FCP X seems like a fundamentally different way of looking at your media. They are focusing on speed, not precision. And turning control over to the machine, control that used to be in our heads.
As R. Crum said about modern civilization, "It isn't much fun, but it sure is efficient."
After reading Pogue's remarks about Multicam work around it occurred to me using the audio track to sync up the video maybe isn't so bad assuming your various cameras are recording sound. In a concert you'll be getting your sound from the booth so that will sync automatically too. Maybe handing off more control to the machine is better for some things. Beats trying get all the time codes in sync.
I believe you're referring to something other than what I was, which is EDL,OMF, XML in order to move work from one layer of the project to another, as well as being able to access one's own archives. The integration of Soundtrack is only as good as Soundtrack is, but is there any way to toss the audio quickly between the audio house using ProTools and back into the edit?
What if in 2013 a client from 2010 wants to cut a song out of a special, add another and represent for broadcast? Apple should have provided the tools for that concurrent with this release. It would have stemmed much of the ensuing clatter : )
Oops. I was responding to lighwaver's post. On occasion I find responding everyones comments below a bit overwhelming when there are lot's of them. I was referring to the possibility that lightwaver was correct. A drop shadow obviously is a checkbox in FCP7. Lightwavers claim is that you have to go out to motion and back into final cut to do the same thing.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TenoBell
Regardless of the marketing. FCP X is a version 1 product.
You are free to use that 10 designation as justification of your moral outrage if you so choose. Be that as it may from a code development standpoint this is an entirely new product.
But that's our point. Yes you are correct it is obviously a V1 program, but who would have expected One to have followed Seven?
BTW it's not moral outrage either. I think some of us are just disappointed by the apparent misdirection on behalf of Apple. No other software manufacturer would ever attempt this sort of thing so "arrogantly". Although I don't want to imply any wrong doing by Apple here either.
Honestly it's the industries fault for falling in love with a consumer company. And sure most of us will happily return to using Avid again. I preferred it and my clients will hopefully ask for Avid workflows more often that transitioning back will make sense. Apple successfully convinced Avid they needed to lower their prices and sell software only options and less expensive hardware. Conditions have changed since we all left the "overpriced" avid packages goodbye. Although, I have to say that I will consider also transitioning some of my hardware along with it and return to using PC's.
Apple says "well final cut x is good enough to get the job done". Eventually I'll end up at a similar conclusion. Windows gets the job done too. It's not MY personal computer, it's a workstation and it WORKS every bit as good (if not better at some things; including 3D) than the equivalent mac. So now that I don't have to worry about FCP being the software of choice I'm going to find the best hardware at the best price. After all everything is x86 now. depending on how long it takes Apple to get the missing features into FCPX (if ever) a decent percentage of the industry might shift, but I don't think Apple cares about those numbers. Half of the industry is on PC already and the industry is remarkably small. The larger audience for Apple lies with the prosumers. That much is obvious.
The remaining question is how long will Apple "freeze" FCP with the current features. Will they quickly see to professionals needs or will it take years to restore the current functionality of FCP7? Is it even their intent to change anything? Is FCP finally and exclusively a prosumer app? Have they gotten rid of their aspirations of being a pro app developer?
When it's time to upgrade machines we'll have to move based on the situation at the time. Perhaps Apple has assumed that everyone is in "good enough" shape for now with FCP7 and their mac pro's. Pro's are typically slower to upgrade anyway. Maybe within a year they can have everything "lost" put back in before the pros start migrating.
The only thing that has me convinced it's a prosumer app is the $300 price tag. That doesn't jive well with a "feature rich and robust application. So I'm seeing a murky Avid in the distant horizon.
I wonder if the MacPro is next to get "the axe" in some way?
Yes its understood that FCP X does not meet the needs of many who use FCP today. Everyone has the choice to move on to another NLE or wait to see what Apple does. What is so complicated about that? Why be so emotional about that choice?
Technically they are not features lost as FCP X has never had them.
The Pro community has the choice of using the other available options. I believe that is what the majority would do instead of bitching on internet forums about it.
With Premiere and Avid also being available for Windows, some of these guys now face the question of whether they stay on the Mac at all. Especially if they are not the ones making the purchasing decisions.
Apple already has a broad development plan for FCP X.
Apple implements missing features in a new way. That everyone grows to appreciate.
FCP X is declared an amazing way to edit film/video.
People who complained take credit for the updates because they believe they forced Apple to add features that Apple had already designed FCP X to add.
First people say "Send feedback because Apple listens." But when Apple provides features that people have been demanding, it's because "Apple was planning to do it anyway." So which is it?
Apple showed FCP X and its feature set at NAB. If you had done thorough research at the very least you would have seen that Apple did not list the features that you wish were there. Nowhere did Apple list any features of FCP X that are not there. So you did see its full list of features before you bought it.
At that point you could had noticed that some crucial features are not listed. And waited to see what is going on before you purchased.
Now I KNOW you've got to be pulling our legs... right...?
Since when has Apple - IN IT'S HISTORY - EVER showed "all" of the features of an app, OS or hardware...???
I watched that NAB thing and they were showing "HIGHLIGHTS" of what was to come... it was a "SNEAK PREVIEW"... not an all-encompassing list.
I now realize that you are set in your mentality, and that's fine. After that statement, I realize I will have better luck teaching my dog to change a transmission than I will getting you to understand what "all the fuss is about"... so never mind. You win. We're wrong... we should drink whatever Kool-Ade is doled out to us. Done!
1. Depending on your project you may finish a project and never touch it again. However, there are many cases where you need to go back (potentially years later) and add to or make changes to your project. In a professional environment its important to know that you have backwards compatibility to as much a degree as possible, even if its a one way trip.
Perhaps Automatic Duck will develop a small tool to bring old projects into FCPX, but this really should be done by Apple and included or sold as a free standing app. Even if things like text and filters didnt migrate completely, having a solid starting point is important.
2. A tapeless workflow is most certainly the way of the future and for some its how they work now (we've started do a few tapeless projects). But proper "log and capture" functionality will be necessary for many years to come. First off, many people are still actively using tape based workflows, but beyond that archival footage is essential in many settings and wont be going anywhere anytime soon. Old footage isnt something you can disregard, I occasionally even need to pull footage from old Umatic tapes that are older than I am.
If you have access to unlimited storage, great for you, but most of us are limited to some degree. My server at work only has 8TB available and thats a drop in the bucket compared to the number of tapes we have (I estimate we would need close to 60TB to hold all our SD footage from the last 20 years). Online/Offline workflow will eventually be a thing of the past, but not today, not until mass storage achieves a favorable cost per TB (or even PB) ratio.
Im really excited about some of the new features in FCPX. Secondary color correction looks great for when you just dont have time to do a round trip to Color, as does the new text features that will negate the need to use Motion for small items, saving significant time. Im just really apprehensive about some of the features that are missing and essential to a typical workflow.
Oops. I was responding to lighwaver's post. On occasion I find responding everyones comments below a bit overwhelming when there are lot's of them. I was referring to the possibility that lightwaver was correct. A drop shadow obviously is a checkbox in FCP7. Lightwavers claim is that you have to go out to motion and back into final cut to do the same thing.
I may have been responsible for that claim FCPX-->Motion-->FCPX to get an effect.
Here's what I've found, so far:
1) AFAICT, FCPS does not have a GP Drop Shadow effect built-in (except for text in titles)
2) The new Motion ($50) was used to create most (all?) if the FCPX effects
3) You can modify an FCPX effect in motion and the modified effect can be used elsewhere within FCPX
4) If you want, you can create a general purpose effect in Motion including drop areas, parameters, controls, etc.
5) This can be saved as a FCPX template
6) The new effect becomes a part of the FCPX effect library
So, lack of an effect would only involve a round trip to motion 1 time -- the creation of the desired FCPX effect template
Quote:
But that's our point. Yes you are correct it is obviously a V1 program, but who would have expected One to have followed Seven?
BTW it's not moral outrage either. I think some of us are just disappointed by the apparent misdirection on behalf of Apple. No other software manufacturer would ever attempt this sort of thing so "arrogantly". Although I don't want to imply any wrong doing by Apple here either.
Honestly it's the industries fault for falling in love with a consumer company. And sure most of us will happily return to using Avid again. I preferred it and my clients will hopefully ask for Avid workflows more often that transitioning back will make sense. Apple successfully convinced Avid they needed to lower their prices and sell software only options and less expensive hardware. Conditions have changed since we all left the "overpriced" avid packages goodbye. Although, I have to say that I will consider also transitioning some of my hardware along with it and return to using PC's.
Apple says "well final cut x is good enough to get the job done". Eventually I'll end up at a similar conclusion. Windows gets the job done too. It's not MY personal computer, it's a workstation and it WORKS every bit as good (if not better at some things; including 3D) than the equivalent mac. So now that I don't have to worry about FCP being the software of choice I'm going to find the best hardware at the best price. After all everything is x86 now. depending on how long it takes Apple to get the missing features into FCPX (if ever) a decent percentage of the industry might shift, but I don't think Apple cares about those numbers. Half of the industry is on PC already and the industry is remarkably small. The larger audience for Apple lies with the prosumers. That much is obvious.
The remaining question is how long will Apple "freeze" FCP with the current features. Will they quickly see to professionals needs or will it take years to restore the current functionality of FCP7? Is it even their intent to change anything? Is FCP finally and exclusively a prosumer app? Have they gotten rid of their aspirations of being a pro app developer?
When it's time to upgrade machines we'll have to move based on the situation at the time. Perhaps Apple has assumed that everyone is in "good enough" shape for now with FCP7 and their mac pro's. Pro's are typically slower to upgrade anyway. Maybe within a year they can have everything "lost" put back in before the pros start migrating.
The only thing that has me convinced it's a prosumer app is the $300 price tag. That doesn't jive well with a "feature rich and robust application. So I'm seeing a murky Avid in the distant horizon.
I wonder if the MacPro is next to get "the axe" in some way?
As to the price tag -- it may just be the packaging of the "suite" as separate apps:
-- FCPX $300
-- Motion $50
-- Compressor $50
there could be other components, say, Advanced Color (if needed), Tape I/O, some of the other components needed by some pros, but not by all.
If that is Apple's plan, then what we have now is the FCPX starter set "suite"
With a few more, less-needed-by-many (therefore pricier) components -- you could soon get a FCXP Complete Suite approaching the price of FCPS (Less cost savings from the Mac App Store distro model).
You and I have both been around Apple long enough to know that they are not stupid -- though they sometimes do some things stupidly.
I cannot believe that Apple put all this effort into what some call iMovie Pro and walk away from their hard won FCS "Pro" clients.
I just had a chance to play with FCPX without a lot else going on -- FCPX got my, and my computer's full attention (iMac 24 2.8 GHz Core 2 Duo 4 GB RAM ATI, Radeon HD1600 -- no real powerhouse).
Anyway I started import of about 4 GB Compressed AVCHD from a card reader.
I can tell you this:
FCPX ain't no iMovie Pro!
A few seconds after inserted the AVCHD card the 38 thumbnails appeared in the import screen
I could scrub/play through them as if they were already imported.
I started the import/analysis/transcoding of all the clips and closed the import window.
I opened up the event I was importing and could immediately use the clips while they were still importing (analyzing and transcoding in the background -- in iMovie I would have waited 10-15 minutes before I could do anything.
When I did something that needed CPU/GPU power like playing a clip yet to be imported -- the background processes would pause, as necessary so there was no noticeable effect to the FCPX UI.
I was playing the clip on a 23" Cinema Display while editing on the iMac 24.
This is good stuff!
I can't believe that they did all this just for the Prosumer crowd.
Edit: Shit -- FCPX with all its backgrounding has less impact on my iMac than Flash.
1. Depending on your project you may finish a project and never touch it again. However, there are many cases where you need to go back (potentially years later) and add to or make changes to your project. In a professional environment its important to know that you have backwards compatibility to as much a degree as possible, even if its a one way trip.
Perhaps Automatic Duck will develop a small tool to bring old projects into FCPX, but this really should be done by Apple and included or sold as a free standing app. Even if things like text and filters didnt migrate completely, having a solid starting point is important.
2. A tapeless workflow is most certainly the way of the future and for some its how they work now (we've started do a few tapeless projects). But proper "log and capture" functionality will be necessary for many years to come. First off, many people are still actively using tape based workflows, but beyond that archival footage is essential in many settings and wont be going anywhere anytime soon.
If you have access to unlimited storage, great for you, but most of us are limited to some degree. My server at work only has 8TB available and thats a drop in the bucket compared to the number of tapes we have (I estimate we would need close to 60TB to hold all our SD footage from the last 20 years). Online/Offline workflow will eventually be a thing of the past, but not today, not until mass storage achieves a favorable cost per TB (or even PB) ratio.
Im really excited about some of the new features in FCPX. Secondary color correction looks great for when you just dont have time to do a round trip to Color, as does the new text features that will negate the need to use Motion for small items, saving significant time. Im just really apprehensive about some of the features that are missing and essential to a typical workflow.
Just out of curiosity, how do you back up 60TB of Tape?
After reading Pogue's remarks about Multicam work around it occurred to me using the audio track to sync up the video maybe isn't so bad assuming your various cameras are recording sound. In a concert you'll be getting your sound from the booth so that will sync automatically too. Maybe handing off more control to the machine is better for some things. Beats trying get all the time codes in sync.
Do you think R. Crum is using a Wacom now days?
For the record, sorry I spelled Crumb's name wrong. But I'd be surprised if he uses a computer for more than finding 78 rpm records.
As spliff monkey mentions above, the other guys have better 3D implementation. That's why I'm going to hang on to Final Cut Original -- you can see your sync'd left and right video tracks right there in the timeline, and your compositing window (motion) is one click away.
I suspect this new X thing is not going to be so 3D friendly, but I will keep an open mind.
Just out of curiosity, how do you back up 60TB of Tape?
Honestly, if our building burned down we'd be screwed, barring a few select dubbed tapes that are stored offsite plus any active or most important projects are are stored locally and mirrored offsite.
I would really love to capture them in whole at some point and having the data stored in an offsite location with proper backups is my dream. Drive space is certainly coming close, but just isnt quite there yet. Our IT dept I believe picked up an HP SAN that is about 50TB, but unfortunately it isnt for my dept's use, we are stuck with a single Promise raid (we might be able to swing an expansion bay at some point).
If that is Apple's plan, then what we have now is the FCPX starter set "suite"
I read on another forum the suggestion that FCP X might in essence be a development tool. In that, people looked at the underpinnings and saw not only hooks for XML but also for Python scripting. This could make it very enticing for third parties to build plug-ins and companion apps that integrate really well. Not only offering missing features, but new ones as well..
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dick Applebaum
Just out of curiosity, how do you back up 60TB of Tape?
I would use a passel of LTO4 tapes (which is what I have), but others might use LTO5.
So i've read all the comments in the thread and it has taken a while.
My days in the pro end of the edit/effects market are long over, I use FCE and some custom tools to do my own productions now, all niche stuff.
People who think that the available non-linear editing software is good, well it must only be because you are stuck in a paradigm. The first system I used was something from Matrox I think back in the 90's. Premiere, Avid. All crap as far as UI, they aren't designed for editors, they are designed by programmers. FCE/P/S was just as bad.
FCX looks like we finally have a shift in paradigm for interface, this is good.
That said, it has been interesting to read about the missing EDL etc import/export cause that is a serious ommision and SHOULD leave anyone doing Pro work (as in a team with various platforms) feeling upset.
That said, (outside multicam) the ommitted features (mentioned in thread) are only import/export functions for little more than a text file and it strikes me that it wouldn't take much for an enterprising coder to make a plug in that provides this ability. Might take them a week, perhaps a month at most.
They could charge the "pros" $100 for it no problems. Apple left a hole, yet provided the ability for 3rd parties to easily fill it.
THAT SAID.
It strikes me that the pro's in thread with very astute comments have been using FCP not because it was pro (as in a full AVID station which IMHO has a crap UI) but because it was CHEAP and good enough and let them make a LOT more money from clients because of it.
So is the complaint really that to be PRO you might have to spend some PRO dollars again after making do on the cheap for a decade.
I read on another forum the suggestion that FCP X might in essence be a development tool. In that, people looked at the underpinnings and saw not only hooks for XML but also for Python scripting. This could make it very enticing for third parties to build plug-ins and companion apps that integrate really well. Not only offering missing features, but new ones as well..
I would use a passel of LTO4 tapes (which is what I have), but others might use LTO5.
Depending on your production needs-it's either seems 'ready to go' or 'Still in Beta'.
however it seems to each individual editor/producer/production house- in reality it's not a mature editor yet- but one with great promise.
At the moment FCP X looks naked- it has always depended on 3rd party support for it's scalability - when thats in place it won't look naked.
There are lots of hooks there for developer- your right WD, Apple have confirmed they have put them in. Automatic Duck have already started to use them.
As far as i know only 1 or 2 Plug in developers were given the new 64bit FX script SDK, and only a couple of hardware developers have recently received the info they need.
so the majority 3rd party hardware/software manufactures are only just getting going- it's day one for them -but they are really hungry to get there stuff working with FCP X- i know of one plugin developer who can't even get hold of the SDK yet to upgrade his current plugins-he's not happy.
Give it 6 months and it will start to look like a good thing and a scalable product for varying production needs. Give it a year and it will start look like a solid proposition for getting work done & making money.
it need's its Multicam- needs its XML, and it needs to be net-workable, needs to support old project files- and it needs its hardware support.
It's not overly useful to us yet but and won't go on our books- but it's fun to play with and i'm happy to say more than paid for it's self already- I did a simple -non critical paid job with FCP X this week- that was painless fun experience. not that i'd trust it for anything critical yet.
Comments
Show me the link that says it can open FC7 sessions. As you should know anything not mentioned should be considered not included.
But I must say that I'am a little surprised that this feature isn't included. On the other hand, iMovie wasn't good at that either.
It seems to me that Apple will provide additional solutions to several features missing.
You must have a little faith in Apple if you buy products from Apple, otherwise don't bother and buy from someone else.
I'll buy FCX because it seems that it's exactly what I need, to produce what I want.
(And no, I don't call myself a pro.)
J.
"As you should know anything not mentioned should be considered not included."
Two rules to understanding product announcements:
1) If it doesn't say you can -- you can't!
2) If it doesn't say you can't -- you can't!
FCP X seems like a fundamentally different way of looking at your media. They are focusing on speed, not precision. And turning control over to the machine, control that used to be in our heads.
As R. Crum said about modern civilization, "It isn't much fun, but it sure is efficient."
After reading Pogue's remarks about Multicam work around it occurred to me using the audio track to sync up the video maybe isn't so bad assuming your various cameras are recording sound. In a concert you'll be getting your sound from the booth so that will sync automatically too. Maybe handing off more control to the machine is better for some things. Beats trying get all the time codes in sync.
Do you think R. Crum is using a Wacom now days?
My prediction of how this will play out:
Apple already has a broad development plan for FCP X.
Apple implements missing features in a new way. That everyone grows to appreciate.
FCP X is declared an amazing way to edit film/video.
People who complained take credit for the updates because they believe they forced Apple to add features that Apple had already designed FCP X to add.
I think you have it figured out correctly!
Also, AIR, sometime last year (or so) there was a big disagreement on the FCP development team -- resulting in several members leaving Apple.
It's possible that this delayed or changed the implementation of some FCPX features.
I believe you're referring to something other than what I was, which is EDL,OMF, XML in order to move work from one layer of the project to another, as well as being able to access one's own archives. The integration of Soundtrack is only as good as Soundtrack is, but is there any way to toss the audio quickly between the audio house using ProTools and back into the edit?
What if in 2013 a client from 2010 wants to cut a song out of a special, add another and represent for broadcast? Apple should have provided the tools for that concurrent with this release. It would have stemmed much of the ensuing clatter : )
Oops. I was responding to lighwaver's post. On occasion I find responding everyones comments below a bit overwhelming when there are lot's of them. I was referring to the possibility that lightwaver was correct. A drop shadow obviously is a checkbox in FCP7. Lightwavers claim is that you have to go out to motion and back into final cut to do the same thing.
Regardless of the marketing. FCP X is a version 1 product.
You are free to use that 10 designation as justification of your moral outrage if you so choose. Be that as it may from a code development standpoint this is an entirely new product.
But that's our point. Yes you are correct it is obviously a V1 program, but who would have expected One to have followed Seven?
BTW it's not moral outrage either. I think some of us are just disappointed by the apparent misdirection on behalf of Apple. No other software manufacturer would ever attempt this sort of thing so "arrogantly". Although I don't want to imply any wrong doing by Apple here either.
Honestly it's the industries fault for falling in love with a consumer company. And sure most of us will happily return to using Avid again. I preferred it and my clients will hopefully ask for Avid workflows more often that transitioning back will make sense. Apple successfully convinced Avid they needed to lower their prices and sell software only options and less expensive hardware. Conditions have changed since we all left the "overpriced" avid packages goodbye. Although, I have to say that I will consider also transitioning some of my hardware along with it and return to using PC's.
Apple says "well final cut x is good enough to get the job done". Eventually I'll end up at a similar conclusion. Windows gets the job done too. It's not MY personal computer, it's a workstation and it WORKS every bit as good (if not better at some things; including 3D) than the equivalent mac. So now that I don't have to worry about FCP being the software of choice I'm going to find the best hardware at the best price. After all everything is x86 now. depending on how long it takes Apple to get the missing features into FCPX (if ever) a decent percentage of the industry might shift, but I don't think Apple cares about those numbers. Half of the industry is on PC already and the industry is remarkably small. The larger audience for Apple lies with the prosumers. That much is obvious.
The remaining question is how long will Apple "freeze" FCP with the current features. Will they quickly see to professionals needs or will it take years to restore the current functionality of FCP7? Is it even their intent to change anything? Is FCP finally and exclusively a prosumer app? Have they gotten rid of their aspirations of being a pro app developer?
When it's time to upgrade machines we'll have to move based on the situation at the time. Perhaps Apple has assumed that everyone is in "good enough" shape for now with FCP7 and their mac pro's. Pro's are typically slower to upgrade anyway. Maybe within a year they can have everything "lost" put back in before the pros start migrating.
The only thing that has me convinced it's a prosumer app is the $300 price tag. That doesn't jive well with a "feature rich and robust application. So I'm seeing a murky Avid in the distant horizon.
I wonder if the MacPro is next to get "the axe" in some way?
Yes its understood that FCP X does not meet the needs of many who use FCP today. Everyone has the choice to move on to another NLE or wait to see what Apple does. What is so complicated about that? Why be so emotional about that choice?
Technically they are not features lost as FCP X has never had them.
The Pro community has the choice of using the other available options. I believe that is what the majority would do instead of bitching on internet forums about it.
With Premiere and Avid also being available for Windows, some of these guys now face the question of whether they stay on the Mac at all. Especially if they are not the ones making the purchasing decisions.
My prediction of how this will play out:
Apple already has a broad development plan for FCP X.
Apple implements missing features in a new way. That everyone grows to appreciate.
FCP X is declared an amazing way to edit film/video.
People who complained take credit for the updates because they believe they forced Apple to add features that Apple had already designed FCP X to add.
First people say "Send feedback because Apple listens." But when Apple provides features that people have been demanding, it's because "Apple was planning to do it anyway." So which is it?
Apple showed FCP X and its feature set at NAB. If you had done thorough research at the very least you would have seen that Apple did not list the features that you wish were there. Nowhere did Apple list any features of FCP X that are not there. So you did see its full list of features before you bought it.
At that point you could had noticed that some crucial features are not listed. And waited to see what is going on before you purchased.
Now I KNOW you've got to be pulling our legs... right...?
Since when has Apple - IN IT'S HISTORY - EVER showed "all" of the features of an app, OS or hardware...???
I watched that NAB thing and they were showing "HIGHLIGHTS" of what was to come... it was a "SNEAK PREVIEW"... not an all-encompassing list.
I now realize that you are set in your mentality, and that's fine. After that statement, I realize I will have better luck teaching my dog to change a transmission than I will getting you to understand what "all the fuss is about"... so never mind. You win. We're wrong... we should drink whatever Kool-Ade is doled out to us. Done!
1. Depending on your project you may finish a project and never touch it again. However, there are many cases where you need to go back (potentially years later) and add to or make changes to your project. In a professional environment its important to know that you have backwards compatibility to as much a degree as possible, even if its a one way trip.
Perhaps Automatic Duck will develop a small tool to bring old projects into FCPX, but this really should be done by Apple and included or sold as a free standing app. Even if things like text and filters didnt migrate completely, having a solid starting point is important.
2. A tapeless workflow is most certainly the way of the future and for some its how they work now (we've started do a few tapeless projects). But proper "log and capture" functionality will be necessary for many years to come. First off, many people are still actively using tape based workflows, but beyond that archival footage is essential in many settings and wont be going anywhere anytime soon. Old footage isnt something you can disregard, I occasionally even need to pull footage from old Umatic tapes that are older than I am.
If you have access to unlimited storage, great for you, but most of us are limited to some degree. My server at work only has 8TB available and thats a drop in the bucket compared to the number of tapes we have (I estimate we would need close to 60TB to hold all our SD footage from the last 20 years). Online/Offline workflow will eventually be a thing of the past, but not today, not until mass storage achieves a favorable cost per TB (or even PB) ratio.
Im really excited about some of the new features in FCPX. Secondary color correction looks great for when you just dont have time to do a round trip to Color, as does the new text features that will negate the need to use Motion for small items, saving significant time. Im just really apprehensive about some of the features that are missing and essential to a typical workflow.
Oops. I was responding to lighwaver's post. On occasion I find responding everyones comments below a bit overwhelming when there are lot's of them. I was referring to the possibility that lightwaver was correct. A drop shadow obviously is a checkbox in FCP7. Lightwavers claim is that you have to go out to motion and back into final cut to do the same thing.
I may have been responsible for that claim FCPX-->Motion-->FCPX to get an effect.
Here's what I've found, so far:
1) AFAICT, FCPS does not have a GP Drop Shadow effect built-in (except for text in titles)
2) The new Motion ($50) was used to create most (all?) if the FCPX effects
3) You can modify an FCPX effect in motion and the modified effect can be used elsewhere within FCPX
4) If you want, you can create a general purpose effect in Motion including drop areas, parameters, controls, etc.
5) This can be saved as a FCPX template
6) The new effect becomes a part of the FCPX effect library
So, lack of an effect would only involve a round trip to motion 1 time -- the creation of the desired FCPX effect template
But that's our point. Yes you are correct it is obviously a V1 program, but who would have expected One to have followed Seven?
BTW it's not moral outrage either. I think some of us are just disappointed by the apparent misdirection on behalf of Apple. No other software manufacturer would ever attempt this sort of thing so "arrogantly". Although I don't want to imply any wrong doing by Apple here either.
Honestly it's the industries fault for falling in love with a consumer company. And sure most of us will happily return to using Avid again. I preferred it and my clients will hopefully ask for Avid workflows more often that transitioning back will make sense. Apple successfully convinced Avid they needed to lower their prices and sell software only options and less expensive hardware. Conditions have changed since we all left the "overpriced" avid packages goodbye. Although, I have to say that I will consider also transitioning some of my hardware along with it and return to using PC's.
Apple says "well final cut x is good enough to get the job done". Eventually I'll end up at a similar conclusion. Windows gets the job done too. It's not MY personal computer, it's a workstation and it WORKS every bit as good (if not better at some things; including 3D) than the equivalent mac. So now that I don't have to worry about FCP being the software of choice I'm going to find the best hardware at the best price. After all everything is x86 now. depending on how long it takes Apple to get the missing features into FCPX (if ever) a decent percentage of the industry might shift, but I don't think Apple cares about those numbers. Half of the industry is on PC already and the industry is remarkably small. The larger audience for Apple lies with the prosumers. That much is obvious.
The remaining question is how long will Apple "freeze" FCP with the current features. Will they quickly see to professionals needs or will it take years to restore the current functionality of FCP7? Is it even their intent to change anything? Is FCP finally and exclusively a prosumer app? Have they gotten rid of their aspirations of being a pro app developer?
When it's time to upgrade machines we'll have to move based on the situation at the time. Perhaps Apple has assumed that everyone is in "good enough" shape for now with FCP7 and their mac pro's. Pro's are typically slower to upgrade anyway. Maybe within a year they can have everything "lost" put back in before the pros start migrating.
The only thing that has me convinced it's a prosumer app is the $300 price tag. That doesn't jive well with a "feature rich and robust application. So I'm seeing a murky Avid in the distant horizon.
I wonder if the MacPro is next to get "the axe" in some way?
As to the price tag -- it may just be the packaging of the "suite" as separate apps:
-- FCPX $300
-- Motion $50
-- Compressor $50
there could be other components, say, Advanced Color (if needed), Tape I/O, some of the other components needed by some pros, but not by all.
If that is Apple's plan, then what we have now is the FCPX starter set "suite"
With a few more, less-needed-by-many (therefore pricier) components -- you could soon get a FCXP Complete Suite approaching the price of FCPS (Less cost savings from the Mac App Store distro model).
You and I have both been around Apple long enough to know that they are not stupid -- though they sometimes do some things stupidly.
I cannot believe that Apple put all this effort into what some call iMovie Pro and walk away from their hard won FCS "Pro" clients.
I just had a chance to play with FCPX without a lot else going on -- FCPX got my, and my computer's full attention (iMac 24 2.8 GHz Core 2 Duo 4 GB RAM ATI, Radeon HD1600 -- no real powerhouse).
Anyway I started import of about 4 GB Compressed AVCHD from a card reader.
I can tell you this:
FCPX ain't no iMovie Pro!
A few seconds after inserted the AVCHD card the 38 thumbnails appeared in the import screen
I could scrub/play through them as if they were already imported.
I started the import/analysis/transcoding of all the clips and closed the import window.
I opened up the event I was importing and could immediately use the clips while they were still importing (analyzing and transcoding in the background -- in iMovie I would have waited 10-15 minutes before I could do anything.
When I did something that needed CPU/GPU power like playing a clip yet to be imported -- the background processes would pause, as necessary so there was no noticeable effect to the FCPX UI.
I was playing the clip on a 23" Cinema Display while editing on the iMac 24.
This is good stuff!
I can't believe that they did all this just for the Prosumer crowd.
Edit: Shit -- FCPX with all its backgrounding has less impact on my iMac than Flash.
A couple items that I havent seen mentioned yet:
1. Depending on your project you may finish a project and never touch it again. However, there are many cases where you need to go back (potentially years later) and add to or make changes to your project. In a professional environment its important to know that you have backwards compatibility to as much a degree as possible, even if its a one way trip.
Perhaps Automatic Duck will develop a small tool to bring old projects into FCPX, but this really should be done by Apple and included or sold as a free standing app. Even if things like text and filters didnt migrate completely, having a solid starting point is important.
2. A tapeless workflow is most certainly the way of the future and for some its how they work now (we've started do a few tapeless projects). But proper "log and capture" functionality will be necessary for many years to come. First off, many people are still actively using tape based workflows, but beyond that archival footage is essential in many settings and wont be going anywhere anytime soon.
If you have access to unlimited storage, great for you, but most of us are limited to some degree. My server at work only has 8TB available and thats a drop in the bucket compared to the number of tapes we have (I estimate we would need close to 60TB to hold all our SD footage from the last 20 years). Online/Offline workflow will eventually be a thing of the past, but not today, not until mass storage achieves a favorable cost per TB (or even PB) ratio.
Im really excited about some of the new features in FCPX. Secondary color correction looks great for when you just dont have time to do a round trip to Color, as does the new text features that will negate the need to use Motion for small items, saving significant time. Im just really apprehensive about some of the features that are missing and essential to a typical workflow.
Just out of curiosity, how do you back up 60TB of Tape?
After reading Pogue's remarks about Multicam work around it occurred to me using the audio track to sync up the video maybe isn't so bad assuming your various cameras are recording sound. In a concert you'll be getting your sound from the booth so that will sync automatically too. Maybe handing off more control to the machine is better for some things. Beats trying get all the time codes in sync.
Do you think R. Crum is using a Wacom now days?
For the record, sorry I spelled Crumb's name wrong. But I'd be surprised if he uses a computer for more than finding 78 rpm records.
As spliff monkey mentions above, the other guys have better 3D implementation. That's why I'm going to hang on to Final Cut Original -- you can see your sync'd left and right video tracks right there in the timeline, and your compositing window (motion) is one click away.
I suspect this new X thing is not going to be so 3D friendly, but I will keep an open mind.
Just out of curiosity, how do you back up 60TB of Tape?
Honestly, if our building burned down we'd be screwed, barring a few select dubbed tapes that are stored offsite plus any active or most important projects are are stored locally and mirrored offsite.
I would really love to capture them in whole at some point and having the data stored in an offsite location with proper backups is my dream. Drive space is certainly coming close, but just isnt quite there yet. Our IT dept I believe picked up an HP SAN that is about 50TB, but unfortunately it isnt for my dept's use, we are stuck with a single Promise raid (we might be able to swing an expansion bay at some point).
Have they gotten rid of their aspirations of being a pro app developer?
With the axe of the Xserve, Xserve RAID (to a lesser degree) and Shake and no mention of Final Cut Server or Color, this actually concerns me greatly.
If that is Apple's plan, then what we have now is the FCPX starter set "suite"
I read on another forum the suggestion that FCP X might in essence be a development tool. In that, people looked at the underpinnings and saw not only hooks for XML but also for Python scripting. This could make it very enticing for third parties to build plug-ins and companion apps that integrate really well. Not only offering missing features, but new ones as well..
Just out of curiosity, how do you back up 60TB of Tape?
I would use a passel of LTO4 tapes (which is what I have), but others might use LTO5.
FCPX is NOT iMovie Pro. It has a lot of functionality but in its current version one needs to understand what it is and what it isn't.
Considering that FCP X can import iMovie projects but not Final Cut Pro 7 projects, the "iMovie Pro" designation seems somewhat appropriate.
Just out of curiosity, how do you back up 60TB of Tape?
Good question Dick,
you need a bit of cash and a bit of time.
you either:
Dub them to Tape (similar or better video format) - you now have 2+ copies of each tape
or
Capture them to Hard drive to the quality you think best (analogue format)
Transfer them to Hard drive (digital formats)
then place this data on a Raid and/or run them off to 40 x 1.5TB LTO data tapes
(LTO data tapes being the most robust and cost effective solution)
then keep your copies in an underground bunker in Sweden
My days in the pro end of the edit/effects market are long over, I use FCE and some custom tools to do my own productions now, all niche stuff.
People who think that the available non-linear editing software is good, well it must only be because you are stuck in a paradigm. The first system I used was something from Matrox I think back in the 90's. Premiere, Avid. All crap as far as UI, they aren't designed for editors, they are designed by programmers. FCE/P/S was just as bad.
FCX looks like we finally have a shift in paradigm for interface, this is good.
That said, it has been interesting to read about the missing EDL etc import/export cause that is a serious ommision and SHOULD leave anyone doing Pro work (as in a team with various platforms) feeling upset.
That said, (outside multicam) the ommitted features (mentioned in thread) are only import/export functions for little more than a text file and it strikes me that it wouldn't take much for an enterprising coder to make a plug in that provides this ability. Might take them a week, perhaps a month at most.
They could charge the "pros" $100 for it no problems. Apple left a hole, yet provided the ability for 3rd parties to easily fill it.
THAT SAID.
It strikes me that the pro's in thread with very astute comments have been using FCP not because it was pro (as in a full AVID station which IMHO has a crap UI) but because it was CHEAP and good enough and let them make a LOT more money from clients because of it.
So is the complaint really that to be PRO you might have to spend some PRO dollars again after making do on the cheap for a decade.
Oops
I read on another forum the suggestion that FCP X might in essence be a development tool. In that, people looked at the underpinnings and saw not only hooks for XML but also for Python scripting. This could make it very enticing for third parties to build plug-ins and companion apps that integrate really well. Not only offering missing features, but new ones as well..
I would use a passel of LTO4 tapes (which is what I have), but others might use LTO5.
Depending on your production needs-it's either seems 'ready to go' or 'Still in Beta'.
however it seems to each individual editor/producer/production house- in reality it's not a mature editor yet- but one with great promise.
At the moment FCP X looks naked- it has always depended on 3rd party support for it's scalability - when thats in place it won't look naked.
There are lots of hooks there for developer- your right WD, Apple have confirmed they have put them in. Automatic Duck have already started to use them.
As far as i know only 1 or 2 Plug in developers were given the new 64bit FX script SDK, and only a couple of hardware developers have recently received the info they need.
so the majority 3rd party hardware/software manufactures are only just getting going- it's day one for them -but they are really hungry to get there stuff working with FCP X- i know of one plugin developer who can't even get hold of the SDK yet to upgrade his current plugins-he's not happy.
Give it 6 months and it will start to look like a good thing and a scalable product for varying production needs. Give it a year and it will start look like a solid proposition for getting work done & making money.
it need's its Multicam- needs its XML, and it needs to be net-workable, needs to support old project files- and it needs its hardware support.
It's not overly useful to us yet but and won't go on our books- but it's fun to play with and i'm happy to say more than paid for it's self already- I did a simple -non critical paid job with FCP X this week- that was painless fun experience. not that i'd trust it for anything critical yet.
Apple for a while now has chosen the consumer path...it was painfully obvious when they stopped offering matte displays.
The door is now open for another company to step up.