FORUMS: list search recent posts

FCPX is not used by professionals and only suitable for editing home movies!

COW Forums : Apple Final Cut Pro X Debates

<< PREVIOUS   •   VIEW ALL   •   PRINT   •   NEXT >>
Mark Dobson
FCPX is not used by professionals and only suitable for editing home movies!
on Oct 20, 2013 at 8:15:25 am

In a response to viewing a video of Larry Jordan's recent presentation 'Is Final Cut Pro X ready for professional Editing' Kevin P McAuliffe, who I remember from the FCPX tutorials he produced for Creative Cow, has published a interesting article on Pro Video Coalition 'Do Professional Editors care aboutFCPX (anymore)?'

http://provideocoalition.com/kmcauliffe/story/do-the-professionals-care-abo...

His claims that for him FCPX is only suitable editing home movies and has had very little professional take up, whilst at the same time have a good pop at Larry Jordan, have resulted in a lively reaction which he has responded to in a follow up piece.

http://provideocoalition.com/kmcauliffe/story/do-professional-editors-care-...

For me it's an interesting flashback to all the fun we had when FCPX was launched with the vitriolic attack on Apple, the EOL of FCP7 and the fact that FCPX was startlingly different.

With the possibility of the next version FCPX being announced this week it's an interesting time to re-visit the very debate that gave birth to this forum.


Return to posts index

Nikolas Bäurle
Re: FCPX is not used by professionals and only suitable for editing home movies!
on Oct 20, 2013 at 10:00:29 am

I was able to double my income because of FCPX, and especially since here in Germany very few use X. Promiflash, where I freelanced this year in X had a very hard time finding good editors who could deal with X. The other editors they found had to be trained, but got the hang of it in a few days. Now Promiflash does not primarily do video, so you don't have the same creative pressures like in a postproduction, but we had to be fast, (7 hours for 3.30 minutes, including sound recording, and onlining and one of the things that helped was being able to work during transcoding and the fast rendering, in 7 we would have taken 2 hours longer simply for transcode and export.

I do feel disappointed that many are not adopting X since it could really benefit certain clients, but thats for the postproduction to decide. The argument that X in not professional is simply not true. But again, there are still alot of postproductions in Germany that never opened up to Legacy, so why should they jump to X... Many of the issues I've heard of actually come from some bad experiences companies had with Legacy. At least in my experience 7 does not work very smoothly in a shared environment with XDcam or at least not on the one I was working on. When I asked one place if they could at least get Motion 5, their argument against it was having had bad experiences with Motion 4, even though 5 is so much better. I am still amazed how so many pros make such generalized statements without actually really trying things out. All the people I've trained like it, even the one that generally use PCs and adobe, and was one of the first haters I met.

I am professional using X, but I still have to use Avid and FCP 7, and might need to train myself on Premiere pretty soon. I simply have one more tool under my belt. But there are plenty of editors who don't need to change, plenty of Avid editors who will never need to deal with Apple for the rest of their lives, more power to them.

Many of us will continue making money with X, parts of the industry will start adopting it more and more.

"Always look on the bright side of life" - Monty Python



Return to posts index

Ronny Courtens
Re: FCPX is not used by professionals and only suitable for editing home movies!
on Oct 20, 2013 at 11:32:07 am

The guy says about FCPX (quote) "the times I've used it have been few and far between."

Is this the same guy who is listed as a Cow Master in the FCPX Techniques forum? LMAO!!

- Ronny


Return to posts index


Steve Connor
Re: FCPX is not used by professionals and only suitable for editing home movies!
on Oct 20, 2013 at 11:54:21 am

[Ronny Courtens] "Is this the same guy who is listed as a Cow Master in the FCPX Techniques forum? LMAO!!
"


Well spotted!

Steve Connor

There's nothing we can't argue about on the FCPX COW Forum


Return to posts index

Chris Harlan
Re: FCPX is not used by professionals and only suitable for editing home movies!
on Oct 20, 2013 at 7:06:41 pm

[Ronny Courtens] "The guy says about FCPX (quote) "the times I've used it have been few and far between."

Is this the same guy who is listed as a Cow Master in the FCPX Techniques forum? LMAO!!"


I appreciate the irony, but you should also know that Kevin has no control over where or how his face shows up in the cow faces. I had nothing to do with getting my face posted above in this forum, other than posting frequently and passionately for a long time. I've also seen my face show up in forums that I didn't really feel apart of.


Return to posts index

Ronny Courtens
Re: FCPX is not used by professionals and only suitable for editing home movies!
on Oct 20, 2013 at 7:10:58 pm

If you see your face appearing here and you don't want it to, just click on your photo and select Remove. You have full control over this.

- Ronny


Return to posts index


Chris Harlan
Re: FCPX is not used by professionals and only suitable for editing home movies!
on Oct 20, 2013 at 7:15:26 pm

[Ronny Courtens] "If you see your face appearing here and you don't want it to, just click on your photo and select Remove. You have full control over this.

- Ronny"


Yes, Ronny, that's good to know, but he may not even know his face is up there, and he didn't put it there, which is the only point I'm trying to make. But, I don't want to further interrupt the glee you are all having from burning him at the stake, so please continue. Sorry for the interruption.


Return to posts index

Devin Crane
Re: FCPX is not used by professionals and only suitable for editing home movies!
on Oct 20, 2013 at 8:09:14 pm

I believe it's up there due to several of the tutorials he created for FCPX.



Return to posts index

Charlie Austin
Re: FCPX is not used by professionals and only suitable for editing home movies!
on Oct 20, 2013 at 8:47:17 pm

[Chris Harlan] " But, I don't want to further interrupt the glee you are all having from burning him at the stake, so please continue. Sorry for the interruption."

:-) People do tend to get worked up when someone attacks the tools of their trade huh? I fall into it every now and again.;-)

Other than the stuff I said in the other thread, it really doesn't matter to me. He's entitled to his opinion, even if it's wrong. lol The timing sure is interesting though. Hold on while I adjust my tinfoil hat....

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


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


Return to posts index


Chris Harlan
Re: FCPX is not used by professionals and only suitable for editing home movies!
on Oct 20, 2013 at 9:03:55 pm

[Charlie Austin] ":-) People do tend to get worked up when someone attacks the tools of their trade huh? I fall into it every now and again.;-)

Other than the stuff I said in the other thread, it really doesn't matter to me. He's entitled to his opinion, even if it's wrong. lol The timing sure is interesting though. Hold on while I adjust my tinfoil hat....
"


Yup. I've got no problem with vehement disagreement of anything he said. I just saw the mounting anger over his audacity in having his picture over the techniques forum, and simply wanted to interject a little truth in there, in that he didn't put it up there. Ironic, it is; diabolical, it's not.


Return to posts index

kim krause
Re: FCPX is not used by professionals and only suitable for editing home movies!
on Oct 20, 2013 at 7:58:45 pm

our whole department has recently transitioned to fcpx and we are one of the major broadcasters in the country so from my perspective i would have to say that makes it pretty darn professional......why would kevin use fcpx for home movies when he has avid? seems like a rather dumb statement to me...maybe avid is too complicated for using on home movies! maybe the simplicity of fcpx is its strongest feature....maybe fcpx allows him to be more creative......thats like saying you use garage band for your podcasts when you have protools or logic sitting on your machine.....huh?


Return to posts index

Neil Goodman
Re: FCPX is not used by professionals and only suitable for editing home movies!
on Oct 20, 2013 at 11:05:04 pm

[kim krause] "our whole department has recently transitioned to fcpx and we are one of the major broadcasters in the country so from my perspective i would have to say that makes it pretty darn professional......why would kevin use fcpx for home movies when he has avid? seems like a rather dumb statement to me...maybe avid is too complicated for using on home movies! maybe the simplicity of fcpx is its strongest feature....maybe fcpx allows him to be more creative......thats like saying you use garage band for your podcasts when you have protools or logic sitting on your machine.....huh?"

which broadcaster? What type of department within that braodcaster? and what platform were you on before?



Neil Goodman: Editor of New Media Production - The Esquire Network - NBC/Uni


Return to posts index


Brett Sherman
Re: FCPX is not used by professionals and only suitable for editing home movies!
on Oct 21, 2013 at 4:00:07 pm

This article is just plain dumb. He suggests two things in it.

1. FCP X is not ready for professional use, let me quote:

"there's only one answer. No."

Well, that's easy to disprove. I'm a professional, I use it. There are many others like me. We can argue all day about market penetration, but the fact is that many professionals use it every day. That point is completely dis-proven.

2. The fact that facilities currently using Media Composer or Premiere Pro CC aren't switching to FCP X proves that it is not professional.

"It doesn't matter who (individual users) are using it. It matters which post production facilities are switching their Media Composers and Premiere Pro CC stations out for FCPX. I'll be honest with you, they aren't."

Let me take these one by one. If you are using Media Composer, chances are you need a collaborative workflow. We all know that is a current weakness with FCP X. People get around it, including myself, but if your business is built around a certain type of project sharing it would be difficult logistically to switch at this point.

Second, why would you buy Premiere Pro CC and then a couple months later switch to FCP X. No business person in their right mind would do this. So the fact that no one has done this is not surprising in the least.

There is an obvious bias towards big facilities and freelancers in this article. Fine. But that is a limited sampling of the professionals in the video field. The fact that FCP X has not caught on in a big way with large facilities is not surprising to anyone at this point. But the reasons for that have little to do with whether or not FCP X is "ready for professional use."

At this point I'm not sure I'd bet the bank on Media Composer being around forever either. Avid has got some real problems ahead.



Return to posts index

Don Scioli
Re: FCPX is not used by professionals and only suitable for editing home movies!
on Oct 21, 2013 at 10:15:22 pm

Not professional...let's see, we got a California State Senator, California State Assembly member,
US Congressional candidate and numerous California county Supervisors elected using FCPX, several state wide initiatives passed, as well as several multi-million dollar bond issues passed, again all using ONLY FCPX.

If these candidates, municipalities and the state of California trust FCPX with their respective fates and $, I believe we can deduce that it is a pro app.


Return to posts index

Dan Stewart
Re: FCPX is not used by professionals and only suitable for editing home movies!
on Oct 22, 2013 at 10:42:36 am

This is a good example of the miscommunication at the heart of this thread. The article is meant for mercenary broadcast-feature-spot editors who walk into facilities houses, ask for a cup of tea (yes im in the UK) and start cutting. The point the article was making: you will be sat in front of an Avid. Maybe Premiere but that has never happened to me. FCP7 was edging in for a long time, at it's peak maybe a third of my work. Now almost none. There are a few FCPL setups still around but mostly in-house suites with plans to switch to avid or premiere next cycle.
Maybe FCPX will become a viable option for post houses when the unofficial open beta they've been running is complete. Whether anyone would be crazy enough to put their multi-million dollar eggs in Apples basket again I seriously doubt.
Even if, as a little bird told me, the new FCPX has audio tracks..



Return to posts index


Andrew Kimery
Re: FCPX is not used by professionals and only suitable for editing home movies!
on Oct 22, 2013 at 12:13:13 pm

[Don Scioli] "If these candidates, municipalities and the state of California trust FCPX with their respective fates and $, I believe we can deduce that it is a pro app.
"


Considering the state of the State I'm not sure that's a ringing endorsement. ;)




Return to posts index

Scott Witthaus
Re: FCPX is not used by professionals and only suitable for editing home movies!
on Oct 22, 2013 at 12:49:45 pm

LA is a niche market, when you think about the total of "professional" visual communications. What might be dominant or favored in LA can no way be treated as an accurate statement for the industry as a whole.

Scott Witthaus
Senior Editor/Post Production Supervisor
1708 Inc./Editorial
Professor, VCU Brandcenter


Return to posts index

Craig Shamwell
Re: FCPX is not used by professionals and only suitable for editing home movies!
on Oct 22, 2013 at 1:40:21 pm

I have been particularly interested in Andy and Oliver's discussion within this thread, as Oliver is quintessential as to the "misconception" that FCPX is some how only suitable for home movies and those who edit using FCPX are somehow not "Professional Editors"! Furthermore, Kevin P McAuliffe, the original Author of article this thread is based on, is just flat out wrong...ten ways till Sunday!!
He starts out with "if the question has to be asked, "is FCPX ready for professional editors", then the answer has to be NO!" This is arrogance at its very finest! And I mean no disrespect to anyone. But this is just absurd. FCPX is trully revolutionary in so many ways, and still growing!
Right now for Editors like Oliver and Kevin, being a Professional Editor means spending thousands of dollars and hundreds of hours learning that expensive software. Along with knowing elements of editing that many editors will never use in any of their projects. I myself was very frustrated at the "Uniqueness" of FCPX along with how "Buggy" it was in its initial release. In that respect, it was "NOT" ready for professionals. But as many are beginning to post, along with many more editing job descriptions asking for FCPX experience, FCPX is now being recognized as the one editor that can do what it does better than any other......SAVE THE EDITOR A LOT OF TIME!!! The Multi-Cam editor is absolutely wonderful! What's pissing people off like Kevin is, Apple have re-branded what is available to People with Creative Vision making video creation much more affordable and possible by providing a tool that is very inexpensive, very powerful, with ton of third party Plug-In support. Folks like Oliver feel that if an Editor is not using or doing what he is doing that somehow they are not Professional. The reality is, what makes an editor truly Professional is this: That when all is said and done, what they produce has seamless edits, footage is matched and graded and meets the clients criteria, no typos, and deadlines and budgets are met. This criteria is all encompassing no matter how big or small the project is. FCPX is a Professional Editor, there is no doubt about that as I use it to produce all kinds of work weekly. This past week and half I finished 3 :30 spots with alternative "auditions" included for the client to view which saved me a ton of time. Many have talked about the lack of Audio controls in FCPX...they are all there! I can edit Audio in the FCPX timeline very fast and sweeten it at the same time. You can export any part of the timeline to Motion as well as any Plug-In, Effect or Type, edit and save and its back in FCPX! Kevin's original post that so may responded to has so many statements that are not true! Which is why so many were pissed, as they should be!!
Its time to put this issue to rest and start looking at what FCPX brings to the table of Professional as well as Amateur editors!


Return to posts index

Oliver Peters
Re: FCPX is not used by professionals and only suitable for editing home movies!
on Oct 22, 2013 at 5:35:55 pm

[Craig Shamwell] " as Oliver is quintessential as to the "misconception" that FCPX is some how only suitable for home movies and those who edit using FCPX are somehow not "Professional Editors"!"

I had tried to go away from this thread because it's become incredibly boring and generally does not speak well for the FCP X community. However, I find this last comment directed at me quite insulting, grossly misrepresenting what I actually wrote and completely uninformed. So it begs for a response.

I'm not sure where you think my misconceptions are. Clearly you haven't read much of what I wrote in this or the other similar thread over the weekend. You certainly haven't read much of anything I've written about X over the past two years here or anyplace else. Having used it on a near-exclsuive basis since 10.0.0 for two years, I'll put my professional "seat time" with X up against anyone. Period.

[Craig Shamwell] "Right now for Editors like Oliver and Kevin, being a Professional Editor means spending thousands of dollars and hundreds of hours learning that expensive software."

Maybe you should get your facts straight. I never said anything about thousands of dollars and if you think having hundreds of hours of experience with software is not essential, then I beg to differ. It's not hundreds - it's thousands, before you can even consider yourself any good. From the POV of a client, that's incredibly important. After all, full-time for a year as a working editor is about 2,000. Just a starting point.

- Oliver

Oliver Peters Post Production Services, LLC
Orlando, FL
http://www.oliverpeters.com


Return to posts index

Craig Shamwell
Re: FCPX is not used by professionals and only suitable for editing home movies!
on Oct 23, 2013 at 5:54:32 am

"It's not hundreds - it's thousands, before you can even consider yourself any good" Herein lies the the Crux of why many "Professional" editors don't like FCPX! Because its easy to learn! Because you can achieve "professional" results without the thousands of hours you speak of. That is the whole point Oliver that I and others are trying to make with what makes FCPX more than ready for Professional Editors! The Paradigm of what a Professional Editor has changed. Your description is no longer valid that so many hours is needed to produce great looking results! The two easiest tools to use in all of creativity are probably the pencil and paper. What goes on that canvas is at the hands of the artist. Its the same for Video Editing! FCPX is a much easier tool to use and yes it looks very different. But what makes an Editor an artist is his gift for timing, symmetry, continuity and storytelling. What makes an Editor a Professional is one who makes a living doing it. Period...and that does not mean "thousands" of hours. And no, once an individual learns the language of Editing, keyframing and such, they can become quite good in a very short period of time, especially using an editor that makes editing much more intuitive. Again, sorry if you feel I disrespected you, but your response is just what I meant. My belief is Apple is looking at Video as the future of communication. So why not make the tools for doing such...easier, more intuitive. While many have called FCPX, iMovie Pro...many a professional has used iMovie for capturing and rough cutting video. Its actually a very good program and many make a lot of money just using it! But you would probably not call them "Professional" And that my friend where we disagree. Some of the best editors did not go to school for it. And everything you know isn't needed by many of the editors of today. That just makes you a more knowledgeable Editor, not anymore talented or Professional. There is a thousand times more footage being edited today than 15 years ago, and its not film and TV work either! Things have changed dramatically and so has the "Professional" Editor, both in body and in software.


Return to posts index

Walter Soyka
Re: FCPX is not used by professionals and only suitable for editing home movies!
on Oct 23, 2013 at 6:10:36 am

[Craig Shamwell] ""It's not hundreds [of hours] - it's thousands, before you can even consider yourself any good" Herein lies the the Crux of why many "Professional" editors don't like FCPX! Because its easy to learn! Because you can achieve "professional" results without the thousands of hours you speak of."

It doesn't take thousands of hours to learn the software well. It takes thousands of hours to learn to edit well.

This applies to any art or craft, and has next to nothing to do with the actual tools of the trade.

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

Oliver Peters
Re: FCPX is not used by professionals and only suitable for editing home movies!
on Oct 23, 2013 at 12:46:12 pm

[Craig Shamwell] "That is the whole point Oliver that I and others are trying to make with what makes FCPX more than ready for Professional Editors!"

I'm sorry, but I guess we continue to talk past each other. Somehow you seem intent on representing my comments in exactly the opposite way in which I said them. You also seem to characterize me as if I didn't know or understand X. I can only attribute that to your wanting to pick and choose things to reinforce your POV.

I get that you are passionate about X. That's great! But is this the first NLE transition you've gone through? Sure seems like it.

FCP X is simply a tool. It's good at many things and not so good at others. Perfect for some projects and not for others. Once you understand that, you'll see why many professional editors and facilities don't embrace it fully.

- Oliver

Oliver Peters Post Production Services, LLC
Orlando, FL
http://www.oliverpeters.com


Return to posts index

Craig Shamwell
Re: FCPX is not used by professionals and only suitable for editing home movies!
on Oct 23, 2013 at 2:35:28 pm

"The downside to teaching X for these students is that as yet, they don't get software skills that translate well to employment situations. But that's not the focus of the course."

You know Oliver I did read "ALL" that you wrote...again, and Andy's too! And while you seem awfully offended by what I said, you were not with Andy. And after looking at it again...he pretty much is saying the same thing I am saying. Your Statement above is a prime example! A truly talented individual need only watch....and learn. The need for years and years of technical knowledge to shoot, edit and distribute very good and engaging productions are gone!! In my most respectful of opinions for you to be spending any more than 10 percent of your students time on traditional film-making is cheating them. Understanding having enough "tail" on both ends of a clip for good transitions can be taught on NLE's as effective as traditional. (not that that's all you teach). I know when I cut film, just a few times, I thought to myself, 'not many folks know how to do this!' (I have used Roxio,Vegas Pro,Avid,Premiere,Video Toaster,FCP5/6/7, since. But those limitations are gone, and just the other day I was curiously looking up Video Jobs and there are lots of outfits and organizations looking for X experienced editors. More and More every day, along with Motion Artist. Sure, Oliver you said a couple of good things about X, but almost in every breath you "take it back" with a remark like the one above. Dude look, I have nothing but respect for your wealth of knowledge and the time you have put in,( I ahve know doubt you "know" a lot more than I do Technically) but believe me....the time has changed in that to be a very good editor, will depend on mostly one thing...talent! And that again is where we differ! I hated X like everyone when it came out! But I read first then fell right on the Wagon with everyone else. But once I started with it and updates like using the Tilde Key to move and disconnect connected clips, the Magnetic Time Line, literally has me thinking differently as to how I will build my project. And no other editor has made me think about editing in a more intuitive way. And I think this again may be where some of the "Pro's" are irritated. They believe Apple is forcing there way on them with such a timeline and "no Tracks". Which if anyone knows, is not true. You create Tracks as you build. So you know that I am not some crack Oliver...Have you ever edited on a Video Toaster? Its what "TriCaster" used to be and has, basically a trackless timeline too! You can freely place any media anywhere. I clearly remember saying to myself, 'Why doesn't Premiere do this?'(its what I was using at the time) Many Professionals have never used Toaster now TriCaster Products, but they do everything from live production to streaming to recording to editing and effects. You see my point is, the open or trackless timeline is nothing new! And show me anyone complaining using a TriCaster Product and I'll give you a Dollar!? Not claiming to be an expert in the inner workings of any of said Software, I do have enough knowledge to see that Apple has taken the best of some and improved on much to create a much more engaging experience for Creative Video Creation. I believe like the TriCaster, Apple will make FCPX a complete Capture-Production-Deliverly Software Package. Instead of Software, Sony is doing just that with its new All-In-One "Touch" Production System. I would like to know just what kind of Projects you believe are not possible, or should I say "suited" for editing in FCPX?


Return to posts index

Oliver Peters
Re: FCPX is not used by professionals and only suitable for editing home movies!
on Oct 23, 2013 at 3:41:30 pm

[Craig Shamwell] "I would like to know just what kind of Projects you believe are not possible, or should I say "suited" for editing in FCPX?"

You know, they invented something called a paragraph a few centuries ago ;-)

Example 1. Right now, I'm in the process of rebuilding a 24p master from a 29.97i Digibeta with 3:2 pulldown. The master has mixed cadence, so it's not a simple pulldown removal. To do it correctly means slicing & dicing the file using several different corrections, etc. and reconstructing it in-sync. This requires proper pulldown removal tools and tracks. Completely impossible to do in X. Granted, that's a pretty arcane use, but it's what I'm doing right at this moment.

Example 2. Any chromakey that requires custom masking. I can do that in MC, but not in X unless I use third-party plug-ins, all of which are pretty weak for the task.

Example 3. FCP X doesn't handle SD interlaced material very well - especially mixed 480 and 486 content. You can get it right, but it's considerably less functional than FCP7.

Example 4. Any production that requires round-tripping to an outside color correction house using EDLs and trimmed media. You can do it, but it requires round-tripping through other applications in order to relink the media. Main issue - X doesn't allow user-overrides to relink mismatched media.

Example 5. Anything requiring an OMF (yes, you can round-trip through FCP 7, of course).

Example 6. Anything shot on film, requiring info back to a lab or transfer house.

Just off the top of my head.

- Oliver

Oliver Peters Post Production Services, LLC
Orlando, FL
http://www.oliverpeters.com


Return to posts index

Craig Shamwell
Re: FCPX is not used by professionals and only suitable for editing home movies!
on Oct 23, 2013 at 4:55:15 pm

Absolutely understand those situations. And for a time very common ones, but in today's world of iPhones shooting HD VIDEO and Cameras becoming a lot more robust and less expensive, these situations are unique to individuals like you and in less than 5 years most of them won't exist. I am sure there are professional editors out there who would not know how to tackle some of your situations.

For me Oliver I guess its just that my gut strongly feels that what Apple has done with FCPX will be historically and accurately described as REVOLUTIONARY when all is said and done! (I don't work for Apple or have any stock.) It will make it much easier for the standout talent to shine and not be overshadowed by those who "know" how the program works. Its like Apple is saying, we know how it works, lets see what you can do with it! I will probably never digest another tape the rest of my editing lifetime and I am happy for it! But unlike so many who said you couldn't in X anyway, I know that was simply not true! Just being able to drop any kind of media in the timeline and not worry about having to "do" anything makes for much more positive editing mindset for me. And while I, like you, will look at the new editors coming up an say.."you have no idea what it was like 30 years ago", I embrace all the changes that are here and coming to the world of Media Creation!! Again Oliver, I do apologize if you feel I misrepresented your statements. I am very passionate and love the dialogue as it gives me a chance to share my views and possibly help others dare to "see" things a bit differently.


Return to posts index

Oliver Peters
Re: FCPX is not used by professionals and only suitable for editing home movies!
on Oct 23, 2013 at 5:01:04 pm

[Craig Shamwell] "Again Oliver, I do apologize if you feel I misrepresented your statements. I am very passionate and love the dialogue as it gives me a chance to share my views and possibly help others dare to "see" things a bit differently"

Not a problem. Believe it or not, we agree more than disagree on your points. In the end, it's about whatever helps get the job done - hopefully in a fast, fun and creative way. Now, go out and earn some money so you can buy that new Mac Pro!

- Oliver

Oliver Peters Post Production Services, LLC
Orlando, FL
http://www.oliverpeters.com


Return to posts index

Craig Shamwell
Re: FCPX is not used by professionals and only suitable for editing home movies!
on Oct 23, 2013 at 5:05:33 pm

LOL!!! And believe me, when I can I will! With about 64G+ of Memory, It looks to be a monster. And it would be nice to hear your opinion on what may be a potential problem for MACS. The connection of the Thunderbolt Cables! They are just not that secure enough for me like a BNC with the lock. I have had FW400's drop out with minimal pull. Have you heard much in the way of complaints with that connection??


Return to posts index

Oliver Peters
Re: FCPX is not used by professionals and only suitable for editing home movies!
on Oct 23, 2013 at 5:23:42 pm

[Craig Shamwell] "Have you heard much in the way of complaints with that connection??
"


Not too many complaints about Thunderbolt connectors that I've heard, but I do know it's an issue.

- Oliver

Oliver Peters Post Production Services, LLC
Orlando, FL
http://www.oliverpeters.com


Return to posts index

Oliver Peters
Re: FCPX is not used by professionals and only suitable for editing home movies!
on Oct 23, 2013 at 3:46:36 pm

[Craig Shamwell] "Oliver you said a couple of good things about X, but almost in every breath you "take it back" with a remark like the one above"

That's because I try to give it an honest assessment - warts and all.

- Oliver

Oliver Peters Post Production Services, LLC
Orlando, FL
http://www.oliverpeters.com


Return to posts index

Ronny Courtens
Re: FCPX is not used by professionals and only suitable for editing home movies!
on Oct 23, 2013 at 5:54:27 pm

[Craig Shamwell] "Oliver you said a couple of good things about X, but almost in every breath you "take it back" with a remark like the one above"

Oliver does this with any software he talks about, not only with FCPX. That's why I respect his opinion. And I am a huge fan of FCPX. Just like any other NLE it has its weak spots, and only by exposing them can we influence Apple to make the app even better.

- Ronny


Return to posts index

Richard Dee
Re: FCPX is not used by professionals and only suitable for editing home movies!
on Oct 23, 2013 at 7:44:35 pm

First let me say it's a good thing Apple doesn't make pianos. Because if they did, I can imagine a piano lets say, without those pesky black keys. It sure would be easier for people to learn to make music without them, don't you think. And who care' about all those old stodgy pianists, just because they're used to 88 keys.

Reading this thread reminds me of a few things. Many years ago, Showtime Networks here in NYC was using Media 100. It was quite a capable platform, but they had to abandon it simply because they couldn't find the talent to edit. So while X may be capable, the question is will there be enough talent for larger organizations to make it work? I think yes, eventually, but I also feel there will be a great divide. Conde Nast for example, I could see buying hundreds of FCPX licenses, and make that work well for them as publishing moves that direction. A tv network or large production company probably will not go that route.

I started using FCP1 the week it was released, and even a year or two later when I would call post houses to try and get work, some of them would laugh at me calling myself an "FCP editor." Within a short time after that I was getting gigs at those type of facilities, simply because I knew the technology, and they wanted to try it along side their Avid systems. So I could see the same happening with X.

Aside from all the unavailable user features in X, one thing I know I need (not sure if X has this) is the ability to make my own flavor of non standard sequences. I often have to get under the hood of sequences and change the compressor, frame rate, size, etc to deal with issues as they come up. A 720x480 ProRes sequence isn't a standard preset, but I use that all the time. I change compressors often (to re-edit smaller sized web videos at their native resolution, but in ProRes) depending on the stage of production, so for me even loosing that ability is a non starter, let alone things like setting an aux timecode, the timecode window itself, ganging preview windows, etc. These are all things that pros need and often rely on. To simply say that we don't need these tools any longer is a bit arrogant I think. Can you imagine telling your client that they don't need their logo any longer, or that lower thirds are passe because you as the maker don't think they're necessary?

Apple should be taking cues from us as to what we want, not the other way around. I have no problem with them adding new tools and ways of doing things, and simplifying many processes, as long as ALL the old tools are there for use when needed, even if arcane. Apple didn't invent editing, or even the NLE, but it feels to me like they think that way.

If they continued FCP development even minimally, to exist along side FCPX I would have no issues with thier being an additional choice. If there had been modernized tower (with PCIE slots) released to co-exist with the new imac like Mac Pro, I would have no issue. Choice is good.

At one point I was a huge Apple evangelist, (like when they had 2% market share and were almost out of business) Who knew that a fantastically rich and healthy Apple would mean they would not use their amazing wealth to give pros the tools they have requested?


I'm working on a feature script and I wrote a line where a character using a tablet jokes "Do we all get a free Ipad?" I re-read the line, cringed, and immediately re-wrote the line to avoid giving Apple any props. What kind of corporate behavior turns someone like me from a huge advocate to someone who doesn't want to even mention an Apple product in a creative endeavor?

I guess I shouldn't be so bitter. It's not that big a deal - so I have to throw out all the software and all the hardware (large investment in peripherals) I've been using and start again from scratch. Apple knows best.


Return to posts index

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