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.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Early Final Cut Pro X Response Mixed, Updates Coming
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
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
macrumors 68030
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.
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.
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?
Could do a lot of good if you figured out "oh, there's the print button, guess it's there after all." 🙄
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
macrumors 68030
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...
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.
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.
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.
whatttt???
Missing features = missing income
Missing features for 1+ years = missing a lot of income
That is naive in the extreme, and patently false - audiences will always clamor for professional, slick productions, regardless of the availability of alternative media.
"Real Artists Ship." - Steve Jobs
Sometimes you just have to get a version out there.
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.
For the noobs . . .
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.
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.
I don't like how people tend to have bipolar reviews.... 🙄
I pretty much disregard any review with 1 or 5 stars...
I pretty much disregard any review with 1 or 5 stars...
Contact the Apple Dev Team and tell them your Thoughts
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
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
Training
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.
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.
Bad Form, Apple
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.
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.
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...
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.
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.
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).
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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?
it seems...
So while a lot of the comments and complaints I've read are valid, I think were 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.
Ill 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, youd 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 whod actually benefit from the inclusion of some of these features off the bat.
Theyll 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 couldnt 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, Ill admit that, but again.. most people who use FCP dont 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 cant say with certainty but Id 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 itll 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.
So while a lot of the comments and complaints I've read are valid, I think were 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.
Ill 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, youd 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 whod actually benefit from the inclusion of some of these features off the bat.
Theyll 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 couldnt 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, Ill admit that, but again.. most people who use FCP dont 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 cant say with certainty but Id 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 itll 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.