FCPX feels like a diamond in the rough

Discussion in 'Digital Video' started by bluap84, Jul 27, 2011.

  1. bluap84, Jul 27, 2011
    Last edited: Jul 27, 2011

    bluap84 macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2011
    Location:
    UK
    #1
    Just read this article about FCPX not being pro enough...two good views and opinions.

    http://www.macgasm.net/2011/07/26/final-cut-pro-editors-placeholder-title/

    I think im going to go with the later opinion and ride out the storm with FCPX. FCPX feels like a diamond in the rough...Its new and exciting and has a lot of change. I think thats what people dont like is change - yes its missing loads of new features, but if Apple are willing to rectifiy this...then what? FCPX the new PRO tool of the foreseable future ?

    Michael Sums it up in the end of this video too: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E8s8D_knXu0&feature=player_embedded

    discuss...
     
  2. bigcreek macrumors member

    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2004
    #2
    Agreed. I expect it to change rapidly. It is already a very powerful editor. Looking forward to the next few iterations.
     
  3. THX1139 macrumors 68000

    THX1139

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2006
    #3
    Yeah, it's still a long way from being professional grade software. Plus, I'm reading quite a few posts about people having trouble. Just read one yesterday where some bloke lost a days worth of work because his project (event) wouldn't load.

    Aside from all the missing professional features, the deal breaker for me has been the lack of control that comes with FCX. I don't like it when a piece of software won't let me manage my own assets. I often like to reload footage from other sources and it seems that FCX doesn't like that. But, as for cutting a short youtube piece, I think that FCX has lots of promise. It will be interesting to see where Apple takes it over the next year. Too bad that most of the pros won't be along for the ride. A lot of them feel kinda burned and I'm sure they are leaving to Adobe and AVID in droves.
     
  4. akdj, Jul 27, 2011
    Last edited: Jul 27, 2011

    akdj macrumors 65816

    akdj

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2008
    Location:
    Alaska
    #4
    Actually, while I completely agree with you...there's one exception...it's not missing loads of NEW features...it's left out plenty of OLD "options". FCPx is clearly made for digital/solid state editors in it's infancy...I believe Apple will leave it to 3rd party and the cottage industries to come up with options for using and converting tape or printing out to...as well, the QT foundation has been completely redone. Bringing in "old" projects from FCP7 isn't an option. With the new, not QT architecture...engineering this would be futile, IMO. Again...leave it to the 3rd party vendors. I'm confused though...while I've payed my mortgage for many years doing audio and video production...I'm dumbfounded why folks would "abandon" the platform. FCP7 works just FINE right along side FCPx...and the day before FCPx was released, EVERYONE of these folks complaining so loudly was doing just fine on the platform. It didn't just become obsolete overnight! If the need to re-use old material or work from old projects and bins...one could easily work in the other software, convert to whatever their format of choice is and move it over to FCPx.

    Apple went all in with this re-write. From the bottom up. Neither Avid, nor Adobe has done this. Adobe, while offering 64bit support is VERY specific about which (for us Mac users) thousand dollar video cards offer any kind of acceleration...while the new FCPx is scalable...I've got it loaded on my 2010 Mac Pro, 2011 17" MBP, a 2011 13" Air...and a couple of iMacs. It doesn't matter WHICH platform I'm using it on...it FLAT FLIES!!! Just as fast as can be. We, too, without million dollar Hollywood budgets...use the DSLRs...5d2 and 7d...along side Panasonic HVX/HPX and AF100s...as well as a couple of Sony EX1(r)'s....it is now so easy to pop footage from ALL cameras on to the timeline and just start editing!!! I started at the end of the tape days (late 80s), so I'm kind of anal about preproduction and organization...and FCPx is just awesome for footage organization in my opinion...

    Someone else mentioned it in another thread...I'm not so sure MOST of these folks that are slamming the software have spent ANY time with it. Certainly it has the iMovie "look" to it...only at FIRST though...the power underneath the skin is phenomenal...and the potential of the future on this foundation is endless. I really, truly hope the 3rd party programmers jump on board. And soon. The gestures of Lion...the ability to use an iPad for control of the program...getting the software out of the way so you can concentrate on the art of the edit...in my opinion, that's what it's about. I feel like a "certain population" of these complainers are nervous...with the option for anyone serious about editing...and $300 in their pocket with a story to tell, can now all the sudden become a competitor. This paranoia seems unfounded though...just as we can all stop in at Lowes and buy a hammer, nails and plywood...few of us can build a sturdy house that's up to code and doesn't leak like a siv:) The pros will still be the pros...but with youtube receiving one million videos updated daily...and a potential audience in the billions....FCPx, IMHO, will be ubiquitous soon. The non-pros, or the (I hate the word) Pro-Sumers...that do NOT have to print to tape, that ARE producing for others to watch on their computer screens or TVs at home (NOT the big screen), or uploading the 10/15/30 second spots to their local TV stations on Dropbox...are ALL shooting file based footage, ALL solid state these days with Very, VERY few in the "need group" for tape...either ingestion or output. THIS is the crowd that Apple is going to capture...and then along will come another pair of Cohen brothers producing some blockbuster that they cut on FCPx and the argument will go away.

    I think...in fact, I KNOW...all the "Pros" that I work with, locally...(by pros, I mean those with cams that are charging money for pre-prod, the shoot, and post...and have been doing it for some time), have at LEAST two different suites. Most of us, around here anyway...have both FCP studio and a Premier suite (After Effects has, IMO always been a step above Motion...and who in post production can live without PhotoShop?). I also know a gentleman locally that has both of these as well as an AVID station (that isn't used often).

    I guess my point is...after this long rant...is primarily that this program, while an infant release, is nothing short of Awesome! That said...I mean that as it sits "on it's own". I still have, and utilize FCP7. Most pros that are considering FCPx I know have the same...it's not going anywhere. You can run both on the same machine. This is the first time Apple has allowed this...so they know. They realize it's a .0 release!

    It's an incredible foundation...and if you can't visualize the house that can be built on top of it...the landscaping that can surround it...and the curb appeal when it all comes together...perhaps you're coming to the end of your "Pro" career. I remember the same when the transition first started to digital (from tape). Dynamic Range, the colors, et al...no WAY could digital every catch up.....ya know, if it's a great story...NO one will give a SH%@ what it was cut on, how it was shot...whether or not you used this software or that. They'll watch your creation, they'll enjoy it...and you win! Period. It's a tool...that's it. But kind of like a new DeWalt 18volt cordless drill...vs. the old screwdriver. It's a tool, when learned how to use, can save a helluva lotta time!

    Jer
     
  5. bluap84 thread starter macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2011
    Location:
    UK
    #5
    @Jer - i think that was pretty dam awesome! Well said...And i agree with you 110% with me being i dunno...a "bedroom" editor...i dont need to export to tape or have hollywood budgets. With the modern times and tech always expanding and growing...the old media formats will eventually fade away. Look at RED producing amazing cameras which record to SSD. Then Canon with the 5D and 7D cameras...FCPX is perfect for that! 2 features i LOVE about FCPX well 2 of many, is the background rendering, which clearly allows you to work with all formats in the timeline, as it renders to one output as you edit. Also the 64bit backend, which since upgrading my iMac to 12gb allows FCPX to FLY!!!!

    A friend of mine (apperently went for an jnr editing role) and they told him to delete FCPX from his HDD because it wasnt good enough. Now he has it in his head that its *****, but then if you think...if you arent cutting for TV or Hollywood but your audience is on the web, vimeo / youtube etc once again FCPX is perfect for you.

    Ok its missing the old features, but by the sounds of it...3rd part developers will jump on the band wagon and make changes for the better, or Apple will do that them selves.

    FCPX has room to grow and change things maybe for the better, its great for media management which is clearly setting the foundation for the digital world where everything will be tapless. Only gripe i have with FCPX is not knowing it inside out and the fact it crashed once and i lost a whole project. Im a faster learner so hoping to get up to speed soon enough. The magnetic time line can be annoying at times, thats only because im not use to it.

    the end!
     
  6. LethalWolfe macrumors G3

    LethalWolfe

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2002
    Location:
    Los Angeles
    #6
    Or perhaps they've just been around long enough to realize that $0.79 and a pocket full of potential is barely enough for coffee at 7/11. ;)

    I don't feel like rehashing the whole FCP 10 debate again because it's been done to death, but I will say that the number of superficial complaints I've read and talked to people about (ex. I don't like that it looks like iMovie) are a small compared to the legit complaints like a boat load of missing features, killing off FCP 7 as well as a number of other apps like Color, Cinema tools, Final Cut server, Soundtrack Pro, DVD Studio Pro (this one was a given though) and the cold-water-in-the-face reminder than Apple does what it wants when it wants how it wants so always be prepared to have the rug pulled out from under you. For anyone that currently makes a living or wants to making a living using Apple hardware and/or software that is a very unnerving position to be in (at least when Apple killed of the Xserve line they gave people a heads up).

    As for being more web focused... I guess since editing is what I love and what I hope I can continue to do until the day I die I don't want my primary tool to have such a limited scope. I've worked on everything from web videos to TV shows to indie features using the Final Cut Suite and that flexibility and scalability are some of the software's best selling points (as well as the price, of course) and it's disheartening to see FCP 10 apparently leave that behind.

    No one knows what improvements Apple will make, when they will make them and how much they will charge so I don't think it's unreasonable for people, many of whom have been waiting for a significant update to FCP since version 6, to move on. Many people saying "So long, FCP" aren't doing it out of a knee jerk reaction but after years of watching Adobe and Avid make significant strides while waiting on Apple to release a new FCP. Well, the new FCP is out, it doesn't meet the needs of those people so they are moving on.

    If FCP 10 eventually becomes a more suitable app I'll take another look at it, as I'm sure many editors will. Until then though I'm going to focus on applications that meet my needs today instead of ones that only have the allure of possibly meeting my needs tomorrow.


    Lethal
     
  7. the vj macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2006
    #7
    My friend, I work at a TV station and I have colleges in other stations as well. Everybody is changing into Avid or Premiere and let me explain you why:

    1. You can not open your old FCP files any more. There are a lot of videos that need retouching and can be used again with a little tweek. We have no less than 5 thousand FCP files and we handle no less than 100 per day.

    2. If you start using FCPX today, eventually you will have to work in a post production house to be a professional, lets say in one or two years. When you arrive you will see people are using AVID or Premiere but I bet you what ever you want that no FCPX. They may probably have the software installed in one computer to play around with it but that is it.

    3. There are tonds of features FCPX does not have that we, as editors, need and have been waiting for.

    For example, back in 1999 I remember Premiere used to do background render (12 years ago), FCP always claimed it could but barely. FCPX has the background render but they are taking way the rest of the features.

    When I started to use FCP back in 2004 I remember no post production house was using it and I was alone, it took some 6 years to be accepted by the industry as an "ok" option.

    Imagine how long is going to take for FCPX... NEVER!!!! People are returning to Avid. Where I work we will be switching to Avid in February. More reliable as a company and as a software, not to mention that post production is their business, no cellphones.

    If you want to play with FCPX do it, but if you consider yourself professional and want to be part of the industry get Avid, the student version is $300.
     
  8. martinX macrumors 6502a

    martinX

    Joined:
    Aug 11, 2009
    Location:
    Australia
    #8
    I think that's quite an assumption you've made there.
     
  9. bluap84 thread starter macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2011
    Location:
    UK
    #9
    i think thats abit harsh! Like people say about photography. Its not the camera but the person behind it. Im sure its the same to a certain degree with editing, if you have the vision to make a beautiful edit. Doesnt matter what tool you use to do it. Wether your pro or not.

    I think what Apple will do, will do something similar to the iPhone4 saga with the atenna. Loads of people kicked up a fuss, shouting and screaming. Apple gave out free bumpers. Ok its only a bumper...worth £24. But it kinda shows Apple do try and keep their customers happy.

    So wait and see...unless you have a crystall ball, i wouldnt say professional editing suites wont be using FCPX ever! Because it has a lot of cool features and its poweful.
     
  10. cgbier macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Jun 6, 2011
    #10
    I've been digging around a bit in the history of Final Cut. To me, the whole discussions about X seems to be a replay of what was discussed 12 years ago.

    The Job wanted FCP to be a glorified iMovie to be given free with a Mac Tower. The FCP team could convince him to, at least, ask for a token fee. "Professional" editors didn't like FCP 1 at all. They were afraid that noobs could rob their laurels (and they did).
    Nowadays, it is the same: FCP X is a glorified iMovie robbing the laurels of the "pros".
    The "industry" has been very conservative over the years. We shoot tapeless for years (well, I shoot HDV, but still...), so why the heck should we deliver our project on tape? An external hard drive goes for about the same price as an HD tape nowadays - the price for a VTR is not even included.
    Economy is bad. Commercials are produced on Sony Vegas today - 600 bucks for an editing suite without the "pro" snobbism, and that is exactly where FCP X is aiming at. Apple hasn't forsaken the "pro market" - it is the "pros" that weren't able to adjust.

    If you really need all the bells and whistles, then go Avid or Premier, but I see FCP X as the future in video production. The future of the video entertainment industry lies with outlets like Youtube.

    The only beef I have with FCP X is the lack of DVDSP, STP and some of the more advanced features in Color (mostly masking).

    I am not one of the high level broadcast or Hollywood "pro", but I make my money with producing scientific documentation (and some event shooting on the side), having used FCP since version 3, and for me, like for 99.9% of Apple buyers, FCP X is more than good enough. I like it ( considering it FCP X.0).
     
  11. islanders macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Jul 21, 2006
    Location:
    Charleston, SC
    #11
    The way I see it, the choice between video editing software has a lot to do with timing. If you already own a Mac and OSX software FCP, etc, you can keep using that and buy PCPX for $300. No big deal. However if you are upgrading your hardware or buying your first video editing rig then the choice of what platform is more difficult. So is it worth going with a Mac platform just for PCPX? Will the future Mac hardware be sufficient to run other software? Although maybe it will be more suited for iMacs and MBP and be very successful for Apple, while the pro users migrate over to other options. The "switch" option to Adobe is attractive as well as educational discounts.
     
  12. mBox macrumors 68020

    Joined:
    Jun 26, 2002
    #12
    Just like the old days again. Let the true vendors deal with the pro stuff. Were an Avid house and even though Avid seems like their listening (I think its bunk since timing is a bit odd with the FCPX debacle), we dont believe they will stay the course.
    The bigger corps tend to lose sight of what we need.
    The Pros dont need help, heck they have the budgets (Im one of them) to buy a dozen Macs every 2 years :p

    Now I like to think that the GoPro/YouTube/Web guerrilla video heads are the ones to be tended too.
    And I believe Apple is just there to give them a hand :)

    BTW, loving FCPX even when I have to do it in my own spare time.
    Now just waiting for a Resolve/FCPX round-trip option ;)
     
  13. akdj macrumors 65816

    akdj

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2008
    Location:
    Alaska
    #13
    ...an interesting and civil conversation. Not typical when discussing this new software, on most boards:) Mentioned earlier, it's like 2001/2/3 all over again!!! Right after Apple grabbed it from Macromedia...Avid systems were a trillion dollars and about as proprietary as possible, Adobe Premier wasn't a "real" option for the "Real Pro", and boy did the industry Freak The * Out when FCP popped!

    Remember spokesman Roger Avary...after editing "Rules of Attraction" and releasing it on the Big Screen? 2001, that dude walked from coast to coast, stopped by every production house pitching FCP...so many folks balked, and continued to spend mega bucks on Avid...while some actually listened! Apple didn't want it in the beginning...it was a defensive move and a hot potato NOBODY wanted to buy. Initially, it was a program on both platforms...Apple took it over, put a team together and continued development. To date...some phenomenal flicks have been cut on FCP...including several that have either been nominated for OR received THEE Academy award for best editing...including; "No Country for Old Men", "Cold Mountain" (2003...in the beginning!!!)...and Kirk Baxter & Angus Wall were nominated for "Curious Case of Benjamin Button" and WON last year's Academy Award for the monster flick of the year "The Social Network". That SAME program they used is STILL available...you can still buy it, and update it to the same "Level" the Academy Award winners have...

    FCPx will continue to evolve. Initially, FCP wasn't an entire suite...it was an editor. Along the way, every couple years over the past decade...Apple has integrated Motion, DVDSP, Color, LiveType, et al in to the suite...programs that were over $20k and required proprietary gear to use (Color) *Before* Apple allowed it's integration in to their $1500 suite...then $999 suite...now, down to $299. IMHO, that's just it...no self proclaimed "Professional" would dream that an editing package required to cut an Academy Award winner would be so cheap! So available...so ubiquitous!!! Again...there are obviously some real pros in this conversation...ALL of which seem to understand the fact that it IS a .0 release. While they can have all the code-writers in the world and Randy along for the ride...they (Apple and FCP engineering staff) are NOT professional movie editors. They must leave that to the Baxter/Wall teams in Hollywood.

    It WILL evolve. It's a complete re-write, from Ground---Up. Apple wouldn't have spent the time, money and resources to do this work...if it was still a "Hobby" ala Apple TV. It's an obvious and bonafide editing platform. (FCP 7); flicks like "The Ring", "Napolean Dynamite", "300"...."The Corpse Bride" was edited on FCP way back in 2005!!!!....X-Men *Wolverine, True Grit...and dozens more...and that tool should still be in your tool box!!! (if you are a professional editor)...FCPx is just another, new...shiny, yet still to be refined tool.

    Lethal...you've been around, and it seems you're knowledgable on the platform. Why aren't you a believer? I guess I'm confused why more guys and gals that've been around the business for a while are NOT willing to believe in the system (as you've seen the changes of the years). FCP has hardly stood still...since Apple has taken it over, as I've said earlier..we've gotten treats every couple of years...the last iteration of FCP (7) lost the Big Box and all of the cool literature...that bummed me out, but I've got 4 boxes, since FCP 4:)...and I've never read any of the books cover to cover. Maybe Apple knew??? Not sure. It was also, kind of like Snow Leopard...more of a "maintenance" upgrade. Not a lot of new doodads etc. Not a lot more they could do when relying on the QT foundation. Something had to happen. It's taken a LOT of time...and I just can't imagine why a company as smart, rich, and evolutionary as Apple would just sit back on their laurels and watch Adobe and Avid take BACK over the market share they've gained.

    I think...along with the prosumer and consumer markets, all of these experimental pros working the editorial side of *FilmMaking (can we still call it that?), should be willing to add it to their tool kit. Truly, if you ARE a pro, $299 is an hour or...maybe 90 minutes of work. It's worth the gamble, and a really, REALLY easy way to cut the new form of Solid State delivered footage we are all receiving these days. Kinda fun too!

    Maybe I'm still naive after 20 years...but I've seen so many changes in media since the 80's...whether it be radio, TV, film, print...my gosh...we ALL have (those of us 35+!!!) Why is it sooooo hard to believe this ISN'T the way editing is headed? I'm all for an easier, slicker, more efficient way to do my job. And I love learning new programs...to me, the older systems, as we become more and more efficient...can also breed complacency. Obviously, that's not the case with these Academy Award winners...and those tools are still out there...if you're just starting out as an editor, it's hard to argue why one would even want to DEAL with tape!!! Sheesh, I was glad to get rid of that option 5 years ago. While I still shoot some "C" roll footage with small DV/HDV cams we have...I'm in zero a hurry to get back to those days of dealing with tape. I'm really excited for it to go away...again, not film. Tape. But I'm not shooting a Hollywood blockbuster (yet;)), and it seems EVERY client I have also want "Web Ready" content as well as their physical copy on DVD...or an upload to Dropbox.

    Again...it just seems like the same conversations...albeit, a few less participants as we many of us were still dialing up...from 2001/2...as history repeats itself.

    Jer
     
  14. mBox macrumors 68020

    Joined:
    Jun 26, 2002
    #14
    Another opinion....

    This is from REDUSER:

    I have spent a lot of time not only evaluating FCPX, but also evaluating technological advancements in general since the late 1990's. Pointing out that FCPX is missing critical components to professional users is warranted and (more importantly) a large percentage of the reasoning behind limited implementation of this application in the workforce. But to suggest that FCPX is a step backwards is a gross misunderstanding of what is happening in this program, programs like it and Apple in general.

    While it's easy to establish "WHAT" is wrong with FCPX, I encourage people to explore the "WHY." And when you can figure out the "WHY" you can always determine the "HOW."
    For example, there are components inside the new architecture that are simply so advanced that there is no way to easily or efficiently upgrade existing project files from a previous iteration. But even more significant than that is the philosophical approach Apple is taking on editing in general and I personally am 100% behind Apple's stand on the matter, even though it means I cannot use the program for much of my work at this time.

    What's happening with FCPX right now is no different than what Apple did when they switched from OS9 to OSX. The problems, limitations, dual-booting, limited functionality, restricted horsepower - all of this was part of a massive improvement that starts with massive causalities. And while there were few online message boards at the time of the OSX turnover, I am willing to bet the opinions of those feeling "marooned" due to their contentment was similar to the feelings now. -They just didn't have as easy a time of expressing it. But forward-thinking leaders like Apple (and there are many others) are able to identify when it's appropriate to sacrifice the few to save the many. So is the case of the current situation of FCPX.

    Now a real risk: POLITICS;-)
    One thing that always bothers me with political discussion is that people tend to assume they know as much as world leaders in terms of evaluation of decisions. In other words, people criticize presidents or senators, military officers or even mayors from making what seem "rash" decisions when there is no way all of the information that went into those decision are clear to the general public. That is to say we often do not have the largest perspective on the matter, yet we do have the largest (collective) voice in the matter. This is why I cannot partake in this petition because it assumes I know more than Apple does about what's good for the software and hardware they build for me...which I don't.
    Some of you may remember a radical change in Apple's platform when in 1999 they removed the floppy drive from their computers. "How will we ever get content in and out of the CPU!?!?!" criticized many. But Apple knew of AT&T and Comcast who had been laying massive lines of cable (many cities with early fiber forms) that was going to offer high speed internet within 18 months. Steve said "You'll just send 3.5MB files through the internet without any physical media." But did everyone take this "organ transplant" well? Of course not, but the masses benefited hugely because Apple took a stand on a level of progressions that was necessary for it's own protection and advancement of the tools we use. When a company with as much reach, influence and general inside information as Apple has knows something about the future, they tend to position their product in line with that trend. This is the very reason that when Apple releases (what I believe will be their last) tower, it will be without optical drives. Like the floppy drive, optical media is a limiting format and a bottleneck that's lifespan is on a steady decline. While this will upset the tools of many, it will no doubt improve the tools for many more.

    FCPX in a word: HORSEPOWER.
    This system is by far the most advanced image and sound manipulation device that I've ever seen. Running incredibly complex tasks on my laptop in 2K resolution with this program is unmatched by any other software I've seen for the price of the tool and the hardware it runs on. For me, the road that FCPX is headed down is absolutely the right one, but it's a road under construction. And while I'm fully aware driving on that road now is going to be full of unfinished pavement, narrow lanes and those annoying K-rails really close to the side of my car, I know the direction the road is going is exactly where need to be.

    My friends Steve Beres and Suny Behar have a podcast show called "Tech Media Planet." The show is fantastic not only because the content is good, but unlike many podcasts, Steve and Suny are hysterical. Making people laugh while talking about gear is about as rare as it gets, but that's why people love the show. Tech Media Planet recently did a show on FCPX and had me as a guest. If you want to hear and see (we did a clip component to the podcast) what I highlight as the right moves for FCPX, take a free listen at the link below. It just scratches the surface on what FCPX's positive affect will be on the next evolutionary trend of creative hardware and software potential.

    http://techmediaplanet.com/2011/07/e...nal-cut-pro-x/

    Apple clearly made mistakes in this release. And I'm as disappointed in the positioning of the application as anyone. But I have been a user and supporter of AVID, FCP and Premiere for over a decade and I like to think I know a good idea when I see one.

    Taking in all that I just said, is it not clear what the real elephant in the room is here? Everything above seems strangely familiar with a significant, controversial and unfinished product release in September of 2007...

    ;-)

    m
    Michael Cioni
    Founder, CEO
    LIGHT IRON
    www.lightiron.com
    Blog @ michaelcioni.tumblr.com
     
  15. LethalWolfe macrumors G3

    LethalWolfe

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2002
    Location:
    Los Angeles
    #15
    12 years ago Apple purchased an already created product and didn't have over a decades worth experience in making NLE software. Apple didn't have to release FCP 10 how they did they chose to. There is a reason features like import from iMovie and share w/FB made the initial release and other features like OMF support and multicam did not.

    People will pay money for premium content (just look at Hulu, Netflix, iTunes store, etc.,) but no one would pay a monthly fee to get access to to lame cat videos or watch a 30sec pre-roll ad for a 15sec video of a skateboarder falling down a flight of stairs. The internet will certainly become another distribution method for movies and TV shows and original premium content all of which typically have workflows that require things not available in FCP 10.

    That's not to say that FCP 10 couldn't be shoehorned in w/enough workarounds because I'm sure it could. One could also run the Boston Marathon in high heels but I'd still recommend to do it in running shoes.


    You can buy a used copy of FCP 7 or, if you already owned a volume license, you can get a one time chance to stock up but that's it. Final Cut 7 is dead.

    Odd, on the boot up screen it says version 10. ;)

    I'm an Editor. I'm not a Final Cut Pro Editor. I use the tools that will best let me edit and best let me get work and FCP 10 is currently neither of those things. Time I would spend poking around w/FCP 10 is time I'm not spending to learn Premiere Pro or getting comfortable with Avid again. If in a few years FCP 10 grows into a tool I could use I'll pick it up and learn it then. There's no real incentive for me to get in on the ground floor.

    I have to disagree. The last meaningful update to the Final Cut Suite was in '07. The '09 release was just anemic. Sure, getting a couple new flavors of ProRes was nice but Apple mainly just charged people for bug fixes. I mean, in four years Color went from 1.0 to 1.5 and 95% of what Apple did during that time were bug fixes that should've been released for free during the first year or two of Color's life.

    Who says they want that market? Why do you insist it will evolve? If Apple wanted to keep the market that FCP has grown into why did they release FCP 10 they way they did? Why did Apple spend over a decade climbing its way higher and higher up the post production food chain only jump off? I don't think Apple would object if people were able to eventually use FCP 10 for higher end stuff again but I don't think that's a driving focus anymore. IMO, FCP 10 is aimed to replace both FCE and FCP and Apple's first step certainly was more towards FCE's audience.

    I've met Michael before (he gave me a tour of his previous facility before he started LIGHT IRON) and I think what he's saying pretty much meshes with what everyone else is saying. Apple totally dropped the ball w/the release of FCP 10 and currently it is a pretty big disappointment. He also talks about the potential of FCP 10 and I agree w/that as well. As I think a lot of editors do. But, like I said before, potential doesn't pay the bills. If FCP 10 comes around I'll pick it up but I'm not going to wait a year or two or three for that to happen. I'm not going to handicap myself as an editor, as a professional, indefinitely in hopes that Apple might make the changes to FCP 10 that I need at some indeterminate future date.


    Lethal
     
  16. cgbier macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Jun 6, 2011
    #16
    It is all well thought out what you say, but Michael Wohl mentioned something like "Avid and Adobe are about the past 10 years in editing - FCP X is about the next 10 years" (paraphrasing here).

    Give it a bit of time.

    I think the future in editing lies with one-seat apps, like Sony Vegas and, now, FCP X. Small houses that can turn around projects quick and inexpensive (don't forget the "economy"). It is kind of like "video killed the radio show" all over again.
    There still will be a market for top end products, and you are a bit in a constraint to bring them out with FCP X as it stands now. However, I see this market shrinking.
    I don't know in what genre you are working, but I have too often heard "Arts Director? Oh, we have that bookkeeping intern that's gonna deal with you. She knows how to take great pictures with her cellphone."

    I'm not sure if quality still sells. Otherwise, we wouldn't have that much Made in China crap in our house, or there wouldn't be that many teenage vlogs going viral on YT.

    Business wise, FCP X was a great decision from Apple's side. It brought (somewhat) professional editing to the masses again - just like 12 years ago.
    And I can foresee a headline on Apples website "Director xyz gets Oscar for movie abs edited on FCP X" in not too distant future.
     
  17. cgbier macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Jun 6, 2011
    #17
    ...and, I'm an editor also - not high class or so, but very fluid in FCP, not so in PPro, basic literacy in Vegas, and looked into Avid (never liked it). Now I added FCP X to my toolbox.

    I started working on a 15 minute docu on FCP X. So far it works well. For final output, I will have to rely on DVDSP***, and it blows that STP is gone, but I come along pretty well. The FCP X workflow fits me like a glove, once I got the hang of it.

    The nice thing: On my 2010 i7 MBP, FCP X and Motion really fly, compared to FCS2, and Compressor (always been clumsy) got a bit faster too. I really like this new efficiency.

    <rant>
    *** this is actually my biggest lament, the lack of the complete optical media infrastructure. No more chapters, no more DVDSP. iDVD does the job somehow, but I have created my own custom menus, and there is no way to get them into iDVD :(
    For event shooters I see this as the biggest drawback - you can't send your clients an email with YT link. My clients want to have a DVD/BD in their hands that they can watch on a set top player.
    </rant>

    BTW: Use the Feedback feature built into any Appl app ;)
     
  18. islanders macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Jul 21, 2006
    Location:
    Charleston, SC
    #18
    You have to factor hardware into the equation. What will FCPX be compatible with in their offerings? There has been a lot of speculation about the end of the line for the Mac Pros. Apple already has a very structured product line. Most of it is portable and becoming less upgradable. They are also more expensive and Apple makes a hefty profit because if you want to own a Mac it's going to be on their hardware. That has it's advantages but is more suited for high end consumers who are fine with replacing their laptop every 2-3 years. Only the MBP 17 has a PCI slot. You also have to fork out a lot for a dedicated graphics card. Same with the Mac Mini and iMac. You have to pay for the high end to get the kind of performance, and you are very limited with any kind of upgrade or repairing it yourself, with an all in one approach.

    T-bolt has a lot of potential but it's going to be expensive, and a good option for someone who already owns a Mac.

    On the other hand a desk top is highly upgradable. If something breaks or becomes obsolete you just replace it yourself.

    There is also no reason one shouldn't configure their own hardware with desktop Macs except that Apple wants to make more profit, so you are paying an extra 1 or 2 grand just for someone to put a few thumscrews into a mother board and plug in a video card.

    Who is going to pay 4k for a Mac Pro just to run FCPX?

    I can see why a lot of folks who invested in Mac Pros and FCP are concerned that their options have been limited to consumer products.

    Not bashing Apple because they have some great consumer products, but not everyone can afford what they have to offer.
     
  19. bluap84 thread starter macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2011
    Location:
    UK
    #19
    how do you know what the films were edited on? Just knowledge..would be interesting to find out.

    Love this thread though...it shows some really good opinions / thoughts and critics from seasoned editors.
     
  20. 748s macrumors 6502a

    748s

    Joined:
    Dec 14, 2001
    Location:
    Tiger Bay
    #20
    Apple are getting out of the pro area.
    Started when they killed shake, then phenomenon.

    Hobbyists are a bigger market.
    That's the way Apple roll.
    So be it.

    A day in the life
     
  21. CaptainChunk, Jul 30, 2011
    Last edited: Jul 30, 2011

    CaptainChunk macrumors 68020

    CaptainChunk

    Joined:
    Apr 16, 2008
    Location:
    Phoenix, AZ
    #21
    I don't think it's a question of whether someone like Lethal (or many pro video editors, including me) are believers or not. Rather, it's tough to blindly evangelize any software package that a) doesn't meet your current needs; and/or b) has no clear roadmap detailing what will be addressed in order to meet those needs in future updates.

    When the original version of FCP shipped over 10 years ago, yes, it was a product very much in its infancy up against established (and very expensive) Avid systems. I think that in this case, people were a lot more inclined to endorse FCP despite its shortcomings, because it was among the first of the major NLEs that didn't require a rack of expensive dedicated hardware to run; all it needed was a Mac. That made it an instant hit with indie filmmakers. And over the years, FCP evolved into a truly professional editing tool.

    But you can't really apply this same logic to what is happening now. Apple chose to ship a product that innovates while taking huge steps backward in the process. Quite simply, as a working pro, I need to make a living, which means I need software that will meet the needs of my workflow NOW. I can't entrust my livelihood on hope that things will change. Understandably, not everyone is affected by what FCP X lacks, but a lot of us are. Therefore, the those of us who are will respectfully pass on FCP X: either just for now, or indefinitely; that all depends on Apple. Frankly, in the software-based NLE arena, Apple has a lot more competition than they did back in 2001.

    Well, that's only assuming Apple even wants to compete with Adobe and Avid anymore. For all we know, FCP X may continue to be exactly the NLE Apple wants it to be. Hard to say...
     
  22. JAWWC macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Jun 1, 2008
    #22
    I'm getting fed up of reading that fcpx isn't a pro app because it doesn't do stuff with tapes. It's a MODERN video editing tool, just because it's left old technologies behind doesnt mean its not pro. Production companies should be leaving these things in the past anyway. You can leave fcp7 installed if you need it. I work for a small media company and we have 10 of thousands of pounds worth of old tape decks and stuff just incase we need it. It doesn't mean the new tools we use aren't professional!
     
  23. xizar macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2009
    #23
    There seems to be a lot of pollyannism with regard to FCPX. I get that people are unhappy with it but how much complaining is enough?

    Perhaps we should all complain that OS X isn't enough like System 7, or that computers don't come with BASIC in the ROM.
    Gee whiz! How are we going to code if we can't boot into a programming language?!

    I will see your "WTF FCPro-sumer lolz" and raise you a "Yay! It's better than iMovie!"

    I entered in to the Mac game well after the now-Legacy foolishness was over.
    I do not care that there's no floppy disk drive. I haven't used one since the early '90s.
    Internet? I have it! Lion took less than about an hour to download.
    Launchpad!? okay... that one sucks. But last I checked, Finder still works. ;)

    I like FCPX. It's letting me fool around with video clips in ways I never would have in the old version because of how obtuse the layout is.
    It can continue the democratization of video composition, the same way the cell phone did that for photography. (Cell phones vs point-n-shoots would be a different argument we could have later.)

    Don't you want people taking video? Cutting video? CREATING things?

    Or does that lie strictly within the purview of so-called "professional"s who present themselves as individuals more willing to whine about non-issues rather than finding solutions?
     
  24. CaptainChunk, Jul 31, 2011
    Last edited: Jul 31, 2011

    CaptainChunk macrumors 68020

    CaptainChunk

    Joined:
    Apr 16, 2008
    Location:
    Phoenix, AZ
    #24
    It didn't just leave behind "old" technologies. It left behind technologies that are commonly used in the post production field on a daily basis. And I'm not even talking about tapes here.

    1. Many sound mixers I work with use ProTools and now I don't have a way to output OMFs from timelines. I don't have numbered A/V tracks, so I can't put specific audio tracks in the places the sound mixer wants them to be. Essentially, I only created more work for him, which gets billed accordingly. Now tell me that's an OLD technology. I dare you to.

    2. I can't output XMLs or EDLs. Well, shucks. I guess that means I can throw the majority of my RED and Alexa workflow straight out the window with FCP X. I suppose I can also do without a skilled colorist on a DaVinci or Pablo because apparently Apple doesn't think their PRO software needs to interface with the rest of the industry.

    Those are just two of the problems I have with FCP X. They are REAL problems, no matter how a fanboy wants to sugar coat them. Don't get me wrong, I have NO problem with improvements and changes in technologies. In fact, I actually like a lot of things about FCP X. But I think things would have been a lot different if Apple were to privately release their SDK to important 3rd parties DURING development. Instead, they pulled the rug out from under many working pros and 3rd-party developers right on product launch and proclaimed, "this is the new way of doing things. Deal with it."

    I actually bought FCP X to play with. At the present time, it gets very little actual use, so it's more of a toy to me right now with the potential to be something great. Right now, it's simply a question of, "do I want it to be lightning fast or do I want it to work in my workflow?" 95% of the time, I need something that works because potential alone doesn't pay my bills.

    My point is that something doesn't become professional just because Apple (or any other software developer, for that matter) says it is. It becomes professional when the actual industry embraces it as a viable tool to get work done. FCP X just isn't there yet, IMHO. I hope that in the future it is.


    There's many things I like about FCP X, too. I like how FCP X handles video clips. It's very fast (the clip scrubbing alone...OMG) and thoughtfully executed. But at the same time, I wouldn't accuse FCP 7 of having an "obtuse" layout. Dated, maybe. But it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out and I (and many other editors) can cut rather quickly in it.


    I don't think any of us ever said we wanted to take that away from anyone. I think that any creative - pro, amateur or otherwise would advocate the advancement of the arts, regardless of the tools used to create them.

    But your statement about "non-issues" is puzzling. For example, since when was not being able to collaborate with sound mixers on INDUSTRY STANDARD equipment NOT an issue? Maybe it isn't an issue for YOU, but it's definitely an issue for me and many other editors. I know that Apple has kinda-sorta acknowledged this very point and that they are "looking to fix it," but for now, they push people to Automatic Duck to add functionality back that was present in FCP for years.

    Finding solutions to our problems? Sorry, at the end of the day, I'm an editor. Just how would you suppose I'd find solutions to the valid problems FCP X has? Develop my own software tools when I'm clearly not a software developer? Jump through multiple levels of unnecessary hoops to accomplish what was once easy when deadlines are looming? I get paid to create content, not fix what I shouldn't be expected to fix.

    So, I continue to do the majority of my work in FCP 7. I guess more than anything, many of us were hoping for the upgrade we've been asking for for years. Perhaps FCP X will evolve into something more of us can truly use. It's just a question of when.
     
  25. xizar macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2009
    #25
    As gets harped on every other post, your current workflow is still intact, and that is precisely why the problems people have with FCP X are non-issues.

    Nothing becomes a "industry standard" overnight. FCP X will either become one, or it will get sidelined. People will either work with the tools they have, or buy/code new ones. You mention Automatic Duck; in the user guide for Pro Export, it notes that back in version 3, FCP didn't have XML exporting. FCP 7 does.

    And just because you laid down the challenge, I'll point out that OMF is as old as DVD. ;)

    I'm going to draw out one comment you made above: "it's more of a toy to me right now with the potential to be something great."

    That's exactly what it is to me, as well. I hope that as FCP X explores its potential I can keep up... I'm no where near a rocket scientist... just a mathematician.
     

Share This Page