TOPIC:

I know how unhappy we all are but I just want to remind us of this

Yeah, very slow to change, but that won't matter when TV and cinema are less than a fraction of the content that's being produced. TV and film are already so small a segment of what I see my students consume in terms of content that the landscape itself will ultimately dictate how post is completed.

DaveM wrote:

Not trying to morph this into a features-bug discussion, but there is no real need to "flatten" multicam clips.

With the angle viewer closed, only the curreent angle shown in the timeline is being played, just like any other clip. No extra resources are being used. You _can_ still edit things, as needed. Way better than "classic" FCP.

If you have several multicam clips in a timeline and you want to simplify things, you could always make one or more compound clips.

What else about being able to "flatten" multicam clips do you need?


Cheers.

they are many reasons making flatten multicam clips would be way better.
( Resources allocation aside ... and yes an extended multicam project is "heavier" )

and what a bummer to dive in the multicam for any stab, etc. You need to "recut" the clip inside the Multiclip, bummer and waste of time.

Less control on the Roles for the sound. Same Role for every clip in the Multicam clip. So you lose control on what you send to mix in term of "tracks" , because out of Fcp tracks are back.

"We will attempt to save..." Oh goodness! FCP never has to attempt after a crash. My students are great at smashing FCP into a crashed submission, and they never lose the progress they've made.

To people who are talking about the changing media landscape or kids learning FCP and they will bring it into the future; that is not as big a part of the story as you think. If you are doing personal projects where you are the lead, or if you are a one man band, then that is fine. I'm sure a bunch of people are making decent money like that doing web videos for clients or producing their own content for YouTube or whatever. But if you are trying to really make a living in the established media environment (I'm not just talking about feature films, everything from corporate videos to Marvel blockbusters, online advertising to prestige documentary series) you do not get to decide for yourself what software you will use. If you are working for a big company, they have invested tens/hundreds of thousands of dollars on equipment, support, and infrastructure. If you are a freelancer (even working remotely on your own gear) they will require you to conform to their workflow. They need to be able to transfer your project to another editor (whether it is because you died, quit, got fired, or they want to switch you to a different project). They go for the lowest common denominator. In broadcast and theatrical, the infrastructure drives everyone to Avid. In lowers end corporate and commercial work, everyone is on Adobe. The only thing that will change either of these is if Apple creates a product that delivers what the industries want or need, and if it is clearly an improvement over what they already have.

Oliver wrote:

SW: "- Motion Roundtrip ! c'mon !
- Internal AFF export !!! (the existing external has limits)
- A updated and better stabilisation
- An usable Noise reduction
- a mixing panel
- a real "Consolidate" ala Avid (exporting rushes as used in Sequence with handle)
- a way to "flatten" edited multicam like legacy Fcp
- collaborative process"

LOL. Not joking at all. I'm all for features if they enhance the workflow. But, let me offer some mild push-back.

- Motion roundtrip? Why? There's no Avid roundtrip to anything and presumably those editors would be the target audience to convert.
- No NLE has great video noise reduction when you compare that to Neat.
- Mixing panel. I would agree, however, I do find the audio roles quite versatile. I do find mixing in Premiere easier, but mastering with stems and export variations are superior in FCP to any other NLE because of roles.
- Agreed on consolidate, but it's not that easy with all media types. Premiere's function is terrible. Avid's is based on Avid media, not linked, native files.
- AAF export. I would agree, although AAF out of Avid is problematic. FWIW, you can export AAF out of Logic. OTOH, most of my Pro Tools mixers still prefer OMF. That's an ancient format that Avid barely supports anymore.
- Flatten Mcam. I know the arguments why this isn't needed, but I'd like to see that, too.
- Collaboration. I'm not sure whether or not that's really needed. What is needed is proper Library or Event locking so that I can open a Library in read-only mode if another editor has it open.
- Better stabilization. Why? FCP currently is equal to what you have in the other NLEs. They are all a crapshoot and success varies with the type of shot.

- Motion roundtrip. Avid doesn't present it so... we don't need it ? What argument is this ? Have it would be great, period. And that would be so easy to implement. Why did they hire Wes Plate anyway ?

- "No NLE has great video noise reduction when you compare that to Neat. ?" hum, I thought Resolve was also a NLE

- yes mixing panel is for pre-mix or what you don't send to mix, great in both cases

- Consolidate ? If Marquee can do it with noreal control (and flaws) Apple can do it ... (from within the app I guess it would be great)

- Flatten : audio Roles ! better control on clips ... bummer to dive in the multicam for any stab, etc

- Collaboration multi-editors is the basis of Avid predominance for some kind of work.

- is absolutly true that success varies for stab between NLE. But stab in Fcp could be way better, so why stay frozen in development ?


Anyway ... main subject : that answer from Apple is a bucket of lukewarm watter

This article and the writer's reaction video about After Effects are both worth the time to review.

www.provideocoalition.com/reaction-re-wr...ffects-from-scratch/

There are a lot of parallels to this conversation.

My guess is that Apple will move FCP forward at a faster pace now that the Mac is on Apple Silicon and optimized for video production.

Plesse Apple don't make excuses. Final Cut Pro is too lazy, too slow to update, and not as functional or professional as Davinci.

Oliver wrote:

This article and the writer's reaction video about After Effects are both worth the time to review.

www.provideocoalition.com/reaction-re-wr...ffects-from-scratch/

There are a lot of parallels to this conversation.

I think this is a great observation, but Apple has already shown a willingness to do exactly this. In a way, since FCP has reached a wall for the kinds of user it can reach widely, there is nothing holding Apple back. With AE, Adobe has everything to lose. Everyone saw what happened to Apple with the FCPX release debacle. I currently don't edit much anymore. I actually work in VFX and motion graphics, almost entirely in AE. And if Adobe pulled a FCPX style rebuild (especially one that killed all our plugins and scripts), it would be a huge blow. It would definitely open up the possibility of my employer switching to something else entirely, which is not in the cards right now. FCP can do whatever they want and probably not lose most of the users they have, as long as it improves things for their current users (who are sort of a self selected open minded group if they are using FCP to begin with). They only have bigger fish and prestige to gain. Just my thoughts.

Just wanted to throw some love Motion's way, and I wish Apple does the same. As a long-time graphic designer who's gotten more into motion graphics, I highly appreciate the free flow creative processes Motion allows me to play with. But there are long-standing bugs (ex: keyframing PDFs pages getting ignored with time, bugled retiming on videos if relinked, the inability to keyframe Dynamic stroke parameters over time, and--in the latest release--filters which don't show up in the timeline but do in the Layers panel) I wish the dev team sorts out. More fundamentally, though, having Motion take full advantage of available hardware while working with Particles and Emitters would be a huge boon, and probably something which would draw more users. Very often, working on complex 3d particles taxes only 1 or 2 CPUs and very little of my GPU, leaving these kids of projects slow and difficult to iterate, even on decent 2 year old hardware.

Nice, let's throw some training videos at those pesky bugs, that'll show them!