Final Cut Pro X Updated With Remote Workflow Improvements, New Social Media Editing Tools, and More

[skippermonkey]

Motion gets an update to 5.4.6, too… with USDZ 3D model import and a new Stroke filer.

What’s new in Motion

Learn about new features, enhancements, and changes in Motion.

support.apple.com

 

[kohlson]

Is it still working on Mojave

Mojave.

 

[nutmac]

I can't speak to industry editing needs, but FCP is quite powerful and does a lot -- and that $300 purchase price has bought many years of updates. How much would one have spent on Creative Cloud over the past five years? If you need Premiere, you need it, but if you just want to edit video I'm sure you could do a lot worse than FCP.

It's insane that Apple hasn't charged for a single update since Final Cut Pro X ($300), Compressor ($50), and Motion ($50) launched on June 21, 2011. While I greatly prefer Adobe Premiere Pro, $400 is an incredible value for 9 years of major feature updates and maintenance.

Having said that, for certain people, Adobe has many features that easily justify higher cost. If you can save time and efforts for $21 (Premier Pro only) to $53 (all apps) per month, these software cost are inconsequential. But if you are a prosumer or freelancer, no one can deny Final Cut Pro X's strong value proposition.

 

[hot-gril]

Right. I prefer the opinion of this website rather than some random bit of hate.

Those movies are from 2003 to 2011, and the article was written in 2020. If anything, that tells me the big movies don't use Final Cut anymore. Did something happen to it in 2011?

 

[chirpie]

I don't do a ton of editing, but my god, every time I think about jumping, Keyword ranges alone make me run back to FCP X vs anything else. I know Premeire and Resolve support meta data and keywords, but does anyone else know if they have anything as useful as automatically selected ranges based on keywords or phrases that can be bumped directly to the editing time line? (Pardon me if I'm ignorant here.)

 

[Bengaldad]

Be advised that if you are editing Canon raw footage that this latest update to FCP X (10.5.9) breaks and no longer supports the Canon raw plugin for FCP X. This plugin worked fine and editing Canon raw footage in Final Cut Pro X (10.5.8) was not a problem, but unfortunately this no longer true. Immediately upon opening FCP X (10.5.9) I received the error message that the Canon raw plugin was no longer supported and all Canon log clips appeared black and could not be worked with. I have been editing Canon raw from my Canon R5 with no problem in FCP X until this update. Fortunately Resolve works well for editing Canon raw clips. One can only hope that Canon and Apple will work together to quickly correct this issue.

 

[chirpie]

Those movies are from 2003 to 2011, and the article was written in 2020. If anything, that tells me the big movies don't use Final Cut anymore. Did something happen to it in 2011?

I found this a lot more convincing if you want something recent:

Why I Switched to Final Cut Pro X After 25 Years of Working on Avid

I spent a quarter of a century editing on Avid and several years on Premiere Pro, so why did I decide to ditch them both and go with Final Cut Pro X? I'll tell ya.

nofilmschool.com

 

[chirpie]

10.5.9? I think you meant 10.4.9?

 

[citysnaps]

Those movies are from 2003 to 2011, and the article was written in 2020. If anything, that tells me the big movies don't use Final Cut anymore. Did something happen to it in 2011?

That was a weird article, especially promoting another video editing product right at the top. My gut feeling is there was another agenda.

 

[darthaddie]

I use FCP X was our work. Nothing comes close to editing speed. The background render helps a lot. The stabilization is far more speedier than any other offering. For our kind of work nothing offers the ease, cost savings (we do have a full Adobe plan).

Oh and even on the fastest PC we built, premiere timeline wasn’t as smooth as FCP with 4K prores RAW.

To each his own though....

 

[m4mario]

Using Adobe Premiere is a company decision. Final Cut Pro is an individual decision.

 

[SSDGUY]

Fcpx runs circles around Adobe premier. You should look into it as the workflow is much faster and more versatile.

I know many people say Premier is more capable and "professional", and maybe it is, but I gotta get stuff done. At my first go into video work, I opened my video file in Premier and it stopped midway every time. I spend at least an hour trying to figure out why … checking the online user manual, forums, etc. to no avail. I downloaded a trial of FCP and it worked seamlessly. Been using it ever since. If even a minority of top pros are using it, then it's more than good enough for me.

 

[cwazytech]

As a user of the free tier of DaVinci Resolve, I am just sitting here eating popcorn while FCPX and Adobe users argue.

That is quite the level of boredom you have there. I'm amazed you're interested in the comment section at all.

 

[ThunderSkunk]

What I can’t figure out is, if I want to make a project using clips from various sources including dvd & Blu-ray .vob & .mts files, which are already in a lossy enough mpg format, do I end up having to re-encode them (via a lossy process) to yet another lossy format like h264 first, and then have FCPX further reencode that to proxy files to work off, only to reencode the project (lossy again) in the final output file in another lossy format, and consume an entire TB of drive space doing it?

I love working in FCPX, but premiere lets you just use the original source files and encodes your final file directly from them. The proj files are small making backups a good idea, & I can limit the preview file cache to 10GB and purge it afterward to get my drivespace back. In every other way, I dislike premiere, but I can’t be spending all this time editing having it consume my entire computer and then only output a file that looks like it’s straight out of 1992.

 

[Internet Enzyme]

Why would you want to use H.264 for proxy media? Weren't its performance issues one of the reasons you'd adopt proxy media?

yeah, it seems strange to provide a long gop codec as a proxy option, but i suppose if prores proxy is simply too large for your available storage options and h.264 has no problem playing back on your computer, might as well use it

 

[Alan Wynn]

Notice how all those movies came out years ago, back when professionals *did* use FCP. I can assure you they don't now.

Hmmm. The film that won Best Picture last year, Parasite, was edited in Final Cut Pro X. As have been others. You can assure me based on what? I know quite a few industry professionals (including Local 700 editors), who use it for all or most of their work. Avid Media Composer is still number one for features, and Premiere is probably number two. A great many documentaries and independent films are cut with Final Cut Pro X (including projects for the major streaming services).

Adobe is losing ground to DaVinci Resolve, as people who already used it for final color and conform, are now using it for editing as well.

The Mac Pro has been a total flop in video production circles from what I've heard, or simplified, "too little, too late, for way too much money".

My anecdotal evidence differs from yours. Many of the teams with whom I work at Disney(/Fox) and Paramount have Mac Pro systems, and even more have iMac Pros.

 

[Ritsuka]

What I can’t figure out is, if I want to make a project using clips from various sources including dvd & Blu-ray .vob & .mts files, which are already in a lossy enough mpg format, do I end up having to re-encode them (via a lossy process) to yet another lossy format like h264 first, and then have FCPX further reencode that to proxy files to work off, only to reencode the project (lossy again) in the final output file in another lossy format, and consume an entire TB of drive space doing it?

I love working in FCPX, but premiere lets you just use the original source files and encodes your final file directly from them. The proj files are small making backups a good idea, & I can limit the preview file cache to 10GB and purge it afterward to get my drivespace back. In every other way, I dislike premiere, but I can’t be spending all this time editing having it consume my entire computer and then only output a file that looks like it’s straight out of 1992.

You don't have to re-encode them, you just need to rewrap them in another container format.

 

[enigmatut]

Who would want to be stuck with a system that can't be updated with faster components in a environment where literally time = money.

Certainly not you!

 

[andywaynebrooks]

FCP is just has powerful as Abode. It just has a cleaner, more user friendly UI. All the nerds are just mad that it's not as cluttered and confusing looking so they do not feel smarter than other people when they use it.

 

[v3rlon]

The motion update looks exciting. Import 3D models? I am in. I have to find what I have that exports USDZ, but I am sure I have it.

But then I notice how Premier Rush has "exciting new features" like a "magnetic timeline." Really? I mean this is a serious game changer, isn't it? No one but Adobe could come up with such a bold new approach to video editing. I can't wait until it finds its way up to Premier Pro. If only other Pro Apps had thought of it like FCP X or NewTek SpeedEdit.

Seriously though, use what you like. FCP has seen amazing improvements for that one time cost of entry. I see no reason to jump ship for a company that forced me to use a login server, then let that information get hacked, and once even wouldn't let me get to my own content because of a problem with their servers.

After the zombie apocalypse, I will still be able to edit videos of you getting eaten because your screams of frustration from not having video editing software 30 days after the server goes down.

 

[Digital Skunk]

Right. I prefer the opinion of this website rather than some random bit of hate.

I agree, there's no reason to hate FCPX ... not after this long. The website is a bit dated, but the truth is no one really knows or cares what's being used to post a film or commercial. The editor and story is key.

But again, I agree. Professionals aren't living in the past decade and tossing harsh criticism at FCPX or Adobe or Avid. FCPX is solid and a very useful tool, just like the rest, that offers it's users something they need. For others, Adobe and the rest offer something that FCPX doesn't have.

One would argue more content is being made for social media rather than traditional post.

True, but I would add that most media for social doesn't have the overhead and risk involved with professional and high end post. A Youtuber with a million followers may have $30k worth of gear to make a video and their platform funds their entire operation, but traditional commercial post still holds a larger piece of the pie.

By that I mean, the political ads, brand commercials, product reveals etc. etc. not to mention TV shows from streamers far outweighs what's being produced to any decent level on any social platform.

Fcpx runs circles around Adobe premier. You should look into it as the workflow is much faster and more versatile.

It sure does, but it still comes down to the editor and in many cases the post house. FCPX is still utter garbage when it's compared to something like Avid connected to a NEXIS system and a simple plugin like phrase find makes FCPX look like Casablanca's Kron

Being fast isn't always the only thing an editor or post house is looking for. And i've always suggested to young freelancers to learn all of the platforms. I've gone from houses that use FCP6-7 to Avid, to a strange place that used Grass Valley, then to Adobe.

Additionally, FCPX's speed is drastically reduced when you have to use motion graphics from Motion or After Effects. until Apple brings roundtripping back that'll be FCPX's biggest shortcoming, and Adobe's biggest advantage.

Are you sure about that? The pros on Macs are highly likely to be using FCP instead of Premiere.

I wouldn't say so. Sure, Adobe is cross platform and runs 1000x better on PC hardware, but Adobe is slow to fine tune it's software for the Mac and AMD GPUs. Once they do though, and in many cases while we wait, Adobe is doing just fine on the Mac.

Additionally, DaVinci Resolve gives many pros the traditional, still extremely relevant NLE techniques we comes to expect with the speed of FCPX (and much MUCH better tools for coloring and audio sweetening ... again, Apple needs to bring round tripping back)

 

[abaxworld]

As a profesional user of several editing suites ( FCPX, Adobe Premier, DaVinci Resolve, Flame, Nuke Studio... ) I think I've got enough experience to say that not of them except FCPX have the speed and solvency when talking just about "editing". And yes, DaVinci or Flame have other great possibilities when doing Color Correction or Visual Compositing further from what FCPX can do. But Apple decided to establish FCPX in 2011 just for editing purpose and for that I can assure you that there is nothing in the market as fast and reliable as this Apple software.

So why companies moved away from FCP? Because they never expected the big change, because many inverted a lot of money in the previous pipeline ( that became obsolete when FCPX came to the light ), because it was primary focus on internet and forgot the TV/Film needs,... Yes, Apple did a risk movement and did it really wrong. They have been working hard these last 9 years to get to the same point they were before. But after so many years, nobody seems to trust them. They use to make this unilateral movements that can cost lot of money to the studios, so they prefer to keep tied to apps that take no risk as Avid or Premier ( well, Premier blatantly copied FCPX interface, as DaVinci did for 3 versions, in order to look fresh and new, but under the hood it's all the same old paradigma ). Big changes cost money.

From a user perspective, and if you want to give a try, you will notice that all those changes had sense. Not the way the did but what they acomplished with this app. Fast, up to date with almost every modern codec, with all the tools you really need, with a modern UI paradigma, etc.. Yes, it's different to what many are accustomed but it's an easy learning curve to follow.

Many are tied to a postpo suite because they are confortable in not knowing what's around. It's ok, but in these demanding world we have to manage different options and applications to get the work done or to adapt to different customers and needs. And in doing so we sometimes discover the unexpected. And I think FCPX is really this unexpected thing between all these postpo suites.

I've got my own problems with FCPX. And yes, still have issues, things to improve, things that have been added and makes no sense, things that should be there and are not... But all the suites have these issues. That's why there is a new version out for all them regularly. Because no software is perfect ( as live isn't ).

One last thought: I have been waiting for Apple Motion to import 3D models since the very beginning ( I was beta tester 15 years ago ) and now the implement this option but forget to add shadows and reflections as other 3D objects can cast... This is the problem sometimes: late and bad implemented ( and proprietary, no .OBJ, no .ABC, no .FBX but something we don't use in our pipelines, USDZ... ). I can agree with some that this kind of movements takes the people away from the suite. This "use my option and no other one to prevent me to pay royalties". That makes our live more complicated. And yes, many will be thinking right now "Motion? Really?". Really. Give it a try and may you discover something unexpected as with FCPX.

 

[LV426]

Notice how all those movies came out years ago, back when professionals *did* use FCP. I can assure you they don't now".

Your assurances are worthless. Check the postings on this thread made by professionals in the field. Also, I suspect I wouldn't have to google very hard at all to find recent use of FCPX.

 

[Chung123]

I'm sure everyone here has seen the documentary "Off The Tracks" on Final Cut Pro X and their initial launch.

I love the fact Apple was crazy enough to throw out everything and rethought everything about video when they designed FCPX.

I love FCPX.

 

[Digital Skunk]

I'm sure everyone here has seen the documentary "Off The Tracks" on Final Cut Pro X and their initial launch.

I love the fact Apple was crazy enough to throw out everything and rethought everything about video when they designed FCPX.

I love FCPX.

Yes! A great film. I remember the day they release X and how everyone was scratching their heads. Now, most people can barely remember FCP7.

The real reason Apple made such a drastic change was because FCP7 was gaining headway, but wasn't faster, more stable, more feature-rich, or anything over the competition. Avid then and still is now the king, so Apple pulled out all the stops and rethought NLEs and post because they could.

FCPX could've been like every other NLE with the same problems ... they went a different way and created all new problems, but over the past decade they've been doing a good job smoothing them out.

If Avid or Adobe did the same thing they'd be out of the video post game.