The basic fact is this. 'X' never should of been released this early. Its clearly not ready for 'Pro' use. Regardless of upcoming updates. If anything, it should of come out after Lion.
Final Cut Pro has been in existence for ten years and has catered to people that have to work in a multi-million dollar industry. Not to people editing themselves in the mirror, singing Justin Bieber songs. That's what iMovie is for. FCP7, the way it is now, is not difficult. Not to me at least. Nor to professionals who took the time to learn it. People that do not work in this industry will never understand the massive inconvenience 'X' is. To bitch at professionals for being angry, shows you don't fully understand the situation. So, to those that are knocking professional users, ask yourself this. If you were trusted with editing 'Dancing With The Stars,' a multimillion dollar show, finishing an hour episode in one day, and suddenly were handed 'X', would you still have the 'deal with it' attitude? When dealing with a business of this magnitude, you don't mess with it the way that Apple just did. The product wasn't broken. Didn't need any fixing.
From a business prospective, Apple charges the entertainment industry thousands of dollars for the programs as well as the computers with enough juice to do it . They figured they would make up the loss in professional use with the addition of the non-pro users. And yes, they will. FCP is not fully integrated in Hollywood yet. There are still many, many AVID pro users. Nearly all professional editors in Hollywood learned on AVID before FCP. It will be easy for them to return to it. Many AVID users have been on the fence regarding the switch to FCP. Not anymore. For those that don't remember, waaay back in the day, AVID was the king of the hill. FCP won the apple contract because of the way it is structured now.
If you have been working FCP professionally, for over 5 years, 'X' is going to suck, as it is now. For those that haven't been as fluent in it as a Hollywood professional, you just don't know what you're actually missing, so it's no big deal to you. It is good that users can have both versions right now. FCP 7 will be around to download forever from other sources other then apple. In the meantime, for a professional editor, now is the time to start learning 'X' while you continue your workflows in FCP. Its just like when Apple switched from AVID to FCP years ago. We have no choice in what Apple does. They have their plan and will enact it regardless of complaints. There are more non-pro users then pro users. They won. Technology always changes and as a professionals, we have to adjust. The same way a doctor has to adjust to a new heart surgery procedure. Thats what it means to be pro. Being able to adjust and be better at the new thing then anybody else. By the time 'X' works out it's kinks and becomes a decent program, you'll be efficient at it. Or you can go back to AVID, like much of Hollywood is contemplating right now. AVID is all over this mess offering all sorts of deals.
So, wrapping up, Apple's leadership completely bungled the release of this. The program should of been finished before release. Instead of being rushed for absolutely no reason. We shouldn't need updates every week. We should of had at least a year to know that it was on it's way. We should of had at least a month or two to familiarize ourselves with it through professional seminars, tutorials, etc, so that for when it got released, it would of been easier to integrate into our work lives. But what's done is done. Gotta adjust. I'm going to the Apple store for a tutorial in a couple weeks. The instructor said we'll learn it together. Lol. Surely somebody's head is going to roll at Apple for this. Its a given.
The basic fact is this. 'X' never should of been released this early. Its clearly not ready for 'Pro' use. Regardless of upcoming updates. If anything, it should of come out after Lion.
Final Cut Pro has been in existence for ten years and has catered to people that have to work in a multi-million dollar industry. Not to people editing themselves in the mirror, singing Justin Bieber songs. That's what iMovie is for. FCP7, the way it is now, is not difficult. Not to me at least. Nor to professionals who took the time to learn it. People that do not work in this industry will never understand the massive inconvenience 'X' is. To bitch at professionals for being angry, shows you don't fully understand the situation. So, to those that are knocking professional users, ask yourself this. If you were trusted with editing 'Dancing With The Stars,' a multimillion dollar show, finishing an hour episode in one day, and suddenly were handed 'X', would you still have the 'deal with it' attitude? When dealing with a business of this magnitude, you don't mess with it the way that Apple just did. The product wasn't broken. Didn't need any fixing.
From a business prospective, Apple charges the entertainment industry thousands of dollars for the programs as well as the computers with enough juice to do it . They figured they would make up the loss in professional use with the addition of the non-pro users. And yes, they will. FCP is not fully integrated in Hollywood yet. There are still many, many AVID pro users. Nearly all professional editors in Hollywood learned on AVID before FCP. It will be easy for them to return to it. Many AVID users have been on the fence regarding the switch to FCP. Not anymore. For those that don't remember, waaay back in the day, AVID was the king of the hill. FCP won the apple contract because of the way it is structured now.
If you have been working FCP professionally, for over 5 years, 'X' is going to suck, as it is now. For those that haven't been as fluent in it as a Hollywood professional, you just don't know what you're actually missing, so it's no big deal to you. It is good that users can have both versions right now. FCP 7 will be around to download forever from other sources other then apple. In the meantime, for a professional editor, now is the time to start learning 'X' while you continue your workflows in FCP. Its just like when Apple switched from AVID to FCP years ago. We have no choice in what Apple does. They have their plan and will enact it regardless of complaints. There are more non-pro users then pro users. They won. Technology always changes and as a professionals, we have to adjust. The same way a doctor has to adjust to a new heart surgery procedure. Thats what it means to be pro. Being able to adjust and be better at the new thing then anybody else. By the time 'X' works out it's kinks and becomes a decent program, you'll be efficient at it. Or you can go back to AVID, like much of Hollywood is contemplating right now. AVID is all over this mess offering all sorts of deals.
So, wrapping up, Apple's leadership completely bungled the release of this. The program should of been finished before release. Instead of being rushed for absolutely no reason. We shouldn't need updates every week. We should of had at least a year to know that it was on it's way. We should of had at least a month or two to familiarize ourselves with it through professional seminars, tutorials, etc, so that for when it got released, it would of been easier to integrate into our work lives. But what's done is done. Gotta adjust. I'm going to the Apple store for a tutorial in a couple weeks. The instructor said we'll learn it together. Lol. Surely somebody's head is going to roll at Apple for this. Its a given.
Actually Final Cut Pro catered to the people that did NOT own Million Dollar bays. It was video editing for people that didn't have megabucks.
"The product wasn't broken. Didn't need any fixing."
That's the common misconception that's bandied about. Editors love to wax on about how they know the industry but what's clear is that the very vocal don't seem to grasp software design. If we are looking within the context of moving FCP to a 64-bit base and leveraging new and modern technology then FCP 7 and former versions were indeed broken. Quicktime, the core of FCP 7, wasn't going to make the 64-bit transition so Apple had to rewrite the app and if they're going to do that they may as well look at what's going to be the future of editing.
They've decided on focusing on file based acquisition and a more dynamic and fluid editing environment. We will have have to see how FCPX matures but I tend to think that you have to get it out in the field and then see what works and what doesn't work and then rapidly evolve the product.
The basic fact is this. 'X' never should of been released this early. Its clearly not ready for 'Pro' use. Regardless of upcoming updates. If anything, it should of come out after Lion.
Final Cut Pro has been in existence for ten years and has catered to people that have to work in a multi-million dollar industry. Not to people editing themselves in the mirror, singing Justin Bieber songs. That's what iMovie is for. FCP7, the way it is now, is not difficult. Not to me at least. Nor to professionals who took the time to learn it. People that do not work in this industry will never understand the massive inconvenience 'X' is. To bitch at professionals for being angry, shows you don't fully understand the situation. So, to those that are knocking professional users, ask yourself this. If you were trusted with editing 'Dancing With The Stars,' a multimillion dollar show, finishing an hour episode in one day, and suddenly were handed 'X', would you still have the 'deal with it' attitude? When dealing with a business of this magnitude, you don't mess with it the way that Apple just did. The product wasn't broken. Didn't need any fixing.
From a business prospective, Apple charges the entertainment industry thousands of dollars for the programs as well as the computers with enough juice to do it . They figured they would make up the loss in professional use with the addition of the non-pro users. And yes, they will. FCP is not fully integrated in Hollywood yet. There are still many, many AVID pro users. Nearly all professional editors in Hollywood learned on AVID before FCP. It will be easy for them to return to it. Many AVID users have been on the fence regarding the switch to FCP. Not anymore. For those that don't remember, waaay back in the day, AVID was the king of the hill. FCP won the apple contract because of the way it is structured now.
If you have been working FCP professionally, for over 5 years, 'X' is going to suck, as it is now. For those that haven't been as fluent in it as a Hollywood professional, you just don't know what you're actually missing, so it's no big deal to you. It is good that users can have both versions right now. FCP 7 will be around to download forever from other sources other then apple. In the meantime, for a professional editor, now is the time to start learning 'X' while you continue your workflows in FCP. Its just like when Apple switched from AVID to FCP years ago. We have no choice in what Apple does. They have their plan and will enact it regardless of complaints. There are more non-pro users then pro users. They won. Technology always changes and as a professionals, we have to adjust. The same way a doctor has to adjust to a new heart surgery procedure. Thats what it means to be pro. Being able to adjust and be better at the new thing then anybody else. By the time 'X' works out it's kinks and becomes a decent program, you'll be efficient at it. Or you can go back to AVID, like much of Hollywood is contemplating right now. AVID is all over this mess offering all sorts of deals.
So, wrapping up, Apple's leadership completely bungled the release of this. The program should of been finished before release. Instead of being rushed for absolutely no reason. We shouldn't need updates every week. We should of had at least a year to know that it was on it's way. We should of had at least a month or two to familiarize ourselves with it through professional seminars, tutorials, etc, so that for when it got released, it would of been easier to integrate into our work lives. But what's done is done. Gotta adjust. I'm going to the Apple store for a tutorial in a couple weeks. The instructor said we'll learn it together. Lol. Surely somebody's head is going to roll at Apple for this. Its a given.
Whose head? Steve's?
Seriously, thanks for your reasoned perspective. I like the part where you say we'll be able to get FPC 7 from other sources. That's the kind of thinking I like.
Apple has done a lot of damage to themselves with this. So unnecessarily brutal toward the industry -- editing for independents -- they pretty much carved out for themselves and for a fairly vociferous group of loyalists. It's going to take some doing to get back any of that good will.
Confirms everything I have been saying. Only one of the group had been apprised of FCPX and he was amazed at what he witnessed. Yet the biggest critic had never seen the product, knew nothing about it, but was more than willing to express his distain for it.
Sounds like many would reside here.
That guy is Mark Raudonis and he saw what Apple wanted him to see just like everyone else at the Supermeet. Here's what he says now that he's got his hands on it:
I'm not sure why you want to keep painting the picture of there being a group of people complaining for no justifiable reasons except because they want to make noise and dig their heels in against unwanted change. FCP 7 was old, buggy and needed a drastic overhaul, nobody who's used it would deny that. However, Apple can't rip it to shreds, leave people without a usable workflow and expect them to turn around praising the changes.
Professionals are more accepting of workflow oddities than anyone. If you have to run a shell script to start a rendering engine, manage your RAID system or batch encoder or whatever, it doesn't matter. Whatever it takes to get the job done. If Apple make it almost impossible to integrate into your business by offering no collaborative workflow and no volume licensing, don't you think the complaints are justified?
People have different takes on what happened:
There are those who consider Apple to be faultless and no matter how many mistakes they make will grab onto any positive opinion to justify the decisions they make so FCPX is just another gift from God.
There are those who think Apple's only focus is the consumer and every product they make is and should be aimed at them so are happy that FCPX is now a consumer product.
There are those who dabble in editing and can start from scratch working on a single-user workflow and are happy with the value FCPX offers.
There are those who have spent hundreds of thousands of dollars building workflows around Final Cut (Mark Raudonis being one of them) who are now left hanging wondering what happens next.
The facts we know:
- Final Cut 7 needed to be overhauled
- Professional workflows are not single-user operations
- Final Cut X is a complete and welcome overhaul but has not been shipped as a collaborative product
Nobody is dismissing Final Cut X because it's a toy, it's a powerful product that can't be used in a business the way it is and has adopted the single-user workflow of iMovie.
All they had to do was design it around a collaborative workflow and ship it with the tools needed - a fraction of the work that's already gone into the software. For some reason, they chose not to do that. They are stating openly that FCP is still being aimed at the same market and will bring features in over time but they should never have allowed a rift to develop between the old and the new leaving people on both sides stranded.
I've tried to read everything about FCP X and the veracious responses I've been able to get my hands on, including Apple's official Q&A and the "insider" perspective from the guy on the Shake team, and my conclusion is this:
Apple does not, in fact, care about "professionals" (as that term is generally understood) as a market worth pursuing with any particular focus. That doesn't mean they don't care at all, and it doesn't mean that there may be some definitions of "professional" for whom Apple's software will be enormously empowering.
But I don't think Apple is unduly concerned about abdicating the space they carved out in the pro editing space, because it's not particularly lucrative and it doesn't have much synergy with anything else they're doing.
Some folks seem to be assuming that Apple was taken aback by the response to FCP X and is scrambling to mend fences. I can't see that. Apple is going to lose a huge chunk of their presence in post houses, and I think Apple is OK with that.
Once upon a time, FCP and the other pro apps gave Apple some much needed legitimacy. They don't need that legitimacy any more. Does the fact that a given feature film was cut with Apple software sell any more iPads? Do you think it's important to Apple that people think of them as a company with a presence in high end edit suites? I don't think so, and although that works against my personal preferences I can't say they're wrong to focus on their strengths.
I personally mourn the loss, but I don't think Apple is obliged to stick with markets they don't think align with their ambitions. I do think their may be some blow back beyond the movie industry, in that the abrupt rug yanking will make it hard for them to ever again be taken seriously in any pro market, should they wish at some point to reenter one. For instance, if they have any intentions for Aperture beyond what we've seen, I don't think that's going to be possible. No informed photo-journalist or anyone who makes a living at photography is going to trust Apple to maintain Aperture as a safe harbor to invest a lot of infrastructure around.
Which is a shame. Like say, I liked FCPS, but I can get by with Protools, AE and FCP X assuming Apple provides some provision for round-tripping audio and video files. If not I guess I can give Premier a go-- after all, the important thing to me is how the work comes out, not so much the software that allowed me to do it.
I hadn't seen this when I posted, but it does a better job than I did articulating the sense Apple is giving regarding they're relationship to "pros":
Quote:
In the world of Apple, a Pro product used to mean ?designed for high-end professionals with needs far beyond those of mortal men.? Now it simply means ?the high-performance model.?
Most people don?t want a MacBook Pro because they?re Pros. They want it because it?s more powerful than a MacBook. Most people won?t buy FCPX because they?re Pros. They?ll buy it because it?s powerful and intuitive ? and way better than iMovie.
So basically, if you aspire to owning the faster/better/more advanced computer or software ? congratulations, you?re a Pro.
That's why I don't think Apple much cares if all those post houses dump FCP. Apple doesn't make software for big professional organizations, at least not explicitly and certainly not anymore.
Apple does not, in fact, care about "professionals" (as that term is generally understood) as a market worth pursuing with any particular focus. That doesn't mean they don't care at all, and it doesn't mean that there may be some definitions of "professional" for whom Apple's software will be enormously empowering.
I don't buy this entirely. The Shake guy, Ron Brinkmann posted here a while ago:
There's no way Apple would have put so much work into a product without caring what people think. I think the flaws in FCPX are minor but critical. They just should have been ready for when it shipped.
File reconnection is a big problem - they do have a built-in feature for proxy editing, so that tackles one part of it but it needs to be more flexible.
I think the important question to ask is how much does Apple really need to change in FCPX before it is functionally indistinguishable from FCP? The list is very small compared to what's in the software. Once the API comes, that's going to fix a huge amount of the big issues. This covers OMF, XML, EDL, migration from FCP 7. If they add in multi-cam, fully custom dimensions & frame rates and custom export inside FCP too it would be nice but what's left after that?
If Apple didn't care about the market, they wouldn't even make a Mac Pro with 12-cores that reaches so high on the benchmarks ( http://browse.geekbench.ca/geekbench2/top ), they wouldn't even arrange an event for professionals at NAB and FCPX would have more in common with FCE than FCP - it doesn't. They wouldn't even bother trying to tap the GPU, which is very difficult to do.
I see FCPX more as FCP in iMovie clothing than iMovie dressed up to look like FCP and some of the design decisions that came from that were just an unfortunate side-effect.
Quote:
Originally Posted by addabox
Some folks seem to be assuming that Apple was taken aback by the response to FCP X and is scrambling to mend fences. I can't see that.
I think the FAQ at least shows they have heard the issues and they are working to resolve a lot of them. I doubt they could be working harder than they have been to make it what it is already and I certainly don't think development will be winding down now it's out. I think people have far too much invested at this point to dismiss it all so soon. I think there will be a happy ending within the next 3 months.
Quote:
Originally Posted by addabox
Does the fact that a given feature film was cut with Apple software sell any more iPads?
Have we switched roles? Usually I'm knocking the iPad and all the iFocus. I think the answer to that question though is yes. Final Cut runs on one platform and if it has traction in the professional editing community then it does in film schools all over the world. Those students will have to buy Macs and as you know, people who buy Macs buy iPhones and iPads and whatever.
If you take away the exclusivity, those students won't be buying Macs at all, they will go for the much cheaper Asus/Acer laptops and get a copy of Avid and hook it up with some Android phone.
I don't think Shake would have helped at all because that's a very specialised field but Final Cut has a much broader appeal.
I over all agree with this perspective. I think at its core FCP X is built to be a lean and simple NLE for pretty much everybody.
I believe the idea from this point on is for FCP X to be modular. The more advanced and high end functionality will come from plug ins and 3rd party add ons from the likes of AJA and Blackmagic Designs.
I believe Apple is working directly with those companies in offering extended functionality for FCP X.
Quote:
Originally Posted by addabox
Apple does not, in fact, care about "professionals" (as that term is generally understood) as a market worth pursuing with any particular focus. That doesn't mean they don't care at all, and it doesn't mean that there may be some definitions of "professional" for whom Apple's software will be enormously empowering.
I over all agree with this perspective. I think at its core FCP X is built to be a lean and simple NLE for pretty much everybody.
What parts of FCPX suggest that it's vastly easier to use than FCP though? It seems to me that a lot of this is just down to perception.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TenoBell
I believe the idea from this point on is for FCP X to be modular. The more advanced and high end functionality will come from plug ins and 3rd party add ons from the likes of AJA and Blackmagic Designs.
Just like Final Cut Pro - if you needed XDCam import or AVCHD, you get a plugin from Sony etc and it works via Log and Transfer.
Over time, useful things get bundled with the app so they just work but the whole 32-bit to 64-bit move means all the plugins need to be recompiled. Again though, I don't see any shift happening, it looks like they just didn't finish in time.
What parts of FCPX suggest that it's vastly easier to use than FCP though? It seems to me that a lot of this is just down to perception.
I believe that the Event Library and Project Library are simpler metaphors for most people to understand than a bin and time line.
Quote:
Just like Final Cut Pro - if you needed XDCam import or AVCHD, you get a plugin from Sony etc and it works via Log and Transfer.
Over time, useful things get bundled with the app so they just work but the whole 32-bit to 64-bit move means all the plugins need to be recompiled. Again though, I don't see any shift happening, it looks like they just didn't finish in time.
I don't understand what you are saying here. What shift are you talking about exactly?
He seems to be confirming what I said? That "pro" isn't a market that does much for Apple, by their lights.
Quote:
There's no way Apple would have put so much work into a product without caring what people think. I think the flaws in FCPX are minor but critical. They just should have been ready for when it shipped.
I think they care what "people" think, I just don't think they care what a few thousand high end professionals think.
Quote:
File reconnection is a big problem - they do have a built-in feature for proxy editing, so that tackles one part of it but it needs to be more flexible.
I think the important question to ask is how much does Apple really need to change in FCPX before it is functionally indistinguishable from FCP? The list is very small compared to what's in the software. Once the API comes, that's going to fix a huge amount of the big issues. This covers OMF, XML, EDL, migration from FCP 7. If they add in multi-cam, fully custom dimensions & frame rates and custom export inside FCP too it would be nice but what's left after that?
Except this really doesn't feel like a product that just inexplicably left out features, for whatever reasons. It feels like a product that isn't interested in those features. Not because Apple is evil or has gone out of their way to screw over FCP post houses, but because they decided that they were more interested in writing super powerful editing software for an individual on a single machine than continuing on with a bunch of work flow stuff that benefits a very small group of professional editors.
Quote:
If Apple didn't care about the market, they wouldn't even make a Mac Pro with 12-cores that reaches so high on the benchmarks ( http://browse.geekbench.ca/geekbench2/top ), they wouldn't even arrange an event for professionals at NAB and FCPX would have more in common with FCE than FCP - it doesn't. They wouldn't even bother trying to tap the GPU, which is very difficult to do
Well, arguably the Mac Pro soldiers on because it doesn't really cost Apple anything to occasionally update it. They sure haven't put a lot of thought into the design for a while, have they?
Leveraging the GPU, OTOH, give most of their customers a nice boost in performance. As the article I linked to earlier was saying, Apple just defines "Pro" as "more powerful", not "tailored to a certain small market that do specific things."
Quote:
I think the FAQ at least shows they have heard the issues and they are working to resolve a lot of them. I doubt they could be working harder than they have been to make it what it is already and I certainly don't think development will be winding down now it's out. I think people have far too much invested at this point to dismiss it all so soon. I think there will be a happy ending within the next 3 months.
It was actually the FAQ that tilted me over to the "oh, they actually don't want to do "Pro" anymore" camp.
It's basically, yeah, there are a few things (chiefly multicam) that we're working on, but other than that either deal with it or pay extra for whatever the market may or may not come up with. Some of the proffered work-arounds were already famously bone headed and Apple just went ahead and put them out there: pony up half again more than FCP X cost to get some I/O functionality (assuming you already have the software that runs the plugin), use sound track syncing for mulitcam, etc. Really not calibrated to smooth ruffled feathers, and not in the least contrite. More like, "yeah, we made what we made, we think its great."
Quote:
Have we switched roles? Usually I'm knocking the iPad and all the iFocus.
I know, I know.... it's not that I resent the iWorld thing, it's just that I think Apple is becoming a rather different company than they were. I suspect there may be a period as Apple adds power and functionality to iOS and devices where it will feel like they don't care about anything more sophisticated than iWork, but at some point there's going to be FCP X power on an iPad. It won't be tailored for production pipelines, but it will allow someone sitting under a tree to do tremendously sophisticated things.
Quote:
I think the answer to that question though is yes. Final Cut runs on one platform and if it has traction in the professional editing community then it does in film schools all over the world. Those students will have to buy Macs and as you know, people who buy Macs buy iPhones and iPads and whatever.
If you take away the exclusivity, those students won't be buying Macs at all, they will go for the much cheaper Asus/Acer laptops and get a copy of Avid and hook it up with some Android phone.
I just don't think the people that are bummed are numerous enough to have much impact on the market. It was a point of pride for Mac-heads, but honestly what percentage of Mac or iOS device buyers have any idea or care what software was used to cut a movie or ad campaign?
Quote:
I don't think Shake would have helped at all because that's a very specialised field but Final Cut has a much broader appeal.
Right, it does have much broader appeal, but the thing is is that it's that very broadness that means that the majority of users will actually benefit from FCP X. They don't need to send things to Colorist for finishing. They don't need to maintain an elaborate infrastructure for collaborative work across varied assets.
But they can cut a feature film in their bedroom, on a MacBook Pro, which is the kind of thing that I think turns Apple on. And more power to them, I just wish they didn't have to abandon their established pro market to keep the focus tight.
And I hope I'm wrong! I hope Apple either adds functionality or is very clear on how one goes about assembling the necessary bits and pro editors come to sing the praises of the new paradigm. Time will tell, although the way Apple played this they're guaranteed to have lost a pretty good chunk of their market, because as everyone keeps saying, they no longer feel like this is a company they can trust to provide a stable roadmap.
I believe that the Event Library and Project Library are simpler metaphors for most people to understand than a bin and time line.
They both have timelines and projects. Events are really just an evolution of bins that use metadata, which means you can have the same clip in multiple different categories.
The timeline is mostly the same, you just don't get clips overlapping, you don't get the audio tracks disappearing when you scroll, you don't have to render by yourself, you don't have to use the pen tool for audio fades and loads of other things.
There doesn't seem to be a huge departure from the original in terms of how it works, they just removed the annoying stuff and unfortunately some of the stuff that's quite useful. In no way is it suddenly a tool anyone can pick up and work with where the old one wasn't - both could be used by anyone.
If anything, it's more just a declaration that people shouldn't be afraid to use powerful tools - no inferiority complex. Remember who smart-phones were perceived to be for? Their functions haven't changed but people aren't afraid of them any more.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TenoBell
I don't understand what you are saying here. What shift are you talking about exactly?
The shift in the target audience. I've heard a few times that it's now a tool for anyone. It always was, there's no shift in who it's for. If you need multi-track editing, effects, audio controls etc then it's for you and so was Final Cut Pro. The biggest change they made was in the price.
If you have $3000 and you want to encode your home movies as fast as you can then go buy a Mac Pro. Nobody should have the perception that things aren't designed for them, just buy what you can afford and what gets the job done.
Quote:
Originally Posted by addabox
He seems to be confirming what I said? That "pro" isn't a market that does much for Apple, by their lights.
To an extent. The addendum notes that his definition of professional is about collaborative workflows and this is where FCPX is distinctly lacking but that's all and a lot of that is just not finished yet.
Quote:
Originally Posted by addabox
I think they care what "people" think, I just don't think they care what a few thousand high end professionals think.
I was including high-end professionals. Some TV shows and movie scenes are being shot with Canon 5Ds so having things like rolling shutter correction is a good thing that helps everyone using devices with CMOS sensors. Apple used to post case studies of their professional apps:
If they didn't care at all about high-end workflows, I don't think they'd do this.
Quote:
Originally Posted by addabox
Except this really doesn't feel like a product that just inexplicably left out features, for whatever reasons. It feels like a product that isn't interested in those features.
There are some parts that have odd design decisions like the file connections, export limits, no 'save as' beyond project duplication but like I say, once the XML API arrives, a lot of the collaborative parts will be fixed - iMovie doesn't have an XML API and certainly no single users need one.
Multi-cam is coming and I think they are going to be working on the file reconnection problem.
I do believe that some features won't ever come back but people still need to take a forward-thinking approach about where film is going. Nobody's going back to analogue and there has to be a jumping off point. Now's as good a time as any.
Quote:
Originally Posted by addabox
Well, arguably the Mac Pro soldiers on because it doesn't really cost Apple anything to occasionally update it. They sure haven't put a lot of thought into the design for a while, have they?
Pioneering Thunderbolt IMO counters the lack of Mac Pro attention. iMovie users don't need a Thunderbolt RAID system - almost no home users do.
Quote:
Originally Posted by addabox
they no longer feel like this is a company they can trust to provide a stable roadmap.
This, I'd say is the biggest issue with the release. The secrecy and the switchover was poor. Shipping it in an unfinished state while discontinuing the old one was poor.
What about color correction? Does FC X take project through Color to make changes? How does it work with files outputted from FC 6 and FC 6.0.6? We have several editing machines that would have to be upgraded and that's just too costly even at low prices (budget constraints). Does FC X still output .mov files and are those files still compatible with AVID? We post on AVID but edit everything else on FC. Is the compatibility still there? We don't want to buy a new post machine with FC X only to find we can't use anything from our older editors since we can't upgrade them yet.
What about color correction? Does FC X take project through Color to make changes?
Color is gone and there is no import/export. An XML API is on its way but it actually won't do any good here because if you modify the source files, they will go offline as far as FCPX is concerned. This is a fundamental part of FCPX that needs to be fixed - if you modify any event files in use in any way outside of FCPX, it thinks they aren't there any more.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bulldoghines
How does it work with files outputted from FC 6 and FC 6.0.6?
It doesn't, there is zero backwards compatibility so far. The upcoming API should be able to partially import exported XML files but Apple don't seem to want to do it themselves.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bulldoghines
Does FC X still output .mov files and are those files still compatible with AVID? We post on AVID but edit everything else on FC.
You get a variety of "sharing" options inside FCPX but they have limitations. Exporting to Compressor will give you all your options and is just as fun as ever to use - Apple seem to be using their Think Different strategy here: if it ain't broke, break it; if it is broke, job done.
Comments
Final Cut Pro has been in existence for ten years and has catered to people that have to work in a multi-million dollar industry. Not to people editing themselves in the mirror, singing Justin Bieber songs. That's what iMovie is for. FCP7, the way it is now, is not difficult. Not to me at least. Nor to professionals who took the time to learn it. People that do not work in this industry will never understand the massive inconvenience 'X' is. To bitch at professionals for being angry, shows you don't fully understand the situation. So, to those that are knocking professional users, ask yourself this. If you were trusted with editing 'Dancing With The Stars,' a multimillion dollar show, finishing an hour episode in one day, and suddenly were handed 'X', would you still have the 'deal with it' attitude? When dealing with a business of this magnitude, you don't mess with it the way that Apple just did. The product wasn't broken. Didn't need any fixing.
From a business prospective, Apple charges the entertainment industry thousands of dollars for the programs as well as the computers with enough juice to do it . They figured they would make up the loss in professional use with the addition of the non-pro users. And yes, they will. FCP is not fully integrated in Hollywood yet. There are still many, many AVID pro users. Nearly all professional editors in Hollywood learned on AVID before FCP. It will be easy for them to return to it. Many AVID users have been on the fence regarding the switch to FCP. Not anymore. For those that don't remember, waaay back in the day, AVID was the king of the hill. FCP won the apple contract because of the way it is structured now.
If you have been working FCP professionally, for over 5 years, 'X' is going to suck, as it is now. For those that haven't been as fluent in it as a Hollywood professional, you just don't know what you're actually missing, so it's no big deal to you. It is good that users can have both versions right now. FCP 7 will be around to download forever from other sources other then apple. In the meantime, for a professional editor, now is the time to start learning 'X' while you continue your workflows in FCP. Its just like when Apple switched from AVID to FCP years ago. We have no choice in what Apple does. They have their plan and will enact it regardless of complaints. There are more non-pro users then pro users. They won. Technology always changes and as a professionals, we have to adjust. The same way a doctor has to adjust to a new heart surgery procedure. Thats what it means to be pro. Being able to adjust and be better at the new thing then anybody else. By the time 'X' works out it's kinks and becomes a decent program, you'll be efficient at it. Or you can go back to AVID, like much of Hollywood is contemplating right now. AVID is all over this mess offering all sorts of deals.
So, wrapping up, Apple's leadership completely bungled the release of this. The program should of been finished before release. Instead of being rushed for absolutely no reason. We shouldn't need updates every week. We should of had at least a year to know that it was on it's way. We should of had at least a month or two to familiarize ourselves with it through professional seminars, tutorials, etc, so that for when it got released, it would of been easier to integrate into our work lives. But what's done is done. Gotta adjust. I'm going to the Apple store for a tutorial in a couple weeks. The instructor said we'll learn it together. Lol. Surely somebody's head is going to roll at Apple for this. Its a given.
The basic fact is this. 'X' never should of been released this early. Its clearly not ready for 'Pro' use. Regardless of upcoming updates. If anything, it should of come out after Lion.
Final Cut Pro has been in existence for ten years and has catered to people that have to work in a multi-million dollar industry. Not to people editing themselves in the mirror, singing Justin Bieber songs. That's what iMovie is for. FCP7, the way it is now, is not difficult. Not to me at least. Nor to professionals who took the time to learn it. People that do not work in this industry will never understand the massive inconvenience 'X' is. To bitch at professionals for being angry, shows you don't fully understand the situation. So, to those that are knocking professional users, ask yourself this. If you were trusted with editing 'Dancing With The Stars,' a multimillion dollar show, finishing an hour episode in one day, and suddenly were handed 'X', would you still have the 'deal with it' attitude? When dealing with a business of this magnitude, you don't mess with it the way that Apple just did. The product wasn't broken. Didn't need any fixing.
From a business prospective, Apple charges the entertainment industry thousands of dollars for the programs as well as the computers with enough juice to do it . They figured they would make up the loss in professional use with the addition of the non-pro users. And yes, they will. FCP is not fully integrated in Hollywood yet. There are still many, many AVID pro users. Nearly all professional editors in Hollywood learned on AVID before FCP. It will be easy for them to return to it. Many AVID users have been on the fence regarding the switch to FCP. Not anymore. For those that don't remember, waaay back in the day, AVID was the king of the hill. FCP won the apple contract because of the way it is structured now.
If you have been working FCP professionally, for over 5 years, 'X' is going to suck, as it is now. For those that haven't been as fluent in it as a Hollywood professional, you just don't know what you're actually missing, so it's no big deal to you. It is good that users can have both versions right now. FCP 7 will be around to download forever from other sources other then apple. In the meantime, for a professional editor, now is the time to start learning 'X' while you continue your workflows in FCP. Its just like when Apple switched from AVID to FCP years ago. We have no choice in what Apple does. They have their plan and will enact it regardless of complaints. There are more non-pro users then pro users. They won. Technology always changes and as a professionals, we have to adjust. The same way a doctor has to adjust to a new heart surgery procedure. Thats what it means to be pro. Being able to adjust and be better at the new thing then anybody else. By the time 'X' works out it's kinks and becomes a decent program, you'll be efficient at it. Or you can go back to AVID, like much of Hollywood is contemplating right now. AVID is all over this mess offering all sorts of deals.
So, wrapping up, Apple's leadership completely bungled the release of this. The program should of been finished before release. Instead of being rushed for absolutely no reason. We shouldn't need updates every week. We should of had at least a year to know that it was on it's way. We should of had at least a month or two to familiarize ourselves with it through professional seminars, tutorials, etc, so that for when it got released, it would of been easier to integrate into our work lives. But what's done is done. Gotta adjust. I'm going to the Apple store for a tutorial in a couple weeks. The instructor said we'll learn it together. Lol. Surely somebody's head is going to roll at Apple for this. Its a given.
Actually Final Cut Pro catered to the people that did NOT own Million Dollar bays. It was video editing for people that didn't have megabucks.
"The product wasn't broken. Didn't need any fixing."
That's the common misconception that's bandied about. Editors love to wax on about how they know the industry but what's clear is that the very vocal don't seem to grasp software design. If we are looking within the context of moving FCP to a 64-bit base and leveraging new and modern technology then FCP 7 and former versions were indeed broken. Quicktime, the core of FCP 7, wasn't going to make the 64-bit transition so Apple had to rewrite the app and if they're going to do that they may as well look at what's going to be the future of editing.
They've decided on focusing on file based acquisition and a more dynamic and fluid editing environment. We will have have to see how FCPX matures but I tend to think that you have to get it out in the field and then see what works and what doesn't work and then rapidly evolve the product.
The basic fact is this. 'X' never should of been released this early. Its clearly not ready for 'Pro' use. Regardless of upcoming updates. If anything, it should of come out after Lion.
Final Cut Pro has been in existence for ten years and has catered to people that have to work in a multi-million dollar industry. Not to people editing themselves in the mirror, singing Justin Bieber songs. That's what iMovie is for. FCP7, the way it is now, is not difficult. Not to me at least. Nor to professionals who took the time to learn it. People that do not work in this industry will never understand the massive inconvenience 'X' is. To bitch at professionals for being angry, shows you don't fully understand the situation. So, to those that are knocking professional users, ask yourself this. If you were trusted with editing 'Dancing With The Stars,' a multimillion dollar show, finishing an hour episode in one day, and suddenly were handed 'X', would you still have the 'deal with it' attitude? When dealing with a business of this magnitude, you don't mess with it the way that Apple just did. The product wasn't broken. Didn't need any fixing.
From a business prospective, Apple charges the entertainment industry thousands of dollars for the programs as well as the computers with enough juice to do it . They figured they would make up the loss in professional use with the addition of the non-pro users. And yes, they will. FCP is not fully integrated in Hollywood yet. There are still many, many AVID pro users. Nearly all professional editors in Hollywood learned on AVID before FCP. It will be easy for them to return to it. Many AVID users have been on the fence regarding the switch to FCP. Not anymore. For those that don't remember, waaay back in the day, AVID was the king of the hill. FCP won the apple contract because of the way it is structured now.
If you have been working FCP professionally, for over 5 years, 'X' is going to suck, as it is now. For those that haven't been as fluent in it as a Hollywood professional, you just don't know what you're actually missing, so it's no big deal to you. It is good that users can have both versions right now. FCP 7 will be around to download forever from other sources other then apple. In the meantime, for a professional editor, now is the time to start learning 'X' while you continue your workflows in FCP. Its just like when Apple switched from AVID to FCP years ago. We have no choice in what Apple does. They have their plan and will enact it regardless of complaints. There are more non-pro users then pro users. They won. Technology always changes and as a professionals, we have to adjust. The same way a doctor has to adjust to a new heart surgery procedure. Thats what it means to be pro. Being able to adjust and be better at the new thing then anybody else. By the time 'X' works out it's kinks and becomes a decent program, you'll be efficient at it. Or you can go back to AVID, like much of Hollywood is contemplating right now. AVID is all over this mess offering all sorts of deals.
So, wrapping up, Apple's leadership completely bungled the release of this. The program should of been finished before release. Instead of being rushed for absolutely no reason. We shouldn't need updates every week. We should of had at least a year to know that it was on it's way. We should of had at least a month or two to familiarize ourselves with it through professional seminars, tutorials, etc, so that for when it got released, it would of been easier to integrate into our work lives. But what's done is done. Gotta adjust. I'm going to the Apple store for a tutorial in a couple weeks. The instructor said we'll learn it together. Lol. Surely somebody's head is going to roll at Apple for this. Its a given.
Whose head? Steve's?
Seriously, thanks for your reasoned perspective. I like the part where you say we'll be able to get FPC 7 from other sources. That's the kind of thinking I like.
Apple has done a lot of damage to themselves with this. So unnecessarily brutal toward the industry -- editing for independents -- they pretty much carved out for themselves and for a fairly vociferous group of loyalists. It's going to take some doing to get back any of that good will.
Confirms everything I have been saying. Only one of the group had been apprised of FCPX and he was amazed at what he witnessed. Yet the biggest critic had never seen the product, knew nothing about it, but was more than willing to express his distain for it.
Sounds like many would reside here.
That guy is Mark Raudonis and he saw what Apple wanted him to see just like everyone else at the Supermeet. Here's what he says now that he's got his hands on it:
http://forums.creativecow.net/readpost/180/857299
http://forums.creativecow.net/thread/17/874077
http://forums.creativecow.net/readpost/335/5162
http://forums.creativecow.net/readpost/335/4361
I'm not sure why you want to keep painting the picture of there being a group of people complaining for no justifiable reasons except because they want to make noise and dig their heels in against unwanted change. FCP 7 was old, buggy and needed a drastic overhaul, nobody who's used it would deny that. However, Apple can't rip it to shreds, leave people without a usable workflow and expect them to turn around praising the changes.
Professionals are more accepting of workflow oddities than anyone. If you have to run a shell script to start a rendering engine, manage your RAID system or batch encoder or whatever, it doesn't matter. Whatever it takes to get the job done. If Apple make it almost impossible to integrate into your business by offering no collaborative workflow and no volume licensing, don't you think the complaints are justified?
People have different takes on what happened:
There are those who consider Apple to be faultless and no matter how many mistakes they make will grab onto any positive opinion to justify the decisions they make so FCPX is just another gift from God.
There are those who think Apple's only focus is the consumer and every product they make is and should be aimed at them so are happy that FCPX is now a consumer product.
There are those who dabble in editing and can start from scratch working on a single-user workflow and are happy with the value FCPX offers.
There are those who have spent hundreds of thousands of dollars building workflows around Final Cut (Mark Raudonis being one of them) who are now left hanging wondering what happens next.
The facts we know:
- Final Cut 7 needed to be overhauled
- Professional workflows are not single-user operations
- Final Cut X is a complete and welcome overhaul but has not been shipped as a collaborative product
Nobody is dismissing Final Cut X because it's a toy, it's a powerful product that can't be used in a business the way it is and has adopted the single-user workflow of iMovie.
All they had to do was design it around a collaborative workflow and ship it with the tools needed - a fraction of the work that's already gone into the software. For some reason, they chose not to do that. They are stating openly that FCP is still being aimed at the same market and will bring features in over time but they should never have allowed a rift to develop between the old and the new leaving people on both sides stranded.
Apple does not, in fact, care about "professionals" (as that term is generally understood) as a market worth pursuing with any particular focus. That doesn't mean they don't care at all, and it doesn't mean that there may be some definitions of "professional" for whom Apple's software will be enormously empowering.
But I don't think Apple is unduly concerned about abdicating the space they carved out in the pro editing space, because it's not particularly lucrative and it doesn't have much synergy with anything else they're doing.
Some folks seem to be assuming that Apple was taken aback by the response to FCP X and is scrambling to mend fences. I can't see that. Apple is going to lose a huge chunk of their presence in post houses, and I think Apple is OK with that.
Once upon a time, FCP and the other pro apps gave Apple some much needed legitimacy. They don't need that legitimacy any more. Does the fact that a given feature film was cut with Apple software sell any more iPads? Do you think it's important to Apple that people think of them as a company with a presence in high end edit suites? I don't think so, and although that works against my personal preferences I can't say they're wrong to focus on their strengths.
I personally mourn the loss, but I don't think Apple is obliged to stick with markets they don't think align with their ambitions. I do think their may be some blow back beyond the movie industry, in that the abrupt rug yanking will make it hard for them to ever again be taken seriously in any pro market, should they wish at some point to reenter one. For instance, if they have any intentions for Aperture beyond what we've seen, I don't think that's going to be possible. No informed photo-journalist or anyone who makes a living at photography is going to trust Apple to maintain Aperture as a safe harbor to invest a lot of infrastructure around.
Which is a shame. Like say, I liked FCPS, but I can get by with Protools, AE and FCP X assuming Apple provides some provision for round-tripping audio and video files. If not I guess I can give Premier a go-- after all, the important thing to me is how the work comes out, not so much the software that allowed me to do it.
In the world of Apple, a Pro product used to mean ?designed for high-end professionals with needs far beyond those of mortal men.? Now it simply means ?the high-performance model.?
Most people don?t want a MacBook Pro because they?re Pros. They want it because it?s more powerful than a MacBook. Most people won?t buy FCPX because they?re Pros. They?ll buy it because it?s powerful and intuitive ? and way better than iMovie.
So basically, if you aspire to owning the faster/better/more advanced computer or software ? congratulations, you?re a Pro.
That's why I don't think Apple much cares if all those post houses dump FCP. Apple doesn't make software for big professional organizations, at least not explicitly and certainly not anymore.
Apple does not, in fact, care about "professionals" (as that term is generally understood) as a market worth pursuing with any particular focus. That doesn't mean they don't care at all, and it doesn't mean that there may be some definitions of "professional" for whom Apple's software will be enormously empowering.
I don't buy this entirely. The Shake guy, Ron Brinkmann posted here a while ago:
http://forums.appleinsider.com/showp...3&postcount=44
He has added an update to his blog post that dismissed the Macrumors article:
http://www.digitalcomposting.com
There's no way Apple would have put so much work into a product without caring what people think. I think the flaws in FCPX are minor but critical. They just should have been ready for when it shipped.
File reconnection is a big problem - they do have a built-in feature for proxy editing, so that tackles one part of it but it needs to be more flexible.
I think the important question to ask is how much does Apple really need to change in FCPX before it is functionally indistinguishable from FCP? The list is very small compared to what's in the software. Once the API comes, that's going to fix a huge amount of the big issues. This covers OMF, XML, EDL, migration from FCP 7. If they add in multi-cam, fully custom dimensions & frame rates and custom export inside FCP too it would be nice but what's left after that?
If Apple didn't care about the market, they wouldn't even make a Mac Pro with 12-cores that reaches so high on the benchmarks ( http://browse.geekbench.ca/geekbench2/top ), they wouldn't even arrange an event for professionals at NAB and FCPX would have more in common with FCE than FCP - it doesn't. They wouldn't even bother trying to tap the GPU, which is very difficult to do.
I see FCPX more as FCP in iMovie clothing than iMovie dressed up to look like FCP and some of the design decisions that came from that were just an unfortunate side-effect.
Some folks seem to be assuming that Apple was taken aback by the response to FCP X and is scrambling to mend fences. I can't see that.
I think the FAQ at least shows they have heard the issues and they are working to resolve a lot of them. I doubt they could be working harder than they have been to make it what it is already and I certainly don't think development will be winding down now it's out. I think people have far too much invested at this point to dismiss it all so soon. I think there will be a happy ending within the next 3 months.
Does the fact that a given feature film was cut with Apple software sell any more iPads?
Have we switched roles?
If you take away the exclusivity, those students won't be buying Macs at all, they will go for the much cheaper Asus/Acer laptops and get a copy of Avid and hook it up with some Android phone.
I don't think Shake would have helped at all because that's a very specialised field but Final Cut has a much broader appeal.
I believe the idea from this point on is for FCP X to be modular. The more advanced and high end functionality will come from plug ins and 3rd party add ons from the likes of AJA and Blackmagic Designs.
I believe Apple is working directly with those companies in offering extended functionality for FCP X.
Apple does not, in fact, care about "professionals" (as that term is generally understood) as a market worth pursuing with any particular focus. That doesn't mean they don't care at all, and it doesn't mean that there may be some definitions of "professional" for whom Apple's software will be enormously empowering.
I over all agree with this perspective. I think at its core FCP X is built to be a lean and simple NLE for pretty much everybody.
What parts of FCPX suggest that it's vastly easier to use than FCP though? It seems to me that a lot of this is just down to perception.
I believe the idea from this point on is for FCP X to be modular. The more advanced and high end functionality will come from plug ins and 3rd party add ons from the likes of AJA and Blackmagic Designs.
Just like Final Cut Pro - if you needed XDCam import or AVCHD, you get a plugin from Sony etc and it works via Log and Transfer.
Over time, useful things get bundled with the app so they just work but the whole 32-bit to 64-bit move means all the plugins need to be recompiled. Again though, I don't see any shift happening, it looks like they just didn't finish in time.
What parts of FCPX suggest that it's vastly easier to use than FCP though? It seems to me that a lot of this is just down to perception.
I believe that the Event Library and Project Library are simpler metaphors for most people to understand than a bin and time line.
Just like Final Cut Pro - if you needed XDCam import or AVCHD, you get a plugin from Sony etc and it works via Log and Transfer.
Over time, useful things get bundled with the app so they just work but the whole 32-bit to 64-bit move means all the plugins need to be recompiled. Again though, I don't see any shift happening, it looks like they just didn't finish in time.
I don't understand what you are saying here. What shift are you talking about exactly?
I don't buy this entirely. The Shake guy, Ron Brinkmann posted here a while ago:
http://forums.appleinsider.com/showp...3&postcount=44
He has added an update to his blog post that dismissed the Macrumors article:
http://www.digitalcomposting.com
He seems to be confirming what I said? That "pro" isn't a market that does much for Apple, by their lights.
There's no way Apple would have put so much work into a product without caring what people think. I think the flaws in FCPX are minor but critical. They just should have been ready for when it shipped.
I think they care what "people" think, I just don't think they care what a few thousand high end professionals think.
File reconnection is a big problem - they do have a built-in feature for proxy editing, so that tackles one part of it but it needs to be more flexible.
I think the important question to ask is how much does Apple really need to change in FCPX before it is functionally indistinguishable from FCP? The list is very small compared to what's in the software. Once the API comes, that's going to fix a huge amount of the big issues. This covers OMF, XML, EDL, migration from FCP 7. If they add in multi-cam, fully custom dimensions & frame rates and custom export inside FCP too it would be nice but what's left after that?
Except this really doesn't feel like a product that just inexplicably left out features, for whatever reasons. It feels like a product that isn't interested in those features. Not because Apple is evil or has gone out of their way to screw over FCP post houses, but because they decided that they were more interested in writing super powerful editing software for an individual on a single machine than continuing on with a bunch of work flow stuff that benefits a very small group of professional editors.
If Apple didn't care about the market, they wouldn't even make a Mac Pro with 12-cores that reaches so high on the benchmarks ( http://browse.geekbench.ca/geekbench2/top ), they wouldn't even arrange an event for professionals at NAB and FCPX would have more in common with FCE than FCP - it doesn't. They wouldn't even bother trying to tap the GPU, which is very difficult to do
Well, arguably the Mac Pro soldiers on because it doesn't really cost Apple anything to occasionally update it. They sure haven't put a lot of thought into the design for a while, have they?
Leveraging the GPU, OTOH, give most of their customers a nice boost in performance. As the article I linked to earlier was saying, Apple just defines "Pro" as "more powerful", not "tailored to a certain small market that do specific things."
I think the FAQ at least shows they have heard the issues and they are working to resolve a lot of them. I doubt they could be working harder than they have been to make it what it is already and I certainly don't think development will be winding down now it's out. I think people have far too much invested at this point to dismiss it all so soon. I think there will be a happy ending within the next 3 months.
It was actually the FAQ that tilted me over to the "oh, they actually don't want to do "Pro" anymore" camp.
It's basically, yeah, there are a few things (chiefly multicam) that we're working on, but other than that either deal with it or pay extra for whatever the market may or may not come up with. Some of the proffered work-arounds were already famously bone headed and Apple just went ahead and put them out there: pony up half again more than FCP X cost to get some I/O functionality (assuming you already have the software that runs the plugin), use sound track syncing for mulitcam, etc. Really not calibrated to smooth ruffled feathers, and not in the least contrite. More like, "yeah, we made what we made, we think its great."
Have we switched roles?
I know, I know.... it's not that I resent the iWorld thing, it's just that I think Apple is becoming a rather different company than they were. I suspect there may be a period as Apple adds power and functionality to iOS and devices where it will feel like they don't care about anything more sophisticated than iWork, but at some point there's going to be FCP X power on an iPad. It won't be tailored for production pipelines, but it will allow someone sitting under a tree to do tremendously sophisticated things.
I think the answer to that question though is yes. Final Cut runs on one platform and if it has traction in the professional editing community then it does in film schools all over the world. Those students will have to buy Macs and as you know, people who buy Macs buy iPhones and iPads and whatever.
If you take away the exclusivity, those students won't be buying Macs at all, they will go for the much cheaper Asus/Acer laptops and get a copy of Avid and hook it up with some Android phone.
I just don't think the people that are bummed are numerous enough to have much impact on the market. It was a point of pride for Mac-heads, but honestly what percentage of Mac or iOS device buyers have any idea or care what software was used to cut a movie or ad campaign?
I don't think Shake would have helped at all because that's a very specialised field but Final Cut has a much broader appeal.
Right, it does have much broader appeal, but the thing is is that it's that very broadness that means that the majority of users will actually benefit from FCP X. They don't need to send things to Colorist for finishing. They don't need to maintain an elaborate infrastructure for collaborative work across varied assets.
But they can cut a feature film in their bedroom, on a MacBook Pro, which is the kind of thing that I think turns Apple on. And more power to them, I just wish they didn't have to abandon their established pro market to keep the focus tight.
And I hope I'm wrong! I hope Apple either adds functionality or is very clear on how one goes about assembling the necessary bits and pro editors come to sing the praises of the new paradigm. Time will tell, although the way Apple played this they're guaranteed to have lost a pretty good chunk of their market, because as everyone keeps saying, they no longer feel like this is a company they can trust to provide a stable roadmap.
I believe that the Event Library and Project Library are simpler metaphors for most people to understand than a bin and time line.
They both have timelines and projects. Events are really just an evolution of bins that use metadata, which means you can have the same clip in multiple different categories.
The timeline is mostly the same, you just don't get clips overlapping, you don't get the audio tracks disappearing when you scroll, you don't have to render by yourself, you don't have to use the pen tool for audio fades and loads of other things.
There doesn't seem to be a huge departure from the original in terms of how it works, they just removed the annoying stuff and unfortunately some of the stuff that's quite useful. In no way is it suddenly a tool anyone can pick up and work with where the old one wasn't - both could be used by anyone.
If anything, it's more just a declaration that people shouldn't be afraid to use powerful tools - no inferiority complex. Remember who smart-phones were perceived to be for? Their functions haven't changed but people aren't afraid of them any more.
I don't understand what you are saying here. What shift are you talking about exactly?
The shift in the target audience. I've heard a few times that it's now a tool for anyone. It always was, there's no shift in who it's for. If you need multi-track editing, effects, audio controls etc then it's for you and so was Final Cut Pro. The biggest change they made was in the price.
If you have $3000 and you want to encode your home movies as fast as you can then go buy a Mac Pro. Nobody should have the perception that things aren't designed for them, just buy what you can afford and what gets the job done.
He seems to be confirming what I said? That "pro" isn't a market that does much for Apple, by their lights.
To an extent. The addendum notes that his definition of professional is about collaborative workflows and this is where FCPX is distinctly lacking but that's all and a lot of that is just not finished yet.
I think they care what "people" think, I just don't think they care what a few thousand high end professionals think.
I was including high-end professionals. Some TV shows and movie scenes are being shot with Canon 5Ds so having things like rolling shutter correction is a good thing that helps everyone using devices with CMOS sensors. Apple used to post case studies of their professional apps:
http://webcache.googleusercontent.co...ion/abbeyroad/
If they didn't care at all about high-end workflows, I don't think they'd do this.
Except this really doesn't feel like a product that just inexplicably left out features, for whatever reasons. It feels like a product that isn't interested in those features.
There are some parts that have odd design decisions like the file connections, export limits, no 'save as' beyond project duplication but like I say, once the XML API arrives, a lot of the collaborative parts will be fixed - iMovie doesn't have an XML API and certainly no single users need one.
Multi-cam is coming and I think they are going to be working on the file reconnection problem.
I do believe that some features won't ever come back but people still need to take a forward-thinking approach about where film is going. Nobody's going back to analogue and there has to be a jumping off point. Now's as good a time as any.
Well, arguably the Mac Pro soldiers on because it doesn't really cost Apple anything to occasionally update it. They sure haven't put a lot of thought into the design for a while, have they?
Pioneering Thunderbolt IMO counters the lack of Mac Pro attention. iMovie users don't need a Thunderbolt RAID system - almost no home users do.
they no longer feel like this is a company they can trust to provide a stable roadmap.
This, I'd say is the biggest issue with the release. The secrecy and the switchover was poor. Shipping it in an unfinished state while discontinuing the old one was poor.
What about color correction? Does FC X take project through Color to make changes?
Color is gone and there is no import/export. An XML API is on its way but it actually won't do any good here because if you modify the source files, they will go offline as far as FCPX is concerned. This is a fundamental part of FCPX that needs to be fixed - if you modify any event files in use in any way outside of FCPX, it thinks they aren't there any more.
How does it work with files outputted from FC 6 and FC 6.0.6?
It doesn't, there is zero backwards compatibility so far. The upcoming API should be able to partially import exported XML files but Apple don't seem to want to do it themselves.
Does FC X still output .mov files and are those files still compatible with AVID? We post on AVID but edit everything else on FC.
You get a variety of "sharing" options inside FCPX but they have limitations. Exporting to Compressor will give you all your options and is just as fun as ever to use - Apple seem to be using their Think Different strategy here: if it ain't broke, break it; if it is broke, job done.