Apple push to win back pro editors

[Terry VerHaar]

I didn't read the whole of this thread. But I was wondering what Walter Murch thinks of the Apple's plan for the new PowerMac or the FCPX. Any one has him on interview somewhere?

I saw Walter Murch speak in Palo Alto not too long after FCPX came out. He was not switching over to X for a very specific reason; he had invested a ton of time and money into developing a FileMaker database in which he would organize all of the metadata and media files for a project and then connect to FCP7 via XML. Since the new XML and the data structure underlying FCPX were completely different with X, any switch was DOA with him at that point. There were definitely things about X that he had reservations about, as I recall, but the FileMaker thing was the deal killer. Like Steve, it wouldn't surprise me at all if he would reconsider over time but we'll have to let him talk about that.

 

[David Battistella]

That talk is amazing.

I was ready to quit editing when I read "in the blink of an eye", and that opened up a whole new way forward for me. That book gave me permission to break most of the stupid rules that they first teach and you think you have to follow as a young editor (year one to eight).

I think he has been a fantastic voice in terms of articulating in writing what the craft of editing is. The Onedaatje book conversations is also a great book about editing.

David

 

[Scott Crawley]

That's great. But why couldn't Apple just add this amazing feature, instead of throwing out all of the old features and reinventing the whole thing. I love adding new tools to the tool box. Sometimes you still need a plain old hammer to get the job done.

Yes, simple scissors are still needed. But if you look at the problem of maintaining synch of select items in projects bloated with tracks and Apple's answer seems pretty elegant really. How else would you achieve similar functionality without screwing with the simple scissors? If you want 3-point editing, simple scissors go straight into the drawer.

BTW, you know it is entirely possible to turn the magnetic functions off, yes?

 

[Hrvoje Simic]

Flash forward twelve years or so and Apple releases a newer, easier and less expensive version of the software and these same people (Now the New Old Pros) are crying foul. It is too cheap they say. It is automated they say. It is iMovie they say. It doesn't contain the tools we true professionals need... and the hypocrisy goes on and on as the once faithful throw their beloved, now spurned lover under the bus chanting It's not Pro enough.

Option a)

Editors talking with experience are mistaken. Corporation knows best.

Option b)

...

 

[Hrvoje Simic]

You are too smart for me Hrvoje. You should hang up the editing cleats and become a writer.

David

Post 315, same one you quoted. Fifth row.

+

Page 23, post 227.

Consider the forum you are writing these statements on. Think about what RED is about and tell me that the discussion around here has not been mostly exactly those four statements.

David

Statements, phrases, etc. usually are defined by and depend on - the context.

Red Company did not replace the previous model of their camera with a one with dramatically reduced features and options, presenting it as a revolutionary new way of shooting.

 

[David Battistella]

You are still to smart for me.

I just can't figure it all out. I read it over Andover and its still confusing.

Peace,
david

 

[Craig W. Bickerstaff]

Statements, phrases, etc. usually are defined by and depend on - the context.

Red Company did not replace the previous model of their camera with a one with dramatically reduced features and options, presenting it as a revolutionary new way of shooting.

This is at best a flawed analogy, going from Red One to Red Epic is in no way the same thing as going from Final Cut Pro 7 to Final Cut Pro X.

 

[Hrvoje Simic]

I just can't figure it all out. I read it over Andover and its still confusing.

In good spirit - third time's a charm.

Stop/Rewind/Settings/Interpretation/LUT>Remove assumption LUT>Import LUT from:

What also does not help in discussion is perceiving mentioned drawbacks as a negative thing with a negative intent, or taking any criticism towards any tool personally.

It seems like redundant debates around FCPx usability are often between creative people with different requirements.
As in many similar cases.

Attempting to define and point out the requirements and principles completely ignored by the tool maker, to appeal to a wider customer base,
seems to cause hurt feelings and defensiveness with users perceiving their tool of choice being attacked or their line of creative work being undervalued.

In order to avoid running around in circles for the Nth time since FCPx introduction, some factors might be taken into consideration:

- oversimplification and generalization
- assumption that one product designed for and using principles from one market segment, can properly cater other market segments
- assumption that corporative entity with stockholders "cares" for the benefit of minute portion of its income providers, knows what's best and must be right
- accepting marketing & PR over experienced user base input, needlessly creating "opposing" sides
- assumption that every "easier" route = "better"
- label "pro" and confusion it tends to cause due to subjective parameters, leading to discrepancies in perception of a tool with obviously switched or "moved" or "expanded" target market

 

[Hrvoje Simic]

This is at best a flawed analogy, going from Red One to Red Epic is in no way the same thing as going from Final Cut Pro 7 to Final Cut Pro X.

Yes, prior is a major improvement, latter is a major demonstrable setback with additional improvements.

Which is why the post you quoted, commenting the drawn comparison.




The point of this discussion depends on whether the intent is to help developing a viable successor to a very good tool such as FCP7, or just push FCPx as is.

 

[Hendro Setyo Wibowo]

I was at the user group event in Boston when Murch spoke about FCP X. Keep in mind this was 2011. But you should watch the entire talk. As usual with Walter, it's very fascinating. I would not be surprised to hear he has revisited the current versions to explore the new features. He is always thinking forward so it makes sense he would stay up to date with progres being made. Whether that translates into use on actual projects, I am not aware of any as of yet.
http://www.fcp.co/final-cut-pro/new...-video-presentation-from-the-boston-supermeet

Cool thanks man gonna watch it. I think he's inspiring to watch and listen to.

 

[Craig W. Bickerstaff]

The point of this discussion depends on whether the intent is to help developing a viable successor to a very good tool such as FCP7, or just push FCPx as is.

Final Cut Pro X is the foundation of a new beginning, When the Red One came out it had very limited options but it got there, now we have Epic and Dragon is coming soon.
No one is saying Final Cut Pro X should be left as is, that there is no room for improvement or that it doesn't need additional features to make it more attractive to high end editors.

 

[David Battistella]

The point of this discussion depends on whether the intent is to help developing a viable successor to a very good tool such as FCP7, or just push FCPx as is.

You aren't calling me an fcp x fanboy, are you?

The old mule (fcp 7) is no longer being developed or supported, but it still works really well even in mountain lion.

Fcp X has a clear roadmap with 8 updates since its release, demonstrating clearly where the resources are going. It has many advantages over fcp 7 and the disadvantages/drawbacks disappear with each release.

It can be automatic or as manual as you want.

On this whole, quote unquote, "pro" thing.

There seems to be "pros" and then this set of "pros on a high horse".

The "high horse pros" sit in their chairs and bitch about features that are not there, feel like they have been left out, get mad at apple, demand features, want the software to be what they want etc.

I respect these people and their needs and FCP X was not for them when it was released, though we can see day by day people are incorporating this tool into production pipelines. Heck, rewind to early in my career and I probably as one of them.

Then there are a group evaluating and watching, and the group diving in.

Personally I like the rebellious nature of FCP X. I like that about RED too. I like that they cut things clean and are moving in a new direction.

There is a generation of people here who never had to contemplate taking out a second mortgage to buy an AVID system in order to edit. So I am grateful to apple for three hundred dollar feature rich editing software that was 80 percent there on its release.

Is it a pro tool with pro features?
I'm the pro not the fucking software.


David

 

[Hrvoje Simic]

Final Cut Pro X is the foundation of a new beginning, When the Red One came out it had very limited options but it got there, now we have Epic and Dragon is coming soon.
No one is saying Final Cut Pro X should be left as is, that there is no room for improvement or that it doesn't need additional features to make it more attractive to high end editors.

Fair enough. With that in mind it would be beneficial to point out the most important drawbacks while the house is still at the foundations.

The whole point of switching to digital realm from tape is harvesting the higher potential of footage manipulation.
The whole point of non-linear editing is in non linear organization, perception and manipulation of linear content.

This timeline and UI logic is a huge step back in both factors. This is Half-Linear-Editing.

Typical timeline is a practically unlimited working space. This is a tiny working space.

In a typical timeline every editor can move, arrange and combine footage, freely to his/hers own personal preference and methodology or any other factor which can emerge.
This timeline does not allow that amount of freedom.

In a typical timeline editor can compare, analyze, play with alternatives, freely, fluidly and intuitively, when and how ever he or she wants, as naturally as moving pictures on a real desk, just without physical limitations.
This way is physically constricted (within a virtually unlimited virtual space - fail #1), newly logically conditioned (within an alterable and optimizable realm - fail #2) and suffocated with redundant "rules" (where there weren't any - fail #3).

Compensating this from user's side brings redundant switch in focus and attention from the content, redundant waste of mental energy and redundant filling of visual memory. Doable, but far from most practical. It may work in some cases, it brings huge drawbacks in others.

Removing the ability to work freely and adding some external modules to compensate is a poor choice.
This approach is similar to putting an enclosed moving walkway to replace walking, jumping and running. On a flat open field.

Same applies to not allowing independent preview windows and multiple sequences. All this is a basis of non-linear approach to content, the most important benefit available in digital realm, and without these fundamentals no module or additional tool, made to fix the tool limitations, can replace those fundamentals properly. Attempting this is just a poor attempt of reinventing the wheel, poor utilization of programmers potential and in some ways as sensible as using a joystick for a robot which holds a brush and paints. Some may prefer that route, but that route unavoidably reduces the options and freedom to those with different priorities, compared to just grabbing a brush and painting.

 

[Scott Crawley]

If I understand what you are saying I think you (like most of us) would benefit by expanding your understanding of how it works.

The new timeline is not a "small space" it is a dynamic space that flexes with the project. I don't know what the limitations are to it's potential size. Through multiple means of associating media; links, metadata tags, new clip behaviors that are essentially auto-nesting sequences, and Roles, it is possible to reduce clutter and keep things in sync while being able to place them anywhere, while the rest of the media flows around the sequence and the timeline expands and contracts freely to accommodate the changes.

Consider David's desktop publishing analogy. Think of clips and sequences as text and picture boxes in a page layout program. The two item types auto-flow around each other as you move them. All we need to do is understand the parameters the software uses to define and control how they interact. Once we do that it is very freeing and powerful.

Apple definitely needs to make this more intuitive, make the controls more accessible (perhaps by moving them closer to the surface) and provide better training and documentation. All of these steps could make it easier for us to gain control of the thing. Until then our frustration levels will remain high during the transition and many will just not bother.

I have not fully hashed out the best organizational method for my timeline (Which bits to nest, and which to link or which to link within a nest etc.) so I still run into the problem of keeping track of bits and ensuring that everything is in fact moving together and staying in synch, but Roles are more useful than the old color coding labels, so I use color coding more often and to better effect. I have seen enough to realize that once I get my head around this structure, I will be in better shape in X than I was in 7.

It was probably my own fault, but I had very little success nesting sequences in 7. It just didn't work for me... clips got orphaned and media continually went offline, or copies of clips pointed to the wrong media etc. If that were different, my opinion might be a little different.

Auditions (Which I understand existed in other software for some time now) Offer more options for substituting, testing and comparing alternative cuts within the same timeline with just a couple of clicks, so I don't see how FCPX is less flexible than 7 in that regard.

Fair enough. With that in mind it would be beneficial to point out the most important drawbacks while the house is still at the foundations.

The whole point of switching to digital realm from tape is harvesting the higher potential of footage manipulation.
The whole point of non-linear editing is in non linear organization, perception and manipulation of linear content.

This timeline and UI logic is a huge step back in both factors. This is Half-Linear-Editing.

Typical timeline is a practically unlimited working space. This is a tiny working space.

In a typical timeline every editor can move, arrange and combine footage, freely to his/hers own personal preference and methodology or any other factor which can emerge.
This timeline does not allow that amount of freedom.

In a typical timeline editor can compare, analyze, play with alternatives, freely, fluidly and intuitively, when and how ever he or she wants, as naturally as moving pictures on a real desk, just without physical limitations.
This way is physically constricted (within a virtually unlimited virtual space - fail #1), newly logically conditioned (within an alterable and optimizable realm - fail #2) and suffocated with redundant "rules" (where there weren't any - fail #3).

Compensating this from user's side brings redundant switch in focus and attention from the content, redundant waste of mental energy and redundant filling of visual memory. Doable, but far from most practical. It may work in some cases, it brings huge drawbacks in others.

Removing the ability to work freely and adding some external modules to compensate is a poor choice.
This way is similar to putting an enclosed escalator to replace walking, jumping and running. On a flat open field.

Same applies to not allowing independent preview windows and multiple sequences. All this is a basis of non-linear approach to content, the most important benefit available in digital realm, and without these fundamentals no module or additional tool, made to fix the tool limitations, can replace those fundamentals properly. Attempting this is just a poor attempt of reinventing the wheel, poor utilization of programmers potential and in some ways as sensible as using a joystick for a robot which holds a brush and paints. Some may prefer that route, but that route unavoidably reduces the options and freedom to those with different priorities, compared to just grabbing a brush and painting.

 

[Hrvoje Simic]

you aren't calling me an fcp x fanboy, are you?

Three attempts of reducing negativity should be sufficient to avoid assumptions like these.

Tye old mule (fcp 7) is no longer being developed or supported, but it still works really well even in mountain lion.

Pretty sad naming for such a great tool. Especially since it currently offers much more editing potential than its replacement attempt.

Fcp x has a clear roadmap with 8 updates since its release, demonstrating clearly where the resources are going. It has many advantages over fcp 7 and the disadvantage disappear with each release.

It is obvious that any tool evolves over time. Pointing out the drawbacks and reasons it was not accepted as planned should help the disadvantages disappear faster.

On this whole, quote unquote, pro thing.

There seems to be "pros" and then this set of pros on a high horse.

The high horse pros sit in their chairs and bitch about feature that are not there, feel like they have been left out, get mad at apple, demand features etc.

i respect these people and their needs and fcp x was not for them when it was released. Heck, rewind to early in my career and I probably as one of them.

Then there are a group evaluating and watching and the group diving in.

Usually the objectivity of perception rises when combining multiple standpoints.

Apart from ways of verbalizing which some tend to disregard, the feedback from users with different or more demanding requirements is as important if not more important, since those users can see and anticipate the things some users cannot, simply because they haven't been in a situation which reveals them, and since the new tool should replace the one they are using. In that context, criticism is logical.

In that context (not the ego led or ego perceived one) feedback of those with more experience and more requirements should not be disregarded over those with less experience or less requirements,
that is unless one wants to lead to a professional video editing tool attempting to cater all needs with only the most "popular" features, three buttons and 99% automations.

Also, "demanding" features properly put is pretty logical as well. If one had these features before and is supposed to pay for a replacement tool.
If the tool maker is to keep those users, the requirements will have to be met. Simple as that.

Is it a pro tool with pro features?
I'm the pro not the fucking software.

David

"Pro" label often seems to bring redundant conflicts due to interpretation of the term. Practically any tool usable for a profession can be seen as a "pro" tool. "Pro" features perception pretty much depends on which professional is naming or perceiving those features. To reduce running in circles due to this terminology, it might help simply considering levels of optimization for a particular purpose and set of requirements. Of any respected "pro" or a creative person.

Putting everything in one bucket rarely makes a quality meal.

 

[David Battistella]

Im getting out of this thread and going to the dentist.




David

 

[Scott Crawley]

If links:clips were more like noodles:nodes the whole thing could blow open. If we could modify links with right clicks and make multiple connections from the same place, or quickly from a specific location like the play head and/or a mouse pointer with frame accurate locator info attached to the pointer and displayed in the viewer, I think people might warm to it faster. I would certainly find that more useful.

 

[Hrvoje Simic]

If I understand what you are saying I think you (like most of us) would benefit by expanding your understanding of how it works.

The new timeline is not a "small space" it is a dynamic space that flexes with the project. I don't know what the limitations are to it's potential size. Through multiple means of associating media; links, metadata tags, new clip behaviors that are essentially auto-nesting sequences, and Roles, it is possible to reduce clutter and keep things in sync while being able to place them anywhere, while the rest of the media flows around the sequence and the timeline expands and contracts freely to accommodate the changes.

The problem is not in the "potential size". "Dynamic" size and one major track are too limiting and more issues are brought in than benefits. Freedom of putting clips anywhere in any situation, without any limitations brings many benefits in the style and approach and speed of editing. Allows more practical visual arranging, and ability to throw clips around to consider, compare, and re-decide. Using the natural and intuitive approach as working on a real desk without physical limitations. Without having to care about any specific rules except which clip is over which and what is their temporal location. The info which takes less space in the mind databank and doesn't require additional processing unlike all the tags and algorithms.
This timeline concept is based on a premise that a timeline is useful only for an edited sequence, a premise which is false.

Reducing clutter in this case removes the very important visual reference to an editor, which in prior case is subliminally baked in as a map and in this case has to be processed each time when specific changes are required. Which requires redundant filling of visual memory and adds another mental process without any major benefit. Adapting to the "clutter" expands the navigation abilities, which helps the editor. Adapting to the algorithms brings less benefits to an editor. Tons of metadata are redundant with proper preparation prior to edit and proper organization on a normal timeline. This approach begs more time and focus spent on metadata just so it would be easier to organize everything on a obscure timeline and limited UI.

Plus this whole concept of minimizing the timeline in this way leaves a bunch of space on the UI unused. Which in some cases affects the productivity.
Minimizing the clutter idea - good, utilization - not. Most productive way would be a combination of this feature and an open customizable timeline, not by greatly reducing the non-linearity.

Consider David's desktop publishing analogy. Think of clips and sequences as text and picture boxes in a page layout program. The two item types auto-flow around each other as you move them. All we need to do is understand the parameters the software uses to define and control how they interact. Once we do that it is very freeing and powerful.

As long as one is additionally processing the software parameters it is not freeing, and those same software parameters bring their own limitations.
Parameters can be understood and adapted to, but piling up additional parameters when there is no need just over-complicates the very fluid process, moving focus from the content to the tool.

Apple definitely needs to make this more intuitive, make the controls more accessible (perhaps by moving them closer to the surface) and provide better training and documentation. All of these steps could make it easier for us to gain control of the thing. Until then our frustration levels will remain high during the transition and many will just not bother.

I have not fully hashed out the best organizational method for my timeline (Which bits to nest, and which to link or which to link within a nest etc.) so I still run into the problem of keeping track of bits and ensuring that everything is in fact moving together and staying in synch, but Roles are more useful than the old color coding labels, so I use color coding more often and to better effect. I have seen enough to realize that once I get my head around this structure, I will be in better shape in X than I was in 7.

Roles are clever thinking with a lot of potential. The most beneficial and most powerful route would be having the normal, customizable timeline with this feature.

The example of an issue of "keeping track of bits and ensuring that everything is in fact moving together and staying in synch" is because someone else is doing it and the brain doesn't have the action/reaction feedback and own mental reference which it would have if the move was manual, so it needs to re-check what is going on to build awareness. That is just one example of the redundant mental processes mentioned. That is the price of an automation. Thinking about and checking the automation. It may help with few clips and with a simple edit and context, but when factors multiply, this turns into a little annoying dog running around one's feet seeking attention.

It was probably my own fault, but I had very little success nesting sequences in 7. It just didn't work for me... clips got orphaned and media continually went offline, or copies of clips pointed to the wrong media etc. If that were different, my opinion might be a little different.

That's because nesting in FCP7 was rubbish.
The most beneficial route would be ability to make a compound clip from a group of clips, on a normal and free timeline, with ability to treat that compound clip as one - regarding any settings, transforms or effects.

Auditions (Which I understand existed in other software for some time now) Offer more options for substituting, testing and comparing alternative cuts within the same timeline with just a couple of clicks, so I don't see how FCPX is less flexible than 7 in that regard.

Again - the idea is good, the implementation is not because the concept inherits the limitation of a timeline.

 

[Terry VerHaar]

Can't we just let this sad thread die? It has already suffered long enough.

 

[Christoffer Glans]

Final Cut Pro X is the foundation of a new beginning, When the Red One came out it had very limited options but it got there, now we have Epic and Dragon is coming soon.
No one is saying Final Cut Pro X should be left as is, that there is no room for improvement or that it doesn't need additional features to make it more attractive to high end editors.

That has been said since it was even released. The truth of the matter is that while Red One was filled with errors back in the early days, the potential was already there, you got 4K and amazing images. It didn't hold you back, the errors didn't hold you back, FCPX does. As a professional editor it's truly just unworkable for me and it has been like that since it's release.

All these talk about it getting better is just crap, really. No plugins, features or whatever is going to change the fact that the editing experience is changed and the workflow is so different that you as a professional don't really have the control you want.
When I sit down with Avid or Premiere I'm in full control over my work.

Then there's the fact that all those features that Appleheads screamed will come next week (when it was released) has yet to come. Some have, but not enough. Just give it a rest and get into Premiere or something else, there are better softwares for professional editors and I cannot see how a professional editor would "wait" for FCPX to get better. It's not just for yourself, it's also for other people in your workflow. I don't know how many times I have to clean up a mess made by someone who brands himself as a professional editor, screwing up an entire project just because he only has limited experience with FCP7 or FCPX and nothing else.

This is like the whole thing about DIT's. People think a DIT is someone who manage the files on location. No, a DIT is a high end digital imagery person, someone with colorist experience, filetype-experience and who has knowledge about just any camera type and workflow. That person is the assistant that any questions about the digital workflow is to be brought up with. And that person is responsible for the quality control of everything shot.
I don't know how many times I've been on location and there's some intern working as a DIT.

The lack of knowledge among key personal during production and post production is stunning today. Just because things are cheap and anybody could make a movie with a digital camera doesn't mean that anybody knows shit.