[Clint Wardlow]

[Jeremy Garchow] “You obviously need some sort of video capture device as well. Right now, the jury is still out on Pr CS6. I haven’t seen drivers from AJA yet, so I have no idea how and when that will work. FCPX only works from certain firewire based tape capture. So either way, you might need a stand alone capture software, and if you have an io device, they all have free capture utilities”

Tape capture is the least of my worries. Though it probably would horrify many here, I transfer all analog video via my HDR-FX1 to DV, wrap it in Prores so it plays nice. I know this is not optimum in a lot of ways, but it works for me. And as the HDR-FX1 connects to the computer via firewire I don’t think that would be a problem in FCPX. For film, I send that to a specilty house in Texas that does a telecine transfer to Prores 422 (costly, but they do a good job).

I guess my biggest issue with FCPX is the magnetic timeline and its primary storyline structure. If I want to use audio (and not nessesarily just one audio track) to develope the rythym of the cut it seems difficult at best and envolves bizarre workarounds. Maybe that has changed a bit, but was a big issue. The new plugin solved my other big issue (being able to import legacy).

Frankly what others think of my methods doesn’t worry me. You should see one of my shoots (wheelchairs & kiddy wagons as dollies, any kind of light that gives me the look I want, and a the possibility of a varity of cameras from JVC VHS, a refurbished pixelvision camera, an ancient sony betacam, a Beaulieu 4008 super8, etc, etc). Most pros would have a heart attack (and often do go out of their way to tell me everything I am doing wrong when they visit one of my sets….sigh).

It is just when I tried FCPX it didn’t feel right for me. The wierd thing is whenever I suggest it to others who I feel would benefit from its use, I get a lot of resistence. So I started this thread more out of curiosity to see if the negative perception had changed on a wider level among professional editors. After perusing all of the comments I’m still not sure because in someways it turned into the usual pro and con argument (though to be fair many did address the issue of perception).

[Clint Wardlow]

[Jeremy Garchow] ” I guess I am intrigued by what you mean “experimental”. It could mean a lot. It could mean a little. It could mean precise, it could mean abstract.”

By experimental, I mean a lot of the stuff I do is not traditional linear narrative. I use image and sound produce emotional effects. I do this in many ways. Sometimes it is “precise” sometimes it is “freeflowing.” It depends on what I am going for. A lot is determined by the medium I plan to present the work. I would create something different say for a projection at an art installation than a showing in a “theatre” (often just a room with folding chairs and a video projector.” That is not to say I just do “moving pictures and noise.” Sometimes I will produce a more linear storyline. It just depends what strikes my fevered fancy at the time.

[Jeremy Garchow] “Ae is awesome. Some might say it has a steep learning curve. It is also very mature, and there’s tons and tons of interweb “trainers”. If you’re looking for audio, Ae isn’t the place, but it does hook in to Pr pretty well which will get you better audio control. Pr’s audio is different yet again from FCP Legend’s audio. No matter what, you will have to learn unless you stick with fcs3. And that’s viable. It’s what our shop is doing for now. It still works.”

I am not looking at audio in AE. I’m just trying to up my effects capabilities. I have used Motion since it came out and it whetted my appetite. Although, AE is pretty deep and I have barely scratched the surface. I find it oddly familiar from all the years I have spent with photoshop.

[Jeremy Garchow] “Are you looking to take freelance work at other facilities? What is it about perception that is motivating you?

If editing is only a simple part of your daily tasks, are you looking for a place to make an “investment” in money, or are you just looking on where you think others might invest their time?

When learning fcs3, did you have help, or did you teach yourself?

Are your only requirements to experiment, or do you have other technical requirements?”

This where I am different from most of the folks on here (and one of the reasons I come to the site, is to search around for the collective knowledge gathered here). I’m not really looking to work for hire. I consider myself an artist, and video & films is only one of the mediums I use (I’m sure the unkind among you would call me a hobbyist). I generally just want to create my own works, but will also provide my skills to other artists projects if they interest me. I make very little money doing this.

Consequently this gives me a great deal of freedom because I don’t have to satisfy a clients needs or perceptions. On the downside, every time I add a new piece of gear it is an expense I might never recoup. That’s why I look very carefully at any new product before I commit. (I am currently drooling over the Blackmagic Cinema Camera, but will definitely wait till others have tested the waters, used it, and discovered its strengths and weaknesses before I purchase.)

So, I’m not saying FCPX is out forever. A new NLE is not my highest priority at the moment. But one of the reasons I initiated this thread was to get input beyond the initial bad publicity of its release in June. Most of the film folks I know in my circle still have a negative view and I was looking for a broader perspective.

Oh, and my only technical requirement for anything (I shoot with vhs, 16mm, betacam, pixelvision, super8, dv, hdv, and a dslr) is that I can produce something cool. I am pretty much self taught in NLE editing, but did have training at the University of Utah in film theory. My editing classes involved a 16mm flatbed. And I did take a couple of adjunct classes when I first embraced video in and had to learn to cut on a tape-based linear editing system.

[Clint Wardlow]

I have to admit, your screenshot is intriguing. I would like to see the video it produced. I am curious how you would deal with multiple layers of audio on top of it. I have played around with FCPX very little on a friend’s system and found the magnetic timeline very vexing. Although that was many months ago

As I have said before, I have little time to really play around and learn a new NLE. Unlike many on here, video editing isn’t my primary job, but only one part of the process. My skills in FCP comes through years of use and I am loath to throw that away to begin anew in FCPX. I did get the Adobe Production package when it was on sale, but that was as much to get AfterEffects as Premiere Pro. And I have to say it is AE that I have devoted my time to learn rather than PPRO. I have stuck with FC7 because it still works for me. Time is a premium.

Just out of curiosity, how much time would you say it takes in FCPX to learn it well? How many months would one have to spend?

[Clint Wardlow]

Bill Davis My “harping” as you put it, is a reaction to the many, many people who show up here (like the post that started this thread) that PRESUME that the change to X was some kind of disaster and can only be seen as such.

Actually I never FPCX itself was a disaster in the original post. I said the publicity surrounding the release was a disaster. I don’t think there is any question of that. Just google the reviews of the time. Watch the Conan O’Brien clip. Frankly, all the negative reaction following the initial release still taints the product IMO. There are plenty of folk that won’t even give FCPX a chance because the label “non-professional” (deserved or not) has stuck.

[Clint Wardlow]

I’m not sure how thunderbolt will work to increase processor speed and ram. It was my understanding that it was not fast enough to deal with GPU (I could be wrong on this). So it seems to me that Apple is still going to have to build a big box of some sort to house multiple processors and lots of ram.

Modular may be the wave of the future, but it seems like there are a lot of kinks to work out before it is truely workable.

I just wish Apple would give us some sort of indicator of the direction they are going. It seems like as a company they don’t mind you spending big bucks on something of theirs and one month later they pull the rug out from under you.

[Clint Wardlow]

And Tony this is where different styles have different needs. I agree that FCPX seems to work well for a pretty straingt forward cut. A series of actions where one just cuts from one shot to the next with simple foley and sync sound.

However, in my more experimental work I will use multi-layered video that doesn’t always work on a one to one length with the several other shots of whict it overlays . A certain piece of video may run through out a segment, over several other shots, and I will vary its opacity using key frames. I often have multiple layers of video working all at once. At the same time I may have several tracks of sound. I do use sync, but it is often only a small part of my overall sound design.

For this FCPX seems ill-suited. I have seen where folks have come up with various byzantine work-arounds in FCPX to achieve the same results. However, I am never going to remember all of those. And the fact is I would have to spend A LOT of time in X to get to the point I am now in Legacy (and my time to experiment in a new NLE is limited). I moved from a flatbed to tape-based linear editing to NLE over the years and the basics of intercutting and montage have not really changed. I’ve had to learn new stuff sure, but FCPX is the first time in the process I feel that I would come in further behind the game than when I made a changeover.

That said, I know this is only me with my very specialized workflow. There are a lot of people I think may benefit from FCPX and are resisting for all the wrong reasons. They stay away not because it doesn’t work for them, but because of negative (admittedly some deserved)feedback. But there are others –particularly in higher end production — that FCPX’s editing paradigm as it now stands will never work IMO. I think apple is going to have to makes some major changes in X to entice those folks.

[Clint Wardlow]

One issue that seems to be missed is the one that has kept me from pursuing FCPX.

I am a one man show. I write, shoot and edit. Even though it is my favorite part of the process, I have only so much time to spend on editing. It has taken me years to get where I am in terms of skill in FCP. There is a lot to learn and tutorials & books get you only so far. You just can’t remember everything. It takes hands on work in the NLE and with each passing year I got better and better.

Right or wrong, my perception of FCPX is that I would need to pretty much start from scratch. So it would be a good five years before I was at a skill level I now enjoy in FC Legacy no matter the features it offers. This is because there is just so much I can retain from any teaching tool and it would take hands on work to pick up certain skill sets.

I have PPRO 5.5, but when it comes right down to it, I have pretty much stuck with FC7 because I want to get the project done. Now that I see raw video in my future, I may be forced out of FC Legacy. But I tend to aim towards Premiere because I feel I won’t lose all of the years of learning I have invested. I may be mistaken, but I feel going with FCPX means I am starting pretty much at zero.

[Clint Wardlow]

What I find odd is the resistence by people who aren’t really pros, like this DSLR shooter. I myself still use FC7 and have been gravitating towards PPRO but am waiting for the PPRO 6 to work out its bugs before I upgrade from 5.5. I am purchasing a new camera which may finally force me out of FC7. FCPX doesn’t feel right for my particular workflow.

However, what I find kind of interesting is resistence from folks for whom I feel FCPX would work well. DSLR shooters with simple audio needs, little or no compositing, and not that much experience with NLEs. They are not really looking at the product itself, but more at the perception of “pros” they interact with.

These folks want to use the same thing the “pros” use, whether such a thing fits their needs or not. And they don’t see FCPX as professional. Oddly they will look at Premiere (which isn’t used that much at all by the hollywood establishment). It just seems that Apple shot itself in the foot with the way they released FCPX, and because of the backlash, people that might really get good use from it may be staying away.

I wonder if Apple and FCPX will ever get beyond this. I mean, its been a year and the negative label still seems to be sticking.

[Clint Wardlow]

I am sticking with FCP7 for the immediate future. I did purchase the half-price Adobe Premium package, but mainly for Photoshop and After Effects. I will play around a bit with Premiere Pro to get comfortable with it and probably also purchase FCPX at some future date. But for now, FCP7 works just fine, so that is where I will do the bulk of my editing.

[Clint Wardlow]

I do most of my writing on an HP laptop (although I edit on a mac), so I’m not sure if this helps. I do not have a fan issue. I do have Story loaded on my mac for eventual integration with other Adobe software but really haven’t opened it. When I get home, I’ll open it up to see if I get the same problem with fans.