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.
Apple Showcases Final Cut Pro X Usage in Production of Hollywood Film 'Focus'
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
My nobody friend just used it to produce the 2015 Sundance Grand Jury Prize winner for world documentary. So there's that.
To me, FCP X, like iMovie, has this Apple-app personality that kind of goes like this "Hey there, I'm not telling you what I'm doing and why I'm doing it, because you don't need to know. You just get on with your editing while I do this obscure background stuff for the next 13 hours. Also if you can't drag & drop something the way you want it then it can't be done. Oh and if you want to do anything that this app was not specifically designed for, forget it. Oh and settings? What settings? You don't get to tell me how to do anything. You're just a stupid user."
Absolutely right
I've been editing professionally in LA for over 10 years, now exclusively trailers, and this guy, like it or not, is absolutely right. FCP 1-7 gained market share because it was a cost effective alternative to Avid. That's it. It took years (post v4) for it to stabilize as a software. Crashed all the time. And this coming from someone whose career only exists because of FCP.
Avid years ago dropped in price and is still used in most long form editing and at least half of the trailer houses. I was told FCPX has made more profit wise for Apple than ALL previous FCP versions combined and don't doubt it. But that's NOT because it's used by the majority of professional editors, it's because it caters to the much larger group of online content creators.
The reasons WHY FCPX doesn't fit into true professional work flows has been explained and discussed ad nauseam. The fact remains it has made ZERO impact on LA or NY top level post and at the end of the day requires too large a learning curve and workflow adjustment to merit any consideration. An editing system is only as good as the editor and editors here don't use it.
I've been editing professionally in LA for over 10 years, now exclusively trailers, and this guy, like it or not, is absolutely right. FCP 1-7 gained market share because it was a cost effective alternative to Avid. That's it. It took years (post v4) for it to stabilize as a software. Crashed all the time. And this coming from someone whose career only exists because of FCP.
Avid years ago dropped in price and is still used in most long form editing and at least half of the trailer houses. I was told FCPX has made more profit wise for Apple than ALL previous FCP versions combined and don't doubt it. But that's NOT because it's used by the majority of professional editors, it's because it caters to the much larger group of online content creators.
The reasons WHY FCPX doesn't fit into true professional work flows has been explained and discussed ad nauseam. The fact remains it has made ZERO impact on LA or NY top level post and at the end of the day requires too large a learning curve and workflow adjustment to merit any consideration. An editing system is only as good as the editor and editors here don't use it.
I began using Final Cut Pro at version 1. Loved the application. By 2008, I found myself working exclusively in After Effects for motion graphics. With the seamless integration and workflow that happens between After Effects and Premiere, I can't imagine going back to Final Cut Pro unless the edit contained zero visual effects or motion design.
I loved Final Cut Pro, but within the advertising and film industry, the application is a bit of a hinderance.
I loved Final Cut Pro, but within the advertising and film industry, the application is a bit of a hinderance.
Bang on. I have no credentials in the film/editing business nor even amateur film. But seeing that the number of pro editors is much smaller than the pool of potential young movie makers (like you said, online content creators) or people who just want something easier to segway into to create their own online content, the dumbed down FCP will definitely make more money. In fact, reading this article now makes me want to take another look at FCP again - as someone who has totally forgotten how to use film editing software
Did you even bother to read his post? He's a professional commercial/film/tv video editor. His appeal to authority/rank pulling and anecdotes are enough for me to agree with his conclusion.
I also work in the post-production industry. When I first saw FCPX, I was thoroughly impressed with its well-rethought interface and AMAZING power under-the-hood. It's ability to edit H.264 video WHILE also re-encoding into ProRes 422 on a Core 2 Duo processor blew my mind. Amazing performance. I loved that Apple was trying to rethink HOW we work on a edit with the use of tags and metadata, rather than just constantly clipping things.
But once I delved past the interface, I realized how problematic it would be to use it at our boutique production company. We have lots of shared fibre-channel RAID space where we store media (and access as read-only the vast majority of the time), but then pass around small project files as we're making selects. But the way FCPX handles this data is bad for collaborative environments like ours. Everything is stored in one folder. In that folder there's a separate file for the meta-data you've labelled on clips. A different file that actually contains your sequence. And then also all of the transcoded clips are kept there, too. Meaning if you want to pass selects and a sequence around, you're either passing around multi-gigabyte folders all the time, or carefully replacing sequence and meta-data files behind FCPX's back, constantly. In addition, because it uses iMovie's "events" structure, you are constantly staring at unrelated items in your bin unless you move those files out of the working folder. It's a lot of unnecessary file shuffling.
Couple this with the fact that it uses iMove lingo like "events" and "projects" instead of "projects" and "sequences," and one could see why my company is not using FCPX.
Which is a shame, because under-the-hood, it is absolutely amazing. I will probably use it at home for future personal projects (where I don't need to worry about shuffling project files and selects), but it is not appropriate for collaboration.
Also: The people who rejected FCPX before even trying it because it merely looked like iMovie are jerks. And there are a lot of them.
Adobe Premiere has MANY MANY MANY severe stability problems (especially when coupled with our AJA video-preview equipment). The only reason we (and most post houses are using it) is that it keeps the same project file paradigm that FCP7 used.
Side Note: On "Pro" vs. Consumer— I am also of the mind that you are a "professional" if you're getting paid to do something. Crayons are a professional tool if you use them to make something you get paid for. So pick the right tool and shut up.
But once I delved past the interface, I realized how problematic it would be to use it at our boutique production company. We have lots of shared fibre-channel RAID space where we store media (and access as read-only the vast majority of the time), but then pass around small project files as we're making selects. But the way FCPX handles this data is bad for collaborative environments like ours. Everything is stored in one folder. In that folder there's a separate file for the meta-data you've labelled on clips. A different file that actually contains your sequence. And then also all of the transcoded clips are kept there, too. Meaning if you want to pass selects and a sequence around, you're either passing around multi-gigabyte folders all the time, or carefully replacing sequence and meta-data files behind FCPX's back, constantly. In addition, because it uses iMovie's "events" structure, you are constantly staring at unrelated items in your bin unless you move those files out of the working folder. It's a lot of unnecessary file shuffling.
Couple this with the fact that it uses iMove lingo like "events" and "projects" instead of "projects" and "sequences," and one could see why my company is not using FCPX.
Which is a shame, because under-the-hood, it is absolutely amazing. I will probably use it at home for future personal projects (where I don't need to worry about shuffling project files and selects), but it is not appropriate for collaboration.
Also: The people who rejected FCPX before even trying it because it merely looked like iMovie are jerks. And there are a lot of them.
Adobe Premiere has MANY MANY MANY severe stability problems (especially when coupled with our AJA video-preview equipment). The only reason we (and most post houses are using it) is that it keeps the same project file paradigm that FCP7 used.
Side Note: On "Pro" vs. Consumer— I am also of the mind that you are a "professional" if you're getting paid to do something. Crayons are a professional tool if you use them to make something you get paid for. So pick the right tool and shut up.
Last edited:
I am editing in FCPX as we speak and took a break and saw this article. I am using FCPX because I can read mp4 right away and the sort of things I am doing are very basic but nothing like FCP 7. FCP 7 was the answer when it came out.
For the project I am now I will keep using FCPX but I will dig back to Premiere since it was the software I was using before FCP7.
For the millennials out there....
When the Mac were beige the only softwares out there were Premiere and Avid. Avid was super expensive and Premiere was very nice. there were other software but basically Avid and Premiere were the top ones.
Apple came up with Final Cut and no one was using it, it was ok but basic. Then Apple came up with OSX and a new version of Final Cut that was rock solid, I believe it was FC3. I remember runing FC3 in my 12" Powerbook back in 2004 and that was how I ate for 2 years, just having a separate 20" Apple display.
Some how Abobe didn't release their OSX compatible version of Premiere and people ended up migrating to FCP. Then Apple came up with the rest of the suite. What Apple did was buying other softwares and trying to make a compatible package. By the time Premiere came up with an OSX the market was taken.
The problem is that somehow Apple dropped the development of FCP7 to release FCPX. Why??? Imaging if Apple stops production of everything and start to build blenders or lingerie, now you Mac has no support any more. That is what Apple did.
Apple lost a load of trust. I still having clients running FCP7 and if they migrate they will with Premiere and have FCPX as an option, like an app there in the corner.
For the project I am now I will keep using FCPX but I will dig back to Premiere since it was the software I was using before FCP7.
For the millennials out there....
When the Mac were beige the only softwares out there were Premiere and Avid. Avid was super expensive and Premiere was very nice. there were other software but basically Avid and Premiere were the top ones.
Apple came up with Final Cut and no one was using it, it was ok but basic. Then Apple came up with OSX and a new version of Final Cut that was rock solid, I believe it was FC3. I remember runing FC3 in my 12" Powerbook back in 2004 and that was how I ate for 2 years, just having a separate 20" Apple display.
Some how Abobe didn't release their OSX compatible version of Premiere and people ended up migrating to FCP. Then Apple came up with the rest of the suite. What Apple did was buying other softwares and trying to make a compatible package. By the time Premiere came up with an OSX the market was taken.
The problem is that somehow Apple dropped the development of FCP7 to release FCPX. Why??? Imaging if Apple stops production of everything and start to build blenders or lingerie, now you Mac has no support any more. That is what Apple did.
Apple lost a load of trust. I still having clients running FCP7 and if they migrate they will with Premiere and have FCPX as an option, like an app there in the corner.
"Many editors called the new FCPX 'iMovie Lite,' when it was released, and not ready for the big leagues, but Ficarra says he likes that FCPX is easier to use, and that it's look and feel is akin to iMovie. 'We have a whole generation of kids learning on iMovie,' he says. 'They'll be familiar with this tool when they get into the real world.'"
No, I used iMovie since I got my first Mac in 2004 and never updated past iMovie HD '06 because '08 was such a horrible mess both in terms of the interface and in terms of stability/speed. And the latest iMovie is still a horrible mess. Holy cow, I gave up on it and used Garageband instead to edit a video one time. I'd rather use Windows Movie Maker. Maybe FCPX looks like the ≥'08 versions but looks nothing like the GOOD versions of iMovie. And I'm not saying anything bad about FCPX under the hood, just the interface. I've only ever looked at it.
FCE does look kinda like iMovie '06 and was pretty easy for me to learn. I really like FCE; too bad they abandoned it.
----------
The sad part is that iWork isn't even for professionals only. So many classmates I know used it, loved it, and were appalled by the new version. I'm still using '09 for anything I don't do in LaTeX.
No, I used iMovie since I got my first Mac in 2004 and never updated past iMovie HD '06 because '08 was such a horrible mess both in terms of the interface and in terms of stability/speed. And the latest iMovie is still a horrible mess. Holy cow, I gave up on it and used Garageband instead to edit a video one time. I'd rather use Windows Movie Maker. Maybe FCPX looks like the ≥'08 versions but looks nothing like the GOOD versions of iMovie. And I'm not saying anything bad about FCPX under the hood, just the interface. I've only ever looked at it.
FCE does look kinda like iMovie '06 and was pretty easy for me to learn. I really like FCE; too bad they abandoned it.
----------
The sad part is that iWork isn't even for professionals only. So many classmates I know used it, loved it, and were appalled by the new version. I'm still using '09 for anything I don't do in LaTeX.
I am assuming once Apple releases the display they will come up with a way to hook up to an update nMP. I understand the current MP can't handle it. So just being hopeful here.
I have been attempting to use FCPX on and off since its release, and still find it more frustrating than rewarding. I am not a professional movie editor, I just create content for the web (I do get paid though!). With Final Cut Pro 5,6,7 I found everything intuitive and easy. I learned the basics of the program in a morning and I never had any issues with usability. When I use FCPX I am constantly Googling to figure out how to do the simplest of things. It drives me crazy. I especially hate skimming over clips. It is so noisy and distracting and I am always making things active that I don't want to be active all over the interface. It basically took the joy out of editing for me. I've not given up though. One of these days I'll get it. it's only been 4 years after all.
I just edited a commercial on FCPX and when you learn it, it's just so much faster to get things done than Premier imho.
It was shot on RED EPIC in 4K and I can play those files natively straight away, I can access a lot of the same metadata settings as REDCINE-X has from within FCPX as well.
It's miles away from iMovie.
I can't speak of big collaboration, but I know of one TV show that is on the main broadcaster here that uses FCPX, they are only 2 editors though.
Most of FCPX power functions are hidden, more of them could be out in the open I think though.
Oh and did I say how everything stays in sync no matter how much you grow things around with out thinking about it?
Example: I had a piece of music that was synced to a speed change in the middle of the commercial. I wanted to shorten the part before this, and I can chop away and the music change is still synced to the later part of the piece during all of this. Brilliant
It was shot on RED EPIC in 4K and I can play those files natively straight away, I can access a lot of the same metadata settings as REDCINE-X has from within FCPX as well.
It's miles away from iMovie.
I can't speak of big collaboration, but I know of one TV show that is on the main broadcaster here that uses FCPX, they are only 2 editors though.
Most of FCPX power functions are hidden, more of them could be out in the open I think though.
Oh and did I say how everything stays in sync no matter how much you grow things around with out thinking about it?
Example: I had a piece of music that was synced to a speed change in the middle of the commercial. I wanted to shorten the part before this, and I can chop away and the music change is still synced to the later part of the piece during all of this. Brilliant
Obviously these guys decided that FCPX was the best solution for them.
Others have decided that Premier is best for them.
Another group have decided that Avid was better for them.
There's another group who find that Vegas works best for them.
Some others edit on Lightworks.
A group have decided Edius works best for them.
There's even some who prefer to edit in Smoke.
Why is this even an issue? We use something because it is best for our project, not because someone else says it's 'the best NLE'.
Furthermore, the basic concept of editing remains the same whether you're editing digital or cutting film. The technology simply drives the art.
Others have decided that Premier is best for them.
Another group have decided that Avid was better for them.
There's another group who find that Vegas works best for them.
Some others edit on Lightworks.
A group have decided Edius works best for them.
There's even some who prefer to edit in Smoke.
Why is this even an issue? We use something because it is best for our project, not because someone else says it's 'the best NLE'.
Furthermore, the basic concept of editing remains the same whether you're editing digital or cutting film. The technology simply drives the art.
A nice rant, but like most people who rant about FCPX, you're just ignoring facts. There are many stories about FCPX being used in both movies and TV shows, and i am currently in the process of helping rolling out FCPX at the BBC here in the UK. It will soon be one of the primary editors for newsgathering, and is being rolled out to other departments too. I'd say the BBC were professionals!
Sorry, not true. I'm LA-based, and our commercial house is FCPX and Avid, and we lean mostly on FCPX. Radical Media NY, a huge house is FCPX. Your experience doesn't equal everyone else's. You should educate yourself on the capabilities of the software before ranting. It's just an NLE, after all.
Avid still remains entrenched in long-form studio pictures, but there are a lot of indies using Premiere and FCPX (and also still FCP7 as well). As for short-form, meaning music videos and commercials, FCPX has made a lot of inroads.
This was the case in 10.0, but is no longer true. The current version of FCP X allows not only a separate Library for each job, but allows you to store your media external to the Library. You can store your media on a shared RAID and multiple editors can use small, no-media libraries to edit independently. You can pass edits around using transfer libraries or XML files. It's much better than it used to be for professional workflows.
This isn't true. We have multiple seats and use shared storage over 10 GbE fibre, and share media almost in the exact same way as FCP7. You don't have to store your media in the library... you can use it just like a FCP7 project. The libraries just link to external media on your shared storage, the same as before, and the are very small in size. It sounds like you're trying to muck around inside the library package itself, but you don't have a very clear idea of how it works. If you know how to share sequences and cuts in FCP7, it works exactly the same way.
I work at one of the biggest post houses in the DC area/east coast. I'm a motion graphics person so I'm sorta a different view point on this.
I can tell you that for people like myself that use AE and Premiere but never learned FC7 or Avid, that when I looked at FCX, it was very very intuitive and made sense from a design/user perspective.
The editors here won't even touch FCX because of preconceived notions and the whole 'i-movie' thing...along with obvious truths to how it was released and how bad it was.
But like I tell these guys, the end client does not care how you get the work done. If it looks the same as something else done on premiere or avid and it's faster and cheaper the client doesn't care.
Basically the old school does not want the tools to get into the hands of the common folk. This was the same way with the AVID DS and other editing systems back in the early 2000s.
I can tell you that for people like myself that use AE and Premiere but never learned FC7 or Avid, that when I looked at FCX, it was very very intuitive and made sense from a design/user perspective.
The editors here won't even touch FCX because of preconceived notions and the whole 'i-movie' thing...along with obvious truths to how it was released and how bad it was.
But like I tell these guys, the end client does not care how you get the work done. If it looks the same as something else done on premiere or avid and it's faster and cheaper the client doesn't care.
Basically the old school does not want the tools to get into the hands of the common folk. This was the same way with the AVID DS and other editing systems back in the early 2000s.