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 - Page 5

post #161 of 249
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.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Lightwaver67 View Post

YES! That's my point...!!!
I DID read the whole micro-site about FCPX... I read all of Apple's literature on it. NOWHERE did it say it had reduced features... NOWHERE did it imply it was a "version 1" app... They CLEARLY were promoting ADDITIONAL and NEW features... they CLEARLY call it v10.0 (Not just "X").
post #162 of 249
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sasparilla View Post

JMHO, but obviously this is Final Cut Express 5, not Final Cut Pro 8. Apple dropped Final Cut Express 4 at the same time as Final Cut Pro 7 and its obvious the price point for Final Cut Pro X is much closer to Express than Pro. This is where Apple's market is, supposedly (see article below).

For the pros that have multiuser workflows etc, you need to read between the lines and understand that Apple has pitched you over the side. The question is whether they'll restore needed multi-user functionality or not. Apple does this when they want (just abandon a chunk of their users even if they are viable), just ask the G5 PowerPC users about Snow Leopard.

What features exist or don't exist in a product aren't determined by whether its a 1.0 release as many are saying here, its determined by management when the requirements for the application are created (at the beginning of the project) - the fact that there isn't a large chunk of needed Pro level functionality in the application is Apple Management's choice (not the 1.0 version choice).

Apple Insider nailed it more than a year ago (Apple is scaling it back to a Prosumer Application):

http://www.appleinsider.com/articles...prosumers.html

For those that might need an additional license of Final Cut Studio in the future go and get one now - Apple is buying them back from the retail channel and they won't be available for much longer. I'm seeing them on eBay as well. Apple has done this in the past (bought back the old version product from the channel and then their gone, with high prices on eBay at that point - Leopard being a case in point, which at one point, like a year ago, was 3 times its original retail price on eBay, although it has come down now).

I feel for the Pro's on this and Apple certainly could have stuck with Pro level functionality if they had wanted to, but they obviously chose not to.

Thanks for that link. We should have been preparing for this depressing development.

The crime is that they are pulling the old out of our hands with a silence that feels like arrogance and carelessness toward those who had been some of Apple's most devoted, the pro editors. (Even though there was always plenty about FCP to complain about.)

I don't think your idea of calling it Final Cut Express is a good one, because Express used the same elements as Pro, with the same brilliant timeline-and-track-based interface.

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."
post #163 of 249
Quote:
Originally Posted by jnjnjn View Post

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!
"Swift generally gets you to the right way much quicker." - auxio -

"The perfect [birth]day -- A little playtime, a good poop, and a long nap." - Tomato Greeting Cards -
Reply
"Swift generally gets you to the right way much quicker." - auxio -

"The perfect [birth]day -- A little playtime, a good poop, and a long nap." - Tomato Greeting Cards -
Reply
post #164 of 249
Quote:
Originally Posted by Flaneur View Post

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?

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply
post #165 of 249
Quote:
Originally Posted by TenoBell View Post

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.
"Swift generally gets you to the right way much quicker." - auxio -

"The perfect [birth]day -- A little playtime, a good poop, and a long nap." - Tomato Greeting Cards -
Reply
"Swift generally gets you to the right way much quicker." - auxio -

"The perfect [birth]day -- A little playtime, a good poop, and a long nap." - Tomato Greeting Cards -
Reply
post #166 of 249
Quote:
Originally Posted by jlandd View Post

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 View Post

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?
turtles all the way up and turtles all the way down... infinite context means infinite possibility
Reply
turtles all the way up and turtles all the way down... infinite context means infinite possibility
Reply
post #167 of 249
Quote:
Originally Posted by TenoBell View Post

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.
post #168 of 249
Quote:
Originally Posted by TenoBell View Post

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?
post #169 of 249
Quote:
Originally Posted by TenoBell View Post

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!
post #170 of 249
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. 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.
post #171 of 249
Quote:
Originally Posted by spliff monkey View Post

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.
"Swift generally gets you to the right way much quicker." - auxio -

"The perfect [birth]day -- A little playtime, a good poop, and a long nap." - Tomato Greeting Cards -
Reply
"Swift generally gets you to the right way much quicker." - auxio -

"The perfect [birth]day -- A little playtime, a good poop, and a long nap." - Tomato Greeting Cards -
Reply
post #172 of 249
Quote:
Originally Posted by 4fx View Post

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?
"Swift generally gets you to the right way much quicker." - auxio -

"The perfect [birth]day -- A little playtime, a good poop, and a long nap." - Tomato Greeting Cards -
Reply
"Swift generally gets you to the right way much quicker." - auxio -

"The perfect [birth]day -- A little playtime, a good poop, and a long nap." - Tomato Greeting Cards -
Reply
post #173 of 249
Quote:
Originally Posted by mstone View Post

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.
post #174 of 249
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dick Applebaum View Post

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).
post #175 of 249
Wow... I'm simply amazed at the number of Apple-apologists here on this thread...
post #176 of 249
Quote:
Originally Posted by spliff monkey View Post

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.
post #177 of 249
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dick Applebaum View Post

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 View Post

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.
post #178 of 249
Quote:
Originally Posted by hmurchison View Post

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.
post #179 of 249
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dick Applebaum View Post

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
post #180 of 249
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.

Oops
you only have freedom in choice when you know you have no choice
Reply
you only have freedom in choice when you know you have no choice
Reply
post #181 of 249
Quote:
Originally Posted by WelshDog View Post

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.
post #182 of 249
There is absolutely no defense for this product other than it's for the consumer market. Which means it really should be an upgrade for iMovie.

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.
post #183 of 249
Quote:
Originally Posted by cy_starkman View Post

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.

No I don't think that is it. The problem is that FCP created the concept of cheap, quality editing. And now that idea has rippled (ooh edit pun!) through the industry to the point that clients more and more don't want to pay fair rates for much of anything. The agency clients all have cost consultants who basically dictate what can be paid for a job. The agency gets less, the production company gets less and the editorial shop gets less. All because some bean counter doof thinks he knows what everything costs. And let me tell you, they don't. GSD&M voluntarily resigned BMW because the BMW cost consultants made it very difficult for the agency to make a decent profit. We had a hell of a time bidding jobs for BMW because they absolutely, under no circumstances would allow overages. If a job went south and ran over - too bad, you have to eat it. Even if it was BMW who made the last minute changes.

So after ten years of editing on the cheap, things have really started to unravel. Doesn't matter how much your edit software/hardware costs. People don't want to pay fair rates. And that is why no one really want to change edit horses midstream.
post #184 of 249
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dick Applebaum View Post

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.

This is good stuff!

DA,

Honestly I hadn't thought about the component aspect and that's intriguing because it does mirror what Avid has been doing with their warez. And you're right; Apple aren't stupid, but it would be stupid if they built a gimped shell around the engine you describe. Thanks for the info and sorry I edited you post for brevity.


Quote:
Originally Posted by 4fx View Post

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.

When you say it like that! LOL

it is a little concerning, but I have a thought below...



Quote:
Originally Posted by Haggar View Post

Considering that FCP X can import iMovie projects but not Final Cut Pro 7 projects, the "iMovie Pro" designation seems somewhat appropriate.

That is peculiar, but it also is beginning to make sense.

Let's assume it's "obvious" that the new FCPX is really a rebuild of iMove and that perhaps (can anyone confirm) iMovie was Apple's own effort at an NLE. Anyway, they went the consumer route with iMovie.) FCP was built upon Macromedia DNA.

Is it possible that the big disagreement (the FCP firings) was because they decided to ditch the "hacked together" (only imagining how it would be described worst case) Macromedia DNA in favor of Apple's iMovie engine? or I guess more accurately Apple's "skunkworks" iMovie engine?

In other words; could they have been so impressed with a new iMovie engine (their own engine with everything tuned to the OS with GCD, OCL OGL etc) that the questioned why would they not use it in FCP?

FCP was going to need a rewrite if it was going to ever be a very efficient program. We all knew that, And I could see two teams setting out to improve their products. One product was tuned for efficiency (consumer machines are notoriously underpowered) and had no constraints because it was a consumer product after-all, efficiency was easily more important that legacy or industry conventions and the other was about extensibility of features, but because of the architecture limited to what it could do as an engine. When the results came in, the team leader said "ya know what? our code (the iMovie code) is so much better, why aren't we using it in our pro App. F_K the old code". Of course the legacy team freaks out and leaves.

Does anyone have any clues to support or oppose my thoughts?
turtles all the way up and turtles all the way down... infinite context means infinite possibility
Reply
turtles all the way up and turtles all the way down... infinite context means infinite possibility
Reply
post #185 of 249
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike Fix View Post

There is absolutely no defense for this product other than it's for the consumer market. Which means it really should be an upgrade for iMovie.

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.

For $400 for the Suite you know it's not going to be Avid stepping up and Adobe probably doesn't want to deliver a comparable or superior product for the same money.

http://www.apple.com/finalcutpro/specs/

4K resolution support
23.976-60 fps support
5.1 surround
bunch of codec support
4:4:4 ProRes

You and I both know this isn't for consumers. Matte are no indication of Professional status.
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 #186 of 249
I have one small question: how do you replace (update) footage in FCX ?

Right now I'm working on a small CG clip and I make the edit in FCX. As often is the case I did the edit using an early version of the footage. Now I have all the footage updated (small things that don't matter to the course of the action) but I can't find a way to replace the clips in FCX and keep all the edit work. I even tried to replace the footage on HDD same name and even same length but FCX doesn't recognize the new footage.

Any idea?
Thanks
post #187 of 249
Quote:
Originally Posted by WelshDog View Post

No I don't think that is it. The problem is that FCP created the concept of cheap, quality editing. And now that idea has rippled (ooh edit pun!) through the industry to the point that clients more and more don't want to pay fair rates for much of anything. The agency clients all have cost consultants who basically dictate what can be paid for a job. The agency gets less, the production company gets less and the editorial shop gets less. All because some bean counter doof thinks he knows what everything costs. And let me tell you, they don't. GSD&M voluntarily resigned BMW because the BMW cost consultants made it very difficult for the agency to make a decent profit. We had a hell of a time bidding jobs for BMW because they absolutely, under no circumstances would allow overages. If a job went south and ran over - too bad, you have to eat it. Even if it was BMW who made the last minute changes.

So after ten years of editing on the cheap, things have really started to unravel. Doesn't matter how much your edit software/hardware costs. People don't want to pay fair rates. And that is why no one really want to change edit horses midstream.

Unfortunately... welcome to the party

I've been living through this unraveling for the last 10 years in the print and publishing end of the ad industry. My previous posts to this thread have said as much, with some suggestions. None of which truly alleviates the painful transition, second-guessing, re-defining, frustration, and assorted other ill effects of realizing that your professional career is taking a turn for the worse, and you may have difficulties surviving.

In hindsight, my initial posts (yesterday) pointing out the need to change and evolve with the market and tech advances, were probably a personal attempt to allay my own personal fears of where the professional creative market is going (has gone?), regardless of the area of expertise.

Get ready for this, and it's not pretty: those in the film industry will start to get projects that were "created" by some kid in marketing, or the secretary, or even the sales dude... and you'll be responsible for trying to make it "professional".

The pain comes when the "rep" handing over the job says, "we did all of the work for you, so I expect a really good and solid quote for the finished project". So you do that.

You realize after opening the data, that you practically have to rebuild the whole thing... and then once you get past this mess... "Project dude" calls with changes... not once, but half a dozen times.

You faithfully let him/her know after the 3rd time, this is running into some serious over-charges, where you're promptly put into place, with the retort, "We agreed on a price... I consider this value-added service, and if you don't want to continue, hand the files over and we'll take it somewhere else". At which time you reconsider, because the repercussions within your tight industry could be even more fatal than taking a loss on a single project.

Sad to say... the above scenario repeats itself daily, until it IS your daily business.

I'm an optimist, or try to be. I'm interested in this thread and topic because the repercussions involve all of us "pros" no matter what we do. We've hung our hats proudly on the stand where we slapped those free Apple stickers, and Apple has gained immensely from our personal marketing clout and word-of-mouth propaganda, as in, "You do know that your favorite show/movie/magazine is all produced on Macs, don't you?" It would be truly, TRULY, sad to have to go back to a Winbox (no free stickers even!) so that we could have PRO-grade software.... or even a workstation, if the rumors are true that this MacPro update will be the last.

My personal optimism and belief that Apple knows what they're doing... and most of all... where they are going with all of this, keeps me from going into hysterics as some of the other posters have done here and across the blogosphere. Yup. Apple-Fan #1

@Dick Applebaum -- as always, some great posts and info. Kudos to ya for "Diggin' in the Dirt"... as some detractors would call FCPX.

@TenoBell -- hmurchison -- and a couple of others

I'm thinking better than the current "plug-in" architecture for pro-apps, is finally, "modular" and truly scriptable software.

This was a promise way back when (late 90's?) by assorted developers across the creative software industry. Could be that Apple is doing this, or similar starting with FCPX as the base.


PS. I think that the pros should have been a little bit more suspicious when the final price for all "pro" apps was only $400.

The day CS5 is only $400,- full-license, not upgrade... means:
a) they are dead, or dying slowly and having Flash attacks (serves 'em right!),
b) it's not what we think it is, and they left out features and software (hopefully Flash, but i think they rebuilt Photoshop using AIR and Flex....grrrr!)
c) Apple bought them, and since FCPX is successful after the initial fallout, they do the same for other creative software.
d) I'm delusional, dreaming, and having "flash-back" problems of my own
Knowing what you are talking about would help you understand why you are so wrong. By "Realistic" - AI Forum Member
Reply
Knowing what you are talking about would help you understand why you are so wrong. By "Realistic" - AI Forum Member
Reply
post #188 of 249
Just wanted to say I'm not buying Pogue's conclusion at:
http://pogue.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/...nal-cut-pro-x/

"The Bottom Line: Apple has followed the typical Apple sequence: (1) throw out something that’s popular and comfortable but increasingly ancient, (2) replace it with something that’s slick and modern and forward-looking and incomplete, (3) spend another year finishing it up, restoring missing pieces."

Sure, Apple does this from time-to-time in the consumer space, but by no means is it a pattern of what they do. When they went Intel they made sure Rosetta was there. When they went 64-bit they made sure there was 32-bit backward compatibility. When they threw out the optical drive from the MacBook Air there was Remote Install through WiFi from a PC even, on top of there being an external optical drive. The iPhone and iPad are perhaps examples of what he talks about but these were re-imaginings of entire product categories.

To think that Pogue's "Bottom Line" will be Apple's modus operandi for pro offerings in the future... is scary.

2 years for professional software that's "incomplete by design" with another year to "finish up and restore missing pieces" sounds like something from Google, not Apple.

Finally, Pogue's listing of responses from Apple seem to mostly be "Don't worry, we're working on that..." or "Yeah, we will restore that" or "Buy this $200 to upgrade plug-in". Sounds suspiciously like PR damage control.

Of course, in a year perhaps most of the issues will be sorted out and we'll look back on this thread and chuckle. But for now, it is what it is.
post #189 of 249
Quote:
Originally Posted by 4fx View Post

... 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.

Your arguments seems reasonable, your not 'all negative' and I understand your concern because the tool is essential for your work.

I am a software guy myself and edit only occasionally because my wife needs special things for the short movies she makes so my focus is a little different. But from a software development view it's clear to me that FCPX is a radical redesign from the ground up, and like OS X (compared to OS 9) completely unrelated to the previous product.
At the start a lot of OS 9 users didn't see 'the big picture' and complained about almost everything. But look at OS X now, it took a few iterations but it's by far the best OS to use and gaining traction while I write.

Apple is very good at writing new software and I am sure FCPX has the same sort of future OS X has.
But that doesn't mean that info from users in the field isn't essential in building a better product. I have noticed recently that Apple really does listen because some issues I had with iMovie were solved quickly and had almost the same description I entered in my feedback report.
You should do the same. I am sure they listen, but of course a positive reasonable argument works better ' than an Apple let me down' all negative tone.

J.
post #190 of 249
I have nothing to do with video editing, but I just have to say this sounds like a disaster, and all the people defending Apple are coming across as "love is blind" sheep.

Come on, if MicroSoft released a new version of Excel that didn't open previous versions of Excel, would anyone defend them? No way! There would be massive criticism. So why would anyone defend Apple doing similar.

And the people saying it is a 1.0 release, you're just playing semantics. Yes the application has been written anew from the ground up, but that is an under the hood thing. The final product is meant to be an update to previous functionality.

If you write something from scratch and the final functionality doesn't resemble the functionality of a previous application, you give the new thing a totally new name. Again, if MicroSoft released a brand new set of code called Excel Amplify and it couldn't do pivot tables, sum columns or open Excel files, people would justifiably ask what was going on.

I also don't like the sound of the trouble the professionals are having when it comes to storing their work on remote drives. It seems a symptom of the whole "demoting the mac" thing. I keep hearing Jobs saying "it's in the App".

I like controlling my files and folders, but it sounds like Apple is moving towards an approach where you wont get to do that at all, even in something that is supposed to support professional video editing!


I reckon the Apple leadership should take a 6 week holiday from the world of iOS, iDevice, iCloud, and get back into the headspace of the tinkering teenager building their own machine from a kit. There is much advantage to be found keeping that side of things part of the ethos.

Apple defenders: step back from the tree you are hugging and have a look at the forest!
post #191 of 249
Quote:
Originally Posted by nicwalmsley View Post

<clip>
I reckon the Apple leadership should take a 6 week holiday from the world of iOS, iDevice, iCloud, and get back into the headspace of the tinkering teenager building their own machine from a kit. There is much advantage to be found keeping that side of things part of the ethos.

Gotta prove that as a company on the bottom line, sorry to say. iOS is Apple's present and future... again, sorry to say. As an Apple fan, you still can't get around the sorry fact that with all of the "pro" advantages that Apple has brought to the table over the years, they haven't broken 15% in the desktop/workstation market for a couple of decades.

On the other hand... iOS, it's devices, and it's eco-system is like printing money. In fact, they may have enough in a couple of years from iOS alone to BUY GREECE! Think about that.

Quote:
Apple defenders: step back from the tree you are hugging and have a look at the forest!

I'm an unashamed APPL stock holder... and I'm still hugging the tree AND looking around that huge trunk, at the forest. What do I see? Creative pros in all industries, yelling, screaming, tearing their hair out... when the writing has been on the wall for some time. More importantly, the money is IN THE BANK! Apple's own bank, which they add to by obscene amounts daily, without touching what's already there.... and most importantly to them, "creative pro purchases" add up to taxi change and marketing bullet-points at best.

Having pro-grade software and hardware, catering to the techies, adding specs, has gotten Apple NOWHERE!

Serving 3 square iOS meals (iPod, iPhone, iPad) with all of the accoutrements, has made Apple in 4 short years King of the Tech Kitchen. OK. So it's consumer... or even Pro-sumer. You think they're freaking over that? No. They're happy to be showing the world the recipe to success. (Period). And "pros" be damned.

Now go catch that Avid or Adobe train. It's SO much nicer.... NOT! Truth is that ALL creative pro software has been in the toilet for the last 5 years, and I don't see anyone with the money, balls, or both to change that sad fact.

PS. How funny that Macromedia initially created FCP, as well as FreeHand, which got killed by Adobe, and Flash, which will die at Adobe's hands. Must have been quite a few geniuses at that old company, never to be repeated again. Or were their coding practices so horrible, that no one can truly update the stuff, and it all needs rewrites? Just Curious
Knowing what you are talking about would help you understand why you are so wrong. By "Realistic" - AI Forum Member
Reply
Knowing what you are talking about would help you understand why you are so wrong. By "Realistic" - AI Forum Member
Reply
post #192 of 249
One last note:

If it isn't obvious yet, "traditional" anything is over in this Post-PC world some of you are being dragged kicking and screaming into.

Printing was the first to go, with the music industry on it's heels.

Up next:

Publishing
Cable
Network TV
Movie
Game console

When I say go.. I mean transitioning from "traditional", to flexible and social networked created "channels" of interest.

Anybody else catch the fact that the iPhone 4 became the most popular camera on Flickr? iPhone5 will pick up where that left off. Hows Nikon and it's "pro" users feel about that?

Newspapers and mags? Flipbook and Travlr have a much more future-proof system. Reeder too. How do all those Journalist majors see their future?

YouTube anyone? Most popular "channel" on the planet. With at the moment, a hell of a lot of grainy, P-poor videos. Can iDevices do better... today? You bet. Export rough cut from iPhone, to iPad, then to FCPX, then to YouYube, CNN, FaceBook... or the iCloud. Uh oh. What could happen next?

See where I'm going with this?

Post-PC and putting the pieces together is what Apple is focused on with the next generation of users. You guys/gals with mice, keyboards, collaborative "work-flows" (please!), "trucks"... pack it up. Move over. The New kids are coming down the street on a jet-packed skateboard, and yes, even I feel like an old fart some days, and have to move over. Or not.

Maybe join them and show them some neat tricks from the Ol' Days... have fun!

<<<<<ding!>>>>> Oh I'm back. Hey! That was a nasty trick Dick A.!... but I'm with ya

***************
PS. regarding changing industries comment above: Music. I read a nice piece at the NYT after the David Pogue article, about how the music business has changed... and continues to do so. Hats off to "old school" artists like Bork, that are embracing and facilitating change. I'm not so much a fan of her music, but her creativity is tops, and how she's reinventing her music to match the times, by including an App for each song, is pretty down-right cool. She gets it! Transition or be left behind. That's what "creative" and artistic people are supposed to do, rather than moan about the past.
Knowing what you are talking about would help you understand why you are so wrong. By "Realistic" - AI Forum Member
Reply
Knowing what you are talking about would help you understand why you are so wrong. By "Realistic" - AI Forum Member
Reply
post #193 of 249
As I am not a video pro I may be talking out of turn here but I never really understood why beyond the year 2000 Macs had a reputation as a pro video system...PCs always had more powerful tools than FCP like Avid (which is also on the Mac) and always had better hardware specs than a MacPro/PowerMac of the same cost...

Sure its not the sexy apple software but who cares, Avid would kick FCP X all over the place on the high end and arguably Premeire + after effects + Photoshop in the cs5 looks like a reasonable deal compared to FCPX+Motiom+Comressor+Photoshop on the mid market level.
You can't quantify how much I don't care -- Bob Kevoian of the Bob and Tom Show.
Reply
You can't quantify how much I don't care -- Bob Kevoian of the Bob and Tom Show.
Reply
post #194 of 249
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike Fix View Post

There is absolutely no defense for this product other than it's for the consumer market. Which means it really should be an upgrade for iMovie.

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.

Prediction: now that we have Thunderbolt, Apple will claim that that is all the expandability that is needed...Todays Mac Pro Models are Apples last towers...they are gonna sell laptops imacs and iphones here on out.
You can't quantify how much I don't care -- Bob Kevoian of the Bob and Tom Show.
Reply
You can't quantify how much I don't care -- Bob Kevoian of the Bob and Tom Show.
Reply
post #195 of 249
LOVE IT...!!!!

Even the writers on Conan's show are irritated with it:

http://youtu.be/sRzLP0FJ82I

Awesome.
post #196 of 249
Windows has always been an option. I cannot think of many people who suddenly want to go to Windows simply because of FCP X.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Haggar View Post

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.
post #197 of 249
Quote:
Originally Posted by spliff monkey View Post

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?

No one expected it, but here we stand. In that reality you have to do what you have to do.

Quote:
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.

It was unexpected but why are people so surprised. Has Apple not demonstrated over and over again a fearlessness of suddenly killing a successful product because they feel they have something even better.

Apple does not have a history of making slow transitions to something new. They outright kill and stop supporting something to force everyone to move over to the new thing.

Quote:
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 think only "old" people would look forward to moving back to Avid.

Honestly I think Avid is looking at all of this with nervous curiosity. They know the people running Apple are not stupid. I guarantee you Avid is extremely curious about what is about to come next.

Quote:
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.

Just out of curiosity what about Windows is inherently better at 3D?

Quote:
The remaining question is how long will Apple "freeze" FCP with the current features.

Apple has already said that updates for FCP will be more frequent than in the past.

Quote:
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.

Are you saying their has to be a price limit to be a Pro app?
post #198 of 249
I came to FCP from Avid Media Composer. While I still prefer Avid, I am getting used to FCP and all its foibles. Now comes this weird FCP-X which looks like a hybrid of consumer and pro interfaces. The fact that it cannot interface with 3rd party hardware and spit out EDL/OMF files is a serious matter. We import tape footage and digital files. This is important to any pro facility and should have been the number one feature in this new FCP product. The melding of professional and consumer software is not a good idea. Professional editors need solid tools and a fast, accurate interface. That is why I might go for the Avid 5.5 Media Composer. At least Avid remains dedicated to the professional editor.
post #199 of 249
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lightwaver67 View Post

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...???

At every World Wide Developer Conference. The point of these software introductions is to show software developers what to support when new software becomes available. Its rare that Apple previews the major features of new software then suddenly has a new surprise feature when the software launches. The point of the software preview is to show what it does and what to support.

Quote:
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.

And as it turns out what they showed at NAB is exactly what FCP X is. What a surprise!

You assumed it would do more than what Apple previewed. Apple never explicitly said it did anymore than what they showed. So now you are disappointed that your assumption of what Apple never said has not been met.

What type of logic is that?

Quote:
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!

I feel like my statement is saying that I don't make assumptions based on what I want. I'm living in the reality of what exists. You are right - you will do better at training your dog to live in its own reality of assumptions than you can train me.
post #200 of 249
Yes of course there is a lot more to the story of what is going on in the development of FCP X.

It'll be interesting to see the reactions once Apple reveals its larger plan. I imagine some will back pedal others will take credit for forcing Apple to improve FCP X.


Quote:
Originally Posted by WelshDog View Post

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..
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