Final Cut Pro X: A Look From Past to Present to Future (Complete Footage)

Tom 4 said:
I concluded , use what will work best for your client base, they have their strengths and weaknesses, buy what your market will pay for, it's great to have so much choice of what's out there , good or bad,

Cheers
Tom
oline
Click to expand...

Makes sense.
If you work in an AVID environemnt there is no way around it (a reason why I don´t like it).AVID is a massive editor. Great toolset, once you learned it all...in 3 years or so.
Premiere has a good toolset now and works fluent with AE and PS etc.
FCP7 is still working, but it is simply EOL...so in a year or a year and a half it´s only good for old projects that have to be fixed.

FCPX is a different beast. Interesting foundation, but it lacks very important features right now, which understandably keeps many away. It will never be a full AVID , but FCP7 wasn´t either. How many blockbusters were edited on FCP7? Whenver there was one we heard about it...the rest AVID. So FCPX won´t go there, it is an option for everyone else though.
 
SPZ said:
I'm sorry to say but this is as unbiased as a fox news report.
Click to expand...

This little gem explains more about the inane arguments over FCP X than anything I've seen yet. All news reflects some kind of bias, to assert that only Fox news is guilty of such is an assertion fundamentally based in bias, and incidentally ignorance.

Apparently, somewhere in the beginning of time it was written that all NLE's must look like Avid... then Premiere, Final Cut, then Edius, then.... fill in the blank, just as long as they follow the same paradigm

Most importantly of all, NLE's must never depart form the pre-ordained paradigm based on cutting physical film. For to do so would upset the gods of conformity, predictability and stasis.

The gods will then roar form their lofty perches decrying all that is not orthodox... their list of such heresy's is long: not shooting film but video, video that is not beta-cam, cameras that don't shoot tape ,video cameras that include an LCD, digital still photography.... still cameras that include a pop up flash.

The god's list of treacheries was long. All of these transgressions were sins against the way things "ought to be" in the sanctified halls of media production.

All of these violations were accursed and worse yet- wore the label of "not professional".

The End. Fine etc.


If you can't see or are unwilling to admit the bias built into the current NLE paradigm, how can one clam to make an objective judgement about FCP X ?
 
hotchkiss said:
This little gem explains more about the inane arguments over FCP X than anything I've seen yet. All news reflects some kind of bias, to assert that only Fox news is guilty of such is an assertion fundamentally based in bias, and incidentally ignorance.

Apparently, somewhere in the beginning of time it was written that all NLE's must look like Avid... then Premiere, Final Cut, then Edius, then.... fill in the blank, just as long as they follow the same paradigm

Most importantly of all, NLE's must never depart form the pre-ordained paradigm based on cutting physical film. For to do so would upset the gods of conformity, predictability and stasis.

The gods will then roar form their lofty perches decrying all that is not orthodox... their list of such heresy's is long: not shooting film but video, video that is not beta-cam, cameras that don't shoot tape ,video cameras that include an LCD, digital still photography.... still cameras that include a pop up flash.

The god's list of treacheries was long. All of these transgressions were sins against the way things "ought to be" in the sanctified halls of media production.

All of these violations were accursed and worse yet- wore the label of "not professional".

The End. Fine etc.


If you can't see or are unwilling to admit the bias built into the current NLE paradigm, how can one clam to make an objective judgement about FCP X ?
Click to expand...

I thought it was more than clear that the Fox news statement was light hearted, tongue in cheek. I never said that only Fox News was biased in News Reporting- don't go that way, that is a completely different discussion altogether. I made that statement in response to a previous post saying that the analysis done in the video that started this thread was unbiased, which clearly wasn't. There were clear omissions in his presentation of some of the editors shortcomings, as well as statements of "exactly the same as FCP7" which were obviously not true. This has been more than discussed throughout this thread and many of those actually using the software can confirm this.

Its not about the Editing Paradigm, but the lackluster implementation of some features, the lack of communication with other important specialized aspects of post production, output to tape, the lack of professional broadcast monitoring, legacy project support, etc. etc. that make the biggest chunk of criticism on FCPX. These aspects were unexplainably absent and are mostly essential in a professional broadcast workflow, at least in most of the world.

No one here is against progress, just against "regress".
 
SPZ said:
\ These aspects were unexplainably absent and are mostly essential in a professional broadcast workflow, at least in most of the world.

No one here is against progress, just against "regress".
Click to expand...

Given the fact that this is version 1 of a brand new application, it is understandable, at least to some people, that not every feature that every level of a professional needs will be included. Apple has indicated as much, and features will be added.

And given the fact that there are some pretty interesting, and powerful new features in FCP X that make it attractive to some professionals as well.

Bias, of course, runs both ways. You call it a "regress," and others don't.

Who is right? I think everyone calls it depending at where they are starting from
 
David Saraceno said:
Given the fact that this is version 1 of a brand new application, it is understandable, at least to some people, that not every feature that every level of a professional needs will be included. Apple has indicated as much, and features will be added.

And given the fact that there are some pretty interesting, and powerful new features in FCP X that make it attractive to some professionals as well.

Bias, of course, runs both ways. You call it a "regress," and others don't.

Who is right? I think everyone calls it depending at where they are starting from
Click to expand...

This is version X, not 1. If it was 1, it wouldn't be called Final Cut Pro, would it? The prior version of Final Cut Pro had the above mentioned missing features. I'm not even talking about Multicam, because in my own biased selfish personal opinion, I never needed it for my type of work.

Apple only said that some of these features would be added after a week of complaining from the editing industry, in a faq, which is not clear in certain important aspects. The main concern in this thread is the video that started this thread. And its important, I think, for people to research and not take this video as unbiased. It omits certain facts and deficiencies of the software (match color, for example, or the beta Aja drivers that are for second desktop emulation), and some other fascinating quotes like "exactly like it was in FCP7", such as quicktime export.

I'm still editing in FCP7, mind you, and have actually bought X and tried it. Haven't bought CS 5.5 or MC 5.5. I'm obviously upset at Apple for what they did to my workflow in X, so if this means bias, so be it. I think its a bias with a reason to be.
 
It's a new application. It isn't a rewrite of any other application to my knowledge.

Not certain why it is important to categorize the video as biased or not.

Who cares? If it provides information, great.

It's up to the individual to distinguish what is hype, marketing, and bias.

For me the jury is out on FCP X, but I'm in no hurry to make a judgment about it.

Whether Apple adds features or not remains to be seen. If it doesn't, then I have two more years with FCS 3 on Lion and current hardware. So, I don't see a huge impact at least for that time.

But my guess is that FCP X will mature, either by Apple adding features, or 3rd parties extending the architecture.
 
Last edited:
A comment on the FCP X UI "reboot".

My girlfriend is a trained actor who co-writes and often co-directs our productions. She's also something of a techno-phobe.

Whenever she has had a look at video editing before using the "old school" interfaces (specifically Premiere Pro and FCP 6) she has been so put off as to swear blind that she will never, ever be able to do it.

Last weekend I showed her FCP X. By the end of the weekend she had, on her own, done a creditable job of editing not one but two short spots, including basic colour correction and a first pass at audio sweetening. Admittedly they were simple one-camera linear narratives shot on our AF100, so the editing wasn't much more complicated than trimming the action and cut calls from each take, sticking them together and adding a few cutaways and closeups to bridge a few jump cuts but still... I was very impressed, both with FCP X and with my girlfriend! :cheesy: Oh, and she did it all on a Mac Book Pro with no transcode and the program was smooth as silk.

I think everyone agrees there are some major holes in FCP X at the moment. But I think it is a REALLY good platform to build on. For cottage industry web-based production houses like ours, it is already the best tool for the job. I just find it so quick, visual and visceral to assemble the rough cut in FCP X compared with old-school interface programs that I'm immediately turning to it for every new project now, and only going back to FCP6 or PPro CS5 if there's extensive multicam or I want to use Colorista II or Magic Bullet Looks. The moment those holes are filled, I think we will be switching to FCP X for everything. (We don't need the broadcast monitoring per se, because sadly the vast majority of our customers will be watching on ghastly uncalibrated nasty computer screens).

I just hope there are enough other producers out there who feel the same, so the program keeps getting developed and the third party developers update their plugins!

Cheers, Hywel.
 
Hywel said:
A comment on the FCP X UI "reboot".My girlfriend is a trained actor who co-writes and often co-directs our productions. She's also something of a techno-phobe. Whenever she has had a look at video editing before using the "old school" interfaces (specifically Premiere Pro and FCP 6) she has been so put off as to swear blind that she will never, ever be able to do it.Last weekend I showed her FCP X. By the end of the weekend she had, on her own, done a creditable job of editing not one but two short spots, including basic colour correction and a first pass at audio sweetening. Admittedly they were simple one-camera linear narratives shot on our AF100, so the editing wasn't much more complicated than trimming the action and cut calls from each take, sticking them together and adding a few cutaways and closeups to bridge a few jump cuts but still... I was very impressed, both with FCP X and with my girlfriend! :cheesy: Oh, and she did it all on a Mac Book Pro with no transcode and the program was smooth as silk.I think everyone agrees there are some major holes in FCP X at the moment. But I think it is a REALLY good platform to build on. For cottage industry web-based production houses like ours, it is already the best tool for the job. I just find it so quick, visual and visceral to assemble the rough cut in FCP X compared with old-school interface programs that I'm immediately turning to it for every new project now, and only going back to FCP6 or PPro CS5 if there's extensive multicam or I want to use Colorista II or Magic Bullet Looks. The moment those holes are filled, I think we will be switching to FCP X for everything. (We don't need the broadcast monitoring per se, because sadly the vast majority of our customers will be watching on ghastly uncalibrated nasty computer screens).I just hope there are enough other producers out there who feel the same, so the program keeps getting developed and the third party developers update their plugins! Cheers, Hywel.
Click to expand...
This is a great example of what the current version of Final Cut is good at... Being simple and working for you. As NLE editors we are used to mastering the program, and in FCPX we have to start over and learn a new, "better" way to edit that does bring advantages.

I know for the work I do, we use volunteers for many things at church. Editing typically isn't one of them because it's too hard to train. FCPX may change that. Easier to get an edit done is a good thing. Keywording is great for an entry level job too. That's a great easy assistant editor level job.

I dunno, I see alot of potential in FCPX, but I am also not pleased with the fact that software updates haven't happened yet. The quick awesome updating via the App Store is promising, but until i see an update on FCPX, im gonna be VERY wary of a purchase. There are issues that need addressed and soon.
 
Last edited:
SPZ said:
This is version X, not 1. If it was 1, it wouldn't be called Final Cut Pro, would it? The prior version of Final Cut Pro had the above mentioned missing features. I'm not even talking about Multicam, because in my own biased selfish personal opinion, I never needed it for my type of work. .
Click to expand...

That was Apple´s big mistake. It is NOT Final Cut Pro TEN. Its is Final Cut X 1.0 !

Has nothing to do with Final Cut and they must have some marketing experience given their success that made them go this route with the naming. It was not working for their user-base though.
 
alpi69 said:
That was Apple´s big mistake. It is NOT Final Cut Pro TEN. Its is Final Cut X 1.0 !

Has nothing to do with Final Cut and they must have some marketing experience given their success that made them go this route with the naming. It was not working for their user-base though.
Click to expand...

The marketing department either had a brain fart, or by including the "PRO" nomenclature, they fully intend it to be a professional application. I'm betting on the latter.
 
We like things complicated

We like things complicated

We do don't we, we like to think with our NLE of choice, that editing couldn't possibly be done by a mere mortal. The thought of someone far less experienced being able to buy a FCPX, and produce work that is acceptable for most for less than £200 is ruffling some feathers for sure.

I can just see it now:
Client arrives at a studio to see the first cut, and says " Oh I see you have got one of the new iMacs" "lovely aren't they", I brought my little Jonny one of those for his birthday".

" I also got him a lovely little editing program, called FCXP or something".

" I tell you, he uses that little 550d we brought him for christmas and edits in his bedroom" he really has done quite well you know"

"NOW, lets have a look at where you are with our corporate video"

"OH,.. you...eerr.....you use the same system as Jonny" "I thought you were a proper production company"

Yes but we also use Avid and Premier, which are way to complicated for Jonny to use, We do use them, honest we do. We thought we would just show you the rushes on this because its quick and easy.


Client leaves:
"phew that was lucky, lets hope he doesn't want to come back and see the final cut" "If he does, we will have to say we've had a fire and all our Avid machines were engulfed in flames, and that only the iMac survived"


 
stu68 said:
...produce work that is acceptable for most
Click to expand...
Have you ever had a client that was fine with mediocre work?

Clients that accept mediocrity don't pay well. They want it done quickly and cheaply.

Established editors have no interest in these types of clients. It's not worth the hassle, the small amount of money and it's unsatisfying work. The less experienced editors can have as many of these clients as they can handle.

Do you want to be known as the editor that produces acceptable work or the editor that produces exceptional work?
 
Something that is "acceptable" isn't necessarily "mediocre." Not certain how you are making that jump.

Wouldn't it be better to produce work that meets your client's expectations or exceeds them?
 
stu68 said:
We do don't we, we like to think with our NLE of choice, that editing couldn't possibly be done by a mere mortal. The thought of someone far less experienced being able to buy a FCPX, and produce work that is acceptable for most for less than £200 is ruffling some feathers for sure.

I can just see it now:
Client arrives at a studio to see the first cut, and says " Oh I see you have got one of the new iMacs" "lovely aren't they", I brought my little Jonny one of those for his birthday".

" I also got him a lovely little editing program, called FCXP or something".

" I tell you, he uses that little 550d we brought him for christmas and edits in his bedroom" he really has done quite well you know"

"NOW, lets have a look at where you are with our corporate video"

"OH,.. you...eerr.....you use the same system as Jonny" "I thought you were a proper production company"

Yes but we also use Avid and Premier, which are way to complicated for Jonny to use, We do use them, honest we do. We thought we would just show you the rushes on this because its quick and easy.


Client leaves:
"phew that was lucky, lets hope he doesn't want to come back and see the final cut" "If he does, we will have to say we've had a fire and all our Avid machines were engulfed in flames, and that only the iMac survived"
Click to expand...

I'm a still photographer, and I've never had a client choose me because of the tools I use. They chose me because of reputation or after seeing my book when I was doing that sort of thing. My choice of tools never came up. I would imagine editing would be the same. If I were doing a film, I would choose an editor by resume and reputation. What he uses as his preferred tool for his work is none of my business. His result is. If Greg gorman showed up on set with a pinhole shoebox camera ....well, I guess we're doing this shoot with a pinhole shoebox camera. I trust his experience even though I'm forking over 20-30k for a photographer to shoot with a pinhole shoebox camera!! :-)

As a client, I don't care how we get there as long as we get there.
 
David Saraceno said:
Something that is "acceptable" isn't necessarily "mediocre." Not certain how you are making that jump.

Wouldn't it be better to produce work that meets your client's expectations or exceeds them?
Click to expand...

True, most of what I see coming from Hollywood is only what I would term as "acceptable" meaning it meets the professional bar. Exceptional is rare.
 
David Saraceno said:
Something that is "acceptable" isn't necessarily "mediocre." Not certain how you are making that jump.
Click to expand...

Not really a jump at all. Acceptable can mean anything from "worthy of being" to "barely adequate".


Acceptable
adjective
1.capable or worthy of being accepted.

2.pleasing to the receiver; satisfactory; agreeable; welcome.

3.meeting only minimum requirements; barely adequate: anacceptable performance.

4.capable of being endured; tolerable; bearable: acceptablelevels of radiation.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/acceptable


How about yourself David, do you enjoy the challenge of working with clients that have high expectations or do you prefer to work with clients that accept work that is "good enough" ?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top