Most studios are moving production to in house because post has become cheaper. Advances in the tech allows much faster workflow with less people. That means less software sales. It also means the market for a 1000 dollar suite is just not practical.. Hence why it's now 399 in total.
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.
Are you Buying the New Final Cut Pro X?
- Thread starter I AM THE MAN
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Most studios are moving production to in house because post has become cheaper. Advances in the tech allows much faster workflow with less people. That means less software sales. It also means the market for a 1000 dollar suite is just not practical.. Hence why it's now 399 in total.
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3_2 like Mac OS X; en-gb) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8H7 Safari/6533.18.5)
The way I see it is Apple have created a base product that satisfies a wider market's usage at an accessible price point. For genuine pro's any features they want will be available via paid for plug-ins.
This is start of a mini ecosystem where users can shape the product into how they want it. Just need those plug-ins to be created now...
The way I see it is Apple have created a base product that satisfies a wider market's usage at an accessible price point. For genuine pro's any features they want will be available via paid for plug-ins.
This is start of a mini ecosystem where users can shape the product into how they want it. Just need those plug-ins to be created now...
The response to FCP X has been all over the map. By all accounts its an impressive re-write, with some quite spiffy features, but has been received more as an upgrade to iMovie than a successor to FCP 7.
I'm a Graphic Designer and Art Director, I've only dabbled in Video projects. But I have had to do small video projects for professional purpose, so I can appreciate professional needs. On the Design side I literally live and die by Adobe's Design apps. Without them I am literally irrelevant in the publishing world. So I don't need FCP. Won't be buying, but saving up for Creative Suite 5... and the new kit to run it on. The $900 upgrade that costs $4500... but I digress.
Apple's focus seems to be on the pro/sumer space, but in FCP X they seem to have chosen to discard many features that are absolutely essential for professionals. And some of the response has been absolutely livid and hostile in the pro camp. Check out the comments on David Pogue's columns on the NY Times site. One thing that's disturbing is that Apple doesn't seem to care that pros can't interact with the rest of their professional counterparts or software/hardware tools outside the FCP space. For many pros, what's been removed from FCP X make it essentially useless for professional production workflows.
To give you an idea, here is one Pro Editor's take on FCP X:
"...these arent omissions. Theyre mistakes. Theyre conscious, deliberate choices Apple made and got wrong. And as long as FCP X shows you all your bins all the time, and as long as FCP X doesnt have the concept of tracks in the timeline, its going to be literally unusable in commercial post. Because those arent optional features that could be lived without until theyre bolted on in a future update. Theyre fundamental design decisions that dictate how the program works. And as long as the program works that way, its simply not usable by people who edit video for a living." - Jeffery Harrell
WOW.
His article is here:
http://jefferyharrell.tumblr.com/post/6830049685/what-went-wrong-with-final-cut-pro-x
It's very insightful, specific and worth a read.
Over the years, I have generally preferred the Mac as a platform. It's a more elegant and less maintenance-intensive user experience and for the most part gets the frak out of my way and lets me work. But I don't always like Apple, or Mr Jobs. The "hockey puck" mouse went into the drawer and I promptly picked up a two-button USB mouse. Using a logitech multi-button mouse even now. Sometimes we need utility over simplicity or elegance. "Simple" can absolutely equal "dumbed-down" when it gets in the way.
Don't get me started on how insulting and condescending "magical" is to a tech pro. Yeah, I know, "any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic." We're not a bunch of homo erectus howling and flinging zebra bones at the monolith, OK?
With Apple's current relentless pursuit of the "consumer computing" market, they seem to have lost interest in the professional market. But who's creating the apps and content for users to "consume?" The Mac Pro is now the last machine to get love in the upgrade cycle, I recall when Mac towers were first to get the shiny. I certainly can't do pre-press or serious web design on an iPad, appealing little slab of electric crack it may be. I want one, but I need a working machine to keep a roof over and feed my family.
This pretty much sums up where Apple's focus seems to be:
"Final Cut Pro X review: Apple will happily piss off 5,000 professionals to please 5,000,000 amateurs." - Daniel Jalkut, on Twitter (via Daring Fireball)
It's not the specific problems of FCP X that worries me, and there are plenty, it's Apple's ATTITUDE. And it illuminates why at times I feel Apple doesn't always, or necessarily have my interests as a Creative Pro at heart. At one time we were Apple's core and most loyal market, but in recent years I increasingly feel dismissed and kicked to the curb by Apple.
I'm a Graphic Designer and Art Director, I've only dabbled in Video projects. But I have had to do small video projects for professional purpose, so I can appreciate professional needs. On the Design side I literally live and die by Adobe's Design apps. Without them I am literally irrelevant in the publishing world. So I don't need FCP. Won't be buying, but saving up for Creative Suite 5... and the new kit to run it on. The $900 upgrade that costs $4500... but I digress.
Apple's focus seems to be on the pro/sumer space, but in FCP X they seem to have chosen to discard many features that are absolutely essential for professionals. And some of the response has been absolutely livid and hostile in the pro camp. Check out the comments on David Pogue's columns on the NY Times site. One thing that's disturbing is that Apple doesn't seem to care that pros can't interact with the rest of their professional counterparts or software/hardware tools outside the FCP space. For many pros, what's been removed from FCP X make it essentially useless for professional production workflows.
To give you an idea, here is one Pro Editor's take on FCP X:
"...these arent omissions. Theyre mistakes. Theyre conscious, deliberate choices Apple made and got wrong. And as long as FCP X shows you all your bins all the time, and as long as FCP X doesnt have the concept of tracks in the timeline, its going to be literally unusable in commercial post. Because those arent optional features that could be lived without until theyre bolted on in a future update. Theyre fundamental design decisions that dictate how the program works. And as long as the program works that way, its simply not usable by people who edit video for a living." - Jeffery Harrell
WOW.
His article is here:
http://jefferyharrell.tumblr.com/post/6830049685/what-went-wrong-with-final-cut-pro-x
It's very insightful, specific and worth a read.
Over the years, I have generally preferred the Mac as a platform. It's a more elegant and less maintenance-intensive user experience and for the most part gets the frak out of my way and lets me work. But I don't always like Apple, or Mr Jobs. The "hockey puck" mouse went into the drawer and I promptly picked up a two-button USB mouse. Using a logitech multi-button mouse even now. Sometimes we need utility over simplicity or elegance. "Simple" can absolutely equal "dumbed-down" when it gets in the way.
Don't get me started on how insulting and condescending "magical" is to a tech pro. Yeah, I know, "any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic." We're not a bunch of homo erectus howling and flinging zebra bones at the monolith, OK?
With Apple's current relentless pursuit of the "consumer computing" market, they seem to have lost interest in the professional market. But who's creating the apps and content for users to "consume?" The Mac Pro is now the last machine to get love in the upgrade cycle, I recall when Mac towers were first to get the shiny. I certainly can't do pre-press or serious web design on an iPad, appealing little slab of electric crack it may be. I want one, but I need a working machine to keep a roof over and feed my family.
This pretty much sums up where Apple's focus seems to be:
"Final Cut Pro X review: Apple will happily piss off 5,000 professionals to please 5,000,000 amateurs." - Daniel Jalkut, on Twitter (via Daring Fireball)
It's not the specific problems of FCP X that worries me, and there are plenty, it's Apple's ATTITUDE. And it illuminates why at times I feel Apple doesn't always, or necessarily have my interests as a Creative Pro at heart. At one time we were Apple's core and most loyal market, but in recent years I increasingly feel dismissed and kicked to the curb by Apple.
I see. An interesting problem, then. This does not mean that a product with fewer features is a solution. In fact, it might mean the opposite. Some of the other posters here and elsewhere are suggesting that FCP is not an advance in tech with respect to many professionals, but a relatively dumbing down of the product for the pro/sumer market. And yet in a follow up story, NY Times columnist Pogue quotes Apple developers saying that they are going to restore features previously removed.
The market may be getting smaller, but if professional editors require a set of features and FCP does not satisfy their requirements, this just creates an opportunity for someone else.
Then this might make a purchase decision easier. If a person is an editing professional who has current or future projects that require features not available now in FCP, then there might not be sufficient reason to buy it. Any updated version should be evaluated on its own merits to see if Apple is as interested in the professional market as it is in the consumer market.
And you are this "big money making pro" ??
Its been out for not even a week! READ the forums, there are (at this moment) ways around for the multicam option, which will come with the first update!
It´s slow, somethings are missing but for the rest it works like a dream.
You, as this big pro, should have known that the first 3 versions of FCP were FILLED with bugs and impossible to work with.
It's quite logical in the way that complex technologies that need many people to control them will get simpler to use and by fewer people.
But: Can you post a link to your source or at least name it?
It may be something to do with the fact that it is rubbish, not that everyone is intentionally hating on your beloved Apple. Then again, I may be wrong as I've never used Final Cut.
As a hobbyist that has used Adobe Premiere for a decade along with iMovie, I'm blown away with Final Cut Pro X. I've found it extremely intuitive and powerful so far. The interface design is genius but I'm probably more pleased with the metadata management of media in the "events" model the most. This will be a HUGE time saver for me.
There have been numerous times that I've needed the power of Premiere but didn't want to take 5 times as long to build a project so I compromised and used iMovie just because it's so quick and easy (especially from a media management stand point). Now I don't have to compromise. I have robust clip editing, effects, titling, generators, keyframes, markers, keywords, etc in an slick easy to use interface that will make me much more productive. Not trying to sound like an advertisement for this product, but for me (a hobbyist/pro-sumer) it's dang near perfection.
There have been numerous times that I've needed the power of Premiere but didn't want to take 5 times as long to build a project so I compromised and used iMovie just because it's so quick and easy (especially from a media management stand point). Now I don't have to compromise. I have robust clip editing, effects, titling, generators, keyframes, markers, keywords, etc in an slick easy to use interface that will make me much more productive. Not trying to sound like an advertisement for this product, but for me (a hobbyist/pro-sumer) it's dang near perfection.
Well there you have it, 3 people you can lable as sell outs
Have read those reviews you can see that they are trying so hard to promote a beta version of a product for Apple. I would avoid these three guys opinions in the future, I laughed so hard when one of them had trouble workign out what a "professional" was so hide some of the short commings of FCPX... pathetic really.
Care to voice your "professional Opinion" on the inablility to open previous projects that were created in FCP?
Not Being a "Pro" myself, I could see how this would really really really suck..
Got my copy and used it over the weekend.
Coming from Final Cut 7 and iMovie (I used both), so far I love FCPX. It's fast. I will probably use it full time once Apple makes a few updates but for now I'm just kicking the tires.
As much as there are things I dislike about FCPX, there's so much to love. But there is also so much that is different and therefore, so much to relearn.
Jeffery Harrell can't update and carry on the way he always has, he has to adapt and change and he doesn't want to. You know what? That's fine. But it doesn't make the program bad, it just makes him a dinosaur. I've come across too many of those during my years in the industry and they get left behind or change. Its not 'not usable by people who edit video for a living', it's unusable for people who are refusing to move forward.
I edit videos for YouTube (every once in awhile I need some complicated tasks done), I edit home videos, and thats pretty much it. Once in awhile I edit some Montages for video games for other people (i.e. COD, Halo, etc). I mean I understand that if your really coming from a professional video editing background, FCPX might not be the best choice. I personally think I'll enjoy it because I really never used Final Cut Express that often.
So true and that's the kicker. 20 years ago I was editing with SVHS editing VCR's with titles and graphics created on an Amiga computer. It was archaic but I made it work and my customers were happy. If you are not willing to work with what you have, you are doomed to a short career because you weren't flexible.
We'll see a turn towards the content provider, and away from the pure handler of technology.
Those editors, who can do great, creative edits, will always be in demand, no matter where the technology turns, and no matter its simplification over time makes access easier.
Well there you have it, 3 people you can lable as sell outs
Actually, all three of those people are highly respected in the FCP world and know the "classic" versions inside and out. To cast aspersions on their opinions simply because they don't just slash-and-burn is quite foolish.
The whole FCPX debate has been rampant with ugly elitism about who is "pro" and who isn't. Good on these guys for challenging that -- there are all sorts of pros who use their editing software in all sorts of different ways for very different deliverables and editing needs.
For my "pro" work this meets many of the needs right off the bat (at least on paper--I haven't used FCPX yet) and I look forward to other features coming (multicam for one). I fully understand why FCPX doesn't work for a number of editors, but that doesn't mean it isn't useful or powerful for other professional (and amateur) editors right now.
Please check your elitism at the door.
What makes me laugh about Jeffery Harrell's article is how he tried to create that search to filter out keyworded clips and had nothing but trouble with it. If he just clicked on the filter drop down next to the search box and selected "No Ratings or Keywords", the problem would've been gone. He obviously was too emotional about it to actually realise that his answer was right there in front of him.
I'm an editor at a regional branch office of an international satellite broadcasting network, and one of the editors at the head office made a comment that those who say FCPX is good are only hobbyists or home pros. I don't know if he intended it to sound like he was being elitist, but it did kind of come across that way.
Having been a user of FCS for a number of years, I have been anticipating an update to FCP. When I saw the demo of FCPX at NAB, I was very excited, but when it came out and I read about all the features that were missing, I was extremely disappointed. However, I decided that I'd still buy it and give it a shot (actually, it was mainly because I had already bought Motion 5, which is a really nice update).
I tell you what, I love the new timeline! Just being able to rearrange it by dragging clips around, or fluidly extending clips, is just great! Instead of having to make nested sequences (I'm a heavy user of those btw), I can just create compound clips instead. Makes my project look neater. I also think the new media management is good, especially how projects and events can be saved on external hard drives. Background rendering is fantastic, and the whole thing is just plain FAST!!
With all this though, I can't use it for work. I can only play around with it. The reasons are:
- No multicam; we use this with every program we record.
- Can't set the starting timecode on a project, making it useless for broadcast programs (everything must start at 1:00:00). Sure, I could use Compressor, but I've had limited success with getting it to set it.
- On my machine, at least, motion templates crash, even ones that shipped with it. Only basic templates work (it seems that if there's a psd or mov file in it, it crashes).
- Events and Projects can't be created on a network mount, i.e. a SAN. That means I can't use it in a multi-user environment.
We have a tapeless workflow, so the fact that tape ingest is rubbish and there's no print/edit to tape, don't affect us. We also only use FCS so have no need for OMF, AAF, EDL, XML, or any other format like them.
I think FCPX has potential, and I'm looking forward to seeing how it will turn out. When it gets the features I need (i.e. the issues listed above are resolved), I'll definitely switch us over to FCPX. For now, I'll leave FCPX on my machine to play around with, and keep using FCS3 for work (which is still installed, thankfully).
So, in answer to the OP's question, I've already bought it, not looking for a refund just yet either.
Last edited:
It's not like FCPX is the only product available. It's not even that FCPX clearly represents the future of editing software.
Editors are under no obligation to try to make FCP work, especially when they have readily available alternatives. It's up to Apple to create desirable products. Apart from this, nobody owes anybody anything.
Somewhat true but I have found moving to something that is familiar and "desirable" doesn't inspire ways of improving things beyond what I already know.
I am not sure what point you are trying to make. Some posters seem to be implying that working editors have some special duty to stick with Apple. But if FCPX does not work for projects that they are working on, there is simply no point in trying to use it. And it doesn't matter that it might be usable three years from now. it doesn't work today.