[Mark Dobson]

Great informative post Jim.

FCPX really does work well when you start using the tools – such as compound clips – to in many ways subvert the conventional workflows.

And as you say it’s easy to undo and step back.

The logic filter I use the most is Channel EQ. It’s vastly superior to the Legacy FCP EQ filters. It has an analysis function which can quickly highlight problems such as background noise or hums.

I hope that in future updates that visual and audio effects are given separate dropdowns to make it easier to access specific effects / plugins.

[Mark Dobson]

There is a detailed breakdown of all the FCPX audio effects in theApple Help Library.

https://help.apple.com/finalcutpro-logiceffects/mac/4.0/en/finalcutprox/logiceffectsreference/#chapter=preface%26section=0

Mark Dobson
Producer and Director
Alembic TV
http://www.alembic.tv

[Mark Dobson]

I’ve never used any of the auto functions in FCPX.

They were highly touted at the April sneek peek ( not so much a sneak peek as a full launch in retrospect because what we saw there was what we got 2 months later. )

One of the reasons I realised that FCPX and I were going to be friends was that I could turn all of the
analytical auto functions off.

I just can’t imaging which of my projects would benefit from these features.

And I don’t use optimise or import media either.

I occasionally use color balance to see what might be needed to improve a shot and I use functions like stabilise on a need to basis.

[Mark Dobson]

Herb,

There’s no pontificating going down at my end.

Just expressing an opinion within the confines of this forum which by it very name is set up to debate the pros and cons of this new incarnation of FCP.

My impression of this forum is that probably 30% are pro FCPX and 70% find fault with both the software and the way it was introduced.

Maybe these percentages will even out a bit as time passes.

[Mark Dobson]

Joseph,

Herb share your views about the use of the term Luddite.

I’m the guilty party.

You are right. The luddites opposed the introduction of industrial machinery that enabled unskilled labour to do the work previously carried out by skilled textile workers.

Similar to the arguments that were originally thrown against FCPX and the philosophy behind it.

But seriously, I’m now able to do the work previously carried out by 4 different technicians due to the amazing software and hardware thats now available.

FCPX is simply the first step in a new way of thinking and doing things.

These are extreme times what with you suggesting assisted suicide and Herb suggesting jumping off a cliff !

[Mark Dobson]

Ouch!

Sure if you regularly buy 20 seats for new shows this has not been a good time to be involved with FCP.

So with bugles blaring over the horizon comes Adobe Premier Pro who have done for NLE editing systems what Skoda did for the automobile industry, turned their reputation around on a sixpence and come up with a viable if slightly square alternative to what was FCP. And for those that regularly use After Effects and Photoshop this all makes sense.

No question they will do really well out of the present incarnation of FCPX. Droves of editors have decided to ditch their still functioning copies of Final Cut Studio and sit down with Premier Pro.

My company originates and edits all its own material. We are not a facility. My experience ( and good business sense ) tells me that material dates really quickly. A lot of the material we use is shot out in the real world, with real people driving real cars – and these types of shots normally look dated within a year.

So fortunately backward tape compatibility is not a big issue.

Which means I can try out something new and get a kick from learning how it all works.

And FCPX does work. I’ve been using for the last 4 months with increasing ease.

I personally think these are great times for video producers. Especially those starting off their careers.

Really high quality cameras are now available for a ridiculously low prices and I think Apple with FCP X will attract the new generation of visual content creators. Whilst it might ruffle the feathers of the older more established editors, it really does look forward to new ways of working that are not constrained by 75 year old work practices.

[Mark Dobson]

Hi Herb,

[Herb Sevush] “Given that the baby cannot walk yet, what was the point in EOL’ing Legacy suddenly, without notice. Why not keep selling it and supporting it while announcing that there would be no future development? Why not make it an essential point to develop a translator for Legacy to X, to reinforce the idea of a slow nurtured migration?”

We all need to keep moving forward and the last couple of years have cemented the transfer from tape based to file based workflows. Nobody would go backwards once they have made the inevitable transition.

So why keep developing or selling something that has no future. A product with one foot in the past. It’s an unsustainable activity.

Final Cut Studio is still a fully functioning and highly professional suite of software. And as to support? I’ve never had any software support from Apple in all the years I’ve been using FCP – Support has always come from peers and forums such as the venerable Cow.

I understand that many people need to continue to access tapebased archives and previous FCP Legacy edits and for them FCPX simply will not work at the moment ( give it a couple of weeks)

I also understand that those working at the top end of the game would have operational problems with the present toolset of interactivity. However most of them are probably already using turnkey Avid systems or have availed themselves of Adobes opportune marketing campaign .

[Herb Sevush] “I question all of Apple’s decisions concerning the rollout. I think they either intended to alienate their high end users, or were just so incredibly inept that they did it unintentionally. There were many ways to “take things forward” and they chose the worst way.”

Change can be difficult especially when imposed without warning.

FCPX is so radically different from any previous version that any way it was presented was going to be controversial.

So why not simply draw a line in the sand. Then at least people can make a clear choice.

History does not look kindly on the luddites.

[Mark Dobson]

Some of the material we use is shot on a Canon XF305 and I get it onto a hard drive via FCP7 using the Log and transfer function.

This has now become the only use I have for FCP7 ( AKA Legacy )

The preferences scroll down provides a choice of codecs from 422HQ down to Proxy. Within that is a Native setting which is the one we use.

At only 386MBs file size per minute (6.1mbs) with no discernible loss of quality this makes a good choice if you are concerned with ongoing media storage management.

(422HQ produces a 1.38 Gb per minute file size! )

The Native import a file wrapped as XDCAM HD422 1080P which seems similar to the Sony XDCAM EX format Kevin Patrick mentions.

Any Canon DSLR files are pre transcoded to Apple Pro-Res 422(LT) with Mpeg Streamclip prior to being referenced to within FCPX.

This again is simply to keep a handle on the huge amounts of data generated with HD material and to tick all the import boxes in FCPX doesn’t give you the same level of control.

[Mark Dobson]

I’ve been monitoring my memory usage (14 GB on a 2008 Quad Core ) and I’ve never seen it going above around 6GB.

My CPU gets maxed out frequently but memory does not seem to be drawn on in a way I was expecting.

So your theory that FCPX has a predetermined memory usage limit makes quite a bit of sense for me.

I’m thinking that my computer is getting pretty old and out of date now so it would be fascinating to here from someone with a brand new iMac with a load of memory on it.

[Mark Dobson]

Hi Christian,

Whilst we might all be unwitting beta testers I’ve yet to cut a 3 minute DSLR project on FCPX.

The programmes I’ve produced are normally about 10 -15 minute multi format productions which is where FCPX really shines.

Whilst there are numerous things to improve with this software it is already suitable for a wide variety of programme types. The biggest no no at the moment is for people who need to send parts of the programme out for audio mixing or colour correction and these issues are being actively addressed.

I dont’ need to get into complex sound mixes and, whilst i’m looking forward to Magic Bullet colour correction software being available for FCPX, I find the colour board actually really versatile especially when one adds multiple correction layers.

I’m trying to get my head around DaVinci Lite at the moment and am about to reinstall the Intensity Pro card back in the computer because if I can work out how to color correct with DaVinci Lite I will then have the reassurance of colour correcting on an external monitor through the Intensity Pro Card.

As for speed, well I suppose one could work really quickly with very simple projects but for me editing is as much a mental process as a technical one. I see it as a big jigsaw puzzle, easy once it’s finished, daunting at the beginning.

So the metadata handling capability of FCPX is a large part of what I’m enjoying learning about. And that alone is worth pursuing.