[Herb Sevush]

“Scott listed a bunch of features that are indeed missing and needed by SOME editors on SOME projects”

No Scott listed some features that are industry standard on every pro NLE available now. Whether you use all, some or none of those features doesn’t change their essential place in “high end” post.

“..well, Herb, I am out of school a while and edit for 20 years on all different NLEs from SpeedRazor to Edit* to Liquid, Edius, FCP, Premiere…..I used everything but AVID and Media100. Just because I understand what FCPX does better, doesn´t mean I am 17 and it doesn´t mean I don´t produce broadcast programmes. It only means I make them faster even with the extra loop I need to take to bring the project to FCP7 to output it for the network.”

Well it’s nice to know we share some of the same pedigree. Of course FCPX would be the only program that required you to use a totally different NLE to output for Broadcast, but I’m sure you see that as a feature, not a bug. Myself I see it as a ridiculous proof as to just how inept X is, at this moment.

“I am wondering about your reply to my list, because if you don´t realize how good the skimming feature is then I don´t know what to say. It is saving HOURS of time no matter what you do and how you do it. “

I’ve been told by experienced editors that is a toy and a waste of time. Different strokes. It’s what I meant by a list of program specific features. An external monitor is required by everyone, skimming is liked by some. There is a difference.

“The 3-way color corrector in FCP is pracitcally unusable professionally now, because it simply doesn´t have a good quality. In FCP7 you need Color, true….and in FCPX we will need another 3rd party tool (or Color again) once the XML works. But the NLE FCPX itself has a much superior colortool. MUCH!”

I’m sure the X color tool is better than FCP7 – but it’s not better than round tripping from Color is it? And because X exists in a vacuum it’s limited in ways that FCP7 isn’t. And how is that possible, how do you spend years developing this sparkly new program, only to have it more limited than the creaky old software you’ve already EOL’d? It’s so screwed up you have to use the old software as part of your kludgy workflow. So I guess FCPX can be thought of as an advanced FCP7 plug-in.

I’ve never said FCP7 wasn’t in need of a total overhall, nor do I doubt that there are many excellent features in X (I love the idea of auditions) I just maintain that with X Apple has announced that they’ve decided to exit the world of “complex-workflow” video post.

Herb Sevush
Zebra Productions

[Herb Sevush]

Jeremy –

I believe you when you say that Apple had to totally re-write the FCP to move forward, there were so many long standing bugs and quirks that it became obvious the programmers were hamstrung by the existing code.

I was a Discreet edit*or back when their programmers took almost 2 years to totally re-write their code. The results were a better faster more powerful editing ap that was an upgrade in every way (which didn’t stop Discreet from Eol’ing it, or might actually have hastened it’s demise; but thats another story.)

Why Apple chose not to create an upgrade that would have freed them from the limitations of the older code, but rather to create FCPX in it’s place, an ap that is a huge step back in useability for the “high end” of their market (at lest in the short term) is the unanswered question at the heart of every post here. Only a few people at Cupertino know, and they ain’t talking – at least not to me.

Herb Sevush
Zebra Productions

[Herb Sevush]

Jeremy –

Most of us are not pining for FCP7. Its the loss of FCP8 that we mourn.

Herb Sevush
Zebra Productions

[Herb Sevush]

Alban –

Scott listed a series of industry standard features shared by every other professional NLE in existence. Other than 64 bit and background rendering, which are desirable features for any NLE, you counter with a bunch of FCPX specific attributes that many editors would be happy to live without.

no skimming – don’t care
no keyword tagging with smart collections – bins with automation that I don’t want.
no magnetic timeline – thank the lord
no “conform” within the timeline – have no idea what it is.
terrible 3-way color corrector – The combination of 3 way CC and Color beats FCPX hands down.
overcomplicated editing-tool-selections – not overcomplicated for me, but then I’ve been out of school for more than a few months.

“How anyone call it a professional tool in August of 2011 is beyond me.”

Not anyone but everyone calls FCP7 a professional tool, it’s FCPX that doesn’t currently meet all the criteria. But yes, FCP7 is very dated, which is why the huge disappointment in the lack of a suitable upgrade. Because we got X instead of 8 most of the “whiners” here will be migrating to Avid and Adobe during the next year. At which point X still won’t be capable of many complex workflows. Skimmer and all.

Herb Sevush
Zebra Productions

[Herb Sevush]

In my last post before i call it quits for the night I would like to discus this –

“Alex4d’s research points to some of the pieces”

I’ve seen all the hidden gems that have been discovered in the source code. By themselves they are truly meaningless. They could point to features yet to be built in, they could point to a wish list of features that were discarded after Apple re-targeted the project. You can read everything or nothing into their existence. Until someone can prove when they were written and explain why they weren’t utilized, I choose to accept them on face value – meaningless code that someone was too busy to bother erasing.

As for this

“It did according to at least one facility own I talked to. He said he got 7 more licenses that he need. He had 50 I believe.”

I had heard otherwise, but I take you at your word, so I stand corrected.

Herb Sevush
Zebra Productions

[Herb Sevush]

From the link you sent me – From July 7.

“• FCP XML in/out is coming via 3rd party soon
• FCPX EDL import/export coming soon
• FCPX AJA plugins coming soon for tape capture and layback; capture straight into FCPX [events].
• XSAN support for FCPX coming in the next few weeks
• FCPX Broadcast video output via Blackmagic & AJAVideo coming soon
• Additional codec support for FCPX via 3rd Parties coming soon
• Customizable sequence TC in FCPX for master exports coming soon
• Some FCPX updates will be free

It was also revealed that Apple is working on allowing existing enterprise deployments under FCS3 to purchase additional licenses.”

9 items. 1 never happened (enterprise additional licenses), 1 I believe is late (XSAN support), 7 are still stretching the definition of soon, none delivered.

No questions and no answers about the weird and sudden demise of FCP7 and how that was supposed to work with a transition for a product that is, by their own admission, under-developed.

This is not the kind of Public Q&A I was suggesting. And by all means, do it in Europe.

“Keep in mind I don’t think Apple doesn’t lose “seats” unless people don’t upgrade their Macs and buy Windows PCs instead. A former FCP7 user who buys Premiere Pro or Avid for their MacPro hasn’t cost them much beyond an FCPX sale and it’s quite possible that aforementioned may have bought it anyway”

So you agree that Apple has no reason to care about the “complex workflow” market – they can let Avid and Adobe deal with the high end while they concentrate on making a product for the “file based corporate market”. Apple makes their money either way. See, you’ve finally come around to my way of thinking.

“Basically what they need to do is persuade those to use FCPX and eventually upgrade their MacPros to take better advantage of it. We’ll have to see how they’ll do that.”

Many on the forum, myself included, have often said something along the lines of “and we’ll come back to FCPX in the future if it turns out to be a great product.” But will we really? There is a lot invested in working with a NLE and, as has been demonstrated by the vituperative nature of this forum, changing workflows is not something most people take to with the ease of switching from a Toyota to a Honda. I think most of the editors who switch away from Final Cut will be hard to bring back – unless Avid and Adobe prove as stupid as Apple, which would not come as a great shock either.

Herb Sevush
Zebra Productions

[Herb Sevush]

“No agreement there.”

That was supposed to read “no argument there” – what’s that about a Freudian slip?

Herb Sevush
Zebra Productions

[Herb Sevush]

Apple is losing thousands of editing licenses to Avid and Premiere.

If they want that to stop they could hold moderated question and answer sessions with hand picked industry insiders who would, politely, be asking the questions we hysterically speculate about on this forum daily. If the answers matched your expectations the hysteria would stop – while they might still loose seats in the near term, they would hold on to a much larger part of their base. There are a myriad ways of accomplishing the same goal – not doing it is costing them this part of the user base. To me it looks like they don’t care about this loss, and since I agree with you that they are only in it for the money, my interpretation is that the answers would not help them hold onto this market. Whispering into Peter Wiggins ear will not quite do it.

“They invested R&D in FCPX with intent, even if that intent may fail.”

No agreement there – it’s just that I see the intent as catering to a different slice of the “pro” pie – applying a high-end filter, cutting out all the “noise” above a certain level of complexity so that their app will play better with a larger audience.

Herb Sevush
Zebra Productions

[Herb Sevush]

As I see it here’s the best refutation of all your beliefs –

Apple remains silent.

Only they can end all this speculation, and they can end it immediately. They choose not to.

If Apple was interested in not alienating the “complex workflow” professionals they could do it in one day. They choose not to.

So as someone who does, sometimes, know when it’s time to come in out of the rain, I interpret that to mean they don’t care if they are alienating that group – how’s that for substantiatin’?

Herb Sevush
Zebra Productions

[Herb Sevush]

Almost everything either you or anyone else, on either side of the argument, have said about Apple’s motivations or future intents in this forum is totally speculative for the simple reason that Apple ain’t talking. Or to quote Lao Tzu

“He who knows, does not speak; he who speaks, does not know.”

There are no facts that incontrovertibly prove anything in this mess; everything is up for interpretation. What seems logical and unassailable to you seems asinine to me, and I’m sure it’s quite vice versa. Apple’s appearance at the Super Meet, the Macromedia quicktime licensing issues, the alex4d code findings are all open to multiple interpretations that collectively prove nothing. (If you so desire I’ll give you the alternative interpretations for each.)

As of today there are no facts and no evidence beyond the existence of FCPX as it is currently distributed, and the one page FAQ that Apple published; so railing about other peoples speculations while you are speculating away like crazy does not cede you the high ground.

As you might have learned from your HP postings.

Herb Sevush
Zebra Productions