-
Is Oliver Peters wrong?
-
[Jeremy Garchow] “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.”
In a sense, some of the moves Apple has done with FCP X are good because it allows them to work within their core competencies. VTR handling has never been strong in any version of FCP, so it’s better someone else does that. If you look at the VTR handling in Media Composer for instance, it’s a pretty good bet that no utility will match it, though. There simply is no overwhelming need to put a lot of development into such a tool today.
One of the things people are having a hard time coming to grips with is the fact that FCP X has a much narrower and locked down focus. FCP Classic evolved into a great freeform Swiss Army Knife that fit many diverse workflows, from simple projects to features to large integrated facilities. Plus the software suite concept made it a great media hub around which you could structure your complete operation. FCP X simply isn’t that kind of an application. I doubt it will ever be that.
Oliver
Oliver Peters Post Production Services, LLC
Orlando, FL
http://www.oliverpeters.com -
“I might well start looking elsewhere or think about a different way of making a living. Maybe one that doesn’t require electricity.”
I’ve been trying to figure out how to edit via steam for years. After all, it’s mostly hot air we’re dealing with.
Herb Sevush
Zebra Productions -
“How do you express a compound clip in an EDL? It is not a word for word translation.”
The same way you would express a complex sequence to an EDL in FCP7 – you didn’t.
It was understood that you had to clean up your timeline to prepare an EDL when you needed one, and of course with FCPc (Classic) it was easy enough to do. Are you saying FCPx is more limited and can’t be cleaned up for EDL prep?
Herb Sevush
Zebra Productions -
I’m a multi-cam editor at least 90% of the time, so trying out the current FCPx is pointless for me.
Because the nature of multi-cam lends itself so well to metadata, and because of the excellence of the FCPc multi-cam feature I have high expectations for the next FCPx update. If it lives up to my expectations I then have to figure if dealing with the rest of X’s behavior will make it worth the effort. That’s my reason for starting this thread, to see if there are any other dealbreaker’s out there, beyond the basic magnetic timeline stuff.
Herb Sevush
Zebra Productions -
Of course you might want to ask why creating a capture module was so daunting for Apple, since every other NLE I ever worked with could manage this quite well.
I also simply don’t like having to deal with digitizing as something outside of the basic program – if they create a third party digitizing plug-in I’d feel much more comfortable with it. This might be irrational, but it still makes me feel like I’m buying a car without a carburetor and they tell me to go buy one at AutoZone.
Herb Sevush
Zebra Productions -
[Herb Sevush] “it still makes me feel like I’m buying a car without a carburetor and they tell me to go buy one at AutoZone.”
Good analogy …
I feel very much the same about the issue of OMF export without which I can’t really do much with FCPX professionally yet. There is a deep and bitter irony to the fact that Automatic Duck were flagged by Apple as the solution to this problem in the FAQ – only for them to jump ship to Adobe where I would imagine that the last of their concerns will be supporting FCPX (though I could be wrong, anything is possible).
I feel that core functions really should be provided by Apple not by third parties – it feels just too flaky to be relying on companies like AD who may or may not disappear from the FCPX scene without warning, however brilliant their products may or may not be.
The other aspect to this is that I want to know that OMF export (or whatever other function we are talking about) is going to function without issues and I want Apple to have taken the responsibility for this reliable functioning. I don’t think that’s an unreasonable ask.
Simon Ubsdell
Director/Editor/Writer
http://www.tokyo-uk.com -
[Jeremy Garchow] “Man, if that’s the only thing that needed fixing….I’d be pissed about the release of X.”
Unfortunately, the DV50 thing I mentioned is but one example of an entire plethora of things never fixed over the years in FCP. And, the point I made is that examples like it do not exactly breed confidence that FCP X will ever get all the fixes it requires.
David Roth Weiss
Director/Editor/Colorist
David Weiss Productions, Inc.
Los Angeles
https://www.drwfilms.comDon’t miss my new Creative Cow Podcast: Bringing “The Whale” to the Big Screen:
https://library.creativecow.net/weiss_roth_david/Podcast-Series-2-MikeParfitandSuzanneChisholm/1POST-PRODUCTION WITHOUT THE USUAL INSANITY ™
Creative COW contributing editor and a forum host of the Business & Marketing and Apple Final Cut Pro forums.
-
[Herb Sevush] “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.”
I’ve been using FCPX on a variety of projects over the last couple of months, long form event documentary, corporate promos, highlights video etc. The biggest issue for me has been stability before the .01 release. But I did expect problems in that area, the .01 release has improved stability considerably.
I can honestly say I haven’t hit any major roadblocks so far in editing terms, creatively it hasn’t stopped me doing anything I wanted to do and in many respects it has helped.
There’s certainly been a lot of “think” time but like any software I’ve needed less of that as time has gone on. To be honest I’ve enjoyed the change and the challenge, however I do understand that some people don’t want to change their workflows to the extent they would have to if they used FCPX.
I’ve been able to do this because my current slate of projects hasn’t required the major features that are lacking, however to continue using it I would need Multicam, external monitor support and export to Resolve at the least.
But as it stands I’ve had a very positive experience with it
“My Name is Steve and I’m an FCPX user”
-
[Oliver Peters] “FCP Classic evolved into a great freeform Swiss Army Knife that fit many diverse workflows, from simple projects to features to large integrated facilities. Plus the software suite concept made it a great media hub around which you could structure your complete operation. FCP X simply isn’t that kind of an application. I doubt it will ever be that.
“Ultimately, that is my problem with the whole venture; its not that FCP X is a total failure, but rather that it does a very poor job of replacing FCS. In fact, “poor job” is kind. It just doesn’t replace it. FCP X is a tool that I will probably own once edl/xml export issues are worked out, but it is just too inflexible to replace FCS.
-
[Chris Harlan] “it is just too inflexible to replace FCS”
[Oliver Peters] “FCP Classic evolved into a great freeform Swiss Army Knife”
For me, one of the main issues is that FCP Classic and Media Composer alike are tools that give you a very wide range of options for any particular process so that it is possible to devise a workflow that “works” for you, your business and your way of editing. (Quite often with NLE’s it’s about finding the least worst way of doing something, rather than the Platonically perfect way of doing it, but that’s a whole other story.)
The limitation with FCPX as it currently stands is that the range of worflow options have been reduced dramatically – in many areas, as much in terms of the editing interface as elsewhere, there are now almost no options at all. You have to do it the FCPX way, or not do it at all.
I’m sure this will change as time goes by (or maybe not?!) but it’s not a great position to be in at the moment – especially if you happen not to particularly like the FCPX way of doing things.
Simon Ubsdell
Director/Editor/Writer
http://www.tokyo-uk.com
Reply to this Discussion! Login or Sign Up