-
The old one still works
-
FCP works. And has worked for years…and will work for a few years more. But, as post progresses, and changes, FCP 7 won’t be able to keep up. New camera formats, new delivery systems. Post is always in flux…in the past 2 years alone! And with FCP 7 now dead in the water, it cannot change to meet the needs of the new challenges that come it’s way.
It will work for a while, but not forever. I predict it will be in heavy use for another 3-4 years. But then people will switch to other NLEs that better handle the challenges they are faced with. And in the broadcast TV world, I don’t see many people looking at FCPX.
Shane
GETTING ORGANIZED WITH FINAL CUT PRO DVD…don’t miss it.
Read my blog, Little Frog in High Def -
[Walter Soyka] “Perhaps you’ve forgotten the general disappointment over the FCP7 in 2009. Many users were putting up with FCP7 largely because Apple said the next release of FCP would “awesome.””
Terence and Philip had a good discussion around that in their most recent podcast. Worth a listen.
[Walter Soyka] “Apple’s competitors are not standing still, and some editors and facilities have been waiting on a big new FCP release since 2007.”
I have to call “since 2007” a bit of an exaggeration. Final Cut Studio 2 (FCP6 et al) was a huge release, and it shipped in May, 2007. It was the one that included Color for the first time, Motion finally got 2.5D, Soundtrack got a lot of enhancements, and it proved to be the last time Apple had a booth at NAB. ProRes was born. Walter Murch was at the booth giving demos. Final Cut Server was teased. This was the release that pushed FCP over the top in terms of broad acceptance in the very high end. FCP graduated from up-and-comer to heavy-weight player.
I don’t recall everyone seeing all that new hotness in the Spring of 2007 and collectively shrugging, deciding to wait for something even bigger. Maybe some did, but nothing could reasonably be considered lagging until FCP7 came out in September, 2009. That’s when the real widespread shrugging and deciding to wait for something bigger went on. Expectations had been built and were ultimately not met. Now we point to 2007 as the beginning of the end? I think most folks were pretty psyched about FCP in 2007. I bet a lot of the more conservative users waited until 2008 to upgrade to FCP6.
Apple clearly mismanaged expectations ahead of the release of FCPX, and everyone feels like they’ve been had. I don’t dispute that at all. But the idea that FCP had been uncompetitive and withering on the vine since 2007 is a stretch. Adobe only leapfrogged FCP capability-wise with its 64 bit CUDA PPro CS5 in 2010. Avid only embraced a little FCP-ishness the same year with AMA, the Smart Tool, and some third party I/O. It isn’t like FCP was eating anyone’s dust prior to Spring, 2010, and even then lots of people held fast hoping for a 64-bit FCP8 that never came.
Seems to me the real waiting for “awesome” was less than two years (September 2009 till June 2011), not more than four. Trouble was, when awesome showed up, it wasn’t the awesome everyone imagined.
Best,
Andy -
[Andrew Richards] “I have to call “since 2007″ a bit of an exaggeration. Final Cut Studio 2 (FCP6 et al) was a huge release, and it shipped in May, 2007.”
Totally fair criticism — you’re right on. I picked the 2007 date specifically because it was when FCS2 was released, but I didn’t give FCS2 any time in there to be current. FCS2 was a big deal, and you’re absolutely right to point to 2009 as the point where the FCP franchise started losing momentum.
I was wrong on the date, but I don’t think it changes my main point all that much: FCP7 was a relatively minor upgrade over FCP6, and FCP7 is not built for native file format editorial. I understand why some people will hang onto FCP7 as long as they can, but I also understand why some people will move now rather than waiting for FCPX to continue adding features.
There have been a lot of posts on this forum reminding us all that FCP7 didn’t stop working on June 21st, but I dispute the implication that all FCP editors are best suited by sticking with FCP7 until FCPX matures.
Since FCPX is not backwards compatible, no FCP editor can upgrade. All must migrate if they move on. Since FCP7 is EOL, why not use what works best today and re-evaluate FCPX once it has a more competitive feature set?
Walter Soyka
Principal & Designer at Keen Live
Motion Graphics, Widescreen Events, Presentation Design, and Consulting
RenderBreak Blog – What I’m thinking when my workstation’s thinking
Creative Cow Forum Host: Live & Stage Events -
Apple should keep FCS3 available. That’s all they need to do.
If not , pirating FCS3 is legit in my opinion.
If you need more stations, you need more stations. And Apple won’t even care about it. -
[Andrew Richards] “Adobe only leapfrogged FCP capability-wise with its 64 bit CUDA PPro CS5 in 2010”
While this is absolutely true with regards to 64-bit, our commitment to metadata, file-based workflows, practical integration points between Adobe apps as well as competitive applications, all were happening well before CS5. These are things that FCP X is just now talking about and that only partially.
On top of that, it should be pointed out that Adobe created a native 64-bit cocoa application on the Mac before Apple did. How did that happen?
My only point is that Adobe was innovating and creating interesting workflows for the professional long before CS5. I think the release of FCP X created a greater awareness of Adobe’s capabilities.
Dennis – Adobe
-
[Paul Jay] “Apple should keep FCS3 available… If you need more stations, you need more stations. And Apple won’t even care about it.”
Do any other vendors really do this, though?
What if a facility wanted to add an Adobe license, but they were still running CS4? Can they call Adobe and order one, or will Adobe only sell them a new license for CS5.5 and a pile of upgrades for the other workstations?
Walter Soyka
Principal & Designer at Keen Live
Motion Graphics, Widescreen Events, Presentation Design, and Consulting
RenderBreak Blog – What I’m thinking when my workstation’s thinking
Creative Cow Forum Host: Live & Stage Events -
[Walter Soyka] “I was wrong on the date, but I don’t think it changes my main point all that much: FCP7 was a relatively minor upgrade over FCP6, and FCP7 is not built for native file format editorial. I understand why some people will hang onto FCP7 as long as they can, but I also understand why some people will move now rather than waiting for FCPX to continue adding features.”
I agree, FCP7 really started sounding creaky when Premiere and Media Composer were able to work so much more effectively with camera-native formats. And I understand and agree that it feels like we’ve been waiting forever. It already feels like FCPX has been out forever- and it’s only been a month!
[Walter Soyka] “Since FCPX is not backwards compatible, no FCP editor can upgrade. All must migrate if they move on. Since FCP7 is EOL, why not use what works best today and re-evaluate FCPX once it has a more competitive feature set?”
Totally. From what I can tell, reading reports from the likes of Walter Biscardi and others, Premiere is similar enough to legacy FCP that there is hardly any learning curve at all. The fly in the ointment is the relatively poor support for CUDA cards in Macs these days (versus Windows, anyway).
Best,
Andy -
[Andrew Richards] “From what I can tell, reading reports from the likes of Walter Biscardi and others, Premiere is similar enough to legacy FCP that there is hardly any learning curve at all. The fly in the ointment is the relatively poor support for CUDA cards in Macs these days (versus Windows, anyway).”
You are far too polite! I have both a GTX285 and a Quadro 4000, and I think that “relatively poor support” is an incredible understatement.
Walter Soyka
Principal & Designer at Keen Live
Motion Graphics, Widescreen Events, Presentation Design, and Consulting
RenderBreak Blog – What I’m thinking when my workstation’s thinking
Creative Cow Forum Host: Live & Stage Events -
[Dennis Radeke] “While this is absolutely true with regards to 64-bit, our commitment to metadata, file-based workflows, practical integration points between Adobe apps as well as competitive applications, all were happening well before CS5. These are things that FCP X is just now talking about and that only partially.”
True and fair points. However, I think the Mercury Playback Engine was the big eyebrow-raising feature that really started making FCP users jealous. The other goodies, at least from my personal anecdotal experience, were not tempting many FCP users to seriously consider leaving FCP for Premiere Pro prior to CS5. After all, FCP had been supporting metadata (albeit limited), file-based workflows, and round-tripping within its own suite since Final Cut Studio and Final Cut Studio 2. CS5 was the bucket of cold water that woke up a lot of long-time FCP partisans to take a serious look beyond their comfortable surroundings. Hence my contention that it was CS5 that leapfrogged FCS, rather than maintaining relative feature parity.
I’m not suggesting PPro was any kind of slouch prior to CS5, I’m just saying it didn’t generate much buzz among FCP users prior to CS5.
Best,
Andy -
[Walter Soyka] “You are far too polite! I have both a GTX285 and a Quadro 4000, and I think that “relatively poor support” is an incredible understatement.”
I’m not sure who is at fault either- it is Apple not letting NVIDIA in or NVIDIA not writing drivers for OS X? Probably Apple…
Best,
Andy
Reply to this Discussion! Login or Sign Up