-
Is the name clouding our judgement?
-
Maybe if they would have also priced it higher like $900. and hyped as the future is now or something of the sorts.
RC
-
[Rafael Amador] “What I don’t like in FCPX Is the lack of intuitiveness and the lack of a GUI where I can see every single element of my editing at a glance and move it in time and space at my will.
rafael”Yes rafael, we get that it’s not “intuitive” for you.
But your “intuition” and mine may just be different.
I happen to be currently reading a novel set in the Arctic among indigenous people. The author does a great job of expressing how those people relate to the natural world in very different ways to what I understand through my daily life. Their “intuition” is very different than mine. They consider things like weather to be daily “life and death” issues – because for them, they are.
So their “intuition” about climate is finely honed. Mine, living in Arizona, is astonishingly dulled by comparison. Weather is a factor (in the form of heat) during the summer, but largely irrelevant otherwise. So I have developed a good bit of “heat” intuition. And almost no “deadly cold” understanding beyond simple reason.
In the same way, someone who has been conditioned to edit in one particular fashion – based on the editing tasks they’ve been MOST exposed to on a day to day basis, will “color” their entire approach to editing.
It really can’t be otherwise.
The issue with the X-dismissers is often that they can’t see “editing” as anything other than the way “they” edit.
But others with different challenges and needs DO see it very differently.
And we’re not wrong because of that.
You want to thrive in your editing climate. I want to thrive in mine.
The larger question is if “Hollywood” editing is more reflective of the overall climate that most people live in, or is my more “general and increasingly web oriented business editing” the more widespread climate?
Worth considering, anyway.
“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’m sure a lot of us are tying to “make it work” – it would be a sad world if the only choices were the other 2 A’s. (no offense Edius and Vegas)
As long as Apple stays committed to making it work and listens to users, I think it will quickly be back as a respected pro NLE. They seem to be on a pretty fast track with fixes and updates – we’ll see if that continues…
Lance Bachelder
Writer, Editor, Director
Irvine, California -
[Mark Dobson] “Sure there are still a lot of shortcomings with this software and the launch was similar to that of the Titanic, however with each update more editors are taking a second look.”
(slapping forehead)
Of course!
Now I finally understand that on this journey, sometime in the future, because they hopped aboard Final Cut Pro X – many hundreds of people will die violently.
Glad we got that cleared up.
“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
-
[oliver peters] It’s been said a number of times by a number of folks, but would we be trying so hard to make FCP X work for everything, if Apple had, in fact, named it “iMovie Pro”?
I seriously doubt it. Because if we’re just talking about a name change, it still wouldn’t keep people from resenting why apple chose to develop this program instead of updating FCP7. That anger would carry over no matter what.
Secondly, I think people try to make it work, because they want it to work for them. When I first layed hands on an Avid, it was a Newscutter 1.5 I think, I tried to make it do what it couldn’t at the time. Back then you only had 3 or 4 video tracks available and I wanted to composite over 15 in this scene I was cutting. My workaround was ridiculous, but that didn’t stop me because I wanted to edit the story a particular way.
I see FCPX the same way. I want to edit stories based on my own sense of creativity, not on the limitations of the software. I push to discover the flaws and report them because, like Avid, I hope that the developer is listening and will make the program better. Secretly, I feel all developers hope that as well; that their users will tell them how they can make their software better.
Of course there’s also the fact that FCPX is really new and people are still just discovering ways to use it. FCPX may not be useful for all workflows yet, but I have no reason to believe that will always be the case. In all likelihood it will end up like FCP7, possible to use for almost any workflow, but ideal for only some.
Andy
https://www.timesavertutorials.com
-
A lot of good replies. I’m not as optimistic as some that FCP X will ever become a universal solution, unless some inherent design issues are resolved. It is however tantalizingly close for a lot of projects and really has both strong “offline” and “online” edit system features.
For example, on one project I’m cutting, that will rely heavily on speed ramps, I plan to use it for the “online system” (without the client) because of the quality of the optical flow, but I’ll do the rough cut with FCP 7, because it’s better suited on this job. On another, I would love to use it because the show uses heavy chromakey and it’s just better and faster in X. Unfortunately it’s a clean-up and conform of a piece the client built himself in FCP 7 and the track lay-out and design would be very hard to transfer to X without a complete rethink of the creative. In fact, the nature of the second project is sufficiently involved, that no translation into another NLE would be successful. So I’m stuck doing the clean-up in FCP 7 and hope that I can handle the creative cut on the next show, where I have some control of the tools.
My point is that these issues tend to point to FCP X as being A good tool (among many) in the arsenal, but maybe not THE tool. That’s why I started from the standpoint of the branding. This tends to lead me to believe that we’ll be seeing more FCP X / Adobe CS combo jobs in the future.
Ironically I did a convention edit the other night and it was the kind of job that would have been a good one for FCP X. There were about 7 editors on this. All running FCP 7. When I suggested to them that X might actually be a good tool on this job, I got a lot of dirty looks, along with being accused of hastening the downfall of paid editors everywhere 😉
– Oliver
Oliver Peters Post Production Services, LLC
Orlando, FL
http://www.oliverpeters.com -
[Oliver Peters] “When I suggested to them that X might actually be a good tool on this job, I got a lot of dirty looks, along with being accused of hastening the downfall of paid editors everywhere ;-)”
Right! Because the “$399 upgrade cost of FCS4” would have kept so many people from buying it!
I have heard that a $100 software cost separates the wheat from the chaff in the editing world.
What do they think of DaVinci Free?
I do think if FCPX came out under a different name, there would be a completely different way of looking at it. Yes, we would be mad about the disappearance of FCS4, but in general, I think there would be some differing mind sets. Sure there’d still be some of the same arguments, but the anger would be more focused on Apple and less on each other and the level of pro you represent.
On the other side, it would allow people to approach it with more of an open slate, like, “This is something new” instead of “Why is this called Final Cut Pro?”
All that being said, I don’t think Apple could have done it any other way. If it didn’t have the FCP badge, I wouldn’t be looking at it as hard as I have been. They have said that they are still interested in the “pro market” and it’s going to take a while longer, but they have delivered on that so far. Sure, it doesn’t fit every pro workflow, but you can see they are slowly adding pro features.
Jeremy
-
“Right! Because the “$399 upgrade cost of FCS4″ would have kept so many people from buying it!”
You’re missing the point. Not because of the cost, but rather the perception by working editors of who FCP X is being marketed to.
– Oliver
Oliver Peters Post Production Services, LLC
Orlando, FL
http://www.oliverpeters.com -
[Oliver Peters] “You’re missing the point. Not because of the cost, but rather the perception by working editors of who FCP X is being marketed to.”
No, I get it. But I would tell those people to take a really good look around.
It’s not about the money, but it’s about the money.
-
I firmly believe that if they had called it Fetal Cut Pro X that people would have immediately known that this baby was not ready to go out into the world yet. Let it rest, and get nourishment, and mature, until those missing features have grown into place, and everyting would be just fine, and this forum would never have happened.
Joe Bourke
Owner/Creative Director
Bourke Media
http://www.bourkemedia.com
Reply to this Discussion! Login or Sign Up