Having your new software be able open the previous file format should be job one when releasing the next version.
Couple of questions:
1) If you could open your old formats, but couldn't process them would that be of any use?
2) If you could open your old formats and process them as FC7/FCS wouldn't that mean that FCP7 was just old bloat tacked on to FCPX and it would bring FCPX down to the performance level and operational Idiosyncrasies of FCP7. *
* FCP7 is Carbon-based and cannot take advantage of most of the hardware and OS improvements within the last 5 years. There simply is no way to program some of these things in Carbon.
3) Wouldn't it be better to release a new base platform (FCPX) unencumbered with the current FCP limitations?
4) Then write a standalone migration tool to port FCP7 projects to FCPX. There would be a lot of 3rd-party plugins missing at first, but this should diminish rapidly -- I suspect there will be a bit of a race by developers to be the first to port their plugins to FCPX.
That would be great, but I think Apple has already sunk that ship. Why? Bet you big dollars that Lion will break the living shit of of FCP 7. If the new Mac Pros that come with Lion installed can't run Snow Leopard (and this is likely) then people are doubly screwed.
That would be scary for sure ... I'm hoping Lion will not break it. I will have to check that out.
1) If you could open your old formats, but couldn't process them would that be of any use?
2) If you could open your old formats and process them as FC7/FCS wouldn't that mean that FCP7 was just old bloat tacked on to FCPX and it would bring FCPX down to the performance level and operational Idiosyncrasies of FCP7. *
* FCP7 is Carbon-based and cannot take advantage of most of the hardware and OS improvements within the last 5 years. There simply is no way to program some of these things in Carbon.
3) Wouldn't it be better to release a new base platform (FCPX) unencumbered with the current FCP limitations?
4) Then write a standalone migration tool to port FCP7 projects to FCPX. There would be a lot of 3rd-party plugins missing at first, but this should diminish rapidly -- I suspect there will be a bit of a race by developers to be the first to port their plugins to FCPX.
You know how when you open an old Photoshop document with text layers, you get a message that they need to be updated or when you open an old Illustrator file it saves it as [Converted], that is all it needs to do. It has nothing to do with being encumbered by old code because it is converting it. Think of it more as appearance based decision making. You have some timelines with video and synced audio tracks and some transitions, stills, clips etc. All NLE apps use the same basic type of layout. I need to preserve as much as of that possible during the conversion.
I agree that Apple should make FCS available again!
I think Apple should keep the FCPX branding and keep FCE EOLd.
I've posted on other threads that I think that FCPX is an amazing product as far as it goes -- and likely will be the platform to build upon for Appe's Pro apps.
<bunch of stuff deleted here>
Finally, Apple could have handled it better -- though we all enjoy seeing the "Big Guy" get his comeuppance... if just a little bit.
I agree with all your points up to the last one, and thanks for all your test-drive reports.
I'm not enjoying seeing Apple BECOME the "Big Guy" that now DESERVES a comeuppance. That's the change for the worse that has happened.
My constant amazed pleasure in using the old Final Cut, with its multiple video and audio tracks doing exactly what I want them to do, not what some magnetic timeline thinks I want it to do, will continue. But the relationship with the company that wants me to quit using that old but great architecture has been poisoned. Even their hardware no longer has the same aura it used to have for me.
There must be thousands of editors with huge investments in the Final Cut ecosystem that feel worse about it than I do. All they had to do was leave the old to coexist with the new for awhile, to support the industry until X is ready for real editing.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
So they can use Final Cut Pro 7.
Never said they could. They can use Final Cut Pro 7.
Except they weren't forced to buy it.
"Let them eat cake."
Quote:
Originally Posted by digitalclips
Mmmm... The people we a discussing, high end production studios, actually want to continue, they just want to know they can. Stop thinking in terms of a single user. No one here saying X is prosumer at the moment is against it per se as far as I can see. It is the sudden brick wall they just hit in the immediate future of 7 that is scary when you have projects planned over the next few years and a small fortune invested in equipment and man power.
All Apple have to do is commit to continued support for 7, keep selling it and stand behind it during OS and hardware changes. Hopefully X will add all the missing features and nothing will be lost.
What would be sad is if there were a mass exodus of high end users from FCPro.
I think it is worth pointing out this isn't a Luddite situation. These are companies and people who have been at the bleeding edge of technology for decades.
When did a refund for being less than satisfied with a product become "phenomenal customer service" rather than just "doing business"
Pretty much with every other software vendor. Have you ever gotten a refund from Adobe, or Quark, how about Microsoft or even Apple a few years ago for the new iMovie?
If they're coming from Final Cut Pro 7, then they still have Final Cut Pro 7 and can use that.
if the first version of Final Cut they're using is Final Cut X, then they have no metric against which to compare this software, and therefore shouldn't really be complaining about it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by WelshDog
Kona drivers? Plug-ins?
No idea about Kona, sorry. What plug-ins I do have run fine, however.
I have limited experience with Final Cut Pro. That being said, when iMovie 08 was first rolled out, I absolutely hated it. It didn't have anywhere near the capability of the previous version before it was completely reworked. I continued using the previous version of iMovie for quite some time.
Then, as updates came along, and it caught up with the tools that the previous version had, I grew to like it and now could not see myself going back to the old version.
I feel this is EXACTLY what is happening here. This new version doesn't have everything that the old one does, and the users are feeling a little alienated, just as I was with iMovie 08. I have a feeling that once these missing features are added in with updates, everyone will begin to get to know the new interface a bit better and be happy with it.
If not, no one is forcing them to delete the previous version of Final Cut that they've been using for awhile now.
If you bought a brand new car and it was missing a spare tire, turn signals, and the passenger door didn't open, would your objections to this be WHINING? There are many FCP7 users who are literally unable to use FCPX because it does not have features they use EVERY DAY. And no, they can't just switch between FCP7 and FCPX to get those features as the two do not share the same project file formats. Objecting to being downgrade is not WHINING. It is 100% legitimate.
"And no, they can't just switch between FCP7 and FCPX to get those features as the two do not share the same project file formats."
This is not quite true.
1) There are no sequences in FCPX -- A FCPX project is analogous to a sequence.
2) Instead of bins, FCPX organizes media into events.
3) It is very easy do duplicate a FCPX project if you want to Freeze it at a point in time
Understanding the above differences (and in practice, it's pretty easy) you can:
1) open an FCP7 project locate your media files.
2) open FCPX and import those media files as an event -- you don't need to copy them, FCPX can point to them
3) Open the desired FCP7 sequence and take a Screen snapshot of the timeline -- this is necessary because you can't have FCP7 and FCPX open n the same machine at the same time -- 2 machines, no problem (I may write a feature request to allow FCPX and FCP7 to be open at the same time.
4) Using FCPX, quickly assemble a storyline approximating the FCP7 timeline -- it's different, but with a little practice it is a lot easier and much faster,
At this point, if FCPX contains the plugins and features you need -- you will likely not touch this again in FCP7.
There are just so any things that you can "easily" do in FCPX that you can't do in FCP7, such as:
-- quickly move things around without ever getting out of sync (and never worrying about it)
-- change the lighting/color of the video of a morning shot to match an evening shot or vice versa
-- scrubbing through clips with sound on so you can determine the exact spot to edit
-- audition several alternate sound and video for parts of your story -- so the client can select what he likes (reversable decisions)
-- you do most editing without ever rendering
-- you only render when you are ready to export the project.
I've only had a few hours of playtime and about 4 hours of tutorials with FCPX... It's imressive for what it is, now -- and for what it can be in the future.
Professionals would gladly pay $1000 had it been really powerful 64 bit 7 updated rather than a totally different and totally incompatible product. It's about work flow not price for professionals and edit houses. They are not whiners or computer nerds they are companies with multiple Mac Pros and high end media servers and many staff with on going work dependent on being able to open and use existing projects. A single production project could easily be anywhere from half a million to multi- million dollars. You have to see this in context.
The blurring of the line between amateurs, "pro-sumers" and professional editing creatives is getting more fuzzy. This FCP-X just proves that Apple is now just a consumer brand and does not seem to care or understand what they had nor do they get that some of us make their living off their software. This release is an outrage! I remember when Nikon sold only high-end cameras for professional photogs. They were built like tanks and could take a beating. Then, they were forced to get into the amateur market and their cameras got kinda crappy. Too much time and money spent on low-end consumer models. They lost a huge share of the pro market to Canon. Is this the fate of FCP, lost their mojo catering to mass market wanna-bes? I hope not.
In a year or two, once Apple continuously rolls out added features, all the critics will be silent, and they will tout FCP as the best editing software on the planet. Every critic says its a fantastic foundation, but lacks features they need. Well, that's how Apple rolls. They are utterly unafraid to destroy the status quo if they believe in their vision for the future.
It will get better. Relax. In the meantime, nobody is ripping FCP7 out of your hands.
Yea, that's my "advanced amateur" take on it as well. Luckily, the more advanced features aren't so applicable to me, but I can sympathize. Where FCPX advances, it's a quantum leap.
Where it's lacking, it's almost unbelievable that they shipped 1.0 like this! I don't doubt that they will improve over the coming months and that it will eventually be getting 4 and 5 star ratings. But I'll never understand how they thought they could ship something missing so many features.
Having said that, I'm glad that 1) FCP 7 can co-exist happily 2) Refunds are being given in some cases and 3) They seem to be listening to feedback. Perhaps Apple should have marketed it as a big community project instead!
"We're working on the next generation of non-linear editing applications. We'll be shipping version 1.0 this June and we need your help. Download it only on the Mac App Store, give us your feedback, and be part of the revolution." SOMETHING like that.
Pros might jump at the chance to download something with such a revolutionary UI and be contribute towards its polishing and improvement. Instead, Apple gave the usual silent treatment leading up to launch, leading to disappointed customers.
"And no, they can't just switch between FCP7 and FCPX to get those features as the two do not share the same project file formats."
This is not quite true.
1) There are no sequences in FCPX -- A FCPX project is analogous to a sequence.
2) Instead of bins, FCPX organizes media into events.
3) It is very easy do duplicate a FCPX project if you want to Freeze it at a point in time
Understanding the above differences (and in practice, it's pretty easy) you can:
1) open an FCP7 project locate your media files.
2) open FCPX and import those media files as an event -- you don't need to copy them, FCPX can point to them
3) Open the desired FCP7 sequence and take a Screen snapshot of the timeline -- this is necessary because you can't have FCP7 and FCPX open n the same machine at the same time -- 2 machines, no problem (I may write a feature request to allow FCPX and FCP7 to be open at the same time.
4) Using FCPX, quickly assemble a storyline approximating the FCP7 timeline -- it's different, but with a little practice it is a lot easier and much faster,
At this point, if FCPX contains the plugins and features you need -- you will likely not touch this again in FCP7.
There are just so any things that you can "easily" do in FCPX that you can't do in FCP7, such as:
-- quickly move things around without ever getting out of sync (and never worrying about it)
-- change the lighting/color of the video of a morning shot to match an evening shot or vice versa
-- scrubbing through clips with sound on so you can determine the exact spot to edit
-- audition several alternate sound and video for parts of your story -- so the client can select what he likes (reversable decisions)
-- you do most editing without ever rendering
-- you only render when you are ready to export the project.
I've only had a few hours of playtime and about 4 hours of tutorials with FCPX... It's imressive for what it is, now -- and for what it can be in the future.
Everything you talk about, I've been able to do on my Avid for 10 years. This is nothing new. Again, it might be a fine release for amateur or serious consumer video shooters who throw up You Tube videos for fun, but not for working pros. It is like editing with mittens on.
Mmmm... The people we a discussing, high end production studios, actually want to continue, they just want to know they can. Stop thinking in terms of a single user. No one here saying X is prosumer at the moment is against it per se as far as I can see. It is the sudden brick wall they just hit in the immediate future of 7 that is scary when you have projects planned over the next few years and a small fortune invested in equipment and man power.
All Apple have to do is commit to continued support for 7, keep selling it and stand behind it during OS and hardware changes. Hopefully X will add all the missing features and nothing will be lost.
What would be sad is if there were a mass exodus of high end users from FCPro.
I think it is worth pointing out this isn't a Luddite situation. These are companies and people who have been at the bleeding edge of technology for decades.
I agree with what you say -- especially about the part of supporting existing users.
But, i must point out that those pioneers you describe as "at the bleeding edge of technology for decades" -- are now using decades old technology!
Realistically, if you want to take advantage of the latest post technology in the next few years -- you'll need to move to FCPX or move to another vendor's products. I believe there is zero chance that Apple will upgrade FCP7/FCS.
One problem facing many of those entrenched with FCP7 is that they will face the same pressure that caused them to move to FCP initially -- the old way was to difficult and too expensive -- and FCP is good enough!
The guys using FCP are cleaning our clock!
Someday soon, FCPX and/or a competitive product will be easier, faster and provide better workflow and deliverables than you get from FCP7/FCS.
It seems to me that Apple has not made a mistake, but taken a conscious business decision. They see that the market for prosumer product is much greater than that for high end pros. There are already good options for them such as Avid. Instead of putting resources into a product for a relatively few elite users, they'd rather create the best product for all the rest.
It sucks for the pros. I feel your pain (sincerely).
You lump Avid as a pro-sumer option? Or, did I read that wrong? I have cut tons of award-winning commercials on my Avid systems that no pro-sumer could afford at $75,000 per seat. Avid Media Composer IS professional grade, not pro-sumer. Like Apple, Avid had to bring out a low-end version for marketing reasons, but other than mucking up the landscape, it was not pro-grade. FCP v7 was as close to Avid as it comes. Avid is still a faster system for basic editing which is 90% of what I do. All the bells and whistles, the "Jack-of-all-Trades" add-ons only slow everything down in a professional studio setting. While all the graphics and color grading software is nice, I tend to divide that work among experts in their field, i.e., a audio engineer to mix, a colorist to do grading and a Flame artist or After Effects specialist for graphics and special effects.
Everything you talk about, I've been able to do on my Avid for 10 years. This is nothing new. Again, it might be a fine release for amateur or serious consumer video shooters who throw up You Tube videos for fun, but not for working pros. It is like editing with mittens on.
Comments
Better wait until Final Cut Pro X 3.0
Having your new software be able open the previous file format should be job one when releasing the next version.
Couple of questions:
1) If you could open your old formats, but couldn't process them would that be of any use?
2) If you could open your old formats and process them as FC7/FCS wouldn't that mean that FCP7 was just old bloat tacked on to FCPX and it would bring FCPX down to the performance level and operational Idiosyncrasies of FCP7. *
* FCP7 is Carbon-based and cannot take advantage of most of the hardware and OS improvements within the last 5 years. There simply is no way to program some of these things in Carbon.
3) Wouldn't it be better to release a new base platform (FCPX) unencumbered with the current FCP limitations?
4) Then write a standalone migration tool to port FCP7 projects to FCPX. There would be a lot of 3rd-party plugins missing at first, but this should diminish rapidly -- I suspect there will be a bit of a race by developers to be the first to port their plugins to FCPX.
Well, la-de-da! I don't fucking care about Apple and never have!
This isn't about the cult of Apple Inc. This is about people trying to use their computers to DO THEIR WORK! Apple used to be about THAT.
Go back to Bloomberg or some bubble-watching shithole pyramid scheme inventment forum.
Why in the world are you wasting your (and our) time, then?
That would be great, but I think Apple has already sunk that ship. Why? Bet you big dollars that Lion will break the living shit of of FCP 7. If the new Mac Pros that come with Lion installed can't run Snow Leopard (and this is likely) then people are doubly screwed.
That would be scary for sure ... I'm hoping Lion will not break it. I will have to check that out.
Couple of questions:
1) If you could open your old formats, but couldn't process them would that be of any use?
2) If you could open your old formats and process them as FC7/FCS wouldn't that mean that FCP7 was just old bloat tacked on to FCPX and it would bring FCPX down to the performance level and operational Idiosyncrasies of FCP7. *
* FCP7 is Carbon-based and cannot take advantage of most of the hardware and OS improvements within the last 5 years. There simply is no way to program some of these things in Carbon.
3) Wouldn't it be better to release a new base platform (FCPX) unencumbered with the current FCP limitations?
4) Then write a standalone migration tool to port FCP7 projects to FCPX. There would be a lot of 3rd-party plugins missing at first, but this should diminish rapidly -- I suspect there will be a bit of a race by developers to be the first to port their plugins to FCPX.
You know how when you open an old Photoshop document with text layers, you get a message that they need to be updated or when you open an old Illustrator file it saves it as [Converted], that is all it needs to do. It has nothing to do with being encumbered by old code because it is converting it. Think of it more as appearance based decision making. You have some timelines with video and synced audio tracks and some transitions, stills, clips etc. All NLE apps use the same basic type of layout. I need to preserve as much as of that possible during the conversion.
Bet you big dollars that Lion will break the living shit of of FCP 7.
Where's my money? It doesn't.
Does anyone here have FCP 7 running on Lion beta?
I do. Runs perfectly fine.
I agree that Apple should make FCS available again!
I think Apple should keep the FCPX branding and keep FCE EOLd.
I've posted on other threads that I think that FCPX is an amazing product as far as it goes -- and likely will be the platform to build upon for Appe's Pro apps.
<bunch of stuff deleted here>
Finally, Apple could have handled it better -- though we all enjoy seeing the "Big Guy" get his comeuppance... if just a little bit.
I agree with all your points up to the last one, and thanks for all your test-drive reports.
I'm not enjoying seeing Apple BECOME the "Big Guy" that now DESERVES a comeuppance. That's the change for the worse that has happened.
My constant amazed pleasure in using the old Final Cut, with its multiple video and audio tracks doing exactly what I want them to do, not what some magnetic timeline thinks I want it to do, will continue. But the relationship with the company that wants me to quit using that old but great architecture has been poisoned. Even their hardware no longer has the same aura it used to have for me.
There must be thousands of editors with huge investments in the Final Cut ecosystem that feel worse about it than I do. All they had to do was leave the old to coexist with the new for awhile, to support the industry until X is ready for real editing.
So they can use Final Cut Pro 7.
Never said they could. They can use Final Cut Pro 7.
Except they weren't forced to buy it.
"Let them eat cake."
Mmmm... The people we a discussing, high end production studios, actually want to continue, they just want to know they can. Stop thinking in terms of a single user. No one here saying X is prosumer at the moment is against it per se as far as I can see. It is the sudden brick wall they just hit in the immediate future of 7 that is scary when you have projects planned over the next few years and a small fortune invested in equipment and man power.
All Apple have to do is commit to continued support for 7, keep selling it and stand behind it during OS and hardware changes. Hopefully X will add all the missing features and nothing will be lost.
What would be sad is if there were a mass exodus of high end users from FCPro.
I think it is worth pointing out this isn't a Luddite situation. These are companies and people who have been at the bleeding edge of technology for decades.
Well said.
Where's my money? It doesn't.
I do. Runs perfectly fine.
Kona drivers? Plug-ins?
When did a refund for being less than satisfied with a product become "phenomenal customer service" rather than just "doing business"
Pretty much with every other software vendor. Have you ever gotten a refund from Adobe, or Quark, how about Microsoft or even Apple a few years ago for the new iMovie?
Didn't think so.
"Let them eat cake."
This makes no sense at all.
If they're coming from Final Cut Pro 7, then they still have Final Cut Pro 7 and can use that.
if the first version of Final Cut they're using is Final Cut X, then they have no metric against which to compare this software, and therefore shouldn't really be complaining about it.
Kona drivers? Plug-ins?
No idea about Kona, sorry. What plug-ins I do have run fine, however.
Then, as updates came along, and it caught up with the tools that the previous version had, I grew to like it and now could not see myself going back to the old version.
I feel this is EXACTLY what is happening here. This new version doesn't have everything that the old one does, and the users are feeling a little alienated, just as I was with iMovie 08. I have a feeling that once these missing features are added in with updates, everyone will begin to get to know the new interface a bit better and be happy with it.
If not, no one is forcing them to delete the previous version of Final Cut that they've been using for awhile now.
If you bought a brand new car and it was missing a spare tire, turn signals, and the passenger door didn't open, would your objections to this be WHINING? There are many FCP7 users who are literally unable to use FCPX because it does not have features they use EVERY DAY. And no, they can't just switch between FCP7 and FCPX to get those features as the two do not share the same project file formats. Objecting to being downgrade is not WHINING. It is 100% legitimate.
"And no, they can't just switch between FCP7 and FCPX to get those features as the two do not share the same project file formats."
This is not quite true.
1) There are no sequences in FCPX -- A FCPX project is analogous to a sequence.
2) Instead of bins, FCPX organizes media into events.
3) It is very easy do duplicate a FCPX project if you want to Freeze it at a point in time
Understanding the above differences (and in practice, it's pretty easy) you can:
1) open an FCP7 project locate your media files.
2) open FCPX and import those media files as an event -- you don't need to copy them, FCPX can point to them
3) Open the desired FCP7 sequence and take a Screen snapshot of the timeline -- this is necessary because you can't have FCP7 and FCPX open n the same machine at the same time -- 2 machines, no problem (I may write a feature request to allow FCPX and FCP7 to be open at the same time.
4) Using FCPX, quickly assemble a storyline approximating the FCP7 timeline -- it's different, but with a little practice it is a lot easier and much faster,
At this point, if FCPX contains the plugins and features you need -- you will likely not touch this again in FCP7.
There are just so any things that you can "easily" do in FCPX that you can't do in FCP7, such as:
-- quickly move things around without ever getting out of sync (and never worrying about it)
-- change the lighting/color of the video of a morning shot to match an evening shot or vice versa
-- scrubbing through clips with sound on so you can determine the exact spot to edit
-- audition several alternate sound and video for parts of your story -- so the client can select what he likes (reversable decisions)
-- you do most editing without ever rendering
-- you only render when you are ready to export the project.
I've only had a few hours of playtime and about 4 hours of tutorials with FCPX... It's imressive for what it is, now -- and for what it can be in the future.
Professionals would gladly pay $1000 had it been really powerful 64 bit 7 updated rather than a totally different and totally incompatible product. It's about work flow not price for professionals and edit houses. They are not whiners or computer nerds they are companies with multiple Mac Pros and high end media servers and many staff with on going work dependent on being able to open and use existing projects. A single production project could easily be anywhere from half a million to multi- million dollars. You have to see this in context.
The blurring of the line between amateurs, "pro-sumers" and professional editing creatives is getting more fuzzy. This FCP-X just proves that Apple is now just a consumer brand and does not seem to care or understand what they had nor do they get that some of us make their living off their software. This release is an outrage! I remember when Nikon sold only high-end cameras for professional photogs. They were built like tanks and could take a beating. Then, they were forced to get into the amateur market and their cameras got kinda crappy. Too much time and money spent on low-end consumer models. They lost a huge share of the pro market to Canon. Is this the fate of FCP, lost their mojo catering to mass market wanna-bes? I hope not.
In a year or two, once Apple continuously rolls out added features, all the critics will be silent, and they will tout FCP as the best editing software on the planet. Every critic says its a fantastic foundation, but lacks features they need. Well, that's how Apple rolls. They are utterly unafraid to destroy the status quo if they believe in their vision for the future.
It will get better. Relax. In the meantime, nobody is ripping FCP7 out of your hands.
Yea, that's my "advanced amateur" take on it as well. Luckily, the more advanced features aren't so applicable to me, but I can sympathize. Where FCPX advances, it's a quantum leap.
Where it's lacking, it's almost unbelievable that they shipped 1.0 like this! I don't doubt that they will improve over the coming months and that it will eventually be getting 4 and 5 star ratings. But I'll never understand how they thought they could ship something missing so many features.
Having said that, I'm glad that 1) FCP 7 can co-exist happily 2) Refunds are being given in some cases and 3) They seem to be listening to feedback. Perhaps Apple should have marketed it as a big community project instead!
"We're working on the next generation of non-linear editing applications. We'll be shipping version 1.0 this June and we need your help. Download it only on the Mac App Store, give us your feedback, and be part of the revolution." SOMETHING like that.
Pros might jump at the chance to download something with such a revolutionary UI and be contribute towards its polishing and improvement. Instead, Apple gave the usual silent treatment leading up to launch, leading to disappointed customers.
"And no, they can't just switch between FCP7 and FCPX to get those features as the two do not share the same project file formats."
This is not quite true.
1) There are no sequences in FCPX -- A FCPX project is analogous to a sequence.
2) Instead of bins, FCPX organizes media into events.
3) It is very easy do duplicate a FCPX project if you want to Freeze it at a point in time
Understanding the above differences (and in practice, it's pretty easy) you can:
1) open an FCP7 project locate your media files.
2) open FCPX and import those media files as an event -- you don't need to copy them, FCPX can point to them
3) Open the desired FCP7 sequence and take a Screen snapshot of the timeline -- this is necessary because you can't have FCP7 and FCPX open n the same machine at the same time -- 2 machines, no problem (I may write a feature request to allow FCPX and FCP7 to be open at the same time.
4) Using FCPX, quickly assemble a storyline approximating the FCP7 timeline -- it's different, but with a little practice it is a lot easier and much faster,
At this point, if FCPX contains the plugins and features you need -- you will likely not touch this again in FCP7.
There are just so any things that you can "easily" do in FCPX that you can't do in FCP7, such as:
-- quickly move things around without ever getting out of sync (and never worrying about it)
-- change the lighting/color of the video of a morning shot to match an evening shot or vice versa
-- scrubbing through clips with sound on so you can determine the exact spot to edit
-- audition several alternate sound and video for parts of your story -- so the client can select what he likes (reversable decisions)
-- you do most editing without ever rendering
-- you only render when you are ready to export the project.
I've only had a few hours of playtime and about 4 hours of tutorials with FCPX... It's imressive for what it is, now -- and for what it can be in the future.
Everything you talk about, I've been able to do on my Avid for 10 years. This is nothing new. Again, it might be a fine release for amateur or serious consumer video shooters who throw up You Tube videos for fun, but not for working pros. It is like editing with mittens on.
When did a refund for being less than satisfied with a product become "phenomenal customer service" rather than just "doing business"
I've never seen ANY company refund a 300$ software.
Mmmm... The people we a discussing, high end production studios, actually want to continue, they just want to know they can. Stop thinking in terms of a single user. No one here saying X is prosumer at the moment is against it per se as far as I can see. It is the sudden brick wall they just hit in the immediate future of 7 that is scary when you have projects planned over the next few years and a small fortune invested in equipment and man power.
All Apple have to do is commit to continued support for 7, keep selling it and stand behind it during OS and hardware changes. Hopefully X will add all the missing features and nothing will be lost.
What would be sad is if there were a mass exodus of high end users from FCPro.
I think it is worth pointing out this isn't a Luddite situation. These are companies and people who have been at the bleeding edge of technology for decades.
I agree with what you say -- especially about the part of supporting existing users.
But, i must point out that those pioneers you describe as "at the bleeding edge of technology for decades" -- are now using decades old technology!
Realistically, if you want to take advantage of the latest post technology in the next few years -- you'll need to move to FCPX or move to another vendor's products. I believe there is zero chance that Apple will upgrade FCP7/FCS.
One problem facing many of those entrenched with FCP7 is that they will face the same pressure that caused them to move to FCP initially -- the old way was to difficult and too expensive -- and FCP is good enough!
The guys using FCP are cleaning our clock!
Someday soon, FCPX and/or a competitive product will be easier, faster and provide better workflow and deliverables than you get from FCP7/FCS.
It seems to me that Apple has not made a mistake, but taken a conscious business decision. They see that the market for prosumer product is much greater than that for high end pros. There are already good options for them such as Avid. Instead of putting resources into a product for a relatively few elite users, they'd rather create the best product for all the rest.
It sucks for the pros. I feel your pain (sincerely).
You lump Avid as a pro-sumer option? Or, did I read that wrong? I have cut tons of award-winning commercials on my Avid systems that no pro-sumer could afford at $75,000 per seat. Avid Media Composer IS professional grade, not pro-sumer. Like Apple, Avid had to bring out a low-end version for marketing reasons, but other than mucking up the landscape, it was not pro-grade. FCP v7 was as close to Avid as it comes. Avid is still a faster system for basic editing which is 90% of what I do. All the bells and whistles, the "Jack-of-all-Trades" add-ons only slow everything down in a professional studio setting. While all the graphics and color grading software is nice, I tend to divide that work among experts in their field, i.e., a audio engineer to mix, a colorist to do grading and a Flame artist or After Effects specialist for graphics and special effects.
Everything you talk about, I've been able to do on my Avid for 10 years. This is nothing new. Again, it might be a fine release for amateur or serious consumer video shooters who throw up You Tube videos for fun, but not for working pros. It is like editing with mittens on.
How many times $300 is the price of Avid?