FORUMS: list search recent posts

FCP 7 vs FCP X: The Bottom Line: I'd like to know what you pros think

COW Forums : Apple Final Cut Pro X Debates

<< PREVIOUS   •   VIEW ALL   •   PRINT   •   NEXT >>
Lawrence Richards
FCP 7 vs FCP X: The Bottom Line: I'd like to know what you pros think
on May 25, 2013 at 12:40:51 pm

Hello All,

For me, I'm struggling to make myself appreciate X for all the things it allows one to do vs all the things it seems to just make more difficult and am constantly thinking "OK, I'll do all this in 7 and then just export this to X to then do this."

Is this what you guys are thinking, too?

Thank you!

Larry R.
Florida


Return to posts index

Craig Seeman
Re: FCP 7 vs FCP X: The Bottom Line: I'd like to know what you pros think
on May 25, 2013 at 12:59:06 pm

You may as well just read through the entire forum than ask us all to repeat the same things ad nauseum here.

I prefer FCPX to FCP7 although FCPX still needs another couple of rounds of improvements. I have absolutely no reason to use 7. Others are still on 7 waiting to decide on a comparable alternative, usually Premiere (if they find Creative Cloud acceptable) or Avid. Some are looking at Lightworks as it redevelops.

What works for you depends on your needs. I don't think anyone can answer that for you. You'd need to read use case examples. There's plenty of those for FCPX in this forum. There's plenty for Premiere and Avid around the web and in the COW related forums.

To understand FCPX you'd really need to go through one or more of the professional tutorials and read the use case studies. It requires some different thinking as you develop workflows for it.



Return to posts index

Lawrence Richards
Re: FCP 7 vs FCP X: The Bottom Line: I'd like to know what you pros think
on May 25, 2013 at 1:07:02 pm

Thanks, Craig,

I did go through as much of the jungle of posts as I could stand and could sense the frustrations of those, like me, who have been working with 7 for a long time. There a lots and lots of specific comments so I'm just looking for a more overall "bottom line" kind of response knowing full well that those feeling will likely change over time.

Thank you!

Larry R.
Florida


Return to posts index


Paul Figgiani
Re: FCP 7 vs FCP X: The Bottom Line: I'd like to know what you pros think
on May 25, 2013 at 1:19:24 pm

Larry,

What are the specifics regarding what frustrates you? What do you find easier to do in 7 as opposed to X?

-paul.


Return to posts index

Craig Seeman
Re: FCP 7 vs FCP X: The Bottom Line: I'd like to know what you pros think
on May 25, 2013 at 1:31:14 pm

Bottom line for me.
I used Avid from 1990 to 2001, FCP from 2001 to 2011+ and transitioned to FCPX as the features improved. Baring a specific use case where Avid presented an advantage (and it certainly does in some areas), I'm using FCPX exclusively going forward. I don't see any advantage for me in using FCP7. I can see a few use case scenarios where FCP7 might still have some workflow advantages of FCPX. It doesn't in my case though.

For me (that's all I'm speaking for) FCPX has better organizational tools that 7, better at mixed source timelines, faster at searching through shots. I miss round-tripping with Motion and SoundTrackPro but I can wait while I hope Apple works that out (MotionX and Logic X?).



Return to posts index

Andy Neil
Re: FCP 7 vs FCP X: The Bottom Line: I'd like to know what you pros think
on May 25, 2013 at 3:39:49 pm

As a professional, this is my bottom line:

I've added FCPX to the list of NLEs I'm proficient in.

Andy

http://www.timesavertutorials.com


Return to posts index


Mathieu Ghekiere
Re: FCP 7 vs FCP X: The Bottom Line: I'd like to know what you pros think
on May 25, 2013 at 1:35:11 pm

I can only say that I had all the same feelings when I first used the program ("ah, but in 7 I could just... and then I just...") but those almost all dissapeared over time, and with updates from Apple.

You may have some very valid complaints. I also think FCPX needs to mature, and I have a pretty long wish list. But I switched 100 percent to FCPX. As you use the program more and more, you force yourself to do some jobs on it and complete them on it, you find other workflows etc, other ways of doing things.
And yes, in many cases it IS quicker and faster and more fun to use X. (not in all, but in many).


Return to posts index

Craig Seeman
Re: FCP 7 vs FCP X: The Bottom Line: I'd like to know what you pros think
on May 25, 2013 at 1:53:42 pm

Or maybe another way to put it, it's worth the move when its speed and conveniences outweigh its inconveniences and features still under development.

I can't see going back to 7 even if there were a few things it still does "better" because one has to use the entire NLE and the disadvantages to 7 are too great.

In fact at this point, I'd sooner consider Avid or Premiere rather than going back to FCP7.



Return to posts index

Chris Harlan
Re: FCP 7 vs FCP X: The Bottom Line: I'd like to know what you pros think
on May 25, 2013 at 6:44:20 pm

As everyone has pointed out, a lot of it depends on what you do. I don't use it currently, because it doesn't yet meet my needs. I still use FCP 7 (I'm on a project on it right now) but I've moved largely to Avid and Premiere.

From my perspective, there is no single answer, though there are two issues to consider with X:

1) Does it meet your needs?

2) Is it the way you want to work?

On one level, I can now actually achieve anything I need to do on X. There was a time that wasn't true, but that time is gone. However, I still don't think of X as an efficient choice for me. When I look at my workflow, and what I need to achieve, it just doesn't live up. It can do it, but not as fast or as well. On the other hand, there are many people here who will testify vehemently that X is a much faster, much stronger option than anything else out there. And the thing is, everybody's right.


Return to posts index


Bill Davis
Re: FCP 7 vs FCP X: The Bottom Line: I'd like to know what you pros think
on May 25, 2013 at 7:11:34 pm

[Chris Harlan] "On one level, I can now actually achieve anything I need to do on X. There was a time that wasn't true, but that time is gone. However, I still don't think of X as an efficient choice for me. When I look at my workflow, and what I need to achieve, it just doesn't live up. It can do it, but not as fast or as well. On the other hand, there are many people here who will testify vehemently that X is a much faster, much stronger option than anything else out there. And the thing is, everybody's right."

I think Chris has this central argument exactly right.

The only thing missing from this thread is that one thing that separates the two camps (X is useful, from X is not very useful) tends to be those who desire to keep working the way they have in the past, only faster and more efficiently - verses those who are happy to change to a new way of working because they see that the way our industry is changing, it can be very valuable to learn processes directed at how the industry is changing.

One editor wants to spend an hour getting the color correction 100% perfect . Another wants to get to 80% perfect and if an "auto" function can do that with a click and save them the hour - that's more valuable.

Many of us say X is fast, but I sometimes think that what's "fast" about it is that the whole package gives us ways to shave time and effort in so many diverse areas that the whole program feels faster. It's not how fast it necessarily does this or that editing operation. It's how the whole new structure of it has forced us to re-evaluate how we approach whole large segments of our workflow - and we come to very strongly feel that the FXP-X approach has driven a lot of unnecessary complexity out of our lives.

I feel like I get much better results and get them much faster overall. I don't waste as much time and effort as I used to. And it's not that it's "operations" are any better than any other NLE - they're not.

It's it's "philosophy of editing" that seems more evolved.

It's "help as many editors as possible get to "pretty darn good" REALLY fast. And if they want to dive deeper, provide the tools for the careful and small refinement "under the hood" so that only those who want to do precision work have to reveal and learn how to use them.

It's a philosophy that rewards anyone who gets excited to learn new things. And kinda penalizes anyone who is honestly just trying to leverage everything they already know about how NLEs already work and preserve that knowledge while operating a new one.

The actual editing skills will always remain the same. But you simply have to be ready and willing to re-think "how to edit on an NLE" if you want the benefits that X's engineering team built into the new program.

My 2 cents anyway.

Know someone who teaches video editing in elementary school, high school or college? Tell them to check out http://www.StartEditingNow.com - video editing curriculum complete with licensed practice content.


Return to posts index

Chris Harlan
Re: FCP 7 vs FCP X: The Bottom Line: I'd like to know what you pros think
on May 26, 2013 at 1:49:53 am




[Bill Davis] "The only thing missing from this thread is that one thing that separates the two camps (X is useful, from X is not very useful) tends to be those who desire to keep working the way they have in the past, only faster and more efficiently - verses those who are happy to change to a new way of working because they see that the way our industry is changing, it can be very valuable to learn processes directed at how the industry is changing..................The actual editing skills will always remain the same. But you simply have to be ready and willing to re-think "how to edit on an NLE" if you want the benefits that X's engineering team built into the new program."

Bill, I know that you won't believe this, and probably never will, but there are just some things that X does not do as well as other NLEs, and because you don't regularly do those things you will never see that. You don't think those needs exist. On almost every large project I work on, for instance, there are times when it is extremely beneficial to have multiple bins and multiple time lines open, and though I could work around that with X, it will cost me hours to do so. It doesn't matter how strong the metadata indexing is, or how quickly you can call up and dismiss clips. It just isn't as valuable as having multiple bins open. You don't see this because you don't have to do some of the things I have to do. I know you are trying to be nice, but it gets really insulting every time you pull out that "old school dudes just want to be old school" meme to explain why everyone does not embrace X to the degree you do. I know you think it is somehow my dogged bull-headedness, but you are wrong; I'm open to all kinds of new things, and there are just some things that X is not better at. And that's okay; its not its fault. Or yours either. You just need to try and understand that you are not walking in everybody's shoes.


Return to posts index

Charlie Austin
Re: FCP 7 vs FCP X: The Bottom Line: I'd like to know what you pros think
on May 26, 2013 at 6:57:17 am

[Chris Harlan] " I know you are trying to be nice, but it gets really insulting every time you pull out that "old school dudes just want to be old school" meme to explain why everyone does not embrace X to the degree you do."

I'm with you. Just like there were/are things that MC does that FCP "classic" couldn't, there are things that X can't do that other NLE's can. And visa versa of course. The "just don't want to learn new things" refrain is a little tiresome, and in many cases, incorrect.

Bill, when you say: "It's a philosophy that rewards anyone who gets excited to learn new things. And kinda penalizes anyone who is honestly just trying to leverage everything they already know about how NLEs already work and preserve that knowledge while operating a new one."

it comes across as kind of condescending. Also, it's sort of wrong. X isn't reinventing the wheel here, it's just maybe uh, like when bias ply tires were replaced by radials? lol I dunno.

Anyway, as someone said the other day, the war is pretty much over and people are adopting X, now that it actually works. :-) I'm getting quite a few inquiries about my workflow from people in my niche. People who, a year ago, thought X was a toy. There's still resistance, but less than in the past.

I dig X, and am using it more and more on things I would have been nervous to use it on 6 months ago. Anyone who still says it's not a "pro" app is demonstrably wrong. But there are some things, as Chris points out, it can't really do yet. If you need those things, (and I'm not talking about tracks here, that ship has sailed, thank god), then you use the app that does 'em. If X doesn't do something that an editor needs, it doesn't mean they are luddites stuck in some sort of time warp. (cue rocky horror soundtrack) :-)

-------------------------------------------------------------


~"It is a poor craftsman who blames his tools."~
~"The function you just attempted is not yet implemented"~


Return to posts index


Bill Davis
Re: FCP 7 vs FCP X: The Bottom Line: I'd like to know what you pros think
on May 27, 2013 at 3:09:28 am

All I'm going to say is that all three of us, Chris, Charlie and I - have come up through an editing industry that has essentially done things via a unified overall workflow for 25 years or more.

If you were going to edit - it was understood that you'd gather your footage - put it on a timeline - manipulate it to a careful set of professional standards - and deliver it as an edited master.

I am NOT saying this isn't also happening today. It totally is happening. And professional editors around the globe still do that. And likely will for generations to come.

What I HAVE been relentlessly trying to say here (and annoying many by doing so) is that this is not the ONLY way to view video editing in the modern era.

That "catechism" of edit. Is still alive for anyone who wants to study and live it.

But there are ways to see editing that don't need to adhere to that tradition.

I see more and more that there are legions of others who's workflows are NOTHING like those of folks who work in broadcast TV. And sorry, but I'm more curious about how X solves problems outside those type of workflows than how it solves problems for traditional TV show production.

Chris, I respect your points of view and you've been a very eloquent advocate pushing back against X from a traditional editors point of view. And I honestly appreciate how far you've come in opening up your thinking about X.

Charlie, you know I hugely respect how you've integrated X (particularly when everyone else was dissing it so relentlessly) into the kind of traditional TV workflow that nobody can argue isn't fully professional. And without voices like yours, this would have been a much more difficult place to hang out.

But as much as I truly appreciate both your contributions here, you've got to at least see that both of your workflows represent two sides of ONE coin. Editing for broadcast. And I'm still convinced that the changes built into the fundamental re-imagining of X are less about re-seeing how broadcast might work - and more about how 100,000 other industries will leverage the new ideas in X to meet the needs of the wider video world.

For example, one of the guys I know here in town has a robust business providing high level training for working dogs in areas from police work/search and rescue thru behavior modification so at risk pets fit in better with their families. I know for a fact they've been using X since the beginning to build a robust catalogued visual library that they can call up by breed and behavior to help owners "see" different breeds behavior issues.

That stuff will NEVER hit the air. (Well, unless it does!) But the library of data they're assembling might change that whole industry. Or not. Hard to say.

But take that one example times 100,000 and THAT is the potential I see in X and it's integrated database.

Broadcast gets it's due here all the time.

But as I keep saying, it's NOT the only game in town anymore.

So I'm fine with being criticized for "not getting" how X is inadequate for some tasks. Just so long as you guys are OK with being criticized for "not getting" that broadcast is no longer the holy grail for all editors.

It will keep all of us more sensible perhaps?

Know someone who teaches video editing in elementary school, high school or college? Tell them to check out http://www.StartEditingNow.com - video editing curriculum complete with licensed practice content.


Return to posts index

Steve McMillan
Re: FCP 7 vs FCP X: The Bottom Line: I'd like to know what you pros think
on Aug 1, 2013 at 9:47:11 pm

New to the forum (as an active member)... but have long appreciated the wisdom and experience herein. I moved to Premiere several years ago from FCP 7, and have felt like I'm dating my sister ever since. Just doesn't feel right. It works, has a number of robust features (one obviously, it's close link to AE, and Adobe products), but nothing to get excited about. It was simply the default choice as FCP7 sinks slowly out of usefulness.

Recently, I saw a colleague's project produced in FCPX, and was staggered by the production. Perhaps because (while he's been a long-time producer in broadcast TV) he has limited NLE experience. While he's used to having the story in his head, he's usually whispering in the editor's ear. As stated, and excepted in this forum, there's no technical advancement per se, that lends greater visual or storytelling ability in FCPX, but it does seem to lend to a more creative environment than other nuts-and-bolts NLEs with there good ol' spreadsheet-like efficiency. This same producer had previously fumbled with FCP7, and produced the usual yawn-worthy vanilla packages that I would expect in this situation. Not that one experience is any proof of a trend, but it caused me to jealously take another look at X.

Don't like the file structure for managing clients/projects, but I'm willing to put up with that for what now appears to be a viable and refreshing advancement in the ability to focus more on creativity, and less on admin. I'm starting a few projects exclusively in FCPX to get my feet wet. I'm excited for the first time in years.

If I get egg on my face, I'll let you know in a few weeks.

I really admire the professional conduct in this thread; it really helps me/us glean objective info about things that we rely on to enjoy our craft, and pay the bills...it's a big deal.


Return to posts index

Charlie Austin
Re: FCP 7 vs FCP X: The Bottom Line: I'd like to know what you pros think
on Aug 1, 2013 at 10:23:16 pm

[Steve McMillan] "Don't like the file structure for managing clients/projects, "

Get Event Manager X. Best $5 you'll spend. FWIW, I create a Master Project Folder in the Project Library for each Event (job in my case) All cuts/versions go in their own subfolders within that Folder... EM-X can Hide/Show master (root level) Project Folders, so for each job, I just open the Event, and the Master cuts folder associated with it. You could just as easily have each cut in it's own "root" folder so you just open what you want to work on. I just like having everything available. I actually find the Event/Project structure to be very flexible. You can manage it all manually, But EM-X is much easier.

-------------------------------------------------------------


~"It is a poor craftsman who blames his tools."~
~"The function you just attempted is not yet implemented"~


Return to posts index


Steve McMillan
Re: FCP 7 vs FCP X: The Bottom Line: I'd like to know what you pros think
on Aug 1, 2013 at 11:25:26 pm

Thanks Charlie, downloaded it and studying it now.


Return to posts index

Lawrence Richards
Re: FCP 7 vs FCP X: The Bottom Line: I'd like to know what you pros think
on May 25, 2013 at 8:00:55 pm

Thank you, All for your input

Thank you!

Larry R.
Florida


Return to posts index

Jason Porthouse
Re: FCP 7 vs FCP X: The Bottom Line: I'd like to know what you pros think
on May 26, 2013 at 9:08:14 am

To me it's not a binary thing - X or not X. I think that the entire post landscape has moved on from the 'were Avid/FCP' paradigm of the last 10 years. I'm cutting 3 hour-long programmes at the moment on MC5.5, and boy do I wish sometimes I was in X or legacy - but then something will come along and make me think 'thank God I wasn't in FCP'. But overall, and I say this as someone who learnt Avid way way back as my transitional NLE from tape based work, I prefer to cut in Legacy and X. I did a job recently in X and the fluidity with which I can manipulate the timeline astounded me again. But the trackless nature caused me an equal amount of frustration - mainly because I'm so used to working with tracks, moving items and using areas of the timeline as a 'scratchpad'. It's a headspace thing and I daresay if I used X more I'd be OK with that model and fighting it less.

That X is ready for 'pro' use is now a moot point, I think Craig's work at the Beeb has answered that. I'm very happy to have it as a tool in my kitbag and I have a feeling that over the next month we may see it mature into the 'go-to' nle of choice for many people. I certainly hope so given Adobe's stance with regard to CC which is a bit of a non-starter for me.

Jason

_________________________________

Before you criticise a man, walk a mile in his shoes.
Then when you do criticise him, you'll be a mile away. And have his shoes.



Return to posts index

Joseph Owens
Re: FCP 7 vs FCP X: The Bottom Line: I'd like to know what you pros think
on May 27, 2013 at 6:32:40 pm

In the spirit of Meh, the Element of Indifference...

I am still responsible for Online, where the penny drops. Versions, seamless, subtitled, textless, captioned, up- and down-converted, widescreen, letterboxed, center-cut ... &c., its an endless list. I do not care one jot at all about editing, other than all the times that I have to fix the myriad of editorial errors, revisions, omissions, didn't-know-how-to-do-it-so I-kludged-its, that come with the job, because....

Because at least 99% of individuals carrying out the duties of editorial construction really don't have a total grasp of how to actually operate the software. I don't... been in the industry nearly 40 years. It keeps changing and often its just a waste of effort to become fully conversant with something that could be obsoleted at any time. But sit down with a trainer sometime, someone who really does deserve the title, or on-line handle "FCPGuru" or whatever, and its pretty apparent that what you can do in one application, more-or-less, you can do in any other -- with the exceptions of the absolute, over-the-cliff non-starters like codec support, or media types, or the other, largely political/proprietary gotchas.

Ultimately, arguing one application over another, feature by feature, is kind of silly, when a professional's clients utterly do not care about those things and only want to realize the benefit of somebody using a tool that solves their problems with no added pain. SHAKE works like my brain works, and so even though it is as dead as an application can get, while it supports up to 4K resolution more or less agnostically, I will use it and make money with it... its pure profit now because it has been well and truly amortized. And waddya know, it still works, beautifully.

About 30 years ago, when I had more time on my hands, I became familiar with the Japanese-rules strategy game of GO. Read the books, joined a club. Deceptively simple, 8 rules (like dating a teenage daughter, but even Kaley Cuoco has moved on). Oldest board game in existence, played unchanged at least since the Tokugawa shogunate of the 1600s, when it was at its zenith of national regard. Still very popular - pretty good for something that has been around for at least 1200 years. The secret of its appeal is that it is infinitely complex -- possibly something that a computer will never be able to master, because of the 361! (factorial) outcomes of any particular game. There may not be that many atomic particles in the universe. Add the nuance that some moves are played strictly for aji (taste). One of the best introductory books ("Fundamentals of GO") was written by a "strong amateur", Kageyama -- somebody tarred with the title of someone who could never attain the ranking of a professional. He dealt with that description, and this is the reason for this paragraph, with the observation, not entirely original, that the real difference between professional and amateur is that the latter play for the love of the game, while the former -- well, its their job, they work at it, they are paid to win. Almost nothing else matters for them. Do what you have to do to win, however you measure that.

Now I have to go pound some nails and set some stones. The wolf is at the door, huffing and puffing, and may have more ko threats than me.

jPo

"I always pass on free advice -- its never of any use to me" Oscar Wilde.


Return to posts index

Chris Harlan
Re: FCP 7 vs FCP X: The Bottom Line: I'd like to know what you pros think
on May 28, 2013 at 6:52:59 am

That was fabulous.


Return to posts index

David Mathis
Re: FCP 7 vs FCP X: The Bottom Line: I'd like to know what you pros think
on May 26, 2013 at 6:46:59 pm

I am really starting to like Final Cut Pro X but it needs further development.

For starters:
Bring back the round-trip between Final Cut Pro X and Motion 5
Keep audio and video separate
Give us the option of being to disable connected clips
As for Motion the ability to parent layers, have null objects and expressions would be helpful
Do away with the group feature and make it like After Effects and gives the option having pre-comp and multiple comps, would make more complicated projects easier to manage

What is nice:
Building a custom template, title, effect and transition in Motion for later use in Final Cut Pro X, a big advantage over having to dynamic link between P Pro and AE just to make a transition

Those are just a few thoughts. Oh, please don't go to a cloud based scenario.


Return to posts index

John Davidson
Re: FCP 7 vs FCP X: The Bottom Line: I'd like to know what you pros think
on May 27, 2013 at 12:11:14 am

[David Mathis] "Building a custom template, title, effect and transition in Motion for later use in Final Cut Pro X, a big advantage over having to dynamic link between P Pro and AE just to make a transition"

Check this out David. 4 months ago we rebuilt twenty three 30 second 'tips' spots we made originally in FCP7 for air on the sister network of one of our clients. When repackaging, we took the after effects graphics (backgrounds, transitions, etc) and keyable elements into Motion and made each a 'theme' based on the network name. We then used that theme in FCPX to rebuild our spots.

Last week they finally wanted delivery - but lo and behold they have a NEW graphics package. We updated our generators to use the new elements in motion. The updates translated throughout the spots that used those generators. Obviously some font work had to be done in FCPX, but we revised all 23 in a day. I haven't confirmed with the editor this worked perfectly, but in theory it did because he got it done so quickly.

Awesome.

John Davidson | President / Creative Director | Magic Feather Inc.


Return to posts index

Bret Williams
Re: FCP 7 vs FCP X: The Bottom Line: I'd like to know what you pros think
on May 27, 2013 at 1:38:14 pm

Couldn't this have been done in 7 with master templates? Or does a motion template in 7 not ripple through if you edit it? I realize you can't publish much more than text and drop zones in Motion 4/ FCP 7, but still pretty powerful if it ripples. I really never heard much chatter about master templates in 7, but I toyed with them and they were pretty cool.


Return to posts index

John Davidson
Re: FCP 7 vs FCP X: The Bottom Line: I'd like to know what you pros think
on May 27, 2013 at 6:12:53 pm

I always found Motion integration with FCP7 buggy and crashed more often than not. I may be wrong, but this seems to really work better than it did in 7. Making your own transitions and effects from motion into FCPX for free is pretty awesome, too.

John Davidson | President / Creative Director | Magic Feather Inc.


Return to posts index

Andreas Kiel
Re: FCP 7 vs FCP X: The Bottom Line: I'd like to know what you pros think
on May 28, 2013 at 12:47:10 pm

Here just my 2 cents.

I like FCP X for certain workflows and one of the developer guys who build several tools to make these workflows even better.

For other workflows which are more my daily work I don't like it. Having several bins and sequences open at a time, having a "real" viewer and canvas is essential in these cases.

Lot of people are talking about the "metadata approach" with FCP X.
Okay, it's there, but it's poor compared to legacy FCP. Funny thing is that most of the people never used the metadata in legacy FCP since they where not that obvious.

Same with Motion. You always had been able to create templates but with less options for the published parameters. One thing which was better is that with "old" Motion the templates were published for the whole system/all users.
Another thing with Motion Templates: if you change one, you won't see it immediately within FCP X, the original version is still displayed for the stuff you used it before. You now can use the modified version for new stuff -- it will look like expected. Once you quit FCP X and relaunch it all of your older projects will be changed. This can be considered either as good or bad. Was somehow the same with legacy FCP.

Coming back to metadata. As said, the approach of FCP X is more obvious compared to legacy FCP and it works fine with more options in most cases as long as you play in the sandbox of FCP X ("sandbox" doesn't mean FCP X is bad or kind of kindergarten). When it comes to interchange these metadata (data about data) there is still a long way to go with FCP X.
Take XML. Export your project with effects and templates as XML and re-import -- all of your settings are set back to default, most of the keyframes are gone. It even gives links to files which don't exist.

I don't say FCP X is good or bad. It's just an app which may fit your needs or not. It has a lot of potential for sure, but sometimes I have to work today and don't want to wait for a tomorrow.

BTW: I really love the "Go" thing above, it's such a good comparison. When I was younger I was an "every day all night amateur player" and one day I met the German champion, and I won four times in a row. As with the given "Go" example, rules are simple. You have to make the best out of it for you.

- Andreas

Spherico
http://www.spherico.com/filmtools

"He who fights with monsters should be careful lest he thereby
become a monster. And if thou gaze long into an abyss, the abyss will
also gaze into thee." - Friedrich Nietzsche, Beyond Good and Evil


Return to posts index

Joseph Owens
Re: FCP 7 vs FCP X: The Bottom Line: I'd like to know what you pros think
on May 28, 2013 at 3:24:38 pm

[Andreas Kiel] "When I was younger I was an "every day all night amateur player" and one day I met the German champion, and I won four times in a row."

Wow. That is an achievement. Out of curiosity, there must have been a kyu adjustment -- did you start with handicap stones and did that number change? I used to be able to tie the club champion occasionally at 9 stones...

jPo

"I always pass on free advice -- its never of any use to me" Oscar Wilde.


Return to posts index

Andreas Kiel
Re: FCP 7 vs FCP X: The Bottom Line: I'd like to know what you pros think
on May 28, 2013 at 5:10:55 pm

There was nothing. I played Go with 2 of my friends just for fun for many years -- didn't care about anything special rather than having enough wine for the nights.

The "champion night" happened by chance and was fun. I was visiting an old girl friend of mine after a real long time and her husband said "sorry, me and my friend do have to play/train Go in the living room and must stay focused on the game -- so please stay in the kitchen with my wife, or go out for a beer". I answered "Wow you play Go - cool". He said "You play Go?", I said "Yes, quite often -- just for fun, I love it."

So they allowed me to watch. Then the other guy asked whether I want to have training session -- so why not. I was allowed to be the first to set a stone and I had beaten him within a few minutes. All following games he was the first. He didn't win any of those games.
It turned out they both were playing in the "champions league" which I didn't know that it exists at all.

But as said with all this stuff with FCP X there are some simple rules -- understand them and make the best out of it.

-Andreas

Spherico
http://www.spherico.com/filmtools

"He who fights with monsters should be careful lest he thereby
become a monster. And if thou gaze long into an abyss, the abyss will
also gaze into thee." - Friedrich Nietzsche, Beyond Good and Evil


Return to posts index

alban egger
Re: FCP 7 vs FCP X: The Bottom Line: I'd like to know what you pros think
on May 30, 2013 at 8:17:17 pm

Bottom line: FCP7 is a dinosaur and IMO not feasable for professional work anymore unless you
a) have very specific workflow that only FCP7 does ( although I can't think of any)
B) are paid in hours and your customers haven't realized you are ripping them off
C) simply ignore modern production-circumstances and stick to what you feel comfortable with

FCPX is out for 2 years. With 8 revisions since the first shitstorm against it. Premiere has advanced a lot, AVID is in a new priceclass..... There are no arguments for FCP7 left. It is slow, clumsy, 32-bit and needs a lot of help from Colour and Soundtrack to be taken serious. Tools like that are built into the other Nle's nowadays.

That's the bottom line.

The topline: i use FCPX for 23 months now, 22 of those it has been my main choice of NLE. I tried PP, but it seemed a step back ( although a step forward from FCP7). I still get funny oneliners like "but it can't export more than 2 audiotracks" or "I don't want it to look for faces" and that tells me Apple is still not marketing this properly. But so far I have yet to see a director or editor who watches me using it , who is not going away with the determination to give it an honest and serious try - and most sticking to it unless one of the above 3 reasons stops them.



Return to posts index

Andreas Kiel
Re: FCP 7 vs FCP X: The Bottom Line: I'd like to know what you pros think
on Jun 2, 2013 at 3:20:34 pm

Yeah,

Bottom line: FCPX is a modern, streamlined and IMO feasable for some/several professional work unless you
a) have very specific workflow that only FCP7 does (I can think of several)
B) are paid in hours and your customers haven't realized you are ripping them off
C) simply ignore modern collaborative production-circumstances and stick to what you feel comfortable with

FCPX is out for 2 years. With 8 revisions since the first shitstorm against it and it still needs a lot of improvement.
That's the bottom line.

The topline: I use FCPX for 23 months now, 23 of those it has been not my main choice of NLE. I tried PP, but it seemed a step back (although a step forward from FCP7). I still get funny oneliners like "why I can't export and import a XML with all metadata", "why are my parameters reset", "but it can't export more than 2 audiotracks" or "I don't want it to look for faces"and so on and that tells me Apple is still not marketing this properly and has a lot of work to do even in development. But so far I have yet to see several directors or editors who watches me using it , who are not going away with the determination to give it an honest and serious try - and some sticking to it unless one of the above 3 reasons stops them.

;-) Andreas

Spherico
http://www.spherico.com/filmtools

"He who fights with monsters should be careful lest he thereby
become a monster. And if thou gaze long into an abyss, the abyss will
also gaze into thee." - Friedrich Nietzsche, Beyond Good and Evil


Return to posts index

Mario Rodriguez
Re: FCP 7 vs FCP X: The Bottom Line: I'd like to know what you pros think
on Jun 6, 2013 at 12:26:45 am

Used FCP 7 for years... loved it....

Used PP CS6 & CUDA and loved it... amazingly fast on mix formats on same timeline, no transcoding, everything is real time, effects, changes... you name it that is really very impressive... but... very slow in other things and buggy as hell... Adobe Media Encoder can become your worst nightmare. I had to reboot my MacBook Pro 17" more times in the weeks I was using PP CS6 & AME that in the last 5 years together...

After the PP CS6 fiasco I decided to give FCPX a try... I have used it a couple of times since it's launched, but my iMac was too slow for it... so I wondered how it would be in my MacBook Pro 17" i5 2.5Ghz 4GB RAM.

The funny thing is that I tried it just before jumping to PP CS6 and FCPX was too slow. To use CUDA with PP CS6 I had to upgrade the MacBook Pro Nvidia driver, well after the Nvidia driver upgrade FCPX suddenly just flies...

So now I must say I'm blown away by FCPX 10.0.8, it is fast, responsive, easy to use, it feels like natural, everythingjust flows... building titles is easy, transitions are easy, stabilizing clips is just one click away, it closes and opens fast, exporting is really fast... it is funny but now PP CS6 feels like old stuff...

I'm very impressed with how stabile FCPX has become... I guess many FCP7 users will make a similar trip like me, try FCPX do not feel at home, go to PP CS6 (or Avid) be impressive at first with CUDA and then see that mmmm... it is too buggy or slow in many other things and then try again FCPX and see... woauuu... FCPX is a really cool software to use.

At that end the best is to try for yourself and not just believing what others people say.

I'm also amazed how opinions are changing again about FCPX. At the beginning many editors hated it and now I see very positive opinions and reviews about it... I would say FCPX will slowly again conquer it's lost ground, it is a matter of time, and the new Adobe CC will help FCPX to get back adopters... not to speak about the huge internal Avid issues with the company close to bankruptcy.


Return to posts index

john skye
Re: FCP 7 vs FCP X: The Bottom Line: I'd like to know what you pros think
on Jun 16, 2013 at 10:39:14 pm

I am debating whether to spend the time to learn final cut X over Final cut 7. Many people are positive about the new version, but everyone says you need to get your head around the different way it works. Are there any tutorials out there that focus on that? Every tutorial I look at take 5 minutes to explain fairly obvious stuff. I just want a quick summary of how workflows will change from FC7 to FCX. Any suggestions out there?


Return to posts index

Ismael de Diego
Re: FCP 7 vs FCP X: The Bottom Line: I'd like to know what you pros think
on Aug 7, 2013 at 5:06:30 pm

FCP X is a great tool if you are doing simple stuff but if your project is a feature film just forget about it. The simple fact that doesn't support multiple bins and sequences at once makes it inadequate for that kind of challenge. FCP X is great at things that i don't really need as an editor, usually color correction and fancy titles are not the things that i worry about when editing and basically is done by other people using more powerful tools like Flame and such. But hey ! it's new and people love shiny stuff, so they are going to love it anyway..



Return to posts index

Craig Seeman
Re: FCP 7 vs FCP X: The Bottom Line: I'd like to know what you pros think
on Aug 7, 2013 at 5:50:24 pm

[Ismael de Diego] "The simple fact that doesn't support multiple bins and sequences at once makes it inadequate for that kind of challenge"

Different beast and it should never support the above IMHO. You can tie any number of projects (sequences) to any number of events. You can create keyword and smart keyword collections whose power makes "bins" look quaint.

The major challenge facing Apple is collaborative workflow but that has nothing to do with bins.

It seems you're not sure how to use FCPX's methods of organizing.



Return to posts index

Ismael de Diego
Re: FCP 7 vs FCP X: The Bottom Line: I'd like to know what you pros think
on Aug 8, 2013 at 8:02:59 am

[Craig Seeman] "It seems you're not sure how to use FCPX's methods of organizing."


You are so right, i don't know anything about FCPX's methods, and i couldn't care less. I remember when i started in editing i had a huge notebook about AVID's methods and it was absurdly time consuming trying to keep up with the software's logic. What kept me working on FCP 7 was that the relation between me and the software's method where invisible, it gave me so much room for creation and a really appreciate that simplicity. I only have time for finished ideas, anything else is
the way.



Return to posts index

Andy Neil
Re: FCP 7 vs FCP X: The Bottom Line: I'd like to know what you pros think
on Aug 8, 2013 at 3:51:48 pm

[Ismael de Diego] "You are so right, i don't know anything about FCPX's methods, and i couldn't care less."

Then why are you making blanket statements about its capabilities? False ones at that. It's totally fine to not like FCPX. Be my guest, go your own way. But don't try to advise others into your prejudices when you have no idea what you're talking about, don't use the program, and apparently have no desire to.

Andy

http://www.timesavertutorials.com


Return to posts index

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