Creative Communities of the World Forums

The peer to peer support community for media production professionals.

Forums Creative Community Conversations Re: After a year has perception of FCPX changed?

  • Re: After a year has perception of FCPX changed?

  • alban egger

    May 27, 2012 at 7:29 pm

    [Andrew Kimery] ” I wonder how many people see the point updates as Apple trying to patch a broken production where as a new version many times carries w/it the air of a fresh/revitalized product and new features.”

    So far the updates of FCPX were not at all tryingto patch a broken product but they simply brought new features. The RE-LINK wash´t broken, it wasn´t even there. Broadcast monitoring was missing

  • David Cherniack

    May 27, 2012 at 8:50 pm

    I believe Andrew was talking about the perception of FCPX as broken, not whether it is or not.

    David
    AllinOneFilms.com

  • Bill Davis

    May 27, 2012 at 11:44 pm

    Since this is just all speculation and chatter, here’s my question.

    What else could Apple have done given the reality of the situation surrounding FCP?

    In my estimation, that situation was:

    A) a target niche of video producers divided into vastly discrete camps from video hobbyists to movie production professionals – with huge numbers of sub-groups in between with differing needs.

    B) a rapidly and revolutionarily underlying desktop OS platform transformation taking place(Leopard to Snow Leporad to Lion) simultaneously.

    C) the emergence of Mobile and the Apps culture driving huge shifts in information demand – including video.

    And into that vortex, you’re going to launch a totally re-imagined product that has to be poised to take advantage of the changing landscape of how and when people need to edit and deploy video?

    I mean come on. This is not the 1980s any more. Cameras don’t cost $100,000. You don’t need teems of engineers to take care of them. I can assemble a dozen cameras with a few phone calls to meet any need I see – and so can you.

    If you or I spy a truly or unique situation that deserves preservation on video, that used to be exclusively a “call a professional” situation. Today it’s simply not.

    A mile around wherever you’re sitting today is unheard of video production power sitting on closet shelves and in teenagers bedrooms. Your neighbors likely have quality camcorders, the skateboard kiddies have GoPros, and everyone has HD CelPhones – and all the desktop computers in your neighborhood have the capabilities of editing software.

    And worse yet (or better, depending on your orientation!), any one of the video professionals here can probably show up in your neighborhood with a roller bag and do fully professional video production with nothing more than a half hour of setup time – we all have the gear AND the expertise and we can go anywhere at the drop of a hat without an OB van in tow.

    Like it or not, that’s a massive shift in things.

    So if you were tasked with designing software to meet the needs of the largest swath of all these new “video producers” honestly, would you make the design goal to create software where the number ONE criteria is “it has to have operate so much like FCP-Legacy so it doesn’t make those users annoyed?”

    I personally wouldn’t put that in the top two dozen design list criteria.

    Legacy had to go away because the larger video production world is moving away from what it was great at. Not ALL of the production world, certainly, but enough of it to really matter.

    Legacy was a response to the way video was done when Legacy was growing up.

    X was a response to real technological change in the way video production increasingly happens now. Cameras everywhere. Cheap cameras. More outlets. Less broadcast, more internet. Less opportunity to “crack” the movie business, more opportunities to “crack” the business video game since every business with more than a dozen employees uses video.

    (As an aside, In my youth, I never went into a “shopping center or store” where video was on a screen other than in a department or store selling TV sets – and today you can’t go into a mall without walking past 100 video screens playing content everywhere you look. Times have totally changed in that way.)

    X makes damn good video right now. And next year will probably make even better video. And will handle audio better. And over the years, I think it will become popular and more productive precisely because it’s core features are focused on helping users make order out of chaos, (tagging search, library functions) make fast assembly the rule (range based work and magnetism), and agile deployment (its sharing features.)

    Those things are needed by more people in a connected world awash in video than the ability to send your audio to an out of house composer and/or a colorist and even those “high end” piping functions have clearly been planned for in the X future.

    It’ll probably take a few more years for the X plumbing to become complete. But that’s fine with me. It’s a wicked fast general cutting tool that handles everything I’ve been throwing at it lately, and travels by my side comfortably now rather than waiting for me to get back to the studio to get the real work done.

    And those attributes are more important to me today, because that’s what I’ve discovered I actually need in my day to day work.

    I need a great PERSONAL video editing solution that does 80% of all video functions out of the gate. Not an “industrial shop” solution held back to get the top 5% of high-end features just right for a sub set of it’s users.

    So I think Apple did a great job of figuring out the right feature mix to start with.

    If you see things differently – post away.

    If you really think Apple should have held off and released a more fully featured but far more complex HollyWood Suite Editing Tool – and hoped that the masses would have loved that larger beast via the “halo” effect – make the case.

    I think they released a killer ‘personal editing tool” based around wildly new thinking that took most of us half a year or more of constant use to really begin to come to grips with – and are now growing it very rapidly into an amazing modern content creation app that can handle most tasks tossed at it right now by people outside of “large facility” workflows.

    Right call, IMO.

    Floor’s open.

    “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

  • John Davidson

    May 28, 2012 at 2:41 am

    I’m starting to love it, which is hard to believe. I love it’s integration with Aperture – suddenly I have all our home movies and iPhone videos accessible to create those family moments that have required a colossal pain in the butt to edit up till now. I love it’s integration with iTunes – now I can confidently organize our music libraries in iTunes for SFX roles and fun stuff like that, right in the editor.

    What got me on board was the frame accurate playback of FCPX in the latest version with AJA and Blackmagic. Then we tested the BMG Media Express for digitize, and dang it it wasn’t easier and better than working in FCP7. Now we have even less reasons to use FCP7.

    I think some of the other things that have really brought me on board was the re-use of metadata for future projects. We sometimes make a dozen promos based off a handful of episodes of shows – so we’re constantly re-doing clip reels. Add in Motions ‘build your own effects’ options and we’re sold.

    Now for the hard part – finding good editors that can work on FCPX. It’s going to be a while before we can be experts at it, but we’re making the switch now. CS6 didn’t do it for us (LOVE so many of it’s updates though!) – but we’re starting to think FCPX can.

  • Derek Andonian

    May 28, 2012 at 5:04 am

    alban egger So far the updates of FCPX were not at all trying to patch a broken product but they simply brought new features. The RE-LINK wash´t broken, it wasn´t even there.

    If Apple had named this program something other than Final Cut Pro, it would be easier for me to agree with that. A lot of the features that were missing from X did exist in previous versions of FCP, and that’s why their addition is seen as a patch or repair…

    ______________________________________________
    “THAT’S our fail-safe point. Up until here, we still have enough track to stop the locomotive before it plunges into the ravine… But after this windmill it’s the future or bust.”

  • Mark Dobson

    May 28, 2012 at 8:07 am

    [Bill Davis] “I think they released a killer ‘personal editing tool” based around wildly new thinking that took most of us half a year or more of constant use to really begin to come to grips with – and are now growing it very rapidly into an amazing modern content creation app that can handle most tasks tossed at it right now by people outside of “large facility” workflows.”

    I’m with you on this Bill.

    Despite some really irksome missing functions like not being able to selectively copy attributes, or do a one click audio dissolve etc etc FCPX has become the replacement editing solution from FCP7 for me.

    A big point you make in the quote above is the fact that it does take a long period to reorient oneself to working with FCPX. It is not the same as other non-linear edit packages and I think a lot of people will have immediately run into problems by trying to edit in the same manner as they had in FCP7, and failing or getting into a muddle immediately.

    I adopted FCPX from the start ( very nearly 12months ago! ) and apart from DVD Studio Pro haven’t used
    Final Cut Studio at all in the last year.

    I went through a disorienting 3 month period where either through the buggy early versions of the software or my own ineptitude I ran into huge difficulties with content crashes and force quits – it felt like the central kernel at the heart of the software just couldn’t cope with more than one thing at a time.

    But nowadays crashes are a rare occurrence and since version 10.0.4 every thing that should happen, does happen.

    I actually think that FCPX offers a really flexible approach to editing. And I have every confidence that the next update will address even more of the ‘missing features’ that people gripe about.

    But in terms of addressing the topic of this thread ‘After a year has perception of FCPX changed?’ I would say yes and no.

    I think a lot of people made up their minds almost immediately that FCPX use didn’t look right for them and some of those will have tried it again following the updates and introduction of Broadcast Monitoring and the ability to export XML, to communicate with other systems.

    I don’t know whether we will ever discover the real reason why Apple chose to EOL Final Cut Studio, licensing issues? A clean slate?, but the fact that it was knocked on the head had a huge impact on the perceptions towards FCPX at its launch.

    I think there was a real disappointment that such a robust system had been discarded in favour for a, on initial investigation, substantially cut-back version.

    And Apple must have been profoundly shocked by the initial, very fierce, negative response to the launch and they now seem to be a lot more open about future developments for this software to the extent of publishing a roadmap, a hint that there will be a return to having a dedicated source monitor and enhanced audio capability.

    So I think that FCPX will slowly regain any ground it has lost as a result of the miss handled launch.

    But choice of NLE seems to similar to choice of religion and we know firmly entrenched peoples views are towards that, nothing will change those types of perceptions.

  • Liam Hall

    May 28, 2012 at 1:22 pm

    [alban egger] “So far the updates of FCPX were not at all tryingto patch a broken product but they simply brought new features. The RE-LINK wash´t broken, it wasn´t even there. Broadcast monitoring was missing

    The point is, those features should have been there from the start. Apple said it was a PRO tool, it wasn’t. We were told our jaws would drop, they didn’t.

    A year later Apple are busy playing catch-up; adding features to FCPX that were basic functions of FCP. Though, it will take a whole lot more to rebuild the trust with their professional users they so catastrophically lost when they EOL’d FCP and replaced it with a pro/am product.

    That said, I’ve always quite liked FCPX and keep checking it out with each new release in the vein hope they will sort out the glaring errors in its design.

    Liam Hall
    Director/DoP/Editor
    http://www.liamhall.net

  • olof ekbergh

    May 28, 2012 at 1:45 pm

    I now find FCPX to be a great solution for our facility.

    We used fcp7 but never as our main solution. M100 was always our main editor, with AE as our compositing tool, and we did most cc in M100 but often used Color XML round tripping with M100.

    I tried FCPX when it first came out but it just seemed too buggy and sluggish. I kept trying it as each update came out. I really liked the DB aspect and I also actually really like the magnetic timeline. But the lack of proper monitoring and sluggish behavior kept us from adapting it.

    I finally decided to try a new iMac, top of the line with everything maxed. Wow FCPX runs great on it and the Matrox MX02 runs perfectly.

    I completed our last project on FCPX and as I was really getting into how it works I kept getting more impressed. I can do everything in one app now. The cc is really very good once you spend some time with it. Even the audio tools are decent, compression limit and EQ works quite well, even auto noise removal is not bad.

    FCPX works great with EXcam and AF100 native formats, we always transcoded those before. This is a big time saver.

    Our work is a mix of industrial training promo and safety videos. We also do commercials promoting tourism in the White Mountains, and a lot of WEB vids and kiosks for our clients. We also do some long form doc work.

    I am now in the process of importing all our projects that we change and update on a yearly bases into FCPX. We do safety boating videos for a company that produces the safety courses for most of the states in the US. And they keep needing updates as laws change. The magnetic timeline makes these changes a breeze.

    I think the biggest problem for us was that our 4 year old 8core MP’s just were not fast enough. I am very happy with the low price of our new iMac and how quiet the TB RAID is, you no longer have to keep the SAS raid in another room to be able to edit.

    I think Apple needs to make a big point of encouraging updated hardware with FCPX or editors will be disappointed in the performance. Personally I am very happy to see the end of the noisy tower computers and RAID I closures.

    A new suite is now possible for very low price.

    iMac $2,600.00
    TB raid $1,600.00
    MX02 or similar <1,000.00
    FCPX etc. $500.00
    SDI monitor $2,500.00

    This is really amazing, compared to what this type of performance cost a few years ago. My first SD system cost almost $70,000.00. And a Betacam was $100,000.00+ back then. We are really seeing the democratization of video production, and I am all for it.

    Yes lots more competition keeps you on your toes but there are also many more cients and outlets for good video.

    Olof Ekbergh

  • Craig Shields

    May 28, 2012 at 3:22 pm

    I think Apple needs to make a big point of encouraging updated hardware with FCPX or editors will be disappointed in the performance.

    I think that’s key. My MBP chokes on it and it frustrates the heck out of me. While we do have an edit suite. I mostly use the MBP cause I’m in the field most of the time. We have Premiere 5.5 and I have been demoing CS6. I disagree with those calling it FCP8. It has nice features but the stupid stuff it does with target tracks and other annoying stuff makes me miss FCP7.

  • Bill Davis

    May 28, 2012 at 5:45 pm

    [Liam Hall] “That said, I’ve always quite liked FCPX and keep checking it out with each new release in the vein hope they will sort out the glaring errors in its design.”

    I’m honestly curious about this Liam,

    What do you consider these “glaring errors in it’s design” to be?

    Since increasing numbers of us here are editing with it as our primary NLE software – and some of us have been transitioned for months exclusively into X – and we’re getting all our work done in a very timely manner – this seems to imply that any such “glaring errors” are relative only to some workflows.

    We’ve also seen time after time significant and deep misunderstanding about what the software can and can’t actually do – and have seen many examples of people who might not initially “like” how X approaches a particular task – but have to acknowledge that the task can certainly be completed if one is simply willing to take the time to learn the new way it’s implemented in X.

    Discussing this kind of thing can really help people decide in a very practical way if their needs might or might not match what X does.

    So I’n truly curious. What doesn’t X do that you MUST do?

    In your terms, what are these “glaring errors in design?”

    Thanks.

    “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

Viewing 1 - 10 of 138 posts

Log in to reply.

We use anonymous cookies to give you the best experience we can.
Our Privacy policy | GDPR Policy