New FCP due in spring

Mavrey said:
Guys,
Don't worry about your jobs because of FCP X price. It won't change anything, simply because Average Joes don't buy softwares, they download hacked versions. So FCP X could be $1500 i wouldn't matter, they will download it for free anyways. They always did.
I buy my softwares because I am a pro and I support our industry... and I wan't my sh*t to work and deliver on time. But the Average Joe everybody is so afraid of is sketchy, (if he wasn't, he would be a pro) therefore, he hacks softwares No Matter It's Price!!

Blame it on DSLRs, since you can't have a hacked copy if a 7D :p

Im not worried about my job anyways, yes there are a bunch of sketchy Joes around town, but big companies don't do business with them. or if they do, it's a one time deal untill they realise they ended up with an B-quality product
Click to expand...

It's true, a lot of amateurs pirate so the price won't have quite the same impact. I really do blame it more on DSLRs and the broad public awareness of NLE tools. Though cheap, legal availability certainly doesn't help.

I'm not really worried about my job, just making note that these technological advances have had and will continue to have big impacts on the market for prosumers.

@ Chad - I feel like you're leaving out a little more than you account for in that 5 hours. Time spent networking, driving time, cost of supplies (DVDs, website, lunch on set), etc. When you really add it up, I would wager most of the time it comes out to a bit more than a clean 5 hours. And of course, you also paid a lot of money for equipment, you get taxed harder as freelance, you have time spent learning how to do effects, etc. And like you said, you don't have a job a day... heck, one job a week? At that rate a job/week is only $15,600... pre tax! And you get taxed harder and you have equipment investment and no benefits!

My point is only to say, I probably wouldn't do that same commercial for under $1,000... and that's on the low side. But notice the impact on the market... already you are willing now to do that for $300/day. 10 years ago you would have commanded much, much more.

So, point being, the dynamics are changing. I've had to adapt. I used to charge $3,500 for a sports highlight video where I only came to 6 games through the season, edited everything artistically and stylistically, and did player interview and included a slideshow. Then I sold the footage in a re-edited form for $600/tape to parents who wanted footage of their kid for recruitment purposes. And at the time (early 2000's), for the quality of work, that pricing and what I provided was considered a steal. Nowadays, it's near impossible to get a gig doing that. I even had one job where I filmed half a team's basketball season and did the same setup (interviews/slideshow) for $10,000! Now I see companies locally doing that same thing for $1500. Granted, mine was WAY higher quality, but I simply can NOT get anyone willing to spend $10,000 on a superbly edited, highly artistic piece. The $1,500 job pales in comparison, but the price is right.

That's OK - I guess. It's just different. For me it meant to compete, I had to STOP doing what I love (being creative) and worry more about quantity over quality; more about pushing stuff technically through the pipeline than crafting creative edits. Sure I could hire people to go run some cameras and turn what I do into a bulk thing. But yuck, no thanks. So I got out, to do music videos. But now kids and their 7Ds are taking that, too.

You definitely have to be creative and work hard to sell yourself and stand out and make your work worthwhile, over the 'good enough' quality out there, and over people willing to work for dirt cheap. But you can do it.

I'm still doing video, clearly, my point is only, no one can say the technology influx hasn't had a big impact. It hasn't just raised all tides for me, it's caused me to change business models and work on different kinds videos with different kinds of clients. TBH, I liked it more before... but such is life.
 
Last edited:
chromeboy007 said:
Thanks man... but I'm tired of hearing how digital download is gonna kill the physical copy market... video is not music. You can't download 50GB's to watch a blu-ray quality movie, renting at the store will be cheaper even if internet speed is fast enough to dl 50GB's.
Click to expand...

I don't disagree at all. I've got my home theatre setup and I won't watch anything but Blu Ray. I have a whole shelf of Blu Rays. And I bought Premiere CS5 just so I could have Encore. IMO it sucks Apple doesn't support Blu-Ray, but I'm over it, and FCP X has got me giddy :)
 
No more need for Plural eyes! FCP analyzes your scratch audio and 2nd system audio and syncs them. Cooooolllllll.
 
Watched the demo video today. As much as I like FCP as it is, they showed a lot of stuff I'd like to try out. Seems pretty cool. My only thought now is, with only 3 windows in FCPX do i now have a second monitor that is useless? (my 2nd monitor is where I keep the browser and video scopes).
 
I watched the whole hour of video too. I like what they are doing with the audio. Finally some audio editing is possible with ease. I hope to see a master bus you can put plug-ins on so I can master in the box. And I hope when you do use plug-ins, you get to see the GUI of the plug, rather than that numeric crap and sliders FCP gives you even with 3rd party plugs.
 
ullanta said:
Fixing it in post is still not as good as doing it right.
Click to expand...

ullanta, you make some great points that I don't disagree with, and generally this statement is true, BUT, in my example, people (including pros) are shooting in the field PURPOSELY with the intent of 'fixing' it in post. Example is my GND filters (graduated neutral density)... if you want to keep the distant mountain from blowing out in the light while keeping the shadowy foreground meadows, to do it right you need to meter the light, find out the f-stop difference, and slap a GND filter (or two) with the right amount of stops to make sure you're keeping all elements properly exposed. Today, you don't have to worry a bit about blowing out highlites or black shadows and you don't need a filter, simply take a series of bracketed RAW shots, each one completely sucks on their own, but combine them in Photoshop for a perfectly exposed image throughout. That's not photography skills, that's post-processing technical skills. And ANYONE can do it on the cheap, the pros have no real advantage over the hobbyists because they're using the same software. You can get a Canon DSLR for less than $800 that takes just as good shots as the top end 'pro' Canon at over $6 grand (or whatever they go for these days). I shoot a Canon 5D Mark II professionally, not their top end camera. At 20+ RAW heckapixels, you can do what you want with the image in post. Bob can, or David Muench can.

I'm a little lost on your Instamatic example, those shot 126 and 110 film and did not compete with pro photographers in any way. 35mm film cameras are not all that expensive. Anyone could buy a 35mm film camera, but you had to know very much what you were doing in one click because what you took is what you got. Not today, that's just the beginning of the process for many. I know many pro photographers who lament the the computer time now required for their business... they used to just go shoot stuff, take the film to the lab, and pick up the beautiful prints. Now the organizing and processing of digital images is very time intensive. But you can dodge/burn, saturate, desaturate, add contrast, change exposure, change white balance, etc. You said, "And, the doofus with autofocus and auto white balance auto gain will still not match the pro with older equipment that knows how to use it." That's not true at all anymore. I accidently took some exterior pics of my kids at a b-day party a couple of days ago with my white balance set a 3200, they came out very blue. In Lightroom I simply slid the adjuster to make the white balance perfect. More perfect than if I had done it right in the field because I can minutely, and precisely adjust it to exactly how I want it on the fly. Even pros tweak their white balance in post, make skin tones warmer or cooler to taste, or change the feel to any image. And Bob is doing the exact same thing with the exact same software. You don't even have to do ANYTHING to white balance in the field anymore if you don't want, as long as you shoot RAW. Admittedly this isn't quite as simple with video.

I'm not promoting sloppy field shooting, I'm just saying hobbyists can now enjoy the same tools as pros at these price points. And I'm not saying their work is as good. But in the marketplace, it's obvious 'acceptable' to lots and lots of folks. Okay, I think I beat this horse pretty hard, ha ha! I hear what you're saying.
 
I'm dense, I just realized the "X" stands for 10, not the letter X', ha! I was thinking they were trying to be cool with the whole X factor thing.
 
Last edited:
Um..... me too. I thought they were trying to be cool. Or worse, "X" stands for "Experimental" when they are testing air planes, like the "X-16" became the "F-16" after they worked out the bugs.
 
I agree that FCPX will now make it much easier for complete noobs to produce great-looking video that would've been much harder in the past. However, I disagree that there is all that much "advancement" in this new iteration. They took their iMovie platform and conformed it to Adobe CS5's innovative advancements... and then sprinkled in a few other things here and there that THEY determined would make OUR jobs easier, which is their reputation after all so I'm glad they're continuing to live up to it. Some looks like it might do just that, and some looks like it probably won't.

Either way it's a great price for a solitary NLE with full functionality, but it's still a disappointment coming from a non-FC user who would've considered switching if the software merited it. I'm sure the Apple lapdogs will eat it up as usual -- proclaiming the prettier version of mostly old innovation and things now considered standard (as Apple said themselves) as "revolutionary" or "amazing" -- which is their reputation. However I'm just as sure that now we will have an influx of "new" editors who will talk in a completely different editing language as ALL they will know about it will be FCPX\iMovie and it's shiny garden of automatic processing and pseudo-creative freedom.

Also, I see most people skipped right over the fact that this will require the latest and greatest hardware and OS. Slowly but surely those older Intel Macs will be just as useless (in Apple's eyes) as the Power Macs are. I hope you're all factoring in the cost of a new overpriced Apple machine with that $299 price in order to effectively take advantage of this "amazing" new product.
 
I still think they're trying to be cool with the X... since the last version was 7, not 9. And let's be honest, "FCP 7" should have been "FCP 6.5"... they're skipping a whole lot of versions. Kool Kats.
 
lwright84 said:
I agree that FCPX will now make it much easier for complete noobs to produce great-looking video that would've been much harder in the past. However, I disagree that there is all that much "advancement" in this new iteration. They took their iMovie platform and conformed it to Adobe CS5's innovative advancements... and then sprinkled in a few other things here and there that THEY determined would make OUR jobs easier, which is their reputation after all so I'm glad they're continuing to live up to it. Some looks like it might do just that, and some looks like it probably won't.

Either way it's a great price for a solitary NLE with full functionality, but it's still a disappointment coming from a non-FC user who would've considered switching if the software merited it. I'm sure the Apple lapdogs will eat it up as usual -- proclaiming the prettier version of mostly old innovation and things now considered standard (as Apple said themselves) as "revolutionary" or "amazing" -- which is their reputation. However I'm just as sure that now we will have an influx of "new" editors who will talk in a completely different editing language as ALL they will know about it will be FCPX\iMovie and it's shiny garden of automatic processing and pseudo-creative freedom.

Also, I see most people skipped right over the fact that this will require the latest and greatest hardware and OS. Slowly but surely those older Intel Macs will be just as useless (in Apple's eyes) as the Power Macs are. I hope you're all factoring in the cost of a new overpriced Apple machine with that $299 price in order to effectively take advantage of this "amazing" new product.
Click to expand...

I'm sorry but a lot of what you are saying here is just off. First, they explicitly stated that the new version is designed to scale from the simple Intel Macbook all the way up to the towers. It won't require any greater horsepower than FCP 7 to run, only to use all the fancy new stuff to full advantage. This was stated in the video - the scalability, thanks to Grand Central Dispatch - on an OS level - is something really special about this.

Second, the market for FCP is much different than your "apple lapdogs" who lovez the newz iPhonez because it's shiny. You're talking about pro editors. The editors of True Grit, Social Network, 500 Days of Summer, 300, etc. On the topic, The Social Network won the academy award for Best Editing.

Third, many of these features ARE revolutionary in the sense that they will actually be USED on a widespread basis at a high-end professional level. Final Cut's market share KILLS Adobe Premiere on the prosumer front, and let's not even talk big budget movies - I'm sure there's SOMETHING out there edited on Premiere, but I can't name a single flick. And then Sony Vegas - it's great, but their market share is even lower. So yes, this IS revolutionary because it will actually have an impact on a large number of editors, unlike Premiere, Vegas, Edius, etc. I agree - perhaps not revolutionary in the sense that the features have never been done before, but revolutionary in the sense that it will actual CHANGE the way people edit because a large amount of people will actually USE the software. Something isn't revolutionary in a practical sense if no one uses it.

Further, many different NLEs have done some of what FCP is doing, but the COMBINATION of all of those things in one place, and the polish/execution (how WELL they are done) is what will likely set FCP apart. And it's this combination and polish that hasn't been done before. Of course I can't speak yet to the polish, but there aren't many examples of Apple dropping the ball in the polish department.

And finally, please, enough with the "iMovie Pro" talk. It's getting old, not because it's some weakness of FCP, but because it is simply not accurate. They did not build anything on the iMovie platform. They took some of the surface level UI, and some of the best technical features, and incorporated them into a the high-end professional tool that FCP is, as they SHOULD. The features are great and it would be non-sensical to leave them out. Keywording is a LIFE SAVER for sports highlight videos. Skimming is beautiful for live event coverage. And the new interface, that takes the best of FCP and other editors, is a welcome step forward - especially since it's been reported from a beta user that the option to use the traditional timeline is there if you so wish.

So please, enough with the Apple hating. It belongs in teenage iPhone VS Android debate, not adult professional editors. And as for your "pseudo-creative" comment, it's ironic because what FCP X does it cuts out even more of the technical non-creative crap and lets you get straight to true creativity. The automated processes all deal with technical tasks that are simple drudgery. The only thing "pseudo-creative" in the editing world is uncreative editors who rely solely on technical knowledge to set them apart. This is a boon for creatives.
 
Last edited:
To a couple of your points filmguy123:

Second, the market for FCP is much different than your "apple lapdogs" who lovez the newz iPhonez because it's shiny. You're talking about pro editors. The editors of True Grit, Social Network, 500 Days of Summer, 300, etc. On the topic, The Social Network won the academy award for Best Editing.
Click to expand...

While this is true, it's also a part of the Apple Kool-Aid. Apple is really good at marketing and selling the sizzle. They pick the high-profile projects and do their little write-ups on them and the video press picks up the stories and runs with it because of the insight into a "pro editors" world of whatever. People read it because they like to hear about heros and people they look up to. In all seriousness, Avid is used on more feature films than Final Cut, as well as is used extensively in the broadcast commercial world. Avid just doesn't make a big hoopla every time a Oscar nominated/winning/blockbuster movie uses their software. At least not in the way that Apple does.

perhaps not revolutionary in the sense that the features have never been done before, but revolutionary in the sense that it will actual CHANGE the way people edit because a large amount of people will actually USE the software. Something isn't revolutionary in a practical sense if no one uses it.
Click to expand...

While this may be true, I don't think it matters that much in the way you're saying it's "revolutionary". Just because a large amount of people use it does mean that's it's revolutionary. Also, out of that large amount (2 million installed per Apple) there is a much smaller portion that are professionals using it. I mean professionals that use it as their bread and butter and require software that functions on many different levels rather than a few cool functions. I also think lwright84's part about "new" editors and their hype on FCPX and that being all they know is correct. This dumbing down of the software is actually saturating the market with ill-informed individuals who end up doing their part in driving down rates and making it harder on real professionals by misrepresenting an entire industry by failing to meet client needs because they all of a sudden think they're editors since they can now afford the sleek $300 Final Cut.

It happened with shake when they dropped the price (to a lesser degree since it's a niche program) but it also happened with Color. All of a sudden clients are saying things like "are you doing that in Color" or "you should be using Color" like they know what it means. This is usually because someone before me told them how great Color is and how it will help them without knowing what the hell it really does. They're like the hipsters of the pro video world or something.

Either way, my biggest balk was the fact they dropped the price so low. Now I can really feel like my software is a toy.

And finally, please, enough with the "iMovie Pro" talk.
Click to expand...

It does look like iMovie. This may be a good thing, but see my aforementioned comment about software being a toy. Whether it acts like iMovie is yet to be determined until real users use it.

And as for your "pseudo-creative" comment, it's ironic because what FCP X does it cuts out even more of the technical non-creative crap and lets you get straight to true creativity. The automated processes all deal with technical tasks that are simple drudgery. The only thing "pseudo-creative" in the editing world is uncreative editors who rely solely on technical knowledge to set them apart. This is a boon for creatives.
Click to expand...

I think the issue is that with Apple all these fancy bells and whistles of automated this and that, etc. usually come at a cost. A high one to some that use it, especially in a production pipeline. To really 'get straight to true creativity' then I should be able to establish a pipeline and workflow that work best with how I/company operates. That means if I shoot on a combination of Alexa, RED, P2, and dSLR's, then I should be able to use my editing software to be a part of that pipeline smoothly. Apple tends to make you do things their way with new features/software. Things like not being able to edit P2 is a bit long in the tooth at this point. Even with the new background rendering on ingest while still being able to edit, that doesn't change the fact that at some point you'll be waiting for at least the first clips to convert. Doesn't change the fact that you still have two copies of media. There is life outside of the editing software and this is where FCP & Apple doesn't play well.

The little things count a lot. If all these new features make you work faster and be more creative, that's just making up for other glaring problems or the flat out refusal to acknowledge how real people need to use the software. I sometimes spend large parts of my day trying to figure out workarounds to FCP problems. And once you think you have a workflow you find some other bug or peculiarity that mucks everything up. These are the little things Apple tends to ignore and the things that other companies at least acknowledge and try to fix.


All in all, hopefully they provide a demo and I'm curious what's in store for the rest. It'd be disappointing if nothing else was updated, would be pretty suspect too. We'll see how it works out, but there are a lot of features I'd like to see before I'm convinced at the revolutionariness of this release.
 
Personally I wish they would've priced it something like $499 with a $299 upgrade price, that way it would still be an absolutely amazing deal for serious users but just out of the range of casual users wondering if they should upgrade from iMovie. It's maybe a selfish or pride thing, I dunno, but just knowing you're editing serious production stuff on something so inexpensive takes away the remaining umph of "ya, I use Final Cut for my projects". Ya, so does my Mom.

I can't believe I'm here complaining about how something is too inexpensive, ha ha! I paid well over a grand a couple of years ago for FCS, loved getting that big fat box in the mail! Software is dropping as fast as the value of my house! :Þ
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top