FORUMS: list search recent posts

FCPX may work, for some projects

COW Forums : Apple Final Cut Pro X Debates

<< PREVIOUS   •   VIEW ALL   •   PRINT   •   NEXT >>
Richard Johnson
FCPX may work, for some projects
on Sep 23, 2011 at 4:59:16 am

When FCPX first was released I did not buy it for a couple reasons. I do my sound engineering in Pro Tools (because that's what I was trained on in school) and I do my color grading in Apple's "Color" (because that's what the first production company I worked for used). I felt that to not have these capabilities would have been a big step backward in quality. Another reason was that I refuse to finish paid projects without having viewed them on my broadcast monitor.

Now that they have a free trial, I was willing to download it to get a (free) first hand impression. It's really fast. I'm just getting used to it but a lot of it makes sense and it seems to be a powerful editor if I can become fluent in how it thinks (just like you have to do with any software).

If Davinci Resolve gets import/export of the XML nailed down and Pro Tools does the same I think FCPX could work for me on a lot of my projects. Some of my regular work requires multicam, so for that I'll still be using FCP6. One of my company computers has the CS5 production suite and I've played around with Adobe Premiere. It works, but my first impression of FCPX in use has been more pleasing. This may have to do with it being slightly "dumbed down" which it is. Premiere definitely gives the user more control over settings and me being relatively unfamiliar with both might make me feel more comfortable on the more "dumbed down" one of the two. That being said, I wouldn't feel so comfortable with it if it didn't let me do what I wanted. I have done one basic preliminary project and liked it, and the client liked it. I know the person well and I "owed him one" so I figured I'd use his project as a guinea pig. If this had been for pay, FCPX would have payed for itself with the trial version on the first project.

If Davinci and ProTools can make good use of the XML format I may start using FCPX on certain projects that don't require multicam. It's nice to have the broadcast monitor hooked up but Resolve supports it so I'm kinda covered there.

Overall, I had a nice first experience with the software. It was a super basic 4 minute promo but... the client was stoked and FCPX worked pretty quickly on all fronts. What are the chances ProTools will jump on the FCPXML bandwagon or will there be a conflict of interest with Media Composer? I'll ask the client if I can post the video on Vimeo to show it off. Cheers. -Richard


Return to posts index

Sean Thomas
Re: FCPX may work, for some projects
on Sep 23, 2011 at 5:47:35 am

I think things have calmed down enough and you're allowed to say nice things about FCP X now.

A month ago you would have been called every name in the book for saying what you just said.

You know - X is over, a joke, a toy, we must all run to Premier.

Funny - just read an article about how Sony's new $100,000 SRMaster rig integrates with iMovie Pro.......

FCP X: Type A
[spell check OFF]


Return to posts index

Michael Gissing
Re: FCPX may work, for some projects
on Sep 23, 2011 at 6:06:16 am

[Sean Thomas] "I think things have calmed down enough and you're allowed to say nice things about FCP X now.

A month ago you would have been called every name in the book for saying what you just said."



There has been an update and now there is a greater level of surety that an import and export XML path is possible, so yes compared to a month ago things have changed. Also Richard is musing that IF the new FCP X XML is adopted by third parties like da Vinci and ProTools, then he has a path out of the edit software to proper post production, so there is good reason why his comments now or a month ago shouldn't have raised howls of derision.

As a post facility I still can't advise editors to use FCP X however as there isn't a solid reliable workflow from FCP X to proper post grading and sound post tools. That may change when it actually happens.


Return to posts index


Sean Thomas
Re: FCPX may work, for some projects
on Sep 23, 2011 at 3:30:38 pm

"Did everything change in post?"

No absolutely nothing changed in post. The only thing that happened was that Apple put out a new app and everyone freaked out.

You would think that all installations of FCP7 were "raptured" from Macs all over the world.

I like the comment that I read elsewhere: FCP7, Avid, Premier are examples of what editing has been like for the past 10 years. FCP X is what editing is going to be like for the next 10 years.

Most people who complain about FCP X have NEVER touched it. I know at leat 5 editors who just spew bad info from the web as their opinion about FCP X and they've never used it.

I also know that most of the first wave of complaints were by people who didn't know how to do a certain funcion in X so they assumed it did not do it. Several post on here about "try to move your media", "try to make a duplicate time line", etc. All right in front of their face, yet still complaining X won't do it.

And really, did anyone buy X and never use 7 again. Tell their clients they can't go back and re-edit anything. That is a ridiculous statement.

It will get better with each update and we'll all laugh at some of these post.

FCP X: Type A
[spell check OFF]


Return to posts index

Michael Hancock
Re: FCPX may work, for some projects
on Sep 23, 2011 at 3:37:17 pm

[Sean Thomas] "I like the comment that I read elsewhere: FCP7, Avid, Premier are examples of what editing has been like for the past 10 years. FCP X is what editing is going to be like for the next 10 years."

Maybe you can explain what this means then since there hasn't been an answer in the other thread - what is going to be the future? Metadata or the magnetic timeline?

Metadata, I say yes. That's a given and many of the NLEs have rich metadata capabilities. That's a no brainer.

The magnetic timeline? I say no. If you disagree, please explain why, specifically, the magnetic timeline is better than what's been used until now. And sync lock isn't a viable answer.

----------------
Michael Hancock
Editor


Return to posts index

Sean Thomas
Re: FCPX may work, for some projects
on Sep 23, 2011 at 3:46:27 pm

Not sure where I read that, probably Cow or FCP.co

But the first part is obvious - these are all 10 year old apps. Not much change.

Who has the balls to do something different - think differnt.....

Editing in X is like getting out of a 10 year old junker car with 200,000 miles and then sitting in a new Ferarri. Sleek, refined and FAST. Can't get the whole family in there but it still works for some situations.

FCP X: Type A
[spell check OFF]


Return to posts index


Michael Hancock
Re: FCPX may work, for some projects
on Sep 23, 2011 at 4:04:14 pm

[Sean Thomas] "But the first part is obvious - these are all 10 year old apps. Not much change.
"


There have been tremendous strides in the last 10 years, but the core function of editing has remained relatively unchanged. There may be a reason for that - wheels have been round since their inception and remained that way because they work.



[Sean Thomas] "Who has the balls to do something different - think differnt....."

Different ≠ Better. For different to be better there must be a demonstrable improvement. The onus is on Apple to prove that their UI (and change in terminology) is step forward in editing. All I've seen from them promoting it are a couple of videos on their website that show me they don't know how to use the other software efficiently and seem to have solved problems with them that don't actually exist. So I'm not convinced their vision of how to construct an edit and how a timeline should operate is in fact better. It's certainly different, but I'm not seeing the improvement over what everyone else is doing. That's what I'm hoping someone will show me.


[Sean Thomas] "Editing in X is like getting out of a 10 year old junker car with 200,000 miles and then sitting in a new Ferarri. Sleek, refined and FAST. Can't get the whole family in there but it still works for some situations."

How familiar are you with Media Composer 5.5 and CS5.5? If it's been a while since you're tried other, you should download the trials. They're both incredibly fast (especially when you consider that Media Composer is still a 32-bit app). The interfaces haven't changed too much, but under the hood the engines are getting faster and faster and faster.

----------------
Michael Hancock
Editor


Return to posts index

Mitch Ives
Re: FCPX may work, for some projects
on Sep 26, 2011 at 2:16:13 pm

[Sean Thomas] "Editing in X is like getting out of a 10 year old junker car with 200,000 miles and then sitting in a new Ferarri. Sleek, refined and FAST. Can't get the whole family in there but it still works for some situations."

Ferrari? More like an Arial Atom... exposed frame, no body panels, no windscreen, no roof... just a shell of a car waiting for the rest of the parts.

Mitch Ives
Insight Productions Corp.
mitch@insightproductions.com
http://www.insightproductions.com


Return to posts index

Bill Davis
Re: FCPX may work, for some projects
on Sep 24, 2011 at 10:49:58 pm

I'll play.

The magnetic timeline may well be a superior convention in situations where screen real estate is at a premium and you don't want arbitrary gaps between your pre-trimmed media import files.

And might become a superior rapid comping tool in the field precisely because of this.

In "fixed timeline" situations, there are far too many times over the past decade where I've had too little room to click on a gap and keystroke close it on the timeline - or when assets on adjacent tracks like composite tracks and titles have have prevented me from closing a gap.

On my Cinema display, not so big a problem. I can zoom in, trim the tracks that are causing the problem until the gap is clear in all adjacent assets, select the gap and delete it, then re-drag all the assets that originally prevented me from closing that gap into the positions they were in before I had to deal with the gap.

Magnetic timeline? No gaps unless I specifically put in a gap clip.

It defaults to what we're all typically trying to do in the initial build of any typical assemble edit. Strings of scenes without gaps.

When we're editing someday on iPads and it's even harder to see those tiny gaps, the magnetic timeline could well become the best feature of the software.

Also the magnetic timelines ability to avoid clip collisions means when you're moving blocks of scenes around, you're never penalized by arbitrarily changing an already specified edit point because you've over-written that choice at the head or tail of a clip as in all other timeline implementations.

I struggled with the magnetic timeline at first as well. But nowI find it's freeing me to move blocks of scenes around more freely, since there's never a "repair" penalty for doing so.

That by itself is a big advantage over the FCP-7 workflow if your work in such that you have the option to tinker with scene order

FWIW.

"Before speaking out ask yourself whether your words are true, whether they are respectful and whether they are needed in our civil discussions."-Justice O'Connor


Return to posts index


Walter Soyka
Re: FCPX may work, for some projects
on Sep 23, 2011 at 8:19:09 pm

[Sean Thomas] "No absolutely nothing changed in post. The only thing that happened was that Apple put out a new app and everyone freaked out. You would think that all installations of FCP7 were "raptured" from Macs all over the world."

It sounds like FCPX is a good fit for your workflows, so I'm really happy that you've found a tool that works well for you.

Not everyone is so lucky. With FCPX, Apple kind of fired some of their most vocal customers by ignoring their workflow requirements.

Off the forums, a lot of these same people have been very calmly doing their work now with FCP7, but the software is EOL and there is no future in that, so everyone is also considering their options to move forward. A lot of people are just upset that they can't currently continue with Apple after relying on them for a decade.


[Sean Thomas] "I like the comment that I read elsewhere: FCP7, Avid, Premier are examples of what editing has been like for the past 10 years. FCP X is what editing is going to be like for the next 10 years. Most people who complain about FCP X have NEVER touched it. I know at leat 5 editors who just spew bad info from the web as their opinion about FCP X and they've never used it."

Likewise, it seems a lot of pro-FCPX arguments are made by editors coming from FCP7, without trying Premiere Pro and Media Composer.

Like Michael, I am sincerely curious. You've said that FCPX is faster -- but faster than what, and faster how? What specific features or design changes are speeding up your workflow?

Walter Soyka
Principal & Designer at Keen Live
Motion Graphics, Widescreen Events, Presentation Design, and Consulting
RenderBreak Blog - What I'm thinking when my workstation's thinking
Creative Cow Forum Host: Live & Stage Events


Return to posts index

Chris Harlan
Re: FCPX may work, for some projects
on Sep 23, 2011 at 8:32:04 pm

[Walter Soyka] "Like Michael, I am sincerely curious. You've said that FCPX is faster -- but faster than what, and faster how? What specific features or design changes are speeding up your workflow?
"


I'd like these questions answered too. I keep hearing broad statements about "old code" a "the future" and "old clunkers v. Ferraris" but few people seem to get past that to explain what they mean. I do really want to know. Please, tell.


Return to posts index

Aindreas Gallagher
Re: FCPX may work, for some projects
on Sep 23, 2011 at 8:32:49 pm

[Sean Thomas] "FCP X is what editing is going to be like for the next 10 years."

Not in its current form, and its arguable if apple are inclined, or are actually able, to get it into a usable state. FCPX might well be irretrievable, it might be structurally unsound in basic editing terms. they made presumptions about simplified workflows that were very under researched and break quite a lot in practise.

I bookmarked this post because it says a lot of things better than I can manage.

http://forums.creativecow.net/readpost/344/3878


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


Return to posts index


Sean Thomas
Re: FCPX may work, for some projects
on Sep 23, 2011 at 10:42:50 pm

It is in a usable state for some.


I don't have time to do any scientific test, but on the old system with FCP 7, I had to render virtually
every effect put on a clip. Put a "old film" plug-in on a 1 min. clip. takes about 30sec -1 min to render.
In FCP X - it takes 1 sec - because it doesn't have to render. So FCP X is upto 60x faster.

It seems all FX in X preview and play in realtime. Not so many years ago, we were paying $10k
for realtime render/accell boards.....remember those? Now it's free with your $299 NLE.

Use AVCHD in FCP7 - the work flow is much longer/slower than X. So X is faster simply because it
edits AVCHD natively.

Do you think that X is slower under the hood? X has the power we've all been waiting for. We just need
to wait for the features to get where we all want them.

X works for some of my work, 7 for others, Premier for others. It's not about a tool. X did not destroy my life.


Return to posts index

Aindreas Gallagher
Re: FCPX may work, for some projects
on Sep 23, 2011 at 11:22:36 pm

there are pervasive problems in executing free form editing decisions in FCPX - really - read the post i put up there, it gets to the point.

my three year old lappie barely supports the system, so I'm reduced to standing in london apple shops cutting on display imacs until the shop hands hover intimidatingly close.

there are true structural problems with basic editing function in the application. the strange steps required to expose basic function with audio handling, or core music based editing, which i do a fair bit of are very surprising

I'm short form say - this is how I say use FCP as an editing base with AE on top



and this one is particularly music based,



FCPX's handling of music, the role of the primary, the connected clips stuff, I've really messed around and its truly problematic. Its an encapsulation of editing, its not the action of editing itself. you really need a truly disinterested, calm and clean track based editor to get anything done i feel.

I do not believe pre-canned methodology - as a basic proposition - can work. Apple may say that they can boil down professional pursuits within their creative arts gamut, but I would like to see them try that for the supporting applications for architects say. I would be very curious to see their simplified intersections of science and technology as it applies to the software supporting structural beams.

I don't think this is actually an editing application as commonly defined. I'm not sure what it is. But it is not a canvas of editing in basic broad use scenarios. It breaks way too easily. it's made of china.


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


Return to posts index

Chris Harlan
Re: FCPX may work, for some projects
on Sep 23, 2011 at 11:36:37 pm

Nice spots, dude.


Return to posts index


Aindreas Gallagher
Re: FCPX may work, for some projects
on Sep 24, 2011 at 12:36:27 am

cheers bud,

lord, I swear to god, in this I am not a troll - the thing that kills me is that apple's role here- their bloody duty - is to provide an editing system?

seriously - never mind whether FCPX is viable, and I mean this - is this thing actually an editing system?
As an intellectual proposition - does this software present a valid basis to learn fundamental editing?
With the kinds of masking behaviour it attempts?

Is FCPX a valid basis upon which to first perceive the craft of editing.

Does it function in that respect.


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


Return to posts index

Steve Connor
Re: FCPX may work, for some projects
on Sep 24, 2011 at 8:05:26 am

[Aindreas Gallagher] "I don't think this is actually an editing application as commonly defined. I'm not sure what it is. But it is not a canvas of editing in basic broad use scenarios. It breaks way too easily. it's made of china."

Not an editing application? What on earth have I been doing on it for the last couple of months?

"My Name is Steve and I'm an FCPX user"


Return to posts index

Aindreas Gallagher
Re: FCPX may work, for some projects
on Sep 24, 2011 at 12:03:46 pm

I know - I'm overstating for effect. But I think apple have changed enough of it in approach that it's an application alright, its digital asset management with a very unusual automated timeline, I guess basically I'm way over the top arguing that it's sufficiently altered in it's dna so as not to qualify as, like, an editing organism. Its genes are too weird and sullied. Think apple as a mad scientist splicing things together. The island of doctor moreau for editing software.


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


Return to posts index

Bill Davis
Re: FCPX may work, for some projects
on Sep 24, 2011 at 11:05:59 pm

Aindreas,

Are you actually telling us after all months and months of posts bemoaning how horrible the software is that you actually don't even own it and use it yourself - and that everything you've posted here has been based entirely on your occasional use of it in the local APPLE STORE?

Wow.

(I honestly hope I'm mistaking this situation.)

"Before speaking out ask yourself whether your words are true, whether they are respectful and whether they are needed in our civil discussions."-Justice O'Connor


Return to posts index

Aindreas Gallagher
Re: FCPX may work, for some projects
on Sep 24, 2011 at 11:20:49 pm

whats all this "us" paleface? I imagine you in the role of the accuser in court here bill, justice O' Connor looking down on you with kind eyes.. just kidding.

read the post - seriously, sometimes I don't think you read the posts at all - i have it installed bill, but my three and a half year old laptop is not an ideal environment. I'm saving up for a new system, meantime, I just like to feel it in an ideal environment, so I go and sit on floor three of the covent garden apple store at one of the tables and do workflow and play around where there are better processors underneath the app. It was because I was screaming about the chrome killing timeline performance for a long time... on my laptop. I wanted to get a feel for it in a more ideal environment.

I dislike this application but that doesn't mean i'm not intensely curious about the workflow.

"stop using me as some overblown justification for a condescending attitude in group discussion"
nameless Irish supreme court justice


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


Return to posts index

Sean Thomas
Re: FCPX may work, for some projects
on Sep 26, 2011 at 5:16:52 am

[Aindreas Gallagher] "my three year old lappie barely supports the system, so I'm reduced to standing in london apple shops cutting on display imacs until the shop hands hover intimidatingly close."

I actually wan't new software that won't work on older computers. In "most" cases that means they are advancing in major
ways with the software code. The high GPU requirements of FCP X is where some of the problems have come for users trying to run
it on older computers.

FCP X: Type A
[spell check OFF]


Return to posts index

Gary Huff
Re: FCPX may work, for some projects
on Sep 23, 2011 at 1:39:04 pm

[Sean Thomas]A month ago you would have been called every name in the book for saying what you just said.


I think it was far worse to say that you were going to switch to AVID/Premiere than to say you were going to try to make FCPX work with your current workflow.


Return to posts index

Marvin Holdman
Re: FCPX may work, for some projects
on Sep 23, 2011 at 1:52:11 pm

Have you had a chance to read this?

http://forums.creativecow.net/readpost/335/16212

Brings up some valid points regarding your concerns.

Marvin Holdman
Production Manager
Tourist Network
8317 Front Beach Rd, Suite 23
Panama City Beach, Fl
phone 850-234-2773 ext. 128
cell 850-585-9667
skype username - vidmarv


Return to posts index

Richard Johnson
Re: FCPX may work, for some projects
on Sep 24, 2011 at 4:32:46 am

Hey guys, I don't know what happened to this thread but my initial post was to try to show y'all my personal situation and first impression of FCPX. If I am going to pick up the Adobe suite for my personal editing station I would like to act before their deal expires. FCPX might work well for me but only if the FCPXML gets good support from Davinci Resolve and ProTools. I'm not really concerned about Resolve b/c it seems in their best interest financially to support it. Pro Tools doesn't seem as clear cut for support b/c Avid has a competing NLE software that they are publicly trying to steal FCP customers over to.

I kind of hoped after 15+ posts some of the people on this forum might be able to add some insight to my question... What IS the purpose of this forum?


Return to posts index

Chris Harlan
Re: FCPX may work, for some projects
on Sep 24, 2011 at 5:07:15 am

[Richard Johnson] "What are the chances ProTools will jump on the FCPXML bandwagon or will there be a conflict of interest with Media Composer?"

Richard, my guess is that Protools won't jump unless it becomes a standard flavor of XML, but you already have existing OMF support should you wish to pay for it. I DO wonder if Logic X will allow easy i/o. For me, that would be something of real interest.

And, of course, with Roles you do have stems. Not ideal, I know, but something.


Return to posts index

Richard Johnson
Re: FCPX may work, for some projects
on Sep 24, 2011 at 6:55:49 am

Thanks for the response Marvin. I didn't necessarily mean that protools would adopt FCPXML but simply give it support. I'm not exactly sure how these things work and why Apple didn't simply release an XML that was already a standard and compatible with other software. Really though, I don't know much at all about XML protocols so it may not have been an option.

As for Logic, I've just never used it. I think a lot of DAW's have pretty similar functionality but I've always trusted Pro Tools and am familiar with it and I like it. I usually say don't fix what aint broke but with video editing I'm ready to move forward now that FCP as I knew it is EOL.

Still figuring out "Roles". Looks interesting. Not sure how it will integrate with a track based DAW but as you mention, maybe LogicX will be their answer. Will have to read up on "stems".


Return to posts index

Chris Harlan
Re: FCPX may work, for some projects
on Sep 24, 2011 at 7:27:24 am

[Richard Johnson] "Thanks for the response Marvin. "

I'm not Marvin, but I suppose you can call me that if you want to.

[Richard Johnson] "I didn't necessarily mean that protools would adopt FCPXML but simply give it support. I'm not exactly sure how these things work and why Apple didn't simply release an XML that was already a standard and compatible with other software. Really though, I don't know much at all about XML protocols so it may not have been an option. "

I'm guessing they didn't release old xml because it is most likely completely incompatible with FCP X. If they had been able to, they would probably also have been able to import FCS project files. Remember, though there is OMF.

Logic is pretty transparent as a DAW. Unless Logic X gets super weird, I'm pretty certain it will keep tracks. I think a trackless DAW would be beyond freaky. Of course, I thought the same thing about an NLE.


Return to posts index

Chris Kenny
Re: FCPX may work, for some projects
on Sep 24, 2011 at 12:22:16 pm

[Richard Johnson] "Thanks for the response Marvin. I didn't necessarily mean that protools would adopt FCPXML but simply give it support. I'm not exactly sure how these things work and why Apple didn't simply release an XML that was already a standard and compatible with other software. Really though, I don't know much at all about XML protocols so it may not have been an option. "

There isn't really some vendor-neutral industry standard XML format for moving video/audio sequences around. Earlier versions of FCP used their own format as well, for which third-party tools had to initially add support. FCP X's radically different timeline structure would have made that earlier XML format extremely awkward for the new app, so Apple created a new one. Third parties seem to be lining up fairly quickly to support it. (Blackmagic, for instance, seems to be planning to support it in Resolve 8.1, which is due before the end of the month.)

--
Digital Workflow/Colorist, Nice Dissolve.

You should follow me on Twitter here. Or read our blog.


Return to posts index

Steve Connor
Re: FCPX may work, for some projects
on Sep 24, 2011 at 12:57:59 pm

I have my credit card ready for when they do!

"My Name is Steve and I'm an FCPX user"


Return to posts index

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