument 1smile.gif

    Here's where I'm an optimist... Apple has [belatedly] proven that it is listening and paying attention. I suspect that some things that are somewhat clumsy workarounds (in FCP X) will be incorporated into the product -- hopefully as elegantly as MultiCam.

    As it now stands, FCPX does some things to ease what the editor needs to do in the Finder. Yes the editors are used to doing it! But, Apple could go further -- and do such things as: hiding/unhiding projects and events; taking volumes on/off line -- and maybe round-tripping to other apps/services... or at least an export with an implied import.

    Quote:
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Dick Applebaum View Post

    If the changed media is in the file system, you could just send it as you do above, with FCP 7.

    If the file is copied into the event -- you can "show in finder" and sent as above.

    Or, in either case, you could just select the clip(s) in the event browser and click "Share" -- likely email in our case.

    There would still be the problem above of getting it to fit exactly into the timeline without resetting to start/end. It wouldn't likely be possible to email, as email addresses have file size limits. It would go on a server and a link to it emailed - that saves filling up inboxes too. I'm surprised they don't have a Dropbox or iCloud integration for this.

    I think I addressed the "fit exactly into the timeline without resetting to start/end" above -- at least as well as it can currently be done... but I still don't believe this is a major issue for most "pros".

    You are correct about the email... a server exchange is more realistic. Apple seems to be making iCloud enhancements in small, digestible chunks -- trying to avoid the MobileMe fiasco -- or waiting to flesh out the iCloud server network. You can see signs in FCPX (like autosaving) that indicate that it's design is iCloud-friendly -- just awaiting the infrastructure.

    IMO, It would be great if Apple just bought DropBox to gain this Internet exchange facility, But, then Apple would become the biggest customer of Amazin web services 1frown.gif

    Quote:
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Dick Applebaum View Post

    Your desire to avoid sparse images is noted -- but in this case, as an expendable, not to be modified, image just for transport -- it is probably fine -- any problems just resend. Then copy into the file system or import at the receiving end.

    But, if you had a lot of media you could use a a regular (non-sparse) compressed disk image -- I think this is thought to be reliable as many companies distribute their software this way.

    Yes, for packaging up projects, I have nothing against sparseimages in terms of reliability. My issue with sparseimages is mainly for working volumes for a few reasons: they can work fine for years so long as the operating system doesn't have a problem while it's mounted but if it does it can corrupt everything in an instant; they make delta backups difficult because any change to the large image (even a tiny project change) requires the whole thing to be backed up again and they have to be created and compressed manually.

    That last step is my objection for packaging up projects. If Apple intended that to be part of the workflow, they would have simply had FCPX offer the option to create sparseimages - it's just a single line system call. The fact that people are resorting to this for everyday use is crazy. When have people ever had to use Disk Utility to supplement a video editing app? There's no reason why Apple can't have a project export to an archive of some kind. It's a clear admission that Apple didn't design the software to share projects and people are working around Apple's design and they need to fix it.

    I agree that it is a bit kludgey... And if Apple intended to use disk utility -- they should have implemented it under the covers.


    However, I don't agree "It's a clear admission that Apple didn't design the software to share projects". Why would they use a database structure for events and projects? Why would they attempt to hide the Finder and underlying file structure? Why would they implement (and continue to expand) a robust "sharing" capability (when you account for all the options)? Why the implied integration with mobile devices? Why the robust and granular XML?

    Apple may be moving too slowly for our desires/purposes... but, I suspect that when they "get there" it will be "best of breed" ala FCPX MultiCam.

    Quote:
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Dick Applebaum View Post

    In FCPX you can do as you do for FCP 7 -- if you wish. Also, you can do it within FCPX as a variation on the theme of versioning:
    1. Right-click the Project and select Consolidate Project Media...
    2. Right-click again and select Duplicate Project

    Consolidate media moves all the Events to the same location as the project. You could have an SSD boot drive that the project is on and a large external for Events. You'd likely have to move the project to the external first and then consolidate. But how do you split it up assuming the entire project doesn't fit on one drive?

    Do you know of any "pro" who uses (or recommends) the boot drive for storing projects or events -- or the SSD?

    I think the default assumption has to be that there are no external drives... for the beginner. But any active "pro" editor will have tons (but never enough) of external drive space.

    One reason I bought the Pegasus 12s is that each has 10 TB of useable space. Not too long ago I paid just slightly less for a LaCie 2TB Bigger disk.


    Apple has yet to really address FCPX archiving and backup... I am hoping that sometime soon Apple will introduce a Local Server / iCloud combination that allows active files to be automatically backed up. As files become inactive, they would be compressed and percolate up to iCloud. As inactive files become active, they would trickle down to the Local Server and be decompressed. It certainly would help with FCPX sharing.

    I believe that Apple has the talent and tools -- and intends to implement something like this... in time... when they can get it right!

    Quote:
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Dick Applebaum View Post

    Because render files are quickly (64 bit processesing, Open GL, GCD, etc.) and easily regenerated (in the background) -- it makes little sense to transmit render files... That means that it may be practical, with FCPX, to exchange more files than would be with FCP 7.

    Right, render files wouldn't have to be sent in either case. You shouldn't really have to render all that much if the media has been transcoded. I agree that FCPX is faster but it's also more prone to issues. There was an issue where it would put random green frames into exported footage. I actually experienced that in both Motion and FCPX. Can you imagine if that happened just as you were about to export for a deadline. They simply can't allow things like this to happen:

    https://discussions.apple.com/thread/3134720?start=0&tstart=0

    The latest 10.0.8 release says they fixed this for 3rd party plugins but it happened without using plugins. As soon as something like that happens, it's very hard to rely on it for anything important. I think this is down to GPU acceleration, which doesn't appear to be able to be turned off. If you have a dodgy graphics driver update then it could break your workflow. OS 10.8.4 will hopefully fix the graphics drivers regarding the safari rendering bugs.

    What would be quite good is if they had a verify step and could tell if the decoded output had a massively different colour from the decoded input and warn about bad frames or changes in brightness etc. If at any point it detected a problem frame, it should revert to software mode for that exported section and redo it.

    Yes... Bugs are bad! There will always be bugs! Hardware Bugs are usually worse to define, locate and fix than software bugs. We as people will always need to find work-arounds to meet our needs -- "pros" mores than dilettantes like me! I touched my first computer in 1956... it was buggy -- but we were able to get the job done, despite the bugs... Just as Grace Hopper did when she discover a moth stuck to the innards of the Mark II computer in 1947.


    Ahhh... One final thought... It would be a lot easier to post in a timely fashion if AI would get rid of the bugs in this forum software... After losing several hours of work, several times, I write my posts in Mail as a workaround... I, and many others have complained, repeatedly... To be honest AI has made progress, but often it is two steps backwards followed by 2 1/2 steps forward... At least the smiley face finally works 1smile.gif

    Gotcha!


    Edit: As a final comment for consideration by the "pros" and amateurs, alike...

    Do you really think that the man who listened and understood what "pro" editors wanted and needed -- then brilliantly implemented it in FCP... Randy Ubilios... has suddenly stopped listening or has been lobotomized into trying to foist an inferior "iMovie Pro" (AKA FCPX) on the world? Same question about Apple?

Edited by Dick Applebaum - 4/2/13 at 2:42pm
"...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 #102 of 134
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dick Applebaum View Post

You cannot, on one hand claim that "It is pretty rare that footage is reused" -- and on the other hand claim that FCPX isn't "pro" because it doesn't allow you to directly open FCP 7 (and earlier) projects from 5-10 years ago -- because you need to change something or get access to some footage for a new project. My personal observation is that footage is reused all the time -- one only need look at commercials from the likes of Sears, Target, credit card companies, soft drinks, insurance companies, mobile phone companies -- even Apple.

I wouldn't say people get frequent feelings of Deja Vu while watching TV but the issue isn't reusing media, it's different sequences sharing the same Event and whether or not you'd want to simultaneously change all of them. If it's the same clip, I don't see why you wouldn't want to have them all update at the same time. If there's a boom mic in shot, you'd surely want it removed from every shot without figuring out where you'd used it and manually replacing each one.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dick Applebaum View Post

What do you do in FCP 7 when the repointed clip is a different length -- it, likely screws up the sync of subsequent clips in the same or other tracks. What if the repointed clip is in a different codec?

It doesn't affect the surrounding clips. FCP crops the new clip to the exact same length (when I say 'new clip' remember, I'm primarily talking about the same clip that's been adjusted elsewhere - it's not common to replace it like that with a different clip). FCPX instead pushes everything out. Everything is in sync but you'd have to crop it and offset it manually again. It's a minor issue for Apple to fix. It literally needs one other option when you drag a clip on top of another that says something like 'replace and match' where it tries to crop and offset the new footage to the one you are replacing it with and they could just be a bit more lenient on the relink conditions.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dick Applebaum View Post

That's your opinion... and I respect it!

I didn't mean that to be a suggestion that FCPX isn't professional software. I just mean it needs to be more flexible to accommodate a wider range of working environments. It is currently being used in expensive productions, even if they do use some of the workarounds.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dick Applebaum View Post

Here's where I'm an optimist... Apple has [belatedly] proven that it is listening and paying attention. I suspect that some things that are somewhat clumsy workarounds (in FCP X) will be incorporated into the product -- hopefully as elegantly as MultiCam.

I hope so. Like I say, even though this is nearly 2 years in, I think they are still in the period where people can viably run the old workflows before making a jump one way or another. I just don't want to see them avoid improving collaborative workflows and instead just start their marketing machine to distract people from it. If software is good enough, it doesn't need a strong marketing campaign. Look at the original Final Cut.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dick Applebaum View Post

I don't agree "It's a clear admission that Apple didn't design the software to share projects". Why would they use a database structure for events and projects? Why would they attempt to hide the Finder and underlying file structure? Why would they implement (and continue to expand) a robust "sharing" capability (when you account for all the options)? Why the implied integration with mobile devices? Why the robust and granular XML?

The database design is so you don't have to save anything - no more autosaves every few minutes, every change is current. No prompts about saving a new project or saving changes when you quit. It gets rid of all those dialogs. None of that implies anything about sharing. The XML is for interoperability with other software, which is essential but not enough for sharing FCPX projects.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dick Applebaum View Post

Do you know of any "pro" who uses (or recommends) the boot drive for storing projects or events -- or the SSD?

I think the default assumption has to be that there are no external drives... for the beginner. But any active "pro" editor will have tons (but never enough) of external drive space.

I agree with the storage amount somewhat unless you have to work remotely but it's still skirting round another of FCPX's limitations. Also, concerning the boot drive, if you have 100GB of footage and a 512GB SSD, the SSD is one of the fastest places to keep it while you work on it. As Steve Martin was saying, you could edit on the beach if you like - but you ain't taking your Pegasus with you.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dick Applebaum View Post

It would be a lot easier to post in a timely fashion if AI would get rid of the bugs in this forum software... After losing several hours of work, several times, I write my posts in Mail as a workaround... I, and many others have complained, repeatedly... To be honest AI has made progress, but often it is two steps backwards followed by 2 1/2 steps forward... At least the smiley face finally works 1smile.gif

At the risk of encouraging longer posts, I find Textedit works quite well for this too. 1wink.gif
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dick Applebaum View Post

Do you really think that the man who listened and understood what "pro" editors wanted and needed -- then brilliantly implemented it in FCP... Randy Ubilios... has suddenly stopped listening or has been lobotomized into trying to foist an inferior "iMovie Pro" (AKA FCPX) on the world? Same question about Apple?

It's a good question. I don't like to think so but I also recall what they did with Shake and the comments made by its developers. It's rarely any of the extremes - people pull it in each direction and give it a label of 'professional' or 'toy' because people like to simplify things that way. I do think that they go more after features in their software than focusing on it just working these days and these are sometimes contrary goals. I'd rather that they prioritise flexibility and reliability. They like to put the icing on before the cake is done.
post #103 of 134
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvin View Post

 They like to put the icing on before the cake is done.

 

  What I'd love for Apple to have done with FCPX would be similar to how Logic used to be tiered.  It was no denigration of the program to offer a Pro version and a more fully bundled up Studio version, which contained extra parts that weren't part of a recording DAW but were needed for full blown multimedia use.

 

  I don't think 75% of the people who jumped on the initial release of FCPX even knew what broadcast output was, much less that it wasn't included, as it didn't affect them.  For a big part of the industry though, not having broadcast output meant they couldn't use it, awesome new UI paradigm or not.

 

I'm in no way besmirching those who didn't need the pro functions that were missing for so long.   Just that Apple has this funny way of wanting to play it both ways:   to be everything to everyone and yet insisting on maybe too streamlined a product line.  They did, after all, end up only offering the $199 Logic Pro, sans extra non-DAW parts, as the only version.   

 

  Personally, as an Aperture user, I've been using the heck out of PS Elements for years and couldn't do without it.   I look at it as I chose the version without the icing.   I doubt I would have reached for PS had Adobe only offered that. 

post #104 of 134
Final cut x is only an App to put it on the trash.
That's all.

Paul, Film Broadcaster.
post #105 of 134
Originally Posted by Cinemac View Post
Final cut x is only an App to put it on the trash.
That's all.

Paul, Film Broadcaster.

 

WOW, I REALLY BELIEVE YOU! GEE, THANKS PAUL, FILM BROADCASTER!

 

1oyvey.gif1rolleyes.gif

Originally posted by Marvin

Even if [the 5.5” iPhone exists], it doesn’t deserve to.
Reply

Originally posted by Marvin

Even if [the 5.5” iPhone exists], it doesn’t deserve to.
Reply
post #106 of 134
Well, the main reason for Apple to not get back pro users is the trust.
Nobody in pro market trust Apple anymore.
Especially big companies that buy vast quantities of equipment and they creating their workflows for years.

Maybe some single pro users would go for FCPX but not the industry.

For many years the standard in video editing was established:
1st league - Avid
2nd league - Premiere Pro, FCP
3rd league - Edius, Vegas

Afte realease of FCS - FCP itself advanced into 1st league and Color were considered as a good alternative for expensive Quantel, DaVinci, Lustre, etc.

Many companies invested big money to convert into FCP surrounding. Everything was beautiful.
And when everyone was expecting to get just a small update with support for RED, DPX, ARRI, 64bit, etc. - as the software not needed much more - the catastrophe arrived.
Nearly perfect editing software were replaced - not updated but replaced - by totally amateur looking and working soft based on iMovie workflow, called FCPX.

I remember it as WTC.

It is like you working for years with Excel and somebody gives you a TextEdit telling that this is a new Excel - simpler, better, perfect.

People started to scream and fight, but after 2 years nobody say anything more. All the pros went back to Avid, some of them tried Premiere Pro, the others still use FCP7.
To be honest, for offline editing we don't need anything more then FCP7 or Avid. All that updates and tries to convince people about the greatness of FCPX still looks like a sad joke.

But the fact is that FCP from the 1st league dropped down straight into 3rd league loosing the trust forever.

The only solution is to say sorry, we made a mistake and from now on, we won't lie anymore. We won't be making idiots of ourselves in pro's eyes. We will keep FCPX as a good alternative but in the next year we will release FCS4 that includes FCP8, Color2, Soundtrack2, DVDStudioPro2 Compressor and Motion of course.
And that is THE ONLY way to get back a pro editors. There is non other one.
post #107 of 134
We need an age verification system here!
post #108 of 134
Quote:
Originally Posted by PhilBoogie View Post

We need an age verification system here!

In the case of the pro applications, perhaps an ownership verification would be better.

Originally posted by Marvin

Even if [the 5.5” iPhone exists], it doesn’t deserve to.
Reply

Originally posted by Marvin

Even if [the 5.5” iPhone exists], it doesn’t deserve to.
Reply
post #109 of 134
Quote:

The only solution is to say sorry, we made a mistake and from now on, we won't lie anymore. We won't be making idiots of ourselves in pro's eyes. We will keep FCPX as a good alternative but in the next year we will release FCS4 that includes FCP8, Color2, Soundtrack2, DVDStudioPro2 Compressor and Motion of course.
And that is THE ONLY way to get back a pro editors. There is non other one.

I agree fully.  Most filmmakers I know feel the same - all have moved back to Avid or are still using FCP7.  Final Cut Pro X really is just being embraced by younger filmmakers doing shorts for youtube or Vimeo, simple projects.  The UI is not intuitive as FCP7 is.  I see a parallel with the new iOS7 - it's change simply for the sake of change.  Tall Skill and Phil won't agree, but my guess is they've never used an edit system before or work in the pro film community and will just defend Apple at all costs.

post #110 of 134
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hidu View Post

The only solution is to say sorry, we made a mistake and from now on, we won't lie anymore. We won't be making idiots of ourselves in pro's eyes. We will keep FCPX as a good alternative but in the next year we will release FCS4 that includes FCP8, Color2, Soundtrack2, DVDStudioPro2 Compressor and Motion of course.
And that is THE ONLY way to get back a pro editors. There is non other one.

Thanks for all the sweeping generalizations and nonsensical beliefs.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bennettvista View Post

I agree fully.  Most filmmakers I know feel the same - all have moved back to Avid or are still using FCP7.  Final Cut Pro X really is just being embraced by younger filmmakers doing shorts for youtube or Vimeo, simple projects.  The UI is not intuitive as FCP7 is.  I see a parallel with the new iOS7 - it's change simply for the sake of change.  Tall Skill and Phil won't agree, but my guess is they've never used an edit system before or work in the pro film community and will just defend Apple at all costs.

Same.

Originally posted by Marvin

Even if [the 5.5” iPhone exists], it doesn’t deserve to.
Reply

Originally posted by Marvin

Even if [the 5.5” iPhone exists], it doesn’t deserve to.
Reply
post #111 of 134
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post


Thanks for all the sweeping generalizations and nonsensical beliefs.
Same.

That's not an argument... that's just contradiction.  I paid for an argument.

post #112 of 134
Quote:
Originally Posted by bennettvista View Post

I paid for an argument.

Ha HA! I like that.

I don't have enough experience with X to be able to talk about it with any sense of scope; I know that. But from seeing it used, from hearing what people have to say about it, my takeaway is that 7 is intuitive because you're used to it and X becomes that way once you do.

I wonder as to the future of both pro product families now that Apple's making a 50º turn in design policy. We'll have to see. iWork this fall will give us our first look at some changes, if any.

Originally posted by Marvin

Even if [the 5.5” iPhone exists], it doesn’t deserve to.
Reply

Originally posted by Marvin

Even if [the 5.5” iPhone exists], it doesn’t deserve to.
Reply
post #113 of 134
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

In the case of the pro applications, perhaps an ownership verification would be better.

Not interested in what some 'Film Broadcaster' has in its trash ¡

But yeah, posters pointing to an objective, non biased review of their work will get them points from me.
post #114 of 134
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post


Ha HA! I like that.

I don't have enough experience with X to be able to talk about it with any sense of scope; I know that. But from seeing it used, from hearing what people have to say about it, my takeaway is that 7 is intuitive because you're used to it and X becomes that way once you do.

I wonder as to the future of both pro product families now that Apple's making a 50º turn in design policy. We'll have to see. iWork this fall will give us our first look at some changes, if any.

I think regarding Final Cut Pro X we are just in an interim stage where it's slightly neither here nor there.  I have a source connected to the video team there who gave me a hint of what is up their sleeve.  At some point down the road, the iMac will be able to be used in two configurations (with vertical screen and keyboard as it is currently) and then in a way where the screen can slide down into a horizontal position (slightly slanted on the desktop) where the whole surface of the monitor is a touch screen.  Supposedly it is in this fashion that you will get the most out of Final Cut Pro X - it will be completely intuitive and almost childlike as you can grab clips, extend them by lengthening with your fingertips, etc... The magnetic timeline will be great to use in this fashion and it will be a fantastic edit system - way ahead of anything out there.  So based on this hint I feel we are just in an interim position where the software is waiting for the hardware that it was designed for.  At present with a keyboard and mouse and the fact that we've been using it for years, FCP7 still feels more familiar and yes, for some of us it's just hard to change.

post #115 of 134
Quote:
Originally Posted by bennettvista View Post

At some point down the road, the iMac will be able to be used in two configurations (with vertical screen and keyboard as it is currently) and then in a way where the screen can slide down into a horizontal position (slightly slanted on the desktop) where the whole surface of the monitor is a touch screen.  Supposedly it is in this fashion that you will get the most out of Final Cut Pro X - it will be completely intuitive and almost childlike as you can grab clips, extend them by lengthening with your fingertips, etc... The magnetic timeline will be great to use in this fashion and it will be a fantastic edit system - way ahead of anything out there.

You know, I'm starting to think that, too. Apple's doing that very thing with every other piece of computer software they make, so why not Final Cut? I mean, look at System Preferences in Mavericks; they've slightly bumped up the size of the icons again. In fact, these icons are now almost the size you'd want under your fingertips. I'm starting to feel like I'd rather touch them than have to go and click them. If they're doing the same in Final Cut, it makes a lot of sense that pros would feel put out a bit.

I wonder if anyone has used Final Cut X with a touchscreen monitor yet...

Originally posted by Marvin

Even if [the 5.5” iPhone exists], it doesn’t deserve to.
Reply

Originally posted by Marvin

Even if [the 5.5” iPhone exists], it doesn’t deserve to.
Reply
post #116 of 134
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

I wonder if anyone has used Final Cut X with a touchscreen monitor yet...

There's an app for that: ProCutX:

http://nofilmschool.com/2013/04/procutx-ipad-control-app-final-cut-pro-x/

post #117 of 134
Quote:
Originally Posted by PhilBoogie View Post


There's an app for that: ProCutX:

http://nofilmschool.com/2013/04/procutx-ipad-control-app-final-cut-pro-x/
 

 

That's just a touchscreen emulation of an old-fashioned edit controller. The real test would be actually grabbing clips on the timeline with your fingers.

 

Edit: I tried iMovie on the iPhone which is kinda the same idea, and it felt a little clumsy and imprecise. That could be jut because of the tiny screen though.


Edited by v5v - 6/20/13 at 7:59pm
post #118 of 134
Quote:
Originally Posted by v5v View Post

That's just a touchscreen emulation of an old-fashioned edit controller. The real test would be actually grabbing clips on the timeline with your fingers.

I know, I know. Seemed related.
Quote:
I tried iMovie on the iPhone which is kinda the same idea, and it felt a little clumsy and imprecise. That could be jut because of the tiny screen though.

I actually used it once, on my 4, and felt it was clumsy. It probably works better on my 5 now, but haven't touched the app since I dumped it in an AppleZooi folder, along with other...apps from Apple.
post #119 of 134
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by bennettvista View Post

At some point down the road, the iMac will be able to be used in two configurations (with vertical screen and keyboard as it is currently) and then in a way where the screen can slide down into a horizontal position (slightly slanted on the desktop) where the whole surface of the monitor is a touch screen.  Supposedly it is in this fashion that you will get the most out of Final Cut Pro X - it will be completely intuitive and almost childlike as you can grab clips, extend them by lengthening with your fingertips, etc... The magnetic timeline will be great to use in this fashion and it will be a fantastic edit system - way ahead of anything out there.

You know, I'm starting to think that, too. Apple's doing that very thing with every other piece of computer software they make, so why not Final Cut? I mean, look at System Preferences in Mavericks; they've slightly bumped up the size of the icons again. In fact, these icons are now almost the size you'd want under your fingertips. I'm starting to feel like I'd rather touch them than have to go and click them. If they're doing the same in Final Cut, it makes a lot of sense that pros would feel put out a bit.

I wonder if anyone has used Final Cut X with a touchscreen monitor yet...

I am playing with FCPX using The Screens VNC on my iPad 4. The performance is pretty good, but it is clumsy...

  • The controls are small so you must zoom the screen
  • You really need to display the touch keyboard to do even basic things
    -- Shift-Z to display entire story line
  • Some kb shortcuts require both the alpha kb and the numbers kbs -- so they aren't very short
    -- the "/" key used to play the selected clip, requires a switch to the numbers kb
  • The FCPX UI doesn't exploit the multitouch UI

The latter point is the most critical, but offers the most potential...

It is fantastic that you can use gestures to zoom and pan the display -- but, you cannot select a clip and compress or extend it -- or easily trim in and out points.

However, I think that all the downside limitations can be resolved, and it would be great to edit directly with your hand.
"...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 #120 of 134
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dick Applebaum View Post

However, I think that all the downside limitations can be resolved, and it would be great to edit directly with your hand.

I just attended a Pro Lab at an Apple Store, using a Macbook Pro they provided. I was pleasantly surprised by the build-in touchpad, so I bought the $70 'standalone' one because 1) I liked it and 2) I've 'hammered' on my Magic Mouse as it wasn't always responding 'correctly'.

Using this Touchpad turned out to be such a great device, and 2) the Pro Lab is such a useful (and free; I'm Dutch) thing I signed up for a Final Cut Pro X Lab. The guy presenting showed be a few gestures in FCP which makes it a given this software really ought to be redesigned for touch. Feels very natural (well, to me).

And I fully believe OSX & iOS should not be merged because of this difference. The desktop 'as we know it' uses a bitmap screen and a little pointer, moved by a mouse. This is very different from using a touchscreen, interacted with a way larger surface: out finger(s).

The difference will should always be there, so please, no merging. Not that you were implying this, sir, and going way OT. Still, seemed related.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Mac Software
AppleInsider › Forums › Software › Mac Software › Apple updates Final Cut Pro X, Motion & Compressor in push to win back pro users