-
Back to FCPX From PP (Rant)
-
[Lillian Young] “Every non-editor I meet uses FCPX.”
Perhaps that’s because it’s very easy for non-editors to grasp. This is the same reason that many professional editors cannot grasp it because they come to it with a preconceived notion of how video editing should be accomplished and FCP X doesn’t work the same way as they have done in the past. Only editors willing to learn a new workflow seem to “get it”.
Just because a tool is easy enough for a non-editor to use doesn’t mean that it’s not appropriate for a professional to use. I’m pretty sure that the paint bush that Michelangelo owned is no more difficult to use than the paint brush that my kids use. The difference is the “talent” required to wield that brush and produce a masterpiece. A talented editor knows how to tell a story and the difficulty or ease of use of their tools should have no bearing on the final story’s outcome, although the editor using the easy tools may get finished quicker. I believe that’s what a lot of FCP X editors are finding out (i.e., productivity increases when your tools make it easier to achieve your goals).
[Lillian Young] “But it’s iMovie + Motion, basically. “
That’s a pretty old misconception. Have you seen iMovie and FCP X lately? They look and act very different.
[Lillian Young] “I do not want to go back to FCP X. It feels amateur after using Premiere.”
If by “amateur” you mean “easy” then I would have to agree. The ease with which I can edit is what drew me to FCP X. If by “amateur” you mean “lacking functionality” then I’d like to know what I’ve been missing.
Early NLE’s tried to make editing easier by using film strips, bins, scissors and other things that were familiar to editors that were use to working with film. New editors don’t have that frame of reference anymore so continuing to restrict your workflow to using these techniques doesn’t make sense. The new crop of editors don’t categorize their tweets… they use hashtags to group ideas together. Likewise they don’t want to place clips into bins. They are very comfortable with tagging and FCP X plays right into their new way of thinking. Editors that don’t understand the power of metadata tagging don’t understand the power of FCP X.
The new Final Cut is a reimagined workflow focused around telling the story with digital media. Why would I want to line up clips on tracks like box cars in a train yard when that’s not the way a story is told. Stories have main story lines with secondary story lines with music and sounds that are connected to the story to enrich the plot. This is exactly how FCP X works. More like an organic tree with branches stemming from it, than box cars in a train yard at fixed positions that have to be manually rearranged if you want to try new ideas. With FCP X, if I move the trunk the branches don’t get left behind; they move with it. I believe this is why non-editors can relate to it. It’s a very natural approach to story telling.
You need to approach FCP X with fresh eyes. If you try and make the new tool work like the old tool you will always be disappointed. You need to take the time to understand the workflow that new tools introduce and embrace the new way of thinking and the efficiencies that they offer. If you want the new tool to work like the old tool, then stick with the old tool. I for one, could never edit with a track based NLE again. It really seems archaic to me now. IMHO, the trackless workflow is a very liberating and efficient way of working.
~jr
http://www.johnrofrano.com
http://www.vasst.com -
[Walter Soyka] “[Lillian Young] “Every non-editor I meet uses FCPX.””
[Walter Soyka] “Interestingly, this aligns with one of Bill’s frequent points here that FCPX has a broader user base than any traditional NLE could or does, that FCPX doesn’t have to be a specialist’s tool: a point I think both of you would agree with?”I think that what is “wrong” about this point of “non-editors” is that this phonomenon didn’t start with FCPX, it started with FCP Legend. “Everyone” had a copy of Legend and they did all kinds of weird shit with it besides edit Cold Mountain. It was a fairly easy to use general purpose video viewing and sequencing tool that video professionals from other disciplines that weren’t ‘editors’ owned and used for a multitude of reasons other than “story telling”. It was a tool that was capable of performing many tasks, and it also happened to be a tool that professional editors really liked. Why, now, is this idea a problem with fcpx and somehow more “unpro” than before? Or maybe Lillian doesn’t know the Legend of FCP Legend?
And why is it in a thread that started, and I’ll paraphrase, with ‘I am begrudgingly switching back to FCPX because it’s more reliable’ turns in to a weird defensive defense of fcpx?
-
[Jeremy Garchow] “Why, now, is this idea a problem with fcpx and somehow more “unpro” than before? Or maybe Lillian doesn’t know the Legend of FCP Legend?”
Two fold, IMO. First, X launched lacking many ‘pro’ features that Legend, and other NLEs, had and you don’t get a second chance to make a first impression. Second, and you kind of touch on this, some people forget (or maybe never knew) how crapped on FCP Legend was by ‘the establishment’ right up until the point where the establishment found it useful (it still got crapped on, but not quite as much). Same thing with Avid in the 90’s. Same thing with PPro until a few years ago. Same thing will eventually happen with X (it already is). I think it will just take longer because Apple is so high profile.
On a related note, the ‘ramble rousers’ that used FCP Legend and scoffed at the establishment 15yrs ago are now the establishment looking down at a new tool that could be potentially empowering to the less well off (either in terms of money or skill or both). Same reason why people are upset with the democratization of media/production equipment *today* because it potentially benefited others more than themselves but absolutely loved it 15yrs ago when it benefited them more than others.
-
[Andrew Kimery] ” Lillian didn’t say all editors that use X are ‘non-editors’ she said ‘all the non-editors she knows use X’. “
But, if you are using X (or PP or MC for in that case) you are, in effect, an editor. So her statement makes no sense.
Her tone, and my take on it, seems to say that you can’t be a “real” editor if you use X, therefore you are a non-editor. Which is, of course, bulls***. If you are using an NLE, you are editing and are an editor. Maybe not be very good at it, but you are editing.
Scott Witthaus
Senior Editor/Post Production Supervisor
1708 Inc./Editorial
Professor, VCU Brandcenter -
[Scott Witthaus] “But, if you are using X (or PP or MC for in that case) you are, in effect, an editor. So her statement makes no sense. “
I believe she was referring to editing as a profession i.e., those who edit as their job, as apposed to those who edit casually but are really producers or DP’s, etc. I can find my way around After Effects to make a nice title or something but I wouldn’t consider myself a Motion Graphics Designer. It was a statement more about FCP X being easily approachable by those who do not edit for a living more than anything else. Of course, only Lillian can clarify.
~jr
http://www.johnrofrano.com
http://www.vasst.com -
[Jeremy Garchow] “I think that what is “wrong” about this point of “non-editors” is that this phonomenon didn’t start with FCPX, it started with FCP Legend. “Everyone” had a copy of Legend and they did all kinds of weird shit with it besides edit Cold Mountain.”
Don’t you think FCPX appeals to a bigger “everyone” than FCP Legend ever could?
Walter Soyka
Designer & Mad Scientist at Keen Live [link]
Motion Graphics, Widescreen Events, Presentation Design, and Consulting
@keenlive | RenderBreak [blog] | Profile [LinkedIn] -
[Walter Soyka] “Don’t you think FCPX appeals to a bigger “everyone” than FCP Legend ever could?
“The argument could be made with digital delivery and low prices, all software can appeal to more people than ever. It isn’t necessarily because of FCPX the application, it’s because of the times we live in, the advancement of internet download speeds and delivery, in general.
Apple has the ‘luxury’ of a very simple store system, and software that is tuned to run on a multitude of relatively cost effective hardware, as well as a solid user base.
So, yes,simply by default, X and even Creative Cloud appeal to more “non-pros” than ever.
Regular every day people (kids) use Photoshop to make memes and animated gifs to post on social networks. They aren’t photoshop pros, they are simply having fun in their communications, and they can do that for $9.99/mo.
Jeremy
-
[Walter Soyka] “Don’t you think FCPX appeals to a bigger “everyone” than FCP Legend ever could?”
Yes, and so does Apple. 🙂 After all, the number Apple stated for Legend was only a bit over 2 million units over its entire life. FCPX passed that number relatively quickly, although I remain on the record absolutely stupefied that it hasn’t blown that number apart.
THAT’s the story to me, how much more slowly, and how little, it has grown Apple’s footprint than I’d have imagined. My optimism for Apple’s success with X has been thoroughly debunked in these pages.
Thanks. LOL
(Then there’s the whole other Hollywood-specific conversation about how X reduced Apple’s footprint — for reasons that in some cases have nothing to do with anything, no doubt, no doubt, PLUS DINOSAURS
…but Walter, that does indicate the flip side of what has happened in actual practice. We should be well past the point that any rational X-naysayers have to concede that X is in fact up to any of Hollywood’s tasks, but we should likewise be past the point that any rational X-philes have to concede that there simply aren’t as many flags being waved as there were in the early days of Legend.
Is that solely because Apple is obviously not investing the same energy into telling these “In Action” stories as they used to — and they’re clearly not — or because X does in fact, by Apple’s specific, careful, considered, and well-executed plan intentionally appeal to less of each and every group of “everyone” than the appeal of Legend?
Can we at least, rational nay- and yay-sayers alike, agree on that? That Apple isn’t trying to reach “everyone” in ways that it did just 5 years ago? They’ve said so often enough that it seems a little disrespectful to insist that they are.
Sticking with Legacy and the meaning of the word “everyone” though, 2 million was still a fraction of Premiere’s numbers at the time iirc (5 million? one of you lads can surely correct me), and I know for a fact that when Avid bought Pinnacle in 2005, there were 10 million users of Pinnacle Studio.
There is of course the matter of comparing apples to apples, pun intended, and I don’t think that $99 consumer software and $995 (or more) professional software have anything to do with each other….and after all, the #1 consumer video editing platform these days is Vine…but the legend of Legend appealing to “everyone,” even if you limit “everyone” to “video pros with a Mac,” is just that. A legend. NOT a legacy. It never happened. 2 million copies is a lot, but not even enough for an unambiguous plurality.
I know we’re just chitting and chatting, but in order for this kind of statement to be true, you’d have to actually change the meaning of the word “everyone” to be “well, not actually EVERYONE” — which is kind of the opposite of what it actually means. I’m as hyperbolic as anyone you’ve ever met, but once language crosses into “I mean the opposite of what I’m saying,” we probably need better language.
Still, like Jeremy, I’m a little amused that we can reductively paraphrase the thread’s opening gambit as “at least X is RELIABLE crap,” which is inevitably going to spin off discussions of “Reliable or Not: The Debate” AND “Crap or Not: The Debate” for both Premiere Pro and X simultaneously. I’m impressed. LOL
-
[John Rofrano] “I believe she was referring to editing as a profession i.e., those who edit as their job, as apposed to those who edit casually but are really producers or DP’s, etc. I can find my way around After Effects to make a nice title or something but I wouldn’t consider myself a Motion Graphics Designer. It was a statement more about FCP X being easily approachable by those who do not edit for a living more than anything else. Of course, only Lillian can clarify.”
My thoughts as well. For example, I spent nearly two years color grading as my primary occupation before I felt comfortable selling myself as a colorist (as opposed to an editor that’s very good at grading). I’ve since gone back to editing full time and my grading knowledge and skill has atrophied over time so I’m back to being an editor that’s got strong color chops. I’d consider branding myself a colorist at this point in time to be disingenuous.
Maybe being in LA, where specialists abound, influences my POV in this area.
-
[John Rofrano] “Early NLE’s tried to make editing easier by using film strips, bins, scissors and other things that were familiar to editors that were use to working with film. New editors don’t have that frame of reference anymore so continuing to restrict your workflow to using these techniques doesn’t make sense. “
Yet FCP X still has things like the razor blade tool, sprocket holes, film leader, an 18th century looking key icon, etc.,. 😉
Oddly enough, and someone correct me if I’m wrong, but Avid probably has the least amount of ‘archaic’ iconography and it’s typically dogged as being the oldest, least ‘with it’ NLE in everyday use. Besides bins I can think of anything film-centric off the top of my head. I’m sure there are other ones, but I don’t have Avid in front of me.
FWIW I’m pushing 40 and I’ve never cut on film (barely even touched film) so even 20yrs ago the film-centric frame of reference was falling apart, but I don’t think that really matters. What matters is if the interface still effectively communicates the desired information. For example, it’s easy for people to associate ‘razor blade’ with cutting something so giving the tool that allows you to make a virtual cut in your virtual footage a razor blade icon still effectively communicates the function of that tool.
Just like it’s become popular in UI design to have a gear icon to access the settings of a program or filter. Does software have gears? Do computers anymore? No, but the idea of gears being in the ‘guts’ of things so clicking on the gear icon will allow the user to manipulate the ‘guts’ of the program is a seemingly effective design decision.
[John Rofrano] “The new Final Cut is a reimagined workflow focused around telling the story with digital media”
I hate being ‘that guy’ but this is a pet peeve of mine. I know ‘digital’ has been co-opted to mean tapeless and/or card based for acquisition and downloadable and/or streaming for delivery but digital acquisition has been around for 20yrs (and digital delivery for over 30) . Digital 8, DV, DVCPro, DVCAM, Beta SX, HDCAM, etc., on the acquisition front and CDs, LaserDiscs, DVDs, etc., on the consumer delivery front.
With that being said, I don’t see how, in terms of story, a movie shot on film is inherently different than a movie shot digitally.
Reply to this Discussion! Login or Sign Up