-
Thoughts on why FCP X is here to stay and the Mac Pro isn’t.
-
[Paul Jay] “Im tired of the Apple isnt for Pro whining by professional whiners.”
The important question is, why do you really care what others think about FCPX?
Consider that the weaker your own argument may be, the more important it is to put down others with an opposing point of view.
-
[Walter Soyka] “If you didn’t already have Apple hardware and FCP7, would you really be buying iMacs and FCPX for all your professional work today?”
I know people who are doing exactly that.
I don’t know of “startup” facilities but I do know of individuals who are starting up businesses doing that. iMac, Thunderbolt, FCPX suits some businesses in a tight economy look for “ease of use” tools.For my own work 10.0 would not be feasible, 10.0.3 is. Given that I had FCP7, the transition was a bit easier since I had a mature NLE to use. At this point I’m using 10.0.3 exclusively although I still curse at a few of its failings.
[Walter Soyka] “Would you say that Apple’s March 2012 post-production offering has more or fewer significant gaps than Apple’s March 2011 (or better yet, Apple’s March 2010) post-production offering?”
Absolutely. I’ve never claimed that FCPX is feature competitive with FCP7 or PP5.5 (6 coming) or MC5.5 (now 6). I do believe that FCPX i maturing into a professional NLE and I suspect Apple will have a couple more major feature improved releases this year.
-
I can understand the argument of FCPX as strategic retreat, but I think there’s a lot more to the discussion about Apple and professionals than just whining. Apple broke people’s trust and created the doubt that you and Paul are complaining about people expressing. Apple will be held to a higher standard until they have regained people’s trust or moved out of the market.
[Craig Seeman] “I know people who are doing exactly that. I don’t know of “startup” facilities but I do know of individuals who are starting up businesses doing that. iMac, Thunderbolt, FCPX suits some businesses in a tight economy look for “ease of use” tools… I’ve never claimed that FCPX is feature competitive with FCP7 or PP5.5 (6 coming) or MC5.5 (now 6).”
I wasn’t talking about new market entrants willing to trade feature set for low cost and ease of use. I was talking about an established professional like yourself…
[Craig Seeman] “For my own work 10.0 would not be feasible, 10.0.3 is. Given that I had FCP7, the transition was a bit easier since I had a mature NLE to use. At this point I’m using 10.0.3 exclusively although I still curse at a few of its failings.”
… but you pretty much answered it there for me.
I’d like to step out of debate mode and back into learning mode for a bit.
I assume that your workflow is one that suits FCPX well. May I ask about it?
I haven’t spent a lot of time on 10.0.3 myself, but I’m very nervous about trying it in production since it seems to have spooked several of the other vocal early adopters with grave performance or reliability issues. Have you seen any of these? Also, I know you said you’re using FCPX exclusively now, but I’m curious how comfortable you would feel today without your FCP7 license to fall back on?
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] “If you didn’t already have Apple hardware and FCP7, would you really be buying iMacs and FCPX for all your professional work today?”
It depends. If I hoped to cut such gems as John Carter, I would need the professionally accepted software. Maybe I could recut Ishtar too.
-
[Walter Soyka] “I wasn’t talking about new market entrants willing to trade feature set for low cost and ease of use. I was talking about an established professional like yourself…”
Established professionals have other NLEs just like me. For me it’s FCP7 of course. There may be a few Media100 or Edius Pros that are transitioning to FCPX. I’ve only seen anecdotal mentions of people moving.
[Walter Soyka] “I haven’t spent a lot of time on 10.0.3 myself, but I’m very nervous about trying it in production since it seems to have spooked several of the other vocal early adopters with grave performance or reliability issues. Have you seen any of these?”
On 2008 MacPro, I’m not getting crashes but I do get beach balls. I get better behavior on my 2011 MacBook Pro but I’d prefer a desktop which is why the MacPro update is important to me. I suspect the code isn’t the most efficient yet when it comes to managing processor and memory use. There’s nothing fatal though. I’ve never lost a project.There’s also some personal work habits that I’m changing as well. I actually thing that may be one of the bigger hurdles. FCPX requires different thinking.
[Walter Soyka] “I know you said you’re using FCPX exclusively now, but I’m curious how comfortable you would feel today without your FCP7 license to fall back on?”
With 10.0.3 I think I’m a bit free of the need of a “safety net.” Not that FCPX does everything better than FCP7, I still curse at FCPX under development and a few other things like pasting filters and attributes but it’s faster in other ways so I don’t feel I’m losing time comparatively and, depending on the project, FCPX is faster.
Certainly the type of work I do and my personal editorial style has significant influence. I’ve never liked lots of video tracks as an organizational tool so FCPX timeline is a major improvement for me in GUI. Since most of my work is self contained I don’t need “audio tracks” but I do need organizational tools and FCPX roles helps (not there yet). The biggest FCPX “setback” for me is dual/multi mono tracks (coming from a camera). I can work around it for the time being given the other advantages. Most of my work is corporate and local cable so I’m not dealing with long form (but I have done in a past life on Avid Media Composer). From my own FCPX experience, I think the biggest problem with long form would be beach balling would probably be several magnitude order worse. For the kind of short form and, often, very short turnaround work, FCPX is good and getting better. That’s where I think it’ll grow in professional use first.
-
[Craig Seeman] ” I’ve never lost a project”
I knocked on my wooden desk.
Once film editors get a chance to really use it. They’ll love it too. I mean folks got into this industry to cut stories and X does that very very well.
-
[David Roth Weiss] “[Paul Jay] “Im tired of the Apple isnt for Pro whining by professional whiners.”
The important question is, why do you really care what others think about FCPX?
Consider that the weaker your own argument may be, the more important it is to put down others with an opposing point of view.”
Now, see–I wish I’d been clever, like that, instead of just whining about braying.
-
[Richard Herd] “It depends. If I hoped to cut such gems as John Carter, I would need the professionally accepted software. Maybe I could recut Ishtar too.”
You’re right. You probably couldn’t have cut John Carter on FCPX — but you and six associates could have cut it on FCP7 [link].
Whatever you may think of the film, it took a lot to make. With its enormous effects shot count and multiple cooperating vendors, it had an incredibly complex workflow of which picture editorial was only a small part. With its budget, there must have been tremendous pressure to get it done and get it out the door, and it’s hard to fault the post supervisor for wanting to use an established system with a good track record instead of beta-testing a new product that would offer few benefits for their workflow.
If FCPX has an issue of not being “professionally accepted,” that issue is a symptom of its inability to work as well in complex workflows as competing products and its questionable reputation for performance and reliability.
When FCPX reaches that magical degree of “good enough” in the three key areas of performance, reliability, and workflow, it will become “professionally accepted” — just as FCP was.
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 -
But the point is made. Tools are tools. That’s not a metaphor. That’s an example of a specific being a representation of the category.
Actually cutting a story though is pretty awesome in X.
-
[Richard Herd] “But the point is made. Tools are tools.”
Oh, I certainly agree. But does simply having a tool in the NLE category answer the question of whether Apple is committed to professionals?
The challenge for FCPX is that it’s such a different tool — and currently has fewer ideal use cases — than its predecessor.
You weren’t all that limited a year or two ago with a Mac Pro and an FCP7 license. An iMac with FCPX is still a bit more restrictive, and if that’s the best that Apple can offer today [link], I maintain there’s more to the Apple/pro question than whining or wondering who moved our cheese.
[Richard Herd] “Actually cutting a story though is pretty awesome in X.”
There’s a lot of interesting new thinking about how to handle media and how to handle an edit in FCPX. I think that Apple spent a lot of time on editorial mechanics during FCPX development.
Now that the early design decisions are made, it’ll be interesting (and telling) to see how development priorities shift.
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
Reply to this Discussion! Login or Sign Up