FCPX may work, for some projects

[Aindreas Gallagher]

[Sean Thomas] “FCP X is what editing is going to be like for the next 10 years.”

Not in its current form, and its arguable if apple are inclined, or are actually able, to get it into a usable state. FCPX might well be irretrievable, it might be structurally unsound in basic editing terms. they made presumptions about simplified workflows that were very under researched and break quite a lot in practise.

I bookmarked this post because it says a lot of things better than I can manage.

https://forums.creativecow.net/readpost/344/3878

http://www.ogallchoir.net
promo producer/editor.grading/motion graphics

[Sean Thomas]

It is in a usable state for some.

I don’t have time to do any scientific test, but on the old system with FCP 7, I had to render virtually
every effect put on a clip. Put a “old film” plug-in on a 1 min. clip. takes about 30sec -1 min to render.
In FCP X – it takes 1 sec – because it doesn’t have to render. So FCP X is upto 60x faster.

It seems all FX in X preview and play in realtime. Not so many years ago, we were paying $10k
for realtime render/accell boards…..remember those? Now it’s free with your $299 NLE.

Use AVCHD in FCP7 – the work flow is much longer/slower than X. So X is faster simply because it
edits AVCHD natively.

Do you think that X is slower under the hood? X has the power we’ve all been waiting for. We just need
to wait for the features to get where we all want them.

X works for some of my work, 7 for others, Premier for others. It’s not about a tool. X did not destroy my life.

[Aindreas Gallagher]

there are pervasive problems in executing free form editing decisions in FCPX – really – read the post i put up there, it gets to the point.

my three year old lappie barely supports the system, so I’m reduced to standing in london apple shops cutting on display imacs until the shop hands hover intimidatingly close.

there are true structural problems with basic editing function in the application. the strange steps required to expose basic function with audio handling, or core music based editing, which i do a fair bit of are very surprising

I’m short form say – this is how I say use FCP as an editing base with AE on top

https://vimeo.com/14375872

and this one is particularly music based,

https://vimeo.com/23081787

FCPX’s handling of music, the role of the primary, the connected clips stuff, I’ve really messed around and its truly problematic. Its an encapsulation of editing, its not the action of editing itself. you really need a truly disinterested, calm and clean track based editor to get anything done i feel.

I do not believe pre-canned methodology – as a basic proposition – can work. Apple may say that they can boil down professional pursuits within their creative arts gamut, but I would like to see them try that for the supporting applications for architects say. I would be very curious to see their simplified intersections of science and technology as it applies to the software supporting structural beams.

I don’t think this is actually an editing application as commonly defined. I’m not sure what it is. But it is not a canvas of editing in basic broad use scenarios. It breaks way too easily. it’s made of china.

http://www.ogallchoir.net
promo producer/editor.grading/motion graphics

Some contents or functionalities here are not available due to your cookie preferences!

This happens because the functionality/content marked as “Vimeo framework” uses cookies that you choosed to keep disabled. In order to view this content or use this functionality, please enable cookies: click here to open your cookie preferences.

[Chris Harlan]

Nice spots, dude.

[Aindreas Gallagher]

cheers bud,

lord, I swear to god, in this I am not a troll – the thing that kills me is that apple’s role here- their bloody duty – is to provide an editing system?

seriously – never mind whether FCPX is viable, and I mean this – is this thing actually an editing system?
As an intellectual proposition – does this software present a valid basis to learn fundamental editing?
With the kinds of masking behaviour it attempts?

Is FCPX a valid basis upon which to first perceive the craft of editing.

Does it function in that respect.

http://www.ogallchoir.net
promo producer/editor.grading/motion graphics

[Richard Johnson]

Hey guys, I don’t know what happened to this thread but my initial post was to try to show y’all my personal situation and first impression of FCPX. If I am going to pick up the Adobe suite for my personal editing station I would like to act before their deal expires. FCPX might work well for me but only if the FCPXML gets good support from Davinci Resolve and ProTools. I’m not really concerned about Resolve b/c it seems in their best interest financially to support it. Pro Tools doesn’t seem as clear cut for support b/c Avid has a competing NLE software that they are publicly trying to steal FCP customers over to.

I kind of hoped after 15+ posts some of the people on this forum might be able to add some insight to my question… What IS the purpose of this forum?

[Chris Harlan]

[Richard Johnson] “What are the chances ProTools will jump on the FCPXML bandwagon or will there be a conflict of interest with Media Composer?”

Richard, my guess is that Protools won’t jump unless it becomes a standard flavor of XML, but you already have existing OMF support should you wish to pay for it. I DO wonder if Logic X will allow easy i/o. For me, that would be something of real interest.

And, of course, with Roles you do have stems. Not ideal, I know, but something.

[Richard Johnson]

Thanks for the response Marvin. I didn’t necessarily mean that protools would adopt FCPXML but simply give it support. I’m not exactly sure how these things work and why Apple didn’t simply release an XML that was already a standard and compatible with other software. Really though, I don’t know much at all about XML protocols so it may not have been an option.

As for Logic, I’ve just never used it. I think a lot of DAW’s have pretty similar functionality but I’ve always trusted Pro Tools and am familiar with it and I like it. I usually say don’t fix what aint broke but with video editing I’m ready to move forward now that FCP as I knew it is EOL.

Still figuring out “Roles”. Looks interesting. Not sure how it will integrate with a track based DAW but as you mention, maybe LogicX will be their answer. Will have to read up on “stems”.

[Chris Harlan]

[Richard Johnson] “Thanks for the response Marvin. “

I’m not Marvin, but I suppose you can call me that if you want to.

[Richard Johnson] “I didn’t necessarily mean that protools would adopt FCPXML but simply give it support. I’m not exactly sure how these things work and why Apple didn’t simply release an XML that was already a standard and compatible with other software. Really though, I don’t know much at all about XML protocols so it may not have been an option. “

I’m guessing they didn’t release old xml because it is most likely completely incompatible with FCP X. If they had been able to, they would probably also have been able to import FCS project files. Remember, though there is OMF.

Logic is pretty transparent as a DAW. Unless Logic X gets super weird, I’m pretty certain it will keep tracks. I think a trackless DAW would be beyond freaky. Of course, I thought the same thing about an NLE.

[Steve Connor]

[Aindreas Gallagher] “I don’t think this is actually an editing application as commonly defined. I’m not sure what it is. But it is not a canvas of editing in basic broad use scenarios. It breaks way too easily. it’s made of china.”

Not an editing application? What on earth have I been doing on it for the last couple of months?

“My Name is Steve and I’m an FCPX user”