Jarek Zabczynski
Veteran
The problem is Apple never told us that...
Apple responds with an FCPX FAQ
- Thread starter Mickey G
- Start date
The problem is Apple never told us that...
Chris Santucci
Veteran
I also haven't used it yet, nor ever the recent incarnations of iMovie for that matter since I found the interface confusing and counter intuitive which leads me to have no interest whatsoever in iMovie Pro especially when I can't open older projects or use multi cam, and especially since FCP7 seems to do everything I need it to do.
I started using FCP 1.25 based only on what other users were saying about it and I think it's safe to say that the current consensus is - FCPX is not meant for pros who get paid to edit every day.
If Apple has done the math and determined that it's more worth their while to develop software for consumers rather than pros, that's a bummer.
studio1972
Well-known member
Most people who have used a previous editor other than iMovie will find that initially, I know I did. Actually though, the interface is quite complex and much more sophisticated than that of FCP7, therefor it takes a bit of getting used to. Some of the features such as retiming are a huge step forward, the magnetic timeline is more subjective, and still a little strange after about 2 days, but I'm starting to get used to it and may well end up loving it eventually. I think going back to FCP7 now will seem like a huge backward step already. You really do need to try it for a while to start seeing the benefits. One last thing, it obviously is meant for pros, as iMovie is for consumers and is free and is fine for home videos etc. Consumers will not pay for FCX, only those making at least a part time living from it.
The comments I find perplexing are the invariable references in a pejorative way to "iMovie Pro."
I've used FCP since beta days. In fact, I still have three beta installers CDs for v. 1.
Before FCP X was released, I experimented with iMove '11, and noticed there were certain workflows, functions, and features in that "consumer" app that were both powerful and unique, and I wished the FCP 7 had some corresponding workflow and feature.
There are serious issues with FCP X that may or may not be remedied by either Apple or 3rd party hooks into the program. The jury is still out for me in assessing what part if any it will play in my editing.
But I am discovering, as others have reported here and elsewhere, that FCP X has some interesting features and time saving organizational workflows.
Not every one will like the workflow, process or interface.
But dismissing the program by calling it "iMovie Pro" adds nothing to the discussion but reciting a slogan.
It's different, but so was any NLE over tape eleven years ago.
Whether FCP X will mature over the next months will be interesting.
I've used FCP since beta days. In fact, I still have three beta installers CDs for v. 1.
Before FCP X was released, I experimented with iMove '11, and noticed there were certain workflows, functions, and features in that "consumer" app that were both powerful and unique, and I wished the FCP 7 had some corresponding workflow and feature.
There are serious issues with FCP X that may or may not be remedied by either Apple or 3rd party hooks into the program. The jury is still out for me in assessing what part if any it will play in my editing.
But I am discovering, as others have reported here and elsewhere, that FCP X has some interesting features and time saving organizational workflows.
Not every one will like the workflow, process or interface.
But dismissing the program by calling it "iMovie Pro" adds nothing to the discussion but reciting a slogan.
It's different, but so was any NLE over tape eleven years ago.
Whether FCP X will mature over the next months will be interesting.
Last edited:
Im off the beaten track somewhere and I have not even seen FCPX as yet. Bring me my edite suite to Tohoku Japan and I can take a look.
Ive heard this statement many many times. But I wonder. I have a BIG BUDGET project coming up. It requires fast high quality edits of pretty standard shots. There are actually 100 individual pieces, but every piece is like counting to ten and thats how the $ are to be made, through inefficiency.
for
My point is, from what I have read, with all its shortfalls, a 1.2.3 process for high volume, non multicam sessions, this may just be the ticket. Now Im not saying thats the ideal production environment, but I am saying should it be the best option for this project then does it mean Ive done the sums and decided to use a non pro app for a high paid job? I think not, its just horses for courses.
Just adding another view to the discussion.
From that FAQ though it will have the multicam added, it will have XML support. I use FCP7 to cut, nothing else. When FCPX has these functions added I may well cut everything on it.
But thanks to everyone who guinea pigged for me. I look forward to purchasing a working cutting program. FWIW Im just about to go to Davinci resolve for grading anyway and motion? Whats that? From all account compressor 4 is pretty good though?
thekreative
Veteran
I said it in another topic,but the "it looks like iMovie/ its iMovie Pro", is the same as Logic got upgraded to to work more like GarageBand, but then everyone was cheering. I'm surprised so many are knocking it before they tried it. I'm sure these people may have taken a gamble at something new before that was out of left field, i.e. 35mm adapters (crazy stupid idea that worked), DSLRs (not a real camera?), editing with a computer (now thats real crazy) give me my razor blades back!
TheReverend
Well-known member
Risk? What's the risk? It's not like FCPX will delete his footage and kill babies on the side too. It is a VERY functional and capable editor. I might agree that a version 1.0 software that sells for $300 isn't the best idea for a $10 million movie, but there is little risk involved when using FCPX.
The more you learn about FCPX, the more capable you find it. Event folder replaces capture scratch, compound clips replace multiple sequences, and so on. I find the more I learn about it, the more I feel that it IS the next step in video editing but at a young age. It's more reborn as a teenager than as a toddler. You don't have to worry about potty training again.
No, but read MY post above. That's the risk.
TheReverend
Well-known member
When they say XML export is coming, it should be soon. App Store makes incremental updates a snap, and FCPX will be getting a Lion update very soon after release. OMF support is already possible right now. What more do you "need"? Not want, but need.
ullanta
Veteran
Yes, that's why I won't sign that petition... the demands about changing the name of FCPX to iMovie Pro are just childish.
stoneinapond
Veteran
How do you watch two monitors simultaneously? I guess I need to train myself to have independent eyes. Will I loose stereoscopic vision?
The biggest benefit for two viewers is eye-matching multiple shots for whatever reason you need to. I don't see why there isn't an option to turn on a second, larger viewer window, even if only temporarily though. It's not like it's an incredibly hard piece of work to code.
stoneinapond
Veteran
Fair enough. I went to see if audition would work, and it seems it would except for the preview size. It would seem like an easier solution if the preview windows could be enlarged.
i agree with a lot of what you say. its not easy to tell anyone that they should try FCPX, in fact i dont know yet how its going to fit into my workflow if ever, but i will absolutely say that FCPX seems rather "trite" at a glance but will say that it is far from just being iMovie Pro in how the interface actually works. with that said it is more of iMovie Pro in that its missing important and often needed features. if FCPX advances forward and becomes more feature rich then this could easily be a very qualified program IMO. i think i would have preferred that they kept a similar interface as FCP7 but just bring in performance for GPU/RAM/CPU. the fact that the editing process is so very different wasnt welcome to me at first glance and my initial response was to simply resist & scream but after clearing my head of anger and outrage i bought the Ripple Training tutorial decided to have an open mind and work thru the program to see if there was anything there and i am feeling that there is not only something there but a lot there. i could think of a bundle of things that i would like to see added even beyond the obvious large things that have been discussed over and over though. still what "is" there is more than meets the eye from my experience so far.
i also think that its very possible that because the interface is "airy" and not cluttered that it seems that it is like iMovie of sorts but i have been very surprised at some of the power laying ***quietly***and unsuspecting under the mild visual interface. if apple "does"develop this software and if this really is just the "start" being v1.0 and not the end...i suspect that this will be the software that in 2-3 years people will be talking about. if apple does NOT develop X then there isnt enough there for the heavier user unfortunatly. so, for what is there...there is much much more there than meets the eye from my time with it so far.
for the people that havent touched it yet in anyway i suggest that you try to give it a go. just "so you know" for real what its all about. still though im not saying that even it you like it that you could use it with the missing features but "if" those features start to come fro 3rd party companies and apple then...some may wish that they might not have jumped too soon.
i have PP. only need a nVidia GPU to be screaming. FCP7 still works great and have current projects in there right now. learning FCPX for the knowledge of knowing apples new way of editing. its real different but many things are very slick, clever and fast.
wouldnt it be ironic after all of this apple turns this into the best NLE out there. me, i wouldnt bet on that but...i wouldnt bet against it either. i really hope they move it forward.
david
Rolf Silber
Veteran
Agree wholeheartedly. For the time being I see the new FCPX as a solution for my smaller budgeted videos and for just tinkering along and test-shoot this & that. And there it should be smart & efficient tool to use - but I am an author/director and not an editor. I will know better in a week or so because I am going to buy it and give it a try.
Should it later develop into something that has the functions to be integrated in professional work flows, the ones that will not change that easily - national TV channels in Europe are a bit conservative tech-wise and more often will opt for the secure and proven and not for the "experimental" - I will be a happy "early adaptor". If not, it's not a big deal. We work on Avid anyhow and I wanted the guys in my company to jump to FCP when I still thought the new, coming one would "out-pro" the others from start. Developed first doubts about that when I first heard what it would cost.
Best would be that people cool down a bit. But Apple had it coming by not clearly saying what this one will become in the future and if and how and when they go that way. It's a bit like a vain actor entering a stage in expectations that the whole house starts thundering applause like he is used..... and then he get's a hickup, when the first dead cat flies towards him.... ;-)