Early Final Cut Pro X Response Mixed, Updates Coming

[CplBadboy]

Oh dear Apple. WTF is goin on in Cupertino these days?????? Disastrous update to TC and AEBS yesterday, still using C2D chips in the MBA, Macmini, I dread to think what the new MacPro will look like.

There is no excuse for not delivering a complete package. There are a lot of Pros on the reviews who are very much disappointed at this release. Seems its a iMovie Plus and missing a lot of older features that are still needed today?

To simply say 'Oh we will add them later isnt really what PRO users want to hear is it?? Apple had enough time to get this right and had they listened to PRO users instead of the bloke who made iMovie (because that app was just great, amazing and overall fun!) then it would be stopping a lot of Pros heading off to buy Adobe's option right about now.

Its news like this that is making me feel that Apple is really not making the grade this year. The thing thats impressed me most isnt the Lion unveil or new iMacs its those Google Chromebooks. That seems to be where the future is and Google seems to be screaming ahead right about now. hell Ive even stopped using Safari because Chrome blasts it outta the water.

Somebody needs to start kicking arse at Cupertino. And quickly.

 

[Reach]

My guess is that the Marketing department won the battle over the release date. I can only imagine there are several angry/embarrassed Apple FCP engineers on campus today. I suspect that had this been released in December or early next year... the necessary professional features to actually get the project out the door would have been included. Pretty bummed I dropped $299 for a program that's going to collect dust until they add the features sometime in the nebulous future.

lol Well, who to blame? I think the fact where out there, and you decided to buy despite the missing features.

Being trigger-happy is nice and all, but some research can do a lot of good.

I guess the price point is ridiculously low, at least, with people just buying it without even knowing what it can do...

 

[NY Guitarist]

...and what type of editing do you do?

The missing features are essential to those of us working in features and television, and they are used regularly, end of story.

Thank you.

 

[nerdo]

I've been using Adobe Premiere CS5 for about a year and I've been disappointed at how clunky it is. I just got FCP and have been messing around with it and it seems like a higher quality product. The UI is nicer, the file system is much more straight-forward, and the playback and edited is much smoother.

BTW: I also got the "Compressor" program...it's UI looks like it hasn't been touched since OS Tiger or earlier.

My feeling too, it feels really light even on an old 1,1 mac pro.

Compressor is .. well stoopid: 32 bit and never got it to go beyond 400% CPU on a 8 core with a Quadro 4000. Adobe's converter gets up to 1200% (in certain cases) and squeeze uses the Cuda cores.

FCPX is a good sketch of what they are thinking, but compressor is nothing more then a micro upgrade.

 

[4God]

I like it. But really, what do you expect for $299?

 

[Ericdenman]

You have to dive in...

When i fired of FCPX this morning at first i was "****** this, ****** apple, this sucks" but after an hour of actually learning the product and discovering where the features I used in prior versions of FCP were..I can honestly say there is no longer go back as this new version a major step in the right direction. Yes, I understand it is missing a few features, and they will come, apple does listen to their customers. Give it a chance. If it were not apple and some new comer off the street people would bow at its virtual feet.

 

[chaosbunny]

Come on, has there ever been a 1.0 version of a complex, professional application that was 100% ready for every day production?

I'm no video pro but this remembers me of InDesign 1.0 in print design. Nobody thought 10 years ago that QuarkXPress could be beaten.

If you get such an early release you basically agree to be a beta tester - it's not the way it should be but it's the way it is. One can either wait for the product to be finished, or get it and try it out of interest. And if you love your profession like I do, of course there is and should be interest in something new/different.

 

[Jerome Morrow]

When i fired of FCPX this morning at first i was "****** this, ****** apple, this sucks" but after an hour of actually learning the product and discovering where the features I used in prior versions of FCP were..I can honestly say there is no longer go back as this new version a major step in the right direction. Yes, I understand it is missing a few features, and they will come, apple does listen to their customers. Give it a chance. If it were not apple and some new comer off the street people would bow at its virtual feet.

What i was thinking too. Without some of the features currently missing it's next to impossible to use FCPX in film making and television, so it's somewhat childish to think that Apple is dropping those features for good. I think they just take more time to adapt those features to the new application architecture.

I think it's a good start.

 

[wulf]

Marketing fail

I don't agree on ppl stating this is not a pro product, because of the things that are missing. Most of the stuff that is missing is essential to any editor. The pro editor just misses more things. This is not something to like. I think this is a major marketing error. The marketing approach didn't fit the product. Normally apple's secrecy will present us some pleasant surprises. In this is case it failed to do so. Actually the opposite is true. Apple should reconsider their marketing approach for PRO products.

I don't agree with some "pro's" stating that this was to expect from v 1.0 software. Sure expect flaws. I don't expect essentials missing in a commercial release. This software has been put to test by industry leaders. They could have told us, but they were not allowed. If it was my good name to be used for this kind of practice, I would reconsider signing future NDA's.

However if I just consider what we did get, I think the product looks very promising. It's really fast and i'm sure it's not hard to get used to the new user experience. We definitely need more time to evaluate the features we did get in this release, to see if they're eventually improvements over time. For now, i'm sure the new interface will slow everybody down, but it's fun learning!

 

[YoGramMamma]

...and what type of editing do you do?

The missing features are essential to those of us working in features and television, and they are used regularly, end of story.

I get it... its missing features... But out of all the final cut installations on every machine out there... features and television probably aren't the majority of what people are cutting. That's all I'm saying.

I'm an independent director/producer... I've done large projects for large clients, many of which you've heard of, and yes I have needed some of the missing features of FCPX before... but not usually. Normally I'm editing stuff or dishing it off to an editor on a hard drive (including project file and media). This is still possible with the new FCPX... not that Id just jump to using it in my workflow without checkin compatibility with all my collaborators first.

I am a professional who *could* use FCPX for my professional work if I wanted to. Alls I'm sayin is that I'd be willing to wager that the majority of FCP users don't need some of the major missing features as bad as the outcry on these forums seem to indicate.

 

[H. Flower]

I get it... its missing features... But out of all the final cut installations on every machine out there... features and television probably aren't the majority of what people are cutting. That's all I'm saying.

I'm an independent director/producer... I've done large projects for large clients, many of which you've heard of, and yes I have needed some of the missing features of FCPX before... but not usually. Normally I'm editing stuff or dishing it off to an editor on a hard drive (including project file and media). This is still possible with the new FCPX... not that Id just jump to using it in my workflow without checkin compatibility with all my collaborators first.

I am a professional who *could* use FCPX for my professional work if I wanted to. Alls I'm sayin is that I'd be willing to wager that the majority of FCP users don't need some of the major missing features as bad as the outcry on these forums seem to indicate.

So if your content is broadcast, as you seem to imply, how do you intend to color correct with no I/O in FCPX?

 

[JabbaII]

Guess you get what you pay for:
FCP ~$1000, FCP X ~$400 all up.

 

[grooveattack]

am i the only person that likes final cut pro x?
i have been using that old dinosaur ( fcp7) for years and its crap compared to this!

as a test i just reedited a short that i made in fcp7. it was such a nicer experience on X. everything gets out of my way so i can tell a story and not having to spend time looking at something that looks like it crawled its way out of the 90's is nice.
finally that £2500 computer is being put to work fully by 64bit,GCD,openCL etc.

why is the video industry so scared of something new? apple is renowned for shaking things up (music industry, phone industry etc.) they are doing the same with post production apart from this time they have a bunch of people moaning about how its imove. its not friggin anything like imovie!

 

[YoGramMamma]

So if your content is broadcast, as you seem to imply, how do you intend to color correct with no I/O in FCPX?

First off, I never Implied that my content is broadcast. The broadcast projects that I have done I haven't color corrected myself, I've sent them off to a colorist by way of external hard drive, all files inclusive. Obviously I get that with FCPX I wouldn't be able to do this since the colorist wouldnt be able to open my project in any app that would support I/O for CC, nor do it in FCPX itself... however, I also never said I'd abandon my FCP7 did I? No.

Out of all the edit jobs that happen on any given day, what percentage of them do you think are for broadcast? Hmm? Not most of them. A lot of them, sure... but not more than personal projects, internet projects, client based promos or DVD destined stuff. ALL I AM SAYING is that all this bitching from people on these forums seem to come from people who rely on missing features, which.. IMO.. aren't in the majority in terms people who use FCP. The jobs i used to work at Sony Pictures and a few other post houses around LA had everyone working on AVID... making the whole FCP argument null anyway.

I'm not saying that you and your workflow don't need what FCPX isn't offering, clearly you do... just don't assert your job as the holy grail of needs for every "editor" out there.

 

[H. Flower]

First off, I never Implied that my content is broadcast. The broadcast projects that I have done I haven't color corrected myself, I've sent them off to a colorist by way of external hard drive, all files inclusive. Obviously I get that with FCPX I wouldn't be able to do this since the colorist wouldnt be able to open my project in any app that would support I/O for CC, nor do it in FCPX itself... however, I also never said I'd abandon my FCP7 did I? No.

Out of all the edit jobs that happen on any given day, what percentage of them do you think are for broadcast? Hmm? Not most of them. A lot of them, sure... but not more than personal projects, internet projects, client based promos or DVD destined stuff. ALL I AM SAYING is that all this bitching from people on these forums seem to come from people who rely on missing features, which.. IMO.. aren't in the majority in terms people who use FCP. The jobs i used to work at Sony Pictures and a few other post houses around LA had everyone working on AVID... making the whole FCP argument null anyway.

I'm not saying that you and your workflow don't need what FCPX isn't offering, clearly you do... just don't assert your job as the holy grail of needs for every "editor" out there.

You're missing the point.

FCP no longer supports broadcast media, with no timetable of when or if it ever will.

That's pretty significant, for a multitude of reasons. Wouldn't you agree?

 

[brutusvimes]

First of all, I understand how the lack of multi-cam, some broadcast media and backwards compatibility (not to mention XML workflow) mean this is a broken release to many editors.

However, to those editors (like me) who don't use these elements of the software, calling it 'iMovie Pro' is pretty inaccurate. Final Cut Pro X has every other major feature of FC7, works on a 64-bit architecture that is much faster, includes background rendering, has a few ease-of-use additional features, includes the major features of Soundtrack Pro and Color, etc.

My point is that I can see how this could be considered a broken release by some - but truly, it could never be seen as iMovie Pro. It's much, much too powerful for that.

 

[Ol'MacUser]

why is the video industry so scared of something new?

Save your "fear" label for targets who aren't old enough to respond.
Only a cretin would confuse disappointment in a backwards "upgrade" (never defined as version 1 of anything, btw) that has been lagging for years, and when finally released, is incapable of being used in any workflow that involves any other applications, including previous versions, with "fear."

 

[iLilana]

outsider's view (audio producer)

As i'm not a video editor and do not use Any video editing software I can't say anything about FCP or FCPX.

HOWEVER... i did watch the introduction event for fcpx and saw great new features that were looking like stuff that needed to be upgraded.

Since I am a logic pro user (along with ableton cubase protools reaper and most other recording/editing software packages available) I'm still feeling a bit concerned. The way everyone sounds I'm almost scared that in a year or two I will be producing content on garageband pro. I used GB to write song with and back when it came out i explored its potential. I soon got over it and realized i still needed better tools. Yes you can do a few creative things in a minimal environment but the features available in the Pro Suite are absolutely necessary. Features like hardware compatibility which is non existent on GB. Features like Software compatibility. Backwards compatibility with file formats etc. I like to be able to micromanage. Micromanaging is necessary for midi/audio in many cases for tweeking, originality, developing individual sounds and production styles. Its the difference between using a paintbrush or camera with some filters. FCPX is a tool. The ability to use the tool creatively defines the engineer/film maker/producer/artist.

I hope apple and the users find a way to work together in generating a happy medium. The software always needs to progress but it shouldn't happen at the expense of necessary features.

 

[H. Flower]

yeah, as if fielding new technologies/platforms is something new to us

 

[JabbaII]

Wonder if Apple rigs the App store recommendations (region = Japan):

Top Paid:
1. Final Cut Pro
2. Motion
3. Compressor
4. Face Time
5. Reeder
6. Keynote
7. Xcode
8. Pages
9. iPhoto
10. Numbers

Final Cut Pro has 2 stars but is the Top paid software. Japan users seem to dislike it too with similar comments as this forum.

 

[Winni]

I just hope Apple deletes all the reviews at some point to clear out all the idiotic negative reviews from people who have no idea what they're talking about or what they really want.

You mean like they do on their technical support forums...?

It always blows my mind how religious people get about Apple products: Apple can't do wrong, Apple products are ALWAYS awesome, even if they're buggy like hell or miss critical features, Apple knows what's best - I think you get the idea.

In my experience, Apple's dot zero releases are usually among the worst in the industry, especially when you look at the so-called Pro Apps and their operating systems (Leopard and Snow Leopard both were extraordinarily buggy dot zero releases). It always takes Apple several updates to get the stuff working; and when certain features are missing, well, just wait for the next pay-for dot zero update.

 

[Sander]

EDIT: The biggest problem with this is that Apple didn't need to do all this, they could have just updated FCP to FCP 8 or whatever and introduced support, they are adding features or just introducing features that other software has had for years now. And now they have to go back and reprogram features that we've had for 6 years with other software and FCP7. Honestly the last REAL revision was in 2007 with FCP6. That's 4 years of very little bug fixes, 4 years of not introducing new features and 4 years to build an application that was on Par with what we had a long time ago (FEATURE WISE).

Yes, FCP 7 does a lot under the hood, but as far as what it has x64bit, use of multicores, we already have had that with competitors for a year or two now (Top of my head for this 'fact').

Even with the fastest programmers, how long would this take to get it to where FEATURE LEVEL it was on par with FCP7?

The problem with "old code" is that there is a lot of cruft. It seems to be an unavoidable law of nature. If you plot the amount of user-visible improvements against the effort spent implementing them, any product starts off with a very steep curve which flattens over time. After ten years of intensive maintenance, sometimes even fixing a simple annoying bug can take disproportionate amounts of effort. Adding new features gets more and more difficult; programmers start to program very defensively because there's stuff in there that nobody understands anymore but which will cripple the software in mysterious ways if you touch it.

To get back to a steep curve, you sometimes have to start from scratch. When you do, you will obviously start with zero features, but with all the experience you have built up, you will overtake the feature curve of the previous product in a few years. After that, you have another 5-7 years of growth which will propel your new system beyond what the previous could ever attain.

But those first few years will be painful. You will constantly have the issue of "But the previous version could do X, why can't you simply add that to the new version?". Sometimes all it takes is time, sometimes you will have to decide against bringing that feature over, because you can oversee the gain/effort ratio and decide you can do other, perhaps more important stuff with the same effort spent.

Disclaimer: I'm not a videographer by any means. I do, however, have lots of experience with enormous software packages with lots of legacy in them.

 

[GregAndonian]

FCPX is very much like iPhoneOS in 2007; lots of obvious stuff missing in version 1.0, but with version 5.0, you've got a VERY polished product which few can match.

Yes, but the iPhone didn't abruptly put an end to something else that people depend on to make a living. FCPX did. Apple should have kept selling FCP7 until X had the most glaring feature omissions added in, like OMF, EDL and XML support. Or better yet they should have worked on it a few months longer and got it right from the get-go. September would have been a perfect time to release this- It could have been timed to conicide with IBC if they did that. They should have at least waited until after Lion came out...

 

[mrwonkers]

Now no one will get FCP X until they see it working just fine by someone else.

Again, people wold rather find a hacked version now just because they wont trust spending $1 for something half way done.

Totally agree, I know I won't be forking out $300+ for some half baked Apple "soft"ware.....


This version should be priced at no more than $50 and even that is pushing it as essentially it is just charging/forcing users to be Beta Testers for an unfinished incomplete program......

 

[JabbaII]

I don't remember any Adobe releases causing such a uproar!

CS4 / CS5 was a big change too to cocoa.