Insight FCP X vs. Avid

[Peter Wiley]

I really like the analogy to a musical instrument. It’s an apt one. Another way to say it is “form follows function.” (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Form_follows_function)

Apple have have confused design with engineering too much in FCP X. Time will tell.

[Chris Kenny]

[Michael Hancock] “When they sat down to develop FCPX, they had a list of features that had to be in v01. XML, OMF, Multicam, etc… obviously weren’t on that list. It’s not like they started writing this software on a whim a couple months ago and someone said, “Hey guys, this is going to be released next week. Wrap up what you got!”. It was years in development, and they chose not to include certain things. Chose to. It’s not that they weren’t ready – they chose not to include them.”

They chose not to include features in the initial release that were not absolutely necessary to make FCP X a commercially viable product. This is consistent with a well-established pattern on Apple’s part, and does not have the implications with respect to Apple’s future commitment to high-end workflows that many people have claimed it does.

Looking at one of the most successful technology companies in the world and saying, with absolutely no knowledge about any of the details of FCP X ‘s development, “It looks to me like they should have been able to get more done in this period of time”, is ludicrous. Honestly, it always looks like that with software development, even to developers themselves, which is why so many software projects take much longer than originally anticipated. (Probably even at Apple; the public just doesn’t see it at Apple because they don’t publicly announce things until they’re almost done.)

—
Digital Workflow/Colorist, Nice Dissolve.

You should follow me on Twitter here. Or read our blog.

[Ted Levy]

Thanks. Since Avid throws up no obstacles to working easily, the focus, like with a good musical instrument, becomes about what creative ideas and technical skills the editor can bring to his/her work.

[Thomas Frank]

Interesting comments, but I see a history repeat with Final Cut Pro X… I remember when Final Cut Pro hit and I was running on a Titanium Powerbook G4… most comments where Final Cut Pro (3) that time is not a professional tool and it is made for DV and Weddings… lol now look at use.

I don’t believe that the tool is major part in content creation so I will alway have two or more if needed Application on my workstation. I guess I can gave this rebirth of FCPX and see how he grows up.

[Andrew Kimery]

[Andree Franks] “Interesting comments, but I see a history repeat with Final Cut Pro X… I remember when Final Cut Pro hit and I was running on a Titanium Powerbook G4… most comments where Final Cut Pro (3) that time is not a professional tool and it is made for DV and Weddings… lol now look at use.”

A key difference being that FCP ‘classic’ always seemed to be moving onwards and upwards where as FCP X currently looks like a regression. But I guess that depends on what audience the app is mainly targeted for.

-Andrew

3.2GHz 8-core, FCP 6.0.4, 10.5.5
Blackmagic Multibridge Eclipse (6.8.1)

[Craig Seeman]

FCPX will be for “Pros.” It’s starting over so it too will progress and I suspect more rapidly (as it plays feature catchup) than the legacy version.

[Andrew Kimery]

I don’t want to get into the “what is a pro” debate so I’ll just ask, do you think FCP X will sooner rather than later meet and exceed the level of functionality that FCP 7 has? And by that I mean that anything I can do in FCP 7 I’ll be able to do in FCP X and then some.

I don’t understand the ‘either or’ stance as a justification for FCP X’s current state. Apple didn’t have to throw the baby out with the bathwater they choose too. Apple didn’t have to leave out some ‘soon to be brought back’ features they chose to. They prioritized things during development and those priorities are only ‘wrong’ if one assumes that Apple chose to make an app targeted at a specific user base and missed. Maybe Apple chose to target a separate user base and scored a bulls-eye (or near bulls-eye)? IMO Apple will bring many of the ‘traditional pro’ features back over time but the traditional pro user will more of an afterthought rather than a primary target.

I don’t hate FCP X. I just don’t find it useful to me in its current form so I’ll stick w/tools that do such as FCS 3, Avid MC, possibly Premiere and maybe LightWorks eventually. If FCP X ever gets to a point to where I find it usable for my workflow I’ll pick it up too. For me it’s about being pragmatic.

-Andrew

3.2GHz 8-core, FCP 6.0.4, 10.5.5
Blackmagic Multibridge Eclipse (6.8.1)

[Craig Seeman]

[Andrew Kimery] “Apple didn’t have to throw the baby out with the bathwater they choose too.”

They sure did because they had to throw out the bathtub. Quicktime is 32bit. They did not make a 64bit version of Quicktime. They are using AV Foundation. The whole thing had start from scratch since it’s based on something unrelated to Quicktime. AV Foundation itself is fairly new.

Consider the move from OS9 to OSX. What they’re doing is the media equivalent. It took about 18 months and three OSX version before OSX was very usable. Things might be faster with FCPX but it’s going to probably be about 12 to 18 months until it equals much of FCP7. It already exceeds it in some ways do to the new foundation but it’s in a very rudimentary state right now.

[Andrew Kimery]

[Craig Seeman] “They sure did because they had to throw out the bathtub.”

Two quick things off the top of my head. First, I think I made too vague of a statement. Second, I think the phrase “throwing the baby out with the bathwater” is used so commonly that it’s apparently lost all meaning. 😉

When I made the baby/bathwater comment the idea I had swirling around in my head was that things like completely redesigning the GUI and introducing a new editing paradigm were not requirements in order to rewrite the app in 64-bit and to change the framework from QT to AV foundation. Apple could have given FCP 10 the familiar look and feel of previous FCP versions and still switched everything around under the hood just like they’ve done with their operating systems.

Apple chose to craft FCP 10 in the way that they did. It was not something forced on them due to the technical requirements of going from 32-bi to 64-bit. Apple chose to launch with things like “Share to Facebook”, iMovie compatibility and iTunes & iPhoto integration instead of things like OMF or baseband video out support. Apple chose to sever the ties that they did.

OS X supported Classic until Leopard was released. Rosetta is finally being dropped w/Lion. People could buy USB Floppy drives. Heck, even iMovie 6 was available as a free download for two years after iMovie 08 came out. And, honestly, besides moving from command line to GUI desktop operating systems haven’t change much in terms of user interaction over the past few decades. I mean, someone coming from Windows 3.1 would be able to use Windows 7 or OS X just fine after getting past some superficial differences.

-Andrew

3.2GHz 8-core, FCP 6.0.4, 10.5.5
Blackmagic Multibridge Eclipse (6.8.1)

[Craig Seeman]

[Andrew Kimery] “redesigning the GUI and introducing a new editing paradigm were not requirements”

I think the magnetic timeline has to do with how AV Foundation works to some extent. It has to do with the need for gaps (filler) since there can’t be any gaps. The timeline itself is a media object of sorts. I also think Connected Clips have to do with how media objects relate to each other in AV Foundation. They could have make the behavior of Secondary Storylines a default behavior as “tracks.” I don’t think they were limited to a single viewer either. That can be fixed with better 2-up implementation though.

Apple though, tends to be very good with understanding human interaction with computers and GUI. Ease of use/interaction is important throughout. It may be when you put someone in front of something with no NLE habits to unlearn this is what they came up with.