-
If FCPX isn’t really for Pros, who is it for?
-
[Bill Davis] “… experts out there who can base their migraine to X …”
Well, what would Freud say?
-
Gotta love auto-spell-correct!
Migration to Migrane? – sounds like unusually lame Lifetime TV movie.
At least this wan’t one of those ghastly thumb typing errors that imbues an innocent email with some unintended lechery or the like.
Whew!
“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
-
“[Chris Conlee] “I haven’t sprung for FCP X yet, because nobody has yet walked in with a FCP X job that needs help.””
There probably won’t be any big jobs in FCPX for a while. However, I surmise some “small” or Kickstarter-funded FCPX gigs might appear on the horizon. Nevertheless, the pay will probably be too small to incite any interest among those on this thread.
-
“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.”
First off, I believe this to be true, give or take an adjective or two.
But the same can be said, with the exception of the word “new”, of many other editing apps out there, such as PPro. The difference being that PPro can handle corporate and web videos, and also handle more complex work flows.
What’s the advantage to a mid level user of buying software that doesn’t let him move up in complexity if the job comes his way? Why choose software that limits you to the work you are doing right now?
That was always one of Legacy’s strong suits, it’s ability to handle any editing task. You seem to be promoting FCPX’s limitations as a strength, and I don’t see it.
It’s like the old marketing trick of not fixing a bug and then calling it a feature.
Herb Sevush
Zebra Productions
—————————
nothin’ attached to nothin’
“Deciding the spine is the process of editing” F. Bieberkopf -
[Herb Sevush] “But the same can be said, with the exception of the word “new”, of many other editing apps out there, such as PPro. The difference being that PPro can handle corporate and web videos, and also handle more complex work flows.
What’s the advantage to a mid level user of buying software that doesn’t let him move up in complexity if the job comes his way? Why choose software that limits you to the work you are doing right now?
That was always one of Legacy’s strong suits, it’s ability to handle any editing task. You seem to be promoting FCPX’s limitations as a strength, and I don’t see it.
It’s like the old marketing trick of not fixing a bug and then calling it a feature.
“Herb,
First, you’re right about PPro and other apps. They are perfectly capable of competing and even besting FCP-X in a variety of areas today. (tho, to my mind, not in any areas that affect it’s use as a GENERAL purpose editing tool, but clearly in quite a few well-discussed specialized areas.) FCP-Xs competitors may not have quite the same kind of relational database structure (as far as I understand things, anyway) but it’s not like they can’t create all these kinds of videos your mention – they certainly can.
So that’s not a separator today. Those legacy interface approaches do MORE than the six month old FCP-X approach does right now. Call that a given. The question that remains is what all the players in the overall category of NLE programs can reasonably be expected to do in such a fast evolving future?
I’m surely not qualified to speak on the financial fitness, the future plans, or the evolution path of any other editing platform because I don’t use or study them. So for all I know, they might remain in the battle forever. But I also know that while PPro did a pretty major re-write a few years back, I don’t’ believe that any other NLE has done BOTH as deep a teardown AND as radical a functional re-build as APPLE did with X. I think the proof of it is that no other product revision has caused such a stir. Incrementalism is always largely palatable to most observers. It seldom upsets anyone.
Apple upset EVERYONE with X. I think that’s great. It reminded me to look at WHY – and that helped me realize that things wouldn’t be the same in the future and that I’d better start my own changes to remain relevant.
Some think the “BIG CHANGE” strategy was a mistake. I think it was a bold bet that will pay off big time. The REASON I say that is because Apples big changes to FCP mirror so many systemic changes in how content is consumed and used today. I think the other video tools were designed for the era of movies and TV. And that FCP-X was clearly purpose designed for a kind of “post tv” era. (that’s not to say “TV” will go away. Just that VIDEO content is clearly increasingly likely to be something downloaded and used by individuals rather than broadcast or even projected in a theatre.
Those trends are pretty clear.
It also appears pretty clear to me that most of the major angst about Apple having RUINED FCP was pure BS. I say that with confidence because I use it every day now and it’s a solid, well functioning general purpose video editing tool right now. It has particular strengths and weaknesses like all other NLEs. But it does ALL the general editing tasks very well. (just like it’s competitors.)
Underneath that, it has an extraordinary team of seasoned NLE code craftspeople working inside the richest company in the world backstopping it’s development effort. In uncertain financial times, that counts for quite a bit in my mind.
So that’s my view.
Essentially the BUGS (to use your subjective term since I’m seeing nearly no actual software bugs in the program day to day) are more artifacts of the fact that the industry’s needs are moving rapidly from an old content distribution model to a new one. Today, only a tiny fraction of the video produced around the world ends up on TV. If in the long run, FCP-X ends up doing NONE of that work (something I doubt VERY much) it will won’t prevent it from succeeding wildly as a tool for the other 90% of the videos that people will pay to have made.
That’s the real game going on here, I believe.
More simply put, FCP-X is good right now. With the resources and backing in place at Apple, it is very likely to become GREAT over time. It will always (in my guesstimate) be pointed at where Apple feels video is going in terms of creation, distribution, and development – and it had to jettison some compatibility with what video creation USED TO BE like in order to become that.
I think Apple took the correct approach. I also believe they will add in a lot of what’s missing over time, not because the “pros” are making noise about it, but rather because they always look to meet their customers needs. I suspect that they want to add back in Multi-Cam not JUST to satisfy some mega-budget rock stars music video needs, but ALSO because cameras are so affordable now that LOTS of people want multi-cam for LOTS of general video purposes. If they make something that works well for the Stadium concert video crowd, they will likely also have something that works really well for someone who only has access to multiple iPhones covering an event somewhere and ALSO wants to do a multi-cam video of that.
If there’s a market for higher level tools, they’ll get added into the code. Either by Apple or the third party guys – but in ALL cases that stuff will be developed only if there’s a large enough need to make such development profitable. I do think the days of Apple building in capability just to gain “cache” with a splinter group like Hollywood is pretty much over. After all, how much more “cache” does Apple really need?
Just my 2 cents.
“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 don’t’ believe that any other NLE has done BOTH as deep a teardown AND as radical a functional re-build as APPLE did with X”
Agreed. But not every tear down is well advised. They tore down Penn Station in NY to build Madison Square Garden and New Yorkers have been regretting it ever since. Many a wonderful home has been torn down and re-built as a modern monstrosity. New does not equal better. Ask the Russians if being revolutionary is always a step forward, or else try to buy a DeLorean.
“Today, only a tiny fraction of the video produced around the world ends up on TV. If in the long run, FCP-X ends up doing NONE of that work (something I doubt VERY much) it will won’t prevent it from succeeding wildly as a tool for the other 90% of the videos that people will pay to have made.”
So you think it a wise business decision to jettison 10% of your potential customer base? I envy the kind of margins you must have that you don’t find that a dangerous policy. You’re dumping 10% of your market and, as of now, providing a tool to the remainder that is 10% less functional than your competitors.
“Underneath that, it has an extraordinary team of seasoned NLE code craftspeople working inside the richest company in the world backstopping it’s development effort. In uncertain financial times, that counts for quite a bit in my mind. “
I’d be a little careful about that. Apple has demonstrated that it will turn on a dime and dump any aspect of it’s business line with no notification. Everyone agrees that Pro App software is a tiny slice of a slice of their revenue. You are no more safe in the behemoth that is Apple than you would be with Avid – the risk with Avid is that the company fails, the risk with Apple is that they change market strategy. As far as risk goes I find them equivalent.
“If there’s a market for higher level tools, they’ll get added into the code. Either by Apple or the third party guys – but in ALL cases that stuff will be developed only if there’s a large enough need to make such development profitable.”
You can say that and believe that but it still doesn’t make it so. Apple made a commitment to the magnetic timeline that could well make solving some of these issues very difficult, if not practically impossible. They’ve chosen a path and I don’t see how they can walk it all back, nor do I believe they will want to. Third parties are not going to be able to provide you with tracks in the timeline. I believe X will be improved, but I also think it is what it is.
“I do think the days of Apple building in capability just to gain “cache” with a splinter group like Hollywood is pretty much over. After all, how much more “cache” does Apple really need?”
Better a splinter than a sphincter.
Herb Sevush
Zebra Productions
—————————
nothin’ attached to nothin’
“Deciding the spine is the process of editing” F. Bieberkopf -
Having downloaded the trial version and attempting to get to grips with it, I came away thinking that the problem was that Apple didn’t know who exactly it was aimed at all.
It looks and feels like iMovie+ and it does feel as if they are trying to hold your hand through the editing process. The assumption seems to have been that the editing process as it was/is in FCP 7/Avid/Adobe is really too complicated and needed to be simplified. My experience has been the complete opposite – people new to editing are very quick to pick up the UNmagnetic timeline / multitrack paradigm because it makes perfect sense. FCPX requires you to learn about it’s (extensive) assumptions and mode of working before you can get anywhere with it, FCP7 gives you a very limited set of rules to learn and then really just gets out of your way.
But there are clearly some very powerful features under the hood, too. I think it was a botched product that tried to appeal to everyone, and ended up appealing to very few people because it’s not sure what it wants to be. At least that’s how it appears right now.
Reply to this Discussion! Login or Sign Up