The Future Of FCPX

i have been using FCPX professionally, pretty much since v.1. I like it. I like it a lot.

And I can see where Apple are going with it.

If someone had asked what my ultimate Non linear editor would do two years ago - i would have said basically what after effect does, but with editing in the interface and in realtime.

FCP is build on the same foundations as Motion and to me it feels like this is where its heading. All it needs are the 3D camera, and a few other features moved across and its almost there. No more sent to motion - because you can do it in the same interface without going anywhere. Very much like Smoke's approach, but for the masses.

By version 3 of FCPX (or maybe even sooner) I predict Motion won't exist anymore - because it won't need to - you will be able to do everything it could in FCPX.

Maybe I'm wrong but it seems like the last piece of the puzzle for the ultimate editor.

Motion does so much, and is so deep, the whole of it couldn't fit into FCP's screen. I'd never want to see it disappear. It's way to powerful and deep. I do intense, advanced motion grphics a lot, and all in Motion, and it's pretty deep. It's simply Apple's version of AE, they both do the same. So no, I don't see Motion going away any time soon. There's tons of stuff Motion can do FCP can't.

And...Motion seems to be pretty darn stable at this point, to boot!

Motion code has been integrated in FCP10 from the start and the integration is already quite deep. So it would not be a huge problem putting both apps into one. But like Ben says it would be extremely challenging to create a GUI that works both for serious editing and for deep compositing.

We all have seen the nice vids promoting how you can edit with Smoke. I have been using Smoke since day 1 and it's my favorite compositing tool, I even prefer it over Nuke. But I would never consider doing any serious editing on it. It's a finishing and compositing tool, and the mere philosophy between editing and compositing is totally different.

So I do hope Motion will further evolve as a separate compositing tool, just like Logic will further evolve as a separate audio sweetening tool. The key is to create a perfectly integrated workflow between the different apps. I have heard that the coming Logic X works perfectly together with FCP X. So I expect that Motion, once it also gets the X status, will do the same.

I'd like to see tighter integration between different tools across the board and currently favour the FCPX and Motion 5 rigging and publishing route, but to have an NLE that also does everything a motion graphics package or a compositor does doesn't sound good.

They are different toolsets, and different aspects are relevant to the different tasks. For many years I loved the simplicity of the Avid editing toolset, and the power of Adobe After effects. I changed to FCPX because they made it simpler and because they improved the integration with Motion 5.

I made some big compromises on both, but gained in places too. I can see a future of those compromised balancing out and hopefully surpassing.

What I'd like to see is the ability to change toolsets/layout so suit a particular need. A menu that changes your FCPX layout (and edit) to a Motion layout with the edit exactly in place with full round tripping, but not it all in one.

I've kept a keen interest (and often dual boot) of linux over the years and even those guys editing on Blender are ever hopeful of a decent NLE.

We are simply waiting for the roundtrip between FCP and Motion to come back like we had before. Next update or two should have it.

I remember, we spoke of this before not long ago. If I picked you up correct last time it's not what I'm talking about. You mentioned it worked the same as Adobe's Dynamic Link.

I'm for them bringing that back, it's ok, it is of limited use but use is use. But if what I am talking of is in the pipeline I'd much prefer they left the old way alone and spent their time working on it.

This might be a bit controversial but my thinking is the same in that they may have a stable NLE running by now if they left the multi cam alone and fixed the basic stuff that doesn't work.

I'm talking about the ability to switch interfaces completely. When you go to Motion all edit points and everything are there, back in FCP it's also all there and any adjustments made between each relate back and forward.

I see no reason why we shouldn't have it in todays world, I think it's only the question of will Adobe or Apple have it first. Strangely Avid have it closest but AvidFX isn't so popular and they don't seem like they're interested in going there with it.

I don't see Apple integrating both apps, but it does seem that Apple wants us to composite in FCPX and use Motion as an effects creation platform. I say this in the very least since the only workflow between the two apps is to rig effects, titles, etc in Motion and then send them over to FCPX. Pretty interesting compositing techniques are available in FCPX, so for smaller jobs you could very well just stay right in the FCPX interface. If Apple reintroduces roundtripping, which in my point of view is inevitable, I hope they make it so the composited edit returning from Motion is still editable in FCPX, unlike in legacy versions that would force you to open Motion back up. This would make since with the integration that already exists between the two apps.

The roundtrip in legacy depended on XML transfers from one app to the other. It will have to work the same way now. FCPXML is only just now able to allow 7toX to be written and functional, so there's a few more things they have to work out in translating things FCP does that Motion does, and things that Motion does that FCP can't, and then get us our XML based round trip back. It will come back, I'm confident of that. But it's not here now because this brand new advanced version of XML is only now maturing enough to even start to attempt the round trip between the two apps. This is why with the 10.0.3 (FCOXML 1.1) you see so many higher end 3rd party effects released. Switching from one app to the other, things need to be translated.

Let's be clear, FCP X and Motion are not GUI's for the same program. They share the same "render engine" and both are based on the new AVFoundation framework. But they are two very different apps that do very different types of work, yet do share some small bit of functionality.

Let's be clear, FCP X and Motion are not GUI's for the same program.

Nice wording, this is what I am looking/waiting for. The day will come. Apple or Adobe, who first?

Yeah, I agree roundtripping will come with time, hopefully. I don't think the timelines in both apps need to be identical, the UI is fine tuned in FCPX for editing while in Motion the UI is used for compositing.

All we need is a XML solution like BenB is talking about, and I don't see it being too far off either with the improvements that have been made recently. On the way back to FCPX, the export from Motion would require used parameters from used effects to be published and layered in the FCPX timeline. This is what I'm looking for really, although I can see rendering being a step in there on the return to FCPX unless somehow clips were kept optimized or proxyed throughout the journey. I can also see Roles being involved in the process. I would like to be able to flatten a role automatically on ingest to Motion.

Now that a lot of missing features have been addressed with the release of 10.0.3, roundtripping and Pro Res 422 LT optimized project settings are now my top 2 most wanted features in FCPX.

I don't think the timelines in both apps need to be identical, the UI is fine tuned in FCPX for editing while in Motion the UI is used for compositing.

Me either, not to look at anyway and it would be better if it never. But in function this is a great thing. we know that the design of an NLE timeline/toolset is very different to that of a motion graphics or compositing one, so it would be essential to change that timelines operation, just that it functions the same and all edit points/transitions/compound clips etc. translate both ways.

I see it as a bit of a holy grail.

In Premiere I could create an edit and open the Premiere project file in After Effects, it translated the timeline to an After Effects timeline, any dip to black transitions were changed to black solid layers with opacity keyframe layers etc. and all edit points were translated to layers.

But it was all very limited, only certain simple things would translate and that couldn't be sent back to Premiere, not with adjustable edits anyway. I think this is also something similar to what could be done in legacy FCP?

In Avid MC you can open any clip or transition in Avid FX, do some work and when you return to MC the changes are there on the edit, further (editing related) changes can be made and FX can be re-visited for further FX related changes.

So it does't go as far opening a full MC timeline in FX, but it is a true 2 way round tripping that as yet no where has seen.

I forgot to add, I also think that all new features should be put on hold until what is already there works properly and stably.

I absolutely agree. The pressure to add multi cam and broadcast monitoring was so huge this has been the prior concern until now. But as from today I think further improving stability and performance are on the very top of the FCP10 wish list.

As to Motion:

The foundations are here, and they are solid. Anything you can apply to a clip in FCP10 actually already is a Motion project, from simple dissolves to titles and third party filters. This is not a coincidence. Translating FCP10 to Motion projects and back has never been more obvious. Wether this will be done the "classic" way by sending FCP10 timelines to Motion and back using FCPXML or simply by switching GUIs within an FCP10 project, only time will tell. Both are viable options, and we all know Apple is kind of allergic to "classic" workflows. So I have some ideas of how this could turn out in my wildest dreams.

This has always been the mantra for every version of FCP and Premiere. Don't do any more until you fix the bugs and the performance. Never happens in software. Marketing won't let it. You can't go to NAB or put on your web page: "WE FIXED IT." You're not go to see that banner across the facade of the LVCC.

Well then at least I'm happy that Apple does not do NAB anymore

But you are correct Tom, eye candy always has been more important to marketing people than performance and stability. Fortunately FCPX now already has sufficient eye candy, and speed and stability have become very important benchmarks when comparing NLEs. Do not underestimate the power of the user forums. You cannot advertise that you have the most complete and revolutionary software if hundreds of people add to this: yeah, but it is full of bugs and it crashes all the time. I think Apple has painfully understood this, and that's a good thing for everyone.

This has always been the mantra for every version of FCP and Premiere. Don't do any more until you fix the bugs and the performance. Never happens in software. Marketing won't let it.

Very true, but until recent years it wasn't so much so with Avid, and they've held the strongest ground since day 1.

As regards the future of Motion: in future it might be seen as a finishing tool that can open FCPX project databases for what used to be called onlining. Maybe sound editors, designers and mixers might use Logic X to access the same project at the same time as the Motion 'online editor'

As regards the future of FCPX, connecting clips and storylines to clips - alongside auditioning - is about finding new ways to codify editorial decisions on a timeline (The kind of decisions made inpenetrable by the different uses of tracks in 20th century digital editing metaphors). This means that the future of FCPX might be the codification of more editorial decisions. Perhaps conditional editing - setting multiple in and out points for clips - the choice of which depending on which clip is inserted before or after.

Essentially there are two sets of features coming in the FCP series. Those that catch up with and gradually surpass other editing software (but dont expect editors to become compositors, colurists or sound designers) and those features not seen in current editing software from anyone.

I'm sure there are many people in Santa Clara who are impatiently waiting for features that have been requested for years, so i'm not worried about 'less freezes' and 'scrolling timelines.' I'm more interested in multi-user editing (including via iCloud) and wierd and wonderful things you can do with stories as databases (such as metadata-based illustration of voice-recognised live dialogue).

Note that the Mac App Store currently doesn't allow for upgrade pricing. This means that version 10.1 will have to be worth as least as much as buying a whole new copy of FCPX. I think that upgrade would have to be a whole lot more than announcing that it crashes a whole lot less.

That all sounds very exciting for the future, but today I am responsible for the livelihood of 24 editors and compositors who work in our film and video facilities in Belgium and France.

And the only thing that really concerns me is to constantly find the right tools that meet the specific demands of our clients today and that allow our people to finish their projects in the best possible conditions without any frustrations. FCP10 is not our primary editing tool yet, we only use it on three new systems in daily broadcast production. It is good, really good, and I can see it offers a very decent basis for our future development in the new media market.

But in our world stability, speed and reliability are far more important than anything else. If the next major update would not add any new features but it would guarantee that every feature it has works perfectly and that I will get a truly professional NLE that won't crash or choke even on the longest and most complex projects (providing, of course, that I also give it the best possible systems to run on) then I would be willing to pay 20 times the price it costs now. Because that would without any doubt be the best NLE on the market today and I would make money with it. I hope that's the real future of FCP10, at least from a professional point of view.

My last word on this thread, as it's getting way too long for me to deal with considering it's all just speculation and wild dreaming.

1- No software has ever been 100% bug free. The fewer the moving parts, the less there is to go wrong. Computers and software have way more moving parts that any machinery ever made in history. Yes, CPU's have moving parts that wear out.

2- Media production has for over a decade now been IT tech reliant, and the technology has been evolving faster and faster every year. If you're afraid of change, or if change is difficult for an organization, it's days are numbered. National broadcast are not the industry gods they once were, and never will be again. Most indie film makers are more high tech than national broadcasters, keep up faster, and are overtaking more of the market because of it.

3- If you cram too much ability in to one application, entropy takes over and you wish you had multiple applications again. Fact of life.

4- Evolution happens in our industry, in technology, in the global market, in our personal lives. You can keep up, or not, it's all personal choice. No one app will be 100% perfect, so don't even worry about it. Learn the cutting edge tools, move forward, stay on top. Or do local TV commercials with 5 year old stuff and be happy and don't complain new stuff stops you from working.

2012 will be a very interesting year...

On to other threads.