-
FCP X Working Perfectly – Love It!
-
Sean, how on earth can you meet your delivery requirements for a :30? How to you create individual stems? A separate M&E? These are standard delivery requirements for nearly every studio and broadcast network I deliver to. I don’t know where or for whom you are doing a :30, but I would consider your final delivery requirements before making your cut on X. Certainly, if you don’t have any delivery requirement other than a stereo or a 5.1 mix, it would make for a fine experiment. I, however, don’t have that luxury.
-
[Chris Harlan] “MAYBE, it will be useful in a couple of years.”
I keep seeing comments like this. I don’t get it. For high-end workflows, it’s missing all of about four critical features:
– Some way of exporting sequence data.
– Some way of mapping audio clips to tracks on export.
– Support for ‘real’ video output third-party I/O hardware.
– Multicam.Sequence data exporting was promised in a few weeks (and that was over two weeks ago now). Audio track mapping has been promised for “this summer” (probably September, based on how software companies usually use the word “summer”). Support for ‘real’ video output is coming “soon”, according to reports from the London briefing. With these three features (and some third party support that will probably show up pretty quickly, once they’re available)… it might be possible to cut a feature in FCP X by October or November.
Multicam (necessary in some ‘pro’ workflows, but entirely irrelevant to others) has been promised for the next major release, which I would guess will happen closer to 12 months from now than 24.
What takes “a couple of years” here?
—
Digital Workflow/Colorist, Nice Dissolve.You should follow me on Twitter here. Or read our blog.
-
Okay so if FCPX is categorically not for pros then I scratch my head as to why pros are congregating in an FCPX forum. Might we see the same discourse in the iMovie forum? Learn me a lesson or two.
-
[jurriaan van der kamp] “Maybe it’s fun to see how fast you can do these seven comands. I’m just curious what all these positive people are cutting. “
Maybe some of us are using this in real world scenarios so we can send Apple feedback on feature improvements.
Maybe there are some things it does well that are worthwhile for specific types of projects.
Why not invest your time learning Premiere or Avid then spend time denigrating people who are trying to learn a program.
[jurriaan van der kamp] “If your work depends on a pro app”
My work depends on my skills. I also spend time providing feedback to developers so they can improved their products so that they might meet my professional expectations.
-
Chris, if you are right, that’s great. I guess my question would be, if this stuff is all so doable in such a short period of time, why wasn’t in done in the years before this current release? Also, I think you greatly underestimate the number of items needed for it to be a comparable high-end tool set. Undoubtedly, someone will cut a feature on it in next six months, and that would have been astounding a decade ago. Now, not so much.
I do appreciate your evangelism, and certainly, I can see how FCPX might even fit into my own future. If EDL/XML support gets enabled, and the rumored iPad pro comes about, I can certainly see incorporating that into my work flow. What I don’t see though, is using it as my main editorial device. I don’t see its paradigm developing in a direction that makes advantageous for High-end Industrial use. (By Industrial, I mean large-scale, factory-like; not video work for a particular industry) I’d love to be wrong. I’ve been an FCP booster for many years.
-
Craig, fyi, I do appreciate the even-handed tone and centered POV that you’ve brought to this discussion.
-
I wansn’t making any comment on anyone elses luxury or production demands.
30 sec. spot – mastered stereo audio from ProTools – HD file delivered to 3 stations via FTP.
That’s my luxury. Please don’t slam it or put it down as amature, it’s how I provide for my family.
[spell check off]
-
Thank you.
I think both Apple and FCPX deserve criticism. If there’s reasoned discourse they may consider integrating features. I try to evaluate what is concretely improved, what concretely fails, some of the non standard design decisions and why they might succeed or fail to improve workflows depending on Apple’s next steps.
One might say my position is that they have a good foundation . . . but the spiral escalator to the first floor is a problem. I like that they’re using an escalator instead of a staircase but it might be better if they straightened it out. Since I like the foundation and like the escalator idea, I’m hoping they fix the escalator. Granted if one doesn’t like escalators I can understand. Escalators have their own set of problems especially if one likes using one’s legs to walk for example.
Apple has built an new house and not everyone wants to live in something designed by Frank Lloyd Wright especially if getting around the house forces one to go in circles . . . or discovers that there’s no windows or bathroom.
-
Sean, I think you are reading snark in my post that wasn’t there. Or, at least, wasn’t meant to be there. I simply meant by “luxury” that my delivery requirements are heavier than I would like. Personally, I would love to not have build all of the tracks I have to.
-
Yes – sorry about that.
It seems that you assumed that your workflow was my workflow and if it couldn’t work for you it can’t work for me.
It seems that many pro editors – who ever you are – are locked in a box and can’t get out.
I’m on an iCloud and can see for miles. 🙂
My mindset is, no matter what – I am going to make FCP X work for me. A mindset that some can’t seem to comprehend.
[spell check OFF]
Reply to this Discussion! Login or Sign Up