March 28, 2013

Apple Sets Sights on Professionals, FCPX Version 10.0.8 Adds Support for Sony XAVC and Alexa Log C

Apple has been losing its grip on the professional editing market ever since Final Cut Pro X was launched in 2011 to much skepticism. With Avid and Adobe welcoming a lot of FCP7 refugees, Apple is now once again targeting those customers with its latest free update to FCPX. The major features include support for Sony's new XAVC codec up to 4K resolution, and the option to display ProRes Log C files from the Arri Alexa in Rec. 709. Also included in the free update are various fixes to both Compressor and Motion. Get the full details after the jump.

With Version 10.0.8 of Final Cut Pro X, Apple is reported to be launching a campaign today, to 'win back' professionals. In this campaign, Apple will be reporting on stories from professional editors who are making the switch back to FCPX, like Julian Liurette from Toronto's Globe and Mail newspaper who, after waiting a year after its initial release, says:

It's better on all fronts. Its interface is 100 times more interesting. And it's much, much faster.

The campaign will also include a piece on Hong Kong filmmaker Tsui Hark.

No doubt this is in response to Sony's new F5 and 4k F55 cameras and the popularity of the Alexa amongst industry professionals, and Apple's campaign is being timed to coincide with this year's NAB convention in Las Vegas from April 6th-11th.

The full list of features and fixes from Apple:

  • Support for Sony XAVC codec up to 4K resolution
  • Option to display ProRes Log C files from ARRI ALEXA cameras with standard Rec. 709 color and contrast levels
  • Resolves an issue where some third-party effects generated green frames during render
  • Resolves performance issues that could occur with certain titles and effects
  • Time reversed clips render in the background
  • Ability to use key commands to adjust Clip Appearance settings in the timeline
  • Ability to view reel number metadata located in the timecode track of video files
  • Mono audio files in a surround project export with correct volume levels
  • Drop zones no longer reset to the first frame of video after application restart
  • Fixes a performance issue which resulted from selecting multiple ranges on a single clip
  • Fixes an issue where the Play Around function did not work properly on certain clips when viewed through external video devices

Harry Miller, head of the American Cinema Editors' technology committee, shared with the LA Times:

Personally, I'm still suspicious of Apple, I don't think they have my interests at heart. And I don't want to invest money in any of their hardware or software when they might drop features in new versions.

Apple has made a lot of concessions, responses to criticism, and updates since FCPX's release; but will it make a difference, or is it too late? Have you already moved on from Apple's NLE suite, or will continued campaigning and functionality improvements convince you to come back? Share your thoughts below.

Links:

Your Comment

160 Comments

I've been using Final Cut since it first came out, but I'm still using version 7. These updates to FCP X aren't enough to entice me to upgrade - it still looks like iMovie! - and if they don't make some serious improvements I suspect I'll eventually be forced onto Premiere.

March 28, 2013

0
Reply

what is left to add that you would want? Other than an interface change?

Other than a send to motion tab nothing jumps out at me, personally I can cut faster on this than any program I have ever used and the updates have considerably improved it's speed, reliability and feature set. The multicam is simply brilliant I can now cut live events eg. wedding ceremonies, corporate presentations in practically realtime.

Some brilliant plugins can be found easily for free as well the TKY colour correction plugin adds so much more functionality over the color board.

A lot of the hate directed at this app is simply it is the trendy thing to do.

March 28, 2013

2
Reply
Chris Lambert

Same here, the supermeet presentation looked amazing, then I was let down for lack of multicam, OMF, AAF, legacy support, etc. But since 10.0.6 and all amazing plugins and third party software I now work with it almost exclusively, only one documentary still on the Avid. But everything else, commercials, music videos and multicam edits I do in FCPX. It's so fast and easy when you understand it, and I can do 90% of what I do in that software alone. Before it was edit in Avid, send AAF (and transcode Sony EX) to Resolve for grading and export individual clips to After Effects and so on when doing something besides simple cutting. We reshot a scene for a commercial 3 hours before deadline and actually made it on time thanks to FCPX, we wouldn't have made it on Avid + AE + Photoshop + Resolve in that time. And last week I shoot a docu concert with one camera being my iPhone with FilmicPro 2 and forgot to change to 25p like all the other cameras. FCPX multicam had no problem keeping that camera in sync all the way trough despite the "wrong" framerate. Try that in the Avid without a complex workaround.

March 28, 2013

0
Reply
Hampus

does your client know you shot their project partially with a phone? o_0

March 28, 2013

0
Reply
john jeffreys

yes, they wanted a docu feel and placed some of my crew in the audience and backstage to get that kind of coverage. I also shot on hacked GH2, sony EX1/3's, all handheld.

March 28, 2013

-1
Reply
Hampus

*I placed my crew, didn't really get that through the last one.

March 28, 2013

-1
Reply
Hampus

Wow, multiclip editing in "practically-real-time". This is REALLY a new feature, but I remember doing it in soap TV in 1986. Surely on Avid with their expensive multicam board in the 90's. Then in FCP7 without dedicated hardware. So what's new? What would I want? Not to be dropped by a company I helped to grow?

April 7, 2013

0
Reply
koldo

"It still looks like iMovie!"

-spoken only by someone who has never used FCP X or iMovie.

Why not share an original thought for once? Or would you prefer that we refer to Premiere as "Premiere Elements Pro"?

March 28, 2013

0
Reply
Swested

you...are on crack....FCPX blows Premier out of the water....

March 28, 2013

0
Reply

i'm a hardcore FCP7 user and love it, never had a problem with it. for the last months i've been "playing around" with FCPX for personal stuff and must say it's a major leap forward in video editing. of course it will not be everyone's cup of tea... more experienced editors may find it lacking in some features or they just don't want to be bothered learning a new way of working (myself included) but i definitely think one has to commend apple for trying a new approach.

my opinion is that FCPX was engineered for a "new breed" of filmmakers. it's simple to use, has all the tools one needs to produce high quality results, is cheap and runs beautifully on "consumer" computers.

of course people who are used to charge a lot of money for editing/post production hate it because it's getting harder to justify those rates if you're using an iMac and editing on a software that looks pretty much like iMovie and I totally get that...

March 28, 2013

0
Reply

Exactly. It's ruffling the feathers of all the old conservative dinosaur editors that are set in their classical ways. I

March 28, 2013

0
Reply
john jeffreys

Exactly. It's ruffling the feathers of all the old conservative dinosaur editors that are set in their classical ways.

March 28, 2013

-1
Reply
john jeffreys

You don't pay a construction worker based on the hammer they use, you pay them based on skill. This is not a good argument because editing is about technique and skill with telling a story. It really has very little to do with what you edit on. Some of the best movies ever made were edited with razorblades and tape. So people complaining about this stuff is just very petty, editing is so much easier now and FCPX is Apple doing what Apple does best, simplifying the user interface so people don't have to worry about the technical aspects and can focus on the editing.

I love the simple interface when I'm editing, all I see are the clips I'm using and my timeline. FCP 7 is an ugly program that looks like it was designed in the '90s. I'm glad I never used it because I wouldn't want it to ruin my experience with FCPX which is a great program that a lot of people hate for dumb reasons. Now, there are still some issues, but those will be taken care of in future updates. I don't get the feeling that Apple is abandoning the pro user, what they are doing is redefining what a pro user is. Pro doesn't mean hollywood anymore, pro is small production houses and individuals that need something simple and easy to manage while they take care of other important aspects of their business.

March 28, 2013

0
Reply
Julian

First of all, you are wrong, I do not charge my "high rates" because of the money I need to expend in machines. I charge that because I'm a good editor, fast. reliable, capable of working under pressure (lets say, four agency guys looking over my shoulder for days in a row, expecting magic pour out of their very expensive rushes) and deliver an offline and some lists that will run flawlessly on an even more expensive grading or compositing or audio finishing suite.
There used to be a saying: If you are in the postproduction-for-hire business there are two groups, the one that can earn back the money they spend in machines in three years, and the one that do it in five years. If your not in one of those two, you can not survive in the post-service market. That was true until machines became available for us. Most of the post facilities I know saw that late and are dead now.
Now there is a lot of market (growing very fast) for editors for the www and other new media distribution systems, and this (indulge me, please) Imovie-pro is very useful for them. I like it. A LOT. But don't try to force-feeding it to me with arguments like "you are refusing to change". Cause I'm not. Just reluctant to loose good (and necessary) things, features already got, for some DIY tool that make me accept sub-standards as inevitable. no, sir. I will not relinquish my hard-earned standards just to be cool, though crippled.
Another example: recently the DP of some soon-to-be multicamera TV series tells proudly everybody in a PP meeting: "Oh, we don't need to use slates, I just discovered this "magical" software that synchronize automatically" My answer was "I've tried it". "It's a great idea" (this was version 2 of PluralEyes, V3 is even faster and better). But the thing is that you need to synchronize hundreds of clips every day, to the sound and then the different cameras to make multiclips. So no way, evidently. You either put same TC on each source, you do it manually using the stales, or you hire the manpower needed to go though the huge amount of rushes and the end of every day shooting. I was bashed by some of the people in the meeting with the comment: "He's so old-school, he don't want to change his ways" Production was pushing hard just trying to reduce costs.. But guess who was the only person there who had synchronize not just some clips from a wedding or your friends band music, but dozens of THOUSANDS of clips along his career, So. PE is perfect to some types of job, but if your looking for industrial flow, then you first be sure the "new toy" can do it. And FCPX is not (yet) above the basic requirements for this "big" projects. Let's see at NAB. In the meantime, try to show some respect for the people who know their trade, please. Because it will backfire you in the long run. "I can do it cheaper with my Imac" as an argument among fellow editors is that: cheap. And once production copy that, maybe you will have to reduce YOUR rates below what you need to survive, and even to buy a new Imac next year.

April 7, 2013

-1
Reply
koldo

I moved off FCP7 the day Adobe launched the 50% off deal for CS5.5. Now, I'm a cloud subscriber and work in AVID when the post-house jobs come along, using PP for 1-man projects. I still use FCP7 for a few clients, but FCPX has yet to ever come up in a professional setting for me. Ever. Apple did a bad thing, and people don't forget. So many editors are no longer using Macs AT ALL.

Apple lost a big chunk of the professional world - but what's more worrying is that they don't really care. They make mobile devices now. They probably make more on iphones in a week than they did on MacPros in a month...or months.

March 28, 2013

-1
Reply
alex

Ya Apple is just a Toy Company now

March 28, 2013

0
Reply
Derek S.

I'm with you Alex. In our facility we all made the jump to Prem 6 and haven't looked back. We also have AVID, but with that company on shaky ground we haven't committed to it except for those editors and directors that demand it.
I recommend FCPX or Premiere to those starting out, but if you're currently in a pro post house you will never hear about X. Editors are quite conservative by nature - its literally like asking a woodsman to change their axe.
On a personal note I am blown away by Prem 6 constantly. Sure, it needs a better grading module, and its file system is pretty awful, but even after 10 years in FCP7 I'm faster in Prem 6 in 3 months. In our particular business, time counts.
To sum up - over 10 years editing you're probably on AVID or Prem, or limping on with 7. Under 10 years, you're probably willing to give X a go. But if you think Apple are supporting it as a pro product more than say, 3 years, you're mad.

March 28, 2013

0
Reply
Marklondon

Premiere? What a buggy, ancient U/X.

March 28, 2013

0
Reply
Swested

Care to elaborate on what your qualms are with the user interface? You've mentioned it three times in these comments (and seem to be the only person doing so). I'm genuinely curious. Also, we've used Premiere for years and I don't know if I'd call it buggy -it's been fairly solid with only a few occasional hiccups. But then, I've never used a single program that didn't have a few hiccups either.

March 29, 2013

1
Reply
Oliver

The new CUDA accelerated iMacs i7 Ivy Bridge fly with Premiere, FCPX, Davinci Resolve and AVID Media Composer.

And you know what ? You need 1 Blackmagic Thunderbolt product to get 10 BIT HD SDI , HDMI output from ALL of those applications.

Apple is so unprofessional....

March 29, 2013

1
Reply
Paul Jau

It still has a long way to go befoer its useable on a professional level. It is geared toward the casual user for sure, it has a "my first editing software" feel to it, while it does get the job done for a wide range of users, i still dont like it and have been using 7 and probably goign to adobe soon also. I mean not being able to make overlap mutiple clips from the original favorite clip without haveing to cheat the system with a work around by labeling it keywords instead of a favorite clip is just unaccetable.

March 28, 2013

-1
Reply
Derek S.

Are you referring to the casual Epic user, the casual F55 user or the casual Alexa user? I was just at Chuck E. Cheese for my nephew's birthday party and I couldn't believe how many people were shooting their kid's parties on Alexa. I immediately thought, "They'll probably edit their footage on FCPX when they get home." Apple continues to pour salt in the wounds of pros by supporting these $19K and up consumer cameras.

March 28, 2013

0
Reply
Brian

I'm a FCPX user and I still had a good laugh at this comment.

March 28, 2013

0
Reply

Sounds like someone is staging a kid's birthday party to get a free location! Haha.

March 28, 2013

-1
Reply
avatar
Micah Van Hove
Writer
writer, director, dp

Supporting cameras is such a small part of what a NLE needs to do for pro's to come back. Its funny to read the people talkong about cutting weddings that dont understand the hate. You used to be able to cut a feature film n FCP7 with multiple editors (albeit painfully)...you absolutely CANNOT do this with FCPX...not even close.

This is for prosumers shooting videos for the web...adding Alexa and Red support is hysterical. Ken Burns Effect button!?!? How bout the Youtube button!?!? They added back in dual monitor support after they realized professional editors couldnt be tricked by their smoke and mirrors...we cant do what we need to do on this joke toy of an NLE. Its not about what codecs it supports, thats the least of the issues with this POS. Mac Pro towers??? Logic Pro??? Shake??? DVDSP???

Apples bigger problem even if they came out with FCP8 64 bit (Adobe Premiere) with the same interface is their hubris and the way they went about this. The bad feelings they have created will be extremely difficult to fix no matter what they say in their marketing spin....people have grown tired of the hype and want results which Apple hasnt seemed capable of for a few years now down the whole line of products.

March 28, 2013

0
Reply
editorx

Supporting high-end camera codecs is one indication (among others) of who Apple thinks (hopes) will use the software. That is, of course, unless you think it's an empty gesture (which you obviously do). Now, either Apple plans to further accommodate the types of projects that originate on Alexa's and Epics or they think web-only video is about to get a lot fancier with much bigger budgets.

I happen to think both are true. Those of you who poo-poo YouTube aren't paying attention to what's going on. They are positioning themselves to be an online network, complete with 4K delivery. My TV has a YouTube app built in. Convergence is the name of the game, people. Does "House of Cards" ring a bell? My TV also has a Netflix app. If any one of the many YouTube-as-evidence-of-pro-abandonment preachers ever has the good fortune to work on a runaway, smash-hit YouTube original, I'm sure you won't be able to get them to shut up about it.

What strikes me is the logic in the continued hatred for Apple and it's professional products. Everyone on the planet agrees Apple's success doesn't depend on video editors of any level because of their consumer ventures. That being the case, why do they continue to bother with your bitter, grudge-holding asses? I think it's because they DO care about you. They love you and they love the market. Seriously. The FCP revenue is a drop in the bucket and everyone agrees that Apple does what it wants to do. So, if they're doing it, it's safe to assume it's because they want to. Dislike them if you must, but some of you need better arguments for why.

March 28, 2013

0
Reply
Brian

And you think they cut House of Cards on FCP-x? Who cares about its ultimate delivery method?
Any production where there are more than one company, editor, sound designer, vfx artist, etc. would never in their right mind use FCP-x. Music videos and short form maybe, but anything that is really a collaborative format just won't. Its just not user friendly when it comes to online/offline, temp etc. I've given it a chance multiple times and just haven't found a suitable workflow for a team based edit. As soon as they realize that organization and file management are just as important as codec support then they will be back on the right track.

March 29, 2013

-1
Reply
Alex

Who cares about its ultimate delivery method? Where it plays and how many times is of great importance to a lot of people for a variety of reasons. At any rate, you're conflating two different issues. My main point is this: how many professional features do they have to add to FCPX before people consider it pro software? What I'm seeing is people think THEIR professional needs are more professional than other people's professional needs.

When FCPX first came out people claimed it lacked a host of pro features. Apple has addressed all of the major complaints and then some but somehow it's not enough. FCPX is obviously not finished and yet people act like every version is the LAST one there will ever be and then proclaim it's for hobbyists because it doesn't do the thing THEY want it to do. Never mind that it accomplishes 80-90% of what all the editors on the planet need. Long form and collaborative editing workflows may be the next major features to be added. You don't think the development team knows those things are lacking? You're telling me if the decision were yours you would've opted to release versions that allowed for multi-facility collaborations before some of the other, more common editing tasks, even though that workflow is far less common?

Just because something doesn't appeal to your personal preferences or even your current production needs doesn't mean it's not a professional piece of gear. It may simply not be the right tool for the task at hand.

March 29, 2013

-1
Reply
Brian

The polish is usually in the last 10-20%

March 29, 2013

2
Reply
Neill

I honestly believe that if you want to be viewed as any sort of working professional in this day and age, you should have your toe dipped in all the ponds.

I highly doubt that editors working on major hollywood jobs are restricted to only using Avid, Adobe, or Apple respectively. If the job calls for something that FCPX can't do, well then you pick the next best tool.
Likewise if the job calls for something that FCPX excels in, then why not use that tool? (And don't say that FCPX is unusable in a professional context just because it looks like iMovie. Does the audience see what software the editor used? No.)

Media is changing so rapidly that you have to have some competency in all the tools available. If a job called for FCPX and you couldn't use it because you weren't competent in it's operation, well then you'd better say goodbye to that job, cause it just went to little Johnny sitting in his studio apartment, who was willing to shell out the AUD$320 for Final Cut Pro X

March 29, 2013

0
Reply

I'll buy that, but polish usually comes with maturity and, as many have stated, it hasn't been that long since FCPX was introduced. At the rates and level of implementation Apple has added features, that type of polish will come 2, 3 or maybe even 4 times as quickly as it took the original to get there, depending on the feature. At some point, people are going to have to accept that Apple didn't abandon them.

March 29, 2013

0
Reply
Brian

I changed my mind, kind of. In the scope of ever evolving, ever improving software, there may be no such thing as the last 10-20% because no software is ever 100% finished. There's only "does what I need it to do" and "doesn't do what I need it to do". How well it does it is the polish you speak of.

March 29, 2013

0
Reply
Brian

I think that every editor who earns his living by editing is a "pro". I'm not calling anybody "not pro" because she/he edits for youtube or mitzvah parties.
"Not-pro" is Apple, who abandoned their (extremely) loyal base of "pro-customers", not only FCP's, but designers, compositing, 3D, and a large other pros. Totally legit, they go for the profits, and money had shifted someplace else. OK
But... What can we do? Buy Apple shares? Or just go along and be oblivious of the lack of features? No criticism allowed? I like that they are hearing their customers, that's how Avid fine-tuned their soft back in the early 90's, the BBS (non-www) era: feedback. Every Avid came with a (then expensive) 14.400 bps modem a you where just one click away from them.
There is a unavoidable truth: the time when a professional high-level editing tool that fills the cinema-TV show editor was at the price of a consumer product is dying. Market is dividing again. And Apple made us held that hope for a while. That hurts, but we will survive. Sorry, I use, and surely will continue open Premiere every now and then, but the UI (let's not mention the AE timeline which is unchanged from the time they were called "La Cosa Effects") looks designed by some guys held in Siberia circa Krushev times.

April 7, 2013

2
Reply
koldo

Best irony around, LOL. I hope these sentences of yours are creative-common-copyrighted, because I will use them. A LOT.

April 7, 2013

1
Reply
koldo

i agree with you.

March 28, 2013

-1
Reply
Marklondon

Investing in Avid right now makes more sense for me. Who knows when (or if) the market is going to adopt this one.

March 28, 2013

0
Reply
moebius22

The green boxes are finally going away!!! I've been waiting for this day for months!

March 28, 2013

-1
Reply
Darius

My department used FCP 7 and since its demise I've looked at a replacement and FCP-X was at the bottom of my list. The biggest insult was FCP-X inability to open FCP7 projects.

After trying the alternatives for over a year and using FCP7 in between, I finally jumped at FCP-X 10.0.6
It is efficient, it does 90% of what our editors want and it is much quicker to get what you want out of it.
Now the whole organization is using it, and I dread when I have to go back to 7.
The only thing missing for me is the ability to edit and export natively ( without re-compression ) as FCP7 can do.
But none of the other NLE can, so...

March 28, 2013

-1
Reply
Tulio

I've been using FCPX since it first came out. I have completed numerous short projects, a 1 hour documentary for broadcast on cable TV, a half-hour commissioned documentary and I'm currently cutting a 100minute feature documentary for cinema release. This software has improved with each update and I enjoy tackling complicated projects. I do a huge amount of colour correction and sound design in the time line, create intricate titles and graphics sequences and can smoothly output broadcast quality masters. FCP 7 seems so clunky and limited now when I use it. All this on an iMac. It has a few glitches, occasional freezes and crashes but it doesn't slow me down. Give it a try.

March 28, 2013

-1
Reply
Citizen P

I've been using FCPX for a while, but ever since the updates made the Neat Video plug-in stop working, I have considered moving over to Premiere. I'm excited to see if this fixes it. While a lot can be said about FCPX not being "built for professionals", I think a lot of it hinges on the question "professional what?" I'm a professional shooter, not really a post guy. For the relatively small amount of post that I do, FCPX allows me to do everything in one place: metadata organization, editing, grading, motion graphics and encoding. If I were a full time post guy, I would probably lean toward CS6. But for me, FCPX is a good fit...as long as Neat Video works again.

March 28, 2013

-1
Reply

Smartest thing Apple can do in my humble opinion: keep developing FCPX as a platform but give us FCP8 as well. Myself as well as a grip of other people I believe would be so happy to see the engine improvements in a FCP7 style interface. Most of just just did not need the wheel reinvented, just a new engine and modern adjustments to a way to work we are used to, control not stripped for ease of use.

We should not have to be casualties to new philosophies for editing if we have a way to work that we like. Leave that for ipads and ipods and commercial gear. If you read this Apple this is the point: bend this way or loose people to Premiere or Avid. They 'get it' right now and editors have taken notice. I know people at major studios who had heaps of money invested in gear to cut shows in FCP7 and they have all jumped ship.

This is kind of a big deal in the sense that we get to see which way Apple is going to go in relation to us professionals (ex Mac Pros, RIP Color). Lets hope for the best.

March 28, 2013

0
Reply
Ricky

90% of the people that hate on FCP X have never used it. Shame because, it's a great program. Super intuitive and lets you focus on the actual art of editing and visualizing your film and not messing around with complicated settings and old-school user interfaces.

And thank god they fixed the green-frame issue, I hope neatvideo works now.

March 28, 2013

0
Reply
john jeffreys

Agreed.

March 28, 2013

0
Reply
Darius

john jeffreys on 03.28.13 @ 7:00PM
"Super intuitive and lets you focus on the actual art of editing and visualizing your film"

"thank god they fixed the green-frame issue"

>green-frame issue
>issue
>>visualizing your film

Seems like FCP had issues that stopped people "visualizing" their film and drove them away to other products or not to upgrade!

March 29, 2013

0
Reply
Tyler

If the green frame issue was enough to keep you from visualizing your projects, you should probably consider seeking a new career.

March 29, 2013

0
Reply
Travis

it never stopped me, it was just annoying.

March 29, 2013

0
Reply
john jeffreys

Interesting comments on here.

It seems to me that the people who dislike FCPX struggle to come up with a good reason why it is not good. (Calling it Imovie pro is not a good reason). Perhaps they want to hate it because that is the stance they made when it was released and heaven forbid they change their mind.
Can anyone give a list of proper reasons why this software is so unprofessional and unusable? I ask that question genuinely.

My other observation is that anyone who has made the switch over has more or less loved it once they got use to the change.

I myself am still on FCP7 and I'm bloody fast on it too (use Premiere 5.5 a bit too), but am thinking I might make a change over to X sooner rather then later.

March 29, 2013

-1
Reply
Peter Kelly

I've been in this industry for 20 years. I've seen it all come and go. Got started on a tape-based nonlinear systems. Helped cut feature films on the early days of FCP when it was 1.2.5. Premiere? Sure. But the last few projects I've been on, which are heavy on graphics and back-and-forth with After Effects, I've used FCP X. It's damn fast. Haven't had any real issues with it. It has its own idiosyncrasies, just like every piece of software. It may have a slightly different way of approaching a timeline, but in all actuality, it is very flexible. And again...it is FAST. Just because it looks somewhat similar to iMovie doesn't make it any less of a product. Not everything has to look and act the way it has for the past 20 years, many of the conventions are simply outdated. And the fact that it is cheaper than other options doesn't make it less professional. I have had SGI workstations that cost more than people's houses, and now they're worth zero and your iPhone will out-render them. The best tools are the ones which are reliable and get the job done on-time and on-budget so that I can move on to the next one. FCP X does that in spades.

March 28, 2013

0
Reply

You should give Prem 6 a serious try. I've also been around that long. X is ok, I've cut a few projects to completion in it, but Prem 6 is so much faster for that AE roundtrip.

March 28, 2013

0
Reply
Marklondon

@Marklondon

"Prem 6 is so much faster for that AE roundtrip".

Curious as to your requirements here? An issue worth mentioning but not worth the cost of a Smoke seat?

March 29, 2013

1
Reply
nobody

So what you're saying with your 20 years of experience is that it comes down to a skilled editor and not the software?

Also, wouldn't it make sense that iMovie was the beta test for FCPX all along? It's not like they accidentally look the same. I believe that Apple had planned to release FCPX a long time ago and started playing with UI ideas in iMovie. Once Apple got those figured out, then they started from the ground up to build FCPX into something that would be easy to transition to from iMovie.

It's technology people! Look at how fast technology changes with everything in our lives. What Apple did with FCPX is the same thing they did with the iPhone. They got a few years of a head start on the product and now they will continue to refine it until it is the best NLE out there. The only problem is that it doesn't offer everything people want. But the BMCC doesn't either and everyone has a huge boner for that camera.

I believe that if some other company released FCPX under a different name, everyone would love it. But because Apple decided to move forward and make people change then everyone is butt hurt. Editors are supposed to be open minded people so they can try out lots of different ideas and finally settle on the best shots to use to tell a story, but when it comes to software then they are completely closed minded. I understand there are still some things people don't have (I would love OMF, well my audio people would), but these things are coming. Apple has $130 BILLION in the bank, they have the resources to make FCPX a monster, it will just take time. How's Avid doing financially?

March 28, 2013

0
Reply
Julian

Re the 'if some other company had released it you'd like it'. No, that would make it EDIUS or any of the many other edit platforms launched by other companies.
We'd probably have ignored it completely, just as people did when Apple released the very first FCP because they couldn't buy AVID. Took 5 years to get any traction.
BTW, If Apple was actually serious about owning this space, they could buy AVID/ProTools now for the profits from just the Manhattan stores morning takings.

March 28, 2013

0
Reply
marklondon

They're being open minded, they're trying non-Apple brand products.

March 28, 2013

0
Reply
moebius22

Fcpx keeps getting better. I was one of the haters until I tried it around version 6 and I can cut most things faster on x than any other nle out there. The metadata organization is superb, the best multicam ever, and the amount of plugins is expanding rapidly. I still don't know if I would cut a feature on it, but music videos, shorts, commercials and trailers this is the fastest tool for the job. Also, because this was written in cocoa, they are able to update the software quickly to a point where if they continue at their current pace, this will be the most advanced nle on the market in a years time. It's free to try, if you run lion or better you should put it through it's paces.

March 28, 2013

0
Reply

Exactly this. FCP X is my go-to for shorter videos, and especially anything I need to cut quickly. It's leaps and bounds ahead of Premiere/FCP 7's ancient U/X.

I'd probably use Premiere for something longer-form, though.

March 28, 2013

0
Reply
Swested

At the end of the day, the only thing that matters from an editing stand point is that most, if not all serious post houses left Final Cut. AVID is king in the pro world. Period. And as an adobe cloud subscriber, I have no problem admitting that.

Apple messed up big. It almost doesn't matter how "innovative" the updates are. The pro foundation is gone, and unless avid goes out of business... never to return.

March 28, 2013

0
Reply
dv

FCP stole people away from Avid once. As long as people are being born and new editors emerge, there's no reason to think it can't happen it again, especially at $299. Once again, Avid users will be seen as the old guard and FCPX users as the mavericks (like many once were when they used FCP and gave Avid the finger). That, and some established, well-respected editor will cut a feature on it (a la Walter Murch) and help turn the tide.

March 28, 2013

0
Reply
Brian

AVIDs not going to be $299 for much longer.

March 28, 2013

0
Reply
Marklondon

I was referring to FCPX. Is Avid $299 right now as well?

March 28, 2013

0
Reply
Brian

As I stated in another comment, the "pro user" is changing. It's not about Hollywood, Apple probably doesn't care about getting into that industry, they probably care about the small pro user that is outputting video to the web, because the web is the future of content delivery, it's just going to take time.

Independent web series, short film, local video advertising, these are the new pro markets, this is what FCPX is perfect for. Throw in Kickstarter and Indy go-go and we can do all of this on our own. This is the audience Apple cares about. This is the audience that will buy FCPX for $300. FCPX has had 8 free software updates in less than two years, how does that compare to Avid and Premier?

March 28, 2013

0
Reply
Julian

"FCPX has had 8 free software updates in less than two years, how does that compare to Avid and Premier?"

Pretty easily, actually. Updates are free for almost every program out there, and have been necessary for FCP X to fix so many bugs and add so many missing features. If you are trying to defend FCP X, don't bother with this factoid. Upgrades cost money, and that won't be any different for FCP 11, or whatever arbitrary number they use next time.

As far as cost, Adobe has Creative Cloud, which can be had for as low as $19.99/month, depending on the buyer. Same thing goes for Avid's academic pricing, which promises free upgrades for four years, for $299. Pro's don't qualify for that discount, but if price is how you are justifying FCP's supremacy, you might want to reevaluate that. Price doesn't prove anything.

March 28, 2013

0
Reply
David S.

I wouldn't go so far as to say Apple doesn't care about Hollywood but I do think they realize it's not ONLY about Hollywood anymore. If a major feature cuts on FCPX, I guarantee they'll crow about that for quite a while, if only to stick it to the naysayers. In all honesty, I think they'd be fairly proud of their little Phoenix if that happened because, as I said before, they actually love being in the moviemaking business. Video and video editing are the future of the future. They're only going to get more ubiquitous. But as much as emerging markets might change the landscape, it's hard to refute the power and prestige of a nod from Hollywood.

March 28, 2013

0
Reply
Brian

By the time this future of yours rolls around, there will be a free app far more powerful than anything Apple is trying to sell for the newbies of 2018-20 to care about.
Those of us who produce/cut today need a tool today that will grow with the pro market over the next 5 years. We know that beyond that time "there be dragons". And while web delivery is a growing segment of the market, it is still spectacularly small globally. This is not unlike the web advertising argument writ small.
And 8 software updates in that timespan sounds like a cellphone company, or Windows circa 1998.
My Android phone updates about 20 times a week for free. That is not actually a good feature.

March 28, 2013

0
Reply
marklondon

Gotta love the amount of responses on these editing app articles. Never fails.

March 28, 2013

0
Reply
Lane

FCPX keeps getting better for sure. However, I've moved up to Premiere CS6. It was a much easier jump from years of working with FCP7 and was faster, easier, with way more features. I gave FCPX a good 60 days (two trials...one before 10.0.6 and one after) and I liked A LOT of the new ideas. But overall, making a living editing 7 days a week, time is money so I jumped to what would have been FCP8...aka Premiere CS6. Now the next Adobe release (CS6.5 or CS7) can learn a thing or two from FCPX for sure, but I'm confident that Premiere will continue to advance in consistent forward direction as they have been for years.

I respect what Apple is doing with their persistent updates and it's a great NLE, no doubt. A new "take" on editing that will be really nice for some people. But I also think that, like Google did with cell phones, others will learn from Apple's innovations and then take those ideas and make them even better. For that reason, I applaud competition and choices.

March 28, 2013

0
Reply
SMD

With you all the way. Why would you NOT bet on one of the world's most profitable professional software companies, vs a phone company, and a company on the verge of Chapter 11?

March 28, 2013

0
Reply
Marklondon

I'll not bet on Adobe because I don't want to lose.

March 29, 2013

0
Reply
dixter

I gave it a shot and learned it pretty thoroughly for a long-form project. It's not the tool for me. I've moved on from everything related to Final Cut Pro. I keep up with the new updates, play around in it once in a while just in case knowing the basics is ever required for a job... but it's just not the tool I need, and it's not stable or powerful enough for my work.

March 28, 2013

0
Reply
David S.

Isn't the "modern" FCP X just an update of the "old" Speedrazor from the turn of the century? I see a lot of claims that FCP X makes your editing faster, but maybe you weren't very fast to begin with..?

Oh, and I'd love to see a DAW like Logic adhere to this modern paradigm, and make the music industry happy too.

March 28, 2013

0
Reply
Kent

Final Cut Pro X is the bomb. The way it handles creating, categorizing, and organizing sub clips blows premiere out of the water. The Internet continues to democratize entertainment and x's value as an nle is hard to match.

March 28, 2013

0
Reply

Create cloud matched it, exceded it, and currently is whats killing it. This add campaign by Apple only proves they are worried.

March 28, 2013

0
Reply
David

"Killing it" - according to whom? Do you have an actual statistic to back that up?

Don't get me wrong - I love Adobe CS. But Premiere has a horribly dated U/X and can be unstable/unpredictable with a fair number of hardware setups. If they were to incorporate some of the positive, innovative elements of FCP X in, say, CS 6.5 or CS 7, then I would be far more interested in using it regularly.

March 28, 2013

0
Reply
Swested

Killing it? The only thing likely to get killed is Premiere, due to Adobe's Cloud philosophy. Or, perhaps exist with a very limited user base.

March 29, 2013

0
Reply
dixter

I'm a professional filmmaker, and I love FCPX. When I first started cutting, it was on a moviola. I've used Avid, Premiere, etc, but I still find FCP the best. The best thing Apple ever did was create Final Cut Pro X. I shoot on everything from HDV to Alexa to Arricam 35 and there hasn't been a time FCPX has let me down. With one exception, that you can't lay back to tape, but that's no biggie.

Don't like FCPX? Too bad! Apple has a TEN YEAR development plan for FCPX, apparently.

March 28, 2013

0
Reply
StuZ

Has the new version of FCPX eliminated the need to transcode Canon 5D Mark II footage? I was surprised not to see this mentioned anywhere so maybe I'm way behind here...

April 2, 2013

0
Reply
flein

What does that mean? You should be converting to 422 before you even open up FCP...

April 2, 2013

0
Reply
john jeffreys

that's what I mean, Premiere does not require this converting / transcoding stuff which saves a lot of hassle. I was hoping FCP could someday accept 5D footage directly...

April 2, 2013

0
Reply
flein

FCP can render your footage into 422 in the background as you edit, if that's your thing. Overall, you shouldn't be editing with h.264 anyway- it's not made for editing/grading/etc as much as it is made for viewing HD footage on the internet

April 2, 2013

0
Reply
john jeffreys

I liked FCP 7, I like FCPX, I like Ppro, I like Smoke, and if I tried it I'm sure I'd like Avid. None of them are perfect because that's impossible. Best to CYA and get to know at least two platforms, and don't fall in love with any of them, 'cause they sure as hell don't love you.

March 29, 2013

0
Reply
Eric Emerick

Just to put it out there I'm a Premiere 6 editor and I love Premiere because I can use a PC with it :)

That means;
-Less costs
-Better hardware performance / price
-More configurablity in my system
-Faster workflow in some cases (program and OS)
-I'm not an Apple puppet and I can do what I like with my editing computer

March 29, 2013

0
Reply
Tyler

Also forgot to add that the FCP design takes up /way/ too much screen space. Why am I wasting 200px+ on fancy gradient bars spanning the screen? That's another issue I have with Apple in general - design over actual productivity.

March 29, 2013

0
Reply
Tyler

This is a great argument against FCPX, and probably the best one I've seen. With all the talk about workflow and features, at the end of the day, sometimes an iMac just doesn't cut it for everything. Apple hasn't shown much commitment to the professionals with their Mac Pro line completely stagnant and very little communication. Plus, although I am an Apple user myself at the moment, the price premium is nothing to sneeze at!

March 29, 2013

0
Reply
Oliver

Just finished a feature documentary in FCPX, and did it in 2/3 the time due to the meta data, speed and ease of editing. We were more willing to make new choices due to the ease of it. More creativity. It's been rock solid - way more stable than Premiere. We worked with 6tb of footage - a tremendous amount of 1080p Prores shot over 2 years.

I went back to FCP7 to edit a legacy project the other day, and it felt like the stone age.

I think the "Pro" thing is the real change here. Kiddies with DSLR's are coming with cheaper cameras, cheaper hardware, and cheaper software to take over. Cling to the old ways, and be overtaken by the new.

We decided to embrace the new, and are thankful. It's just software. It's really about the storytelling.

March 29, 2013

0
Reply

Agreed. Dinosaurs cannot change their ways!

March 29, 2013

0
Reply
James Guda

SOMEBODY GETS IT thank you.

April 2, 2013

0
Reply
john jeffreys

I'm a television and commercial video director who was working together with editors but since the release of FCPX I'm often editing myself. I just love it. FCP7 was to complecated for me. The only thing I don like is the titletool. It doesn't give me enough freedom and the presets are to Amercian by look.

March 29, 2013

0
Reply

It's the same argument as 'which camera is better?'. At the end of the day it's a tool to get a job done. Instead of being loyal to a particular brand of software, be loyal to the craft. If you know how to edit, software is irrelevant.

March 29, 2013

0
Reply

Go with the safe choice. Avoid Apple for software. There's going to be point when OSX won't support Final Cut 7, then what? It's better to jump on Adobe Premiere than to invest in FCPX. At least you can get your FCP7 projects into it.

March 29, 2013

0
Reply

I work on staff at a top NYC post facility that pumps out major films and network TV shows. There's tons of haughty speak on this site and others as if Premiere is somehow pro and FCPX is novice. I'll be honest with you guys....no one...and I mean NO ONE at post houses use Premiere. There's AVID (95% of the time) and there is FCP7. That's it.

Pro editors need to be tied to a unity with dedicated workspaces, and networks/studios are comfortable with the workflow as is. Their priorities are meeting deadlines...time=money. Simple as that. Introducing new NLE's mean a changes in the system. This implies the editor has to convince the post producer, which has to convince the post supervisor, which has to convince the show runner and production company, which has to convince the network why they need to try something new, which may imply changes to the schedule and budget that was established 7 months before edits begin.

Independent filmmakers use other NLE's. Personally, I'm a HUGE FCPX fan. It takes the monotony out of being creative. It's not perfect...but it will get there. It's simply faster. And anyone that says the interface is ugly, they're probably pushing retirement age. Some people don't like change. I'm not one of them.

March 29, 2013

0
Reply
Jonathan

For 20 years before I retired, I made my living installing and configuring software that I had never seen before. My first test of any software after installation is "How easy is it do something simple and straightforward that the user will do perhaps hundreds of times per day?" By that standard, FCPX is in a class by itself, so that's what I bought.
I started using NLE's about the time FCPX came out, and I tried them all, PC and Mac. The worst was Premiere - bitchy interface, slow, picky about hardware, and required going to the support site to run on my machine.
For those very few users who must share in real time, FCPX is not there yet. For the crusty old pro using tape, well, what can one say? Tape? Really?

March 29, 2013

0
Reply
CP

1/10 of a job paid for my FCPX. FCP1 was a new paradigm shift for NLEs and they're doing it again with FCPX. The inflexible will eventually break. Anyway, it's never about the tool but how you use it and what comes from it. FCPX makes my life easy without the software engineer degree to run it, I just want to create. All other NLEs are clunky, dated, and not intuitive.

They have Randy Ubillos who helped create the first thee versions of PP (http://goo.gl/F9Hla) so they have great minds on their side, along with the simplicity and intuition of Apple. They'll take over when it's FCPX 2.0 - the great thing for all the naysayer's is that you can learn the app in days not weeks or months and if you can't learn it in that timeframe, maybe editing isn't for you. Regarding collaborative editing, this (http://goo.gl/6K8Di) will blow your mind. Color correction on it is great with resource from Color Grading Central and The Touch control interface (arcticwhiteness.com) - life cannot be easier than it is now. In the near future, features will be cut on iMacs/MBPr & uploaded directly to theaters :)

Just take a structured class or buy a training series (http://www.rippletraining.com) to help you learn it. FCP.co is also a great resource to follow before diving in.

March 29, 2013

0
Reply
James Guda

"They have Randy Ubillos who helped create the first thee versions of PP". Wait, so a guy involved with one of the worst interfaces in editing is working on FCP X? Awesome. Maybe he'll add some innovative transition bars ;) It took Premiere a few versions to work out many of their worst decisions.

March 29, 2013

0
Reply
David S.

Those transition bars are great, can be done in a single keystroke too :)

March 29, 2013

0
Reply
James Guda

No doubt, many of the butthurt editors bitching endlessly about FCP X will be the first ones without a job in 5 years, wondering why they were replaced by a new generation of nimble editors half their age who didn't reject a product merely because it shares a U/X color scheme with iMovie.

Happened to the print industry, folks. For movies, it's just a matter of time. Go ahead - enjoy your exclusive dedication to the archaic AVID workflow system while it lasts.

Don't say you weren't warned. ;)

March 29, 2013

0
Reply
Hummer

Haha, you better prepare yourself for a big surprise. Don't buy a lottery ticket.. ;)

March 29, 2013

0
Reply
Kent

Surprised by what? That the transition away from old workflows and habits might happen faster than expected?

March 29, 2013

0
Reply
Hummer

Not really. Since FCP X exist on one platform only, that will never happen. While waiting, let me know when the first feature cut on FCP X is released in the theatres.

March 29, 2013

0
Reply
Kent

How about the first primetime commercial? Because I bet there are hundreds already probably done on X

April 2, 2013

0
Reply
john jeffreys

I have been a commercial/ music video for 10 years. I have worked in Avid, Premier and FCP 7. Didn't listen to the haters and tried it myself. I love it. There was a week or two where I had to teach myself how to work differently, and now I am so glad I did. There is no way I could go back to Avid or Premiere. I can finish things far better in a fraction of the time. I have used it in many client sessions, never had any problems and the Multi cam editing is so ridiculously easy, and the color tools for jobs with a quick turnaround is a lifesaver. I am not saying it has a few kinks that need to be worked out, but so do all the other NLEs. To all those out there that put energy into complaining about it, put that into actually taking an an unbiased look at it. I have done a lot of things in my life "the way that I always do." Doesn't necessarily mean that it is the best way.

March 29, 2013

0
Reply
Curtis Schmidt

From:
http://community.sony.com/t5/F5-F55/XAVC-APPLE-FCPX-plugin/m-p/107431#U1...

" Very happy to report that 4K XAVC on 27" Imac 3.4ghz/680MX is VERY fast in FCPX. Like 1080p fast.

MOREOVER, the GPU scales it on the fly to pass to the Blackmagic Mini Monitor to output at 1080p, high quality scaling, no hiccups whatsoever. Like working with 1080p, except there's 4x the pixels that you don't see unless you go blowing up clips. "

March 29, 2013

0
Reply
Juhan-i

Yay. Basically will be my XAVC transcoder to edit in Premiere! :)

March 29, 2013

0
Reply
Terry Jun

With Adobe's Cloud insanity looming on the horizon, and Avid's fIirtations with bankruptcy, I think Apple will soon find a whole new following. Especially, in those folks with dodgy Internet connections. Granted, they'll need to get it downloaded from the app store but, once that's done, no 'club' membership, monthly fees or need to connect. Avid on the brink of collapse? I hope not but, what else is left? You can continue to defend your chosen application based on fanboy-ism but, the times they are-a-changing, and that will be your downfall. The fact that I've just acquired a Sony F5 and this latest update from Apple (and there will be many more to come) supporting XAVC, I'm thrilled. FCPX has a bright future, indeed.

March 29, 2013

0
Reply
dixter

I still have a problem... FCPX forces you to layer an effect over a color correction. Try it... Color correct something and a Vignette and watch the Vignette alter the color correction. This is because the Vignette changes the color you selected or adjusted... Apple's tools are useless. I end up making all my adjustments and effects with Red Giant's software. This kind of think doesn't just stop at the inspector panel... I feel like little annoyances like this resonate all through out the program.

March 29, 2013

0
Reply
Sean

I know it's not perfect, but in your case using an adjustment layer would help. just put an empty generator on top of your file (our several files) and make the color adjustment there.

Here's how to use this:
http://www.fcp.co/final-cut-pro/tutorials/945-how-to-build-and-use-adjus...

May 17, 2013

0
Reply
thadeusz

I hate the timeline. GIve us back our FCP 7 timeline and maybe I'll like it. It is so non-intuitive.

March 29, 2013

0
Reply
Mark

My observation from teaching others and with myself, is that people who already have experience editing with FCP7 find it to be "non-intuitive". It behaves differently than what they're used to. For those who have never edited with any non-linear editor, they find that it is intuitive. In my experience teaching both versions, I find beginners take much more time learning before they can edit with FCP7 than with FCPX.

Editors who are used to earlier versions of FCP (or even other NLEs) should get some instruction of some type. Videos, books, etc.

March 29, 2013

0
Reply
Clark Nikolai

Good Point.
I understand what you mean my friend,
Itos obvious FCPX was NOT aimed to veteran profesional but newcomers
But...
is not supposed profesional editors have spend many, many years working to master the tools?
they (The Pro) have the authority to choose the tools the want to work with
that´s why the migration to APP o Avid
A big mistake from Apple?
You bed it...
Even Ubillos was mad with FCPX

April 4, 2013

0
Reply
Eddio

I was pretty resistant to the FCPX when it first came out because, like many people, I had put so much damn energy into learning FCP4-7, but I tend to find anyone who has difficulties with it is actually finding those problems because they are approaching using the program in the wrong way. They are essentially fighting against the application. It's like all those people who insist on doing even their minor photography touch ups in photoshop instead of a simpler program like aperture because it feels more professional to take 5 steps instead of one for the same result.

If you actually approach the editing process in the way FCPX intends it, it opens you up to a whole new way of thinking about editing. I find it a lot easier to channel my creativity with the new timeline (again.. once I stopped fighting against it). In many respects, traditional editing programs just give you a means to an end when it comes to showing your creative vision but I find, particularly for shorter works, editing in the new timeline makes my brain work in a completely different way and it gets some pretty great stuff out of me.

Like I said, I wasn't won around to begin with, but now after a few updates and actually taking the time to teach myself how to use the program properly, not just trying to apply my existing knowledge of editing to FCPX, I'm definitely on board. Also I have to say, any editor out there who honestly thinks that the learning part of their career is over now is going to dry up pretty quickly.

April 4, 2013

0
Reply
Mia

Learn how to use it, and you'll realize that it's actually the FCP/Premiere/AVID system that is far less intuitive in a fully digital environment. The original NLE's were designed so that people coming from tape and/or film could transition without losing the conceptual framework of pre-digital editing.

It's time to move past that model, and FCP X is the only software out there at the moment pushing those boundaries. Is it perfect? Far from it. But it's rapidly advancing and, since launch, is actually listening to its users' needs.

March 29, 2013

0
Reply
Swested

That comment is incoherent nonsense. Pretty sure we experience all media in a linear way - thats what those tools were emulating. I dont hate FCPX but its not more intuitive - its just different. And when you think how linear the output is - odd.

March 29, 2013

0
Reply
Marklondon

I disagree with Mark. Those comments make complete sense. FCP7 and everything before was aimed at people transitioning from tape and film editing. FCPX is a complete re-imagining of editing built from the ground up. People's resistance says more about how people become more stubborn with age than anything.

I personally don't care, but FCPX works for me and I can get it done FAST and the final result is totally professional. That is all that matters to me.

April 16, 2013

0
Reply

Way to win people over. Tell them that they're dinosaurs and behind the times - LoL!

March 29, 2013

0
Reply
moebius22

No, he's correct, learn to use it, and it will open new doors. Has nothing to do with being or not being a dinosaur.
This world is all about change, and how well you deal with it will make your life easier, there is no stopping change. Is FCPX the perfect editing app, no, what is? Is FCPX the future of editing, in my opinion, without doubt. My prediction, Avid, Sony, Adobe, will soon follow a very similar UI to that of FCPX, it's just a matter of time.

March 29, 2013

0
Reply
Steve M.

I can't tell the future. All I know is I learn what works for me, and what the majority of the market is using - it's not FCPX.

If it's eventually adopted, I will learn it, but for now I'll stick to FCP7, Premiere, and Avid.

March 29, 2013

0
Reply
moebius22

Then it's safe to say you're not a dinosaurs!

March 30, 2013

0
Reply
Steve M.

Ha. You sound like you know what you're talking about.

October 17, 2013

0
Reply
Parker

Same old complaints "old" editors said at the dawn of digital: It'll never catch on. It's not serious enough. It'll never be used by professionals.

Then, the same thing at the dawn of FCP and Premiere: it'll never take away market share from AVID. They're just toys for consumers.

Long story, short: Editors who illogically cling to antiquated platforms aren't exactly the best bellweather for future trends. Young editors are jumping into FCP X without any emotional attachment to the ludicrously overpriced AVID era. It's your call, guys: learn the new technology or be buried by it.

March 29, 2013

0
Reply
Hummer

Bah, hummerbug!

This may come as yet another surprise to you, but not everyone is working on a Mac. Learn the new technology and be buried with it when Apple shifts focus to something that's more important to them..

March 29, 2013

0
Reply
Kent

I'm not sure I understand this whole "Apple doesn't make pro machines" argument. iMacs and the MacBook Pro Retina are both sophisticated and capable machines, used by nearly every creative house I've seen. A new Mac Pro has been hinted at, and could very well be released this year. Apple is now making clear overtures with FCP X to cater to professionals - how many home movies are shot on ALEXA or RED?

Could you save a few hundred dollars by building a PC? Sure. But most professionals I know don't sweat over a few hundred dollars when the return in reliability, build quality, and depreciation are factored in. The seamless integration of design between Mac hardware and software is still worth the price premium - and I'm not the only one who feels that way.

March 29, 2013

0
Reply
Hummer

Give me break, you can get way more horsepower on the PC side than anything Apple makes.

March 29, 2013

0
Reply
moebius22

In the pre-bankruptcy days of GM, you could buy a shitty American car that had plenty more horsepower on paper than a German or Japanese sedan. And yet, at the end of the day - the American made car was still a piece of shit that drove roughly, fell to pieces, had poor resale value, and was horrifically unsafe.

If horsepower is what makes you happy, then so be it. I care more about the product that gets me where I need to go every single time, with half the effort and frustration. And a little style can't hurt.

March 29, 2013

0
Reply
Hummer

That's an awesome analogy.

All horsepower with crappy suspensions. (Mustangs still have solid axels!)

All grunt, no finesse.

April 5, 2013

0
Reply
Daniel Mimura

Comparing American cars to PC hardware is a poor analogy. Furthermore, with video and graphic applications, you want as much processor power as you can get for your money.

March 29, 2013

0
Reply
moebius22

It's not just about getting X RAM, Y processor, and Z Graphics card. You can build a computer with the exact same parts as a mac but as soon as you run a different OS on it, even if the application is the same, you will get different results. Different OSs and applications use and understand the same hardware in different ways.

April 4, 2013

0
Reply
Mia

Actually you can save up to a thousand dollars or more building your own PC. A loaded up 12 core Mac Pro is more than $3500 while my own rig with FX4800 card cost me less than $2500. It's a Asus P67 Sabertooth board holding 32GB of high speed RAM with an i2700K Intel processor that is liquid cooled. Add to that a 200GB SSD drive for System and program OS, some 1TB had drives with room for at least 8 more in the box. Without even breathing hard it overclocks at 4.3GHz. Running Adobe Media Encoder it matches the speed of a 12-core Xeon MacPro. What did I do with the extra bucks? Upgraded my Adobe to CS6 and Avid to 6.0 at time of purchase plus some other bells and whistles. The MacPro line is good but as for price performance, not even close.

April 4, 2013

0
Reply
Marcus Pun

It's surprising how much comes down to emotion and trust. We pretend to make rational decisions, but its mostly emotion-driven post-rationalisation.

March 30, 2013

0
Reply

Yeah, I've edited on all the above ,Premiere, Media composer, Vegas, FC-7 and X. Using both PC and Mac and currently own both types of systems, but after more than a year of research, talking with collogues and professionals in the film industry, my go to NLE is FCPX. Not because it's necessarily better, but with the roll of the editor, being more involved with the process of story telling and film making than in days past, FCPX works very well in this regard. Will I stop using the other NLE's, probably not, at least for the near future. With that said, If your NLE helps you tell a better story and get that story in front of your audience, than that is the right NLE for you, regardless of what company made it.
It's a great time to be a filmmaker!!!!

March 30, 2013

0
Reply
DWJLM

Thank you! Finally, focus where it ought to be.

April 1, 2013

0
Reply
B S Kumar

I think what a lot of people are forgetting here is that Apple DUMPED it's pro customers in one almighty hangover beer s**t with FCPX. They basically said 'screw you guys' you're not a big part of our income; here's the Wal•Mart version of FCP. There's no way I will trust Apple again. I will buy some of their hardware but, I am moving to Adobe as they don't have an iPhone company to run.

April 2, 2013

0
Reply
Dean Cannon

It all comes down to Apple not caring about their customers. It took a year for Apple to update FCP X to output an EDL and XML. If you don't know what these are, you have no business talking about this topic.

April 4, 2013

0
Reply
chosentopher

I'm still on FCP7. I have been since 1998, so it's safe to say that I'm a dinosaur. I admit that I'm comfortable with the standard (maybe "traditional" is the proper term) interface found in FCP7, Avid and PrPro. I really want to like FCPX, and every time another update comes out, I do give it another look. Yeah, I'm still a little miffed about the way Apple dumped on us with FCPX, but not so much that I won't continue to consider it.

I think the major thing that's still holding me back is file- and project-management. And I know this is petty, but I really wish they'd just go back to using professional terms like "bin" rather than "events" - to me, that's a big part of what makes it feel like a consumer application. I can't think of any project where the term "event" actually describes the way my media is organized, but I can think of another application that uses that term. It's called iPhoto.

So yeah. I'm a little suspicious of Apple, but I'm still open-minded. And for now, I'm still waiting.

April 4, 2013

0
Reply
Ben

"I think the major thing that’s still holding me back is file- and project-management. And I know this is petty, but I really wish they’d just go back to using professional terms like “bin” rather than “events” – to me, that’s a big part of what makes it feel like a consumer application. I can’t think of any project where the term “event” actually describes the way my media is organized, but I can think of another application that uses that term. It’s called iPhoto."

I am surprised that more professionals don't make this point. If you want to work with most experienced pros (I am not one) or directors, you need to understand the language that has been around since nearly the dawn of the movie industry. Bins, timelines, and even Avid specific elements such as the composer window. Unless someone can show me evidence otherwise, I am going to assume that most big budget and and widely released movies from the US are cut in Avid. Does that make it better? Maybe not, but that's the reality. And based on what I see around the net, other pros that left FCP7 went to Premiere. Premiere of course is staying with the traditional lingo. And by the way, current versions of Avid and Premiere handle almost all tapeless media just fine.

As for Avid's financial trouble, it is unlikely that the product would be allowed to die. Somebody will rescue Media Composer and/or Symphony. Blackmagic likes to by pro apps and make 'em cheaper, maybe they will ride in on a white horse.

Lastly, this bit about FCP X making one more creative is laughable. If it did that for you then great. On the other hand, Thelma Schoonmaker and her folks cut Hugo on Lightworks which has a modern interface but uses bins and a traditional style timeline. I don't think any of us are better or more creative than that marvelous 3 time Oscar winner who edits Scorsese's films.

Y'all be cool,
Robert A. Ober

April 4, 2013

0
Reply

I think Apple made a really bold move to re-invent the non-linear editing platform. For that alone, they are worth supporting. FCPX is a much faster and intuitive application than its competitors and has successfully re-invented the editing experience.

Contrary to the belief by some that Apple were purposely ignoring editors working in advanced areas of film and video post-production, I believe their intention was simply to make it more accessible and affordable to a broad range of editing and simplify the process. The risk that comes with such an innovative overhaul is that you can't and won't please everyone. It takes time to fine-tune such a complex tool and the fact that they are obviously listening to their customers by addressing many of the initial criticisms is testament to their commitment.

For those that find it non-intuitive, it's simply that you are used to what you already know, but if you take the time to learn it, I guarantee you'll never look back.

April 4, 2013

0
Reply

apples products are considered top of the line, for me i edit with final cut and Avid, i use all adobe suite except for premiere cause i consider it for wedding and small editing, where as there whole suite is considered the best when i say photoshop, illustrator, after effects and so on, so when i started on Avid media composer and then switched to final cut pro 5 then 6 then 7, it was really very interesting to me and i never worked on avid again, but when final cut X came in, in the beginning i really hated it and i felt it is like imovie and very difficult to edit with and the magnatic timelime was pain in the ass, but when the updates started coming in and especially the 10.0.6 update, here i started to dig in and get to know final cut x really well, and now i can say it is one of the best editing systems and it is going to be the future based system in which avid and other editing systems will try to be more like final cut X

April 4, 2013

0
Reply

whatever the subjective experiences are - fact is: they are now REacting to the market rather than pushing ahead and leading it. once you lose your customer base and piss them off by not doing anything about their complaints you can pack in.

April 4, 2013

0
Reply
Patrick

I work for a heath media company as a shooter/editor that produces a high volume of patient stories on a weekly basis. Before I took this job, one of job requirement was to be fluent in FCP X. First time I saw FCP-X (not FCP7) as a prerequisite for an editing job. This was 6 months ago.

As a FCP7 and Premiere user, I reluctantly learned the software and haven't looked back. Every update improves upon the last one. I submit feedback to Apple all the time as I use the program and I actually feel like Apple is listening to their users. Granted, the video I produce is for the web-but hey, it's perfect for the web-although I can eventually see the platform developed for broadcast. Give it time.

April 4, 2013

0
Reply
Steve N

Comments so far are indicative of adherents, those who view editing as circumspect and the undeniably biased haters’ misnomer.

Where this stands from a business/marketing perspective is yes, iJOBS is hoping to shape an entirely new paradigm with the html5 user base, and might at some point shift the focus of film making, but as the LA Times writer who responded to my critique of his piece last week (basically an iteration of this posted pre NAB fluff piece) pointed out, Film Makers and TV Editors, are not the growth market.

That leaves a few possibilities.

I have been reminded in other brand centric forums, that most features are cut on Avid, and few on Premiere, with that also including FCP7/X, Vegas et al.

Avid's demise at NAB went hand in hand with Apple, where both companies used to command the first few acres of the South Hall and dueling demos ruled the sea of congregants even on the last few days when the North and C halls became sausage fests for reps and exhibitors.

In ('08?) they both evaporated. Apple because they had morphed into a hand held device company, and Avid because they clung onto hardware too long, then bought debt laden DigiDesign which had bought M Audio.

The classic bell curve for marketing, if applied to these two entities, suggest, arguably that growth in a product type/division will only come one of two ways.

Either create something so compelling, that the energy for embracing it forces the market to shift and others will and must follow (Avid/Adobe did that because of FCP7) or build some cachet into the existing (loyal) user base which has been captured in the run up to where the bell curve peaked.

A very bad/good example is when Monster Cable finally peaked in the market, and dealers or users were no longer buying the "image", they shifted to power conditioning by emulating Furman's older dated designs but with a Monster badge, then, Beats Audio until that partnership dissolved last year.

Apple, was made on the engineer$, editor$ and graphics artist$ when these folks were the customers, then iJOBS purloined (successfully) the Creative MP player and that along with the continued miniaturization of PCBs and chips, forever changed the landscape.

The hardware computer that is Apple now, while refreshed, (as pointed out elsewhere in this comment section) is no longer leading in firepower. Case in point, the native ingest which Adobe saw as an opening when they partnered with Nvidia for the Mercury Playback function. Some Apple centric folks back then, said Nvidia would be plowed under, but between Intel, USB 3 being up through putted, and Adobe not backing off, it is arguably safe to conclude a PC even though it can be built from old Pinto parts (snark) can run rings around MAC's these days.

When Nvidia brought out a MAC centric aftermarket GPU, that was noted and Cupertino shifted back to Nvidia after the chain of design/supply was exhausted, and who knows but also after Steve passed because publicly he had lost any warm and fuzzy for Adobe long ago and was not an enabler.

Avid faces a more daunting prospect, the LAT guy pointed out they have not turned a profit since '05, which is about when Apple was peaking with their purchase of E-Magic, and of course had shifted the editing realm from metal boxes, to a decent MAC array.

So, both companies need to entice and redefine the process in order to get new business, and to hang onto existing business.

Adherence to the platform is because of the elegance of Wozniak's and Job's design, that cannot be understated, but it has a shelf life.

Parity, is a result of democratization not just in hardware based editing stations, but the web, touch screens, TV sets, and before Q3-13, four or five brands of wearable devices.

So who will continue to dominate the small segment of professional editors remains an open question.

In Apple's case, Cook has indicated they will be building a new computer here in the states, IF that line produces a 64 bit advanced MAC bursting with power, then the shift to their platform, adherents or not, will be swift.

If, Avid clones aspects of FCPX and PP which their users demand, they will continue to advance as the main platform for features and high budget projects for some time to come.

The other leg on Avid's milk stool, will someone buy them out, perhaps Apple, or Adobe, or someone else.

Adobe, since they could stand to have a native codec, might do well to take Avid along for the journey, just sayin".

The main point of my explanation on background to the Times was he made no mention of the PC in the article and that writing to inform a readership, should not be an advertorial.

He agreed to my assessment and in the end alluded that the professional film community was not the target for Apple.

I surmised, he is evaluating the growth potential for folks like we here, who are demanding better results with HD enabled capture devices and accessories in order to advance the craft with products from GoPro, Canon, Nikon, Sony, Panasonic, Leica etc.

April 4, 2013

0
Reply
Rob Manning

" IF that line produces a 64 bit advanced MAC bursting with power, then the shift to their platform, adherents or not, will be swift."

You are aware that Macs and OS X have been 64bit for years now? Also, for some reason most folks don't realize that you can buy an NVIDIA card from folks like macvidcards that will greatly improve the performance of pro apps on a Mac Pro. More RAM in multiples of 6 helps of course. Or one can of course run Avid or Premiere on Windows. If you do go to Windows, grab 7 while you can. Windows 8 is a disaster interface wise.

Hope you folks are having some fun,
Robert A. Ober
PS: New is not always better. Studies have shown for years and experienced editors know this, that keyboard shortcuts are more productive/faster than reaching for the mouse. This of course is even more true in regards to touching/oiling a screen.

April 4, 2013

0
Reply

Thanks, I did not know that MACs have been 64 bit I my information obviously was flawed and incorrect on that, apologies to anyone who turned on the switch and saw a room illuminated by Luddite.

Yes, W8 is a disaster, my brother and nephew are both IT techs and they said MS has gone a bridge too far as to be useless for anyone to unwind an issue without being tethered to MS.

Not sure who defined the look of that GUI but it repels my artistic senses. Thanks for straightening me out on the OS, otherwise, yes, all about firepower.

April 5, 2013

0
Reply
Rob Manning

10.8 is big deal. Much faster, more stable and much better handling of audio. This is now a serious app for sure. I like Premere a lot but this rev seals the deal in terms of ease of editing. Now if Apple could get rid of renders... disruptive becomes the watch word for FCPX

April 5, 2013

0
Reply

This is good to improove software, but what about hardware ? What's the point to be able to edit 4k rez on a mac mini or an Imac ? The machine won't be able to do the job. The mac pro just desapeared, I think apple have lost the pro market. I'am still using now fcp7 on mac pro, until other new codecs will release and I won't be able to use it anymore. I also switched to AVID same time, to prepare my future.

April 5, 2013

0
Reply
Blobmaster

Well, I'm one of the "dinos" who doesn't even think of using FCPX. Just read the "new" additions and find that NOW you can see THE REEL info in your footage. WOW... two years later, sure they thought it was not important, when it's basic in the identification of every frame in your project.
Excuse me, I've been an analog and moviola editor since 1980, then a "digital" editor since 1989, I've work with D2, Abekas A64 (100 seconds!!! of non-linear digital recording) and sure all kinds of "digital" tapes with pre-read etc. I've learned the operation of CMX, Sony, GVG, and even ACE editors. I can adapt to whatever kind of timeline, GUI or philosophy in any new app. But ¿How could I work a serious pro editing job without the tools to communicate with the rest of the post process. I need EDLs, cut and change lists (there are still people who shoots negative), OMF or AAF. Sure there are improvements in FCPX. But I can read here people who mistakingly use the word "digital" just trying to open a generation breach, in order to defend their point (or maybe it's simple ignorance). The obvious truth is that Apple is just letting go the "pro" market, and not only in FCP. How about the Mac Pro.

April 5, 2013

0
Reply
koldo

Pages