Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Motion & Video => Topic started by: KevinA on June 22, 2011, 04:47:13 pm
-
Looks to be getting the thumbs down, no doubt give it a week or two and it will be better understood. So far I have heard anything positive.
Kevin.
-
AAAAArrrrrgggghhhh....I'm tremendously jalous.
Michael has donwloaded one, sure that Chris also, maybe will have a review here.
-
if all this > http://magazine.creativecow.net/article/final-cut-pro-x-whats-missing-for-some-pros < is true (it certainly is)... than FCPX is pretty useless.
-
if all this > http://magazine.creativecow.net/article/final-cut-pro-x-whats-missing-for-some-pros < is true (it certainly is)... than FCPX is pretty useless.
I'm not jalous any more...
You know what? it reminds me when Adobe released Soundbooth instead of Audition.
-
I've been reading (and listening) to several articles at creative cow, not all are as harsh as the two, who obviously have a huge investment into fcp7 and it's ecology.
I'm one whose contemplating my choices - based on using a 5d2 and either 7d or gh2 as a second camera
1) Avid at $1000 - either platform PC or Mac
2) Adobe Premiere at $800 - either platform
3) FCPX at $300 for Mac
I have invested in Premiere Elements and it truly sucks - with the possible exception of Silverfast, and Microsoft Bob - probably one of the most unusable pieces of software ever written....
-
I've been reading (and listening) to several articles at creative cow, not all are as harsh as the two, who obviously have a huge investment into fcp7 and it's ecology.
I'm one whose contemplating my choices - based on using a 5d2 and either 7d or gh2 as a second camera
1) Avid at $1000 - either platform PC or Mac
2) Adobe Premiere at $800 - either platform
3) FCPX at $300 for Mac
I have invested in Premiere Elements and it truly sucks - with the possible exception of Silverfast, and Microsoft Bob - probably one of the most unusable pieces of software ever written....
Also check Edius 6, serious stuff too.
Well, it depends. If you value intuitive interface I'd go Premiere CS5. No hassle.
If you really want to go deep into editing I'd go Avid Media Composer 5 # but it has a learning curve a little more serious than Premiere. But worth. I come from Premiere and switched to Avid "by accident"(in fact had pressure from work) and at first it looked unfriendly to me, but now I don't want to edit in Premiere any more. Avid helps you a lot to tell the story. It's very special.
Trying to explain by image. Avid is a software made by and for full time editors, Premiere Pro is a software made by a company who's very good making good softwares. To me, one is not better than the other, just different philosophy. Edius is in between both IMO.
If you plan in the future to work with Red, I strongly recommend Avid because you can actually reveal the raw file directly in the timeline and adjust raw parameters in real time from your source (exactly like Adobe Camera Raw would do with stills) so you don't really need the RedCine X develloper.
-
I'm not jalous any more...
You know what? it reminds me when Adobe released Soundbooth instead of Audition.
As I actually like some of FCP(7)'s color tools I was just about to buy FCPX (I thought for €240,- you can't go wrong). But then I first searched for some initial feedback from users and came across the link posted above. The lack of basic and essential features is really shocking, especially the file management, the impossibilty to assign audio tracks and the lack of true video output. Kind of unbelievable mistake on behlaf of Apple...
-
I'm one whose contemplating my choices - based on using a 5d2 and either 7d or gh2 as a second camera
1) Avid at $1000 - either platform PC or Mac
2) Adobe Premiere at $800 - either platform
3) FCPX at $300 for Mac
I think for occasional and not professional use (not in the sense of personal creative demand but in the sense of heavy deadlines, mix of file formats, adherence to broadcast standards, interchangeabilty of projects etc. etc.) Avid MC is a bit oversized. It's by far the most mature editing software (IMO) but it includes a lot you will never need (most likely).
-
As I actually like some of FCP(7)'s color tools I was just about to buy FCPX (I thought for €240,- you can't go wrong). But then I first searched for some initial feedback from users and came across the link posted above. The lack of basic and essential features is really shocking, especially the file management, the impossibilty to assign audio tracks and the lack of true video output. Kind of unbelievable mistake on behlaf of Apple...
I really wanted to use Smoke, and Smoke is on Mac only. Then ProRes was very appealing but in the end just decided think pragmatic, looking at the numbers and Mac was too expensive for the power I needed. At first I thought that the 300€ FCP was because Apple waited a long time, but in fact it was suspect.
I'm going to keep happily DNxHD 422, Avid and PC workstation. Oh well, think it's 300€ for the precious ProRes codec...
-
I think for occasional and not professional use (not in the sense of personal creative demand but in the sense of heavy deadlines, mix of file formats, adherence to broadcast standards, interchangeabilty of projects etc. etc.) Avid MC is a bit oversized. It's by far the most mature editing software (IMO) but it includes a lot you will never need (most likely).
Totally agree. Avid has a learning curve in the aspects tho_mas mentionned wich is to take into consideration. Of course, you are not obliged to use the software to its full potential but then it is overkill if you plan editing tasks non pro (in the noble sense tho_mas mentionned).
-
I'll repeat what I said in a previous thread:
Just remember that this is a VERSION ONE complete re-write of Final Cut and likely should not be trusted for any meaningful work until several months in.
I would say at this very early stage that it looks promising; is not ready for prime time; and promises more than it delivers.
But
Do not count FCP X out; like iMovie, FCP is probably worth learning from the beginning. But it makes my teeth grind to be told to import my iMove Events [Hello? did you say Pro?]; it makes my head spin to know it has no multi-camera support - effectively rendering it useless for my workflows... But I am prepared to humour it, while I get work done on FCP7.
-
FCP is probably worth learning from the beginning.
so true ... cancel all your workflows and start from scratch on a standalone unit with FCPX :-)
Seriously: who wants to "learn" FCPX from the beginning? ... certainly not production houses that edit tv series on mulitple workstations or so...
Upgrades should add features and speed things up. Upgrades should not take away features.
New workflow = slow workflow.
re version 1: at least this version 1 tells a lot about the basic design of the application. It will take a long time to turn it into something you can use for professional production. If that is Apple's plan at all...
-
That ringing noise you hear, is 1.2 million I-phones calling Adobe and Avid asking the question . . . How Much?
The e-mails you see clogging the Apple system is the investors with the question . . . "When did Apple sell their company to RIM?".
IMO
BC :'(
-
I'm no pro video guy but I will give my opinion ;)
I've used FCP and iMovie for the last 2 years.
We shoot mainly backstage videos and instructional videos.
Working with FCP is most of the time just a huge overkill and slows me down, while working with iMovie was much faster but frustrating because I missed many editing options I did have with FCP.
Recently we picked up video more and are moving into the realm of videoclips, this is for me best done in FCP and with the multicam option that rocks and works very fast, but than we have the problem of the continues need to render, assign a look and wait, nah not ok, wait again, give it a new look, wait again. It sucks the time out of a day.
Enter FCPx, looks on the fly, color matching between clips is a simple and fast, magnetic timeline is a cool feature, keeping audio in sync. Compound clips is a nice feature to keep me from getting overwhelmed with my timeline (again I don't work on video every day).
Actually if they add multicam for me FCPx is done and I welcome every addition after that.
When I read the comments I do understand them, but most are done by the guys that need stuff like exporting to tape or XML etc. What some don't realize is that there is a HUGE market of DSLR and video shooters out there that don't need it and will stay within FCPx and will even than probably never need anything else.
My prediction is indeed that this is a version 1.
Apple will probably release a paid upgrade for multi cam, making it only "costly" for people needing it.
Apple will release an export option, add support for external monitors etc.
When I look at the massive rewrite I really don't understand the opinions that it's iMovie 2.
I wonder if those people ever really worked with iMovie.
The difference between iMovie on my iPad and my Mac is smaller than the difference between FCPx and iMovie ;) it does look like iMovie in some cases, it has the good features from iMovie but it goes so much further that it's indeed a new app for me with a lot from FCP and some from iMovie.
The fact it it imports iMovie timelines is I think because the structure from IMovie is much simpler than from FCP and I'm sure apple will also come with an option for FCP import, because I also have some projects in FCP of course.
I'm now using FCPX and still have FCP on my Mac for everything that X does not do, but after two days of testing and playing with it I think I will only use FCP for some quick multicam stuff. I will work the videos in x and export them as QuickTime to import as multiclips in FCP and do the mutlicam, and later insert them in x again. Yes it would be great to do it straight from x but the speed increase x gives me is just too good to pass, and seeing what I do with color/looks and matching clips is just great.
-
I'll repeat what I said in a previous thread:
Just remember that this is a VERSION ONE complete re-write of Final Cut and likely should not be trusted for any meaningful work until several months in.
I would say at this very early stage that it looks promising; is not ready for prime time; and promises more than it delivers.
But
Do not count FCP X out; like iMovie, FCP is probably worth learning from the beginning. But it makes my teeth grind to be told to import my iMove Events [Hello? did you say Pro?]; it makes my head spin to know it has no multi-camera support - effectively rendering it useless for my workflows... But I am prepared to humour it, while I get work done on FCP7.
Chris, the problem IMO is not that much that it can't or will not be ready in the future, it is that the market is very sensitive to the first impression, even for a non-finished product. Nobody's today can sell a car with one seat and 3 wheels. Nobody except maybe Apple because of the sacred cool factor ! The perception is key and even if this version would be enough for a vast market, the legitimate complains of the people who trusted Apple in their daily jobs will damage forever the image of this software.
-
I'll try to be kind about this.
I've got 10 years of FCP, from crash central to a very stable program that today allows you at a budget price to do about anything, that is with FCP 6 ot 7.
Now we have 10 and come one Chris, do you really think Apple is going to rewrite the whole program to work off a network, or external drives, or allow the edit to be purposed to multiple machines?
Anyway, Apple knows their market, Frank's happy (though I'll bet if apple bought his beloved Leaf/phase/mamiya and turned it into i-phone 5 he'd take a strong exception to that process).
The thing is Frank probably represents 2 million users and guys like me 1/4 of that, so that's where the money is and that's where Apple will go, though I can promise you that the Cohen Bros. or Ron Howard won't be cutting their next film on FCP X.
Anyway,
I have to thank Apple for pushing Avid to a grand, down from $300,000 and I have to thank Apple for adding a lot to my bottom line, though today it pretty much stops.
When time permits, I go to Avid land.
I'll let you know how that works out.
IMO
BC
-
When time permits, I go to Avid land.
I'll let you know how that works out.
IMO
BC
You won't be disapointed! It really is a great software.
I find that the learning curve is a little more serious (no let's be honest, clearly more serious) than Premiere, but then it is so efficient that you save time. When you overcome the particular Avid's approach you realise how greatly designed is this program and more importantly, if you delegate tasks it is the best platform to date for datas exchange.
It bloody rocks!
Back to the Topic; I'm really surprised of Chris's generous view. I know that the relation with Apple and users has always been very strong, in fact Apple was serious stuff when Windows was a peice of crap and there was a sensation of proudness, love relationship. But Apple is changing, Windows has changed, competition is hard. I find the company more and more arrogant. When I enter Apple stores here the client is treated like s....t, their prices are high and not sure justified etc...I have the old Mac Pro that I haven't touched for a long time now and really don't perceive the same attraction or necesity as 5 years ago.
Apple is derivating step by step to the mass market, we can't blame them for that but I don't see why FCP couldn't have been rock solid. Adobe is mass market and they do products well usable by pros.
Behind that, I perceive a drift to lands Windows was known for years ago...sad in a way but hey, those are just bits.
So Chris, you are betting that Apple will do the homeworks. Will they? It's putting yourself IMO at risk in a complete new learning process with the Damocles sword always present above your head that it will evolve the way you expect or not. And when? Another long waiting until the product's stabilized? You know what? If the re-learn is almost from zero I'd change the grocery shop.
edit: Also thinking about Frank's post. If you want to work in closed-circuit, self production only, any NLE will do the job included Imovie and FCP XXX. But Frank, you point DSLR's users. Well, when I first started with the commercial photographer to shoot movies with 5D2, the very first time it resulted that different prods where involved from outside the studio. In fact, there was no stable crew. So you got those video pros asking you for EDL, XML etc...and we said "¿¿what?". The thing is that Avid is really strong on that. It has dedicated "peripherical" mini programs just for those tasks. Also, we never know what kind of cameras will be used. The boss will rent an Alexa just because he wanted to. Or you end with zillion files format, never balanced etc etc...I've been learning from the beginning the hard way and now that I'm starting to see through the mist, I can't be more thankfull having a rock solid software that really handles all situations.
-
BC is 100% right.
I'm not a hollywood film maker.
FCP was for what we do great but 80% of what you could do with it I would never use.
FCPx misses the Multicam which for me is a disaster at the moment but when they add this it would pretty much be my perfect workhorse.
I also think that Apple realizes they will loose people but will probably gain millions more who are now struggling with Final Cut Express, Vegas, Premiere/Express, Studio etc. and who need more than iMovie but the other options are too complicated and giving WAY too much.
I'm a bit in the middle.
We're starting more and more in video, so my learning curve is pretty much very flexible, so is the investments I've made, cameras and FCP that's about it. FCPx is cheap, and with the additions it CAN become interesting.
I would not be surprised if Apple releases something soon by the way, they are not stupid, a Multicam option for example would probably already help a lot of people to start doubting, add an export function and most pro's would be happy ?
And the hollywood guys.... well FCP still works ?
Why spend 300.000 when you before was earning your money with FCP ?
That's something I don't understand, if I would be using FCP on a daily basis and earn money with it I would not dare to shelve down $300.000 at the moment and start learning from the bottom up and maybe kick myself in the butt in a year when FCPx is probably expanded to a "pro" version ?
Again, I'm a photographer with a "fresh" few on video, I do know iMovie is WAY underpowered for what I do, FCPx is looking awesome when it adds multicam.
-
But Frank, you are pointing Hollywood. It's not justr about Hollywood.
I'm far from being Hollywood. But, ok, let's take a simple real life example.
I had to do a shared work with an external editor person. The thing is that the guy was on Premiere Pro and I was on Avid. I had to export for him an EDL so he could keep going the project to another stage.
Premiere Pro reads CMX 3600 EDL. So export in Avid, choosed the correct option for Premiere Pro was instantaneous. No hassle, it simply does the job.
As I still own a Premiere, I could verify first that my export was correct.
If FCP can't do those kind of stuff properlly, it's not about being Hollywood, it's a common task that can appear at any point even at the rather basic level I am.
-
Without a doubt you are right.
But it's a V1.0 program, I think there will be loads of changes and also export options.
There is already talk about adding FCP imports ?
So if there would be FCP exports there will be more options hopefully.
Time will tell.
What I'm trying to say is that what you read is almost 99% negative and it's called iMovie2.
As I've worked a lot with iMovie and also for some years with FCP I can say that it's so much more than an iMovie2.
But it's no FCP at all I agree on that.
However how many people are working on one station (or two stations running the same software), I think from the LARGE market almost 99% of the people will work at their own or maybe with FCPx on several machines.
I do agree (don't get me wrong) that Apple is loosing some of the real pros, without a doubt and I think it's a HUGE shock for them. I think if Apple would have called it Visual producer Pro it would probably all been a different story. Make FCP a legacy product that is being sold but stopped support, iMovie for the consumers and Visual producer Pro for the middle market. I think maybe boat loads of people would have switched from FCP to FCPx (with a different name) and the results would have been positive.
It's now changing way too much, and releasing it without the future additions and claiming it's the new FCP, and that is wrong I think.
However I also believe that if we fast forward maybe 1-2 years FCPx has matured (at least I hope). And let's be honest FCP still runs and $299.00 is of course a price which is incredibly low for what you get (even in a 1.0 version).
-
It's worse than I thought.
- No OMF = no export sound in Protools
- No XML = no export in third key applications. No conform in 4K, no grading in Scratch, no Lustre etc...
- NO EDL = no export editing in other NLE and sopftwares like Smoke
- NO AAF ? (some sources say yes, others no)
- NO native RED ONE support = You could only convert the RED clips with the compressor but as you can't export XML
it is useless because you can't use a color correct application that yes reads the Red.
- (apparently) No native XDCAM editing = need to convert to Quicktime with a third application from Sony
- No multicam
- No capture card neither external AJA ...= you can't send a video signal to a pro monitor,
can't capture, can't HD-Cam... updated: it seems that there is finally a support for AJA
- Each project only allows 1 sequence on timeline = if you have 500 sequences you have 500 projects
you can't open more than 1 project or sequence at once !! this one is really top.
- Some claim they can't change the position of the windows
- the "Color" application that a lot liked very much has been dynamited
Forums are in flame, here in Spain to. Some sources in internet said that the demand for Avid and Premiere classes are incrementing suddenly.
A complete Apple bug, joke or toy, call it the way you want because they obviously knew what they where doing. They are targetting the YouTube market.
I find the attitude of the company arrogant with this total lack of communication because they took everyone by surprise. Million of users, most pro where waiting the upgrade for a long time. They paid the software, cheap, and got a shade of the previous FCP. Apple didn't communicate the truth. They could have warn and say: the version that will be released is not yet to a professional standart and the pro features will be added step by step within an x period of time, or simply. Apple decided to abandonned the pro market...nothing but the facts.
-
But it's a V1.0 program, I think there will be loads of changes and also export options.
There is already talk about adding FCP imports ?
So if there would be FCP exports there will be more options hopefully.
NO, it won't. Not this program and no this is not Version 1, it's I movie V2.
I could list the two dozen reasons why, but there is no reason because that's already been done.
If it works for you that's ok but that's like saying why bother with photoshop when your camera can make a jpeg?
Why bother with lights when your point and shoot has that little pop up thing?
The only people I know that like this application are the people that like Apple and don't cut video for profit.
And if you haven't worked FCP for years you don't understand what a revelation it was to the industry and I don't live in the past . . . but this is sad.
It's like watching Rolex sell a Casio watch with gold spray paint. Casio doesn't have an upgrade path.
The good thing is nobody dies, the world won't stop, it will only cost a few grand to move over to something better, though there is a few weeks of training and a different learning curve.
That's the one thing most of us don't have is that extra two weeks.
FYI: the reason people will move is we lose so much time in rendering. I pulled to 5:30am this morning and probably 2 hours of that is rendering. In fact I had placed an appointment to price out a new PC boxed system with AVID when FCP was announced . . . so I thought might as well tough it out for a few more months and see what shakes loose from the Apple tree.
Now I know the only thing that fell to the ground was an imitation piece of candy.
The first time Ipad owners will love it. The people that kept Apple in business for years are pissed.
IMO
BC
-
Again, please read it as I posted it.
I agree with all of you.
But I tried to also show some positive in it, in MY situation and I can't be alone it's a program that IF Multicam is added is perfect.
And with me many others probably.
But AGAIN, I 100% agree upon the let down for pro's without one doubt.
So please don't take my post as a defence, I think Apple screwed up big time with the naming and the set expectations.
-
You know, I came recently in video, and never liked the FCP basically for the constant render. From the beginning I decided to just ignore it and learn on other systems. So I have no special relation with the software. Despite of that, I feel sad. I'm not indifferent, It does not make me laugh at all.
This software managed to impose itself deaply in the industry upon the arrogant and expensive Avid of the time. From there the Avid guys had to listen to the pros, rebuilding politics from scratch and dropped prices down. If I can enjoy such a well designed software like MC5 is in part because of FCP forced the competition to do better and cheapper. It's ironic, what revolutionated the editing task and show the way to go is now just a shade of itself. History has often a wired sense of dark humour.
So it's all an icon that suddenly has been sacrificed on the altar of the cool factor.
I received a few emails from scandalised friends that are literraly boiling and even want to completly swich windows just to punish Apple. Stupid thing really.
-
I'll tell you the god's honest truth, most of complainers for just about anything in this world more often than not are not the power users, they are the casual users and just need something to bitch about.
hmhhh... the "casual users" maybe complain about the interface or about some missing editing features (or effects) or so. And they praise the magnetic timeline. But users missing EDL support, interchangeablity of projects, true video output etc. certainly complain about the lack of those features beause they need it. And typically you only need those features in more or less professional workflows.
-
There's nothing wrong with using FCP X. If your a lite user and want a quick learning curve it's perfect, or like John if you want to use it for fast dailies.
It's perfect for those clients that say, just cut together the background footage of you guys working, or that interview thing the CMO gave during the shoot.
I'm even sure talented editors could make it sing, but talented editors ain't gonna touch it unless Apple writes them a check and most people I know aren't in the equipment selling, demonstrating, or endorising business, they're in the equipment using business.
It's fine, life goes on.
The thing is I never cared about "lite" systems.
I'll admit I went to the first FCP cause back then I couldn't afford 300 thousand large for AVID and a hundred grand for media 100 was insane.
When I started with FCP everyone I knew in the Hollywood biz laughed and thought it was like premiere and it wasn't, the only problem was it wasn't very stable.
Now FCP owns . . . excuse me . . . did own the editing world.
The thing for me is I never really cared about exploring lite systems because I felt any time lost learning how to use something like Imovie I could spend exploring a more advanced system that could really do some good for my business and I have to admit FCP has been very, very good to me.
But I'm not pissed, I'm just not buying, but it won't cost Steve Jobs a penny cause obviously he doesn't care what I use . . . nor should he.
There is a NY times article where some guy address all the problems with X with positive answers, though he left off about 10 very obvious functions we need. Once again That's ok, Apple probably bought him lunch.
Anyway sorry for the sarcasm.
The thing is Apple didn't invent FCP, Macromedia did, they didn't invent color and Apple didn't invent the I-tune/I-pod, portalplayer did, so like Aperture this is kind of what happens when Apple invents a professional system.
What apple is great at is easy usability, marketing and slick packaging, so given that FCPX will make them money.
Just not my money.
IMO
BC
P.S. Last night I worked on a style edit until 5:30am to get a large project green lighted to begin shooting. It worked and the project is on. Now out of those hours I worked, about 2 to 3 are in rendering. That's a deal killer and X sounds great except with this edit, I could not do it in X . . . period or if I did I would have spent more time than the rendering . . . so what's the point?
P.S. 2
I was at the apple store today buying an arm load of drives and I thought well since I'm here I could buy another FCP 7. I asked the salesperson who was the store manager and she said, "not another one" No we don't have it, Apple made us send them all back last week."
-
i have been waiting for fcpX....
first of all apple stated right from the start that this was not an upgrade....that it was completely reworked from the ground up....i have 3 little projects that i knew i did not want to start in fcp 7 (all 3 are not time sensitive and not commercial of course)...
fcp7 works today as well as it did yesterday...
only a tiny fraction of all film/video being shot needs fcp7 but most could really use more then imovie (i own both and always disliked imovie just like i dislike iphoto...)
$300...this will open up the market more then imovie and fcp ever did....
no plug ins, although there are some announced daily...but i this will have to be reworked as well...all these companies who have been selling plug ins at movie/hollywood prices will have to adjust.....sidenote here: nik/oneone software sell all their stuff for 100 and up....snapseed (nik software) is $5 in the app store and is the most amazing thing i have ever seen...this is where things are heading...
i really wish adobe would have reworked ps at some point...even if that would have meant that i would have to run some older version just to be able to go back....one look at pixelmator and this becomes so obvious...and yes, unfortunately i can't use pixelmator because of lack of features and yes i use cs5 daily but it does not make me hate it less....
apple is a consumer company....they make truly amazing consumer products....that is what they are great at....but hey....fcp is pretty great as well (although it ranks with cs5 in my book...) i use and love aperture (for several reasons, among them the great system integration and yes...the hope of a better future....)
this is a v1 and there are several people promising (hoping for?) upgrades before the end of summer....
who will jump on lion once it hits? or will it be wiser to wait a month, or 2 or 6 for adobe and canon and epson to join the fun and let us use our gear with lion...
next year we will have a 30" imac with "lightning bolt connection?" for external raids, external monitors and capture rendering any res you want in the blink of an eye and fcpX2 all for under $5000 (including raid and external monitor and software) mixing your color and controlling your software on the ipad3.....and i am sure it will not have everything and i am sure there will be issues but all in all it will take things to a new level...just like fcp7 did...
the only problem is that you will have to go back to fcp7 to re-work that older project and it will feel like a time warp....
bcooter: the apple store is not for professionals...they don't have any drives that are worth considering doing video with/on...it's a candystore....
-
bcooter: the apple store is not for professionals...they don't have any drives that are worth considering doing video with/on...it's a candystore....
Your kind of right, though John is right I bought a bunch of one terabyte lacie Ruggeds.
I've got a billion of them and only one has failed someone stepped on.
They're a good price, easy to use and with that Nitro AV FW800 Bus you can hook 7 up to them.
Anyway.
IMO
BC
-
It's interesting! I've probably learned more about NLE workflows, based on the feedback in the last few days, than I have in several months.
FCPX brings to mind my and many other developers reaction when Microsoft replaced Visual C++ ad Visual Basic with Visual Studio .NET. Talk about paradigm shift..... My backround is database development, I started with Ashton Tate's dBase and quickly settled on Sybase' SQL Server. Both companies ran roughshod over their developers.... shouting bug reports down. Then Microsoft releases Visual Basic 1.0..... whoah... a company that actually cared (at the time) about developers! The "Visual" moniker continued through many iterations and finally settled on a creaky 16/32bit COM (component object model) based development environment that frequently caused more problems than it solved - anyone Windows users remember DLL Hell?
When MS released Visual Studio .NET and it's managed code, runtime environment, strict class based model - a *lot* of experienced developers - including me, were to put it mildly - pissed. One very influential figure in database development, Bill Vaughn went so far as to call VB.Net, VB.NOT! Needless to say -any existing code was pretty much out the window......
So fast fwd a few years - yeah it was painfull, yeah i still have to maintain a couple of old COM based applications - but *everything* else went from 32bit to 64 with a simple rebuild. New technologies that have come down, have been possible to integrate and add to my existing work - the .NET framework is that robust and extensible - no end in sight....
So, I read about FCPX and discover that several people that have been in the loop relatively early are pretty positive, while at the same time, pragmatic about its *current* limitations. I see a lot of very talented editors as upset as I was faced with the changes ahead. The one thing that bothers me is the mis-information that is being propagated, along with the snarkiness - I really don't care if Apple bought anyone lunch, or whatever.....
I *get* the implications and for me FCPX looks to be compelling.
-
So, I read about FCPX and discover that several people that have been in the loop relatively early are pretty positive, while at the same time, pragmatic about its *current* limitations. I see a lot of very talented editors as upset as I was faced with the changes ahead. The one thing that bothers me is the mis-information that is being propagated, along with the snarkiness - I really don't care if Apple bought anyone lunch, or whatever.....
I *get* the implications and for me FCPX looks to be compelling.
It's simple John: because both are right in what they are saying.
FCP X will be good for a certain kind of users. It will be completly, I insist completly, useless for other kind of users.
It's not that it's a complete rewrite that just forces people to think different, it is that it simply does NOT allow important and basic tasks power users and pros need to deal with daily. It is simply impossible. Thus, if the software in a closed circuit will be good, it's completly useless for other users. It's not that it is useless, it's that it is completly out of question in its current release. Not a question of mood, of resistance, just the fact. If your needs are light that's perfectly fine but there are people wich needs simply can not be covered by this software. It's not a question of adaptation, it's a question that this software has been built for another target-market but was supposed to be the next step of a professional-high-end editor, and that, it is not. That's why Cooter said for ex it's Imovie 2. Again, if you work in closed circuit for your own indy prod you may find it compelling.
And you don't need to be Hollywood or Coot to find very fast its limitations. When I read first the specs I went blue. What is lacking is really important. I use those things daily and without them I simply could not work properly with others and would get too limited and I'm just at the beginning of my video training. I'm using Avid on Windows so you can object that I'm not concerned, but it is time to upgrade my equipment and I've been considering a re-moved to Apple. It is clear that with this politic my choice has been completly closed. Maybe things could be rewritte, added later, whatever, but it will not drastically change from this. It seems obvious that Apple just targetted other users and probably did it for strategical reasons but they will disappear from the industry and actually they may want to because this is not a mistake but a deliberate choice. So it's understandable if you find over-reactions and angryness on the web.
But as JR said, life goes on, it's nothing that important.
-
Good points!
I'm *not* constrained by tape or older technologies, so I want to tell a story..... How would FCPX hold me back?
(I'm a Windows guy!!!! I can't believe I'm taking this point of view....)
-
Good points!
I'm *not* constrained by tape or older technologies, so I want to tell a story..... How would FCPX hold me back?
It depends. A story can be told and involved many persons on the chain. If you are telling the story on your own prod and don't have raw camera, FCP X will do the job perfectly fine...like any other editor by the way, even a freeware.
If in your prod other departments are involved, you will not be able to communicate between softwares. You are in a closed application. And that's just the type of the iceberg.
So, it depends.
Just a quick note: as training for me is key because I need it, I'm following regularly the training centers and editors who actually give classes in all systems in Spain. What I can tell you is that the tendency is that they will keep going the training in FCP 7 and I read already anouncements that they will not provide a training in FCP X because as it is, it would be useless for a person to pay a training that is not usable in the working market. Those aren't decision people take just because they like barking. Most of those guys actually liked and used FCP and get their incomes with it. If they take those kind of decisions it is because of a serious reason.
In the end Apple will release a plug-in for better color correect for 100 bucks, will fix this and that, probably will provide XML and EDL, Automatic Duck will provide some of the lacking features for 200 bucks etc...and you'll have a 800€ software made of parts like a Lego.
Yeah, it might be that way in the future and in the end, well, the software will work. But how uncertain.
I'm asking myself if Apple has become a phone company. IMO.
Pschefz: Actually you may be right, This next level would be that the cool factor company wants everybody to turn arround their tablets and phones, cloud and web. Maybe they understand that the real market will be the web stuff. RedOne? Come on! who needs Red anymore if all is going to be on the web. Who needs a dedicated grading software when viewing on phones? etc...They maybe right. They may anticipate a cultural and technological reality in wich the current industry is regarded as completly heavy and obsolete and they are putting the next level on their gadgets culture and building softwares that will work brillantly for i.phoners. And the irony, is that they may be right somewhere... a new revolution is in the air?
-
And the irony, is that they may be right somewhere... a new revolution is in the air?
My feeling as well on the global trend. They have a very good track record of anticipating and now shaping consumer's sentiments. A lot of the things they do on the software side are, to stay polite, dumbed down. But when you see the attendance of their software Te Deum applaud at the "revolutionary" concept of full screen apps, on is left wondering....
-
Anyone posted this yet?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sRzLP0FJ82I&feature=player_embedded
-
My feeling as well on the global trend. They have a very good track record of anticipating and now shaping consumer's sentiments. A lot of the things they do on the software side are, to stay polite, dumbed down. But when you see the attendance of their software Te Deum applaud at the "revolutionary" concept of full screen apps, on is left wondering....
I'm not to sold on the one program fits all system that Apple is selling. Producing, shooting and editing even acceptable motion imagery is a daunting task and a very collaborative effort.
Apple would love a one camera, one macbook editing station, one Ipad viewing world, but for professional production, that's a long ways off. I give them credit for trying though right now the only person applauding is Apple and that's kind of one hand clapping.
I have no doubt in my mind that all traditional television could just be streamed over the web and played in your home and office on any device wirelessly, at any time you wish.
But I also have a lot of doubt that will happen tomorrow, because there are too many business interests in keeping things as close to the way they are to just open the floodgates and let everything stream like netflix.
I produce content and it's really none of my business how it's played, unless the medium has restraints or requirements that change what I deliver.
What I do know is Apple did what is good for them and a lot of their market, but overall this will take them away from the professional editing side of the business.
I'm sure that's their plan because there are a lot more people shooting videos of their vacation in Orlando, or corporate meetings in Chicago that clog u tube, than there are real paying projects, but it is somewhat of a mute point because FCP EX is buggy and doesn't really work anyway.
They'll make it better but by then most of their real money making users will have to go to something else.
Apple knows this or they wouldn't have taken FCP 7 off the shelves and off their website if they knew that FCP EX was really ready for heavy lifting.
After giving this some thought, I'm really glad Apple did what they did.
FCP was always somewhat of a hard sell in the professional world and Apple let is languish for 5 years (actually a lot longer than that), so that really wasn't their prime motivator anyway.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sRzLP0FJ82I
For years I've wanted to move to AVID. Today more than ever, it's the gold standard and the only thing that kept me back was I work a lot of hours and didn't want to take the time to relearn anything.
Now I have the incentive to move on.
If Apple's way is better, I'll move back, but this time I kind of doubt it.
We're living in the real world now, where a new system has to be upgradeable and adaptive because everything changes quickly.
Apple may have their logo on everything they sell but as I mentioned before, most of it they didn't invent, so if they're going completely in house, they need to get a little better.
IMO
BC
-
It depends. A story can be told and involved many persons on the chain. If you are telling the story on your own prod and don't have raw camera, FCP X will do the job perfectly fine...like any other editor by the way, even a freeware.
If in your prod other departments are involved, you will not be able to communicate between softwares. You are in a closed application. And that's just the type of the iceberg.
So, it depends.
Closed? Not at all - if you mean "closed" in the sense there are few add-ins available - then yes you would be right. Raw support? In the works. OMF/AAF? Currently Automatic Duck. EDL? Phil Hodgetts has stated in writing he's planning on supporting that.
I get your points - but consider this: Everything you object to is based on *current* workflows; FCPX is defining a new one, based on metadata. Read this http://www.philiphodgetts.com/books/conquering-metadata-fcpx/ . I'm not invested in any workflow at this point and am free to choose based on performance and an embracing of current technologies which don't include tape. If a future collaboration requires OMF of EDL support, FCPX will support it. Right now, I don't need it.
Finally, the snark about iPhones reveals your mis-understanding of the underlying technolgy FCPX uses. FCP was based on Quicktime (forever stuck at 32bit). FCPX uses Qt-X which just happened to be first implemnted in IOS - from what I understand, it's capable of native 4K realtime rendering.
-
John, I'm not against democratization of video neither any improvement that can boost the workflow.
But I'm not an engineer. I don't care if the program is metadatas dased or if it has been written in coca cola or fanta lemon language.
The only things I care is if I can send the sound to Protools? No. And we need it.
if I can communicate with a Smoke or Nuke platform? No. Why not after all, those units are sooo obsolete.
If I can send the editing to Scratch? to Resolve? No because I need XML, that means more rendering, more time lost, more manipulation.
If I can use more than one timeline per project? no. More than one timeline are so 90's...
More than one sequence? no, no I can't. Why should we need it?
Why should I need to distribute my windowns the way I want? Because Apple knows the good way to work for me.
If I can read the EDL of another guy that has done the job in Avid, Premiere or Edius? No, I'll have to explain to them: look, your softwares are completly crap, this precious thing uses metadatas man! Metadatas! can't you see it? This is the future.
If I can send my choices to other editors and work on team under different systems as it is often the case? No
If I can read Red on the timeline right now because we have Red workflow right now, like 100% of the people in this business? no, why should I edit Red ? So crap!
Photoshop layers? noooo
Oh well, alpha layers? Nope, What the hell am I going to do anyway with those useless stuff?
And tell me, what's the point of the 4K realtime with this? what are you going to fill in it? Iphone cam footage?
Sorry for being sarcastic John. If it works for you that's perfect, and it might work for many people and maybe the program is really good and we don't understand it. but understand also that it does not work for others. Maybe we are obsolete, I don't deny it, but it just doesn't work for us.
maybe those softwares I named and the workflow in question are obsolete and Apple only knows the right technology and the divine revolution and will put all the industry to stone age. Maybe.
But to date, if it does not work properlly with those it is completly useless for me and for the vast majority of the people I've been talking to and read those days. And again, no need to be at the stratosphere of the business to just missing too much key features.
Maybe you're right John, maybe this approach is a revolution. But for me, today, Apple lost me completly.
Ps: in the Avid website, there is currently an offer for "only Final Cut users" to 995 USD or 789 €. I wonder if that was there before.
-
Fred - I suspect we're more in agreement than not - and I totally get your concerns. The reason I brought up my experience with the .NET framework when *it* was at version 1.0, was I felt exactly the same!!!! Fast forward a couple of years and I'm a more productive developer than I ever have been.....
You mention the lack of support *today* for existing standards, fair enough - but you refuse to acknowledge that these are being addressed..... why?
The iphone crack is tiresome, I mention 4k native rendering because it has the power to support Red Raw as soon as support is added for it, sorry if I was unclear on that.
-
Fred - I suspect we're more in agreement than not - and I totally get your concerns. The reason I brought up my experience with the .NET framework when *it* was at version 1.0, was I felt exactly the same!!!! Fast forward a couple of years and I'm a more productive developer than I ever have been.....
You mention the lack of support *today* for existing standards, fair enough - but you refuse to acknowledge that these are being addressed..... why?
The iphone crack is tiresome, I mention 4k native rendering because it has the power to support Red Raw as soon as support is added for it, sorry if I was unclear on that.
But it's very uncertain John. Apple has always surrownd itself with a secret service secrecy that would put to shame the KGB. Nobody knows the route. If the compagny would comunicate clearly to their buyers their plans many people would be ready to wait and give it a chance. But the problem is that it is very risky. Who's pro wants to risk if there is no official communication that we know with a clear route. Apple could solve this with just one official anouncement but I think they won't deliberately.
-
Thanks for reminding us of Philip Hodgetts. His is possibly the most clued-in voice out there talking about Final Cut X.
Here is a link (http://www.philiphodgetts.com/2011/06/what-are-the-answers-to-the-unanswered-questions-about-final-cut-pro-x/) to his recent MFAQ about FCP X
-
I read all the Mr Hodgetts.
Interesting. A more contrasted point of view to the burning forums all over the internet.
I concur that if they won't finally implement EDL it would not be a great lost, although still in use. (I used EDL last week to communicate with Premiere and worked perfectly).
But just a question. They seem to put a lot of emphasis about the incredible speed of this version. Are they refering in comparaison to the #7 ?
I mean the person is obviously a FCP guru. Are those really aware of the speed that are capable Premiere Pro CS5 and Avid MC5? Are they really aware of what the competition is doing and the workflow of those? I'm not sarcastic at all here but an honnest question
-
For me: Speed = faster workflow.
Achieved by (Premiere-like) native editing and background rendering to ProRes. No time wasted in transcoding.
-
something is not right here...conan doing a thing (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sRzLP0FJ82I) on his show last night making fun of fcpX?
afaik fcpX works exactly as advertised....it does everything it is supposed to do...and really well....
the problems brought up are things that people thought it might do, should do or were hoping it would....i guess apple should have made it even more clear in march when they saidt :"this is not an upgrade, this is a completely different software"....and explain all the things fcpX would NOT be doing once it shipped...
i understand that some people are not happy because they will have to re-learn and re-think their workflow.....OR just stick with your existing workflow OR look somewhere else....
i would put money on most issues being resolved within 6months.....either by apple or 3rd party....apple does not sink considerable resources into something like this and completely ignore the needs of its core customers ....and fcp really only has core customers....someone dabbling in imovie will not just so shell out 300 to play with fcpX...it would have been a LOT cheaper and easier to simply tweak fcp and charge 200 for it....or 500 which is what adobe does every year....
so some people who work with fcp every day feel betrayed because fcpX won't do right now what fcp does...and once fcpX does it, they will have to adjust....and at that point 1000s of young punks will have the advantage because they used fcpX from the first day and they are used to it and it does do some things better and faster on cheaper equipment then the old trusted fcp....
as much as i understand the frustration with apple's move, i don't understand the almost blind rage....fcpX has a ton of features that make my jaw drop (and not only mine it seems...there are also some people who know their stuff who really like it and what it will become...)
everybody who works with cameras of any kind, computers and tech in general knows and has found out the hard way: don't rely on anything v1 for critical work....regardless of anything....don't upgrade within a month...don't jump on the latest tech too fast...
-
everybody who works with cameras of any kind, computers and tech in general knows and has found out the hard way: don't rely on anything v1 for critical work....regardless of anything....don't upgrade within a month...don't jump on the latest tech too fast...
That's correct, it should be a golden rule in general.
I also think that the ww blind rage is exhacerbated. But maybe if that happened in such a way, Apple might have lacked of correct communication because it seems that almost everyone, and just look in Redusers, CreativeCow kind of forums, and here higly trained FCP where totally caught by surprise.
This kind of thing at this scale and with this violence do not happen when a fair communication is delivered.
I'm not sure though about the other part Paul. Young punks already work by million in adobe suites for ages because it's the most intuitive, easily piratable for the kids that start the learning curve very young. They are already highly trained on Adobe fast easy and intuitive workflows, build their powerfull pc by hand.
I don't think those kids will be interested in FCP, Adobe provide everything they need from Ps to AE, update regularly and their #1 versions are generally pretty much acheived, logical, well featured, compatibility without platforms without the need to be an engineer, material abunds, and the software is fun in use and would suit as well a beginer, a power user, or a big prod.
Those punks are the one who will be the next Coens but I think they already have their softwares. They only might attract the metrosexual punks because of the brand effect. (kind of teasing here)
Also, it is a complete re-write.
That means a new workflow, almost like learning a completly new software. When a company does that, you need to put on the table something more acheived, even in #1 version. Not putting this sort of mist and unconfidence.
Nobody knows exactly how and when will be the updates and it's already been a long time waiting for the FCP users.
So I can understand that so many users are pissed and feel that if they have to learn a new workflow, why not going directly in the competition that by the way will release soon their next versions, more powerfull and matured, instead of sticking with a company that gives any garantee or missed the point in communicating it.
The only solution is to have faith on the brand...? Yes, those reactions went too far IMO, but I can understand it.
Anyway, wish the best to this software. It might be better than we think, it might reveal itself a great product with more time and I'm sure many users will like it and will do wonders with it. It's just not for me.
-
Been watching the ripple for a few days now, and based my review/opinion on that.
Most of all I'm still VERY positive but miss multicam.
Again (as mentioned before) for MY work it's almost perfect (except MC).
For real pros I can't speak, but I do think a lot of people jumped the gun much too early.
I've read a lot of things that simply aren't true.
Like not being able to take projects on the road with you, We've been doing that with iMovie for some time now, FCPx has the same options.
Same for remarks about missing editing tools, FCP was different without a doubt, but spend a few hours editing with it and I think you will love it.
But as mentioned before I've been a light FCP user and a very light iMovie user (never really liked iMovie but our interns work with it a lot and I finish those projects on my Mac).
I think that Apple will start releasing some extras soon, they will have too :D
-
snipped
I think that Apple will start releasing some extras soon, they will have too :D
I just received an e-mail from an Apple Store manager I buy from and they have received a few copies of FCP 7 that they are holding for me.
So, read into this however you like, but 4 days ago there was no way to buy a FCP7 and now Apple has them.
There is really no reason to rehash what X is missing or won't do, though I know as of today it doesn't do what I need to do my work.
If you step back and look at it from a distance, I think non linear editors needed some streamlining, even more single program features, but if your going to completely reinvent the system, the new one has to come out of the box with more usability, not less. Actually much more usability.
I don't buy the 2007 line of "it's a 1.0 system". Today bad 1.0 anything doesn't get off the starting block unless it's spot on and that holds true for professional as well as consumer devices. How many people do you know have a Microsoft operating system on their phone, or raise your hands if you plan on buying a blackberry this month.
I think the user response to X is a mind shift we're seeing in every professional device, from cameras, to phones, computers to software.
This isn't 2007 and people view everything different today. It's not just the money, (though everyone is watching their money), it's the ROI. Nobody has a surplus of time to try something that may work in a year or so, because today when you put a camera in your hands, or sit down in front of a computer to deliver still or motion imagery, you have to DELIVER.
Three/Four years ago you would bite. You'd buy a digital camera, hoping they'd come out with lenses, or a firmware fix. You'd buy a new software, with the thought of even if it doesn't work you might use it later, but now up and down the chain from clients to content producers nobody is wiling to take any risk.
I was at my editorial house yesterday and asked them if they would go to X and they just shook their heads in a kind of strange amazement that Apple went this direction. I asked if they would even download one copy to try and like me the response is "who has the time?".
It's not just the money spent, because even if X was a 6 weeks free download, I doubt if anyone I know would have it on their computer. At least the people I know that make a living at this. Other than the amusement factor their is no reason to load anything onto a working machine that doesn't work . . . yet.
Whether Apple fixes this or not, is their business, but if they take a year or two to get it up to speed, they will lose a large part of their core base.
That's just the way things are today.
IMO
BC
-
Well to be honest I also are learning premiere now just in case.
Won't stay with FCP 7 because I'm afraid it's a dead end and probably premiere will jump at this. But for now and if mc is realized my main workflow could be X.
-
t also has completely recreated so much of the workflow in a more efficient way. For anyone who uses Lightroom and works with collections to organize images, that is conceptually how FCPX organizes media, quite fluidly I might say.
is this (http://jefferyharrell.tumblr.com/post/6865416226/project-management-in-fcp-x-no-just-no) article about project management in FCPX basically true? Or again a premature conclusion from someone how didn't dive deep enough into the software?
I think non linear editors needed some streamlining, even more single program features, but if your going to completely reinvent the system, the new one has to come out of the box with more usability, not less. Actually much more usability.
IMO one of the strengths of Avid MC is the workflow and the interface never changed radically. They added new features, more "power" under the roof, new (customizable) workflow options... but basically you can work with the current version almost in the same way as 10 years ago. The next release will be 64bit ... and (most likely) will still look the same. To me, this is a strength... and I think one of the reasons why working with MC is so fast.
-
FCP Studio (old version) is and always has been available at Amazon (http://www.amazon.com/dp/B002J1UJ4A/?tag=tidbitselectro00). But I see there is only one left ::)
-
...and, as is generally the case, I pretty much agree with Pogue in the NYTimes (http://pogue.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/06/24/the-quarrel-over-final-cut-continues/)
-
That J. Harrell rant is what's wrong with people. He bitches and moans but finds the solutions of how to make FCPX work as it was intended, but just bitches and moans more. The application was fundamentally written to be different, to have a workflow differently.
(...)
That guy rants but then answers his own moaning questions. He doesn't want to change his ways, he wants FCPX to change and that ain't going to happen.
Actually I do not agree. He found the solutions how to make FCPX work as intended and he gives well-founded reasons why he is finding the new media management problematic (for instance that FCPX always shows all media all the time - so that a client can see the media of other clients unless you unplug the drive the respective project is stored on).
I also do not understand why the new approach is not a choosable option (instead of the only way to organize a project). What's wrong with bins? In Avid I can throw everything into one single bin or I can choose to create different bins, just as I like to ... and I still can search a project based on keywords (of any kind).
If people don't like that, then they should seek other software
that's valid for people who start with editing... but hardly for editors and/or production houses whose workflows are based on FCP7's (and almost any other NLE's) capabilities. For instance the whole thing with video and audio-tracks is very far-reaching ... and it's not understandable (to me) why you can't choose a preference to run a sequence in "magnetic" mode without (real) tracks or alternatively in a "traditional" mode.
So again: why not just make it a choosable option?
Maybe choosable options of this kind are too much to ask for with regard to a $300 software, I don't know. I just think it's way to easy say sink or swim.
-
From everything that has been written this past week from the why's of development, FCPX was never designed to be the upgrade to FCP7. It simply is the new direction Apple is taking. That's why I say it truly is a take or leave it. Apple's huge mistake was not making that abundantly clear from the start, also dropping FCP7 entirely is another huge mistake. What has transpired is what it is. We will obviously see much more added to FCPX, for no other reason than that's just what software development is, a continual growth. They just chose to start from scratch with a new path of growth. Napalm was laid down on the old forest and they are planting a new Apple utopian forest.
I think we're talking to different groups.
If your a professional user, or work with professional editors, FCP X won't work for you today and probably won't work in the future.
Still, the final result of final cut ten is it's not useable in a professional arena and I doubt if this is some kind of silly mistake, this is a planned move.
Apple could have made or bought any NLE they want. After all they bought the original FCP.
This isn't a shift to a better editor, it's a play to a larger market that wants to work easy.
Apple came at this as if a NLE never existed and no one had ever cut a project prior to this week and there in lies the reasoning.
Apple isn't looking at the professional editors because in the real world AVID really has that covered (and has for a long time) and real professional production is just a drop in the bucket next to the millions of people shooting Youtube and blog videos.
For a lot of people that have never cut a project before this might seem to be a good system, but that just places emphasis on the fact that they don't know what they're missing.
For the rest, it's a scary proposition to know that if you were FCP based all progress stopped last week.
It's even scarier to know there is no way to work with multiple tracks and sequences.
Whether Apple promises to replace some of these functions is irrelevant, since moving to X takes a complete relearn anyway, might as well go to AVID that is made for professional image editing.
Yesterday I finished 4, 1 minute videos that had over 12 tracks and 36 sequences for client review.
I had to park footage on the timeline to match the client's background colors.
When approved the imagery will go to a secondary source for coloring and back to the sequence for finish.
I made my deadlines, I made a profit, I have it backed up, I can show it on multiple computer and broadcast monitors.
These 4 little videos could not but cut on X, but if I was shooting "girls gone wild", it would have worked. (Hmmm, why aren't I shooting "girls gone wild"?)
Anyway.
To me the only real problem with Final Cut Pro Ten is they called it Final Cut Pro.
Actually, had they named it Apple Party Editor (well I guess ape won't work) or something that didn't make us believe this was a professional application then Apple might have gotten by with this, but for me and thousands like me, this just signals that Apple is not interested in professional motion image production.
Apple should have just fessed up and said "sorry guys, but your just not that large of a market. We're going to facebook, but here's Avid's phone number, give em a call".
Apple is looking for the 10 million people that are not like me.
IMO
BC
P.S. I might be wrong, because I remember saying that when FCP was introduced, AVID is in trouble.
Wow, has the moused turned.
P.S. 2 I will buy a copy of FCP 7 on Monday. I've been running 3-6's for a long time and just didn't want to upgrade hoping X would be something useable for me.
Why 7? Just to be able to work on legacy files, but in a few weeks, when my schedule clears we'll move to Avid.
Why? Because they only have one agenda and that's to sell to professionals.
-
An excellent (& depressing) follow-up to Pogue's piece in the NYTimes can be found here (http://www.richardharringtonblog.com/files/fcpx_response.php)
My confidence in Apple, the Mac platform & FCP X just got a serious side-swipe.
I urge anyone currently using FCP 7 or contemplating FCP X to read Harrington's Blog.
-
url]
My confidence in Apple, the Mac platform & FCP X just got a serious side-swipe.
What I said.
IMO
BC
-
Yes, what you and others (http://vimeo.com/25645130) said.
If you are looking for current alternatives, Alan Tépper has a good simple graphic (http://provideocoalition.com/index.php/atepper/story/how_to_pick_mac_video_editing_software_after_the_fcp_x_launch/)
-
FCP guru Larry Jordan's blog (http://www.larryjordan.biz/app_bin/wordpress/archives/1514)illustrates just how badly the FCP X group at Apple handled this introduction
-
I learned a new word today: disintermediation.
Basically: cut out the middle man.
I think the X in FCP X means disintermediation: X the Editor.
Perhaps in the future I will simply put all the terabyte of footage for a project on a cloud-based drive and let others find the tutorial or Video Journal within.
Meantime back to work...
-
I learned a new word today: disintermediation.
Basically: cut out the middle man.
I think all of these responses come from a premise that Apple made a mistake and I don't think they view it that way.
This isn't a PR problem. This is the plan.
I don't believe apple's future is professional editors working on broadcast or cinema projects. That market is covered by specialty software companies.
Apple sees a world where everyone that has angry birds on their phone, cutting their own movies which will play on something like you tube, though don't think that Apple is going to let youtube, vimeo or facebook be the only carrier.
I'm sure the next upgrade to X will be to upload video to I-cloud and played through I-tunes.
I'm sure the next upgrade after that will be an i-pad version.
Apple's not looking at 20,000 users, they're looking at 20 million.
So if you want to cut professionally, FCP is not the way forward.
That doesn't make FCP X bad, it just doesn't make it work for 20,000 people.
Apple owns the kewl imaging market. they just don't own the heavy lifting imaging market, at least not in motion, at least not with fcp x.
Though the world is changing.
On a movie lot a month ago I saw an editorial trailer between two sound stages and they were ingesting, cutting, coloring and finishing each day's shoot as it was in progress.
Maybe that is where FCP goes, though once again I doubt it.
I just don't believe FCP X is for heavy lifting and sales of 20,000 anything mean very little to Apple.
IMO
BC
-
This isn't a PR problem. This is the plan.
I am not quite sure.
This implies the presumtion Apple knows everything and doesn't make wrong moves intentionally...
A lot of things would have been easy to implement (I guess) - so even if they want to reach the masses with FCpX (what they certainly want) they could still make this an application approriate for professinal workflows. With features implemented amateurs will never discover (but pros look for from the very beginning) they wouldn't lose potential customers.
This is why I think, yes, they want to reach the masses but they also made mistakes because they simply overlooked the need of certain functionalities.
If that hopefully makes some sense what I am trying to say :-)
-
I know of one major university art school that just canceled their order for the update-to the tune of 150K
-
Cooter is right X is fantastic software .. for my mother
-
FCP-X bashing is both deserved, and undeserved.
If you're someone like Chris Sanderson, who spends his days editing complex multi-camera video productions then no, X does not hit the spot.
But, I've been learning and working with X for the past week and I must say that for the type of video work that I do it is a brilliant bit of code. My productivity is much higher than with FCP 7, and I hardly know FCP-X yet.
As I see it, Apple screwed the pooch not by releasing X, but by cutting FCP-7 and its tens of thousands of daily users off at the knees.
For hundreds of thousands of people FCP-X is going to be a great video editing tool. For existing FCP-7 professional users who have been abandoned by Apple the only real decision now is whether to switch to Avid or Premier.
Michael
-
FCP-X bashing is both deserved, and undeserved.
If you're someone like Chris Sanderson, who spends his days editing complex multi-camera video productions then no, X does not hit the spot.
But, I've been learning and working with X for the past week and I must say that for the type of video work that I do it is a brilliant bit of code. My productivity is much higher than with FCP 7, and I hardly know FCP-X yet.
As I see it, Apple screwed the pooch not by releasing X, but by cutting FCP-7 and its tens of thousands of daily users off at the knees.
For hundreds of thousands of people FCP-X is going to be a great video editing tool. For existing FCP-7 professional users who have been abandoned by Apple the only real decision now is whether to switch to Avid or Premier.
Michael
I kinda still don't get it.
OK, I understand apple wants to make an easy software to appeal to a less that involved market, but why would any image maker that aspires to move forward spend the time learning anything, software, cameras, or computers with so many limitations, that are essentially dumbed down?
It's like learning how to paint with only two colours. You might get good, it might be faster, definitely easier, but you'll always be limited to two colours.
It's funny, I know photographers that have added some motion to their work and they'll love X because it's easy. Though these are the same image makers that never would have learned only a Vivatar 283 for lighting, or ever thought about using photoshop elements or whatever the lite version is called.
To each his own, but I don't think Apple screwed up, I just think they leveraged a respected brand name to a lesser product. It's been done before in commerce and it will be done again.
For the next few years Apple can continue to say the Cohen Bros. used it, but in reality the Cohen Bros used another software called Final Cut Pro, not FCP EX.
It's not what EX does that's bad, it's what it doesn't allow you to do that's the issue, regardless of what level your at.
It's an Aston Martin with a lawnmower motor.
It looks good, it just doesn't do much, but people can say, yea man, I drive an Aston.
I could almost see it for colouring, or some effects to insert back into a real edit, but it really doesn't do that very well in comparison to the previous software and it doesn't recognize most professional cameras anyway.
Actually I thought maybe it would be fast for a casting, but it only works on one track and one sequence per project.
But for those hundreds of thousands of users that think it's great, they really don't know what they're missing.
For me that's probably a good thing, for you tube it's gonna be a world of home movies.
IMO
BC
-
FCP-X bashing is both deserved, and undeserved.
If you're someone like Chris Sanderson, who spends his days editing complex multi-camera video productions then no, X does not hit the spot.
But, I've been learning and working with X for the past week and I must say that for the type of video work that I do it is a brilliant bit of code. My productivity is much higher than with FCP 7, and I hardly know FCP-X yet.
As I see it, Apple screwed the pooch not by releasing X, but by cutting FCP-7 and its tens of thousands of daily users off at the knees.
For hundreds of thousands of people FCP-X is going to be a great video editing tool. For existing FCP-7 professional users who have been abandoned by Apple the only real decision now is whether to switch to Avid or Premier.
Michael
Didn't want to post any more here because I have just a few months on professional video edition, wich does not give me credits, and because I've not downloaded the FC X. But I do for 2 reasons because it seems to me that there is some confusion and I've actually seen the software in action on a Mac compared to a Premiere Pro CS5 on the same unit with the same footage.
In short, FC X is way behind in terms of speed and overall performance once you work with a certain volume of footage. As my voice means nothing, I'll post this link in Spanish for the people who can understand spanish. It's Jose Luis Tamez, a very knowledgable voice for spanish speakers in this industry and trained in the US by big names. You can trust his words better than mine.
The think is that Jose luis didn't bombed at all FCP X, he is very respectfull about it but clearly explains that it simply dosen't work for him as expected. But something else also: he did the same as I saw and came to exactly the same conclutions: the implementation of the background transcoding is not suitable very fast and therefore makes the workflow unrealistic if you just have a little more volume of footage.
Worth the listening the video if you understand spanish. It's call: "the myth of the FCP X's real time processing". Very informative: http://www.cinedigital.tv/el-mito-del-procesamiento-en-tiempo-real-de-fcp/
and the video is there for more explainations: http://vimeo.com/25554708
What I'm seeing, is that many people who have been amazed of the FCPX speed and usability compared to FCP 7 don't have a clew of the workflow in what the competition is doing. FCP 7 was an outdated software. I'm not sure people realised how good are Premiere Pro CS5, Avid Media Composer 5, Edius 6...they are really good! It was FCP 7 that hasn't catch up.
The conclusion of what I've seen and what Jose Luis Tamez is saying is when you put it on competition with Premiere Pro for ex, the speed and workflow becomes a myth. Faster than FCP 7? that was not hard to beat. No doubt. But what is currently available while Apple was sleeping in their laurels, others have walked a long way.
Also, a personal argumentation and I disappear from here: Many FCP X defensors are saying that ok, it's not suitable for pros but for the vast majority of us, included some pros but who don't really need the missing features.
I don't buy that. Even if you are not a power user. Why? Time!
Who knows if you won't need those features very soon? Learning a workflow from scratch is time consuming. Yes, those are not Flame or Nuke, but still, weeks and weeks of learning curve. You have to be really really sure you won't need more power very soon because then it will be another new learning curve. Who wants to do that?
I saw in a post more above a comment on Morgan, saying that probably Morgan does not need today more than what FCP X ia able to deliver. I'm not Morgan and can't answer for him, don't know his workflow but I'm prety sure he might want to work with more than one timeline and one sequence, but just looking at his work, it's clear that Morgan is deeply involved into motion and it will grow. Therefore, it's understandable that even if somebody could work today reasonably well with FCP X features, if video is your path, very fast you will be in a dead end and forced to another learning curve. It's perfectly understandable that Morgan don't want to take that risk even if he would love the software (wich I doubt). We don't have time, and the competition offers on the table today way more solid softwares even for beginners and advanced users.
I have those 3 editors in my workstation. All are superb softwares. Avid is IMO the best for heavy stuff (interconnections between plkatforms) and the most logically implemented in terms of editing workflow.
http://www.grassvalley.com/products/edius_6
http://www.adobe.com/es/products/premiere.html?promoid=BPBJH
http://www.avid.com/es/specialoffers/fcppromotion?intcmp=AV-HP-S2
Don't know about Vegas.
And a good 100% free editor that actually allows red workflow http://www.lightworksbeta.com/ that is already much more powefull that FCPX in the sense that it allows you to start beginner and grow until Red workflow, AAF XML workflow right now... It's under windows but they plan a Mac version in the future so keep an eye on it.
The features, very impressive for an open source software: http://www.lightworksbeta.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=108&Itemid=247
Michael, I don't think Autodesk and Resolve are very happy about the Apple "oax" when they put their Smoke unit and Da.Vinci available Mac only. They must be ruminating. And thank god I didn't do the move to Apple when I was hesitating because I wanted the Smoke worflow...thank god I just canceled my order on the last minute! I had a good intuition.
Have a nice evening.
Fred.
-
I don't think it's got anything to do with what FCPX is capable of. I'm sure Hitchcock could have cut Psycho with it.
As an upgrade to iMovie, it's great and that's what it should have been called. There's nothing wrong with FCPX in itself. The problem with it is completely replacing FC7 studio... with less features and less capabilities. Bit like buying a brand new improved car, that now only has 3 wheels, but hey, it's cheaper!
My gripe is having invested a lot of time and money over the years learning software. I like to be hands on and started with (IIRC) Radius Edit DV, then earlier versions of Premiere, the AE and then a few years ago investing in FCS and maintaining it with upgrades.
And now it's dead and not even supported anymore. Thanks Apple. I think it's an appalling way to treat loyal customers. OK, maybe FC7 is used by a relatively small group of professionals, but why did they spend so much time developing it into an industry standard and boasting about it?
I do use iMovie, just for slinging together a quick holiday vid, but anymore than that, I find its Fisher Price looks and implementation frustrating. But maybe that's just me, a dinosaur stuck in my ways.
So FC7 still works, I can still use it, while the OS supports it, but for how long? I'm now busy crashing my way through the Avid tutorials deciding whether to invest in something that has a future. It just saddens me, but guess that's the price to pay for 'progress'.
Ironically, just before FC was launched, I seem to remember Avid alienating half its customers by declaring they would no long code/support their products for Apple (the platform where it started), instead moving entirely NT. A lot of techs complained that with NT, to troubleshoot a system problem, all disks had to be connected, so you couldn't just swap a drive with footage to another machine and carry on editing.
In the end, Avid saw reason and dropped plans to abandon Apple. But I'm sure they have lost a lot of customers to FC, now perhaps, they are going to get them all back again, unless Apple sees reason.... but I'm not hopeful.
All IMO, YMMV.
-
From Larry Jordan's blog (http://www.larryjordan.biz/goodies/blog.html):
In FCP X, Apple got some things amazingly right. But they also got key features amazingly wrong. And if they don’t change course, this software, which has significant potential, is going to spin further and further out of control. At which point, its feature set is irrelevant, its reputation will be set. We’ll be looking at another Mac Cube.
I believe its reputation is now pretty much set...
-
From Larry Jordan's blog (http://www.larryjordan.biz/goodies/blog.html):
In FCP X, Apple got some things amazingly right. But they also got key features amazingly wrong. And if they don’t change course, this software, which has significant potential, is going to spin further and further out of control. At which point, its feature set is irrelevant, its reputation will be set. We’ll be looking at another Mac Cube.
I believe its reputation is now pretty much set...
Prior to FCP (the original FCP) Avid and Media 100 kind of had this view of this is the way we do it so take it or leave it.
Then FCP turned the world upside down because macromedia and apple listened and gave us options for 1/500th of the cost we could only imagine before.
Now it's kind of the opposite.
Avid listens, Media 100 is virtually gone and Apple says take it or leave it.
Doesn't make any sense.
IMO
BC
-
"the myth of the FCP X's real time processing"
imagine Apple in fact incorporates multicam soon.
with the footage of 9 hd cameras (or even just 3) and automated background rendering the software will certainly not be very responsive... I guess.
-
I've not downloaded the FC X. But I do for 2 reasons because it seems to me that there is some confusion and I've actually seen the software in action on a Mac compared to a Premiere Pro CS5 on the same unit with the same footage.
I have both (premiere is a trial) and my impression so far is the opposite. I'm RAM limited (8GB Macbook Pro) without out knowing a specific setup to compare it's hard to say. FCPX just feels more responsive overall. Probably because of my comfort with Lightroom - file managment is definately easier; I can take care of everything within the app. I feel like I can achieve a given task faster and more efficiently than with Premiere - my skill level with both being the same - rank beginner.
The one worrisome thing for me is the lack of Closed Caption support in FCPX (my wife is deaf) - very possibly a deal breaker.....
-
I have both (premiere is a trial) and my impression so far is the opposite. Possibly I'm RAM limited (8GB Macbook Pro) without out knowing a specific setup to campare it's hard to say. FCPX just feels more responsive overall. Probably because of my comfort with Lightroom - file managment is definately easier. I feel like I can achieve a task faster and more efficiently than with Premiere - my skill level with both being the same.
Jose Luis Tamez is a reliable source. I trust his analysis. What he basically said is that if you work with a limited amount of clip you will probably find FCPx faster. But the problem is when you ingest in the software, volume, let's say an hour of footage.
I've actually seen exactly what Jose luis saw in fast unit friend who's working with FCP 7 and is a Mac fan and today's boiling in flames but I didn't dare posting because of my limited training on video but when I saw the Tamez's post I thought it could be interesting to know, he even pointed that it took them hours before they could start editing properlly with volume while it was instantaneous on Premiere CS5.
Basically, the background rendering can't handle a lot so what is happening is that it is oversolicitated and what was supposed to happen in background without thinking about it actually ended to slow down the all process.
With some hollidays footages nobody will notice it but the moment you want to work in serious it is almost impossible.
The computer was a Mac Pro with doble processor 2.6ghz con 16 cores, 24 gb ram with external raid e-sata of 4gb de capacidad, equiped 2 video cards nvidia gtx 285 1 gb ram and one Geforce GT 120 with 512 Mb ram. A solid unit but not crazyly solid.
Honestly, the software might have goodies, brilliant ideas inside but I would spend a new workflow's time on something more stable, even if didn't need the pro features.
-
What I particularly like with Avid is that I import footage in AMA, wich gives instant workflow. Then I transcode the files I'm going to edit in DNxHD from the bins. The very powerfull thing of this editing format is that even in its higher resolution in 10bits, the transcoding is really fast and the playback never slowdown while quality is high. On a limited 4 years old computer I can work 10 bits with DNxHD 422 brodacast standart and not one time it would slowdown while if I edit in native it will, depending on the source. With a fast computer it won't slowdown in native. (the very worse in that aspect is AVCHD but fair enough it's not an editing format, by far slower than Red despite the convertion involved)
The transcoding in Avid is impressively fast and flexible (from bin, transcode when and what you want).
Send AAF to anything, to Smoke to Scratch, to Premiere etc... as long as the format size-speed is respected to avoid issues. It's all clean. It bloody works.
If you are going to start from learning a new workflow I would recommend Avid without hesitation. As James said, these are not the Avids of years ago. They learned and listened.
fun with avid: http://vimeo.com/groups/6159/videos/17170026
Good night (here is a damn hot nite) to all.
-
What I particularly like with Avid is that I import footage in AMA, wich gives instant workflow. Then I transcode the files I'm going to edit in DNxHD from the bins. The very powerfull thing of this editing format is that even in its higher resolution in 10bits, the transcoding is really fast and the playback never slowdown. On a limited 4 years old computer I can work 10 bits with DNxHD 422 brodacast standart and not one time it would slowdown while if I edit in native it will, depending on the source. (the very worse in that aspect is AVCHD but fair enough it's not an editing format, by far slower than Red despite the convertion involved)
The transcoding in Avid is impressively fast.
Good night (here is nite) to all.
I was just about to write the same :-)
"Import" through AMA is actually no import... you just link the files and Avid can playback the files through a (built in) plugin instantly.
Editing with Full HD QT files linked through AMA works amzingly good on my computer (and it's just an 8core 2.26GHz Nehalem). AMA works with quite a wide range of formats, including QT, XDCAM, MXF, P2, Red and others.
However for best performance (if you want to work with effects and multiple tracks) it's better to transcode to an Avid codec. The nice thing here is: you can first transcode the footage to a low res codec (DNxHD36 or so). So the files will be quite small and editing even with a massive amount of tracks goes fluently. When your edit is finished you consolidate/transcode only the actual sequence (with customizable handle lenght at head and tails of each clip if you want to) to a high res codec (DNxHD whatever 10bit). So a typical offline/online workflow... just within the same system.
So Avid - just as FCP / FCPX - works best in it's own codec. But it offers a wide variety of options to speed up your workflow based on the particular requirements of the actual project.
-
@Johns,
Deselect the stabilize option, that can take very long.
Comparing that to MPEG streamclip is like comparing a 80MP RAW file that goes through filtering to an iPhone JPEG going straight to preview :D
When you just convert Final Cut X is rather fast.
-
For those interested in the why? & how? of FCP X - there is a deceptively simple answer:
It's the metadata, stupid!
This is a concept more easily understood by those of us who use Lightroom and goes a long way to explaining how & why Apple has re-written Final Cut.
Philip Hodgetts has written an excellent $5 PDF e-booklet titled Conquering the metadata foundations of Final Cut Pro X (http://www.philiphodgetts.com/books/conquering-metadata-fcpx/). There is a free ToC and Chapter here (http://www.philiphodgetts.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/ConqueringMetadataInFCPX-TOC.pdf).
Highly recommended reading for those of us still puzzling over the surprising debacle of the FCP X launch.
Even though the core FCP engineers got it, it strikes me that a whole bunch of others at Apple did not. A little explanation goes a long way!
-
@Chris
Agreed! If nothing else, a quick skim of the link to Philip Hodgetts' book will give you an idea of how it's organized. It's curious; Apple just doesn't get "evangelism". Consider Adobe and Lightroom - they got early copies in the hands of people whose opinions matter. Anyone remember Michael and Jeff's early opinions here? They helped define and refine our expectations.
Contrast that with Apple deciding to share working code with people able to write about it less than a month before release.....
Another interesting exchange between Phillip and Steve Miller in the comments section (again, it's great to read about others workflow):
http://chrisfenwick.squarespace.com/home/2011/6/28/fcpx-by-steve-miller.html
For me, an absolute neophyte, I'm faced with some major choices - some of which will determine hardware purchases in the near future. Obviously, if I choose anything other than FCP X - I'm free to go the Windows route (again, I'm an IT consultant, MSDN and Intel Channel Partner). I can easily build a full equivalent to any Mac Pro offering for roughly 1/2 to 2/3 the cost. Still, running both Premiere 5.5 and FCPX, I'm finding a lot to like about FCP X.
-
Main problem with X is that it's already almost destroyed by some people.
Everyone I hear is steering away from X without trying it, and those are the guys now using FCE or iMovie.
From day 1 I've been playing with FCPx and fell in love with it, not for the animated cuts and moves but the sheer speed, it's a delight to work with, als the real time viewing of color effects and filters. I've heard/read several people complain about FCPx and although some of their remarks are true, a LOT are based on non information. One podcast was ranting about blending modes missing (ridiculous, how could they etc.) to find out 4 minutes later that it was still there, the rant continued that it was in a ridiculous place. To be honest I LOVE the inspector tab.
I do have to add that I don't have any routine experience with FCP, I've cut several instructional DVDs on it, did some videoclips and privat videos.
A while ago I switched to iMovie voor the backstage videos because my interns work easier with iMovie and let's be honest for the backstage videos we don't need more, I really liked the no nonsense approach from iMovie and found me looking at FCP like there was so much that I would never touch.
With X there is A LOT missing for the high end production companies without a doubt, but how much larger is the market for the people like me (and more aimed at video, I'm still a photographer), just one/two workstations and max 2 people working on a project, we don't export to protools, or broadcast, or protools.
And even then a lot of the XML and protools rants have been solved by Automatic Duck, but because it's a third party supplier it seems they don't feel that a solution, for me Apple has moved in a new direction, they have a 1.0 release (bit of a beta to taste what will happen), You will probably see more third party releases that hook on to X and make the program more and more customizable. If you're like me that's a gift, I don't need XML, tape, extensive color etc. so I can CHOOSE not to buy those, however I do want Multicam (who doesn't) and I can CHOOSE to expand X with that plugin when it comes available.
Yes X is totally different in some form.
I don't think it's iMovie in steroids, on the other hand Photoshop is also Paint on steroids.
It's a new program and the main problem for Apple is that it's already destroyed by people from day 1, who are now slowly saying they do like some stuff, but I'm afraid the blow is already done, Apple should have communicated from the start that they are releasing MC, XML etc. this summer maybe that would have solved some problems. Same with the drivers for AJA etc. silence (Apple) is never a good option, they could have made sure that they released with the drivers already in place a month later, OR they could have said "Guys, you can testdrive X now, but wait at least 1-2 months before we upgrade to use it in a pro situation) I think the whole response wave would have been different by then.
-
Main problem with X is that it's already almost destroyed by some people.
big snip
The problem with FCP X is not the buzz, or disinformation.
The problem with FCP X is it doesn't have the features of FCP 6/7 and does not work in a professional atmosphere and no I'm not talking about edit to tape, or edl.
One person in our studio that is Mac everything, phone, pad, computers, screens, software . . . heck if apple made a car he'd drive it and he asked apple for a refund of FCP X.
As much as I dislike the new FCP I originally thought it was a good move to go for a larger market.
Today, I don't think so. It's early yet, but X seems to fall in nowhere land. It's more difficult than Imovie (which is free) it's features aren'y really professional so the artist can't really grow, so I understand the comparison with FCP X and the Apple Cube.
Even if you never use the features of fcp 7, Avid or Premier, you can at least start a project in those programs and lay it off to someone more advanced. With X your stuck.
I really believe Apple answered a question that nobody asked.
Frank,
You work in a closed loop. Your videos are for your own use and to your own design, so it may work for you (though I don't think you really understand what your missing).
But once your in a position to cut for money, or work with outside sources, or have to shoot 4:4:4 cameras, or 4k, then you realize that how limiting a system it is.
A NLE that doesn't allow for export of multiple sound tracks doesn't work . . . period. A 4k NLE that won't accept 4k footage doesn't work . . . period.
You mentioned it transcoded dslr footage quickly as long as there is no stabilization, filters or effects. Transcoding compressed dslr footage in not a big leap and doesn't take much equipment. As Chris mentioned MPEG streamclip is free and does it easier than any program I've tried, but that's 2k dslr footage. Try transcoding 4k 5k red files in fcp. Actually FCP 7 would read a RED file, FCP EX won't.
I could continue, but the best way I can explain this to you is you have an I phone right? So why not us it for all your photography? I mean it's got a lens, a good lcd and unlike your other cameras you can e-mail each image around the world with the touch of a button.
So the Apple way for shooting photography is better . . . right?
Look, it doesn't mean a thing to me if Apple sells 20 or 20 million copies of FCP EX.
But don't blame the messengers, blame the message.
IMO
BC
-
Thanks BC, always love to read your replies.
Maybe we have a problem of the written word, or I don't explain it correctly.
Let me try to make it more bolt...
At the moment X is probably aimed at persons like me.
We're doing backstage videos, an occasional music video, some demo videos, instructional videos etc.
All done by max 2 people (often only one).
As X is now I really miss multicam but I can work arround it because motion is maybe 1% of my workflow.
What I think would make X good enough for the future and people like you and others is that there will be a LOT (and read a LOT) of 3rd party people starting to write addons. Like automatic duck now already has, but let's say there will be a multicam solution from Apple and from company Y. As I understand now the new way X is writen makes it possible for 3rd parties to not only write simple filters but also some deeper add ons, in a sence making it for example possible to add things to the program in a different way than before.
I could be 100% wrong of course, I trust your vision on motion much more than mine and I always listen to the people working in that area.
Again we are just venturing into motion and it's all in the startup fase, all DSLR and 1-2 people working on a project from begin to finish, and at the moment no demands for heavy colorgrading, broadcast etc. when that happens I'm sure I will run into big problems you are 100% right but at that moment I hope there will be add ons that really work.
For the time being (not being stupid :D) I also installed Premiere and am learning that one.
FCP is a dead end for me, I'm not experienced enough in Final Cut Pro yet to do things blind (pun intended), and can probably switch very easily to Premiere within a few days, so as a backup I'm learning Premiere and will switch immediately when we have demands for more.
Hope this explains it a bit more.
In short there must be a truckload of addons coming out, otherwise x will probably end up as the "perfect" consumer product. Because for the consumer it's pretty "cool". :D
-
What I think would make X good enough for the future and people like you and others is that there will be a LOT (and read a LOT) of 3rd party people starting to write addons.
so a software that is practically a motley assortment of tools from different suppliers. Thinking about technical support I can't imagine this is going to be a good and "reliable" solution.
-
Depends on the way it works.
I also don't have problems with Photoshop and I really use some plugins very extensively.
-
so a software that is practically a motley assortment of tools from different suppliers. Thinking about technical support I can't imagine this is going to be a good and "reliable" solution.
A perfect description of Photoshop, or for that matter FCP 7 :D
-
i find all this very confusing...every day i read that fcpX does not do this and then i read that it DOES do it...that it does not do that and apple comes out saying it WILL do that.....i have been using aperture for a while now and can relate to some of the frustrations voiced here (and everywhere...)
and yes, at this point it is clear that somehow apple has completely messed up this release...and i don't necessarily mean the software but everything about this seems screwed up....actually: again, except the software....because it does what it promises to do very well...
someone said hitchcock could have cut birds on it...i guess that does not matter since most clients arent interested in birds but the perfectly PC version that plays well with red and blue states....so actually the un-birds....
it will be interesting to see where all this is at in a year from today...because james is of course correct, apple wants 20mill users and more.....and they are already starting 20mill users off on imovie and let's not forget imovie for iphone and ipad which is what kids are growing up on....and fcpX is the next logical step for them...
somehow i get the feeling the people screaming the loudest right now are the ones who are simply afraid to see that a lot of their work will simply vanish the way service bureaus and printers have vanished....easier workflow means more in house production, lower budgets, less people working on these projects...
-
Did a first "real" edit on X yesterday.
Just a backstage video but still enough to testdrive some things.
Some things that I loved/hated :
Positive:
The way you edit is a huge improvement, you can still A/B (normal/blade) the clips and delete or backspace (gap or autoclose), but even better is to just drag edit the clips, you can always go back and redo the drag or cut, this is a much faster way to edit.
Compound clips are incredibly fun to work with. Make a complex edit, just make a compound clip and edit it as one clip, meaning one click to add effects etc. Not happy with something ? just double clip the compound clip and you can make the changes in the original edit, make compound again and you're back in the normal edits with effects.
Speed is much faster that FCP7, real time editing is now possible with effects, color etc. Run the clip and see live what happens.
Playing with color, saturation, filters etc. has become a breeze of fresh air, everything is simple to achieve (some people will hate this, but why make it difficult if it can be easy) because you see what you're doing. I love the way you can manipulate the "curves" of the color on three points makes it easy to make a nice custom color.
Negative :
I REALLY want two viewers. I'm used to using a 40" LCD on top of 2 other monitors. In FCP7 I could see the viewer AND a large preview. Now I can see the large viewer on the 40" but I can't see the edit anymore, so looking up and looking down. In the end I settled for the viewer on the mainscreen (so working on 1 monitor) and the events on the second monitor, when a clip needed to be watched on the 40" I switched to viewer on separate monitor, it does work but I think it would be a small task to make the option of 2 viewers.
Sometimes without any reason I can't seem to be able to work in the viewer anymore. The image doesn't move when I scrub the time line, but when I press play on the viewer it does move, happend 2 times yesterday, a simple quit start solved it.
Timeline=story line means you can add effects on the storyline but not on the second storyline (the tracks above the storyline) this makes no sense, now I will just make all the tracks storylines and I can add all the effects I want ?? why not just make them all storylines, or just add the option to add effects to all of the "tracks", but maybe I'm missing something.
Can't import MPEG files. I tried to import a MPEG file (done in compressor), Premiere 5.0 does open it but needs to render it first (that's ok) FCPx doesn't even open it, I need to first make it QT and than it imports. It's a bit weird that they do support the most compressed junk from iPhones, HDV, 5DMKII etc. but not the standard MPEG (hope I'm doing something wrong), it's not a big deal but I would love to have a real import all option. Thanks to MPEG streamclip it's no problem of course.
Real time editing on my MacPro8/16GB HT was ok but you could see that on some moments it was a bit hard on the machine, I have to add that I was trying to see what would happen when I added 3-4 effects on top of each other, at that moment the machine slowed down a bit in the dissolves BUT without any effects or just 2 it did not slow down.
Overal the first editing session was a succes, love the worfklow, it's not as dumb-down as some people claim, but it is very easy to learn. I guess that if you have limited editing experience or a bit of experience that FCPx will be a breath of fresh air compared to both FCP and iMovie, for me the way the effects work is a gift, I love to see what I'm doing (like in Photoshop) and hate to wait for rendering.
Again as mentioned before I REALLY understand why people hate X compared to FCP so this is in NO way a defence plea for X, but I do find it fair to also show some of the positive stuff. I started 100% open with FCPx and decided to look at it with a fresh approach, I don't expect it to be FCP7, I don't expect it to be iMovie and when I think about the options for add ons and the workflow/editing/effects changes I do think that if we fast forward 1-2 years this product can be HUGELY successful also in the pro market, it's just such a departure from FCP7 and Premiere that WHEN it clicks, you probably will have a hard time to go back.... for me after 1 more "real" edit it starts to click and I like it. But again I really do understand that there is too much missing at the moment for some of the pro editors, but WHEN that gets added by Apple or 3rd party developers.... :D
-
I have this feeling that Apple let Final Cut Pro stretch out on the sofa, drinking beer and eating pizza for 5 years in the basement while Avid and Premier we're at the gym working out, earning money and working hard.
Then all of a sudden Apple went "oh S*&t, we're way behind the other guys so instead of just getting as good, we'll adopt that kid next door, I-movie. He's young, he's fast and looks pretty good so we'll dress him up and call him Final Cut Pro and say we reinvented video editing."
That'll do it and for most of Apple's dslr market it will, so no problem, no complaints, especially from me, because I don't need it.
I do think they kind of missed the point of 3 point editing, clip viewers, canvas and multiple sequences, but it won't matter to most of their market because they don't know what those things are anyway.
In reality I can promise you successful editorial houses aren't afraid of FCP EX.
Like everyone they've already been hit by the recession and the good houses have survived, some good one's haven't, but a cheaper, easier software won't effect them in the positive or negative, now or in the future.
Regardless, not that many professional editorial houses we're 100% running on Final Cut Pro in any version, though most have a few systems of 6 or 7 around.
Most serious work is cut on Avid.
The market the FCP EX is not aimed at the serious editing for money market . . . at least today. Maybe someday, but I have my doubts.
I don't care about EX because it doesn't do what I have on my computers at the moment and out of the 12 client requests per video it can only perform functions of about half that.
I don't have time to list everything, but I have 5 videos in production at this moment, (some in house, some outsourced) and another series of 5 videos to be shot in the next month.
None can be done completely on the current FCP EX so me, my clients and the editorial houses I work with aren't really worried by this software, even if it was full featured.
In fact my client's don't even know it exists and when they come to an edit they expect to walk into an edit suite with multiple screens, a real time network and soft chairs where they make their decisions in real time.
They don't sit at a desk and look at an I-mac.
Professional editing is much more than the NLE, just like interesting image creations is much more than a camera or a light.
It's a complete professional method of working from concept to delivery, with heavy investment in hardware, space and talent so saving $400 on a NLE seat really doesn't effect the professional houses.
IMO
BC
-
James is absolutly right.
It is true that FCP had certainly been present in number of edit houses, but let's also be honest. Here in the tv and cine industry, the NLE softwares are Avid and Grass Valley Thomson. Yeah they have FCP units but the main editor still is Avid and specially since the MC 5 released, it is even more Avid. But as James said, motion post prod is much more than just an NLE.
For a lot of professionals in this industry, they couldn't care less about what Apple is doing or not doing. It's simply not their business.
Actually, if what we really want was to impress clients we would be much more successfull with a Smoke unit workflow because it looks much more impressive and faster to be honest. But people don't even care what it is.
The TV boys really impress me in the incredible knowledge they have on Avid, they know everything like engineers, they know all the tricks and how to resolve every situation. Rarelly talk about FCP.
I don't think pros are really frightened about the fact that FCP X could make the editing so easy for everyone that we will see gran'ma taking the work from the current pros.
Because it already happens in the low-end like in still and sorry but the software involved is called Adobe Premiere Pro because it is one of the best and most easily pirated and kids won't pay 800 bucks but not even 250 for youtubing or training.
The target is not the kid who will be the tomorrow's Visconti; the target is 1: the 30 years old new rich metrosexual executive wich Apple will suits well in the designed living room.
and 2: the current photographer who's in Mac like 99% of the photographers and wants video as an extra but without wanting the harsh learning. It's the short way, the easy way... relax today generally means painfull in the future...I don't have advice to give to anybody except maybe this one.
And once someone has done his little indy stuff or commercial movies for the district mall or friend's company, the workflow to grow is such that most of those people will never go further. Too much to learn and learn in team is another story. I'm in the middle of it and beleive me, it's serious work and no fun, and people want fun. Nobody has time for exploring unfinished and uncertain products even if it features any famous logo. We are not in 2005 anymore.
FCP X is no way putting fear anywhere, it's just IMO in a no man's land.. or more exactly, in the land of cloud, myspace, myface and mybottom. And it will do it the cool and fast way, and some people will start to writte codes, mini programs, they will create cool social reds, they will have a lot of fun and Apple a lot of money, yes...
you know:
7 years ago, you entered an Apple store and what did you see? Arquitects, designers, photographers, paintors...more or less Apple customers where the creatives of the image industry, mostly independant structures, the free-lance, the arquitect studio...but they where not the big prod houses. We where well received, customers where a sort of discrete fashionable people, the independant artists.
Now you go and it's a very different picture. It's a toy store. Still has the cool effect but just a toy store totally massified. They receive you like crap (to be gentle), you have to cue, they don't have the pro equipments in stock so you have to order, customer service stinks etc etc...It's not the Apple I've known. It's Windows politics 10 years ago with a better interface, fancy gadget and cooler design.
Apple has changed. It's a phone house.
The world too has changed.
-
As expected, just got an info: Adobe is starting a special PremierePro CS5.5 crossgrade promo for fcp and avid users, price cut 50%, valid through 30th of september, details to be annouced soon. Seems they take their chance and let their pro market grow...
Cheers, Ulf
-
I kinda still don't get it.
OK, I understand apple wants to make an easy software to appeal to a less that involved market, but why would any image maker that aspires to move forward spend the time learning anything, software, cameras, or computers with so many limitations, that are essentially dumbed down?
Because thats what apple does with everything they produce, dumb down version of everything IMO.
-
As expected, just got an info: Adobe is starting a special PremierePro CS5.5 crossgrade promo for fcp and avid users, price cut 50%, valid through 30th of september, details to be annouced soon. Seems they take their chance and let their pro market grow...
Cheers, Ulf
Adobe has a lock on a lot of specialized motion work with after effects and photoshop.
It's the Premier thing that you have to be concerned about, especially if your on a Mac Platform. It's not that it's not good, it's just different, but does as much as FCP7 and is the only forward path for fcp users that want to migrate legacy projects to a faster system.
The only thing that would worry me is It seems that Adobe and Apple don't play that nice anymore and Premier has three steps up on FCP EX, because it's more professional, it's just as fast or faster, it integrates with adobes suite and it's a lot easier to add a send to face book button on a professional program than it is to take an amateur program like FCP EX and make it professional.
How long will apple let Adobe play on their computers? Who knows because it's a very proprietary world in digital creation and if Apple didn't care how any NLE would effect FCP EX, they would have kept selling FCP 7.
FCP EX is fine if your playing around but as of today you can't do client driven projects with it.
Even the facebook crowd wants to "look" talented and important, even if they're not.
Some people feel abandoned for the consumer market, some people feel apple is playing the long game, thinking this is where video editing is going.
I think apple is pulling another "force you to change" and this time their are too many options for virtually the same price once you add all the different pieces to make fcp EX even close to usable.
Whether you ever need the ability to "go pro" and do what avid and premier can do, is not the issue. What if you want to move your project to someone that is pro? If your working in EX you can't, cause the pros are busy using systems that work and I haven't heard of an editorial house that is even considering FCP EX.
I think Apple makes a good operating system, they also make cool looking stuff sold at a premium, but they don't write the best software and haven't ever written a professional ap from scratch that moved the mass professionals over to their team.
But this forced change is something apple just sneaks in and everyone accepts it. We've seen it from firewire to thunderbolt.
What I don't understand is why the PC world can't attack apple head on with a slicked out hardware/software product that is backward and forward capable and has the style of an apple product.
Anyway . . .
If Apple is right and in 5 years everyone is working on something that looks like EX then fine, I'll switch back, though this time I think apple has finally hit the wall.
Apple is too stubborn to admit they had a great product in FCP 7, that they just needed more speed and less gamma issues, but overall it was intuitive, smart and dead solid stable.
Even if they wanted to write a 64 bit FCP 8, it will be too late, the migration will be complete and it will be an AVID, Premier world . . . at least for professionals working in motion.
IMO
BC
-
http://www.avid.com/US/about-avid/customer-stories/RTVE
The Spanish national tv completly re-equipted by Avid. It must have been a huge contract indeed and a reference, the spanish TV is for ex a much more important structure than the french or german because spanish is the second occidental spoken lenguage and RTVE is far from being just a small country tv but a reference in this industry.
I think this is where the Avid target mainly stands. The pros, from a simple indy cineast to a big national TV. CBS also works with Avid.
The very good think about Avid is that the systems are similar. Once you're trained on MC, the learning curve adquired is stable. Same as solutions like ISIS etc...there are different powers for different needs.
It means that someone who invert in Avid basic, can grow without limits but without having to relearn from sratch anything. Every upgrade is within a familiar interface and the transitions are smooth.
I find the system extremely stable and gives a sensation of confidence in the money spent.
About Media Composer, what really amazes me is the versatility of the workflow. It allows more ways to do a same task successfuly. In other words, it would suit different kinds of operator's styles. DNxHD codec is really good. CBS uses the 145 : http://www.avid.com/US/about-avid/customer-stories/60-Minutes
My backup or second editor is Edius 6. Really good and fast and probably the only true other professional editor (don't jump at me on this because I know that Premiere and Vegas are also used perfectly by pros but they are first consummer products). AVCHD native editing and batch transcoding if needed in a click and probably the most intuitive multicam workflow to date. Very good alternative to Avid. http://vimeo.com/26040740 and http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mcrbHB3q0DI highly recommended to evaluate if Avid is not your cup of tea.
I've been told that Vegas is very good too. In fact it seems that they are all good NLE.
-
so in which way did fcpX turn premier into a suddenly better product? i do think their stabilisation software is amazing but if you did not want to go to adobe before fcpX came out, why would you now?
i am trying to stay away from ps (and the whole CS suite) as much as possible...i know it is not possible...yet...but i am really hoping there is something better in our future....
i really would not worry too much about any adobe product not running on mac....support is already pretty bad and it does not seem like adobe is putting a lot of effort in supporting mac...but they always slap something together a few months late and charge too much for it....and we have to pay because it is the only game in town....so why should they change that? and in reality apple can't afford to loose them or cut them out completely....
for my part...i was excited about fcpx, wanted to get it the first day, still haven't gotten around to it and am a little less enthousiastic about it because of all the bad press...i am sure it will do what i need it to do and i am sure there will be some things it won't right now mostly because it seems like that with any software these days....or maybe it is just me pushing the limits (which does not seem too hard with fcpx)....
so when i have a couple of evenings/nights i will bite the bullet and dive in.....in the long run, it is the future....i hope...
-
so in which way did fcpX turn premier into a suddenly better product? i do think their stabilisation software is amazing but if you did not want to go to adobe before fcpX came out, why would you now?
i am trying to stay away from ps (and the whole CS suite) as much as possible...i know it is not possible...yet...but i am really hoping there is something better in our future....
i really would not worry too much about any adobe product not running on mac....support is already pretty bad and it does not seem like adobe is putting a lot of effort in supporting mac...but they always slap something together a few months late and charge too much for it....and we have to pay because it is the only game in town....so why should they change that? and in reality apple can't afford to loose them or cut them out completely....
for my part...i was excited about fcpx, wanted to get it the first day, still haven't gotten around to it and am a little less enthousiastic about it because of all the bad press...i am sure it will do what i need it to do and i am sure there will be some things it won't right now mostly because it seems like that with any software these days....or maybe it is just me pushing the limits (which does not seem too hard with fcpx)....
so when i have a couple of evenings/nights i will bite the bullet and dive in.....in the long run, it is the future....i hope...
Paul, really I don't get it. I'm trying from all angles and it doesn't match. I mean you're far from being a novice and your imagery is elaborate and personaly I think very talented. What do you find so attractive and a bet for the future in the Apple path?
Are you ready to work with one timeline and one sequence per project?
The communication between platforms is something really serious. At my level, we use it all the time and it becomes very fast a necessity. It would just be unworkable.
You're going to dive in a learning curve from scratch but it's like diving in unknown waters blind. Yes, we can find a sort of Bond attitude: I dare, I take the risk, and if it does not work I still can see myself drinking my Martini Vodka shaked in the reflection of the new white Lion's glossy screen...turned off since weeks.
What Apple understands that others no? I've been reading everything and still can't get the point of the Apple choice. Even if they know something right now we don't, Avid, Grass Valley, Premiere and Sony will take the train anyway if it's worth, probably doing it progressively.
?
All the pros, power users, or indy guys (I just realised that there were no girls, mmm...) I've been talking to here are burning in Flame like the Neron's persecutions about this release and some are Apple crazy fans to the absurd who just couldn't be able to stand a PC workstation at less than 10 miles away...none is going to use it by any means.
I really think that this time Apple did a bug and not so much a visionary move.
Time will tell.
-
We can shoot and produce a feature film without even touching the editing thing.
You can hire either the kid, the good guy or the guy with the soft couches and the miramax editing room, depending on your budget.
Or if the budget is really small, I can do it on my own with Premiere or the old FCP.
Honestly why do we even care what FC X does or does not, considering all the goodies that exist out there.
-
Paul, really I don't get it. I'm trying from all angles and it doesn't match. I mean you're far from being a novice and your imagery is elaborate and personaly I think very talented. What do you find so attractive and a bet for the future in the Apple path?
Fred, I honestly think the debate goes nowhere.
You use Avid MC (and other tools) for a good reason (due to the requirements of your work). But for some FCX delivers all they need. That's fine - no reason to convince others to use "better" tools (what for, if FCX does the job for them?).
Me, I agree with almost everything you say. 80% of my video-work is broadcasted. That's quite easy. You start in broadcast standards and you output to broadcast standards (of course you need some kind of offline/online workflow, the option to export EDLs and especially the option to assign real tracks and OMF export, real video output to class-1 broadcast monitors... etc.). 15% of my work is screened at events (trade shows or so). The workflow is actually the same. 5% of my work is for web presentation and these 5% are a real PITA as you have to find something that works on MAC and on Windows in at least a "decent" reproduction of gamma, colors and shutter-free playback. It's absolutely unclear to me how you would handle this in FCX... but so be it. I don't use it anyway.
For professional standards everything is really quite simple (as you can expect professional equipment on the recipient- resp. client-side)... as long as you work in a professional environment. But the latter clearly doesn't apply to FCX. So the deabte is actually irrelevant.
I always wondered about statements like "FCP owns the editing world" here on the forum. Here in Germany all major production houses use Avid. Only some promo and trailer departments (producing short films of 1-2 minutes or just 10'' or 20'' films) use FCP. My phone list contains at least 20 Avid Editors. But no explicit FCP editor (2 or 3 of the Avid editors also edit on FCP... but only if they are forced to do so). I've always refused to edit tv shows on FCP (I did twice and it was actually a nightmare). Simply too cumbersome, too nervous... too slow. Above all: too insecure (when working with heavy deadlines). So for me FCP always has been half-professional at most. FCX is 100% unprofessional. So what ...
-
Fred, I honestly think the debate goes nowhere.
You use Avid MC (and other tools) for a good reason (due to the requirements of your work). But for some FCX delivers all they need. That's fine - no reason to convince others to use "better" tools (what for, if FCX does the job for them?).
Me, I agree with almost everything you say. 80% of my video-work is broadcasted. That's quite easy. You start in broadcast standards and you output to broadcast standards (of course you need some kind of offline/online workflow, the option to export EDLs and especially the option to assign real tracks and OMF export, real video output to class-1 broadcast monitors... etc.). 15% of my work is screened at events (trade shows or so). The workflow is actually the same. 5% of my work is for web presentation and these 5% are a real PITA as you have to find something that works on MAC and on Windows in at least a "decent" reproduction of gamma, colors and shutter-free playback. It's absolutely unclear to me how you would handle this in FCX... but so be it. I don't use it anyway.
For professional standards everything is really quite simple (as you can expect professional equipment on the recipient- resp. client-side)... as long as you work in a professional environment. But the latter clearly doesn't apply to FCX. So the deabte is actually irrelevant.
I always wondered about statements like "FCP owns the editing world" here on the forum. Here in Germany all major production houses use Avid. Only some promo and trailer departments (producing short films of 1-2 minutes or just 10'' or 20'' films) use FCP. My phone list contains at least 20 Avid Editors. But no explicit FCP editor (2 or 3 of the Avid editors also edit on FCP... but only if they are forced to do so). I've always refused to edit tv shows on FCP (I did twice and it was actually a nightmare). Simply too cumbersome, too nervous... too slow. Above all: too insecure (when working with heavy deadlines). So for me FCP always has been half-professional at most. FCX is 100% unprofessional. So what ...
Thomas,
I agree with all your lines without exception and understand that my post apparently sort of leaded nowhere. But indeed I was trying to be constructive and not just convinced to used "better" NLE. Sorry if I couldn't transmit correctly the idea I wanted to express.
I'll be more explicit here because I do think that the debate is not that much a dead end.
Resuming, my post wanted to say: invest in a solution where you can grow at any time, even if the needs are today basics, and any time can be tomorrow.
Here in Spain, and for what I've heard of some collegues in France too, the current situation is simple: deadlines are shortened, volume of work is more fragmented and unpredictable, and much more is asked for the same costs.
The first thing I've noticed compared to let's say 3 or 4 years, is that we have much less time.
Then the photographers. That's important. Motion have irrupted in the stills workflow and really what was yesterday photography is now a mess. Stills, motion, paper, web, broadcast...whatever. The demand is real and each time the frontiers are unclear and it's going to be more and more like that.
I've also seen a change in the AD generations. The new generation has a completly different position when they contract a photographer, the reality is that they contract an image maker. They want a studio that can work stills AND motion with the costs of stills alone 10 years ago.
The Dinausors here, the big boys of the photographic scene who actually didn't embrassed motion are working less and less, no mather their talent and reputation. That's the (sad or not) reality.
In my experience, we also thought at first that a simple NLE would do the job. Why do we need more if we are just photographers who's motion assignements are fews and really basics? But then in practise, it didn't worked that way. Very fast and unpredictable, the needs appear, and then it's the rush.
In the studio, the boss can not have a fixed team as big as before because of the crisis and delegate became an obligation. Also, deadlines are very short so in the end, even if you're not Hollywood, you need a stable, reliable fast platform to stay competitive and grow.
If the software does not allow you to grow at any time, (not maybe if tomorrow when possibly) it is a real problem.
Flexibility within stability is the today's grail. As diving into FCPX is a completly new learning curve from almost zero, the question falls on the table by itself...are there better alternatives in the market even for a basic workflow? IMO, the answer is yes and triple yes! I think that this FCPX is in a land of no where. I might be wrong but that's really my feeling.
Again, you might not want and need an overkill platform today, but what I've been through is that tomorrow's needs come very fast, the game can change in a question of days, and in a question of days you're not preapared for a new workflow.
The idea I've read here that: if tomorrow I need more power FC(P)X can't cover, I'll change software and that's it...yes, but I might live in another planet because honestly, we don't have time to play with uncertain possible solutions. All pros I'm seeing here are under harsh pressure to maintain their clients and grow or at least, not sink.
They have less free time (in fact no free time at all) to play with a learning curve that could lead to nowhere. I have much less free time than 3 years ago and couldn't afford putting myself in a learning curve from sratch without being sure I'm walking on solid terrain. It's to the point that most of the photographers I know here have probs with their wifes because their private life has been reduced to a minimum.
If wifes work in the business they will understand but most of them don't.
anyway, wifes are not the topic.
Then, from what I said above, what I really don't get it is this: someone might not need Media Composer. Fine and understandble. But then look at the offers, for ex Edius Neo3, an entry cheap version of Edius 6. Well, Neo3 is already a reliable platform and already more featured than FCex and if you need to grow, you switch at anytime to the pro NLE, but your learning curve is not dead, you'll find a similar workflow. Same with Avid, same with Adobe.
The thing is that the money to spend to reach a professional workflow is very little. FCX costs 250, but MC if you come from FC costs 800. It is just 550 euros to obtain a rock solid software. The cost of a point-and-shoot minicam. I would understand if we where talñking about thousands and thousands of euros, but the reality is that softwares are cheaper and cheaper. You might not need the power of those, but when you need it, it's there. No need to relearn anything but just going deeper in what's already there.
All IMHO.
-
Sorry if I couldn't transmit correctly the idea I wanted to express.
I think it was me who narrowed down what you've said to just one point - not your fault. sorry for that!
full quote
perfectly makes sense.
-
No need to apologyse Thomas. I found your post deeply relevant.
In the end we are using english wich is not our native lenguage and that's not always easy to transmit what we have in mind on the first intent, sorry, attempt (I just check on the dic because I had a doubt on intent, typicaly mistakes I'm doing)
I construct sentences with tons of mistakes, most of the time I'm not even aware of the gramatical uses so really the only possibility I have is just expressing an overall idea betting that it would bite, but it's very easy that it doesn't.
In fact I thank all the people here who read my posts and don't get crazy about the form because I really writte the way I would speak and it might sound kind of monkey style for an english native.
Cheers.
-
In the end we are using english wich is not our native lenguage and that's not always easy to transmit what we have in mind
so true :-(
-
Though, FC X may still be a good solution to get the Prores codec legally for 299$. ;D
So we can export Prores using other soft. :P
I mean despite FCP being an half professional software, there are still too many companies that require delivery on prores.
Then if you shoot with Alexa and do not have a nuclear power plant back at the studio, prores is a no brainer.
-
We can shoot and produce a feature film without even touching the editing thing.
You can hire either the kid, the good guy or the guy with the soft couches and the miramax editing room, depending on your budget.
Or if the budget is really small, I can do it on my own with Premiere or the old FCP.
Honestly why do we even care what FC X does or does not, considering all the goodies that exist out there.
Those options have always been there, depending on how deep your pockets are, so nothing new in that thought.
The deal with FCP was it didn't take deep pockets to produce almost any look, style or effect. The downside was it was slow once you really started on complex edits.
Anyway . . .
Doesn't matter what we think because Apple will do what it wants.
It's the most valued company in the world and if anyone thinks they don't have the resources to buy all the talent it takes to make FCP 8 have all the ease and speed of X, the depth of 7 and probably more than any of us could imagine, IMO is wrong.
This is just a shift on Apple's part to go from pros to semi-pros. For pros that have invested millions on FCP base studios it's a bummer, for most of us that learned FCP and just wanted more speed and a little more stability in gamma it's a bummer, but for Apple it's a plan.
Raise your hand. What would you do. Make a product that sells at 4 million an month of 4 million in 5 years.
I know my answer, as much as I hate to admit it.
Now there are some rumors that FCP 7 will be back on the shelves, probably due to legal reasons, but I don't expect to see 7 working on anything past Lion which means it's lifespan is limited.
But if you want to go pro, FCP EX isn't the path. It might be someday but I doubt it.
It's kind of looking like in the imaging world, Apple is no longer the way, unless going pro means white i phones.
IMO
BC
P.S. One of the reasons FCP heavy users are so upset about EX, is FCP 7 did so much within one system. Other NLE's like Avid were always better at cutting, but FCP did almost anything you could dream of all in the sequence or multiple sequences.
All their core users we're just biting their nails waiting for the day fCP would be faster and the result of EX is the reason you see such anger across the spectrum.
Indie users to full blown 30 seat houses feel very abandoned and so they should because they are.