Why the heck would you want to... but no you can't. You'd probably have to do it from scratch. It was semi possible to switch between the two with Automatic Duck before (a third party app) - but there were always headaches which brought me back to to the original thought of why the hell would you want to..
I see, thank you.
I guess the other way is something I could imagine happening, however unlikely. I.e. you start a project on FCPX, find there is something you can't do so decide to buy Avid, are you starting from scratch, and it seems the answer is yes.
It was only cheaper and for most of the work, it was enough. But for the highest end work, it wasn't.
The higher end the work gets, the less important the non-linerar editing platform becomes, because ultimately it is just doing the simplest task of all, cuts and transitions. All the high end stuff gets done in other applications. There is a certain amount of snobbery in Hollywood and people feel proud of themselves to pay a lot of money for their projects.
Personally I feel, FCP, Aftereffects and Pro Logic will take you a quite a ways. It is a poor craftsperson who blames their tools. I was critical of FCP X at first because it didn't do two of the main things I needed. But now it does those two things.
I find that the AVID vs FCP world is just as complex and full of arrogance as Mac vs. Windows. I have been a broadcast editor for 10 years, and started cutting on an Avid MCA, and for the last three years I have been exclusively FCP.
I know editors, both freelance and in large post facilities that use both systems. I know people who joke arrogantly about FCP as a kids tool, or a cheap version of the real thing. I know FCP users who laugh back at them and say that they are missing out on serious benefits.
These are all professionals, working in pro environments and workflows. Interchanging project materials, footage, XML and edls, omf, HDcam and r3d footage and everything in-between. The true pro workflow requires that you can do it all, work with other shops, and get your own part done efficiently, and without problems. Both FCP and AVID systems do this, with varying strengths and weaknesses.
I have been talking to other shops about the FCPX debacle and NOBODY has heard of anyone or any studio changing their software because of FCPX. It is a joke to suggest otherwise. Anyone who has changed, was either already in the market for serious upgrades, or they are not in a professional environment, connected to edit servers, or otherwise concerned about managing big picture, large scope projects.
My only point with this post is that I'm absolutely sick of hearing the naysayers comments on FCPX every time there is an article that mentions it. No it didn't make you switch, and if it did, you are not even close to typical, and are likely not what I would consider a professional. There is nothing wrong with FCP7, in fact it is far more capable than most shops will ever need it to be (I'm looking at you, 4k editing), and absolutely no reason for anyone (freelance, large studio, or otherwise) to leave FCP7 because of the release of FCP X. If anything, these new updates to FCPX will begin to see edit houses play with it. Nobody is rushing to switch, as upgrade paths are always mapped out in terms of years (4 is typical), not weeks or months.
All that said. AVID is far bigger in the film editing world, but in the digital, video, HD, and broadcast world, I would be surprised to hear if they are much bigger, if not smaller than FCP. Adobe Premiere is not even a consideration for most video shops, although quite viable for animation houses.
Avid has had the professional market for years. Hollywood movies and TV shows typically use Avid.
Remember when it was a big when the first Hollywood movie was cut on FCP?
That only proves that Hollywood uses Avid.
FCP made inroads into the pro-market... but Avid has had it locked up for quite some time.
I'm sorry, Michael... That's just not true. Why do you think the high end cameras like ARRI Alexa produced ProRes footage? Now, with the advent of FCX, they're switching over to Avid DNX media.
Many movies and commercials and music videos and television shows were cut on Final Cut Pro. Often shows that were cut on Avids were then finished in FCP. That's changing now. But until the advent of FCX and Apple's downfall in the broadcast professional market, FCP kinda owned that market.
I'm sorry, Michael... That's just not true. Why do you think the high end cameras like ARRI Alexa produced ProRes footage? Now, with the advent of FCX, they're switching over to Avid DNX media.
Many movies and commercials and music videos and television shows were cut on Final Cut Pro. Often shows that were cut on Avids were then finished in FCP. That's changing now. But until the advent of FCX and Apple's downfall in the broadcast professional market, FCP kinda owned that market.
"... Final Cut Pro X brings the prosumer loads of power, ease-of-use, and no-wait performance."
This glowing write up is aimed at the prosumers which is what the professional multi-seat edit suits were worried about. For me as a one man band it's great and hopefully the new updates will solve all the issues, I truly hope it does but this accolade isn't aimed at those pro studio, as stated in their own words, it's a prosumer award.
Gag me with a spoon. Final Cut Pro X still blows and as a professional editor you'll never catch me using it. People in this town are switching back to Avid in droves.
Really I tire of these so called professionals that can't use the tools common to their business. It would be like a CNC machinist saying he can't use a CNC mill, or a Mac programmer saying he doesn't understand Objective C. It is unadulterated Bull C*&p.
The higher end the work gets, the less important the non-linerar editing platform becomes, because ultimately it is just doing the simplest task of all, cuts and transitions. All the high end stuff gets done in other applications. There is a certain amount of snobbery in Hollywood and people feel proud of themselves to pay a lot of money for their projects.
Personally I feel, FCP, Aftereffects and Pro Logic will take you a quite a ways. It is a poor craftsperson who blames their tools. I was critical of FCP X at first because it didn't do two of the main things I needed. But now it does those two things.
+++ QFT
In the words of Norman Hollyn: "just let me do my cuts"'
Gag me with a spoon. Final Cut Pro X still blows and as a professional editor you'll never catch me using it. People in this town are switching back to Avid in droves.
What absolute nonsense from the whining few who apparently can't see past the ends of their noses what a dramatic change FCP makes to the editing process for pros. Small mindedness seems to abound in our market.
The higher end the work gets, the less important the non-linerar editing platform becomes, because ultimately it is just doing the simplest task of all, cuts and transitions. All the high end stuff gets done in other applications. There is a certain amount of snobbery in Hollywood and people feel proud of themselves to pay a lot of money for their projects.
Personally I feel, FCP, Aftereffects and Pro Logic will take you a quite a ways. It is a poor craftsperson who blames their tools. I was critical of FCP X at first because it didn't do two of the main things I needed. But now it does those two things.
Yeah, they definitely suffer from "really small penis complex".
Aw hell, doesn't matter in the end. Eventually all these people will all be gone, along with their blinded vision of what they think constitutes "Professional" work. And they'll be replaced with younger more open minded, visionary editors.
ps, I do tech support for some commercial editing houses. I've seen what passes for "professional".
I find that the AVID vs FCP world is just as complex and full of arrogance as Mac vs. Windows. I have been a broadcast editor for 10 years, and started cutting on an Avid MCA, and for the last three years I have been exclusively FCP.
I know editors, both freelance and in large post facilities that use both systems. I know people who joke arrogantly about FCP as a kids tool, or a cheap version of the real thing. I know FCP users who laugh back at them and say that they are missing out on serious benefits.
These are all professionals, working in pro environments and workflows. Interchanging project materials, footage, XML and edls, omf, HDcam and r3d footage and everything in-between. The true pro workflow requires that you can do it all, work with other shops, and get your own part done efficiently, and without problems. Both FCP and AVID systems do this, with varying strengths and weaknesses.
I have been talking to other shops about the FCPX debacle and NOBODY has heard of anyone or any studio changing their software because of FCPX. It is a joke to suggest otherwise. Anyone who has changed, was either already in the market for serious upgrades, or they are not in a professional environment, connected to edit servers, or otherwise concerned about managing big picture, large scope projects.
My only point with this post is that I'm absolutely sick of hearing the naysayers comments on FCPX every time there is an article that mentions it. No it didn't make you switch, and if it did, you are not even close to typical, and are likely not what I would consider a professional. There is nothing wrong with FCP7, in fact it is far more capable than most shops will ever need it to be (I'm looking at you, 4k editing), and absolutely no reason for anyone (freelance, large studio, or otherwise) to leave FCP7 because of the release of FCP X. If anything, these new updates to FCPX will begin to see edit houses play with it. Nobody is rushing to switch, as upgrade paths are always mapped out in terms of years (4 is typical), not weeks or months.
All that said. AVID is far bigger in the film editing world, but in the digital, video, HD, and broadcast world, I would be surprised to hear if they are much bigger, if not smaller than FCP. Adobe Premiere is not even a consideration for most video shops, although quite viable for animation houses.
The end.
Beautifully put. Thank you for bringing some rational perspective and discourse to the discussion. For those of us now using it with the most recent updates, FCP X is a dream to work with.
Beautifully put. Thank you for bringing some rational perspective and discourse to the discussion. For those of us now using it with the most recent updates, FCP X is a dream to work with.
For us prosumers who were comfortable with FCP7, but struggling and really wanting to like FCP X - is there a good guide I've missed on how to transition? Just basic operations I'm having issues with. I don't use it much but when I do its for work and I'd like to get to know it better. I end up jus using FCP 7 because I know it whereas I go into FCP X and futz around like an idiot for 10 minutes.
You know Valley Girl expression had an expiration date. "Best before Dec 31, 1989"
But, I find it mildly amusing that "PC Magazine" should be telling pros what NLE to use. It's not usually the source for pros, unless they define pros and "prosumer."
I do hope Apple grow FCPX back into something that pros can use without hesitation. I view it as a botched "1.0" release.
As I posted previously, it's…Interesting that not all the pros were so-closed minded as portrayed here.
Quote:
"This release checks of few of the last enormous boxes that let us as a company genuinely do the deep dive and try it on a massive project," Evan Schechtman, CTO of New York-based post-production studio Radical Media. Schechtman made no bones about having reservations when Final Cut Pro X was initially launched: "It gave us pause and concern." But he was still impressed from the get-go with the app's philosophy, "Even from the first day, the core editing, story-telling engine, the media management, and the timeline, we've actually been in love with." And with its performance: "It's probably the best performance of any NLE on the same hardware; it's night and day compared with Final Cut Pro 7."
"I have asked 7 professional editors (yes seven!) who are using FCP X why they are using it and to share their thoughts about it and the recent update which gave us, finally, multicam and various other features. Why settle for one when you can have a diverse group like this offering up their thoughts? Sit back with coffee in hand and see what these guys think! Big thanks to all the contributors!!
perhaps you should before you endorse the idea that it is as unworthy as some contend.
...with the advent of FCX, they're switching over to Avid DNX media...
I'm sorry, this is abject nonsense. That's all there is to it.
Dude... on what do you base this? I saw a demo last week in Hollywood. Why would ARRI continue to support a platform that doesn't mesh with their workflow? Granted I don't own an Alexa myself, but that's what the folks at Moviola said... that ARRI are switching their cameras over to Avid Media from ProRes. I mean, they may have been lying, but the move makes sense.
...with each feature restoration, Apple has not just brought parity with earlier support, but...
I should point out that FCP supported 128 "angles" to their MultiClip. FCX only supports 64. You can easily get more than 64 takes of performance in a music video. A 50% reduction is hardly what I would call parity.
And, I still don't see EDLs or import of earlier FCP projects. Sorry, still a fail.
Comments
Why the heck would you want to... but no you can't. You'd probably have to do it from scratch. It was semi possible to switch between the two with Automatic Duck before (a third party app) - but there were always headaches which brought me back to to the original thought of why the hell would you want to..
I see, thank you.
I guess the other way is something I could imagine happening, however unlikely. I.e. you start a project on FCPX, find there is something you can't do so decide to buy Avid, are you starting from scratch, and it seems the answer is yes.
It was only cheaper and for most of the work, it was enough. But for the highest end work, it wasn't.
The higher end the work gets, the less important the non-linerar editing platform becomes, because ultimately it is just doing the simplest task of all, cuts and transitions. All the high end stuff gets done in other applications. There is a certain amount of snobbery in Hollywood and people feel proud of themselves to pay a lot of money for their projects.
Personally I feel, FCP, Aftereffects and Pro Logic will take you a quite a ways. It is a poor craftsperson who blames their tools. I was critical of FCP X at first because it didn't do two of the main things I needed. But now it does those two things.
I know editors, both freelance and in large post facilities that use both systems. I know people who joke arrogantly about FCP as a kids tool, or a cheap version of the real thing. I know FCP users who laugh back at them and say that they are missing out on serious benefits.
These are all professionals, working in pro environments and workflows. Interchanging project materials, footage, XML and edls, omf, HDcam and r3d footage and everything in-between. The true pro workflow requires that you can do it all, work with other shops, and get your own part done efficiently, and without problems. Both FCP and AVID systems do this, with varying strengths and weaknesses.
I have been talking to other shops about the FCPX debacle and NOBODY has heard of anyone or any studio changing their software because of FCPX. It is a joke to suggest otherwise. Anyone who has changed, was either already in the market for serious upgrades, or they are not in a professional environment, connected to edit servers, or otherwise concerned about managing big picture, large scope projects.
My only point with this post is that I'm absolutely sick of hearing the naysayers comments on FCPX every time there is an article that mentions it. No it didn't make you switch, and if it did, you are not even close to typical, and are likely not what I would consider a professional. There is nothing wrong with FCP7, in fact it is far more capable than most shops will ever need it to be (I'm looking at you, 4k editing), and absolutely no reason for anyone (freelance, large studio, or otherwise) to leave FCP7 because of the release of FCP X. If anything, these new updates to FCPX will begin to see edit houses play with it. Nobody is rushing to switch, as upgrade paths are always mapped out in terms of years (4 is typical), not weeks or months.
All that said. AVID is far bigger in the film editing world, but in the digital, video, HD, and broadcast world, I would be surprised to hear if they are much bigger, if not smaller than FCP. Adobe Premiere is not even a consideration for most video shops, although quite viable for animation houses.
The end.
I thought it was common knowledge.
Avid has had the professional market for years. Hollywood movies and TV shows typically use Avid.
Remember when it was a big when the first Hollywood movie was cut on FCP?
That only proves that Hollywood uses Avid.
FCP made inroads into the pro-market... but Avid has had it locked up for quite some time.
I'm sorry, Michael... That's just not true. Why do you think the high end cameras like ARRI Alexa produced ProRes footage? Now, with the advent of FCX, they're switching over to Avid DNX media.
Many movies and commercials and music videos and television shows were cut on Final Cut Pro. Often shows that were cut on Avids were then finished in FCP. That's changing now. But until the advent of FCX and Apple's downfall in the broadcast professional market, FCP kinda owned that market.
I'm sorry, Michael... That's just not true. Why do you think the high end cameras like ARRI Alexa produced ProRes footage? Now, with the advent of FCX, they're switching over to Avid DNX media.
Many movies and commercials and music videos and television shows were cut on Final Cut Pro. Often shows that were cut on Avids were then finished in FCP. That's changing now. But until the advent of FCX and Apple's downfall in the broadcast professional market, FCP kinda owned that market.
Many? At least 51% ?
I thought Avid was bigger than FCP.
...with the advent of FCX, they're switching... ...Apple's downfall...
I'm sorry, this is abject nonsense. That's all there is to it.
"... Final Cut Pro X brings the prosumer loads of power, ease-of-use, and no-wait performance."
This glowing write up is aimed at the prosumers which is what the professional multi-seat edit suits were worried about. For me as a one man band it's great and hopefully the new updates will solve all the issues, I truly hope it does but this accolade isn't aimed at those pro studio, as stated in their own words, it's a prosumer award.
Gag me with a spoon. Final Cut Pro X still blows and as a professional editor you'll never catch me using it. People in this town are switching back to Avid in droves.
Really I tire of these so called professionals that can't use the tools common to their business. It would be like a CNC machinist saying he can't use a CNC mill, or a Mac programmer saying he doesn't understand Objective C. It is unadulterated Bull C*&p.
This is a very well written article.
Avid's PROFESSIONAL install base was and is now more than ever bigger.
From what I read there are approximately 20,000 top "pro" editors out there...
So, Avid, Adobe, Apple and others are serving/satisfying a very small number (albeit, very influential) "pros".
The higher end the work gets, the less important the non-linerar editing platform becomes, because ultimately it is just doing the simplest task of all, cuts and transitions. All the high end stuff gets done in other applications. There is a certain amount of snobbery in Hollywood and people feel proud of themselves to pay a lot of money for their projects.
Personally I feel, FCP, Aftereffects and Pro Logic will take you a quite a ways. It is a poor craftsperson who blames their tools. I was critical of FCP X at first because it didn't do two of the main things I needed. But now it does those two things.
+++ QFT
In the words of Norman Hollyn: "just let me do my cuts"'
Gag me with a spoon. Final Cut Pro X still blows and as a professional editor you'll never catch me using it. People in this town are switching back to Avid in droves.
What absolute nonsense from the whining few who apparently can't see past the ends of their noses what a dramatic change FCP makes to the editing process for pros. Small mindedness seems to abound in our market.
The higher end the work gets, the less important the non-linerar editing platform becomes, because ultimately it is just doing the simplest task of all, cuts and transitions. All the high end stuff gets done in other applications. There is a certain amount of snobbery in Hollywood and people feel proud of themselves to pay a lot of money for their projects.
Personally I feel, FCP, Aftereffects and Pro Logic will take you a quite a ways. It is a poor craftsperson who blames their tools. I was critical of FCP X at first because it didn't do two of the main things I needed. But now it does those two things.
Yeah, they definitely suffer from "really small penis complex".
Aw hell, doesn't matter in the end. Eventually all these people will all be gone, along with their blinded vision of what they think constitutes "Professional" work. And they'll be replaced with younger more open minded, visionary editors.
ps, I do tech support for some commercial editing houses. I've seen what passes for "professional".
I find that the AVID vs FCP world is just as complex and full of arrogance as Mac vs. Windows. I have been a broadcast editor for 10 years, and started cutting on an Avid MCA, and for the last three years I have been exclusively FCP.
I know editors, both freelance and in large post facilities that use both systems. I know people who joke arrogantly about FCP as a kids tool, or a cheap version of the real thing. I know FCP users who laugh back at them and say that they are missing out on serious benefits.
These are all professionals, working in pro environments and workflows. Interchanging project materials, footage, XML and edls, omf, HDcam and r3d footage and everything in-between. The true pro workflow requires that you can do it all, work with other shops, and get your own part done efficiently, and without problems. Both FCP and AVID systems do this, with varying strengths and weaknesses.
I have been talking to other shops about the FCPX debacle and NOBODY has heard of anyone or any studio changing their software because of FCPX. It is a joke to suggest otherwise. Anyone who has changed, was either already in the market for serious upgrades, or they are not in a professional environment, connected to edit servers, or otherwise concerned about managing big picture, large scope projects.
My only point with this post is that I'm absolutely sick of hearing the naysayers comments on FCPX every time there is an article that mentions it. No it didn't make you switch, and if it did, you are not even close to typical, and are likely not what I would consider a professional. There is nothing wrong with FCP7, in fact it is far more capable than most shops will ever need it to be (I'm looking at you, 4k editing), and absolutely no reason for anyone (freelance, large studio, or otherwise) to leave FCP7 because of the release of FCP X. If anything, these new updates to FCPX will begin to see edit houses play with it. Nobody is rushing to switch, as upgrade paths are always mapped out in terms of years (4 is typical), not weeks or months.
All that said. AVID is far bigger in the film editing world, but in the digital, video, HD, and broadcast world, I would be surprised to hear if they are much bigger, if not smaller than FCP. Adobe Premiere is not even a consideration for most video shops, although quite viable for animation houses.
The end.
Beautifully put. Thank you for bringing some rational perspective and discourse to the discussion. For those of us now using it with the most recent updates, FCP X is a dream to work with.
Beautifully put. Thank you for bringing some rational perspective and discourse to the discussion. For those of us now using it with the most recent updates, FCP X is a dream to work with.
For us prosumers who were comfortable with FCP7, but struggling and really wanting to like FCP X - is there a good guide I've missed on how to transition? Just basic operations I'm having issues with. I don't use it much but when I do its for work and I'd like to get to know it better. I end up jus using FCP 7 because I know it whereas I go into FCP X and futz around like an idiot for 10 minutes.
(Great audio editing features as well).
Carry on...
G
Gag me with a spoon.
You know Valley Girl expression had an expiration date. "Best before Dec 31, 1989"
But, I find it mildly amusing that "PC Magazine" should be telling pros what NLE to use. It's not usually the source for pros, unless they define pros and "prosumer."
I do hope Apple grow FCPX back into something that pros can use without hesitation. I view it as a botched "1.0" release.
http://philipbloom.net/2012/02/07/fcpxeditors/
This is a very well written article.
Thanks for the link.
As I posted previously, it's…Interesting that not all the pros were so-closed minded as portrayed here.
"This release checks of few of the last enormous boxes that let us as a company genuinely do the deep dive and try it on a massive project," Evan Schechtman, CTO of New York-based post-production studio Radical Media. Schechtman made no bones about having reservations when Final Cut Pro X was initially launched: "It gave us pause and concern." But he was still impressed from the get-go with the app's philosophy, "Even from the first day, the core editing, story-telling engine, the media management, and the timeline, we've actually been in love with." And with its performance: "It's probably the best performance of any NLE on the same hardware; it's night and day compared with Final Cut Pro 7."
http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2399599,00.asp
And Radical Media is no slouch in the industry.
P.S. For those who have yet to read the Thoughts on Final Cut Pro X article…
"I have asked 7 professional editors (yes seven!) who are using FCP X why they are using it and to share their thoughts about it and the recent update which gave us, finally, multicam and various other features. Why settle for one when you can have a diverse group like this offering up their thoughts? Sit back with coffee in hand and see what these guys think! Big thanks to all the contributors!!
perhaps you should before you endorse the idea that it is as unworthy as some contend.
...with the advent of FCX, they're switching over to Avid DNX media...
I'm sorry, this is abject nonsense. That's all there is to it.
Dude... on what do you base this? I saw a demo last week in Hollywood. Why would ARRI continue to support a platform that doesn't mesh with their workflow? Granted I don't own an Alexa myself, but that's what the folks at Moviola said... that ARRI are switching their cameras over to Avid Media from ProRes. I mean, they may have been lying, but the move makes sense.
...with each feature restoration, Apple has not just brought parity with earlier support, but...
I should point out that FCP supported 128 "angles" to their MultiClip. FCX only supports 64. You can easily get more than 64 takes of performance in a music video. A 50% reduction is hardly what I would call parity.
And, I still don't see EDLs or import of earlier FCP projects. Sorry, still a fail.