Einstein talks about FCPX.

[david_p]

I guess they're trying to get ready for the fall and see what they need to teach, but that seems way premature to tell a student not to buy something that's almost free. It seems their students would be better off being as flexible as possible in their post education environment. And in 4-5 years that could well include fcpx as well as CS5.5. It's not exactly like it's a huge investment. Why not have the most diversified skill set possible. NYU doesn't have a clue where this willl be in even 9 months. It's still shaking out. I wonder if even they've embraced DSLR for education purposes yet.

when you say "NYU doesnt have a clue where this will be in even 9 months...".

that pretty much "is" the reason NYU wont bother with trying to teach it dont you think? what, they should educate their student body for the future with a program that is a big "MAYBE"? will that prepare them for the REAL WORLD? its a "risk" for many people and enviroments right now.

PP & Avid are already in place and you can take them to the bank. im trying to grow into FCPX to "some" degree" but when it really comes down to a seriousness about it, it comes up short most of the time even though there are things that i really like about it.

i dont believe you really understand the severity of this current situation. not at all.

david

 

[draven4]

The Final Cut fiasco isn't about innovation. That's why the pros aren't mad. They are mad about the removal of the necessary things they use to get their jobs done.

I am not talking simply about editing but understand there is a whole process that leads from editing to finishing the final product that takes many steps and it goes through many people and post houses that have to do things to the edit to finish it. That's what apple is missing about this.

 

[bgundu]

I remember a time when one learned to be an editor regardless of software.

 

[David Saraceno]

Virtually every critical FCP X post in this thread represents that Apple didn't listen to the "pros."

For that criticism to have any credibility, I would appreciate learning exactly who are the "pros?"

In other words, what constitutes an unequivocal professional user of FCP. And where is that definition found, and who wrote it

A couple of friends are primarily tape based, and require grading and audio sweetening. FCP X, in this iteration, won't work for them.

Other friends make thousands more annually than my tape based friends, but don't require either.

Which group of friends are the professionals in this example?

If FCP X is both compatible with your workflow, and simplifies that workflow, then how is it not a good fit for you?

On the other hand, if you require external grading, sweetening, are tape based, etc., then it isn't in its current form.

But people throw the term "professional editor" around here pretty freely, and usually as a criticism of FCP X and Apple.

But the same people don't bother to supply a commonly accepted and universal definition.

Probably because there isn't one.

 

[Andrew S]

Have you tried a complex edit FCPX with 8 layers of audio and multiple video tracks in multiple formats! I have and it totally sucks for any king of in depth work, great on the surface but is very poor with you try and do the normal things. The magnetic timeline is all surface chrome, looking like a Merc, but its a Lada (thats a very bad eastern european car from the 90"s) underneath. Its miles slower than FCP7 for editing apart from rendering and thats not that fantastic, yup running 8 core 16gigs ram on a new mac!
Its a total Fuux up from apple, be great for my 13 year old son who wants to play lets make a video.

I am advising anyone working on a Mac to ditch it for any real professional work and set up camp either in Adobe which is going from strength to strength or Avid which is still industry standard. Go to FCPX and loose clients thats my take.

 

[Rob]

Virtually every critical FCP X post in this thread represents that Apple didn't listen to the "pros."

For that criticism to have any credibility, I would appreciate learning exactly who are the "pros?"

In other words, what constitutes an unequivocal professional user of FCP. And where is that definition found, and who wrote it

A couple of friends are primarily tape based, and require grading and audio sweetening. FCP X, in this iteration, won't work for them.

Other friends make thousands more annually than my tape based friends, but don't require either.

Which group of friends are the professionals in this example?

If FCP X is both compatible with your workflow, and simplifies that workflow, then how is it not a good fit for you?

On the other hand, if you require external grading, sweetening, are tape based, etc., then it isn't in its current form.

But people throw the term "professional editor" around here pretty freely, and usually as a criticism of FCP X and Apple.

But the same people don't bother to supply a commonly accepted and universal definition.

Probably because there isn't one

Dave,

Do you work for apple ?

 

[TimTheFoolMan]

Dave,

Do you work for apple ?

I know it's easy to assume that just because someone makes logical posts, and seems to be able to think and process clearly, that they must work for a company like Apple, but in this case, he doesn't. - Tim

 

[David Saraceno]

Dave,

Do you work for apple ?

No, I don't work for Apple, and never have worked for the company.

But I lived in Cupertino for eight years, and graduated from Cupertino High School.

There are plenty of posters in this forum who are beginning to like FCP X.

And virtually every negative response to those posters uses the "professional editor" card.

But no one has defined that for me.

I'd like to see a objective definition of a "pro" that every one can agree to. It won't happen, because one doesn't exist.

 

[bgundu]

I been around the block and remember clearly when the argument used to be "Pro editors do not use FCP" I have used FCP from version 1, and have always the software was adequate, and clunky. I have not tried FCPx yet, but eventually will. Heck, my Shake still works great and use it for every job I do. I'm sure FCP7 will live on for a while.

 

[david_p]

No, I don't work for Apple, and never have worked for the company.

But I lived in Cupertino for eight years, and graduated from Cupertino High School.

There are plenty of posters in this forum who are beginning to like FCP X.

And virtually every negative response to those posters uses the "professional editor" card.

But no one has defined that for me.

I'd like to see a objective definition of a "pro" that every one can agree to. It won't happen, because one doesn't exist.

the definition of "pro" as it pertains to its reference as to FCPX for me just means...the features that were left of that were widely used. honestly, if you pick at the word "pro" in the simplest sense then you would have to say that if you dont need the features that now are gone in X then you must not be a pro and anyone knows that would be an inaccurate statement.

so, i see it as a simple way to illustrate in one word "pro" as X missing important stuff that people have and are still relying on much of the time.

david

 

[arniepix]

Virtually every critical FCP X post in this thread represents that Apple didn't listen to the "pros."

For that criticism to have any credibility, I would appreciate learning exactly who are the "pros?"

In other words, what constitutes an unequivocal professional user of FCP. And where is that definition found, and who wrote it

I'd like to know that, too. I'm a "pro", I've cut feature films and TV shows. I don't understand how any "pro" could get this bent out of shape by the release of a piece of software. Let me repeat, it's software. It's doesn't do the actual editing, I do. I doubt that any carpenter or plumber would be anywhere near this upset if their favorite hammer or wrench was taken off the market.

IMO, most of the criticism of FCP-X has been very unprofessional, and is largely for reasons that are trivial. Yes, there is no support yet for capture cards, not EDL or XML support and no multicam.

If you need those features, then don't buy the software. You don't need to write posting after posting about how your world is coming to an end because of the change.

I don't need to tell the world that my profession is threatened by a piece of software missing these features, because it isn't. There are other tools available, and I'm free to use them when they suit my needs better.

Most of the criticism isn't about these features, though. It's about the radical change. Look at how much of the criticism is directed at "iMovie Pro", how much at the magnetic timeline, how much about the new project structure. These criticisms really only boil down to it being different, and the workflow is different. This type of criticism is really telegraphing to the world that those people are easily upset by change. That's a bad thing for their clients to find out. they may want to be a bit more circumspect about their comments.

Some pros can't use FCP-X because it doesn't suit their workflow, others are checking it out and finding that they just don't like it. And others are checking it out and finding out that they do like it, or that it does suit their workflow. But these people aren't posting as much. Go figure. They're probably too busy working.

 

[David Saraceno]

What has been left out is important to some people who many would consider professional.

I don't have a quarrel with that at all.

But what was left out and won't be reimplemented is neither important to or necessary to other people many would consider as professional.

But I am losing patience with the constant drum beat criticism based on the "professional editor" mantra.

It's getting old and it's time to move on.

What I'm hearing too often now is that "professionals" don't like change.

That's one definition that seems constant.

 

[SPZ]

I remember a time when one learned to be an editor regardless of software.

Basics are important. You study theory, about different genre's editing style and pacing, about editing techniques. You see films, experiment basic editing, see your failures, improve.This is common ground for every single editor- a "class", in academic terms. Now how you put this to practice is a different matter, a different "class". FCPX is a different "language" in many ways than Avid, Premiere and FCP7. Is it a better "language", or a better way to put all that theory you learned in editing "class" ? ( this is an analogy that is not exclusively limited to film school education, but also to "Learn it yourself" editors and filmmakers) Maybe it is, maybe it isn't, but a fact is currently it doesn't do what I need as a professional broadcast and film editor in a cooperative environment, it limits my options and makes me go for workarounds. Why should I learn this new language in the first place? Bottom line: what is the advantage for a new and aspiring editor, as well as the seasoned professional, to go to FCPX vs going for premiere or MC 5.5? Price? 400USD vs 699 for Adobe with industry standard After Effects and Photoshop, or 1000 USD with Broadcast and film standard Media Composer? We are not talking about old 50 000 USD Avid vs 1000 or 2000 USD FCP 1,2,3 here...

This is a tiring debate, indeed. In fact, I believe we are all in the same boat here. We all want Apple to succeed. The ones criticizing FCPX are not complaining about technological innovation, but about the loss of functionality of FCPX in the cooperative broadcast and film environment. They are also complaining about loss of simple things like external broadcast monitor viewing (with proper gamma and color), with basic things like custom frame sizes, multi audio tracks, etc. Someone posted an Automatic Duck audio export and import and it came out lousy, not precise. This is unacceptable in a professional cooperative environment, and shows how communication was an aftertought in the development.

In a business perspective, having to switch is an hassle. People and companies who invested in FCP Server have a difficult task at hand, probably needing to migrate to an Avid environment, something that they would have done if they knew Apple would do such a radical move (and leaving them behind). For the small individual filmmaker/editor, it is also a hassle. Means learning new tools, another 1000USD plus investment, etc. No one in their right minds wants to switch for the sake of switching. But in the professional broadcast and film environment, you need to "speak" with your fellow peers. You need to be able to hand over projects that are workable with the rest of the industry. You could do that with FCP7, you cannot do that with FCPX. And if FCPX doesn't sort itself out quickly- and by quickly I mean in the next 3 or 4 months, FCP in the professional Broadcast and Film industry will be history. Professional post houses will be 100 Avid and Adobe. Programs like Smoke, Davinci, etc. will still be used because frankly they are much better compositing and grading tools than FCPX. Broadcast and film output standards need to be respected. Are some of them Archaic? Yes, but others are there for a reason. Some say Apple is predicting the end of TV Broadcast and its standards, not unlike their position towards Blu-ray. This may indeed be true, but not now. Maybe in 30 years. People are still using CRT's over here, for example, and even buying VCD's. One thing is pushing for change and innovation. Other thing is neglecting the present. A professional editing tool should be innovative in workflow and speed of execution, allowing the editor to concentrate on the edit and in making it the closest possible to his imagined vision. However, it shouldn't create obstacles for the editor to achieve results for today's world. And today's professional broadcast and film world is communicative, specialized, cooperative, and for many valid reasons- there are professional colorists, audio technicians, compositing and FX people, etc. Do you honestly think you can achieve the same results with an editing piece than having a dedicated colorist or sound technician? I am a very versatile filmmaker, I shoot, write, edit and even produce the soundtrack of my TVC's/ short films/ Docs. But when it comes to perfecting, or finishing, I pass this job to people that dedicate their lives to it. A professional Davinci colorist can achieve much better results at grading, and also take into concern final broadcast output limitations, like colorspace, compression, etc, than I. And even if I could achieve the same results by doing everything myself, honestly someplace somewhere along the creative process compromises would have to be made in my part. The professional broadcast and film environment is a place that is much less forgiving of compromises than the internet!

 

[draven4]

What I'm hearing too often now is that "professionals" don't like change.

That's one definition that seems constant.

It's not that editors don't like change. That's not the issue. The only real issue going on with the uphooha about the final cut changes, is that professional features were taken out of a program that professional post houses depended on. That's it. I'm talking about technically. Get me?

The new final cut is not for the professional market. Understand. It's for everyone without a pro infrastructure.

I work at a trailer house and I can tell you that even if they wanted to use the new Final Cut X technically it can't be done. First off there's not way to open or import your old projects. There is so much work done in the previous versions of projects that this would cause a massive amount of time wasted. Second there is no EDL support. The EDL is the most important way an edit gets to another post house to conform a cut. Those two things alone would simply do it.

It's not philosophy about change or editing... it's technical. I think everyone needs to understand that from the pro prospectives. Apple can innovate all it wants but if those technical pro features are not there for what the post houses need to do then they can't use it.

The reason why pro's were angry is because they accepted apple's software and used it for their pro setups but now they are technically stuck at an older version and at this point do not have the choice to upgrade.

I mean..... it was called at one time simply .... Final Cut.....Pro ............ right? Tell me..... from that name.... what market was it supposed to appeal to?

 

[Rolf Silber]

For that criticism to have any credibility, I would appreciate learning exactly who are the "pros?"

I am "in the business" for prime time TV and sometimes for the theater in my country for 25 odd years now and all though I am not an editor (had been one for a brief time on old Steenbeck's in the times dinosaurs roamed the earth) I think I have some kind of perspective about what my production company and/or my editors need every day now.

The first thing they and we need dearly is some kind of security into technical investments. I have bought FCPX and Larry Jordans tutorial, btw. I am going to learn about it. Not because I want to change towards becoming an editor again, but because I want to see what may or may not be so new and fancy and revolutionary about it and how we may use that in the future. Or not use it. If that costs me 300 $ it's worth it. Call me the dog you send into a minefield to explore. Or to explode.

Every tool we use will do something different in a different way and so it is with new tools. I welcome change. What befuddles me though is when that change hides behind the name "pro" while certain, important things for pros - at least such as we are in our country, working for TV and sometimes for the theater - all of a sudden are completely missing from that tool. It's not like, say, sitting on 10 terrabyte of data for a movie and running into some problems with the then brand new media composer 5. This is about to be expected with a new version. The missing feature part is what makes people nervous. There are, for instance, local branches of our national first TV channel that only recently changed towards FCP 7. The guys who made this decision are now really under some pressure, believe me.

For my part I am rather content. We work on Avid next to all of the time. I was only in the process of getting my guys over to FCP for rather ulterior reasons: I had bought a nice big chunk of software and hardware from Apple for myself and - after I had kicked out Vegas and my old Windows system - really liked FCP 7 a lot and thought as a company we should jump ship towards Apple. This will not happen for the time being. Which is sad. But it is a decision based on what professionals need most in environments where every day may cost a fortune: Secure investments and a road map.

I get only a bit upset when people who have not worked as an editor or with an editor suddenly feel they can call other people "so called pros".... ;-)

 

[alpi69]

People didn't have a workflow for their day to day living that relied on a heavy investment in an iPhone. Comparing sales of a consumer product to people who have to design a professional workflow like a professional editor is a bit silly.

First of all, I didn´t compare them but stated that Apple is able to move a product from consumer to pro in a short time (with the help of tird parties).

Second: you have no idea about the phone market. There are many companies that invest in tens of thousands of Euros in a "phone-contract" MONTHLY. They track their sales via constant database connections and they have their cars and trucks equipped with logostics sensors that allow them to see at their base where who is. This data is costing them roaming here in Europe, because they are practically all the time "abroad". It is not only the device, but the service behind it. But Apple was able to get their act together and do now offer the tools on the phonemarket.

FCPX won´t be developped by Apple; they provide the frame and the APIs....developers will build the tools and drivers, sell it over the App store and everyone will be happy. That´s their model at least. If it works....I have no doubt.

 

[Jonathan12uiz]

Wow! I was offline from the world for 1day in the middle of nowheresville with no internet and when I get back this thread went from 4 post to 30+. I do agree with pro's being infuriated about "pro" features being left out, but like I said, FCP7 still works great. I don't see PP or anything getting huge vast superior improvements over the next year just yet, leaving me time to work in FCP7 until FCPX is up to par. I can use FCPX on some projects but not ALL, that is where FCP7 comes in, I can still use it. Just because the development has stopped, doesn't mean that the software is rendered useless @ this time. Yes if it goes over the next yr or so without improvements to FCPX then I would consider reinstating my old PP habits to get in the groove of PP again for the PRO needs. But until then, I'm not ready to be so quick to switch. At this time the pressure is not immanent. Maybe as time goes on with no improvements by apple, yes the need to switch will become justified, but all the hallowballoo about FCPX is crap and i'm going to PP is just getting old. I mean PP and AVID are making bank off of this panic. Kinda makes me mad.

 

[milksac]

​

I mean PP and AVID are making bank off of this panic. Kinda makes me mad.

It's not enough that I (Apple) should succeed - others (Adobe & Apple) should fail. - David Merrick

You're mad because Adobe and Avid might make a trivial profit off Apple's missteps? The profits of these corporations make have no direct affect on your daily work flow. There's no good reason to get mad. Getting mad is wasted energy that would be better spent on the next edit.

 

[Jonathan12uiz]

​

It's not enough that I (Apple) should succeed - others (Adobe & Apple) should fail. - David Merrick

You're mad because Adobe and Avid might make a trivial profit off Apple's missteps? The profits of these corporations make have no direct affect on your daily work flow. There's no good reason to get mad. Getting mad is wasted energy that would be better spent on the next edit.

it doesn't make me that mad, it just seems like there is no reason to panically switch at the moment, but adobe and avid are tempting people, I understand it's a business thing, but really its like setting someones house on fire and trying to sell them a fire extinguisher. The panic is causing doubts, but I see no reason that the switch has to happen NOW. Maybe later, but not now.

 

[f64manray]

.

I get only a bit upset when people who have not worked as an editor or with an editor suddenly feel they can call other people "so called pros".... ;-)

I only called them "so called pros" because on the internet, you don't know who anybody is for real. There are alot of people trying to wear bigger pants than they should on the interwebs. You can get a sense by how people write of what their experience level is, but you just don't know. I'm only trying to clear the murky waters for myself so I can try to make an informed decision of which path to embark on. This is completely unknown territory to me. I don't even really know what my needs are. I just know I want to learn it and do it. My biggest concern is that when I do have enough experience in this editing field and know what I need, I find I'm in the wrong vehicle.

I think I've read everything there is to read, and viewed every free tutorial there is to view, and to me it looks Like fcpx will pose no restrictions for a guy working with a DSLR doing music videos and posting to the web, or for someone doing an indie movie and is self contained. If I'm wrong, I'd like to hear form people before I fork over $3,500 on my intergalactic Imac. I keep hearing Apple is abandoning pros, but from everything I've read, it looks like these holes will be filled by Apple and third party vendors in time. And the buzz that fcpx is a pro program with Imovie ease doesn't have a negative connotation to me as it does to some "so called pros" . As a matter of fact, that stereotype is selling me on the damn software. It's exactly what I want to hear. At this point, I could just as easily wind up in CS5.5 at the last moment. It's still pretty murky out there.