FORUMS: list search recent posts

New FCPX user, what's all the hate about?

COW Forums : Apple Final Cut Pro X Debates

<< PREVIOUS   •   VIEW ALL   •   PRINT   •   NEXT >>
Sebastian Alvarez
New FCPX user, what's all the hate about?
on Jun 25, 2015 at 6:13:40 pm

I've been editing video since 1998 in Premiere, switching to other NLEs at times including FCP for several years, newer versions of Premiere, Vegas and Edius. My NLE of choice until now was Premiere, although at work I have to use Edius. By the time FCP X came out I didn't have a Mac anymore so I couldn't have a first hand opinion on whether it was the tragedy everybody was talking about or not.

A few days ago I came back to the Mac world by getting a MacBook Pro, and I read enough good reviews of FCP X that I decided to buy it along with Motion and Compressor. Given what I had read about it being a drastic departure in workflow from the old FCP and very different from every other NLE, I thought the learning curve was going to be very steep. Yet, in less than a day I was editing on it like a champ, even if I didn't know it 100% of course, but I was able to make cuts, transitions, keyframes, filters, retiming, etc.

Even more, the filters it brings are amazing, all these great movie style looks that could be achieved in Premiere with a lot of fiddling around with curves, maybe loading a LUT, or exporting to Speedgrade (and having to learn Speedgrade is indeed a steep curve) and using one of the looks. Only now Premiere with its CC 2015 release has embedded looks. But the looks in FCP X are beautiful, and I have no problem at all with using that Color Corrector as opposed to the 3-way one found in most NLEs, even if Premiere now has made great advances in that area with Lumetri.

But I wonder, was FCP X always this good and got a lot of undeserved hate from people who thought it was way different than anything else when in fact it wasn't? Or was it really terrible at the beginning and was vastly improved in the three years it's been out? Because otherwise, I can't understand what's the deal.


Return to posts index

David Mathis
Re: New FCPX user, what's all the hate about?
on Jun 25, 2015 at 6:29:38 pm

I remember when FCP X was first released, like many others I wondered what was going on. Some of the important tools, such as XML, were not there. This was a completely new version so many of the things that were not missing were added back in, except for tracks and the ability to round trip with Motion. My guess the very first version of X was beta. Perhaps how it was launched was a bad approach. It was considered a toy or a pro version of iMovie by others. Dissapointed at first but decided to jump in around 10.0.6, confused at first, then later began to appreciate the software.

Since then, improvements to media management and 3D text, a must have, came into existence. Why the hate continues, I will never know. I guess some people are just narrow minded and will not change their mind.


Return to posts index

Bret Williams
Re: New FCPX user, what's all the hate about?
on Jun 25, 2015 at 6:35:33 pm

It was pretty terrible in the beginning. And possibly the worst software launch in history. That lasted about 6 months. Some people just won't let it go. But it is also vastly different. EXTREMELY different than any other NLE and just doesn't fit every workflow. But that can be true for any NLE. And you've discovered what many of us know. If you've used something other than the same NLE for the last 10 years, it ain't no big deal to learn something new.

I think Apple is focusing on empowering the individual and small facility with 3D type and amazing template capability built into the app while Adobe has left the individual editor behind with subscriptions and a focus on team this and team that. Their hope being to recapture the broadcast and hollywood market.


Return to posts index


David Mathis
Re: New FCPX user, what's all the hate about?
on Jun 25, 2015 at 8:30:06 pm

Bret, very good summary. Adobe is going after a certain segment of the market. My guess is that some have decided not to upgrade every product cycle is one driving force behind subscription only with no buyout option or a permanent license. That could change but going forward perhaps not.

I also agree that FCP X is not the best tool for all workflows as is with compositing tools. Add to that, not everyone needs an entire suite of tools. As long as I am not "forced" into an entire suite of software that I will not use, for various reasons, I am happy with the Photoshop subscription up to a point. That point is lack of a buyout option.

Having a number of options available is always a good thing and so is choice. I am keeping an eye on what happens with Resolve going forward. I hope that the edit page performance is improved. To me having at least two NLE software packages on same system is an ideal situation. May use one to edit and the other for finishing based on a particular workflow. This why I think FCP X and Motion are a good combination with having another NLE for other projects.

Will be interesting to see what happens to the After Effects subscription number when Fusion comes out.


Return to posts index

David Cherniack
Re: New FCPX user, what's all the hate about?
on Jun 26, 2015 at 1:07:46 am

[Bret Williams] "while Adobe has left the individual editor behind with subscriptions and a focus on team this and team that. Their hope being to recapture the broadcast and hollywood market."

Not an opinion I share. Brett is basing it mostly on the subscription model somehow being disadvantageous to individual editors. But if an individual editor balks at the $600 per year (top charge) cost of the entire Adobe arsenal, then that individual is either an anti-subscription idealogue (go to the Adobe Creative Cloud or Not forum to see them with their war feathers on) or a very low rent editor.

I'm sure Adobe would like to increase their share of the broadcast and Hollywood market and I'm sure they're doing exactly that. But I don't see that happening at the expense of losing their individual editors in any major way. That's been their bread and butter.

David
http://AllinOneFilms.com


Return to posts index

Gabe Strong
Re: New FCPX user, what's all the hate about?
on Jun 30, 2015 at 9:56:55 am

I'd disagree that you have to be a 'very low rent' editor to not go
for CC. Say you are a mostly one person shop. You hire VO
artists when needed and buy music from some of the great new
music licensing sites. You may occasionally hire an assistant but
it's mostly you doing everything. So in this case, you have to be
'good' at a variety of things, but you probably are not 'great' at most
of them. Adobe, in my opinion, caters to the bigger houses, agencies,
and teams. People who can make amazing stuff with AE. Because
to me, Photoshop and AE are their 'crown jewels'. Premiere is fine
but really it's just another NLE. Nothing revolutionary or special.
But I can't spend a ton of time learning expressions and complex
stuff with AE. I've done all the Meyers books, so I'm adequate in AE,
but for mid level MoGraphics, Motion is just fine and faster than AE to
boot. So given that Premiere is basically no big advantage, and
small, one person shops don't usually have the expertise to be 'power
users' in AE, where is the incentive for me to spend $300 MORE
in a year to 'subscribe' to CC when I can own FCP X/Motion? I don't get
It. FCP X and Motion and Compressor do just enough for the 'little
guys' who can't spend the time to specialize. They can put out
'good' work fast. And it's cheaper. If I can get something that
does all I need cheaper at one place than another, I'm going to do it.
That doesn't make me 'low rent'. I'm no big shot, but I've had months
where I billed $15k and just did $5k in the last 4 days. So yeah, I could
'afford $50 a month for CC'. I could 'afford' $50 a month for a witch
doctor to shake a bone rattle over my head to keep the 'creative killing
spirits' out of my head too.....but that doesn't mean it would make business
sense to do it. I have absolutely no compelling reason to spend more on
Adobe's CC than I get with Apple's tools. And that is why I think Adobe
is more for the bigger specialized houses with 'AE power users' or
agencies who collaborate and must exchange files with each other....
so you have an advantage because the photographers use
Photoshop, the design people use InDesign and Illustrator and so on.
Apple's tools will appeal more often to small shops who do end to end stuff
with very small teams.

Gabe Strong
G-Force Productions
http://www.gforcevideo.com


Return to posts index


Shawn Miller
Re: New FCPX user, what's all the hate about?
on Jun 30, 2015 at 6:13:58 pm

[Gabe Strong] " Adobe, in my opinion, caters to the bigger houses, agencies, and teams. People who can make amazing stuff with AE."

I don't know, Gabe. As a one man band myself, I don't feel that way at all. The Adobe tools seem to be really accessible. I can get a lot done with minimal effort, yet they're scalable enough that I can go as far as my abilities will take me, and that's kind of the cool thing about AE IMO. I have have friends and coworkers who only use the software for simple things, but I also have friends and peers who use it for high end work. If Adobe was mostly interested in their upmarket users (like AutoDesk is), you certainly wouldn't be seeing guys like Kevin Monahan hanging out at The Cow.

[Gabe Strong] " Premiere is fine but really it's just another NLE. Nothing revolutionary or special."

What about the Warp Stabilizer or the Mercury Playback Engine, are those not unique or revolutionary?

Shawn



Return to posts index

Walter Soyka
Re: New FCPX user, what's all the hate about?
on Jun 30, 2015 at 6:25:57 pm

[Shawn Miller] "I don't know, Gabe. As a one man band myself, I don't feel that way at all. The Adobe tools seem to be really accessible. I can get a lot done with minimal effort, yet they're scalable enough that I can go as far as my abilities will take me, and that's kind of the cool thing about AE IMO. I have have friends and coworkers who only use the software for simple things, but I also have friends and peers who use it for high end work."

I agree. The Adobe toolset is both broad and deep. For design-led projects, the Adobe creative toolset is really compelling, and I think Adobe CC punches above its weight and offers editors a really affordable, accessible and capable finishing system.

Adobe CC is far from perfect, but I see it as appropriate for both individuals and teams. I've grown my business from a one-man band to a team, and the Adobe toolset was a big part of that.

Walter Soyka
Designer & Mad Scientist at Keen Live [link]
Motion Graphics, Widescreen Events, Presentation Design, and Consulting
@keenlive [twitter]   |   RenderBreak [blog]   |   Profile [LinkedIn]


Return to posts index

Gabe Strong
Re: New FCPX user, what's all the hate about?
on Jun 30, 2015 at 6:59:58 pm

Hmmm.....maybe what I was trying to say came across wrong?
AE IS scalable. It's just that for simple to mid range stuff, Motion
seems faster. AE can do more, but it takes a lot of time to learn the
advanced stuff that Motion can't do (like expressions). Who knows,
I very well might consider YOU an AE power user! (that's a compliment
by the way :)

As for Premiere, Warp Stabilizer is cool....but FCP X has the very similar
'Stabilize' (with optical flow). As for Mercury Playback Engine, that is
great if you have the right video card, but again FCP X does much the same
thing as far as being able to mix frame rates, video codecs and so on
on a timeline, and play them all back in real time. As a matter of fact, last
week I was out of town on a shoot and had to hire my (once in awhile) assistant
to shoot a multicam event. He didn't check frame rates and I had 1 cam at
24p and another at 30p. FCP X multicam synched them by audio, and I could
cut between them in realtime, all the frame rate conversion stuff was 'invisible',
it just worked. And this is on a 2009 MacPro. FCP X is every bit as fast as Premiere in
my experience, Don't get me wrong Premiere is great. I just don't see any big advantage
it had over FCP X, other than being able to exchange files with other Adobe apps easily
(well and that track thing, I have a soft spot for tracks).

So if I do 'end to end' work where clients are not dictating what I use or insisting that
I accept CC files from them, I am not a motion graphic expert who does extensive AE
stuff, and I don't work on a PC, I just don't see any advantage to going with CC, when
I can use FCP X, Motion, Compressor, and Resolve light for a fraction of the cost.
The money I save is enough to buy an A7s for a third camera after a little more than 3 years.
Now some people are AE whizes. Some have team members they need to exchange Adobe
files with. Or agency types that all must have the latest version so they can work with
their clients. But for small guys like me, who just have a client come to them and say
'We want an epic promo video....can you make us one?'...well I just don't see a compelling
reason that I must use Adobe products to do this. So I'll save money and use FCP X
and the associated software. Just my opinion of course.

Gabe Strong
G-Force Productions
http://www.gforcevideo.com


Return to posts index


Shawn Miller
Re: New FCPX user, what's all the hate about?
on Jun 30, 2015 at 8:51:53 pm

[Gabe Strong] "AE IS scalable. It's just that for simple to mid range stuff, Motion seems faster."

Not for PC users. :-) Kidding aside, I'll have to take your word for it as I've never used Motion. For those of us on non Apple platforms, there isn't much of an alternative, unfortunately... well, maybe Hitfilm is, but I haven't used that either, so I couldn't say for sure.

[Gabe Strong] "As for Premiere, Warp Stabilizer is cool....but FCP X has the very similar 'Stabilize' (with optical flow)."

Fair enough, but was anyone doing rolling shutter repair+stabilization before Adobe - does that not count as being revolutionary?

[Gabe Strong] " As for Mercury Playback Engine, that is
great if you have the right video card, but again FCP X does much the same thing as far as being able to mix frame rates, video codecs and so on on a timeline, and play them all back in real time."


MPE is a combination of technologies like; multithreading, 64bit architecture and GPU acceleration of some effects and operations like scaling, deinterlacing and blending modes. I believe the difference is that MPE will perform on a wider variety of hardware configurations without the need to transcode media. MPE can also perform in software mode if no suitable GPU is available. If I'm not mistaken, FCPX operates differently.

[Gabe Strong] "So if I do 'end to end' work where clients are not dictating what I use or insisting that
I accept CC files from them, I am not a motion graphic expert who does extensive AE stuff, and I don't work on a PC, I just don't see any advantage to going with CC, when
I can use FCP X, Motion, Compressor, and Resolve light for a fraction of the cost. The money I save is enough to buy an A7s for a third camera after a little more than 3 years."


It sounds like you've made some great business decisions then - respect. It's always good to see creative people succeed. I'm just suggesting that there may be similar stories to be told by CC users. :-)

[Gabe Strong] "But for small guys like me, who just have a client come to them and say
'We want an epic promo video....can you make us one?'...well I just don't see a compelling reason that I must use Adobe products to do this."


To be honest, I don't either. :-)

Shawn



Return to posts index

Gabe Strong
Re: New FCPX user, what's all the hate about?
on Jul 1, 2015 at 9:27:10 am

Shawn,

Yeah, that is a totally fair point. If you are a PC user, it doesn't matter how good FCP X and Motion are,
cause they are not on your platform of choice. So there is that.

As for rolling shutter repair + stabilization, I don't know who had it first, but again, I know
that part of FCP X's 'Stabilize' (with optical flow) includes a 'Rolling shutter repair' function, so
again, I don't see a huge advantage for Adobe here (at least not anymore).

And once again, FCP X (from it's inception) has had 64 bit architecture and GPU acceleration of some effects and operations
as well. FCP X also uses what it calls 'Grand Central Dispatch' to enable 'multithreading' or use of all available cores.
Sounds pretty similar to MPE to me. Again, I'm not on a PC, but on my Mac Pro, the speed is very similar, with probably
a slight edge to FCP X (which is to be expected as it is doubtless designed to take advantage of the Mac computers).
This is not even taking into account the new technology 'Metal' that Apple just announced (which will also end up speeding
up Adobe CC apps!) Regardless, maybe I'm wrong, but I just don't see any great, groundbreaking
features that Premiere has that FCP X doesn't have (except for tracks....sigh).

I am absolutely certain, that there are CC users with success stories about how CC has helped them.
And I am sure I could use it for my business and make money with it. I just make MORE money using
Apple's alternate tools...because well they are cheaper and I am not continually paying every month.
Again, it just 'seems' to me that Adobe is more for bigger agencies. And to be totally honest, maybe
part of the reason I think this, is because of all the programs you get in the CC. Illustrator, InDesign, Dreamweaver,
Really? Do you small one person shop guys really have the time to learn how to use all 50000 programs in CC? :)
It kind of suggests 'multimedia firm' to me. Which is where it would be a good deal....you have one part of
your firm who does commercial photography, another who does video, another who designs websites,
a print design section and so on. Total multimedia solutions for any problem a client comes to you with.
Total advertising and marketing solutions, do their newspaper and magazine ads, make their website,
do their web video, make their TV spots, do their corporate stills and so on. Kind of like an ad agency.

It just seems to me that it would be awfully hard for a one person shop to actually know how to use all
the programs in CC. Maybe I'm just thickheaded.

Gabe Strong
G-Force Productions
http://www.gforcevideo.com


Return to posts index

Walter Soyka
Re: New FCPX user, what's all the hate about?
on Jul 1, 2015 at 1:31:29 pm

Just a little bit of color commentary, no argument:

[Gabe Strong] "This is not even taking into account the new technology 'Metal' that Apple just announced (which will also end up speeding up Adobe CC apps!)"

Remember that Metal is an API, similar to bits of OpenGL and CUDA/OpenCL. It doesn't make everything faster automatically; you must specifically write/re-write your application with Metal to see a performance gain. Metal is also not unique; there are similar lower-level APIs on the PC platform going back to 2013.

I see a lot of hype around Metal right now, similar to the early hype around Thunderbolt. Metal and Thunderbolt are both very cool technologies, and I don't mean to detract from their significance at all, but I think a little more context around the technologies and information about what they do and do not do is important.


[Gabe Strong] "Regardless, maybe I'm wrong, but I just don't see any great, groundbreaking features that Premiere has that FCP X doesn't have (except for tracks....sigh)."

Shawn listed a lot of Premiere's "firsts." These include things that are de rigueur now, like GPU acceleration, 64-bit memory addressing and multithreading. These were all shipping in Premiere for over a year before FCPX's release.

(Sorry, Pinnacle/Avid Liquid, your efforts on the GPU front have been consigned to the dustbin of NLE history.)

But that was then, and this is now. I think that all the major NLEs are pretty well-matched right now on basic capability. The differences come down to workflow (not a small thing at all), minor features, price and preference.


[Gabe Strong] "It just seems to me that it would be awfully hard for one person shop to actually know how to use all the programs in CC. Maybe I'm just thickheaded."

Not at all. We certainly don't use all the Adobe apps. But a lot of editors in our market know at least a little bit of Photoshop, Illustrator and After Effects in addition to several NLEs.

Walter Soyka
Designer & Mad Scientist at Keen Live [link]
Motion Graphics, Widescreen Events, Presentation Design, and Consulting
@keenlive [twitter]   |   RenderBreak [blog]   |   Profile [LinkedIn]


Return to posts index


Gabe Strong
Re: New FCPX user, what's all the hate about?
on Jul 1, 2015 at 5:57:30 pm
Last Edited By Gabe Strong on Jul 2, 2015 at 1:05:14 am

Walter,

Yeah and Metal isn't even being used yet. But I find it hard to believe that
Apple would not optimize FCP X so it uses it, so I'm guessing speed increases will
be coming but who knows when and how much?

And as I said, I don't see any big advantages now to Premiere. It's cool
that they were first to have several features. I have CS6 and I thought it
was pretty good. Maybe that's why. But still, nowadays they all seem like
'Just NLEs' to me. No huge advantages to any of them anymore.

As for the other apps....I am aright in AE, know how to do a few tasks in
Photoshop. Illustrator always baffled me. I taught myself one thing with
it so I could use Zaxwerks 3d plugin for type and logos but not an app
I can do much with...... Plus, you may have heard, FCP X does 3D text now. :)

Gabe Strong
G-Force Productions
http://www.gforcevideo.com


Return to posts index

Andrew Kimery
Re: New FCPX user, what's all the hate about?
on Jul 1, 2015 at 3:49:48 pm

[Gabe Strong] "And to be totally honest, maybe
part of the reason I think this, is because of all the programs you get in the CC. Illustrator, InDesign, Dreamweaver,"


I think the reason Adobe moved to a 'one size fits all' approach with CC (as opposed to the different packages with CS) is just due to simplicity, not because they think every subscriber needs to use all the apps. Even with the old Production Premium package I'd only use half the apps that came with it, but I would opt for the whole package because it was cheaper than getting just the apps I wanted individually. Same thing with CC. If I only wanted PPro and AE I could just rent those for a total of $40/mo, but for only $10 more I get everything. Realistically I'd need more than just PPro and AE anyway so paying individually for what I needed would be much more expensive than paying for everything and having access to apps I'll never use.

I think individual workflow determines which software is a better fit, not a general statement of 'this one is for little guys and this one is for huge companies'.


Return to posts index

Gabe Strong
Re: New FCPX user, what's all the hate about?
on Jul 2, 2015 at 1:44:08 am
Last Edited By Gabe Strong on Jul 2, 2015 at 1:47:39 am

Andrew,

Maybe that is why they moved to a 'one size fits all' approach with CC.
But really, that's all part of the 'pricing strategy'. I've never been a fan
of that approach with cable TV either. Get all these channels you never
watch and feel like you are getting a great deal because you get 200
channels for $200 a month instead of 20 channels for $175 a month. But
the only channels you watch are in the 20 channel package....so is it
'Really' a good deal to buy the 200 channel package?

Maybe it would make more sense if I said it this way. Small households who
only watch 20 channels can get a good deal for $175 and get all 20
channels they need. Bigger households who watch more TV can get 200 channels
for only $200 which is a pretty good deal. Small households could also go
for the 200 channels for $200 even though the channels they watch are in the
20 channel package. Some may want to do this to keep options open.
Plus they like the DVR the 200 channel package comes with better....
even though you have to 'rent' it and give it back to the cable company
When you cancel service :)
I'm just joking....but I still think there kind of needs to be a compelling
reason for a small person shop to go CC over FCP X.....because hey it
costs more! Now there are plenty of reasons and some of the main ones are
if you are a PC owner, a AE power user, need to exchange Adobe files with
others, or have clients who use Adobe. Those 'seem' to me, to be reasons
more often associated with bigger companies (ok not the PC owner thing but
the rest of them :). Of course a person may just
prefer the 'workspace' of Adobe and be willing to pay extra for that as well.
Goodness knows, we Apple users have shown people will pay extra for things
like that. But because of those 'one person shops' who are writing here
and telling me I'm wrong, I am now curious. For anyone who is a one
person shop and uses CC, why did you decide to use it? What advantages
does it offer for your business and how do you use it to make more money
than you could without it? I am not being sarcastic, I'm genuinely curious
about others and how they do things to make their company successful.

Gabe Strong
G-Force Productions
http://www.gforcevideo.com


Return to posts index


Andrew Kimery
Re: New FCPX user, what's all the hate about?
on Jul 2, 2015 at 3:03:42 am

[Gabe Strong] ". But
the only channels you watch are in the 20 channel package....so is it
'Really' a good deal to buy the 200 channel package?"


If someone paid me $100/mo to go with the bigger package or $25/mo to go with the smaller package then, yes, it 'really' is a good deal to go with the bigger package. Unfortunately watching TV doesn't earn me money like editing does. ;)


[Gabe Strong] "I'm just joking....but I still think there kind of needs to be a compelling
reason for a small person shop to go CC over FCP X.....because hey it
costs more!"


Costing more is only one part of it. The other part is revenue generation. I'm a freelancer in LA and currently there are w-a-y more gigs using PPro than X (and I'm mean real gigs, not $100/project gigs on Craigs List). The amount of money I would lose by NOT subscribing to CC is exponentially more than the amount of money I pay to subscribe to CC. Choosing X over CC would save me in money in terms of costs, but it would kill me right now in terms of revenue. I currently have Avid, FCP 7, PPro and X installed on my machine (well, Resolve 11 too but its NLE capabilities aren't there yet). X is the only one that I'm not up to speed on yet.

A couple years ago I was thinking about learning X but circumstances dictated that I learn PPro instead and I'm glad it worked out that way because of how PPro use is growing in my area. Now that I'm comfortable on PPro though I'm going to start getting into X in my free time.

Sure, my situation probably isn't exactly what you are asking about, but I'm a small business guy too.

If one already has a deep and extensive knowledge base in AE, PS and PPro I think one needs a compelling reason to switch to Motion, X and Compressor.

If you are a small shop and you need to hire some extra hands to get through a busy patch (always a good problem to have) and you want everyone to use the same software for compatibility reasons then finding AE artists is probably going to be easier than finding Motion artists.

Choice is always a good thing too. I've been a Mac user for nearly 15yrs but I'm thinking about getting a PC to replace my '09 MacPro because all the major apps I use now are cross platform. If I started really getting into X I'd obviously have to get a Mac but at least right now Avid and PPro looks like a pretty good combination in my neck of the industry.


Return to posts index

Gabe Strong
Re: New FCPX user, what's all the hate about?
on Jul 2, 2015 at 5:30:58 am
Last Edited By Gabe Strong on Jul 2, 2015 at 5:31:28 am

[Andrew Kimery] "If someone paid me $100/mo to go with the bigger package or $25/mo to go with the smaller package then, yes, it 'really' is a good deal to go with the bigger package. Unfortunately watching TV doesn't earn me money like editing does. ;)"

Yup, that would be a good reason. Unfortunately, as a small shop, I do NOT have clients paying me to use
any particular software. Most of them don't even know what NLE stands for. Besides, I thought you were talking about
the pricing and how it was a good deal because it was only $10 more to get all the CC apps than just
Premiere and AE. That was the part I was referring to with my 'cable bundle' comparison. I didn't mean to
confuse the issue, sorry about that.

[Andrew Kimery] "Costing more is only one part of it. The other part is revenue generation. I'm a freelancer in LA and currently there are w-a-y more gigs using PPro than X (and I'm mean real gigs, not $100/project gigs on Craigs List). The amount of money I would lose by NOT subscribing to CC is exponentially more than the amount of money I pay to subscribe to CC. Choosing X over CC would save me in money in terms of costs, but it would kill me right now in terms of revenue. I currently have Avid, FCP 7, PPro and X installed on my machine (well, Resolve 11 too but its NLE capabilities aren't there yet). X is the only one that I'm not up to speed on yet.

Sure, my situation probably isn't exactly what you are asking about, but I'm a small business guy too.
"


Well, I think this fits into what I was saying above as reasons to use CC. Either you are a PC guy. Or you are an
After Effects wiz. Or you have clients who use Adobe and to work with them you must too (This would be you!)
Now I was thinking that this scenario would be more prevalent with big companies instead of small one person
shops. That may not be the case at all, that was just my assumption that smaller shops work more with clients
who 'don't really know an NLE from an RBI' and larger shops work with clients who want you to work with a
particular NLE/camera and so on. LA producers rumored to be some of the most picky. Although I did just shoot
for the 'Alaskan Bush People' yesterday and they just let me shoot on whatever camera I owned (which was
a FS700) even though that isn't their normal camera they use for the show. So yeah, if you have clients
who require you to use Adobe, that is a perfect reason to use it. I certainly have never came across that once
in over 10 years of doing business, but I obviously live in a world that is about as far from LA as possible....both
literally and figuratively.

[Andrew Kimery] "If one already has a deep and extensive knowledge base in AE, PS and PPro I think one needs a compelling reason to switch to Motion, X and Compressor."

Again, yeah, that would be at least close to one of my reasons which was 'If you are an AE whiz'. You
obviously (and rightly) expanded on my abbreviated reason and pointed out the Photoshop and Premiere Pro
whizes also have compelling reasons to stay with Adobe. For sure.

[Andrew Kimery] "If you are a small shop and you need to hire some extra hands to get through a busy patch (always a good problem to have) and you want everyone to use the same software for compatibility reasons then finding AE artists is probably going to be easier than finding Motion artists."

I wish I had that problem. Much too small to really even think of that as a possibility at this point. Small town
problems being what they are, my chances of finding someone good in either one are somewhere between -1 and 0.
Not that I'd ever really be able to afford to hire one anyways....which is why I just go with whatever (very limited)
motion graphics I can myself create. I think one distinct possibility is that although we are both 'small one person
shops'.....at the same time we have widely differing definitions of 'small one person shop'. :) Strange how that works.
Hopefully that made some sort of sense....in an alternate universe or something anyways. :)

Gabe Strong
G-Force Productions
http://www.gforcevideo.com


Return to posts index

Andrew Kimery
Re: New FCPX user, what's all the hate about?
on Jul 2, 2015 at 6:26:46 am

[Gabe Strong] "That was the part I was referring to with my 'cable bundle' comparison. I didn't mean to confuse the issue, sorry about that."

I kinda didn't complete my thought either. With paying a little more for the whole bundle I am getting a lot of apps I'll never use, but I'm also getting apps that might be useful but I never would have given the time of day before. SpeedGrade, for example, I doubt I'd ever pay for a standalone version, but SG comes with the bundle (and has integration w/PPro that I find interesting) so I'm like, "Why not dig into i? I've already paid for it."

Oddly enough, going back to the cable analogy, after being a cord cutter for many years I recently went back to cable and I watch a much wider variety of shows now than I did before. I'm more willing to give different shows chances because it's already paid for. When I ponied up $2-3 per episode on Amazon I only did it for shows that I knew I really wanted to watch and I felt like were worth the cost. For example, I watch a lot of "How it's Made" on cable, but I would never pay $2-3 per episode for it.

Where is this analogy going? I have no idea, other than that there's a lot of different shoes out there so hopefully we all find a style that we like in a pair that fits.

[Gabe Strong] " I certainly have never came across that once
in over 10 years of doing business, but I obviously live in a world that is about as far from LA as possible....both
literally and figuratively.
"


What do you mean, yer just up the coast! We are at least in the same Time Zone. ;)

[Gabe Strong] "Much too small to really even think of that as a possibility at this point. Small town
problems being what they are, my chances of finding someone good in either one are somewhere between -1 and 0."


A buddy of mine had the opening titles for his indie film done in India. Yeah, I know globalization can be a touchy subject but it's a thing so... If you want to keep it American made you could put up a posting for students looking for some beer money. Might not be applicable now, but just something to keep in the back of your head incase it becomes applicable down the road since things like GFX are pretty easy to do remotely.


[Gabe Strong] " I think one distinct possibility is that although we are both 'small one person
shops'.....at the same time we have widely differing definitions of 'small one person shop'. :) Strange how that works."


It is, and it's one reason it's so exciting to be in the industry right now. There are so many different facets to it and we can all get on the Internet and disagree with each other, er, I mean share information with each other! ;)


Return to posts index


Gabe Strong
Re: New FCPX user, what's all the hate about?
on Jul 2, 2015 at 7:20:32 am
Last Edited By Gabe Strong on Jul 2, 2015 at 7:54:29 am

[Andrew Kimery] "I kinda didn't complete my thought either. With paying a little more for the whole bundle I am getting a lot of apps I'll never use, but I'm also getting apps that might be useful but I never would have given the time of day before. SpeedGrade, for example, I doubt I'd ever pay for a standalone version, but SG comes with the bundle (and has integration w/PPro that I find interesting) so I'm like, "Why not dig into i? I've already paid for it."

Oddly enough, going back to the cable analogy, after being a cord cutter for many years I recently went back to cable and I watch a much wider variety of shows now than I did before. I'm more willing to give different shows chances because it's already paid for. When I ponied up $2-3 per episode on Amazon I only did it for shows that I knew I really wanted to watch and I felt like were worth the cost. For example, I watch a lot of "How it's Made" on cable, but I would never pay $2-3 per episode for it."


Yeah, that makes sense. Prelude and Speed Grade are both apps that I probably normally would not
use but if I had already paid for them and actually had any spare time to play around with.....oops
so much for that idea :) But I totally can see where a person might learn how to use them since they
already paid for them. I used to dabble with Color a little bit in my Final Cut Studio 7 days, but again
I really didn't have the time to learn it properly so I just stood at the edge, dipped my toe in, and learned
to do a couple 'tricks' with it.

As for cable, I 'cut the cord' at least 6 years ago) and have never regretted it a bit. I will
never pay for cable TV again....never. Of course I'm also that strange person who works
creating 'moving images' but never watches TV. Give me a basketball and a court any
day of the week over a show on TV.

[Andrew Kimery] "What do you mean, yer just up the coast! We are at least in the same Time Zone. ;)"

Ha! A common misconception. Unless of course LA changed from Pacific Time to Alaska Time :)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alaska_Time_Zone
I did drive from Alaska to LA once time and spent 6 months or so there hanging out, working cheap
Craigslist gigs for cash and making locals gasp when I jumped in the ocean in November (OMG isn't it COLD?)
It sure did seem like a long drive.....couple thousand miles anyways. But if you were in a boat you might be
able to cut a few of those miles off :)

[Andrew Kimery] "A buddy of mine had the opening titles for his indie film done in India. Yeah, I know globalization can be a touchy subject but it's a thing so... If you want to keep it American made you could put up a posting for students looking for some beer money. Might not be applicable now, but just something to keep in the back of your head incase it becomes applicable down the road since things like GFX are pretty easy to do remotely. "

Yeah, the internet has opened up all sorts of possibilities. I hire remote VO artists (many from LA) on a
semi regular basis. I buy music from all manner of great sites. I'm sure I could get a graphics person.
I just don't have enough work to need that as I'm in a town of 30,000 that is basically an island town.
(Technically we are on the mainland. But since glaciers and ocean keep us from having any roads into or
out of town, a person must fly or take a boat to get here.) To be honest, I can usually keep up with everything myself,
but when I need someone it's usually an extra camera op or lighting assistant to help me with the production end.
But it is pretty neat that a person could find extra post help out there on 'the web'. Although I would guess that you'd
have to be careful out there. I'd probably tend to stay with someone, once I found a good person because there's all
kinds of scammers out there.

[Andrew Kimery] "It is, and it's one reason it's so exciting to be in the industry right now. There are so many different facets to it and we can all get on the Internet and disagree with each other, er, I mean share information with each other! ;)
"


Totally agreed. But this is a tame disagreement if that. We MUST up the 'drama' to increase the viewership.
That's something I learned from working on the 'Anything but Reality' shows.

Gabe Strong
G-Force Productions
http://www.gforcevideo.com


Return to posts index

Andrew Kimery
Re: New FCPX user, what's all the hate about?
on Jul 2, 2015 at 3:19:19 pm

[Gabe Strong] "Ha! A common misconception. Unless of course LA changed from Pacific Time to Alaska Time :)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alaska_Time_Zone"


Nuts. Ya know, I thought about Googling it before I made the comment... Learn something new every day!


Return to posts index

Walter Soyka
Re: New FCPX user, what's all the hate about?
on Jul 3, 2015 at 12:40:32 pm

[Gabe Strong] "Now there are plenty of reasons and some of the main ones are if you are a PC owner, a AE power user, need to exchange Adobe files with others, or have clients who use Adobe. Those 'seem' to me, to be reasons more often associated with bigger companies (ok not the PC owner thing but the rest of them :)... For anyone who is a one person shop and uses CC, why did you decide to use it? What advantages does it offer for your business and how do you use it to make more money than you could without it?"

I think a lot of the answer is hidden in your phrase "AE power user."

Why might someone become an Ae power user in the first place? To solve visual problems that you can't solve outside of a flexible, extensible animation/design/compositing environment.

I really like Motion, but Ae is my get-out-of-jail-free card [link]. I have a very high degree of confidence that I can solve or mitigate nearly any problem that comes across my desk with Ae, both in terms of design and workflow, and I can pass that confidence on to my clients.

I say this as someone who was an Ae user starting with version 4 in the late nineties, then a Motion user, then a Motion power user, then (and now) an Ae power user. I also say this as someone with a range of experience with a bunch of other tools.

The ability to solve more problems better and more cost-effectively than my competitors could was a huge advantage for my freelance business and now for our little design studio business. Also, moving from a pure video orientation to a design orientation (largely on the strength of Adobe CS/CC's creative tools) has opened up new and better work opportunities.

That said, we don't have a blind allegiance to Adobe products, and we are always investigating other options. This also opens up new and better work opportunities.

Walter Soyka
Designer & Mad Scientist at Keen Live [link]
Motion Graphics, Widescreen Events, Presentation Design, and Consulting
@keenlive [twitter]   |   RenderBreak [blog]   |   Profile [LinkedIn]


Return to posts index

Gabe Strong
Re: New FCPX user, what's all the hate about?
on Jul 3, 2015 at 4:46:37 pm

Walter,

Thanks for the reply. Sp I am guessing it would be safe to say you
are pretty decent with AE? And that your company does work beyond
video? Those seem like pretty good reasons to use CC to me.
Just out of curiosity, what kind of 'problems' do you solve with AE
that you couldn't solve with Motion? Of course in my position as
ecitor, I often have to scold my unskilled shooter for giving me
problem footage.....o wait a sec. :)

Gabe Strong
G-Force Productions
http://www.gforcevideo.com


Return to posts index

Shawn Miller
Re: New FCPX user, what's all the hate about?
on Jul 1, 2015 at 5:27:17 pm

Hi Gabe,

I completely understand where you're coming from, and it sounds like FCPX and Motion are a great fit for your business. My only point is that Adobe CC can be a great fit for single operators and small shops as well. Though, I think Walter and Andrew made the case better than I did.

[Gabe Strong] " Do you small one person shop guys really have the time to learn how to use all 50000 programs in CC? :)"

I don't, but my personal belief is that no single subscriber uses all of the CC applications... I could be wrong though. As a Cinema 4D user, I don't have a use for half of the features in the program... but I'm willing to pay for the half that I do use. I see Adobe CC the same way. :-)

Shawn



Return to posts index

Walter Soyka
Re: New FCPX user, what's all the hate about?
on Jul 1, 2015 at 5:32:33 pm

[Shawn Miller] "Kidding aside, I'll have to take your word for it as I've never used Motion. "

If you'd like to get more than a little bit jealous, check out some of our friend Simon Ubsdell's Motion tutorials:

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC7c46tWEb2grLQ95OGLxBJQ

Walter Soyka
Designer & Mad Scientist at Keen Live [link]
Motion Graphics, Widescreen Events, Presentation Design, and Consulting
@keenlive [twitter]   |   RenderBreak [blog]   |   Profile [LinkedIn]


Return to posts index

Shawn Miller
Re: New FCPX user, what's all the hate about?
on Jul 1, 2015 at 6:52:01 pm

[Walter Soyka] "[Shawn Miller] "Kidding aside, I'll have to take your word for it as I've never used Motion. "

If you'd like to get more than a little bit jealous, check out some of our friend Simon Ubsdell's Motion tutorials:

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC7c46tWEb2grLQ95OGLxBJQ"


Thanks, Walter. I subscribed to Simon's YT channel shortly after he started it. There are some really good tips and techniques that many compositors and motion graphics artists could find useful, regardless of application. :-) Now... if I could just convince him to slant a bit more towards integrating live action and CG elements with 3D tracking data. :-)

Shawn



Return to posts index

Tony West
Re: New FCPX user, what's all the hate about?
on Jul 1, 2015 at 2:25:14 pm

[Gabe Strong] " I have absolutely no compelling reason to spend more on
Adobe's CC than I get with Apple's tools. "


I don't either.

I think CC has some great tools, but I feel like I do also.

I cut in X, and I part a little here with you Gabe, I like that timeline and don't miss tracks at all.

I use Motion for all my MO GFX, I can pretty much do anything I can think up in that program.
(we talked about this before on the forum. People who are diehard AE users might want to go CC. I'm not one of those)

I use RX 4 to clean up any really bad audio problems (that program is amazing)

I do all my grading right inside X. I shoot most of the stuff I cut myself and I get what I want in the field in the first place so all I'm doing is tweaking. I don't blowout the background and have to fix it.

People ripped those looks early on saying you didn't have much room to adjust them. Not true. You can layer as many corrections on top of those looks as you want. Looks are just a way to give you a short cut to a certain look faster than you would if you were starting from scratch. Apple is not making anybody use those looks. If you want to build your own look go right ahead. I prefer for things to look natural myself. I don't like to be distracted by an odd un-natural look. Kind of like I don't want to notice the umpire in the game either.

I have a paid for version of Photoshop.

Stabilization is a nice tool, but as far as I'm concerned, you should either be on a tripod or with a Stedi-cam or Stedi knockoff in the first place. A professional shouldn't hand you a bunch of shaky footage.
If you are doing a run and gun doc you should have a shoulder mount camera or a rig.

I'm pretty much good to go to do anything I need to do with these paid for tools.


Return to posts index

Steve Connor
Re: New FCPX user, what's all the hate about?
on Jul 1, 2015 at 2:47:21 pm

[Tony West] "I'm pretty much good to go to do anything I need to do with these paid for tools."

I think a lot of people feel the same, I could do without the Adobe tools if I had to, but for me the monthly cost is inconsequential and I like to have the tools in my toolbox!


Return to posts index

Andrew Kimery
Re: New FCPX user, what's all the hate about?
on Jul 1, 2015 at 3:09:09 pm

[Tony West] " I don't blowout the background and have to fix it."

[Tony West] "Stabilization is a nice tool, but as far as I'm concerned, you should either be on a tripod or with a Stedi-cam or Stedi knockoff in the first place."

Jeez Tony, your missing out on half the fun of editing if you aren't swearing at the footage and wondering if the 'camera guy' was really just a Jack Russell Terrier with a GoPro strapped to his head. ;)


Return to posts index

Tony West
Re: New FCPX user, what's all the hate about?
on Jul 1, 2015 at 4:28:19 pm

[Andrew Kimery] "Jeez Tony, your missing out on half the fun of editing if you aren't swearing at the footage and wondering if the 'camera guy' was really just a Jack Russell Terrier with a GoPro strapped to his head. ;)"

hahahaha Well done Andrew

No kidding. We really earn our money when we are called in to fix messed up work, and with the price of cameras dropping like they have any and everybody shooting, there's plenty of that out there to keep many people employed : )


Return to posts index

Sebastian Alvarez
Re: New FCPX user, what's all the hate about?
on Jul 1, 2015 at 6:49:53 pm

[Tony West] "Stabilization is a nice tool, but as far as I'm concerned, you should either be on a tripod or with a Stedi-cam or Stedi knockoff in the first place. A professional shouldn't hand you a bunch of shaky footage.
If you are doing a run and gun doc you should have a shoulder mount camera or a rig."


Tony, in an ideal world, things would always work that way. But in this world it doesn't. And let's not forget that FCPX is not only targeted at professionals but prosumers as well, which is evident from its $300 price tag. And regardless of whether you're a pro or not, if you're also a regular person who likes to go out to parks, lakes and whatnot, you won't always take a bulky tripod to carry around while you're walking around with your family. You might just take a small camcorder and being a professional you will shoot footage that is far less shaky than the regular Joe, but you will still watch it at home and think some takes could use some stabilization.

Unfortunately the only software as far as I know that does an outstanding job in this area is Mercalli Pro. It analyses and solves faster than real time, and wherever it saves the information it's not in the project file, unlike Premiere. Premiere comes with Warp Stabilizer, which is an abomination that is a huge stain in an otherwise excellent NLE. It takes ages to analyze and solve, sometimes it leaves you with terrible results, and worse of all, it saves its data to the project file, so after you used it in even one small clip, it takes at least ten seconds to save the project, and if you use it in a long take, it will render your project useless, to the point where you have to go back to a previous version because it will simply not open, even if you wait all night long. And I speak from experience.

I think it's great that FCPX comes with its own stabilizer, which is to a point better than the one in Premiere but it's not really that great when it comes to results. Even at the maximum stabilization, footage is still shaky, even if still better than the original. For example, my GoPro Hero 4 doesn't have any type of internal stabilization (that I know of, I just got it so feel free to correct me) so the footage is extremely shaky, even it came with a pseudo steadicam (called "Steadicam Curve") but even when walking as smooth as humanly possible, the footage is shaky. I stabilized some of that footage in FCPX and the result wasn't that great, even if still better than the raw.

This is why, even though my main system is a MacBook Pro now, I keep Edius 6.08 in my PC in case I need to stabilize something really fast and with good results, because Mercalli 2 came bundled with it. For now even if I have to mount the Windows share, copy the take to the PC and export the stabilized file to a large uncompressed file and finally copy to the Mac via network, it's still a lot faster than using Warp Stabilizer in Premiere and the results are better than FCPX's own stabilizer.


Return to posts index

Andrew Kimery
Re: New FCPX user, what's all the hate about?
on Jul 1, 2015 at 8:55:39 pm

[Sebastian Alvarez] ". It takes ages to analyze and solve, sometimes it leaves you with terrible results, and worse of all, it saves its data to the project file, so after you used it in even one small clip, it takes at least ten seconds to save the project, and if you use it in a long take, it will render your project useless, to the point where you have to go back to a previous version because it will simply not open, even if you wait all night long. And I speak from experience."

Out of curiosity how long were the clips you were using the Warp Stabilizer on? Last year I did a project where I used WS a lot and never ran into the problems you described, but I only used it on clips that were around 3-6 seconds long.


Return to posts index

Sebastian Alvarez
Re: New FCPX user, what's all the hate about?
on Jul 1, 2015 at 9:34:03 pm

[Andrew Kimery] "Out of curiosity how long were the clips you were using the Warp Stabilizer on? Last year I did a project where I used WS a lot and never ran into the problems you described, but I only used it on clips that were around 3-6 seconds long."

In this case it wasn't a professional job, just a video of a wedding shot with a camcorder. There was a take that was 12 minutes long that he asked me to stabilize. The light was great, it was 1080i-29.97fps, so it wasn't a big challenge, besides, the part of that take that he wanted stabilized was shot handheld but it was mostly static, at most panning every now and then.

Mercalli in Edius took it like a champ. About 6 minutes later it had finished and I was able to playback the footage in real time, no dropped frames. Saving the project took less than a second. We're talking about a 32 bit program with obviously a 32 bit plugin.

Same take into Premiere CC 2014 (I've had this video since 2010 but I tested it in all versions of Premiere since CS6), same in and out points. Analyzing took hours. Solving took less time but still long enough to go do something else. What I was left with wasn't bad as far as stabilizing quality goes, however, playback would stall (even though it was being played out of an SSD and WP is CUDA accelerated, and in my case I have two GTX770 cards with 4 GB each). When hitting CTRL+S, it took about an hour to save that project, which was a test project so it only had this take with a sequence that matched the format of the footage.

A little while later, even after rebooting the computer, I tried to open the project and it stalled. I kept waiting minutes, then hours, then I went to bed and the next morning it was still there, stalled. I killed Premiere, rebooted the computer, tried to open the project again and I left to do some other things. Hours later, still stalled.

My Windows PC, by the way, has an i7 3930k (6 cores at 3.2Ghz, 3.8 Ghz turbo), 32 GB of RAM, fast hard drives and an SSD (back then, now I took out the SSD to put it in a USB 3 enclosure and use it with my MBP), added to the two graphics cards I mentioned, so it's no slouch. I assembled this machine with all the components tested for compatibility and it's faster and more stable than any brand PC you can come across, as is usually the case with computers assembled by users when they make sure all the components match in the HCL.

So forgive my candor, but Warp Stabilizer, as far as software goes, is garbage. I consider myself far less intelligent than software programmers, and yet for the life of me I can't begin to understand why Adobe's team would attach the analyzed and solved information to the project file, when almost everything else is handled in different files. Caches of all kinds, peak files, etc, all in separate files, so when you save a Premiere project, as long as it doesn't have WP on any clip, it takes a second or two to save. Add WP to just one short clip, saving will be about ten to twenty seconds. Add it to a few more clips and the save time gets longer and the project file size gets gigantic.

As much as I love FCPX, the advances in Premiere make it an excellent NLE, but I don't get why Adobe keeps bundling this junk plugin with it. They bought I don't know how many companies, they should buy ProDAD and put Mercalli instead of WP.


Return to posts index

Walter Soyka
Re: New FCPX user, what's all the hate about?
on Jul 1, 2015 at 9:44:35 pm

[Sebastian Alvarez] "So forgive my candor, but Warp Stabilizer, as far as software goes, is garbage. I consider myself far less intelligent than software programmers, and yet for the life of me I can't begin to understand why Adobe's team would attach the analyzed and solved information to the project file, when almost everything else is handled in different files. Caches of all kinds, peak files, etc, all in separate files, so when you save a Premiere project, as long as it doesn't have WP on any clip, it takes a second or two to save. Add WP to just one short clip, saving will be about ten to twenty seconds. Add it to a few more clips and the save time gets longer and the project file size gets gigantic."

I agree (and have feature-requested) that the stabilization data should be saved outside of the project file. But I am sympathetic to the argument doing so would create non-media media that needs to be managed, and that it may run counter to user expectations about how built-in effects work.

Personally, I cheat and do my stabilizations in seperate project(s), render out new media, and use that in editorial.

Walter Soyka
Designer & Mad Scientist at Keen Live [link]
Motion Graphics, Widescreen Events, Presentation Design, and Consulting
@keenlive [twitter]   |   RenderBreak [blog]   |   Profile [LinkedIn]


Return to posts index

Mathieu Ghekiere
Re: New FCPX user, what's all the hate about?
on Jun 25, 2015 at 8:25:12 pm

The short version in my opinion... it was a bit of both.

Apple botched the launch.
The first version was very unstable. Missed TOO much features. No XML. No attributes. The event Browser didn't even remember the in and out points you set on a clip. No Library model. No RED RAW support. No Multicam. The list was long.
So yes. The software got a LOT better. I started fiddling with it around 10.0.3 and switched completely around 10.0.6.

Then the other side is that the way it worked was sooo new, completely different of FCP7 (and this wasn't communicated very clearly to the existing user-base), that people had a hard time getting used to it. Change is hard for a lot of people (including me) and it was also a matter of being open-minded again to concepts you though you knew and were fixed in a way. This is why a lot of people *still* feel a lot of hate for it. There is a minority of people who have used the software a LOT but it's missing certain stuff or it makes their job a lot harder, so they have a lot of good reasons to not like it.
But you have to get rid of your excisting muscle memory (especially the magnetic timeline) and this takes months. Not talking about the ability to cut, but to 'think' the way the program works in a muscle-memory way the way you have it with other programs you have been using for years.

So yeah. Both ;-)


Return to posts index

Noah Kadner
Re: New FCPX user, what's all the hate about?
on Jun 25, 2015 at 8:50:04 pm

I'm amused by the resistance to major change from folks who make major changes as their profession.

Noah

FCPWORKS - FCPX Workflow
Call Box Training


Return to posts index

Tim Wilson
Re: New FCPX user, what's all the hate about?
on Jun 25, 2015 at 10:04:14 pm
Last Edited By Tim Wilson on Jun 25, 2015 at 10:25:39 pm

[Noah Kadner] "I'm amused by the resistance to major change from folks who make major changes as their profession."


I know that we have a reputation for that, especially outside the COW -- but based almost entirely on the first year+, when the specific things criticized where in fact exactly correct.

For the last year or two, I just don't see much of it at all. Instead, I see a number of editors who have been gradually making the transition as their fast-paced environments have allowed. Doing it all at once was simply never a luxury they had.

Having seen him playfully called out for the opposite, I'll highlight Jeremy Garchow as Exhibit A. A very flexible dude indeed, whose business has largely been built on adapting cutting-edge technologies, and whose early objections to X were built on specific and ENTIRELY ACCURATE grounds...which are largely being overcome by Apple...

...which amounts to a tacit admission by Apple that Apple had in fact fallen short of the full range of capabilties required for some very mainstream workflows.

So while I won't argue the point that some people are stubborn about FCPX, I strongly disagree that it's necessarily arbitrary. There are still key components of X's workflow that half-baked or entirely missing, even while there are hitherto unimagined advantages -- which are irrelevant in the face of accurately described, specific deficiencies.

I certainly acknowledge that your generalization wasn't directed at the COW per se, Noah, but in objecting to how sweeping that generalization is outside the COW, I think it is far more accurate to say that those people are out of touch with the COW than that any individual in the COW is rejecting FCPX arbitrarily or on principle, rather than based on a crystal-clear understanding of its inadequacies for THEM.

We are many years past a single meaningful thread suggesting that FCPX is inadequate by its nature. It's in fact remarkable how quickly the tide turned...which I regret to observe that even some folks in the COW have sometimes missed as they characterize this particular forum.




EDIT:

As a PS, I'm going to harken back to the introduction of FCP, which entered the fullness of its first wave in the earliest days of the COW.

(Noting that the COW's previous incarnation was founded 20 years ago this month!)

There was not one single soul who objected to the IDEA of FCP, or that a cheap, software-only NLE that incorporated meaningful compositing features wasn't an awesome idea. People WANTED it. The earliest, most enthusiastic supporters were people who HOPED to be FORMER Media 100 users at the earliest possible opportunity.

But FCP was firewire-only, and the then-current crop of fw-output cameras simply weren't up to replacing DigiBeta, no matter how much the FCP of Bust insisted that it was.

So there we sat. No SDI, no FCP. The COW was indeed adamant on this. Then lo and behold, along comes SDI, and FCP is on its way into broadcast almost immediately, led by COW enthusiasts.

Indeed, I defy you to find a more enthusiastic group of early FCP users than COWs using Pinnacle Cinewave. You won't find such a group because it doesn't exist. And, turning the corner into HD, there simply wasn't a more enthusiastic group of FCP users than the COW at all.

But it took TIME, and it took APPLE recognizing that APPLE's work was not yet complete to meet the absolutely basic, rock-bottom, non-negotiable feature set REQUIRED for mid-to-high level post. Apple fixed things on its side, became aggressive in their support for third-party IO, and the game changed.

But not before Apple stepped up. And once they did, nobody was more on onboard than the COW, with a "yay" much stronger than their "nay" ever was.

It took until version 3 to version 4 of FCP, though...which was, what's that you say? Three to four years after FCP's introduction? Almost exactly the timetable to widescale embrace of X here.


Return to posts index

David Mathis
Re: New FCPX user, what's all the hate about?
on Jun 25, 2015 at 11:20:18 pm

Thank you for another great post Tim!

It is difficult to imagine, let alone keep up with the changes during the last 20 years! With technology at the pace of Speedy Gonzalez, the famous mouse, the rate of change and innovation is almost at the speed of light. Editing software was expensive as was storage. Waiting several minutes, even hours, for a simple dissolve to render, that was a pain. Now, little or no rendering time at all.

Love the fact that more than one NLE can exist on a system of your choice and the amount of affordable storage is icing on the cake. Choice is great!

Putting my philosphical objections on subscription only to the side, Adobe has a great amount of progress though work still needs to be done, as with any software. The fact the subscription for Photoshop and Lightroom is reasonable, I decided to jump on board, well for a year. The reason I chose not to subscribe to other stuff in the suite is because my current setup fills my needs very well. Business, not philosphical or personal is my motivation.

To the next twenty years in beyond!


Return to posts index

Michael Gissing
Re: New FCPX user, what's all the hate about?
on Jun 26, 2015 at 12:19:14 am

Hate can so often be a deep emotional response to love spurned or betrayed. There is little doubt that many felt a deep betrayal and a subsequent reticence to trust Apple ever again over X and the execution of Legend. Apple made the break up unnecessarily callous and as Tim points out the early complaints were justified.

Now four plus years later, most of the anger has soften or totally been reversed. But the wounds run deep for many people and I hope they don't expect any other software vendor to be any more dependable or interested than Apple. Apple do take the cake for reliably jilting their lovers. For some it makes the love affair deeper but for many they take their bat and ball and play elsewhere.

For me I just view any NLE in terms of its relevance to my workflow in post and what editors want to use. X is still barely on the radar in my world. Many of the Legend hold outs are now spruiking Resolve. Others have moved back to AVID or on to Pr. But at least 70% of clients are stuck to Legend like sh*t to a blanket.

It is time to move on.


Return to posts index

Charlie Austin
Re: New FCPX user, what's all the hate about?
on Jun 26, 2015 at 1:07:45 am

[Michael Gissing] "Apple do take the cake for reliably jilting their lovers. For some it makes the love affair deeper but for many they take their bat and ball and play elsewhere. "

I'll give you Shake and Color... Maybe iWeb too. :-) But the fact that everyone got sooo upset about Apple "killing" an NLE that, 4 years later, still works just fine, and can still be obtained with a little digging is kind of silly don't you think?

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

~ 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

David Cherniack
Re: New FCPX user, what's all the hate about?
on Jun 26, 2015 at 1:10:18 am

[Charlie Austin] "But the fact that everyone got sooo upset about Apple "killing" an NLE that, 4 years later, still works just fine, and can still be obtained with a little digging is kind of silly don't you think?"

No. :)

David
http://AllinOneFilms.com


Return to posts index

Michael Gissing
Re: New FCPX user, what's all the hate about?
on Jun 26, 2015 at 1:26:20 am

[Charlie Austin] "But the fact that everyone got sooo upset about Apple "killing" an NLE that, 4 years later, still works just fine, and can still be obtained with a little digging is kind of silly don't you think?"
[David Cherniack] "No. :)"

I rest my case. People still feel jilted. Knowing your NLE has totally stopped development still with bugs to fix and a swath of new cameras and codecs exploding on the scene has made many people justifiably cranky.

The reason there is still a debate is that although Charlie & Bill not only moved on but were delighted that doesn't diminish the lingering unease towards Apple NLEs for many people. It may be silly to you Charlie but I still hear it every day from editors who are neither stupid or petty but will not go to X.


Return to posts index

David Cherniack
Re: New FCPX user, what's all the hate about?
on Jun 26, 2015 at 1:58:33 am

[Michael Gissing] "David Cherniack] "No. :)"

I rest my case."


That's not me Michael, I've never used Legacy. I based my comment on editor friends of mine who did and won't forgive Apple any time in their next 10 lifetimes. And I have to admit, it's also based on my feelings about using Autodesk products. 12 years after they killed edit* I still have a lingering bad taste in my mouth when their name comes up. I'm not angry, mind you, it's just reflex. :)

David
http://AllinOneFilms.com


Return to posts index

Andrew Kimery
Re: New FCPX user, what's all the hate about?
on Jun 26, 2015 at 2:01:52 am

[David Cherniack] "t's just reflex. :)"

So your reflux is reflex?


Return to posts index

David Cherniack
Re: New FCPX user, what's all the hate about?
on Jun 26, 2015 at 2:44:06 am

Sounds like a shifty punk rock lyric. :)

David
http://AllinOneFilms.com


Return to posts index

Charlie Austin
Re: New FCPX user, what's all the hate about?
on Jun 28, 2015 at 4:24:11 pm

[Michael Gissing] "Charlie & Bill not only moved on but were delighted"

FWIW, I still Use 7 occasionally, and Premiere quite often. I prefer X, but f they killed it today I'd just keep grinding away on Pr. or whatever. I don't have *that* deep an attachment to a bunch of ones and zeros. It's a tool. New ones come and go all the time.

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

~ 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

Michael Aranyshev
Re: New FCPX user, what's all the hate about?
on Jun 29, 2015 at 10:51:40 am

I'm sorry, Tim. FCP never was a FireWire only NLE. FCP was hardware agnostic from the beginning. It was even possible to use Media100 hardware with FCP. As for FCP with TargaCiné — it was a complete disaster until FCP v.4.5. Pinnacle kept screwing up the drivers royally and blaming it on Apple. FCP v.4 being buggy didn't help too. You should remember that the first thing Blackmagic Design did was offering all hardware manufacturers to write drivers for their iron because those manufacturers proved they cannot do it themselves. Grant made a lot of friends with that announcment.


Return to posts index

Tim Wilson
Re: New FCPX user, what's all the hate about?
on Jun 29, 2015 at 8:41:50 pm

[Michael Aranyshev] "FCP v.4 being buggy didn't help too. You should remember that the first thing Blackmagic Design did was offering all hardware manufacturers to write drivers for their iron because those manufacturers proved they cannot do it themselves. "

You make my point for me. It took many years for Apple to create a stable environment of both software and third-party hardware. Not that it NEVER happened. That its failure to happen from day 1 kept it from being taken seriously as a potential solution for anyone working with SDI. It doesn't matter who was at fault.

You and I agree completely except for 1 thing: I said that FCP 4 was the release that allowed Apple to turn the corner and have FCP accepted as a fully capable solution, and you say it was still buggy! LOL

Also, FCP was never, ever hardware agnostic. Its hardware requirements were very specific. It was also NOT hardware independent UNLESS you were doing FireWire. What it DID offer was more than one vendor for I/O, with the tradeoff that, in the beginning, as you point out, none of it worked very well.

NOW, as long as you choose from one of a very small number of vendors, those third-party solutions work well. This was simply not true for the first couple of years, when solutions required considerable effort. We at Creative COW humbly thank Apple for this. LOL Our archives are full of many thousands of posts testifying to the difficulties.

But none of this changes my first point. FCP did not START as a fully capable end to end system. It was simply not a realistic option for a wide variety of mainstream workflows It BECAME an option.

Likewise there are many FCP diehards for whom FCPX did not START as a viable option, but it BECAME a viable option.

My SPECIFIC point is that the viability of FCP and FCPX happened on a very similar timeframe -- depending on your needs, it was roughly 3-4 years after their introduction.

But Final Cut Pro never worked properly with Media 100 hardware. If you found that it had, I wish you would have posted on the many threads in Creative COW where people tried and failed.

Here's one that notes that it ONLY worked on the already-discontinued Media 100 qx card using Adobe Premiere drivers, and NOT the then-current Vincent card with Media 100 drivers -- and it would ONLY work for playback, and NOT for capture.

You can read the 2004 thread yourself here, but I'll quote the venerable Phil Hodgetts:

...The qx model was never developed for G4 nor updated for later OS revisions. If you create a FCP sequence to match your media 100 media settings it will play just fine with the media 100 hardware....

But capture doesn't work, it's not terribly stable; media is not managed the same way and a whole host of other issues basically makes it an unworkable solution.


Other threads note unusable color shifts when trying to use media captured in one application in the other, if the formats were even compatible -- and they often were not.

ALL of which supports my first point: FCP did not BEGIN as a completely viable solution for somebody working ONLY in SDI, but it BECAME one.

And likewise, FCPX did not BEGIN as a viable solution for quite a few mainstream workflows, but in many cases BECAME one.

We may debate many things, but I doubt we disagree on this: both FCP and FCPX BECAME far more capable than they were at release.

We may disagree with this additional point, but I believe that members of Creative COW were unambiguous: neither FCP nor FCPX reached critical mass until they became ABLE to reach critical mass, roughly 3-4 years into their growth. The X uptake curve WILL increase because it CAN increase.

This has nothing to do with the delusions of dinosaurs or the neighing of naysayers, and EVERYTHING to do with changes that Apple ACTUALLY MADE, and made SPECIFICALLY to address those EXACT concerns.

In fact, in a number of key instances, with absolutely unprecedented candor, Apple revealed that they KNEW that certain key features were missing, but said those features would be coming. Never happened in Apple history, which underscores just how seriously took these deficiencies.

I continue to say that Apple was entirely right to ship at the level of maturity (or immaturity) that they did, and that immediately cutting all ties to FCP 7 was the only possible move for them that made the least bit of sense -- but please let us not pretend that Apple didn't ship software that they thought was 100% ready. They did NOT think it was 100% ready. They TOLD us that for SOME workflows, it was not ready at all! The features just weren't there!

Until they were. Later.

If it was a matter of appeasing the psychology of a bunch of timid old men, Apple wouldn't have lifted a finger, nor did they. Apple made the changes to FCP and FCPX that those old men insisted on, because those features BELONG in that software.

The supposed dinosaurs were right about an awful lot, both in 2001 and 2011, which is why Apple addressed those exact deficiencies.

And once that happened, the whole idea of "dinosaurs" should have become extinct. It simply didn't apply to the mainstream of Creative COW's members, and it never really had.

What DID apply is that mainstream COW users were not free to change their workflows willy-nilly because Apple's new thing looked neato. They had to wait until the new workflows it enabled were actually helpful.

Once more people COULD use FCP and FCPX for well-established mainstream workflows, more of them DID use FCP and FCPX.

Which brings me full circle. The whole idea of hate was overstated then, and is all but entirely inapplicable now. There were indeed some actual haters, but they have gone their un-merry way. The remaining concerns of the remaining holdouts among us have largely been established as entirely accurate.

And, as little as the "yay"-sayers care to acknowledge it, the debate does in fact change as Apple does in fact do what early "nay"-sayers said Apple NEEDED to do.

It also profoundly disrespects the reality that the overwhelming majority of "nay"-sayers here had already been through this rodeo 10 years ago, and knew better than to say "nay," as much as they were saying "not yet."

And they were right.

And Apple acknowledged it from the very first day.


Return to posts index

Michael Aranyshev
Re: New FCPX user, what's all the hate about?
on Jun 29, 2015 at 10:05:56 pm

I didn't want to argue with your main point. It's the details that sounded wrong to me. FCP could work with any hardware using QuickTime IO. If it didn't work, then the problem was with the drivers, not FCP most of the times. If the list was short that's because the list of IO cards for Mac was short. Still, Targa, Igniter and Digital Voodoo cards were there.


Return to posts index

Michael Gissing
Re: New FCPX user, what's all the hate about?
on Jun 26, 2015 at 1:39:57 am

[Noah Kadner] "I'm amused by the resistance to major change from folks who make major changes as their profession."

I'm amused that you think people who do major change professionally don't have valid reasons. Do you presume they are not able to recognise if changes is good bad or just different?

There are many on this forum who over the years have displayed knowledge, intelligence and wit.I respect their opinions. Some have embraced X. Many have not. I struggle to respect anyone who finds a valid alternative opinion so dismissively amusing.


Return to posts index

Aindreas Gallagher
Re: New FCPX user, what's all the hate about?
on Jun 26, 2015 at 11:19:19 am

[Noah Kadner] "I'm amused by the resistance to major change from folks who make major changes as their profession."

I'm amused by people who view software criticism of FCPX as 'resistance to major change'. It's quite an entitled point of view.

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


Return to posts index

Eric Santiago
Re: New FCPX user, what's all the hate about?
on Jun 26, 2015 at 12:25:15 pm

Once it came out the school I was instructing at asked me to dump legacy and create a course outline for FCPX.
Since it was in its infancy, teaching the basics was never an issue.
And honestly most dedicated users will always be defiant with their own workflow.
Now this is just theory but I always thought the angst was directed to Apple and its then current state with the iToys at the time.
Back when FCP first came out, Apple could not do anything wrong.
Hey I have a few beefs with FCPX but honestly at $300 for five seats....maybe you get what you paid for :)


Return to posts index

Sebastian Alvarez
Re: New FCPX user, what's all the hate about?
on Jun 26, 2015 at 4:11:57 pm

I see that this is still a heated topic. And I'm glad I started using it now rather than since the beginning. Despite my wishes, I don't see it making great strides in the broadcasting world, even though it has some features that would make it a great addition. The TV station I work at they have plans to switch to Premiere next year, and I was asking one of the engineers that is there to show us how to use a new system if he thought there was any chance we might use MacPros with FCPX, and he didn't think it was very likely. He also told me that most of the stations he went to were PC based.

Besides FCPX's poor beginnings (for what you guys tell me and what I remember reading over the years), Apple dug themselves their own grave with these new MacPros. There's no doubt that they are state of the art machines, beautiful design and powerful, but when you force the pro user to use USB and Thunderbolt for absolutely everything, and can't choose an Nvidia card over an AMD if they want to, a lot of people are going to be on their way to Windows based solutions, no matter how much more advanced OS X is. You can expect to have to deal with USB and Thunderbolt when you have a MacBook Pro, but when you have a workstation, you want the ability to connect PCIe cards and change the graphics card if you want to.

If they would have come up with a MacPro design similar to the new one but maybe a little larger with space for PCIe cards and being able to switch graphics cards, I'm sure they would have sold a lot more of those. After spending $3,000 for the base model or $4,000 for the six core (most likely way more than that when you customize it) I'm guessing most people or companies don't want to spend thousands more in Thunderbolt peripherals and accessories. Unfortunately, when designing the MacPro, Apple wanted something that would be too revolutionary and with amazing looks, but they forgot about pro functionality.

But hey, I'm happy to spend all the money I have if my eyes don't have to see that eyesore Windows 10 GUI (or 8.1, or 7), plus the great design of OS X on functionality.


Return to posts index

Tim Wilson
Re: New FCPX user, what's all the hate about?
on Jun 26, 2015 at 4:27:58 pm

[Sebastian Alvarez] "Apple dug themselves their own grave with these new MacPros."

I'll pull back a little from "dug their own grave," but when we talk about various debates, I don't think we give this one nearly enough wait. It was certainly a huge deal at the time. I think that there a lot of people who saw the long-awaited Mac Pro as the sign that their interests and Apple's had irredemmably diverged.

This is clearly not the universal feeling, but that doesn't invalidate it. There are forks in the road, and you gotta pick one. There are scads of die-hard Apple-ites in the COW and elsewhere who, after finally seeing the Mac Pros, suggested that Apple finally fork themselves.

Waiting for FCPX to catch up to their needs, or interests, was one thing. I really do think that more people saw the lack of meaningful updates to FCP, the arrival X, and delays to a new Mac Pro as a handful of straws...but the Mac Pro was the final one.


Return to posts index

Herb Sevush
Re: New FCPX user, what's all the hate about?
on Jun 26, 2015 at 4:53:32 pm

[Tim Wilson] "I really do think that more people saw the lack of meaningful updates to FCP, the arrival X, and delays to a new Mac Pro as a handful of straws...but the Mac Pro was the final one."

Indeed. A wonderful product ... for somebody else.

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


Return to posts index

Jeff Markgraf
Re: New FCPX user, what's all the hate about?
on Jun 26, 2015 at 5:36:20 pm

[Herb Sevush] "for somebody else."

Like me. ;-)


Return to posts index

Herb Sevush
Re: New FCPX user, what's all the hate about?
on Jun 26, 2015 at 6:22:35 pm

[Jeff Markgraf] "Like me. ;-)"

As my mother used to say, in a very different context, for every peg there's a hole.

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


Return to posts index

Jeff Markgraf
Re: New FCPX user, what's all the hate about?
on Jun 26, 2015 at 6:43:28 pm

[Herb Sevush] "As my mother used to say, in a very different context, for every peg there's a hole."

I think I recall my mother saying, in a similar context, "My, what a lovely thing to say." Or something along those lines...

But then, she never visits the COW.


Return to posts index

Tim Wilson
Re: New FCPX user, what's all the hate about?
on Jun 26, 2015 at 7:29:37 pm

[Jeff Markgraf] "I think I recall my mother saying, in a similar context, "My, what a lovely thing to say." Or something along those lines...

But then, she never visits the COW."


Hey man, the COW is nothing but pegs and holes.







Return to posts index

Mark Suszko
Re: New FCPX user, what's all the hate about?
on Jun 29, 2015 at 3:30:30 pm

Tim, I think the Waitresses had the better FCPX theme song in terms of pegs, holes, and industry cliquishness....







Return to posts index

Sebastian Alvarez
Re: New FCPX user, what's all the hate about?
on Jun 26, 2015 at 5:04:58 pm

[Sebastian Alvarez] "Apple dug themselves their own grave with these new MacPros."

I'll pull back a little from "dug their own grave," but when we talk about various debates, I don't think we give this one nearly enough wait.


Well, yes, maybe the term "dug their own grave" is a little exaggerate, but they certainly alienated a lot of companies that needed a tower format with a lot of expandability and compatibility with some of their existing equipment. For example, for a small company that I worked for, which had about ten users each with their own MacPro tower, each with a $1,000 Fibre Channel card, to go to the new MacPros where they can't use those PCIe FC cards and have to spend tens of thousands not only on the new machines but also on the accessories needed to connect their fiber optic network to the new Macs (and just by doing a fast Google search I can tell an FC to Thunderbolt adapter is almost as expensive as the old card), I know they won't do it. They were very happy with dual Xeon CPU Mac towers that they were getting on eBay for $2,000 each. And I'm guessing most companies, unless they have a non-stopping flow of cash and the will to spend it, are on the same boat.


Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: New FCPX user, what's all the hate about?
on Jun 26, 2015 at 6:01:46 pm

[Sebastian Alvarez] "For example, for a small company that I worked for, which had about ten users each with their own MacPro tower, each with a $1,000 Fibre Channel card, to go to the new MacPros where they can't use those PCIe FC cards and have to spend tens of thousands not only on the new machines but also on the accessories needed to connect their fiber optic network to the new Macs (and just by doing a fast Google search I can tell an FC to Thunderbolt adapter is almost as expensive as the old card),"

This is exactly what we did, and did not lose one lick of performance, in fact we gained performance.

You can buy a really old machine for $2.000, or you can buy a PCIe extender for $480 to get you over the hump of whatever comes next, and will work on any new mac that the company purchases, from MacMini to MacPro Tube. http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=&sku=1007816&gclid=CO6Cso...

The Thunderbolt fear is unwarranted, in my personal opinion, unless of course you need to push around 8k DPX frames or something crazy, but for shared HD or Compressed 4k editing, it's a breeze, and opens up a possibility to working on less powerful CPU machines, with great performance.

There's no doubt that the new towers benefit FCPX, and they don't benefit an Nvidia workflow. The MacPro comes with TWO GPUs that work really well, but your software has to know to take advantage of this.


Return to posts index

Herb Sevush
Re: New FCPX user, what's all the hate about?
on Jun 26, 2015 at 6:34:38 pm

[Jeremy Garchow] " you can buy a PCIe extender for $480 to get you over the hump of whatever comes next"

Unless the prices have changed, that get's you 1 PCIe slot, which won't cut it if you have an I/O card and a raid card. It was around 1K for a multi-slot extender if I remember correctly, and that's per workstation. Which still leaves you with a single CPU machine and no flexibility for GPU. Which will work fine for a great majority of the users but has left others out in the cold.

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


Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: New FCPX user, what's all the hate about?
on Jun 26, 2015 at 6:49:12 pm

[Herb Sevush] "Unless the prices have changed, that get's you 1 PCIe slot, which won't cut it if you have an I/O card and a raid card. It was around 1K for a multi-slot extender if I remember correctly, and that's per workstation. Which still leaves you with a single CPU machine and no flexibility for GPU. Which will work fine for a great majority of the users but has left others out in the cold.
"


It's two PCIe slots (it holds two cards).

We can sit here and argue about theoretical bandwidth and performance, and whatever, but I have a capture card and a fibre card in one of these things, and there is nothing that I can't do.

Don't knock. Try.


Return to posts index

Jim Wiseman
Re: New FCPX user, what's all the hate about?
on Jun 26, 2015 at 6:53:16 pm

Herb, ~$480 gets you two slots. OWC Helios 2. Works for my AJA LHi and many others, if needed, and at the moment two Accelsior PCIe 960GB SSDs which also have two eSATA ports each. More detail in my other post.

Jim Wiseman
Sony PMW-EX1, Pana AJ-D810 DVCPro, DVX-100, Nikon D7000, Final Cut Pro X 10.2.1, Final Cut Studio 2 and 3, Media 100 Suite 2.1.6, Premiere Pro CS 5.5 and 6.0, AJA ioHD, AJA Kona LHi, Blackmagic Ultrastudio 4K, Blackmagic Teranex, Avid MC, 2013 Mac Pro Hexacore, 1TB SSD, 64GB RAM, 2-D500, Helios 2 w 2-960GB SSDs: 2012 Hexacore MacPro 3.33 Ghz, 24Gb RAM, GTX-680, 960GB SSD: Macbook Pro 17" 2011 2.2 Ghz Quadcore i7 16GB RAM 250GB SSD


Return to posts index

Herb Sevush
Re: New FCPX user, what's all the hate about?
on Jun 26, 2015 at 7:25:43 pm

[Jim Wiseman] "Herb, ~$480 gets you two slots. OWC Helios 2."

I stand corrected. Love me some OWC.

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


Return to posts index

Andrew Kimery
Re: New FCPX user, what's all the hate about?
on Jun 26, 2015 at 7:37:30 pm

[Tim Wilson] "Waiting for FCPX to catch up to their needs, or interests, was one thing. I really do think that more people saw the lack of meaningful updates to FCP, the arrival X, and delays to a new Mac Pro as a handful of straws...but the Mac Pro was the final one."

I'm going to add to this slightly because I think it's something that is glossed over when people complain about the people complaining about Apple. It was a culmination of events over many years, not a single event, that led to such strong feelings. Many people waited since FCP 6 for a significant FCP update and about the same amount of time for a significant update to the Mac Pros. During all that waiting they were also making contingency plans (checking out Avid, PPro and PCs).. By the time Apple released its new products the seemingly quick reaction by some wasn't knee jerk, but just putting their long awaited upgrade plans in to action after finally seeing what Apple had to offer.

For the people complaining about Apple abandoning them, I think they misunderstood the nature of their relationship with Apple. Apple never made FCP, Mac Pros, Shake, etc., for YOU. Apple made FCP, Mac Pros, Shake, etc., for THEM and you just happened to like it too. You and Apple serendipitously shared the same path for a time but you each still had your own final destinations in mind. New products Apple made for themselves no longer appealed to some users so the traveling partners split ways (Tim's fork in the road). FCP Legend and FCP X are both Apple's vision of what an NLE should be just like the nMP and the Old Mac Pro are both Apple's vision of what a 'pro' desktop machine should be. Whether or not Apple's vision and your vision still overlap is a completely different question.

Another thing I find interesting about this is the lack of awareness that some people exhibited. I'm not going to name names (and no, I'm not thinking of anyone that frequents this forum), but some people that couldn't afford Avid back in the day picked up this scrappy/disruptive upstart called FCP and started businesses out of their own homes. Fast forward 10yrs and they have a booming business and maybe even their own facility with employees, and a machine room and all that. Basically, they graduated from 'little guy with a dream' to 'the man' and FCP Legend had also graduated from upstart to established NLE.

Now here's where the disconnect seems to come in. After X dropped, many of the emotional outbursts from long time FCP Legend users sounded eerily similar to things that Avid users said about FCP a decade prior. People pissed at Apple said things like, "X is fine for people that can't afford a real NLE and want to edit out of their mom's basement" yet many of those same people couldn't afford a 'real NLE' (i.e. Avid) back in the day so they bought FCP Legend and started a home business (which very well could have been run out of their basement).

The inability for some people to take a step back and observe the similarities (and irony) in the situation was astounding to me.


Return to posts index

David Cherniack
Re: New FCPX user, what's all the hate about?
on Jun 26, 2015 at 5:12:25 pm

[Sebastian Alvarez] "no matter how much more advanced OS X is."

Gadzooks...are children allowed to play with matches here? It's awfully dangerous. They could get their skin scorched off.

David
http://AllinOneFilms.com


Return to posts index

Jim Wiseman
Re: New FCPX user, what's all the hate about?
on Jun 26, 2015 at 6:35:56 pm
Last Edited By Jim Wiseman on Jun 26, 2015 at 6:58:51 pm

Hate to say it, but I really like the new Mac Pro. And FCPX. I am a one person producer/shooter/editor and they fit my needs quite well. A powerful computer with a small form factor, with software I pay for once that does everything I need. I also have the ability to run more than one NLE when necessary. There is a change in thinking required for FCPX, so I sometimes fall back to legacy software.

Unlike many here I no longer work at a large facility or with big budgets (though I certainly have, PBS Chicago, NBC/KRON and One Pass Video in San Francisco) but am at a point where I have the luxury (finally) of doing my own work. Have shot two decades of cultural footage in the Pacific Islands and video art pieces that date back to the mid '70's. Doesn't pay much, but is work that needs to be done. Have one nice contract that pays the bills and a wife that actually directly benefits from that work.

There are people here who have a large focus on compositing and effects, and for that a tower is certainly going to be potentially more powerful. But they get very expensive as well. I don't have that need. I have enough documentaries to put together to keep me busy, and they don't need multiple GPU's to render dissolves and titles. I have an OWC Helios Thunderbolt 2 chassis for the times I need PCIe cards. Two 1TB SSD cards in there now. Blackmagic rack mount I/O and Teranex for format conversion, all Thunderbolt. Three OWC Thunderbay 4's for fast RAID 5 storage.

Also hedged with a 2012 Mac Pro tower with AJA I/O and NVidia GPU. Can boot into everything from 10.6.8 to latest Yosemite. My insurance system with the yearly OS software updates, my only big gripe with Apple. But I have had much bigger gripes with Microsoft (OS) and lately Adobe (rental). I can't be in servitude to rental to revisit and re-edit my projects. I object to it strongly for practical, budgetary, and philosophical reasons. Hence FCPX meets that requirement, Resolve on the horizon, and yes, Media 100 in the short term.

I have a feeling there are a lot of one man bands like myself that have similar requirements. YMMV. One size does not fit all. There are more than enough of us who like our Mac Pros and the software they run.

Jim Wiseman
Sony PMW-EX1, Pana AJ-D810 DVCPro, DVX-100, Nikon D7000, Final Cut Pro X 10.2.1, Final Cut Studio 2 and 3, Media 100 Suite 2.1.6, Premiere Pro CS 5.5 and 6.0, AJA ioHD, AJA Kona LHi, Blackmagic Ultrastudio 4K, Blackmagic Teranex, Avid MC, 2013 Mac Pro Hexacore, 1TB SSD, 64GB RAM, 2-D500, Helios 2 w 2-960GB SSDs: 2012 Hexacore MacPro 3.33 Ghz, 24Gb RAM, GTX-680, 960GB SSD: Macbook Pro 17" 2011 2.2 Ghz Quadcore i7 16GB RAM 250GB SSD


Return to posts index

Aindreas Gallagher
Re: New FCPX user, what's all the hate about?
on Jun 26, 2015 at 9:02:06 pm

[Jim Wiseman] "Have shot two decades of cultural footage in the Pacific Islands and video art pieces that date back to the mid '70's. Doesn't pay much, but is work that needs to be done."

You've mentioned this before - was always slightly riven with jealousy. Sounds nice: cultural footage... pacific Islands.. I mean, God, but there's a ring to that.
David Lawrence seems to have been having a fine time with art installation work for quite a while too.

mad jelly like.

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


Return to posts index

Jim Wiseman
Re: New FCPX user, what's all the hate about?
on Jun 26, 2015 at 9:18:59 pm

Aindreas,
My wife does botanical work in the Pacific Islands (world expert on breadfruit, Mutiny on the Bounty, etc. Big potential as future food source) so I have been able to travel with her doing video and photo documentation since the mid '90s. Video synthesizers since 1970 at CalArts, Chicago Art Institute, PBS Chicago and independently in SF. David and I have many friends in common, especially in San Francisco where he still lives and most of my production and a lot of the video art work was done. Just met him in person in SF recently. Lots of fun stories!

Jim Wiseman
Sony PMW-EX1, Pana AJ-D810 DVCPro, DVX-100, Nikon D7000, Final Cut Pro X 10.2.1, Final Cut Studio 2 and 3, Media 100 Suite 2.1.6, Premiere Pro CS 5.5 and 6.0, AJA ioHD, AJA Kona LHi, Blackmagic Ultrastudio 4K, Blackmagic Teranex, Avid MC, 2013 Mac Pro Hexacore, 1TB SSD, 64GB RAM, 2-D500, Helios 2 w 2-960GB SSDs: 2012 Hexacore MacPro 3.33 Ghz, 24Gb RAM, GTX-680, 960GB SSD: Macbook Pro 17" 2011 2.2 Ghz Quadcore i7 16GB RAM 250GB SSD


Return to posts index

Jim Wiseman
Re: New FCPX user, what's all the hate about?
on Jun 27, 2015 at 3:52:07 am

BTW, you're a poet, Aindreas...

Jim Wiseman
Sony PMW-EX1, Pana AJ-D810 DVCPro, DVX-100, Nikon D7000, Final Cut Pro X 10.2.1, Final Cut Studio 2 and 3, Media 100 Suite 2.1.6, Premiere Pro CS 5.5 and 6.0, AJA ioHD, AJA Kona LHi, Blackmagic Ultrastudio 4K, Blackmagic Teranex, Avid MC, 2013 Mac Pro Hexacore, 1TB SSD, 64GB RAM, 2-D500, Helios 2 w 2-960GB SSDs: 2012 Hexacore MacPro 3.33 Ghz, 24Gb RAM, GTX-680, 960GB SSD: Macbook Pro 17" 2011 2.2 Ghz Quadcore i7 16GB RAM 250GB SSD


Return to posts index

Aindreas Gallagher
Re: New FCPX user, what's all the hate about?
on Jul 1, 2015 at 7:03:15 pm

more like verbal diarrhoea Jim..

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


Return to posts index

Sebastian Alvarez
Re: New FCPX user, what's all the hate about?
on Jul 1, 2015 at 7:09:03 pm
Last Edited By Sebastian Alvarez on Jul 1, 2015 at 7:10:57 pm

[Aindreas Gallagher] "diarrhoea"

Very original spelling of that word. Probably one of the most misspelled words in the English language, and I can't never get it right without autocorrect. Seems to me that that word is a load of crap. One could even say that whoever invented that word was full of s**t.


Return to posts index

Aindreas Gallagher
Re: New FCPX user, what's all the hate about?
on Jul 2, 2015 at 3:44:41 pm

yes, but american auto correct spells it the american way, like you guys spell tonight tonite and realise realize and manufacturing manyewfakturing and all those other quirky illiterate things you sweet simple people do.

http://www.nhs.uk/Conditions/Diarrhoea/Pages/Introduction.aspx

that's how the english spell it in english... what do you guys do - diarea? boom boom.

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


Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: New FCPX user, what's all the hate about?
on Jul 2, 2015 at 3:51:07 pm

Depends on the colour.


Return to posts index

Aindreas Gallagher
Re: New FCPX user, what's all the hate about?
on Jul 2, 2015 at 8:01:06 pm

pithy garchow, pithy.

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


Return to posts index

Shawn Miller
Re: New FCPX user, what's all the hate about?
on Jul 2, 2015 at 4:55:18 pm

[Aindreas Gallagher] "yes, but american auto correct spells it the american way, like you guys spell tonight tonite and realise realize"

lol... realize is the older spelling (from the days when we all pronounced "z" as zee), and "tonite" is "marketing spelling", like xtreme. As bad as some American schools are, "tonite" is only considered a word if you're talking about explosives. :-)

Shawn



Return to posts index

Michael Gissing
Re: New FCPX user, what's all the hate about?
on Jul 3, 2015 at 12:11:42 am

[Aindreas] "that's how the english spell it in english... what do you guys do - diarea? boom boom."

In Australian english it is known as Dire Rear. boom tish


Return to posts index

Jeff Markgraf
Re: New FCPX user, what's all the hate about?
on Jun 26, 2015 at 5:31:09 pm

I am (somewhat) amused by people who misrepresent a poster's words in order to further an old argument.


Return to posts index

Tony West
Re: New FCPX user, what's all the hate about?
on Jun 28, 2015 at 6:33:52 pm

[Sebastian Alvarez] "Yet, in less than a day I was editing on it like a champ,"

I had the same experience. I didn't bother to even read or watch anything on it. Just jumped in.
(I wish I had though now)



[Sebastian Alvarez] "I have no problem at all with using that Color Corrector as opposed to the 3-way one found in most NLEs,"

I found it about as straight forward as could be to use. Something looks a little yellow, slide over to that color and drop it down.

The other thing that I noticed right off the bat was how good the quality out of it looked. They had made improvements on that and it showed.

There was also this belief by some that Apple was walking away from professionals in this field.

That somehow they wanted 2 iMovies

I never believed that for a minute. I felt like they were going to add stuff back over time. Like they did.


Return to posts index

Sebastian Alvarez
Re: New FCPX user, what's all the hate about?
on Jun 30, 2015 at 7:34:42 pm

For all the things I like about FCPX, one thing that drives me nuts is the poor support for formats that are not Quicktime based. You can throw almost anything at Premiere, and that has been the case for many years. FCPX is very picky. I have these five year old files that were 1080i 29.97 fps in MPEG2 with ac3 audio, with .mpg extension. The import window will not let you import something as simple as that. The mpg files are grayed out, you can't even select them. Dragging and dropping onto the browser window doesn't work. Obviously I threw the same files into Premiere, After Effects (Mac & PC), Edius and Vegas, all of which took them without a problem and scroll through them happily.

It also doesn't take .ts (transport stream) files, which all the other NLEs do without a hitch. And while it takes m2ts files, you almost hear it complaining about, like "Why are you throwing this at me? I want Quicktime, man!", and of course it's a day at the beach judging by the amount of time the beach ball is spinning, which depending on the length or amount of the footage, it can be between one and several minutes. When it finally imports, working with m2ts video in FCPX is far from easy, the beach ball shows up very often. Obviously I threw the same file into Premiere and I was editing fast as I could be with no problems.

What makes this irritating is that it leaves place to crooked companies to post these "blogs" and do a very good SEO so that when you Google something like "How to load mpg files in FCPX", you will get all these fake blogs near the top of the results which show you how to convert an mpeg file to Prores using their software. Try it yourself, and you'll see, EasyFab, Brorsoft, and many more, all pretending to be some helpful guy writing a tutorial when it's the companies trying to cash on people gullible enough to buy that software when you can find many free ways to re-wrap a video to a format that FCPX will take. Don't get me wrong, I wouldn't have a beef with these companies if they would just straight up advertise their software, everybody has a right to make money even if there's another software that does the same thing for free, what I can't stand is the dishonesty of trying to pass themselves as colleagues helping colleagues that irritates me.

Rant aside, Apple has to start catching up on format support. Gone are the days of transcoding to an I frame only codec to be able to edit, today's computers, Macs or PCs, are fast enough to ingest most of the footage as it comes out of the camera and start editing, even on codecs with lots of B frames, and they have been for years (unless we're talking about those uncompressed 4k formats used in Hollywood movies, of which I have no experience with, but I'm sure they are probably much more demanding). Interestingly enough, FCPX can't import something as simple as MPEG2/ac3 with mpg extension, but it handles my UHD GoPro footage just fine, in its original mp4 60 Mbps as it comes out of the camera, without using GoPro Studio to transcode to Cineform. So why can't it take much simpler wrappers like mpg, m2ts, which require far less CPU cycles to decode?


Return to posts index

Bill Davis
Re: New FCPX user, what's all the hate about?
on Jun 30, 2015 at 9:24:20 pm
Last Edited By Bill Davis on Jun 30, 2015 at 9:52:42 pm

[Sebastian Alvarez] "So why can't it take much simpler wrappers like mpg, m2ts, which require far less CPU cycles to decode?"

I don't know the specific answers Sebastian, but whenever it comes to codecs, you are in IP land.

Apple, right or wrong, seems to feel that they want to keep their software as free from relaying on "not in house" codecs to the extent possible. Obviously they are a part of the MPEG and h-264 style consortiums - therefor are IP clear for all that stuff. WMV has the same history on the PC side, as does Flash. License it formally or go fish. That's what IP is all about.

It's a bit of a drag, but staying out of the codec business too far afield from their own IP - Quicktime previously and AV Foundation stuff now - leaves a lot of room for the VLCs and Handbrakes of the world to keep healthy.

Which I like.

YMMV

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


Return to posts index

Walter Soyka
Re: New FCPX user, what's all the hate about?
on Jul 3, 2015 at 1:10:25 pm

[Bill Davis] "I don't know the specific answers Sebastian, but whenever it comes to codecs, you are in IP land. Apple, right or wrong, seems to feel that they want to keep their software as free from relaying on "not in house" codecs to the extent possible. Obviously they are a part of the MPEG and h-264 style consortiums - therefor are IP clear for all that stuff."

In fairness, Sebastian is not talking about some esoteric codec; he's talking about MPEG-2 in an industry-standard MPEG container format.


[Bill Davis] "It's a bit of a drag, but staying out of the codec business too far afield from their own IP - Quicktime previously and AV Foundation stuff now - leaves a lot of room for the VLCs and Handbrakes of the world to keep healthy. Which I like. YMMV"

My mileage does vary. :) I'd like to see AV Foundation extensible the way QuickTime was so that developers can add codec and container support across the system as a whole instead of specifically within applications on a case-by-case basis.

A non-extensible AV Foundation requires developers to use only Apple-approved codecs, or to maintain their own media handling frameworks. In my opinion, either option is a step backwards from what we had.

Walter Soyka
Designer & Mad Scientist at Keen Live [link]
Motion Graphics, Widescreen Events, Presentation Design, and Consulting
@keenlive [twitter]   |   RenderBreak [blog]   |   Profile [LinkedIn]


Return to posts index

Sebastian Alvarez
Re: New FCPX user, what's all the hate about?
on Jul 3, 2015 at 5:11:36 pm

[Walter Soyka] "[Bill Davis] "I don't know the specific answers Sebastian, but whenever it comes to codecs, you are in IP land. Apple, right or wrong, seems to feel that they want to keep their software as free from relaying on "not in house" codecs to the extent possible. Obviously they are a part of the MPEG and h-264 style consortiums - therefor are IP clear for all that stuff."

In fairness, Sebastian is not talking about some esoteric codec; he's talking about MPEG-2 in an industry-standard MPEG container format."


That, and the complete lack of coherence in how Mac OS X and FCPX handles them. The OS and NLE come from the same company. Quicktime player can happily play .mpg files. FCPX cannot unless you change the extension to .mod, an obscure extension that a Google search tells me was used by some JVC Everio camcorders. However, after you changed the extension from .mpg to .mod, FCPX will ingest it (after playing beach ball for a long while), but QT player won't open the file.

.m2ts, a very common extension that every other NLE takes without a hitch, for FCPX is a day at the beach and be prepared to move the import window aside to work on something else (BTW, what happened to Steve Jobs mandate from about 10 years ago that no window or dialog in OS X was supposed to be modal? Yosemite is full of them, including all help). However, after some internal deliberation, it takes m2ts file. QT player? Error.

What about Compressor? It behaves like QT player despite being part of the FCPX suite, or at least much more closer to FCPX than to QT player. It imports .mpg, doesn't import .m2ts. I haven't tried much else though.

I find this all very strange since all of this software comes from the same company.


Return to posts index

Andrew Kimery
Re: New FCPX user, what's all the hate about?
on Jun 30, 2015 at 9:45:29 pm

[Sebastian Alvarez] "Gone are the days of transcoding to an I frame only codec to be able to edit, today's computers, Macs or PCs, are fast enough to ingest most of the footage as it comes out of the camera and start editing,..."

Transcoding isn't always required (or even possible depending on the workflow) but there is always a trade off between staying on a more compressed, inter-frame camera codec vs an intra-frame codec. Given Apple's focus on user experience I'm not surprised that they would rather guarantee a performance floor with a relatively limited set of codecs as opposed to supporting a much wider variety and having some codecs perform well and others perform like dogs.


Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: New FCPX user, what's all the hate about?
on Jul 1, 2015 at 1:08:23 am

[Andrew Kimery] "
Transcoding isn't always required (or even possible depending on the workflow) but there is always a trade off between staying on a more compressed, inter-frame camera codec vs an intra-frame codec. Given Apple's focus on user experience I'm not surprised that they would rather guarantee a performance floor with a relatively limited set of codecs as opposed to supporting a much wider variety and having some codecs perform well and others perform like dogs."


Let's not forget that Apple, for the first time in history, has embraced near native MXF workflows in import and export.

Op1a MXF is nearly native to the OS. Not quite, but almost.


Return to posts index

Ronny Courtens
Re: New FCPX user, what's all the hate about?
on Jul 1, 2015 at 2:22:58 pm

Sebastian,

Regarding the .mpeg files: we always get these when we ask for archive footage from our national broadcaster. Of course .mpeg is just a wrapper that can hold many different variations of MPEG. But in our case simply changing the extension to .mod allows us to import the files in FCP X without any issues. Just an idea , it also might work for you. (.tod might also work.)

- Ronny


Return to posts index

Sebastian Alvarez
Re: New FCPX user, what's all the hate about?
on Jul 1, 2015 at 6:01:30 pm

Hi Ronny, I'm confused, you say that changing to .mod or .tod extensions lets you import the files into FCPX. I had no idea what those extensions were, but regardless I did change the extension in one of the mpg files first to .mod and then to .tod. Neither of them worked. Shows grayed out in the import window and drag and drop doesn't work either. How is it that you are able to do this but I can't?


Return to posts index

Sebastian Alvarez
Re: New FCPX user, what's all the hate about?
on Jul 1, 2015 at 8:14:05 pm

Hi Ronny, I'm confused, you say that changing to .mod or .tod extensions lets you import the files into FCPX. I had no idea what those extensions were, but regardless I did change the extension in one of the mpg files first to .mod and then to .tod, neither of them worked. Shows grayed out in the import window and drag and drop doesn't work either. How is it that you are able to do this but I can't?

Edit: I found what the problem was. For some reason, the files were showing the .mpg extension. When I changed the extension to .mod in the Finder, they would still show grayed out in FCPX. But when opening the info module in the Finder for one of those files, I realized "Hide extension" was checked, and though the file was showing .mod, when I unchecked the hide extension setting, it was showing .mod.mpg. So using the info module I deleted the .mpg and that way they show in FCPX available for import. Interestingly enough, when associating the .mod extension with Quicktime Player, said player can't open the file, even though it had no problem opening it when the extension was .mpg. Oh, the lovely world of Apple...


Return to posts index

Bill Davis
Re: New FCPX user, what's all the hate about?
on Jul 1, 2015 at 10:48:36 pm

Actually, that's likely the lovely world of autocorrect in play.

Try just switching the extension to .mov
Which both QuickTime and AVFoundation can read.

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


Return to posts index

Sebastian Alvarez
Re: New FCPX user, what's all the hate about?
on Jul 2, 2015 at 7:18:49 pm

[Bill Davis] "ctually, that's likely the lovely world of autocorrect in play.

Try just switching the extension to .mov
Which both QuickTime and AVFoundation can read."


You make a good point (after all we're all victims to autocorrect these days) but I think he actually meant .mod and .tod as strange as it sounds. I tried changing the extension to .mov and FCPX didn't want anything to do with it, and QT player wouldn't open them. FCPX is still fine with .mod, though, even if it chokes in the import window for a while.

Apple really needs to work on these format issues if they want to be any kind of competition to Adobe Premiere, which especially with the latest release is going to get more users than even before. I mean, if I can throw anything at Premiere and it plays without issue, while FCPX is picky about formats, many editors won't have the time or patience to deal with that.


Return to posts index

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