Final Cut Pro X draws mixed reactions from users, professionals - Page 3

I wonder how many of those reviewers have spent ANY time with the software? This is why I don't trust web-based reviews at all. You constantly see tons of reviews for products or content that haven't even been released yet. This obviously has been released, but when a product has been rewritten and redefined from scratch, you've got to spend more than ten minutes with it to know what it really is. Could anyone write a fair review of a new version of Photoshop after only one day of use? Only if they used only the most basic functions.

At NAB, the editors there seemed "blown away" by what they saw, but those were probably mostly TV editors, not movie editors.

I'm sure there are some things missing for pro workflow. And I think the lack of backwards compatibility was a big mistake. But I still don't trust all those negative on-line reviews. I'd wait for detailed reviews from people who actually know what they're doing and examine all the functionality. And even if some of the negative reviews are correct, this is still an amazing deal for $300.

Not the case here by a long shot. Do you even know what an EDL is much less ever used one?

Read up and come back.

First of all, it is not possible to write a review on the Mac App store if you have not purchased the application. Secondly, if a program can't do basic functionality like open its own documents or output its content, whether you spend one hour or one year with the program isn't going to make it any more usable. I've seen this "people just need to use it more" defense several times now, and its rubbish.

As an Apple "fan-boy" (admittedly), I must also chime-in that this FCPX app is a RADICAL step backwards for FCP.

I have been using FCP since... well... I think when it first came out. I am NOT a video "Pro", but rather a weekend enthusiast who has grown to love the power of FCP. Yes, I HAVE "made money" with FCP as a designer, but I am FAR from a video pro.

I was in FCPX for a couple hours last night and I am AMAZED at the most BASIC omissions from this app. My ASSUMPTION was that this was an evolution of FCP... but it's not... not at ALL. Something as simple as applying a very basic DROP SHADOW to a graphic element in the timeline. *IF* the ability to add a DrpShdw DOES exist, it is masterfully hidden from users. That is creative 101 for ANY app nowadays... that should have been implemented by a junior developer in about 35 minutes.

That's just ONE of the many simple things I couldn't "find".
For those of you who are HAPPY with FCPX... good for you... but you cannot ignore that this release *IS* a fractional subset of functionality that users have grown to expect from this application. It is truly stripped-down and almost crippled.

I do NOT agree that this is being marketed as a Version 1.0 app... it is X (10)... they need to be BETTER communicators regarding feature drop-off.

I am very glad I can still go back to my previous version - I kinda feel duped. You can defend it all you want, but it REALLY IS iMove with a "pro app" theme applied and more functionality than iMovie. I hope they don't pull this crap with Logic too.

The lack of Multicam is a pretty clear indication that it was rushed out the door. As big as Apple is in to music, one would think that making music videos would be very high on the list of features/capabilities.

Great! That's not in there either...? I use that a LOT for when I edit live-band footage that was shot from multiple sources.

Seriously... I can see why it's only $300... but even THAT seems high considering at all that's been left out.

The NAB editors got shown the (very nice) new features, there was no reason to think that they weren't simply adding great new features to a huge and fully fledged professional application.

What Apple did not show was the enormous amount of essential stuff they left out.

It is a great deal for $300 if you're an iMovie user sure.
But I would rather spend $1000 and have a usable product.

The best that can come out of this is that it becomes Apple's "New Coke". They bring back discontinued Coke Classic and everyone hugs.

It hasn't been "pulled." This is a complete recoding of the software. It has been built up from the bottom. So, what do you put in first? The basic features, the things that will make this a hit with prosumers right away. The features that you complain about haven't been in this code base before. They will arrive.

Meanwhile, you still have Final Cut Pro 7 to use as long as you want. I'm betting at the end of a year, as this code evolves, you will not be going back very much to the old beast. In two years, 7 will be stuck on a few machines for the traditionalists.

What? You think Apple is run by people who just want to make colored sugar water?

Final Cut Pro 7 does not go away when you install X. It still works. I'm thinking it won't be long until the hullaballoo dies down and pros get embarrassed.

Funny thing is, the old iMovie users were outraged two years ago. They aren't now.

And what did Apple do about the enraged iMovie users? They made HD available again until they got enough features into the new version. Unfortunately they won't do that with FCS. It is the over powering desire to have all software sold only through the App Store that prompted them to remove FCS. The total integration of everything into iCloud/App Store has forced them to make difficult decisions. The diversity that once existed between pros and non-pros is gone and now must assimilate to some middle ground in order to fit into the new ecosystem.

The fact that FCP7 hasn't disappeared is obvious. The fact that it is no longer offered as a product is also.



You don't go to the Apple iMovie Discussions much, I take it : )

Plus, why would you be hearing complaints from people who have happily abandoned it for other tools, including older versions and the rereleased HD?

For those of you defending this release due to it being a "rewrite/recode"... you are being far-too lenient. (IMHO)

If Apple's focus was to rearchitect the core subsystem to build on, that's GREAT - but KEEP BUILDING and push the release out until it AT LEAST matches the current functionality of FCP7.

Take a moment (please).. clear your mind... browse this thread again and OTHERS all over the web and look at ALL the MASSIVE AMOUNT of both basic and complex features that are missing. There is nothing "PRO" about this Final Cut "Pro" offering. It's a slick new UI built on a new (supposedly) code-base. But just because you can do some basic edits, this is FAR from the FCP7 we all know.

We're not talking about trivial things they left-out... we're talking NECESSARY, core features... and some pretty STANDARD features that you can do in iMovie that you cannot do in FCPX. This was released WAY WAY WAAAAYYYYY too early and I wish it had even 3/4 the features FCP7 had. This really DOES feel like running the OSX Beta back in 2000... sure, it runs... kinda... but you can't really do anything with it.

BTW - Mine crashed at LEAST 7-8 times within the 2-3 hours I was using it.
Not a great start.

Also...
To mirror what others have noted...

Apple's sneak preview of this FCPX a while back that got some GREAT cheers from the crowd...? I am sure it was because it was all based on the assumption that the new changes were built ON TOP OF all of the existing features.

I guarantee that crowd had NO IDEA what was NOT going to be in-the-app.

Fair point, but to be fair to Aperture, it wasn't 4 years that the competition had localised editing when Aperture 2 did not was it?

How do you find Aperture 3? I love it but find it very unstable.

Yup, here as well. If there's one main thing against FPCX, it's the fact it crashed often.

Aperture and FCP are two different beasts...

I can forgive Aperture's lack of features (initially) because it WAS starting from no-other previous version. It had to start somewhere. And yes, it has gotten pretty good over time... but I'd be JUST as pissed if they released Aperture X and it lost 1/2 of the functionality and couldn't import all my previous libraries w/ edits.

Im not an editor at all...so... just my opinion.... but have been reading with interest the blogs reviews etc. Have to say... it does appear that Apple left out of initial release half dozen or so 'basic' high level pro(read tv, movies etc)items. Now is that to say all or even most pro editors...no. But to the 'high profile' editors....yes. If a few of the basic itemsthese guys need (multi camera edit, sound export, export xml, tape import export(sad they still use tape)... to name a few), were included... I get the feeling most grumbling would be at a minimum.

Maybe... dunno...
Quite honestly, I wasn't in it long enough to know what ELSE isn't there.
I mean, I seriously cannot believe I could not add a simple DROP SHADOW to a graphic element I added as an overlay. IT'S NOT IN THERE! That's BASIC stuff! I had to go back into Photoshop and ADD the drop shadow and reimport the graphic. That is rediculous. Again - that is BEYOND basic.

I love Apple most of the time, but this release stinks to high-heaven.

Since I've learnt Logic it is by far my favourite music-making app out there. If it is molested to become iGarageBandXProDeluxeWithCandyOnTop ... well, there are a lot of alternative sequencers and DAWs, at least for dance music (progressive, house, trance).

I sympathise nonetheless with those that may be affected by the FCPX situation if it happens to Logic.

But music and DAW, whether home or studio-based, small or big-budget, has a slightly different "timeline" for software upgrades. Again, I use the example of electronica, if you're into other genres maybe you can advise... For example, in electronica most of the "progress" and "cutting edge" is in software plugins, outboard hardware (sometimes) and a lot of the time for best results remixing and mastering needs to be done in realtively expensive studios... studios that may still be running Logic 7 or ProTools or whatever.

A R Rahman (Slumdog Millionaire) is pretty keen on Logic, I wonder if he's using Logic 9 or still on Logic 8.

I'm just a "hobbyist". I've seen enough people struggle with trying to be producers and DJs, I'll skip the pain, thanks. (Or maybe I'm just getting old and losing sight of my dreams. Probably not, it's just been replaced with other less trendy dreams like financial and emotional sustainability).

Anyways, for music and audio, beginner to umpteen-channel super certified surround 3D sound or whatever, there must be companies out there (you know who they are) watching this and hoping Apple will do this to Logic.

But that is a story for another day...

Hmmm.

I just came back and read some more of this most interesting thread, and would like to apologize to the "pros" out there. You're right. Apple has went to far.

The kicker for me was reading that you have to have all of your files on the system disk. As a pro in print production, this is a definite no-go for me in my work. My collection of servers and TB Firewire drives for print and photo work is astounding, so I can only imagine the TB's that film pros have offline. The first thing I recommend to all of my clients is to move everything out of the documents and home folders, and set up a second disk, that's cloned, RAID, whatever. Best pro practice as far as I'm concerned, is to ALWAYS separate the operating system and apps, from actual data.

It does appear that Apple is leaving us pro users, in all aspects of it's future business model, and focusing on the consumer.

Lion. iOS. Xserve canceled. There's even been rumors that there won't be any MacPro after the upcoming next release.

Sad that the pros that kept Apple afloat, and tooted the Apple Horn for them in the past, will be shunted for the mass attack that iOS has become. Capitalism at work I suppose, as with everything else. Go to where the money is.

PS. The post that likened FCPX's missing features to Adobe making only JPEGs editable.... PLEASE DO NOT GIVE THEM ANY IDEAS!!!!! I wouldn't put it past them.

It's quite eye-opening, the deeper you delve into it.

Wait a second! I'm getting caught up in the emotions and sympathizing with a few pro colleagues here!

Q: What the hell is Apple doing developing and installing ThunderBolt ports on everything, if not meant for fast accessible offline storage? Thunderbolt is MADE for FCP... isn't it?

There's got to be more to this story.... and yes, I think Apple owes the pros out there an explanation and a future road map. Something isn't adding up here.

You can store media on an external drive. They at least thought of that. But instead of actually working with all flavors of footage natively like Apple promised, the program transcodes it all in the background into a single format; those transcoded files (essentially all-out duplicates of the footage) go to the boot drive, and there is no way to tell them otherwise. That is what I have heard at least, and perhaps the person who said it misspoke. Either way, creating duplicates of all your media in the background and hiding them from the user is a terrible workflow. When working with hundreds of gigabytes of footage, the last thing you need is for your edit software to be secretly duplicating it all in the background.

True, but Aperture suffered with its slow response times and sometime unpredictable behavior, which LR didn't, but I've never truly sat down with LR, only read what people say.


I have a love/hate relationship with it. I like the way one works with it more than I would LR, and it's generally better than it was (remember the aspect ratio crop default? : ) , but I have a real hard time with the way you have to wait so long to see results update. I wish I could A/B changes like bing, bing instead of waiting 4 or 10 seconds. Lately it's begun to corrupt a file per project, which is really pi##ing me off : (

I'm not having much stability issues, but when I'm doing photos in PS I feel like it's at least responding to me snappily enough that I don't feel hindered by it. Aperture keeps me organized but it feels like it still breaks my flow with the beach balls.

But one thing I almost never do, unless a company goes under, is switch major programs that require a huge financial commitment and reharvesting of old files. It's like a girlfriend or wife after a few years. You get used to the good and bad, used to knowing about greener grass that's not necessarily in the cards, used to the workflow. I think that's one thing Apple is doing in a very interesting way, by having top tier programs being far below the cost of the alternative (Aperture for $80, FCPX for $300). If I was on LR I might even consider spending the $80 just to learn it and have it around for what it does better. Same as an AVID user would for FCPX. But the reverse doesn't have the same impulse buy potential.

I think the whole thing boils down to how I've defended Apple in other areas like ports, processors, market slant, etc: They're doing what they want to do as a company to be a strong company. If that means selling a crapload of $300 software and not servicing the highest tier as well as they could, well, they'll probably make more money doing it their way : )

I don't want to come across as an Apple apologist nor to minimize the needs of the pros who depend on specific features or capabilities to do their job.

Rather, I am making this post to correct some incorrect "limitations" of FCPX.



The location of the Final Cut Projects and Final Cut Events folders can be on any drive you want -- I just created a project on an external drive and imported events (clips) from an 8GB AVCHD card (actually a HD backup of the AVCHD card on another drive).

The AVCHD import is no small accomplishment, as I never had to decompress the 8 BG AVCHD card into a 57 GB file -- taking storage and about 20 minutes. Rather, FCPX took about 20 seconds to decompress clip thumbnails. I could scrub/play through these and select only the clips (or partial clips) I wanted.

When you start FCPX it will look for folders named "Final Cut Projects" and "Final Cut Events":
-- in the Movies folder of the Boot drive
-- at the root level of every attached drive

You get a list of all the drives in the both the projects and events windows


If you unmount the external HDD, FCPX will work fine without access to projects or events on that drive.

Later, when you remount (reattach the drive) FCPX will find any projects and events.


I don't use multicam, but I read where one FCPX user was able to approximate the FCP7 capability using FCPX collections.

I still don't understand all I know about FCPX collections, tagging, metadata, etc. -- but there is some fantastic capability to analyze clips and create collections.

For example FCPX can identify shots with:
-- no people
-- i person
-- a group of people (more than 1)
-- close up
-- far away



I hope you and others will take this post in the spirit it was written.

FCPX is missing many things that people need.

But, the initial impression that FCPX is missing this, or can't do that is often wrong -- because someone didn't know where to look, or that some things are done differently (maybe even better) than in FCP7.

Also, I believe that people will find that FCPX does a lot of things that they didn't know they needed, but can't live without -- the categorizing of clips with people, and the ability to change the color of 1 clip to match another, come to mind.

Give it a fair shot!

This ranting reminds me of that release. "OMG I can't believe it doesn't do this" "OMG I can't believe it doesn't do that". Like many others have said: It's V 1.0 Calm down and keep using what you're using until they get FCX right.

So, again, just use the old version until they add in those features you need 6 months from now. Dude, I'm an editor for my career as well. There's no way I would ever upgrade to some new software no matter who it's from for at least 6 months and more likely a year. Even if it had ALL the little features you wanted it still would be buggy and not work right. They gotta work that stuff out.

If update after update Apple says it will add things that then never seem to materialize than you have a case to moan, otherwise just relax people!

If you were truly working professionals you probably wound't even have time to bitch about all this stuff as you'd likely be working and not wasting time, like I am, on these stupid forums anyways...

A terrible analogy. No one depended upon Aperture before version 1.0. It's not like Final Cut Pro didn't exist at all before Tuesday. It's a decade-old application that many an editor depend upon to make their living. As of Monday, they were all led to believe that Apple had been working on an "awesome" upgrade for them that would bring Final Cut Pro up to speed with the competition. On Tuesday morning, Apple eliminated Final Cut Studio from it's product line-up and replaced it with a program that is unusable by nearly anyone who currently depends upon Final Cut Pro. Apple has not publicly committed to adding anything back into Final Cut Pro X that was available in previous versions. Will the next version add the ability to open Final Cut Pro projects, or will it instead add the ability to import your GarageBand jams? We have know way of knowing, but based on what they released this week it's far more likely the latter.

Professionals have waited four years for a real upgrade to Final Cut Pro; they cannot wait another four years for Apple to fix Final Cut Pro X, especially since they have made no indication that they intend to do so.

I would not have dropped $300 right now had I known Apple considered this a v1.0 product. Again, there was no reason to even conceive that they would have SO MANY features missing. I really wish I waited a day or two - but I generally don't read forums anymore - I only came here after running into my OWN issues in FCPX and seeing this story on AppleInsider's features page - and realized I was not alone in my disappointment.

This isn't a "Calm down & hold your horses" situation... this is a "Pro" application that was "Updated" and has an incredible amount of issues - it's NOT just unfamiliarity or hating "change"... IT DOESN'T WORK as expected... especially for a "Pro" app.

They need to better communicate these things. Period.

Think about this for a minute!

1) There, likely, isn't an HDD big enough to store all the media for all your clients and all your projects

2) so, it is likely that you store projects and events on several drives

3) you can keep all the media for a client on a separate drive, if desired.

4) if a drive is not online, its contained media and projects are not shown

5) if a drive is online, but not opened (just like a closed folder) its projects and contents are not shown
-- the event thumbnails are not even loaded/parsed/opened/displayed -- unless the drive is opened

It may do what you want, the way you want -- but is it a show-stopper?

I suspect that if enough people complain, Apple will fix this!

I'm also amazed at the persistence of some to consider this "whining" just because THEY are not upset about the current omissions and problems.

I totally understand that we can all go work in FCP7 (and I will) and that the app will improve over time... that's a given. I'm not worried that it will NEVER get there... I just didn't realize before clicking the BUY button that it had regressed so far back.

Instead of negating the frustration of us users that truly need/miss those (currently) missing features or functionality - how about being more sympathetic and understanding that just because YOU don't have issues w/ FCPX... others don't have the right to feel slighted.

It's not whining... it's not Apple-bashing... and it's not a personal attack on YOU just because you aren't as upset. It's real users with legitimate feedback.

I think if you launched Photoshop CS6 and within minutes realized they omitted the marquis tool or Levels/Curves... you wouldn't NEED to spend more than a day to realize you're using a regressed product that is not ready for prime-time, PRO usage. That's all.

Not saying it would never get there... but if features you've grown to depend on suddenly go missing during an "Upgrade"... you might feel a bit put-off.

Yes - I will still be using FCP7 until FCPX gets more features.

FCP X uses an entirely different file and management system than the original FCP. That is the reason it cannot open XML files. Apple has stated that they will provide a bridge between XML and FCP X files.

I would safely wager at some point Apple is going enable some type of file export system in FCP X.



It is in the sense that FCP X is version 1 software and not a continuation of FCP from 1999.


No its not an evolution of FCP its an entirely new application that stands on its own.


FCP X has be rewritten from the ground up. That's what makes it a version 1.0. That is a fact it doesn't matter what they call it.




That's not generally how version 1.0 software works.


People's complaints aren't directly connected to the reality of what can be done. If any of these complainers could explain how you go about building a complex software application like FCP and include all of those features in version one I'd be open to hearing it.

13123213

I didn't actually know that, so a project can in fact be portable? Every file and piece of associated media can be external?
That is good, that is my most major issue dealt with. Because that was 100% a deal breaker.
...thought I would still prefer to be able to not use the FCP events folder and just have 1 'event' in a folder of my choosing, I currently create one big folder "example#1" and keep all media, render files, music, scratch disks, project file etc... in that 1 folder. So to move a project you just move that entire folder.

And all metadata, like clip keywords & analysis is stored in the FCP Events folder right? (I'd rather it was with the clips).


You didn't address the format support, I don't want to always have to create prores versions, i sometimes want to work in XDCAM etc..

If Adobe totally rewrote Photoshop from the ground up with an entirely new file structure and user interface. I guarantee it would not be as featured as it is now. Something would be missing that people would complain about.

As we know Adobe would never be brave enough to even do anything like this. So this whole example is pretty academic at best.

@TenoBell

This is NOT version 1 software.

This is version 8 software.

It is a rewrite, but they haven't just forgotten all of the things FCP has done and people have liked over the years.

If this is a .1 of a new product is should NOT be called Final Cut and should be a new and separate product and FCS should still be on sale (and kept updated until 'FCP'X is usable)

I can absolutely understand ALL of those points when adopting the mindset of a v1.0 product... and I think THAT is the sticking-point that is gumming-up this discussion. The expectations of WHAT FCPX is. As I said... I don't CARE if it's a rewrite from the ground-up... if that's the case, it needs to be BETTER COMMUNICATED to the public what that means. That's all.

When I clicked the BUY NOW button, I was not in the mindset that I was buying into a v1 app... I was in the mindset of "The next evolution of FCP".

Hindsight being 20/20... I am not sure I would have purchased yet. It shows LOTS OF POTENTIAL... and I hold out a lot of hope for what it WILL be. But for right now, you're right - it *IS* just an initial release v.1 app that is not ready - and I am a sucker for thinking it wasn't.

Are you talking about a drop shadow on a title? If so, you can do that in the Inspector.

If not, I think you can probably find what you want in the new Motion.

AFAIK, much of the titling/effects stuff that was spread among various FCS apps is now in Motion.

Dick, are you saying that professionals should ditch their massive SAN and network storage that allows them to have all of their projects saved in one location, and start keeping each project on it's own individual and unreliable hard disk? Because I think that's what you just suggested. And if that's the case, someone should tell the Thunderbolt backers to not bother bringing those massive storage devices to market.

The fact that all of your projects and media show up all the time in Final Cut Pro X is not a show-stopper, but it shows a complete lack of understanding of the professional video world on Apple's part. Everyone has a multitude of clients. Even the wedding video-ographer. No one needs or wants to see all of their clients' projects in the same window at the same time. There's no instance where that would be of benefit, and its impossible to do it any other way apart from your unrealistic workaround.