Great news .... and chazfest was poster no. 1000.
Hey chaz, you won a brand-spankin-new copy of FCP X. It'll be delivered to you as soon as you completely ditch FCS and sign an agreement not to rant about future products.
Absurd. Just absurd! I have been battling with this piece of software called iMovie pro for two days, and still I cant setup mu keyboard, just a mess! And I've been working on many a software, AE, Photoshop, MC, Media 100, and that discontinued Final cut.... I think it was 7!!! The worst thing about FcpX... That horrendous, ridiculously inadequate Jolene of a so called 'COLOR CORRECTION TOOL'! What is that? They are taking as us fools! Enough, I'm going to bed now. Just wanted to get that of my chest.
One thing I will say, it is rapid! Apple delivered on that part at least!
Just added a plethora of filters, and basic CC to a 1080p ProRes clip, hit play on a Macbook Pro 2.4 core i5 with 8gb ram, and guess what? It played, instantly. Tried again full screen. Guess what? Yup.
The whole time, the orange render bar had barely got going, background rendering was at 10%.
Why, oh why could this technology not have been implemented into a system that even vaguely resembled FCP?! If that had happened, judging by this level of performance, I honestly believe Avid and Adobe would have lost a huge amount of their user base.
I really really hope Apple read all of this thread, every single page, the ups, the down, the ins and outs (forgive the pun), and release a numerical update to FCP based on this technology, because it really has blown me away, especially when housed in the iMovie-esque GUI!! Keep FCPX for the iMovie crowd by all means, but bring us an FCP with this level power. This is backwards right now!
Currently Being ModeratedJun 23, 2011 2:19 PM (in response to Patrick Sheffield)
Patrick Sheffield wrote:
I disagree. Bad technology stands in the way of a creative idea. Good technology facilitates creativity.
Bad technology makes it worse, but anything that comes between the idea and the result is by definition in the way. That being said, there have been times that I've been inspired by something the machine reveals, that I didn't have in mind. In fact that's happened quite often. So, if that's what you're talking about, I agree.
Everybody who is complaining about FCP X please read this article by David Pogue very carefully:-
Tom Wolsky wrote:
What's offensive about it is that it makes it sound as if it was a technique created by Ken Burns, which completely belittles the hundreds of great documentary directors who had used it for decades before he did.
It's true, I've been saying that for years.
I also agree that Apple's decision to discontinue FCP7 is confusing, because at this stage we really are talking about two different products. This whole thread reminds me of my rants when FCP started encroaching on my much loved Avid. I'd like to hear what Apple has to say about their reasons for doing this...I don't understand it.
Because there was no point in rewriting and duplicating what has been going on for 20+ years. it was time to reinvent. Media Composer, Premiere Pro and FCP1-7 are all essentially very similar. It was inevitable that one of the big three would break away and wipe the slate clean. Short term it will be painful. Long term it will be worth it.
I've read that article and others, even bought FCP X along with new Motion and Compressor. It's clearly an iMovie upgrade, not an FCP path at all, not even close.
Anyway, for those of us that are going to toss in the towel on post production work using FCP.
Sony are offering a very nice competitive upgrade for Vegas Pro for $399.
4K support, RED ONE, GPU accelerated, 64bit and everything one would expect in a "Pro" grade applications.
AVID Media Composer 5.5 also has a competitive upgrade now at $599.
And finally Adobe Premiere Pro CS 5.5 are offering competitive upgrade
I guess they got word of Apple's FCP X and know the pickings for converts will be ripe. Sadly, I too will move away from FCP ... try to hang out as long as I could, but it's clear Apple have NO commitment to post production video/audio editing. Tis a shame, Logic Pro 9 was a completely different experience from FCP X.
Oh well, it is what it is -- I think Apple will regret this descision to toss in the towel for a professional grade video editing solution -- I think their marketing/survey folks missed the boat.
David is trying to be as objective and as precise as he can ... but he can't make the missing features go away. True, there may be some workarounds for some of the issues, but that doesn't really make them go away. There's much work to be done.
Ian R. Brown wrote:
Everybody who is complaining about FCP X please read this article by David Pogue very carefully:-
I did read it David. I was one of those professional editors who called him on his earlier review of FCX. This was my comment to the latest article:
MultiCam... I edit music videos that my have 50 or more takes, not just 2 to bounce between. So the work around won't.
Automatic Duck may be $200 to upgrade, but if you don't already own it (and there was little need to in the past, as FCP supported OMF directly), you'll have to pay almost double the application price ($500) to get it. And that's only to get your audio out. The fact that there are no ways to assign different audio to different tracks in FCX in the first place means that your audio guy is going to be looking at a dog's breakfast rather than an organized understandable layout.
RED support. You can convert the RED material to QuickTime prior to bringing it into FCX, but you no longer have access to the full 4 or 5K RAW image info that you formerly did. This is not simply convenience, but a cornerstone to utilizing the RED camera.
Scratch Disks. Apple keeps all my renders on the same disk as my source. Fine, if they fit. I am currently working on a documentary that has over 32 two terabyte drives. I keep the renders on a separate drive. Spreading the renders over all my source drives means that not only do I lose my source if I don't have a drive online, I lose the renders too. Removing the ability to set the scratch disk may keep inexperienced users out of trouble, but it ties the hands of people who know what they are doing.
Video tape is on the way out. But it's not gone. Not for years. And FCX refusing to support it won't quicken that demise, it just removes FCX as a viable tool for professionals who still have to deal with tape.
EDLs. Sure, they're a simplistic, lowest-common-denominator, text file. But that's often the case of things that are COMMON. Apple may think these "crude" files should be retired, but why should post facilities replace millions of dollars of hardware and software because Apple finds them "crude"?
Many of your explanations make it clear that Apple is catering to the dabblers and dilettantes. Which is fine. But then you don't get to call your product Pro.
I did and he is still an apple apologist.
He never addressed audio track control, Color, and simply blew off tape and export.
(This feels SO MUCH like the Windows update to VISTA from XP- the big corp KNOWS so much better what we want!)
I'm waiting for either FCP8 or FCPX2.
If the pro community has it's way, we'll see FCP8 (but h3ll will likely freeze first). If nothing else, the Apple execs would do well to purchase stock in other editing software with their option plans.
Currently Being ModeratedJun 23, 2011 3:46 PM (in response to Patrick Sheffield)
This, btw, is the letter I sent to David Pogue:
Your article in the Times was aimed at the consumer, so I'll forgive your consumer bias. You're not an editor, nor do you play one on TV. I don't say that with disdain - professional editors are a minority.
However, as a member of that minority, I've cut award winning music videos, commercials, feature films, and documentaries, and I have to tell you - FCX is not a professional package. This is not bias against the user interface changes or having to learn a new system. It's about what Apple left behind in its pursuit of the prosumer market place.
All those feature films you listed that were cut in Final Cut Pro could never be edited with FCX. Why? Because feature films, like most high end productions, are a collaboration. I'm sure FCX has the potential to be a fine tool, however right now, it's a closed system. It may be fine as an end-to-end solution if you use DSLR or AVCHD (but not the RED Camera yet).
Most importantly, though, is that "closed system" part. It is a program unto itself. With no ability to import or export EDLs, XML, OMF, or even FCP's old projects, and no ability to map audio or video tracks, there's no way to collaborate with others.
I just finished a Scion commercial in Final Cut Pro 7 - I didn't do the effects, they were done on a Flame. Guess what I gave the EFx house? EDLS - of all my elements that made up each effects shot split onto separate video tracks so the effects artist could pull those same elements in at high resolution and spend hours carefully assembling each shot in high end effects software. (If you do not know, an EDL or Edit Decision List is 30 year old technology that essentially is a text file consisting of a structured list of timecodes detailing the timecode of the start and stop of each shot. It's old technology, but it's the glue that allows the many elements that make up an edit to be dealt with by a wide variety of systems).
And I split all my audio and output OMFs (industry standard audio interchange file) and gave them to the audio mixer who cleaned up the audio and added effects and did a 5.1 surround sound mix, etc...
And this was just for a 30 second commercial. None of this is possible with FCX. You cannot assign video or audio to specific tracks, you cannot export your audio elements. This is very basic stuff for the broadcast professional.
Right now FCX feels crippled - closed off from the rest of broadcast post. Maybe with time it will learn how to play well with others, but as of now I don't think it's a broadcast pro product. And while FCX is "learning" how to become a professional, Apple have pulled all the copies of Final Cut Studio from their stores, as if they're saying "I don't care what you need, you'll use what we want you to or leave".
Understandably, many working post production professionals feel angry and betrayed by Apple's actions. One had this to say:
Sorry if I'm a bit flippant, but I'm a little angry today because I, along with a sizable minority of other editors, have spent nearly a decade in this city championing FCP--which for many years was for me the best promo editing machine on the planet--against a solid majority of Avid editors (of, which, I was one). Today, I fear that argument is over. What I saw today was a slick little prosumer package, that I can't use in any meaningful way. Final Cut Pro 4.5 was far more useful to me than this thing is.
And, I don't think this is a case of.. "Oh, this is a version one; it will get better when they find out what people need." They've had plenty of time to find out what people need. I think they know exactly what they are doing and know exactly where they want to go. That is what is for me so disheartening.
I just thought you'd like to know how Final Cut X is viewed from the Pro community.
Currently Being ModeratedJun 23, 2011 4:09 PM (in response to Patrick Sheffield)
I like that.
In addition, to the numerous posters who say "just stick with FCP 7" the problem is that you can no longer buy new copies, support for anything but minor bug fixes is at an end, and more importantly the position of FCP 7 in the market.
Editing is a little like an auto race; sure you can race your car from 2009 but it won't be competitive with the 2011 vehicles.
FCP's 32-bit nature inherently makes it somewhat of a pain to use compared with native 64-bit editors, and many editors have just kind of been hanging in there with FCP 7 hoping for what was coming next.
Now upon seeing what's next, it's clear that Avid or CS 5.5 are the way forward.
That doesn't detract from the fact that FCP X is a wonderful piece of software; prosumers, entry-level pros and single-man shops will love it.
But those who have to produce a feature film or anything more complex than a local commercial will need to look elsewhere for their editing needs.
(I liked Pogue's suggestion to just keep your source and render files on the same drive; I'm not a professional but even I like to have different drives for my source material and render files…)
Also sad is FCP X brings with it the death of Final Cut Server, which I always thought was a brilliant product, though less so with the death of XServes and XSans - so I suppose the writing was on the wall for it, too.
Currently Being ModeratedJun 23, 2011 5:49 PM (in response to Patrick Sheffield)
To date, Apple has marketed FCP as software that has been used to edit many widely released studio movies. This was all true and that list is quite long.
- If Apple uses this strategy for FCPX, it will be disingenuous at best, false advertising at worst.
- To use this marketing in future, they will need to make radical leaps forward with FCPX, and appeal again to that market.
Please let the latter be the case.