Final Cut Pro X Released

[Elmer Tenkink]

Hey Tim, have you actually used FCPX yet? Just wondering, because you sure do have a lot to say about it...

If anyone is interested Larry Jordan has a fair-minded blog on all this:

http://www.larryjordan.biz/goodies/blog.html

A very good article that makes more sence, then first tuning against apple and then against each other.
Were all in the same boat, learning all new NLE's.
I am now learning Avid MC and later Adobe Premiere, the good thing af this all that were expanding our craftmanshift and tool boxes.
Even if apple gets it right some day, were have all options.
For exemple slow down a clip with optical flow (FCPX) create comp graphics in Primiere (AE) and create the final edit in Avid MC.

I know it is long run bovere we abel to cross send or create the perfect workflow around it but it would be great

 

[Terry VerHaar]

I've been revisiting the FCPx threads hoping to actually see something interesting to read. IS THERE actually someone who has TRULY tried it out and therefor have anything to say about the new ways of working? I'm interested in seeing if fcpx ACTUALLY is the wrong way of moving forward. Or if it all is just silly reactions to features not yet implemented/ or possibly disregarded to future ways of working etc (as Apple is claiming - who knows). Has anyone sat down and tried editing - really tried - someone who actually have become accustomed to the new fcp? That person is then welcome to give a review in what they think of the new ways of working. Is it faster? Is it easier? Or is it just plain annoying. All I've read so far is just reactions.

EDIT - And I don't mean necessarily migrating to do a professional PAID job - I mean more "played around", but in a serious, trying to learn and feel the software properly - kind of way.

Fredrik - I, indeed, have spent a dozen or so hours delving into FCPX. I have also read everything I could get my hands on about it and have gone through about 6 hours of online training videos at MacProVideo. That said, the idea of posting here about any positive impressions is simply distasteful because one will continue to get the rants about how it's not for pros, its shit, etc; and this, whether or not the poster has used the software extensively or not. It's a conversation I can do without.

In the end, each person decides for themselves. I will readily concede that there are significant features missing from the software at this point. My main contention in support of it is that it introduces a new and efficient paradigm for editing which will save a great deal of time for most editors in most projects and serve the great majority of pro and "semi-pro" editors of the future. I believe the software will be something of a "killer app" within 6-12 months and am somewhat pleased that so many "pros" are shunning it as I think it will be something of a strategic weapon at some point in the future.

One thing people don't seem to want to acknowledge is that the definition of "pro" is quite hard to pin down; there was an entire thread on REDuser addressing the issue and I am not sure there was ever much agreement. Also, the role of the "pro" is expanding and changing as the avenues for video distribution are ever shifting and widening.

 

[Joe Carney]

Well, yes. And if they had, they would have at least minimized, if not eliminated, the PR nightmare they've created for themselves. With products like NLE's, the sales to professionals might not be large in terms of volume, but the PR value of having well known testimonials in rather incalculable. I think you'd find that even with Apple's own numbers, the sales of FCP increased dramatically following its endorsement by people like Walter Murch and the Coen Brothers. Everybody wants to aspire to be like those who are proven and successful, and that's what the PR has always stressed. So the blowback from that market is likely to have a strong effect in the opposite direction, which is clearly not something Apple wanted. Apple is one of the most cash rich companies in the world. Another couple of months of development prior to release most likely wouldn't have amounted to more than pennies in the scheme of things for them. But it might have led to a much brighter future and a much better relationship with a community they've always counted on to help spread their gospel.

It is very, very clear by everything surrounding the release of this product that Apple has made a very conscious decision to focus on the much larger and potentially higher growth consumer and prosumer market, a business decision that one can't really argue with given the numbers involved. They want to grow the user base and sell more MacBooks and iMacs, and the way to do that is to appeal to those who don't own your product yet. That is clearly not the professional community, which is not a high growth group and for the most part, made their NLE choices a long time ago. You likely won't see Avid selling large numbers of licenses to YouTube oriented shooters, and you won't find FCPX on a network television series. Each has their market, and each has chosen to concentrate on that market. In that sense, what Apple has done is not really surprising at all. Disappointing, but not surprising.

This is exactly what is currently happening. I listen to a podcast called "This Week in Photography" (TWIP) and FCPX is a big hit among still photographers wanting to move to video. Many who were fed up with iMovie but intimidated with FCP. Many, who think sharing assets means posting your photos on line. The realities of feature films and episodic broadcast are presently meaningless to them. FCPX is a huge improvement to what they were used to.

 

[Tim Morten]

Hey Tim, have you actually used FCPX yet? Just wondering, because you sure do have a lot to say about it...

I've seen more than enough of FCPX to know that I will not spend $300 on it. If your implication is that I'm therefore unqualified to comment, well... you're obviously entitled to form whatever opinion you choose, whether you agree with me or not.

I think I've been pretty fair in my assessment: http://reduser.net/forum/showthread.php?60110-Final-Cut-Pro-X-Released&p=784248#post784248

The main controversy now keeping this thread going is whether Apple intentionally prioritized other markets over the pro market. Many (most?) of us believe that yes, Apple did exactly that. Consequently, many (most?) believe that the lower prioritization of the pro market will have a lasting negative impact on FCP moving forward.

I'm certain that this debate will continue to rage on (since it involves speculation on both sides), and I believe that owning FCPX does not uniquely qualify anyone's opinion.

Cheers,
Tim

 

[Chris Kenny]

One thing people don't seem to want to acknowledge is that the definition of "pro" is quite hard to pin down

Yes.

This entire debate -- and particularly the argument that Apple is abandoning pro users -- revolves around incoherent definitions.

People keep using the word "pro" in these discussions when they really mean something much more like "broadcast or feature film editor". The argument then goes that FCP 7 was a "pro" app because it had features for these folks, while FCP X is a "consumer" app because it doesn't. But the truth is that these users are a very small fraction of the FCP user base, and always have been. FCP has always been primarily targeted at the wider world of people who get paid to edit video, not at these niches. The features required by people in these niches have always been second-teir features for Apple. They were in the old FCP because it had been around for long enough for Apple to have worked its way around to implementing second-teir features. They're not in FCP X yet because it's brand new. This doesn't mean Apple isn't interested in these markets. It just means Apple wasn't willing to hold a product useful to a large fraction of the installed base, to wait on features useful to a much smaller fraction.

 

[Chris Kenny]

I'm certain that this debate will continue to rage on (since it involves speculation on both sides), and I believe that owning FCPX does not uniquely qualify anyone's opinion.

Ownership is not the issue. Usage is. Those who have seriously used FCP X are substantially more qualified to comment on it than those who have merely read some things about it, or perhaps messed with it for 15 minutes.

 

[Tim Morten]

This doesn't mean Apple isn't interested in these markets. It just means Apple wasn't willing to hold a product useful to a large fraction of the installed base, to wait on features useful to a much smaller fraction.

It's not that Apple has NO interest. It's that Apple has LESS interest. If film and tv editors (spelling this out so Terry doesn't get upset about the word pro again) are secondary to Apple, it makes sense that those editors gravitate towards products who do NOT consider them secondary.

- Tim

 

[Tim Morten]

Ownership is not the issue. Usage is. Those who have seriously used FCP X are substantially more qualified to comment on it than those who have merely read some things about it, or perhaps messed with it for 15 minutes.

What can I say Chris? You're an expert and I have no idea what I'm talking about. I simply made up everything I wrote. I bow down to your greatness.

 

[Philipe Ratton]

If FCPX evolve to be what everyone thought it would be I'll have no problem at all jumping into it. For now, and for my needs, its just a crippled fcp7 or an Imovie on steroids, meaning, useless to me.
And Chris, I really don't get why you keep repeating yourself over and over about the user base and all that. Just answer me, FCPX, today, is enough for you ?

 

[Chris Kenny]

It's not that Apple has NO interest. It's that Apple has LESS interest. If film and tv editors (spelling this out so Terry doesn't get upset about the word pro again) are secondary to Apple, it makes sense that those editors gravitate towards products who do NOT consider them secondary.

Apple has less interest than they used to have? Again, I don't think you can make the case that these editors have ever been Apple's first priority. Apple got around to adding features for them in the old FCP. Apple will get around to adding features for them in the new FCP.

Or perhaps you mean Apple has less interest than, say, Avid? This is true. It has always been true. Yet you chose FCP over Avid the last time around, didn't you? Why? Probably because there are both costs and benefits to using a product that targets a larger market. And those benefits seem to have outweighed the costs, over the last decade, to a sufficient extent to make FCP very successful with film/TV editors. Why would this be different over the next decade?

What can I say Chris? You're an expert and I have no idea what I'm talking about. I simply made up everything I wrote. I bow down to your greatness.

I like that you're trying to portray my position that people who have used an app are more qualified to comment on it as being somehow unreasonable.

Just answer me, FCPX, today, is enough for you ?

No. I've said this repeatedly. My main point in this thread is not that FCP X does everything it needs to do already, for folks doing broadcast or feature work. It's that people are misunderstanding why it doesn't do these things already, and as a consequence of that, they're misunderstanding Apple's motivations and making what will almost certainly turn out to be inaccurate predictions about the app's future.

 

[Timothy Eaton]

As an interested FCP7 user who is disappointed by the lack of XML, etc., and some other features that I routinely use, I have to say that Chris Kenny has been quite convincing about what appears to be Apple's logic in this release, the history of FCP, and the potential value of the new paradigm. Chris has attempted to respond to every objection, agreeing with some and disputing others. His posts have been quite patient, mostly civil, and very consistent. The result is a cogent presentation of FCPX, even if I am not at all pleased with what this means for my workflow at the present. On the other hand, many, but certainly not all, of Chris's detractors have resorted to rants and insult. While some Redusers have made valid and reasoned responses, I think Chris has been far more persuasive than the ranters. All the "fanboy" and Apple apologist insults are just that, insults - not very convincing.

 

[Liam Hall]

I've seen more than enough of FCPX to know that I will not spend $300 on it. If your implication is that I'm therefore unqualified to comment, well... you're obviously entitled to form whatever opinion you choose, whether you agree with me or not.

I think I've been pretty fair in my assessment: http://reduser.net/forum/showthread.php?60110-Final-Cut-Pro-X-Released&p=784248#post784248

The main controversy now keeping this thread going is whether Apple intentionally prioritized other markets over the pro market. Many (most?) of us believe that yes, Apple did exactly that. Consequently, many (most?) believe that the lower prioritization of the pro market will have a lasting negative impact on FCP moving forward.

I'm certain that this debate will continue to rage on (since it involves speculation on both sides), and I believe that owning FCPX does not uniquely qualify anyone's opinion.

Cheers,
Tim

No, I'm not implying you are unqualified to speak on it, just wondering what your angle is - you seem to be really pissed at Apple. If you were someone heavily invested in Final Cut Studio I could understand that, but I'm guessing that's not the case.

There's lots of opinion in this thread, but very few opinions have been formed from actually trying the software. Given you can get your money back, I'd have thought it was at least worth seeing what all the fuss is about first hand rather than relying on the ramblings of other people on the net...

 

[Colin Sheldon]

As an interested FCP7 user who is disappointed by the lack of XML, etc., and some other features that I routinely use, I have to say that Chris Kenny has been quite convincing about what appears to be Apple's logic in this release, the history of FCP, and the potential value of the new paradigm. Chris has attempted to respond to every objection, agreeing with some and disputing others. His posts have been quite patient, mostly civil, and very consistent. The result is a cogent presentation of FCPX, even if I am not at all pleased with what this means for my workflow at the present. On the other hand, many, but certainly not all, of Chris's detractors have resorted to rants and insult. While some Redusers have made valid and reasoned responses, I think Chris has been far more persuasive than the ranters. All the "fanboy" and Apple apologist insults are just that, insults - not very convincing.

Interesting. I would say Chris' arguments made me feel a lot better about pulling the trigger on buying CS5.5. I guess you see what you want to see.

 

[Timothy Eaton]

Interesting. I would say Chris' arguments made me feel a lot better about pulling the trigger on buying CS5.5. I guess you see what you want to see.

I can't speak for Chris, but if you buy his argument, there would be at least two options among many: 1)Pull the trigger on CS5.5 and see if and when Apple adds the Broadcast / Theatrical features we need or 2)Wait for awhile and see if and when. You can get CS5.5 for $849. Not going to break the bank. Better yet, fool around with the trial version.

In a perfect world, or maybe a smarter one, FCPX would already have XML, etc. But in this world, Chris's argument for Apple's mode of operating is pretty convincing.

 

[AnthonyFlores]

..... I have to say that Chris Kenny has been quite convincing ... has attempted to respond to every objection, agreeing with some and disputing others. His posts have been quite patient, mostly civil, and very consistent ....... On the other hand, many, but certainly not all, of Chris's detractors have resorted to rants and insult. While some Redusers have made valid and reasoned responses, I think Chris has been far more persuasive than the ranters. All the "fanboy" and Apple apologist insults are just that, insults - not very convincing.

I must say that I agree with you. A lot of what he says makes perfect sense. Unfortunately, many here are so angry and feel so betrayed, they are in a rush to "break up" with Apple. I understand, yet I don't feel that need -- yet.

Doesn't mean I'm not frustrated with Apple or that I'm a raging fanboy -- even as a "consumer" Apple sometimes upsets me. And I wasn't one of the millions who purchased the iPad last Christmas only to have v2 come out less than 2 months later or suffer through AntennaGate.

And for those who feel compelled to move in the direction of PPro or Avid ... I think it's great. Why not? As a professional, I can't see how knowing multiple NLE systems doesn't help in some way. Besides, this kind of diversification often just makes good business sense -- that way you are never at the mercy of one company or their schedule for implementing the features you want.

In terms of the "pro" thing ... let's (for the sake of argument) assume if the core functionality and UI of FCPX is amazing and yet "prosumer" in some ways. And what if ultimately there are a bunch of additional apps and plugins (from Apple and 3rd parties) that allow you to build FCPX exactly how you want, and perfectly tailor it to your workflow and professional needs? What if -- 6 or 12 months from now -- you can build the "ultimate FCP" that does everything you could possibly want and more ..... and it still came in cheaper than Premier Pro or Avid? Wouldn't everyone win? (Apple, prosumers AND pros)

To put it differently, would it be the end of the world that prosumers are using the same $299 core of the software without all the extras that "pros" add on to make it work for them? To me, it almost seems as though there's some pride involved for some of those who are angry -- the "pros" don't want others using the same software as them, period. Even if FCPX eventually became the PERFECT solution for their needs ... it's just WAYYYYY TOO offensive that an amateur DSLR filmmaker could use it to edit his youtube videos as well.

But if that's the case, it's silly. Just because a product has mass appeal doesn't mean it can't be used professionally. Look at the iPad -- already it's used on big fim sets, and that will happen more and more as screen resolution is increased. Being able to play Angry Birds on it or watch The Cat and the Hat doesn't change or diminish it's potential as a professional tool.

Bottom line: If (yes this is a big "IF") FCPX can ultimately be fully customized, address any professional workflow with speed and ease, and yet shares the same core interface that also happens to work really well for prosumers or even soccer mom's -- then it's not such an evil thing. And based on the patterns Chris has noted, it seems as though there's a decent chance Apple (and 3rd parties) will build and build on it until it works well for all the above.

 

[Colin Sheldon]

I can't speak for Chris, but if you buy his argument, there would be at least two options among many: 1)Pull the trigger on CS5.5 and see if and when Apple adds the Broadcast / Theatrical features we need or 2)Wait for awhile and see if and when. You can get CS5.5 for $849. Not going to break the bank. Better yet, fool around with the trial version.

In a perfect world, or maybe a smarter one, FCPX would already have XML, etc. But in this world, Chris's argument for Apple's mode of operating is pretty convincing.

If Chris is correct, it clearly articulates how bad Apple's mode of operating is for professionals. Ah, there is that word again. Professionals. There has been a lot of discussion about what exactly the word means and do be honest I don't care about how you or Chris or even Tim define it. What matters is that the clients we work with view us as a professional establishment. Every single post house I have talked to curses FCPX (One of the top Editors in the province called it a pile of steaming garbage) - the PR nightmare it has created has lost it a great deal (if not all) of it's respect in the pro community. This may be justified, or it may be way off base, but it has happened regardless. In this industry image and perception are everything. Why do I tell potential clients that Pirates of the Caribbean 4 was shot on a Red One? It's because it gives credibility to the system and the client knows that the quality of the project will not be limited by the camera equipment.

In the next three, six or nine months that it takes Apple to fix FCPX it will be constantly bashed by every single post house that doesn't use it. "Oh, they underquoted us? It's because they use non-professional software like final cut. If you want the job done right the first time you have to use professional software". Clients don't care about XML, they care about image and perception. Up here DPs and Directors get flown in from L.A. all the time. Is it because they're much more talented then locals? No. They just have the perception of being better because they have a hollywood address.

So once FCPX is fixed, how long will it take the good news to spread around? And how long will it take before the misinformation and FUD stops being told as truth? My guess is that FCPX is going to going to have a tough go over the next couple of years. I've already waited 3 years for an update to FCP, and I'm not willing to wait another couple while Apple fishes it's reputation out of the trash.

The one man shops seem to like FCPX, the large post houses hate it. I'd rather been in group B than group A, even if both are defined as professional.

 

[AnthonyFlores]

One more thing ... correct me if I'm wrong, but Blackberry was considered to be much more "professional" than the iPhone during the early releases of the phone and iOS. Yet now, iOS delivers many professional advantages over the Blackberry (software and hardware) -- not to mention 3rd party support (apps), where Apple blows away BB, Google and Microsoft combined.

Yes, it's a totally different industry and 3rd party developers might not be as incentivized to focus on the high-end applications film and video editors need (compared to consumer or mainstream business needs cover by iOS apps).

But still, it's not totally far fetched to think the same could happen in our industry. In other words, just like iOS -- those dismissed it as unprofessional might find themselves come back to it someday because it's the best tool.

If it doesn't address your needs now, there is no decision to make. But don't get so upset at Apple that you can't come back if FCPX does prove to be the best all around tool.

 

[D Fuller]

In terms of the "pro" thing ... let's (for the sake of argument) assume if the core functionality and UI of FCPX is amazing and yet "prosumer" in some ways. And what if ultimately there are a bunch of additional apps and plugins (from Apple and 3rd parties) that allow you to build FCPX exactly how you want, and perfectly tailor it to your workflow and professional needs? What if -- 6 or 12 months from now -- you can build the "ultimate FCP" that does everything you could possibly want and more ..... and it still came in cheaper than Premier Pro or Avid? Wouldn't everyone win? (Apple, prosumers AND pros)

To put it differently, would it be the end of the world that prosumers are using the same $299 core of the software without all the extras that "pros" add on to make it work for them? To me, it almost seems as though there's some pride involved for some of those who are angry -- the "pros" don't want others using the same software as them, period. Even if FCPX eventually became the PERFECT solution for their needs ... it's just WAYYYYY TOO offensive that an amateur DSLR filmmaker could use it to edit his youtube videos as well.

Nonsense. FCP has always been used by prosumers. It's a non-issue.

The issue is trust. There are a lot of manifestations of that, and people are talking about a lot of technical specifics that might hang around or might go away in the near or far term, but at the heart of it all is that Apple didn't give people any way to see their businesses getting from where they are now to where they want to be in the future along a path that FCPx provides. It is simply not possible from the information available today to make that kind of roadmap for a business. All a business can do is adopt a "wait and see" kind of plan, and that after they've been waiting for a couple of years to see what Apple was going to do. It's not that it won't happen, it's that no one has any idea how it will happen. What's the first step? What will the infrastructure requirements be? How will the new paradigms in editing interplay with other disciplines? Everything is up in the air, and Apple is not really providing much guidance. That doesn't matter much to an amateur, or even to a one-man shop. But it matters a great deal to many professional editors and editing businesses.

This is a very uncertain time for businesses everywhere. Adding more uncertainty doesn't just not feel good, it's just not good for a business not to be able to plan. And for a major supplier to your business to say, "Throw it all out, we're starting all over--starting now," is just not the kind of thing that builds a trusted partner relationship. That's what the "pro" thing is all about.

 

[Colin Sheldon]

Nonsense. FCP has always been used by prosumers. It's a non-issue.

+1 - Apple aways joked about how the number of software updates were always much higher than the sales data. For a lot of people (pros, prosumers and consumers), $299 is $299 more than what they paid for FCP7. Why did prosumers want to use it? Because Pros used it.

 

[AnthonyFlores]

Nonsense. FCP has always been used by prosumers. It's a non-issue.

The issue is trust. There are a lot of manifestations of that, and people are talking about a lot of technical specifics that might hang around or might go away in the near or far term, but at the heart of it all is that Apple didn't give people any way to see their businesses getting from where they are now to where they want to be in the future along a path that FCPx provides. It is simply not possible from the information available today to make that kind of roadmap for a business. All a business can do is adopt a "wait and see" kind of plan, and that after they've been waiting for a couple of years to see what Apple was going to do. It's not that it won't happen, it's that no one has any idea how it will happen. What's the first step? What will the infrastructure requirements be? How will the new paradigms in editing interplay with other disciplines? Everything is up in the air, and Apple is not really providing much guidance. That doesn't matter much to an amateur, or even to a one-man shop. But it matters a great deal to many professional editors and editing businesses.

This is a very uncertain time for businesses everywhere. Adding more uncertainty doesn't just not feel good, it's just not good for a business not to be able to plan. And for a major supplier to your business to say, "Throw it all out, we're starting all over--starting now," is just not the kind of thing that builds a trusted partner relationship. That's what the "pro" thing is all about.

Well, I don't disagree that Apple's communication and "roadmap" can and should have been much better and more trust-inspiring. Even if it's "Apple being Apple" is Chris has repeatedly proven, I think this backlash has probably showed them the ideal level of "secrecy" needed for successful consumer launches (who respond more to typical marketing) is NOT the same for professionals. Hopefully they learn -- and hopefully (for their sake) FCPX ends up being so good that some of that lost trust can be regained.