iMovie '08 Was Originally Called 'First Cut', Ubillos on Final Cut Pro X

[captain kaos]

I didnt use the old FCP and im never going to use the new one, yet I dont understand the frustration that comes with a change in the user interface. Adobe, Autodesk, Microsoft and Apple all change the UI of their software now and then. This is why at the place I work we have Adobe CS2, CS3, CS4 and CS5 on every machine, I use CS4 while most of my colleagues use 3 and some use 5. In my case there aren't drastic changes between versions, but my point is that you dont have to conform just because new software is released.
To the pros: suck it up and install FCPX along side the old version if you intend to move on at some point. No one is forcing you to go into work the next day and use an all new program. You certainly lose money in the transition because things take longer while you are learning, but transitioning at your own pace makes things much easier. If you aren't a pro, it shouldn't matter much to you because you don't need to upgrade as fast and you wont lose money on trying to learn something new...

Ok, so you've never cut on on FCP before?

Right. 2 points to your statement.

1) It is not just changing the interface or UI. Its a change to how you edit. Its like PS coming along with CS6 and saying "That simple thing you used to do with importing your photos and resizing it, the way its always been done, well now you're going to have to relearn a new way we made for you" And you have to learn it, as the older version isn't supported anymore.

2) You could most definitely have to learn it or loose money. If you're freelance editor and you get a call for work on FC, but the post house is now using FCX, what then. Buy the system yourself, not go into work until you've taught yourself the newer programme?


Avid version 5 changed its Ui from its old versions, only slightly, but you didn't have to be re taught to edit to use it as it still used the same way of cutting thats been around for 25 odd years.

 

[grue]

I didnt use the old FCP and im never going to use the new one, yet I dont understand the frustration that comes with a change in the user interface. Adobe, Autodesk, Microsoft and Apple all change the UI of their software now and then. This is why at the place I work we have Adobe CS2, CS3, CS4 and CS5 on every machine, I use CS4 while most of my colleagues use 3 and some use 5. In my case there aren't drastic changes between versions, but my point is that you dont have to conform just because new software is released.
To the pros: suck it up and install FCPX along side the old version if you intend to move on at some point. No one is forcing you to go into work the next day and use an all new program. You certainly lose money in the transition because things take longer while you are learning, but transitioning at your own pace makes things much easier. If you aren't a pro, it shouldn't matter much to you because you don't need to upgrade as fast and you wont lose money on trying to learn something new...

You're not exactly the brightest laser at the light show, are you?

 

[Lumeswell]

Ok, so you've never cut on on FCP before?

Right. 2 points to your statement.

1) It is not just changing the interface or UI. Its a change to how you edit. Its like PS coming along with CS6 and saying "That simple thing you used to do with importing your photos and resizing it, the way its always been done, well now you're going to have to relearn a new way we made for you" And you have to learn it, as the older version isn't supported anymore.

You forgot to mention that that new version of Photoshop would not open any previous Photoshop files you have been working on, but if you have been using Photoshop Elements then you are sweet.

Learning a new interface is not that big a deal from a professional point of view - a few days in a training course and you should be fine - it is the fact that it is unusable even once you have learnt it that is the problem.

 

[stevemiller]

I'd just like to remind all the people who make a living in larger scale post production environments, and are justifiably troubled by fcpx, that the people on here who are trying to antagonize you aren't worth arguing with.

they are a different market of users and for them i'm betting final cut is a great tool, and in fact has a lot of interesting ideas behind it that may well benefit industry adoption in the long term.

but its pretty clear that a lot of those people are confusing what may be a good editing tool with a tool that is necessary to function in a full-scale post production environment. they're probably also getting confused and offended thinking people who call themselves 'pros' are using the term in an elitist "i'm-better-than-you" context, rather than "this is my job, i'm just trying to survive."

maybe people don't realize that a lot of post-production people are young, tech savvy, and adaptable. they're not grizzled old men set in their ways, and this isn't about being resistive to change.

at the end of the day, it's a pointless debate (aren't all forum debates?). either apple will step up and address the concerns promptly, or they won't. in which case the people who are so smugly certain that they can ride the wave of the future over the dinosaurs of the past will get their own little surprise when they can't work with an audio engineer, can't work with a colourist, and can't freelance into a larger production because they can't even get open an edl of whatever the rest of the team is working on. (although to quote one of the up-and-coming superstars on this thread, i guess they could just 'be a man' and reconstruct their own edit from however many terabytes of raw footage is out there.

 

[captain kaos]

You forgot to mention that that new version of Photoshop would not open any previous Photoshop files you have been working on, but if you have been using Photoshop Elements then you are sweet.

Learning a new interface is not that big a deal from a professional point of view - a few days in a training course and you should be fine - it is the fact that it is unusable even once you have learnt it that is the problem.

Good point!

(although to quote one of the up-and-coming superstars on this thread, i guess they could just 'be a man' and reconstruct their own edit from however many terabytes of raw footage is out there.

As the saying goes, you can always fix it in post.

As a side thought i can also see issues when a producer comes in with an edited sequence on his newly shiny bought FCPX and askes to play it out to tape. The post house would then need a copy of FCPX just to open is. And can FCPX even play out to tape (support for AJA or Black Magic?)

 

[Jerome Morrow]

So, you're not a professional - this means the conversation is NOT about you. Nice try though.

Can we please stop with this "professional" thing? Gets old very quickly.

You forgot to mention that that new version of Photoshop would not open any previous Photoshop files you have been working on, but if you have been using Photoshop Elements then you are sweet.

Learning a new interface is not that big a deal from a professional point of view - a few days in a training course and you should be fine - it is the fact that it is unusable even once you have learnt it that is the problem.

I already completed two projects with FCPX. It's very much usable. Might be a problem between the chair and the keyboard that's causing problems.

 

[brianapetersen]

worthless

I've now edited three movies with DSLR footage on FCX. I was hoping for the best and willing to give it a shot. It's crap. It's crashed on me four times tonight alone. The export options are lame. This is horrible.

 

[bayTed]

iMovie is not supposed to be used by Pro.

I used iMovie to make DVDs of my son's piano classes.
then after the upgrade to iMovie 2008, I didn't know how to make them for a long time.

It took me a long time to figure out. But I have given up on making those DVDs by then.

I still used iMovie from time to time. Not an intuitive tool to use anymore.

 

[captain kaos]

Can we please stop with this "professional" thing? Gets old very quickly.



I already completed two projects with FCPX. It's very much usable. Might be a problem between the chair and the keyboard that's causing problems.

That really helps!

Im sure the poster wasn't talking about the issue with it being unusable. Its more that it doesn't do what it used to do. Also, where your two jobs paying, ie your only source of income? Or did you do this at home with all the time in the work to learn it, and did you play out to tape or export to H264?

 

[boraxatude]

As a 'former' professional editor (I worked for nearly 20 years in the commercial, corporate, network and independent arenas beginning with film editing on an old upright moviola, through the FCP 'studio' era), one who hasn't earned an income as an editor for six years, I think I can still weigh in and say that, the FCPX release is a very strange move by Apple.

There is a lot of back and forth, on other 'professional' boards. Everyone is, rightly so, vacillating between scratching their heads, tearing their hair out, or yelling, "Off with Steve Jobs head!"

I remember the transition from film editing to video editing was at first like locking oneself into a medieval torture chamber. Eventually it became easier, the technology improved and new ways of approaching an edit were learned.

Non-linear video editing was a God-send... It promised a true marriage of the beauty and simple logic and organization of film editing, with the beauty of the latest video and computer technologies.

And then, true instantaneous random access entered. I never made the leap until AVID was well situated into it's middle-aged years. At that point Final Cut was still a kiddie tool. The release of FCP 3 changed all that. Final Cut had truly entered the professional market. Now all of a sudden, big feature editors like Walter Murch were hailing FCP.

Onwards FCP marched. Editors were excited as rumors of the ground-breaking X reached the horizon.... Until finally X was here. The only thing I can say about the preliminary reports is that I hope this is just the beginning of a revolutionary new approach to editorial. A learning curve, well spent... um learning? Or is it, forgetting?

Right now, I'm just scratching my head. None of it makes any sense. The very basics of editorial workflow have been excised or dumbed down to such a degree that this release should have been called: Final Cut Pro: The Prequel or Revenge of the iMovie Clones.

I have a hunch that all will be put back into place within one year. Whether or not Apple can gain the ground it has lost almost overnight with this initial 'beta' release - I'm not sure. There are some very happy campers jumping with glee at Adobe and AVID, right now.

From another perspective, this may have simply been a move to dumb down the 'pro' version enough to entice every 'citizen journalist' who post youtube blog videos into claiming their pro crown engraved with X. In other words, it may have simply been a financial decision. I don't think Apple's 'pro' line of products make as much money as their 'citizen' line of products.

I think the final piece of evidence though is the fact that Apple is answering the professional community's worries and complaints through Mr. Citizen-Journalist himself, The New York Times own, David Pogue (not an editor... and certainly not a professional editor)... A truly bizarre step.

 

[stevemiller]

I already completed two projects with FCPX. It's very much usable. Might be a problem between the chair and the keyboard that's causing problems.

Jerome, the main argument is not whether fcpx can be used to edit something, its if it can be used in an overall post production environment. are you working with a sound designer? a colourist? do you ever collaborate on projects with editors using different software than you, or a project that was started before fcpx came onto the scene? are you sure fcp7 will run on lion for legacy compatiblity? or do you have clients that are content to say "don't worry, we'll never ask you to tweak this project again"?

fcpx may well be updated to address some or all of these issues, but until people know for sure, and can be confident that it'll happen before the discontinuation of fcp7 becomes an issue, there will be understandable trepidation, and moreover some resentment that apple hasn't been very forthright in all this.

 

[TiggsPanther]

I feel like the people sticking up for Apple regarding Final Cut Pro X are the people who don't actually edit video, and are looking at it from a business standpoint.

Actually, I don't edit video and I'm looking at it from a business(*) standpoint and I still think they dropped the ball. Maybe not with the product, but certainly with the handling.

(*) "Business" as in businesses making their purchasing decisions and having the rug pulled out from under them.
At least with Microsoft, Volume Licencing meant that you could still run older versions (WinXP, Office '03) as long as you had a license. And XP's support is still going - albeit not for much longer. Support goes until April '14.

 

[Snowy_River]

I used iMovie to make DVDs of my son's piano classes.
then after the upgrade to iMovie 2008, I didn't know how to make them for a long time.

It took me a long time to figure out. But I have given up on making those DVDs by then.

I still used iMovie from time to time. Not an intuitive tool to use anymore.

I would respectfully disagree, though this is a little off topic. My experience with iMovie before they rewrote it was that, while it worked some of the time, it was buggy, unstable, and had a bad habit of corrupting project files forcing one to start from scratch. I can't tell you how often I had a project that I had spent days working on, only to get to the end and suddenly iMovie would crash and when I tried to reopen the project file, none of my work would be recoverable. Now, when the new iMovie came out, I was as annoyed as anyone that there were missing features. Those missing features meant that I couldn't make my projects look just the way I wanted them to. But at least I could actually finish them. And those features did end up coming back...

 

[Lumeswell]

I already completed two projects with FCPX. It's very much usable. Might be a problem between the chair and the keyboard that's causing problems.

Bravo, nice comeback - at least professionals know why there are problems with this package.

No, its not a problem between the chair and keyboard, among many other things its between FCX and Pro Tools, or FCX and Da Vinci etc etc that is the problem.

I'm an editor, I make my living in large part by editing, and I like to think I'm pretty good at it, but I'm not an audio engineer, or a qualified colourist, so I would like to pass projects off sometimes to have those aspects professionally finished. These are things that are typically required for professional level projects.

Being an editor does not mean I know how to use a particular editing tool, Final Cut was the 3rd editing package I learned, and I'm happy to learn more if I need to. It means I understand how to construct a story from the rushes I am given, I understand timing, I understand how I can cheat things to make something work when it shouldn't because they didn't get coverage on set and a whole raft of other things. If I have to spend some time learning a new package, even pay for that training, then its not an issue - but at the moment there is no business case to learn a new interface that will not help me. If I have to learn a new interface then I might as well look at all professional editing options out there and pick one that has a future.

I'm sorry you are bored with professionals having a problem when you don't understand or need professional level tools, but Apple put Professional in the name, but didn't include professional tools 'in the box'. If you don't need that level of support then great, I'm happy for you and yes, FCX will probably be great for you.

 

[Oletros]

Might be a problem between the chair and the keyboard that's causing problems.

Might be that you have a problem reading what other people is writing

 

[SkyStudios]

its always nice to start with a new app, years in beta, no 3rd party effect support,creates jobs

maybe the real problem is that apple got spoiled with pulling the wool on new users and in the market to scam everyone else along the way while never actually delivering anything real, just flashy demos and hype

many more suckers waiting, even iphoto cant read large quantity of photos

 

[odedia]

You do know that the genius who "ruined" FCP and iMovie is also the genius who created FCP and iMovie to begin with, right?

AND the most popular versions of Adobe Premiere.

I don't care what everyone says, I really like the new Final Cut Pro X. You really need to use a good video tutorial to understand just how powerful it is. I recommend Ripple Training's official Apple Pro Series videos. There is very little that you cannot do, IF you are working in a modern video editing environment, i.e., digital camcorders, modern Macs, flash storage etc.

 

[unlinked]

AND the most popular versions of Adobe Premiere.

I don't care what everyone says, I really like the new Final Cut Pro X. You really need to use a good video tutorial to understand just how powerful it is. I recommend Ripple Training's official Apple Pro Series videos. There is very little that you cannot do, IF you are working in a modern video editing environment, i.e., digital camcorders, modern Macs, flash storage etc.

Do people film TV shows with digital camcorders?

 

[Northgrove]

What opinion? As i said you can't say the product sucks when it's at version 1.0 and then be taken seriously. People throwing the Pro argument here a lot, but as i said no one will just jump to use it even if it has all the features in verion 1.0.


You do realize that it will have those features in a year or so?

No one will jump to it? Then what are all those complaints about? Complaints about a piece of software today irrelevant to users' work?

That it'll be better in an unspecified timeframe is a weak excuse. Of course it will be - but since Final Cut Pro had a dedicated following, numerous professionals were ready to jump to use it. If you doubt this, you can use Google for a few minutes.

 

[Reach]

The issues aren't due to changes in user interface. It's loss of functionality. There's no way (regardless of interface) to do things that used to be possible, and apparently these things are must-have things for professionals who use the software.

It's both actually. But most of the complainers are smart enough to focus on the missing features instead of the fact that they hate that it now looks like iMovie. "Yuck, I now have to work on something that resembles what those darn pesky amateurs/consumers work on? and to top that off I have to learn somethihing new? No way, that's beneath me - iMovie Pro i say! Ptui!" Realizing that sounds less than charming, they claim the features that most expect will be back is the reason for their outrage.

I've used FCP for 10 years, and plan to continue using it. I realize there are some quite legitimate issues with FCPX (and I have of course not bought it, since I researched it before clicking buy), but I just can't stand all the hyperbole from the detractors.

 

[Streamer]

Here is a real world example of something that played out last week in my shop.

We're a TV station in a major market in the US, we're an WIndows Avid house, all attached to an Avid Interplay system. It's 2.5 years old, and we're feature locked because the Interplay upgrade is way too expensive. Our marketing team are now creating more work in HD and we've reached the point we need to do something for them.

After much effort and persuasion, we finally were able to introduce the concept of a MAC Pro and FCP etc as a standalone editor. One of the editors is a FCP nut and needed no convincing, he was ecstatic we were willing to consider, the others had to be bought round. Finally, all was well, we budgeted the proposal and just waiting for approval.

Then the unthinkable happened, FCS3 is no longer available, FCPX came out. FCPX will not fit into our workflow currently, much of our HD footage is XDCAM, they need to see real-time output on a broadcast monitor as they color a lot etc. THen we handle tape, maybe so 20th century, but it's still a reality.

The project has had to be reworked, the Mac Pro will be replaced by a high-end HP workstation and FCPX is being replaced by Avids MC 5.5. ($ wise, we save a little, oh the irony).

This is something we have to do soon, for us, we can't wait.

If they had kept FCS3 on the market, this would have been a different result!

 

[Truffy]

You do know that the genius who "ruined" FCP and iMovie is also the genius who created FCP and iMovie to begin with, right?

I've seen this line of argument before, and I don't get it. Bringing a child into the world doesn't give one the right to blight its future. Sure, Ubillos originally developed FCP, Premiere etc, but that doesn't mean he can do no wrong.

 

[mdriftmeyer]

Here is a real world example of something that played out last week in my shop.

We're a TV station in a major market in the US, we're an WIndows Avid house, all attached to an Avid Interplay system. It's 2.5 years old, and we're feature locked because the Interplay upgrade is way too expensive. Our marketing team are now creating more work in HD and we've reached the point we need to do something for them.

After much effort and persuasion, we finally were able to introduce the concept of a MAC Pro and FCP etc as a standalone editor. One of the editors is a FCP nut and needed no convincing, he was ecstatic we were willing to consider, the others had to be bought round. Finally, all was well, we budgeted the proposal and just waiting for approval.

Then the unthinkable happened, FCS3 is no longer available, FCPX came out. FCPX will not fit into our workflow currently, much of our HD footage is XDCAM, they need to see real-time output on a broadcast monitor as they color a lot etc. THen we handle tape, maybe so 20th century, but it's still a reality.

The project has had to be reworked, the Mac Pro will be replaced by a high-end HP workstation and FCPX is being replaced by Avids MC 5.5. ($ wise, we save a little, oh the irony).

This is something we have to do soon, for us, we can't wait.

If they had kept FCS3 on the market, this would have been a different result!

In short, Apple loses a client of 1 who hasn't been able to convert people over from Avid for years and now that FCPX doesn't solve all the world's problems, past, present and future you have to go back to Avid full-time?

And you're going to replace the Mac Pro?

Mail it to me seeing as you can use Windows on it and it would be such a shame to let it go to waste.

 

[Oletros]

In short, Apple loses a client of 1 who hasn't been able to convert people over from Avid for years and now that FCPX doesn't solve all the world's problems, past, present and future you have to go back to Avid full-time?

Emmmm, no?

 

[slackpacker]

Do people film TV shows with digital camcorders?

They have been for a while now... Who do you think all the modern cameras are selling to? Yes studios still use Tape... but Tape is dead. Betacam tape was intro'ed in 1986-87. New Betacam recorders are above $20K and players are $10K. Only the larger studios can afford this expensive equipment so the market gets smaller and smaller as they move to memory based workflows.

I've now edited three movies with DSLR footage on FCX. I was hoping for the best and willing to give it a shot. It's crap. It's crashed on me four times tonight alone. The export options are lame. This is horrible.

You sure you own the software? works fine for me. Export options are fine get compressor its $50 and a no brainer if you need to output to a format that FCX cant output. Don't be blind to the obvious.