-
FCP7 is dead. Why can’t there be a new FCP7?
-
“Nobody wants to remake FCP7. The idea would be to make FCP8. And while I’ve come to like Ppro very much, it is not FCP8 – there are distinct differences in the way they are designed.”
Out of interest what are the main things you have t change in your workflow/the way you think working in PP compared to FCP7?
-
[Aindreas Gallagher] “Seriously – keyframing has to be one of X’s weakest features.”
I’ll agree with that…
Mitch Ives
Insight Productions Corp.“Criticism may not be agreeable, but it is necessary. It fulfills the same function as pain in the human body. It calls attention to an unhealthy state of things.” – Winston Churchill
-
[Mitch Ives] “still needs work, but it isn’t as bad as I keep reading on this forum…”
The current version is much better than before. Still a little jumpy/touchy, but improved.
————————————————————-
~ My FCPX Babbling blog ~
~”It is a poor craftsman who blames his tools.”~
~”The function you just attempted is not yet implemented”~ -
But But But…. Command T is TWO keystrokes. WHY CANT I DO IT IN ONE KEYSTROKE!!!!! This software totally sux.
(shaking myself out of the dream)
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.
-
I’ll agree with the keyframes deal as well.
But of course, very few people will choose not to have lunch with, say, Heidi Klum because she might currently have a blemish behind one knee.
; )
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.
-
I’ve been playing around with it too (resolve 11.1). I still get flaky playback working with ProRes on the NLE (MacPro 6 core 3.33).
I hope it gets smoother in the next revision because I really, really, really, like what I see. I especially like the audio key framing and gain adjustments.
-
Dude, I’m not stirring the pot needlessly. I’ve been on a deadline and can’t keep up with the thread that this question bore. I only asked it after looking around for a previous discussion on it and not finding any. And it was out of frustration, because even though I’m trying to deal with the fact that FCP7 is dead and that I need to move on to a program like PPro, I never get hired for it! They’re still using FCP7 and all the training the Lynda put in my head on PPro a year ago is dribbling out! Which lead me again to ask – why can’t the people just have what they want – FCP7 forever!?!
-
[James Ewart] “Out of interest what are the main things you have t change in your workflow/the way you think working in PP compared to FCP7?”
The difference is not so much workflow as timeline design concepts.
FCP is organized so that the defaults were more in line with my habits as an editor. Best illustration is the way they both copy and paste. In FCP the default is that if you select a file, then copy, then paste, you will paste back to the same track you started on – which is what I want to do the large majority of the time. In Ppro everything is based on what tracks have been targeted, so that I find myself targeting and untargeting various tracks constantly. FCP sort of assumed that whatever was on the uppermost track was active, with Ppro the lowest targeted track is the default. Both designs allow you to do what you want, it’s just that the defaults in FCP were what I generally wanted and the same is not true with Ppro.
Another design difference is how they use audio tracks. Ppro loves to use specialized all-in-one audio tracks – a single stereo track that contains 2 channels, a single adaptive track that can contain all 6 channels of a surround mix. What it doesn’t let you do easily is use single channel tracks combined to create a stereo mix. In FCP a track is a track is a track – you can externally combine 2 to form a stereo pair, you can split them and have 2 mono tracks and do anything else you want – you don’t have to think about how you want to arrange your timeline before hand. Now to be fair Ppro will adapt any track to the media you throw at it, but the overall design is less open to start with.
Same goes for setting up cache folders and preview folders – it is more complicated in PPro. Not by much, it doesn’t stop me from using it, but it is not as open a system.
Now I do love many of the specific tools in PPro, the audio track mixer, scaling is much better, keyframing is better, but with Ppro I sometimes feel like I’m running against the wind, whereas with FCP I often felt the wind at my back. This may change over time, I don’t doubt it will, but for now I often find myself wistful for the FCP8 that never was.
Herb Sevush
Zebra Productions
—————————
nothin’ attached to nothin’
“Deciding the spine is the process of editing” F. Bieberkopf -
What’s to stop you continuing to use FCP7?
It still works fine. In Mavericks and Yosemite.
It’s just that most of us feel FCPX is an improvement. A better way of working. And for those that don’t agree there are still PP and FCP7. Or avid MC if you are that way inclined.
But it does involve investing time in learning a new bit of software.
-
Hi Herb,
your words remind me of a editing teacher in a film school in Belgium, who even got an oscar nomination for his sound-editing on a foreign film, who said he liked X, and said: “in the beginning I didn’t really like the automatic nature of the magnetic timeline, but after working with it, I have to admit that it always guessed correctly what I wanted to do.”
I’m sure you probably wouldn’t agree with that, but I do think that Apple, much more then Adobe, thinks about how people use their software, and what they WANT to do with specific actions. I think this holds true for both their OSX, iOS, ProApps and Consumer Apps. You could always want better, but there is a reason people look to Apple as masters of User Interfaces.
Reply to this Discussion! Login or Sign Up