If Adobe totally rewrote Photoshop from the ground up with an entirely new file structure and user interface. I guarantee it would not be as featured as it is now. Something would be missing that people would complain about.
As we know Adobe would never be brave enough to even do anything like this. So this whole example is pretty academic at best.
Brave enough? You mean stupid enough. Adobe would never do such a thing. It would kill the company.
You can store media on an external drive. They at least thought of that. But instead of actually working with all flavors of footage natively like Apple promised, the program transcodes it all in the background into a single format; those transcoded files (essentially all-out duplicates of the footage) go to the boot drive, and there is no way to tell them otherwise. That is what I have heard at least, and perhaps the person who said it misspoke. Either way, creating duplicates of all your media in the background and hiding them from the user is a terrible workflow. When working with hundreds of gigabytes of footage, the last thing you need is for your edit software to be secretly duplicating it all in the background.
FCPX Import has the following options (among others):
-- Copy files to FC Events Folder (use symlinks if no)
-- Create Optimized Media Transcode to ProRes (use source if no and source, e.g. h.264 supported)
-- Create Proxy Media (if yes use lower bit ProRes proxy format)
You need not create duplicates (your option) and it puts the files where you tell it (with a default as ~/Movies/FCP Events.
AFAIK, you can you can transcode after import -- just like FCP7.
I am getting most of my answers from playing with FCPX and an excellent tutorial by Steve Martin:
Are you talking about a drop shadow on a title? If so, you can do that in the Inspector.
If not, I think you can probably find what you want in the new Motion.
AFAIK, much of the titling/effects stuff that was spread among various FCS apps is now in Motion.
Not titles - a graphic that I dropped into the timeline.
It used to be one of the BASIC parameters in FCP7 along with opacity, position, etc... you could assign (and keyframe) a drop shadow. You shouldn't have to go to a separate app to do a basic shadow effect on a timeline element.
Its 64bit and uses a completely different UI and file structure. Underneath the hood FCP X has virtually no relation at all to classic FCP. That is why it is a version 1 software.
Rubbish. Apple did not promote the coming of FCPX as such. It was promoted as a groundbreaking evolution of FCP. A new app? Sure. One which no longer can communicate with even other Apple pro apps much less the outside world? Um, not so much. Show me where.
Everyone understands WHY it isn't compatible with other versions/plugins/exports/imports. The issue is that only a full featured version which lacks these compatibilities would be sufficient for what the upper end FCP user is. If Apple provided a schedule for updates that would help. It's only a fool who says "It's version 1, they'll fix it" if you don't know when that will be.
Of course people will stick with FCP7 in the meantime. But this was not promoted as Final Cut Express Plus. It was promoted as the new Final Cut, and AFAIK the features it lost were NOT made public by Apple right up to the release.
Are editors screwed? No, of course not. Not yet. Do editors think Apple has its finger on the pulse of the pro community? No. See Aperture. See Logic.
Why is everyone so quick to blindly defend Apple. You'd think someone caught Christ pissing in the pool and no one wants to admit that the water is yellow.
Everything quoted below is so reactionary and irrational it's obvious that they are made by people not in the business or blinded by some unfounded faith in Apple. Let start off by apologizing ahead of time for some of my comments. Forgive my snark and my lack of brevity, but in light of some of the idiocy in this thread I believe it's justified.
To suggest that you NOT talk to your clients about you workflow is insane. I couldn't imagine what I would be given to work with if I had no dialogue with my clients about what I need. As a matter of fact if I can be on set, I'm there making sure things go right. I'm not the only one either. For example, Peter Jackson works very closely with his lead editor and has been known to reshoot scenes based on his recommendations.
To call people not satisfied with the update "cry Babies" is capricious at best.
To say the pro market is too conservative is unknowledgeable. In that case I'd compare "best practices" in editing and film making to "best practices" in the military. Despite all of the high tech blah blah blah used in the Navy, the guys on deck still use sextons. I run a tight ship in my shop, and sure some might call me a bastard drill sergeant, but I'm working allot these days because people know they can count on me and my crew.
If you don't know where you came from, how could you possibly know where you are going?
Referring to EVERY program with legacy support as "bloatware" is misinformed. Is FCS really "Bloatware"? Because that's the implication of the statement and the transition (re-write) itself. I personally like the features in FCPX, but I wouldn't have thrown out the baby with the bath-water either.
IMO Either FCPX should have not been called "PRO" or they should have continued to develop FCS for another year while simultaneously developing FCPX to ensure every feature present in FCS remained intact in the transition.
The more we learn the more professionals are beginning to discover this is not a program for them or for them to recommend for clients or their studios.
That is unequivocally THE DUMBEST comment so far in this thread; Period! If you work in the business please provide me with you contact info so that I can recommend NO ONE work with you... EVER!
Apple makes mistakes all of the time. Are you kidding? I hate to use the word fanboy, but jesus I could list more than a few mistakes Apple has made over the years and I think many could. I've notice many around here are the first to take note of every mistake Apple HAS made. Let me know if you seriously need a list and I'll start a thread so we can all contribute.
AS far as "staying current" goes. Well my friend... I have made a career out of knowing things that idiots with your attitude dismiss as unnecessary. Believe me, a guy who knows what OMF's, XML's, granularity, push processing, gamma, gumut etc etc etc are; when you don't, is worth ever penny more that he asks than you. Believe me, We ask for more money, much more. So keep living your delusion that you're worth more because of what you don't Don't know. What a tool you must be. Truly.
Um it's not really version 1. If it were then it should have been presented with a different brand and simultaneously been offered next to the original brand, like FCS and FCE. FCPX is really is FCE on steroids. Apple should have said, here's our latest and greatest prosumer software and depending on feedback we'll be integrating these features into the future re-write of FCS in a year. Apple has this hang-up with everything being a secret until it's released. I agree in most cases... this is not one.
Some might suggest that since you are not in the video business you should keep you comments to yourself. personally I don't know why you'd bother other than getting yourself heard. But for your future reference... there is NO new feature that is worth losing existing capabilities. I suppose you would give up your brain for a 15" dick?
You're whole rant is centered on the idea that FCPX is V1. It's not really. Again if it was they should have called it by another name and in this case it would still not be a rose. I assume since you called real professionals who know what they are talking about "elitists' (OMG LOL) another tool you must be. Yes, from where you stand we must seem like elitists and you know what, most of us are comfortable with that.
Um yes actually. I will probably make that recommendation since the latest Avid releases are quite compelling and the prices are quite reasonable; especially in applications where software only options work well, such as editing proxies. I love Avid and the new features (dialogue tracking, Multi format and RAW media support are truly amazing.
FCP NEVER compared to a an Avid workstation. Never. If you've ever used one, you wouldn't have made that comment. Personally it makes me chuckle to think that once again here's somebody who might believe those of us at the top of our game are Elitist. Are the top three Olympians elitists as well or are they just the best at what they do?
Motion tracking, color correction, media management, raw performance and power, etc etc etc have always been superior. That was never the issue. The issue was the $125k+ price tag and the only reason people use FCP is because it's close enough to get most of the job done (all for many that didn't need the quality Avid provided) and it was cheap. Do you really believe features are finished in FCP? Better not let the Flame, Smoke, Combustion, Davinci artists out there know they wasted their investments. LOL Nothing but a low budget doc or indie has ever been finished in FCP I guarantee you. Even if it was edited in FCP it will not be finished there.
No it's not and you are correct that it was a mistake to release it now and/ or to call it PRO. But seriously we aren't "throwing hissy fits". And if we are then perhaps it's not unjustified to say Apple just "spit in the face of professionals". You decide how much venom needs to be present in your interpretation of our comments.
I get what you are saying Murch, but I don't think you should start a re-write of software by removing features. I know for sure Avid would never release a re-write using the Symphony brand with fewer features than the previous version. That is one possible definition of unprofessional IMO.
I've never been a fan of "hoping" for missing features. That's called wishful thinking. The safest assumption to make is that those features will probably never be present. If they were important at all why were they removed? Finally many of the missing features (such as you examples of Multicam, OMF and XML support) are just as relevant to file based capture as they are to tape and film scans. I don't see how you could not be aware of that unless you are not an editor or you don't work with proxies, DI's, compositors, audio engineers or negative confirmation; just to name a few applications off the top of my head.
I wish everyone would understand the REAL problem... none of us are just bitching, but the point is that if we needed to add a new workstation into the mix what license would we buy? FCP7 is being pulled from the shelves and soon will not be available! What do you not understand about this? None of us is simply "whining". Apple introduced software TO REPLACE existing software that it is incompatible with. How could you guys not imagine the new (and available) not being compatible with the old (and unavailable) to not be a problem? FCPX IS NOT V1 software it is now the current version of a program that is part of a workflow that it cannot integrate into.
I said it earlier. had apple released FCPX CONCURRENTLY with FCS3 for a period, there would be no problem.
Apple should have known this would cause a stir, so stop talking like pro's should stop complaining. I bet had they stood on the demo floor at NAB and said "isn't this great! and BTW allot of the features you've come to rely upon including compatibility with anything else including previous versions of this software are all broken and or missing" there would have been a riot and then a rush to the Avid booth. At this point Avid is probably more compatible with FCP7 than FCPX. Go figure.
The point of asking the guy for his creds was something called sarcasm. It was a response to his equally stupid comment that he doesn't "talk to his clients about his workflow". Seriously, that is ridiculous and only someone who is an arrogant rank amateur would say that. Therefore it's reasonable to assume that someone who claims to be a professional (when he clearly is not) is otherwise a hazard that should be avoided.
Regarding pros being scared of amateurs. LOL Good one. you should read our comments it has nothing to do with amateurs getting imovie X and it's always about the tools my friend. Try telling an air-force mechanic he has to maintain a fleet of fighter jets with a hammer a screw driver and a ratchet, because that's all he really needs.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gustav
Sorry to the pro editors who don't like the new version, but you are bitching and moaning. It's one thing to post a critical review, it's another to act like a child while doing it.
Asking for a guy's contact to blacklist him in your business, just because he has a different opinion than you? Really? How incredibly childish!
How about instead something like:
"I can't use FCPX because I need it to do this, this and this. I might have to switch to Avid or Adobe if Apple doesn't offer these features."
or
"I don't like the new UI because I use multiple monitors and I can't put blah blah on my second monitor"
Send that feedback to Apple too.
Whining with a post "This is like iMovie Pro - it sucks! Apple sucks!" is doing nothing, and won't be taken seriously. If you want Apple to update FCPX to give you the professional features that you need, then act like a professional.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gustav
Every time a pro app is within the range of amateurs, you get complaining. Many pros are afraid that their customers will go to the amateurs, forgetting it's their talent, not the tools, that provide the pro level results.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hummerp
This ranting reminds me of that release. "OMG I can't believe it doesn't do this" "OMG I can't believe it doesn't do that". Like many others have said: It's V 1.0 Calm down and keep using what you're using until they get FCX right.
Mind set can certainly have little relation to reality. You can have the mindset that if you strap on wings you can jump off of a high building and fly. Reality may not support your mindset.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lightwaver67
When I clicked the BUY NOW button, I was not in the mindset that I was buying into a v1 app... I was in the mindset of "The next evolution of FCP".
They didn't "pull" the old version from existence. It is still there. This is just a new option for you. If you don't like it, probably you could wait until it improves.
A mega-app like FCP needs to mature in the "ecosystem" for at least a year before it settles down. Start your clock now and wait a year. You'll probably get what you want.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DogGone
I assume that for all the power users who need the features of FCP7 will just continue to use the old software.
Since FCPX is only $299 it is cheap enough to try it out and learn the new software whilst still using FCP7 for your main work flow.
Since FCP7 is no longer for sale, what happens to businesses who need to buy additional copies of it?
Its 64bit and uses a completely different UI and file structure. Underneath the hood FCP X has virtually no relation at all to classic FCP. That is why it is a version 1 software.
Again, just to be clear.
*YOU* are defining this as a version-1 release based on YOUR understanding of their endeavors (and I am in agreement when you look at the regressed functionality)... but as far as APPLE is concerned, they list it as version 10.0 and are NOT playing-up the "rewrite" aspect of it in their marketing.
Having a day now to absorb this... I agree that their EFFORTS are similar to when they released Aperture... a "new" product with potential - but since FCP already existed, I'll say it again: They did NOTHING to communicate effectively that this release was a regressed set of features.
With my new perspective of looking at this as Mac OSX Public Beta or Aperture v1.0 it is an easier pill to swallow - except for the fact that I would NOT have purchased it if I had known BEFOREHAND of these facts.
AFAIK, much of the titling/effects stuff that was spread among various FCS apps is now in Motion.
Right now I use TitleExchange plug in for subtitles. Subtitles are now required for all our training video work and we use it extensively for foreign language as well as English subtitles for hearing impaired viewers. Until that is working I certainly can't upgrade. I have not used Motion since we use After Effects, but the Apple titling in FCS has always been a bit subpar in my opinion. I can totally recommend TitleExchange though.
Professionals have waited four years for a real upgrade to Final Cut Pro; they cannot wait another four years for Apple to fix Final Cut Pro X, especially since they have made no indication that they intend to do so.
I sympathize with this comment. I Think Apple will need to be more forthcoming with their plans for FCPX.
I am a latecomer to FCP -- cross-grading from FC Express a few years ago. I am curious, how did Apple (with its silence policy) manage to keep FCP Pros happy enough to stay with FCP when it periodically screamed for upgrades?
Apparently it falls on deaf ears... Excellent thoughts though. Apple was selling it as an evolution not a new App that dropped legacy support or it's ability to co-exist with current versions.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jlandd
Rubbish. Apple did not promote the coming of FCPX as such. It was promoted as a groundbreaking evolution of FCP. A new app? Sure. One which no longer can communicate with even other Apple pro apps much less the outside world? Um, not so much. Show me where.
That is a great example of small feature that shouldn't have been overlooked. what was a check box and a 1 minute render away is now an import, export, import process? Lord. Why can't anyone grasp what the issue here is?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lightwaver67
Not titles - a graphic that I dropped into the timeline.
It used to be one of the BASIC parameters in FCP7 along with opacity, position, etc... you could assign (and keyframe) a drop shadow. You shouldn't have to go to a separate app to do a basic shadow effect on a timeline element.
Brave enough? You mean stupid enough. Adobe would never do such a thing. It would kill the company.
Apple is willing to kill a product at the height of its success to replace it with something they believe will be even more successful. They've been pretty successful at that.
Adobe not so much.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jlandd
Rubbish. Apple did not promote the coming of FCPX as such. It was promoted as a groundbreaking evolution of FCP. A new app? Sure.
It doesn't matter what they promoted. The reality of what "is" is where we are.
Quote:
Everyone understands WHY it isn't compatible with other versions/plugins/exports/imports. The issue is that only a full featured version which lacks these compatibilities would be sufficient for what the upper end FCP user is. If Apple provided a schedule for updates that would help. It's only a fool who says "It's version 1, they'll fix it" if you don't know when that will be.
Yes its understood that FCP X does not meet the needs of many who use FCP today. Everyone has the choice to move on to another NLE or wait to see what Apple does. What is so complicated about that? Why be so emotional about that choice?
Quote:
Of course people will stick with FCP7 in the meantime. But this was not promoted as Final Cut Express Plus. It was promoted as the new Final Cut, and AFAIK the features it lost were NOT made public by Apple right up to the release.
Technically they are not features lost as FCP X has never had them.
Quote:
Are editors screwed? No, of course not. Not yet. Do editors think Apple has its finger on the pulse of the pro community? No. See Aperture. See Logic.
The Pro community has the choice of using the other available options. I believe that is what the majority would do instead of bitching on internet forums about it.
Why do you guys keep saying it is a version one product? It is called Final Cut Pro X. If OSX is any indication, the X stood for the roman numeral 10. Hence OS 9 before it. If it was a version one product, it should not carry the number 10, and it should be renamed not to confuse users of the other mature Final Cut Pro that video pros were using.
But can you fully blame this on Apple's marketing. Or your rushing to buy it before you fully researched and understood what you were purchasing?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lightwaver67
Again, just to be clear.
*YOU* are defining this as a version-1 release based on YOUR understanding of their endeavors (and I am in agreement when you look at the regressed functionality)... but as far as APPLE is concerned, they list it as version 10.0 and are NOT playing-up the "rewrite" aspect of it in their marketing.
Having a day now to absorb this... I agree that their EFFORTS are similar to when they released Aperture... a "new" product with potential - but since FCP already existed, I'll say it again: They did NOTHING to communicate effectively that this release was a regressed set of features.
With my new perspective of looking at this as Mac OSX Public Beta or Aperture v1.0 it is an easier pill to swallow - except for the fact that I would NOT have purchased it if I had known BEFOREHAND of these facts.
The problem with that chain of logic is that the previous FCP was 7. So they skipped 8 and 9. How does that figure?
Quote:
Originally Posted by TBell
Why do you guys keep saying it is a version one product? It is called Final Cut Pro X. If OSX is any indication, the X stood for the roman numeral 10. Hence OS 9 before it. If it was a version one product, it should not carry the number 10, and it should be renamed not to confuse users of the other mature Final Cut Pro that video pros were using.
I didn't actually know that, so a project can in fact be portable? Every file and piece of associated media can be external?
That is good, that is my most major issue dealt with. Because that was 100% a deal breaker.
...thought I would still prefer to be able to not use the FCP events folder and just have 1 'event' in a folder of my choosing, I currently create one big folder "example#1" and keep all media, render files, music, scratch disks, project file etc... in that 1 folder. So to move a project you just move that entire folder.
And all metadata, like clip keywords & analysis is stored in the FCP Events folder right? (I'd rather it was with the clips).
You didn't address the format support, I don't want to always have to create prores versions, i sometimes want to work in XDCAM etc..
AFAICT, you must have an Final Cut Events and a Final Cut Projects folder at the root level of an external HD.
Come on that is BS. Let us say you bought a new version of Adobe Photoshop called Photoshop X. You bought every new release of this software. Every release before it added features, keep the old features, and let you work on projects created with older versions.
You then bring it home all excited after buying it, and try to open up a recent project you were working on. The project doesn't open. This version of Adobe Photoshop is not backwards compatible. Further, it doesn't let you use things like the paint bucket to autofill. You'd be pissed.
The reality here is Apple hasn't billed this as a new program. It is billing it as a new version of Final Cut Pro. Further, when people were wondering if Apple was going to drop Final Cut, Apple sent word to the professional that it in fact was about to bring forth a major new update. Moreover, ever version before this was backwards compatible. You could work on projects created with prior versions.
Taking out backwards compatibility is a huge omission. If Apple intended this to be version one software, it should have called the program something different. Maybe iMovie Pro. Apple should correct this mess by 1) giving interested professional their money back, and 2) communicating to professionals what is in the pipeline.
Professionals should make clear directly to Apple what they are upset about. Apple will respond.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TenoBell
Technically they are not features lost as FCP X has never had them.
But can you fully blame this on Apple's marketing. Or your rushing to buy it before you fully researched and understood what you were purchasing?
YES! That's my point...!!!
I DID read the whole micro-site about FCPX... I read all of Apple's literature on it. NOWHERE did it say it had reduced features... NOWHERE did it imply it was a "version 1" app... They CLEARLY were promoting ADDITIONAL and NEW features... they CLEARLY call it v10.0 (Not just "X").
While some people may be astute enough to INFER that a total rewrite (Which is NOT TALKED ABOUT on the site) means stripped-down functionality... the fact remains that Apple is replacing their time-tested and fairly ROBUST FCP7 with an app that CLAIMS to be an evolution of the platform...
AND I GAVE THEM MY HARD-EARNED MONEY BASED ON THIS.
Please stop trying to cram the "Hey, it's a v1.0 app for crying out loud" down our throats when in all REALITY... it is NOT being marketed nor versioned in such a manner. Period.
Comments
If Adobe totally rewrote Photoshop from the ground up with an entirely new file structure and user interface. I guarantee it would not be as featured as it is now. Something would be missing that people would complain about.
As we know Adobe would never be brave enough to even do anything like this. So this whole example is pretty academic at best.
Brave enough? You mean stupid enough. Adobe would never do such a thing. It would kill the company.
You can store media on an external drive. They at least thought of that. But instead of actually working with all flavors of footage natively like Apple promised, the program transcodes it all in the background into a single format; those transcoded files (essentially all-out duplicates of the footage) go to the boot drive, and there is no way to tell them otherwise. That is what I have heard at least, and perhaps the person who said it misspoke. Either way, creating duplicates of all your media in the background and hiding them from the user is a terrible workflow. When working with hundreds of gigabytes of footage, the last thing you need is for your edit software to be secretly duplicating it all in the background.
FCPX Import has the following options (among others):
-- Copy files to FC Events Folder (use symlinks if no)
-- Create Optimized Media Transcode to ProRes (use source if no and source, e.g. h.264 supported)
-- Create Proxy Media (if yes use lower bit ProRes proxy format)
You need not create duplicates (your option) and it puts the files where you tell it (with a default as ~/Movies/FCP Events.
AFAIK, you can you can transcode after import -- just like FCP7.
I am getting most of my answers from playing with FCPX and an excellent tutorial by Steve Martin:
Apple Pro Video Series: Final Cut Pro X
Steve is no-BS and covers FCPX in great detail -- comparing to FCS at every opportunity.
For $40 and several hours, it is a great way to find out what you need to know about FCPX.
I have no relationship with Steve Martin or Ripple Training -- other than as a satisfied customer.
Are you talking about a drop shadow on a title? If so, you can do that in the Inspector.
If not, I think you can probably find what you want in the new Motion.
AFAIK, much of the titling/effects stuff that was spread among various FCS apps is now in Motion.
Not titles - a graphic that I dropped into the timeline.
It used to be one of the BASIC parameters in FCP7 along with opacity, position, etc... you could assign (and keyframe) a drop shadow. You shouldn't have to go to a separate app to do a basic shadow effect on a timeline element.
Its 64bit and uses a completely different UI and file structure. Underneath the hood FCP X has virtually no relation at all to classic FCP. That is why it is a version 1 software.
Rubbish. Apple did not promote the coming of FCPX as such. It was promoted as a groundbreaking evolution of FCP. A new app? Sure. One which no longer can communicate with even other Apple pro apps much less the outside world? Um, not so much. Show me where.
Everyone understands WHY it isn't compatible with other versions/plugins/exports/imports. The issue is that only a full featured version which lacks these compatibilities would be sufficient for what the upper end FCP user is. If Apple provided a schedule for updates that would help. It's only a fool who says "It's version 1, they'll fix it" if you don't know when that will be.
Of course people will stick with FCP7 in the meantime. But this was not promoted as Final Cut Express Plus. It was promoted as the new Final Cut, and AFAIK the features it lost were NOT made public by Apple right up to the release.
Are editors screwed? No, of course not. Not yet. Do editors think Apple has its finger on the pulse of the pro community? No. See Aperture. See Logic.
Why is everyone so quick to blindly defend Apple. You'd think someone caught Christ pissing in the pool and no one wants to admit that the water is yellow.
Everything quoted below is so reactionary and irrational it's obvious that they are made by people not in the business or blinded by some unfounded faith in Apple. Let start off by apologizing ahead of time for some of my comments. Forgive my snark and my lack of brevity, but in light of some of the idiocy in this thread I believe it's justified.
To suggest that you NOT talk to your clients about you workflow is insane. I couldn't imagine what I would be given to work with if I had no dialogue with my clients about what I need. As a matter of fact if I can be on set, I'm there making sure things go right. I'm not the only one either. For example, Peter Jackson works very closely with his lead editor and has been known to reshoot scenes based on his recommendations.
To call people not satisfied with the update "cry Babies" is capricious at best.
To say the pro market is too conservative is unknowledgeable. In that case I'd compare "best practices" in editing and film making to "best practices" in the military. Despite all of the high tech blah blah blah used in the Navy, the guys on deck still use sextons. I run a tight ship in my shop, and sure some might call me a bastard drill sergeant, but I'm working allot these days because people know they can count on me and my crew.
If you don't know where you came from, how could you possibly know where you are going?
Referring to EVERY program with legacy support as "bloatware" is misinformed. Is FCS really "Bloatware"? Because that's the implication of the statement and the transition (re-write) itself. I personally like the features in FCPX, but I wouldn't have thrown out the baby with the bath-water either.
IMO Either FCPX should have not been called "PRO" or they should have continued to develop FCS for another year while simultaneously developing FCPX to ensure every feature present in FCS remained intact in the transition.
The more we learn the more professionals are beginning to discover this is not a program for them or for them to recommend for clients or their studios.
That is unequivocally THE DUMBEST comment so far in this thread; Period! If you work in the business please provide me with you contact info so that I can recommend NO ONE work with you... EVER!
Apple makes mistakes all of the time. Are you kidding? I hate to use the word fanboy, but jesus I could list more than a few mistakes Apple has made over the years and I think many could. I've notice many around here are the first to take note of every mistake Apple HAS made. Let me know if you seriously need a list and I'll start a thread so we can all contribute.
AS far as "staying current" goes. Well my friend... I have made a career out of knowing things that idiots with your attitude dismiss as unnecessary. Believe me, a guy who knows what OMF's, XML's, granularity, push processing, gamma, gumut etc etc etc are; when you don't, is worth ever penny more that he asks than you. Believe me, We ask for more money, much more. So keep living your delusion that you're worth more because of what you don't Don't know. What a tool you must be. Truly.
Um it's not really version 1. If it were then it should have been presented with a different brand and simultaneously been offered next to the original brand, like FCS and FCE. FCPX is really is FCE on steroids. Apple should have said, here's our latest and greatest prosumer software and depending on feedback we'll be integrating these features into the future re-write of FCS in a year. Apple has this hang-up with everything being a secret until it's released. I agree in most cases... this is not one.
Some might suggest that since you are not in the video business you should keep you comments to yourself. personally I don't know why you'd bother other than getting yourself heard. But for your future reference... there is NO new feature that is worth losing existing capabilities. I suppose you would give up your brain for a 15" dick?
You're whole rant is centered on the idea that FCPX is V1. It's not really. Again if it was they should have called it by another name and in this case it would still not be a rose. I assume since you called real professionals who know what they are talking about "elitists' (OMG LOL) another tool you must be. Yes, from where you stand we must seem like elitists and you know what, most of us are comfortable with that.
Um yes actually. I will probably make that recommendation since the latest Avid releases are quite compelling and the prices are quite reasonable; especially in applications where software only options work well, such as editing proxies. I love Avid and the new features (dialogue tracking, Multi format and RAW media support are truly amazing.
FCP NEVER compared to a an Avid workstation. Never. If you've ever used one, you wouldn't have made that comment. Personally it makes me chuckle to think that once again here's somebody who might believe those of us at the top of our game are Elitist. Are the top three Olympians elitists as well or are they just the best at what they do?
Motion tracking, color correction, media management, raw performance and power, etc etc etc have always been superior. That was never the issue. The issue was the $125k+ price tag and the only reason people use FCP is because it's close enough to get most of the job done (all for many that didn't need the quality Avid provided) and it was cheap. Do you really believe features are finished in FCP? Better not let the Flame, Smoke, Combustion, Davinci artists out there know they wasted their investments.
No it's not and you are correct that it was a mistake to release it now and/ or to call it PRO. But seriously we aren't "throwing hissy fits". And if we are then perhaps it's not unjustified to say Apple just "spit in the face of professionals". You decide how much venom needs to be present in your interpretation of our comments.
I get what you are saying Murch, but I don't think you should start a re-write of software by removing features. I know for sure Avid would never release a re-write using the Symphony brand with fewer features than the previous version. That is one possible definition of unprofessional IMO.
I've never been a fan of "hoping" for missing features. That's called wishful thinking. The safest assumption to make is that those features will probably never be present. If they were important at all why were they removed? Finally many of the missing features (such as you examples of Multicam, OMF and XML support) are just as relevant to file based capture as they are to tape and film scans. I don't see how you could not be aware of that unless you are not an editor or you don't work with proxies, DI's, compositors, audio engineers or negative confirmation; just to name a few applications off the top of my head.
By far the best comment yet on the subject.
I said it earlier. had apple released FCPX CONCURRENTLY with FCS3 for a period, there would be no problem.
Apple should have known this would cause a stir, so stop talking like pro's should stop complaining. I bet had they stood on the demo floor at NAB and said "isn't this great! and BTW allot of the features you've come to rely upon including compatibility with anything else including previous versions of this software are all broken and or missing" there would have been a riot and then a rush to the Avid booth. At this point Avid is probably more compatible with FCP7 than FCPX. Go figure.
The point of asking the guy for his creds was something called sarcasm. It was a response to his equally stupid comment that he doesn't "talk to his clients about his workflow". Seriously, that is ridiculous and only someone who is an arrogant rank amateur would say that. Therefore it's reasonable to assume that someone who claims to be a professional (when he clearly is not) is otherwise a hazard that should be avoided.
Regarding pros being scared of amateurs. LOL Good one.
Sorry to the pro editors who don't like the new version, but you are bitching and moaning. It's one thing to post a critical review, it's another to act like a child while doing it.
Asking for a guy's contact to blacklist him in your business, just because he has a different opinion than you? Really? How incredibly childish!
How about instead something like:
"I can't use FCPX because I need it to do this, this and this. I might have to switch to Avid or Adobe if Apple doesn't offer these features."
or
"I don't like the new UI because I use multiple monitors and I can't put blah blah on my second monitor"
Send that feedback to Apple too.
Whining with a post "This is like iMovie Pro - it sucks! Apple sucks!" is doing nothing, and won't be taken seriously. If you want Apple to update FCPX to give you the professional features that you need, then act like a professional.
Every time a pro app is within the range of amateurs, you get complaining. Many pros are afraid that their customers will go to the amateurs, forgetting it's their talent, not the tools, that provide the pro level results.
This ranting reminds me of that release. "OMG I can't believe it doesn't do this" "OMG I can't believe it doesn't do that". Like many others have said: It's V 1.0 Calm down and keep using what you're using until they get FCX right.
When I clicked the BUY NOW button, I was not in the mindset that I was buying into a v1 app... I was in the mindset of "The next evolution of FCP".
They didn't "pull" the old version from existence. It is still there. This is just a new option for you. If you don't like it, probably you could wait until it improves.
A mega-app like FCP needs to mature in the "ecosystem" for at least a year before it settles down. Start your clock now and wait a year. You'll probably get what you want.
I assume that for all the power users who need the features of FCP7 will just continue to use the old software.
Since FCPX is only $299 it is cheap enough to try it out and learn the new software whilst still using FCP7 for your main work flow.
Since FCP7 is no longer for sale, what happens to businesses who need to buy additional copies of it?
Its 64bit and uses a completely different UI and file structure. Underneath the hood FCP X has virtually no relation at all to classic FCP. That is why it is a version 1 software.
Again, just to be clear.
*YOU* are defining this as a version-1 release based on YOUR understanding of their endeavors (and I am in agreement when you look at the regressed functionality)... but as far as APPLE is concerned, they list it as version 10.0 and are NOT playing-up the "rewrite" aspect of it in their marketing.
Having a day now to absorb this... I agree that their EFFORTS are similar to when they released Aperture... a "new" product with potential - but since FCP already existed, I'll say it again: They did NOTHING to communicate effectively that this release was a regressed set of features.
With my new perspective of looking at this as Mac OSX Public Beta or Aperture v1.0 it is an easier pill to swallow - except for the fact that I would NOT have purchased it if I had known BEFOREHAND of these facts.
AFAIK, much of the titling/effects stuff that was spread among various FCS apps is now in Motion.
Right now I use TitleExchange plug in for subtitles. Subtitles are now required for all our training video work and we use it extensively for foreign language as well as English subtitles for hearing impaired viewers. Until that is working I certainly can't upgrade. I have not used Motion since we use After Effects, but the Apple titling in FCS has always been a bit subpar in my opinion. I can totally recommend TitleExchange though.
Since FCP7 is no longer for sale, what happens to production houses who need to buy additional copies of it?
Ebay I guess. There should be ample supply from upgraders.
EDIT: I just decided to order another copy while I can still find them retail
Professionals have waited four years for a real upgrade to Final Cut Pro; they cannot wait another four years for Apple to fix Final Cut Pro X, especially since they have made no indication that they intend to do so.
I sympathize with this comment. I Think Apple will need to be more forthcoming with their plans for FCPX.
I am a latecomer to FCP -- cross-grading from FC Express a few years ago. I am curious, how did Apple (with its silence policy) manage to keep FCP Pros happy enough to stay with FCP when it periodically screamed for upgrades?
Rubbish. Apple did not promote the coming of FCPX as such. It was promoted as a groundbreaking evolution of FCP. A new app? Sure. One which no longer can communicate with even other Apple pro apps much less the outside world? Um, not so much. Show me where.
That is a great example of small feature that shouldn't have been overlooked. what was a check box and a 1 minute render away is now an import, export, import process? Lord. Why can't anyone grasp what the issue here is?
Not titles - a graphic that I dropped into the timeline.
It used to be one of the BASIC parameters in FCP7 along with opacity, position, etc... you could assign (and keyframe) a drop shadow. You shouldn't have to go to a separate app to do a basic shadow effect on a timeline element.
Samwell thanks.
By far the best comment yet on the subject.
Brave enough? You mean stupid enough. Adobe would never do such a thing. It would kill the company.
Apple is willing to kill a product at the height of its success to replace it with something they believe will be even more successful. They've been pretty successful at that.
Adobe not so much.
Rubbish. Apple did not promote the coming of FCPX as such. It was promoted as a groundbreaking evolution of FCP. A new app? Sure.
It doesn't matter what they promoted. The reality of what "is" is where we are.
Everyone understands WHY it isn't compatible with other versions/plugins/exports/imports. The issue is that only a full featured version which lacks these compatibilities would be sufficient for what the upper end FCP user is. If Apple provided a schedule for updates that would help. It's only a fool who says "It's version 1, they'll fix it" if you don't know when that will be.
Yes its understood that FCP X does not meet the needs of many who use FCP today. Everyone has the choice to move on to another NLE or wait to see what Apple does. What is so complicated about that? Why be so emotional about that choice?
Of course people will stick with FCP7 in the meantime. But this was not promoted as Final Cut Express Plus. It was promoted as the new Final Cut, and AFAIK the features it lost were NOT made public by Apple right up to the release.
Technically they are not features lost as FCP X has never had them.
Are editors screwed? No, of course not. Not yet. Do editors think Apple has its finger on the pulse of the pro community? No. See Aperture. See Logic.
The Pro community has the choice of using the other available options. I believe that is what the majority would do instead of bitching on internet forums about it.
It's a version 1.0 for fk sake.
But can you fully blame this on Apple's marketing. Or your rushing to buy it before you fully researched and understood what you were purchasing?
Again, just to be clear.
*YOU* are defining this as a version-1 release based on YOUR understanding of their endeavors (and I am in agreement when you look at the regressed functionality)... but as far as APPLE is concerned, they list it as version 10.0 and are NOT playing-up the "rewrite" aspect of it in their marketing.
Having a day now to absorb this... I agree that their EFFORTS are similar to when they released Aperture... a "new" product with potential - but since FCP already existed, I'll say it again: They did NOTHING to communicate effectively that this release was a regressed set of features.
With my new perspective of looking at this as Mac OSX Public Beta or Aperture v1.0 it is an easier pill to swallow - except for the fact that I would NOT have purchased it if I had known BEFOREHAND of these facts.
Why do you guys keep saying it is a version one product? It is called Final Cut Pro X. If OSX is any indication, the X stood for the roman numeral 10. Hence OS 9 before it. If it was a version one product, it should not carry the number 10, and it should be renamed not to confuse users of the other mature Final Cut Pro that video pros were using.
I didn't actually know that, so a project can in fact be portable? Every file and piece of associated media can be external?
That is good, that is my most major issue dealt with. Because that was 100% a deal breaker.
...thought I would still prefer to be able to not use the FCP events folder and just have 1 'event' in a folder of my choosing, I currently create one big folder "example#1" and keep all media, render files, music, scratch disks, project file etc... in that 1 folder. So to move a project you just move that entire folder.
And all metadata, like clip keywords & analysis is stored in the FCP Events folder right? (I'd rather it was with the clips).
You didn't address the format support, I don't want to always have to create prores versions, i sometimes want to work in XDCAM etc..
AFAICT, you must have an Final Cut Events and a Final Cut Projects folder at the root level of an external HD.
The Events folder contains:
-- the event itself
-- Analysis Files folder
-- Render Files folder
-- Original Media foder
-- Transcoded Media folder
So, you need to copy 2 folders!
As to the formats supported:
FCPX Technical Specifications
You then bring it home all excited after buying it, and try to open up a recent project you were working on. The project doesn't open. This version of Adobe Photoshop is not backwards compatible. Further, it doesn't let you use things like the paint bucket to autofill. You'd be pissed.
The reality here is Apple hasn't billed this as a new program. It is billing it as a new version of Final Cut Pro. Further, when people were wondering if Apple was going to drop Final Cut, Apple sent word to the professional that it in fact was about to bring forth a major new update. Moreover, ever version before this was backwards compatible. You could work on projects created with prior versions.
Taking out backwards compatibility is a huge omission. If Apple intended this to be version one software, it should have called the program something different. Maybe iMovie Pro. Apple should correct this mess by 1) giving interested professional their money back, and 2) communicating to professionals what is in the pipeline.
Professionals should make clear directly to Apple what they are upset about. Apple will respond.
Technically they are not features lost as FCP X has never had them.
I can understand what you are saying.
But can you fully blame this on Apple's marketing. Or your rushing to buy it before you fully researched and understood what you were purchasing?
YES! That's my point...!!!
I DID read the whole micro-site about FCPX... I read all of Apple's literature on it. NOWHERE did it say it had reduced features... NOWHERE did it imply it was a "version 1" app... They CLEARLY were promoting ADDITIONAL and NEW features... they CLEARLY call it v10.0 (Not just "X").
While some people may be astute enough to INFER that a total rewrite (Which is NOT TALKED ABOUT on the site) means stripped-down functionality... the fact remains that Apple is replacing their time-tested and fairly ROBUST FCP7 with an app that CLAIMS to be an evolution of the platform...
AND I GAVE THEM MY HARD-EARNED MONEY BASED ON THIS.
Please stop trying to cram the "Hey, it's a v1.0 app for crying out loud" down our throats when in all REALITY... it is NOT being marketed nor versioned in such a manner. Period.