From talking with professionals I know. Few have any plans for upgrading to the FCP X on the first day. Especially not in the middle of important work.
Pretty much everyone had plans to download FCP X on a test machine, checking it out and seeing what the deal with it was before they would actually use it on anything mission critical.
Anything missing that they absolutely need simply means they will stick with what they currently have until the proper time to upgrade to something new.
I cannot think of anyone (an actual working professional) who has the time or would waste time posting on the App Store reviews. Especially on the day the software is released.
Fair enough.
The fact that Apple has explicitly stated that you can continue to run FCP 7 concurrently on the same machine that you install FCPX on suggests that they are aware that the new release won't meet the needs of many of their customers, but that they want people to check it out and start to get use to some of its new conventions (and again, this echoes the path they took with QTX, although of course at a much higher stakes level).
Then, hopefully over the next 6 months or so, they can start to fill the most glaring gaps so that editors can enjoy the new speed and workflow enhancements without losing critical functionality. At that point they may have a real winner on their hands.
I just wish Apple wasn't so stubbornly opaque about road maps when it comes to their pro apps. That kind of thing really doesn't sit well with professionals that need to be able to plan ahead.
Then, hopefully over the next 6 months or so, they can start to fill the most glaring gaps so that editors can enjoy the new speed and workflow enhancements without losing critical functionality. At that point they may have a real winner on their hands.
Let us hope that is the case, because I DO love the obvious increase in speed and ability to utilize h.264 natively, etc.
Speculation means nothing. Actually using the software and getting work done informs a real assessment. That cannot be done in only the span of a few hours.
Really? How in-depth of a review is necessary to notice that the software is missing even the most basic functionality expected from a NLE?
I think the issue is more about people not understanding where Apple wants to take Final Cut Pro. They're likely not going to extend a lot of effort into supporting tape based ingest when non-tape media is the heir apparent.
No multicam is a bummer for those who absolutely must have it. In all I think FCPX is a complementary product at this point. I don't know why people thought they'd be able to easily import files created on an entirely different codebase.
I suspect they will be run in tandem on systems for a while. It's going to take 2-3 years before FCPX offers the type of maturity that we have now with FCS. Until then it'll slowly be phased into production environments on an "as needed" basis.
I think the issue is more about people not understanding where Apple wants to take Final Cut Pro. They're likely not going to extend a lot of effort into supporting tape based ingest when non-tape media is the heir apparent.
No multicam is a bummer for those who absolutely must have it. In all I think FCPX is a complementary product at this point. I don't know why people thought they'd be able to easily import files created on an entirely different codebase.
I suspect they will be run in tandem on systems for a while. It's going to take 2-3 years before FCPX offers the type of maturity that we have now with FCS. Until then it'll slowly be phased into production environments on an "as needed" basis.
However, a lot of people just getting into the game have no legacy to hang their hats on and will pick up FCP X right off the bat.
I don't know why people thought they'd be able to easily import files created on an entirely different codebase.
Perhaps because such files are txt or XML based, and one of the most basic functions in any edit software?
Quote:
It's going to take 2-3 years before FCPX offers the type of maturity that we have now with FCS. Until then it'll slowly be phased into production environments on an "as needed" basis.
Then what was the point in releasing the software at this point in time at all? For professionals to beta test their software for them?
This is, as I said above, an unmitigated disaster for Apple (the apology press releases have already started, I see...), and deeply shakes my faith in furthering my personal and my professional relationship with their media software.
WTH were they THINKING?
Oh, also...
Quote:
I think the issue is more about people not understanding where Apple wants to take Final Cut Pro.
That's ass-backwards; Apple is not understanding where their users have already taken FCP, such as to cut professional music videos, commercials, television programs, and motion pictures (including Oscar nominated/winning films). If they had merely wished to cater to the hobbyists, then they should not have sold this as having the capabilities of a professional piece of software.
I think the issue is more about people not understanding where Apple wants to take Final Cut Pro. They're likely not going to extend a lot of effort into supporting tape based ingest when non-tape media is the heir apparent.
No multicam is a bummer for those who absolutely must have it. In all I think FCPX is a complementary product at this point. I don't know why people thought they'd be able to easily import files created on an entirely different codebase.
I suspect they will be run in tandem on systems for a while. It's going to take 2-3 years before FCPX offers the type of maturity that we have now with FCS. Until then it'll slowly be phased into production environments on an "as needed" basis.
With all due respect, since you're one of the few on this site whose head isn't firmly lodged up Jobs' ass, FCPX will never be phased into production environments. Pro users (within a production environment) will be running back to Avid very quickly.
Regardless of what features are added in subsequent updates, there is no more trust in Apple to deliver pro-quality software.
I've never purchased anything from the App Store before on a Mac, so this may be a "stupid" question but currently when I used to purchase FCP I would be able to install it on two computers and both would work. Is there such limitations with FCP X now that it is through the App Store? Will I need to purchase it multiple times to use it on more than one computer or will it be similar to how the iPhone works that it recognizes I purchased it once already and will re-download and any device that I long into with my apple id?
Thanks
According to Apple. All apps purchased through the Mac App Store will work in all computers owned, or controlled by you. I'm not sure exactly what this means, but if a computer is registered under your name, the app will work with that. It's also likely, from what they say about Lion, that it will also work with all computers in one address. Anything else, I don't know yet.
I didn't think my comment would only get regulated to just being about FCP, and not what I see as an inherent shortcoming of the App Store model. :sigh:
Sol, you were talking about FCP, so the response is about FCP.
I think network news and sports, as well as short video and commercial editors will eat this up. Don't know about "pro" film editors tho -- read a lot of comments that suggested FCPX was beneath them.
I have some rather expensive plugins for FCP -- I suspect that these will not be compatible with FCPX... I don't even know if FCPX allows plugins.
Also, I believe it is true that you can run FCPX, concurrently, on several machines! That will be a great boon -- especially for my granddaughter who's pretty comfortable with iMovie.
i am under the impression, after 20 minutes playtime with FCPX, that someone comfortable with iMovie could hit the deck running with FCPX -- just using it as an iMovie with a lot of extra stuff.
I'm not concerned about what those "Pro's"have to say. Apple clearly isn't finished with this.
Exactly! I'm sure clients would love to hear how an uncompressed file transfer repeatedly failed or took two weeks because you had to upload it to a web server. I guess one could just start shipping hard disks.
PS sorry about the misquoted pricing. If you have multiple decks you surely won't be upgrading any time soon.
To put it into perspective for others we have 2 deck for 4-6 editors/ 4-6 night crew assistants, (depending on how busy we are) so our deck stays busy too. They're too damned expensive especially when the networks won't comp you (even on a percentage) of the hardware. Profit margins can be surprisingly slim for some cable networks especially when it comes to post.
All clients are really getting cheap. I'm seeing this in publishing, advertising, etc. Areas that were never in question, are now off limits.
It seems a bit odd to me that Compressor costs the same as Motion. It's just a batch encoder. Motion is a full GPU compositing app. Plus, a lot of people will need it to encode DVD files so it would have made more sense to bundle it along with Final Cut X.
But, for Motion on its own to be $50 is insane pricing. This is an app that can replace a lot of the functionality in the $999 After Effects package.
From what I remember, when Compressor first came out, it cost $1,000, and Motion cost $300.
I'm not concerned about what those "Pro's"have to say. Apple clearly isn't finished with this.
Let's face it, this is just a HUGE upgrade to iMovie -- hence, the ability to import iMovie projects/events and not FCP projects. If this had been named iMoviePro X, there'd be no bitching. Hopefully, they'll upgrade FCP soon.
It bothers me when people who have no idea what they're talking about pretend like they do.
Does it now? Because this is what I actually posted:
Quote:
All the bitching about upgrade pricing completely misses the mark, IMO. $300 is crazy cheap for a professional NLE.
However, the real question is whether or not FCPX still counts as a professional NLE. For people doing free lance work, editing DSLR footage, or moving up from iMovie, FCPX is an incredible value.
However, FCP as we have known it has been used to cut feature films, documentaries and television series. For that market, the new version is almost bizarrely under-featured. No OMF support, no xml out or in, no edl in/out, no r3d (which is odd, since RED is sort of the Apple of digital cinema and every other mainstream NLE suite has already incorporated direct support), no multi cam, no 3rd party device support.
So I guess what bothers me is when illiterate internet douchebags pop off without even understanding what they're responding to, much less have any insight into the topic at hand.
I've worked as a professional editor, while you, I would guess, have access to Google.
Comments
I do understand that.
From talking with professionals I know. Few have any plans for upgrading to the FCP X on the first day. Especially not in the middle of important work.
Pretty much everyone had plans to download FCP X on a test machine, checking it out and seeing what the deal with it was before they would actually use it on anything mission critical.
Anything missing that they absolutely need simply means they will stick with what they currently have until the proper time to upgrade to something new.
I cannot think of anyone (an actual working professional) who has the time or would waste time posting on the App Store reviews. Especially on the day the software is released.
Fair enough.
The fact that Apple has explicitly stated that you can continue to run FCP 7 concurrently on the same machine that you install FCPX on suggests that they are aware that the new release won't meet the needs of many of their customers, but that they want people to check it out and start to get use to some of its new conventions (and again, this echoes the path they took with QTX, although of course at a much higher stakes level).
Then, hopefully over the next 6 months or so, they can start to fill the most glaring gaps so that editors can enjoy the new speed and workflow enhancements without losing critical functionality. At that point they may have a real winner on their hands.
I just wish Apple wasn't so stubbornly opaque about road maps when it comes to their pro apps. That kind of thing really doesn't sit well with professionals that need to be able to plan ahead.
Then, hopefully over the next 6 months or so, they can start to fill the most glaring gaps so that editors can enjoy the new speed and workflow enhancements without losing critical functionality. At that point they may have a real winner on their hands.
Let us hope that is the case, because I DO love the obvious increase in speed and ability to utilize h.264 natively, etc.
All the bitching about upgrade pricing completely misses the mark, IMO. $300 is crazy cheap for a professional NLE.
No multi-cam or deck control? You're wrong to consider this a "professional NLE".
Speculation means nothing. Actually using the software and getting work done informs a real assessment. That cannot be done in only the span of a few hours.
You couldn't be more wrong.
You couldn't be more wrong.
No he's correct.
Show me something done by a new purchaser today as extensive as this review
http://www.kenstone.net/fcp_homepage...ok_martin.html
FCPX is too deep of a program to fully grok in a scant few hours if you never had
access to the beta. Sure it's missing a whole bunch of things..many of which will
be folded into the program in subsequent updates but the pedantic level of some of the
reviews makes me question the Professional status of some of the purchasers.
No he's correct.
Show me something done by a new purchaser today as extensive as this review
http://www.kenstone.net/fcp_homepage...ok_martin.html
FCPX is too deep of a program to fully grok in a scant few hours if you never had
access to the beta. Sure it's missing a whole bunch of things..many of which will
be folded into the program in subsequent updates but the pedantic level of some of the
reviews makes me question the Professional status of some of the purchasers.
Really? How in-depth of a review is necessary to notice that the software is missing even the most basic functionality expected from a NLE?
You can't even open a FCP 7 project in FCP X?
You can't export a portion of a sequence?
No dual-monitor support?
Whatever.
Really? How in-depth of a review is necessary to notice that the software is missing even the most basic functionality expected from a NLE?
I think the issue is more about people not understanding where Apple wants to take Final Cut Pro. They're likely not going to extend a lot of effort into supporting tape based ingest when non-tape media is the heir apparent.
No multicam is a bummer for those who absolutely must have it. In all I think FCPX is a complementary product at this point. I don't know why people thought they'd be able to easily import files created on an entirely different codebase.
I suspect they will be run in tandem on systems for a while. It's going to take 2-3 years before FCPX offers the type of maturity that we have now with FCS. Until then it'll slowly be phased into production environments on an "as needed" basis.
I think the issue is more about people not understanding where Apple wants to take Final Cut Pro. They're likely not going to extend a lot of effort into supporting tape based ingest when non-tape media is the heir apparent.
No multicam is a bummer for those who absolutely must have it. In all I think FCPX is a complementary product at this point. I don't know why people thought they'd be able to easily import files created on an entirely different codebase.
I suspect they will be run in tandem on systems for a while. It's going to take 2-3 years before FCPX offers the type of maturity that we have now with FCS. Until then it'll slowly be phased into production environments on an "as needed" basis.
However, a lot of people just getting into the game have no legacy to hang their hats on and will pick up FCP X right off the bat.
I don't know why people thought they'd be able to easily import files created on an entirely different codebase.
Perhaps because such files are txt or XML based, and one of the most basic functions in any edit software?
It's going to take 2-3 years before FCPX offers the type of maturity that we have now with FCS. Until then it'll slowly be phased into production environments on an "as needed" basis.
Then what was the point in releasing the software at this point in time at all? For professionals to beta test their software for them?
This is, as I said above, an unmitigated disaster for Apple (the apology press releases have already started, I see...), and deeply shakes my faith in furthering my personal and my professional relationship with their media software.
WTH were they THINKING?
Oh, also...
I think the issue is more about people not understanding where Apple wants to take Final Cut Pro.
That's ass-backwards; Apple is not understanding where their users have already taken FCP, such as to cut professional music videos, commercials, television programs, and motion pictures (including Oscar nominated/winning films). If they had merely wished to cater to the hobbyists, then they should not have sold this as having the capabilities of a professional piece of software.
I think the issue is more about people not understanding where Apple wants to take Final Cut Pro. They're likely not going to extend a lot of effort into supporting tape based ingest when non-tape media is the heir apparent.
No multicam is a bummer for those who absolutely must have it. In all I think FCPX is a complementary product at this point. I don't know why people thought they'd be able to easily import files created on an entirely different codebase.
I suspect they will be run in tandem on systems for a while. It's going to take 2-3 years before FCPX offers the type of maturity that we have now with FCS. Until then it'll slowly be phased into production environments on an "as needed" basis.
With all due respect, since you're one of the few on this site whose head isn't firmly lodged up Jobs' ass, FCPX will never be phased into production environments. Pro users (within a production environment) will be running back to Avid very quickly.
Regardless of what features are added in subsequent updates, there is no more trust in Apple to deliver pro-quality software.
No multi-cam or deck control? You're fucking retarded to consider this a "professional NLE".
What the fuck is wrong with you?
What the fuck is wrong with you?
It bothers me when people who have no idea what they're talking about pretend like they do.
I've never purchased anything from the App Store before on a Mac, so this may be a "stupid" question but currently when I used to purchase FCP I would be able to install it on two computers and both would work. Is there such limitations with FCP X now that it is through the App Store? Will I need to purchase it multiple times to use it on more than one computer or will it be similar to how the iPhone works that it recognizes I purchased it once already and will re-download and any device that I long into with my apple id?
Thanks
According to Apple. All apps purchased through the Mac App Store will work in all computers owned, or controlled by you. I'm not sure exactly what this means, but if a computer is registered under your name, the app will work with that. It's also likely, from what they say about Lion, that it will also work with all computers in one address. Anything else, I don't know yet.
I didn't think my comment would only get regulated to just being about FCP, and not what I see as an inherent shortcoming of the App Store model. :sigh:
Sol, you were talking about FCP, so the response is about FCP.
Yeah!
I think network news and sports, as well as short video and commercial editors will eat this up. Don't know about "pro" film editors tho -- read a lot of comments that suggested FCPX was beneath them.
I have some rather expensive plugins for FCP -- I suspect that these will not be compatible with FCPX... I don't even know if FCPX allows plugins.
Also, I believe it is true that you can run FCPX, concurrently, on several machines! That will be a great boon -- especially for my granddaughter who's pretty comfortable with iMovie.
i am under the impression, after 20 minutes playtime with FCPX, that someone comfortable with iMovie could hit the deck running with FCPX -- just using it as an iMovie with a lot of extra stuff.
I'm not concerned about what those "Pro's"have to say. Apple clearly isn't finished with this.
Exactly! I'm sure clients would love to hear how an uncompressed file transfer repeatedly failed or took two weeks because you had to upload it to a web server.
PS sorry about the misquoted pricing. If you have multiple decks you surely won't be upgrading any time soon.
To put it into perspective for others we have 2 deck for 4-6 editors/ 4-6 night crew assistants, (depending on how busy we are) so our deck stays busy too. They're too damned expensive especially when the networks won't comp you (even on a percentage) of the hardware. Profit margins can be surprisingly slim for some cable networks especially when it comes to post.
All clients are really getting cheap. I'm seeing this in publishing, advertising, etc. Areas that were never in question, are now off limits.
It seems a bit odd to me that Compressor costs the same as Motion. It's just a batch encoder. Motion is a full GPU compositing app. Plus, a lot of people will need it to encode DVD files so it would have made more sense to bundle it along with Final Cut X.
But, for Motion on its own to be $50 is insane pricing. This is an app that can replace a lot of the functionality in the $999 After Effects package.
From what I remember, when Compressor first came out, it cost $1,000, and Motion cost $300.
anyone have any thoughts on whether this will be available on a disc, in a box, in a retail store? (apologies to dr. seuss).
No, no, and no.
I'm not concerned about what those "Pro's"have to say. Apple clearly isn't finished with this.
Let's face it, this is just a HUGE upgrade to iMovie -- hence, the ability to import iMovie projects/events and not FCP projects. If this had been named iMoviePro X, there'd be no bitching. Hopefully, they'll upgrade FCP soon.
It bothers me when people who have no idea what they're talking about pretend like they do.
Does it now? Because this is what I actually posted:
All the bitching about upgrade pricing completely misses the mark, IMO. $300 is crazy cheap for a professional NLE.
However, the real question is whether or not FCPX still counts as a professional NLE. For people doing free lance work, editing DSLR footage, or moving up from iMovie, FCPX is an incredible value.
However, FCP as we have known it has been used to cut feature films, documentaries and television series. For that market, the new version is almost bizarrely under-featured. No OMF support, no xml out or in, no edl in/out, no r3d (which is odd, since RED is sort of the Apple of digital cinema and every other mainstream NLE suite has already incorporated direct support), no multi cam, no 3rd party device support.
So I guess what bothers me is when illiterate internet douchebags pop off without even understanding what they're responding to, much less have any insight into the topic at hand.
I've worked as a professional editor, while you, I would guess, have access to Google.