I think this a smart guy trying make sense of it all but Garageband has not revolutionised the distribution of music (though it might have helped some beginners to start producing music and thus might have kickstarted some 'professional' careers, with professional meaning people gaining an audience, paying or non-paying).
I think Apple simply overshot, they went into the right direction but went too far (for the time being, hopefully reality catches up to them).
I work close to a hotel/convention center that have housed some pretty notable musicians and it is amazing the number that carry an Macbook Pro and/or an iPad and use Garageband.
Katy Perry, in particular might have a varying opinion for example. If I am not mistaken, her "Teenage Dream" was created in GarageBand for iPad. Usher apparently uses it too.
It implies that the future of moving picture will be in everybody's hands now, not a centralized entertainment industry. FCP X is designed for the masses -- i think that is the implication.
That's fine. Wonderful actually. But does the centralized entertainment industry have a place in this glorious future? According to many on this board, Avid is stodgy and behind the times and Premiere is akin to Windows Movie Maker, and pros use FCP exclusively.
...the future of moving picture will be in everybody's hands now, not a centralized entertainment industry. FCP X is designed for the masses -- i think that is the implication. He seems to be saying that Apple wants to sell content from the masses to the masses. Could they be thinking of fodder for their Apple TV set?
And the LaserWriter put publishing in the hands of the masses. And don't forget that Big Lots, with their $9.99 socket wrench set (with accompanying pliers and multi-tip screwdriver) put fixing one's own car into the hands of the masses.
Please... this romantic notion that the release to the masses of an art form or heretofore unattainable plateau is the harbinger of a new renaissance is merely a sales tactic. An artful one, but a sales pitch that cuts to the core of everyone who holds shoulda, coulda, woulda in the back of their head. It's the same as the home studio/music industry's promise of self fulfillment.
The "future" of moving picture has been in everybody's hands for the last 20 years. You can sit around a not create because your waiting for technology to catch up to your grandiose (but unrealized) plans, or you can do what creators do: CREATE with what you got!
As for content from the masses to the masses, it's already happening without Apple skimming $$ of the top. YouTube is free; can Apple re-bottle that pipeline? Dunno.
Point I was making is that Apple positioned FCPX as a the next version of FCP7 when clearly it's not. It's an entirely new product. Even with all the upgrades they are promising you still won't be able to import your FCP7 files into FCPX. Pro users can't just switch like that. They need an upgrade path, time to transition, etc. Whatever they call it it's not FCP as we know it.
Apple always tries to hide the bad news, hope nobody will make too much of a fuss. Well it backfired this time. I maintain that they should have said "We are retiring FCP with version 7, we'll keep supporting it and bug fixing for the next x years, in the meantime here's our new product xxx (whatever they call it). It's the future. When you finished all your current projects why not move across in your own time".
I can't seem to use AI's multi-quote response, so this post is kind of kludged together.
Let me see if I can address your 2 major points:
1) No Upgrade path and transition time
As discussed in my posts below, I believe that it is possible that a migration tool (FCP7 to FCPX) could be provided that would be equivalent to the migration capability from FCP7 to Premiere.
Apple, or a 3rd-party could supply this -- better Apple, IMO.
This weekend, I am gonna' play around with the needs of a FCP7 to FCPX migration. If it is possible, and nobody else does it, I will write one and make beaucoup big bucks
2) The way the announcement was made, hiding the bad news and it backfiring on Apple
What if Apple had just released FCPX as a "prototype" of a future replacement for FCP7 -- that some "pros" could begin using right away. What an equivocating dud of an announcement that would have -- "Oh yeah, great! I am real busy right now, but I'll have a look when I get around to it" would likely been the response of most pros, blogs and the media in general.
End of story...
By doing the announcement, as they did, Apple said: Listen! Here is where we see the future of video editing. We are going there as fast as we can.
It certainly got everyone's attention! Everyone (including Conan) seemed to have an opinion (or 12) and would tell anyone who would listen. AI members, who hadn't posted in years weighed in. The financial news was full of the FCPX controversy.
So, now, everyone knows where everyone else stands and why!
Now if Apple were to gracefully backpedal and:
-- make FCS available again-- say, for two years
-- offer a "best effort" FCP7 to FCPX migration tool
Would this whole scenario help Apple to accomplish the objectives they have set for adoption of FCPX?
Could they have done it better?
Hmmm.....
Quote:
Originally Posted by Original AI Article
Import
Can I import projects from Final Cut Pro 7 into Final Cut Pro X?
Final Cut Pro X includes an all-new project architecture structured around a trackless timeline and connected clips. In addition, Final Cut Pro X features new and redesigned audio effects, video effects, and color grading tools. Because of these changes, there is no way to ?translate? or bring in old projects without changing or losing data. But if you?re already working with Final Cut Pro 7, you can continue to do so after installing Final Cut Pro X, and Final Cut Pro 7 will work with Mac OS X Lion. You can also import your media files from previous versions into Final Cut Pro X.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dick Applebaum
Based on limited FCPX experience and tutorials the highlighted text is true... as far as it goes.
But I think that with a "best effort" attempt Apple could provide a separate migration tool that took an FCP7 project and created a corresponding FCPX project:
-- The media from FCP7 could be copied (or optionally pointed to) and used to create equivalent events
-- Missing FCP7 organizational constructs such as bins and multi-sequence-projects could be handled with FCPX collections and naming conventions: ProjA,Seq1,Seq2 become ProjA-Seq1, ProjA-Seq2...
-- I believe the FCPX storyline construct could provide a reasonable approximation of the multiple track construct of an FCP7 sequence (FCPX doesn't have multiple tracks, but clips can be positioned above and below the storyline)
-- The clips in FCPX would maintain the same length and juxtaposition as the original FCP7 sequence.
-- Clips without equivalent FCPX effects could be tagged with an FCPX "To Do" marker to indicate what has been abandoned and what needs to be done done, e.g. "Missing XYZfx Karaoke Bouncing Ball effect".
With a migration tool, as described above, Apple could do the necessary grunt work/heavy lifting to move a legacy FCP7 project to FCPX.
As the robustness of FCPX grows the migration tool could be expanded to accomplish a more complete migration -- New 3rd-party FCPX effects could be applied with the same parameters as their FCP7 equivalents.
I assume that Apple must provide this tool, because I don't believe Apple has supplied a programmatic way for 3rd-parties to generate FCPX projects and position clips in the storyline (and other positions above and below).
Done properly, I believe that this would provide a level of comfort to pros with many legacy FCP7/FCS projects -- it gives them a path forward migrate legacy projects to the new technology as and when needed.
Quote:
Originally Posted by digitalclips
I just updated the link about migration to a better page.
Yes I too would hate to see this go that way, especially to Adobe LOL. You could be rich if you create a utility from 7 to X
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dick Applebaum
That's a pretty good list!
Well... Shit, Oh Dear...
I just watched the video that demonstrates conversion from FCP to Premiere and back.
As I posted earlier I believe Apple could provide a similar migration tool.
With what I know about FCPX it could handle the import of an FCP7 sequence equally as well as Premiere.
For now, some of the effects in FCPX may be missing -- but that should change quickly (there is quite a bit of activity on the <[email protected]> mailing lists).
If that's all it takes then Apple will be remiss [crazy] if they don't supply (or let a 3rd-party supply) a migration tool -- "all-new project architecture structured around a trackless timeline"... shmimeline, Indeed!
I work close to a hotel/convention center that have housed some pretty notable musicians and it is amazing the number that carry an Macbook Pro and/or an iPad and use Garageband.
Katy Perry, in particular might have a varying opinion for example. If I am not mistaken, her "Teenage Dream" was created in GarageBand for iPad. Usher apparently uses it too.
GarageBand sounds like crap. Find an acoustically designed recording studio control room and play back GB material through a high quality monitoring system and anybody can hear how bad it is. I have a couple such rooms and have had to clean up and improve upon as much as possible GB tracks. As a scratchpad tool for jotting down ideas and trying out moving the bridge 8 bars later, it's fine, but as a production tool for material that is going to be released to an end user, it's woefully inadequate. Really.
One might go to GB for a particular sound in the same way you might boot up that old Ensoniq Mirage for some stale, gritty, low bit depth sample loops, but it's not a go to device in the studio.
GarageBand sounds like crap. Find an acoustically designed recording studio control room and play back GB material through a high quality monitoring system and anybody can hear how bad it is. I have a couple such rooms and have had to clean up and improve upon as much as possible GB tracks. As a scratchpad tool for jotting down ideas and trying out moving the bridge 8 bars later, it's fine, but as a production tool for material that is going to be released to an end user, it's woefully inadequate. Really.
One might go to GB for a particular sound in the same way you might boot up that old Ensoniq Mirage for some stale, gritty, low bit depth sample loops, but it's not a go to device in the studio.
gc
Garageband was never position for high-end production. What the fuck is your problem?
Could you supply the link to the video of the panel discussion?
Interesting that you, "?suspect they (the panel) were fairly representative of the opinions/feelings that we see expressed here and on other blogs/forums," even before the product was available or even shown?
It implies that the future of moving picture will be in everybody's hands now, not a centralized entertainment industry. FCP X is designed for the masses -- i think that is the implication.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Conrail
That's fine. Wonderful actually. But does the centralized entertainment industry have a place in this glorious future? According to many on this board, Avid is stodgy and behind the times and Premiere is akin to Windows Movie Maker, and pros use FCP exclusively.
I consider myself more of a dilettante with video editing than a Prosumer.
I do videos for friends and family... often for my own amazement, or just because I want to find out and understand how something works, or how it's done.
I have lots of hours in FCP/FCS and sat through hours of tutorials, and manual reading, etc. -- with no formal education or experience with video editing.
I am technically oriented, not creative -- but when I see something creative, that grabs me, I want to understand: "How can I do that?"
All that said! I realize that there there are pros out there that I could learn from -- learn a lot from!
But, the more I learn about video editing, it seems there are:
1) technicians, like me, who know their way around the tool they use -- some better than others
2) creatives that know to take raw media and juxtapose, combine and modify them in such a way that sets a mood; creates anticipation, grabs your attention and involves you in their offering -- for lack of a better word, I call them story-tellers.
A simple analogy might be the comparison of a good typist to a good author...
But this isn't exactly complete, or a valid comparison.
A lot of the "creative" part of story telling comes from the producer who knows what he wants; the cameramen who shoot the actual footage; and finally the creative pro video editor / story teller. *
* this encompasses specialists in sound, coloring, effects, etc.
He is the one that turns the raw media into a composition that tells the story that was originally intended -- often using his own creativity to enhance the story beyond what was originally perceived.
To me the technicians, like myself, need to become proficient in the tools they use and be flexible to learn/use new tools as they become available -- or risk being left behind.
The creatives, do what they do, regardless (or in spite of) the tools they use -- they will always be in demand.
That's my 2 cents worth.
P.S. I want to learn story-telling. I believe there courses, at places like USC, that teach this.
Attending on-site college courses is not practical for me. Can anyone here recommend any good online courses in creative video editing and story-telling?
I know that this will not make me a "creative" -- but I would like to improve my video story-telling.
P.P.S.
As an example of something that grabbed me (in the late 1940s and still does) -- here is a video of the Gillette Cavalcade of sports. The leadin is what grabs me -- the first 25 seconds where they show a divided TV screen with several sports playing at the same time: If you had TV in the 1940s, you watched this show -- it was one of the few shows available among hours of test patterns.
A little off-topic and a newbie question to be sure, but what is the best software I can use to work with vob files? I would like to import them without transcoding (or at least transcoding without losing quality) and then edit them. Can I use FCP X for it, or some other progam?
You can use MPEG Streamclip - I can't remember if you still need the MPEG-2 Quicktime codec. It will allow you to cut VOB and export the same, then put back into DVDSP if you want. It isn't frame-accurate though - the cuts go back to the start of the nearest GOP. It's not a huge deal but it can be as much as a couple of seconds away from where you want.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dick Applebaum
for lack of a better word, I call them story-tellers.
Another word would be the director. A lot of the places where FCPX is lacking is in the technical things, which don't really matter for the purpose of story-telling (besides multi-cam).
It makes a huge improvement in terms of just getting the footage (it's compatible with) in to start working. Nobody wants to even think about transcoding really because it's time-consuming and boring so getting that stage done without even thinking about it is great.
The Supermeet demo showed some nice features to help story-telling like for L/J edits. Having to push things around to prepare to make an edit slows you down.
You can see in the video of the people you posted what the real issue is. The one person who previewed it (though the others clearly had inside info) and thought it was awesome couldn't commit to saying he was prepared to install it in his facility because the answer was no - there's no volume licensing for a start. I don't think people have any problems with the new timeline and story-telling features, they are long overdue. The problem is that it just doesn't fit into collaborative workflows yet.
It may at some point but nobody knows when and right now, Apple don't have a product that does fit. There are also problems Apple hasn't said will even be fixed.
At the end of the day, people can go on about revolution and attach it to every dangerous move Apple makes. It's still just video editing. You film a bunch of stuff, you cut it up and you put it in a certain order to tell a story. Will their software make people produce better output? Not likely because that skill comes from the director. Having a program that doesn't get in your way certainly helps but what's the point if you can't actually integrate it into your workflow? That's the definition of unusable. Sure, when most of the issues get fixed, the fans will go 'see told you so, Apple know what they are doing' and everyone else will just go .
What's interesting is the sound and video were captured in a studio, then GarageBand and iMovie were used to cut the video and publish it to YT,
Sheena does all the piano, vocal and editing in GarageBand and iMovie.
Sheena has since upgraded to Logic and will upgrade to FCPX.
Do we have to go here?
Throughout this video, you can see a Digidesign ProControl in the background. It happens to be a 16 fader model, exactly like the two I own; both propped up against the wall since they've been replaced by D-Commands. The application on the video monitors is Pro Tools. The red button on the ProControl transport means that ProTools is recording. The record status lights indicate that 3 tracks are being recorded, one of them stereo (the keyboard?). The mic she's singing into is a U-87. I own a couple of them.
So she's singing into a 3k+ mic, connected to $2k MindPrint DTC mic pre and recording it into a $30k+ ProTools rig just for the sake of the video --because she uses GarageBand. Well, maybe she's smart enough to use PT as a front end and GB just for some manipulation (?).
If mixed in ProTools, then there's less excuse for the audio. IT'S TERRIBLE. Really, it is. You MUST listen to it on something better than a laptop's speakers or desktops with no tweeter response above 2k. The track is full of awful artifacting and the sampled piano is pitiful. At least jack this into a mid level stereo system and listen to it --anybody-- and you'll cringe; both at the track and at what laptop speakers and headphones don't translate.
I'm more willing to attribute the poor audio quality to YouTube and multiple generations of compression than to GB (or pitiful Protools skills), but that can be so hard to tell.
Throughout this video, you can see a Digidesign ProControl in the background. It happens to be a 16 fader model, exactly like the two I own; both propped up against the wall since they've been replaced by D-Commands. The application on the video monitors is Pro Tools. The red button on the ProControl transport means that ProTools is recording. The record status lights indicate that 3 tracks are being recorded, one of them stereo (the keyboard?). The mic she's singing into is a U-87. I own a couple of them.
So she's singing into a 3k+ mic, connected to $2k MindPrint DTC mic pre and recording it into a $30k+ ProTools rig just for the sake of the video --because she uses GarageBand. Well, maybe she's smart enough to use PT as a front end and GB just for some manipulation (?).
If mixed in ProTools, then there's less excuse for the audio. IT'S TERRIBLE. Really, it is. You MUST listen to it on something better than a laptop's speakers or desktops with no tweeter response above 2k. The track is full of awful artifacting and the sampled piano is pitiful. At least jack this into a mid level stereo system and listen to it --anybody-- and you'll cringe; both at the track and at what laptop speakers and headphones don't translate.
I'm more willing to attribute the poor audio quality to YouTube and multiple generations of compression than to GB (or pitiful Protools skills), but that can be so hard to tell.
I didn't mean to imply that GarageBand and iMovie were the only tools.
Nor, did I mean to imply that the studio or equipment were the only tools available.
This particular video was a "cover" -- an artist's version of someone else's song/video. It was not targeted to be sold as a Music Video -- rather it was targeted to be uploaded to YouTube as a promotional. There "rules" and "freedoms" within the industry that permit Artists to do "covers" without permissions/royalties -- but they cannot be sold or formally "published".
So why the studio?
Sheena and her team have been working on here first Album. It will consist of songs Sheena has written (words and music) and performs (vocal and piano). I suspect it will contain both Music Videos and songs (audio only).
I suspect when they produce/capture the actual performance they will use the best equipment and people available to them.
I suspect that when they cut the Music Videos and the audio (only) songs, they will use the best talent and hardware/software editing solutions available.
Sheena is a creative artist who used the tools available (GarageBand and iMovie) to edit and package the "cover" for YouTube. Anything else would be overkill.
She has started using Logic because she needs capabilities beyond GarageBand. She will use FCPX because she needs editing capabilities beyond iMovie.
Will Sheena do the post and packaging on the deliverables of her Album. No! But she will have an appreciation for what is involved and what is possible from post -- and she will get the results she wants to showcase her talent. She will be able to communicate with the "pros" that will make it happen.
Sheena is a creative artist who used the tools available (GarageBand and iMovie) to edit and package the "cover" for YouTube. Anything else would be overkill.
No. Anything else would not be overkill. What are you listening to this on?
No. Anything else would not be overkill. What are you listening to this on?
Lets see...
iPhone, iPod, iPad, iMacs, Sony HDTV...
I can listen to it on a vintage B&O with McIntosh speakers, either of 2 Boses with folded horns... even an iPod HiFi when were at a picnic at the park (or want to piss off the neighbors).
Admittedly, my 71-year old ears are not what they used be -- but even they can tell the difference between what YouTube has to offer and what's possible!
What do you suggest -- I am not investing in any more audio equipment.
The video is the top left one -- with all the guys on stools!
Thanks for the link.
Confirms everything I have been saying. Only one of the group had been apprised of FCPX and he was amazed at what he witnessed. Yet the biggest critic had never seen the product, knew nothing about it, but was more than willing to express his distain for it.
Oddly, I can't find the link... But there was video of a panel discussion with about 10 Pos at the FCPUG Supermeet, a day before the Apple presos.
Several of the pros (likely saw the early pre-announce at Apple HQ) were highly critical of FCPX and specifically pointed out things FCPX couldn't do and that FCPX would not fit into the workflow for many pros.
Others were totally impressed and said the could begin using it immedistely.
Most saw it as an incomplete product, but that it defined the future of video editing and srory-telling.
I suspect they (the panel) were fairly representative of the opinions/feelings that we see expressed here and on other blogs/forums.
I watched the video again. As I said previously, only one of the pros had seen FCPX before NAB. The others knew virtually nothing about any of its feature.
And remember, this event was recorded prior to NAB 2011 when Apple keynoted FCPX.
I watched the video again. As I said previously, only one of the pros had seen FCPX before NAB. The others knew virtually nothing about any of its feature.
And remember, this event was recorded prior to NAB 2011 when Apple keynoted FCPX.
I hope you watched all 4 parts.
There was a lot of speculation on the commoditization/future of post as the pros know it today.
I suspect everyone on the panel had some inside information on fCPX -- if only from cohorts who had been briefed by Apple and were under NDA. The most critical guy (2nd from the left) seemed to have his facts straight and seemed fair! As did the gentleman with long gray hair (2nd from the right after the moderator) who had just finished a Book about/for Avid.
I found an article that says the FCP7 import is already built into FCPX -- just not activated. Here's the translation from Mac Magazine Brazil (scroll down to the second article):
You can use MPEG Streamclip - I can't remember if you still need the MPEG-2 Quicktime codec. It will allow you to cut VOB and export the same, then put back into DVDSP if you want. It isn't frame-accurate though - the cuts go back to the start of the nearest GOP. It's not a huge deal but it can be as much as a couple of seconds away from where you want.
Comments
But he started it.
Like yours?
I think this a smart guy trying make sense of it all but Garageband has not revolutionised the distribution of music (though it might have helped some beginners to start producing music and thus might have kickstarted some 'professional' careers, with professional meaning people gaining an audience, paying or non-paying).
I think Apple simply overshot, they went into the right direction but went too far (for the time being, hopefully reality catches up to them).
I work close to a hotel/convention center that have housed some pretty notable musicians and it is amazing the number that carry an Macbook Pro and/or an iPad and use Garageband.
Katy Perry, in particular might have a varying opinion for example. If I am not mistaken, her "Teenage Dream" was created in GarageBand for iPad. Usher apparently uses it too.
It implies that the future of moving picture will be in everybody's hands now, not a centralized entertainment industry. FCP X is designed for the masses -- i think that is the implication.
That's fine. Wonderful actually. But does the centralized entertainment industry have a place in this glorious future? According to many on this board, Avid is stodgy and behind the times and Premiere is akin to Windows Movie Maker, and pros use FCP exclusively.
...the future of moving picture will be in everybody's hands now, not a centralized entertainment industry. FCP X is designed for the masses -- i think that is the implication. He seems to be saying that Apple wants to sell content from the masses to the masses. Could they be thinking of fodder for their Apple TV set?
And the LaserWriter put publishing in the hands of the masses. And don't forget that Big Lots, with their $9.99 socket wrench set (with accompanying pliers and multi-tip screwdriver) put fixing one's own car into the hands of the masses.
Please... this romantic notion that the release to the masses of an art form or heretofore unattainable plateau is the harbinger of a new renaissance is merely a sales tactic. An artful one, but a sales pitch that cuts to the core of everyone who holds shoulda, coulda, woulda in the back of their head. It's the same as the home studio/music industry's promise of self fulfillment.
The "future" of moving picture has been in everybody's hands for the last 20 years. You can sit around a not create because your waiting for technology to catch up to your grandiose (but unrealized) plans, or you can do what creators do: CREATE with what you got!
As for content from the masses to the masses, it's already happening without Apple skimming $$ of the top. YouTube is free; can Apple re-bottle that pipeline? Dunno.
gc
Point I was making is that Apple positioned FCPX as a the next version of FCP7 when clearly it's not. It's an entirely new product. Even with all the upgrades they are promising you still won't be able to import your FCP7 files into FCPX. Pro users can't just switch like that. They need an upgrade path, time to transition, etc. Whatever they call it it's not FCP as we know it.
Apple always tries to hide the bad news, hope nobody will make too much of a fuss. Well it backfired this time. I maintain that they should have said "We are retiring FCP with version 7, we'll keep supporting it and bug fixing for the next x years, in the meantime here's our new product xxx (whatever they call it). It's the future. When you finished all your current projects why not move across in your own time".
I can't seem to use AI's multi-quote response, so this post is kind of kludged together.
Let me see if I can address your 2 major points:
1) No Upgrade path and transition time
As discussed in my posts below, I believe that it is possible that a migration tool (FCP7 to FCPX) could be provided that would be equivalent to the migration capability from FCP7 to Premiere.
Apple, or a 3rd-party could supply this -- better Apple, IMO.
This weekend, I am gonna' play around with the needs of a FCP7 to FCPX migration. If it is possible, and nobody else does it, I will write one and make beaucoup big bucks
2) The way the announcement was made, hiding the bad news and it backfiring on Apple
What if Apple had just released FCPX as a "prototype" of a future replacement for FCP7 -- that some "pros" could begin using right away. What an equivocating dud of an announcement that would have -- "Oh yeah, great! I am real busy right now, but I'll have a look when I get around to it" would likely been the response of most pros, blogs and the media in general.
End of story...
By doing the announcement, as they did, Apple said: Listen! Here is where we see the future of video editing. We are going there as fast as we can.
It certainly got everyone's attention! Everyone (including Conan) seemed to have an opinion (or 12) and would tell anyone who would listen. AI members, who hadn't posted in years weighed in. The financial news was full of the FCPX controversy.
So, now, everyone knows where everyone else stands and why!
Now if Apple were to gracefully backpedal and:
-- make FCS available again-- say, for two years
-- offer a "best effort" FCP7 to FCPX migration tool
Would this whole scenario help Apple to accomplish the objectives they have set for adoption of FCPX?
Could they have done it better?
Hmmm.....
Import
Can I import projects from Final Cut Pro 7 into Final Cut Pro X?
Final Cut Pro X includes an all-new project architecture structured around a trackless timeline and connected clips. In addition, Final Cut Pro X features new and redesigned audio effects, video effects, and color grading tools. Because of these changes, there is no way to ?translate? or bring in old projects without changing or losing data. But if you?re already working with Final Cut Pro 7, you can continue to do so after installing Final Cut Pro X, and Final Cut Pro 7 will work with Mac OS X Lion. You can also import your media files from previous versions into Final Cut Pro X.
Based on limited FCPX experience and tutorials the highlighted text is true... as far as it goes.
But I think that with a "best effort" attempt Apple could provide a separate migration tool that took an FCP7 project and created a corresponding FCPX project:
-- The media from FCP7 could be copied (or optionally pointed to) and used to create equivalent events
-- Missing FCP7 organizational constructs such as bins and multi-sequence-projects could be handled with FCPX collections and naming conventions: ProjA,Seq1,Seq2 become ProjA-Seq1, ProjA-Seq2...
-- I believe the FCPX storyline construct could provide a reasonable approximation of the multiple track construct of an FCP7 sequence (FCPX doesn't have multiple tracks, but clips can be positioned above and below the storyline)
-- The clips in FCPX would maintain the same length and juxtaposition as the original FCP7 sequence.
-- Clips without equivalent FCPX effects could be tagged with an FCPX "To Do" marker to indicate what has been abandoned and what needs to be done done, e.g. "Missing XYZfx Karaoke Bouncing Ball effect".
With a migration tool, as described above, Apple could do the necessary grunt work/heavy lifting to move a legacy FCP7 project to FCPX.
As the robustness of FCPX grows the migration tool could be expanded to accomplish a more complete migration -- New 3rd-party FCPX effects could be applied with the same parameters as their FCP7 equivalents.
I assume that Apple must provide this tool, because I don't believe Apple has supplied a programmatic way for 3rd-parties to generate FCPX projects and position clips in the storyline (and other positions above and below).
Done properly, I believe that this would provide a level of comfort to pros with many legacy FCP7/FCS projects -- it gives them a path forward migrate legacy projects to the new technology as and when needed.
I just updated the link about migration to a better page.
Yes I too would hate to see this go that way, especially to Adobe LOL. You could be rich if you create a utility from 7 to X
That's a pretty good list!
Well... Shit, Oh Dear...
I just watched the video that demonstrates conversion from FCP to Premiere and back.
As I posted earlier I believe Apple could provide a similar migration tool.
With what I know about FCPX it could handle the import of an FCP7 sequence equally as well as Premiere.
For now, some of the effects in FCPX may be missing -- but that should change quickly (there is quite a bit of activity on the <[email protected]> mailing lists).
If that's all it takes then Apple will be remiss [crazy] if they don't supply (or let a 3rd-party supply) a migration tool -- "all-new project architecture structured around a trackless timeline"... shmimeline, Indeed!
I work close to a hotel/convention center that have housed some pretty notable musicians and it is amazing the number that carry an Macbook Pro and/or an iPad and use Garageband.
Katy Perry, in particular might have a varying opinion for example. If I am not mistaken, her "Teenage Dream" was created in GarageBand for iPad. Usher apparently uses it too.
GarageBand sounds like crap. Find an acoustically designed recording studio control room and play back GB material through a high quality monitoring system and anybody can hear how bad it is. I have a couple such rooms and have had to clean up and improve upon as much as possible GB tracks. As a scratchpad tool for jotting down ideas and trying out moving the bridge 8 bars later, it's fine, but as a production tool for material that is going to be released to an end user, it's woefully inadequate. Really.
One might go to GB for a particular sound in the same way you might boot up that old Ensoniq Mirage for some stale, gritty, low bit depth sample loops, but it's not a go to device in the studio.
gc
GarageBand sounds like crap. Find an acoustically designed recording studio control room and play back GB material through a high quality monitoring system and anybody can hear how bad it is. I have a couple such rooms and have had to clean up and improve upon as much as possible GB tracks. As a scratchpad tool for jotting down ideas and trying out moving the bridge 8 bars later, it's fine, but as a production tool for material that is going to be released to an end user, it's woefully inadequate. Really.
One might go to GB for a particular sound in the same way you might boot up that old Ensoniq Mirage for some stale, gritty, low bit depth sample loops, but it's not a go to device in the studio.
gc
Garageband was never position for high-end production. What the fuck is your problem?
Garageband was never position for high-end production. What the fuck is your problem?
My problem is the professional patina that people try to put on GB. You apparently agree with me. WTF is your problem?
Try this link. http://www.filmmakermagazine.com/new...first-musings/
Could you supply the link to the video of the panel discussion?
Interesting that you, "?suspect they (the panel) were fairly representative of the opinions/feelings that we see expressed here and on other blogs/forums," even before the product was available or even shown?
Here's the link to the panel discussion:
http://vimeo.com/channels/editorslounge
The video is the top left one -- with all the guys on stools!
It implies that the future of moving picture will be in everybody's hands now, not a centralized entertainment industry. FCP X is designed for the masses -- i think that is the implication.
That's fine. Wonderful actually. But does the centralized entertainment industry have a place in this glorious future? According to many on this board, Avid is stodgy and behind the times and Premiere is akin to Windows Movie Maker, and pros use FCP exclusively.
I consider myself more of a dilettante with video editing than a Prosumer.
I do videos for friends and family... often for my own amazement, or just because I want to find out and understand how something works, or how it's done.
I have lots of hours in FCP/FCS and sat through hours of tutorials, and manual reading, etc. -- with no formal education or experience with video editing.
I am technically oriented, not creative -- but when I see something creative, that grabs me, I want to understand: "How can I do that?"
All that said! I realize that there there are pros out there that I could learn from -- learn a lot from!
But, the more I learn about video editing, it seems there are:
1) technicians, like me, who know their way around the tool they use -- some better than others
2) creatives that know to take raw media and juxtapose, combine and modify them in such a way that sets a mood; creates anticipation, grabs your attention and involves you in their offering -- for lack of a better word, I call them story-tellers.
A simple analogy might be the comparison of a good typist to a good author...
But this isn't exactly complete, or a valid comparison.
A lot of the "creative" part of story telling comes from the producer who knows what he wants; the cameramen who shoot the actual footage; and finally the creative pro video editor / story teller. *
* this encompasses specialists in sound, coloring, effects, etc.
He is the one that turns the raw media into a composition that tells the story that was originally intended -- often using his own creativity to enhance the story beyond what was originally perceived.
To me the technicians, like myself, need to become proficient in the tools they use and be flexible to learn/use new tools as they become available -- or risk being left behind.
The creatives, do what they do, regardless (or in spite of) the tools they use -- they will always be in demand.
That's my 2 cents worth.
P.S. I want to learn story-telling. I believe there courses, at places like USC, that teach this.
Attending on-site college courses is not practical for me. Can anyone here recommend any good online courses in creative video editing and story-telling?
I know that this will not make me a "creative" -- but I would like to improve my video story-telling.
P.P.S.
As an example of something that grabbed me (in the late 1940s and still does) -- here is a video of the Gillette Cavalcade of sports. The leadin is what grabs me -- the first 25 seconds where they show a divided TV screen with several sports playing at the same time: If you had TV in the 1940s, you watched this show -- it was one of the few shows available among hours of test patterns.
Gillette Cavalcade of Sports - Boxing
Here is my 2009 FCP equivalent (the first 20 seconds or so):
Gile ette Red Bulls 2009 Season
It took me days to figure out how to do that -- I had never done much compositing.
Actually, the hardest part was finding the music
FInally, my granddaughter is creative -- proficient in some parts of photography, GarageBand, the latest iMovie, She is playing with FCPX.
I can see her having a good career in this "field" -- if it interests her.
Garageband was never position for high-end production. What the fuck is your problem?
My problem is the professional patina that people try to put on GB. You apparently agree with me. WTF is your problem?
Here's an example of GarageBand in the hands of a creative:
God Be With You (till we meet again) by Mystified
She does all the vocal parts as voiceovers -- AFAICT there are 4 voices singing at some parts.
Here's another example using GarageBand and iMovie in the hands of a creative:
If I Were A Boy - Beyoncé - ( SheenaMelwani )
What's interesting is the sound and video were captured in a studio, then GarageBand and iMovie were used to cut the video and publish it to YT,
Sheena does all the piano, vocal and editing in GarageBand and iMovie.
Sheena has since upgraded to Logic and will upgrade to FCPX.
My purpose in mentioning these is that I am convinced:
1) A pro can get the "results" regardless of the tool
2) A pro will select the best tool (available to him) for the job at hand
2) You don't need pro tools to get pro results
...so, both your WTFs aside -- what is important is the "pro" person
A little off-topic and a newbie question to be sure, but what is the best software I can use to work with vob files? I would like to import them without transcoding (or at least transcoding without losing quality) and then edit them. Can I use FCP X for it, or some other progam?
You can use MPEG Streamclip - I can't remember if you still need the MPEG-2 Quicktime codec. It will allow you to cut VOB and export the same, then put back into DVDSP if you want. It isn't frame-accurate though - the cuts go back to the start of the nearest GOP. It's not a huge deal but it can be as much as a couple of seconds away from where you want.
for lack of a better word, I call them story-tellers.
Another word would be the director. A lot of the places where FCPX is lacking is in the technical things, which don't really matter for the purpose of story-telling (besides multi-cam).
It makes a huge improvement in terms of just getting the footage (it's compatible with) in to start working. Nobody wants to even think about transcoding really because it's time-consuming and boring so getting that stage done without even thinking about it is great.
The Supermeet demo showed some nice features to help story-telling like for L/J edits. Having to push things around to prepare to make an edit slows you down.
You can see in the video of the people you posted what the real issue is. The one person who previewed it (though the others clearly had inside info) and thought it was awesome couldn't commit to saying he was prepared to install it in his facility because the answer was no - there's no volume licensing for a start. I don't think people have any problems with the new timeline and story-telling features, they are long overdue. The problem is that it just doesn't fit into collaborative workflows yet.
It may at some point but nobody knows when and right now, Apple don't have a product that does fit. There are also problems Apple hasn't said will even be fixed.
At the end of the day, people can go on about revolution and attach it to every dangerous move Apple makes. It's still just video editing. You film a bunch of stuff, you cut it up and you put it in a certain order to tell a story. Will their software make people produce better output? Not likely because that skill comes from the director. Having a program that doesn't get in your way certainly helps but what's the point if you can't actually integrate it into your workflow? That's the definition of unusable. Sure, when most of the issues get fixed, the fans will go 'see told you so, Apple know what they are doing' and everyone else will just go
Here's another example using GarageBand and iMovie in the hands of a creative:
If I Were A Boy - Beyoncé - ( SheenaMelwani )
What's interesting is the sound and video were captured in a studio, then GarageBand and iMovie were used to cut the video and publish it to YT,
Sheena does all the piano, vocal and editing in GarageBand and iMovie.
Sheena has since upgraded to Logic and will upgrade to FCPX.
Do we have to go here?
Throughout this video, you can see a Digidesign ProControl in the background. It happens to be a 16 fader model, exactly like the two I own; both propped up against the wall since they've been replaced by D-Commands. The application on the video monitors is Pro Tools. The red button on the ProControl transport means that ProTools is recording. The record status lights indicate that 3 tracks are being recorded, one of them stereo (the keyboard?). The mic she's singing into is a U-87. I own a couple of them.
So she's singing into a 3k+ mic, connected to $2k MindPrint DTC mic pre and recording it into a $30k+ ProTools rig just for the sake of the video --because she uses GarageBand. Well, maybe she's smart enough to use PT as a front end and GB just for some manipulation (?).
If mixed in ProTools, then there's less excuse for the audio. IT'S TERRIBLE. Really, it is. You MUST listen to it on something better than a laptop's speakers or desktops with no tweeter response above 2k. The track is full of awful artifacting and the sampled piano is pitiful. At least jack this into a mid level stereo system and listen to it --anybody-- and you'll cringe; both at the track and at what laptop speakers and headphones don't translate.
I'm more willing to attribute the poor audio quality to YouTube and multiple generations of compression than to GB (or pitiful Protools skills), but that can be so hard to tell.
Do we have to go here?
Throughout this video, you can see a Digidesign ProControl in the background. It happens to be a 16 fader model, exactly like the two I own; both propped up against the wall since they've been replaced by D-Commands. The application on the video monitors is Pro Tools. The red button on the ProControl transport means that ProTools is recording. The record status lights indicate that 3 tracks are being recorded, one of them stereo (the keyboard?). The mic she's singing into is a U-87. I own a couple of them.
So she's singing into a 3k+ mic, connected to $2k MindPrint DTC mic pre and recording it into a $30k+ ProTools rig just for the sake of the video --because she uses GarageBand. Well, maybe she's smart enough to use PT as a front end and GB just for some manipulation (?).
If mixed in ProTools, then there's less excuse for the audio. IT'S TERRIBLE. Really, it is. You MUST listen to it on something better than a laptop's speakers or desktops with no tweeter response above 2k. The track is full of awful artifacting and the sampled piano is pitiful. At least jack this into a mid level stereo system and listen to it --anybody-- and you'll cringe; both at the track and at what laptop speakers and headphones don't translate.
I'm more willing to attribute the poor audio quality to YouTube and multiple generations of compression than to GB (or pitiful Protools skills), but that can be so hard to tell.
I didn't mean to imply that GarageBand and iMovie were the only tools.
Nor, did I mean to imply that the studio or equipment were the only tools available.
This particular video was a "cover" -- an artist's version of someone else's song/video. It was not targeted to be sold as a Music Video -- rather it was targeted to be uploaded to YouTube as a promotional. There "rules" and "freedoms" within the industry that permit Artists to do "covers" without permissions/royalties -- but they cannot be sold or formally "published".
So why the studio?
Sheena and her team have been working on here first Album. It will consist of songs Sheena has written (words and music) and performs (vocal and piano). I suspect it will contain both Music Videos and songs (audio only).
I suspect when they produce/capture the actual performance they will use the best equipment and people available to them.
I suspect that when they cut the Music Videos and the audio (only) songs, they will use the best talent and hardware/software editing solutions available.
Sheena is a creative artist who used the tools available (GarageBand and iMovie) to edit and package the "cover" for YouTube. Anything else would be overkill.
She has started using Logic because she needs capabilities beyond GarageBand. She will use FCPX because she needs editing capabilities beyond iMovie.
Will Sheena do the post and packaging on the deliverables of her Album. No! But she will have an appreciation for what is involved and what is possible from post -- and she will get the results she wants to showcase her talent. She will be able to communicate with the "pros" that will make it happen.
Sheena is a creative artist who used the tools available (GarageBand and iMovie) to edit and package the "cover" for YouTube. Anything else would be overkill.
No. Anything else would not be overkill. What are you listening to this on?
No. Anything else would not be overkill. What are you listening to this on?
Lets see...
iPhone, iPod, iPad, iMacs, Sony HDTV...
I can listen to it on a vintage B&O with McIntosh speakers, either of 2 Boses with folded horns... even an iPod HiFi when were at a picnic at the park (or want to piss off the neighbors).
Admittedly, my 71-year old ears are not what they used be -- but even they can tell the difference between what YouTube has to offer and what's possible!
What do you suggest -- I am not investing in any more audio equipment.
Here's the link to the panel discussion:
http://vimeo.com/channels/editorslounge
The video is the top left one -- with all the guys on stools!
Thanks for the link.
Confirms everything I have been saying. Only one of the group had been apprised of FCPX and he was amazed at what he witnessed. Yet the biggest critic had never seen the product, knew nothing about it, but was more than willing to express his distain for it.
Sounds like many would reside here.
Oddly, I can't find the link... But there was video of a panel discussion with about 10 Pos at the FCPUG Supermeet, a day before the Apple presos.
Several of the pros (likely saw the early pre-announce at Apple HQ) were highly critical of FCPX and specifically pointed out things FCPX couldn't do and that FCPX would not fit into the workflow for many pros.
Others were totally impressed and said the could begin using it immedistely.
Most saw it as an incomplete product, but that it defined the future of video editing and srory-telling.
I suspect they (the panel) were fairly representative of the opinions/feelings that we see expressed here and on other blogs/forums.
I watched the video again. As I said previously, only one of the pros had seen FCPX before NAB. The others knew virtually nothing about any of its feature.
And remember, this event was recorded prior to NAB 2011 when Apple keynoted FCPX.
I watched the video again. As I said previously, only one of the pros had seen FCPX before NAB. The others knew virtually nothing about any of its feature.
And remember, this event was recorded prior to NAB 2011 when Apple keynoted FCPX.
I hope you watched all 4 parts.
There was a lot of speculation on the commoditization/future of post as the pros know it today.
I suspect everyone on the panel had some inside information on fCPX -- if only from cohorts who had been briefed by Apple and were under NDA. The most critical guy (2nd from the left) seemed to have his facts straight and seemed fair! As did the gentleman with long gray hair (2nd from the right after the moderator) who had just finished a Book about/for Avid.
I found an article that says the FCP7 import is already built into FCPX -- just not activated. Here's the translation from Mac Magazine Brazil (scroll down to the second article):
http://translate.google.com/translat...%26prmd%3Divns
ping
You can use MPEG Streamclip - I can't remember if you still need the MPEG-2 Quicktime codec. It will allow you to cut VOB and export the same, then put back into DVDSP if you want. It isn't frame-accurate though - the cuts go back to the start of the nearest GOP. It's not a huge deal but it can be as much as a couple of seconds away from where you want.
Thanks!!