-
FCPX is not used by professionals and only suitable for editing home movies!
-
[kim krause] “our whole department has recently transitioned to fcpx and we are one of the major broadcasters in the country so from my perspective i would have to say that makes it pretty darn professional……why would kevin use fcpx for home movies when he has avid? seems like a rather dumb statement to me…maybe avid is too complicated for using on home movies! maybe the simplicity of fcpx is its strongest feature….maybe fcpx allows him to be more creative……thats like saying you use garage band for your podcasts when you have protools or logic sitting on your machine…..huh?”
which broadcaster? What type of department within that braodcaster? and what platform were you on before?
Neil Goodman: Editor of New Media Production – The Esquire Network – NBC/Uni
-
“Exactly the attitude I was referring to, yes. And “your industry” has no bearing on more than 2% of the total market. The tides have turned.”
Yes, we’ll have to agree to disagree. Just to clarify the “your industry” part. I work on commercials, non-broadcast (corporate), TV entertainment, web info/entertainment, features and themed attractions. This is all work-for-hire and not my own original content. In getting that work done, I’ve used probably two dozen edit systems over the years, so X is simply the next one in a long string for me. I like the tools X has to offer, but the sun doesn’t rise or set in Cupertino for me.
I also teach film students editing in an intensive workshop once a year. Last year I taught X. In previous years, I’ve taught Avid, Premiere and FCP “legacy”. My experience with last year’s class differs from others. I did not see any faster or slower progress with X than with any other NLE. Some kids got it right away and others were frustrated by the same issues as “pros”.
And FWIW – when Amazon, Netflix, YouTube and other “new media” outlets set out to commission or buy work, it’s not cat and skateboard videos. The content they want looks surprisingly like the same content that the “old media” presents.
Oliver
Oliver Peters Post Production Services, LLC
Orlando, FL
http://www.oliverpeters.com -
[Andy Branner] “[Oliver Peters] “You are making the common mistake of confusing the craft with the distribution media”
I think you are making the common mistake of confusing the distribution media with the craft. You’re the jazz musician to the pop-artist.”
what in the name of christ is that supposed to mean?
https://vimeo.com/user1590967/videos http://www.ogallchoir.net promo producer/editor.grading/motion graphics
-
[Oliver Peters] “I also teach film students editing in an intensive workshop once a year. Last year I taught X. In previous years, I’ve taught Avid, Premiere and FCP “legacy”. My experience with last year’s class differs from others. I did not see any faster or slower progress with X than with any other NLE. “
Oliver – I have to disagree here. I switched my 21 seat lab over to X this fall from FCP7. I have never seen a group of students (45 in all, only four or five with previous editing experience) take to a software quicker and with less problems. Whatever Apple was thinking in the re-design of FCP, they seem to have got it right. Apple could care less about us “old pros”; it’s this new crop of editors they really want. They can wait us out, no matter how much we complain (or not. I am really liking X as another tool in the tool box).
MHO of course.
Scott Witthaus
Senior Editor/Post Production Supervisor
1708 Inc./Editorial
Professor, VCU Brandcenter -
[Aindreas Gallagher] “[Andy Branner] “[Oliver Peters] “You are making the common mistake of confusing the craft with the distribution media”
I think you are making the common mistake of confusing the distribution media with the craft. You’re the jazz musician to the pop-artist.”
what in the name of christ is that supposed to mean?”
Pop Artists can be successful with only a rudimentary knowledge of their craft, the Jazz Musician normally learns their craft over a number of years.
I think it’s a compliment!
Steve Connor
There’s nothing we can’t argue about on the FCPX COW Forum
-
This article is just plain dumb. He suggests two things in it.
1. FCP X is not ready for professional use, let me quote:
“there’s only one answer. No.”
Well, that’s easy to disprove. I’m a professional, I use it. There are many others like me. We can argue all day about market penetration, but the fact is that many professionals use it every day. That point is completely dis-proven.
2. The fact that facilities currently using Media Composer or Premiere Pro CC aren’t switching to FCP X proves that it is not professional.
“It doesn’t matter who (individual users) are using it. It matters which post production facilities are switching their Media Composers and Premiere Pro CC stations out for FCPX. I’ll be honest with you, they aren’t.”
Let me take these one by one. If you are using Media Composer, chances are you need a collaborative workflow. We all know that is a current weakness with FCP X. People get around it, including myself, but if your business is built around a certain type of project sharing it would be difficult logistically to switch at this point.
Second, why would you buy Premiere Pro CC and then a couple months later switch to FCP X. No business person in their right mind would do this. So the fact that no one has done this is not surprising in the least.
There is an obvious bias towards big facilities and freelancers in this article. Fine. But that is a limited sampling of the professionals in the video field. The fact that FCP X has not caught on in a big way with large facilities is not surprising to anyone at this point. But the reasons for that have little to do with whether or not FCP X is “ready for professional use.”
At this point I’m not sure I’d bet the bank on Media Composer being around forever either. Avid has got some real problems ahead.
-
[Scott Witthaus] “Oliver – I have to disagree here. I switched my 21 seat lab over to X this fall from FCP7.”
I don’t doubt that. Remember, though, I’m teaching film students in cutting techniques, not software. They have 8 hands-on sessions (plus lecture) in which time we cover the editing of basic commercials as well as long-form items, like a short dialogue scene – or building a docu-style narrative piece. Software skills are unimportant, other than getting them to know the UI enough to understand and complete the tasks. The yardstick is whether they complete the assigned tasks and/or how far they got in the time allotted. Given that time measurement, I haven’t seen much difference in what various classes have been able to achieve from one year to the next.
The downside to teaching X for these students is that as yet, they don’t get software skills that translate well to employment situations. But that’s not the focus of the course.
– Oliver
Oliver Peters Post Production Services, LLC
Orlando, FL
http://www.oliverpeters.com -
[Oliver Peters] “Software skills are unimportan”
Exactly. The technology needs to “get out of the way” of telling a visual story. I have seen FCPX “out of the way” much more than other software, and thus less problems for students. They can focus more on story and less on technology.
[Oliver Peters] ” The yardstick is whether they complete the assigned tasks and/or how far they got in the time allotted. Given that time measurement, I haven’t seen much difference in what various classes have been able to achieve from one year to the next.”
Having taught FCP (edit: legacy) for 6 years, I can say that I have already seen a difference. However, one class is as small a sample as can be drawn, so I will need to wait a few semesters. I teach 45 more students next semester and will be interested to see if the same things happen.
[Oliver Peters] “The downside to teaching X for these students is that as yet, they don’t get software skills that translate well to employment situations.”
Yet. I teach graduate level advertising students, so they are not going out there to be editors. Interestingly enough, a very large agency in my market has asked me to come in teach all their creatives FCPX over the next 6 months or so. So, my students coming out with X skills actually may have a “skill leg-up” on other creatives who don’t know X.
Scott Witthaus
Senior Editor/Post Production Supervisor
1708 Inc./Editorial
Professor, VCU Brandcenter -
[Andy Branner] “ronically the experienced editors are in fact the ones that by far have the hardest time with X, merely because they always try to use it the way they expect it to work, not they way it’s meant to work. Which 9 out of 10 times will of course end with a “this is stupid and makes no sense” or the likes. (sound familiar?) … “
There is a lot of fear involved here as well: This new toy threatens the status quo and might be something that needs to be learned. It (seems) hard to learn. It’s different. It’s not professional. It’s for weddings. Its lower cost threatens rate structures. It’s design threatens comfortable workflows. Now everyone can do what I do (thereby threatening the rate structure).
What cracks me up is that the same complaints we saw from Avid editors talking about FCP3-7 are the complaints we hear from FCP7 editors talking about X (see above). We saw it with Avid|DS (except for the cost part), we saw it with Final Cut (legacy) and now we see it with FCPX. And so it goes…
Scott Witthaus
Senior Editor/Post Production Supervisor
1708 Inc./Editorial
Professor, VCU Brandcenter -
[Scott Witthaus] “There is a lot of fear involved here as well: This new toy threatens the status quo and might be something that needs to be learned. It (seems) hard to learn.”
The new toy didn’t upset the status quo; the discontinuation of FCP 7 did. Everybody who was on FCP Studio had to, or will have to, learn something new. So, choices have to be made. That’s why this forum came into existence. Yes, the transition to Premiere is a pretty soft learning curve, but the transition to Media Composer, depending on how you used FCP, is every bit a steep as going to X.
[Scott Witthaus] “What cracks me up is that the same complaints we saw from Avid editors talking about FCP3-7 are the complaints we hear from FCP7 editors talking about X (see above). We saw it with Avid|DS (except for the cost part), we saw it with Final Cut (legacy) and now we see it with FCPX. And so it goes…”
In my world, which is Los Angeles, Avid never lost its dominance. X has a lot of great stuff, but there are some areas that its not just as good at. I don’t know why we have to have this constant argument about there needing to be a top dog, or ring to rule them all. My personal choices right now are for Premiere and Media Composer, but that’s because I like the interface better, not because I think you’re wrong in wanting to use X.
Reply to this Discussion! Login or Sign Up