It shouldn't matter if people call it "iMovie pro." What really matters is if it will help you complete your task. If so, and you're getting paid or some reward for finished project...shouldn't that be the biggest thing?
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.
Final Cut Pro X Receives Minor Update With Performance Improvements, Bug Fixes
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Correct. They are doing a lousy job advertising it. I'd say they're actually doing no job at all. I honestly don't know/understand what Apple's strategy with Motion is. It's a densely featured, regularly updated and incredibly powerful app that costs $49 and isn't marketed in the slightest. Best kept secret would be putting it lightly.
I don't know. Maybe they're playing the long game here or something, and Motion's rise will be a slow burn. But for now it's a seriously under utilized (and misunderstood) tool in the industry.
Just my opinion..and yes i think i am wrong...but I think Apple/FCP X software creator are assuming people who recognized FCP 7 and had been using it would "automatically" know they will get it. Probably to save some money or time from advertising it.
This is my only contention in this "argument." That's completely subjective. It's completely up to the user to determine which is better. Your insistence on claiming it as fact is as disingenuous as the die-hard track based editors you're railing against.
I completely agree with you here. I haven't touched Motion since version 1, but if it's as good as claimed in this thread then Apple is completely failing on the marketing front. Ultimately, I think it's a futile effort as AE is so entrenched in every post house. I don't see how they make up ground there. Same goes with FCPX. I see it being the NLE of choice for the independent filmmaker. I just don't see it overtaking Avid or Premiere in the mainstream market.
I'm genuinely curious. What's involved in the certification process? Are the class and exam separate costs? If so, I'd recommend just taking the class and skipping the exam. The certification's pointless. Unless your goal is to teach, then maybe it'll help.
You don't want to get into a debate because you don't know Motion. I use both. I gave you a detailed example of how to do an animation in Motion. You KNOW that the same animation requires much more time in AE. MOTION IS MORE POWERFUL THAN AE - period. It just is.
Your argument is that since more people use AE, it's better? Like more people use Windows than the Mac?
They do a lousy job of marketing the Mac to corporations too. Windows PCs dominate ... because they are better?
Last edited:
Here's question for all you Avid Media Composer and Adobe Premiere users, is your current edit in a Library, Event, or Project?Also, how's going straight into Pro Tools 11 -and back- for Post?
I'm keeping Compressor and Motion for sure, but I'm on the fence with using FCPX as an NLE. -It's just not snappier.
Media Composer works in Projects. So, for example, my company uses a Terrablock shared Storage system. We have one space on their devoted specifically to Avid Projects which is where all our project files (but no media) lives. The only drawback I have found to this is framrates. Because avid projects are locked into a frame rate, we need 2 (23.98 and 59.94) for each show. The 23.98 one is used to transcode the footage because it’s shot at that and the 59.94 one is used for editing since we need to output to HDCAM for broadcast. I think they are adding features to fix this but haven’t played around with the new version. As it stands right now, for each new show we get, we have 3 projects: Offline 23.98, Offline 59.94, and Online 59.94. No real need for events or library’s in that sense.
As for the pro tools workflow, it’s very simple. Some companies might do it differently but for us our audio exports consist of an aaf of the locked cut (with media consolidated so the same folder) and a reference video that’s generally exported at DNxHD 36 or 145 depending on the frame rate of the project. To get it back from Pro Tools, our Audio Editors just export us a WAV mix (Each track of audio being a different WAV).
As much as I am against FCP X for myself, I completely agree with this statement. I graduated and immediately (luckily) got employment at a post-house that runs on Avid so I got used to having that kind of power and workflow. I can’t really bring myself to go away from it now.
However, before I graduated and found work I was considering FCP X. It’s great for the indie market because it’s price tag won’t completely break the bank. However it would definitely take a lot of getting used to. I was willing to learn but wound up not needing to because Avid came into my life. However for someone working on their own projects with limited budget, FCP X might fit the bill perfectly.
I guess to different people in works in different ways. I look at it as an under-powered, under-featured program. That’s my opinion. Others look at it as being amazingly powerful and feature rich. I applaud them for sticking with a program that I gave up on. However I won’t be touching it because I know and have things that fit my use better.
There's no class for certification (that I'm aware of). But the Peach Pit Press books are basically the textbook if you're looking for the right resource to learn from.
It's an exam you pay for and take in a proctored setting and have to score at least 80% in (96.66% *cough* haha) to pass.
Certification is by no means necessary but it can make you more marketable as an editor and it does push you to learn every nook and cranny of your work tool. We tend to get comfortable doing the things we need to do in order to get by and miss out on features or approaches that could serve us better. Working towards certification forces you to dig under the surface and really get to know the environment you spend so much of your time in.
With Motion, certification is forcing me to learn a new tool and is opening up my mind to the possibilities of what I can do with it. If I didn't have that goal and that high standard to strive towards I'd just learn it on a need to know basis and would never step too far outside of my comfort zone. And never really know what I was missing out on.
We only use FCPX in the studio for all our work. It's absolutely blazing fast when compared to Premiere. We literally just dump our 6k Dragon .R3D's straight from the RedMag into the timeline on our 5k iMacs (which are basically laptop internals with large screens, nothing serious is required like 12 core Xeons or anything) and edit natively in a 4K timeline with zero hiccups or stutter at full resolution and full raw setting support. It's just stupid easy.
If we have major color correction we export out a tiny XML from fcpx and boom, our entire edit loads natively in Davinci and then export an XML back out and switch back to FCPX and everything updates instantly.
Same exact process for sound suitening in Logic for audio.
And we pay for CC for every single employee in the office and tried Premiere and it was just simply not the fastest or easiest to work with.
And while this wasn't a factor with our decision, one of my video guys sent me this article a month or so ago and made me feel comfortable with our decision for our clients: http://nofilmschool.com/2014/09/massive-difference-export-quality-fcpx-and-premiere-pro
But alas... Just my humble experience, not to say Premiere isn't more than a solid choice and competent editor. It's functions just like FCP 7 did (the cream of the crop for years) so obviously it's good, it just wasn't AS good or fast with our workflow...
Last edited:
we just keep libraries for each project on its own external drive and pass them around from computer to computer. as long as everybody is on the same version of fcp x it works fine.
Yeah, that's what we've had to do, but it's just annoying because we use Thunderbolt Raids as our externals, so they're kind of bulky.
Bandwidth on our network is fine because all our RED footage is on our server, so we either use Premiere and keep the files remote with remote project files, or with FCP X it's remote footage with local libraries. How do you make a network drive act as an external? I've never seen a working version of this out of all the years I've been using FCP X.
People stubbornly clinging to a bad workflow because they learned that way.
I remember being at a demo of SpeedEdit from NewTek. The presenter asked "How many of you have edited film?" Numerous people raised their hands. "Now, how many of you LIKED it?" And boom, like magic, all the raised hands disappeared.
A whole slew of NLEs were made to emulate the linear process of film. Why in the world would you use a computer to do something and not specifically take advantage of the things a computer does very well?
Plenty of people are able to use FCP X professionally and successfully. You might not LIKE it, but it is certainly capable.
Man...it's adobe vs x, huh?
1) It shouldn't matter which NLS is the best. You determine that based on finished product, workflow, does it help you finish your product quickly and effectively?
2) It's your skill that's based, isn't it? I'm not a professional per se....but if you're skillful, you could pull it off like a magic.
3) This is FCP X...why is adobe here?
1) It shouldn't matter which NLS is the best. You determine that based on finished product, workflow, does it help you finish your product quickly and effectively?
2) It's your skill that's based, isn't it? I'm not a professional per se....but if you're skillful, you could pull it off like a magic.
3) This is FCP X...why is adobe here?
Been using Final Cut since the days of Studio - migrated to FCPX as soon as it came out.
It was different to FCP7 but I liked it.
I've been using it ever since.
I get my work done in it - it does a great job and the updates over time are always useful.
The latest version of Compressor is great and works effortlessly with FCP X for rendering out.
Motion has a depth that I haven't even scraped the surface off and can be lots of fun.
I know lots of editors who use Premiere/AE and that's cool - it works for them.
FCPX works for me - I don't spend my time telling Adobe or Avid users that what they use "sucks" because I use FCPX.
Whenever a new release of FCPX comes up the thread are predictably full of "FCPX sucks, no-one uses it, I still use 7" blah blah blah.
Tired and old - get on with doing some actual work with whatever editor you use instead.
It was different to FCP7 but I liked it.
I've been using it ever since.
I get my work done in it - it does a great job and the updates over time are always useful.
The latest version of Compressor is great and works effortlessly with FCP X for rendering out.
Motion has a depth that I haven't even scraped the surface off and can be lots of fun.
I know lots of editors who use Premiere/AE and that's cool - it works for them.
FCPX works for me - I don't spend my time telling Adobe or Avid users that what they use "sucks" because I use FCPX.
Whenever a new release of FCPX comes up the thread are predictably full of "FCPX sucks, no-one uses it, I still use 7" blah blah blah.
Tired and old - get on with doing some actual work with whatever editor you use instead.
FCP7 the timeline is professional, the file management is simple. FCX has great tools but the timeline is a disaster, probably for my 9 year old nephew who had no experience with other platforms but once you use a timeline in another software you will realize FCPX just make everything more complicated.
I switched to Premiere CC specially because I can arrange the layout just like I had in FCP7.
Apple should have kept developing FCP7, they would have been on top of everybody by far by now. The worst business decision ever to come up with FCPX.
FCP7 the timeline is rigid, the file management broken and convoluted. FCPX has great tools and the timeline takes full advantage of software-based editing by introducing new and improved ways of editing faster and with more freedom to be creative. People with no experience with other platforms will see this right away whereas those coming from previous platforms will find this new way challenging at first. But if they take the time to learn it they'll realize how much of an improvement Apple has made on video editing by embracing the power of software rather than the security of convention.
I switched to FCPX specifically because I wanted to get in on the ground floor of a new and improved editing platform before the old way gets completely buried and I'm stuck being the master of an outdated tool and daunted by what has since become established.
Apple didn't take business considerations into mind when they set about to develop the future of video editing, they just challenged themselves to make the next great video editing program regardless of past conventions or prevailing trends, and I couldn't be happier about that.
check out glyph drives, they have their own internal power supply so all you have to do is plug it in. USB 3 and esata are more than enough for simple cuts, i have yet to see anything in FCP X saturate a TB2 bus...
You're confusing film editing with deck to deck video editing. There was nothing linear about cutting film, nor was there with the introduction of Media Composer, Media 100, Premiere, FCP, etc. It's right there in the abbreviation. NLE = Non-linear editor.
You couldn't be happier but the fact is that the rest of the industry has a different opinion because FCPX is last. No only that, FCP7 used to be on top and thanx to FCPX Avid is super happy and Adobe is crying tears of joy.
I use FCPX and really like it. I can understand that a lot of people feel slighted because they spent time and money learning a system that is now very different. I know many people don't have or want to take time to learn something new that might have a steep learning curve. That said ..it doesn't make the new version BAD. I also notice a lot of people complain that they need certain functions to be able to work with FCPX. Makes sense but a lot of the "missing" functions are in fact already in the new FCPX... Maybe just called something different now. People should do some research on a product before complaining about missing features that are in fact already there.
I'm neither surprised nor concerned that the industry is still predominantly Avid or that Premiere has gained market share since Final Cut Pro 7 stopped being updated and X was released. That says less about the quality of Premiere and more about how slow the industry is to adapt to change.
The Mac and the iPhone both lose in terms of market share but I'm not about the discount either of those simply on the grounds that more people use something else. Same goes for Final Cut Pro X.
I work in the German film industry and know many professional editors. I always talk to them and ask if they use or have tried FCPX and usually they tell me that they have never tried it and they wouldn't go near it, as I was very curious about this "new way of editing". They usually tell me that they heard it's unprofessional and that they would never use it.
But I do know one editor, actually one of the best editors I know, he edits feature films for cinema and I recently worked with him. He loves FCPX and gets so excited when telling me about it. He says he has worked extensively with Avid and FCP7 and that he can do everything in FCPX and more and that he is so much faster and he enjoys it very much. But often he doesn't get the chance to use it. His last big project was on Avid and even though it's a great and strong system, he said it was painful and cumbersome to use once he's gotten used to FCPX.
I've asked him if there are any limitations of the system and he said, at the beginning, when it first came out, there were many and people still judge the application on these but almost all of them have been solved in updates. The one thing he mentioned is that you can't export OMF files for sound mastering but that there is a plug-in called X2Pro which solves this issue.
For his upcoming project, a big film for German cinema, he's fighting early on to be able to use FCPX as the editing system.
Perhaps some editors also feel threaten by it. Suddenly everybody can edit professionally easily. But good editors will always be needed, a good editor is one of the most important ingredients of a great film and can never be replaced by technology.
TL;DR
I feel like most editors reject FCPX out of closed mindedness and not wanting to learn something new. Those that open their minds to a new way of editing often find it to be a great experience and don't look back.
But I do know one editor, actually one of the best editors I know, he edits feature films for cinema and I recently worked with him. He loves FCPX and gets so excited when telling me about it. He says he has worked extensively with Avid and FCP7 and that he can do everything in FCPX and more and that he is so much faster and he enjoys it very much. But often he doesn't get the chance to use it. His last big project was on Avid and even though it's a great and strong system, he said it was painful and cumbersome to use once he's gotten used to FCPX.
I've asked him if there are any limitations of the system and he said, at the beginning, when it first came out, there were many and people still judge the application on these but almost all of them have been solved in updates. The one thing he mentioned is that you can't export OMF files for sound mastering but that there is a plug-in called X2Pro which solves this issue.
For his upcoming project, a big film for German cinema, he's fighting early on to be able to use FCPX as the editing system.
Perhaps some editors also feel threaten by it. Suddenly everybody can edit professionally easily. But good editors will always be needed, a good editor is one of the most important ingredients of a great film and can never be replaced by technology.
TL;DR
I feel like most editors reject FCPX out of closed mindedness and not wanting to learn something new. Those that open their minds to a new way of editing often find it to be a great experience and don't look back.
Last edited:
My take on the whole 'Fanatical Premiere User' user is this...........
When FCP7 was replaced by X, FCP7 was way behind and in desperate need of a major overhaul. At that stage, Premiere had had several updates & had - feature & fluidity wise pulled ahead of FCP7. So the day when Apple released FCPX, lots of excited people purchased it, tried it, realised it was so so different & couldn't get their heads round it straight away. They turned to the internet to discuss their difficulties, which turned into an anti FCPX ****-storm.
These editors then tried Premiere, and felt right at home, as everything looked familiar (Avid is too different). Premiere was also at this point leaps & bounds ahead of the FCP7 they just left, meaning they immediately felt that they'd backed the winning horse and had to tell everyone about how they've made the greatest decision to move to the greatest software ever written & anyone who hasn't done the same 'Just isn't Pro'. This attitude got so deeply entrenched into their psyche that whenever they see an internet discussion on anything related to FCPX they just can't help themselves in diving in & telling everyone how great Premiere is & how much FCPX sucks
Anyway back to topic.....
The update's good & now I can natively import my XAVC-L 4K footage - Happy Days!!
When FCP7 was replaced by X, FCP7 was way behind and in desperate need of a major overhaul. At that stage, Premiere had had several updates & had - feature & fluidity wise pulled ahead of FCP7. So the day when Apple released FCPX, lots of excited people purchased it, tried it, realised it was so so different & couldn't get their heads round it straight away. They turned to the internet to discuss their difficulties, which turned into an anti FCPX ****-storm.
These editors then tried Premiere, and felt right at home, as everything looked familiar (Avid is too different). Premiere was also at this point leaps & bounds ahead of the FCP7 they just left, meaning they immediately felt that they'd backed the winning horse and had to tell everyone about how they've made the greatest decision to move to the greatest software ever written & anyone who hasn't done the same 'Just isn't Pro'. This attitude got so deeply entrenched into their psyche that whenever they see an internet discussion on anything related to FCPX they just can't help themselves in diving in & telling everyone how great Premiere is & how much FCPX sucks
Anyway back to topic.....
The update's good & now I can natively import my XAVC-L 4K footage - Happy Days!!