8 Replies Latest reply: Feb 16, 2012 5:05 PM by glitchNE
glitchNE Level 2 Level 2 (280 points)

Admittedly I wasn't very impressed with FCP X when it was released. I'd used Final Cut 6/7 for various projects. Usually small projects or to finish and output projects other people had started. I probably used DVD SP more....really a great DVD authoring tool. Mostly I use Avid Media Composer for editing. When FCP X was released I was frankly shocked. So many professioanl features had been removed it made it very difficult to appreciate some interesting features like the magnetic timeline. Now that it's been out for 6+ months and I've watched the upgrades and I've calmed down a little I deceided to take another look at it.


Apple has made some in roads with the upgrades. However there's some really problems I have with the basic structure of FCPX:


I do long-form documentaries. I work with a lot of footage. Right now we have close to 900 hours of footage stored on shelves but over the last few years we've gone to a tapeless workflow. I have a couple of large raids and a few large FW 800 drives that we're slowly moving footage off of. With our Media Composer we get XDCAM, 5D, 7D  or AVCHD footage on small, portable fw 800 drives (or cards) and I bring the footage into Media Composer via AMA. I instantly have the footage available to edit from without importing but my experience with AVCHD footage shows that it's kinda slow to work with so I usually work with it until I leave for the day and then I set it to transcode and I come in the next morning and it's fine. My boss showed up a few weeks ago with 30 hours of AVCHD footage so I've got this down. Now from what I've seen, read and deduced from using FCPX is that FCPX wants to transfer my footage over to my system whether I want to or not but I can turn off back ground render right? Plus all my footage has to be on the same drive for each event? True or not true? I would find it impossible to work off of a single drive for my project (event) and my media...they must have fixed this right?


Now as for the rest of FCPX, well it's interesting but nesting clips into a single clip has been part of Avid for well...for ever. At least since the mid 90's. I'm pretty sure FCP 7 could do it as well. It's the organization of everything into this long list of files that you HAVE TO describe in metadata in order to have some sort of structure to it is awkward...maybe I'm wrong, maybe I don't have to. Avid's newest release is 64 bit and I can tab all my bins into one bin to save space...and that includes bins I created 10 years ago for media shot 10 years ago...in OS 8.6!. Right now in Media Composer I can and do use 3rd party hardware and raids, sharing the media with two other Avids via a SFTP server I created. Could I do that with FCP X?


When Apple refused to upgrade DVDSP for BluRay we were forced to look elsewhere. We settled on Adobe Master Collection and Encore. This gave me an introduction to Premiere and I found it kinda interesting. Sort of what FCP 8 might have been. You see my point? Is FCPX really a professional non-linear editor? It has some really interesting, cool tools but over the last couple of years I've found myself drifting away from Apple.

  • 1. Re: FCP 10.0.3 impressions
    glitchNE Level 2 Level 2 (280 points)

    Hmmm...not a single response...though over 70 people looked at it.

  • 2. Re: FCP 10.0.3 impressions
    James Cude Level 4 Level 4 (1,155 points)

    You don't have to copy footage to your hard drive- simply uncheck the Copy Files to Event Folder During in the Import window. Here's more guidance- http://finalcutwhiz.com/tutorials/fcpx-import-settings/

  • 3. Re: FCP 10.0.3 impressions
    glitchNE Level 2 Level 2 (280 points)

    Good to know...what about shared projects and media?

  • 4. Re: FCP 10.0.3 impressions
    James Cude Level 4 Level 4 (1,155 points)

    That checkbox covers media. Projects will be saved according to which drive is selected in the Project window. More details here- http://finalcutwhiz.com/tutorials/hard-drives-in-fcpx/

  • 5. Re: FCP 10.0.3 impressions
    Paul Cuciti Level 2 Level 2 (385 points)

    Dude, I believe most folks on this forum have burned out discussing FCX on the philosophical level. If you want large discussions on the topic, seek out the 1003 Disasterous thread.


    In brief, FCX hasn't earned a P in my book yet. It is promising but buggy (others may choose different words).

    If you have Avid, and a good workflow, don't mess with it. You can play with FCX, but don't trust your main projects to it.


    if you are really new to FCX, check out the tutorials by Izzyvideo. They will give you a leg up on this thang...

  • 6. Re: FCP 10.0.3 impressions
    stuckfootage Level 4 Level 4 (3,040 points)

    I agree with Paul.


    There is so much online discussion of FCX's problems that there's no need to start another thread now. Besides, most of the people who need to do big professional projects with professional tools have moved on and are not here on this forum.


    The cool thing about FCX is that it's an inexpensive way for beginners and hobbyists to dive deep into video editing, and they are learning a lot. Maybe by the time FCX earns its P, some of those people will become really creative accomplished filmmakers.

  • 7. Re: FCP 10.0.3 impressions
    Steve Connor1 Level 1 Level 1 (70 points)

    However it HAS earned a P in MY book, yes it crashes, but not that often for me and with almost no loss of work. The new update means there is re-linking and backup and the dreaded undo bug has gone.


    I've been trusting my main projects to it for months, I've used it on a variey of projects and I'm currently cutting a feature on it.


    However some people are having more issues than others, I'm on fast MacPro with lots of RAM and RAID storage and this seems to help.


    Metadata is optional, you don't have to use it all. However you seem happy with Avid so why change?

  • 8. Re: FCP 10.0.3 impressions
    glitchNE Level 2 Level 2 (280 points)

    One of the big reasons I used FCP in earlier versions was that it was a very open architecture program. Easy to bring just about anything into it and then manipulate it. Avid always had a long learning curve.