-
Is Oliver Peters wrong?
-
Herb,
A bit more in your intended spirit than maybe my earlier post… I’d like to say that there seem to be four project types/workflows/uses in which FCP X is solid. As such, I still view it as a viable tool in the toolkit, even if it isn’t your main NLE.
1. Projects that are basic news packages. Meaning that they consist of a soundbite/SOT/VO track (the “radio edit” or A-Roll – FCP X’s primary storyline), with B-Roll cutaways to bridge the jumps (connected clips). This is the type of package that Apple has used in its demos and plays to FCP X’s strong points.
2. Projects made of moves on stills with music. The “Ken Burns” style project. The built in “Ken Burns” mode makes this much easier than any other NLE and certainly than FCP 7.
3. Using FCP X to prep HDSLR jobs. For example, import native H264 files from a 5D, stabilize, clean or sync audio and do initial color balance. You could use FCP X to build a selects reel and than export that as a self-contained movie to use in another NLE if you prefer. The advantage is no up-front transcoding.
4. FCP X could be a go-to Mac editor for bigger-than HD jobs. For instance RED 4K files. Although there is no native RED RAW support, right now, you could transcode to 4K ProRes using Redcine-X and then import and cut in FCP X. The same is possible in Premiere Pro and soon hopefully, Media Composer. Performance-wise FCP X may have the edge. I haven’t tested a direct comparison yet.
BTW – the chromakeyer in Motion 5 is one of the better tools on the market.
– Oliver
Oliver Peters Post Production Services, LLC
Orlando, FL
http://www.oliverpeters.com -
One more thing to think about that I’ll toss out here. This doesn’t get mentioned a lot in all the pro-con threads, but that is the fundamental change Apple has made to how FCP X interacts with projects. In the case of FCP 1-7, you had many, individual project files that contained all your edit decisions. Under FCP X, the entire system is one big project file.
FCP X “Projects” are equivalent to FCP 7 “sequences”. FCP X has basically absorbed some of the architecture of Final Cut Server. The upside of this is that ALL MEDIA and ALL EDITS are available to you at once. The downside is that this gets unwieldy and at the moment, there is no provision to hide the things you don’t want to show up. More or less, ProApps decided to copy the Avid method, but still leave some of the files exposed at the OS level.
The solution is to manually move Events and Projects out of their folders at the Finder level or to use an app like the one Assisted Editing has created. In my own experience, FCP X runs more smoothly with fewer Events and Projects, so it’s a good idea to get into a habit of moving everything OUT of the normal folders (use an “inactive” folder, for example) and then only move in the files for a production you are actively working on. As such FCP X is more of a direct extension of the OS itself than FCP 1-7. However, this also means that changes you make are global. For example, creating new “roles” means these additions are there for EVERY production from then on. So think before you make any changes. For instance, you may want to create a Role for VO, but not Joe’s VO.
– Oliver
Oliver Peters Post Production Services, LLC
Orlando, FL
http://www.oliverpeters.com -
Ben –
Thanks for the input. I have a few questions?
“in fact why not proper bussing of tracks its what is needed”
Hoe can you bus tracks when their are no tracks?
“also grading is really let down by the fact that there is no way to copy paste effects properly, this will make fcpx drag behind and not work for broadcast work and is a major priority
out of sync is a joke, this is a priority”
Am I correct in thinking these are the 2 biggest things you need fixed?
Herb Sevush
Zebra Productions -
Oliver –
Thanks for all your comments, and especially for the original article that started this thread.
I think the time has come for a thread like this. I think it is important to know what are the limitations and problems faced by editors who like and use FCPx in order to properly evaluate it.
Every NLE has it’s plus and minuses, even to it’s most enthusiastic users, and getting a sense of where the problems lie is important to anyone trying to evaluate it. It’s one thing to hear about pitfalls from those who don’t like it, and that information is valuable, but the criticism from those who do like it and use it is, if anything, more necessary when trying to gauge it. Seeing how Apple addresses those issues in upcoming releases will be a crucial part of that process.
Herb Sevush
Zebra Productions -
Hi Herb,
Sorry for the delay in responding – what i would call a timezone delay as I’m here in South East England.
The thread has moved on a bit since your post and now we the contributions of Oliver Peters himself which is great.
To answer your question – Have you given the same consideration to any of the other NLE’s out there, or just to FCPx, and if it’s only FCPx that your looking at, my question is why?
The answer is no – not in any great detail – I know what’s out there and I know the decisions that many of peers have made – mostly shifting over to Adobe Premier Pro.
I’ve been using Apple computers for 27 years now and editing on them for the last 10 years. I’ve been using FCP since Vers 3 and in some way I’ve built up a lot of trust in the brand and the thinking that goes on behind it.
The sad news of Steve Jobs death and the subsequent plethora of articles about both Apple’s business development and the philosophy behind what they do has been fascinating and has in many ways reinforced my commitment to giving FCP X a really good try out.
And the only way for me to actually assess the software is to use in the real world, on actual commercial projects with real deadlines and real expectations from the clients I work for.
In many ways the work we do is not that complex. They would in broad terms fit in with Oliver Peters first criteria of workflows he feels are viable for FCP X. Projects that are basic news packages.
The programmes are basically documentary format using interview material to provide the narrative structure together with graphic sequences to top and tail the programme and provide section / chapter sequences. With FCP7 is was able to produce all the programme components within the app. I learnt about composite modes and layoring clips and was able to produce pretty sophisticated graphic sequences and stings. Audio likewise was reasonably easy to handle through using the different layers for different functions.
My big gripe with FCP7 was the amount of rendering lockdown time, its inability to handle different formats on the same timeline without rendering, and the dreadful crashes that occurred from time to time. And basically how slow it was when asked to anything vagually complicated So FCPX addresses many of these issues. On a recent job I had 5 different formats coexisting quite happily in the same project.
For me to move to another editing system such as Premier Pro would involve a large investment in time and being a bear with a small brain I would get pretty confused if I was to start using different packages to do different jobs.
So to go back to the original question about shifting away from this new Apple software. Well I guess I still have faith in the smart thinking that has underpinned my experience with the company over the years.
If this time next year a lot of the issues about the functionality of this software have not been resolved I might well start looking elsewhere or think about a different way of making a living. Maybe one that doesn’t require electricity.
Mark Dobson
Producer and Director
Alembic TV
http://www.alembic.tv -
[Rafael Amador] “FCP is a classic TC based application. For FCPX TC is basically a way of identifying individual “pictures”. In truth FCPX abandon the “frame concept”. Stills duration is not anymore set in “frames”, but in time fractions (which I guess could be a minimal factor on accuracy. haven’t experimented).”
I think I might know what you are referring to here. First of all, welcome to NTSC. What FCPX does right is calculate tc from what NTSC is, a time fraction. 29.97 fps is really 30000/1001 fps, so accuracy is FCPX is better than FCP Legacy. After all tc is frame by frame metadata, isn’t it? All cameras calculate their tc this way, why shouldn’t an NLE?
[Rafael Amador] “Anyway, for me is hard to accept that FCPX is unable to export a basic EDL. Is like being impossible to convert a Word document in to SimpleText.”
Its completely different. How do you express a compound clip in an EDL? It is not a word for word translation.
-
[Mark Dobson] “One point that he makes that I agree with relates to the speed of the GUI. Opening any event, project or clip and you are also opening a filmstrip or series of filmstrips. The lag is frustrating. “
It is mich faster than opening huge projects in FCP7 though. A couple of my current FCP7 projects are 7 minute open time. Talk about lag frustration.
[Mark Dobson] “I have dipped back into FCP7 on a couple of occasions and it all feels very old fashioned and clunky, kind of square. “
That’s the funny thing. I have the same experience.
-
[Herb Sevush] ” I think it is important to know what are the limitations and problems faced by editors who like and use FCPx in order to properly evaluate it. “
Of course, now that Apple offers a free trial, you can also download and evaluate at no charge.
Oliver
Oliver Peters Post Production Services, LLC
Orlando, FL
http://www.oliverpeters.com -
[David Roth Weiss] “How hard would it have been for the Apple software developers to change that appropriately? “
Man, if that’s the only thing that needed fixing….I’d be pissed about the release of X.
-
[Herb Sevush] “Capture now is an absolute and total piece of s**t. “
Couldn’t agree more. This is why having capture card manufactures make a capture utility for tape is exciting. You will be able to interact with the company that is making the interface and make the capture utility better instead of waiting for a fix that will never come from the Apple side.
Reply to this Discussion! Login or Sign Up