-
New blog post from Philip Hodgetts. Worth the read.
-
Hmm,
I cant’ use FCPX for the few real editing jobs per year, it simply doesn’t match the needs I have. I can’t do it with PPro, we have tried Avid and Media 100 – didn’t match my needs as well. Haven’t tried others. FCP in it’s later versions had been a good editor for ‘rough’ cuts. I finalized all the stuff in AE – and I still use FCP7 and AE for my jobs.
Machines go faster every day, but as mentioned before the things which matter most quite often (maybe mostly) are the setup and organization of workflows. And that’s from my opinion is the most important thing.
In old days when German Bertelsmann hold a lot of shares of AOL I was always asked to make the promos for press and one for the CEBIT show for the large screen. They always said “it’s the last time you do it” when they called mr two weeks before the show – having no idea about a script, no idea about style, no idea about music etc. Only some numbers which they want to show were given.
We had been a very small production house, but had been well organized. That time we used FileMaker Pro to organize and ‘keywording’ our own stuff. Was a really huge data base. So compared to the big guys with the big machines and the big software, we were much better organized. We were able to develop an idea, search for stock, maybe quickly improvise some additional shooting and based on the idea let some people create a kind of ‘sound floor’. We always got the job – till the german company sold their shares from AOL.
These crazy jobs could be an example where FCPX could shine (for some jobs). Keywording and Batch-Metadata-Change are excellent done. Preview is mostly real time without the need of rendering – though at a certain time of point you will need to render.The example Brian Mulligan posted before could be a good example for FCPX & Motion – if you’re organized. Can be done with FCPX, if you’re prepared for that kind of job.
Philip Hodgetts would be right if he says “two times faster up to four times faster” and add the kind of project where it applies. I could give some different results.
I do understand Jeremy when he says it’s working well.
I don’t understand Aindreas comments – in many cases.Anyway FCPX as now more or less is a 0.9 version (like many other apps when they change features, handling etc. – fix some bugs and add new ones). I know about that – as sometimes I write some apps.
So conclusion (from my side):
Same as Brian Mulligan: “I know I could not use it for my purposes.”
Different from the above: I do care about FCPX, do send bug reports and feature requests – more people should do that.Again my 2 cents (maybe all the “2 cents” which are given here should be sent to a real bank account, which could be used for some charity purposes)
Andreas
Spherico
https://www.spherico.com/filmtools -
FCPX is certainly faster, I can say this because I’ve been using it more or less every day for the last few months, I used FCP for years so I am qualified to make the comparison.
“My Name is Steve and I’m an FCPX user”
-
[Shane Ross] “THEY need to change…not us.”
In a perfect world – yes, in the real world it’s not going to happen, time and budget pressure is only going to increase.
“My Name is Steve and I’m an FCPX user”
-
Steve,
If you say:
FCPX is certainly faster, I can say this because I’ve been using it more or less every day for the last few months, I used FCP for years so I am qualified to make the comparison.
I could say:
FCPX might be faster in some cases, I can say this because I’ve been using it more or less every day for the last few months, I used FCP since first beta so I am qualified to make the comparison.
Andreas 🙂
Spherico
https://www.spherico.com/filmtools -
[Shane Ross] “THEY need to change…not us.”
Good luck with that. How about standing on the beach and asking the tide not to come in?
-
I think it’s pretty silly to project psychological motives onto any corporate entity. Successful companies work towards two goals: make good products and make money to continue the process. Some more on one side and some on the other. Apple clearly casts itself as leaning heavily towards only caring about the product, but they (and we) have been best off when they also paid a lot of attention to making money.
FCP X is entirely in line with their stated motives of making products that they internally believe are right and wanted. So, “listening to customers” really hasn’t been in their DNA for a long time, if ever. Whether or not FCP X is right depends on many factors. Same for whether it is faster or not.
It will evolve. Hopefully the bugginess will go away and it will be better optimized. It certainly will find a place in all of our workflows. I suspect even in LA. Just imagine the first time a producer hands a cut to an editor, which the producer had started on FCP X. Might not be the case in episodic TV, but I can guarantee you it will happen in docs, commercials, etc. That will be a point of decision for many, same as happened with FCP 1-7.
Oliver
Oliver Peters Post Production Services, LLC
Orlando, FL
http://www.oliverpeters.com -
[Chris Harlan] “I definitely have to cut fast. No question. I work in an extremely deadline driven business. What I don’t get from reading Hodgetts’ article is how FCP X will make my work go faster. The only thing I really get from reading his article is that he might not fully understand how to optimize FCP 7 for speed.
“How much have you played with FCPX at this point? How about PPro or any other NLE?
There’s only so much you can do to “speed up” or optimize fcp7 and let’s be realistic, fcp7 is not a very fast NLE, except in XML transfers.
Sure, if you have a few supported .movs to import, that’s one thing.
But tens of hours of tapeless formats that must be transcoded is another.
There are certain areas in which FCPX falls flat on its face (which all stem mostly around interchnage), but as a self contained editor where you don’t need much interaction with the outside world, it is much much faster than legacy feature for feature.
Just curious Chris, but do you ever start from zero on any projects? Meaning, you are given a hard drive of 500GBs of raw footage and audio that you need to prep and organize?
-
[Shane Ross] “What these clients/producers need to get a grip on is that things take time. Want it to look good? Be creative? Have a story? Then it takes time.
THEY need to change…not us.”
I wish it were that easy. For some reason, I just don’t see things going back to the way they once were.
Jeremy
-
[Rafael Amador] “Right, the perfect NLE for a sick world.
That’s why I don’t need FCPX: At this point on life the only pressure I allows comes from my self.
I’m not hired because I can do it faster, but because I can do it better.”But therein lies the problem. What if people hire you because you can do it better, but then pressure you to get it done faster? Do you simply say no? If you have that luxury, that is commendable, but my guess is that most don’t have that luxury, hence what Philip wrote about.
Jeremy
-
[John Joyce] “Where are the mavens going to come from for FCPX?”
Doesn’t Bill Davis qualify?
Herb Sevush
Zebra Productions
—————————
nothin’ attached to nothin’
“Deciding the spine is the process of editing” F. Bieberkopf
Reply to this Discussion! Login or Sign Up