FORUMS: list search recent posts

FCPX and The Great Misnomer

COW Forums : Apple Final Cut Pro X Debates

<< PREVIOUS   •   VIEW ALL   •   PRINT   •   NEXT >>
Gary Huff
FCPX and The Great Misnomer
on Aug 23, 2011 at 12:22:22 am

In my opinion, a lot of the misunderstandings about FCPX and people's attitudes and beliefs towards it stem from some assumptions that not everyone takes for granted.

A) Apple is a great company that employs brilliant minds and so while we may not understand what the thinking process behind FCPX was, we just have to accept that it is better than what we are used to.

Apple is a great tech company, I don't think anyone would dispute that. They have definitely made a lot of money, and rightfully so. However, even the most brilliant of minds make the stupidest decisions. It's part of being human. And no matter how great Apple has been in the past, they can fail just like anyone else can.

B) FCPX will be the standard.


While it is true that no one has directly said this, I feel like it is in the underlying message whenever someone bemoans "turning people off" to this software, as if changing someone's NLE from FCP to Premiere/AVID is a terrible thing. In my opinion this stems from an unstated idea that FCPX will be the dominant standard once the issues are ironed out. It may or may not, only time will tell, but the writing on the wall seriously isn't good for that to be the case. Besides, this doesn't jive with the other stated idea of big production houses going the way of the dodo. If it's going to be one-man band operations in the future, then why do you have to learn one over the other? That idea has always been about getting a job with a post house in the first place.

C) FCPX is a better way to edit and is poised to pave the way for the next decade

This was marketing from Apple and I've seen it parroted again here. First, let's define "better." I don't think there is a video that has been done in the last few years that could not have been done with equal quality in any of the three major NLE's. By "better" I feel that can only mean faster and easier. That's really the only way to different yourself.

Is FCPX faster? I don't think so, but it can't be effectively argued one way or the other. You may find it faster, I might not (I don't actually). "Easier" also suffers from the same fate. You simply cannot make this a point. And being "future proof" is also meaningless. What exactly about FCPX makes it ready for the next decade over and above the competition? That it can export to an codec for web distribution? I can do that in Premiere. That it can work with H.264 footage? I can do that in Premiere as well. I also reject the premise that it is geared towards "up and coming editors." If you're not an up-and-coming editor, then how do you know that it's what these teenagers/young adults want and need? Isn't that somewhat patronizing to think that they need something with "easier accessibility"?

D) FCPX will only continue to get better.

Frankly, I hope Apple is able to do this, simply because I think we all win if there are three heavily competing useful NLEs on the market. But it's mere speculation that the FCPX we have in 2012/2013 will be substantially different than the FCPX that we have right now. How do we know that FCPX won't follow a similar upgrade pattern to what has been seen with iMovie? There is simply no way to tell one way or the another until Apple either shares its vision or that new version comes out.


Return to posts index

Gary Pollard
Re: FCPX and The Great Misnomer
on Aug 23, 2011 at 12:30:58 am

[Gary Huff] "B) FCPX will be the standard.

While it is true that no one has directly said this ... "


What was it you said about hyperbole?

____

"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it"



Return to posts index

Gary Huff
Re: FCPX and The Great Misnomer
on Aug 23, 2011 at 2:27:28 am

[Gary Pollard]What was it you said about hyperbole?

Perhaps you should be more worried about selectively quoting people?


Return to posts index


Gary Pollard
Re: FCPX and The Great Misnomer
on Aug 23, 2011 at 7:19:02 am

Either you believe it or you don't. You are inferring from people's posts, just as some here like to infer about Apple's plans (which you apparently don't support, at least if those inferences are positive)

An admitted straw man is still a straw man.

And by definition, that's hyperbole.

____

"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it"



Return to posts index

Aindreas Gallagher
Re: FCPX and The Great Misnomer
on Aug 23, 2011 at 1:28:05 am

*glomming on with own rant*

B) FCPX will be the standard.
I'm going ranty again: I am going to be forced to learn avid. AVID

FCP really is dying like bad smelly meat my end right now - that is the crazy realisation half of London is waking up to - the whole thing is actually dying, the entire conception of FCP in production and post production - the entire shagging thing. I cannot believe apple have done this.

C) FCPX is a better way to edit and is poised to pave the way for the next decade.

seriously - they just burned FCP alive - it was our shoemakers shoe. apple just broke tens upon of thousands of shoe maker's shoes in front of the shoemaker's eyes. They literally broke the entire concept of the application in half.

C) FCPX is a better way to edit and is poised to pave the way for the next decade.

they're just too unstable with this software move. No facility, no post production house, no broadcast entity, no one vaguely serious could ever trust them again. This software shift is way too mental. its a ludicrous mix of their amateur software ambitions and their boiled down understanding of what they think editing should be. parts of it are like scrawls on a wall. It's just too far gone. Which is awful because i'd sooner have to get to grips with this than avid.

C) FCPX is a better way to edit and is poised to pave the way for the next decade.

no, what they have come up with is a tagged organiser "things" app, with a rectangular colour corrector.

C) FCPX is a better way to edit and is poised to pave the way for the next decade.

no the timeline is awful.

C) FCPX is a better way to edit and is poised to pave the way for the next decade.

no, the precision editor is the pirates of the Caribbean ride of editing (things move dramatically!).

C) FCPX is a better way to edit and is poised to pave the way for the next decade.

FCPX is a horrible, confused, disrespectful, seriously poorly thought out, itunes software team sunday afternoon effort, stick a glow on that timeline mess.





http://www.ogallchoir.net
promo producer/editor.grading/motion graphics


Return to posts index

Glen Hurd
Re: FCPX and The Great Misnomer
on Aug 23, 2011 at 6:07:57 am

It's true, my friend.

I'm taking a Smoke class, and the instructor, within the first few minutes, points out that projects done in FCP 7 can be brought into Smoke for finishing, but not if you're using FCP X.
"FCP X is just Final Cut Express - Advanced. It's essentially a toy. I don't know how long FCP 7 can last, but I doubt it'll be more than 1 or 2 years."
His voice is completely devoid of emotion - he's clumsy with FCP and he's never used Avid. He could just as easily be talking about WalMart. But as a Smoke Op for The Mill, it's obvious his opinion is one shared by those top 5% in our industry. The effects are already in motion. We may debating it here, but the conclusion is already spilling out there.

Moments later, we're looking at Smoke's timeline and the instructor casually draws our attention to the "Ripple" toggle - which gives Smoke's timeline a somewhat "magnetic" characteristic.
"Make sure that's off - you don't want that on 90% of the time. You shouldn't have to deal with the length of your timeline changing every time you make a decision to add or remove a clip."
It's like DejaVu - wasn't David Lawrence saying that a month back? Smart cookie.

And guess what's the first thing we're taught?
How to conform off an EDL. One of the oldest methods of transferring a story from one machine to the other - still being used - and on a system that blows nitrous-fueled-smoke-rings around FCP X.

Salt and wounds.

It's obvious he doesn't hate Apple or FCP X or any of it. He's not connected to them. He's a Smoke Op who lives off of PC boxes and Linux. He's just teaching a class, and calling it as he sees it.

But it's also obvious that the FCP X debacle is starting to color everything else Apple does. For those inside and outside the Final Cut community.

When he updated his MacBook Air to Lion, and discovered that it not only broke Nuke, but his screen-capturing software, he gently reminded us of the dangers in trusting your pipeline to a company that doesn't seem to value backwards-compatibility.

Ouch.

It's not something I'd thought about before.

Apple's actions haven't just affected the FInal Cut community. Everyone in our industry is gazing at this mess, and the conclusions are already seeping into the mainstream and into our education.

Of course, the "rebels" and "believers" will maintain their faith in Apple, and that is their right and their choice.

But seeing this play out in front of me - like the results to a 2-month long experiment - seeing "the elite" influencing "education" and our industry's "culture" - I can't decide whether I should laugh or cry.
;-


Return to posts index


Scott Sheriff
Re: FCPX and The Great Misnomer
on Aug 23, 2011 at 2:28:39 pm

This pretty much echos an experience I just had with a heavy hitter Producer.

In order to make things simple for the final cut x glee club and a bit more interesting, just select a number from this list in your response.
If you want to get creative, string together several numbers, or use a combination to add up a number not on the list, and we will guess what numbers you picked.
Please no binaries, I haven't had my coffee yet and it's too early for that heavy math.

1. The Smoke op doesn't know what he is talking about.

2. The Smoke op is stuck in the 90's, with a 90's workflow.

3. The Smoke op is just a hater.

4. The Smoke op is just a snob, or elitist.

5. Final Cut X is a work in progress, and pretty soon it will be so kick ass that guys like Cameron will be able to movies like Avatar with X and a stereo GoPro.

6. Move on if you don't like X, and it doesn't work for you. Shouldn't this be posted in the Smoke forum?

7. All of the above.

Scott Sheriff
Director
http://www.sstdigitalmedia.com


"If you think it's expensive to hire a professional to do the job, wait until you hire an amateur." ---Red Adair

Where were you on 6/21?


Return to posts index

Scott Sheriff
Re: FCPX and The Great Misnomer
on Aug 23, 2011 at 1:46:18 am

[Gary Huff] "C) FCPX is a better way to edit and is poised to pave the way for the next decade

This was marketing from Apple and I've seen it parroted again here. First, let's define "better." I don't think there is a video that has been done in the last few years that could not have been done with equal quality in any of the three major NLE's. By "better" I feel that can only mean faster and easier. That's really the only way to different yourself.

Is FCPX faster? I don't think so, but it can't be effectively argued one way or the other. You may find it faster, I might not (I don't actually). "Easier" also suffers from the same fate. You simply cannot make this a point. And being "future proof" is also meaningless. What exactly about FCPX makes it ready for the next decade over and above the competition? That it can export to an codec for web distribution? I can do that in Premiere. That it can work with H.264 footage? I can do that in Premiere as well. I also reject the premise that it is geared towards "up and coming editors." If you're not an up-and-coming editor, then how do you know that it's what these teenagers/young adults want and need? Isn't that somewhat patronizing to think that they need something with "easier accessibility"?"


Another talking point often bandied about here is everything before X is old technology like using a Steenbeck. What nonsense that is.
Steenbeck has been around since the 50's and is still making flatbeds. Well, that's over 50 years. Has apple manufactured any product so popular it stayed in production for even 15 years? Will apple even be around in 20 more years?
Another funny thing about the Steenbeck is that it is often used by the hipsters that want to sit and edit in the local coffee shop (don't get me started) as a symbol of a 'stupid old way of doing things'. But I bet that if you have enough work to afford one of these gems, you make a lot more money than these coffee shop editors that get their gigs from Crags list. And there must be enough people doing it the 'stupid old way' to keep Steenbeck in business.
One thing apple could learn from Steenbeck. Steenbeck supports their editor back to models made in 1979. Apple can't even support something made 3 years ago, let alone 30.

Scott Sheriff
Director
http://www.sstdigitalmedia.com


"If you think it's expensive to hire a professional to do the job, wait until you hire an amateur." ---Red Adair

Where were you on 6/21?


Return to posts index

Rainer Wirth
Re: FCPX and The Great Misnomer
on Aug 23, 2011 at 2:18:24 pm

So, lets join in!

So far nothing really bad happend. FCP7 is still a very reliable, stable professional software. This will continue at least for the next 12 months. We produce very little DVDs any longer. This was different 2 years ago. So I wouldn't continue with DVDPro. In a max. of 2 years time the DVD will be dead. USB sticks are taking over. If we are friendly we could argue, that FCPX is a start, which has to be developed. I was looking into Smoke, and it is a tremendous piece of Software. But too expensive. If you make the most out of the FCP package, you achieve similar results - for most of the jobs I do. Clearly the greenscreen with smoke is far better, and other things look just great. Smoke for me is Motion, colour and FCP in one piece. If you work with 3D Models regulary then Smoke is perfect. The more price sensitive option is Premiere pro. We all work with photoshop and After effects, so Premiere is for free then. It is very similar to FCP. Avid is a choice as well. Bur Avid does not support our beloved AJA Kona cards. Also the surrounding package is weak (compared with FCP Studio or CS5.5).
So what do we do?
Folks out there, we will just wait and see, what comes up. And we've got time. We still can feed the needs of the TV industry for the next 2 years, with what we have got. We can decide wether we step up to smoke, start with Avid or Adobe, or we go continue with FCPX in an advanced version. I truly believe FCPX will be developed, it has to be. If not, it will die for the professionals. But for us - it is just switching to a new hammer with a different feeling - but with the same professional results - excellent programs, films, shows, clip etc.
Let us see what the future brings to us. In the end, we spend the money.
Wait and see.

Rainer



Return to posts index


Scott Sheriff
Re: FCPX and The Great Misnomer
on Aug 23, 2011 at 2:32:51 pm

[Rainer Wirth] "We produce very little DVDs any longer."

Who is this "we"?
I do them on every job. Seen plenty of posts from others saying the same thing. Your experience is anecdotal, at best.

Scott Sheriff
Director
http://www.sstdigitalmedia.com


"If you think it's expensive to hire a professional to do the job, wait until you hire an amateur." ---Red Adair

Where were you on 6/21?


Return to posts index

Rainer Wirth
Re: FCPX and The Great Misnomer
on Aug 23, 2011 at 2:38:37 pm

We as a production company (sorry) not we as a whole.

Rainer



Return to posts index

Craig Seeman
Re: FCPX and The Great Misnomer
on Aug 23, 2011 at 2:48:42 pm

[Scott Sheriff] "I do them on every job. Seen plenty of posts from others saying the same thing. Your experience is anecdotal, at best."

As is yours.

DVD as you well know are standard def. The one advantage is menu interactivity.
• I can make playable DVDs and Blu-ray without DVDStudioPro, if all I need are screeners.
• I can deliver HD files playable on computers, tablets, smartphones, that can be viewed on the device or sent to an HDTV in HD.
• I can post HD to the web for that can be used in Flash, Quicktime, Silverlight, WMP12 with a single H.264 .mp4.
• I can FTP the file to the client.
• Heck I can even burn the HD file to an optical disk (DVD or Blu-ray) depending on the size that the client can use as they wish, often in better quality than the heavily compressed MPEG2 of DVD-Video. So one can certainly still have a disc to hand to people where internet connectivity is a problem.

So what it comes down to is DVD menu interactivity as far as my anecdotal experience is concerned. If that's a must then, by all means, authored DVDs are important. Personally, anecdotally, I'm finding that interactivity is not a priority with most of my clients. If they just want to do is view the primary file, usually in HD, the other various methods serve them better.



Return to posts index


Jamie Franklin
Re: FCPX and The Great Misnomer
on Aug 23, 2011 at 3:00:02 pm

BS

Pure and simple.

I just finished a film that required 30 deliveries, and counting, ALL requiring DVD submissions, screeners for producers and the director. While it may be a "standard" on it's way out...it's not getting it's plug pulled anytime soon, it will be a slow bleed out, and is still very much a requirement in this field.

That's one project. Just because we "can" produce other methods, is by no means, no where near, not even in the same galaxy, as a dead delivery method.

Good grief..."interactivity"...PUHlease. It's very cost effective...or maybe I should bleed my budget delivering betacam, hdcam...paying $5 a gig to my service provider on overages....


Return to posts index

Craig Seeman
Re: FCPX and The Great Misnomer
on Aug 23, 2011 at 3:13:02 pm

[Jamie Franklin] "ALL requiring DVD submissions, screeners for producers and the director."

Depending on what you mean by "screeners" that doesn't require advanced menu authoring. If you read what I wrote, screeners, both DVD and Blu-ray are still easy to do.



Return to posts index

Jamie Franklin
Re: FCPX and The Great Misnomer
on Aug 23, 2011 at 4:10:11 pm

Calling his post "anecdotal" and having "one advantage"...

I read what you wrote just fine


Return to posts index


Scott Sheriff
Re: FCPX and The Great Misnomer
on Aug 24, 2011 at 4:10:21 am

[Craig Seeman] "As is yours.

DVD as you well know are standard def. The one advantage is menu interactivity.
• I can make playable DVDs and Blu-ray without DVDStudioPro, if all I need are screeners.
• I can deliver HD files playable on computers, tablets, smartphones, that can be viewed on the device or sent to an HDTV in HD.
• I can post HD to the web for that can be used in Flash, Quicktime, Silverlight, WMP12 with a single H.264 .mp4.
• I can FTP the file to the client.
• Heck I can even burn the HD file to an optical disk (DVD or Blu-ray) depending on the size that the client can use as they wish, often in better quality than the heavily compressed MPEG2 of DVD-Video. So one can certainly still have a disc to hand to people where internet connectivity is a problem.

So what it comes down to is DVD menu interactivity as far as my anecdotal experience is concerned. If that's a must then, by all means, authored DVDs are important. Personally, anecdotally, I'm finding that interactivity is not a priority with most of my clients. If they just want to do is view the primary file, usually in HD, the other various methods serve them better."


But you know what isn't anecdotal? Authoring DVD's with menus is a revenue stream (for me). Just another thing you can't do with X. And then those DVD's become an additional revenue stream when I run the printing, dupes and packaging.

Scott Sheriff
Director
http://www.sstdigitalmedia.com


"If you think it's expensive to hire a professional to do the job, wait until you hire an amateur." ---Red Adair

Where were you on 6/21?


Return to posts index

MIke Guidotti
Re: FCPX and The Great Misnomer
on Aug 23, 2011 at 7:26:42 pm

[Scott Sheriff] "One thing apple could learn from Steenbeck. Steenbeck supports their editor back to models made in 1979. Apple can't even support something made 3 years ago, let alone 30"

Whammy!


Return to posts index

Jamie Franklin
Re: FCPX and The Great Misnomer
on Aug 23, 2011 at 2:51:13 pm

This product blows.

The more I use it, the more it becomes obsolete and FC7 is looking like the greatest editor ever made...

To take such an enormously helpful tool and turn it into a smudged, self indulgent, paper thin facsimile that rips apart the second you touch it is a failure of epic proportions. Lucas didn't even ruin Star Wars this bad with his prequels...


Return to posts index

Craig Seeman
Re: FCPX and The Great Misnomer
on Aug 23, 2011 at 3:15:08 pm

So good to see well substantiated comments (sarcasm). You might spend time reading Alban's posts. The difference between yours and his is that he substantiates his opinions with detailed experience and comparisons between FCPX and FCP7.



Return to posts index

Jamie Franklin
Re: FCPX and The Great Misnomer
on Aug 23, 2011 at 4:07:26 pm

The buckets of water you carry for Apple getting too heavy?


Return to posts index

Craig Seeman
Re: FCPX and The Great Misnomer
on Aug 23, 2011 at 5:46:40 pm

Troll



Return to posts index

Jamie Franklin
Re: FCPX and The Great Misnomer
on Aug 23, 2011 at 7:35:16 pm

projection...


Return to posts index

Herb Sevush
Re: FCPX and The Great Misnomer
on Aug 24, 2011 at 2:46:18 am

Craig -

I apologize on behalf of the whiners.

Herb Sevush
Zebra Productions


Return to posts index

Rainer Wirth
Re: FCPX and The Great Misnomer
on Aug 23, 2011 at 3:24:11 pm

We as a company deliver 99% data for TV and industry. So most of the stuff is either on USB stick, or Harddisc. Some of the shows go on DVD. Mostly because the producer is used to the old DVD player. Others want a wmv to watch. This was totally different 5 years ago. Blu Ray is no option, because a stick can contain more data and can be used again. So I think in one years time the DVD as a medium is dying. The same with tape. Our workflow is tapeless since 7 years. Our expensive tape machines are used perhaps 10 times a year. So why developing something you won't need in the near future?
And for old stuff or archives you can set up a cheap workstation with any old programme to capture the stuff, or you service it out.
So to me Motion, compressor and FCP is efficient as a package. The only thing I would like in addition is color.

Rainer



Return to posts index

Craig Seeman
Re: FCPX and The Great Misnomer
on Aug 23, 2011 at 3:57:42 pm

[Rainer Wirth] "So to me Motion, compressor and FCP is efficient as a package. The only thing I would like in addition is color."

I'd also add SoundTrack Pro.

Apple's challenge is whether to decide to build in all these features (Color, STP) or otherwise work on better file connectivity. STP now exists as part of Logic and some would now like to send to Davinci Resolve. Of course better self contained tools are important for smaller jobs.

I understand why some must have tape support as video for older projects may be needed well past a decade. I can also understand why that's not efficient use of Apple's R&D because resources used in one area may not be used in an area with a broader need. Certainly improved tape in is being worked on by AJA, Blackmagic, Matrox. As to output it'll be interesting to see if the HDCAM SR tape scarcity is going to foment other forms of delivery. Sometimes I wonder if LTO might become a better tape/data delivery method having advantages of both.



Return to posts index

Rainer Wirth
Re: FCPX and The Great Misnomer
on Aug 23, 2011 at 4:35:51 pm

I agree, I forgot soundtrack pro.
But with no proper monitoring, editing to me is not possible. So I need monitoring via Aja. I think if apple listens we'll get a great piece of software in 1 years time. The relinking capabilities of FCPX should be much better. Often I store the material on HD and need relinking when I rebuild a project. This seems tricky, if not impossible in X.
And thanks to Alban. Never read something more substantial on X than this blog.

Rainer



Return to posts index

Jamie Franklin
Re: FCPX and The Great Misnomer
on Aug 23, 2011 at 4:39:54 pm

This argument has been made repeatedly by Apple obsessive compulsive defend to the death crazies...just because a small percentage exists in the community, it's better to write them off...


Return to posts index

Scott Sheriff
Re: FCPX and The Great Misnomer
on Aug 24, 2011 at 4:02:44 am

[Jamie Franklin] "This product blows.

The more I use it, the more it becomes obsolete and FC7 is looking like the greatest editor ever made...

To take such an enormously helpful tool and turn it into a smudged, self indulgent, paper thin facsimile that rips apart the second you touch it is a failure of epic proportions. Lucas didn't even ruin Star Wars this bad with his prequels..."


Nice one.

Scott Sheriff
Director
http://www.sstdigitalmedia.com


"If you think it's expensive to hire a professional to do the job, wait until you hire an amateur." ---Red Adair

Where were you on 6/21?


Return to posts index

Winston A. Cely
Re: FCPX and The Great Misnomer
on Aug 24, 2011 at 2:22:12 pm

I just finished the Ripple Training series on FCPX, and I gotta say I can't wait to start using FCPX for actual broadcast projects. If I had not done the training, I would have bought a ticket to Cupertino and gone on a killing spree. Nothing in FCPX acts like it's legacy versions, and therefor all my experience in how to operate an NLE was more or less useless. I would have fumbled around for days trying to figure out how to do something, and once I found it, would have screamed because it's not the way I thought it should be done. That's pretty dang frustrating, but after going through the training series, everything that's been changed makes way more sense to me as an editor and story teller (granted I don't really consider making infomercials "story telling" lol).

Sure there are some asinine things, like not being able to export OMFs for a sound mix, or bringing in legacy FCP projects. FCP7 works fine now and will for at least another year, and on the rare occurrence I need to go back to one of those old shows, I'll use FCP7. Big damn deal.

Of course, the OMFs, XMLs, EDLs, are part of what make FCPX not yet ready for prime time, but I have confidence (for the time being, anyway) that they'll show up eventually. As it's been said many times before, time will tell.

Personal opinion for me is that if more people went through a couple training sessions with FCPX they might be more open to it's possibilities. However, I know it's never a fun idea to think you have to relearn a skill set (in this case how to operate an application) just to continue doing what you've been doing for so long already. Then again, that's precisely what it sounds like most everyone is going to do anyway as they move to Smoke, AVID, or other NLE from FCP.

Winston A. Cely
Editor/Owner | Della St. Media, LLC

Mac Pro 3GHz Dual-Core Intel Xeon
8 GB RAM | Final Cut Studio 3 | Aja Kona LHe

"If you can talk brilliantly enough about a subject, you can create the consoling illusion it has been mastered." - Stanley Kubrick


Return to posts index

Herb Sevush
Re: FCPX and The Great Misnomer
on Aug 24, 2011 at 2:27:59 pm

"if more people went through a couple training sessions with FCPX they might be more open to it's possibilities. However, I know it's never a fun idea to think you have to relearn a skill set (in this case how to operate an application) just to continue doing what you've been doing for so long already. Then again, that's precisely what it sounds like most everyone is going to do anyway as they move to Smoke, AVID, or other NLE from FCP."

My question is why did you choose FCPX to learn, why not Avid or PPro?
What is the advantage you get that off-sets the lacking features?

Herb Sevush
Zebra Productions


Return to posts index

Winston A. Cely
Re: FCPX and The Great Misnomer
on Aug 24, 2011 at 2:38:07 pm

• First and foremost is cost. I won't lie, a $300 app is a steal, and if FCPX turned out to be a disaster for me, I'd have a year or two to save up the cash to buy Premiere or AVID.

• I use Motion almost exclusively for titling and graphics, so the workflow would be a better match for me.

• This sorta goes with the cost, but I was simply curious with how FCP had evolved and the only way to form an opinion I could trust was to use it.

• I've always been attracted to the idea of workstations that are built in a cohesive manner. Meaning, the hardware and software are built by the same company. Although I never used the AVID machines that sorta embodied this idea, I still find it appealing. Maybe because it gives me the simi-false security that things play nice together.

• And certainly there's a loyalty facet to it as well as far as Apple is concerned.

Winston A. Cely
Editor/Owner | Della St. Media, LLC

Mac Pro 3GHz Dual-Core Intel Xeon
8 GB RAM | Final Cut Studio 3 | Aja Kona LHe

"If you can talk brilliantly enough about a subject, you can create the consoling illusion it has been mastered." - Stanley Kubrick


Return to posts index

Herb Sevush
Re: FCPX and The Great Misnomer
on Aug 24, 2011 at 3:01:06 pm

Winston -

Your responses are perfectly reasonable for your situation, but I'm going to respond to them to show why others might not follow suit.

1. The cost. $300 is cheap, but if you actually are interested in the promised functionality I/O upgrades, be aware that many will not be free. That $300 can easily start approaching the 1K you're trying not to spend, once OMF, XML, EDL, Tape In / Out and others are provided.

2. I use Motion as well, but quite frankly AE + Photoshop is way better. If you spent the same time on training for them as you did with FCPX you would have a far better graphics toolset and be a more marketable editor.

3. FCP hasn't evolved, there is not an iota of FCP in FCPX. The 2 products have nothing in common except for the name, parent company and Randy Ubillos.

5. As for loyalty, I'm in favor of it as long as it cuts both ways, with Apple it obviously doesn't.

Herb Sevush
Zebra Productions


Return to posts index

Winston A. Cely
Re: FCPX and The Great Misnomer
on Aug 24, 2011 at 3:18:40 pm

Great points on all counts! My turn! My turn!

1. True, but we're not sure how much the incremental upgrades will be (I get the impression Apple's planning some incremental upgrades sans charging for them). Not to mention, a little money here, and a little money there, is a lot easier for smaller companies and individual editors to handle than a couple grand all at once. Plus, from my limited experience (only 7 years in the broadcast field) buying additional plugins and software is pretty standard, at last it seems that way. Of course, you can also say that at this point in FCPX's infancy, being required to spend a little extra to get what most people consider standard tools to be double dipping, and I agree.

2. Maybe someday, but at this point there's nothing I've needed to do in the last two years that I couldn't do with Motion. With previous versions there were huge deficits in Motion's abilities, and it hampered the creative process somewhat, and in some of those instances required hiring an outside party. However, once it got to version 4 it covered my bases, and has prolonged any immediate need to learn other software. Of course, this is in my case only and the limited breadth of work I do. (90% infomercials and 10% other).

3. I misspoke. As I mentioned in my post as well, FCPX is nothing like FCP7. What I should have said is, I'm interested in Apple's take on the evolution of NLE software.

4. I don't see it that way, but I completely understand why so many do.

Winston A. Cely
Editor/Owner | Della St. Media, LLC

17" MacBook Pro | 2.3 GHz Intel Core i7
4 GB RAM | Final Cut Studio 3 | FCPX | Motion 5 | Compressor 4

"If you can talk brilliantly enough about a subject, you can create the consoling illusion it has been mastered." - Stanley Kubrick


Return to posts index

Scott Sheriff
Re: FCPX and The Great Misnomer
on Aug 24, 2011 at 10:48:20 pm

[Winston A. Cely] " I can't wait to start using FCPX for actual broadcast projects."

How do you know what your video levels are without an I/O card and a calibrated monitor/scope?

Scott Sheriff
Director
http://www.sstdigitalmedia.com


"If you think it's expensive to hire a professional to do the job, wait until you hire an amateur." ---Red Adair

Where were you on 6/21?


Return to posts index

Craig Seeman
Re: FCPX and The Great Misnomer
on Aug 24, 2011 at 10:59:43 pm

[Scott Sheriff] "How do you know what your video levels are without an I/O card and a calibrated monitor/scope?"

If the scopes in FCPX were designed to be accurate, you'll have levels, generally. Having a calibrated monitor is mission critical for color grading though. Also if there's potential issues with interlaced video you want to see it on a monitor that will make that obvious. Of course having outboard scopes is good but, in theory, the built in scopes should be accurate. In fact that was supposedly one of the more significant improvements in FCPX. They don't in any way replace a calibrated monitor looking at video out.



Return to posts index

<< PREVIOUS   •   VIEW ALL   •   PRINT   •   NEXT >>
© 2017 CreativeCOW.net All Rights Reserved
[TOP]