FORUMS: list search recent posts

Semi-OT: Is it time to just call it "FCP" again?

COW Forums : Apple Final Cut Pro X Debates

<< PREVIOUS   •   VIEW ALL   •   PRINT   •   NEXT >>
William Davis
Semi-OT: Is it time to just call it "FCP" again?
on Jun 29, 2016 at 5:21:37 pm

With Apple dropping the "X" branding from its OS releases, is it time to do the same with Final Cut Pro X?

I think a half decade is enough time for the world to get used to the fact that FCPX was a giant change over version 7, and the application that gets installed in the Finder has always just been labeled "Final Cut Pro." I've always found the X a little gimmicky.

Bill

Bill Davis
thedavisreview.com


Return to posts index

Andrew Kimery
Re: Semi-OT: Is it time to just call it "FCP" again?
on Jun 29, 2016 at 5:36:43 pm

Name change to macNLE Pro? ;)

It's probably a regional thing, but in my neck of the woods "FCP" still means FCP Legend so you have to say FCP X (or the new FCP) when referring to FCP X. I'm sure in time "FCP" will eventually mean FCP X and you'll have to say 'the old FCP' if you mean FCP Legend, but we just haven't gotten their yet. It's only been somewhat recently (again, in my area) that FCP 7 use has really dropped off.


Return to posts index

Douglas K. Dempsey
Re: Semi-OT: Is it time to just call it "FCP" again?
on Jun 29, 2016 at 7:16:37 pm

I dunno, saying "X" is kinda cool. No "FCP" at all, just ... X. With drop from the OS, makes the appellation unique to FCP

Doug D


Return to posts index


Shane Ross
Re: Semi-OT: Is it time to just call it "FCP" again?
on Jun 30, 2016 at 2:33:42 am

I'm with Andrew. If you say "FCP" then people assume FCP LEGACY. Need to say FCX or FCP-X for people to know you are talking about the more recent one.

Shane
Little Frog Post
Read my blog, Little Frog in High Def


Return to posts index

Michael Gissing
Re: Semi-OT: Is it time to just call it "FCP" again?
on Jun 30, 2016 at 5:30:56 am

In my area of broadcast & cinema docos FCP7 is still the most popular NLE, followed by Premiere, Avid & X. I am about to do the first X doco in a while. I have done probably 25 docos since the last X project which was a short film. It would be totally confusing to drop the X and a post workflow problem if an editor said just FCP without differentiating.

Many of my colleagues see Resolve and Premiere as the upgrade from "Legend" not X so it remains a minor player in my world.


Return to posts index

Charlie Austin
Re: Semi-OT: Is it time to just call it "FCP" again?
on Jun 30, 2016 at 5:44:03 am

[Michael Gissing] "and a post workflow problem if an editor said just FCP without differentiating.
"


Just curious, how come? You still export EDL's, Audio AAF's and Video AAF's if needed right? Other than no OMF, (which is a zombie format that must die, like FCP 7 lol), it's the same stuff right?

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

~ My FCPX Babbling blog ~
~"It is a poor craftsman who blames his tools."~
~I still need to play Track Tetris sometimes. An old game that you can never win~
~"The function you just attempted is not yet implemented"~


Return to posts index


Tim Wilson
Re: Semi-OT: Is it time to just call it "FCP" again?
on Jul 1, 2016 at 12:07:47 am

This one's tough. There are definitely youngsters coming up who've only ever worked with X, and who refer to it as FCP...but in the context of this particular forum, there's a 15 year head of steam for "FCP" referring to a specific thing that is not-X.

I'm with Douglas, that for the most part, "X" is more descriptive of this forum than "FCP" is....but I'm not sure that we're ready to name the forums "Apple X" and "Apple X Debates."

More like "Ex-FCP Debates." :-)


Return to posts index

David Mathis
Re: Semi-OT: Is it time to just call it "FCP" again?
on Jul 1, 2016 at 1:37:54 am

I am going out on a limb here but why does Apple not name the versions of Final Cut Pro after their newest OS by any chance? That would make more sense to me. They could at least at how Adobe describes their versions. To me X seems kind of outdated.


Return to posts index

Michael Gissing
Re: Semi-OT: Is it time to just call it "FCP" again?
on Jul 1, 2016 at 4:53:51 am

[Charlie Austin] "Just curious, how come? You still export EDL's, Audio AAF's and Video AAF's if needed right? Other than no OMF, (which is a zombie format that must die, like FCP 7 lol), it's the same stuff right?"

From FCP7 the workflow to me is xml from 7, omf. Simple and it goes straight into Resolve and Fairlight.

From X, fcpxml into Resolve no problem so same same. AAF from X (I always have to ask "Have you got X2Pro? No well you'll have to buy it. Make sure you get the proper one that can trim files and add handles") Then AAF into Fairlight. But we always have to do a test to make sure they can get the audio AAF out and learn how to drive new software.

Big difference is 7 has a perfectly good omf tool built in that works. Simple and reliable. When I tell the editor he has to buy software to export an AAF, they normally moan and want to buy the cheaper version which I have never had success with. The other huge difference to me is that when they just turn up on the day without contacting me first with a drive and an FCP7 project, I can load it onto my old Mac with Legend and sort what I want. With X I send them home to make the proper files. It's a waste of time when editors assume. At least with Pr & Legend I can fix it here. I'm not going to buy a new Mac plus X plus X2pro to fix a problem from an NLE that I rarely see.

That's the difference for me. When you say OMF must die, you clearly assume AAF is more reliable and has something extra to offer. Not to me. OMF is far more reliable because it is EOL software. AAF has a whole lot of things I don't want from an editor - EQ, dynamic mixing etc. That's just more stuff to delete before I can get on with tracklay and mix. And don't talk to me about baked stems from Roles. It is the fall back when AAFs don't work and guess what. All that baked in EQ and mixing is what I need to get rid of.

So in a nutshell. Not the same. Premiere is the same. xml and omf. Also reliable. X is the curve ball to use a sporting metaphor. Couldn't think of a car metaphor


Return to posts index


Claude Lyneis
Re: Semi-OT: Is it time to just call it "FCP" again?
on Jul 1, 2016 at 6:03:59 am

Stick with X. FCP still means 7 and this may never die until all those editors who used 7 die.


Return to posts index

Charlie Austin
Re: Semi-OT: Is it time to just call it "FCP" again?
on Jul 1, 2016 at 5:57:42 pm

[Michael Gissing] "From X, fcpxml into Resolve no problem so same same. AAF from X (I always have to ask "Have you got X2Pro? No well you'll have to buy it. Make sure you get the proper one that can trim files and add handles") Then AAF into Fairlight. But we always have to do a test to make sure they can get the audio AAF out and learn how to drive new software. "

I get that, but here's the thing... to get the perfectly good OMF tool in FCP 7, you need to buy it right? FCS was about 1000 bucks US (not sure about the Aussie $$ price). If an editor is doing work that requires audio turnovers in X, they need to buy a copy of X, and X2Pro (pro) or they're not really prepared to do their job. And it's only 550 bucks. (add EDL X, Motion and Compressor and it's still only $750) Any way you slice it it less than what they paid to do this in 7.

Now I realize you may not be able to tell your clients what to deliver and how to do it. But in this market, if I told a post house I couldn't make an AAF, or had to send them comped stems, all I would hear was hysterical laughter. :-) So, I own the tools I need to deliver in a "pro" workflow.

And with those tools - again for a lot less $$ than the cost of the old FCP - it's exactly the same workflow. Open sequence, click a button to make an AAF/EDL, whatever. Easy. Easier actually, as X2Pro via Roles will split out my cut into perfectly organized tracks for me. Saves me time, and saves my mixers time. In a former life I was a mixer, and cleaning up the messes that many editors dumped on me was a huge waste of time, as I'm sure you know.

[Michael Gissing] " AAF has a whole lot of things I don't want from an editor - EQ, dynamic mixing etc. That's just more stuff to delete before I can get on with tracklay and mix."

I'm pretty sure X2Pro ignores effects, and there's a checkbox to ditch transitions. As to levels, I'm not familiar with Fairlight but in PT its just a couple clicks to zero everything out. And using AAF, mixers I work with love the fact that all the tracks come in perfectly organized and properly named. That saves them a ton of time.

It's perfectly understandable that you wouldn't want to spend $150 to buy a copy of X2Pro as you don't see the need. Though... if you had it an X editor could bring you a drive and an fcpxml file and you'd be all set. But anyone cutting in X professionally should have all the tools to do a professional job. And seriously, it's not that much $$ and you pay it once. The fact that your clients don't want to do that isn't a problem with FCP X. At all.

In my worthless opinion of course. :-)

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

~ My FCPX Babbling blog ~
~"It is a poor craftsman who blames his tools."~
~I still need to play Track Tetris sometimes. An old game that you can never win~
~"The function you just attempted is not yet implemented"~


Return to posts index

Michael Gissing
Re: Semi-OT: Is it time to just call it "FCP" again?
on Jul 2, 2016 at 4:08:06 am

[Charlie Austin] "But anyone cutting in X professionally should have all the tools to do a professional job. And seriously, it's not that much $$ and you pay it once. The fact that your clients don't want to do that isn't a problem with FCP X. At all."

Absolutely agree but my experience has been that because it was built into 7 all editors could deliver both picture & sound. With X I have to ask. Not often because most jobs are not X but you might be surprised how often there is resistance to spending extra on a plugin just to get sound out.

I am going to try an experiment with the next job. I will ask the editor (who has X2Pro) to export an fcpxml picture and sound and import it into the free version of Resolve. Then export the Resolve file and bring that to me with the media. From Resolve I can export the AAF and I know that it works because I have used it a few times and know how to drive it. (The X2pro guys might not want this free workaround public) I will also request an AAF from X2Pro to compare.

With OMF or AAF I am quite happy for editors to leave clip level and transitions as Fairlight treats both these as virtual and I can alter transitions. Clip level can be globally reset but what I prefer to do is copy the editors tracks & clips a set amount down the Fairlight timeline so I can reference if they set a clip level right down for a reason. But the biggie is that OMF gives me all I want and it has become bomb proof. In the early days of OMF it was such a disaster that I often jokingly called it NOmf as it was often quicker to reload via an EDL.

So I get what you are saying but in the indie doco world X is a slightly more convoluted workflow and requires more input and is harder for me to fix but I think Resolve may end up being the ultimate tool kit on collaborative workflows, even if you aren't editing or grading with it.


Return to posts index


Charlie Austin
Re: Semi-OT: Is it time to just call it "FCP" again?
on Jul 2, 2016 at 4:15:07 am

[Michael Gissing] "So I get what you are saying but in the indie doco world X is a slightly more convoluted workflow and requires more input and is harder for me to fix but I think Resolve may end up being the ultimate tool kit on collaborative workflows, even if you aren't editing or grading with it"

I hear ya... Resolve actually does pretty well with X audio (via fcpxml) but it gets a little messed up with multichannel sources. In my case meaning audio that's tied to picture. (most of my pix sources have split DME tracks). I use Resolve to get picture AAF's to MC from X when post houses want an "Auto Duck". A few caveats, but It's a pretty good "Rosetta Stone" :-) Be interested to hear how it goes when/if you get the chance to try it out...

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

~ My FCPX Babbling blog ~
~"It is a poor craftsman who blames his tools."~
~I still need to play Track Tetris sometimes. An old game that you can never win~
~"The function you just attempted is not yet implemented"~


Return to posts index

Michael Gissing
Re: Semi-OT: Is it time to just call it "FCP" again?
on Jul 2, 2016 at 4:30:18 am

[Charlie Austin] "Be interested to hear how it goes when/if you get the chance to try it out..."

I'll let you know. Resolve still is not great at linking audio and the export functionality is a bit limited but improving. I know it is a tub I thump often but NLE software that doesn't support standard file interchange formats without a plugin is inviting a layer of complication. X really is the odd one out.

If I had my perfect NLE it would export audio as AES31. Pity the format developed by the audio world didn't catch on rather than the AAF format that requires licensing and keeps getting fiddled with.


Return to posts index

Ronny Courtens
Re: Semi-OT: Is it time to just call it "FCP" again?
on Jul 6, 2016 at 6:38:54 pm

I can understand that for some people who only need to export AAF for audio once in a while, having to purchase X2Pro may seem an extra investment they don't really want to make. But I don't think any professional editor will ever mind paying a few extra bucks for this, especially since it seems to work extremely well.

Many of the people I work with send their audio from FCP X to ProTools using X2Pro, and all I can say is that they are very happy with this workflow. The ProTools guy at Swiss national tv even told me that the AAFs he gets from their FCP X suites now via X2Pro are much cleaner than the ones he got from their Avid workstations. So I think this all depends on what business you are in and how often you need to do this. These guys surely seem to like X2Pro a lot: https://news.creativecow.net/story/882113

- Ronny


Return to posts index

Darren Roark
Re: Semi-OT: Is it time to just call it "FCP" again?
on Jul 6, 2016 at 8:46:33 pm

[Ronny Courtens] "The ProTools guy at Swiss national tv even told me that the AAFs he gets from their FCP X suites now via X2Pro are much cleaner than the ones he got from their Avid workstations."

My regular audio mixer thought I developed OCD the first time I sent him an AAF from X2Pro.

He remarked "Doesn't Avid own Pro Tools? Why doesn't theirs work this well?"

The part that gets lost in the conversation about this is these specific 3rd party functionalities are looked after by professional experts who continue to refine them.

The other NLEs that have it built in they maybe get bug fixes but once they are 'finished' they don't really get any improvements, maybe just bug fixes.

The entire cost of everything needed to create feature film deliverables and turnovers is just over a grand. The kicker is because FCPXML actually can access nearly all the metadata they are actually better. The faster part is just a bonus.


Return to posts index

Michael Gissing
Re: Semi-OT: Is it time to just call it "FCP" again?
on Jul 7, 2016 at 4:55:37 am

I agree Ronny that the cost is not a consideration to a professional. But I am dealing with indie doco makers, often the director being the editor or short films for emerging film makers. They just don't understand workflows and are shocked to learn they have to shell out for a function that was built into the more expensive FCP7. It doesn't matter that all up X & X2pro is cheaper, they just get a surprise at the end of their production (and budget and credit card limits).

If Resolve can build it in for free software, I wish X had done it. The fact that X has not fiddled with their xml for a while helps third parties like Marquis who I think are doing a great job.

There is no doubt the X can work well in collaborative workflows. Many of my clients however do require more hand holding when they have cut on X. I wish it were otherwise but that is my experience.


Return to posts index

Craig Alan
Re: Semi-OT: Is it time to just call it "FCP" again?
on Jul 5, 2016 at 5:56:28 pm

Personally, I'd like them to keep the X but pronounce it "EX"
"FCPX (ten) 10.2.3" is ridiculous.
They should have called it FCP 8.__.__ , FCP 9.___.___ ...
(or even FC 8 as in it's not just for pros)
and gotten rid of the OS X (ten) cats and mountains which were/are insanely stupid. Nick names for the developers are fine but years later who remembers the order these cats came out?
Wouldn't it be nice if the OS had been OS10, OS11, OS12 ...

Mac Pro, macbook pro, Imacs (i7); Canon 5D Mark III/70D, Panasonic AG-HPX170/AG-HPX250P, Canon HV40, Sony Z7U/VX2000/PD170; FCP 6 certified; FCP X write professionally for a variety of media; teach video production in L.A.


Return to posts index

Jeff Kirkland
Re: Semi-OT: Is it time to just call it "FCP" again?
on Jul 6, 2016 at 9:53:08 am

Personally, I just edit in Final Cut. I leave which version to their imagination...


Return to posts index

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