Apple push to win back pro editors

[Bruce Allen]

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:

Well, that's exactly the problem. FCP X is not like our old cameras, only better. FCP X is a little like a GoPro.

It's damn awesome. It shoots 4K. It's cheap as hell. It rocks. It can do things other cameras don't do. Cheaper and faster and lighter. It's the future.

It works great for lots of people right now (including many, many professionals). But boy would it be nice if you had a little more manual control. Some people need that.

That's why we hover around these FCP X update threads. Because we're genuinely in interested in them updating FCP X to add in a bit more necessary stuff for our particular use cases.

I don't see why I folks need to get angry about me asking for manual control on a GoPro. It's not like I don't like GoPro. It's not like I think that current GoPro users suck. I just want them to add some features.

Bruce Allen
www.boacinema.com

 

[Zeb B]

wake me up if they make a new tower or at least a ThunderBolt port replicator

 

[Christoffer Glans]

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.

Even from "one-man production company" things get rough in comparison with other NLE's. Yes, you "can" do it, but I question that it would be better to use FCPX instead of the Adobe solution where you get a lightening fast NLE that is linkable to After Effects, that has speed grade and photoshop and also Story", which was a surprisingly good cloudbased screenplay application. If you are going to do everything yourself, you need quality applications beyond FCPX. The flying text effects and other stuff withing FCPX isn't going to give you those good jobs you really want. You need to be able to grade as a colorist and do compositing as a compositor which you can't in FCPX.

...and going into the big league it gets even more frustrating where you really need to collaborate.

I understand the hobbyist side of it, the youtube-strength of it, but for high end production, why bother struggling with a 299 app when there are better options? Really?

 

[Cüneyt Kaya]

actually i like the the editing part on fcp x, i dont like the organising maeterial part and all the missing little things which you need when you work with other departments, editors, different versions, vfx etc. and worst is the manual control on exports. hope avid will be bought by autodesk and we get a avid, resolve, smoke combo app called "in your dreams pendecho"

 

[Mathieu Ghekiere]

actually i like the the editing part on fcp x, i dont like the organising maeterial part and all the missing little things which you need when you work with other departments, editors, different versions, vfx etc. and worst is the manual control on exports. hope avid will be bought by autodesk and we get a avid, resolve, smoke combo app called "in your dreams pendecho"

That's strange, I (and many others) think the organisational part of FCPX is one of it's strong points, with keywords, smart collections, batch renaming, etc.

About exporting: you can make any setting in compressor 4 and use it in FCPX. You can make bundles with multiple settings, and have FCPX export it all in one take.

 

[Drew Baird]

About exporting: you can make any setting in compressor 4 and use it in FCPX. You can make bundles with multiple settings, and have FCPX export it all in one take.

That is actually pretty damn cool. I didn't know it could do that.

 

[Mathieu Ghekiere]

Yes it is. Added in 10.0.6 update.

 

[JanneJansson]

I tried FCPX and it just pissed me off. Not liking it even if it was made of gold and created by unicorns.

 

[Brian Merlen]

you know whats really funny...


I hate fcpx/imovie but might use it on a job I am on. You see FCPX can do automated ken burns. I have to do custom ken burns if I use my superior Avid/Adobe suites. This project doesn't need custom ones, its a bs low end gig. So I seriously might attempt to install the FCPX trial again. Please note when I tried this just a few weeks ago it crashed out this same system...

Wish me luck guys, I think my lazy self might try installing this free trial again...Oh boy I hope it doesn't break my OS again...

 

[william howell]

Apple announced two major product revamps today.

The first is the iphone 5p.

The p stands for professional... Always the innovator, apple has removed the phone technology from the new iPhone... Saying that talking to people is outdated, and more of a Microsoft kind of issue. In addition, they've added a 7k sensor in the camera, and 32 terabytes of storage.

Also, apple finally unveiled the long awaited update for its pro level machines. The new Mac Pro tower will be roughly the size of a toaster, hold 250 gigs of ram, and will allow professionals to finally produce films like the Hobbit in iMovie with the new iPhone 5p, by seamlessly integrating 378 gigaflops of gpu power and the iPhones 7k sensor.​

 

[Mathieu Ghekiere]

you know whats really funny...


I hate fcpx/imovie but might use it on a job I am on. You see FCPX can do automated ken burns.

Funny, that was the exact original reason I gave FCPX a second chance back in january 2012. Now I completely switched from FCP7 to X.

 

[Terry VerHaar]

Well, that's exactly the problem. FCP X is not like our old cameras, only better. FCP X is a little like a GoPro.

It's damn awesome. It shoots 4K. It's cheap as hell. It rocks. It can do things other cameras don't do. Cheaper and faster and lighter. It's the future.

It works great for lots of people right now (including many, many professionals). But boy would it be nice if you had a little more manual control. Some people need that.

That's why we hover around these FCP X update threads. Because we're genuinely in interested in them updating FCP X to add in a bit more necessary stuff for our particular use cases.

I don't see why I folks need to get angry about me asking for manual control on a GoPro. It's not like I don't like GoPro. It's not like I think that current GoPro users suck. I just want them to add some features.

Bruce Allen
www.boacinema.com

Not that it is going to change any minds either way, but I'd note that your analogy breaks down pretty quickly. The GoPro example implies a sacrifice of quality in the final product to use the features and strengths of a GoPro. After all, no would claim that GoPro footage is of the quality that RED delivers.

But using FCP-X is about process, not outcome. And there is no sacrifice of quality in your image if you use FCP-X. I'd suggest that the FCP-X process is efficient and powerful while others would call it cumbersome. I'd say that those who make claims about all the things it can't do and does poorly, are not willing to investigate a new way of doing things and, therefore, are ignorant of many of its capabilities. I would claim that FCP-X has found ways to streamline the way an NLE works. Others would say that FCP-X is weak because it arbitrarily changes the way editors have "always" done things.

There are legitimate differing opinions but I find it interesting that the "against" crowd are so intensely interested in bashing the software rather than simply accepting - though not necessarily embracing - a potentially (and arguably) game-changing application. Many have found great solace with Adobe, which has had its own issues in the past, and with Avid, which also struggles in may ways.

In the end, you use what works best for you.

 

[Bruce Allen]

Not that it is going to change any minds either way, but I'd note that your analogy breaks down pretty quickly. The GoPro example implies a sacrifice of quality in the final product to use the features and strengths of a GoPro. After all, no would claim that GoPro footage is of the quality that RED delivers.

But using FCP-X is about process, not outcome. And there is no sacrifice of quality in your image if you use FCP-X.

You have now completely twisted your own original analogy, which was:
Avid and Premiere Pro = Canon GH1
Final Cut Pro X = RED (with 4K, HDRX, etc)

You're criticizing me for comparing Final Cut Pro X to GoPro because it's "unfair".

At the same time you are comparing Avid and Premiere Pro to a GH1.

You have a rather one-sided sensitivity

Seriously, dude, in the editorial world, there is no RED equivalent - and if there is, FCPX ain't it (yet).

There is the GoPro - eg FCPX. It is cool and cheap and light and useful and awesome. But boy does that auto-aperture suck. If they fix stuff like that, it'll be great.
There is the prosumer HDV camera - eg Premiere Pro. It's nifty and light and great for a one-man band, but limited in tricky ways.
There is the old Betacam - eg Avid. Clunky and heavy and expensive but really useful if you have a team of cameramen and want to do something technical like sync timecode or match white balance or genlock multicam together.

And yes, if you think I'm talking about resolution or picture quality, you totally missed the point. The point was about workflow and usability.

Bruce Allen
www.boacinema.com

 

[Terry VerHaar]

My point -sarcastic in case you missed it, was about chaining oneself to the "old ways." There are reasons to do that and reasons not to. You choose which path you want to take. As will I.

 

[Scott Crawley]

You have now completely twisted your own original analogy, which was:
Avid and Premiere Pro = Canon GH1
Final Cut Pro X = RED (with 4K, HDRX, etc)

You're criticizing me for comparing Final Cut Pro X to GoPro because it's "unfair".

At the same time you are comparing Avid and Premiere Pro to a GH1.

You have a rather one-sided sensitivity

Seriously, dude, in the editorial world, there is no RED equivalent - and if there is, FCPX ain't it (yet).

There is the GoPro - eg FCPX. It is cool and cheap and light and useful and awesome. But boy does that auto-aperture suck. If they fix stuff like that, it'll be great.
There is the prosumer HDV camera - eg Premiere Pro. It's nifty and light and great for a one-man band, but limited in tricky ways.
There is the old Betacam - eg Avid. Clunky and heavy and expensive but really useful if you have a team of cameramen and want to do something technical like sync timecode or match white balance or genlock multicam together.

And yes, if you think I'm talking about resolution or picture quality, you totally missed the point. The point was about workflow and usability.

Bruce Allen
www.boacinema.com

I understand your analogy. It's not bad.

FCPX is very useable, once you learn how its media management, new tools and the trackless paradigm works. It can be extremely irritating to get used to and many people aren't interested in learning to ride a new bike, but I am beginning to find that it may be worth the effort. If you set the workflow issues aside and you are finding that is doesn't work as a cutting tool, then I respectfully suggest that the problem may be PEBKAC in nature. Some of the negative comments here suggest that the critic has not yet taken the time to understand the app before casting dispersions upon it. I believe some of your remarks fall into that category.

The FCPX workflow is evolving. DaVinci round trips are a no-brainer, and there is a plug-in for OMF/AAF exports. Have you seen X2Pro Audio convert ( http://www.x2pro.net/)? I am hearing good things.

 

[Bruce Allen]

I understand your analogy. It's not bad.

FCPX is very useable, once you learn how its media management, new tools and the trackless paradigm works. It can be extremely irritating to get used to and many people aren't interested in learning to ride a new bike, but I am beginning to find that it may be worth the effort. If you set the workflow issues aside and you are finding that is doesn't work as a cutting tool, then I respectfully suggest that the problem may be PEBKAC in nature. You really should learn how to use the tools correctly before you condemn them for not working.

The FCPX workflow is evolving. DaVinci round trips are a no-brainer, and there is a plug-in for OMF/AAF exports. Have you seen X2Pro Audio convert ( http://www.x2pro.net/)? I am hearing good things.

This is all true.

One big issue for me for FCP X is that you can't have multiple editors working within the same project, at the same time, as you can with Avid.

Eg you have assistant editor logging stuff, three editors cutting, and a fourth editor showing those cuts to client via fiber.

This is a daily workflow at where I work (except multiply that scenario by three or four). Avid has always been good at that. FCP 7 kiiiiinda could do it (with much hassle). FCP X doesn't even try.

The interesting thing is that FCP X is built on a database structure so in theory you could host the database on a central server (or in ze Cloud) and have multi-user editing. The database would handle the multi-user concurrency. That's what databases are designed to do.

So that's why I check every time there's an update. To see if they added that.

BTW... at one point there definitely was multi-user editing in FCP X. There are still bits of it in the code:
http://alex4d.wordpress.com/2011/07/18/secret-fcpx-xml-multi-user-editing/

Sadly, it looks like they shifted focus away from... well, I can't say the high-end pros because then people get angry. They shifted focus. Away from a function that many professional editors find useful.

As much as Terry wants to say that the current FCP X way is the way of the future... collaboration is the way of the future and FCP X sucks at that at the moment.

Hope this is a good concrete example?

Bruce Allen
www.boacinema.com

 

[Scott Crawley]

This is all true.

One big issue for me for FCP X is that you can't have multiple editors working within the same project, at the same time, as you can with Avid.

Eg you have assistant editor logging stuff, three editors cutting, and a fourth editor showing those cuts to client via fiber.

This is a daily workflow at where I work (except multiply that scenario by three or four). Avid has always been good at that. FCP 7 kiiiiinda could do it (with much hassle). FCP X doesn't even try.

The interesting thing is that FCP X is built on a database structure so in theory you could host the database on a central server (or in ze Cloud) and have multi-user editing. The database would handle the multi-user concurrency. That's what databases are designed to do.

So that's why I check every time there's an update. To see if they added that.

BTW... at one point there definitely was multi-user editing in FCP X. There are still bits of it in the code:
http://alex4d.wordpress.com/2011/07/18/secret-fcpx-xml-multi-user-editing/

Sadly, it looks like they shifted focus away from... well, I can't say the high-end pros because then people get angry. They shifted focus. Away from a function that many professional editors find useful.

As much as Terry wants to say that the current FCP X way is the way of the future... collaboration is the way of the future and FCP X sucks at that at the moment.

Hope this is a good concrete example?

Bruce Allen
www.boacinema.com

I am not facile enough with X's media management to be of much use, but I am under the impression that multiple users can work from centrally served media. Each editor works from their own project and event files, but you can share the same media live I think. If you copy Event references from the AE periodically during the day you can be working with the same meta tags. Project files also must be passed around, so that as you say, does not help you in a live multi-user scenario. They copy very quickly, but you can't all be live in the same project.

I think I read an article recently about a couple houses that are making it work, but what their specific requirements are I can't say. If I can recall where I saw it, I'll link you.

 

[Bruce Allen]

I am not facile enough with X's media management to help, but I am under the impression that multiple users can work from centrally served media. Each editor works from their own project and event files, but you can share the same media live I think. If you copy Event references from the AE periodically during the day you can be working with the same meta tags.

I think I read an article recently about a couple houses that are doing it. If I can recall where I saw it, I'll link you.

Thank you! Yes, please send the link.

Sadly, the issue is the "Each editor works from their own project and event files" bit.

If you have to stop to sync these, that's a huge productivity killer the moment you start working with many people, on deadlines.

In Avid, you actually have little read / write icons. And you can open up any bin that someone else is working on, as they are working on it. Refresh and that bin will update with their latest changes.

If there is a way in FCP X to sync up everyone's projects and events in 10 seconds, then it becomes competitive.

Unfortunately, until they get that centralized database working, Avid is just going to eat their lunch the moment editorial teams need to work together in close collaboration. I know that seems like a marginal case to most REDUSERs... but its our professional lifeblood. And I don't think collaboration is blinkered, outdated thinking. I think it's definitely the way of the future and it's sad that FCP X currently ignores this when they had a chance to fix this from day one. It'd certainly be high on my list if I were building a NLE from scratch.

Bruce Allen
www.boacinema.com

 

[Peter Proniewicz-Brooks]

This is all true.

One big issue for me for FCP X is that you can't have multiple editors working within the same project, at the same time, as you can with Avid.

Eg you have assistant editor logging stuff, three editors cutting, and a fourth editor showing those cuts to client via fiber.

This is a daily workflow at where I work (except multiply that scenario by three or four). Avid has always been good at that. FCP 7 kiiiiinda could do it (with much hassle). FCP X doesn't even try.

The interesting thing is that FCP X is built on a database structure so in theory you could host the database on a central server (or in ze Cloud) and have multi-user editing. The database would handle the multi-user concurrency. That's what databases are designed to do.

So that's why I check every time there's an update. To see if they added that.

BTW... at one point there definitely was multi-user editing in FCP X. There are still bits of it in the code:
http://alex4d.wordpress.com/2011/07/18/secret-fcpx-xml-multi-user-editing/

Sadly, it looks like they shifted focus away from... well, I can't say the high-end pros because then people get angry. They shifted focus. Away from a function that many professional editors find useful.

As much as Terry wants to say that the current FCP X way is the way of the future... collaboration is the way of the future and FCP X sucks at that at the moment.

Hope this is a good concrete example?

Bruce Allen
www.boacinema.com

Making an asusmtion either way RE Multi user editing ever making an actual release on FCPX is foolish in my opinion. Apple have shown that they can be quite unpredictable.

Clearly the way FCPX is structured with regards to project and file management adding it is defiantly possible. Why it hasn't made it is a speculation game that could go on for ages.

Apple have steadily been adding important features to FCPX, a built in export for pro sound programs and a multi user workflow are among the most glaring holes as far as I can see. The former there are 3rd party tools that make a workable if clunky solution and the latter there is hope it can be added. Will it, who knows, but buying things on anything other than what they can do at the moment is a gamblers game and the house wins far to much for a sane man to gamble to often when its business.

 

[Scott Crawley]

Thank you! Yes, please send the link.

Sadly, the issue is the "Each editor works from their own project and event files" bit.

If you have to stop to sync these, that's a huge productivity killer the moment you start working with many people, on deadlines.

In Avid, you actually have little read / write icons. And you can open up any bin that someone else is working on, as they are working on it. Refresh and that bin will update with their latest changes.

If there is a way in FCP X to sync up everyone's projects and events in 10 seconds, then it becomes competitive.

Unfortunately, until they get that centralized database working, Avid is just going to eat their lunch the moment editorial teams need to work together in close collaboration. I know that seems like a marginal case to most REDUSERs... but its our professional lifeblood. And I don't think collaboration is blinkered, outdated thinking. I think it's definitely the way of the future and it's sad that FCP X currently ignores this when they had a chance to fix this from day one. It'd certainly be high on my list if I were building a NLE from scratch.

Bruce Allen
www.boacinema.com

Yes, Avid has always owned the top 1% with that shit. ;-)

Edit:

Thank you! Yes, please send the link.

So far I'm not seeing collaboration on that level in the case studies I was reading.