-
If FCPX isn’t really for Pros, who is it for?
It’s being dubbed imovie pro and I was going based on reports in many places and especially by horrified freelance editors I’ve spoken to that Apple have clearly seen that it will be more lucrative for them to more or less ditch the pro market and try and sell to ordinary consumers but something just occurred to me. i-movie comes with Mac OS, so anyone that wants to edit a wedding video or movies of their pets or even shorts that require only basic cutting abilities and which will guide you through the process as much as possible already can using bundled imovie. What does FCPX offer the non-professional market?
I have to admit I haven’t used FCPX yet, but it seems the complaints levelled against it are that it has basically eschewed all the features considered as required for professional editing and that people therefore assume it’s a move to simplify it for a non-professional consumer to operate it. But could a non-professional really use it all that easily? Is it as easy as imovie? If it isn’t then that leaves only a smaller section of the market who would be interested in it and able to use it. With that in mind does it really make sense to think that Apple isn’t aiming FCPX at professionals anymore?
-
27 Replies
-
Basically this is most of the core debate in this forum, a quick browse through will give you an idea of peoples opinions on this.
My take is that FCPX is unsuitable for the higher ends of the Professional market as it stands, some of the issues that are preventing it being unsuitable will be fixed over the coming months, then it’s down to personal choice whether you like the interface or not.
Having said that I’m currently cutting a show for the Discovery Channel and a low budget movie on it. I will however have to transition back to FCP7 on these for grading and mastering.
It is a fallacy that FCPX is only aimed at the domestic market.
“My Name is Steve and I’m an FCPX user”
-
well yes, I’ve seen that much of the debate on this forum centres around if FCPX is really suitable for professional video editing, but taking that assumption as given for the sake of argument. What then is it suited for? Could a consumer pick it up and use it and why would they want it in place of imovie?
-
Not sure why a consumer would want to pay the money for it when iMovie is all but free and easier to use.
I’ve already had a Producer use FCPX for a rough cut and he seem to find it easy enough to use though.
“My Name is Steve and I’m an FCPX user”
-
The term “professional” is a little too broad here. Plenty of ‘pros’ are using it… at least, that’s what I’m guessing, since I’ve never actually met someone who is using it. I’ve met two professionals (both do weddings/corporate) who bought and then returned it.
That being said, the “broadcast” industry is the primary group that has rejected FCPX.
I think Apple aimed FCPX at all professionals, but simply failed to consider the real needs of the broadcast sector, which caused all this backlash.
-
I guess that’s definitely what it appears like, but it seems strange to me that such a miscalculation could occur, the broadcast industry had adopted Final Cut Pro to an extent so it was usable, where as FCPX has taken features out which has caused the complaints, this means a deliberate decision not to include things presumably some users needed rather than a case of building a program from scratch and not adequately anticipating the needs of the consumer. It’s interesting, I can’t quite figure out the decisions making process that has lead to the program as it is, it doesn’t seem to be right for anyone.
-
If you know iMovie, then moving up to FCPX is very straightforward, as Apple explain here:
https://www.apple.com/uk/finalcutpro/imovie-to-finalcutpro/
I have seen several users make the transition very quickly and easily indeed, whereas it is clear that users coming from traditional NLE backgrounds find it all much more mystifying, as evidenced throughout these forums.
Essentially FCPX unlocks most of the limitations of iMovie and hence makes a great deal of sense for those who want a bit more out of their editing app.
Simon Ubsdell
Director/Editor/Writer
http://www.tokyo-uk.com -
We will never know the real decision making process here. I saw a funny conspiracy theory on the macrumors website that Ubillos is secretly planning to move back to Adobe and released FCPX as a final “screw you” to Apple for not giving him the funding he deserved, heh.
Personally I just think that they over estimated their influence in the broadcast market.
-
I think it’s as simple as they want to increase market share. I think they want it both ways, they want broadcast AND people who are in a transition of moving from basic cutting to a higher level of cutting.
You mentioned that you have not used FCP X yet. Try it out and see how you like it.
It looks like a toy on the surface but get with someone that knows how to unlock the power of it.
Like I have said before on here, one of it’s strong points is it’s ability to keyword search and help you find clips that you are looking for.
This only helps people who have a ton of footage to plow through.
If you have a ton of footage, you most likely are working on something kind of big.
-
I have been editing for nearly 30 years and I have edited with FCP since version 1.25. Any time I tried to use iMovie I couldn’t do it. It made no sense to me at all.
FCP X however made a lot of sense to me, especially once I learned where everything was and how it worked. It didn’t really take that long to get up to speed with it. As far as a “non-pro” using it? Sure, some will be able to and some won’t. That’s true of any editing software. My son did several videos in high school on FCP 7 and all I did was show him how to make titles and spent about 5 minutes on how to trim and edit footage on the timeline. It’s not the software, it’s the person using it.
Since X came out I have been bouncing between X and 7. Does X annoy me sometimes? Sure! But so does 7. I do legacy SD projects in 7 just as a timesaver. I do new projects in X usually in HD and I prefer it to 7. However, it all comes down to using what I feel is appropriate for the job. I lean toward X going forward while using 7 for the convenience of working on existing projects (at least for the time being).
I recently made a good deal of money editing on a client’s system.
The software? FCP-HD 4.5. Guess what? It still works and I got paid…
NT
-
I think the problem is indeed that Apple wants to have it both way: powerful tool but super-simplified ui. That just doesn’t work and form should function functionality, not the other way round. Unfortuantely, in Apple’s book simplifying things means more and more often simply dropping features rather than making them understandable and usable for those who want to knowa nd those who know what they are doing and need them.
Just take a look at Compressor. Virtually zero ability to tweak codec settings. Compare this with the settings of Mainconcept or high-end tools such as Cinevision. So, potentially powerful tools that lack the depth and control that a lot of the high-end users simply need. The desired result is a “one-click” solution that simply doesn’t fly for certain markets – and sometimes delivers inferior results.
Reply to this Discussion! Login or Sign Up