He's complaining that it's crap. That tells me he hasn't used it in the first place.
That should tell you that he HAS used it!
But seriously, I actually haven't tried it myself. Not because it lacks features I need though, I just don't care much for the new interface or Apple's "atypical" file management system.
Atypical... watch this:
BTW, take note of the machine being used to run FCPX and the machine used to guide (tele prompt?) the preso.
Quote:
Originally Posted by v5v
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dick Applebaum
Atypical... watch this:
Okay, it has a metadata editor. Admittedly a cool feature, but I don't really see how it does anything to mitigate my complaints about how FCPX manages files and structures sessions.
I actually had trouble getting past the first two minutes of the video because I couldn't take him seriously after he said, "You don't need to worry about what your files are called... don't even think about it."
First: Your original post, to which I responded (1st quote above), did not mention "structures sessions" -- so I don't know what your issue is with that.
Second: The metadata editor is a "cool feature", but there is much, much more than that.
Third: I want to respond carefully to "You don't need to worry about what your files are called... don't even think about it".
I don't want to come across as flippant or pedantic... here goes:
What he said is true -- if you want to fully exploit the advantages of [FCPX] metadata.
Consider this: You are using FCP 7, and ingesting your media from the OS X file system with Log And Transfer. You Tag/Name/Annotate each clip much as you do in FCPX -- only before the fact. In fact tou can change the [clip] file name using tokens, similar to the FCPX video.
Fine. But now the problems start... where do you put the ingested clips? Why, in bins and folders of course! In fact you can duplicate the hierarchical structure of the OS X file system if you wish.
Say you have several takes of a dialog scene between Bob and Ray some good, some bad (some just OK). Where do you put each one... in which hierarchical bin/folder structure? In FCP 7, a clip can reside on only 1 place (unless you duplicate it, giving rise to a whole new set of problems).
Where's it going to go:
Dialogs
Bob And Ray
Reel 2, Scene 4
Afternoon shots
Good shots
Bad shots
Closeups
...
In FCPX the answer is simple... anything from "none of them" to "all of them" (realistically, wherever it makes sense). This is accomplished simply and elegantly with keywords. You can define and create keyword collections with a powerful keyword editor (you define the keywords, then assign them with kb shortcuts -- the first assignment creates a colletion for that keyword). If you have several clips wtat you want to assign the same keyword -- just multi-select them and drag to the appropriate keyword collection.
So, yes our clip could logically reside in several places (keyword collections) at the same time. In reality, the clip resides only in one place (and that place may not even be within FCPX -- rather in the OS X file system).
And you can locate our clip by tapping on any of the keyword collections.
Then, there is a powerful search function where you can search for any combination of keywords and other metadata.
These "searches" can, themselves, be saved as "smart collections" -- where any subsequent clip ingests (or keyword assignments) are tested against all the existing "search criteria" and the clips are automatically added, as appropriate. (This is analogous to the "smart folders" in OS X).
Even better, as the clips are ingested (or later), they can be analyzed and used to generate smart collections for content and for potential problems with your footage. The items under "Find People" and "Create Smart Collections after analysis" are checked by default. When your footage imports, an algorithm determines if there are any people in the imported clips then intelligently places them into Smart Collections labeled One Person, Two Persons Group, Wide Shot, Close Up, and so on.
Here is a somewhat dated review of FCPX from June 2011 that discusses the data organization capabilities.
Finally... Yes you can retain your old file names (and even the folder structure) that you are used to... and you don't even need to bring the clips into FCPX if you wish (it just creates a symlink). You don't need to transcode the media -- but you can! In any case you can immediately start editing or organizing your clips -- no waiting for the ingest, transcoding or analysis to finish.
Again, with FCPX "You don't need to worry about what your files are called... don't even think about it".
Aside:
Apple is trying to develop an alternative interface to the hierarchical file system (and Fine Finder) for iOS. Think about trying to explain the OS X file system to, say, your mom or other non-techie.
Starting out is fine -- a voume is like a file cabinet, and within the cabinet we place folders with meaningful names. Then within the folders we place documents... If we could stop right there, it would be easy to understand... but we say "you can also put folders inside a folder"... then blow their mind when we say "folders within folders within folders"...
We show them this and leave them to their own devices... A week later we come back and:
everything is on the desktop
everything is at the root level of the hard drive
everything is over categorized into folders within folders... all with meaningless names (kinda' like iPhoto)
They are completely frustrated and can't find anything -- they can't remember what they called it or where they put it... and it won't let them save another file (or folder) with the same name.
The FCPX data management tools along with the metadata is the closest thing I've seen to a file system that is teachable and usable by anyone... Why should we care what it is called (named) or where they put it -- as long as we can easily find it (rather than playing "roll me over in the clover" with the file system.
Apple is trying to develop an alternative interface to the hierarchical file system (and Fine Finder) for iOS. Think about trying to explain the OS X file system to, say, your mom or other non-techie.
Starting out is fine -- a voume is like a file cabinet, and within the cabinet we place folders with meaningful names. Then within the folders we place documents... If we could stop right there, it would be easy to understand... but we say "you can also put folders inside a folder"... then blow their mind when we say "folders within folders within folders"...
We show them this and leave them to their own devices... A week later we come back and:
everything is on the desktop
everything is at the root level of the hard drive
everything is over categorized into folders within folders... all with meaningless names (kinda' like iPhoto)
They are completely frustrated and can't find anything -- they can't remember what they called it or where they put it... and it won't let them save another file (or folder) with the same name.
The FCPX data management tools along with the metadata is the closest thing I've seen to a file system that is teachable and usable by anyone... Why should we care what it is called (named) or where they put it -- as long as we can easily find it (rather than playing "roll me over in the clover" with the file system.
Now, That's Jazz!
I snipped the reply because it is just this "workflow", regardless of data type... that I want to reply to.
Short reply: SOME OLD GUY like you and me gets it!!!! It is the Ol' Folks that call themselves "pros" just because they have a lengthy credit list... that refuse to learn, change, adapt, or even consider that there is "a better way" to organize than the flat file/folder hierarchy.
It is the very same workflow (FCPX-style) that I use for photos whether in iPhoto, Aperture, Lightroom... or of all places... Adobe Bridge. I also attempt to teach this to a number of photographer clients, and it's the young people that get it. The older and more "pro" experienced... they balk, they bitch, they moan, they don't need keywords, or meta data or collections or albums... ad nauseum. Too much work; not necessary, see I have it in folders, etc.
I have no conclusion to this open-ended observation... only to say that it's also amazing how many Mac OS X users don't use simple labeling and or Smart Searches... which is also basically the same thing. Add spotlight comments and you're good to go on 1-second searches to find and organize files across multiple hard drives, even server directories.
NOTE: interesting that Windows 8 has finally made search better and preferred across the OS... but most people I have talked to, still don't even want to use it.... but then head on over to IE and use Google rather than bookmarks.
There's a serious disconnect across platforms and software to the value of meta-tagging...that's all i can say ...
First: Your original post, to which I responded (1st quote above), did not mention "structures sessions" -- so I don't know what your issue is with that.
Sorry if it seems like I'm being inconsistent or vague. I didn't expect that we might discuss my objections in detail. I was just trying to be clear that my decision not to embrace FCPX is based on simply preferring one way of working over another, not any concern over missing features.
It's also important to stress that I don't think the way FCPX does things is "wrong" just because I might prefer a different approach. That's my issue, not Apple's. Fortunately for me, there are alternatives that are more consistent with my preferences.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dick Applebaum
Second: The metadata editor is a "cool feature", but there is much, much more than that.
Acknowledged. It does seem like it would offer some very useful ways to organize assets. My preference has been to do that at the file level, using descriptive file names and, yes, duplicating if necessary. That makes it possible to assess/collect/copy/redistribute material from a Finder window.
Why do I need to do that? I dunno. What's the benefit? A sense of security, I guess.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dick Applebaum
Finally... Yes you can retain your old file names (and even the folder structure) that you are used to... and you don't even need to bring the clips into FCPX if you wish (it just creates a symlink).
Really? Doesn't FCPX force me to use its Projects and Events system?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dick Applebaum
Apple is trying to develop an alternative interface to the hierarchical file system (and Fine Finder) for iOS. Think about trying to explain the OS X file system to, say, your mom or other non-techie.
Starting out is fine -- a voume is like a file cabinet, and within the cabinet we place folders with meaningful names. Then within the folders we place documents... If we could stop right there, it would be easy to understand... but we say "you can also put folders inside a folder"... then blow their mind when we say "folders within folders within folders"...
We show them this and leave them to their own devices... A week later we come back and:
everything is on the desktop
everything is at the root level of the hard drive
everything is over categorized into folders within folders... all with meaningless names (kinda' like iPhoto)
They are completely frustrated and can't find anything -- they can't remember what they called it or where they put it... and it won't let them save another file (or folder) with the same name.
This made me literally LOL! Nice imagery. I'm not my mom, though. I have a system, and it works. It bugs me to have to find ways to "override" built-in dummy-proofing.
I'm not yet satisfied that surrendering control to the machine is a good idea just because Aunt Mildred can't keep track of her cat pictures. In fact, not being able to remember what something is called or where it's stored is the reason I do things the way I do -- this kind of stuff goes here, that kind of stuff goes there, everything associated with this client is in the client's master folder, and the naming convention is consistent. The picture of Aunt Milly's cat will be on that drive in that folder with the name of the cat in the filename. I'm never going to spend the time to learn how to use iPhoto's AutoDummyProofing Assistant, but give me any file browser and I'll be able to bring up the file I want (and the VERSION I want) within seconds in a way that's intuitive to ME rather than the way a software designer thought would be best.
Edit:
I guess that last statement is the crux of the matter. IPhoto, iTunes and FCPX all try to manage assets according to a certain structure so that they are then able to provide more advanced search options. Admirable. The problem seems to be that there is a disconnect between their approach and the way my head works (or doesn't). What seems intuitive to you may be boggling to me and vice-versa. The search window in iTunes may be very handy, but when I need to send that particular track to graphics I'm going to need to find it and give it a name other than "02 Love Song.m4a" anyway, so why not just organize and name things in a way that fits my workflow in the first place?
Apple is trying to develop an alternative interface to the hierarchical file system (and Fine Finder) for iOS. Think about trying to explain the OS X file system to, say, your mom or other non-techie.
Starting out is fine -- a voume is like a file cabinet, and within the cabinet we place folders with meaningful names. Then within the folders we place documents... If we could stop right there, it would be easy to understand... but we say "you can also put folders inside a folder"... then blow their mind when we say "folders within folders within folders"...
We show them this and leave them to their own devices... A week later we come back and:
everything is on the desktop
everything is at the root level of the hard drive
everything is over categorized into folders within folders... all with meaningless names (kinda' like iPhoto)
They are completely frustrated and can't find anything -- they can't remember what they called it or where they put it... and it won't let them save another file (or folder) with the same name.
The FCPX data management tools along with the metadata is the closest thing I've seen to a file system that is teachable and usable by anyone... Why should we care what it is called (named) or where they put it -- as long as we can easily find it (rather than playing "roll me over in the clover" with the file system.
Now, That's Jazz!
I snipped the reply because it is just this "workflow", regardless of data type... that I want to reply to.
Short reply: SOME OLD GUY like you and me gets it!!!! It is the Ol' Folks that call themselves "pros" just because they have a lengthy credit list... that refuse to learn, change, adapt, or even consider that there is "a better way" to organize than the flat file/folder hierarchy.
It is the very same workflow (FCPX-style) that I use for photos whether in iPhoto, Aperture, Lightroom... or of all places... Adobe Bridge. I also attempt to teach this to a number of photographer clients, and it's the young people that get it. The older and more "pro" experienced... they balk, they bitch, they moan, they don't need keywords, or meta data or collections or albums... ad nauseum. Too much work; not necessary, see I have it in folders, etc.
I have no conclusion to this open-ended observation... only to say that it's also amazing how many Mac OS X users don't use simple labeling and or Smart Searches... which is also basically the same thing. Add spotlight comments and you're good to go on 1-second searches to find and organize files across multiple hard drives, even server directories.
NOTE: interesting that Windows 8 has finally made search better and preferred across the OS... but most people I have talked to, still don't even want to use it.... but then head on over to IE and use Google rather than bookmarks.
There's a serious disconnect across platforms and software to the value of meta-tagging...that's all i can say ...
Ha! I must confess that I don't exploit the OS X file system to the extent you do.... When I started using iMovie, then FCP Express, FCP 6 and FCP 7 -- it was mainly to record home movies of the grandkids so as not to miss any precious moments * -- they all are active and play soccer, etc.
When I first started taking pictures and videos, I was overwhelmed by the quantity and size of the files (I rarely throw any of these away). I sucked all the pics into iPhoto and all the video into the various FCPs (and made backups of the HDSC cards on HD). When I took some training for FCP X, the scales fell from my eyes and the file management tools provided by FCP X make it simple (kinda' fun, actually) to add metadata, keywords and smart collections. Whenever I have some free time, I suck some more of my iMovie and FCP 7 projects into FCPX -- where, at last, I am in control... I can FInd my stuff!
* My late wife and I had 35 1/2 wonderful years together -- trips to Europe, Rhine Cruise, Hawaii, Southwest US, Day trips... but we didn't think to record many of them on film or video. Most of what I have is pictures taken by others and about 33 minutes of videos taken with my daughter's VCR VideoCam.
When I took some training for FCP X, the scales fell from my eyes and the file management tools provided by FCP X make it simple (kinda' fun, actually) to add metadata, keywords and smart collections.
One big problem with having metadata contained in the app and not the filesystem is that it doesn't get used by other apps. Apple's design for FCPX seems to be based on the ideal that everything can be done with just FCPX and that isn't the case. The metadata that FCPX can support is likely more flexible than HFS+ and won't get lost copying media to another filesystem but it's limiting. Perhaps they need a Core framework like Core MetaData or just a QuickLook plugin. There would be an attribute attached to the file with a location identifier for the metadata file and other apps can use that link. If that identifier gets lost somehow, it can be relinked from the metadata files as they'd contain the filenames. The Finder could ask if this is to be copied over when transferring to external drives but it wouldn't matter as the metadata files could be sent on manually.
So you could open a file in FCPX, manage the metadata, open the source file in say After Effects or some other software, save it out and it would be able to not only see the data but edit it inside the program and attach the same metadata link to a new file. FCPX would then get the updated file with the metadata intact. The way it's designed now, it almost ties you into using FCPX. Before, someone could work on Avid and FCP using the same source footage, even on a shared drive and they'd both benefit from the file sorting.
The design seems to have been made very much single-user. Businesses are obviously managing to work around it but IMO Apple should have designed it around multiple users because that automatically covers single users too. I think an important focus of their campaign should be collaborative projects, not just individual editors who talk about being able to do a single-user job from start to finish.
First: Your original post, to which I responded (1st quote above), did not mention "structures sessions" -- so I don't know what your issue is with that.
Sorry if it seems like I'm being inconsistent or vague. I didn't expect that we might discuss my objections in detail. I was just trying to be clear that my decision not to embrace FCPX is based on simply preferring one way of working over another, not any concern over missing features.
It's also important to stress that I don't think the way FCPX does things is "wrong" just because I might prefer a different approach. That's my issue, not Apple's. Fortunately for me, there are alternatives that are more consistent with my preferences.
Second: The metadata editor is a "cool feature", but there is much, much more than that.
Acknowledged. It does seem like it would offer some very useful ways to organize assets. My preference has been to do that at the file level, using descriptive file names and, yes, duplicating if necessary. That makes it possible to assess/collect/copy/redistribute material from a Finder window.
Why do I need to do that? I dunno. What's the benefit? A sense of security, I guess.
Finally... Yes you can retain your old file names (and even the folder structure) that you are used to... and you don't even need to bring the clips into FCPX if you wish (it just creates a symlink).
Really? Doesn't FCPX force me to use its Projects and Events system?
The FCPX Projects and Events system are the way you interface with FCPX. FCP 7 uses Bins and Folders and a bunch of other locations (set in preferences) to store render files, etc.
The images below show how you can use the Folder and File names within FCPX -- to take advantage of your naming/storing preferences -- while gaining all the metadata and data management capabiities of FCPX.
Here's a OS X Folder/File Hierarchry:
Here's the same hierarchy within FCPX... represented by KeyWord Collections:
And the FCPX Inspector shows that the files reside in their original place in the file system:
Apple is trying to develop an alternative interface to the hierarchical file system (and Fine Finder) for iOS. Think about trying to explain the OS X file system to, say, your mom or other non-techie.
Starting out is fine -- a voume is like a file cabinet, and within the cabinet we place folders with meaningful names. Then within the folders we place documents... If we could stop right there, it would be easy to understand... but we say "you can also put folders inside a folder"... then blow their mind when we say "folders within folders within folders"...
We show them this and leave them to their own devices... A week later we come back and:
everything is on the desktop
everything is at the root level of the hard drive
everything is over categorized into folders within folders... all with meaningless names (kinda' like iPhoto)
They are completely frustrated and can't find anything -- they can't remember what they called it or where they put it... and it won't let them save another file (or folder) with the same name.
This made me literally LOL! Nice imagery. I'm not my mom, though. I have a system, and it works. It bugs me to have to find ways to "override" built-in dummy-proofing.
I appreciate that you have a system that works for you... But, you really don't you don't really need to "override" anything as far as data organization, as shown above.
I'm not yet satisfied that surrendering control to the machine is a good idea just because Aunt Mildred can't keep track of her cat pictures. In fact, not being able to remember what something is called or where it's stored is the reason I do things the way I do -- this kind of stuff goes here, that kind of stuff goes there, everything associated with this client is in the client's master folder, and the naming convention is consistent. The picture of Aunt Milly's cat will be on that drive in that folder with the name of the cat in the filename. I'm never going to spend the time to learn how to use iPhoto's AutoDummyProofing Assistant, but give me any file browser and I'll be able to bring up the file I want (and the VERSION I want) within seconds in a way that's intuitive to ME rather than the way a software designer thought would be best.
I agree!
[Edit:
I guess that last statement is the crux of the matter. IPhoto, iTunes and FCPX all try to manage assets according to a certain structure so that they are then able to provide more advanced search options. Admirable. The problem seems to be that there is a disconnect between their approach and the way my head works (or doesn't). What seems intuitive to you may be boggling to me and vice-versa. The search window in iTunes may be very handy, but when I need to send that particular track to graphics I'm going to need to find it and give it a name other than "02 Love Song.m4a" anyway, so why not just organize and name things in a way that fits my workflow in the first place?
You can use whatever names and hierarchical structure that works for you... FCPX doesn't force any arbitrary naming or organizational conventions on you any more so than does FCP & or other NLE's.
When I took some training for FCP X, the scales fell from my eyes and the file management tools provided by FCP X make it simple (kinda' fun, actually) to add metadata, keywords and smart collections.
One big problem with having metadata contained in the app and not the filesystem is that it doesn't get used by other apps. Apple's design for FCPX seems to be based on the ideal that everything can be done with just FCPX and that isn't the case. The metadata that FCPX can support is likely more flexible than HFS+ and won't get lost copying media to another filesystem but it's limiting. Perhaps they need a Core framework like Core MetaData or just a QuickLook plugin. There would be an attribute attached to the file with a location identifier for the metadata file and other apps can use that link. If that identifier gets lost somehow, it can be relinked from the metadata files as they'd contain the filenames. The Finder could ask if this is to be copied over when transferring to external drives but it wouldn't matter as the metadata files could be sent on manually.
So you could open a file in FCPX, manage the metadata, open the source file in say After Effects or some other software, save it out and it would be able to not only see the data but edit it inside the program and attach the same metadata link to a new file. FCPX would then get the updated file with the metadata intact. The way it's designed now, it almost ties you into using FCPX. Before, someone could work on Avid and FCP using the same source footage, even on a shared drive and they'd both benefit from the file sorting.
The design seems to have been made very much single-user. Businesses are obviously managing to work around it but IMO Apple should have designed it around multiple users because that automatically covers single users too. I think an important focus of their campaign should be collaborative projects, not just individual editors who talk about being able to do a single-user job from start to finish.
I agree with most of the above. Metadata should be a system/platform resource available to all -- including APIs in an SDK.
I like the CoreMetatata idea!
I think that the current implementation is single user... It's easier and they had to start somewhere.
The fact that they are using an SQL database and all this emphasis on file system structure neutral metadata makes me think that the collaboration can be added with a central multi-user database in addition to the single-user implementation we have now.
I still don't know if it is wise to abandon the file system entirely -- there are significant costs of storing large blobs within a database.
The FCPX Projects and Events system are the way you interface with FCPX. FCP 7 uses Bins and Folders and a bunch of other locations (set in preferences) to store render files, etc.
So are you saying that FCPX keeps all the render/cache/miscellaneousobscuredata files in the project folder instead of a central repository? If so, Halleluja, praise Dog!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dick Applebaum
The images below show how you can use the Folder and File names within FCPX -- to take advantage of your naming/storing preferences -- while gaining all the metadata and data management capabiities of FCPX.
Here's a OS X Folder/File Hierarchry:
So let's say I've got a bunch of clips I captured with the Blackmagic utility, and they're all organized into various folders in a way that makes me feel warm and fuzzy. What happens when I bring them into a session? Are they copied to an Event folder?
If not, and FCPX allows me to use source material that's scattered all over the network, does it have a "Gather it all up" utility that lets me acknowledge that creating the project that way was stupid and will collect all the parts of the project and store them all in one place?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dick Applebaum
You have a Pegasus? No fair! I want one!
Thanks for all the helpful hand holding! This is really useful.
The FCPX Projects and Events system are the way you interface with FCPX. FCP 7 uses Bins and Folders and a bunch of other locations (set in preferences) to store render files, etc.
So are you saying that FCPX keeps all the render/cache/miscellaneousobscuredata files in the project folder instead of a central repository? If so, Halleluja, praise Dog!
Yes! A lot of the "pro" editors were put off by the fact that FCPX didn't have elevendy-ninedy pages of archaic preference panels... "It's just a toy -- not a real NLE!". Oh, in each project folder there is a backup/recovery copy of the project DB -- taken automatically every 15 minutes if anything has changed. Same thing for each event file, You don't really need to do any manual saves and it is relatively painless if the FCPX bombs or id force quit.
The images below show how you can use the Folder and File names within FCPX -- to take advantage of your naming/storing preferences -- while gaining all the metadata and data management capabiities of FCPX.
Here's a OS X Folder/File Hierarchry:
So let's say I've got a bunch of clips I captured with the Blackmagic utility, and they're all organized into various folders in a way that makes me feel warm and fuzzy. What happens when I bring them into a session? Are they copied to an Event folder
Only if you want them to be.
If not, and FCPX allows me to use source material that's scattered all over the network, does it have a "Gather it all up" utility that lets me acknowledge that creating the project that way was stupid and will collect all the parts of the project and store them all in one place?
Both are downloadable for instant gratification...
Might be the best 3 days and $30 you ever invested...
Probably a good idea. Of course, I'll also have to completely relearn how to edit since the interface is so different...
Dick, you have been really, really, helpful and have cleared up several of my misconceptions. I appreciate your help and applaud your patience and generosity. Thank you!
Lots of Mac Pro owners don't want to hear that though so it won't change the rhetoric. Some people just won't accept a substitute for the MP. Even if you compare a MP1,1 to a 2013 MBP, it's fingers in the ears time. Maybe in another few years.
True, but they'll accept a substitute that covers all of the cards mounted in their old MPs : ) We just got rid of an old G5 which ran a not current ProTools TDM system, and every slot was filled and connected to a much loved piece of gear and every bay was maxed out with storage. More solid than the MBPs that replaced it (but that's another story).
Yeah, a lot of it is sentimental. But the faster and better without missing the cards really didn't come until Thunderbolt finally started to fulfill its promise with shipping products for editors (as opposed to just storage and adapters), and that still has far to go (but at least it has finally arrived.). A lot of the hanging on to that affection for the MP is because the audio and video peripheral vendors weren't able to immediately provide access to the wonder of Thunderbolt as soon as it showed up, so the cards and older MPs weren't looking so bad. Now, in Q2 2013, it's not the same (hence our dumping the G5 and not waiting for a new MP).
But I have to say, I miss having everything on that rig inside one box, really INSIDE a box : ) and ten feet away. It's not nearly as neat anymore, no matter how we try. : )
In the meanwhile, It it is fairly easy to create a duplicate of a project (all the edits) and its events (all the media) and copy it to a sparse disk image -- which can be shared with as many editors or AEs as desired, for concurrent use. Later, a single person can combine the work product of the various edits.
It's a workaround though and when you are dealing with many GBs of footage, using sparse images that can't reclaim space isn't ideal.
Just to finish this thought... It is possible to reclaim space on a sparse disk image:
1) Delete the files/folders you no-longer need
2) Eject the disk image
3) Compact the disk image with an AppleScript (drag the dis disk image on the script)
4) Remount the disk image (double-click it)
It isn't the best solution -- but I've seen worse...
Yeah, video cards are a real sore spot for us Mac Pro users. Since EFI never took off and looks like it never will on Windows PC's, looks like our options will still always be limited. The good news now though is you can use any PC video card you want, you just won't get a boot screen. But if you have a dual monitor set up and keep the low end Mac card not an issue. I didn't really need the Geforce 690 so just got a 680 instead but this is a big change from a few years ago when we had no options but really outdated cards
Um... wait, what? Most PC laptops, desktops and DIY motherboards from Asus, Gigabyte... are UEFI nowadays. Maybe not same implementation as in Macs, but still. What is a problem with MP's boot screen availability?
Comments
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dick Applebaum
Quote:
Originally Posted by v5v
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
He's complaining that it's crap. That tells me he hasn't used it in the first place.
That should tell you that he HAS used it!
But seriously, I actually haven't tried it myself. Not because it lacks features I need though, I just don't care much for the new interface or Apple's "atypical" file management system.
Atypical... watch this:
BTW, take note of the machine being used to run FCPX and the machine used to guide (tele prompt?) the preso.
Quote:
Originally Posted by v5v
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dick Applebaum
Atypical... watch this:
Okay, it has a metadata editor. Admittedly a cool feature, but I don't really see how it does anything to mitigate my complaints about how FCPX manages files and structures sessions.
I actually had trouble getting past the first two minutes of the video because I couldn't take him seriously after he said, "You don't need to worry about what your files are called... don't even think about it."
First: Your original post, to which I responded (1st quote above), did not mention "structures sessions" -- so I don't know what your issue is with that.
Second: The metadata editor is a "cool feature", but there is much, much more than that.
Third: I want to respond carefully to "You don't need to worry about what your files are called... don't even think about it".
I don't want to come across as flippant or pedantic... here goes:
What he said is true -- if you want to fully exploit the advantages of [FCPX] metadata.
Consider this: You are using FCP 7, and ingesting your media from the OS X file system with Log And Transfer. You Tag/Name/Annotate each clip much as you do in FCPX -- only before the fact. In fact tou can change the [clip] file name using tokens, similar to the FCPX video.
Fine. But now the problems start... where do you put the ingested clips? Why, in bins and folders of course! In fact you can duplicate the hierarchical structure of the OS X file system if you wish.
Say you have several takes of a dialog scene between Bob and Ray some good, some bad (some just OK). Where do you put each one... in which hierarchical bin/folder structure? In FCP 7, a clip can reside on only 1 place (unless you duplicate it, giving rise to a whole new set of problems).
Where's it going to go:
Dialogs
Bob And Ray
Reel 2, Scene 4
Afternoon shots
Good shots
Bad shots
Closeups
...
In FCPX the answer is simple... anything from "none of them" to "all of them" (realistically, wherever it makes sense). This is accomplished simply and elegantly with keywords. You can define and create keyword collections with a powerful keyword editor (you define the keywords, then assign them with kb shortcuts -- the first assignment creates a colletion for that keyword). If you have several clips wtat you want to assign the same keyword -- just multi-select them and drag to the appropriate keyword collection.
So, yes our clip could logically reside in several places (keyword collections) at the same time. In reality, the clip resides only in one place (and that place may not even be within FCPX -- rather in the OS X file system).
And you can locate our clip by tapping on any of the keyword collections.
Then, there is a powerful search function where you can search for any combination of keywords and other metadata.
These "searches" can, themselves, be saved as "smart collections" -- where any subsequent clip ingests (or keyword assignments) are tested against all the existing "search criteria" and the clips are automatically added, as appropriate. (This is analogous to the "smart folders" in OS X).
Even better, as the clips are ingested (or later), they can be analyzed and used to generate smart collections for content and for potential problems with your footage. The items under "Find People" and "Create Smart Collections after analysis" are checked by default. When your footage imports, an algorithm determines if there are any people in the imported clips then intelligently places them into Smart Collections labeled One Person, Two Persons Group, Wide Shot, Close Up, and so on.
Here is a somewhat dated review of FCPX from June 2011 that discusses the data organization capabilities.
http://www.kenstone.net/fcp_homepage/fcp_x_first_look_martin.html
Finally... Yes you can retain your old file names (and even the folder structure) that you are used to... and you don't even need to bring the clips into FCPX if you wish (it just creates a symlink). You don't need to transcode the media -- but you can! In any case you can immediately start editing or organizing your clips -- no waiting for the ingest, transcoding or analysis to finish.
Again, with FCPX "You don't need to worry about what your files are called... don't even think about it".
Aside:
Apple is trying to develop an alternative interface to the hierarchical file system (and Fine Finder) for iOS. Think about trying to explain the OS X file system to, say, your mom or other non-techie.
Starting out is fine -- a voume is like a file cabinet, and within the cabinet we place folders with meaningful names. Then within the folders we place documents... If we could stop right there, it would be easy to understand... but we say "you can also put folders inside a folder"... then blow their mind when we say "folders within folders within folders"...
We show them this and leave them to their own devices... A week later we come back and:
everything is on the desktop
everything is at the root level of the hard drive
everything is over categorized into folders within folders... all with meaningless names (kinda' like iPhoto)
They are completely frustrated and can't find anything -- they can't remember what they called it or where they put it... and it won't let them save another file (or folder) with the same name.
The FCPX data management tools along with the metadata is the closest thing I've seen to a file system that is teachable and usable by anyone... Why should we care what it is called (named) or where they put it -- as long as we can easily find it (rather than playing "roll me over in the clover" with the file system.
Now, That's Jazz!
Quote:
Originally Posted by SpamSandwich
I believe Tim Cook said it would be later in the year.
That's why I said surprise.
I snipped the reply because it is just this "workflow", regardless of data type... that I want to reply to.
Short reply: SOME OLD GUY like you and me gets it!!!! It is the Ol' Folks that call themselves "pros" just because they have a lengthy credit list... that refuse to learn, change, adapt, or even consider that there is "a better way" to organize than the flat file/folder hierarchy.
It is the very same workflow (FCPX-style) that I use for photos whether in iPhoto, Aperture, Lightroom... or of all places... Adobe Bridge. I also attempt to teach this to a number of photographer clients, and it's the young people that get it. The older and more "pro" experienced... they balk, they bitch, they moan, they don't need keywords, or meta data or collections or albums... ad nauseum. Too much work; not necessary, see I have it in folders, etc.
I have no conclusion to this open-ended observation... only to say that it's also amazing how many Mac OS X users don't use simple labeling and or Smart Searches... which is also basically the same thing. Add spotlight comments and you're good to go on 1-second searches to find and organize files across multiple hard drives, even server directories.
NOTE: interesting that Windows 8 has finally made search better and preferred across the OS... but most people I have talked to, still don't even want to use it.... but then head on over to IE and use Google rather than bookmarks.
There's a serious disconnect across platforms and software to the value of meta-tagging...that's all i can say ...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dick Applebaum
First: Your original post, to which I responded (1st quote above), did not mention "structures sessions" -- so I don't know what your issue is with that.
Sorry if it seems like I'm being inconsistent or vague. I didn't expect that we might discuss my objections in detail. I was just trying to be clear that my decision not to embrace FCPX is based on simply preferring one way of working over another, not any concern over missing features.
It's also important to stress that I don't think the way FCPX does things is "wrong" just because I might prefer a different approach. That's my issue, not Apple's. Fortunately for me, there are alternatives that are more consistent with my preferences.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dick Applebaum
Second: The metadata editor is a "cool feature", but there is much, much more than that.
Acknowledged. It does seem like it would offer some very useful ways to organize assets. My preference has been to do that at the file level, using descriptive file names and, yes, duplicating if necessary. That makes it possible to assess/collect/copy/redistribute material from a Finder window.
Why do I need to do that? I dunno. What's the benefit? A sense of security, I guess.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dick Applebaum
Finally... Yes you can retain your old file names (and even the folder structure) that you are used to... and you don't even need to bring the clips into FCPX if you wish (it just creates a symlink).
Really? Doesn't FCPX force me to use its Projects and Events system?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dick Applebaum
Apple is trying to develop an alternative interface to the hierarchical file system (and Fine Finder) for iOS. Think about trying to explain the OS X file system to, say, your mom or other non-techie.
Starting out is fine -- a voume is like a file cabinet, and within the cabinet we place folders with meaningful names. Then within the folders we place documents... If we could stop right there, it would be easy to understand... but we say "you can also put folders inside a folder"... then blow their mind when we say "folders within folders within folders"...
We show them this and leave them to their own devices... A week later we come back and:
everything is on the desktop
everything is at the root level of the hard drive
everything is over categorized into folders within folders... all with meaningless names (kinda' like iPhoto)
They are completely frustrated and can't find anything -- they can't remember what they called it or where they put it... and it won't let them save another file (or folder) with the same name.
This made me literally LOL! Nice imagery. I'm not my mom, though. I have a system, and it works. It bugs me to have to find ways to "override" built-in dummy-proofing.
I'm not yet satisfied that surrendering control to the machine is a good idea just because Aunt Mildred can't keep track of her cat pictures. In fact, not being able to remember what something is called or where it's stored is the reason I do things the way I do -- this kind of stuff goes here, that kind of stuff goes there, everything associated with this client is in the client's master folder, and the naming convention is consistent. The picture of Aunt Milly's cat will be on that drive in that folder with the name of the cat in the filename. I'm never going to spend the time to learn how to use iPhoto's AutoDummyProofing Assistant, but give me any file browser and I'll be able to bring up the file I want (and the VERSION I want) within seconds in a way that's intuitive to ME rather than the way a software designer thought would be best.
Edit:
I guess that last statement is the crux of the matter. IPhoto, iTunes and FCPX all try to manage assets according to a certain structure so that they are then able to provide more advanced search options. Admirable. The problem seems to be that there is a disconnect between their approach and the way my head works (or doesn't). What seems intuitive to you may be boggling to me and vice-versa. The search window in iTunes may be very handy, but when I need to send that particular track to graphics I'm going to need to find it and give it a name other than "02 Love Song.m4a" anyway, so why not just organize and name things in a way that fits my workflow in the first place?
Quote:
Originally Posted by ThePixelDoc
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dick Applebaum
Aside:
Apple is trying to develop an alternative interface to the hierarchical file system (and Fine Finder) for iOS. Think about trying to explain the OS X file system to, say, your mom or other non-techie.
Starting out is fine -- a voume is like a file cabinet, and within the cabinet we place folders with meaningful names. Then within the folders we place documents... If we could stop right there, it would be easy to understand... but we say "you can also put folders inside a folder"... then blow their mind when we say "folders within folders within folders"...
We show them this and leave them to their own devices... A week later we come back and:
everything is on the desktop
everything is at the root level of the hard drive
everything is over categorized into folders within folders... all with meaningless names (kinda' like iPhoto)
They are completely frustrated and can't find anything -- they can't remember what they called it or where they put it... and it won't let them save another file (or folder) with the same name.
The FCPX data management tools along with the metadata is the closest thing I've seen to a file system that is teachable and usable by anyone... Why should we care what it is called (named) or where they put it -- as long as we can easily find it (rather than playing "roll me over in the clover" with the file system.
Now, That's Jazz!
I snipped the reply because it is just this "workflow", regardless of data type... that I want to reply to.
Short reply: SOME OLD GUY like you and me gets it!!!! It is the Ol' Folks that call themselves "pros" just because they have a lengthy credit list... that refuse to learn, change, adapt, or even consider that there is "a better way" to organize than the flat file/folder hierarchy.
It is the very same workflow (FCPX-style) that I use for photos whether in iPhoto, Aperture, Lightroom... or of all places... Adobe Bridge. I also attempt to teach this to a number of photographer clients, and it's the young people that get it. The older and more "pro" experienced... they balk, they bitch, they moan, they don't need keywords, or meta data or collections or albums... ad nauseum. Too much work; not necessary, see I have it in folders, etc.
I have no conclusion to this open-ended observation... only to say that it's also amazing how many Mac OS X users don't use simple labeling and or Smart Searches... which is also basically the same thing. Add spotlight comments and you're good to go on 1-second searches to find and organize files across multiple hard drives, even server directories.
NOTE: interesting that Windows 8 has finally made search better and preferred across the OS... but most people I have talked to, still don't even want to use it.... but then head on over to IE and use Google rather than bookmarks.
There's a serious disconnect across platforms and software to the value of meta-tagging...that's all i can say ...
Ha! I must confess that I don't exploit the OS X file system to the extent you do....
When I first started taking pictures and videos, I was overwhelmed by the quantity and size of the files (I rarely throw any of these away). I sucked all the pics into iPhoto and all the video into the various FCPs (and made backups of the HDSC cards on HD). When I took some training for FCP X, the scales fell from my eyes and the file management tools provided by FCP X make it simple (kinda' fun, actually) to add metadata, keywords and smart collections. Whenever I have some free time, I suck some more of my iMovie and FCP 7 projects into FCPX -- where, at last, I am in control... I can FInd my stuff!
* My late wife and I had 35 1/2 wonderful years together -- trips to Europe, Rhine Cruise, Hawaii, Southwest US, Day trips... but we didn't think to record many of them on film or video. Most of what I have is pictures taken by others and about 33 minutes of videos taken with my daughter's VCR VideoCam.
One big problem with having metadata contained in the app and not the filesystem is that it doesn't get used by other apps. Apple's design for FCPX seems to be based on the ideal that everything can be done with just FCPX and that isn't the case. The metadata that FCPX can support is likely more flexible than HFS+ and won't get lost copying media to another filesystem but it's limiting. Perhaps they need a Core framework like Core MetaData or just a QuickLook plugin. There would be an attribute attached to the file with a location identifier for the metadata file and other apps can use that link. If that identifier gets lost somehow, it can be relinked from the metadata files as they'd contain the filenames. The Finder could ask if this is to be copied over when transferring to external drives but it wouldn't matter as the metadata files could be sent on manually.
So you could open a file in FCPX, manage the metadata, open the source file in say After Effects or some other software, save it out and it would be able to not only see the data but edit it inside the program and attach the same metadata link to a new file. FCPX would then get the updated file with the metadata intact. The way it's designed now, it almost ties you into using FCPX. Before, someone could work on Avid and FCP using the same source footage, even on a shared drive and they'd both benefit from the file sorting.
The design seems to have been made very much single-user. Businesses are obviously managing to work around it but IMO Apple should have designed it around multiple users because that automatically covers single users too. I think an important focus of their campaign should be collaborative projects, not just individual editors who talk about being able to do a single-user job from start to finish.
Fair enough!
Point Taken!
The FCPX Projects and Events system are the way you interface with FCPX. FCP 7 uses Bins and Folders and a bunch of other locations (set in preferences) to store render files, etc.
The images below show how you can use the Folder and File names within FCPX -- to take advantage of your naming/storing preferences -- while gaining all the metadata and data management capabiities of FCPX.
Here's a OS X Folder/File Hierarchry:
Here's the same hierarchy within FCPX... represented by KeyWord Collections:
And the FCPX Inspector shows that the files reside in their original place in the file system:
And, just for fun the clip we're looking at:
I appreciate that you have a system that works for you... But, you really don't you don't really need to "override" anything as far as data organization, as shown above.
I agree!
You can use whatever names and hierarchical structure that works for you... FCPX doesn't force any arbitrary naming or organizational conventions on you any more so than does FCP & or other NLE's.
I agree with most of the above. Metadata should be a system/platform resource available to all -- including APIs in an SDK.
I like the CoreMetatata idea!
I think that the current implementation is single user... It's easier and they had to start somewhere.
The fact that they are using an SQL database and all this emphasis on file system structure neutral metadata makes me think that the collaboration can be added with a central multi-user database in addition to the single-user implementation we have now.
I still don't know if it is wise to abandon the file system entirely -- there are significant costs of storing large blobs within a database.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dick Applebaum
The FCPX Projects and Events system are the way you interface with FCPX. FCP 7 uses Bins and Folders and a bunch of other locations (set in preferences) to store render files, etc.
So are you saying that FCPX keeps all the render/cache/miscellaneousobscuredata files in the project folder instead of a central repository? If so, Halleluja, praise Dog!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dick Applebaum
The images below show how you can use the Folder and File names within FCPX -- to take advantage of your naming/storing preferences -- while gaining all the metadata and data management capabiities of FCPX.
Here's a OS X Folder/File Hierarchry:
So let's say I've got a bunch of clips I captured with the Blackmagic utility, and they're all organized into various folders in a way that makes me feel warm and fuzzy. What happens when I bring them into a session? Are they copied to an Event folder?
If not, and FCPX allows me to use source material that's scattered all over the network, does it have a "Gather it all up" utility that lets me acknowledge that creating the project that way was stupid and will collect all the parts of the project and store them all in one place?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dick Applebaum
You have a Pegasus? No fair! I want one!
Thanks for all the helpful hand holding! This is really useful.
Yes! A lot of the "pro" editors were put off by the fact that FCPX didn't have elevendy-ninedy pages of archaic preference panels... "It's just a toy -- not a real NLE!". Oh, in each project folder there is a backup/recovery copy of the project DB -- taken automatically every 15 minutes if anything has changed. Same thing for each event file, You don't really need to do any manual saves and it is relatively painless if the FCPX bombs or id force quit.
Only if you want them to be.
Of course!
Actually, I have 2 Pegasus 12 TB Thunderbolt -- they are faster than the SSD on the Mac.
No problem!
One thing that might be worth your while on a long weekend, is to get the FCPX Free 30-day trial and a $30 course in FCPX media management:
http://www.rippletraining.com/categories/apple-pro-apps-tutorials/final-cut-pro-x-tutorials/fcpx-media-management-2nd-edition.html
Both are downloadable for instant gratification...
Might be the best 3 days and $30 you ever invested...
I have no connection to RippleTraining or Apple other than a satisfied customer (and a shareholder of AAPL).
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dick Applebaum
Actually, I have 2 Pegasus 12 TB Thunderbolt -- they are faster than the SSD on the Mac.
I hate you.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dick Applebaum
One thing that might be worth your while on a long weekend, is to get the FCPX Free 30-day trial and a $30 course in FCPX media management:
http://www.rippletraining.com/categories/apple-pro-apps-tutorials/final-cut-pro-x-tutorials/fcpx-media-management-2nd-edition.html
Both are downloadable for instant gratification...
Might be the best 3 days and $30 you ever invested...
Probably a good idea. Of course, I'll also have to completely relearn how to edit since the interface is so different...
Dick, you have been really, really, helpful and have cleared up several of my misconceptions. I appreciate your help and applaud your patience and generosity. Thank you!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvin
Lots of Mac Pro owners don't want to hear that though so it won't change the rhetoric. Some people just won't accept a substitute for the MP. Even if you compare a MP1,1 to a 2013 MBP, it's fingers in the ears time. Maybe in another few years.
True, but they'll accept a substitute that covers all of the cards mounted in their old MPs : ) We just got rid of an old G5 which ran a not current ProTools TDM system, and every slot was filled and connected to a much loved piece of gear and every bay was maxed out with storage. More solid than the MBPs that replaced it (but that's another story).
Yeah, a lot of it is sentimental. But the faster and better without missing the cards really didn't come until Thunderbolt finally started to fulfill its promise with shipping products for editors (as opposed to just storage and adapters), and that still has far to go (but at least it has finally arrived.). A lot of the hanging on to that affection for the MP is because the audio and video peripheral vendors weren't able to immediately provide access to the wonder of Thunderbolt as soon as it showed up, so the cards and older MPs weren't looking so bad. Now, in Q2 2013, it's not the same (hence our dumping the G5 and not waiting for a new MP).
But I have to say, I miss having everything on that rig inside one box, really INSIDE a box : ) and ten feet away. It's not nearly as neat anymore, no matter how we try. : )
Just to finish this thought... It is possible to reclaim space on a sparse disk image:
1) Delete the files/folders you no-longer need
2) Eject the disk image
3) Compact the disk image with an AppleScript (drag the dis disk image on the script)
4) Remount the disk image (double-click it)
It isn't the best solution -- but I've seen worse...
Um... wait, what? Most PC laptops, desktops and DIY motherboards from Asus, Gigabyte... are UEFI nowadays. Maybe not same implementation as in Macs, but still. What is a problem with MP's boot screen availability?