Final Cut Pro X draws mixed reactions from users, professionals

1356713

Comments

  • Reply 41 of 248
    There are a lot of folks here saying that professional editors who complain about FCX are "bitching and moaning". This seems to be coming from a lack of understanding just how fundamental the things that are missing are. I get that, professional editors are a minority - even amongst those who purchase Final Cut Pro.



    However, as a member of that minority, I've cut award winning music videos, commercials, feature films, and documentaries, and I have to tell you - FCX is not a professional package. This is not bias against the user interface changes or having to learn a new system. It's about what Apple left behind in it's pursuit of the prosumer market place.



    All those feature films Apple likes to point out were cut in Final Cut Pro - The Social Network, Cold Mountain, True Grit, etc - could never be edited with FCX. Why? Because feature films, like most high end productions, are a collaboration. I'm sure FCX has the potential to be a fine tool, however right now, it's a closed system. It may be fine as an end-to-end solution if you use DSLR or AVCHD (but not the RED Camera yet).



    Most importantly, though, is that "closed system" part. It is a program unto itself. With no ability to import or export EDLs, XML, OMF, or even FCP's old projects, and no ability to map audio or video tracks, there's no way to collaborate with others.



    I just finished a Scion commercial in Final Cut Pro 7 - I didn't do the effects, they were done on a Flame. Guess what I gave the EFx house? EDLS - of all my elements that made up each effects shot split onto separate video tracks so the effects artist could pull those same elements in at high resolution and spend hours carefully assembling each shot in high end effects software. (If you do not know, an EDL or Edit Decision List is 30 year old technology that essentially is a text file consisting of a structured list of timecodes detailing the timecode of the start and stop of each shot. It's old technology, but it's the glue that allows the many elements that make up an edit to be dealt with by a wide variety of systems).



    And I split all my audio and output OMFs (industry standard audio interchange file) and gave them to the audio mixer who cleaned up the audio and added effects and did a 5.1 surround sound mix, etc...



    And this was just for a 30 second commercial. None of this is possible with FCX. You cannot assign video or audio to specific tracks, you cannot export your audio elements. This is very basic stuff for the broadcast professional.



    Right now FCX feels crippled - closed off from the rest of broadcast post. Maybe with time it will learn how to play well with others, but as of now I don't think it's a broadcast pro product. And while FCX is "learning" how to become a professional, Apple have pulled all the copies of Final Cut Studio from their stores, as if they're saying "I don't care what you need, you'll use what we want you to or leave". This means I can't add any more FCP stations or expand my business unless I switch over to Avid or Adobe.



    Which is truly a sorry state of affairs.
  • Reply 42 of 248
    charlitunacharlituna Posts: 7,215member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Patrick Sheffield View Post


    There are a lot of folks here saying that professional editors who complain about FCX are "bitching and moaning". This seems to be coming from a lack of understanding just how fundamental the things that are missing are. I get that, professional editors are a minority - even amongst those who purchase Final Cut Pro.




    This is point zero on a total rewrite of a major program and it has been out less than three days. So yeah, it is bitching and moaning in my opinion. And i'm also a pro editor



    Quote:



    And this was just for a 30 second commercial. None of this is possible with FCX. You cannot assign video or audio to specific tracks, you cannot export your audio elements. This is very basic stuff for the broadcast professional.




    Well good thing the release of this new software hasn't suddenly made the old one stop working. Few to no pro houses are dumb enough to dump their old software for a point zero release so it's really not that big of a deal



    Quote:

    And while FCX is "learning" how to become a professional, Apple have pulled all the copies of Final Cut Studio from their stores, as if they're saying "I don't care what you need, you'll use what we want you to or leave". This means I can't add any more FCP stations or expand my business unless I switch over to Avid or Adobe.



    it is standard practice to stop selling old versions of software when a new old is out, especially by Apple. And you have know about this since April. If you were dumb enough not to plan ahead or to assume that the initial release, given it was a bottom up rewrite, would be perfect well thats on you.
  • Reply 43 of 248
    not a bad app at all. great for a lot of people but i dont' want my iphoto library anywhere near while a client is behind me.

    also have NO need to share with Facebook, CNN iReport, WTF is that?!

    marketing was way off. please call this iMoviePro as it only opens imovie projects.

    it's awesome for several things just not several others that are important to me.



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by dacloo View Post


    Perhaps Apple can add 700 floating windows and checkboxes for you to make it look better.

    I actually used it for a client project and I think it's wonderful.

    Who cares about the iMovie similarities? Does that turn it into a bad app?



  • Reply 44 of 248
    Why is everyone so quick to blindly defend Apple. You'd think someone caught Christ pissing in the pool and no one wants to admit that the water is yellow.



    Everything quoted below is so reactionary and irrational it's obvious that they are made by people not in the business or blinded by some unfounded faith in Apple. Let start off by apologizing ahead of time for some of my comments. Forgive my snark and my lack of brevity, but in light of some of the idiocy in this thread I believe it's justified.



    To suggest that you NOT talk to your clients about you workflow is insane. I couldn't imagine what I would be given to work with if I had no dialogue with my clients about what I need. As a matter of fact if I can be on set, I'm there making sure things go right. I'm not the only one either. For example, Peter Jackson works very closely with his lead editor and has been known to reshoot scenes based on his recommendations.



    To call people not satisfied with the update "cry Babies" is capricious at best.



    To say the pro market is too conservative is unknowledgeable. In that case I'd compare "best practices" in editing and film making to "best practices" in the military. Despite all of the high tech blah blah blah used in the Navy, the guys on deck still use sextons. I run a tight ship in my shop, and sure some might call me a bastard drill sergeant, but I'm working allot these days because people know they can count on me and my crew.



    If you don't know where you came from, how could you possibly know where you are going?



    Referring to EVERY program with legacy support as "bloatware" is misinformed. Is FCS really "Bloatware"? Because that's the implication of the statement and the transition (re-write) itself. I personally like the features in FCPX, but I wouldn't have thrown out the baby with the bath-water either.



    IMO Either FCPX should have not been called "PRO" or they should have continued to develop FCS for another year while simultaneously developing FCPX to ensure every feature present in FCS remained intact in the transition.



    The more we learn the more professionals are beginning to discover this is not a program for them or for them to recommend for clients or their studios.



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by jeffhrsn View Post


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



    That is unequivocally THE DUMBEST comment so far in this thread; Period! If you work in the business please provide me with you contact info so that I can recommend NO ONE work with you... EVER!



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by bdkennedy1 View Post


    It is never easy re-writing software, especially when users aren't used to change. How many mistakes has Apple made? Not very many. The people complaining either have old hardware, or they don't want to change after 10 years. It's a win-no win situation that will blow over just like when Apple came out with iMovie '08.



    I appreciate the change, it keeps me up to date and ahead of the people that don't want to learn anything new. I make more money that way.



    Apple makes mistakes all of the time. Are you kidding? I hate to use the word fanboy, but jesus I could list more than a few mistakes Apple has made over the years and I think many could. I've notice many around here are the first to take note of every mistake Apple HAS made. Let me know if you seriously need a list and I'll start a thread so we can all contribute.



    AS far as "staying current" goes. Well my friend... I have made a career out of knowing things that idiots with your attitude dismiss as unnecessary. Believe me, a guy who knows what OMF's, XML's, granularity, push processing, gamma, gumut etc etc etc are; when you don't, is worth ever penny more that he asks than you. Believe me, We ask for more money, much more. So keep living your delusion that you're worth more because of what you don't Don't know. What a tool you must be. Truly.





    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Splash-reverse View Post


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



    It's a version 1.0 for fk sake.



    Um it's not really version 1. If it were then it should have been presented with a different brand and simultaneously been offered next to the original brand, like FCS and FCE. FCPX is really is FCE on steroids. Apple should have said, here's our latest and greatest prosumer software and depending on feedback we'll be integrating these features into the future re-write of FCS in a year. Apple has this hang-up with everything being a secret until it's released. I agree in most cases... this is not one.





    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Ronbo View Post


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



    Some might suggest that since you are not in the video business you should keep you comments to yourself. personally I don't know why you'd bother other than getting yourself heard. But for your future reference... there is NO new feature that is worth losing existing capabilities. I suppose you would give up your brain for a 15" dick?



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Jonamac View Post


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



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



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



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



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



    You're whole rant is centered on the idea that FCPX is V1. It's not really. Again if it was they should have called it by another name and in this case it would still not be a rose. I assume since you called real professionals who know what they are talking about "elitists' (OMG LOL) another tool you must be. Yes, from where you stand we must seem like elitists and you know what, most of us are comfortable with that.





    Quote:
    Originally Posted by frankie View Post


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



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



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



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



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



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



    Um yes actually. I will probably make that recommendation since the latest Avid releases are quite compelling and the prices are quite reasonable; especially in applications where software only options work well, such as editing proxies. I love Avid and the new features (dialogue tracking, Multi format and RAW media support are truly amazing.



    FCP NEVER compared to a an Avid workstation. Never. If you've ever used one, you wouldn't have made that comment. Personally it makes me chuckle to think that once again here's somebody who might believe those of us at the top of our game are Elitist. Are the top three Olympians elitists as well or are they just the best at what they do?



    Motion tracking, color correction, media management, raw performance and power, etc etc etc have always been superior. That was never the issue. The issue was the $125k+ price tag and the only reason people use FCP is because it's close enough to get most of the job done (all for many that didn't need the quality Avid provided) and it was cheap. Do you really believe features are finished in FCP? Better not let the Flame, Smoke, Combustion, Davinci artists out there know they wasted their investments. LOL Nothing but a low budget doc or indie has ever been finished in FCP I guarantee you. Even if it was edited in FCP it will not be finished there.



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by sennen View Post


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



    No it's not and you are correct that it was a mistake to release it now and/ or to call it PRO. But seriously we aren't "throwing hissy fits". And if we are then perhaps it's not unjustified to say Apple just "spit in the face of professionals". You decide how much venom needs to be present in your interpretation of our comments.



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by hmurchison View Post


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





    There's a lot of hand wringing going on by the 5% vocal minority that depends on a feature. Therein lies the rub. FCPX is NOT iMovie Pro. It has a lot of functionality but in its current version one needs to understand what it is and what it isn't.



    OMF/XML/EDL isn't there yet so if that's your workflow ..you must wait.

    If you're heavy with tape...FCPX isn't the program for you



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



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



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



    I get what you are saying Murch, but I don't think you should start a re-write of software by removing features. I know for sure Avid would never release a re-write using the Symphony brand with fewer features than the previous version. That is one possible definition of unprofessional IMO.



    I've never been a fan of "hoping" for missing features. That's called wishful thinking. The safest assumption to make is that those features will probably never be present. If they were important at all why were they removed? Finally many of the missing features (such as you examples of Multicam, OMF and XML support) are just as relevant to file based capture as they are to tape and film scans. I don't see how you could not be aware of that unless you are not an editor or you don't work with proxies, DI's, compositors, audio engineers or negative confirmation; just to name a few applications off the top of my head.
  • Reply 45 of 248
    sounds like you are loving FCPX currently or planning to thoroughly embrace in the future.

    tell me, are you even remotely satisfied that this is REPLACING a solid nles (FCP7) or just annoyed at all the ranting?

    i understand if it's the latter... otherwise i am flummoxed.
  • Reply 46 of 248
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Patrick Sheffield View Post


    There are a lot of folks here saying that professional editors who complain about FCX are "bitching and moaning". This seems to be coming from a lack of understanding just how fundamental the things that are missing are. I get that, professional editors are a minority - even amongst those who purchase Final Cut Pro.



    However, as a member of that minority, I've cut award winning music videos, commercials, feature films, and documentaries, and I have to tell you - FCX is not a professional package. This is not bias against the user interface changes or having to learn a new system. It's about what Apple left behind in it's pursuit of the prosumer market place.



    All those feature films Apple likes to point out were cut in Final Cut Pro - The Social Network, Cold Mountain, True Grit, etc - could never be edited with FCX. Why? Because feature films, like most high end productions, are a collaboration. I'm sure FCX has the potential to be a fine tool, however right now, it's a closed system. It may be fine as an end-to-end solution if you use DSLR or AVCHD (but not the RED Camera yet).



    Most importantly, though, is that "closed system" part. It is a program unto itself. With no ability to import or export EDLs, XML, OMF, or even FCP's old projects, and no ability to map audio or video tracks, there's no way to collaborate with others.



    I just finished a Scion commercial in Final Cut Pro 7 - I didn't do the effects, they were done on a Flame. Guess what I gave the EFx house? EDLS - of all my elements that made up each effects shot split onto separate video tracks so the effects artist could pull those same elements in at high resolution and spend hours carefully assembling each shot in high end effects software. (If you do not know, an EDL or Edit Decision List is 30 year old technology that essentially is a text file consisting of a structured list of timecodes detailing the timecode of the start and stop of each shot. It's old technology, but it's the glue that allows the many elements that make up an edit to be dealt with by a wide variety of systems).



    And I split all my audio and output OMFs (industry standard audio interchange file) and gave them to the audio mixer who cleaned up the audio and added effects and did a 5.1 surround sound mix, etc...



    And this was just for a 30 second commercial. None of this is possible with FCX. You cannot assign video or audio to specific tracks, you cannot export your audio elements. This is very basic stuff for the broadcast professional.



    Right now FCX feels crippled - closed off from the rest of broadcast post. Maybe with time it will learn how to play well with others, but as of now I don't think it's a broadcast pro product. And while FCX is "learning" how to become a professional, Apple have pulled all the copies of Final Cut Studio from their stores, as if they're saying "I don't care what you need, you'll use what we want you to or leave". This means I can't add any more FCP stations or expand my business unless I switch over to Avid or Adobe.



    Which is truly a sorry state of affairs.



    #1 comment
  • Reply 47 of 248
    I'm not surprised by the negative reactions. It happens with anything rewritten from the ground up.



    It's not like Apple is saying FCPX is it because FCP7 is still installed on the machine.



    Is there really no workarounds that people are so stuck? I seriously doubt it to be honest. No tape support? Import using iMovie, rough edit, export to FCPX. That's how I work and it works flawlessly. Admittedly I'm moving digital so it's not too much of an issue.



    Yes there are going to be issues initially but the one thing FCPX will have that FCP7 didn't is regular updates because Apple can now leverage the Mac App Store. I would hazard a guess (especially with Lion's delta updates) that by the end of the year FCPX will have returned the features missing and sailed completely past the level of work people can do at the moment.



    Apple did the right thing releasing FCPX as it is in order to get people used to the new way. Once people are used to it then the actual transition will be minimal.



    Many serious editors are moving towards digital anyway so once FCP7 finally dies projects will be even more amazing than they are now.



    Just chill, use FCP7 for your bread and butter, and learn FCPX NOW so that you have an edge over the stuck in the mud left-behinds that refuse to upgrade.
  • Reply 48 of 248
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by robochic View Post


    A lot of the people criticizing the criticizers in here don't seem to professional editors or work in post-production pipelines. What people are complaining about is the lack of fundamental features for working in a broadcast, film, or professional post environment. Obviously version 1.0 of most software is lacking in features. But we're talking about Apple making professional claims for a piece of post production software that is clearly unable to live up to those claims. It's not about learning a new system. It's about being unable to do professional work with the system provided.



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



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



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



    And here's where an otherwise good post goes disingenuous... This line. useless in a professional post facility and most user's workflows I think you are categorically wrong in your assumption of what MOST user's workflows need. MOST editors workflows need the ability to sort/ingest footage, manage it, label it, edit it on a timeline, and save the project to a hard drive/network drive to dish off, or export it into a file or on a disc. These are all things that FCPX does do. Exporting OMFs and EDLs, while necessary for an app like FCP to have... is NOT something most FCP users use. Its just simply not.



    Apple released an app that they've been workin on for ages, knowing it wasn't feature complete, but did most of the things most of their customers do... Apple hasn't disregarded anyone.. they're just not scared to say its time for some spring cleaning of the codebase (which it totally was).
  • Reply 49 of 248
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by spliff monkey View Post


    AS far as "staying current" goes. Well my friend... I have made a career out of knowing things that idiots with your attitude dismiss as unnecessary. Believe me, a guy who knows what OMF's, XML's, granularity, push processing, gamma, gumut etc etc etc are; when you don't, is worth ever penny more that he asks than you. Believe me, We ask for more money, much more. So keep living your delusion that you're worth more because of what you don't Don't know. What a tool you must be. Truly.



    Don't get me wrong, there will be those like you who need features that are missing with this clearly 1.0 release (come on don't kid yourself) but you rail on the poster's attitude and only come across as being a complete douchebag with a superiority complex. You say you want this guy's details so you can tell people to avoid his work and yet all you make me want to do is get yours so I don't have to deal with an arrogant prick if I ever need video work done.



    Calm down, grab a beer and chill out... and take that carrot out your date hole while you're at it.
  • Reply 50 of 248
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by charlituna View Post


    This is point zero on a total rewrite of a major program and it has been out less than three days. So yeah, it is bitching and moaning in my opinion. And i'm also a pro editor



    No. It's not. It says so right here on the splash screen. Final Cut Pro 10 - oh, do you think they misplaced the decimal point? If it's version 1.0, then call it Whizzy Editor Pro 1.0 or something else. You can't have it both ways. If you're going to claim it's Final Cut 10, then you can't excuse the removal of those features by saying cross your fingers and hope they come back in Final Cut 11.





    Quote:
    Originally Posted by charlituna View Post


    Well good thing the release of this new software hasn't suddenly made the old one stop working. Few to no pro houses are dumb enough to dump their old software for a point zero release so it's really not that big of a deal.



    it is standard practice to stop selling old versions of software when a new old is out, especially by Apple. And you have know about this since April. If you were dumb enough not to plan ahead or to assume that the initial release, given it was a bottom up rewrite, would be perfect well thats on you.



    So, you're saying that as a post house, I should have anticipated that Apple would release crippled software and purchased enough copies of Final Cut Studio necessary for any expansion possibilities for the foreseeable future? And what was I to base this decision on? Releasing less capable versions of Final Cut Pro has not been standard procedure for seven prior versions.



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by lowededwookie View Post


    I'm not surprised by the negative reactions. It happens with anything rewritten from the ground up.



    No. It happens when a vendor capriciously drops necessary features, then leaves you with no solutions.



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by lowededwookie View Post


    Is there really no workarounds that people are so stuck? I seriously doubt it to be honest. No tape support? Import using iMovie, rough edit, export to FCPX. That's how I work and it works flawlessly. Admittedly I'm moving digital so it's not too much of an issue.



    Really? Really? iMovie can log and capture ProRes 4444 from an HDCamSR deck via my dual link HDSDI Decklink card. Wow. If only they'd carried that functionality over from iMovie...



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by lowededwookie View Post


    Apple did the right thing releasing FCPX as it is in order to get people used to the new way. Once people are used to it then the actual transition will be minimal.



    See, that's what's so surprising about this. Apple have always been so smart about major transitions in the past. Witness 68000->PPC, OS9->OSX, PPC->Intel. Heck when they released the considerably feature reduced iMovie 08 (sound familiar anyone?), they gave people a free download of iMovie 06 to ease the changeover until they added back the missing functionality.



    All of those transitions were handled with far more finesse than this FCX debacle.
  • Reply 51 of 248
    thepixeldocthepixeldoc Posts: 2,257member
    @Patrick Sheffield & Spliff Monkey:



    Those were GREAT posts, and really give a great view into your profession and concerns re: FCPX!



    FYI: I'm not part of your industry directly, but work in advertising and have specialized in print production, and moving forward, digital publishing. Basically, I'm an overall "creative", as they say.



    IMO, it has "appeared" that software truly geared to the creative "professional" has been slipping up over the last few years. I use, and have used all of the Adobe products since versions 1, as well as assorted other creative software through the years, before they were either a) bought, or b) unfortunately died.



    Not to get too far off track, but as we have all witnessed, companies like Adobe are producing software with fewer and fewer new capabilities each release, and most of all... are not releasing timely updates to fix bugs, and add small features. Apple has been pretty good in this regard, and I would like to point out Aperture as a piece of software that at it's inception, was not good at all and negatively compared to Lightroom. Over the last few years with many updates, it has become a truly professional piece of software that for many "pro photogs", handily beats Lightroom. I'm thinking this may be the case with FCPX.



    My thinking is that Apple sees the future, as they always do, where the markets are heading. I studied traditional graphics, litho and print back in the very early 80's. I jumped on the Mac/DTP wagon in '85 and went through all it's transitions, from being a "toy" and amateur platform, to where it is today.



    I now do the jobs of 20+ people, which even 10 years ago was a massive hand-off type of workflow.



    Could it be that Apple sees the day in the not too distant future, where you "pros" in traditional broadcasting and film, with your multi-team/person workflows, will be few and far between? And that your concerns today, will not be valid in a year or 2 from now?



    I'm looking at the inclusion of Facebook, CNN, etc. integration into FCPX. You as a pro would think like, "WTF" do I need that for? I would suggest that that may be a hint to you guys/gals where you're professions are heading.



    Everything is going digital. Everything is becoming web-based. Everything will be viewed on monitors of one kind or another.



    Color for example.



    Complaints have been made by FCS pros that certain color controls are no longer in FCPX. I know a thing or 2 about color in the print industry, and for the last few years, our main concern is that it looks good on computers & devices FIRST, and worry about print a distant second.



    The film and broadcast color shops are probably looking at the same transition, and I certainly wouldn't invest in any more "broadcast proofing" devices. See what it looks like on an iPad and a Galaxy Tab, then a run of the mill LCD-TV. Broadcast as we know it today, will be history in less than 10 years time. I would bet that even theaters will see their demise in that time, and tape/film anything will no longer be produced in quantity. You'll need to specially order, and wait for it.



    To sum it up: my personal suggestion, as someone who's had their profession completely turned upside down more than a few times... is that you film pros give the new software a test drive. Make your concerns and most of all bugs known to Apple. The MAS approach and the new foundation for FCPX facilitates you getting fixes almost as fast as they are finished... new features as well.



    I wouldn't worry so much about legacy workflows, and instead think about for whom, for what, and where you'll probably be producing your shows, news, docus, ads, and films in the near future.



    Also, bone up on any of the skills that you traditionally hand off to other people and shops. The day is coming all too soon that you will be a "1-Man-Traveling-Band"... or at least close to it. Don't forget your dog/cat and a monkey or 2



    PS: I have a general question to ask of any of the techies/devs here:



    Exactly how difficult is it to add features to existing code of many our beloved software titles? Also, what about 64-bit versions for today's hardware, starting with legacy code? It appears that it is easier to start from scratch.
  • Reply 52 of 248
    Typical Apple. More eye candy, less features.
  • Reply 53 of 248
    thepixeldocthepixeldoc Posts: 2,257member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by lowededwookie View Post


    I'm not surprised by the negative reactions. It happens with anything rewritten from the ground up.



    It's not like Apple is saying FCPX is it because FCP7 is still installed on the machine.



    Is there really no workarounds that people are so stuck? I seriously doubt it to be honest. No tape support? Import using iMovie, rough edit, export to FCPX. That's how I work and it works flawlessly. Admittedly I'm moving digital so it's not too much of an issue.



    Yes there are going to be issues initially but the one thing FCPX will have that FCP7 didn't is regular updates because Apple can now leverage the Mac App Store. I would hazard a guess (especially with Lion's delta updates) that by the end of the year FCPX will have returned the features missing and sailed completely past the level of work people can do at the moment.



    Apple did the right thing releasing FCPX as it is in order to get people used to the new way. Once people are used to it then the actual transition will be minimal.



    Many serious editors are moving towards digital anyway so once FCP7 finally dies projects will be even more amazing than they are now.



    Just chill, use FCP7 for your bread and butter, and learn FCPX NOW so that you have an edge over the stuck in the mud left-behinds that refuse to upgrade.



    +1 - While I was writing my reply... you said it much more precise and eloquently!
  • Reply 54 of 248
    thepixeldocthepixeldoc Posts: 2,257member
    @ Patrick Sheffield -- You remind me of the ol' guys using Hell scanners and Quantel Paintbox systems worth millions that I demoed Photoshop to in the early 90's. Around the mid-90's, they came by my studio begging for a job.



    Which means, you might consider Lowedededwookies advice and do the "carrot" thing ... or else?
  • Reply 55 of 248
    mustmust Posts: 6member
    I guess most of the stability issues reported by people will go away once OSX Lion is released.
  • Reply 56 of 248
    irnchrizirnchriz Posts: 1,588member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by sennen View Post


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



    +1



    None of these early adopters are professionals. No one in any business will jump ship to a new revision of any product on its release, thats completely foolish and potentially financially fatal. Once a product is released you normally put it on a standalone non essential system so it can be trialled. Only after it has been trialled for some time would you move it onto production systems.
  • Reply 57 of 248
    tbelltbell Posts: 3,146member
    It wasn't pulled. It just wasn't written in. Apple rewrote the application from the ground up. That was a huge undertaking. The app gained many new features, and lost some others. Apple will likely add functionality to the application to replace some of the missing features. Send Apple feedback. It listens most of the time.



    I will admit though Apple should have been more clear about what functionality was left out. For instance, the inability to import projects from previous versions would probably upset me. Most people would expect as much from a professional application.



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by quamb View Post


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



  • Reply 58 of 248
    tbelltbell Posts: 3,146member
    That might be true for large corporations. I doubt it is true for small independent video companies, which often largely consist of one person. Improved software usually means savings in time and money. You want to put that to work immediately.



    Many people likely bought the application thinking it would be their primary video editing software (like all versions of Final Cut before it). They already have the prior versions of Final Cut. To explore the new software, those people tried to import projects from other versions of Final Cut, which isn't possible.



    Professionals expect backwards compatibility. If it isn't there, they shouldn't find out about it after purchase. This PR problem could have been avoided if Apple would have just spelled that out when it first previewed the software.



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by irnchriz View Post


    +1



    None of these early adopters are professionals. No one in any business will jump ship to a new revision of any product on its release, thats completely foolish and potentially financially fatal. Once a product is released you normally put it on a standalone non essential system so it can be trialled. Only after it has been trialled for some time would you move it onto production systems.



  • Reply 59 of 248
    tbelltbell Posts: 3,146member
    You should write to Steve Jobs and make sure Apple knows your position. Apple is responsive. Apple might at least still sell the old version. Your post was really thought out and should be told to Apple.



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Patrick Sheffield View Post


    There are a lot of folks here saying that professional editors who complain about FCX are "bitching and moaning". This seems to be coming from a lack of understanding just how fundamental the things that are missing are. I get that, professional editors are a minority - even amongst those who purchase Final Cut Pro.



    However, as a member of that minority, I've cut award winning music videos, commercials, feature films, and documentaries, and I have to tell you - FCX is not a professional package. This is not bias against the user interface changes or having to learn a new system. It's about what Apple left behind in it's pursuit of the prosumer market place.



    All those feature films Apple likes to point out were cut in Final Cut Pro - The Social Network, Cold Mountain, True Grit, etc - could never be edited with FCX. Why? Because feature films, like most high end productions, are a collaboration. I'm sure FCX has the potential to be a fine tool, however right now, it's a closed system. It may be fine as an end-to-end solution if you use DSLR or AVCHD (but not the RED Camera yet).



    Most importantly, though, is that "closed system" part. It is a program unto itself. With no ability to import or export EDLs, XML, OMF, or even FCP's old projects, and no ability to map audio or video tracks, there's no way to collaborate with others.



    I just finished a Scion commercial in Final Cut Pro 7 - I didn't do the effects, they were done on a Flame. Guess what I gave the EFx house? EDLS - of all my elements that made up each effects shot split onto separate video tracks so the effects artist could pull those same elements in at high resolution and spend hours carefully assembling each shot in high end effects software. (If you do not know, an EDL or Edit Decision List is 30 year old technology that essentially is a text file consisting of a structured list of timecodes detailing the timecode of the start and stop of each shot. It's old technology, but it's the glue that allows the many elements that make up an edit to be dealt with by a wide variety of systems).



    And I split all my audio and output OMFs (industry standard audio interchange file) and gave them to the audio mixer who cleaned up the audio and added effects and did a 5.1 surround sound mix, etc...



    And this was just for a 30 second commercial. None of this is possible with FCX. You cannot assign video or audio to specific tracks, you cannot export your audio elements. This is very basic stuff for the broadcast professional.



    Right now FCX feels crippled - closed off from the rest of broadcast post. Maybe with time it will learn how to play well with others, but as of now I don't think it's a broadcast pro product. And while FCX is "learning" how to become a professional, Apple have pulled all the copies of Final Cut Studio from their stores, as if they're saying "I don't care what you need, you'll use what we want you to or leave". This means I can't add any more FCP stations or expand my business unless I switch over to Avid or Adobe.



    Which is truly a sorry state of affairs.



  • Reply 60 of 248
    jonnyboyjonnyboy Posts: 525member
    all this moaning... what i wouldn't give for logic pro to get the same kind of ground up engine rewrite...
Sign In or Register to comment.