Took the FCP X plunge...

Discussion in 'Digital Video' started by RBDesign, Sep 26, 2011.

  1. RBDesign macrumors newbie

    Oct 15, 2008
    I am primarily a still photographer but have a lot of experience with video via a production company that I worked for. Know my way around most of the NLE's well, etc.

    I have to say, I am actually impressed with FCP X. Most of the folks that are in the "it's cool to hate FCP X club" seem to be part of a big internet echo chamber. While I accept that there are a few critical missing elements and gottcha's the new version is so fast in more ways than I can count at actually putting work together very accurately and very directly that I cannot wait to see FCP X get a few upgrades under it's belt. I also cannot wait to see what Apple does with multi-cam/clip that they have promised in early 2012 - If the rest of the directness and slickness and depth the reset of the software finds it's way into multi-cam it will be unbelievable.

    One of the dozen things I chucked together while playing around was a time lapse of an entire random photo session. Just for fun I thought it was pretty cool - given the number of still guys here I thought you might enjoy. Every OOC JPEG shot taken in the space of hours compressed into less than 2 minutes. 95%+ of shots run 2 frames at 24fps, a few are key-framed for context, and a few run at 6 frames for pacing and humor.
    Warning - not work save - "R" rated - actually maybe more like "PG-13"


    Ps if you see stuttering it's vimeo dropping frames - anyone know why this happens on vimeo and youtube after they re-compress and how to avoid it - these where uploaded as h.264? In any case the rendered files from FCP were pristine - even the key framed images were ultra smooth with no fiddling around like FCP 7 to get them to move well.
  2. Badradio macrumors 6502

    Aug 19, 2004
    That's a bit more than PG-13, and that girl's clearly not a natural blonde.

    I understood people's frustration with Apple of the FCP X release (professional houses' development roadmaps were wiped out in a single announcement) but I agree that the furore drew attention away from an amazing product. Even on this late-2008 MBP 2.4, editing HD footage is very fluid.
  3. RBDesign thread starter macrumors newbie

    Oct 15, 2008
    I was actually surprised as to how deep the functionality was in just about every way after I dove into it for a few days. It is amazing at how so much functionality is available without jamming it all in your face. The fact that the versatility and function are far beyond what first meets the eye or has some sort of explicit menu item associated with it maybe what fools people into thinking it is a toy.


    Ps. Actually = is blonde but does enhance color a bit.
  4. KeithPratt macrumors 6502a

    Mar 6, 2007
    On the flipside, a lot of the Pro-FCPX lobby seem to overlook/underplay that people may not like the look of the Magnetic Timeline, the thumbnail-scrubbing-in-lieu-of-a-Viewer or the notion of all media being available in every project.

    What frame rate are you uploading? Is your computer being pushed to the limit when playing back Vimeo and YouTube?
  5. cgbier macrumors 6502a

    Jun 6, 2011
  6. THX1139 macrumors 68000


    Mar 4, 2006
    Yep, FC X is awesome. Just like buying sports car that come with 3 tires and you're not sure when you'll be able to buy the 4th one.
  7. mBox macrumors 68020

    Jun 26, 2002
    good work, may fave subject :)
    when I have time Ill watch it again to see why your video is stuttering.
  8. RBDesign thread starter macrumors newbie

    Oct 15, 2008
    First off - you DO NOT have to have "all media" available to every project - it's actually very very easy to manage what appears when - whether you just hide it or make FCPx completely oblivious to it - you can have it look just like what it alway has if you want.

    I have found no occasion in which the dynamic nature of the viewer has been a hinderance - you can even modify it to display both ends of an edit at the same time as well as toggle scrubbing on and off. Honestly I think most complaints are more a lack of familiarity rather than reality. Other stuff still does need refinement but I overall think it's more of a positive than a negative = cannot wait to see it next year. I hope a lot of the pieces added are just as innovative as what is there now. Much rather that than some reactionary de-volution.

    Oh and no this has nothing to do with my machine in terms of constraints - my internet connection? Everything local is smooth as glass. Big machine - big memory - big video (2GB VRAM) just wondering if you see the dropped frames on vimeo? As for framerate = 24

  9. RBDesign thread starter macrumors newbie

    Oct 15, 2008
    Yea maybe if your fourth tire is actually a tape - or some other fairly useless device in a lot of contexts. I have been tapeless for a LONG time.

    I am not at all saying that FCP X does everything that FCP7 did but what generalized statements like that do when they are echoed over and over is cause a lot of unjustified non-sencical judgements.

    Here are the facts:

    1) Tape bullcrap - gone - good riddance.
    2) No XML/EDL - EDL is useless now anyway - as for playing nice with others - well yes that needs to be addressed - I am sure it's thought out just not realized and could be a hinderance for the here and now. Personally I believe that this will be a non-event next year as the product matures and the market around it grows. Half of what people are moaning about here is can be dealt with in roles now and A lot of what it "used to be for" is actually inside the product now.
    3) Multi-cam - committed for 2012, if how X deals with MC is half as innovative and slick as the rest of the product I cannot wait to see it. As of now, I can still cut multi-cam in 19 different ways within X as a workaround and the other improvements and speed more than make up for any tiny bit lost in the way FCP 7 dealt with multi-cam.
    4)Most of what it "doesn't do" that you hear is pure horse manure coming from people that haven't even bothered to put a day into figuring out everything it does do and how it works. FCP x has some really deep functionality - it's just not presented in a blast you in the face with everything the app does UI style. It's actually quite amazing and I find new gems in it every time I use it.



    Yea let me know what you think is going on - it only happens in the vimeo player. If I use the download option on that page and download the Vimeo processed video and play it in QT it's lower quality than my original pre-upload but does not appear to be dropping frames left and right.

  10. chrismacguy macrumors 68000

    Feb 13, 2009
    United Kingdom
    Heres a better fact:

    1) What are we supposed to do with our HD Tape cameras exactly (Canon XL2s for instance)? Just because you've managed to go tapeless doesn't mean a lot of us have. Its also nice to still have access to archival media in the same program as the latest and greatest (Also lets me use lots of cheaper used cameras, since as a poor student I can't afford the latest and greatest). Heck, I have a PowerMac 8600/250 running Mac OS 8.1 in my setup for video capture from VHS, which I can then take straight into Final Cut Pro 7 and edit quickly, something that Final Cut Pro X Can't do (No tape support, and no support for the tape-mimicry that my video capture product uses, as the required software hasn't been updated since about Final Cut Pro 4)
  11. RBDesign thread starter macrumors newbie

    Oct 15, 2008
    I understand - in reality you don't need new software so why complain about new software? Just use the old stuff.

    Personally I care way way way more about what I am going to do down the road than what I have already done. Any thing that i give a crap about has long long ago been re-encoded into a viable modern format. If you need to keep an old machine up and running with old software to do just that then so be it. It has NOTHING to do with the capabilities of new software.

    If you want to keep archival media around I think that is a great idea - too bad almost any kind of video (analog or digital) is not really archival media - film - absolutely. DV? Digital8? betacam? hardly. This can be re-encoded in an appropriate and modern codec on more stable magnetic media with no loss and it's not going to get better with age. Film - the scanning and encoding may get better but by definition you will need new hardware/software anyway.


    Ps. I used a bunch of XL2's back in about 2003/4/5 with mini35s decent cameras but you would be way better off with a 7D at this point - probably save money as well on DV tape - definitely save about half of your life pulling sequences off tape and dealing with timecode alignment issues.
  12. evil_santa macrumors 6502a


    Sep 23, 2003
    London, England
    So if you had a regular client that needed the edit delivered on tape would you say good riddance to them as well? As a photographer dose the same go for a client who wants you to use film stock, do you turn them down as it old technology? Some of us professional editors have to deal with tape, it not our choice but our clients.

    While I'm glad your enjoying FCPX and can say good thing about it, as a photographer how would you feel if Adobe promised you a truly amazing upgraded to photoshop or the next version of Aperture was going to be really out of this world, only to find it doesn't open any of your current files, or fit your existing work flows but integrates seamlessly with iPhoto & preview, and to add to this all the amateur photographers & hobbyist keep going on about how fantastic it is any you don't need all those old feature as they are outdated and "Bullcrap"

    This thread is only proving to me that FCPX is not for the professional editor, but aimed a photographers.
  13. linuxcooldude macrumors 68020

    Mar 1, 2010
    I like the idea of having an archive on cheaper medium which is tape. But thats all I really like about it. You can't even run FCP X on your computer, let alone have tape support. That would be your first worry in any event. I think the previous poster had a good idea with starting to reencode it on another storage medium sometime in the future when you eventually go tapeless.
  14. RBDesign thread starter macrumors newbie

    Oct 15, 2008
    I am in no way saying that nobody has a tape requirement - Of course you have to deal with that if it's a requirement. Here is what I am saying to be clear.

    Personally I have not had to deal with tape in a long long time - mostly because I made a point to get rid of it out of my work-flow back around 2005 as much as possible. I used to run a small/medium production company that dealt with still and video media for a range of varying clients. We put a lot of effort into minimizing touching tape once in-house and ingested. The effort was well worth it for what we gained. We also tried very hard to get some of the outside resources we used or had delivery requirement for to give us or take files - in some cases we helped them get to where they wanted to be. In some cases we couldn't but at the end of the day our touch point for tape was isolated to the very beginning or very end of our process SIX years ago.

    Here and now I cannot believe that the VAST MAJORITY of whatever you do and value that you provide has anything to do with handling tape - even if you do have to ingest it or put final output to it. So what - big deal. I just do not get it.

    I still shoot a lot of film - mostly for personal reasons but a few commercial things here and there. My commercial output is always digital shooting on film in NO WAY influences what the rest of my work-flow is and what tools I choose to use. Just like a duratrans output or a paper output or a HD presentation output has no influence over the tools in the middle. They are touch points at the beginning and the end. I could not give a crap if the stuff in the middle has ever heard of film or paper, plastic, or aluminum. If the need arose I could probably figure out how to ingest and output to just about any medium - including tape, it has no bearing on a primary requirement for my primary edit environment.

    I think the tape issue is bull - the lack of a work-flow interchange solution for large - possibly outsourced - multi-role work-flows is a much more pressing issue in my mind. Partly addressed with roles in 10.1 - hopefully more and better than we have had in the past soon.

    I guess my whole point is that there appears to be way more good than bad in FCP X with a little maturing I think it blows the doors off other environments I have used in the past. Now that XSAN is back on the table one of my biggest work-around concerns is gone if I were to go back into producing video in any major way.

  15. cgbier macrumors 6502a

    Jun 6, 2011
    That's simple: You capture it.
    The new capture function of FCP X is even better than than the old one. I got footage into the system from Canon XL1, HV30, Sony A1, and even some old Hi8 and VHS-C stuff (via a Sony HDV deck).

    If you work with more "professional" tapes, you most likely also have a capture card with its own capture/transfer software, so nothing is lost.
  16. mBox macrumors 68020

    Jun 26, 2002
    Funny how people forget how to do it the old way...well old as in 5+ years ago when we used to have to hook-up all analog into an DV camera/deck :)
    I go back even older when I worked at a tv station and they were using 3 SVHS decks to edit :p
  17. KeithPratt macrumors 6502a

    Mar 6, 2007
    Like I said, the notion might be off-putting. FCPX would very much like you to have all your media available for all projects, and it's going to passive-aggressively resist your attempts to alter that behaviour. I don't want to start my relationship with an NLE with a fight.

    This is more of a general observation than a direct reply to you, but it seems to be a "thing" with a portion of the pro-FCPX gang (or anti-anti-FCPX gang) that if FCPX does something acceptably well it's not legitimate to prefer the alternatives.
  18. RBDesign thread starter macrumors newbie

    Oct 15, 2008
    On point one - it's really not a fight.

    On point number two - Let's do a little reversal here, Say you were using something that works EXACTLY like FCP X works for a couple of years and then were presented with the next version that worked like FCP 7. I believe with all of my logic and intuition that NO-ONE, not one single person on the planet would be able to point out even one thing that was acceptable in the "new" FCP 7.

    There are so many things that are so much better in every way in FCP X it's hard to even enumerate them and everyone seems to be focused on what amounts to either

    1)chicken **** items that given half a chance they would end up being more productive if they just spent a little time actually working with it.

    2)absolute false hoods like YOU CAN'T DO THIS OR THAT - where it is absolutely not the case. The person/s saying this type 2 crap are either echoing others stupid statements or has obviously spent less than 5 minutes figuring out how it works.

    3)true but can be worked-around in most cases on a temporary basis and with a few exceptions would probably result in an overall GAIN rather than loss.

    90% of the stuff "FCP X" can't do that you read or hear (even from a panel discussion of hollywood guys) is utterly false and it's obvious that they haven't even spent the time to "get" how it works. Do you have to structure they way you work differently - YES. Can that be better - YES.

    Here are some bold statements -

    Clip connections are fantastic.

    Compound clips are fantastic.

    Secondary story lines are fantastic.

    The precision editor is fantastic.

    The way audio can be manipulated (talking about having each clip having it's own set of tracks and the expand audio/video functions) is fantastic.

    Crazy easy/automatic keyframing of just about anything is mind numbingly fast, precise, and direct.

    Getting your head around they way all this interacts with each other in a GOOD way is mind blowing.

    Oh but it doesn't deal with my tape deck yet - oh, it's way way cheaper but you have to pay for a tool that outputs OMF (if you work with a sound guy, if you do your own - hmmmm FCP X audio is pretty stinking good), and it can't output "XYZ" - (ha - by compressor and make any preset you want - directly available from FCP), and my personal favorite - "It's offensive that there are those sharing options for youtube". Ha

  19. LethalWolfe macrumors G3


    Jan 11, 2002
    Los Angeles
    Another FCP 10 debate. Wow, we haven't had one in like a week and I was starting to get worried.;)

    RB likes FCP 10 and shared a quick video he cut w/it. Can that not be the topic of discussion for at least the majority of the posts?

    And now to be a bit hypocritical...
    Out of six billion people I'm sure at least one person would find something useful in FCP 7 that wasn't in FCP 10, but hyperbole aside I'm pretty much in agreement with you though probably not for the reasons you think. If people used FCP 10 first, and it met their needs, then I agree that they probably wouldn't see much benefit to using FCP 7 because the advantages FCP 7 offers wouldn't fit their workflows. They would most likely complain about missing metadata tags and background rendering instead of focusing on what FCP 7 does have such as track-based timeline organization and base-band video out.:p

    While happy FCP 10 users probably wouldn't like the 'upgrade' to FCP 7 I bet PPro and Avid users would welcome the changes and finally see FCP as a potential alternative.

  20. handsome pete macrumors 68000

    Aug 15, 2008
    You're either pulling numbers out of thin air or you're just wildly misinformed about what most of the issues are.

    I'll agree with you as far as Lethal did. I'm sure there are many users out there who wouldn't find the switch to FCPX so jarring if they just give it a shot for a little while and got used to it. They've been jaded by all of the negativity not even knowing how they'd be affected, if at all.

    But that doesn't negate the fact that there is still an enormous user base that FCPX will just not work for. My company and I are part of that base and it has nothing to do with tape based workflows. I think I've been pretty fair towards FCPX with both the positives and the negatives, but you seem to imply that most of the negativity out there is born of ignorance. While that may be true for some, there are still many issues regarding pre-existing workflows that still need to be addressed.
  21. RBDesign thread starter macrumors newbie

    Oct 15, 2008
    I do not debate there are some where "it just won't work" - if you do not mind I would LOVE to hear why it will not work for you. In all seriousness, there are too many statements of that kind of generic "it just will not work for me" that are not very qualified. Without any kind of rationale - nobody knows exactly why it would not and therefore makes a lot of fantastical assumptions about why this would be true, like connecting it to a bunch of false statements about what it will and won't do.

  22. Joe Walker macrumors newbie

    Sep 18, 2011
    Birmingham, Alabama
    Can anybody tell me how to make the "ancient" and "outdated" feature of batch exporting happen in FCPX, or is that another "old-school" thing that I should just learn to live without? ;)
  23. RBDesign thread starter macrumors newbie

    Oct 15, 2008
    Check out compressor 4 if this is important to you...

    Oh yea it costs $49 - so you are still ahead ummmm... 600+ bucks.

  24. Joe Walker macrumors newbie

    Sep 18, 2011
    Birmingham, Alabama
    Yeah but here's the problem, in old ancient crippled wheelchair bound FCP7 I could lazily highlight all 50 sequences in my bin, and then go up to File>Batch Export and then magically I could have all 50 sequences just start doing their voodoo magic. Now, I have to sit up, put down my coffee cup with extra cream, and manually, sequence by sequence, add each one to the cue in Compressor. That's so much work. Why did they get rid of that? Why?

Share This Page