PDA

View Full Version : Email Exchange with Randy Ubillos, FCP X Designer



Chris Messineo
06-22-2011, 06:59 PM
I took a shot in the dark and sent an email to Randy Ubillos, the designer of FCP X.

I don't want to share it all, but I did ask about using FCP 7 projects in FCP X and here was his reply:


"FCP7 projects do not have enough information in them to properly translate to FCPX (in FCP7 all of the clip connections live in the editor's head, not in the timeline). We never expected anyone to switch editing software in the middle of a project, so project migration was not a priority.

Final Cut Pro X 1.0 is the beginning of a road, not the end."


So, there you have it. This was never a goal of theirs and it is not coming in the future.

Excuse me, while I go weep quietly in the corner. :cry:

Jim_Behl
06-22-2011, 07:03 PM
You might say the problem was with the original FCP file structure not with FCP X.

Barry_Green
06-22-2011, 07:10 PM
You might say the problem was with the original FCP file structure not with FCP X.
That makes no sense. When Premiere Pro can read FCP file structures and import projects, there's no reason to suspect that FCP X couldn't have done so. They just chose not to.

echo9
06-22-2011, 07:16 PM
That makes no sense. When Premiere Pro can read FCP file structures and import projects, there's no reason to suspect that FCP X couldn't have done so. They just chose not to.

Unless FCP X reads information differently than Premiere Pro. I'm pretty sure that if they could have made FCP 7 import available, then they would have. If the two systems are incompatible, then that's that. When they implement the XML import tool (whenever that ends up), it will probably be close enough for most people's needs.

SPZ
06-22-2011, 07:18 PM
I'm sorry but I think his reply is not acceptable. "beginning of the road", he says. The thing is currently we are all driving in a nice road that connects with wherever we want to go (FCP7, AVID MC, CS5) and they present us a "new" road that is not as fast, as less exit options, a lot of limitations, and they say its an "improvement" and that it "will get better"?

FCP7 needed a redesign to take use of all the processing power of new CPU design and Graphics cards. We all knew that. Now turning 2 year old multi core top of the line laptops sluggish, removing communication with other editors with no XML, EDL etc. support, no comprehensive save features... But with import from Imovie???

Chris Messineo
06-22-2011, 07:42 PM
"so project migration was not a priority."

This to me is the key phrase.

This issue of migration was just not something they were or are concerned with.

David Jimerson
06-22-2011, 07:47 PM
I'm pretty sure that if they could have made FCP 7 import available, then they would have.

?

Ubillos said specifically they weren't that concerned about it.

(Did they think the only reason you might want to bring a 7 project into the latest version was if you're in the middle of that specific project?)

Chris Messineo
06-22-2011, 07:54 PM
You get the sense that the designers of FCP X don't actually do much real world editing and they simply don't realize how common it is to have to open and work with old projects (and even integrate them with new material).

J Davis
06-22-2011, 07:57 PM
Good for you for writing Chris

David Jimerson
06-22-2011, 07:59 PM
You get the sense that the designers of FCP X don't actually do much real world editing and they simply don't realize how common it is to have to open and work with old projects (and even integrate them with new material).

Yeah, any well-versed editor would have hit the panic button over that line of thinking, I would have to imagine.

echo9
06-22-2011, 07:59 PM
?

Ubillos said specifically they weren't that concerned about it.

(Did they think the only reason you might want to bring a 7 project into the latest version was if you're in the middle of that specific project?)

I should have said if they could have done it easily. I'm sure if they really, really wanted to, they could have found a way, but the question is whether or not that would have been prohibitively expensive and/or time consuming. It looks like they felt it was since, like you pointed out, it wasn't a priority for them. Whether or not that's the right decision, time will tell.

bgundu
06-22-2011, 08:00 PM
This is an interesting statement. You can almost replace "project migration" with "current users". I'm sure Apple is content with not keeping current customers, and focus on a much bigger market with newer customers. I'm guessing FCP sales was pretty stagnant and they essentially were selling upgrades only. Definitely makes economic sense. I used Apple Shake for years and then it simply got cheaper and cheaper and then vanished. The software was very stable and every FX house was using it. But.... the FX market is tiny in comparison to the consumer market. For years Apple really didn't want to focus on software sales as much as Hardware. They did in the old days because they had to. No one was making decent software for Macs and it hurt sales. Today is a very different Apple and Pro means something very different today. I raised my eyebrows when even the 13" macbook suddenly became "Pro". Don't expect Apple to do whats best for you... instead it will be whats best for Apple. I suspect anything pro in FCP will be left to third party companies to fill in the blanks. Don't get me wrong, I'm a Mac nut! I own ipods, iphones, macbooks, mac pros, and ipads. I love Apple gear and the integration of them all, I just don't believe in Apple to be there for me on the high end level any more.


"so project migration was not a priority."

This to me is the key phrase.

This issue of migration was just not something they were or are concerned with.

mcgeedigital
06-22-2011, 08:06 PM
Not surprising, as many have said, we are NOT the target market for this app.

Chris Messineo
06-22-2011, 08:08 PM
Good for you for writing Chris

I just wanted to be heard by Apple.

Randy was actually very nice in his exchange with me. I think he is genuinely surprised by the outcry. He loves and believes in FCP X.

I just wish he loved the FCP community the same way.

David Saraceno
06-22-2011, 08:08 PM
Not surprising, as many have said, we are NOT the target market for this app.

At least not in this iteration.

If it is updated to incorporate professional features, great.

If not, then the market is the DSLR crowd, which is probably a bigger piece of the pie.

bgundu
06-22-2011, 08:10 PM
I'll keep my fingers crossed :)


At least not in this iteration.

If it is updated to incorporate professional features, great.

If not, then the market is the DSLR crowd.

mcgeedigital
06-22-2011, 08:18 PM
Time will tell.

Lpowell
06-22-2011, 08:30 PM
Final Cut Pro X 1.0 is the beginning of a road, not the end."

For delighted iMovie upgraders, I'm sure it is. However, FCPX does mark the end of the road for Final Cut Studio and the broad-based video production industry that has grown up around it over the past decade. As of June 21, 2011, Apple has terminated both sales and support for Final Cut Studio and has put no plans in place to maintain its present functionality. Professionals who have built integrated workflows around Final Cut Studio must determine whether it makes good business sense to continue to invest time and resources into an orphaned production system which currently lacks a migration path for future maintenance. Hopefully, third-party production tools vendors will fill this gap with utilities for converting existing Final Cut Studio projects for use with established professional production systems.

Hawk Teflon
06-22-2011, 09:09 PM
If not, then the market is the DSLR crowd, which is probably a bigger piece of the pie.

Not really. I'm a part of the DSLR crowd. I use a t2i at home, and a 7D and 5DMkII at work. We can NOT use FCPX at work. The lack of backwards compatibility, lack of network connectivity, lack of multicam, single monitor interface, and no XML kills it for us. We use all of that at least twice a week, and reading projects off each others drives every day. I don't agree it's for the dslr crowd. I think it's for the solo worker on a single monitor (or iMac, really) computer whose "network" is his computer, printer, and copier.

Jim_Behl
06-22-2011, 09:37 PM
You get the sense that the designers of FCP X don't actually do much real world editing and they simply don't realize how common it is to have to open and work with old projects (and even integrate them with new material).

You hit the nail on the head. However, they are programmers, not editors. It seems that they followed a very insular way of looking at things. The code was king, functionality was not properly addressed. Hopefully, they will fix the worst of the problems soon.

kwoff
06-22-2011, 09:41 PM
.Hopefully, third-party production tools vendors will fill this gap with utilities for converting existing Final Cut Studio projects for use with established professional production systems.

It seems to me that this is not a very efficient or cost-effective solution. If we have to rely on a variety of third party developers to provide the many missing features of FCPX, I wonder how high the cumulative cost of a usuable FCPX collection of programs and utilities will be.

TimTheFoolMan
06-22-2011, 09:50 PM
You hit the nail on the head. However, they are programmers, not editors. It seems that they followed a very insular way of looking at things. The code was king, functionality was not properly addressed. Hopefully, they will fix the worst of the problems soon.Or, perhaps they did what they've done with most other Apple products that have had broad success in various markets: They stepped back to figure out how to solve the most common problems, with less regard for "how we've always done it" or "how everyone else does it" than most people would like. That seems consistent with trying to move iMovie users to something more serious, which probably represents a dramatically larger market than going out and converting all the editors using competing products, combined. - Tim

keylight
06-22-2011, 10:07 PM
Unless FCP X reads information differently than Premiere Pro. I'm pretty sure that if they could have made FCP 7 import available, then they would have. If the two systems are incompatible, then that's that. When they implement the XML import tool (whenever that ends up), it will probably be close enough for most people's needs.

Of course, Apple does have a history of sticking it to users by claiming a new product is so ground breaking and earth shattering that it simply isn't possible to adhere to the old way of doing things. They have NEVER shown much concern for backwards compatibility.... OS X anyone? Maybe the X is really a target on the backs of older products.....


FCP7 needed a redesign to take use of all the processing power of new CPU design and Graphics cards. We all knew that. Now turning 2 year old multi core top of the line laptops sluggish, removing communication with other editors with no XML, EDL etc. support, no comprehensive save features... But with import from Imovie???

This bit of the reply, "in FCP7 all of the clip connections live in the editor's head, not in the timeline" makes me think that the real goal with FCP X v. 1 is to move all clips and content to their new iCloud and let the timeline reference that stuff.

Most of the intesive processing can then take place in the cloud, so you won't need a powerful computer anymore. Oh, and they'll be able to charge you a fee or sell you a subscription to use their servers for processing. This is the direction the entire company seems to be taking in all of its products (and it by no means is alone).

This could be great for people editing home movies on their iPads. Not so much for professionals who have a ton of data and need to keep tight control over it. (Of course, FCP X will let you use local media.) So that's where I think they're heading with the product. They don't care about older FCP projects because it doesn't fit in with their future revenue stream plans....

Thoughts?

Jim_Behl
06-22-2011, 10:07 PM
Or, perhaps they did what they've done with most other Apple products that have had broad success in various markets: They stepped back to figure out how to solve the most common problems, with less regard for "how we've always done it" or "how everyone else does it" than most people would like. That seems consistent with trying to move iMovie users to something more serious, which probably represents a dramatically larger market than going out and converting all the editors using competing products, combined. - Tim

Astute answer. Unfortunately, it IS all about the numbers. Just look how the financial guys freak over next quarter's estimates. Apple stock dropped dramatically with the rumor that iPhone 5 might be delayed. That is a much bigger concern than FCP any version.

J Davis
06-22-2011, 10:33 PM
... makes me think that the real goal with FCP X v. 1 is to move all clips and content to their new iCloud and let the timeline reference that stuff.

Most of the intesive processing can then take place in the cloud, so you won't need a powerful computer anymore ...

This could be great for people editing home movies on their iPads. Not so much for professionals who have a ton of data and need to keep tight control over it.


My thinking as well

Craig W. Bickerstaff
06-22-2011, 11:25 PM
This bit of the reply, "in FCP7 all of the clip connections live in the editor's head, not in the timeline" makes me think that the real goal with FCP X v. 1 is to move all clips and content to their new iCloud and let the timeline reference that stuff.

Most of the intesive processing can then take place in the cloud, so you won't need a powerful computer anymore. Oh, and they'll be able to charge you a fee or sell you a subscription to use their servers for processing. This is the direction the entire company seems to be taking in all of its products (and it by no means is alone).

This could be great for people editing home movies on their iPads. Not so much for professionals who have a ton of data and need to keep tight control over it. (Of course, FCP X will let you use local media.) So that's where I think they're heading with the product. They don't care about older FCP projects because it doesn't fit in with their future revenue stream plans....

Thoughts?

I don't think so, the kinds of files we work with are far too large for them to want our data in their "cloud" especially if we start working 4:4:4:4 prores files.

ullanta
06-22-2011, 11:48 PM
Or, perhaps they did what they've done with most other Apple products that have had broad success in various markets: They stepped back to figure out how to solve the most common problems, with less regard for "how we've always done it" or "how everyone else does it" than most people would like.

I am terribly disappointed with FCPX, but, at risk of sounding like a fanboy, I think the above statement is the real gist of it. Apple has a long history of making drastic transitions that are painful at first, but in some ways push the whole industry over certain humps of stagnation. This particular drastic change is worse than most, because it's targeted to a market that makes a living using the product, because there's no real workaround for the problems so far (e.g., a USB floppy drive!), and because there are so many essential features missing. Also because there's an existing consumer-level application that it's all too easy to compare with.

But at the same time, there are many steps forward, and indeed a lot of my personal wishes have been granted in FCPX. I think there is some promise, and amid all the outrage, I'd be interested to hear from DVXers about anything that they LIKE about it... especially any experiences involving handling of HMC150 footage. I think we all understand that, in the current form, it's a long way from being an "upgrade" to FCS3 in many situations. Not mentioned here yet, I think, the omission of chapter markers alone makes it a no-go for me. But I can see that there is a lot to like... argh!

My conspiracy theory? Apple and Adobe made a deal (because they really have to get along, while competing): Adobe gets the pro video market in exchange for Apple killing Flash. Apple's part of the deal was to really flop in a big public way, to allow Adobe's (strangely touted and timely "CS5.5" intermediate upgrade) to grab all the customers.

yoclay
06-22-2011, 11:51 PM
Not really. I'm a part of the DSLR crowd. I use a t2i at home, and a 7D and 5DMkII at work. We can NOT use FCPX at work. The lack of backwards compatibility, lack of network connectivity, lack of multicam, single monitor interface, and no XML kills it for us. We use all of that at least twice a week, and reading projects off each others drives every day. I don't agree it's for the dslr crowd. I think it's for the solo worker on a single monitor (or iMac, really) computer whose "network" is his computer, printer, and copier.

Right on. DvXusers continue to bash DSLR user's. If it's not good enough, it's for the "DSLR crowd". Really, really tired of this kind of commentary. It's snobbish, prejudiced and condescending.

Got news for those folks, DSLR users are virtually everyone these days. I know plenty of seasoned DP's who use them as well as the F35, Varicam, Alexa and whatever else is available depending on the project. They are at the very least defacto b-roll cameras and nothing signals the need for multi-cam MORE than DSLR's. Is there any support for that in this piece of rubbish called FCPX? NO.

Just because I often use a particular camera (in fact 3 5D's) doesn't mean that I don't have the need for professional editing, good sound mixing with an external audio source and serious color correction. I use a UI for the latter and it pisses me off that Apple Color, formerly Final Touch no longer exists as an evolutionary tool. It also pisses me off that they provide an auto-matching function which by all accounts is actually quite good and therefore helpful as a first step when matching edits and don't even allow for proper i/o in order to view it on an external grading monitor. This is just plain stupid.

keylight
06-22-2011, 11:58 PM
I don't think so, the kinds of files we work with are far too large for them to want our data in their "cloud" especially if we start working 4:4:4:4 prores files.

Yes, but I don't think "we" are the kind of people they are going after at the moment. And to the extent that "we" are, those large files can be kept on your local machine.

But imagine you have a 4K clip with multiple effects to render out. What if FCP X could upload just the frames and settings you need rendered, split the rendering amongst 100 servers (or 1000 servers), then download the rendered result. The first server can start rendering as soon as the first frame uploads. I suck at math so please correct me if I'm wrong. REDCODE RAW file sizes max out at about 2.5GB/minute (or 2560MB/minute). At 30fps there are 1800 frames in 1 minute of video, giving you a frame size of about 1.42MB/frame. Depending on the speed of your connection, it's quite possible that using Apple's servers would save significant amounts of time. But this is all hypothetical and in the future.

Still, Steve Jobs was the man behind Pixar (and is now a guiding force at Disney). Render farms are crucial to the animation business, and are a huge asset with motion graphics and complex rendering.

So yeah, maybe FCP X v1 is the start of a whole new approach to content creation and as it continues to develop it'll end up bringing about a major change in the way "we" work.

But the anger people are expressing today? Completely understandable. Look, they could have been very clear and said from the start - this isn't the upgrade you've been looking for, it's a whole new product. They could have named it something different and given all FCP users a FREE copy while announcing a gradual phase out of FCP as a product (say, with a release of FCPX v2). That would have solved 95% of the anger. Who can argue with Free? Pros would have a new toy to play with, would gradually start to play with the new software on new small projects.... Then when more of the pro features are ready with the next version, bye bye FCP.....

But I think they were just a bit too greedy. A bit like the original iPhone price drop, or the iPhone 4 antenna issue. Took a ton of outrage to get them to do what was right. This time? Hard to say if they'll do anything about the ill will they've created for themselves overnight.

I'm just glad Avid is still around after a sometimes brutal fight with Apple. I'd hate it if the only plausible alternative on the market was Premiere.

VMT
06-23-2011, 05:03 AM
I am terribly disappointed with FCPX, but, at risk of sounding like a fanboy, I think the above statement is the real gist of it. Apple has a long history of making drastic transitions that are painful at first, but in some ways push the whole industry over certain humps of stagnation. This particular drastic change is worse than most, because it's targeted to a market that makes a living using the product, because there's no real workaround for the problems so far (e.g., a USB floppy drive!), and because there are so many essential features missing. Also because there's an existing consumer-level application that it's all too easy to compare with.

But at the same time, there are many steps forward, and indeed a lot of my personal wishes have been granted in FCPX. I think there is some promise, and amid all the outrage, I'd be interested to hear from DVXers about anything that they LIKE about it... especially any experiences involving handling of HMC150 footage. I think we all understand that, in the current form, it's a long way from being an "upgrade" to FCS3 in many situations. Not mentioned here yet, I think, the omission of chapter markers alone makes it a no-go for me. But I can see that there is a lot to like... argh!

.

My thinking is along the same line

VMT
06-23-2011, 05:15 AM
But the anger people are expressing today? Completely understandable. Look, they could have been very clear and said from the start - this isn't the upgrade you've been looking for, it's a whole new product. They could have named it something different and given all FCP users a FREE copy while announcing a gradual phase out of FCP as a product (say, with a release of FCPX v2). That would have solved 95% of the anger.

The anger is not merely the naming. It's that FCPX is entirely new, requiring an entirely new mindset. FCP users asked for an improved FCP 7, not a replacement that requires new training and pretty much does not play well with their existing workflow and investment in hardware/software. Change is hard to accept and hard on the pocket book. As others have said, the sudden shift does fit with Apple's ballsy tendencies though.

Batutta
06-23-2011, 05:39 AM
The anger is not merely the naming. It's that FCPX is entirely new, requiring an entirely new mindset. FCP users asked for an improved FCP 7, not a replacement that requires new training and pretty much does not play well with their existing workflow and investment in hardware/software. Change is hard to accept and hard on the pocket book.

No, change can be accepted to a degree. This is like asking professional baseball players to use a wet noodle instead of a bat. Anyone who has ever used Final Cut in a real post production facility, or in a sizable production house with other editors, sound mixers, colorists, graphic designers, realizes pretty quickly that the new product is just not usable. Even for myself, a freelancer who generally works alone, I can't deliver the final elements my client needs for online. For the one man band who is never going to interface with anyone but himself, it's probably a nice piece of software.

VMT
06-23-2011, 05:50 AM
This is like asking professional baseball players to use a wet noodle instead of a bat. Anyone who has ever used Final Cut in a real post production facility, or in a sizable production house with other editors, sound mixers, colorists, graphic designers, realizes pretty quickly that the new product is just not usable. Even for myself, a freelancer who generally works alone, I can't deliver the final elements my client needs for online. For the one man band who is never going to interface with anyone but himself, it's probably a nice piece of software.

+1 this is pretty much what I said above.

for online delivery, you'd need to shell out another 50 bucks for Compressor 4

Batutta
06-23-2011, 05:54 AM
for online delivery, you'd need to shell out another 50 bucks for Compressor 4

Not necessarily. You can still export from Quicktime although without as much flexibility. I only use Compressor for MPEG-2 encoding.

keylight
06-23-2011, 09:15 AM
Anyone who has ever used Final Cut in a real post production facility, or in a sizable production house... [SNIP] realizes pretty quickly that the new product is just not usable.

Avid does one thing and they do it very well. They serve the needs of media professionals (film, video, audio...). They have NEVER - in the 16 years I've been editing with Avid's stuff - pulled the rug out like Apple has done. When Avid radical new hardware/software that makes old stuff obsolete, they've always continued to support that old stuff and made absolutely sure there was backwards compatibility. That's the difference between a company focused on meeting the needs of professionals and a company working on the 5th version of a phone, the 3rd version of a tablet, and a whole bunch of other stuff for consumers.

Apple has a history of pulling the rug out and mistreating existing users. Apple can afford it. Avid can't. Support companies like Avid lest the Apples of the world put them out of business....


http://www.hulu.com/watch/4163/saturday-night-live-ernestine

ullanta
06-23-2011, 02:42 PM
For the one man band who is never going to interface with anyone but himself, it's probably a nice piece of software.

Not true! For many of us one-man-banders, DVD (and maybe bluray) authoring is an essential part of the picture, and FCPX has made that look very problematic. The lack of chapter markers alone makes FCPX a no-go. I know they can be added in compressor... but for what I do, that's an unacceptable additional step that's much harder than inserting them while editing. And, what about subtitling? Alternate soundtracks? Special features?

wbrock001
06-23-2011, 04:53 PM
True about Avid, but then they are a video company...that's what they always did. Not to mention they enjoyed their hay day of charging hundreds of thousands for their editing systems...so backwards support is kind of a given. Apple just bought into it and has many other masters. To some degree I'm not surprised Apple did this, they obviously have a vision and are more aggressive about implementing it because they are king of the heap in many ways. But for everyone who is disappointed, I have heard the roadmap is to add multicam, and most of the features folks want. So buying now is just an investment to start practicing in how the software works now and more use as features are added...

Also regarding cloud video processing, how long did it take to download your copy of FCP X? Now magnify that by many times for video files...not practical with most folks internet connections and even the functional bandwidth of the internet backbone. It'll be a while before that could be practical. Say the average internet connection is 8Mbps, that's 1 MB/s so 1000 seconds for one gigabyte...yowser that's up and then down...

acoelho1
06-23-2011, 05:35 PM
Right on. DvXusers continue to bash DSLR user's. If it's not good enough, it's for the "DSLR crowd". Really, really tired of this kind of commentary. It's snobbish, prejudiced and condescending.

Got news for those folks, DSLR users are virtually everyone these days. I know plenty of seasoned DP's who use them as well as the F35, Varicam, Alexa and whatever else is available depending on the project. They are at the very least defacto b-roll cameras and nothing signals the need for multi-cam MORE than DSLR's. Is there any support for that in this piece of rubbish called FCPX? NO.

Just because I often use a particular camera (in fact 3 5D's) doesn't mean that I don't have the need for professional editing, good sound mixing with an external audio source and serious color correction. I use a UI for the latter and it pisses me off that Apple Color, formerly Final Touch no longer exists as an evolutionary tool. It also pisses me off that they provide an auto-matching function which by all accounts is actually quite good and therefore helpful as a first step when matching edits and don't even allow for proper i/o in order to view it on an external grading monitor. This is just plain stupid.

Amen

David Saraceno
06-23-2011, 05:59 PM
I referenced DSLR users, but not pejoratively at all.

DSLR users are almost exclusively record file based video usually to SDHC cards or something similar.

FCP X, at present, is an insular application with no tape based support.

It seems geared to acquiring file based media, which is what DSLRs produce.

I don't hang out in the DSLR forums here, but if there are any posts that bash DSLR users, then report them, and we'll take a look at that.

I'll promise you that.

keylight
06-23-2011, 06:46 PM
True about Avid, but then they are a video company...that's what they always did. Not to mention they enjoyed their hay day of charging hundreds of thousands for their editing systems...

I remember those days. Back then the hardware needed to do even "offline" non-linear editing was extremely expensive, in large part because so much of it was researched, developed, and manufactured by Avid. Memory alone in those days was extremely expensive. Back in 1995 when I did my first edit on an Avid, 1MB of RAM cost about $32. And Hard Disk space cost about $1/MB. Pretty much all of the I/O was done using Avid's custom hardware. That's not to say they didn't have a hefty markup - they certainly did.