FORUMS: list search recent posts

Why do users say FCP X is fast? Some new numbers.

COW Forums : Apple Final Cut Pro X Debates

<< PREVIOUS   •   VIEW ALL   •   PRINT   •   NEXT >>
Bill Davis
Why do users say FCP X is fast? Some new numbers.
on Aug 14, 2015 at 3:33:05 pm

Had my new Retina MacBook Pro (mid 2015 with the force touch trackpad) for a couple of months now and I've been experiencing what felt like a HUGE productivity boost compared to my older system. So much so that it seemed like a whole different working environment.

This video sets out to compare last years MacBook Pro to the new one, but it's interesting that for the tests, Max Yuryev used both FCP X and Premiere Pro to benchmark performance.

Bottom line: Cuda definitely boosted PPro performance on both the laptops nicely.

But the eye opener is how FCP X performs on the latest Apple laptop.

It's in a whole different class.

A LOT of the new speed is clearly due to X being optimized for the new R9 GPU in the new Retina MacBook Pro, but I honestly didn't expect THIS much of a boost.

It bodes well for what all computer manufacturers can accomplish when they truly optimize tasks like intensive video editing processes to the latest advances in hardware as those appear.

The actual speed tests start at about 4:00 in.

http://www.fcp.co/final-cut-pro/articles/1710-final-cut-pro-x-v-adobe-premi...

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

Tom Sefton
Re: Why do users say FCP X is fast? Some new numbers.
on Aug 14, 2015 at 3:57:44 pm

The most recent version has got miles faster exporting R3D to ProRes and h264, but as yet it still can't compete with RedCineX Pro from our new Mac Pros. It's still pretty sluggish when editing Dragon footage at 6K, but overall the improvements have been fantastic. Hopefully future versions will get even more smooth!

Co-owner at Pollen Studio
http://www.pollenstudio.co.uk


Return to posts index

Walter Soyka
Re: Why do users say FCP X is fast? Some new numbers.
on Aug 14, 2015 at 4:02:56 pm
Last Edited By Walter Soyka on Aug 14, 2015 at 4:06:04 pm

[Bill Davis] "A LOT of the new speed is clearly due to X being optimized for the new R9 GPU in the new Retina MacBook Pro, but I honestly didn't expect THIS much of a boost. It bodes well for what all computer manufacturers can accomplish when they truly optimize tasks like intensive video editing processes to the latest advances in hardware as those appear."

See also this thread, started by the original tester:
https://forums.creativecow.net/thread/335/82723

I think it's important to note that as designed, the primary factor in this test is actually H.264 compression, not the rendering pipeline. I'd bet Apple is using Intel Quick Sync [link] to accelerate H.264 compression, and I'd bet Adobe is not.

Quick Sync is a hardware feature of recent Intel Core consumer-class processors, but not on of Xeon workstation/server processors. Look at the original data:
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1j8fTm7y6AbkDipHhFBKknTqQ45q7RxKmV4w...

Note in the test data how a MBP running FCPX shames a nMP running FCPX by a factor of almost 6x! On the nMP, where Quick Sync is not a variable and the test is a slightly purer pipeline comparison, Pr actually outperforms FCPX by about 20%!

I'm not saying that knowing the speed of H.264 compression isn't important or that Apple's use of Quick Sync is not relevant; it is. But I do think this test as currently designed does not support your hypothesis that the results are driven by the new GPU.

I would, however, agree with your conclusion (assuming you're talking about software developers moreso than computer manufacturers, as there is only one company in our industry where that Venn diagram would overlap).

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


Bill Davis
Re: Why do users say FCP X is fast? Some new numbers.
on Aug 14, 2015 at 4:44:51 pm
Last Edited By Bill Davis on Aug 14, 2015 at 4:50:15 pm

Walter,

As always I appreciate your analysis and know that in a world where someone is trying to discern what system is optimized to perform all manner of high-stress rendering and mission critical workflows, the factors you mention are clearly relevant.

I also suspect that there are readers here who simple want to EDIT real world stuff, plenty of which is generated by legions of new generation MXF, AVCHD, ProRes and yes, h-264 spewing cameras - and for them, this kind of "real world" test is pretty relevant. The fact that an easily purchased laptop running equally accessible software can "play with the big boys"in the I NEED TO GET MY WORK DONE FAST! game is news enough.

Not perhaps at the total top of the game, I admit. If you're shooting as the above poster is, 6k Red Dragon files — then what you can even do that on a commercial laptop is surely interesting, but, i suspect, not exactly central to their decision making processes.

For the editor who just needs to get their day to day work done quickly and efficiently (like me!) it's STILL a revelation that my new laptop provided such a HUGE boost in productivity. Way beyond what I expected when I bought it to replace my aging old machine.

As always, your detailed analysis of the underlying technology is welcome and personally interesting. As always, I'm really glad you're here.

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


Return to posts index

Steve Connor
Re: Why do users say FCP X is fast? Some new numbers.
on Aug 14, 2015 at 4:32:49 pm

So is the timeline and edit performance significantly increased? I honestly don't care in the slightest about output renders as that's such a small percentage of my project time I don't mind a slightly longer wait. What I do care about is the timeline and editing in FCPX having less lag.


Return to posts index

Bret Williams
Re: Why do users say FCP X is fast? Some new numbers.
on Aug 14, 2015 at 6:56:06 pm

Ditto. If you have a large library (job) with lots of projects (sequences) and versions and each has compounds, titles, color correction, effects, templates, and all the other stuff that encompasses a usual edit, then the app really is a dog. Lag, beach balls, you name it. I tend to restart the app every half an hour to clear out whatever the gunk is that's gumming it up.

But yeah, 3 months later it saves me 5 minutes on my export. :)


Return to posts index


Bill Davis
Re: Why do users say FCP X is fast? Some new numbers.
on Aug 14, 2015 at 7:30:23 pm
Last Edited By Bill Davis on Aug 14, 2015 at 7:51:36 pm

I used to see beachballs and the need to re-start occasionally too.
Haven't once since the new hardware. But maybe it's an "order of complexity" thing. Be interesting to see whether whatever new MacPros are in the future make a commensurate difference to what I'm seeing in older laptop tech vs the latest laptop tech.

It's also likely the super fast SSD is making a perception difference for me. Seems like waiting for anything is now a thing of the past. Note I currently keep smaller projects on the SSD and do larger projects via USB 3 externals because that's what I have currently. With dual Thunderbolt 2 ports on the MBPro, I'm sure I'll be seeing a throughput boost there as I migrate my storage devices to the new TB buss.

It's been known for a long time that X does seem to LOVE the latest and fastest hardware you can afford.

Now if they just keep the prices on external SSD's falling I'll be happy.

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

Oliver Peters
Re: Why do users say FCP X is fast? Some new numbers.
on Aug 14, 2015 at 9:49:46 pm

I decided to run a similar test on my laptop, but with a slightly different sequence set-up. My machine was bought early this year, so it's essentially the new hardware, except with the Nvidia card.

15" Retina MBP 16GB RAM 1TB SSD (MBP 11,3)
Iris + GT750M GPU
2.8 GHz i7

BMD Speed Test with a 5GB file wack is around 940 write / 860 read.

Mac 10.10.4
FCP X 10.2.1
PProCC 2015

All media and exports to the same internal SDD. My source clips were 1080p/23.98 ProResHQ in a 1080p/23.98 timeline. TRT 5 min. 5 sec. All clips were scaled up by 20% and had native color correction. Several titles with shadows and several 5-layer PIPs with scale and rotation on layer 2-5. Base layer clip in the PIP had a Gaussian blur. This was duplicated in both apps.

FCPX export to 1080p ProRes 1:48
PProCC with Open CL export to ProRes 5:41
PProCC with Open CL export to MXF 6:20
PProCC with Open CL export to ProRes via AME 6:05
PProCC with CUDA export to ProRes 3:45
PProCC with CUDA export to MXF 4:40
PProCC with CUDA export to ProRes via AME 5:55

The MXF and AME exports were done to test if these might be faster in an Adobe workflow since you aren't going through QuickTime and because AME is usually a faster renderer. The later doesn't appear to be true with a single file. Clearly FCPX is a faster render/exporter and that has nothing to do with H.264 optimization in this case.

As far as performance with X, I bought this machine for a large on-site corporate conference gig. I was cutting down 1-2 hour multicam recordings of presentations. 4 streams of ProRes from a single USB 3.0 drive. The operation was very fluid. I will attest to the fact that comparison to any older machine, like my 2009 MacPro tower is night and day, even though the tower now has an SSD. Large FCP X projects or long timelines and long source clips simply bog down the machine in the worst way when you are trying to rock & roll in the edit. You absolutely can't get good performance if you turn on waveforms or filmstrips in the timeline. The MBP shines in that regard.

Premiere Pro also works quite well, but CC2015 is a bit touchier in things like screen refreshes and seems to now suffer from the same quit/restart issues that have plagued FCP X. I work on two machines with Nvidia cards (counting this laptop and a client's) and I must say that overall the Mac works better with the AMDs. I have a Sapphire 7950 in the tower. The Nvidias just seem glitchier.

- Oliver

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


Return to posts index

Mathieu Ghekiere
Re: Why do users say FCP X is fast? Some new numbers.
on Aug 15, 2015 at 11:00:25 am

Hi Oliver,

when I saw the original test-video that Bill linked too, I was glad to see it but I also was in doubt because he didn't share full details on codecs and settings used. (Even though I'm an FCPX user switched from FCP7, I want my results fair and transparant and clear, because I think Adobe is trying to do a lot of good stuff with Premiere too, even though I don't see myself going back to tracks anymore, but who knows).
So it's nice to see your results too, which pretty much confirm that FCPX is a very fast renderer (which I also notice on my pretty new machines - a 2014 Macbook Air and a base model 5K Retina iMac), but with full settings and codecs revealed to have a more informed view.
Thanks and regards,


Return to posts index


Walter Soyka
Re: Why do users say FCP X is fast? Some new numbers.
on Aug 16, 2015 at 7:21:13 pm

[Mathieu Ghekiere] "So it's nice to see your results too, which pretty much confirm that FCPX is a very fast renderer"

It's not just fast. The FCPX rendering pipeline is 32-bit floating point and color-managed, so it's good, too. (And it's cheap. So much for the Triangle of Truth.)

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

Andrew Kimery
Re: Why do users say FCP X is fast? Some new numbers.
on Aug 16, 2015 at 8:02:24 pm

[Walter Soyka] "It's not just fast. The FCPX rendering pipeline is 32-bit floating point and color-managed, so it's good, too. (And it's cheap. So much for the Triangle of Truth.)"

It's only cheap if you already have a Mac to run it on. ;)


Return to posts index

Neil Goodman
Re: Why do users say FCP X is fast? Some new numbers.
on Aug 15, 2015 at 2:31:58 pm

[Steve Connor] "So is the timeline and edit performance significantly increased? I honestly don't care in the slightest about output renders as that's such a small percentage of my project time I don't mind a slightly longer wait. What I do care about is the timeline and editing in FCPX having less lag."


this.


Return to posts index


Charlie Austin
Re: Why do users say FCP X is fast? Some new numbers.
on Aug 15, 2015 at 2:49:20 pm
Last Edited By Charlie Austin on Aug 15, 2015 at 2:49:53 pm

[Neil Goodman] "this." ... is not an issue if you have a newer machine. (see Olivers test above) Not surprising, as Apple is in the business of selling computers. :-)

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

~ 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

Tom Sefton
Re: Why do users say FCP X is fast? Some new numbers.
on Aug 15, 2015 at 5:12:27 pm

It still is an issue if you are working with high resolution raw footage, even with a high spec Mac pro. Unfortunately, premiere cc is hands down miles faster at doing this when you drop your working resolution to 1/4. The timeline doesn't slow down, you don't occasionally lose waveforms on your clips and you don't get the beach ball every time you need to keyframe something. For one massive project we are working in fcpx with this kind of footage and it works, just with these performance glitches. It's come a very, very long way but for speed of interface it still has ground to make.

Co-owner at Pollen Studio
http://www.pollenstudio.co.uk


Return to posts index

Bill Davis
Re: Why do users say FCP X is fast? Some new numbers.
on Aug 16, 2015 at 7:50:16 am

Tom, the only thing that is absolutely clear from my experience lately is a major reinforcement of the idea that the foundational programming of FCP X is the type of code that was written for where the hardware capabilities of modern computers were going - not where they had been. Even the "new" MacPro is (in computer terms) aging tech hardware now. And the latest MacBook Pro performance I'm seeing is MILES ahead of what I was experiencing prior to my recent upgrade. This theme echoed the stories from last year about how iMacs from some months after the new MacPros intro were giving them a run for their money in editing speed. This all causes me to wonder two things. What will future CPU and GPU advances enable? And what the landscape will look like for X editing when Apple inevitably updates the Cylinder? Just food for thought.

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


Tom Sefton
Re: Why do users say FCP X is fast? Some new numbers.
on Aug 16, 2015 at 1:49:47 pm

I get that bill, and the increase in performance for 1080p projects on MacBook Pro and iMac is v exciting. It would be really great if there was some indication that a new Mac Pro is due to be released and take advantage of this new coding though, as many production houses like ours are hanging on to see if another is coming to help speed up workflow of high res, raw projects. The only thing I know from current experience is that editing r3d based projects in 4, 5 and 6K is sluggish on fcpx and fast on premiere cc. I wish it wasn't so because the more I use fcpx, the more I love it.

Co-owner at Pollen Studio
http://www.pollenstudio.co.uk


Return to posts index

Christian Schumacher
Re: Why do users say FCP X is fast? Some new numbers.
on Aug 16, 2015 at 4:39:32 pm
Last Edited By Christian Schumacher on Aug 16, 2015 at 4:41:52 pm

[Tom Sefton] "The only thing I know from current experience is that editing r3d based projects in 4, 5 and 6K is sluggish on fcpx and fast on premiere cc."

That's not your case, Tom! Excuse my ramblings and thanks for the honest report, but I was wondering and hoping if someone could expand on this; Why is there this persistent future promise regarding apple/final cut? I heard the other day people saying that FCPX is the only nle truly future proof? These people claim FCPX is fresh new code and the most prepared for raw files and upcoming codecs. This sounds old news actually, who can remember the 'phenomena' rumour in which apple would bring a 'kill them all' application? What really happened at the end? A few lines of code from Shake are now used in FCPX and Motion. That's the sound of reality sinking in.


Return to posts index

Oliver Peters
Re: Why do users say FCP X is fast? Some new numbers.
on Aug 16, 2015 at 5:21:10 pm

[Christian Schumacher] "These people claim FCPX is fresh new code and the most prepared for raw files and upcoming codecs. "

I question that, too. At this stage, FCPX code is at least 1-2 years older than the public product release. Therefore 5-6 years of code development at this point.

- Oliver

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


Return to posts index

Bill Davis
Re: Why do users say FCP X is fast? Some new numbers.
on Aug 16, 2015 at 5:46:57 pm

So how does the Platform code compare? OSX introduced a LOT of new code related directly to what we do. AV Foundation, Core Video, Core Audio, Core Grahics etc, etc. X is clearly built on that. When did the competition clear out the cobwebs in the legacy code base to do the same? Honest question, I'm not as hardware development savvy as many here.

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

Oliver Peters
Re: Why do users say FCP X is fast? Some new numbers.
on Aug 16, 2015 at 6:32:07 pm

[Bill Davis] "When did the competition clear out the cobwebs in the legacy code base to do the same? Honest question, I'm not as hardware development savvy as many here."

I have no idea, other than to say it's been an ongoing process that's still occurring. Both Avid and Adobe in particular write code based on something common that can then be ported to Mac or Windows. Presumably BMD does the same with Resolve. In the case of Avid and Adobe, these are modular applications, so things are being updated all the time, rather than a wholesale gutting of the application and then starting over.

The point though, is that FCP X coding was started 6 year ago (maybe longer). Internally Apple is very secretive, so there's no real guarantee that FCP X was actually written with new hardware or OS in mind. AV Foundation was already in existence due to iOS. So in any case, it's hard to say whether the ProApps engineers really had any great advance knowledge of what Apple was doing in other parts. 'Building for a modern framework' was likely just as much guesswork on their part as it has been for anyone else. The roadmap isn't Apple's as much as it is that of Intel, AMD, and Nvidia. Here Apple is in the same boat as the others.

The big difference with X is that Apple could streamline the code by simply not including a lot of things based on legacy workflows. Some of this was obvious and necessary, but some was a design choice that many pro users wish they hadn't opted for.

- Oliver

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


Return to posts index

Walter Soyka
Re: Why do users say FCP X is fast? Some new numbers.
on Aug 16, 2015 at 7:16:54 pm

[Bill Davis] "So how does the Platform code compare?"

I think this is the most significant difference between Apple and their competition. Not that Apple integrates their own hardware -- recall that Adobe was qualifying only specific GPUs just a couple years ago -- but that Apple controls both the OS and the application, and doesn't care in the least about portability (in the software platform sense of the word).

You can look at FCPX as a really glorious demo for Mac developers. Huge amounts of its core functionality is handled by OS APIs, from media handling to image processing to data storage. If you care about cross-platform development, you cannot rely exclusively on this functionality.


[Bill Davis] "OSX introduced a LOT of new code related directly to what we do. AV Foundation, Core Video, Core Audio, Core Grahics etc, etc. X is clearly built on that. When did the competition clear out the cobwebs in the legacy code base to do the same? Honest question, I'm not as hardware development savvy as many here."

Premiere Pro CS5, going all 64-bit and introducing the set of technologies collectively called the Mercury Playback Engine, is probably what you're asking about here on the Adobe side. To suggest that only Apple understands where computer hardware is going and writes their software accordingly seems strange when most of the hardware-related performance "innovations" in FCPX were already shipping in Pr for a year when X launched.

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

Bill Davis
Re: Why do users say FCP X is fast? Some new numbers.
on Aug 16, 2015 at 5:39:10 pm

Not sure I can see the foundation for your reasoning, Christian. The experience of using X has been one of continuous utility and speed improvement since the day it was released. (BTW, That can be said of Premiere Pro as well - but only on the software side since they do not manufacture hardware)
The way I'm editing in X today is MUCH faster and more fluid than it was even two years ago.
And that is clearly (IMO) the result of a company that is in control of both hardware and software development in concert.

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

Christian Schumacher
Re: Why do users say FCP X is fast? Some new numbers.
on Aug 16, 2015 at 11:34:18 pm

[Bill Davis] "Not sure I can see the foundation for your reasoning, Christian. The experience of using X has been one of continuous utility and speed improvement since the day it was released. "

Using FCPX since 2012 I have seen two companies trying to use it. It didn’t work out for them unfortunately. I personally own FCPX and use it now and then for personal projects. But I’m cautious and still running 10.1.3 and 10.9.5. Maybe sometime in 2016 I’ll consider 10.10.5 and FCPX 10.2.x Please, consider this if you want to know if I’m qualified to talk about FCPX. I like the timeline index, scopes and proxies built in. And depending on what you're editing it is fast. But the biggest problems with it for me are split in two (see later why) 1) Editing - It’s fine in theory and its implantation is pretty good, but this should be waaay better developed by now to be truly seen as revolutionary. Primary vs secondary with its constrains like lack of keyboard shortcuts and no locks whatsoever, it’s a mouse fest really and spotty connection points abound, at the end it’s all as clumsy as track patching can be 2) Tagging - The better part of FCPX! But for me it sort of falls apart when one cannot set keywords on timelines. Still stumped on why they haven’t done this yet and what else? Does Roles applied on timelines reflect back to the master clips? No, right? That’s half baked for apple’s capabilities in my opinion. There seems to be something beyond glitchy between the browser where you work on the clip tagging and the timeline where you work on editing these clips, and it’s not just the lack of a windows layout system - or the match frame throwing you away from your keywords or the frame buffer stickiness in the viewer - it’s the overall experience of a somewhat schizofrenic procedure. They have to fix that. There’s still hope for treatment though, with the size of apple’s pockets they could turn this wacko into a sane person. Or they could improve the export times - rimshot :D


Return to posts index

Charlie Austin
Re: Why do users say FCP X is fast? Some new numbers.
on Aug 17, 2015 at 12:53:26 am

[Christian Schumacher] "Primary vs secondary with its constrains like lack of keyboard shortcuts and no locks whatsoever, it’s a mouse fest really and spotty connection points abound, at the end it’s all as clumsy as track patching can be "

All due respect, and while I in no way think fop x is perfection, I gotta disagree with you on this. I own FCP X and use it on professional projects. I rent Pr CC and use it on professional projects. I'll agree that X could use some more KB shortcuts fro edit/clip selection etc. But connecting clips in X is in no way as clumsy as track patching. Different? Yep. Clumsy? Nope.

[Christian Schumacher] "But for me it sort of falls apart when one cannot set keywords on timelines. "

You can rename secondary storylines and easily find them in the index, is that what you mean? Or do you want the ability to add new KW ranges in a timeline? Why? Serious question.

[Christian Schumacher] " Does Roles applied on timelines reflect back to the master clips? No, right? That’s half baked for apple’s capabilities in my opinion."

No, and again, why would you want them to? It would be a nightmare. You set Roles on master clips, and if you need to change them, or reclassify them in a timeline, why would you want that to flow back to the master? If you decide that you've assigned the wrong role to a master, change the master.

The ability to assign finer grained roles, for lack of a better term, in the timeline without affecting the master is a feature IMO, not a bug. If I'm in Premiere and have a master multichannel audio file with DIA/FX/and MX, and I put an explosion from the comped effects channel on to another track, should that then change the channel configuration of the master? Absolutely not right? So if I assign the Role "explosion" to a bit of my master "Effects" audio channel , I do not want that channel in the master to suddenly change to "explosion". Right?


Again, please don't lump me in with the "FCP X is perfect and cannot be improved" crowd. I'm not a part of it. I actually use X and other NLE's all the time, for the same types of projects. X has lots of room for improvement, but a lot of the stuff you brought up just isn't an issue.

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

~ 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

Christian Schumacher
Re: Why do users say FCP X is fast? Some new numbers.
on Aug 17, 2015 at 3:13:12 am

If a lot of the stuff I brought up just isn't an issue why, wait how should I put this? Why are they an issue? It’s these sort of problems that is driving people away from FCPX Charlie, and people want that stuff to work. Maybe not you. you find it perfect, right? :D Regarding roles being affected on the timeline only, I agree to a certain point, because this should be an option out of many apple decided not to include in the application. And that is a shame if you ask me. FCPX relies heavily on roles so it will be fundamental to apply a role on a timeline at the master level. I can’t believe you haven’t heard that before or wouldn’t know what this would accomplish. Weird. And did you never really hear nobody asking for setting keywords on timelines? Or for what purpose people would want this? Even weirder. How about the lack of windows layouts? Let me guess; never! The match frame throwing you away from your keywords? That one too? The frame buffer sticking in the viewer between the timeline and browser? C’mon that's not existant. Maybe any severe memory leaks? Hmm?


Return to posts index

Mathieu Ghekiere
Re: Why do users say FCP X is fast? Some new numbers.
on Aug 17, 2015 at 10:33:14 am

Charlie just typed: X has a lot of room for improvement and don't lump me in with the crowd that says it's perfect, and you reply with: 'for you it's perfect, right?'
:-s

I agree with Charlie about the roles not affecting the Master Clip. Now it's always a very certain logic: if you do something in the Event Browser to a clip before you put in the timeline, it gets transferred to the timeline, but not reverse way. I also agree it would be a mess if it would work both ways.

You don't loose keywords if you do Match Frame, unless I'm misunderstanding you.

I also have a bullet point list of 30 or 40 points that I wish Apple would change or make better in the program, but I also think most of what you say isn't that high on my list, or non-excistant at all.


Return to posts index

Bill Davis
Re: Why do users say FCP X is fast? Some new numbers.
on Aug 17, 2015 at 5:03:35 pm
Last Edited By Bill Davis on Aug 17, 2015 at 5:09:06 pm

I completely understand the comments in the above two responses - once again they are perfectly reasonable reactions of people who are judging X processes against a knowledge base of "this is how I've always edited - so where are all the tools I'm used to?"

That is completely fair and completely understandable.

But it's not entirely relevant to judging X, IMO.

The way you previously ran your daily editing operations are usually NOT the way you run them in X in very fundamental and significant operational ways. When you truly get used to the X system, many of the things you depended on for editing daily simply become NOT as important as they used to be. Not ALWAYS. Not for EVERYTHING. And it's certainly possible to miss things that you used to have. I get that.

And I certainly understand those who face poor performance or slowdowns. I've run into that too over my X experience with my last system having problems with things from bogging down in heavy motion constructions to crashing out of a lot of the new 3D text stuff. But new hardware made that stuff disappear. It returned large amounts of fluidity to the most challenging parts of my editing operations. So I'm not sure I'll lay that on X itself since that stuff disappeared with a hardware upgrade. (X loves new hardware - surprise, surprise)

But what I found is that for everything that I initially missed about saying goodbye to track based editing, I suddenly had half a dozen new things that became much more important to my work - particularly in organization, efficiency and speed of getting from Import to invoice.

Given that critical part of what the software does for me. I can happily put up with imperfections until they are addressed. (or even live without them if necessary!)

The key is that I didn't FOCUS on the imperfections when I was learning X. I focused on the growing awareness that the tool was letting me get way more accomplished - way faster - and with an affordable, excellent quality system - that freed me up to approach my entire practice differently.

That may not matter to someone who wants to keep a seat in an editing facility. And I get that. (Tho I do wonder if it will matter to the bean counters above him or her in the long run!) But it DOES make a whole lot of difference in someone who has to compete with a world increasingly awash in "video editors."

To riff on Walters value triangle post: I don't aspire to be cheaper. So I had damn well better be as good and fast as I possibly can. And X helps.

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

Aindreas Gallagher
Re: Why do users say FCP X is fast? Some new numbers.
on Aug 17, 2015 at 11:38:34 pm

[Bill Davis] "The way you previously ran your daily editing operations are usually NOT the way you run them in X in very fundamental and significant operational ways. When you truly get used to the X system, many of the things you depended on for editing daily simply become NOT as important as they used to be."

But It's like you're on the starship enterprise bill. You know, like FCPX has a neural net Data SQL database only the chosen can fully perceive.
Or maybe it's just some software amongst many that some people really don't respect at all. And they really don't. And they are exactly as intelligent as you.
But you do respect it, and that's all cool Bill.

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


Return to posts index

Bill Davis
Re: Why do users say FCP X is fast? Some new numbers.
on Aug 18, 2015 at 1:36:54 am

[Aindreas Gallagher] "But It's like you're on the starship enterprise bill. You know, like FCPX has a neural net Data SQL database only the chosen can fully perceive.
Or maybe it's just some software amongst many that some people really don't respect at all. And they really don't. And they are exactly as intelligent as you.
But you do respect it, and that's all cool Bill."


I was going to try to figure out where there was anything useful in these randomly assembled words... then I realized that it's truly not worth the effort.

Have a nice day.

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

Aindreas Gallagher
Re: Why do users say FCP X is fast? Some new numbers.
on Aug 18, 2015 at 4:33:11 pm

sure that's fine -

the basic gist would be that the software isn't as mystically advanced as you think it is, you seem over-invested in your perception of the software, you defend it by saying that people who dislike it as software don't understand it, implying superior knowledge on your part, but the fact is it's pretty easy to get a handle on - it's just that lots of people disregard it as poorly designed software - and those people are just as smart as you!

simples!


A

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


Return to posts index

Tim Wilson
Re: Why do users say FCP X is fast? Some new numbers.
on Aug 18, 2015 at 4:59:25 pm

[Aindreas Gallagher] " it's just that lots of people disregard it as poorly designed software - and those people are just as smart as you!

simples!"


You know, I think it may be simpler than that. They just don't LIKE it. I think there's room for that.

Spoiler alert: a simile that's not a car simile! I don't like eggs. I can tolerate them if you bury them under a pile of tortillas, guacamole, enchilada sauce, beans, salsa, guacamole, and sour cream -- but that particular pile of food is better without the eggs...and I understand eggs completely. I'm not afraid of them. I just don't LIKE them.

And before Sam I Am pipes up, yes, I've had them green with ham, but 60 years later, I get to say, "I just don't LIKE them."

Four years later here, I STILL don't think adequate shrift is given to "it looks neato for you, I acknowledge what you're saying, but it doesn't work for me."

Or, "There are no needs in my present NLE that X addresses, so I don't feel it's worth the effort to build that much new muscle memory. Yes, it's doable -- I obviously learned how to do it with THIS one, and the amount of change I've put myself through for 30 years is unimaginable to many of you -- but I don't feel the need THIS time."

Or, "I just don't like it."

While this is by no means the case for every one of its proponents, I distressingly often still catch a whiff of disapproval for any of these very legitimate reasons.

One of the ways I see this is in the implication that people are being "held back" for psychological reasons as well as cognitive ones -- or more often, to the EXCLUSION of rational reasons. You know what? It can often be the case. I don't think most of us have begun to reckon with the fact that what seems like our most discretionary choices -- career, where we live, our life partners -- could possibly among the ones most driven by pre-rational forces.

It's no big deal, though. Not even worth pursuing. The fact that they ARE driven by unexamined internal dynamics is why most of the time, most of these choices work for most of us.

But it grinds any reasonable discussion to a halt to fail to acknowledge that there are equally compelling psychological reasons for adopting X that have little to do with rational ones. Which is also okay. If it works for you, who cares why?

It only matters to the extent that those forces are invoked in discussions like these, and the belief that only the OTHER guy is subject to them. The internal components that latch on to innovation as a higher good are every bit as real as the drive to attain the deepest possible expertise.

To put it another way, the two deepest human impulses are migration and settlement -- including migration TO a place to settle. Our species would long ago fallen into ecological irrelevance without both of those impulses constantly in full effect.

(Not that global ecosystems mightn't have been just as happy had we failed at the task of maintaining relevance.)

So there's my semi-annual rant on the topic out of the way for another six months, but I think it's ultimately one of the most interesting angles on this that has yet to be discussed. What are the pre-rational dynamics that have driven me to X, just as surely as there are some that drive others away.

And to Aindreas' point, the fact is that much of the time, it's simpler than that. But if we're going to talk about it, let's talk about it. If not, let's not.


Return to posts index

Aindreas Gallagher
Re: Why do users say FCP X is fast? Some new numbers.
on Aug 18, 2015 at 9:31:39 pm

Yes, that's true really - it does boil down to liking or disliking it at a basic level - if you dislike it you see the stuff you dislike over the things there are to like. If you like it instinctively then you see the things you like over the things there are to dislike (beachballs as has been pointed out.)

the only thing I'd wonder is if there isn't a chicken and egg problem with that. I didn't go into it expecting to dislike it - They'd been working on it so long, it was apple, etc. But I found things to dislike. I don't think the timeline and its restrictive metaphors are up to snuff and that's a pretty core thing to dislike about an editing system: the timeline. Also any time I'd get mildly excited about a major feature update 12-18 months in the making - you'd get the library architecture and bugger all else. Or, hilariously, you'd get a ridiculously over the top 3D text engine, top of everyone's list, and bugger all else. Some things I initially disliked sort of got fixed (or there were weird bodges like the white dot and temporarily de-activating connections) but the way Apple treated the update cycle left me kind of not respecting it as software. But, yes, basically I dislike it, but I'd argue it didn't come out of the blue. I haven't really argued about X in aeons anyway - it's just that Bill was it his old saw that it's software from the future that the uninitiated don't understand. That's as a stale as five year old bread....

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


Return to posts index

Steve Connor
Re: Why do users say FCP X is fast? Some new numbers.
on Aug 18, 2015 at 9:54:21 pm

[Aindreas Gallagher] "f you like it instinctively then you see the things you like over the things there are to dislike (beachballs as has been pointed out.)
"


I think that beachballs are much reduced since the latest updates, well they certainly are for me!

[Aindreas Gallagher] "Also any time I'd get mildly excited about a major feature update 12-18 months in the making - you'd get the library architecture and bugger all else. Or, hilariously, you'd get a ridiculously over the top 3D text engine, top of everyone's list, and bugger all else"

I love FCPX and the work Apple have done on stability is fantastic but I do wish we'd get more useful feature updates


Return to posts index

James Ewart
Re: Why do users say FCP X is fast? Some new numbers.
on Aug 19, 2015 at 6:18:50 am
Last Edited By James Ewart on Aug 19, 2015 at 6:28:33 am

[Aindreas Gallagher] "it does boil down to liking or disliking it at a basic level"

I'm not clear. You don't like it because of the poor launch way back? You don't like it because it doesn't suit you and the way you work? Or you don't like it because it's "poorly designed".

Is it really so poorly designed?


Return to posts index

Aindreas Gallagher
Re: Why do users say FCP X is fast? Some new numbers.
on Aug 19, 2015 at 6:54:15 pm

mix of option 2 and 3 I suppose?

and, well, good design is in the eye of the beholder, as long as the beholder has enough taste to recognise good design.

zinnng.

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


Return to posts index

Bill Davis
Re: Why do users say FCP X is fast? Some new numbers.
on Aug 18, 2015 at 5:01:05 pm

Fine.

I'm a dunce with a superiority complex.. Lets call that a given.

X is STILL exceptional editing software that has broken new ground and enables editors in a VAST swath of disciplines to cut faster and easier than they could before Apple created it.

And that includes huge segments of the professional editing markets.

I'm dumb. X is very, very smart. But it takes flexibility and and open mind in the editor assessing it.

Something you'll sadly never regain after the investment you've made bashing it at every turn for nearly 5 years. That's sad really. But it only effects you.

It IS simple.

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

James Ewart
Re: Why do users say FCP X is fast? Some new numbers.
on Aug 18, 2015 at 5:21:04 pm
Last Edited By James Ewart on Aug 18, 2015 at 5:24:39 pm

[Aindreas Gallagher] "it's just that lots of people disregard it as poorly designed software"

So what you are essentially saying is that you are much "smarter" than me/FCPX users because I/we don't realise what "poorly designed" software FCPX is even though I/we use it most days.

Well I'll drink to stupidity then. Ignorance is bliss.

Cheers


Return to posts index

Charlie Austin
Re: Why do users say FCP X is fast? Some new numbers.
on Aug 17, 2015 at 5:13:40 pm
Last Edited By Charlie Austin on Aug 17, 2015 at 5:43:35 pm

[Christian Schumacher] "How about the lack of windows layouts? Let me guess; never! The match frame throwing you away from your keywords? That one too? The frame buffer sticking in the viewer between the timeline and browser? C’mon that's not existant."

I didn't say there were no issues, just that what you talked abut in the original post wasn't a problem. It can always be better. Shall we talk about bugs in Premiere? Media Composer? Nothing is perfect. I could ask things like why do I have to Patch tracks in Premiere? Why is it so hard to do a split multichannel output in Media Composer? Answer? It's not. It's just how the apps work. And The Roles and Keyword Range settings are just how FCP X works. Neither of those things are bugs, that's all I'm saying. As you point out, there are actual bugs too, as with anything. :-)

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

~ 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

Christian Schumacher
Re: Why do users say FCP X is fast? Some new numbers.
on Aug 18, 2015 at 3:43:23 am

My take is bad design decisions are counter intuitive and harm the supposedly greater speed of FCPX. That’s what I’m trying to address. And I’m not seeing this as a case of trying to cram old practices into FCPX, People working in it are doing what it’s suppose to do; Tagging clips, keywording selects and editing them in projects - using the primary! But you have revisions, new files popping up, collaborations with another pear, etc, You get the idea, no doubt some jobs are more intense than others. That’s the point I’m trying to make; FCPX is being advertised as a speed boost in your workflow, but the optimised experience immensely depends on very specific factors. I argue if wouldn’t it be even faster if you could go through the footage and then use a window layout for multiple keywords collections? And wouldn’t be faster if I could match frame back to one of those keywords collections windows? Does it make sense that some people could need frame dupes on timelines, ganging viewers, a/v lockings, tc readings, more options, modifiers? Or -shudder- keyword functionality on timeline clips? Sometimes I wonder if I am spouting blasphemy. FCPX should really bring some stuff from the competition and, at the same time, work to enhance the current paradigm. That would be quite a boost!


Return to posts index

Mathieu Ghekiere
Re: Why do users say FCP X is fast? Some new numbers.
on Aug 18, 2015 at 9:12:29 am

Christian, in my experience, most of the time (not always) changing an excisting edit in FCPX is a lot easier then in a lot of track based NLE's because of the magnetic timeline. Sometimes it can work against you, but changing some orders and stuff, and have all the rest stay the same and connected to each other is a great time-saver.

About match framing back to a keyword collection: I get the point (I misunderstood you before I think), but a clip can have multiple keywords (which is actually great), so to which collection should it match frame back to then?

On the timeline you could always work with compound clips and/or markers if that helps. You can do a search for markers and stuff trough the Timeline Index.

A lot of learning how to work with the magnetic timeline, primary vs secondary, is based in my experience on muscle memory. After a big while with X you start THINKING in terms of primary and secondary and secondary timelines. This just takes your muscle memory to switch and change.

FCPX is not ALWAYS faster, but most people who use it for a long time (I also switched from FCP 7 after I first hated X and even asked for a refund) notice that once you start learning it as used, you don't miss a lot of stuff you thought you would miss more. Like I thought 2 viewers would be handy, but I notice that I as good as never use the Event Viewer now it's there. (it's not the same as the old 2 viewer system though). I just don't have a problem with the one viewer anymore. Although, I can understand people NEEDING a certain functionality if you workflow depends on it AND if every other way in X takes you more time from start to finish.
But what I wanted to say: a lot of people who use it a lot notice that X is faster and easier in MOST cases. Not all. But like Charlie said: a lot of us rather have the missed functionality of X than what we perceive as the missed functionality in the other Track based NLE's.
Again, I don't think X is perfect. But even with it's imperfections I like it more and think it's faster then other NLE's.

Regards,


Return to posts index

Charlie Austin
Re: Why do users say FCP X is fast? Some new numbers.
on Aug 18, 2015 at 3:04:09 pm

[Christian Schumacher] "I argue if wouldn’t it be even faster if you could go through the footage and then use a window layout for multiple keywords collections? And wouldn’t be faster if I could match frame back to one of those keywords collections windows? Does it make sense that some people could need frame dupes on timelines, ganging viewers, a/v lockings, tc readings, more options, modifiers?"

Those are all areas where X can definitely use more work/functionality. ganging I'm on the fence about, I had Pr lose sync when ganging a couple things the other day, (was kind of odd as the 2 were exactly the same) and you can't play both in real time anyway. Comping/nesting the sequence (in any NLE) and sticking it the timeline at ~25% scale is, to me, a better way to do it.

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

~ 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

Christian Schumacher
Re: Why do users say FCP X is fast? Some new numbers.
on Aug 19, 2015 at 12:39:28 am

[Charlie Austin] "Those are all areas where X can definitely use more work/functionality. ganging I'm on the fence about,"

I mostly can't use ganging if it isn’t 50x50. When versioning an online I have to equally get pixel by pixel besides each other. If it is just referencing or you need them to play together, it's better the way you do indeed. As to this realtime play problem, in MC you can forward ten frames rapidly by pressing “2” on the keyboard and both move along. That’s one thing that shines in MC, its standard keyboard layout, the only thing I change when working on it are the next edit-previous edit buttons. It’s so simple and effective that I have that incorporated in Premiere, as some operations are now similar. In FCPX and 7 though I use theirs defaults. I usually try to learn the application way, but in Premiere it works almost perfectly with Avid’s and like I said it is the most effective. I wouldn’t use MC keyboard on FCPX but I could use a lot of things from Avid there, like the user interface rendering of the timeline itself. I mean the square blocks of the clips and how they are displayed, and no it’s not just tracks where you arrange the elements accordingly, I’m talking about when one expands a timeline in MC (like shift+z to you FCP people) you can spot a needle in a haystack, I mean in a glance you actually see single frame bits in a several minute long timeline. I wish FCPX would let me control more the appearance of the timeline and clips, not to behave like MC but to be more effective in displaying its timeline. Like you said, Charlie; FCPX could use more functionality. I know you don't think it's perfect. Should you and other users strive for perfection? Maybe not exactly that, but it wouldn't hurt if we ask for some improvements. The thing is sometimes the inspiration it's right next door, just saying!


Return to posts index

Charlie Austin
Re: Why do users say FCP X is fast? Some new numbers.
on Aug 19, 2015 at 12:09:20 pm

[Christian Schumacher] " Like you said, Charlie; FCPX could use more functionality. I know you don't think it's perfect. Should you and other users strive for perfection? Maybe not exactly that, but it wouldn't hurt if we ask for some improvements. The thing is sometimes the inspiration it's right next door, just saying!"

True. And you'll just have to take this on faith, but believe me, I ask. Often. :-)

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

~ 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

Robin S. Kurz
Re: Why do users say FCP X is fast? Some new numbers.
on Aug 20, 2015 at 11:56:26 am
Last Edited By Robin S. Kurz on Aug 20, 2015 at 12:05:46 pm

[Tom Sefton] "The only thing I know from current experience is that editing r3d based projects in 4, 5 and 6K is sluggish on fcpx and fast on premiere cc."

No idea how you're doing it, but I can't concur even the slightest. I just finished a 80 minute film with a mixed timeline of 2-6K RED and some 4K from a drone on an rMBP. Obviously I didn't edit it natively nor would I ever. I simply had optimized and proxy media created upon import, used the optimized when stationary, the proxy when mobile. Worked like a charm, never dropped a frame or "beach-balled" and certainly looked better than ¼ res in Premiere, even when using proxy (since it was "only" ½ res). I was quite impressed.

- RK

____________________________________________________
Deutsch? Hier gibt es ein umfassendes FCP X Training für dich!


Return to posts index

Tom Sefton
Re: Why do users say FCP X is fast? Some new numbers.
on Aug 20, 2015 at 9:51:07 pm

I'm basing my comparison on editing the r3d files. Not proxy's or optimised media. With the r3d files at 4k and above premiere cc has a much faster and smoother interface, but isn't as quick at rendering.

I'm doing a project at the moment with over 20hrs of footage per week where there simply isn't the time or storage space available to duplicate to ProRes LT or similar and have been testing for a long time between programs. FCPX is faster with organising clips, syncing and exporting, but Adobe is better with the speed of interface. At ProRes there isn't much difference between them, but raw shows up some ram leaks.

Co-owner at Pollen Studio
http://www.pollenstudio.co.uk


Return to posts index

Christian Schumacher
Re: Why do users say FCP X is fast? Some new numbers.
on Aug 21, 2015 at 6:09:31 pm

[Tom Sefton] "I'm doing a project at the moment with over 20hrs of footage per week where there simply isn't the time or storage space available to duplicate to ProRes LT or similar "

That user case above conveys my logic much better than I do. Why does FCPX has so few options? Why do FCPX has this “my way or the highway” attitude? Isn’t it a NLE? Shouldn’t it behave like one? I mean we are all editing picture and sound, correct? In FCP 7 and Avid you control globally how to present your footage with playback control and render quality control. FCPX should give you something like that. It doesn’t. And that happens in part because of the users being comfortable with knowing all the workarounds. FCPX user base could use some criticism amongst them. Maybe dropping the evangelic tone and be more vocal about its flaws?


Return to posts index

Mathieu Ghekiere
Re: Why do users say FCP X is fast? Some new numbers.
on Aug 22, 2015 at 12:19:34 am

Hi Christian,

well, FCPX has a 'better performance' and 'better quality' button. It seems simple, and in my opinion, just simple enough. In one it will try to optimalize to give you a smooth playback, but at reduced resolution, whatever it has to go to, to give you that. And the other is full quality.

I *really* like the simplicity of the one-button switch for proxy workflow. I don't disagree with everything you say in the sense that I think Apple could give some more options (although I don't miss it with the playback control, and I even prefer the current solution).
I would like it that you could choose which kind of Prores you want to use for optimizing. Now it's Prores 422, or when working with RED RAW, Prores 444.
I also would like some easier control over where to put Proxies and that the Proxy Mode would also make clips with alpha channel into a kind of proxy 4444.
And it would be nice that clips that you didn't convert to Prores Proxy just have a yellow warning signal when you are in Proxy mode, but would still play in the timeline. Now you just can't see them. Pitty.
But I think Apple will give more options. It has already when talking about placement of Proxies, the Library Structure, etc. ...
But I also think, just like with a lot of their software, they try to think about what is necessary and what is too much. Of course that could be different for everyone, but I think FCPX's simplicity works in it's advantage a lot of the times. Like with the Better Performance or Better Quality choice. Simple. Clear.

And I really think some of the examples are weird. The post you reply to is complaining about how you don't have storage to make Apple Prores Proxy. But this is a CHOICE. You can also Optimize. You can also stay Raw. You could also use Resolve to make light weight H.264's and link back to the R3D's in Resolve. (I wouldn't recommend it, but you can do it). How is this much different then Premiere or Avid?
Personally, I've even been able to play 4K R3D on a Macbook air with a USB 3 drive, so I really don't think performance is bad, but I also haven't worked with 20hours a week R3D 4K or higher resolution material, with the work-load of a feature. But from what I read on REDUSER, I'm not sure if Premiere is all that much better in performance with R3D RAW then FCPX. I read a lot of the oppossite, to be honest. I don't have my own experience, I haven't touched Premiere in a couple of years.

And complaining about editing 6K material being sluggish without making Proxies... Even in Hollywood (Gone Girl) they were using 2K Prores to edit with.
6K is still very new, very high demanding (4K is very demanding for computers, 6K is a LOT more data even, in most cases). I don't know if this is completely fair, or an FCPX problem. Or an issue where FCPX is very sluggish and Avid and Premiere is supersmooth. Again, I have my own experience in FCPX, but also read a lot on Reduser. Since when is 6K native editing something normal and is it a big software fault if it doesn't happen supersmooth? Eh? I think you would have trouble doing it in any NLE.

I do agree that FCPX used to get a bit sluggish in the user interface. Newer hardware and the latest updates (10.2) have done a lot to remedy that, however.

I don't know if the 'my way of the highway' thing is so specific to FCPX, or more because people aren't used to how FCPX does some stuff and a lot of the track-based NLE's work pretty much the same way in a lot of ways. I could also complain that Avid and Premiere and FCP7 FORCE me to use bins instead of keyword collections. But in FCPX I actually have MORE choice. I would work with Keyword collections like folders. I could drop folders from Finder in it, and it will take the name of the folder as a keyword collection (it has some caveats though). But I have EXTRA options. Of making smart collections (which Premiere had in it's latest update to, I believe?). I can have overlapping parts with clips having multiple keywords? Which most people see as a MORE flexible way of working, not a less flexible.
I could keep all my media external. I can copy it to the library. I can consolidate it outside. I can work with clips where I use them as secondary clips instead of putting it on the primary or use the position tool and have a lot (not all) of the magneticism gone. Or I could work more with the magnetic timeline (which is faster in *a lot * and I would dare to say *most* cases).

About users vocalizing it's flaws instead of evangilizing... First of, I have a bullet list of things that I want Apple to do differently with FCPX or change, or add. I send it to their feedback page once in a while, mostly after a new update is out and I cut out the stuff that has changed that was on my list.
I also think a lot of people here using it a lot (Charlie, Jeremy, Oliver, ...) often say in a thread "it would be handy if you could do...". But it comes from using it a lot.

I could reverse the question. Why, if we talk about other track-based NLE's, don't we talk about the fact that you have to patch tracks? That bins can't have the overlapping flexibility of keyword collections? That I have to make 3 tracks where in X I have an Audition feature, where I can try clips out, and all the rest of the timeline adjusts itself even if you put markers on clips in the Audition? Why do they force me of looking for clips manually in a timeline, instead of me being able to search trough a Timeline Index?
They force you just as much as X does. Maybe not in the same arenas though.
And considering that X is pretty new, has a different way of working, has a very bad reputation (partly because of ignorance, partly because of a -very- bad launch by Apple), I think a lot of people praising it after using it, can be PERCEIVED as Evangilizing. And I think the software could use it too.
Not because we think people are stupid and we are geniuses. Because a lot of use complained about how stuff worked in X too, and learned along the way that we just had to get used to new stuff and looking back, we talk about our own faults and experience when we talk about how most people that first work with X hate stuff because they haven’t learned to use it ‘correctly’.
And we notice that some of us *really* think now it’s faster than a lot of track-based NLE’s in a lot of editorial tasks, and to be quite frank, a lot more fun too.

I'll give you an example. Last year I did a demo on X in Belgium. Apple, in combination with a provider of editing systems in Belgium, did a kind of small event for the launch of the new Mac Pro. I saw teachers from high school passing by. Before I did my demo they came to me and they literally said: "you can try to convince us to use X, but you're not gonna succeed. We work on 7, we tried X, we don't like it, we hate it, we're gonna stay with that, but you can try to give your demo."

I showed them X, they completely reversed course after my demo, and I got a mail from them last month that they finally got permission to buy X-licenses for the school and they asked if I could come and teach the teachers of the school how to work with it.
A lot of people in the audience where people from broadcast, camera-men, editors, etc. ...
Most of them had only heard bad stuff about X, had tried it a couple of times, hated it, etc. ... When they saw it in action by someone who knew it (not only talking about myself) and the time they could speed up stuff with 3rd party products like Sync' N Link and Shot Notes, these people gasped and/or laughed OUT LOUD.
With some of the tricks you could sense this holy fuck mood going trough the room.
A lot of people came to ask questions afterwards. Those people all were clients from the editing-systems provider and he told me most of them where VERY sceptic about X before they went in, and he got A LOT more interest afterwards.
You can call it evangilizing, I don't mind that. But the term insinuates that I think it's all holy and I don't have a critical voice. I do. I used Premiere. I went to FCP7. I used that for years before I used X. I hated it first. I still have stuff that I critisize. I don't mind sharing you my bullet list once if you would be inclined.

But I do disagree with *most* examples given here, and some of the complaints made. I notice that I disagree much less with complaints made by Jeremy or Charlie. I suppose because I notice a lot more experience in their complaints. That being said, I enjoy the civilized discussion. Let's keep it going ;-)


Return to posts index

Mathieu Ghekiere
Re: Why do users say FCP X is fast? Some new numbers.
on Aug 22, 2015 at 12:27:01 am
Last Edited By Mathieu Ghekiere on Aug 22, 2015 at 10:34:46 am

Hi Christian,

well, FCPX has a 'better performance' and 'better quality' button. It seems simple, and in my opinion, just simple enough. In one it will try to optimalize to give you a smooth playback, but at reduced resolution, whatever it has to go to, to give you that. And the other is full quality.

I *really* like the simplicity of the one-button switch for proxy workflow. I don't disagree with everything you say in the sense that I think Apple could give some more options (although I don't miss it with the playback control, and I even prefer the current solution).
I would like it that you could choose which kind of Prores you want to use for optimizing. Now it's Prores 422, or when working with RED RAW, Prores 444.
I also would like some easier control over where to put Proxies and that the Proxy Mode would also make clips with alpha channel into a kind of proxy 4444.
And it would be nice that clips that you didn't convert to Prores Proxy just have a yellow warning signal when you are in Proxy mode, but would still play in the timeline. Now you just can't see them. Pitty.
But I think Apple will give more options. It has already when talking about placement of Proxies, the Library Structure, etc. ...
But I also think, just like with a lot of their software, they try to think about what is necessary and what is too much. Of course that could be different for everyone, but I think FCPX's simplicity works in it's advantage a lot of the times. Like with the Better Performance or Better Quality choice. Simple. Clear.

And I really think some of the examples are weird. The post you reply to is complaining about how you don't have storage to make Apple Prores Proxy. But this is a CHOICE. You can also Optimize. You can also stay Raw. You could also use Resolve to make light weight H.264's and link back to the R3D's in Resolve. (I wouldn't recommend it, but you can do it). How is this much different then Premiere or Avid?
Personally, I've even been able to play 4K R3D on a Macbook air with a USB 3 drive, so I really don't think performance is bad, but I also haven't worked with 20hours a week R3D 4K or higher resolution material, with the work-load of a feature. But from what I read on REDUSER, I'm not sure if Premiere is all that much better in performance with R3D RAW then FCPX. I read a lot of the oppossite, to be honest. I don't have my own experience, I haven't touched Premiere in a couple of years.

And complaining about editing 6K material being sluggish without making Proxies... Even in Hollywood (Gone Girl) they were using 2K Prores to edit with.
6K is still very new, very high demanding (4K is very demanding for computers, 6K is a LOT more data even, in most cases). I don't know if this is completely fair, or an FCPX problem. Or an issue where FCPX is very sluggish and Avid and Premiere is supersmooth. Again, I have my own experience in FCPX, but also read a lot on Reduser. Since when is 6K native editing something normal and is it a big software fault if it doesn't happen supersmooth? Eh? I think you would have trouble doing it in any NLE.

I do agree that FCPX used to get a bit sluggish in the user interface. Newer hardware and the latest updates (10.2) have done a lot to remedy that, however.

I don't know if the 'my way of the highway' thing is so specific to FCPX, or more because people aren't used to how FCPX does some stuff and a lot of the track-based NLE's work pretty much the same way in a lot of ways. I could also complain that Avid and Premiere and FCP7 FORCE me to use bins instead of keyword collections. But in FCPX I actually have MORE choice. I would work with Keyword collections like folders. I could drop folders from Finder in it, and it will take the name of the folder as a keyword collection (it has some caveats though). But I have EXTRA options. Of making smart collections (which Premiere had in it's latest update to, I believe?). I can have overlapping parts with clips having multiple keywords? Which most people see as a MORE flexible way of working, not a less flexible.
I could keep all my media external. I can copy it to the library. I can consolidate it outside. I can work with clips where I use them as secondary clips instead of putting it on the primary or use the position tool and have a lot (not all) of the magneticism gone. Or I could work more with the magnetic timeline (which is faster in *a lot * and I would dare to say *most* cases).

About users vocalizing it's flaws instead of evangilizing... First of, I have a bullet list of things that I want Apple to do differently with FCPX or change, or add. I send it to their feedback page once in a while, mostly after a new update is out and I cut out the stuff that has changed that was on my list.
I also think a lot of people here using it a lot (Charlie, Jeremy, Oliver, ...) often say in a thread "it would be handy if you could do...". But it comes from using it a lot.

I could reverse the question. Why, if we talk about other track-based NLE's, don't we talk about the fact that you have to patch tracks? That bins can't have the overlapping flexibility of keyword collections? That I have to make 3 tracks where in X I have an Audition feature, where I can try clips out, and all the rest of the timeline adjusts itself even if you put markers on clips in the Audition? Why do they force me of looking for clips manually in a timeline, instead of me being able to search trough a Timeline Index?
They force you just as much as X does. Maybe not in the same arenas though.
And considering that X is pretty new, has a different way of working, has a very bad reputation (partly because of ignorance, partly because of a -very- bad launch by Apple), I think a lot of people praising it after using it, can be PERCEIVED as Evangilizing. And I think the software could use it too.
Not because we think people are stupid and we are geniuses. Because a lot of use complained about how stuff worked in X too, and learned along the way that we just had to get used to new stuff and looking back, we talk about our own faults and experience when we talk about how most people that first work with X hate stuff because they haven’t learned to use it ‘correctly’.
And we notice that some of us *really* think now it’s faster than a lot of track-based NLE’s in a lot of editorial tasks, and to be quite frank, a lot more fun too.

I'll give you an example. Last year I did a demo on X in Belgium. Apple, in combination with a provider of editing systems in Belgium, did a kind of small event for the launch of the new Mac Pro. I saw teachers from high school passing by. Before I did my demo they came to me and they literally said: "you can try to convince us to use X, but you're not gonna succeed. We work on 7, we tried X, we don't like it, we hate it, we're gonna stay with that, but you can try to give your demo."

I showed them X, they completely reversed course after my demo, and I got a mail from them last month that they finally got permission to buy X-licenses for the school and they asked if I could come and teach the teachers of the school how to work with it.
A lot of people in the audience where people from broadcast, camera-men, editors, etc. ...
Most of them had only heard bad stuff about X, had tried it a couple of times, hated it, etc. ... When they saw it in action by someone who knew it (not only talking about myself) and the time they could speed up stuff with 3rd party products like Sync' N Link and Shot Notes, these people gasped and/or laughed OUT LOUD.
With some of the tricks you could sense this 'wow' mood going trough the room.
A lot of people came to ask questions afterwards. Those people all were clients from the editing-systems provider and he told me most of them where VERY sceptic about X before they went in, and he got A LOT more interest afterwards.
You can call it evangilizing, I don't mind that. But the term insinuates that I think it's all holy and I don't have a critical voice. I do. I used Premiere. I went to FCP7. I used that for years before I used X. I hated it first. I still have stuff that I critisize. I don't mind sharing you my bullet list once if you would be inclined.
It's about 30-35 points, so I don't think X is perfect by any means :-)

But I do disagree with *most* of the complaints made. A conclusion that because X doesn't have a certain feature that another NLE has, it is 'forcing its way unlike other NLE's'. That being said, I enjoy the civilized discussion. Let's keep it going ;-)


Return to posts index

Tom Sefton
Re: Why do users say FCP X is fast? Some new numbers.
on Aug 22, 2015 at 3:15:44 pm

I understand that the workflow I'm showing as an example is an extreme one. However, the project I'm working on has 20hrs of footage for each camera with a 2 camera shoot. My figures were slightly off....by half. So I'm actually bringing in 40hrs of footage. This is happening 2 times a month. With space for backups I'm processing 8TB of data each week. To render out proxies or optimise would almost double this amount.

I also note that you have said you haven't used premiere in 2 years and you base a lot of your comments on what you have read on reduser. Trust me, if you populate a timeline with 4,5 or 6K material in premiere, it doesn't get sluggish and it doesn't slow down with huge projects. The interface is smooth for editing and shuttling around clips. In fcpx it isn't.

6K would usually require proxies, but for this particular project which is a mix of 6,5 and 4K r3d files, it isn't an option to spend 5 nights doing proxy exports before starting to edit with almost double the amount of rushes. Who has 32TB of data storage free all the time?

It wasn't long ago that people were getting abuse on this forum for saying they hadn't used fcpx but were basing their scepticism on what they had read on the Internet.

Co-owner at Pollen Studio
http://www.pollenstudio.co.uk


Return to posts index

Robin S. Kurz
Re: Why do users say FCP X is fast? Some new numbers.
on Aug 22, 2015 at 8:14:22 pm

[Tom Sefton] "It wasn't long ago that people were getting abuse on this forum for saying they hadn't used fcpx but were basing their scepticism on what they had read on the Internet."

Something I have to assume in your case. If not, then you're simply using X wrong. Because, again, I can't concur the least. From what I have seen, Premiere ONLY performs better (as in "useable") when at ¼ res, which, at least for me, isn't an option. The jaggies are horrendous and it IS in fact otherwise much more sluggish than I have ever seen FCP act with the same material. Literally a slide show. Don't even consider changing or adding anything. FCP X may not be 100% "smooth" at full res 5+K r3ds (but has gotten MUCH better as of the last update along with the new RED drivers btw), no, but again, I would never even consider doing that, since I am limiting myself considerably that way, completely regardless of which NLE. Even though when set to "better performance" (as described above) it's technically useable.


[Tom Sefton] "it isn't an option to spend 5 nights doing proxy exports before starting to edit "

Case in point. If you were to choose proxies on import, then, from experience, that amount of footage wouldn't take more than over night (or maybe a day while working) to transcode to proxy. And if you have your backups set correctly, then you wouldn't be backing up the transcoded files, seeing that that is completely unnecessary and redundant.

- RK

____________________________________________________
Deutsch? Hier gibt es ein umfassendes FCP X Training für dich!


Return to posts index

Tom Sefton
Re: Why do users say FCP X is fast? Some new numbers.
on Aug 22, 2015 at 10:01:46 pm

look, robin. I've worked in fcpx with this workload for 6 months. Ive exported over 8000 files from fcpx with this project alone. I've tried and tested with the proxy workflow and the optimise option. I beta tested the last version of fcpx and was sent beta drivers from red to test with it. I work in premiere and fcpx and avid on a daily basis and each one suits a different job. More and more fcpx is getting into our studio workflow because it is quick and efficient and good at what it does. I love the program and it has literally saved us thousands of pounds in wasted studio time after an aborted attempt to use resolve to edit the same project. It couldn't cope and had massive issues with audio. X came to the rescue and we haven't looked back.

However, with high res raw footage it just hasn't performed as well for us as premiere has. It slows down. The beachball appears after a while of working. Inspector windows and multicam windows and waveform windows need closing down to get optimum performance that you just don't need to do in premiere. However, it is still brilliant. You might not want to believe me, I really don't care. It's just been our experience on a very intensive and long lasting project that we are still getting through. And you haven't understood my point that 40hrs of r3d data PER WEEK will create at least half again of proxy footage, which has cost implications for ongoing workflows that aren't easy to sustain.

Co-owner at Pollen Studio
http://www.pollenstudio.co.uk


Return to posts index

Robin S. Kurz
Re: Why do users say FCP X is fast? Some new numbers.
on Aug 23, 2015 at 6:29:58 am

[Tom Sefton] "You might not want to believe me,"

I never said anything about believing you. I merely stated that I have contrary experiences. YMMV. No one NLE is everything to everybody and never will be.

- RK

____________________________________________________
Deutsch? Hier gibt es ein umfassendes FCP X Training für dich!


Return to posts index

Scott Witthaus
Re: Why do users say FCP X is fast? Some new numbers.
on Aug 23, 2015 at 12:21:24 pm

[Tom Sefton] "However, with high res raw footage it just hasn't performed as well for us as premiere has. It slows down."

It's funny. I had the exact experience in a Premiere job (CS6). Cutting a bunch of Epic 5k and Premiere could not keep up with me. I would move around the timeline and get these "accessing media" dialogue (something like that. It was a while ago). Frustrating. Running Premiere with that footage, it always felt like a big crash was coming. I hit command-S after every change I made just to be sure. A thoroughly underwhelming experience.

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


Return to posts index

Oliver Peters
Re: Why do users say FCP X is fast? Some new numbers.
on Aug 23, 2015 at 1:04:10 pm

[Scott Witthaus] "I had the exact experience in a Premiere job (CS6)."

I don't doubt that, but you do realize that CS6 is pretty ancient by current standards. CC2015 is a significantly improved tool with improved performance. Making comparisons to CS6 is like making comparisons to FCP X 10.0 or FCP 7.

- Oliver

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


Return to posts index

Dennis Radeke
Re: Why do users say FCP X is fast? Some new numbers.
on Aug 24, 2015 at 11:27:53 am

Thank you Oliver from preventing me from making a snarky response, while on vacation no less!

Everyone here has their biases, and that's honestly some of the particular flavor that makes this forum so interesting. In fairness and candor, I put mine clearly in my signature. Others might consider something similar.

Dennis - Adobe guy


Return to posts index

Tony West
Re: Why do users say FCP X is fast? Some new numbers.
on Aug 24, 2015 at 3:26:17 pm

"Everyone here has their biases, and that's honestly some of the particular flavor that makes this forum so interesting. In fairness and candor, I put mine clearly in my signature. Others might consider something similar."


You are an "employee" of Adobe correct Dennis?

I think an employee should state that.

I also think there is a difference between an employee and a satisfied customer. One of those has the ultimate bias.

I appreciate your input on these topics though ; )


Return to posts index

Jim Wiseman
Re: Why do users say FCP X is fast? Some new numbers.
on Aug 24, 2015 at 5:16:00 pm

Too bad Premiere CS6 was the last version to not require perpetual rental with your projects going "poof" when you quit paying. Otherwise keep forking it over to Mr. Burn the Boats like some hypnotized lemming. Won't be getting to try that CC 2015 experiment.

I work for myself, a corporation of one. Fortunately, I get to make my own decisions for this company. Prejudice clearly stated.

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, Multiple OWC Thunderbay 4 TB2 and eSATA QX2 RAID 5 HD systems


Return to posts index

Steve Connor
Re: Why do users say FCP X is fast? Some new numbers.
on Aug 24, 2015 at 7:32:37 pm

So us CC subscribers are "hypnotised lemmings"? - nice!


Return to posts index

Michael Gissing
Re: Why do users say FCP X is fast? Some new numbers.
on Aug 24, 2015 at 11:03:59 pm

[Steve Connor] So us CC subscribers are "hypnotised lemmings"? - nice!

As program makers we should be acutely aware of the manipulation of lemmings in the classic Disney film "White Wilderness" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_Wilderness_%28film%29)

If lemmings could be hypnotised they might do something suicidal but I dare say it is far easier to hypnotise humans. That said, I do not agree that a subscription model is suicidal and that it is perfectly fine for many.

Perfect for all? Of course not. No software or payment model is. Adobe software has been historically hugely cracked and pirated and without control of OS and online stores they really did have to look at a different model.


Return to posts index

Scott Witthaus
Re: Why do users say FCP X is fast? Some new numbers.
on Aug 25, 2015 at 10:04:14 am

[Michael Gissing] "they really did have to look at a different model.
"


When do you think the first price increases will be, if that has not happened already?

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


Return to posts index

Robin S. Kurz
Re: Why do users say FCP X is fast? Some new numbers.
on Aug 25, 2015 at 11:12:08 pm

[Michael Gissing] "Perfect for all? Of course not. No software or payment model is. "

What is "imperfect" about e.g. Apple's payment/licensing model for you? As in: pay once. Period. Install on any and all machines that you own. No phoning home needed to keep it alive. What's missing?


[Michael Gissing] "Adobe software has been historically hugely cracked and pirated and without control of OS and online stores they really did have to look at a different model."

I hope you're not seriously suggesting that as of the CC model, that Adobe software suddenly became magically immune to being hacked and only people paying for it are actually using it. Because I don't see what has actually changed as far as that's concerned. Aside from maybe the methods.

- RK

____________________________________________________
Deutsch? Hier gibt es ein umfassendes FCP X Training für dich!


Return to posts index

Michael Gissing
Re: Why do users say FCP X is fast? Some new numbers.
on Aug 26, 2015 at 1:48:35 am

[Robin S. Kurtz] "What is "imperfect" about e.g. Apple's payment/licensing model for you?"

Firstly my statement was that "no software or payment model is". So the answer for me is that not everyone wants to use FCPX, or Pr, or Resolve or AVID etc. On the matter of payment some like free (Resolve) while some like buy once and some like subscription. I think the Apple pay model is very good but I preferred Resolve being free when I started using it and then virtually given away when I bought their 4K camera. Subscription is not my preferred method but some like it. I prefer Pr to edit but I do little editing and mostly grade online finishing and Resolve 12 will most likely be what I use for editing from now on. Right tools and right payment method for me seems to be Resolve. So my statement holds true in spite of your inference.

Of course subscription doesn't prevent cracking and piracy and I never said it had. But I would be surprised if Adobe doesn't think it has reduced what was a revenue deluge. After all it is unpopular and must therefore be better for Adobe or why would they risk such ire. Perhaps Dennis R has some insight into whether it has helped in that area.

But Robin, what made you think I was even suggesting hacking has stopped? Gee I even know people with hacked FCPX. If you wish to engage in intelligent discussion I would prefer you stop the assumption that I speak in absolutes. Only a fool would do so.

[Scott Whitthaus]"When do you think the first price increases will be, if that has not happened already?"

Sorry for not adding that I have no association with any of the NLE developers so on matters of pricing I suggest you contact them. I can tell you that being in Australia we are charged more than any other country and with the recent reduction in the $Au to the $US the price has effectively gone up 25% but only if you are paying by the month not a previously paid yearly subscription.


Return to posts index

Walter Soyka
Re: Why do users say FCP X is fast? Some new numbers.
on Aug 16, 2015 at 7:00:46 pm

[Bill Davis] "Tom, the only thing that is absolutely clear from my experience lately is a major reinforcement of the idea that the foundational programming of FCP X is the type of code that was written for where the hardware capabilities of modern computers were going - not where they had been."

What laptop did you have before? I'm curious to understand better what your comparison is.

I don't think that "where the hardware capabilities of modern computers were going" has changed much in the last few years: it's been 64-bit + multi-core CPU + GPGPU + SSD for some time.

The next big shift is coming shortly, with newer approaches to GPU programming like DX12, Vulkan and Metal coming to market, but even then, that's more of a development change than a hardware one.

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

Mitch Ives
Re: Why do users say FCP X is fast? Some new numbers.
on Aug 17, 2015 at 3:54:15 pm

[Steve Connor] "So is the timeline and edit performance significantly increased? I honestly don't care in the slightest about output renders as that's such a small percentage of my project time I don't mind a slightly longer wait. What I do care about is the timeline and editing in FCPX having less lag."

Agreed Steve... my thoughts exactly...

Mitch Ives
Insight Productions Corp.

"Criticism may not be agreeable, but it is necessary. It fulfills the same function as pain in the human body. It calls attention to an unhealthy state of things." - Winston Churchill


Return to posts index

Pete Hickerson
Re: Why do users say FCP X is fast? Some new numbers.
on Aug 18, 2015 at 4:59:01 pm

I think this says it all... A marriage between software and hardware is a wonderful thing.

http://www.fcp.co/final-cut-pro/articles/1710-final-cut-pro-x-v-adobe-premi...

A world without string is chaos.


Return to posts index

Tim Wilson
Re: Why do users say FCP X is fast? Some new numbers.
on Aug 18, 2015 at 5:09:26 pm
Last Edited By Tim Wilson on Aug 18, 2015 at 5:13:06 pm

[Pete Hickerson] "A world without string is chaos."

Except I don't think that that's true at all, and I wonder if, in practice, you do either.

One of the most compelling parts of FCP back in the day, certainly virtually the ONLY one that mattered for its professional adoption, was the extent to which it's extensible through parties that have nothing to do with Apple. And in some cases Apple was actively undermining.

I think of SDI through Aurora, Cinewave, AJA, and Blackmagic. I think of HD over any I/O rather than FireWire. Today, it's GPU.

For 10 years before Macromedia developed Final Cut for both Mac and Windows, storage ruled. Apple's run at storage was only passingly successful, so they dropped it.

Which is why I think that the FCPX-Mac connection is overstated. As many others on the thread have pointed out, even the speed advantage that kicked us off simply vanishes when you assess tasks that different than the ones FCPX is optimized for.

Otherwise, we're moving right back to the closed model that FCP so compellingly blew up. To the extent that Steve tried to tie up these very strings, I think that Tim Cook has aggressively been working to cut at the same time FCPX takes advantage of them. Apple has never been more open to third parties in every part of their product strategy, including iOS. They want to run the table, which they can't do if they pursue stringing people up as their highest priority.

In any case, the number of us here who can live without Apple assigning meaningful resources to third parties approaches zero. The number of us who actually LIVE without them is LESS than zero.


Return to posts index

Andrew Kimery
Re: Why do users say FCP X is fast? Some new numbers.
on Aug 18, 2015 at 6:07:20 pm

[Pete Hickerson] "I think this says it all... A marriage between software and hardware is a wonderful thing.

http://www.fcp.co/final-cut-pro/articles/1710-final-cut-pro-x-v-adobe-premi....."


That's the link which Bill used to start this thread so judging by the discussion it obviously does not 'say it all.' ;)


Return to posts index

Bill Davis
Re: Why do users say FCP X is fast? Some new numbers.
on Aug 18, 2015 at 6:36:17 pm

[Andrew Kimery] "That's the link which Bill used to start this thread so judging by the discussion it obviously does not 'say it all.' ;)
"


Well, really all we're going to see here is something like this...

"I don't use it but it can't be THAT fast."

"Well, I use it and it is."

"Well clearly your work isn't like mine - on the kind of work I do everyday it definitely won't be that much faster."

"Maybe. But if you don't really know how the whole X system actually works, you'll simply never know whether or not it will be significantly faster for you. You can't escape the fact that you have to learn it to fairly judge it."

Then it goes round and round.

The working editors here who have a solid foot in multiple software camps, Oliver, Charlie, and others, - it's instructive to note that NONE of them have remained in the original X is stupid juvenile crap camp.

The only people stuck there are those who decided definitely NOT to use it.

And it certainly hasn't gotten stuck with the wedding folks or the YouTubers. It's in multi-multi million dollar facilities earning it's keep.

So the question isn't is it good. The question is now "just how good is it?" And these posts help shed a little bit of light on that.

Nothing more.

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

Andrew Kimery
Re: Why do users say FCP X is fast? Some new numbers.
on Aug 18, 2015 at 7:24:11 pm

[Bill Davis] "So the question isn't is it good. The question is now "just how good is it?" And these posts help shed a little bit of light on that.


They do, I just don't think you should expect to influence anyone that's already made their mind up one way or the other. For the people that have already decided that X sucks or Avid sucks or Ford sucks or the PS4 sucks (pick your flame war) there's nothing anyone can say/do to change their mind.

Back in the day I used to defend FCP Legend around belligerent Avid users and defend Avid around belligerent and it was largely a waste of time (and still is) because the loving of one thing and the hating of another was subjective and the discussions inevitably circular. If someone has genuine/legit questions/concerns I'll comment but if the person is just ranting away I'll pass on by because there is no point in engaging that person. I know you've spent four years evangelizing X but there's never going to be a light at the end of that tunnel. If you do it because it brings you joy then, by all means, keep going, but if you do it because you want to change minds then I'd maybe find a different hobby before you drive yourself batty (or at least be very selective about your battles).


With regards to Aindreas, he spent years bashing Adobe and now he's using CC so I wouldn't brand him a hater for life just yet.


Return to posts index

Bill Davis
Re: Why do users say FCP X is fast? Some new numbers.
on Aug 18, 2015 at 11:45:07 pm
Last Edited By Bill Davis on Aug 18, 2015 at 11:47:37 pm

[Andrew Kimery] "They do, I just don't think you should expect to influence anyone that's already made their mind up one way or the other. For the people that have already decided that X sucks or Avid sucks or Ford sucks or the PS4 sucks (pick your flame war) there's nothing anyone can say/do to change their mind."

I agree. But that presumes that the class of "editors who have already made up their minds" is the audience I care about. I don't really.

I've said before that a LOT of people simply lurk here trying to get valid information. So after years and legions of people "knee-jerking" on-line about how horrible X was (or still is in some cases!) I'm simply going to stay around to argue for the other point of view. .

I know I won't change the opinions of those who simply won't consider a change. But for every one of them, I suspect there are hundreds or maybe even thousands of editors who might.

I think like this because I've actually met or communicated with quite a few of them over the past few years - telling me that they would have never considered X if it weren't for voices like mine running against the "conventional wisdom" in the early days.

And they're often the people who now have 3 years of solid experience in X and it's gratifying to see that X is often doing the same thing for them that it's done for me. (make their editing much easier and much more enjoyable!).

That's enough for me.

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

Andrew Kimery
Re: Why do users say FCP X is fast? Some new numbers.
on Aug 19, 2015 at 12:36:35 am

[Bill Davis] "I agree. But that presumes that the class of "editors who have already made up their minds" is the audience I care about. I don't really. "

I don't presume that that the's the audience you care about (I think it's the people you mention later in your post), but you seem to to engage with 'made up their mind' crowd on a regular basis. And, as you mentioned in your previous post, the arguments usually follow a predictable pattern so why keep having the same argument (with possibly many of the same people) over, and over and over again?

I put people in basically three buckets:
1. Those I'm fine engaging with.
2. Those I'm weary about engaging with but will under certain circumstances.
3. Those that I won't touch with a 10ft pole. No matter what they say I'm not going to engage with them because it would be utterly pointless.

Some people in groups 2 and 3 I might actually be somewhat in agreement with but I find their attitude so repulsive that I still don't want to associate with them.

X has been in the wild a few years now, and there's a lot of good resources online too, so I don't think you need to worry about beating out every negative brushfire for fear that a 'middle of the road' editor would get lost in the fray.

Just my 2 cents.


-Andrew


Return to posts index

Tony West
Re: Why do users say FCP X is fast? Some new numbers.
on Aug 19, 2015 at 1:28:07 pm

[Andrew Kimery] "X has been in the wild a few years now, and there's a lot of good resources online too, so I don't think you need to worry about beating out every negative brushfire"

I disagree a little here Andrew. In my personal experiences the far majority of conversations go like this.....

Me: Have you tried FCP X?

Them: No. I heard nothing but bad things about it.

Even at this late date. Just spoke with a guy from LA last week who is still sitting there on 7.
He said he heard bad things.

It's pretty much like that every time. When I start to describe what I like about it they get interested and want to at least try it.

I get Bill's style because I'm the same way in politics. I'm not looking to bring that person over that made up their mind. I'm talking past them to people who are standing around listening who are on the fence.


Return to posts index

Oliver Peters
Re: Why do users say FCP X is fast? Some new numbers.
on Aug 19, 2015 at 2:09:58 pm

[Tony West] "I disagree a little here Andrew. In my personal experiences the far majority of conversations go like this....."

I would agree with you. I speak to a lot of top-level editors, most of whom cut on Media Composer. The vast majority have very little firsthand knowledge about X and their impression is still based on the launch 4 years ago. In reality, though, most of these editors are not nearly as "plugged in" as those of us on forums like this. They really don't have the time to get deep into anything other than the films or shows they are working on unless they are in between projects.

- Oliver

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


Return to posts index

Tony West
Re: Why do users say FCP X is fast? Some new numbers.
on Aug 19, 2015 at 2:32:32 pm

[Oliver Peters] "most of these editors are not nearly as "plugged in" as those of us on forums like this. They really don't have the time to get deep into anything other than the films or shows they are working on unless they are in between projects."

Agree completely


Return to posts index

Andrew Kimery
Re: Why do users say FCP X is fast? Some new numbers.
on Aug 19, 2015 at 4:43:47 pm

[Tony West] "I'm not looking to bring that person over that made up their mind. I'm talking past them to people who are standing around listening who are on the fence."

Out of curiosity, how many times are you willing to have the same goes-nowhere argument with the same people/same types of people for the possible benefit of fence sitters that may or may not be around? If there are identifiable fence sitters around why not focus on engaging with them and not continuing to focus on the person that's obviously made up their mind?

As someone that doesn't use X but likes to keep generally aware of what is going on with X I found the discussion between Christian, Mathieu, Charlie mature and informative. If people are just batting around overwhelming praise vs overwhelming criticism in a flamewar type manor what's the point?


Return to posts index

Bill Davis
Re: Why do users say FCP X is fast? Some new numbers.
on Aug 19, 2015 at 7:21:18 pm
Last Edited By Bill Davis on Aug 19, 2015 at 7:36:03 pm

Look, I've been impressed with X since day one because it provided me with real world solutions to video editing problems *I* had confronted for years — and I found, over time, it made me a more engaged and happy editor.

But every time I posted about that - what I was confronted with lots of voices working very hard to tell me (in one fashion or another) why I was wrong.

This week at lunch, my wife quoted a line that stopped me cold.

"That guy's always ready to think of a problem for every solution."

BINGO.

To me, that encapsulates a huge percentage of our debates here.

People work VERY hard to prove that the solution I've discovered that works for me - and makes me a much happier editor - is really no solution at all - or at least LESS a solution then some other one. And to tell me why it would NEVER work for them - even tho they don't really understand it and have never really tried it in depth. It's almost pathological. And I believe it deserves to be confronted. At least unless it turns out (via fair and robust testing) to be true. But a HUGE percentage of the time, it just doesn't. Pick an FCP X bash from the past - "Magnetism is dumb, X can't cut long form, or commercial spots, or movies, or X was stupid to dump tracks, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc."

Yeah, I know this whole thing is a lame "It's ALL about ME!!!" screed. And that's super dumb. But you've got to admit that there are few here (not nobody, but few) who have taken as much personal crap as I have for expressing those evil "Pro-FCPX" opinions here. And I do get tired of it sometimes.

Besides ,mostly it's fun to mix it up. And having something work related to be passionate about? Thats actually REALLY cool. ; )

Signed, your obedient fanboy.

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

Andrew Kimery
Re: Why do users say FCP X is fast? Some new numbers.
on Aug 29, 2015 at 6:37:21 am

[Bill Davis] "People work VERY hard to prove that the solution I've discovered that works for me - and makes me a much happier editor - is really no solution at all -"

I can only speak about interactions I remember here at the COW (I certainly don't have every post committed to memory) and while there as been scoffing and dismissive remarks I'm having trouble recalling someone saying something to the effect of, "No, Bill Davis, X is not the best solution for your specific needs." On a related note, some would say that at times you work very hard to prove that the solutions others have discovered, which work for them and make them happier editors, are really not solutions at all. On multiple occasions you've basically told people that they should worry about becoming unemployed if they don't learn X and that you worry about the future of post production in America because you don't think the industry is adopting X fast enough.

Your unbridled enthusiasm for X is not always a benefit when it comes to discussing the merits of X.


[Bill Davis] " And to tell me why it would NEVER work for them - even tho they don't really understand it and have never really tried it in depth. It's almost pathological. And I believe it deserves to be confronted."

I think this why I'm horrible at sales (and never got into product evangelism). If someone that knows a whole heck of a lot more about their needs/wants/desires than I do tells me that Solution ABC wouldn't be as effective as Solution XYZ I'd be like "okay." I'd feel very presumptuous to start telling someone else their business w/o taking adequate time to try and thoroughly understand it myself.


[Bill Davis] ". But you've got to admit that there are few here (not nobody, but few) who have taken as much personal crap as I have for expressing those evil "Pro-FCPX" opinions here. And I do get tired of it sometimes. "

Specifically for X on the COW I would probably agree but to be fair the wounds are primarily self-inflicted. Also, it's only been around 4yrs so you might have to start pacing yourself if you still want to put up a fight 10, 15 or even 20yrs down the road. ;) If it makes you feel any better there are a bunch of Avid Editors on Facebook currently blowing off steam because they are tired of being told that if they don't learn yet another NLE soon they'll be out of a job.

I feel your pain which is why I try to be much more selective about who I engage with.

As a Mac and PC user that works on unscripted TV shows/docs in Los Angeles (as well as web videos), and uses a variety of NLEs there is very little mud slinging that won't potentially fly my direction. To haters outside of Hollywood I'm an out of touch, elitist in an ivory tower. To haters inside Hollywood, I'm 2nd rate because I don't do scripted movies or TV shows (and 3rd rate if I'm doing a web series). I've defended PCs to Mac guys, Macs to PC guys and been in countless discussions about the virtues of Avid/Premiere/FCP (both) as well as countless discussions about the shortcomings of Avid/Premiere/FCP (both).

If I picked just one camp to advocate for I'd probably have an easier time of things but that just doesn't seem to be in me.


-Andrew


Return to posts index

Bill Davis
Re: Why do users say FCP X is fast? Some new numbers.
on Aug 29, 2015 at 5:06:20 pm
Last Edited By Bill Davis on Aug 29, 2015 at 5:59:30 pm

[Andrew Kimery] "Your unbridled enthusiasm for X is not always a benefit when it comes to discussing the merits of X. "

So through the text equivalent of the transitive property of equality that sentence can also be...

"Someone's unbridled dismissiveness of X is not always a benefit when it comes to discussing it's merits?"

Want to compare the number of people who did that during X years 1-3 compared to us fans?

Or are you suggesting that there isn't STILL a massive lingering number of working editors who see X in exactly the same way they used to?

Exhibit one right here on the cow, where Herb said TODAY (partially joking) something that reinforced the silly meme that "nobody" at his level - in his area- uses X. In reply Charlie points out the Variety story yesterday where Lifetime/TLC just cut one of the major OJ Simpson documentaries about to hit the airwaves on it. Something those of us on the X centric boards have been discussing (not the project details since that was under wraps) for more than two years now.

You see what you look at.

If you put your money on Premiere three years ago, what's the point of looking for X success stories? You picked your horse.

Others with different interests seek out and see different things.

Now the the wraps are off, maybe Christy,Patrick and some of the other folks on the OJ edit team will say something. Or not.

But Herb is experiencing editing "inside" his choice. As are the rest of us. That simply does NOT make him qualified to describe how X is doing except from his perspective inside his choice. That's fine, but he elected NOT to explore X and further. Christy and Patrick did - and have completed the big job due to that. Simple as that.

[Andrew Kimery] "If someone that knows a whole heck of a lot more about their needs/wants/desires than I do tells me that Solution ABC wouldn't be as effective as Solution XYZ I'd be like "okay." I'd feel very presumptuous to start telling someone else their business w/o taking adequate time to try and thoroughly understand it myself."


So if they're plowing with horses - and you're a tractor salesman - you're happy to keep your mouth shut and let them keep plowing? I'm not.
THE POINT HERE IS NOT THAT X IS A TRACTOR AND ANYTHING ELSE IS A HORSE! - so calm down folks. It just points out that the way I think. If I find a tool that makes my life and job easier for ME - I like to tell others about it. I think that's the decent thing to do. And I expect them to take that info and do their own investigation. But no, I don't keep quiet and let them continue without knowledge of what might be a more efficient tool. It's not how I'm wired. So sue me.


[Andrew Kimery] "I feel your pain which is why I try to be much more selective about who I engage with.
"


Pain is a necessary warning system. You can't escape it. What helps a lot in my experience is engaging with lots of different folks who have done different things - and learning from different perspectives.
For me, that means MORE engagement and debate. Not less. But that's just me. 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

Andrew Kimery
Re: Why do users say FCP X is fast? Some new numbers.
on Aug 30, 2015 at 2:46:16 am

[Bill Davis] ""Someone's unbridled dismissiveness of X is not always a benefit when it comes to discussing it's merits?"

Agreed, and neither extreme is helpful, IMO (they are like outliers in statics that are dismissed so they don't skew the average).

Want to compare the number of people who did that during X years 1-3 compared to us fans?

I never cared enough to keep count, but if you have a comprehensive spreadsheet keeping score I'm curious to see it.


Or are you suggesting that there isn't STILL a massive lingering number of working editors who see X in exactly the same way they used to? "

Why would I suggest that when I've always agreed with you that there are people that have an illogical dislike of X?

Of course I've always added that there will always be people that have an illogical dislike of X. Just like there will always be people that have an illogical dislike of Avid, FCP Legend, PPro, etc.,. I was only half kidding when I said that you better pace yourself if you are going to keep fighting this fight for the next 15 or 20 years. Hell, I still run into people that are legitimately bitter that Microsoft 'stole' Apple's GUI back in the 80's. No helping those types of folks.


[Bill Davis] "So if they're plowing with horses - and you're a tractor salesman - you're happy to keep your mouth shut and let them keep plowing? I'm not. "

If I was a tractor salesmen I'd take in a bit of what's around me before I walked up to a stranger and started talking about how awesome tractors are. Are they Amish? Are they in an underdeveloped area where fuel is prohibitively expensive? Are they selective cutting trees (going into the woods and felling only specific trees)? Is the terrain such that using a tractor wouldn't be practical?

If I was a tractor salesman (let's say for John Deere) I'd like to think I'd be the type of tractor salesman that would be knowledgable about various tractors and various aspects of plowing so I could recommend the best solution for the person I'm talking with (maybe it is a horse, maybe it's a Kubota, maybe it's a John Deere) even if it isn't the best solution for my pocket book. Those are the salesmen I respect, and those are the ones I'll call if I my needs change and/or refer to a friend.

Of course I already stated I'd probably be a crappy salesman which is why I'm not a salesman. I'm an editor. I'm not looking to pimp a product, I'm looking to find the best solutions for a given situation. Maybe it's X, maybe it's Avid, maybe it's Resolve, maybe it's Red Giant, maybe it's a Mac, maybe it's a PC. I've got a few different types of footwear in the closet and while my favorite is a pair of black boots I wouldn't wear them for a hike in the mountains or a leisurely stroll on the beach. There's nothing wrong with them, they just aren't the optimal choice for those situations.


[Bill Davis] "For me, that means MORE engagement and debate. Not less. But that's just me. YMMV."

Quality over quantity, IMO.


Return to posts index

Bill Davis
Re: Why do users say FCP X is fast? Some new numbers.
on Aug 30, 2015 at 8:52:10 pm

[Andrew Kimery] "Maybe it's X, maybe it's Avid, maybe it's Resolve, maybe it's Red Giant, maybe it's a Mac, maybe it's a PC. I've got a few different types of footwear in the closet and while my favorite is a pair of black boots I wouldn't wear them for a hike in the mountains or a leisurely stroll on the beach. There's nothing wrong with them, they just aren't the optimal choice for those situations.
"


But how can you even assess that if you have little to no experience with ALL of them?

What we see here mostly is software A editors questioning software B. B guys questioning A. And C questioning everyone.

But the thing is nobody is willing to believe anyone else.

And besides, you bing up "the optimum choice" I think too many editors chase that myth. The popular programs all work just fine. But they all come with a focus. A view, if you will, of what editing is now - and needs to be for the future.

Seems to me AVID is still (and will likely always be) focused on "industrial shop" editing.

Premiere Pro is trying partly to go there - and also be the traditionalist choice for individual editors. Change, but not TOO MUCH change. Keep faith with the traditional timeline cuz it's just too hard to give it up - and heck, it does everything any editor should ever need, after all. Commit your $600 a year and never look back.

X requires significant editor change. You have to be willing to start over and re-think your editing workflow. In exchange for that, you're given a range of efficient new tools that may make your editing more fluid and easier. That's MY experience. I understand it's totally debatable (witness this forum) but a bit hard to debate with people who don't actually use the software.

Resolve is a wildcard. A fabulous node-based color corrector upon which BlackMagic is rapidly grafting an editorial engine with some X capabilities and a non-scary timeline-based workflow. And its FREE-ish!!! Strong mojo for those fearless enough to bet that the EDITORIAL part of this great Color Correction Software will continue to grow and eventually take over and meet BOTH needs.
One Ring to rule them all. (well, if they eventually get the asset management and audio and titling and distribution stuff up to current standards as well.)

So how does the individual editor choose?

Nobody can tell you that.

But I think it's valuable hearing from those who use EACH.

Don't you?

; )

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

Andrew Kimery
Re: Why do users say FCP X is fast? Some new numbers.
on Sep 1, 2015 at 7:22:12 am

First off, after my last post I was worried I'd pushed us in the direction of talking in circles so thank you for helping to keep this conversation moving forward.

My optimum choice comment wasn't meant to be a one ring to rule them all comment but a pick the best horse for the course comment. Sometimes the differences between the NLEs won't make a difference and sometimes they will. Not to state the obvious, but if the differences don't matter for a given situation then one should feel free to pick at will. If the differences do matter though then a more deliberate choice makes sense.

[Bill Davis] "But I think it's valuable hearing from those who use EACH.

Don't you?

; )"


Of course, but as you may have guessed by now I prefer more tempered voices. ;)


Return to posts index

Neil Goodman
Re: Why do users say FCP X is fast? Some new numbers.
on Sep 1, 2015 at 1:46:58 pm
Last Edited By Neil Goodman on Sep 1, 2015 at 8:08:16 pm

[Bill Davis] "But how can you even assess that if you have little to no experience with ALL of them?"

thats a good question Bill, and one you should ask yourself.

You constantly slag on Avid - when was the last time you actually used it? Have you booted it up since version 4,or 5,6,7,8?

Kind of like the difference between X 10.0.1 and 10.2.1 and how people are forming an opinion based of 10.0.1

How do you know the advancements made in the last 6 years havent morphed into something that would tremendously help your workflow and business? I get that you write off Adobe for being subscription based but Avid has perpetual license options and really good, economical upgrade plan.

Just saying cause you always say people chime in w/o actually have really learnt the software. Cant the same be said for you?


Return to posts index

Tony West
Re: Why do users say FCP X is fast? Some new numbers.
on Aug 20, 2015 at 4:41:47 am

"Out of curiosity, how many times are you willing to have the same goes-nowhere argument with the same people/same types of people for the possible benefit of fence sitters that may or may not be around? If there are identifiable fence sitters around why not focus on engaging with them and not continuing to focus on the person that's obviously made up their mind? "


If you are talking about when I'm in the work place, it really depends on the situation and what's being said. In general, I tend not to let misinformation or a flat out lie, sit out there unchallenged.

If it does, it stands the chance of becoming real to people even if it has no bases in fact.


Return to posts index

Andrew Kimery
Re: Why do users say FCP X is fast? Some new numbers.
on Aug 29, 2015 at 6:34:54 am

[Tony West] "If you are talking about when I'm in the work place, it really depends on the situation and what's being said. In general, I tend not to let misinformation or a flat out lie, sit out there unchallenged.

If it does, it stands the chance of becoming real to people even if it has no bases in fact."


If someone is factually wrong about something I'm likely to correct them as well, but if I'm at a mixer (or on the Internet) and I hear someone say they think such and such sucks it's most likely a rabbit hole I don't care enough to go down anymore. If I'm discussing workflow for a project I'm on (or consulting on) I'll speak up about everything if I think someone is mistaken because I want us to end up with the best workflow possible. Generally speaking though someone's NLE preference, unlike politics, is pretty inconsequential.


Return to posts index

Jim Wiseman
Re: Why do users say FCP X is fast? Some new numbers.
on Aug 19, 2015 at 9:29:53 pm
Last Edited By Jim Wiseman on Aug 19, 2015 at 9:30:34 pm

Or have as much incentive as Adobe's forcing rental of CC on us. That has been a big incentive for me to learn FCPX and look forward to Resolve. Adobe, for me, is no longer an option.

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, Multiple OWC Thunderbay 4 TB2 and eSATA QX2 RAID 5 HD systems


Return to posts index

Walter Soyka
Re: Why do users say FCP X is fast? Some new numbers.
on Aug 19, 2015 at 9:32:11 pm

[Jim Wiseman] "Adobe's forcing rental of CC on us"

Apple doesn't have a software rental option. Is it fair to say Apple forces software purchase on us?

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

Jim Wiseman
Re: Why do users say FCP X is fast? Some new numbers.
on Aug 22, 2015 at 5:43:13 pm

At $299 for FCPX, software that will always work on my system, force away, Apple. Even with Motion and Compressor thrown in for $49.99 each I'm up and running for $400 dollars, with free updates, so far. No rental, my projects will always open. I can stand that kind of coercion, especially since that is my platform of choice. Rental makes absolutely no sense for me.

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, Multiple OWC Thunderbay 4 TB2 and eSATA QX2 RAID 5 HD systems


Return to posts index

James Patterson
Re: Why do users say FCP X is fast? Some new numbers.
on Aug 20, 2015 at 8:06:29 am

To be fair, almost all of the avid editors I know moan about anything that isn't Avid ; )

Best


Return to posts index

Oliver Peters
Re: Why do users say FCP X is fast? Some new numbers.
on Aug 20, 2015 at 11:50:16 am

"To be fair, almost all of the avid editors I know moan about anything that isn't Avid ; )"

To be fair, they moan about Avid just as much.

Oliver

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


Return to posts index

Eric Santiago
Re: Why do users say FCP X is fast? Some new numbers.
on Aug 23, 2015 at 1:56:10 pm

Just to add my 3 cents (Canadian currency sucks), at home I work entirely on all three NLEs and to date still find RED files to be smoothest on FCPX.
Ive had to test an 1100+ R3D clip feature for the Director (slash Editor...kill me now :P )to see which would be best for him since he's attempting a rough to final cut on an 2012 iMac.
In the end he opted to go with Premiere since he was comfortable in it.
I however found FCPX almost painless across the board.
R3D and FCPX has always been the best combo I find as far as minimal CPU resources.


Return to posts index

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