I hate that I hate FCP X

If this next update does not address some of the "issues" with FCPX, I have to look elsewhere

I think many of us are in the same boat

For me, it's not so much rushing additional "add-ons" as it is the basic day to day operations of the software itself - the architecture build of the product

We are seeing some of the same issues pop up over and over again and I have come to the conclusion that many of those are not the "user" but rather the build design of the software

Granted, some of the issues are the "user" and not taking the time to either set projects up properly from the start or apply the proper settings but there are far to many other problems that are keeping people from using this software on a day to day basis.

I don't necessarily like to copmplain either, it gets old but at the same time the question I have to ask myslef is, how long do I wait and when will APPLE address those "issues"

You can go over to the Final Cut Pro support forum and there are all kinds of issues also but those are mainly user issues at this point and not software design and that was a product that saw all kinds of changes through the years. With FCPX, I just need to see more day to day seamless function within the sofware itself and faster updates so I can keep the faith in using an APPLE product that I do belive has a future and that I do like

Pastor Jjo,

You're quite right that Pro Tools is the industry standard for audio production. However, you'd be hard-pressed to make the same argument about Final Cut Pro. It's true that Final Cut Pro (7 and earlier) drew growing acceptance among professionals. But let's be clear: About 90 percent of all prime time television programs and about 85 percent of all motion pictures playing in your local cineplex theatres, are editied on an Avid. Final Cut Pro is more the preferred choice among indy filmmakers and videographers (and in the case of the latter, it shares that status with Adobe Premiere). And when it comes to Final Cut Pro X, you'd have a hard time finding ANY of the professionals I mentioned above that consider it anything more than a poorly conceived successor to iMovie.

Like you, I'd like to fall in love with Final Cut Pro X. It has some intriguing features (if only they would work). But there's so much wrong with it, that I, like many others, have abandoned it for everything besides quick down-'n-dirty web videos, opting instead to stick with other tools (Avid Media Composer and Final Cut Pro 7) for any REAL projects that have REAL deadlines.

An industry standard? Hardly.

It takes up to 6hrs or better just to

ingest video... My biggest gripe is "WorkFlow". I'm used to long rendering times...but not long ingesting periods.

I hate "Transcoding" but if I don't do it I notice some problems in editing. If its not ProRes FCP X doesn't like to smoothly work with the files.

To be fair, Premiere Pro CS5.5 is a dog with native h.264, which is my native format from a 5D. Just load up some h.264 right now into PP and scrub the timeline with the CPU Monitor running and watch all your processor cores peak to the top. That is the nature of that footage on all editing software.

But I compared both PP and FCP X with h.264 native footage and FCP X is much more responsive and it renders out much faster than Premiere Pro CS5.5 on the same Mac Pro system.

You really need to get Premiere Pro CS5.5 outfitted with CUDA to compare it to the performance FCP X has on all supported Macs. That's Adobe's GPU-accelerated foundation, but I don't think it's as extensive as FCP X (and Motion) is in regards to real time playback (like skimming). Correct me if I'm wrong.

I just loaded up some 4K footage into FCP X and was skimming and playing back and previwing color and FX all in real time.

Apple needs to fix the bugs and add a few features, for sure, though.

Scot,

It may be a dog with your machine and H.264, but Premiere Pro users with a CUDA enabled card cut that format like butter. I have a feeling you don't have an NVIDIA card. Suggest you cut at 1/2 res if you don't have that card, but Premiere Pro should be able to play back your footage regardless of the video card.

I'd be surprised if Compressor renders out an H.264 file faster than Media Encoder, which is multi-core aware/uses all your RAM out of the box. Really true?

Keep in mind that Adobe has a two year head start on using Grand Central Dispatch on Macs with the Mercury Playback Engine, to say it's not as extensive is probably not true.

You loaded up a 4K ProRes file, which is great. In Premiere Pro you can work with 4K footage with multiple effects without transcoding. It's awesome!

Kev,

Yes, if you use Premier Pro CS5.5 with an approved video card, you can get close to what FCP X is on all supported Macs.

CUDA is a GPU-accelerated playback of video and some FX using an nVidia video card. That is a limited version of what every single supported Mac does with FCP X and Motion. After Effects does not support CUDA, BTW.

The Mac has something called Core Video, and Core Image, part of Core Graphics. It's in the OS. It is a GPU-accelerated display of video. They've had it in Motion for years now and it's made its debut in FCP X recently because Final Cut Pro was based on old Macromedia software that they purchased years ago.

In FCP X, I have 207 video Effects, 89 transitions, and 159 text effects, and 41 generators (I downloaded some free ones) and they all playback in real time without me rendering, using OS X's GPU accelerated, built-in technology. They skim in real time with audio (Premiere Pro doesn't skim at all, it scrubs).

Premiere Pro CS5.5 has 39 FX accelerated by CUDA. That's it. And scaling.

After Effects doesn't support CUDA. Motion has been doing this real time GPU-accelerated animation for years now. It's quite amazing. Gone are the days of me doing RAM Previews in After Effects (along with silly pre-comps).

My comment about native h.264 footage is not at all affected by CUDA. I'm talking about scrubbing the timeline. Go ahead and do it right now, scrub your Premiere Pro CS5.5 timeline of native h.264 footage and you'll see the CPU Monitor peak.

FCP X is actually more responsive, for me, with h.264 footage than Premiere Pro CS5.5 is. And, yes, exporting out my project as an h.264 movie for Vimeo takes much less time on FCP X than it does in Premiere CS5.5.

I'm not an idealogue at all. I can't stand fanboys who aren't objective about the product they use. My iPhone 4 drops WiFi connections and calls all the time. I hate it! FCP X has a huge bug in regards to memory that causes it to give me the spinning wheel of death. And it's missing some basic features, IMHO.

But the argument that Premiere Pro CS5.5 has a leg-up on Final Cut Pro with native h.264 is no longer valid.

In regards to 4K, Premiere Pro CS5.5 bogs down on the same 4K footage that FCP X playsback in real time, skims in real time, displays FX and transitions and text and generations in real time. If I have to transcode my 4K footage overnight so that I can then edit in real time without having to do background renderings, that's fine.

Seriously, just fire up your Premiere Pro CS5.5 and see how long it takes to export native h.264 and then export ProRes and you'll see your time cut in half if you export ProRes. Watch your CPU Monitor go way down when working in Premiere Pro when working with ProRes versus native h.264 and see the app become more responsive. If I was using Premiere Pro CS5.5 to cut (I own it), I would transcode my footage. Just do some tests, like I did, and you'll see.

Enjoy that FCPX then! I'll stay with AE and Premiere Pro.

4K must be transcoded in FCPX though for a decent workflow, right? In Premiere Pro I work at 1/4 res on native R3Ds, no bogging down in that instance and that's on my MacBook Pro.

I'm more than a fanboy. Full disclosure: I work for Adobe! 🙂