After a year of bitching about it, Ive moved to the dark side.

[Scott Crawley]

In spirit I agree Terry, but there is really nothing to loose by enabling FCPX to parse these files. It is like learning another language. How can that hurt?

I think it can only help.

This whole discussion underlines one major point for me; I sincerely hope Apple resists the urge to reach backwards and add some of these older "pro" features that are being spoken of. If that happens, the light of a new path simply goes out and we fall back into a mode of slogging forward in a (barely) evolutionary fashion with no hope for real paradigm changes in the workflow. I am quite appreciative that Apple has the courage (and, more importantly, the financial wherewithal) to define another path.

 

[MichaelP]

I agree - I don't see how one is tied to the other. How one exchanges metadata and what one does with that metadata are two different things. Plenty of innovation in the latter, and probably in the former.


Michael

 

[Scott Crawley]

Let me add to the comments regarding third-party utilities and FCP X. I use a lot of them and I understand why and what Apple is doing. Some of these are quite good. The downside is that Apple doesn't "own" the process and is under no obligation to make it work.

What they do instead is allow other parties to develop it, then absorb it if it I's done well. It allows them to focus their efforts on things that they do particularly well and sometimes speeds development along. It is like having a development team of virtually limitless size. Better still, when portions of that team fail to produce up to standards they have not lost the time and resources they would have if those people were on the payroll. Does that make sense?

 

[Oliver Peters]

What they do instead is allow other parties to develop it, then absorb it if it I's done well. ...

Sure, it makes a lot of sense, but I'm not sure that's the current philosophy in ProApps. I sense that the internal direction has changed from FCP7 to FCPX. I don't believe Apple wants it to be the end-all-be-all uber-application anymore. That was clearly the direction in the "legacy" FC Studio days. I think it simply got too complex for their taste. I believe their current philosophy is more of a "platform" solution. Create the hooks through FCP XML and various SDKs and leave the rest to those needing speciality methods.

The in-house versus out-of-house approaches each can be good or bad. With X, Apple doesn't take ownership, but independent developers can give a tool 100% of their work. With Avid, Autodesk, etc. you may have an internal module that simply languishes without the "developer love" it really needs. Symphony color correction is but one prime example.

- Oliver

 

[Peter Moretti]

That, and an attempt at explaining what is necessary in that particular market. None of this is about what "I" do or what "Sam" does. It's about what is demanded by a client base, and how things are done in the part of the industry some of us work in. These choices are not personal. They are dictated by client needs, studio requirements, and post expectations going through an entire process. THEY are the ones who make the choices, including the choice of editing software. If anything, I hope I've gotten across that I would like to see Apple open up a bit to standard input formats because it could save quite a bit of manual work in situations where the metadata has already been harvested and collected as part of an earlier process. I also feel that FCPX offers a very nice alternative to "traditional" editing programs, and might find wider use in the market I'm talking about if they didn't insist on locking out the use of standard metadata interchange formats, particularly ALE. I get the impression that some here understand that point, and others, well..........

And I haven't even mentioned sound......... :001_unsure:

Mike, may I ask do you see Lightworks or Edius gaining any traction?

 

[Terry VerHaar]

On the issue of third parties, I see tremendous potential in the plug-in environment. Some of the ones that are already out there are pretty impressive. I am just getting into things like Red Giant Looks. While I am sure there are purists who say they rather start creating a look from scratch, there is certainly something to be said by having an advanced starting point. I see it as having an ultra-sophisticated automatic transmission vs. the "complete control" of a traditional standard shift. One may give a sense of more control but the other just plain shifts faster.

 

[M Most]

Mike, may I ask do you see Lightworks or Edius gaining any traction?

Honestly, no.

 

[David Battistella]

I felt if lightworks on a MAC had come out prior too or right when FCP X was released then perhaps it may have maybe started to do something, but there are a small committed group of editors who swear by this software.

I can't see how it can gain any market share now.


david

 

[chad vachter]

Hiya Marc , which tutorials did you use to get learned ?
Thanks much . I respect what i have seen of your work, you have helped me decide to give it a go !
If anyone else knows great fcpx tutorials , please let me know
thanks very much

 

[Scott Crawley]

See post #46

Hiya Marc , which tutorials did you use to get learned ?
Thanks much . I respect what i have seen of your work, you have helped me decide to give it a go !
If anyone else knows great fcpx tutorials , please let me know
thanks very much

 

[Steve Sherrick]

Working in some of the same circles as Mike Most, TV series and Hollywood feature market, everything he is stating in this thread is spot on. ALE and CDL are standard and I utilize them all the time. But when I switch to my own productions, things I have more control over, I can dictate some of the rules based on client needs and what I have at my disposal for tools. It's why I'm looking at FCPX as another tool to get certain jobs done in the future.

Knowing how all of this works, including ALE and CDL is probably a good idea because at some point you may have to deal with it, even if your current workflows don't demand it. Just like learning FCPX is a good idea even if your current workflow doesn't demand it.

 

[Joel Devereux]

I liked to muck about with it when it first came out for certain things, and thought I would eventually move into it. But after time, I found myself moving back into FCP7, I just found the freedom with it allowed me to do what I want.

I just finished my first feature film, and before I started on principal, I resigned to the fact I will have to switch to PPro and say goodbye to FCP7. After a few weeks swearing and being annoyed at Premiere (well put as Final Cut Pro 7 poor cousin)... I was stuck like everyone else. That was until someone told me that things had advanced with software like RedCine. Two of my colleagues told me that they are still using FCP7, they use Pro Res Proxies and edit with that, then when finished with your scene or sequence, send it back to Redcine to reconnect R3D. This system to me seems alot more time saving, considering there really is no point in editing sequences in 4k/5k just yet (quote me if I am wrong). So I have decided to stick with FCP7 until it gets to a point where I cannot continue with it any further. Which is sad, cause I look at it and know people would love to continue with it cause they love it, but have no choice but to move to another type of NLE.

For me but, FCPX has been good for the media sydnication and online videos that I am involved with. Mainly because all my graphics and lower thirds are made in Motion 5, and it's very easy for my media peeps to move back and forth with this workflow compared to FCP 7.