PDA

View Full Version : Early Final Cut Pro X Response Mixed, Updates Coming




Pages : [1] 2 3

MacRumors
Jun 21, 2011, 08:58 PM
http://cdn.macrumors.com/im/macrumorsthreadlogo.gif (http://www.macrumors.com/2011/06/21/early-final-cut-pro-x-response-mixed-updates-coming/)


Earlier today, Apple launched (http://www.macrumors.com/2011/06/21/apple-announces-final-cut-pro-x-motion-5-and-compressor-4-available-today/) the much anticipated Final Cut Pro X (http://appshopper.com/mac/video/final-cut-pro) (FCP X) to the Mac App Store. Originally described as a "dramatic and ambitious" change (http://www.macrumors.com/2011/02/23/new-final-cut-pro-described-as-dramatic-and-ambitious-due-in-spring-2011/), it represents a complete rewrite and reimagining of Final Cut Pro, leading to some apprehension (http://www.macrumors.com/2011/06/16/apple-has-a-poor-track-record-on-dot-zero-releases/) amongst professionals.

http://cdn.macrumors.com/article-new/2011/06/fcpratings.jpg


Since the initial release, several walkthroughs and impressions have been posted across the web and our forums. Like the App Store ratings (shown above), the response has been mixed.

Philip Hodgetts (http://www.philiphodgetts.com/2011/06/what-are-the-answers-to-the-unanswered-questions-about-final-cut-pro-x/) provides an extensive blog post in question and answer form about what is and isn't included in Final Cut Pro X. He specifically reveals upcoming features that Apple has told him are coming. These include:

• "Multicam will come in a future release, when Apple decide[s] how best to implement it within the new application and architecture."
• "As of Version 1 and today’s release there is no direct import capability for [Final Cut Pro 6/7] projects. My understanding is that there will be an Apple-provided utility for importing XML from older projects to Final Cut Pro X."
• "the Apple folk made it abundantly clear that the ecosystem was very important to them, and that there will be a new, and much improved, replacement for the current XML workflow."

Larry Jordan (http://www.larryjordan.biz/app_bin/wordpress/archives/1505) who has been frequently quoted for his early comments about the Final Cut Pro X also weighs in. Jordan points out several of the improvements and disadvantages of the new system. He also points out that Apple is planning a quicker upgrade cycle for Final Cut Pro than they have in the past now that its in the App Store:In the past, Apple used a 18 month, or so, cycle between updates. Now, Apple is telling me they are hoping to do an update once or twice a year.Ultimately, despite the limitations, he expects that within the next 18 months practically all Final Cut customers will be running Final Cut Pro X due to the overall improvements.

Article Link: Early Final Cut Pro X Response Mixed, Updates Coming (http://www.macrumors.com/2011/06/21/early-final-cut-pro-x-response-mixed-updates-coming/)



darthraige
Jun 21, 2011, 09:02 PM
Way to botch what could have been the best editing software ever Apple! I won't be upgrading anytime soon now.

brock2621
Jun 21, 2011, 09:04 PM
I don't know if "botch" is the word to use unless your every day work involves multi-cam productions...

Otherwise, just finish your current projects on FCP 7 and start your next on the new system and enjoy the new features and less micro-managing :cool:

iDisk
Jun 21, 2011, 09:05 PM
FC X could have been released in december of this year and maybe this wouldn't have happened...maybe.... but its apple we are talking about here, they know what they need to do, and we can expect them to meet the expectations of there PRO app... Give it time Ladies and gentlemen

In the mean time get use to the new Final Cut suite and try to be creative with the tools you have... remember Mac users are creative and innovative... we aren't PC whiners

lshaner
Jun 21, 2011, 09:05 PM
Mixed?

Let's see what Steve has to say to this!

Steve,

That guy you hired from FCP side who did the first iMovie HD (v6 which was great), which was then crippled as iMovie (v7 which sucked), and has now crippled FCP/Studio as FCPx -- you need to fire that guy. :-(

Or fire the guy that keeps telling him to destroy the products. :-(

leon - Dearborn, Michigan


Leon Shaner wrote:
> Steve,
>
> Can't seem to open existing FCP/Studio files...
>
> FCPx seems all about iMovie. :-(
>
> How do I import my FCP/Studio files into FCPx...or how do I get my money back?
>
> Regards,
> \Leon

FroMann
Jun 21, 2011, 09:08 PM
I knew it was too early, I thought this was coming out until fall or next year.

AppleZilla
Jun 21, 2011, 09:09 PM
I'm waiting until Lion.

Nuckinfuts
Jun 21, 2011, 09:09 PM
$300 for access to the beta...

Gen
Jun 21, 2011, 09:10 PM
Apple should've waited to launch until they added XML and multicam support ... just sayin - a 3 star rating in the App Store? Ouch!

Anaemik
Jun 21, 2011, 09:10 PM
I think anybody who was expecting this to be ready to slot into a professional production workflow from day 1 has either not been following the relevant blog posts leading up to this release, or they're being somewhat naive. Apple aren't exactly famous for their airtight x.0 releases, and I for one wasn't expecting this to be any different.

I think now is a good time for FCP vets to start learning the new paradigms in preparation for when it reaches an acceptable level of maturity, and now is also obviously good for newcomers to the FCP fold to start learning their chops, but anybody who is either denouncing this as a write-off or claiming it to be the best thing ever when it's just 24 hrs old is probably jumping the gun somewhat.

Badbaw
Jun 21, 2011, 09:11 PM
While the initial release might be disappointing, I have faith that Apple will aggregate all the desired (and needed) features in due time.

John-117
Jun 21, 2011, 09:11 PM
I don't know if "botch" is the word to use unless your every day work involves multi-cam productions...

Otherwise, just finish your current projects on FCP 7 and start your next on the new system and enjoy the new features and less micro-managing :cool:

Exactly. I'm finishing my current FCP 7 projects while learning FCP X so that when they're done I can start working in a much less hassle free environment!

P.S. My workflow doesn't involve tape but my heart goes out to those who do and want to move over to X

NY Guitarist
Jun 21, 2011, 09:13 PM
This is Final Cut Express X.

Eidorian
Jun 21, 2011, 09:13 PM
Oh, no! BETA

akm3
Jun 21, 2011, 09:16 PM
Disclaimer: I am NOT a professional video editor

What is "multicam" and how is it different from "supporting multiple video tracks" ?

If I were to guess, multicam means 2+ cameras recording the same event from different angles and giving a mechanism to quickly sync those streams and switch between the various angles. This is what I think people are saying is missing.

Multiple video tracks = I can stack different clips and cut between them and overlay them. This I am assuming it DOES support, right?

So why can't you take two cameras, stack their video and then cut back and forth between them? Just please explain in dummy terms what is missing re: Multicam

B. Hunter
Jun 21, 2011, 09:17 PM
The price point looks great. Problem is I would have to buy a new computer to run it. Can't afford to do that right now.
My existing laptop has a qualifying GeForce 8600M GT, but I only have 128 vram.

BreuerEditor
Jun 21, 2011, 09:17 PM
I, for one, understand that x.0 software is usually buggy or not running at its full potential, but I'm incredibly surprised that Apple released it without certain features that make it a pro app. I wish they'd have waited another few months to release the full version with the features they're going to add in time, rather than a "here's what we got so far" version, without calling it 'beta'.

.02

Analog Kid
Jun 21, 2011, 09:17 PM
I love how binary the review system has become-- all fives and ones. Every time I see a three star rating, I know what happened-- half the people love it and half the people hate it.

Whatever happened to nuance (little n)?

BreuerEditor
Jun 21, 2011, 09:20 PM
Disclaimer: I am NOT a professional video editor

What is "multicam" and how is it different from "supporting multiple video tracks" ?

If I were to guess, multicam means 2+ cameras recording the same event from different angles and giving a mechanism to quickly sync those streams and switch between the various angles. This is what I think people are saying is missing.

Multiple video tracks = I can stack different clips and cut between them and overlay them. This I am assuming it DOES support, right?

So why can't you take two cameras, stack their video and then cut back and forth between them? Just please explain in dummy terms what is missing re: Multicam

Multicam editing is when you have 2 or more cameras with the same codec and dimensions, you can see a window with all the cameras sync'd up and you can essentially perform a "live edit" by clicking which camera you want to be active while playing the timeline and not having it stop.

In stacking the video, you'll have to pause the video, cut, drag the clip over, and continue playing. I edit comedy shows from time to time and have 3 cameras that I need to cut from. Multicam editing is essential for me, but not for all, by far.

brock2621
Jun 21, 2011, 09:20 PM
Disclaimer: I am NOT a professional video editor

What is "multicam" and how is it different from "supporting multiple video tracks" ?

If I were to guess, multicam means 2+ cameras recording the same event from different angles and giving a mechanism to quickly sync those streams and switch between the various angles. This is what I think people are saying is missing.

Multiple video tracks = I can stack different clips and cut between them and overlay them. This I am assuming it DOES support, right?

So why can't you take two cameras, stack their video and then cut back and forth between them? Just please explain in dummy terms what is missing re: Multicam

Multicam allows you to sync multiple cameras, and play them back simultaneously allowing you to also edit "live" by simply clicking the "preview" box you wish. It's like being a director and TD (technical director) at the same time, but since we are working in non-linear, it allows you to make the best possible edit because you can stop and go back at any point and "take" a different camera. It is very handy, useful, and a necessity to some, especially with the price and availability of equipment these days.

DesterWallaboo
Jun 21, 2011, 09:22 PM
I don't know if "botch" is the word to use unless your every day work involves multi-cam productions...

Otherwise, just finish your current projects on FCP 7 and start your next on the new system and enjoy the new features and less micro-managing :cool:

Just as long as you're not taking it to tape via SDI/HDSDI... or need RS422 deck control like a good chunk of broadcast decks out there. Or if you need to work in non-standard resolutions.... or need anamorphic video.... etc etc etc.

No... we mistakenly bought this beta software and certainly will not be doing any projects in it any time soon. I hope they have real tools in it by year end.

ARobinson
Jun 21, 2011, 09:22 PM
Posted my review on the App Store: I am sure I agree with all the negative comments. As a young aspiring editor eager to learn, even I feel like this app was written for consumers and not professional editors. It feels more like iMovie Pro. I have so many fundamental issues with the structural build of this program. The UI is not the problem! The changed shortcuts are not the problem! Its the beams in the concrete that are pulling this application down. Hopefully others feel sane enough to explain the details. While I am still eager to learn new tools, this release only encourages my inevitable purchase of Avid. Apple has a lot of work to do!! I am not sure how they can pull themselves out of this whole. Unless their plan all along was to make a product for consumers.

Also, various comments all over other forums and my blog. So disappointed...the more I think about it, the more I realize they are marketing this towards consumers. It was built for consumers. But what does this mean for all of us loyal FCP editors? We jump ship?

WestonHarvey1
Jun 21, 2011, 09:23 PM
I, for one, understand that x.0 software is usually buggy or not running at its full potential, but I'm incredibly surprised that Apple released it without certain features that make it a pro app. I wish they'd have waited another few months to release the full version with the features they're going to add in time, rather than a "here's what we got so far" version, without calling it 'beta'.

.02

I don't know how many people remember OS X 10.0 or 10.1, but it was initially a major step down from OS 9 in a lot of ways. It wasn't until 10.2 that it really started to feel like a complete OS.

This is as radical a change to Final Cut. It's a clean break, and there's going to be some pain for awhile - but it is the future.

cmaier
Jun 21, 2011, 09:24 PM
I love how binary the review system has become-- all fives and ones. Every time I see a three star rating, I know what happened-- half the people love it and half the people hate it.

Whatever happened to nuance (little n)?

You either like it or not. How does one distinguish a 3 from a 4? A 1 from a 2?

Will_reed
Jun 21, 2011, 09:24 PM
I'm pretty sure 90% of those negative reviews come from people who never used the app.

ViviUO
Jun 21, 2011, 09:24 PM
Remember when trials existed?

Stridder44
Jun 21, 2011, 09:25 PM
I think anybody who was expecting this to be ready to slot into a professional production workflow from day 1 has either not been following the relevant blog posts leading up to this release, or they're being somewhat naive. Apple aren't exactly famous for their airtight x.0 releases, and I for one wasn't expecting this to be any different.

I think now is a good time for FCP vets to start learning the new paradigms in preparation for when it reaches an acceptable level of maturity, and now is also obviously good for newcomers to the FCP fold to start learning their chops, but anybody who is either denouncing this as a write-off or claiming it to be the best thing ever when it's just 24 hrs old is probably jumping the gun somewhat.

This needs to be reposted. You're 100% correct, and while yes, on one hand Apple should have waited to have a more finished product, but on the other hand this allows current FCP users to get antiquated with the new FCPX.

I just hope Apple deletes all the reviews at some point to clear out all the idiotic negative reviews from people who have no idea what they're talking about or what they really want.

So disappointed...the more I think about it, the more I realize they are marketing this towards consumers. It was built for consumers. But what does this mean for all of us loyal FCP editors? We jump ship?

No, it means you stop acting like a victim or like Apple owes you something and realize you can make choices.

DesterWallaboo
Jun 21, 2011, 09:25 PM
My guess is that the Marketing department won the battle over the release date. I can only imagine there are several angry/embarrassed Apple FCP engineers on campus today. I suspect that had this been released in December or early next year... the necessary professional features to actually get the project out the door would have been included. Pretty bummed I dropped $299 for a program that's going to collect dust until they add the features sometime in the nebulous future.

NY Guitarist
Jun 21, 2011, 09:25 PM
So why can't you take two cameras, stack their video and then cut back and forth between them? Just please explain in dummy terms what is missing re: Multicam

You can do this, but NOT having Multicam is like going backwards like 6-7 years ago to FCP4.

Multicam is a huge time saver for editing event videos in particular. With clips synced I could blaze away like I was switching a live show, but even better, could JKL to control speed, setup the keypad for 1, 2, 3 etc and cut way faster than realtime.

NY Guitarist
Jun 21, 2011, 09:26 PM
I'm pretty sure 90% of those negative reviews come from people who never used the app.

I'm sure you now have to had purchased the app to rate it.

DesterWallaboo
Jun 21, 2011, 09:26 PM
This needs to be reposted. You're 100% correct, and while yes, on one hand Apple should have waited to have a more finished product, but on the other hand this allows current FCP users to get antiquated with the new FCPX.

I just hope Apple deletes all the reviews at some point to clear out all the idiotic negative reviews from people who have no idea what they're talking about or what they really want.

"Antiquated" indeed... LOL

jrlcopy
Jun 21, 2011, 09:27 PM
Disclaimer: I am NOT a professional video editor

What is "multicam" and how is it different from "supporting multiple video tracks" ?

If I were to guess, multicam means 2+ cameras recording the same event from different angles and giving a mechanism to quickly sync those streams and switch between the various angles. This is what I think people are saying is missing.

Multiple video tracks = I can stack different clips and cut between them and overlay them. This I am assuming it DOES support, right?

So why can't you take two cameras, stack their video and then cut back and forth between them? Just please explain in dummy terms what is missing re: Multicam

Basically, on shows I work on, we have up to 11 cameras at a time, with 44 audio tracks (one for each celb, audience audio, etc... We mix in 5.1). When we are editing we 'group the clips' together in order to create a single clip that we double click and it gets loaded into the source monitor, and displays all cameras which play back simultaneously. And we're always able to instantly match back, extend shots, find out where we left off, etc..

We can then splice that clip into a timeline, and always change the camera or audio track by just right clicking the clip. The way you described does work, but for small things that you can do a couple 'add edits' and copy and paste, but we can't keep going back to the 'synced' sequence like that and finding where we got xyz from in our ever changing environment.

Basically, until fcpx has multicam support there is no way it can be used in a tv project that shoots with more than one camera. The network won't allow the production to waste time with a workflow when they could just choose another piece of software that does it efficiently. Reality TV Shows, Network shows, all tv is very very cheap.

EDIT: The biggest problem with this is that Apple didn't need to do all this, they could have just updated FCP to FCP 8 or whatever and introduced support, they are adding features or just introducing features that other software has had for years now. And now they have to go back and reprogram features that we've had for 6 years with other software and FCP7. Honestly the last REAL revision was in 2007 with FCP6. That's 4 years of very little bug fixes, 4 years of not introducing new features and 4 years to build an application that was on Par with what we had a long time ago (FEATURE WISE).

Yes, FCP 7 does a lot under the hood, but as far as what it has x64bit, use of multicores, we already have had that with competitors for a year or two now (Top of my head for this 'fact').

Even with the fastest programmers, how long would this take to get it to where FEATURE LEVEL it was on par with FCP7?

pullfocus
Jun 21, 2011, 09:28 PM
Hopefully there will be more of the same features coming to FCX that already exist on FCP7. Yeah, while it does seem aimed more at the casual or prosumer user, I would hope the reason Apple rolled it out in it's current form is to merely get a sense of the software in a real world environment. But what do I know? I'm just some guy postulating.
That being said, I was planning on waiting anyway. I'm fine using FCP7 for now.

However, the one thing that Apple seems to do lately that worries me is the fact they seem to simplify everything. Not every product or piece of software needs to be marketed to the casual end user. I hope that isn't the case here, where FCX is merely a slightly jacked up version of iMovie.

Time will tell.

DesterWallaboo
Jun 21, 2011, 09:29 PM
I'm sure you now have to had purchased the app to rate it.

Correct... you cannot rate without purchasing the app.

DisMyMac
Jun 21, 2011, 09:30 PM
The price point looks great.

If it were actually Final Cut, I'd agree. This looks like iMovie Pro to me.

Problem is I would have to buy a new computer to run it.

That's 100% coincidence!!! Apple never even thought of that.... :)

DesterWallaboo
Jun 21, 2011, 09:30 PM
However, the one thing that Apple seems to do lately that worries me is the fact they seem to simplify everything. Not every product or piece of software needs to be marketed to the casual end user. I hope that isn't the case here, where FCX is merely a slightly jacked up version of iMovie.

Time will tell.

My sentiments exactly.....

I love a lot of the new features for editing. Makes complex edits so much simpler. But there are some things you absolutely have to have total control... and I hope they don't jack that up.

cmaier
Jun 21, 2011, 09:30 PM
I'm pretty sure 90% of those negative reviews come from people who never used the app.

Their gripes seem pretty specific.

Gemütlichkeit
Jun 21, 2011, 09:31 PM
I'm pretty sure 90% of those negative reviews come from people who never used the app.

this i can agree with.. however some of the complaints of missing features are completely valid. let's hope they release a REAL version soon to warrant the price tag

pullfocus
Jun 21, 2011, 09:32 PM
My sentiments exactly.....

I love a lot of the new features for editing. Makes complex edits so much simpler. But there are some things you absolutely have to have total control... and I hope they don't jack that up.Exactly. The streamlined control would be fantastic. Rendering on the fly, etc. But if there isn't any real power under the hood....

njvan
Jun 21, 2011, 09:33 PM
Needed to open a previous project to make changes and found I couldn't inside Final Cut Pro X. I loaded up 7 to the following screen.

nine
Jun 21, 2011, 09:35 PM
I'm using Final Cut Express which suits my needs.
I'm wondering if FCX is a better upgrade currently & if not can FCE users take advantage of integration between the new Motion 5, Compressor, & FCE.

Matthew Yohe
Jun 21, 2011, 09:36 PM
Mixed?

Let's see what Steve has to say to this!

Honestly, you're emailing Steve Jobs about this? And, you're emailing him to get your money back? You know Apple made this whole Mac App store that has things like, "help" where you can go to to request things like refunds.

Don't be stupid.

Matthew Yohe
Jun 21, 2011, 09:37 PM
Needed to open a previous project to make changes and found I couldn't inside Final Cut Pro X. I loaded up 7 to the following screen.

Okay? And did you do what it said?

ARobinson
Jun 21, 2011, 09:37 PM
I'm pretty sure 90% of those negative reviews come from people who never used the app.

I strongly disagree. I think the strongest negatives are coming from editors like myself who use FCP7 EVERY SINGE DAY!! Consumers can welcome this product with open arms, because it was built for them. However, the current version is not of use to editors, in terms of their workflows and deliverables. Those who use FCP and gave a positive review are optimists. They probably even acknowledge all its faults. I commend their loyalty.

Uncle David
Jun 21, 2011, 09:37 PM
I'm excited about the future GM version of FCP X, but this isn't it. This version is little more than a Beta version that we have to pay to test out. Apple should have been more forthcoming regarding this application's 'professional' capabilities. Or, more aptly named it 'iMovie Pro' as many have suggested.

I just hope I don't have to pay again for the upgrades that will enable me to use this app on a 'professional' level.

NY Guitarist
Jun 21, 2011, 09:38 PM
Needed to open a previous project to make changes and found I couldn't inside Final Cut Pro X. I loaded up 7 to the following screen.

Oh, that's not good.

brock2621
Jun 21, 2011, 09:38 PM
My guess is that the Marketing department won the battle over the release date. I can only imagine there are several angry/embarrassed Apple FCP engineers on campus today. I suspect that had this been released in December or early next year... the necessary professional features to actually get the project out the door would have been included. Pretty bummed I dropped $299 for a program that's going to collect dust until they add the features sometime in the nebulous future.

"Dust" since it's only available on the Mac App Store ;)

Anaemik
Jun 21, 2011, 09:38 PM
I'm pretty sure 90% of those negative reviews come from people who never used the app.

The complaints from the reviews I have read all seem 100% legitimate.

However, while I can appreciate the desire to get your hands on the latest version of your "bread and butter" software ASAP, it may well have been prudent for a number of those people with valid complaints to have waited a day or two for the first proper reviews to come in before hitting "buy" on the App Store.

jrlcopy
Jun 21, 2011, 09:39 PM
Needed to open a previous project to make changes and found I couldn't inside Final Cut Pro X. I loaded up 7 to the following screen.

Yep. Not backwards compatible AT ALL.

tcampb01
Jun 21, 2011, 09:40 PM
To say the reaction is "mixed" is being extremely kind to Apple (and undeservedly so.)

The Apple discussion forums are full of posts from extremely angry customers who are all demanding their money back. This is basically a product launch disaster of the worst kind for Apple.

Apple generally gets good reviews even when they publish marginal software. To get these kinds of reviews means the software is a steaming pile.

BTW, I have evaluated the software and can vouch for the fact that it IS a steaming pile.

It's basically "iMove Pro" except Apple has deceptively tried to pass it off as the next version of Final Cut Pro. It is _not_ a real 'pro' app and shouldn't have a price tag of more than about $50 -- and that's me being kind.

ARobinson
Jun 21, 2011, 09:40 PM
I'm using Final Cut Express which suits my needs.
I'm wondering if FCX is a better upgrade currently & if not can FCE users take advantage of integration between the new Motion 5, Compressor, & FCE.

FCPX is more comparable to iMovie than FCPE. I don't say that out of hatred and frustration. I am an apple fanboy. However, I wish apple decided to build FCP in this fashion back when I was younger, before I went to film school. Its a more welcome transition from current iMovie users.

dagamer34
Jun 21, 2011, 09:41 PM
FCPX is very much like iPhoneOS in 2007; lots of obvious stuff missing in version 1.0, but with version 5.0, you've got a VERY polished product which few can match.

I imagine it's going to take a few iterations to make FCP X really sing, but it was obvious that the FCP7 base needed to be ditched now in order to bring the app into compliance with modern Mac OS X technologies (Cocoa, Grand Central Dispatch, OpenCL, etc...).

Matthew Yohe
Jun 21, 2011, 09:42 PM
It's basically "iMove Pro" except Apple has deceptively tried to pass it off as the next version of Final Cut Pro. It is _not_ a real 'pro' app and shouldn't have a price tag of more than about $50 -- and that's me being kind.

I've already read reviews from pros stating that this is not the case.

So, since you have already evaluated it, why not tell us specifics instead of the same garbage we can read everywhere else.

MacFan782040
Jun 21, 2011, 09:42 PM
I don't know how many people remember OS X 10.0 or 10.1, but it was initially a major step down from OS 9 in a lot of ways. It wasn't until 10.2 that it really started to feel like a complete OS.

This is as radical a change to Final Cut. It's a clean break, and there's going to be some pain for awhile - but it is the future.

Agree to a point. However when Apple released 10.0 they were pretty much coming back from a near death experience. They had nowhere to go but up. Final Cut Pro, on the other hand, is an industry standard app. While I am sure updates will make it better, (like iMovie did), I hope they can add some missing features before others make a switch to other systems.

portishead
Jun 21, 2011, 09:42 PM
I think anybody who was expecting this to be ready to slot into a professional production workflow from day 1 has either not been following the relevant blog posts leading up to this release, or they're being somewhat naive. Apple aren't exactly famous for their airtight x.0 releases, and I for one wasn't expecting this to be any different.

I think now is a good time for FCP vets to start learning the new paradigms in preparation for when it reaches an acceptable level of maturity, and now is also obviously good for newcomers to the FCP fold to start learning their chops, but anybody who is either denouncing this as a write-off or claiming it to be the best thing ever when it's just 24 hrs old is probably jumping the gun somewhat.

this.

powers74
Jun 21, 2011, 09:46 PM
Love it or hate it eh?

ARobinson
Jun 21, 2011, 09:47 PM
No, it means you stop acting like a victim or like Apple owes you something and realize you can make choices.

For editors like myself who use Final Cut Pro EVERY SINGLE DAY to make our living, especially a young one like myself who has invested over $10K in my workstation, its difficult to make that choice. To turn away from something you know and TRUELY love. I will and am continuing to use FCP7; however, the future is uncertain right now. I don't want to use anything else, but.... :/

Anaemik
Jun 21, 2011, 09:51 PM
My guess is that the Marketing department won the battle over the release date. I can only imagine there are several angry/embarrassed Apple FCP engineers on campus today. I suspect that had this been released in December or early next year... the necessary professional features to actually get the project out the door would have been included. Pretty bummed I dropped $299 for a program that's going to collect dust until they add the features sometime in the nebulous future.

I think your guess is almost certainly spot on. I kinda feel for the dev team here, as they probably knew they were set to get flamed on day of release due to missing features, and it must be kinda soulcrushing for them to experience that.

I don't think marketing is being 100% mindless though (although their decision to release now can definitely be questioned) - I just think they see value in a) allowing people to get used to the new workflows, and b) testing the waters to see exactly which of the missing features is causing the most uproar, so that they can prioritise their inclusion in the most immediate software patches.

Sirmausalot
Jun 21, 2011, 09:53 PM
Final Cut 7 is so out of date, it's not a decent solution. It doesn't support DSLR footage natively (and many of us are shooting on them), it's not 64 bit, nor multicore aware. Forget memory usage in excess of 4GB.

Final Cut X should address those shortcomings. And it does. 64 bit, multi-core. But it takes away FUNDAMENTAL TOOLS we need such as the ability to export an:mad: OMF for Pro Tools. And all of the other serious missing features we rely on

It is unacceptable not to have a decent upgrade for Final Cut Pro 7.

So no to the apologists. Apple has screwed up both Final Cut Pro 7 and this new abomination.

:mad::apple::mad:

goMac
Jun 21, 2011, 09:54 PM
FCPX is a lot like OS X. OS X started with the same complaints, the same feature shortfalls compared to Mac OS 9. Same complaints. OS X was the end of the world, Apple didn't know what they were doing, the release was botched, so on so forth. And to a degree, OS 10.0 wasn't Apple's finest operating system.

However, with a few updates Mac OS X had 95% of Mac OS 9's features, and a much better foundation.

If you're a serious pro, wait a few versions of FCP X. FCP7 still works, keep using it. Such a drastic change like OS X was will require some work.

And honestly, I wouldn't want to import FCP7 projects into FCPX anyway. It's an entirely different rendering engine. Whatever gets read by FCPX is likely to not display exactly the same, which is why an external import tool makes sense. Let people do it, but don't give them the idea it's going to be %100 perfect process.

lshaner
Jun 21, 2011, 09:55 PM
Honestly, you're emailing Steve Jobs about this? And, you're emailing him to get your money back? You know Apple made this whole Mac App store that has things like, "help" where you can go to to request things like refunds.

Don't be stupid.

Of course I already requested a refund from the App Store.
Putting this in Steve's face is just a "Don't be stupid, STEVE."

Matthew Yohe
Jun 21, 2011, 09:57 PM
Of course I already requested a refund from the App Store.
Putting this in Steve's face is just a "Don't be stupid, STEVE."

This is hardly a stupid move on Apple's part. Just like they did with OSX, they are putting Final Cut on a path for the future. The old FCP code was not ready for prime time and would've been a mess to continue piling on.

B. Hunter
Jun 21, 2011, 09:57 PM
If it were actually Final Cut, I'd agree. This looks like iMovie Pro to me.



That's 100% coincidence!!! Apple never even thought of that.... :)


Yep! You are right iMovie Pro. I can't believe the Green Lantern wannabees running around here defending FCPX. Most people saw this coming. Dumbed down software. How much longer will Apple cater to Pros in name only? Looks like they are moving away from the Pro business.
We are in the mobile device era. Otherwise FCPX would have been out more than a year ago. Anyone remember Jobs saying how the FCS development team was directed to work on IOS projects?

pullfocus
Jun 21, 2011, 09:58 PM
Final Cut 7 is so out of date, it's not a decent solution. It doesn't support DSLR footage natively (and many of us are shooting on them), it's not 64 bit, nor multicore aware. Forget memory usage in excess of 4GB.

Final Cut X should address those shortcomings. And it does. 64 bit, multi-core. But it takes away FUNDAMENTAL TOOLS we need such as the ability to export an:mad: OMF for Pro Tools. And all of the other serious missing features we rely on

It is unacceptable not to have a decent upgrade for Final Cut Pro 7.

So no to the apologists. Apple has screwed up both Final Cut Pro 7 and this new abomination.

:mad::apple::mad:
As for DSLR not being compatible with FCP7. I shoot DSLR all the time, and have no issues using Compressor and converting it into ProRes. Yeah, an extra step, sure, but not a huge issue.

Blipp
Jun 21, 2011, 09:59 PM
The majority of these reviews are bogus as there is absolutely no way it's been properly vetted in less than 24 hours by professionals. It'll never get a 5 start average without backwards compatibility and multicam editing but I fully expect it to even out to a 4 star once people get past the shell shock and it matures past its .0 release.

jrlcopy
Jun 21, 2011, 10:00 PM
If you're a serious pro, wait a few versions of FCP X. FCP7 still works, keep using it. Such a drastic change like OS X was will require some work.

And honestly, I wouldn't want to import FCP7 projects into FCPX anyway. It's an entirely different rendering engine. Whatever gets read by FCPX is likely to not display exactly the same, which is why an external import tool makes sense. Let people do it, but don't give them the idea it's going to be %100 perfect process.

And while you're waiting, check out some of their competitors that already have real-time editing, no transcoding, handle dslr natively, x64 bit, multicore funtimes. They've had these features for a couple years now. Then when FCPX is ready, feel free to go back, all the competitors have free trials, and they are all running specials to get you switched. Just try it. You know you want to. :)
http://www.videoguys.com/Specials/Now+In+Stock.aspx

But I disagree with your not wanting the ability to import FCP7 projects, they can program a converter to move projects, if other programs can do it, Apple can also. A converter is supposedly coming.

shiseiryu1
Jun 21, 2011, 10:02 PM
I've been using Adobe Premiere CS5 for about a year and I've been disappointed at how clunky it is. I just got FCP and have been messing around with it and it seems like a higher quality product. The UI is nicer, the file system is much more straight-forward, and the playback and edited is much smoother.

BTW: I also got the "Compressor" program...it's UI looks like it hasn't been touched since OS Tiger or earlier. :(

Anaemik
Jun 21, 2011, 10:03 PM
The majority of these reviews are bogus as there is absolutely no way it's been properly vetted in less than 24 hours by professionals. It'll never get a 5 start average without backwards compatibility and multicam editing but I fully expect it to even out to a 4 star once people get past the shell shock and it matures past its .0 release.

I wouldn't go as far as to say they are bogus. You could tell within 10 minutes if an audio app lacked sample-accurate editing or SMPTE support for example, or if a bitmap editor was missing a layers facility - those sorts of things don't need a lot of time with the software to figure out, and I believe most of the legitimate gripes that I've read personally would be of this nature. There do in fact seem to be some pretty major holes in the featureset.

That's not to say that I don't still think it was naive to expect everything to be there in x.0 though.

acslater017
Jun 21, 2011, 10:05 PM
Disclaimer: I am NOT a professional video editor

What is "multicam" and how is it different from "supporting multiple video tracks" ?

If I were to guess, multicam means 2+ cameras recording the same event from different angles and giving a mechanism to quickly sync those streams and switch between the various angles. This is what I think people are saying is missing.

Multiple video tracks = I can stack different clips and cut between them and overlay them. This I am assuming it DOES support, right?

So why can't you take two cameras, stack their video and then cut back and forth between them? Just please explain in dummy terms what is missing re: Multicam

Multicam is also a type of camouflage :)

Bafflefish
Jun 21, 2011, 10:05 PM
FCPX is a lot like OS X. OS X started with the same complaints, the same feature shortfalls compared to Mac OS 9. Same complaints. OS X was the end of the world, Apple didn't know what they were doing, the release was botched, so on so forth. And to a degree, OS 10.0 wasn't Apple's finest operating system.
Uh... what? I was an OS X beta tester, and while the beta and 10.0 were extremely slow, it was far from "botched" or "the end of the world" upon release. Were people unhappy with it? Yes. Could people still see that it represented a drastic (and much welcomed) change over OS 9? Definitely. Apple also had quickly commented that speed enhancements would be coming in 10.1 and that 10.1 would be released relatively quickly, which it was (relative to most major releases for OS X and other operating systems).

There was also the fact that, knowing how performance was less than expected upon its release, Apple made 10.1 a free upgrade, which was very much welcomed.

goMac
Jun 21, 2011, 10:06 PM
And while you're waiting, check out some of their competitors that already have real-time editing, no transcoding, handle dslr natively, x64 bit, multicore funtimes. They've had these features for a couple years now. Then when FCPX is ready, feel free to go back, all the competitors have free trials, and they are all running specials to get you switched. Just try it. You know you want to. :)
http://www.videoguys.com/Specials/Now+In+Stock.aspx

Sure, and it was the same thing with OS X. People threatened to switch to XP, which could do things like burn cds and play DVDs, that OS X couldn't. In the end, OS X was just fine, and I don't think anyone today would say OS X is horrible, despite it's beginnings.

I'm not saying that everyone should be happy with FCPX. Clearly there are features that people want. And they probably shouldn't switch if those features are missing. But this is going to be a piece by piece thing.

The other option is Apple didn't release FCP X today at all, and you would be stuck with FCP7 for the next year or two while they were getting FCP X with every last single feature. Would that have been better?

But I disagree with your not wanting the ability to import FCP7 projects, they can program a converter to move projects, if other programs can do it, Apple can also. A converter is supposedly coming.

I'm going to guess now that the converter won't be perfect. FCP X is not at all related to FCP 7. It's a brand new entirely different program with a render engine not at all related to FCP 7's. It's like doing an import from FCP to Premiere. Sure, it could done. But there are differently going to be differences in the original project and the import.


Uh... what? I was an OS X beta tester, and while the beta and 10.0 were extremely slow, it was far from "botched" or "the end of the world" upon release. Were people unhappy with it? Yes. Could people still see that it represented a drastic (and much welcomed) change over OS 9? Definitely. Apple also had quickly commented that speed enhancements would be coming in 10.1 and that 10.1 would be released relatively quickly, which it was (relative to most major releases for OS X and other operating systems).

There was also the fact that, knowing how performance was less than expected upon its release, Apple made 10.1 a free upgrade, which was very much welcomed.

Really? Cause I was a beta tester too, and there were a lot of missing features/bugs.

• Couldn't burn cds.
• Couldn't play DVDs
• Dialing up with a 56k modem would frequently crash your machine
• It ran dog slow
• No hardware window acceleration
• Etc, etc, etc,

Look, I loved OS X, but plenty of people didn't, and even I had to boot back into OS 9 all the damn time to get things done (like, as mentioned, burn a cd, which couldn't even be done from Classic.)

It was so bad Apple gave 10.1 away for free. In stores.

Final Cut Pro X shares a lot in common with OS X besides the number, which I'm pretty sure was chosen intentionally as it's following the same development path.

JesterJJZ
Jun 21, 2011, 10:07 PM
I don't know if "botch" is the word to use unless your every day work involves multi-cam productions...

Otherwise, just finish your current projects on FCP 7 and start your next on the new system and enjoy the new features and less micro-managing :cool:

No no, FCPX is still pretty limited in comparison to FCP7. I know I won't be switching for a while.

Small White Car
Jun 21, 2011, 10:11 PM
What a bunch of cry-babies some of those reviewers are.

NO professional software is ready for professional use on day one. Anyone who thought that is either not a pro or maybe just incredibly inexperienced.

I'm really happy that I can have Final Cut today so that I can start learning it. Once it gains more features in a few months I'll know what I'm doing and will be ready to go. The complainers will, I guess, just ignore Final Cut until then and THEN they'll start learning it.

Oh well, some of us will be six months ahead of you. Too bad for you.

Infrared
Jun 21, 2011, 10:11 PM
And while you're waiting, check out some of their competitors that already have real-time editing, no transcoding, handle dslr natively, x64 bit, multicore funtimes. They've had these features for a couple years now. Then when FCPX is ready, feel free to go back, all the competitors have free trials, and they are all running specials to get you switched. Just try it. You know you want to. :)
http://www.videoguys.com/Specials/Now+In+Stock.aspx

AMC isn't "x64 bit" [sic].

ppc_michael
Jun 21, 2011, 10:12 PM
I've gotta say, the people who are defending Final Cut Pro X must be either inexperienced or not working on large productions.

It looks like it's great for cutting together little YouTube videos shot on small-sensor video cameras or whatever. But we work primarily in film still, and cherry-picking some of the broader features from the other applications, cramming them in to FCPX, and doing a way with the original applications is terrible for larger projects like ours. The editor isn't the colorist or the sound guy, and Apple does not seem to understand that.

They have essentially destroyed their future in studio-based motion picture.

ARobinson
Jun 21, 2011, 10:12 PM
This is hardly a stupid move on Apple's part. Just like they did with OSX, they are putting Final Cut on a path for the future. The old FCP code was not ready for prime time and would've been a mess to continue piling on.

I understand your point, but this particular product is just not yet something professional editors can adopt. Great for consumers, but I wish they didn't release it, cuz it worries us. I am hopeful...but when will these changes come? I pray when Lion is released.

Small White Car
Jun 21, 2011, 10:15 PM
The editor isn't the colorist or the sound guy, and Apple does not seem to understand that.


So...what? If a colorist sees "Final Cut Pro" in the menu bar instead of "Color" he's gonna get scared or something?

Seriously, I'm not understanding the complaint.

tokyojerry
Jun 21, 2011, 10:16 PM
Like anything that is first generation, hardware or software, one must allow and recognize required breathing room for evolution and improvement of any product. It was the same with iPhone, iPad, and even Macbook Air for myself. I never buy into 1st generation hardware. The same carries over with software too. Final Cut Pro - X will definitely improve with time. I think Apple has done an admirable job to create a more intuitive user experience and yet at the same time keeping the technology professional enough for the Universal Studios, Hollywoods and Bollywoods of the world satisfied. The streamlining too. The confusion of FCP Server, and the lightweight FCP Express and FCP Studio etc... that all goes by the wayside now in the new era of video production. Now it is Final Cut Pro X. Just like OS-X is OS-X is OS-X. Each iteration improves on the previous.

goMac
Jun 21, 2011, 10:17 PM
I understand your point, but this particular product is just not yet something professional editors can adopt.

It's version 1.0. It's not meant to be. I'd be worried about anyone adopting 1.0 software on day 1, much less a ground up re-write.

Great for consumers, but I wish they didn't release it, cuz it worries us.

Why? You don't have to use it until it's fixed. And if you're a high end professional, you probably shouldn't. If it offends you by just being a 1.0 in existence.... I'm.... sorry?

I am hopeful...but when will these changes come? I pray when Lion is released.

Basically the problem is that QuickTime is being re-written from scratch. QuickTime X is a dead end, and can't be used for editing at all.

I can't really comment on Lion (developer here, NDA), but Apple has been adding lots of features in to replace QuickTime other places. I think this is going to be an ongoing thing. But it takes a long time to replace over 10 years of QuickTime development.

Quite a few of the features I see that are missing are obviously parts of 32 bit QuickTime, which can't be used for FCP X.

the vj
Jun 21, 2011, 10:19 PM
I am sure someone at Apple will be fired after this marketing strategy.

Now no one will get FCP X until they see it working just fine by someone else.

Again, people wold rather find a hacked version now just because they wont trust spending $1 for something half way done.

lshaner
Jun 21, 2011, 10:20 PM
This is hardly a stupid move on Apple's part. Just like they did with OSX, they are putting Final Cut on a path for the future. The old FCP code was not ready for prime time and would've been a mess to continue piling on.

Following your analogy, even the first cut of Mac OS X had ways to run OS9. Similarly, the first Intel Mac's could run PPC.

They really just needed to hold the release until they could include an import/convert from old to knew -- even with SOME loss of functionality, if absolutely unavoidable...THAT would be better than NO backward compatibilty, whatsoever. But FRANKLY if this were a true UPGRADE, then therenshould be no loss of functionality, only new/additional functionality with the possibility to convert all old content in a way that maps to the new layout / new way of doing things.

They simply washed their hands of the problem and were not NEARLY forthright about it.

This is a completely new product masquerading as an upgrade to the prior version. It is a natural upgrade from iMovie, not an upgrade from FCS.

Sure, in some ways FCPx may prove better than FCP(7), but that would make it an upgrade like going from Windows to Mac OS X is an upgrade -- but at least there, nobody is trying to pass the two off as the same, but evolved product!

No ability to open old FCP/Studio projects is a disappointment.
No ability to at least IMPORT/Convert old FCP/Studio projects is UNFORGIVABLE = REFUND.

ARobinson
Jun 21, 2011, 10:20 PM
What a bunch of cry-babies some of those reviewers are.

NO professional software is ready for professional use on day one. Anyone who thought that is either not a pro or maybe just incredibly inexperienced.

I'm really happy that I can have Final Cut today so that I can start learning it. Once it gains more features in a few months I'll know what I'm doing and will be ready to go. The complainers will, I guess, just ignore Final Cut until then and THEN they'll start learning it.

Oh well, some of us will be six months ahead of you. Too bad for you.


I commend your optimism. I plan on doing the same. My only frustration is the fundamental difference in workflows. Sure its like knowing FCP and its opposite Avid, but I suspect it will get annoying using FCP7 for work and a totally different workflow in FCPX. Sure X may take over eventually...its just a big shocker.

Small White Car
Jun 21, 2011, 10:23 PM
I commend your optimism. I plan on doing the same. My only frustration is the fundamental difference in workflows. Sure its like knowing FCP and its opposite Avid, but I suspect it will get annoying using FCP7 for work and a totally different workflow in FCPX. Sure X may take over eventually...its just a big shocker.

Do you use Aperture? I am also apprehensive about having to re-learn Final Cut from scratch...but I am optimistic that they seem to be following Aperture's lead in terms of how you deal with media.

So while I don't understand all this yet, I feel like the video-people are following the photo-people's lead. And given that computer photo management has been far more advanced than video management for several years I feel pretty good about the future.

Anaemik
Jun 21, 2011, 10:24 PM
The editor isn't the colorist or the sound guy, and Apple does not seem to understand that.
.

And in big-budget music production, the writer isn't the programmer or the recording engineer or the audio editor or the mix engineer or the mastering engineer, yet there are countless records produced that start and end their lives in Pro Tools, with all the steps in between being carried out in the same environment.

It's just a case of knowing which features you need and drawing on plugins to augment the standard featureset (assuming all the must-haves are in place to begin with, which admittedly in FCP X they aren't as of right now).

DisMyMac
Jun 21, 2011, 10:25 PM
I've gotta say, the people who are defending Final Cut Pro X must be either inexperienced or not working on large productions.

It looks like it's great for cutting together little YouTube videos shot on small-sensor video cameras or whatever. But we work primarily in film still, and cherry-picking some of the broader features from the other applications, cramming them in to FCPX, and doing a way with the original applications is terrible for larger projects like ours. The editor isn't the colorist or the sound guy, and Apple does not seem to understand that.

They have essentially destroyed their future in studio-based motion picture.

I think Apple is betting that your profession is going away, and "prosumers" are moving up.

Professionals in many fields have been bitten this way - they think there is no way that automation or unskilled labor can ever replace them... then one day, technology sneaks up and they become obsolete.

ARobinson
Jun 21, 2011, 10:28 PM
It's version 1.0. It's not meant to be. I'd be worried about anyone adopting 1.0 software on day 1, much less a ground up re-write.

Why? You don't have to use it until it's fixed. And if you're a high end professional, you probably shouldn't. If it offends you by just being a 1.0 in existence.... I'm.... sorry?

I know. This is still all a big shocker is all. The future seems so uncertain which worries us.

itsokay
Jun 21, 2011, 10:30 PM
before buying software, you should really read about it. the internet is full of magical things like websites to educate you. like this:

http://www.apple.com/finalcutpro/

steve123
Jun 21, 2011, 10:31 PM
I've read quite a few of the comments here and at the App store as well as some of the blogs. I have not purchased FCPX yet but I am seriously considering doing so, all things I've read so far considered.

I have the following observation. As I recall, Steve Jobs is a Director of Disney. I would think he would have had quite the opportunity to involve a few professional users during the development of FCPX. Steve Jobs is a pretty smart guy. I suspect he did but that is pure speculation on my part.

MovieCutter
Jun 21, 2011, 10:32 PM
100% of my current workflow requires multi cam, I've already started adapting my workflow to Adobe's suite. This was a piss-poor release for the sole reason that even though the deliberately showed us a project in FCP 7 compared to FCP X at the NAB event, it was completely misleading as I can't open anything in FCP X. If they had released it as a beta, fine...but I paid $300 for software I can't implement into my workflow for another 6-12 months when Apple decides to give me back basic features I have in software from 4 years ago.

I would have been happy to wait 6 months until they had a complete version, but this is bollocks. It's been a fun 10 years Apple...

goMac
Jun 21, 2011, 10:33 PM
I know. This is still all a big shocker is all. The future seems so uncertain which worries us.

Apple has said they are listening. If you feel you've waited on Apple long enough, by all means switch. There were people who did the same when OS X came out for the same reasons. Some came back later.

Just like OS X, FCP X is never going to look or work exactly like it's predecessor. But Apple has typically brought the tools back up to where everyone expects them to be after a ground up re-write.

ARobinson
Jun 21, 2011, 10:35 PM
So while I don't understand all this yet, I feel like the video-people are following the photo-people's lead. And given that computer photo management has been far more advanced than video management for several years I feel pretty good about the future.

I don't have or use Aperture. While I can't compare video to photo management, I hope you are correct. I assume though video is far more complex than photo: more storage is required, files grow corrupt, thousands of assets are associated with a single project, streaming is a beast of a discussion itself. Cant imagine where you are going with this. Explain? Hopefully you'll reassure fcpx's future for me.

twoodcc
Jun 21, 2011, 10:36 PM
well from the videos i've seen, it looks pretty good. it's got my attention

Small White Car
Jun 21, 2011, 10:36 PM
I would have been happy to wait 6 months until they had a complete version, but this is bollocks. It's been a fun 10 years Apple...

So you're happy to wait 6 months, except that you're not happy to wait 6 months.

Got it.

ARobinson
Jun 21, 2011, 10:39 PM
Apple has said they are listening. If you feel you've waited on Apple long enough, by all means switch. There were people who did the same when OS X came out for the same reasons. Some came back later.

Just like OS X, FCP X is never going to look or work exactly like it's predecessor. But Apple has typically brought the tools back up to where everyone expects them to be after a ground up re-write.

I have never considered investing in any other NLE until today. Always planned on owning Avid, because all aspiring feature editors like myself should, but never thought I would feel as I did earlier. The shock has left and am comfortable with using FCP7 and slowly letting X grow on me. Thanks.

itsokay
Jun 21, 2011, 10:45 PM
Of course I already requested a refund from the App Store.
Putting this in Steve's face is just a "Don't be stupid, STEVE."

you should sell your stupid apple stuff then :apple:

Small White Car
Jun 21, 2011, 10:46 PM
I don't have or use Aperture. While I can't compare video to photo management, I hope you are correct. I assume though video is far more complex than photo: more storage is required, files grow corrupt, thousands of assets are associated with a single project, streaming is a beast of a discussion itself. Cant imagine where you are going with this. Explain? Hopefully you'll reassure fcpx's future for me.

You're talking about the technical stuff behind the scenes.

I'm talking about how you relate to the media from a UI perspective. Final Cut X (and Aperture) seem to take the viewpoint that the things in your photos and video are what you actually care about. In other words, the people and places you shot. Not the files themselves which are often just based on things like when you had to switch your memory chip. (Why should that matter?)

The old Final Cut (and, let's say, Finder for photos) was more concerned with individual files. What bin do you want it in? What title do you want to give it? Is there a lot of stuff in there? Should I sub-clip it for you thus making even more clips and more bins?

Aperture did away with the 'find your file' concept by managing the files and letting you sort, label, and edit based on what your photos are about. (And I'm not saying Aperture was first program to do that. It's just a good example of how the photo-people were getting into this years before us video folks were.) You want to do 8 versions of that one shot you love? Go ahead, Aperture will deal with where the actual file is...you'll just see your 8 versions, or if you prefer, you can collapse it back into a single photo to keep things neat. You wanna keyword it and then search by a string of perimeters? (All shots of Phil with James that I took with the 7D.) Easy!

Now, you may say "Final Cut Pro always managed my files for me too!" Sure...it hid the files and folders from you, but it just turned them into 'clips' and 'bins.' It dressed everything up in the same costume it wears in Finder. Not really a change, just different names. What I'm talking about here is a real change...something that's not at all like how Finder sorts Quicktime files.

There's a lot to Final Cut X that's changed, but I think the most important thing to understand is the range-based keywords (http://www.apple.com/finalcutpro/all-features/#media-organization). Is it the biggest feature? No, but I really believe it's the most influential feature. Wanna know where the future of Final Cut is headed? Think about range-based keywords and you'll get some clues.

Range-based keywords is to Final Cut as 'the finger' is to the iPhone. Everything flows from that concept.

dkouts
Jun 21, 2011, 10:46 PM
Boy - what a difference between the reactions today and the standing ovation we saw during the LA FCP user group demo???

How could there be such a discrepancy?

Some points to bear i mind:

1. Never buy the 'worlds first' anything.

2. Exec's at Apple decided to release FCPX in time for the end of financial year so this quarters figures got a boost right before July 1, whether or not it was 100% ready.

3. People are inexperienced at using THIS NEW software and instead of approaching it like "how-does-this-work?", they try to shoehorn the old system into the new. Just hang onto FCP7 for now and gradually make the change as updates come down the line.

rimcrazy
Jun 21, 2011, 10:52 PM
Yes, I own it. Downloaded it this morning. Have a project on it already. On the plus side, it is pretty quick. I have it on a 2yr old MBP and it's editing a 1080p project I have. The steadycam and rolling shutter are a nice feature and I find the UI actually fairly easy to navigate. But.......

Some of the other stuff with this app is just completely nuts if you are a pro.
1) As said, no multicam
2) Better be sure you have backups of the files you import. If you decide you don't want a clip in your "Event" and you delete it, it wipes it off your hard drive.
3) You can't even mute an audio track if it coupled with a video track! You have to be frigging kidding me. You have to separate the audio from the video and then disable that audio track. Don't want to hear any audio. Too bad. You have to disable all of the audio tracks or mute the audio to your mac.
4) Weak support for multi-monitor. Basically you can put either, not both, your file viewer or viewer window on a second monitor. That is it.

For simple editing it won't be bad. If I worked in a major studio, production house, etc. I doubt you will be seeing this in there any time soon.

ckelley
Jun 21, 2011, 10:52 PM
"Everything just changed in post."

Pretty fitting, eh? And you really didn't think they were going to do it their way, even if it means spitting in the face of your way that you've become so accustomed to? That you didn't see how radical some of the changes were a few months ago during the demo? That maybe, just maybe, things would be different?

All these professionals, buying new software without waiting for reviews or reading anything about it... tsk tsk.

sined13
Jun 21, 2011, 10:54 PM
$300 for access to the beta...

And then Apple will charge you for an upgrade every 6 months for features that should have been there in the first place.

ARobinson
Jun 21, 2011, 10:57 PM
Range-based keywords is to Final Cut as 'the finger' is to the iPhone. Everything flows from that concept.

On board with range based keywords. Great for my documentary work in particular! No need for debate. I am over the days shock.

Video in FCP, in terms of the workflow, is much different than Aperture. I think...fundamentally. But whatever. I am content. Thanks for your reply.

DisMyMac
Jun 21, 2011, 10:58 PM
I realize YouTube is 90% cats playing and annoying lip-sync videos, but that's changing. The future will yield quality productions made by anyone who has an interest. No profits, no costs (except to your own free-time and personal life). FCP X could pave the way for that.

Will big-budget Hollywood films still exist?

No, they won't. That's hard to imagine now, but please try.

captain kaos
Jun 21, 2011, 11:04 PM
..Apple as lost a pro app and gained an uprated home editing package.

handsome pete
Jun 21, 2011, 11:04 PM
So...what? If a colorist sees "Final Cut Pro" in the menu bar instead of "Color" he's gonna get scared or something?

Seriously, I'm not understanding the complaint.

I'm sure the colorist will be scared by the fact that he can't view broadcast quality video on a monitor for grading purposes.



I've put in my 2 cents elsewhere, but to sum it up I'm optimistic that the missing features will come back. Hopefully in the near future. The launch of this had been handled terribly though. I fear that the damage among the pro user base might be too much by then. I'll probably give it a go soon, but I certainly won't use it for anything other than personal work in it's current state.

handsome pete
Jun 21, 2011, 11:06 PM
I realize YouTube is 90% cats playing and annoying lip-sync videos, but that's changing. The future will yield quality productions made by anyone who has an interest. No profits, no costs (except to your own free-time and personal life). FCP X could pave the way for that.

Will big-budget Hollywood films still exist?

No, they won't. That's hard to imagine now, but please try.

I think you're living in fantasyland.

Small White Car
Jun 21, 2011, 11:13 PM
The launch of this had been handled terribly though. I fear that the damage among the pro user base might be too much by then.

Why? What Pro user expects this to be a product they'll use this year? I doubt we'll get it at work before 2012.

That hypothetical colorist is probably assuming his monitor support will be in Final Cut X by 2012. Seems like a very safe bet to me, dunno why you think that's frightening to anyone.


I'll probably give it a go soon, but I certainly won't use it for anything other than personal work in it's current state.

Funny, that's EXACTLY what I'm doing. Only I seem to think that's cool and you think it'll "damage the pro user base." I'm honestly confused by why you're so pessimistic over the exact same thing that I'm enjoying.

AidenShaw
Jun 21, 2011, 11:17 PM
Oh, no! BETA

Or "train wreck"....

captain kaos
Jun 21, 2011, 11:21 PM
I'm sure the colorist will be scared by the fact that he can't view broadcast quality video on a monitor for grading purposes.



I've put in my 2 cents elsewhere, but to sum it up I'm optimistic that the missing features will come back. Hopefully in the near future. The launch of this had been handled terribly though. I fear that the damage among the pro user base might be too much by then. I'll probably give it a go soon, but I certainly won't use it for anything other than personal work in it's current state.

I with you one this one. There is no way in hell a grader will touch a job without a full broadcast output device, ie SDI/HD-SDI in. Avid will jump on this (and claw back some of the ground they lost with FCP 7)

Rodimus Prime
Jun 21, 2011, 11:25 PM
Posted my review on the App Store: I am sure I agree with all the negative comments. As a young aspiring editor eager to learn, even I feel like this app was written for consumers and not professional editors. It feels more like iMovie Pro. I have so many fundamental issues with the structural build of this program. The UI is not the problem! The changed shortcuts are not the problem! Its the beams in the concrete that are pulling this application down. Hopefully others feel sane enough to explain the details. While I am still eager to learn new tools, this release only encourages my inevitable purchase of Avid. Apple has a lot of work to do!! I am not sure how they can pull themselves out of this whole. Unless their plan all along was to make a product for consumers.

Also, various comments all over other forums and my blog. So disappointed...the more I think about it, the more I realize they are marketing this towards consumers. It was built for consumers. But what does this mean for all of us loyal FCP editors? We jump ship?

Well given the direction Apple has been heading lately with a lot of there stuff and how they have killed off some other their other pro lines I would not be surpised in the least to see Apple complete really leave the pro world.

Apple is mostly a consumer company. It going to sell Apps to prosummers who do not need as much as pros nor demand as much. Just look how how they have been piss poor at maintaining the Mac Pro and keeping it updated. They killed off their true servers.
Apple is about margins and lets face it. Pro world is may have good margins but it does not have the numbers so it is much harder to get the money you invest back. Apple has forgotten how to compete in that world and gave it up to their competitors.

Apple has the consumer world dialed in and they are good at that market and by the looks of things they are moving completely over to that world.

What a bunch of cry-babies some of those reviewers are.

NO professional software is ready for professional use on day one. Anyone who thought that is either not a pro or maybe just incredibly inexperienced.

I'm really happy that I can have Final Cut today so that I can start learning it. Once it gains more features in a few months I'll know what I'm doing and will be ready to go. The complainers will, I guess, just ignore Final Cut until then and THEN they'll start learning it.

Oh well, some of us will be six months ahead of you. Too bad for you.

Well it does not take long to see if App has huge holes in it and lacks even the potential to make it.
I am not a video editor but when an Apple App is getting this much hate something is clearly wrong because normally people are overly forgiving of Apple.

H. Flower
Jun 21, 2011, 11:28 PM
The program is literally retarded and I hope Walter Murch or the Coen Bros call Steve and bitch him out.

H. Flower
Jun 21, 2011, 11:30 PM
I with you one this one. There is no way in hell a grader will touch a job without a full broadcast output device, ie SDI/HD-SDI in. Avid will jump on this (and claw back some of the ground they lost with FCP 7)

Why would anyone beyond making youtube videos touch a program you can't send a video signal out of?

314631
Jun 21, 2011, 11:32 PM
Apple should erase all the BS 1 star reviews and ban people from the App Store. I've never used any version of Final Cup Pro, but I know it's good software because Apple make it. Final Cut Pro X is definitely a quality product that deserves no less than 4 stars from the screenshots I've seen. It really looks amazing and the best software of its kind in the market.

H. Flower
Jun 21, 2011, 11:33 PM
I realize YouTube is 90% cats playing and annoying lip-sync videos, but that's changing. The future will yield quality productions made by anyone who has an interest. No profits, no costs (except to your own free-time and personal life). FCP X could pave the way for that.

Will big-budget Hollywood films still exist?

No, they won't. That's hard to imagine now, but please try.

There's no money in it, so you're wrong.

And Jobs even said himself, when it comes to movies, people don't want "amatuer hour."

H. Flower
Jun 21, 2011, 11:35 PM
Why? What Pro user expects this to be a product they'll use this year? I doubt we'll get it at work before 2012.

That hypothetical colorist is probably assuming his monitor support will be in Final Cut X by 2012. Seems like a very safe bet to me, dunno why you think that's frightening to anyone.




Funny, that's EXACTLY what I'm doing. Only I seem to think that's cool and you think it'll "damage the pro user base." I'm honestly confused by why you're so pessimistic over the exact same thing that I'm enjoying.

What do you use it for?

bxben
Jun 21, 2011, 11:49 PM
I am personally, quite happy with the Final Cut Pro X update! I wrote a more detailed version of my thoughts here (http://bit.ly/iw5AbX), I would be curious to hear some more opinions from well versed FCP users.

Cory Bauer
Jun 21, 2011, 11:50 PM
I'm pretty sure 90% of those negative reviews come from people who never used the app.
You can't post a review without buying the thing. On the contrary, the one-star reviews are from professional editors and the 5-star reviews are from iMovie converts looking to enhance their blog videos.

soLoredd
Jun 21, 2011, 11:52 PM
Well, I don't have any mission-critical projects in which Final Cut Pro is necessary but what I don't get is the complaining on release day of an app that will be grown and polished for a few years to come? I mean, is your previous version suddenly not going work? If the new features don't do anything major for your work then why not keep using what you are using and move to FCPX later?

Seems to me expectations were way beyond what Apple could deliver on a x.0 release. As is always the case.

goMac
Jun 21, 2011, 11:52 PM
I'm sure the colorist will be scared by the fact that he can't view broadcast quality video on a monitor for grading purposes

This is something lost in the move from QuickTime.

It'll be back, but they're going to have to replace the system API for it.

mdriftmeyer
Jun 22, 2011, 12:00 AM
Reading this Forum: http://forums.creativecow.net/finalcutprox#3169

Doesn't bode well for these folks calling themselves Professionals.

It's littered with a bunch of overreactions, rants and ultimately egg on one's face ignorance as they discover more and more [thanks to other actual Professionals] showing them they better talk less and explore more before making unfounded claims about FCPX's current status.

The best one that had me laughing was the claim that the Key Frame Editor functionality was missing.


No Keyframe editor? massive fail apple!


A few comments later showed the complainer they better use the software and learn the new UI before making themselves look even more foolish then they already have.

Truly sad that so many ranters consider themselves seasoned professionals and are reacting as if the world has all gone mad.

mdriftmeyer
Jun 22, 2011, 12:01 AM
You can't post a review without buying the thing. On the contrary, the one-star reviews are from professional editors and the 5-star reviews are from iMovie converts looking to enhance their blog videos.

You sure can't, but you can write a vapid review after you buy it without actually taking a few weeks to learn the software--a reasonable time frame for any serious professional to learn any piece of software.

captain kaos
Jun 22, 2011, 12:06 AM
Why would anyone beyond making youtube videos touch a program you can't send a video signal out of?

Well, they wouldn't! With the old FCP you had black magic and AJA boxes that linked to the FCP (G5) via a pcie card. The box would in turn send out SDI or HD SDI. I guess those manufacturers with make something for FCPX, but only if you run it form a g5 (to get the pcie slot) and only if the programme itself allows output ot tape.


Unfortunately apple as a history of ruining what is a good editing package (the old imovie for one)

H. Flower
Jun 22, 2011, 12:09 AM
Well, I don't have any mission-critical projects in which Final Cut Pro is necessary but what I don't get is the complaining on release day of an app that will be grown and polished for a few years to come? I mean, is your previous version suddenly not going work? If the new features don't do anything major for your work then why not keep using what you are using and move to FCPX later?

Seems to me expectations were way beyond what Apple could deliver on a x.0 release. As is always the case.

The previous version is really behind the technology curve, so many of us have to use something new.

Will_reed
Jun 22, 2011, 12:10 AM
Their gripes seem pretty specific.
The complaints from the reviews I have read all seem 100% legitimate.

However, while I can appreciate the desire to get your hands on the latest version of your "bread and butter" software ASAP, it may well have been prudent for a number of those people with valid complaints to have waited a day or two for the first proper reviews to come in before hitting "buy" on the App Store.
I strongly disagree. I think the strongest negatives are coming from editors like myself who use FCP7 EVERY SINGE DAY!! Consumers can welcome this product with open arms, because it was built for them. However, the current version is not of use to editors, in terms of their workflows and deliverables. Those who use FCP and gave a positive review are optimists. They probably even acknowledge all its faults. I commend their loyalty.

Listen, perhaps I should have said haven't sufficiently used Final Cut Pro X, and I don't just come to this conclusion as an apple apologist or something It comes from seeing reactions to the product else where as well from those who jumped to judge the app less then an hour after release.
I don't think it's very fair to open this say "It looks like imovie so it must be imovie pro" then give it a 1 star ratting.
Take Media composer for example, I am a regular FCP user and decided it was time I gave Avid a try seeing as I hadn't used since 2003.
I imported some media dragged some clips onto the timeline found it to be clunky and frustrating and eventually after cutting maybe 20 seconds of footage I decided to close it.
Based on this would it be fair of me to give it a 1 start rating in the app store? (If avid were in the app store) I don't think it would be.

Scorch07
Jun 22, 2011, 12:11 AM
Honestly, it seems like most of the complaints are about multicam (which is coming soon).

I don't use it, never have, and don't expect I will be anytime soon.

Here's the thing. FCP 7 didn't like any of the cameras I regularly use. FCP X does. Which means the time from when I sit down at the computer until I can be editing is IMMENSELY shorter. I know people like to be OCD about making things exactly a certain way, but I know with Aperture once I learned to stop stressing over all that and just editing my pictures, the whole process just became way more awesome, and with better results because I could focus on my project rather than dealing with the computer.

I feel like FCP X has great potential to do this as well. Is it perfect? No. Will it require getting used to some differences? Sure. But some things are worth getting used to.

And ok, saying this is just iMovie is complete childish whining. I like what Larry Jordan said about that: it's like comparing a bike and a motorcycle. They may have a similar design but they are two totally separate beasts. iMovie is a crippled little toy. Even now, in its early stages, FCP X feels like an at least competent tool for most projects (that I work on anyway). There's no way iMovie could handle things I do. Not even close. But FCP X can.

Apple said themselves they are completely rethinking the way NLEs work. If you're tied to the old ways, fine, stick with FCP 7 or switch to Avid. Nobody's stopping you. But with some growing time, I see FCP X becoming a great system. Some people are just scared of change. People hated the mouse when it first came out too, and look what happened.

captain kaos
Jun 22, 2011, 12:15 AM
Apple should erase all the BS 1 star reviews and ban people from the App Store. I've never used any version of Final Cup Pro, but I know it's good software because Apple make it. Final Cut Pro X is definitely a quality product that deserves no less than 4 stars from the screenshots I've seen. It really looks amazing and the best software of its kind in the market.

Ok, just because apple has made it doe not make it a brilliant piece of software. Apple ruined imovie the same way, this looks like another one.

The problem is that its coming up to 30 years of editing on non linear systems. Lightworks, media 100 and avid were the first. They all have the same style of cutting and showing your work and there is a reason that Avid version 6 is the same set up to the one they release 20 odd years ago, because editors are familiar with it.

Apple has come along as "decided" they're going to re imagine the whole thing, and while they're at it, take away things that are still needed. Tape is still here, its not just "export an H264 for youtube", yet Apple (it seems) has taken away a way to export to tape!

Also, you can't open older FCP projects. Although i shouldn't be surprised with that as everytime they upgraded the old FCP you couldn't open older projects.

H. Flower
Jun 22, 2011, 12:16 AM
Apple said themselves they are completely rethinking the way NLEs work. If you're tied to the old ways, fine, stick with FCP 7 or switch to Avid. Nobody's stopping you. But with some growing time, I see FCP X becoming a great system. Some people are just scared of change. People hated the mouse when it first came out too, and look what happened.

Virtually none of the complaints here or elsewhere have been about things that are there and changed, they've been about the things that have been removed.

Big difference.

BenRoethig
Jun 22, 2011, 12:19 AM
This is a lot like OSX or iMovie '08 where Apple had to take some steps backwards to be in a position ultimately move forward. FCPX isn't an upgrade to FCPS, its its eventual replacement and a 1.0 release. Its going to take a year or two to get back to where the old software was, but after that, it's going to go places where the old final cut could only dream of.

Short term though, Adobe could pick up some switchers to premiere because being a loyal fanboy doesn't make you money. Being able to do your job effectively does and there are some things the new software does not do well or at all.

Cory Bauer
Jun 22, 2011, 12:22 AM
You sure can't, but you can write a vapid review after you buy it without actually taking a few weeks to learn the software--a reasonable time frame for any serious professional to learn any piece of software.
It doesn't take a few weeks to discover missing features that render the software literally useless in a pro environment. It's like if Apple released a new versions of Pages that can neither open Pages documents or print - what the hell good is using it for two weeks going to do?

Scorch07
Jun 22, 2011, 12:24 AM
It doesn't take a few weeks to discover missing features that render the software literally useless in a pro environment. It's like if Apple released a new versions of Pages that can neither open Pages document sor print - what the hell good is using it for two weeks going to do?
Could do a lot of good if you figured out "oh, there's the print button, guess it's there after all." :rolleyes:

Not all the complaints are things that are actually, there, but I've seen people complaining about things being gone that were actually there and they just hadn't figured it out yet.

JesterJJZ
Jun 22, 2011, 12:26 AM
Also, you can't open older FCP projects. Although i shouldn't be surprised with that as everytime they upgraded the old FCP you couldn't open older projects.

You could always open older FCP projects. It just tells you that the project needs to be updated to the current version to work. Just once you save it, you can't open it in the older version anymore, only the current one.

This whole thing just plain sucks now because it seems like I will forever need 2 versions of Final Cut installed just in case I need to go back to an older project. Even if FCPX gets the ability to do it in the future, there's NO WAY it will be 100% compatible will all my plugins and settings from the old. Seems like FCP7 will have a permanent home on all my Macs until pretty much forever...great...

Cory Bauer
Jun 22, 2011, 12:29 AM
Could do a lot of good if you figured out "oh, there's the print button, guess it's there after all." :rolleyes:

Not all the complaints are things that are actually, there, but I've seen people complaining about things being gone that were actually there and they just hadn't figured it out yet.
I can assure you that is not the case for any of the one-star reviews on the Mac App store. I've read them.

lilo777
Jun 22, 2011, 12:30 AM
Let's give credit where credit is due. Apple always strides to produce tools with intuitive (simple) interfaces. The problem is that truly professional tools by their nature deal with rather complex matters and frequently require quite complex (professional) user input/interaction. Apple approach works OK for the most part for simple products (like iPod, to a lesser extent - iPhone). Now they made honest attempt to design a "simple" tool for solving complex problems. As it turns out, many people believe that they failed. Some believe that they just have not had enough time. I think that the problem is systemic. "Simple" approaches can only get you so far. The question is, now that Apple got "so far" will they admit it and go traditional way or will they insist that theirs is a new "revolutionary" way and professionals just need to re-learn. I am afraid that the latter is a more likely outcome.

WestonHarvey1
Jun 22, 2011, 12:30 AM
Agree to a point. However when Apple released 10.0 they were pretty much coming back from a near death experience. They had nowhere to go but up. Final Cut Pro, on the other hand, is an industry standard app. While I am sure updates will make it better, (like iMovie did), I hope they can add some missing features before others make a switch to other systems.

You're right about the near death experience, but if you set that itself aside, there were some unavoidable growing pains in that transition. Jobs wanted to convert NeXTStep into a good Macintosh experience, and it represented a huge paradigm shift for both the NeXT and Mac platform - all at once.

There's a similar thing going on with FCP X. A radical shift that isn't quite ready in some areas. Pros are recoiling at the similarities to the new iMovie - but even though it's a consumer product, it contains new concepts that are relevant beyond the consumer space. Just like OS 9 users didn't see the forest for the trees - there was a robust object oriented, modern platform under the OS X 10.0 hood - FCP X users are making a mistake by zeroing in on missing features.

And since it sounds like the missing features are coming, it's hopefully moot.

H. Flower
Jun 22, 2011, 12:34 AM
Just like OS 9 users didn't see the forest for the trees - there was a robust object oriented, modern platform under the OS X 10.0 hood - FCP X users are making a mistake by zeroing in on missing features.

And since it sounds like the missing features are coming, it's hopefully moot.

whatttt???

Missing features = missing income

Missing features for 1+ years = missing a lot of income

Aiwaz418
Jun 22, 2011, 12:39 AM
I realize YouTube is 90% cats playing and annoying lip-sync videos, but that's changing. The future will yield quality productions made by anyone who has an interest. No profits, no costs (except to your own free-time and personal life). FCP X could pave the way for that.

Will big-budget Hollywood films still exist?

No, they won't. That's hard to imagine now, but please try.That is naive in the extreme, and patently false - audiences will always clamor for professional, slick productions, regardless of the availability of alternative media.

WestonHarvey1
Jun 22, 2011, 12:47 AM
whatttt???

Missing features = missing income

Missing features for 1+ years = missing a lot of income

"Real Artists Ship." - Steve Jobs

Sometimes you just have to get a version out there.

WestonHarvey1
Jun 22, 2011, 12:51 AM
I realize YouTube is 90% cats playing and annoying lip-sync videos, but that's changing. The future will yield quality productions made by anyone who has an interest. No profits, no costs (except to your own free-time and personal life). FCP X could pave the way for that.

Will big-budget Hollywood films still exist?

No, they won't. That's hard to imagine now, but please try.

90% cats? I've been watching a lot of really interesting things on YouTube for years. I think the stereotype about cats says more about the interests of the people watching YouTube. There's so much good stuff, and so many good people to subscribe to, who are putting out great content - whether it has high production values or not.

If you have an interest in something beyond cats, there's probably a lot of really fascinating things for you in your interest group on YouTube.

Ol'MacUser
Jun 22, 2011, 12:59 AM
A lot of professional frustration shouldn't be overlooked as people simply being "unfamiliar" with a product.
It is so much deeper than that.
Most seasoned pros using FCP are independent owner/operators. They're not showing up for work to cut little wedding videos for the local community. There are so many conditions that have to be successfully met with each production, and when a company shows a lack of understanding for that particular culture, it's actually scary.
For example, look at color correction. Color correction only really matters for broadcast and film. For web, it's nice, but no-one's sitting there with scopes evaluating how well you did managing highlights and saturation.
So here's a supposed upgrade (yes, that's how it was presented) that offers some "wonderful" color-correction tools - but no way to actually evaluate those colors - except on a computer monitor - YECHHH!
So . . . was Apple high or were they rushed? Either answer is scary.
Another example. Ability to play with others. In the pro world, no-one tries to do their job with just one app. Typical workflow involves exporting audio to real DAWs and exporting clips for compositing (ie Shake or Nuke) and doing real color work in applications that actually support real color work (ie. Color, or BM Resolve, or Smoke, or whatever).
Instead, we have Apple using the word "pro" in an application that doesn't seem to understand the culture of the "pro."
They should have called it Final Cut Noob, for all the noobs who have no idea what a production workflow is really like.
In fact Apple should just change their name to Noob. They're noobs regarding Blu-Ray. Noobs regarding Shake (and letting it die). Noobs regarding their infatuation with 1.8 gamma and all the quicktime gamma issues that created.

So, may I introduce Final Cut Noob X.

Sure, it'll get better. Better for noobs, anyway. What would you expect from a company named Noob? It's a perfect fit.

Noobs.

McBeats
Jun 22, 2011, 01:00 AM
I don't like how people tend to have bipolar reviews.... :rolleyes:

I pretty much disregard any review with 1 or 5 stars...

BigMac Attack
Jun 22, 2011, 01:03 AM
If you are unhappy Tweet this:

Not happy with the new Final Cut Pro X?? Email the product manager your thoughts: Steve Bayes, sbayes@apple.com #FCPX #Apple #FinalCutProX

GingerHips
Jun 22, 2011, 01:04 AM
As an Apple Certified FCP Trainer I am pretty worried about this. I make a living out of training FCP. I am now faced with the scenario of people not wanting to learn the current FCP because it is basically obsolete and because the jump to FCPX is not incremental but "clean-slate". However, FCPX is not "pro-ready" yet so it is pointless training it to professionals. It means a slump in bookings for FCP training.
Not only is the above a worry, but even my own certification; i.e. will certificated FCP experts and trainers be allowed to write the usual cheaper and non-proctered exam to upgrade their certificates to FCPX, or will they be required to write a full-on proctored exam (and pay the extra).
Apple need to communicate on these issues more effectively to avoid all this negative buzz; AND other applications capitalizing off disgruntled FCP users.

JAYnLA
Jun 22, 2011, 01:23 AM
I'm glad I didn't purchase this product today.

If it's not the next step for Final Cut Pro, it shouldn't be called Final Cut Pro.

The mistake will fade if they get it up to speed quickly, but sheesh -- this was a big mistake.

Bafflefish
Jun 22, 2011, 01:26 AM
Really? Cause I was a beta tester too, and there were a lot of missing features/bugs.
I never said it wasn't missing features, but it wasn't the "end of the world" as you put it. Let's go through your list...

• Couldn't burn cds.
• Couldn't play DVDs
Yes, both of these did suck. Admittedly though, the issue with playing DVDs was more of a concern for PowerMac users with SuperDrives, since at the time, a huge segment of the Mac userbase didn't even have SuperDrives, and many of those with iMac G3s solely had CD-ROM drives that didn't even have burning capability. If I recall, after OS X's release you started to see CD-RW drives become BTO on the Apple store, but by that point 10.1 wasn't too far away.

For awhile there, you could even pick up Toast for free to help deal with this issue.

You're right, it sucked, but both were remedied via 10.1 that came out approximately 6 months later.

• Dialing up with a 56k modem would frequently crash your machine
Honestly I don't remember this issue. During beta testing I remember testing dial-up with the backup number Cox provided, Netzero's free access, and the AOL trial option, without any issues. Don't know if something happened before release though.

• It ran dog slow
• No hardware window acceleration
This was mostly due to Aqua, and as I mentioned previously, was part of that "slow/poor performance" aspect that 10.1 helped to remedy to a greater extent (though even then at times it would still slow down).

As for hardware window acceleration, I don't recall Appearance Manager in OS 9 having any type of hardware acceleration (and in this regard, I'm referring to offloading the acceleration to the GPU. Not sure if you mean something else).

• Etc, etc, etc,
Honestly, one of my biggest issues was that driver support was lackluster at launch, which meant that at the time I had to re-install replaced components that my PowerMac had shipped with in order to guarantee compatibility. That's what annoyed me a lot.

Look, I loved OS X, but plenty of people didn't, and even I had to boot back into OS 9 all the damn time to get things done (like, as mentioned, burn a cd, which couldn't even be done from Classic.)

It was so bad Apple gave 10.1 away for free. In stores.

Final Cut Pro X shares a lot in common with OS X besides the number, which I'm pretty sure was chosen intentionally as it's following the same development path.
The difference is that FCP 7 hasn't been updated for a couple of years almost and thus is lacking quite a few features already. Apple essentially actively ceased support in order to supply resources to a new version, but yet this new version is lacking features that many find critical.

Now, in comparison, OS 9 still was seeing regularly updates up through and even after OS X's release (likely due to the less-than-desired performance/functionality of OS X). From a "My job partly depends on this" perspective, OS X offered nothing. FCP 7, by comparison, is lacking quite a bit, and from the reviews and responses I've read through, FCP X just wasn't ready.

Apple needed to take Blizzard's approach and "release it when it's ready", instead of releasing a half-baked product.

sudosu
Jun 22, 2011, 01:27 AM
You cant just add in things like multiprocessing to an application as complex a fcp wrap it up in a software update and send it down the intertubes. Sometimes you gotta start from scratch.
Look at windows vista, considered by most to be a pile of junk(ok all windows is junk), but the changes that came with it allowed Microsoft to produce 7. Which beats xp hands down.
Apples just doing the same with final cut, this is just a foundation. If you dont like it, stick with what you have until the features become available.

The Captain
Jun 22, 2011, 01:30 AM
Let's give credit where credit is due. Apple always strides to produce tools with intuitive (simple) interfaces. The problem is that truly professional tools by their nature deal with rather complex matters and frequently require quite complex (professional) user input/interaction. Apple approach works OK for the most part for simple products (like iPod, to a lesser extent - iPhone). Now they made honest attempt to design a "simple" tool for solving complex problems. As it turns out, many people believe that they failed. Some believe that they just have not had enough time. I think that the problem is systemic. "Simple" approaches can only get you so far. The question is, now that Apple got "so far" will they admit it and go traditional way or will they insist that theirs is a new "revolutionary" way and professionals just need to re-learn. I am afraid that the latter is a more likely outcome.

Complexity is freedom. It's a simple concept that gets overlooked all too often.

Piggie
Jun 22, 2011, 01:31 AM
Whilst this, in no way bothers me. I do find it odd that anyone can justify this, after reading for months people slagging off Msoft again and again for releasing unfinished software that needs updates.

Bafflefish
Jun 22, 2011, 01:33 AM
Whilst this, in no way bothers me. I do find it odd that anyone can justify this, after reading for months people slagging off Msoft again and again for releasing unfinished software that needs updates.

It's a part of these forums you'll have to get used to - if MS, Adobe, or any other company were to release a product such as FCP X that wasn't nearly finished, people would rail on them to no end.

Since it's Apple though, it's "all part of the plan" and "people are just whiners", etc.

I never quite understand why people have to exhibit such blind loyalty to any company... Praise them when they're good, criticize them when they're bad.

MyRumors
Jun 22, 2011, 01:34 AM
If they release it now with less features and add what many of you pros need in 6 month, or if they would have waited for 6 months to release it at all with those features, you still have to wait the same amount of time!

If you dont like it now, dont buy it, wait! Dont be egocentric and not let others enjoy it now because you dont like it yet! Whats wrong with people?

YoGramMamma
Jun 22, 2011, 01:50 AM
So while a lot of the comments and complaints I've read are valid, I think we’re seeing a classic case of the “whining of the vocal minority” here. I mean, does the majority of the people who use FCP professionally really use all the features that are missing on a daily basis. Probably not.

I’ll bet you if you found a way to poll all of the people who use FCP on a daily or regular basis and asked them how many of them regularly require the ability to import/export OMFs, XMLs or EDLs or, you’d get an insanely low percentage of people. Yes, it should be there if this is to be considered a “pro” app… but I think all this hubbub is a little disproportionate to the amount of people who’d actually benefit from the inclusion of some of these features off the bat.

They’ll show up. But in the meantime lets not forget all the things this new version does infinitely better than the old FCP. I mean, a 12 core mac pro can damn near run a NASA mission by itself but couldn’t render a line of generated text over a layer of video… this was a big problem. This was a thing I and a lot of editors use on a regular basis (and not XML exporting). Its now fixed, along with a host of other nips and tucks that make this program really fly and actually put to use all the money people spent on their decked out macs - but for some reason people hate on the new version?!? I don't get it.


No native RED support, or opening old FCP projects are both huge oversights I think, and certainly should have been there from day one. The lack of multicam is troubling, I’ll admit that, but again.. most people who use FCP don’t need that feature regularly... yeah I've read a few posts here about people who work on multicam shoots regularly but you can't be serious if you think YOUR workflow is the most common one out there.

I can’t say with certainty but I’d imagine Apple did some sort of polling to find out what most of their users use on a regular basis and concentrated on porting that to FCPX first. And I (and just about everyone else I know) gave up hope on DVDSP long long ago (and moved on to Encore) so the whole non inclusion of that is a wash really. At least you can find the BluRay export option directly in FCP... thats a step in the right direction.

I say, lets see this for what it is: a radically new paradigm for editing that finally brings the software up to the level of the hardware. I've been poking around in it for a few hours now and this thing zings. Granted I'm on a spankin new SSD drive iMac with maxed out specs :), but still... It finally lets me use my hardware in a respectable way. I read a post a few pages back about how the range based keywording is the feature at the crux of the paradigm shift with how you manage your media and I couldn't agree more. Help me sort and manage whats in the content of the video I shot, not where its located on my hard drive.

Its got some growing pains, but it’ll be enhanced and added to. And once 3rd party plugin support (a feature that just because of the whole 32>64 bit thing I never thought would be present anyway) comes in… and a few glaring omissions get added, people will forget about all this whining.

Plus, for every single gripe you or anyone can give me, I can give you a counter point for a new feature thats better or makes my work easier than in FCP7. So simmadown everyone.

Aiwaz418
Jun 22, 2011, 02:04 AM
So while a lot of the comments and complaints I've read are valid, I think we’re seeing a classic case of the “whining of the vocal minority” here. I mean, does the majority of the people who use FCP professionally really use all the features that are missing on a daily basis. Probably not.

I’ll bet you if you found a way to poll all of the people who use FCP on a daily or regular basis and asked them how many of them regularly require the ability to import/export OMFs, XMLs or EDLs or, you’d get an insanely low percentage of people. Yes, it should be there if this is to be considered a “pro” app… but I think all this hubbub is a little disproportionate to the amount of people who’d actually benefit from the inclusion of some of these features off the bat.

They’ll show up. But in the meantime lets not forget all the things this new version does infinitely better than the old FCP. I mean, a 12 core mac pro can damn near run a NASA mission by itself but couldn’t render a line of generated text over a layer of video… this was a big problem. This was a thing I and a lot of editors use on a regular basis (and not XML exporting). Its now fixed, along with a host of other nips and tucks that make this program really fly and actually put to use all the money people spent on their decked out macs - but for some reason people hate on the new version?!? I don't get it.


No native RED support, or opening old FCP projects are both huge oversights I think, and certainly should have been there from day one. The lack of multicam is troubling, I’ll admit that, but again.. most people who use FCP don’t need that feature regularly... yeah I've read a few posts here about people who work on multicam shoots regularly but you can't be serious if you think YOUR workflow is the most common one out there.

I can’t say with certainty but I’d imagine Apple did some sort of polling to find out what most of their users use on a regular basis and concentrated on porting that to FCPX first. And I (and just about everyone else I know) gave up hope on DVDSP long long ago (and moved on to Encore) so the whole non inclusion of that is a wash really. At least you can find the BluRay export option directly in FCP... thats a step in the right direction.

I say, lets see this for what it is: a radically new paradigm for editing that finally brings the software up to the level of the hardware. I've been poking around in it for a few hours now and this thing zings. Granted I'm on a spankin new SSD drive iMac with maxed out specs :), but still... It finally lets me use my hardware in a respectable way. I read a post a few pages back about how the range based keywording is the feature at the crux of the paradigm shift with how you manage your media and I couldn't agree more. Help me sort and manage whats in the content of the video I shot, not where its located on my hard drive.

Its got some growing pains, but it’ll be enhanced and added to. And once 3rd party plugin support (a feature that just because of the whole 32>64 bit thing I never thought would be present anyway) comes in… and a few glaring omissions get added, people will forget about all this whining.

Plus, for every single gripe you or anyone can give me, I can give you a counter point for a new feature thats better or makes my work easier than in FCP7. So simmadown everyone....and what type of editing do you do?

The missing features are essential to those of us working in features and television, and they are used regularly, end of story.

CplBadboy
Jun 22, 2011, 02:10 AM
Oh dear Apple. WTF is goin on in Cupertino these days?????? Disastrous update to TC and AEBS yesterday, still using C2D chips in the MBA, Macmini, I dread to think what the new MacPro will look like.

There is no excuse for not delivering a complete package. There are a lot of Pros on the reviews who are very much disappointed at this release. Seems its a iMovie Plus and missing a lot of older features that are still needed today?

To simply say 'Oh we will add them later isnt really what PRO users want to hear is it?? Apple had enough time to get this right and had they listened to PRO users instead of the bloke who made iMovie (because that app was just great, amazing and overall fun!) then it would be stopping a lot of Pros heading off to buy Adobe's option right about now.

Its news like this that is making me feel that Apple is really not making the grade this year. The thing thats impressed me most isnt the Lion unveil or new iMacs its those Google Chromebooks. That seems to be where the future is and Google seems to be screaming ahead right about now. hell Ive even stopped using Safari because Chrome blasts it outta the water.

Somebody needs to start kicking arse at Cupertino. And quickly. :p

Reach
Jun 22, 2011, 02:14 AM
My guess is that the Marketing department won the battle over the release date. I can only imagine there are several angry/embarrassed Apple FCP engineers on campus today. I suspect that had this been released in December or early next year... the necessary professional features to actually get the project out the door would have been included. Pretty bummed I dropped $299 for a program that's going to collect dust until they add the features sometime in the nebulous future.

lol Well, who to blame? I think the fact where out there, and you decided to buy despite the missing features.

Being trigger-happy is nice and all, but some research can do a lot of good.

I guess the price point is ridiculously low, at least, with people just buying it without even knowing what it can do...

NY Guitarist
Jun 22, 2011, 02:16 AM
...and what type of editing do you do?

The missing features are essential to those of us working in features and television, and they are used regularly, end of story.

Thank you.

nerdo
Jun 22, 2011, 02:17 AM
I've been using Adobe Premiere CS5 for about a year and I've been disappointed at how clunky it is. I just got FCP and have been messing around with it and it seems like a higher quality product. The UI is nicer, the file system is much more straight-forward, and the playback and edited is much smoother.

BTW: I also got the "Compressor" program...it's UI looks like it hasn't been touched since OS Tiger or earlier. :(

My feeling too, it feels really light even on an old 1,1 mac pro.

Compressor is .. well stoopid: 32 bit and never got it to go beyond 400% CPU on a 8 core with a Quadro 4000. Adobe's converter gets up to 1200% (in certain cases) and squeeze uses the Cuda cores.

FCPX is a good sketch of what they are thinking, but compressor is nothing more then a micro upgrade.

4God
Jun 22, 2011, 02:21 AM
I like it. But really, what do you expect for $299?

Ericdenman
Jun 22, 2011, 02:27 AM
When i fired of FCPX this morning at first i was "****** this, ****** apple, this sucks" but after an hour of actually learning the product and discovering where the features I used in prior versions of FCP were..I can honestly say there is no longer go back as this new version a major step in the right direction. Yes, I understand it is missing a few features, and they will come, apple does listen to their customers. Give it a chance. If it were not apple and some new comer off the street people would bow at its virtual feet.

chaosbunny
Jun 22, 2011, 02:35 AM
Come on, has there ever been a 1.0 version of a complex, professional application that was 100% ready for every day production?

I'm no video pro but this remembers me of InDesign 1.0 in print design. Nobody thought 10 years ago that QuarkXPress could be beaten.

If you get such an early release you basically agree to be a beta tester - it's not the way it should be but it's the way it is. One can either wait for the product to be finished, or get it and try it out of interest. And if you love your profession like I do, of course there is and should be interest in something new/different.

Jerome Morrow
Jun 22, 2011, 02:36 AM
When i fired of FCPX this morning at first i was "****** this, ****** apple, this sucks" but after an hour of actually learning the product and discovering where the features I used in prior versions of FCP were..I can honestly say there is no longer go back as this new version a major step in the right direction. Yes, I understand it is missing a few features, and they will come, apple does listen to their customers. Give it a chance. If it were not apple and some new comer off the street people would bow at its virtual feet.

What i was thinking too. Without some of the features currently missing it's next to impossible to use FCPX in film making and television, so it's somewhat childish to think that Apple is dropping those features for good. I think they just take more time to adapt those features to the new application architecture.

I think it's a good start.

wulf
Jun 22, 2011, 02:38 AM
I don't agree on ppl stating this is not a pro product, because of the things that are missing. Most of the stuff that is missing is essential to any editor. The pro editor just misses more things. This is not something to like. I think this is a major marketing error. The marketing approach didn't fit the product. Normally apple's secrecy will present us some pleasant surprises. In this is case it failed to do so. Actually the opposite is true. Apple should reconsider their marketing approach for PRO products.

I don't agree with some "pro's" stating that this was to expect from v 1.0 software. Sure expect flaws. I don't expect essentials missing in a commercial release. This software has been put to test by industry leaders. They could have told us, but they were not allowed. If it was my good name to be used for this kind of practice, I would reconsider signing future NDA's.

However if I just consider what we did get, I think the product looks very promising. It's really fast and i'm sure it's not hard to get used to the new user experience. We definitely need more time to evaluate the features we did get in this release, to see if they're eventually improvements over time. For now, i'm sure the new interface will slow everybody down, but it's fun learning!

YoGramMamma
Jun 22, 2011, 02:39 AM
...and what type of editing do you do?

The missing features are essential to those of us working in features and television, and they are used regularly, end of story.

I get it... its missing features... But out of all the final cut installations on every machine out there... features and television probably aren't the majority of what people are cutting. That's all I'm saying.

I'm an independent director/producer... I've done large projects for large clients, many of which you've heard of, and yes I have needed some of the missing features of FCPX before... but not usually. Normally I'm editing stuff or dishing it off to an editor on a hard drive (including project file and media). This is still possible with the new FCPX... not that Id just jump to using it in my workflow without checkin compatibility with all my collaborators first.

I am a professional who *could* use FCPX for my professional work if I wanted to. Alls I'm sayin is that I'd be willing to wager that the majority of FCP users don't need some of the major missing features as bad as the outcry on these forums seem to indicate.

H. Flower
Jun 22, 2011, 02:48 AM
I get it... its missing features... But out of all the final cut installations on every machine out there... features and television probably aren't the majority of what people are cutting. That's all I'm saying.

I'm an independent director/producer... I've done large projects for large clients, many of which you've heard of, and yes I have needed some of the missing features of FCPX before... but not usually. Normally I'm editing stuff or dishing it off to an editor on a hard drive (including project file and media). This is still possible with the new FCPX... not that Id just jump to using it in my workflow without checkin compatibility with all my collaborators first.

I am a professional who *could* use FCPX for my professional work if I wanted to. Alls I'm sayin is that I'd be willing to wager that the majority of FCP users don't need some of the major missing features as bad as the outcry on these forums seem to indicate.

So if your content is broadcast, as you seem to imply, how do you intend to color correct with no I/O in FCPX?

JabbaII
Jun 22, 2011, 02:49 AM
Guess you get what you pay for:
FCP ~$1000, FCP X ~$400 all up.

grooveattack
Jun 22, 2011, 02:50 AM
am i the only person that likes final cut pro x?
i have been using that old dinosaur ( fcp7) for years and its crap compared to this!

as a test i just reedited a short that i made in fcp7. it was such a nicer experience on X. everything gets out of my way so i can tell a story and not having to spend time looking at something that looks like it crawled its way out of the 90's is nice.
finally that £2500 computer is being put to work fully by 64bit,GCD,openCL etc.

why is the video industry so scared of something new? apple is renowned for shaking things up (music industry, phone industry etc.) they are doing the same with post production apart from this time they have a bunch of people moaning about how its imove. its not friggin anything like imovie!

YoGramMamma
Jun 22, 2011, 03:03 AM
So if your content is broadcast, as you seem to imply, how do you intend to color correct with no I/O in FCPX?

First off, I never Implied that my content is broadcast. The broadcast projects that I have done I haven't color corrected myself, I've sent them off to a colorist by way of external hard drive, all files inclusive. Obviously I get that with FCPX I wouldn't be able to do this since the colorist wouldnt be able to open my project in any app that would support I/O for CC, nor do it in FCPX itself... however, I also never said I'd abandon my FCP7 did I? No.

Out of all the edit jobs that happen on any given day, what percentage of them do you think are for broadcast? Hmm? Not most of them. A lot of them, sure... but not more than personal projects, internet projects, client based promos or DVD destined stuff. ALL I AM SAYING is that all this bitching from people on these forums seem to come from people who rely on missing features, which.. IMO.. aren't in the majority in terms people who use FCP. The jobs i used to work at Sony Pictures and a few other post houses around LA had everyone working on AVID... making the whole FCP argument null anyway.

I'm not saying that you and your workflow don't need what FCPX isn't offering, clearly you do... just don't assert your job as the holy grail of needs for every "editor" out there.

H. Flower
Jun 22, 2011, 03:12 AM
First off, I never Implied that my content is broadcast. The broadcast projects that I have done I haven't color corrected myself, I've sent them off to a colorist by way of external hard drive, all files inclusive. Obviously I get that with FCPX I wouldn't be able to do this since the colorist wouldnt be able to open my project in any app that would support I/O for CC, nor do it in FCPX itself... however, I also never said I'd abandon my FCP7 did I? No.

Out of all the edit jobs that happen on any given day, what percentage of them do you think are for broadcast? Hmm? Not most of them. A lot of them, sure... but not more than personal projects, internet projects, client based promos or DVD destined stuff. ALL I AM SAYING is that all this bitching from people on these forums seem to come from people who rely on missing features, which.. IMO.. aren't in the majority in terms people who use FCP. The jobs i used to work at Sony Pictures and a few other post houses around LA had everyone working on AVID... making the whole FCP argument null anyway.

I'm not saying that you and your workflow don't need what FCPX isn't offering, clearly you do... just don't assert your job as the holy grail of needs for every "editor" out there.

You're missing the point.

FCP no longer supports broadcast media, with no timetable of when or if it ever will.

That's pretty significant, for a multitude of reasons. Wouldn't you agree?

brutusvimes
Jun 22, 2011, 03:19 AM
First of all, I understand how the lack of multi-cam, some broadcast media and backwards compatibility (not to mention XML workflow) mean this is a broken release to many editors.

However, to those editors (like me) who don't use these elements of the software, calling it 'iMovie Pro' is pretty inaccurate. Final Cut Pro X has every other major feature of FC7, works on a 64-bit architecture that is much faster, includes background rendering, has a few ease-of-use additional features, includes the major features of Soundtrack Pro and Color, etc.

My point is that I can see how this could be considered a broken release by some - but truly, it could never be seen as iMovie Pro. It's much, much too powerful for that.

Ol'MacUser
Jun 22, 2011, 03:20 AM
why is the video industry so scared of something new?

Save your "fear" label for targets who aren't old enough to respond.
Only a cretin would confuse disappointment in a backwards "upgrade" (never defined as version 1 of anything, btw) that has been lagging for years, and when finally released, is incapable of being used in any workflow that involves any other applications, including previous versions, with "fear."

iLilana
Jun 22, 2011, 03:37 AM
As i'm not a video editor and do not use Any video editing software I can't say anything about FCP or FCPX.

HOWEVER... i did watch the introduction event for fcpx and saw great new features that were looking like stuff that needed to be upgraded.

Since I am a logic pro user (along with ableton cubase protools reaper and most other recording/editing software packages available) I'm still feeling a bit concerned. The way everyone sounds I'm almost scared that in a year or two I will be producing content on garageband pro. I used GB to write song with and back when it came out i explored its potential. I soon got over it and realized i still needed better tools. Yes you can do a few creative things in a minimal environment but the features available in the Pro Suite are absolutely necessary. Features like hardware compatibility which is non existent on GB. Features like Software compatibility. Backwards compatibility with file formats etc. I like to be able to micromanage. Micromanaging is necessary for midi/audio in many cases for tweeking, originality, developing individual sounds and production styles. Its the difference between using a paintbrush or camera with some filters. FCPX is a tool. The ability to use the tool creatively defines the engineer/film maker/producer/artist.

I hope apple and the users find a way to work together in generating a happy medium. The software always needs to progress but it shouldn't happen at the expense of necessary features.

H. Flower
Jun 22, 2011, 03:37 AM
yeah, as if fielding new technologies/platforms is something new to us :rolleyes:

JabbaII
Jun 22, 2011, 03:44 AM
Wonder if Apple rigs the App store recommendations (region = Japan):

Top Paid:
1. Final Cut Pro
2. Motion
3. Compressor
4. Face Time
5. Reeder
6. Keynote
7. Xcode
8. Pages
9. iPhoto
10. Numbers

Final Cut Pro has 2 stars but is the Top paid software. Japan users seem to dislike it too with similar comments as this forum.

Winni
Jun 22, 2011, 03:49 AM
I just hope Apple deletes all the reviews at some point to clear out all the idiotic negative reviews from people who have no idea what they're talking about or what they really want.


You mean like they do on their technical support forums...?

It always blows my mind how religious people get about Apple products: Apple can't do wrong, Apple products are ALWAYS awesome, even if they're buggy like hell or miss critical features, Apple knows what's best - I think you get the idea.

In my experience, Apple's dot zero releases are usually among the worst in the industry, especially when you look at the so-called Pro Apps and their operating systems (Leopard and Snow Leopard both were extraordinarily buggy dot zero releases). It always takes Apple several updates to get the stuff working; and when certain features are missing, well, just wait for the next pay-for dot zero update.

Sander
Jun 22, 2011, 04:04 AM
EDIT: The biggest problem with this is that Apple didn't need to do all this, they could have just updated FCP to FCP 8 or whatever and introduced support, they are adding features or just introducing features that other software has had for years now. And now they have to go back and reprogram features that we've had for 6 years with other software and FCP7. Honestly the last REAL revision was in 2007 with FCP6. That's 4 years of very little bug fixes, 4 years of not introducing new features and 4 years to build an application that was on Par with what we had a long time ago (FEATURE WISE).

Yes, FCP 7 does a lot under the hood, but as far as what it has x64bit, use of multicores, we already have had that with competitors for a year or two now (Top of my head for this 'fact').

Even with the fastest programmers, how long would this take to get it to where FEATURE LEVEL it was on par with FCP7?

The problem with "old code" is that there is a lot of cruft. It seems to be an unavoidable law of nature. If you plot the amount of user-visible improvements against the effort spent implementing them, any product starts off with a very steep curve which flattens over time. After ten years of intensive maintenance, sometimes even fixing a simple annoying bug can take disproportionate amounts of effort. Adding new features gets more and more difficult; programmers start to program very defensively because there's stuff in there that nobody understands anymore but which will cripple the software in mysterious ways if you touch it.

To get back to a steep curve, you sometimes have to start from scratch. When you do, you will obviously start with zero features, but with all the experience you have built up, you will overtake the feature curve of the previous product in a few years. After that, you have another 5-7 years of growth which will propel your new system beyond what the previous could ever attain.

But those first few years will be painful. You will constantly have the issue of "But the previous version could do X, why can't you simply add that to the new version?". Sometimes all it takes is time, sometimes you will have to decide against bringing that feature over, because you can oversee the gain/effort ratio and decide you can do other, perhaps more important stuff with the same effort spent.

Disclaimer: I'm not a videographer by any means. I do, however, have lots of experience with enormous software packages with lots of legacy in them.

GregAndonian
Jun 22, 2011, 04:07 AM
FCPX is very much like iPhoneOS in 2007; lots of obvious stuff missing in version 1.0, but with version 5.0, you've got a VERY polished product which few can match.

Yes, but the iPhone didn't abruptly put an end to something else that people depend on to make a living. FCPX did. Apple should have kept selling FCP7 until X had the most glaring feature omissions added in, like OMF, EDL and XML support. Or better yet they should have worked on it a few months longer and got it right from the get-go. September would have been a perfect time to release this- It could have been timed to conicide with IBC if they did that. They should have at least waited until after Lion came out...

mrwonkers
Jun 22, 2011, 04:10 AM
Now no one will get FCP X until they see it working just fine by someone else.

Again, people wold rather find a hacked version now just because they wont trust spending $1 for something half way done.


Totally agree, I know I won't be forking out $300+ for some half baked Apple "soft"ware.....


This version should be priced at no more than $50 and even that is pushing it as essentially it is just charging/forcing users to be Beta Testers for an unfinished incomplete program......

JabbaII
Jun 22, 2011, 04:14 AM
I don't remember any Adobe releases causing such a uproar!

CS4 / CS5 was a big change too to cocoa.

MorphingDragon
Jun 22, 2011, 04:24 AM
You mean like they do on their technical support forums...?

It always blows my mind how religious people get about Apple products: Apple can't do wrong, Apple products are ALWAYS awesome, even if they're buggy like hell or miss critical features, Apple knows what's best - I think you get the idea.

In my experience, Apple's dot zero releases are usually among the worst in the industry, especially when you look at the so-called Pro Apps and their operating systems (Leopard and Snow Leopard both were extraordinarily buggy dot zero releases). It always takes Apple several updates to get the stuff working; and when certain features are missing, well, just wait for the next pay-for dot zero update.

I could say the same things for many companies and products. Apple is hardly a unique case.

iBug2
Jun 22, 2011, 04:35 AM
And while you're waiting, check out some of their competitors that already have real-time editing, no transcoding, handle dslr natively, x64 bit, multicore funtimes. They've had these features for a couple years now.

Really? Avid Media Composer is still running at 32bits on OS X, which is the most widely used NLE tool.

iBug2
Jun 22, 2011, 04:47 AM
I am not a video editor but when an Apple App is getting this much hate something is clearly wrong because normally people are overly forgiving of Apple.

Oh, you should have checked all the negative comments when they released the first iPod. Following those comments, nobody could have imagined that the product would actually change the music industry.

hob
Jun 22, 2011, 04:50 AM
You guys need to calm down. No-one's forcing you to buy this release. If you want to be an early adopter, you take what you're given. I, for one, will be training myself on the new system ready for when new features come along and we're ready to ditch FCP7. I think this will take about 18 months...

iBug2
Jun 22, 2011, 04:53 AM
The difference is that FCP 7 hasn't been updated for a couple of years almost and thus is lacking quite a few features already. Apple essentially actively ceased support in order to supply resources to a new version, but yet this new version is lacking features that many find critical.

Now, in comparison, OS 9 still was seeing regularly updates up through and even after OS X's release (likely due to the less-than-desired performance/functionality of OS X). From a "My job partly depends on this" perspective, OS X offered nothing. FCP 7, by comparison, is lacking quite a bit, and from the reviews and responses I've read through, FCP X just wasn't ready.

Apple needed to take Blizzard's approach and "release it when it's ready", instead of releasing a half-baked product.

OS 9 was not receiving any significant upgrades when OS X was released. OS 9 was released in 1999 October, Mac OS X was released in March 2001, that's 1.5 years inbetween. And that was the beta as we know it. 10.1 was released in September 2001, exactly 2 years after OS 9 was released, and any update OS 9 got during those 2 years is exactly like the updates FCP 7 got since 2009, just maintenance and bugfix.

So I don't see how that is any different. And the analogy that guy gave was correct. When OS X was released, nobody used it for several years for doing actual work. People would play on it and boot to OS 9 to do their work. Many professionals didn't do the switch until Tiger.

Btw, about Blizzard, as a 6 year and counting WOW player, I can assure you that each time after a major patch, all hell breaks loose and Blizzard takes couple of months to fix all the issues.

iBug2
Jun 22, 2011, 04:56 AM
Compressor is .. well stoopid: 32 bit and never got it to go beyond 400% CPU on a 8 core with a Quadro 4000. Adobe's converter gets up to 1200% (in certain cases) and squeeze uses the Cuda cores.

FCPX is a good sketch of what they are thinking, but compressor is nothing more then a micro upgrade.

I have used Compressor to use 10 cores, 8 from my Mac Pro and 2 from my MBP, back in 2008.

Compressor is clunky, you just need to learn how to make it use all your cores through QMaster.

woodbine
Jun 22, 2011, 05:18 AM
My feeling too, it feels really light even on an old 1,1 mac pro.

Compressor is .. well stoopid: 32 bit and never got it to go beyond 400% CPU on a 8 core with a Quadro 4000. Adobe's converter gets up to 1200% (in certain cases) and squeeze uses the Cuda cores.

FCPX is a good sketch of what they are thinking, but compressor is nothing more then a micro upgrade.

Don't understand '400% CPU' does that mean 40% of total CPU, all cores? I run Compressor full steam 2/3 days a week doing standards conversion. On my MP 8-core, I get 99-100% CPU, on all cores. I use Q-master.

hob
Jun 22, 2011, 05:21 AM
Don't understand '400% CPU' does that mean 40% of total CPU, all cores? I run Compressor full steam 2/3 days a week doing standards conversion. On my MP 8-core, I get 99-100% CPU, on all cores. I use Q-master.

If you have 8 cores, then 800% is 100% on all 8 cores. 12=1200% etc...

(you shouldn't ever see any process using all of your processor though, there'd be nothing left for other processes!)

iBug2
Jun 22, 2011, 05:33 AM
If you have 8 cores, then 800% is 100% on all 8 cores. 12=1200% etc...

(you shouldn't ever see any process using all of your processor though, there'd be nothing left for other processes!)

Well, not exactly. Even if you see 800% on an 8-core machine, that's usually like 790% most of the time. And a core will be freed up if another task requires it, but most of the everyday tasks don't require a full core, mostly 5-10% of a core.

xper
Jun 22, 2011, 05:40 AM
Well, not exactly. Even if you see 800% on an 8-core machine, that's usually like 790% most of the time. And a core will be freed up if another task requires it, but most of the everyday tasks don't require a full core, mostly 5-10% of a core.
1) He was just explaining what 800% was equivalent to.....
2) He did say that a process cant take up 100% CPU

So why on earth did you correct him when he didnt even say the thing you corrected, you corrected him by saying EXACTLY what he just said....

Try to read and understand a post before you correct it, mkay?

orangerizzla
Jun 22, 2011, 05:46 AM
Be interesting to see what Adobe make of it. As far as I can see they are still knocking out Production Premium for around £1.5k

Can't help feeling a little deflated that there's no upgrade path and feeling sorry for a friend who had to buy the full FCP7 suite a few months back just to get an out of date copy of motion (now retailing for under thirty quid!)

More than happy to embrace the future though (in about six months...) ;)

iBug2
Jun 22, 2011, 05:51 AM
1) He was just explaining what 800% was equivalent to.....
2) He did say that a process cant take up 100% CPU

So why on earth did you correct him when he didnt even say the thing you corrected, you corrected him by saying EXACTLY what he just said....

Try to read and understand a post before you correct it, mkay?

He said that "you shouldn't ever see any process using all of your processor though, there'd be nothing left for other processes!"

Which I corrected. You can see that a process is actually using all your cores for a second, that doesn't mean there isn't anything left for other tasks. That's due to slow update on activity monitor and when you see 800% that's really not 800%.

chrono1081
Jun 22, 2011, 06:07 AM
You mean like they do on their technical support forums...?

It always blows my mind how religious people get about Apple products: Apple can't do wrong, Apple products are ALWAYS awesome, even if they're buggy like hell or miss critical features, Apple knows what's best - I think you get the idea.

In my experience, Apple's dot zero releases are usually among the worst in the industry, especially when you look at the so-called Pro Apps and their operating systems (Leopard and Snow Leopard both were extraordinarily buggy dot zero releases). It always takes Apple several updates to get the stuff working; and when certain features are missing, well, just wait for the next pay-for dot zero update.

And it always blows my mind how many people think they are the worst company ever, make the worst products, and think anyone who uses them is some religious Apple fanatic who worships Steve Jobs.

And your experience must not be much if you think Apple has the worst dot zero releases in the industry. You obviously don't deal with Microsoft for a living.

nerdo
Jun 22, 2011, 06:17 AM
Glad to see people still love to skip the point of the post and pick whatever piece of the puzzle they do understand and start a pissing contest over it.

the point is: compressor is the same, 32 bit stupid program it has been for years. And yes I know how to setup qmaster, also know how many stupid problems i get because of it. And I'm very happy for you if you never had any problems. For now I think Squeeze is a lot easier and definitely more reliable.

the fact they didn't turn compressor into a sleak bugfree 64bit app that is clever enough to take care of business is just... !!!

tgmthegreenman
Jun 22, 2011, 06:28 AM
Apple is losing it!
Cant import projects from Previos versions? why doesnt the program have a different name then???? Apple Movie X or so

iBug2
Jun 22, 2011, 06:32 AM
Glad to see people still love to skip the point of the post and pick whatever piece of the puzzle they do understand and start a pissing contest over it.

the point is: compressor is the same, 32 bit stupid program it has been for years. And yes I know how to setup qmaster, also know how many stupid problems i get because of it. And I'm very happy for you if you never had any problems. For now I think Squeeze is a lot easier and definitely more reliable.

the fact they didn't turn compressor into a sleak bugfree 64bit app that is clever enough to take care of business is just... !!!

I never said it didn't cause any problems. I said specifically that it's clunky. It caused tons of issues with me as well.

Simply turning it to 64bit wouldn't solve any of those issues though. I think they should have done it from scratch.

iBug2
Jun 22, 2011, 06:33 AM
Apple is losing it!
Cant import projects from Previos versions? why doesnt the program have a different name then???? Apple Movie X or so

It has a new name. It's not FCP 8. It's FCP X.

vladi
Jun 22, 2011, 06:37 AM
Really? Avid Media Composer is still running at 32bits on OS X, which is the most widely used NLE tool.

Well that is the problem you are running it on OSX. Sad really, professionals and creative who made Apple different from MS are left behind in a chase for regular consumer.

Unfortunately I switched all my video editing to Windows long time ago. We have a MC in a studio, I personally don't use it, but its running hell of a fast and almost bug-free on W7 x64. OSX just doesn't have a chance.

What I do is Image Compositing and that game has been Windows only for quite some time. I actually set up a nice workflow between Vegas Pro 10 and Eyeon Fusion. I love VP10 for near real time editing and simplicity to draft out what I have in mind for editors and then they take over in MC.


DAW is where we are 50/50 between OSX and W7. Logic and Pro Tools are running on OSX while Nuendo and Ableton are on W7. Because of that setup VSTs are bitch to acquire :)

Its sad that I use my Mac now as everyday PC and my W7 as a workstation. How things have changed since late 80s.

NickFalk
Jun 22, 2011, 06:38 AM
Apple is losing it!
Cant import projects from Previos versions? why doesnt the program have a different name then???? Apple Movie X or so
While the answer is obviously “brand value” I think that’s a fair question. It’s a complete rewrite from bottom up with a completely new interface and work methodology. It has some cool new features, but lack several of the features from earlier versions. When you can’t even open projects from earlier versions it sounds like a reasonable argument that this isn’t really Final Cut Pro at all.

If it looks like a pigeon and makes sounds like a pigeon it’s probably not a duck.

iBug2
Jun 22, 2011, 06:43 AM
Well that is the problem you are running it on OSX. Sad really, professionals and creative who made Apple different from MS are left behind in a chase for regular consumer.

Unfortunately I switched all my video editing to Windows long time ago. We have a MC in a studio, I personally don't use it, but its running hell of a fast and almost bug-free on W7 x64. OSX just doesn't have a chance.


Well I suppose that's why a 250mil picture (Transformers 2) was cut on AMC on OS X. I suppose Dreamworks didn't know that Win7 was much better and OS X didn't stand a chance.

iBug2
Jun 22, 2011, 06:44 AM
While the answer is obviously “brand value” I think that’s a fair question. It’s a complete rewrite from bottom up with a completely new interface and work methodology. It has some cool new features, but lack several of the features from earlier versions. When you can’t even open projects from earlier versions it sounds like a reasonable argument that this isn’t really Final Cut Pro at all.

If it looks like a pigeon and makes sounds like a pigeon it’s probably not a duck.

Doesn't the same argument apply to OS X then? Why did they keep using the name Mac OS and just changed the version to X?

OS X was not compatible with OS 9 applications unless they were carbonized. So backward compatibility wasn't really there. The compatibility was made to work through the "Classic" layer which was basically the same as running all OS 9 libraries on top of OS X, which is analog to running Final Cut 7 and X side by side.

MacsRgr8
Jun 22, 2011, 06:49 AM
I think Apple is betting that your profession is going away, and "prosumers" are moving up.

Professionals in many fields have been bitten this way - they think there is no way that automation or unskilled labor can ever replace them... then one day, technology sneaks up and they become obsolete.

Hmm... indeed, much like System Administrators.
Setting up services on a network used to be a specialized work. Nowadays, getting these services up and running on a server is easy enough for "knowladgeable users" on Apple software.

Over time: Consumers become more and more pro-sumers. Pro-sumers become much less dependent of specialized professionals tnx to easy-to-use software.

This is what Apple is trying to do:
Create software so that consumers can create pro-sumer-level stuff, and pro-sumers can create professional stuff.
Knowledge of the technical side of things is getting less and less important.

NickFalk
Jun 22, 2011, 06:50 AM
Doesn't the same argument apply to OS X then? Why did they keep using the name Mac OS and just changed the version to X?

OS X was not compatible with OS 9 applications unless they were carbonized. So backward compatibility wasn't really there. The compatibility was made to work through the "Classic" layer which was basically the same as running all OS 9 libraries on top of OS X, which is analog to running Final Cut 7 and X side by side.
I have no argument with you reasoning. As far as I can recall though Apple never really pushed OSX as Mac OS. They made it quite clear that this was a new begining and have been building OSX as its own brand.

iBug2
Jun 22, 2011, 06:54 AM
I have no argument with you reasoning. As far as I can recall though Apple never really pushed OSX as Mac OS. They made it quite clear that this was a new begining and have been building OSX as its own brand.

They also said the same with Final Cut. Randy said over and over that this was a new app redesigned from the ground up during his demo, and it wasn't Final Cut Pro 8.

organerito
Jun 22, 2011, 06:58 AM
It's a part of these forums you'll have to get used to - if MS, Adobe, or any other company were to release a product such as FCP X that wasn't nearly finished, people would rail on them to no end.

Since it's Apple though, it's "all part of the plan" and "people are just whiners", etc.

I never quite understand why people have to exhibit such blind loyalty to any company... Praise them when they're good, criticize them when they're bad.

Do you mean like normal intelligent people do?:cool:

iBug2
Jun 22, 2011, 07:03 AM
Do you mean like normal intelligent people do?:cool:

People are not abnormal or stupid because they show loyalty, or equally, hatred towards a company. All these people are quite normal people in everyday lives with regular intelligence.

But when emotion takes over, intelligence doesn't matter much.

NickFalk
Jun 22, 2011, 07:05 AM
They also said the same with Final Cut. Randy said over and over that this was a new app redesigned from the ground up during his demo, and it wasn't Final Cut Pro 8.

I’m not really familiar with Randy. ;) Apple is clearly selling this as Final Cut Pro. .

That being said I don’t feel too strongly about all this. I’ll pass for now as FCP 7 serves me fine for the time being. I think reworking the interface might be a good thing in the end. I’ll give it an update or two before I jump in.

JabbaII
Jun 22, 2011, 07:05 AM
FCPX is prob the only software in my experience that have a comparison chart with more dots (features) on the older version.

Usually software vendors sell on the point that new software has everything old one has got plus more.

Will wait for more reviews and decide in 6-12 months whether to get FCPX or switch to CS5.5.

iBug2
Jun 22, 2011, 07:08 AM
I’m not really familiar with Randy. ;) Apple is clearly selling this as Final Cut Pro. .

That being said I don’t feel too strongly about all this. I’ll pass for now as FCP 7 serves me fine for the time being. I think reworking the interface might be a good thing in the end. I’ll give it an update or two before I jump in.

Randy Ubillos, the guy who gave the Final Cut Pro X demo in Supermeet, the guy who created the first 3 versions of Premiere and the first version of Final Cut Pro back when it belonged to Macromedia. He's the chief architect of video applications in Apple.

Who doesn't know who Randy is :)

And yes Apple is selling this as Final Cut Pro "X", EXACTLY like they sold Mac OS X as a Mac OS and didn't change the name but only the version.

iBug2
Jun 22, 2011, 07:10 AM
FCPX is prob the only software in my experience that have a comparison chart with more dots (features) on the older version.

Usually software vendors sell on the point that new software has everything old one has got plus more.

Will wait for more reviews and decide in 6-12 months whether to get FCPX or switch to CS5.5.

If that's the only software in your experience, I suppose you weren't an Apple user when they switched from OS 9 to OS X. Since 9 had more features than 10.0.

BornAgainMac
Jun 22, 2011, 07:16 AM
I am glad Apple rebooted Final Cut Pro. The new changes were needed and the price decreased for mere mortals. The pros can use Avid or Final Cut Pro on their old Powermac G5 or get a PC.

Truffy
Jun 22, 2011, 07:18 AM
Apple aren't exactly famous for their airtight x.0 releases, and I for one wasn't expecting this to be any different.
There's a difference between bugginess and lack of major features though.

NickFalk
Jun 22, 2011, 07:18 AM
Randy Ubillos, the guy who gave the Final Cut Pro X demo in Supermeet, the guy who created the first 3 versions of Premiere and the first version of Final Cut Pro back when it belonged to Macromedia. He's the chief architect of video applications in Apple.

Who doesn't know who Randy is :)

And yes Apple is selling this as Final Cut Pro "X", EXACTLY like they sold Mac OS X as a Mac OS and didn't change the name but only the version.
I have heard about Randy. It’s just find it a bit silly to quote stuff being said through somewhat obscure channels when the mother-ship does nothing to support these statements. As I’ve said I don’t feel too strongly about the changes.

I believe FCPX will be a fantastic product down the line and am sure the interface is already better than earlier versions. (No, I don’t buy into the iMovie arguments, and don’t think a more intuitive interface makes a program any less professional, quite the opposite actually).

franbelda
Jun 22, 2011, 07:19 AM
I also read that when the next version rolls in we'll have to pay the full app price again, there won't be any upgrade pricing to previous customers thanks to apple App store policy. This just keeps getting better and better... for Adobe and Avid.

iBug2
Jun 22, 2011, 07:24 AM
I have heard about Randy. It’s just find it a bit silly to quote stuff being said through somewhat obscure channels when the mother-ship does nothing to support these statements. As I’ve said I don’t feel too strongly about the changes.

I believe FCPX will be a fantastic product down the line and am sure the interface is already better than earlier versions. (No, I don’t buy into the iMovie arguments, and don’t think a more intuitive interface makes a program any less professional, quite the opposite actually).
Well, it's Apple. When it comes to these pro apps, obscure channels is all you get before the actual release.

I also think that with this new foundation on modern technologies, FCP X will be the standard on NLE in a year or so when Apple plugs the holes. None of the other NLE's on the market have received such a major rewrite (Premiere was rewritten in 2002 when it became Premiere Pro, but that was 9 years ago) and Avid never received such rewrite.

So in terms of performance, when you forget about the missing features, nothing will ever come close to the performance of this app, even today. And features can be added later without much issue, but the foundation of the app can't be changed the same way.

So "things will have to get worse before they get better" fits like a glove for this situation, exactly like OS 9 to OS X.

iBug2
Jun 22, 2011, 07:25 AM
I also read that when the next version rolls in we'll have to pay the full app price again, there won't be any upgrade pricing to previous customers thanks to apple App store policy. This just keeps getting better and better... for Adobe and Avid.

Yeah but since the price is low already, what you are paying for a new version is what you would pay for an upgrade in the old pricing. So it's basically the same pricing for people who upgrade regularly, and 70% cheaper for people who buy it for the first time.

And nobody said that the new features will require a full new version. They can add some of the features in 10.1 or 10.2 etc, which will be free.

JabbaII
Jun 22, 2011, 07:31 AM
Yeah but since the price is low already, what you are paying for a new version is what you would pay for an upgrade in the old pricing. So it's basically the same pricing for people who upgrade regularly, and 70% cheaper for people who buy it for the first time.

And nobody said that the new features will require a full new version. They can add some of the features in 10.1 or 10.2 etc, which will be free.

http://www.digitalrebellion.com/blog/



Good

FCPX is FAST. I tried to break it with lots of stacked clips and effects but it played them all seamlessly.
FCPX uses AVFoundation instead of QuickTime. The QuickTime API is clunky, antiquated and the modern features Apple tacked on don't work as well as the older stuff. Breaking free of the shackles of 1990s-era technology is the best thing that ever happened to Final Cut Pro.
Everyone's been complaining about FCP's media management since version 1.0 and the new database file format and keyword-based metadata tagging are huge improvements.
FCPX will import a memory card in the background, allowing you to edit the footage directly from the card and then replace it seamlessly with the media on the hard disk once the transfer is complete. I think this is a great idea.
Effects and titles were never FCP's strong point and these have been greatly improved.
I'm also enjoying the little touches I've spotted here and there, like the way an edit point turns red when you select it if the in and out points are at the outer limits of the clip. These features are tiny but they make a big difference.

Bad

It took a long time for multiple marker colors to be added to Final Cut Pro. Now we're back to one marker color again. There are no chapter markers either.
You need an OpenCL-compatible graphics card. This has left some Mac Pro owners out in the cold.
The QuickTime movie output options in FCPX are poor, which means you're obligated to pay an extra $49 for Compressor 4 because you can't send to Compressor 3.


Ugly

Compressor 4 is still 32-bit and doesn't look like it's received an overhaul, meaning that the problems many of us have suffered are likely to continue. I have already had several issues with Qmaster.
No multicam. This is a massive oversight in my opinion.
No XML import / output. Another huge oversight.
A lot of plugin developers have been left out in the cold with no answers from Apple.
No support for old FCP 7 projects.
No credible broadcast monitor output. The current solution is to mirror your desktop through a capture card, which does not result in a broadcast-quality output.
Final Cut Pro, Motion and Compressor are $400 combined. This is a great price, however if you need features that are not in FCPX, you're going to end up paying more. If you need OMF output, you need to pay $500 for Automatic Duck. You will also most likely need to pay to upgrade any plugins once support for FCPX has been added. Rumors have suggested that Apple may be offering these missing features as additional applications for a fee, which also contributes to the overall cost. When you consider all of these potential costs, FCPX doesn't seem as cheap as it does on the surface.

iBug2
Jun 22, 2011, 07:34 AM
Final Cut Pro, Motion and Compressor are $400 combined. This is a great price, however if you need features that are not in FCPX, you're going to end up paying more. If you need OMF output, you need to pay $500 for Automatic Duck. You will also most likely need to pay to upgrade any plugins once support for FCPX has been added. Rumors have suggested that Apple may be offering these missing features as additional applications for a fee, which also contributes to the overall cost. When you consider all of these potential costs, FCPX doesn't seem as cheap as it does on the surface.

You need to pay 500$ if you want to get OMF output "today" and it may come for free or much cheaper later on.

Rumors is the word here, other rumors also suggested that all the missing features would come without a fee.

So the only sane thing to do is to wait and see and keep using FCP 7 in the mean time.

Also about pricing don't forget that if you own X number of computers yourself, you still pay only the 400$ and install your software to all, unlike the previous pricing. When you take that into account, it's much much cheaper for most.

Keebler
Jun 22, 2011, 07:37 AM
Remember when trials existed?

exactly my thought - I use FCP for basic edits, but I would LOVE to know how the background rendering and 64 bit power works with automatically using multi-cores.

ie. i exported a 25 min self-contained pro res QT file and it took just over an hour!!!! looked at the activity monitor and the cores were barely moving. wasn't harnessing the full power.

maybe i have something set up wrong, but that's silly (2009 quad 2.66)

samcraig
Jun 22, 2011, 07:39 AM
I think it's telling that given the UI and features available on Day 1 that Apple geared the initial release towards those looking for more powerful features than iMovie but wouldn't pay nor feel comfortable in the FCP UI. You have the ability to import iMovie projects but not FCP 7 on release date. That says a lot. The fact that the program behaves very similar to iMovie and iMovie's bonus content is all integrated also says much about this release - with future things that are essential for many professional editors coming "soon." The price point is also far more attractive to con/prosumers.

Apple may lose editors and companies to their competition before they release these additions. They may not. They might see all the extra sales from con/prosumers increase and take that as a sign they did the right thing depending on how many offset those that might jump.

It's going to be an interesting 1-2 years to see how FCPX evolves. Personally - I'm not investing in it - even to "play" until some other features are resolved. And I would have been fine waiting for the software to be released in 6 months if it had it. For me it's a wash. It's out today but I won't buy it - and if features are added in 6 months (or less) I would.

Was Apple smart in releasing the software as is yesterday? From a sales point of view - I think yes - as people were so chomping at the bit for a new version (and oooh... look - new shiny Apple thing) - they are going to sell a lot. From a PR point of view - perhaps not the best way to introduce their new baby.

One more thought though. A few people in this thread have commented that they feel bad about the developers who clearly know the state FCPX is in and are getting a backlash because Apple released the software. To that I say - while one can appreciate the empathy - it's not really warranted. It's a symptom of Apple and their customers. I can pretty much guarantee that if this was a Microsoft issue and/or a car manufacturer, restaurant, etc that delivered sub-par (or rather something below expectations or requirements) - no one would defend the people behind the scenes.

My .02.

iBug2
Jun 22, 2011, 07:43 AM
I think it's telling that given the UI and features available on Day 1 that Apple geared the initial release towards those looking for more powerful features than iMovie but wouldn't pay nor feel comfortable in the FCP UI. You have the ability to import iMovie projects but not FCP 7 on release date. That says a lot. The fact that the program behaves very similar to iMovie and iMovie's bonus content is all integrated also says much about this release - with future things that are essential for many professional editors coming "soon." The price point is also far more attractive to con/prosumers.



It says much about the release but most people take it the wrong way. It says that Apple borrowed a lot of ideas from iMovie while preparing this app. It says that importing iMovie projects is much simpler than importing FCP projects, because iMovie projects have much less content compared to FCP and iMovie was already rewritten recently, while FCP was still carrying code from 1998.

It doesn't say that this app was being aimed at the iMovie crowd because one app comes free and this is 400$ a package.

roadbloc
Jun 22, 2011, 07:43 AM
And your experience must not be much if you think Apple has the worst dot zero releases in the industry. You obviously don't deal with Microsoft for a living.

Even though Wini is known to hate on Apple, he has a valid point. Apple's x.0 products in the past couple of years have been dire, whereas Microsoft's have been rather impressive (with the exception of Windows Phone 7 which lacked features.) Yeah, no doubt, bugs are bound to exist in x.0 releases, but Apple's bug lists have been rather huge. Snow Leopard was very buggy on release. Windows 7... seemed fairly solid, with a few niggles.

A pro product lacking pro features is simply unacceptable, no matter which way you swing it. I cannot envision Microsoft doing similar.

totoum
Jun 22, 2011, 07:45 AM
There's a difference between bugginess and lack of major features though.

Any brand new apple product (and this is brand new and in no way related to the old final cut),be it software or harware,lacks features in it's first release.

Remember when the first iphone didn't have 3rd party apps or 3G?
The first version of OS X was missing a lot of the features it has now that didn't come until 10.3-10.4,the was so much rage at the quality of 10.0 that 10.1 was a free upgrade.
Hell the first ipod didn't have the iconic scrollwheel and wasn't windows compatible.

So basicly,I think that in 2 years time FCP X will be miles ahead of where it is now.

iBug2
Jun 22, 2011, 07:46 AM
Even though Wini is known to hate on Apple, he has a valid point. Apple's x.0 products in the past couple of years have been dire, whereas Microsoft's have been rather impressive (with the exception of Windows Phone 7 which lacked features.) Yeah, no doubt, bugs are bound to exist in x.0 releases, but Apple's bug lists have been rather huge. Snow Leopard was very buggy on release. Windows 7... seemed fairly solid, with a few niggles.

A pro product lacking pro features is simply unacceptable, no matter which way you swing it. I cannot envision Microsoft doing similar.

And what about Vista? :)

iBug2
Jun 22, 2011, 07:47 AM
So basicly,I think that in 2 years time FCP X will be miles ahead of where it is now.

I think in that time FCP X will be miles ahead of any other NLE since no other app has a foundation like FCP X has today. Once you set the foundation, adding features is the easy part.

roadbloc
Jun 22, 2011, 07:48 AM
And what about Vista? :)
I mentioned in the past couple of years in my post. Vista was before that, and I felt Leopard was fairly solid on release. Yes, the Apple of the past were pretty good at making solid x.0 releases, and Microsoft were pretty bad. The roles appear to be switching.

JabbaII
Jun 22, 2011, 07:49 AM
You need to pay 500$ if you want to get OMF output "today" and it may come for free or much cheaper later on.

Rumors is the word here, other rumors also suggested that all the missing features would come without a fee.

So the only sane thing to do is to wait and see and keep using FCP 7 in the mean time.

Also about pricing don't forget that if you own X number of computers yourself, you still pay only the 400$ and install your software to all, unlike the previous pricing. When you take that into account, it's much much cheaper for most.

The FCP X license (app store) is a bit sketchy. I am sure people will start to "own" 10 mac pros all of a sudden. App store is not really for business. Again, FCP X and the whole delivery method / licensing does not look pro to me (not that I am one).

http://www.macworld.com/article/157018/2011/01/appstore_licensing.html

Rights and sites
When you buy an app on the Mac App Store, you’re getting the rights to run that program on any Macs you own and operate, for your personal use. Basically, if your household has a half-dozen different Macs, including desktops and laptops, you can buy a copy of Gratuitous Space Battles and play it on every single one of them. Consider a purchase of consumer software via the Mac App Store to be a bit like buying a household site license for the app.

The situation is slightly different for apps that are considered commercial or professional in nature. For apps that fall into this category—Aperture’s a good example—the Mac App Store license says that you essentially can install that item on computers you use or on a single computer shared by multiple people. Basically think of it as a one-seat license for a pro app.

Sirmausalot
Jun 22, 2011, 07:50 AM
For many of us, Final Cut Pro 7 is so out of date (no native support for DSLRs for example, no multicore support) that it is NOT a realistic option to continue with it. So please stop offering that as advice.

Final Cut Pro X is missing essential features for the independent filmmaker and I find I must switch. I switched from Avid years ago because it didn't support P2 Media. Now, surprisingly, it's Apple that is far from the cutting edge.

Yes, the new interface, workflow seems intriguing, but with so many features missing, bugs with media management, and no backwards compatibility, it's a horrible mistake.

Even Premiere Pro offers reasonable ways to open Final Cut Pro 7 projects through XML.

Reach
Jun 22, 2011, 07:50 AM
I think it's telling that given the UI and features available on Day 1 that Apple geared the initial release towards those looking for more powerful features than iMovie but wouldn't pay nor feel comfortable in the FCP UI. You have the ability to import iMovie projects but not FCP 7 on release date. That says a lot. The fact that the program behaves very similar to iMovie and iMovie's bonus content is all integrated also says much about this release - with future things that are essential for many professional editors coming "soon." The price point is also far more attractive to con/prosumers.

Apple may lose editors and companies to their competition before they release these additions. They may not. They might see all the extra sales from con/prosumers increase and take that as a sign they did the right thing depending on how many offset those that might jump.

It's going to be an interesting 1-2 years to see how FCPX evolves. Personally - I'm not investing in it - even to "play" until some other features are resolved. And I would have been fine waiting for the software to be released in 6 months if it had it. For me it's a wash. It's out today but I won't buy it - and if features are added in 6 months (or less) I would.

Was Apple smart in releasing the software as is yesterday? From a sales point of view - I think yes - as people were so chomping at the bit for a new version (and oooh... look - new shiny Apple thing) - they are going to sell a lot. From a PR point of view - perhaps not the best way to introduce their new baby.

One more thought though. A few people in this thread have commented that they feel bad about the developers who clearly know the state FCPX is in and are getting a backlash because Apple released the software. To that I say - while one can appreciate the empathy - it's not really warranted. It's a symptom of Apple and their customers. I can pretty much guarantee that if this was a Microsoft issue and/or a car manufacturer, restaurant, etc that delivered sub-par (or rather something below expectations or requirements) - no one would defend the people behind the scenes.

My .02.

Yes, professionals hate having to pay less. I for will not buy this application before it at least doubles in price!

MovieCutter
Jun 22, 2011, 07:52 AM
So you're happy to wait 6 months, except that you're not happy to wait 6 months.

Got it.

Problem is I wasn't expecting them to STRIP features, now I have no guarantee that they will be put back. If I was told "Wait til January, then it'll be a faster version of FCP 7 with a slicker interface"...sure, I'd be happy. But I got iMovie Pro...literally, and it's useless to me with no guarantee it'll ever replace FCP 7.

samcraig
Jun 22, 2011, 07:55 AM
It says much about the release but most people take it the wrong way. It says that Apple borrowed a lot of ideas from iMovie while preparing this app. It says that importing iMovie projects is much simpler than importing FCP projects, because iMovie projects have much less content compared to FCP and iMovie was already rewritten recently, while FCP was still carrying code from 1998.

It doesn't say that this app was being aimed at the iMovie crowd because one app comes free and this is 400$ a package.

You keep defending the release like someone who works for Apple. No one is attacking you personally. And I don't think Apple needs you to defend them so vehemently.

As for the app being targeted to the iMovie crowd - you're wrong. The app, as released is priced far below what prosumers who would ever pay 999 to enter into FCP's ecosystem. That's why you also have tons of people saying how great the program is - because SOME of them simply do not know better or have requirements that were inclusive of FCP7.

I also think you're mistaken in your repeated assertion that iMovie is free. It's not. It's free/installed on new systems. But new versions are $49 as part of the iLife suite. And even for the new systems - the cost is built into the premium pricing Apple charges for their computers. "Free" is not exactly accurate.

Reach
Jun 22, 2011, 07:56 AM
Hmm... indeed, much like System Administrators.
Setting up services on a network used to be a specialized work. Nowadays, getting these services up and running on a server is easy enough for "knowladgeable users" on Apple software.

Over time: Consumers become more and more pro-sumers. Pro-sumers become much less dependent of specialized professionals tnx to easy-to-use software.

This is what Apple is trying to do:
Create software so that consumers can create pro-sumer-level stuff, and pro-sumers can create professional stuff.
Knowledge of the technical side of things is getting less and less important.

Very good post - I wholeheartedly agree! And this is one of the main reasons Apple is so awesome. Many professionals will hate it - both because it changes the way they work and because it threatens their livelihood - but it's a great thing for most.

I'm originally a graphic designer, and I remember when DTP was something "normal people" couldn't even consider doing themselves at home. Then comes cheaper computers and Quark/PageMaker, and all of the sudden a lot of what these professionals that formerly had a monopoly did could be done by others. Bad for some, great for most.

Of course, there will still be a market for the true professionals that are the best at their craft and have access to the stuff that is still out of range (pricewise) for regular people. It's just that this market shrinks - a lot. Already happened in video, when I could use my FCP on my old Powermac and do things that would previously have required a very large investment. Now maybe we'll see if this process goes even further.

MovieCutter
Jun 22, 2011, 07:57 AM
This needs to be reposted. You're 100% correct, and while yes, on one hand Apple should have waited to have a more finished product, but on the other hand this allows current FCP users to get antiquated with the new FCPX.

I just hope Apple deletes all the reviews at some point to clear out all the idiotic negative reviews from people who have no idea what they're talking about or what they really want.



No, it means you stop acting like a victim or like Apple owes you something and realize you can make choices.

You clearly have never worked in a high end production house or an international news agency where features like what are missing in FCP X are essential. It also seems you'd be very comfortable in late 1930's Germany. "I don't agree with it!!! GET RID OF IT!!!"

samcraig
Jun 22, 2011, 08:02 AM
Yes, professionals hate having to pay less. I for will not buy this application before it at least doubles in price!

I wasn't talking about professionals. Of course professionals like to pay less. My point was in conversion rates. Competing professional software is around the same price point as previous FCP software - so conversion rate on that is a wash. Especially if FCP is deemed not ready for primetime (so to speak). Meaning - I don't think the lower price (yet) will entice a mass exodus from competing software just because of the lower price.

In short - lowers costs increases adoption rate for all - providing it's a viable solution.

mBox
Jun 22, 2011, 08:05 AM
Apple should've waited to launch until they added XML and multicam support ... just sayin - a 3 star rating in the App Store? Ouch!Im hoping that the three stars are no indicative of who bought this. That would mean 33 editors that use XML/MultiCam out of 100 buyers :(
I think Im a pro user but honestly we dont use XML or MultiCam (we only use one type of camera). I know more prosumer users than actual film/broadcast editors in this field almost 20 to 1.

JaySoul
Jun 22, 2011, 08:08 AM
The price point looks great. Problem is I would have to buy a new computer to run it. Can't afford to do that right now.
My existing laptop has a qualifying GeForce 8600M GT, but I only have 128 vram.

Exactly this.

I'm so irritated, my perfect working order iMac can run everything lightning fast, but has a graphics card that is "3 months too old" apparently.

I can't afford a new Mac right now, or for the next year probably.

Reach
Jun 22, 2011, 08:09 AM
Im hoping that the three stars are no indicative of who bought this. That would mean 33 editors that use XML/MultiCam out of 100 buyers :(
I think Im a pro user but honestly we dont use XML or MultiCam (we only use one type of camera). I know more prosumer users than actual film/broadcast editors in this field almost 20 to 1.

If you make money on making stuff with FCP, you're a pro. It's honestly that simple. Which makes me a pro, even if I have never done stuff that required OMFs, XML or Multicam. :D Most people seem to think that the only people worthy of the title "pro" is the ones working with feature/broadcast/advertising, but that is technically not true. There are a lot more "pros" like me than them I believe.

I still think, and very much believe, that Apple should also cater to the pros that need the stuff I don't. I'm fairly sure that stuff is coming, which is why I'm not that upset at this release yet.

bretm
Jun 22, 2011, 08:13 AM
Im hoping that the three stars are no indicative of who bought this. That would mean 33 editors that use XML/MultiCam out of 100 buyers :(
I think Im a pro user but honestly we dont use XML or MultiCam (we only use one type of camera). I know more prosumer users than actual film/broadcast editors in this field almost 20 to 1.

Hold on- you think multicam means you use more than one type of camera? Then no, you are not a pro user. Multicam is about live editing between multiple camera sources.

mBox
Jun 22, 2011, 08:13 AM
My guess is that the Marketing department won the battle over the release date. I can only imagine there are several angry/embarrassed Apple FCP engineers on campus today. I suspect that had this been released in December or early next year... the necessary professional features to actually get the project out the door would have been included. Pretty bummed I dropped $299 for a program that's going to collect dust until they add the features sometime in the nebulous future.honestly? your gonna let it collect dust? I take it you have FCS working fine right? what ever happened to learning new things? I can understand "real pro's" whining but in the end they can just shut it off and get back to their "working" app.
new users should embrace and not listen to others.
if it cripples you or causes cancer, then un-install it NOW!!!

JabbaII
Jun 22, 2011, 08:18 AM
So may be the question we should be asking is: what the heck is a "pro"?

Apple has clearly released this with some thought.
From the looks of things, when it comes down to business and money, the reality distortion field does not work.

Summary of arguments so far:
- btw this is version 1.0 so expect it to miss a few beats (but we stop all support for FCP7 from today)
- pro tools will come later (without what and when) to breakeven with the FCP 7 features!!
- app store delivery allows for faster update cycles (hmm CS5.5 has walked the walk without the app store)
- Compressor 4 is separate but FCPX does not work with Compressor 3 (dah!)
- What the heck is a pro anyway? (because xyz is a pro said he/she is happy with FCPX)
- No one is forcing you to use FCPX
- etc. etc.

If all above fails
- Hey, at least FCP X is cheap!

http://www.philiphodgetts.com/2011/06/what-are-the-answers-to-the-unanswered-questions-about-final-cut-pro-x/
Is Final Cut Pro X really for the “Pros”?
I’ve already wondered What the heck is a “pro” anyway?, so I think it’s more useful to consider professional workflows instead of “pros”. From the answers above you should be able to see that at version 1 Final Cut Pro X won’t support some professional workflows, but for other professional workflows it will be more than capable. Using Final Cut Pro X to cut together a story, I’m struck by how fast it is to achieve a result, as if everything was designed to get a result a quickly as possible.

Cory Bauer
Jun 22, 2011, 08:21 AM
FCP X users are making a mistake by zeroing in on missing features.

And since it sounds like the missing features are coming, it's hopefully moot.
Perhaps they are coming, but Apple ought to reassure their professional users if that is indeed the case. And I'm not sure you fully understand; with the features Final Cut Pro X is missing today, the program is useless. It doesn't matter if its an amazing editor if there's no way to get edits into or out of the program. It truly is the equivalent of shipping a version of Pages that can't open Pages documents, can't print, and can't copy/paste to and from other text applications.

dagger01
Jun 22, 2011, 08:22 AM
Apple has been very specific, that this is not the final state of FCP X.
So, this version is a BETA? I thought the App Store rules prohibit developers from releasing pre-production code through the store? Hmmmmm. SHENANIGANS!!!

samcraig
Jun 22, 2011, 08:23 AM
Perhaps they are coming, but Apple ought to reassure their professional users if that is indeed the case. And I'm not sure you fully understand; with the features Final Cut Pro X is missing today, the program is useless. It doesn't matter if its an amazing editor if there's no way to get edits into or out of the program. It truly is the equivalent of shipping a version of Pages that can't open Pages documents, can't print, and can't copy/paste to and from other text applications.

Oh.. so you mean like the first iOS version of Pages? ;) ;)

mBox
Jun 22, 2011, 08:24 AM
To say the reaction is "mixed" is being extremely kind to Apple (and undeservedly so.)

The Apple discussion forums are full of posts from extremely angry customers who are all demanding their money back. This is basically a product launch disaster of the worst kind for Apple...A little dramatic dont you think? Why is it the worst kind? Can you not open your computer again? Did the internet stop working?
Folks this app is for specific users. If you think your a pro and you didnt do your homework and decided to install this app in the middle of a million dollar project, your an IDIOT!!!
Ive been teaching FCP for 10 years at local college. Its a basic course not pro level. What makes it pro is your workflow. Ive seen first time students cut faster than friends that work in the industry. However these students dont have access to Smoke, Resolve, Flint/Flame, Symphony, XDCAM decks, P2, etc...
So whats wrong with Apple releasing a piece of software that they have never claimed to replace the previous?
I was at the SuperMeet. I did my research. No where does it say in Apples site that this was going to replace the old FCP.
I do believe they used the line, "were building it from the ground-up".
See now Im getting dramatic :P

mBox
Jun 22, 2011, 08:26 AM
Hold on- you think multicam means you use more than one type of camera? Then no, you are not a pro user. Multicam is about live editing between multiple camera sources.Actually yes you can use multiple cameras so does that mean Im a pro?
I think you better figure out what a pro means first before jumping on me like that ;)

p.s. to be precise, you can use numerous clips of any type up to 12 to switch between cuts in (yea right) real time.

Surreal
Jun 22, 2011, 08:28 AM
Sounds like we have us a little dispute as to what constitutes Minimum Viable Product (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minimum_viable_product)

samcraig
Jun 22, 2011, 08:33 AM
No where does it say in Apples site that this was going to replace the old FCP.


With all due respect - just because it's not said on their website doesn't mean it's indicative of their intention.

New software versions and/or upgrades are intended as replacements - especially when they are using the same name.

If their intention was to not replace a previous version - they could/would use a different name. Unless they're using the bad movie sequel type of marketing where they use a popular name and the movie has nothing to do with the original :)

If Apple re-wrote iTunes from the ground up and it had a completely different UI, had some extra features but was missing several key features - and called it iTunes X - wouldn't it be safe to say it was a replacement for previous iTunes?

Just sayin'

daylight28
Jun 22, 2011, 08:38 AM
Remember OSX 10.0, WOW that was crap. But now i could not live with out OSX. I do like FCP7 the way it is. It still have a few bugs I would like fixed. Like when i import video from my canon 60d it cuts the shots early and when i slow mo something in final cut then send it to color then back to FCP the fields are off and cant fix it. it looks like crap. SO how about keeping it like FCP7 fix some of the bugs, but add 64Bit and the option for magnetic timeline, color and audio option in FCP10 and we will call it FCP 8. I been using FCP since FCP 1.0 and the one thing I like about it, is that I know where everything is an how it works. I like it complex, I will be out of a Job if it gets to easy to figure out.

AND 299!!!! 999.99 was a good price for FCP. 299 is a good upgrade price. Now I need to buy compressor and motion separate. I put over 3000 in to FCP and now your giving it away and charging the people that supported it over the years the same. If it is a new app, give it a new name. If it FCP then I want an upgrade price of 1/3 of what it selling for. I will pay 100 for FCP10.
How about a 30 day trial.

the vj
Jun 22, 2011, 08:40 AM
Because you came up with this stupid scam...

**** damn it Apple **** You!

mBox
Jun 22, 2011, 08:43 AM
With all due respect - just because it's not said on their website doesn't mean it's indicative of their intention...I agree but what irks me are the true professionals here and REDUSER where I frequent.
Everyone's up and ready to storm Steve's castle due to the "total re-write and replacement" of FCP, but wait, cant you still use it FCP 7 and under?
What would have happened if Apple just plain gave up on it like Shake?
Come to think about it, probably not much since (noticing for years now) most Apple users seem to just give up and find another way of getting their work done.
I have no complaints about purchasing this app.
Does it do what our Avid suite does? No!
But I want to learn it since it, seems like a fresh new start in NLE :)

samcraig
Jun 22, 2011, 08:50 AM
I agree but what irks me are the true professionals here and REDUSER where I frequent.
Everyone's up and ready to storm Steve's castle due to the "total re-write and replacement" of FCP, but wait, cant you still use it FCP 7 and under?
What would have happened if Apple just plain gave up on it like Shake?
Come to think about it, probably not much since (noticing for years now) most Apple users seem to just give up and find another way of getting their work done.
I have no complaints about purchasing this app.
Does it do what our Avid suite does? No!
But I want to learn it since it, seems like a fresh new start in NLE :)

For some professionals - the difference between FCPX and Apple giving up on FCP (like Shake) are one in the same (at this point) - which is why there is negativity.

daddywarbux
Jun 22, 2011, 08:53 AM
But no XML is insane. Also, if you're going to make this kind of huge change a throw us flotation device. Would it have cost apple that much to create a "Moving from FCP 7 to X" guide? I'm sorry, but if I have to learn new software from the ground up, why is it necessarily this? I already know Avid and Premiere doesn't seem that different from FCP 7 (plus the advantage of integrated AE and PS). I already dropped the $300, so I'm in for now. Apple shouldn't take it for granted that all their current editors will follow them.

winston1236
Jun 22, 2011, 08:57 AM
fail fail fail, paid 300 for what is basically imovie pro. no external monitor support, save save as options gone, waste of my time, calling for a refund

anthem11
Jun 22, 2011, 08:58 AM
FCPX doesn't seem so bad. sounds like Apple just needs to sweeten it in post.

iBug2
Jun 22, 2011, 09:03 AM
I mentioned in the past couple of years in my post. Vista was before that, and I felt Leopard was fairly solid on release. Yes, the Apple of the past were pretty good at making solid x.0 releases, and Microsoft were pretty bad. The roles appear to be switching.

No, I don't think there ever was a trend, both with Apple or Microsoft. Apple had bad .0 releases, same as Microsoft, and they both had good ones. And it doesn't go sequentially.