The Future Of FCPX

I personally never said anything about "layers".

As for the comment "but create unexpected results." That is not true, the are very, very expected results. They do exactly what you set their parameters to do.

All you're doing in 3D motion graphics is introducing a Z parameter, very simple, not complected in my opinion. Behaviors have 3D awareness.

They actually do use AE in lots of movies, including the Hobbit.

I'd never want to see FCP X become anything like Smoke. It's an editing app. Motion is a motion graphics and compositing app. If you need more, XML will take you to other apps like Resolve, Smoke, etc. When you over burden a single app, it starts to die. History has shown this.

Just my opinion. Nodes are outdated and offer nothing mechanical behaviors/expressions can't do.

if the past has taught us anything its that things don't stay the same.

sorry but there is very little argument against one app that is able to professionally edit, composite, track, grade, have a 3D environment and access to a host of powerful motion graphic finishing tools. it also appears to me to be where a next gen NLE would go.

wanting to continue with all the disadvantages of pulling shots in and out of several different video apps - makes little sense, unless you are a dedicated luddite.

PS, If apple was going to use Nodes they would have adopted them years ago. think different and all that.

I disagree there are many arguments against it. Otherwise you'd have Adobe Photoshop integrated with Illustrator. After Effects would be integrated with Premiere and InDesign would be integrated with Acrobat.

AVID tried this with a product back in the late 90's and it was a total failure. (Spectre?)

There's a saying. "Jack of All Trades, Master of None" I know what I'd rather be editing with, as it's what I'm doing 90% of the time.

You made me think Seanus, I'm with you in that I don't want to have stuff floating around that I don't use, I've always had that frame of mind.

But in a way it kind of seems inevitable. over the years purpose specific tools have given way to an all in one unit, the computer. Go back a few decades and tell people that photographers would be using the same tools as authors or video editors etc. and they would be stuck as to how.

So in a way the computer is the jack of all trades with different apps being modules to suit a users needs. As computers get more powerful and jobs within the media industry are merging with individuals being expected to do more, it's getting harder to define what stuff any given individual wants/needs in any tool.

Perhaps if a successful modular approach could be found it could be a good thing. We already have it with different apps, plug-ins for certain apps, packages such Adobe MC and previously Final Cut Studio,

Maybe it could just get that little bit tighter.

Agree to a certain extent, and I guess what Apple is always trying to do is simplify things.
Their moto is that the computer should "get out of the way".
You see this very much in FCP X. It's a lot more organic than 7.
As someone who has trained hundreds of editors I know how easy it is to overload, and lets face it, MOST editors just do the basics, they don't usually do massive compositing or intricate sound design.

That's why you have Graphic Designers, Animators and Audio Designers and Mixers.
Yes I know sometimes we have to put on that multicoloured jacket but when working on something truly professional it's best handled by the professionals. I really don't think they would all want to be using the same piece of software. Just like a carpenter has different tools to a plumber.

Right now FCP X sucks when it comes to working well with Motion and visa versa. But I don't see the solution as integrating the two.

I for one wish they hadn't ditched Sound Track Pro. or at the very least, have given us an alternative layout in FCP X that would be more tailored to Audio Editing and Mixing. Maybe we will see Logic Pro X step up to fill this obvious void.

Anyway It's a fascinating discussion and I'm sure that if this was taking place in May 2011 we would probably have guess less than 50% of what Apple gave us in FCP X.

Exciting times. I almost feel like it's 1992 again!

I for one wish they hadn't ditched Sound Track Pro. or at the very least, have given us an alternative layout in FCP X that would be more tailored to Audio Editing and Mixing.

That's what I had wanted for the last few years from Adobe, not necessarily just with audio. Just the possibilities of changing the layout but keeping the content the same and fully editable while it updates perfectly for each layout.

Exciting times. I almost feel like it's 1992 again!

Definitely, I'm really curious about where things are going.

STP was so full of bugs I'm glad they ditched it!

So what could you do in STP that you can't do in FCP X?

I'm betting we will see an update to Logic Pro that can read/write FCPXML for round trips.

BenB wrote: STP was so full of bugs I'm glad they ditched it!

So what could you do in STP that you can't do in FCP X?

As of right now the biggest thing that you could do in STP that you can't do in FCPX is multitrack audio mixing.
If FCPX had a mixer plugin, this wold alleviate my audio mixing frustration. Also the noise reduction, isn't as versatile as STP. As I don;t have control of selecting a portion of the sound clip as my noise reduction sample. I have to rely on FCPX deciding what sound I want removed.

If Apple allows round tripping into Logic, then this might alleviate my frustration.
But as of right now, while FCPX does have lots of nice audio plugins, such as compressor, limiter, EQ etc., FCPXs biggest weakness for me is still Audio.

Well, they didn't actually ditch it yet. It comes with the bundle for Logic Studio (which I bought a few months ago).
But it's clearly on the way out.

store.apple.com/us/product/MB795Z/A

We can't complain about any bugs in Soundtrack Pro.
But as mentioned multitrack audio mixing and a big one is frequency spectrum editing.

I have to agree with you NoCoDave. A modular approach is the key. This keeps one tool from becoming to heavy most people don't need or use. A modular relationship in an ecosphere would allow those people who need a tools to add it to the tool set.

mliebergot wrote: As of right now the biggest thing that you could do in STP that you can't do in FCPX is multitrack audio mixing.

Yes you can, I am doing it daily. I don't need a mixer with this system. But I'd like to round trip to Logic on occasion. I'm using Media Stem export as a really nice substitute, in the mean time. Next best thing.

Nodes are not outdated, they are simply not a viable user interface for most people which is why they are not being used in mainstream professional apps for the most part.

Nodes allow the creator a programmatic way to create advanced visual effects without the need to understand line based coding. Check out cycling74.com for instance. Max allows you to harness OpenGL, Core Image, and Core Animation effects without the need to understand the syntax. Quartz Composer, the app bundled with Apple's Developer package uses a nodal interface. Quartz Composer has an incredible amount of versatility not afforded by most motion graphics applications. You can create the effect you want using QC and import the parameters into Motion and FCPX with FXFactory. Nodes are not merely behaviors, but how do you think a behavior comes into being in the first place? Code. And if artists have a easier method for creating interesting effects and behaviors using nodal interfaces, they should take a more serious look at it because the breadth of what you can accomplish is extraordinarily.

I'm not saying Nodes should be introduced into FCPX or Motion for that matter, but to simply dismiss them as outdated is like saying we should dismiss FCPX and just use iMovie. What I mean by that is: Nodes allow greater versatility than the behaviors included in Motion and FCPX. They may be for more advanced or specialized users, but what they do is allow novices to create effects without learning line based code.

i think a module approach only makes sense with an old school sense of what these tools are used for. that thinking is stuck in the groove, and ignoring the fundamental limitations of the software we use.

The future will be about improving the accessibility to these tools whether you like it or not.

i use after effects and motion a lot to polish my edit. the process is a pain and it doesn't need to be. having easy access to my timeline in a motion graphics GUI makes a whole ton of sense. why should that process involve another program? why do i need to figure out how to exported XML's to achieve it? I simply want the timeline I have been working on available with no fuss - and move back and forward as I please.

Or I need to track a series of clips in Boujoi for some text that is being produced in C4D. I won't bore you with the amount of steps this process takes - but if I could have done everything except the text with in FCPX (even with a plug in) how much time and work will I have saved myself?

The Future of FCPX is about bringing the whole studio into one place. That wasn't as neatly done as apple would have liked in FCP 7 - so my prediction is this programme will be about refining that experience further still.

I don't see nodes doing anything different, and I used Shake for years. If I never see a node again, it'll be too soon.

Snapdragon you are right the problem is that todays day of work is one man 4 jobs.
For one man band that would be awesome but also for a team to work with same app doing different tasks is also beautiful.
Anybody that has any experience with Smoke will agree. Imagine you are working on a edit and you move on to get a effect done well no need to export just pass it on and the beauty... need to do a quick fix just do right there. No need to reexport, reimport, bake and etc...
It is the same in the 3D world right one program does Modeling, Animation, Lighting, Texturing ,Compositing, Dynamics, Rendering, Character rigging and so on...

The most important question is, what type of app will sell the most licenses? That will determine everything, regardless of anything else. Who is the majority of folks buying this stuff? It sure as hell ain't broadcast studios or Hollywood feature studios anymore.

There was a time when something as simple today as word processing required a college course, access to specialised equipment and a qualification.

There was also a time, more recently, when the above held true for video editing.

Today anyone can do word processing, no need for the "maybe so but not anyone can be a poet" stuff, that is a given. And today anyone can edit video, maybe not be Hitchcock, but they can do it.

And the reason is that computers have become powerful enough and cheap enough to do so.

As this happens software developers find ways to make it possible for everyone and anyone to put pen to paper or video to screen. This is going to happen with even the most extreme programming anyone here can envisage.

There is a demand, so there is a market.

Even I'll be able to get my latest and greatest big idea on the iPhone very soon. Never mind nodes, not even a word of code will be necessary. For today, or better yet, yesterday, the node is just another way to make coding more accessible to the masses.

The future is, as always has been, in how easily the end user communicates with the zero's and ones.

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

No source Scrubelicious, just evident. Of course there are still some very powerful programs using nodes, and probably the most powerful too, I used Maya myself for a while.

I've always said in this thread that they are still very powerful, but there are also some very powerful, more user friendly, easier to learn ways to do things. These methods are offering alternatives and are going to become powerful enough on their own, already they are a massively relevant option.

It's simple, there was time when I sat at my BBC Micro Model B and spent time writing some "BBC Basic" lines to get it to play back "Three Blind Mice" in 8 bit. Then I could get into my Atari STE and do it without basic code through "Sequencer One Plus", and maybe with a midi keyboard. Then this, then that etc. etc. You know where I'm coming from.