FORUMS: list search recent posts

Final cut X A Diamond in the rough

COW Forums : Apple Final Cut Pro X Debates

<< PREVIOUS   •   VIEW ALL   •   PRINT   •   NEXT >>
rohan ferreira
Final cut X A Diamond in the rough
on Jan 7, 2017 at 6:19:15 am

http://rohanf16.blogspot.in/2017/01/final-cut-x-diamond-in-rough.html?spref...
A blog on my opinion of FCPX


Return to posts index

Scott Witthaus
Re: Final cut X A Diamond in the rough
on Jan 7, 2017 at 4:41:14 pm

All due respect Rohan, but isn't this blog post about 3 years too late? And my personal observation was that Premiere benefitted the most from the FCPX intro-debacle, not Avid.

Anyway, thanks for sharing. You can scroll back through the history of this forum for LOTS of opinions about FCPX! :-)

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


Return to posts index

Noah Kadner
Re: Final cut X A Diamond in the rough
on Jan 7, 2017 at 4:50:06 pm

It's funny to read 'change is hard' as an opinion now that FCPX is 5+ years old. Guess we're talking at the speed of glacial erosion.

Noah

FCPWORKS - FCPX Workflow
FCP Exchange - FCPX Workshops
XinTwo - FCPX Training


Return to posts index


Shane Ross
Re: Final cut X A Diamond in the rough
on Jan 8, 2017 at 10:51:58 pm

This part:

"This all changed in 1999 as Apple computers launched Final Cut Pro. This was a non-linear editor that let you do a bit of online too. It streamlined the whole editing process. FCP too was met with a lot of scepticism and nobody wanted to learn the new software. But then it slowly grew on the editors and most Studios, Channels and production houses used FCP. A few films too were edited on FCP."

This is not why FCP grew very popular, very quickly. You could online in Avid too...for YEARS before FCP came out. Avid Symphony and DS were out before FCP 1. No, what made FCP so popular were a few things:

1) Cost. It was $1000. You could edit your films for $1000. Avid at the time cost $65,000-$125,000. Media 100 was a bit better, but still in the $10,000 range. Those of us working on independent films need to either rent an Avid, for A LOT of money, or beg/plead/bargain with the production companies we worked at to use the Avid at night. And we needed to shell out a lot of money for our own storage. But then FCP hit the scene, and it was cheap. Now we could buy it and run it on the Mac we already owned, or could get cheaply. CAPTURE VIDEO VIA FIREWIRE! WOW! BEfore that you needed spendy Avid cards. Now, shoot DV, or telecine your film to DV and bam, capture via firewire and you are ready to go! Or get a DV converter box. Suddenly you had a large crop of Avid editors who cut features and broadcast TV shows who were also cutting with FCP, because we had side projects and short films we were doing. We learned out of necessity. I can tell you, we all thought the interface looks a bit Fisher Price...and the funny thing it, IT NEVER CHANGED. it remained the same. BUT, well all go to using it. WE WANTED TO LEARN IT...because we could cut our projects with.

2) Cost. Yes, another COST reason. Now there was this NLE that didn't cost $65,000 that production companies could now BUY and OWN...or rent REALLY REALLY cheap. Because of that major cost savings, a lot of places jumped on this...starting with commercial and trailer houses, and then TV...and then film. But it didn't start really migrating until FCP 3...when capture hardware came out for it...MATROX, ICE...so we could now connect to professional decks. And then Digital Film Tree developed a tool to help Murch cut COLD MOUNTAIN with this...that tool because CINEMA TOOLS. And then FCP 4.5 came out, and you could capture HD via firewire! DVCPRO HD! It was when Production companies bought and started using FCP 3 and up that it was forced on some editors who hated it...most still do. But it really REALLY took off because a very large group of editors already knew it, because they cut their own stuff with it...and kids in film school were learning it, so you had this new crop of editors coming in that new it, alongside the many old guard that knew it.

3) Streamlined the process...yes this did happen. Suddenly you could capture without ANY compression many HD formats, DVCPRO HD, HDV...and then make titles with Motion, send to COLOR, go back to FCP and add your titles. Rather than onlining in Avid, outputting to tape, color correcting tape to tape with DaVinci, capture back into Avid to add titles, then output to tape again. Although you could still grade in Avid Symphony, it wasn't as good as other options...still isn't, which is why those other options existed.

But it all boils down to cost. That's what drove Avid to drop the cost of it's software. That's what revolutionized the NLE and how it skyrocketed to popularity. New filmmakers had access to editing tools, older filmmakers had access to editing tools. And this all happened during the DV revolution as well, so you had a LOT GOING ON!

But then Apple dropped the ball with FCX...big time. At least in the professional film and TV world. FCX is a MAJOR force in most other aspects of editing. FCP 7 required all sorts of professional know how and conversions...FCX did away with all that, you didn't need to convert stuff, or it could do it in the background. You didn't need to know lots of workflows...it made things easier for new editors to learn...and for expansion in other markets that was really really needed. Apple dropped the professional Film and TV market, for the much larger editing marketplace...wedding, corporate, web, realty, new filmmakers. Film and TV account for 2% of content creation. And it is still the most popular NLE out there...selling over a million (if not two million) copies. Avid is in the 200,000 range...not sure where Premiere is.

FCX bungled the release so bad that it leaves a bad taste in the mouth of many of the people who were the champions of the original FCP. We were burned...and it's tough to see past that. Avid burned us too, and it's taken us a LOT to trust them again, but they have earned it, and continue to earn it.

FCX's growth in the pro TV and film market will be VERY VERY slow compared to FCP Legacy. The conditions aren't the same. There is not longer the same need for really cheap software in this arena. We have it. WE have access to the tools we need. And Premiere is similar enough to FCP Legacy, and Avid, that we can use that if we want...we don't need to learn a whole new way of doing things. And FCX still doesn't offer slick solutions to situations where Avid excels (multiple editors on one project)...it's close to the way it was done on Legacy.

So that's why FCX is so slow to break into the FILM/TV market. It doesn't fulfill needs we have. The current tools do what we need. Yes, FCX can do some things better...but many of us don't feel they are enough to justify spending months learning FCX's interesting language, and unique way of doing things. It is happening, we all know this. But it won't happen in the same time as it did with FCP legacy...it might take another 10+ years...if that. Apple doesn't seem to be interested in our market...it is happy with the "new markets' and "new mediums.' And those mediums are also poised to take over Film/TV...so when they take over, perhaps FCX will as well. (In order for FCX to work in a professional film/TV market, it needs to rely on a good half dozen or more third party apps to make it function properly. THAT is how interested Apple is in our market...)

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


Return to posts index

Scott Witthaus
Re: Final cut X A Diamond in the rough
on Jan 9, 2017 at 12:53:39 am

[Shane Ross] "THAT is how interested Apple is in our market..."

Shane, would you agree that film and tv editing could be considered a niche market? High profile, but niche?

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


Return to posts index

Shane Ross
Re: Final cut X A Diamond in the rough
on Jan 9, 2017 at 2:11:12 am

EVERY ASPECT OF PRODUCTION AND POST IS NICHE!

Wedding..niche
TV....niche
Realty...niche
Corporate video....niche
Feature film...niche
training videos....niche

Everything is niche. And yes, film and TV are high profile, niche. Yet interestingly, people who don't cut film/TV always ask "what NLE is used to cut film and TV...I want to use that!" Instead, they should ask, "hey, what's the best NLE for cutting what I'm cutting?"

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


Return to posts index


Scott Witthaus
Re: Final cut X A Diamond in the rough
on Jan 9, 2017 at 12:32:19 pm

[Shane Ross] "EVERY ASPECT OF PRODUCTION AND POST IS NICHE!
"


OK, let's go up a bit more. You can very roughly divide visual storytelling workflows between broadcast (or screened) and non-broadcast, correct? Of course, those line are blurring too. And one might assume that the non-broadcast market is far larger than the broadcast market (in terms of number of editors and systems)? If true, broadcast is a niche in the global visual storytelling market. Agreed? So, from a business standpoint, it made sense for Apple to try and capture the non-broadcast market (first) with FCPX. With recent releases, however, Apple seems to want to move into that broadcast niche.

More to the point, I don't think Apple gave a shit about old editors like me doing commercial (broadcast) work 5 years ago at the X release (and seemingly confirmed that with the bungled release and EOL of Legacy). Capture the new editors with a totally new workflow ("damn, FCPX looks like the free iMovie I have on my computer") and grow with that group. Sooner or later, they will be in all niches of visual storytelling. Not being a company that needs to sell NLE software to survive, Apple had the option to make such a radical change (the good and bad of that are still debated). Long term strategy while iPhones fund the company. Avid can't do that, and Adobe would have a very difficult time trying this. Of course commitment by Apple is another issue...


[Shane Ross] "Yet interestingly, people who don't cut film/TV always ask "what NLE is used to cut film and TV...I want to use that!" I"

Avid has used this "aspirational" marketing strategy for years and one only needs to look at stock price to see how well that has done for them. It's not a smart strategy and certainly not a smart way to choose an NLE.


[Shane Ross] "Instead, they should ask, "hey, what's the best NLE for cutting what I'm cutting?""

Exactly. What product solves the problem you have. For me, the solution is not the fact that some movie or doc was cut on a Media Composer. But pose the product as a solution ("I need to have multiple editors cutting in various locations and need to be able to output multiple formats for different screens and regions, etc. . What system solves this problem...") and then you can more easily sell it.

Just my humble opine.

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


Return to posts index

Andrew Kimery
Re: Final cut X A Diamond in the rough
on Jan 9, 2017 at 3:23:26 am

Just going to echo Shane's point that cost was the thing. In the early 2000's almost every post house I went into had a copy of FCP sitting on a computer in the corner because why not? It was too cheap not to try. I worked at a post place once which was Avid based, but when they first started doing HD they bought a FCP rig to do their HD onlines because it was so much cheaper than upgrading to Avid's HD offering at the time.

If FCP would've been even remotely close to the cost of an Avid then very few people would've given it a shot.


Return to posts index

Shane Ross
Re: Final cut X A Diamond in the rough
on Jan 9, 2017 at 5:19:05 am

And one of the contributing factors is that Avid Adrenaline didn't do 720p HD...which was one of the most popular HD formats at the time....DVCPRO HD. Only FCP did...thus why my big leap to FCP 4.5.

Sorry, I was in the middle of all this, which is why I know it so well...

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


Return to posts index


Michael Gissing
Re: Final cut X A Diamond in the rough
on Jan 9, 2017 at 7:50:01 am

The other factor was that so many editors bought their own copy of FCP and started using it that I was approached by a group of editors to start a post finish service based on FCP becasue they didn't want to go into an Avid online and have to redo all the stills moves, flops, dissolve fx, plugins and supers/ titles/ credits.

So thats why I started with FCP4.5. Once Color appeared it made a pretty neat round trip process with decent grading tools. However I switched to Resolve before abandoning FCP7 as a finish tool. As everyone has said it was cost but also codec support and a strong ecosystem of built in and add on plugin FX.


Return to posts index

Scott Witthaus
Re: Final cut X A Diamond in the rough
on Jan 9, 2017 at 5:32:14 pm

[Shane Ross] "Avid burned us too, and it's taken us a LOT to trust them again, but they have earned it, and continue to earn it. "

DS, Symphony, Xpress, Pinnacle, Script Sync, Phrase Find (I think they might be back, however)......and with the company bleeding money, giving very sketchy financial statements, laying off people while giving huge bonuses to top execs, I'm not sure I would trust such a company. At least Apple cut Tim Cook's salary when they didn't hit sales projections (however ceremonial that might have been). Avid gives out bonuses.

However, MC is a great product for your market, so where else do you go?

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


Return to posts index

Bill Davis
Re: Final cut X A Diamond in the rough
on Jan 9, 2017 at 5:45:12 pm
Last Edited By Bill Davis on Jan 9, 2017 at 5:47:51 pm

Shanes post has a lot of accurate and valuable information - but it reflects his perspective as someone who's focus is Hollywood feature oriented production.

But it was NOT that that drove the successful adoption of FCP Legacy. Not much at ALL during it's first 5 years.

Because the FCP revolution happened bottom up - NOT top down - and the biggest reasons for FCP Legacy's success had NOTHING to do with Hollywood style work at all.

While Hollywood was dragging their feet - the rise of both home desktop computer power AND the rise of the first basic 25Mbps digital video cameras are what REALLY propelled FCP to success in it's early days.

Years before it was a glimmer in Hollywoods eyes - basic FCP systems were successfully supplanting the 3/4" and Beta workflows that had been in place on the industrial and corporate video areas for years.

That somebody could finally buy an inexpensive digital camera in like a VX-1000 or the Sony PD-100a, digitize the result into FCP Legacy on an affordable Mac via Firewire - and make a damn decent video master that you could duplicate and distribute via VHS - was TRANSFORMATIONAL in the spread of video as a communications medium.

Without the market of NON-Filmmaking - FCP Legacy would not have developed into a tool that filmmakers FINALLY got to access for THEIR needs.

I suspect that what's happening globally with FCP X will follow the same pattern. For everyone today who sees in terms of what it isn't - there will be a dozen world wide who can see what its becoming. And they might just own the next set of keys to the future.

Because today - we're not in a scarcity situation like we were back in the 1990s. Then, it was HARD to obtain and deploy production tools and expertise. Today it's laughably easy. So a tool that ONLY does what the other tools do is an inherently WEAK tool.

In todays environment of plenty - we have to do more. Do it faster. Do it cheaper. And at the same time, do it BETTER than anyone else.

It's the new normal.

My 2 cents.

Creator of XinTwo - http://www.xintwo.com
The shortest path to FCP X mastery.


Return to posts index


Herb Sevush
Re: Final cut X A Diamond in the rough
on Jan 9, 2017 at 5:56:26 pm

[Bill Davis] "So a tool that ONLY does what the other tools do is an inherently WEAK tool.

In todays environment of plenty - we have to do more. Do it faster. Do it cheaper. And at the same time, do it BETTER than anyone else.

It's the new normal."


But nowhere is there a premium for merely doing it differently.

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


Return to posts index

Scott Witthaus
Re: Final cut X A Diamond in the rough
on Jan 9, 2017 at 6:19:15 pm

[Herb Sevush] "But nowhere is there a premium for merely doing it differently."

But if 'different' makes one faster and more efficient, then there is a premium.

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


Return to posts index

Herb Sevush
Re: Final cut X A Diamond in the rough
on Jan 10, 2017 at 6:34:01 pm

[Scott Witthaus] "But if 'different' makes one faster and more efficient, then there is a premium."

Yes, but "If" is a big word.

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


Return to posts index


Andrew Kimery
Re: Final cut X A Diamond in the rough
on Jan 10, 2017 at 8:46:34 pm

[Scott Witthaus] " Adobe would have a very difficult time trying this."

AFAIK Adobe is split into three main silos; Creative Cloud, Marketing Cloud and Document Cloud. CC is still the biggest revenue generator, but Marketing is growing a lot (not sure about Document). Adobe looks to be someplace in between Apple and Avid in terms of dependence on the creative sphere for revenue.

[Scott Witthaus] "Avid has used this "aspirational" marketing strategy for years and one only needs to look at stock price to see how well that has done for them. It's not a smart strategy and certainly not a smart way to choose an NLE."

Don't all companies use aspirational marketing though? Ex. FCP's "In Action" page is populated with movies, TV shows, broadcasters and high-end commercials. It's all telling us that these high profile projects used FCP and you should too.


[Scott Witthaus] "Exactly. What product solves the problem you have. For me, the solution is not the fact that some movie or doc was cut on a Media Composer. But pose the product as a solution ("I need to have multiple editors cutting in various locations and need to be able to output multiple formats for different screens and regions, etc. . What system solves this problem...") and then you can more easily sell it.
"


If you talked with a product consultant of an NLE vender and asked, "I need to have multiple editors cutting in various locations and need to be able to output multiple formats for different screens and regions, etc. . What system solves this problem...?" I'm sure they wouldn't just start listing off names of movies and TV shows that used their NLE. They would give you a nuts and bolts answer and possibly mention a project by name that had a similar workflow as an example of their NLE executing that type of workflow successfully in the wild.

From an advertising standpoint though they have to do that in broad strokes and one of the best ways to do that is to highlight big, successful projects.



[Bill Davis] "That somebody could finally buy an inexpensive digital camera in like a VX-1000 or the Sony PD-100a, digitize the result into FCP Legacy on an affordable Mac via Firewire - and make a damn decent video master that you could duplicate and distribute via VHS - was TRANSFORMATIONAL in the spread of video as a communications medium. "

I think many things were happening concurrently and what we remember most probably depends on what circles we were swimming in at the time.

For example, during my first stint in Los Angeles in 2001 a lot of indies, docs, music videos, etc., (pretty much anything that was "budget challenged") was being done on FCP primarily because of cost reasons. Many post facilities I'd been to had it running on a machine somewhere just to experiment with it, and, to Shane's point earlier, I think it turned into the go to NLE for side projects & home offices because of it's price point and feature set (it certainly struck a chord that other 'inexpensive' NLEs like Vegas and Premiere had not). Once 'Hollywood people' got used to FCP on small projects they started migrating to bigger and bigger projects. IIRC this is how FCP displaced Avid at Bunim/Murray. They were using it for small things, saw how capable it was (and that it was a few zeroes cheaper than Avid) and transitioned to it in 2004-ish.

2002 seems be when 'notable' films started coming out ("notable" just being films that were big enough to be written about) like "Rules of Attraction", "Full Frontal" and "The Ring". On a related note, Apple acquired FilmLogic in 2001 and turned that into Cinema Tools which came out in 2002. So either a significant enough demand from film-centric productions already existed just two years after FCP's release or Apple was looking to help stoke those fires (probably a bit of both) because Cinema Tools was certainly an 'up market' product that initially cost as much as FCP did.

2003 and 2004 saw more FCP movies (ex. "Ladykillers", "Supersize Me", "Cold Mountain", "Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow") and, IIRC, the first primetime scripted series ("Scrubs") as well as big facilities such as the previously mentioned Bunim/Murray and Pie Town. To be honest, I'm not exactly sure when Pie Town started with FCP but in my mind they have always been one of the beacons in the FCP community (even expressing optimism about FCP X though they ultimately transitioned to Avid with Resolve for finishing). I think around 2004 is when I noticed trailers houses in LA also ditching Avid for FCP.


[Scott Witthaus] "But if 'different' makes one faster and more efficient, then there is a premium."

Splitting hairs, but I think the premium is still because it's faster and more efficient, not because it's just different.


Return to posts index

Oliver Peters
Re: Final cut X A Diamond in the rough
on Jan 11, 2017 at 2:04:02 am

[Andrew Kimery] " IIRC this is how FCP displaced Avid at Bunim/Murray. They were using it for small things, saw how capable it was (and that it was a few zeroes cheaper than Avid) and transitioned to it in 2004-ish.
"


And when FCPX came out, they went back to Avid. Mark may want to chime in, but I don't think they felt that it was a mistake to do so.

- Oliver

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


Return to posts index

Scott Witthaus
Re: Final cut X A Diamond in the rough
on Jan 11, 2017 at 2:22:26 am

[Andrew Kimery] "Adobe looks to be someplace in between Apple and Avid in terms of dependence on the creative sphere for revenue."

I think this is what I was saying.

[Andrew Kimery] "AFAIK Adobe is split into three main silos; Creative Cloud, Marketing Cloud and Document Cloud."

I met with 2 Adobe reps today, one of whom I met with in San Diego at the Max conference. We had an interesting conversation around how the CC has gotten so huge, it's hard to show value of every piece to a potential client (they want to sell a site license to our university). I talked to them about the challenge of selling the the cloud package to schools as different as the School of the Arts and the Nursing School, for example. Perhaps Adobe should break the cloud up into "cloud-lets": Adobe Social Cloud, Adobe Motion Cloud, Adobe Image Cloud, etc.

[Andrew Kimery] "FCP's "In Action" page is populated with movies,"

Perhaps, but I see more problem solving on Apple's In Action page than Avid's marketing (but I am biased towards this as a one man shop). Problem: I don't like cluttered interfaces. Solution: The first thing I noticed was how clean the interface is in FCPX 10.3. Oh, and I cut Audi branded content on it too.

Whereas Avid seems to be "when the **insert big name director here** came to cut their new film 'Martian 2: On to Venus', they of course chose Media Composer, because all the great films are cut on Media Composer... 90% of all the Academy Award films are cut on Media Composer". Yeah, so how does that help me here in Sheboygan? I want an uncluttered interface. "Did we mention 90% of all the Academy Award films are cut on Media Composer?". Doesn't solve my problem.

But I can see your point. And I am being sarcastic. I still have a few shares of Avid stock...

[Andrew Kimery] "I'm sure they wouldn't just start listing off names of movies and TV shows that used their NLE."

I was agreeing with Shane here on the point that many editors might choose a system because some big film was cut on it. Wrong way to do things.

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


Return to posts index


Oliver Peters
Re: Final cut X A Diamond in the rough
on Jan 11, 2017 at 2:42:37 am

[Scott Witthaus] "Whereas Avid seems to be "when the **insert big name director here** came to cut their new film 'Martian 2: On to Venus', they of course chose Media Composer, because all the great films are cut on Media Composer... 90% of all the Academy Award films are cut on Media Composer""

This is a bit of a misnomer. Directors usually don't dictate NLEs. They pick the editor they want and the editor uses the NLE of their choice. However, often that choice is mandated by the studios, because they want an insurance policy. That's where Avid comes in. Aside from reliability, most film editors know it. Editors do sometimes get fired off of films. If you have the film set up on Avid, then it's less of a hassle to bring in another editor. Neither FCPX or Premiere Pro are anywhere near that point.

- Oliver

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


Return to posts index

Scott Witthaus
Re: Final cut X A Diamond in the rough
on Jan 11, 2017 at 10:45:22 am

[Oliver Peters] " Directors usually don't dictate NLEs. "

It's advertising! Bend the truth a bit. A director picking your product is much more sexy than some production company. ;-)

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


Return to posts index

Oliver Peters
Re: Final cut X A Diamond in the rough
on Jan 11, 2017 at 4:55:28 pm
Last Edited By Oliver Peters on Jan 11, 2017 at 6:00:27 pm

[Scott Witthaus] "A director picking your product is much more sexy than some production company."

In reality, most of the time that a director dictates the NLE to use is when the director also does some of the cutting. That was the case in "Focus" and "WTF" (FCPX), but it's also been the case with James Cameron (Avid), the Coens (FCP7 & Premiere), etc. Or when the director feels like the NLE brings some special integration to the table - David Fincher or the "Deadpool" crew (Premiere). Or when the director owns the hardware and has a fixed investment - e.g. Morgan Spurlock, Clint Eastwood, etc (Avid).

- Oliver

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


Return to posts index


Nick Meyers
Re: Final cut X A Diamond in the rough
on Jan 14, 2017 at 10:44:37 pm

"If you have the film set up on Avid, then it's less of a hassle to bring in another editor"

this is the big unspoken reason FCP was used on certain productions.
it gave the filmmakers a protective barrier from studio interference and allowed them to be a bit more independent.
granted those filmmakers were and are more likely to have final cut on their own films, but i think FCP (or PP or FCPX) give them a little more security.


nick


Return to posts index

Andrew Kimery
Re: Final cut X A Diamond in the rough
on Jan 12, 2017 at 9:37:28 pm

[Scott Witthaus] "I think this is what I was saying. "

Just expanding on the thought you started.


Return to posts index

Bill Davis
Re: Final cut X A Diamond in the rough
on Jan 15, 2017 at 5:27:06 am

[Andrew Kimery] "For example, during my first stint in Los Angeles in 2001 a lot of indies, docs, music videos, etc., (pretty much anything that was "budget challenged") was being done on FCP primarily because of cost reasons."

But that was nearly 2 years after it was launched, Andrew.

Some of us had cut literally hundreds of projects on Legacy by that time.

That's pretty much on point.

By the time Legacy worked it's way FULLY into professional edit suites as a "safe bet" - it was a couple of years after THAT. It flew for a LONG time under the radar during it's development phase going through at least 3 major iterations of the code base while the "big time" editors were generally dismissive of it as an "amateurs platform."

Around 3.0 people started taking it seriously. And it was a year or so after THAT that Legacy really making serious noise.

Probably why it all the X hue and cry has always sounded a bit familiar to me. ; )

Creator of XinTwo - http://www.xintwo.com
The shortest path to FCP X mastery.


Return to posts index

Andrew Kimery
Re: Final cut X A Diamond in the rough
on Jan 15, 2017 at 7:05:42 am

[Bill Davis] "But that was nearly 2 years after it was launched, Andrew.

Some of us had cut literally hundreds of projects on Legacy by that time."


While you were cutting your stuff on FCP in AZ, other people were cutting docs using FCP in NYC, music videos on FCP in Chicago and TV shows on FCP in LA. The first cable show to use FCP aired in 2000 ("WOW!" aka Women of Wrestling) and Apple won Engineering Emmy's for FireWire (2001) and FCP (2002) so it's not like these things weren't being used by people in major markets to cut movies, TV shows, movie trailers, etc.,.. They just started out being used on smaller projects before working their way up the food chain to bigger budget/higher profile projects.

Which brings me back to the crux of your previous post:
[Bill Davis] "Without the market of NON-Filmmaking - FCP Legacy would not have developed into a tool that filmmakers FINALLY got to access for THEIR needs. "

I disagree. The lower-budget TV and filmmaking community using FCP is what led to the higher budget TV and filmmaking community using FCP. For example, Apple didn't buy FilmLogic in 2001 because corporate guys were switching from 3/4" and Avid to MiniDV and FCP. FCP's $999 price tag made it attractive to anyone on a small budget and having a small budget isn't exclusive to the non-filmmaking community.


[Bill Davis] "Probably why it all the X hue and cry has always sounded a bit familiar to me. ; )"

Which is a reason I've always wondered why you railed against such a predictable, and oft repeated cycle, so vehemently.


Return to posts index

Bill Davis
Re: Final cut X A Diamond in the rough
on Jan 16, 2017 at 5:14:43 am
Last Edited By Bill Davis on Jan 16, 2017 at 5:20:09 am

[Andrew Kimery] "While you were cutting your stuff on FCP in AZ, other people were cutting docs using FCP in NYC, music videos on FCP in Chicago and TV shows on FCP in LA."

Not really, Andrew.

I walked out of NAB 1999 where I went looking for a platform for a specific corporate monthly magazine program I had just pitched to my largest client.

It's where I saw FCP 1.0 at its initial introduction.

Ordered a system the next week and was cutting on it a week later.

I undoubtedly wasn't the first, but I was AMONG the first guys using FCP Legacy (via Hi-8!) for corporate video LONG before it was even a glimmer in Hollywoods eye.

Seriously, I remember all the events you are referencing and by the time they appeared, I'd been cutting on FCP for quite a while.

Well before I flew to LA to help Mike Horton do the very first LAFCPUG meeting and years before I flew back to LA for an early DV Expo and wound up chatting with Rami Katrib of Digital Film Tree about how excited he was because Walter Murch needed to set up a home cutting situation and they were going to be going to his place to instal a FCP system for him.

FWIW.

Creator of XinTwo - http://www.xintwo.com
The shortest path to FCP X mastery.


Return to posts index

Andrew Kimery
Re: Final cut X A Diamond in the rough
on Jan 16, 2017 at 6:58:46 am

[Bill Davis] "Seriously, I remember all the events you are referencing and by the time they appeared, I'd been cutting on FCP for quite a while."

Less than 12 months is quite a while?

The goal posts are moving a bit, Bill. I'm not disagreeing that you started using FCP v1 early or with your personal experiences while using it. I'm disagreeing with your idea that, "Without the market of NON-Filmmaking - FCP Legacy would not have developed into a tool that filmmakers FINALLY got to access for THEIR needs." It doesn't fit. Having a single product that could address multiple market segments was always in Apple's plan. I mean, they had the Oxygen Network as beta testers for FCP v1. Like I said previously, there were a lot of things happening concurrently and it was FCP use in the lower end of the film/TV community that lead to the development of improved tools from Apple that focused on the workflow needs of the film/TV community. It just doesn't make sense that Apple would look at a guy editing corporates with 3/4" or MiniDV and go "You know what he really needs? Cinema Tools!"

I agree with you that FCP's path to success was from the bottom up, not the top down, and there's certainly a wide bottom in the filmmaking community.


Return to posts index

Shane Ross
Re: Final cut X A Diamond in the rough
on Jan 9, 2017 at 7:58:06 pm

[Bill Davis] "hanes post has a lot of accurate and valuable information - but it reflects his perspective as someone who's focus is Hollywood feature oriented production."

Since that seemed to be the focus of the blog post, that was the focus of my comments. The explosion of FCP into the film/TV realm, and what spurred it.

It didn't mention the NLEs used in the corporate or news world...Media 100, Edius. Or Early Premiere pro. PPro and Media 100 were the big boys in the corporate world...from my perspective when I cut in the corporate world in the mid 1990s. Even Sony had offerings, and little stand alone tape editing systems. ALL SORTS of editing options that were staples of the non-film/tv realm weren't mentioned...only ones pertaining to Film/TV. Thus why I spoke about that.

I'm sure that FCP was huge in the corporate/wedding/realty realm, and lead to the slow decline of Media 100. Heck, DV in combination with FCP and firewire capture revolutionized everything, everywhere....

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


Return to posts index

Misha Aranyshev
Re: Final cut X A Diamond in the rough
on Jan 13, 2017 at 11:31:30 pm

Shane, it's been too many years. You have the film part mixed up a bit. FilmLogic wasn't developed by Digital Film Tree. It was around before FCP 1 and you could use it to cut film in Premiere and Media 100 but you just wouldn't want too. There was nothing in Cold Mountain workflow other editors hadn't been doing already. The big thing Apple actually developed for the film workflow was proper handling of 24@25 TC which is kinda ironic because it made life of European film editors much easier than American ones.


Return to posts index

Herb Sevush
Re: Final cut X A Diamond in the rough
on Jan 9, 2017 at 2:46:11 pm

It is no easy task to reduce the 100 year history of motion picture editing to a blog post, and you got the basics correct even when your facts are questionable ( "It was the first film that introduced the art of editing to the world." The Great Train Robbery is the first notable American film to introduce the idea of cross cutting, I don't know that "the art of editing" started there.), however I think your missing how large the transition was between film editing and video linear editing (the two overlapped from aprox. 1975 to 1995.) It is also not quite right to describe film editing as linear - it is linear meaning slow, in that you cannot jump from one point to another instantaneously, but it is non-linear in that you can edit any where in the film without having to reconstruct everything that comes after. If you never had to deal with a linear on-line edit process than you don't realize quite how backward that process was from film editing and how far forward we have come.

Also, historically, Avid was the 2nd NLE; the EMC2 was the first modern digital NLE and came out a few months before. And as for this line - " I still rate the Avid as the best NLE for its stability, accuracy and purity" I have no idea what purity means in that sentence.

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


Return to posts index

Scott Witthaus
Re: Final cut X A Diamond in the rough
on Jan 9, 2017 at 3:55:53 pm

[Herb Sevush] " the EMC2 was the first modern digital NLE and came out a few months before"

Now THAT brings back memories. I clearly remember the optical drives that the media was stored on....ugh.

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


Return to posts index

Oliver Peters
Re: Final cut X A Diamond in the rough
on Jan 10, 2017 at 5:46:39 pm

When you guys discuss cost, you forget to mention the value that piracy brought to FCP "legacy". Quite a few seats of FCP "legacy" that I've run into over the years were pirated copies - i.e. installed multiple times for a single legit set of discs and one serial number.

FFW to today and FCPX gains interest because of the liberal App Store policy and because it is the anti-subscription NLE.

- Oliver

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


Return to posts index

Scott Witthaus
Re: Final cut X A Diamond in the rough
on Jan 13, 2017 at 11:53:47 am

[Oliver Peters] "FCPX gains interest because of the liberal App Store policy and because it is the anti-subscription NLE."

You forgot to add that some folks see it as the best NLE for their workflow on the market today. ;-)

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


Return to posts index

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