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

As this thread continues, I still see clear market segmentation. The show I am working on right now relies on a workflow that keeps a smooth flow of dailies streaming each day over the internet in DNxHD36 that then easily gets linked to DNxHD115 at the end of each week which will then get easily re-linked to ProRes 444 originals at the end for finishing. Also providing shots for VFX. Avid is the NLE of choice on this job. It all just works. But we have a dailies station at production office that churns out deliverables really fast and allows for this kind of workflow to run smoothly.

Bruce is working on feature film trailers and such which I'm sure require the same robustness of offline/online workflow where timecode stability and collaboration with many departments is key.

There are times when I work on projects that would be categorized as either one-man-band or independent production company and I may lean on other tools besides Avid, such as Premiere, FCP 7, or maybe even FCP X once I have enough comfort level with it.

That's why I don't know that it's necessary to defend FCP X or andy NLE for that matter. If you know the tools well, you know when to use them and when not to use them. That requires experience. You almost have to go through a studio TV production workflow or feature film workflow to know how and why it's done a certain way. Having said that, sure there are always ways to improve these workflows. It takes time, and sometimes someone going to bat for a particular way of doing things to implement change. And I would say the same for a one-man-band operation. You have to go through that as well to see what your best options are for getting things done.

So, to me a great way to focus all of this energy is to explore the app in question (FCP X) in a way that helps everyone learn more about it by offering tips and techniques and giving feedback to Apple on things that could be improved (although that might be subjective of course). Discussions that provide real world workflows with examples are always helpful to a community thirsty for knowledge. Then you get away from the "this app is better than that app" and focus more on how to get things done.

Just my opinion of course. :-)
 
Terry VerHaar said:
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.
Click to expand...

Sounds good.

Few examples which have nothing to do with the suggested context of chaining oneself to the "old ways":


Timeline

The very principles of non-linear editing lie in the perception of a linear timeline. With independent, controllable and customizable tracks.
Linear timeline representing linear content, able to be perceived and manipulated non-linearly.

With a purpose of editor's eye, mind and hands having the shortest possible route to any portion of the edited content, regardless of their temporal or layer affected relations. Meaning also that there are fewest possible redundant visual or mental steps or clicks (additional linear paths to the content) involved to perceive the sequence. It works the similar way in both audio and video editing.

The higher the requirements in either the scope or precision, the higher the required complexity of the working desk.
The more rudimentary the interface is, the more reduced perception (overview) is, and more additional paths are required.
Reducing the essential elements of a timeline of a non-linear editing tool is reducing its non-linearity.

What is first perceived as "easier" is not necessarily the most beneficial route, because later down the road the "easier" route tends to turn into "limiting" or "needs re-work". What is "removing the clutter" in this case actually is not doing any favors to the editor, because that "clutter" serves as important visual reference.

Visual mind bank of an editor is best reserved for shot database and the sequence being edited. Meaning visualization of the raw material and and pre-visualization of the end result. Both mentally combined within the context, and both negatively affected by additional mind-mapping of the content relations on the timeline. A complex timeline in front of an editor is a complex, constantly developing image, containing essential navigation data. It is more productive and less tasking to navigate through a complex frame than to keep all its detailed elements and their relations in the mind bank.

Having all important timeline elements visible at a one glance in various scale enables more effective perception, subliminal and faster navigation, and less thinking about the redundant factors, all of which matters more as the complexity of the project and variables from either content, client, versions or changes multiply. As the editor matures complex timeline presents no problem, while offering the perception and working speed a rudimentary one does not.

The goal of clearing the timeline could have been achieved with less negative repercussions by implementing smarter nesting into FCP7.
Attempting to "remove the clutter" by clearing the timeline this way, Apple is only moving that clutter into editor's visual memory.



Automations

Pre-determined automation may help in some cases, in others it limits specific and unpredictable custom moves, while at the same time adds another variable into equation, requiring additional focus and additonal mind mapping on the effects and variables of the automation. The automation which is not the very content itself, or even a primary tool, but another tool for a tool. In many cases this is counter-productive.

If one has a large desk with a large set of parts and tools on it, and another one a small table with tons of drawers for each part and tools and additonal secondary tools which take care of the primary tools, sooner or later in the second approach the "clarity" of the canvas and tidyness of the working desk becomes less appealing and more of a limitation for the development of a complex creation. The optimal solution lies not in completely substituting one approach with the other, but in the optimal combination of both, in accordance with the type of the project and its requirements. Something which could have been implemented in FCP7 by adding more UI customization options.

Something which is not achieved with FCPx, which is why much of the resistance to this 180 degree turn in the experienced editors world. Apple cannnot force its corporate decisions onto a large userbase of people who had enough basis and concrete evidence of their toolset priorities and requirements, regardless of slapping a "pro" label on it.

- If an editor manually arranges the clips, sequence or sequence parts, every manual and conscious action leaves an action/reaction mental marker about the timeline changes and specific clip relations. Which needs less thinking and allows more focus on the editing.
- If instead of an editor "magnets" arrange the clips, a pre-determined algorithm affecting many interrelated variables at once, that computer automated action does not leave a mental marker about all the changes and clip relations. Which requires an additional factor to be consciously processed. Which affects focus.

All this may be less of an issue with a simpler project, but as the complexity rises, so do the variables.
Which tend to multiply.


Filmstrip clip view

Consumer editing applications had this feature roughly a decade before Apple implemented it into a software labeled "pro", as if it discovered a gold mine, somehow overlooked by every serious NLE maker. This does not necessarily mean that a feature from a consumer solution must be overlooked, but in this specific example that feature also carries some flaws.

The flaws which existed back than and still do:

a) Clip may contain tons of visual data which needs to be properly perceived to choose the in/out points and may be easily missed by a small view. Using shortcuts for this process affects the choices. "Faster" in this case does not entail "better".
b) Clip content changes visibility is temporally non-constant and less reliable because the length of the clip combined with the size of little preview within the filmstrip affects which portion of the clip is shown in its mini timeline. This adds to the confusion and consumes time and focus in a complex project.
c) It clutters the valuable working space (what Apple attempted to avoid by stripping down the timeline), while offering little benefit compared to simply one click on a clip to a viewer in FCP7. While also removing the option of having a viewer window and main canvas window visible at the same time.


In this context, what may at first seem as "old", hence "uncool, so go buy the new or feel less as a part of the pack", pushed by a PR department of a company with a goal to appeal to a wider customer base, in reality is based on years of analysis, perfecting and experience and lies on very fundamentals of editing. Apple did not invent those fundamentals nor it will ever change them.



May 2010:

http://appleinsider.com/articles/10/05/18/apple_scaling_final_cut_studio_apps_to_fit_prosumers


 
What Steve Sherrick said. :)

Michael
 
I remember these rumors that Apple was going to 'dumb down' FCP to be more of a prosumer program and lots of FCP editors were saying 'no way' Apple would never do that,' it makes no sense to abandon power users'....well....thats exactly what they did.

They can try and put a spin on it, use marketing money to trick people that its something its not, but people who have to make a living as editors know exactly what they need and this is a dumbed down toy that takes away the editors control. In addition the way Apple did it and the secrecy revolving around it has left such a bad taste in peoples mouths, Im not sure what Apple could do to fix it. A new mac pro would go a long way but I almost hope they never do, its just a mixed message from a company that really could care less about power users.

Hrvoje Simic said:
Sounds good.

Few examples which have nothing to do with the suggested context of chaining oneself to the "old ways":


Timeline

The very principles of non-linear editing lie in the perception of a linear timeline. With independent, controllable and customizable tracks.
Linear timeline representing linear content, able to be perceived and manipulated non-linearly.

With a purpose of editor's eye, mind and hands having the shortest possible route to any portion of the edited content, regardless of their temporal or layer affected relations. Meaning also that there are fewest possible redundant visual or mental steps or clicks (additional linear paths to the content) involved to perceive the sequence. It works the similar way in both audio and video editing.

The higher the requirements in either the scope or precision, the higher the required complexity of the working desk.
The more rudimentary the interface is, the more reduced perception (overview) is, and more additional paths are required.
Reducing the essential elements of a timeline of a non-linear editing tool is reducing its non-linearity.

What is first perceived as "easier" is not necessarily the most beneficial route, because later down the road the "easier" route tends to turn into "limiting" or "needs re-work". What is "removing the clutter" in this case actually is not doing any favors to the editor, because that "clutter" serves as important visual reference.

Visual mind bank of an editor is best reserved for shot database and the sequence being edited. Meaning visualization of the raw material and and pre-visualization of the end result. Both mentally combined within the context, and both negatively affected by additional mind-mapping of the content relations on the timeline. A complex timeline in front of an editor is a complex, constantly developing image, containing essential navigation data. It is more productive and less tasking to navigate through a complex frame than to keep all its detailed elements and their relations in the mind bank.

Having all important timeline elements visible at a one glance in various scale enables more effective perception, subliminal and faster navigation, and less thinking about the redundant factors, all of which matters more as the complexity of the project and variables from either content, client, versions or changes multiply. As the editor matures complex timeline presents no problem, while offering the perception and working speed a rudimentary one does not.

The goal of clearing the timeline could have been achieved with less negative repercussions by implementing smarter nesting into FCP7.
Attempting to "remove the clutter" by clearing the timeline this way, Apple is only moving that clutter into editor's visual memory.



Automations

Pre-determined automation may help in some cases, in others it limits specific and unpredictable custom moves, while at the same time adds another variable into equation, requiring additional focus and additonal mind mapping on the effects and variables of the automation. The automation which is not the very content itself, or even a primary tool, but another tool for a tool. In many cases this is counter-productive.

If one has a large desk with a large set of parts and tools on it, and another one a small table with tons of drawers for each part and tools and additonal secondary tools which take care of the primary tools, sooner or later in the second approach the "clarity" of the canvas and tidyness of the working desk becomes less appealing and more of a limitation for the development of a complex creation. The optimal solution lies not in completely substituting one approach with the other, but in the optimal combination of both, in accordance with the type of the project and its requirements. Something which could have been implemented in FCP7 by adding more UI customization options.

Something which is not achieved with FCPx, which is why much of the resistance to this 180 degree turn in the experienced editors world. Apple cannnot force its corporate decisions onto a large userbase of people who had enough basis and concrete evidence of their toolset priorities and requirements, regardless of slapping a "pro" label on it.

- If an editor manually arranges the clips, sequence or sequence parts, every manual and conscious action leaves an action/reaction mental marker about the timeline changes and specific clip relations. Which needs less thinking and allows more focus on the editing.
- If instead of an editor "magnets" arrange the clips, a pre-determined algorithm affecting many interrelated variables at once, that computer automated action does not leave a mental marker about all the changes and clip relations. Which requires an additional factor to be consciously processed. Which affects focus.

All this may be less of an issue with a simpler project, but as the complexity rises, so do the variables.
Which tend to multiply.


Filmstrip clip view

Consumer editing applications had this feature roughly a decade before Apple implemented it into a software labeled "pro", as if it discovered a gold mine, somehow overlooked by every serious NLE maker. This does not necessarily mean that a feature from a consumer solution must be overlooked, but in this specific example that feature also carries some flaws.

The flaws which existed back than and still do:

a) Clip may contain tons of visual data which needs to be properly perceived to choose the in/out points and may be easily missed by a small view. Using shortcuts for this process affects the choices. "Faster" in this case does not entail "better".
b) Clip content changes visibility is temporally non-constant and less reliable because the length of the clip combined with the size of little preview within the filmstrip affects which portion of the clip is shown in its mini timeline. This adds to the confusion and consumes time and focus in a complex project.
c) It clutters the valuable working space (what Apple attempted to avoid by stripping down the timeline), while offering little benefit compared to simply one click on a clip to a viewer in FCP7. While also removing the option of having a viewer window and main canvas window visible at the same time.


In this context, what may at first seem as "old", hence "uncool, so go buy the new or feel less as a part of the pack", pushed by a PR department of a company with a goal to appeal to a wider customer base, in reality is based on years of analysis, perfecting and experience and lies on very fundamentals of editing. Apple did not invent those fundamentals nor it will ever change them.



May 2010:

http://appleinsider.com/articles/10/05/18/apple_scaling_final_cut_studio_apps_to_fit_prosumers
Click to expand...
 
while all this talking is happening there are a bunch of people turning into Fcp x power users. Using the application, giving feedback and cracking out some work. Kinda like red one users were for current epic and scarlet users.

The Redone was not perfect, but people used it, gave feedback and helped create what it's becoming now.

its all a matter of choice, of course, of whether one wants to be part of the "destruction gang" or the "construction crew"

since its release its just gotten better.

david

[video]http://m.youtube.com/#/watch?v=TwF9J1_aYzI&desktop_uri=%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DTwF 9J1_aYzI[/video]
 
hahaha... I can't believe i just read this entire thread....Well for what its worth, I think Steve has managed to save it from complete disaster twice. I will say I have used it... and dropped fcp7 use altogether lately.... and even used an vfx workflow back to my old workhorse shake... and it was an ad for theaters presented at 2k. tools are tools, use em and find what you like, have fun, and if you don't like something, don't use it... but the constant bashing by individuals who don't use it, or bashing others choices seems a bit insane... and i know insane. I work in small market and never know if i am getting paid on time... thats insane... so just chill everyone.

Its funny, i just was looking at the two new mac video cards and ran into a flame war between the "macs suck" vs "there more stable" crowd... best lines from each party? "I am not some kid, I am 21 and have been overclocking since i was 13, punk" followed by " I am no punk, I am 22 and have been doing this since 99!" the people here at reduser are better than that I hope.
 
Does someone has a workflow for a feature with 70 hrs of footage?
including possibilities with VFX and sound guys and a finish in another app inlcuding offline-online?
i like the user interface but couldnt figure out a streamlined workflow for so much material.
i am heading for avid for the next project, also i hate their user interface. but the rest works. any ideas?
 
Ok, Real World in a professional environment experience report:

Right now, I'm editing an internationally broadcasted TVC. I've decided to try and do it in FCP X because of Prores 4K and because I had a terrible experience last time with Premiere, which crashed and at the same time corrupted my portable HDD which had the entire project in it- god bless Disk Warrior. I could as well do it in FCP7 but then one has to move forward and not stay on a dead platform. I'm the director of the TVC and am doing an offline edit of the piece. FInal Grading , Online editing will be done by a post house, so I feel somehow safe, and the problem will need to be solved by the post house.

This tvc is based on a longer edited piece I directed a while ago and edited it in FCPX, my first "serious edit" on the software. The logical solution would be to copy the sequence and paste it in a new one, and trim and work from it, right? Turns out that in the new Final Cut, simple trims become a nightmare, at least for me.

Maybe its my lack of knowledge of the software, but the lack of tracks, which creates the "tetris effect"- piles and piles of clips placed in " stairstep" in order to prevail some sort of transparency and mask order -creates an organization hell. Add to that the incomprehensible auto "black shadow of pain", which basically is a black shadow on the timeline that final cut X creates the moment you add a transition to a clip, trying to somehow "group" the clip with the transition, which makes basic clip selection with the position tool requiring one to INDIVIDUALLY command click each shadow to be able to move a group of clips, is, to say the least, counter intuitive and takes both time and patience from the editor.

Since I don't have tracks I have to be constantly looking on the timeline up or down my "staircase" to search for the clip I'm looking for, be it an animation, graphic or video. Terrible.

But it has one thing going for it. Its solid. Never crashed, fast, reliable. Something I can't say from my Premiere experience. And I love prores, and being able to work with prores 4K natively in an editor with such a powerful engine makes it hard to look to others.

I think the post house is going to go through hell to pull out the EDL or the XML from this project, but its a challenge we are both willing to accept.

I am not convinced about FCPX as the tool that makes me edit more creatively and hassle free. So I'll be looking to CS7 to see if its more stable and can accomodate my workflow better.

FCPX has an incredible "engine" behind it but by going automatic transmission in the most crucial and precise things like timeline and clip organization on it, it just makes everything slower and, following with this analogy, "less drivable". I can accept auto effects, the hit or miss match colour and the gimmicky effects, but having to struggle my way to stacks of shots and the hassle of moving around the "storyline" just pulls me away from it. Either there's a rewrite or rethink of this or I'll continue looking for alternatives.

Any nice words for Smoke 2013? Sounds like a great deal...
 
Hi Sergio,

I'm not saying you aren't right, just want to add that really, the timeline in FCPX is something you get to know better and better, and with each assignment, I can manipulate it easier, have an easier view of what it's doing, etc.
I had a lot of the same complaints, but since March last year I've been using it for almost everything I do. With every job I got to know it better. And now I'm pretty much 100 percent switched to FCPX.

The whole shadow thing: it automatically makes a secondary storyline once you add a transition. Sometimes it can be annoying (I've also had jobs where it got in my way), but it has a logic behind it that is also very handy in other places. (once you make a transition, it becomes a storyline... It then behaves like a mini primary storyline, with magneticism etc.
Once you also get to learn some shortcuts (ALT+CMD+UP for a removing a clip from the storyline, so it becomes a connected clip or ALT+CMD+DOWN for the opposite) you really get to learn a lot more. Once I 'got' these 2 shortcuts, I became a LOT more efficient with the way a timeline works in X, and a lot faster. It was a lot easier and faster to change clips when the native magnetic storyline didn't fit with how I wanted to get that clip there. It sounds maybe abstract but just as a tip: learn these shortcuts, learn to USE them, just use X more and more, and you will find you will get a faster sense of how things work. About not knowing where your clips are because the lack of tracks: I very much like the absence of tracks, although everyone agrees that Apple has to put more effort in their Roles thing (color coding, putting them automatically together, etc.) for it to work in many more situations.

I now use 10.0.8 full-time and the last weeks I have been using it +10 hours a day, and it never crashed. (big difference with the first releases)
And every time I open 7, I can't stand it anymore. All the things I like in X... the engine, the background exporting, the waveforms updating when you change the volume, immediately seeing peaks, the skimming (which I hated at first, now I'm very quick because of it), etc. ...
 
Sergio, I run CS 6 on 4 year old Mac Pro without the problems you describe. I'm cutting a TVC right now on it with no probs.

Can't comment on FCP X as I haven't tried it yet. But man I'm feeling your pain.

P.S At least you post house is prepared to "try" the FCPX edl or whatever it is.
 
Last edited:
Sergio,

This pain you are feeling right now... It's a growing pain. You are at the crux of it. Once you learn and understand the "magnetic" properties; how they behave and how to manipulate them then you will know how you need to organize and construct a sequence. (The organization is key.) Then you will begin to understand the power of the thing. Once you know how to manually link and unlink groups of clips then how Roles are used, you might have an "Ah ha" moment. I know I did.
 
I found an easy way to fix all of Final Cuts issues. For me, there were some pretty clear instructions on how to make it less buggy and act exactly like I wanted it to. Apple explains the first section on their website. The first thing I did was select the program an all of its contents and throw it in the trash. I felt a little better at that point. Once it was gone, I went to Adobe's website and downloaded Premiere. In a few seconds it was working and my system was functioning much much better. Fixed all my problems.

It is almost about time to do the same process with my Mac Pro tower....except this time I think I'm gonna need a bigger trash can. (unless apple hurries its a%$ up).
 
Thank you Mathieu and Scott for the encouragement and tips. I know many issues I have with the software are based to my inexperience with the software. Like I said, it is a solid piece of software but I still question if this ends up being more productive and intuitive than editing in other NLE's? It just doesn't feel like it right now. True, years of editing in traditional multi track NLE's makes adjustment difficult, but editing in FCPX, because the interface makes away with rulers, timeline precise indicators (I know the display shows frames and seconds, but its not as visible as before) in favour of a nice looking graphic interface doesn't give me confidence and ease of mind.

The graphic interface looks nice, but the clips on the storyline have rounded edges and "snapping", for example, doesn't look precise because the pretty graphics and the yellow select frame are just too big, creating the occasional black frame due to me as the user not being able to see if the clips are connected or not. The pretty graphics in the timeline (not complaining about the windows, font, sub menus, etc.) do not help for precise editing. Like I said, however, its incredibly solid and reliable (so far), something that is a big, big plus in my book.

I don't particularly understand why Compressor 4 went away with so many of the previous presets. I have to admit I end up using Adobe Media Encoder more for mp4 creation and other compressions I need for non Apple Hardware owning clients. Sounds idiotic, but where I am many corporate Clients with PC's don't have quicktime installed. "The client is always right".

As for Premiere, my terrible experience was on this Tv Commercial: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TknUUZm41yk

I had the offline done on Premiere on my Retina Macbook Pro. A couple of crashes happened when I had the Red Rocket connected, but nothing serious. However, on the day of taking this edit to the post house for online, grading, conforming, graphics, etc. It crashed. And with it went the HDD. It might have been a bad coincidence, but the hard disk didn't "die", it had a corrupted file that prevented it from booting, which was saved with disk warrior. "It happens", I thought, and since I could save the project, I didn't think much about it- but went back to FCP7 for my other serious works for the rest of the year (I lost trust on it). A couple of months went by, and I went to Reducation in HK. I brought my Mac Retina, my Sonnet enclosure Rocket and there was a Premiere session. I said what the heck, I had updated the software so maybe everything is better? The fact is, One of Adobe updates broke the software- when I had the rocket connected, the software would actually be slower than without a Rocket. There was an adobe engineer in Reducation- Karl- and even him couldn't make this run smoothly. All in all, it was just a collection of issues that made me unsure about this software. I can obviously edit on it better than in FCP X since its very, very close to FCP7, but I can't "trust" it. Maybe I should have another go right now? (Have to say I'm not a big fan of Adobe's look for the interface as well as their fonts, but these are not deal breakers). I will certainly try CS7. But doors aren't shut and am still looking for the "better partner" for me :)
 
One curious observation I have made is that the folks who really have no interest in learning how to use the software are always the ones who find it "terrible" and "buggy." OTOH, those who are interested in discovering new, and possibly better, ways to do things, and put in some time and effort, are actually impressed with what it can do.

No one says you have to adopt a new tool; your best workflow is up to you. Stop with the bullshit bashing of the software. It's not Apple's fault that you don't know how to use it properly. If you do want to learn, check out Sam Mestman's workflow for RED:

http://www.reduser.net/forum/showth...-Workflow-All-3-parts-now-up-(and-at-NAB-too)
 
FCP X Training - Saturday April 27th - West Hollywood

FCP X Training - Saturday April 27th - West Hollywood

Interesting thread to say the least ... thank God we have the Voice of Reason, Mr. Steve Sherrick, to bring some sanity to the proceedings ... thank you Steve!

Sam Mestman and I spent last week at NAB 2013 demoing a 4k end-to-end EPIC workflow built around FCP X 10.0.8, DaVinci Resolve and SMOKE ... no transcoding used, no RedRocket in the pipeline ... we had a MacPro Tower driving the new Eizo CG276 4K monitor plus a 27 inch iMac plus a rdMBP all running over XSAN accessing the same EPIC RAW files at the same time .... all in glorious 4K.

We typically got two reactions from the many people who listened to how Sam was using FCP X as the backbone for the 4K workflow:

1) OMG! - I didn't know FCP X could do that :-)

and

2) We don't trust Apple in the Pro market ... they're a phone company :-(

After getting this reaction several times I started to dig a little deeper and this is what I sussed out:

1) Many editors, indie filmmakers and DITs tried out FCP X 10.0.0 when it first came out and came to the accurate conclusion that this product was not ready for prime time ... and quite rightly so .... however, that's where they stopped ... they hadn't touched the product since that first bitter experience .... FCP X is now up to rev 10.0.8 and has evolved a tremendous amount over the last eighteen months to the point now where it is a quite different product to when it was first released.

If you haven't tested the 10.0.8 version keep an open mind .... it's based on tons of feedback that Apple have been getting from editors since the launch ... is it perfect now? ... of course not ... but is it useable on professional gigs now? .... it is, if you learn how to master it and use its many new powerful features to your advantage .... will you have to approach things in a slightly different way? ... will you need to learn a new set of techniques to get the most out of it? .... you sure will ... will it be worth the temporary discomfort you feel and learning curve you have to go through? ... only you can answer that question ... but there are many professional editors who have been through that learning curve and are now enjoying the substantial benefits to be gained ... it is very fast and efficient - especially with EPIC footage.

There is a free 30 day trial of FCP X 10.0.8 available on the Apple website .... download it ... study some of the online tutorials and give it a whirl ... you might be pleasantly surprised.

2) The 'we don't trust Apple in the Pro market' reaction is a little tougher to address ... it's true that Apple now makes most of it's revenue and profit from the iOS and iTunes platform but if you look at their last quarter's P&L statement, Apple took in about $51 Billion dollars in 12 weeks ($51 billion! - that is some serious dough, btw) of which around $43 B was iOS platform related leaving about $8 billion for the non phone/iOS stuff ... only $8 billion in one quarter on the gear we buy .... jeeezz, most companies don't take in $8 billion revenue in their whole year, never mind in one quarter - have a close look at Avid's dismal earnings report for last year if you want to see how hard it is to make a profitable living from the Pro editing market alone.

Without going into all the details, let me just add this ... though Apple did not have a booth on the NAB floor (Jobs took the wise decision of not having Apple exhibit at trade shows a couple of years ago) they were there in numbers ... we were invited to a private behind-closed-doors update of where Apple are at with FCP X .... can't go into details but rest assured, these guys are serious about the Pro apps products and the Pro editing market ... as in, seriously serious.

Apple sent a lot of customers to our booth to see what Sam was doing with the latest version of FCP X ... after spending 20 minutes with Sam they went away delighted and eager to give FCP X another try .... the key is knowing how to use the many new features to make FCP X work for you ... I'm not an editor but have been doing RED post for eight years now ... we're always on the look-out for the best tools to get the job done in the most cost-effective way ... we use Avid and Adobe products all the time and love them ... we have Resolve and Scratch and Express Dailies and love them ... we use whatever toolsets we can to make file-based workflow as efficient, easy and cheap as possible ... we beta test as many products as we can to see where the market is heading .... FCP X is one of those tools that will continue to gain market share ... Apple is in the file-based game ... they totally get it.

If you want to know how to get the most out of FCP X and DaVinci Resolve, come and see Sam in action ... we're running a Training Day specifically on FCP X file based workflow on Saturday April 27th on The Lot in West Hollywood .... if you attend the two training sessions and leave afterwards not 100% convinced that FCP X is a tool you have to master and use in your EPIC file-based workflows, I'll give you a 100% refund - no questions asked ... Boy Scouts Honor ;-)

Details of Sam's Training Day are on the Events page on the LumaForge website:

http://www.lumaforge.com/styled-2/index.html

Cheers,
Neil
 
Neil - thanks for this post.

Sam and I spoke about bringing a demo/training session to the SF Bay Area some time in the next several weeks. If there are any Bay Area filmmakers interested in this, PM me so I can get a gauge of just how many people might be interested.
 
Terry VerHaar said:
Neil - thanks for this post.

Sam and I spoke about bringing a demo/training session to the SF Bay Area some time in the next several weeks. If there are any Bay Area filmmakers interested in this, PM me so I can get a gauge of just how many people might be interested.
Click to expand...
If by Bay Area you mean Montana, absolutely!:001_tongue: But seriously, that seems like a great seminar to attend and I'm eager to see the write-ups.
 
Alexander Thomson said:
Running FCPX on a i7 3770K hackintosh overclocked to 4.8ghz. It's the best of both worlds. Super fast, super cheap, and super upgradeable. And I can even dual boot and play all my video games on the windows side :lol: I'll probably never buy a real mac ever again with the quality of these hack pro builds.
Click to expand...

Problem is, not super reliable, and super easy to break with any OSX update.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top