What's so great about FCP

capitalP

capitalP

Veteran
Unless you're say, Steven Spielberg or somebody, do you really need to get and use Final Cut Pro, wouldn't it make sense say when you reached that status to then begin using such Professional software, what can FCP due that say something like Sony Vegas can't?

I call myself an indie, because I'm broke and will always be broke until I get a big break, so wouldn't it make sense for any indie film maker to budget right and go with what's best for their wallet, then again if I paid $3,700 for a Camcorder I should be willing to cough up $1200 for a editing software, only makes sense, or does it....
 
Quote : I should be willing to cough up $1200 for a editing software, only makes sense, or does it....


or you could spend half that and get Vegas. If your broke than there's not much choice for you.There are some other threads with this same question.Do a search for what the pros and cons are.
 
it doesnt do anything that avid, vegas or PPRO cannot do. PPRO basically functions the exact same as FCP even. alot of FCP users would snub PPRO not realizing that its basically the same exact thing.. works very simliar to AFter effects in its effect or plug in application though.

its all a question of workflow and which fits you best..

however FCP does support the HVX200 and MXF and DVCPRO HD/50/25 which is something that vegas and PPRO currently do not do. rumor has it that PPRO has hvx200 support coming- all reports from people in the know trying to stick to their NDA's and still give people some hint of hope sound good .. PPRO has the matrox axio which will be supporting DVCPRO HD so generally anything the matrox products do in realtime through PPRO, PPRO is able to do naitively but just not as many streams or not realtime ect. .. anyway, vegas is still up in the air.
so if your lookiing for an absolute sure way to support the HVX .. only FCP, AVID express pro HD, CANopus edius have it right now.
 
I can't think of a single good reason to use FCP for 24P content manufacture.

The whole system is flawed.

All the primary functions useful to DVXUsers are absent in FCP and the workarounds are furiously time consuming. If anything, FCP does offer great scalability to use many higher end formats like DVCProHD. But, the interface and design looks like it was put together by the Ronald McDonald department of fashionability! It's the clunkiest, most backwards, horribly awful integration of a professional application I've ever seen. And, it's not much cheaper than Avid.

I don't know what Spielberg is looking for in a workstation, but I doubt he'd be happy with FCP.

Hope this helps.
 
I was raised on FCP and would never use anything else, but unless you already have a Mac, save yourself a bundle fo cash and get a PC and Vegas.

FCP costs twice as much, yes, and so too will a computer that can handle it. I actually think FCP is more resource intensive than Vegas. I far prefer its interface, clunky though it may be. One of FCP's issues is that it still thinks it's a high and mighty "professional" application so it puts stupid limitations on you, like refusing to function if you have a gap in timecode or a single dropped frame. And audio sync is iffy at best. I frequently find myself with clips that have one broken frame at the end so I can't remove pulldown and the audio is ten seconds off. Thanks, Final Cut Pro, for making my hours of capturing video useless!

That said, once you've got your source footage, I far prefer the interface. Lots of power, flexibility, and an unusual amount of customizability. Then again, there's not much FCP can do that Vegas can't do, too, except for working with high end formats no one will use (except DVCPRO HD, which is an issue...). I do adore the color corrector 3 way, though.

Spielberg's editor still uses a flatbed or upright or something. FCP is much better on high end machines which are reformatted weekly, too.
 
thisiswells said:
It's the clunkiest, most backwards, horribly awful integration of a professional application I've ever seen. And, it's not much cheaper than Avid.
Click to expand...

Are we using the same program!? I find the interface extremely fast and fluid. I can see where improvements could be made, but not many. Compared to other systems I have used, FCP is head and shoulders above them. I am not aware of the 24p issues because I am a PAL guy, but I have heard of people working with it fine in FCP... but like I said, I haven't tried.

I think it depends a lot on your personal style of editing. I cut a lot in the timeline, and FCP is brilliant at that. Best thing is to try a lot of NLEs to find what YOU like. I have bent a lot of people's arms into trying FCP (I have used it since version 1.25) and many say they can't believe they didn't switch sooner.

If you can't afford FCP, other programs will give the same results for less. They may not be as flexible though.

Policar said:
Spielberg's editor still uses a flatbed or upright or something. FCP is much better on high end machines which are reformatted weekly, too.
Click to expand...

I don't think that the flatbed story is true. I can't see that it could be - it would be insane. Spielberg and Kahn did hold onto flatbeds for quite a while though.

I also don't find that with FCP. I still use a G4 and have NEVER reformatted or defragged in 3 years - FCP stills runs like a dream. I edit for a guy who still runs it on a 450MHz G4 and it is silky. Try the same on a 450MHz Pentium 2.
 
mmm-
Nearly everyday for the last six weeks I have been using FCP4.5 on brand new hardware. It ain't pretty for what I need to do: Log+Capture26Hours/NTSC/24Fps.

To be fair, some of the drawbacks of NTSC/FCP are fixable with $200 in plugins. But, the question remains, why?
 
thisiswells said:
mmm-
Nearly everyday for the last six weeks I have been using FCP4.5 on brand new hardware. It ain't pretty for what I need to do: Log+Capture26Hours/NTSC/24Fps.
Click to expand...

Something I have never had to do, so I can't defend it.

capturing is always a pain though - unless you want to watch the rushes at the same time.

What issues have you been having? Is it mainly 24fps causing the problems?
 
mmm said:
What issues have you been having? Is it mainly 24fps causing the problems?
Click to expand...
Okay. I will try hard to keep this rational. However, Final Cut Pro has put me through the ringer and I'm not a happy customer....

Everything that is wrong with Final Cut Pro:

- FCP cannot automatically remove the pulldown from 24p footage, so to edit on a 23.98 timeline, the user must use the 24p Advanced pulldown. Here is where the problems begin!
------
- FCP cannot deal with timecode breaks -or- breaks in the pulldown cadence. Unfortunately for the user, there are always, always, always breaks in the pulldown cadence from switching batteries or simply from the heads powering down after five minutes of non-record.

What this means is if the user forgot to use the "rec check" button on the DVX after one of these situations (inevitably hundreds of times during a three week shoot) then it's really, really, really a lot of work to get the tape into FCP.
------
- FCP cannot accurately separate clips using "DV Start/Stop Detection" on tapes recorded in 24pa. Yes, that's right! Nowhere have I found a published solution to this problem. Only disenfranchised FCP'ers on the internet.

What this means is the only way to separate clips from an hour long tape is to Log/Capture each one individually. In theory, you should be able to record an entire tape, even one with breaks in the pulldown cadence, and have the software separate the clips automatically. Had FCP been able to do this, I could have done something more interesting with about two or three weeks of my life.
------
- FCP offers no convenient way to convert 60i footage to 24p.

What this means is the only way to do decent slow motion requires a labor intensive 11-step process which takes about a half an hour!
------
- FCP offers no built-in way to export an NTSC 24p video file with a 2:3:2:3 pulldown for sharing with users of other operating systems and editing programs.

Although, it is possible with a plugin. But, why? I mean, WHY?
------
- FCP is only realtime in 4:3. It cannot be realtime in 16:9.

What this means is stay away from 16:9 or you'll endlessly struggle. Why anyone would go with an XL2 and a Mac is beyond me.
------
- Enormous hassle to make a 24p DVD. Ten ways to do it wrong. One way to do it right.

Graeme Nattress actually wrote a 10 page document about how do it "right" and still, the DVD-SP software automatically changes the TC rate from 23.98 to 29.97, confounding the user into having absolutely no idea what their clip is until they actually burn the disc!

In DVD-SP, the software "inserts" a 2:2:2:4 pulldown (but, only in the viewer when scrolling frame by frame) on correctly imported 24p .M2T's. But, why? What purpose does this serve? The discs look fine after you burn them (i.e. - they are true 24p), begging the question, why confound the user unnecessarily by converting the clip to 29.97 in the viewer? Why? What purpose does this serve? How does it help?

This is also really, really bad for determining chapter points in DVD-SP. When you are scrolling through the clip, you'll immediately recognize the following pulldown structure: A,B,C,D,D. Now, I ask you, where do you put your chapter mark? On the first D or the second? What will you end up with? It isn't documented anywhere, SFAIK.
------

Overall, Final Cut Studio has been an incredible disappointment for 24P and 16:9.
If anyone has any solutions to these problems, please share. I'm not being cynical. I just the want the thing to work half as well as competing solutions that cost less. :thumbup:
 
Hardly any of these problems effect me I'm afraid - maybe that's why I love FCP. 24p sounds like such a pain in the arse, I'm glad we just have 25p. Although I have cut "film" on FCP, it has been 25fps too.

I am still using v4 too, but I should think maybe problems have been fixed with 5. The 16:9 thing MUST have been fixed. Realtime doesn't even effect me much because I only CC at the end of a project and tend to use non-realtime filters anyway (and about 10 of them!).
 
All I have to say in response is that I edited a 20 minute short in Final Cut Pro which I shot in 24pA under awful conditions, captured using a cheap (100 dollar) camcorder as a deck, and the only issues I had were long frames (partially my fault) throwing off audio sync since I captured incorrectly. I think I had one or two 24pA clips (out of MANY) that refused to convert to 23.98 from 29.97 but I fiddled a bit with them and got everything working. I shot in squeeze mode and edited in 16:9 anamorphic. On an eMac. An OLD eMac.

Use an anamorphic timeline and you can edit 16:9 realtime no problem, it's just that you need to render to edit squeeze mode footage in a 4:3 timeline. DVD Studio Pro is weird, but I did get my anamorphic 24p DVD out of it eventually and it looks great, so I can't complain too much and this was on my first try, never having read a manual for DVD Studio Pro or compressor. (Actually, my first disc wasn't correctly anamorphic so I guess it was my second try.)

But, yes, Vegas is just so much better for capturing. But once you get into the editing interface, it's all Final Cut Pro all the way for me. Oddly, working with 24pA anamorphic footage is my favorite way to go. And I do love to cut on the timeline. I basically drop the rough clips in, then cut in the timeline, stretch little bits out, make sound bridges, etc. I really like the FCP timeline, but acquisition....that's something Apple needs to work on. (Though it's not the nightmare you make it out to be.)
 
I like the interface. But, the capturing the process is at least as bad as I make it out to be. Maybe if I were only making a 20 minute short film twice a year it wouldn't be. However, step in my shoes for moment and imagine capturing from 26 tapes with pulldown cadence errors and FCP's "it's alright, but could be better" media management platform and I think you'd see things closer to the way I do. The program rocks and that's why I'm not switching. But, I have seriously been considering a Firestore purchase lately!
 
For 60i to 24p via slowdown or via straight conversion, I have plugins that will help, both in the Standards Conversion set.

I've never had lack of widescreen in 16:9 shooting native 16:9 footage....

Graeme
 
Graeme_Nattress said:
For 60i to 24p via slowdown or via straight conversion, I have plugins that will help, both in the Standards Conversion set.
Click to expand...
Thanks, Graeme! Still waiting to find out if they need the NTSC files on disk. If they do, I will come!
 
Good. I can understand and agree with you on the conversions package. It makes sense.

I'm still going to keep whining until they fix the other problems. There is no excuse for not having Start/Stop detection in software this expensive! They got it working in iMovie after all...
 
Hopefully within a few years the idea of "capturing" footage will be a distant memory. Ahhh, no more sync issues with timecode breaks - a big chink in FCP's armour!
 
I actually do capture a ton of tapes at work in Final Cut Pro, but it's just a work study job (although I'll often capture many hours from one shoot with no problem) and we shoot exclusively in 60i (despite using dvxs!) The decks are so dirty, too, and we get drop outs like crazy.

But, yes, P2 should make Final Cut Pro much more usable. I can't wait.
 
Right, in 60i. So, there are no pulldown cadence errors in 60i. And, surprisingly, Start/Stop works in 60i. I, too, would love FCP if I only shot 60i ! That, however, is not the medicine for the problem !

(I'm not saying you're wrong, policar, I just feel like whining about FCP today...)

(edit: Why? Because one of my sequences won't open. Nor will any of the four backups that I have on two different drives. I already trashed the preferences folder and dug around the Render Manager. Still, no luck. I don't know what else to do. I think I've lost my entire project. The root of the problem? GENERAL ERROR #34!)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top