My experience with FCP X (from a sceptikal FCP 7 user)

[Mathieu Ghekiere]

Copy of a thread I just started at DVinfo. net User:

Like so many, I bought FCP X on the day it was out, and trashed it after a couple of hours of experience. I tried to edit a theatre play on it, and got frustrated for multiple reasons.
I still think that 10.0.0 release was a terrible update-release for a professional program with such legacy.
I bought the Adobe Production Premium at a 50% discount, because their RED support is very good, I didn't know about the future of FCP and I didn't have a Photoshop license yet, so having their suite at such discount coulnd't hurt. I kept editing with FCP 7 in the meanwhile.

After the 10.0.3 update I got interested again, especially because of how powerful multicam was implemented.
So carefully, I began buying some tutorials again, reading articles, etc.

Last week, I got a job that needed a LOT of pictures to have an Ken Burns-like animation on them for bumpers on a congress.
Because I knew FCP 7 had a 4K picture limit, but especially because I knew FCP X had the automated Ken Burns effect (instead of putting manual keyframes everywhere), I thought it could be a good change to try out the program: small project.

I won't go into details, but my conclusion is:
I got frustrated a lot of times. I sent Apple feedback a couple of times. But I also got some very speedy workflows and exports. When I had to return to FCP 7 to put some filters that weren't compatible with FCP X yet on some finished videos, I really hated the render and export times, how fast FCP X felt.
The interface, the reaction, the background renders, the immediate render previews, the superfast exports, ...
I'm still not fond of how FCP X works with media management. I still think the program has to mature a lot, and there are a lot of weird choices. But if you really learn it, you can be very fast with it, and once you do... You will ALSO get very frustrated with how much better things work in FCP X instead of FCP 7, and not only the other way around.

Now I'm curious to learn more and more about the new program, and I'll see how and if I can implement it more and more in my professional workflow too.

As developers for FCP, we have a strong bias in favor of FCP’s continued success. That said, we had spent much of the year prior to FCP X’s release expecting that we might have to leave the platform. We were hearing the same rumors that everyone else was – that FCP X would be another iMovie, wouldn’t be pro, etc. – and we were ready to bail. Happily, we don’t have to. While there are obviously missing features (like a comprehensive redo of Compressor), the foundation of FCP X is extremely solid. FCP X, for the reasons listed above, is going to be what most professional editors use to edit. Maybe not tomorrow, but likely within a year

This is a quote from the Crumblepop page: Why we’re betting everything on FCP X - CrumplePop Blog

After working a couple of days on FCP X, the more I think there is a lot of truth in this.
But Apple botched the launch, and they will really need to do some extra effort to win some people back (including keeping adding features, listening to feedback, and getting more of the industry - and camera manufacturers) to support the program.

After all the trash that FCP X got, many for it deserved (and I was one of the critics, and in a way, I still am), I also thought it would be only fair to share my (rather good) experiences after editing with it for 4 days.

[Olivier Madar]

Thank you for sharing.

I did exactly the same way as you, but still did not retry FCP X.


Olivier

[Frederick Giles]

I started the same way as you, tried it for a month and then got a refund and continued on FCP 7, I went back to FCP X in September as there was an update at that time. 10.0.3 really kicks ass, now I can import all my FCP 7 projects to FCP X. It took me months to get comfortable with FCP X, I have to say FCP 7 feels like a dinosaur whenever I go back to export a project to FCPX. Editing three features on FCP X, one with RED footage. It still has a few issues but well worth the money.

[Marc Berger]

XML works fine too. It´s possible now to CC in DaVinci. I like it for its speed and with Prores 4444 I can always use the newest Color science from RedcineX.
I still prefer PPR but i´ts worth to study it a bit closer and I can´t wait for RR support.

[Terry VerHaar]

Glad you guys are coming around! ;-)

[Jeff Whitehurst]

I have used FCP since v2. Literally thousands of hours. I bought FCPX, Motion5 and Compressor4 the day of release. Bought and used every training I got get my hands on, and share the experience of going back to FCP7 and realizing how much better FCPX had become.
However, I still have serious concerns for the future of FCP. Everybody seems to be in agreement that Apple could have handled the transition better, and I feel that the ball continues to be dropped. BETA monitoring after all this time? My Matrox MX02 looks like SD on my plasma. I am very hesitant to buy yet another video card that probably won't work in the (maybe?) new Mac Pro. The "share to Youtube" options made the initial release, that's pretty indicative. Sure it will get better over time, but that's my concern. After this much time, with all the disappointment expressed by the Pro community, after all the money wasted on non-functioning hardware, plug-ins, etc., who's going to promote it? People spent real money and put their reputation on the line when setting up studios based on FCS, and I'm one of them. I'm encouraged about the new capabilities of FCPX, but no way would I recommend FCPX based workstations yet. With the future FCPX and of the Mac Pro line in question, it really makes creatives look bad to the bean counters who only see depreciation and future expenses with an unknown outcome. I can't help but feel the most likely base going forward is consumers. Not requiring a serial number is just making it worse by promoting "sharing". Apple makes software to sell their hardware, but right now they aren't giving us a reason to buy either. Still, time marches on and Pros are getting invested in other solutions, even other platforms as a result. I'm not saying FCPX is bad, it's just positioned that way.

[Meryem Ersoz]

I'll take a fresh crack at it, as soon as they start supporting native R3D.

[Kalechi Noel]

It's a paradigm shift. People fear what they don't understand. Having been an editor for 10+ years, edited in premiere as well as fcp7.... XML to After effects....

I can say with confidence that fcpX is the future. It simplifies almost every process, and makes you more efficient getting projects done in half the time. It's blazing fast, no render, and the magnetic timeline (once you get used to it), kicks ass!

It was very buggy initially, but this latest update is solid. I recently had do a job in fp7.... And it was very rough. Give fcpX a shot, you won't be disappointed.

[Bob Gundu]

I cringe when I have to open FCP7 projects. FCPX with tight integration with Motion is impressive and my preferred editor. Let's hope native R3D happens.

[Jeff Whitehurst]

I cringe when I have to open FCP7 projects. FCPX with tight integration with Motion is impressive and my preferred editor. Let's hope native R3D happens.

That's my point on FCPX's current position in the Pro world. FCP7 made me cringe before the overhaul. FCPX hasn't been effective soon enough to replace it. R3D support would definitely help change some opinions in the RED community. Fingers crossed...