-
What CAN it be used for?
Right now, I’m thinking at the same time as I’m writing. So this could be nothing more than waste of bandwidth. Just to warn you.
FCP X now seemes to be a bit more viable (to say the least). Some things still keeps us from using it in our edit bays though. Basically the timeline operation, the (for now) undead way it plays with other apps (apart from SOME of the integrations with Motion, which is brilliant) and the limitations in working in a shared environment is my concerns at the moment for letting it be THE editing platform for us. Today we are totally in FCP Legacy Land. Apart from audio finishing, which is done in ProTools.
But what it does well, it does REALLY well.
We work basically with a lot of corporate productions, where everything is confined to a certain style manual/guide. Motions ability to create and use flexible title templates would make life SO much easier for us. Most of the stuff confined to said manuals are for web delivery, which also is a field of expertise for FCPX.
Although- we still have to use tape. Both for ingest and delivery at times. We still make productions for traditional broadcast. Those are seldom confined to the style guides mentioned earlier, but are delivered with built to purpose titles (often in After Effect) or with no titles at all.
So this is how I figure (right now) how things should be for us, when it’s time to emigrate from FCP Legacy Land. Most likely during summer.
When we decide to move to another NLE for general editing, it will most likely NOT be to FCPX. More likely to Avid or PP (I’m at the moment leaning towards the former). But when the edits done in that NLE are locked down, the stuff going for style manual type of titles (and web delivery) goes for finishing in FCPX. That way we really don’t have to bother much with the timeline (with bogged down long form and all), we get the functionality of FCPX in wich it excels, and we get good quality lay off to tape (which should be done primarily in Avid/PP/Whatever).
The price point says it’s ok. A great titling tool for USD400 is fair. For that price we also get a decent chroma keyer, a multicam editor and stuff. Who knows, some day one of the NLEs might be the all in one.
Which are the pitfalls? Am I missing something? Am I just plain stupid?
Erik Lundberg
Technical Director, Media Technology, University of Gothenburg, Sweden
-
26 Replies
-
think this sounds very convoluted
FCPX is perfectly able as an editing package, yes avid has slightly better trimming for more experienced editors
if you are working on corporate work which I know goes through many changes/iterations I would say the magnetic timeline will save you a lot of time. if you are only ever doing basic audio mixes then FCPX is far faster than the competition. if you are doing multi format and multi cam productions FCPX is far better experience. graphics like you have noticed are much faster to create and cleaner looking in fcpx than fcp7 or avid/premiere.
I would also say it is crazy for your staff to learn 2 massive pieces of software to achieve the same outcome, go with one not 2.
if you need training in Avid or FCPX let me know, I work at an acrredited training centre called VET in London and we can assist.
-
[Ben Scott] “graphics like you have noticed are much faster to create and cleaner looking in fcpx than fcp7 or avid/premiere.”
Why do you say that graphics are cleaner in FCPX than they are in FCP7, Avid, or Premiere?
Walter Soyka
Principal & Designer at Keen Live
Motion Graphics, Widescreen Events, Presentation Design, and Consulting
RenderBreak Blog – What I’m thinking when my workstation’s thinking
Creative Cow Forum Host: Live & Stage Events -
Hi Erik,
I too, am wondering about how viable FCPX is going to be in a shared environment. It appears from the latest release that many issues are being addressed and that is encouraging. That said, I only have indirect knowledge of this update and am relying on feedback from this forum to evaluate the ups and downs of this latest release.
As for it’s viability in a shared environment, I am hopeful that FCPX might be headed in a direction that will provide that ability. I am hoping to hear from some who are working with this latest release who might provide some insight on how 6 or more editors might share projects and media across a shared network. While I haven’t seen anything i press release or user feedback regarding anything new in this release, perhaps there just hasn’t been enough time.
It still appears that the eco-system development is in the earliest of phases for FCPX. While it might be useable as a task specific application (titler, web delivery vehicle, light duty pre-set encoder, ect.) I would tend to want to rely on applications with a bit more development at the moment. I think it’s safe to say another year of development is going to change FCPX a great deal. I think it boils down to the question of whether you 1. Want to participate in Apple’s great experiment and work with point zero software or 2. Want to build your business dependent workflows around more robust and developed software packages while waiting and seeing where the FCPX train is going.
I think many of us are dabbling with FCPX, when time permits, but still wouldn’t jump in with both feet until a few more wrinkles are ironed out. All that being said, I’m starting to look forward to version 11.1. I think it’s going to have some real promise for being a robust and viable application for many production needs.
Disclaimer – This is PURELY opinion and subject to complete debate.
Marvin Holdman
Production Manager
Tourist Network
8317 Front Beach Rd, Suite 23
Panama City Beach, Fl
phone 850-234-2773 ext. 128
cell 850-585-9667
skype username – vidmarv -
[Ben Scott] “if you are doing multi format and multi cam productions FCPX is far better experience.”
How can you know that, are you a Beta tester? Have you cut a bunch of multi-cam shows, has anyone? I agree that the function list is excellent and the demo’s are nice, as far as they go, but don’t you think it would be better to actually use this stuff in battle conditions before anointing it?
Herb Sevush
Zebra Productions
—————————
nothin’ attached to nothin’
“Deciding the spine is the process of editing” F. Bieberkopf -
I think you mean 10.1.1 You won’t see 11 until the os is OS 11 (XI?)
-
[Marvin Holdman] “1. Want to participate in Apple’s great experiment and work with point zero software or 2. Want to build your business dependent workflows around more robust and developed software packages while waiting and seeing where the FCPX train is going.”
Marvin- I agree with what you say, but I really like to have it all. I’d say FCPX has to grow up a bit (more) before I can trust it as the sole editing application for us. On the other hand I really really want FCPX to mature into a brilliant AND robust editing application for ALL purposes. It won’t get there if nobody uses it. Then it’ll merely die a quick and gruesome death. So I’m all for using it, but I will try and find where it does good things to our workflow, and keep it out of other areas, where other tools are the goto solution.
Erik Lundberg
Technical Director, Media Technology, University of Gothenburg, Sweden
-
[Ben Scott] “think this sounds very convoluted
FCPX is perfectly able as an editing package, yes avid has slightly better trimming for more experienced editors”
I’m not sure it would be convoluted at all. The choice of editing platform should be done based on the needs of the project, at the current stage. Mostly, the things we really would benefit from FCPXs capabilities are in the final stages of the project. The mindset of the editing process in that stage (after lock down) is a quite different one than earlier on in the process. I’m not confident enough (at this stage, I should add- this will most certainly change) to let our entire workflow to FCPX. And I am rather certain we can benifit from both tools either way.
[Ben Scott] “I would also say it is crazy for your staff to learn 2 massive pieces of software to achieve the same outcome, go with one not 2.”
Crazy? I don’t think so. Most of our editors has previous experience with MC, and I’m confident in their abilities to adapt and learn new things too. So I’m not really worried there. I’m certain some will like FCPX more and others be in favour of MC. In the end- the tool that gets the job done will be used. Why not benefit from the pros of both, and the cons of none?
This said (again)- in a few months- I might have changed my mind about this completely, as things change and evolve. And when taking this sort of mixed workflow (with multiple NLEs doing different tasks for the same project) to battle- it might prove to be a disaster. But I’m tempted. We’ve done similar things in the past (working on FCP and SphereOUS in the same project) with mixed results, but technology has improved, and I think I’m more skilled now than then to make informed decicions.
On the other hand- they say you’re experienced when you recognise mistakes as you do them all over again.
Erik Lundberg
Technical Director, Media Technology, University of Gothenburg, Sweden
-
[Erik Lundberg] “Mostly, the things we really would benefit from FCPXs capabilities are in the final stages of the project.”
Interesting, because I find the keyword feature to be the best thing about X, and it is the earliest part of editing, for me.
-
What CAN it be used for?
Well, pretty much anything. Coming from FCP7 there is not much left that FCP7 did better.
SDI-Monitoring is still BETA, andOMF Export is still not the way it should be, but other than that FCP7 is left behind in the dust since version 10.0.0 due to the 64-bit architecture; not even speaking of 10.0.3….. The most important feature it brought was (to me) the re-linking of offline media.AVID has good trimming tools especially for narrative editing. No doubt. If in the end it really makes you faster depends on your projects.
We have used FCPX now on many different projects: 52-minute documentaries with 7500+ clips for broadcast, music videos, corporate videos, loop-DVDs that have a revolving intro every day, LIVE-PRODUCTION-LOWER THIRDS…….you name it.
It worked faster and easier than anything I ever used in EVERY project we tried since July.
We are not sitting 200 days a year and edit movies or shortfilms. But me and my partner did movies and short films (on FCP7) also. But we have different demands by the week, because clients from multi-million corporations to the small bakery next door are coming up with new ideas all the time.
And there is no….”uhm…that might take longer”…..FCPX is so flexible and offers unique tools like skimming, audition, Motion-FX imports, keyword-bins …the list goes on and on and nobody who didn´t really “get it” will understand what´s under the hood there. It can be used for everything and not only narrative editing….for that you might stick to AVID forever. But if you have changing demands in a fast-changing industry below Hollywood, then FCPX might be an option.
Those are my 2 cents and if you just hate the magnetic timeline then by all means….stay away….. -
[alban egger] “SDI-Monitoring is still BETA, andOMF Export is still not the way it should be, but other than that FCP7 is left behind in the dust since version 10.0.0 due to the 64-bit architecture;”
Let’s not overdo it – can you paste FX between clips in X? Are there out of sync markers and do they allow you to snap clips back in sync with 1 click? I think that list goes on for awhile.
Not trying to take anything away from X, and you are absolutely correct in that Legacy is a 32 bit dinosaur in many ways, but to say X is as fully featured, right at this moment, as any of the major NLE’s is stretching it a bit far.
Herb Sevush
Zebra Productions
—————————
nothin’ attached to nothin’
“Deciding the spine is the process of editing” F. Bieberkopf
Reply to this Discussion! Login or Sign Up