LIBRARY: Tutorials Reviews Interviews Editorials Features Business Authors RSS Feed

FCPX: Didn't We Ask for This?

CreativeCOW presents FCPX: Didn't We Ask for This? -- Apple FCPX or Not: The Debate Editorial


Chicago Illinois USA
CreativeCOW.net. All rights reserved.


Here it is. I like FCPX.

I'll be honest; I have been looking for something similar but not equal to FCPX for a very long time...Something that's fast, accessible, deep, modern and most of all usable. Something that allows me to search for my footage by text, by sight and sound, or by physical location within the software, and perhaps some combination of all of those methods. A tool that keeps better track of my footage, that allows my footage to be everywhere and nowhere, or both. Where a shot can mean this and that, not just this or that, or perhaps this and that and those. Where I don't have to make a physical duplicate and move it to another location when I want to express my description of that shot. I have a huge pool of data, why would I want to walk down the hall to get a snippet of it when I can jump right in the pool and grab the exact piece that I want? I guess, I was searching for the existentialist NLE.

FCPX is not quite there, and we as users don't know if it ever will be quite there. Nonetheless, I like a lot of what I see today.

When talking about FCPX, the greater topics of philosophy, ethics, religion, personal well-being, the time space continuum, the consequence of true and real change, the past, the present, the future and, of course, our collective video careers, are often touched upon. I invite you to read the FCPX forums here at the COW to gain a greater sense of how people might feel about it if you have not frequented them lately. Yes, there is a lot of work to be done, and there are many holes to fill, but I want FCPX to succeed. I really do. It is with this in mind, I want to spend some time focusing on what I like about FCPX, today.

I'm sure you have heard it before. The speed of FCPX is remarkable, particularly in comparison to FCP Legacy, and for that matter other NLEs. Here are a couple of ways that FCPX has some serious speed and it's not all about rendering:
  • Effects- I have had stacks of layers, FX, filters, text and dissolves. Previewing effects, transitions and text is done on a scrub, not even a click of a button. Multiple layers are stacked each with their own filters, and X seems to play right through them. This is truly refreshing since FCP Legacy has always been extremely slow in this regard. It is extremely creative, and at times feels like I am sketching. It is very enjoyable.


Please click above for larger image


  • Organization- Not only is FCPX fast in pure processing power, but it is a really fast organizer. I sorted just over 1000 clips in less than 15 minutes.


Please click above for larger image



Please click above for larger image


This, of course, was very preliminary "bucket" style organizing where I was relegating all shots to certain "bins" or as FCPX calls them, keyword collections. You can select a bunch of clips, add a keyword (command-k) and type that keyword which then becomes its own keyboard shortcut. When you come across another clip that fits that collection, you simply type in this new keyword. It's ultra fast.








Digging a little deeper, you can then start to organize favorite parts of your clips, and then hit a key command (the "f" key) to mark a favorite.



Please click above for larger image


You can also show all clips, show the favorites, hide rejected ones, and show unrated/key-worded clips.





On an initial organization, I really like the "show unrated clips." If you click the event in the browser which essentially shows you all of your imported clips, and start with "show unrated" by hitting control-x, then you will eventually run out of clips.





It is at this point you know that all of your clips are then organized in bins, or keyword collections. I know there has been a lot of blow back about the loss of the legacy bins, and some blow back about metadata in general. I have a few thoughts on that.

I completely understand that everyone works differently. I understand that everyone might have their own methods, but to me, while this method is different, it produces the utmost in flexibility. I find keyword collections to be a much faster and smart way of organizing than a traditional bin system. If you think bins are the "only" way to organize your footage, then keyword collections can essentially be a bin. There is a limitation in that you can't have a bin within a bin. But you can make a folder, and then put multiple keyword collections in the folder, which will then be similar to a bin within a bin.

As an editor, and an organized editor at that, I find it hard to believe that more people aren't embracing the organizational capabilities within FCPX. It allows you to be ultra organized, or ultra disorganized but the footage is still very easily accessible. I am going to go out on a limb and say I find FCP Legacy's browser to be somewhat of a nuisance. Yes, you heard that correctly. With FCP Legacy, I was meticulous about naming clips. This way, I could open a bin at a glance in list view, and make choices about what to choose before watching any footage just by the name of the clip. If you weren't organized and were handed a project that was poorly organized (or had 1000s of clips with default names such as MVI_0894.mov or 0039EX.mov), you had to watch everything by double clicking in to the viewer, then go back to the browser to adjust names, then back to the viewer, mark ins/outs or marker ranges, then back to the browser to name those or make subclips from them. You could also use the icon view, but for me and my style of thinking, it really isn't much help. It could point you in the right direction, but it's nowhere near as useful, truly useful, as FCPX's skimming feature.

With FCPX, I can open a keyword collection, or even an entire event for that matter, and start skimming. I am less concerned about clip names, more concerned with images. If I know exactly what I need I can also type in a keyword or any number of searchable metadata fields and have these clips show up instantly. As I mentioned, I have been waiting for something like this for a long while; finding clips by sight/sound, text or location. This feature, and the framework around it, is really very helpful to me. Not only is it helpful, this process is fast and fluid, allowing me to focus on the edit and not fight the interface as I would often do in the FCP Legacy browser. Focusing on the edit brings me to the magnetic timeline, and its speed or lack thereof.

Is the magnetic timeline fast? I have to say, sometimes, and the more I use it the faster I get. Trimming is really, really fast, even when you have to expand the audio and video with control-s. The keyboard shortcuts that basically drive the application make FCPX very fast as well. They are fully and totally customizable to suit your needs (command-option-k).



Please click above for larger image


A good thing to keep in mind with the magnetic timeline, is that it does change the way you might think about the relationships formed between clips in a timeline. In FCP Legacy and other NLEs, the tracks are what physically kept things related. While SFX might go in a certain audio track, titles might go in another video track. This horizontal relationship is completely different and redefined in FCPX. What is more prominent and permanent in FCPX is the vertical relationships. This means that B-roll clips, or certain audio effects, graphics, text, or audio clips are tied to a main clip (which in and of itself could be video, audio or an empty clip known as a gap).

At first, this concept seemed a bit foreign. After working, really working, with edits and clips, it actually starts to make sense. More often than not, sections or scenes have vertical relationships, rather than horizontal relationships. When I want to move a scene or reorder clips and all that come attached with it, I can grab the relevant clips in the primary storyline of FCPX and move it. Everything comes along for the ride and when I arrive at the new position, the rest of the clips make room and adjust for their new neighbors. Horizontal relationships are now user defined instead of track defined. If you need clips to have a horizontal relationship (dissolve to one another outside of the primary storyline for example) you can create a secondary storyline that will create a horizontal relationship, or join them with a compound clip which can combine both horizontal and vertical relationships. These are quick keystrokes that once learned, come in very handy to define what it is you need the clip relationship to be.

The magnetic timeline helps to keep other scenes in sync, and allows me to keep working and focus on the part of the timeline I am editing, not the parts that I am not. Yes, it is different. Yes, it does take some getting used to. And yes, it needs fine tuning, but I do think after practice that this is a pretty cool feature.

Beyond the speed in FCPX, here are a few of the other features that I find extremely useful. The timeline index is really, really cool.





It is a list of all of the clips in the timeline in a vertical, top down organization. The top is the beginning of the timeline, the bottom is the end. As you play through the timeline, the index follows along. You can also use the index to select multiple clips in the timeline (by shift or command clicking) and then double clicking an effect from the Effects Browser and add an effect to all of those selected clips. I would love to see more capability come to the index, such as the ability to list all effects and remove them all if you'd like, or remove only a certain effect. I could also see this becoming a place to assign organizational metadata for exporting to multiple audio channel Quicktime movies. Perhaps someday this index might be printable or exportable to a PDF to have a shot list + thumbnails for producers/clients that might require one.

The audio effects in FCPX are truly a joy to work with. It is the best of Soundtrack Pro, right in the timeline. This made me very happy when I starting using these real time GUI filters.





After all of these truly useful features, FCPX is still not my dream come true. There is a lot of work to be done, and like it or not, that work resides with Apple. It is up to the Apple developers to shore up the foundation, fix any bugs, while also providing for more features that editors need to use everyday. Right now, these features mostly have to do with connectivity with other applications, processes and hardware. But all is not lost. Just recently, an Applescript was released by foolcolor.net called foolcut (http://www.foolcolor.net/foolcut). It takes your FCPX timeline and transfers it over to Adobe After Effects. It was originally designed to work with R3D QT proxy movies generated by RedCineX or other programs and conform them back to the raw R3D in After Effects, but it will work with any media that is available in FCPX. This is done with scripting and no API. I hope this bodes well for the future when third party developers can get their hands on a true programming interface. Even though I am excited about this news, it brings me to my biggest complaint with FCPX.

My biggest gripe with FCPX is the lack of native digital media format support. It is time to realize that the world is not a Quicktime world, and hasn't been for some time, and that's OK! There are new and high quality digital interchange formats that are designed for the exact purpose of exchanging video and audio data. FCPX needs to embrace the non-Quicktime wrapped formats (MXF, R3D, MTS, etc) and allow for direct access to these audio and video essences, instead of wrapping them in yet another proprietary format. I also think that FCPX should allow for more digital output formats. If FCPX is signifying the rush of tapeless and digital evolution, then I say let's really go for it. We can handle this responsibility.

In buying this software, I have taken my part of the responsibility head on, which is to say, I am learning this program. In the meantime, I wait very patiently for signs of updates. I hope that Apple will fulfill their side of the deal that they have publicly mentioned in their FAQ and truly make this worthy of the name Final Cut Pro, as I do see some very positive and welcome change in this program. Thanks for reading.




Jeremy Garchow

Residing in Chicago, IL, Jeremy Garchow (JeremyG to the herd) has been in and around the production industry his whole life. Many of Jeremy's family members work in corporate event planning and production and Jeremy was fortunate enough to tag along to some of these events as a young child. He believes that during these trips, his interest and inspiration for getting into production first began to sprout. He's been working very hard on his production career for the past decade starting out in college as a part time edit's assist, a lucky position at a reasonably young age. After asking all the questions he could possibly ask and sitting behind an editor for the better part of three years, Jeremy was promoted to Editor after completing a BA from DePaul University. Upon moving on to his current digs at Maday Productions, Inc, Jeremy has been working on high end corporate communication pieces, commercials and promotional material for clients like Harley - Davidson and also local spots for Chicago based businesses. Jeremy also completed a documentary headed up by a budding Chicago producer for PBS in late 2006. Recent productions include videos for GE (corporate), Harley-Davidson (corporate/commercial/promotional), Kellogg's (corporate), Home Depot Supply (corporate), Wilson Golf (corporate/commercial/promotional) and the National Runaway Switchboard (Promotional).


Comments

Re: FCPX: Didn't We Ask for This?
by Nelson Torres
FCPX is to FCP7 as Ralph Kramden's 'Handy Housewife Helper' is to Ed Norton's apple peeler. It's an NLE with 'non-removable training wheels."

And all this glorification of key wording and demonization of bins? What's so hard about labeling clips "Scene 01/Shot 01/Take 01"or SC01S01T01? Worked for pro editors for a hundred years.

Apple reinvented the wheel, made it square, and claimed it was innovating.

Every frame has its own unique place in space and time.
@Nelson Torres
by Jeremy Garchow
Thanks for reading, Nelson.

I think Scene and Take is great if that's enough information for you. Also, not all shoots fit in to a scene/take model. I would say that most of mine don't as they are unscripted.

The nice thing about FCPX is that you can choose to name everything by scene and take, or name it something else, or enter scene/take as well as other descriptive metadata and then change the clip names extremely easily and go back and forth between them.

I welcome FCPX's flexibility in this regard, and offers something different than any other NLE that I have used.

I would say that frames can be described multiple ways, multiple places, and multiple times, and FCPX is very good at these types of descriptors. For instance, it could be Sc28Tk12, or it could be "great performance here" or "Nice smile". I'm not saying that other NLE's can't offer this type of descriptors, but FCPX allows an entirely new way of describing and therefore recalling (which is also very important) footage in the program. I would say it's decently innovative for an NLE.

Jeremy
Re: FCPX: Didn't We Ask for This?
by Thomas Frank
FCPX or not, one thing is a fact Final Cut Pro is horrible on the media management.
Why was there Final Cut Server and where did it do? Oh it's in FCPX! ;)

So far FCPX is growing on me the problem why many don't like it is the lack of knowledge.
The more in learn and gather my experience in FCPX the more I understand the direction they want to go. Well more like showing us where it is going...

@Thomas Frank
by Jeremy Garchow
Thanks, Thomas.

I do find that FCPX is a bit deeper than what some might dismiss on a cursory glance, even if that glance is a few hours. That's ok, people only have enough time for what they want to have time for, and not much else. It is certain that Apple is asking a lot. I'm OK with that.

It is different. You have to adapt to a different style of working, I'm OK with that too. I've done it before, I'll do it again. I was one of "the rare people" who thought FCP7s interface was a bit inefficient. FCPX is a big step in solving some of those problems.

All is not rosy, there's still work to be done, but I do like what's there. I'm looking forward to the next release, just like every other NLE user, Apple or not. I certainly can't wait around forever, but I'm willing to hang out for a little while longer.

Thanks for the response,

Jeremy
Re: FCPX: Didn't We Ask for This?
by charlie seetoh
Thanks Jeremy for the article.

I bought FCPX but have yet to install it due to on going projects.
I'm using FCP7 at the moment and I edit long form programme for a living.
I've to agree with Jeremy that FCPX way of organizing clips is a wonderful feature and far superior to FCP7. Sorting hundreds of clips in FCP7 was a real chore and now with FCPX I don't have to duplicate certain clips multiple times in order to put them into different bins.

I can see lots of potential in FCPX for long form work.

@charlie seetoh
by Jeremy Garchow
Thanks for reading, Charlie.

Jeremy
Re: FCPX: Didn't We Ask for This?
by Jeremy Garchow
I apologize for the poor grammar, punctuation and writing in my responses, today.
Re: FCPX: Didn't We Ask for This?
by Don Scioli
If Apple had just added 64 bit, "no foreground rendering", cleaned up a few bugs in FCP7 and left the rest alone. it would have been a great thing. Forget the new interface, new terms, who cares. It would have been a great upgrade.

NOw we have FCPX neither as bad or as good as thought.
@Don Scioli
by Jeremy Garchow
Thanks for writing, Don. Sounds like PPro is exactly what you need?
@Jeremy Garchow
by Don Scioli
I do have it, but cannot get it to output to a 3rd HD monitor. HAving learned to edit on a Moviola, then Steenbeck, then CMX, then Avid, then Cinestream, finally FCP in 2000. All of these editing itinerations seemed like a natural evolution, while FCPX seems like a mutant.
@Don Scioli
by Jeremy Garchow
You bring up a really really interesting equipment timeline there, Don.

I do think Apple is starting to rethink that evolution. Perhaps we aren't ready for it quite yet.

For me, I do think it's time to rethink a few things. The "bin" is one of them. I'm not quite sure if the timeline is, at this point the FCPX timeline seems incomplete. I think a simple target type of system might help, but who knows. As controversial as it's been, I do like aspects of it, and yeah, it is different.
@Jeremy Garchow
by Don Scioli
As you know, the bin metaphor refers back to the old custom of having work print strips hanging into a canvas basket that the editor could grab and view. So there is a historic reference there. (Spielberg still cuts only on film) The FCPX timeline seems unnatural, probably because of the magnetic timeline. Shots don't seem to just lay in there like FCP7. And why change terminology, what good did that do except be "cool?. It appears to me as if FCPX was designed for the laptop editor with on screen, and a trackpad for scrolling through shots. For all my paying projects, I' still using FCP7.
@Don Scioli
by Jeremy Garchow
And that history is changing by the minute, like it or not. I bet Speilberg doesn't edit film in a bin, I bet he doesn't edit at all. He directs.

As I mentioned before, I think the terminology is still being written. We don't have the whole story. I could be wrong, of course.
@Jeremy Garchow
by Don Scioli
According to Spielberg, "nobody tells me where to make a cut". though of course he uses his longtime editor Michael Kahn, But hey, I direct but also edit, so we're still at a turning point. What's around the corner. See http://www.thebeckoningmovie.com/
@Don Scioli
by Jeremy Garchow
I am sure he has full control, I'd wager he's not pushing the buttons, so could give a poop about FCPX.
Re: Article: FCPX: Didn't We Ask for This?
by Herb Sevush
My answer to you title question is Yes and No.

Yes we asked for the 64 bits, the speed in working with tapeless codecs, the background rendering, the tighter integration with Motion, the meta data organization.

No we didn't ask for the trackless magnetic timeline, the single viewer, the single screen design, the bizarre changes in language, the inability to work in a collaborative environment - I'd like to see one single post, from you or anyone else, that requested any of those changes on the endless wish lists posted in the FCP forum over the years.

I'm glad that FCPX is the answer to some of your dreams, it is mostly a nightmare for many others, so the "We" in your title might be a little presumptuous.

Herb Sevush
Zebra Productions
Re: Article: FCPX: Didn't We Ask for This?
by Jeremy Garchow
Thanks for writing, Herb.

[Herb Sevush] "No we didn't ask for the trackless magnetic timeline, the single viewer, the single screen design, the bizarre changes in language, the inability to work in a collaborative environment "

To be fair, you don't have to work in a single screen. There's options right in the software to change it, and I use two screens all the time. As a sidenote, for some that have mentioned the "auto" metadata or analysis, those are merely options that can be turned off as well.

You are right, we didn't ask specifically for some of these things, but a lot of it, we did. And yes, I say we. There was a lot of moaning, bitching and complaining about FCP Legacy. A lot, until it was killed and martyred/eulogized. This was Apple's answer. The entirety of the vision remains to be seen, or perhaps this is all there is. That would be a shame. Apple's FAQ is the only concrete info we have which addresses most of the other issues you bring up, save the timeline. I do think the "bizarre" change in language will make sense once the picture is complete. A storyline, a project, an event.
Re: Article: FCPX: Didn't We Ask for This?
by Herb Sevush
"To be fair, you don't have to work in a single screen. There's options right in the software to change it, and I use two screens all the time. As a sidenote, for some that have mentioned the "auto" metadata or analysis, those are merely options that can be turned off as well."

And if assigned audio tracks, a second viewer, and the magnetic timeline were also options we wouldn't be having this conversation.

But it bothers me that my entire workflow in X would consist of "turning off the options." It seems like every default is aimed at somebody else and in order to use it I would be swimming against the current. It's possible to do, but I'd rather work with something designed for me, not something that just barely accommodates me. I'd rather work in a system where multiple screens is the default, and if you only have one screen, well there's an option for that as well.

"You are right, we didn't ask specifically for some of these things, but a lot of it, we did. And yes, I say we. There was a lot of moaning, bitching and complaining about FCP Legacy. A lot, until it was killed and martyred/eulogized. This was Apple's answer."

This is like saying we were all complaining about the crappy pickup and loud noises our minivan was making and Apple's answer was a great motor scooter with a purring engine and lots of acceleration. Yes it answered many of our complaints, and then created a situation where many of us couldn't use it to get our products to market. So no, it was not what I was asking for, not by a long shot.

Herb Sevush
Zebra Productions
Re: Article: FCPX: Didn't We Ask for This?
by Jeremy Garchow
Preferences are preferences. You can prefer to have them off or on. There are some in FCP7 that I wish were on by default. Alas they are not. It's a 5 second fix, and FCPX is clever in that it allows you to modify the prefs every time you import, so that perhaps there was a reel that needs stabilization, and perhaps I will select it this time. It's right in the import window, and you don't have to do to the prefs. It's handy if you want to use it. It remains off if you don't want it. I can't see how this is really a bad thing.

As far as accommodation, there is certainly a lot missing in FCPX today. That's not what my intention of this article was, as that has been covered millions of times around the internets.

[Herb Sevush] "I'd rather work in a system where multiple screens is the default"

So then, FCP7 isn't for you? It defaults to one screen, as I think PPro does as well.

[Herb Sevush] "Yes it answered many of our complaints, and then created a situation where many of us couldn't use it to get our products to market. So no, it was not what I was asking for, not by a long shot."

The answer was unexpected, but we did ask.
Re: Article: FCPX: Didn't We Ask for This?
by Herb Sevush
"The answer was unexpected, but we did ask."

Where we disagree is that I find the answer not merely unexpected, but also inappropriate.

Herb Sevush
Zebra Productions
Re: Article: FCPX: Didn't We Ask for This?
by Jeremy Garchow
[Herb Sevush] "Where we disagree"

I don't disagree with you, though. I think it's was a really weird decision to release it in this state. I guess it hasn't angered me as much as others as I was really ready for something different than FCP7 anyway (I am more angered by the loss of Color). I am not sure what to make of it. the only thing I can go on is what I see as useful in the app today, and what Apple says publicly, which is what is in the FAQ. The rest is out of my hands.

Look guys, I'm really not trying to pick a fight here. I am just calling it like I see it, so hear it is, again. FCPX has some incredible organizational tools which is something that I personally have been wanting and waiting on for a long long time. FCP7's browser is absolute shit. The audio filters in the timeline are also what I have wanted, good bye clunky STP roundtrip. I am sad about the loss of Color, but the color board is pretty damn powerful (albeit weird and different), much better than what is in FCP7. I have long clamored to stop making so many different applications and just put everything in one application, and FCPX is a step in that direction. A big step at that. As far as I'm concerned, quit dicking around with Motion and put that right in FCPX as well. It is far from perfect, it needs a ton of work, but there are major parts of what I asked for and I am sure I can't be the only one. I want to move forward. The technology is moving very fast. I would think that our tools need to move that fast as well, or we simply get off the bus and settle.
Re: Article: FCPX: Didn't We Ask for This?
by Gerald Baria
[Jeremy Garchow] "Look guys, I'm really not trying to pick a fight here. I am just calling it like I see it, so hear it is, again. FCPX has some incredible organizational tools which is something that I personally have been wanting and waiting on for a long long time. FCP7's browser is absolute shit. The audio filters in the timeline are also what I have wanted, good bye clunky STP roundtrip. I am sad about the loss of Color, but the color board is pretty damn powerful (albeit weird and different), much better than what is in FCP7. I have long clamored to stop making so many different applications and just put everything in one application, and FCPX is a step in that direction. A big step at that. As far as I'm concerned, quit dicking around with Motion and put that right in FCPX as well. It is far from perfect, it needs a ton of work, but there are major parts of what I asked for and I am sure I can't be the only one. I want to move forward. The technology is moving very fast. I would think that our tools need to move that fast as well, or we simply get off the bus and settle."

Wow. I LOVE this statement. Should have included it on your article. A lot have been bitching about X for so long, and a lot of them either hasnt tried it, or just touched it for a few minutes and decided to ride the "cool pro" bandwagon and hate it. The speed, the fresh interface, the organization, the color board, all revolutionary. Yet a lot publicly hate it because they feelk its making them look kewl, more pro than those who love FCPX.

Quobetah
New=Better
Re: Article: FCPX: Didn't We Ask for This?
by Jeremy Garchow
[Gerald Baria] "Wow. I LOVE this statement. Should have included it on your article. "

I think it is my article, distilled down to the concentrated points. :)

For me, it is nothing about being cool, it's about usability. I think for most people it is unusable (at this point) for most work. I know it is at our shop at least for our billable jobs. The only other alternative I am really excited about is Lightworks, and it's not even a viable alternative at this point. I have zero interest in Avid, and a minor interest in PPro.

Thanks for reading,

Jeremy
Re: Article: FCPX: Didn't We Ask for This?
by Andrew Rendell
I found the article very interesting, not knowing much about FCPX, particularly the part about organising your clips by keywords without having to view the clips first. Yesterday I had a crew go out and film a sequence for my current project, plus some PTCs and extra GVs: cameraman came back at about 4pm, tech loaded the footage into my NLE, I made a minute and a half rough cut of the sequence and went home at 6.30pm.

Now, I had about 30 clips which I had to watch in order to know what was on each one, so I can see how the keyword system could have saved me time (because I wouldn't have watched the clips that weren't necessary for the sequence), but I don't quite understand how those words get into the system if no one opens the clip and types in the words. What am I missing?
Re: Article: FCPX: Didn't We Ask for This?
by Jeremy Garchow
Thanks, Andrew.

[Andrew Rendell] "particularly the part about organising your clips by keywords without having to view the clips first."

You still have to view the clips, first. FCPX has something called the skimmer which basically is a playhead that is separate from the main playhead. It follows the movement of your mouse without having to click and drag. Think of it as effortless scrubbing. In my example there were over 1000 broll clips, I can quickly and easily skim through those 1000 clips and make preliminary organizational choices in this case, by location.

[Andrew Rendell] "but I don't quite understand how those words get into the system if no one opens the clip and types in the words. What am I missing?"

You do have to type these words in the system. In the article I gave the example of sorting the bin by "No ratings or keywords". You can quickly skim, type a keyword (or rate a range) and then the clip dissaooears into s keyword collection. That keyword also becomes a new keyboard shortcut. So if you come across another clip that fits that keyword, you simply hit a keystroke (control 1-9).

I am not saying you don't have to watch footage, but the acess to all if your footage at once through skimming makes logging decisions pretty easy and fast. If you have interviews, you will still have to listen for content. Does that make more sense?
Re: Article: FCPX: Didn't We Ask for This?
by Andrew Rendell
I think I'm with you (but I think I'll have to have a go to be really sure). Sounds like a useful tool that'll be great for a lot of jobs. Thanks for clearing that up.

TBH I get quite a lot of work where the most important thing is to get from rushes being shot to rough cut as fast as possible, so it's the tools that make the workflow quicker that are the biggest draw for me, then the speed and simplicity of getting the cut off to the grader and dubbing mixer after that.
Re: Article: FCPX: Didn't We Ask for This?
by Jeremy Garchow
[Andrew Rendell] "(but I think I'll have to have a go to be really sure)"

There is no question that you have to use FCPX for a little while to start to understand it. It is different, for better or for worse. I find the more I play with it, the faster it becomes, and the faster it is over other NLEs. Speed is not something that everyone needs. I get it. But as far as quick organization (or even without organization) the access to footage in FCPX's browser is pretty damn cool. You can skim the whole event (or all of your 30 clips) in one pass if you wanted to. I can't think of how it might be any faster than that. Be prepared to learn keyboard shortcuts as then FCPX really starts to fly.
Re: Article: FCPX: Didn't We Ask for This?
by David Lawrence
[Andrew Rendell] "I get quite a lot of work where the most important thing is to get from rushes being shot to rough cut as fast as possible, so it's the tools that make the workflow quicker that are the biggest draw for me, "

Right now, you'll find FCPX offers a lot for this kind of workflow.

[Andrew Rendell] "so it's the tools that make the workflow quicker that are the biggest draw for me, then the speed and simplicity of getting the cut off to the grader and dubbing mixer after that."

But you'll hit a wall right here. No way out until Apple or third parties provide a solution.

_______________________
David Lawrence
art~media~design~research
propaganda.com
publicmattersgroup.com
facebook.com/dlawrence
twitter.com/dhl
Re: Article: FCPX: Didn't We Ask for This?
by Jeremy Garchow
[David Lawrence] "But you'll hit a wall right here. No way out until Apple or third parties provide a solution."

foolcut > AE > PPro. Form there you have XML/EDL/OMF, whatever. It's not perfect, and it's kinda nuts, but it seems to work.

There's also automatic duck right out FCPX for OMF. Yes, it costs money, as does foolcut.
Re: Article: FCPX: Didn't We Ask for This?
by David Lawrence
[Jeremy Garchow] "foolcut > AE > PPro. Form there you have XML/EDL/OMF, whatever. It's not perfect, and it's kinda nuts, but it seems to work."

Would you recommend this workflow for billable jobs in a high-pressure environment?

_______________________
David Lawrence
art~media~design~research
propaganda.com
publicmattersgroup.com
facebook.com/dlawrence
twitter.com/dhl
Re: Article: FCPX: Didn't We Ask for This?
by Jeremy Garchow
[David Lawrence] "Would you recommend this workflow for billable jobs in a high-pressure environment?"

I think this was addresses in the article. I said that I can't use FCPX everyday at my job. This article was to showcase what is in FCPX TODAY. You said that you can't get out of FCPX, I think that it is not true anymore. A person would have to test the foolcut method to see if it would work for them. Foolcut is less than one week old so I am sure it hasn't been fully battle tested. You still cannot get baseband video out of FCPX. That is a problem.
Re: Article: FCPX: Didn't We Ask for This?
by Scott Sheriff
Over the 4-5 years (jeez has it been that long?) I have been using FCS, there are many things I have posted to the apple FCP bug/wishlist page. Movie Hero contains little, if anything I have posted there, and had hoped would have been in FCS4/FCP8. And in the FCPUG meetings I have attended, I have never heard anyone wishing for anything remotely like a magnetic timeline, or auto color correction on ingest, or gobs of metadata. I'm not sure that native h.264 editing and 64bit is a worthwhile trade for all that has been lost. I say that because it was entirely possible to get through the days pile 'o work without these things, and yet the things we have lost make it impossible to complete many common tasks. And almost everyone that claims a successful use of X for anything more than the simplest of workflows, does so by using it as an overpriced plugin for FCS, Premier, or Avid.
And this doesn't even address the reputation damage suffered by the FCP community. While the fans of X drone on about the future to come, EP's and producers that decide who gets the gigs only hear Charlie Browns teacher. Wha...wha...wha... Many that work with freelance producers have already been forced to Avid because when producers hear "Final Cut Pro", the first thing the think of is that app that screwed us by not opening legacy projects. Who is going to want to work in an environment that can't assure the ability to come back later and revise? It's going to take more than a small clique of vocal X fans to overcome that.
We have lost, much, and gained little.

Scott Sheriff
Director
http://www.sstdigitalmedia.com


"If you think it's expensive to hire a professional to do the job, wait until you hire an amateur." ---Red Adair

Where were you on 6/21?
+1
@Scott Sheriff
by Jeremy Garchow
Thanks for writing. I was aiming a little higher than drone, but perhaps that is my fate for now.

Yes, this version is limited.

Good hunting in your next NLE adventure.
@Jeremy Garchow
by Scott Sheriff
Sorry, Jeremy. Didn't mean to imply you were droning on about X. There are a couple of things in the UI I like. The darkness (something I did actually ask for), some of the node based operations. But none of it is worth trading what we already have for.
And at this point it will take a miracle to restore FC as a professional application in the eyes of many producers, which is a big problem for those that don't shoot/direct/produce their own material to edit. It's not about how good it is, or how good it might be. It's about trust, and long term stability. And when you don't have that, you loose a significant portions of the better paying gigs to a platform people trust will be able to revise their projects in the future should the need arise. I say that because as many of the fans of X are fond of saying, "what you have still works", implying that if X is not your cup of tea, stick with FCS2/3. OK, those versions still do work. But, producers are becoming more hesitant to use FCS, seeing it as a dead platform, that future versions won't open. So what you have is a conundrum. The old working version is marooned, and the new version isn't usable. If and when the new version ever becomes usable, the customers will have long moved on to a platform they trust. Good luck trying to get them to come back. It only took ten years to get them to accept FCP as a professional tool, and a month to dismiss it again.

Scott Sheriff
Director
http://www.sstdigitalmedia.com


"If you think it's expensive to hire a professional to do the job, wait until you hire an amateur." ---Red Adair

Where were you on 6/21?
@Scott Sheriff
by Jeremy Garchow
Points very well taken and understood, Scott. The future is certainly uncertain.

Something that might grab bigger facility attention that Apple might have lost, is a wicked shared project and media environment. I know they were getting many requests for it.

The underpinnings seem to be there, even at the Finder level.
Re: Article: FCPX: Didn't We Ask for This?
by Wayne Carey
I have one question that I need to ask...

Why didn't everyone abandoned Avid when they had their troubles? There was basically no development or support for almost four years.

People whined... But did they abandon Avid? No... Apple did profit from this with new users.

You might be asking, what does Avid's past troubles have to do with anything?

Change is inevitable. We are moving towards a tapeless society and Apple saw a chance to profit from it. Apple has been VERY well known for trying to steer society in a direction they want. For instance, the iPod. It was the first device that did not play CDs or audio cassettes. It created controversy. Apple was the first company to do away with floppy drives. Apple was the first company to successfully create a tablet computer.

Yes, Apple did screw up on the legacy import of projects, but can't some third party company full this hole. How about Automatic Duck? Did Apple write the software to export your Final Cut Pro projects into Avid projects? Yes, I know... In this case, we are comparing Apples to Apples, but someone can pickup the slack.

Other than feature FCP X can do anything you want, but differently. You can still import your tape footage thru a third party program. For instance... AJA has AJA VTR Exchange. The program has been there for a very very long time but we've not had to use it until now. I'm sure that Blackmagic has a program to do the same.

Let's STOP complaining about the change and embrace it and learn it. I challenge everyone here... Give FCP X a chance. You can do. Wasn't it Apple who had the advertising campaign that said, "Think Different"?

That's my two cents...

_______________________________

Wayne Carey
Schazam Productions
http://web.mac.com/schazamproductions
schazamproductions@mac.com
Re: Article: FCPX: Didn't We Ask for This?
by James Daugherty
Its over. Apple would have to cure cancer with the next update.

James Daugherty
President SDFCPUG.com
+1
@James Daugherty
by Jeremy Garchow
Thanks for the comment, James. GUess you'll be running for the SDPProUG presidency next term?
Re: @James Daugherty
by James Daugherty
[Jeremy Garchow] "Thanks for the comment, James. Guess you'll be running for the SDPProUG presidency next term?"

I am running it like LAFCPUG. I do what ever the group wants. PS. I own the website.

Apple needs to listen to its customers. We may have to yell a little louder for them to hear.

James Daugherty
President SDFCPUG.com
Re: FCPX: Didn't We Ask for This?
by Rafael Amador
".Something that's fast, accessible, deep, modern and most of all usable".
Yes, that's what we were asking for, but they brought FCPX instead :-)

As a NLE is an experiment in which I have no faith at all ; an step back on video editing (visionaries not always hit the spot).
As a media managing application, great for system administrators, journalist, archivists and amateurs.
I understand that for some editors/operators, like you or Craig, managing high volume of footage, that may be useful, but for most video editors overkilling . Instead of helping just complicates things.
To fix and make works FCP wasn't necessary all this mess.

If i keep around FCPX (still installed) because i have the hope that Apple on his wisdom is still able to accept that has made a big mistake and mend it.
rafael

http://www.nagavideo.com
+1
Re: FCPX: Didn't We Ask for This?
by Neil Goodman
yea those clip connections are so great, when you slip an edit, everything above it goes for a ride too, how is that helpfull?

Neil Goodman: Editor of New Media Production - NBC/Universal
@Neil Goodman
by Jeremy Garchow
Hi Neil, thanks for the comment. This was covered on a thread in the forums, but you have to move that clip out the primary to slip, and then move it back in. Once you know the keyboard shortcuts, this process is very fast. As the article suggests, fine tuning is certainly in order.
Re: FCPX: Didn't We Ask for This?
by Wayne Carey
Great job, Jeremy! I thoroughly enjoyed your insight and your patience. I have to agree with you totally, even though, I don't have my hands on a copy of FCP X just yet. We are in a world of change and its time for FCP to change. Its a great start to something new.

_______________________________

Wayne Carey
Schazam Productions
http://web.mac.com/schazamproductions
schazamproductions@mac.com
@Wayne Carey
by Jeremy Garchow
Thanks for the comment, Wayne. Glad you liked it!
Re: FCPX: Didn't We Ask for This?
by Steve Connor
Excellent article Jeremy.

"My Name is Steve and I'm an FCPX user"
@Steve Connor
by Jeremy Garchow
Thanks so much, Steve.
Re: Article: FCPX: Didn't We Ask for This?
by David Roth Weiss
No!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

We did not ask for anything close to FCP X.

Period, end of story!!!


David Roth Weiss
Director/Editor/Colorist
David Weiss Productions, Inc.
Los Angeles
http://www.drwfilms.com

Don't miss my new tutorial: Prepare for a seamless transition to FCP X and OS X Lion
http://library.creativecow.net/weiss_roth_david/FCP-10-MAC-Lion/1

POST-PRODUCTION WITHOUT THE USUAL INSANITY ™


Creative COW contributing editor and a forum host of the Business & Marketing and Apple Final Cut Pro forums.
+3
@David Roth Weiss
by Jeremy Garchow
Thanks for the comment, David. I do disagree, this is certainly not the end of the story.
@Jeremy Garchow
by David Roth Weiss
Jeremy,

As I hope you know, it's nothing personal. It was a nice article, but I must say, the premise of your title really made me hot.

I maintain that X is nothing like what "we" asked for, and by "we I mean the majority of the "we" who have for years been part and parcel of the FCP Forum, the FCP community, and the manufacturers who support us. In other words, those reportedly now fleeing en-mass to Adobe and Avid.

As I have said before, while there are some niceties FCP X brings to the table, over all, it is a solution looking for a problem. It does not address the majority of what we did ask for, rather it just added a batch of new unrefined "features" in need of new fixes, just as Apple has done over the years when it failed to address the majority of the niggling problems and well-known issues that were constant thorns in the sides of every user.

All I can say is, I hope all the time you're investing in beta testing X eventually pays off. If it does, and FCP X turns into something truly useful, I'll be among the first to acknowledge it and to acknowledge the contributions that you and others made to it.


David Roth Weiss
Director/Editor/Colorist
David Weiss Productions, Inc.
Los Angeles
http://www.drwfilms.com

Don't miss my new tutorial: Prepare for a seamless transition to FCP X and OS X Lion
http://library.creativecow.net/weiss_roth_david/FCP-10-MAC-Lion/1

POST-PRODUCTION WITHOUT THE USUAL INSANITY ™


Creative COW contributing editor and a forum host of the Business & Marketing and Apple Final Cut Pro forums.
+1
@David Roth Weiss
by Jeremy Garchow
No offense taken, David. All good. It's been a polarizing time, for sure.

"It was a nice article, but I must say, the premise of your title really made me hot."

I'm sorry. I thought I tried to address that in the first paragraph. There is a lot in FCPX that I did ask for. The "pool of data" idea being one of them. You are right, I should have tied that in a bit better to that title.

AS far as the time I have taken potentially being wasted, well, it wouldn't be the first time I spent time and effort on something that didn't quite pan out in the video business. I am sure it won't be the last. Thanks, Jeremy


Related Articles / Tutorials:
Apple FCPX Debates
FCPX Workflow: One Smart Collection To Rule Them All

FCPX Workflow: One Smart Collection To Rule Them All

The first key to workflow wizardry is to exploit an application's strengths. In exploring the nuances of FCPX, famed workflow wizard Simon Ubsdell opens up some of the secrets around one of its most uniquely powerful, but sorely underused tools: Smart Collections. This isn't about replacing your existing project management (although it can). It's about leveraging some of the ridiculously awesome power of the Smart Collection to make your work flow far more easily than you might have imagined.

Tutorial
Simon Ubsdell
Apple FCPX Debates
Apple FCPX and the Making Of Whiskey Tango Foxtrot

Apple FCPX and the Making Of Whiskey Tango Foxtrot

Rather than a story about editing software, this is a story about Apple Final Cut Pro X from a filmmaker’s perspective: specifically, how keeping as much VFX and audio temp work as possible inside FCPX during production helped allow Glenn Ficarra and John Requa to open up new options and saved weeks of production time in the making of Whiskey Tango Foxtrot, the new wartime comedy starring Tina Fey.

Editorial, Feature
Tim Wilson
Apple Final Cut Pro X Debates & Beyond
FCPX Magnetic Timeline: Apple's New Paradigm REVISITED

FCPX Magnetic Timeline: Apple's New Paradigm REVISITED

NLE interface design pioneer and longtime editor David Lawrence first wrote about the editing approach of FCPX, including its highly controversial Magnetic Timeline, soon after FCPX's release in the spring of 2011. Time has passed, the editing landscape has changed, and 4 years later, David takes another well-reasoned, hype-free look at the heart of Apple's new paradigm.

Editorial, Feature
David Lawrence
Apple FCPX or Not: The Debate
FCPX On Air. Coming Soon

FCPX On Air. Coming Soon

Former skeptic John Davidson was right there with everyone else when FCPX was released who deemed it a complete disappointment for broadcast pros. Many updates and much experimentation later, he's now a believer: he has FCPX not only running on shared storage for broadcast work, but for John, it does so even better than FCP 7 ever did. Here he introduces a 5-part series, taking you step-by-step from project set-up to delivery, ready to help other broadcast pros get moving with FCPX.

Editorial, Feature
John Davidson
Apple FCPX or Not: The Debate
Workflow Update: iMac, Adobe & the X Factor

Workflow Update: iMac, Adobe & the X Factor

With five edit suites currently running at Biscardi Creative Media, and four more on standby, Walter Biscardi and crew need the best possible performance our of their workflow and machines. Here, Walter describes the power (yes, power) of the iMac, the workhorse Adobe Premiere Pro, and some never say never insight on FCP X.

Editorial, Feature
Walter Biscardi
Apple FCPX or Not: The Debate
Smoke: A Journey and a Look Ahead

Smoke: A Journey and a Look Ahead

An FCP user and enthusiast since version 1.0, David Jahns looks at Autodesk Smoke for Mac, and discusses color-grading, tracking, editing, compositing and overall performance.

Editorial
David Jahns
Apple FCPX or Not: The Debate
High Noon in the Editors' Corral

High Noon in the Editors' Corral

A group of editors gathered at a Hollywood Post Alliance Sales Resource Group luncheon to debate the merits of today's nonlinear editing systems. In the process, they argued less over tools and complained more about an ever-changing workflow. And, yes, there are a few fans of FCPX.

Feature
Debra Kaufman
Apple FCPX or Not: The Debate
For your Bovine Mastication and Consideration: FCPX Can Work

For your Bovine Mastication and Consideration: FCPX Can Work

After coming across and commenting on a post in the forums concerning FCPX and its current popularity and possibility for serious editing use, Charlie Austin was contacted by Tim Wilson to expand his original thoughts for Bovine consumption. Care to chew the cud with us?

Editorial
Charlie Austin
Apple FCPX or Not: The Debate
A Cautionary Tale for the FCP Switcher

A Cautionary Tale for the FCP Switcher

Herein lies the cautionary tale of a long-time user of Final Cut Pro, penned for those who would consider switching NLEs. Are there tools that will positively replace FCP 7? Are there NLEs that are even more powerful than our now evanescent favorite?

Editorial
Walter Biscardi
Apple FCPX or Not: The Debate
Colorgrading Round-Up

Colorgrading Round-Up

Dennis Kutchera went to Vegas with a goal - to be tantalized by the new colour-grading options - in essence, to cheat on his beloved Avid. What happens in Vegas, this time, comes back with some great stories.

Feature
Dennis Kutchera
MORE
© 2016 CreativeCOW.net All Rights Reserved
[TOP]