FCS3: new features vs. more refinement, missing the boat on integration
by Alan Okey
on
Jul 23, 2009 at 3:02:44 pm
These are strictly my opinions, so take this post with a grain of salt.
My sources tell me that a lot of people are going to be really, really angry about this release of FCP. There are lots of new features added (of dubious utility to most users), with scant attention paid to many of the many of the bugs and idiosyncrasies that we've come to hate. Many of the features advertised on the new product website are old features, and the whole thing reads like the worst sort of marketing fluff filled with bullet points rather than information of any real substance.
Final Cut's entire UI is painfully outdated. The statement that the UI is "fully customizable" is a blatant lie. There is no ability to customize the size of UI elements like button size or background color. The tiny buttons and widgets are laughably small on a modern high-res monitor. I have 20-10 vision, so I know it's not just me.
I'll believe the statement "Improved media management" when I see it for myself. There's a reason so many people refer to it as the Media Mangler.
This barely qualifies as a point release, at least as far as FCP is concerned.
It looks like they finally killed off LiveType, which won't make me shed any tears, but I know a few people who depend on it who will be upset by this. Looks like they'll have to learn Motion now.
Motion should have had shadows and reflections in 3D space in the last version. I can't believe they're trumpeting this as a "feature" when it's taken for granted in just about any real compositing application. The depth of field tool looks somewhat interesting, I'll admit.
Some of the new features in Soundtrack Pro (like voice level matching) should have been be integrated into FCP instead of reserved for round-tripping.
In my opinion, Apple is missing a golden opportunity to add some of the most useful new features to FCP instead of insisting on round-tripping for everything. Case in point: imagine how much better FCP would be with Motion's masking and text tools integrated into the application.
Someone needs to bring the entire FCP development team to Autodesk's headquarters for a Smoke demo so that they can see what a truly integrated toolset should be.
I can't help but think that Apple's whole Final Cut Studio strategy is driven by a marketing focus group rather than actual video professionals. It's as if they believe that having more separate applications makes people think they're getting more value for their money. In my opinion, all of the separate applications and need for round-tripping is extremely cumbersome and unnecessary when it's easily possible to have a much tighter and more seamless integration of tools in fewer applications. I realize that FCP can't be all things to all people, and that one application is rarely the solution to every problem, but I think Apple's insistence on separating the tools so much is holding back the potential of the FCS suite. Adding a few of the most useful tools to FCP from other apps in the FCS suite would be a huge timesaver and help to streamline workflow.
Re: FCS3: new features vs. more refinement, missing the boat on integration by Wayne Carey on Jul 23, 2009 at 3:38:29 pm
[Alan Okey]"It looks like they finally killed off LiveType, which won't make me shed any tears, but I know a few people who depend on it who will be upset by this. Looks like they'll have to learn Motion now. "
This is done in version 6 of FCS2. Now, if you had a pre-existing copy of LiveType installed, it still works, but it wasn't any part of the FCS2 install. BTW, Motion is much better with text than Livetype except for the pre-built animations in LiveType.
As for the rest of your rant.... I agree whole-heartedly!
The only other thing that you didn't mention was anything about the multi-processor support. Apple doesn't need Snow Leopard for this.... We've been doing this for a longtime in other apps.
_______________________________
Wayne Carey
Schazam Productions
http://web.mac.com/schazamproductions
schazamproductions@mac.com
Re: FCS3: new features vs. more refinement, missing the boat on integration by chris gormlie on Jul 23, 2009 at 3:55:50 pm
While the round tripping (where it works!!) is not much of an issue for me, I agree largely with what you have posted.
There is nothing in this release that makes me go 'wow i will use that'. Pretty much everything in there feels like it should have already been there. It feels like a long overdue large point release.
I have no doubt that the less than satisfying grunt at blu-ray (even though not totally unexpected) has clouded any positivity on my part, but I just cannot find anything to excited about.
Re: FCS3: new features vs. more refinement, missing the boat on integration by Alan Okey on Jul 23, 2009 at 4:05:54 pm
[chris gormlie]"There is nothing in this release that makes me go 'wow i will use that'. Pretty much everything in there feels like it should have already been there. It feels like a long overdue large point release. "
That's a very concise and elegant summary. My thoughts exactly.
Wavering by Will Griffith on Jul 23, 2009 at 3:59:29 pm
My heart has been sold on Apple for awhile, but if they don't fix
a bunch of stuff under the hood in FCS with Snow Leopard and
an additional update this year then I'm looking elsewhere.
They have just made things real easy for the Adobe CS5 crew.
Re: FCS3: new features vs. more refinement, missing the boat on integration by Alan Okey on Jul 23, 2009 at 4:03:33 pm
I just thought I'd mention that my integration comments don't apply to Color, at least as far as trying to pull Color into FCP.
I think having a dedicated grading app with a task-specific interface is hand over fist better than trying to integrate Color into FCP as a plug-in. I can't fathom why some people complain about Color's interface - it's nearly perfect. I don't want it to look more "Mac-like." I really wish they would bring back the dark menu bar, as in Final Touch. I don't think one should have to resort to third-party haxies to do this.
The major improvements to Color seem to be the real high point of this release, providing everything works as advertised.
Re: FCS3: new features vs. more refinement, missing the boat on integration by walter biscardi on Jul 23, 2009 at 4:12:13 pm
[Alan Okey]"I think having a dedicated grading app with a task-specific interface is hand over fist better than trying to integrate Color into FCP as a plug-in."
Amen to that. Would be stupid to turn color into a plug-in.
[Alan Okey]"I can't fathom why some people complain about Color's interface - it's nearly perfect. I don't want it to look more "Mac-like." "
Ditto to that. Wish the FCP interface looked / operated more like the Color interface.
Walter Biscardi, Jr.
Editor, Colorist, Director, Writer, Consultant, Author.
Credits include multiple Emmy, Telly, Aurora and Peabody Awards. Biscardi Creative Media
Creative Cow Forum Host:
Apple Final Cut Pro, Apple Motion, Apple Color, AJA Kona, Business & Marketing, Maxx Digital.
Re: FCS3: new features vs. more refinement, missing the boat on integration by Aaron Neitz on Jul 23, 2009 at 6:16:05 pm
[Dave Jenkins]"Let's hope there is more than what where seeing now. Something under the hood."
hopefully. Multicore support....anyone?
Right now it looks like Alan is right. There's going to be a lot of unhappy people with this release. the only compelling changes are the upgrades to Color... I don't see anything about FCP I couldn't gloss over in about 2 minutes.
Re: FCS3: new features vs. more refinement, missing the boat on integration by Shane Ross on Jul 23, 2009 at 6:53:20 pm
[Alan Okey]"Someone needs to bring the entire FCP development team to Autodesk's headquarters for a Smoke demo so that they can see what a truly integrated toolset should be. "
And then FCP would end up costing as much as Smoke, right? How do you think they can make something that costs $1000 into something that costs ten to twenty times that? There is a reason Smoke costs more. FCP shouldn't try to be Smoke....Smoke is Smoke. If you want what Smoke does...get Smoke. How many TV shows are EDITED on a Smoke? Documentaries? Indie Features? Narrative shows? Feature films?
You want to compare apps you need to compare FCP to Avid and Premiere. Does Premere integrate After Effects? No...round trip. Does Avid integrate....oh, wait. Avid doesn't have anything like AE or Motion. And DVD authoring software on an Avid? Very basic and PC only.
[Alan Okey]"Final Cut's entire UI is painfully outdated."
To quote something I said on LAFCPUG...Have you seen Avid's interface? It has gone virtually unchanged since version 7. They have added a few more buttons to include the new features...and yes they added the ability to make custom colors (a bit silly if you ask me, but people like it)...but the basic layout has been the same as it has for years.
WHY? Because editors who have worked for a long time with applications develop patterns and habits that make them fast editors. Change something, even small, and it throws them off their game. A button isn't were it was before, a menu moved....wrench in the works.
[Alan Okey]"I'll believe the statement "Improved media management" when I see it for myself. There's a reason so many people refer to it as the Media Mangler. "
It hasn't been the media mangler since FCP 6 came out. I use the Media Manager for all sorts of things and have had only two minor issues come up, and that was due to footage not having a REEL number. It is pretty darn solid now.
[Alan Okey]"Motion should have had shadows and reflections in 3D space in the last version. I can't believe they're trumpeting this as a "feature" when it's taken for granted in just about any real compositing application"
Motion is still young...it takes time to grow up. How long did it take AE to implement those features?
And if the FCP interface starts looking like COLOR...I'm switching back to Avid. That is NOT a user friendly interface...just like Premiere isn't. TOO many options...ugly.
Re: FCS3: new features vs. more refinement, missing the boat on integration by Andrew Kimery on Jul 23, 2009 at 7:18:33 pm
This all feels like a solid .5 update but not a full blown version update which might be why Apple dropped the price from $1399 to $999 (raise your hand if you purchased FCP stand alone for $999 back in the day). After 2 years I'm a bit underwhelmed especially given the advancements that Adobe and Avid have made in the same timeframe. Don't get me wrong, there's new stuff that makes me go "Oh, cool" but it's stuff that could've been rolled out in a point update, IMO.
Re: FCS3: new features vs. more refinement, missing the boat on integration by Winston A. Cely on Jul 23, 2009 at 7:43:38 pm
I'm with you on all points Shane, although I've been too scared to use Media Manager since FCP4. I am glad that they have at least attempted improvements on it.
Winston A. Cely
Editor/Owner | Della St. Media, LLC
Mac Pro 3GHz Dual-Core Intel Xeon
4 GB RAM | Final Cut Studio 5.1.4 | Aja Kona LHe
"If you can talk brilliantly enough about a subject, you can create the consoling allusion it has been mastered." - Stanley Kubrick
Re: FCS3: new features vs. more refinement, missing the boat on integration by Alan Okey on Jul 23, 2009 at 7:49:21 pm
[Shane Ross]"How do you think they can make something that costs $1000 into something that costs ten to twenty times that? There is a reason Smoke costs more. FCP shouldn't try to be Smoke....Smoke is Smoke. If you want what Smoke does...get Smoke. "
You completely missed my point. I'm not saying that FCP should be Smoke. I'm saying that Apple could learn a lot from the integration of tools in Smoke. Smoke is just an example, not a panacea. You're right, Smoke is a much stronger finishing tool than it is an editor, and its editing interface is bizarre if you're not familiar with it. I'm not holding Smoke up as the Golden Standard or the shining example of a perfect product, I'm just using it as an example of the benefits of having a wide and deep toolset in a single application versus round-tripping between poorly integrated separate apps for everything. I would like to see Apple take the opportunity to integrate some of the new tools that they're developing for their companion apps into FCP itself rather than always insisting on this stupid round-tripping workflow that is anything but seamless.
[Shane Ross]"You want to compare apps you need to compare FCP to Avid and Premiere. Does Premere integrate After Effects? No...round trip. Does Avid integrate....oh, wait. Avid doesn't have anything like AE or Motion. "
I don't need to compare FCP to anything from Adobe. I'd much rather hold FCP to a higher standard like Smoke than to compare it to Adobe's lackluster video products. I don't care if Premiere isn't integrating AE. I really couldn't care less what Adobe is doing. There has to be a better way to integrate tools into FCP to make it a revolutionary, not evolutionary product that creates a new standard for how a software-only editor should work. No one else is currently doing that, and Apple is in a better position to do it than anyone else. Apple is in a prime position to push forward with something new, not merely to continue incremental development in a suite of separate apps.
[Shane Ross]"Motion is still young...it takes time to grow up. How long did it take AE to implement those features? "
The Motion developers ought to know better, because many of them came from the Combustion development team. AE is hardly a benchmark product for anything. All AE has going for it is its ubiquity, which translates to lots of third-party plugin development and user group support. Trying to do just about anything interesting in AE requires a third-party plugin. Zaxwerks, Mocha, etc. You still can't actively work in the node/schematic view, it's just there for show. The interface still sucks, but at least it's not bright platinum like FCP.
My beef with FCP's interface is primarily its color and its tiny buttons and widgets. A UI should ideally be unobtrusive and get out of the way. It should be color-neutral and dark enough to reduce eye fatigue and not influence color perception. A bright platinum UI is unprofessional and gaudy. Tiny buttons and widgets are cumbersome. I think some simplification is in order. Combustion and Toxik are fantastic examples of a task-based UI. The UI changes according to the selected task at hand, and it stays out of the way. Using a million palettes is not the answer to streamlining an interface. That's why AE's UI sucks so much, and FCP isn't far behind. Color's "rooms" are a welcome relief - they focus the user on the task at hand rather than trying to pack every single tool onto the same screen.
Motion missing features by Mark Palmos on Jul 24, 2009 at 2:05:04 pm
Alan, i agree, the FCP interface is awful, the KFE is industry worst, and integration could be a lot better. Too much iphone on the brian methinks.
Motion templates in fcp still cannot use a timeline as a source clip, cannot use another motion clip as a source clip, so you have to render bits out and then import separate files to apply, and if the client makes one change...
Motion Keyframe Editor, its still next to impossible to select the Y position bezier handle when X is visible because X gets in the way all the time. Surely if one is selected, you should be able to grab that parameter's bezier handle first, by default? (but this keyframe editor is still 1000 times better than FCP's)
