-
FCP X Explained…
-
[Bill Davis] “So if you weren’t here for the first few years, my advice is to ignore the tone and look for the actual arguments lurking beneath. “
I’ve been reading this forum since day one. I’m well aware of the early days of FCPX and the vitriol and silly arguments that were hashed out here. This forum is my guilty pleasure, in a way. It’s like politics, but safer. LOL.
I also know how people’s tone online can be misconstrued and how to read past it and look at the arguments. I try to do that, but even if I ignore the tone I seem to read into Robin’s posts, I still find the arguments trite, overly semantic, condescending and dismissive. And I don’t think I’m alone in this. But maybe I am, and if so – I apologize.
[Bill Davis] “So don’t be surprised if we occasionally jump. “
Maybe take a deep breath and realize it’s just an NLE, and one with many, many flaws? Like all of them. If you really want to introduce people to the wonders and joys of FCPX, you can’t be afraid to recognize where it’s inadequate and needs improvement. Go hang out on the official Avid forums for a week. You’ll see pretty quickly how people can both love and loathe their software in the interest of making it better.
—————-
Michael Hancock
Editor -
[Michael Hancock] “Maybe take a deep breath and realize it’s just an NLE, and one with many, many flaws? Like all of them. If you really want to introduce people to the wonders and joys of FCPX, you can’t be afraid to recognize where it’s inadequate and needs improvement. Go hang out on the official Avid forums for a week. You’ll see pretty quickly how people can both love and loathe their software in the interest of making it better.”
Okay,
Let’s examine your premise.
You argue that there are “many many flaws” in X.
I argue that after nearly 200 delivered programs with it personally, I haven’t experienced a single program construction flaw to the extent I couldn’t complete and deliver my jobs with speed and success. So I’d suggest what you are seeing as “flaws” are perhaps really just minor assaults on traditional expectations and minor inconveniences that can safely be ignored in most use cases. Not saying it’s optimal for everyone, only that it’s unique strengths can often trump it’s weaknesses quite handily for those who learn it well.As to our need to advocate to “make it better” – Apple is already doing that. I say that with confidence as someone who got to see the NDA presentations at NAB. They regularly listen. I’ve seen them videotaping editor surveys at NAB and other professional venues. They also tend to go well beyond “just listening” with an eye to real innovation – something I think that will become clear very soon.
So for me, we’re down to three interesting questions. One, whether the gigs I’m having such success with are significantly different from a “typical” one. Two, whether other editors having trouble with X are farther from the modern norm and don’t need or want the tools it offers and THATS why they perhaps find it lacking.
Or whether there is no “typical” gig any more – only unique challenges where the toolset needs to have a particularly broad capability to benefit the largest number of editors who might want to deploy it.
I’ve contended for a long time that the editors most likely to dismiss X’s capabilities are those who bring hardened workflow expectations to X – and keep seeing it in terms of what they have “lost” – as opposed to what they have gained.
But feel free to list its flaws from your perspective. And let’s examine them from the view of what “most” editors are likely to require.
BTW, just for discussions sake, on another board earlier today an industry insider in a good position to know – opined about 2.2 million active X seats worldwide, a bit less than 3 times MORE than it’s nearest NLE competitor. He also pointed out that the Bureau of Labor Stastics only lists about 25,000 full time professional editors in the US labor pool and noted that the vast majority of those folks are still cutting on AVID systems.
That “might” indicate X is actually doing really well in open global competition despite the nature of the discussion here.
IF that’s true, The X approach is actually succeeding handily. So make your case as to what those “flaws” in that approach might be.
If those stats are flawed (and feel free to post better if you can find them) we can discuss what it lacks, compared to what you, me, or the industry in general needs going forward.
It’ll be fun.
FWIW
Creator of XinTwo – https://www.xintwo.com
The shortest path to FCP X mastery. -
[Michael Hancock] “I also know how people’s tone online can be misconstrued and how to read past it and look at the arguments. I try to do that, but even if I ignore the tone I seem to read into Robin’s posts, I still find the arguments trite, overly semantic, condescending and dismissive. And I don’t think I’m alone in this. But maybe I am, and if so – I apologize.
“Don’t apologise, you are not alone in this, the tone of some people’s comments run contrary to the spirit of the COW.
-
[Bill Davis] “So if you weren’t here for the first few years, my advice is to ignore the tone and look for the actual arguments lurking beneath.
“No! the “tone” is what makes the COW such a great place to visit.
-
[Bill Davis] “BTW, just for discussions sake, on another board earlier today an industry insider in a good position to know – opined about 2.2 million active X seats worldwide, a bit less than 3 times MORE than it’s nearest NLE competitor. He also pointed out that the Bureau of Labor Stastics only lists about 25,000 full time professional editors in the US labor pool and noted that the vast majority of those folks are still cutting on AVID systems.
That “might” indicate X is actually doing really well in open global competition despite the nature of the discussion here.
IF that’s true, The X approach is actually succeeding handily. So make your case as to what those “flaws” in that approach might be.
“I’d agree with this, I’ve seen a lot of Cameramen and Directors start editing using FCPX, quite a few clients of mine have started using it as well so I think it has successfully opened up a number of new markets outside of the the traditional “Editor” crowd.
[Bill Davis] “They also tend to go well beyond “just listening” with an eye to real innovation – something I think that will become clear very soon. “
Hope it’s VERY soon!
-
[Bill Davis] “I argue that after nearly 200 delivered programs with it personally, I haven’t experienced a single program construction flaw to the extent I couldn’t complete and deliver my jobs with speed and success”
(Authors warning: the following is offered as an observation, not a criticism.)
This statement is key to a difference in personality more than anything else. I too have delivered a lot of programs, in my case with many different NLEs, and there wasn’t one that stopped me from completing and delivering my jobs with speed and success, and yet I have in the past, and continue to, vigorously complain about each and every one. In my view they all “could have” done the job a little better, made my life a little easier, offered a better work experience, and as someone once told me in a different context “if you don’t ask, you don’t get.”
In both this forum and the Adobe forum and on their web site I am always pissing and moaning about all those pesky little ways where Ppro doesn’t line up perfectly with my workflow and then to come here and watch you in your love fest with FCPX, in your inability to hear the slightest complaint, even from those who use and champion the software, without a quick denunciation, leaves me somewhere between awe and frustration.
Unconditional love is a wonderful thing with children and pets, I’m not sure it’s so good elsewhere, but we are who we are and I will say that you, Bill, are one of the reasons I come here, if only to pull at your tail.
Herb Sevush
Zebra Productions
—————————
nothin\’ attached to nothin\’
\”Deciding the spine is the process of editing\” F. Bieberkopf -
[Bill Davis] “You argue that there are “many many flaws” in X.
I argue that after nearly 200 delivered programs with it personally, I haven’t experienced a single program construction flaw to the extent I couldn’t complete and deliver my jobs with speed and success. So I’d suggest what you are seeing as “flaws” are perhaps really just minor assaults on traditional expectations and minor inconveniences that can safely be ignored in most use cases.”I will admit, flaws is probably not the right word to use, because it implies a bug in the program. I haven’t run into any show stopping bugs in FCPX (or Premiere or Avid, if we’re being fair), so it’s poor word choice on my part. I’m talking more about weaknesses/limitations in the program that cause a noticeable drop in efficiency for me.
For example, these shortcomings affect me on a regular basis:
– The lack of true background rendering/transcoding/export in FCPX
– The inability to read .mts files natively without rewrapping (and other codecs the program doesn’t natively support)
– The inability to flatten multicam edits or apply stabilization to them
– Lack of multiple timecode displays
– Lack of keyboard control when working with connected clips and secondary storylines
– Inability to mix proxy and original/optimized media in an edit
– Poor relinking
– Lack of layout customization
– No CDL or custom LUT support (without a third party program – I want batch, source side custom LUT/CDL application)
– No ability to apply roles in the event, after an edit has started, and update a sequence with the new roles
– Lack of roles based audio effects (to act like a track based effect in other NLEs)
– Sync indicators when detaching audioThat’s a short list. As you can imagine, my full list is pretty long. You may consider these ‘minor inconveniences that can safely be ignored” – I consider them “flaws” or weaknesses in the program that I’d like to see addressed by Apple. A lack of Feature X doesn’t mean I can’t get my work done. It just means it’s going to take longer, when it doesn’t have to.
And to be clear, I’m not saying that my list of feature requests means the program is unusable. That’s never been my argument because it’s not true. As you said – you’ve delivered 200+ programs with it. I’ve also delivered lots of projects with it and haven’t missed a deadline, but I’ve also delivered projects just as quickly and effectively using Premiere, Avid, and Resolve (which was more of an experiment, but it worked). I just see areas where FCPX is deficient, and I want that improved.
Perhaps it’s my use of multiple NLEs that makes me more sensitive to this stuff. No matter which program I’m using, I end up wishing I had feature A from NLE X, or feature B from NLE Y. When I’m in FCPX I want Avid’s level of trimming, timecode displays, true subclips, and bin/timeline/program custom layouts. When I’m in Avid or Premiere I want the keywords, favorites, skimmer, and smart collections from FCPX (smart collections need to be in every NLE – they are, in my opinion, the most valuable thing Apple has brought to NLE design). When I’m in Avid I want Premiere’s superior keyboard control in my bins and timeline (Premiere has by far the most advanced keyboard control of any NLE I’ve used). Everything is a tradeoff, but that’s not going to stop me from expecting each NLE to look at the competition, see where they’re deficient, and improve. And I’ll continue to badger each company to implement the features I want to improve my editing experience. That’s why they have feature request pages. ?
[Bill Davis] “As to our need to advocate to “make it better” – Apple is already doing that. I say that with confidence as someone who got to see the NDA presentations at NAB. They regularly listen. I’ve seen them videotaping editor surveys at NAB and other professional venues. They also tend to go well beyond “just listening” with an eye to real innovation – something I think that will become clear very soon. “
It can’t be soon enough. I’ve seen Premiere, Resolve, and even Avid update and improve their programs more than Apple has in the last year and half, so my expectations for Apple are incredibly high. I just hope it’s not another 3D text style update with lots of flash but very little substance (for the type of work I do).
[Bill Davis] “I’ve contended for a long time that the editors most likely to dismiss X’s capabilities are those who bring hardened workflow expectations to X – and keep seeing it in terms of what they have “lost” – as opposed to what they have gained.
“How about, I know what I’ve gained and know what I’ve lost, and I want what I’ve lost to be added back in? I don’t agree that everything Apple has done that’s been an improvement makes up for what they’re missing. That’s an odd argument to make. If Ford released a car that got 300 miles per gallon but didn’t have a seats, should we not ask for seats? Why not have great mileage and seats?
I send Apple feedback constantly. I hope you do too. And if you do, what types of things are you requesting? I’d be interested to know where you think FCPX needs improvement, and I’d be happy to submit feature requests for the same thing. Squeaky wheel and all.
[Bill Davis] “But feel free to list its flaws from your perspective. And let’s examine them from the view of what “most” editors are likely to require.”
See above for a short list of things. See this thread for more: https://forums.creativecow.net/thread/335/84031
But I don’t understand why my list should have anything to do with what “most” editors are likely to require. If most editors require tracks, would you want Apple to add them back in?
My list is for me – I’m the one using the program, so I’ll list what I want in the program. You also use the program so you make a list of what you want. If our lists converge, that’s great. If they don’t, maybe I should look at your list and ask if there’s stuff on it that I haven’t considered. I would probably find things I would like but I had never thought about – so I’ll submit feedback for them. And you would probably find things on my list that you never thought about but would save you lots of time. You could submit feedback. I learn more from people’s list of feature requests than hearing about how great an NLE is by rehashing what it can already do. Tell me what it can’t do but should – that’s the exciting stuff.
—————-
Michael Hancock
Editor -
[Michael Hancock] “This forum is my guilty pleasure, in a way. “
Mine too. FCP X isn’t even an option for me because we’re PC-based, but I like to read this forum because:
- I like to keep up on what’s going on in the world of editing.
- It’s damn entertaining sometimes!
-
[Matthew Ross] “[Michael Hancock] “This forum is my guilty pleasure, in a way. ”
Mine too. FCP X isn’t even an option for me because we’re PC-based, but I like to read this forum because:
I like to keep up on what’s going on in the world of editing. It’s damn entertaining sometimes!”Same here, I come for the smart commentary on workflows, tools and state of the art stuff… but the food fights are kind of fun too, when they’re not personal and mean spirited. ?
Shawn
-
I’d just like to say, that was a terrifically good post.
Thank you.
Simon Ubsdell
tokyo productions
hawaiki
Reply to this Discussion! Login or Sign Up