-
Does anyone think FCPX is NOT a Professional NLE?
-
Apple.com/finalcutpro is still the website, and has been for a decade.
You have to open the AppStore to look at all the wonderful software offerings.
On the home page of the AppStore you will find Final Cut Pro as a top paid app. From there, you can get to the website.
And if you add Final Cut Pro to the google machine, well, you get there even more quickly.
The point is, Apple has talked about it. The workflow for Focus and the team that brought it together has been around, and it still talking about it. And as far as it not being front and center on Apple.com, well big deal. You can find FCPX quickly if you use a search engine.
How long does it take you to find Gone Girl by going to Adobe.com?
-
[Oliver Peters] “I completely get that. But then no one should be surprised if Apple is not viewed as a professional player.”
IMHO Im the only one that cares if it is.
If I have to convince others its their loss. -
[Shane Ross] “That’s what they did with FCP 7, and they found that yes, it worked for us, but it required a lot of twisting to make it work for the rest of the editors…the majority”
In fairness, a number of the missing items that were in FCP “classic” required licensing outside IP. Apple opted not to do that again.
[Shane Ross] “Is it CLIENTS that are balking at hiring people because they use FCX?”
In some cases yes, especially if they require project compatibility with their own workflows.
– Oliver
Oliver Peters Post Production Services, LLC
Orlando, FL
http://www.oliverpeters.com -
[Shane Ross] “I do know that in order for that to work, they needed TONS of on-site help and arm twisting”
I’m not exactly sure what you mean by on-site help. Folks like Sam Mestman helped, but the operation was largely run in-house thanks to savvy assistants like Mike Matdorff. Unless you know something no one else does, there wasn’t really any on-site help from Apple. I should point out that I was doing an indie film at the exact same point in time with no large budget or support, cutting on 10.0.9. A few rough spots for sure, but nothing insurmountable, nor anything requiring any more than a few e-mails to others who’d gone through the path before.
[Shane Ross] “Just like FCP 3 needed for COLD MOUNTAIN.”
As has been stated often, “CM” got help and training from DigitalFilm Tree at the start, but much of the edit occurred in Romania without a technical support staff. Certainly no direct on-site help from Apple.
– Oliver
Oliver Peters Post Production Services, LLC
Orlando, FL
http://www.oliverpeters.com -
[Bill Davis] “And just like they needed on Gone Girl? IIRC, they had lots of Adobe help plus guys like Phil and Greg helping them make THAT work properly. “
I think that’s a bit of a different situation. Part of the support these large projects need is to optimize the set-up for a shared environment. In “GG” a lot of this fell on Open Drives in conjunction with Adobe to fine-tune the SAN performance and improve response with large projects and Premiere Pro. Adobe also uses this as a learning experience for them to suss out ways to improve the product.
This is an area that Avid has down to a science and why, when a lot is on the line with a large project, most experienced film/TV editors will pick Media Composer + Isis. For better or worse, it’s the known and reliable workhorse.
– Oliver
Oliver Peters Post Production Services, LLC
Orlando, FL
http://www.oliverpeters.com -
[Steve Connor] “Did Apple ever advertise FCP in the Broadcast & Film trade magazines?”
Yes for “classic”, no for FCPX. And they had a large booth for several years at NAB, IBC and other trade shows. Apple no longer does this, since they get a lot of attention naturally through anything they do. Why pay for it in ads? They do however maintain contact with the industry press, just not as publicly anymore.
– Oliver
Oliver Peters Post Production Services, LLC
Orlando, FL
http://www.oliverpeters.com -
[Tim Wilson] “But there can also be the distressing, typically passive-aggressively stated contention that people who have issues, including showstopping issues with X either “don’t get it” or haven’t used it — as if it’s impossible for a cool-headed professional who HAS tried it and DOES get it might possibly say “Not for me.””
But Tim, that’s not been an argument I’ve EVER read here. I can’t recall anyone posting the equivalent of “if you honestly gave it a fair trial and don’t find it appropriate for your workflow – you’re still a fool for not liking it.”
What caused the most push-back was posts alleging it was crappy at something – made by folks who had never gone farther than reading about it or maybe kicking it’s tires.
IF it’s true that X was designed to work differently than other NLEs – and IF a critic NEVER took the time to understand those differences – THEN I think it’s fair to view their criticism as suspect.
No, an editor does not need to be an expert in something in order to criticize it. I’m fine with that. But that’s very different than the few guys who constantly came here (and still do) saying it’s total crap – who never ever have cut and delivered a single program on it.
I simply think that’s both fair and appropriate to point that out.
Just last week, DSW spent multiple posts here arguing that X is somehow deeply lame at audio handling. Then other guys stepped in and indicated that they have absolutely NO trouble cutting audio on it at a professional level.
So what’s the truth? Is X crap with audio? Or is it fine with audio except for those who can’t or don’t want to make it work? And if I have the temerity to write a sentence like that – is that me arguing that I think that those editors are stupid as some here would imply? Or is it actually just objective truth. Folks demonstrably cut pro audio with it – so it can cut pro audio just fine. Period.
For the record, as surprising as this might be to some I never felt Apple had created the PERFECT editing application in FCP X. I did and still do feel that they created a fascinating and extremely useful one that can be of great benefit to legions of people who need to edit video at a professional level – particularly as the digital era evolves and so many non-traditional workflows become ever more popular.
Others can disagree.
But if this thread exposes nothing else, it tells us that there is still a significant disconnect between what the market THINKS X is – verses what it ACTUALLY is.
And I believe that keeping the information here ACCURATE is in the forums best interests.
Opinion? Fine. Fire away. Arguing that it can’t do stuff that it actually can do? Like be a part of a professional video with audio workflow that’s every bit as valid as any other?
Nope. Not acceptable to my mind. Not when folks are out there creating programs with it that end up on movie and TV screens just like all the other NLEs.
All that said, thanks for continuing to give us a place to argue this stuff. It’s still such fun to play here!
Know someone who teaches video editing in elementary school, high school or college? Tell them to check out http://www.StartEditingNow.com – video editing curriculum complete with licensed practice content.
-
All of the NLEs discussed here are professional. Some of the lesser discussed ones like Vegas, Edius & Lightworks are too.
They are all aimed at certain segments of the market and have strengths & weaknesses depending on the type of job, the level of collaboration and perceived ‘standards’.
And of course there is personal preference and what works for an individual. Thank goodness there is choice and rabid fans of all systems so we can have robust discussions around those strengths and weaknesses.
-
[Bill Davis] “Just last week, DSW spent multiple posts here arguing that X is somehow deeply lame at audio handling. Then other guys stepped in and indicated that they have absolutely NO trouble cutting audio on it at a professional level.
So what’s the truth? Is X crap with audio? Or is it fine with audio except for those who can’t or don’t want to make it work? And if I have the temerity to write a sentence like that – is that me arguing that I think that those editors are stupid as some here would imply? Or is it actually just objective truth. Folks demonstrably cut pro audio with it – so it can cut pro audio just fine. Period.”
Jeeze, how many times are you going to dig yourself into the same hole Bill? Please see my earlier response to your similar overblown and patently false statement you made prior:
[Bill Davis] “Allegations like someone saying that you can’t cut professional soundtracks because it’s somehow “crippled” relative to other NLEs”, that too is a a complete mischaracterization of that conversation. While I admit to absolutely hating the entire magnetic timeline both in concept and in practice, I never said it was crippled, never said it prevented anyone from getting their work out the door. In fact below is my summary on the topic:
[David Roth Weiss] “I would have to say in summary that, currently Adobe’s implementation is in fact the better and more accurate approach to sub-frame audio editing that better emulates the sub-frame editing capabilities of a DAW. This doesn’t mean that FCP X is for amateurs, or that editors using X can’t produce excellent work, including audio editing and mixing inside FCP X, only that in a fair comparison of both apps, at this point Adobe has the more advanced implementation of audio editing. To be fair, it’s also more expensive… But, also to be fair, with that added expense, the user also gets access to an even better audio editor (Audition), and the entire suite of additional apps as well.”
Does that really sound close to: “X is somehow deeply lame at audio handling?” What’s lame are your feeble attempts to win the debate by fabricating complete BS to defend yourself when your best arguments don’t hold water.
Oh, and BTW, at the risk of being redundant, in that same post I also wrote: “In addition, as a journalist by trade, when I make a mistake or quote someone else who made a mistake, I print a retraction, because I own my words once they go to print. That’s not something you typically do Bill, and if you’d like I’ll point that out in spades, but I have every confidence that I won’t need to, because though this post is clearly deserving of a Bill Davis retraction, I won’t be holding my breath.”
David Roth Weiss
Director/Editor/Colorist & Workflow Consultant
David Weiss Productions
Los AngelesDavid is a Creative COW contributing editor and a forum host of the Apple Final Cut Pro forum.
-
[Bill Davis] “But Tim, that’s not been an argument I’ve EVER read here. I can’t recall anyone posting the equivalent of “if you honestly gave it a fair trial and don’t find it appropriate for your workflow – you’re still a fool for not liking it.”
“Opps!!! The quote above is just more fabricated BS… Or, if it’s perhaps senility setting in, then I do sincerely apologize.
Does the following statement sound even remotely familiar, or even close to the “equivalent” you now deny no one “EVER” wrote?
[David Roth Weiss] “And, just as one does not have to jump off a cliff to know it’s not right for them, no experienced editor has to become fully proficient with an app to know its not a good fit for there needs. I made the decision after just three edits… I later went back and cut a project with X, and arrived at the same conclusion. Does that make me somehow deficient?”
David Roth Weiss
Director/Editor/Colorist & Workflow Consultant
David Weiss Productions
Los AngelesDavid is a Creative COW contributing editor and a forum host of the Apple Final Cut Pro forum.
Reply to this Discussion! Login or Sign Up