-
If FCPX isn’t really for Pros, who is it for?
-
These are good points Frank, and if it can’t cut it, the product won’t last.
I for one like that there is more than one option. It makes them compete against each other.
Avid came out with a nice new product and many will use that and Apple will take note and make adjustments.
As long as there are options I’m fine. It’s when someone get’s a monopoly that I can’t concerned.
-
“The software? FCP-HD 4.5. Guess what? It still works and I got paid.”
At the end of the day that’s what matters Nick. We need to be able to earn a living$
-
We all naturally shoehorn our opinion of any tool into the kind of editing we personally need to do.
I’m more fascinated about whether Apple simply took a broader view and started with the essential question of what the entire classification of “people who edit” might look like today compared to what that looked like in the past.
In the past, it was a very specialized occupation. if you couldn’t talk yourself into a room with enough economic clout to be full of Grass Valley and Ikigami toys, you couldn’t play. Period.
But today? Totally different picture. So given that reality – what does the landscape of “all editors” look like? If you distributed them on a “line of needs” from simple to complex, with someone doing their first home video at one end, and Walter Murch (top experience, top budget) at the other – what does “the middle” of that line look like? With 2,000.000 paid FCP-legacy seats out there what does the AVERAGE existing FCP editor need to empower successful work?
I don’t know if it was by design, but I suspect that something like this methodical approach was a part of the X design discussion. What’s the point of starting out with a tool that is focused on the needs of the top 10% of the users requirements? It makes NO sense. What does make sense, is to understand that middle. Build a great core tool that satisfies the broadest range of people on both sides of the mid point – then grow outward over time.
Right now, FCP-X does an absolutely superb job for nearly all kinds of the editing tasks required by a very broad swath of that middle. From Corporate videos to Web videos to Digital Signage and beyond, it’s a fresh new tool with huge and exciting and growing capabilities.
If you’ve used it yourself, you quickly see that it can satisfy the MAJORITY of video editing tasks in the broad middle of the market today. As those needs get more specialized at the top and more esoteric end, it shows that it’s not fully developed. And that frustrates some. Which is perfectly fair. The development team obviously de-emphasized the top tier esoteric stuff like ProTools Exchange or Broadcast specific tools – precisely because only a small fraction of the people along the use curve line NEED those tools.
The funny thing is that the MIDDLE of the line is also where virtually ALL the growth is in modern video editing. There aren’t massive numbers of editing seats expanding in Broadcast, OR in “movie making.” Broadcast is increasingly LOSING eyeballs to the net. And in movie making, there are so many people who want each seat at the table, that the odds of anyone getting one are pretty long.
Yet at the same time, there are new venues CRYING for video content. The whole web is starting to look like the TV industry in 1952 – way more demand than supply when it comes to quality work. Same with the corporate space. Every boardroom in the US is talking about corporate communications – because communications is how you teach, train, motivate and inspire teams. And video is truly a “killer app” in that space.
A PRO is someone with PRO knowledge. The tool is just the enabler.
I believe FCP-X is an amazing enabler of visual communications – among others – as it stands – right now.
And it’s only going to get better.
My 2 cents, anyway.
“Before speaking out ask yourself whether your words are true, whether they are respectful and whether they are needed in our civil discussions.”-Justice O’Connor
-
I think that FCPX was released before it was ready, and Apple knew it, but because of pressure from the outside and inside, pushed forward with a good program that wasn’t “done”. if you are cooking something great in the oven, but you take it out early, (because people are clamoring for food) it’s not going to get rave reviews, some people won’t eat it, but some will see the potential, and say to the chef, put it back in the oven for a while.
The majority of the FCP user base was hungry for a solid 64 bit update that looked and acted like the FCP we all know and love. Apple, either because of panic, ego or some combination of both, seeing that Avid, and Adobe were getting all the attention, pushed the product out before it was ready.
Bottom line, I think Apple has lost some ground (users) to Adobe and Avid, but in the end, will develop X (or XI ) into something really useful for all.
IMHOdon walker
texarkana, texasJohn 3:16
-
I’ve been saying since they launched it, that I think they made a serious marketing mistake — which is uncommon for Apple. For exactly the reasons you mentioned, I don’t think they’re going to find a market for this piece of software, which is why I said on the first day I expect the price to fall to $79 and they’ll market it as a more professional version of iMovie for people who need “just a little more” from their editing application.
It doesn’t have the features that “pros” in the broadcast sense of the word need, so they’re not going to spend on it, and it doesn’t differentiate itself enough from iMovie to make amateurs absolutely HAVE to splurge on it to the tune of $400 (with compressor and motion).
Of course some alternative media professionals have appreciated the tools, and they’ll continue to use the software, but I don’t think the market is as big as Apple anticipated. I actually think it’s even MORE of a niche software than it was before. Time will tell, I suppose.
Chris
-
[Chris Conlee] “Of course some alternative media professionals have appreciated the tools,
Alternative Media Professionals?
“My Name is Steve and I’m an FCPX user”
-
Well, as somebody else mentioned in this thread, we all tend to look at tools from the perspective of our own needs. I’m in the broadcast and motion picture side of things, so web-based content, in particular, is what I was referring to as “alternative media.” I suppose it’s not that alternative to many, and I certainly meant NO disrespect, as a paying gig is a paying gig, no matter what the intended distribution is.
Who knows? I just wonder, as the OP pointed out, if the tools are so superior for people doing non-broadcast work that it’ll find a market. And if non-pros, doing family videos, will see the benefit in spending somewhere between $300 and $400 when they already have iMovie.
Full disclosure, I’m an Avid guy through and through, and can’t really see the need to ever use anything else for any job given my familiarity with it. However, I do own licenses for FCS 3 and CS5.5 just in case somebody walks in the door with a project that I need to fix.
I haven’t sprung for FCP X yet, because nobody has yet walked in with a FCP X job that needs help.
-
[Chris Conlee] “I haven’t sprung for FCP X yet, because nobody has yet walked in with a FCP X job that needs help.”
And I doubt they will for a while, Chris.
But just understand that since X is quite plainly NOT the same kind of editing approach as we’re all mostly used to – trying to jump over it’s learning curve can be a bit disorienting for many people at first.
Which means that if you ever DO need to use it, it might be wise to explore it well before you reach that stage.
Just a suggestion.
Take it for what it’s worth.
“Before speaking out ask yourself whether your words are true, whether they are respectful and whether they are needed in our civil discussions.”-Justice O’Connor
-
Those who never spent any significant time learning iMovie substantially overestimate the supposed complexities of FCPX.
iMovie aficionados on the other hand have found it very easy to make the transition.
Simon Ubsdell
Director/Editor/Writer
http://www.tokyo-uk.com -
But Simon,
How many people proficient with FCP-Legacy – the group generally hanging in this forum – have ever had any significant experience with iMovie?
Why would they when they already have a significantly more powerful tool that they know how to use that does all the basics and a LOT more.
It’s like asking a person who’s grown up using a power drill to reach for a hand crank drill for their next project. People DO that, of course, but not very often.
To put down the big power drill and perhaps learn something that presents a new approach to the concept of drilling – a Dremel perhaps? THAT makes sense, particularly if precision is suddenly more valuable than power – but I doubt there is a great cadre of FCP-Legacy/iMovie experts out there who can base their migraine to X on existing iMovie expertise.
But I could be wrong.
“Before speaking out ask yourself whether your words are true, whether they are respectful and whether they are needed in our civil discussions.”-Justice O’Connor
Reply to this Discussion! Login or Sign Up