Okay guys, I must admit over the weekend I have changed my opinion about FCPX by 180°!!!
I therefore apologize to anyone I have crossed blades with, during the last few days.
What made me change my mind and appreciate Apple's goal?
At first I was perplexed and also relieved that despite all the uproar about the many missing features, almost everybody who actually TRIED to edit with the damn thing, loved the timeline handling immediately.
I read things like "it grows on you" and some even called it "fun" to edit with.
And this came from actual working professionals at creativecow.net or final-cut-pro.de. Not from some imovie-fanboy.net kids...
The next thing that puzzled me was this example video here:
http://library.creativecow.net/battistella_david/FCPX-Calcio-Storico/1
Because what I saw there, is exactly the fluid, dynamic, emotional editing style I'm trying to achieve in most of my work! So how come this piece of dreck software did this task so well?
Personally the most shocking news of this FCPX release was the fact that multicam editing was gone. I was very happy to learn from Pogue that this missing feature is a top priority on Apple's to-do-list.
Then it dawned on me, and I began to realize WHY this has been my absolute favorite feature in FCP7.
It wasn't about the multi cam angles. It was the FLUIDITY of this editing process that got me hooked.
And then I suddenly UNDERSTOOD Randy Ubilos' vision.
They are trying to give us this FLUID EDITING EXPERIENCE with one camera on the ordinary timeline as well!
THAT'S why these early adopters had so much fun with the core editing functions of FCPX. Editing became a much more fluid process than ever before!
Personally, I despise effect-laden montages of beautiful shots that provide an overload of style, but offer not much function and make even less sense.
I'm usually more interested in TELLING A STORY in the most realistic, interesting and dynamic way possible.
By working with FCP7 I often found myself pulled out of the editing FLOW by the tedious work steps and frankly rather clumsy approach this tool required.
NO, FCP7 has never been a real love affair and was not nearly as much fun to work with, as for instance InDesign is.
To me, FCP7 was nothing more than a rather irksome tool that got the required tasks done. But I always found the UI to be very un-Apple-like and rather windozy or adobeish.
Is this product really aimed at ambitious amateurs and semi-pros?
Absolutely NOT.
FCPX is clearly aimed at anybody who understands and speaks the VISUAL LANGUAGE OF MOVING IMAGES.
Which most amateurs, consumers and hobbyists frankly do not...
This tool is for people whose favorite editing book is rather Walter Murch's "In the Blink of an Eye" than "Editing Techniques with Final Cut Pro" or any other boring How-to-Do-Bible!
In other words: FCPX is for creative filmmakers and video creators with storyteller talent and/or a genuine visual concept, but NOT necessarily a tool for video technique lovers who like to impress their clients mainly with their TECHNICAL SKILLS and EFFECT WIZARDY...
Yes, some of these creative movie minds might be evolving from related creative professions like photographers, graphic designers, dynamic web designers, camera people who didn't edit, etc., because:
FCP X is all about PROFESSIONAL CREATIVITY while FCP 7 was more about TECHNICAL PROFICIENCY.
Now that I see Apple's vision much clearer, I'm beginning to like where this is heading. Although I must admit, they have a lot of work ahead.
To use an analogy from the OS history to explain the current development state and potential of the major NLE editing tools:
Avid Media Composer = Windows 2000 Server
Premiere CS5 = Windows XP
Final Cut Studio 3/FCP7 = Mac OS 9.2
Final Cut Pro X 10.0 = Mac OSX 10.0
Hopefully FCPX 10.3 will be reaching at least Mac OSX 10.4 levels.
What about the missing EDL, XML, OMF import/export and other communication and interchangeability problems?
As usual Apple is thinking way ahead of the curve.
In 5-6 years I assume we won't be needing all this transcoding stuff to connect with ancient hardware anymore.
I've been there already and experienced similar transitions in the printing industry. 20 years ago we graphic designers had to work with a plethora of specialists (econgeek would call them monkey assemblers ;-) to get our creative work published. Most of these professions are long gone by now! Typesetters, photo lithographers, letterpress printers, offset printers, intaglio printers, photo finisher including their almost factory-sized prepress houses are all extinct. Only a small minority of these highly-paid jobs has merged into new professions.
Around 1995 the printing industry was the same chaotic mess the video industry is right now. Then Adobe Acrobat grew into the backbone technology that tied everything together and finally changed our industry forever.
We graphic designers were probably the least affected by these revolutionary transitions and stayed always IN CHARGE of the creative game. Except now we are enjoying even more creative control than ever before. Believe me, my job is a lot more fun and creative now than it was 20 years ago!
Printing industry workflow today:
Art Director/Graphic Designer & Mac & Adobe Design Collection > PDF as connective link > digital printer, direct-to-plate process or print technology of your choice
The future motion media workflow will be similar:
Video Director/Filmmaker & Mac & FCPX > future standard video codec as connective link > video distribution of your choice (web, broadcasting, theatrical projection, discs, download, whatever...)
All the current fancy high-end post production facilities (equivalent to prepress houses) with their insanely expensive transcoding hardware, including ancient broadcasting technologies with tapes and what-not will be phased out, as soon as the missing connective link - a new standard codec (equivalent to PDF) - is being created. By then the classic editor-only job will only be found in Hollywood and in high-end TV productions.
Of course we are not there yet. But believe me, we will. Sooner than many are realizing.
During the coming years the still ongoing (and most likely worsening) recession will add a lot more pressure on us to improve our productivity.
Because that will be the only way of still making money.
Let's not forget: The broadcasting industry is only sticking with their ancient technology and old-fashioned equipment, because they have no decent alternative found yet.
I think they hate these expensive, complicated and insanely clumsy workflows as much as any reasonable person would.
The only people resisting change and clinging to old school workflows are those who have invested way too much into such equipment and the knowhow to wrangle it!
What about the missing in-dept control and effect tools and interactions with other software?
Obviously Apple has a more modular system in mind.
If Red or Sony wants to get their proprietary formats or files into FCP X, they have to provide their own plug-in or take a hike.
If Adobe is willing to add-on After Effects or anything else, they'll probably be welcome as well.
Who is stopping someone like Roxio or Adobe from providing an FCP X tool for authoring DVD's or even BluRays?
The "BD is dead" crowd wouldn't be forced to buy it and could stop complaining about ancient technology they have to pay for...
From what we've heard, several effects filter companies are already committed.
A sound warning to everybody thinking about jumping ship.
If you go the Avid or Premiere road now, you'll probably rushing with 100 mph into a dead end street.
Because all the technical reasons behind your switching plans will be moot in 3-4 years anyway. You'll be losing a lot of money and wasting a lot of learning time for nothing...
I think in the long run the hold out with FCP7 and watch FCP X grow up strategy will be much smarter.
At least that's what I'm going to do, after a weekend of sober reflections.
