That doesn't answer my question: What does it do that other editors can't do?
POLL: Which NLE will be the "industry standard" a year from now?
- Thread starter Futchibon
- Start date
That doesn't answer my question: What does it do that other editors can't do?
I can speak for FCP 7 and FCP X, because I've used them.
FCP X adopts a different editing workflow, in many respects, than FCP 7, and for Premiere as well, which I've also used and tested. And except for collaborative workflow in version 1, FCP X edits faster, and easier the FCP 7, at least for me. Especially for cataloguing media, etc., which leave more creative time for the edit. One example is the auditioning capabilities, both for video and audio, which is a huge timesaver, and assists greatly for the creative side. But these are my subjective thoughts having used FCP X.
There's more that I can detail, and the functionality and workflow is being revealed as I use it more.
FCP X has its faults, but there are some nice features in it as well - and certainly some time saving capabilities as well.
FCP X adopts a different editing workflow, in many respects, than FCP 7, and for Premiere as well, which I've also used and tested. And except for collaborative workflow in version 1, FCP X edits faster, and easier the FCP 7, at least for me. Especially for cataloguing media, etc., which leave more creative time for the edit. One example is the auditioning capabilities, both for video and audio, which is a huge timesaver, and assists greatly for the creative side. But these are my subjective thoughts having used FCP X.
There's more that I can detail, and the functionality and workflow is being revealed as I use it more.
FCP X has its faults, but there are some nice features in it as well - and certainly some time saving capabilities as well.
Last edited:
I've tried hard to use X to simulate some sports event coverage videos that I have that go direct to DVD. I normally use a Macbook pro 17" 3.06 from 2009 for these with FCStudio 3. In these I'm required to edit fast, with a bit of color correction (normally magic bullet looks) and need it to be ready to be showcased the next day in a prize ceremony scenario. FInal Cut Pro X just doesn't work as well as FCS3 in all areas in this situation:
This 2009 Macbookpro, with FCPX realtime 64bit CPU just completely struggles with no realtime playback at all. With no log and transfer screen, I'm practically having to import and transcode huge clips to Optimized media. While I could work native, it struggles terribly with h264 footage, and I have installed a pretty fast ssd drive in the machine. FCP7, after transcoding, normally to prores 4:2:2 HQ worked without hickups, realtime and I could even apply basic 3way CC if I had a very tight delivery deadline. The current performance of FCPX in this Macbook Pro is laughable. Yes, it works well in my Macpro octo 2.8 with nvidia quadro 4000, but its a step backwards in performance in a Macbook Pro. With no possibility for realtime playback of native footage and the need to transcode everything to prores, which unexplainably also struggles somehow, probably because of the background everything philosophy, I just cannot see this as a "leap forward" in performance to 7. Other users have reported similar problems in portable macs.
As for the interface, its a change in paradigm, it has that nice audition clips feature, but the rest I just don't find it a "game changer". Its a different way of doing things, not necessarily better. I have to ask this question: Does FCPX provide the necessary tools to present the best broadcast professional looking footage outside of a NLE? With the lack of professional monitoring solutions and communication with high end compositing, mixing and grading tools, it certainly is not. It has lost features from 7, discussed in this board ad nauseum. I don't do only direct to DVD and Internet projects, with some work going to broadcast channels, and in that way, FCPX immediately feels limited. .
I'm using FCP for more tha 7 years now, and that certainly counts for editing ease with the program. But after trying CS 5.5, I saw myself editing almost as fast and without the FCPX realtime issues, which is unbelievable. What I don't like for CS 5.5 is the lack of a good, native professional codec. I'm looking forward to Avid Media COmposer 6, from the reports online, it shows a true step forward from MC5, which I didn't like.
I own FCPX, I really loved FCP from 4.5 until Studio 3, and am somehow still dreaming of an update that would make it the Editor I need. Now it is not, its behind the competition in features for broadcast work. I love the new just announced Macbook Airs, but because of FCPX, I just don't know if I should purchase any more Apple gear anymore. I'm using the previous generation air and have edited some urgent on the go videos with it on FCPStudio 3 and it worked like a charm. However, I Wouldn't even DARE install FCPX here seeing the performance hit I got in the 17".
EDIT- Here's a review I identify with for FCPX- a good read:
http://digitalfilms.wordpress.com/2011/07/21/more-fcp-x-thoughts/
This 2009 Macbookpro, with FCPX realtime 64bit CPU just completely struggles with no realtime playback at all. With no log and transfer screen, I'm practically having to import and transcode huge clips to Optimized media. While I could work native, it struggles terribly with h264 footage, and I have installed a pretty fast ssd drive in the machine. FCP7, after transcoding, normally to prores 4:2:2 HQ worked without hickups, realtime and I could even apply basic 3way CC if I had a very tight delivery deadline. The current performance of FCPX in this Macbook Pro is laughable. Yes, it works well in my Macpro octo 2.8 with nvidia quadro 4000, but its a step backwards in performance in a Macbook Pro. With no possibility for realtime playback of native footage and the need to transcode everything to prores, which unexplainably also struggles somehow, probably because of the background everything philosophy, I just cannot see this as a "leap forward" in performance to 7. Other users have reported similar problems in portable macs.
As for the interface, its a change in paradigm, it has that nice audition clips feature, but the rest I just don't find it a "game changer". Its a different way of doing things, not necessarily better. I have to ask this question: Does FCPX provide the necessary tools to present the best broadcast professional looking footage outside of a NLE? With the lack of professional monitoring solutions and communication with high end compositing, mixing and grading tools, it certainly is not. It has lost features from 7, discussed in this board ad nauseum. I don't do only direct to DVD and Internet projects, with some work going to broadcast channels, and in that way, FCPX immediately feels limited. .
I'm using FCP for more tha 7 years now, and that certainly counts for editing ease with the program. But after trying CS 5.5, I saw myself editing almost as fast and without the FCPX realtime issues, which is unbelievable. What I don't like for CS 5.5 is the lack of a good, native professional codec. I'm looking forward to Avid Media COmposer 6, from the reports online, it shows a true step forward from MC5, which I didn't like.
I own FCPX, I really loved FCP from 4.5 until Studio 3, and am somehow still dreaming of an update that would make it the Editor I need. Now it is not, its behind the competition in features for broadcast work. I love the new just announced Macbook Airs, but because of FCPX, I just don't know if I should purchase any more Apple gear anymore. I'm using the previous generation air and have edited some urgent on the go videos with it on FCPStudio 3 and it worked like a charm. However, I Wouldn't even DARE install FCPX here seeing the performance hit I got in the 17".
EDIT- Here's a review I identify with for FCPX- a good read:
http://digitalfilms.wordpress.com/2011/07/21/more-fcp-x-thoughts/
Last edited:
HansSteinert
Well-known member
How are those consumer projects relevant to professional editing? :/
If anything, that emphasizes that Apple is prioritizing consumers rather than professional work, which is exactly why I don't see them staying alive in the professional editing world. Will this hurt Apple? Probably not, because the consumer world is what they want to take over.
For many shops, some professional whatever that means, it is important.
Today, fast "delivery" capability, and in a portable (read mobile) format, has as high a priority at times as editing.
After all, doesn't the consumer eventually view the content?
HansSteinert
Well-known member
Right, but none of that is exclusive to FCPX.
I don't think that the fact that Apple designed those products necessarily makes Apple's editing software superior to Adobe and Avid. I would consider it irrelevant.
I think you are limiting your definition of professionals. There won't be a line between traditional pros -- broadcast, corporate, & Hollywood -- and online/new media pros. the versatility of FCP will serve these pros and casual users alike. Where as the other top NLE caters mostly to the traditional pros.
HansSteinert
Well-known member
No one is arguing that FCP X is superior. The poll of this thread assumes that there will be an NLE superior to the others. How one defines superior or industry standard seems to be based on one's narrow subjective experience.
My argument has been to understand the reasons for FCP X, what the trends are, and how it will affect me. I'm a business owner first and foremost, so I have to be able to anticipate how the market will affect my product in 5 to 10 years. If Apple positions FCP X for that market, I'm going to use it so that hopefully I will have a leg up.
Can I ask if news stations fit within the professional editor definition?
Not much external collaborative needs there for day to day work.
My point being that the term "professional" is being pushed by subjective definitions and agendas in different directions with respect to FCP X, and others editing applications as well.
Not much external collaborative needs there for day to day work.
My point being that the term "professional" is being pushed by subjective definitions and agendas in different directions with respect to FCP X, and others editing applications as well.
I dont use multicam, so I don;t miss that feature. Clearly others do. But see, it's not really about the features of each NLE. As I said they all pretty much do the same thing. FCP X will have all the missing features eventually and it will basically do what Premiere and Avid do, same thing more or less. More important considerations are again what is best for my business. I belong to the online/new media category, so it seems with FCP X Apple has me in mind.
My delivery media used to be 100% tapes and DVD. Now it's file based and mostly online delivery. In a few years, client access to my content will be strictly online. It will reduce my cost and increase my efficiency. Content access will be easier and more convenient for my clients as they will have multiple platforms to choose from whenever and wherever. We are developing an app for example, where our clients can access our content on an iPhone or iPad. From my standpoint it just makes business sense to use Apple's products as they are the best fit for our business.
I think editors in traditional settings with traditional workflow tend to consider themselves the only legitimate professionals. I don't agree. The field has expanded with more editors outside of broadcast, corporate or Hollywood.
HansSteinert
Well-known member
I have a question.
Obviously is someone paid me money to edit on FCPX, I could and would probably do a decent job.
But to be arguably an industry leading program, you don't just need to be capable of doing a good job. You need to be among the most efficient at doing a good job.
On what basis does FCPX provide any benefit over Premiere CS5.5 or Avid?
I can't think of any. I can only think of disadvantages, which is why I don't see it being popular outside of the amateur/ultra-low budget world.
Obviously is someone paid me money to edit on FCPX, I could and would probably do a decent job.
But to be arguably an industry leading program, you don't just need to be capable of doing a good job. You need to be among the most efficient at doing a good job.
On what basis does FCPX provide any benefit over Premiere CS5.5 or Avid?
I can't think of any. I can only think of disadvantages, which is why I don't see it being popular outside of the amateur/ultra-low budget world.
Last edited:
I bought the Adobe Production bundle from the Video Guys last month for $799... really only needed Photoshop and thought it was a good deal..
PP looks the same as where I left it for FCP...
I really need a throw away project to give it a test..
Personally it's just a major Apple disappointment...
PP looks the same as where I left it for FCP...
I really need a throw away project to give it a test..
Personally it's just a major Apple disappointment...
"News"? Well, News programs are generally made of studio and exterior portions. With no professional broadcast monitor support, I can only see FCPX working in war or "international correspondent" like scenarios. However, the "News team" could very well be using Premiere and it would achieve similar, if not better results.
News programs, for breaking news, need fast, almost immediate delivery of media and news pieces for these breaking news, and these pieces are a compromise of quality for speed. But no news program is made solely of breaking news and phone footage- its maybe 5 percent of its content. FCPX could be useful for those 5%, but Adobe Premiere, for example, also works for that, but could also work for those higher standard pieces, were the broadcaster can conform and color correct the piece to make it look the best possible. I would really like to see what the top broadcasters like CNN, BBC, CBS, TVE use for their editing, and if they are using FCPX...
this is not exactly true for where i work (news broadcast in europe) since journalists often have to edit their storys themselves. they are journalists and not editors, so their knowledge of NLEs is very limited. right now, at least 50% of our broadcasted content is edited on a quantel-version that can't do more than imovie (concerning the editing-possibilities). so while fcpx probably doesn't fit the needs of our real editors it would be fine for a lot of our work (= daily news). fcpx is easier to use than premiere, avid and fcp7, so its less probable to mess things up due to a lack of technical knowledge. furthermore from a journalistic point of view its not accurate to modify the pictures you work on (unless the camera operator messed it up or the pictures have only symbolic meaning) and therefor done rarely. but the big problem is: in the editorial office we would have to replace about 40 pc-workstations with macs and that's not likely to happen. but i can imagine fcpx will be installed on our macbooks for "on the field work" somewhen.
G
Guest
Guest
Video production has hit the masses. FCPX seems to be going with that trend. As more people record and ultimately edit and share their work, they become increasingly sophisticated. However, few people really want to deal with FCP7 interface, and do not require all the "pro" standards and options. FCPX seems to be the happy medium between ease of use, and functionality.
Seems like apple is bucking traditional trends, recognizing that there are a lot of users out there which would prefer fcpx to fcp7. As higher level editing has become accessible to millions.
Think of how digital word processors have changed writing.
Apple is tapping into the current sway of mass content creation.