Apple Posts Final Cut Pro X FAQ, Promises Updates

[budgynana]

Snip

By the way - up until the FAQ was posted (which - by the way - still isn't "advertised" on their site) - can you show me anywhere where it says that FCP 7 documents won't import? Right. I thought not. Yet they make a "splash" offering iMovie imports.

iMovie compatibility is/was clearly a priority for them above all other options. The fact that FCP7, and older, doesn't even get a mention surely demonstrates to people who they are targeting?

 

[tobyx]

Apple are right to provide basics and let third parties handle specialised, niche features and provide support for their own hardware. They haven't dropped the ball here. They've simply released a solid editing app that many people, for some bizarre reason, thought they could switch to right away.

This is just simply wrong. I don't think you understand what the removal of "a few niche features" means. Those "niche features" are used by professional editors on a day-to-day basis. Those "niche features" allow a professional editor to hand his work over to a colorist or to online. Leaving those "niche features" out is like Photoshop being unable to save a layered PSD file. It was so completely unthinkable to the whole professional community that those things would be left out so the outcry is huge now.

Final Cut Pro X is perfectly fine for someone sitting at home and creating a movie from start to finish—another reason why iMovie Pro would be such a suitable name.

These features are used by professionals not once a week or once a month, they are used many times a day, just like the ability to create a professional PDF in InDesign, a layered file in Photoshop, an EDL/XML/AAF of an edit in FCP7/Avid MC/Premiere or an OMF to be mixed in ProTools.

There is no workaround for this! You can edit and publish to YouTube but you can't hand your work to a team for finishing.

No motion picture, no commercial CAN BE EDITED in FCPX due to this. It is completely undoable, unless you want a mindless monkey recreating the work from the ground up later in Media Composer or Premiere or dataconform or Smoke or Flame or whatever.

(The only workaround for now is buying a 3rd party application for around $500 to export to ProTools. Something Final Cut Pro 7 did just fine without it.)

The cool new editing workflow in Final Cut Pro X is completely overshadowed by the fact that in the end, even a perfectly told story cannot be handed over to the next steps in the production pipeline. Editors shouldn't color correct or do effects or sound design or mix on projects because it is not their job or profession and they are simple not able to. Just like a colorist can't edit and a visual effects artist can't mix.

 

[manu chao]

And just because it's ready for some pros does not mean that those pros who have concerns aren't entitled to voice them.

The problem I have that there is a difference between voicing concerns and concluding that FCP X is no good for any pro and that Apple clearly does not care about pros at all despite implementing features (or promising to implement) that are clearly only of value to pros.

 

[tobyx]

for 100% of all professionals? Or for 90%? Or for 50%?

100%.

 

[budgynana]

For 100% of all professionals? Or for 90%? Or for 50%?

We don't use Red here, or anything really really high end for that matter, but the fact remains that this is Apple's top of the line editing application and whereas the old version of supported it this replacement now doesn't. I wouldn't dare state a percentage but fact of the matter is they removed stuff they previously supported in their "pro" app so there will be lots of "professionals" affected.

 

[tobyx]

That is all I have to say.

And you, sir, are completely right.

 

[deconstruct60]

I also can't think of any new software version that wasn't able to import an older version. I *think* I understand why it wasn't/isn't possible with FCPX - but I also think something could have been done - even with user prompting - to facilitate an import of some sort.

It is extremely doubtful that would work. Unless the user understands well how FCPX projects/events/etc are stored , organized, etc this would only be a process of the blind leading the blind. It is not until the users know to do it the new right way that this kind of process will work well. Otherwise, the prompts will be to questions they don't know the answer to. Users who have zero experience using the product will most likely fail often at doing this too. The result very likely be a zero reduction in the wailing and the users would still have no experience constructing projects.

There will likely be an import process of same sort that was done between different editing products before ( e.g., between FCP7 and Avid). An export to XML that covers a subset, but the gist of the project. That followed by an import of XML. As some point there will be something similar between FCP 7 and FCPX.

 

[WestonHarvey1]

Snip



iMovie compatibility is/was clearly a priority for them above all other options. The fact that FCP7, and older, doesn't even get a mention surely demonstrates to people who they are targeting?

No, it wasn't a "priority", it's just a reality. They have the same underlying architecture. They'd have had to go out of their way to make it NOT able to import iMovie projects.

 

[manu chao]

100%.

And those professionals who have blogged about FCP X, saying it fulfils their needs and they like it aren't real professionals then?

 

[tobyx]

And those professionals who have blogged about FCP X, saying it fulfils their needs and they like it aren't real professionals then?

A professional who cannot or does not care about being able to professionally hand over their work to other professionals is not a professional.

He might not *have to* in every case. There are people working solo and doing it fine and professionally. But he has to be *able* to.

 

[manu chao]

A professional who cannot or does not care about being able to professionally hand over their work to other professionals is not a professional.

So, anybody selling directly to consumers (and being self-employed) is not a professional?

 

[tobyx]

So, anybody selling directly to consumers (and being self-employed) is not a professional?

Not saying that. Excuse my edit above. What if your client asks you "Hm, we really need to work on the color in these shots, I'm sorry."

Are they going to say "Sorry, can't do that, I worked in a software that doesn't allow me to hand this over to something more sophisticated. I'm kind of locked in... Hm..." ?

(Don't get me started on exporting image sequences of raw footage and reconforming them by eye-matching later.)

 

[samcraig]

No, it wasn't a "priority", it's just a reality. They have the same underlying architecture. They'd have had to go out of their way to make it NOT able to import iMovie projects.

There's a difference between having the ability and making it a pop up screen as soon as the program runs. I don't think anyone is arguing against the ability to import projects - in fact, the more formats that can be imported the better. If you don't see the distinction...

 

[darbus69]

Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3_3 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8J2 Safari/6533.18.5)

What strikes me as odd is how many times in that FAQ they say that they understand how important a certain feature is to users. If they undertand that, then why didn't they put it in in the first place?

Developer Cycles and Product releases for features don't always coincide.

It's a clear indication that they had a choice: Release in June or extend several Betas to key developers for the next 2 quarters and then release it, and still receive complaints for change.

They chose to release the new architecture and in a few weeks will come the Developer APIs to extend support so by the end of this quarter and entering the next quarter both 3rd parties and Apple will release plugins and major updates to this new flag ship editing software.

This ends the several years complaint that FCP is dead,etc., and opens a new can of worms on it not being feature perfect.

Guess what? List the number of major areas Apple is simultaneously competing on and then compare what Apple was doing back in 1998. Night and Day.

Apple is spewing out store after store, market after market for major target markets at a rate never seen in this corporation but it's never fast enough for some very vocal customers.

In 1998 Apple [as a former employee so I know wherefore I speak] had 3 months of capital to keep the doors open and now they have $70 Billion in the bank and have leap frog'd Microsoft in valuation. And all during one of the worst global recessions since The Great Depression.

Take a long pause and think about exactly what Apple has accomplished, all during Steve fighting for his own life.

Yet people continue to whine that this 1.0 product isn't the greatest solution for present and future approaches to NLE.

And all for $299. Truly pathetic.

I paid $299 in 1996 for Openstep User/Developer as a student before working at NeXT Inc.

Seriously, get some perspective folks.

+1
as an amateur who use Educational version of FCP for years I was worried that I could no longer afford to continue, but at 299 and a little patience I can continue on as a "prosumer" and do the occasional paying jobs-I for one am thankful.

 

[Keebler]

I think it is because they were already considering jumping ship due to FCP falling behind to competitors... but the promise of the next shinny new release kept them from doing so. But now, the decision process has become a lot clearer.

good point. i guess they were waiting to hear about the new release.

 

[tobyx]

good point. i guess they were waiting to hear about the new release.

People will calm down and just start clicking the Pr (Premiere) icon that has been sitting in their dock for years. I had a license for a very very long time, just never clicked it.

My work only edits on Avid Media Composer anyway so we could care less.

 

[deconstruct60]

(The only workaround for now is buying a 3rd party application for around $500 to export to ProTools. Something Final Cut Pro 7 did just fine without it.)

$299 + $500 < $999

The horror, a solution that is $200 more affordable.

 

[cfurlin]

Is this whole debacle sounds like it may end up in class action lawsuit land.

I know. And while we are at it, let's make sure we sue Apple for square corners on the MacBooks. I have life-threatening bruises from those corners!

 

[WestonHarvey1]

There's a difference between having the ability and making it a pop up screen as soon as the program runs. I don't think anyone is arguing against the ability to import projects - in fact, the more formats that can be imported the better. If you don't see the distinction...

I don't think it means anything other than being a good introduction to an alien environment. It's better than a sample project, since it would be your own familiar work, if you happen to have an iMovie project laying around. Since you can't import FCP7, this is a good way to start the learning process.

 

[handsome pete]

$299 + $500 < $999

The horror, a solution that is $200 more affordable.

That $500 only covers one of the problems with the current release. If third party solutions end up being the only solution, then who's to say it won't cost $2000 to get a fully functional FCP?

You're also leaving out Compressor, Motion, DVDStudio, Soundtrack that was included in the original suite.

 

[jwdsail]

"next major release"?

Wow..

Considering major releases are usually spaced a year apart, this is disappointing. I was one of the people saying that some of these missing features were related to changes in QuickTime/Lion and an 1.1 update would drop w/ Lion to resolve many of these issues...

Ouch.

I have to say, that if Apple isn't going to fix the glaring issues w/ FCX by the Lion release, they should offer FCS3 for sale to those willing to pay for it, until FCX is fully cooked.. At least the option to buy additional seats / license codes using existing on-site media at locations w/ existing installs... Even better would be to allow a free download of FCS3 when you buy FCX... (receipt code)

It would have been better to let FCS3 remain the video editing suite for sale for another year while they *finished* FCX..

I'm still in wait-and-see mode, looking for info on using Conduit and DV Matte Blast with FCX, and waiting for Lion before making any serious decisions... My FCS2 still works fine. Wish I'd picked up a copy of FCS3 now tho...

 

[deconstruct60]

iMovie compatibility is/was clearly a priority for them above all other options. The fact that FCP7, and older, doesn't even get a mention surely demonstrates to people who they are targeting?

No. it demonstrates that iMovie is already aligned with the core changes incorporated into FCPX. Perhaps you missed the story a couple days ago???

Back when iMovie was called "First Cut" .....
https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/1177184/


Does it offer to open iMovie version 2 files ?

FCP7 files are not. Folks may wish they were but there are not. Import doesn't work yet for those so it is not offered. It is really that simple.

 

[Stella]

delete.

 

[samcraig]

I don't think it means anything other than being a good introduction to an alien environment. It's better than a sample project, since it would be your own familiar work, if you happen to have an iMovie project laying around. Since you can't import FCP7, this is a good way to start the learning process.

You don't think it means anything? Ok. You are entitled to think whatever you want. Now tell me what professional video editor has projects in iMovie. Now tell me again that it isn't telling that the first screen after the splash is a pop up asking you to import iMovie projects and say with a straight face that you don't see the point.

 

[deconstruct60]

That $500 only covers one of the problems with the current release. If third party solutions end up being the only solution, then who's to say it won't cost $2000 to get a fully functional FCP?

Oh the horror , FCPX + add ons cost $400-500 less the Avid Media Composer. Additionally, there is a large gap between Avid (and many other high end "pro" apps) pricing and FCP 7 pricing. That gap is something Apple has always leveraged. Not so much with Premiere though (which is why the core system price dropped to $299 ).

The costs for these more narrow niche markets probably will go up since Apple won't be able to amortize the feature costs over every user. When features are bundled for everyone then everyone pays. If split out into "add ons" the folks that need them pay for them. The folks who needs lots of "add ons" will pay more.

I would not be surprised if some folks end up paying $1,200-1,400 (i.e., more that the old $999 price) to flush out the suite if they actually use all the pieces on a day to day basis. However, the overall cost for average individual seats could still drop a couple hundred bucks if not several hundred (e.g., the licensing changes "per employee" as opposed to "per seat").