The Future Of FCPX

BenB wrote: 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.

Well I was going to write that there is a technical issue with this: And it was because of the way FCP X's event structure works, if you make a change to a file that is in an event folder in an external editor (i.e. Motion or Photoshop) FCP X doesn't recognise the file changes and the file goes off line. But they I thought hey I better change this and you know what - they've fixed the bug so who know's what will happen next!

MJsanders wrote:

BenB wrote: 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.

Well I was going to write that there is a technical issue with this: And it was because of the way FCP X's event structure works, if you make a change to a file that is in an event folder in an external editor (i.e. Motion or Photoshop) FCP X doesn't recognise the file changes and the file goes off line. But they I thought hey I better change this and you know what - they've fixed the bug so who know's what will happen next!

Further testing revels: If you make a change to a video in motion that gets updated

If you make a change to a PSD file but don't add any layers's that gets updated.

If you make add a layer to a PSD file, that isn't recognised.

If you're afraid of change, or if change is difficult for an organization, it's days are numbered.

"It's not the strongest of the species that survives, it's the one that's most adaptable to change." Darwin told us that way back, we all know it, we are here after all.

Or do local TV commercials with 5 year old stuff and be happy and don't complain new stuff stops you from working.

Anyone posting in this thread is evidently looking for, or happy to find, new stuff to improve their workflow/capabilities in what ever field they are in. There's nothing wrong with wanting that stuff to work properly before it gets taken further. It's nothing other than sensible.

What's most important about that last quote is the complete misunderstanding. Anyone making TV Commercials on 5 year old equipment isn't doing so because they are afraid of change, unable to adapt etc. It's because they are running a business where deadlines are tight, time is money and reliability is key to the planning and scheduling necessary.

Decisions to make changes for the better are a constant, on going and long process that is always present. Moving to the future is always there, especially with advertising agencies (a very poor example) which do a lot to drive the future of our industry in what ever the current economic situations may be.

Because the industry is widening and more and more market opportunities are appearing, it doesn't make any other irrelevant.

i think some people in this thread are displaying a remarkable lack of imagination. The GUI of FCPX just requires an effects/motion mode that translates your timeline into a more compositing friendly mode - and one you can switch back and forth between.

Going back and forth between programs is a pain that in an ideal world we wouldn't need to worry about. Thats what a next generation NLE should be all about - and that's what I suspect Apple is thinking. The clues are all there.

FCPX is gradually switching on features from Motion and what exactly are the advantages to having two separate programs? I would edit in motion if it wasn't so painful. The same goes for smoke.

The future of editing lays along this path whether you like it or not.

Anyone making TV Commercials on 5 year old equipment isn't doing so because they are afraid of change, unable to adapt etc. It's because they are running a business where deadlines are tight, time is money and reliability is key to the planning and scheduling necessary.

Wise words indeed. Many years ago when Avid came to demonstrate their very first Media Composer in our facility they did the demo on a Quadra 8500 (If my memory serves me right) and the poor thing crashed all the time. Yet I saw this as a true glimpse of future editing and we immediately bought a system just for test purposes. But it took another two years before we actually started using Avid in production. Not because we were afraid of change, but because we simply could not fully rely on this new system for intensive daily work. They improved it, they made it stable and reliable and it became a standard in NLE history. Same thing happened when we also started working on FCP. At first it worked like a toy but it matured into a fierce competitor in the editing market. Not because it had more features, but because it was fast and stable. Reliability is far more important than eye candy. That is, if your paycheck depends on it.

FCP10 offers yet another new vision on how future editing could be and I believe it has many great prospects. In fact I have never adopted an entirely new system this fast in production. But it still has some quirks and bugs that slow down the most basic work. Now the most important thing is to make it faster and more reliable, and seeing the latest updates I'm confident that Apple understands this. I agree with Ben that 2012 is going to be a very exciting year.

GUYS,

The future of editing and FCPX is simply all about... TOUCH !!!

Snapdragon wrote: 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.

hmmm
If Apple wanted to go in the big boy (ala Smoke) direction, we would see this today.
Remember they had Shake in there hands and only thing that translated over to Motion was Optical Flow and a outdated tracker. No node editor, morphing and painting tools.
Imagine Apple would have brought us these tools plus a better tracker and a auto rotor.
It will have much more respect then as a mediocre title effect tool.

I would love to see a room style interface like in Autodesk Smoke, but not with 300 dollars.
If they do get rid of the layers and use nodes.
I just don't hope FCPX future lies in the hands of the consumers!

i suppose the point is that doing complex motion graphics feels like an unnecessary pain in the ass. What's great about Smoke right now, is I can do all that in one place.

I love the room approach of Color/Smoke and that's what would really work in any Next Gen NLE.

I want the power of After effects/Motion - but with the ability to easily change my edit if I want to all in one place. I know its not how we have been trained to work - but that to me is a limitation of the software/hardware of yesterday - and we all work around it.

After seeing how much more graphic focused FCPX is - I can see a 3.0 release of FCP X that does everything Motion does - but with in one place - simply and elegantly. And I for one can't wait.

PS. on consumers...
Apple are building a solid base with FCPX that will work for everyone. Plug in's will expand the gaps for the more niche industry pros - that have specific requirements. FCPX isn't going to turn into an iApp (that is for everyone) - IMovie already fills that role rather splendidly. Other than ambitious amateurs - FCPX is designed to appeal to people that take video seriously enough to potentially make a living from it - film students, web video makers and seasoned Pros.

I've never used Smoke, but from what I hear it's a finishing tool and while it can do everything from start to finish, it isn't a specialised offline editing tool, and lacks in the ability to lay down an edit efficiently in the way Avid does and FCPX has big potential to do.

Personally I don't thing room/node based software has much of a future, I think it's on the way out, and particularly doesn't look like it's in Apple's thinking. It has always been considered a more powerful way to work, but things are changing and Apple looks like they are looking at new ways (FCPX) to take layer/track based apps to new levels.

I'm actually starting to wonder about something. Perhaps Apple are looking to move the main tools into FCPX right enough, the keyer, tracker etc, leaving FCPX as a feature rich NLE and turning Motion into more of a developer tool for FCPX content.

To what level I'm not sure, but it's a possibility.

I hope so. That would be nice.

I'm not sure that I dislike the idea, but while FCPX needs some fine tuning as an NLE it seems to be a million miles away from that being a possibility.

"...if you make a change to a file that is in an event folder in an external editor (i.e. Motion or Photoshop)..."

Motion is non-destructive, it doesn't alter your original, you have to export a new file to bake changes in, but your originals are never physically changed.

Photoshop on the other hand can be destructive and actually change the original file.

You can't compare the two in that way. And the database engine FCP X runs on top of is in fact the Final Cut Server engine, and has the ability to do live updates when it's source files are destructively altered. How efficiently it does that will evolve over time.

NocoDave wrote: I've never used Smoke, but from what I hear it's a finishing tool and while it can do everything from start to finish, it isn't a specialised offline editing tool, and lacks in the ability to lay down an edit efficiently in the way Avid does and FCPX has big potential to do.

Personally I don't thing room/node based software has much of a future, I think it's on the way out, and particularly doesn't look like it's in Apple's thinking.

Smoke is pretty intense, node based software not having much of a future. That is pretty far fetch I would suggest the opposite after working with a node editor.
But you might be right someone already did the mistake killing of Color and Shake.

That is pretty far fetch I would suggest the opposite after working with a node editor.

Don't get me wrong, I've never worked with Smoke, but I have worked with nodes, and do know the power, but I think more and more power is becoming available in other forms.

I used Shake for years, node based. I'm doing pretty much the same stuff in Motion without nodes, and it's much easier and faster to deal with for me. I agree, nodes are on the way out. There are easier interfaces tools to do the same thing easier.

I've got similar experiences with MoGraph, as it evolves I find (for what I do) more and more options and in turn less need to look into XPresso and nodes in Cinema 4d.

The nodes are still more flexible/powerful, but less necessary.

On a similar note, working with behaviours in Motion makes me smile when I think about working with expressions in After Effects, expressions are again more flexible/powerful as yet, but for how long.

I'd love to see FCPX dump the keyframes in favour of behaviours.

I love working with nodes, been using Shake since v.1 and I supervise Smoke projects on a daily basis. But I agree node-based workflows seem to be on their way out.

As to behaviors in FCPX: would be a great idea. As long as we do keep the option to convert the behaviors to keyframes if we need finer tuning, like we can do in Motion.

Nodes are based on the configuration of old school analog video synthesizers and I still think that Nodes are applicable to UI design. Max/Jitter for instance allows you to create anything you desire visually and it is completely Node based. I'm not saying Max is by far an industry standard, but it is an example of how programming languages can be adapted for use by creative professionals.

Behaviors are just like Nodes in that it is a unit that performs a specific function, so are filters. I can link them together via Parameter Behaviors just like the noodles linking Nodes. Working with Nodes is just like filters and behaviors, and link the same way, we just have a more refined, less "programer" way of doing it.

I would say Behaviors are more like presets are Macros, they are fast but create unexpected results.
As in Node vs Layers not sure why nodes are on there way out look at Nuke for example.
Also its not about easier its more about flexibility, layer based compositing is appropriate for precipitous 2 dimensional but limited for 3 dimensional and can become problematic for more complex composites.
There are some draw backs with nodes like timing effects hint why the layers in Shake.
Yeah I don't see them using Apple Motion or Adobe After Effects in the next Hobbit movie.

But back to the topic, it would be cool to see the same color wheel from the keyer in FCPX. Add a tracking tool, rotoshape and we might be going in the direction of Smoke.