FCP 7 vs FCP X: The Bottom Line: I’d like to know what you pros think

[Craig Seeman]

You may as well just read through the entire forum than ask us all to repeat the same things ad nauseum here.

I prefer FCPX to FCP7 although FCPX still needs another couple of rounds of improvements. I have absolutely no reason to use 7. Others are still on 7 waiting to decide on a comparable alternative, usually Premiere (if they find Creative Cloud acceptable) or Avid. Some are looking at Lightworks as it redevelops.

What works for you depends on your needs. I don’t think anyone can answer that for you. You’d need to read use case examples. There’s plenty of those for FCPX in this forum. There’s plenty for Premiere and Avid around the web and in the COW related forums.

To understand FCPX you’d really need to go through one or more of the professional tutorials and read the use case studies. It requires some different thinking as you develop workflows for it.

[Lawrence Richards]

Thanks, Craig,

I did go through as much of the jungle of posts as I could stand and could sense the frustrations of those, like me, who have been working with 7 for a long time. There a lots and lots of specific comments so I’m just looking for a more overall “bottom line” kind of response knowing full well that those feeling will likely change over time.

Thank you!

Larry R.
Florida

[Paul Figgiani]

Larry,

What are the specifics regarding what frustrates you? What do you find easier to do in 7 as opposed to X?

-paul.

[Craig Seeman]

Bottom line for me.
I used Avid from 1990 to 2001, FCP from 2001 to 2011+ and transitioned to FCPX as the features improved. Baring a specific use case where Avid presented an advantage (and it certainly does in some areas), I’m using FCPX exclusively going forward. I don’t see any advantage for me in using FCP7. I can see a few use case scenarios where FCP7 might still have some workflow advantages of FCPX. It doesn’t in my case though.

For me (that’s all I’m speaking for) FCPX has better organizational tools that 7, better at mixed source timelines, faster at searching through shots. I miss round-tripping with Motion and SoundTrackPro but I can wait while I hope Apple works that out (MotionX and Logic X?).

[Mathieu Ghekiere]

I can only say that I had all the same feelings when I first used the program (“ah, but in 7 I could just… and then I just…”) but those almost all dissapeared over time, and with updates from Apple.

You may have some very valid complaints. I also think FCPX needs to mature, and I have a pretty long wish list. But I switched 100 percent to FCPX. As you use the program more and more, you force yourself to do some jobs on it and complete them on it, you find other workflows etc, other ways of doing things.
And yes, in many cases it IS quicker and faster and more fun to use X. (not in all, but in many).

[Craig Seeman]

Or maybe another way to put it, it’s worth the move when its speed and conveniences outweigh its inconveniences and features still under development.

I can’t see going back to 7 even if there were a few things it still does “better” because one has to use the entire NLE and the disadvantages to 7 are too great.

In fact at this point, I’d sooner consider Avid or Premiere rather than going back to FCP7.

[Andy Neil]

As a professional, this is my bottom line:

I’ve added FCPX to the list of NLEs I’m proficient in.

Andy

https://www.timesavertutorials.com

[Chris Harlan]

As everyone has pointed out, a lot of it depends on what you do. I don’t use it currently, because it doesn’t yet meet my needs. I still use FCP 7 (I’m on a project on it right now) but I’ve moved largely to Avid and Premiere.

From my perspective, there is no single answer, though there are two issues to consider with X:

1) Does it meet your needs?

2) Is it the way you want to work?

On one level, I can now actually achieve anything I need to do on X. There was a time that wasn’t true, but that time is gone. However, I still don’t think of X as an efficient choice for me. When I look at my workflow, and what I need to achieve, it just doesn’t live up. It can do it, but not as fast or as well. On the other hand, there are many people here who will testify vehemently that X is a much faster, much stronger option than anything else out there. And the thing is, everybody’s right.

[Bill Davis]

[Chris Harlan] “On one level, I can now actually achieve anything I need to do on X. There was a time that wasn’t true, but that time is gone. However, I still don’t think of X as an efficient choice for me. When I look at my workflow, and what I need to achieve, it just doesn’t live up. It can do it, but not as fast or as well. On the other hand, there are many people here who will testify vehemently that X is a much faster, much stronger option than anything else out there. And the thing is, everybody’s right.”

I think Chris has this central argument exactly right.

The only thing missing from this thread is that one thing that separates the two camps (X is useful, from X is not very useful) tends to be those who desire to keep working the way they have in the past, only faster and more efficiently – verses those who are happy to change to a new way of working because they see that the way our industry is changing, it can be very valuable to learn processes directed at how the industry is changing.

One editor wants to spend an hour getting the color correction 100% perfect . Another wants to get to 80% perfect and if an “auto” function can do that with a click and save them the hour – that’s more valuable.

Many of us say X is fast, but I sometimes think that what’s “fast” about it is that the whole package gives us ways to shave time and effort in so many diverse areas that the whole program feels faster. It’s not how fast it necessarily does this or that editing operation. It’s how the whole new structure of it has forced us to re-evaluate how we approach whole large segments of our workflow – and we come to very strongly feel that the FXP-X approach has driven a lot of unnecessary complexity out of our lives.

I feel like I get much better results and get them much faster overall. I don’t waste as much time and effort as I used to. And it’s not that it’s “operations” are any better than any other NLE – they’re not.

It’s it’s “philosophy of editing” that seems more evolved.

It’s “help as many editors as possible get to “pretty darn good” REALLY fast. And if they want to dive deeper, provide the tools for the careful and small refinement “under the hood” so that only those who want to do precision work have to reveal and learn how to use them.

It’s a philosophy that rewards anyone who gets excited to learn new things. And kinda penalizes anyone who is honestly just trying to leverage everything they already know about how NLEs already work and preserve that knowledge while operating a new one.

The actual editing skills will always remain the same. But you simply have to be ready and willing to re-think “how to edit on an NLE” if you want the benefits that X’s engineering team built into the new program.

My 2 cents anyway.

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.

[Lawrence Richards]

Thank you, All for your input

Thank you!

Larry R.
Florida