What it's worth, at least to me, is a testament to just how utterly wrong the naysayers are. It says, "I, though said to be stereotypically resolute in 'the old-fashioned way of doing things', and thoroughly agreed by others to be beyond my years in learning new things, have taken it upon myself to step out of the light of the familiar and into the darkness of the new. And I have not found it wanting; indeed, I have found it better."
You have to drop this idea that the only reason people were not adopting FCPX in droves when it was first released was their resistance to a changed interface.
If you do multi camera shoots and software doesn't allow for it, then it sounds like you're suggesting to not shoot that next concert multi cam. Sorry, you're oversimplifying the entire scenario and working it backwards to suit your opinion.
There simply isn't any argument that exists for a multi cam shooter to use FCPX before that function was finally, magically included. It's never been about the interface. It has always been about function.
I partly agree -- If you have a job to do, and the new tool doesn't have the capability to do the job -- then don't use it... simple as that.
Also, Apple handled the FCPX release and EOL of FCP, very badly, IMO.
But there were many "pros" whoaggressively ridiculed FCPX as a toy or "iMovie Pro"...
Others took a more reasoned approach: "I can't use it because it doesn't do what I need"... Again, Fair enough!
My experience with human nature suggests that many of the "pros" who were so publicly vocal against FCPX, think that they will damage their pride/reputation by now embracing FCPX.
Below is a reprint of one of the new Apple FCPX promos. I have highlighted some of the controversial or missing features that some "pros" used (or use) to justify that FCPX is not for them. Are these "pros" more professional than the pros in the article? Do they have different needs?
Are they looking for better solutions -- or merely justifying their status quo?
Certainly, I am not a pro, but an amateur -- in the purest sense of the word -- I am not paid, but I love to edit video for family and friends and my own amazement. I enjoy learning from the pros -- and think that one of the best ways is to ask questions (and follow-ups) as to why a pro likes or dislikes a certain product, feature or implementation.
Here's the arcticle:
In more than 30 films over three decades, renowned Chinese director Tsui Hark has regularly looked to the past to move his art forward. By bringing the advanced filmmaking techniques of the West to Eastern genres like wuxia (sword fighting and kung fu), gangster dramas, and romance, Hark helped create the Golden Age of Hong Kong cinema.
In 2010, Hark used the formula to score a commercial and critical hit with Detective Dee and the Mystery of the Phantom Flame (2010), a potent blend of wuxia, mystery, and comedy about a Tang Dynasty Sherlock Holmes. The film competed for the Golden Lion award at the Venice Film Festival and received numerous international awards, including the #3 spot in Time magazine’s list of top films of the year. Encouraged by the film’s success, the director recently took another step back to the future with Young Detective Dee: Rise of the Sea Dragon, a highly anticipated prequel shot with state-of-the-art 3D cameras and edited in Final Cut Pro X.
Redialing Dee
Before directing the original Detective Dee movie, Phantom Flame, Hark spent more than a decade researching the background of Di Renjie, the historical figure on whom the Detective Dee character is based. The rich detail gathered in creating the first film ultimately sparked the idea for the second. “When we read stories about Di Renjie, we realized he wasn’t an amazing detective, but a judge,” says Hark. “While making the first Di Renjie film, we talked a lot about how Di Renjie would have developed as a judge when he arrived in Luoyang. That’s how the story for the new film took shape.”
Hark emphasizes that in bringing historical stories to the screen, imagination always trumps research. “This kind of subject is not easy to write,” he says. “It involves historical figures, but we’re not basing our story on historical facts. It’s our interpretation of history that makes it easier for an audience to appreciate and enjoy the details and events.”
Close Direction
Hark takes that interpretation to another level in production and post with fast, fluid camera work and editing designed to pull audiences irresistibly through the story. Each frame from any Tsui Hark film reveals his close creative direction.
Hark’s editor and longtime consultant on editing software and hardware Baiyang Yu confirms the director’s hands-on participation in editing the prequel. “Tsui likes to cut his own projects while shooting on the set, so he was already very proficient with the tools,” says Yu. “We had a very good workflow going for several pictures using Final Cut Pro 7.Tsui likes to see things assembled while we shoot, and typically that involves a lot of temporary visual effects compositing, color grading, and retiming. But that meant a lot of time waiting for things to render, and Tsui doesn’t like to wait.”
Workflow Switch
The idea of eliminating render delays drew the filmmakers to Final Cut Pro X. A longtime Final Cut Pro editor, Yu is also an Apple Certified Trainer (ACT). “I became the first ACT in China to certify in Final Cut Pro X,” he says. “Then I used it to edit some small projects and quickly became convinced of the application’s power and flexibility.”
Because the crew was using the application SGO Mistika for visual effects and compositing, it required an edit decision list (EDL) to conform edits coming from Final Cut Pro. “At the time, EDL-X, an application that creates Final Cut Pro X EDLs, wasn’t available,” says Yu. “So we created our own PHP script to convert Final Cut Pro XML to EDL.”
Yu presented Final Cut Pro X to Hark as a test platform during the production of the new film. “I told Tsui that Final Cut Pro X could give us a better workflow, so he agreed to try it out,” says Yu. “We converted the current edit to Final Cut Pro X using Intelligent Assistance’s 7toX and then used it on set. After a week, I asked Tsui if he liked the new version and wanted to continue the project with it. He said yes, and at that point we completely migrated the movie to Final Cut Pro X.”
“I think when it comes to software, the easier it is to use, the better,” says Hark. “If software requires a lot of time to learn, that makes it very difficult to use on my films.”
Editing on Set
Because the prequel was shot in 5K 3D using RED EPIC cameras, for each take, the left eye camera (3D video is typically shot with two synced cameras representing the right and left eyes) was converted to 1080p ProRes and imported into an Event in Final Cut Pro X.
While shooting, Hark took advantage of any downtime on set to edit directly in Final Cut Pro X on a MacBook Pro with Retina display. “In addition to consulting with the editor, director assistant, and producer, I sent different versions of the film to many people to get their feedback,” says Hark. “Although I know the film I shot very well, the feedback from other people is a good reference for me.”
In making their edits, Hark and Yu took full advantage of the new features of Final Cut Pro X. “The Magnetic Timeline is great for Tsui because it lets him experiment with big changes without accidentally throwing things out of sync,” says Yu. “That makes my life much easier. It also made it easier to trim or replace hundreds of sound effects and music clips in the timeline.”
The new software helped Yu manage the considerable assets of the complex film. “Keywords and favorite ranges made organization much more efficient and flexible in Final Cut Pro X. And the Skimmer was great for helping me go through lots of footage quickly. It was always easy to find any clip I needed.”
Fast Export
As the editing progressed, completed project timelines were exported as EDLs and sent to SGO Mistika for compositing, visual effects, color grading, and 3D conforming. Audio was sent out as scratch track QuickTime files via FTP directly to the sound design team and composer Kenji Kawai in Japan.
“Whenever we finished a version, we needed to export the whole movie with different watermarks to different VFX vendors, the music composer, the sound editor, our marketing team, and the distributors. That meant 8 to 10 different copies of the film. It used to take so much time in Final Cut Pro 7, and we had several sleepless nights in the editing room waiting for the output. With Final Cut Pro X, it takes a quarter of the time.”
Down to the Wire
Yu expects Hark will edit the prequel right up to its expected opening in fall 2013. “On Flying Swords of Dragon Gate we went through 15 versions and ultimately had to stop when the distributor reminded us the film was about to be released,” says Yu. “It’s going to be the same for the prequel. Our editing will not be complete until the last possible moment. We’re changing everything all the time.”
Yu says he and Hark will use Final Cut Pro X for their next movie after the prequel is released. “Definitely, Final Cut Pro X will be my first choice,” he says. “Switching to Final Cut Pro X meant changing our workflow and retraining people, but it was really worth the effort. I hope our experience will help persuade more editors to try Final Cut Pro X — it’s a great tool.”
A few things in that article made me wonder what it must be like to work on this guy's films:
Quote:
“If software requires a lot of time to learn, that makes it very difficult to use on my films.”
Why? Professionals learn deep, sophisticated software all the time. Expertise with certain software is part of what makes one person more likely to get work than another. The time spent learning the software is spent well before the user gets anywhere near a film, so why does it matter how long it takes? Is everyone working on his film starting from scratch, having never used any of the software before?
Quote:
Audio was sent out as scratch track QuickTime files via FTP directly to the sound design team and composer Kenji Kawai in Japan.
I'm glad I'm not doing audio post on his films, then. I wondered why he wouldn't export an AAF or at least an OMF for his audio people, so I took a quick glance at the FCPX page on Apple's site and couldn't find any mention of either format. It seems one must export XML and buy third-party software to create AAF sessions. I can't speak for anyone else, but I consider that a significant shortcoming. It adds time, complexity and support issues to getting audio out to post. He's only managed to achieve speed and simplicity by making extra work for the audio editors (which defeats the time saved on his part of the project). Doing things the "right" way would actually make FCPX slower and more complicated, contradicting his earlier statements.
Quote:
"I hope our experience will help persuade more editors to try Final Cut Pro X — it’s a great tool.”
A recurring theme with Apple enthusiasts, and one I've never understood.
I use Pro Tools to edit and mix audio, but it doesn't matter to me whether anyone else uses it or not. I think everyone should use whatever tools best suit their preferences. Why does he hope to persuade others? Self validation? Hope that increased sales will accelerate development? I don't get it.
* * * * *
FCPX seems to be a good choice for one-man-band work, but after reading that I have to admit that I'm glad our people use Avid. I get the sense that FCPX is not (yet?) particularly well suited to the team environment you find on a typical production, and the article about Hark's work seems to support that view rather than dispel it. FCPX's dependency on third-party utilities to accomplish some fundamental tasks gives me the impression that while it is maturing, it's not quite grown up yet.
Because the prequel was shot in 5K 3D using RED EPIC cameras, for each take, the left eye camera (3D video is typically shot withtwo synced cameras representing the right and left eyes) was converted to 1080p ProRes and imported into an Event in Final Cut Pro X.
So FCPX was used for "pre-cutting" on set, but was it used for the final edit? Does FCPX even support 3D?
It says they wrote their own script to convert exported XML to EDL. What was the EDL for? Was it for another system used to actually produce the finished edit? If not, why did they need an EDL?
<span style="color:rgb(24,24,24);font-family:arial, helvetica, sans-serif;line-height:18px;">Because </span>
<b style="color:rgb(24,24,24);font-family:arial, helvetica, sans-serif;line-height:18px;"><span style="line-height:normal;color:rgb(0,0,255);">the prequel was shot in 5K 3D using RED EPIC cameras,</span> </b>
<span style="color:rgb(24,24,24);font-family:arial, helvetica, sans-serif;line-height:18px;"> for each take, the left eye camera (3D video is typically shot with</span>
<b id="user_yui_3_7_3_1_1364673785862_1051" style="color:rgb(24,24,24);font-family:arial, helvetica, sans-serif;line-height:18px;"><span id="user_yui_3_7_3_1_1364673785862_1049" style="line-height:normal;color:rgb(0,0,255);">two synced cameras representing the right and left eyes) was converted to 1080p ProRes and imported into an Event in Final Cut Pro X.</span> </b>
So FCPX was used for "pre-cutting" on set, but was it used for the final edit? Does FCPX even support 3D?
It says they wrote their own script to convert exported XML to EDL. What was the EDL for? Was it for another system used to actually produce the finished edit? If not, why did they need an EDL?
Because the crew was using the application SGO Mistika for visual effects and compositing, it required an edit decision list (EDL) to conform edits coming from Final Cut Pro. “At the time, EDL-X, an application that creates Final Cut Pro X EDLs, wasn’t available,” says Yu. “So we created our own PHP script to convert Final Cut Pro XML to EDL.”
Below is a reprint of one of the new Apple FCPX promos. I have highlighted some of the controversial or missing features that some "pros" used (or use) to justify that FCPX is not for them. Are these "pros" more professional than the pros in the article? Do they have different needs?
Are they looking for better solutions -- or merely justifying their status quo?
I'd say that article describes more of FCP 7's faults than FCPX's benefits. When they say things like having to wait to render - that's just because FCP 7 doesn't play unrendered footage by default - it can be set to do it manually. There have also been advances in hardware that weren't previously available, which changes things. SSDs now have read speeds over 400MB/s along with USB 3 and Thunderbolt. An old laptop with only USB 2/FW800/HDDs etc would struggle with high quality footage.
They describe having to develop their own solutions for export to EDL because Apple hadn't put support in. They also had to use 7toX because Apple hadn't put support in.
They didn't even use FCPX for import, they converted the 3D RED footage to a single 1080p ProRes file with expensive 3rd party software - it's not ideal if your NLE is $300 but you spend $12500 converting the source footage:
FCP X was only used for cutting up footage, no effects, color correction or anything. Just ProRes in, ProRes out.
In terms of performance, FCP 7 was very slow and should have been fixed long ago. Quicktime converted footage faster than FCP 7. That doesn't detract from FCPX being faster but if it was compared to Premiere or Avid, it shouldn't be quite as big of a difference.
It's positive that at least it's being used in production and managing to fit in somewhere. I think the Leverage profile seems like a more intensive workflow:
but people are jumping through hoops to make it fit rather than it immediately being an improvement. I'd also take some of the profiles with a pinch of salt. Apple's website gets a ton of traffic so less well known productions might use it for publicity. You just have to look at this page about project sharing to see the complications that have arisen:
When you see things like "By changing Event References, both editors can send this Project back and forth for additional work. Keep in mind that once the Project is sent to one editor, the other editor can not work on the Project as there is no way to reconcile the differences between two versions of the same Project." then you can see the design flaws. The event system is overly complex and acts as a single point of failure between source media and the timeline.
I actually think it would go down a lot better if they at least had an option to disable the whole events system and allow people to manage media their own way and directly relink anything to anything else including metadata. As well as have the same export options the old version had directly inside FCPX and allow saving and exporting projects for sharing and it really needs to be able to import FCP 7 files without paying someone else $50.
<b id="user_yui_3_7_3_1_1364668313161_988" style="color:rgb(24,24,24);font-family:arial, helvetica, sans-serif;line-height:18px;"><span id="user_yui_3_7_3_1_1364668313161_986" style="line-height:normal;color:rgb(0,0,255);">[SIZE=16px]"I hope our experience will help persuade more editors to try Final Cut Pro X — it’s a great tool.”[/SIZE]</span> </b>
A recurring theme with Apple enthusiasts, and one I've never understood.
I use Pro Tools to edit and mix audio, but it doesn't matter to me whether anyone else uses it or not. I think everyone should use whatever tools best suit their preferences. Why does he hope to persuade others? Self validation? Hope that increased sales will accelerate development? I don't get it.
* * * * *
Haven't you ever "discovered" something that you thought was so great that you wanted to "tell the world about it"? To "evangelize it"?
If not, I feel very sorry for you.
FCPX's dependency on third-party utilities to accomplish some fundamental tasks gives me the impression that while it is maturing, it's not quite grown up yet.
That is the most picayune reason yet...
Gee, I guess Avid and Premiere and other NLEs are "complete" and islands unto themselves -- no need for 3rd-party plugins, or to export/import to and from 3rd-party apps and services...
You should google and get the names of these 3rd-parties... then alert them that they are just providing products and services that no one will buy. /s
I won't bother replying to your other points -- it is obvious to me that you are one of those who is interested in justifying the status quo....
If you were really interested in giving FCPX a fair evaluation, you would be looking for reasons why and how can I do this better... rather than justifying why not...
It was not that long ago that Avid "pros" couldn't edit in the timeline!
How do you handle rotoscoping in Avid? Oh, like FCPX it doesn't have it either... but you can get Apple motion for $50 that does a decent job of basic roto... Or Silhouette for $1,500-$4,000. Or Mocha?
I know, you don't need roto... ergo it is unimportant to "pros".
Below is a reprint of one of the new Apple FCPX promos. I have highlighted some of the controversial or missing features that some "pros" used (or use) to justify that FCPX is not for them. Are these "pros" more professional than the pros in the article? Do they have different needs?
Are they looking for better solutions -- or merely justifying their status quo?
I'd say that article describes more of FCP 7's faults than FCPX's benefits. When they say things like having to wait to render - that's just because FCP 7 doesn't play unrendered footage by default - it can be set to do it manually. There have also been advances in hardware that weren't previously available, which changes things. SSDs now have read speeds over 400MB/s along with USB 3 and Thunderbolt. An old laptop with only USB 2/FW800/HDDs etc would struggle with high quality footage.
They describe having to develop their own solutions for export to EDL because Apple hadn't put support in. They also had to use 7toX because Apple hadn't put support in.
They didn't even use FCPX for import, they converted the 3D RED footage to a single 1080p ProRes file with expensive 3rd party software - it's not ideal if your NLE is $300 but you spend $12500 converting the source footage:
FCP X was only used for cutting up footage, no effects, color correction or anything. Just ProRes in, ProRes out.
In terms of performance, FCP 7 was very slow and should have been fixed long ago. Quicktime converted footage faster than FCP 7. That doesn't detract from FCPX being faster but if it was compared to Premiere or Avid, it shouldn't be quite as big of a difference.
It's positive that at least it's being used in production and managing to fit in somewhere. I think the Leverage profile seems like a more intensive workflow:
but people are jumping through hoops to make it fit rather than it immediately being an improvement. I'd also take some of the profiles with a pinch of salt. Apple's website gets a ton of traffic so less well known productions might use it for publicity. You just have to look at this page about project sharing to see the complications that have arisen:
When you see things like "By changing Event References, both editors can send this Project back and forth for additional work. Keep in mind that once the Project is sent to one editor, the other editor can not work on the Project as there is no way to reconcile the differences between two versions of the same Project." then you can see the design flaws. The event system is overly complex and acts as a single point of failure between source media and the timeline.
I actually think it would go down a lot better if they at least had an option to disable the whole events system and allow people to manage media their own way and directly relink anything to anything else including metadata. As well as have the same export options the old version had directly inside FCPX and allow saving and exporting projects for sharing and it really needs to be able to import FCP 7 files without paying someone else $50.
Like FCPX, Motion and Compressor -- 72X runs concurrently on multiple CPUs -- no authentication, etc. $10 well spent, IMO!
As you well know, FCP 7 was last century software written in Carbon (no longer supported) and was suffering from bloat -- it needed to be rethought and rewritten for today -- and the next decade's hardware and software.
I think you are exaggerating the "reconciling the differences" between two versions of the same project.You can get both projects and their events in the same copy of FCPX and cut/copy and paste between them.
Ripple Training has a $30 tutorial on FCPX Media Management that discusses how to do this and even shows how you can do limited collaboration over a NAS.
You can, essentially, "disable" the events system and manage the files just as you do with FCP 7. The media files need not be copied into FCPX -- just symlinked. FCPX can import your OS X hierarchy of Folders and files an keyword collections.
Finally... Yes you can retain your old file names (and even the folder structure) that you are used to... and you don't even need to bring the clips into FCPX if you wish (it just creates a symlink).
Really? Doesn't FCPX force me to use its Projects and Events system?
The FCPX Projects and Events system are the way you interface with FCPX. FCP 7 uses Bins and Folders and a bunch of other locations (set in preferences) to store render files, etc.
The images below show how you can use the Folder and File names within FCPX -- to take advantage of your naming/storing preferences -- while gaining all the metadata and data management capabiities of FCPX.
Here's a OS X Folder/File Hierarchry:
Here's the same hierarchy within FCPX... represented by KeyWord Collections:
And the FCPX Inspector shows that the files reside in their original place in the file system:
And, just for fun the clip we're looking at:
You can use whatever names and hierarchical structure that works for you... FCPX doesn't force any arbitrary naming or organizational conventions on you any more so than does FCP & or other NLE's.
I just want add that I REALLY have been enjoying Dick and Marvin's posts here, as I always do elsewhere, especially regarding FCPX. Thanks both of you for the time you put into them. Solid info and good insight and perspective. A reason to keep checking in : )
Like FCPX, Motion and Compressor -- 72X runs concurrently on multiple CPUs -- no authentication, etc. $10 well spent, IMO!
Ah, it's Xto7 that's $50. $10 is pretty reasonable. It seems to need all the media active for the conversion but I suppose that should be done anyway to verify it's ok:
You can, essentially, "disable" the events system and manage the files just as you do with FCP 7. The media files need not be copied into FCPX -- just symlinked. FCPX can import your OS X hierarchy of Folders and files an keyword collections.
When you say symlinked, do you mean manually creating a filesystem symlink? I looked around for what you were talking about and came across the following thread:
"I'm using the SparseImage trick popularised by the Ripple Training team.
I'd linked to all my media - so the 'Original Media' folder contains 'Symbolic Links' (look just like Aliases but are uneditable). I quit out, back up the SparseImage (this is quick because of course all the footage is on a separate drive), import new footage and re-open. FCPX won't open. Look at all the SymLinks - they've been corrupted. Some point to the enclosing folder, some point to nothing at all. Over 490 items, 30% have lost their SymLink. No, you can't relink in FCPX as FCPX won't open until that event is disabled.
The trouble was, that - having lost a days work, it took 2 hours to do it all again from scratch because all the editing decisions had been made and I was working with a limited set of rushes (6 hoursworth). I couldn't have rebuilt that project in FCP7 so quickly, only FCPX is that quick.
So, for some of us, FCPX is like Uncle Henry: "We have a serious problem with Uncle Henry" - "Why? What's wrong?" - "He thinks he's a chicken" - "Oh. Why not take him to a psychiatrist?" - "We need the eggs.""
I really can't see why they've complicated the media linking. They should be able to manage the metadata system much more easily without coercing people to try all these workarounds. The way everything works inside FCPX looks fine, it's how it relates to what's on disk. I'm sure they'll figure out how to improve it but I had sort of hoped it would have been done by this point in time. If they decide they want to keep the current design, that's ok - people will vote with their feet and they can judge if they've made the right choice.
Because the crew was using the application SGO Mistika for visual effects and compositing, it required an edit decision list (EDL) to conform edits coming from Final Cut Pro. “At the time, EDL-X, an application that creates Final Cut Pro X EDLs, wasn’t available,” says Yu. “So we created our own PHP script to convert Final Cut Pro XML to EDL.”
I read that to mean they were using the SGO system the way you or I would use After Effects. I couldn't find anything in the article that mentions what was used for the final hi-res 3D cut. Not that it matters really, since it sounds like all the "creative" was done in FCPX and whatever they used to assemble the final was just following an EDL.
Like FCPX, Motion and Compressor -- 72X runs concurrently on multiple CPUs -- no authentication, etc. $10 well spent, IMO!
Ah, it's Xto7 that's $50. $10 is pretty reasonable. It seems to need all the media active for the conversion but I suppose that should be done anyway to verify it's ok:
Yeah... That was an unusual post... I don't know what purpose would be served in migrating a project from FCP 7 to FCPX (or any other NLE} without having access to the media?? It appears that he has a 1990's Tape archival format not supported by FCPX -- he didn't say anything about support for other NLEs.
He mentioned CatDV -- AIR, it can convert between most media types currently available... At some point in time he will need to: 1) convert the media to a more current (supported) media/format; 2) make the media accessible to his FCP 7 projects to convert them to whatever NLE he chooses. Problem is, the longer he waits... Like Sony VCR tapes
You can, essentially, "disable" the events system and manage the files just as you do with FCP 7. The media files need not be copied into FCPX -- just symlinked. FCPX can import your OS X hierarchy of Folders and files an keyword collections.
When you say symlinked, do you mean manually creating a filesystem symlink? I looked around for what you were talking about and came across the following thread:
No! When you import media into FCPX you have the option to copy the media (from a camera, camera card, archive, or the file system), For cameras or camera card, it makes sense to copy the media onto FCPX so you can take them off line (or copy the media to the file system before importing to FCPX). Then, when importing, uncheck the "copy media" box and FCPX will automatically create symlinks to the file system,
"I'm using the SparseImage trick popularised by the Ripple Training team.
I'd linked to all my media - so the 'Original Media' folder contains 'Symbolic Links' (look just like Aliases but are uneditable). I quit out, back up the SparseImage (this is quick because of course all the footage is on a separate drive), import new footage and re-open. FCPX won't open. Look at all the SymLinks - they've been corrupted. Some point to the enclosing folder, some point to nothing at all. Over 490 items, 30% have lost their SymLink. No, you can't relink in FCPX as FCPX won't open until that event is disabled.
Two things: 1) he seemed to describe a problem with an early version of FCPX... a bug, maybe; 2) FCPX wants to manage the FCPX events and projects on the drives accessible to it. You can add/remove these thru the file system, but you have to be aware of what FCPX expects. The RippleTraining Media Management Tutorial covers this... Maybe we should all buy some RPPL stock
The trouble was, that - having lost a days work, it took 2 hours to do it all again from scratch because all the editing decisions had been made and I was working with a limited set of rushes (6 hoursworth). I couldn't have rebuilt that project in FCP7 so quickly, only FCPX is that quick.
So, for some of us, FCPX is like Uncle Henry: "We have a serious problem with Uncle Henry" - "Why? What's wrong?" - "He thinks he's a chicken" - "Oh. Why not take him to a psychiatrist?" - "We need the eggs.""
Reminds me of an old song by Utah Phillips... "My God, that's moose turd pie!",,, "It's good though."
I really can't see why they've complicated the media linking. They should be able to manage the metadata system much more easily without coercing people to try all these workarounds. The way everything works inside FCPX looks fine, it's how it relates to what's on disk. I'm sure they'll figure out how to improve it but I had sort of hoped it would have been done by this point in time. If they decide they want to keep the current design, that's ok - people will vote with their feet and they can judge if they've made the right choice.
It isn't as bad as it sounds -- though, there are a few rough edges...
If the media is online in the file system or in the event library -- FCPX will find it. Any offline media is flagged as missing without a dreaded modal dialog as in FCP 7. You can easily determine where FCPX expects to find it * and: 1) bring online; or 2) repoint FCP X to where it should look. At first it's scary -- because it is unfamiliar... That Ripple Training thing, again..
*Select a clip and open the inspector.
Edit: Ahh... What the hell, it's been a long day...
I posted this to a Larry Jordan Blog, but it was removed???
Facial animation of a still image -- done on an iPad
I've edited professionally on NLEs for more than 15 years, first Media100, then various forms of Avid, then FCP. I've used every version of FCP since 1, and have used it exclusively since about FCP4. They lost me on X. FCP7 needed updating but, speaking from a professional workflow POV, FCPX was a disaster. I cut a few projects on it, gave it an honest effort, then switched to CS6 Premiere. I'm not going back.
What I do doesn't matter of course, but this is much bigger than just me. One of the places I work has 17 FCP 7 suites surviving on life support. They'll be upgrading their systems in the fall. They will not be switching to FCPX (likely Avid, or Premiere). I've heard this time and again (the post managers at different companies talk to each other of course, and the talk trickles down). I'm talking about major post houses in one of the largest media markets in North America. Those outside the industry have no idea how big a debacle this was, and the ill will many creative professionals now harbor towards Apple. It will take more than a "marketing push" to win back those editors -- and more importantly the post managers (who often make purchasing decisions six months to a year out). When a post-houses switches software, it means a multi-year commitment to a competing platform, and in many cases means switching hardware over to PC. Pros and companies that have made the investment and switched will not be coming back for years, if ever.
I've edited professionally on NLEs for more than 15 years, first Media100, then various forms of Avid, then FCP. I've used every version of FCP since 1, and have used it exclusively since about FCP4. They lost me on X. FCP7 needed updating but, speaking from a professional workflow POV, FCPX was a disaster. I cut a few projects on it, gave it an honest effort, then switched to CS6 Premiere. I'm not going back.
What I do doesn't matter of course, but this is much bigger than just me. One of the places I work has 17 FCP 7 suites surviving on life support. They'll be upgrading their systems in the fall. They will not be switching to FCPX (likely Avid, or Premiere). I've heard this time and again (the post managers at different companies talk to each other of course, and the talk trickles down). I'm talking about major post houses in one of the largest media markets in North America. Those outside the industry have no idea how big a debacle this was, and the ill will many creative professionals now harbor towards Apple. It will take more than a "marketing push" to win back those editors -- and more importantly the post managers (who often make purchasing decisions six months to a year out). When a post-houses switches software, it means a multi-year commitment to a competing platform, and in many cases means switching hardware over to PC. Pros and companies that have made the investment and switched will not be coming back for years, if ever.
Yeah... AIR, Bunim/Murray was one of the first large post houses to leave FCP 7 for Media Composer... over 100 seats, I think!
What you describe certainly is a force that Apple will need to address.
However, There are several things in FCPX's favor:
• low entry costs (5 seats for $300)
• less expensive hardware requirement
• speed and productivity gains claimed by many
• appeal to Indies with more flexibility and less to "unlearn"
• state-of-the-art application code/implementation
• upgradeability -- rapid release of fixes and feature additions/upgrades (8 releases in less than 2 years)
• a 1.0.x product just hitting its stride
In the long run, I think that productivity and editing costs will be the determining factors... FCPX, Like FCP when first released, could redefine what the customer will pay in time and dollars for professional editing, If a new generation of young whippersnapper FCPX editors (who haven't paid their dues) can deliver a superior (or just as good) edit in less time for less money...
Bg "if", I know... but it's happened before!
I think it was Norman Hollyn who said (paraphrased): "I don't teach editing tools -- I teach editing and story telling" and "I don't care what tool I use -- as long as I can do my edits."
Haven't you ever "discovered" something that you thought was so great that you wanted to "tell the world about it"? To "evangelize it"?
"Tell?" Yes. "Evangelize?" No. I've sometimes found tools that I thought I should mention to others because they were very useful to me and others might not know about them, but whether or not others choose to use them doesn't matter to me.
BTW, my comment wasn't meant to criticize, just to state that I don't understand it. Similarly, my mentioning that it seems (at least to me) to be more prevalent among Apple enthusiasts wasn't a shot at Apple users, but just another data point.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dick Applebaum
That is the most picayune reason yet...
I respectfully submit that you might not think so if your circumstances were different. Extra steps get really annoying and time consuming when you're trying to hit a deadline.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dick Applebaum
Gee, I guess Avid and Premiere and other NLEs are "complete" and islands unto themselves -- no need for 3rd-party plugins, or to export/import to and from 3rd-party apps and services...
You should google and get the names of these 3rd-parties... then alert them that they are just providing products and services that no one will buy. /s
I know what you're saying, but to me there's a fundamental difference between a third-party plug-in designed to run within the primary app and third-party utilities required to pass the project from one stage to the next. Again, not because they're an obstacle, but just because they're extra steps.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dick Applebaum
I won't bother replying to your other points -- it is obvious to me that you are one of those who is interested in justifying the status quo....
If you were really interested in giving FCPX a fair evaluation, you would be looking for reasons why and how can I do this better... rather than justifying why not...
I'm sorry if I gave that impression. It's not what I meant. For me, at home, FCPX would not impose any obstacles that I can see. At work, I think the extra steps and pretty much guaranteed issues with things that get lost on the way through the translators would make it less desirable than Avid. I could be wrong.
Besides, those comments were made in the context of that particular filmmaker. He is a monument to overcoming limitations, and more power to him, I'm just spoiled and lazy and wouldn't want to go to all that effort if I don't have to. Maybe once I've tried it I'll find the speedy editing compelling enough that I won't care about the extra sets of doors coming in and going out.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dick Applebaum
It was not that long ago that Avid "pros" couldn't edit in the timeline!
But it can NOW. When FCPX is not subject to the issues I noted aren't to my liking, THEN it and I will live happily ever after.
Saying that I prefer a much more expensive alternative for the particular workflow I deal with is not meant to denigrate FCPX. No offence intended.
- Copy your music library to another drive.
- Delete all the files in the iTunes folder.
- Drag your music files back into iTunes.
- Try to figure out why half your songs still have album art and the other half don't.
Lemme know if you want any other sure-fire, guaranteed-to-go sideways things one might reasonably do with their media library.
I don't hate iTunes and continue to use it for reasons that are likely irrelevant to anyone else, but it'll test your patience.
1. You shouldn't copy the music from the Finder -if you were doing it that way; you should change the directory for the media files, set in the advanced Preferences within iTunes.
2. Apple did a smart thing with (I believe it was) v4.6; they added artwork to music in the iTMS and have people download just a single image and add that to the new Artwork field in the Info panel on a multiple selection (album). That field is different than the Artwork TAB in the info panel on a single song.
No! When you import media into FCPX you have the option to copy the media (from a camera, camera card, archive, or the file system), For cameras or camera card, it makes sense to copy the media onto FCPX so you can take them off line (or copy the media to the file system before importing to FCPX). Then, when importing, uncheck the "copy media" box and FCPX will automatically create symlinks to the file system,
Oh, you mean it creates symlinks in the events folder. Yeah, I tried that out to see if it would allow opening videos in other apps but if you do anything to the source video, it breaks the link and it doesn't seem to let you relink it to anything other than that exact video. Maybe playing around with the relink Event source or something would fix that but like I say, FCP 7 used to just relink it all by itself. You could even relink a video to a totally unrelated video (different aspect, format) if you wanted, which is really quick and flexible.
I suppose the more appropriate way to do it would be to open a source video in another app, save it out, create another event, copy the metadata over to it, then somehow replace the timeline entry with the new event. Is it possible to do that last step - replace an event in the timeline with another event without having to do it all manually again?
Say for example, you have something in the timeline, you would right-click locate the source file in the Finder and open it in say Quicktime. Let's say the source is too big and you've only used a small part of it and want to delete the rest. You'd trim it in Quicktime and save as another smaller file somewhere. You then import that as a new event in the project. How do you replace the event in the timeline with the new event without doing it manually? Can you set a clip in the timeline to point to a new Event?
Any offline media is flagged as missing without a dreaded modal dialog as in FCP 7.
It was annoying but it worked pretty well - except for the part where checking the boxes actually excludes the chosen box from relinking, when you expect it to do the opposite. I think they've gone a bit overboard with the offline icons in FCPX. I thought I'd started a nuclear war somewhere when I saw those for the first time - way too aggressive design. They could tone those down a bit. I know they have to make problems stand out but it draws your attention too much and almost forces you to fix it, which isn't necessary in all cases.
What I do doesn't matter of course, but this is much bigger than just me. When a post-houses switches software, it means a multi-year commitment to a competing platform, and in many cases means switching hardware over to PC. Pros and companies that have made the investment and switched will not be coming back for years, if ever.
I think what individuals do matters if it reflects the feelings of a larger group and I'd say in this case, your feelings probably do reflect those of the wider community. As for it taking years to switch, you could well be right about that depending on the investments that have been made since the FCPX launch. If you get a CS6 cloud license for even design purposes, you'd actually get Premiere with it so you'd have to justify buying FCP X on top and the only way you'd do that is if it happened to blow it away in usability and performance, which is clearly not the case.
I think there's still some time for Apple to fix it, although 2 years is pushing it a bit. They are probably working their way to a 10.0.1 or 10.1 release, which might address the problems. They seem to focusing on the wrong things to fix though. They keep adding things without addressing the core design, which makes it seem like they don't want to change that single-user non-collaborative setup. It's weird to see the tables flipped so quickly. It used to be that Premiere was really looked down on, while FCP was on top and now it's just flipped right over. I like Adobe's products so I have no problem with that but I wish Apple would care more about their software - functionality , security, design and so on. Apple's biggest failings seem to be on the software side. The hardware is rarely a point of criticism. It's understandable as the bulk of their revenue comes from hardware but there is a link between them. Not as direct as is often suggested (i.e poor software from Apple = no Mac sales) but there's a link.
What... I almost swallowed my tongue laughing at the shear lack of facts in your post... Spend more than five minutes with Aperture and you may get a clue... Right now, in its current incarnation, Aperture is lame...
The guy said he loved Aperture but refused to update his OS to keep up with new features. That's his loss. Say what you want but Aperture is the superior DAM hands down, and the rest is about personal UI preference. It's silly to refuse to update your OS and expect to keep up with software releases. That's my point and the facts are self evident.
The guy said he loved Aperture but refused to update his OS to keep up with new features. That's his loss. Say what you want but Aperture is the superior DAM hands down, and the rest is about personal UI preference. It's silly to refuse to update your OS and expect to keep up with software releases. That's my point and the facts are self evident.
Another non-Aperure user... Aperture is not comparable to LR simply because LR performs better and has more advanced features...
Comments
I partly agree -- If you have a job to do, and the new tool doesn't have the capability to do the job -- then don't use it... simple as that.
Also, Apple handled the FCPX release and EOL of FCP, very badly, IMO.
But there were many "pros" who aggressively ridiculed FCPX as a toy or "iMovie Pro"...
Others took a more reasoned approach: "I can't use it because it doesn't do what I need"... Again, Fair enough!
My experience with human nature suggests that many of the "pros" who were so publicly vocal against FCPX, think that they will damage their pride/reputation by now embracing FCPX.
Below is a reprint of one of the new Apple FCPX promos. I have highlighted some of the controversial or missing features that some "pros" used (or use) to justify that FCPX is not for them. Are these "pros" more professional than the pros in the article? Do they have different needs?
Are they looking for better solutions -- or merely justifying their status quo?
Certainly, I am not a pro, but an amateur -- in the purest sense of the word -- I am not paid, but I love to edit video for family and friends and my own amazement. I enjoy learning from the pros -- and think that one of the best ways is to ask questions (and follow-ups) as to why a pro likes or dislikes a certain product, feature or implementation.
Here's the arcticle:
http://www.apple.com/finalcutpro/in-action/detective-dee/
A few things in that article made me wonder what it must be like to work on this guy's films:
Quote:
“If software requires a lot of time to learn, that makes it very difficult to use on my films.”
Why? Professionals learn deep, sophisticated software all the time. Expertise with certain software is part of what makes one person more likely to get work than another. The time spent learning the software is spent well before the user gets anywhere near a film, so why does it matter how long it takes? Is everyone working on his film starting from scratch, having never used any of the software before?
Quote:
Audio was sent out as scratch track QuickTime files via FTP directly to the sound design team and composer Kenji Kawai in Japan.
I'm glad I'm not doing audio post on his films, then. I wondered why he wouldn't export an AAF or at least an OMF for his audio people, so I took a quick glance at the FCPX page on Apple's site and couldn't find any mention of either format. It seems one must export XML and buy third-party software to create AAF sessions. I can't speak for anyone else, but I consider that a significant shortcoming. It adds time, complexity and support issues to getting audio out to post. He's only managed to achieve speed and simplicity by making extra work for the audio editors (which defeats the time saved on his part of the project). Doing things the "right" way would actually make FCPX slower and more complicated, contradicting his earlier statements.
Quote:
"I hope our experience will help persuade more editors to try Final Cut Pro X — it’s a great tool.”
A recurring theme with Apple enthusiasts, and one I've never understood.
I use Pro Tools to edit and mix audio, but it doesn't matter to me whether anyone else uses it or not. I think everyone should use whatever tools best suit their preferences. Why does he hope to persuade others? Self validation? Hope that increased sales will accelerate development? I don't get it.
* * * * *
FCPX seems to be a good choice for one-man-band work, but after reading that I have to admit that I'm glad our people use Avid. I get the sense that FCPX is not (yet?) particularly well suited to the team environment you find on a typical production, and the article about Hark's work seems to support that view rather than dispel it. FCPX's dependency on third-party utilities to accomplish some fundamental tasks gives me the impression that while it is maturing, it's not quite grown up yet.
I just thought of something else:
Quote:
Because the prequel was shot in 5K 3D using RED EPIC cameras, for each take, the left eye camera (3D video is typically shot withtwo synced cameras representing the right and left eyes) was converted to 1080p ProRes and imported into an Event in Final Cut Pro X.
So FCPX was used for "pre-cutting" on set, but was it used for the final edit? Does FCPX even support 3D?
It says they wrote their own script to convert exported XML to EDL. What was the EDL for? Was it for another system used to actually produce the finished edit? If not, why did they need an EDL?
Because the crew was using the application SGO Mistika for visual effects and compositing, it required an edit decision list (EDL) to conform edits coming from Final Cut Pro. “At the time, EDL-X, an application that creates Final Cut Pro X EDLs, wasn’t available,” says Yu. “So we created our own PHP script to convert Final Cut Pro XML to EDL.”
http://xmil.biz/EDL-X/EDL-X.shtml
I'd say that article describes more of FCP 7's faults than FCPX's benefits. When they say things like having to wait to render - that's just because FCP 7 doesn't play unrendered footage by default - it can be set to do it manually. There have also been advances in hardware that weren't previously available, which changes things. SSDs now have read speeds over 400MB/s along with USB 3 and Thunderbolt. An old laptop with only USB 2/FW800/HDDs etc would struggle with high quality footage.
They describe having to develop their own solutions for export to EDL because Apple hadn't put support in. They also had to use 7toX because Apple hadn't put support in.
They didn't even use FCPX for import, they converted the 3D RED footage to a single 1080p ProRes file with expensive 3rd party software - it's not ideal if your NLE is $300 but you spend $12500 converting the source footage:
http://www.digistor.com.au/Products/ItemDetail/tabid/162/QTK00007.aspx?FromTabId=1071&SubCategory=A-BR-QTAKE
FCP X was only used for cutting up footage, no effects, color correction or anything. Just ProRes in, ProRes out.
In terms of performance, FCP 7 was very slow and should have been fixed long ago. Quicktime converted footage faster than FCP 7. That doesn't detract from FCPX being faster but if it was compared to Premiere or Avid, it shouldn't be quite as big of a difference.
It's positive that at least it's being used in production and managing to fit in somewhere. I think the Leverage profile seems like a more intensive workflow:
http://www.apple.com/finalcutpro/in-action/electric/
but people are jumping through hoops to make it fit rather than it immediately being an improvement. I'd also take some of the profiles with a pinch of salt. Apple's website gets a ton of traffic so less well known productions might use it for publicity. You just have to look at this page about project sharing to see the complications that have arisen:
http://www.larryjordan.biz/sharing-projects-in-fcp-x/
When you see things like "By changing Event References, both editors can send this Project back and forth for additional work. Keep in mind that once the Project is sent to one editor, the other editor can not work on the Project as there is no way to reconcile the differences between two versions of the same Project." then you can see the design flaws. The event system is overly complex and acts as a single point of failure between source media and the timeline.
I actually think it would go down a lot better if they at least had an option to disable the whole events system and allow people to manage media their own way and directly relink anything to anything else including metadata. As well as have the same export options the old version had directly inside FCPX and allow saving and exporting projects for sharing and it really needs to be able to import FCP 7 files without paying someone else $50.
Haven't you ever "discovered" something that you thought was so great that you wanted to "tell the world about it"? To "evangelize it"?
If not, I feel very sorry for you.
That is the most picayune reason yet...
Gee, I guess Avid and Premiere and other NLEs are "complete" and islands unto themselves -- no need for 3rd-party plugins, or to export/import to and from 3rd-party apps and services...
You should google and get the names of these 3rd-parties... then alert them that they are just providing products and services that no one will buy. /s
I won't bother replying to your other points -- it is obvious to me that you are one of those who is interested in justifying the status quo....
If you were really interested in giving FCPX a fair evaluation, you would be looking for reasons why and how can I do this better... rather than justifying why not...
It was not that long ago that Avid "pros" couldn't edit in the timeline!
How do you handle rotoscoping in Avid? Oh, like FCPX it doesn't have it either... but you can get Apple motion for $50 that does a decent job of basic roto... Or Silhouette for $1,500-$4,000. Or Mocha?
I know, you don't need roto... ergo it is unimportant to "pros".
Sigh...
Quote:
Originally Posted by jlandd
It's never been about the interface. It has always been about function.
Exactly.
Like FCPX, Motion and Compressor -- 72X runs concurrently on multiple CPUs -- no authentication, etc. $10 well spent, IMO!
As you well know, FCP 7 was last century software written in Carbon (no longer supported) and was suffering from bloat -- it needed to be rethought and rewritten for today -- and the next decade's hardware and software.
I think you are exaggerating the "reconciling the differences" between two versions of the same project.You can get both projects and their events in the same copy of FCPX and cut/copy and paste between them.
Ripple Training has a $30 tutorial on FCPX Media Management that discusses how to do this and even shows how you can do limited collaboration over a NAS.
http://www.rippletraining.com/categories/apple-pro-apps-tutorials/final-cut-pro-x-tutorials/fcpx-media-management-2nd-edition.html
You can, essentially, "disable" the events system and manage the files just as you do with FCP 7. The media files need not be copied into FCPX -- just symlinked. FCPX can import your OS X hierarchy of Folders and files an keyword collections.
I posted the following to another thread:
I just want add that I REALLY have been enjoying Dick and Marvin's posts here, as I always do elsewhere, especially regarding FCPX. Thanks both of you for the time you put into them. Solid info and good insight and perspective. A reason to keep checking in : )
Ah, it's Xto7 that's $50. $10 is pretty reasonable. It seems to need all the media active for the conversion but I suppose that should be done anyway to verify it's ok:
http://forums.creativecow.net/thread/335/25386
When you say symlinked, do you mean manually creating a filesystem symlink? I looked around for what you were talking about and came across the following thread:
http://philipbloom.net/forum/threads/fcpx-too-complex-for-its-own-good.2093/
"I'm using the SparseImage trick popularised by the Ripple Training team.
I'd linked to all my media - so the 'Original Media' folder contains 'Symbolic Links' (look just like Aliases but are uneditable). I quit out, back up the SparseImage (this is quick because of course all the footage is on a separate drive), import new footage and re-open. FCPX won't open. Look at all the SymLinks - they've been corrupted. Some point to the enclosing folder, some point to nothing at all. Over 490 items, 30% have lost their SymLink. No, you can't relink in FCPX as FCPX won't open until that event is disabled.
The trouble was, that - having lost a days work, it took 2 hours to do it all again from scratch because all the editing decisions had been made and I was working with a limited set of rushes (6 hoursworth). I couldn't have rebuilt that project in FCP7 so quickly, only FCPX is that quick.
So, for some of us, FCPX is like Uncle Henry: "We have a serious problem with Uncle Henry" - "Why? What's wrong?" - "He thinks he's a chicken" - "Oh. Why not take him to a psychiatrist?" - "We need the eggs.""
I really can't see why they've complicated the media linking. They should be able to manage the metadata system much more easily without coercing people to try all these workarounds. The way everything works inside FCPX looks fine, it's how it relates to what's on disk. I'm sure they'll figure out how to improve it but I had sort of hoped it would have been done by this point in time. If they decide they want to keep the current design, that's ok - people will vote with their feet and they can judge if they've made the right choice.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dick Applebaum
Because the crew was using the application SGO Mistika for visual effects and compositing, it required an edit decision list (EDL) to conform edits coming from Final Cut Pro. “At the time, EDL-X, an application that creates Final Cut Pro X EDLs, wasn’t available,” says Yu. “So we created our own PHP script to convert Final Cut Pro XML to EDL.”
http://xmil.biz/EDL-X/EDL-X.shtml
I read that to mean they were using the SGO system the way you or I would use After Effects. I couldn't find anything in the article that mentions what was used for the final hi-res 3D cut. Not that it matters really, since it sounds like all the "creative" was done in FCPX and whatever they used to assemble the final was just following an EDL.
Yeah... That was an unusual post... I don't know what purpose would be served in migrating a project from FCP 7 to FCPX (or any other NLE} without having access to the media?? It appears that he has a 1990's Tape archival format not supported by FCPX -- he didn't say anything about support for other NLEs.
He mentioned CatDV -- AIR, it can convert between most media types currently available... At some point in time he will need to: 1) convert the media to a more current (supported) media/format; 2) make the media accessible to his FCP 7 projects to convert them to whatever NLE he chooses. Problem is, the longer he waits... Like Sony VCR tapes
No! When you import media into FCPX you have the option to copy the media (from a camera, camera card, archive, or the file system), For cameras or camera card, it makes sense to copy the media onto FCPX so you can take them off line (or copy the media to the file system before importing to FCPX). Then, when importing, uncheck the "copy media" box and FCPX will automatically create symlinks to the file system,
Two things: 1) he seemed to describe a problem with an early version of FCPX... a bug, maybe; 2) FCPX wants to manage the FCPX events and projects on the drives accessible to it. You can add/remove these thru the file system, but you have to be aware of what FCPX expects. The RippleTraining Media Management Tutorial covers this... Maybe we should all buy some RPPL stock
Reminds me of an old song by Utah Phillips... "My God, that's moose turd pie!",,, "It's good though."
It isn't as bad as it sounds -- though, there are a few rough edges...
If the media is online in the file system or in the event library -- FCPX will find it. Any offline media is flagged as missing without a dreaded modal dialog as in FCP 7. You can easily determine where FCPX expects to find it * and: 1) bring online; or 2) repoint FCP X to where it should look. At first it's scary -- because it is unfamiliar... That Ripple Training thing, again..
*Select a clip and open the inspector.
Edit: Ahh... What the hell, it's been a long day...
I posted this to a Larry Jordan Blog, but it was removed???
Facial animation of a still image -- done on an iPad
[VIDEO]
I've edited professionally on NLEs for more than 15 years, first Media100, then various forms of Avid, then FCP. I've used every version of FCP since 1, and have used it exclusively since about FCP4. They lost me on X. FCP7 needed updating but, speaking from a professional workflow POV, FCPX was a disaster. I cut a few projects on it, gave it an honest effort, then switched to CS6 Premiere. I'm not going back.
What I do doesn't matter of course, but this is much bigger than just me. One of the places I work has 17 FCP 7 suites surviving on life support. They'll be upgrading their systems in the fall. They will not be switching to FCPX (likely Avid, or Premiere). I've heard this time and again (the post managers at different companies talk to each other of course, and the talk trickles down). I'm talking about major post houses in one of the largest media markets in North America. Those outside the industry have no idea how big a debacle this was, and the ill will many creative professionals now harbor towards Apple. It will take more than a "marketing push" to win back those editors -- and more importantly the post managers (who often make purchasing decisions six months to a year out). When a post-houses switches software, it means a multi-year commitment to a competing platform, and in many cases means switching hardware over to PC. Pros and companies that have made the investment and switched will not be coming back for years, if ever.
Yeah... AIR, Bunim/Murray was one of the first large post houses to leave FCP 7 for Media Composer... over 100 seats, I think!
What you describe certainly is a force that Apple will need to address.
However, There are several things in FCPX's favor:
• low entry costs (5 seats for $300)
• less expensive hardware requirement
• speed and productivity gains claimed by many
• appeal to Indies with more flexibility and less to "unlearn"
• state-of-the-art application code/implementation
• upgradeability -- rapid release of fixes and feature additions/upgrades (8 releases in less than 2 years)
• a 1.0.x product just hitting its stride
In the long run, I think that productivity and editing costs will be the determining factors... FCPX, Like FCP when first released, could redefine what the customer will pay in time and dollars for professional editing, If a new generation of young whippersnapper FCPX editors (who haven't paid their dues) can deliver a superior (or just as good) edit in less time for less money...
Bg "if", I know... but it's happened before!
I think it was Norman Hollyn who said (paraphrased): "I don't teach editing tools -- I teach editing and story telling" and "I don't care what tool I use -- as long as I can do my edits."
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dick Applebaum
Haven't you ever "discovered" something that you thought was so great that you wanted to "tell the world about it"? To "evangelize it"?
"Tell?" Yes. "Evangelize?" No. I've sometimes found tools that I thought I should mention to others because they were very useful to me and others might not know about them, but whether or not others choose to use them doesn't matter to me.
BTW, my comment wasn't meant to criticize, just to state that I don't understand it. Similarly, my mentioning that it seems (at least to me) to be more prevalent among Apple enthusiasts wasn't a shot at Apple users, but just another data point.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dick Applebaum
That is the most picayune reason yet...
I respectfully submit that you might not think so if your circumstances were different. Extra steps get really annoying and time consuming when you're trying to hit a deadline.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dick Applebaum
Gee, I guess Avid and Premiere and other NLEs are "complete" and islands unto themselves -- no need for 3rd-party plugins, or to export/import to and from 3rd-party apps and services...
You should google and get the names of these 3rd-parties... then alert them that they are just providing products and services that no one will buy. /s
I know what you're saying, but to me there's a fundamental difference between a third-party plug-in designed to run within the primary app and third-party utilities required to pass the project from one stage to the next. Again, not because they're an obstacle, but just because they're extra steps.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dick Applebaum
I won't bother replying to your other points -- it is obvious to me that you are one of those who is interested in justifying the status quo....
If you were really interested in giving FCPX a fair evaluation, you would be looking for reasons why and how can I do this better... rather than justifying why not...
I'm sorry if I gave that impression. It's not what I meant. For me, at home, FCPX would not impose any obstacles that I can see. At work, I think the extra steps and pretty much guaranteed issues with things that get lost on the way through the translators would make it less desirable than Avid. I could be wrong.
Besides, those comments were made in the context of that particular filmmaker. He is a monument to overcoming limitations, and more power to him, I'm just spoiled and lazy and wouldn't want to go to all that effort if I don't have to. Maybe once I've tried it I'll find the speedy editing compelling enough that I won't care about the extra sets of doors coming in and going out.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dick Applebaum
It was not that long ago that Avid "pros" couldn't edit in the timeline!
But it can NOW. When FCPX is not subject to the issues I noted aren't to my liking, THEN it and I will live happily ever after.
Saying that I prefer a much more expensive alternative for the particular workflow I deal with is not meant to denigrate FCPX. No offence intended.
I like to listen to pros and value their take on things.
For the last hour or o, I've been watching an early review of FCPX by Walter Murch... Paraphrased: "FCPX -- I can't use this"...
http://www.macvideo.tv/editing/interviews/?articleId=3316346&pagType=samecat
1. You shouldn't copy the music from the Finder -if you were doing it that way; you should change the directory for the media files, set in the advanced Preferences within iTunes.
2. Apple did a smart thing with (I believe it was) v4.6; they added artwork to music in the iTMS and have people download just a single image and add that to the new Artwork field in the Info panel on a multiple selection (album). That field is different than the Artwork TAB in the info panel on a single song.
3. Because of that, Doug has this script so you can embed the artwork into each track:
http://dougscripts.com/itunes/scripts/ss.php?sp=reembedartwork
Note: they screw up the artwork folders in your ~/Music/iTunes/Album Artwork. I now have:
Cache (3.21GB)
Cloud (empty)
Cloud Purchase (empty)
Cloud Purchases (1MB)
Download (555MB)
With every OS upgrade this changes, and I'm lost as to what is 'correct'.
Oh, you mean it creates symlinks in the events folder. Yeah, I tried that out to see if it would allow opening videos in other apps but if you do anything to the source video, it breaks the link and it doesn't seem to let you relink it to anything other than that exact video. Maybe playing around with the relink Event source or something would fix that but like I say, FCP 7 used to just relink it all by itself. You could even relink a video to a totally unrelated video (different aspect, format) if you wanted, which is really quick and flexible.
I suppose the more appropriate way to do it would be to open a source video in another app, save it out, create another event, copy the metadata over to it, then somehow replace the timeline entry with the new event. Is it possible to do that last step - replace an event in the timeline with another event without having to do it all manually again?
Say for example, you have something in the timeline, you would right-click locate the source file in the Finder and open it in say Quicktime. Let's say the source is too big and you've only used a small part of it and want to delete the rest. You'd trim it in Quicktime and save as another smaller file somewhere. You then import that as a new event in the project. How do you replace the event in the timeline with the new event without doing it manually? Can you set a clip in the timeline to point to a new Event?
It was annoying but it worked pretty well - except for the part where checking the boxes actually excludes the chosen box from relinking, when you expect it to do the opposite. I think they've gone a bit overboard with the offline icons in FCPX. I thought I'd started a nuclear war somewhere when I saw those for the first time - way too aggressive design. They could tone those down a bit. I know they have to make problems stand out but it draws your attention too much and almost forces you to fix it, which isn't necessary in all cases.
That's pretty cool. I take it this is done with face-tracking.
I think what individuals do matters if it reflects the feelings of a larger group and I'd say in this case, your feelings probably do reflect those of the wider community. As for it taking years to switch, you could well be right about that depending on the investments that have been made since the FCPX launch. If you get a CS6 cloud license for even design purposes, you'd actually get Premiere with it so you'd have to justify buying FCP X on top and the only way you'd do that is if it happened to blow it away in usability and performance, which is clearly not the case.
I think there's still some time for Apple to fix it, although 2 years is pushing it a bit. They are probably working their way to a 10.0.1 or 10.1 release, which might address the problems. They seem to focusing on the wrong things to fix though. They keep adding things without addressing the core design, which makes it seem like they don't want to change that single-user non-collaborative setup. It's weird to see the tables flipped so quickly. It used to be that Premiere was really looked down on, while FCP was on top and now it's just flipped right over. I like Adobe's products so I have no problem with that but I wish Apple would care more about their software - functionality , security, design and so on. Apple's biggest failings seem to be on the software side. The hardware is rarely a point of criticism. It's understandable as the bulk of their revenue comes from hardware but there is a link between them. Not as direct as is often suggested (i.e poor software from Apple = no Mac sales) but there's a link.
Quote:
Originally Posted by robogobo
The guy said he loved Aperture but refused to update his OS to keep up with new features. That's his loss. Say what you want but Aperture is the superior DAM hands down, and the rest is about personal UI preference. It's silly to refuse to update your OS and expect to keep up with software releases. That's my point and the facts are self evident.
Another non-Aperure user... Aperture is not comparable to LR simply because LR performs better and has more advanced features...