Daw, Dslr, Fcpx
I bundle FCPX with the other major game changers. Remember not too long ago the DAW studios which put a lot of commercial recording studios on edge? (still are on edge). How about 2008's Canon 5DM2? (an "accident" that made filmmaking affordable). FCPX is an extension of all this, leveling the field with a $299 NLE that is probably already a big hit with the DSLR crowd who can churn out stellar storytelling within a self-enclosed application. That's the future.
Exactly what I was thinking. I think thta's what they see as their future core base.
Now I get it.
Apple Final Cut Prosumer.
Usually game changers take something that was weak, or didn't really belong in a particular field, and make it strong enough to compete with products considered to be far superior. And they do this by adding unexpected functionality. Apple has taken something that was quite successful - market share wise - and made it weaker, removed essential functionality, and revealed their own ignorance by calling it "awesome."
By calling it an upgrade and referring to it as awesome, they have demonstrated ignorance about how essential it is that edit systems be capable of sharing projects - if not with other edit systems, then at least with previous versions of the same system. They are ignorant about how we evaluate our color work. They are ignorant about the importance of being able to share files - or referenced files/clips - within an environment where more than one person and more than one program is involved in perfecting a story.
When they called it "awesome," what they really meant was "We have no clue, but someone somewhere in a basement is going to have a very easy time putting stories together that he can post on Vimeo."
So it is a game changer in that the topic of the emperor's clothes has been re-ignited . . . and apparently Apple isn't wearing any.
Lemur - I have read, digested and given your post great thought and felt compelled to write and let you know you are not alone in your thinking. It was a bit disconcerting to see the xenophobic behavior running rampant in these forums with individuals talking down to others because, in their eyes, they are not professional.
Professional is defined as -
1. A person following a profession, especially a learned profession.
2. One who earns a living in a given or implied occupation: hired a professional to decorate the house.
3. A skilled practitioner; an expert.
As you can see, that is a wide definition suitable to corporate and wedding videographers alike. So, imho, people should really stop the chest thumping.
And in reference to FCP X - the outcry is just a rerun in my mind. i saw similar references from the online community when Avid was introduced, a similar outcry when final cut was labeled as a "toy" and "for non professionals" by the NLE crowd in the late 90's (along with Premiere) I've seen pro vo artists slam voices123.com as "unprofessional", even though I recently got a national talent at a fraction of the cost. I've see photographers/videographers slam DSLR cameras because they were not film, even though they're now being used with great frequency.
It's change editors fear. And while I set myself up to be scolded as not understanding the true nature of professional workflow, I can say I have been in the game long enough to realize EVERY project has it's give and takes with innovative ideas being a constant in order to get work done. And while this new FCP X doesn't have all the bells and whistles that FCP 7 had, neither did FCP at the beginning. remember, it was touted as a "toy."
It's time to wake up. The paradigm shift is happening. This tool in the hands of someone with a story to tell can be just as effective if used properly. I mean, does an skilled painter gripe at an amateur because he's using the same kind of brushes and paints? Or does the artist and vision come out through the end result?
Make no mistake. The kids entering the market in their 20's will grab a DSLR, FCP X and start making magic. Mark my words. And the youtube/vimeo that they play on is becoming an effective resource.
And in the end, no matter what system you cut on, no matter how many times you paint yourself a professional, the bottom line will be the story you tell.
And your audience will not give a damn what system you cut it on.
When I hear a point of view derided as a form of xenophobia, or a whole profession lumped together, as in "It's change editors fear," I feel like I'm listening to the commercials we all have to endure just before election season. Quick little quips, painting with broad brushes, to make the speaker seem smarter than everyone else, while at the same time bringing to many people's attention, that no issue can be so easily swept away with the now over-used "fear" tangent of lazy communication.
If editors fear change, then how ironic they choose a profession where every day, the goal is to communicate an idea in a brand new way. How ironic that those who fear change would work hard at avoiding the cliché, at resisting the temptation to be drole and boring in an effort to save time, while working tirelessly through production after production. Hmm. Politicians? Yes. Editors? You have me gasping in disbelief.
Sure, there have always been those who taunt new technology as it strains to make an entrance into a world that requires confidence to generate money. But this is not a case of questioning new tech. It's a question of confusing new tech with bare bones functionality. An upgraded airplane with a powerful motor cannot be celebrated if it is missing its wings. When Final Cut was introduced at version 1, it offered frame accurate digitizing and lay-off to tape for a fraction of what an Avid cost. Yes, with a $250 converter and an asb to serial cable, I could even get it to digitize from my BetaSP, and view footage over a scope! So, inferior or not, there was a benefit that was unmistakeable. And many of the "fear-laden editors" jumped for it. How else did it get to be such a success? You could do broadcast work with it and it had potential!
Which brings up another point. If editors live in fear, why are so many willing to take risks on new tech? The migration from Avid to FCP demonstrates that.
Also, why has it taken so long for Premiere to gain traction? Because those same editors, who I would characterize as forward-thinking technophiles also have standards that must be met in order to survive. So they don't just jump for anything. It does have to have its merits in the broadcast world.
So maybe broadcast is a cleaner way to define why FCP X is disappointing. Maybe you're confused by the use of the word "professional." You do understand, most people don't organize their businesses around the dictionary. We don't care what "professional" means in a white room with pointy-headed faculty room types sitting around discussing their next thesis. What we mean, in a street sense, by professional, is that arena that generates the most money and offers the greatest opportunity for the greatest number of people. And like it or not, that arena is broadcast. It's where reputations are made, it's where the most clients with money reside, and it usually aways requires a somewhat seasoned skill-set to maintain a connection with that brand of production.
So if "professional" is a stumbling block for you, then swap it out for "broadcast" and maybe you'll begin to understand the source of frustration (not fear - omg).
Some compare this to Ford's comments on not wanting to build faster horses. I think that's false. It's as if Ford was building cars, but with no place to sit, and no way to see, while reminding everyone of their independence from hay (32-bit) and freedom from cleaning up manure (background rendering).
If you want to compare this to past tech, compare it to the Apple Cube, or Apple's obsession with motorolla processors, or the Newton. Not all that's new and shiny is all that carefully thought out.
So, until this tool, that cannot meet mission-critical requirements for any form of broadcast, gets its act together, it cannot be touted as a successor to a previous version.
And since it's introduction spells the end of FCP7 - in sales and support, many of us are faced with having to get a new understanding of how our future hardware and software purchases will fit.
Your use of the word fear is so degrading, reducing us to mere animals reacting to primal instincts. The funny thing is that in studying animals of varying intelligence, we find the dumbest ones are the ones that walk up to a cliff, watch the pebbles falling off, and then fearlessly walk off.
Reaaallly Glen. Thanks for your response. Let's address some of your points directly.
"If editors fear change, then how ironic they choose a profession where every day, the goal is to communicate an idea in a brand new way."
That's a difference between personal preference and client expectations. One is done for the purpose of another while one is for personal use. either way, since I entered the field in '92, I have encountered, read and experienced one reoccurring theme - when change is presented in this profession, there are those that challenge and dismiss said change without fully looking into the possibilities. Period. Seeing this forum THE DAY of the release illustrated that point. Without the first update or press release from Apple, there were those that were already writing off Apples commitment to professionals with unsubstantiated claims. Xenophobic may have been too strong of a word but I think you understand what I am getting at: people made up their minds without having all the facts.
"When Final Cut was introduced at version 1, it offered frame accurate digitizing and lay-off to tape for a fraction of what an Avid cost. Yes, with a $250 converter and an asb to serial cable, I could even get it to digitize from my BetaSP, and view footage over a scope! So, inferior or not, there was a benefit that was unmistakeable. And many of the "fear-laden editors" jumped for it. How else did it get to be such a success? You could do broadcast work with it and it had potential!"
FCP became a success OVER TIME with updates. Period. The broadcast world did not embrace it from it's release. I know. I was there trying to convince people to give it a try but was met with the "it's not Avid" mentality. Adobe Premiere could digitize too and also got the same response. So no - both were not immediately embraced by professionals until several upgrades/revisions later. Quite the contrary, they were looked at as Prosumer at best. I encountered both being labeled as "for amateurs" with premiere having the moiker as only suitable "for web use." Sound familiar?
"Also, why has it taken so long for Premiere to gain traction? Because those same editors, who I would characterize as forward-thinking technophiles also have standards that must be met in order to survive. So they don't just jump for anything. It does have to have its merits in the broadcast world."
Right! They accepted the programs once updates and development met their needs. So, by your own admission, these editors didn't jump on the bandwagon on either FCP or Premiere upon release but felt more comfortable doing so once it met their needs. We're a week into FCP X release and already there are those jumping ship because of unconfirmed speculation about what Apple may or may not do. Now, knowing that the programs (Priemere and FCP) became accepted over time, and that FCP X is being dismissed within a week...yeah, I would say that mentality is somewhat Xenophobic ESPECIALLY if you knew where here watching history quite possibly repeat itself.
"Maybe you're confused by the use of the word "professional." You do understand, most people don't organize their businesses around the dictionary. We don't care what "professional" means in a white room with pointy-headed faculty room types sitting around discussing their next thesis. What we mean, in a street sense, by professional, is that arena that generates the most money and offers the greatest opportunity for the greatest number of people. And like it or not, that arena is broadcast. It's where reputations are made, it's where the most clients with money reside, and it usually aways requires a somewhat seasoned skill-set to maintain a connection with that brand of production.
So if "professional" is a stumbling block for you, then swap it out for "broadcast" and maybe you'll begin to understand the source of frustration (not fear - omg)."
No - that definition is actually the accepted meaning of professional in the English dictionary like it or not. But, if you feel the need to tweak the definition to suit your needs, fine. Have at it. But by that rational, you've also given free license for anyone to call themselves professional by their own interpretation of the word. And seeing as I am working within the broadcast field, I realize the limitations and shrinking influence. Large scale post production is in the top 10 dying industries, again, like it or not. There are far more outlets for creative, visual expression than just broadcast. It isn't 1970 anymore. You best realize that now because there are a bunch of young kids exiting school right now armed with DSLR cameras and lap tops that are going to be the next generation of story tellers and it will primarily be through internet/phone.ipad and on demand. Broadcast is in it's decay.
So, until this tool, that cannot meet mission-critical requirements for any form of broadcast, gets its act together, it cannot be touted as a successor to a previous version.
Knowing that it never was to be a successor, but a completely new rewrite, there is no previous version. This is a new product with an old name. And as for being accepted by the broadcast community, I never would have expected version 1.0 to be accepted. Quite the contrary, given the track record from the past, it will be made fun of and put down until a few revisions. Then it will be looked at again and, most likely, hailed. Again, history repeating itself.
"And since it's introduction spells the end of FCP7 - in sales and support, many of us are faced with having to get a new understanding of how our future hardware and software purchases will fit."
If the release of this product made you feel the need to run out and reevaluate your edit system, sorry! The FCP 7 on my harddrive still works fine and will get me through the end of the year while keeping options open. That's why I think there are new things on the horizon - FCP was left in tact almost as if saying "try FCP X but it isn't done yet."
"Your use of the word fear is so degrading, reducing us to mere animals reacting to primal instincts. "
And rightfully so in some cases. Go ahead and look through some of the threads and subject headings - wild, unfounded speculation that all boils down to some form of fear with talk of fleeing to another system. Is that not a reaction?
"The funny thing is that in studying animals of varying intelligence, we find the dumbest ones are the ones that walk up to a cliff, watch the pebbles falling off, and then fearlessly walk off."
What if you're a bird?
OK, quick answers.
Then I'll let it go.
In my experience, those who resist change are those who have already invested a significant amount of money and are merely hoping to maintain whatever niche they have developed. It's usually financial. If FCP X would allow a few basic things, it would be a song on everyone's tongue.
That Apple left those features out, and didn't even leak that those deficits would be there, makes Apple look manipulative, and insecure.
In my experience, editors, as employees anyway, have always been the ones looking around the corner, looking for what's new and exciting. At least that's been my experience.
When FCP was released, there was no way to get Premiere to digitize with any frame accuracy - even through firewire, without buying an additional $500 plugin - which I can't remember the name of, but it was unreliable and prone to crashing. Fast forward 6 years, I try Premiere again, and again discover it to be too unreliable and prone to make simple things difficult - especially with compositing - although I did use it for a year as an uncompressed video system. Very very difficult to work with, and after a year, went back to FCP. So it wasn't, in my opinion, just "talk" that kept the adventurous editors from endorsing Premiere as quickly as they did FCP.
My comments on "professional" are out of frustration that it is such an all-encompassing word (one who makes a penny from efforts rendered - if you will) that it's hard to specify the source of angst when describing the short comings of "professional" software. By those loose terms, any software is possibly pro, and if anyone is making a penny off it, the rest should sit quietly and go about their business as before. I chose to narrow it down to where the bulk of the money is, where the most investment has been, and ask why those needs have not been addressed- except through Apple shills, who I don't trust at this point.
You say broadcast is dying. I say paid content will always require work and certain standards and certain workflows. Even product released straight to DVD has to be scoped for consistency and quality for the end user's experience. FCP X doesn't allow that, but it's "awesome."
But I think the big twist in expectations centers on your opinion that this is not an update to FCP, although it bares the same name. Instead, it's a brand new product, designed to eventually replace the old FCP.
And that's where the frustration really builds. If FCP 7 has been dead for the last 2 years, and this is a new beginning, then the whole upgrade train has been broken for 2 years. Of course FCP 7 will continue to work. And of course FCP X will eventually be useful in a broadcast environment - assuming Apple wants to eventually take it there.
Had we known, 2 years ago, well we wouldn't have held on this long. So we're caught with our pants down, because it's never about now for us. It's always about the future. And if this is Apple's idea of "awesome" then why wait to find out what else is "awesome."
Perhaps it's just as well. It did kick Adobe to work at giving us compatibility. And Avid is already supporting AJA hardware, so maybe Apple's 2 year bluff paid off for us - in that it pushed the competition harder.
If I were them, I'd be grinning ear to ear. Talk about snatching defeat out of the jaws of victory.
From your bird comment, I could construe that you feel yourself to be quite superior to those of use disgusted by Apple's move. From calling us fear-driven and xenophobic, I'm surprised you didn't use the tried and true dinosaur insult too.
Well, enjoy yourself.
I understand your concerns glen. Really I do. If I were to have a tin invested in owning a bunch of FCP 7 systems I would be concerned as well. However, I disagree with you saying that the current version released is the final solution. I just don't think a weeks worth of review on the product can in any way dictate where the product is going. In working with it, I understand some of the limitations that are concerns for the pro editor but I also see some fantastic new builds that are nothing short of amazing - specifically speed, the ability to scrub clips rather quickly, background rendering, meta tag search-ability. In short, I believe they paid attention to the basics of the engine first and now will start adding all of the "options". And I would be surprised if some of these new advances didn't make it into the other NLE products in some form in future releases. I just plan to take a "wait and see" attitude - not wanting to jump ship after a week.
But in response to the bird comment - it was a bad attempt at a little humor for levity (which should have carried a :) in hind site) In no way do I see myself as superior in any way to any one. I just have an opinion, same as everyone else here, and the platform (this forum) to express it.
But hey, in the end I hope you find a solution. If it's Avid MC 5 you lean towards, feel free to ask questions as I have on in the other room. After all, just because we have a different perception of software doesn't mean we can't still be civil in other areas of post production.