Waiting on 10.2.4 and 10.3

I feel like this is way off topic. MsJustine, you have to stop hijacking threads to complain about stuff. Start a new discussion with "Why Won't Apple Do ..." and we can focus both discussions.

Back to 10.3...

Agreed. I thought we'd moved on to The Dark Night quotes somehow...

I would like to ser an integrated database in 10.3, so the person hoasting the Library, can share it with other people on the network. I guess it would require exsternal media. I would also like to be able to import Motion project files directly into FCPX with working Drop Zones.

I love the comments about role based audio control and role based effects.

Karsten Schlüter wrote: … I heard rumors, it's called
Apple's Virtual Courtens Help Database

AVCHD? So you mean my A7S and FS700 have been recording using Courtens support all this time? Mind = Blown!

davechap wrote: I was listening to the FCPRadio podcast with T Payton the other day. He and Richard briefly mentioned how role-based mixing could be how Apple intends to mix audio without tracks and how much more powerful it would be. Thinking along those lines (if roles are how audio is adjusted with effects on roles), think about how that could relate to video. If roles are able to accept audio effects, they could accept video effects too. That could potentially do away with the empty title adjustment layer workaround and give you an easy target to change the grade based on the role applied.

THAT would be seriously amazing! I've heard about the role-based audio before but never thought about that it could be applied to video effects as well... I can see that being really really useful. I hardly use roles right now, but things like that would make me do it.

DmitriZigany wrote:

Karsten Schlüter wrote: … I heard rumors, it's called
Apple's Virtual Courtens Help Database

AVCHD? So you mean my A7S and FS700 have been recording using Courtens support all this time? Mind = Blown!

sort of built-in info, kinda meta-data, needs a 'reader' … Phil Hodgetts explains around 2:07"

MsJustine wrote: When you consider that Final Cut Studio cost a whack more than $300, $300 is cheap, by my not complex statement, I was referring to the user interface, it is not as complex as say Premiere or Avid is, this is by design, and Apple worked hard to make the complex interface less complex, hide the complexity deep inside, rather than on the interface, and that sorry is a bloody good thing!!!

Avid, omg, I was offered a free license for an Avid, but had to pay the annual update/service fee upfront, so I turned it down, I have no idea how many updates I am buying in advance.

I think that FCPX is the most efficient editing system yet created, no question, that however does not excuse Apple for taking well over a year, April 2015 to August 2016 to release a killer update, the only 2 outstanding updates since April 2015, 3d text and sharing to multiple youtube accounts, 16 months and only 2 decent features..

No updates for almost 200 days, nothing, it takes 16 months to beta test roles based audio mixing??? Gee..sorry but 16 months...

Funny you say that, today someone told me Final Cut Pro X is very complex with its tagging and roles functions. Complex not in use but as a solution.
You compared Final Cut Pro X which cost $299 with Final Cut Studio that ran $1000, you forgot that Final Cut Studio also came with Final Cut Pro, Motion, Compressor, Soundtrack, DVD Studio Pro, LiveType, Apple Qmaster and Cinema Tools.
Take it that direction Final Cut Pro X is pretty expensive.

Scrubelicious wrote: ....today someone told me Final Cut Pro X is very complex with its tagging and roles functions. Complex not in use but as a solution...

That was probably someone with little experience on FCPX. Doing basic tagging and rating is incredibly simple. I have explained it to long-time Premiere editors who have never touched FCPX and within minutes they "get it" and can see the benefit.

Other items of the interface such as roles and the magnetic timeline can require more thought because it's a different approach. Likewise media and storage management is more complex than Premiere because Premiere doesn't have any, except as of a few weeks ago they now have proxy.

Stabilizing or doing optical flow on multicam -- now THAT is far more complex in FCPX than in Premiere. It's funny how the anti-FCPX people never mention that, when it's one of the worst parts of FCPX. They obviously haven't used it much or simply don't do multicam.

Maybe this will be improved in 10.3, especially since the lead editor of Focus complained about it.

joema wrote:

Scrubelicious wrote: ....today someone told me Final Cut Pro X is very complex with its tagging and roles functions. Complex not in use but as a solution...

That was probably someone with little experience on FCPX. Doing basic tagging and rating is incredibly simple. I have explained it to long-time Premiere editors who have never touched FCPX and within minutes they "get it" and can see the benefit.

Other items of the interface such as roles and the magnetic timeline can require more thought because it's a different approach. Likewise media and storage management is more complex than Premiere because Premiere doesn't have any, except as of a few weeks ago they now have proxy.

Stabilizing or doing optical flow on multicam -- now THAT is far more complex in FCPX than in Premiere. It's funny how the anti-FCPX people never mention that, when it's one of the worst parts of FCPX. They obviously haven't used it much or simply don't do multicam.

Maybe this will be improved in 10.3, especially since the lead editor of Focus complained about it.

Maybe I didn't explain it correctly. I meant complex as in how easy Final Cut Pro X handles complex situation.
She felt that using its tagging and role function is much easier to handle a complex project vs Premiere Pro.

What you mean about Multicam? I think Final Cut Pro X has one of the best Multicam tools.

Scrubelicious wrote: ...What you mean about Multicam? I think Final Cut Pro X has one of the best Multicam tools.

Try applying stabilization, Audition, optical flow smoothing, or tracking via SliceX and see how easy multicam is on FCPX (it's not).

joema wrote:

Scrubelicious wrote: ...What you mean about Multicam? I think Final Cut Pro X has one of the best Multicam tools.

Try applying stabilization, Audition, optical flow smoothing, or tracking via SliceX and see how easy multicam is on FCPX (it's not).

I think you are being a little hard on FCPX's multicam here...

You can have a dozen or more multicam options, all different file sizes and codex, resolutions and you are complaining about adding extremely CPU intensive options into it??

My suggestion is to switch the master in multicam first, then add these tools to an exported, switched (PROGRAM) master file.

Or even better - remember Software multicam is in truth... a poor man's OB truck

the fact that you can't stabilize Multicam really sucks. it's one of the features I miss the most.

Deano wrote: ...You can have a dozen or more multicam options, all different file sizes and codex, resolutions and you are complaining about adding extremely CPU intensive options into it??

My suggestion is to switch the master in multicam first, then add these tools to an exported, switched (PROGRAM) master file....

Because multicam is so CPU-intensive you only want to stabilize the few clip ranges required. Yet with multicam you don't know what those are until you're done cutting. The same with clip retiming using optical flow, or doing a tracked color/exposure correction.

Of course you can export a switched video file, then re-import it, then blade all the clips needing stabilizing (assuming they don't have transition boundaries), then you're locked into a flat file and if any further changes are needed you do it all again.

Or in Premiere you just stabilize or track or do optical flow retiming right there in the MC timeline. It is logical and intuitive, works well and doesn't interfere with subsequent edits. This is one of the most extreme examples of an Apple product being vastly less intuitive and more difficult to use than competing products. There is no UI rationale whatsoever that legitimizes this -- is a dark, dirty corner of the product which probably has roots in some internal coding issues.

Hopefully this will be improved in 10.3, but we'll have to wait and see.

Just noticed, there is no "smoothcam", like the "smoothcam" in Final Cut Pro 6.

I hope they implement some keyboard shortcuts, so it's actually possible to edit without using a mouse.

As it is, the mouse is needed *way* too much for working with clips on the timeline, and why, oh why, can I only get a 2-up view when using the trim tool with the mouse, and not keyboard

chrisb wrote: I hope they implement some keyboard shortcuts, so it's actually possible to edit without using a mouse....

You can do a lot with the keyboard. See this MacBreak Studio:

Nah, something way more fundamental, right click a range in the clip browser, "add to clip audition", the timeline has a range, the right click should be context aware there is a range already selected in the timeline, instead of dragging and waiting then selecting add to audtion/replace and add to audition!!

KB shortcut to select/highlight clip (video+audio) not on main storyline?
- Right now, you hover the mouse over the clip and press 'C'

KB shortcut to move clips (video+audio) vertically?
- Right now, you have to mouse-drag clips to change their order.

KB shortcut to select left/right edit edges on clips not on main storyline?
- Right now, you have to mouse-click the edit edge.

You'll notice in the video that Sam only works with clips on the main storyline..

The 2015 FCPX Creative Summit in Oct 27 . Perhaps we can look forward to new FCPX！！Although there are two months :dry:

Must be 2016...... I hope.