Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
I was under the impression that Apple has built in the framework for XML, with hooks and all. The API is just about ready, and this close to launch, I'd consider that an ok effort actually .
When it's there and functioning properly I'll give Apple credit for implementing it.

I fully agree we have to be able to communicate with others. XML takes care of that. OMF/EDL does not have to be built directly in by Apple if they provide other options, and they also provide the options for others to provide the functionality.
Hopefully other options come out because paying $500 for a plugin for a $300 app to get what is considered a basic feature is ridiculous. That's $800 for FCP X when just a over a week ago someone could spend $1000 and get FCP 7, DVD SP, Cinema Tools, Motion, Compressor, Sound Track Pro and Color.

Apple dropping Flash was a big bomb for everyone (especially for me as a graphic design doing work for web, much of it previously in Flash), but I appreciate what they did, and how they have actually changed the landscape to a large degree - in my opinion to the better by getting rid of a lot of unnecessary Flash. Not that it pertains to this exactly, just saying that these kinds of breaks can be more than an omission by Apple - they can be consciously trying to lead the way a bit. (While still leaving the "dirt-road of archaic standards" (yes, partly kidding. :p) open for those that still need it.)
Although I know what you are saying I don't think it's quite the same thing. Apple didn't add Flash support to it's iDevices which is different than Adobe limiting your ability to create things in Flash even though there are billions of people that want to watch Flash content. That is more in line w/what Apple is doing w/FCP X right now. There are also some alternatives to Flash but, to continue the analogy, right now there are some fairly core features that FCP X does not have and there is absolutely no way to work around them.

In reality at the end of the day it's not what tool that you use but the finished product delivered on time in budget that matters, the software needs to do what it's ment to do and then get out of the way. Either Final Cut Pro X works and helps the "Profesional" get his job done or I'm sure they will find a way or use another program, it's not the software that is "Professional" it's the person using it.
I agree. And that's why lots of people that really utilize what the Final Cut Suite has to offer are heading over to Adobe or Avid. It's been a long time coming too. Many people weren't happy w/the anemic update in '09 and started weighing their options then. The release of FCP X just sealed the deal.


Lethal
 
So what's my point? Elitism.
Every now and then I will run into a designer who went to a boutique Art School and will sit there trying to give me Pantone spot colors that will make the job cost $20,000 more because their artistic sense tells them they need to act like Martha Stuart and pick from "designer colors" You have 10,000,000 colors to choose from and you want to use "obtuse beige" because it "feels better" that regular old beige. These are the people in this forum pretending to be "Pros" while putting down other people because they "don't get it" I'll tell you when these types of people come to work for me they become humble when their elitist world view crumbles as they see real professionals working on real projects.

About Me: I'm an Art Director for an Advertising Company During my daily duties I may (but not limited to): Use CS5 Indesign, Photoshop, Premier, etc. Cinema 4d, FCP, Manage servers, php/mysql/html/css, product photography, iphone/ipad programing.

I cut a ton of spots. As an Art Director, you must have participated in many telecine sessions (I'm assuming you do broadcast). Guess how the colorist gets all the correct shots for the transfer? The editorial company gives the telecine company an old-fashoned EDL. The uproar stems from those kinds of "pro" features getting dropped, not from any elitism.
 
Agreed. But, some of those trades were trades solely because of technical/technological reasons/restraints. When development removes those restraints, people can master more trades without that necessarily leading to them being "master of none".

I'm going to repost what I stated earlier:

The editor of a feature film or broadcast TV show does not do the color or final sound mixing because he or she spends all their time cutting. Other people, with specialized skill sets, do those jobs concurrently because the volume of work, schedule and budget necessitate it. Therefore it is absolutely critical that the editing software be able to spit out EDLs, OMFs, etc. so others can do their jobs and the project can get finished. Please don't dismiss these editors as "not-so-good professionals". Think of it like a baseball team; everyone plays a position because that's what they are good at.
 
I'm going to repost what I stated earlier:

The editor of a feature film or broadcast TV show does not do the color or final sound mixing because he or she spends all their time cutting. Other people, with specialized skill sets, do those jobs concurrently because the volume of work, schedule and budget necessitate it. Therefore it is absolutely critical that the editing software be able to spit out EDLs, OMFs, etc. so others can do their jobs and the project can get finished. Please don't dismiss these editors as "not-so-good professionals". Think of it like a baseball team; everyone plays a position because that's what they are good at.

I know, and I agreed that division of labour is often a good thing, when scale allows it. (And I never dismissed those editors as sub-par at all. If anything, they are better at it than the ones that get to/have to do it all, as they specialize.)
 
Stopped reading right there. Sorry.

Self-censorship. What a comfort that must be.
The lengths people will go to maintain their belief systems.

blinders.jpg
 
I'm going to repost what I stated earlier:

The editor of a feature film or broadcast TV show does not do the color or final sound mixing because he or she spends all their time cutting. Other people, with specialized skill sets, do those jobs concurrently because the volume of work, schedule and budget necessitate it. Therefore it is absolutely critical that the editing software be able to spit out EDLs, OMFs, etc. so others can do their jobs and the project can get finished. Please don't dismiss these editors as "not-so-good professionals". Think of it like a baseball team; everyone plays a position because that's what they are good at.

Completely understandable, however on June 23 FCP7 was working just fine for that workflow. Now June 30th, FCP7 is still working fine for that workflow.

Until Apple and 3rd party developers flesh out the new Final Cut FCP7 will continue to work. If not you can always user Premier CS5.. Most of us already own a copy that came with the suite.

We had a period From when CS2 came out until CS5 came out that we did not upgrade because CS3 and CS4 did not work well on our mix of hardware (mixed G5s and Intels)

So we went more than 5 years without an upgrade.. Even now in some ways CS5 is not as good as CS2 was (stability and speed) It happens, and not just in the world of Apple.

I will forever hate Adobe when after spending $15,000 upgrading software their Indian support people would not even talk to me unless I paid for it. I told them, I just purchase $15,000 in software from you today and you're telling me I need to pay $39 just to talk to someone? "Yes sir, will you gladly have a nice day sir"

Sorry, the Grass is not always Greener.

Switch to Premier and try to get support... Report back here with the story :rolleyes:
 
Does switching tools have to be an end all situation? If you don't like the next iteration of FCP, why does that mean you have to feel like it's the end of the world for you?

To borrow a situation from another industry that could be construed as similar to what's going here in our industry...

My photographer colleagues have switched between Nikon and Canon a number of times throughout the course of their careers and we're talking thousands of dollars in camera bodies and lenses and brand dependent accessories. If this year, Nikon has the best lenses and camera bodies, then that's what they will use to beat out their competitors who stuck with last year's Canons. And next year, when Canon comes out with the better cameras and lenses, they will switch back. Why? Because their business is to capture the absolute best photo possible. Newspapers, magazines and even videos don't care what camera they used to capture the image. They just care that the image tells their story.

What's killing the "pro" photographers isn't the expense of their gear so much as the dwindling "pro" places to sell their images to as well as the increase in competition from "so-called" digital pro photographers. Pretty much anyone can capture an amazing image nowadays with the advance in digital technology and photography. The only real factor going for the "pro" photographers is the fact that they know how to get those amazing shots, time and time again.

Back to our industry...
I really think the angry outburst about Apple changing our mainstay tool on us is really just an excuse to rant and rave and vent our pent up feelings about the sad state of our industry as a whole.

Nobody likes to change a workflow after they spent any amount time developing it, problem solving it, and executing it. It doesn't matter if the market demands it, the FCC demands it, or technology out-dates it.

As an editor, do I care about how the consumer will "pay" to see my video/film? No. My job is just to make the video/film engaging, entertaining, etc. without regard to how much the consumer will pay. As an editor, I'm also not concerned about color and sound because there is an established work flow and people who have jobs dedicated to doing those tasks, too.

But for the guys, those clients of ours, who's job it is to sell to those finicky consumers, the finished video/film is the only thing that matters. They don't care how we made it, how much time it took, how many people were involved, or what tools we used. They're only concerned with the final cost and how much they can make off of it.

The internet is one of many issues that is directly affecting and impacting the "established" ways of doing business in the film and TV industry. You can try and fight it stick to what you have developed and worked for you in the past or you can try and figure out how to adapt to it. And the first step is to define what the "IT" is that is really affecting the profitability of your business.

I strongly believe based on everything that I have seen Apple do, both the good and the bad, the successes and the flops, that Apple is trying to figure out how to adapt and even pioneer. What Apple did to the mp3 market with the iPod and iTunes is a barebones idea of what I hope they will do for the film/TV industry in the sense of removing old bottlenecks, reducing cost of entry and overall cost production, and by introducing slick hardware and software that will inspire us to create great content.

In the mean time, I will continue to use the appropriate tools for the job. Software that I use include FCP, After Effects, Logic, Garageband, iPhoto, Aperture, Photoshop, Illustrator, Dreamweaver, Notepad, Office, InDesign, and an assortment of plug-ins. Hardware that I use include a 2.4 GHz MacBook Pro, a 3.05 GHz iMac, a 2.8 GHz MacPro, a Core2 Duo custom built PC, a Canon 5D Mk II, a KiPro, a Panasonic P2 video camera, Sennheiser 100 G2 wireless camera mic system, a Sennheiser boom mic, a Bogen carbon fiber 190CX with a 3030 head, a bogen micro fluid head, a $100 LED video light, a photogenic 1250 DR, Photoflex softboxes, reflectors, stands, sand bags and anything else that I need to purchase or rent to get the job done that my client has hired me to do.

Best wishes!
 
Completely understandable, however on June 23 FCP7 was working just fine for that workflow. Now June 30th, FCP7 is still working fine for that workflow.

The problem we/I have is that we're on FCP6 here and we were about to add FCP to our curriculum (I work in education) to supplement Avid for our editing specialists. Now we work with and teach Pro Tools for our sound designers so collaboration is absolutely vital to what we teach. As we're on an older version we were going to either upgrade to FCP7 or, if it could do the job, FCPX. Now that FCPX is out it clearly doesn't do the job, without an additional app that we can justify purchasing, so it's not an option. And we cannot buy FCP7 as an alternative. So a) FPCX doesn't have the functionality we need and b) we cannot stick with and teach FCP6 as it uses a decrepated interface and workflow. Basically, as it stands now, FCP is a dead end for us at the moment.
 
There is no reason a 1.0 product has to 'pragmatically' be released with a subset of features. It is simply a choice by the developer.

Practically all apps for which the developers go out solicit users for what they want ship with a subset of features it could have. For an app with a user base over 100,000 it is pragmatically true that this will be the case. The release process is about drawing a line with what resources and time allow for and lining up what got missed to the next update.

Given that Apple claims in their own FAQ that XML support is within a few weeks of delivery, there is no reason they could not have delayed the release of FCPX a month or more. They also could have worked with many third party developers to give FCPX a better kick start.

Exactly, how do these 3rd party developers find users to test their pre-release software ? Everyone with the pre-release FCPX software is inside the "cone of silence" NDA. Is Apple suppose to orchestrate the matchmaking interaction between numerous 3rd parties and their beta testers? Or would it be more efficient to let the 3rd parties vendors pick users and manage their own beta process ?

For better or worse Apple's strict secrecy policy is a constraint here. Once released, Apple's NDA isn't blocking the 3rd parties from getting their process done. Apple appears to have worked with at least one vendor. If the XML API is going to be released very soon it too had to be in beta testing. The fact is that beta testing involves only a subset of the user base. There is a sequencing required here.

To put it back into a AV context how can someone touch up the audio track to a movie when you haven't edited the movie ? You finish step 1 then move onto step 2. And I'm also sure editors should know that that some clients will wave their hands and yelp about how they wanted it all done yesterday.

In short, there are two things are are being launched with FCPX. One is the new FCP platform (that's is realized in the app). Second is a larger plug-in/add-on marketplace (that's realized in the significantly expanded XML interface). It won't help the latter if Apple is selling a competing product (FCP7) that will inhibit growth. There is a short term painful transition but longer term it should provide a broader set of solutions for users. Notice that the plug-in marketplace involves getting multiple parties working on the delivering the holistic solution.

Ironically, one of the running complaints here is that "Apple doesn't understand the complexities of a workflow that involves multiple parties working on a single solution". Well yeah, it doesn't look like they are alone is that disability.


Of course if Apple didn't have the secrecy policy and keep all of the development in-house they wouldn't have this problem. Just do it all inside the single org. (just like could do it all inside the single app).


What Apple failed at here is setting the expectations of the scope and that this is a phased rollout. The FAQ should have been posted on or before the day the software was released. They also should have trotted out quotes from some of the 3rd party vendors (if they didn't also have policies against talking about unreleased software). They also should have made it clear that they did not want mass adaptation of FCPX in the shortest period of time. I think they assumed that is what folks would do. It probably is what will most would do even if these missing "universal features" were there.
 
There is no reason a 1.0 product has to 'pragmatically' be released with a subset of features. It is simply a choice by the developer.

It appears Apple chose to leave some features (OMF, AAF, and EDL, others?) for third party developers to do. In at least two cases, XML & plug-in support, they released the product too early. Given that Apple claims in their own FAQ that XML support is within a few weeks of delivery, there is no reason they could not have delayed the release of FCPX a month or more. They also could have worked with many third party developers to give FCPX a better kick start.

Practically all apps for which the developers go out solicit users for what they want ship with a subset of features it could have. For an app with a user base over 100,000 it is pragmatically true that this will be the case. The release process is about drawing a line with what resources and time allow for and lining up what got missed to the next update.

Oh, what a boob I am. I read 'pragmatically' as 'programatically'. I should stop responding to posts at 3:30am. :eek:

Still, I contend that Apple should have stalled the delay until the XML API support was ready.


It appears Apple chose to leave some features (OMF, AAF, and EDL, others?) for third party developers to do. In at least two cases, XML & plug-in support, they released the product too early. Given that Apple claims in their own FAQ that XML support is within a few weeks of delivery, there is no reason they could not have delayed the release of FCPX a month or more. They also could have worked with many third party developers to give FCPX a better kick start.

Exactly, how do these 3rd party developers find users to test their pre-release software ? Everyone with the pre-release FCPX software is inside the "cone of silence" NDA. Is Apple suppose to orchestrate the matchmaking interaction between numerous 3rd parties and their beta testers? Or would it be more efficient to let the 3rd parties vendors pick users and manage their own beta process ?

For better or worse Apple's strict secrecy policy is a constraint here. Once released, Apple's NDA isn't blocking the 3rd parties from getting their process done. Apple appears to have worked with at least one vendor. If the XML API is going to be released very soon it too had to be in beta testing. The fact is that beta testing involves only a subset of the user base. There is a sequencing required here.

By allowing third party developers into the beta program, these third parties would have been able to actually do much of their work early on. Likely they couldn't release their software or/and hardware on day one release of FCPX, but they would be much further ahead in the process. Although possible to do, I doubt Apple would have orchestrated communication between the beta developers and beta users, thereby limiting the developers capability to do their own beta test.

Perhaps the best argument against involving third party developers is the practical need to keep beta testers to a subset of the target base. Unless Apple involve them all, it would be argued by someone that they are providing favoritism. Restricting the involvement to 1 or 2 limits that argument and their own beta communication hassles.


In short, there are two things are are being launched with FCPX. One is the new FCP platform (that's is realized in the app). Second is a larger plug-in/add-on marketplace (that's realized in the significantly expanded XML interface). It won't help the latter if Apple is selling a competing product (FCP7) that will inhibit growth.

I disagree on your thought that availability of FCP7 would inhibit growth of plug-in/add-on marketplace. My thought is that FCP7 wouldn't see many new sales, so third party developers will see a decline of sales to that market and therefore will be encouraged to port their current library, where it makes sense, to the newer FCPX. Due to a high demand to fill gaps in FCPX, developers will be encouraged to get involved early in this new market.


The big FCPX failure for Apple isn't the version 1 product they have delivered, but the lack of early and clear communication to the user base. I think we agree on that last part. The FAQ appears to be a responsive afterthought.
 
Completely understandable, however on June 23 FCP7 was working just fine for that workflow. Now June 30th, FCP7 is still working fine for that workflow.

Until Apple and 3rd party developers flesh out the new Final Cut FCP7 will continue to work. If not you can always user Premier CS5.. Most of us already own a copy that came with the suite.

We had a period From when CS2 came out until CS5 came out that we did not upgrade because CS3 and CS4 did not work well on our mix of hardware (mixed G5s and Intels)

So we went more than 5 years without an upgrade.. Even now in some ways CS5 is not as good as CS2 was (stability and speed) It happens, and not just in the world of Apple.

I will forever hate Adobe when after spending $15,000 upgrading software their Indian support people would not even talk to me unless I paid for it. I told them, I just purchase $15,000 in software from you today and you're telling me I need to pay $39 just to talk to someone? "Yes sir, will you gladly have a nice day sir"

Sorry, the Grass is not always Greener.

Switch to Premier and try to get support... Report back here with the story :rolleyes:

FCP7 does still work but it is getting long in the tooth. When my current project ends I'll probably go back to Avid (which I started working with in 1990) but keep an eye on FCPX to see what functionality gets added. Media Composer is being rewritten as a 64-bit app so it will be interesting to see how it stacks up.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.