fbpx
Welcome, Guest
Username: Password: Remember me
{JFBCLogin}
25 Jan 2021
New boarders will have their posts moderated - Don't worry if you cannot see your post immediately.
Read More...

TOPIC:

Re: FCPX 10.0.6 Pre Release Discussion Thread 10 Oct 2012 12:36 #14902

We have been using FCPX for broadcast work from 10.0.0 on. At first we needed a few workarounds, especially to output proper audio. But the media-management, the ease of editing and the various unique features (from skimming to keywording to built-in cinema-tools etc) made it worthwhile already in its early stage.

The software developped a lot since then and 10.0.5 is not only extremely stable, but does pretty much everything I could ask an NLE for.

The updates did all bring a few features and improved stability and 10.0.6 will be the same. I´d expect evolution more than revolution. Just like with their iPhones, Apple builds on what works as long as it works (which will mean quite a few years for FCPX) and develops it gradually. We cutomers will never be happy and have neverending wish lists. The most important in this field is stability and reliability. If they add a few shortcuts for our workflows then I am even happier.
The topic has been locked.

Re: FCPX 10.0.6 Pre Release Discussion Thread 10 Oct 2012 13:47 #14903

It would be interesting to know what the makeup on a development team like FPCX's is, the only thing I've heard from multiple people is that it's a relatively small group.

One of our first clues to the development of a redesigned Final Cut was 2-3 years ago when Apple advertised for a "Interface Designer".

Are the people who would implement interface design changes like "Multiple Viewers" the same people who implement what's essentially codec integration features like RED and MXF support?

Are the people squashing bugs the same people implementing design and functionality changes?

I'm no programer, so I have no clue how specialized tasks in a software project like FCPX would be.
The topic has been locked.

Re: FCPX 10.0.6 Pre Release Discussion Thread 10 Oct 2012 17:44 #14910

When your "sources" say it is a relatively small group: is the relation to someone like AVID or to the iPhone division within Apple?

It is clear FCPX is not the number one priority at Apple, but FCP never was. But they are still dedicated to make this project work and with the setup of FCPX' structure they can work with a smaller group, because it is clear FCPX will always live from the 3rd party-developers just like the iOS universe!

FCPX is 299 for a reason.....some of us can work with that. Others need a AAF-exporter for 150 and a MXF exporter for 990. Even if you buy all "needed" plugins you are below Premiere pricewise. But 90% of FCPX users (and Premiere users as well) never need MXF, AAF etc.

It is a modular system and Apple only needs to make sure the base works, the XML is versatile and the FXPlugs allow developers to help our needs.
The topic has been locked.

Re: FCPX 10.0.6 Pre Release Discussion Thread 10 Oct 2012 18:42 #14911

I don't have any "sources". This is just the way it has seemingly always been described by people who claim to have some knowledge on message boards around the web- I've heard it enough times from enough people who seem to know what they're talking about. No one has talked in specific numbers. I'd be surprised if there were more than 20 people full-time on FCPX, but that's just my own mental calculation.

And lets be clear, I don't see it as a downside or a lack of commitment on Apple's part if it is a small group of designers and engineers. You can only throw so many people at a problem before the returns diminish. I was just postulating about how a group like that works- if there's a lot of specialization or if a lot of the programers/engineers can jump from task to task across functionality.

And I completely agree with you. I think a modular FCPX is a great idea. If Apple can provide a solid core product that allows outside developers to bolt on the functionality that specific workflows might require, then everyone gets a less cluttered system specific to their needs.

But FCPXML does need work in that regard- it's very versatile in some ways, and restrictive in others. But every time it gets updated it becomes more useful.
The topic has been locked.

Re: FCPX 10.0.6 Pre Release Discussion Thread 10 Oct 2012 21:17 #14916

  • Mals82
  • Mals82's Avatar
  • Offline
  • Junior Member
  • Junior Member
  • Posts: 21
  • Karma: -1
  • Thank you received: 0
Hi Innlens, as with Ronny I am inclined to ask you out of curiosity what kind of broadcast work have you been using fcpx for, and any insight into your workflow, details are always appreciated. I would also suggest you publicize your work with apple, maybe in the fcpx in action page, so that more people get interested in fcpx! I'm really hoping this program makes it into a broader professional market and continues to get better with every update. Hope next one comes soon! Maybe next tuesday?.... :blink: I know, I know, everyone keeps repeating that as some sort of mantra....It'll get here when it does.
The topic has been locked.

Re: FCPX 10.0.6 Pre Release Discussion Thread 10 Oct 2012 23:10 #14918

I suspect apple has a core of programmmers that work across all or many of their products. Maybe their are a couple of dedicasted Logic programmers, supplemented by others who recently worked on iMovie for iPad, and are now turning their attention back to FCPX...after which they will return to Logic X
The topic has been locked.

Re: FCPX 10.0.6 Pre Release Discussion Thread 11 Oct 2012 07:41 #14925

Mals,
we have done a relatively big first project last summer in FCPX 10.0.0 which I blogged here:
fcpxmegatest.blogspot.co.at

It had a tremendous response and we hopefully animated some people to try it more. From there we moved away from FCP7 and after quick tests of CS6 and Avid sruck to FCPX for good, which is now 99% our NLE (1% being old projects that get converted out of FCP7 and then fixed in FCPX - usually just new branding or voice-over tweaks)

We are doing commercials where we have FCPX, AfterFX, ProTools, Resolve, Motion involved and it all works fine. We do documentaries with Terabytes of data and weeks of editing into various formats and it works great. We have TV-productions with 7 cameras where we have a turnaround of just a few hours, which was impossible in FCP7 and I dare say on any other NLE.

FCPX is not perfect and 10.0.6 won´t make it perfect and no NLE will ever be perfect, because manufacturers create new standards by the week and the data amounts are potentially exploding, with young kids rolling hours of GoPro and DSLR footage, where 3 thought-through minutes would have been enough. And there will never be a "edit yourself" button that will be creative, although some of the iMovie templates are doing just that already ;-)

My biggest problems are a) hardware: MacPro has no thunderbolt and iMacs are not cutting it with GPU intensive apps like Motion and Resolve and b) the roundtrip to Motion as it used to be. Take a clip, send it to Motion, track it and send back. There are workarounds with apps, but it is not elegant compared to the rest of the programme.
The topic has been locked.

Re: FCPX 10.0.6 Pre Release Discussion Thread 11 Oct 2012 08:29 #14926

...young kids rolling hours of GoPro and DSLR footage, where 3 thought-through minutes would have been enough.

:sick: :evil:
The topic has been locked.

Re: FCPX 10.0.6 Pre Release Discussion Thread 11 Oct 2012 09:25 #14928

...young kids rolling hours of GoPro and DSLR footage, where 3 thought-through minutes would have been enough.

Not only young kids ;)
The topic has been locked.

Re: FCPX 10.0.6 Pre Release Discussion Thread 11 Oct 2012 10:32 #14931

  • cgbier
  • cgbier's Avatar
  • Offline
  • Platinum Member
  • Platinum Member
  • Posts: 510
  • Karma: 6
  • Thank you received: 53
This is is the greatest xyz prerelease discussion I've seen on the web. Thank you!
The topic has been locked.

Re: FCPX 10.0.6 Pre Release Discussion Thread 11 Oct 2012 11:48 #14933

  • Mals82
  • Mals82's Avatar
  • Offline
  • Junior Member
  • Junior Member
  • Posts: 21
  • Karma: -1
  • Thank you received: 0
Hey Innlens, thanks for your reply, I just spent part of the morning reading your blog on your fcp x megatest, which was a great read by the way. I can see that since then some of your biggest complaints have been adressed in 10.0.5 (broadcast monitoring, xml, multicam...). I hear you on the hardware issues :unsure: Hope next release of imacs and especially macpros will give us confidence to stay in an apple environment for good! ;) So how is fcpx performing now for you? What are you still missing besides the motion round-tripping? I know OMF/AAF is the obvious answer, but with X2pro V2 it seems there's a solution, although I still find it to be kind of a clumsy solution to have to go to another app to use what should be a basic function for an NLE. Anyway, I'd love to hear your thoughts on the current state of fcpx. I for one am hoping the next release will bring a big stability improvement and tons of 'little' enhancements, that of course on top of the announced features...
The topic has been locked.

Re: FCPX 10.0.6 Pre Release Discussion Thread 11 Oct 2012 11:54 #14934

...young kids rolling hours of GoPro and DSLR footage, where 3 thought-through minutes would have been enough.

Not only young kids ;)

Yeah I am guilty myself. On film every second was thought about. Even when P2 was costing a fortune you always had limited supply and had to think what you shot.
But the last few years everything is on 50GB XDCam Disks, CF cards and SD cards. When you run out of cards, go to the supermarket.

And on top of that with FCPX´skimming a cutter get get through an hour of footage fast, so nobody complains......
The topic has been locked.

Re: FCPX 10.0.6 Pre Release Discussion Thread 11 Oct 2012 14:11 #14936

  • cgbier
  • cgbier's Avatar
  • Offline
  • Platinum Member
  • Platinum Member
  • Posts: 510
  • Karma: 6
  • Thank you received: 53
Talking about iMac: Seems the new model is imminent. I tried to get quotes (we cannot order from the Apple Store here), but two vendors told me their sources have them backordered with no ETA.
The topic has been locked.

Re: FCPX 10.0.6 Pre Release Discussion Thread 11 Oct 2012 17:20 #14938

Hey Innlens, thanks for your reply, I just spent part of the morning reading your blog on your fcp x megatest, which was a great read by the way. I can see that since then some of your biggest complaints have been adressed in 10.0.5 (broadcast monitoring, xml, multicam...). I hear you on the hardware issues :unsure: Hope next release of imacs and especially macpros will give us confidence to stay in an apple environment for good! ;) So how is fcpx performing now for you? What are you still missing besides the motion round-tripping?

Well, since my whole workflow (and pretty much everyone I work together with - which might be a rarity these days) is adapted to FCPX we are at a state where stability is all we ask for. I can live without further bells and whistles.

I believe the Roles model can be improved a lot. Color-coding, grouping of roles would help to improve the overview on a project for a new editor. The track-based fans are right when they claim FCPX timelines can look unorganized to them.

The only really missing pieces are export to MXF (422HD codec) and OMF. These don´t work or only through apps. When the apps work, then I can live with that. But it hurts us in the perception of the market when they don´t. You don´t want to go to the audio-guys and see them rolling their eyes, because you bring FCPXML. I want to bring them a filestructure that doesn´t make their job harder either. Same with MXF: my big broadcast clients demand broadcast files as MXFs. I can give them MOVs, but then they need to make the MXFs for their contentpool. So far we used FCP7 to do this step and it only takes 30 seconds to close FCPX and open FCP7 and import the file and hit Export XDCAm, but it still is a step I want to do in FCPX or on a machine without FCP7.

Other than that I´d expect minor tweaks from 10.0.6. They promised some audio-functions and they will keep working on XML and FCPX-FX_plug SDKs. as I said IMO they will heavily rely on 3rd party in the future on the plug-in side. The market is already HUGE and I hope the prices won´t be too low to keep big companies away. I have no problem paying 250 for a plug-in like Twixtor when I have projects that look better with it. Actually I believe Twixtor is much more...but it might be worth it for many.

Finally I hope the database access gets improved. We sometimes end up with copy-sessions, because we often create programmes out of various events and it is not always easy to keep track and FCPX has a few issues consolidating these cross-event-timelines still.

But every NLE has issues and never ever will any NLE fit all needs that are out there. For me it works, for Hollywood editors with assistant editors it maybe doesn´t work or it doesn´t make their live easier, because it is easy enough with an assistant.
Last edit: by innlens.
The topic has been locked.

Re: FCPX 10.0.6 Pre Release Discussion Thread 11 Oct 2012 18:19 #14945

  • cseeman
  • cseeman's Avatar
  • Offline
  • Platinum Member
  • Platinum Member
  • Posts: 803
  • Karma: 6
  • Thank you received: 71


I believe the Roles model can be improved a lot. Color-coding, grouping of roles would help to improve the overview on a project for a new editor. The track-based fans are right when they claim FCPX timelines can look unorganized to them.

Actually Roles is one of the big areas of improvement I hope for. Being able to display them "linearly" in track like fashion would go a long way towards offering an "organized" look. In addition, being able to "act on" a selection would be a powerful addition. Imagine being able to adjust some setting or add a filter to all of a given Role. Along with the color coding you mention, these would make Roles into a suitable replacement for tracks.

The other important feature to me would be the handling of dual or multi channel mono tracks (think XDCAM with multiple mono audio channels). Currently they're displayed as a single channel even when expanded. You have to break apart/detach to get to separate mono tracks and, at that point, you lose the use of the precision editor and risk accidentally throwing off sync without any notification of such either.

Whether shooting an interview in which left and right channels are separate lavs or one is shotgun and the other lav or handheld, I need both channels available to me separately yet locked to sync, while I edit.
The topic has been locked.

Re: FCPX 10.0.6 Pre Release Discussion Thread 11 Oct 2012 18:36 #14946

@cessman Yeah, I'm really hoping for some Roles organization in the timeline as well.

I'd love to see Roles be able to be grouped horizontally in a user defined order and with customizable colours, essentially eliminating the unrestricted movement of audio clips. It may seem like we're asking for tracks back, but it see grouped Roles having a key distinction: tracks are s single audio channel, while a grouped Role could be several overlapping elements "deep". As you make changes to an edit, those individual audio elements can still freely move and jump up or down within the confines of the Role, but keeps them in a clearly defined zone.

If one Role for SFX still leaves you with too much clutter, then use SubRoles to more clearly define the section.

Something like this:

The topic has been locked.

Re: FCPX 10.0.6 Pre Release Discussion Thread 11 Oct 2012 18:40 #14947

@cessman Yeah, I'm really hoping for some Roles organization in the timeline as well.

I'd love to see Roles be able to be grouped horizontally in a user defined order and with customizable colours, essentially eliminating the unrestricted movement of audio clips. It may seem like we're asking for tracks back, but it see grouped Roles having a key distinction: tracks are s single audio channel, while a grouped Role could be several overlapping elements "deep". As you make changes to an edit, those individual audio elements can still freely move and jump up or down within the confines of the Role, but keeps them in a clearly defined zone.

If one Role for SFX still leaves you with too much clutter, then use SubRoles to more clearly define the section.

Something like this:


That is a nice mock-image. The Roles stuff is probably tricky to fix, because all this is such a databasedriven software and you can give different roles in different projects.....so all these references back and forth need to be checked properly. But I hope we will get there sooner than later.
The topic has been locked.

Re: FCPX 10.0.6 Pre Release Discussion Thread 11 Oct 2012 18:43 #14948



The other important feature to me would be the handling of dual or multi channel mono tracks (think XDCAM with multiple mono audio channels). Currently they're displayed as a single channel even when expanded. You have to break apart/detach to get to separate mono tracks and, at that point, you lose the use of the precision editor and risk accidentally throwing off sync without any notification of such either.

Well Apple promised some multi-audio fix. So there will be some news in 10.0.6. For now I worked around this in the inspector, since I hardly need both channels (the interview and the on-cam mic). But when recording multiple booms and Lav-mics it is a problem to have to break them apart. True.
The topic has been locked.

Re: FCPX 10.0.6 Pre Release Discussion Thread 11 Oct 2012 19:09 #14950

  • cseeman
  • cseeman's Avatar
  • Offline
  • Platinum Member
  • Platinum Member
  • Posts: 803
  • Karma: 6
  • Thank you received: 71
Even when I'm doing a one mic interview, I usually want the camera mic on during editing. Too often there's a "gem" spoken or some ambient off interview mic sound that I want to integrate. I'd never find that if I turn off one channel while editing. Granted there are times when I know there's nothing from the camera mic worth using but, for me, too often somewhere in the course of an interview something happens there.
The topic has been locked.

Re: FCPX 10.0.6 Pre Release Discussion Thread 11 Oct 2012 19:15 #14951

  • cseeman
  • cseeman's Avatar
  • Offline
  • Platinum Member
  • Platinum Member
  • Posts: 803
  • Karma: 6
  • Thank you received: 71

That is a nice mock-image. The Roles stuff is probably tricky to fix, because all this is such a databasedriven software and you can give different roles in different projects.....so all these references back and forth need to be checked properly. But I hope we will get there sooner than later.

I think a display such as that is critical precisely because this is database driven. If I were to make one criticism of FCPX it's like having a sophisticated FileMaker database but limited with a Bento like display. There are actually other instances where you can see the potential of the data sans any reasonable way to display it. I think the display improvements will happen eventually even if not in this update.

I do think it's important to see a Role displayed horizontally. Not so much because it should impact the actual layering but to be able to judge pacing and to act on a commonly tagged set of clips.
The topic has been locked.