FORUMS: list search recent posts

Why FCPX?

COW Forums : Apple Final Cut Pro X Debates

<< PREVIOUS   •   VIEW ALL   •   PRINT   •   NEXT >>

Michael Hancock
Re: Why FCPX?
on Oct 2, 2017 at 3:38:17 pm

From the article:

"I was impressed with the cost savings: FCP X was so inexpensive, particularly when I considered what the system was able to save me as far as deliverables."

What exactly are these cost savings and deliverables, and how much are they? Can we get a breakdown of where the money is being saved in FCPX versus cutting in Avid or Premiere? It must have been a huge amount, since "Honestly, had it not been for the FCP X savings, the movie Daisy Winters would have sacrificed in ways that would have been detrimental to the film." That's huge! So, where are the details?

----------------
Michael Hancock
Editor


Return to posts index

Lance Bachelder
Re: Why FCPX?
on Oct 2, 2017 at 4:15:26 pm

Sounds like the show was probably set up with a traditional post workflow which may have included weekly Avid system rentals etc. So a Producer who had never worked on a real Indie would naturally freak out seeing their show cut on a laptop with $300 software. I've delivered several feature films now via FCPX and must say if every Editor in Hollywood (where FCPX still has the stigma from its disastrous roll-out) knew what I know about the depth of the program they wouldn't use anything else - mainly because there is no other NLE with the picture and sound capabilities of FCPX. And when it comes time to deliver a master with 16 tracks of audio according to studio specs it's easy peezy.

It was at a Vegas premiere that I resolved to become an avid FCPX user.

Lance Bachelder
Writer, Editor, Director
Downtown Long Beach, California
http://www.imdb.com/name/nm1680680/?ref_=fn_al_nm_1


Return to posts index


Bill Davis
Re: Why FCPX?
on Oct 2, 2017 at 6:43:27 pm

Lance here (And Darren Rourke, from the article) both have something in common.

Back when everyone was trashing X - they saw something valuable in it worth learning about. IIRC Lance went through significant hot and cold periods about X for his needs. And Darren and I have been having long chats for more than 5 years at trade shows and on the phone discussing X issues.

I note this just to point out that high level X specific skills really do take significant time to master. (True of all software, but perhaps particularly true of X)

It’s only after you make the climb, that you really see how its system often makes many editing tasks a whole lot easier. Not all. Nor always. And no, neither I nor anyone else has the time or interest to interpret all that for specific others unless we feel like doing so for some personal reason.

If you want to embrace it or ignore it, that’s fine.

It is what it is.

😊

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


Return to posts index

Steve Connor
Re: Why FCPX?
on Oct 2, 2017 at 9:13:40 pm

[Bill Davis] "And no, neither I nor anyone else has the time or interest to interpret all that for specific others"

They can always subscribe to xintwo.com if they want to find out more :)


Return to posts index

Michael Hancock
Re: Why FCPX?
on Oct 2, 2017 at 7:22:03 pm

[Lance Bachelder] "Sounds like the show was probably set up with a traditional post workflow which may have included weekly Avid system rentals etc. So a Producer who had never worked on a real Indie would naturally freak out seeing their show cut on a laptop with $300 software. "

That's kind of how I was reading it too, but that's a pretty bad comparison of cost savings then, isn't it? They could run Avid or Premiere on the same laptop and seen the same savings (minus the higher cost to buy Avid/rent Premiere). Unless there's more to it than that?

That's why I wish the article would have gone into real detail about where the savings were actually realized, how significant the savings were, and why.

You mentioned that exporting a master file with 16 channels of audio per studio specs is easy in FCPX - maybe that's a lot more time consuming in Avid or Premiere and would have cost them an extra day in post. That could easily be a couple grand in savings right there!

I guess we'll never know.

----------------
Michael Hancock
Editor


Return to posts index


Charlie Austin
Re: Why FCPX?
on Oct 2, 2017 at 8:04:08 pm

[Michael Hancock] "I guess we'll never know."

The savings were real, significant, and realized by leveraging FCP X specific workflows and tools. I'll see if Darren wants to pop in and add some details, but he's probably not up for the arguments that would erupt. 😉

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

~ 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 Hancock
Re: Why FCPX?
on Oct 2, 2017 at 8:23:52 pm

[Charlie Austin] "I'll see if Darren wants to pop in and add some details, but he's probably not up for the arguments that would erupt."

LOL. I'm not looking to argue - I'm just looking for actual details about what workflows saved time and money. They cite "specific workflows and tools", but never get specific. Hopefully he'll pop over with more info.

----------------
Michael Hancock
Editor


Return to posts index

Charlie Austin
Re: Why FCPX?
on Oct 2, 2017 at 8:59:44 pm

[Michael Hancock] "LOL. I'm not looking to argue - I'm just looking for actual details about what workflows saved time and money. They cite "specific workflows and tools", but never get specific. Hopefully he'll pop over with more info."

I'm speaking in.. generalities. ☺

I agree the article is short on detail, and sadly, my memory isn't good enough to recount anything I was told about this... It came up in conversation while the production was ongoing and I'd get it wrong if I tried to post it. I do know that it ran the gamut from software cost to ingest to edit to color/mix etc. I'll bug him for some bullet points...

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

~ 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


Don Scioli
Re: Why FCPX?
on Oct 2, 2017 at 9:34:42 pm

I do not see the big deal...I've cut 4 future length docs and 1 theatrical horror film on FCPX and never had a problem, worked smooth, quickly and output quality was superb. The last 2 aired on PBS, which is a stickler for standards.


Return to posts index

Charlie Austin
Re: Why FCPX?
on Oct 2, 2017 at 9:58:22 pm
Last Edited By Charlie Austin on Oct 2, 2017 at 9:59:22 pm

[Don Scioli] "I do not see the big deal...I've cut 4 future length docs and 1 theatrical horror film on FCPX and never had a problem, worked smooth, quickly and output quality was superb."

It's not a big deal, except in certain areas of the internet and in the "hollywood" (** generic term) hive mind. ;-)

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

~ 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

Andrew Kimery
Re: Why FCPX?
on Oct 2, 2017 at 10:08:37 pm

If the producer likes the low cost, and easier turnovers they achieved with FCPX, who wants to blow her mind with Resolve 14? Comes in a free version, it's cross platform (i.e. shop around for best hardware deals) and one app gets you from the cradle to the grave (DIT, editing, mixing, grading, and delivery).**

I'm only half kidding here.



As other's have said, a bit more of a breakdown would be nice. She mentioned a few times how having a great workflow specialist is imperative and I can certainly agree with that. Of course, if you need to hire an FCPX workflow wizard to get these cost saving then going with X isn't the panacea of cost savings the early part of the article implies it is.

I've handled turnovers for Avid, FCP Legend and PPro and been complimented regardless of what system I used even though, in my mind, I didn't do anything above and beyond the call of duty. Apparently they are a lot of people that can't/won't make turnovers as easy as possible for the recipients. Which boggles my mind because I want the colorist/re-recording mixer to spend as much time as possible focusing on being creatives, not manage tech issues, but I digress...

Yeah, if anyone has more specifics I'd love to hear what they are. If I had to guess I'd say:

-Using Roles to make the turnovers for the re-recording mixer and various split tracks

-Automated proxy workflow

-Sync-n-Link

-Clip Exporter


I know many people like Apple's approach to X of being kinda barebones and letting third parties fill in the gaps (especially the niche gaps), but a downside of that is X users have to be more aware of the entire third party market to really get the most out of what's possible with X. This is where the workflow specialist the producer gushed about earned his/her paycheck since that person probably knew of a lot of third party apps/plugins that most X users probably don't know about.


**yet to be proven in the wild, but someone's gotta be first.


Return to posts index


Charlie Austin
Re: Why FCPX?
on Oct 2, 2017 at 10:23:13 pm
Last Edited By Charlie Austin on Oct 2, 2017 at 10:25:17 pm

[Andrew Kimery] "I've handled turnovers for Avid, FCP Legend and PPro and been complimented regardless of what system I used"

Me too. ☺ And, at least for audio, FCP X is leaps and bounds simpler, easier and faster than the others. Nothing else comes close.

[Andrew Kimery] "that person probably knew of a lot of third party apps/plugins that most X users probably don't know about."

Anyone who uses FCP X professionally knows about the 3 or 4 third party apps you need. I mean, anyone who's using *any* NLE professionally should know what's required to have it do it's thing right? And no matter what you're using, at this level everyone hires a "workflow specialist" aka: Really Good AE. ;-)

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

~ 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

Oliver Peters
Re: Why FCPX?
on Oct 2, 2017 at 10:53:48 pm

Regarding the central issue of cost savings, it reads to me like the bulk of savings was because they shot on RED and handled the process of the files directly. It's common practice in the LA post world to have a lab or facility do that for you. The indie world has been handling it directly for years. From that POV, any NLE works.

- Oliver

Oliver Peters - oliverpeters.com


Return to posts index

Darren Roark
Re: Why FCPX?
on Oct 2, 2017 at 11:45:24 pm

[Oliver Peters] "it reads to me like the bulk of savings was because they shot on RED and handled the process of the files directly."

This is what got the ball rolling as even the very generous bid from Runway to do an Avid prep was still unaffordable for this production.

I had worked on another feature with the same editor who had been hired which is how I got in the mix so having an editor who already knew the system was key. I believe Michael is going to do a piece interviewing her as well.

Two clicks to transcode, then running it overnight, then the drive would get couriered to the editor's house where she worked.

[Oliver Peters] "The indie world has been handling it directly for years. From that POV, any NLE works."

Where Red is concerned, Avid works, and makes you do a lot of work.

I was a bit shocked when I found out years ago that assistant editors don't handle any of the transcoding/syncing on studio shows.


Return to posts index


Andrew Kimery
Re: Why FCPX?
on Oct 2, 2017 at 11:02:48 pm

[Charlie Austin] "Me too. ☺ And, at least for audio, FCP X is leaps and bounds simpler, easier and faster than the others. Nothing else comes close."

I think you've done some videos (or at least blogged) about how well Roles handles that, right?

[Charlie Austin] "I mean, anyone who's using *any* NLE professionally should know what's required to have it do it's thing right?"

Ehhhh.... In my experience most people tend to learn the least amount to technical knowledge they need in order to get their job done. I mean, on a somewhat regular basis I still run into editors online that don't know that PPro has sync-by-waveform built into it. Someone showed them how to use PluralEyes in 2010 so that's what they know how to do even though they've been able to do the same thing inside PPro for over half a decade.

I've worked with some insanely talented editors that have no clue how to prep footage, get it into their NLE, export a cut w/TC, etc., but they don't get paid to know those things, they get paid to be awesome editors on high profile, high pressure gigs.

[Charlie Austin] " And no matter what you're using, at this level everyone hires a "workflow specialist" aka: Really Good AE. ;-)"

If everyone who's using any NLE professional knows what's required to have it do it's thing workflow specialists wouldn't be required because everyone should already know the best workflow, right? 😉

I've come into multiple situations where I've helped improve workflows because the established ones were either out of date (in that helpful new updates and/or new apps exist that didn't exist when the workflow was created) or they are just not as tweaked as they could be. Experimenting with new workflows involves time (which is money), energy, and risk (what if I blow a bunch of time and energy on a dead-end idea) which is why 'if it ain't broke, don't fix it' will always be a viable option.

Thankfully thanks to social media I think it's much easier to share little tips and tricks than ever before.


Return to posts index

Charlie Austin
Re: Why FCPX?
on Oct 2, 2017 at 11:59:19 pm

[Andrew Kimery] "I think you've done some videos (or at least blogged) about how well Roles handles that, right?
"


Yeah, for versioning, but even to just spit out tracks for a mix Roles + X2Pro is literally 2 clicks, done. All split out, labelled and good to go. As someone who still has to sometimes "prep" tracks from other editors on other NLE's, I can't stress enough how huge of a timesaver this is..

[Andrew Kimery] "I've worked with some insanely talented editors that have no clue how to prep footage, get it into their NLE, export a cut w/TC, etc., but they don't get paid to know those things, they get paid to be awesome editors on high profile, high pressure gigs. ". . .

[Andrew Kimery] "If everyone who's using any NLE professional knows what's required to have it do it's thing workflow specialists wouldn't be required because everyone should already know the best workflow, right? 😉"

lol, far enough... I guess my point is that, on larger shows and features anyway, there's always at least one assistant who's expected to know all that stuff for whatever NLE is being used, so in the case being discussed, that cost is the same as if they cut in Lightworks or whatever....

[Andrew Kimery] "'ve come into multiple situations where I've helped improve workflows because the established ones were either out of date (in that helpful new updates and/or new apps exist that didn't exist when the workflow was created) or they are just not as tweaked as they could be."

Oh. for sure, and I'm sure some of this falls into that category. But there really are some things that X does that other NLE's don't, that can save significant $$ if leveraged. Reading the article, it seems like the hardest part about using X was finding "A list" talent that know how to use it. Which is a concern, at least in LA for sure.

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

~ 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

Darren Roark
Re: Why FCPX?
on Oct 2, 2017 at 11:49:37 pm
Last Edited By Darren Roark on Oct 3, 2017 at 12:00:20 am

[Charlie Austin] "I'll see if Darren wants to pop in and add some details"

Such as?



Return to posts index


Shane Ross
Re: Why FCPX?
on Oct 3, 2017 at 12:11:37 am

[Darren Roark] "Such as? "

How did using FCX save so much money over the other NLEs? What specifically did you avoid spending money on that you would have been "required" to with the other NLEs?
Basically...HOW did this save money...what was done with FCX that the others would have required more $$ to accomplish?

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


Return to posts index

Darren Roark
Re: Why FCPX?
on Oct 3, 2017 at 12:24:16 am

[Shane Ross] "What specifically did you avoid spending money on that you would have been "required" to with the other NLEs? "

Labor.


Return to posts index

Darren Roark
Re: Why FCPX?
on Oct 3, 2017 at 12:29:06 am

[Charlie Austin] "he's probably not up for the arguments that would erupt"

You mean the arguments that have erupted right?


Return to posts index

Shane Ross
Re: Why FCPX?
on Oct 2, 2017 at 11:36:05 pm

[Michael Hancock] "You mentioned that exporting a master file with 16 channels of audio per studio specs is easy in FCPX - maybe that's a lot more time consuming in Avid or Premiere and would have cost them an extra day in post. That could easily be a couple grand in savings right there! "

No, that takes no time additional time. Export SAME AS SOURCE in Avid and you can use the Direct out option and it comes out fine. No extra time there.

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


Return to posts index

Charlie Austin
Re: Why FCPX?
on Oct 3, 2017 at 12:06:50 am
Last Edited By Charlie Austin on Oct 3, 2017 at 12:13:09 am

[Shane Ross] "No, that takes no time additional time. Export SAME AS SOURCE in Avid and you can use the Direct out option and it comes out fine. No extra time there.
"


Sure, if the tracks are all set up correctly, and everything is split correctly, and the sequence is set up correctly etc. In X none of that matters, only that Roles are set up correctly.

EDIT: to be clear, I'm not talking about track 1 to Ch 1, 2 to 2, 3 to 3 etc. I'm talking about Split tracks. Something like Stereo Comp to 1&2, Stereo M&E to 3&4, Mono DIA to 5, MONO FX to 6, Stereo MX to 7&8 etc etc.

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

~ 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

Shane Ross
Re: Why FCPX?
on Oct 3, 2017 at 12:14:15 am

[Charlie Austin] "Sure, if the tracks are all set up correctly, and everything is split correctly, and the sequence is set up correctly etc. In X none of that matters, only that Roles are set up correctly."

What's to set up? you get the audio stems from the audio mix and drop them into their prospective tracks. Would be comparable in time to setting up each stem with a ROLE.

Because the audio mix is not happening in Avid...and I doubt that it happened in FCX on that feature. Unless that is one of those details that saved money...no ProTools or LogicPro or DAW mix...

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


Return to posts index

Charlie Austin
Re: Why FCPX?
on Oct 3, 2017 at 12:29:23 am

[Shane Ross] "What's to set up? you get the audio stems from the audio mix and drop them into their prospective tracks. Would be comparable in time to setting up each stem with a ROLE.
"


Like I said, I can't speak to this article. But in the case I laid out, sure, You get Stereo Stem from a mix. Drop them into your MC tracks or into X and set Roles. Then, you need to export 3 or 4 different Audio configs, different audio tags, different layouts, mixed mono and stereo, going to different channels to different versions on output. Dead simple in X, from one timeline. I've done this in other NLE's Been doing it for over 20 years. It's easier and faster out of X.

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

~ 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

Darren Roark
Re: Why FCPX?
on Oct 3, 2017 at 12:40:06 am

[Shane Ross] "I doubt that it happened in FCX on that feature. Unless that is one of those details that saved money...no ProTools or LogicPro or DAW mix...
"


We needed more time in editorial so I did a test turnover to the mixer so he would be comfortable with less lead time to prep the mix. That bought us a couple weeks.

Similar situation with color.

However, Runway unlike many large scale places has a pathway to ingest footage in Resolve from a drive rather than their server.

For v12 of Resolve (and so far v14) this was extremely important as the sync'd 'container clips' need to be in their original directory structure for the XML import to work smoothly.

Most places require the footage to be put on their server first which leads to the relinking nightmare.

The main thing was Runway was great to deal with in that way where as long as it would work the way I said it would, they were on board.


Return to posts index

Michael Hancock
Re: Why FCPX?
on Oct 3, 2017 at 1:40:20 am

Thanks for jumping into the thread.

[Darren Roark] "We needed more time in editorial so I did a test turnover to the mixer so he would be comfortable with less lead time to prep the mix. That bought us a couple weeks. "

Does this mean that the sound designer started a first pass with the test turnover, giving you guys more time in editorial to lock the edit, then they updated the mix with the locked edit? Or do you mean that the export from FCPX required a few weeks less prep time for export to sound/conform on the audio side, before the mix started?

----------------
Michael Hancock
Editor


Return to posts index

Darren Roark
Re: Why FCPX?
on Oct 3, 2017 at 1:51:16 am

Essentially since the mics were labeled from production and then appeared as labeled tracks in PT they were confident that they had much less work to do.

As indie rates require more flex time, the fact it arrived in good order they were comfortable with waiting.


Return to posts index

Michael Hancock
Re: Why FCPX?
on Oct 3, 2017 at 1:56:11 am

That makes sense. Thanks.

----------------
Michael Hancock
Editor


Return to posts index

Andrew Kimery
Re: Why FCPX?
on Oct 3, 2017 at 6:09:08 pm

With the goal of simplifying processes, do you think Resolve is the best poised to win in that regard (assuming enough editors will want to cut with it and enough mixers will want to use Fairlight)? Michael Gissing is usually the one championing this point, but he hasn't made it into this thread yet so I figured someone should go ahead and mention it. ;)


Return to posts index

Michael Gissing
Re: Why FCPX?
on Oct 3, 2017 at 10:23:31 pm

[Andrew Kimery] " Michael Gissing is usually the one championing this point, but he hasn't made it into this thread yet so I figured someone should go ahead and mention it. ;)"

Thanks Andrew. I've been reading through this thread and thought to post just that. However until Fairlight is fully ported in and I have a chance to experiment with the collaboration features I don't want to seem to be an evangelist before the software is ready. There's been more than enough premature proclamation on this forum over the years. I talk of Resolve's potential and this thread is about actual usage in the field so I saw no reason to chime in.


Return to posts index

Shane Ross
Re: Why FCPX?
on Oct 3, 2017 at 2:04:33 am

Having been dealing a lot with Runway lately myself...they onlined a feature doc I cut, I am aware of the small things they do to save time. You were smart to go with them.

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


Return to posts index

Shane Ross
Re: Why FCPX?
on Oct 3, 2017 at 12:30:26 am

I know what you are talking about. And that really takes no time at all. Maybe 15 min if you go slow about things. So if FCX takes 5 min, and Avid takes 15...heck, 20. Not sure how much money is saved in 10-15 min.

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


Return to posts index

Charlie Austin
Re: Why FCPX?
on Oct 3, 2017 at 12:42:05 am

[Shane Ross] "So if FCX takes 5 min, and Avid takes 15...heck, 20. Not sure how much money is saved in 10-15 min.
"


Again, I've digressed here, so this isn't about this article, since I had absolutely nothing do do with it. But, in the versioning example above, It's a much bigger time savings than that. Particularly if you have 5 or 6 spots, that need 5 or 6 versions each, with different picture versions for each, different audio configs, possibly different audio versions (tags) etc.

For this scenario, Roles crush tracks and mixer panning and track enabling/disabling 6 ways to Sunday.

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

~ 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

Shane Ross
Re: Why FCPX?
on Oct 3, 2017 at 12:51:44 am

We are in different fields, you are short form, I am long form. So I don't have to deal with what you do. I can see how that's a huge time saver for you though....

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


Return to posts index

Charlie Austin
Re: Why FCPX?
on Oct 3, 2017 at 1:04:38 am

[Shane Ross] "We are in different fields, you are short form, I am long form. So I don't have to deal with what you do. I can see how that's a huge time saver for you though....
"


True, and yes... It's huge. :-)

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

~ 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

andy patterson
Re: Why FCPX?
on Oct 3, 2017 at 9:42:32 pm

[Charlie Austin] "[Shane Ross] "No, that takes no time additional time. Export SAME AS SOURCE in Avid and you can use the Direct out option and it comes out fine. No extra time there.
"

Sure, if the tracks are all set up correctly, and everything is split correctly, and the sequence is set up correctly etc. In X none of that matters, only that Roles are set up correctly.

EDIT: to be clear, I'm not talking about track 1 to Ch 1, 2 to 2, 3 to 3 etc. I'm talking about Split tracks. Something like Stereo Comp to 1&2, Stereo M&E to 3&4, Mono DIA to 5, MONO FX to 6, Stereo MX to 7&8 etc etc."




Could you do a short demo/tutorial? I think others might like to see it as well.

Having said that I think I kind of see what you are saying. I think you are saying you can have the dialogue be sent to any track/channel you want into Pro Tools or even Logic. In other words you can send the dialogue to track/channel 1 in Pro Tools and you can send the sound track to channel/track 6. If you later want to send the both the dialogue and the sound track to Logic on track/channel 4 you can do it super easy. Maybe FCPX cannot combine the two audio sources but is that kind of what you are saying? That does sound interesting. I think Premiere Pro and Avid might be able to mimic what you are doing if a feature request was made.


Return to posts index

Michael Hancock
Re: Why FCPX?
on Oct 3, 2017 at 10:07:21 pm

[andy patterson] "Could you do a short demo/tutorial? I think others might like to see it as well. "

He did back in February. It's definitely worth a watch.

https://fcpxpert.net/2017/02/25/fcp-x-versioning-using-roles-the-video/

----------------
Michael Hancock
Editor


Return to posts index

andy patterson
Re: Why FCPX?
on Oct 4, 2017 at 1:12:40 am

[Michael Hancock] "[andy patterson] "Could you do a short demo/tutorial? I think others might like to see it as well. "

He did back in February. It's definitely worth a watch.

https://fcpxpert.net/2017/02/25/fcp-x-versioning-using-roles-the-video/"



Thanks for posting.

I was expecting something a little different. I have seen videos like that one before. Having said that you have to assign the roles and also setup the roles so there is time spent doing that upfront. Even then on export you have to mouse click after mouse click after mouse click to get the correct export of audio elements. You have to hope you don't forget about turning on and off sub roles as well. With tracks I have a much better visual work flow.

If I have four dialogue tracks, four effects track, one sound track and an ambient music track and the producer wants just an export of the four dialogue tracks I can have it done in one second by simple soloing the four tracks using my $59.99 Korg nanoKontrol 2 control surface. I don't have to mouse click after mouse click after mouse click to mute and solo tracks. There is also no time spent upfront assigning roles. I can also EQ the entire audio track and clean it up in seconds. You can do it clip by clip as well.

I am not saying saving the templates in FCPX could not be useful but there is time spent assigning the roles and setting up the templates for each version. For some exports Premiere Pro or DR with a control surface might be a better option. For others FCPX might be a better option. Everyone's editing style and delivery requirements will be different.


Return to posts index

Michael Hancock
Re: Why FCPX?
on Oct 4, 2017 at 2:38:32 am

[andy patterson] "If I have four dialogue tracks, four effects track, one sound track and an ambient music track and the producer wants just an export of the four dialogue tracks I can have it done in one second by simple soloing the four tracks using my $59.99 Korg nanoKontrol 2 control surface. I don't have to mouse click after mouse click after mouse click to mute and solo tracks. There is also no time spent upfront assigning roles. I can also EQ the entire audio track and clean it up in seconds. You can do it clip by clip as well. "

It's just as fast in FCPX, but different. Assigning roles, especially for something as broad as "music", "dialogue", and "effects" takes a couple seconds for an entire project. Select all of your music and assign the audio role as Music. You never think about it again as you're editing, and its takes a few seconds. Same with Dialogue, Effects, etc... If Apple would allow you to assign a role to an event, or a keyword, you could automate 99% of the process. I've requested that multiple times.

The only time roles is an issue is if you don't assign it before you begin editing. After you've dropped a clip into your timeline there is no way to assign a role at the event level and ripple it to your sequence. I've requested that quite a few times too!

And roles are useful for more than just exporting splits. Like Charlie has talked about - it's when you get a ton of specific requests for mixing dialogue/effects, music/effects, mono with stereo, etc... - roles make it easy to do all that from one sequence, and quickly. And you can save your role exports so you don't have to mouse click like crazy. I have one saved that exports just Color, Graphics, 2Pop/Slate, and FINAL MIX. I set it up once, and that's used for every master export I do.

Play around with it and you'll see how versatile and powerful it is. I'd love to see a "roles" type export from Avid and Premiere, but with their track based system. I really miss tracks for my video - audio, not so much.

----------------
Michael Hancock
Editor


Return to posts index

andy patterson
Re: Why FCPX?
on Oct 4, 2017 at 3:33:04 am

[Michael Hancock] "It's just as fast in FCPX, but different. Assigning roles, especially for something as broad as "music", "dialogue", and "effects" takes a couple seconds for an entire project. Select all of your music and assign the audio role as Music."

The music, effects and dialogue may need to be broken down into sub roles.




[Michael Hancock] "The only time roles is an issue is if you don't assign it before you begin editing. After you've dropped a clip into your timeline there is no way to assign a role at the event level and ripple it to your sequence.

That is why I stated you have to put some forethought into it.





[Michael Hancock] "And roles are useful for more than just exporting splits. Like Charlie has talked about - it's when you get a ton of specific requests for mixing dialogue/effects, music/effects, mono with stereo, etc... - roles make it easy to do all that from one sequence, and quickly. And you can save your role exports so you don't have to mouse click like crazy."

I stated saving the templates in FCPX can be useful.




[Michael Hancock] " I have one saved that exports just Color, Graphics, 2Pop/Slate, and FINAL MIX. I set it up once, and that's used for every master export I do."

As I stated there are some exports that could be done real quick in Premiere Pro making a template a non issues. On the other hand FCPX will have and advantage for certain exports. It depends on what needs to be done.





[Michael Hancock] "
Play around with it and you'll see how versatile and powerful it is. I'd love to see a "roles" type export from Avid and Premiere, but with their track based system."


Can roles make use of control surfaces? I am sure with color coding something similar to roles could be implemented into Premiere Pro and Avid. I know the roles functionality of FCPX have gotten a lot better but as I stated there is forethought that has to go into it. I am not saying roles don't have merit. I am saying it may be a non issue for some people. Just like Adobe Story and Adobe Anywhere may be a non issue for some people. For others they are a must have feature. To be honest a roles feature in Premiere Pro would not be at the top of my list but everyone's list is different.


Return to posts index

Charlie Austin
Re: Why FCPX?
on Oct 4, 2017 at 3:56:08 am
Last Edited By Charlie Austin on Oct 4, 2017 at 3:56:26 am

[Michael Hancock] " I really miss tracks for my video - audio, not so much."

I use roles for video exports too, works the same for me. Different GFX versions, slates, you could use it for different languages, subtitles etc. :-)

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

~ 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 Hancock
Re: Why FCPX?
on Oct 4, 2017 at 10:36:17 am

[Charlie Austin] "I use roles for video exports too, works the same for me."

I use roles for my video too, but I still miss tracks. The video roles are good for exports, but I don't get any benefit from them during the edit since there are no video lanes.

Video tracks, for me, give me better visual organization/structure and allow me tweak an edit from my keyboard (particularly trim mode) much faster. With tracks I can limit what I'm trimming to just V2 or V3 and V5, for example. In FCPX it requires a lot more mousing.

----------------
Michael Hancock
Editor


Return to posts index

Steve Connor
Re: Why FCPX?
on Oct 4, 2017 at 11:45:21 am

[Michael Hancock] "Video tracks, for me, give me better visual organization/structure and allow me tweak an edit from my keyboard (particularly trim mode) much faster. With tracks I can limit what I'm trimming to just V2 or V3 and V5, for example. In FCPX it requires a lot more mousing."

Probably shouldn't be using FCPX then?


Return to posts index

Michael Hancock
Re: Why FCPX?
on Oct 4, 2017 at 1:05:50 pm

[Steve Connor] "Probably shouldn't be using FCPX then?"

I may not like the cupholders in a Tesla, but that doesn't mean I'm not going to drive one. :-)

----------------
Michael Hancock
Editor


Return to posts index

Steve Connor
Re: Why FCPX?
on Oct 4, 2017 at 1:49:46 pm

[Michael Hancock] "I may not like the cupholders in a Tesla, but that doesn't mean I'm not going to drive one. ☺
"


We always drop back to car analogies ☺ Although I'd say the magnetic timeline was more like the engine than the cupholders!


Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: Why FCPX?
on Oct 4, 2017 at 2:53:32 pm

[Michael Hancock] "I may not like the cupholders in a Tesla, but that doesn't mean I'm not going to drive one. :-)"

Is this too long for a new forum name?


Return to posts index

Steve Connor
Re: Why FCPX?
on Oct 4, 2017 at 3:14:40 pm

[Jeremy Garchow] "[Michael Hancock] "I may not like the cupholders in a Tesla, but that doesn't mean I'm not going to drive one. :-)"

Is this too long for a new forum name?
"


That's OK, the Tesla cupholders problem has been fixed by a 3rd party plugin ☺

http://teslacupholders.com


Return to posts index

Michael Hancock
Re: Why FCPX?
on Oct 4, 2017 at 3:28:51 pm

That's actually a thing!? I was being cheeky!

----------------
Michael Hancock
Editor


Return to posts index

Bill Davis
Re: Why FCPX?
on Oct 4, 2017 at 5:32:04 pm

[Michael Hancock] "That's actually a thing!? I was being cheeky!

----------------
Michael Hancock
Editor"


It appears we have entered the snark/reality inception zone.
“Abandon hope all ye who enter...”

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


Return to posts index

Charlie Austin
Re: Why FCPX?
on Oct 4, 2017 at 3:17:07 pm

[Michael Hancock] "Video tracks, for me, give me better visual organization/structure and allow me tweak an edit from my keyboard (particularly trim mode) much faster. With tracks I can limit what I'm trimming to just V2 or V3 and V5, for example. In FCPX it requires a lot more mousing."

Fair enough. :-)

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

~ 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

Charlie Austin
Re: Why FCPX?
on Oct 4, 2017 at 3:45:49 am

[andy patterson] "Having said that you have to assign the roles and also setup the roles so there is time spent doing that upfront."

That is already done, as the Roles are set before the edit starts. There is some setup involved with different GFX and or VO tags, or if you start from stems, but it takes no more time than setting up a seqeunce in any other NLE.

[andy patterson] "If I have four dialogue tracks, four effects track, one sound track and an ambient music track and the producer wants just an export of the four dialogue tracks I can have it done in one second by simple soloing the four tracks using my $59.99 Korg nanoKontrol 2 control surface."

I can do the same thing using Roles. The video I made was in a project using stems, but it's the same workflow with dozens of "tracks". 18-24+ stereo "tracks" are the norm, and using Roles to manage this is dead simple.

[andy patterson] "Even then on export you have to mouse click after mouse click after mouse click to get the correct export of audio elements. You have to hope you don't forget about turning on and off sub roles as well."

No, you do not. You do it once for each version and save a preset. Then, for all subsequent versions of different spots, it's 3 clicks for each export, you need pay no attention to anything but the second click where you select the preset, that's the beauty of it. ☺ You always need to QC the exports, but that's true in any system.

[andy patterson] "I don't have to mouse click after mouse click after mouse click to mute and solo tracks"

Again, you do not need to do any of that. You *do* need to do that in a track/mixer NLE for digital file output. It's not just soloing, and this workflow is not for one cut. It's for situations where you have 5 or 6 different spots, with 5 or 6 different versions for each. Individual versions will have different track configurations, and may require both Stereo and Mono comps of the same material in the same file. In advertising, this is the norm.

[andy patterson] "There is also no time spent upfront assigning roles."

You have to put your clips into the tracks and edit it right? That's all you do in X. Setting up Roles takes very little time and, again, it's all usually done well before you get to this point anyway. But even if you need to do it at the same time, it's as fast or faster than arranging tracks

[andy patterson] "I can also EQ the entire audio track and clean it up in seconds. You can do it clip by clip as well. "

Me too. ☺

This discussion is way off topic, but as I said, I've been doing this for a very long time, starting with Otari ProDisc and 24 track tape, slaved to video layed back to DigiBeta or D2. Then Avid Audiovision, DAT tapes, ADAT, Media Composer, FCP 7, Premiere, and FCP X. For the kind of versioning that needs to be done for movie marketing, FCP X currently cannot be beat. MC has some output presets now, but they're not remotely as flexible or easy to use as FCP X and Roles.

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

~ 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

andy patterson
Re: Why FCPX?
on Oct 4, 2017 at 5:47:30 pm

[Charlie Austin] "[andy patterson] "Even then on export you have to mouse click after mouse click after mouse click to get the correct export of audio elements. You have to hope you don't forget about turning on and off sub roles as well."

No, you do not. You do it once for each version and save a preset. Then, for all subsequent versions of different spots, it's 3 clicks for each export, you need pay no attention to anything but the second click where you select the preset, that's the beauty of it. ☺ You always need to QC the exports, but that's true in any system."


I stated you have to setup the template but once that is done I can see how it would be useful. Some people need advanced audio export options other needs advanced closed captioning options.




[Charlie Austin] "[andy patterson] "I don't have to mouse click after mouse click after mouse click to mute and solo tracks"

Again, you do not need to do any of that. You *do* need to do that in a track/mixer NLE for digital file output. It's not just soloing, and this workflow is not for one cut. It's for situations where you have 5 or 6 different spots, with 5 or 6 different versions for each. Individual versions will have different track configurations, and may require both Stereo and Mono comps of the same material in the same file. In advertising, this is the norm."



I understand it is for people who need to use the template over and over again. I get that. I can see the benefits of that aspect. All I am saying is I seen a lot of mouse clicking and drop down menus in the demo from 4:10-7:10. I also want to add that we can have the Spanish text in video track/channel 4 the French in track/channel 5 and the German text in channel/track 5. Same with the audio channel/tracks on 4, 5 and 6. I don't see why in Premiere Pro we would need a separate project/timeline/sequence for each version as stated in the video. I don't see it as being much different form enabling, disabling or soloing and muting tracks. I admit maybe I am missing something. Having said that I did a video about the tiling system in Premiere Pro and I demonstrated that I can easily enable or disable individual track matte elements and title layers. It is not like I had to create a clean version, a track matte version, a title version and also a version with track mattes and titles together. Or a version with with all the individual track matte elements. I did it all on the same timeline/sequence. I don't have to assign roles to all the track mattes elements, adjustment layers or titles. Having said that I can see how stereo and mono options could be useful as well as the templates. I don't doubt Avid and Premiere Pro could do what you want if there was a request for it. Did you ever make such a request from Avid or Adobe? You said it was for a TV spot. How does FCPX handle closed captioning for the different version? Just curious. I have never had to use closed captions but I know a lot of people do.



[Charlie Austin] "[andy patterson] "I can also EQ the entire audio track and clean it up in seconds. You can do it clip by clip as well. "

Me too. ☺

This discussion is way off topic, but as I said, I've been doing this for a very long time, starting with Otari ProDisc and 24 track tape, slaved to video layed back to DigiBeta or D2. Then Avid Audiovision, DAT tapes, ADAT, Media Composer, FCP 7, Premiere, and FCP X. For the kind of versioning that needs to be done for movie marketing, FCP X currently cannot be beat. MC has some output presets now, but they're not remotely as flexible or easy to use as FCP X and Roles."



I have had to work with 3/4", Beta, HDV, Digital Beta and a few others. I also had to cut and splice with an old Otari reel to reel but I don't see how discusing technology from the past is relevant. Do you?

I am not saying the roles feature does not have merit or that it is not your best option. What I am asking is it everyone's best option?


Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: Why FCPX?
on Oct 4, 2017 at 6:50:50 pm

[andy patterson] "I am not saying the roles feature does not have merit or that it is not your best option. What I am asking is it everyone's best option?"

What I like about Roles, and you describe it as "forethought", but typically the first thing I do when importing media is organize the audio. I set Roles and Subroles (and can do this with as many clips I have selected with similar audio channels) and then typically, I don't have to touch audio organization ever again during the edit. There's no keeping track of what channel it's in, or mapping to what output. I can do that at the every end, preparing an export, with a few clicks.

And if I have sync audio, and the audio recordist has kept track of mice during the shoot, the names of of the mic or character or situation is already in the audio metadata and transferred to Roles on import, making this process go much faster. At that point, I name the camera audio Role something simple like "Guide Track" or "SOT", and the sync audio has the tracks names as recorded. It's extremely useful, and very fast. Much faster than assigning tracks to every clip that goes in to the timeline, and much faster than mapping track to channel outputs on export.


Return to posts index

andy patterson
Re: Why FCPX?
on Oct 4, 2017 at 9:46:05 pm

[Jeremy Garchow] "
And if I have sync audio, and the audio recordist has kept track of mice during the shoot, the names of of the mic or character or situation is already in the audio metadata and transferred to Roles on import, making this process go much faster. At that point, I name the camera audio Role something simple like "Guide Track" or "SOT", and the sync audio has the tracks names as recorded. It's extremely useful, and very fast. Much faster than assigning tracks to every clip that goes in to the timeline, and much faster than mapping track to channel outputs on export."


You set up a totally different paradigm then Charlie. I am not bad mouthing roles. I am not doubting roles work great for your needs. I was simply stating I can setup alternate titles and graphics and export them real super quick without the need to create multiple sequences/timelines. If we are exporting a "one off" tracks and roles may be about the same. I can see how the roles templates would pay off if you need to do the same export over and over again.


Return to posts index

Walter Soyka
Re: Why FCPX?
on Oct 5, 2017 at 2:57:35 pm

[andy patterson] "If we are exporting a "one off" tracks and roles may be about the same."

The catch with traditional NLEs is that track assignment must be actively maintained during the edit. If you need to change an edit in Premiere, you need to be mindful that the track/routing of each clip remains correct as you move things around the timeline and play Track Tetris. With FCPX, you can set the role once upfront, then forget about. No matter what edits you make, the correct role will persist.

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


Return to posts index

Herb Sevush
Re: Why FCPX?
on Oct 5, 2017 at 3:07:17 pm

[Walter Soyka] "With FCPX, you can set the role once upfront, then forget about. No matter what edits you make, the correct role will persist.
"


As always, every weakness is also a strength. In my case I often change "the role" of a piece of audio as I edit. The same piece of audio will change from Sync, VO, or to EFX and back again. In Ppro the track defines the general audio settings and all I have to do is move a clip to a different track to change it's EQ, Compression and Level.

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


Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: Why FCPX?
on Oct 5, 2017 at 3:19:56 pm

[andy patterson] "You set up a totally different paradigm then Charlie. "

That certainly wasn't my intent. I was explaining the setup, Charlie explains the action that can be derived from the setup. As Charlie mentions, exporting different audio blobs for different outputs is fall down easy with X and it does work better than tracks, especially when you need multichannel outputs as opposed to stereo/dual mono. The output matrix is drop down based and can be changed on the fly no matter what is in the timeline, provided that you had the Roles setup properly in the beginning of the edit (which is very easy to do on mass groups of clips).


Return to posts index

Charlie Austin
Re: Why FCPX?
on Oct 4, 2017 at 6:52:19 pm

[andy patterson] "but I don't see how discusing technology from the past is relevant. Do you?"

not really, just providing context. I've performed the same task on lots of systems dating back to prehistory. ☺

[andy patterson] "I am not saying the roles feature does not have merit or that it is not your best option. What I am asking is it everyone's best option?"

Of course not, I'm not an NLE solipsist. All I'm saying is that for this particular task, exporting multiple versions of multiple sequences with different A & V output configurations FCP X is amazing. Yes, you can of course do this in any NLE, but it's much easier from X. I prefer easy.

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

~ 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

Lance Bachelder
Re: Why FCPX?
on Oct 3, 2017 at 6:00:14 am

I agree as far as software cost - their all pretty cheap these days. But it's surprising how archaic Hollywood still is - it's a CYA fear-driven town so putting Avid rentals in a budget at whatever per week times let's say 12 weeks for an indie would still be the norm for a Producer who'd never worked on sub $1million show before.

But my reasons for using FCPX for certain things is not cost - it's the fact that it has specific capabilities that no other NLE or DAW has...

It was at a Vegas premiere that I resolved to become an avid FCPX user.

Lance Bachelder
Writer, Editor, Director
Downtown Long Beach, California
http://www.imdb.com/name/nm1680680/?ref_=fn_al_nm_1


Return to posts index

Shane Ross
Re: Why FCPX?
on Oct 2, 2017 at 11:32:06 pm

[Lance Bachelder] "So a Producer who had never worked on a real Indie would naturally freak out seeing their show cut on a laptop with $300 software. "

that producer must have their head in the sand...you can cut a feature on a laptop running Avid. And that would not cost you much more than FCX on a laptop. There was a recent twitter post about a guy cutting a pixar movie on his laptop on a plane and the editor's seat mate seemed unimpressed. And I use my laptop all the time with Avid/Premiere/Resolve.

Not sure what cost savings they had, as mentioned, the price difference between all the NLEs and the hardware they use it negligible anymore. It's no longer the $65,000 Avid vs the $1200 FCP (plus hardware). Now things are very close.

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


Return to posts index

Neil Goodman
Re: Why FCPX?
on Oct 3, 2017 at 2:23:16 am

Its great that X is gaining more exposure on higher budget gigs. Good news for everyone.

The more high profile gigs, hopefully the more feature requests from high profile editors start pouring in and the software will continue to get better.


Return to posts index

Charlie Austin
Re: Why FCPX?
on Oct 3, 2017 at 3:06:24 am
Last Edited By Charlie Austin on Oct 3, 2017 at 3:14:24 am

[Neil Goodman] "The more high profile gigs, hopefully the more feature requests from high profile editors start pouring in and the software will continue to get better."

There are already a lot of feature requests from high profile editors pouring in – some in L.A. and some not – and they're getting addressed. Probably not as fast as some would like, but it's happening. Honestly, even if you don't use X, but own it, click the feedback link in the Final Cut Pro menu and request away. Seems like things that are most requested do appear.

Unless you want fixed tracks back, that'll never happen. :-)

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

~ 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

Neil Goodman
Re: Why FCPX?
on Oct 3, 2017 at 3:44:26 am

[Charlie Austin] "There are already a lot of feature requests from high profile editors pouring in – some in L.A. and some not – and they're getting addressed. Probably not as fast as some would like, but it's happening. Honestly, even if you don't use X, but own it, click the feedback link in the Final Cut Pro menu and request away. Seems like things that are most requested do appear.

Unless you want fixed tracks back, that'll never happen. ☺
"


hahah Ive come to terms with the lack of tracks, audio lanes pretty much took care of the organization stuff I was missing. Video lanes I could care less about. It was always about trying to keep the audio beds manageable.

I've dropped a few of my feature request to the feedback link. Most have to do with a timecode window and being able to see multiple sources of timecode at once. The others were interface-y things that Im probably alone on, lol.


Return to posts index

Charlie Austin
Re: Why FCPX?
on Oct 3, 2017 at 4:48:05 am
Last Edited By Charlie Austin on Oct 3, 2017 at 4:52:19 am

[Neil Goodman] "I've dropped a few of my feature request to the feedback link. Most have to do with a timecode window and being able to see multiple sources of timecode at once. The others were interface-y things that Im probably alone on, lol."

heh, yeah, I'm sure we all have those. ☺ As to multiple TC sources, the clip skimmer *kinda* works for that in a pinch, but having them all as a HUD or something would be great. There is a free FxFactory plugin (Timecode) that gives you a nice floating TC window, albeit just a mirror of the one that's there....

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

~ 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

Brian Seegmiller
Re: Why FCPX?
on Oct 3, 2017 at 6:17:04 am

Lance, what are those feature films? I helped edit a Independent feature using FCP X coming out on OCT 20th. I would love to find out what films are done in FCP X.







This was a community film project where we used volunteers.


Return to posts index

Shane Ross
Re: Why FCPX?
on Oct 3, 2017 at 6:21:21 am

[Brian Seegmiller] "Lance, what are those feature films?"

Now, I'm not Lance, but I've worked with him at NAB...

FOCUS...2015. Will Smith movie
Whiskey Tango Foxtrot...2016. Tina Fey film

But it should be noted that both films had the same editor, Jan Kovak

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


Return to posts index

Oliver Peters
Re: Why FCPX?
on Oct 3, 2017 at 1:58:29 pm

[Shane Ross] "FOCUS...2015. Will Smith movie
Whiskey Tango Foxtrot...2016. Tina Fey film"


There are plenty of indie films floating around that have been cut on FCPX, along with a number of international films and TV series. However, if you limit the scope to studio-distributed films, it's only those two to date. Nothing in the pipeline either, that I'm aware off.

- Oliver

Oliver Peters - oliverpeters.com


Return to posts index

Charlie Austin
Re: Why FCPX?
on Oct 3, 2017 at 2:50:43 pm
Last Edited By Charlie Austin on Oct 3, 2017 at 2:52:32 pm

[Oliver Peters] "However, if you limit the scope to studio-distributed films, it's only those two to date. Nothing in the pipeline either, that I'm aware off."

I know you're just answering the question, but does that matter? If so, why?

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

~ 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

Oliver Peters
Re: Why FCPX?
on Oct 3, 2017 at 3:03:32 pm

[Charlie Austin] "I know you're just answering the question, but does that matter? If so, why?"

Yes, from a standpoint of PR, as well as getting the LA editorial community interested in using X more than they do. For example, I routinely do film editor interview articles. Based on my discussions, there's a definite uptick with Premiere Pro among A-list "Hollywood" feature film editors, which I don't see with FCPX. It's not only that the editors have a natural inclination towards Premiere, but also that they like the way Adobe reaches out and engages the community. Perception becomes reality.

- Oliver

Oliver Peters - oliverpeters.com


Return to posts index

Oliver Peters
Re: Why FCPX?
on Oct 3, 2017 at 3:20:21 pm

PS: My point leads into this one:

"DM: ...The only issue we had was in finding a second editor to come in and make changes when our original editor had to move on to her next job. We had a really difficult time finding someone with Final Cut Pro X experience."

It doesn't seem like that issue has changed in 6 years. You really can't excuse that to FUD. There are definite advantages to using X, but articulating those is a function of PR, which is something Apple is woefully deficient about. The result is a general attitude among key influencers that it's not the tool to use.

- Oliver

Oliver Peters - oliverpeters.com


Return to posts index

Steve Connor
Re: Why FCPX?
on Oct 3, 2017 at 3:52:38 pm

[Oliver Peters] " but articulating those is a function of PR, which is something Apple is woefully deficient about. The result is a general attitude among key influencers that it's not the tool to use.

"


Or perhaps Apple are like me and don't care in the slightest whether the tiny fraction of Editors who are "Hollywood A Listers" or "key influencers" use it.

It seems to have sold quite well without them :)


Return to posts index

Andrew Kimery
Re: Why FCPX?
on Oct 3, 2017 at 4:29:36 pm

[Steve Connor] "Or perhaps Apple are like me and don't care in the slightest whether the tiny fraction of Editors who are "Hollywood A Listers" or "key influencers" use it."

Apple's In Action page tells a different story. 😉

https://www.apple.com/final-cut-pro/in-action/


Return to posts index

Shane Ross
Re: Why FCPX?
on Oct 3, 2017 at 4:37:12 pm

[Andrew Kimery] "Apple's In Action page tells a different story. "

Still has Leverage, that went off the air 5 years ago. And the production company now doing other shows...unknown what they use to edit, but if it was FCX, you'd think Apple would try to reach out for that.

And I would THINK that Apple would put PR all over the DIANA: IN HER OWN WORDS doc that was all cut in FCX. Heck, that whole company is all FCX all the time and have multiple shows and series, all for broadcast, all docs, various networks. You'd think that the PR people would be touting them...but no, nothing.

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


Return to posts index

Bill Davis
Re: Why FCPX?
on Oct 3, 2017 at 7:02:45 pm
Last Edited By Bill Davis on Oct 3, 2017 at 7:29:27 pm

[Andrew Kimery] "Apple's In Action page tells a different story. 😉

https://www.apple.com/final-cut-pro/in-action/"


Oh for heavens sake.

Call me when your browser is full of FCP X paid ads like for CC. Or Avid. Or Black Magic.

That apple puts up a passive website that people have to search for and find - is a VERY different thing than spending large sums to actively market a product to boost sales.

Like the software or not, Apple hitting 2 million paid seats WITHOUT anywhere NEAR that type of marketing push says either they are magically more effective with the paltry marketing money that they do spend - or the software's been simply attractive enough on it's own in enough places to have hit Apple's needed sales targets without any need for similar paid promotion.

Which ever - it's apparently done fine with all but a particular "class" of editors - who still largely don't get it.

(Not the editors here who've followed this stuff, obviously - but out in the broader American Suite Editors of a Particular Class - arena.)

My 2 cents.

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


Return to posts index

Oliver Peters
Re: Why FCPX?
on Oct 3, 2017 at 7:42:56 pm

[Bill Davis] "That apple puts up a passive website that people have to search for and find - is a VERY different thing than spending large sums to actively market a product to boost sales."

I think you misunderstood Andrew's point. It was that Apple DOES care (or at least did care) about the PR value of key influencers using its tools. The shame is that they have not followed through lately on that effort. Look at how old those stories are.

[Bill Davis] "but out in the broader American Suite Editors of a Particular Class - arena"

Funny. I'm in central Florida and have the same general problem of finding other experienced editors (not the same as people who *can edit*) who are competent with FCPX, as one would find in LA.

- Oliver

Oliver Peters - oliverpeters.com


Return to posts index

Steve Connor
Re: Why FCPX?
on Oct 3, 2017 at 7:47:41 pm

[Oliver Peters] "Funny. I'm in central Florida and have the same general problem of finding other experienced editors"

Very happy to fly out to sunny Florida any time Oliver ☺


Return to posts index

Oliver Peters
Re: Why FCPX?
on Oct 3, 2017 at 4:32:07 pm

[Steve Connor] "Or perhaps Apple are like me and don't care in the slightest whether the tiny fraction of Editors who are "Hollywood A Listers" or "key influencers" use it."

They seem to be more than happy to use the publicity when it's there ☺

- Oliver

Oliver Peters - oliverpeters.com


Return to posts index

Steve Connor
Re: Why FCPX?
on Oct 3, 2017 at 4:44:43 pm
Last Edited By Steve Connor on Oct 3, 2017 at 4:47:04 pm

[Oliver Peters] "They seem to be more than happy to use the publicity when it's there ☺
"


Of course, why wouldn't they, but perhaps they don't want to spend the time and effort to get FCPX into studio feature editing that Adobe does.

Just speculating really, FCPX users already know that it's perfectly possible to cut Features with it :)


Return to posts index

Darren Roark
Re: Why FCPX?
on Oct 3, 2017 at 7:43:05 pm

[Oliver Peters] "They seem to be more than happy to use the publicity when it's there ☺"

My suspicions are that even if the Deadpool folks did choose FCP X over Premiere, (or Avid for the sequel as it is) they probably wouldn't be trumpeting that as Deadpool would seem a bit out of place to co-promote Apple products due to the nature of the content.

A film I helped out on during the "pre library" days of FCPX called "Starry Eyes" had a theatrical run before Focus, so it was technically the first feature cut in FCP X that received an official theatrical release.

Focus was the first major release, it had huge movie stars in it and was an all in all slick endeavor.

If you like smart horror films, it's a great film, made it to the top ten on Netflix for a time, not just horror, but all of Netflix.

I suppose they have to be picky.


Return to posts index

Oliver Peters
Re: Why FCPX?
on Oct 3, 2017 at 8:49:06 pm

[Darren Roark] "A film I helped out on during the "pre library" days of FCPX called "Starry Eyes" had a theatrical run before Focus, so it was technically the first feature cut in FCP X that received an official theatrical release.

Focus was the first major release, it had huge movie stars in it and was an all in all slick endeavor. "


I'm in the same boat. The bane of indies.

- Oliver

Oliver Peters - oliverpeters.com


Return to posts index

Oliver Peters
Re: Why FCPX?
on Oct 5, 2017 at 12:06:24 pm

BTW - I was remiss in not mentioning "Voice from the Stone" among the larger films that have been cut using FCPX. An indie that has been picked up for distribution.

https://digitalfilms.wordpress.com/2016/06/18/voice-from-the-stone/

- Oliver

Oliver Peters - oliverpeters.com


Return to posts index

Scott Witthaus
Re: Why FCPX?
on Oct 3, 2017 at 5:31:06 pm

[Steve Connor] "Or perhaps Apple are like me and don't care in the slightest whether the tiny fraction of Editors who are "Hollywood A Listers" or "key influencers" use it."

Exactly. Let Adobe fight Apple over that niche! ;-)

Scott Witthaus
Owner, 1708 Inc./Editorial
Managing Partner, Low Country Creative LLC
Professor, VCU Brandcenter


Return to posts index

Charlie Austin
Re: Why FCPX?
on Oct 3, 2017 at 4:58:01 pm

[Oliver Peters] "The result is a general attitude among key influencers that it's not the tool to use."

I can't disagree about the PR, but the whole "key influencers" thing is, to me, ridiculous. That doesn't change the fact that it's real. That "hollywood" needs validation from from "big names" before they'll try something new. Something that could arguably make their jobs easier, and save money and time.

Focus and WTF? "meh. Sure the whole team loved it and had a great experience, but you know, who are those guys?" All the international stuff being done in X? "Phht... never heard of it." Now Fincher using Premiere? "Ooh, I've heard of him! He's 'somebody'!" Validation! Let's use it on our movie! Deadpool! And Adobe will help us!

Pr is a great NLE but... How'd that work out?

So sure, you're right. it is what it is. And it's incredibly stupid.

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

~ 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

Andrew Kimery
Re: Why FCPX?
on Oct 3, 2017 at 5:53:05 pm

[Charlie Austin] "That "hollywood" needs validation from from "big names" before they'll try something new"

As the saying goes, "No one ever got fired for buying IBM". 😉

Hollywood needing validation is just a symptom of humans generally being risk averse by nature. If one is happy and productive with what one already has, what's the motivation for tossing that aside? Especially if hundreds of millions of dollars on the line? The more that's at stake, and the more people that have to sign off on changes, the longer it's going to take to make changes. I don't care what part of the industry you are in, but if you need to convince someone else that the existing, functioning workflow needs to be nuked it's a much easier sell if you have relevant, real world case studies to hold up as examples of how the new workflow is demonstrably better, faster, cheaper and more robust than the existing workflow.

Of course as was brought up in the article, if there isn't a decent labor pool for the new workflow than there is very little incentive for businesses to adopt it. This chicken/egg scenario is usually solved by the tool maker spending money to 'prime the pump' and help create demand for their product via PR/Marketing.


Return to posts index

greg janza
Re: Why FCPX?
on Oct 3, 2017 at 6:36:32 pm

Apple is a phone company and so the idea of putting real effort into developing a larger presence in tv and film is pointless. The tv and movie industry isn't going to move the needle for Apple's bottom line.

I Hate Television. I Hate It As Much As Peanuts. But I Can’t Stop Eating Peanuts.
- Orson Welles


Return to posts index

Steve Connor
Re: Why FCPX?
on Oct 3, 2017 at 6:57:13 pm

[greg janza] "Apple is a phone company and so the idea of putting real effort into developing a larger presence in tv and film is pointless. The tv and movie industry isn't going to move the needle for Apple's bottom line.
"


Not true at all, Why do they bother with anything than phones then? Apple are an ecosystem and they are rapidly realising the value of content as well. Having content creation tools available fits into this ecosystem.


Return to posts index

Bill Davis
Re: Why FCPX?
on Oct 3, 2017 at 7:11:16 pm
Last Edited By Bill Davis on Oct 3, 2017 at 7:12:35 pm

[greg janza] "Apple is a phone company and so the idea of putting real effort into developing a larger presence in tv and film is pointless. The tv and movie industry isn't going to move the needle for Apple's bottom line.

I Hate Television. I Hate It As Much As Peanuts. But I Can’t Stop Eating Peanuts.
- Orson Welles"


Following that logic, Exxon is a "Gasoline" company. Please ignore that most of the "gas stations" now make more profit out of their convenience stores than they do out of gas - and that they are functionally REAL ESTATE holding companies who's histrorical product was gasolene - but actually isn't so much any longer.

Apple, similarly is a "technology" company - now. Computers used to drive things. Now portable pocket communications technology has for a while. Maybe auto-pilot software for autonomous transportation - or medical information data collection and records management will take over from monthly phone lease bills someday.

Nobody knows.

You can't survive playng the same game forever. History is littered with examples like Polaroid and Kaypro that took their eye off the actual ball.

Ny 2 cents.

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


Return to posts index

greg janza
Re: Why FCPX?
on Oct 4, 2017 at 3:51:01 am

It sure seems like Apple is primarily a phone manufacturer. I know it seems a bit odd to classify them as such but that's in fact what they are.




I

I Hate Television. I Hate It As Much As Peanuts. But I Can’t Stop Eating Peanuts.
- Orson Welles


Return to posts index

Charlie Austin
Re: Why FCPX?
on Oct 4, 2017 at 3:57:58 am

[greg janza] "It sure seems like Apple is primarily a phone manufacturer. I know it seems a bit odd to classify them as such but that's in fact what they are."

Well, yeah, that's the bulk of their income, but it's not all they do. A billion $$ to create content is... not insignificant. :)

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

~ 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

greg janza
Re: Why FCPX?
on Oct 4, 2017 at 4:15:57 am

[Charlie Austin] "A billion $$ to create content is... not insignificant. :)"

I completely agree. Apple wants a piece of that content pie and I don't blame them. Content is king. But all the more reason to no longer consider them a computer company.

I Hate Television. I Hate It As Much As Peanuts. But I Can’t Stop Eating Peanuts.
- Orson Welles


Return to posts index

Charlie Austin
Re: Why FCPX?
on Oct 4, 2017 at 4:48:17 am

[greg janza] "But all the more reason to no longer consider them a computer company."

But they make computers, and want them to be used, so saying they're "just a phone company" isn't correct either. They have the phones/tablets/tv things to deliver the content to, the computers and software (theirs or others) to edit/market the content, and soon they will have the content. I think all the parts are important to them. And they do market their computers. :-)

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

~ 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

Steve Connor
Re: Why FCPX?
on Oct 4, 2017 at 6:02:03 am

[greg janza] "But all the more reason to no longer consider them a computer company."

Although they sell more computers than a lot of "computer companies"?


Return to posts index

Bill Davis
Re: Why FCPX?
on Oct 4, 2017 at 4:08:39 am

[greg janza] "It sure seems like Apple is primarily a phone manufacturer. I know it seems a bit odd to classify them as such but that's in fact what they are."

I don't know what YOU do on your phone.

But I know mine is about as far from "a phone" as it's possible for a device to be.

If I use my "phone" 10 percent for making actual calls I'd be shocked.

I do FAR more email monitoring. Twitter scanning. Audio auditioning. Video watching (including plenty of evenings when I forgo my TV in favor of couch time with my phone as the source for watching all manner of content.

I also use it for virtually ALL my still photography. For shooting video regularly.

It tracks my exercise. It interfaces with my doctors record system. It takes to my watch to let me screen calls when I'm in meetings.

I use it daily for checking the market. For downloading and forwarding LOGOS to clients - and a thousand other digital tasks that have NOTHING to do with phone calls.

It Teleprompts for me.. And has recorded AUDIO for radio spots for me.

THAT is my point.

It's no longer "a phone."

It's a digital content management device as much as its "a phone."

And you KNOW that. Cuz it's very likely how use yours too.

My phone is totally integrated in my digital content creation chain in more ways than I can count.

And Apple, arguably more than any other company - drove that transition.

So reducing this to Apple is all about the PHONE now - is silly on it's face.

Your phone - ain't just your PHONE anymore.

My two cents.

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


Return to posts index

greg janza
Re: Why FCPX?
on Oct 4, 2017 at 4:25:19 am

[Bill Davis] "Your phone - ain't just your PHONE anymore."

I completely agree Bill. It indeed is a transformative device. The idea is to simply point out that making computers and software programs is a secondary priority for the company. The real revenue drivers for Apple are the phones currently and potentially the television content in the future.

I Hate Television. I Hate It As Much As Peanuts. But I Can’t Stop Eating Peanuts.
- Orson Welles


Return to posts index

Tony West
Re: Why FCPX?
on Oct 4, 2017 at 1:54:42 pm

[greg janza] "The idea is to simply point out that making computers and software programs is a secondary priority for the company. "

I still think you are missing it Greg. It's "their computer" in a miniature form that you can carry around in your pocket and you just happen to be able to make calls from it.

They want you to have "Their computer" with you at ALL times. Even when your "phone" is too much to carry, you will still have "their computer" on your wrist.

They don't care anything about telling time, it's all about their computers being with you at all times.

They know exactly what they are doing.


Return to posts index

greg janza
Re: Why FCPX?
on Oct 4, 2017 at 2:58:43 pm

[Tony West] "They want you to have "Their computer" with you at ALL times."

Oh I get it Tony but I'm referring to the computers that we use professionally to create content. And if you use your iphone to edit and create videos for clients then you must be way ahead of me.

I Hate Television. I Hate It As Much As Peanuts. But I Can’t Stop Eating Peanuts.
- Orson Welles


Return to posts index

Tony West
Re: Why FCPX?
on Oct 4, 2017 at 3:19:35 pm

[greg janza] "[Tony West] "They want you to have "Their computer" with you at ALL times."

Oh I get it Tony but I'm referring to the computers that we use professionally to create content. And if you use your iphone to edit and create videos for clients then you must be way ahead of me."


No, I will be using their new MPro when it comes out to edit and create my videos, and my clients will be watching it their "phones".


Return to posts index

Charlie Austin
Re: Why FCPX?
on Oct 4, 2017 at 4:57:59 pm

[greg janza] "And if you use your iphone to edit and create videos for clients then you must be way ahead of me."

Here ya go. Tracks and a mixer, just what everyone wants. ☺ Title tool, Motion GFX, LUTs, Color, 4k export. Get with the times man! I cut a decent spot on it just for laughs, it's a real, tiny NLE in your pocket.

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

~ 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

Oliver Peters
Re: Why FCPX?
on Oct 4, 2017 at 6:15:37 pm

[Charlie Austin] " it's a real, tiny NLE in your pocket"

... or are you just happy to see me? Ba da boom.

- Oliver

Oliver Peters - oliverpeters.com


Return to posts index

Bill Davis
Re: Why FCPX?
on Oct 4, 2017 at 6:52:59 pm

[Oliver Peters] "... or are you just happy to see me? Ba da boom."

Maybe the psychological boost from packing something that may be objectively "slimmer" than before - but also definitely widescreen?

😁

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


Return to posts index

greg janza
Re: Why FCPX?
on Oct 5, 2017 at 8:46:15 pm

Charlie, obviously I'm way behind the technological times.

Any editing app made for an iphone is created by a team of sadists.

I Hate Television. I Hate It As Much As Peanuts. But I Can’t Stop Eating Peanuts.
- Orson Welles


Return to posts index

Charlie Austin
Re: Why FCPX?
on Oct 5, 2017 at 9:51:29 pm

[greg janza] "Charlie, obviously I'm way behind the technological times.

Any editing app made for an iphone is created by a team of sadists.
"


lol... well, technically it's for the iPad, but I put it on my phone just to see if it worked. It did, and really well. but yes, it was a gigantic PITA. I don't care what anyone says, doing "real" editing with a touch based UI is awful.

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

~ 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

Oliver Peters
Re: Why FCPX?
on Oct 5, 2017 at 10:22:25 pm

[greg janza] "Any editing app made for an iphone is created by a team of sadists."

Forget iPhone. Think iPad Pro. Quite viable there.

- Oliver

Oliver Peters - oliverpeters.com


Return to posts index

greg janza
Re: Why FCPX?
on Oct 5, 2017 at 10:31:22 pm

yeah I can see the ipad as a potential. not for me personally though. Computers have already done significant damage to my body so ipad editing sounds like more repetitive motion pain.

I Hate Television. I Hate It As Much As Peanuts. But I Can’t Stop Eating Peanuts.
- Orson Welles


Return to posts index

Bill Davis
Re: Why FCPX?
on Oct 6, 2017 at 7:25:31 pm

[greg janza] "Any editing app made for an iphone is created by a team of sadists."

I get the point.

But edit PREP can be kinda glorious.

That opinion is based on using Lumberjack and an iPad to apply tags and ratings during shoots.

I can also see a whole boatload of content keywording - color assessment - audio monitoring - and a thousand other things AROUND the actual editing that iPads could help with - either running directly in - or even just separately but "linked to" some future mobile friendly implementation of some or all of FCP X.

We'll see.

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


Return to posts index

Charlie Austin
Re: Why FCPX?
on Oct 3, 2017 at 7:57:18 pm
Last Edited By Charlie Austin on Oct 3, 2017 at 8:00:12 pm

[greg janza] "pple is a phone company and so the idea of putting real effort into developing a larger presence in tv and film is pointless. The tv and movie industry isn't going to move the needle for Apple's bottom line."

LOL. Yes. Of course they are. 😂

You have it backwards. The "industry" isn't controlling the needles' movement anymore.

http://www.cetusnews.com/tech/Apple-Readies-%241-Billion-War-Chest-for-Holl...

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

~ 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

Charlie Austin
Re: Why FCPX?
on Oct 3, 2017 at 7:25:48 pm

[Andrew Kimery] "Hollywood needing validation is just a symptom of humans generally being risk averse by nature. If one is happy and productive with what one already has, what's the motivation for tossing that aside? Especially if hundreds of millions of dollars on the line? The more that's at stake, and the more people that have to sign off on changes, the longer it's going to take to make changes."

Oh, I get it. And there are good examples of the new thing working quite well. I guess just not enough. I still think it's stupid. 😉

[Andrew Kimery] "Of course as was brought up in the article, if there isn't a decent labor pool for the new workflow than there is very little incentive for businesses to adopt it."

Totally agree. That's changing though. Not so much in big features yet, but definitely in the indie, Doc, Advertising spaces. Hopefully it'll trickle up. Or down, depending on one's POV :-)

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

~ 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

Oliver Peters
Re: Why FCPX?
on Oct 3, 2017 at 7:37:04 pm

[Andrew Kimery] "Hollywood needing validation is just a symptom of humans generally being risk averse by nature."

I don't think it's just that. When you cut a film, you turn over a lot of deliverables at the end, including editorial media and project files. That's in case of future changes, recuts, etc. That work usually not done by the original editor(s). Also sometimes editors get fired mid-project. So having a commonly used application makes the whole process easier. FCPX is too much of a wild card for many for those practical reasons. The talent pool of whom you would call upon is too small.

- Oliver

Oliver Peters - oliverpeters.com


Return to posts index

Shane Ross
Re: Why FCPX?
on Oct 3, 2017 at 8:13:20 pm

Many many people keep asking "what do they use on Hollywood movies?" "What do they use to cut network TV shows?" Because, for some reason, they think THAT is what they need to use to cut whatever it is they are cutting. They want to use what the "big boys" use. Not sure about the psychology about that. Is it wanting to feel close to them because you use what they use?

Often what they use would be a HORRIBLE thing for you to use when editing your project. But, some people want that provenance. They want that pedigree. "Hey, they used FCX on this feature, and I use FCX, so I'm using the same tool they are! Wow!" Many companies and ad agencies get this, thus why they market with that in mind. They are using that fact to sell their goods. Very typical of all sorts of things, actually. There will be a billboard with Daniel Craig wearing a Tag Hauser watch and people might go: "Hey, Daniel Craig wears that watch, and he's James Bond...I WANT THAT WATCH!" Or Matthew McConaughey might spout poetry while driving a Lincoln Navigator, and people will want it because he's using it. Celebrity endorsement, nothing new. Walter Murch was the celebrity for FCP Legacy... Deadpool was the celebrity vehicle for Adobe. And so on.

Apple isn't catering to that anymore....at least not with FCX. They aren't catering at all...there are no ads for FCX anywhere. They just make it and leave it up to word of mouth....which seems to be working just fine. Well, that and the FCX IN ACTION page that's very very hard to find.

Yet, for some reason, many people still need that Hollywood validation...Hollywood endorsement. If its a great idea for this feature, then it must be great for this corporate video, or TV commercial.

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


Return to posts index

Charlie Austin
Re: Why FCPX?
on Oct 3, 2017 at 8:24:20 pm

[Shane Ross] "Apple isn't catering to that anymore....at least not with FCX. They aren't catering at all...there are no ads for FCX anywhere. They just make it and leave it up to word of mouth....which seems to be working just fine. "

Very true, and we've speculated on the reasons for that here occasionally. They don't advertise *any* of their software. Pro apps, consumer apps, iOS, macOS. Nothing. So they either don't want to and don't care (unlikely), or they can't for some reason or other.

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

~ 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

Oliver Peters
Re: Why FCPX?
on Oct 3, 2017 at 8:29:50 pm

But, moving back on point... Since we were talking about advantages to X, here's a tutorial & video to look at:

http://www.fcp.co/final-cut-pro/tutorials/2004-final-cut-pro-x-and-the-clou...

- Oliver

Oliver Peters - oliverpeters.com


Return to posts index

Charlie Austin
Re: Why FCPX?
on Oct 3, 2017 at 8:38:21 pm

[Oliver Peters] "But, moving back on point... "

That's crazy talk! ;-)

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

~ 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

Bill Davis
Re: Why FCPX?
on Oct 3, 2017 at 8:38:32 pm

Felipe just left his long time job for a gigantic global consulting firm where he had X deployed across a bunch of countries managing satellite delivered content all over the world.

Now he's moved on and is no longer constrained by his employer from participating in the public space. So I'd expect we'll continue to hear more from him.

Not particularly in the the "many editors touching the same piece" type of work that Hollywood values so much.

More the "we have thousands of global learners and business executives that need to access, distribute, update and use cloud video" types.

He truly knows what he's doing in that type of large scale global FCP X collaborative deployment.

FWIW.

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


Return to posts index

Charlie Austin
Re: Why FCPX?
on Oct 3, 2017 at 8:45:08 pm

[Oliver Peters] "Since we were talking about advantages to X, here's a tutorial & video to look at:"

Very cool trick isn't it? And assuming everyone already has google drive or similar, the cost? $0 :-)

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

~ 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

Oliver Peters
Re: Why FCPX?
on Oct 3, 2017 at 11:31:48 pm

[Charlie Austin] "Very cool trick isn't it? "

Yes. It would be nice if Apple would let you set the proxy size/format. That would remove the extra step to "hack" the workflow.

- Oliver

Oliver Peters - oliverpeters.com


Return to posts index

Neil Goodman
Re: Why FCPX?
on Oct 4, 2017 at 12:31:36 am

I think any publicity - even the "...but the big boys used this on xxxx studio feature" is good publicity.

While us full time working editors might not find any assurance in the fact so and so uses the same software as me, alot of people do and as we've seen word of mouth can go along way, and unfortunately can be a bad thing too as we've seen some people still havent given X a chance simply because of the bad rap it got on launch.


Return to posts index

Bill Davis
Re: Why FCPX?
on Oct 4, 2017 at 4:13:00 am

[Neil Goodman] "X a chance simply because of the bad rap it got on launch."

Just to keep the record straight

That "bad rap" proceeded by months and months FCP X's actual public release. Before anyone outside Apple had ever actually touched the software.

It was REALLY curious that way.

Just sayin'

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


Return to posts index

Oliver Peters
Re: Why FCPX?
on Oct 4, 2017 at 12:44:53 pm

[Bill Davis] "That "bad rap" proceeded by months and months FCP X's actual public release. Before anyone outside Apple had ever actually touched the software."

Care to actually document that? It's my recollection that the internet-wide negative comments started at the SuperMeet reveal. Actual release or not, that was a public presentation. There were some private showings to key influencers before that. Although no one broke NDA, that I know of, there were quite a few lukewarm perceptions coming out of those private previews. So I guess that's what you are interpreting as 'months before'. But general 'bad rap' - largely after it was publicly revealed.

- Oliver

Oliver Peters - oliverpeters.com


Return to posts index

Bill Davis
Re: Why FCPX?
on Oct 4, 2017 at 6:40:40 pm

[Oliver Peters] "It's my recollection that the internet-wide negative comments started at the SuperMeet reveal"

Exactly.

And the Supermeet reveal was months before the product was ACTUALLY put on sale so anyone could assess - hands on - how It might function.

Seeing a prototype at a car show - doesn’t give you a clue about how the thing actually drives. (To keep the current small flurry of beloved auto analogies going!)

The initial negativity HAD to be based ENTIRELY on speculation - unless the only people posting all that negativity were those given “special access” - and I don’t believe that for a second.

Well before the product shipped - the negativity about X had been spreading like a brush fire for months. And brush fires cant spread unless they they have a dependable supply of fuel.

FCP X bashing before June 2011 could only have been based on imagination, speculative analysis lacking factual foundation and SPIN.

Cuz nobody actually KNEW anything more than that at the time.

I mean it’s not like we aren’t AWASH in this stuff today.

It seems like 90% of modern communications - from marketing to politics - is built around conditioning people about how they should THINK about stuff - before they have any actual experience with it. It’s pretty much the foundation the advertising industry rests upon.

The “shaped narrative” - as utterly American as George Washington’s cherry tree.
“I cannot tell a lie...”

FWIW.

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


Return to posts index

Herb Sevush
Re: Why FCPX?
on Oct 4, 2017 at 6:57:19 pm

[Bill Davis] "[Oliver Peters] "It's my recollection that the internet-wide negative comments started at the SuperMeet reveal"

Exactly.

And the Supermeet reveal was months before the product was ACTUALLY put on sale so anyone could assess - hands on - how It might function.
"


And who was responsible for deciding to reveal FCPX at the supermeet? Did somebody come in and hold a gun to someone's head, or was it Apple's decision? According to you Apple's role-out was great and the blame for the bad PR should be put on some secret conspiracy to do damage to X that was beyond anyone's control.

How about acknowledging that Apple had some negative feedback from editors before the meet, they decided to do a public reveal anyhow, when some negative buzz was generated by the supermeet reveal they chose to do absolutely nothing to contain it except announce on day 1 of FCPX's availability that legacy was DOA and no longer available for sale (a decision they rescinded, on the down low, a few weeks later.)

Everything that happened to X was the result of Apple's marketing and, in 20-20 hindsight, it was all predictable. There's nothing "curious" about stupidity, it is the ready explanation for the world we live in.

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


Return to posts index

Steve Connor
Re: Why FCPX?
on Oct 4, 2017 at 7:48:36 pm

[Herb Sevush] "Everything that happened to X was the result of Apple's marketing and, in 20-20 hindsight, it was all predictable. There's nothing "curious" about stupidity, it is the ready explanation for the world we live in.
"


After the demo I was quite excited to see what FCPX could do, but in hindsight revealing something which had a very similar looking interface, at least in the videos, to iMovie wasn't exactly going to generate a huge amount of positive buzz.


Return to posts index

Herb Sevush
Re: Why FCPX?
on Oct 4, 2017 at 8:03:14 pm

[Steve Connor] "
After the demo I was quite excited to see what FCPX could do"


I wasn't at the demo, but my recollection of the weeks after was that there was both positive and negative spin from the meet, with a lot of people speculating about changes that would be made to the product between NAB and the release a few months later, and that it wasn't until the release that the colossal negative response began.

But memory is fleeting.

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


Return to posts index

Bill Davis
Re: Why FCPX?
on Oct 4, 2017 at 9:28:50 pm

[Herb Sevush] "According to you Apple's role-out was great and the blame for the bad PR should be put on some secret conspiracy to do damage to X that was beyond anyone's control."

TOTALLY INCORRECT.

According to me, (and I should know) Apple's roll-out was interesting - perhaps even exciting - but nothing more than that.

I did see things I'd never seen ANY NLE do before. Clip Collision avoidance. A magnetic timeline, etc. etc.

But I had NO context to use to determine if these new things were useful - or smoke and mirror stuff.

I've said before - I was sitting in the room during the rollout - and around me was applause and surprise and a ton of "WOW" moments.

It was the next day I got really shocked - when I went on line and saw the initial torrent of negativity begin.

That day - I started asking myself "About WHAT?" - What exactly is wrong with what I saw? It looks interesting. It will be exciting to have new ideas to play around with.

And that was THE ENTIRETY of my opinion at the time. Reserved optimism and HOPE that the new stuff shown might be useful.

Further than that, when I downloaded the program - I had PRECISELY the same experience most people had.

I didn't know how to use it. I was frustrated. I didn't "get" the magnetic thing at first. I didn't use the Browser or keywords at ALL for the first two weeks or so - because I didn't understand what they were.

The ONLY difference between me and everyone who started immediately crowing about how RIGHT they had been months before about how "BAD" the thing was (on day one!) - was that WHEN I encountered so much I did not understand - I found myself curious to understand it.

THAT is my point, Herb.

Most of the loudest critique at the FCP X launch started in a complete vacuum of actually knowledge and experience with it during the period between April 12th and June 21, 2011.

And I'll stand by that - because it's the truth of things.

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


Return to posts index

Herb Sevush
Re: Why FCPX?
on Oct 5, 2017 at 12:44:52 pm

[Bill Davis] "TOTALLY INCORRECT.

According to me, (and I should know) Apple's roll-out was interesting - perhaps even exciting - but nothing more than that.
"


Ahhh, we've run into a bit of semantic confusion.

For me "role-out" is a marketing term and denotes all the things a company does to pump up sales for a new product. I didn't consider the Supermeet "reveal" as part of the roll-out since Apple said nothing and did nothing after that event to educate, inform or in any way "stoke the fire" for the upcoming release. I used the term "roll-out" to mean everything they did after the product launch, when they actually presented their finished product to the public, hence our misunderstanding. Given your definition, I apologize for misconstruing your statement.

[Bill Davis] "Most of the loudest critique at the FCP X launch started in a complete vacuum of actually knowledge and experience with it during the period between April 12th and June 21, 2011.

And I'll stand by that - because it's the truth of things.
"


Well I disagree a little bit here. As someone who missed the "reveal" I was aware of something new being worked on, I heard a mix of both good and bad things about it, but mostly I heard silence from Apple and confusion from most everyone else. Many people believed that the upcoming product release would combine both the new and the old and that what was revealed at NAB was very much a work-in-progress. I didn't hear any massive outcry about X until after June 21.

And I'll stand by that, because that is my truth of things.

Now the outcry after June 21 was mostly ill-informed and quasi hysterical, but again I say "who's fault was that?"

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


Return to posts index

Herb Sevush
Re: Why FCPX?
on Oct 5, 2017 at 1:19:51 pm

[Herb Sevush] "Now the outcry after June 21 was mostly ill-informed and quasi hysterical, but again I say "who's fault was that?""

Apparently the fault was Steve Jobs, at least according to Randy U.

"to Randy's credit, he personally told Steve Jobs that he thought FCP X should have been rolled out in a way that would have kept more users happy. The poor release of FCP X is mostly in Steve Job's hands)"

This from an interview featured in the thread above.

https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/i-gave-fcp-x-another-chance-liked-featuring-...

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


Return to posts index

Bill Davis
Re: Why FCPX?
on Oct 5, 2017 at 8:42:36 pm

[Herb Sevush] "Apparently the fault was Steve Jobs, at least according to Randy U."

According to my family tradition - we kinda give a pass to issues "fault" when they are attached to people who were actively dying during the circumstances being discussed.

Just sayin'

😒

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


Return to posts index

Herb Sevush
Re: Why FCPX?
on Oct 5, 2017 at 9:27:32 pm

[Bill Davis] "According to my family tradition - we kinda give a pass to issues "fault" when they are attached to people who were actively dying during the circumstances being discussed."

Oh give me a break, what was he, your uncle or something? And, for the record, it was Randy's observation, not mine, so go lay your guilt trip on him.

Oh the hollowed dead ... let's just say you would have been laughed out of my family's dining room with that one. How's that for tradition.

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


Return to posts index

Oliver Peters
Re: Why FCPX?
on Oct 4, 2017 at 7:45:30 pm

[Bill Davis] "Exactly.
And the Supermeet reveal was months before the product was ACTUALLY put on sale so anyone could assess - hands on - how It might function. "


Except that it clearly showed the design and what was not to be included at launch. Most people didn't need more than that to take an instant like or dislike to it. Having it in their hands didn't really change the opinion if they didn't like what they saw and heard at SuperMeet.

- Oliver

Oliver Peters - oliverpeters.com


Return to posts index

Bill Davis
Re: Why FCPX?
on Oct 4, 2017 at 9:38:58 pm

[Oliver Peters] "Most people didn't need more than that to take an instant like or dislike to it. Having it in their hands didn't really change the opinion if they didn't like what they saw and heard at SuperMeet.
"


Again we agree TOTALLY.

And this reminds me of the wonderful book David McCullough wrote about the Wright Brothers.

They flew. Then they went to the "establishment" - and the establishment TOTALLY turned their backs on them.

Local, State, Regional, National - they pounded the pavement trying to get people to listen about what they'd managed.

What they got in response was: Machines can't fly. Period.

It wasn't until Wilbur took their "airplane" to France and flew in front of a crowd there - that people figured out what had happened.

I'm not saying X is remotely close to as transformative as powered flight.

What I am saying is that time, and time, and time again, people have proved astonishingly resistant to change.

And that truly useful change has a history of flying over many, many peoples heads. Even very smart people.

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


Return to posts index

Oliver Peters
Re: Why FCPX?
on Oct 4, 2017 at 11:12:35 pm
Last Edited By Oliver Peters on Oct 4, 2017 at 11:14:26 pm

[Bill Davis] "Again we agree TOTALLY."

You got me thinking... What did I actually write about FCPX around that time? So I looked it up (see links below). Quite a few things have been fixed since then, but ironically quite a few haven't. Interesting.

https://digitalfilms.wordpress.com/2011/07/11/apple-final-cut-pro-x/

https://digitalfilms.wordpress.com/2011/08/14/fcp-x-road-blocks/

https://digitalfilms.wordpress.com/2011/12/10/rethinking-nle-design/

https://digitalfilms.wordpress.com/2012/03/04/rethinking-nle-design-ii/

In general, here are the tagged FCPX blog posts - newer posts at top.

https://digitalfilms.wordpress.com/tag/fcp-x/

- Oliver

Oliver Peters - oliverpeters.com


Return to posts index

Bill Davis
Re: Why FCPX?
on Oct 5, 2017 at 3:06:07 am

[Oliver Peters] "What did I actually write about FCPX around that time? So I looked it up (see links below)."

On my personal scale of “overly emotional FCP X haters that can’t see the forest for the trees” you have never been anywhere to be found, my friend.

If you were, I doubt I’d have spent nearly as many enjoyable hours as we have chatting about this stuff.

(But of course that doesn’t mean I don’t have a mental list of more than a few names that do fit that description!)

Oddly I just finished reading the new forum posts above from David Busse - another who apparently fled X for a long time, but has now clearly re-evaluated his position.

It made me smile when I got toward the bottom of his piece - and he was quite explicit that his biggest remaining issue has little to do with software value or operations - but is rather a lingering sense of personal emotional betrayal attached to Apple from their actions in 2011.

But hey, if someone wants to slow their work efficiency and be less productive because the folks who make the faster software hurt their feelings - I’m clueless as to how to address that.

I guess maybe I’d recommend adopting a cute dog to take care of your emotional needs - and shower attention on it with all the time you save using X to make your videos?

That’s currently working really well for me.

😁



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


Return to posts index

Michael Gissing
Re: Why FCPX?
on Oct 5, 2017 at 3:35:17 am

[Bill Davis]"but is rather a lingering sense of personal emotional betrayal attached to Apple from their actions in 2011."

You say that as if it isn't a valid reason. For an individual or company, if previous history meant you lacked trust with a software and hardware supplier who might ditch you with little notice, it would be prudent to take that in consideration. Not a reason to hate software, but I think too often Bill you project your love for X and mistake others indifference as hatred.

I had built part of my business around FCP7 for compatibility with editors in shared work flows and as part of a finishing tool including Color. To have that so completely disrupted by an EOL without a viable replacement is not something I will forget, despite revisionist history telling by those who were happy by the events. Most of my clients kept going with FCP7, not because they were Luddites who didn't 'get X' but because the working system they were part of wasn't remotely reliably replaceable by X for years. After that many saw that Windows hardware and software as perfectly reliable replacements and as history has shown they have been cheaper, more powerful and faster to embrace tech like Thunderbolt3, as well as being upgradeable without total replacement. Solid business reasons.

Personally I felt no 'emotional betrayal' because I had no emotional attachment in the first place. But for those that did and don't trust Apple, you would be a fool to think that isn't a valid reason to place their trust elsewhere, at least until they get burnt by another A.


Return to posts index

greg janza
Re: Why FCPX?
on Oct 5, 2017 at 10:04:19 pm

[Bill Davis] "Oops - clearly you're correct. Of course EVERYONE "got" X out of the gate. How silly of me to think otherwise."

Bill, forgive me if this has already been brought up in the conversation but I think there's a huge upside to having many professionals laugh and make fun of FCPX when it was first released. Naturally those folks probably didn't even try it out. I know I'm one of those people. I heard about all of the painful misery that early adopters encountered due to lack of features. If I had tried it out then I might have been scared away permanently.

However, I didn't touch it until 2015 and I'm glad I waited because by then it was ready for prime time. And now I'm relatively neutral on the product. It's not my NLE of choice but I can appreciate it's merits.

I Hate Television. I Hate It As Much As Peanuts. But I Can’t Stop Eating Peanuts.
- Orson Welles


Return to posts index

Bill Davis
Re: Why FCPX?
on Oct 6, 2017 at 8:14:09 pm

[greg janza] "However, I didn't touch it until 2015 and I'm glad I waited because by then it was ready for prime time. And now I'm relatively neutral on the product. It's not my NLE of choice but I can appreciate it's merits."

That's a PERFECTLY rational explanation.

All I can do is suggest that by NOT doing what you did, (look, leave, wait a long time, and then re-engage) I feel like I got a tremendously larger and more valuable boost than any I might have gotten by waiting.

Those first two years while the industry had their heads largely turned away - a small group of us was head down going well beyond "how to just get my current edit done with X) - and instead started figuring out the aspects of the new tool that could ACTUALLY increase our workflow efficiency.

And many of us felt from DAY ONE that it very much could.

So here we are six years down stream - and just this week I'm seeing stories of some of my friends from 3-5 years ago - who have now gone through that long climb to real FCP X expertise - and it's paying really nice dividends for them.

Patrick Southern and David Tillman who just snagged Emmys yesterday. Mike Matzdorff, Jan Kovac, Darren Rourke - who EARLY ON saw the potentialof the FCP X workflow and learned how to actually leverage it.

That's what I'm hearing all throughout the X community right now. People hot to find truly qualified FCP X seat holders - and having serious trouble filling those seats. It's apparently not FCP X JOBS that are missing - cus I've seen lots of my FCP X friends landing them - but it's mostly the truly qualified folks in the TALENT pool.

Those "look - wait - then maybe" come back folks are NOT snagging those gigs. Perhaps because with just "look occasionally" and use it now and then - they aren't particularly qualified for them? The guys I see who ARE getting excellent FCP X gigs - are the guys who started learning it 5 and 6 YEARS ago.

They are the X editing equivalent of an AVID editor with 5 years experience. Which is WAY different than an editor with just 1.

I mean if YOU were hiring an editor to drive AVID - who would YOU hire? Certainly not a relative newbie in ITS language and practices? Why should X be any different?

I know I'd prefer to hire someone if I saw them on day one adding custom keywords to reflect their "in the flow" editorial thinking, using Auditions fluidly, and actually thinking "magnetically" while managing X's snapshots to leverage ideas and options.

I understand that real editors are NOT "button pushers" as much as "idea flow constructionists" but we've all seen editors approaching X with poor to moderate seat experience - rapidly reach the point of frustrated bitching, because what they REALLY want is to transport their AVID or Premiere cutting styles as closely as possible into X and just leave it at that.

Not how it really works - as you probably know.

Just food for thought.

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


Return to posts index

greg janza
Re: Why FCPX?
on Oct 6, 2017 at 9:03:39 pm

[Bill Davis] "Those "look - wait - then maybe" come back folks are NOT snagging those gigs. Perhaps because with just "look occasionally" and use it now and then - they aren't particularly qualified for them? The guys I see who ARE getting excellent FCP X gigs - are the guys who started learning it 5 and 6 YEARS ago. "

With all due respect Bill, this ain't brain surgery. a NLE is an NLE is an NLE. Any veteran editor can pick up FCPX very quickly and so the notion of not getting a gig just because you aren't a so-called FCPX expert is ridiculous.

Editors are first and foremost storytellers and the technical guru part of our job is neccesary but secondary.


[Bill Davis] "I understand that real editors are NOT "button pushers" as much as "idea flow constructionists" but we've all seen editors approaching X with poor to moderate seat experience - rapidly reach the point of frustrated bitching, because what they REALLY want is to transport their AVID or Premiere cutting styles as closely as possible into X and just leave it at that.
"


A veteran editor should be highly adaptive to new NLE's. Going from AVID to FCP to Premiere to FCPX is really not that big a leap if you have the basic skills already under your belt.

I Hate Television. I Hate It As Much As Peanuts. But I Can’t Stop Eating Peanuts.
- Orson Welles


Return to posts index

Bill Davis
Re: Why FCPX?
on Oct 7, 2017 at 4:53:39 pm

[greg janza] "A veteran editor should be highly adaptive to new NLE's. Going from AVID to FCP to Premiere to FCPX is really not that big a leap if you have the basic skills already under your belt."

And here is where we conceptually part ways.

Mostly because I spent a some time last year in the edit room of a daily television show - and watched as highly skilled and well trained (but inexperienced in X) editors with oodles of basic skills - struggle.

Not because of ANY lack of talent.

But because they were trying to adapt FUNCTIONALLY - rather than CONCEPTIONALLY to the software.

They had not yet reached that “A-ha” moment.

(No, not some “a-ha, this is glorious” thing - just “a-ha now I get it and THIS is the new workflow structure this tool requires for success.)

Without getting there - no matter your skill pushing the buttons - you will struggle with X.

In the Ubillos interview posted in another thread, he notes that editors with the MOST experience can be the ones with most difficulty adapting to the foundational ideas underpinning X - and how much easier learning its system sometimes is for those who don’t arrive at it with a head full of prior expectations.

That’s worth emphasizing, I feel.

My 2cents.

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


Return to posts index

Oliver Peters
Re: Why FCPX?
on Oct 7, 2017 at 5:58:30 pm

[Bill Davis] "Mostly because I spent a some time last year in the edit room of a daily television show - and watched as highly skilled and well trained (but inexperienced in X) editors with oodles of basic skills - struggle."

That's the core issue with adoption of FCPX in a company that uses a wide range of editors. The FCPX design and operation is sufficiently different from everything else to be a road block. Understanding FCP7/Media Composer/Premiere Pro/Smoke/Resolve gets you 80-90% of the way through knowing how to organize and edit with anyone of these NLEs when you first encounter them. The concepts are similar and transfer well. Not quite the same with X.

- Oliver

Oliver Peters - oliverpeters.com


Return to posts index

Bill Davis
Re: Why FCPX?
on Oct 7, 2017 at 9:51:22 pm

[Oliver Peters] "The concepts are similar and transfer well. Not quite the same with X."

Precisely.

IF you want the added efficiency that many X editor (definitely including ME) feel strongly you can get by using it - you must be OPEN to the thinking change it requires.

If you resist that workflow thinking change - no matter the reason - it’s going to hold back your transition.

And (and this is my opinion only) if you are constantly switching back and forth between X and Non-X editing - your thinking will adapt much more slowly. NOT because the editor won’t adapt to the buttons or processes well enough. Good editors are plenty skilled at that. It’s because the soft skills of X editing - keyword strategic thinking - case specific thinking about stuff like when it’s best to use Snapshots verses Auditions - how to structure Roles vast exports for efficiency - THOSE skills are typically refined for X editors via constant trial and revision.

Not via “learn how to do it” and then simply repete the same sequence of actions every time you come back to X to edit.

IMO, those “soft skills” drive as much X efficiency as how you trim clips in your storylines.

Just 2 more cents from me.

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


Return to posts index

andy patterson
Re: Why FCPX?
on Oct 10, 2017 at 12:59:57 am

[Bill Davis] "And (and this is my opinion only) if you are constantly switching back and forth between X and Non-X editing - your thinking will adapt much more slowly. NOT because the editor won’t adapt to the buttons or processes well enough. Good editors are plenty skilled at that. It’s because the soft skills of X editing - keyword strategic thinking - case specific thinking about stuff like when it’s best to use Snapshots verses Auditions - how to structure Roles vast exports for efficiency - THOSE skills are typically refined for X editors via constant trial and revision."

Did you ever think Premiere Pro might actually be more capable than you think? You say people struggle with X. Do you have proof of that? In the video below I see someone struggling with Premiere Pro to the point where it should make you cringe but I think you liked the video. I know several FCPX users have posted the video in this forum because they thought it was a good demonstration. I proved that to be incorrect. A lot of people may not know how to use X with 100% efficiency but a lot of people don't know how to use Premiere Pro and Avid with 100% efficiency. When you do become 100% efficient with all three NLE you will realize they all work just fine. Each will have unique features that the other ones lacks.







Return to posts index

Gabriel Spaulding
Re: Why FCPX?
on Oct 6, 2017 at 12:45:47 am

Final Cut Studio functioned for SIX YEARS after the release of FCP X —it still functions if you don't update to macOS High Sierra or keep an older machine around. It seems to me that six years is a pretty long period of time with which to decide which route you want to go. Yes, the launch was bad. And it was a long time ago. I've seen people get over national tragedies in far less time.

Gabriel Spaulding
Creator & Director of ACE Enterprizes
Videographer | Video Editor | Motion Designer

How Can We Help You Tell Your Story?
http://www.aceenterprizes.com


Return to posts index

greg janza
Re: Why FCPX?
on Oct 6, 2017 at 2:15:56 am

[Gabriel Spaulding] "I've seen people get over national tragedies in far less time."

Gabriel, you win for single best line in this long thread.

I Hate Television. I Hate It As Much As Peanuts. But I Can’t Stop Eating Peanuts.
- Orson Welles


Return to posts index

Neil Goodman
Re: Why FCPX?
on Oct 6, 2017 at 1:26:55 am

[Bill Davis] "But opting to NOT keep up with the revisions and improvements in X - was a bold bet that you'd NEVER need anything it might provide - in the future.

Bold move there. "


Haven't you essentially done the same thing regarding the other NLE's?

What if at some point PPRo or dare I say it..Avid or not to far fetched - DaVinci comes out with a hot new feature or workflow that everyone in the industry unanimously agrees is the bees knees and what post people everywhere have been waiting for? Wouldn't you be a little bummed if you didnt have a little knowledge of said NLE so your transition into it was smoother?

I mean heck, thats why I made it a point to learn FCPX. I didnt want to be left behind if it indeed becomes a standard at places I work, has that payed off yet - not at all but I dont consider it wasted time.


Return to posts index

Bill Davis
Re: Why FCPX?
on Oct 6, 2017 at 9:08:26 pm

[Neil Goodman] "Wouldn't you be a little bummed if you didnt have a little knowledge of said NLE so your transition into it was smoother? "

Since Resolve has only been touted as being nearly a speedy as X for less than a year, now - I feel like I've still got time to go there if some "feature" appears in it that I truly need.. And I'm not opposed to that.

But it's got to present a value proposition BEYOND where I see it today.

The things that drew me to X had nothing to do with speed. They were exclusively new workflow ideas. (Magnetism, Range Tagging, etc, etc, etc.)

Show my ANY NLE that does something similar - and I'll be all over it like gravy on potatoes.

But I look at all the demos of the existing NLEs - and ALL I see is stacks of tracks that look largely like EXACTLLY what what I was using in 1999.

I'm sure the engines are MUCH, MUCH, MUCH better - but the editing paradigms are still largely from the 1980s

No thanks.

But I'll definitely keep my eyes out.

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


Return to posts index

Michael Gissing
Re: Why FCPX?
on Oct 8, 2017 at 12:50:51 am
Last Edited By Michael Gissing on Oct 8, 2017 at 12:53:55 am

[Bill Davis]"It was NOT "indifference" - it was hate."

So you keep saying but the lie often told is still not the truth. Besides you are avoiding the point of my post that Apple damaged its perception as a trusted provider of software and hardware and that is a perfectly valid reason to look elsewhere as many have. And the main point is that often they have found a better result for their particular preferences and workflows. You love to think that others have and always will hate X. It might give you a smug sense of superiority but it's just boring garbage.

[Bill Davis]"Wow, they came and took YOUR copy of FCP 7 away?"

Honestly why do you say such nonsense? Do you really think people who have differing and perfectly valid views to you need to be spoken to like children. It really says a lot about you Bill and not in a good way.

[Bill Davis]"Oops - clearly you're correct. Of course EVERYONE "got" X out of the gate. How silly of me to think otherwise."

Really?? Try reading and answering my posts like an adult not a petulant child.

EDIT: Actually Bill just do me a favor and block me or don't respond.


Return to posts index

greg janza
Re: Why FCPX?
on Oct 5, 2017 at 5:57:07 am
Last Edited By greg janza on Oct 5, 2017 at 5:58:30 am

[Bill Davis] "But hey, if someone wants to slow their work efficiency and be less productive because the folks who make the faster software hurt their feelings - I’m clueless as to how to address that."

You should've had a career in advertising or politics with your talents of spin. That comment is plain nonsense.

Can I trust Apple to actually have my back? Hell no. The original FCP7 to FCPX transition debacle shows that.

Is there a compelling reason to stay with their architecture? no.

Are they developing computers that are superior or faster? no.

Are they worth the added cost? no.

Apple didn't hurt my feelings. Instead, their actions were the catalyst for thinking in terms of "why remain an Apple customer?"

I Hate Television. I Hate It As Much As Peanuts. But I Can’t Stop Eating Peanuts.
- Orson Welles


Return to posts index

Steve Connor
Re: Why FCPX?
on Oct 5, 2017 at 6:36:35 am

[greg janza] "The original FCP7 to FCPX transition debacle shows that.
"


Initially, yes it was but the fact that all these years later it's only just stopped working on the latest OS release is pretty impressive

[greg janza] "Are they developing computers that are superior or faster? no.
"


Maybe not faster than others but Apple MacBook Pros are the gold standard that every other company tears their hair out trying to copy. I NEVER see anyone mobile editing on a PC Laptop


Return to posts index

greg janza
Re: Why FCPX?
on Oct 5, 2017 at 3:33:13 pm

I agree Steve that MBP's have been the gold standard but as with the rest of their product line I think that too will be a thing of the past. When it's time to replace my MBP, I'll be looking at PC laptop alternatives.

I Hate Television. I Hate It As Much As Peanuts. But I Can’t Stop Eating Peanuts.
- Orson Welles


Return to posts index

Shawn Miller
Re: Why FCPX?
on Oct 5, 2017 at 5:51:45 pm
Last Edited By Shawn Miller on Oct 5, 2017 at 6:08:32 pm

[greg janza] "I agree Steve that MBP's have been the gold standard but as with the rest of their product line I think that too will be a thing of the past. When it's time to replace my MBP, I'll be looking at PC laptop alternatives."

I actually know a number of folks (not creatives) who switched from PC laptop to MBP and then back to PC laptop, most of them came back to Windows for the Surface Pro. In big tech companies, you usually have a choice between two or more hardware vendors (for tablet, notebook or hybrid), for some it's Dell, Microsoft or Apple, for others it's HP, Microsoft or Apple. I've had several coworkers over the years switch to the MBP, but then come back to the PC, and interestingly (to me) it's usually because they miss having a touchscreen. I have laptops and workstations, so it wouldn't be hard for me to justify replacing one of my machines with a MBP, an iMac or a MacPro... I seriously consider it every time I'm up for a hardware refresh, but in the end, Apple's limited hardware options keep me from making the leap. I'm looking forward to the day when they make this a much harder choice for me.

Shawn



Return to posts index

Gabriel Spaulding
Re: Why FCPX?
on Oct 6, 2017 at 12:52:41 am

Apple's Pro Apps run much faster on lower powered machines than are required to run Premiere Pro (for example) at similar speeds. This is not a critique of Premiere Pro —I am merely pointing out that the Pro Apps are better optimized and specs alone do not always paint an accurate picture of reality.

Gabriel Spaulding
Creator & Director of ACE Enterprizes
Videographer | Video Editor | Motion Designer

How Can We Help You Tell Your Story?
http://www.aceenterprizes.com


Return to posts index

andy patterson
Re: Why FCPX?
on Oct 6, 2017 at 3:21:58 am

[Gabriel Spaulding] "Apple's Pro Apps run much faster on lower powered machines than are required to run Premiere Pro (for example) at similar speeds. This is not a critique of Premiere Pro —I am merely pointing out that the Pro Apps are better optimized and specs alone do not always paint an accurate picture of reality."


If I switch of GPU acceleration on my PC, FCPX can play more layers of H.264/AVCHD on the Mac Mini than I can using Premiere Pro on my PC. If I enable GPU acceleration on my PC it will kick the crap out of FCPX running on the Mac Mini.

If you have a low spec laptop with an i3 CPU and no dedicated GPU and edit h.264/AVCHD then FCPX will have a big performance advantage over Premiere Pro. FCPX uses Intel's Quick sync but that is nothing to brag about because Premiere on a PC with an i7 and GTX 1060 can hold it own against a $3,000.00 Mac Pro. You FCPX users leave that part out.

Performance on a low spec system is a non issue because my Mac Mini costed $990.00. A $990.00 PC running Adobe would out perform FCPX on a $990.00 Mac Mini hands down for editing. FCPX would render faster for h.264/AVCHD but that is all. I admit FCPX would run better on the Mac Mini than Premiere Pro but like I said it is a moot point when you put Premiere Pro on a PC against FCPX. FCPX will loose every time! Keep in mind a $699.99 Mac Mini using FCPX will render h.264/AVCHD faster than a $6000.00 Mac Pro.


Return to posts index

Bill Davis
Re: Why FCPX?
on Oct 5, 2017 at 9:41:09 pm
Last Edited By Bill Davis on Oct 5, 2017 at 9:43:13 pm

[greg janza]

"Can I trust Apple to actually have my back? Hell no. The original FCP7 to FCPX transition debacle shows that.

Is there a compelling reason to stay with their architecture? no.

Are they developing computers that are superior or faster? no.

Are they worth the added cost? no.

Apple didn't hurt my feelings. Instead, their actions were the catalyst for thinking in terms of "why remain an Apple customer?""


So I guess you somehow believe that Adobe or AVID or anyone else will "have your back" going forward? Good luck with that. My advice is that if you want "vendor dependability" make sure you don't forget to pay your monthly tribute in a timely fashion.

And what if I don't care about "architecture" beyond the performance it provides - and I'm delighted with my level of performance as it stands? Why do I care about YOUR need to keep seeing for "superior or faster" when my relatively unexpensive stock system is already executing my editing decisions as fast as I can think? That seems really nuts.

With Apple, $3,000 for a box and $399 for tools get me everything I need. Add a couple grand for "niceties" like removable storage, peripherals and licensed content as needed -and I can step off an airplane with NOTHING and be editing beautifully on the planet in a few hours.

May not have value to you. But it's astonishing to realize that's where I am in my career now.

Simply astonishing.

Why remain an Apple customer? That's the core.

Now add the investments they are clearly making in seminal technologies like the 3d depth mapping on their phones - their particular integration of the compression stuff like h-265 that are laser focused on the future - and all the research driven efficiency tools that permeate FCP X (which I mention here over and over again - and heck YES. IT"S WORTH IT.

I consider my workflow today 100 times superior to the workflow I paid tens of thousands of dollars more to achieve decades ago.

The value make me GRIN to think of it.

And sorry, but wasting even an HOUR "bespoking" a system to properly run the old code of the NLEs of my youth doesn't interest me one bit.

Not when off the shelf with APPLE is CRUSHING it for me.

(Hey, notice that Google dropped the headphone jack from it's phones? Looking forward to a few months of hair pulling and screaming from all of you who excoriated APPLE about that stuff. Post away!)

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


Return to posts index

greg janza
Re: Why FCPX?
on Oct 6, 2017 at 3:06:50 am
Last Edited By greg janza on Oct 6, 2017 at 3:07:28 am

[Bill Davis] "Not when off the shelf with APPLE is CRUSHING it for me."

I was an unhappy Apple customer because I took a look at what other options were out there and I discovered that the competition had a wide variety of offerings that delivered superior performance and were cheaper.

But if you're happy that's all that matters.

I Hate Television. I Hate It As Much As Peanuts. But I Can’t Stop Eating Peanuts.
- Orson Welles


Return to posts index

Bill Davis
Re: Why FCPX?
on Oct 6, 2017 at 8:42:21 pm

[greg janza] " discovered that the competition had a wide variety of offerings that delivered superior performance and were cheaper."

To me, cheap superior performance largely means getting home earlier with more money in your pocket.

If you're doing that - excellent.

Today, I feel like I'm getting done with projects about twice as fast as I used to (I used to say a third, but it keeps improving and improving the better I understand X.) - slightly more prep - editorial time a good bit faster from the prep and curated content access X is built on - but not a TON of story building time savings cuz I tend to re-invest any saved time at that stage on working to improve stuff.

But then MASSIVE time savings on alts, revisions, client changes and the whole back end. The more client changes - the more time I save. And experience shows me there will ALWAYS massive client changes in everything I do. Sometimes I think no program I edit will ever actually be truly LOCKED again. Sigh.

If you are seeing big productivity boosts as well - EXCELLENT. We're BOTH good. So rock on.

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


Return to posts index

Oliver Peters
Re: Why FCPX?
on Oct 5, 2017 at 12:08:48 pm

[Bill Davis] "On my personal scale of “overly emotional FCP X haters that can’t see the forest for the trees” you have never been anywhere to be found, my friend. "

Thanks. I try to stay objective.

[Bill Davis] "Oddly I just finished reading the new forum posts above from David Busse - another who apparently fled X for a long time, but has now clearly re-evaluated his position."

Agreed. A good read.

- Oliver

Oliver Peters - oliverpeters.com


Return to posts index

Neil Goodman
Re: Why FCPX?
on Oct 5, 2017 at 2:34:35 pm

[Bill Davis] "But hey, if someone wants to slow their work efficiency and be less productive because the folks who make the faster software hurt their feelings - I’m clueless as to how to address that.
"


lol. and there it is folks ☺


Return to posts index

Bill Davis
Re: Why FCPX?
on Oct 6, 2017 at 9:01:12 pm

[Neil Goodman] "lol. and there it is folks ☺"

Totally.

See the widely published benchmarks for getting video work turned around on Macs running X
compared to PC hardware running --- anything.
(Well, in fairness, maybe Resolve is in the running now?)

But apparently only recently.

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


Return to posts index

Neil Goodman
Re: Why FCPX?
on Oct 8, 2017 at 11:13:26 pm

[Bill Davis] "Totally.

See the widely published benchmarks for getting video work turned around on Macs running X
compared to PC hardware running --- anything.
(Well, in fairness, maybe Resolve is in the running now?)

But apparently only recently."


Got a link?

If by faster - there talking about importing, exporting, and rendering and stuff like that..that really means nothing to me.

I dont import, export, and haven't had to render something in a long time.

It takes me about the same time to cut a spot in X as it does in Avid .

In X I use keywords - In Avid I use stringout/ and or subclips with commented markers. IMO pretty much the same thing and takes the same amount to setup. X gets a slight edge because for common things (broll,dialogue,etc) you can map a keyword to a key, where in Avid I type in the comment field what the clip is or what a person is saying but once I get the first one its just as simple as copying and pasting. Then with the searchable bins - i just filter down to broll or whatever I'm looking for. Same as in X.

Once I get down to the timeline - things are virtually the same EXCEPT when I have to move big chunks of clips around, then X gets the nod there.


Return to posts index

greg janza
Re: Why FCPX?
on Oct 9, 2017 at 12:47:53 am
Last Edited By greg janza on Oct 9, 2017 at 12:59:12 am

[Bill Davis] "See the widely published benchmarks for getting video work turned around on Macs running X
compared to PC hardware running --- anything. "


Bill, if you have FCPX benchmarks that differ dramatically from the benchmark tests done in this obvious marketing video between a trashcan mac and a Z Workstation when using Premiere I'd be very interested to see those. The missing info in the video (overall specs, etc) doesn't make it necessarily an objective piece but there's plenty of benchmark tests out there that confirm this video's test results. I know the optimized processing helps streamline FCPX overall but I'm not aware of benchmark tests that show a dramatically improved overall workflow speed difference with FCPX. I'm also curious to know how one would quantify the overall workflow speed.







I Hate Television. I Hate It As Much As Peanuts. But I Can’t Stop Eating Peanuts.
- Orson Welles


Return to posts index

Brian Seegmiller
Re: Why FCPX?
on Oct 10, 2017 at 1:40:20 am

Premiere runs better on a PC. FCP X runs better on a Mac. We should compare FCP X on a Mac and Premiere on a PC to really see which is faster.


Return to posts index

Herb Sevush
Re: Why FCPX?
on Oct 4, 2017 at 12:55:12 pm

[Bill Davis] "
That "bad rap" proceeded by months and months FCP X's actual public release. Before anyone outside Apple had ever actually touched the software.It was REALLY curious that way.
"


Pre-release there was much buzz and as much pro as con. The stuff hit the fan On The Release Date, and trying to re-write history into a conspiracy theory ain't gonna fly. It was a terribly handled release, Apple's actions in the weeks after the release confirmed this, and no amount of "re-thinking" will change that. They shot themselves in the foot and no one else is to blame for it. Just like Apple's "admission" that the nMacPro was a disaster, Apple's publishing of their 'white paper" of FCPX's future, which came weeks after the release and is totally unmatched in Apple's history, was an "admission" that they screwed the pooch. The only thing curious about it is how they could not see it coming.

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


Return to posts index

Oliver Peters
Re: Why FCPX?
on Oct 4, 2017 at 1:19:41 pm

Of course, all of that's water under the bridge. The real fact of the matter is that for many full-time editors, Apple has not made a sufficiently convincing argument that FCPX is better than the alternatives.

I look at various workflow articles and quite frankly see how the same things can be done to save money and time with Premiere or Avid. Maybe not quite as much, but in the grand scheme of things, close enough. The tools in FCPX that people who use it love, like the magnetic timeline or lack of tracks, is a 'take it or leave it' thing for others.

The assumption that is voiced here about key influencers is that they only use Avid and have never tried FCPX. But in the conversations I've had, that isn't the case. It's just that there isn't enough there to justify a switch. I'm not quite sure how you change that, but Apple's seeming indifference to publicizing effective users stories can't help. I know as a working journalist that they are interested in getting press and more than helpful when contacted. That's why I find it odd that their own website seems to be some sort of disconnect.

- Oliver

Oliver Peters - oliverpeters.com


Return to posts index

Steve Connor
Re: Why FCPX?
on Oct 4, 2017 at 2:15:53 pm

[Oliver Peters] "I look at various workflow articles and quite frankly see how the same things can be done to save money and time with Premiere or Avid. Maybe not quite as much, but in the grand scheme of things, close enough. The tools in FCPX that people who use it love, like the magnetic timeline or lack of tracks, is a 'take it or leave it' thing for others."

I think there's probably a few other things beyond the magnetic timeline and lack of tracks that people love about it

[Oliver Peters] "I'm not quite sure how you change that, but Apple's seeming indifference to publicizing effective users stories can't help."

I wonder how Apple view their Products that aren't part of their hardware line like FCPX, perhaps if they do "well enough" and sales or influence on hardware sales justify the development cost internally, then Apple Marketing don't really get involved.


Return to posts index

Oliver Peters
Re: Why FCPX?
on Oct 4, 2017 at 4:15:50 pm

[Steve Connor] "perhaps if they do "well enough" and sales or influence on hardware sales justify the development cost internally, then Apple Marketing don't really get involved"

Oh, Apple marketing is definitely involved if you are press.

- Oliver

Oliver Peters - oliverpeters.com


Return to posts index

greg janza
Re: Why FCPX?
on Oct 4, 2017 at 2:26:47 pm

One of the biggest mysteries of this forum is the continuing dedication and support for Apple. There was a time that the devotion to the company was justified because they were creating new and exciting technology and their overall product line was superior to the competition. But that's simply not the case now.

Also, one of the scariest things to me is that Apple cannot be trusted. They've shown over and over and over again that they will do absolutely anything they deem necessary to streamline or reinvent their products. The company's callous lack of concern for it's user base is legendary. But yet, people keep on keepin' on.

This is just my opinion but among the industry professionals that I personally speak with in my area, the abandonment of the company is definitely a trend on the rise.

I Hate Television. I Hate It As Much As Peanuts. But I Can’t Stop Eating Peanuts.
- Orson Welles


Return to posts index

Steve Connor
Re: Why FCPX?
on Oct 4, 2017 at 2:52:29 pm

[greg janza] "This is just my opinion but among the industry professionals that I personally speak with in my area, the abandonment of the company is definitely a trend on the rise.
"


and in every facility and Production Office I go to in my area there are Mac's everywhere, I do a lot of video work with tech companies including IBM and I see MacBook Pros everywhere there too.

[greg janza] "They've shown over and over and over again that they will do absolutely anything they deem necessary to streamline or reinvent their products. "

and Adobe FORCED their users to move to a subscription model and yet people still use Adobe software ☺

Apple's Mac's may not be as fast as some of the competitors, but they certainly last longer and the combined ecosystem of hardware and software is unmatched.

I've only recently stopped editing on my 2008 Mac Pro which has served me solidly for over 8 years!


Return to posts index

Shawn Miller
Re: Why FCPX?
on Oct 4, 2017 at 6:01:19 pm

[Steve Connor] "[greg janza] "This is just my opinion but among the industry professionals that I personally speak with in my area, the abandonment of the company is definitely a trend on the rise."

and in every facility and Production Office I go to in my area there are Mac's everywhere, I do a lot of video work with tech companies including IBM and I see MacBook Pros everywhere there too."


I still wonder how this shakes out geographically and by creative segment. I'm definitely seeing more and more creatives shift away from Apple. I don't know about facilities, but a lot of the freelancers I interact with are definitely trending towards Windows machines with multiple nVidia GPUs... everyone seems to want dual GTX 1070s, 1080s and 1080Tis, and that looks to be a big reason for them switching. Folks who are getting more serious about Resolve also seem to want beefy GTX Titan cards with the latest/fastest i7 CPUs with a crap ton of RAM. It's possible that I'm seeing that because my circles are more in the corporate mograph/3D/VFX worlds though. As for Macs in the corporate world, I think that's mostly in design and marketing departments, and even then I see more of a split among the production people - the handful of the video people in my company are on PCs, half of the designers are on Macs and the few 3D folks (besides me) are also on Macs... that may change when they see my new rig though. ☺ Most of the rest of the company (20k + people) are on Microsoft Surfaces and Dell laptops, AFIAK the same is mostly true for the other big tech companies in town...

Shawn



Return to posts index

Oliver Peters
Re: Why FCPX?
on Oct 4, 2017 at 8:42:09 pm

[Shawn Miller] "I'm definitely seeing more and more creatives shift away from Apple."

It should be noted that the launch of FCPX wasn't the first move that alienated video pros from Apple. For many, it started when they EOL'ed Xsan RAID, Xserve, Xsan and Final Cut Server. At that time Apple also closed its enterprise sales and support units, turning that function over to resellers. I personally worked with companies that then simply put out edicts that no more RFPs would be accepted if they included Apple computers. FCPX and the EOL of the whole Studio suite was simply icing on the cake. No matter how great FCPX is, it simply left video pros wondering whether Apple could be trusted in the future.

- Oliver

Oliver Peters - oliverpeters.com


Return to posts index

Shawn Miller
Re: Why FCPX?
on Oct 4, 2017 at 10:37:25 pm

[Oliver Peters] "It should be noted that the launch of FCPX wasn't the first move that alienated video pros from Apple. For many, it started when they EOL'ed Xsan RAID, Xserve, Xsan and Final Cut Server. At that time Apple also closed its enterprise sales and support units, turning that function over to resellers. I personally worked with companies that then simply put out edicts that no more RFPs would be accepted if they included Apple computers. FCPX and the EOL of the whole Studio suite was simply icing on the cake. No matter how great FCPX is, it simply left video pros wondering whether Apple could be trusted in the future."

I can see why those folks would be so angry and hesitant to trust Apple again. I imagine some of those equipment, service and support agreements were worth hundreds of thousands or millions of dollars. Do you know if any of those companies softened over time? Or was that a complete bridge burner for some of those folks?

Shawn



Return to posts index

Oliver Peters
Re: Why FCPX?
on Oct 4, 2017 at 11:00:24 pm

[Shawn Miller] "Do you know if any of those companies softened over time?"

In one specific case - a broadcast group of stations - the production/creative services/promo folks shifted from FCP to Premiere Pro and the hardware changed to Dell workstations and Promise Technology SANs (from Mac Pro towers and Xsan). The only backing down was with the graphics departments who insisted on staying with Macs and they were allowed to do so. However, software was all Adobe, as they are largely using Photoshop and AE for everything.

- Oliver

Oliver Peters - oliverpeters.com


Return to posts index

Shawn Miller
Re: Why FCPX?
on Oct 4, 2017 at 11:03:19 pm

[Oliver Peters] "
In one specific case - a broadcast group of stations - the production/creative services/promo folks shifted from FCP to Premiere Pro and the hardware changed to Dell workstations and Promise Technology SANs (from Mac Pro towers and Xsan). The only backing down was with the graphics departments who insisted on staying with Macs and they were allowed to do so. However, software was all Adobe, as they are largely using Photoshop and AE for everything."


Really interesting stuff Oliver, thanks for sharing.

Shawn



Return to posts index

Bill Davis
Re: Why FCPX?
on Oct 5, 2017 at 3:13:32 am

[Oliver Peters] "In one specific case - a broadcast group of stations - the production/creative services/promo folks shifted from FCP to Premiere Pro and the hardware changed to Dell workstations and Promise Technology SANs (from Mac Pro towers and Xsan)."

They weren’t one of those broadcast station groups that, a few decades ago, went big time for M2 were they?

(Obviously teasing!)

😁

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


Return to posts index

Oliver Peters
Re: Why FCPX?
on Oct 5, 2017 at 12:07:00 pm

[Bill Davis] "went big time for M2 were they?"

☺ No.

- Oliver

Oliver Peters - oliverpeters.com


Return to posts index

Andrew Kimery
Re: Why FCPX?
on Oct 5, 2017 at 5:49:18 am

[Oliver Peters] "Apple. For many, it started when they EOL'ed Xsan RAID, Xserve, Xsan and Final Cut Server. At that time Apple also closed its enterprise sales and support units, turning that function over to resellers"

I can't re-iterate enough how many times this gets glossed over in the 'story of X'. For many people X was the final straw after years of growing frustration with Apple, not a knee jerk reaction to the first shot across the bow (pardon the mixed metaphors).

For example, I was working for a company that had spent around seven figures on enterprise level shared storage from Apple, had dozens of cMPs and iMacs running FCP Legend, and was in the process of creating a very custom version of Final Cut Server to act as the end all and be all MAM that would finally unify the massive West Coast and East Coast video libraries... Needless to say it was a rough few years for the tech team. I think the company is still Mac-based, but they've long since moved on from Apple storage and they cut with PPro.

Of course I still regularly run into people that complain about circa-2005 Avid and refuse to use MC because of it so it's not like holding a grudge is NLE-specific.


Return to posts index

Walter Soyka
Re: Why FCPX?
on Oct 5, 2017 at 1:01:40 pm

[Oliver Peters] "It should be noted that the launch of FCPX wasn't the first move that alienated video pros from Apple. For many, it started when they EOL'ed Xsan RAID, Xserve, Xsan and Final Cut Server. At that time Apple also closed its enterprise sales and support units, turning that function over to resellers. I personally worked with companies that then simply put out edicts that no more RFPs would be accepted if they included Apple computers. FCPX and the EOL of the whole Studio suite was simply icing on the cake. No matter how great FCPX is, it simply left video pros wondering whether Apple could be trusted in the future."

We were looking to build out a media department for a client around Final Cut Server when Apple canned it. I'm lucky the client was slow-moving, otherwise they would have spent a lot of money on a system just a month or two before it was terminated. That wouldn't have been great for my reputation, and it definitely damaged my trust in Apple. It's been a bumpy ride since then, too, but I do feel that with announcements around the iMac Pro and "new new Mac Pros," things are looking up.

For a little more historical context, here are a couple pieces I wrote six years ago about Apple, professionals and consumers, FCPX and change:
https://library.creativecow.net/soyka_walter/FCPX-Domino-Effect-1/1
https://library.creativecow.net/soyka_walter/FCPX-Domino-Effect-2/1

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


Return to posts index

Oliver Peters
Re: Why FCPX?
on Oct 5, 2017 at 1:56:43 pm

[Walter Soyka] "That wouldn't have been great for my reputation, and it definitely damaged my trust in Apple."

Trust - or maybe faith - ultimately is hard to base a business plan upon. Avid has years of marginal financials, yet still keeps plugging away. Adobe and Autodesk switched to subscription models, fueling resentment, too. Apple is happy to cut the cord in its older products. Not to mention, the software you think you own is tied to your AppleID, which is not without its pitfalls.

So I'm not sure anyone is any safer. Resolve might seem like the best bet - but is it? Or maybe Lightworks or Vegas? It's probably why so much of the industry still puts their eggs in the Avid basket, because the software has the most likelihood of still being around should the company's fortune tank.

- Oliver

Oliver Peters - oliverpeters.com


Return to posts index

Bill Davis
Re: Why FCPX?
on Oct 5, 2017 at 8:32:19 pm

[Oliver Peters] "So I'm not sure anyone is any safer."

But they objectively ARE safer.

The modern cost and accessibility of MAKING changes has shifted remarkably.

Switching an installed production system for a group of editors used to take millions of dollars in capital investment.

You needed on-staff engineers. Integrators. And a host of technical folks to accompany the multi-thousand dollar components in the racks that enabled you to "edit."

Now that array of technology has been "Swiss cheesed" out of recognizable shape.

Whole swaths of tasks - graphics - color - sound - traffic - have been replaced by easily accessible - off the shelf solutions as or more capable compared to the bespoke tools of the past - just look at in-house collaborative communications systems that were needed in the TV station era. Wire machines, fax machines, police scanners, elaborate PBX style phone systems - all totally replaceable now by running those same functions on the same computer you edit on. Your standard editorial computers - running Slack, Frame.io or Google Docs or just EMAIL, blows up whole slices of needed infrastructure.

The landscape is HUGELY different. Yet, many editors and facilities are struggling mightily with coming to terms with these changes.

They have an "approved" mindset based (in too many cases IMO), on infrastructure that they hold onto-because thats' what they invested in long ago and it's really easy just to keep thinking in those established workflow terms.

Some are changing. A few months ago I was in a local NetWork TV station shop and sat behind the folks working on a nationally syndicated show - and all the work was happening on "off-the-shelf" iMacs running X. Not a badge from Grass Valley, For-A, Quantel, Sony, Otari or really ANY of the common NAB "pro class" names of my youth to be seen in the suite.

It's likely exactly the same in the Premiere shops too.

The point is, when the bill for switching EVERYTHING isn't something like 2.6 million for a serious multi-editor shop - but maybe $100K - that changes everything.

Risk is dramatically lowered. And that's the definition of "safer."

My 2 cents.

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


Return to posts index

Walter Soyka
Re: Why FCPX?
on Oct 5, 2017 at 8:39:00 pm

[Bill Davis] "The modern cost and accessibility of MAKING changes has shifted remarkably. Switching an installed production system for a group of editors used to take millions of dollars in capital investment. You needed on-staff engineers. Integrators. And a host of technical folks to accompany the multi-thousand dollar components in the racks that enabled you to "edit." ... Whole swaths of tasks - graphics - color - sound - traffic - have been replaced by easily accessible - off the shelf solutions as or more capable compared to the bespoke tools of the past ... The landscape is HUGELY different. Yet, many editors and facilities are struggling mightily with coming to terms with these changes."

The cost hasn't changed. It's shifted.

You're right that systems are getting cheaper. But expectations are constantly rising, budgets are constantly falling, and schedules are constantly constricting. The risk isn't money. It's time. How do you invest the time to figure out a whole new system when you have clients making demands right now? How do you move a whole shop or production onto a new workflow -- without skipping a beat?

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


Return to posts index

greg janza
Re: Why FCPX?
on Oct 5, 2017 at 9:54:38 pm

[Walter Soyka] "How do you move a whole shop or production onto a new workflow -- without skipping a beat?"

and perhaps more importantly since our industry relies heavily on a freelance pool, if you switch will you have a large enough group of talented editors to hire for projects?

Any facility would be foolish not to take that into consideration.

I Hate Television. I Hate It As Much As Peanuts. But I Can’t Stop Eating Peanuts.
- Orson Welles


Return to posts index

Bill Davis
Re: Why FCPX?
on Oct 6, 2017 at 8:29:26 pm

[greg janza] "and perhaps more importantly since our industry relies heavily on a freelance pool, if you switch will you have a large enough group of talented editors to hire for projects?

Any facility would be foolish not to take that into consideration."


Well, if the "freelance pool" remains pretty much what you are accustomed to seeing it as.

I've said before here, the guy who does a lot of my motion graphics sits in England. Other collaborators on my stuff live in Australia, Spain, the Czech Republic, and ANY ONE of them could edit for me starting tomorrow.

I know TONS of qualified FCP X editors now. Some here, but MANY outside the US.

And even of the ones who do live in CA - a shocking number of them are pretty recently arrived immigrants.

So let me post THIS as a thought. Will that sweet US gig go to a local US editor who currently CANNOT swing fluidly with FCP X - or will it just go to a talented editor from the Dominican Republic or Spain or Denmark - who are FCP X wizards - and for whom the client could care less - where they are sitting?

I know, I know, the very thought of "runaway production" very reasonably lights highly qualified US craftspeople's hair on fire. And I have tremendous sympathy for that.

But it's already a GLOBAL talent pool - for good or ill


Just a thought.

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


Return to posts index

greg janza
Re: Why FCPX?
on Oct 8, 2017 at 3:35:56 pm

[Bill Davis] "Will that sweet US gig go to a local US editor who currently CANNOT swing fluidly with FCP X - or will it just go to a talented editor from the Dominican Republic or Spain or Denmark - who are FCP X wizards - and for whom the client could care less - where they are sitting?"

I see no reason why our industry wouldn't migrate towards a more global workforce. The Hollywood special effects industry has been a global workforce for years.

But you're also throwing out the idea that post facilities or producers would be hiring these FCPX editors to create content and that doesn't make much sense since FCPX has not made much progress in becoming the NLE of choice within the industry.

Whether there's a "ton" of FCPX editors out there on a global scale is somewhat irrelevant if there aren't a "ton" of FCPX post houses or FCPX minded producers.

I Hate Television. I Hate It As Much As Peanuts. But I Can’t Stop Eating Peanuts.
- Orson Welles


Return to posts index

Bill Davis
Re: Why FCPX?
on Oct 6, 2017 at 7:31:39 pm

[Walter Soyka] "The risk isn't money. It's time. How do you invest the time to figure out a whole new system when you have clients making demands right now? How do you move a whole shop or production onto a new workflow -- without skipping a beat?"

Obviously the ONLY justification is if you become convinced that the scarce asset you invest up-front (dollars, training, time or whatever) - will yield you greater savings in the long run than you would have if you didn't make that investment.

That's pretty much the central focus of money-making for all of human history.

Often the smartest path is to take a small efficiency hit today - in order to gain a larger and on-going efficiency boost later.

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


Return to posts index

Walter Soyka
Re: Why FCPX?
on Oct 9, 2017 at 7:32:55 pm

[Bill Davis] "Often the smartest path is to take a small efficiency hit today - in order to gain a larger and on-going efficiency boost later."

Bill, I agree, but this is much easier said than done. For a freelance editor, the decision to adopt a new NLE is pretty straightforward. For a team with multiple interdependencies, it's much harder. Every decision on a team has ripple effects, so changing a single piece of the workflow or slowing down a specific step for retraining may have broad ramifications (positive or negative). Optimizing a system is very different than optimizing its components.

Also, the question of which efficiency boosts to chase is deceptively complex. Every major software solution in the world has a nice pile of case studies that shows how it's more "efficient" than its competitors. How do I know whether I'll see the best efficiency boost from FCPX, or Creative Cloud, or Resolve/Fusion, or Flame, without actually putting in all the training and real-world production tests to find out? How much risk should I tolerate to find out?

Again, I'm with you. I'd rather disrupt myself than have someone else disrupt me. I just think that the real cost of switching is higher than the price tag suggests. (My opinion here has changed in the six years since I wrote the articles I linked above!)

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


Return to posts index

Oliver Peters
Re: Why FCPX?
on Oct 9, 2017 at 9:04:55 pm
Last Edited By Oliver Peters on Oct 9, 2017 at 9:06:07 pm

[Walter Soyka] "For a team with multiple interdependencies, it's much harder. Every decision on a team has ripple effects, so changing a single piece of the workflow or slowing down a specific step for retraining may have broad ramifications (positive or negative)."

What gets overlooked is that NLEs are no longer operating in a standalone mode at many places. It's part of a larger workflow pipeline and in more cases than not, the driver is After Effects and not the NLE. I have worked in the past and currently work with a number of younger editors where the heavy lifting is all in AE. The NLE is just the place to start and end with.

To place FCPX into this workflow actually lowers efficiency, not improve it. And no, Motion is not an option. To make that move involves a lot of training in multiple disciplines, plus rethinking the whole pipeline. And it locks you into Apple hardware.

- Oliver

Oliver Peters - oliverpeters.com


Return to posts index

Scott Witthaus
Re: Why FCPX?
on Oct 9, 2017 at 11:45:45 pm

[Oliver Peters] "It's part of a larger workflow pipeline and in more cases than not, the driver is After Effects and not the NLE. "

Wouldn't you say that the story is created in the NLE and the "Icing on the cake" is AE OR Motion? How does AE drive the workflow? How do you create "story" with AE? Story is the driver, not the effect software. My experience is that the story is created in the NLE and handed over to AE for effects and "bling".

Scott Witthaus
Owner, 1708 Inc./Editorial
Managing Partner, Low Country Creative LLC
Professor, VCU Brandcenter


Return to posts index

Oliver Peters
Re: Why FCPX?
on Oct 10, 2017 at 12:46:43 am

[Scott Witthaus] "Wouldn't you say that the story is created in the NLE and the "Icing on the cake" is AE OR Motion? How does AE drive the workflow?"

If it were me, yes. These are largely spots and spot-length short-form edits. The bulk of the editing (arrangement, trimming, etc) is being done in AE by the editors that I've observed working this way. Clip selection onto the timeline in Premiere and then straight to AE for the heavy lifting. Of course, these spots also have a lot of text animation components in addition to the video. However, I've even seen these guys do all of their color correction in AE instead of Premiere or Resolve. The point being that AE is at least 50% of their editorial workflow.

- Oliver

Oliver Peters - oliverpeters.com


Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: Why FCPX?
on Oct 10, 2017 at 1:59:29 am

[Oliver Peters] "The point being that AE is at least 50% of their editorial workflow."

I use Ae a lot for ‘VFX’.

I constantly move edits from FCPX to Ae. There’s a number of ways to do it, including fcpxml straight to Ae via Automatic Duck, just like The Legend of yore.

Typically, I do all the VFX as flat (log) color, render out media, replace those clips in the timeline, and send to final grade. Colorists appreciate the flat VFX shots for grade, and I appreciate a happy colorist. :)


Return to posts index

Scott Witthaus
Re: Why FCPX?
on Oct 10, 2017 at 12:33:23 pm

[Oliver Peters] " The point being that AE is at least 50% of their editorial workflow."

Ah, so your comment is about this one client, not the market in general.

I usually see AE getting approved "plates", if you will, to work on and send over to wherever the piece is being finished. From my experience, AE is certainly not a good editor, in the traditional sense, and why would Adobe push it to be one?

Scott Witthaus
Owner, 1708 Inc./Editorial
Managing Partner, Low Country Creative LLC
Professor, VCU Brandcenter


Return to posts index

Oliver Peters
Re: Why FCPX?
on Oct 10, 2017 at 1:07:51 pm

[Scott Witthaus] "Ah, so your comment is about this one client, not the market in general. "

Several clients with whom I've worked with in the last 10 years.

[Scott Witthaus] "From my experience, AE is certainly not a good editor"

Agreed. Mine, too.

[Scott Witthaus] "why would Adobe push it to be one"

They aren't. This is user-driven.

- Oliver

Oliver Peters - oliverpeters.com


Return to posts index

Tony West
Re: Why FCPX?
on Oct 5, 2017 at 2:09:52 am

[Herb Sevush] "They shot themselves in the foot and no one else is to blame for it. "

I have a bit of a different take on it Herb. I never read any press on X pro or con before the release. (I just wasn't paying attention)

I remember seeing the people in the room applauding and liking what they saw.

YT is where a lot of people go these days to get up to speed on many products and I was no different.

There were all these people on Youtube giving their "reviews" before they had a chance to learn the program.

I would see one person say it couldn't do something followed by another person actually doing what that first person said it couldn't.

It became clear to me that I needed to use the product and find out for myself.

The other thing I remember is people mainly focused on what was missing and almost none of what it COULD do.

Yeah it was missing stuff, but it had some really cool new stuff also.

That part wasn't completely on Apple. There was a ton of misinformation out there.

To ignore that side of it, is to not tell the whole story.

It's actually still happening. Check out this video by Jason Vong. I think Jason is a talented young brother and I'm not picking on him because he admits in the video he is still learning and is asking for help but it's way too early for him to be making this video not knowing so much basic information.

Looks at the views, over 60 thousand. That's a lot of people he reached with that information.







Return to posts index

Herb Sevush
Re: Why FCPX?
on Oct 5, 2017 at 1:04:48 pm

[Tony West] "That part wasn't completely on Apple. There was a ton of misinformation out there."

While my experience was pretty much the same as yours back then, this is where I disagree with you.

Misinformation always happens in a vacuum. Apple does a public reveal of X in April and then says nothing and does nothing for months. What did they think would happen? If guys were posting misinformation on YouTube why didn't Apple's marketing department post solid information to counter that on both their web site and social media?

This is a text book case of marketing failure, which is all the more interesting coming from a company that's brilliant in consumer marketing. Apple had months to educate, inform, and excite their extremely loyal base about a radical change in direction and instead all the info you could get came from some YouTube wackados. And to top it off they announce the EOL of Legacy alongside the product announcement. I cannot emphasize how much I think that single action has colored this whole dialogue.

I repeat, what happened since the launch was both predictable and mostly the fault of Apple's mismanagement. And little of the enmity has anything to do with the product itself, which while I don't think is all things to all people, is clearly extremely capable and a best choice for many workflows.

Just not mine, but that's a different story.

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


Return to posts index

greg janza
Re: Why FCPX?
on Oct 5, 2017 at 6:08:21 pm

[Herb Sevush] "This is a text book case of marketing failure, which is all the more interesting coming from a company that's brilliant in consumer marketing. "

And with Apple's current valuation inching it's way towards $1 trillion, I'm guessing that Apple could care less about one failure.

I Hate Television. I Hate It As Much As Peanuts. But I Can’t Stop Eating Peanuts.
- Orson Welles


Return to posts index

Tony West
Re: Why FCPX?
on Oct 6, 2017 at 3:41:35 am

[Herb Sevush] "If guys were posting misinformation on YouTube why didn't Apple's marketing department post solid information to counter that on both their web site and social media?"

I agree Herb. They should have been on that.

The first real push back I remember was the tekserve Schechtman video. I remember thinking at the time that Apple called on him to get out there and rescue it. He knew way too much about the program too early on to not have been part of the team in someway. I still would like to know the story behind his appearance that day.


Return to posts index

Herb Sevush
Re: Why FCPX?
on Oct 6, 2017 at 9:17:46 pm

[Bill Davis] "Wait, are you suggesting the FCP X team should have hauled out Job's old Pirate Flag and broke off from the EXPLICIT policy of Apple NEVER to speak about any Apple products in development?

What planet were you on, Herb."


Except they did just that when in reaction to the furor, weeks after the release, they published a white paper outlining their plans for future development of X over the following year, which in marketing terms is called "closing the barn door after the horses got out."

"Apple never does this" and "Apple always does that" is one sad ass'd excuse for screwing the pooch.

The planet I'm on doesn't make excuses for screwing up - not "oh don't pick on him cause he's dead" nor "but that's the way they always do that." How about a simple acknowledgement that for a multiplicity of reasons Apple messed up on one of the oldest truths in business "you only get one chance to make a good first impression" and they have been playing PR catch up ever since.

And yes I know they have sold millions of seats, and this has nothing to do with the actual quality of X, but you're the one that's all "Curious" with a capital "C" about the negativity to your beloved NLE, and if it bothers you that much then you might want to come out of your Apple "bubble" to understand why.

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


Return to posts index

Bill Davis
Re: Why FCPX?
on Oct 7, 2017 at 10:43:45 pm

[Herb Sevush] "Except they did just that when in reaction to the furor, weeks after the release, they published a white paper outlining their plans for future development of X over the following year, which in marketing terms is called "closing the barn door after the horses got out.""

Why “furor” at all. What was that about, actually?

A few weeks after the release, I, and everyone else I was starting to chat with was still virtually clueless about how X worked. Remember, there was little to no institutional expertise extant in how X worked outside some Ripple Training and Larry Jordan early stuff - that I’ll bet you dollars to doughnuts no “Professional” editor would have even imagined needing that stuff. (I’m a pro - I can surely figure this out for myself - wait - that doesn’t work! Why are these clips jumping around! I can’t even drag a damn clip diwn a couple of seconds without it FIGHTING me!!!- This thing is consumer crap. Where’s my AVID...)

Right? I thought the big hit from guys like YOU was X was crap because Apple had gone all “Consumer-ish” - as a video company.

Well, what kinda “consumer” reads freaking “white papers?”

Still you’re admitting within “weeks” they had taken steps with that very white paper to communicate their thinking to interested professionals.

So might the ACTUAL issue in play have been that you and others had hardened their internal feelings of being “disrespected” so much in those early days that you were totally unwilling to listen to Apple AT ALL. No matter WHAT the new program was actually capable of?

Apple simply had hurt your feelings, too much.

Sorry about that, I guess.

You know, I got MY choice of preferred NLE EOLed too.
Same as everyone else.
At the same time.
I just moved on faster to a happier place.

And so it ... went.

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


Return to posts index

Herb Sevush
Re: Why FCPX?
on Oct 8, 2017 at 3:29:41 am

[Bill Davis] "Why “furor” at all. What was that about, actually?"

It was about the EOL of the fastest growing NLE on the market without any warning, what-so-ever. It was about offering as a replacement an NLE that was 9 months away from being useful in any broadcast or high end workflow. It was about doing all this in a vacuum of information about what the future would hold.

[Bill Davis] "Still you’re admitting within “weeks” they had taken steps with that very white paper to communicate their thinking to interested professionals."

And those weeks of are still costing them.

Let's imagine a different scenario.

After the "NAB" sneak Apple starts pumping the bold new change that's coming, explaining that "X" - whatever that will be, is going to blow everyone's mind, but because it's not fully developed yet, it's going to co-exist with FCP Legacy. They explain all it's great features and publish the white paper before it's released, letting everyone know that there is still much more to come in it's development. They assure everyone that FCP7 will still be sold and supported for the foreseeable future, that it will be made to work with any new upgrades to OSX, although they will no longer be adding new features.

Try imagining that for a bit - no anger over missing features in X, no hysteria over the EOL. Controversy and some anger yes, but no confusion and hysteria.

Yes, it turned out that Legacy continued to work through 6 years of OSX upgrades, but on June 21 there was no way to know that. Apple stopped all sales which scared the hell out of a lot of companies. It's my belief that the incredibly inept way the EOL was initially handled caused a lot of anger that was simply turned on X as a handy target.

[Bill Davis] "So might the ACTUAL issue in play have been that you and others had hardened their internal feelings of being “disrespected” so much in those early days that you were totally unwilling to listen to Apple AT ALL. No matter WHAT the new program was actually capable of?"

Yes, absolutely correct. Although disrespect is not the right word - fear is the right word. Apple frightened the shit out of a lot of people and the fact that it took them weeks to even begin to address it was a colossal boo boo.

See my earlier remark that you don't get a second chance to make a good first impression.

[Bill Davis] "You know, I got MY choice of preferred NLE EOLed too.
Same as everyone else. "


True, but since you were not doing broadcast work and you were a one man shop, you were among the least affected.

Has it still not penetrated your consciousness that for anyone in the broadcast field X was incapable of handling their needs for over 6 months after it's release.

Try putting yourself in the position of someone with multiple seats of Legacy doing broadcast work - needing Multicam and all sorts of OMF and EDL output to finish and with plans to add 3 more seats to handle a new series, only to find out one morning that he can't get those new seats, he won't be seeing any upgrades, and he has no idea how long his old seats will continue to work with new OSX upgrades. How happy is that person to find out that X can't handle any of that. By the time of the white paper that person had probably already switched to either Avid or Ppro and was in no mood to hear anything Apple had to say.

Fortunately for Apple this happened in an arena that means little to them financially, although I'm sure being made fun of on the Tonite show didn't go down so well.

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


Return to posts index

greg janza
Re: Why FCPX?
on Oct 8, 2017 at 4:11:56 am
Last Edited By greg janza on Oct 8, 2017 at 5:37:50 am

While the lamenting of the FCPX rollout seems to never cease to be a topic of conversation here, the confusing aspect to me is why there's so much nostalgia for FCP7. It certainly made its mark on the industry and I worked on it for years but I possess zero nostalgia for it. As soon as Premiere stepped in to take the lead, I dropped FCP. And now it's been so many years It's hard to even recall what was good about it.

I Hate Television. I Hate It As Much As Peanuts. But I Can’t Stop Eating Peanuts.
- Orson Welles


Return to posts index

Steve Connor
Re: Why FCPX?
on Oct 8, 2017 at 11:43:49 am

[Herb Sevush] "Try putting yourself in the position of someone with multiple seats of Legacy doing broadcast work - needing Multicam and all sorts of OMF and EDL output to finish and with plans to add 3 more seats to handle a new series, only to find out one morning that he can't get those new seats, he won't be seeing any upgrades, and he has no idea how long his old seats will continue to work with new OSX upgrades. How happy is that person to find out that X can't handle any of that. By the time of the white paper that person had probably already switched to either Avid or Ppro and was in no mood to hear anything Apple had to say."

That sums it up very well Herb, not very difficult for anyone to understand how much of in issue the launch was. Of course those who are keen to reversion the past will completely ignore it!


Return to posts index

<< PREVIOUS   •   VIEW ALL   •   PRINT   •   NEXT >>