I love iMovie '08 and hated the old one. Sorry if it offends anybody but that is how I am.
We use iMovie to edit animations made by the kids in my anim club. The animations are very simple and no more than slideshows but even there the kids want more features.
Also, I resent the notion of dumbing down. As if it were a bad thing. I use and have used Lightwave 3d for over a decade commercially. I would not use it in its' entirety to allow my kids to make 3d anims but there are features and procedures that I would isolate to create a simpler app.
In the same way I would love to see iMovie gain a subset of FCS without "dumbing" them down.
I actually think FCP is more intuitive than iMovie. If all you need is very basic editing, go for iMovie. If you need more but can't be bothered to make an effort to learn FCP Express, I don't know what to say.
Isn't FCE the same convoluted user interface as FCS but with half the features?
Some of us want to get more into professional level video because we've outgrown iMovie or Final Cut Express but because we don't have the money to splash down on high end products any reduction in price will be welcome.
Not everyone works for high end video houses you know. Some of us have to scrimp and save to do this and not everyone wants to load themselves up with debt either.
I understand dude. Money is tight especially now a days. But consider $1000 a worthwhile investment if you're really serious about video editing considering that the other pro editing alternative available for you is even more expensive. The cost of the Avid system we have at work will make the price of FCS seem like chunk change. That's why FCP is popular among indie filmmakers.
Perhaps iMovie's detractors are used to unintuitive procedures from other video editing software that lead them to overlook the most obvious ways to do things.
This is normally my rule of thumb now. What would be the easiest, most direct way. If that doesn't work then what is the next easiest, etc.
In fact this is how I taught the kids to use iMovie when they get stuck.
Hmmm.. I didn't realize Porno flicks are edited together. I thought they just shoot it, burn it to DVDs then sell it or upload it directly online.
If you lived in LA and ventured over to Samy's you'd see 99% of the clientele is in the excitable content business and they definitely use the pro tools.
If you lived in LA and ventured over to Samy's you'd see 99% of the clientele is in the excitable content business and they definitely use the pro tools.
i know..
i live here in socal. and i've shamefully edited porn a long time ago when i first started out. first ever paying gig.. its the easiest to edit yet also the "hardest". but hey, a job is a job..
For me and my work, AI (as example of a "pro" app) is weak compared to Freehand. And it stands as an example of how Adobe lets a product get stagnant. So I don't consider Illustrator as "pro" as Freehand.
"Pro" or not, it's a very powerful program. I make my living drawing a comic strip (in Illustrator), and I've never used Freehand, so I'm curious:
What features did Freehand have that Illustrator lacks? (Besides stability and speed. Adobe really needs to get its shit together in that department.)
I don't think it's been stagnant, either. The Blob brush is wonderful (debuted in CS4); totally changed the way I use Illustrator. And while I can't upgrade to CS5 until I upgrade my desktop, I think the new features there look promising.
As a professional that uses Final Cut Studio on an every day basis, this souds awful. I don't disagree that the suite could use some redesign, but to "dumb down" Final Cut to be more like iMovie would be a slap in the face to editors everywhere.
I can't see this happening.
I was just discussing with one of my editors today how nice it would be if FCP had better integrated menus for setups, layoffs, interaction with the Kona card etc. There are far too many gotchas in FCP particularly in a facility like ours where we deal with almost every flavor of SD and HD video, every frame rate, every resolution, every file type etc. The world of video is a mess thanks to HD and FCP doesn't really help the over worked and sometimes confused editor. System setting, Easy Setups. Audio/Video settings, User preferences - BLERG!
This article made me think that Apple realizes this and is making an effort to clean things up. make them more "Apple like". I can only hope this is real and not just Internet drivel.
One thing I would like to see is for Apple to go back to selling the apps individually as well as having the bundle at a nice deal.
For our work, we only needed DVD Studio Pro but had to buy the whole of FCS. Soundtrack Pro turned out to be very helpful for our recording needs (though we had a copy of Logic Express), but we have not used FCP or Motion, two likely very expensive elements in the suite.
If they want an easy to use Prosumer App why wouldn't they just add more functionality to Final Cut Express, redesign it and make it slightly more expensive. Final Cut Pro does need to redesigned to an extent but not dumbed down. As it is the new versions of Avid Media Composer and Premiere Pro are giving it a run for it's money.
Final Cut Pro is used daily by high end production houses and directors. Overhauling the apps would scare them away to use Avid, Premiere Pro, etc. Pro Apps are status projects for Apple. "Look how are products are used by pros, daily!" the website screams, together with movies from pros using FCP.
What I think is that they are building FCP fron scratch, because it's full with old Carbon code, and the interface looks straight from the 90s. Based on Quicktime X. Realtime h264 editing, more powerful essential plugins like stabalizer, denoise, slow motion, removing elements fron video, etc.
Yes they will probably shuffle the menus around, removing elements with options which aren't used much. But they won't remove it, just move it. Apple won't let Adobe and Avid be the only pro option.
The same built-from-scratch will probably happen with Motion (make it just as powerful as After Effects) and Color (decent interface, realtime GPU results, perhaps merged in FCP as product).
I think Final Cut Express will be something like described in the Article, FCP for prosumers.
"Pro" or not, it's a very powerful program. I make my living drawing a comic strip (in Illustrator), and I've never used Freehand, so I'm curious:
What features did Freehand have that Illustrator lacks? (Besides stability and speed. Adobe really needs to get its shit together in that department.)
I don't think it's been stagnant, either. The Blob brush is wonderful (debuted in CS4); .....
Well, this isn't the time or place for my full list of issues. Try http://www.freefreehand.org/ for more info. Or search youtube for some comparisons. But let's just say I do more 'technical' printed work, with finished products around 35"x25". We use nearly 250 layers, 52,000 objects and some 4.4 million points. AI can copy and paste with aplomb, but bogs down with simple stuff like editing text-on-path objects. And that's with 12GB RAM! (AI CS5 is NOT 64bit) I have a friend on the beta test team for AI. He can't ever tell me the NDA stuff, but he has said that there are known bugs or workflow issues that the marketing dept of Adobe will not let the engineers fix. It's always "add a feature", instead of fix the crap that holds back those of us using it many hours a day.
But here's a 'short' list:
-being able to select objects below with a control click (like FH and sorta like InD does). CS5 is in the right direction but there's a bug that won't let you select the fill area on an object below, just the paths.
- FH: select an object, then move it by grabbing said object anywhere on the object's area and it STAYS selected. With AI, you won't get the object you had selected, you get whatever is on top. Again, with 200+ layers, this is a huge deal. AI users use the "lock object" as a poor workaround.
- AI can't collapse all layers and sublayers all at one time (think Windows Explorer's tree format) AND it still doesn't save the collapsed/open state when you save the document
- big one here: Freehand has a FAR FAR SUPERIOR Find and Replace function. AI is still poopin' in diapers compared to FH.
- two words: Paste Inside.
- three words: text on paths (FH: select both text and path/one command to put text onto path, vs. AI: cut text object/change to text on path tool buried under text tool without a default KB shortcut/place cursor on path/click/adjust both ends of text margin thingies.
- lack of consistency in coloring layers and sublayers (can't set default color, nor select then color multiple layers or sublayers across multiple layers)
- AI doesn't show you at what rotation or size an object like a placed .tiff is, compared to what it started out as, FH does so I know if a Tiff has been adjusted from original size.
- Superguides suck donkey butt. They sometimes just don't snap right when at different zooms.
FH has had a kind of 'blob' brush since around 2000, the Freeform tool. Same goes for the 'new' 3D functions. And the auto-union tool? Really? If AI had real selection abilities (like FH) you could select what you want and then click the Union button. Why add ANOTHER bloody button to DUPLICATE a function?....to get your $600 upgrade for a frakin' button?
So, what all these pro apps, FCP and Adobe 'X', need is consistency in the UI. Applying the base level concepts of UI design that makes the iPhone so effective to use.
So why is this relevant to the FCP discussion? Well, I think because there's a certain logic in the iApps that lets the user just DO, instead of look up, experiment, then sorta do. If I want to insert a transition, I don't want to worry about the little extra bits of video needed to make it happen. If I want to do something, the software should be designed to make the right tool clearly found/recognizable and then the results be what I want. Not sometimes double click here, and over here option click. (ie AI click on layer's lock and all sublayers lock, but make a layer's top lever visible and the sublayers don't automatically become fully visible if they were completely hidden....inconsistent!!! GRR)
Sorry for the OT/Parallel comparison folks...just trying to be informative about how UI can make a big difference in usability and workflow, whether you're a consumer/prosumer/pro.
I understand dude. Money is tight especially now a days. But consider $1000 a worthwhile investment if you're really serious about video editing considering that the other pro editing alternative available for you is even more expensive. The cost of the Avid system we have at work will make the price of FCS seem like chunk change. That's why FCP is popular among indie filmmakers.
I know how much Avid is and I think the cost of Final Cut Studio is awesome but lowering the price to something more attainable will actually serve to booster FCP's uptake rather than just relegate it to professional studios with a tonne of money.
Imagine all indie filmmakers using FCP rather than FCE because of budget constraints. Imagine FCP having an iMovie 09 style interface for editing (sorry but I just love the interface I'm far more productive in iMovie '09 than FCE but FCE has more power for effects and the like). I would love iMovie simplicity with Final Cut power for doing animations and the like which are far easier to do in FCE than iMovie ironically.
There is absolutely 100% NO rule to say pro apps can't be dead easy to use and anyone who thinks there is has their heads up their bungholes. Ease of use does NOT mean lack of features. If anyone can do it Apple can and they're starting to prove it with Aperture so it makes sense Final Cut would be in their targets next.
Gotta disagree with you there. I never found the older versions of iMovie to be intuitive enough to keep my interest. When Apple redesigned the app, the new UI immediately made sense to me and I've edited numerous video clips with it. I can see that there's probably lots of room for more powerful features, but from a usability standpoint the new UI is what finally got me into casual video editing.
It took you 3 hours to figure out how to add a soundtrack? Really? Wow, I didn't think it was difficult to find a song in the media browser and drag & drop it directly into the timeline... Am I missing something here?
Perhaps iMovie's detractors are used to unintuitive procedures from other video editing software that lead them to overlook the most obvious ways to do things.
I'm with you bud. I've become infinitely more productive in iMovie '09 than any other version of iMovie and I only use FCE when I need to add some effect.
My workflow generally involves cutting everything in iMovie '09, getting the clips in the right place, then exporting into Final Cut Express to add touchups and effects then I export back into iMovie so as to share or cut to disc.
Beef up iMovie to FCE level or add iMovie style editing to Final Cut and I'd be more than happy.
Aperture 3 already got that treatment, where it mostly pulled a bunch of consumer features up from iPhoto.
And it's awesome because of it. I bought Aperture 2 and used it for a while but it felt so wrong and difficult to use. I went back to iPhoto but with Aperture 3 I get great power and a superb interface and it works really really well.
This higher than thou attitude professionals seem to have seems ignorant to me. Maybe they're afraid that consumers won't need them anymore. Maybe that's not entirely a bad thing.
Comments
We use iMovie to edit animations made by the kids in my anim club. The animations are very simple and no more than slideshows but even there the kids want more features.
Also, I resent the notion of dumbing down. As if it were a bad thing. I use and have used Lightwave 3d for over a decade commercially. I would not use it in its' entirety to allow my kids to make 3d anims but there are features and procedures that I would isolate to create a simpler app.
In the same way I would love to see iMovie gain a subset of FCS without "dumbing" them down.
I actually think FCP is more intuitive than iMovie. If all you need is very basic editing, go for iMovie. If you need more but can't be bothered to make an effort to learn FCP Express, I don't know what to say.
Isn't FCE the same convoluted user interface as FCS but with half the features?
Some of us want to get more into professional level video because we've outgrown iMovie or Final Cut Express but because we don't have the money to splash down on high end products any reduction in price will be welcome.
Not everyone works for high end video houses you know. Some of us have to scrimp and save to do this and not everyone wants to load themselves up with debt either.
I understand dude. Money is tight especially now a days. But consider $1000 a worthwhile investment if you're really serious about video editing considering that the other pro editing alternative available for you is even more expensive. The cost of the Avid system we have at work will make the price of FCS seem like chunk change. That's why FCP is popular among indie filmmakers.
Perhaps iMovie's detractors are used to unintuitive procedures from other video editing software that lead them to overlook the most obvious ways to do things.
This is normally my rule of thumb now. What would be the easiest, most direct way. If that doesn't work then what is the next easiest, etc.
In fact this is how I taught the kids to use iMovie when they get stuck.
I suppose you will no longer be able to edit porn clips in FCP
Hmmm.. I didn't realize Porno flicks are edited together. I thought they just shoot it, burn it to DVDs then sell it or upload it directly online.
Hmmm.. I didn't realize Porno flicks are edited together. I thought they just shoot it, burn it to DVDs then sell it or upload it directly online.
If you lived in LA and ventured over to Samy's you'd see 99% of the clientele is in the excitable content business and they definitely use the pro tools.
I agree except for the last part about iPhoto. Apple already has a fantastic higher end version of iPhoto and that's Aperture.
<sigh>
Aperture 3 already got that treatment, where it mostly pulled a bunch of consumer features up from iPhoto.
If you lived in LA and ventured over to Samy's you'd see 99% of the clientele is in the excitable content business and they definitely use the pro tools.
i know..
i live here in socal. and i've shamefully edited porn a long time ago when i first started out. first ever paying gig.. its the easiest to edit yet also the "hardest". but hey, a job is a job..
For me and my work, AI (as example of a "pro" app) is weak compared to Freehand. And it stands as an example of how Adobe lets a product get stagnant. So I don't consider Illustrator as "pro" as Freehand.
"Pro" or not, it's a very powerful program. I make my living drawing a comic strip (in Illustrator), and I've never used Freehand, so I'm curious:
What features did Freehand have that Illustrator lacks? (Besides stability and speed. Adobe really needs to get its shit together in that department.)
I don't think it's been stagnant, either. The Blob brush is wonderful (debuted in CS4); totally changed the way I use Illustrator. And while I can't upgrade to CS5 until I upgrade my desktop, I think the new features there look promising.
Sorry if this seems off-topic.
As a professional that uses Final Cut Studio on an every day basis, this souds awful. I don't disagree that the suite could use some redesign, but to "dumb down" Final Cut to be more like iMovie would be a slap in the face to editors everywhere.
I can't see this happening.
I was just discussing with one of my editors today how nice it would be if FCP had better integrated menus for setups, layoffs, interaction with the Kona card etc. There are far too many gotchas in FCP particularly in a facility like ours where we deal with almost every flavor of SD and HD video, every frame rate, every resolution, every file type etc. The world of video is a mess thanks to HD and FCP doesn't really help the over worked and sometimes confused editor. System setting, Easy Setups. Audio/Video settings, User preferences - BLERG!
This article made me think that Apple realizes this and is making an effort to clean things up. make them more "Apple like". I can only hope this is real and not just Internet drivel.
For our work, we only needed DVD Studio Pro but had to buy the whole of FCS. Soundtrack Pro turned out to be very helpful for our recording needs (though we had a copy of Logic Express), but we have not used FCP or Motion, two likely very expensive elements in the suite.
Final Cut Pro is used daily by high end production houses and directors. Overhauling the apps would scare them away to use Avid, Premiere Pro, etc. Pro Apps are status projects for Apple. "Look how are products are used by pros, daily!" the website screams, together with movies from pros using FCP.
What I think is that they are building FCP fron scratch, because it's full with old Carbon code, and the interface looks straight from the 90s. Based on Quicktime X. Realtime h264 editing, more powerful essential plugins like stabalizer, denoise, slow motion, removing elements fron video, etc.
Yes they will probably shuffle the menus around, removing elements with options which aren't used much. But they won't remove it, just move it. Apple won't let Adobe and Avid be the only pro option.
The same built-from-scratch will probably happen with Motion (make it just as powerful as After Effects) and Color (decent interface, realtime GPU results, perhaps merged in FCP as product).
I think Final Cut Express will be something like described in the Article, FCP for prosumers.
"Pro" or not, it's a very powerful program. I make my living drawing a comic strip (in Illustrator), and I've never used Freehand, so I'm curious:
What features did Freehand have that Illustrator lacks? (Besides stability and speed. Adobe really needs to get its shit together in that department.)
I don't think it's been stagnant, either. The Blob brush is wonderful (debuted in CS4); .....
Well, this isn't the time or place for my full list of issues. Try http://www.freefreehand.org/ for more info. Or search youtube for some comparisons. But let's just say I do more 'technical' printed work, with finished products around 35"x25". We use nearly 250 layers, 52,000 objects and some 4.4 million points. AI can copy and paste with aplomb, but bogs down with simple stuff like editing text-on-path objects. And that's with 12GB RAM! (AI CS5 is NOT 64bit) I have a friend on the beta test team for AI. He can't ever tell me the NDA stuff, but he has said that there are known bugs or workflow issues that the marketing dept of Adobe will not let the engineers fix. It's always "add a feature", instead of fix the crap that holds back those of us using it many hours a day.
But here's a 'short' list:
-being able to select objects below with a control click (like FH and sorta like InD does). CS5 is in the right direction but there's a bug that won't let you select the fill area on an object below, just the paths.
- FH: select an object, then move it by grabbing said object anywhere on the object's area and it STAYS selected. With AI, you won't get the object you had selected, you get whatever is on top. Again, with 200+ layers, this is a huge deal. AI users use the "lock object" as a poor workaround.
- AI can't collapse all layers and sublayers all at one time (think Windows Explorer's tree format) AND it still doesn't save the collapsed/open state when you save the document
- big one here: Freehand has a FAR FAR SUPERIOR Find and Replace function. AI is still poopin' in diapers compared to FH.
- two words: Paste Inside.
- three words: text on paths (FH: select both text and path/one command to put text onto path, vs. AI: cut text object/change to text on path tool buried under text tool without a default KB shortcut/place cursor on path/click/adjust both ends of text margin thingies.
- lack of consistency in coloring layers and sublayers (can't set default color, nor select then color multiple layers or sublayers across multiple layers)
- AI doesn't show you at what rotation or size an object like a placed .tiff is, compared to what it started out as, FH does so I know if a Tiff has been adjusted from original size.
- Superguides suck donkey butt. They sometimes just don't snap right when at different zooms.
FH has had a kind of 'blob' brush since around 2000, the Freeform tool. Same goes for the 'new' 3D functions. And the auto-union tool? Really? If AI had real selection abilities (like FH) you could select what you want and then click the Union button. Why add ANOTHER bloody button to DUPLICATE a function?....to get your $600 upgrade for a frakin' button?
So, what all these pro apps, FCP and Adobe 'X', need is consistency in the UI. Applying the base level concepts of UI design that makes the iPhone so effective to use.
So why is this relevant to the FCP discussion? Well, I think because there's a certain logic in the iApps that lets the user just DO, instead of look up, experiment, then sorta do. If I want to insert a transition, I don't want to worry about the little extra bits of video needed to make it happen. If I want to do something, the software should be designed to make the right tool clearly found/recognizable and then the results be what I want. Not sometimes double click here, and over here option click. (ie AI click on layer's lock and all sublayers lock, but make a layer's top lever visible and the sublayers don't automatically become fully visible if they were completely hidden....inconsistent!!! GRR)
Sorry for the OT/Parallel comparison folks...just trying to be informative about how UI can make a big difference in usability and workflow, whether you're a consumer/prosumer/pro.
I understand dude. Money is tight especially now a days. But consider $1000 a worthwhile investment if you're really serious about video editing considering that the other pro editing alternative available for you is even more expensive. The cost of the Avid system we have at work will make the price of FCS seem like chunk change. That's why FCP is popular among indie filmmakers.
I know how much Avid is and I think the cost of Final Cut Studio is awesome but lowering the price to something more attainable will actually serve to booster FCP's uptake rather than just relegate it to professional studios with a tonne of money.
Imagine all indie filmmakers using FCP rather than FCE because of budget constraints. Imagine FCP having an iMovie 09 style interface for editing (sorry but I just love the interface I'm far more productive in iMovie '09 than FCE but FCE has more power for effects and the like). I would love iMovie simplicity with Final Cut power for doing animations and the like which are far easier to do in FCE than iMovie ironically.
There is absolutely 100% NO rule to say pro apps can't be dead easy to use and anyone who thinks there is has their heads up their bungholes. Ease of use does NOT mean lack of features. If anyone can do it Apple can and they're starting to prove it with Aperture so it makes sense Final Cut would be in their targets next.
Gotta disagree with you there. I never found the older versions of iMovie to be intuitive enough to keep my interest. When Apple redesigned the app, the new UI immediately made sense to me and I've edited numerous video clips with it. I can see that there's probably lots of room for more powerful features, but from a usability standpoint the new UI is what finally got me into casual video editing.
It took you 3 hours to figure out how to add a soundtrack? Really? Wow, I didn't think it was difficult to find a song in the media browser and drag & drop it directly into the timeline... Am I missing something here?
Perhaps iMovie's detractors are used to unintuitive procedures from other video editing software that lead them to overlook the most obvious ways to do things.
I'm with you bud. I've become infinitely more productive in iMovie '09 than any other version of iMovie and I only use FCE when I need to add some effect.
My workflow generally involves cutting everything in iMovie '09, getting the clips in the right place, then exporting into Final Cut Express to add touchups and effects then I export back into iMovie so as to share or cut to disc.
Beef up iMovie to FCE level or add iMovie style editing to Final Cut and I'd be more than happy.
<sigh>
Aperture 3 already got that treatment, where it mostly pulled a bunch of consumer features up from iPhoto.
And it's awesome because of it. I bought Aperture 2 and used it for a while but it felt so wrong and difficult to use. I went back to iPhoto but with Aperture 3 I get great power and a superb interface and it works really really well.
This higher than thou attitude professionals seem to have seems ignorant to me. Maybe they're afraid that consumers won't need them anymore. Maybe that's not entirely a bad thing.