It does some things nicely, I find the whole workflow for saving/linking/exporting to be an absolute nightmare though.
Had a recent friend project that I had to edit in FCPX, and trying to edit that and return him a file with everything in place to make other minor updates was a massive pain. In Premiere that would have been saving a source file then having him possibly relink to the footage folder on his end.
Granted, this was certainly at least somewhat due to me not being familiar with the software, but it didn't give me any reason to look at switching.
Both editors must generally have the same media whether in Premiere or FCPX. In FCPX you can just send the other editor a project (aka timeline) XML file in email which conveys the latest updates. I agree some of the fine points and "gotchas" of this workflow are not well documented.Exactly the same workflow can be achieved with Final Cut. ...if you work with the correct files and know where the buttons for linking in Final Cut are, it's no different workflow wise
Both editors must generally have the same media whether in Premiere or FCPX. In FCPX you can just send the other editor a project (aka timeline) XML file in email which conveys the latest updates. I agree some of the fine points and "gotchas" of this workflow are not well documented.
You can have one editor using proxy-only files, but that entails additional complications. In the current FCPX version proxies cannot be relinked (say if a drive name changes).
A proxy-only workflow has been possible since user-specified external storage locations were added in 10.1.2. This enabled placing proxies in a separate storage location vs inside the library. Those proxies could then be distributed to another editor....Regarding your second paragraph; Is that fairly new? I haven't done colaborative workflows in a while so I haven't had much need for it, but last time I colaborated I could do this.
FCPX has become something great, but what makes it great also limits it. I love FCPX for short, relatively simple projects. I have not cut any long-form content in a while, but I know trying to organize and workflow something like a 30-60 minute documentary in FCPX would drive me crazy. I think I'd definitely consider Resolve for a project like that at this point.
I agree the rate of progress on FCPX is nothing like DaVinci Resolve. Lots of experienced people have noted that....The energy around Blackmagic right now, the speed at which they are moving, listening and catering to every level of video production professional, reminds me very much of Apple at the height of Final Cut Studio...
From the perspective of unit sales and # of users, FCPX is far more successful than legacy FCP. Apple has announced over 2.5 million "seats" of FCPX. Lots of these are professional users, just not Hollywood or in the traditional "industry"....I think Apple knows they've blown it with pro film and video. They've lost the trust of too many users, the pulse of the industry and the ability to effectively get it back...
Resolve is rapidly improving. FCPX once stood alone as the NLE with the quickest interactive performance and lightning-fast skimmer. Now Resolve is nearly that fast and it's cross platform. In some cases Resolve 15/16 is faster at encoding than FCPX -- on the same Mac hardware....I love FCPX for short, relatively simple projects. I have not cut any long-form content in a while, but I know trying to organize and workflow something like a 30-60 minute documentary in FCPX would drive me crazy. I think I'd definitely consider Resolve for a project like that at this point.
A thumbs up is not enough to say just how bang on this is.Resolve is rapidly improving. FCPX once stood alone as the NLE with the quickest interactive performance and lightning-fast skimmer. Now Resolve is nearly that fast and it's cross platform. In some cases Resolve 15/16 is faster at encoding than FCPX -- on the same Mac hardware.
But FCPX still is better at organizing large-scale long-form projects. Indeed, handling large unscripted documentaries is one of FCPX's major strengths. This is due to FCPX's database-centric tools and range-based keywording. My documentary team has organized and edited very large projects on FCPX -- over 7,000 clips of 4k H264 material totaling about 20 TB or 200+ hr of material in a single library. It worked very well.
That said, FCPX needs to demonstrate some significant improvements, esp. in areas like collaborative workflow and proxy management.
Paid 300 Euro once, made them back from the first ever project, I installed it on 3 different computers, 2010, 2012 and 2018 models, it works flawlessly on each one of them, I transitioned to 4k since 2017 and there is no difference in performance when editing.on the whole it is not worth the price you pay for it
It will be much more confusing if you are provided with so many options that you will never use anyway, like FCP7 had and was making everything more complicated, unstable and created problems with monitoring and outputting. There is only one ProRes proxy flavour anyway, so what's the point of arguing the there you are stuck with 1 format and also ProRes has variable bit rate so you can't select your compression anyway. It creates files that can be edited on an old firewire drive if you like, while they doesn't choke your computer. It's an one click workflow to work with proxies in FCPX, how complicated is that?you are stuck with 1 pro Rez proxy format, you cannot determine how much compression, and no compressor is not a suitable tool, it is way too confusing
They didn't delete it, you were able to run it without problems until last year. 6 years after they stoped selling it. And you can still use it if you don't update or buy a new mac as long as you don't update the OS. They couldn't be updated in 64bit, they had to be rewritten from the ground up and that was never a viable economic decision for apple as they would shoot themselves on the feet and cannibalised the X.I disagree with the wholesale delete of Final Cut Studio 2/3, should it have remained and updated to 64bit? Yes, there was so many useful features in FCS3 that have never been put back/introduced into X...
Yes, you can range select and import from the files on the cards. Use I,O or refer the Apple support pages and the FCPX manual.The biggest issue with X is importing media, it is whole or nothing, you cannot preview and range select say whilst the card is attached, then only import what you need..
Too complicated, you import anything you need, you ask it to transcode to proxy or optimised media to suit your computer capabilities, or use the raw files if you can, then export from the high quality material. No back and forth, no loss of data and metadata, easier for roundtrips, NO loss of time. I will agree only for importing DV tapes from a deck, it should give you an option to disable automatic clip generation based on the image.The old log and transfer window in FCS3 would have been handy, you ingest what you need, at a compression ratio you feel you need, do the offline rough cut, then when you need to hand over the project at full Rez, you re-ingest only the clips you used, then share...
No, they don't compete on time. Maybe Resolve is gaining users migrating from Premiere as they get sick from the Adobe tactics. They are two different beasts, FCPX is and editing software that can do color and sound well enough when you are 1 person band, lightweight enough to use it from the skinny MacBook to the Goliath MacPro. Resolve is an all-in-one package and although it has the edge on colour and sound (but you need to be an expert in both fields to actually push it more than FCPX) it has many complexities in user interface, data management, setup and you need beefy hardware with dedicated GPUs to use it without issues. FCPX runs and edits 4K on my 2010 MacPro and 2012 & 2018 MacBook Pro with out issues, Resolves runs only in my 2018 MacBook Pro because of it's 6core CPU and 4GB GPU. And crashing regularly Vs never.FCPX works, but it is competing for time against Resolve 15/16, and with the Resolve 16 Cut page, as a way to quickly edit [once DR16 is decent enough..], with DR16 you have within 1 app, color, graphics, video editing, audio track editing, advanced motion tracking..With FCPX not as much, and does XML solve all problems??
How can be FCS4 be a clone of a software that came out 10 years later. FCPX is trackless, you built your timeline on clips connected with each other. That's how was designed. From the ground up. For a faster and more efficient workflow.Why was Final Cut Studio 4 [replacement for 3] not a clone of Resolve? Where you have the choice of tracks, trackless...X is not trackless, it just uses tracks in a slightly different way, the same way as a hybrid car is still a petrol based car, it just uses the petrol engine in a slightly different way...
How do you know that? Do you have inside intel from Apple or it's just your personal opinion. Apple teased the new update at the WWDC last June and you can read about it on their website. So more is coming. No dead end.Apple went down a path and that path ended in a design dead end, and now 8 years later, they find they are stuck...Do they bin X and reboot for the 2nd time, or just cancel the project for good???
There are more than enough audio options if you dig deep enough. Same tools as Logic. But I agree FCPX and Logic have problems communicating. Sometimes the XML can not be read or wrong sound clips get imported. At least that's what I experienced when I passed a project to my sound designer. But he may set up logic wrong.No audio sliders, the relationship between logic and X is strained, Logic gets all the development Dollars/Euro's, and it shows...
Because that would much more expensive to develop and issues updates, it would make it much more expensive to buy and have features you would never use, so they wouldn't use the price as a selling point and it would require much more resources from your computer to load and run all those features and make it impossible to use it on older and weaker hardware. Like Resolve is as I mentioned above.Why has Apple not merged Motion+X+Logic+Compressor+Automator into 1 functional App??
Nonsense, FCPX came out 2 months after Jobs died. It is a product of Steve Jobs, he asked Rubillos to create it after seeing how he rewrote iMovie. You never had the ability to purchase upgrades, you could just double your RAM and install an SSD, something that comes as standard now with laptops. Now you can really upgrade your laptop, with the addition of TB3 as an I/O port you can add eGPUs and RAIDS and create a small powerhouse. Also if you buy a machine to make money on it, you buy the appropriate spec depending on what you will use it for. All Macs can edit broadcast material, but if you go for the cinema standards then you have to spend more. Faster computers and peripherals to do the job right. 8 GBs are more than enough for HD, FCPX use RAM adaptively, the more RAM the more it uses it when it needs it. But it never bogs down due to RAM if you are in spec. Unless you use a bad written 3rd party plug in. That's not Apple's fault.it is a product of the war between Cook and Ive, and no question there was a war, before with Jobs you had the ability to purchase upgrades for laptops, then all of a sardine, this was no longer an option, the website says 8GB RAM is good enough for FCPX, when 8000GB RAM is barely enough...
eGPU is an extra, FCPX does not need it. The reason FCPX works well even on weaker systems is due to the optimisations and QuickSync that allows the CPU to handle compressed video efficiently. And that's it's power. You buy it once, you can have it on your Air and Pro concurrently and just plug your hard drive to any. No need for 2 versions. It beats the point.The only reason FCPX works is because of external eGPU, so why not 2 versions..a lite bite and a full box of curry powder version?? So folks can edit on planes/trains on a MacBook Air, and if you need to do extreme work, you use the Mac Pro??
FCPX allows you to do this with the new extension feature that was introduced 2-3 updates ago. You just wait for another software company to write an app. Apple still cares.Media management means a lot of things, many tasks fall into this aspect, and sadly proxy file is one of them, if Apple fixed the proxy workflow method so that the cameraman could send me via an "log and transfer" app the files I needed, and whilst I was editing, he was uploading his side to the large storage, when I came to publish, I could send back the edited file and it would publish full rez...
No one is forcing you to shoot 8K if you can afford it and support it. If a production requires such high resolutions then it has to provide the cash to create the pipeline. Most of the world is still on HD.The problem we face in 2019 is the same problem we faced in 1919, only the media has changed, we face a storage space issue, before it was not enough feet of tape, that was solved pretty much by tape, in and out in 2 seconds, back shooting, now in 2019 we face the 8K and TB's of storage and how to process this information..
Rec.xxx exsist since 1982 and they are standards for encoding and displaying your work correctly. RAW and Log are ways to capture more information from the digital sensors or film so we can process it with higher quality and more accurate control and bring it closer to our artistic desire for expression. But again, no one is forcing you to shoot in RAW or Log if you can afford it , have the knowledge and support it.Some idiots figured it was the way to go with REC x, or with RAW, choose your poison, or with LUTS, LOGS, etc, we shoot in very data intense file sizes for what??
Who does that?We should not be spending $100 000 for a pc to edit a 30 second utube video... That is insane..
It was the future, now it's the present that brings the future closer. Apple didn't stop, it keeps walking until 2021 at least as they said when they introduced it back in 2011.The question was 8 years later was FCPX the future?? For a brief moment it was, until they changed from the 10.0 to the 10.1 style, then stopped as Apple did with FCP7..
FCPX is fiddly to use, it lacks so many basic options that would make it a Avid/Premiere/Resolve killer, FCPX is bloated now with too many features that just require over expensive hardware, that if for smarter coding might be solved with maybe the introduction of a lite bite version of X, X Xpress or something like that...
Yes, true, you can't have more than one person working on a project at the same time. But we might get that soon.FCPX does not play nicely in a multi-user environment, after 8 years and 40 updates or whatever the update count is, this is important, you want to be able to "Send to...." for color grading, audio work, to the studio, but no this is not possible...Why??
I dont believe the case between RED and Apple will directly affect FCPX development.The fight over RAW, and other issues, leaves you wondering is there a future for the app, and I am starting to believe that Apple Inc has signed the death warrant, the very infrequent updates, and the updates when they do occur never fix the niggling issues that should have been dealt with years ago.
This would be the key to rapidly expand FCPX. You could have three separate apps, but have the ability in FCPX to interface with the other two apps while working seamlessly in FCPX, even add compressor instead of exporting to it.Why has Apple not merged Motion+X+Logic+Compressor+Automator into 1 functional App??
This is available right now via two different methods:...Proxy workflow, sending data across the network needs work, there needs to be a better way, maybe via icloud...Not all places have 1000MB/s up and down fibre, so sending compressed or uncompressed, users choice..makes sense, as long as both devices are on the "web" using icloud to icloud as a passthrough is an option...No idea if it is possible or not...why not??? A sort of data buffer, send and receive as per network traffic, proxy editing if done right is beauty to work with.