X makes perfect sense from a business standpoint.

Exactly.

Two years ago a pro trailer house's tech department I do work for was as considering switching to Final Cut Pro from Avid. Keep in mind they have 50 Avids. They concluded no. They said apple didn't have enough experience in the pro post production market and the risk was too great. Man they were right!

I told you so's are revolving around the building at their company.
 
am i understanding this correctly? the guy writing this blog was a devloper for 6 years on FCP but yet he doesnt really know much about it? i guess you can write code and not really have a clue of what it will do in actual use then. i guess thats possible.

still weird.

david
 
david_p said:
am i understanding this correctly? the guy writing this blog was a devloper for 6 years on FCP but yet he doesnt really know much about it? i guess you can write code and not really have a clue of what it will do in actual use then. i guess thats possible.still weird.david
Click to expand...
Having worked at alias wavefront for 6 years I can personally tell you that most of the people writing code have no clue how to use it. Not knocking the company but it's the reality. There are product designers and then there are the coders. In fact lots of code gets written in India these days.
 
In my opinion this is the only thread post that gets the whole Final Cut X debacle. Thanks to the original poster for this!
 
david_p said:
am i understanding this correctly? the guy writing this blog was a devloper for 6 years on FCP but yet he doesnt really know much about it?
Click to expand...

Where do you get that he doesn't know much about it?
He says in the article, "I know how to use Final Cut Pro because I worked on it for 6 years, but for most people it's just too complex."

If you mean FCPX, then it's because the project started in 2008, the year he left the FCP team.
 
I disagree. Yes, Apple wants a bigger share of the consumer market, but why did they first show this at a professional meeting during NAB?
Because they ALSO want to sell iMacs (at least) and if the continue making them then also MacPros.

If Apple leaves the video pros behind, graphics pros might follow soon (Photoshop works great on a Windows machine) and then we are talking billions of dollars in a few years. I wouldn´t underestimate the "the pro´s use it" argument that helps selling Mac hardware also. It is not as dominant anymore, but everyone who buys one knows it. If there cmes a wave "the pros are leaving Apple" then that could also get in the minds of consumers and even iPhone buyers. And now think of the investors....they will ask also why the press turned against Apple (Late Night shows mocking Apple?! Wow!). So Apple will take care here.

If you look at the structure "Events" and "Projects" it is set up for a server structure (Events on the Server; Projects on Clients). The editing process is way improved. They miss a few small pieces and they are back in business with the Pros; namely the Audio-Bus, the re-connect feature, drivers for output-hardware to monitors and decks.

My question is why they came out now, with a half-finished product? What´s the reasoning behind there. This is not a 10.0 it is more like a 0.7 release. Why do they risk (and it didn´t really pay off either-they feel the heat)
 
Last edited:
Hmmm but Apple already had a low cost video editing application, iMovie.

I agree there is a revolution in video, youtube, Vimeo etc are challenging the old guard (TV networks) but the vast majority of people who do want to make content as a hobby want something cheap and simple. I think FCP X is too expensive and complex for this market.

Destroying FCP's reputation as a pro app only damages the Apple brand, but then I'm not Apple Mr jobs has successfully steered his company so far.
 
Appropos of nothing, really, I've noticed a trend among comments in blog posts such as this -- there's always someone who says that after going through a number of tutorials, they've come to realize how "intuitive" FCPX is.

Why do you need the tutorials if it's that intuitive?

I mean, it may or may not be; I'll leave that for users to decide for themselves. But it strikes me as a curious thing to say, and it's become a little bit of a meme.
 
Vultch said:
I agree there is a revolution in video, youtube, Vimeo etc are challenging the old guard (TV networks)
Click to expand...

This, too, strikes me as a somewhat odd, but increasingly common, idea -- YouTube and Vimeo are delivery systems, but that's all they are. You still need the same level of quality of content if you want to "challenge" the old guard, and to get it, you still need all the same tools. Content is content regardless of how it's delivered.
 
I agree... content is king and quality of production makes or breaks a story.
Its just if you have great content and well crafted production you dont need to go knocking on the TV networks doors you can "broadcast it yourself".
How you get paid for this is a different matter. But you no longer need the billions to buy a terrestrial or satellite delivery system.

But I dont believe FCPX in its current form can be considered as a Pro App, it begs the question what have apple been doing all this time, they are not short of money FCP 7 has been around for a while. Does it really take this long to write an new app or was FCPX a last minute decision rushed out.
 
David Jimerson said:
Appropos of nothing, really, I've noticed a trend among comments in blog posts such as this -- there's always someone who says that after going through a number of tutorials, they've come to realize how "intuitive" FCPX is.

Why do you need the tutorials if it's that intuitive?

I mean, it may or may not be; I'll leave that for users to decide for themselves. But it strikes me as a curious thing to say, and it's become a little bit of a meme.
Click to expand...

Surprisingly, that's my experience as well.

Once you get past a certain threshold in learning the interface, it becomes intuitive.

It's hard to explain, but the tools suddenly make sense, and the workflow becomes simplified.

But you do have to get to that threshold by either spending a couple of hours in training or working with the app.

BTW, here's a link to free hours or decent training:

http://www.izzyvideo.com/final-cut-pro-x-tutorial/
 
David Jimerson said:
This, too, strikes me as a somewhat odd, but increasingly common, idea -- YouTube and Vimeo are delivery systems, but that's all they are. You still need the same level of quality of content if you want to "challenge" the old guard, and to get it, you still need all the same tools. Content is content regardless of how it's delivered.
Click to expand...
I think that's true, to a degree. However, one of the interesting things about delivering content to smaller screens (I've had my content regularly viewed on a 50' theater screen for my church) is that people are much more forgiving of color issues, tolerate more camera-shake, and expect more closeups. In that regard, the content is different from what you'd see through other channels.

It remains to be seen whether or not some of the "sacred cows" of editing are as crucial as we've been told they were. One could argue that broadcast & cable networks are filled with fabulously shot/edited crap. Is poorly shot/edited "gold" going to trump fabulous "crap"? - Tim
 
Perhaps it time for well crafted killer content to appear on these platforms. how you make money thou...

the next generation of TV in most households will have an internet connection instead of an antenna, the big networks will be on the net ..along side many other smaller fish
 
Vultch said:
...the next generation of TV in most households will have an internet connection instead of an antenna, the big networks will be on the net ..along side many other smaller fish
Click to expand...

Hmm, maybe I'm time travelling, but I thought we were already there.
 
David Jimerson said:
You still need the same level of quality of content if you want to "challenge" the old guard, and to get it, you still need all the same tools. Content is content regardless of how it's delivered.
Click to expand...

Have to disagree with you there with your use of "same level." The viewing paradigm has shifted. As someone else said, people are more tollerant (if that's a good thing) of lesser quality stuff. Of course there is a place for the outstanding movie. But fewer and fewer of those are coming from the "old guard".

The discussion seems to be so much between the grunts as I call them (not pejoratively but people who work for other people in the trenches editing), and the artist who has a vision and if he/she has the drive, will find a way to achieve their goal regardless of the tools.

Both will continue to exist side by side and someone, somewhere will continue to provide the necessary tools for both. Yeah, sucks big time for people who have invested in a particular "model" but this is not new. Since people are so enamored of the auto analogy, how did the folks who made wooden wheels feel when rubber and steel came along? I'm sure the makers of wheel-making tools didn't think twice about switching.

C'est la vie. You either roll over or get rolled over. Pissing and moaning ain't going to change that.
 
This thread just turned into every other FCPX thread.

It's simple and people don't get it.

Pro's are mad because they've invested in FCP and it had features they needed to get the job done. Period. I'm talking technically. Not in the innovative sense. They removed important things that were used to move the cut to another post house to continue forward with mixes, color grading, effects work, conforming, ect.

Pro's -- meaning people that do work with a large infrastructure such as a feature film trailer house (where I do my work)

Non Pro's (so to speak) will not be bothered by this. So the argument exists and is confusing the entire situation. A better word for non pro's would be the general public of editors. Anyone from young people posting up on youtube, wedding videographers, small TV stations, schools, independent filmmakers doing it all in one box.

It's not about innovation. That's good but Apple can innovate all it wants but if it takes away features that are needed for a pro post houses workflow then they can't use it.... period. A solid example if you don't believe me is not being able to open your previous projects. This would not work for a pro house. There is much invested time and work and an upgrade needs to be relatively seamless. Avid gets that point pretty good even though they've had their hiccups.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top