-
Why Wait For X To Evolve?
When FCPX was released and the critical reviews began I decided to take my time, use the software over a few months and make my own firsthand judgement on it. I worked through all of Larry Jordan’s training material and set up several projects in my spare time that would help me learn X. Having done this, although I’m no expert, I feel legitimately prepared to make a decision concerning my future. But to do so requires understanding what that decision actually entails. For me it comes down to this – FCPX is not up to the standards of other available NLE’s, so do I:-
1. Continue using FCP7 for work, whilst waiting for X to update and evolve into a genuinely pro application, or
2. Switch to another application.Apple have put me in an interesting position – really I have no choice but to switch applications, even if I chose to adopt X right now! X is a new application itself and requires an investment in time to learn it just as Media Composer or Premiere Pro would. So why chose X over MC or PP? FCP7 is now end of life and whilst it does what I need it to today, in 2 or 3 years I imagine that will no longer be the case. So why continue to use it at all? Of course I will use 7 until I am comfortable enough to sit with a client using another application (or for legacy projects), but as 7 is now dying there is no choice but to move on.
So now it comes down to what I think the future of X is. Both Media Composer and Premiere Pro are more advanced NLE’s right now today without having to develop further (although they will), so to me either one of them is a more practical choice. With X, all I can do is guess. And even when Apple make announcements such as multicam coming in 2012, this still for me doesn’t address the fundamental issues. For me X’s main downfall (aside form the well documented ones) is working with audio on the timeline. I don’t mean a lack of exporting options, I mean just moving audio clips around and manipulating them on the timeline. And this a fundamental design choice within X that I don’t think will ever change (they are unlikely to return to track based editing). So if I am waiting for X to evolve into something I will enjoy using as a professional tool every day at work, what exactly I am waiting for it to do?
As you will have gathered I have chosen to move on from FCP. I am using Premiere Pro at work (alongside FCP7 for the time being) whilst learning Media Composer in my spare time. I will continue to monitor the progress of X and if a couple of years down the line it’s become the revolutionary application Apple says it is, then I can always pick it up then. And from that point of view it’s a very interesting position for Apple to have voluntarily put it’s customers in. They have forced change upon us, whilst offering an inferior product to the rest of the market, so why choose to stay with them? Really I should thank Apple; they have given me cause to widen my skillset in learning Media Composer, something I have been meaning to do for the last 2 years, and introduced me to the serious advances made by Premiere Pro, of which I was not aware.
I’m sure there will be other rationales and other opinions and perhaps I am failing to see something in my decision making process but to me I just can’t see the reason to stay with Apple for the next couple of years.
Ben.
-
26 Replies
-
Hi Ben,
Out of curiosity, as I do respect your decision, but why do you think the audio capabilities are less than FCP7 or the other NLE’s?
I ask because I particularly think the audio is one of the biggest improvements.
Cheers
Carsten -
Hi Carsten,
In regards to the way audio works on the X timeline, although I do like how clips move out of the way when you drag other clips into them, I find that once I have several layers of audio down, the timeline becomes very messy and it is not as easy to see where clips are and what they are. In FCP7 for example, I can group all my SFX onto 4 designated tracks and therefore know at a glance where they are (I guess Roles will help with organisation, but not as well in my opinion).
In addition I find it awkward that primary audio is embedded into the video clips when other audio is not, and if I wish to disconnect primary audio I cannot reconnect it afterwards. I also find adding audio transitions rather annoying. But I do like having the fader handles on each clip. I suppose I just prefer track based editing when it comes to the audio side of things.
Perhaps I’m being to premature in switching from FCP and the title of this thread ‘why wait for X to evolve?’ is a genuine question. If people can see things I cannot, or have a different reasoning, I would love to hear what those are. How come you like the audio in X so much?
Ben.
-
Hi Ben,
Thanks for your explanations.
I guess the reason why I like audio so much is mainly because it is no longer bound to frames. For example it’s so much better to be able to edit on sample level when editing speech. Also I find the waveform (I think it’s actually more a volume histogram) very intuitive. Love the fact too that the graph adjusts in realtime. Very fast when adjusting transitions as you can actually see when the levels match. Like that you now have all those Soundtrack/Logic plugins right there including the dedicated UI’s for them. No more sliders. Hurrah! I do not have any problem that sync audio is actually married to the video. Most of the time it’s easy enough to expand the audio without disconnecting to create overlaps. I do actually like the fact that it is now really clear what is sync sound and what is extra. Love compounding audio as you can easily sub mix different types that way. Or you compound all to set master level or master limiter/compression. Because everything can be broken apart again it’s also very flexible when the edit has to be revised.
Yes I can see why the trackless world can get confusing when you have multiple audio clips close together. But it is no deal breaker for me.
Is it premature to dismiss FCPx? Everybody has to decide that for themselves. There are different requirements which may influence that decision.
If you use FCP to master for broadcast I think you can’t use it now. Either stay with FCP7 or if you want something new now get Premiere or Avid.
If you edit in house like me, but go to post places to master, I think you can use FCPx right now. In fact getting rid of all the broadcast equipment is really liberating. Less gear. Less things that can get obsolete because some bus standard changes or some box is not supported anymore. Less noise and heat in the room. Cheaper overall as you do not need the biggest machines anymore. etc. etc.
I did the same with FCP7 for mastering: Create my final QT master and put it on a hard drive, take it to the studio and let them load it into whatever they use to play it to tape. Really the only problem I see right now, is if you need to provide separate clips plus handles on a timeline to sound post who are using e.g. Protools (you can export stems via roles but no OMF/AAF and Automatic Duck is too expensive and just changed camps anyway. But because they could do it, others will fill the gab) For colour correction you can actually just export a self contained quicktime to eg. Color. Same workflow as in the old days of grading tape to tape. Not ideal but unless somebody writes the X-XML to XML converter, it’s the way to go.I think a big part of my strategy is actually CatDV. Having an independent footage catalogue makes you really immune against dead ends because some software is pulled. CatDV is already supporting FCPx’s XML and gives you the possibility to do simple conversions. Haven’t tried all the in and outs, but main thing is really that all my footage descriptions don’t die with FCP7, or someday with FCPx or FCPxxl or .. 🙂
I do like the slim line approach of FCPx. Less is more for my needs. Having Motion is key here too because if you need the SFX you can get it there, but you do not clutter your editing software with it. I had a serious look at the 2 alternatives and I think Avid is still the same as 15 years ago and Premiere’s UI is shocking to my eyes 🙂 and doesn’t offer anything better in terms of editing a story. Same goes for Avid by the way. I do not need all the schnick schnack functions and displays. The older I get the more I cherish the strength of the story and not the packaging.
my 2 cents 🙂
CheersCarsten
-
Some very good points. I think the volume graph adjusting in real time is a nice addition, and I think compounding the audio into single clips will help to solve the messiness of the timeline once many audio clips are added.
Mostly I agree with you on the ‘less gear’ point. As a freelancer I’ve never owned, for example, a digibeta deck and have never had the need. I was either brought in to a facility that did, or would simply take a Quicktime to one that did when a broadcast format was required. Equipment like that costs far too much for me to justify the expense. But the ability for my software to be compatible with high end hardware is important, even something as simple as broadcast monitoring. I know promises have been made by Apple, and I would be amazed if the monitoring situation isn’t sorted out by early next year, but what I’m thinking is – why put trust in Apple and hope that issues will be addressed when Adobe & Avid can already do these things right now?
Up until this whole X debate began I hadn’t used Premiere Pro in about 5 years. I read that big things had been done with it and thought I’d have a look. I dropped some 720p footage onto the timeline, added some colour correction and was able to play it back in real time without needing to render. I was very impressed by that. Obviously it needs to be rendered before or during export but that feature in itself is almost enough to switch (providing the basics are right as well). It kind of annoyed me that Apple touted X as having background rendering when it really doesn’t. It renders automatically, but requires user inactivity which essentially is the same as just hitting alt+R in FCP7.
Ben.
-
[Benjamin Mullins] “Up until this whole X debate began I hadn’t used Premiere Pro in about 5 years. I read that big things had been done with it and thought I’d have a look. I dropped some 720p footage onto the timeline, added some colour correction and was able to play it back in real time without needing to render. I was very impressed by that. Obviously it needs to be rendered before or during export but that feature in itself is almost enough to switch (providing the basics are right as well). It kind of annoyed me that Apple touted X as having background rendering when it really doesn’t. It renders automatically, but requires user inactivity which essentially is the same as just hitting alt+R in FCP7.”
Yes but FCPX plays clips with CC and FX in realtime without rendering as well in much the same way as PPro. You don’t have to wait for clips to render before you play them – and the playback quality of clips is almost as good as the rendered files in most cases, even with heavy CC applied.
Just threw this together
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qYY535YfFIg
This is 5 layers of video, unrendered, all with colour correction applied including 3 different codecs 1080 XDCam HD 422, XDCam EX and 720 mp4 from a GoPro.
Using an 8 core 2008 Mac Pro with 8GB Ram and Ati Radeon 4870
“My Name is Steve and I’m an FCPX user”
Some contents or functionalities here are not available due to your cookie preferences!This happens because the functionality/content marked as “Google Youtube” uses cookies that you choosed to keep disabled. In order to view this content or use this functionality, please enable cookies: click here to open your cookie preferences.
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qYY535YfFIg
This is 5 layers of video, unrendered, all with colour correction applied including 3 different codecs 1080 XDCam HD 422, XDCam EX and 720 mp4 from a GoPro.
Using an 8 core 2008 Mac Pro with 8GB Ram and Ati Radeon 4870
“My Name is Steve and I’m an FCPX user”
Some contents or functionalities here are not available due to your cookie preferences!This happens because the functionality/content marked as “Google Youtube” uses cookies that you choosed to keep disabled. In order to view this content or use this functionality, please enable cookies: click here to open your cookie preferences.
-
[Benjamin Mullins] “I find that once I have several layers of audio down, the timeline becomes very messy and it is not as easy to see where clips are and what they are. In FCP7 for example, I can group all my SFX onto 4 designated tracks and therefore know at a glance where they are (I guess Roles will help with organisation, but not as well in my opinion).”
I prefer FCPX’s way of handling audio organizing (although it does need a bit more work).
I’ve always felt having several layers of audio tracks to be awkward. Scrolling up and down, growing and shrinking tracks to see things, having video and associated audio with many tracks in between has always felt cumbersome.I think a key comment is your “know at a glance.” My question is the “knowing” vs using. With Roles I can see all of whatever tagged purposed and even turn off at will. I think a lot of people are wedded to the “psychology” of tracks as a function. I don’t need to see things in rows as long as I can interact with the components as need be.
[Benjamin Mullins] ” if I wish to disconnect primary audio I cannot reconnect it afterwards.”
I agree with this. For me it’s the use of dual mono. I need to disconnect in order to have both available. It should be available in Expand instead as well in Precision editor.
[Benjamin Mullins] “I also find adding audio transitions rather annoying. But I do like having the fader handles on each clip. I suppose I just prefer track based editing when it comes to the audio side of things.”
I’m not sure you’re noting the same issues I am. For me an Audio crossfade should work the same way as a video dissolve. I can Expand a clip an add a video only dissolve. I can’t drop the same Dissolve effect on the audio though. I must detach to do that. To me this is inconsistent UI.
-
[Carsten Orlt] “Is it premature to dismiss FCPx”
I don’t like FCPX because I can’t do my work with it, but I do not dismiss FCPX (that’s the reason why I keep coming to this forum).
I think that a different model for making movies is possible.
The problem of FCPXs model at the present is that:
– Is not comprehensible because is not yet developed (pre-beta version or so).
– Negates other valid models.
– Is aimed for hardware that do not exists yet and for interfaces not yet developed (tactil, voice, brain-chip..)
– Has born tainted by marketing consideration.[Steve Connor] “Yes but FCPX plays clips with CC and FX in realtime without rendering as well in much the same way as PPro. You don’t have to wait for clips to render before you play them – and the playback quality of clips is almost as good as the rendered files in most cases, even with heavy CC applied.”
FCP should be doing that if in Cupertino they wouldn’t have gone nuts.
Doing things that things that where technically impossible or has being negated to FCP doesn’t make of FCPX an option.
rafael -
[Rafael Amador] “- Is not comprehensible because is not yet developed (pre-beta version or so).”
I don’t disagree. There’s still a lot missing and some things like Roles could use another round of improvements.[Rafael Amador] “- Negates other valid models.”
It’s just another choice. Avid and Premiere have tracks. FCPX does not. I prefer trackless. I’ve been waiting for something like this for nearly 20 years. At this point it’s like arguing over a favorite food.[Rafael Amador] “- Is aimed for hardware that do not exists yet and for interfaces not yet developed (tactil, voice, brain-chip..)”
I think there’s both hardware and software coming but it’s true, there are features in FCPX that point to things that don’t seem to exist yet. I’ll certainly be very happy when they come into existence.[Rafael Amador] ” Has born tainted by marketing consideration. “
Sometimes I think the mismanaged marketing did more to damage the credibility of the product than any missing feature or radical GUI change. It’s as if Apple brought back Gil Amelio to head the marketing management team.[Rafael Amador] “Doing things that things that where technically impossible or has being negated to FCP doesn’t make of FCPX an option.”
It will once it reaches a mature state sometime next year in my opinion.
-
“Sometimes I think the mismanaged marketing did more to damage the credibility of the product than any missing feature or radical GUI change.”
Absolutely true, especially if your include releasing an alpha product as a marketing decision. There would still be useability issues, it would still not work for everyone, but it would not be facing the kind of scorn in certain markets that it now generates.
Herb Sevush
Zebra Productions
Reply to this Discussion! Login or Sign Up