HEY GUYS - I JUST FIGURED IT OUT!
I know WHY they are pushing a stripped down version FCPX through the Appstore -- its not to revolutionize editing... it's to MONETIZE FCP and its plug-ins!
I started another discussion - feel free to take a look:
I somewhat agree with Scott, although I see no problem for a Pro (for a Student or home user the cost is really a factor) in going out and buying a product that costs just (as some have made a point about) $300 and learn to use it (which wont happen in 24 hours) while your work gets done just as it was done yesterday and the day before on your FCP7.
Try it, learn to use it, give constructive feedback to users and Apple, and have fun 'till you think it is ready to meet all your demands (which wont take long anyway).
My first thread has already been removed too.
I started a thread on refunding by spamming them on the Support->App Store but that was gone within 20 minutes.
I still haven't heard about my demand for a refund, nor about the bugs I have encountered in FCP X and Motion 5. I am very disappointed with how Apple manages this crisis.
Hello Kenneth0923, glad we can talk.
I have worked for over 12 years on a TV station doing promos, news segments, half our shows, and currently working also on a drama series project for the station. I have been involved in all major tech shifts this past decade bringing our stations from analog to digital, from SD to HD, from tape to tapeless. I pre ordered FCP when it was launch and had to go through the same non believers. Yes, our boss love tech and gives us the tools we need that we can afford (we just changed all the station to HD). As soon as I get to test more FCPX in our workflows we'll start upgrading all the FCP7 editing suites we have. Again, 24 hours to come to do or don't conclusion is not enough. So far a have not seen any mayor problem to our workflows, but I'll let you know what I find otherwise. In the meantime I'll learn, have fun, and get ready to switch.
But seriously. How can you sit there with the best editing software on the market and say that your creativity isn't limited by the tools? Shouldn't YOU being using Windows Movie Maker? You post implies that because of your creativity it doesn't matter what tools you have.
If I was an artist I wouldn't want to paint with a stick and mud. That's all I'm saying.
In regards to the software; if they were going to do some funky stuff that wasn't going to be an improvement on FCP then it should have been called FCP to begin with. Like I said with my car analogy. I don't buy a car and expect to have the steering wheel not installed.
I'm not going tp pester then for my money back because I know it's not going to happen. And I think they will have to get this closer to FCP 7 if they are trying to stay in the game in Hollywood, so I will be patient while I await updates. But frankly I would have preferred to just wait longer and gotten what I needed.
I've been a Apple fan for a very long time and I don't think I have ever gotten burned when buying a new product from them. OSX was a little rough because of lack of 3rd party suppot. The iPhone was still a little clunky, and the ipad needed some work when it first came out. But they were all still very usable. FCPX is not, unless everything you film is with one camera. And don't use tape.
This is kind of the age old issue of the engineer telling the operator how to do their job. I once worked at a TV station where the NLE station was nearly 5 feet off the ground on a high desk, you had to sit in a booster seat and rest your feet on one inch tape boxes because the engineer didn't want to bend down if he worked on the system (once a year) and I had to use it every day.
Another time, the same station got newer studio cameras with a much faster ASA rating, the lighting was set for old tube cameras so, the newer digital camera was pulling an 11, and EVERYTHING was in focus. So my friend dialed up the shutter so that he could open the iris and get a shallower depth of field. The engineer’s response was to disable the shutter saying, “The shutter is for high speed photography, you don’t need that”. So we were back at square 1, pulling an 11 on our camera.
So after the new set was built, my friend set the studio lighting so that the studio camera would pull and 2.0 so that he could get finally get that shallower depth of field that even the GM of the station said he wanted. When the engineer saw that the camera was pulling a 2.0 he scolded my friend saying “Your iris is too far open, you need to use more light!!” My point is, it’s not their job to tell us how to do ours, and that’s what apple is doing with this release.
They’re using buzz words like “paradigm shift” to try and tell us that they know better, and that we should edit their way. It’s their job to give us what we need, not dictate to us how they want us to edit.
The artist should dictate the paradigm. Not the paint brush manufacturer.
That paradigm that helped ustransition from linear/tape editing to the non-linear/digital world was greatfor that transition, but after ten years it was holding us back from the real potentialthat can be achieved in the digital world. A real radical paradigm shift was inorder.
I don't understand this at all and I'd like a clarification and example. Just exactly what about the current editing paradigm is "holding us back from the real potential...." and can you cite an example? The only thing that holds me back is my meager imagination.
I'm sure FCp X (or rather iMovie pro as I call it) will be a fine tool in the future but right now it's meant for those Youtube and Vimeo "filmmakers" creating their opus on highly compressed "Full HD."
I think that not being able to use a client monitor, or multicam, and not being able to set in and out points on a tape would "Hold me back" a lot more than source code. Especially considering that I edit sports video, and all of those are necessary features for that.
And not being able to use 2 monitors so that I can better organize the massive numer of clips that I use, and be able to devote one monitor to focusing on fine edits on the timeline, yes I thing that would hold me back in my workflow a lot more than source code.
I don't shoot on a DSLR camera, so I don't care about stupport for that, I understand that people do, but I still sometimes have to use a tape source. Using this program would make that harder. I've got dealines to meet, and the background rendering would be nice, but the lack of the other features I need would slow me down.
I'm all for re-writing the source code to give us new features like multi-core, but why not wait to release the product until it has all the features we need.
To be blunt... Hey Mac! Don't pull a Windows!
Joshua Irwin wrote:
This is kind of the age old issue of the engineer telling the operator how to do their job.
There's a clear difference between rewriting a program to make it work better, and rewriting a program in order to appeal to iMovie users (and misleading FCP users into thinking it's FCP) while simplifying it to the point where it can't open up ANY previous FCP movies, can't support ANY 3rd party plug-ins, and pretty much can't do anything unless you're a middle aged house-wife who wants to learn how to make preset-saturated movies of her children.
IMO it looks like Apple is trying to garner the more ubiquitous iMovie users into FCP so when it "fixes" this horrible FCPX regression it will scoop up a wider customer base from iMovie who latched on to the FCPX downgrade. It's like in school when the teacher teaches at the slowest student's pace with the premises of bringing the slow one's up to pace with the rest. However, as you might guess the smart kids experience ennui and eventually vent their frustrations. Hence the Apple support thread is blowing up with angry people who expected FCPX to actually be FCPX and not iMovieX.
I think that it's funny that people are making the OS9 OSX comparison. Because it reminds me of when Windows released Vista which was an incomplete OS, then had to rush out windows 7, and now is trying to rush out Windows 8.
We keep hearing things like "We looking at adding multicam". Soooo, why did they release an incomplete product?
How much of Apple is owned by Microsoft now?