FORUMS: list search recent posts

To Editors thinking of switching to FCPX 10.1

COW Forums : Apple Final Cut Pro X Debates

<< PREVIOUS   •   VIEW ALL   •   PRINT   •   NEXT >>
james Lackleter
To Editors thinking of switching to FCPX 10.1
on Jan 17, 2014 at 6:04:30 am

Save your self a whole lot of pain and don't purchase the failure of a program. I write this to save you time and hardship, because I've been in editing hell. The following are facts, I will not debate anything as these are facts.

You can not layer audio with WAVE files. This a huge problem and if relatively unknown.

The limiter filter is broken. You will not get an accurate reading of decibels. You'll have to render it out and then view.

You can not export AAF or OMF files without a pricey third party program. Who are you suppose to work with sound engineers without this. You can't. If you're thinking, but I can export to Logic. This leads to...

XML import to Logic Pro X is broken. And by the way OMF has been removed from Logic Pro X. Logic created over 250 tracks upon import. Even worse, NONE of the channel choices you make for surround projects will carry over. Logic Pro X will treat it as a stereo project, and will not carry over effects, rendering any work you do with Logic filters inside FCPX absolutely useless.

More on sound, (yes, this is my favorite) Surround sound channel adjustments do not stick in FCPX. They will change at random.

Now for video. The color correction is awful, don't bother. If you use Davinci good luck. FCPX is constantly changing the XML rendering it useless. One way around this is X27 which will currently import 10.1 into Resolve.

The list goes on, these are the big issues. I hope this persuades anyone thinking of purchasing this. This has been a nightmare for me.


Return to posts index

Tim Wilson
Re: To Editors thinking of switching to FCPX 10.1
on Jan 17, 2014 at 6:55:32 am

Are you speaking about things that have broken in the 10.1 release from earlier versions of FCPX? Or are you saying that someone who is considering moving from FCP 7 should stay put? Both? Something else?

Sorry to be confused, but I'm not quite clear on where in the process you're talking about.


Return to posts index

james Lackleter
Re: To Editors thinking of switching to FCPX 10.1
on Jan 17, 2014 at 8:00:05 am

I don't think FC7 is dead but it will be shortly. And FCPX should fall off the earth. I'm saying avoid FCPX and FC7 in general, but I am gearing this towards younger editors mostly.

And FCPX can be used for a casual user making one track audio, stereo videos etc, but if anyone thinks this is a good program for editing film and television, they are not an editor. And don't understand what an editing suite needs to produce the highest quality A/V.

One more note that's very important to add, the new compressor is just as useless as Logic. No mention or hints of HEVC, 4k output h.264 blocky and dull. Let's not forget Quicktime X which essentially color corrects your footage for you. Stopping before this turns into a rant. Really trying to stick to facts but it get's me pissed.


Return to posts index


Steve Connor
Re: To Editors thinking of switching to FCPX 10.1
on Jan 17, 2014 at 8:51:32 am

[james Lackleter] " but if anyone thinks this is a good program for editing film and television, they are not an editor. And don't understand what an editing suite needs to produce the highest quality A/V."

You can rant all you like but don't throw out insults like that to those of use who use FCPX successfully every day.

Steve Connor

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


Return to posts index

Lillian Young
Re: To Editors thinking of switching to FCPX 10.1
on Feb 14, 2014 at 12:11:41 am

You don't have to convince me. Coming from FCP 7, I jumped fully into FCPX. After several (2+ hour) tutorials, I got it. Ready to edit.

For two months in a row, daily, I worked on 3-4 projects (3 small, one big) in FCPX. I cannot tell you the level of frustration and disappointment (can't lock storylines, workarounds for simple stuff like in/out points to export a section, having to create comps for simple manipulation, buggy audio peaks, etc.)

I want to start a thread but I don't feel like putting myself out there to be stoned by FCPX enthusiasts. Hey, I wanted to love it also. Now I feel like a fool who wasted two months.

So today I tried Premiere and in the first few seconds, it just felt more pro. Being an After Effects animator, the interface was comfortable.

I may go with that or Avid, but FCPX? Only for small, personal projects that I want to apply FCPX-only plugins to.


Return to posts index

james Lackleter
Re: To Editors thinking of switching to FCPX 10.1
on Feb 14, 2014 at 12:43:13 am
Last Edited By james Lackleter on Feb 14, 2014 at 12:47:39 am

Yea the people who post in this forum are enthusiasts. But google search will lead one here into the topic of FCPX. Stick with Avid, if you are a student it's only 300 $ same with Protools. That being said if you insist on using the program many are willing to help on this forum.

Also compound clip will essentially lock it for you if you're still using it.


Return to posts index


Mark Dobson
Re: To Editors thinking of switching to FCPX 10.1
on Jan 17, 2014 at 8:26:29 am

Whilst I would agree with many of the points you make about working with audio in FCPX, especially your experience of attempting to carry out audio work in Logic Pro X, I could not agree with your comments about color correction.

[james Lackleter] "Now for video. The color correction is awful, don't bother. If you use Davinci good luck. FCPX is constantly changing the XML rendering it useless."

Not my experience at all.

Whilst initially I thought that the color correction in in FCPX was was really sub standard I've found it a very powerful part of the application. I know I could learn how to use Resolve but I really like the ability of staying within the application to complete any project. It allow me a greater degree of flexibility.

I film and edit my own material mainly and for the last 2 years have been using a Canon C300, filming in CLog mode. This produces very milky, low contrast unsaturated files to work with. I very rarely ever use the automatic correction function and in combination with the scopes have developed a workflow to manually correct or enhance my clips.

This includes both primary and secondary corrections using the shape or color masks and I find it easier to create multiple corrections rather than try and complete the process in one pass.

What problems are you having with color correction? Possibly you don't like the rectangular color board? I found this very hard initially but again it just takes a bit of time to get used to using it, sort of counter intuitive.


Return to posts index

Lance Bachelder
Re: To Editors thinking of switching to FCPX 10.1
on Jan 17, 2014 at 8:55:32 am

FCPX is such a mixed bag right now. Some pretty cool features here and there but mostly I agree that it is not up to snuff for the work that I do - and I have tried believe me.

The latest update says there are improvements for large projects but it's still so sluggish I sadly find it unusable on my old Mac Pro - though the same exact project in Premiere is not sluggish at all. I just think all the optimizations Apple has done are geared solely toward using the new Mac Pro with dual AMD GPU's and NOT nVidia products.

Lance Bachelder
Writer, Editor, Director
Downtown Long Beach, California
http://www.imdb.com/name/nm1680680/?ref_=fn_al_nm_1


Return to posts index

Darren Roark
Re: To Editors thinking of switching to FCPX 10.1
on Jan 18, 2014 at 6:23:07 pm

Hi Lance,

What GPU do you have in your Mac Pro?


Return to posts index


Lance Bachelder
Re: To Editors thinking of switching to FCPX 10.1
on Jan 19, 2014 at 8:42:08 am

GTX 760

Lance Bachelder
Writer, Editor, Director
Downtown Long Beach, California
http://www.imdb.com/name/nm1680680/?ref_=fn_al_nm_1


Return to posts index

Darren Roark
Re: To Editors thinking of switching to FCPX 10.1
on Jan 19, 2014 at 8:12:17 pm

[Lance Bachelder] "GTX 760"

Got it. I had a PC GTX 680 and had to tinker with the drivers to get it to work well in FCPX in a 2008 MP, but it was great for Premiere & Resolve out of the box. The fix kept breaking with updates so I switched to a 7950 and FCX now works great. Without the fix it was unusably sluggish like you said in other posts.

I'm interested to know if your card has the same issues with FCPX than mine did.


Return to posts index

Lance Bachelder
Re: To Editors thinking of switching to FCPX 10.1
on Jan 20, 2014 at 9:24:03 am

I've been tempted to try the 7950 or even dual 5770's but have to wait until I'm done with the shows I'm working on now. I'm on a 4,1 Mac Pro so the off-the-shelf GTX 760 has no issues with the latest CUDA drivers installed. I'm guessing FCPX is better optimized for AMD and OpenCL now though I wonder how this effects all the iMac owners? They're stuck with nVidia...

Lance Bachelder
Writer, Editor, Director
Downtown Long Beach, California
http://www.imdb.com/name/nm1680680/?ref_=fn_al_nm_1


Return to posts index


Darren Roark
Re: To Editors thinking of switching to FCPX 10.1
on Jan 20, 2014 at 7:23:29 pm

[Lance Bachelder] "I wonder how this effects all the iMac owners? They're stuck with nVidia...
"


Can you run the Luxmark test without getting an error? That was my first clue my GTX680 wasn't fully working.

The weird thing with some PC nvidia cards is that OpenCL needed to be enabled by patching the drivers if they have more than 2GB of memory. My GTX 570 with 1.2GB of ram never had any OpenCL issues and FCP X ran great.

For my 3GB 680, once I installed the CUDA drivers and added them in the txt docs, AE and PP CS6 ran like greased lightning. FCP X was awful until I patched the drivers. Then after an OS update, I'd have to do the whole thing again. I switched to the 7950 before Mavericks so I don't know if this was Mountain Lion only.

My rMBP 15" has the nvidia 650m GPU and runs FCP X great as do the iMacs I work on for clients. What little information I could find in benchmark tests was some nvidia cards have much better OpenCL support than others to favor CUDA capabilities.

Running a single 7950 in the 2008 MP, AE and PP work great and FCP X is a rocket. Other than realtime ray tracing, (which I don't do) I am doing as well or better than I was with my GTX 680.


Return to posts index

Steve Connor
Re: To Editors thinking of switching to FCPX 10.1
on Jan 17, 2014 at 8:57:41 am

[james Lackleter] "XML import to Logic Pro X is broken"

Works fine for me since the latest updates to both programmes

[james Lackleter] "The color correction is awful, don't bother."

In your opinion, for most people who have spent time with FCPX it works very well

[james Lackleter] " If you use Davinci good luck. FCPX is constantly changing the XML rendering it useless. One way around this is X27 which will currently import 10.1 into Resolve. "

There is a very simple workaround for this that doesn't involve X27. XML in FCPX is a work in progress, until it's finished issues like this will happen. I would expect a Resolve update shortly that fixes this.

Steve Connor

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


Return to posts index

Steve Connor
Re: To Editors thinking of switching to FCPX 10.1
on Jan 17, 2014 at 9:50:30 am

[Steve Connor] "[james Lackleter] " If you use Davinci good luck. FCPX is constantly changing the XML rendering it useless. One way around this is X27 which will currently import 10.1 into Resolve. "

There is a very simple workaround for this that doesn't involve X27. XML in FCPX is a work in progress, until it's finished issues like this will happen. I would expect a Resolve update shortly that fixes this.
"


http://forum.blackmagicdesign.com/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=17712

Told you!

Steve Connor

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


Return to posts index


Michael Sanders
Re: To Editors thinking of switching to FCPX 10.1
on Jan 17, 2014 at 9:23:11 am

No you can't export to Protools without an additional programme..

But when FCP X is only £199 and X2Pro is only £99, you can hardly call that pricey - in the professional world I inhabit that's a drinks bill! Even FCP X and Logic X is less than Media Composer alone!

A new version of Resolve should be out any day now that will fix the XML - and don't forget that new version of XML means that changes in colour correction made in FCP X should carry over to Resolve. That's pretty cool.

Like others have said, speak for yourself. There are many other people out there using FCP X on a daily basis, making broadcast ready programmes that go out on major networks.

It might not suite your way of working - but that don't mean its broke.

Michael Sanders
London Based DP/Editor


Return to posts index

james Lackleter
Re: To Editors thinking of switching to FCPX 10.1
on Jan 17, 2014 at 10:56:30 am

I will say for the color correction, that editing programs are not made for color correction, so will let it slide on that. Mark give the resolve manual a read and try using it to correct your log footage, you'll get better results and it's a quick learn. Not to mention lite is free and supports 4k now.

As for everything else I said, it's fact. No rants here. On a more comical note here's a little video my buddies made that sums it up.







Return to posts index

Steve Connor
Re: To Editors thinking of switching to FCPX 10.1
on Jan 17, 2014 at 10:59:54 am

[james Lackleter] "As for everything else I said, it's fact. No rants here. "

"And FCPX can be used for a casual user making one track audio, stereo videos etc, but if anyone thinks this is a good program for editing film and television, they are not an editor. And don't understand what an editing suite needs to produce the highest quality A/V."

So you're saying that's a fact?

Steve Connor

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


Return to posts index

james Lackleter
Re: To Editors thinking of switching to FCPX 10.1
on Jan 17, 2014 at 11:08:38 am

Yes, I'm saying editors don't use FCPX. Not in LA, not in NY. Not for film, not for broadcast. This is a fact.


Return to posts index

Steve Connor
Re: To Editors thinking of switching to FCPX 10.1
on Jan 17, 2014 at 11:13:01 am
Last Edited By Steve Connor on Jan 17, 2014 at 11:13:15 am

[james Lackleter] "Yes, I'm saying editors don't use FCPX. Not in LA, not in NY. Not for film, not for broadcast. This is a fact."

So why did you use it then?

Steve Connor

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


Return to posts index

james Lackleter
Re: To Editors thinking of switching to FCPX 10.1
on Jan 17, 2014 at 11:32:50 am
Last Edited By james Lackleter on Jan 17, 2014 at 11:36:13 am

I bought it day one, returned because of no XML, and unsuitability. Watched it develop. I'm always trying to be ahead of the curve, so I thought why not. I can always transfer to Smoke. But I got stuck in it because of the broken and ever-changing XML.

It's fine, I have a rather funny workaround for this should anyone want to transfer out to Smoke. You can get the Student version free which I think has virtually everything.

I just don't want kids to learn FCPX, Avid, Smoke, Prem. These are what professionals use. Davinci Resolve and Scratch for color.

The whole apple line is being weeded out and rightly so. Quality and stability trumps all.


Return to posts index

Michael Sanders
Re: To Editors thinking of switching to FCPX 10.1
on Jan 17, 2014 at 11:35:44 am

Except one that's not proven as there, from various post I have read around the web - and on here - professional editors in NY, LA and London using FCP X on a daily basis to create broadcast work.

Michael Sanders
London Based DP/Editor


Return to posts index

james Lackleter
Re: To Editors thinking of switching to FCPX 10.1
on Jan 17, 2014 at 11:42:23 am

That's just not true. Not in LA and not in NY, not in London. Some news outlets use it, the reporters can edit because it's easy to use. Internet yes, Broadcast and film, no.

And let me just say, I'm sure the program has been used to cut stuff that has appeared on television. But I'm talking about major primetime, studio films, even indie it's not used. I'm an Indie NY/LA mainly based director, indie film absolutely does not FCPX.


Return to posts index

Michael Sanders
Re: To Editors thinking of switching to FCPX 10.1
on Jan 17, 2014 at 11:48:46 am

Er... you might want to double check your facts first.

BBC 2's The Culture Show has been cut on FCP X almost exclusively since the start of 2013. According to the senior editor who posts here occasionally. If that has changed I think its down to politics at the BBC rather than problems with the SW.

If you read between the lines of Larry Jordans Amsterdam Supermeet keynote , there is a multi million dollar movie currently begin cut on X - and doing well and quickly thanks to programs like Sync and Link from IA.

Michael Sanders
London Based DP/Editor


Return to posts index

james Lackleter
Re: To Editors thinking of switching to FCPX 10.1
on Jan 17, 2014 at 12:56:40 pm

Last post on this thread for me because I've stated the facts for which are undeniably true. I mean I barely touched the tip of the iceberg, I could go one for pages. To all of the young ones who read this, and to the one person I convince to go with Avid, Prem, or Smoke. You're welcome and God's speed.


Return to posts index

Steve Connor
Re: To Editors thinking of switching to FCPX 10.1
on Jan 17, 2014 at 1:00:51 pm

[james Lackleter] "Last post on this thread for me because I've stated the facts for which are undeniably true. I mean I barely touched the tip of the iceberg, I could go one for pages. To all of the young ones who read this, and to the one person I convince to go with Avid, Prem, or Smoke. You're welcome and God's speed.
"


Please stay and go on for ages, plenty of troll food here for you

Steve Connor

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


Return to posts index

John Phillips
Re: To Editors thinking of switching to FCPX 10.1
on Jan 17, 2014 at 2:33:13 pm

Not sure what this person is intending by starting this thread, but to add another "fact" - I regularly add at least a dozen layered and processed .wav files to my FCPX 10.1 projects without any problem.

Fact!

John


Return to posts index

Marcus Moore
Re: To Editors thinking of switching to FCPX 10.1
on Jan 17, 2014 at 2:54:18 pm

Did I have a stroke? Is this 2011?



Return to posts index

Steve Connor
Re: To Editors thinking of switching to FCPX 10.1
on Jan 17, 2014 at 3:21:26 pm

[Marcus Moore] "Did I have a stroke? Is this 2011"

Looks like it

Steve Connor

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


Return to posts index

Mark Raudonis
Re: To Editors thinking of switching to FCPX 10.1
on Jan 17, 2014 at 2:58:48 pm

I regularly interview freelance editors in the LA market looking for work in Reality TV. I always make a point of asking them about "X". "Do you know it?", I ask. "Do you like it?, I enquire. "Do you know anyone who uses it?"

Inevitably, they make a face like someone just farted!

That's a fact!



Return to posts index

Ty Vann
Re: To Editors thinking of switching to FCPX 10.1
on Jan 17, 2014 at 3:07:10 pm

LA certainly is a great barometer of the rest of the world.


Return to posts index

Marcus Moore
Re: To Editors thinking of switching to FCPX 10.1
on Jan 17, 2014 at 3:12:24 pm

Thanks Mark, as ever, for your stirling and unbiased opinion.

If you'd asked people the same question about Premier 5 years ago (and maybe sooner) I'd wager you'd have gotten the same response.



Return to posts index

Craig Seeman
Re: To Editors thinking of switching to FCPX 10.1
on Jan 17, 2014 at 3:58:58 pm

Posts as such from the OP (and a few others) are so far out in that they air their own personal failures assuming the entire industry is in agreement, that I can't help but think they're being "encouraged" from other sources to spread FUD.

I guess one would have to believe Sam Mestman has never used or helped install FCPX anywhere and that Alex Van Hurkman really wants to waste his time at an event for FCPX based services in Los Angeles, where everyone resolutely refuses to use the FCPX "toy."

Surely these are misguided people opening in a city that despises this NLE.

Or maybe they have some idea of the functionality and potential market for FCPX the OP can't fathom (and the OP tries to persuade others of it).

http://www.fcpworks.com/special_event/



Return to posts index

Lance Bachelder
Re: To Editors thinking of switching to FCPX 10.1
on Jan 17, 2014 at 7:23:32 pm

Sam Mestman is NOT Walter Murch - he's just another starving LA filmmaker trying to find a niche. He may think FCPX is ready for primetime but others, including myself, who have actually cut and managed TV series and movies etc disagree. But that's LA, NY and London may be more open to throwing away decades of workflow and starting over with an inferior product.

Lance Bachelder
Writer, Editor, Director
Downtown Long Beach, California
http://www.imdb.com/name/nm1680680/?ref_=fn_al_nm_1


Return to posts index

Craig Seeman
Re: To Editors thinking of switching to FCPX 10.1
on Jan 17, 2014 at 7:39:20 pm

[Lance Bachelder] "Sam Mestman is NOT Walter Murch"

I'm not sure that workflow design and implementation is the same profession as feature film editor.

[Lance Bachelder] "he's just another starving LA filmmaker trying to find a niche."

From what I understand he's a consultant who does workflow implementation although he's certainly done other things.

Seems that's what is background has been a lumaforge.
http://www.lumaforge.com/styled/index.html

Perhaps starving people like to eat and he sees unexploited opportunity.



Return to posts index

Lance Bachelder
Re: To Editors thinking of switching to FCPX 10.1
on Jan 17, 2014 at 9:37:10 pm

The point was that folks are talking about these seminars like it's an uber event that has all of Hollywood clamoring to get a seat. It's just another company trying to make a buck and hoping FCPX is their ticket. It may be, but it's not Promax all over again. We bought our first Promax system 6 weeks after the release of FCP 1 at NAB 99 and starting doing pro work on it immediately. It's been over 2 years now and there's still a bunch of hucksters trying to sell training and system integration by trying to convince the world that FCPX is the bees knees - which it is not.... yet.

Lance Bachelder
Writer, Editor, Director
Downtown Long Beach, California
http://www.imdb.com/name/nm1680680/?ref_=fn_al_nm_1


Return to posts index

David Lawrence
Re: To Editors thinking of switching to FCPX 10.1
on Jan 18, 2014 at 5:04:55 am

[Marcus Moore] "If you'd asked people the same question about Premier 5 years ago (and maybe sooner) I'd wager you'd have gotten the same response."

Five years ago it would have been the right response. IMHO, Premiere Pro wasn't ready for prime time until CS6. CC is even better, but I'd sooner start using the magnetic timeline before I rent software! ;)

_______________________
David Lawrence
art~media~design~research
propaganda.com
publicmattersgroup.com
facebook.com/dlawrence
twitter.com/dhl
vimeo.com/dlawrence/albums


Return to posts index

Marcus Moore
Re: To Editors thinking of switching to FCPX 10.1
on Jan 18, 2014 at 1:59:24 pm

It just amazes me how short people's memories are. Things change. If they didn't, FCP Legacy never would have gained any prominence 10 years ago. Premier wouldn't be gaining any traction today. Some people never would have moved back to AVID... The only way X doesn't continue to grow and make inroads is for Apple to walk away from it- and from what I've heard they have NO intention of doing that.



Return to posts index

Lance Bachelder
Re: To Editors thinking of switching to FCPX 10.1
on Jan 17, 2014 at 6:26:10 pm

I agree Mark - other than John D's promo company, I don't know a single Editor or post house here in LA that uses X. I'm cutting a comedy pilot right now and all the "kids" at the studio tried X and hated it. The show I'm cutting was started in FCP7 and xml'd over to Premiere CC where I took over. I did XML it over to X just to try to cut it there but it's got so many issues - black clips that can never be relinked, no way to simply match frame or right-click and replace a clip in the timeline and even with all the improvements it's still sluggish on an 8 core old Mac Pro with Library residing on its own SSD.

That said - I still think Apple will get X right in the near future and I'm sure it runs great on the new Mac Pro using all Pro Res files and starting the show correctly in X

Lance Bachelder
Writer, Editor, Director
Downtown Long Beach, California
http://www.imdb.com/name/nm1680680/?ref_=fn_al_nm_1


Return to posts index

Richard Herd
Re: To Editors thinking of switching to FCPX 10.1
on Jan 17, 2014 at 9:52:40 pm

Hey-ya Mark, who knew editing was a fashion industry?! And what label is on their jeans ;)


Return to posts index

willy pimentel
Re: To Editors thinking of switching to FCPX 10.1
on Jan 17, 2014 at 6:23:18 pm

James, i think u need some training and better some wine to release strees..
Other are are very happy in broadcast... Come to happy land.. Lol


Return to posts index

Aindreas Gallagher
Re: To Editors thinking of switching to FCPX 10.1
on Jan 19, 2014 at 10:06:00 pm

[Michael Sanders] "Er... you might want to double check your facts first.

BBC 2's The Culture Show has been cut on FCP X almost exclusively since the start of 2013. According to the senior editor who posts here occasionally. If that has changed I think its down to politics at the BBC rather than problems with the SW.

If you read between the lines of Larry Jordans Amsterdam Supermeet keynote , there is a multi million dollar movie currently begin cut on X - and doing well and quickly thanks to programs like Sync and Link from IA.
"


I'm not going to overstate this, but both those examples are open to interpretation - craig slattery cuts at a high level freelance on X - i'm not sure the show is a predominantly X cut show. Say bullshitting that I spoke with a workflow dude who visited most of the BBC sites on a form of d.i.t. workflow reconnoiter for the higher brass, as far as i can understand, FCPX effectively does not currently exist within the BBC.
In any context or scenario pertaining to their concerns regarding new media workflow.
Nor does it in SKY for instance, or within Soho in any shape or form. the fcp.dot.one guys are weirdly interesting, given all their testimonial examples are years old and relate to 7. Including places like UNIT and VIASAT where I've periodically knocked around. UNIT were notable for having had a locked keycode door for the apple room where they cut the localised apple ads. UNIT were an FCP7 house. UNIT are not an FCPX house.

As to the hundred million dollar film - on some level, the less said about Larry Jordan's PT Barnum show in Amsterdam the better. I'm grinding a saw there though. its not like X can't do it - but where he went with that demo is arguably dodgy. And the guy he cited, mestman, after his FCP.CO splash is, I hear, launching a motivational tour and X merchandise range.

http://vimeo.com/user1590967/videos http://www.ogallchoir.net promo producer/editor.grading/motion graphics


Return to posts index

Michael Sanders
Re: To Editors thinking of switching to FCPX 10.1
on Jan 19, 2014 at 10:40:56 pm

According to what he has posted here, it's the majority of the show but what the hell does he know, he's only the senior editor. You are obviously better informed than he is.

I'd suggest you search the posts here ..

Also FWIW, not that you seem to care about the real world but Knut Hake appears to be cutting "Dani lowinski" a German primtime Sat 1show on X - according to his twitter feed.

Michael Sanders
London Based DP/Editor


Return to posts index

Aindreas Gallagher
Re: To Editors thinking of switching to FCPX 10.1
on Jan 19, 2014 at 10:46:27 pm

sure - I definitely didn't realise he was the senior editor for the series - that's very interesting - he had some arguments with other senior avid based BBC editors on here about FCPX. they were extremely forthright with him. I'm a lowly corpo guy largely. I had some arguments with craig too on some stuff.

http://vimeo.com/user1590967/videos http://www.ogallchoir.net promo producer/editor.grading/motion graphics


Return to posts index

Michael Sanders
Re: To Editors thinking of switching to FCPX 10.1
on Jan 19, 2014 at 11:06:50 pm

Sorry Aindreas - deepest apologies I was a bit presumptions and confused .. I Didn't read who posted that msg. I thought it was the OP!

Michael Sanders
London Based DP/Editor


Return to posts index

Aindreas Gallagher
Re: To Editors thinking of switching to FCPX 10.1
on Jan 19, 2014 at 11:27:35 pm

my ass. hey - I am a lowly corpo guy. you just can't beat the cheap seats in here. Craig slattery also got support from some beeb cutters in scotland.

but the bit about no X in the walkabout workflow survey is true afaik. that actually is horses mouth.
on the other hand, apparently they're getting external directorial talent at all levels hitting them with 4-5K capture like its going out of style - that's apparently a real issue given they can't control the scenario - and them just after blowing truly crazy money to no effect on the failed digital workflow archive initiative thing.

X does seem to do pretty well at 4K with off the shelf hardware last I heard.

http://vimeo.com/user1590967/videos http://www.ogallchoir.net promo producer/editor.grading/motion graphics


Return to posts index

Steve Connor
Re: To Editors thinking of switching to FCPX 10.1
on Jan 20, 2014 at 12:46:30 am

[Aindreas Gallagher] "X does seem to do pretty well at 4K with off the shelf hardware last I heard.
"


Cutting 4K XAVC all day on it at the moment, plays very nicely on my old 2008 Mac Pro, lots of realtime CC.

Steve Connor

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


Return to posts index

John Davidson
Re: To Editors thinking of switching to FCPX 10.1
on Jan 18, 2014 at 2:41:37 am

[james Lackleter] "Yes, I'm saying editors don't use FCPX. Not in LA, not in NY. Not for film, not for broadcast. This is a fact.
"


I feel like Marty McFly when his hand started becoming invisible.

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


Return to posts index

Nikolas Bäurle
Re: To Editors thinking of switching to FCPX 10.1
on Jan 17, 2014 at 4:18:12 pm

I'm sorry, but using that Conan youtube video (sooo old) shows you don't really know how to use X yet.

There are plenty of things Apple needs to improve, but most of the ones you mention work very well.

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



Return to posts index

Ty Vann
Re: To Editors thinking of switching to FCPX 10.1
on Jan 17, 2014 at 3:05:24 pm

This OP is so funny. He actually believes that by airing his own failings with FCPX, he is doing everyone a favor. Thanks, but no thanks. FCPX does EVERYTHING I need in a modern EDL, and I make good money with it.


Return to posts index

Daniel Frome
Re: To Editors thinking of switching to FCPX 10.1
on Jan 17, 2014 at 3:11:58 pm

Think of it this way... just stop caring about XML, audio levels, standard color correction .. in ANY of the top NLEs and you suddenly gain that same efficiency of FCPX :)


Return to posts index

Steve Connor
Re: To Editors thinking of switching to FCPX 10.1
on Jan 17, 2014 at 3:17:13 pm

[Daniel Frome] "just stop caring about XML,"

Seems to work fine to Resolve and logic for me

[Daniel Frome] "audio levels"

Are you saying you can't set correct audio levels?

[Daniel Frome] " standard color correction "

How terrible, the colour board isn't standard, despite the fact it works as well as other NLE's CC

Steve Connor

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


Return to posts index

Ty Vann
Re: To Editors thinking of switching to FCPX 10.1
on Jan 17, 2014 at 3:33:01 pm

guess you have never heard of how resolve or pro tools for finishing and you'd use them with FCPX?


Return to posts index

Bret Williams
Re: To Editors thinking of switching to FCPX 10.1
on Jan 17, 2014 at 4:10:42 pm

I'm no grammatical expert but something isn't quite right with that sentence.


Return to posts index

Ty Vann
Re: To Editors thinking of switching to FCPX 10.1
on Jan 18, 2014 at 2:08:19 am

No capitalization? :)


Return to posts index

Nikolas Bäurle
Re: To Editors thinking of switching to FCPX 10.1
on Jan 17, 2014 at 4:28:04 pm

What exactly doesn't work for you? Audio levels? Works like any other NLE. XML works very well... and whats wrong with color correction, other that you can't keyframe it yet. With the color board you can do the same correctios as with a 3-way color corrector

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



Return to posts index

Patrice Freymond
Re: To Editors thinking of switching to FCPX 10.1
on Jan 17, 2014 at 7:27:02 pm

Ah yes, but Nikolas, you - like me - are not in LA or NY or London, therefore you don't exist. Therefore you can't be an editor, period. ;-)

Funny thing is though, we have 5 FCPX suites here chugging out broadcast programs every day, including multicam, 5.1 and lots of audio post done on ProTools... and this is all for a national network...

and imagine that: I thought I'd been an editor for 33 years...but since I use FCPX daily, it must be a figment of my imagination...

sad, very sad...

P.F.


Return to posts index

Nikolas Bäurle
Re: To Editors thinking of switching to FCPX 10.1
on Jan 17, 2014 at 8:30:59 pm
Last Edited By Nikolas Bäurle on Jan 17, 2014 at 8:34:51 pm

Patrice, thanks for reminding me! FCPX editors (especially those European ones) are amateurs, of course, we love earning money just for fun! So we really are unemployed after all, it's just a hobby...:-))

[Patrice Freymond] "and imagine that: I thought I'd been an editor for 33 years...but since I use FCPX daily, it must be a figment of my imagination..."

Are you sure you are using FCPX?... Did you take the blue pill or the red pill?

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



Return to posts index

tony west
Re: To Editors thinking of switching to FCPX 10.1
on Jan 17, 2014 at 9:12:39 pm

Speaking of LA, it reminds me of a Documentary called Side be Side produced by Keanu Reeves.

I'm sure many of you may have seen it. it's about the changing technology in the film industry.

It couldn't be more LA, as Reeves interviews some of the top film makers in the biz.

Scorsese, Cameron, Fincher, Soderbergh, Lucas and more.

I enjoyed watching the film but one thing caught my eye.
The camera they were shooting with.

It looked to be a low priced fixed lens 1/3 chip camera. Maybe the HPX250

Huh??????????

No Red? No Alexa?

This wasn't some cut away camera, it was the A camera.

It baffled me. The whole film is about some of the best camera's in the world yet they were shooting with this lower end camera.

I'm sure Reeves has more money and Hollywood access than anybody that would post on a site like this.
He could get any camera he wanted.

But it occurred to me, it didn't really matter what kind of camera he used.

He told the story well. Whatever he was using

We like to focus on equipment and that's cool but try to catch that film if you get a chance.

Kind of puts things into perspective $


Return to posts index

Richard Herd
Re: To Editors thinking of switching to FCPX 10.1
on Jan 17, 2014 at 9:51:01 pm

[tony west] "But it occurred to me, it didn't really matter what kind of camera he used.

He told the story well. Whatever he was using"


Yes.


Return to posts index

Petros Kolyvas
Re: To Editors thinking of switching to FCPX 10.1
on Jan 17, 2014 at 8:18:27 pm

[james Lackleter] "XML import to Logic Pro X is broken."
It is buggy with compound clips. Broken no; improvement required, yes.

[james Lackleter] "And by the way OMF has been removed from Logic Pro X. "
Where did you get that idea? Apple, in their wisdom (and I think it was in this case), simplified it, by allowing you to import OMF and AAF without requiring the user to explicitly select which format they're importing. Have a look here for some pie: https://www.apple.com/ca/logic-pro/specs/ (under compatibility) I've had no real issues importing AAF or OMF from applications that properly export it. Sometimes Logic does a better job than PT!

[james Lackleter] "You can not layer audio with WAVE files."
I don't do my audio mixing in FCP X, but I have no trouble laying lots of audio. WAV or AIFF. I do normalize (in the format sense, not the audio-level sense) all my audio files to 16 or 24-bit 48k beforehand though.

My very-brief-story:

I was pushed back to FCP X after the Adobe CC debacle, being pushed to CS5.5 during the FCP 7 debacle. So it goes. Theres a lot to dislike about FCP X; but there's a lot more to like and for every time I think, I wish this worked differently, I have at least twice as many moments of "I like the way this works."

--
There is no intuitive interface, not even the nipple. It's all learned. - Bruce Ediger


Return to posts index

Oliver Peters
Re: To Editors thinking of switching to FCPX 10.1
on Jan 18, 2014 at 12:45:18 am

I'll extend a benefit of the doubt for the OP, but this is certainly a pretty goofy post and a bit of RTFM might be in order ;-) Maybe he just tried to use X and had serious issues to set this rant off. Been there too at times.

[james Lackleter] "You can not layer audio with WAVE files."

I'm not sure what that means. The film I'm currently cutting has multichannel WAVE files attached to each clip. No problem. Yes, there is limited mixing compared to other NLEs, but how it mixes is more a matter of taste.

[james Lackleter] "The limiter filter is broken."

The limiter is fine, but must be applied to a compound clip, not a single file. In an individual channel, it is applied before volume, which isn't good. So if you want to compress a stereo mix, for instance, you have to mix without the compressor, then compound that and apply a limiter to the compound. Not the way I like to work, but not broken, either.

[james Lackleter] "You can not export AAF or OMF files without a pricey third party program. "

$99 is pricey for a specialized tool?! You've got to be joking. Especially since Avid used to charge $500 to add this function to ProTools.

[james Lackleter] "XML import to Logic Pro X is broken. "

I think that was fixed with FCP X 10.1, although I haven't tested it.

[james Lackleter] "The color correction is awful, don't bother. If you use Davinci good luck. FCPX is constantly changing the XML rendering it useless. "

I believe the Resolve issue has been fixed with R10.1, but again, I haven't tested. As far as correction in X, this is by far one of the best grading subsets on any NLE, in terms of speed, performance and best of all, image quality. I use Symphony, Color, Resolve, but also have done grading in FCP "legacy" (for delivery of feature films and to HBO) as well as with X. I can stack numerous layers of grading in X's color board and maintain real-time playback. Augment it with a few extra tools, like Nattress Curves, Hawaiki Color, CGC LUT Utility and/or Lawn Road Color Precision and you've got a powerful grading environment.

Whether or not professional editors are using X depends on your market. If you step away from LA and NY, you might discover a lot more openness to other approaches, where both FCP X and Premiere Pro CC are the tools of choice, far more than Avid Media Composer. And let's not get too carried away about feature film editors. "Inside Llewyn Davis" was cut with FCP 7 and "The Wolf of Wall Street" with Lightworks.

- Oliver

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


Return to posts index

james Lackleter
Re: To Editors thinking of switching to FCPX 10.1
on Jan 18, 2014 at 8:19:52 am

In a science we use facts to back arguments, not insults. I've explained the wave problem earlier, I was the one who discovered it. I've poked this programs with more holes than swiss chess. To any would be editors, just look at the credits of those who discourage you from using X.

Just another note, if you use X you will not get hired in NY, LA, or London.

Avid, Prem, Smoke.


Return to posts index

Steve Connor
Re: To Editors thinking of switching to FCPX 10.1
on Jan 18, 2014 at 8:29:21 am

James, I think most young Editors know that they need to know a range of tools, not just FCPX.
FYI you started the insults as you continued to do in your last post, Please try making your points without them.

Steve Connor

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


Return to posts index

Nikolas Bäurle
Re: To Editors thinking of switching to FCPX 10.1
on Jan 18, 2014 at 9:47:59 am

[james Lackleter] "Just another note, if you use X you will not get hired in NY, LA, or London."

That doesn't make sense. If you ONLY knew how to use X then that would be the case. And in that case you probably haven't been an editor for very long.

James, are you aware that most people posting here have been editors for quite some time and actually know how to use other NLEs as well? I still make most of my money (90%) on Avid and Legacy, that doesn't mean X is a bad software, because funny enough I actually prefer using X, sorry about that.

[james Lackleter] "I've poked this programs with more holes than swiss chess"

Based on what you have been posting I still feel that you don't know or haven't started understanding X...or simply refuse to like it.
Mastering a software takes time, not just looking at it once in a while and only trying to find bugs. Most editors at the places I work for have never really dealt with X, but alway have big opinions. And most of them have never actually finished a single project on it...

Your advice to young editors is very biased, and you won't be helping anybody that way. Most young editors won't be getting jobs in LA, NY or London... and most won't be getting those High End Broadcasting jobs either.

You keep on using the word "fact" but I have a feeling you're ignoring the post disagreeing with you from people who are making a very good living with X. Oh, sorry, according to you, people using X don't have a clue what their doing... The only fact of your's that I would agree with is that X isn't an established software yet, but that has absolutely nothing to do with its quality.

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



Return to posts index

james Lackleter
Re: To Editors thinking of switching to FCPX 10.1
on Jan 18, 2014 at 10:43:43 am

I use the word fact because that's what they are. If someone chooses to use it knowing those original statements, then gods speed. It's my opinion it's still in beta condition, and the only thing that is good and works is red code.


Return to posts index

Nikolas Bäurle
Re: To Editors thinking of switching to FCPX 10.1
on Jan 18, 2014 at 12:10:37 pm

excuse me, it only handles red code well? Simply not true.

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



Return to posts index

Scott Witthaus
Re: To Editors thinking of switching to FCPX 10.1
on Jan 18, 2014 at 12:27:19 pm
Last Edited By Scott Witthaus on Jan 18, 2014 at 12:28:26 pm

[james Lackleter] "The list goes on, these are the big issues. I hope this persuades anyone thinking of purchasing this. This has been a nightmare for me."

Thank god you're here to guide the world on this topic. Exactly what type of "professional" work do you do and how does that qualify you to guide the rest of us?

Any "professional" who has been around a while can write a post like this for Avid, Premiere, Smoke, Flame...

Nothing to see here....move along...

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


Return to posts index

Andre van Berlo
Re: To Editors thinking of switching to FCPX 10.1
on Jan 18, 2014 at 1:08:10 pm

I'm not an editor, don't know any editors, nor am I living in LA, NY, or London...

But here's a thought:

I do know that answers to questions depends on the one who asks them and/or how the answer reflects on the person answering the question.

When my mum asked if I took a cookie I would say no, simply because I knew she wouldn't like it if I did.

If I would be an editor using a program that has been bashed for 2+ years by an entire industry, would I put my credibility on the line by telling people I use it?

It'll take time for it to be accepted. Some are apparently more open and yes I believe that perhaps no serious in La editor is using it. But the reason why doesn't necessarily have to do with the program itself but more the "general opinion" about that piece of software.

Like I said, I'm no pro, but there is also some psychology at work. Just look at how this thread "exploded". :-)

Just a thought...


Return to posts index

Nikolas Bäurle
Re: To Editors thinking of switching to FCPX 10.1
on Jan 18, 2014 at 1:57:50 pm

[Andre van Berlo] "If I would be an editor using a program that has been bashed for 2+ years by an entire industry, would I put my credibility on the line by telling people I use it?"

This is probably true for young editors starting out, but it also depends what part of the media industry they want to work in. I don't see why this would be an issue for any experienced editor.

In my experience most editors in the industry in Germany don't like FCPX, especially since they haven't really used it, and most larger companies don't take it seriously yet.

However, I haven't lost any credibility by telling people I like it. Why? Because producers see what I can do.
As a freelance editor I can use the software I like when I edit at my home studio, but need to be proficient in other NLEs to get jobs, that's always been the case and will never change.

[Andre van Berlo] " Some are apparently more open and yes I believe that perhaps no serious in La editor is using it."

But what constitutes a "serious editor." Anybody making a living editing is a serious editor. And there are plenty of people not involved in film working and living in LA. Film and Large Broadcast Editors aren't better, they might be considered better by many, since we are judged on the quality of the content we edit which has less to do with skills, but the connections one has.

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



Return to posts index

Andre van Berlo
Re: To Editors thinking of switching to FCPX 10.1
on Jan 18, 2014 at 2:10:58 pm

I definitely agree with you about the "serious editor" thing. I used those words because some here seem to think the only serious editors live in a certain place and do certain things.

I'm not so sure only young editors would be anxious telling others they like 'X'. I understand you don't mind but that doesn't necessarily go for all pro's out there.

But I'm not in the industry so I'll have to take anyone's word for it in the end :-)


Return to posts index

Oliver Peters
Re: To Editors thinking of switching to FCPX 10.1
on Jan 18, 2014 at 3:31:31 pm

I guess the puzzling part is why someone feels the urge to warn everyone else away from the software. Clearly a bad experience, but what else? Bug complaints are certainly legitimate, but honestly there isn't one piece of software that any of us use that isn't subject to the claim that it's really just "beta". For instance, AMA in Avid Media Composer is great for some and completely unreliable for others, because it has been evolving over several software versions.

Oliver

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


Return to posts index

Nikolas Bäurle
Re: To Editors thinking of switching to FCPX 10.1
on Jan 18, 2014 at 4:16:02 pm

[Oliver Peters] "I guess the puzzling part is why someone feels the urge to warn everyone else away from the software. Clearly a bad experience, but what else? "

For the same reason FCPX editors like spreading the word, people who don't like it have the need to spread their opinions, especially since many still feel deeply hurt by Apple for killing Legacy, even though it still works. But many still want a better version of Legacy.

I find it interesting when people spend time making a software look bad, but don't really know how to use it, and don't need to use it. Wouldn't it be better spending time telling other people what software you recommend and like using without trying to make others look bad? I think its the fear of something different, and the uncertainty that perhaps you might at some point not be taken seriously anymore.

Or there really is an agenda behind some of it. Gettin payed to spread the word.

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



Return to posts index

Walter Soyka
Re: To Editors thinking of switching to FCPX 10.1
on Jan 18, 2014 at 4:45:14 pm

[Craig Seeman] "Posts as such from the OP (and a few others) are so far out in that they air their own personal failures assuming the entire industry is in agreement, that I can't help but think they're being "encouraged" from other sources to spread FUD."

[Nikolas Bäurle] "Or there really is an agenda behind some of it. Gettin payed to spread the word."

These are very big accusations to toss around so lightly. Anyone you care to implicate besides James?

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: To Editors thinking of switching to FCPX 10.1
on Jan 18, 2014 at 4:48:19 pm

Agreed. It sounds pretty harsh. Especially when we've all been guilty of posting comments after something in a given piece of software burned us. I prefer to avoid conspiracy theories. ;-)

- Oliver

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


Return to posts index

james Lackleter
Re: To Editors thinking of switching to FCPX 10.1
on Jan 18, 2014 at 4:47:00 pm
Last Edited By james Lackleter on Jan 18, 2014 at 4:49:01 pm

You nailed it, I work for Adobe, Autodesk, and Avid... They pay me to mar Apple brands. Look, all I'm trying to do is save people time and energy. Many young ones may think because Final Cut 7 has a pristine name and is great program, that FCPX is too. It's not, and it's important for people to know this. I think what's most important is why do these issues exist, why have they not been fixed. I'm dumbfounded as how anyone could buy this program and not be furious over the issues I've pointed out.


Return to posts index

Steve Connor
Re: To Editors thinking of switching to FCPX 10.1
on Jan 18, 2014 at 5:05:08 pm

[james Lackleter] " I'm dumbfounded as how anyone could buy this program and not be furious over the issues I've pointed out."

Because many of the issues you pointed out, as others have pointed out, aren't issues despite your attempts to label them as 'facts"

As for the surround panning problem it's not an issue because most of us don't even attempt surround mixes in their NLE.

Steve Connor

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


Return to posts index

Charlie Austin
Re: To Editors thinking of switching to FCPX 10.1
on Jan 18, 2014 at 5:29:49 pm

[Steve Connor] "[james Lackleter] " I'm dumbfounded as how anyone could buy this program and not be furious over the issues I've pointed out."

Because many of the issues you pointed out, as others have pointed out, aren't issues despite your attempts to label them as 'facts""


Exactly. IF the post had been presented as "here are some issues I have with FCPX and why i don't like it" It would've been fine. And I actually agree that FCP X is not a very full featured DAW. Which is OK with me since it isn't a DAW.

It is, however, a very nice NLE which I, a "hollywood". editor really enjoy using. The problem with the post is the "warning" to "young" editors that people with "credits" think X is crap. And that the people who do use it and have "credits" don't have the proper type of "credits" to be taken seriously. It's pretty silly.

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

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


Return to posts index

Oliver Peters
Re: To Editors thinking of switching to FCPX 10.1
on Jan 18, 2014 at 5:05:32 pm

[james Lackleter] "Many young ones may think because Final Cut 7 has a pristine name and is great program, that FCPX is too."

I would hardly consider FCP 7 as pristine and free from problems. It is, however, fairly mature at this point. But that was never the case in earlier versions. And, there are still plenty of gotchas today that remain.

In any case, Apple is playing the long game with FCP X, so anyone using it today is on the bleeding edge of a growing and improving application; but, also one that takes a completely new approach to the way users edit media.

There's no way to know today, whether history will repeat itself. If it does, then five years from now, you'll wish you had invested some time with X. Nevertheless, that doesn't preclude knowing (and being good with) FCP 7, Premiere Pro and/or Media Composer if you are in a job market where those skills are essential. But, it's also fair to say, that as popular as FCP 7 became, it never dominated the top-most tier of film and television editing, which stayed with Media Composer, and still does today.

- Oliver

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


Return to posts index

Steve Connor
Re: To Editors thinking of switching to FCPX 10.1
on Jan 18, 2014 at 5:10:16 pm

[Oliver Peters] "In any case, Apple is playing the long game with FCP X, so anyone using it today is on the bleeding edge of a growing and improving application; but, also one that takes a completely new approach to the way users edit media."

Very true, let's remember FCPX is the newest NLE on the market and it has improved faster than any other NLE I have seen over the last twenty years. How long did it take Adobe to make PPro as good as it is?

Steve Connor

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


Return to posts index

Aindreas Gallagher
Re: To Editors thinking of switching to FCPX 10.1
on Jan 19, 2014 at 10:39:35 pm

[Steve Connor] "Very true, let's remember FCPX is the newest NLE on the market and it has improved faster than any other NLE I have seen over the last twenty years. "

has it really? where was that software coming from anyway? it just took them a year to come up with a library container. We've got a company half literally reshaping human computing - that is now attached to editing by something like sentiment if we're being honest.

then we've got another company suddenly highly motivated to produce permanent rental extraction for a working lifetime, and then we've got another company that used to know how to squeeze money until the pips squeak - in a financial meltdown and getting de-listed from the NASDAQ.

so everyone gets three market providers for 99% of editing software positions in the field: a capricious god, a fresh loan shark, and a really angry old man, wearing horribly old clothing.

superb, just - superb.

http://vimeo.com/user1590967/videos http://www.ogallchoir.net promo producer/editor.grading/motion graphics


Return to posts index

Steve Connor
Re: To Editors thinking of switching to FCPX 10.1
on Jan 19, 2014 at 11:19:08 pm

[Aindreas Gallagher] "has it really?"

Yes it has, I know it's hard to hear.


[Aindreas Gallagher] "then we've got another company suddenly highly motivated to produce permanent rental extraction for a working lifetime,"

I know it's painful for you, Adobe should have come in and saved us all from Apple's casual disregard for editing convention, but they ended up changing things in their own way.

BTW PPro CC is very good, I wouldn't be surprised at all if it became the NLE of choice for all the FCP holdouts.

Steve Connor

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


Return to posts index

Aindreas Gallagher
Re: To Editors thinking of switching to FCPX 10.1
on Jan 19, 2014 at 11:39:45 pm

[Steve Connor] "BTW PPro CC is very good, I wouldn't be surprised at all if it became the NLE of choice for all the FCP holdouts."

me neither - I stood outside a pub friday with a long form editor that does factual and has (hello) cut panorama stuff - they had literally just had their first taste of premiere CC.

they were, gods honest, slightly rapturous.

they gave out about the media management - but - broadly and quite genuinely rapturous.
first blush they basically couldn't believe how good it was. Quite the FCP8 conversation.

"I wouldn't be surprised at all if it became the NLE of choice for all the FCP holdouts."

me neither - you'd think some basic PR and mild subscription tinkering would completely close out the issue for adobe.

http://vimeo.com/user1590967/videos http://www.ogallchoir.net promo producer/editor.grading/motion graphics


Return to posts index

Nikolas Bäurle
Re: To Editors thinking of switching to FCPX 10.1
on Jan 18, 2014 at 6:15:14 pm

[james Lackleter] "You nailed it, I work for Adobe, Autodesk, and Avid... They pay me to mar Apple brands."

I apologise if you thought I was accusing you of propaganda. I should have been clearer, even though I didn't mention you...I was speaking in general terms. This isn't the first time someone has been warning people about X. I was just throwing around ideas, and its very possible that something like that could be going on in any forum. That comment was not directed at you, I should have made that clear, sorry about that.

But still, it would be interesting to know why you think its necessary to spend time warning young editors about X? Especially when most of your facts don't seem to be a problem for anyone else in this debate?


Return to posts index

Chris Harlan
Re: To Editors thinking of switching to FCPX 10.1
on Jan 18, 2014 at 5:07:43 pm

[Nikolas Bäurle] "Or there really is an agenda behind some of it. Gettin payed to spread the word."

Oh dear! Seriously?


Return to posts index

Andrew Kimery
Re: To Editors thinking of switching to FCPX 10.1
on Jan 18, 2014 at 5:13:21 pm

[Chris Harlan]
Oh dear! Seriously?"

There must be something in the water as in the CC Debate forum people are now getting accused of being propaganda spreading plants.




Return to posts index

Steve Connor
Re: To Editors thinking of switching to FCPX 10.1
on Jan 18, 2014 at 5:18:29 pm

[Andrew Kimery] "propaganda spreading plants."

I heard a sunflower saying that Adobe are great!

Steve Connor

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


Return to posts index

james Lackleter
Re: To Editors thinking of switching to FCPX 10.1
on Jan 18, 2014 at 5:28:21 pm
Last Edited By james Lackleter on Jan 18, 2014 at 5:31:10 pm

Oliver some very valid points. I watched some of your work and it looked like most of the projects you used FCPX for were stereo with limited tracks. It works perfectly for stereo projects with limited clips. Basically the more tracks you add, (or w/e, clips I guess) the more bugs will crawl out. And I don't see the point having surround inside X when it can't transfer to Logic.

Also whoever accused me of spreading propaganda, I've been cutting all night and I feel awful. You gave me a good laugh with that and now I'm gleaming. Okay, back to facts, just had to share that.


Return to posts index

Charlie Austin
Re: To Editors thinking of switching to FCPX 10.1
on Jan 18, 2014 at 5:36:05 pm

[james Lackleter] "It works perfectly for stereo projects with limited clips."

Not trying to be confrontational, but define "limited". The reason I ask is that I regularly cut sequences in X with at least 24 "tracks" (12 or more stereo pairs) with no issues at all. The thing I was cutting yesterday had upwards of 48 "tracks", including compounded sub mixes piled atop one another. No problem.

What is it you're seeing?

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

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


Return to posts index

james Lackleter
Re: To Editors thinking of switching to FCPX 10.1
on Jan 18, 2014 at 5:51:26 pm

Channel operations will change at random, the limiter filter registers over 0 decibels though it's actually working, and occasionally random pops on clips with faders. These are the key issues I've found which worsen with the addition of tracks. They however can be avoided by breaking down the project scene by scene into separate projects.

Also channel operations and effects not transferring into logic. Let me test an XML into logic with new version, one sec.


Return to posts index

Charlie Austin
Re: To Editors thinking of switching to FCPX 10.1
on Jan 18, 2014 at 6:06:19 pm

[james Lackleter] "Channel operations will change at random,"

Not seen this, but I do mostly work in stereo. Like Oliver, the majority of my mixes are done in a dedicated NLE.

[james Lackleter] "the limiter filter registers over 0 decibels though it's actually working"

I'll check this out. The Logic limiter, or the OS X au limiter?

[james Lackleter] "and occasionally random pops on clips with faders"

I did have this pop up recently (pun intended) Couldn't isolate why, and then it went away. This used to happen randomly for me in FCP 7 too fwiw

[james Lackleter] "Also channel operations and effects not transferring into logic. Let me test an XML into logic with new version, one sec."

XML into Logic is still a mess. I don't think it's an FCP problem though, Logic just doesn't interpret it correctly. fcpxml converted to an AAF with X2Pro imports perfectly into Logic so clearly the XML has the proper info. Yes, it's an added cost, but it'll pay for itself after one use so...

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

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


Return to posts index

Oliver Peters
Re: To Editors thinking of switching to FCPX 10.1
on Jan 18, 2014 at 9:31:56 pm

[Charlie Austin] "I did have this pop up recently (pun intended) Couldn't isolate why, and then it went away. This used to happen randomly for me in FCP 7 too fwiw"

Only pop issue (actually random digital crackling) came from a set of C300 files recorded to a Sound Devices PIX 240. FCP X crackled. FCP 7 and Pro Tools (same files) didn't. Couldn't reproduce it later and haven't run into it since, but the source was most likely a sample rate issue on the SDI stream of the camera.

- Oliver

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


Return to posts index

Oliver Peters
Re: To Editors thinking of switching to FCPX 10.1
on Jan 18, 2014 at 5:52:04 pm

[james Lackleter] "Oliver some very valid points. I watched some of your work and it looked like most of the projects you used FCPX for were stereo with limited tracks. It works perfectly for stereo projects with limited clips."

I'm not sure what limited means, but yes, my projects are all stereo (within X or any other NLE). I have used (externally mixed) surround stems in X simply to generate Blu-rays with 5.1 for a client. Honestly, I usually do not mix in X, except temp mixes for client presentation or simple VO w/music spot mixes. In the latter case, I bounce the mix out to Soundtrack Pro or SoundForge for "mastering". That would also be the case with other NLEs, too.

On more complex mixes, I usually hand off files to a Pro Tools editor/mixer (AAF, OMF, roles, other). When I do mix these myself - I jump over to Soundtrack Pro or Audition for more audio control. I am not a fan of mixing in X, because I like mixer panels and usually write automation passes when I mix. All things being equal, if I want to mix in an NLE, then I would prefer Premiere or Media Composer.

If someone were trying to do a LCR temp mix, like a lot of feature editors do in Avid, that would be problematic in X. Mainly because the monitoring from the software doesn't really give you a lot of control that way. But, now we are really getting into a niche and that has nothing to do with items that aren't working in the software.

- Oliver

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


Return to posts index

Andrew Kimery
Re: To Editors thinking of switching to FCPX 10.1
on Jan 18, 2014 at 6:43:06 pm

[Steve Connor] "I heard a sunflower saying that Adobe are great!
"


You should hear what Granny Smiths have to say about Autodesk. Absolutely scandalous!




Return to posts index

Jack Zahran
Re: To Editors thinking of switching to FCPX 10.1
on Jan 18, 2014 at 11:18:48 pm

Thanks for that AMA example, it's definitely affected some of my post clients and Avid hasn't fixed it since 5.5.3.

What's interesting to me is that Apple has been moving FCPX forward relatively rapidly. Also, the number of third party software and hardware vendors that are flourishing around FCPX. If it was not being used by people willing to vote with their purse, I don't see how or why so many third parties are benefitting from its active community?

There also appears to be a larger community online supporting FCPX than Avid and Premiere. Another puzzle to me on why so many think FCPX is not having a good uptake, besides the fact that it continues to be the top grossing App on the Mac App Store amongst all Apps sold there.

Not saying that FCPX replaces MC7 in the Movie industry, but I suspect that more and more indie films will be cut with FCPX, followed by big budget movies. The transition should reflect Apple's own upgrade schedule. Premiere has the issue of being part of a subscription model and Avid is going through a bit of uncertainty as far as its long term viability. So, I think the future of which NLE becomes dominant is still uncertain. However, Apple has gone in a fresher direction and they have committed to keep progressing and addressing user concerns.


Return to posts index

Oliver Peters
Re: To Editors thinking of switching to FCPX 10.1
on Jan 18, 2014 at 11:43:11 pm

[Jack Zahran] "There also appears to be a larger community online supporting FCPX than Avid and Premiere."

I don't know if that's really true. Look outside the COW and there's a strong community on the Avid-L2 Yahoo Groups list, the Avid Community forums and so on.

[Jack Zahran] "it continues to be the top grossing App on the Mac App Store amongst all Apps sold there"

I'm not sure that translates into professional use as the primary editing tool. It could be, but we just don't know. I know a lot of people who own FCP X as one of several tools they use. Yet, it isn't their go-to editing application.

[Jack Zahran] "but I suspect that more and more indie films will be cut with FCPX, followed by big budget movies."

I would agree. Even at the highest levels, if you look at Oscar nominations for documentaries, FCP "legacy" dominated over Media Composer in recent years.

- Oliver

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


Return to posts index

Scott Thomas
Re: To Editors thinking of switching to FCPX 10.1
on Jan 18, 2014 at 9:16:44 pm

Hi!

I remember back years ago in the Avid-L forums; guys would come in and tell us that Avids were crap and we all should buy Media 100 systems, because Avids were only used for 'editing film' and not made for broadcast. Strange huh?

I remember a conversation I once had with a guy. He asked me what I did my design work in. I told him Photoshop. He proceeded to explain to me that Photoshop was only for 'editing photos' and I couldn't possibly use it for design. I thought I was designing, perhaps I should have listened to him.

Way back in my Amiga days, I'd go into online forums where we would be schooled by Mac and PC users as to how we were just using toys. Strange, a lot of great 3D software we still use today was first developed on the Amiga. (Lightwave, Cinema 4D, Blender?) Even 3D Studio MAX can trace its roots back to the Atari systems back in the 80's. But all those machines were just playthings, perhaps we shouldn't have been using them.

So thank you for enlightening us and saving us from what could have been imminent doom.


Return to posts index

Ty Vann
Re: To Editors thinking of switching to FCPX 10.1
on Jan 18, 2014 at 11:20:12 pm
Last Edited By Ty Vann on Jan 18, 2014 at 11:23:33 pm

I am still waiting for you to save me and give me a clue what NLE I should use instead of FCPX? Keep in mind I have used most of them. I have FCPX, FCP7, Lightworks, and Premiere Pro 6 installed. And I'm not in Lalaland, Gotham, or Foggy London. I need real facts, not just your facts.


Return to posts index

Joseph W. Bourke
Re: To Editors thinking of switching to FCPX 10.1
on Jan 18, 2014 at 11:57:30 pm

You should use the NLE which gets the job done for you, and you enjoy working on. Anyone who works on an NLE that doesn't get the job done isn't a professional editor!!! How's that for a sweeping, blind generalization? Of course results may vary, and product may settle during shipping...

Joe Bourke
Owner/Creative Director
Bourke Media
http://www.bourkemedia.com


Return to posts index

james Lackleter
Re: To Editors thinking of switching to FCPX 10.1
on Jan 19, 2014 at 11:52:52 am

Gotham is Chicago.


Return to posts index

Ty Vann
Re: To Editors thinking of switching to FCPX 10.1
on Jan 20, 2014 at 5:32:22 pm

If you think Gotham as popularly referred to is Chicago, what does that say about your "facts" on FCPX?


Return to posts index

james Lackleter
Re: To Editors thinking of switching to FCPX 10.1
on Jan 20, 2014 at 7:22:08 pm
Last Edited By james Lackleter on Jan 20, 2014 at 7:23:02 pm

Nolan's films were filmed in Chicago, little funny I was making. P.S. I am the night.







Return to posts index

Eli Hollander
Re: To Editors thinking of switching to FCPX 10.1
on Jan 20, 2014 at 11:32:23 pm

With all due respect to Mr. Lackleter, this is an amazing thread. It would be great if people like Mr. Lackleter didn't spread misinformation so cavalierly, and be overly defensive about it, too.

"Gotham" is just another example.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gotham_City

Amazing!


Return to posts index

james Lackleter
Re: To Editors thinking of switching to FCPX 10.1
on Jan 21, 2014 at 6:18:37 am

I'm not defensive. The main point to be taken away from this thread is that young editors should not waste time learning FCPX because it's not used in the entertainment industry.


Return to posts index

Charlie Austin
Re: To Editors thinking of switching to FCPX 10.1
on Jan 21, 2014 at 8:25:45 am

[james Lackleter] "The main point to be taken away from this thread is that young editors should not waste time learning FCPX because it's not used in the entertainment industry."

Interesting observation. Not true, but nonetheless… interesting. I'd be delighted to hear your definition of "entertainment Industry".

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

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


Return to posts index

james Lackleter
Re: To Editors thinking of switching to FCPX 10.1
on Jan 21, 2014 at 9:09:27 am

I can't help those of you who made up your mind to cut with this already. If you think this program is used in the entertainment industry, (in my case strictly film) but limited to broadcast. You simply do not work in the industry and probably cut weddings (there's nothing wrong with that it's good money) Done here, cheers.


Return to posts index

Charlie Austin
Re: To Editors thinking of switching to FCPX 10.1
on Jan 21, 2014 at 9:32:17 am

Um..OK, have a nice day.

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

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


Return to posts index

Oliver Peters
Re: To Editors thinking of switching to FCPX 10.1
on Jan 21, 2014 at 1:29:57 pm

It seems that advice is a bit short-sighted. Apple is playing the long game, which means that they probably see it as at least five years before X really has a strong presence in the market share of professional editing. That's around the time young editors will start to get into positions as main editors. If they know X well and it does become widely used in that space, they will have made the right choice.

If they intend to work in Hollywood, then they also absolutely have to know Media Composer. If they work in films, they probably won't get past being assistants for many, many, many years. If they work in documentaries, indie films, trailers, corporate, commercials - then it's completely up for grabs. Especially now with 4K as the next buzz word feature.

Oliver

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


Return to posts index

james Lackleter
Re: To Editors thinking of switching to FCPX 10.1
on Jan 21, 2014 at 1:55:55 pm

The project I had in X was red footage and I used the red code, which I loved. Was so simple, but the fact that the project shut down as it became more complicated is what annoyed me. When I say complicated I mean addition of audio tracks, this is what I've concluded to be the rough of the problems I experienced. The more audio tracks added, the more problems.

Oliver I have a question, they shot a scene in 24 fps (they is client) along with recorded audio in 24 fps. The whole film is 23.98, every other scene. I've never had this happen, I don't like the way the audio sounds when changing the framerate to 23.98. Any suggestions or should I bite the bullet.

I've seen a couple people mix frame rates some in 24, some in 48 online. I'm not sure what would happen on a digital projector if I go this route.


Return to posts index

Petros Kolyvas
Re: To Editors thinking of switching to FCPX 10.1
on Jan 21, 2014 at 3:28:44 pm

I feel a bit of deja-vu here.

I vaguely recall this exact same discussion happening around Legacy when it started to make inroads.

--
There is no intuitive interface, not even the nipple. It's all learned. - Bruce Ediger


Return to posts index

Oliver Peters
Re: To Editors thinking of switching to FCPX 10.1
on Jan 22, 2014 at 12:38:38 am

[james Lackleter] "When I say complicated I mean addition of audio tracks, this is what I've concluded to be the rough of the problems I experienced. The more audio tracks added, the more problems. "

Actually, no, I would say the problems started by trying to do a creative cut with native RED camera raw media. I don't believe this - or any other software - is up to doing that yet without incurring some type of problems (at the level of feature films). Were these synchronized clips using multichannel BWAV files? If so - yikes!

[james Lackleter] "Oliver I have a question, they shot a scene in 24 fps (they is client) along with recorded audio in 24 fps."

The client screwed up big time. Camera rule #1 is know what frame rate settings you are supposed to be using. By audio being 24fps, do you mean the stamped timecode? Since audio itself has no fps value - only sample rate.

[james Lackleter] "I don't like the way the audio sounds when changing the framerate to 23.98. Any suggestions or should I bite the bullet."

I would not trust the NLE to correctly convert speed. I have never liked what FCP "legacy" did with non-optimized audio and I don't feel much differently with X. Avid does a good job with sample-rate conversions, but your real issue is that both audio and video are wrong. I do not recommend fixing this in FCP X. You'll probably need to convert the RED raw files to ProRes and then alter the frame rate to 23.98, such as with Cinema Tools. Then I would also change the speed/SR of the audio using some other tool - either a specialized audio tool (Wave Agent?) or encoder (Episode?). Then re-import and sync these in X to make them work correctly with the other scenes. My 2 cents.

[james Lackleter] "I've seen a couple people mix frame rates some in 24, some in 48 online. I'm not sure what would happen on a digital projector if I go this route."

Please clarify this. I'm not sure what you mean. I don't understand the 24 and 48 references. The only 48fps films I am aware of are Peter Jackson's and that required a LOT of work during the finishing stages.

- Oliver

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


Return to posts index

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