Adobe continues assault on Apple's Final Cut Pro X with 'switcher program'

123457

Comments

  • Reply 121 of 150
    nvidia2008nvidia2008 Posts: 9,262member
    If possible, you should also show an example of non-live music video editing with multicam footage. When I first saw how Final Cut Pro 6 (?) did it I was blown away. In this case you're not editing a single set of multicam footage but multiple sets. Eg. in a music video there's typically the band playing. It will be shot in several settings, say in the desert, on top of a building and in a warehouse, for example. For each setting during the music you'll need to cut between the bass player and the singer, and so on. Doing this kind of edit requires the real power of true multicam.



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by UrbanVoyeur View Post


    There is a very important difference between editing footage from multiple cameras shooting diferent things (which is what the Calcio Storico Fiorentino piece is) and editing footage from mutliple cameras simultaneously shooting the same event from different angles when sound and image must be in sync.



    Think of the typical 4 camera sitcom. Think pratfall and reaction shot.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiple-camera_setup



    This is used when shooting plays, concerts, training videos, sporting events, motivational speakers, church services, and many other types of live or difficult to repeat situations. I even saw it in a recent wedding.



    For this you need an entrirely different kind of editing setup to do it quitckly, accurately and effectively. In the past, before NLE's, you'd have 4 tape decks slaved together and 1 recorder for the program. You'd watch 4 monitors plus 1 for program and use a live switcher to cut between them.



    This is what people mean when they speak of "multi-cam editing"

    Today, that experience is replicated in NLE's like FCP7, Media Composer, and Premiere Pro. But NOT FCPX. This is what Apple meant when they said multi-cam editing was not in the X release but that they are working on it.



    I do not claim to be a good editor, but I have worked with them and have had my work edited by them. BUT, I will dig up a clip of mine to demonstrate what I am talking about.



    The Calcio Storico Fiorentino is a great little peice, but I would point out that there was little in the way of graphics, effects, or post production sound. It was a series of shots strung together against a music track and with crowd sounds roughly matched to the screen action. Maintaining audio sync across cameras was not necessary.



    Bottom line: you need the right tool for the job. Right now, FCPX is not the right tool for many (most?) pro-needs.



  • Reply 122 of 150
    dick applebaumdick applebaum Posts: 12,527member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by UrbanVoyeur View Post


    There is a very important difference between editing footage from multiple cameras shooting diferent things (which is what the Calcio Storico Fiorentino piece is) and editing footage from mutliple cameras simultaneously shooting the same event from different angles when sound and image must be in sync.



    Think of the typical 4 camera sitcom. Think pratfall and reaction shot.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiple-camera_setup



    This is used when shooting plays, concerts, training videos, sporting events, motivational speakers, church services, and many other types of live or difficult to repeat situations. I even saw it in a recent wedding.



    For this you need an entrirely different kind of editing setup to do it quitckly, accurately and effectively. In the past, before NLE's, you'd have 4 tape decks slaved together and 1 recorder for the program. You'd watch 4 monitors plus 1 for program and use a live switcher to cut between them.



    This is what people mean when they speak of "multi-cam editing"

    Today, that experience is replicated in NLE's like FCP7, Media Composer, and Premiere Pro. But NOT FCPX. This is what Apple meant when they said multi-cam editing was not in the X release but that they are working on it.



    I do not claim to be a good editor, but I have worked with them and have had my work edited by them. BUT, I will dig up a clip of mine to demonstrate what I am talking about.



    The Calcio Storico Fiorentino is a great little peice, but I would point out that there was little in the way of graphics, effects, or post production sound. It was a series of shots strung together against a music track and with crowd sounds roughly matched to the screen action. Maintaining audio sync across cameras was not necessary.



    Bottom line: you need the right tool for the job. Right now, FCPX is not the right tool for many (most?) pro-needs.



    Fair enough!



    I read the page you linked, Then I surfed the web and found several tutorials involving 3 to 9 cameras.



    The ability to display 16 camera views at the same time and dynamically select among them is nice -- though, not very precise. I suspect that the real work begins when this is done -- fine tuning the camera changeover, etc.





    Apple has said they are working on multicam support for FCPX -- but as of today FCPX cannot do the entire multicam editing process.



    What FCPX can do today:



    -- process multiple clips of any combination of supported format, codec, resolution, etc.

    -- synchronize multiple clips based on sound (very accurately)

    -- include soundless video clips for manual synchronization

    -- include a sound-only clip



    You select all these clips, select synchronize, and FCPX creates a "synchronized clip" which contains all the subclips aligned by sound -- roughly analogous to an FCP7 multiclip.



    Then, you can move this "synchronized clip" to your storyline and expand it showing the layered, synchronized subclips.



    You don't get the flattened video track as with FCP7 as FCPX has no way to create it, yet!



    But, you can manually scrub through the subclips and manually create markers/crossovers (the video is updated in the storyline, while scrubbing -- making this very easy).





    I even found a video demonstrating the process:



    Multicam Final Cut Pro X - Final Cut Pro X Tutorial



    Admittedly, it is not as elegant or easy as FCP7 appears to be.



    However, the video makes the editing look harder than it need be:



    It deletes the section in every layer above the layer they want to show -- leaving holes in the upper clip. Instead, you can split the clip and disable the section to allow the clip below to show through.



    But, the author is forgiven -- What's it been, a week since FCPX dropped?





    I should mention that FCPX has a precision editor that shows both sides of the edit updated concurrently -- so as you try to fine tune the camera cutovers it is easy to get close by scrubbing, then nudge 1 frame at a time (if necessary)



    With what's already available in FCPX, I expect multicam will be much faster and easier than FCP7.





    I have never used multicam! I am looking for a source for some reasonably-sized multicam clips that I can download -- then synch in FCP7 and FCOX,





    Quote:
    Originally Posted by nvidia2008 View Post


    If possible, you should also show an example of non-live music video editing with multicam footage. When I first saw how Final Cut Pro 6 (?) did it I was blown away. In this case you're not editing a single set of multicam footage but multiple sets. Eg. in a music video there's typically the band playing. It will be shot in several settings, say in the desert, on top of a building and in a warehouse, for example. For each setting during the music you'll need to cut between the bass player and the singer, and so on. Doing this kind of edit requires the real power of true multicam.





    Can these multiple sets be synched with each other, i.e. do they share a common sound track?
  • Reply 123 of 150
    welshdogwelshdog Posts: 1,784member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by UrbanVoyeur View Post




    Bottom line: you need the right tool for the job. Right now, FCPX is not the right tool for many (most?) pro-needs.



    This is what so many of us are saying. At this moment in time FCP X does not provide what we need to get jobs done in the way our clients expect and need them to be done. It may very well become capable as Apple adds features. At that point people at the higher end will start using it.



    I sure would like to know what Joel and Ethan Coen think about FCP X.
  • Reply 124 of 150
    conrailconrail Posts: 489member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by strobe View Post


    That's the problem when you have these industry "standards" like ESRI, Adobe, Windows, etc. with bullcrap certification programs. There's no competition and we get stagnation and arrogance.



    All certification programs, or just certification for products you don't like?



    Apple's professional digital applications are the standard for professional photographers, filmmakers, editors, sound designers, music producers, and multimedia artists.
  • Reply 125 of 150
    MarvinMarvin Posts: 14,611moderator
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Dick Applebaum View Post


    These specialists coud possibly do their jobs with a $300 FCPX seat as opposed to a $1,000 FCS seat.



    For more advanced effects, graphics and titling -- the specialists could do their Job with a $50 Motion 5 seat.



    If they'd integrated the complete apps they might but they only took selected features. There is going to be a way to get the data into other apps, FCPX isn't a replacement for a dedicated apps like Soundtrack Pro and Color.



    I think they got rid of STP because you'd only use STP for minor corrections to audio, which are better done in FCP. An audio specialist won't be using STP but Logic or Pro Tools. Instead of Color, people can use Da Vinci. It's not that expensive at $995 if your job is being a colourist and it's not Mac-only:



    http://goo.gl/EDDpF

    http://www.blackmagic-design.com/pro...davinciresolve

    http://goo.gl/KcoIG



    Motion is quite powerful so worth maintaining and has advantages over AE such as being able to do holdout mattes and garbage mattes without precomps. It doesn't seem to have the good plugins Shake used to have though (Primatte and Keylight) and AE even has Keylight but it's very fast at rendering and has a decent structure. Rendering on the GPU makes the UI sluggish though.



    Also Motion doesn't integrate very well with FCPX, you have to publish a Motion scene as a template to get it into FCPX and you don't get individual layers so the control still lies in Motion.



    Compressor is a bit of a mess as they haven't changed it. It still hangs up completely at random and has the old UI.



    I wonder if they will eventually merge FCP and Motion into a single app - you get the same keyer in FCP as you do in Motion. They could have special clips as effects clips, which have a bunch of layers or even nodes (if they're feeling adventurous).
  • Reply 126 of 150
    dick applebaumdick applebaum Posts: 12,527member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Marvin View Post


    If they'd integrated the complete apps they might but they only took selected features. There is going to be a way to get the data into other apps, FCPX isn't a replacement for a dedicated apps like Soundtrack Pro and Color.



    I think they got rid of STP because you'd only use STP for minor corrections to audio, which are better done in FCP. An audio specialist won't be using STP but Logic or Pro Tools. Instead of Color, people can use Da Vinci. It's not that expensive at $995 if your job is being a colourist and it's not Mac-only:



    http://goo.gl/EDDpF

    http://www.blackmagic-design.com/pro...davinciresolve

    http://goo.gl/KcoIG



    Motion is quite powerful so worth maintaining and has advantages over AE such as being able to do holdout mattes and garbage mattes without precomps. It doesn't seem to have the good plugins Shake used to have though (Primatte and Keylight) and AE even has Keylight but it's very fast at rendering and has a decent structure. Rendering on the GPU makes the UI sluggish though.



    Also Motion doesn't integrate very well with FCPX, you have to publish a Motion scene as a template to get it into FCPX and you don't get individual layers so the control still lies in Motion.



    Compressor is a bit of a mess as they haven't changed it. It still hangs up completely at random and has the old UI.



    I wonder if they will eventually merge FCP and Motion into a single app - you get the same keyer in FCP as you do in Motion. They could have special clips as effects clips, which have a bunch of layers or even nodes (if they're feeling adventurous).





    Ha!



    I've been reading a lot and watching a lot of videos... Tutorials, Panel discussions...



    I see/hear random comments like:
    • FCS SoundTrack Pro is a mess..

    • I use the built-in FCP color tools, rather than round-tripping to the Color app -- it gives me easier-to-maintain clips

    • You should avoid multiclips -- they are buggy, a resource hog and cause the system to crash



    It appears as if: whether some capability exists (or doesn't) -- some "pros" will praise it while other "pros" will diss it.



    ...Some are some, and some are not.





    Anyway, I am still looking for a source of multicam footage that I download and play with over the holiday.











    Edit: Can't find any multicam footage -- so I decided to make my own. Problem is, I am the only one here -- so not much to shoot.



    I decided to shoot a few minutes of video of the living room... Exciting.



    I was able to FCPX Import from a Panny AVCHD, a Sony Handy Cam (Mini-cassette), iPhone 4 and an iPad 2.



    I played some music on the iMac so they'd have a sound to sync.





    FCPX was able to handle all the formats -- I don't think FCP7 will.



    I'll play around some more tomorrow & see if I can get something more creative to film.
  • Reply 127 of 150
    mstonemstone Posts: 11,510member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Dick Applebaum View Post


    I played some music on the iMac so they'd have a sound to sync.



    With respect to music videos lip sync is the most important. Traditionally we have always done multi-cam with time code, but audio sync using audio wave analysis has some potential as it does not require the tedious time code set up.
  • Reply 128 of 150
    dick applebaumdick applebaum Posts: 12,527member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by mstone View Post


    With respect to music videos lip sync is the most important. Traditionally we have always done multi-cam with time code, but audio sync using audio wave analysis has some potential as it does not require the tedious time code set up.



    According to a friend, there is not enough money to justify the cost of most music videos.



    Mayben FCPX will change the economics.
  • Reply 129 of 150
    MacProMacPro Posts: 19,426member
    For anyone wanting to see a great video training series on FCPro X I highly recommend this .. totally free to watch and unlike a certain other training video series on FCP X you won't fall asleep!



    I have no affiliation this isn't a spam post, just a link to a great resource for all those curious about FCPro X.



    http://www.izzyvideo.com/final-cut-pro-x-tutorial/
  • Reply 130 of 150
    mstonemstone Posts: 11,510member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Dick Applebaum View Post


    According to a friend, there is not enough money to justify the cost of most music videos.



    Mayben FCPX will change the economics.



    Depends on the situation. I have a friend who does all the video work for a large church. They record every Sunday meeting. All the sermons and all the music using multi-cam... And they apparently have no problem affording it. Oh, and they use all Macs for the entire church even in the accounting department.
  • Reply 131 of 150
    dick applebaumdick applebaum Posts: 12,527member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by mstone View Post


    Depends on the situation. I have a friend who does all the video work for a large church. They record every Sunday meeting. All the sermons and all the music using multi-cam... And they apparently have no problem affording it. Oh, and they use all Macs for the entire church even in the accounting department.



    Ha!



    I was thinking more along the lines of Sara Bareilles' King of Anything; Norah Jones' Don't Know Why; Sarah McLachlan's Angel; or Kanye West's Homecoming -- the latter which I bought just to see if I could figure out how to do the compositing.



    But you're talking Music Videos for All God's Chillen' -- like they used to shoot in the church scenes on Ally McBeal.





    Hmmm... There's a Catholic church in downtown Tucson that has a Mariachi Mass most Sundays. Usually with some soloists and accompaniment by the choir. I could see how that would be an interesting multicam shoot -- say maybe 7-9 cameras.





    Hmmm... Does the church you mention use any special lighting for the shoot?





    Hmmm... There is another Catholic church in the foothills in Tucson. They have a very large 2-3 story clear window that looks out on the Catalina mountains. Every Easter they have a Sunrise Service and during the mass you can see the sun rise and paint the mountains -- they literally jump off of the background canvas -- changing colors from gray and browns to green then pinks and rose....



    Awesome!





    Hmmm... forget the weddings, and band jams...
  • Reply 132 of 150
    dick applebaumdick applebaum Posts: 12,527member
    I just realized something that could mitigate one of the issues with FCPX!



    With Lion, you will be able to run multiple instances of OS X on a single computer.



    If done properly, that would mean that you could run FCPX under one instance and FCP7 under another ? and have access to the files from either system.



    Not as nice as an import or running both under a single OS X instance? but hey, we?re creative, right?
  • Reply 133 of 150
    tallest skiltallest skil Posts: 43,399member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Dick Applebaum View Post


    With Lion, you will be able to run multiple instances of OS X on a single computer.



    But you can do that now...
  • Reply 134 of 150
    dick applebaumdick applebaum Posts: 12,527member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post


    But you can do that now...



    Legally?
  • Reply 135 of 150
    nikon133nikon133 Posts: 2,600member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Smiles77 View Post


    Yes, it's better--for most. We pay Apple to do the research and decision making for us in creating a great product; and because we like their work, we purchase their products.



    Many Android fans love the fact that Google and (most) handset makers let them make the phone into what they want. That is their advantage; and because they like that culture, they purchase those products.



    Your choice is in what you choose to buy--not how the companies choose to implement their respective operating systems and handset strategy.



    I'd still prefer Flash on my iPhone and iPad, with simple switch in Settings to kill it if I don't want it...
  • Reply 136 of 150
    nikon133nikon133 Posts: 2,600member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by DJinTX View Post


    It is a ridiculous notion to suggest Apple has been attacking Adobe. Since when does opting not to support an inferior product count as an attack? And yes Steve has made public statements including his open letter regarding flash, but this is not an attack either. Tech journalists and consumers wanted to know the situation, so of course Steve is going to give Apple's answer to the situation. Saying that Flash is inefficient and obsolete and crash-happy is not a lie, nor an attack. It is simply the truth. He didn't spew venom at Adobe, and has given them so many opportunities to fix their product. But for some reason they refuse to spend time improving this product. I think they probably could improve it if they wanted to. So either they do not want to, or they cannot. Either way, who would want this on their iPad or iPhone. Not me. I am extremely happy in my flashless mobile existence. Good riddance.



    I would say that calling upon whole web community to ditch Flash and adopt HTML5 is attack, and then some.



    Flash might be inferior (though some Flash/HTML5 tests didn't confirm that) but it is also de facto standard. HDD spindles are inferior to SSDs but you don't just ban them - you work on developing better technology and then you wait for it to take over. Then you switch from spindles to SSD. I think that ousting Flash (before better technology is fully developed and common enough in the wild to make easy transfer) is risky and not really the best possible way to deal with the issue, but it does seem Apple is coping well with that move.
  • Reply 137 of 150
    mstonemstone Posts: 11,510member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by nikon133 View Post


    I would say that calling upon whole web community to ditch Flash and adopt HTML5 is attack, and then some.



    Flash might be inferior (though some Flash/HTML5 tests didn't confirm that) but it is also de facto standard. HDD spindles are inferior to SSDs but you don't just ban them - you work on developing better technology and then you wait for it to take over. Then you switch from spindles to SSD. I think that ousting Flash (before better technology is fully developed and common enough in the wild to make easy transfer) is risky and not really the best possible way to deal with the issue, but it does seem Apple is coping well with that move.





    Excellent post. It is definitely a shoot the messenger situation. To blame Adobe for the ineptness of some of their end users is totally unsupportable from a logical perspective. It is a smoke screen for the fact that Steve does not like the general type of content that is commonly presented using Flash. To call Adobe 'lazy' is simply hypocritical. If Apple can't protect its own operating system from a third party plugin which might be misused by inexperienced coders, then they are equally lazy. Well written Flash is not a danger to OS X.
  • Reply 138 of 150
    nikon133nikon133 Posts: 2,600member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by fecklesstechguy View Post


    I of course can choose to pour cooking oil in my gas tank and expect it to run just like it does on 88 octane. NOT.



    Apple is waiting on Adobe to prove that they can, with four people rewrite Flash to be a truly mobile function, not just a cobbled together semi-developed piece of dreck that stutters, judders and sucks battery life like a parched vampire.



    BTW, try the cooking oil in the gas tank thing once on your car - you will be amazed at the performance.



    That is not true. Hasn't SJ said that he will never let Flash on iOS? Under such circumstances, it is a bit delusional to expect Adobe invest time and money for something that will be rejected by default.



    And regarding Flash and HTML5 performance both on desktops and mobile platforms, do yourself a favour and google around. You will find number of articles on that topic. You can start with:



    http://www.themaninblue.com/writing/...ve/2010/03/22/



    http://www.gamasutra.com/view/news/3...On_Android.php



    http://www.craftymind.com/guimark3/
  • Reply 139 of 150
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by mstone View Post


    With respect to music videos lip sync is the most important. Traditionally we have always done multi-cam with time code, but audio sync using audio wave analysis has some potential as it does not require the tedious time code set up.



    Audio sync is only a fallback for missing time code sync & lock. Audio sync is rarely as frame accurate as a TC lock from a generator or a master camera.



    There are two reasons for this: sound travels slower than light, and every camera has a slightly different frame and audio clock.



    Cameras at different distances from a stage or speaker will each pick up sound at a slightly different time. It's not a problem if ALL cameras get the same master audio feed OR if you can use the sound from each individual camera whenever you switch shots.



    But what often happens is you have one camera that gets clean sound from the board or source and the rest get whatever from on camera mics. So when you line up by sound all the cameras are several frames different and the words or music don't quite sync up.



    Additionally, cameras, especially pro-sumer or low end pro often have slightly different clock timings, particularly with respect to audio samples. This can be seen in long takes (30+mins) where the audio and image appear to drift in and out of sync. This plays havoc with audio based line ups and they never stay lined up.



    When you sync lock with a TC generator, every camera is on exactly the same clock and every frame and audio sample happens at the exact same instant. There is no question of lining up frames.



    Having shot both ways, the a TC generator is always preferable. And yes, I have Plural Eyes and clapboards.
  • Reply 140 of 150
    dick applebaumdick applebaum Posts: 12,527member
    Mmmmm...



    One of the things Adobe is pushing is its [somewhat limited] ability to import FCP media and

    sequences into Premiere on a best effort basis.



    Here's a video:



    Using Final Cut Pro With Adobe Premiere Pro





    and the specs:





    Importing XML project files from Final Cut Pro





    This is a "best effort" conversion.





    Apple has no equivalent capability for accessing current or legacy FCP projects in FCPX.



    In fact, you cannot buy an Apple product today, that will process the current FCP7 workload or legacy FCP7 projects.







    This is a show stopper!





    A Brazilian web site has detected import capabilities within FCPX:





    Internal files from Final Cut Pro X proves that Apple is working on XML support [updated x2]



    Leia mais: Internal files from Final Cut Pro X proves that Apple is working on XML support [updated x2] | MacMagazine




    However, Apple has said thay can't do an import of FCP7 into FCPX.



    Rumor is that: because Apple can't do a perfect job -- they will not do anything.





    Was ist das? Das ist scheiße!





    When has Apple (or any technology company) done a perfect implementation of anything -- maybe Apple should just call it a hobby.





    The real question is: can Apple or anyone (with access) do an acceptable job of importing FCP7 into FCPX.



    The short answer is yes:





    Here is an FCP7 Sequence:



    :







    Here's the equivalent IN FCPX:











    Here's a view of the fcp7 timeline:









    And the corresponding storyline in FCPX.









    Here is how the FCPX storyline might look with the thumbnails displayed and all the "track" artifacts removed:









    And how the FCPX storyline looks with the compound clip expanded for editing:











    OK, With the XML file and the source media from FCP7 I was able to manually approximate the import of FCP7 into FCPX.



    Don't we have computers to free us from [most of] the drudgery of manual labor?







    Anyway, I did not convert the whole sequence as I had proven my point:





    For those who care, here is the original output from FCP7:



    FCP7 Output





    And my [roughly] equivalent FCPX output.



    FCPX Output





    So, a reasonably astute mind with the XML from FCP7 can do an acceptable job of manually importing FCP7 into FCPX.



    It isn't perfect, but it's close enough!





    One is reminded of the test to tell the difference between a mathematician and an engineer:



    The mathematician and the engineer have their backs against the wall of a large room.



    Against the opposite wall is a stunning person of the opposite sex -- stark naked.



    The challenge: you can take as many moves as you want -- each time halving the distance to the person on the opposite wall.





    The mathematician says that it is impossible to ever reach the person on the opposite wall.



    The engineer says: "I can get close enough".





    I believe it is time for Apple to get close enough!
Sign In or Register to comment.