New FCP due in spring

oneinfiniteloop (hey there Mr. Apple reference :P),

Note a few things:

1.) I'm not in the slightest disagreeing about market saturation from hobbyists. If you go back a couple pages you'll see I've chimed in numerous times about my (bad) experiences with that. And yes, the lower price point does contribute to that, but as has been discussed, many of these amateurs pirate software anyway, so the price doesn't concern me much. Yeah, it'll open it up more cause it's legal, but still. I'm much more worried about cheap DSLRs than FCP X being $299. Note as well - FCP 7 would probably be the same price if served out ala-carte. Apple has said they have "more to come" and this was only a look at FCP X, so we'll see what they have done with the other suite apps and what the pricing is. (my guess: Color & STP fully included in FCP X; Motion combined with Shake [Phenom rumor] with superb integration with FCPX, rivaling AE/Premiere, layer + nodal workflows; compressor UI update and tweaks; DVD Studio Pro either scrapped or no update. It's possible Color will retain it's own seperate module/interface for dedicated colorists, but I just don't see it for Soundtrack Pro. Suite price tag @ $999).

2.) Revolutionary in ONE sense absolutely does have to do with how many people use it. Yes, there are revolutionary FEATURES in and of themselves. And then there's revolutionary in the sense that it actually CHANGES or REVOLUTIONIZES something, such as the way an industry of people edit. The second can only happen if people use it. Do you see what I am saying? My point is, in one of these (I would argue equal) senses of the word, FCP X is revolutionizing the industry in a way Vegas never has or could, even though it is simply introducing some of the same features. And second to that point was the fact the FCP X combines and polishes many of these concepts into one package.

3.) I'm well aware Avid has more edited movies on it, notice I only called out Vegas/Premiere? That was for a reason. Though it's worth noting that most of these revolutionary concepts that people say have been done before (I'm not talking about 64-bit) are more drawn from Premiere and Vegas, so the point stands. And on that topic, FCP's market share overall is MUCH higher than Avid is today, even though Avid still reigns in the high end hollywood market.

4.) LOOKING like iMovie doesn't make it look like a toy, only your internal association does. What I am saying is, the interface doesn't look toy-ish. You just see it shares elements in common with iMovie, and you find iMovie toy-ish (so do I). However if you had never seen iMovie, people would simply say the UI looks superb. The point is, it DOES look superb, and it's a good choice. But you know, a go cart looks like a race car... but the similarities in appearance only go so far... that is to say, only at the most basic first look. And an airsoft gun looks like a real gun. But I don't think that makes either a race car or a real gun look like a toy. I realize the iMovie UI came first but that's just the rhythm of software development; from the rumors, this version of FCP can be traced back since before Snow Leopard. I think FCP 7 was the realization that they needed to release SOMETHING since the Cocoa rewrite was taking so longer than anticipated.

5.) P2 issue. Really? I hear what you're saying, but I have owned an HVX200 since it came out and used it with Final Cut. The lack of MXF support (not P2 support, that's different) has been a non issue to me. I never edit straight off the card, I always copy to the computer. The rewrap to .mov files (not a transcode, that's different) adds virtually no time to the copy process. I hear what you're saying about Apple making you do it their way and I've acknowledged that's annoying in a couple areas, namely Blu Ray. But regardless, these are easy work arounds (thought sometimes I agree, you shouldn't HAVE to work around them... but every NLE has issues like that). I had a number of problems with Premiere which is why I ended up staying with FCP (I tried Premiere out again when it came back to Mac). It really comes down to which NLE you prefer and what you do... so once you choose your NLE, who WOUDLNT be excited about a major update? It's not because the person is blind to other NLEs or a stupid fanboy.

One thing to keep in mind: FCP users get STOKED about new features not because they live in a distortion field, but because they have chosen FCP as their editor. I'm well aware that Premiere has been doing some things for a while, but I've been waiting for FCP because that's my editor. So yes, I'm stoked I'm *finally* getting it. FCP 7 was a joke update. People pick their NLEs for whatever reason. For me, it's because (1) it has the most market share so it's easy to work with the most people and get editing jobs easier, (2) I find it the most stable (other than Avid, but I don't like Avid's interface), (3) All of my archived projects are saved in FCP format, (4) I've tried Edius, Vegas, Avid, Premiere, and others and hands down prefer FCP for a number of reasons, even though I've had feature envy from some other NLEs at times.


Anyway, I'm rambling. Point is, FCP is a very good NLE that's been slacking and just made it's (awesome) come back. It's my NLE by choice and for a variety of good reasons, not because of ignorance or being an apple fanboy. And I'm not alone. Apple's good at marketing but I respect that, since my career is basically sizzling things up via video as it is. The important thing is, can they back the sizzle? Most of the time, the answer is yes, even despite minor quibbling here and there. The polish of everything else almost always makes up for it in my book. My money is on FCP X living up to the sizzle. Can't wait.
 
Last edited:
If you do not like Final Cut Pro, in it's current version, or the newly announced version, then use another NLE. I like Final Cut Pro and am going to get and use the newly announced version. End of story..... "There is nothing else to see here... move along"!
 
Personally I wish they would've priced it something like $499 with a $299 upgrade price

I get your point.

But I wish FCP X was gonna be free. Wouldn't change how I feel about the product, or how it validates my work. And further, I'm glad this low price will enable more people to buy into it and start editing. Having FCP X doesn't make you an "editor." Just like having a T2i doesnt make you a "filmmaker." Yada yada yada. Its what we do with these tools that sets us apart as professionals.
 
No doubt true, Mike, but you have to admit most professionals like the fact there are "pro market tools" that also sets them apart a bit from what everyone has access to. If RED EPICs were $299, and Microdolly Jibs were $299, and camBLOCK motion control dollies were $299, and Stedicams were $299, and gyro stabilizers were $299, and the latest decked out Mac Pro Towers were $299, and Phantom Flex cameras were $299 (wait, did I just die and go to heaven? ha!), and thus everyone had them in their garage laying around, it would... wait, I think I'd be all for that!
 
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.

All the automated stuff can be turned off. In addition, I am informed that you can also return to a two viewer screen as well.

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.

This is a non starter for me after nearly six years of working with p2 cards. I may be alone, but I prefer to log and transfer my p2 footage. It provides the opportunity to review what I've shot, etc. Interestingly, every news station in my town uses p2 cards and FCP. I've talked to the editors there, many of which are shooters, about L/T and none have any issues with it.

And, if this is critical to your workflow, there are plenty of solutions to allow you to edit mxf data directly in a mac.
 
Last edited:
There you go.

Then use Premiere for editing of mxf footage, and Final Cut for what it does well.

I find Encore CS3/4/5 to be buggy as hell for SD DVD, but DVD SP works well for me. So I use DVD SP.

If every NLE did exactly the same as every other one, exactly how do you distinguish the products?

If you have clients with blu ray needs, find a product that serves those needs, rather than complaining about Apple's lack of blu ray support.

If direct editing of mxf footage is critical to your workflow, use Premiere and one of the many good PC editors out there.
 
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.

OK, so it's not just me thinking that same thing. :Drogar-BigGrin(DBG)
 
No doubt true, Mike, but you have to admit most professionals like the fact there are "pro market tools" that also sets them apart a bit from what everyone has access to. If RED EPICs were $299, and Microdolly Jibs were $299, and camBLOCK motion control dollies were $299, and Stedicams were $299, and gyro stabilizers were $299, and the latest decked out Mac Pro Towers were $299, and Phantom Flex cameras were $299 (wait, did I just die and go to heaven? ha!), and thus everyone had them in their garage laying around, it would... wait, I think I'd be all for that!

Haha exactly. We are hypocrites. It wasn't long ago we were rejoicing about the playing field being leveled between us and the BIG guys... well, no we're the BIG guys in a small pond and complaining about the playing field being leveled again... well, half complaining like you pointed out ;)

I think a good example is how highly art by the best artists was valued hundreds of years ago. Today, there are still people who value original artwork and will pay for it. But for most people, copied mass prints are good enough as they'd rather spend their money elsewhere. Ubiquitous gear and templates, etc. will have the same effect on at least my neck of the prosumer video market. I still find clients who pay for and appreciate the quality, but dang they sure are getting harder to find! (and the $300/video example given before is, to me, not an example of how good paying work is still out there, but how it's been devalued!)
 
Wow, I've read through a number of articles, on multiple sites, and it is mind-boggling just how many individuals have proclaimed themselves to be "pro" users. It's pretty easy to label yourself as a professional user through a computer screen, when in reality, the only thing you've edited is a couple of home movies. I'm not going to sit here and lie; I am NOT a professional editor, or even anywhere near that. I hope to someday be at the level of a "professional" editor, but it's not today. In short, cut the BS you guys. The users who are actually pro editors don't have to go around saying they are, their work speaks for itself.

Now, with that aside, back to FCP X. There is absolutely no way to form any sort of opinion on the new FCP without viewing these two resources (I'm pretty sure both have been posted already):

1. http://www.larryjordan.biz/goodies/blog.html

2. http://vimeo.com/22329493 AND http://vimeo.com/22341718

Only after, do I believe you realistically can form an opinion about the new FCP. Obviously, there are dozens of questions to still be answered, but that's for a later date. I'll sum it up so far though, I LOVE the new FCP. Designing a program that retains all of the same features, but presents them in an easier and more streamlined fashion? Who doesn't want that? I think it's awesome and a great move forward. That just about sums up everything that went into the new version.

Regarding the pricing, I understand how pricing can help separate consumer products from professional products, but do you realize how ridiculous you sound complaining about something that's going to to cost you less money (simply for the pride of saying you have a professional product)? Just because a consumer user might be able to get their hands on it, does not mean they will be able to understand or use it, or afford professional cameras, etc. to supplement it.

I'm excited for Final Cut Pro X, and I can't wait to hear more about the suite in the coming weeks. June cannot come soon enough!
 
Last edited:
I think taking away the stripped down versions and just having one version of FCP is smart for Apple. It costs them more to have the cheaper versions and deal with all the issues of having 3 versions of FCP to keep up with. They simplified it for themselves, and gave us a bargain in the price. Who cares if more armatures get hold of it? It's just like a painter buying paint. Paint costs what it costs for anyone. It's the painter who makes the magic. The best element of a story is the story, not the platform it was edited on. There are so many ways a real "pro" can outstrip the poseurs. Planning, service, craftsmanship, communication, audio abilities, having an "eye" or "ear" for what works. The new FCP simply makes some tasks easier to deal with. That's great. If you like you can still work the old way (even within the new version) if you are more comfortable with that.

The only thing one should complain about is if the app is buggy and slows you down, i.e. not performing as advertised. We won't know that until June.
 
I'm curious if we'll have to keep our previous version of FCS to run our old projects or if the new magnetic timeline will take the old style timeline info. I'd think they'd make sure it would.
 
Last edited:
To add to what Anthony said: What could a company do other than make existing functions work better? There is nothing new about what we do. We take footage from a camera and edit it with audio, text and graphics. All that is already covered by everything out there. The only thing to do is make it easier.
 
In short, cut the BS you guys. The users who are actually pro editors don't have to go around saying they are, their work speaks for itself.

Whoa... who's claiming they're pro, and how do you know if they/we are or not? Have you seen their/our work to make such a judgment?

Thanks for re-linking, but I'm pretty dang sure most of us discussing this have seen those links and thus, according to you, and like you, are now able to form opinions, would you expect less from pros? :happy:

I see that although pros are asking very professional-like questions about the features that will be retained, you boldly claim, "I'll sum it up so far though, I LOVE the new FCP. Designing a program that retains all of the same features, but presents them in an easier and more streamlined fashion? Who doesn't want that?"

You must've been one of those lucky ones doing Beta testing with FCPX and know ALL the feature sets included to make such a non-professional proclamation! :^D
 
Chadfish, but I'm curious since the magnetic timeline is completely, vastly different, even conceptually in many ways, if it will simply allow us to import existing FCP work? Time will tell.
 
Buck, very good points you make there. I'll admit, my post came out a little less than smooth. I guess I rushed a post, mostly to express my annoyance with things I heard like: "This is like iMovie Pro. This sucks!!"
 
Designing a program that retains all of the same features, but presents them in an easier and more streamlined fashion? Who doesn't want that? I think it's awesome and a great move forward. That just about sums up everything that went into the new version.

We don't know this yet. Most of the reservation I've seen and heard has been with just how much has been retained. Until we get our hands on it or Apple makes an official spec announcement, then none of us will know that. Regardless of what direction Apple is taking this software, the fact remains that there are a lot of production houses that are built around the current FCP workflow. They will ultimately be forced to decide whether to move ahead with the evolution of Final Cut or make big changes should the future version not meet their needs. The uncertainty of it naturally brings about skepticism and questions.

I'm both very excited and skeptical because I know that I will have to make that decision at some point.
 
No worries, Anthony, thought you were just comin' in being judgmental and calling BS on the folks in this discussion out of the blue! It's cool. I think we're all reasonably informed and curious about FCP or we wouldn't have found this little place out of all the beeeellions of places to be on the net. Personally I'm really pumped about the new FCPX because from the presentation it appears to take a lot of the frustration out of moving vid clips and audio clips and realigning, etc.
 
I guess I rushed a post, mostly to express my annoyance with things I heard like: "This is like iMovie Pro. This sucks!!"

I have to wonder for those who have made assertions like this if they attended the SuperMeet or viewed any of the bootlegged videos of Ubillos's presentation? I doubt it. Could be wromg. Also whether a 52 minute presentation even covered a large percentage of new features and workflow.

Beyond that, I also wonder why some assume that a feature introduced in iMovie is "consumer," even if it is a powerful, useful feature. Who cares?

And given that Ubillos authored iMovie 11, and FCP X, why wouldn't you want a feature that simplified workflow, and assisted in the editing workflow?

Who the hell cares where it came from, so long as it works and is useful especially within the context of resolution independent editing, and native workflow?
 
Back
Top