FCPX 10.1.0 PRE-RELEASE DISCUSSION

I really don't feel the need for 3 way circular colour correctors. I'm a lot faster with the colour board being able to use cursor keys. If it went back to three-way colour wheels then I'd be looking for some hardware support as well in terms of the Tangent Wave or other such device.

Would I like finer control? Sure, the 1% can be a little course occasionally.

Would I like it keyframeable? You bet!

Would I like to have all three boards visible at the same time? Absolutely!

Being able to name the corrections would be very helpful, especially when I've had 10-15 corrections on some scenes. Sure, I could go to resolve, but when you don't yet have picture lock and you're trying to get a head start on audio and colour, having to go to external apps is not always practical, and frankly, not always needed based on the client's requirements and budget.

I agree.

Knowing I'm probably not getting what I really want (Roles based timeline organization), Colour and audio are the two places I'd really like to see some advancement, and since audio seems linked to Roles- colour seems more likely to get some attention.

The way things are setup up are great, very much like a node-less Resolve, but some deeper options would definitely be helpful. Highlight/Midtone/Black white picker. Curves. I've gotten used to the colour board but wheels as an option. And yes some more complex shapes for masking and Motion's simple 1 point tracker.

OR if you could place 3rd party plugins like SliceX WITHIN the colour correction stack, as opposed to sitting on top.

Why do you think we won't see a Roles based timeline organization? I think that would be a great next step for FCPX, especially for those who work on feature films, both narrative and documentary.

Dave. - my case for the 3 color circles is to have them as an option. But the real reason for them is to use in conjunction with the vectroscope. For example, Viewing the waveform scope allows for direct manipulation of what you see with the luma controls. This is good. Unfortunately that is where the direct relationship stops. We need a levels controls to manipulate what we see on the histogram, we need curves to manipulate what we see on the RGB waveform parade, and we need 3 way color wheels for direct manipulation of what we see on the vectroscope.

The color board is a brilliant way to manipulate an colors we see for a grade or look (I.e the highlights are too yellow, make the shadows more blue) but has absolutely nothing to do with color correcting based on scopes.

All of these controls actually exist in Aperture. (!)

Does that make sense?

It does, though while I'm a fan of Aperture, I'm not a big fan of all the controls. the 3 colour wheels are way too small and fiddly, or did I miss some magic way to make them huge?

I agree on curves…. would love them.

OTOH I'd like to see the colour board make it across to Aperture as well

Using my method it is hard to distinguish between iMovie 10 and Final Cut Pro X 10.1 features as the Flexo framework is used by both - one with the iMovie UI and one with the Final Cut Pro X UI.

The colour board code looks very similar in both.

It's a matter of whether the colour masking, isolation and selection tools along with the easier to use iMovie colour correction sliders will be available in 'Pro X mode'. Perhaps colour graders would look askance at Final Cut if these kinds of tools appeared in a Pro app


@Alex4D

Vlastavision wrote: Why do you think we won't see a Roles based timeline organization? I think that would be a great next step for FCPX, especially for those who work on feature films, both narrative and documentary.

I think we will eventually see Roles used to better organize the timeline, and facilitate mixing. I just don't think we're going to see them in 10.1. For... reasons.

alex4d said
"Perhaps colour graders would look askance at Final Cut if these kinds of tools appeared in a Pro app "

Who cares so long as it gets the job done. Makes me think of the daily fury of premier addicts who negate fcpx in the App Store reviews. Think I read one even on here the other day. Who cares if they switch or don't like a change, lol? Just saying.

Of course nearly *ALL* of these things are already available from 3rd parties in one way or another. Including a (mocha) tracker coming from CoreMelt soon. The route I FAR prefer as opposed to simply slapping stuff on top at random. 3rd parties aren't married to Apple's release schedule and can offer updates and support FAR better and efficiently. I do all my *corrections* in FCP and go to Resolve or even third party plugs such as Magic Bullet for *looks*. I'm completely fine (in fact MUCH prefer it to goofy circles) with the way it is (but floating point values would be a boon, yes) and pray they don't turn into Adobe, trying to cram every possible interface, feature and functionality inside one app making it bloated and just plain sh**** and unstable to use. Just because it looks great on a feature list, needed or not.

A prime example being 7toX, where there were a lot of small incremental update in the beginning (and still are) that had essential fixes. Had Apple made it built in, then good luck with your already crappy PR, since you'd have needed to wait 3-4 MONTHS for each. Ultimately rendering an eagerly awaited and needed feature essentially useless and leading to nothing but even MORE frustration and bilious whining.

Apple knows why they do things. And flipping off 3rd party devs by adding every specialty feature they can come up with (that a small portion of users even need), as opposed to giving them a great ecosystem/sales opportunity, is not the way they roll.

I think it's unlikely that FCPX will go the "feature bloat" route. There's always going to be grey area between the tools available in the NLE, and those in specific sectors of post like Colour, Sound, and Graphics. Unquestionably, some will always want "just a bit more" in the NLE, but undeniably, at a certain budget, skill, etc.. threshold- a job is going to go to Resolve, or ProTools, or Smoke for the highest end finishing. But there's a large umbrella under that, and I'm sure there's discussions about what to include or not at just about every stage in FCPX's development.

But FCPX is still very young software, and there are loads of ways for it's feature set to evolve naturally before we need to worry that FCPX is becoming overloaded.

The new XML format (a description of which can be found in iMovie.app/Contents/Frameworks/Flexo.framework/Versions/A/Resources/FCPXMLv1_3.dtd ) suggests that while colour corrections will not be keyframable, there will be a new kind of 'color-filter' which will be:

<!-- The 'adjust-color' element modifies the color adjustments for a clip. -->
<!-- This element contains adjustments for color balance, color match, and color corrections. -->
<!ELEMENT adjust-color (colorBalance?, colorMatch?, (cb-correction | filter-color)*)>

<!ELEMENT colorBalance (data)>
<!ATTLIST colorBalance enabled (0 | 1) "1">

<!ELEMENT colorMatch (data)>
<!ATTLIST colorMatch enabled (0 | 1) "1">

<!ELEMENT cb-correction (cb-values?, cb-values-outer?, cb-shape*, cb-isolation?)>
<!ATTLIST cb-correction enabled (0 | 1) "1">

This means a given colour adjustment will optionally have a colour balance and a colour match and either a colour board correction or a colour filter.

Colour board corrections are defined:

<!-- The 'cb-values' element describes the colorboard adjustments for a color correction. -->
<!ELEMENT cb-values EMPTY>
<!ATTLIST cb-values global CDATA #REQUIRED>
<!ATTLIST cb-values shadows CDATA #REQUIRED>
<!ATTLIST cb-values midtones CDATA #REQUIRED>
<!ATTLIST cb-values highlights CDATA #REQUIRED>

<!-- The 'cb-values-outer' element describes the colorboard adjustments outside of the shapes for a color correction. -->
<!ELEMENT cb-values-outer EMPTY>
<!ATTLIST cb-values-outer global CDATA #REQUIRED>
<!ATTLIST cb-values-outer shadows CDATA #REQUIRED>
<!ATTLIST cb-values-outer midtones CDATA #REQUIRED>
<!ATTLIST cb-values-outer highlights CDATA #REQUIRED>

<!-- The 'cb-shape' element describes a shape used for a colorboard correction. -->
<!ELEMENT cb-shape (param*)>
<!ATTLIST cb-shape origin CDATA #IMPLIED>
<!ATTLIST cb-shape softness CDATA #IMPLIED>
<!ATTLIST cb-shape curvature CDATA #IMPLIED>
<!ATTLIST cb-shape rotation CDATA #IMPLIED>
<!ATTLIST cb-shape scale CDATA #IMPLIED>

'cb-shape (param*)' means that the XML file can encode keyframe values for colour board shapes. The inner and outer values don't have this element, which implies they won't be keyframable. Note that although the XML format might be able to store keyframe values it doesn't mean Final Cut Pro X 10.1 will have the option to save and recover keyframes for colour board shapes.

<!ELEMENT cb-isolation (data)>

The XML format can store colour selections in 'cg-isolation' elements.

Colour filters will be keyframable (they have a param* element)

<!ELEMENT filter-color (param*)>
<!ATTLIST filter-color ref IDREF #REQUIRED> <!-- 'effect' ID -->
<!ATTLIST filter-color name CDATA #IMPLIED>
<!ATTLIST filter-color enabled (0 | 1) "1">

As iMovie doesn't allow for these colour correction methods, no colour filters were included.



@Alex4D

I think we'll see BIG improvements to the FCPXML with this release. It will be interesting to see what companies like Blackmagic and Intelligent Assistance do with all these new hooks.

So I had some random thoughts in the shower... I think we should have an open mind about features going into this update.... here is my thoughts.

I read an interesting article about Johnny Ives that gives some great insight into the way Apple functions. In the article it mentioned that when he first got to Apple in the 90's that the engineers led the product design and the designers just had a small amount of input. However, with the original iMac things changed and the designers led while the engineers implemented the designs.

Here is the article:

www.theguardian.com/technology/2013/dec/...-apple-coffee-techno

I think that from what was said in the original presentation on FCPX, that in essence, the Final Cut team was going to move from having the engineers and features lead the way to making a "incredible user experience". Specifically:

"This chart is nice [pointing to one showing that FCP is the #1 NLE purchased since 2003] but it's not the reason which we get up in the morning. What we want to do, is we want to create great software, We're all about creating an incredible user experience with great software that you guys can use."

vimeo.com/22329493

I think this is the most monumental thing they said in the presentation. And I think it reveals that designers were going to lead FCPX not the engineers.

Therefore, as we are on the cusp of 10.1, I think we should head into it not looking for a bunch of features (if you want features get Premier they add them weekly), but rather tweaks in the design and experience with the app--which go far beyond the features.

I'm constantly amazed that after using what appears to be a simple app for 2 1/2 years, that I still find new functionality--not that I found a new button, but I found a better way of doing things. If you look at FCP compared to say Avid, you realize that FCP is just thought out much better. Not that Avid engineers don't think, but as often happens in software it is much easier to just put a button somewhere to do a feature, than think how the feature should work within the workflow.

FCPX was a reinvention of the editing process (and it's test bed, iMovie). It is as if the engineers started by dismissing all previous conventions and said "What is the most efficient way to make a movie?" And whatever ideas they came up with were looked at carefully, tested and holes were poked in them, apparently for years. What they ended up with was simple and brilliant. Eliminating track patching. Roles. Magnetic Timeline. Connected clips. Granted they made some mistakes. Management of Separate Projects and Events for one.

I really hope that Apple includes this release with some videos of the architect and designers of FCP talking about WHY they did things in this release. I think it would go along way for us understand the release better.

So whatever we see as far as features, or not. I'll bet that we will be discovering the brilliance of it for years to come.

tpayton wrote: I really hope that Apple includes this release with some videos of the architect and designers of FCP talking about WHY they did things in this release. I think it would go along way for us understand the release better.

I agree. Winning back the "enterprise" editors and directors will be much simpler if you give the a direct reason to change their ways emotionally. My company has some trouble finding good FCP-X editors. There is no shortage of Premiere/FCP7 editors, but in my opinion people simply make better creative and rhythmic editing decisions in FCP-X. The barriers to creative exploration are much lower with the Magnetic Timeline, Auditions, Roles, etc.

For me, the act of editing is like a Performance of an instrument. For me, editing in FCP-X can be a music experience, akin to Jazz Improvisation where-in most of the other NLE's are more like reciting classic rock cover tunes verbatim. I can probably play Stairway to Heaven on 1000's of guitars out there, but I am much less comfortable improvising against Coltrane's "Giant Steps" on just any guitar besides the clean, warm intimate comfort of my Ibanez PM-20. FCP-X is like my Archtop guitar… capable of taking me places creatively that a Fender Strat will not.

Nobody from Apple has ever explained this personal advantage of the intimacy offered by FCP-X by using terms such as "The Rhythm of the Session". FCP-X is one of the only tools that keeps up with a fast, creative mind during and throughout a rhythmic brainstorm. Other tools take too long and break up the "Rhythm of the Session"

I believe Apple has been looking to engineers who simply take orders from directors guidance and testimonials for advice and marketing examples, rather than artists who themselves consider the physical act of editing a performance. I know this is an abstract concept for a tech forum, but I do believe embracing editors who use FCP-X intimately for style and fast-minded exploration would be a remarkable way to show "The Enterprise" what they are missing.

Apple has no young, expressive Guru explain exactly why editors should embrace a more expressive routine when editing. Currently nobody in Apple Executive committee speak with this kind of inspiration or beat. They are all very slow, fairly boring old men who lack the famously contagious "Mojo" effect. Apple needs somebody like Adobe's Juliana Kost to explain exactly why we benefit from instant editing results. It doesn't help that Apple's Exec Committee and Board are composed entirely of older, white men who speak like Engineers, not marketers. IMO, Gen X or younger should be public voice of FCP-X and now is the time to make that statement.

While the FCPX "In Action" series gets the meat of the stories out- there's not question that every one of them would have worked better as video stories. The emotion and excitement just isn't there in the articles like they used to be with the Fincher/Cohen Bros video stories. It doesn't have to be big names, just people using the software in powerful and interesting ways.

I'm very much hoping for a change in Apple PR stance on X after the release of 10.1. At the very least on the Final Cut page of Apple's website, but also hopefully more outreach and active engagement.

mthomas wrote: My company has some trouble finding good FCP-X editors. There is no shortage of Premiere/FCP7 editors, but in my opinion people simply make better creative and rhythmic editing decisions in FCP-X. The barriers to creative exploration are much lower with the Magnetic Timeline, Auditions, Roles, etc.

For me, the act of editing is like a Performance of an instrument. For me, editing in FCP-X can be a music experience, akin to Jazz Improvisation where-in most of the other NLE's are more like reciting classic rock cover tunes verbatim. I can probably play Stairway to Heaven on 1000's of guitars out there, but I am much less comfortable improvising against Coltrane's "Giant Steps" on just any guitar besides the clean, warm intimate comfort of my Ibanez PM-20. FCP-X is like my Archtop guitar… capable of taking me places creatively that a Fender Strat

I agree 100% with what you said, except that with me it's Fender Strat that takes me places creatively where no other guitar could. I just love that sound both for jazz and blues. Anyway, being a director first and editor second, and being a musician I completely get what you're saying!

mthomas raises some interesting points. some of what he says has actually taken place to some degree. steve jobs put in place protection for jony ives and his fortified creative design bunker from the politics of management. as for marketing, "can't innovative anymore, my ass" has been widely repeated thus effective marketing.
when has the music industry ever listened to musicians when it came to business? their business model has always been exploitive.

in my opinion people simply make better creative and rhythmic editing decisions in FCP-X.
maybe thats the plan. letting the improving software speak for itself.
FCP-X is one of the only tools that keeps up with a fast, creative mind during and throughout a rhythmic brainstorm
see above. these people will get the word out in "the enterprise".
Apple has no young, expressive Guru explain exactly why editors should embrace a more expressive routine when editing.
(1) Steve Jobs was once that type of guy and Sculley fired him.
(2) maybe thats the plan. word of mouth from actual users. as you said, in my opinion people simply make better creative and rhythmic editing decisions in FCP-X. that being said, they do need a more video robust fcpx website.

ultimately, it's bu$ine$$. and with $150B in cash, that old white management team is doing pretty good. btw,
Julieanne Kost is middle aged. 45ish? yeah thats pretty young as compared to Betty White, an active marketer of sorts, going strong at 92.

The young have no idea of how young the old still really are.


Now, to repeat myself again, back at NAB 2013, Apple told many of us that the FCP X design from the beginning was one of the DSLR model. They build a core unit, that is solid, works well, has the basics. You then buy the addons you want, don't buy what you don't want. Thus, I believe that Apple has said very clearly that they're not in the addon business, they're in the core app business. Let folks like Intelligent Assistant do the things they do better than Apple (XML exchanges). Let CoreMelt and Andreus do the things they're really good at, and you pay for what you want, don't pay for what you don't need. We will not see FCP X become "everything", but we will see a great, solid, well thought out core app evolve and become better and better over time. And we'll see third party developers do some amazing things, also.

You all have been providing some very interesting and though provoking discuss here. I think the FCP X following here is solid, loyal, and pretty gosh darned smart.

Now, if FCP X could just do my laundry some day... and mix drinks... especially mix drinks...

Would an NLE that mixes drinks know to mix them stronger as the day went on?

"We will not see FCP X become "everything", but we will see a great, solid, well thought out core app evolve and become better and better over time. And we'll see third party developers do some amazing things, also."

That's a really good point. It's like FCP X is a post production OS in the way that third party plugins run more like complimentary apps than plugins.