[Michael Largé]

David,

My post wasn’t meant to be a criticism of Larry. Simply an observation that on release day, while he pointed out the negatives of FCPX, he was clearly more positive about it than he is now. I, for one, am glad he’s changed his tune. If anyone can get Apple to listen, it’s him. Though now that he’s so critical of it, and the company, will he fall out of their good graces?

[Michael Largé]

Larry has been singing quite a different tune than the one he sang on release day.

[Michael Largé]

[David Roth Weiss] “Apple has unfortunately managed the entire roll out about as badly as any company could possibly have done it, and whether Mr. Ubillos says so or not, there’s simply no way the company calculated the type or intensity of the reaction they’ve received. There are few genuinely pleased with Apple at this moment on any side of the issues.”

I understand and I feel the pain of post houses that have been hit hard by this, I really do, but I maintain that any and all venom should be directed at Apple and not at people who enjoy FCPX. There’s nothing to gain by attacking one another.

To address your point of Apple’s roll out: I completely agree. This is, without a doubt, one of the worst product launches I’ve ever seen. I’m still stunned how their NAB presentation doesn’t coincide fully with the product they released. Specifically, that one moment when they showed a FCP7 project and contrasted against how it would appear in FCPX as a bunch of compound clips, thereby indirectly suggesting that legacy projects would be supported. It doesn’t matter that I love the compound clips feature, if they knew FCP7 projects wouldn’t be supported, then that part of their presentation deliberately misrepresented users.

[David Roth Weiss] “Going back a few weeks there were some mean-spirited debates that went back and forth between very experienced editors and those with less experience. Both camps were pretty hot, and neither side could understand why the other was unable appreciate their feelings. It got heated, but it went both ways with some name calling and stereotyping. You know, lots of really mean stuff like less-experienced editors calling pros old fogies, and the old fogies calling the others unprofessional. It was a dreadful sight to behold.”

And both sides were wrong for doing so.

[David Dobson] “As for the tone – as a Premiere editor – that’s all I’ve heard from FCP users for years. If you are editing in Premiere you aren’t a professional editor. Not all of you, but enough real assholes to leave a bad taste in my mouth. Now you are doing it to each other, so I am mostly amused. But I feel your pain too. “

Yeah, I heard the same thing years ago from FCP users when I started on Premiere. Then I heard it from Avid users when I moved to FCP. I’ve never engaged in that foolishness because I’ve never understood being loyal to a piece of software. I understand why a person feels comfortable with one program over another, but in the end they’re all just tools for us to use. To insult one another for our tool is choice is stupid.

[Forrest Burger] “I don’t have to be an After Effects artist to make fairly decent graphics. The FCPX workflow seems quite a bit faster for the kinds of work I do, which are probably like the majority of videos out there…mainly cuts and dissolves. FCPX lets me concentrate on what makes me a “professional,” simply telling compelling stories that my clients appreciate.

Granted, I don’t normally need XML, OMF support or have to lay off to tape. I really feel post houses that need those. I also feel Apple totally mucked up the roll-out of FCPX.

snip

There are many of us “professionals” out there who edit at home in shorts and slippers, with a day or two of growth on our face and spend time with our kids. And, like it or now, that business model is growing. I really believe we’re the ones that FCPX is targeted at and I’m not sure there’s anything wrong with that.”

Hear, hear! FCPX is almost perfect for me – (I too am a one man band) – but ironically, if I had continued working the way I was trained – export OMF from FCP into Pro Tools for editing – I’d be royally screwed. I remember being flat-out told how that specific workflow was the best way and that nothing else measured up. Well, I decided I didn’t care for PT much so I switched to Soundtrack Pro which worked perfectly with my FCP7 workflow and my documentary sounded great. I’m not saying abandoning PT is the way to go; just that it didn’t work for me then and still doesn’t now.

[Michael Largé]

I accidentally posted this in the wrong section of the thread. I’ve removed it and will repost below.

[Michael Largé]

[David Roth Weiss] “No one should be looking down on anyone, much less using their experience or expertise to as a gauge of their right to hold a belief one way the other about a piece of bleeping software. “

I couldn’t agree more.

[David Roth Weiss] “And, experienced pros are no more incapable of adapting to change than a Youtuber or anyone else. Besides editing, editors have to manage and prioritize boatloads of information, details, and decisions, which are done best as the editor sees fit on any given project. The flexibility that FCP has always afforded allowed the editor to establish the priorities, because the system was more adaptable. That adaptability has now been removed by Randy Ubillos and team, so it’s in fact the application which is less adaptable, not those who don’t particularly care for the application or its very rigid UI.”

I won’t dispute what you’ve said as I have no reason to, but there are quite a few threads in this forum that convey a strong vibe that if one enjoys FCPX, or even more shocking, prefer it to FCP7, they are not true professionals (since a “real” professional could never utilize such a program). While I have no issue with the loathing FCPX, Apple, Randy, etc., have received, I believe that venom should be directed squarely at Apple and not at people who may find value in the program.

[Michael Largé]

[Greg Burke] “I love this Guy! I don’t look down on him at all, I was just trying to get an Idea because it seems that FCP X wouldn’t do what James needs it for. Thats all. I love James!!!!”

The way you phrased your post made it sound to me as though you thought FCPX wouldn’t work “EVEN for him” (a lowly web videographer). As if to say, even a web person isn’t able to use it. It appears I was in error and I extend a sincere apology to you. I’m just a tired of seeing so many threads that put down people of different professional backgrounds.

[Greg Burke] “I mean Fcp doesn’t even support psd files! And if pros can’t use fcpx and people like James and I can’t use it. Who was it made for? I’m starting to thin that this program was designed for moms and dads. I have it I’m learning I’m using it but so far it’s what it seems like.

I understand that criticism and I won’t debate it. I have FCPX and I’m using it on a project right now and personally, while it has tremendous potential, I think it was designed squarely with the iPad in mind. I’m dead serious too. Everything points to that –

– A single viewer for editing is easier on an iPad screen that the viewer/canvas combo.
– It’s an app you download rather than a CD to install (iPads don’t have CD/DVD drives).
– I like a lot of aspects of the new UI, but it clearly lends itself to touchscreen controls.
– The lack of support for customizing a dual monitor set-up. They want you to get used to working on a single screen, ala the iPad.

I think it’ll take a couple of years before FCPX reaches it’s full potential, that is, if Apple is interested in doing so. I hope they are because there are some really great things within it.

[Michael Largé]

I usually remain quiet but there’s a nasty snobbery on these forums ever since FCPX released that’s become quite uncomfortable. I have zero problem with people venting or feeling betrayed by Apple and I believe they should be allowed to communicate this freely. That said, there’s a strong vibe being put out by a great deal of members (not everyone) that since they deem FCPX to be a non-pro application, it’s target audience must obviously be a bunch of dummies. This is evident in the numerous threads which have a “Look! Apple made FCPX for idiots like this!” feel. I’m not bothered one bit by all the criticism leveled against FCPX, but to demean people because they create and work on internet videos is quite another.

I bring this up because the guy in question – James Rolfe a.k.a The Angry Video Game Nerd – went from being a so-called “youtuber” to landing a steady job because of the huge audience he gained from his videos. Sure, he’s not producing ‘The Sopranos’ or ‘Law and Order’ every week, but he shouldn’t be looked down upon because he makes his living on the web.

[Michael Largé]

Welcome aboard David. Would love to hear your thoughts on FCPX.

[Michael Largé]

[Alan Okey] “One of the most polarizing features of FCP X seems to be the Magnetic Timeline, particularly to experienced editors who are well-versed in the traditional multitrack paradigm.

What’s your opinion of the Magnetic Timeline?

In my opinion, I say A. I’ve only had it a week but as of now, I like it immensely more than the old way of having tracks. I love editing, but I’ve always been annoyed with NLEs because while they’re powerful, they’re also clunky and unintuitive. IMHO editing has been in dire need of an makeover for a long time. FCPX isn’t perfect, but it has a great foundation upon which Apple can build upon if they so choose. The only question is, will they?

[Michael Largé]

I have no idea how to do it in compressor without also compressing the footage. Jas did say that FFMpeg might be helpful and it appears that’s exactly what you need.

https://www.ffmpeg.org/index.html

Let us know if it works out.