FCPX, on set post, and studio level workflows

[M Most]

Also, it has been mentioned in a few places that I've got an agenda and something to sell. Ummm... of course I do! I make a living doing this like everyone else (although I find this argument a bit hilarious coming from some of these people as there's the whole pot, kettle, black analogy that I'd like to reference). ....Really, all I want is for the people that read all this stuff to take a minute, open it back up, give it a fair chance with an open mind, and decide for themselves if it's a tool they want to use in their workflows. I don't really think that's unreasonable.

I hope you're not referring to me in either of these statements. I don't edit (at least not for a living) and I don't really care what editors use. I do pay attention because it affects what I need to set up to properly support that decision, and I try to know every one of these tools at least to the point of being able to run them and understand them so that I can intelligently deal with them. As for giving things a fair chance, if anything I've really gone out of my way in nearly every post I've made to point out that I think FCPX is a very good editing tool. I've also said it's not the be-all and end-all of post production (no editing software is), particularly in the types of productions I deal with.

Terry wrote:

To be sure, there are times when something new proves to be a fluke. So, it can be prudent to "wait and see." That is why, so often, the change agents are the ones with no stake in the old game; those that have little or nothing to lose. So, we know FCP-X is sufficiently different to represent change. The question to be answered is, "Is it better?". Time will tell. The analogy that comes to mind is that of digital imaging vs. film. Film is very mature. like the methods and processes embedded within "traditional" NLEs like Avid. Digital is new and in a time of massive development. "Film guys" saw little need to change. Indie folks and others without the "establishment" behind them to afford film, embraced the "new way."

This is not really comparable in my mind because the move to digital production came with a rather huge financial incentive. Also, to me, a "disruptive" product is one that comes at a far lower price (these days, that price is sometimes $0) and thus "disrupts" the market because existing products cannot compete at anywhere near that price point. The Red One was a disruptive product. So was Resolve when Blackmagic lowered the price by over $100,000. So was Final Cut Pro (the original). FCPX is not. Its price, if you add in the third party products you really need to allow collaborative workflows, goes up to a number that is not vastly different than that of Media Composer 7. From my point of view, it's not disruptive, it's just different. Really different. So for current editors, it needs to offer an awful lot in a way that they can personally take advantage of in order to justify a significant change in their editing styles. For some that will be the case. For others, it won't, just as you point out.

 

[Blair S. Paulsen]

To reiterate. IMO, Apple has an limited time opportunity to prove out the core rationale of their ground up rewrite of FCP into FCP-X. By leveraging metadata and abandoning anachronistic structures FCP-X should save time - and time is money. As Mike points out, people were willing to struggle though other paradigm shifts because once accomplished, there were financial benefits. If case studies showing how quickly professional level shows can be turned around in FCP-X aren't popping up in the usual places soon...

I believe a substantial update, that solves a significant number of remaining issues without requiring 3rd party tools, released concurrently with the new MacPro hardware (or soon after) MUST happen or FCP-X will only remain relevant for folks outside of the specialist driven professional post ecosystem Mike lives in.

Cheers - #19