Einstein talks about FCPX.

[Barry_Green]

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.

Depends on who you are and what business you're in. For schools, the time to switch is as soon as possible, if they in fact believe that FCPX will not be what the major editing houses will be using. Does no good to turn out a bunch of students who can't work in the industry, after all.

For individuals and closed shops, as has often been stated, your existing program works today as well as it did a month ago, so definitely no reason to panic.

 

[Barry_Green]

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.

Well, see, you're in an ideal position because you can't make a bad choice. There's nothing really at stake. You don't have an existing business on the line, so -- go for whatever you like. Just start learning. You'll figure out, in time, what you need and what you can live without.

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.

Naw, no problem -- just jump vehicles. A little bit of learning and you'll be up and running in short order. I've gone from Premiere 4.0 to Vegas to FCP to Avid to EDIUS and back to Premiere CS4/CS5, where I am today, but I'll also admit that I have Vegas 10 too... don't sweat it. Like I said, if you were a major film school or a big production house, then yes, sweat it -- there's huge bucks and lots of workflow issues on the line. But for an individual in a closed shop, don't even worry about it. Especially at the relatively inexperienced level.

There's two things you'll be learning: 1) how to edit, and 2) how to use a particular program to edit. Learning to be an editor will survive any future software transition. Learning a particular program, yeah, you may have to re-learn -- so what? Low risk. Just go and get in the game.

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 think you're probably exactly right. If you are a self-contained shop that has no need to interface with the outside world or share projects with others, then it doesn't matter what you use. We who used Vegas learned that. I made a lot of product and a ton of commercials and corporate films in Vegas, and it was (and still is) my favorite editing application. Yes, it was sneered at in the bigger production companies (for many very good reasons). But again, it depends on what use you plan to use it for. If your goal is to get a job as an editor at a large production house, then learning Vegas would be pretty much a complete waste of time (as would, apparently, FCPX). But if your goal is to edit stuff and post it to the web, or to cut your own film for your own distribution, you can do that in Vegas, you can do that in FCPX, you can do that in Pinnacle Liquid. Find whatever works for you and go for it.

I keep hearing Apple is abandoning pros

They are. No doubt. They have made a product that is incompatible with the workflows of the biggest. That one's a game-over.

Doesn't mean they've abandoned ALL pros, of course. One-man band, small shops, closed systems, they can all use whatever they want. But the days of hearing that big networks are switching to FCP, or that big films are being cut on FCP, yeah, I think those have all come to a screeching halt. Some work will still be done in FCP 7, obviously, but as far as new adoptions of FCP X, not at the big leagues, no.

Of course, there are millions of pros who aren't in those leagues. Lots and lots of guys make good livings at weddings, events, corporates, industrials, commercials, and stuff like that. And for some of them, FCP X will be appropriate. And for some, FCP X won't be appropriate (the lack of multicam is an egregious omission for events shooters, but I think that's one feature that Apple said they'd restore).

For sure, broadcast is an industry that is ... well, how do I put this ... I don't think it's a growth industry. Broadcast (as in, the traditional sense of over-the-air airwaves broadcasting controlled by major media conglomerates on purchased-from-the-FCC public airwaves) is not the growth market, the growth market is internet delivery. But there's a massive difference between TODAY, and the growth market. Apple has positioned themselves to serve that growing market, but has basically abandoned the huge market of today.

Here's an example -- we keep hearing that hydrogen is the future fuel, future cars will run on hydrogen, it'll be a glorious utopia of pollution-free motoring with the exhaust being pure water, there are so many advantages to hydrogen, it's the most abundant element in the universe, gasoline is filthy and dirty and dangerous and messy and has implications for dependence on foreign imports and etc etc etc. Sure sounds like hydrogen's the way to go. But if you had to buy a delivery car today for your pizza delivery business, would you buy a hydrogen-powered car? Or would you buy a gas model, and take advantage of the gas stations available on every streetcorner?

That's where the pros are now. They are making money and relying on their software NOW. And that's the market Apple has abandoned. Maybe Apple will have a bigger share of some bigger future market, I mean, obviously that's what they're banking on. But the "so called pros" are the ones who are making their living in the industry right now, today, whose paychecks and livelihoods depend on the software and hardware they're using. And Apple has created a product that many of them cannot use. Just like if they'd put out a hydrogen-powered car. We all may ooh-and-ah about it, and think of how wonderfully forward-thinking it is, but when you need to send a driver out to deliver pizzas this afternoon, the hydrogen-powered car isn't gonna get that job done because you can't refill it anywhere.

 

[blackcat]

They are. No doubt. They have made a product that is incompatible with the workflows of the biggest. That one's a game-over.

Doesn't mean they've abandoned ALL pros, of course. One-man band, small shops, closed systems, they can all use whatever they want. But the days of hearing that big networks are switching to FCP, or that big films are being cut on FCP, yeah, I think those have all come to a screeching halt. Some work will still be done in FCP 7, obviously, but as far as new adoptions of FCP X, not at the big leagues, no.

Of course, there are millions of pros who aren't in those leagues. Lots and lots of guys make good livings at weddings, events, corporates, industrials, commercials, and stuff like that. And for some of them, FCP X will be appropriate. And for some, FCP X won't be appropriate (the lack of multicam is an egregious omission for events shooters, but I think that's one feature that Apple said they'd restore).

I agree that someone just starting out can't make a huge mistake in the same way as someone with an established workflow. However, I disagree that here and today the only people who need a workflow that FCPX can't provide are broadcast and big time studios. I realize you are not going to such an extreme; I just get that feeling from some people who post on here. When I used to freelance in fairly indie films with a budget (mostly docs), they expected me to be able to work with other freelancers on Pro Tools and so on.

f64manray may be well served by FCPX for the time being. I agree that someone in that position has little to lose and everything to gain. I only think that entry level folks who might want to freelance should watch the market and see what tools they will be required to use. I am mostly freelancing with my AF100 now and not doing so much post. However, I am starting to get people to ask me to cut for them again. Those people seem to be rejecting FCPX along with everyone else. I suppose that my opinion is skewed since I really have never been a one stop shop, but instead a freelancer with a few exceptions here and there.

 

[blackcat]

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.

Fair enough. You are right; I don't know much about the mobile phone market from a corporate perspective.

I am still not happy with being an afterthought for Apple. They may have made an API, but I don't feel great sitting around and waiting for a third party developer to make what I need now. If things get better and the market heads towards FCPX, I will give it a try.

 

[Rolf Silber]

In our case we do need to be "amphibian" - we have to conform to the existing broadcast standards and may very well go from there to other standards too. But even for our "lower end" things we try to be as "upward" compatible to those standards as possible.

Broadcast - even as it is not exactly the future as Barry stated perfectly - is very, very much our present. And will stay so for another decade or so. And with this I will shut my big mouth about FCPX and play a bit with it....

 

[f64manray]

Well, see, you're in an ideal position because you can't make a bad choice. There's nothing really at stake. You don't have an existing business on the line, so -- go for whatever you like. Just start learning. You'll figure out, in time, what you need and what you can live without.


Naw, no problem -- just jump vehicles. A little bit of learning and you'll be up and running in short order. I've gone from Premiere 4.0 to Vegas to FCP to Avid to EDIUS and back to Premiere CS4/CS5, where I am today, but I'll also admit that I have Vegas 10 too... don't sweat it. Like I said, if you were a major film school or a big production house, then yes, sweat it -- there's huge bucks and lots of workflow issues on the line. But for an individual in a closed shop, don't even worry about it. Especially at the relatively inexperienced level.

There's two things you'll be learning: 1) how to edit, and 2) how to use a particular program to edit. Learning to be an editor will survive any future software transition. Learning a particular program, yeah, you may have to re-learn -- so what? Low risk. Just go and get in the game.


I think you're probably exactly right. If you are a self-contained shop that has no need to interface with the outside world or share projects with others, then it doesn't matter what you use. We who used Vegas learned that. I made a lot of product and a ton of commercials and corporate films in Vegas, and it was (and still is) my favorite editing application. Yes, it was sneered at in the bigger production companies (for many very good reasons). But again, it depends on what use you plan to use it for. If your goal is to get a job as an editor at a large production house, then learning Vegas would be pretty much a complete waste of time (as would, apparently, FCPX). But if your goal is to edit stuff and post it to the web, or to cut your own film for your own distribution, you can do that in Vegas, you can do that in FCPX, you can do that in Pinnacle Liquid. Find whatever works for you and go for it.


They are. No doubt. They have made a product that is incompatible with the workflows of the biggest. That one's a game-over.

Doesn't mean they've abandoned ALL pros, of course. One-man band, small shops, closed systems, they can all use whatever they want. But the days of hearing that big networks are switching to FCP, or that big films are being cut on FCP, yeah, I think those have all come to a screeching halt. Some work will still be done in FCP 7, obviously, but as far as new adoptions of FCP X, not at the big leagues, no.

Of course, there are millions of pros who aren't in those leagues. Lots and lots of guys make good livings at weddings, events, corporates, industrials, commercials, and stuff like that. And for some of them, FCP X will be appropriate. And for some, FCP X won't be appropriate (the lack of multicam is an egregious omission for events shooters, but I think that's one feature that Apple said they'd restore).

For sure, broadcast is an industry that is ... well, how do I put this ... I don't think it's a growth industry. Broadcast (as in, the traditional sense of over-the-air airwaves broadcasting controlled by major media conglomerates on purchased-from-the-FCC public airwaves) is not the growth market, the growth market is internet delivery. But there's a massive difference between TODAY, and the growth market. Apple has positioned themselves to serve that growing market, but has basically abandoned the huge market of today.

Here's an example -- we keep hearing that hydrogen is the future fuel, future cars will run on hydrogen, it'll be a glorious utopia of pollution-free motoring with the exhaust being pure water, there are so many advantages to hydrogen, it's the most abundant element in the universe, gasoline is filthy and dirty and dangerous and messy and has implications for dependence on foreign imports and etc etc etc. Sure sounds like hydrogen's the way to go. But if you had to buy a delivery car today for your pizza delivery business, would you buy a hydrogen-powered car? Or would you buy a gas model, and take advantage of the gas stations available on every streetcorner?

That's where the pros are now. They are making money and relying on their software NOW. And that's the market Apple has abandoned. Maybe Apple will have a bigger share of some bigger future market, I mean, obviously that's what they're banking on. But the "so called pros" are the ones who are making their living in the industry right now, today, whose paychecks and livelihoods depend on the software and hardware they're using. And Apple has created a product that many of them cannot use. Just like if they'd put out a hydrogen-powered car. We all may ooh-and-ah about it, and think of how wonderfully forward-thinking it is, but when you need to send a driver out to deliver pizzas this afternoon, the hydrogen-powered car isn't gonna get that job done because you can't refill it anywhere.

THANKS BARRY! That clears the waters more than a bit! I'm hoping to make a decision and pull the trigger on this stuff before August. .....before this country hits the debt ceiling, and this do nothing congress keeps doing nothing, and the dollar devalues and the world collapses. I'm just going to ride all that out behind my Imac and learn fcpx. Thanks again.

 

[Searcher]

THANKS BARRY! That clears the waters more than a bit! I'm hoping to make a decision and pull the trigger on this stuff before August. .....before this country hits the debt ceiling, and this do nothing congress keeps doing nothing, and the dollar devalues and the world collapses. I'm just going to ride all that out behind my Imac and learn fcpx. Thanks again.

Hilarious! My plan is to make my first feature before the world ends next year on on December 21, 2012. It's good to have a timeline for finishing a project. I thought the end of the world was a good one.

 

[j1clark@ucsd.edu]

For sure, broadcast is an industry that is ... well, how do I put this ... I don't think it's a growth industry. Broadcast (as in, the traditional sense of over-the-air airwaves broadcasting controlled by major media conglomerates on purchased-from-the-FCC public airwaves) is not the growth market, the growth market is internet delivery. But there's a massive difference between TODAY, and the growth market. Apple has positioned themselves to serve that growing market, but has basically abandoned the huge market of today.

I don't see FCP X as in any way positioning to serve the Internet market. To be sure, it is perhaps positioned to take iMovie users to 'the next level'... well... unless in the beautific internet future, Youtube Happy Clips are going to be seen as the cash cow entertainment vehicle...

I really don't see how Internet content producers are going to not need the host of applications, formerly collected into 'convenient' suites, that are available. The Internet producer will need an Audio program, a Effects program, a 3-d Modeling program, etc... I don't see FCP X as being the beachhead into that future.

Personally I took an instant dislike to iMovie, not having any real experience with any other 'video' editing, other than A/B Umatic tape deck wrangling... yeah, I could get the video cuts with no rainbows... but otherwise, 'cutting' was a pain... as it was I got After Effects, and it was like the universe opened up for 'how I think about compositing'... and used it as a cutter until I got FC Express...

Here's an example -- we keep hearing that hydrogen is the future fuel, future cars will run on hydrogen...

When I hear of Hydrogen and 'mass use'... I think Lakehurst New Jersey...

 

[stoneinapond]

Ever thrown a Molotov cocktail, or seen a propane gas tank go off? How about nuclear reactors, Chernobyl? When you manipulate matter to release energy there are always consequences.

Sorry about the off topic post, but let's not have hysteria stand in the way of progress.

(Actually, now that I look at the thread title, perhaps it's not so off topic :grin

 

[draven4]

The cool thing about final cut pro 7 is that it had pro features that were available even if a kid wanted to use them or not. A kid could still explore those features. You could be in high school and mess around with a program that had the ability to create EDLs or OMFs. That's pretty cool. Or they could send to protools if they wanted. That's learning workflow in a pro environment. Can't do that now.

Here's what's wrong with the whole situation.

Apple stood on Avid's shoulders and created an editing software that was basically becoming Avid but cheaper. They won a large part of the market's trust.

Then Apple rewrote and threw away those features that the pros whom they won the trust from needed.

I believe that the software you are seeing now Final Cut X is how Apple probably would have done it from the start (had they had the technology and experience). I guarantee you though that they would have never have won over the Post Production industry.

 

[Hywel]

I don't see FCP X as in any way positioning to serve the Internet market....

I really don't see how Internet content producers are going to not need the host of applications, formerly collected into 'convenient' suites, that are available. The Internet producer will need an Audio program, a Effects program, a 3-d Modeling program, etc... I don't see FCP X as being the beachhead into that future.

I'll respectfully disagree with you here. I am an Internet content producer. I've been doing it for 10 years, first with photos then with photos and films, and has been my entire source of revenue for the last 7 years as my full time business.

The delivery "gold standard" for most content providers I know right now is 3 mbps H.264 in 720p, with a few dipping their toes in the waters of 1080p. It is viewed on everything from crappy mobile phone screens through to decent calibrated monitors, but you have no clue how your customers are viewing the final footage. I've just had a long thread on my site's forum because one member complained that a lot of my photos are "very dark". They aren't- I know they aren't, because I have a calibrated colour workflow and I have the RAW files with histograms to prove it. So most likely his monitor is cheap, badly calibrated, crushing the blacks or he's using an ancient viewer which doesn't recognise sRGB properly (or maybe all three). And this is for stills photos taken on a digital Hasselblad with an entirely colour calibrated workflow.

Can you IMAGINE the variation in display results that these customers are going to get watching internet video, which has a very much less mature colour calibrated workflow? How the audio is going to sound through tinny PC speakers costing a few pounds turned to max volume, or cheapy iPod headphones?

At some point, this lack of control over how your work is viewed makes it non-cost-effective to continue sweetening. I do not believe that I would sell enough extra copies of my work if I were to pass it to a professional sound editor or colourist to cover their fees. I'd be better off spending that money in front of the camera. The brutal reality is that once you've done a decent colour grade and a decent audio sweetening pass, the additional improvements are likely to be lost in delivery- and passing out to external program to do that basic pass is not time-efficient enough to do routinely, either. Sure, we like to aim as high as we can, but beyond a certain point it just becomes impossible given the scale of our operations.

I'd probably do even better to spend any such money on the next project, because the one thing that the Internet has is an insatiable lust for new product. People expect me to deliver a five minute narrative short EVERY WEEK... AND four photosets, edited to an acceptable standard as well. With only two staff, that's a lot of material to produce.

And that means that like most other Internet content producers I know, I am a one-man-band when it comes to the edit suite. And for people like me, the ability to get a second cut with a basic colour grade and basic audio pass QUICKLY is far more important than the ultimate quality one can attain. As cheap TV shows are to feature films, Internet content production is to cheap TV shows. Our second cut is what we have to release, generally, so we can get on with next week's releases.

The miracle is that it is possible to do it all as such a cottage industry, with just two regular staff and a few actors and crew as hired talent for shoot days. The quality we attain is by no means worthy of the BBC, of course, but compared with what we were managing a few years ago it looks pretty bloody good. We're constantly learning new ways of making stuff look more expensive than it is. (Two or three nice dolly shots with foreground interest go a very long way for example!) I'd love to have the luxury of more time and bigger budgets, but I don't, I have to wring the most I can out of all our productions in the time I have available to do it.

FCPX is shaping up to be a very powerful tool in this "as much of the production value as you can get, but quick as you can" approach. I've been editing with FCP6 for about 2 years, using Premiere before that (and I have CS5 as well, which I'm maintaining as my fallback). I've just edited my first five minute short with it and was impressed not just how quickly it came together in a rough cut, but how fluid and easy it was for me to chop and change and trim the fat and add inserts and cutaways and bring the whole thing together. Sure, I missed Magic Bullet Looks and Colorista II, but I did the grade in FCPX's tools and it took me no longer than it would have in FCP6, which is quite a recommendation for the first time I'd used the program. (And Red Giant say MBL and Colorista are coming for FCPX). I love the new visual editing metaphors and for a version 1.0 program it is very promising indeed. (Sony Vegas users, if this is what you've been using for years no wonder you stuck to your program like glue).

Doing the audio sweetening pass was much quicker in FCPX than in FCP6- even though it was my first time using it. Would it pass muster for the BBC? For a feature film? Of course not. But given the production schedule of all the internet content producers I know, the ability to make sure nothing was clipping, dialogue levels matched from clip to clip, and swiftly apply an overall set of EQ got me a long way in a very short space of time.

Sure, FCPX is an absolute non-starter if you need to share EDLs with the guy doing the next step in your production chain. The sample effects are mostly horrid, and it could do with some rounding out of corners (like a bar to show which bits of footage have been used), some missing functionality put back in (multiclips) and the plugins to be rewritten for the new engine. But in terms of visual metaphor for slick and creative editing flow, it is really looking good to me at this point!

But if the guy who has to do that next step is you, and the computer it will be done on is yours, it's just not much of an issue. I can always export media and render back to ProRes if I need interchange, generation losses of ProRes don't bother me much when my acquisition format was AVCCAM and my delivery is H.264! Motion5 looks good for getting nice results quickly, and I have AE for when Motion won't cut the mustard. I never used Color- took too long to faff around with different programs given the production schedule, frankly. I could get most of the way there with Colorista II in much less time. I only took sound out to external editors if there was an egregious problem (noise or otherwise mangled audio). Otherwise I did the pass in FCP6... and it is a LOT quicker and easier in FCPX.

So... I'm rather thinking I might be the target market for FCPX, because it is looking very promising for me, especially once Looks and Colorista come along. And if it all falls apart I can fall back to Premiere CS5 which is basically FCP7 with slightly different knobs on and a more efficient 64 bit engine.

I don't need a separate audio program, 3D modelling program(! where would I get the time for that!), effects program etc.. I need something that gets me maybe 80% of the way there in 20% of the time, all within my NLE. And that's what FCPX looks like it might do after another release or two.

Cheers, Hywel

 

[bgundu]

Thanks for sharing. I'm always interested in peeping into other people's workflows. It sounds like apple definitely had content producers like yourself in mind for FCPx.

I'll respectfully disagree with you here. I am an Internet content producer. I've been doing it for 10 years, first with photos then with photos and films, and has been my entire source of revenue for the last 7 years as my full time business. The delivery "gold standard" for most content providers I know right now I 3 kbps H.264 in 720p, with a few dipping their toes in the waters of 1080p. It is viewed on everything from crappy mobile phone screens through to decent calibrated monitors, but you have no clue how your customers are viewing the final footage. I've just had a long thread on my site's forum because one member complained that a lot of my photos are "very dark". They aren't- I know they aren't, because I have a calibrated colour workflow and I have the RAW files with histograms to prove it. So most likely his monitor is cheap, badly calibrated, crushing the blacks or he's using an ancient viewer which doesn't recognise sRGB properly (or maybe all three). And this is for stills photos taken on a digital Hasselblad with an entirely colour calibrated workflow.Can you IMAGINE the variation in display results that these customers are going to get watching internet video, which has a very much less mature colour calibrated workflow? How the audio is going to sound through tinny PC speakers costing a few pounds turned to max volume, or cheapy iPod headphones?At some point, this lack of control over how your work is viewed makes it non-cost-effective to continue sweetening. I do not believe that I would sell enough extra copies of my work if I were to pass it to a professional sound editor or colourist to cover their fees. I'd be better off spending that money in front of the camera. The brutal reality is that once you've done a decent colour grade and a decent audio sweetening pass, the additional improvements are likely to be lost in delivery- and passing out to external program to do that basic pass is not time-efficient enough to do routinely, either. Sure, we like to aim as high as we can, but beyond a certain point it just becomes impossible given the scale of our operations.I'd probably do even better to spend any such money on the next project, because the one thing that the Internet has is an insatiable lust for new product. People expect me to deliver a five minute narrative short EVERY WEEK... AND four photosets, edited to an acceptable standard as well. With only two staff, that's a lot of material to produce.And that means that like most other Internet content producers I know, I am a one-man-band when it comes to the edit suite. And for people like me, the ability to get a second cut with a basic colour grade and basic audio pass QUICKLY is far more important than the ultimate quality one can attain. As cheap TV shows are to feature films, Internet content production is to cheap TV shows. Our second cut is what we have to release, generally, so we can get on with next week's releases. The miracle is that it is possible to do it all as such a cottage industry, with just two regular staff and a few actors and crew as hired talent for shoot days. The quality we attain is by no means worthy of the BBC, of course, but compared with what we were managing a few years ago it looks pretty bloody good. We're constantly learning new ways of making stuff look more expensive than it is. (Two or three nice dolly shots with foreground interest go a very long way for example!) I'd love to have the luxury of more time and bigger budgets, but I don't, I have to wring the most I can out of all our productions in the time I have available to do it. FCPX is shaping up to be a very powerful tool in this "as much of the production value as you can get, but quick as you can" approach. I've been editing with FCP6 for about 2 years, using Premiere before that (and I have CS5 as well, which I'm maintaining as my fallback). I've just edited my first five minute short with it and was impressed not just how quickly it came together in a rough cut, but how fluid and easy it was for me to chop and change and trim the fat and add inserts and cutaways and bring the whole thing together. Sure, I missed Magic Bullet Looks and Colorista II, but I did the grade in FCPX's tools and it took me no longer than it would have in FCP6, which is quite a recommendation for the first time I'd used the program. (And Red Giant say MBL and Colorista are coming for FCPX). I love the new visual editing metaphors and for a version 1.0 program it is very promising indeed. (Sony Vegas users, if this is what you've been using for years no wonder you stuck to your program like glue). Doing the audio sweetening pass was much quicker in FCPX than in FCP6- even though it was my first time using it. Would it pass muster for the BBC? For a feature film? Of course not. But given the production schedule of all the internet content producers I know, the ability to make sure nothing was clipping, dialogue levels matched from clip to clip, and swiftly apply an overall set of EQ got me a long way in a very short space of time.Sure, FCPX is an absolute non-starter if you need to share EDLs with the guy doing the next step in your production chain. The sample effects are mostly horrid, and it could do with some rounding out of corners (like a bar to show which bits of footage have been used), some missing functionality put back in (multiclips) and the plugins to be rewritten for the new engine. But in terms of visual metaphor for slick and creative editing flow, it is really looking good to me at this point!But if the guy who has to do that next step is you, and the computer it will be done on is yours, it's just not much of an issue. I can always export media and render back to ProRes if I need interchange, generation losses of ProRes don't bother me much when my acquisition format was AVCCAM and my delivery is H.264! Motion5 looks good for getting nice results quickly, and I have AE for when Motion won't cut the mustard. I never used Color- took too long to faff around with different programs given the production schedule, frankly. I could get most of the way there with Colorista II in much less time. I only took sound out to external editors if there was an egregious problem (noise or otherwise mangled audio). Otherwise I did the pass in FCP6... and it is a LOT quicker and easier in FCPX.So... I'm rather thinking I might be the target market for FCPX, because it is looking very promising for me, especially once Looks and Colorista come along. And if it all falls apart I can fall back to Premiere CS5 which is basically FCP7 with slightly different knobs on and a more efficient 64 bit engine. I don't need a separate audio program, 3D modelling program(! where would I get the time for that!), effects program etc.. I need something that gets me maybe 80% of the way there in 20% of the time, all within my NLE. And that's what FCPX looks like it might do after another release or two.Cheers, Hywel

 

[TimTheFoolMan]

Hywel, I wish I was as good at putting thoughts to paper as you are. Perhaps the other thread ("X makes perfect sense from a business standpoint") wouldn't have rat-holed so quickly if I'd been able to verbalize what you did. - Tim

 

[draven4]

I'll respectfully disagree with you here. I am an Internet content producer. I've been doing it for 10 years, first with photos then with photos and films, and has been my entire source of revenue for the last 7 years as my full time business.

The delivery "gold standard" for most content providers I know right now I 3 kbps H.264 in 720p, with a few dipping their toes in the waters of 1080p. It is viewed on everything from crappy mobile phone screens through to decent calibrated monitors, but you have no clue how your customers are viewing the final footage. I've just had a long thread on my site's forum because one member complained that a lot of my photos are "very dark". They aren't- I know they aren't, because I have a calibrated colour workflow and I have the RAW files with histograms to prove it. So most likely his monitor is cheap, badly calibrated, crushing the blacks or he's using an ancient viewer which doesn't recognise sRGB properly (or maybe all three). And this is for stills photos taken on a digital Hasselblad with an entirely colour calibrated workflow.

Can you IMAGINE the variation in display results that these customers are going to get watching internet video, which has a very much less mature colour calibrated workflow? How the audio is going to sound through tinny PC speakers costing a few pounds turned to max volume, or cheapy iPod headphones?

At some point, this lack of control over how your work is viewed makes it non-cost-effective to continue sweetening. I do not believe that I would sell enough extra copies of my work if I were to pass it to a professional sound editor or colourist to cover their fees. I'd be better off spending that money in front of the camera. The brutal reality is that once you've done a decent colour grade and a decent audio sweetening pass, the additional improvements are likely to be lost in delivery- and passing out to external program to do that basic pass is not time-efficient enough to do routinely, either. Sure, we like to aim as high as we can, but beyond a certain point it just becomes impossible given the scale of our operations.

I'd probably do even better to spend any such money on the next project, because the one thing that the Internet has is an insatiable lust for new product. People expect me to deliver a five minute narrative short EVERY WEEK... AND four photosets, edited to an acceptable standard as well. With only two staff, that's a lot of material to produce.

And that means that like most other Internet content producers I know, I am a one-man-band when it comes to the edit suite. And for people like me, the ability to get a second cut with a basic colour grade and basic audio pass QUICKLY is far more important than the ultimate quality one can attain. As cheap TV shows are to feature films, Internet content production is to cheap TV shows. Our second cut is what we have to release, generally, so we can get on with next week's releases.

The miracle is that it is possible to do it all as such a cottage industry, with just two regular staff and a few actors and crew as hired talent for shoot days. The quality we attain is by no means worthy of the BBC, of course, but compared with what we were managing a few years ago it looks pretty bloody good. We're constantly learning new ways of making stuff look more expensive than it is. (Two or three nice dolly shots with foreground interest go a very long way for example!) I'd love to have the luxury of more time and bigger budgets, but I don't, I have to wring the most I can out of all our productions in the time I have available to do it.

FCPX is shaping up to be a very powerful tool in this "as much of the production value as you can get, but quick as you can" approach. I've been editing with FCP6 for about 2 years, using Premiere before that (and I have CS5 as well, which I'm maintaining as my fallback). I've just edited my first five minute short with it and was impressed not just how quickly it came together in a rough cut, but how fluid and easy it was for me to chop and change and trim the fat and add inserts and cutaways and bring the whole thing together. Sure, I missed Magic Bullet Looks and Colorista II, but I did the grade in FCPX's tools and it took me no longer than it would have in FCP6, which is quite a recommendation for the first time I'd used the program. (And Red Giant say MBL and Colorista are coming for FCPX). I love the new visual editing metaphors and for a version 1.0 program it is very promising indeed. (Sony Vegas users, if this is what you've been using for years no wonder you stuck to your program like glue).

Doing the audio sweetening pass was much quicker in FCPX than in FCP6- even though it was my first time using it. Would it pass muster for the BBC? For a feature film? Of course not. But given the production schedule of all the internet content producers I know, the ability to make sure nothing was clipping, dialogue levels matched from clip to clip, and swiftly apply an overall set of EQ got me a long way in a very short space of time.

Sure, FCPX is an absolute non-starter if you need to share EDLs with the guy doing the next step in your production chain. The sample effects are mostly horrid, and it could do with some rounding out of corners (like a bar to show which bits of footage have been used), some missing functionality put back in (multiclips) and the plugins to be rewritten for the new engine. But in terms of visual metaphor for slick and creative editing flow, it is really looking good to me at this point!

But if the guy who has to do that next step is you, and the computer it will be done on is yours, it's just not much of an issue. I can always export media and render back to ProRes if I need interchange, generation losses of ProRes don't bother me much when my acquisition format was AVCCAM and my delivery is H.264! Motion5 looks good for getting nice results quickly, and I have AE for when Motion won't cut the mustard. I never used Color- took too long to faff around with different programs given the production schedule, frankly. I could get most of the way there with Colorista II in much less time. I only took sound out to external editors if there was an egregious problem (noise or otherwise mangled audio). Otherwise I did the pass in FCP6... and it is a LOT quicker and easier in FCPX.

So... I'm rather thinking I might be the target market for FCPX, because it is looking very promising for me, especially once Looks and Colorista come along. And if it all falls apart I can fall back to Premiere CS5 which is basically FCP7 with slightly different knobs on and a more efficient 64 bit engine.

I don't need a separate audio program, 3D modelling program(! where would I get the time for that!), effects program etc.. I need something that gets me maybe 80% of the way there in 20% of the time, all within my NLE. And that's what FCPX looks like it might do after another release or two.

Cheers, Hywel

And the long answer award goes to....

 

[j1clark@ucsd.edu]

So... I'm rather thinking I might be the target market for FCPX, because it is looking very promising for me, especially once Looks and Colorista come along. And if it all falls apart I can fall back to Premiere CS5 which is basically FCP7 with slightly different knobs on and a more efficient 64 bit engine.

I don't need a separate audio program, 3D modelling program(! where would I get the time for that!), effects program etc.. I need something that gets me maybe 80% of the way there in 20% of the time, all within my NLE. And that's what FCPX looks like it might do after another release or two.

Cheers, Hywel

Clearly from you description you are in 'the target market'... FCP X as it is now is not anything I'd be interested in. I could have been interested with a product that had 'audio', et al... of additional packages. But speaking where one started... Back in the olden days, I chose After Effects over a 'myriad' of other options to do effects on stills. Even the 'premiere' presentation authoring software of the era, Director crapped out on the number of images I wanted to manage. A few years ago, the Wife did a project with Photoshop that got her up to an 8 GB psb file. At that time the only google search I found for people with the problems we were having with Photoshop, were people doing Landsat images... The project was intended to be printed out such that one could in fact fill a ceiling with the image...

So, if Adobe had come out with a 'new and improved Photoshop', that had little or no filters, only handled images up to 2 GB, or 1 or 2 layers... I'd be complaining about Adobe's 'vision' of the future.

As it is Adobe does have a 'less for less' version of Photoshop... and Apple has a 'less for less' version of video editing... And as a note... I can recall when one had to buy additional 3rd party filters for PS (as well as AE, etc.), and it is very convenient for someone who wants to do things differently to have those tools 'just there', rather than having to apply someone's idea of say, The Ken Burns Effect... again one of the ancient reasons for picking After Effects, was so that I could control any effect via keyframing, rather than rely on some 'canned' effect.

But definitely, using a canned effect is 'faster' than controlling for subtle effects.

 

[David Saraceno]

But definitely, using a canned effect is 'faster' than controlling for subtle effects.

Of course, if the client prefers the "canned effect" rather than the subtle effect, which is the preferable one?

Or if the client could only afford the "canned effect?" What then?

In its current version, FCP X is missing SOME collaborative tools that are essential to SOME professional editors.

Some won't return, although the skinny is that some will.

Why does the horse continue to be beaten?

 

[stoneinapond]

Of course, if the client prefers the "canned effect" rather than the subtle effect, which is the preferable one?

Or if the client could only afford the "canned effect?" What then?

In its current version, FCP X is missing SOME collaborative tools that are essential to SOME professional editors.

Some won't return, although the skinny is that some will.

Why does the horse continue to be beaten?

Because Casey Anthony was found not guitly, and gosh darn it, I'm angry. Someone's got to pay, it might as well be a dead horse.

 

[filmguy123]

Because Casey Anthony was found not guitly, and gosh darn it, I'm angry. Someone's got to pay, it might as well be a dead horse.

Like.