-
FCPX is making me consider FCP as my main editor for the first time.
I have tried and used FCP since v1, but I never adapted it. I bought every update and I have used it every once in a while. But never as my main editor. To me it is too slow and clumsy and tries to do too much. All that slow rendering.
I currently have 3 seats of M100 with the Adobe CS 5 prod suite and FCP Studio3 on each machine. M100 is what I prefer to use, but I also use AE and Color as well as Logic Pro. I use FCP7 these days mostly because it will let me edit XDcam codecs from EXcams and NanoFlash w/o transcoding. M100 will not do this yet.
So I do my rough edits in FCP and then Export all the clips as ProRes422 and then finish the project in M100. Mostly because M100 is super fast and never needs to render it just plays and the interface is much simpler and cleaner than FCP7.
My take so far is very positive with a few hopes for updates that will make FCPX a great solution for me.
FCPX is the fastest and easiest to use version so far. I like the DB approach to media, it does take getting used to, but it has great potential. The sound and CC is the best I have seen in a single program so far.
I have both AJA Kona and Matrox MX02 interfaces in my suites with Production monitors and scopes and more decks than I care to think about. I am sure in the next year we will have these working perfectly in FCPX. As well as others, I am excited about thunderbolt. I have already gone through 3 generations of video cards, the first one was $30,000.00 (M100 in the mid 90’s), I replaced that after about 4 years and then again in another 5 or so, so if I have to update the cards/external boxes one more time it is not a big deal, and we are now talking about around a thousand instead of multiple thousands.
My cameras are now all solid state, a couple EXcams and the AF100. I love this work flow, and it saves tons of money not maintaining tape drives. Even though I still deliver a lot on tape, this is decreasing monthly.
So I think Apple is on the right track here. Like I said I am actually really contemplating using FCP as my main solution for the first time.
To me editing is really just telling a story and 99% of what you do is straight cuts with possible a few dissolves and FCPX does this very well and fast with a lot of new efficient ways of organizing clips. Yes it does take some getting used to, but I think basically it is very efficient. To me simple is better.
I also like the new CC, yes it is very different from Color, but I can do about everything I did in Color in FCPX. And the audio filters are easy to use and pretty good from what I have seen so far, M100 always had FCP beat here.
The titles work very well and though they are not real time like in M100 with the new BG rendering on a fast machine with fast drives they are very workable for me at least.
Yes it is different, and there is a learning curve but there is a lot there when you get used to it.
So I may actually start using FCPX instead of M100 in the near future. The only parts I really want is the hardware for external monitoring working and XML in/out. Possible EDL support as well.
Lets not be afraid of change. Embrace it and move on. Remember Betacam and Umatic, I am glad to be using the modern cameras. And I like advances in editing interfaces as well. The $300.00 price tag is so revolutionary that I could not wait to see how FCPX works, and I am impressed.
My latest 2 cents.
Olof Ekbergh
-
7 Replies
-
[olof ekbergh] ”
FCPX is the fastest and easiest to use version so far…. The sound and CC is the best I have seen in a single program so far…. I have both AJA Kona and Matrox MX02 interfaces in my suites… I am sure in the next year we will have these working perfectly in FCPX… So I think Apple is on the right track here…
Yes FCPX does take some getting used to, but I think basically it is very efficient. To me simple is better… I also like the new CC, yes it is very different from Color, but I can do about everything I did in Color in FCPX…Lets not be afraid of change. Embrace it and move on. And I like advances in editing interfaces as well. The $300.00 price tag is so revolutionary that I could not wait to see how FCPX works, and I am impressed.
My latest 2 cents.
“Kind of boiled down the comments there, and well sure if it’s working for you, well fair play to you – do you really think tho, that you can do everything with that colour corrector that you could do in Color?
http://www.ogallchoir.net
promo producer/editor.grading/motion graphics -
[Aindreas Gallagher] ” do you really think tho, that you can do everything with that colour corrector that you could do in Color?”
The way I do CC is very simple.
First I adjust the luma, if needed. Often this is all I have to do. This is easy and I like the scopes in FCPX, soon I hope to be using my externals as well with evaluation monitors. The only way to really grade.
Then I adjust color and sat if I need to, many ways to do this in Color and in FCPX, just different interfaces.
Then I add secondaries if I need to fix the sky or whatever. This is also easy in FCPX.
And often I do a traveling matte, for a secondary, like to lighten someones face, this is also easy in FCPX.
I found I can build looks in FCPX as easily as in Color, it is just different.
I always do keying in AE, I may try FCPX for this but I am so used to AE. Even w/o XML you can open Prores files in AE key them the way you want and then import into FCPX.
So for me FCPX works great. Now if I had bought a hardware Color interface, I would not be happy. I was considering this, now I am glad I did not.
And I am sure XML will be available soon, if you need to use 3rd party CC.
Olof Ekbergh
-
Very good read Olof. Thanks for your input.
-
[Aindreas Gallagher] “Kind of boiled down the comments there, and well sure if it’s working for you, well fair play to you – do you really think tho, that you can do everything with that colour corrector that you could do in Color?”
No, it can’t – but nor would I expect it to. Apple are offering a pretty decent in-app solution here for those of us who don’t have the time, need, or budget to roundtrip projects to a professional colour correction application. And let’s face it, if you’re doing PROPER colour correction, you probably shouldn’t be doing it in your NLE.
Yes, it’s a shame that Apple have dropped Color, but at the same time you can pick up a copy of DaVinci resolve (by all accounts a far superior product) for $995 or a lite version for FREE.
I’d much prefer Apple to spend their resources on developing a NLE that will improve my productivity and workflow – adding XML so that I can get my FCPX jobs to Resolve would be a good start – and leave the specialised stuff like colour correction to specialised apps and companies.
-
Thanks for your voice of sanity. BTW I’m hearing others saying the same as you. People seeing FCPX and willing to move to it from other NLEs finally.
FCPX still needs a lot of work but it’s an excellent foundation.
I think people fear the GUI and trackless workflow. The more I use it though the faster I find that way of working. I like an NLE that gets out of my way (and I’m not talking about magnetic timeline) and lets me tell the story.
-
I loved the Media100!
-
I’ve been using it since it was released and though I miss a few things FCP 7, especially being able to use my Blackmagic MultiBridge Pro 2, I am loving FCPX and it’s direction. I am already editing with it using AG-Af100 and GH1 content. I go back to FCP 7, and already feel like it’s holding me back because in just a week I’m working so much more efficiently in X (even on 1 monitor – I know one monitor [laptops don’t count for this statement]).
I really want to be able to have OMF and/or XML operations for our sound to be properly done. Though I am very curious about how Python will play into export capabilities down the road.
For now, I am going to try and use FCP X (and Motion 5) as much as I can, but not give up on my trusty FCP 7.
Tangier
Tangier
Reply to this Discussion! Login or Sign Up