The Future Of FCPX

I meant post #5078

I'm a bit mixed up, I thought...

interesting statement, I would like to see your source.
cause Maya, Houdini and Smoke have high numbers.

...was in relateion to my post #5080, No?

BenB, Thats because you've only used Nodes in the context of Shake it seems. I am speaking about nodal interfaces in the broader context of visual effect generation.

Nodes are extremely useful when crafting effects and behaviors from scratch like in apps such as Quartz Composer and Max/Jitter. The possibilities are seemingly endless when using nodal interfaces in these apps since you can use programming methods to obtain sophisticated results.

Quartz Composer is free with Xcode. You can use its nodal interface to create visual effects and then publish the parameters with FxFactory you want to use in Motion and in turn FCPX. I've done so successfully but some 3D depth buffering is incompatible as of Motion 5. Motion 5 uses straight GLSL for most of the effects.



Nodes are not on the way out by any means. Hopefully they will always exist for artists to connect objects in a visual programming environment so they don't have to learn line based code like OpenGL or GLSL.

I meant post #5078

I got you now, something went amiss, we have posts back to front now too.

I think its fun to speculate on where Apple plan to take FCPX. To my mind, the rapid response in the upgrades and the (unheard of) signposting of the last update's details show Apple is very keen to still see the App as a pro tool. Interesting to hear about Logic X - I expect this will replace Soundtrack Pro for more advanced finishing.

I remember before FCPX came out there was a lot of speculation on what it would be. One common view that I came across on blogs and boards was the room model (as mentioned here) where you would have a series of rooms and changes in one would trickle along to all the others. I imagine this would be a logistical nightmare and probably highly buggy. Part of me thinks it would be nice to have but the other part of me feels like it would be playing into the hands of those complaining about Apple sandboxing the app. I'd definitely like to see some form of roundtripping with motion bought back in but a complete integration, not so much. I want to see both apps growing independently but interconnectedly.

This said, Apple has said they are thinking about the big picture - where will be in 10 years time. Unless they are like the writers of Lost and giving a load of BS, they must have an idea of where that is in their mind. One thing they are good at is being a couple of steps ahead of the rest of us.

One thing they are good at is being a couple of steps ahead of the rest of us.

I like that, especially as the thing I've found most interesting here is that still so many different people want so many different things. I know that I'm not even sure what I want, I could never have asked for what FCPX currently is and in general I'm pretty happy with what Apple gave us.

I site Shake, but it's not my only experience with Nodes. I've been at this for over 20 years.

I agree Noco, and will re-state that the future of GUI's will be based on what the majority of the market will use. That majority is not the folks it used to be.

I firmly stand behind my statement that Nodes do not do anything other methods can't do. They are nice for those who want to work like software programmers, but there are easier, more user friendly ways of doing the same thing. I can take the output of one parameter, and feed it as the input for another parameter in Motion, just like nodes do.

Some folks like them, some folks don't, I think we all get that. What's the net topic on "The Future Of FCP X"? One thing is you'll see QuickTime die once and for all, I think, in the next 2 years or less.

Quicktime isn't going anywhere anytime soon. Why do you think Apple would abandon the container that allows video to work with all of their devices? What would they adopt instead? This makes utterly no sense.

Well BenB in that case then FCPX will not going the right direction cause the majorette are using track based NLE and the FCPX timeline resembles more a node workflow. :woohoo:

Have you need doing compositing for 20 years?


installationspace there are rumors which you haven't heard from that a new format is on the uprising from a Fruit.

The AV Framework is already replacing QuickTime, Apple is already in the process of minimizing the QT Framework to almost nothing. It is an outdated technology, an outdate code, Apple is already replacing it. QT is not running FCP X. At this point it is only used for playback, not encoding, not editing, just the most simply playback.

FCP X is not in any way Node based. Connected Clips are not nodes, no data is being feed between inputs and outputs.

I've been doing a lot of media production for over 20 years.

Back to the topic,

Apple will continue to listen to requests from professionals. I hope in the next incremental release Apple focuses mainly on stability and UI enhancements, not feature requests.

The immediate future of FCPX will rely on the future of Compressor. Compressor still needs to be updated for a 64-bit architecture and when it is expect to see further integration in FCPX and Motion. This may possibly be one reason we don't see Storyline In and Out Points quite yet. When Compressor is updated it will sport a one window UI.

We will also see tweaks to the Pro Res line of codecs or greater support for various codecs inside of Project Settings in FCPX.

Yeah but that doesn't mean you know everything.

BenB wrote: FCP X is not in any way Node based.

Resembles not Similare. Feels more organic like nodes... :silly:

AV Foundation is not a replacement for Quicktime. It is another layer in the development stack. See illustration on Apple's Developer site.

Quicktime is a standard container for media playback, not the basis for development for ProApps. Core Services like Core Animation, Core Media, and Core Audio have been at the heart of FCP development for several years now, this is nothing new. You are comparing apples and oranges.

Quicktime will exist in some form or another for media playback in the future. Apple wouldn't have completely overhauled the UI in Snow Leopard just to drop it in Mountain Lion.

Then Apple really did NOT switch iTunes from QuickTime Framework to AV Foundation Framework?
www.philiphodgetts.com/2011/08/itunes-10-4-is-now-av-foundati/

QuickTime is slowly on it's way out, AV Foundation is replacing it.
www.philiphodgetts.com/2011/02/what-is-a...oing-with-quicktime/

In fact, legacy FCP was indeed built on the QT Framework. It is a Framework for developing applications, and is out of date. The UI runs on Core, that's an AV Foundation related subject, not QT.

I'm a retired IT engineer, I've been working with this stuff since I repaired Big Blues with a soldering iron and voltmeter.

You are misunderstanding me as usual b/c you aren't reading what I am saying. Apple is not necessary moving away from Quicktime as a whole. They have rewritten parts of Quicktime as QTKit which means it isn't going away completely. Quicktime will exist as a media playback framework at least until a complete overhaul of the OS. It may not reside fully as a development tool in ProApps, but it will in some degree in OS X.

AV Foundation was created as a more efficient means to utilize Core Frameworks and this has ALREADY happened, it isn't the future of FCPX it is the very basis of making ProApps fully 64-bit.

Im not saying FCPX is created from QTKit nor disagreeing with you that is was created with AV Foundation, so calm down the ego a bit and actually read what I wrote. I don't care who you are. Jeez.

Come on, guys. Lets not make it one of THOSE forums.

Exactly Robert, this thread is getting slightly out of control so please can we all get along and respect each others opinions.

If people want to get into a contest about how long they have been doing things, I've been editing for over 30 years and can bore the pants off you about chroma phase, blanking errors and how ten second pre rolls allowed you to drink your tea. Thought not.

But..

I'm still learning every day - even from watching a 10 year old do a Photoshop tutorial on YouTube. I'm also prepared for all those years experience to be near worthless due to the acceleration of technology.

Peter

I'm still learning every day - even from watching a 10 year old do a Photoshop tutorial on YouTube. I'm also prepared for all those years experience to be near worthless due to the acceleration of technology.

Wise words. 34 years ago I was cutting 35mm film with a razor blade and I have been learning ever since LOL. This is one of the most polite forums around, let's keep it that way.