June 22, 2011

The Final Cut Pro X Community Review: Post Your Impressions of 'iMovie Pro' Here

Now that Final Cut Pro X has been out for a full 24 hours, the internet has rendered its verdict on the render-free software, and most of the backlash on Twitter seems to be coming from seasoned professionals. Sure, there were bound to be some repercussions when rebooting an application with a 94% customer satisfaction rate. But some of the features Apple dropped -- tape ingest, multiclip, backward compatibility, and the viewer itself -- make the "Pro" moniker pretty hard to justify. I'm only getting my hands dirty with FCP X now -- which, I should note, works perfectly on the video editor's hackintosh -- and while I'm definitely experiencing some growing pains getting used to the new interface, I feel it's too early to tell whether I'll go back to Premiere Pro. However, here are some quotes of what's being said around the web. Also, I want to hear from you -- what are your honest thoughts so far?

If FCP X isn't targeted at professional editors working as part of a team (with the sort of data ingest needs and EDL output requirements that FCP X lacks), who is Final Cut Pro X targeting? DSLR filmmakers. Case in point, here's how quickly the audio synchronization feature works:

The feature is not going to give you the full feature set of the terrific plugin Pluraleyes, which has advanced features like correcting different speed recordings, but it's features like this that make one understand Apple's chief design imperative with FCP X: to save editors time. However, it seems they seem to have shipped an incomplete version one (as far as pros are concerned), though it could be a great tool for new editors. As for the seasoned pro, however, here's what's being said on the internet:

  • Steve Martin: "I love the organizational intelligence of FCP X and frankly it's long overdue... But the fact remains that there is no professional audio editing capabilities... The other thing that needs improvement is color correction. While the simplicity of the Color Board will be great for the YouTube set, professional colorists will find the color grading tools wanting. With no way to export EDL's or XML files, there is no way to hand off your project to a Colorist - so again, you're stuck in your own sandbox until the next upgrade or someone really smart is able to write hooks into FCP X."
  • Scott Simmons: "To completely start from scratch and build a new, modern application is commendable but when it lacks many, many features that its predecessor had and you’re still calling it pro and a newer version then you can expect a lot of negative feedback from current users who rely on those features. FCPX currently sits at two and a half stars in the App Store."
  • Philip Bloom: "I like a lot of the things I have seen like match colour, magnetic timeline, organisation and the speed... It really does feel like learning something from scratch rather than adjusting to a new system like I have with CS5.5. DSLR editing is a lot easier as it can cope just fine with H264. Probably best in the long run to still transcode out of it for certain projects but the ability to edit DSLR footage natively is a big plus... To sum up, FCP X is an ingenious fast piece of software that is going to upset just about every editor out there used to final cut pro! BUT is probably going to appeal massively to new editors without previous NLE experience, they will love it I am sure.
  • Philip Hodgetts: "At version 1 Final Cut Pro X won’t support some professional workflows, but for other professional workflows it will be more than capable. Using Final Cut Pro X to cut together a story, I’m struck by how fast it is to achieve a result, as if everything was designed to get a result a quickly as possible."
  • David Leitner: "Leaps in technology come at a cost. Remember Apple’s transition from OS 9 to OS X? What a shock to be forced by the imperatives of progress to abandon our OS 9 comfort zone for the strange planet Unix. It took years for many of us to recover full functionality, since quite a few cherished OS 9 apps were never ported over. But this abrupt break with the past gave us multithreading and eliminated hair-pulling system crashes. It gave us a modern and powerful operating system with modular architecture that swung wide the door to the future... FCP X will not become a protean workhorse overnight. It will take time. It guarantees an interesting ride however."
  • Gary Adcock:"With this release, Apple shows us the future in which data streams from all the devices we work with communicate seamlessly, sharing media behind the scenes. Think of the advantages and possibilities when all the effort you put into setting up a shot or project continue downstream from your camera into post-production, or follow your content when it’s delivered on the web. That's the promise of Final Cut Pro X. Will that promise be fulfilled?... Stay tuned."
  • Walter Biscardi: "This was the product that completely built my company starting in 2000 / 2001 and now it's time for me to say goodbye. As I tell everyone else, if the tool isn't working for you, then find a tool that does. Fortunately we have Adobe Premiere which has made incredible strides of late and already supports our AJA Kona boards. We also hear that Avid is on a path that will open up the cards soon as well. So it's been a good 10 year ride and if the application does truly get to a point where we can use it again, we could always bring it back. But for now let me just say, Goodbye Final Cut Pro and Thanks for all the Fish."
  • David Pogue: "Professional editors should (1) learn to tell what’s really missing from what’s just been moved around, (2) recognize that there’s no obligation to switch from the old program yet, (3) monitor the progress of FCP X and its ecosystem, and especially (4) be willing to consider that a radical new design may be unfamiliar, but may, in the long term, actually be better."
  • John Gruber: "This ground-up rewrite may well have been the right thing to do. Apple seems convinced that this is a better fundamental concept for video editing — and, really, storytelling in general. But it may prove risky not to offer a transition period. Hell, even with iMovie, when they made the switch from old-style editing to the new model (and lost a bunch of features in the initial release of the new iMovie), Apple kept iMovie HD 6 available as a free download for two years. If iMovie users were worth appeasing with a transition period, surely professional Final Cut Pro users are too. If Final Cut Pro X can’t even open Final Cut Pro 7 projects, how quickly can editors be expected to switch?"

For those of you who have downloaded it and used it yourself, what are your impressions so far? Leave them in the comments...

Your Comment

114 Comments

Sucks. Feels like you have no control over the edit anymore.

June 22, 2011

-1
Reply

The description of the product in your title says everything it needs to.

June 22, 2011

1
Reply

Looks like I'll be holding off on a purchase of FCPX for a while. It sounds like its full of lots of great improvements, but its missing a lot of basic functionality we had in FCP7. I'm sure sooner or later updates and plug-ins will be able to give everyone what they feel we're missing, but it's difficult to judge when that will be.

June 22, 2011

-1
Reply
Adrian Jans

It's pretty sad to see people call it "iMovie Pro", especially from this blog which I respect. There's an extreme amount of childish comments coming from people who haven't even read the user manual or have even launched the application. There are also many misleading and untrue statements in this article. For instance It does capture tape. Here's an excerpt from the user manual:

"You can import media from a tape-based camcorder or tape-based device. To determine which clips you want to import (rather than importing all of them), you can view them using Final Cut Pro before you import them.

To check whether your tape-based camera is compatible with Final Cut Pro, go to the following support page: Final Cut Pro X Supported Cameras and Devices."

June 22, 2011

1
Reply
JR

It shares the same organizational philosophy and interface elements as iMovie, so I don't think it's a stretch to call it iMovie Pro -- especially when using quotes around the moniker.

And is it just me or does the Final Cut Pro X Supported Cameras and Devices page not list a single device that uses tape?

The program's only been out for a day; people are bound to get stuff wrong until we all log more hours with it. I've got it open right now, however, and I don't think there are any untrue statements in this post...

I also say "it's too early to tell" and have been careful to include positive quotes to go with the negative. I just spent $300 on it -- I'm not opposed to the app, and am excited about its potential.

June 22, 2011

0
Reply
avatar
Ryan Koo
Founder
Writer/Director

It doesn't open FCP7 files, so I'd say by definition it's a different product than the existing Final Cut product line. I think iMovie pro is a perfect name, and I don't even mean that in a bad way... just more of a fact.

June 22, 2011

-1
Reply
Clayton Arnall

It does not print to tape or export to tape. It does capture to tape but it does not export, I don't think there is anything childish about what people are saying, I think they are really good points and it's scary being such a long standing FCP user. I don't know what my next editing software purchase will be.

June 22, 2011

0
Reply
Erik Hildebrandt

Importing tape using a camera is a rather "prosumer" approach (or even consumer, but I'm trying to be generous), and tells me that this first version is targeted at prosumers, not professionals. My company relies on importing from various professional tape formats (DVCProHD, HDCAM, Digital Betacam) using Pro VTRs through an HD-SDI connection for the highest quality possible image. I have years worth of great legacy video on tape and I have to reference back to those tapes frequently. So, lack of PROFESSIONAL tape import is one of many dealbreakers for me.

June 23, 2011

0
Reply
MJH

The jump from FC7 to FCX has bein made unnecessarily painful.
I think professionals would gain more if Apple took it's time to integrate all the lacking features on this new and exiting product.
The way they did was: they blew our minds for 1 minute with wonderful new features, just to disappoint us in the next minute with really basic faults.
In my opinion, the jump from FC7 to FCX is more painful than the jump from FC7 to Premiere Pro CS5.5 now. And we will see this happening even more after this release.
Adobe must be making the evil laugh right now.

June 22, 2011

0
Reply
Luciano Rocha

Adobe is jumping up and down with excitement, undoubtably

June 22, 2011

1
Reply

Wasted $400 for FCPX, Motion and Compressor yesterday. Back to FCS3 for some time to come.

App store purchases are not permitted refunds as stated in the terms and policies. Apple made some cash yesterday with what appears to be more than half of all purchasers just down right pissed off.

There are some very much desirable new tools and features in FCPX, but overall it's a bonehead workflow for anyone with editing experience. I find that people with little to few people with previous Final Cut editing experience seem to love it. Those with experience find it more of a hindrance than anything else.

Only time will tell. A lot of time will be needed to get it to production worthy.

June 22, 2011

0
Reply
JS

I'm not a professional editor, but I was AVID & FCP7 trained. I was also trained on a Quantel Editbox, way back when. Quantel was my favourite, as it had the most 'organic' feel and a naturally quick workflow.

Ever since I got my Mac (only a year), I've been a huge fan of iMovie. It felt like the evolution of the Editbox. So, I don't think calling FCPX "iMovie Pro" is an insult. I find it to be a much better way to edit. Maybe it's because of the type of editing I do.......small videos and DSLR filmmaking.

I'm sure the complaints from the pros are legit. But, I think growing pains should be expected. A little time to get used to it is warranted. As well, the plug-in world will catch-up and make a huge difference.

However, for web videos, low-budget filmmakers, doc-makers, first-purchasers........like me..........FCPX is easily the best choice.

June 22, 2011

0
Reply

I was excited for this product but it quickly faded out. I just wanted to scream out loud how I hated this product. It maybe too soon for me to say this but for now I hate iMovie Pro. I hate how it lacks color correcting freedom. Color was the only reason I stayed with Final Cut, now I am permanently transferring to Adobe.

June 22, 2011

0
Reply

I totally think that there are going to be some growing pains in changes at first, FCP has been a workhorse for many for years and years, and change is always odd at first. But I also think it does not take long for a professional to realize what is not there that is essential. When its how you make your living, it all matters. We need efficiency, but not necessarily simplicity. Control is everything.

I think it would have been better for them to wait and bring in EDL, XML, and all the things we rely on for solid workflows, than release something that a lot of working professionals just cant use. Yeah its early, but this is a release.

So thats my two cents.

side note: Take the magic wand icon out!

June 22, 2011

0
Reply

I work in broadcast, and FCPX is a total non-starter. If it won't support my hardware or allow me to open old FCP projects then I've got no use for it. Some of the editing improvements look good, but it simply won't do what we need it to.

If all you're doing is working with new projects & outputting to the web I think it's probably a decent choice for an NLE... but it's got more than a few glaring limitations.

June 22, 2011

1
Reply
Bryan

I have been working in fcp7 for a year now, not long at all compared to most of you, but i think that this is the way of the future. From what i have seen it looks similar to the style of editing that i edit, and other top end professional editors that i know edit. But i really do think it is the way of the future, it just takes getting used to. I went from adobe (which i hate with all my heart), to sony vegas pro (i know most of you wont acknowledge it as a serious editing program) and then to fcp7. I think of this is the way that LE moved to NLE, times are changing, the way we work, shoot and edit is changing. No program is perfect when it 1st comes out, but i love the organic timeline and workflow and any NLE that offers me super fast workflow and no waiting around to render is a dream come true. I can imagine how the top end editors feel, it is a complete change, but give the boys at apple time and all will come right, bugs will get fixed, plugins added issues sorted out etc.

Personally i wouldn't buy it yet either but in a few months, yes i would.

June 22, 2011

-1
Reply
Roice

I feels just like the move to OS X which I loved. Then too, I wasn't tied into legacy systems, so I switched on the first release and then got monthly boosts for about a year, where things got better and better. It was the most sustained fun I can recall from my computing life. By the time OS X was 'ready' I knew it inside and out, ie. that all the chicken-waving voodoo I knew from OS 9 was obsolete mumbo jumbo.

Today too, my workflow is entirely file-based. Even TV commercials just get uploaded.

I'm a professional editor and I've been using FCP since version 1. I've never used iMovie. I'm accepting that there is a better way to edit than the Moviola metaphor from the 1980s. I'm happy to learn it. I think the world should switch away from QUERTY keyboards too though, if that tells you anything. Querty is designed to prevent you from typing quickly or easily. On purpose. You type the way you do because of obsolete technology from the 1930s. TV, as we know it was invented about the same time.

Perhaps Apple should have explained it to some people better. There are a lot of unrealistic expectations and hysterical over-reactions. Apple should have told them it was like the move to OS X. It should have told them it wasn't a replacement for FCP7. That it was missing features. That some people would have to wait. People don't like change. It makes them angry. They lash out. The world is ending. They don't care.

I look forward to the arrival of Color. I imagine the integration will be such that working with other studio apps no longer resembles 'round tripping' in a strict workflow. To the extent that apps are non-destructive, they become more integrated and less workflow-bound.

June 22, 2011

0
Reply

X is a huge step in the right direction. After editing with it for a few hours, the only reason to keep 7 on my machine is to update a few older projects. Sure there are a few people who use Final Cut as an Offline editor that are going to be upset at least for a while, but the lions share of us are going to be blown away at how fast and how well a project can be edited.

Not being a colorist, I found the with the old color it was hard to make 2 clips match. I just tried out the new color panel and had a very close match between 2 DLSR's in a few seconds.

The audio waveforms are now much easier to match up. And the audio control in the time line is also as good as or maybe even better than before.

If all you have ever used is Final Cut Pro then you're going to have to learn some new tricks. If you have ever used someone else's non linear editor you will find the new interface extremely intuitive and efficient.

June 22, 2011

0
Reply

Dealing mostly with team-based broadcast productions, the lack of print to tape and XML is a deal breaker...and I had such high hopes. I'll hold off on FCPX(imovie pro). Might be time to seriously consider media composer.

June 22, 2011

1
Reply
Chris Plouhar

What happened to "Awesome" This perhaps is the worst development by Apple, I have ever seen, I want my money back, I hate it.

June 22, 2011

0
Reply

"growing pains"? I am tired of hearing his SORRY EXCUSE!!!! This is NOT a 1.0 version of the program. It is iMovie improved period. A professional editor knows that only 50% of you work is editing. The rest is creating deliverables and collaborating. FCP X is only useful for a one man shop doing small projects that they'll never have to roundtrip between any other apps. Project management is mess. In a multiuser multi-computer environment what?
Improved color correction? How do you know? You can only evaluate the gadgets not the REAL RESULTS since there is no way to connect this to a professional display!

June 22, 2011

0
Reply
ldtowers

It sucks. Pure and simple.. Not a single update for over 2 years and this is the best they can do? I do not believe the "version 1" crap. There are no accidents here, there are also no real explainations, which they should have provided at launch. They clearly feel the pros do not deserve an explaination. "Here's your software, now live with it and shut up.. We have phones to build."

This program is a slap in the face to the pros. You think they don't know what we need? They know, and they know what they left out. If the cared, they should have been first out the gate with "This is our start, we know things are missing, and you will see them within the next 6 months, and they will be great" This would have shut down 90% of the critics.. But that did not happen. And it was not an accident.

Jay

June 22, 2011

0
Reply
Jay K

All i will say is, as both a professional offline and online editor working with final cut for years. This is like having my wife go out one day and come back with a ton of unnecessary and just plain awful plastic surgery. Sure she's got the same name but damn is she f'd up. Fcp x is a cockslap in the face of pro editors. Forget no XML, try no clips, bins and proper sequences. "events" wtf??! And the audio editing is a f'n joke. The beauty of final cut was that both new editors and old could pick up the software and use it finding their own workflow.

I for one will be sticking with fcp 7 till they pry it from my cold dead hands (or at least stop supporting it). Fcp x would never work in the reality/documentary tv shows I currently work on. We rely on multiple sequences to sync mutlicam scenes etc. Fcp x is meant for consumers plain and simple. Sure I don't have to render anything, but with I would be finished cutting a show and rendering it with fcp 7 well before the cut was even done in X.

Fcp is dead. We had a good run

June 22, 2011

0
Reply
Evilgenius

They stopped supporting it on Tuesday with the release of FCX. Not kidding. The Final Cut Pro 7 page now even takes you to X.

June 23, 2011

1
Reply
Alec Sprinkle

Fortunately I never used iMovie, so I'm not jaded as to it's interface and do no associate it with novice or consumer editing. I'm a DSLR shooter and the workflow is pretty sweet. I do feel that the audio side of FCPX is seriously lacking, and the inability to output to a ProTools friendly format for audio mixing is a serious oversight. That being said, I have faith that there will be one if not more updates this year that will sooner or later address this issue and others. I also think the price point says a lot, in that we may see many add-ons from Apple that slowly bump up the over all cost of the "suite" over time. The fact that there's no 3rd party plug-in support is symptomatic of this being essentially a reboot of FCP. Why not put this out in the world, get real world feedback from users and then respond with appropriate updates and plug-ins? That's what I think Apple is doing. They're not reinventing the wheel, they're reinventing the car, wheels first. In other words, slowly.

The news over at Red Giant, the makers of Magic Bullet Looks, is that they have not seen FCPX until it's public release. That could say many things... Apple doesn't care about 3rd party plug-ins (unlikely), Apple wants the editing community, the serious editing community to get used to this new approach to editing before investing bigger bucks and time (more likely).

I've edited on FCP and Premiere for years and yes this is A LOT different and it's taking some getting used to. But you know what? It's fun and it's fast! I look forward to the new world of editing. It won't be long before we're moving clips with our fingertips! I think FCPX is the beginning of something big.

June 22, 2011

0
Reply
Anthony Haden S...

Here's a great, brutally honest article/review that sums up the state of FCPX and it's possible/probable future... a bright one!

http://library.creativecow.net/adcock_gary/FCPX/1

June 22, 2011

-1
Reply
Anthony Haden S...

Terrible, terrible, terrible. Anyone kissing Apple's ass on this one is foolish. Shame on all of us who blindly purchased before the reviews are out. Refund request already filed until Apple can deliver a product worthy of my cash.

Here's hoping the speed boost in Premiere 5.5 makes that a worthy competitor. HDSLR editing is a nightmare to properly clean, grade and render in FCP7. Was banking on these speed improvements helping my workflow, but not at the cost of all the features we came to rely on as professionals.

It's one thing to learn a new and better way of doing things--another thing entirely to be told you don't need the old tools without being given a replacement.

June 22, 2011

0
Reply
Chris M

For the first time ever, I am considering taking a look at Premier.

June 23, 2011

0
Reply

I noticed that users tend to think this new release is for the most part horrible, but all the people who make money as Apple shills seem to like it. Lesson learned--don't ask people who depend on Apple products to make a living, comment no a new product.

June 22, 2011

0
Reply
Harrison Genokowski

Agreed 100%

June 23, 2011

1
Reply

I love it. That may be because I've never used FCP7 though. I'm not coming at things from a compatibility, how will this fit into existing system standpoint. I don't need OMF, EDL, or XML.

So I'm mostly noticing the fantastic interface, and how great it works for editing. Definitely glad I bought it.

June 23, 2011

1
Reply

No disrespect, but if you're not coming at things from a compatibility standpoint, you're not representative of the professional community. I don't mean to suggest that you're not a professional, but import/ export, tape and machine control are part and parcel of most professional workflows on a regular (if not daily!) basis. I own an audio/video post facility and am an audio editor/ mixer. If my editor can't send me a quicktime and an OMF/ AAF of the project, I can't edit or mix what he's been working on in Pro Tools. If we can't work easily with any of the tape based HD and SD formats we still see on a regular basis, we can't work with a significant number of producers who bring us work on a regular basis. If we can't import FC7 projects, it's not an evolutionary product, it's a different program altogether with a misleading name. Without being vitriolic, it really isn't "pro" at all. It's either simply not finished, or it really is "iMovie Pro". It has less in common with Final Cut Pro 7 than Premiere Pro does. How disappointing. Avid must be thrilled.

June 23, 2011

-2
Reply
Joe

Go download Automatic Duck with the $700 you saved and all your problems are fix. Apple is a bitch, they never cared about how shit used to work, they only care about the future and FCPX is the future just wait.

June 23, 2011

-1
Reply
Jimmylee

When did the OP suggest that he was representative of the professional community? As far as I could tell, he was just stating his own opinion.

I love all of this "industry clamor." It's when a bunch of relatively insecure members within a community feel the need to collectively resist change and cling to their arbitrary comfort zones to make themselves feel relevant.

Stop reacting out of FEAR. You can continue to use FCS3 until the rest of the "community" catches up with newer standards and workflows. I give it about 6 months - wait until some big name director publicly admits that his production primarily used Final Cut Pro X to edit a major film. Then, all of a sudden, that "industry clamor" becomes industry praise.

June 23, 2011

0
Reply
swester

Sure sure ... I guess he'll be editing it all on his single monitor imac also. You know, since there's no way to send files to other people to work on (other than the .mov's), and I hope he has a lot of room on his boot disk for all of the footage.

No one is reacting out of fear. I'm pissed that I have to start from scratch and learn a whole new editing program. Whether that's FCPX, Avid, or Premeire, I have to learn a system I don't know. And don't say "It's just like the step from FCS2 to FCS3." That's a simple yield. This is a brick wall.

June 23, 2011

0
Reply
Alec Sprinkle

Ok, so you're saying that eventually the "community" will eventually no longer need OMF files for doing professional audio mixing? Or creating HDCAM SR master tapes? Try telling that to the Discovery Channel, History Channel, TLC, BBC, and most of the other networks who distribute most of the content the majority of the world sees. Those networks have established technical production standards that FCPX features cannot accomodate. And those standards don't change quickly.

June 23, 2011

1
Reply
MJH

IMHO the professional reviewers are being overly kind in their reviews for fear of upsetting Steve (and thus receiving the Leo Laporte treatment).

I have been a die hard Apple Fan Boy for over 25 years, this is the first time I have been truly disappointed by Apple. This is definitely an iMovie update as opposed to a Final Cut Pro update. You can't even import current FCP 7 projects (but the opening screen asks if you would like to import an iMovie project). Bizarre.

I was so hoping that it was going to be a cool upgrade, but in reality it is a pretty huge step backward

June 23, 2011

0
Reply

Wow! History repeats itself. I think in most cases you can tell the age of the person posting by which side of the line they fall on when in comes to FCP X. As Dan Achatz stated above, " If all you have ever used is Final Cut Pro then you’re going to have to learn some new tricks". However, if like me, and you have been editing for decades (not just years) then you have experienced other editing platforms and multiple workflows. Only with that kind of perspective do you realize that this is just another transition period. All of this resistance to FCP X is EXACTLY how the "professional" industry reacted to the introduction of FCP 1 in 1999. "it's not a professional program...It lacks standard features... Avid users will never switch over..."
ANY OF THIS sounding familiar?

People thought that Apple was wasting its time by supporting the new DV/Firewire standard back then (again-not professional) but it turned out to be a brilliant move. They are doing the same thing with FCP X and the DSLR revolution : building towards the future. If anything, I should be more upset than a younger editor, not because Apple is trying to change my workflow, but because I have less years of my editing career in front of me and won't have the same experience of watching this new editing platform mature and blossom.

Is FCP X perfect out of the gate? Of course not. It took until FCP 4, for that program to reach maturity (and IMHO it took Premiere even longer. Talk about a program that stuck the word "Pro" on it's name way too early!) As for myself, I have so many current projects mired in FCP 7 that I am not going to rush out and switch over. I will wait for the release of LION and the first "update" to FCP X before I bite. And like most professionals, I will use FCP X and FCP 7 side by side for a while until the transition is complete. No panicking necessary.

June 23, 2011

-2
Reply
Richard G

Comapring the release of FCP1 and FCPX is not a valid argument. FCP1 was a brand new product without any user base or reputation. There were no big expectations or reputation to uphold. With the release of FCPX there is already a huge professional user base who all have big expectations. There is an industry reputation to uphold. To me, this release says Apple doesn't care about or respect their established professional users that has been supporting their product for a decade.

June 23, 2011

2
Reply
MJH

Exactly.

June 23, 2011

-1
Reply
Alec Sprinkle

You are not hearing what Richard G is saying.
This is NOT about upholding reputation or meeting expectations. This is about changing the way we look at things, the way we work - ultimately put: about changing the world.

Sure there is still a lot of legacy footage out there on tape, but the media itself is dead. Yes dead. Just like the floppy drive. And the importance of it is degrading, just as the media itself.

The way to empower and create the possibilities of the future, is to make them things simpler, not more complex to achieve. Anyone remember the early days of burning cds? A recording studio used to call me in twice a month to burn the cds that were sent for mastering. The software was infinitely complicated and repulsive to use. The resistance I met when I first introduced Toast was overwhelming, until people started to understand, that the end result was just as good, with less possibilities of error, and getting the work - which in itself was of no artistic importance - done.

Funny how many people here are commenting on FCPX and saying how disappointed they are or that they´re moving to Premiere - without even owning a Mac.

For all you guys that are not trolls and apologists, my advice is: Spend the meaningless sum (yes, if you truly ARE the professionals you claim to be, then a few hundred IS a meaningless sum) on buying FCPX. It may not remove your need for sticking with FCS (or Avid or Premiere if you wish), but it WILL give you a heck of a tool and a totally different point of view for the price of a plugin.

June 24, 2011

-1
Reply
GeeGee

I will agree with your point of view concerning new ways of doing/seeing things. Yes, innovation and evolution is necessary in the video industry. But I still must totally disagree with your statement that legacy media (tape) is dead. I have dozens of clients that are major networks or Fortune 500 companies who have spent millions of dollars on video shoots in the past 10 years, and they still expect (and will continue to expect) to be able to incorporate that video into projects. FCPX will not allow me to access that media easily without using a time consuming workaround. And I have done many projects for those clients that will continue to need updated and revised for years to come. FCPX will require me to rebuild each project from scratch, rather than update it, and the clients will not pay for a rebuild (as they shouldn't), so that is time and money that I will lose.

June 24, 2011

-1
Reply
MJH

No, what I mean is that the media is dead in the way that it is no longer a living media. Like 8 mm or 16 mm film. Material still exists, but nobody will record another foot of media in that format (not counting those who for some reason want to go retro tripping and dabble with "the good old stuff").

Old existing material either already is or - over time - will be transferred to some kind of better and less vulnerable media than tape. The issue will become obsolete or at least much less important over time.

I am fully aware of the importance of being able to access old tape footage, but again, just to make myself totally clear: Tape as a living (footage being captured today) media is DEAD. There is no PROFESSIONAL reason whatsoever for still capturing original footage to tape, on the contrary.
Hence: Tape = dead.

And, just like with so many other functions (audio editing, disc authoring, etc), there is no reason why this function MUST reside inside the application. There´s a bunch of very adequate ways of getting to and from tape and using (e.g.) FCPX for the other parts.

June 26, 2011

0
Reply
GeeGee

Interestingly enough, as I try to wrap my head around the new way of editing that using FCP X entails, I realize that if I DON'T like it, Adobe CS5.5 is a must-purchase. Funny, I'd never felt that way about CS5.5 until FCP X came out. That said, learning an editing program is like learning to play an instrument -- you're going to suck at it initially. It's only once it becomes second nature, when it feels like an extension of yourself, that you can get comfortably creative. So I'm going to do my damndest to get comfortable with FCP X in the hopes that future versions add some more professional features; if I find I like the "old" way better, I'll jump ship to Adobe. I suspect a number of editors are in this boat -- and I suspect Adobe is having a party to celebrate the fact that Premiere is no longer a copy of Final Cut. Not because Adobe did anything different, but because Apple did and (in part, at least), it's blowing up in their face.

On the other hand, there are a lot more DSLR filmmakers and corporate/industry videographers out there than there are feature filmmakers. Apple's targeting the larger market. Future versions of FCP X will show whether they still have a commitment to feature editors, but version one certainly left a lot of features on the table.

June 23, 2011

0
Reply
avatar
Ryan Koo
Founder
Writer/Director

Maturity=forward progress.

Change does hurt, because we have to look at things in a new way, and use new tools to accomplish the tasks we were used to accomplishing with old tools. But Apple did not solely provide a new way of doing things here, they also took away functionality. They went backwards with features and functionality that were important to certain users, namely the pros.

They didn’t say, folks, I know you’re used to doing things this way, but here is a new way of getting from point A to point B. Than we say, ugh that hurts, I have to change. No, what Apple is saying here is, it’s not important to get from point A to point B any longer, therefore we are going to yank that functionality.

Now, if the plan was to have that functionality added back in later down the road, then they should have told us up front, not hijack the NAB show, kicking other presenters off the stage, so they can speak primarily to professional users, and blow smoke up their rear-ends.

June 23, 2011

0
Reply
Jeff

I wish I understood what point Gary Adcock was trying to make. "...when all the devices we work with communicate seamlessly..."? Well, that seems out of the question without tape ingest.

"Think of the advantages and possibilities when all the effort you put into setting up a shot or project continue downstream from your camera into post-production, or follow your content when it’s delivered on the web." Doesn't the effort I put into setting up a shot or project already continue downstream... regardless of what editor I use? Why has FCPX suddenly become the catalyst?

For me, this looks like yet another example of Apple forcing their vision of the future on Mac users. And I'm sure many will trumpet FCPX as the holy grail of editing. Looks less than half-baked to me. Think I'll stick with Adobe.

June 23, 2011

0
Reply
Hal

The comments section here posted my partial draft post above when it refreshed in the middle of me writing it without me hitting Submit. Since I do not see a delete function I will continue/refresh my post:

He Did Not say “When all the devices we work with” but in the important future context of “Apple shows us the FUTURE in which data streams from All The Devices We Work With communicate seamlessly, sharing media behind the scenes."

This is made possible by all the Metadata(refer back to his & many others including Metadata Guru Phillip Hodgetts) writing on the Metadata features of FCPX, content analysis, keywords, updates 64 bit FCPX 10.1 & higher versions, Lion OS, file based storage from a mulitude of devices & much more. What exists now is quite a leap in power of previous NLE systems. So even at brand new 10.0 version the great majority of what people really still need in terms of professional workflow within multiple system companies will be coming in the near future of the next few months & this first year based upon how quickly development teams(Apple & third party) can update and/or write new software. Remember he specifically referred to "The Promise of Final Cut Pro X & "Will that promise be fulfilled?" so I wouldn't be too impatient in only the first week out.

Interestingly I just saw a FCP X test where six different based digital camera files from a iPhone, HTC Android Phone, Go Hero Pro HD, Sony compact point & shoot, Panasonic AVCHD, Canon DSLR H.264 were all placed in the timeline. In FCP X the whole timeline edit was natively available immediately to play & do real time effects.. In FCP 7 it went to rendering ALL THE FILES very very slowly effectively stopping the edit & edit system usage for a long time until all the files would be completely rendered. This is already realizing the much faster editing workflow of what FCP X is about.

Within these digital devices is a lot of metadata worth of shooting & production information that will stay with the edit all the way through to final output.

In the near future you will be able to ingest legacy tape footage via a third party plug in or via a Apple update and the beauty of that is that you will be able to type into the metadata all sorts of information about the original footage. I can personally think of a lot of legacy 3/4" & Betacam footage where that will come in. And right now you can ingest legacy DV & HDV footage right into FCP X.

I also suggest that one read & view all the information & videos that are on Apple's FCP X web site plus reading in depth reviews of people that have spent many hours with FCP X to get an understanding of what is really there in this totally brand new program before making unresearched &/or out of context comments. A lot of these comments are very remiscent of when a brand new program called Final Cut Pro 1.0 came out. It really wasn't ready for a lot of usage until version 1.25 came out but it revolutionized non linear editing big time and "The Promise" of the future of the brand new Final Cut Pro 1.0 was definitely there as this brand new Final Cut Pro 10.0 definitely is.

June 23, 2011

0
Reply
Michael Clark

As to importing existing FCP projects...

You might be able to render portions of it and bring it in as a new project, but the 30-year-old Avid timeline interface and the new magnetic storyline interface are just enough different that I'm almost willing to bet that you can't do it. Especially with support for some features like EDL and OML missing.

You can probably come close, but if it's not perfect pros will scream just as loudly that FCPX "destroyed" their projects. For Apple it's a no-win scenario....

June 23, 2011

0
Reply
Michael Long

To this professional editor, (25+ years on almost every platform), the release of FCP-X is one of the most resounding belly-flops of all time. "iMovie Pro"? Certainly. "Final Cut" Pro? Not even close. We still have to deal with legacy projects, analog tapes with time code, still need to export OMF for our mix sessions, still need multi-cam. The history of editing didn't start on tuesday, but Apple apparently would like us to believe it did. Apple may sell a zillion units of "iMovie Pro" but they have taken a big, ugly bite out of the hand that "fed" them when they were trying to gain respectability in the pro space. This may well go down as the biggest gaffe since the "Newton."

June 23, 2011

0
Reply
Mike

The positive review I see of FCPX remind me a lot of the positive reviews of Windows Vista when it came out.
Equal parts denial and fan boyism.

Still for $300, if I had a mac I might pick it up for fun.

June 23, 2011

1
Reply
Rob

Pages