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

[Scott Crawley]

"Pass it through" how? Baked in is not what I'm after here. A very common way of working is to pass the values to Avid in an ALE. That puts it into Avid's database. You can then generate an EDL with the values in a standard format (as a comment line called either ASCCDL or ASCSAT, depending on whether it's the offset, power, and slope values or the saturation values) that can be imported and applied by just about any color correction system based on the tape or reel name and time code. Not everyone uses Resolve, despite what Redusers seem to think. But even if they do, I don't know of any current metadata tags in the FCPX XML that would carry that information. That's not to say there couldn't be, but I don't know how you would get it into FCPX in the first place. Hence why I asked the question.

I understood, for the most part what you were asking and I am still looking for the answer. I edited my prior post to include a link to the FCPX XML white paper that shows support for CDL, but it doesn't specifically address the import side of the equation so far as I have read. I expect that would depend upon how files were prepped on set, and whether or not they can give fcpxml 1.1 or later to editorial. Again, it appears to have been included for the very reason you ask.

I know that Resolve isn't the only game in town but it is the one I am familiar with and it is the only one that I know of currently that supports FCPX fully. I am not working in a post house and respect your depth of knowledge, but I would appreciate it if you could refrain from condescension. The Resolve suggestions were only two possible methods, made in attempt to answer the question 'how can this be done?'. If the preferred color correction software does not support fcpxml then that would of course need to be taken into consideration and might preclude the use of FCPX.

As an afterthought and possible workaround; if you didn't wish to grade in Resolve it might still be possible to use it as a middle man, translating for FCPX and the color platform of choice. No?

 

[Oliver Peters]

It works as long as no original proxies were generated within FCPX to begin with.

OK. Thanks. That explains the differences we were experiencing. In my use of X, I find that there are a lot of hidden, "under the hood" processes that can trip one up. As always, test and test again ;-)

Oliver

 

[Carey Lee Coffey]

It took me a year of using FCP X to fully shake FCP 7, but after mastering FCP X, every other NLE, including FCP 7, feels primitive in comparison. As I've said from the beginning, it's a brilliant NLE if you're willing to take the time to unlearn and re-learn.

 

[M Most]

I expect that would depend upon how files were prepped on set, and whether or not they can give fcpxml 1.1 or later to editorial.

There are already standard formats in place for this sort of thing. CDL's are usually delivered from on set color devices (Pomfort Livegrade and LinkColor are popular for this) as either .cdl or .ccc files (the ccc format contains multiple cdl's). These are then interpreted by a dailies creation program (Colorfront, MTI, ScratchLab, and NextLab are common choices) that takes those files, the camera files, and the sound files and creates multiple deliverables for editorial, digital streaming, and whatever else is required. The Avid files are delivered with either bins or at the very least an ALE that has those CDL numbers already embedded. From that point on it's pretty automatic. I would say that it is more incumbent on Apple to allow FCPX to read an ALE file than it is for every other vendor out there to read and write an FCPX XML if they want to see more use in the higher end circles.

As an afterthought and possible workaround; if you didn't wish to grade in Resolve it might still be possible to use it as a middle man, translating for FCPX and the color platform of choice. No?

I think one of the problems here is that you're looking at this from more of a one man band scenario, while I look at it from the point of view of that part of the industry that doesn't work that way. All of these steps are about a combination of efficiency, flexibility, and standardized ways of doing things that can work across multiple vendors, multiple camera formats, and multiple clients with different requirements. In my world, you don't design things for one vendor of any of those types, which quite frankly is a major reason why there's always been so much opposition to Red's insistence on using a proprietary card to decode their files efficiently. Resolve is a very good color grading program. It is not a particularly good or efficient dailies system, at least not at this point. That's not to say that it isn't used for that by some - it is - but in almost all cases, purpose designed things like Colorfront and MTI are far more efficient for that purpose, regardless of what you're shooting. The fact is that FCPX is designed to be used with original files, which is fine if you're doing one project, especially if that project is a shortform piece like a commercial. But if you're cutting a television series, you're not only limiting performance, you've now gone from requiring less than 500GB per episode of storage (using DNx36, figuring about 60GB a day, which is on the mid-to-high side for a typical TV series) to somewhere between 3 and 4 Terabytes per episode. That becomes both a cost issue and operational complication that most shows do not want to even think about dealing with. There's a lot more to editorial choices than just the programs particular editorial features.

 

[Oliver Peters]

It took me a year of using FCP X to fully shake FCP 7, but after mastering FCP X, every other NLE, including FCP 7, feels primitive in comparison. As I've said from the beginning, it's a brilliant NLE if you're willing to take the time to unlearn and re-learn.

I'm giving it a shake on this feature film. I've done quite a few large projects with it (mainly commercials) in the last two years. That being said, I'm in the same camp as Mike and Michael. It's ideal for certain projects if the participants are willing to buy into a different workflow. Nevertheless, I would be very reluctant to extrapolate the experience to the kinds of projects at which Media Composer and even FCP 7 (to some extent) excel at. It's just simply too immature and requires too many bolt-ons at this point.

For me, it's myself and an assistant, so I can control all aspects of the post production process. That's completely different if you are on a show like "Survivor" or a studio blockbuster film. If you look at the complexity of the timelines that an editor like Murch routinely builds on a film (and he is not an exception), you simply can't get there in X without the whole thing grinding to a halt. The fact that I can't even transcode less than 100 RED clips within the application without a Force Quit - or the fact that I only have a single field (Notes) for descriptive entries in the Event Browser - speaks volumes to me.

I'm willing to deal with it on this film, as - a) an experiment/proof-of-concept, and b) the editorial "plusses" (I hope) X brings to this. But, all things being equal, I would have gone Premiere Pro CC if the subscription model didn't make it a non-starter in time for this production to commence.

- Oliver

 

[Scott Crawley]

That has to be the single most comprehensive and succinct accounts of how and where FCP can and needs to improve. I am loving this discussion because it has finally gone beyond mere rhetoric and nay saying. Thank you.

I have always acknowledged that FCPX isn't quite ready to fit in this most demanding scenario but I think we can see that it is getting closer and is getting to where it can function in other professional settings.

There are already standard formats in place for this sort of thing. CDL's are usually delivered from on set color devices (Pomfort Livegrade and LinkColor are popular for this) as either .cdl or .ccc files (the ccc format contains multiple cdl's). These are then interpreted by a dailies creation program (Colorfront, MTI, ScratchLab, and NextLab are common choices) that takes those files, the camera files, and the sound files and creates multiple deliverables for editorial, digital streaming, and whatever else is required. The Avid files are delivered with either bins or at the very least an ALE that has those CDL numbers already embedded. From that point on it's pretty automatic. I would say that it is more incumbent on Apple to allow FCPX to read an ALE file than it is for every other vendor out there to read and write an FCPX XML if they want to see more use in the higher end circles.



I think one of the problems here is that you're looking at this from more of a one man band scenario, while I look at it from the point of view of that part of the industry that doesn't work that way. All of these steps are about a combination of efficiency, flexibility, and standardized ways of doing things that can work across multiple vendors, multiple camera formats, and multiple clients with different requirements. In my world, you don't design things for one vendor of any of those types, which quite frankly is a major reason why there's always been so much opposition to Red's insistence on using a proprietary card to decode their files efficiently. Resolve is a very good color grading program. It is not a particularly good or efficient dailies system, at least not at this point. That's not to say that it isn't used for that by some - it is - but in almost all cases, purpose designed things like Colorfront and MTI are far more efficient for that purpose, regardless of what you're shooting. The fact is that FCPX is designed to be used with original files, which is fine if you're doing one project, especially if that project is a shortform piece like a commercial. But if you're cutting a television series, you're not only limiting performance, you've now gone from requiring less than 500GB per episode of storage (using DNx36, figuring about 60GB a day, which is on the mid-to-high side for a typical TV series) to somewhere between 3 and 4 Terabytes per episode. That becomes both a cost issue and operational complication that most shows do not want to even think about dealing with. There's a lot more to editorial choices than just the programs particular editorial features.

 

[Frederick Giles]

Reply to Oliver:

You can can add fields in the event browser, and the info panel seems to have an almost infinite number of custom fields. And I have never had to force quite from a transcode of RED clips, I have had 300+ clips to transcode that I just left overnight without issues. Also, the timelines can be extremely complex, works fine in proxy setting.

 

[David Battistella]

Scott,

I agree. I do not think that Apple wants to ignore the professional market and I think that the new Mac Pro proves that they are again looking forward in hardware design, along with their tight integration with their own software products.

One thing not being discussed is where the craft of editing is going. The number of people who are engaging in editing is expanding a very rapid pace. There are many more people that have a handle on editing since the web explosion in 1995. More people take excellent photographs, make music, and own digital camcorders, etc as well.

Editing is late to this game because frankly, it's a lot (or has been) much harder because it is a highly skilled craft requiring mountains of patience. Looking at this from the apple perspective, i think they knew that this is trending so they created a tool that has great depth, but uses more universal computing concepts (searching, organizing with keywords) in their new forward thinking approach to editing (my opinion) and joining images together. At the same time editing is a highly creative right brained task (the part we like and enjoy) it is also very left brained (edl's, list management, organizational things, etc) sometimes the part we don't like too much.

So rather than edl, XML, omf, ale, lut, etc, I think they are trying to get to the universal concept of fcp x XML which might take more of the left brained stuff out of the whole process.

So the software as it is, is easy to learn for someone who never edited, but harder for those of us who came up in a left brained NLE world (evn though it was less left brained than tape). But, new software should be deep (which I think FCP X is) but very easy to learn (if you haven't had avid and fcp x drilled through your skull for you whole career) for anyone coming to it for the first time.

The whole worldwide concept of editing is changing, in three years it will be an even more dramatic shift. This is why I tend to embrace this software on a philosophical level. I can appreciate it from this point of view.

Have I had my moments with it? yes. As we all had with RED in the early days, but we end up discovering its a fundamentally sound idea with sound concepts.

Editing and post does not have to be hard, but there is a group that want it to be, mostly because they want to be the ones who hold onto that knowledge, but retaining knowledge is dangerous. There is a huge tidal wave is coming in post production and I beleive that things will not stay this way for a much longer.

Ahem....steps off soap box.

David

 

[Oliver Peters]

You can can add fields in the event browser...

Where? You can edit metadata fields for the info pane of the inspector and create additional custom fields. I don't see any place to add new, custom COLUMNS in the Event Browser (not the inspector). Right now, I'm using the camera angle column as a place to mark circle takes from the production notes.

And I have never had to force quite from a transcode of RED clips, I have had 300+ clips to transcode that I just left overnight without issues. Also, the timelines can be extremely complex, works fine in proxy setting.

Some people are just lucky ;-) There is actually another thread that mentions this same issue that Bob linked to earlier within this same thread. So, it's not an unusual issue. FCP X has had a very serious issue with memory leaks since the beginning and that manifests itself in different ways with different projects.

- Oliver

 

[Terry VerHaar]

I totally respect that many folks here work in a structure that doesn't accommodate FCP-X very well. Personally, I feel sorry for them because it causes them to miss out on some cool future potential. That said, I am not that much of a fan of Apple working backwards to accommodate "legacy" capabilities because then the paradigm will never shift and the industry will be stuck in the past. As more workflows have incentive to evolve past "old" paradigms like EDLs, the capabilities inherent in FCP-X will be appreciated and embraced.

 

[Scott Crawley]

We can hope for that, because that would suit Apple's MO. That is how they lead and create change, and I feel we, their users, are generally all the better for it.

As David mentioned Apple solutions take the left brain tech shit out of our daily lives and allow us to concentrate on the creative tasks at hand. This is exactly why a whole lot of creatives (I try to be one) and non-techs alike love Apple products. They take the focus off of the tech and put it back into the work. That is one of the primary hallmarks of good design.

I expect Mr. Most would be among the first to point out that good design also works well where it is intended to work, and that thought causes me to grin really big because really great design manages to do both... Apple has had it's share of those. =-)

I totally respect that many folks here work in a structure that doesn't accommodate FCP-X very well. Personally, I feel sorry for them because it causes them to miss out on some cool future potential. That said, I am not that much of a fan of Apple working backwards to accommodate "legacy" capabilities because then the paradigm will never shift and the industry will be stuck in the past. As more workflows have incentive to evolve past "old" paradigms like EDLs, the capabilities inherent in FCP-X will be appreciated and embraced.

 

[Robert Ruffo New]

Scott,

I agree. I do not think that Apple wants to ignore the professional market and I think that the new Mac Pro proves that they are again looking forward in hardware design, along with their tight integration with their own software products.

One thing not being discussed is where the craft of editing is going. The number of people who are engaging in editing is expanding a very rapid pace. There are many more people that have a handle on editing since the web explosion in 1995. More people take excellent photographs, make music, and own digital camcorders, etc as well.

Editing is late to this game because frankly, it's a lot (or has been) much harder because it is a highly skilled craft requiring mountains of patience. Looking at this from the apple perspective, i think they knew that this is trending so they created a tool that has great depth, but uses more universal computing concepts (searching, organizing with keywords) in their new forward thinking approach to editing (my opinion) and joining images together. At the same time editing is a highly creative right brained task (the part we like and enjoy) it is also very left brained (edl's, list management, organizational things, etc) sometimes the part we don't like too much.

So rather than edl, XML, omf, ale, lut, etc, I think they are trying to get to the universal concept of fcp x XML which might take more of the left brained stuff out of the whole process.

So the software as it is, is easy to learn for someone who never edited, but harder for those of us who came up in a left brained NLE world (evn though it was less left brained than tape). But, new software should be deep (which I think FCP X is) but very easy to learn (if you haven't had avid and fcp x drilled through your skull for you whole career) for anyone coming to it for the first time.

The whole worldwide concept of editing is changing, in three years it will be an even more dramatic shift. This is why I tend to embrace this software on a philosophical level. I can appreciate it from this point of view.

Have I had my moments with it? yes. As we all had with RED in the early days, but we end up discovering its a fundamentally sound idea with sound concepts.

Editing and post does not have to be hard, but there is a group that want it to be, mostly because they want to be the ones who hold onto that knowledge, but retaining knowledge is dangerous. There is a huge tidal wave is coming in post production and I beleive that things will not stay this way for a much longer.

Ahem....steps off soap box.

David

This whole idea that pros try to keep out newcomers by artificial means is objectionable and false. Look at David Mullen right here on Reduser. I myself apprentice new talent in post and on set on a regular basis, simply because I like to encourage good new talent and because I like to share knowledge - the best way to learn is to teach.

Also objectionable is the idea that being a pro is somehow "old guard" and thus lesser-than being an unpaid jack-of-all trades of "the new age". Google and youtube love to promote this idea. They run networks that monetize via ads, just like NBC, except they invest $0 for content creation and take no risk at all, and just exploit those willing to be part of the "new paradigm" - i.e. work for free, or for extremely low cuts of ad revenue, much lower than "dinosaur" networks offered.

They spend millions of dollars promoting the idea that it's "wonderful" for people to work for free (it's not exploitation, "it's empowering millions into a new two-way broadcast model". Even Ted Talks (which they sponsor) has a very strong unpaid worker agenda - so many speakers talking about why Wikepedia is better than an encyclopedia where the writers and photographers are paid, why any anti-piracy measures are bad, and so on.

Along with google, you have the organized criminals behind piracy sites who also profiteer off my and many other users here's hard work, while investing $0 in its creation , spouting on about how Piracy is "giving power back to the people" and other nonsense.

People here might object to sweat shops, but at least they pay 10c an hour, PirateBay pays nothing at all to its real workers.

Whenever I hear about all this "wonderful new paradigm" where uncle Larry can make content just like Hollywood (which is ludicrous in itself, how many people, since the invention of the cheap camcorder 30 years ago, have produced a watchable feature-length film on their own, not great, just watchable - One? Two?) I think, "Boy, the person saying this has been very effectively brainwashed by Google's marketing team."

 

[Scott Crawley]

Those are good points, but I think there is room in the world for an entire range of people. Some mentor, while others obfuscate and engage in self preservation and aggrandize themselves instead. Sadly I think that for every one who is helping, there are dozens of insecure or fearful people who do the opposite.

Like it or not, there ARE those hypocrites who will take up the soapbox and declare that it is not the tool that makes you a pro, while at the same time crying that the tools are getting too accessible and that threatens their profession. It is a load of shit that should not be tolerated.

What is interesting about this is that there is a grain of truth in both points. Tools in an of themselves do not make you a pro, but a pro makes good use of professional tools. Likewise, the lesser capital investments required to engage in these professions does put a downward pressure on rates. However exploiting these facts to make the spurious argument described above is contemptible in the least. It twists the facts in a way most egregious that is the domain reserved for some of the most heinous of scumbags.

I could be overstating a little... Since it could also be the byproduct of a failed interpretation of or the failure to properly analyze the facts... Which is forgivable.

Sorry, that is my soapbox

This whole idea that pros try to keep out newcomers by artificial means is objectionable and false. Look at David Mullen right here on Reduser. I myself apprentice new talent in post and on set on a regular basis, simply because I like to encourage good new talent and because I like to share knowledge - the best way to learn is to teach.

Also objectionable is the idea that being a pro is somehow "old guard" and thus lesser-than being an unpaid jack-of-all trades of "the new age". Google and youtube love to promote this idea. They run networks that monetize via ads, just like NBC, except they pay $0 for content, and just exploit those willing to be part of the "new paradigm" - i.e. work for free. They spend millions of dollars promoting the idea that it's "wonderful" for people to work for free (it's not exploitation, "it's empowering millions into a new two-way broadcast model". Even Ted Talks (which they sponsor) has a very strong unpaid worker agenda - so many speakers talking about why Wikepedia is better than an encyclopedia where the writers and photographers are paid, why any anti-piracy measures are bad, and so on. along with google, you have piracy sites who also profiteer off my and many other users here's hard work, whiel investing $0 in its creation.

Whenever I hear about all this "wonderful new paradigm" where uncle Larry can make content just like Hollywood (which is ludicrous, how many people, since the invention of the cheap camcorder 30 years ago, have produced a watchable feature-length film on their own, not great, just watchable - One? Two?) I think, "Boy, the person saying this has been very effectively brainwashed by Google's marketing team."

 

[Sam Mestman - WMM]

There are already standard formats in place for this sort of thing. CDL's are usually delivered from on set color devices (Pomfort Livegrade and LinkColor are popular for this) as either .cdl or .ccc files (the ccc format contains multiple cdl's). These are then interpreted by a dailies creation program (Colorfront, MTI, ScratchLab, and NextLab are common choices) that takes those files, the camera files, and the sound files and creates multiple deliverables for editorial, digital streaming, and whatever else is required. The Avid files are delivered with either bins or at the very least an ALE that has those CDL numbers already embedded. From that point on it's pretty automatic. I would say that it is more incumbent on Apple to allow FCPX to read an ALE file than it is for every other vendor out there to read and write an FCPX XML if they want to see more use in the higher end circles.



I think one of the problems here is that you're looking at this from more of a one man band scenario, while I look at it from the point of view of that part of the industry that doesn't work that way. All of these steps are about a combination of efficiency, flexibility, and standardized ways of doing things that can work across multiple vendors, multiple camera formats, and multiple clients with different requirements. In my world, you don't design things for one vendor of any of those types, which quite frankly is a major reason why there's always been so much opposition to Red's insistence on using a proprietary card to decode their files efficiently. Resolve is a very good color grading program. It is not a particularly good or efficient dailies system, at least not at this point. That's not to say that it isn't used for that by some - it is - but in almost all cases, purpose designed things like Colorfront and MTI are far more efficient for that purpose, regardless of what you're shooting. The fact is that FCPX is designed to be used with original files, which is fine if you're doing one project, especially if that project is a shortform piece like a commercial. But if you're cutting a television series, you're not only limiting performance, you've now gone from requiring less than 500GB per episode of storage (using DNx36, figuring about 60GB a day, which is on the mid-to-high side for a typical TV series) to somewhere between 3 and 4 Terabytes per episode. That becomes both a cost issue and operational complication that most shows do not want to even think about dealing with. There's a lot more to editorial choices than just the programs particular editorial features.

The fact is that if you are dependent on CDL and ALE in your workflow, FCPX is probably not the best tool for you to use. For me, at least, though, I find those tools to be a bit over-complicated, and not a part of how I want to be working. Basically, my main point is that if you are a house that uses Resolve for finishing, there's no reason you can't use FCPX as the NLE of choice. If you're in Baselight, Pablo, Scratch, or something else, right now, there are far simpler solutions, and it may not be right for you. However, Resolve is an industry standard, you can deliver to there currently from FCPX in 4k, 2k, 1080, or whatever, and it is very easy to make any deliverable you need for a studio or network from this workflow. Also, it is easy to get into Pro Tools, and collaboration between multiple editors is not a problem if you understand how to manage your events. It is not just for the one band.

So... that said... no, it will not work for every workflow, and does not do absolutely everything. No debate there, but it is debatable as to whether those standards are really necessary to work "professionally". However, the other platforms don't do certain "professional" things either (for instance, you still can't work in a 4k timeline on Avid). Like anything else, you should pick the right tool for your project, work back from your deliverables, and decide what the best workflow is for your particular project. There are tradeoffs with every platform. Mostly, though, I think it's important not to dismiss FCPX as a high end professional tool because it doesn't cater to every standard on every program. For the work I do, I prefer to focus on what FCPX does cater to, which programs it does work with, and whether that is enough to deliver what I need to deliver. Whether you need DCP, DPX, AAF, Quicktime, or whatever, it can be done in an FCPX workflow. Everything else is just a matter of price, performance, and what your post department is most comfortable using so that they can deliver a great story.

Also, Dave B. +1 to you post on where the craft of editing is going. Couldn't agree more.

 

[David Battistella]

I don't know how you deduced this based on what I wrote.

For the record

I mentor an teach a lot of people
I pay apprentices as well (I actually think a paid apprentice system is very important)
I also like to share knowledge (I do answer many questions on Reduser and creative cow as well as personal email)
I'm not a big fan of google

so, I'm not sure if you are accusing me of something or what I wrote inspired something in you to write this, but I am not seeing the connection.

I actually agree with a lot of what you are saying. But I think we do need new models to deal with ensuring that artists get paid. Napster happened and then iTunes does what it can to combat piracy. But what are we supposed to do? Get rid of the Internet because people use it to share? You touch on monumental themes that require a much more considered and philosophical view than you present here. It just seems mad right now.

Edit: but it's ok, I'm mad about all that same stuff too.

This whole idea that pros try to keep out newcomers by artificial means is objectionable and false. Look at David Mullen right here on Reduser. I myself apprentice new talent in post and on set on a regular basis, simply because I like to encourage good new talent and because I like to share knowledge - the best way to learn is to teach.

Also objectionable is the idea that being a pro is somehow "old guard" and thus lesser-than being an unpaid jack-of-all trades of "the new age". Google and youtube love to promote this idea. They run networks that monetize via ads, just like NBC, except they invest $0 for content creation and take no risk at all, and just exploit those willing to be part of the "new paradigm" - i.e. work for free, or for extremely low cuts of ad revenue, much lower than "dinosaur" networks offered.

They spend millions of dollars promoting the idea that it's "wonderful" for people to work for free (it's not exploitation, "it's empowering millions into a new two-way broadcast model". Even Ted Talks (which they sponsor) has a very strong unpaid worker agenda - so many speakers talking about why Wikepedia is better than an encyclopedia where the writers and photographers are paid, why any anti-piracy measures are bad, and so on.

Along with google, you have the organized criminals behind piracy sites who also profiteer off my and many other users here's hard work, while investing $0 in its creation , spouting on about how Piracy is "giving power back to the people" and other nonsense.

People here might object to sweat shops, but at least they pay 10c an hour, PirateBay pays nothing at all to its real workers.

Whenever I hear about all this "wonderful new paradigm" where uncle Larry can make content just like Hollywood (which is ludicrous in itself, how many people, since the invention of the cheap camcorder 30 years ago, have produced a watchable feature-length film on their own, not great, just watchable - One? Two?) I think, "Boy, the person saying this has been very effectively brainwashed by Google's marketing team."

 

[M Most]

The fact is that if you are dependent on CDL and ALE in your workflow, FCPX is probably not the best tool for you to use. For me, at least, though, I find those tools to be a bit over-complicated, and not a part of how I want to be working.

Really? You find a CDL too complicated? It is exactly 12 numbers that represent an entire color grade and is interpretable and readable by essentially every color grading system currently available without ambiguity. An ALE is simply an exchange document format that can contain any amount of metadata, and gets automatically imported so that the metadata is already loaded into the editing program without any manual entry of name tags, scene numbers, camera angles, or anything else. I don't see any complication there. I see a great deal of utllity and simplification. Fact is, a lot of the manual entry that I've seen you demonstrate in FCPX would disappear if it just imported ALE files, since a lot of the metadata already exists from processes that precede editorial. Of course, this also goes back to something I pointed out previously - FCPX is not designed to work with a separate dailies process. So maybe that's what you're hinting at. But in my world - which, once again, is that of studio level television series and larger features - a dailies process is absolutely part of what needs to be done, for a number of reasons including but not limited to quick turnaround and QC of camera files (to allow for cards to be recycled), fast creation and verification of backup elements (usually LTO tape, and written to particular specifications that differ between studios), uploading of viewing copies for next morning availability, proper application of color, absolutely accurate double system sound sync (regardless of time code issues), and redundant storage of original materials. And all of this completed in a timely manner regardless of how much material is shot in any given day - and that can amount to 8-10 hours of material in some cases. The whole "put it all into the edit system and have the editors do all that stuff" approach just doesn't fly in that world.

I would add though that what you might guise as "complicated" those who use these things every day consider pretty darned simple and straightforward.

Basically, my main point is that if you are a house that uses Resolve for finishing, there's no reason you can't use FCPX as the NLE of choice. If you're in Baselight, Pablo, Scratch, or something else, right now, there are far simpler solutions, and it may not be right for you.

Once again, in my world, editing is done by editors, not the "post house". The post entity does finishing work, not the creative editing. So what is required is something that will take in what they turn out and create a finished version of it from original elements. At this point in time, I don't see any way to conform an Avid Media Composer timeline in Final Cut Pro X. And since nearly everything we work on is cut on Avid, well, you get the picture. This isn't a question of whether Resolve reads Final Cut X XML files. This is a question of what your particular corner of the post world requires. Mine requires a lot of things that yours does not. And if Apple really wants to be a part of my world, they should do something to allow it, such as at least importing industry standard formats. I've said here quite a few times that I have no problem with its editing paradigm. I very much like cutting with it. But there's more to "industry standard editing software" than that. And despite your statements regarding things like double system synching and Pro Tools support, these things are being supplied by third parties because Apple clearly didn't consider them important enough to include in the program. That tells me something.

So... that said... no, it will not work for every workflow, and does not do absolutely everything. No debate there, but it is debatable as to whether those standards are really necessary to work "professionally".

Well, on the one hand, I'm glad you see and acknowledge that. On the other hand, I never said anything about "professionalism." I pointed out that for the "mainstream" industry, at least the part of it that I work in, there are features that are required (because they're used every day on almost every project) that FCPX does not provide. And that is true.

However, the other platforms don't do certain "professional" things either (for instance, you still can't work in a 4k timeline on Avid).

First, that's why Avid also has DS, at least for the moment. And second, why is there any need to do creative editing in a 4K timeline when the material gets conformed on either Resolve or anything else that's being used for finishing?

Mostly, though, I think it's important not to dismiss FCPX as a high end professional tool because it doesn't cater to every standard on every program.

I hope you're not referring to me as saying that, because frankly, I've gone out of my way here to say exactly the opposite.

 

[Scott Crawley]

...double system synching and Pro Tools support, these things are being supplied by third parties because Apple clearly didn't consider them important enough to include in the program. That tells me something.

This is perhaps the only area that I don't feel unqualified to disagree. ;-) We can't presume to know why they haven't yet implemented these things themselves. Without firsthand info we can only guess why and figure what that means. It is a little thing, but it is at the heart of the debate about Apple's place in moving media production.

OTOH, they have a storied history of failing to cater to specialized business requirements that goes back to the Apple II.

 

[Frederick Giles]

Where? You can edit metadata fields for the info pane of the inspector and create additional custom fields. I don't see any place to add new, custom COLUMNS in the Event Browser (not the inspector). Right now, I'm using the camera angle column as a place to mark circle takes from the production notes.



Some people are just lucky ;-) There is actually another thread that mentions this same issue that Bob linked to earlier within this same thread. So, it's not an unusual issue. FCP X has had a very serious issue with memory leaks since the beginning and that manifests itself in different ways with different projects.

- Oliver

You can't add custom ones but there is reel, shot/tk, scene fields that you can add as fields. You can favourite the good takes which is what perhaps apple was intending users to do instead of using circle takes.

Yeah there has been the memory leak thing but that seems to be under more control with latest updates. You do need at least 16GB of RAM and a fast Media Drive setup for larger projects. I would imagine Murch having a fully spec'd out mac pro with 128GB RAM and a very nice large Media array for the next Apocalypse. It was funny 2 years ago to see his reaction to FCP X, no source window, oh dear, how can that possibly work for me, and then apple brought back the source window a few updates ago.

 

[Oliver Peters]

You can't add custom ones but there is reel, shot/tk, scene fields that you can add as fields.

Already using those. The use of favorites is being reserved for its actual intension. Ideally I would like to differentiate between the director's circle takes and mine and see those on the same page, not in separate Smart Collections. Plus additional descriptions. You know all the things you can do in "legacy" and Media Composer. ;-)

You do need at least 16GB of RAM and a fast Media Drive setup for larger projects .

Yep. Already doing that.

It was funny 2 years ago to see his reaction to FCP X, no source window, oh dear, how can that possibly work for me, and then apple brought back the source window a few updates ago.

Their application of the source viewer isn't very good. They didn't actually bring it "back". They merely added a toggle to split the way the unified viewer worked into two windows. Not the same thing at all. As far as WM, you should check out some of the screen grabs of WM's timelines. Pretty intense.

- Oliver

 

[Oliver Peters]

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. They certainly give these guys some help and pointers and an occasional inside engineering track. But talk to any of these developers off the record - especially the plug-in developers - and they will admit that it's something they constantly have to be on top of. That's because Apple will change things in an update that will break the third-party functionality. Sometimes without warning.

Oliver