Apple Updates Final Cut Pro X with Multicam Support, Advanced Chroma Keying, and XML Support

[NY Guitarist]

I have Express 4, had Studio 3, and have FCPX. I've used all this software you're talking about. You look like the biggest moron ever for saying a) you've never used FCPX, b) but you know all about it anyway, c) it's really just another Express, and d) having the nerve to call anyone else 'stupid.' You're nothing more than a garden-variety Internet troll. And everybody knows it. You probably can't even play guitar either.

You got me! I'm totally just a troll. And I don't even own a guitar, but I have seen them! And I have a inferiority complex too.

Relax, enjoy your day. I know I will enjoy mine. Clearly this isn't a constructive
exchange, so I'm moving on.

I look forward to playing with the FCPX demo, and who knows, maybe even buy it!

 

[charlituna]

Noboy is leaving prosumer FCPX, right? Everyone is staying put with Apple since they are SO devoted to their professional video post-production clients?

Just guys like these:

http://magazine.creativecow.net/article/real-world-editing

A reality TV show company that has the goal of making their stuff as cheaply as possible no real shock they go with the company that allows them flexibility of hardware. They can save money using PCs over Macs.

----------

Nothing against FCPx, but in my experience I haven't seen a single post/production house use it to cut video. I have been seeing a lot more Premiere...

Rather like MovieCutters "Most of Us" i.e. "my friends" comments, yours is a statement without context. It means something vastly different if you have only been to 5 houses compared to if you have been to 500.

So which houses exactly have you visited.

 

[mrxak]

We're in the process of writing to Apple to obtain a refund for our purchase of FCPX. We've had projects revert back to previous versions, losing hours of editing. We've had transitions fail on export with no way of fixing them. We've had too many crashes...

We're a charity and can't afford to suck up the cost and wait for Apple to fix the issues.

Good luck with that. You switched to a complete rewrite while your old versions were still working just fine, without doing the proper research first or testing the software on test machines/projects. Whatever charity you are, I hope it's not for something too important if this is how you manage your money buying upgrades you don't need and haven't properly vetted.

"Has some issues"? There were major features REMOVED from the app, it's not like it was a new release with a few bugs here and there. And it was released with no announcement that those features would ever be added back in. Sometimes Apple does the rewrite/remove/add thing, but other times they remove features and never bring them back, or take years.

Example - how's that new version of Quicktime "pro" treating you? And how long ago were all the features stripped out when it got the 64 bit rewrite - wasn't that when 10.6 first shipped?

The reaction to the FCX release was pretty much the opposite of neurotic, it was perfectly appropriate for a botched release.

Oh yeah? Apple went in and deleted all your old existing software did they? Shame on them!

You're just as bad as MIDI_EVIL, not doing the proper research before you upgrade, and upgrading when your existing software still works fine.

Elitism has nothing to do with getting the job done. Ever work in a situation where the job has to get done, NOW, or else. No time for casual, "hmmm let me figure this out" stuff. It just has to work the way it's supposed to.

If my editing platform changes and drops features that are essential to my situation I change to a platform that does work. If I no longer have confidence or trust that a particular platform will support my needs or that of the company I own, run, or work with, I will move to a platform that seems trustworthy.

For the people who think it's all about elitism, all I can say is it is about business, same as it is for Apple. Thats been my experience for decades.

Your editing platform didn't change, Apple just released a new platform. It is up to you to decide whether to change to it or something else. If Apple's new platform does not meet your needs, stick with what you got. If your workflow is incompatible with Apple's new platform, stick with what you got. Don't go out and buy something else just out of spite.

It's really not that complicated.

All this talk of not being able to trust Apple ever again is hilarious from people claiming to be in business. I can't imagine how you stay in business if you behave so erratically and irrationally with regards to your platforms. Keep evaluating your options. If you must upgrade right now, then choose what is best for you right now. If you don't, don't upgrade! If you do someday in the future, evaluate your options then and choose what is best for you then, no matter who makes it.

I should think, as an outsider to the video industry but a creative professional nonetheless, that any large firm worth its salt is going to be using a variety of tools, is able to adapt to many different workflows, and can afford to add new tools to their arsenal as needed. A number of people here have already mentioned they are familiar with and have installed all of the big three. That strikes me as to be expected.

Smaller firms, even one-man freelance operations, are probably going to be on a smaller budget, and as such perhaps won't be so upgrade-happy anyway, and can afford to wait and see how things shake out with Apple's pro line-up. Whatever they have now will still work whether they add a new tool or not.

Again, I don't work in the video industry, but I use a variety of software tools to do my work, and I recognize the most basic rule of business when it comes to software. I don't upgrade my software unless I need to upgrade my software. There has to be a compelling reason for me to change, features I can't live without, and I have to be able to do my existing job just as easily or better with the new tools. Either it helps me compete better to justify the cost, or I don't spend my money. Why is it that you whiny video guys don't seem to understand this? I guess it explains stuff like Hollywood Accounting. You're operating in a totally different and bizarre business world than the rest of us mere mortals.

 

[milo]

Apple went in and deleted all your old existing software did they?

Nice straw man argument. Next time try responding to what I actually wrote.

 

[mBox]

A reality TV show company that has the goal of making their stuff as cheaply as possible no real shock they go with the company that allows them flexibility of hardware. They can save money using PCs over Macs...

Maybe they are making money if moving to Avid is so much cheaper (It isnt ).
That news piece reads like a freakin self advertisement.
Heck Im suprised a lot of post-houses didnt join in on that after the Conan video.
Any publicity is good right?

 

[Kevin Monahan]

That last sentence is the key one. Different needs. Reality TV shows are about making the product for the cheapest possible price so that you make the most profit off the ratings. Anything and every thing that can bring down costs and still produce the product is a win.

Sorry, but you are so wrong about Bunim-Murray. It's not only about the bottom line. It's about delivering a quality product in short amount of time with lots and lots of staff all pitching in on one product. I've toured the facility and the VP of post-production is one of my colleagues.

While it may be cheaper to produce for the network over something like "24", reality shows are made because they are popular, not only because they are less expensive to produce.

I would hazard that most of these shows and the companies that make them were thinking of leaving FCP (if they ever used it)

Bunim-Murray was an Avid house, then switched to FCP/XSAN. One of the largest installs I have ever seen.

way before X came out simply because Avid and Premiere aren't restricted to just Apple Hardware. Apple Hardware is way more expensive than PC so having the choice of which you use without having to change your software is a plus.

Also, not true. Bunim-Murray has a huge stash of Macs-they are probably still using those. Generic PC "hardware" isn't used in any large post operation. For a setup like that, proprietary systems (that are not cheap) are used whether on Mac or PC (UNITY, XSAN). PC workstations are a bit cheaper than MacPros, but properly outfitted, not by much.

Bunim-Murray got a look at FCPX a few months in advance of its release in Cupertino. It was probably at that time they made their decision.

 

[Kevin Monahan]

Oh and Adobe, yeah there's a piece of work for you. Adobe and Apple couldnt seem to figure what the heck was up with their 2GB file limit using AFP/SMB.
Both are to blame, we fixed it by not rendering to QT Uncompressed.
I even tried to bring this up at last years NAB but got the total run-around by their so called Software Engineers. I think I would have rather been dumped on by a booth babe

We know about the problem, but the issue is out of our hands now (read: it's in another company's court). We await their fix.

 

[mBox]

We know about the problem, but the issue is out of our hands now (read: it's in another company's court). We await their fix.

Thanks but man its almost two years since this came up!

 

[danimal99]

To get away from the arguments, I finally had a chance to try out some of the new features here at work where I have a 27" i5 iMac with 8GB. (As opposed to my own Core 2 Duo MacBook Pro with 8GB)

I pulled in one of my other projects, a wedding I shot by myself in fall 2010 with a 3 camera mixed-source (size and frame rate) setup. The ceremony was about 45 minutes long, so three clips starting at different times, all at different lengths. On that one, I originally edited it in Final Cut Pro 7, using its muticamera features, on my Macbook Pro. And that worked great- once I got the clips sync'd. Because I didn't have a uniform timecode between the sources, and no opportunity to strike a clapboard as the ceremony began, I had to find a common point between the three angles. I finally found a camera flash that was visible in all three and synced the clips with a marker on each.

Fast forward to 2012, and FCPX. I selected the three original clips, and created a new multicam clip, with all default settings, using the audio tracks for synchronization. It took less than a minute to add the new clip to the library- so fast that I assumed it hadn't worked. But, I loaded it up in the angle editor, and it's perfectly synchronized! I think it took me something like 2 hours to get it just right in FCP 7, as well as creating some intermediate clips because each camera shot a different format.

So far so good! Anyone else having success with this new release?

 

[mBox]

So far so good! Anyone else having success with this new release?

At this point for me, as long as it opens all previous projects and not act up would make me happy.
However on that note, I had it open yesterday and worked on it for a few hours.
It was great. Took the Projects/Events home and finished up a few things at home.
I brought it back everything seems fine but I lost the Viewer window somehow?
Its there visually but none of the videos will play on it.
My set-ups at work are Dual 30s.
Home system a single 24".
Hoping that doesnt have anything to do with it.

 

[danimal99]

One thing I noticed when I opened the Multicamera clip, it didn't appear in the Angle editor view by default, but the regular single view instead. This may be by design, but I expected to see all the angles, and just had to go find it in the menu to switch to it.

Maybe your project got onto an alternate view somehow, and just needs to be reset to the standard playback view before you can see your clips?

 

[mBox]

One thing I noticed when I opened the Multicamera clip, it didn't appear in the Angle editor view by default, but the regular single view instead. This may be by design, but I expected to see all the angles, and just had to go find it in the menu to switch to it.

Maybe your project got onto an alternate view somehow, and just needs to be reset to the standard playback view before you can see your clips?

Hey isnt this nice we can talk about it now Ill give that a look again later. Middle of other fires
And I will also save your post about the Multi.
Its been awhile since we've done a multicam job here and this will help if it does arise

 

[zync]

You must be addressing someone else while quoting my post; I haven't been engaging in any pissing contests. My point is that Apple seems to care about those things because their marketing of FCP prominently features well known (i.e. Hollywood) users. The same .01% that a lot of you folks complain about. I think no matter what segment of post you work in, you are interested in the tools you use to your job.

I was just using your turn of phrase. That's why I didn't specifically quote you. I also assume the "you folks" wasn't directed at me.

 

[wonderspark]

To get away from the arguments, I finally had a chance to try out some of the new features here at work where I have a 27" i5 iMac with 8GB. (As opposed to my own Core 2 Duo MacBook Pro with 8GB)

I pulled in one of my other projects, a wedding I shot by myself in fall 2010 with a 3 camera mixed-source (size and frame rate) setup. The ceremony was about 45 minutes long, so three clips starting at different times, all at different lengths. On that one, I originally edited it in Final Cut Pro 7, using its muticamera features, on my Macbook Pro. And that worked great- once I got the clips sync'd. Because I didn't have a uniform timecode between the sources, and no opportunity to strike a clapboard as the ceremony began, I had to find a common point between the three angles. I finally found a camera flash that was visible in all three and synced the clips with a marker on each.

Fast forward to 2012, and FCPX. I selected the three original clips, and created a new multicam clip, with all default settings, using the audio tracks for synchronization. It took less than a minute to add the new clip to the library- so fast that I assumed it hadn't worked. But, I loaded it up in the angle editor, and it's perfectly synchronized! I think it took me something like 2 hours to get it just right in FCP 7, as well as creating some intermediate clips because each camera shot a different format.

So far so good! Anyone else having success with this new release?

I tried it out again last night. I brought some clips in from the movie I'm editing. It was shot on 5D, so the video clip has sound attached. Synced the poly (multitrack) wav files to the clips, and of course found all clips missed the slate sync clap by the same one or two frames that the camera mic audio was off by. You still have to break apart the audio/video tracks and manually sync poly audio to the clapper, so it doesn't save me any time from my normal editing suite in that respect.

Once I get time to really learn to use it efficiently, FCP X could be nice. I'll keep my options open as things progress, but for now, I prefer other tools because I know the workflow backwards and forwards.

I understand the aggravation people are having about having to relearn a whole new workflow, but I don't understand why the people that *are* using FCP X are so passionate about getting others to like it. Who cares if other people hate it? I can only guess it's because they think that if nobody uses it, Apple will abandon it as a failure or something. I say relax... plenty of people will buy it, and Apple will keep working on it as their priorities deem necessary. If it ends up being dropped, so what. There are plenty of choices out there that work just as well.

You don't buy something because it's popular... you buy it because it works best for you. Same goes for cars, food, music, phones, clothes and anything else you can think of.

 

[MacAddict1978]

What I don't understand is why Apple didn't make it more clear they were going to add these features back. I understand their need for secrecy, but sometimes they seriously overdo it.

Um, they did. On day one actually. This is where all the beta jokes came from.

They never screwed us over, they just nuked the fridge and forced us to look elsewhere to invest our money in equipment and future roadmaps. We can adapt, but we can't keep using your product when you cut key professional features with no CLEAR roadmap as to when or if we'll get those features back. That being said, I'll play around with this, but my industry has already moved on, so it'll only do me any good on my personal projects.

The people that voted down your original post are clueless and obviously not professionals.

I don't think most of the people posting know how the real world works. When your company finally says, "hey, we're giving you a budget this year for technology upgrades" that means, "you MUST use this budget THIS year because you don't get it again for another 5 fiscal years." (or whatever their cycle is.)

Professionals aren't going to continue to use old hardware and software in a competitive space. If the competition is offering the next gen fix, you spend the money while you have it on that. You don't wait for a long over due app to get updates it should have launched with on day one.

The other side that most of these people don't get.... in most cases, that means Apple might lose out on hardware sales as well. Their pro line is way over due... and again, you need to spend the budget when you have the budget.

Budgets aren't like your vacation time... they don't carry over or get the luxury of being saved for a rainy day.

----------

This makes me wonder - why the hell if people are bitching and moaning about the lack of features in X or Y, they don't develop an editing system themselves or at least pay somebody to do it. The practicalities of that are virtually zero (who has the time or the money) but if you need the features to fit into your workflow, that's what it's got to be - or you can try appealing to existing vendors, but that's no guarantee to get what you want.

You answered yourself, mate. It's money. It's also not usually their area of expertise either. These types of programs are sold to content creators... not software makers. Big corporations are very strict with budget allotments, and small business needs an in the box solution more than anyone for lack of re$ources.

 

[chirpie]

Almost all have downloaded FCPX, but none use it for anything and we're all waiting for it to become something usable.

In an attempt to move this debate forward, what features would cause you to give it another serious look?

For myself, a straightforward print to tape and external monitoring support (which might be taken care of with the beta broadcast monitoring in this release) would be the nails on the coffin for FP7 at our workplace.

Everything else that was major made it into this update for us.

 

[Leddy]

The reputation of a line of products is largely dependent upon the top of the line. By definition, the top of the line sells far fewer units than the mass market items. As just one example, Nikon and Canon have $8000 camera bodies at the top of the line. They don't sell that many--most of the profits come from the middle of the line and most of the sales units come from the bottom of the line. That's the nature of the business. If you abandon the early adopters and power users at the top, you'll lose the customers in the middle and the bottom. Apple needs to understand that. They did in the past, but their great success selling phones, pods and pads have warped their sensibilities. Apple needs to decide whether they simply want to sell the most or whether they still want to sell the best. If they only want to sell mass units, not only will they abandon towers, they'll abandon the entire Mac line because that's not where the units are.

This is Apple's problem in a nutshell - lose the early adopters and influencers and you lose everyone eventually.

People didn't jump ship, as many seem to be implying, on a knee-jerk reaction. FCP was long overdue for an update, and what was delivered was something which required a whole new learning process and fell far short of the requirements of anyone working in a broadcast environment, or needing to deliver programs for broadcast. It's Final Cut Pro, not Home Movie Studio or Movie Maker for Noobs ... It was supposedly a Pro app, but was missing 90% of the tools that Pros needed.

Add to that the investment that many broadcast environments had in Apple server solutions, FCP server etc. - all EOL.

Not exactly the best way to promote your commitment to your user-base.

Since FCP was long in the tooth and people were looking to upgrade anyway it just took that lack of commitment to push many into exploring the alternatives.

Adobe and Avid aren't standing still and the learning curve to switch is not that great. Certainly less than learning a new way of editing, which is important if you're trying to belt out programs on a daily/weekly basis.

It's great that Apple is updating X, but not surprising that many have abandoned the thought of using it altogether.

If Apple hadn't chosen to shoot itself in the foot, then they sure did a good job of it anyway.

----------

In an attempt to move this debate forward, what features would cause you to give it another serious look?

For myself, a straightforward print to tape and external monitoring support (which might be taken care of with the beta broadcast monitoring in this release) would be the nails on the coffin for FP7 at our workplace.

Everything else that was major made it into this update for us.

Did OMF export make it in? Out of sync indicators? Persistent in and out points?

 

[Dranix]

People didn't jump ship, as many seem to be implying, on a knee-jerk reaction. FCP was long overdue for an update, and what was delivered was something which required a whole new learning process and fell far short of the requirements of anyone working in a broadcast environment, or needing to deliver programs for broadcast. It's Final Cut Pro, not Home Movie Studio or Movie Maker for Noobs ... It was supposedly a Pro app, but was missing 90% of the tools that Pros needed.

Yes the name is FinalCut Pro and not FinalCut Broadcast .

Why is it so hard for you people working in broadcast to accept that you aren't the definition of pro? Never found an area where such a amount of elitism is dominant 8(

 

[ekwipt]

You don't work in a post-production house or in broadcast do you? My firm is in the process of moving to Premiere. The news organization I used to work for is in the process of doing the same. Buddies who cut in LA and NYC have already jumped ship to Avid Media Composer. So when I say "most of us", I mean most of the editors I know and interact with regularly who span the industry. It's a pretty good sample.

Sort of agree i just think most places firmed up on Avid, Premiere is not even in the race yet. A lot of the places i'm in still use the last version of FCP released, most will probably gauge where FCPx is heading and then move on from there.

A year is nothing in the post world, some place i've worked at are still on MCP3 LOL.

For me at the moment:

1. Avid
2. FCPX
3. Adobe

Looking at buying a new DSLR camera so will give FCPX a bit more of a go

 

[xiaotuanzi]

Or they could have focused on the basic features first and made sure the foundation was solid, released it for feedback at a drastically reduced price, and then added the more advanced features on top of that solid foundation over time.

 

[danimal99]

Or they could have focused on the basic features first and made sure the foundation was solid, released it for feedback at a drastically reduced price, and then added the more advanced features on top of that solid foundation over time.

It is already at a drastically reduced price. This is something that frustrates me as a software engineer to no end. You give someone absolutely incredible value for the price, and there are always people coming in saying how something is too expensive. Software does not write itself, and software like FCPX, that actually makes a lot of extremely complex tasks deceptively simple, is an outrageous bargain in this market. To say otherwise is an insult to those who design and write the code you people take for granted.

 

[linuxcooldude]

One thing I noticed when I opened the Multicamera clip, it didn't appear in the Angle editor view by default, but the regular single view instead.

i seen this as well. It seems drag and dropping the multicam clip to the timeline gives you a single clip. When you double click it it separates into two tracks. I found if you double click on the clip it will separate it into all the video tracks you synced together onto the storyline.


After much reading, I can see why it took so much time to add multicam feature into FCP X. It seems to be far superior to most other editors.

Multicam is capable of taking different resolutions, frames rates & mixed formats. I don't think FCP 7 had this feature. Seems most others had to be simular type video. Its also capable of syncing by timecode, time & date, or marker as well as audio syncing.

Isn't syncing by audio a FCP X exclusive?

Not sure which of the other editors can do that of the features I mentioned. Maybe except marker and timecode.

 

[chirpie]

Did OMF export make it in? Out of sync indicators? Persistent in and out points?

No, OMF didn't but there's something in X that may actually be nearly the equal or better than persistent in and out points. Don't rely just on what's come before. Read this for the FYI on this point.

http://www.broadcastnewsroom.com/article/My-Favorite-Things-1831054

I don't mean this as a snobby counter, only that there's a possibility there's some great stuff in this program you don't know about.

 

[RoboCop001]

So why don't we all use the Feedback page here: http://www.apple.com/feedback/finalcutpro.html

And ask for all the features we really need.

And there's also Tim Cook's email address. And perhaps some other key email addresses to. I'm sure they're findable.

This, instead of switching, which may just end up hurting it even more. Just continue to use your current FCP setup, like I - and I'm sure many others - would love to do. Because it still works and you don't always need the latest just because it's out now. I don't want to switch from Final Cut. Unless it becomes absolutely necessary in a year or so.

I want FCP to stay awesome. And FCPX goes in a great direction for many things, but falls short in some key areas. But that can change.

 

[Leddy]

Yes the name is FinalCut Pro and not FinalCut Broadcast .

Why is it so hard for you people working in broadcast to accept that you aren't the definition of pro? Never found an area where such a amount of elitism is dominant 8(

Hi Dranix, I'm sorry if I offended you or if my post smacks of elitism - I was merely pointing out that if you're going to leave out half the features a program had previously, and still call it the same name then you're asking for trouble - especially when you've built up such a rabid following. It took Apple an age to communicate what was coming back and what they thought people could do without, and only then because the uproar was so loud at the time.

I don't work in broadcast, but I can understand the frustration of the people who do and why they have jumped ship in some cases.

I'm still on FCP7 until the dust settles some more - I have X but it's going to be a while before I decide whether I can work with it the way I need to - OMF export is quite crucial for the work I do and the workarounds are not that efficient.


Cheers.

----------

No, OMF didn't but there's something in X that may actually be nearly the equal or better than persistent in and out points. Don't rely just on what's come before. Read this for the FYI on this point.

http://www.broadcastnewsroom.com/article/My-Favorite-Things-1831054

I don't mean this as a snobby counter, only that there's a possibility there's some great stuff in this program you don't know about.

Thanks for the link Chirpie - I'm sure that there are a lot of nifty new features in X and I have an open mind regarding the possibility of using it in future.

(Which is something I wouldn't have entertained last year shortly after the release )