FORUMS: list search recent posts

So is FCPX earth shattering, or should I just move on to Adobe?

COW Forums : Apple Final Cut Pro X Debates

<< PREVIOUS   •   VIEW ALL   •   PRINT   •   NEXT >>
Jordan Schevene
So is FCPX earth shattering, or should I just move on to Adobe?
on Feb 7, 2014 at 6:47:09 pm

My first generation Mac Pro is getting some serious gray hair. I need to upgrade and am thinking of building myself an Adobe machine. I have not had a chance to really play with FCPX, but I get the sense that it is not ground breaking. Love Final Cut 7

Jordan Schevené
Boulder Productions
Accelerating innovative business through film
http://www.boulderproductions.com


Return to posts index

Mark Dobson
Re: So is FCPX earth shattering, or should I just move on to Adobe?
on Feb 7, 2014 at 6:50:22 pm

Why don't you just download the free one month trial and see what you think. I also loved FCP7 but wouldn't dream of going back to it now, as they say - I've moved on.


Return to posts index

David Mathis
Re: So is FCPX earth shattering, or should I just move on to Adobe?
on Feb 7, 2014 at 8:16:40 pm

[Mark Dobson] "Why don't you just download the free one month trial and see what you think. I also loved FCP7 but wouldn't dream of going back to it now, as they say - I've moved on."

Did just that. I am still adjusting to X and at times I want a timeline with tracks. Moving stuff around in X can be frustrating at times. In other areas I find myself liking the new version more. This is just me and everyone is different. Glad I went with the 30 day trial period and watched some Youtube videos. It saved me from going to the nut house.


Return to posts index


willy pimentel
Re: So is FCPX earth shattering, or should I just move on to Adobe?
on Feb 8, 2014 at 4:05:42 pm

Use the p buttom and move freely!!

Willy Pimentel
Motion Graphics Editor/VIz Artist/Trio/Camera Director - Univision NY
Macbook Pro 2011 thunderbolt/ TBolt Display/ 2 SSD Hds /Lacie Tbolt


Return to posts index

Marcus Moore
Re: So is FCPX earth shattering, or should I just move on to Adobe?
on Feb 7, 2014 at 6:54:08 pm

Some people like the new workflows and some don't. The only way you'll know if it works for you is work with it- REALLY work with it for not just a few days (and get frustrated by how different it is), but for several weeks until you get over the initial workflow shock. Then you can determine if you like it or not. No one else can answer that for you.



Return to posts index

Greg Burke
Re: So is FCPX earth shattering, or should I just move on to Adobe?
on Feb 7, 2014 at 9:32:19 pm
Last Edited By Greg Burke on Feb 7, 2014 at 9:34:06 pm

Really it's whatever works with your workflow more. I moved to Adobe Because in the end, CS6 offered the tools that made my workflow faster that FCPX didn't also Cs6 worked with all my Black Magic Hardware where FCPX did not at that time, and the fact that apple has been really dropping the ball lately on everything. I didn't want to give them anymore of my hard earned money. But in the end whichever works better for your clients needs, is the one I would pick, I Love Adobe CC (Plural Eyes Built in), It's Fast, uses CUDA, working in tandem and in Real time updates with After Effects Comps and Audion Wave forms while working in PP pro is amazing.I feel that FCPX is relaying on 3rd party plug-ins to be amazing,

I wear many hats.
http://www.gregburkepost.com


Return to posts index


Herb Sevush
Re: So is FCPX earth shattering, or should I just move on to Adobe?
on Feb 7, 2014 at 10:05:51 pm

[Greg Burke] ".I feel that FCPX is relaying on 3rd party plug-ins to be amazing,"

Why does it matter how it gets done as long as it gets done.

Herb Sevush
Zebra Productions
---------------------------
nothin' attached to nothin'
"Deciding the spine is the process of editing" F. Bieberkopf


Return to posts index

Ty Vann
Re: So is FCPX earth shattering, or should I just move on to Adobe?
on Feb 7, 2014 at 11:13:58 pm

[Greg Burke] "I feel that FCPX is relaying on 3rd party plug-ins to be amazing,"

Geez, why is this even a complaint? I hear it often enough that it makes me wonder about people with this complaint. So other NLEs don't use plug-ins at all? Every NLE out there relies on plug-ins and other apps. Premiere and AE combined probably have one of the largest/most often used set of plug-ins of any post software. Without the ecosystem of plug-ins they depend on and how they are dependent on/compliment each other, they would not to be "amazing."


Return to posts index

Greg Burke
Re: So is FCPX earth shattering, or should I just move on to Adobe?
on Feb 7, 2014 at 11:22:58 pm
Last Edited By Greg Burke on Feb 7, 2014 at 11:30:19 pm

there is such a thing as relying to heavily on CERTAIN plug ins, ei Multi-Cam,PSD file support, etc the list goes on, and I'm sure FCPX has fixed these issues in its current build. But every Editor will have there "go to" Program and a opinion on other NLE's, and that was mine. So take it for what is it.

I wear many hats.
http://www.gregburkepost.com


Return to posts index


David Mathis
Re: So is FCPX earth shattering, or should I just move on to Adobe?
on Feb 8, 2014 at 6:00:10 am

Alright, so X is not perfect. Neither is any other NLE on the market. We are human. No matter how much your NLE of choice is improved it will never be "perfect", that is how I see it.

I will say in many aspects X has made much progress. Yes, it would be nice to have a "Send To Motion" command but it does not. I would not consider it a complaint but rather an area where Apple can make an improvement.

The same goes for the color bar. It is certainly, at least some degree, more intuitive then the color wheel. The lack of individual sliders should also be addressed. Then again no NLE is going to have the best set of tools for color correction. I rely on Resolve for that task and color grading as needed. This is not to say the tools are bad in Final Cut Pro X, they need some improvement.

One thing to remember is that even though an NLE may lack in certain areas it makes up for it in others. Perhaps we demand to much out of our NLE of choice, not paying attention to its strong points, how it makes our workflow easier. I find that trying to working with it rather than against it makes me a more efficient editor.

That is my opinion and those are my thoughts. I think it really comes down to which tool is most appropriate.


Return to posts index

Loren Risker
Re: So is FCPX earth shattering, or should I just move on to Adobe?
on Feb 7, 2014 at 10:12:51 pm

Depends on your type of work. When it comes to multicam and organizing media, it blows the competition away.

Some people love the trackless magnetic timeline, some people hate it.

If you do heavy effects and animation, there's probably a lot more reasons to go to adobe.

There are some stability concerns in certain applications.

I love it, and use it primarily for multicam and documentary work. I would never go back to FCP7 or even consider Premiere. If you're still using FCP7 I'm guessing performance isn't your number one issue. It really depends on what you use your NLE for mostly.

-------------
OutOfFocus.TV - Original series, music videos, mini-docs.


Return to posts index

Aindreas Gallagher
Re: So is FCPX earth shattering, or should I just move on to Adobe?
on Feb 8, 2014 at 2:33:41 am

[Loren Risker] "I love it, and use it primarily for multicam and documentary work. I would never go back to FCP7 or even consider Premiere. If you're still using FCP7 I'm guessing performance isn't your number one issue. It really depends on what you use your NLE for mostly."

i always thought that was a hilarious quote about FCP7 and performance. given a native timeline it stills performs just fine.
even for a project off a split xsan in auntie beeb, cutting top gear promo.

last I checked we were cutting video. never mind screaming about 8K monitors, FCPX and the tubes to run them.

that was always total bulls**t. even the ripple guys acknowledge that top flight colorists for monitoring are operating 1080P BVMs.
given the result is below it even for delivery - day of the doctor measured below 1080P horizontally. so do most current hollywood digital cinema packages.
It's wider horizontally and lower vertically than HD.

4K monitoring and that whole gig is a carny joke.

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


Return to posts index


Loren Risker
Re: So is FCPX earth shattering, or should I just move on to Adobe?
on Feb 8, 2014 at 4:04:01 am

I don't mess with 4k yet, but I do appreciate faster renders and being able to use all 16gigs of ram.

-------------
OutOfFocus.TV - Original series, music videos, mini-docs.


Return to posts index

Aindreas Gallagher
Re: So is FCPX earth shattering, or should I just move on to Adobe?
on Feb 8, 2014 at 1:54:44 pm

[Loren Risker] "being able to use all 16gigs of ram."

ok thats hard to argue with.

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


Return to posts index

Erik Lindahl
Re: So is FCPX earth shattering, or should I just move on to Adobe?
on Feb 8, 2014 at 4:57:15 pm

It all depends on what you do. Just cause an app CAN hog memory doesn't make it necessarily more efficient. FCPX has been extremely un-efficient in the past, given 10.1 was a major boost in speed. That said certain workflows are virtually always realtime in FCP7. I've even encountered a lot of the scenarios in the past where X was way slower than 7 (file imports for example). Not sure how these are today however.


Return to posts index


Bret Williams
Re: So is FCPX earth shattering, or should I just move on to Adobe?
on Feb 8, 2014 at 6:27:08 pm

Being able to actually use the photos your client hands you without downscaling them first. Or, for that matter, the video they hand you without having to run it through a converter. But any app can do these things. Except FCP 7. It's becoming increasingly obvious that it's time to move on from FCP legacy. Not neccessarily to X, but to something.


Return to posts index

Aindreas Gallagher
Re: So is FCPX earth shattering, or should I just move on to Adobe?
on Feb 9, 2014 at 11:13:54 pm
Last Edited By Aindreas Gallagher on Feb 9, 2014 at 11:25:51 pm

[Bret Williams] " Or, for that matter, the video they hand you without having to run it through a converter."

yes I suppose, but it stills feels slightly mucky to be basing an entire project on the kinds of computational mathematics in an avchd file. if 4K - that joke we're supposed to care about, that people can't perceptually see from an average viewing distance relative to 1080P, takes hold, then in acquisition terms, we're looking at some variant of h265, which makes everything worse in triplicate.

H265 takes three times as long to encode to a delivery codec, they are hammering the colour space, and unlike the shift to HD - there is no appreciable benefit to the viewer. in standard seated settings, they can't tell the difference. also the compression degradation negates the fact that they've got a threadbare larger raster.

HD made appreciable sense because it was transformative to the viewer. 4K makes absolutely no such sense. the viewer can't resolve the difference relative to 1080P at standard viewing distances - particularly after its been hammered by the kinds of compression required to make it function for delivery.

It feels like snake oil being sold by a large group of desperate parties on the production end. yes its nice to have blow up - and that was the truth of HD while it was mostly backend, but given that 4K means nothing to consumers, and will resolutely continue to mean nothing to consumers as their films measure less than 1080P vertically, and they can't even tell the difference between 4K and 1080P, nevermind 1080P and 720P - 720P which benefits from lower compression..

4K just feels a bit like bullsh*t.

If the sole justification for a massively expensive backend re-ordering is the ability to mindlessly blow up shots, which kind of really never works past 20-30 odd percent anyway no matter what.. is that the justification for an entire jump in magnitude for production? so we can scale stuff up?

is that actually the logic for this incredibly expensive proposed shift? because god knows film and television aren't touching it with a barge pole.
again: that minor point - current (and you'd better believe for the long term), digital cinema packages measure less than 1080P vertically. They've done their perceptual math. Cinemas are going to sit on that one off digital delivery investment for an incredibly long time.

what are we doing? why are we entertaining this? why aren't we pushing for end to end 1080P 10/12bit per channel production to delivery -
given 1080P is an apple retina display in the living room/cinema context?

why is anyone buying all this 4K bullsh*t?

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


Return to posts index

Erik Lindahl
Re: So is FCPX earth shattering, or should I just move on to Adobe?
on Feb 9, 2014 at 11:50:58 pm

You speak the truth. Sadly to an end-consumer it's easier selling 4K vs 10-bit. I think that "craze" shines through into production. But I fully agree. 1080p 10-bit end to end is what we should be aiming for. I presume pumping the resolution is easier than the bit-depth or dynamic range? And / or I also think compressing 4K 4:2:0 8-bit might be an easier task than 1080p 4:2:2 10-bit? Heck I'd settle for 4:4:4 10-bit 1080p before going to 4K.


Return to posts index


Aindreas Gallagher
Re: So is FCPX earth shattering, or should I just move on to Adobe?
on Feb 10, 2014 at 12:22:08 am
Last Edited By Aindreas Gallagher on Feb 10, 2014 at 12:35:30 am

[Erik Lindahl] "You speak the truth. Sadly to an end-consumer it's easier selling 4K"

the thing is I think they really can't. Without any large market broadcasters or film (and there is zero probability of them getting on board) they're just a bunch of far east commodity 1080P screen manufacturers stupidly trying to sell consumers a 4K LCD monitor that effectively means nothing.








there is absolutely no logical basis or support for a 4K pipeline to the consumer, given they can't tell it when they see it -
its not happening. as the phrase goes, Asian manufacturers - stop trying to make fetch happen.

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


Return to posts index

Steve Connor
Re: So is FCPX earth shattering, or should I just move on to Adobe?
on Feb 10, 2014 at 8:54:40 am

[Aindreas Gallagher] "which kind of really never works past 20-30 odd percent anyway no matter what"

Not true, I get 200% blow-up on shots when we use our good Prime Lenses in a 1080 timeline and up to 300% for web video in a 720 timeline.

Steve Connor

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


Return to posts index

Steve Connor
Re: So is FCPX earth shattering, or should I just move on to Adobe?
on Feb 10, 2014 at 9:08:09 am

[Aindreas Gallagher] "god knows film and television aren't touching it with a barge pole. "

But Amazon, Netflix and YouTube are, and IMHO this is where 4K will first start to breakthrough into the consumer market.

Steve Connor

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


Return to posts index

Erik Lindahl
Re: So is FCPX earth shattering, or should I just move on to Adobe?
on Feb 8, 2014 at 12:35:31 pm

I'm not sure the notion of "if you rely heavily on effect and animation - go with adobe" I correct or even true. Dynamic link is extremely flawed and lacking, consistency between AE and PrPro is poor and just working in PrPro in general give sub-par results to FCPX's engine.

Yes, for animation, compositing, motion graphics etc AE rules but in this area I really don't see PrPro very strong. Adobe real f:ed up not taking their amazing animation package into their editor.

That said FCPX isn't perfect and I'd always go to AE for detailed controlled work. But for example color correction is vastly better in FCPX given it does have its limitations.

I think the main / only hurdle for FCPX is it's new workflow. That can set a lot of people off - my self included.


Return to posts index

Andy Field
Re: So is FCPX earth shattering, or should I just move on to Adobe?
on Feb 8, 2014 at 3:17:11 pm

When did you last use Premiere or AE dynamic link between the two? They work fine for is in the last several CC versions. Why would Adobe duplicate it's AE effects(compositing app) in Premier(editing app)? That's like complaining Apple didn't put everything from Motion in FCP X. In fact Apple removed that Dymamic link it had in 7 in this new version.


Return to posts index

Erik Lindahl
Re: So is FCPX earth shattering, or should I just move on to Adobe?
on Feb 8, 2014 at 4:48:03 pm

I've used AE since version 3.1, I think, and started testing PrPro as an FCP 7 replacement at, I think, CS 5 or 5.5. Even the latest CC-release had me quit un-impressed. Dynamic Link is virtually useless for us in general and the times I have stared an edit to later move to AE for final composite / effects work, well most of not all sketched effects aren't transferred. PrPro is extensively buggy / renders out poor results with every project I've thrown at it the last few years.

I guess I was expecting AE inside of PrPro and / or complete transparency between the apps which isn't the case. File management is also horrible with dynamic link since we often require the use of Mocha for tracking and masking work. On top of that, renders via dynamic link are way slower than a proper AE render to file since you're stuck with ONE thread for the task. Also it's not uncommon we want to break down a spot and send various elements to multiple compositors. Again, dynamic link to AE doesn't do us any good what so ever.

I've had extensive talks about this with a Swedish Adobe-rep and all in all the hooks between the apps aren't there for my so called advanced workflows.


Return to posts index

Andy Field
Re: So is FCPX earth shattering, or should I just move on to Adobe?
on Feb 8, 2014 at 5:58:40 pm

Surprised you are having those problems. We've had the opposite experience. Maybe your hardware set up or remove and reinstall may help?


Return to posts index

Erik Lindahl
Re: So is FCPX earth shattering, or should I just move on to Adobe?
on Feb 8, 2014 at 6:44:59 pm

It's working as intended. I might be able to digg up a handful poor experiences at some point.

Working all native is sometimes amazing, sometimes the worst thing you can do. Running into courupt media or a courupt PrPro project file is less than fun. But I guess that could happen to any NLE.


Return to posts index

Bret Williams
Re: So is FCPX earth shattering, or should I just move on to Adobe?
on Feb 8, 2014 at 3:28:34 pm

I would take Premiere's keyframing over Final Cut every day. And dynamic link to AE works, whereas there is none in FInal Cut anymore.

And in 2013 Premiere added a soft edge crop to their arsenal while X added the drop shadow effect. Obviously both are on the cutting edge of motion graphics. :)


Return to posts index

Lillian Young
Re: So is FCPX earth shattering, or should I just move on to Adobe?
on Feb 9, 2014 at 3:43:28 pm

My Mac Pro is from early 2008, and I am doing my first FCP X 10.0.9 project from an external drive. That said, I feel that it's extremely slow.

I have worked off of the same system from the same external drives on FCP 7 and haven't experienced such lags. And I know I'm supposed to work locally, but my drives are full, so...

I wanted to convince my boss to switch to FCP X, and after watching several courses (not YouTube vids, but full 2+ hour tutorials)I was very prepared to until I discovered that you can't do basic things like select an in and out point without a workaround. I'm putting up with it, but I cannot expect a team of editors to do that.

Also, for the latest version, you must upgrade you OS? Who does that in a pro environment with tons of third party apps/plugins, etc. that aren't guaranteed to work with a new OS yet? So I feel that a carrot (or Apple, hehe) is being waved in my face -- being a better FCP X that I cannot have.

The one thing that's keeping me interested in FCP X personally are the plugins. There are a ton, and you can preview before applying them.

But I unfortunately will have to start learning Premiere or Avid.If plugins don't matter to you, then I would look toward other editing software.


Return to posts index

Nikolas Bäurle
Re: So is FCPX earth shattering, or should I just move on to Adobe?
on Feb 9, 2014 at 6:53:38 pm

[Lillian Young] "My Mac Pro is from early 2008, and I am doing my first FCP X 10.0.9 project from an external drive. That said, I feel that it's extremely slow."

In my experience early 2008 MacPro's do not work well with FCPX. One of my first FCPX clients, the summer it got released, was using a 2008 MacPro and complaining the entire time. I took my 2011 MacBook Pro and blew them away... You really need to use a newer system to work quickly with X, and then you will realized how slow FCP7 really is, especially when importing and rendering.


[Lillian Young] "I was very prepared to until I discovered that you can't do basic things like select an in and out point without a workaround. I'm putting up with it, but I cannot expect a team of editors to do that."

You must be doing something wrong. When logging footage you can set in and out with the same keystrokes as you do in FCP7 and you can set as many in/out points as you like and turn them into favourties, so you never loose them. In the timeline the in and outs don't stay put, but its really just a matter of getting used to.


[Lillian Young] "Also, for the latest version, you must upgrade you OS? Who does that in a pro environment with tons of third party apps/plugins, etc. that aren't guaranteed to work with a new OS yet?"

This is the case for any NLE. One should never update in the middle of a Project. But as far as I can tell, all the plugins I use, Magic Bullet Looks, SliceX, and all the FXFactory plugins work perfectly fine with 10.1. It took Resolve only a few weeks to make the new XML compatible.

[Lillian Young] "But I unfortunately will have to start learning Premiere or Avid.If plugins don't matter to you, then I would look toward other editing software."

Its always a good idea to learn other NLEs,especially as a freelance editor. But plugins are important to all NLEs. Most RedGiant plugins, and FXFactory plugins work for FCP7, FCPX, Premiere and AfterFX. Not so sure about Avid since I only edit news on that, but there is plenty out there as well.

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



Return to posts index

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