or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Software › Mac Software › Apple product managers address complains over Final Cut Pro X
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Apple product managers address complains over Final Cut Pro X - Page 2

post #41 of 217
Quote:
Originally Posted by spliff monkey View Post

FCPX is NOT ready for a professional workflow. Maybe in a year. you have to understand that this is problematic for those of us that often purchase machines for a single job. A new machine outfitted with FCPX will not fit into our workflow the same as FCP7. Therefore we have to rethink our workflow potential. Tha'ts the only problem. If i had to buy 5 offline edit suites tomorrow they probably would be AMC suites and not FCPX suites.

I will say it again FCPX is not ready for prime-time even in a tapeless workflow. I just cut a comedy using RED proxies. I got the EDL from the director, it was cut, approved and then had to be sent to the Ptools engineer (OMF), the colorist XML (who happens to not be working in color) and of course come back as a 4K file to be mastered to multiple formats including, Digital Delivery, film and tape. FCPX would be a nightmare to integrate into the workflow.

Again I have to remind some of you (because you are too young? really?) there is not a feature in existence that is finished in FCP. Not one. FCPX is not ready because it cannot talk to other software yet. Even when it is ready, it'll be like FCP7 today. It'll get used for offline edits and finished elsewhere.That's all FCP was ever for. That and youtube home movies and maybe bad/ cheap cable programing and a few indie movies no one will ever hear of.

Apple should have realized that FCP is an offline tool and it's hugely important that work going in MUST come out in a format other FINISHING programs can understand. It would be like giving your neg cutter in the valley a hard boiled egg and calling it an EDL. It doesn't jive.

I have no addiction to tape personally, (I honestly haven't shot tape in 3 or four years) but allot of people have shot allot of footage on tape. That footage is constantly being recycled, re-edited, re-used etc etc. There was a 30 year investment in tape and you can't just throw it away. It's bad accounting.

Should we all stop using film too because it's old? C'mon!. Allot of people are still shooting and mastering to film as well. Do you shit on the music artists that choose to record their albums to tape as well? Obviously you know nothing about technology, artistic expression and what the various tools allow you to express or you're just a putz.


Sure next year things will be different, everything is always different in a year, but honestly two questions remain...

Does Apple even care to continue with their professional software and features... ( I personally don't see why they would. seems a waste of time a and a vanity effort to me)

If so, How quickly? Apple should speak up to some degree. They haven't in the past, but this is a major overhaul which none of us expected. A timeline of features would be nice or to know if Apple even wants to bother.

Ya know people on AI have said I'm an arrogant prick, but your comments actually surprised and disappointed me. Obviously you have some issues given your attempt at dismissing people because of their age and it only demonstrates that you are in fact the one who feel threatened. I hadn't seen this side of you in your comments. You made the first member of my ignore list. For the record I'm 35 and have no fear about that. I'm just arriving at the age where I am respected and paid for that respect. Therefore, I have no problem rudely inquiring "How old are you asshole?"



Anyone with half a brain would use Avid when it was appropriate. FCP is more or less an offline solution with no hardware support. You are simply mistaken if you think FCP (in whatever form) on a $5k mac can hold it's ground against a full blown Avid suite. In my own self interest I'll only encourage you to stick to your guns

If you say that all FCP was ever for was "offline edits" then what is your complaint exactly?

Not one feature is finished? That's a overreaching statement. I'm sure File > Save works just fine.

You didn't describe why FCPX (or FCP7) would be a nightmare in your workflow. You just said some technobabble about file sizes.

LOOK HERE:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Final_C..._Final_Cut_Pro
post #42 of 217
Quote:
Originally Posted by TenoBell View Post

That's true. It would require a third party component from AJA or Black Magic to convert RED files to QT.

There's been plenty of rumor though that Apple is working with RED, Arri, Sony, Panasonic in building a new support structure for native video files.

If they are that would be a good sign, Avid already supports native video footage without transcode.
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 #43 of 217
Quote:
Originally Posted by akhomerun View Post

If you say that all FCP was ever for was "offline edits" then what is your complaint exactly?

Not one feature is finished? That's a overreaching statement. I'm sure File > Save works just fine.

You didn't describe why FCPX (or FCP7) would be a nightmare in your workflow. You just said some technobabble about file sizes.

LOOK HERE:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Final_C..._Final_Cut_Pro



Yes that is a very nice list of films Edited on FCP says nothing about FINISHING. I said nothing about file size BTW.
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 #44 of 217
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

If history tells us anything, it's 'Avoid Apple Products That Receive Complete UI Makeovers Or An 'X' In Their Name'.

iMovie '08, QuickTime X (though Lion's is bringing features back. QuickTime 7 is still essential, but it's better), and Final Cut Studio X.

You missed a huge one: Mac OS X. The first version that was really usable was 10.2 ("Jaguar").
post #45 of 217
Quote:
Originally Posted by spliff monkey View Post

Yes that is a very nice list of films Edited on FCP says nothing about FINISHING. I said nothing about file size BTW.

Yeah I read wrong I dunno where I got my file size comment from.

But those are major films where Final Cut was used and was useful. Whatever, it's not used for finishing, hell I don't even know what that means, but obviously real professionals are using it for SOMETHING! I fail to see where Final Cut claims to be useful for "finishing"

As others have mentioned, FCPX is the same price as Express was, and I think Apple is reflecting the un-finished nature of it in the price.

I have used FCP7 and it needed an Apple scrap-the-interface-and-start-over treatment.

Should we stop using film? No. But to an independent film student making a film, FCP and the kind of digital technology have dramatically increased the accessibility of making professional or near professional quality films. It's content that matters, not how you make it. Can a film student afford a Panavision film camera??
post #46 of 217
So X is missing key features that make it useless to me and I won't bother to enter the long list. I've read a lot of snarky comments like "you all have your old FCP 7 just use it", etc. Well WILL we have it once Lion is released?

When I look at the rapid and abrupt way FCP 7 was pulled (and even demanded that retailers return unsold products - has that ever happened before?) I'm wondering if FCP 7 with Lion is going to be another epic fail. They certainly rushed X to market half-baked as far as functionality and compatibility are concerned. I don't think they would do that and take the PR hit for an immature product if they weren't trying to beat Lion.

I was all onboard for a new interface, even a new paradigm but X ain't it. It's more of a lobotomized, Stepford Wife version - pretty facade but robotic and brainless. I get the feeling that the designers of X value form over function when form should follow and enhance function. I used to develop software and I know that it's orders of magnitude simpler to create an elegant, pretty interface when when you throw out functionality wholesale.

AppleInsider warned this was going to consumer, maybe prosumer a year ago. A few months earlier, just before NAB 2010, Apple laid off 40 FCP employees. Hmmm.

What I really wanted from FCP was for it to utilize my graphics card, RAM, cores, etc. I didn't want to have to choose between speed and features. It's been 2 years since the last OS X upgrade and all signals were pointing to Apple bailing on the pro market. I was hopeful after this year's demo at NAB but I'm not waiting and hoping any longer for Apple to get it together. I don't want to move to Premiere but it has features AND speed and it has it now. I can even use Color and Soundtrack Pro with Premiere (but not with FCP X). And if Snow Leopard was any indication, Adobe will support Premiere on Lion better than Apple will support FCP (7 or X) on Lion.
post #47 of 217
Quote:
Originally Posted by akhomerun View Post

Yeah I read wrong I dunno where I got my file size comment from.

But those are major films where Final Cut was used and was useful. Whatever, it's not used for finishing, hell I don't even know what that means, but obviously real professionals are using it for SOMETHING!

As others have mentioned, FCPX is the same price as Express was, and I think Apple is reflecting the un-finished nature of it in the price.

I have used FCP7 and it needed an Apple scrap-the-interface-and-start-over treatment.

At least I know where you are coming from. Yes FCP was used as a first step in the chain, but the problem is that FCPX prevents you from moving along that chain in critical ways.


I don't think FCP needed an interface (UI) overhaul as much as it needed and engine overhaul. Obviously FCPX's engine is much more efficient.

Dick Applebaum noted that the price tag is probably more about extensibility. Buy X for $300 and additional features for more money. It makes sense actually, it mirrors Avid's efforts and will probably garner a larger revenue for Apple in the long run.
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 #48 of 217
post #49 of 217
Quote:
Originally Posted by Prof. Peabody View Post

Out of all the complaints, the most ridiculous and unsupportable is that the new version is "not for professionals."

A few old geezers that are afraid of doing anything new or stopping their addiction to magnetic tape (of all things), are making a lot of sounds that it isn't for "professionals" because it removes their ancient workflows from the equation. The majority of professionals using the old Final Cut will move to the new one with no problems at all. The majority of professionals don't even use tape.

Final Cut Pro X is so totally *not* a "consumer" product in any way. Your just being ridiculous.

You really have no idea what you are talking about. Do you run a video post facility like I do? No? Then just keep putting that egg on your face.
post #50 of 217
Quote:
Originally Posted by spliff monkey View Post

FCPX is NOT ready for a professional workflow. Maybe in a year. you have to understand that this is problematic for those of us that often purchase machines for a single job. A new machine outfitted with FCPX will not fit into our workflow the same as FCP7. Therefore we have to rethink our workflow potential. Tha'ts the only problem. If i had to buy 5 offline edit suites tomorrow they probably would be AMC suites and not FCPX suites.

Yes that is abundantly clear. Hopefully Apple will address these issues soon.


Quote:
Anyone with half a brain would use Avid when it was appropriate. FCP is more or less an offline solution with no hardware support. You are simply mistaken if you think FCP (in whatever form) on a $5k mac can hold it's ground against a full blown Avid suite. In my own self interest I'll only encourage you to stick to your guns

While I agree that FCP does not compete with a fully kitted out Avid system. While I agree that Avid has real advantages over FCP.

Those who heavily use and have invested in Avid. Use the expense of an Avid as cache for how serious one is about their work. They tend to look down on others who have not so heavily invested in such a system as not being so serious about their work. I find that is a mentality tends in more of the older editors.
post #51 of 217
With finishing he's talking about the final master edit and picture lock.

He's right much of the time that is done on an Avid.

Quote:
Originally Posted by akhomerun View Post

Not one feature is finished? That's a overreaching statement. I'm sure File > Save works just fine.
post #52 of 217
Quote:
Originally Posted by addicted44 View Post

Thank you. I don't understand why folks can't display this basic common sense?

The alternative would have been for Apple to wait till they had multi-camera editing ready, and then release.

Why should they hold it for a feature that not everyone needs.

Quote:

Its a complete rewrite. Why is anyone shocked there are missing features?

indeed. Many of the naysayers are looking at this as an update when it is more kind a brand new software, that just happens to do some of the same things as an existing one

A non tech's thoughts on Apple stuff 

(She's family so I'm a little biased)

Reply

A non tech's thoughts on Apple stuff 

(She's family so I'm a little biased)

Reply
post #53 of 217
Quote:
Originally Posted by akhomerun View Post

Should we stop using film? No. But to an independent film student making a film, FCP and the kind of digital technology have dramatically increased the accessibility of making professional or near professional quality films. It's content that matters, not how you make it. Can a film student afford a Panavision film camera??


What film school are you going to that convinced you that content is all that matters? Not to make light of it, but a film student will never craft a movie like a seasoned professional. Or at least they won't craft it like they will after 15 years in the business and believe me full metal jaket would not be the same film had it been shot on a hand held HVX.

You're confusing the issue. Either technology matters and makes better films or technology doesn't matter and content reigns supreme. This brings to mind something...

When I was in school we were constantly told that Anyone who can afford to spend more money on a project will almost certainly have a better product at the end. They did not recommend cutting corners. Many students hated it, but it was a reality the teachers were preparing us for. I'd still day the same thing. I spent 30k on my first student short. It won a few awards, but it was still a piece of crap even though yes it was shot on a panavision.

The school was bought shortly after I left and sold to a corporation that understood one thing... more students, more money and technology makes it cheaper for students and more appealing to parents.

With complete disregard for the fact that Hollywood is all of five major studios and only employs a relative few thousand people, they quadrupled the student body. They did away with allot of the film science and tech and turned the entire program into a digital workflow.

The net result was appalling...


Within 3 years the stats for the graduating classes were abdominal. 80% of the students didn't make it past year one, 90% of the graduating students weren't working in the field at all. Of the 10% graduated and working fewer than 4% were earning more than $50k.

They flooded the market with potential employees that knew little about what they were really expected to do and the employment records showed it.

Eventually the state BOE sued the school because almost none of these students we able to pay back their loans. The school almost lost it's accreditation. The state lost face with the feds and Sallie Mae. (?) In the end the students still owed a hundred or so thousand dollars, but were only awarded a few thousand dollars for their trouble. The state buried the embarrassment in trusting the corporation and the lawyers in the class action suit were the only ones who accomplished anything buy making all of money.

Technology has indeed made it marketable and accessible to the masses, but I don't think the industry has benefited from it. If you are a student I would recommend you find a way of entering a very specialized niche, get really good at it and start marketing the fuck out of yourself because the competition is 10000 fold of what it was when the glamourous image of "working in hollywood" was formed. There simply are not enough jobs to comfortably support every joe who has an Apple computer and a copy of FCP.
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 #54 of 217
Yes FCPX is the new bag of hurt.

Quote:
Originally Posted by CineFilm View Post

So X is missing key features that make it useless to me and I won't bother to enter the long list. I've read a lot of snarky comments like "you all have your old FCP 7 just use it", etc. Well WILL we have it once Lion is released?

When I look at the rapid and abrupt way FCP 7 was pulled (and even demanded that retailers return unsold products - has that ever happened before?) I'm wondering if FCP 7 with Lion is going to be another epic fail. They certainly rushed X to market half-baked as far as functionality and compatibility are concerned. I don't think they would do that and take the PR hit for an immature product if they weren't trying to beat Lion.

I was all onboard for a new interface, even a new paradigm but X ain't it. It's more of a lobotomized, Stepford Wife version - pretty facade but robotic and brainless. I get the feeling that the designers of X value form over function when form should follow and enhance function. I used to develop software and I know that it's orders of magnitude simpler to create an elegant, pretty interface when when you throw out functionality wholesale.

AppleInsider warned this was going to consumer, maybe prosumer a year ago. A few months earlier, just before NAB 2010, Apple laid off 40 FCP employees. Hmmm.

What I really wanted from FCP was for it to utilize my graphics card, RAM, cores, etc. I didn't want to have to choose between speed and features. It's been 2 years since the last OS X upgrade and all signals were pointing to Apple bailing on the pro market. I was hopeful after this year's demo at NAB but I'm not waiting and hoping any longer for Apple to get it together. I don't want to move to Premiere but it has features AND speed and it has it now. I can even use Color and Soundtrack Pro with Premiere (but not with FCP X). And if Snow Leopard was any indication, Adobe will support Premiere on Lion better than Apple will support FCP (7 or X) on Lion.
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 #55 of 217
I would say more money = a better movie up to a point. From the perspective of low budget filmmaking.

From $500,000 to $1 million. You definitely can make a better movie.

From $1 million to $2million if you know what you are doing, you can make a better movie.

It gets to a point where you start to run into diminishing returns. A movie that could be made for $5 million and gets a $20 million dollar budget. You're not necessarily going to make a better movie and its possible to make a worse movie.



Quote:
Originally Posted by spliff monkey View Post

When I was in school we were constantly told that Anyone who can afford to spend more money on a project will almost certainly have a better product at the end. They did not recommend cutting corners. Many students hated it, but it was a reality the teachers were preparing us for. I'd still day the same thing. I spent 30k on my first student short. It won a few awards, but it was still a piece of crap even though yes it was shot on a panavision.
post #56 of 217
I was a product manager at Adobe (not for video products though). Still, I think you can draw many comparisons to what we're seeing with FCP X.

I've seen comments comparing the release of FCP X to Mac OS X -- but that isn't really a comparison. Mac OS X didn't have a "Competitor". But the release of Mac OS X did have a huge impact on some other competing products - QuarkXPress and Adobe InDesign.

At the time, Quark was clearly the market leader. Adobe created InDesign, but its launch was initially a failure. Shortly thereafter, Apple released Mac OS X, and the next version of InDesign (v2, not CS2) was Mac OS X native. Quark didn't have a Mac OS X native version and wouldn't for a few years afterwards. Sure, InDesign 2 had some great features, but its real success and adoption was driven by all those companies that wanted Mac OS X native software on their machines (these companies were at the same time making the upgrade to Mac OS X and wanted to upgrade hardware and software in one fell swoop).

At that point, Quark was playing catch-up to InDesign and it was a losing battle. A combination of a shift in hardware and software helped Adobe upset the market leader.

Go a few years back and look at Adobe Premiere -- Adobe saw a shift in hardware and advancing tapeless workflows and realized that their video editing software wasn't going to cut it. So they completely rewrote Adobe Premiere from the ground up to fully support 64 bit, to embrace metadata and to support tapeless workflows. This was a huge amount of work for Adobe (I guess now that we see FCP X, we can understand just how big of a project something like this is). In fact, Adobe didn't even release Mac versions of Premiere at first -- it was too much to handle in one release. But when it did finally arrive, a completely rewritten and modern Adobe Premiere Pro alongside its sibling apps that were already industry-standards become compelling.

I've seen support for Adobe's video products gaining momentum over the last year or so (the CS5.5 release is impressive) but I also believe that many folks refused to look in that direction knowing that FCP X was imminent.

But now it's here. And it's lacking. And the question will be, how many folks will now take a serious look in Adobe's direction? Will they wait for Apple to continue to chip away and improve upon FCP over the next few versions? Or will they jump ship now to Adobe's offering?

Overall, this isn't about whether Apple will "fix" all of these issues. I'm sure they will. The question is, will their clientele hang around long enough to wait for it?

Of course, I could be reading this totally wrong. Maybe Apple saw a shift in the pro market and decided it was no longer worth their while to compete in that area? Maybe they "let" Adobe or others have that while they focused on what they might consider a more powerful market of consumers who want more than iMovie? That's certainly possible as well...

Mordy
post #57 of 217
Guys, I'm an Apple guy through and through, but I think a lot of you are still really missing the point.

Apple is about to see a massive decline in pro edit suite market share. It has nothing to do with dinosaurs wedded to tape or old guys unwilling to learn a new paradigm. As has been described at length, this version of FCP lacks basic tools that are required for pro work flows, and there isn't much in these statements from FCP product managers that suggests that's going to get much better. Better, yes, but not good enough to qualify. It's just a stone fact; if you doubt it talk to someone who makes their living using FCP.

Now, it may be that Apple will sell a great many more copies of FCPX than they ever did FCP. There may be an explosion of prosumer and one man shops doing, well, kind of similar work, since FCP X is so adamant about herding you in certain directions, with automated process and limited presets. For a single person on a single machine, who intends to publish online, FCP X is a powerful tool. Wedding videographers and small market media guys are probably going to love it.

But for pro production houses a lot of the damage is already done. Apple has signaled that they don't understand pro work flows, that they don't care about this market, and that frankly they can't be trusted to provide a stable path going forward. I'm talking about people with 10 years and hundreds of thousands of dollars invested in FCP processes who have simply been cut off at the knees, with no warning whatsoever. You don't have to be some kind of Apple basher to see how destructive to loyalty that is. Look around online; large post houses are already on record as planning on switching away, either to Avid or Adobe.

So Apple is going a different way with FCP X, one that has no place in professional edit suites. That's entirely their right. But it's kind of stunning, in that FCP had managed to carve out such a nice chunk of that market, and gave Apple a marquee software presence that helped legitimize the brand among pros.

Now obviously they don't need that kind of "legitimacy" any more, they're thriving in lots markets. Losing the pro post market at this point isn't going to hurt them a bit. But don't imagine that the controversy can be chalked up reactionary old timers. You're just wrong about that. Unless you imagine that the cool new "future" of video editing that Apple is bravely pointing us towards means that every project is done on the fly by individuals with laptops who send the results off to Vimeo or You Tube. That's cool as far as it goes, and it's cool that Apple can provide powerful tools to do those things.

But they're not going to start making feature films, television shows and major ad campaigns that way, and that's a market Apple has just ceded to the competition.
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
post #58 of 217
Professional video editing requires a lot of collaboration. That is why shops standardize on one platform and stick to it. Occasionally there is a migration effect between versions of the same software since there are enough similarities and backwards compatibly to still share the work load across several editors without conflict. The fact that FCPX does not share anything in common with its predecessor makes it no different than introducing an Avid workstation into a Final Cut work flow. It just doesn't work. If a professional shop wanted to upgrade to FCPX they would have to do all the workstations at the same time and all editors would have to cope with the learning curve at the same time. This would essentially shut down the company and make everything done previously incompatible. That is just not something that many professional shops would consider.

This product is designed exclusively for a solo freelancer who does not need to use any post house services or be compatible with any other software, doesn't need any plug ins, high end camera support or features such as multicam. Essentially the amateur web video editor is who this product is designed for. Which brings to mind, why did they remove FCP 7? Because Apple has this fixation with everything being part of the ecosystem and FCP did not fit. It doesn't work with iCloud or the App Store and probably has some issues with Lion for all we know. iMovie on the other hand is a perfect fit. So iMovie Pro it is. I'm glad I ordered another FCP Studio box set yesterday to hold me over.

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply
post #59 of 217
These editing professionals pissing on Apple has sent the fanboys over the edge!

Nothing new about that though.
post #60 of 217
Quote:
Originally Posted by kresh View Post

These editing professionals pissing on Apple has sent the fanboys over the edge.

Nothing new about that though!

That's really not helpful and fairly asshole-ish. It's not about "pissing on Apple", it's about a realistic assessment of what Apple intends for FCP X and who it works for.

Video pros will use whatever tools work; their's nothing personal in it. If Apple at some point changes it up and adds back in a lot of collaborative functionally and user customizability those same pros will reconsider their options. It is true that Apple has burned some bridges here, so a lot of people will want to see at least the rudiments of a roadmap before they're willing to recommit. Nevertheless, if Apple builds the best tool they'll get the users, and pointless Apple bashing (or defending) really doesn't enter into it.
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
post #61 of 217
Quote:
Originally Posted by Prof. Peabody View Post

The majority of professionals don't even use tape.

Just shut up. You're embarrassing yourself.
post #62 of 217
The version of Quicktime in 10.6 stripped out most of the features, and almost two years later we're still waiting to get them back.

Are they all finally restored in 10.7? Or do we have to wait even longer?

"Just wait" wouldn't be so bad if the wait was measured in months, but for people making a living with the software, years are an awfully long time especially for an app that has already gone a couple years without update.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Prof. Peabody View Post

Out of all the complaints, the most ridiculous and unsupportable is that the new version is "not for professionals."

A few old geezers that are afraid of doing anything new or stopping their addiction to magnetic tape (of all things), are making a lot of sounds that it isn't for "professionals" because it removes their ancient workflows from the equation. The majority of professionals using the old Final Cut will move to the new one with no problems at all. The majority of professionals don't even use tape.

Bull. There are professionals who simply can't use the new software due to missing features, so it literally IS not for the professionals doing that sort of work. And things like OMF/EDL are hardly "ancient" workflows, they are still used all the time, tape or no tape. Sure, there are plenty of professionals doing lower end work that will be perfectly happy, but that doesn't change the fact that it is missing features crucial for broadcast and film work. But since you're not a professional video editor, why should anyone care what you think about the situation?
post #63 of 217
Quote:
Originally Posted by addabox View Post

Guys, I'm an Apple guy through and through, but I think a lot of you are still really missing the point.

Apple is about to see a massive decline in pro edit suite market share. It has nothing to do with dinosaurs wedded to tape or old guys unwilling to learn a new paradigm. As has been described at length, this version of FCP lacks basic tools that are required for pro work flows, and there isn't much in these statements from FCP product managers that suggests that's going to get much better. Better, yes, but not good enough to qualify. It's just a stone fact; if you doubt it talk to someone who makes their living using FCP.

These types of claims are always made when Apple makes these big transitions.

When going from OS 9 to OS X. Articles were written were their was doubt that people would actually buy new machines and repurchase software all to support OS X. There was the feeling that people would abandon the Mac instead of going through this transition. In reality people bought more Macs than ever because of OS X.

When going from Power PC to Intel. Articles were written about how the computer market would clearly see how over priced Macs are. Apple would be forced to sell sub-$1000 machines or else people would abandon the Mac. In reality people bought more Macs than ever before.

Those are far larger transitions than FCP 7 to FCP X.


Quote:
But for pro production houses a lot of the damage is already done. Apple has signaled that they don't understand pro work flows, that they don't care about this market, and that frankly they can't be trusted to provide a stable path going forward. I'm talking about people with 10 years and hundreds of thousands of dollars invested in FCP processes who have simply been cut off at the knees, with no warning whatsoever. You don't have to be some kind of Apple basher to see how destructive to loyalty that is. Look around online; large post houses are already on record as planning on switching away, either to Avid or Adobe.


As people begin to dig into the underlying code of FCP X. They are finding that Apple has made radical and wide sweeping changes to the the architecture and file management. From a software development stand point these changes will potentially make FCP X far better than the original FCP could have ever been in its current form.

Do you really believe Apple went through all of that effort to abandon the pro market and solely cater to the consumer?
post #64 of 217
I don't think there's any call for attacking people either way. FCP is a tool; it either meets the needs of a user or doesn't. It's perplexing that Apple would do such an about-face with software that has done so well in a particular market, but it's not a referendum on Apple or any particular Apple user.
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
post #65 of 217
Quote:
Originally Posted by TenoBell View Post

I would say more money = a better movie up to a point. From the perspective of low budget filmmaking.

From $500,000 to $1 million. You definitely can make a better movie.

From $1 million to $2million if you know what you are doing, you can make a better movie.

It gets to a point where you start to run into diminishing returns. A movie that could be made for $5 million and gets a $20 million dollar budget. You're not necessarily going to make a better movie and its possible to make a worse movie.

I agree 100%. My frame of reference is always "Lost in Translation" for a great success. I think they made it for $5 and grossed $44 mil. Opening week USA and they made back almost 1/4 of their total budget.
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 #66 of 217
Quote:
Originally Posted by kresh View Post

These editing professionals pissing on Apple has sent the fanboys over the edge!

Nothing new about that though.

Well we can be pretty sure it isn't Randy Ubillos's fault. Since he mostly wrote the original Final Cut by himself, FCP is probably what he thought a professional editing application should look like. I never did believe Steve's keynote remarks that "One of our engineers was on vacation in the Caribbean and got the idea for a better way to edit movies. And so here it is iMovie". That was a load of crap then and this is no different. Randy, I hope, has nothing to do with this, but is simply following orders from Steve. Because if this is really Randy's idea then he has totally changed his original perspective on what makes a powerful editing application. This is just iMovie on steroids.

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply
post #67 of 217
Quote:
Originally Posted by mstone View Post

Professional video editing requires a lot of collaboration. That is why shops standardize on one platform and stick to it. Occasionally there is a migration effect between versions of the same software since there are enough similarities and backwards compatibly to still share the work load across several editors without conflict. The fact that FCPX does not share anything in common with its predecessor makes it no different than introducing an Avid workstation into a Final Cut work flow. It just doesn't work. If a professional shop wanted to upgrade to FCPX they would have to do all the workstations at the same time and all editors would have to cope with the learning curve at the same time. This would essentially shut down the company and make everything done previously incompatible. That is just not something that many professional shops would consider.

This product is designed exclusively for a solo freelancer who does not need to use any post house services or be compatible with any other software, doesn't need any plug ins, high end camera support or features such as multicam. Essentially the amateur web video editor is who this product is designed for. Which brings to mind, why did they remove FCP 7? Because Apple has this fixation with everything being part of the ecosystem and FCP did not fit. It doesn't work with iCloud or the App Store and probably has some issues with Lion for all we know. iMovie on the other hand is a perfect fit. So iMovie Pro it is. I'm glad I ordered another FCP Studio box set yesterday to hold me over.

MSTONE! Good post and BTW I bought 2 copies.

Quote:
Originally Posted by kresh View Post

These editing professionals pissing on Apple has sent the fanboys over the edge!

Nothing new about that though.

We DID kinda send them over the edge huh? oops. Addabox has some great thoughts, but personally I do think there is something a bit visceral in this issue to. Maybe we all have abandonment issues, but one has to admit that it's just a bit ironic that the software that basically redefined Apple's prowess in a professional sense (adobe had already dominated DTP and photography) would be stripped down. The question is of course for how long?

Anyone know how large the dev team for FCP is now?

Quote:
Originally Posted by addabox View Post

That's really not helpful and fairly asshole-ish. It's not about "pissing on Apple", it's about a realistic assessment of what Apple intends for FCP X and who it works for.

Video pros will use whatever tools work; their's nothing personal in it. If Apple at some point changes it up and adds back in a lot of collaborative functionally and user customizability those same pros will reconsider their options. It is true that Apple has burned some bridges here, so a lot of people will want to see at least the rudiments of a roadmap before they're willing to recommit. Nevertheless, if Apple builds the best tool they'll get the users, and pointless Apple bashing (or defending) really doesn't enter into it.

It's ok Apple pissed first. But you're right ultimately everyone will just move on and make adjustments a needed.

Quote:
Originally Posted by minderbinder View Post

Bull. There are professionals who simply can't use the new software due to missing features, so it literally IS not for the professionals doing that sort of work. And things like OMF/EDL are hardly "ancient" workflows, they are still used all the time, tape or no tape. Sure, there are plenty of professionals doing lower end work that will be perfectly happy, but that doesn't change the fact that it is missing features crucial for broadcast and film work. But since you're not a professional video editor, why should anyone care what you think about the situation?

Good post.

Quote:
Originally Posted by TenoBell View Post

As people begin to dig into the underlying code of FCP X. They are finding that Apple has made radical and wide sweeping changes to the the architecture and file management. From a software development stand point these changes will potentially make FCP X far better than the original FCP could have ever been in its current form.

Do you really believe Apple went through all of that effort to abandon the pro market and solely cater to the consumer?

I do hope they are committed, but it really doesn't matter. If they fix the problem in a few months great, if then we'll buy different gear. If they fix the problems we'll consider it again.

I would say all signs (hardware and software related) indicate at this point that it'll be a long wait... if it's ever their concern again.
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 #68 of 217
I think that was the whole point. To radically change the way editing is accomplished.



The standard editing layout that we are more familiar with (preview screen, live screen, time line, clip bin) was appropriated from the language of the flat bed for film cutting and splicing.



They designed the NLE UI to make it easier for editors who were used to the work flow and language of the Moviola flat bed.

Even the terminology reel, cutting, splicing, B-roll, clips, bins. All literal terms for dealing with physical film.

After all of this time why do we have to stay beholden to a work flow and language that we really stopped using twenty years ago? We've only hung on to it simply because it was how people were used to working.


Quote:
Originally Posted by mstone View Post

Because if this is really Randy's idea then he has totally changed his original perspective on what makes a powerful editing application. This is just iMovie on steroids.
post #69 of 217
Quote:
Originally Posted by dagamer34 View Post

In other words, Final Cut Pro X isn't ready for full production primetime now, but in a year, most people who are willing to stick it out will have adapted already.

What I do argue is that if you have mission critical work, it's not as if your current version of Final Cut Studio has decided to implode on itself. By the time you will have carefully evaluated the software for your needs, more features will be added and then if critical feature X is missing, you should complain or move elsewhere.

One concern in that direction is that the cue from Apple is that there won't be a project import from previous versions. Eventually the old software won't work anymore and there might not be a way to revive the project should it need any changes, as rare as that might be a few years down the road.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Aiwaz418 View Post

No, it just requires that users download the FREE RedCineX from the RED website to convert into numerous formats for ingestion into FCP. Of course, it is a faster process with the Red Rocket card, but the price of that is prohibitive to any but pros.

If you're dealing with RED footage then you're probably a pro. Though some sort of native editing would be a good idea.
post #70 of 217
The celluloid legacy stuff is a very good point, but the thing is that building an edit is firmly tied to a kind of physicality regardless of what you or Apple may think or want. The very fact of one image following another, with synchronous sound, is an exercise in a form of architectural making that can't be easily abstracted into a kind of everything at once computer database environment.

There are some things about FCP X that are, in fact, a welcome break from the dictates of celluloid. But that comes at the expense of things that are simply reasonable ways of managing and sharing lots and lots of media, not to mention the woeful loss of customizability (which ironically takes us closer to flatbeds than not).
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
post #71 of 217
The trend that Apple has been on is a disturbing one. They have been systematically dismantling their Enterprise/Corporate support now for some time.

Xserve - dead
Xsan - dead
Xserver RAID - dead
FCP Server - dead
OSX Server - marginalized
FCP - marginalized

These were all solid products (well, with the exception of FCP Server). Sure each of them had their own little issues - but what enterprise level hardware or software doesn't?

I quite honestly don't understand this trend. Sure the consumer market is a cash-cow for them, but with just a little bit more effort, Apple could have OWNED the Enterprise market as well. They certainly were positioned well to the small/medium sized businesses.

As a consumer product, they're great. As an enterprise product, they look as if they are making every effort to completely remove themselves from the equation.
post #72 of 217
Quote:
Originally Posted by ibgarrett View Post

The trend that Apple has been on is a disturbing one. They have been systematically dismantling their Enterprise/Corporate support now for some time.

Xserve - People weren't buying them.
Xsan - People weren't buying it.
XServe RAID - People weren't buying them.
FCP Server - People weren't buying it.
OSX Server - Cheaper.
FCP - Revamp, full updates to come.

Fixed.

Originally posted by Marvin

Even if [the 5.5” iPhone exists], it doesn’t deserve to.
Reply

Originally posted by Marvin

Even if [the 5.5” iPhone exists], it doesn’t deserve to.
Reply
post #73 of 217
Quote:
Originally Posted by dnlzch View Post

It imports older IMovie projects, but not older Final Cut projects. Like it or not, that kind of makes it IMovie Pro.

That's about the size of it. This is the MobileMe of video editing:



Quote:
Originally Posted by TenoBell

As people begin to dig into the underlying code of FCP X. They are finding that Apple has made radical and wide sweeping changes to the the architecture and file management. From a software development stand point these changes will potentially make FCP X far better than the original FCP could have ever been in its current form.

That's totally fine but they shouldn't discontinue the old software and upgrades. If you have FCS2, you can't get FCS3. You can't get Color or DVD Studio Pro any more. You cannot throw decades of work or file structuring out overnight and given the fact that you can't import old projects, you pretty much have to.

Quote:
Originally Posted by mstone

Professional video editing requires a lot of collaboration.

This is the one of the big things I don't get. They said that you can actually share files, you just have to recreate events or something but it's not nearly as clear as it was before. It seems fairly obvious that the software was designed for a single user yet it makes more sense to design it for multi-user and that way it works easily for everyone.

Quote:
Originally Posted by edm81363

Why would Apple's Product Managers interact with a non-editor to defend this product?

They like to keep the press happy for some reason. They probably get Walt Mossberg to try all the apps out before anyone to see what he thinks. Every event, it's a press event, antennagate was apologising to the press. For a company that tells the press they are all about customers, I think it's about time they show us what that means in this scenario.
post #74 of 217
Quote:
Originally Posted by ibgarrett View Post

The trend that Apple has been on is a disturbing one. They have been systematically dismantling their Enterprise/Corporate support now for some time.

Xserve - dead
Xsan - dead
Xserver RAID - dead
FCP Server - dead
OSX Server - marginalized
FCP - marginalized

These were all solid products (well, with the exception of FCP Server). Sure each of them had their own little issues - but what enterprise level hardware or software doesn't?

I quite honestly don't understand this trend. Sure the consumer market is a cash-cow for them, but with just a little bit more effort, Apple could have OWNED the Enterprise market as well. They certainly were positioned well to the small/medium sized businesses.

As a consumer product, they're great. As an enterprise product, they look as if they are making every effort to completely remove themselves from the equation.


When this stuff started I resisted the idea that Apple was "abandoning the Pro market" since it seemed reasonable to wait and see what else they might have up their sleeve.

But the stuff you list (not to mention the seemingly lackadaisical upgrade schedule for the Mac Pro) seem to irrefutably indicate that Apple has lost interest in supporting at least a certain kind of enterprise.

Now, maybe Apple has some idea that they're positioning themselves to play a roll in some kind of 21st century enterprise that they've dreamed up-- more decentralized, quicker to evolve, something made up of a lot of cheap parts that can be quickly reconfigured via the cloud.

But enterprise stuff (or professional media stuff) isn't like legacy I/O or optical disks or Rosetta. You can't churn those markets quickly enough to make quick traumatic break quickly forgotten in the flood of fun new stuff. They just don't operate that way. Maybe you create new markets, but old markets aren't swept aside in a year or two just because a computer company decided they were impatient with the Old Way of Doing Things.
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
post #75 of 217
Quote:
Originally Posted by Prof. Peabody View Post

Out of all the complaints, the most ridiculous and unsupportable is that the new version is "not for professionals."

A few old geezers that are afraid of doing anything new or stopping their addiction to magnetic tape (of all things), are making a lot of sounds that it isn't for "professionals" because it removes their ancient workflows from the equation. The majority of professionals using the old Final Cut will move to the new one with no problems at all. The majority of professionals don't even use tape.

Final Cut Pro X is so totally *not* a "consumer" product in any way. Your just being ridiculous.

Thankfully, one skill I've developed recently is how to spot a post about this topic by someone who has never been within ten miles of a post house. Saves me a lot of wasted reading.
post #76 of 217
Well I'm not necessarily advocating for the way Apple has developed the new UI. I'll leave it up to the market to decide that one.

I'm simply saying there is little reason that we have to stick to the standard NLE UI because its roots come from a physical machine. When you are working with software there is less need to replicate the controls of a machine.


Quote:
Originally Posted by addabox View Post

The celluloid legacy stuff is a very good point, but the thing is that building an edit is firmly tied to a kind of physicality regardless of what you or Apple may think or want. The very fact of one image following another, with synchronous sound, is an exercise in a form of architectural making that can't be easily abstracted into a kind of everything at once computer database environment.

There are some things about FCP X that are, in fact, a welcome break from the dictates of celluloid. But that comes at the expense of things that are simply reasonable ways of managing and sharing lots and lots of media, not to mention the woeful loss of customizability (which ironically takes us closer to flatbeds than not).
post #77 of 217
Apple's new releases greatly pleases many "prosumers" like myself.

It also temporarily angers some professional FCP editors while they wait for features.

Compare the number of Prosumers (5 million?) with the number of professional editors (20,000?) and get back to me.

I think we have been giving creedence to FCP editors as if their priorities are Apple's own. Well, I am a prosumer and I matter much more to Apple than the pros do. Great, seeya.
post #78 of 217
Quote:
Originally Posted by TenoBell View Post

Well I'm not necessarily advocating for the way Apple has developed the new UI. I'll leave it up to the market to decide that one.

I'm simply saying there is little reason that we have to stick to the standard NLE UI because its roots come from a physical machine. When you are working with software there is less need to replicate the controls of a machine.

True enough, I would just add that sometimes analogues to physicality have reasons involving how we operated as human beings and not just because of slavish imitation of earlier forms.

There have been all kinds of peculiar variants on the idea of a "musical instrument" engendered by digital devices, but keyboards and fretboards and strike-able surfaces still predominate because of how our hands and eyes and ears work. I've seen NLEs compared to musical instruments; I think there are limits to how far afield you can go with a musical instrument before you render it unresponsive or inflexible to the musician. Just, hard to play.

Digital technology allows us to configure processes any way we want, with no regard at all for how it was done in the analog world. That doesn't mean, however, than any configuration is going to be particularly good. It's still an art; it remains to be seen how accomplished Apple's art is in this case.
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
post #79 of 217
Quote:
Originally Posted by TenoBell View Post


After all of this time why do we have to stay beholden to a work flow and language that we really stopped using twenty years ago? We've only hung on to it simply because it was how people were used to working.

So we should be ashamed of the lineage because it's part of history? We should throw away the terminology and the foundational concepts because they are "old"?

I'd hate to live in your world. No one would be able to get anything done. I suppose we should get rid of the english language too? Or all language for that matter and start with a new visual based language for everyone because it's better?

No one has replaced the qwerety keyboard yet either. nor have we really replaced the pad and pencil.

You are basically a nihilist and in popular vernacular a "hater". You twist your own arguments around to suit your own ends. Give up.
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 #80 of 217
Quote:
Originally Posted by Joseph L View Post

Nothing to fight about. It is a bag of hurt and Apple is wise to reject it.

let me ask you something there Tex. If Blu Ray is no good, how do you intend to share your Hi Def masterpiece? Upload it to iDisk? Publish it to you're mobile me web gallery?

Seems to me that mr. Jobs just turned his back on the very tools he introduced to replace optical media. Seems as though there are plenty of "hurt bags" to go around.

Btw, a remastered Ben Hur is forthcoming on Blu Ray. You should pick it up.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Mac Software
AppleInsider › Forums › Software › Mac Software › Apple product managers address complains over Final Cut Pro X