Feedback from a new user
Well, as a follow up to my last post, the one where I asked what happened to apple, I thought I'd share a bit from a new FCPX user.
If you remember, I'm not an experienced video editor. All I do is extremely basic. I basically do screen captures from Camtasia of our live webinars, and create online educational videos. BASIC.
I really think, since the web is our only market, I am the ideal target for FCPX. I have no background in advanced video or any of that stuff. So I really think I'm probably a good review.
My review - It's clunky. I think apple REALLY missed the boat on this thing. They pissed off their pro users, and their "ideal" user like me, I hate it. It's a really bad camtasia. That's what it feels like. I can't figure out the file structure for the life of me. It sure is goofy. It's totally not intuitive.
So, it looks like the pros don't like it, and here I am an amateur and I don't like it either. I think they MESSED UP. Just my 2¢
Quotes from a pro:
Just finished first real project - experiences
by Frank Stäudtner on Jul 12, 2011 at 2:22:27 pm
Hi guys, just finished my first project on FCPX for adidas; a trade show video wall loop;
Never have I worked as quickly, flexible and had so much fun in HD; color corrections were so quick to do....
When I was a producer at the BBC, I did some work for a department called Digilab. As a technically aware producer, my task was to try equipment to see if I thought it was suitable for production staff to use without a crew. Along with cameras and stuff, I went through a good number of editing systems, with the odd trip to IBC and NAB to get the cutting edge.
The famous Randy visited us at one point and we were suitably impressed. We got hold of an FCP beta from Apple UK, about 0.8 or something, and were again very impressed. This was the system we had been looking for. I went out and shot some material - kids doing bike safety - and knocked together a short programme, with opening titles, all built in FCP. It crashed a few times, but in my view it was a winner. When I left the BBC and went freelance I bought a G4 and FCP and edited on it from then till now. Along the way I've continued to test out and use other systems, because people still ask my opinion.
Yesterday was my first try at FCPX.
Oh God it's junk. That's a highly technical value judgement based on years of comparative testing.
You spend one day and you decide it's junk? Nice. Very thorough evaluation I'm sure.
[Geoff Dills] "You spend one day and you decide it's junk? Nice. Very thorough evaluation I'm sure.
Are you suggesting that you cannot make such a decision after one day? If something is really bad, how could it possibly take any LONGER to make such a judgement. It does not take long for the aroma of crap to make itself known.
WIth every good editing or compositing system, it's value pretty obvious in the first day. It may be complicated (like the first time many of us used an Avid) but I don't think the quality of the actual product takes long to determine.
Professor, Producer, Editor
and former Apple Employee
Also, how do you evaluate software? Most demos are at most one day.
How long do you spend at a booth during NAB? Probably no where close to a day.
Yes I do think in this case it takes more than a day of playing with it to understand it. And if you don't truly understand it you can't properly evaluate it. If you think I'm a thick idiot, read Oliver Peters review where he spent over two weeks and came up with a much better evaluation than "its junk"
[Geoff Dills] "Yes I do think in this case it takes more than a day of playing with it to understand it. And if you don't truly understand it you can't properly evaluate it. If you think I'm a thick idiot, read Oliver Peters review where he spent over two weeks and came up with a much better evaluation than "its junk""
This product works for some, doesn't work for others, and the two camps will never see eye to on that because they look at this product through entirely different prisms, because they have different needs. There's no need to take it personally, and there's probably nothing you can say that will change anyone's mind. If you like vanilla and the other guy likes chocolate, that's life. It's not a matter of time, it's a matter of taste.
And BTW, for the record, in the review you site, Oliver Peters' conclusion does not actually support your argument, he concludes as follows:
"FCP X is a tool intended to be easier to use by people who aren’t necessarily full-time editors – meaning event videographers, video journalists, producer/directors who occasionally edit and corporate presentation professionals. These are users who may not exclusively edit for a living, but expect professional results that can’t be achieved with iMovie. Apple has focused on an architectural design for the coming decade with an eye towards people who are just starting out as video professionals and will grow with the product."
David Roth Weiss
David Weiss Productions, Inc.
Don't miss my new tutorial: Prepare for a seamless transition to FCP X and OS X Lion
POST-PRODUCTION WITHOUT THE USUAL INSANITY ™
Creative COW contributing editor and a forum host of the Business & Marketing and Apple Final Cut Pro forums.
Exactly what do you think my argument was? That X should work for everyone? Sorry if I made that impression. I merely was annoyed someone who says he is an expert can espouse his credentials and label this "junk" and we're supposed to take his word based on one day with the software. If he had listed some reasons for his evaluation I probably would have kept my mouth shut.
I agree this is not for everyone. I've spent two weeks with X and am still learning it's in and outs, or lack thereof :)
Apple made many dumb moves introducing this, but I'm trying to separate that from what the software is capable of accomplishing. And so far, from the perspective of someone who has learned to operate more edit systems both linear and nonlinear than most everyone on this forum, I find more to like than dislike.
There are many assessments one can make with just an hour or less with a new software package, especially if one is very experienced with that type of software.
If I had been driving a car for ten years, and someone sold me a brand new car that was a new paradigm, and jaw-dropping, then it had the steering wheel in the back seat, the brake pedal and the accelerator pedals reversed, and the windows didn't open, I'd know pretty quick that it wasn't for me. There are basic functions that one expects to be carried forth that ensure that the learning curve is minimal, and that key features are kept intact.
In the book, "Universal Principles of Design", there's a chapter on just what has happened to the editing world, entitled "Not Invented Here", and I quote:
"The not invented here syndrome (NIH) is an organizational phenomenon in which groups resist ideas and inputs from external sources, often resulting in subpar performance and redundant effort (i.e., "reinventing the wheel"). Examples abound....
"Long after market feedback and usability research indicated that the optimum number of buttons on a mouse was two, Apple stubbornly refused to change and maintained its one-button mouse design."
"Four social dynamics underlie NIH: belief that internal capabilities are superior to external capabilities; fear of losing control; desire for credit and status; and signigicant emotional and financial investment in internal initiatives. NIH resulting from a perception of superiority is often pervasive in organizations with a proud legacy of successful innovation; their past successes effectively sabotage their capacity to consider external sources."
Need I say more?
[Joseph W. Bourke] ""The not invented here syndrome (NIH) is an organizational phenomenon in which groups resist ideas and inputs from external sources, often resulting in subpar performance and redundant effort (i.e., "reinventing the wheel"). Examples abound...."
That sums up my impression of Apple in the "Pro" video world. Any time you ask "why doesn't it do this" you get "but it does this and it's really cool!" I talked to a couple of their developers over the years and never got a direct answer as to why something perfected in 1985 wasn't in their software.
I for one applaud Apple's move into the prosumer market so now I can focus on companies like Autodesk, Avid and Adobe who have an eye on the future but also some interest and awareness of significant and not necessarily obsolete innovations of the past. Maybe "X" will become a force to be reckoned with but I don't think anytime soon if ever. And if it does I'll buy it and learn it.
..from the perspective of someone who has learned to operate more edit systems both linear and nonlinear than most everyone on this forum...
Zounds. That's quite the challenge! I have a feeling their are quite a few of us who can give you a pretty solid run for the money.
Quotes from thousands of pros...
"This software is pathetic...I want a refund". ;-)
Avid DS / PrP / After Effects Editor
Uh yea... crap is the word. After struggling through getting a video done yesterday and last night, I finally got everything working the way I want. We're not talking hard stuff here. 3 clips, a couple cross fades. NOT HARD. I went to bounce the video down and encoded it at 264. For some reason, it keeps panning my audio about 70% to the left. But only when I do the bounce/export. In FCPX it plays fine. I've tried it three times and finally gave up. There's just not a single export option I can find that would cause this change. I'm telling you, Apple F'd this one up in a major way.
I can not for the life of me figure out how real people are saying nice things about. I think they are paid plants from Apple. Most of the nice reviews I've seen come from educators and people who have a lot to lose if they say anything negative. Too bad Apple can't see it.
Here's a solution - just offer FCP Studio 3 again and sell them side by side. Buy yourselves another year for continued development to prove X is a bigger disaster than Windows ME, and then you can invest another 2 years in fixing FCP studio. I think I'm going to go back to Final Cut Express. I had better success there then I am having with FCPX.
I will say, the one thing I do like about it. The background rendering is very nice, and it bounces down the files relatively quickly. I was able to bounce our 2 hour class in about an hour, so about 2x faster than real time. That part I like.
oops wrong forum!
Have you tried "Search Posts"? Enlightenment may be there.
Its junk, I gave it shot and it failed and failed miserably the background rendering is a joke! It worked great with DSLR footage but it sucked with AVCHD which premiere handle as is! It still had to render to be usable and even once it was render I couldn't scrub the timeline without it stuttering in spots when I stop playback it was a solid green screen so I and to nudge it a frame or two see the video in the viewer. I didn't even add effects or transition yet.
To be fare there was one thing that it had that was great and that was ........wait there wasn't anything.
Adobe and Edius got it right edit any footage without transcoding and in real-time.
"You spend one day and you decide it's junk? Nice. Very thorough evaluation I'm sure."
I've had a lot of experience in evaluating, most of it for the BBC.
Think of it in another context. You want to buy a new car, so you do some test drives. Most have the accelerator pedal on the right, and the manual gears are laid out in an H pattern with first top left. Some company decides it can do better. Their engine is more efficient, the sat nav more up to date - but they've also decided to "re-imagime" the car. They tell you that lights (or Flash) are a thing of the past, so they left them out. The accelerator is on the left foot, and the brake is operated by leaning backwards. Oh, and they didn't bother to put tyres on the wheels, as third parties will supply later. Going to buy that one? Thought not.
It's true that Apple doesn't need the money of a handful of professionals, but I think they very much need their goodwill. The Apple reputation is build on innovation and class, so much so that it's almost a religion for some people. Now a group of devoted and high profile followers have been badly let down, and are shouting loudly. Don't underestimate their influence. If you were a "prosumer" rather than a professional, would you leap in and buy the software that the people you would like to emulate have trashed. Not a chance.
[Bernard Newnham] "Think of it in another context. You want to buy a new car, so you do some test drives. Most have the accelerator pedal on the right, and the manual gears are laid out in an H pattern with first top left. Some company decides it can do better. Their engine is more efficient, the sat nav more up to date - but they've also decided to "re-imagime" the car. They tell you that lights (or Flash) are a thing of the past, so they left them out. The accelerator is on the left foot, and the brake is operated by leaning backwards. Oh, and they didn't bother to put tyres on the wheels, as third parties will supply later. Going to buy that one? Thought not."
And history has actually given us a car like this, the Ford Edsel. Among other "innovative" ways they re-imagined the automobile, they decided to implement push-botton automatic transmission controls on the steering wheel. Right in the middle, where the horn would usually be, were buttons for Park, Drive, Reverse, etc.., Cool, eh? The only problem was that people would accidentally throw their cars into another gear at high speeds while turning the steering wheel or trying to honk the horn.
FCPX is the Edsel, and I think the magnetic timeline is the push-botton transmission.
Professor, Producer, Editor
and former Apple Employee