FORUMS: list search recent posts

At the risk of sounding presumptuous, another hat in the ring.

COW Forums : Apple Final Cut Pro X Debates

<< PREVIOUS   •   VIEW ALL   •   PRINT   •   NEXT >>
Kevin Zimmerman
At the risk of sounding presumptuous, another hat in the ring.
on Jul 6, 2011 at 10:57:24 pm

This is an open letter that I've sent to Apple and posted on my own website (http://goo.gl/X0F0S). It's wordy... so feel free to click on by, but I rarely get so inspired to put pen to paper, as it were.

I can't imagine I could dissuade or persuade anyone to purchase Final Cut Pro X at this point in time — enough opinions have been put forward that I would assume the great majority of the potential user base has already taken a position. So, I'd like to think of this review as more of an open letter to the Apple developers.

I've been editing in boutique environments for the past decade, and have been using Final Cut Pro regularly since version 2, bouncing back and forth between Media Composer over that time. It's safe to say I've used the application in the most "professional" environments imaginable, having edited hundreds of commercials internationally, working with some of the most highly regarded directors, cinematographers, visual effects artists, colorists, composers, mixers, and designers. I state this as strongly as I do not out of vanity (although I'm proud of my work as an editor and I believe it speaks for itself), but to qualify my opinions regarding FCPX.

Over the course of that decade, FCP has played different roles for me. But over the past two years (mostly due to the release of FCP7), I've reached the point that I spend almost exactly fifty percent of my time working in FCP7, and the other half in MCSoft5.5. The very short version is that I prefer the act of editing in FCP. But I prefer the reliability of media management in MC, and when I need to split jobs with other editors — or move a project between systems — I generally work in MC.

Over the past week, I've worked on three different projects in FCPX. One short film (5D/7D), one music video (7D), and one commercial (Alexa). The first two I didn't do much more than play about. On the commercial I put my best foot forward — labeling & tagging the footage with slates and script notes, auto-analyzing for color balance and shot content, and editing all the way down to a proper :30.

Many of the negative issues I encountered are, again, ones that have been covered exhaustively (albeit erratically and with varying degrees of accuracy) by users, and I don't want to spend too much time with that. Suffice to say, upon finishing my edit, I couldn't screen it for my clients due to a lack of compatibility with common I/O hardware. But, so what? It's a major software revision. I have every confidence that drivers will be written in a timely manner. Driver lag isn't a new, or particularly troubling concept. Of greater concern is that I can't create a list (printed or electronic) for the telecine session and conform, import an AAF from the sound designer, or export an OMF or AAF (or even export split AIFF files) for the mix session. I agree with the majority of reviewers that these are surprising omissions, and reflect either tone-deafness to the realities of (again, the magic word) "professional" post-production, or simple overzealousness in releasing a product that isn't quite ready.

But those issues are secondary. Of greater concern is the lack of sensitivity — and frankly, fairness — to the established methods of working professionals, and the surprising lack of depth in new features.

The "One Project Is One Edit" concept at the core of the new architecture is so misinformed it borders on insane. It is based on the idea that an editor is only editing for their own individual wants and needs. At the risk of sounding pedantic, that is not how the real world works. It's a stunning throwback to everything that was bad about physically (also, literally) cutting film. To change something, one could work in a new direction while doing one's best remembering what it felt like in its prior iteration, one could work from an alternate set of dailies, or one could strike a print of the original cut to refer back to. And each of those three options directly correlates to options available in FCPX for the versioning of edits. Either continue working on your project (effectively burning the bridges you've built), duplicate the project (a three to five click process), or export a quicktime of your project and reimport it as a clip (making only a baked-in reference).

There have been various definitions of the word "professional" flying about in the past week and a half. Some of the discussions thereof have bordered on the unpleasant, categorizing worked based upon budget, or exposure, or medium, or perceived aesthetics. But "professional" has a simple association for an editor: if you have a client, you are a professional. And where there be clients, there be versioning. There could be versions simply based upon subjectivity. Is A better than B? There could be versions based upon necessity. Are there both sixty and thirty second deliverables required?

The ability to pursue ideas in different directions as quickly as one can click double click, and share those ideas with clients with just as little effort, is unquestionably what makes contemporary editing what it is. It is how we make our living. It is so much a part of the process that its presence is, by this point, completely taken for granted. The precious seconds spent switching between projects in FCPX in order to share different edits is a stunning setback to the entire concept of digital nonlinear editing.

To my other point above, and in contrast to my feelings regarding the structure of projects, many of the new features represent a reasonably optimistic view of the future of the industry. Automated color balancing to signal the end of dailies. Proxies and source media sitting side by side to signal the end of conforming. Metadata stretching all the way back to capture. But how strangely specific and academic the automatically generated tags are, and how comically inaccurate. Seemingly random assignments of categories like "Wide Shot" and "Medium Shot," often to clips shot with the exact same lens. "One Person," and "Two Persons" when there are neither. And what point is there to assigning categories to some, but not all, clips? And why are "Wide Shot" and "Medium Shot" subsets of a group called "People?" What does (presumed, subjective, inconsistently applied) focal length have to do with people? How about categories like "Handheld," "Locked Off," "Dolly," and "Zoom?" How about detecting the location of slates and adding a marker at their location? How about flash detection for rolls of transferred film? How about tagging shots based upon length, and giving an option to categorize based upon those tags (perhaps giving the option to mark any clip below a certain length as "Rejected," based on the assumption the camera was turned on in error, and assign a "Master Shot" keyword to anything above a certain length)? How about detecting repeated actions or lines within the same clip and adding markers and/or keywords accordingly?

And in each of those humble suggestions, how about making them optional and customizable? To circle back and expand a bit, let's touch on (here come the quotation marks) "professional" again. A consumer power drill can help you put up some curtain rods or build a sandbox. A professional power drill can do that and have enough torque to blast through concrete. Point being, you don't have you use all the power available to you, but you can't use power you don't have access to in the first place.

Yes, it is clear that this is a major revision to Final Cut Pro. Yes, it is totally re-engineered. Yes, it feels more like the last release of iMovie (which I admittedly have little experience with) than the last release of its namesake. Yes, I understand that it will be refined and expanded with future releases. And, yes, I draw large distinctions between missing features (XML I/O), features that need refining (inconsistent automatic keywords), features I haven't used enough to reliably comment on (the Magnetic Timeline — but here's a sneak preview, I hate it with the white-hot heat of a thousand suns), features that are tied to third-party developers (video monitoring), and finally, the horribly misinformed, disastrous restructuring of the concept of what a "project" is for an editing program.

My advice to Apple? Have a couple of meetings, and figure out if you have the desire to commit the resources necessary to continue developing software usable to pro users. Maybe you don't. Maybe that's too far away from the profit centers you've been establishing so successfully over the past five years. Maybe it's better to cut bait now.

But if you decide you want to move forwards, talk to us. Developing for working professionals is about responding to industry demands. Better, faster, more efficient, lower costs. Consciously attempting to shift paradigms through product design works better for the consumer marketplace (iPhone, anyone?).

That said, for now, consider making this release free. Seriously. Call it a public beta. Call it something new. But until more is added than was taken away, you can't spin this as the next big thing to a devoted, international user base. A user base that needs to get their work done, faster and cheaper than the next guy. A user base that has a client on the couch, thumbing through a magazine, getting increasingly more annoyed.


Return to posts index

james carey
Re: At the risk of sounding presumptuous, another hat in the ring.
on Jul 6, 2011 at 11:55:03 pm

This post sums it up so completely, there is almost no reason to read any others. In fact, I shall not.

I have no doubts about the word "professional," or what that word implies for the tools I either choose to use, or must use to complete my job to my clients satisfaction. Like many I will remain with FCP7 for as long as possible, but have already ordered an upgrade to PP 5.5. i am also looking at (together with finance and IT) MC. If and when I hear Apple has heeded the call and made the necessary course corrections I will consider what they offer, for right now they offer me no choice.

Thanks again for the post.

Jim Carey
Director of Video, Radical Entertainment
linkedin: http://ca.linkedin.com/in/jcarey256
mobygames: http://www.mobygames.com/developer/sheet/view/developerId,17212/


Return to posts index

Craig Seeman
Re: At the risk of sounding presumptuous, another hat in the ring.
on Jul 7, 2011 at 12:15:40 am

[Kevin Zimmerman] "The "One Project Is One Edit" concept at the core of the new architecture is so misinformed it borders on insane. "

I think you're assuming the use of the word "project" is the same as it was in previous versions or even other NLEs. It would have been easier if Apple changed the word

A Project contains the timeline.
An Event, not a project, contains the media.
You can have as many projects (timelines) as you want per event.
. . . and a project can have media from any number of events.

It's much more open ended. You can version as much as you want.

What's changed is that managing this is much more complex. Apple hasn't done a good job yet aiding the end user organization of the interrelationship of Events and Projects. This is sort of a Relational Database now. It's not very well developed yet but I suspect that will be improved both within FCPX and through a server based management utility down the road. Yes, it's going to get very messy very fast if they don't improve the management side but there is no limit to the number of Project/Timelines you can have for an Event.


[Kevin Zimmerman] "And in each of those humble suggestions, how about making them optional and customizable?"

I agree if the database is really to be powerful for the end user it must be more customizable.


[Kevin Zimmerman] "But if you decide you want to move forwards, talk to us."

I'm sure they're looking at our response to their paid beta. We'll see their response in the upgrades.

My hunch is they may even go on tour of sorts. One hopes that at least in part it will be a listening tour as well as a telling tour because we need more information from them.



Return to posts index


Kevin Zimmerman
Re: At the risk of sounding presumptuous, another hat in the ring.
on Jul 7, 2011 at 3:09:30 am

[Craig Seeman] "I think you're assuming the use of the word "project" is the same as it was in previous versions or even other NLEs. It would have been easier if Apple changed the word

A Project contains the timeline.
An Event, not a project, contains the media.
You can have as many projects (timelines) as you want per event.
. . . and a project can have media from any number of events.

It's much more open ended. You can version as much as you want."


Understood. Although it's not the Project I'm primarily concerned with, per se. It's the Timeline.

I insist that it's a fundamentally flawed concept in that one you are viewing all of your Events (i.e. the source media for all of your different jobs) simultaneously by default, while only being able to view one Timeline.

Another parallel I thought of today was that Apple has developed a "session" based NLE. Sort of a video equivalent to ProTools. Again, there's something completely tone-deaf in regards to the idea of a professional editing job being primarily a singular act. The fact that when one duplicates a Project, you need to click through a dialog box asking if you'd like to duplicate the associated Events, or just reference them, speaks volumes.

I've received a few interesting emails from users with different work-arounds for versioning within projects, based around Compound Clips and Audition Groups. Compound Clips is nothing new to an NLE, but Audition is, and I think it's one of the more interesting developments in FCPX.

But the key idea is "work around." It's insane that we have to use creative problem solving to show two cuts back to back. We should be using that part of our brain for editing.

At my most optimistic, I genuinely believe this can all lead to something great. But it's going to take more work on Apple's part than on the end user's part.


Return to posts index

Craig Seeman
Re: At the risk of sounding presumptuous, another hat in the ring.
on Jul 7, 2011 at 3:52:10 am

[Kevin Zimmerman] "I insist that it's a fundamentally flawed concept in that one you are viewing all of your Events (i.e. the source media for all of your different jobs) simultaneously by default, while only being able to view one Timeline."

Yes. Both present problems. I have to think they're going to have some kind of "hide" feature for Events and this is especially a must if it's going to eventually be server based.

And while you can "version" by duplicating Projects just like you can sequence, a key thing people do when "versioning' Is comparing the versions. That's not easy when it's cumbersome to go back and forth between different Projects/timelines.

FCPX is a relational database . . . but it's currently a poorly managed one that can slow workflow. It's a great idea but as implemented, it defeats much of the purpose of a relational database.

Events are "all at once" when one more often want just one or the ones relevant.
Projects are only "one at a time" when this is where you often want to see the relationships between versions and alternate cuts etc by making them simultaneously available.
Basically they've got the intended use backwards for many purposes.

[Kevin Zimmerman] "Audition is, and I think it's one of the more interesting developments in FCPX."

Auditioning is great for scanning through alternates for a given section but there times when you have to do this in multiple locations simultaneously to compare different cuts. Sometimes changing one shot means that several others may also need to be changed. That's what's missing in the project handling.

Now if something akin to auditioning could work on a project basis such that one can bounce back and forth between alternate cuts . . .

[Kevin Zimmerman] "At my most optimistic, I genuinely believe this can all lead to something great. But it's going to take more work on Apple's part than on the end user's part."

I agree. The odd thing is that there's a lot of focus on the "big" features that are missing (and Apple seems to be underway in handling most of them) but, to me, the real "devil is in the details" in that it's a lot of the smaller things not yet implemented that could make a very speedy app into a series of stumbling blocks.



Return to posts index

Chris Kenny
Re: At the risk of sounding presumptuous, another hat in the ring.
on Jul 7, 2011 at 3:52:33 am

[Kevin Zimmerman] "Another parallel I thought of today was that Apple has developed a "session" based NLE. Sort of a video equivalent to ProTools. Again, there's something completely tone-deaf in regards to the idea of a professional editing job being primarily a singular act. The fact that when one duplicates a Project, you need to click through a dialog box asking if you'd like to duplicate the associated Events, or just reference them, speaks volumes."

Lion adds system-level versioning features. I don't know if we'll see FCP X adopt these immediately, but they're probably not unrelated to Apple's long-term approach to this issue.

--
Digital Workflow/Colorist, Nice Dissolve.

You should follow me on Twitter here. Or read our blog.


Return to posts index


Kevin Zimmerman
Re: At the risk of sounding presumptuous, another hat in the ring.
on Jul 7, 2011 at 5:05:54 am

[Chris Kenny] "
Lion adds system-level versioning features. I don't know if we'll see FCP X adopt these immediately, but they're probably not unrelated to Apple's long-term approach to this issue."


Interesting, absolutely. I've read about Lion's new approach to saving/versioning on the system level. And I hadn't thought about it in terms of FCPX.

But my instinct is that it would still be the wrong type of organization for the creative process... as I understand Lion (and trust me, I'm the first to admit that I haven't seen it in action, only read in blogs), there's no such thing as "saving" for situations such as a crash or a mistake. One can move backwards through "saves" like moving through incremental backups, perhaps?

Part of the process of versioning for NLEs is that just because a version is newer doesn't make it better. Versions need to be separate and discrete to be of value — it's not simply an evolution of one concept. Again, multiple paths need to be pursued, and available for review, in one arena. Version 106 can beget version 106b can beget version 106b3 while version 176 is still being evaluated. I know it sounds like I'm beating a dead horse, but effortless versioning is the one, single idea that pushed digital NLEs past analog NLEs (i.e. a Steenbeck).


Return to posts index

C. Park Seward
Re: At the risk of sounding presumptuous, another hat in the ring.
on Jul 7, 2011 at 1:13:42 am

Outstanding comments, Kevin. Apple should have your phone number.

Best,
Park


Return to posts index

Douglas K. Dempsey
Re: At the risk of sounding presumptuous, another hat in the ring.
on Jul 7, 2011 at 2:34:58 am

A terrific post. Thanks for putting in the time!

As for Apple's "time to cut bait" choice, I personally feel, based on Apple's attitude toward the pro apps over the last few years, that they really have blown off the professional niche.

Apple's calling products "pro" is now simply a marketing tool, making customers feel they have graduated from being a consumer to someone with professional ambitions -- in the same way high school athletes wear shoes and gear that is pro-endorsed. No self-respecting teenager wants to work with iMovie -- I know because I teach film/video at a high school.

Bottom line for me is that, in pursuit of this cynical use of the word "pro," they ruthlessly dropped FCP7 out of marketing necessity. Did they need to do it for financial reasons? Could they not afford to keep it available and supported for a transitional year or two? Of course. Even MobileMe was extended another year, FOR FREE!

But the reality is that having a Final Cut Pro 7 out there would be confusing from a marketing standpoint. Do they call it "Original Pro" or "Classic Pro?" Or do they call the new product Final Cut Prosumer X? The very customer they want to reach would be adrift in the same state of confusion that existed before FCPX's release: "Should I use iMovie, or Final Cut Express or Final Cut Pro?" Now there is no confusion: "One Pro to Rule Them All."

No, their only clear marketing path was to have FCP7 "erased from existence" as Doc Brown used to say.

Are they going to eventually "come back" to pro status with the new product? I suppose it's possible, but more likely is another poster's idea of "meeting in the middle." Add just enough functionality that 99.99% of the public decides "this IS modern pro media."

And for the few hundred or thousand high-end pros who MUST fuss around with the extra functionality -- weel, let them cobble together workflows with high-end devices and software just like Pixar had to do when it built Renderman and its huge render farms. In other words, the high-end pro goes back to being an expensive specialty market as it was until the late 1990s.

To continue paraphrasing "Lord of the Rings," perhaps we will have to heed Gandalf's advice to Frodo...

Frodo: "I wish [FCPX] had never come to me. I wish none of this had ever happened."

Gandalf: "So do all who live to see such time, but that is not for them to decide. All that you have to decide is what to do with the [tool] that is given to you."

Doug D


Return to posts index


David Lawrence
Re: At the risk of sounding presumptuous, another hat in the ring.
on Jul 7, 2011 at 2:29:04 am

Brilliant, Kevin. On many levels. I hope they're listening.

__________
propaganda.com
publicmattersgroup.com
facebook.com/dlawrence
twitter.com/dhl


Return to posts index

Robert Brown
Re: At the risk of sounding presumptuous, another hat in the ring.
on Jul 7, 2011 at 3:39:40 am

Actually I hope they don't listen. FCP IMO has done more to de-professionalize the industry than anything I can think of. Lot's of fresh "editors" showing up with no video or technical backgrounds. Let Apple have the prosumers and give the rest to Adobe and Avid. I'm just hoping even if they do "listen" enough people will have had their confidence shaken to jump ship.



Return to posts index

David Lawrence
Re: At the risk of sounding presumptuous, another hat in the ring.
on Jul 7, 2011 at 4:03:56 am

[Robert Brown] "Actually I hope they don't listen. FCP IMO has done more to de-professionalize the industry than anything I can think of. Lot's of fresh "editors" showing up with no video or technical backgrounds. "

The exact same argument was used against desktop publishing when it first started. I think it's bogus. An open tool is as good as its user.

__________
propaganda.com
publicmattersgroup.com
facebook.com/dlawrence
twitter.com/dhl


Return to posts index


Robert Brown
Re: At the risk of sounding presumptuous, another hat in the ring.
on Jul 7, 2011 at 4:20:41 am

Ok I'll remember that next time I have to explain to one of our new hires why you should turn the scope on.



Return to posts index

David Lawrence
Re: At the risk of sounding presumptuous, another hat in the ring.
on Jul 7, 2011 at 4:30:47 am

[Robert Brown] "Ok I'll remember that next time I have to explain to one of our new hires why you should turn the scope on."

Well, that or maybe up the bar with your new hires? Don't know about your town but in mine a lot of very skilled people are looking for work these days.

__________
propaganda.com
publicmattersgroup.com
facebook.com/dlawrence
twitter.com/dhl


Return to posts index

Robert Brown
Re: At the risk of sounding presumptuous, another hat in the ring.
on Jul 7, 2011 at 4:52:04 am

Well I don't do the hiring. But I see your point and have often made the analogy that good cameras have been available to the masses for a long time but how many people actually take good photographs? Not that many, it's all in the skill and how much time you dedicate to learning it. But I also believe the concept of apprenticeship has it's merits.



Return to posts index


David Lawrence
Re: At the risk of sounding presumptuous, another hat in the ring.
on Jul 7, 2011 at 5:16:27 am

[Robert Brown] "But I also believe the concept of apprenticeship has it's merits."

I absolutely agree! I also share your concern about FCP de-professionalizing the industry, but I'd argue it's not FCP Studio we need to worry about, it's FCPX.

X clearly discourages best practices and industry standards. Anyone who thinks mastering it will make them a "Pro" will have big gaps in their knowledge if they ever have to connect with the rest of the industry.

Just the other day, a producer I work with was telling me how a client of his was excited about X because he thought he'd be able to use it to do what he normally hires my colleague to do. I think we'll be seeing a lot more of that, for better or worse.

__________
propaganda.com
publicmattersgroup.com
facebook.com/dlawrence
twitter.com/dhl


Return to posts index

Robert Brown
Re: At the risk of sounding presumptuous, another hat in the ring.
on Jul 7, 2011 at 6:16:22 am

[David Lawrence] "I absolutely agree! I also share your concern about FCP de-professionalizing the industry, but I'd argue it's not FCP Studio we need to worry about, it's FCPX.
"

Well that's a scary thought I was already worried enough about FCP. But actually not as much as I was a couple of years ago. The entire industry has changed already over the last few years, hopefully FCPX doesn't make that much of an additional impact. I think the clients get it at some point. Stuff does have to get delivered right.

But there is a thread above that states Apple is doing some serious back peddling. Enterprise availability of FCP 7? OMF and EDL export coming soon? Tape out on the way? I'm really hoping this product doesn't make it in the broadcast world and the buzz word products that clients get to know have things like good DVEs, good chroma keyers, correct EDL export, and good KF editors unlike FCP but very much like Avid and Premiere. But then again I haven't tested the new one yet.

I guess all of the never fixed things in FCP and the way they handled the FCPX debacle really turned me off from Apple and I wish they'd get out of broadcast like they promised.



Return to posts index

Chris Kenny
Re: At the risk of sounding presumptuous, another hat in the ring.
on Jul 7, 2011 at 12:18:05 pm

[Robert Brown] "Well that's a scary thought I was already worried enough about FCP. But actually not as much as I was a couple of years ago. The entire industry has changed already over the last few years, hopefully FCPX doesn't make that much of an additional impact. I think the clients get it at some point. Stuff does have to get delivered right. "

Did the widespread availability of laser printers (or, for that matter, pens) de-professionalize writing? Well... yes, in the sense that lots of non-professional writers now write all sorts of things. No, in the sense of eliminating the need for professional writers.

I don't know why people get worked up about this subject. The writing, so to speak, has been on the wall for years. People can already shoot video with their cell phones that looks better than what broadcast cameras could shoot a decade ago... and edit it right on the phone. The barbarians are already inside the city. If it hasn't put you out of business yet, it's probably not going to anytime soon.

[Robert Brown] "But there is a thread above that states Apple is doing some serious back peddling. "

I think the enterprise FCP 7 availability might be Apple responding to criticism. I strongly suspect all these feature enhancements have always been part of the plan. As I've been trying to tell people for a couple of weeks now, this kind of aggressively early shipment (before all the important features are implemented) is a common Apple pattern.

[Robert Brown] "I guess all of the never fixed things in FCP and the way they handled the FCPX debacle really turned me off from Apple and I wish they'd get out of broadcast like they promised."

I know people around here have been treating the idea that Apple was getting out of broadcast as a fact on the basis of flimsy evidence for the last couple of weeks, but saying they "promised" it is even a little sillier than that.

--
Digital Workflow/Colorist, Nice Dissolve.

You should follow me on Twitter here. Or read our blog.


Return to posts index

Robert Brown
Re: At the risk of sounding presumptuous, another hat in the ring.
on Jul 8, 2011 at 2:30:02 am

[Chris Kenny] "Did the widespread availability of laser printers (or, for that matter, pens) de-professionalize writing? Well... yes, in the sense that lots of non-professional writers now write all sorts of things. No, in the sense of eliminating the need for professional writers."

Uh how is that a useful analogy. Maybe printing?

In any case maybe I exaggerated about Apple "promising" to leave broadcast. They have just given us many "signs" that that's what's on their mind. But I happened to talk to people from Turner and Fox yesterday about this very subject and to them FCPX is not in their future while FCP7 is definitely in their present.

But actually I love the timeline in FCP. I will miss it when it's gone but I'm sure I'll still be using it for another year or so. And that's what was a shame to me. They came up with a great editor but just never seemed IMO to acknowledge all of the innovation that came before them and so never took the quality of video processing to the level that had already been achieved. I say that because I worked in linear bays and worked with really amazing tools for their day designed by people who knew what they were doing.

FCP could have evolved into an incredible product. Also IMO the timeline was the last thing that they needed to fix. That was the best part! So you can give me a lecture about resisting change if you want. I don't resist change in fact I'm not resisting this whole thing at all. I just see it as a missed opportunity but hopefully one of the competitors will pick up the ball and I think they will.

And I do hope this signals the decline of Apple's penetration into broadcast and the Pro market. I just don't think they deserve to be there. Their computer are fine and I will continue to buy them but their know it all approach just really annoys me.



Return to posts index

David Roth Weiss
Re: At the risk of sounding presumptuous, another hat in the ring.
on Jul 7, 2011 at 5:51:00 pm

[David Lawrence] "I also share your concern about FCP de-professionalizing the industry, but I'd argue it's not FCP Studio we need to worry about, it's FCPX."

Exactly!

With the proper desire and drive, people with no professional skills and no professional knowledge have gained both using FCP as their primary learning vehicle.

As one of the leaders of the FCP Forums, having provided technical assistance, tutoring, mentoring, and problem solving to thousands of FCP users at all levels of skill, I've seen it innumerable times. Complete newbies come in knowing absolutely nothing, and they go on to become full-fledged professional editors. In fact, many become so knowledgeable they stay and become valued members of the community, passing on the knowledge they've acquired to others.

As it stands now, I don't see that long-term continuing with FCP X.

[David Lawrence] "X clearly discourages best practices and industry standards. Anyone who thinks mastering it will make them a "Pro" will have big gaps in their knowledge if they ever have to connect with the rest of the industry."

Yes, this is a huge concern of many educators now, who are uncertain if they should encourage their students to head down the FCP X path.

Schools are doing their best to prepare their students for careers in an industry that Apple suddenly appears it want to disregard.


David Roth Weiss
Director/Editor/Colorist
David Weiss Productions, Inc.
Los Angeles
http://www.drwfilms.com

Don't miss my new tutorial: Prepare for a seamless transition to FCP X and OS X Lion
http://library.creativecow.net/weiss_roth_david/FCP-10-MAC-Lion/1

POST-PRODUCTION WITHOUT THE USUAL INSANITY ™


Creative COW contributing editor and a forum host of the Business & Marketing and Apple Final Cut Pro forums.


Return to posts index

Fredy Schwerdtner
Re: At the risk of sounding presumptuous, another hat in the ring.
on Jul 7, 2011 at 10:45:56 pm

YES David !
I'm one of those who have been learning (a little) what is editing, in a whole sense of the word, and its complexity by using FCP since number 2 ....

iMac 2.7 GHz Intel 4 Core i5
16 GB memory

MacBook Pro 17"
2.5 GHz Intel Core 2 Duo
6GB 667 MHz DDR2 SDRAM

OWC RAID 5 with 3TB
(2) External HD LaCieMac (400/800 FW and USB)with 500GB -(2) USB External HD Western Digital (in cases) with 750GB
OS X 10.6.5
Final Cut Studio "3"


Return to posts index

David Roth Weiss
Re: At the risk of sounding presumptuous, another hat in the ring.
on Jul 7, 2011 at 11:14:48 pm

[Fredy Schwerdtner] "YES David !
I'm one of those who have been learning (a little) what is editing, in a whole sense of the word, and its complexity by using FCP since number 2 ....
"


I suspect you've learned a boat load on these forums Fredy. It's always great to see you reaching out for more.


David Roth Weiss
Director/Editor/Colorist
David Weiss Productions, Inc.
Los Angeles
http://www.drwfilms.com

Don't miss my new tutorial: Prepare for a seamless transition to FCP X and OS X Lion
http://library.creativecow.net/weiss_roth_david/FCP-10-MAC-Lion/1

POST-PRODUCTION WITHOUT THE USUAL INSANITY ™


Creative COW contributing editor and a forum host of the Business & Marketing and Apple Final Cut Pro forums.


Return to posts index

Scott Sheriff
Re: At the risk of sounding presumptuous, another hat in the ring.
on Jul 7, 2011 at 2:32:14 am

Bingo! I think we have a winner!

Scott Sheriff
Director
http://www.sstdigitalmedia.com


"If you think it's expensive to hire a professional to do the job, wait until you hire an amateur." ---Red Adair

Where were you on 6/21?


Return to posts index

Chris Jacek
Re: At the risk of sounding presumptuous, another hat in the ring.
on Jul 7, 2011 at 2:59:58 am

Add my vote to this list of Kudos. It's the best post I've seen yet on this topic.

Professor, Producer, Editor
and former Apple Employee


Return to posts index

John Davidson
Re: At the risk of sounding presumptuous, another hat in the ring.
on Jul 7, 2011 at 4:16:52 am

"Where were you on 6/21?"

LMAO!

John Davidson | President / Creative Director | Magic Feather Inc.


Return to posts index

Richard Clark
Re: At the risk of sounding presumptuous, another hat in the ring.
on Jul 7, 2011 at 7:14:44 am

Many, many thanks Kevin, I can but hope someone at Apple will respond and agree with your summation. I doubt it but hope it would, could, should happen. This release is a biggie but as you so eloquently put it, it is a BETA. There's the rub. So thanks. I will not be updating anytime soon.

Richard Clark's kiwicafe.com
Film | Photography | Writing
http://www.kiwicafe.com
+64 27 291 5494
Aotearoa New Zealand


Return to posts index

Cliff Stephenson
Re: At the risk of sounding presumptuous, another hat in the ring.
on Jul 7, 2011 at 8:13:41 am

A fantastic post Kevin!

My biggest frustration with FCPX is that it works like it was designed by people who have never edited before. Anyone with even a MODICUM of professional editing experienced would never have designed a program (or "app") with so many glaring and baffling flaws and omissions. I truly believe, as was stated here already, that Apple is trying to "pro" brand an app that they want to appeal to teenagers and iMovie/Final Cut Express users. Realistically, FCPX is Final Cut Xpress. What I don't think Apple really predicted was the overwhelming vocal backlash. You know something is a serious disaster when a show like Conan is blasting something as "inside" as a professional editing application during their nationally televised show.

And I don't think Apple could have predicted just how fast Adobe and Avid could pick up the ball and run with it. Offering upgrade deals to former Final Cut users when they did was genius. I've already transitioned all my archived FCP7 projects to Premiere and love it more by the day. It's really the program FCPX should have been. Adobe and Avid really owe a massive thank you to Apple for essentially handing them both the pro market. It's ironic that back in April, when Apple previewed FCPX, they commented that Avid and Adobe were in a race for second place. Well, after the release of FCPX, Avid and Adobe are still jockeying for second place, but I don't think Apple intended to be the #3 on that list.


Return to posts index

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