or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Software › Mac Software › Final Cut Pro X draws mixed reactions from users, professionals
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Final Cut Pro X draws mixed reactions from users, professionals

post #1 of 249
Thread Starter 
Apple's latest Final Cut Pro release has drawn sharply polarized reactions, with some users lauding the upgrade, while others have condemned it as unfit for professional use.

The Cupertino, Calif., company released Final Cut Pro X, Motion 5 and Compressor 4 on Tuesday, touting it as a "revolutionary new version" that "completely reinvents video editing." However, that complete reinvention may have backfired, as numerous early adopters of the program have complained that missing features, lack of compatibility with Final Cut Pro 7 and bugs have crippled the software.

Currently, 278 of the 578 ratings for the $299 software on the Mac App Store are 1 star ratings, while 143 of the ratings are 5 star ratings. The application current has an average rating of 2 1/2 stars. Motion 5 has fared better with an average rating of 4 stars from 67 ratings, while Compressor has a 3 star rating with just 30 responses.

Customer Reviews of Final Cut Pro X temporarily disappeared from the Mac App Store on Wednesday, prompting speculation that Apple was censoring negative comments, but the reviews were back up within hours.

The current "Most Helpful" reviews are skewed toward negative feedback. "I love the idea of 64bit editing and all of the other features, but the basics for pros are gone," Kevin Lewis wrote in a 2 star review. "The interface is big and chunky like iMove," wrote user Fraize, adding that the program is buggy and "blew up" within 20 minutes of working on a project.



Other reviews compared Final Cut Pro X to Windows Vista, calling it "no longer a professional application," while others took issue with the lack of backward compatibility with Final Cut Pro 7. "I run my business on FCP and my first impression of the new app is that it is horrible," wrote user dangerousdan, though the reviewer admitted that they "will learn to love it."

Reviews outside of the Mac App Store have take notice of the improvements to and streamlining of the software, while still criticizing Final Cut Pro X's missing or limited features. John Gruber of Daring Fireball compared the release to the transition from Mac OS 9 to Mac OS X: "a true ground-up rewrite with the intention of laying a solid foundation for the long-term future, but, in the short term, lots of missing features and frustrating changes compared to what current users were accustomed to."

Gruber adds that the Final Cut Pro transition has been more jarring, since the Mac OS transition was a "years-long transition." According to a person familiar with the matter, Apple designated Final Cut Express, Server and Studio as "end of life" as of June 21.

"Great design, like great music, is almost always foreign at first, if not disturbingly strange," David Leitner wrote for Filmmaker Magazine. "You have to spend time with it. But if it is great, and if you invest your attention, it will change the way you look at the world. After using FCP X for a week, Premiere Pro looks to me like the past."



"At version 1 Final Cut Pro X wont support some professional workflows, but for other professional workflows it will be more than capable," post production professional Philip Hodgetts wrote on his site. Using Final Cut Pro X to cut together a story, Im struck by how fast it is to achieve a result, as if everything was designed to get a result a quickly as possible."

Hodgetts wrote that, based on his talks with company representatives, Apple is hard at work at adding features missing in the initial release. "During my direct briefing, the Apple folk made it abundantly clear that the ecosystem was very important to them," he said.

According to Philip Schiller, Apple's senior vice president of worldwide product marketing, many of the world's best Pro editors had their jaws drop when shown Final Cut Pro X. "Im blown away by what Apple has done with Final Cut Pro, Apple quoted Academy Award-winning film editor Angus Wall as saying. Apple privately demoed the software to a small group of industry professionals, who reportedly pronounced the upgrade "spectacular."

AppleInsider reported last year that Apple planned to widen Final Cut Pro's appeal to include more prosumer and advanced home users. Apple reportedly responded with a comment, reassuring users that the next version of Final Cut is would be "awesome" and pro customers would "love it."
post #2 of 249
Mixed reactions??? It is completely unusable for many "professionals" - I'm dumbfounded why basic functionality such as omf/xml compatibility has been pulled. It's a slap in the face, perhaps a wake up call that Apple have simply moved on to wallmart grazing prosumer market.
post #3 of 249
Quote:
Originally Posted by quamb View Post

Mixed reactions??? It is completely unusable for many "professionals" - I'm dumbfounded why basic functionality such as omf/xml compatibility has been pulled. It's a slap in the face, perhaps a wake up call that Apple have simply moved on to wallmart grazing prosumer market.

And how many users need OMF export? Not many according to Phil Hodgetts

Quote:
Originally Posted by Phil Hodgetts

Its definitely not ready for broadcast work at v1. Nor was FCP 1-3. And the % of Apples 2 million installs of Final Cut Pro that need OMF is probably less than 50,000 or .0025%. OMF is desperately needed which is why Apple worked with Automatic Duck to get this ready yesterday.

There's a lot of hand wringing going on by the 5% vocal minority that depends on a feature. Therein lies the rub. 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.

OMF/XML/EDL isn't there yet so if that's your workflow ..you must wait.
If you're heavy with tape...FCPX isn't the program for you

If you've moved to file based capture and do most of your work on a workstation you can likely get FCPX working for you now.

Incidentally there are plans to add missing features like Multicam and OMF/XML/EDL according to what Hodgetts and some others are saying.

I think the hype was built a bit too much and many thought they'd be able to download and start running but clearly it's going to take some evolving here but the codebase with FCPX is new and likely up to the challenge.
He's a mod so he has a few extra vBulletin privileges. That doesn't mean he should stop posting or should start acting like Digital Jesus.
- SolipsismX
Reply
He's a mod so he has a few extra vBulletin privileges. That doesn't mean he should stop posting or should start acting like Digital Jesus.
- SolipsismX
Reply
post #4 of 249
There are a lot of hissy-fits being thrown at the moment. If you think FCX doesn't support your workflow, keep using FCP 7. Apple probably erred in releasing it now, perhaps 6 months more development would have been better, but it's not the end of the world.
"We're Apple. We don't wear suits. We don't even own suits."
Reply
"We're Apple. We don't wear suits. We don't even own suits."
Reply
post #5 of 249
Quote:
Originally Posted by hmurchison View Post

And how many users need OMF export? Not many according to Phil Hodgetts



There's a lot of hand wringing going on by the 5% vocal minority that depends on a feature. Therein lies the rub. 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.

OMF/XML/EDL isn't there yet so if that's your workflow ..you must wait.
If you're heavy with tape...FCPX isn't the program for you

If you've moved to file based capture and do most of your work on a workstation you can likely get FCPX working for you now.

Incidentally there are plans to add missing features like Multicam and OMF/XML/EDL according to what Hodgetts and some others are saying.

I think the hype was built a bit too much and many thought they'd be able to download and start running but clearly it's going to take some evolving here but the codebase with FCPX is new and likely up to the challenge.


The issue is that when you run a "pro" creative business you don't tell the client to lower their expectations of what you can work with. I have no problem calling FCPX a great piece of software in its early stage. But there is a HUGE part of its user base that it is "no longer for", and it is a slice that I didn't predict Apple would treat this way given how it likes to tout its use by editors, but clearly, Apple has once again shifted a pro app lower in the spectrum. Nothing wrong with that as a company. But you don't take away a camera person's Arriflex a hand them a Casio as a replacement and not expect the Casio to end up sitting in the closet.
post #6 of 249
True, overtime perhaps a lot of the criticisms will be addressed. Though why should we apologise and make excuses for Apple? It'd be nice if places like this actually took hard, critical, editorial choices at times rather then simply being a mouthpiece for Apple...

It's quite a blatant statement for Apple to release FCPX in it's current form.
post #7 of 249
The pro set is a tough crowd to please and there's nobody more conservative. It amazes me that apparently so many will condemn the software so quickly. It's clearly very different so it's it's gonna take a while. For some it will take years. I wonder how long the average reviewer has spent with the software.
post #8 of 249
Quote:
Originally Posted by quamb View Post

True, overtime perhaps a lot of the criticisms will be addressed. Though why should we apologise and make excuses for Apple? It'd be nice if places like this actually took hard, critical, editorial choices at times rather then simply being a mouthpiece for Apple...

It's quite a blatant statement for Apple to release FCPX in it's current form.

This upgrade was already significantly overdue. Delaying it for six months more or whatever risked market share - notably to Adobe, who are inexplicably gaining traction*.

It was definitely better to get it out there so the majority of users for whom the currently missing features are not mission critical can get the benefit out of it. It also allows Apple to see which things they need to concentrate the most effort on adding to the App going forward, and discover any issues that have not come up in their testing and roll out updates to address them.

*Yes, I still think Premiere Pro stinks out loud.

MacBook Pro 15" | Intel Core2 Duo 2.66GHz | 320GB HDD | OS X v10.8
White iPad (3G) with Wi-Fi | 16GB | Engraved | Blue Polyurethane Smart Cover
White iPhone 5 | 64GB | On 3UK

Reply

MacBook Pro 15" | Intel Core2 Duo 2.66GHz | 320GB HDD | OS X v10.8
White iPad (3G) with Wi-Fi | 16GB | Engraved | Blue Polyurethane Smart Cover
White iPhone 5 | 64GB | On 3UK

Reply
post #9 of 249
Quote:
Originally Posted by quamb View Post

Mixed reactions??? It is completely unusable for many "professionals" - I'm dumbfounded why basic functionality such as omf/xml compatibility has been pulled. It's a slap in the face, perhaps a wake up call that Apple have simply moved on to wallmart grazing prosumer market.


They didn't "pull" the old version from existence. It is still there. This is just a new option for you. If you don't like it, probably you could wait until it improves.

A mega-app like FCP needs to mature in the "ecosystem" for at least a year before it settles down. Start your clock now and wait a year. You'll probably get what you want.
post #10 of 249
Quote:
Originally Posted by bwik View Post

They didn't "pull" the old version from existence. It is still there. This is just a new option for you. If you don't like it, probably you could wait until it improves.

A mega-app like FCP needs to mature in the "ecosystem" for at least a year before it settles down. Start your clock now and wait a year. You'll probably get what you want.

Agreed and this is likely the situation that Apple expects seeing as how FCPX and FCS can be on the same system.

If you have a tapeless workflow and don't need to export for finishing then FCPX is workable right now. If you need tape, extensive device support and import/export stick with FCS until FCPX matures.
He's a mod so he has a few extra vBulletin privileges. That doesn't mean he should stop posting or should start acting like Digital Jesus.
- SolipsismX
Reply
He's a mod so he has a few extra vBulletin privileges. That doesn't mean he should stop posting or should start acting like Digital Jesus.
- SolipsismX
Reply
post #11 of 249
So many whiners and complainers bitching and moaning. What a bunch of little babies.

Just use the older version. No one is telling you you can't.

99.9 percent of clients have no clue what you're using and honestly could care less if the end product looks good.

Personally I think your'e an idiot to upgrade to new software the week it comes out anyways. I've never in my life upgraded to something new and there NOT been problems. Just like I won;t be upgrading to Lion until 6 months at least after it's released.

I'll wait until the next release of FCP, or at least 6 months in, when they add the missing features and fix all the bugs, and all will be fine with the world.

I mean are you gonna go back to Avid? Of course not. So just relax.
post #12 of 249
Quote:
Originally Posted by bwik View Post

They didn't "pull" the old version from existence. It is still there. This is just a new option for you. If you don't like it, probably you could wait until it improves.

A mega-app like FCP needs to mature in the "ecosystem" for at least a year before it settles down. Start your clock now and wait a year. You'll probably get what you want.

Rational thought is unwarranted whilst the baby and the bathwater are on their way out the window...
"We're Apple. We don't wear suits. We don't even own suits."
Reply
"We're Apple. We don't wear suits. We don't even own suits."
Reply
post #13 of 249
Quote:
Originally Posted by sennen View Post

Rational thought is unwarranted whilst the baby and the bathwater are on their way out the window...

I cheer them as they fly. Honestly I don't have a clue whether this is a great new version or a diabolical traducing of a much loved tool - I'm not its target audience. But as a developer I admire Apple for being willing to throw backwards compatibility out of the window and completely rewrite a product.

Sometimes evolution is the right approach, sometimes revolution is required - Apple gets respect for being willing to do both, even if perhaps it sometimes chooses wrongly.
post #14 of 249
Quote:
Originally Posted by sennen View Post

There are a lot of hissy-fits being thrown at the moment. If you think FCX doesn't support your workflow, keep using FCP 7. Apple probably erred in releasing it now, perhaps 6 months more development would have been better, but it's not the end of the world.

No Software is going to be perfect from day one. And there comes a time when you need legit customer feedback to go any further. Apple is likely at that point. There's just too many different set ups for them to test the core on everything. So they get feedback from real users and get the big bugs out. Then they can move on and add the next feature set and so on. Way easier than releasing it all and trying to figure out where in the dozens of features the issue lies.

True professionals never dump their old systems right and few to none switch in mid project. So the import issue isn't really an issue. Few folks anymore work with tape so that's not really a huge issue. Same it seems with the whole OMF if we are to believe Phil.

Heck we'll spend the next six months just learning the ins and outs of the new version before we dare to use it for any projects, by which time there will probably be an easy dozen bug fixtures and probably 2 or 3 launched features. For now, I've used the new version for about 10 hours so far and I'm impressed with the power and where this version can go. Enough that I'm willing to keep going with it for a bit longer.
post #15 of 249
Quote:
Originally Posted by quamb View Post

Mixed reactions??? It is completely unusable for many "professionals" - I'm dumbfounded why basic functionality such as omf/xml compatibility has been pulled. It's a slap in the face, perhaps a wake up call that Apple have simply moved on to wallmart grazing prosumer market.

That comment sums what's wrong with this whole attitude towards FCPX. You would be the person telling Henry Ford to build a faster horse.

To label anyone who doesn't need OMF/XML support a 'Wallmart grazing prosumer' is elitist drivel.

This is version 1.0 of a massive redesign intended to set FCP up for the next 10 years. To expect the refinement of FCP7 (yes, 7) at version 1.0 of the new architecture is absurd. Your crowd really ought to learn some patience and temper their reactions a little. I give you the benefit of believing you need OMF/XML etc. because it seems every man and his dog is suddenly a Hollywood editor at the moment.

No 'Pro' would move all of his workflow to a completely untried piece of software 24 hours after its release. If your current setup is so wonderful, why do you even want a new FCP? The answer is because you always want better. Here comes the reality hit: if you want better, you need to go 64-bit and you need to re-engineer. Final Cup Pro 7 looked archaic and ran on an archaic architecture. In short, it had reached it's limits. Retooling for the future is painful. If you can't do it and don't want to use 1.0 FCPX, don't. Stick with FCP7 until FCPX is ready. I would have thought that should have been the plan all along!!

Rating this software, which by all accounts brings huge speed increases, just 1 star on the MAS is just childish. The top-end video industry should be embarrassed by the completely over the top reaction to this release.
post #16 of 249
Quote:
Originally Posted by frankie View Post

So many whiners and complainers bitching and moaning. What a bunch of little babies.

Just use the older version. No one is telling you you can't.

99.9 percent of clients have no clue what you're using and honestly could care less if the end product looks good.

Personally I think your'e an idiot to upgrade to new software the week it comes out anyways. I've never in my life upgraded to something new and there NOT been problems. Just like I won;t be upgrading to Lion until 6 months at least after it's released.

I'll wait until the next release of FCP, or at least 6 months in, when they add the missing features and fix all the bugs, and all will be fine with the world.

I mean are you gonna go back to Avid? Of course not. So just relax.


The flood of rants about notifications, cut and paste, antennagate etc over the years I've ignored. It's nonsense that happens on friggen phones, the stuff of mega-nerds that actually never bothers me, or anyone I know in "real life"...

Though in this case, here at work, people are a little dumbfounded by this FCP release. And I'd say many of us have legitimate, career based, reasons for "bitching and moaning" .
post #17 of 249
I'm viewing this from a distance. Video isn't my specialty. But reading such polar opposite opinions about FCX, this all strikes me as a great object lesson in why bloatware wins out in the market. Some people don't care about new features (no matter how revolutionary) nearly as much as they care about the loss of one or two functions they've gotten used to.
post #18 of 249
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jonamac View Post

That comment sums what's wrong with this whole attitude towards FCPX. You would be the person telling Henry Ford to build a faster horse.

To label anyone who doesn't need OMF/XML support a 'Wallmart grazing prosumer' is elitist drivel.

This is version 1.0 of a massive redesign intended to set FCP up for the next 10 years. To expect the refinement of FCP7 (yes, 7) at version 1.0 of the new architecture is absurd. Your crowd really ought to learn some patience and temper their reactions a little. I give you the benefit of believing you need OMF/XML etc. because it seems every man and his dog is suddenly a Hollywood editor at the moment.

No 'Pro' would move all of his workflow to a completely untried piece of software 24 hours after its release. If your current setup is so wonderful, why do you even want a new FCP? The answer is because you always want better. Here comes the reality hit: if you want better, you need to go 64-bit and you need to re-engineer. Final Cup Pro 7 looked archaic and ran on an archaic architecture. In short, it had reached it's limits. Retooling for the future is painful. If you can't do it and don't want to use 1.0 FCPX, don't. Stick with FCP7 until FCPX is ready. I would have thought that should have been the plan all along!!

Rating this software, which by all accounts brings huge speed increases, just 1 star on the MAS is just childish. The top-end video industry should be embarrassed by the completely over the top reaction to this release.

Agreed. No doubt this is a knee-jerk response. Sure we can wait to see it evolve, re-add features and what not. Though why is is not okay to complain about what's missing now, on release? Be vocal?

Could you imagine the uproar that would happen if the next iOS didn't support existing-feature-x?

And this isn't about users wary of change, or ways to re-evaluate their processes... in fact I love radical changes to software, it's enjoyable learning the ropes and figuring out a better way of doing things with new tech/UI elements. But here it's not that, but Apple stripping away basic industry-standard features.
post #19 of 249
Quote:
Originally Posted by bwik View Post

They didn't "pull" the old version from existence. It is still there. This is just a new option for you. If you don't like it, probably you could wait until it improves.

A mega-app like FCP needs to mature in the "ecosystem" for at least a year before it settles down. Start your clock now and wait a year. You'll probably get what you want.


Well, no. If you run a business off of an editing workstation you won't be waiting a year for the missing features, that you need, to come back.

As far as using a previous version, first of all THAT needs some work. And I have no doubt that it will not function after several minor and one major system update before 2013. So just as Apple was looking ahead in coding this program, pro editors will look ahead to their future, starting, maybe, now.

The hobbyists will wait a year for the dust to settle.
post #20 of 249
Quote:
Originally Posted by quamb View Post

Agreed. No doubt this is a knee-jerk response. Sure we can wait to see it evolve, re-add features and what not. Though why is is not okay to complain about what's missing now, on release? Be vocal?

Could you imagine the uproar that would happen if the next iOS didn't support existing-feature-x?

And this isn't about users wary of change, or ways to re-evaluate their processes... in fact I love radical changes to software, it's enjoyable learning the ropes and figuring out a better way of doing things with new tech/UI elements. But here it's not that, but Apple stripping away basic industry-standard features.

Being vocal is great, rating a good app 1 star en masse is pathetic. Rate it 3 stars and say why.

It's not fair to compare this to iOS. If Apple completely redesigned the phone for some quantum processor (yes, I made that up) in the future then maybe it would have to be completely reengineered and miss some features at release. If you can see the medium/long-term benefits then you have patience with the developers. Also, iOS is used by 100m people. FCP just is simply a more niche piece of software with more specialist requirements.

I'm just asking for some even-handed reasoning and some patience.
post #21 of 249
With all the whining, best if we collect all these whiners' name for the HOF of crybabies and future 'I told you so'. Any pro worth their salt wouldn't jump to things they are not completely familiar with on it's first outings. There are choices nowadays and nobody forces you to abandon what you're comfortable with for the sake of something new. Much better if these legitimate early adopters channel your concerns through proper route i.e. feedback form etc.

It's a version 1.0 for fk sake.
post #22 of 249
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jonamac View Post

Being vocal is great, rating a good app 1 star en masse is pathetic. Rate it 3 stars and say why.

It's not fair to compare this to iOS. If Apple completely redesigned the phone for some quantum processor (yes, I made that up) in the future then maybe it would have to be completely reengineered and miss some features at release. If you can see the medium/long-term benefits then you have patience with the developers. Also, iOS is used by 100m people. FCP just is simply a more niche piece of software with more specialist requirements.

I'm just asking for some even-handed reasoning and some patience.

Hey, I didn't rate it on the App Store. Not sure why you think that? And I'm not sure why you're going out of your way here to defend Apple, this is a simple, frustrating, criticism. The end.

I guess they just can't do anything wrong in some peoples books.
post #23 of 249
Im open to change but there's some truly idiotic changes and exclusions in X.

I think it's a almost complete misfire.
post #24 of 249
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ronbo View Post

I'm viewing this from a distance. Video isn't my specialty. But reading such polar opposite opinions about FCX, this all strikes me as a great object lesson in why bloatware wins out in the market. Some people don't care about new features (no matter how revolutionary) nearly as much as they care about the loss of one or two functions they've gotten used to.

Ronbo, there are many things in pro studios that happen under the hood and behind the curtain,but nether the less have to happen. One is having a broadcast monitor output into a calibrated monitor. This is not something that a wedding videographer needs but every TV station, every studio that provides for broadcast does. They don't solely rely on the computer monitor to determine what it looks like. With FCPX you have no broadcast output. All you can do is mirror your computer screen into a card, which spits that out. But that's not broadcast output.

That's not whining. That's fact. One of a page worth. Someone who requires broadcast output isn't a crybaby. They just work way up at the top of the chain.

And let's forget about people who already have FCP7 who will keep using it. What about the new post house who was gearing up to create a room of edit suites? Could they use FCPX? Of course. Would they choose it if they felt Apple had never been in a broadcast pro edit room? And would be slow to add pro broadcast support?
post #25 of 249
I assume that for all the power users who need the features of FCP7 will just continue to use the old software.

Since FCPX is only $299 it is cheap enough to try it out and learn the new software whilst still using FCP7 for your main work flow.

We all know Apple is makes quantum leaps with their software and OSes. It provides for faster evolution and less baggage but sometimes it takes a while to get the new versions up to snuff.
post #26 of 249
There's nothing wrong with voicing complaints. Some of the stuff that's being thrown around, however, is well-beyond 'voicing complaints'.
"We're Apple. We don't wear suits. We don't even own suits."
Reply
"We're Apple. We don't wear suits. We don't even own suits."
Reply
post #27 of 249
It is never easy re-writing software, especially when users aren't used to change. How many mistakes has Apple made? Not very many. The people complaining either have old hardware, or they don't want to change after 10 years. It's a win-no win situation that will blow over just like when Apple came out with iMovie '08.

I appreciate the change, it keeps me up to date and ahead of the people that don't want to learn anything new. I make more money that way.
post #28 of 249
Quote:
Originally Posted by jlandd View Post

Ronbo, there are many things in pro studios that happen under the hood and behind the curtain,but nether the less have to happen. One is having a broadcast monitor output into a calibrated monitor. This is not something that a wedding videographer needs but every TV station, every studio that provides for broadcast does. They don't solely rely on the computer monitor to determine what it looks like. With FCPX you have no broadcast output. All you can do is mirror your computer screen into a card, which spits that out. But that's not broadcast output.

That's not whining. That's fact. One of a page worth. Someone who requires broadcast output isn't a crybaby. They just work way up at the top of the chain.

It's how one reacts that defines being a "cry baby". Do you truly think that Apple won't add this?

Quote:
And let's forget about people who already have FCP7 who will keep using it. What about the new post house who was gearing up to create a room of edit suites?

Does this apply to you?
"We're Apple. We don't wear suits. We don't even own suits."
Reply
"We're Apple. We don't wear suits. We don't even own suits."
Reply
post #29 of 249
Quote:
Originally Posted by sennen View Post

It's how one reacts that defines being a "cry baby". Do you truly think that Apple won't add this?

I don't think Apple has its finger on the pulse of that niche, no. They often design software that seems to have been created by a team that doesn't need to use the software. The recent version of iMovie is a testament to that. I think they will happily market it to a lower niche. Nothing wrong with that. It's just half the tool it used to be, for a different user base.



Quote:
Originally Posted by sennen View Post

"Quote:
And let's forget about people who already have FCP7 who will keep using it. What about the new post house who was gearing up to create a room of edit suites?"

Does this apply to you?

Nope.
post #30 of 249
Quote:
Originally Posted by quamb View Post

... in fact I love radical changes to software, it's enjoyable learning the ropes and figuring out a better way of doing things with new tech/UI elements. But here it's not that, but Apple stripping away basic industry-standard features.

It appears that people are not grasping the nature of FCPX. It's NOT a software update of Final Cut, it's an ENTIRELY NEW APPLICATION. Apple did not "strip out" features, they were never there to strip out! The fact that it looks somewhat like iMovie is probably because it started from the iMovie code base!
post #31 of 249
A lot of the people criticizing the criticizers in here don't seem to professional editors or work in post-production pipelines. What people are complaining about is the lack of fundamental features for working in a broadcast, film, or professional post environment. Obviously version 1.0 of most software is lacking in features. But we're talking about Apple making professional claims for a piece of post production software that is clearly unable to live up to those claims. It's not about learning a new system. It's about being unable to do professional work with the system provided.

So yes, people in post facilities will hold off on this release. But the reason there is a lot of frustration is that FCP 7 has been out for about two years now. This is software that is not optimized for 64-bit systems. A lot of editors and post houses were excited of the prospect of their preferred post software being brought into the present in terms of system adaptations, speed and features. And this is what Apple teased. Instead, they were given a piece of software that is essentially useless in a professional post facility and most user's workflows. Workflows that have been created and modified over seven versions of the software suite for many studios.

Each successive release has bolstered the Apple-loving production community and made it easier and cheaper for post houses to do the work that they love and make a living. I think a lot of these people, myself included, feel like Apple completely disregarded the investment made into their products and systems. The least they could have done was create a transitional period, as John Gruber points out in this article.

All in all, I think this post by a well-respected, and long-time member of the professional post community, Walter Biscardi, of Creative Cow sums it up best. I highly recommend everyone confused by the backlash to give it a read.
post #32 of 249
Quote:
Originally Posted by jlandd View Post

The issue is that when you run a "pro" creative business you don't tell the client to lower their expectations of what you can work with.

If you're a pro and you feel the need to talk to clients about your workflow, then you're not a pro.
post #33 of 249
I bet a lot of professionals are going to skip this release and wait to see what happens in the future. There are so many missing features it's difficult to understand how this actually got released as a "PRO" product.
post #34 of 249
Quote:
Originally Posted by jeffhrsn View Post

If you're a pro and you feel the need to talk to clients about your workflow, then you're not a pro.

jlandd is not saying here that they "talk to clients about [their] workflow." To me, this is more along the lines of, "Sorry [client], we can't take in that OMF you've brought us of a rough sound edit. And we can't bring in that XML from your rough edit done on set. And we won't be able to output an OMF for you to bring to the sound mixer for final audio."

That is having to "tell the client to lower their expectations of what you can work with."

Close reading can be a valuable thing jeffhrsn.
post #35 of 249
Quote:
Originally Posted by robochic View Post

All in all, I think this post by a well-respected, and long-time member of the professional post community, Walter Biscardi, of Creative Cow sums it up best. I highly recommend everyone confused by the backlash to give it a read.

Biscardi's is indeed a well respected member of the FCP community however he along with so many other editors are failing to grasp what was obvious to to Mac geeks a while ago.

1. Apple killed Carbon 64 bit two years ago. At that time they basically told the development community that legacy API like quicktime weren't going to make the 64-bit transition and begin to learn the new (successor) API.

2. Larry Jordan was told by his contacts that Apple plans to release more substantive updates through the Mac App Store on a more aggressive schedule. We should see feature updates happen more frequently.

3. Different codebase and modern API means Apple can evolve the product faster than the old legacy stuff so while the jump from FCP 6 to 7 wasn't huge it has no bearing on the type of substantive updates that could happen even in minor point releases to FCPX.

Between Hodgetts and Jordan we've heard that an improved XML workflow is coming, Multicam is coming and more stuff. Jordan says he expects most editors to move to FCPX in about 18 months which sounds about right once the other stuff gets put in.

Today's frustration is valid but a bit short sighted. FCS didn't stop working upon the announcement of FCPX.
He's a mod so he has a few extra vBulletin privileges. That doesn't mean he should stop posting or should start acting like Digital Jesus.
- SolipsismX
Reply
He's a mod so he has a few extra vBulletin privileges. That doesn't mean he should stop posting or should start acting like Digital Jesus.
- SolipsismX
Reply
post #36 of 249
Le Roi est mort. Vive le Roi! (The King is dead, long live the king!)

I see this new FCP as something NEW, the way is set, the new features, price, etc It is revolutionary!

I conferenced with my partner, although we know that some features are missing, we took the leap to embrace the new.

I understand the panic, I am on the other hand excited it is a NEW product that will keep evolving, but already is a better/different/more with the times product when comparing the old FCP, and with more potential to grow!

This FCP is a more apple-like product than the old one, it is why it may have some "Ala" Imovie feelings, not because it is an Imovie in steroids, but because it is an apple product!

IF you bought it, allow yourself to experience the new FCP, even if you have to start on square one buying Steve Martin or others trainings, if you are too nervous to try, stay where you are now, and just wait...

Le Roi est mort. Vive le Roi! (The King is dead, long live the king!)

George
post #37 of 249
Quote:
Originally Posted by jlandd View Post

Ronbo, there are many things in pro studios that happen under the hood and behind the curtain,but nether the less have to happen. One is having a broadcast monitor output into a calibrated monitor. This is not something that a wedding videographer needs but every TV station, every studio that provides for broadcast does. They don't solely rely on the computer monitor to determine what it looks like. With FCPX you have no broadcast output. All you can do is mirror your computer screen into a card, which spits that out. But that's not broadcast output.

That's not whining. That's fact. One of a page worth. Someone who requires broadcast output isn't a crybaby. They just work way up at the top of the chain.

And let's forget about people who already have FCP7 who will keep using it. What about the new post house who was gearing up to create a room of edit suites? Could they use FCPX? Of course. Would they choose it if they felt Apple had never been in a broadcast pro edit room? And would be slow to add pro broadcast support?

I didn't call anybody a crybaby. Just trying to understand. But it can be very hard as an outsider to see these seemingly polarized debates, without wondering "Is the missing feature actually critical, or does it merely seem so because it's the one you're used to?" The example you gave sounds like the former, if I understand you correctly. I also find myself wondering why, if these are such glaring omissions, did it get past the video pros who reportedly had access to it before it was announced. The example I remember seeing was a car commercial. What was he doing different that he didn't need these features enough to kick up a fuss?
post #38 of 249
I'm one of those 'idiots' who buy the software when it's laughed. We 'idiots' are needed to provide Apple with bug reports and feedback in order for you 'normal people' to use apps in its full glory.

If there were no 'idiots', you probably had a buggy Lion or FCPX after 6 months, or a year. Eventually someone needs to use it. These 'idiots' are often enthusiasts waiting for innovation and they have the right to expect a certain level of software refinement.

I am very glad I bought FCPX because every annoying part of FCP7 has been fixed and vastly improved. Unfortunately the app has been crashing on me when my edit was around 10 minutes, but it always recovered to the last state.

Quote:
Originally Posted by frankie View Post

Personally I think your'e an idiot to upgrade to new software the week it comes out anyways. I've never in my life upgraded to something new and there NOT been problems. Just like I won;t be upgrading to Lion until 6 months at least after it's released.

I'll wait until the next release of FCP, or at least 6 months in, when they add the missing features and fix all the bugs, and all will be fine with the world.
post #39 of 249
post #40 of 249
last week i would have agreed with you but have you seen this app? it's really imovie. avid and adobe look sexy all of the sudden....
Quote:
Originally Posted by frankie View Post

So many whiners and complainers bitching and moaning. What a bunch of little babies.

Just use the older version. No one is telling you you can't.

99.9 percent of clients have no clue what you're using and honestly could care less if the end product looks good.

Personally I think your'e an idiot to upgrade to new software the week it comes out anyways. I've never in my life upgraded to something new and there NOT been problems. Just like I won;t be upgrading to Lion until 6 months at least after it's released.

I'll wait until the next release of FCP, or at least 6 months in, when they add the missing features and fix all the bugs, and all will be fine with the world.

I mean are you gonna go back to Avid? Of course not. So just relax.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Mac Software
AppleInsider › Forums › Software › Mac Software › Final Cut Pro X draws mixed reactions from users, professionals