Point Me In the Direction of A………..

[Craig Seeman]

https://www.maclife.com/article/videos/video_how_final_cut_pro_x_different_fcp_7

[Rich Rubasch]

Also, I believe FCP X won’t load unless you are runnning Lion. the App store runs in Snow Leopard, but FCP X doesn’t show up until you instlal Lion.

So, I partitioned a 2 terabyte drive into Leopard with all my current installs, Snow Leopard with CS 5.5 and FCS 3 and then Lion with FCP X. This way I have three options at boot up to work in whatever environment I need. All running off a single drive. I’m simply a boot up away from tinkering with FCP X or I can reboot and work in Leopard with FCS 3 with Compressor, DVDSP etc.

I think it’s the way to roll at this point.

Rich Rubasch
Tilt Media Inc.
Video Production, Post, Studio Sound Stage
Founder/President/Editor/Designer/Animator
https://www.tiltmedia.com

[Craig Seeman]

[Rich Kaelin] “I have been using it for 2 years now, and from the beginning I was unimpressed. I mainly got it because lots of potential jobs required it, and once I did, I really did not understand the love for this product. Yes, it works, but it is hardly superior. Avid beats it, and the combo of Premiere with After effects is superior in many aspects. Am I missing something? Don’t get me wrong, I have grown to like a lot about it, but the hype certainly was a bit overdone. “

As someone who worked on Avid for over 10 years as an editor and later a facility engineer and Final Cut Pro for another 10 years, FCP was better than Avid in many respects . . . and Avid remained ahead for FCP in many other respects. It really depends on your workflow needs. I liked Avid’s trimming and Media Management and hated it’s “step into” for certain FX work and “modes” in order to move around elements of a sequence. I loved the hardware and diversity of plugin support for FCP. I hated that Avid had indicated they’d leave the Mac market even though that was a huge portion, if not the majority of their base at the time. That’s last is of no consequence if you prefer to use it on Windows . . . but I hated the problems in dismounting “shuttles” on Windows compared to Mac and so did every editor in the facility I was engineer at.

I was not happy about Premiere leaving the Mac market and their later entry back in. In the last few years Premiere Pro has improved and in may ways better than FCP especially handling native formats. I preferred Final Cut Studio as a suite though.

Apple has a long history of being innovative and forward thinking. Unfortunately that has often resulted in shorter term pain and consternation. Generally though the end results are widely popular. Whether what FCPX grows into get meet the needs of many “pros” is certainly a question,

I don’t doubt it will have a fairly wide market base and therefore significant “professional” third party support whether plugins, video i/o, management utilities. I don’t know if/when it’ll meet all the higher end professional needs but I like what I see so far . . . and I hate what’s missing. I think, given its early stage the latter will be fixed/improved. Even if for the time being it’s market share is cut in half or more, it already seems widely spread that third parties are coming along with it and/or announced they are waiting for Apple to complete and distribute the APIs.

Philip Hodgetts has dug deep into the metadata underpinnings. Alex Gollner (Alex4d) had dug into the resources. What they’ve found convinces me that Apple has a very sophisticated NLE in the works . . . and it’s very much “in the works.”

[Craig Seeman]

[Rich Rubasch] “Also, I believe FCP X won’t load unless you are runnning Lion. the App store runs in Snow Leopard, but FCP X doesn’t show up until you instlal Lion.”

??? I’m running FCPX on Snow Leopard. Installs and runs just fine (given the bugs in FCPX under either OS).

Apple does recommend running FCPX and FCS 2009 on separate partitions but I’m using both on one with the only hassle is moving things in and out of folders so they don’t bump into each other.

[Chris Harlan]

[Rich Rubasch] “Also, I believe FCP X won’t load unless you are runnning Lion. the App store runs in Snow Leopard, but FCP X doesn’t show up until you instlal Lion.”

Sorry Mate, this is incorrect. At least here in the USA.

[Scott Sheriff]

[Rich Kaelin] “1. I have heard that FCPX will not open projects from older versions, that would be a HUGE con.”

It will not open any other FCP version project. It will open legacy iMovie projects.

[Rich Kaelin] “2. Can you have 7 & X loaded on same machine at same time with no issues?”

There are issues with folders being moved/renamed, and on other forums I have read reports of FCS being more unstable after installing X. If you want to try it out, use a partition or a separate drive.

[Rich Kaelin] “3. I hear that FCPX is missing a lot of features real editors would be loathe to give up.”

You heard right. No tape I/O, no XML, no OMF, no multi-cam, no ability to open legacy projects, no way to share a project with another editor due to file structure, no way to assign tracks. Theres more, but that should give you an idea.

[Rich Kaelin] “4. In direct relation to 3, I hear FCPX is a “work in progress” and will have many upgrades soon to come, in other words, it was released too early and incomplete.”

IMO, this is just spin used to placate those that are angry. I think Apple released what they intended to release, and had to play CYA. Why would they have told the VAR guys to send back unsold copies of FCS3 a week before the release of X, if they knew it had missing features, and would be leaving some in a lurch? I believe they had no intention of adding the ‘missing features’ because they have a new sales demographic that didn’t need them. Now there has been a big uproar, they are in scramble mode to try and incorporate these things to shut everyone up. How successful this will be remains to be seen. I’m not waiting around.

[Rich Kaelin] “5. What exactly comes with FCPX package? ie-motion, compressor, color? you see, I am having a hard time with the app store, and can’t even find it on there…my searches return lots of final cut stuff, just not FCPX.”

You get Final Cut X. Thats it. Motion costs 50 dollars, and Compressor costs 50 dollars. New Motion has a few new cool features, but can only open one project at a time and can’t use two monitors, which is a deal breaker. New Compressor, is really just the same old 32 bit Compresser with a couple of extra prosumer presets, and a bit of chrome on the UI.
DVDSP-gone, STP-gone, Color-gone, Cinema Tools-gone.

[Rich Kaelin] “Honestly, I think Final Cut is just a Mac lover thing. I have been using it for 2 years now, and from the beginning I was unimpressed. I mainly got it because lots of potential jobs required it, and once I did, I really did not understand the love for this product. Yes, it works, but it is hardly superior. Avid beats it, and the combo of Premiere with After effects is superior in many aspects. Am I missing something? Don’t get me wrong, I have grown to like a lot about it, but the hype certainly was a bit overdone.”

Like you I have been editing since the 80’s. CMX, Sony, Paltex, early Avid, Media 100. When I looked for a personal NLE, I was agnostic, and had never owned a Mac and been a PC guy since the days of DOS and the XT. I had never seen FCS, and went to a VAR that had two systems set up side by side. One Avid, and one FCS. After a day of using them, they were pretty close, with each having a few things the other did better. In the end I chose FCP because for what I wanted to do, it gave the best bang for the buck. I think the Avid or PP is better argument is workflow specific, and the ‘better’ is subjective. And I have to say that the Mac Pro I use to edit on is the best machine I have ever owned. But the FCP X debacle, and the way Apple dumped Shake has soured me on doing business with Apple on any level.

Scott Sheriff
Director
https://www.sstdigitalmedia.com

“If you think it’s expensive to hire a professional to do the job, wait until you hire an amateur.” —Red Adair

Where were you on 6/21?

[Craig Seeman]

[Scott Sheriff] “You heard right. No tape I/O, no XML, no OMF, no multi-cam, no ability to open legacy projects, no way to share a project with another editor due to file structure, no way to assign tracks. Theres more, but that should give you an idea.”

Please read. While one may not know whether or not these features were abandoned or yet to be implemented, these are things found within FCPX resources currently.

https://alex4d.wordpress.com/2011/07/18/secret-fcpx-xml-multi-user-editing/

and

https://alex4d.wordpress.com/2011/07/13/secret-fcpx-1/

[Andy Neil]

[Scott Sheriff] “[Rich Kaelin] “3. I hear that FCPX is missing a lot of features real editors would be loathe to give up.”

You heard right. No tape I/O, no XML, no OMF, no multi-cam, no ability to open legacy projects, no way to share a project with another editor due to file structure, no way to assign tracks.”

See, this is part of the mis-information that the OP is talking about. Your statement is accurate to some point, but also inaccurate. It’s hard for people to know what to believe when blanket claims are thrown around.

FCP X does not offer tape I/O EXCEPT with firewire devices. The import from camera feature allows for “Capture Now” capability for cameras connected via firewire. I have a DVCPro deck connected with FW and I can capture fine from tape. However, you cannot Log and Capture tape, nor can you go back to tape in any manner. This will likely be fixed as Apple and 3rd party capture card manufacturers address it, but that’s where it stands now.

The “no way to share a project” is also misleading. Projects and events can be duplicated and moved for use on another machine very easily. In fact, it’s simpler than FCP 7. In addition, media can be stored in a shared storage environment that more than one editor can see, and then the project (sequence) can be duplicated and moved to another edit bay for use with another editor. No, there isn’t true project sharing such as Avid has, but FCP has never had that.

[Scott Sheriff] “[Rich Kaelin] “4. In direct relation to 3, I hear FCPX is a “work in progress” and will have many upgrades soon to come, in other words, it was released too early and incomplete.”

IMO, this is just spin used to placate those that are angry.”

HAHAHAHA! Well, THAT sure worked.

[Scott Sheriff] “I believe they had no intention of adding the ‘missing features’ because they have a new sales demographic that didn’t need them.”

I don’t understand that argument at all. One of the largest complaints against FCP X is that Apple is clearly going after the consumer/prosumer market. After all, Apple already HAD that market with iMovie and FCP. It’s not like Avid or Adobe had the lion share of that market before 6-21. If you were a consumer and you owned a mac, and wanted to get into editing, you used either iMovie or FCP. Yes, despite the fact that FCP 7 is in use at high-level production facilities and used to cut feature films, its intuitive nature and attractive price point made it an easy decision for budding videographers, student filmmakers and others. For those who thought it was too much, they have iMovie, installed on their computer when they bought it. For those in this market with PCs, what do you expect FCP X has that FCP and iMovie combined couldn’t do to tempt them into buying a Mac?

Also, today’s consumer/prosumer might be tomorrow’s pro. You think they’ll be happy with FCP X’s currently limited features? There are people right now shooting wedding videos with multiple DSLRs who are going to want multicam, and to see what the video will look like on an external monitor.

Andy

https://www.timesavertutorials.com

[Craig Seeman]

[Scott Sheriff] ” I think Apple released what they intended to release, and had to play CYA. Why would they have told the VAR guys to send back unsold copies of FCS3 a week before the release of X, if they knew it had missing features, and would be leaving some in a lurch?”

You have no evidence or line of reasoning to support that.
While I don’t claim to know the reason either, I do know that the reason Macromedia couldn’t release Final Cut Pro was due to certain licensing issues around Quicktime

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Final_Cut_Pro

Macromedia could not release the product without causing its partner Truevision some issues with Microsoft, as KeyGrip was, in part, based on technology from Microsoft licensed to Truevision and then in turn to Macromedia. The terms of the IP licensing deal stated that it was not to be used in conjunction with QuickTime. Thus, Macromedia was forced to keep the product off the market until a solution could be found. At the same time, the company decided to focus more on applications that would support the web, so they sought to find a buyer for their non-web applications, including KeyGrip; which, by 1998, was renamed Final Cut.

It’s only speculative on my part but it may have been that such licenses were due to be renewed and Apple either chose not to or couldn’t.

Adding to that although I can’t find the original blog by Peter Wiggins of idustrial revolution
https://forums.appleinsider.com/showthread.php?t=127811

Although industry professional Sam Johnson (via alex4d) originally claimed that Apple would definitely resume licenses “in the next few weeks,” company representatives quickly contacted him to set the record straight, saying it is only “looking into” the possibility at this stage. Blogger Peter Wiggins has noted that Apple’s issue is a legal one.

So at least I provide evidence both past and current for my assumption

[Scott Sheriff] “I believe they had no intention of adding the ‘missing features’ because they have a new sales demographic that didn’t need them. Now there has been a big uproar, they are in scramble mode to try and incorporate these things to shut everyone up. How successful this will be remains to be seen. I’m not waiting around.”

This makes no sense what so ever. Apple is a business. They spent a few years in R&D to come out with FCPX and regardless of what you think the market is, there most certainly will be new features developed unless you believe Apple released with the immediate intent to EOL it. In fact “shutting people up” makes no rational sense as a business motive. Apple will add features to increase sales, not only of FCPX but likely to sell more Macs since that’s what a hardware company does.

It’s comments like the previous which are the type that don’t forward discussion. It’s filled with statements that don’t at all relate to what a business might do positive or negative for specific markets. Apple has not EOLd FCPX so it is likely there will be new features. Features are added to increase profits. Maybe you won’t like the features but neither you nor I know what they are beyond what Apple has already announced (and they have announced some things).

If someone has a line of reasoning please provide history, facts, analysis to substantiate one’s arguments.

[Rich Kaelin]

I agree, it is all about work flow. I usually use FCP now, but just last week, I found editing in Premiere with linked AE comps a much better, and faster, flow for a specific project (I have never cared for motion compared to AE). I guess the lesson is, get as much as you can, learn as much as yo can, use it all whenever you can, pray you have what you need to get the job done, because you want the job 🙂

Rich Kaelin
Kaelin Motion Production Services
https://kaelinmotion.com
New York