Excellent blog on FCP X workflow shortcomings

[Brett Sherman]

I don’t think you’ll find any disagreement here that Apple needs to fix things. But, let the perfect NLE throw the first stone. 🙂

[Craig Seeman]

And if you want a big list of wants, try this one.
https://fcpx.tv/top.html

[Andy Field]

That is quite a list…seriously how are X users getting what they want accomplished with all that missing ?

[Craig Seeman]

That such lists exist as Taylor’s and Peter’s are a testament to the brevity of the what needs to be done for FCPX.

An equivalent tome for Premiere Pro would be the length of the Upanishads and for Avid it would be as ancient.

😉

[Bill Davis]

[Andy Field] “That is quite a list…seriously how are X users getting what they want accomplished with all that missing ?”

Go back and read Oliver’s piece again. This time, count the times he uses a form of “I prefer” when pointing out an FCP-X “lack.”

I respect Olivers’ opinions a lot – but you have to understand where he’s coming from. From what I’ve read, he works with clients and with systems centered largely around collaborative workflows in large facilities.

And everyone already understands that the initial FCP-X design didn’t put that rarified class of editors at the top of their priority list.

You’d also be missing out if you don’t see how a growing list of editors who chose NOT to fight how X has changed things starting to see big gains in production efficiency using the X model provided that their workflows accommodate what it does so brilliantly.

Honestly, look at the top “subheads” that Oliver concentrated on. ..

DVD creation? Really. This is the top of the heap? I completely understand that many people REQUIRE DVD creation for clients or just for their comfort zone. But honestly, if you’re still okay with carving out a couple of hours to burn your work onto plastic – good luck with that.

Batch Export? Not broadly defined batch export ala Automator, but a specific batch export of source clips as “dailies” – Again Olivers words… “this is a throwback to film workflows and is most often the case with RED and ALEXA production.

What this actually tells us again is that it’s not as easy to duplicate old workflows in X that people used in Legacy. And I have absolutely no quibble with that contention. He’s completely correct. It IS harder to re-create older workflows. Why? Because X does not “think” in terms of old workflows. It presents opportunities for NEW ones. The new ones are more tailored to new needs – and less tailored to older workflow needs. Which has been the FCP-X “brand” from day one.

Timecode and Reel IDS.
(Just cut and paste the above comment here.)

Log and Transfer.
Again, Oliver is refreshingly and totally up front. “I just don’t like the way it does it.” Not that it can’t. Just that he prefers a different process. Which is cool. If X gets as score of 50 on a process, and another NLE gets a score of 80 – AND if that process is where you live or die, then you should consider using the other software. Oliver’s basic criticism seems to be about “embedding name and ID changes into the media file, but rather into it’s own database.” Well, that’s kinda defines the entire POINT of the X workflow. Everything hovers around and relates to the database. Do you lose some capabilities with this approach? Sure. But you gain so vastly many more possibilities that the idea that I’d give up what X does so well – in favor of the things it doesn’t seems to me to miss the whole point of the X rebuild. Which just to remind everyone was NOT to keep doing things the same way in an industry that increasingly does NOT look the same as it used to.

I could go on, but why bother. Look through Olivers excellent post and count up the “I prefers” and the “for me”‘s. This is solid writing differentiating things that fall into opinion rather than fact. That’s good writing. It separates the two concepts. To the extent a reader fits Oliver’s type of editing perspective, the opinions will carry weight. But to the extent any readers day to day editing experience DIFFERS from Oliver’s type of editing, – then those same opinions should carry LESS weight.

X is a change. It’s for editors who want to change. For editors who come to see benefits in new approaches. It’s much, MUCH less a solution for editors who want to keep doing with they’re already doing the same way they’re already doing it. We’ve all known that for two years now.

Essentially, I always very much enjoy reading Olivers perspectives, but as with all writers it helps to understand more than just the “surface” thoughts – context matters.

Oliver is doing excellent comparative analysis for a class of editors who absolutely MUST keep one foot firmly planted in existing and even historical workflows – while also moving forward.

He undersands X really well, but he understands it (as do ALL of us) in the context of his practice and requirements.

He solves problems in this article by seeing where X is “half empty” for a particular class of editors – and his writing is very valuable for that perspective. And in this article, as clearly noted, he’s ignoring most anything on the other side of the ledger.

Just understand that when you read something like this, you make a HUGE mistake if you think it’s the “whole story.” Because it’s not.

Honestly, the class of editors Oliver is addressing is NOT the largest nor the fastest growing body of editing practitioners. If it was, AVID would be financially healthy and Premier wouldn’t be having any issues with Creative Cloud, since virtually no “big shop” situation would see monthly licensing as anything but a line item stuck down near their monthly craft services bill.

This is the latest in a kinda long string of posts from you, Andy, where you seem to be trying to “knock down” the X approach in favor of Premier.

I’d be curious as to why?

Did X piss you off somehow? Do you own a lot of stock in Adobe?

Honestly, I just don’t get it.

I know I spend ZERO time in the “Premier or Not” forum telling everyone that X is GREAT at this or that – or writing about what Premier does that’s WORSE than the way X does the same thing.

But maybe that would be worth my time.

I’ll think about that.

Fair being fair and all.

; )

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.

[Oliver Peters]

Thanks for the kind words. Bill, I know we frequently have a different take on X, but your general POV on my post isn’t far off.

Just to clarify, most of my work is within smaller facilities (2-4 editors). There are collaborative needs, though usually in the form of accessing older projects – or passing along your project to someone else in the chain. I also do many projects where I’m the editing/conforming part of a larger chain, with someone else mixing and/or grading.

My intent was not with the mindset of “look how bad X is”. Rather, I was trying to point out areas where FCP7/FCS continues to be a good toolkit and why. Less a “better than” and more and “also used”.

– Oliver

Oliver Peters Post Production Services, LLC
Orlando, FL
http://www.oliverpeters.com

[Dan Stewart]

YOU JUST DON’T WANT TO CHANGE OLIVER

Take a look at yourself.

[Andy Field]

Bill, as you are an avid reader of my posts, you’ll certainly know that I have used X…and desperately want it to be more useful for the small edit world I live in that isn’t relevant to your work. My last line was – “come on Apple, fix this” so we can get rid of the “or not” part of this forum. Does that sound like a basher? I want to be able to do the work ..and have to do the kind of work that Oliver outlined he can’t do efficiently (or at all) with just X.

Andy Field
FieldVision Productions
N. Bethesda, Maryland 20852

[Andy Field]

Not be contrary, but there’s more than 100 items on that list…have they fixed most of them?

Andy Field
FieldVision Productions
N. Bethesda, Maryland 20852

[Mark Dobson]

[Oliver Peters] “My intent was not with the mindset of “look how bad X is”. Rather, I was trying to point out areas where FCP7/FCS continues to be a good toolkit and why. Less a “better than” and more and “also used”.”

I really don’t have a problem with having to use components of Final Cut Studio to tie in with my work with FCPX. It was always part of the FCPX design philosophy that external programmes would compliment the the core FCPX editing functions.

And the range of support software for FCPX is pretty impressive now.

I still use Final Cut Studio for importing files and I still use DVD Studio Pro to create DVD’s with complex menu structures. Having said that the majority of the work we produce is now delivered electronically, a quick click and it’s gone.

The problem will occur in a few years time, when Mavericks is a distant memory and Final Cut Studio is no longer supported, but I might have retired by then and be living by a loch on the West Coast of Scotland or maybe somewhere warmer.