Final Cut Pro X Receives Minor Update With Performance Improvements, Bug Fixes

[VonRoeder]

I was once like you.

Then I decided to take the time and put in the effort to learn FCP X, with it's magnetic, single storyline with attached clips approach and worked through the frustrations that came with expecting it to be the thing and the way I was used to for years and years and... it turns out it's freaking amazing.

I go back to FCP 7 for old projects with clients from time to time and it feels like I'm editing with a stone tablet. Everything is so rigid and unresponsive and takes so many steps. I can edit SO much faster in X, which frees me up to be more creative and get more done in my day.

Track based editing served its purpose but it's an old fashioned way of doing things that is holding great editors who are afraid of change back. Take the next step and give FCP X an honest try. It won't be easy at first but it will be so much better in the long run.

I was once like you.

When folks ask me if they should jump to FCPX or Premiere I tell them: If you're comfortable editing the way you are now, then move to Premiere. It's a great program, integrates After Effects and Photoshop, can virtually take in any format, it's practically FCP7…But if you want to evolve and become more efficient, try FCPX. There is a bit of a learning curve but it pays off once you wrap your head around the magnetic timeline and such.

 

[darcyf]

Tracks…I need tracks. I use them like a canvas. If I can't start a project by making 10+ blank tracks I'm out.

Maybe what you really need is Motion? Final Cut is for fast and creative video editing. Motion is for fast and creative compositing. If you're using tracks like canvas then it sounds like you're more of a compositor than editor. And if you are an editor, then you might benefit from learning some more efficient and effective editing techniques.

 

[pat500000]

I was FCP 7 user until i gave a try on FCP X. I'm actually hooked on it. As someone who mentioned about the tracks..you can still use tracks as in clip over clip...(if that's what one of the guy in this thread meant). Professional isn't about brand..it's about what product you use to get your project done and fast/effectively and get paid.

 

[jjhny]

Haha, basically.
Not sure how accurate this is as people who voted were anyone that considers themselves an 'editor' and open to all professions and hobbyists:
http://www.televisual.com/read-reports-surveys/42/296/Editing-The-most-popular-systems.html

That is almost exactly what I am seeing - Apple really doesn't get what 'professionals' in the business do.

One thing SONY was smart to do was to split their business - they have a pro division that just concentrated on that segment and was the most R&D intensive. Then they let that high end tech filter down to the consumer level over time.

Apple could do it, but I fear they are becoming a 'fashion tech' company. Being fashionable is dangerous as you rely on emotional attachments, which can change.

 

[handsome pete]

Maybe what you really need is Motion? Final Cut is for fast and creative video editing. Motion is for fast and creative compositing. If you're using tracks like canvas then it sounds like you're more of a compositor than editor. And if you are an editor, then you might benefit from learning some more efficient and effective editing techniques.

No, Motion (and AE) make for terrible editors. They're not meant to be either.

There are many different techniques in editing and there is no "right" way to do it. FCPX is a pretty great program at an awesome value, but for a lot of people it's no more efficient or effective (whatever that means) than the standard track based approach.

 

[JesterJJZ]

I find it completely unfathomable that anyone in 2015 would still be using FCP7, a 32-bit application based on a mid-1990s architecture that hasn't been updated in nearly a half-decade. Unless you are masochistic, perhaps?

You would be surprised how many people use FCP7. I would say 90% of the editing projects I receive from clients are FCP7 based. I get premiere every once in a while. I've never had an FCPX project come my way from anyone.

I know FCP7 like the back of my hand, I cut and work faster in it than any other NLE. Even with Red support in Premiere and FCPX, it's still way easier and faster to cut proxys in FCP7 and then do my online in Resolve, output in Premiere.

 

[darcyf]

No, Motion (and AE) make for terrible editors. They're not meant to be either.

There are many different techniques in editing and there is no "right" way to do it. FCPX is a pretty great program at an awesome value, but for a lot of people it's no more efficient or effective (whatever that means) than the standard track based approach.

Ok well I specifically said that Motion is for compositing and Final Cut is for editing, so I'm not sure what the first part of your comment is disagreeing with.

And I never said there was a right way to edit, but there are certainly better ways. Nothing will be more efficient or effective (you can look those words up if you don't know what they mean) than the way a person knows how to do a thing right at this very moment. But for those willing to learn, improvements can be made over time.

People used to cutting and splicing film resisted non-linear digital video editing when it first arrived, and if you plunked them in front of such a system they'd probably be slower at it out of the gate. But imagine if no one ever decided to learn this new tool?

Keep doing things the old way if you like. But a better way does exist.

 

[handsome pete]

Ok well I specifically said that Motion is for compositing and Final Cut is for editing, so I'm not sure what the first part of your comment is disagreeing with.

But he was talking about editing. You suggested he look into Motion simply because he likes working with a handful of tracks right off the bat(which is very common).

Nothing will be more efficient or effective (you can look those words up if you don't know what they mean)

Wasn't sure what you meant by effective. It seemed redundant.

People used to cutting and splicing film resisted non-linear digital video editing when it first arrived, and if you plunked them in front of such a system they'd probably be slower at it out of the gate. But imagine if no one ever decided to learn this new tool?

That's BS. There might have been some grumbling about the new digital method, but that was likely due to the technology not being ready in some areas.

The notion that there's just a bunch of old curmudgeons out there hating on something because it's different or new is nonsense. That may be the case in other industries, but this one is made up of some of the most creative and technologically savvy people out there. If a better and faster method is introduced, we jump all over it.

Keep doing things the old way if you like. But a better way does exist.

Again, that's simply your opinion. That's great that FCPX works for you. I've already said I like it. However your use of the word "better" is subjective. A more apropos word would be "different." A "different" way does exist. Whether or not it is better is strictly determined on an individual basis.

 

[tallscot]

I was using FCP since version 1. When X came out, I gave it a try at the Apple store and just wasn't impressed. Told myself I'd wait it out to see how it'd progress. In that time, I migrated to Premiere. Being a heavy user of After Effects and Cinema 4D, the integration and dynamic links are unparalleled to what FCP X could ever offer in its current form.

That's not accurate. The current form of Final Cut Pro X / Motion is much more powerful than Premiere /After Effects.

Both allow you to create motion graphics in AE or Motion and then bring them into the video editor without rendering. FCP X has always been able to do that with Motion. But there is much more integration than that.

For example, Adobe has Live Text templates so you can edit the animated text from AE right inside Premiere Pro. FCP X / Motion are able to do that, but much more. You can edit the font of the text, the color of the text, the drop shadow, any parameter you want right in FCP X. And you can set up rigging for anything in Motion to edit right in FCP X. Check out "rigging and publishing" in Motion. It's MUCH more powerful than AE. So, for example, if you create an animated lower third in Motion and the color of a rectangle the text is on top of is blue, you can set up your rig to be able to select Blue, Red, Green, Yellow right inside Final Cut Pro X. It's very easy, but powerful.

I used After Effects from 1994 when it was CoSa After Effects till today. Motion's keyframe-less system is superior, IMHO. I can do things much, much faster in Motion than AE, and because it's using dynamic behaviors instead of key frames, it's so much faster to move things around and edit. Motion has full integration with Cinema 4D too.

Motion doesn't require multiple timelines with Pre-comps like AE does. It doesn't require I manually go in and click on stop watch icons to create key frames.

Motion has a Layers palette, just like Photoshop does. This is really awesome. You can group objects easily in this palette and then just select the group and animate it. Want something in one group to go to another group, just drag and drop it like you would in Photoshop. No multiple timelines to dig in to, no pre-comps.

So if I want to animate the moon orbiting the earth and then have the earth go across the screen, this is what I'd do in Motion:

1. Put the earth and moon images on the stage. They are now in my Layer palette.
2. Drag and drop the "Orbit" behavior onto the moon.
3. Select "Earth" from the pop-up parameter in the Orbit behavior to tell Motion what you want the moon to orbit the earth object
5. A circle path automatically appears. If you press the space bar, Motion will animate it all in REAL TIME, looped, and as you drag that circle path in and out, it expands and contracts the orbit the moon is making around the earth. You can also drag the speed parameter, the direction parameter, all in REAL TIME as it animates in a loop on your screen. You are watching the moon orbit the earth with literally 2 clicks of your mouse.
6. Group the moon and earth and now you have a folder in your Layers palette. You want to see them separately? Just like Photoshop, just click on the arrow icon to the left of the folder and it reveals everything inside.
7. Drag and drop the "Throw" behavior onto the group you created. Throw is the behavior that moves objects in a direction at a speed.
8. Again, press the space bar to animate it in real time and click and drag the arrow artwork for the speed and direction of the Throw behavior.

Done. You now have the moon orbiting the earth and both of them moving across the screen without creating a single key frame. The power of not having key frames is I can drag this whole thing and move it where I want without worrying about screwing up key frames, nor do I have to deal with multiple timelines.

There are lots of amazing behaviors including gravity, wind, etc. PLUS, the parameter behaviors are fantastic. For example, if I want to add some random to the speed of the Throw on the whole group, I just drag the Random paramater behavior and select the Throw speed parameter. It has oscillate, etc.

Very powerful stuff. Way beyond AE's ability.

Motion does have traditional key frame capabilities, though, with a very powerful key frame editor palette for changing the bezier curve, etc.

This real time animation capability of Motion blows AE out of the water. There is very little need to render a RAM preview in Motion. Apple was way ahead of Adobe in using the GPUs to accelerate their software, plus Adobe AE still doesn't use hardware acceleration in Mercury with Radeon cards, only nVidia.

In regards to FCP X, I prefer the magnetic timeline paradigm over the traditional tracks. I never accidentally create gaps in my timeline. It's impossible. It's so much faster to edit with this system than traditional tracks. Everything is pinned so when you make one clip shorter, everything past that moves into the exact places it should be.

FCP X has many things since version 10.0 that Premiere has been catching up to. For example, auto syncing your secondary audio with your video clips. It's been in FCP X since day 1. It's fantastic. You do it right in the bin, not in the timeline. Just select the audio clip and video clip for "scene 1 take 2" and right-click and select Syncrhonize and it does it automatically.

The multicam is superior in FCP X too with a lot more angles and you don't have to flatten it at all like you do in Premiere Pro. Doing music videos is a breeze in FCP X. This is another catch-up for Premiere Pro and the performance of the multicam is superior in FCP X without flattening.

The media management in FCP X is also superior IMHO. The key word system is just fantastic coupled with the Timeline Index. It will analyze your video clips and tag them with key words like "One person" " Two person" "Group" "Close Up Shot" "Medium Shot", etc. When I import RED rd3 footage, Premiere creates multiple folders and brings in duplicates. With FCP X, I can just select "Day 1" folder and it will only bring in the video clips in all the sub folders and no duplicates. It tags based on the folder names too.

Then when you add FCP X's "Roles" feature, you have a fantastic way to manage a huge amount of assets. Editing a feature film is a breeze in FCP X.

BTW, the speed of FCP X is fantastic. On the same Mac Pro system, FCP X flies with native RED rd3 footage at 3:1 compression 5K and I play it in real time and scrub in real time with my house cursor with the video at 100% resolution on a 4K monitor. I have CC 2015 and Premiere Pro on the same system requires it to be at 1/4 resolution to be able to play it without rendering.

Everyone should use what they prefer, obviously, but I find most people who bash FCP X just don't know what they are talking about.

 

[JamesPDX]

Here's question for all you Avid Media Composer and Adobe Premiere users, is your current edit in a Library, Event, or Project? Also, how's going straight into Pro Tools 11 -and back- for Post?

I'm keeping Compressor and Motion for sure, but I'm on the fence with using FCPX as an NLE. -It's just not snappier.

 

[darcyf]

*sigh* OK, let's do this...

But he was talking about editing. You suggested he look into Motion simply because he likes working with a handful of tracks right off the bat(which is very common).

Nope. I suggested Motion because it sounded like he was talking about compositing due to his describing multiple tracks being treated like a canvas, but I was VERY SPECIFIC that Motion is for compositing and Final Cut is for editing and went on to talk to him about editing in case editing really was indeed his thing. Time to give this one a rest I think.

Wasn't sure what you meant by effective. It seemed redundant.

K. Well it isn't. Not even a little bit. So moving on!

That's BS. There might have been some grumbling about the new digital method, but that was likely due to the technology not being ready in some areas.

The notion that there's just a bunch of old curmudgeons out there hating on something because it's different or new is nonsense. That may be the case in other industries, but this one is made up of some of the most creative and technologically savvy people out there. If a better and faster method is introduced, we jump all over it.

Is that your opinion? Because Ed Catmull in Creativity Inc writes specifically about how when the first NLE's arrived the editors at the time flat out rejected them and refused to use them even though he himself knew this would dramatically speed up their work and give them more creative freedom -- which is ultimately what happened in the long run. But it was years convincing these people to learn something new because they were so confident and comfortable in their old ways.

This isn't a new concept. New and improved ways of doing things are developed and subsequently rejected all the time. We like what we know.

Again, that's simply your opinion. That's great that FCPX works for you. I've already said I like it. However your use of the word "better" is subjective. A more apropos word would be "different." A "different" way does exist. Whether or not it is better is strictly determined on an individual basis.

No. It's better. I'd spent nearly a decade working in track-based editing systems and truly loving it, and maybe two years now working with the magnetic, single storyline with attached clips approach (plus a myriad other new ways of doing things in X), and as much as I resisted crossing over from 7 to X, I'd fight back ten times as hard if I were asked to go back in the other direction.

I'm not going to qualify "better" as "different" just to satisfy the people who refuse to try, and I mean really try, something new and improved. X is a better way to edit.

 

[darcyf]

That's not accurate. The current form of Final Cut Pro X / Motion is much more powerful than Premiere /After Effects.

Both allow you to create motion graphics in AE or Motion and then bring them into the video editor without rendering. FCP X has always been able to do that with Motion. But there is much more integration than that.

For example, Adobe has Live Text templates so you can edit the animated text from AE right inside Premiere Pro. FCP X / Motion are able to do that, but much more. You can edit the font of the text, the color of the text, the drop shadow, any parameter you want right in FCP X. And you can set up rigging for anything in Motion to edit right in FCP X. Check out "rigging and publishing" in Motion. It's MUCH more powerful than AE. So, for example, if you create an animated lower third in Motion and the color of a rectangle the text is on top of is blue, you can set up your rig to be able to select Blue, Red, Green, Yellow right inside Final Cut Pro X. It's very easy, but powerful.

I used After Effects from 1994 when it was CoSa After Effects till today. Motion's keyframe-less system is superior, IMHO. I can do things much, much faster in Motion than AE, and because it's using dynamic behaviors instead of key frames, it's so much faster to move things around and edit. Motion has full integration with Cinema 4D too.

Motion doesn't require multiple timelines with Pre-comps like AE does. It doesn't require I manually go in and click on stop watch icons to create key frames.

Motion has a Layers palette, just like Photoshop does. This is really awesome. You can group objects easily in this palette and then just select the group and animate it. Want something in one group to go to another group, just drag and drop it like you would in Photoshop. No multiple timelines to dig in to, no pre-comps.

So if I want to animate the moon orbiting the earth and then have the earth go across the screen, this is what I'd do in Motion:

1. Put the earth and moon images on the stage. They are now in my Layer palette.
2. Drag and drop the "Orbit" behavior onto the moon.
3. Select "Earth" from the pop-up parameter in the Orbit behavior to tell Motion what you want the moon to orbit the earth object
5. A circle path automatically appears. If you press the space bar, Motion will animate it all in REAL TIME, looped, and as you drag that circle path in and out, it expands and contracts the orbit the moon is making around the earth. You can also drag the speed parameter, the direction parameter, all in REAL TIME as it animates in a loop on your screen. You are watching the moon orbit the earth with literally 2 clicks of your mouse.
6. Group the moon and earth and now you have a folder in your Layers palette. You want to see them separately? Just like Photoshop, just click on the arrow icon to the left of the folder and it reveals everything inside.
7. Drag and drop the "Throw" behavior onto the group you created. Throw is the behavior that moves objects in a direction at a speed.
8. Again, press the space bar to animate it in real time and click and drag the arrow artwork for the speed and direction of the Throw behavior.

Done. You now have the moon orbiting the earth and both of them moving across the screen without creating a single key frame. The power of not having key frames is I can drag this whole thing and move it where I want without worrying about screwing up key frames, nor do I have to deal with multiple timelines.

There are lots of amazing behaviors including gravity, wind, etc. PLUS, the parameter behaviors are fantastic. For example, if I want to add some random to the speed of the Throw on the whole group, I just drag the Random paramater behavior and select the Throw speed parameter. It has oscillate, etc.

Very powerful stuff. Way beyond AE's ability.

Motion does have traditional key frame capabilities, though, with a very powerful key frame editor palette for changing the bezier curve, etc.

This real time animation capability of Motion blows AE out of the water. There is very little need to render a RAM preview in Motion. Apple was way ahead of Adobe in using the GPUs to accelerate their software, plus Adobe AE still doesn't use hardware acceleration in Mercury with Radeon cards, only nVidia.

In regards to FCP X, I prefer the magnetic timeline paradigm over the traditional tracks. I never accidentally create gaps in my timeline. It's impossible. It's so much faster to edit with this system than traditional tracks. Everything is pinned so when you make one clip shorter, everything past that moves into the exact places it should be.

FCP X has many things since version 10.0 that Premiere has been catching up to. For example, auto syncing your secondary audio with your video clips. It's been in FCP X since day 1. It's fantastic. You do it right in the bin, not in the timeline. Just select the audio clip and video clip for "scene 1 take 2" and right-click and select Syncrhonize and it does it automatically.

The multicam is superior in FCP X too with a lot more angles and you don't have to flatten it at all like you do in Premiere Pro. Doing music videos is a breeze in FCP X. This is another catch-up for Premiere Pro and the performance of the multicam is superior in FCP X without flattening.

The media management in FCP X is also superior IMHO. The key word system is just fantastic coupled with the Timeline Index. It will analyze your video clips and tag them with key words like "One person" " Two person" "Group" "Close Up Shot" "Medium Shot", etc. When I import RED rd3 footage, Premiere creates multiple folders and brings in duplicates. With FCP X, I can just select "Day 1" folder and it will only bring in the video clips in all the sub folders and no duplicates. It tags based on the folder names too.

Then when you add FCP X's "Roles" feature, you have a fantastic way to manage a huge amount of assets. Editing a feature film is a breeze in FCP X.

BTW, the speed of FCP X is fantastic. On the same Mac Pro system, FCP X flies with native RED rd3 footage at 3:1 compression 5K and I play it in real time and scrub in real time with my house cursor with the video at 100% resolution on a 4K monitor. I have CC 2015 and Premiere Pro on the same system requires it to be at 1/4 resolution to be able to play it without rendering.

Everyone should use what they prefer, obviously, but I find most people who bash FCP X just don't know what they are talking about.

Yeah, the Timeline Index is such a great little helper. Speeds up so much of the work I do. Whether it's picking off markers and to-do's, quickly pasting attributes from one interview clip into every other instance of that shot in my sequence, or just jumping from one section to another. It's one of the unsung heroes of X.

I love your take on Motion as well. I was a long time AE user who is now putting the time in to learn Motion. It was a little daunting at first, but I can already see how much faster and more fluid I can be in Motion now. And I'm still only scratching the surface. I'm certified in FCP X and my goal is to do the same in Motion, so I know I've got a ways to go yet. But that step by step example you gave was bang on -- I was able to pull everything you were describing off in less than a minute.

Honestly, I think Motion is probably the least understood and most under appreciated app Apple makes. Which is a shame, because at $49 it's a total steal.

 

[WrrN]

Hmm, how does a "minor update" thread turn into a battle zone? I just want to know if anyone is experiencing any bugs/issues with 10.2.2 before I update. (thank you brave ones who updated right away).

 

[pat500000]

Hmm, how does a "minor update" thread turn into a battle zone? I just want to know if anyone is experiencing any bugs/issues with 10.2.2 before I update. (thank you brave ones who updated right away).

that's what i'm saying. Apparently the first poster mentioned about cc and so another guy came in and reinforced that.

 

[campyguy]

Televisual aren't idiots. They break down the survey respondents here http://www.televisual.com/read-reports-surveys/42/300/Who-took-part-in-the-survey.html and make it quite clear that it's a very small sample but of decent quality. The pinch of salt required should be obvious, but I don't think the survey was designed to be used in heated forum debates, especially Apple forum debates. It was just meant to be interesting.

Probably the most relevant part of the article is a single quote from one of the editors: 'I'm too old to learn anything else'. TV editing is a career that many take right up to retirement, so change should be expected to be slow.

I also should have offered that I've been a degreed and practicing technical writer since 1988, with my degree coming from an accredited program. No offense intended, and I'll reiterate, one needs to cite their sources - three of the most important words in writing and surveys are "Ibid, Ibid, Ibid. The last survey I personally authored landed a $3.8M grant for a not-for-profit, and I was required to provide sworn testimony before the grant committee - it's all public record, and my client had a lot of competition for that money. That grant was later partially matched by a $750k grant to complete the project. Yeah, I've been doing this for a while.

As to "166 in-depth responses", I've had that number of survey responses in 1 day and there's no way I would base a "report" that is about 1/2 of a web page long on that "number" of responses. My last engineering position was with a company that employed 174 engineers in that office alone and of various specialties - and there were 8 more offices in my company, and I wouldn't poll those engineers for a substantive subject due the potential for bias. The publicly-accessible survey I'm alluding to was responded to by over 1000 respondents in 30 days, and that market was a small coastal town in OR State (Seaside), and I had to back everything up - 166 "respondents" in a worldwide market is hardly worth citing as a very-short document - blurb, rather - to base a judgmental summary on; if I presented something like that to one of my clients with the lack of "meat", I'd likely never work again on a grant or report - and I'm not prone to embellishment.

You offered that they're not idiots. Fine. Their lack of providing credentials and sources for a "survey", along with not providing the survey source means little to me as a tech writer or grant writer - for that matter, there's more reviews on Apple's MAS than some web site I've never heard of and defended on a forum by a person indicating it's a "very small sample but of decent quality"; by that measurement, IMHO that "survey" can be very easily dismissed by offering that "most of the FCPX users chose to not respond" or "we did not contact Apple for a list of FCPX users, however, Adobe provided a list of XXX of its users contact information" - I easily dismissed that "survey" as tripe, for what it is - a short web page backed by an even-shorter web page, neither of which would even stand as a Wiki page. /rant

I'm a n00b in video work, but not in tech writing (specifically, Scientific and Technical Communication) or analytical statistics... Thanks for this, I was running out of TP and will print this out.

 

[JesterJJZ]

Maybe what you really need is Motion? Final Cut is for fast and creative video editing. Motion is for fast and creative compositing. If you're using tracks like canvas then it sounds like you're more of a compositor than editor. And if you are an editor, then you might benefit from learning some more efficient and effective editing techniques.

Like Apple, it's not your job to tell me how to do mine thanks.

PS…Motion is awful.

 

[mw360]

I also should have offered that I've been a degreed and practicing technical writer since 1988, with my degree coming from an accredited program. No offense intended, and I'll reiterate, one needs to cite their sources - three of the most important words in writing and surveys are "Ibid, Ibid, Ibid. The last survey I personally authored landed a $3.8M grant for a not-for-profit, and I was required to provide sworn testimony before the grant committee - it's all public record, and my client had a lot of competition for that money. That grant was later partially matched by a $750k grant to complete the project. Yeah, I've been doing this for a while.

As to "166 in-depth responses", I've had that number of survey responses in 1 day and there's no way I would base a "report" that is about 1/2 of a web page long on that "number" of responses. My last engineering position was with a company that employed 174 engineers in that office alone and of various specialties - and there were 8 more offices in my company, and I wouldn't poll those engineers for a substantive subject due the potential for bias. The publicly-accessible survey I'm alluding to was responded to by over 1000 respondents in 30 days, and that market was a small coastal town in OR State (Seaside), and I had to back everything up - 166 "respondents" in a worldwide market is hardly worth citing as a very-short document - blurb, rather - to base a judgmental summary on; if I presented something like that to one of my clients with the lack of "meat", I'd likely never work again on a grant or report - and I'm not prone to embellishment.

You offered that they're not idiots. Fine. Their lack of providing credentials and sources for a "survey", along with not providing the survey source means little to me as a tech writer or grant writer - for that matter, there's more reviews on Apple's MAS than some web site I've never heard of and defended on a forum by a person indicating it's a "very small sample but of decent quality"; by that measurement, IMHO that "survey" can be very easily dismissed by offering that "most of the FCPX users chose to not respond" or "we did not contact Apple for a list of FCPX users, however, Adobe provided a list of XXX of its users contact information" - I easily dismissed that "survey" as tripe, for what it is - a short web page backed by an even-shorter web page, neither of which would even stand as a Wiki page. /rant

I'm a n00b in video work, but not in tech writing (specifically, Scientific and Technical Communication) or analytical statistics... Thanks for this, I was running out of TP and will print this out.

My point was, and remains, you're going way over the top about this. You could have said, 'it's an informal reader survey with a small sample' and you would have been right but you are choosing to explode and splatter us with credentials, jargon, personal achievement, conspiracy theories and bile. To a reader of Televisual magazine, you just look silly. If you think a magazine survey isn't scientific enough to win something as critical as an internet debate than attack the poster, not magazines for just being magazines.

 

[WrrN]

Anyway ... "final-cut-pro-x-receives-minor-update-with-performance-improvements-bug-fixes" seems to be exactly right. I've been searching various forums for glitchery in the 10.2.2 update and cannot find any.

This may be a first, an update without introducing new bugs. Go Apple.

 

[pat500000]

Anyway ... "final-cut-pro-x-receives-minor-update-with-performance-improvements-bug-fixes" seems to be exactly right. I've been searching various forums for glitchery in the 10.2.2 update and cannot find any.

This may be a first, an update without introducing new bugs. Go Apple.

no bugs so far? I updated but haven't tested much to know.

 

[martygras9]

That's not accurate. The current form of Final Cut Pro X / Motion is much more powerful than Premiere /After Effects.

Both allow you to create motion graphics in AE or Motion and then bring them into the video editor without rendering. FCP X has always been able to do that with Motion. But there is much more integration than that.

For example, Adobe has Live Text templates so you can edit the animated text from AE right inside Premiere Pro. FCP X / Motion are able to do that, but much more. You can edit the font of the text, the color of the text, the drop shadow, any parameter you want right in FCP X. And you can set up rigging for anything in Motion to edit right in FCP X. Check out "rigging and publishing" in Motion. It's MUCH more powerful than AE. So, for example, if you create an animated lower third in Motion and the color of a rectangle the text is on top of is blue, you can set up your rig to be able to select Blue, Red, Green, Yellow right inside Final Cut Pro X. It's very easy, but powerful.

I used After Effects from 1994 when it was CoSa After Effects till today. Motion's keyframe-less system is superior, IMHO. I can do things much, much faster in Motion than AE, and because it's using dynamic behaviors instead of key frames, it's so much faster to move things around and edit. Motion has full integration with Cinema 4D too.

Motion doesn't require multiple timelines with Pre-comps like AE does. It doesn't require I manually go in and click on stop watch icons to create key frames.

Motion has a Layers palette, just like Photoshop does. This is really awesome. You can group objects easily in this palette and then just select the group and animate it. Want something in one group to go to another group, just drag and drop it like you would in Photoshop. No multiple timelines to dig in to, no pre-comps.

So if I want to animate the moon orbiting the earth and then have the earth go across the screen, this is what I'd do in Motion:

1. Put the earth and moon images on the stage. They are now in my Layer palette.
2. Drag and drop the "Orbit" behavior onto the moon.
3. Select "Earth" from the pop-up parameter in the Orbit behavior to tell Motion what you want the moon to orbit the earth object
5. A circle path automatically appears. If you press the space bar, Motion will animate it all in REAL TIME, looped, and as you drag that circle path in and out, it expands and contracts the orbit the moon is making around the earth. You can also drag the speed parameter, the direction parameter, all in REAL TIME as it animates in a loop on your screen. You are watching the moon orbit the earth with literally 2 clicks of your mouse.
6. Group the moon and earth and now you have a folder in your Layers palette. You want to see them separately? Just like Photoshop, just click on the arrow icon to the left of the folder and it reveals everything inside.
7. Drag and drop the "Throw" behavior onto the group you created. Throw is the behavior that moves objects in a direction at a speed.
8. Again, press the space bar to animate it in real time and click and drag the arrow artwork for the speed and direction of the Throw behavior.

Done. You now have the moon orbiting the earth and both of them moving across the screen without creating a single key frame. The power of not having key frames is I can drag this whole thing and move it where I want without worrying about screwing up key frames, nor do I have to deal with multiple timelines.

There are lots of amazing behaviors including gravity, wind, etc. PLUS, the parameter behaviors are fantastic. For example, if I want to add some random to the speed of the Throw on the whole group, I just drag the Random paramater behavior and select the Throw speed parameter. It has oscillate, etc.

Very powerful stuff. Way beyond AE's ability.

Motion does have traditional key frame capabilities, though, with a very powerful key frame editor palette for changing the bezier curve, etc.

This real time animation capability of Motion blows AE out of the water. There is very little need to render a RAM preview in Motion. Apple was way ahead of Adobe in using the GPUs to accelerate their software, plus Adobe AE still doesn't use hardware acceleration in Mercury with Radeon cards, only nVidia.

In regards to FCP X, I prefer the magnetic timeline paradigm over the traditional tracks. I never accidentally create gaps in my timeline. It's impossible. It's so much faster to edit with this system than traditional tracks. Everything is pinned so when you make one clip shorter, everything past that moves into the exact places it should be.

FCP X has many things since version 10.0 that Premiere has been catching up to. For example, auto syncing your secondary audio with your video clips. It's been in FCP X since day 1. It's fantastic. You do it right in the bin, not in the timeline. Just select the audio clip and video clip for "scene 1 take 2" and right-click and select Syncrhonize and it does it automatically.

The multicam is superior in FCP X too with a lot more angles and you don't have to flatten it at all like you do in Premiere Pro. Doing music videos is a breeze in FCP X. This is another catch-up for Premiere Pro and the performance of the multicam is superior in FCP X without flattening.

The media management in FCP X is also superior IMHO. The key word system is just fantastic coupled with the Timeline Index. It will analyze your video clips and tag them with key words like "One person" " Two person" "Group" "Close Up Shot" "Medium Shot", etc. When I import RED rd3 footage, Premiere creates multiple folders and brings in duplicates. With FCP X, I can just select "Day 1" folder and it will only bring in the video clips in all the sub folders and no duplicates. It tags based on the folder names too.

Then when you add FCP X's "Roles" feature, you have a fantastic way to manage a huge amount of assets. Editing a feature film is a breeze in FCP X.

BTW, the speed of FCP X is fantastic. On the same Mac Pro system, FCP X flies with native RED rd3 footage at 3:1 compression 5K and I play it in real time and scrub in real time with my house cursor with the video at 100% resolution on a 4K monitor. I have CC 2015 and Premiere Pro on the same system requires it to be at 1/4 resolution to be able to play it without rendering.

Everyone should use what they prefer, obviously, but I find most people who bash FCP X just don't know what they are talking about.

Don't want to get into a debate if you prefer Motion to AE, but there's a reason post houses and studios use AE. It's for power users.

That's not accurate. The current form of Final Cut Pro X / Motion is much more powerful than Premiere /After Effects.

Both allow you to create motion graphics in AE or Motion and then bring them into the video editor without rendering. FCP X has always been able to do that with Motion. But there is much more integration than that.

For example, Adobe has Live Text templates so you can edit the animated text from AE right inside Premiere Pro. FCP X / Motion are able to do that, but much more. You can edit the font of the text, the color of the text, the drop shadow, any parameter you want right in FCP X. And you can set up rigging for anything in Motion to edit right in FCP X. Check out "rigging and publishing" in Motion. It's MUCH more powerful than AE. So, for example, if you create an animated lower third in Motion and the color of a rectangle the text is on top of is blue, you can set up your rig to be able to select Blue, Red, Green, Yellow right inside Final Cut Pro X. It's very easy, but powerful.

I used After Effects from 1994 when it was CoSa After Effects till today. Motion's keyframe-less system is superior, IMHO. I can do things much, much faster in Motion than AE, and because it's using dynamic behaviors instead of key frames, it's so much faster to move things around and edit. Motion has full integration with Cinema 4D too.

Motion doesn't require multiple timelines with Pre-comps like AE does. It doesn't require I manually go in and click on stop watch icons to create key frames.

Motion has a Layers palette, just like Photoshop does. This is really awesome. You can group objects easily in this palette and then just select the group and animate it. Want something in one group to go to another group, just drag and drop it like you would in Photoshop. No multiple timelines to dig in to, no pre-comps.

So if I want to animate the moon orbiting the earth and then have the earth go across the screen, this is what I'd do in Motion:

1. Put the earth and moon images on the stage. They are now in my Layer palette.
2. Drag and drop the "Orbit" behavior onto the moon.
3. Select "Earth" from the pop-up parameter in the Orbit behavior to tell Motion what you want the moon to orbit the earth object
5. A circle path automatically appears. If you press the space bar, Motion will animate it all in REAL TIME, looped, and as you drag that circle path in and out, it expands and contracts the orbit the moon is making around the earth. You can also drag the speed parameter, the direction parameter, all in REAL TIME as it animates in a loop on your screen. You are watching the moon orbit the earth with literally 2 clicks of your mouse.
6. Group the moon and earth and now you have a folder in your Layers palette. You want to see them separately? Just like Photoshop, just click on the arrow icon to the left of the folder and it reveals everything inside.
7. Drag and drop the "Throw" behavior onto the group you created. Throw is the behavior that moves objects in a direction at a speed.
8. Again, press the space bar to animate it in real time and click and drag the arrow artwork for the speed and direction of the Throw behavior.

Done. You now have the moon orbiting the earth and both of them moving across the screen without creating a single key frame. The power of not having key frames is I can drag this whole thing and move it where I want without worrying about screwing up key frames, nor do I have to deal with multiple timelines.

There are lots of amazing behaviors including gravity, wind, etc. PLUS, the parameter behaviors are fantastic. For example, if I want to add some random to the speed of the Throw on the whole group, I just drag the Random paramater behavior and select the Throw speed parameter. It has oscillate, etc.

Very powerful stuff. Way beyond AE's ability.

Motion does have traditional key frame capabilities, though, with a very powerful key frame editor palette for changing the bezier curve, etc.

This real time animation capability of Motion blows AE out of the water. There is very little need to render a RAM preview in Motion. Apple was way ahead of Adobe in using the GPUs to accelerate their software, plus Adobe AE still doesn't use hardware acceleration in Mercury with Radeon cards, only nVidia.

In regards to FCP X, I prefer the magnetic timeline paradigm over the traditional tracks. I never accidentally create gaps in my timeline. It's impossible. It's so much faster to edit with this system than traditional tracks. Everything is pinned so when you make one clip shorter, everything past that moves into the exact places it should be.

FCP X has many things since version 10.0 that Premiere has been catching up to. For example, auto syncing your secondary audio with your video clips. It's been in FCP X since day 1. It's fantastic. You do it right in the bin, not in the timeline. Just select the audio clip and video clip for "scene 1 take 2" and right-click and select Syncrhonize and it does it automatically.

The multicam is superior in FCP X too with a lot more angles and you don't have to flatten it at all like you do in Premiere Pro. Doing music videos is a breeze in FCP X. This is another catch-up for Premiere Pro and the performance of the multicam is superior in FCP X without flattening.

The media management in FCP X is also superior IMHO. The key word system is just fantastic coupled with the Timeline Index. It will analyze your video clips and tag them with key words like "One person" " Two person" "Group" "Close Up Shot" "Medium Shot", etc. When I import RED rd3 footage, Premiere creates multiple folders and brings in duplicates. With FCP X, I can just select "Day 1" folder and it will only bring in the video clips in all the sub folders and no duplicates. It tags based on the folder names too.

Then when you add FCP X's "Roles" feature, you have a fantastic way to manage a huge amount of assets. Editing a feature film is a breeze in FCP X.

BTW, the speed of FCP X is fantastic. On the same Mac Pro system, FCP X flies with native RED rd3 footage at 3:1 compression 5K and I play it in real time and scrub in real time with my house cursor with the video at 100% resolution on a 4K monitor. I have CC 2015 and Premiere Pro on the same system requires it to be at 1/4 resolution to be able to play it without rendering.

Everyone should use what they prefer, obviously, but I find most people who bash FCP X just don't know what they are talking about.

If that's true, then Apple's doing a lousy job advertising its superiority to professionals, houses, and studios.

 

[WrrN]

no bugs so far? I updated but haven't tested much to know.

I just came to that unscientific conclusion based on not finding reports of bugs posted around the web. Just updated, now need to test.

 

[pat500000]

let me know!

 

[pat500000]

I just came to that unscientific conclusion based on not finding reports of bugs posted around the web. Just updated, now need to test.

any luck?

 

[campyguy]

My point was, and remains, you're going way over the top about this. You could have said, 'it's an informal reader survey with a small sample' and you would have been right but you are choosing to explode and splatter us with credentials, jargon, personal achievement, conspiracy theories and bile. To a reader of Televisual magazine, you just look silly. If you think a magazine survey isn't scientific enough to win something as critical as an internet debate than attack the poster, not magazines for just being magazines.

Hey, you outed me and it was my turn to offer a rebuttal. IMHO, I swatted down your opinion like the bug on the wall it was. I don't overreact, and I don't get angry - this is the internet, and there's no money in it for me. I posed that the "survey" is crap, and the rules for this forum more-or-less indicate that one needs to back up assertions - so I backed up my OPINION that the survey is worth less than a roll of used toilet paper. You defended the "rag", and I offered that the method that the rag used IMHO has no basis - it has no basis, given my reasoning. I'm of the opinion that one should go all in or don't bother.

To take you to task - what "bile" did I "splatter"? Bile is "bodily fluid" or "anger" - I provided and offered neither, depending on the relevant context, and I'm getting you're just not as familiar with the use of the English Language as I am. You quoted me, and I rejected as baseless the link to more useless and unsubstantiated crap anyone can type and put on a web page. Conspiracy theories? Seriously? Quote my "conspiracy theory" or where "I'm over the top"- do it, or I'll report you to the mods.

So, here we go. Back up your web site's claims or go away. There's no basis in their survey results, and my OP called it out exactly for that, and you took me to task (as far as I know, you haven't qualified your credentials or offered that you're not part of that web site other than being a reader - a biased opinion, at a minimum) - I can always offer that "some guy, somewhere, said something about that thing" - here in the US, the SEC investigates statements like that if it impacts the financial status of a registered corporation, so I tread carefully with this type of assertion; here, in the MR Forums we either need to back it up or get out. The web site you've got in high regard did not provide any - at all - data or citations. Prove me wrong, and I'll capitulate. Bottom line: Televisual didn't offer any data back up their post with any data - it's little more than a baseless puff piece. The depth you went to really do color your opinion here, kind of brownish...

 

[Jcknows0]

I was in film school during the digital transformation so I got equal time on the flat bed and in front of a Mac running Avid (After the film had been digitized from BETA and converted). I found Avid so easy to learn I had picked it up in a 24 hour overnight editing session during final week. After school I sought out some hardware/software combo that would fill my filmmaker void with my cheap camcorder to no avail.
I had about ten years where I survived on Windows Movie Maker, then iMovie (briefly) and an old copy of Final Cut Express a friend donated to me. I flirted with Avid Studio on a PC as well during this time. I finally did a trial of FCPX right when 10.1 was released and scored a bunch of discounted AppStore GC and coupon codes to get FCPX and Motion for 240.
I still don't know how to properly use Motion after almost 3 years but I feel right at home in FCPX in a way that iMovie just frustrated my by its lack of power. I think calling it iMovie Pro is a little disingenous, maybe true at first release.
I think what ultimately counts on any program is intuitiveness and power underneath the hood (otherwise its just a WYSIWYG like iMovie). I have friends still on FP7 because they bought in so much so I feel grateful I was never in a place to part with so much cash and now have a useful program that is not recurring costs and receives free updates.