Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Log in
  • Hey all, just changed over the backend after 15 years I figured time to give it a bit of an update, its probably gonna be a bit weird for most of you and i am sure there is a few bugs to work out but it should kinda work the same as before... hopefully :)

Apple push to win back pro editors

Mike Garrick said:
Avid still not resolution independent !
Click to expand...

What do you mean by this exactly? You can mix frame rates in sequence. But yes, you can't mix 720p or 1080. It asks you to pick your resolution and then converts everything to that master deliverable.

I used to work at a major cable network that used resolution independent FCP. They would mix 1080p, 720, 1080i, SD, and web formats...all in one sequence. For 2-3 min network sizzles. As the weeks progressed, the project got slower and slower, renders piled up, as the edit got more and more complicated. By the end of the sizzle, a month in, the machine could barely playdown the sequence. And when they had to finally lay to tape? The project had to render everything one last time...and took almost an entire day session todo so.

At the network I currently work, they tore out all the FCP rooms out because the resolution independence caused too many renders before layoff to tape. FCP is only used for web work right now, where it legitimately is very fast as long as all the files are one resolution and all the QTS are pro res.
 
You bring up a good point Nick...

Almost everything i do is for the computer world... it will never see the light of day in broadcasting, much less... the cinema...

that's one of the things that kills me about FCP X now.... I used to make videos at odd resolutions to fit into our researchers keynotes/powerpoints.... Final Cut used to allow me, the editor, to denote what resolution i wanted my project be... we had total control of the output... ntsc, pal, square pixels... etc...

now... as far as i've been able to tell... that option is gone with the wind... i HAVE to stick to apple's pre determined resolutions if i want to use FCP X.... that is actually how i started working in 5k.... it was a wider palette that i could produce an odd shaped video in... then use quicktime 7 and photoshop to create an alpha channel mask.. then bam... i have my custom video size again... but... it's a pain..

we have premiere... but... i'm so busy at work, that i have to make due with FCPx for now... until i can have a little breathing time to dive into premiere... i've been on Final cut since os 9.. so... it's what i know...

My office mate (after effects guru) calls fcp x... Final Cut Go Pro edition... it's kind of funny... because... that market is who they seemed to be aiming for...
 
Avid to play nice needs transcoding....you can argue that point with the others but they will play a variety of sources straight into the timeline. The results you describe with the cable network sounds like someone should've troubled shooted the project & solved the issue before that happened.
 
william howell said:
i'm not sure about everyone else... but the real time scrubbing through clips in the event browser was a game changer for me... literally... you can scrub through an entire clip instantly with the swipe of your mouse...... set your in and out points relatively close to where they need to be...... and do what you want with the clip.... it's pretty amazing if you haven't used it.

also... the project browser... by showing a row of still images in each timeline... i can visually figure out which project i want to open up in milliseconds... we have multiple edit versions of each project... they add up... and being able to quickly scan through the list and isolate the one i need to open... it's a lifesaver when deadlines pop up.... an everyday occurrence since everyone here realized that the research world is funded by people that watch our videos... :-/

to me... when i first started attending editing classes at conferences (nab... macworld)... i heard quite a few instructors imply that if you want to be a "real" editor, you shouldn't use your mouse to do anything in the interface... you should use your key commands...

i always thought that was a uncompromising viewpoint... the kids of today will be the editors of tomorrow... by the time my daughter reaches a "professional" age... chances are, computers won't have keyboards... she'll have grown up in a touch screen world... but... just because Final Cut XXII won't support mouse gestures doesn't mean that i should write it off as an inferior tool.

i started on media 101 in os 9... so.. i too was bummed that final cut changed so dramatically... but... i got used to it.... and now... to me, the interface is a MUCH better design for an editor... that being said... i do hate the magnetic timeline... i still don't understand the rules by which it operates... sometimes it's almost as if it's casting a magic spell on your clips... and they just won't do what you want them to... until you sacrifice a small animal... with a spoon... then.. usually... that appeases the apple editing gods long enough to get the job done.
Click to expand...

OK thanks William, interesting perspective. I've shifted from FCP6 to CS6, I have used FCPX but just didn't like how it felt, will give it another go some time.
 
Mike Garrick said:
Avid to play nice needs transcoding....
Click to expand...

That's called using the Avid. It's not designed to work at optimal efficiency when you AMA (link directly to files).

Instead you TRANSCODE everything in...ONCE...and then it's incredibly stable and has few renders.

It's also about knowing the machine, and using it to it's strengths.

If you need to link to files immediately, Premiere is better. And FCP was too. Don't know about FCX.

But the whole POINT about the TRANSCODING is...once it's in...everything is conformed and you are ready to rock.

Entire facilities are built around this. The reliability of the Avid workflow. It transcodes for a reason. You should really give it a second chance before you knock it
 
Mike Garrick said:
To tell the truth every NLE has its bugs.

Avid still not resolution independent ! Premier sluggish timeline and a colour corrector from hell & FCPX the magnetic timeline. Its upto the individual which particular package/poison meets their workflow the best.
Click to expand...

There is no such thing as resolution (or frame rate) independence. That is marketing hype. Bringing different frame rates and resolutions into the same timeline is a rookie mistake at best. Avid realizes this obvious fact.
 
Daniel Pearson said:
Out of curiosity, what about FCP X allows you to get more stuff done, faster and easier?
Click to expand...

One thing I've found to be extremely powerful is understanding how to use clip keywording to help me out. Basically I created a custom workflow where I can organize files in such a way that I know how to find things I will be looking for later on in seconds. For example if I'm doing a wedding short-film, i'll scrub through footage and keyword something such as "smile" when I have a good smile. At the moment where I need something like that I'll just type it up and boom, all my shots with that characteristic pops up, they don't even have to be full clips, you can keyword sections of clips. I know that if I ever want to do a reel, I just have to type reel and all my favorite shots will pop up.

Multicam edits are also extremely powerful, and working with R3Ds has been a breeze as of late. I can cut without a Rocket with less issues than Premiere right now.

I was someone who was extremely close to throwing his computer across the room when FCPX came out. I hated it, but I tried to fight through its weaknesses and find its advantages. I found many. It's far from perfect, but so is Premiere. They are both great tools, and though I wish I could just stick to one, I find it much more useful to see both as different tools where sometimes one will be better, and other times the other one will be the wiser choice.

All that to say... I hope we get a new Mac Pro soon.
 
Sergio Perez said:
Also a fan of transcoding. What made FCP 6,7 the game changers they were was the introduction of prores. Its one of the reasons I dont like premiere.
Click to expand...

This is a problem for me too. I often sit at the PC of my partner and edit, but when I want to export my movie I'm really at a loss to what to export to.
 
william howell said:
now... as far as i've been able to tell... that option is gone with the wind... i HAVE to stick to apple's pre determined resolutions if i want to use FCP X.... that is actually how i started working in 5k.... it was a wider palette that i could produce an odd shaped video in... then use quicktime 7 and photoshop to create an alpha channel mask.. then bam... i have my custom video size again... but... it's a pain...
Click to expand...

There is a workaround that Works perfectly. I Think it's An article on creative-cow called 'custom resolutions in FCPX'.

I still hope Apple just offers a custom option when you make a new project though.
 
They will never fix the damage they did with FCPX when it comes to feature or episodic TV editors.

Their hubris has gotten the better of them and with the 4 year old mac pro and the EOLing of anything that resembled a professional application Apple is now going to try and win professionals back with marketing hype? I thought pros were already happy and using it? Good luck with that.

The problem at this point goes way beyond FCPX and its ridiculously toyish interface. Its about trust and they burned that bridge, their actions speak louder than their marketing BS.

Ive never seen a so called professional software that needed to be pushed so hard on pros to convince them its professional...its comical.

Christopher*Seguine said:
More like 3 years late, and 3 editors short. The best 3 they could get for their big marketing push are a blogger, a soap opera editor, and a director who made a nice kungfu film in 1991? Steve must be rolling over in his grave.

Just after they pulled all the macpros from eu stores with no replacement.

This seems more appropriate:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/forbesl...5/ex-microsoft-coo-has-apple-lost-its-vision/
Click to expand...
 
Ces Peynetti said:
One thing I've found to be extremely powerful is understanding how to use clip keywording to help me out. Basically I created a custom workflow where I can organize files in such a way that I know how to find things I will be looking for later on in seconds. For example if I'm doing a wedding short-film, i'll scrub through footage and keyword something such as "smile" when I have a good smile. At the moment where I need something like that I'll just type it up and boom, all my shots with that characteristic pops up, they don't even have to be full clips, you can keyword sections of clips. I know that if I ever want to do a reel, I just have to type reel and all my favorite shots will pop up.
Click to expand...

OK that is pretty cool :thumbsup:
 
The trouble with transcoding is how much time it takes to work through everything shot into the accepted format. 10 to 1 shoot ratio means your actually transcoding 10 times as much as your really need.

Can't speak for FCPX because I don't use it ...yet ...or maybe never.

CS6 avoids the above issue thru use of Low rez-ing. Avid does have to render when ever you apply an effect or CC or whatever, this is on top of the transcoding. As I said before choose your poison. Whatever system you use you pay render tax be it CS6 or Avid & whatever system you edit with has ..............quirks. I guess for a lot of people FCPX still has more "quirks" then the other 2.
 
With Apples resources it would be the easiest thing in the world to produce the best editing software.

They only need to ask what we need/want and deliver....easy!

FCP X has enormous potential but it comes down to trust....after the FCP debacle, Apple has a LOT of pr work to do to regain my confidence.

Scott
 
Scott Brown said:
With Apples resources it would be the easiest thing in the world to produce the best editing software.

They only need to ask what we need/want and deliver....easy!
Click to expand...

All one has to do is read the Steve Jobs biography to understand the Apple culture of designing software.

He said that they do not ask people what they want, they design what APPLE thinks you should be using and then plop it down and you can either take it or leave it. There is no end user feedback loop like Adobe or Avid where the users actually tell the company what they'd like.
 
Easiest way to win back pros is release the tower everyone has been clamoring for. That's the "marketing campaign" that I want to see.

The longer they hold back on building a box for the future, the more their professional base of users will continue to erode. Totally mystifying why this has taken so long.

The longer they wait, the more people will switch to Hackintoshes or Windows. It's quite simple. I don't understand why Apple is being so blind to the obvious. Sitting on $100 billion in cash and they can't deliver the obvious but are spending the money instead on a marketing campaign.....

It's quite remarkable.
 
Matt Gottshalk said:
All one has to do is read the Steve Jobs biography to understand the Apple culture of designing software.

He said that they do not ask people what they want, they design what APPLE thinks you should be using and then plop it down and you can either take it or leave it. There is no end user feedback loop like Adobe or Avid where the users actually tell the company what they'd like.
Click to expand...

As you stated, Apple does not rely upon user feedback when developing new features, though there is a mechanism for giving Apple feedback and it is very easy to use. They don't acknowledge receiving any of it but I am certain they review it.
 
Sadly Steve isn't with us. I hope that they are more responsive to user feedback these days.
 
Meryem Ersoz said:
Easiest way to win back pros is release the tower everyone has been clamoring for. That's the "marketing campaign" that I want to see.

The longer they hold back on building a box for the future, the more their professional base of users will continue to erode. Totally mystifying why this has taken so long.
...

It's quite remarkable.
Click to expand...

What about it do you find mystifying and remarkable? You have to have the chips to build the machines, and they don't make their own.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top