My ambivalence about FCP-X

arniepix

arniepix

Well-known member
For anyone who's interested:
http://www.arniepix.com/index.php?o...t&layout=category&task=category&id=5&Itemid=5

To sum it up:
I am not my tools. I am a creative professional, regardless of the tools I choose to use. I should choose those tools for reasons that make sense to me.

And, BTW, if you're interested in working with emerging, indie film makers in the near future, you should learn FCP-X and Lightworks because many of them will be attracted to them by price and FCP-X's ease of use.
 
Ha, not true.

And you're confusing the situation. There are so many threads on this already but I'll sum it up for you.

The pro post world is not using Final Cut X at the moment because they took out the features (technical not talking about creative) that they need to do things like move a cut to another post house for mixing, color grading, picture conforming, ect. Things like EDLs and support for higher end gear like the Kona capture card, AAF, OMF ect.

Non Pro's (or a better term the general editing public) will not be bothered by Final Cut X's lack of these features because they simply do not need them to get edits done. Especially if they do everything in one computer.


Dude, this is not a creative debate. Progress is good, innovation is good.

Apple can innovate all it wants but if it takes away the pro features then the pro post houses can't and I repeat can't use the software. Not by choice.


I work at a post production trailer house and was talking to the tech department and they mentioned that even if they wanted to use Final Cut X they can't use it for their 50 plus networked editing systems.


People don't get the "whining". It has nothing to do with the theory of innovation itself but with Apple's innovation taking away some features the pro's used. That's it plain and simple.

There'a another thread on this which goes into detail, kind of wish you didn't start this thread. I'm sure all the same things that are going to be mentioned here will HAVE BEEN MENTIONED in this other thread.

http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showthread.php?254748-X-makes-perfect-sense-from-a-business-standpoint.
 
I hope that Lightworks makes it. It would be nice to have a powerful and open source editor. Time will tell on that one.
 
draven4 said:
Ha, not true.

And you're confusing the situation. There are so many threads on this already but I'll sum it up for you.

The pro post world is not using Final Cut X at the moment because they took out the features (technical not talking about creative) that they need to do things like move a cut to another post house for mixing, color grading, picture conforming, ect. Things like EDLs and support for higher end gear like the Kona capture card, AAF, OMF ect.

Non Pro's (or a better term the general editing public) will not be bothered by Final Cut X's lack of these features because they simply do not need them to get edits done. Especially if they do everything in one computer.


Dude, this is not a creative debate. Progress is good, innovation is good.

Apple can innovate all it wants but if it takes away the pro features then the pro post houses can't and I repeat can't use the software. Not by choice.


I work at a post production trailer house and was talking to the tech department and they mentioned that even if they wanted to use Final Cut X they can't use it for their 50 plus networked editing systems.


People don't get the "whining". It has nothing to do with the theory of innovation itself but with Apple's innovation taking away some features the pro's used. That's it plain and simple.

There'a another thread on this which goes into detail, kind of wish you didn't start this thread. I'm sure all the same things that are going to be mentioned here will HAVE BEEN MENTIONED in this other thread.

http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showthread.php?254748-X-makes-perfect-sense-from-a-business-standpoint.
Click to expand...

+1
 
We, the editors, are in much the same spot as those taxi drivers.
Click to expand...
Not at all. You mentioned, the cab drivers had no choice in picking the cab. Editors have multiple choices.

If we're really professionals, we should, like a cab driver, be able to sit down behind the wheel of any model of NLE and drive it from raw footage to finished edit.
Click to expand...
I agree that an editor that desires to earn a decent income as a freelancer should know more than one NLE. Most of the freelancers I work with know both FCP7 and Media Composer.
 
If you only define "pro" as someone who works on studio features, TV shows, commercials, trailers or in post houses, then, yes FCP-X is missing many "pro" features.

If you define "pro" as someone who makes a sizable chunk of their income making or posting video, though, most of these people don't rely on capture cards, and many are cutting with iMacs or MacBook Pros. FCP-X probably has all of the features that most of these people need, and they outnumber us by a wide margin. These are the people who are working on industrials, events, web series, even indie films.
 
There is one problem in this discussion: It's not about us defining who is a pro and who is not. It is about defining or finding out if a software meets all or most of the standards pros in different work fields need. And here FCPX seems to fail.
 
tipota said:
There is one problem in this discussion: It's not about us defining who is a pro and who is not. It is about defining or finding out if a software meets all or most of the standards pros in different work fields need. And here FCPX seems to fail.
Click to expand...
That's what they said about FCP 1.0.
 
Aha, it means `mixed feelings'.

Well, my wife the wedding movie making professional REALLY likes FCP X. But my editor who refuses to cross over to CS5 feels done in.

And therein lies the strategy of the new FCP:

IMovie users (millions of them) have a very cool upgrade at the expense of a lot less professionals.

Not cool. Good business, but not cool.
 
The only way I can see FCP-X working in a pro pipeline is as a purely creative tool in an offline/online situation and only after XML export is implemented.

That way the hands on type ad agency art director or film maker can cut away with proxies and email a zip of the XML to a post house.

edit:
The problem with this is that these type people are not typically the ones who have the money for an online/offline workflow. They are usually the ones who need to handle their own data and make final export. So no it won't be pro and will miss pro functionality in its tweaking.

And the type who do have money for it are more likely to just hire an editor.
 
Last edited:
I read a tweet last night stating that Steve Jobs has now become involved in the FCPX disaster and is concerned over the mass of negative PR, allegedly a lot of changes are in the pipeline bring back the missing features... cant verify this info thou
 
Vultch said:
I read a tweet last night stating that Steve Jobs has now become involved in the FCPX disaster and is concerned over the mass of negative PR, allegedly a lot of changes are in the pipeline bring back the missing features... cant verify this info thou
Click to expand...

Of course S Jobbs is concerned about this. FCP was one of the things that helped the Mac build up to where it is now, and brought in a lot of adopters. To have that pro base vanish or get disillusioned is not good for the ethereal glow of the Apple brand - it's because it was for a long time the PC for creative pros that it has so much kudos. They should do a press release with a timeline for pro feature return, because Jobbs knows that if you abandon Pro users, they might abandon you, and then, just perhaps, Apple becomes another IBM story. There have to be some very good reasons for paying over the odds for hardware such as Apple Macs, and FCP exclusivity and real Pro app exclusivity is high on that list.
 
I'm not sure IBM is the company you meant to reference. They are a 100 year old blue chip recently rated 7th biggest company in the country and 33rd in the world. I think Steve would be happy to see his little seedling, started in a garage, last 100 years and still be one of the most respected and prosperous companies in the world. I think you meant Texas Instruments or Tandy.

In the spirit of full disclosure I bought FCPX 2 days ago and I love it. This latest rumor about the Steve Jobs himself adding things to this already powerful software has the potential to add value to software I already own. Just as long as it does not turn into a New Coke thing. I love Classic but I'm sure some people really liked New Coke.
 
My reference to IBM was just an offhand reference to their famously very poor business deal with Microsoft, way back at the start of the PC. Before that, they totally dominated everything, afterwards, it was an open field.
 
kgimedia said:
....be one of the most respected and prosperous companies in the world.
Click to expand...

I wouldn't call it 'respect'... sure no one ever got fired for selecting IBM, but IBM has not had a completely 'clean hands' on dirty tricks to get market share, or maintain top dog status.

While IBM hasn't been in the antitrust news of late, during it's 'rise' in the 60's, it did practice a number of shady methods, such as announcing major systems... to stave off either customers from jumping ship, or defer potential new customer's buying decisions till 'later', leaving such companies as Burroughs and other computer manufacturers in the cold... even the typewriter was used as a weapon of competition destruction... IBM groomed their 'market appearance' to be the only 'professional' solution, and as a note, often would quote higher prices for their typewriters, and still win 'bids'... they would refuse to license the 'typewriter ball', a key selection item in 'quotes', such that the competition had no offering. (In the industry there are ways to state 'requests for quote' such that only one vendor can respond... such as 'typewriter must have a changable type font, the IBM type ball being the only one at the time...).

And of course, IBM gave the imprimatur to the business weenies that the 'personal computer' was a 'good idea'... the weenies as a group had disparaged the Apples, the CPM based systems, but with IBM... oh my goodness... it was like Moses coming down from Mt. Sinai... and of course the graphics on the PC was crappy, but did bar graphs just enough for the financial weenies to rave with glowing reports...

What Apple has banked on is hardware manufacturing, along with the creation of their quality industrial design. Sort of like Ollivetti of the 60's and portable typewriters... speaking of typewriters... IBM never saw 'portables' as their area...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top