[Alban Egger]

[Andy Field] “If you liked FCP 7…you will love Premiere Pro CC — everything that didn’t work quite right in CS6 is fixed in this release. Yes FCP X users, please hold off on the flames…this isn’t a slam on that program (we use it for it’s terrific multicam when that comes up)……but this is the OR NOT part of this forum and for people still looking for a replacement NLE — if you are comfortable in FCP 7..you’ll be right at home in PP CC”

First of all: I have asked to change the name of the forum, because it has turned into an Adobe PR tool long ago. FCPX has not much to do with it.

Second: If you are comfortable in FCP7…..you will feel right at home in Edius or Media100 or SpeedRazor….because they have tracks. Heck, Edius5 already blew FCP7 out of the water in basically every regard you mention (as long as you don´t directlink to AE or don´t need too many effects and plugins).

If you use FCPX you wonder how you ever could feel comfortable in FCP7…it is extremely clumsy, slow and dumb (you need to tell it constantly what you want to do by toggling stuff on/off). So feeling comfortable in FCP has nothing to do which NLE you will want to use in 5 years. To go that route, “just because” you are in your comfort zone, is very shortsighted as a business and professional.

I am also a cameraman and I played with an early Nikon SLR that shot film (terrible quality) in 2007 I believe. That was way out of the comfortzone as a film production: wacky codec, soft image, basically impossible to judge focus, no audio sync…even the picture didn´t have a constant framerate. But you know what….I knew this was where the puck went. And in 2008 Canon came and we all know every camera now got its path paved by the DSLR revolution.

If you “go where the puck is”…then PP CC might still be your choice, because of certain aspects like tracks, or rather more the direct link to other programs (which we REALLY miss in FCPX), but “feel right at home…..bad argument. IMO FCPX is going where the puck goes. And Apple leads the way. They are following the trend of tapeless, metadata-based production and they do it with a modular package starting below $ 300, so even kids have it for their GoPro films while I can mix GoPro-drone shots with RedRAW images in a 4K timeline. So the entry-level is low financial and in terms of learning curve. And that will help Apple to get into the market as well, because nowadays films are not only edited in studios, but in basically every marketing office. And to be afraid of that as an editor or to say it can´t be professional then is nothing else than being arrogant and unrealistic. They will still hire us for the bigger jobs, but they will cut their Twitter and Facebook clips in telephones and on office-iMacs. So the sheer marketpenetration of FCPX will overwhelm the competitors very fast.

Does this help us professionals? Not necessarily….I agree. But the modular design will allow Apple and developers to give us all we need.

[Alban Egger]

Herb, your statement “One – I was responding to an idiotic posting claiming that Avid could do what PPro does now 15 years ago, and then relating that to the superiority of X over PPro. In that context i do believe it fair to point out that X still can’t do what Avid actually could do 15 years ago, adn stil does today.”

Sorry, but that is EXACTLY the strength of X. It does not try to make compromises to keep 15 year old workflows alive. It kept some ideas of old editing tactics, but when they got into the way X clearly went conseqently down its own road. Hence it is a very efficient and slim app.

[Alban Egger]

In Broadcast clients don’t care what I use as ling as they get the files they need.
In corporate I have almost exclusively requests for FCPX. Nobody asks for Avid over here and Premiere seems to stay a niche.

I am very surprised how many agencies have switched to FCPX in the last 6 months.

[Alban Egger]

It doesn’t rename. It just shows another metadata.
As Jeremy suggests, go to the inspector. Open the gear. Batch rename the eventfiles to “original filename”. There are very powerful renaming tools in there. It is just hidden in an awkward place.

[Alban Egger]

I would duplicate the Project as a “save as…” Workaround.
I then usually make a folder called ” versions” so the project library stays clean.

You can do it with compounds. But then you will have to tell FCPX to make an independent copy, because the original compound will be changed otherwise. Therefore i hardly use this as a versioning tool.

Your remark about “prosumer”….. There are millions of aftereffects clips that are based on either templates or give away the aftereffects origin simply by the way the layers are popping up. So it is always the editors choice and not the NLEs fault when stuff looks similar or unoriginal.

We use FCPX for over two years now for broadcast, shortfilms, commercials, documentaries with thousands of clip and even in live-environments as a graphics player. I suggest you use it and don’t quote rants from 2011. You will be surprised how well it works once you understand a project is more than a timeline and an event is more than a bin for bins.

[Alban Egger]

In the lines of 7? I hope not. But it will have major changes going forward….

[Alban Egger]

FCPX = Tywin Lannister. You hate to love it.

[Alban Egger]

Will definitely be optional and maybe even per app based.

[Alban Egger]

Tape is indeed not easy.
On the export side I see only few issues especially with OMF. But that can be handled via AAF.

I personally like the modular character of FCPX. The NLE gets you far, but if you need AAFs, MXFs etc then get a plu-in, but if not you have a good package for a great price!

[Alban Egger]

Does anyone use FCPX at work?

Around me pretty everyone has moved or is currently moving from 7 to X.
I was at a start-up workshop today where there were 3 film/media-startups. All are using X already.

So yes. Many use itvat work/professionally. Only those who have a special investment in hardware or another special workflow stick to 7. These are usually larger productions. But the small ones can move quicker and adapt easier to more modern workflows.

Before you ask what modern is: definitely no tape, various formats and codecs, varied outputs in various resolutions of the same programme, shooters bring home too much footage that has to be logged and edited in less time….