Apple push to win back pro editors

[Paul Harb]

I promise you Im not upset at all, at least you are entertaining.

I never suggested you should use anything else, so once again you are just making stuff up because you have nothing of substance to say. I understand why FCPX works for you and the work you do, and the more you say the more it makes perfect sense.

You got butt hurt because I said Apple has shifted their focus away from professionals, which they have...and then tried to make it personal by stating I was saying anyone using it is not a professional, which again I never said. You are a fanboy through and through, just admit it...everybody else sees it even if you dont.

I never said I thought any NLE was the best, in fact I stated if you wanna hear me bitch about Avid which I use most of the time I can bitch all day....but again, you are just making stuff up and trying to make all this personal because it is to you...its not to me.

Like I also stated, I own them all and use what works best for the job at hand. I have no emotional tie to any of them or any of the companies. I wished Apple would have stuck around and competed thus making everyone else better...but they didnt, they left for people like you.

Im well aware that Kevin went to Apple.

Paul - you're upset. From the beginning I have been saying you should definitely stay away from FCP-X and use what you think best for you. I'd love the same consideration but, hey.... whatever. And, I NEVER use the word "awesome." LOL

BTW - do you really think there is one "best" NLE?

Also, you might find it interesting that Apple recently hired Adobe's CTO, Kevin Lynch.

 

[Trevor Meier]

Man... I wish discussions around FCPX could be about how it enables more seamless effort exacted into the story, rather than the flamewars. It's like the old Windows vs. Mac days all over again!

 

[Steve Sherrick]

One thing that is clear from this discussion and others I have seen that covered similar topics, is that there are many different segments of the industry being represented. I'll try to break them down and then discuss why certain tools make sense for those segments.

Hobbyist: This should not be looked at in a negative way. In fact, there are some people that do video as a hobby that can kick my ass any day of the week. In this category, it's possible that budget might be an issue, learning curve based on experience might be an issue, etc. I could very easily see people in this group leaning towards FCP X, Premiere, Vegas, iMovie, etc. The commitment level to how deep one goes might range depending on how serious of a hobby it is.

One-Man-Band Production Companies: Most of the work will be done by the owner of the company. Maybe some components will be farmed out at times, but for the most part, this person will do the shooting, editing, color, sound, and maybe even effects. They will choose tools that allow them to accomplish all of those things as efficiently as possible. Because they do not have to work with several other people or companies to get each component done, they are able to choose tools that work well in-house. Project exchange, OMF/AAF, EDLs, VFX workflows, etc really don't play as much of a role and therefore those features don't necessarily have to be in their toolset. FCP X, Adobe Creative Suite, Sony Vegas might all be valid choices in this type of scenario. Even Avid could work, especially if the person is very familiar with it already. But I could see FCP X having a lot of appeal to this group.

Independent Production Companies: I'm thinking of the multi-employee scenario with at least a couple of edit rooms, sound design, GFX, etc. This is where the conversation starts to get interesting. Workflow really does become a topic of conversation at this point. Local or shared storage? Multiple editors working on the same projects? Assistant editors preparing material for editors? Seamless interchange between picture and sound, picture and colorist? Depending on how all of this is set up can have a big impact on what tools are appropriate. It doesn't necessarily eliminate any of the NLEs right off the bat, but something like FCP X might be harder to integrate into this kind of scenario, at least in its current state. By no means impossible and I suspect as time goes on maybe even more capable of being implemented in these kinds of environments. But I think at the moment the top contenders would be Avid, Premiere, and maybe even FCP 7.

Commercial Post House: Now we start to get into the big boys. This is where a number of factors start to determine what can be used and what can't be used. Shared storage is almost a given at this point. So the NLE will need to be able to utilize it in a seamless way. At this level, many people will be involved working on all aspects of the process. Editors, sound designers, colorists, effects artists, etc. Being able to move media around in a professional manner is going to be key. Also, there may be some very seasoned editors involved that have their preference for what they edit on. Many of them will prefer Avid but will possibly also have a strong background in FCP. Getting them to move over to X is going to be a hard sell for now. There will of course be exceptions. Those who like to push the boundaries, try new things, and sometimes kind of like being on the outside of what everyone else is doing might give it a shot. But again, so many factors to take into consideration at this level, and the tried and true will often be the way to go. No matter how efficient FCP X might be for certain things, a company can always look at it another way - what will allow my editors to tell the best story the fastest? If they have been cutting on Avid for 15 years you know what the answer is going to be. And to be honest, I have been blown away watching editors who make the "machine" disappear and focus entirely on how to make a sequence of images work to tell a great story. It's like watching someone compose music.

Feature Film Editing: Probably the pinnacle of the editing food chain. Many of the best got their start cutting actual film. For many of them their digital editing has been on Avid, Lightworks, maybe a touch of FCP. But here is where you will find a lot of resistance to something like an FCP X. They don't need to fix something that isn't broke. So many here on Reduser talk about the need to cut in 4K. Many of these editors are perfectly happy cutting in DNxHD36 or 115. It's all about the story, the rhythm, etc. They can get that at those resolutions. They are doing a lot of straight cuts, minimal effects work. Some do a lot of sound design in the NLE to get a feel for things. They have been doing that in Avid for years, it works for their purpose, even getting some recent improvements. Getting this group of editors to switch is not going to be an easy sell. Even something like Premiere is tough. Who can blame them? Use what you know best so that you can remove the "machine" from the equation. Wondering how one NLE does something different than another is not something one wants to be thinking about during an edit. Please don't take my word on this, research the feature film editors currently working in Hollywood. I think you will see the numbers are very clear.

So, what this means is that we are all coming from different places, different needs. There is no right answer. There are multiple answers. I'm training myself on FCP X to better understand how it works, why it works, and ultimately where will I find a use for it in my particular situation. I can understand some people embracing it right off the bat. I can also understand why some would run for their lives. The economics of the situation such as who has what percentage of market share, what company is profiting the most, etc should only concern you if you think a company might be on the verge of bankruptcy or being bought out thereby potentially harming your infrastructure. There are legitimate reasons to worry about this stuff but really on a basic level it should be about what is going to get you or your company the best toolset for the kind of work you do.

For guys like Terry V, FCP X may be the best thing for him and I respect that. Just because I know it won't work in certain scenarios doesn't mean it's not a valid choice for him.

We are beyond the "Apple f%@ked up stage". Now it's about what they do with the product they are offering (updates, etc), how they treat their customers, and whether they achieve what they set out to accomplish with that product. If a million people buy it and use it that's probably a success, even if the percentage of professional users is lower than expected. Because in the end, we all know the word "professional" is open-ended and up for debate. So, a million users is a million users right? I will sum it up like this. If this $299 piece of software nets me a $5000 job because it's perfect for that job and allows me to be the most profitable on that particular job I won't care who the intended market was for. I just made money on it.

 

[Mark Toia]

Wait just a moment Mark.
By "I know Smoke", are you the same guy who recently bashed Smoke on a Mac and said it's unusable in it's present form? Is that what you cal "know"? Poking around a little and actually using the program on daily basis a big difference...

When I have a tough key to do, I jump back on it.... flame or smoke has the best keyer out there. I've got other tools up my sleeve that are faster to work with though.

 

[Mark Toia]

Hi Mark,

I don't get what you are saying about In's and Out's... But just a couple of other things:

- Unlike with 10.0.0, FCPX now remembers your in and out points you set on a clip... Even better, you can have multiple in and outs (ranges), just with shortcuts, and put them on the timeline with one keystroke. So in concrete, I can go trough an interview, just mark in and out while it's playing, push one keystroke, and it's all there in the timeline. I just have to connect B-Roll above it, and done. Very quick...

- The skimmer (playhead moving around)... First things first, there is a big button and shortcut you can use and it's off... Second thing: I hated it at first too, now I can't live without it. It's a great tool to very fast get trough footage, compare things, etc. ...

- Constant crashing... It wasn't the most stable release 10.0.0., but this was to be excpected. It still isn't rock stable as 7 was, but I rarely get crashes anymore, and I never loose work.

- Export Single movies from a timeline is possible now. Added in an update. You don't have to go to compressor anymore.

- Background Rendering can be switched off, and most of us have.

- R3D's slow to edit... Since 10.0.6 it has native R3D support. Have you seen the tutorials from Sam from WeMakeMovies? They are great, and show a LOT of the power of FCPX. Highly recommended: http://themovieswemake.com/tutorials/ (check his RED Workflow videos)
You can have automated proxies generated on the background, switch with one button. In my opinion it's MUCH better then CS6 and FCP7, because it combines some of the best features of both (having RAW support and 4K output, but also not ONLY editing with native R3D resulting in some less stable timelines, especially long form). I would like to be able to adjust more RAW parameters than you can now in FCPX though.

I'm not trying to persuade you. But if you break down the software (partly) based on FUD (features that can be easily switched off, some things that are have been corrected in updates, etc.), then I just have to step in.
You say you used it for a year, but you seem to have missed some basic things in the software, as I pointed out above, so I take your statement about using it for a year with a grain of salt. And, to make sure: I've got a lot of respect for you as a filmmaker. You just said some incorrect statements.

And about the workarounds and learning new stuff: I hated FCPX first too. I even asked my money back. I used it again after 10.0.3, and had a big hate/love relationship. But I got intrigued, and used it more and more, and learned how the timeline worked more and more. Now I switched 100 procent of my work from 7 to X and I couldn't be happier.
I think some people have very legit complaints about FCPX, and I'm not going to say they are all stupid for ignoring it. I can only say based on my own experience that the cliché that FCPX users say about a lot of haters not knowing the software truly well and that you (well, a lot of us ;-)) learn to love it after re-learning a lot, every day, is correct.

Hi Tim.
Ill give it another crack. Only because you were so nice in your reply. good on you.

 

[Michael Dalton]

I'm a FCPX fan. Just wrote a thread about my editing nightmare but oddly enough, I hear the same nightmares in blogs on Premiere. Not a fan of Avid or Vegas...not sure why.

Will for Avid, I think you need to work on long form projects or multiple projects with huge amounts of media to get it. Managing a 10 part series was near impossible in FCP. My files would take 5 minutes to open then crash five minutes later, and there was always something going offline. No way you can edit something that big in FCPX.

I think Apple gets it that we need a machine that is scalable. Rumours of 4k TV's sound positive for what the future might be, if they are thinking that, maybe the new Mac Pro will be all 4k with a new Pro version of FCPX4K?

 

[Michael Dalton]

Wait just a moment Mark.
By "I know Smoke", are you the same guy who recently bashed Smoke on a Mac and said it's unusable in it's present form? Is that what you cal "know"? Poking around a little and actually using the program on daily basis a big difference...

Jake, I don't think you find many people who have knowledge of Flame, Smoke, Nuke as having a little poking around knowledge. You need skill to be able to work those programs in your bag of tricks.

I agree Mark, have yet to come across a better Keyer then Flame. Was very tempted to go the smoke route when they had the offer, but needed a much more convincing work flow endorsement from people here. I'd love to see Autodesk/Discreet really get into the 4k editing finishing game.

 

[Mike Garrick]

Flame wars are so yesterday....1st it was Ampex/ACE verses sony/CMX ( remember linear ) ...then Avid vs FCP ( and boy do I remember that one )...now AVID vs CS6 vs FCPX.

This isn't ground hog decade ............Get over it .......Steve Sherrick's reply lists the reasons why there will never be agreement on what NLE is right for an individual or company.

Apple pissed off a whole lot of people & obviously that rage still burns. Myself I am trying to get sense of if FCPX has been fixed up enough to bother giving it a go, I haven't written it off, I'm just sittin on the fence biding my time & this thread has been very informative about where FCPX is at right now.

NLE's aren't as profitable as they once where ........just ask Avid http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showthread.php?304916-Avid-in-danger-of-being-delisted-from-NASDAQ

But one thing is for sure for FCPX even to hope to have the credibility of Avid, apple will have to do a whole lot more than just a marketing campaign .......maybe add "Toia's FCP7 switch" into the interface would be a start.

 

[Ces Peynetti]

...there are many different segments of the industry being represented... If this $299 piece of software nets me a $5000 job because it's perfect for that job and allows me to be the most profitable on that particular job I won't care who the intended market was for. I just made money on it.

Great post Steve. I do think that there are a lot of people that jump into this debate thinking everyone's workflows and needs are similar, or need to be similar. I find myself in the "Independent Production Company" section, and like you mentioned integrating FCPX has been interesting. It's definitely been a bit of a learning curve, but I've been able to find the right workflows where I can use the program to my own advantage (and make more money). Since I'm a bit of a tech geek as well, solving these workflow "puzzles" is super entertaining to me, which is why I tend to stand up to defend FCPX because there are some great things about it, that it's not the PoS software we all thought it was when we downloaded it on day one.

Having said that, I have also had some experience feature film editing (not much but some), and I can see how some aspects of FCPX would NOT work well in that world. Can you use FCPX from start to finish in a scenario like that? Of Course! Is it practical? I doubt it.

I believe we are hitting a point in post production that it's not the wisest to just stick to one program, or one workflow anymore (you can, just maybe not the wisest). You don't necessarily need to be a generalist instead of a specialist (which I think is a fascinating conversation), you might just need to focus on a few extra things and understand them while still being a specialist. It's also important to understand that there is no evil company out there trying to destroy what you love, but rather just to offer a different approach. As a specialist you will know if it's a good approach for you or not, but where you might say no, other specialists will say yes. One is not better than the other, they are just different. In the end, they are reaching for the same goal.

The again, I haven't been in this business as long as probably most of you, so I could be utterly wrong, but as the new kid in town, this is the way I see it for now.

 

[Eric Santiago]

To date Avid MC and Symphony has given us nothing but headaches when it comes to long form.
Now of course my idea of long form is a stupid board-room meeting recorded with XDCAM for 3 hours.
Then asked to turn into a DVD.
Which is where the problem starts with current Avid.
Its documented with Avis support but no fix to date.
We use what works, if I have to spit a dumb project like that again, itll be FCXP or Premiere next time.

 

[M Most]

One thing that is clear from this discussion and others I have seen that covered similar topics, is that there are many different segments of the industry being represented.

Steve, how do you expect people to take you seriously when you make so much sense? :sarcasm:

 

[jake blackstone]

When I have a tough key to do, I jump back on it.... flame or smoke has the best keyer out there. I've got other tools up my sleeve that are faster to work with though.

You kidding, right? You just happen to have a $100k Flame laying around to just to pull keys? That's all? I know this has nothing to do with the main discussion, but you're making no sense, sorry...

 

[jake blackstone]

Jake, I don't think you find many people who have knowledge of Flame, Smoke, Nuke as having a little poking around knowledge. You need skill to be able to work those programs in your bag of tricks.

I agree Mark, have yet to come across a better Keyer then Flame. Was very tempted to go the smoke route when they had the offer, but needed a much more convincing work flow endorsement from people here. I'd love to see Autodesk/Discreet really get into the 4k editing finishing game.

Compositors is the breed on their own. I assure you, they do exist
By now I use Smoke quite often, but I would never say, that I know Smoke, like, for example, I know color grading. People are very lose with the definition of knowing. Everyone these day are jacks of all trades, but masters of none and I wouldn't advertise that as an achievement of any kind.

 

[Peter Proniewicz-Brooks]

Will for Avid, I think you need to work on long form projects or multiple projects with huge amounts of media to get it. Managing a 10 part series was near impossible in FCP. My files would take 5 minutes to open then crash five minutes later, and there was always something going offline. No way you can edit something that big in FCPX.

I think Apple gets it that we need a machine that is scalable. Rumours of 4k TV's sound positive for what the future might be, if they are thinking that, maybe the new Mac Pro will be all 4k with a new Pro version of FCPX4K?

While FCPX will eventually be replaced by FCPXI, I doubt it will be moved down the pecking order of apple Apps from the top rung video wise. (and calling it FCPX4k is a confusing dffrentitor as FCPX is already 4k). Whats likely is that apple will continue to add features to X while possibly saving some back for a FCPXI release.

 

[Brad Webb]

While FCPX will eventually be replaced by FCPXI, I doubt it will be moved down the pecking order of apple Apps from the top rung video wise. (and calling it FCPX4k is a confusing dffrentitor as FCPX is already 4k). Whats likely is that apple will continue to add features to X while possibly saving some back for a FCPXI release.

Will there be a FCPXI? Or will FCP just be discontinued?

 

[Peter Proniewicz-Brooks]

Will there be a FCPXI? Or will FCP just be discontinued?

Given the resources that FCPX took and that they are putting into it, discontinuing it makes less sense than how they handeled the launch of X.

 

[Tom Hamilton]

One thing that is clear from this discussion and others I have seen that covered similar topics, is that there are many different segments of the industry being represented. I'll try to break them down and then discuss why certain tools make sense for those segments.

Hobbyist: This should not be looked at in a negative way. In fact, there are some people that do video as a hobby that can kick my ass any day of the week. In this category, it's possible that budget might be an issue, learning curve based on experience might be an issue, etc. I could very easily see people in this group leaning towards FCP X, Premiere, Vegas, iMovie, etc. The commitment level to how deep one goes might range depending on how serious of a hobby it is.

One-Man-Band Production Companies: Most of the work will be done by the owner of the company. Maybe some components will be farmed out at times, but for the most part, this person will do the shooting, editing, color, sound, and maybe even effects. They will choose tools that allow them to accomplish all of those things as efficiently as possible. Because they do not have to work with several other people or companies to get each component done, they are able to choose tools that work well in-house. Project exchange, OMF/AAF, EDLs, VFX workflows, etc really don't play as much of a role and therefore those features don't necessarily have to be in their toolset. FCP X, Adobe Creative Suite, Sony Vegas might all be valid choices in this type of scenario. Even Avid could work, especially if the person is very familiar with it already. But I could see FCP X having a lot of appeal to this group.

Independent Production Companies: I'm thinking of the multi-employee scenario with at least a couple of edit rooms, sound design, GFX, etc. This is where the conversation starts to get interesting. Workflow really does become a topic of conversation at this point. Local or shared storage? Multiple editors working on the same projects? Assistant editors preparing material for editors? Seamless interchange between picture and sound, picture and colorist? Depending on how all of this is set up can have a big impact on what tools are appropriate. It doesn't necessarily eliminate any of the NLEs right off the bat, but something like FCP X might be harder to integrate into this kind of scenario, at least in its current state. By no means impossible and I suspect as time goes on maybe even more capable of being implemented in these kinds of environments. But I think at the moment the top contenders would be Avid, Premiere, and maybe even FCP 7.

Commercial Post House: Now we start to get into the big boys. This is where a number of factors start to determine what can be used and what can't be used. Shared storage is almost a given at this point. So the NLE will need to be able to utilize it in a seamless way. At this level, many people will be involved working on all aspects of the process. Editors, sound designers, colorists, effects artists, etc. Being able to move media around in a professional manner is going to be key. Also, there may be some very seasoned editors involved that have their preference for what they edit on. Many of them will prefer Avid but will possibly also have a strong background in FCP. Getting them to move over to X is going to be a hard sell for now. There will of course be exceptions. Those who like to push the boundaries, try new things, and sometimes kind of like being on the outside of what everyone else is doing might give it a shot. But again, so many factors to take into consideration at this level, and the tried and true will often be the way to go. No matter how efficient FCP X might be for certain things, a company can always look at it another way - what will allow my editors to tell the best story the fastest? If they have been cutting on Avid for 15 years you know what the answer is going to be. And to be honest, I have been blown away watching editors who make the "machine" disappear and focus entirely on how to make a sequence of images work to tell a great story. It's like watching someone compose music.

Feature Film Editing: Probably the pinnacle of the editing food chain. Many of the best got their start cutting actual film. For many of them their digital editing has been on Avid, Lightworks, maybe a touch of FCP. But here is where you will find a lot of resistance to something like an FCP X. They don't need to fix something that isn't broke. So many here on Reduser talk about the need to cut in 4K. Many of these editors are perfectly happy cutting in DNxHD36 or 115. It's all about the story, the rhythm, etc. They can get that at those resolutions. They are doing a lot of straight cuts, minimal effects work. Some do a lot of sound design in the NLE to get a feel for things. They have been doing that in Avid for years, it works for their purpose, even getting some recent improvements. Getting this group of editors to switch is not going to be an easy sell. Even something like Premiere is tough. Who can blame them? Use what you know best so that you can remove the "machine" from the equation. Wondering how one NLE does something different than another is not something one wants to be thinking about during an edit. Please don't take my word on this, research the feature film editors currently working in Hollywood. I think you will see the numbers are very clear.

So, what this means is that we are all coming from different places, different needs. There is no right answer. There are multiple answers. I'm training myself on FCP X to better understand how it works, why it works, and ultimately where will I find a use for it in my particular situation. I can understand some people embracing it right off the bat. I can also understand why some would run for their lives. The economics of the situation such as who has what percentage of market share, what company is profiting the most, etc should only concern you if you think a company might be on the verge of bankruptcy or being bought out thereby potentially harming your infrastructure. There are legitimate reasons to worry about this stuff but really on a basic level it should be about what is going to get you or your company the best toolset for the kind of work you do.

For guys like Terry V, FCP X may be the best thing for him and I respect that. Just because I know it won't work in certain scenarios doesn't mean it's not a valid choice for him.

We are beyond the "Apple f%@ked up stage". Now it's about what they do with the product they are offering (updates, etc), how they treat their customers, and whether they achieve what they set out to accomplish with that product. If a million people buy it and use it that's probably a success, even if the percentage of professional users is lower than expected. Because in the end, we all know the word "professional" is open-ended and up for debate. So, a million users is a million users right? I will sum it up like this. If this $299 piece of software nets me a $5000 job because it's perfect for that job and allows me to be the most profitable on that particular job I won't care who the intended market was for. I just made money on it.

That sums it up very nicely Steve, thanks for the well thought-out post.

 

[william howell]

[COLOR=#FFFFFF !important]

One-Man-Band Production Companies: Most of the work will be done by the owner of the company. Maybe some components will be farmed out at times, but for the most part, this person will do the shooting, editing, color, sound, and maybe even effects. They will choose tools that allow them to accomplish all of those things as efficiently as possible. Because they do not have to work with several other people or companies to get each component done, they are able to choose tools that work well in-house. Project exchange, OMF/AAF, EDLs, VFX workflows, etc really don't play as much of a role and therefore those features don't necessarily have to be in their toolset. FCP X, Adobe Creative Suite, Sony Vegas might all be valid choices in this type of scenario. Even Avid could work, especially if the person is very familiar with it already. But I could see FCP X having a lot of appeal to this group.

Independent Production Companies: I'm thinking of the multi-employee scenario with at least a couple of edit rooms, sound design, GFX, etc. This is where the conversation starts to get interesting. Workflow really does become a topic of conversation at this point. Local or shared storage? Multiple editors working on the same projects? Assistant editors preparing material for editors? Seamless interchange between picture and sound, picture and colorist? Depending on how all of this is set up can have a big impact on what tools are appropriate. It doesn't necessarily eliminate any of the NLEs right off the bat, but something like FCP X might be harder to integrate into this kind of scenario, at least in its current state. By no means impossible and I suspect as time goes on maybe even more capable of being implemented in these kinds of environments. But I think at the moment the top contenders would be Avid, Premiere, and maybe even FCP 7.
)

This is where i am.. Stuck in the middle of these two groups..

I used to be the one man production dude at my company... But about a year ago we hired me a support associate.

We don't have enough money to dive into production level hardware (metasan's, etc)... Which is why we really are hoping for multi user functionality in fcpx and a mac pro with thunderbolt...

I'm stretching our budget thin as it is trying to get into shooting with a red... So... The infrastructure budget to really do things right isn't there.

We are expected to produce pro results ... And the bar is being set to high as to what pro results are now... Thanks, in part, to many members of this forum.
[/COLOR]

 

[Matt Gottshalk]

Given the resources that FCPX took and that they are putting into it, discontinuing it makes less sense than how they handeled the launch of X.

Really?

Because they've never bought/developed/upgraded a product then killed it.

Oh wait.

 

[Terry VerHaar]

All this talk about old apps and NLEs that carry on with tradition has me nostalgic for my Canon GH-1, circa 2001. Why did I ever stop shooting with that camera? I was so used to it. It was so comfortable. All this 4K stuff and RAW and HDRx. Bah - tradition, I say!!

:001_smile: