-
FCP X Six Months Later – Blog Post
-
Fair point, CS6 must have a better multicam if they are serious about the broadcast market. What they have works well, I used it a couple of weeks ago on a quick conference edit, but the 4 camera limit is ridiculous.
“My Name is Steve and I’m an FCPX user”
-
[Herb Sevush] “Jeremy – respectfully I would like to say that there is often as big a danger from learning the wrong lessons from history as from ignoring the past all together.
Comparing FCP v.1 to FCPX is often totally irrelevant.”
People keep saying this, and respectfully I disagree. It’s not irrelevant.
This is entirely new code. I don’t care if it’s still named final cut, it is all brand new. A new model year with all new parts, new door panels, new dashboard. None of those karts are compatible with its predecessor.
Using another silly car analogy, the 1990 Thunderbird and the 2009 Thunderbird are completely different, yet share the same name. Same goes for this software. It has started over and been not only rewritten, but redesigned. I am not ignoring the past.
It is has been mentioned that Apple is a technology company and they act like it. That has not changed. Sure, they could have left a better upgrade path, but they didn’t so here we are. I think that NOT calling FCP X v1 software is disingenuous, but that’s me. In two years, none of this will matter anymore.
[Herb Sevush] “Which is one of the many reasons why Smoke was never considered an editor, it was a finishing tool with editing capabilities. Not too many films cut totally on a Smoke.”
Here we are back to films. Do you think that if you added up all of the editing in the world, that films account for most of it? There are/were plenty of projects that are cut entirely on Smoke, sure it might not be film, but TV/spots certainly. The point of that was to illustrate that learning a new interface is part of the gig.
[Herb Sevush] “With the added frustration of knowing that the ideal program for them was FCP 8. If there was a better editing solution for my workflow I would have quit FCP before this. For all it’s faults, the FCP feature set was the closest match to the way I preferred to work. All of my other options, at least at this point, require more compromises than I would like.”
There is no fcp8, and maybe there never could have been. No one believes or wants to believe that. It was time to start over. Again, there’s no fcp8, why lament over it? And by the way, have you looked at PPro CS 5.5? It’s the closest you’re going to get to fcp8 with many enhancements. Be sure to use the FCP keyboard shortcuts, it’s pretty easy, despite a few interface differences.
As far as FCP working the way you prefer to work, people have said that about interfaces for years. M100 users said that forever. Maybe it is, but if all of these paradigms and whatever’s are so similar to each other, you should have no problem picking up another NLE, right? That’s kind of a half joke.
Yes, moving to a new system is going to be hard. In our office, I’m sure I will be the one that gets asked all the “how do I do this?” questions. It will be for the best, no matter what NLE packages we end up with. That, I believe. FCP as we know it is certainly EOL.
Jeremy
-
[Walter Soyka] “The second — and the one that I think Jeremy is espousing here — is that FCP v1 truly wasn’t fit for production, but that Apple developed it into a worthy contender over time.”
I’m not disagreeing with this interpretation for what happened then, I’m disputing it’s relevance to what is happening now.
[Walter Soyka] “Jeremy’s right to suggest we shouldn’t pass permanent judgment on FCPX based solely on its first six months, or even its first year. If Apple gives editors enough compelling reasons to use FCPX, then I think FCPX could creep back into the industry over time the same way that FCP Classic did.
The problem is that Apple themselves have also given us many compelling reasons not to use FCPX.
“FCP 1 had a clear and revolutionary advantage – price. FCPX “might” have a subtle advantage – speed in organizing data. This difference plus the difference of Apple then as a computer company vs Apple now as a consumer electronics company plus the “many compelling reasons not to use FCPX” makes me think the comparison between then and now is somewhat moot.
Herb Sevush
Zebra Productions
—————————
nothin’ attached to nothin’
“Deciding the spine is the process of editing” F. Bieberkopf -
[Jeremy Garchow] “Comparing FCP v.1 to FCPX is often totally irrelevant.”
People keep saying this, and respectfully I disagree. It’s not irrelevant. “
My answer to this is in my response to Walter’s post:
https://forums.creativecow.net/readpost/335/23389
Yes X is version 1 software just like FCP 1, with all that entails, but the changes in the market and in Apple make the comparison beside the point.
[Jeremy Garchow] “There are/were plenty of projects that are cut entirely on Smoke, sure it might not be film, but TV/spots certainly. The point of that was to illustrate that learning a new interface is part of the gig. “
No, the point you were trying to make is that a single viewer approach to editing isn’t so weird. The problem is you had to go to an application not generally considered an editor to make it. Yes, people cut spots on a Smoke all the time, that’s what it’s built for, but it would be a chore to cut anything longer on it.
[Jeremy Garchow] “There is no fcp8, and maybe there never could have been. No one believes or wants to believe that.”
Because it’s an illogical statement.
[Jeremy Garchow] ” It was time to start over. Again, there’s no fcp8, why lament over it?”
I lament many things that never were but should have been; it’s what lamentation is good for.
[Jeremy Garchow] “And by the way, have you looked at PPro CS 5.5? It’s the closest you’re going to get to fcp8 with many enhancements. Be sure to use the FCP keyboard shortcuts, it’s pretty easy, despite a few interface differences. “
I’ve used PPro over the years and I’m acitvely considering it now. Again, if I liked it better I would have switched before. Also, I never remap a new ap to old keyboard shortcuts. When it’s time to chnage; change. It’s like asking a new girl to dress like your ex-wife – it doesn’t work in the long run. (that’s a movie reference – Vertigo.)
[Jeremy Garchow] ” It will be for the best, no matter what NLE packages we end up with. That, I believe. FCP as we know it is certainly EOL. “
In this, the best of all possible worlds, yes it will be for the best.
Now I will go back and cry in my beer.
Herb Sevush
Zebra Productions
—————————
nothin’ attached to nothin’
“Deciding the spine is the process of editing” F. Bieberkopf -
[Walter Soyka] “The second — and the one that I think Jeremy is espousing here — is that FCP v1 truly wasn’t fit for production, but that Apple developed it into a worthy contender over time.”
[Herb Sevush] “I’m not disagreeing with this interpretation for what happened then, I’m disputing it’s relevance to what is happening now.”
Do you think it’s impossible that FCPX would ever be developed to the point where it’d be usable?
Once Apple adds multicam and broadcast monitoring with the next release, what more would you need?
If they can fix their situation with third-party developers, that will open all kinds of doors for FCPX, too.
I think interchange will always be an issue (because the FCPX timeline’s structure requires more data than is available from a traditional timeline’s structure), but better third-party support could enable new workflows, or even direct finishing in FCPX.
[Herb Sevush] “FCP 1 had a clear and revolutionary advantage – price. FCPX “might” have a subtle advantage – speed in organizing data.”
While they are not entirely new, I don’t think the organizational and speed advantages that FCPX offers are that subtle for the right projects.
I think that with FCPX, Apple is bringing asset management to the masses — exactly the same way they brought color correction to the masses by bundling Color. Many people never even launched it (or quit it immediately after being confronted with the un-Apple interface), but some who would never have bought Final Touch for $25,000 suddenly had a very powerful new tool available to them.
If I were posting a documentary today, for example, I’d have to think long and hard about FCPX. X27 might make FCPX into a very nice offline editor. It’d be a workflow worth testing, because I do think that the organizational tools might be worth the convoluted finishing workflow.
[Herb Sevush] “This difference plus the difference of Apple then as a computer company vs Apple now as a consumer electronics company plus the “many compelling reasons not to use FCPX” makes me think the comparison between then and now is somewhat moot.”
Why should a computer company be any better at producing an NLE than a consumer electronics company? It’s pretty far outside the traditional reach of either one.
For me, the significant difference between then and now is the 2 million Final Cut licenses Apple claimed at the SuperMeet. I’d put “no upgrade path” or even “abandonment” on my list of compelling reasons not to use FCPX. Personally, I’m concerned that Apple isn’t interested in me or my needs anymore, so I’m evaluating my other options. Many others are doing the same.
I don’t think anyone will be confiscating my hater/whiner/Luddite card any time soon, but I do think it’d be foolish to count FCPX out now — and isn’t that the main point behind the FCPv1/FCPX comparison?
I think Oliver Peters nailed it [link]:
I do believe I’m starting to see a divide in where the NLEs are going based on a lot of things I’ve seen posted here and in other places over the past 6 months. I think that in general, film editors, broadcast TV stations and post facilities will likely trend back to either Avid or maybe over to Premiere Pro. I think companies with in-house “creative” post operations (like ad agencies, media marketing companies – the sort of model typified by @Radical Media) may very well trend over to FCP X.
I realize a number of folks here have posted about cutting docs and TV shows on FCP X, but I really believe that’s an extreme exception for this kind of work. There may be some producer/director/shooter-types doing it, but I simply can’t envision too many experienced editors working in these genres adopting FCP X for this type of work. There’s just too much missing and the application is way too unstable at this point in time.
Walter Soyka
Principal & Designer at Keen Live
Motion Graphics, Widescreen Events, Presentation Design, and Consulting
RenderBreak Blog – What I’m thinking when my workstation’s thinking
Creative Cow Forum Host: Live & Stage Events -
[Walter Soyka] “Do you think it’s impossible that FCPX would ever be developed to the point where it’d be usable?”
Not at all, that’s why I’m still here. (that and also waiting for Aindreas’s next fussilade.)
[Walter Soyka] “Once Apple adds multicam and broadcast monitoring with the next release, what more would you need?”
Those are my main sticking points. When they deliver the upgrade I will download and try. After that, may the best (for me) NLE win.
[Walter Soyka] “If I were posting a documentary today, for example, I’d have to think long and hard about FCPX. X27 might make FCPX into a very nice offline editor. It’d be a workflow worth testing, because I do think that the organizational tools might be worth the convoluted finishing workflow.”
Not today, not for me. I find the work we do complicated enough — using multiple Apps where I don’t have to seems like asking for problems.
[Walter Soyka] “Why should a computer company be any better at producing an NLE than a consumer electronics company? It’s pretty far outside the traditional reach of either one.”
Computer software isn’t a reach for a computer company; it is for an electronics company. A Pro NLE isn’t out of the reach for a company with a Pro Apps division. A company that makes workstations seems more likely to invest in a high end editing Ap than one that makes cell phones. Some may be happy shooting on an Iphone and cutting on an Ipad – that doesn’t work for me.
[Walter Soyka] “Personally, I’m concerned that Apple isn’t interested in me or my needs anymore, so I’m evaluating my other options. Many others are doing the same. “
Another reason why the analogy to FCP v.1 breaks down. This is the polar opposite of 10 years ago when Apple’s computer mystique was built by pandering to creative’s. Now they seem to be quite happy pissing on Walter Murch so that Randy can edit his home movies more easily.
Herb Sevush
Zebra Productions
—————————
nothin’ attached to nothin’
“Deciding the spine is the process of editing” F. Bieberkopf -
Apple’s FCP conversion is not the way that companies that court the business market operate. All major vendors, from MSFT’s Business software group (SQL Server, Windows Server, etc) along with Oracle, HP, Adobe and others, go to great lengths not to do what Apple did with FCP. They hold non disclosure months, even years in advance, and they also hold developers conferences where they really disclose required information to have significant 3rd parties on board at launch. This most certainly did *not* happen with the X launch. And I can bet I know why.
I consider what happened as an internal battle at Apple between the FCP group and the iMovie group, with the outcome being that the conversion to 64 bit was the killing point and that, given the economy back then, the iMovie group won out. The decision to move the company to a consumer only model is also shown in the lack of high end servers, workstations and the like. It’s all of a piece.
But this is all water under the bridge. I stumbled on this thread in the Canon forum, why I don’t know (Shane this really should go under the FCP/FCPx forums). I’m on beyond FCP now, getting to love Premiere, and really like a company like Adobe where I can actually get their dev teams and other knowledgeable folks on the forums answering questions. Adobe is doing a really wonderful job of trying to become the next leader in this field. AVID certainly seems to have the Hollywood production teams sewn up to a great degree. Apple never seemed interested in actually participating in the community, except at once a year events, it seemed to me. But Adobe is hands down doing the best job to win my business in my mind. I hope my business and others like it keep them profitable!
Al
-
[Herb Sevush] “A company that makes workstations seems more likely to invest in a high end editing Ap than one that makes cell phones. Some may be happy shooting on an Iphone and cutting on an Ipad – that doesn’t work for me… Another reason why the analogy to FCP v.1 breaks down. This is the polar opposite of 10 years ago when Apple’s computer mystique was built by pandering to creative’s.”
Agreed. Apple is most definitely not in the same position now as they were when they introduced FCP v1, and FCP is simply not strategically important to Apple anymore. (Among my list of “compelling reasons not to.”)
Walter Soyka
Principal & Designer at Keen Live
Motion Graphics, Widescreen Events, Presentation Design, and Consulting
RenderBreak Blog – What I’m thinking when my workstation’s thinking
Creative Cow Forum Host: Live & Stage Events -
[Herb Sevush] “Yes X is version 1 software just like FCP 1, with all that entails, but the changes in the market and in Apple make the comparison beside the point.”
Say what? The changes in the market are moot? Dude. You lost me here. What do you think they rolled out FCP for? A stagnant market or a changing one?
[Herb Sevush] “No, the point you were trying to make is that a single viewer approach to editing isn’t so weird. The problem is you had to go to an application not generally considered an editor to make it. Yes, people cut spots on a Smoke all the time, that’s what it’s built for, but it would be a chore to cut anything longer on it.”
No, the point was trying to make, if you go back and read, is how FCPX isn’t different from learning something new, like, say, SMoke. They all have different interfaces, I’d encourage you to read Adam’s first post, then my response. Smoke was used as one example of a single viewer editor and plenty was cut on it, for a very long time.
[Herb Sevush] “Again, if I liked it better I would have switched before.”
Would you have really, though? If PPro had a 85 camera multicam, would have really completely changed your setup? We wouldn’t have. FCP was working just fine. Now, we have to and that’s they way it is.
-
[Walter Soyka] “[Herb Sevush] “This difference plus the difference of Apple then as a computer company vs Apple now as a consumer electronics company plus the “many compelling reasons not to use FCPX” makes me think the comparison between then and now is somewhat moot.”
Why should a computer company be any better at producing an NLE than a consumer electronics company? It’s pretty far outside the traditional reach of either one.”
I read Herb’s point as being that when Apple primarily sold computers, there was strong incentive for them to continue to develop for the high end. Now that their primary income is based on phone sales, that incentive is no longer there.
Reply to this Discussion! Login or Sign Up