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.
You're bypassing the issue. If you check the "create optimized media" option, how do you control where those optimized files get created? Those are the ones I believe write only to the boot drive, but again I may be wrong.
Show me the link where the feature list says "doesn't open FC7 sessions". I'm dying to see that link. And the fact that you put "essential" in quotes shows how little you understand about those missing features.
Show me the link that says it can open FC7 sessions. As you should know anything not mentioned should be considered not included.
But I must say that I'am a little surprised that this feature isn't included. On the other hand, iMovie wasn't good at that either.
It seems to me that Apple will provide additional solutions to several features missing.
You must have a little faith in Apple if you buy products from Apple, otherwise don't bother and buy from someone else.
I'll buy FCX because it seems that it's exactly what I need, to produce what I want.
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?
Samwell thanks.
I believe you're referring to something other than what I was, which is EDL,OMF, XML in order to move work from one layer of the project to another, as well as being able to access one's own archives. The integration of Soundtrack is only as good as Soundtrack is, but is there any way to toss the audio quickly between the audio house using ProTools and back into the edit?
What if in 2013 a client from 2010 wants to cut a song out of a special, add another and represent for broadcast? Apple should have provided the tools for that concurrent with this release. It would have stemmed much of the ensuing clatter : )
Look, I am not saying that is what Apple's intent was. I am saying it is fair many people would assume that this is an update, and that Apple could have done a better job communicating that to die hard professionals. Do a Google search many people are referring to it as Final Cut Pro 10. Moreover, the last version was released almost three years ago. Apple wouldn't be the first company to skip over a number.
Dick, are you saying that professionals should ditch their massive SAN and network storage that allows them to have all of their projects saved in one location, and start keeping each project on it's own individual and unreliable hard disk? Because I think that's what you just suggested. And if that's the case, someone should tell the Thunderbolt backers to not bother bringing those massive storage devices to market.
I didn't mean to suggest that! I have no experience with SAN.
How does the SAN appear in the Finder -- if as a very big HDD, then FCPX should be able to handle it.
If not, I suspect that Apple would be very quick to add support for large networked storage.
Quote:
The fact that all of your projects and media show up all the time in Final Cut Pro X is not a show-stopper, but it shows a complete lack of understanding of the professional video world on Apple's part. Everyone has a multitude of clients. Even the wedding video-ographer. No one needs or wants to see all of their clients' projects in the same window at the same time. There's no instance where that would be of benefit, and its impossible to do it any other way apart from your unrealistic workaround.
Yes, I agree. There are advantages to having a project container to the exclusion of all else (some disadvantages too).
I could see Apple addressing this with sort of a "virtual" project set for a client:
-- where the user could specify a series of virtual projects
-- the virtual project set would contain
----- the events (analogous to project media and bins)
----- the FCPX project files (analogous to sequences)
Then, have an FCPX preference setting that:
1) opens last project set or asks
or
2) looks for FCPX projects and events wherever it can -- and opens last
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.
Without actually coming out and saying it, they are sending a message to the pro users that we are not interested in you. They billed this as pro software to lure in the younger up and coming video editors who are making web videos. Their statements earlier to reaffirm the professionals was to squelch the rumor that they were dumbing down the app when in fact that rumor turns out to be true.
The pros who were shown an advance preview were given a dog and pony show. Likely the top level video guys were a little too top level and not hands on editors. They came away with a favorable impression based solely on the shiny new interface and a few new features. To me that seems like intentional deception on the part of Apple.
There may indeed be a market for this new app among new users but I think Apple screwed up by removing the FCS from the store. I just bought another copy of FCS right now and will sticking with the old version for the foreseeable future. Sure it is slow to render but it is very stable and full featured. I might buy a copy of FCPX just to fool around with at home.
Come on. Go read the release notes for every other version of Final Cut Pro or probably any Adobe product. None of them say anything about opening prior projects either. Yet, they do. It is assumed you can work on the older projects. I will do the work for you with the last version of Final Cut Pro 7. It doesn't say anything there about being able to import old projects, but guess what you could.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jnjnjn
Show me the link that says it can open FC7 sessions. As you should know anything not mentioned should be considered not included.
But I must say that I'am a little surprised that this feature isn't included. On the other hand, iMovie wasn't good at that either.
It seems to me that Apple will provide additional solutions to several features missing.
You must have a little faith in Apple if you buy products from Apple, otherwise don't bother and buy from someone else.
I'll buy FCX because it seems that it's exactly what I need, to produce what I want.
Many of the complaints, are incorrect and are just based on a lack of understanding of the software. Some of the complaints Pogue states will be addressed in an update. Pogue confirms there is no backward compatibility. That would be fine if Apple made clear that was the case. It is true, Apple didn't advertise backward compatibility, but every version prior to it was backward compatible. Apple never listed backwards compatibility as a feature even though it was included. This issue isn't a major concern for new users to the software or for new projects.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mstone
Without actually coming out and saying it, they are sending a message to the pro users that we are not interested in you. They billed this as pro software to lure in the younger up and coming video editors who are making web videos. Their statements earlier to reaffirm the professionals was to squelch the rumor that they were dumbing down the app when in fact that rumor turns out to be true.
The pros who were shown an advance preview were given a dog and pony show. Likely the top level video guys were a little too top level and not hands on editors. They came away with a favorable impression based solely on the shiny new interface and a few new features. To me that seems like intentional deception on the part of Apple.
There may indeed be a market for this new app among new users but I think Apple screwed up by removing the FCS from the store. I just bought another copy of FCS right now and will sticking with the old version for the foreseeable future. Sure it is slow to render but it is very stable and full featured. I might buy a copy of FCPX just to fool around with at home.
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.
I don't know that you do have to go to a separate app -- at least not more than once!
I haven't had more than 5 minutes with the new Motion.
But, there is a thing in Motion that you create templates for FCPX. Then in FCPX you drop something into the templet for the desired effect. I think the template becomes part of the FCPX effects library.
JMHO, but obviously this is Final Cut Express 5, not Final Cut Pro 8. Apple dropped Final Cut Express 4 at the same time as Final Cut Pro 7 and its obvious the price point for Final Cut Pro X is much closer to Express than Pro. This is where Apple's market is, supposedly (see article below).
For the pros that have multiuser workflows etc, you need to read between the lines and understand that Apple has pitched you over the side. The question is whether they'll restore needed multi-user functionality or not. Apple does this when they want (just abandon a chunk of their users even if they are viable), just ask the G5 PowerPC users about Snow Leopard.
What features exist or don't exist in a product aren't determined by whether its a 1.0 release as many are saying here, its determined by management when the requirements for the application are created (at the beginning of the project) - the fact that there isn't a large chunk of needed Pro level functionality in the application is Apple Management's choice (not the 1.0 version choice).
Apple Insider nailed it more than a year ago (Apple is scaling it back to a Prosumer Application):
For those that might need an additional license of Final Cut Studio in the future go and get one now - Apple is buying them back from the retail channel and they won't be available for much longer. I'm seeing them on eBay as well. Apple has done this in the past (bought back the old version product from the channel and then their gone, with high prices on eBay at that point - Leopard being a case in point, which at one point, like a year ago, was 3 times its original retail price on eBay, although it has come down now).
I feel for the Pro's on this and Apple certainly could have stuck with Pro level functionality if they had wanted to, but they obviously chose not to.
Yes, I agree. There are advantages to having a project container to the exclusion of all else (some disadvantages too).
I could see Apple addressing this with sort of a "virtual" project set for a client:
-- where the user could specify a series of virtual projects
-- the virtual project set would contain
----- the events (analogous to project media and bins)
----- the FCPX project files (analogous to sequences)
Then, have an FCPX preference setting that:
1) opens last project set or asks
or
2) looks for FCPX projects and events wherever it can -- and opens last
What you're talking about is like how Aperture allows you to save multiple libraries, with only certain events in each. That ability in Final Cut Pro X would be a step in the right direction; you could have a separate library for each client, with all of the media contained within. But in my case and in the case of most of the editors I know, we don't want access to all of one client's media all at once; we just want to see the media for the current project and have absolutely no need to access media from other projects at that time. So if it were possible to create separate event libraries, most editors would end up creating a new library for every project. Which begs the question; why on earth didn't Apple just stick to storing the "Events" in the project files themselves?
JMHO, but obviously this is Final Cut Express 5, not Final Cut Pro 8. Apple dropped Final Cut Express 4 at the same time as Final Cut Pro 7 and its obvious the price point for Final Cut Pro X is much closer to Express than Pro. This is where Apple's market is, supposedly (see article below).
For the pros that have multiuser workflows etc, you need to read between the lines and understand that Apple has pitched you over the side. The question is whether they'll restore needed multi-user functionality or not. Apple does this when they want (just abandon a chunk of their users even if they are viable), just ask the G5 PowerPC users about Snow Leopard.
What features exist or don't exist in a product aren't determined by whether its a 1.0 release as many are saying here, its determined by management when the requirements for the application are created (at the beginning of the project) - the fact that there isn't a large chunk of needed Pro level functionality in the application is Apple Management's choice (not the 1.0 version choice).
Apple Insider nailed it more than a year ago (Apple is scaling it back to a Prosumer Application):
For those that might need an additional license of Final Cut Studio in the future go and get one now - Apple is buying them back from the retail channel and they won't be available for much longer. I'm seeing them on eBay as well. Apple has done this in the past (bought back the old version product from the channel and then their gone, with high prices on eBay at that point - Leopard being a case in point, which at one point, like a year ago, was 3 times its original retail price on eBay, although it has come down now).
I feel for the Pro's on this and Apple certainly could have stuck with Pro level functionality if they had wanted to, but they obviously chose not to.
I dug up that article earlier today as well and they really did call it. I also agree that the huge number of missing pro features isn't because this is a one-dot-zero release, but was a management decision. If this product were targeted at pros then missing features like EDL, XML, OMF generating, the ability to open Final Cut Pro projects, and deck control would have been prioritized over included features like iMovie compatibility, one-click access to gaudy templates and iLife libraries, and FaceBook integration.
Still, it's incredibly confusing because what Apple is doing does not jive with what they had been saying. If it was their plan all along to disown the professional video market, why did Steve Jobs personally re-assure pros last Fall that they were totally behind them and working on an "awesome" new release of Final Cut Pro? Why did they demo this software at the National Broadcaster's Association to a room of 1,800 Final Cut Pro users in April, when likely none of them could use this software in its current state? It just doesn't add up.
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.
Yeah, I bought a couple of Titling plugins for FCS -- the supplied Titling effects were pretty basic.
In fact, I would frequently use iMovie to create titles for something edited/composited in FCP.
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.
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.
Actually no I don't buy new software simply because its "new". I would strongly suggest no one else does that either.
I research what's so "new" about the software and if I actually need it. If I feel it will increase my productivity then I'll buy it - otherwise I can wait.
Quote:
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.
Apple did pretty much show all of FCP X features and functionalities at NAB. People assumed that it would contain more features than what they'd shown. Apple never said that - Apple did not show FCP X doing anything more than what it can do.
Quote:
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.
iMovie and FCP X are nothing alike under the hood. Why would they do that?
Apple never communicates what's in the pipeline. Haven't you been around for awhile?
Quote:
Professionals should make clear directly to Apple what they are upset about. Apple will respond.
My prediction of how this will play out:
Apple already has a broad development plan for FCP X.
Apple implements missing features in a new way. That everyone grows to appreciate.
FCP X is declared an amazing way to edit film/video.
People who complained take credit for the updates because they believe they forced Apple to add features that Apple had already designed FCP X to add.
Regardless of the marketing. FCP X is a version 1 product.
You are free to use that 10 designation as justification of your moral outrage if you so choose. Be that as it may from a code development standpoint this is an entirely new product.
You're bypassing the issue. If you check the "create optimized media" option, how do you control where those optimized files get created? Those are the ones I believe write only to the boot drive, but again I may be wrong.
No, they go into the Final Cut Events folder on whichever drive you have selected (boot drive default).
1) You select a destination drive
2) You select File--->Import
3) you select a source: camera, device (iPhone iPad), files, card reader, archive, iMovie Event...
4) you specify copy or link for files
5) you specify Transcode if desired
6) you select: add to an existing event named, or create a new event named:
Everything goes to the selected drive.
My Snapz Pro needs a new serial number, else I'd show you a dialog and directory. But here's what's on my LaCie 3 drive root level:
Apple showed FCP X and its feature set at NAB. If you had done thorough research at the very least you would have seen that Apple did not list the features that you wish were there. Nowhere did Apple list any features of FCP X that are not there. So you did see its full list of features before you bought it.
At that point you could had noticed that some crucial features are not listed. And waited to see what is going on before you purchased.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lightwaver67
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").
JMHO, but obviously this is Final Cut Express 5, not Final Cut Pro 8. Apple dropped Final Cut Express 4 at the same time as Final Cut Pro 7 and its obvious the price point for Final Cut Pro X is much closer to Express than Pro. This is where Apple's market is, supposedly (see article below).
For the pros that have multiuser workflows etc, you need to read between the lines and understand that Apple has pitched you over the side. The question is whether they'll restore needed multi-user functionality or not. Apple does this when they want (just abandon a chunk of their users even if they are viable), just ask the G5 PowerPC users about Snow Leopard.
What features exist or don't exist in a product aren't determined by whether its a 1.0 release as many are saying here, its determined by management when the requirements for the application are created (at the beginning of the project) - the fact that there isn't a large chunk of needed Pro level functionality in the application is Apple Management's choice (not the 1.0 version choice).
Apple Insider nailed it more than a year ago (Apple is scaling it back to a Prosumer Application):
For those that might need an additional license of Final Cut Studio in the future go and get one now - Apple is buying them back from the retail channel and they won't be available for much longer. I'm seeing them on eBay as well. Apple has done this in the past (bought back the old version product from the channel and then their gone, with high prices on eBay at that point - Leopard being a case in point, which at one point, like a year ago, was 3 times its original retail price on eBay, although it has come down now).
I feel for the Pro's on this and Apple certainly could have stuck with Pro level functionality if they had wanted to, but they obviously chose not to.
Thanks for that link. We should have been preparing for this depressing development.
The crime is that they are pulling the old out of our hands with a silence that feels like arrogance and carelessness toward those who had been some of Apple's most devoted, the pro editors. (Even though there was always plenty about FCP to complain about.)
I don't think your idea of calling it Final Cut Express is a good one, because Express used the same elements as Pro, with the same brilliant timeline-and-track-based interface.
FCP X seems like a fundamentally different way of looking at your media. They are focusing on speed, not precision. And turning control over to the machine, control that used to be in our heads.
As R. Crum said about modern civilization, "It isn't much fun, but it sure is efficient."
Comments
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.
You're bypassing the issue. If you check the "create optimized media" option, how do you control where those optimized files get created? Those are the ones I believe write only to the boot drive, but again I may be wrong.
Show me the link where the feature list says "doesn't open FC7 sessions". I'm dying to see that link. And the fact that you put "essential" in quotes shows how little you understand about those missing features.
Show me the link that says it can open FC7 sessions. As you should know anything not mentioned should be considered not included.
But I must say that I'am a little surprised that this feature isn't included. On the other hand, iMovie wasn't good at that either.
It seems to me that Apple will provide additional solutions to several features missing.
You must have a little faith in Apple if you buy products from Apple, otherwise don't bother and buy from someone else.
I'll buy FCX because it seems that it's exactly what I need, to produce what I want.
(And no, I don't call myself a pro.)
J.
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?
Samwell thanks.
I believe you're referring to something other than what I was, which is EDL,OMF, XML in order to move work from one layer of the project to another, as well as being able to access one's own archives. The integration of Soundtrack is only as good as Soundtrack is, but is there any way to toss the audio quickly between the audio house using ProTools and back into the edit?
What if in 2013 a client from 2010 wants to cut a song out of a special, add another and represent for broadcast? Apple should have provided the tools for that concurrent with this release. It would have stemmed much of the ensuing clatter : )
David Pogue answers some of the criticism to Final Cut Pro X here.
The problem with that chain of logic is that the previous FCP was 7. So they skipped 8 and 9. How does that figure?
Dick, are you saying that professionals should ditch their massive SAN and network storage that allows them to have all of their projects saved in one location, and start keeping each project on it's own individual and unreliable hard disk? Because I think that's what you just suggested. And if that's the case, someone should tell the Thunderbolt backers to not bother bringing those massive storage devices to market.
I didn't mean to suggest that! I have no experience with SAN.
How does the SAN appear in the Finder -- if as a very big HDD, then FCPX should be able to handle it.
If not, I suspect that Apple would be very quick to add support for large networked storage.
The fact that all of your projects and media show up all the time in Final Cut Pro X is not a show-stopper, but it shows a complete lack of understanding of the professional video world on Apple's part. Everyone has a multitude of clients. Even the wedding video-ographer. No one needs or wants to see all of their clients' projects in the same window at the same time. There's no instance where that would be of benefit, and its impossible to do it any other way apart from your unrealistic workaround.
Yes, I agree. There are advantages to having a project container to the exclusion of all else (some disadvantages too).
I could see Apple addressing this with sort of a "virtual" project set for a client:
-- where the user could specify a series of virtual projects
-- the virtual project set would contain
----- the events (analogous to project media and bins)
----- the FCPX project files (analogous to sequences)
Then, have an FCPX preference setting that:
1) opens last project set or asks
or
2) looks for FCPX projects and events wherever it can -- and opens last
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.
Without actually coming out and saying it, they are sending a message to the pro users that we are not interested in you. They billed this as pro software to lure in the younger up and coming video editors who are making web videos. Their statements earlier to reaffirm the professionals was to squelch the rumor that they were dumbing down the app when in fact that rumor turns out to be true.
The pros who were shown an advance preview were given a dog and pony show. Likely the top level video guys were a little too top level and not hands on editors. They came away with a favorable impression based solely on the shiny new interface and a few new features. To me that seems like intentional deception on the part of Apple.
There may indeed be a market for this new app among new users but I think Apple screwed up by removing the FCS from the store. I just bought another copy of FCS right now and will sticking with the old version for the foreseeable future. Sure it is slow to render but it is very stable and full featured. I might buy a copy of FCPX just to fool around with at home.
Show me the link that says it can open FC7 sessions. As you should know anything not mentioned should be considered not included.
But I must say that I'am a little surprised that this feature isn't included. On the other hand, iMovie wasn't good at that either.
It seems to me that Apple will provide additional solutions to several features missing.
You must have a little faith in Apple if you buy products from Apple, otherwise don't bother and buy from someone else.
I'll buy FCX because it seems that it's exactly what I need, to produce what I want.
(And no, I don't call myself a pro.)
J.
Many of the complaints, are incorrect and are just based on a lack of understanding of the software. Some of the complaints Pogue states will be addressed in an update. Pogue confirms there is no backward compatibility. That would be fine if Apple made clear that was the case. It is true, Apple didn't advertise backward compatibility, but every version prior to it was backward compatible. Apple never listed backwards compatibility as a feature even though it was included. This issue isn't a major concern for new users to the software or for new projects.
Without actually coming out and saying it, they are sending a message to the pro users that we are not interested in you. They billed this as pro software to lure in the younger up and coming video editors who are making web videos. Their statements earlier to reaffirm the professionals was to squelch the rumor that they were dumbing down the app when in fact that rumor turns out to be true.
The pros who were shown an advance preview were given a dog and pony show. Likely the top level video guys were a little too top level and not hands on editors. They came away with a favorable impression based solely on the shiny new interface and a few new features. To me that seems like intentional deception on the part of Apple.
There may indeed be a market for this new app among new users but I think Apple screwed up by removing the FCS from the store. I just bought another copy of FCS right now and will sticking with the old version for the foreseeable future. Sure it is slow to render but it is very stable and full featured. I might buy a copy of FCPX just to fool around with at home.
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.
I don't know that you do have to go to a separate app -- at least not more than once!
I haven't had more than 5 minutes with the new Motion.
But, there is a thing in Motion that you create templates for FCPX. Then in FCPX you drop something into the templet for the desired effect. I think the template becomes part of the FCPX effects library.
Motion Specs
For the pros that have multiuser workflows etc, you need to read between the lines and understand that Apple has pitched you over the side. The question is whether they'll restore needed multi-user functionality or not. Apple does this when they want (just abandon a chunk of their users even if they are viable), just ask the G5 PowerPC users about Snow Leopard.
What features exist or don't exist in a product aren't determined by whether its a 1.0 release as many are saying here, its determined by management when the requirements for the application are created (at the beginning of the project) - the fact that there isn't a large chunk of needed Pro level functionality in the application is Apple Management's choice (not the 1.0 version choice).
Apple Insider nailed it more than a year ago (Apple is scaling it back to a Prosumer Application):
http://www.appleinsider.com/articles...prosumers.html
For those that might need an additional license of Final Cut Studio in the future go and get one now - Apple is buying them back from the retail channel and they won't be available for much longer. I'm seeing them on eBay as well. Apple has done this in the past (bought back the old version product from the channel and then their gone, with high prices on eBay at that point - Leopard being a case in point, which at one point, like a year ago, was 3 times its original retail price on eBay, although it has come down now).
I feel for the Pro's on this and Apple certainly could have stuck with Pro level functionality if they had wanted to, but they obviously chose not to.
Yes, I agree. There are advantages to having a project container to the exclusion of all else (some disadvantages too).
I could see Apple addressing this with sort of a "virtual" project set for a client:
-- where the user could specify a series of virtual projects
-- the virtual project set would contain
----- the events (analogous to project media and bins)
----- the FCPX project files (analogous to sequences)
Then, have an FCPX preference setting that:
1) opens last project set or asks
or
2) looks for FCPX projects and events wherever it can -- and opens last
What you're talking about is like how Aperture allows you to save multiple libraries, with only certain events in each. That ability in Final Cut Pro X would be a step in the right direction; you could have a separate library for each client, with all of the media contained within. But in my case and in the case of most of the editors I know, we don't want access to all of one client's media all at once; we just want to see the media for the current project and have absolutely no need to access media from other projects at that time. So if it were possible to create separate event libraries, most editors would end up creating a new library for every project. Which begs the question; why on earth didn't Apple just stick to storing the "Events" in the project files themselves?
JMHO, but obviously this is Final Cut Express 5, not Final Cut Pro 8. Apple dropped Final Cut Express 4 at the same time as Final Cut Pro 7 and its obvious the price point for Final Cut Pro X is much closer to Express than Pro. This is where Apple's market is, supposedly (see article below).
For the pros that have multiuser workflows etc, you need to read between the lines and understand that Apple has pitched you over the side. The question is whether they'll restore needed multi-user functionality or not. Apple does this when they want (just abandon a chunk of their users even if they are viable), just ask the G5 PowerPC users about Snow Leopard.
What features exist or don't exist in a product aren't determined by whether its a 1.0 release as many are saying here, its determined by management when the requirements for the application are created (at the beginning of the project) - the fact that there isn't a large chunk of needed Pro level functionality in the application is Apple Management's choice (not the 1.0 version choice).
Apple Insider nailed it more than a year ago (Apple is scaling it back to a Prosumer Application):
http://www.appleinsider.com/articles...prosumers.html
For those that might need an additional license of Final Cut Studio in the future go and get one now - Apple is buying them back from the retail channel and they won't be available for much longer. I'm seeing them on eBay as well. Apple has done this in the past (bought back the old version product from the channel and then their gone, with high prices on eBay at that point - Leopard being a case in point, which at one point, like a year ago, was 3 times its original retail price on eBay, although it has come down now).
I feel for the Pro's on this and Apple certainly could have stuck with Pro level functionality if they had wanted to, but they obviously chose not to.
I dug up that article earlier today as well and they really did call it. I also agree that the huge number of missing pro features isn't because this is a one-dot-zero release, but was a management decision. If this product were targeted at pros then missing features like EDL, XML, OMF generating, the ability to open Final Cut Pro projects, and deck control would have been prioritized over included features like iMovie compatibility, one-click access to gaudy templates and iLife libraries, and FaceBook integration.
Still, it's incredibly confusing because what Apple is doing does not jive with what they had been saying. If it was their plan all along to disown the professional video market, why did Steve Jobs personally re-assure pros last Fall that they were totally behind them and working on an "awesome" new release of Final Cut Pro? Why did they demo this software at the National Broadcaster's Association to a room of 1,800 Final Cut Pro users in April, when likely none of them could use this software in its current state? It just doesn't add up.
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.
Yeah, I bought a couple of Titling plugins for FCS -- the supplied Titling effects were pretty basic.
In fact, I would frequently use iMovie to create titles for something edited/composited in FCP.
That's not generally how version 1.0 software works.
You need a course in remedial reading.
Technically they are not features lost as FCP X has never had them.
What planet are you on?
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.
The best I can come up with:
FCP ][
or
FCP///
or
FCP/jr
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.
Actually no I don't buy new software simply because its "new". I would strongly suggest no one else does that either.
I research what's so "new" about the software and if I actually need it. If I feel it will increase my productivity then I'll buy it - otherwise I can wait.
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.
Apple did pretty much show all of FCP X features and functionalities at NAB. People assumed that it would contain more features than what they'd shown. Apple never said that - Apple did not show FCP X doing anything more than what it can do.
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.
iMovie and FCP X are nothing alike under the hood. Why would they do that?
Apple never communicates what's in the pipeline. Haven't you been around for awhile?
Professionals should make clear directly to Apple what they are upset about. Apple will respond.
My prediction of how this will play out:
Apple already has a broad development plan for FCP X.
Apple implements missing features in a new way. That everyone grows to appreciate.
FCP X is declared an amazing way to edit film/video.
People who complained take credit for the updates because they believe they forced Apple to add features that Apple had already designed FCP X to add.
You are free to use that 10 designation as justification of your moral outrage if you so choose. Be that as it may from a code development standpoint this is an entirely new product.
You need a course in remedial reading.
What planet are you on?
You're bypassing the issue. If you check the "create optimized media" option, how do you control where those optimized files get created? Those are the ones I believe write only to the boot drive, but again I may be wrong.
No, they go into the Final Cut Events folder on whichever drive you have selected (boot drive default).
1) You select a destination drive
2) You select File--->Import
3) you select a source: camera, device (iPhone iPad), files, card reader, archive, iMovie Event...
4) you specify copy or link for files
5) you specify Transcode if desired
6) you select: add to an existing event named, or create a new event named:
Everything goes to the selected drive.
My Snapz Pro needs a new serial number, else I'd show you a dialog and directory. But here's what's on my LaCie 3 drive root level:
Final Cut Events folder
-- Test Project folder
---- Analysis Files folder
---- CurrentVersion.fcpevent
---- Original Media folder
------- original media files or symlinks
---- Render Files folder
---- Transcoded Media folder
------- transcoded files if any
Final Cut Projects
-- a folder for each project on this hdd
---- CurrentVersion.fcpproject
At that point you could had noticed that some crucial features are not listed. And waited to see what is going on before you purchased.
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").
JMHO, but obviously this is Final Cut Express 5, not Final Cut Pro 8. Apple dropped Final Cut Express 4 at the same time as Final Cut Pro 7 and its obvious the price point for Final Cut Pro X is much closer to Express than Pro. This is where Apple's market is, supposedly (see article below).
For the pros that have multiuser workflows etc, you need to read between the lines and understand that Apple has pitched you over the side. The question is whether they'll restore needed multi-user functionality or not. Apple does this when they want (just abandon a chunk of their users even if they are viable), just ask the G5 PowerPC users about Snow Leopard.
What features exist or don't exist in a product aren't determined by whether its a 1.0 release as many are saying here, its determined by management when the requirements for the application are created (at the beginning of the project) - the fact that there isn't a large chunk of needed Pro level functionality in the application is Apple Management's choice (not the 1.0 version choice).
Apple Insider nailed it more than a year ago (Apple is scaling it back to a Prosumer Application):
http://www.appleinsider.com/articles...prosumers.html
For those that might need an additional license of Final Cut Studio in the future go and get one now - Apple is buying them back from the retail channel and they won't be available for much longer. I'm seeing them on eBay as well. Apple has done this in the past (bought back the old version product from the channel and then their gone, with high prices on eBay at that point - Leopard being a case in point, which at one point, like a year ago, was 3 times its original retail price on eBay, although it has come down now).
I feel for the Pro's on this and Apple certainly could have stuck with Pro level functionality if they had wanted to, but they obviously chose not to.
Thanks for that link. We should have been preparing for this depressing development.
The crime is that they are pulling the old out of our hands with a silence that feels like arrogance and carelessness toward those who had been some of Apple's most devoted, the pro editors. (Even though there was always plenty about FCP to complain about.)
I don't think your idea of calling it Final Cut Express is a good one, because Express used the same elements as Pro, with the same brilliant timeline-and-track-based interface.
FCP X seems like a fundamentally different way of looking at your media. They are focusing on speed, not precision. And turning control over to the machine, control that used to be in our heads.
As R. Crum said about modern civilization, "It isn't much fun, but it sure is efficient."