64-bit cocoa rewrite?!
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on 01/20 at 01:33 PM
64-bit cocoa rewrite?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on 01/20 at 01:35 PM
Batch clip renaming to enhance workflow with file based clips.
Visual clip interface, not just large thumbs - An enhanced version of the clip browser from iMovie would be good.
Posted by Nick WB on 01/20 at 04:25 PM
Well, you’ve missed one huge bug - RGB is still handled at 8-bits, AFAIK. And full range YUV (shots with IREs outside of 0-100) images are exported to RGB with everything above 100 and below 0 clipped off. The only word for FCP’s RGB handling is unacceptable.
Central user settings would be nice, indeed.
One thing I would like in a trim tool is an actual modeless trim tool. I have a macro set up on my system so that I can trim from the timeline (well, trim off anyways…). I generally hack together a rough cut with long handles, and once I have a rough cut I like, work to refine it by watching the sequences and trimming the handles down. So my macro is a one-button “trim off from the playhead to the end of the clip” function (really just a blade-all, next frame, select clips under playhead, ripple delete). I would like to see that implemented as a true one-button function. You could combine this with a buttons to add 1, 5, 10 (or whatever) frames to the current clip, maybe. After hearing about how great Avid’s trim tool was, I looked into whether you could do this in Avid without a hack, and was disappointed to find that you could not. I work fast, and like to work from the timeline in a fluid fashion, and not deal with trim windows/modes.
Some sort of one-track semi-timeline based editing mode for slapping together rough cuts where all clips are displayed as the same size thumbnail sequentially. Drag and drop to re-order. Different takes of the same shot displayed above the clip in the timeline. Want a different take of that shot? Drag it down. All the other clips automatically re-shuffle to match. Double click a shot to open it in the viewer to change ins and outs. I think this would be a fantastic way to rough cut - less worrying about the interface, more worrying about editing.
Image sequence support. I know, I know, this breaks the whole “everything must be a quicktime” paradigm, but that’s a really stupid paradigm. This ties in with the next suggestion.
Better integration with VFX. This is pointless until the 8-bit RGB issue and the gamma issue (is that finally resolved, or are we waiting for FCS 4?) are resolved, but a man can dream. The ability to mark shots as “needing VFX”, “sent to VFX”, etc, as well as a way to automatically lay in completed VFX shots above the clip they came from. Also, a feature to make a list of shots labelled “needing VFX” and exporting them as image sequences (and exporting them full range - map IRE 110 to 1023, and IRE -10 to 0, not IRE 100 to 1023 etc, or at least have the option!).
A motion tab that doesn’t suck? Even with motion rendering set to best, changing anything in the motion tab still seems to be the “look like crap” button. For that matter, so is almost every button that does anything to the image.
That ended up longer than I thought, but it seems like Apple is content with FCP being an OK offline editor with no abilities to actually finish a project/interoperate with other software. And that makes me mad…
Posted by Charles Angus on 01/20 at 06:53 PM
Peter - on the fixed windows: if you save your window layout to auto arrange, it will adjust regardless of monitor size.
Charles: Modaless ‘trimming’ - On an Avid it’s called Tops/Tails. The FCP equivalent would be (tails) X-I-Forward Delete (ripple delete) and (heads) X-O-Forward Delete (ripple delete). Then get quickkeys and set this up as a macro. Note: on an avid (and fcp) this will only really work with straight cuts.
Posted by filmgeek on 01/20 at 07:53 PM
Thanks Charles, that’s really a great list. As one who is more of an offline editor than an online editor those are things that I wouldn’t have thought about but makes perfect sense. That would really move FCP to a whole new level as far as finishing goes.
Posted by Scott Simmons on 01/20 at 09:06 PM
This is a great article and I cannot agree with you more on all of the points that you brought up. I agree that there are a number of user / interface improvements like the scratch disc indicator, WYSIWYG abilities and two different keyframe modes, traditional clip independent keyframes and keyframes that are locked to the clip transformations like shortening, adding length or even time remapping.
The centralize user preferences file is a great idea, and to make it even better users should be able to switch from one mode to another. I often times find myself jumping into another editors project to do some color or graphics work and I’ve never felt comfortable making too many personalized adjustments to final cut for two reasons: waste of time to do it on multiple machines and could only lead to angry coworkers wondering why some obscure keyboard short cut is acting differently.
I agree that cluster rendering support needs to be overhauled so that anybody could use it and you don’t have to worry about some lower third not showing up on the export because it was added from a users system instead of the shared storage location, or have qmaster review the media’s accessibility before rendering.
Posted by Gregory Wilson on 01/20 at 10:29 PM
I just love some of the classic “old Avid folk” of editing chatter. Newer guys for one have in fact caught the fact that MOTION exists and is bundled with FCP for good and (for most) quite obvious reasons: it does a big part of the things that FCP sucks at and has always sucked at and will CONTINUE to suck at, at least until an entirely new FCP build comes along, but even THEN I think, again for obvious reasons, that part stays OUT of FCP! Those areas specifically being anything GRAPHIC and most of all TEXT. To in fact wish more capabilities *into FCP* just makes it more apparent that people plain don’t get it… since I guess that would mean for them to actually have to think outside of the FCP (not FCS) box or even… oh no… learning something NEW??! *shiver*
Best part: “Even with motion rendering set to best, changing anything in the motion tab still seems to be the “look like crap” button.” LOL… not even realizing that “motion rendering” is in fact pertaining to “MOTION rendering”! Not the TAB, the FILE (.motn)!... 
And going with the “having to switch to another apps is a horrible thing!” stance is also bs, since, if you in fact know what you’re doing, working with Motion is hardly ANY different than switching between tabs in Photoshop. CMD-TAB is your friend. Sheesh.
If anything, everyone should be asking for far better Motion *integration*, not brainless overloading of FCP with even more redundant functionality. Ask for the same render-engine for both Motion and FCP to reduce or even eliminate the need to render within FCP and 100% exchangeability of things like generators, filters and transitions… then go out and LEARN it and finally grasp that you have a lot you’re whining for in it’s already FOURTH incaration. Can’t get any more WYSIWYG than Motion’s text handling and animation. Same goes for KEYFRAMES by the way. It’s all THERE. Maybe do yourselves a favor and get used to it NOW, since it’s only going to go more, not less, in that direction.
For that matter, I’ll even bet you your purple Avid cappy that NO ONE here other than maybe Jeff even know that there is an optional keyframe editor in the FCP *timeline*!!
FCP is and was never meant nor claimed to be any type of super-duper text or graphics or FX animation or just plain ANIMATION tool, period. So complaining about it (any time since the advent of Motion) is just plain thick. Learn Motion and *get it*, and you’re left with a shorter list.
But believe it or not, I agree with nearly every other point, since they are in fact relevant to *editing* Tho if you know your FCP, you couldn’t possibly see an actual *advantage* to the “Trim” editing. Don’t make it better, throw it OUT! I am SO glad to have gotten away from that utter nonsense in AVID! UGH!
I also enjoy how obvious some people make the fact that they’ve nothing to base their knowledge on other than years of learning-by-doodeling, but are often the loudest (and longest) critics of “missing” functionality that in fact EXISTS, if only they’d ever actually taken the time to e.g. get some decent TRAINING. In other words: Charles quite obviously is missing a massive amount of *basics* on how FCP actually works, sorry. Near every “fault” of FCP cited is easily solvable… given the KNOWLEDGE that is. Classic photo-goes-film type.
Sorry I don’t conform to the usual reciprocative back-patting yay-sayers. :-D
Posted by lin2log on 01/21 at 10:13 AM
Hey, let’s not go hating on Avid here, or vice-versa. As someone who uses both (and I’m sure Scott would corroborate), neither platform is without its hefty share of flaws.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on 01/21 at 01:19 PM
lin2log - while I don’t appreciate your tone (or your insinuation that I don’t know what I’m doing), I would appreciate you sharing your solutions to the problems I enumerated (since you claim that they are non-issues).
How have you been getting 10-bit full-range YUV images from Final Cut into, say, Shake or Nuke?
Seamless support of image sequences?
I don’t want workarounds, I want solutions. And, quite honestly, I have used Motion and I hate it.
I would also like you to cite some evidence that I am missing “a massive amount of *basics*”. I consider myself a fast and proficient FCP editor, and will throw down any day!
And I don’t want super-duper FX animation and titling in FCP. I want to quickly make credits, titles, etc. without going into that god-awful Motion program. I want to be able to zoom in 10% on a shot without having to roundtrip though a VFX app. For that matter, I want to be able to roundtrip losslessly through a VFX app. (No, Motion is not a VFX app. The current standard VFX apps are Nuke, Shake, AE, Fusion, and the Discreet systems).
PS. I am not a former Avid editor.
Scott - thanks for the tip re: Tops/Tails in Avid - I hadn’t been able to find that when looking into it before. I don’t own an Avid, but I like to stay up-to-date on all the tools. Re: modeless trimming in FCP - what you describe does work (and is in fact what I’ve done), but I would like a real button that does that.
Posted by Charles Angus on 01/21 at 06:55 PM
I don’t think lin2log really understood my comment on a WYSIWYG title tool. The issue for me isn’t moving to Motion at all as I work in it all the time. While it isn’t a “real” vfx app I think it can do great work for many tasks.
The issue is moving to it or any external app during the creative offline stage. Contrary to what many might thing there’s still a lot of offline > online editing where the online is in an entirely different system than FCP. To move to a different app like Motion for rough titles is completely antithetical to the offline/online process. It’s clunky, cumbersome and takes far too much time, keystrokes and system resources than it has to for an offline edit. Plus, titles I create in motion won’t translate via a list to online.
And I would say that to say “in fact wish more capabilities *into FCP* just makes it more apparent that people plain don’t get it” is missing the point entirely. The whole point of software upgrades is to add more features that makes it more usable, more reliable and a better tool for the editor to work with. All of my wishes do just that.
Posted by Scott Simmons on 01/22 at 08:14 AM
Yeah, let’s just add ALL other peripheral features that the rest of FCS has to offer into FCP! That’ll fix it and of course REDUCE needed resources in comparison, I’m sure. All it’s missing then is the names ADOBE and PHOTOSHOP on it and we’re done. Since e.g. in the case of PS all the timeline and 3D stuff made matters SO much better and STABLE! :-D Let’s fuse AE and PPro while we’re at it.
(Since AE, PS and the rest of CS4 are *legendary* in terms of stability for that matter. But hey, great feature set, huh?) [/sarcasm]
Being able to “deactivate” features that you don’t need and therefore opening up major amounts of e.g. RAM by simply QUITTING one or the other “feature” is a real bummer and certainly not worth the extra two clicks in your workflow. Is that roughly it?
Sorry, but IMO if you in fact a) have a half-decent machine, running both FCP and Motion at the same time is hardly an “issue” and b) if you in fact DO know your way around Motion then adding AND editing placed Motion files *FROM THE FCP TIMELINE* is a no-brainer and virtually in real-time. I hardly see how it is, as I’ve said, any different than if you were to switch a tab within the same (RAM hungry) app. Again, if you don’t see that, then you simply do not know the Motion workflow.
And aside from the fact that I never in any way claimed Motion to be a VFX tool (tho it very well can be), even APPLE positions it clearly as a *complimentary* tool to AE and not some sort of *replacement*, it’s a motion graphics tool. I also just love the fact that by name dropping “big” names like AE, NUKE etc. to prove their point is the dead giveaway that someone *doesn’t* in fact have the slightest clue as to what Motion is all about. 
))) As if any of those in fact were a BETTER alternative, especially in terms of workflow(!), for the things that Motion is meant for i.e. what we are talking about here. Since for me it is one thing to say that Motion is not an option simply because you don’t know your way around it, fine! But it’s a whole different matter if you call it a WORKAROUND, accompany and pad that statement with some “I know what I’m talking about” names and terminology to somehow “prove” your claim instead of simply fessing up that you DON’T know Motion. Which is all too obvious. (“you” being whoever feels spoken to. “You’ll” know if you are :-D)
Biggest giveaway? Wanting to “quickly make credits, titles” and calling Motion “god-awful” in the same sentence, where it in fact is well known to do JUST THAT, even far better than AE (along with having superior built-in masking tools, built-in tracking etc. etc. and even did *float* before AE did)! Motion has text styling and animation options that AE can only DREAM of!
And as if “export, create, render, save, import, replace… oops! gotta edit!... DELETE, REimport, RErender, REsave, REreplace” somehow beats “right-click, create, save… oops! gotta edit!... right-click, save” (with a CMD-TAB or two in-between) Yeah. The latter really sucks in comparison, don’t it?
Mmmh-hmmm. Sure. You know your Motion.
And mind you: the Motion path has NO RENDER in it, so to then even go on to say “I want to be able to roundtrip losslessly” removes every last shred of credibility in the “I know Motion” claim in my book and reduces everything else to nothing more than a polemic rant (much like this is turning out to be, yes… oh well). Like the “tone” or not.
And by the way, a tops/tails edit in FCP is in fact a simple selecting the incoming/outgoing edit point and hitting “E” with the Ripple Tool selected (assuming there is no other synced video/audio or changed auto-select settings in the way), be it in the timeline OR even with “I” and “O” instead of “E” in the Viewer! Oh, wait… sorry… but you already knew that, right? You’ve “thrown that down” hundreds of times, I’m sure. :-D
But, you know… whatever dude. I don’t need to convince anyone of anything, I just straighten out what I find to be bogus claims 
. The people that actually know Motion know when it is the tool of choice, *especially* when working with FCP and when it isn’t and they’re that much more skillful, flexible and proficient for it. You’re just not one of them. Oh well! Life goes on…
Posted by lin2log on 01/24 at 12:37 PM
lin2log, whether or not you agree with other peoples’ points, can you at least be civil about it? Nobody here, including you, is the supreme authority on workflow—I think it’s fair to assume that we all have varying things we need to do with FCS, and just because some people go about them differently than others, it doesn’t make them wrong.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on 01/24 at 12:57 PM
Only we’re not talking about “varying things”, but rather “specifics”, aren’t we. I’m pointing to specific solutions to specific (alleged) problems that are already there (whereby NO solution is perfect… duh). Pointing out where I’m supposedly so horribly wrong could have been more constructive, no? (but claiming AE is a better alternative for titling in this context IS wrong, sorry)
It’s called “point and counter-point” actually. Not sure why one should be “uncivil” just because you apparently don’t agree. Kinda makin’ yourself guilty of your your own accusation, dontcha think? Don’t know why else you’d feel that way.
Don’t let the provocative sarcasm get to ya… :-b
Or maybe my 8 years of Avid during the 90’s and early millennia took more of a toll than I thought and I’m just a bitter old man… :-D
And AGAIN: I agree wholeheartedly on all points ... just not the text thang (and to a certain degree the keyframing). So are only certain people entitled to an opinion? Of course if we’re just supposed to “read it and cheer!... or shut up”, then maybe the comments should be disabled?
I’ll work on a better entry next time… scout’s honor.
Posted by lin2log on 01/24 at 01:59 PM
“but claiming AE is a better alternative for titling in this context IS wrong, sorry”
That’s exactly my point; it may be wrong for YOU, but for someone else, it may not be. I can think of quite a few things that AE can do with text that Motion either can’t or has a worse implementation of, and vice-versa. The point is, don’t make assumptions about others’ workflow based solely on your own.
“Not sure why one should be “uncivil” just because you apparently don’t agree.”
Agreeing or disagreeing has little to do with civility; comments like “The people that actually know Motion know when it is the tool of choice, *especially* when working with FCP and when it isn’t and they’re that much more skillful, flexible and proficient for it. You’re just not one of them. Oh well!” do.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on 01/24 at 02:12 PM
“And by the way, a tops/tails edit in FCP is in fact a simple selecting the incoming/outgoing edit point and hitting “E” with the Ripple Tool selected (assuming there is no other synced video/audio or changed auto-select settings in the way), be it in the timeline OR even with “I” and “O” instead of “E” in the Viewer! Oh, wait… sorry… but you already knew that, right? You’ve “thrown that down” hundreds of times, I’m sure. :-D” - lin2log
Not what I was looking for, but thanks for the tip.
You still haven’t addressed the major issues I took with FCP as more than a simple offline editor (issues for which you claimed there to be simple solutions), and I’m sure you’re not going to, as they are real issues that even enormous amounts of sarcasm can’t fix.
There. I’m officially done feeding the trolls on this thread.
Posted by Charles Angus on 01/24 at 10:28 PM
You know one tiny feature that would save me a fair bit of time on every edit I do? A ‘Close all gaps on the timeline’ command. Seriously.
Posted by Stu Mannion on 01/26 at 10:07 PM
Overall keyframing behaviors still haven’t been addressed and updated as of FCP 7.0.1. We are still using the same type of keyframing timeline to do effects work and there is still no way to select and move multiple keyframes at once other than moving keyframes via the Toggle Clip Keyframes command in the master timeline. Keyframing controls and interaction should be overhauled right in the Viewer as that’s where most keyframing work takes place. You also can’t choose to scale and move keyframes when changing the duration of a clip in the timeline. Yes you can copy/paste attributes and Scale Attribute Times to achieve this in a more rudimentary fashion but that’s a workaround. Why do we still need workarounds 7 versions into a product for something so simple?
This rippling of aux timecode still hasn’t been addressed. Truth be told, in 2010 this has become less of an issue than in the past since many music videos are now acquired on tapeless media like the RED camera or Canon DSLRs so each take of a song performance is often one master clip. Add syncing software like 
We are still stuck with the same old built-in title tool that FCP has always had. If it hasn’t been addressed at version 7 then it’s never going to be addressed until we get a drastically rewritten application. And even then if Apple keeps the suite of applications mentality intact it might not get updated then either. There’s the argument to be made that in today’s world of one editor doing multiple jobs like effects and finishing you don’t need a simple WYSIWYG text editor since you almost always want the option of effects and animation for titles. I would argue that that’s even more reason to have a simple WYSIWYG title tool so you can comp in rough titles as fast and efficiently as possible during the creative stage of the edit and not have to move to an external app like Motion or After Effects just to get WYSIWYG interaction.
IMHO this is one of the single items that has most needed addressing in FCP that has never been touched throughout the evolution of the application. As tapeless media becomes more the norm for acquisition then the need to capture from tape is less and less. But most post houses still have to deal with tape on a very regular basis. I doubt if we’ll ever see the ability to add markers or log a tape as it captures but at the very least FCP needs some type of rolling timecode display whenever tape rolls. More on that in a minute.
All FCP user settings still reside in different folders. Third party apps like 
The Trim Tool is another component of FCP that has had very little attention throughout FCP’s life. Besides the addition of Dynamic Trimming I don’t think it’s ever been touched. At version 7 it is still clunky and still doesn’t give enough user feedback to make it useful for most trimming operations. It’s sad that most FCP-only editors don’t know the power of a good Trim Tool. 
The XML export is still the way to move backwards from a newer version of FCP to an older version. As with some other things on this list, and at this point in FCP’s life, I would rather see programmers focus on some other things.
