Avid Launches Media Composer 6, Symphony 6, NewsCutter 10

[econgeek]

Yea it does. It's junk. I've been an editor for years and it's a HUGE step down. There are no "pro" features in X at all.

Color correction is a professional tool. So, right there, you're lying.

If you really were an editor you wouldn't be saying FCPX is junk. You're either an apple hater, or adobe or avid employee.

I just realized I'm replying to a kid with the nickname "darth raige". Obviously an Apple hater, and obviously under 20, and obviously, thinks that he can spew whatever nonsense he wants and be taken seriously.

We're not your mom, kid, we don't have any delusions about you and the other incoherent apple haters like you.

 

[GarthAlgar]

Color correction is a professional tool. So, right there, you're lying. .

*sigh*
FCPx's color correction tools are quite basic and not up to par

As someone works as a video editor, I have yet to see FCPX in any post-house or production environment that I have visited. You'd be more likely to see Premiere in a post-house than FCPx.

Nothing against Apple...they've realized that the money is in consumer products. But, lets not pretend that FCPx is a high end video editor. It isn't.

 

[Poll Smoker]

You do realize that Apple's prices don't really mean anything? They buy 25k costing software and sell it for 1k. They've done it many times before. Apple cuts prices so they can sell Macs because their software doesn't run on Win/Linux.

So FCPX being 299$ doesn't mean it's a 299$ worth software. Same as Color was worth 20k before Apple included it in 1k costing suite.

I want to hear more about pro software from the guy using "costing" multiple times.

 

[Cybbe]

Who the **** spends that kind of money on software... $6000!!! are you insane!?!?!?

In my line of business, software, content and full support (included) can cost far far more than $6000 a head, which would be cheap license. It isn't completely unheard of to pay 50-100k for one user. Oh, charged as an annual subscription. Welcome to the professional world, were real businesses pay real money for real tools.

 

[435713]

You are right

fixed. Calm yourself.
Student editions are cheaper. Can get those easily. If you dont think 6k is a MASSIVE markup you and Jobs did the same LSD

 

[Poll Smoker]

Color correction is a professional tool. So, right there, you're lying.

If you really were an editor you wouldn't be saying FCPX is junk. You're either an apple hater, or adobe or avid employee.

I just realized I'm replying to a kid with the nickname "darth raige". Obviously an Apple hater, and obviously under 20, and obviously, thinks that he can spew whatever nonsense he wants and be taken seriously.

We're not your mom, kid, we don't have any delusions about you and the other incoherent apple haters like you.

You just keep embarrassing yourself.

Someone's an Apple hater because they realize that FCP X is a joke?

Pull your head out of your ass.

 

[bushido]

Pros don't care about the price of the product, they care about whether it lets them accomplish what they need to accomplish efficiently.

FCPX does that better than any other product, and at a lower price.

Anyone claiming that the low price will drive off Pros is an idiot.

The only people who would be put off by a low price for such a good product are people who are posturing.

Do you really go around bragging about how much you spent on your editing software?

That's reminds me of the Leica collectors who show off their expensive kit but never shoot anything.



It's ready for the pro market. I work in the film industry. I'm using it. Apple hasn't lost it at all.

Apple has lost the employees of Avid and Adobe and the general Apple haters who hang out in these forums and make up anything they can to bash Apple.

You guys never realize how stupid you look.

For the past 10 years you've been telling us the iPod was a fad and that the next piece of crap was going to kill it. For the past 4 years you've been saying that about the iPhone. For the past 20 years you've been saying the mac had no chance, and you've continued to say it even while the mac has been outgrowing the rest of hte industry and increasing share for the past 5 years. You keep telling us the iPad is going to fall to whatever crap some company puts out with android on it.... and of course you never say why. You can't give specifics.

Now you're saying FCPX isn't "professional"-- a completely arbitrary word to begin with-- and you can't give specifics.

i'm a professional. I just did a major piece in FCPX. It's the best editing software I've ever used.

You're full of it.

And nobody who's worth a damn is buying your BS, which you and your ilk have been peddling for decades, and continue to do so despite being wrong EVERY SINGLE TIME.

In fact, you guys made the exact same complaint about the original final cut!

wow, do u need a hug?

 

[CASLondon]

econgeek, you are cracking me up with your aggressive defense of FCPX.

Here are the professional shortcomings at the launch of it, some of which have been addressed by subs. releases. And there are some interesting features that might develop into something. But when FCPX was released, they....

trashed the multicam

No omf/xml export

media management

no ability to assign audio tracks

no backwards compatibilty with FCP 7

no capture from tape, edit to tape

unable to set up a tradition two monitor view

The proof is in the pudding, a lot of pro houses have held off on this app.

 

[Poll Smoker]

econgeek, you are cracking me up with your aggressive defense of FCPX.

Here are the professional shortcomings at the launch of it, some of which have been addressed by subs. releases. And there are some interesting features that might develop into something. But when FCPX was released, they....

trashed the multicam

No omf/xml export

media management

no ability to assign audio tracks

no backwards compatibilty with FCP 7

no capture from tape, edit to tape

unable to set up a tradition two monitor view

The proof is in the pudding, a lot of pro houses have held off on this app.

Why are you arguing with this jackass?

 

[realitymonkey]

Truth is FCPX is not really ready to replace its older sibling yet but the foundations of something great are certainly there. Avid as a system is brilliant for its reliability when it counts and the fact that Avid Engineers exist so you can get someone who really knows the entire system in instead of multiple people who point fingers at each other.

FCP has its place as does Premiere and Avid, when I have time and overruns don't matter as much (long form docs and the like) I will save the money and go FCP/Premiere, when the pressure is on and getting it out the door to a live show type deadline is more important Avid is the solution in my book.

(For the sake of clarity I am a freelance Production Manager with 10 years experience in TV)

 

[handsome pete]

I will get the hate on this one.

I blame no one for pirating software at those prices. Even Adobe charges outrageous amounts. I know ten people using photoshop, I know 0 that paid for it. If the prices were fair then piracy would go down. (possibly)

Who are you to determine what price is "fair?"

There are many photoshop alternatives that produce similar results for a fraction of the cost (some are even free). My guess is that any of these 10 people you know who pirated the copy would be perfectly fine with these other options.

If they truly needed photoshop to make a living, then they'd surely be able to afford a copy.

 

[Joe Walker]

Well I know what my new editing software will be. Apple's gonna regret all of this one day. WAY down the road.

 

[knewsom]

I just cut together a major project on Final Cut Pro X. It was a multicam project. In some scenes there were 6 shots up at the same time. I also assembled animation in it, quite a few titles, had to color correct everything quite a bit because of a lighting issue, etc.

Final Cut Pro X worked great. In fact, in the 20+ years I've been editing this has been the best experience ever. BY FAR.

FCPX takes all of the drudge out of editing and you can work at the speed of your thoughts. Its a dream!

Sure, there isn't that silly live type that FCP used to have.... but if you think you're a "professional" and not having live type is a problem, I've got news for you: You're not a professional.

I think there are some areas where it can be improved. While livetype was a gimmicky feature, the type system needs more flexibility. I used motion to do a custom opening sequence (and it worked great) but I don't want to go to motion all the time... though we're just creating a couple bumpers and titles that we'll use all the time, type in FCPX sans motion could be improved.

And I ran into a couple bugs.

But anyone who claims they're abandoning FCPX because they're "professional" and it isn't "professional" is wrong on both counts.

I know there are editor assistants-- trained button pushers-- people who don't understand technology and thus it will take a long time to teach them how to use FCPX because even an intuitive interface doesn't work for them because to be intuitive they have to understand what video is... but these are people who were never going to advance much in their career anyway, and they're a small part of the market (but obviously noisy.)

Ok, wow, there is SOOOO much gold here, I don't even know where to start.

Assistant editors are trained button-pushers who don't really understand technology!? LMFAO!!!! Dude, this alone has revealed the level at which you work. Anyone who has worked in the business in Hollywood will tell you that typically AE's know the software FAR better than editors, and spend most of their time cleaning up after them and correcting their mistakes. I know this, because I've WORKED as an AE in Hollywood.

People weren't complaining about FCPX because it got rid of LiveType... It's because it got rid of very important professional features like OMF, and XML, to name a few... Most pros don't do their own titling... we leave that to professional Motion Graphics guys, and just use a basic text generator or still made in photoshop as a placeholder until we get the real deal from then MoGraph guys, which the AEs then cut in and we approve, or don't do anything with at all because by that point the cut has been locked and we've moved on to another project. Guess what - we don't color correct either. That's for Colorists to do. Sound? Yup. We have pros do sound too. This isn't to say that an Editor can't be good at these things and cannot do these things... but specialists are typically better, and that's the way it works in Hollywood. The fact that I've had to TELL you all this tells ME that you really have no idea what you're talking about.

Indie work? Student and amateur films? Sure, I'm sure it's just fine - but this is not really pro level stuff, is it? FCPX may be a great editing tool, but it's just not ready for the big-leagues. It's entirely irrelevant how pleasant it is to cut with if the AE can't send my work to the Sound guy, or the Colorist, or even put it to tape without some sort of ridiculous workaround. Apple eliminated CRUCIAL professional level features from FCPX, and that's precisely why NOBODY in the business is using it.

 

[BornAgainMac]

Avid should raise their prices. The pros can afford it.

 

[Deter]

Apple is dumbing down fcpx because they are gradually turning it into an ipad app. Ten years from now Apple will be strictly a mobile device company because that's where the money is and that's all Apple cares about.

 

[BrianMojo]

econgeek, you are cracking me up with your aggressive defense of FCPX.

Here are the professional shortcomings at the launch of it, some of which have been addressed by subs. releases. And there are some interesting features that might develop into something. But when FCPX was released, they....

trashed the multicam

No omf/xml export

media management

no ability to assign audio tracks

no backwards compatibilty with FCP 7

no capture from tape, edit to tape

unable to set up a tradition two monitor view

The proof is in the pudding, a lot of pro houses have held off on this app.

You're absolutely right about the 10.0 release, but I will say that we just had a presentation from Apple and they've addressed a few of these in 10.0.1 (you can now export/import xml, there's 3rd party support for tape, you can assign audio tracks via what they call "roles" via XML export, can import an XML export from FCP 7, can use their rendering system to manage your media or you can now share media on a san like you could before in FCP 7 -- it even only allows you to do read-only access if someone else has the project open) and plan to address more in their next update (specifically promised: broadcast-quality external monitor support, multicam).

So a lot of the initial stuff that had me up in arms as a professional has been addressed. It's still not an ideal, frame-accurate, broadcast solution in a lot of senses but they at least appear to be working towards filling in the major holes.

 

[aristotle]

A real pro could do their job even with Quicktime 7 Pro or windows Movie maker.

If you cannot do your job without a feature x or feature y, then you are not worth your job description and salary.

This is really going to piss off some of you but that is the reality. All of those niceties make your job easier but if you cannot accomplish your job without a certain type of software then you need to reevaluate whether you are a pro or just a button pusher.

 

[BrianMojo]

A real pro could do their job even with Quicktime 7 Pro or windows Movie maker.

If you cannot do your job without a feature x or feature y, then you are not worth your job description and salary.

This is really going to piss off some of you but that is the reality. All of those niceties make your job easier but if you cannot accomplish your job without a certain type of software then you need to reevaluate whether you are a pro or just a button pusher.

That's just patently not true. You let me know how you capture and lay back to an HD SR tape with Quicktime and make sure proper timecode is embedded so you can satellite it across the country so it makes air in time. I'll be here waiting.

 

[knewsom]

A real pro could do their job even with Quicktime 7 Pro or windows Movie maker.

If you cannot do your job without a feature x or feature y, then you are not worth your job description and salary.

This is really going to piss off some of you but that is the reality. All of those niceties make your job easier but if you cannot accomplish your job without a certain type of software then you need to reevaluate whether you are a pro or just a button pusher.

ROFLMFAO!!!!!!!!!! Hahahahahahahahaha, oh man, that's rich. Best one I've heard all week.

Look, I get that it's important to do what you can with what you have, but there's no reason to pay more money for a new version of software that doesn't do what you need it to do. My business requires industry-standard methods of round-tripping media between different platforms and frame-accuracy. FCPX doesn't do that, and the new features it's added have largely been third-party which scares the hell out of producers, because its kindof a hack. If you don't understand that, then you're a hopeless fanboi.

 

[aristotle]

That's just patently not true. You let me know how you capture and lay back to an HD SR tape with Quicktime and make sure proper timecode is embedded so you can satellite it across the country so it makes air in time. I'll be here waiting.

It is absolutely true. People were able to do their "job" just fine for decades in the past without all of the flashy features you take for granted. All you need is video feeds, some audio tracks and an editor.
@knewsom: With an attitude like that, I'm surprised anyone would hire you for anything. Aren't we all supposed to be adults on here? Are a 12 year old or an adult?

 

[puckhead193]

now if only Avid wasn't so confusing...
Apple step up your game or else in your Demo reels at NAB your going to have little Johnny riding his bike with a bunch of star wipes

 

[reel2reel]

Pros don't care about the price of the product, they care about whether it lets them accomplish what they need to accomplish efficiently.

FCPX does that better than any other product, and at a lower price.

Anyone claiming that the low price will drive off Pros is an idiot.

The only people who would be put off by a low price for such a good product are people who are posturing.

Do you really go around bragging about how much you spent on your editing software?

That's reminds me of the Leica collectors who show off their expensive kit but never shoot anything.



It's ready for the pro market. I work in the film industry. I'm using it. Apple hasn't lost it at all.

Apple has lost the employees of Avid and Adobe and the general Apple haters who hang out in these forums and make up anything they can to bash Apple.

You guys never realize how stupid you look.

For the past 10 years you've been telling us the iPod was a fad and that the next piece of crap was going to kill it. For the past 4 years you've been saying that about the iPhone. For the past 20 years you've been saying the mac had no chance, and you've continued to say it even while the mac has been outgrowing the rest of hte industry and increasing share for the past 5 years. You keep telling us the iPad is going to fall to whatever crap some company puts out with android on it.... and of course you never say why. You can't give specifics.

Now you're saying FCPX isn't "professional"-- a completely arbitrary word to begin with-- and you can't give specifics.

i'm a professional. I just did a major piece in FCPX. It's the best editing software I've ever used.

You're full of it.

And nobody who's worth a damn is buying your BS, which you and your ilk have been peddling for decades, and continue to do so despite being wrong EVERY SINGLE TIME.

In fact, you guys made the exact same complaint about the original final cut!

Let it all out, little guy.

I'd love to see you do some of my daily tasks in FCP X. You'd be crying real human tears.

As for all the other stuff you're going on about, I have no idea.

 

[knewsom]

It is absolutely true. People were able to do their "job" just fine for decades in the past without all of the flashy features you take for granted. All you need is video feeds, some audio tracks and an editor.

It'd be all well and good if EVERYONE ELSE was working with 20 year old technology as well, but since that simply isn't the case, we actually do need these features.

Sure, we could go back to using flatbeds (at least I know I could), but the cost of doing so would be prohibitive.

----------

It is absolutely true. People were able to do their "job" just fine for decades in the past without all of the flashy features you take for granted. All you need is video feeds, some audio tracks and an editor.
@knewsom: With an attitude like that, I'm surprised anyone would hire you for anything. Aren't we all supposed to be adults on here? Are a 12 year old or an adult?

You'd need thicker skin than yours to make it five minutes in my industry, let alone make a living at it in this country, amigo...

 

[lilo777]

You do realize that Apple's prices don't really mean anything? They buy 25k costing software and sell it for 1k. They've done it many times before. Apple cuts prices so they can sell Macs because their software doesn't run on Win/Linux.

So FCPX being 299$ doesn't mean it's a 299$ worth software. Same as Color was worth 20k before Apple included it in 1k costing suite.

Unfortunately it does not. For professionals, it's not even worth $299.

 

[Sean4000]

Glad I'm not married to any particular NLE.

Glad I'm not married to any particular NLE, just the Mac platform. My studio's Mac Pros all have FCP7/X, Premiere CS5.5, and Media Composer 5 (now soon to be 6).

I find in interesting to be able to sit back over my 14 years and watch one NLE's dominance come and go. One surpasses the other only to be surpassed itself and so on.