You cannot, on one hand claim that "It is pretty rare that footage is reused" -- and on the other hand claim that FCPX isn't "pro" because it doesn't allow you to directly open FCP 7 (and earlier) projects from 5-10 years ago -- because you need to change something or get access to some footage for a new project. My personal observation is that footage is reused all the time -- one only need look at commercials from the likes of Sears, Target, credit card companies, soft drinks, insurance companies, mobile phone companies -- even Apple.
I wouldn't say people get frequent feelings of Deja Vu while watching TV but the issue isn't reusing media, it's different sequences sharing the same Event and whether or not you'd want to simultaneously change all of them. If it's the same clip, I don't see why you wouldn't want to have them all update at the same time. If there's a boom mic in shot, you'd surely want it removed from every shot without figuring out where you'd used it and manually replacing each one.
What do you do in FCP 7 when the repointed clip is a different length -- it, likely screws up the sync of subsequent clips in the same or other tracks. What if the repointed clip is in a different codec?
It doesn't affect the surrounding clips. FCP crops the new clip to the exact same length (when I say 'new clip' remember, I'm primarily talking about the same clip that's been adjusted elsewhere - it's not common to replace it like that with a different clip). FCPX instead pushes everything out. Everything is in sync but you'd have to crop it and offset it manually again. It's a minor issue for Apple to fix. It literally needs one other option when you drag a clip on top of another that says something like 'replace and match' where it tries to crop and offset the new footage to the one you are replacing it with and they could just be a bit more lenient on the relink conditions.
I didn't mean that to be a suggestion that FCPX isn't professional software. I just mean it needs to be more flexible to accommodate a wider range of working environments. It is currently being used in expensive productions, even if they do use some of the workarounds.
Here's where I'm an optimist... Apple has [belatedly] proven that it is listening and paying attention. I suspect that some things that are somewhat clumsy workarounds (in FCP X) will be incorporated into the product -- hopefully as elegantly as MultiCam.
I hope so. Like I say, even though this is nearly 2 years in, I think they are still in the period where people can viably run the old workflows before making a jump one way or another. I just don't want to see them avoid improving collaborative workflows and instead just start their marketing machine to distract people from it. If software is good enough, it doesn't need a strong marketing campaign. Look at the original Final Cut.
I don't agree "It's a clear admission that Apple didn't design the software to share projects". Why would they use a database structure for events and projects? Why would they attempt to hide the Finder and underlying file structure? Why would they implement (and continue to expand) a robust "sharing" capability (when you account for all the options)? Why the implied integration with mobile devices? Why the robust and granular XML?
The database design is so you don't have to save anything - no more autosaves every few minutes, every change is current. No prompts about saving a new project or saving changes when you quit. It gets rid of all those dialogs. None of that implies anything about sharing. The XML is for interoperability with other software, which is essential but not enough for sharing FCPX projects.
Do you know of any "pro" who uses (or recommends) the boot drive for storing projects or events -- or the SSD?
I think the default assumption has to be that there are no external drives... for the beginner. But any active "pro" editor will have tons (but never enough) of external drive space.
I agree with the storage amount somewhat unless you have to work remotely but it's still skirting round another of FCPX's limitations. Also, concerning the boot drive, if you have 100GB of footage and a 512GB SSD, the SSD is one of the fastest places to keep it while you work on it. As Steve Martin was saying, you could edit on the beach if you like - but you ain't taking your Pegasus with you.
It would be a lot easier to post in a timely fashion if AI would get rid of the bugs in this forum software... After losing several hours of work, several times, I write my posts in Mail as a workaround... I, and many others have complained, repeatedly... To be honest AI has made progress, but often it is two steps backwards followed by 2 1/2 steps forward... At least the smiley face finally works
At the risk of encouraging longer posts, I find Textedit works quite well for this too.
Do you really think that the man who listened and understood what "pro" editors wanted and needed -- then brilliantly implemented it in FCP... Randy Ubilios... has suddenly stopped listening or has been lobotomized into trying to foist an inferior "iMovie Pro" (AKA FCPX) on the world? Same question about Apple?
It's a good question. I don't like to think so but I also recall what they did with Shake and the comments made by its developers. It's rarely any of the extremes - people pull it in each direction and give it a label of 'professional' or 'toy' because people like to simplify things that way. I do think that they go more after features in their software than focusing on it just working these days and these are sometimes contrary goals. I'd rather that they prioritise flexibility and reliability. They like to put the icing on before the cake is done.
They like to put the icing on before the cake is done.
What I'd love for Apple to have done with FCPX would be similar to how Logic used to be tiered. It was no denigration of the program to offer a Pro version and a more fully bundled up Studio version, which contained extra parts that weren't part of a recording DAW but were needed for full blown multimedia use.
I don't think 75% of the people who jumped on the initial release of FCPX even knew what broadcast output was, much less that it wasn't included, as it didn't affect them. For a big part of the industry though, not having broadcast output meant they couldn't use it, awesome new UI paradigm or not.
I'm in no way besmirching those who didn't need the pro functions that were missing for so long. Just that Apple has this funny way of wanting to play it both ways: to be everything to everyone and yet insisting on maybe too streamlined a product line. They did, after all, end up only offering the $199 Logic Pro, sans extra non-DAW parts, as the only version.
Personally, as an Aperture user, I've been using the heck out of PS Elements for years and couldn't do without it. I look at it as I chose the version without the icing. I doubt I would have reached for PS had Adobe only offered that.
Well, the main reason for Apple to not get back pro users is the trust. Nobody in pro market trust Apple anymore. Especially big companies that buy vast quantities of equipment and they creating their workflows for years.
Maybe some single pro users would go for FCPX but not the industry.
For many years the standard in video editing was established: 1st league - Avid 2nd league - Premiere Pro, FCP 3rd league - Edius, Vegas
Afte realease of FCS - FCP itself advanced into 1st league and Color were considered as a good alternative for expensive Quantel, DaVinci, Lustre, etc.
Many companies invested big money to convert into FCP surrounding. Everything was beautiful. And when everyone was expecting to get just a small update with support for RED, DPX, ARRI, 64bit, etc. - as the software not needed much more - the catastrophe arrived. Nearly perfect editing software were replaced - not updated but replaced - by totally amateur looking and working soft based on iMovie workflow, called FCPX.
I remember it as WTC.
It is like you working for years with Excel and somebody gives you a TextEdit telling that this is a new Excel - simpler, better, perfect.
People started to scream and fight, but after 2 years nobody say anything more. All the pros went back to Avid, some of them tried Premiere Pro, the others still use FCP7. To be honest, for offline editing we don't need anything more then FCP7 or Avid. All that updates and tries to convince people about the greatness of FCPX still looks like a sad joke.
But the fact is that FCP from the 1st league dropped down straight into 3rd league loosing the trust forever.
The only solution is to say sorry, we made a mistake and from now on, we won't lie anymore. We won't be making idiots of ourselves in pro's eyes. We will keep FCPX as a good alternative but in the next year we will release FCS4 that includes FCP8, Color2, Soundtrack2, DVDStudioPro2 Compressor and Motion of course. And that is THE ONLY way to get back a pro editors. There is non other one.
The only solution is to say sorry, we made a mistake and from now on, we won't lie anymore. We won't be making idiots of ourselves in pro's eyes. We will keep FCPX as a good alternative but in the next year we will release FCS4 that includes FCP8, Color2, Soundtrack2, DVDStudioPro2 Compressor and Motion of course.
And that is THE ONLY way to get back a pro editors. There is non other one.
I agree fully. Most filmmakers I know feel the same - all have moved back to Avid or are still using FCP7. Final Cut Pro X really is just being embraced by younger filmmakers doing shorts for youtube or Vimeo, simple projects. The UI is not intuitive as FCP7 is. I see a parallel with the new iOS7 - it's change simply for the sake of change. Tall Skill and Phil won't agree, but my guess is they've never used an edit system before or work in the pro film community and will just defend Apple at all costs.
The only solution is to say sorry, we made a mistake and from now on, we won't lie anymore. We won't be making idiots of ourselves in pro's eyes. We will keep FCPX as a good alternative but in the next year we will release FCS4 that includes FCP8, Color2, Soundtrack2, DVDStudioPro2 Compressor and Motion of course.
And that is THE ONLY way to get back a pro editors. There is non other one.
Thanks for all the sweeping generalizations and nonsensical beliefs.
<span style="background-color:rgb(241,241,241);">I agree fully. Most filmmakers I know feel the same - all have moved back to Avid or are still using FCP7. Final Cut Pro X really is just being embraced by younger filmmakers doing shorts for youtube or Vimeo, simple projects. The UI is not intuitive as FCP7 is. I see a parallel with the new iOS7 - it's change simply for the sake of change. Tall Skill and Phil won't agree, but my guess is they've never used an edit system before or work in the pro film community and will just defend Apple at all costs.
I don't have enough experience with X to be able to talk about it with any sense of scope; I know that. But from seeing it used, from hearing what people have to say about it, my takeaway is that 7 is intuitive because you're used to it and X becomes that way once you do.
I wonder as to the future of both pro product families now that Apple's making a 50º turn in design policy. We'll have to see. iWork this fall will give us our first look at some changes, if any.
I don't have enough experience with X to be able to talk about it with any sense of scope; I know that. But from seeing it used, from hearing what people have to say about it, my takeaway is that 7 is intuitive because you're used to it and X becomes that way once you do.
I wonder as to the future of both pro product families now that Apple's making a 50º turn in design policy. We'll have to see. iWork this fall will give us our first look at some changes, if any.
I think regarding Final Cut Pro X we are just in an interim stage where it's slightly neither here nor there. I have a source connected to the video team there who gave me a hint of what is up their sleeve. At some point down the road, the iMac will be able to be used in two configurations (with vertical screen and keyboard as it is currently) and then in a way where the screen can slide down into a horizontal position (slightly slanted on the desktop) where the whole surface of the monitor is a touch screen. Supposedly it is in this fashion that you will get the most out of Final Cut Pro X - it will be completely intuitive and almost childlike as you can grab clips, extend them by lengthening with your fingertips, etc... The magnetic timeline will be great to use in this fashion and it will be a fantastic edit system - way ahead of anything out there. So based on this hint I feel we are just in an interim position where the software is waiting for the hardware that it was designed for. At present with a keyboard and mouse and the fact that we've been using it for years, FCP7 still feels more familiar and yes, for some of us it's just hard to change.
At some point down the road, the iMac will be able to be used in two configurations (with vertical screen and keyboard as it is currently) and then in a way where the screen can slide down into a horizontal position (slightly slanted on the desktop) where the whole surface of the monitor is a touch screen. Supposedly it is in this fashion that you will get the most out of Final Cut Pro X - it will be completely intuitive and almost childlike as you can grab clips, extend them by lengthening with your fingertips, etc... The magnetic timeline will be great to use in this fashion and it will be a fantastic edit system - way ahead of anything out there.
You know, I'm starting to think that, too. Apple's doing that very thing with every other piece of computer software they make, so why not Final Cut? I mean, look at System Preferences in Mavericks; they've slightly bumped up the size of the icons again. In fact, these icons are now almost the size you'd want under your fingertips. I'm starting to feel like I'd rather touch them than have to go and click them. If they're doing the same in Final Cut, it makes a lot of sense that pros would feel put out a bit.
I wonder if anyone has used Final Cut X with a touchscreen monitor yet...
That's just a touchscreen emulation of an old-fashioned edit controller. The real test would be actually grabbing clips on the timeline with your fingers.
Edit: I tried iMovie on the iPhone which is kinda the same idea, and it felt a little clumsy and imprecise. That could be jut because of the tiny screen though.
That's just a touchscreen emulation of an old-fashioned edit controller. The real test would be actually grabbing clips on the timeline with your fingers.
I know, I know. Seemed related.
I tried iMovie on the iPhone which is kinda the same idea, and it felt a little clumsy and imprecise. That could be jut because of the tiny screen though.
I actually used it once, on my 4, and felt it was clumsy. It probably works better on my 5 now, but haven't touched the app since I dumped it in an AppleZooi folder, along with other...apps from Apple.
At some point down the road, the iMac will be able to be used in two configurations (with vertical screen and keyboard as it is currently) and then in a way where the screen can slide down into a horizontal position (slightly slanted on the desktop) where the whole surface of the monitor is a touch screen. Supposedly it is in this fashion that you will get the most out of Final Cut Pro X - it will be completely intuitive and almost childlike as you can grab clips, extend them by lengthening with your fingertips, etc... The magnetic timeline will be great to use in this fashion and it will be a fantastic edit system - way ahead of anything out there.
You know, I'm starting to think that, too. Apple's doing that very thing with every other piece of computer software they make, so why not Final Cut? I mean, look at System Preferences in Mavericks; they've slightly bumped up the size of the icons again. In fact, these icons are now almost the size you'd want under your fingertips. I'm starting to feel like I'd rather touch them than have to go and click them. If they're doing the same in Final Cut, it makes a lot of sense that pros would feel put out a bit.
I wonder if anyone has used Final Cut X with a touchscreen monitor yet...
I am playing with FCPX using The Screens VNC on my iPad 4. The performance is pretty good, but it is clumsy...
The controls are small so you must zoom the screen
You really need to display the touch keyboard to do even basic things
-- Shift-Z to display entire story line
Some kb shortcuts require both the alpha kb and the numbers kbs -- so they aren't very short
-- the "/" key used to play the selected clip, requires a switch to the numbers kb
The FCPX UI doesn't exploit the multitouch UI
The latter point is the most critical, but offers the most potential...
It is fantastic that you can use gestures to zoom and pan the display -- but, you cannot select a clip and compress or extend it -- or easily trim in and out points.
However, I think that all the downside limitations can be resolved, and it would be great to edit directly with your hand.
However, I think that all the downside limitations can be resolved, and it would be great to edit directly with your hand.
I just attended a Pro Lab at an Apple Store, using a Macbook Pro they provided. I was pleasantly surprised by the build-in touchpad, so I bought the $70 'standalone' one because 1) I liked it and 2) I've 'hammered' on my Magic Mouse as it wasn't always responding 'correctly'.
Using this Touchpad turned out to be such a great device, and 2) the Pro Lab is such a useful (and free; I'm Dutch) thing I signed up for a Final Cut Pro X Lab. The guy presenting showed be a few gestures in FCP which makes it a given this software really ought to be redesigned for touch. Feels very natural (well, to me).
And I fully believe OSX & iOS should not be merged because of this difference. The desktop 'as we know it' uses a bitmap screen and a little pointer, moved by a mouse. This is very different from using a touchscreen, interacted with a way larger surface: out finger(s).
The difference will should always be there, so please, no merging. Not that you were implying this, sir, and going way OT. Still, seemed related.
[...] it would be great to edit directly with your hand.
Touchscreen video editing would be almost like taking us back to where it all began -- shuttling film back and forth under the cutter with our hands.
I like the idea of physical controllers with dedicated knobs and/or buttons per function. That isn't always practical though, since even users of the same software set it up differently and use different plugins. To keep size and cost under control, the designer has to decide which controls to leave out or bury under menus, so affordable devices tend not to be terribly useful while devices that do a good job of it (like the Digidesign D-Command) are priced an order of magnitude beyond my reach. Touchscreens seem like a really good compromise in that they provide the same kind of hands-on intuitive operation as a control surface but with infinite customizability and substantially lower cost.
Comments
I wouldn't say people get frequent feelings of Deja Vu while watching TV but the issue isn't reusing media, it's different sequences sharing the same Event and whether or not you'd want to simultaneously change all of them. If it's the same clip, I don't see why you wouldn't want to have them all update at the same time. If there's a boom mic in shot, you'd surely want it removed from every shot without figuring out where you'd used it and manually replacing each one.
It doesn't affect the surrounding clips. FCP crops the new clip to the exact same length (when I say 'new clip' remember, I'm primarily talking about the same clip that's been adjusted elsewhere - it's not common to replace it like that with a different clip). FCPX instead pushes everything out. Everything is in sync but you'd have to crop it and offset it manually again. It's a minor issue for Apple to fix. It literally needs one other option when you drag a clip on top of another that says something like 'replace and match' where it tries to crop and offset the new footage to the one you are replacing it with and they could just be a bit more lenient on the relink conditions.
I didn't mean that to be a suggestion that FCPX isn't professional software. I just mean it needs to be more flexible to accommodate a wider range of working environments. It is currently being used in expensive productions, even if they do use some of the workarounds.
I hope so. Like I say, even though this is nearly 2 years in, I think they are still in the period where people can viably run the old workflows before making a jump one way or another. I just don't want to see them avoid improving collaborative workflows and instead just start their marketing machine to distract people from it. If software is good enough, it doesn't need a strong marketing campaign. Look at the original Final Cut.
The database design is so you don't have to save anything - no more autosaves every few minutes, every change is current. No prompts about saving a new project or saving changes when you quit. It gets rid of all those dialogs. None of that implies anything about sharing. The XML is for interoperability with other software, which is essential but not enough for sharing FCPX projects.
I agree with the storage amount somewhat unless you have to work remotely but it's still skirting round another of FCPX's limitations. Also, concerning the boot drive, if you have 100GB of footage and a 512GB SSD, the SSD is one of the fastest places to keep it while you work on it. As Steve Martin was saying, you could edit on the beach if you like - but you ain't taking your Pegasus with you.
At the risk of encouraging longer posts, I find Textedit works quite well for this too.
It's a good question. I don't like to think so but I also recall what they did with Shake and the comments made by its developers. It's rarely any of the extremes - people pull it in each direction and give it a label of 'professional' or 'toy' because people like to simplify things that way. I do think that they go more after features in their software than focusing on it just working these days and these are sometimes contrary goals. I'd rather that they prioritise flexibility and reliability. They like to put the icing on before the cake is done.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvin
They like to put the icing on before the cake is done.
What I'd love for Apple to have done with FCPX would be similar to how Logic used to be tiered. It was no denigration of the program to offer a Pro version and a more fully bundled up Studio version, which contained extra parts that weren't part of a recording DAW but were needed for full blown multimedia use.
I don't think 75% of the people who jumped on the initial release of FCPX even knew what broadcast output was, much less that it wasn't included, as it didn't affect them. For a big part of the industry though, not having broadcast output meant they couldn't use it, awesome new UI paradigm or not.
I'm in no way besmirching those who didn't need the pro functions that were missing for so long. Just that Apple has this funny way of wanting to play it both ways: to be everything to everyone and yet insisting on maybe too streamlined a product line. They did, after all, end up only offering the $199 Logic Pro, sans extra non-DAW parts, as the only version.
Personally, as an Aperture user, I've been using the heck out of PS Elements for years and couldn't do without it. I look at it as I chose the version without the icing. I doubt I would have reached for PS had Adobe only offered that.
That's all.
Paul, Film Broadcaster.
Originally Posted by Cinemac
Final cut x is only an App to put it on the trash.
That's all.
Paul, Film Broadcaster.
WOW, I REALLY BELIEVE YOU! GEE, THANKS PAUL, FILM BROADCASTER!
Nobody in pro market trust Apple anymore.
Especially big companies that buy vast quantities of equipment and they creating their workflows for years.
Maybe some single pro users would go for FCPX but not the industry.
For many years the standard in video editing was established:
1st league - Avid
2nd league - Premiere Pro, FCP
3rd league - Edius, Vegas
Afte realease of FCS - FCP itself advanced into 1st league and Color were considered as a good alternative for expensive Quantel, DaVinci, Lustre, etc.
Many companies invested big money to convert into FCP surrounding. Everything was beautiful.
And when everyone was expecting to get just a small update with support for RED, DPX, ARRI, 64bit, etc. - as the software not needed much more - the catastrophe arrived.
Nearly perfect editing software were replaced - not updated but replaced - by totally amateur looking and working soft based on iMovie workflow, called FCPX.
I remember it as WTC.
It is like you working for years with Excel and somebody gives you a TextEdit telling that this is a new Excel - simpler, better, perfect.
People started to scream and fight, but after 2 years nobody say anything more. All the pros went back to Avid, some of them tried Premiere Pro, the others still use FCP7.
To be honest, for offline editing we don't need anything more then FCP7 or Avid. All that updates and tries to convince people about the greatness of FCPX still looks like a sad joke.
But the fact is that FCP from the 1st league dropped down straight into 3rd league loosing the trust forever.
The only solution is to say sorry, we made a mistake and from now on, we won't lie anymore. We won't be making idiots of ourselves in pro's eyes. We will keep FCPX as a good alternative but in the next year we will release FCS4 that includes FCP8, Color2, Soundtrack2, DVDStudioPro2 Compressor and Motion of course.
And that is THE ONLY way to get back a pro editors. There is non other one.
In the case of the pro applications, perhaps an ownership verification would be better.
Quote:
The only solution is to say sorry, we made a mistake and from now on, we won't lie anymore. We won't be making idiots of ourselves in pro's eyes. We will keep FCPX as a good alternative but in the next year we will release FCS4 that includes FCP8, Color2, Soundtrack2, DVDStudioPro2 Compressor and Motion of course.
And that is THE ONLY way to get back a pro editors. There is non other one.
I agree fully. Most filmmakers I know feel the same - all have moved back to Avid or are still using FCP7. Final Cut Pro X really is just being embraced by younger filmmakers doing shorts for youtube or Vimeo, simple projects. The UI is not intuitive as FCP7 is. I see a parallel with the new iOS7 - it's change simply for the sake of change. Tall Skill and Phil won't agree, but my guess is they've never used an edit system before or work in the pro film community and will just defend Apple at all costs.
Thanks for all the sweeping generalizations and nonsensical beliefs.
Same.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
Thanks for all the sweeping generalizations and nonsensical beliefs.
Same.
That's not an argument... that's just contradiction. I paid for an argument.
Ha HA! I like that.
I don't have enough experience with X to be able to talk about it with any sense of scope; I know that. But from seeing it used, from hearing what people have to say about it, my takeaway is that 7 is intuitive because you're used to it and X becomes that way once you do.
I wonder as to the future of both pro product families now that Apple's making a 50º turn in design policy. We'll have to see. iWork this fall will give us our first look at some changes, if any.
Not interested in what some 'Film Broadcaster' has in its trash ¡
But yeah, posters pointing to an objective, non biased review of their work will get them points from me.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
Ha HA! I like that.
I don't have enough experience with X to be able to talk about it with any sense of scope; I know that. But from seeing it used, from hearing what people have to say about it, my takeaway is that 7 is intuitive because you're used to it and X becomes that way once you do.
I wonder as to the future of both pro product families now that Apple's making a 50º turn in design policy. We'll have to see. iWork this fall will give us our first look at some changes, if any.
I think regarding Final Cut Pro X we are just in an interim stage where it's slightly neither here nor there. I have a source connected to the video team there who gave me a hint of what is up their sleeve. At some point down the road, the iMac will be able to be used in two configurations (with vertical screen and keyboard as it is currently) and then in a way where the screen can slide down into a horizontal position (slightly slanted on the desktop) where the whole surface of the monitor is a touch screen. Supposedly it is in this fashion that you will get the most out of Final Cut Pro X - it will be completely intuitive and almost childlike as you can grab clips, extend them by lengthening with your fingertips, etc... The magnetic timeline will be great to use in this fashion and it will be a fantastic edit system - way ahead of anything out there. So based on this hint I feel we are just in an interim position where the software is waiting for the hardware that it was designed for. At present with a keyboard and mouse and the fact that we've been using it for years, FCP7 still feels more familiar and yes, for some of us it's just hard to change.
You know, I'm starting to think that, too. Apple's doing that very thing with every other piece of computer software they make, so why not Final Cut? I mean, look at System Preferences in Mavericks; they've slightly bumped up the size of the icons again. In fact, these icons are now almost the size you'd want under your fingertips. I'm starting to feel like I'd rather touch them than have to go and click them. If they're doing the same in Final Cut, it makes a lot of sense that pros would feel put out a bit.
I wonder if anyone has used Final Cut X with a touchscreen monitor yet...
There's an app for that: ProCutX:
http://nofilmschool.com/2013/04/procutx-ipad-control-app-final-cut-pro-x/
Quote:
Originally Posted by PhilBoogie
There's an app for that: ProCutX:
http://nofilmschool.com/2013/04/procutx-ipad-control-app-final-cut-pro-x/
That's just a touchscreen emulation of an old-fashioned edit controller. The real test would be actually grabbing clips on the timeline with your fingers.
Edit: I tried iMovie on the iPhone which is kinda the same idea, and it felt a little clumsy and imprecise. That could be jut because of the tiny screen though.
I know, I know. Seemed related.
I actually used it once, on my 4, and felt it was clumsy. It probably works better on my 5 now, but haven't touched the app since I dumped it in an AppleZooi folder, along with other...apps from Apple.
I am playing with FCPX using The Screens VNC on my iPad 4. The performance is pretty good, but it is clumsy...
-- Shift-Z to display entire story line
-- the "/" key used to play the selected clip, requires a switch to the numbers kb
The latter point is the most critical, but offers the most potential...
It is fantastic that you can use gestures to zoom and pan the display -- but, you cannot select a clip and compress or extend it -- or easily trim in and out points.
However, I think that all the downside limitations can be resolved, and it would be great to edit directly with your hand.
I just attended a Pro Lab at an Apple Store, using a Macbook Pro they provided. I was pleasantly surprised by the build-in touchpad, so I bought the $70 'standalone' one because 1) I liked it and 2) I've 'hammered' on my Magic Mouse as it wasn't always responding 'correctly'.
Using this Touchpad turned out to be such a great device, and 2) the Pro Lab is such a useful (and free; I'm Dutch) thing I signed up for a Final Cut Pro X Lab. The guy presenting showed be a few gestures in FCP which makes it a given this software really ought to be redesigned for touch. Feels very natural (well, to me).
And I fully believe OSX & iOS should not be merged because of this difference. The desktop 'as we know it' uses a bitmap screen and a little pointer, moved by a mouse. This is very different from using a touchscreen, interacted with a way larger surface: out finger(s).
The difference
willshould always be there, so please, no merging. Not that you were implying this, sir, and going way OT. Still, seemed related.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dick Applebaum
[...] it would be great to edit directly with your hand.
Touchscreen video editing would be almost like taking us back to where it all began -- shuttling film back and forth under the cutter with our hands.
I like the idea of physical controllers with dedicated knobs and/or buttons per function. That isn't always practical though, since even users of the same software set it up differently and use different plugins. To keep size and cost under control, the designer has to decide which controls to leave out or bury under menus, so affordable devices tend not to be terribly useful while devices that do a good job of it (like the Digidesign D-Command) are priced an order of magnitude beyond my reach. Touchscreens seem like a really good compromise in that they provide the same kind of hands-on intuitive operation as a control surface but with infinite customizability and substantially lower cost.