BLOGS: My COW Blog Adobe Blog Editing Technology After Effects Final Cut Entertainment

Apple "X" FAQs, confirmation our move away is the right one

COW Blogs : walter biscardi's Blog : Apple "X" FAQs, confirmation our move away is the right one
In the wake of the scathing criticism surrounding the release of Apple Final Cut Pro X, Apple has released a FAQ that attempts to answer some of the questions. There are a few in particular that caught my eye.

"Can I import projects from Final Cut Pro 7 into Final Cut Pro X?

Final Cut Pro X includes an all-new project architecture structured around a trackless timeline and connected clips. Because of these changes, there is no way to “translate” or bring in old projects without changing or losing data. But if you’re already working with Final Cut Pro 7, you can continue to do so...."


More than anything else, that is the complete deal breaker for us and confirms what some very smart people have been telling me all along. In our production workflow we refer back to projects 4 to 6 years old with a need to revise, pull elements from or sometimes complete re-cut using the original elements. While FCP X can access the media, it cannot access the original sequences and project organization.

As we have discovered, Adobe Premiere Pro opens up legacy FCP Projects very nicely and we know that we can share projects with Avid as well.

--------

"Can I edit my tape-based workflow with Final Cut Pro X?

Yes, in a limited manner. Final Cut Pro X is designed for modern file-based workflows and does not include all the tape capture and output features that were built into Final Cut Pro 7....In addition, companies like AJA and Blackmagic offer free deck control software that allows you to capture from tape and output to tape."


Many of the documentary videographers we work with still shoot tape, predominately Panasonic DVCPro HD Tape. The ingesting of tape is not that big of a deal using the AJA capture software, but when it comes time to output, the way this works actually is actually much more inefficient than the ability to lay out to tape directly from the timeline. If Apple can convince every single network and station that HDCAM tape is no longer necessary, then they'd have their modern workflow, but for now, tape ingest and tape output is still here for the broadcast and much of the professional market.

Adobe and Avid support tape workflows natively.

-------

"Does Final Cut Pro X support external monitors?

Yes. If you have a second computer monitor connected to your Mac, Final Cut Pro X gives you options to display the interface across multiple monitors. For example, you can place a single window — such as the Viewer or the Event Browser — on the second monitor, while leaving the other windows on your primary monitor."


Honestly can't believe Apple considers this "supporting external monitors." This is laughable at best. What Apple is actually doing is using my $1500 AJA Kona board and my $5,000 FSI Reference Monitor as a second computer monitor. The video output quality is marginal at best, AJA calls it "preview quality" in their documentation.

This is NOT supporting an external monitor that I require for accurate color grading of a project. Supporting an external monitor means allowing me to use two computers monitors via the graphics card while also sending a true video signal via my AJA Video Card (or BMD, Matrox if that's what you have). This FAQ in particular tells me Apple truly doesn't "get" the professional market.

Adobe and Avid support external video displays properly.

-------

"Can Final Cut Pro X export XML?

Not yet, but we know how important XML export is to our developers and our users, and we expect to add this functionality to Final Cut Pro X. We will release a set of APIs in the next few weeks so that third-party developers can access the next-generation XML in Final Cut Pro X."


Translation: We know it's important to our users so we removed it from Final Cut Pro X and you'll now have to purchase it from a third party developer. Apparently it was so important the APIs weren't even ready at launch.

Adobe and Avid can export XMLs natively.

UPDATE: It was pointed out to me by an Avid editor that Avid canNOT export an XML. Thanks for the correction!

------

"Does Final Cut Pro X support OMF, AAF, and EDLs?

Not yet. When the APIs for XML export are available, third-party developers will be able to create tools to support OMF, AAF, EDL, and other exchange formats."


Translation: We know it's important to our users so we removed it from Final Cut Pro X and you'll now have to purchase it from a third party developer. Apparently it was so important the APIs weren't even ready at launch. (Is there an echo in the room?)

---------

"Can I send my project to a sound editing application such as Pro Tools?

Yes; you can export your project in OMF or AAF format using Automatic Duck Pro Export FCP 5.0. More information is available on the Automatic Duck website: http://automaticduck.com/products/pefcp/."


Wes Plate has been developing incredible plug-ins for pro users so make applications talk to each other for years when the manufacturers wouldn't. So what I'm about to say is not a knock against him, he is a business man and I applaud him for creating this and everything else he does for us.

This plug-in costs $495. So my $299 investment in Final Cut Pro now increases to $794 for a single application and plug-in.

Adobe and Avid export OMFs for ProTools natively.

-------

"Does Final Cut Pro X allow you to assign audio tracks for export?

Not yet. An update this summer will allow you to use metadata tags to categorize your audio clips by type and export them directly from Final Cut Pro X."


In Final Cut Pro 7 we simply line up the audio by dragging or assigning them to particular tracks, particularly since we send our broadcast work to ProTools. But what if they don't fall neatly into a particular type? And what if I need to put this sound on Track 5 / 6 for full nat sound at this point in the show, but then I have to put it into Tracks 9 / 10 later in the show because I'm just using it underneath? How do I "Tag" the metadata correctly.

Apple assumes that everything we do falls into neat, compartmentalized categories. This is rare. Particularly with documentaries when I'm dealing with 250 hours of material. I can use the exact same clip as an Interview, Natural Sound, B-Roll and SOT.

Also note that this assignment will happen when you EXPORT the project from Final Cut Pro X. No way for you to simply visually look at the timeline to ensure everything is correct. What's easier than simply looking at the timeline visually? Apparently assigning metatags and then asking the ProTools engineer, did everything line up? I would really like to know how many of the professional editors that made up the Beta team really thought this was a good efficient idea?

Adobe and Avid allow you to assign tracks as you're editing within the application.

--------

So the FAQs definitely cleared up a lot of things for me. Now I know that if I were to stay with Final Cut Pro X that I could potentially be looking at an investment of $794 to $1,000 (depending on what the cost of the third party XML plug-ins are going to cost) for a single application per machine. With Final Cut Studio 3 I had a suite of fully functional applications that worked together (for the most part). Now I will get a "$299" application that rolls in some of what the old suite did, tossed out a bunch of other features & apps and I'll have to add on OMF and XML support at the very least which will drive the price up at least $500 and possibly another $500 after that. Of course the price can continue to rise as more features that we use today are added back in by third party developers at a cost. This will be for each and every machine. I'm gonna use $1,100 per machine as a nice round number on the amount of money I'd need to spend for this $300 machine that will actually make our production workflow more inefficient with the lack of tape ingest / output natively.

Let's not forget this "modern new application" will also lock out all of my old FCP projects for good. I have around 1,000 of them over the past 10 years.

Let's not forget Apple discontinued sales of Final Cut Pro 7 the same day as the FCPX roll-out so I would not be able to purchase anymore at this time anyway. Yes a limited number may still be available from VARs but why stick to an application that was "modern" two years ago and is very inefficient in digital formats.

OR

I can spend about $400 per machine and upgrade my Adobe CS 5 to CS 5.5 which gives me pretty much every single feature that Final Cut Pro 7 had and includes Adobe Premiere Pro, Adobe Photoshop, Adobe Illustrator, Adobe After Effects, Adobe Audition, Adobe Flash Catalyst, Adobe Flash, Adobe Encore (for DVD and BluRay). Other bundles include Illustrator. In other words, a suite of products, each specialized to a set of tasks extremely well, working together. Here's how Steve Forde describes Adobe's approach to ripping apart CS4, which was not well received in terms of Adobe Premiere Pro, and created a brand new 64 bit CS5.

"In CS5 Adobe had done a complete rewrite of the guts in Premiere to 64 bit on both MAC and PC, and listened to users about how the application should change – dozens of changes throughout the application to make it ‘just work’."

They ripped apart the "guts" creating a modern 64 bit, very efficient product, but listened to the users and kept the workflow for the post production community completely intact. Avid managed to do the same. Only Apple decided that moving to 64 bit would require a "revolutionary approach to editing."

Thanks to the Final Cut Pro X FAQs, I'm convinced we have made the correct decision for my company to move away from the Final Cut Pro platform. It's clear that Apple will stick to their path with no looking back while I just need a more efficient tool that fits into our workflow. Moving to Adobe and Avid will allow us to continue our jobs without an upheaval in the way we tell stories.

Quite honestly we're all excited about the possibilities moving forward!



Posted by: walter biscardi on Jun 29, 2011 at 4:59:07 amComments (139) Adobe Premiere Pro, AJA Kona

Comments

Re: Apple "X" FAQs, confirmation our move away is the right one
by larry towers
The real issue is not technical it's that that FCP X represents a paradigm shift. The trackless paradigm means that it becomes much more of an issue to reliably translate between FCP X and everything else in the real world. The trackless workflow is great if you are the only editor to see the project. Tracks can be so useful for professionals there was no reason to eliminate tracks as a paradigm. Just different to be different.

@larry towers
by walter biscardi
Tracks can be so useful for professionals there was no reason to eliminate tracks as a paradigm. Just different to be different.

Funny I had multiple guests in my facility today and we all were discussing how FCPX is just different to be different when it didn't have to be.

I'm really appreciating Adobe's approach where the Metadata workflow and 64bit engine were all introduced but without breaking the traditional editor workflow. There's nothing more simple than laying out the audio tracks so everyone knows what is what. The trackless concept actually leads to a much lazier and messier approach to editing.

I have to pick up a project because my editor is sick. I walk into a trackless timeline. What's what with the audio?

Right now I walk into an edit and I KNOW that Tracks 1 / 2 are narration. Tracks 3 / 4 are soundbites. Tracks 5 - 8 are nat sound. Tracks 9 - whatever are music. That's the general guidelines we follow in our shop so everyone cuts the same way. When we deliver our shows to the ProTools sound designer, he knows exactly what is on each track.

For an Island editor trackless is fine. If you ever plan to share projects or work with another editor, trackless is simply adding a wrinkle to the process that really doesn't need to be there.

Adobe and Avid are really in a good spot. particularly Adobe since there is no disruption to the infrastructure of a facility.

Walter Biscardi, Jr.
Editor, Colorist, Director, Writer, Consultant, Author, Chef.
HD Post and Production
Biscardi Creative Media

Blog Twitter Facebook
Re: Blog: Apple "X" FAQs, confirmation our move away is the right one
by Peter Corbett
[walter biscardi] ""In CS5 Adobe had done a complete rewrite of the guts in Premiere to 64 bit on both MAC and PC, and listened to users about how the application should change – dozens of changes throughout the application to make it ‘just work’.""

It's true, I was on the CS4/5 beta program and it was traumatic. But Adobe persisted with getting it right (AND backwards project compatibility) even with tons of flak from testers who were trying to use the beta software on real jobs. I think Apple just thought, "phew, not worth the hassle, time or cost."

Peter Corbett
Powerhouse Productions
http://www.php.com.au
Re: Blog: Apple "X" FAQs, confirmation our move away is the right one
by Andrew Hays
I'm actually using/learning PPro CS4 and I am loving the integration with AE! Makes doing effects heavy projects almost a breeze.

I've got a question: one of or some of you in this thread have discussed the fact that going PC could be cheeper even if you're using avid. I'm a little confused by these comments, primarily because I've been thinking about switching back to PC even before the FCP X mess.

Whenever I go to the Dell and HP websites and compare the avid specs on their downloadable PDF. After doing a little math, I always seem to come to the conclusion that the mac pro is actually cheeper than going with the Dell or HP workstations. My question is, am I looking at this wrong? Are you guys building your own systems so that's why it's cheeper?

A constant learner of new things, that pretty much sums me up!
@Andrew Hays
by Erik Lindahl
A MacPro-class workstation will cost virtually the same be it a MacPro or a HP Z-series. I say "more or less". The major difference is on the Windows side you do have more options. You can get a similar "class" of machine with out Xeon processors and a highly clocked i7 CPU for vastly smaller amounts of money.

That said I'm personally vastly more efficient in OSX than Windows hence as a company I'd lose money by saving a few bucks initially. With the MacPro I get native dual boot as well.

------------------------
Erik Lindahl
Freecloud Post Production Services
http://www.freecloud.se
Re: @Andrew Hays
by Andrew Hays
Well, I guess i was looking at it wrong then. Maybe the question should be: Do I need a MacPro-class PC-equivalent workstation to use Avid effectively. Obviously, faster CPU's and more RAM= better performance.

I'm not necessarily making any decisions now, I've got a 2008 MacPro that works really well; but I'm poking around and researching for the future.

I really like MacPro's myself, but the only reason I jumped into mac in the first place was because of FCP.

A constant learner of new things, that pretty much sums me up!
Re: Blog: Apple
by Andrew Karczewski
Great post, Walter!
Re: Blog: Apple "X" FAQs, confirmation our move away is the right one
by Peter Wiley
As interesting, and at least as telling, is the page of what Apple imagines to be "pro features" in FCP X.

http://www.apple.com/finalcutpro/pro-features/

"We’ve highlighted 50 of the top pro features that allow editors to work faster and with more flexibility than ever before" says Apple.

I guess these are Apple's response to the argument that the application isn't pro.

Curious to read reactions.
Re: Blog: Apple "X" FAQs, confirmation our move away is the right one
by Andrew Richards
That page has been there since launch day, IIRC. For as many missing features as there are, there is a lot of unequivocally "pro" stuff on that list.

Best,
Andy Richards

VP of Product Development
Keeper Technology
Re: Blog: Apple "X" FAQs, confirmation our move away is the right one
by David Bankston
Apple's arrogance is astounding. They can do no wrong. They know best for the world. They need Apple people talking - not this silly FAQ page.
Re: Blog: Apple "X" FAQs, confirmation our move away is the right one
by Ben Holmes
[walter biscardi] "Can I import projects from Final Cut Pro 7 into Final Cut Pro X?

Final Cut Pro X includes an all-new project architecture structured around a trackless timeline and connected clips. Because of these changes, there is no way to “translate” or bring in old projects without changing or losing data. But if you’re already working with Final Cut Pro 7, you can continue to do so...."

More than anything else, that is the complete deal breaker for us and confirms what some very smart people have been telling me all along. In our production workflow we refer back to projects 4 to 6 years old with a need to revise, pull elements from or sometimes complete re-cut using the original elements. While FCP X can access the media, it cannot access the original sequences and project organization."


Hi Walter. I get this. I can see how much of a dealbreaker it is for so many people. I don't believe it will be a dealbreaker forever - but that's just conjecture, much as it's conjecture to say it can never be fixed - although I appreciate you've done plenty of research on this, so I respect your opinion. Fortunately, I can use 7 until this either is or isn't resolved.


[walter biscardi] ""Does Final Cut Pro X support external monitors?

Yes. If you have a second computer monitor connected to your Mac, Final Cut Pro X gives you options to display the interface across multiple monitors. For example, you can place a single window — such as the Viewer or the Event Browser — on the second monitor, while leaving the other windows on your primary monitor."

Honestly can't believe Apple considers this "supporting external monitors." This is laughable at best. What Apple is actually doing is using my $1500 AJA Kona board and my $5,000 FSI Reference Monitor as a second computer monitor. The video output quality is marginal at best, AJA calls it "preview quality" in their documentation."


This will not be the case for long - my conjecture. As others have said, Lion complicates this for developers, as does the need to write drivers from the ground up. Not ideal - another PR problem for Apple. Another reason for me to wait. I'd wager a few dollars it is resolved soon enough to make an informed choice. None of us would have switched to X on the week or month of release anyway.


[walter biscardi] ""Can I send my project to a sound editing application such as Pro Tools?

Yes; you can export your project in OMF or AAF format using Automatic Duck Pro Export FCP 5.0. More information is available on the Automatic Duck website: http://automaticduck.com/products/pefcp/."

Wes Plate has been developing incredible plug-ins for pro users so make applications talk to each other for years when the manufacturers wouldn't. So what I'm about to say is not a knock against him, he is a business man and I applaud him for creating this and everything else he does for us.

This plug-in costs $495. So my $299 investment in Final Cut Pro now increases to $794 for a single application and plug-in."


Except the CURRENT ONLY tool for OMF export is also used by 7 to export to things like AVID - not just OMF. Isn't it conjecture (and unlikely) to suggest either no one else will release a cheaper option (based on open APIs) or Automatic Duck will not release a stand-alone option for this - which is possible given the new a la carte world we now live in? Personally, I do not use OMF or AAF - so I'm pleased to see this cost removed from my editing app. Again - my own personal situation. Another wait and see.

Your maths is also flawed - FCPX is not $299 per seat - it's $299 for 5 seats. That's how many computers you can run it on legally at the same time (I've tried it on 3 on my home network) - and yes, for commercial use as per the app store (not itunes) guidelines.

I'd also add that my SAN vendor told me yesterday it took them a matter of hours to have FCPX running sharing media via Gig-E. Performance testing is not yet complete - but it's a good sign for anyone using similar systems.


[walter biscardi] "I can spend about $400 per machine and upgrade my Adobe CS 5 to CS 5.5 which gives me pretty much every single feature that Final Cut Pro 7 had and includes Adobe Premiere Pro, Adobe Photoshop, Adobe After Effects, Adobe Audition, and Adobe Flash"

That's ideal for you - I only run CS on a couple of seats currently - and I don't relish paying 4 times that amount per extra seat. Also, the last time I installed a new CS license I had a nightmare with Adobe's activation system. I love After Effects and Photoshop - but could not care less about the other apps. So it's a very different proposition for me.

In the end, I can see all of your reasoning, and how it stacks up for you. I know you have been considering this since before X was released, and certainly there's nothing in it currently to make you change your mind. Many people have made their decision based on how Apple have acted - and many others on what the app does currently.

Ironically, for me there's still one clear winner amongst the products - FCP7. That's why I bought a couple more licenses yesterday. FCP is the app that gives me easiest and more complete integration with the EVS networks used on major broadcasts and sports tournaments - as well as the tapeless systems used by the two largest UK broadcasters. The improvements in integration with these systems over AVID (with which it can only be achieved with pricy options like web services and Unity), coupled with much better costs, continues to win me work - in fact all my major vendors have launched new tools or products for FCP7 this month - EVS, Genarts, Blackmagic, etc. And now FCP7 continues to be supported under Lion, meaning I can buy new computers with more confidence. I don't see why I'm being forced to choose now to jump to either of two more expensive and similarly featured products.

I'd have been interested to see how this drama would have played out had Apple made FCS available for another year. As it is, they only have themselves to blame if people make the same choices you did.

Edit Out Ltd
----------------------------
FCP Editor/Trainer/System Consultant
EVS/VT Supervisor for live broadcast
RED camera transfer/post
Independent Director/Producer

http://www.blackmagic-design.com/community/communitydetails/?UserStoryId=87...
-1
Re: Blog: Apple "X" FAQs, confirmation our move away is the right one
by Buddy Couch
I'd have been interested to see how this drama would have played out had Apple made FCS available for another year. As it is, they only have themselves to blame if people make the same choices you did.


I think that would have been the best option period. To have continued selling/updating/supporting FCP7 for at minimum 24 months. Then continue supporting it for another 5.

Apple would have needed alot less Advil.

Buddy
Re: Blog: Apple "X" FAQs, confirmation our move away is the right one
by Andrew Richards
[Buddy Couch] "I think that would have been the best option period. To have continued selling/updating/supporting FCP7 for at minimum 24 months. Then continue supporting it for another 5."

Agree, though committing to 24 months is a stretch for Apple. Commit to 6, 9, or even 12 and then evaluate the state of things. Pulling FCS2009 on launch day was callous. FCPX is a wholly different product and the two need not be mutually exclusive.

Best,
Andy Richards

VP of Product Development
Keeper Technology
Re: Blog: Apple "X" FAQs, confirmation our move away is the right one
by Herb Sevush
"And now FCP7 continues to be supported under Lion"

How confident are you that FCP 7.0.3 will run the same under Lion as it does under Snow Leopard? I can't ever remember a time when the operating system had an upgrade that didn't require a minor FCS version upgrade. But there will be no 7.0.4 to do this. And do you think AJA and BM are going to create new drivers for an EOL'd system?

Just because Apple said that FCP7 will "run" under Lion doesn't make it so. I'll believe it when it happens.

Herb Sevush
Zebra Productions
Re: Blog: Apple "X" FAQs, confirmation our move away is the right one
by walter biscardi
[Herb Sevush] "Just because Apple said that FCP7 will "run" under Lion doesn't make it so. I'll believe it when it happens."

I would be pretty confident that if Apple put that statement out there, it will and is already running under Lion in their offices. They've already gotten enough crap with the X roll-out.

Walter Biscardi, Jr.
Editor, Colorist, Director, Writer, Consultant, Author, Chef.
HD Post and Production
Biscardi Creative Media

Blog Twitter Facebook
Re: Blog: Apple "X" FAQs, confirmation our move away is the right one
by Herb Sevush
Walter -

There's running and then there's running well.

As you well know, most bugs aren't found until after the product is in circulation and thousands of users have run it in situations that Apple never tested. I'd be amazed if FCP7 ran as well under Lion as it does under Snow Loeopard without a dot-point-upgrade.

And what about drivers - is Blackmagic really going to write new Lion drivers for an EOL'd product? Time will tell.

Herb Sevush
Zebra Productions
Re: Blog: Apple "X" FAQs, confirmation our move away is the right one
by walter biscardi
[Herb Sevush] "There's running and then there's running well."

Absolutely valid point quite honestly. As with any Apple product, we do seem to be able to break them quite easily when they are finally released to the thousands of configurations that are in use out there.

Walter Biscardi, Jr.
Editor, Colorist, Director, Writer, Consultant, Author, Chef.
HD Post and Production
Biscardi Creative Media

Blog Twitter Facebook
Re: Blog: Apple "X" FAQs, confirmation our move away is the right one
by walter biscardi
[Ben Holmes] "Your maths is also flawed - FCPX is not $299 per seat - it's $299 for 5 seats. That's how many computers you can run it on legally at the same time (I've tried it on 3 on my home network) - and yes, for commercial use as per the app store (not itunes) guidelines."

That's actually the head scratcher for me because they are now talking about volume licenses being available, so is it truly going to be per 5 machines or will it revert to per machine? I guess we'll find out soon.

Thanks Ben for your viewpoints, it's an exciting time for all us in our way. :)

Walter Biscardi, Jr.
Editor, Colorist, Director, Writer, Consultant, Author, Chef.
HD Post and Production
Biscardi Creative Media

Blog Twitter Facebook
Re: Blog: Apple "X" FAQs, confirmation our move away is the right one
by Doug Beal
Hello Walter
A little off topic but something you may run in to
I have tried to capture via Kona3 into premiere CS5. It apparently doesn't like the Facilis terrablock... won't let me set any partitions to be a "scratch" drive because it thinks it's a "removeable" drive. It also was unable to see the 422 port on the Kona... I do need to check into it further but have not had time.
Media encoder on the other hand can be brilliant once one gets accustomed to how it behaves. I had no trouble generating pro res quicktimes, or other quicktimes, there were issues with MXF generation which are better exported from Premiere using the same encoder???
The implementation of reading XMLs from FCP leaves a lot to be desired. Evertime I tried it the first edit was not the right shot. I was using it to export an XML (both native FCP 7.0.3 and Auto Duck Pro Export V 4) from FCP create a PP project and open that in after effects to take advantage of render times in AE. In a half hour show fast renders are good having to check every edit is bad. I bought Autoduck AE pro import and all was well.
Just a few observations from the trenches. I know at some time it'll slow down and I'll figure out how to trick the monkey.
best of luck
db

Doug Beal
Editor / Engineer
Rock Creative Images
Nashville TN
Re: Blog: Apple "X" FAQs, confirmation our move away is the right one
by walter biscardi
[Doug Beal] "I have tried to capture via Kona3 into premiere CS5. It apparently doesn't like the Facilis terrablock... won't let me set any partitions to be a "scratch" drive because it thinks it's a "removeable" drive. It also was unable to see the 422 port on the Kona... I do need to check into it further but have not had time."

Have you tried this with CS 5.5 and the Kona? We're finding a little weirdness with our SAN but we thought it was because it's an ethernet network. Small Tree is all over it though and I"m not even concerned about it at the moment. Will keep folks up to date via the blog. Thanks for the note!

Walter Biscardi, Jr.
Editor, Colorist, Director, Writer, Consultant, Author, Chef.
HD Post and Production
Biscardi Creative Media

Blog Twitter Facebook
Re: Blog: Apple "X" FAQs, confirmation our move away is the right one
by Doug Beal
Not had the opportunity to upgrade and likely won't 'till the next two series get out the door.
AE working great
PP to check MXF exports
PS for the rest
AutoDuck for xlation to DS ad AE

Doug Beal
Editor / Engineer
Rock Creative Images
Nashville TN
Re: Blog: Apple "X" FAQs, confirmation our move away is the right one
by Mitch Ives
I can't disagree with your analysis Walter. I'd like to, but I can't. Apple's pathetically small beta team has finally generated the inevitable "Unintended Consequences"...

Mitch Ives
Insight Productions Corp.
mitch@insightproductions.com
http://www.insightproductions.com
+1
Re: Blog: Apple "X" FAQs, confirmation our move away is the right one
by walter biscardi
[Mitch Ives] "I can't disagree with your analysis Walter. I'd like to, but I can't. Apple's pathetically small beta team has finally generated the inevitable "Unintended Consequences"..."

Thanks Mitch. As I said, there's no right answer and wrong answer in this argument. There's what works for you.

Walter Biscardi, Jr.
Editor, Colorist, Director, Writer, Consultant, Author, Chef.
HD Post and Production
Biscardi Creative Media

Blog Twitter Facebook
Re: Blog: Apple "X" FAQs, confirmation our move away is the right one
by Steve Connor
I understand the rage that's out there at the moment, but the COW isn't a place where we insult people for their opinion.

Steve Connor
Adrenalin Television

Have you tried "Search Posts"? Enlightenment may be there.
Re: Blog: Apple "X" FAQs, confirmation our move away is the right one
by Buddy Couch
Final Cut Pro X includes an all-new project architecture structured around a trackless timeline and connected clips. Because of these changes, there is no way to “translate” or bring in old projects without changing or losing data. But if you’re already working with Final Cut Pro 7, you can continue to do so...."


I totally disagree with them that this is not possible from a coding standpoint. They came up with this "radically different workflow", but yet they can't come up with some scripts that breakdown the projects into SOMETHING importable. Positions of audio/tracks/video/fx are all in the project information. If not, everytime you loaded it up in FCP7, assets would be all over place. Why not interpret this in an elementary way for import into FCP X. Atleast something that would allow you to reorganize it yourself or use 3rd party scripts that interpreted data to do so. I do not buy it, as it sounds like an excuse to me to not do anything. If anything, you (Apple) knew this would be an issue before you wrote the first bit of code two years ago, so why continue down this path developing something that rendered 12 years of work useless for most post facilities. In my opinion, this should have been one of the TOP features. We never develop software solutions at my company that render all of your old projects to wasted hard drive space. A top priority is making it where it imports not only our older projects, but all major competitors as well. It seems I do not have to wait 6 months to admit I was wrong, it seems Apple is proving it a week after release. A FAQ took this long to write? Give me a break.

On another note, I requested a full refund for FCP X, Motion 5,and Compressor. I don't have any complaints with Motion, but I wanted a full solution, not some hodge podge collection of software. As many of you know, I stated that FCP X does everything that I need at the moment, so why would I return it. My reasons are very simple to be honest. Apples lack of customer support during this fiasco sealed the deal. If they are treating the customers that "made" them in this manner, certainly they wouldn't give two shits about a FCP X convert that doesn't need 40 seats. In what little way it might be, I hope it helps everyone else that uses FCP full time to make a living and support others doing the same such as employees/vendors/customers.

In my line of work we do everything possible to make the customer happy. If anything we call/visit customer to demonstrate our support during a time of crisis. In many cases this alone gives the client/customer a warm and fuzzy feeling that you are on top of the issue, even if you do not have a ready to go solution at the present time. Some of these problems can cost large OEMs $50,000 every 15 min of downtime. Trust me when I say, I know what it means to deal with a very angry customer. Apparently Apple has rode this wave of worship over Idevices so long they have become godly in their minds capable of no errors in judgement.

They should have issued a commercial on all prime time network shows by now in response to the concerns that we have. They are probably working on it, but since they can't import previous projects to X they are having to edit one from scratch.

Buddy C
Engineer
+1
Re: Blog: Apple "X" FAQs, confirmation our move away is the right one
by Andrew Richards
[Buddy Couch] "I totally disagree with them that this is not possible from a coding standpoint. They came up with this "radically different workflow", but yet they can't come up with some scripts that breakdown the projects into SOMETHING importable. Positions of audio/tracks/video/fx are all in the project information. If not, everytime you loaded it up in FCP7, assets would be all over place. Why not interpret this in an elementary way for import into FCP X. Atleast something that would allow you to reorganize it yourself or use 3rd party scripts that interpreted data to do so. I do not buy it, as it sounds like an excuse to me to not do anything. If anything, you (Apple) knew this would be an issue before you wrote the first bit of code two years ago, so why continue down this path developing something that rendered 12 years of work useless for most post facilities."

They probably recognize that an official Apple FCP import tool needs to support ANY kind of legacy FCP sequence. How do you import a Multicam sequence into FCPX? What about complex nested sequences? Sure there are some loose similarities between legacy sequences and FCPX projects, and there is some similarity between compound clips and nested sequences, but consistently translating the elements of any sort of FCP7 project into a combination of FCPX projects and events is far from trivial.

If Apple came out with a project translator that didn't import all everything from the old projects, there would be a huge firestorm over that.

There is an API coming soon. If this is such an easy task, you should dig into the API and write a tool to do it. You'll make a fortune!

Apple made a very bold decision to cut off legacy FCP in a lot of ways to move forward with FCPX. It has and will alienate a lot of their loyal users (like Walter). It will also give them a modern platform to build on. It's perfectly reasonable to feel betrayed, but Apple did what they did fully aware of the consequences.

Best,
Andy Richards

VP of Product Development
Keeper Technology
Re: Blog: Apple "X" FAQs, confirmation our move away is the right one
by Chris Kenny
[walter biscardi] "More than anything else, that is the complete deal breaker for us and confirms what some very smart people have been telling me all along. In our production workflow we refer back to projects 4 to 6 years old with a need to revise, pull elements from or sometimes complete re-cut using the original elements. While FCP X can access the media, it cannot access the original sequences and project organization."

If this is an absolutely key requirement for you, then you may have no choice but to leave. But a) I think FCP X's detractors are somewhat overstating the use cases for which this capability is necessary and b) there will probably be third-party tools to bring old sequences over in some form at some point.

[walter biscardi] "The ingesting of tape is not that big of a deal using the AJA capture software, but when it comes time to output, the way this works actually is actually much more inefficient than the ability to lay out to tape directly from the timeline."

I'm not entirely sure how true that is. Remember that FCP X has background rendering. This means when you're ready to export, you can usually get a flattened ProRes file out of it at file-copy speeds, to lay out to tape with an external app.

[walter biscardi] "Apple assumes that everything we do falls into neat, compartmentalized categories. This is rare. Particularly with documentaries when I'm dealing with 250 hours of material. I can use the exact same clip as an Interview, Natural Sound, B-Roll and SOT."

Each instance of a clip in a sequence can have a different audio role assigned to it, if necessary.

[walter biscardi] "Translation: We know it's important to our users so we removed it from Final Cut Pro X and you'll now have to purchase it from a third party developer. Apparently it was so important the APIs weren't even ready at launch.

Adobe and Avid can export XMLs natively."


It's unclear to me how you (or anyone) would have benefited from Apple holding back the app until the API was ready. And it's a little unclear what the XML/API relationship is here. It's hard to imagine the API would be the only way to get FCP X to split out XML. But even if it is, an app that does just that is likely something someone would make available for free, since it would probably be a couple of lines of code.

[walter biscardi] "This plug-in costs $495. So my $299 investment in Final Cut Pro now increases to $794 for a single application and plug-in.
"


It is highly misleading to treat the price of Automatic Duck's Pro Export FCP as representative of the pricing we can expect for this sort of thing, because it does far more than export OMFs from FCP X.

[walter biscardi] "Honestly can't believe Apple considers this "supporting external monitors." This is laughable at best. What Apple is actually doing is using my $1500 AJA Kona board and my $5,000 FSI Reference Monitor as a second computer monitor. The video output quality is marginal at best, AJA calls it "preview quality" in their documentation."

It remains to be seen if this is really the long-term solution. It seems hard to believe AV Foundation will never add support for video I/O devices.


Look, it's clear that you're looking for reasons not to use FCP X at this point, rather than for ways to make it work. And if that's the direction you want to go in, fine. But to me, the notion that FCP X is not a serious player in the pro market reads a lot like the explanations circa 2007 of why the iPhone was no threat to RIM in the enterprise market: justifiable based on the then-current feature set, but just not a sensible long-term proposition.

--
Digital Workflow/Colorist, Nice Dissolve.

You should follow me on Twitter here. Or read our blog.
-1
Re: Blog: Apple "X" FAQs, confirmation our move away is the right one
by Jeff Bernstein
Chris "Fanboy" Kenny,

You add nothing to this conversation that is constructive.

By using phrases such as " there will probably be third-party tools to bring old sequences over in some form at some point.", "Based on what exactly?

At least you have the sense to make statements such as, "I'm not entirely sure how true that is", "It's unclear to me", "It's hard to imagine", "It remains to be seen".

Yet at the same time, you accuse Walter that "it's clear that you're looking for reasons not to use FCP X at this point, rather than for ways to make it work."

Let's state blankly that you have no idea what you are talking about and are getting off on posting all over the cow with any real tact, insight, or substance. It is ridiculous for you assume that editors and facility owners, such as Walter, are "looking for reasons not to use FCP X". Why would any business want to completely retool for the sake of retooling? Apple caused a mess for a significant portion of the pro market, not all. So don't look at these things as black and white.

Use you time more wisely and have a conversation with your parents. At least they might want to hear from you. The cow has heard enough.
+2
Re: Blog: Apple "X" FAQs, confirmation our move away is the right one
by Chris Kenny
[Jeff Bernstein] "Chris "Fanboy" Kenny,

You add nothing to this conversation that is constructive. "


Right, bashing software and calling people "fanboys" is really constructive, but trying to discuss how problems might be addressed is entirely useless.

[Jeff Bernstein] "By using phrases such as " there will probably be third-party tools to bring old sequences over in some form at some point.", "Based on what exactly?"

Based on the fact that it's possible to export sequence data from FCP 7, at some point it will be possible to import sequence data into FCP X, and there's demand conversion.

[Jeff Bernstein] "Let's state blankly that you have no idea what you are talking about and are getting off on posting all over the cow with any real tact, insight, or substance."

I have extensive experience building workflows around FCP 7, I know precisely what I'm talking about, and I've made numerous posts containing considerable substance; I found the references to XML in FCP X days before MacRumors noticed, I've pointed out quite a few things that people are claiming can't be done in FCP X actually can be done there (with explanations of how), and I turned out to be correct about Apple having plans to deal with the issue of exporting sequences (and the fact that they'd offer a solution sooner rather than later) and correct about the fact that people freaking out after three days that Apple hadn't said anything yet simply hadn't given Apple enough time.

Then again, being right about contentious subjects just tends to anger the people who disagree with you, which might explain why your post is the most hostile reply I've gotten yet in this forum. Congratulations on that, by the way.

[Jeff Bernstein] "It is ridiculous for you assume that editors and facility owners, such as Walter, are "looking for reasons not to use FCP X". Why would any business want to completely retool for the sake of retooling? Apple caused a mess for a significant portion of the pro market, not all."

That doesn't make a lot of sense. All existing FCP users have to retool, because there is no direct successor to FCP 7. Walter has chosen to do so on another platform. That's fine. I acknowledged he may have entirely valid business reasons for doing so. But having made that decision, it's only natural that his focus is more on justifying it than on finding ways in which FCP X can be made to work better in pro workflows. I mean, why would he care about the latter at all at this point? It's no longer his problem.

[Jeff Bernstein] "So don't look at these things as black and white."

Yeah, right. The guy advocating a "wait and see" attitude toward a brand new product is seeing everything in black and white; the people angrily accusing Apple of having abandoned the pro market and loudly proclaiming that they're going elsewhere, through, are the voice of reason.

Incidentally, I can't help but notice that you didn't reply to any of the actual substance of my post, which is rather ironic in light of your accusations.

--
Digital Workflow/Colorist, Nice Dissolve.

You should follow me on Twitter here. Or read our blog.
-1
Re: Blog: Apple "X" FAQs, confirmation our move away is the right one
by Jeff Bernstein
What substance? You keep making assumptions on vaporware. There is no doubt that FCP-X MIGHT eventually be the tool that picks up where FCP 7 left off. But it is not today. In fact, the ONLY date we have on seeing a potential feature that was left out is "summer". That's one feature. Everything else is in the mythical future.

You seem to want people to shoehorn their workflow into the limitations of the current version of FCP-X.

This fire storm didn't start because people hate Apple. It happened because Apple rewrote something that was not functionally equivalent to the previous version and then prematurely killed the previous version. Apple did not have its ducks lined up with developers who feed this ecosystem. API's are either incomplete or non-existent. These are facts, not opinions.

Time for a Mai Tai, everyone.
Re: Blog: Apple "X" FAQs, confirmation our move away is the right one
by Chris Kenny
[Jeff Bernstein] "What substance? You keep making assumptions on vaporware. There is no doubt that FCP-X MIGHT eventually be the tool that picks up where FCP 7 left off. But it is not today. In fact, the ONLY date we have on seeing a potential feature that was left out is "summer". That's one feature. Everything else is in the mythical future."

They've also said third-party apps will be able to access XML in "the next few weeks". As I noted several days back, there are basically four major missing pro features:

1. A way to export sequence data.
2. More audio exporting options.
3. Support for third-party I/O hardware.
4. Multicam.

We'll have the first and second of these before the end of the summer. The fourth has been announced for the next major release. The third is a little hazy. Apple says they're working with video I/O interface vendors. I have no hard proof that they're working on real video I/O, rather than just a more polished version of what AJA has shown, but that's the way I'd bet.

--
Digital Workflow/Colorist, Nice Dissolve.

You should follow me on Twitter here. Or read our blog.
Re: Blog: Apple "X" FAQs, confirmation our move away is the right one
by Herb Sevush
As I noted several days back, there are basically four major missing pro features:

1. A way to export sequence data.
2. More audio exporting options.
3. Support for third-party I/O hardware.
4. Multicam.


How about

5. A way to import sequence data (XML import).
6. 422 output and capture from tape.
7. The ability to customize the workspace.

Oh right, since Apple has no intention of even trying these, they're obviously not important. Except for the fact that #5 is the reason many editing facilities are moving away from FCP. But they must be idiots, because you say it's not important.

Let alone the fact that you are only guessing at the quality of these "coming soon to a theater near you" features. I'm still trying to figure out how they are going to implement multi-cam when they insist that there won't be a viewer window. Maybe they'll use thumbnails.

Herb Sevush
Zebra Productions
Re: Blog: Apple "X" FAQs, confirmation our move away is the right one
by Chris Kenny
[Herb Sevush] "5. A way to import sequence data (XML import).
6. 422 output and capture from tape.
7. The ability to customize the workspace."


Those are nice to have. Maybe even essential for a few workflows. But they don't fundamentally prevent the app from being used in most pro contexts. Tape capture can be handled externally, a lot of finishing workflows don't involve round-tripping back into the NLE, and nobody strictly needs workspace customization.

Note that I'm not saying nobody should want these things, or even that nobody should complain about their absence. I'm just saying they're not, in the full sense of the word, critical.

[Herb Sevush] "Let alone the fact that you are only guessing at the quality of these "coming soon to a theater near you" features. "

The existing features seem reasonably well thought out. I expect that will apply to additional features.

--
Digital Workflow/Colorist, Nice Dissolve.

You should follow me on Twitter here. Or read our blog.
Re: Blog: Apple "X" FAQs, confirmation our move away is the right one
by John-Michael Seng-Wheeler
[Chris Kenny] "Then again, being right about contentious subjects just tends to anger the people who disagree with you"

You said it right there. Your self righteousness is what's getting people mad, not your arguments. I find your posts very interesting, and I tend to read every one from top to bottom, which is better then I can say of some people here. However, your tone is, perhaps, a little uncalled for.
Re: Blog: Apple "X" FAQs, confirmation our move away is the right one
by Matt Callac
[Jeff Bernstein] "

You add nothing to this conversation that is constructive."


No, he simply adds nothing that supports your viewpoint and your opinions.



[Jeff Bernstein] "Why would any business want to completely retool for the sake of retooling? Apple caused a mess for a significant portion of the pro market, not all. So don't look at these"

You are guilty of the same thing you are accusing him of. You're assuming conclusion "A" is the only conclusion that can be reached based on evidence W, X, Y. While he's saying look "B" is a more likely conclusion based on X, Y, Z.

He's main argument is that the "apple doesn't care about the pro market" is fundamentally flawed, and that deciding to "jump ship" now is premature especially since your old versoion of FCP works just as well as it did 2 weeks ago.

-mattyc
-1
Re: Blog: Apple "X" FAQs, confirmation our move away is the right one
by walter biscardi
[Chris Kenny] " b) there will probably be third-party tools to bring old sequences over in some form at some point."

Bringing over a sequence should be easy since a "Project" in FCPX is really the sequence. But we open entire projects including the bin management. Apple is saying that will not be possible so I cannot bring in a product that will lock out old projects to clients. They will not pay me to reconstruct a project from scratch based on a single timeline.


[Chris Kenny] "I'm not entirely sure how true that is. Remember that FCP X has background rendering."

Also remember that FCP X is constantly rendering in the background filling up my RAID with much more media than is actually needed. Those MXF files become ProRes automatically in the background which are much larger than the original. As soon as you start doing anything with the timeline, the auto renders in the background keep happening. So on the one hand, "background rendering" is nice, but on the other hand, has the potential to fill up my RAID very quickly.




[Chris Kenny] "It's unclear to me how you (or anyone) would have benefited from Apple holding back the app until the API was ready. And it's a little unclear what the XML/API relationship is here. It's hard to imagine the API would be the only way to get FCP X to split out XML. But even if it is, an app that does just that is likely something someone would make available for free, since it would probably be a couple of lines of code."

OMF Export is currently $495. How is XML export / import going to be cheaper than that? If it's a few lines of code, why is it currently $495?

I know nothing of what it takes to make the plug-in work so I would never call anything "just a couple line of code" unless I knew exactly what I was talking about. I also don't know of anyone who will make something like this for free.



[Chris Kenny] "It is highly misleading to treat the price of Automatic Duck's Pro Export FCP as representative of the pricing we can expect for this sort of thing, because it does far more than export OMFs from FCP X."

Absolutely it is. It is the official position of Apple via their own FAQ that this third party plug-in is what you will have to use at this time.

I can ONLY comment on what is available AT THIS TIME. I cannot comment on what Apple will or won't do moving forward. I cannot comment on what plug-in manufacturers will and won't do moving forward. I can only comment and react on what I have hear and now in terms of Apple and Final Cut Pro X. Anyone outside of Randy Ubilos who claims to "know" what Apple is going to do in the next 3, 6, 12, 24 months does not know anything.



[Chris Kenny] "Look, it's clear that you're looking for reasons not to use FCP X at this point, rather than for ways to make it work."

No, I think it's clear I've analyzed Final Cut Pro X vs. the other options that are currently available to use as a facility.


[Chris Kenny] "But to me, the notion that FCP X is not a serious player in the pro market reads a lot like the explanations circa 2007 of why the iPhone was no threat to RIM in the enterprise market: justifiable based on the then-current feature set, but just not a sensible long-term proposition."

You are comparing a phone that helps one do business vs. a software tool that I use to make a living and to pay the salaries of the employees and freelancers who work here. I do not require a cell phone to run my business.

I do require a software tool that allows me to tell stories in an efficient manner and access previous client projects. As I have outlined in my multiple articles, Final Cut Pro X does not achieve this. We are moving on. I am sharing my thoughts and information for those who find it useful.

There is no right answer here. If you enjoy Final Cut Pro X and the path that Apple has chosen, that is the right choice for you. I have chosen a different path.

Walter Biscardi, Jr.
Editor, Colorist, Director, Writer, Consultant, Author, Chef.
HD Post and Production
Biscardi Creative Media

Blog Twitter Facebook
+2
Re: Blog: Apple "X" FAQs, confirmation our move away is the right one
by Chris Kenny
[walter biscardi] "Bringing over a sequence should be easy since a "Project" in FCPX is really the sequence. But we open entire projects including the bin management. Apple is saying that will not be possible so I cannot bring in a product that will lock out old projects to clients. They will not pay me to reconstruct a project from scratch based on a single timeline."

FCP X can import folders as keyword collections. It occurs to me that someone could write a utility that exploited this to arrange clips in the Finder according to the way they're arranged in bins in FCP 7. They could then be imported into FCP X, and you'd have transferred your bins over as tags.

Of course this would be even easier if Apple provided API access to allow third party software to access and modify event information. It'll be interesting to see what Apple's eventual plans are on that score.

[walter biscardi] "OMF Export is currently $495. How is XML export / import going to be cheaper than that? If it's a few lines of code, why is it currently $495?"

Because a) Pro Export FCP isn't just an OMF exporter, and b) the app itself seems to be able to generate XML (see here), you just have to ask it. (Which is why I'm kind of skeptical there won't just be an 'Export XML' command in addition to an API for third-party apps to ask for XML.)

[walter biscardi] "I can ONLY comment on what is available AT THIS TIME. I cannot comment on what Apple will or won't do moving forward. I cannot comment on what plug-in manufacturers will and won't do moving forward. I can only comment and react on what I have hear and now in terms of Apple and Final Cut Pro X. Anyone outside of Randy Ubilos who claims to "know" what Apple is going to do in the next 3, 6, 12, 24 months does not know anything."

As of right now, there's precisely one source for a utility that can do OMF exports, and it's bundled with a larger software package. I don't think it requires inside knowledge to say that once Apple makes an API more available, there will be other companies offering similar functionality, and some of them will probably offer it at a lower price.

[walter biscardi] "You are comparing a phone that helps one do business vs. a software tool that I use to make a living and to pay the salaries of the employees and freelancers who work here. I do not require a cell phone to run my business. "

That slightly misses the analogy. Back in 2007, the iPhone was this slick, modern device, with a bunch of UI innovations... that was lacking a handful of key features that were absolute requirements for the enterprise market: Exchange support, remote wipe, etc. This really kind of sounds a lot like FCP X with respect to the pro video editing market as of this moment.

--
Digital Workflow/Colorist, Nice Dissolve.

You should follow me on Twitter here. Or read our blog.
-3
Re: Blog: Apple "X" FAQs, confirmation our move away is the right one
by Ted Levy
[Chris Kenny] "Back in 2007, the iPhone was this slick, modern device, with a bunch of UI innovations... that was lacking a handful of key features that were absolute requirements for the enterprise market: Exchange support, remote wipe, etc. This really kind of sounds a lot like FCP X with respect to the pro video editing market as of this moment."

Back in 2007, the release of the iPhone didn't involve simultaneously pulling Blackberrys and other essential mobile devices off the market. Business could go on as usual until the newly released product matured enough for those with sophisticated needs.
Re: Blog: Apple "X" FAQs, confirmation our move away is the right one
by Michael Aranyshev
[walter biscardi] "OMF Export is currently $495. How is XML export / import going to be cheaper than that? If it's a few lines of code, why is it currently $495?"

OMF is an Avid's invention. I believe there is a license fee in there.

[Chris Kenny] "Because a) Pro Export FCP isn't just an OMF exporter"

It is. OMF is native format for both ProTools and Media Composer.
@Michael Aranyshev
by larry towers
OMF..OPEN Media Framework no license fees.

The problem, which is being glossed over by Apple apologists, is that the paradigm shift that is FCP X is what makes the process difficult. How are tracks to be assigned? Apples solution will be key word tagging. This just proves how thoroughly clueless they are.
Explain to me how easy it will be to tag hundreds of audio clips when I prep for export? I will have to revisit every clip in the "project and decide on a clip by clip basis which track I think it should be on. Suppose I use the same clip I'd like to use on another track for different purpose?

Re: Blog: Apple "X" FAQs, confirmation our move away is the right one
by Mitch Ives
"[walter biscardi] "More than anything else, that is the complete deal breaker for us and confirms what some very smart people have been telling me all along. In our production workflow we refer back to projects 4 to 6 years old with a need to revise, pull elements from or sometimes complete re-cut using the original elements. While FCP X can access the media, it cannot access the original sequences and project organization."

[Chris Kenny] " If this is an absolutely key requirement for you, then you may have no choice but to leave. But a) I think FCP X's detractors are somewhat overstating the use cases for which this capability is necessary and b) there will probably be third-party tools to bring old sequences over in some form at some point."

Chris, I think you are underestimating just how much of this goes on. Probably about every other week for us...

Mitch Ives
Insight Productions Corp.
mitch@insightproductions.com
http://www.insightproductions.com
Re: Blog: Apple "X" FAQs, confirmation our move away is the right one
by Michael Hancock
[Chris Kenny] "It's hard to imagine the API would be the only way to get FCP X to split out XML. But even if it is, an app that does just that is likely something someone would make available for free, since it would probably be a couple of lines of code."

So why hasn't Apple written these couple of lines of code? If it's that easy, and they bothered to put the hooks in to make it happen, why not just do it? Or, given the backlash and fury around FCPX, why don't they hurry up and write it and fix this problem now?

What does Apple gain by not providing this function now, if it's just a couple of lines of code. Is it Lion dependent? If it is, they absolutely should have waited and released the two together. Or publicly state that XML export/import is coming with Lion and will be provided for free.

If it's an easy fix it's even more dispiriting that Apple isn't fixing it immediately, themselves, rather than leaving it to third parties.

----------------
Michael Hancock
Editor
+1
Re: Blog: Apple "X" FAQs, confirmation our move away is the right one
by Chris Kenny
[Michael Hancock] "So why hasn't Apple written these couple of lines of code? If it's that easy, and they bothered to put the hooks in to make it happen, why not just do it?"

Almost certainly because the code that generates the XML is not release-quality yet; they need a little longer to polish it up. The last thing they want to do is ship XML export, and realize two weeks later there's a problem with it that requires them to change the new XML format, breaking the code third-parties have started to build around it.

APIs or file formats that are going to be used by tools from several different vendors need to be stable, which means they have to be well thought out and as close as possible to bug-free from day one.

[Michael Hancock] "If it is, they absolutely should have waited and released [FCP X and Lion] together."

It's important to remember that probably over 90% of the FCP user base does not actually require this feature.

--
Digital Workflow/Colorist, Nice Dissolve.

You should follow me on Twitter here. Or read our blog.
@Chris Kenny
by larry towers
Why don't you people get it? This isn't about the code. Exports will be difficult because of the trackless paradigm. iMovie Pro doesn't understand anything about tracks. It only understands relative positioning. That's why Apples future solution to track assignment is metadata tagging. Because iMovie Pro is fundamentally flawed in that regard.

Re: Blog: Apple "X" FAQs, confirmation our move away is the right one
by Andrew Richards
Walter, your business logic is totally sound. FCPX didn't meet your needs and the other two big A's do. But there are a few points I want to comment on.

[walter biscardi] "Supporting an external monitor means allowing me to use two computers monitors via the graphics card while also sending a true video signal via my AJA Video Card (or BMD, Matrox if that's what you have). This FAQ in particular tells me Apple truly doesn't "get" the professional market."

Indeed, the AJA beta driver is a joke. However, the reason it isn't doing it right isn't because Apple doesn't understand real baseband I/O, it is because FCPX is built on an API that won't be public till Lion (AVFoundation). Maybe Apple should have provided early access to AJA, Blackmagic, and Matrox to facilitate real I/O from the start, but APIs are a tricky mistress and it is equally understandable that they would wait for the CoreOS team to finish their work before releasing that. Lion has been in beta for a good long while, so we might see the drivers we expect from AJA, Blackmagic, and Matrox the day Lion is released. Apple has to write FAQs based on public info, so it reads as dumbed down. I roll my eyes at it too, but I don't take it to mean the Pro Apps team is obtuse.

[walter biscardi] "This plug-in costs $495. So my $299 investment in Final Cut Pro now increases to $794 for a single application and plug-in.

Adobe and Avid export OMFs for ProTools natively."


Premiere Pro CS5.5 lists for $799, and that is the standalone price. CS5 Production Premium lists for $1,699. Avid Media Composer lists for $2,295 – $2,495 (download vs box). Maybe FCPX is $299 because Apple understands it isn't fair to charge the old Final Cut Studio price of $999. I agree the old suite was a great value, but I also think a modular approach will suit a wider market. Only the people who really need OMF support will need to pay more. Yes, I understand in your case you only need to pay the upgrade price for Adobe's tools. That worked out nicely for you, and a lot of other shops will be in the same boat.

[walter biscardi] "I would really like to know how many of the professional editors that made up the Beta team really thought this was a good efficient idea?"

I was on the beta. I'm pretty sure I can say that now... ;-) Definable audio outputs was the first feedback I filed on February 18th (the day after the first private briefing in Cupertino). I totally agree this needs to be there. I disagree that metadata is a worse means to do this than physical tracks. Hard roles for physical tracks severely limit your options for mixing in the timeline. Metadata assigned roles let you layer all over the place while maintaining the output you want. It remains to be seen how Apple will implement this, but some form of color coding would be pretty effective in my opinion.

[walter biscardi] "They ripped apart the "guts" creating a modern 64 bit, very efficient product, but listened to the users and kept the workflow for the post production community completely intact. Avid managed to do the same. Only Apple decided that moving to 64 bit would require a "revolutionary approach to editing." "

Avid already went through this? Seems to me they are just starting to go through it. Media Composer won't be 64 bit till the next major release. But yes, Avid won't change their UI or core feature set. They don't want to piss off their tens of hundreds of loyal customers. Apple is shooting for 5 million units sold on FCPX. Different markets, indeed.

Apple has made a choice to suit their business and unfortunately it doesn't suit yours and many others. I say "unfortunately" because now you and your peers have to disrupt your usual business and switch editing platforms. No matter how smoothly that goes, it's effort and disruption you wouldn't otherwise go through. Again, you made the right call, and I think Apple seriously screwed up by not continuing to offer legacy FCP while FCPX gets up to speed.

Good luck and good hunting,
Andy
-1
Re: Blog: Apple "X" FAQs, confirmation our move away is the right one
by Erik Lindahl
If all you state here is true, why don't Apple state this clearly? Also, why the talk about XML output when if FCP is to be a "pro editor" you need solid in and output to talk with other software?

If FCPX is so dependent on Lion to actually function as a full-fledged editor, why even release it now? Why not wait 1-2 months and co-release it with Lion stating what you state here? Seems they are breaking their backs making it work on a system it shouldn't (or key features are just gone).

------------------------
Erik Lindahl
Freecloud Post Production Services
http://www.freecloud.se
Re: Blog: Apple "X" FAQs, confirmation our move away is the right one
by walter biscardi
[Erik Lindahl] "If FCPX is so dependent on Lion to actually function as a full-fledged editor, why even release it now? Why not wait 1-2 months and co-release it with Lion stating what you state here?"

I think the reason for this is because Lion will require another upheaval. In our case we waited over 6 months after the release of Snow Leopard before installing it to give all the third party folks a chance to catch up.

Here Apple was most likely thinking to get it out before Lion so everyone has confidence it operates in Snow Leopard and then you'll get even better performance in Lion for the early adopters.

Walter Biscardi, Jr.
Editor, Colorist, Director, Writer, Consultant, Author, Chef.
HD Post and Production
Biscardi Creative Media


Blog Twitter Facebook
Re: Blog: Apple "X" FAQs, confirmation our move away is the right one
by Andrew Richards
[walter biscardi] "I think the reason for this is because Lion will require another upheaval. In our case we waited over 6 months after the release of Snow Leopard before installing it to give all the third party folks a chance to catch up."

That, and FCPX isn't dependent on Lion, but a lot of thrid party stuff will be. Apple can choose to implement their own private APIs in their own products, and in this case the private API is being made public in Lion. I'm still just guessing on that though.

I dream of an FCPX API that lets AJA, Blackmagic, and Matrox write not just proper monitoring drivers, but also deeply integrated tape I/O drivers. It isn't impossible that a deep enough API could let them build functionality that would allow RS422 capture from within FCP and edit to tape directly from timelines. That is what I hope for, we'll have to wait and see.

My hope in general is that the API Apple is going to release will be the way we have our cake and eat it too. Apple builds the base that they see 5 million users buying, and they leave the door open for third parties to fill in the gaps for the relative few who needs the missing features. If that is how it plays out, I think it is a brilliant move.

Best,
Andy Richards

VP of Product Development
Keeper Technology
Re: Blog: Apple "X" FAQs, confirmation our move away is the right one
by Alan Okey
[Erik Lindahl] "If FCPX is so dependent on Lion to actually function as a full-fledged editor, why even release it now? Why not wait 1-2 months and co-release it with Lion stating what you state here? Seems they are breaking their backs making it work on a system it shouldn't (or key features are just gone)."

I've had the same thought and I'm surprised that more people haven't articulated this. Even if you agree with the argument that Apple couldn't afford to wait another 6-12 months to release FCP X with all of the missing features included, I see no reason why they couldn't have waited another moth for Lion to be released first before releasing FCP X, especially given that FCP 7 will still work in Lion. I don't think delaying the release of FCP X one more month would have hurt Apple in any measurable way.

Irrespective of the merits or failings of FCP X, Apple has handled its release (and the subsequent EOL of FCP 7) in a stunningly incompetent and insensitive way.
Re: Blog: Apple "X" FAQs, confirmation our move away is the right one
by Alex Gollner
It is possible that the FCP team were forced to release early as a test for the Mac App Store. Ironically, FCP has one of Apple's smaller markets (smaller than iWork and probably smaller than Aperture), but it does require big downloads.

After last Tuesday's launch, the Mac App Store team now have lots of data to prepare for the launch of Mac OS X Lion.

I get the impression that Steve would rather have all this palaver over a 'crippled' Final Cut Pro X in return for a smoother delivery an desktop OS via an app store.

___________________________________________________
Alexandre Gollner,
Editor, Zone 2-North West, London

alex4d on twitter, facebook, .wordpress.com & .com
Re: Blog: Apple "X" FAQs, confirmation our move away is the right one
by walter biscardi
People, this is how you have a discussion. I put my viewpoints out there along with my reasons why I have them, Andy comes back with his viewpoints with some very detailed information on the "why" of his argument. Excellent post.

You and I share the same view on the target market. I've said multiple times I expect Apple to announce 5 to 10 million registered users after the first 12 months. That's a MUCH larger market base than 20,000 or so Post houses and broadcast users.

Excellent viewpoints Andy and thank you VERY much for sharing. I'm sure this info will be useful to those following this thread.

Walter Biscardi, Jr.
Editor, Colorist, Director, Writer, Consultant, Author, Chef.
HD Post and Production
Biscardi Creative Media

Blog Twitter Facebook
Re: Blog: Apple "X" FAQs, confirmation our move away is the right one
by Dan Marlow
Just ordered the Premiere for Editors book too.
+1
Re: Blog: Apple "X" FAQs, confirmation our move away is the right one
by Bob Woodhead
Where's my damn time machine? (the HG Wells thing, not the other one) I just want to pop out two years from now & see how this furball plays out.....

But, yes, what Walter said, please continue with a good, reasoned discussion. Very helpful. And somewhat stress-relieving.

"Constituo, ergo sum"

Bob Woodhead / Atlanta
Quantel-Avid-FCP-3D-AFX-Crayola
Panasonic HPX500/AF100
Re: Blog: Apple "X" FAQs, confirmation our move away is the right one
by Erik Lindahl
From our PoV as a post-house we don't really have a huge problem at the moment. FCP7 will run fine now in 10.6 and hopefully as fine in 10.7. We will continue using After Effects and Photoshop for our post and effects hence we'll have Premier as a fall back IF FCPX derails even further.

Investing in AVID is a bigger commitment - Premier Pro could quite naturally just take over one day given Apple doesn't sort their stuff out.

------------------------
Erik Lindahl
Freecloud Post Production Services
http://www.freecloud.se
Re: Blog: Apple "X" FAQs, confirmation our move away is the right one
by Andrew Richards
[walter biscardi] "Excellent viewpoints Andy and thank you VERY much for sharing. I'm sure this info will be useful to those following this thread."

Civil discourse, FTW! Keep us posted over the next several months on how you are getting along with your new NLE (whichever one you pick). I'll be watching your blog.

Best,
Andy Richards

VP of Product Development
Keeper Technology
Re: Blog: Apple "X" FAQs, confirmation our move away is the right one
by Brandon Kraemer
Andy,

Any thoughts from your perspective on when FCPX would support shared storage (SAN)? Is this something that will be enabled with Lion or is it possible that we will not see this in FCPX?
Re: Blog: Apple "X" FAQs, confirmation our move away is the right one
by Andrew Richards
[Brandon Kraemer] "Any thoughts from your perspective on when FCPX would support shared storage (SAN)? Is this something that will be enabled with Lion or is it possible that we will not see this in FCPX?"

That is a huge question I'd love to have a definitive answer for (I've been wondering about it since I got my hands on the beta back in February!). As it stands, you can edit with media in place (uncheck the preferences box to copy media into events), but each individual editor will have his own events database which contains all the tagging metadata.

What I want to see is the forthcoming API apply to events/projects databases. That could open up the possibility of synchronizing multiple users' events or even a shared event option for workgroups. All that remains to be seen.

Ingest via FCPX with shared storage is a problem, since FCPX defaults to placing everything in the events folder. Kind of like Avid, no? So using FCPX with shared storage can be done today, but it isn't the workflow it could or should be.

Best,
Andy Richards

VP of Product Development
Keeper Technology
+1
Re: Blog: Apple "X" FAQs, confirmation our move away is the right one
by Brandon Kraemer
Thanks for the explanation. I have to say that without the kind of shared environment support you are hoping to see with a Lion API it would be difficult to go down this X path. Legacy projects is a huge deal for us as well so perhaps Wes Plate can write something to take FCP7->X.

thanks again.

bk
Re: Blog: Apple "X" FAQs, confirmation our move away is the right one
by Andrew Richards
[Brandon Kraemer] "Thanks for the explanation. I have to say that without the kind of shared environment support you are hoping to see with a Lion API it would be difficult to go down this X path. Legacy projects is a huge deal for us as well so perhaps Wes Plate can write something to take FCP7->X. "

Let me clarify, the API I was referring to is the FCPX API. Lion is necessary to write AVFoundation tools (like drivers for I/O hardware), but according to Apple's FAQ, there is an API specific to FCPX in the offing that might permit the things I laid out. Or it might just let you get at new XML outputs. I hope it goes deeper than that.

Wes clearly had early access to some kind of FCPX API to write the OMF tool. Hopefully there is more to come.

Best,
Andy Richards

VP of Product Development
Keeper Technology
Re: Blog: Apple "X" FAQs, confirmation our move away is the right one
by Ben Holmes
I can tell you my SAN vendor has successfully opened FCPX projects on their Ethernet SANs. It was not a big issue to get this working apparently. I don't believe they have yet tested the performance or sharing - but it's an encouraging start.

Edit Out Ltd
----------------------------
FCP Editor/Trainer/System Consultant
EVS/VT Supervisor for live broadcast
RED camera transfer/post
Independent Director/Producer

http://www.blackmagic-design.com/community/communitydetails/?UserStoryId=87...
Re: Blog: Apple "X" FAQs, confirmation our move away is the right one
by Chris Kenny
[walter biscardi] "You and I share the same view on the target market. I've said multiple times I expect Apple to announce 5 to 10 million registered users after the first 12 months. That's a MUCH larger market base than 20,000 or so Post houses and broadcast users."

I don't know about 10M. That would be something like one in seven current Mac users, which seems high for a $300 video editing app.

But 5M might be doable.

And while I get while you might have business requirements that are causing you jump to another editing platform right now, it's worth noting that Apple did very well for itself in the last round of the NLE wars -- including in the pro market -- precisely by starting off with a product nobody took seriously and first capturing the 'mass market' (if it can be called that).

--
Digital Workflow/Colorist, Nice Dissolve.

You should follow me on Twitter here. Or read our blog.
Re: Blog: Apple "X" FAQs, confirmation our move away is the right one
by Erik Lindahl
A huge difference here though is that Apple lived off it's computers and it's pro-customers 10 years ago. Today, not so much.

------------------------
Erik Lindahl
Freecloud Post Production Services
http://www.freecloud.se
Re: Blog: Apple "X" FAQs, confirmation our move away is the right one
by Craig Seeman
[Andrew Richards] " I disagree that metadata is a worse means to do this than physical tracks. Hard roles for physical tracks severely limit your options for mixing in the timeline. Metadata assigned roles let you layer all over the place while maintaining the output you want."

This is the root of my analogy comparing FCPX to other NLEs.
Tracks are very much like working with a SpreadSheet.
Metadata is using a Relational Database.

While some people have a hard time understanding Relational Databases, it's always far far far more powerful than a SpreadSheet. It's also fundamentally why, despite its missing/yet to be implemented features, FCPX is really the future of NLEs. Granted at some point others may move in that direction as well.

I think people are having a very hard time wrapping their heads around the power of an NLE that works like a Relational Database. While all some may need or want is a SpreadSheet, there's no conceivable way a SpreedSheet equals the flexibility and power of a Relational Database.

In fact I'd speculate that the FCPX program team focused on building the underpinnings of that database and it's why other features are not yet implemented. The database was top priority and had to be since it's the foundation on which everything else is or will be built.

It may well be part of the reason than virtually every pro app that was bought by Apple has been jettisoned. Apple probably wants everything to hook into the database, working on the same foundation. Anything that's inherently missing that flexibility probably had to go without being tied into compatibility knots and limitations.

All this doesn't mean Walter doesn't have good cause to switch. He's not in a position to wait or workaround these issues. On the other hand there may come a time . . .

I can say with 30 years experience that every facility that stuck with the "old" way (whatever it was at the time) eventually went under. This also isn't to say Adobe and Avid will never go Relational either. I don't think this Relational Database based NLE will be unique to Apple. It's just that Apple is doing it first. I'd bet it's inevitable others will go there too. They may even do the transition more smoothly. That Apple did it first means it is likely FCPX will be far more mature. I'd speculate that's a big part of Apple's decision making in their development. FCPX is by no means a foundation of a "consumer" app anymore than Access, Filemaker or any of the other Relational Databases are (even if someone decides to use it just for cooking recipes).

Re: Blog: Apple "X" FAQs, confirmation our move away is the right one
by Chris Conlee
Lets say we buy into the relational database argument for sorting, finding, and 'skimming' dailies. This still doesn't necessitate Apple jettisoning the traditional timeline for EDITING. The traditional timeline, while perhaps 'rigid' in the minds of the new young YouTubers has many benefits such as proper track assignments for audio and VFX.

You can argue until you're blue in the face that metadata keys will make this work, but why flipping bother when you can simply place SFX, MX, and production audio in predefined tracks and be done with it? Visually confirming that your assignments and splits are properly happening. I don't need a revolutionary way of performing this task, I just need to perform this task, and I need to perform this task nearly every single day of every single week. It's not like it's some esoteric thing that happens once in a great moon.

And with VFX work, I'll often stack the last 4 or 5 versions of a shot so I can quickly cycle thru them on the timeline. This type of thing didn't need to be "fixed." I'm sorry, I will not be convinced. Do what you want with the ability to classify, sort, organize and find media, but tracks in a timeline are necessary.

Chris Conlee
+1
Re: Blog: Apple "X" FAQs, confirmation our move away is the right one
by Craig Seeman
[Chris Conlee] "This still doesn't necessitate Apple jettisoning the traditional timeline for EDITING."

Secondary Storylines. It's basically still there. It allows you to work on the Secondary Storyline as a group of clips that "Relate" to each other. You can have as many Secondary Storylines (tracks) as you want. They composite just fine over the Storylines (tracks) beneath them.

The only caveat is that FCPX doesn't default to that mode. I can see two ways to get there though as feature improvements. A preference setting that defaults to making connecting clips being added to a row to automatically become part of a Secondary Storyline. A "track" tool so you can grab all the clips on a row to make them a Secondary Storyline. Currently you have to select or lasso the clips and hit Command G to create the Secondary Storyline.

[Chris Conlee] "And with VFX work, I'll often stack the last 4 or 5 versions of a shot so I can quickly cycle thru them on the timeline."

You can do that in FCPX as well. There's no limit to how deep the stack is whether using Connected clips or Secondary Storyline. They've added another option. That's all. It defaults to Connected Clips and that might be throwing people. Each clip can individually relate to the clip below (Connected Clip) or each track as a whole can relate to the track below (Secondary Storylines).

Re: Blog: Apple "X" FAQs, confirmation our move away is the right one
by Andrew Richards
[Chris Conlee] "The traditional timeline, while perhaps 'rigid' in the minds of the new young YouTubers has many benefits such as proper track assignments for audio and VFX. "

Ad hominems make your point so much stronger. Bravo.

[Chris Conlee] "You can argue until you're blue in the face that metadata keys will make this work, but why flipping bother when you can simply place SFX, MX, and production audio in predefined tracks and be done with it? Visually confirming that your assignments and splits are properly happening."

Because that is a workaround for not having an abstract logical means to set roles. Using tracks as a substitute for assigning roles is very brittle. What if you want to use tracks as they were intended- for compositing? Your informal structure model breaks down. There is no reason some other visual key couldn't be implemented to help identify roles for media in a timeline. Using tracks is just what you do when there is no better option. That the industry has never had a better option than tracks doesn't make that a good method, only a familiar one.

[Chris Conlee] "And with VFX work, I'll often stack the last 4 or 5 versions of a shot so I can quickly cycle thru them on the timeline. "

This is what Auditioning is for. See what I mean about using tracks as a substitute for assigning roles being very brittle? How can you stack 4 or 5 clips and not break your rules for each track having a rigidly defined role in your timeline? Stacking is and always has been primarily designed for compositing. Everything else is just a convention users developed because it happened to work well in the UI metaphor.

[Chris Conlee] "Do what you want with the ability to classify, sort, organize and find media, but tracks in a timeline are necessary."

Rigid tracks are only necessary if you refuse to consider other methods, which is your prerogative.

Best,
Andy Richards

VP of Product Development
Keeper Technology
+1
Re: Blog: Apple "X" FAQs, confirmation our move away is the right one
by Chris Conlee
They're necessary. I don't care if you color all the SFX red and the MX green. If they're scattered all over the timeline it's useless. i'm sorry. Argue all you want. I'm not going to use anything but a proper track-based timeline for my outputs. If you can, then by all means go out and do it. I'm happy you've found your nirvana.

What's your business, by the way? Just curious.

Chris
Re: Blog: Apple "X" FAQs, confirmation our move away is the right one
by Andrew Richards
[Chris Conlee] "What's your business, by the way? Just curious."

Shared storage for editors. Our new product is significantly disrupted by Apple's puzzling and vexxing decision to EOL legacy FCP (or more importantly, Final Cut Server). I thought for sure they'd carry it on for a while like they did every other time they pushed a huge change for one of their products (OS X? Rosetta? iMovie? Hello??).

Prior to going full-on engineering, I was an aspiring editor and I grew up on FCP, starting with FCP 1.25. I'm not an editor by trade, but I still know my way around and I actually love the new timeline. They need to add better controls for defining outputs, but as strongly as you insist physical tracks are the best method, I insist the new methods in FCPX, while still rough, are a big improvement.

I look back at my editing in FCP1-7 and I honestly recall a lot of timeline gymnastics going on to work around the limitations of a physical track structure. The new method lets all that wasted effort melt away.

On the other hand, I can see why you'd want to be able to see your tracks represented as they would be output. I'm not sure they couldn't add a view that would collapse the busses to a more traditional track layout so you can visualize your outputs when you need to. The flexibility is there enough that it seems technically feasible to me. Imagine a compound clip option that instead of collapsing down to a single A+V element in the timeline, layered audio output "tracks" appear with the usual controls on them for mixing...

Best,
Andy Richards

VP of Product Development
Keeper Technology
Re: Blog: Apple "X" FAQs, confirmation our move away is the right one
by Chris Conlee
Well, I'm an Avid guy primarily, doing network episodic and feature film work. At this point I can't envision a time when I'd appreciate the new structure, but stranger things have definitely happened. I usually assign tracks 1 thru 3 as production dialog, track 4 for temp ADR and loop lines, tracks 5 thru 8 as mono sound effects, and tracks 9 thru 12 as two stereo pairs for music. From this basic layout I can route my tracks for delivery to any vendor. MX usually likes dialog and FX on channel 1 and temp MX on channel 2, but sound usually likes dialog only on channel 1 with MX an FX on channel 2. Easy, peesy, lemon, squeezy.

I know we're beating a dead horse here, but I honestly can't see where metadata or color codes is going to be easier or better than this simple track structure. I guess we'll just have to watch it and see what pans out (no pun intended).

Chris
Re: Blog: Apple "X" FAQs, confirmation our move away is the right one
by walter biscardi
[Chris Conlee] "I know we're beating a dead horse here, but I honestly can't see where metadata or color codes is going to be easier or better than this simple track structure."

Keep It Simple Stupid is the mantra we follow all the time here. :)

Walter Biscardi, Jr.
Editor, Colorist, Director, Writer, Consultant, Author, Chef.
HD Post and Production
Biscardi Creative Media

Blog Twitter Facebook
Re: Blog: Apple "X" FAQs, confirmation our move away is the right one
by Andrew Richards
[Chris Conlee] " I usually assign tracks 1 thru 3 as production dialog, track 4 for temp ADR and loop lines, tracks 5 thru 8 as mono sound effects, and tracks 9 thru 12 as two stereo pairs for music. From this basic layout I can route my tracks for delivery to any vendor. MX usually likes dialog and FX on channel 1 and temp MX on channel 2, but sound usually likes dialog only on channel 1 with MX an FX on channel 2. Easy, peesy, lemon, squeezy."

We're really only comparing two techniques with the same outcome. You're setting your timing while simultaneously arranging for outputs. Magnetic sets timing irrespective of spatial arrangement since metadata defines outputs. I really think Apple does need to add a view option that will collapse the magnetic visual jumble into discreet virtual audio tracks representing your output channels that you can use to eyeball your outputs, solo outputs, do master level mixing, whatever. Double click to explode a track to fine tune.

There's nothing at all wrong with your method. Works great. I just see a lot of flexibility in the magnetic timeline and it's clip connections. I hope it gets a chance to live up to its potential.

Best,
Andy Richards

VP of Product Development
Keeper Technology
Re: Blog: Apple "X" FAQs, confirmation our move away is the right one
by Michael Aranyshev
[Craig Seeman] "While some people have a hard time understanding Relational Databases, it's always far far far more powerful than a SpreadSheet. It's also fundamentally why, despite its missing/yet to be implemented features, FCPX is really the future of NLEs. Granted at some point others may move in that direction as well.
"


Relational database means "I'm a programmer coding next generation NLE and finally don't have to jump so many hoops to make Master Clip/Affiliate clip to work". It means "Now we finally can let several editors to work on the same project simultaneously". It doesn't mean "I've built a cool home video archive manager and am going to sell it to all the post-production facilities as an NLE because they won't tell a difference"
Re: Blog: Apple "X" FAQs, confirmation our move away is the right one
by Craig Seeman
[Michael Aranyshev] "Relational database means "I'm a programmer coding next generation NLE and finally don't have to jump so many hoops to make Master Clip/Affiliate clip to work". It means "Now we finally can let several editors to work on the same project simultaneously". It doesn't mean "I've built a cool home video archive manager and am going to sell it to all the post-production facilities as an NLE because they won't tell a difference""

Yes and FCPX will be the former (I believe) and not the latter even if it appears to be the latter now. It's just a very rudimentary beginning. It is not ready for the facility environment at the moment and unfortunately Apple seems to have mismanaged the marketing.

Re: Blog: Apple "X" FAQs, confirmation our move away is the right one
by Michael Aranyshev
OK, let's discuss some "will-be's"

In FCPX FAQ Apple says it will be possible to create and export audio stems with the help of tagging. Production sound comes to me in BWF-poly files with a track for each character, a boom, an M+S pair and a production mix. I sync them to the picture takes and go on cutting the scenes. The production mix track is usually good enough so I just mute all other tracks. But I don't delete them becuse when picture is locked I have to export each 2000 ft reel with all the sound. Almost every cut in there is either J- or L-cut so it is all arranged in the checkerboard fashion. There is also some M&E but this doesn't complicate matters. So how exactly do I tag my production sound and how long would it take me?
Re: Blog: Apple "X" FAQs, confirmation our move away is the right one
by walter biscardi
[Craig Seeman] "All this doesn't mean Walter doesn't have good cause to switch. He's not in a position to wait or workaround these issues. On the other hand there may come a time . . ."

That's why I never say never. 20 years, 10 edit systems now. If I NEVER changed, I'd still be editing on JVC 3/4" systems and convincing people that this HD thing is just a fad. :)

Walter Biscardi, Jr.
Editor, Colorist, Director, Writer, Consultant, Author, Chef.
HD Post and Production
Biscardi Creative Media

Blog Twitter Facebook
Re: Blog: Apple "X" FAQs, confirmation our move away is the right one
by Herb Sevush
Craig -

I am happy that Apple has gone to a relational database foundation for the future, but I don't see it's relationship to the primal editing change that is FCPX. What about metadata database editing necessitates getting rid of multi-track timelines? I really don't see how these two items are inevitably linked.

I have asked this question before and I have yet to get an answer. If they are linked, then I understand why the designers made the change. Because the furor is about the timeline, not about the underlying organization. But if there is no link, if it would be possible to create an AV Foundation editor with a traditional timeline, then your entire argument is bogus.

Herb Sevush
Zebra Productions
Re: Blog: Apple "X" FAQs, confirmation our move away is the right one
by Craig Seeman
[Herb Sevush] "I am happy that Apple has gone to a relational database foundation for the future, but I don't see it's relationship to the primal editing change that is FCPX. What about metadata database editing necessitates getting rid of multi-track timelines? I really don't see how these two items are inevitably linked. "

I've posted this elsewhere buried in the zillions of post that it's still there but awkward and can be improved.

Connected Clips are only connected with a clip below/above it and interact as such. This is the default behavior.
Secondary Storylines interact with the clips on the same "track." You can create them by selecting a bunch of clips on a row and hitting command G and they you can do transitions and move them around relative to each other etc. You can certainly layer Secondary shorelines on top of each other as well.

There could be a preference setting that sets Secondary Storylines as the default behavior. Another would be something like the track arrow key in which one can select a whole row and make it a secondary Storyline.

I think the issue is that the default behavior is Connected Clips and creating a Secondary Storyline requires lassoing or command clicking a bunch of clips and if it's a lot of clips that can get really cumbersome.

Try selecting three connected clips and use the create storyline function Command G. Switch from the Selection cursor (A) to the Position cursor (P). Now you can move them anywhere on their Storyline (track) and you can put them next to each other and to dissolves. Using the Position cursor automatically creates the slug too so you easily move the clips around on the track.

So you can connect some clips to that, select them, command G and you have another track, etc. The problem is this is awkward, lots of keystrokes and selections. Make this a preference setting and allow for a single button to convert the connected clips to a Secondary Storyline and you've got tracks.

Basically you can do tracks (well similar to tracks actually, the technology is very different) they just make it harder than it should be.

Re: Blog: Apple "X" FAQs, confirmation our move away is the right one
by Herb Sevush
Craig -

Your missing the point. Your telling me how clips behave in the software that Apple designed. I'm asking if that design was mandatory because of the use of AV Foundation, or if the design was a choice by the FCPX team.

Basically I'm asking if another set of designers, working from scratch, were given the following parameters: build an NLE based on a database of metadata AND make it functionally work in a multi-track timeline setting - could it be done. And if it can't be done I would like to understand why, because I can't see a reason for it.

You're constantly comparing a relational database and a spreadsheet. I've worked with both and of course the power of a a relational database is an order of magnitude more powerful than a spreadsheet. And because of that it would be easy to design a Database that had an input form that looked and acted exactly like a spreadsheet - it could then take that data and manipulate it in much more powerful ways. A database could mimic a spreadsheet, but a spreadsheet couldn't mimic a database.

I don't understand why they COULDN'T have developed a database NLE who's timeline editing was similar to industry standards. I recognize that they didn't, it's my belief that it was by choice, not by necessity.

Herb Sevush
Zebra Productions
Re: Blog: Apple "X" FAQs, confirmation our move away is the right one
by Craig Seeman
[Herb Sevush] "Your missing the point. Your telling me how clips behave in the software that Apple designed. I'm asking if that design was mandatory because of the use of AV Foundation"

I'm not missing the point. You can use something like tracks and they can/should make it a user choice. One could chose between Connected Clips and Secondary Storyline (tracks) more easily.

Note that even Secondary Storylines (tracks) have to be Connected to the Primary Storyline and yes I do believe that's part of how AV Foundation works from what I've read. Just as those "gap" slugs (which are act transparent in the Secondary Storyline).

While each Connected Clip has an individual connection, a Secondary Storyline only has a single connection at the head. It's not exactly the same as a track but similar enough that it would be easy for the user of any track based NLE to grasp.

[Herb Sevush] "And because of that it would be easy to design a Database that had an input form that looked and acted exactly like a spreadsheet - it could then take that data and manipulate it in much more powerful ways. A database could mimic a spreadsheet, but a spreadsheet couldn't mimic a database."

Yes, and it's why I think they could, with some minor tweaks, allow the user to work in a Storylines mode for clips added above the Primary Storyline all within the context of the Relational Database and AV Foundation's handling of media file "sequences"

@Craig Seeman
by larry towers
Having designed many databases, from flatfile, to relational to object oreiented and hybrids in between, I can tell you that there is no fundamental reason to entirely dispose of the timeline paradigm. It quite frankly has nothing to do with how the data is stored. The timeline is a presentational and human interface tool, and need not dictate a data storage mechanism. Nothing about a timeline prevents you from meta-tagging elements for what ever purpose you see fit.
Having a timeline doesn't lock you into anything.
Manual Metadata tagging for track assignment is a manual process that inhibits creativity. With discrete tracks one can see at an instant where everything is and how it relates to everything else instantaneously.

@larry towers
by Craig Seeman
AV Foundation would impact how the timeline is handled.
Secondary Storylines actually work much like tracks although currently creating them is awkward.

Bulk tagging is very easy. Tag one file to start the collection and dump the rest on the collection and they are tagged as well. In theory it shouldn't be difficult to tag a Secondary Storyline either.

@Craig Seeman
by larry towers
The track paradigm does that for me automatically and gives everyone who looks at the project direct visual feedback.
rack assignment isn't just about export, it is in the process need. tagging only helps with the export process. Plus if you use the same element in different tracks for different purposes which tag will be obeyed?
I've yet to hear any good reason why the track paradigm had to go.
The database reason is a crock. maybe that excuse works for someone who has no clue how databases work....

Re: Blog: Apple "X" FAQs, confirmation our move away is the right one
by Brendan Coots
"Apple is shooting for 5 million units sold on FCPX. Different markets, indeed... Apple has made a choice to suit their business and unfortunately it doesn't suit yours and many others."

The problem here is that FCP adoption was almost purely a result of the "pros" flocking to it. Once they embraced it, smaller studios adopted it because they no longer needed an Avid to appear "professional." From there, all the new entrants such as prosumers and students adopted it because it was a path INTO the professional realm, i.e. being able to get a job in the real world.

If the "pros" flee from FCPX, that will have a ripple effect all the way down the chain for the same exact reasons.

Personally, I don't think FCPX is intuitive enough to win over that mass audience that sits way down the food chain from pros, yet at the same time it's too dumbed down and restrained for the pros to fall in love with it. Who does that leave? the prosumers and students who will go where the pros go, not where Apple tells them to go.

Brendan Coots
Creative Director
Brandflow Video Studio
+1
Re: Blog: Apple "X" FAQs, confirmation our move away is the right one
by Stephan Walfridsson
[walter biscardi] "I could potentially be looking at an investment of $794 to $1,000"

Don't forget that in order to go fully utilize the 3rd party plugins you need to spend another $49 on motion. (Apple are explicitly stating in the FXPlug 2 API that plugin developers should limit the number of parameters available in FCP X to a minimum, in order to simplify usage. And only in Motion should you be able to access all parameters.)

And to have more export options they want you to buy compressor for another $49.

Stephan
Re: Blog: Apple "X" FAQs, confirmation our move away is the right one
by Kenneth WedMore Lund
I'm really amazed that 49 dollars more or less can make ANY difference ?

When going "oh I have thouuuuusands of clients and projects" combined with "and it's a HUUUUUGE problem for me to also have to spend 49 dollars extra" it just makes it sound a bit......... well....... hard to take serious.

If you're a pro and you do have that much material and jobs going on, not even 49 HUNDRED dollars should be a real problem. :)

Please see things in a bit bigger perspective than this :)

:] Kenneth WedMore Lund
Living Smart TV

MacPro | Final Cut Pro 7 | Panasonic HMC-151 | ProTools HD
Re: Blog: Apple "X" FAQs, confirmation our move away is the right one
by Stephan Walfridsson
[Kenneth WedMore Lund] "I'm really amazed that 49 dollars more or less can make ANY difference ?"

Apple apparently thinks it does...

Stephan
Re: Blog: Apple "X" FAQs, confirmation our move away is the right one
by Erik Lindahl
If you have 2 million users paying 49 dollars for an app it does add to a lot of money for Apple.

I have a very hard time seeing people buying into this though. I do see a huge potential for FCPX living on as the "go to" editor on OSX. That doesn't mean the pro's will continue to use it.

------------------------
Erik Lindahl
Freecloud Post Production Services
http://www.freecloud.se
Re: Blog: Apple "X" FAQs, confirmation our move away is the right one
by Dan Marlow
I count myself very lucky that in the UK Avid is still the market leader and so this will not be quite a seismic an upheaval as my facility runs dual-booting machines in every room, and for the most part the work load is split about 80-20 in favour of Avid. Will certainly be investigating Premiere as an alternative to the FCP side in the future seeing as it runs on all the same Blackmagic kit we have for the FCPs. Am hoping Avid announce some Blackmagic support soon too as our Adrenaline hardware is soon to be End of life too
Re: Blog: Apple "X" FAQs, confirmation our move away is the right one
by Erik Lindahl
I wonder if when AVID EOL's your Adrenaline hardware they also break support for your projects from that era? ;)

That software and hardware gets out-dated or replaced I get, what I don't get is how impressive Apple is at killing their pro market. Maybe FCPX will grow into it's shoes with-in 2-3 years but that's another 2-3 years for Adobe and AVID to mature their offerings. So very… odd.

------------------------
Erik Lindahl
Freecloud Post Production Services
http://www.freecloud.se
Re: Blog: Apple "X" FAQs, confirmation our move away is the right one
by Dan Marlow
"I wonder if when AVID EOL's your Adrenaline hardware they also break support for your projects from that era? ;)"

Good point. No, I trust Avid as i can still open projects that go back 4 different hardware versions. In fact there's a good chance that with version 6 the adrenlines will still function to a workable degreee.
Re: Blog: Apple "X" FAQs, confirmation our move away is the right one
by Chris Conlee
Just as an aside, I can still open projects from the early 90s in my current Avid. The impressive thing is, if I don't add HD material or the new RTAS track-based audio plugins, I can save the project and still open it in the original Avid. They had they project parameters so well thought out, even then, that things haven't changed much under the hood.

For those who aren't familiar, an Avid project is a folder at the finder level with an .avp (Avid project) file within it. This .avp contains the project type (HD/SD, film, framerate, etc.) then anytime you create a bin (I know Apple doesn't think we need these antiquated thingies, but some of us are stuck in our ways...) Avid creates a separate .avb (Avid bin) file. It's because each bin is a separate file that Avid excels at project sharing. The first person who opens a bin file gets read/write access, while everybody else gets read access only. Meanwhile the entire project (simply a folder remember) is available to all editors in the workgroup. Another thing that is great about Avid projects is that they open bascially IMMEDIATELY. I've worked on feature film projects with a hundred hours of material and 10s or 20s of versions and the project opens in seconds, with no waiting as a progress indicator slowly scrolls across the screen.

Keep in mind, my description of project sharing requires specific (and expensive for individuals) Avid equipment and software such as Unity. I hope someday they'll realize the need for a simplified 2 or 3 seat version for an editor and 1 or 2 assistants, perhaps across a simple ethernet network or something?

Chris Conlee
Re: Blog: Apple "X" FAQs, confirmation our move away is the right one
by walter biscardi
Yeah, that's a bit of a pain but in the scheme of things $100 extra per machine is not that big a deal.

$500 to $1,000 per machine does turn into a big deal when it's only for one application and a few features that should have already been in the app. If the "hooks" are there, then why didn't they just enable it themselves? :)

But in reality, given everything else, the lack of legacy project support is the ultimate non-starter for us.

Walter Biscardi, Jr.
Editor, Colorist, Director, Writer, Consultant, Author, Chef.
HD Post and Production
Biscardi Creative Media

Blog Twitter Facebook
Re: Blog: Apple "X" FAQs, confirmation our move away is the right one
by Erik Lindahl
It's going to be an odd year at IBC for me as my main goal will be to look into moving to AVID or Premier quite likely. Apple really blew it here, which is quite sad.

Premier > Resolve > Premier / AE should be quite a nice solution. If I only can get over to Premier… AVID is still someone "locked" into their hardware which is a problem for us.

------------------------
Erik Lindahl
Freecloud Post Production Services
http://www.freecloud.se
Re: Blog: Apple "X" FAQs, confirmation our move away is the right one
by Jan Maitland
[Erik Lindahl] "AVID is still someone "locked" into their hardware which is a problem for us."

AVID seems less and less tethered to their own proprietary and grossly overpriced hardware these days. I just purchased a "seat" of AVID to test-drive, as an alternative to FCP, and was able to buy both the software and AJA's i/o Express for a bundle price of $1900. That's roughly $48,000 cheaper than the last time I purchased an AVID system (albeit that was 14 years ago). Plus, my reseller is assuring me that AVID is hard at work on opening up compatibility with AJA Kona and Blackmagic cards as well. Of course, you can't base purchasing decisions on a secondhand rumor like additional third-party support may coming, though I think one can take the i/o Express as a good sign that AVID is loosening up.
Re: Blog: Apple "X" FAQs, confirmation our move away is the right one
by Erik Lindahl
In-deed. AVID's move to the boxes from AJA and Matrox are a good sign, then again, the FCPX preview was a good sign also. I'll put faith in what's actually out there and working - currently I think our best bet is a move over from FCP to Premier Pro over the next year or two.

Color is dead but I think Resolve is a perfect replacement as you can use the free version on stations not requiring full-blown grading. One issue with the Adobe-model at the moment is lack of a solid codec. ProRes is quite beautiful I have to say and AVID have their DNx.

------------------------
Erik Lindahl
Freecloud Post Production Services
http://www.freecloud.se
Re: Blog: Apple "X" FAQs, confirmation our move away is the right one
by John-Michael Seng-Wheeler
[Erik Lindahl] "One issue with the Adobe-model at the moment is lack of a solid codec. ProRes is quite beautiful I have to say and AVID have their DNx."

There's no Codec Because there's no need of one. PP is built to handle everything Natively:

http://forums.creativecow.net/thread/335/6932#6985
Re: Blog: Apple "X" FAQs, confirmation our move away is the right one
by Erik Lindahl
Yes, Premier Pro handles everything in it's native form which is nice but that didn't at all answer or address my current issue with Premier Pro - the lack of a unified post-production codec.

If you go with an AJA or BM card you can use their uncompressed codecs but that's in a lot of cases overkill. Apple and AVID understood this a few years ago. Adobe understood people wanted native codec access as well. Adobe however lacks what Apple and AVID have had for quite a few years now. Adobe's ProRes support is also vastly sub-par to even how FCP7 handles the codec.

It's not like any serious post-facility would edit H264, post in H264 including say 2 generations through various grading / VFX apps and then deliver H264. That's madness. It's awesome with native support in the editor, but that's now what I'm talking about here.

------------------------
Erik Lindahl
Freecloud Post Production Services
http://www.freecloud.se
Re: Blog: Apple "X" FAQs, confirmation our move away is the right one
by John-Michael Seng-Wheeler
how about DNxHD then? You can encode to it with AME and PP edits it just fine. There's a bug though... The Codec doen't like decoding more then three Streams at once. If you have more then three, the fourth ends up being what ever the third one is.
Re: Blog: Apple "X" FAQs, confirmation our move away is the right one
by walter biscardi
[Erik Lindahl] "Yes, Premier Pro handles everything in it's native form which is nice but that didn't at all answer or address my current issue with Premier Pro - the lack of a unified post-production codec."

I've heard from multiple people that the only thing missing is a very easy "Export to Quicktime Codec of choice" from PPro because it is designed literally for a non-codec workflow.

With the way Adobe is listening to their users and the sprinkling of information I can glean about CS6, I believe you'll see many features taking care of the current limitation and issues. I say I believe this because I can actually contact folks at Adobe and ask questions. They can't give me any specific information about future releases, but the mere fact that I can ask them questions and they are open for discussions is a radical 180 degree departure from what I'm used to.

Walter Biscardi, Jr.
Editor, Colorist, Director, Writer, Consultant, Author, Chef.
HD Post and Production
Biscardi Creative Media

Blog Twitter Facebook
+2
Re: Blog: Apple "X" FAQs, confirmation our move away is the right one
by walter biscardi
[Jan Maitland] "Plus, my reseller is assuring me that AVID is hard at work on opening up compatibility with AJA Kona and Blackmagic cards as well."

Yep, that's what they told me at NAB this year. No timeframe, but "soon" in their words.

Walter Biscardi, Jr.
Editor, Colorist, Director, Writer, Consultant, Author, Chef.
HD Post and Production
Biscardi Creative Media

Blog Twitter Facebook
Re: Blog: Apple "X" FAQs, confirmation our move away is the right one
by Chris Conlee
I got a hint of this from a Blackmagic rep a few weeks ago at an Adobe Roadshow event as well.

Chris
+1
Re: Blog: Apple "X" FAQs, confirmation our move away is the right one
by Tim Vaughan
I totally agree, Walter. Also, one extra thing to consider is that you will not be tethered to just the Mac operating system any longer, as Avid and Adobe work on both Mac and PC platforms. With the cost of PC's being extremely cheap, you could in theory purchase 4-5 PC's for the cost of 1 Mac Pro.
This has changed our business model and budgeting plan. And overall, I think Apple did us a favor by rolling this program out.

Tim
Now featuring AVID Media Composer
Apple XRAID, XServe, MacPro, Macbook Pro, XSAN, FCP Studio 7 (Sorry, no iMovie Pro)
Apple Monitors, Flanders Scientific Broadcast, Panasonic AG-AF100
Adobe Production Premium, Maxon Cinema 4d
Beer fridge fully loaded.
Re: Blog: Apple "X" FAQs, confirmation our move away is the right one
by walter biscardi
[Tim Vaughan] "I totally agree, Walter. Also, one extra thing to consider is that you will not be tethered to just the Mac operating system any longer, as Avid and Adobe work on both Mac and PC platforms. With the cost of PC's being extremely cheap, you could in theory purchase 4-5 PC's for the cost of 1 Mac Pro."

ugh don't remind me. :)

Yeah, I have diehard Mac friends telling me "you really need to check out Windows 7. They finally made it work like a Mac!" They're serious.

Hey, if I can change NLEs why not change computers too? I do like the way I can move the Adobe projects back and forth across platforms so when we start replacing computers I could literally have a choice between the Mac Pro (as long as they exist) and a PC which will most likely be much cheaper.

Walter Biscardi, Jr.
Editor, Colorist, Director, Writer, Consultant, Author, Chef.
HD Post and Production
Biscardi Creative Media

Blog Twitter Facebook
Re: Blog: Apple "X" FAQs, confirmation our move away is the right one
by Chris Conlee
Yeah, as I've mentioned in other posts, I was fortunate to be largely computer agnostic. I'm currently running Mac Pro for FCP support, but I've kept my Bootcamp partition with Win 7 for those necessary PC applications such as Avid MetaFuze, and TMPGEnc (absolutely necessary, IMHO). Win 7 works, and works well.

I'm already figuring my next computer upgrade will probably be back in the Windows direction. The only Mac app that I'll truly miss is ClipWrap, Avid is now dealing with .mts files, so even ClipWrap is getting less mileage these days.

Chris
Re: Blog: Apple "X" FAQs, confirmation our move away is the right one
by Buddy Couch
Hey, if I can change NLEs why not change computers too? I do like the way I can move the Adobe projects back and forth across platforms so when we start replacing computers I could literally have a choice between the Mac Pro (as long as they exist) and a PC which will most likely be much cheaper.

Walter,
Not to mention very powerful. Do not get me wrong, I still like my mac, however before I went to mac I had built my own pcs for 15 years. I never bought a ready made box from any company, especially a proprietary one like Dell/Gateway. My PC is so much more powerful than my mac and cost alot less to build. Windows 7 is good by the way, your friends are speaking the truth. Keep in mind the upgrade ability of the PC (when not with OEMs) is unmatched. Easy to fix/replace broken components compared to a Mac. The PCs downfall for the longest time was Microsofts version of Final Cut Pro X, the dreaded Windows Vista.

Buddy C
Re: Blog: Apple "X" FAQs, confirmation our move away is the right one
by john spirou
Yes, you can do the same mistake we did !!!

We replaced ALL our machines with Avid HP workstation and Windows , BIG mistake , beleive me.... i live with it every day.

Crashes, slowdowns, you cant have internet on those machines (you need good antivirus thats slow down everything - Avid doesnt support them).

As we speak, Avid made an so called "Upgrade" and put windows Vista 64 bit and MC 5.5 .... well is like hell !.
We cant do our job, is too slow on everything, bugs everywhere, our Unity needs 4-.000 euros for an additional upgrade too!!!

Forget it.
Re: Blog: Apple "X" FAQs, confirmation our move away is the right one
by Tom Babauta
John, I think it is not with Avid/PrePro/PCs that you have a problem with, but rather your in house engibeering or IT person. Many many facilities run these same configurations and work efficiently and without a lot of hitches.

My advice, dont buy FCPX, rather use the $299 and place an ad for new tech guys, or whoever is in charge of setting up your workstations.

Re: Blog: Apple "X" FAQs, confirmation our move away is the right one
by john spirou
But its not only the problems witn Pc - Windows, its the whole slow down for importing anything, even an mp3 file, a simple graphic with alpha etc.

I am not saying that Avid is bad, on the contrary... but i see more potential on FCPX .(even if it has many problems now).

I just made a demo of it (FCPX) in my partners (editors - journalists - directors etc) and they all are excited !
Re: Blog: Apple "X" FAQs, confirmation our move away is the right one
by Ted Levy
Being a continuing fan of Avid, I've always found it to be more stable and less buggy on a PC than a Mac, anyway.
Re: Blog: Apple "X" FAQs, confirmation our move away is the right one
by Aindreas Gallagher
yeah, I'm kind of past apple waving its glove from the window of the palace at this point. Moreover, I'm sort of expecting to see PPro coming into fairly heavy rotation around London - its a much easier switch from FCP than Avid and it seems to perform pretty well, and God knows Adobe are hungry for the pro video editing market, we all know that - and I just cannot see facilities or editing shops sticking with this weird, incomplete new application - the whole thing has just been way too crazy and unsettling, you wouldn't know what they'll do next. MacPros anyone? apple are just complete - up their revolutionary fundament - nutters at this stage in my head.
hey we'll see, but I think first of all - as a freelancer - I really actually have got to be ready to use PPro in anger, in production - my mind is settled on that much.


http://www.ogallchoir.net
promo producer/editor.grading/motion graphics
+3
Re: Blog: Apple "X" FAQs, confirmation our move away is the right one
by john spirou
For all the above, the answer is this.

If you like more Avid and Adobe choose them.


I dont , i work all day with Avid composer and Premmiere CS5...they suck !

FCPX is very different, there is no way to work EXACTLY as before.

Get over it... its a new era, for new PROs.

If you dont like it, take a new boat, simple...
-4
Re: Blog: Apple "X" FAQs, confirmation our move away is the right one
by Aindreas Gallagher
[john spirou] "its a new era, for new PROs."

What?

What in God's name are you talking about? What new era? the era where I pay 500 dollars to restore OMF functionality? This isn't an era, it's a heavily criticised software release.

Era.

God almighty but we deserve everything we get, considering the kind of ludicrous language we concoct when defending apple's crazy behaviour here.


http://www.ogallchoir.net
promo producer/editor.grading/motion graphics
+1
Re: Blog: Apple "X" FAQs, confirmation our move away is the right one
by john spirou
You dont spend a fortune ... just 299$ !
And you can ask for refund if you dont like ...

We dont use OM, EDL and so .... if you want it , you can buy it !
-3
Re: Blog: Apple "X" FAQs, confirmation our move away is the right one
by walter biscardi
[john spirou] "
I dont , i work all day with Avid composer and Premmiere CS5...they suck !"


Can you please expound on that?

What's your computer configuration?

What I/O device are you using?

What format(s) are you using?

And finally can you describe some of the issues are you having?


This would be most helpful to the community.

Walter Biscardi, Jr.
Editor, Colorist, Director, Writer, Consultant, Author, Chef.
HD Post and Production
Biscardi Creative Media

Blog Twitter Facebook
+1
Re: Blog: Apple "X" FAQs, confirmation our move away is the right one
by john spirou
I have Media composer on HP workstation (Windows ).... its too slow , crashes a lot , and i cant even import HDSL footage !
Ama support is for laugh !
To see some graphivs elements with alpha channel , takes ages to impoert , too.
You cant control audio for a whole track , only for clips.

Imports takes forever.

Ok, it has good tape control , good and fast media management but FCPX is better in that area.

We dont use much tapes anymore, we still have beta , but our TV station goes all digital media now.

I am not saying that FCPX is ready for prime time, but it has a lot more potential to do so.
Re: Blog: Apple "X" FAQs, confirmation our move away is the right one
by Ted Levy
You absolute CAN control audio for a whole track in Avid.
Re: Blog: Apple "X" FAQs, confirmation our move away is the right one
by john spirou
How ?
Re: Blog: Apple "X" FAQs, confirmation our move away is the right one
by John Chay
Place a keyframe on every audio you want to change. Put in and out points. Move one keyframe to level up or down. The other tracks follow.




http://www.john-chay.com

Editor/Videographer
Re: Blog: Apple "X" FAQs, confirmation our move away is the right one
by john spirou
Thats not a pro way... I mean REAL pro Audio mixing .

Indypentand audio track mixing... like those you want from FCPX , in the very first version !
Re: Blog: Apple "X" FAQs, confirmation our move away is the right one
by John Chay
Actually, the REAL pro way is by exporting to OMF and letting a professional audio engineer import the OMF into Pro Tools and sweeten the audio. Something that Avid can do and FCPx cannot.




http://www.john-chay.com

Editor/Videographer
+1
Re: Blog: Apple "X" FAQs, confirmation our move away is the right one
by john spirou
FCPx CAN do that , via Automatic duck .

If you are a PRO user , you can buy this and do you job.

I am a PRO , but dont need it, so why i have to pay for it ?

Its better to have a cheaper tool to make my work, and build around it .

More import/export functions will come for sure, and cheaper one too.

FCPX has problems now, but haw more potential over all other apps....
Re: Blog: Apple "X" FAQs, confirmation our move away is the right one
by John Chay
That's fine. But just because Avid has a different way to accomplish the same task does not make it not pro. At least you don't need a third party software to accomplish simple things in Avid.




http://www.john-chay.com

Editor/Videographer
Re: Blog: Apple "X" FAQs, confirmation our move away is the right one
by Michael Hancock
[john spirou] "I am a PRO , but dont need it, so why i have to pay for it ?

Its better to have a cheaper tool to make my work, and build around it .
"


I don't need Vimeo or Facebook export but those features are there. Why do I have to pay for them?

There will always be a feature missing that another person needs/wants. You'll always pay for something you don't need/want. The fact that Apple released software that is missing a core functionality required for broadcast/film (industries they bragged about being the #1 NLE of choice in, at NAB) is the issue. Post houses would rather their software fit their workflows then have support for the NLE pulled and told to "Wait...XML is coming. Trust us." Or told to learn a new editing paradigm and buy a plug-in to shoe-horn it into established pipelines. May as well learn a new editing app that already has the input/output required.

----------------
Michael Hancock
Editor
+1
Re: Blog: Apple "X" FAQs, confirmation our move away is the right one
by john spirou
But you paid almost nothing for FCPX...

Apple wants to open the market , not just Pros .
Thats not bad.

Thats what they did again with FCP 1... not a PRO version too!

If Pro users wants more , they can get them by buying third party utilities or wait until Apple supports them .

Or they can jump in another boat if they want !
Re: Blog: Apple "X" FAQs, confirmation our move away is the right one
by Michael Hancock
[john spirou] "But you paid almost nothing for FCPX..."

I actually paid nothing. It doesn't fit with our workflow so we're moving to Premiere (we were waiting to evaluate FCPX before we upgraded to it or switched - waiting is not an option anymore).

[john spirou] "Apple wants to open the market , not just Pros .
Thats not bad. "


I agree completely. It will make them buckets of money and that's why they're in this game.

[john spirou] "If Pro users wants more , they can get them by buying third party utilities or wait until Apple supports them .

Or they can jump in another boat if they want !"


By the time you add in the functionality of Premiere or Media 100 or Avid, the cost will probably be equal or greater than just buying those systems. If that's the case, will there be a healthy market for third party vendors to work in? If it's cheaper overall, or simply easier, to go with an NLE that provides all that extra stuff without buying 5 or 10 add-ons then who will the 3rd party vendors sell to? Isn't the argument to buying a Mac that everything is tightly controlled and comes from one vendor, so you go to them and they fix it? If your FCPX breaks, Apple may say it's the XML developer's fault. If XML stops working, the XML developers may say it's Apple's fault. Support may be a mess - or maybe not.

It's very possible that FCPX will develop into a full featured pro app by way of Apple. Or it will get there with 3rd party development. But it might also take so long that people move on and the pro (read - broadcast/film) market disappears for Apple. Only time will tell.

Either way, it's very interesting to watch things develop.

----------------
Michael Hancock
Editor
+1
Re: Blog: Apple "X" FAQs, confirmation our move away is the right one
by john spirou
More power to the people .... thats Apple's words.

I am with them... and i am a PRO user.

I am working with Avid and Premiere too...but i dont like them.

You are free to choose ... but even Avid and Premiere have more functionality NOW, in a year or two , they will be out of mass market.
High end users may be with them , but not everyone else .

The way to edit is FCPx ... now i saw what i can do with it , i will not go back !
-1
Re: Blog: Apple "X" FAQs, confirmation our move away is the right one
by Michael Hancock
[john spirou] "You are free to choose ... but even Avid and Premiere have more functionality NOW, in a year or two , they will be out of mass market.
High end users may be with them , but not everyone else ."


Avid and Adobe won't be sitting still for the next two years.

Premiere is already 64-bit, the next version of Media Composer will be 64-bit. Both companies will continue to poll editors and improve their systems while Apple does whatever it's going to do. Maybe Apple will add missing functionality and compete against them, maybe not. Who knows. But I certainly wouldn't bet against Adobe, and I think Avid is in a great position to regain some marketshare due to Apple's mistep.

----------------
Michael Hancock
Editor
+2
Re: Blog: Apple "X" FAQs, confirmation our move away is the right one
by john spirou
But they cant change much.

Those programs are the same for too many years.
Their management is so old fashion and incomplete.

Their speed (especially Avid) is limited by their design.

Of course some PRO will make the switch... but MANY others (PROs or NOT) will make the opposite.

Changing and evolving is most important than security and standstill.
-1
Re: Blog: Apple "X" FAQs, confirmation our move away is the right one
by walter biscardi
[john spirou] "But they cant change much.

Those programs are the same for too many years.
Their management is so old fashion and incomplete.

Their speed (especially Avid) is limited by their design.

Of course some PRO will make the switch... but MANY others (PROs or NOT) will make the opposite.

Changing and evolving is most important than security and standstill."


Wow, you are really not adding much to this discussion.

Adobe completely re-invented the underpinnings of Premiere Pro from CS4 to CS5. I suppose since the interface did not change much, it might be hard to notice, but it's a complete re-write. They were able to accomplish this without a disruption to the video editor's workflow.

Avid is not limited by anything either and based on the conversations I had with their development team and top management they are not limited by anything. They can re-invent their entire software package without disrupting the overall interface as well.

So both Adobe and soon Avid are showing that software can be completely re-invented without re-inventing the wheel.

Some "Pro" will make the switch but many other "Pro" will not? Really don't even know what you're talking about.

Changing and evolving IS the most important thing which is why we are changing away from Final Cut Pro as we prefer a tool targeted towards collaborative storytelling rather than the island mindset of FCPX.

If you have backup information to validate your points, feel free to discuss. But if you just want to make blanket statements which appear to "just because you say so", that really doesn't help the discussion at all.

Thank you.

Walter Biscardi, Jr.
Editor, Colorist, Director, Writer, Consultant, Author, Chef.
HD Post and Production
Biscardi Creative Media

Blog Twitter Facebook
+1
Re: Blog: Apple "X" FAQs, confirmation our move away is the right one
by john spirou
As i told you , i work in a big tv station and we have Avid and Premiere too.
When i demoed FCPX in my partners , they were amazed !

By the speed (no import time lost) , by background rendering, by endless possibilities of the new Metadata - keywording way of organize your footage, by the ability to have ALL your footage (video, music, photos etc) in EVERY project available at ANY time , easy way to CC your footage, have every effect possible with tight Motion 5 intergration etc.

We are PROs that will change from old dinosaurs to the new guy when "is ready for prime time" .
-1
Re: Blog: Apple "X" FAQs, confirmation our move away is the right one
by John Chay
Funny, I work at a Large TV station too. You know that FCP can't touch Avid when it comes to workflow and file sharing with others. Avid can handle hundreds of terabytes of HD footage without batting an eye. Every producer and editor has access to the footage from their desk. File sharing is seamless and an editor can pick up where I left off with a click of a folder.

Do I prefer FCP7's template and layout over Avid? Yes. But I appreciate Avid's reliability and commitment to professionals more.
There's not a thing FCP7 can do that Avid can't. When it comes to compositing I prefer Avid over FCP.

I'm curious what Avid you are using.

I am using HP Z800 with Avid Symphony.




http://www.john-chay.com

Editor/Videographer
Re: Blog: Apple "X" FAQs, confirmation our move away is the right one
by Brandon Kraemer
[John Chay] "Avid can handle hundreds of terabytes of HD footage without batting an eye. Every producer and editor has access to the footage from their desk. File sharing is seamless and an editor can pick up where I left off with a click of a folder."

We do exactly this with FCP7 and a SAN. Works very well, very powerful media management and playback and easy project sharing that uses the same centralized media. We can network render with QMaster as well and all with out running FCP Server.

Which is why until we get official clarification about SAN support and the future of FCPX we can not consider that as an upgrade path of any certainty.
Re: Blog: Apple "X" FAQs, confirmation our move away is the right one
by john spirou
I dont like fcp 7 too!
I said i like fcpx more.... I have HP workstation too, avid media composer.

Noone in my trailer department like it , at all!

It is robust, but not so stable .

It is slow on importing , and we do a lot of importing... Music, graphics, videos, from various sources.
There are times that we cant even import various formats, like hdslr , that is very common our days.
We have Unity network, fast but unreliable too.

I dont say that its not a Pro program, on the contrary, is the best program until now.

But fcpx , has the potential to be A LOT better.

I am working on it , a week now, and i am impressed.
Of course it has problems, but its very new.

I can manage my footage better, i can have ALL of my footage in ANY projects available!

I can import anything without transcode it.

I can view my graphics with alpha channel without waiting.

I can view my whole itunes - aperture library inside fcpx!

I can make any filter-title i want with Motion and publish it right away.

I can keyword anything and search my timelines for everything.

I can view all of my effects real time , multiple effects too.

Its not ready for prime time, but i think it will be soon!
Re: Blog: Apple "X" FAQs, confirmation our move away is the right one
by Michael Hancock
[john spirou] "But they cant change much.

Those programs are the same for too many years.
Their management is so old fashion and incomplete."


I think you'd be surprised. Both are older than FCP7 but both handled new media better than FCP7, had more realtime, and continually add features. Premiere Pro switched to 64-bit with an all new interface while not breaking or losing (too much) functionality. Avid has been tweaking their UI and adding new ways to access media and the timeline without breaking functionality (too much).

Avid is a lot more responsive then it used to be. Adobe is hungry for the professional market and are probably about to get a very loud, very angry group of XFCP editors using their software demanding improvements. They'll respond. They don't have iPhones and iPads to fall back on.

----------------
Michael Hancock
Editor
+1
Re: Blog: Apple "X" FAQs, confirmation our move away is the right one
by Brandon Kraemer
[john spirou] "But they cant change much.

Those programs are the same for too many years.
Their management is so old fashion and incomplete."


They can change just as much, more so or more restrained so as FCP has. There are no rules on what they can or can't do. Your statement is just based on your new found bias for FCPX, and that is fine, but really, let's measure what we are saying so that it's relevant to a dialogue.
Re: Blog: Apple "X" FAQs, confirmation our move away is the right one
by Brendan Coots
But you paid almost nothing for FCPX...

FCPX is $300. That's cheap, but it's also very stripped down. This isn't some huge "discount," Final Cut Studio was $1200 but included a huge suite of really good applications. FCP's share of that $1200 value was probably right around $400. Therefore, they marked the price down by $100 but removed functionality that will cost their customers $500+ to replace. NOT a discount.

Apple wants to open the market , not just Pros .
Thats not bad.
If Pro users wants more , they can get them by buying third party utilities or wait until Apple supports them .
Or they can jump in another boat if they want !


That was the point of the thread, and the point of all the bitching about FCPX. People ARE jumping ship.

Every time someone has a problem with something Apple does, the Apple defenders step in and tell them to leave, that the ecosystem isn't for them. After awhile, enough people are going to agree and move on, and there will BE no ecosystem left.
+1
Re: Blog: Apple "X" FAQs, confirmation our move away is the right one
by walter biscardi
[john spirou] "I have Media composer on HP workstation (Windows ).... its too slow , crashes a lot , and i cant even import HDSL footage !
Ama support is for laugh !
To see some graphivs elements with alpha channel , takes ages to impoert , too.
You cant control audio for a whole track , only for clips."


Which computer workstation and what's your full configuration? RAM, Graphics Card and such all play into the stability and speed of your system.

Which OS? As in which version of Windows?

What's your media array?

What's your version of Media Composer?

Hard to really draw any conclusions from any of your posts as to why Avid is so bad without knowing exactly what you're working with.

I'm hearing both good and bad about Avid as we install and start testing for ourselves. ALL applications have strong and weak points.

Walter Biscardi, Jr.
Editor, Colorist, Director, Writer, Consultant, Author, Chef.
HD Post and Production
Biscardi Creative Media

Blog Twitter Facebook
Re: Blog: Apple "X" FAQs, confirmation our move away is the right one
by TImothy Auld
Walter,

I'm the first to admit I haven't been active enough on these forums to have solved anyone's problems. I do often benefit though from the information and advice that you (and many others) provide here. For example: the advice you offered to Mr. Spirou this morning. Concise, to the point, and - if followed -beneficial to everyone who makes use of this resource.

bigpine
Re: Blog: Apple "X" FAQs, confirmation our move away is the right one
by Joe Moya
"... i work all day with Avid composer and Premmiere CS5...they suck"

hmmmm....that was helpful...

I disagree and don't even understand what you are talking about... all editing applications have some negatives...but, PPro CS5(only) and AVID both are good editing applications.
+2


Professional Video Editor, Producer, Creative Director, Director since 1990.

Credits include multiple Emmys, Tellys, Aurora and CableAce Awards.

Creative Director for Georgia-Pacific and GP Studios, Atlanta. Former Owner / Operator of Biscardi Creative Media. The show you knew us best for was "Good Eats" on the Food Network. I developed the HD Post workflow and we also created all the animations for the series.

Favorite pastime is cooking with pizza on the grill one of my specialties. Each Christmas Eve we serve the Feast of the Seven Fishes, a traditional Italian seafood meal with approx. 30 items on the menu.

If I wasn't in video production I would either own a restaurant or a movie theater.

 




Archives:

July 2018 (1)
July 2017 (1)
November 2016 (1)
May 2016 (1)
April 2016 (3)
April 2015 (1)
March 2015 (2)
February 2015 (1)
January 2015 (1)
July 2014 (2)
December 2013 (5)
November 2013 (1)
October 2013 (3)
September 2013 (4)
August 2013 (9)
July 2013 (1)
May 2013 (2)
April 2013 (3)
March 2013 (2)
January 2013 (1)
December 2012 (1)
August 2012 (1)
July 2012 (3)
June 2012 (1)
April 2012 (4)
March 2012 (5)
February 2012 (1)
December 2011 (2)
October 2011 (1)
September 2011 (3)
August 2011 (3)
July 2011 (3)
June 2011 (10)
May 2011 (2)
April 2011 (2)
March 2011 (5)
February 2011 (3)
January 2011 (2)
December 2010 (1)
November 2010 (1)
October 2010 (1)


Tags:

Southeast Creative Summit (13)
Post Production (13)
Adobe Premiere Pro (11)
Final Cut Pro (10)
Training (5)
Apple (5)
Editing (5)
Avid (4)
Production (4)
Adobe (3)
Dell (3)
video editing (3)
Production Planning (3)
NAB (2)
Color Enhancement (2)
Color Grade (2)
4k (2)
(2)
Business (2)
Monitors (2)
AJA Kona (2)
Davinci Resolve (2)
final cut pro (2)
show more
© 2019 CreativeCOW.net All Rights Reserved
[TOP]