After a year has perception of FCPX changed?

[David Powell]

You switched to FCP7 because you had to collaborate, and then immediately switched to FCPX? And then you didn’t have to collaborate? Story doesn’t make sense to me.

[Chris Harlan]

I’m not sure what any of this has to do with mobility, but since you took the time to write all this interesting stuff out, I’ll definitely take the time to reply.

[Bill Davis] “When I use X on my laptop – every single edit decision I’ve made previously in my event brewer – no matter which events or projects those were created for – can be instantly available to every single project I choose to create from that point on – with all my pre-edit decisions as to trimming, color correction and key wording intact.

That capability didn’t exist in Legacy that I ever uncovered.

The X approach is infinitely more flexible and clearly superior in my view.”

I can see how this might be useful for some folks, but it would drive me crazy. I would pay not to have that feature. I only want to have open projects that I’m working, and most definitely NOT everything I’ve ever done. If I need to have several projects open at the same time, great, but NOT as a default.

[Bill Davis] “And when you’re out on the road with Legacy, how exactly do you handle Capture Scratch management? I don’t recall a way to have a dozen projects with a dozen capture scratches associated with those projects live simultaneously – the default state of X with multiple Events available along side multiple projects as the default.
“

I really have no idea what you mean by “Capture Scratch management.” Its just a folder. You can have plenty of folders open. I’ve been completely tapeless for two years now, and mostly tapeless for the two years before that. I use folders. My projects can get quite large and encompass many, many folders. I can have them all open. I can open folders from other projects. Defaulting to all projects open is a nightmare as far as I’m concerned. It is SO not an advantage. I can see, again, how it could be very useful for some lines of work, but I assure there are others that it is NOT a very good idea for.

[Bill Davis] “I can be editing away on one Project, realize I need footage from another project, or another event, mount a drive, and edit the new material into my timeline in seconds. No launching prior projects, no shut down and re-launching FCP legacy edits. “

Why do you think I can’t do this in FCS? I can mount a drive and import whole folders or individual items without having to launch a project. I can easily preview whatever I’m looking for by using the OS X browser and then just drag the file to a bin. I do a lot of sfx this way. And I can certainly open an additional project or five without having to shut down or relaunch.

[Bill Davis] “In fact, in Legacy I couldn’t even SEE the contents of a timeline when I had another one launched! I could open an exported MOVIE – but that give me NO reference to the original timeline since movies and their parent timelines were always cut off from each other. “

I’m not sure I understand what you are saying here. FCS allows multiple timelines to be open, whereas x does not. This something I miss quite a bit in all other NLEs. Its one of those area where FCS maintains superiority. Perhaps you mean you cannot preview a timeline in a bin. That’s true. And a little scrub device would be nice, but it really isn’t that big a deal to click and see what’s in the timeline. I would take multiple open timelines over some sort of bin preview any day. But, that’s me.

[Bill Davis] ” I remember spending lots to time looking for clips by opening and closing FCP-Legacy projects until I could find the one that had the clip I was looking for if I couldn’t remember the ID tag I’d used and wanted a visual reference.
“

Again, OS X provides a pretty decent preview feature these days. And, again–I do not want all my projects open at the same time. I get that this is a viable selling point for you, but it would be a royal PItA for me.

[Bill Davis] “Legacy had no visual reference other than shuffling through bins and scanning thumbnails for the open project ONLY.

Former projets were just “dumb icons” on the desktop. Unless you create and maintain some kind of clip database outside the program, each edit defaulted to a “closed book” state.”

Yeah, its showing it age a little bit. I like the kind of preview features available in Pr 6, which thankfully allows me not to have everything open.

[Bill Davis] “In X, all your prior work can be open and available for visual search with a few clicks – all from within the live app.
“

And again, thank God that it is the only NLE that has gone there.

Bill, I found this conversation very interesting because it has really helped me see why you like X so much. I can see how its organization can be very attractive. I can even see why–from your POV–you might think of it as being more mobile, because I see that for you it acts as a work suitcase/filing cabinet, combined with an artist’s pallet. So, I get what you are saying. But, there are a lot of other ways of looking at mobility, and claiming it as the sole property of FCP X is just not something I can agree with.

[Bob Woodhead]

Thanks Bill. I’d like to expand on this discussion of metadata, but I think I’ll start a thread (after searching to make sure there’s not one running that’s relevant) over in Techniques.

[Jeremy Garchow]

[Greg Andonian] “I remember seeing a post by someone in another thread who said, “You just have to think a few steps ahead of it.” Then another poster responded with a line that sums up my feelings about X really well:

“I want to edit, not play a game of chess with my NLE.””

I said it, and you’re taking it a bit out of context.

We were talking about specific timeline mechanics.

The point was, you have to play chess with any interface. Whether or not it feels like chess or checkers is another matter. You know where the fcp7 timeline fails, and most of the time, you are probably thinking ahead, but in your brain that’s “the right way”.

X’s timeline is different and unfamiliar, so it might feel like “the wrong way”. It does take some retooling.

I don’t have any experience with iMovie. I tried to watch some movies online to see how similar they are.

They don’t seem very similar to me. Imovie’s Events seem to be where FCPX’s Projects are. But what do I know, I’m not interested in iMovie. I also think iMovie is 32bit vs FCPX 64 bit, so they can’t be super similar under the hood.

While there are some iMovie roots, I think we will start to see the products diverge over time. It’s already happened, and with more time in the incubator, the two will have a passing resemblance.

How deep have you dived with another NLE?

I’m not talking about opening it up, applying fcp7 shortcuts and performing a three point edit and declaring it a success, I’m talking about really diving in. Or are you letting the internet do the hard work and make those decisions for you?

[Mathieu Ghekiere]

Good question.

I don’t think the perception of FCP X has changed. To be honest. Mine has, btw.

When it was first released, ‘everyone’ hated it. Me too. I tried some things, was very enthusiastic, and came back from a cold shower after trying to cut a theatre play on it. This was FCP 10.0.0.
First day of release. You couldn’t even relink media. Sorry, but that users had to wait more than a half of a year for this was really worrying, especially because communication from Apple was very bad.

Then I took the Switch deal of Adobe’s Production Premium (I didn’t have a Photoshop license yet, so it was a good deal for me anyhow).
Regarding that PRemiere worked with RED RAW, and I knew I was going to work with RED RAW in the future, and at that point NO indication of Apple that they would support this, or if they had Professional Plans with FCP X, I bought the deal.
But I don’t really like editing in Premiere. The interface is clunkier, the difference is in the small things, and I quickly returned to FCP 7.

After the 10.0.3 update, I became interested because it had the multicam features WITHOUT angles needing to be the same format or even frame rate.
I had something I needed to do in that week with a LOT of Ken Burns style animations. I knew about the automatic Ken Burns effect in FCP X, and the no 4K limit on pictures like in FCP 7 so I decided to try the software again.

Long story short, I cursed a lot in those 2 weeks, yelling a lot, giving Apple a lot of feedback, BUT at the same time I also had a lot of “aha!” moments. The speed of the editing, once you got used to the program, could be so fast in comparison with FCP 7. It really did felt ‘backwards’ opening FCP 7 again.

I’m not convinced, still; though. I really have a a very dual feeling about it.
I used FCP X more and more. I really begin liking it. I like the speed of exporting. I like the editing features. I like the fact that I can immediately see where audio clips. I like that if I change the volume of an audio clip, I can immediately dynamically see the difference on the waveform.
I like the possibilities of the meta data, I love the multicam feature. I love how there are more and more plugins coming every week, more and more programs supporting it’s XML. It’s reassuring.
But there are also a lot of things I hate. The way it doesn’t have timecode overlays in the canvas now, the way you cannot work with clip timecode sometimes (I loved the Timecode overlays in FCP 7 and we use them A LOT, the way 10.0.4 doesn’t have a clip timecode reader function, etc.
And when I pulled in a lot of XDCAM clips, working in 3D with the Dashwood Stereo Toolbox, it was much smoother in FCP 7 (!!!) then in FCP X, on the same Macbook Pro. Also the way FCP X showed it’s viewer on the second screen was not that easy for working with a 3D plasma.
The program misses a lot of features, and some of them need such work-arounds that there are moments that you ask yourself: it is all worth it?

But yes, MY perspective has changed. I think it’s very capable, but also pretty buggy in moments, and still misses a lot of functionality. BUT, the updates that Apple announced (R3D support, Audio tools, Dual Viewers, …) are very good, and very ‘pro’. I like their magnetic timeline, although it could use some more flexibility. I like their meta-database way of thinking. Like it or not, these are huge fundamental changes, and I think this really could give Apple a big step forward in the future.
I mailed Apple about the future of FCP X, if they were listening to the feedback of pro’s, or if they were gearing it towards prosumers. I got a mail back (yes, it surprised me too) they they took it seriously and and they really wanted it known as a professional package.

They also added a FCP X in Action page again on their website. I think they should do much more of this, because as I said, they still have the stigma.

Which brings me to the other side: yes my perspective changed, but NO, I don’t think the general perspective of the industry changed towards FCP X. All the editors I talked too cursed on FCP X (yes, most of them HAD NOT used it), they stayed on FCP 7 while learning AVID, …
I did my bunch of complaining when the program was just released, but I also did my bunch of sharing positive experiences after using it with the 10.0.3 update. But most editors don’t really want to listen.
We’ll see.

I think if Apple released the program in the 10.0.3 version, I think A LOT of this stigma never would have been there. I think they should be much more responsive. They do it, but they could do more.
They should put more videos on their website, advertise more on NAB and professional outlets (although from what I’ve been told, NAB 2012 had a lot of FCP X on stand too, with the Smoke accepting the XML, Davinci working with FCP X XML, Thunderbolt accessories, …), and help getting this stigma out of the world. Get a better manual out there too, which is more transparant.
(Example? I used proxies for a test, small test. When I exported using Current Settings, the final media file was Prores Proxy. I was under the impression that proxies were solely used for having editing speed, but that the final render wouldn’t be in proxy files, even if you selected to use them. Well, FCP X did, if I checked off the proxy feature in the preferences again, and then re-exported, it was regular Prores, which I also thought was strange, because the original setting of the first images was XDCAM. It just isn’t that transparant in how it handles media. Yes it has these automatically making proxies and prores in the background, automatically relinking if they are ready, but it also has a lot of small gotchas that AREN’T well described in the manual)
A lot of it is based on the 10.0.0 version. That being said, I do think the program has a long way to go in features. On the other hand, when I use Premiere Pro or read about Avid, I also think they would have to go long ways to get the same kind of fluidity and editing speed of FCP X.

[Neil Goodman]

My preception has changed – A little bit in that anyone willing to do deal with the shortcoming of the magnetic timeline, the audio issues, bloat, etc can do “pro” level work on it. But why would anyone want to deal with that when theres a bunch of other NLE’s doing the job the right way. The multicam is rad, but thats about it. Everything else just seems unnecessary and convoluted.

That said, I still use FCP 7 alongside Media Composer every single day, and i still love it. Sure i cant wack a h264 file in there and expect to be cutting it native but i dont mind transcoding as its just part of the process now. Other than that FCP 7 and MC work amazing for me. There rock solid, and i can forget about bug this and bloat that, and what features may or may not come, and actually just edit.

Neil Goodman: Editor of New Media Production – NBC/Universal

[Andy Neil]

[Greg Andonian] “Now, my opinion has changed to, ‘The stability issues have gotten much better and a few new professional features have been added, but it’s basically a souped-up version of iMovie.'”

[Greg Andonian] “Apple trumpeted FCPX like it was brand new and revolutionary, and it wasn’t. Most of the core functionality in X already existed in iMovie before FCPX came out.”

And here we have the perfect example of how the stigma of FCPX persists in the face of facts.

Aside from some asthetic considerations, there is very little alike between iMovie and FCPX. Certainly nothing in their “core” functionality.

The magnetic timeline is not a “core” function of FCPX although it’s often mistaken for one. The magnetic timeline is simply a reverse default to functionality that has existed in Avid for years: sync locks. If you’ve ever cut on an Avid with sync locks on, then it’s identical to cutting with FCPX’s magnetic timeline.

A core function of FCPX is the parent/child relationship. This only exists in FCPX and I suspect is one of the key things that people like or dislike about the program.

However, this does not exist in iMovie. In iMovie you can’t even have one clip on top of another. I would even argue that iMovie doesn’t have a timeline at all but rather a rudimentary storyboard where clip length can be edited.

Both iMovie and FCPX have Event Library’s, but aside from the name, they have little in common and an Event Library is hardly a core function of the program. After all, every NLE needs a project window where the clips are stored. Avid has one, Premiere has one. FCPX calls it an event library, but it functions similarly.

What IS a core function is the keyword collections. There is no such thing in iMovie. All your clips are in events and it’s the only way to organize them. FCPX has a highly developed, database driven, organizational structure.

Here’s a primer for those wanting to know what’s alike and not between iMovie and FCPX.

Alike:

They both call their project window “Event Library.”

The icon for selecting a range is the same.

They both offer connectivity with iPhoto and iTunes

They both offer clip favoriting/rejecting

Different:

Everything else.

https://www.timesavertutorials.com

[Alban Egger]

I switched from PC to Mac, that´s why FCP7 helped me to collaborate in a tapeless world.
In the early days of FCPX I used FCP7 to output OMFs, but in the meanwhileI send AAFs out of FCPX.

The people I work most with switched to FCPX also by now. So after the first 4-6 months everything went back to normal.

[Mitch Ives]

[Walter Soyka] “If Apple had launched with 10.0.3 or 10.0.4, we might all be having a different conversation.”

Truer words were never spoken. 10.0.4 is the version that should have been released first. Imagine how different FCPX would be treated if it had…

Mitch Ives
Insight Productions Corp.

“Criticism may not be agreeable, but it is necessary. It fulfills the same function as pain in the human body. It calls attention to an unhealthy state of things.” – Winston Churchill

[Tim Wilson]

[Mitch Ives] “Imagine how different FCPX would be treated if it had…”

I’m sorry man, but very nearly zero. The noise about monitoring, multicam and IO stopped fairly quickly…or not…but the heart of the matter for people for whom its not working hasn’t changed one iota, and may NEVER change.

It has to do with interface, mindset, collaboration, and a jillion other things. You could actually work around nearly *feature* that was missing from X on its launch, and millions of people did.

Really, how many people bailed on X because it didn’t have multicam or broadcast monitoring? Hardly any. How many have bailed because it broke their basic workflow? Bunches.

I can also point back to the launch event. Nobody, and I mean NOBODY was complaining during that first demo that there was no IO or multicam. Did Apple even mention that?

But go back to the very first threads in this forum — fully a third of the posts being made DURING THE EVENT were full of abject horror. Some of those people came around, some people joined the horror camp….but the overwhelming majority of it had zeeeerooooo to do with bullet-point features, and everything to do with the bullet they felt had just been put in their heads, before they even KNEW about the missing features.

Tim Wilson
Associate Publisher, Editor-in-Chief
Creative COW Magazine
Twitter: timdoubleyou