Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Log in
  • Hey all, just changed over the backend after 15 years I figured time to give it a bit of an update, its probably gonna be a bit weird for most of you and i am sure there is a few bugs to work out but it should kinda work the same as before... hopefully :)

Apple push to win back pro editors

did someone here tried it on 100 min plus timelines on a feature film with all the external stuff coming in?

But me staying with apple, well, it all depends on the new macpro right now.

what do you think, if the new macpro sucks, will resolve, smoke etc. probably be available on PC too?
 
Color timing is a one man show, you are comparing apples and oranges( no pun intended).

It is worse than FCP7, and FCP7 wasnt great...but you could save versions at least to mimic say a Unity workflow.

I need to be able to make a selects reel. I need to be able to share cuts and versions with my assistants and other editors. Tracks are needed for very specific organization that the editor dictates....not the machine. I need to be able to put a clip anywhere I want in a timeline freely...tracks are essential to this workflow especially during turn overs.

Why should editors be forced to find work arounds for very specific needs when it worked before? They shouldnt and they dont and they wont, which is why editors that make a living editing all bailed and which is also why Apple NEEDS to have a marketing campaign to convince people its a pro piece of software. Name another piece of software that needs to be pushed so hard to let pros know its pro. Its marketing smoke and mirrors.

Who the hell wants to see everything youve ever done in an NLE, all the time, forever... every time you open the program??? Events...gimme a break....they named it events because its a day someone went to Yosemite and shot some footage...an event. A collection of events, every day you ever went and shot something....this doesnt have editors in mind that work on a project by project basis. Its Apple iconsumer software.

Mathieu Ghekiere said:
OMF you are right, I don't Miss it but I'm sure some do. There is a program that translates FCPX XML to protools.

Projects and sequences now have Another terminology where Events are more like media pools for timelines.
Would you call the media pool principle of Resolve stupid too?

Collaborative editing is probably a feature in the Works. Let's not forget it's not worse now then with FCP7 or Première.

Tracks... We have Roles. In my opinion, it's has a bigger potential especially together with the timeline index- although it has to mature.
Click to expand...
 
Paul Harb said:
Color timing is a one man show, you are comparing apples and oranges( no pun intended).

It is worse than FCP7, and FCP7 wasnt great...but you could save versions at least to mimic say a Unity workflow.

I need to be able to make a selects reel. I need to be able to share cuts and versions with my assistants and other editors. Tracks are needed for very specific organization that the editor dictates....not the machine. I need to be able to put a clip anywhere I want in a timeline freely...tracks are essential to this workflow especially during turn overs.

Why should editors be forced to find work arounds for very specific needs when it worked before? They shouldnt and they dont and they wont, which is why editors that make a living editing all bailed and which is also why Apple NEEDS to have a marketing campaign to convince people its a pro piece of software. Name another piece of software that needs to be pushed so hard to let pros know its pro. Its marketing smoke and mirrors.

Who the hell wants to see everything youve ever done in an NLE, all the time, forever... every time you open the program??? Events...gimme a break....they named it events because its a day someone went to Yosemite and shot some footage...an event. A collection of events, every day you ever went and shot something....this doesnt have editors in mind that work on a project by project basis. Its Apple iconsumer software.
Click to expand...

Agree 100% with you, Paul.
A day in Yosemite... Hahahahaha!!!. The post of the week, for sure.
 
I think Paul nails the real issues with FCPX, between those who are cutting individual projects & those who are negotiating projects through a pipe with various input from other post facilities .

IMO It is this ability or lack of it that defines a professional system. So it sounds like FCPX still has a way to go yet. Which is bit of mystery given given FCP7 was there in the 1st place (could've done it better) .

I believe the whole ethos of Apple is trying to "lock users into" only using Apple systems this can be seen in the design of FCPX. This ethos is anathema to the world of post production.
 
I use all three NLE's.
They all have their quirks and bonuses.
One blows up, move to the next one :)
 
Paul Harb said:
I need to be able to make a selects reel. I need to be able to share cuts and versions with my assistants and other editors. Tracks are needed for very specific organization that the editor dictates....not the machine. I need to be able to put a clip anywhere I want in a timeline freely...tracks are essential to this workflow especially during turn overs.

Why should editors be forced to find work arounds for very specific needs when it worked before? They shouldnt and they dont and they wont, which is why editors that make a living editing all bailed and which is also why Apple NEEDS to have a marketing campaign to convince people its a pro piece of software. Name another piece of software that needs to be pushed so hard to let pros know its pro. Its marketing smoke and mirrors.

Who the hell wants to see everything youve ever done in an NLE, all the time, forever... every time you open the program??? Events...gimme a break....they named it events because its a day someone went to Yosemite and shot some footage...an event. A collection of events, every day you ever went and shot something....this doesnt have editors in mind that work on a project by project basis. Its Apple iconsumer software.
Click to expand...

I understand much of what you are saying however you seem to be suggesting that it is not possible to make a selects reel, share edits or remove events from your library... ever. That is just silly. Was I misunderstanding those parts or were they meant to have a comic effect?

The magnetic timeline and the abandoning of the track based structure is difficult to get used to initially, but as much as that is true, I am beginning to understand it's power. Many nights I sat in front of behemoth track counts trying to slip and slide bits around and keep them in synch... it was a nightmare. I have felt the same way fighting with the new timeline, but there is a light at the end of the tunnel with FCPX, with 7 not so much.

An Event can be a client, an individual job or a stock library. It doesn't have to be your Disney vacation.
 
Last edited:
Folks remember that FCP 7 had all the earlier code of darwin/cocoa/rhapsody and other pre-OSX technology imbedded in it. Remember that they switched from PPC chip to intel. Remember that they bought FCP...it wasn't created in-house. I'm sure the wizards that wrote the initial code stayed for 10 years and then wanted to do something else like start a company or retire, or simply do something different.

As much as FCP7 was great, it was getting behind as it was (when it came out). I bet it was easier to recreate an Intel OSX version rather then go through the millions of lines of old code (especially if any of the originators did leave). FCPX is not for a pipeline setup. Not yet. It is a long way to go to get back to what FCP7 was. Chances are, if we had a FCP8, it might be buggy and slow due to the mess of codes it is.

Obviously this is all speculation but for those that's tried to maintain software code for over 10 years, I'm sure it's viable that Apple knew it eventually would have to restart the program and perhaps time finally caught up. Just my opinion perhaps to add some incite since we'd never hear it from Apple.
 
Actually not bashing FCPX....for many who are posting on this thread it works fine for others maybe not.

I've a foot in both camps, editing one of projects "in house' but bigger stuff @ external facilities. In this one week alone I've a project going the avid route, another CS6 & another on FCP7.

FCPX is what is & no amount of marketing can change that.....so I accept it's limitations just like Avid & CS6. The art is understanding them & use the right NLE for the right project. At $300 FCPX is hard to beat, for me the real sleeper is the latest motion it can do somethings better & faster than AE & thats $40.

So what I take away from this thread for in house maybe FCPX for more elaborate workflows CS6, Avid.
 
One man's workaround may be another man's workflow.

And one who can't figure out how to organize their projects so they don't have everything there, all the time, should definitely not use FCP-X. :huh: Like every software application that has every been written, it takes some effort to learn it and, obviously, some willingness to change if you want to try and work with something new.

For those who are happy with their current paradigm, they should be happy to stay where they are. No?
 
You got me, I cant figure it out...its too complex for me. There may be goofy work arounds for this stuff but it wasnt designed with my workflow in mind....no matter how many times you say I just dont wanna learn it.

I am happy with where I am, I just wished Apple would have delivered what they had promised for years...a 64bit version of FCP...not iMovie that can do 4k. They had become a player and they didnt just drop the ball, they face planted with it.

Nobody asked them to throw everything away including known terminology and GUI basics in exchange for lack of user control and simplicity. They didnt create this terminology, its been around for ages so editors that had spent years learning a craft could move from system to system and learn new things...but the basics were the same. The thinking was the same for a reason, it made sense and worked and everyone knew it.

Features and Episodic TV are collaborative works for a reason. I dont have 15 years of sound designed experience, or color timing experience or VFX experience. This is art. I respect those crafts and the people that spend the time to learn said craft...it takes time and effort. You wanna be a genius at a specific craft, or be mediocre at everything? :huh:

Terry VerHaar said:
One man's workaround may be another man's workflow.

And one who can't figure out how to organize their projects so they don't have everything there, all the time, should definitely not use FCP-X. :huh: Like every software application that has every been written, it takes some effort to learn it and, obviously, some willingness to change if you want to try and work with something new.

For those who are happy with their current paradigm, they should be happy to stay where they are. No?
Click to expand...
 
Scott Crawley said:
What about it do you find mystifying and remarkable? You have to have the chips to build the machines, and they don't make their own.
Click to expand...

They're sitting on $100 billion pile of cash -

There's no "can't" here, for Apple - only, for whatever mystifying reasons, they "won't"

And yes, it is remarkable - and mystifying, that with this cash pile, that they won't or can't upgrade an existing line on an existing product which many facilities have dumped huge investments into -

But I repeat myself.
 
Not saying you can't but "can't" and "won't" end up in pretty much the same place. :devil:

In the world I inhabit, being a generalist is more likely to yield efficiencies and cost savings - and the difference between a project working or not. Being a narrowly focused specialist is overkill. Being a generalists doesn't have to mean being "mediocre" any more than being a specialist assures "genius."

I'd be willing to pose the question as to whether the world of the generalist - given the sophistication of tools available now, and those coming - will growth and broaden until it mostly swallows the world of the specialist. How many TV shows will be produced that can afford a whole team of specialists when it has to be satisfied with a smaller audience (and commensurate revenues). How much room is there for specialty talents on Hollywood films that account for 15-20% of the annual seats sold in theaters.

Don't worry, there's still time to adapt as the paradigm won't change overnight, but how long will it take? Paraphrasing the immortal words of Dirty Harry, "Do you feel lucky..." :smiley:
 
This is a given, but obviously the more time you spend on something the better you get. Dont you wanna strive for genius? Whether you get there or not is irrelevant I suppose. Its about caring about a craft so much you spend all your time with it. Can you do everything yourself...sure....but will it be at the level of using a bunch of different specialists...no way...not a chance, and if you think otherwise we just disagree and always will.


I find that insulting to all the amazing directors, writers, cinematographers, actors, editors, production designers, VFX artists, sounds designers, composers, and so on....I would argue there arent enough hours n the day to be amazing at something(unless you are that extremely rare freak of nature) if you are spending time on 10 other things....even 1 sometimes.

The over bloated budgets in features are more an accounting issue than too many below the line people making a decent waged living. Specialized skills will ALWAYS be in demand, what will change is the business side of it due to a bunch of suits and bankers.


Terry VerHaar said:
Not saying you can't but "can't" and "won't" end up in pretty much the same place. :devil:

In the world I inhabit, being a generalist is more likely to yield efficiencies and cost savings - and the difference between a project working or not. Being a narrowly focused specialist is overkill. Being a generalists doesn't have to mean being "mediocre" any more than being a specialist assures "genius."


I'd be willing to pose the question as to whether the world of the generalist - given the sophistication of tools available now, and those coming - will growth and broaden until it mostly swallows the world of the specialist. How many TV shows will be produced that can afford a whole team of specialists when it has to be satisfied with a smaller audience (and commensurate revenues). How much room is there for specialty talents on Hollywood films that account for 15-20% of the annual seats sold in theaters.

Don't worry, there's still time to adapt as the paradigm won't change overnight, but how long will it take? Paraphrasing the immortal words of Dirty Harry, "Do you feel lucky..." :smiley:
Click to expand...
So you are predicting that with FCPX Apple just changed the future of what editing will be moving forward?
 
Terry VerHaar said:
I'd be willing to pose the question as to whether the world of the generalist - given the sophistication of tools available now, and those coming - will growth and broaden until it mostly swallows the world of the specialist. How many TV shows will be produced that can afford a whole team of specialists when it has to be satisfied with a smaller audience (and commensurate revenues). How much room is there for specialty talents on Hollywood films that account for 15-20% of the annual seats sold in theaters.
Click to expand...

OK that's a good question. To be honest your premise seems a little shaky: eg are you sure that a good generalist working 90 hours will produce more for less money than three excellent specialists working 30 hours each?

However I am totally a generalist, so I am on your side emotionally. I have written and directed live theatre, painted, scored music, recorded and mixed sound, edited, color corrected, done VFX, titles, etc. I like to really push all of the different aspects and get as good at them as I can.

The only issue is that FCP X as it presently stands scores a 2/10 for most of the above things VS the current state of the art. Eg it only works for a generalist without heavy technical requirements.

So I personally end up finding that using a group of specialist programs works better for me for now.

RE: making them all work together: just pick a group of best-in-class apps that play well together. For me, that is a team of apps like Resolve, Maya, Cinema 4D, Avid, Pro Tools, After Effects, Nuke, Storyboard Pro, etc.

I don't WANT to have to use all those damn apps. I would rather have a mega app that is 8/10 at everything than ten apps that are 10/10. Owning actual legal copies of stuff costs me a lot of money, for example!

But AFAIK nobody has made that mega app yet. I do hope that in the future we get a version of FCP X that doesn't feel like it is limiting me. Also, I hope that they build on their database structure to allow a proper multi-user collaborative workflow.

It would be absolutely awesome if we had one kind of uber-app that replaced all of these.

However... take a look at Unix, the underpinning of Mac OS. One of the reasons for its success is having many small autonomous apps that do one thing well.

Maybe the answer will continue to be specialist apps that are good at each task... but each app just gets better and better at collaborating?

Bruce Allen
www.boacinema.com
 
With the way media is going, I would freak if I didn't know a little bit about everything. My shooting and color grading skills are definitely sharper than my editing skills but I don't have to be a union editor working on an expensive "professional" Avid or Creative Suite system to know how to cut a film together.

For the type of work i'm doing, the company is focused on turnaround time and speed to market, and FCP X helps me get than done. When I complete a project, I move the event into the project folder and back the whole project up to a second drive and Backblaze. This eliminates the problem Paul brings up about having to see every project you've worked on. Of course that's a crappy idea/concept, so I re-worked the workflow and ended up with a better solution. Now, if for some reason I need to revisit the project, I can drop the project file back onto the "Final Cut Projects" folder on my Raid 0 and drop the associated event back into the "Final Cut Events" folder and get back up and running. In fact, I can put the project and event into ANY machine running FCPX and it'll open up just as if it were my own machine. One of the benefits of having a standardized media management system.

Yes, Apple abandoned ship when so many people had been onboard. Yes, FCPX is a completely different program than 7. And yes, Apple lost a substantial amount of users making the jump from Final Cut 7 to CS and Avid (and even Vegas)... Still, FCPX is absolutely a capable editing program. It is not for everyone. Then again, nothing is for everyone. I work with a 3 person team. But I usually shoot/post/edit all of my own work. So for what I do to pay the bills, this gets it done. I would never edit a full-blown movie with FCPX. It just doesn't have the creative flexibility that specialist programs have.

Every now and then one of these threads pops up on RU and I can't help but just sit back and watch the hate parade ... but it's getting to the point where we're coming up on two years and eight updates later and people can't help but beat the shit out of a long dead horse. I don't mind if you dislike Final Cut Pro X, but to say the people who use it are mediocre is below the belt.
:rant::beatdeadhorse5:
 
Yikes!! I was totally with you until the end.....

I never said people that use FCPX are mediocre. That comment was in the context of someone saying the future of feature work is generalists and not specialists. Please dont take my comments out of context. Im not attackng FCPX users, why does everyone always go there? Wanna talk about my issues with Avid? I could rant all day. The issues Im talking about with FCPX are very specific to a certain kind of work, Im sure its great for other things.

I own FCPX, FCP7, Avid, Premiere...I use what works for what Im doing. Why do people on Reduser make things so personal when someone doesnt like a product? We are discussing a massive corporation and a piece of software, did you design it or something to have such an emotional attachment? It doesnt work for feature work, period. Thats all Im saying...just one small perspective.

I also disagree that specialized artists are a dying breed.


Alexander Thomson said:
With the way media is going, I would freak if I didn't know a little bit about everything. My shooting and color grading skills are definitely sharper than my editing skills but I don't have to be a union editor working on an expensive "professional" Avid or Creative Suite system to know how to cut a film together.

For the type of work i'm doing, the company is focused on turnaround time and speed to market, and FCP X helps me get than done. When I complete a project, I move the event into the project folder and back the whole project up to a second drive and Backblaze. This eliminates the problem Paul brings up about having to see every project you've worked on. Of course that's a crappy idea/concept, so I re-worked the workflow and ended up with a better solution. Now, if for some reason I need to revisit the project, I can drop the project file back onto the "Final Cut Projects" folder on my Raid 0 and drop the associated event back into the "Final Cut Events" folder and get back up and running. In fact, I can put the project and event into ANY machine running FCPX and it'll open up just as if it were my own machine. One of the benefits of having a standardized media management system.

Yes, Apple abandoned ship when so many people had been onboard. Yes, FCPX is a completely different program than 7. And yes, Apple lost a substantial amount of users making the jump from Final Cut 7 to CS and Avid (and even Vegas)... Still, FCPX is absolutely a capable editing program. It is not for everyone. Then again, nothing is for everyone. I work with a 3 person team. But I usually shoot/post/edit all of my own work. So for what I do to pay the bills, this gets it done. I would never edit a full-blown movie with FCPX. It just doesn't have the creative flexibility that specialist programs have.

Every now and then one of these threads pops up on RU and I can't help but just sit back and watch the hate parade ... but it's getting to the point where we're coming up on two years and eight updates later and people can't help but beat the shit out of a long dead horse. I don't mind if you dislike Final Cut Pro X, but to say the people who use it are mediocre is below the belt.
:rant::beatdeadhorse5:
Click to expand...
 
Paul - you'll have to pardon my sensitivity but, yeah - all your posts up to now sort of add up to saying say that people who use FCPX are somehow stupid, or mediocre or uninformed or, at best, non-professional; amateur tinkerers.

I do like being a generalist. That doesn't mean I can't strive to be, or be, amazing. I went to a liberal arts college, too; not a trade school.

Someone predicted correctly that this thread, while starting with a simple news item about Apple and FCP-X, would turn into a bash of the software and its users. And that it did.
 
Alexander Thomson said:
I can't help but just sit back and watch the hate parade ...
Click to expand...

I'd call it more of a frustration parade. Most people want to keep continuty, consistency, and alignment in their workflows and their toolsets. Apple has made that incredibly challenging and costly to many people, myself included. And yet, it spite of their recent bumbling and stumbling around with their pro tools, I'd probably still buy a tower, if they'd get off their asses and build one. And I'm sure I'm not alone in that. Most of my friends who are jumping the Mac ship aren't going to Windows - they're building Hackintoshes. Apple has extraordinary customer loyalty but they have squandered quite a bit of it on the pro side, in the past two years, with some arrogant and boneheaded gestures. Rather than get their house in order, they're flexing a (rather feeble) PR campaign muscle...just seems lame.

Terry - the people being bashed aren't Apple - Apple is the basher, not the bashee. They still have a chance to keep my business, in spite of two years of mistakes, which they've had since 1982 - but the window is closing...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top