-
What’s your FCPX plan?
-
[Dennis Radeke] ” and please don’t say FCP Server…”
FCP server…
sorry, i had to… i took part in large scale integrations where it proved its worth. its definitely not AVID, but it works. and to my best knowledge better than premiere.
don’t get me wrong, i do like premiere a lot. i use it frequently, and give lectures to Avid and FCP editors on how to integrate premiere in their workflows. however, as a day to day, solid alternative to FCP and AVID, Premiere pro is still a weak option.
you may say “oh yes trim tools su*k a little … i’m sorry”
somewhat disregarding how important a good set of trim tools is in NLE. a good editor can show you 20+ valid alternatives to a given cut in one minute using trim tools in AVID or FCP. you just can’t do that with Premiere… it kills editing. and whoever thinks otherwise is just not experienced enough.beyond trim tools…?
the lack of an adobe work codec for proper online/offline workflows (DNXHD, PRORES… i always thought Adobe would be smart enough to buy cineform… apparently they weren’t)
bad media management tools and philosophy, too little options, not well organized, FCP is a little weak on that too but miles ahead of Premiere.
i could go on and on, or detail more on what i wrote but its probably not the thread for that
and its also how i make my living so i’d have to charge you 🙂hector
Hector Berrebi
prePost Consulting -
I’m going to wait and see.
Alf
-
I plan to install the software on my personal 27″ iMac at home to see what features are in it and whether we can continue to use it in our Post production facility or switch to Avid or Premiere.
it’s not going anywhere’s near my pro machines until we know what it can do and if it plays well with our 3rd party equipment / software.
Walter Biscardi, Jr.
Editor, Colorist, Director, Writer, Consultant, Author, Chef.
HD Post and Production
Biscardi Creative Media -
Sorry for the delay, I travel quite frequently for Adobe… 😉
With regards to trimming, I don’t find substantial differences between FCP and Premiere Pro, but I’ll be honest and say that I haven’t delved deeply into the subject. This video does give a pretty concise overview of the trim tools in Premiere Pro. They’re adequate and I think comparable to FCP. Avid is the gold standard and again, I’ll be the first to admit that it’s an area we can improve upon.
Some contents or functionalities here are not available due to your cookie preferences!This happens because the functionality/content marked as “Google Youtube” uses cookies that you choosed to keep disabled. In order to view this content or use this functionality, please enable cookies: click here to open your cookie preferences.
With regards to a DI codec I think there are two answers. First, the need for a DI codec could be predicated upon not having a native workflow. In other words, it’s the old way of thinking. FCP users have a DI (ProRes) codec in part because they cannot edit natively. Yes, 4:2:2 intra-frame codecs (or above) are important for color grading and the like, but for general purpose editing not necessary. The need to convert in many cases is an outdated thinking for editing as we’ve moved in most cases to a file based workflow.
To the second point, for things like color grading, Premiere Pro can use any codec you like as a DI via Adobe Media Encoder. You can batch process your h.264 or any other type codec to any codec you have on your system. This includes P2, AVC-I, DPX, ProRes (if you have FCP or logic on your system), any QT, MXF including XDCAM EX and HD, etc. It does it in the background at better quality and in 64-bit speed.
More broadly, I think we need to realize that all of the big three have their pros and cons. You’re pointing out that Premiere’s trim tools could be better – agreed. I point out that a lack of a native workflow is one of FCP’s weak spots. They’re all mature and are all very fine products. It’s determining which of those strengths and weaknesses fit for you or for the job.
-
Judging from the screen shots as of 2-3 days ago it looks like you may get your wish!
-
Apple has not been listening to professional editors.
This version is total crap! I have just played with FCP X today and as a pro edit system it is rubbish.
I have been an editor for more than 20 years and have been using FCP for about 8. This release has so many things wrong with it, not bugs but standard features. It goes against how editors produce and has a simplistic and imprecise way of doing things. It is no longer a professional system, it is an upgrade from iMovie but not FCP version 7. It is pretty and has some very good points but wrong as a professional system it claims to be.
Apple, listen to professional editors not your marketing department. FCP X is rubbish and should be immediately renamed iMovie X. I will not recommend this to professional editors.
I hope Apple wake up to this stupid release and continue to support FCP with a release of version 8.
-
And I’ve been in PostProduction for about 30 years as both an Editor and an Engineer and I think FCPX is a brilliant foundation. It’s an infant. An infant can’t do what an adult can do but the potential it has exceeds what I see in current NLEs. The metadata handling can’t be easily matched and I suspect AV Foundation will also allow Apple to take this very far into the future with extremely fast file based workflows.
-
Craig, have you actually used it? Not just read about it but tried it out for yourself?
The concept is in infancy and has a lot of growing up to do and I don’t want to get old waiting for the day it matures. Like others have said, it is a half baked concept that was released too soon.
I have it and it is a downgrade from FCP7 and I have blown my dough on it. I can’t even work on previous FCP projects so what is the point in using it? It won’t even recognise my new Blackmagic HD capture card or do direct import of XDCAM material. Sure it has potential but it’s not a backward compatible upgrade as it should be.
It has some great new tricks but for now I am stuck with software that I can’t use. I expected better from Apple.
Call it iMovie X but not Final Cut Pro X, that release a scam and the scamers got my money.
Daniel
-
[Dan Marz] “Craig, have you actually used it? Not just read about it but tried it out for yourself? “
Hours every day for over a week so far.
[Dan Marz] “The concept is in infancy and has a lot of growing up to do and I don’t want to get old waiting for the day it matures. Like others have said, it is a half baked concept that was released too soon.”
Which has NOTHING to do with the foundation. It’s an excellent idea, still in beta unfortunately but an excellent foundation none the less.
The “concept” is fully backed, the implementation is barely developed. There’s a differentiation.
[Dan Marz] “I have it and it is a downgrade from FCP7 and I have blown my dough on it.”
It has NOTHING to do with FCP7. Don’t confuse marketing and programming. I judge only the programming foundation.
[Dan Marz] “Sure it has potential but it’s not a backward compatible upgrade as it should be. “
As painful as it is, I suspect the programmers wanted to be free of the constraints of backward compatibility. One can debate whether that was a good choice but five years from now it will make little difference. I can’d input my punch tapes or 8″ floppies in any modern edit system I know. Even if many don’t like it, the programmers are really thinking long range on this. I’m not going to even evaluate this as a “current” business decision on this when looking at the program itself.
[Dan Marz] “It has some great new tricks but for now I am stuck with software that I can’t use. I expected better from Apple”
For Apple it’s like jumping from the Newton to the iPad . . . only this time there’s many years intervening and a lot of people who invested infrastructure being abandoned. Even if one feels that’s absolutely the wrong business decision, it doesn’t detract from FCPX’s foundation and the direction they’re heading with it.
I’d bet that in two years, people starting up post businesses, with no ties to any legacy, will be considering FCPX seriously at that point.
My own guess is that when Randy Ubillos said they expected the response and that this is a beginning indicates there was some serious business discussions that went into this decision. Apple probably decided they could take a major PR and PostPro sales hit for a couple of year, banking on where the app would be by then.
While one can have major disagreements with Apples business and marketing strategy, they’re not stupid. It doesn’t mean they’ve made the right decision but I don’t doubt there was major strategic discussion on this and they anticipated the fallout. Precisely because they are not dependent on PostProduction (like Avid and Adobe are) they can take the hit (really small for them) on their estimation of where FCPX will be in the future. They went for a “no holds barred” leave everything (and everyone including their customer base) behind because they want an unfettered approach to creating an NLE from scratch. Right or wrong, I suspect this was a well thought out decision (and risk). This is a “scorched earth” Phoenix (rise from the ashes) strategy. They are in the financial position to take one that strategy like no other company involved in PostProduction.
They’ve decided to sacrifice the short term for what the believe will be a major long term gain. They’ve tossed nearly every Post product they’ve acquired because they’re building from the ground up from their own code. They probably feel it’s the best way to get on the road they’re traveling on.
Hey, I can’t stand the fact that I can’t even import FCP projects in the most rudimentary way but that doesn’t detract me from examining the road they’ve taken and seeing what they have put in to FCPX and seeing the clues to that road. No guarantees the road won’t collapse but there’s stuff rattling around in FCPX that may be breakthrough . . . someday . . . and that’s the choice they’ve made as a business.
-
I downloaded, installed and read the manual !!! all time first.. Downloaded all available extra content.
Assembled three short projects from a mix of P2, XDCAM, h264 and 48/41k audio.
Executed tests with nearly all (got bored) the available effects/transitions/generators/colour correction.
Gave it a good spanking for four hours thirty minutes, fettled with every drop down and now I have nothing left to play with. Is that it? WTF can I do with my old FCP projects? No chance of reworking in FCPX huh! Now isn’t that the great thing about an upgrade? The excitement of bringing new tools to work on an old project! .
I was in there from the go with FCP at v1…put off doing the last Studio upgrade because of the rumours of a v10. So now I guess I may get 3 and hang with it.
Applied for refund on the grounds of misrepresentation. There must surely be definitive parameters regarding the use of the wording ‘pro’ I believe Apple have deliberately used the term to mislead by association to a product of the same name. Something akin to the protection accorded to Champagne, Cornish pasties, Arbroath smokies and Gorgonzola. You U.S. guys have no idea what I am talking about, sorry. But you see what I mean.
Anybody risked the Lion OS download yet? I still have flashbacks from the Snow Leopard implementation nightmare regarding FCP. I ran two G5s in parallel Leopard/Snow Leopard for nearly four months during those dark days.
Reply to this Discussion! Login or Sign Up