This is an interesting perspective from two video pro's.
They bring up some interesting points. They made some good points about questions that have not been answered by Apple. I felt they made some "the sky is falling" predictions simply based on the fact that they don't know what Apple is going to do.
Parts of their complaints are simply complaining because FCP X will force them to do things differently from what they are used to. They even acknowledge that FCP X will likely make editing much easier than it is today.
Steve is well respected and I have found him to be an excellent teacher.
For anyone who is unsure about FCPX, this is an excellent preso of the pluses and minuses on FCPX vs FCS -- as well as a detail tour of how to use the system.
I've only finished a few lessons, but based on experience with Ripple and Steve Martin -- this is $40 very well spent.
I suspect that many FCPX nay-sayers would be well served by watching this tutorial -- and amazed at what FCPX can do in the hands of an expert --- with a clear sense of his objective in mind.
I'm not sure where you felt I was saying that Apple dictates how films are completed.
Do you not believe its possible to introduce a radically different tools that works better than the previous tools that people are used to?
Yes, of course, there is always room for change. However, at this juncture where HD digital has started to really be accepted there are processes in place that have been developed over the last decade and are an ingrained part of the workflow, accepted by those in the industry.
The (current) inability to conform to those standards by FCPX does not make it a viable product for the professional industry who REQUIRE those tools to deliver films for color grading and post sound. Given the absence of those tools and the complete lack of any alternative provided by Apple, it becomes something purely useful for experienced amateurs or pros who wish only to conform picture with no intent of distributing product for domestic and international delivery standards.
I don't disagree with this assessment of where FCP X stands as it is.
What is my broader point is that there is complaint about these missing features as though it is not possible for Apple to ever add them in. We've seen this play out with Apple's other products. People complain about this or that.
Eventually Apple matures the product into a leader in its category. Seeing this pattern people still exhaust energy in complaining - repeating the cycle.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aiwaz418
The (current) inability to conform to those standards by FCPX does not make it a viable product for the professional industry who REQUIRE those tools to deliver films for color grading and post sound. Given the absence of those tools and the complete lack of any alternative provided by Apple, it becomes something purely useful for experienced amateurs or pros who wish only to conform picture with no intent of distributing product for domestic and international delivery standards.
I don't disagree with this assessment of where FCP X stands as it is.
What is my broader point is that there is complaint about these missing features as though it is not possible for Apple to ever add them in. We've seen this play out with Apple's other products. People complain about this or that.
Eventually Apple matures the product into a leader in its category. Seeing this pattern people still exhaust energy in complaining - repeating the cycle.
One hopes that you are correct in this. It's not as though I was planning on just dumping FCP7 yesterday for an untried piece of software, but having purchased FCPX with the understanding that it was the replacement for FCP7 (which was pulled from the Apple site yesterday) I was surprised that it lacked those tools 'out of the box', so to speak, since they have been an integral part of FCP for some time now.
I think many of us also took it hard because so many in the industry are unabashed Apple fanboys who have come to expect miraculous things (okay, not always immediately, agreed) from the company that this seemed a major letdown. Of course, I own it now and will certainly give it a chance when I hear that they have made some improvements. In the meantime, back to work on FCP7....
Yes, of course, there is always room for change. However, at this juncture where HD digital has started to really be accepted there are processes in place that have been developed over the last decade and are an ingrained part of the workflow, accepted by those in the industry.
The (current) inability to conform to those standards by FCPX does not make it a viable product for the professional industry who REQUIRE those tools to deliver films for color grading and post sound. Given the absence of those tools and the complete lack of any alternative provided by Apple, it becomes something purely useful for experienced amateurs or pros who wish only to conform picture with no intent of distributing product for domestic and international delivery standards.
From an amateur's perspective.
I often use iMovie-created files within FCP and vice-versa.
There are some significant advantages to each tool.
1) Wouldn't it be possible to use a $300 tool (FCPX) to create a clip, or series of clips, that could be processed by FCS -- to compensate for those features not yet implemented in FCPX?
This is a serious question -- I sometimes use other tools such as Photoshop, Motion, Pages, iMovie, Silhouette, etc. -- that can do parts of a project easier, simpler, faster, cheaper, better than FCP.
From what I've seen of FCPX, so far -- it has some significant advantages and can do some things that it is just not practical to do in FCP.
2) Is it reasonable to ignore the potential benefits of FCPX just because it is not a superset of FCP?
One hopes that you are correct in this. It's not as though I was planning on just dumping FCP7 yesterday for an untried piece of software, but having purchased FCPX with the understanding that it was the replacement for FCP7 (which was pulled from the Apple site yesterday) I was surprised that it lacked those tools 'out of the box', so to speak, since they have been an integral part of FCP for some time now.
The clear way to look the situation. Is that this is not FCP 8 as a direct lineage of code from FCP 1.0 - 1999. This is FCP X 1.0 - 2011.
Quote:
I think many of us also took it hard because so many in the industry are unabashed Apple fanboys who have come to expect miraculous things (okay, not always immediately, agreed) from the company that this seemed a major letdown. Of course, I own it now and will certainly give it a chance when I hear that they have made some improvements. In the meantime, back to work on FCP7....
I can agree that Apple has left the industry at large with a a completely known timeline of the future of FCP X. Those who want to stick with FCP can wait and see what Apple does. I think its fair for those who need more assurance in the future of their software may begin to look for other solutions.
No, he can't since the opposite is true - FCP has been growing in pro usage over the last few years as pretty much everyone knows and has been touted on so many high profile television and feature film productions.
Well, perhaps until the release of this monstrosity...
The pro video community that Apple has had has been hedging their bets for years, some would say since the debacle with Compressor a decade ago. Apple has sold a lot of FCP no question, and most houses have FCP suites as well as other formats. And if you're talking about the creative independent world Apple is doing well, and even most editors I know here in NYC who specialize in another format have picked up FCP and learned it as a tool to increase their worth. But not all professional editing is Mac by far, and not all pro Mac editing is FCP.
But the entire spectrum of video post- network news, syndicated shows, sports, major special events- it's not the same story. FCP dominates the midrange Mac niche, but "FCP has been growing in pro usage over the last few years as pretty much everyone knows and has been touted on so many high profile television and feature film productions" is half good penetration and half great PR. This version of FCPX will unfortunately leave much in the way of openings for the other options. In fact, AVID is already jumping all over it with advice on how to switch over if FCPX is missing features you need.
I'm a registered Apple apologist, but Apple has put out a very useful and affordable tool for video work. But if you don't think they've been slipping in the pro arena even as they've been selling more units you're an armchair quarterback. Go buy some trade mags and read up,
Hold on there...I knew it was built from the ground up and not compatible with FCP, but it can't communicate with the other Apple Pro apps? You can't assign the audio tracks for stems? No true video output? What we see is always a preview, you can't switch from that to true video output? No OMF or XML export OR IMPORT? (I dont but I have friends who LIVE on OMF and XML importing and exporting.)
Wow...Just wow...
Thanks for the link, Rob.
And mstrat, I also noticed the comments were removed from the app store : (
They've basically handed over the pro video editing on a Mac to AVID.
There's a lot of naiveté amongst editors. Many complained about how FCP was getting long in the tooth and in danger of being left behind. Many wanted native editing of more codecs and 64-bit support.
Few understood, even at a basic level, the amount of work required to rewrite FCP in cocoa and support 64-bit and modern codecs.
Is FCPX ready now? No. Is it now based on a modern codebase that will allow Apple to iterate versions more quickly? Yes.
$400 for what costed a grand before. I think FCP maintains marketshare and even grows.
This is an interesting perspective from two video pro's.
They bring up some interesting points. They made some good points about questions that have not been answered by Apple. I felt they made some "the sky is falling" predictions simply based on the fact that they don't know what Apple is going to do.
Parts of their complaints are simply complaining because FCP X will force them to do things differently from what they are used to. They even acknowledge that FCP X will likely make editing much easier than it is today.
TenoBell, I think you're misinterpreting their issues with it. They acknowledge it makes the basic act of editing easier for anyone, but they're saying that the removal or lack of presence of so many key functions means that pros cannot use it the way they need to, not as they'd like to. To imply that they could work with it at the level it forces them to implies that they should be happy being a prosumer edit house doing wedding videos instead of a professional one doing feature films.
You cannot take certain capabilities out of a pro studio's set up and not replace them with something else. There is no "sky is falling" predictions when you don't have months or years to find out if plugins will be supported. If a client needs plugins they will go where they can use them. If Apple isn't talking, the pros won't wait around. Personally, the lack of audio routing, unless I'm misinterpreting it, is a stupifying dealkiller no matter how easy it is to create a home movie.
TenoBell, I think you're misinterpreting their issues with it. They acknowledge it makes the basic act of editing easier for anyone, but they're saying that the removal or lack of presence of so many key functions means that pros cannot use it the way they need to, not as they'd like to. To imply that they could work with it at the level it forces them to implies that they should be happy being a prosumer edit house doing wedding videos instead of a professional one doing feature films.
You cannot take certain capabilities out of a pro studio's set up and not replace them with something else. There is no "sky is falling" predictions when you don't have months or years to find out if plugins will be supported. If a client needs plugins they will go where they can use them. If Apple isn't talking, the pros won't wait around. Personally, the lack of audio routing, unless I'm misinterpreting it, is a stupifying dealkiller no matter how easy it is to create a home movie.
This is all true enough, and God knows I share the dismay at how limited the new FCP is, but a lot of the discussion about market share seems predicted on the idea that everyone has to either chose to upgrade to FCPX now or abandon the platform.
That, of course, is simply untrue, and it seems unlikely that some significant number of FCP post houses are abruptly going to jump ship just because this version of Final Cut doesn't cut it. As others have noted, no one's copy of FCP 7 is suddenly going to be rendered useless.
Now, 6 months from now if Apple hasn't made demonstrated some trend towards adding back key pieces of functionality, or at least made some kind of public statement regarding their intentions, then I could see people starting to plan ahead for a post Apple future. But I think it's too soon to just declare that Apple has abandoned the pro and that therefore everyone must burn their copies of Final Cut immediately and get with their next NLE.
Now, 6 months from now if Apple hasn't made demonstrated some trend towards adding back key pieces of functionality, or at least made some kind of public statement regarding their intentions, then I could see people starting to plan ahead for a post Apple future.
I would say that in 6 months, if Apple has not DELIVERED the missing functionality people will begin a real exodus. They have a limited window here since FCP 7 was already behind Media Composer and Premiere in several areas.
TenoBell, I think you're misinterpreting their issues with it. They acknowledge it makes the basic act of editing easier for anyone, but they're saying that the removal or lack of presence of so many key functions means that pros cannot use it the way they need to, not as they'd like to. To imply that they could work with it at the level it forces them to implies that they should be happy being a prosumer edit house doing wedding videos instead of a professional one doing feature films.
Yes I do understand that. And acknowledged it. At the same time they went way out on the line with assumptions based on what they do not know.
Quote:
You cannot take certain capabilities out of a pro studio's set up and not replace them with something else. There is no "sky is falling" predictions when you don't have months or years to find out if plugins will be supported. If a client needs plugins they will go where they can use them. If Apple isn't talking, the pros won't wait around. Personally, the lack of audio routing, unless I'm misinterpreting it, is a stupifying dealkiller no matter how easy it is to create a home movie.
The "sky is falling" predictions come from people not really being clear on exactly where Apple is going to go with FCP X. So they just make up stuff to fill in the gap.
The only choice is to wait to see what Apple does - or move on to a different NLE that you feel suits your needs better.
"Compound Clips allow complex compositions to be simplified into a single clip."
Is this Shake?
It's just clip grouping - multiple layers get squashed down to one.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hmurchison
I don't know why people thought they'd be able to easily import files created on an entirely different codebase.
No excuse for this IMO, we're talking about a timeline of edits with links to source files. The amount of data to get one to the other is so ridiculously small that this is just beyond belief. They expect people to rebuild timelines to be able to revise old projects? No, this software should never have been released without support for old project files. I know an FCP project can have multiple sequences but how hard would it have been to create multiple projects per sequence? Import from iMovie is insulting.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DoctorGonzo
- No EDL
- No XML
- No OMF
- No Backwards Compatibility - EXCEPT FOR iMOVIE (!!!!)
- No Deck Support
- No External Monitor Support
- No Multicam Support
- No Networked Volume Support
- No Ability to Choose the Destination of Project Files
- No Manual Color Correction
- No Sequence Settings
- No Screen Layout Settings
- No Bins
- No Custom Video Dimensions
- No Custom Clips Exported From a Sequence
There apparently are sequence settings but hidden away. The sequence initially conforms to the first clip. This is fine in theory but in practise not so much.
There does seem to be some tape camera support but possibly no decks.
I guess no multicam due to the one viewer making it harder but they could still have done this and it would be better in a fullscreen mode.
I'm not sure why they haven't put out Color yet but I suspect there's a 64-bit thing happening that is going to affect a few of the apps. It seems like they are stripping them right back and rebuilding.
Also:
- can't assign audio channels to tracks to separate them.
- all footage imported is accessible in every project. Good as you don't have to hunt through projects and bad if a client is with you.
- no multiple sequences. I don't mind this so much but having multiple projects open is a must.
- no collaboration so you can't share an edit or your media organisation. This is nuts.
- no PSD support
- editing isn't native so you still have to wait until the transcode finishes - it's just in the background where you can't see it.
- no menu app for DVDs/Blu-Ray but I guess they just handed Adobe a bone there so people can use Encore.
- no reconnect media option: media is there or it's not.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BergerMeister
Thought of another major bonus.
Reinstalled FCS at work today on a new computer. Took several hours.
Am at home now and downloaded FCPX. It took all of 7 minutes, and I didn't have to fiddle with seven discs.
You are transferring over 30GB of data from DVD though. If you install just the apps without the content packs, it goes a good bit faster. You can actually archive the content packs to a hard drive and just copy them on as needed and cut out all the versions you don't use e.g. PAL vs NTSC templates.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TenoBell
The clear way to look the situation. Is that this is not FCP 8 as a direct lineage of code from FCP 1.0 - 1999. This is FCP X 1.0 - 2011.
Not good enough. This is software that businesses rely on. In one day, they discontinued that software and reverted to a package that is not powerful enough to handle high-end workflows. They have done this before but not to such a drastic extent. While you can still use Final Cut Pro, a studio can't buy new seats/licenses so what are they supposed to do?
I think it's good to cut the legacy and force people to move on if they design and test the software to handle it. Not even opening current project files or allow migration is just sheer lunacy. You can't even open them both at the same time so it's not as if you can even rebuild it by referencing as if you'd want to do that.
Seems to me this is like a freakish, get it out the door now deal because people are hyped about it and have been waiting for years. It was stated before that some features would only work properly with Lion so why not ship Lion first to at least give you versioning?
Well, at least now it's out there and now they know what needs to be fixed. I'd say in order of importance:
1. let people open/import their FCP projects.
2. let people manage project and transcode locations.
3. let people share edits and reconnect media. Includes XML/OMF/EDL - these are absolutely necessary for audio/VFX work.
I think almost everything would cool down with just those 3 things and they really aren't huge things to fix at all.
Comments
They bring up some interesting points. They made some good points about questions that have not been answered by Apple. I felt they made some "the sky is falling" predictions simply based on the fact that they don't know what Apple is going to do.
Parts of their complaints are simply complaining because FCP X will force them to do things differently from what they are used to. They even acknowledge that FCP X will likely make editing much easier than it is today.
http://library.creativecow.net/harri...iscardi/FCPX/1
Apple Pro Video Series: Final Cut Pro X
Steve is well respected and I have found him to be an excellent teacher.
For anyone who is unsure about FCPX, this is an excellent preso of the pluses and minuses on FCPX vs FCS -- as well as a detail tour of how to use the system.
I've only finished a few lessons, but based on experience with Ripple and Steve Martin -- this is $40 very well spent.
I suspect that many FCPX nay-sayers would be well served by watching this tutorial -- and amazed at what FCPX can do in the hands of an expert --- with a clear sense of his objective in mind.
I'm not sure where you felt I was saying that Apple dictates how films are completed.
Do you not believe its possible to introduce a radically different tools that works better than the previous tools that people are used to?
Yes, of course, there is always room for change. However, at this juncture where HD digital has started to really be accepted there are processes in place that have been developed over the last decade and are an ingrained part of the workflow, accepted by those in the industry.
The (current) inability to conform to those standards by FCPX does not make it a viable product for the professional industry who REQUIRE those tools to deliver films for color grading and post sound. Given the absence of those tools and the complete lack of any alternative provided by Apple, it becomes something purely useful for experienced amateurs or pros who wish only to conform picture with no intent of distributing product for domestic and international delivery standards.
What is my broader point is that there is complaint about these missing features as though it is not possible for Apple to ever add them in. We've seen this play out with Apple's other products. People complain about this or that.
Eventually Apple matures the product into a leader in its category. Seeing this pattern people still exhaust energy in complaining - repeating the cycle.
The (current) inability to conform to those standards by FCPX does not make it a viable product for the professional industry who REQUIRE those tools to deliver films for color grading and post sound. Given the absence of those tools and the complete lack of any alternative provided by Apple, it becomes something purely useful for experienced amateurs or pros who wish only to conform picture with no intent of distributing product for domestic and international delivery standards.
I don't disagree with this assessment of where FCP X stands as it is.
What is my broader point is that there is complaint about these missing features as though it is not possible for Apple to ever add them in. We've seen this play out with Apple's other products. People complain about this or that.
Eventually Apple matures the product into a leader in its category. Seeing this pattern people still exhaust energy in complaining - repeating the cycle.
One hopes that you are correct in this. It's not as though I was planning on just dumping FCP7 yesterday for an untried piece of software, but having purchased FCPX with the understanding that it was the replacement for FCP7 (which was pulled from the Apple site yesterday) I was surprised that it lacked those tools 'out of the box', so to speak, since they have been an integral part of FCP for some time now.
I think many of us also took it hard because so many in the industry are unabashed Apple fanboys who have come to expect miraculous things (okay, not always immediately, agreed) from the company that this seemed a major letdown. Of course, I own it now and will certainly give it a chance when I hear that they have made some improvements. In the meantime, back to work on FCP7....
Yes, of course, there is always room for change. However, at this juncture where HD digital has started to really be accepted there are processes in place that have been developed over the last decade and are an ingrained part of the workflow, accepted by those in the industry.
The (current) inability to conform to those standards by FCPX does not make it a viable product for the professional industry who REQUIRE those tools to deliver films for color grading and post sound. Given the absence of those tools and the complete lack of any alternative provided by Apple, it becomes something purely useful for experienced amateurs or pros who wish only to conform picture with no intent of distributing product for domestic and international delivery standards.
From an amateur's perspective.
I often use iMovie-created files within FCP and vice-versa.
There are some significant advantages to each tool.
1) Wouldn't it be possible to use a $300 tool (FCPX) to create a clip, or series of clips, that could be processed by FCS -- to compensate for those features not yet implemented in FCPX?
This is a serious question -- I sometimes use other tools such as Photoshop, Motion, Pages, iMovie, Silhouette, etc. -- that can do parts of a project easier, simpler, faster, cheaper, better than FCP.
From what I've seen of FCPX, so far -- it has some significant advantages and can do some things that it is just not practical to do in FCP.
2) Is it reasonable to ignore the potential benefits of FCPX just because it is not a superset of FCP?
You can run them both at the same time!
One hopes that you are correct in this. It's not as though I was planning on just dumping FCP7 yesterday for an untried piece of software, but having purchased FCPX with the understanding that it was the replacement for FCP7 (which was pulled from the Apple site yesterday) I was surprised that it lacked those tools 'out of the box', so to speak, since they have been an integral part of FCP for some time now.
The clear way to look the situation. Is that this is not FCP 8 as a direct lineage of code from FCP 1.0 - 1999. This is FCP X 1.0 - 2011.
I think many of us also took it hard because so many in the industry are unabashed Apple fanboys who have come to expect miraculous things (okay, not always immediately, agreed) from the company that this seemed a major letdown. Of course, I own it now and will certainly give it a chance when I hear that they have made some improvements. In the meantime, back to work on FCP7....
I can agree that Apple has left the industry at large with a a completely known timeline of the future of FCP X. Those who want to stick with FCP can wait and see what Apple does. I think its fair for those who need more assurance in the future of their software may begin to look for other solutions.
I thought I'd head over to the Cow to see what the reviews were like - well holy sheeeit check this out.
Never thought I'd read anything like this ever from Walter http://library.creativecow.net/artic...alter/FCPX.php
<shakes head>
No, he can't since the opposite is true - FCP has been growing in pro usage over the last few years as pretty much everyone knows and has been touted on so many high profile television and feature film productions.
Well, perhaps until the release of this monstrosity...
The pro video community that Apple has had has been hedging their bets for years, some would say since the debacle with Compressor a decade ago. Apple has sold a lot of FCP no question, and most houses have FCP suites as well as other formats. And if you're talking about the creative independent world Apple is doing well, and even most editors I know here in NYC who specialize in another format have picked up FCP and learned it as a tool to increase their worth. But not all professional editing is Mac by far, and not all pro Mac editing is FCP.
But the entire spectrum of video post- network news, syndicated shows, sports, major special events- it's not the same story. FCP dominates the midrange Mac niche, but "FCP has been growing in pro usage over the last few years as pretty much everyone knows and has been touted on so many high profile television and feature film productions" is half good penetration and half great PR. This version of FCPX will unfortunately leave much in the way of openings for the other options. In fact, AVID is already jumping all over it with advice on how to switch over if FCPX is missing features you need.
I'm a registered Apple apologist, but Apple has put out a very useful and affordable tool for video work. But if you don't think they've been slipping in the pro arena even as they've been selling more units you're an armchair quarterback. Go buy some trade mags and read up,
I haven't dl'd it and will stick with v 7 for a while until things shake down.
I thought I'd head over to the Cow to see what the reviews were like - well holy sheeeit check this out.
Never thought I'd read anything like this ever from Walter http://library.creativecow.net/artic...alter/FCPX.php
<shakes head>
Hold on there...I knew it was built from the ground up and not compatible with FCP, but it can't communicate with the other Apple Pro apps? You can't assign the audio tracks for stems? No true video output? What we see is always a preview, you can't switch from that to true video output? No OMF or XML export OR IMPORT? (I dont but I have friends who LIVE on OMF and XML importing and exporting.)
Wow...Just wow...
Thanks for the link, Rob.
And mstrat, I also noticed the comments were removed from the app store : (
They did leave this,though : (
App store shows 251 reviews when I look at Final Cut.
Yep, they seem to be back now. But those comments! Brutal : (
And I have never seen such a response in any of the Apple app Discussions after an update.
https://discussions.apple.com/commun...inal_cut_pro_x
They've basically handed over the pro video editing on a Mac to AVID.
Yep, they seem to be back now. But those comments! Brutal : (
And I have never seen such a response in any of the Apple app Discussions after an update.
https://discussions.apple.com/commun...inal_cut_pro_x
They've basically handed over the pro video editing on a Mac to AVID.
There's a lot of naiveté amongst editors. Many complained about how FCP was getting long in the tooth and in danger of being left behind. Many wanted native editing of more codecs and 64-bit support.
Few understood, even at a basic level, the amount of work required to rewrite FCP in cocoa and support 64-bit and modern codecs.
Is FCPX ready now? No. Is it now based on a modern codebase that will allow Apple to iterate versions more quickly? Yes.
$400 for what costed a grand before. I think FCP maintains marketshare and even grows.
This is an interesting perspective from two video pro's.
They bring up some interesting points. They made some good points about questions that have not been answered by Apple. I felt they made some "the sky is falling" predictions simply based on the fact that they don't know what Apple is going to do.
Parts of their complaints are simply complaining because FCP X will force them to do things differently from what they are used to. They even acknowledge that FCP X will likely make editing much easier than it is today.
http://library.creativecow.net/harri...iscardi/FCPX/1
TenoBell, I think you're misinterpreting their issues with it. They acknowledge it makes the basic act of editing easier for anyone, but they're saying that the removal or lack of presence of so many key functions means that pros cannot use it the way they need to, not as they'd like to. To imply that they could work with it at the level it forces them to implies that they should be happy being a prosumer edit house doing wedding videos instead of a professional one doing feature films.
You cannot take certain capabilities out of a pro studio's set up and not replace them with something else. There is no "sky is falling" predictions when you don't have months or years to find out if plugins will be supported. If a client needs plugins they will go where they can use them. If Apple isn't talking, the pros won't wait around. Personally, the lack of audio routing, unless I'm misinterpreting it, is a stupifying dealkiller no matter how easy it is to create a home movie.
TenoBell, I think you're misinterpreting their issues with it. They acknowledge it makes the basic act of editing easier for anyone, but they're saying that the removal or lack of presence of so many key functions means that pros cannot use it the way they need to, not as they'd like to. To imply that they could work with it at the level it forces them to implies that they should be happy being a prosumer edit house doing wedding videos instead of a professional one doing feature films.
You cannot take certain capabilities out of a pro studio's set up and not replace them with something else. There is no "sky is falling" predictions when you don't have months or years to find out if plugins will be supported. If a client needs plugins they will go where they can use them. If Apple isn't talking, the pros won't wait around. Personally, the lack of audio routing, unless I'm misinterpreting it, is a stupifying dealkiller no matter how easy it is to create a home movie.
This is all true enough, and God knows I share the dismay at how limited the new FCP is, but a lot of the discussion about market share seems predicted on the idea that everyone has to either chose to upgrade to FCPX now or abandon the platform.
That, of course, is simply untrue, and it seems unlikely that some significant number of FCP post houses are abruptly going to jump ship just because this version of Final Cut doesn't cut it. As others have noted, no one's copy of FCP 7 is suddenly going to be rendered useless.
Now, 6 months from now if Apple hasn't made demonstrated some trend towards adding back key pieces of functionality, or at least made some kind of public statement regarding their intentions, then I could see people starting to plan ahead for a post Apple future. But I think it's too soon to just declare that Apple has abandoned the pro and that therefore everyone must burn their copies of Final Cut immediately and get with their next NLE.
Now, 6 months from now if Apple hasn't made demonstrated some trend towards adding back key pieces of functionality, or at least made some kind of public statement regarding their intentions, then I could see people starting to plan ahead for a post Apple future.
I would say that in 6 months, if Apple has not DELIVERED the missing functionality people will begin a real exodus. They have a limited window here since FCP 7 was already behind Media Composer and Premiere in several areas.
TenoBell, I think you're misinterpreting their issues with it. They acknowledge it makes the basic act of editing easier for anyone, but they're saying that the removal or lack of presence of so many key functions means that pros cannot use it the way they need to, not as they'd like to. To imply that they could work with it at the level it forces them to implies that they should be happy being a prosumer edit house doing wedding videos instead of a professional one doing feature films.
Yes I do understand that. And acknowledged it. At the same time they went way out on the line with assumptions based on what they do not know.
You cannot take certain capabilities out of a pro studio's set up and not replace them with something else. There is no "sky is falling" predictions when you don't have months or years to find out if plugins will be supported. If a client needs plugins they will go where they can use them. If Apple isn't talking, the pros won't wait around. Personally, the lack of audio routing, unless I'm misinterpreting it, is a stupifying dealkiller no matter how easy it is to create a home movie.
The "sky is falling" predictions come from people not really being clear on exactly where Apple is going to go with FCP X. So they just make up stuff to fill in the gap.
The only choice is to wait to see what Apple does - or move on to a different NLE that you feel suits your needs better.
"Compound Clips allow complex compositions to be simplified into a single clip."
Is this Shake?
It's just clip grouping - multiple layers get squashed down to one.
I don't know why people thought they'd be able to easily import files created on an entirely different codebase.
No excuse for this IMO, we're talking about a timeline of edits with links to source files. The amount of data to get one to the other is so ridiculously small that this is just beyond belief. They expect people to rebuild timelines to be able to revise old projects? No, this software should never have been released without support for old project files. I know an FCP project can have multiple sequences but how hard would it have been to create multiple projects per sequence? Import from iMovie is insulting.
- No EDL
- No XML
- No OMF
- No Backwards Compatibility - EXCEPT FOR iMOVIE (!!!!)
- No Deck Support
- No External Monitor Support
- No Multicam Support
- No Networked Volume Support
- No Ability to Choose the Destination of Project Files
- No Manual Color Correction
- No Sequence Settings
- No Screen Layout Settings
- No Bins
- No Custom Video Dimensions
- No Custom Clips Exported From a Sequence
There apparently are sequence settings but hidden away. The sequence initially conforms to the first clip. This is fine in theory but in practise not so much.
There does seem to be some tape camera support but possibly no decks.
I guess no multicam due to the one viewer making it harder but they could still have done this and it would be better in a fullscreen mode.
I'm not sure why they haven't put out Color yet but I suspect there's a 64-bit thing happening that is going to affect a few of the apps. It seems like they are stripping them right back and rebuilding.
Also:
- can't assign audio channels to tracks to separate them.
- all footage imported is accessible in every project. Good as you don't have to hunt through projects and bad if a client is with you.
- no multiple sequences. I don't mind this so much but having multiple projects open is a must.
- no collaboration so you can't share an edit or your media organisation. This is nuts.
- no PSD support
- editing isn't native so you still have to wait until the transcode finishes - it's just in the background where you can't see it.
- no menu app for DVDs/Blu-Ray but I guess they just handed Adobe a bone there so people can use Encore.
- no reconnect media option: media is there or it's not.
Thought of another major bonus.
Reinstalled FCS at work today on a new computer. Took several hours.
Am at home now and downloaded FCPX. It took all of 7 minutes, and I didn't have to fiddle with seven discs.
You are transferring over 30GB of data from DVD though. If you install just the apps without the content packs, it goes a good bit faster. You can actually archive the content packs to a hard drive and just copy them on as needed and cut out all the versions you don't use e.g. PAL vs NTSC templates.
The clear way to look the situation. Is that this is not FCP 8 as a direct lineage of code from FCP 1.0 - 1999. This is FCP X 1.0 - 2011.
Not good enough. This is software that businesses rely on. In one day, they discontinued that software and reverted to a package that is not powerful enough to handle high-end workflows. They have done this before but not to such a drastic extent. While you can still use Final Cut Pro, a studio can't buy new seats/licenses so what are they supposed to do?
I think it's good to cut the legacy and force people to move on if they design and test the software to handle it. Not even opening current project files or allow migration is just sheer lunacy. You can't even open them both at the same time so it's not as if you can even rebuild it by referencing as if you'd want to do that.
Seems to me this is like a freakish, get it out the door now deal because people are hyped about it and have been waiting for years. It was stated before that some features would only work properly with Lion so why not ship Lion first to at least give you versioning?
Well, at least now it's out there and now they know what needs to be fixed. I'd say in order of importance:
1. let people open/import their FCP projects.
2. let people manage project and transcode locations.
3. let people share edits and reconnect media. Includes XML/OMF/EDL - these are absolutely necessary for audio/VFX work.
I think almost everything would cool down with just those 3 things and they really aren't huge things to fix at all.