Reality TV Producer Bunim/Murray Drops Final Cut For Avid

[danahn17]

This is not a right or wrong matter. It is a matter of preference.

....

Also, I do not equate popularity with quality. There are a lot of "big names" and "popular shows" on TV, but that does not mean they are the best there is to offer.

You just stated yourself that you do not like, care for, or watch reality shows. Saying that, you have admitted that you yourself have not seen anything amazing or inspiring. For the sake of argument, you only state that because they are popular they deserve my respect. I politely disagree.

Fair enough

I agree that popularity doesn't equal quality. Actually, to me, it's almost always seems to be the opposite.

Actually...i think you and i were arguing different points haha I never said B/M deserve your respect just because they're popular (I definitely don't think that). I was just more or less questioning if it's right to think that their move to Avid is irrelevant solely because they are a reality TV company... It can be true on a personal level but I'm not too sure about it on a broader scope. But maybe i misinterpreted you

Also, didn't mean to suggest you were wrong for using old software or what not. When I used to do freelance photography I used an old version of Photoshop; I didn't feel there was any reason to upgrade to the newer "better" versions so I totally understand where you're coming from. cheers!

 

[Bernard SG]

Its quite amusing seeing people try and defend FCP X. Its long been regarded a failure, put on the pile of failures from Apple pile, with Ping and and every mouse Apple invented.

Yep a cataclysmic failure that's ranked #2 in the Mac AppStore top-grossing ranking. (Just behind another epic fail called OS X Lion...)

 

[CmdrLaForge]

Great app that needs improvement

Ciao

Overall I think FCPX is a great app. I have been using it since its release. Apple really took a new approach and a risk when releasing it. It doesn't serve the 1% of high-end production studios and the feature film productions because it really doesn't support workgroups. Just a single editor. At least at a time. Thats fine with me as I am a documentary film maker working by myself.

For me editing in FCPX is a lot faster because of the presentation of the footage. I can find shoots faster and get much faster a better understanding of the available footage.

But there are some huge areas in which FCPX needs improvement
- the bugs. I cannot understand that there are 6 month after release still serious bugs. The one bugging me most is that stabilization doesn't work on interlaced footage. Apples discussion forums are full on this. Why are they not fixing it? This is really beyond me. It worked in FCP 6 and iMovie but not in FCPX.
- sound editing? They totally dropped the ball here. Not sure how I shall do this in FCPX.
- round triping to Motion or Logic? Again - totally dropped the ball.
- multicam? I know it is coming. Early 2012. So looking forward to that.

And for the people who need collaborative editing it would be great to add that somehow.

For me if those topics above are fixed it would be a fantastic app for a fantastic price.

Cheers
LaForge

 

[roadbloc]

Yep a cataclysmic failure that's ranked #2 in the Mac AppStore top-grossing ranking. (Just behind another epic fail called OS X Lion...)

A lot of people invested into HD-DVDs and HD-DVD players. Doesn't make them successful.

 

[danahn17]

Yep a cataclysmic failure that's ranked #2 in the Mac AppStore top-grossing ranking. (Just behind another epic fail called OS X Lion...)

I'm not saying FCPX sucks but if you look at "Top Paid" it doesn't hit the top 10.

Top grossing doesn't really mean anything except it makes a lot of money. Considering FCPX is $300 and that the majority of Mac Apps are under $50, it doesn't surprise me that FCPX is among the Top Grossing.

 

[reel2reel]

I can't believe this warrants a press release from the company. Doesn't it just qualify as advertising at this point?

I know the "pros" out there never like comments like this, but I'm going to say it anyway: Some of you guys are slowly becoming dinosaurs. What Apple realizes is we're headed for a future where traditional media is losing relevancy.

Everything you're saying is fantasy. I've worked in the business for 15 years now and we're busier than ever and there's no such thing as "dinosaurs" because you can either do the work or not.

But keep dreaming if it makes you feel better.

 

[fxtech]

Everything you're saying is fantasy. I've worked in the business for 15 years now and we're busier than ever and there's no such thing as "dinosaurs" because you can either do the work or not.

But keep dreaming if it makes you feel better.

Ah don't be so hard on kingtj - he just thinks that with his MacBook Pro and a copy of FCPX he's half way to his dream, sold by Apple, of being a world-class film editor.

 

[Stella]

Yep a cataclysmic failure that's ranked #2 in the Mac AppStore top-grossing ranking. (Just behind another epic fail called OS X Lion...)

Apple pitched this as a replacement for FCP 7. The people who use this for a living as balked at it (it doesn't meet their requirements - a lot of functionality that they require is simply missing ). Google - "fcpx missing features" for example.

So, while it may have been a success for consumers, FCPX has been an utter failure for the the Pros. FCPX has totally missed the mark as a FCP 7 replacement.

 

[mjsanders5uk]

So, while it may have been a success for consumers, FCPX has been an utter failure for the the Pros. FCPX has totally missed the mark as a FCP 7 replacement.

Stella, I don't know if you are an editor or not but please don't make generalisations like that.

The Editors who dislike FCP X tend to fall into two camps:

1) either it lacks features e.g. multicam or
2) The trackless layout/magnetic timeline, does not suit their workflow.

However there are professional editors, like myself (although I mainly shoot) who are using FCP X, who like it a lot and are avidly (get the pun!) waiting for the next release.

There are also a lot of editors who are still, rightly IMHO, pissed at the way apple introduced FCP X. If they had left FCP 7 on the shelf half the problems would have gone away.

Also, you have to ask yourself would 64 bit version of FCP 7 have been fit for purpose? FCP X has been built from the ground up as a database editor. The second you work that out and look at it that way round you realise how powerful FCP X actually is.

My names Michael and I edit on FCP X.

 

[milo]

As a software engineer also with a broadcasting degree, who has owned and used FCStudio 3 and now FCPX...

But have you worked on broadcast video? From your post, sure doesn't sound like it - if you did you'd understand that the issue isn't "resistant to change" but actual important features missing.

 

[MNT]

You've made your choice, Apple. Now sleep in the bed you've made.

They're having trouble sleeping; they've got a lump under the mattress where they're storing their 80 billion dollars.

 

[Keebler]

They're having trouble sleeping; they've got a lump under the mattress where they're storing their 80 billion dollars.

That is an incredibly naive statement.

Yes, they have a pile of cash.

But you're missing a very key point and that is the 'trickle' effect. Businesses bought Macs and apple displays to use Final Cut then they bought iPhones and iPads, maybe bought service and support, maybe bought other Apple accessories.

If the 'head' is the software and you cut it off, the trickle effect disappears.

In a tight economy, businesses are looking for ways to maximize their workflow which, because time is money, improves their bottom line. Add to that a layer of changing technology which is seeing us switch from traditional TV viewing to portable devices and computers and a pay per episode or season type of model - that pressure is on to keep up with the technology.

Since FCP7 was lacking in a few areas. ie. utilizing the full power of a Mac Pro by not being 64 bit based and not having a definitive workflow for HD footage whereas other software providers were making changes, businesses / studios were waiting for Apple to say, "Hey, here it is!"

That time was long and when they did, I think we can all agree, FCX has major shortcomings for those studios. For a single user like me, FCX is good enough. FCP7 was great too, but actually being able to render in the background while I edit is going to save me time. It would save some of the larger studios time too except they're completely hindered if they can't open projects from FCP7 or share new projects. That would drive me NUTS. Really, it's a slap in the face to those studios. They're back to step one.

So studios are deciding to move. Not all of them will, but when any business decides to shift technology, it's not cheap and because of that, it shouldn't be a short term decision - again, especially in this economy. People will be making decisions for the long future (or they're fiscally irresponsible if they don't).

So yes, they've got billions from the iPhone / iPad purchases and new mac users, but it's a dangerous game to play when you threaten the software 'head' of those folks / markets which kept them afloat until they made the i-devices....

My long 2 cents
Keebler

 

[danimal99]

But have you worked on broadcast video? From your post, sure doesn't sound like it - if you did you'd understand that the issue isn't "resistant to change" but actual important features missing.

Yes, I have. Live to tape, live on-air, and cutting packages. I don't know what it was that I said or didn't say that gave you the impression otherwise.

 

[yoak]

I just had to buy Premier as FCPX dosen't do what I need at the moment. (I do own FCPX and use it for small projects).
I wish I didn't have to as I am a DP/cameraman as my main occupation, but on some jobs I do rough edits.
With premiere I can just drop my RED 4K files into the timeline and playback straight away. It's fast.
Premiere is not much used in tv over here, its either FCP or Avid, so in that sense premeire is a waste of time and money.
But you have to get the tools you need, I just wish I didn't have to spend time and money buying and re-learning Premiere

 

[huntercr]

Wait - they edit reality TV? Could have fooled me.

I know you're making a joke, but really sometimes I wonder why reality TV is allowed to be presented as non-fiction there's so much manipulative editing in it.

There's a really good in depth writeup about how the bulk of reality TV is made somewhere on the net ( which of course I can't find at the moment ).

Some elements of shows are completely manufactured... evil stuff. Producers will even storyboard what they want to have happen and they'll set up real life events that will trigger the footage they need. ( putting people into false conflict etc ), but its worse than that... the editing can turn anything into what they want:
reaction shots that are from different events, dialog lifted from other times, implying people are present when they are not, putting pauses in audio so that it makes what they say sound insincere. It's down right evil.

Here's an example ( addresses manipulation around the 1:38 mark )
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BBwepkVurCI

 

[reel2reel]

However there are professional editors, like myself (although I mainly shoot) who are using FCP X, who like it a lot...My names Michael and I edit on FCP X.

Hahaha, the key part of that statement is "although I mainly shoot."

What does it matter what your name is?

 

[mjsanders5uk]

Hahaha, the key part of that statement is "although I mainly shoot."

What does it matter what your name is?

Mmmm, OK should have read "mainly shoot now" however over my career (currently at 23 yrs in the industry starting as a tape op in Soho) I have edited everything from news to broadcast long form docs, current affairs, promo's and the odd drama so I'm being a bit unfair on myself.

As to my name, it doesn't matter a ****! If that's all you can really pick my post up on, then you have missed the point of the line completely.

 

[toke lahti]

Many professionals, once they set out to actually use the software, discover that most of the features they want/use in FCP7 are still in FCPX, however differently placed/presented.

FCP7 does not exist for me.
When FCS3 was released, I considered it as a minor bumb and planned to wait for FCS4 and upgrade to that.
Well, 3 years later, FCS4 never came, Apple doesn't sell me FCS3 upgrade and now I should pay about $1k for software that is 3 years old and discontinued?
Thanks Apple, but no thanks.
I'll have to miss a lot of jobs to make that kind of investment.
FCPX lacks so much, that it is pretty naive that people who edit as hobby, say that pros could use it also. Well, some might in some occassion, but pro editing is so wide field, that almost all miss something fundamental.
Like hardware support, import/export, etc.
If Apple would just continued to sell and support FCS and maybe even give some discount for trying FCPX, there would have been no problems (other than FCP is badly outdated with bad known bugs for years).
Forcing FCPX down our throats without even letting to trial it is just screaming that they can't give us option to choose, because they want either to get rid of pro software or nobody would choose it if they had an option.

Reality TV drops Apple? Good. Reality TV is crap anyway.

Reality TV was created with Apple's hardware and software, so Apple is also crap anyway?

Explain why AAPL was up 2.21 yesterday with the news? Apple and it's investors don't care.

Short sighted investors don't understand, that when macs loose their imago as "professional quality", people don't buy them anymore. Or they don't care. Apple could be ditching everything osX related, since they make bigger profits in focusing to iOS devices.

 

[Radiomarko]

Fcp x

32 years of production and editing from sticky tape and glue to digital tell me that this immature tool will, as did FCP 1 before it, develop into the powerful tool that we all need. Not necessarily the one we think we want.

Apple are in this for the long term, as I am.

 

[yoak]

32 years of production and editing from sticky tape and glue to digital tell me that this immature tool will, as did FCP 1 before it, develop into the powerful tool that we all need. Not necessarily the one we think we want.

Apple are in this for the long term, as I am.

I hope and think you are rigth

 

[LethalWolfe]

32 years of production and editing from sticky tape and glue to digital tell me that this immature tool will, as did FCP 1 before it, develop into the powerful tool that we all need. Not necessarily the one we think we want.

Apple are in this for the long term, as I am.

So in about 7-8 years FCP 10 will get to where FCP 7 is... and then Apple will blow it all up again.


Lethal

 

[yoak]

so in about 7-8 years fcp 10 will get to where fcp 7 is... And then apple will blow it all up again.


lethal

. That's one way of looking at it.
What did you do in the end Lethal, changed to Avid?

 

[paolo-]

I think it all comes down to the relationship between the professional and Apple, there simply is no communication. For most other companies with those kinds of product, there's a ruff timeline that is known and they usually keep the customer up to date as to what's going on.

Apple just came out with FCPX and replaced with FCP7. It's not there yet. They also made it impossible to buy FCP7. If they came out and said "Hey, this is our new software! Because we love you so much we're letting you use it before it's 100% done. We know there are some features that the professionals will miss but hopefully this will make it easier to do the switch." The reaction would have been completely different. I don't think FPCX is bad, the core seems alright, it's just not up to speed yet.

 

[Wild-Bill]

IMHO Apple should resurrect the 64-bit Final Cut 9 they scrapped at the last minute, and send Final Cut X to the "fail" bin.

If Apple actually maintained a dialogue with industry professionals, I doubt we'd be here talking about "X" today.......

 

[LethalWolfe]

. That's one way of looking at it.
What did you do in the end Lethal, changed to Avid?

Right now I'm reacquainting myself with Avid (it's the NLE I cut my teeth on over a decade ago) and I'm going to familiarize myself with Premiere although with the circles I typically work in in LA I think Avid is going to be my mainstay. If FCP 10 gets updated to the point that it fits into my workflows and places I want to work start using it then I'll learn it. Right now I'm juggling too much to learn FCP 10 for just ****** and giggles.

The whole FCP 10 thing was a shock in part because of how it all came down but I'm not losing sleep over it. I learned linear editing, Avid and Premiere before I learned FCP and I'm sure I'll learn a number of other NLEs in my lifetime. It's how it goes. Lots of older editors I see as mentors went from cutting actual film, to linear video tape editing, to various nonlinear editing software. That's just the nature of the beast.

For everyone decrying that all the 'old dinosaurs' feel threatened by FCP 10 and it's $299 price tag that's just ridiculous, IMO. Do NFL players feel threatened that anyone can buy a football and pads at a sporting goods store? Do professional musicians feel threatened because Guitar Center sells instruments to the general public? No. "Open Water", "28 Days Later", and "Murderball" are all movies shot in SD that had theatrical runs. "November", which was shot on a DVX100, won Best Cinematography at Sundance in '04. 'Good enough' tools have been around for the last decade, IMO. In this day and age complaining about not having access to the 'right' tools is like lamenting that you really want to run a marathon but you just haven't found the right pair of shoes yet.


Lethal