February 28, 2019 at 4:06 am
Josh Beal is a Hollywood editor who has work on such shows as Counterpart, Bloodline, and House of Cards. As a TV editor, Josh thinks it is time for Hollywood to reconsider Final Cut Pro X as a viable editing platform. In this presentation, Josh explains why Avid Media Composer is the King of the NLE in Hollywood and what needs to happen to convince current Media Composer editors to switch over to Final Cut Pro X. (From Lumaforge)
– Gerry Fraiberg
Videographer | Editor | Photographer | Voice Over Artist.
❖ ❖ ❖
February 28, 2019 at 2:56 pm
While he is 100% correct, here’s the reality:
Note the NLE.
Oliver Peters – oliverpeters.com
February 28, 2019 at 3:38 pm
If it was going to happen, it would of by now. 8 years in – traction in Hollywood is next to nil. No fault to FCPX besides its reputation but yea – nada.
February 28, 2019 at 3:45 pm
Just noting that Sven Pape of “This Guy Edits” is himself and FCPX editor. To my knowledge, all his own documentary and narrative work is done on FCPX.
March 6, 2019 at 7:13 pm
I don’t totally agree with this for some of the same reasons people still don’t use X; i.e. its lack of specific features needed for the demanding collaborative workflows of TV and Hollywood films. However, as those features either become unnecessary or get addressed in a useful way by Apple, I think the transition could happen. That is if the cost of investing in brand new software makes sense to the bottom line. Then again, from what I’ve read from others here, there’s very much an, if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it attitude in Hollywood. If it’s not going to save them a massive amount of money, they won’t make the transition.
Winston A. Cely
ACTC Media Broadcasting Video Instructor
Apple Certified Editor FCPX 3
\”If you can talk brilliantly enough about a subject, you can create the consoling illusion it has been mastered.\” – Stanley Kubrick
March 6, 2019 at 7:21 pm
If FCPX was cross-platform I’d venture to guess that it could be a possibility in the future but since FCPX is locked there’s very little chance this will ever happen.
March 6, 2019 at 7:48 pm
[greg janza] “If FCPX was cross-platform I’d venture to guess that it could be a possibility in the future but since FCPX is locked there’s very little chance this will ever happen.”
I don’t think so. The vast majority of Avid systems in Hollywood are Mac. Yes, there are PC stations, but a good 80-90% of the Avid setups are on Apple machines. FCP Legacy was Mac only, and it really threatened Avid’s foothold in Hollywood. Took the town by storm, and caused Avid to wake up and start paying attention to the needs of the editors. FCP 7 was positioning to really make a huge dent…and if they continued with FCP 8 and along the same path, they might have. BUT, they didn’t. They dropped it in favor of a larger market.
The platform it was on isn’t the issue, it’s the interface.
Little Frog Post
Read my blog, Little Frog in High Def
March 6, 2019 at 9:49 pm
[Shane Ross] “The platform it was on isn’t the issue, it’s the interface.”
I agree. The added aspect now is that the move away from Apple hardware has begun within the industry but naturally TV and Film will probably lag behind in that move.
March 11, 2019 at 11:02 pm
The inertia and loyalty to Mac hardware is a bit perplexing to me especially as the trashcan was not a good solution. If Apple don’t get it right with the new Mac Pro they’ve promised then I don’t see iMac form factor being a viable thing for a market place that needs pure grunt and potentially 8k source footage.
March 12, 2019 at 2:16 am
[Michael Gissing] “The inertia and loyalty to Mac hardware is a bit perplexing to me especially as the trashcan was not a good solution.”
I don’t know that there’s any loyalty to Mac hardware per se, in the sense that people pushed back on it pretty hard. A lot of people kept much older boxes instead…which is loyaltly, but the exact opposite of inertia. They’re moving in exactly the opposite direction Apple wants them to, or are buying third party add-ons (say, Sonnet or BMD’s eGPUs) to muscle up solutions from Apple that aren’t cutting it for them.
The Hackintosh phenomenon was overstated I think, although there are folks here using ’em, for the exact reason that Apple’s hardware isn’t as compelling as off-the-shelf combinations you can put together yourself if you’re inclined. Why bother? Because the software is more compelling. It allows Apple to shoot itself and its customers in the foot (or the head, or somewhere exactly in between) again and again and again. The software is more compelling to them.
Apple’s adamant commitment to second-class (or worse) hardware was indeed exasperating to me, but what ultimately flipped me out of the ecosystem is what keeps other people just as firmly entrenched: the combination of hardware and software. I stopped finding it compelling or even vaguely worth the money, effort, or tradeoffs to live with old, underpowered tech when compared with the alternatives…but other people look at the alternatives and find exactly the opposite, that nothing out there is compelling as the Apple.
The only aspect of inertia comes from not looking, which I don’t think there’s as much of in this particular forum as some others. Nothing wrong with preferring what you prefer….which I know you agree with, of course, and am not arguing with you here, except to soften “inertia” a bit. But it heartens me to see people looking around and finding that it’s easier to leave than you think, and certainly easier than Apple would have you believe.
Log in to reply.