Reality TV Producer Bunim/Murray Drops Final Cut For Avid

[Nostromo]

I couldn't care less what software is being used to cut reality TV junk.

The only way to edit this would be the delete button. No software needed. Just pull the plug.

 

[Ingot]

Sure, that comment was intended to sting, but I think Apple has a pretty good sense of direction most of the time. The changes they're making like FCPX and a stronger consumer-slant on things isn't some random whim of Apple management.

They're probably looking at the big picture and the long-haul and asking a lot of tough questions about what sustains the company best -- and we're seeing their conclusions.

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. (EG. You can be a big-shot video producer or editor for a television network like MTV and right now, that still means something. But you know what? It means less than it did a decade ago, when everyone expected to watch a music video on TV to go with every new song they heard and liked. It will mean less still in another decade, when cable and satellite television are dead concepts, and the public simply gets a single high-speed internet connection into their home that serves all purposes. Costs will keep decreasing on "pro quality" video recording equipment, just like they did for audio recording, and people will produce their OWN high quality material that once required studios and specialists.)

In THAT future, you know who has the best business model? It's the company that provided tools that hobbyists can tinker with in their basement and get good, professional results with. I'm not saying some won't go on to become a new generation of "video professionals", but they're likely to use workflows more like what FCPX offers (assuming the product matures over the years too, which it should if it's not abandoned).

I think that you hit it spot on. I use logic pro 9. As much as I would like to be a big player in the music industry, I am one of those basement guys who enjoys creating decent stuff. I teach my students to do just that. I show them how to create art through music and film instead of being just consumers of it.

 

[LethalWolfe]

I think that you hit it spot on. I use logic pro 9. As much as I would like to be a big player in the music industry, I am one of those basement guys who enjoys creating decent stuff. I teach my students to do just that. I show them how to create art through music and film instead of being just consumers of it.

The thing is it's not an either/or situation. Do garage mechanics really steal significant business away from professional mechanics? Is there no longer a graphic design industry because design software is so readily available? Are pro sports struggling because athletic gear is available at affordable prices all across the country?

IMO accessible gear is always great because it can give people chances to create, or to learn, when they might not have been able to before and that should make it a bit easier for the people with talent to get noticed. And skill/talent is going to be a big part of what separates those that go pro and those that remain hobbyists. Just because you have access to the gear doesn't mean you can actually produce something other people would actually want.


BTW, I'm still waiting for the complete and total death of music labels that people said was right around the corner in '99.


Lethal

 

[toke lahti]

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

I just can't invent any reason why Apple would want to take over NLE market again around 2020.
If they thought that FCPX would have taken over pro world in 2011-2012 they are even worser vacuum that I could imagine.

Judging from what was new in FCS2 & FCS3, they stopped developing FSC something like 4 years ago and spent only few working hours for that after that.
Maybe they used 10 man-years for FCP8/9 or maybe they started FCPX already then.
Anyway Apple is using so little resources for any of their software, that at least all their "pro" software will fade away.
FCPX was promised to have "more frequent" updates than FCS had, but so far it will take at least those 7-8 years for it to get where it started.

Like stated already, biggest problem for Apple to sell anything for people who communicate for profession, is that Apple does not communicate with their customers. They know better. And that's why they should change their way of doing business to keep communication professionals as their customers.
And for that, it is just so much easier just EOL some software.

 

[mjsanders5uk]

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.......

Most of the evidence purporting to a 64 bit FCP 8 has been discredited, mainly by the person who accidentally started it.

As I said here before, is a 64 bit FCP 8 what was wanted? Someone at Apple has thought pretty long and hard about how editing is done and how production has changed now we are all file based. They have also looked at how the OS and hardware have evolved in the 12yrs since the original FCP code was written.

They then dared to suggest there might be a different way to working.

The question is does it work for anyone? The answer from some people is an emphatic yes, from others its a equally visceral no, and we are still seeing a lot of people saying no without even having used it which I think is plain silly.

Anyone who thinks this is over is in for a shock! Don't forget, prior to all this we have a big LA post house (who has seen the next version of FCP X) say that his house (all 30+ seats) is going over to FCP X on the next release, he's that impressed with it.

 

[toke lahti]

Anyone who thinks this is over is in for a shock! Don't forget, prior to all this we have a big LA post house (who has seen the next version of FCP X) say that his house (all 30+ seats) is going over to FCP X on the next release, he's that impressed with it.

Using fcpx in professional enviroment needs support for hardware. So you can use fcpx for some part of the job, but you can't do all with it.
There were also people who said that first version of fcpx would be awesome and thought that most of fcs users would switch to it.
Well, they didn't.

Btw, does the new version of fcpx also do what final cut server did?
Or did Apple just abandoned their final cut server customers?

So, again, maybe Apple just want to get rid of professionals, that wants to get bugs fixed, more features all the time, mumbling about gamut errors and other strange things and don't carry enough money to Apple?

 

[Cristian123]

As a wannabe pro/hobby user shooting indie documentaries - the FCPX debacle has already got me switching to either Avid or Premier. If I leave Apple altogether for a windows-based ecosystem, the dozens of people I have gotten into Macs over the last several years will take note. They certainly won't be hearing "Apple Rules" through the echo chamber anymore.

Consumer markets are like herds of animals, when one goes, you have to expect that others will follow. The pro and legacy users do not make up the masses, but they often lead the packs. One would think Apple's marketing genii are smart enough to understand the "cool factor" that emanates from the pro/legacy market and get with the program. I am optimistic that people are losing sleep at Apple about all this, and that we will see improvements in the future. Until then, MC6 is looking pretty good!

 

[Sol]

It would be very ironic if the Avid and Adobe alternatives to FCP get updated to be more like FCPX in a few years. Surely everyone who is proclaiming that Apple are abandoning the pro video market will be eating their words when Avid-X and Premiere-X hit the market.

 

[3282868]

Wow. I had no idea that "Avid" was in the OS X market.

All I can quote from Ron Brinkmann:

“So what else? I mean what’s the real value of a package that’s sold only to high-end guys? Prestige? Does Apple really need more of that? …And really, from a company perspective high-end customers are a pain in the ass. Before Apple bought Shake, customer feedback drove about 90% of the features we’d put into the product,” Brinkmann writes. “But that’s not how Apple rolls – for them a high end customers are high-bandwidth in terms of the attention they require relative to the revenue they return.”

Brinkmann writes, “After the acquisition I remember sitting in a roomful of Hollywood VFX pros where Steve told everybody point-blank that we/Apple were going to focus on giving them powerful tools that were far more cost-effective than what they were accustomed to, but that the relationship between them and Apple wasn’t going to be something where they’d be driving product direction anymore. Didn’t go over particularly well, incidentally, but I don’t think that concerned Steve overmuch… “

Source:

Shake product designer explains Apple and Final Cut Pro X

Old news I'm certain, but after discontinuing Shake, XServe, a full dedicated Cinema Display line of more than one size, affordable PowerMac G5's replaced with over-powered Xeon Server Station Mac Pro's, 10.7 being a disappointment for some professional OS X users, and Final Cut Pro X being a step down (currently) for movie studios - Apple seems less interested in investing in the professional market. That means, those of us who make our living with Apple products may have to invest in other software and hardware, as well as training. I certainly hope we're "crying wolf."

 

[toke lahti]

The pro and legacy users do not make up the masses, but they often lead the packs.

When days of "trustworthy hardware and software from the same vendor" are over, all of a sudden, windows8 seems to be pretty nice, native 10bit color support, decent color management and software suppliers have certified systems.
Many pros will think that if we can get decent i7 with all the expandability and future reliability, maybe buying a "dual cpu powerhouse with only one cpu and outdated gpu, too few memory slots or wrong architecture for triple channel, no ports from this millenium (esata, usb3, tb) with badass price tag" does not seem so attractive...
And maybe you don't even have to replace every monitor after you upgrade your computer!

We heard that xserve was discontinued, because almost nobody was buing them (with its specs & price), so maybe next we are told that you don't need macPro to use fcpx, so just start to watch your face from the double mirror of imac. Glass is so ecological, eben it's totally useless.

 

[LethalWolfe]

As I said here before, is a 64 bit FCP 8 what was wanted?

IMO, if Apple came out w/a FCP version that was basically FCP 7 with 64-bit, background transcoding and rendering, better metadata, better tapeless support, etc., sales would've been great and Adobe and Avid never would've had their 'switcher sales'.

Someone at Apple has thought pretty long and hard about how editing is done and how production has changed now we are all file based. They have also looked at how the OS and hardware have evolved in the 12yrs since the original FCP code was written.

They then dared to suggest there might be a different way to working.

Someone at Apple also thought long and hard about how to launch FCP 10 and we all know how well that went.

Adobe and Avid are reacting to the changes in post production as well, and honestly, have been doing a much better job of it than Apple over the past few years. Apple was the last of the three to embrace tapeless workflows but, even now after going 'all in' on tapeless, FCP 10 still lacks Red support AFAIK (which is a pretty big feather to be missing). There are certainly things in FCP 10 that I like but to pretend like the competition is standing still and Apple is the smartest guy in the room is preposterous, IMO.

Apple changed their priorities with FCP 10 but they tried to pretend that they didn't and that led to the total fiasco that was FCP 10's sneak peak at NAB and launch a couple of months later.

Btw, does the new version of fcpx also do what final cut server did?
Or did Apple just abandoned their final cut server customers?

Final Cut Sever got dropped like a hot box of rocks after little development from Apple (just like Shake and Color). FCP 10's new metadata features are kinda like 'FC Server lite', though if they enable FCP 10 to work robustly across a shared storage environment it could become enough of a DAM (digital asset manager) to get the job done for the majority of Apple's audience. I'd always thought FC Server was an odd duck for Apple because it was overly complex and resource intensive for the vast majority of FCP users and Apple never seemed to do much to advance the usability of the app or to integrate it with the FC Suite.

It would be very ironic if the Avid and Adobe alternatives to FCP get updated to be more like FCPX in a few years. Surely everyone who is proclaiming that Apple are abandoning the pro video market will be eating their words when Avid-X and Premiere-X hit the market.

Ironic but highly unlikely. Adobe and Avid are embracing future workflows and tech (64-bit, tapeless media, etc.,) without scrapping current workflows in the process. Apple has already stated that things like Multicam and baseband video output are coming so FCP 10, at least for the foreseeable future, FCP 10 will be trying to add features that FCP 7, Avid and Adobe have rather than Adobe and Avid trying to add features that FCP 10 has.


Lethal

 

[3282868]

So what do y'all think? Based on Apple's focus on iDevices and the slow decline in professional grade products (ACD line replaced with one display for notebooks, XServe/Shake dropped, affordable PowerMac G5's replaced with expensive Xeon Server Mac Pro's, FCPX currently lacking professional features, less Mac Pro updates), is Apple dropping the business/professional sect?

The argument that it's not a large enough sect seems off as I can list dozens of businesses who use Mac's with thousands of dollars to upgrade their hardware but won't due to Apple's seeming lack of interest in that sector. There may not be mass quantity but the businesses that do invest, invest big.

 

[Skyjamvideos]

At this point, APPLE has to correct the present "bugs" within FCPX and we really don't know how far this product will eventually go

One thing is for sure, it's deeper than many people believe, although it's still missing vital aspects for specific production houses and/or studios - that's a given

Adding more things to it is not the overall challenge but actually fixing some of the internal architecture of the software itself

If you follow the APPLE SUPPORT COMMUNITY FORUMS, the same major issues are coming up for users and I am not speaking about what the software does not have but, can it actually function well on a daily basis without issues - bugs, freezes, and not saving projects

Granted, all new software and releases have issues but FCPX has some major problems that are hindering users from using it in a smooth,conductive and cooperative manner.

I have to agree with another post in here that the term "professional" can be "semantic" .

The video field has changes dramatically and I'll say this 1000 times but right now the average person between the ages of 12 - 28 are watching video on a screen 17 inches or less and what they are watching is far different than 20 years ago in regards to media. So when you speak about editing and then match that with intent, delivery and product - it's a different era and it doesn't always require a software product that has to be over extensive. Some of the tools in FCP7 will no longer apply to new media

It's no longer about TV or the Silver Screen - it's not and there are people that are not so called "professionals" that are turning out a superior product

FCPX is much deeper than the reviews and there are some inaccurate statements being made about it's overall functions but again, the biggest issue for APPLE right now is making FCPX operational

 

[nateo200]

^ agreed Kabeyun...
Apple was always the professionals choice for hardware/software in the video and audio industry, now they are geared towards phones and Ipads.. O well..

this really makes me sad...I remember when I was a kid and I would get a glimpse at professional video editing type areas and guess what stood out? Apple (literally the glowing Apple is iconic)...I'm finally seeing why Apple was chosen and finally using their products for something useful and I'm seeing the change my self. I don't like Lion's interface...I thought it was dumb that they changed all the gestures and I was so excited waiting for that $29.99 download only to be disappointed..as for FCP X...I use it because its simple and its really my only experience but I recently started working with video in a more serious role and the person I talked with used FCP 7 and she gave me a work load with 3 camera angles! I figured no big deal but it was the biggest pain in the ass .

Every video/film head/news/etc. person I have talked to has either said they are staying with FCP 7 tell it gets too old or moving back to Avid...A shame really...I was hoping I could catch the wave of Apple revolution right about now but it seams I've missed it. That said I do like FCP X...but I don't think its worth the price, and I think its almost cruel to throw out soooo much from FCP 7. They should have made this a side release like "iMovie pro" (which everyone makes fun of but its a serious claim!).

 

[nateo200]

I couldn't care less what software is being used to cut reality TV junk.

The only way to edit this would be the delete button. No software needed. Just pull the plug.

They can send me there feeds and I'll do a fine job editing it in iMovie on my iPhone

 

[LethalWolfe]

So what do y'all think? Based on Apple's focus on iDevices and the slow decline in professional grade products (ACD line replaced with one display for notebooks, XServe/Shake dropped, affordable PowerMac G5's replaced with expensive Xeon Server Mac Pro's, FCPX currently lacking professional features, less Mac Pro updates), is Apple dropping the business/professional sect?

I think Apple is doing what it usually does best and that's shoot for the middle/upper middle part of the curve. It's not going to go after the highest high and it's not going to go after the lowest low (although it does have products that tapper off towards the high and low ends).

10-15 years ago, when just playing back a single stream of DV heavily taxed computers, 'big iron' computers (like SGI) used to be required to do any sort of professional video work. Then off-the-shelf desktops became 'good enough'. Then desktops became the norm. Now MBPs, iMacs, and Mac Minis are becoming 'good enough' and towers are transitioning into specialist roles. If one says "I must have a tower to do my work" then you probably won't be happy with Apple. If one says "I must have a fast enough computer to do my work" then you'll probably be happy with a MBP, iMac or Mac Mini that can hang, if not blow the doors off, Mac Pros just 2-3yrs old.

Are there still places that need the most horsepower they can get? Sure. And there always will be places that need it bigger, stronger, faster but those guys aren't Apple's main target and I don't think they ever have been. I think Apple has dipped their toes in those waters a few times and never really liked the way it felt (ex. Shake, Color, Final Cut Server).

I don't think Apple is making unprecedented moves, I think as technology moves forward they have to readjust their comfort zone occasionally. 10 years ago iMacs were the 'daily driver' machines and high-end pros needed exotic computers. Today iPads are the daily drivers and Mac Pros are the exotic machines.


Lethal

 

[QuiteSure]

As a wannabe pro/hobby user shooting indie documentaries - the FCPX debacle has already got me switching to either Avid or Premier.

Why would you switch? What is it about your workflow that won't accommodate FCPX? I'm also a "wannabe pro/hobby" user and I think that FCPX was made especially FOR us! I don't need multi camera support or networking or backward compatibility. For someone like me I think that FCPX is the perfect solution. RAM being so cheap these days, I just upgraded my iMac to 16GB. I can't wait to use software that takes advantage of all that extra power.

Now I just need to finish my Lion tutorials, bill some lawyer time then get to work learning FCPX.

Or maybe play Skyward Swords...so much media, so little time!

 

[Nostromo]

FCP X is still in his infancy.

While some people think that you can judge the talent of a person at the age of four, I don't think so.

FCP X is a four year-old, crawling around, and just learned to walk.

He regularly bumps into things and falls over his own feet (bugs).

He's not yet grown to his full potential, may it be logical ability, the right hormone mix to keep the brain on track, or things like multi-camera support.

I still have FCP 6, and will not judge FCP X until its next, big revision.

And, again: who cares about reality TV and their editors? I won't take those nose pickers of the editing profession serious (just like an editor of parking garage surveillance tapes) and it's not of the slightest importance what software they use or don't use.

 

[LethalWolfe]

FCP X is still in his infancy.

While some people think that you can judge the talent of a person at the age of four, I don't think so.

FCP X is a four year-old, crawling around, and just learned to walk.

Maybe it should be called FC Toddler then rather than FC Pro for the time being?

This of course goes back to Apple wanting to continue to rely on the strong FCP brand even though they were releasing an entirely different app. At least Adobe went from Premiere to Premiere Pro when they rebooted that app.

And, again: who cares about reality TV and their editors? I won't take those nose pickers of the editing profession serious (just like an editor of parking garage surveillance tapes) and it's not of the slightest importance what software they use or don't use.

Ah, the power of anonymity on the internet. Dollars to donuts you wouldn't say that to an editor's face in real life, and I doubt you'd have the same tone if B/M went with FCP 10. Years ago when they switched to FCP it helped legitimize FCP in a lot of pro's minds and proved that FCP could hang with Avid in a very demanding environment. Your opinion is of course your own but it reeks of ignorance and hubris.


Lethal

 

[nateo200]

Don't attack me but I have a question; does anyone use Final Cut Pro X and feel satisfied? I'm assuming no pros do but the question still stands..

I mean I feel like it fits the bill for me now but as I expand my work I am a tad bit worried it might get more and more difficult to do some advanced stuff...I mean multi cam editing for me was NOT fun and since I actually had a client who wanted it distributed on DVD's and the 2nd day of editing my time codes got all corrupted I was beginning to question whether I should grab a copy of Final Cut Express to compliment FCP X...am I counting my eggs before they hatch or is this a valid concern.

I think Apple is doing what it usually does best and that's shoot for the middle/upper middle part of the curve. It's not going to go after the highest high and it's not going to go after the lowest low (although it does have products that tapper off towards the high and low ends).

10-15 years ago, when just playing back a single stream of DV heavily taxed computers, 'big iron' computers (like SGI) used to be required to do any sort of professional video work. Then off-the-shelf desktops became 'good enough'. Then desktops became the norm. Now MBPs, iMacs, and Mac Minis are becoming 'good enough' and towers are transitioning into specialist roles. If one says "I must have a tower to do my work" then you probably won't be happy with Apple. If one says "I must have a fast enough computer to do my work" then you'll probably be happy with a MBP, iMac or Mac Mini that can hang, if not blow the doors off, Mac Pros just 2-3yrs old.

Are there still places that need the most horsepower they can get? Sure. And there always will be places that need it bigger, stronger, faster but those guys aren't Apple's main target and I don't think they ever have been. I think Apple has dipped their toes in those waters a few times and never really liked the way it felt (ex. Shake, Color, Final Cut Server).

I don't think Apple is making unprecedented moves, I think as technology moves forward they have to readjust their comfort zone occasionally. 10 years ago iMacs were the 'daily driver' machines and high-end pros needed exotic computers. Today iPads are the daily drivers and Mac Pros are the exotic machines.


Lethal

Solid post. +1 respect.

 

[toke lahti]

FCP X is a four year-old, crawling around, and just learned to walk.

Why did Apple had to kill this 4-year-old's parents, before this newborn is ready for full time action?

What is it about your workflow that won't accommodate FCPX?

You can't use video monitors or scopes. You can't import or export to tape or any other media other than file. You can't make a real blu-ray with menus.

The video field has changes dramatically and I'll say this 1000 times but right now the average person between the ages of 12 - 28 are watching video on a screen 17 inches or less and what they are watching is far different than 20 years ago in regards to media.

Do you really think that smaller screen (which appears as big in FOV, just closer) needs less editing. Have you also counted that young generation has ever evolving media literacy, which needs more quality and they are accustomed to multimilliondollar SFX's also.
When they are making their skateboard videos by themselves they expect more from "professional" or "commercial" content.

 

[LethalWolfe]

Don't attack me but I have a question; does anyone use Final Cut Pro X and feel satisfied? I'm assuming no pros do but the question still stands.

I don't think any pro is truly satisfied with any of their gear.

But seriously, there are people that use FCP 10 to earn their income and it fits their needs. Do they run into problems? Sure, but everyone runs into problems. Just going from what I've been able to gather casually talking to people, people running FCP 10 haven't ditched their old NLE software because FCP 10 still has enough shortcomings to keep from flying solo.

Ultimately though the tool either works for you or it doesn't. If it doesn't just find a tool that does. And expect the tools to change so don't get so comfortable with one that you are adverse to learning others.

I think a problem w/the term "pro" is that not every pro needs the same thing. Tim Cook and the guy down my street that owns the local hardware store are both business professionals but I don't think anyone would be surprised to learn that the needs of a company the size of Apple are different than the needs of a Mom & Pop hardware store.


Lethal

 

[ILikeTurtles]

Who cares what Bunim/Murray does? A house should fall on them as punishment for the **** TV they forced upon us.

 

[yoak]

my classmate's sister-in-law makes $84 hourly on the laptop. She has been fired for 7 months but last month her income was $9078 just working on the laptop for a few hours. Go to this site NuttyRich.cöm

Oh dear...

 

[mjsanders5uk]

Don't attack me but I have a question; does anyone use Final Cut Pro X and feel satisfied? I'm assuming no pros do but the question still stands..

I've spent the day editing 15 min corporate talking head with title sequence, GV's, VO intro, music bed and titles. Mixed formats: GV's from a 5D and XDcam HD, talking heads on XDcam EX (including to my horror somegreen screen material!). 2hrs of source material all split into 22 different questions.

I've done this edit last year and the year before on FCP 7 and its OK. But it was a darn sight easier this year on FCP X. The only thing that would make me go to FCP 7 was because we shot the interviews on 2 cameras so switching between cameras is a lot easier with multi cam but I found a way round it that works OK.