Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
I've used FCP for 10 years, and have now tested FCP X. I use and understand the tools, and wasn't defending the new version.

I was saying that I can't understand how he could get mad about something he knew nothing about. Quite different, no? "Some updates will cost". If that means that a new big update to FCP X in a couple years will cost some money, how is that a surprise? That could be all that was meant by "some will cost", that's all I'm saying.

Its because your right. It makes total sense to expect that FCX 10.5 or 11 would be paid upgrades and there will be many minor unpaid upgrades between those.
 
So what are you moving to and how are the transition costs lower thab thosevtomFCP X with some additional costs? Also - how does the release of FCP X make a move from FCP 7 more urgent to you? Or were you planning to switch software even before the release of FCP X? Finally - FCP X is not the end of the road, bur rather the OS X for movie professionals.

I think you would save money and a lot of pain by considering to wait and see whether the version following FCP X makes a move less necessary. Unless you're in an urge to leave FCP 7 NOW, whatever the price. This software is very much alive.
It's alive for some projects, but the lack of ability to work with R3D natively and/or with 4K files efficiently kill it for other projects. FCPX would have solved one half of those two problems, but alas, it's not to be.
 
"XSAN support for FCPX coming in the next few weeks..."

Next few weeks is nice to hear. Coming from a Lion-launch, or FCP X update you guys think?

Also, will not XML in/out perhaps allow for some migration of projects between FCP 7/X? Or at least enable third parties to make utilities for opening old projects?

Well, its like opening an edl. You coud certainly open up the sequence, but there would be no media there. You have to batch capture (oh, if you could ingest by tape that is!!), but that not much use of you don't have the original media!
 
Last edited:
The breaking point for me are these comments on available "via 3rd party" this is never the way to go for basic core functions. I want a integrated system and not have to install 30 different programs to get FCP 7 then have one or more of them break when Apple updates the OS.

This reminds me of "Few customers want to be a system's integrator."
 
There is a horrible misconception at Apple regarding what makes a software smart and easy to use recently. They think they have to cater to the kind of idiots that don't even get, that they can load music to their iPhone (I have met such people, really).

Do you really believe that Randy Ubilos' (the father of Premiere Pro, FCP, and FCPX) was to make an app for novices? It looks to me like he was trying to make an app that let's editors focus on editing and creativity, not working around limitations of their toolset. Most of the complaining has been about import, export, and interfaces with other software. These are details that can, and will be quickly resolved. The only big mistake by Apple, that they seem to be resolving here, is the lack of an announcement about the ability to continue to buy FCP7 seats for larger shops.
 
The FCPX saga is getting a little tired now (for me at least), but I appreciate some people are concerned about the future of software they depend on. These things usually work out pretty well in the long run -- look at the initial reaction to OS X, for instance, as highlighted by HP the other day. As a programmer I've personally been through several major shifts in the platforms I work with over the years. Again, it always worked out pretty well, and I'm actually very glad that people are always trying to change and improve stuff that we come to take for granted. It keeps things fresh and interesting.

Would you consider it an improvement to axe Objective C and replace it with AppleScript X? :D

(not an FCP user but that seems to be the crux of the argument)
 
Do you really believe that Randy Ubilos' (the father of Premiere Pro, FCP, and FCPX) was to make an app for novices? It looks to me like he was trying to make an app that let's editors focus on editing and creativity, not working around limitations of their toolset. Most of the complaining has been about import, export, and interfaces with other software. These are details that can, and will be quickly resolved. The only big mistake by Apple, that they seem to be resolving here, is the lack of an announcement about the ability to continue to buy FCP7 seats for larger shops.

What do you think of the rumors he designed FCPX to edit his holiday movies?
 
With all these forums pages for the fcx, i really would hope the people commenting are editors who earn their wages from final cut. If not, please stay out.

You can't turn around and say "well there you go, stop whining now". I have said this before and i will say i one more time. Editors are not complaining about having to learn a new way of editing, the problem with this release is that it does not do the basics. The basics the older software did and that you need it to do to edit!

Apple has dropped the ball on this one, and now they're just kicking it around and by the quotes from the meeting they're not even bothered with getting it fixed. They've even made it impossible to carry over your old projects. No help there to move you over to a new programme!

Post houses will walk away from FC. The don;t have time to possible have something fixed "soon", at a cost. Automatic duck costs another $500! Whats the full cost of getting a working NLE system?
 
What do you think of the rumors he designed FCPX to edit his holiday movies?

Those are not rumours, and if so, that's not how the rumour goes... He made something called First Cut to edit his vacation movies, a long time ago. That was mainly a media management app I believe. Apple liked it, and that become the new iMovie. Now they have made FCP X, and just because First Cut may still carry some influence, that does not translate into "he made FCP X to edit his home movies". At least not in my head.
 
So what are you moving to and how are the transition costs lower than those to FCP X with some additional costs? Also - how does the release of FCP X make a move from FCP 7 more urgent to you? Or were you planning to switch software even before the release of FCP X? Finally - FCP X is not the end of the road, bur rather the OS X for movie professionals.

I think you would save money and a lot of pain by considering to wait and see whether the version following FCP X makes a move less necessary. Unless you're in an urge to leave FCP 7 NOW, whatever the price. This software is very much alive.

I would say that the cost are near. Avid is selling Media Composer for $999. By the time you've paid for automatic duck and all the other 3rd party things to get fcx to the level of fc7 and avid, its the same. After that you're in the same boat eitherway. FC7 projects can't be opened in fcx and avid. But at least with FC7 you could export an edl/xml and then batch capture in avid.
 
I think the problem he has with cost, is because due to 'accounting reasons' Apple 'has' to charge you if they add additional functionality over what shipped at the start.

The Wireless N updates, the iOS updates. If Apple start adding functionality through updates then they can role out the 'accounting' excuse to charge you.

I doubt anyone would have a complaint of upgrading from 10 to 10.1 or so.
 
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; CPU iPhone OS 5_0 like Mac OS X) AppleWebKit/534.46 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/9A5248d Safari/6533.18.5)

Does this hint at XSan updates/ Mac Pro updates?
 
I was saying that I can't understand how he could get mad about something he knew nothing about.

I think that's the glaring point in this entire saga. When your business depends on a particular piece of equipment/software, you don't want to "know nothing about" it. You want a clear roadmap, you want clear indications. This is people's lively hoods we're talking about.

I personally think Apple is not ready for commercial/enterprise deployments precisely because of their culture of secrecy. It just doesn't work when so much planning needs to go into these solutions.
 
Some will cost?

That is pretty much the final straw for our facility. Between the disastrous release itself, dependence upon third parties for partial functionality, and now the prospect that there will be additional Apple costs on top of it all for this amateur piece of junk to even approach the necessities of a professional NLE, it will soon be time to jump ship.

We will play out FCP7 for a few more months, but certainly will not be spending any more money with Apple for their ill-considered, poorly designed hobby software ever again. The dream of those of us who supported FCP for years, putting up with the Avid users mocking the upstart software is over, and it hurts even more that the Avid crowd was eventually justified.

Multicam to cost......
 
Not to use the same, tired-sounding argument, but they shouldn't have tagged the 'Pro' moniker on this if it was lacking some of those 'things'.

As for choice, I had done, for almost a decade, and now have been forced into choosing something else due to seeming utter incompetence on the part of coders who have no understanding of how films and television are actually finished.

You're right, it is indeed a tired argument. It doesn't make a lot of sense either. I know many professionals (people who get paid to do this type of work) who simply don't use the same workflows as those who need those niche features (which, like it or not, they are). It's certainly not a 'consumer' piece of software.

I get that some features that you've grown used to using and implimented into your workflow aren't there in this brand new software, but they will be for a cost and will probably be better off since a third party has to focus on that one feature. This brand new software is less functionality for your workflow, but it is also a hell of a lot cheaper. This isn't really anything to do with coders not knowing how films/TV are made. It's about different people having different workflows and being unable to adapt to different workflows because of investments. I respect that but for the professional work I do (clients include everyone from BBC to local bands to projects shooting at Pinewood), I'm not missing a lot of those features because they simply don't factor into my workflow.

Point is, those features will eventually be there at a cost. Your initial investment in FCPX is cheaper (it'll probably come out the same as previous FCS by the time you factor in these diff plug-ins). But as with all software, assess it. If it doesn't suit your needs, stick to something that does. Not suiting your specific workflow doesn't make it unprofessional, nor does it make it crap. it simply makes it unsuitable for your workflow.

Phew...wall of text over! :)
 
Yes, it upsets me because they sold a piece of software that is basically useless for film professionals and are planning on charging additional fees for functionality. It borders on criminal.

Again, useless for YOUR workflow. I know a few professionals who are using this already as it fits right into, and speeds up, their workflow. Please don't generalise.
 
The FCPX saga is getting a little tired now (for me at least), but I appreciate some people are concerned about the future of software they depend on. These things usually work out pretty well in the long run -- look at the initial reaction to OS X, for instance, as highlighted by HP the other day. As a programmer I've personally been through several major shifts in the platforms I work with over the years. Again, it always worked out pretty well, and I'm actually very glad that people are always trying to change and improve stuff that we come to take for granted. It keeps things fresh and interesting.

Sadly this applies to all software, its the development lifecycle. I am sure everyone would be in arms if people were not able to upgrade thier OS from SL to Lion and key functionality were ripped out of Lion. Or a better example, imagine if Lion was iOS, imagine the uproar then, sure it would be more secure, locked down platform, but I would be really peeved.
 
People just do not get it

Is not about pricing or lack of features, it is about trust. That is why 100% of my colleges are changing to Avid or Adobe.

Apple came to the party and crap in the middle of the floor. No one wants to work with amateur and Apple is showing just that, if you stay with Apple with FCP X you will live a nightmare when the other two are just fine.

Apple dropped the ball.
 
Apple have royally screwed up here, if you are starting out today setting up in post, what do you buy?

Its just arrogance, they need the credibility of professional endorsement for the whole Mac product line and they have gifted this to PC, and handed over a raft of influential "creatives" to boot.

big mistake
 
Apple came to the party and crap in the middle of the floor.

Ah, so that's why people are so upset! I understand then - I wouldn't want that to happen to my floor either.

On a more serious note, I have never "trusted" Apple. I have bought their machines and software when they have served me well, without any false ideas about them being obligated to keep on serving my needs in exactly the same way in the future. Should they in fact come and "crap in my floor", we'll part ways as old partners that have drifted apart. Thus far I have not made up my mind about FCP X, and I probably won't until a couple of months have passed and I know how Apple responds to this whole thing.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.