Steve Kanter: What FCPX CAN Do

[Geoff Dills]

Funny thing, he tries to show how to reconnect media, but when he copies the project file to the other drive, watch how he puts it in the event folder instead of the project folder and then assumes FCPX is messing up again. He never does realize what he’s done and ends up doing it over again. Not sure which clip it happens in.

Best,
Geoff

[Alban Egger]

Yes, Steve contradicted his intention. Instead of showing how powerful this tool is, it actually looks cumbersome, complicated and actually needs work. But the mistake was on the finder-level not in FCPX.

[Greg Burke]

Informative non the less, but i can’t help but feel this “its a great program” approach is a little biased, I mean Steves making money off Teaching FCPX, Making New Plug Ins, and New Consulting for FCPX its no wonder he’s trying to market it as a Great Program. I’ve recently accepted that Apple is Focusing on Software and Hardware that is targeted to the average Consumer, and thats fine, disappointing, but fine. I think iMovie X 10.0 is a great program, for certain things.

I wear many hats.
http://www.gregburkepost.com

[Craig Seeman]

[Greg Burke] “Steves making money off Teaching FCPX, Making New Plug Ins, and New Consulting for FCPX its no wonder he’s trying to market it as a Great Program.”

Like any business, he can chose to support another NLE. Despite the similar name FCP7 is not FCPX so there’s no inherent “transfer” of knowledge or base beyond that they have both been from Apple.

He has made a business choice to support FCPX because he believes there is/will be a profitable market for it. He will not be able to create that market so his saying it’s a “Great Program” is really of little consequence. He may be supporting FCPX because he believes it to be a great program . . . that lots of people will WANT to use it.

[Greg Burke] “I’ve recently accepted that Apple is Focusing on Software and Hardware that is targeted to the average Consumer,”

Far too many FCPX features are not geared towards “average consumer.” It’s missing many higher end features but there are quite a few already included. I doubt the “average consumer” has the need for the quality scopes included. Most “consumers” have no use for 4K resolution support either. Subframe audio editing is also something that most “consumer” wouldn’t use. “Consumers” certainly don’t need the detailed implementation of metadata support.

[Geoff Dills]

[Greg Burke] “Apple is Focusing on Software and Hardware that is targeted to the average Consumer, and thats fine, disappointing, but fine.”

I agree they’ve widened the target for this editing software, making it easy for a novice to pick it up and use it quickly and successfully. But to ignore its pro features make your arguments about it weak. If I were in the software production business, I would certainly be looking towards making software more inclusive of potential customers rather than exclusive.

My sense is the “pros” saw their skillset value suddenly plummet in the market place (though I suspect that’s only in their own heads…the ability to use tools to tell stories will always be marketable) and have continually found any way they can to denigrate this software as “crap”. And since Apple released this without any “Look guys, we know it’s not complete, we know you’re going to have to spend some more money for the extra features the pros will need so we priced it appropriately, and here’s our vision on how to use this new software and its roadmap” they just released it. They blew it. But that doesn’t change the ability of the software. And at this point in time for me, it does more things better than FCP7 for me to stick with it.

Best,
Geoff

[Greg Burke]

Well Craig We all know your more than excited and supportive of apples new NLE program, its quite clear you like it, but that doest always mean that what everyone else is saying about is wrong. But PLEASE do not be confused iMovie X is a really neat intuitive program, I DONT HATE THE PROGRAM. I hate the fact that apple slapped on the FInal Cut Pro Name, On something that was obviously built off the IMovie Code and marketed to be the “next” Final Cut.

I don’t want to get into a whole long argument/Debate about What apple did right/wrong its irrelevant at this point, they did it, Final Cut Pro is dead move on. I’ve accepted it and am moving into Avid and Premiere, Im not happy about it but Its what you have to do as a editor “evolve” so to speak.

[Craig Seeman] “Far too many FCPX features are not geared towards “average consumer.” It’s missing many higher end features but there are quite a few already included. I doubt the “average consumer” has the need for the quality scopes included. Most “consumers” have no use for 4K resolution support either. Subframe audio editing is also something that most “consumer” wouldn’t use. “Consumers” certainly don’t need the detailed implementation of metadata support.”

Consumers want to edit on a ipad with little to no problems, do i really have to get into this again? Randy Said he designed this program so one could edit a family video with ease on a cruise ship, THATS FINE. Again I can Appreciate a NLE program thats simple easy and fun to use. In the year few years will we’ll see 200$ cameras that shoot in 4k res, 3D and much much more! SO apple is prepared with iMovie X when thats happens.

Again I DO NOT HATE THE PROGRAM, NOR Do I HATE the People who are using it. If its works for you thats great, Im just disappointed much like the other 3% randy says used FCP Studio on a Income Career Basis.

I wear many hats.
http://www.gregburkepost.com

[Craig Seeman]

I expect that within a year or so not only will most of the “Pro” features return but that FCPX will have advantages over other “Pro” NLEs. Only time will tell. Will the “Pro” market may be small in number they are big in budget so I don’t doubt Apple will make FCPX a facility level tool. That metadata use and control is there for a reason. I doubt Apple would waste development of that if there wasn’t a strong financial motive to exploit it.

[Mark Dobson]

Hi Geoff

i’m sure if you were there sitting next to Steve you would have pointed out his error and everything would have gone more smoothly. It’s easier to notice things like that when you are not the one talking to a live audience and being filmed for the keen eyed observers sitting at their own computers.

Sure things went a bit off kilter but I really got the point he was making and the main thing I take away from a session like that is Steve’s positive attitude to learn about and impart all that he can about FXP X.

And he’s got a dog who can edit better than me.

[Craig Seeman]

[Geoff Dills] “And at this point in time for me, it does more things better than FCP7 for me to stick with it.”

I agree. As I weigh the speed and workflow advantages and consider what current issues will likely be resolved, FCPX is a viable way forward.

One would have to believe FCPX is “frozen” in time to believe Apple won’t be targeting professionals as well.

It’s ironic what many consider the ability to import iMovie projects, for example, as “proof” that it is “consumer.” To me, this is a major leap forward. Rather than making window dubs for clients and getting back lists of numbers to enter, they can do their selects in iMovie and even rough out a cut. I know many “pros” despise “client interference” but for the hands on client this can be a major improvement. Of course this means clients who need this regularly might be inclined to buy Macs too given the time/money savings on having to hand enter time code numbers.

[Jim Giberti]

The comments about this not being a professional tool are becoming old. I’m certainly a pro and make a good living much of it centered around FCP. Accepting the obvious missing features as understood, I can’t fathom how anyone spending serious time with X can think that Apple put all of this back end development into it for a lark or to attract soccer moms – it’s an absurd proposition.

This program was rewritten at 64 bits and at great cost for the future not to piss off editors. Now they’re launch and communication is a head scratcher in many ways, but in other ways not so much.

If you’re not comfortable with it then that’s understandable. I’ve vacillated on the subject. But now, after investing time into X (which on my schedule isn’t easy, so I’m a prime candidate to be resentful) I’m really liking it and the way I can interact with it, including grading and a lot of things I discover each day.

That’s because it’s not an amateur tool. It’s different but much of that difference is very smart and to dismiss it as lightweight and prosumer is off he mark. It’s deep.

Also calling their integrity into question (the shill theory) every time someone writes something positive about it is pretty tired. That could be suggested of every review of everyone who profits from anything, including all the folks who are now vocal proponents of PrP.

But I take them at their word as I do people who write intelligently of their FCP X experience.
If we want a free and honest flow of opinions and information it’s a good idea to encourage it without questioning motives.