FCPX The Good, The Bad, The Ugly

[Blair S. Paulsen]

Perhaps FCPX could offer alternative GUIs and the editor could choose whichever tool set they prefer. The actual manipulation of data could still be based on the latest tech. The editors that can zip through projects using the X modality with roles, magnetic timeline, etc can rock on. Editors/projects that are best served by a more traditional track based modality can choose that. My analogy would be a blueprint that has top view, side view, front view options.

Having completed several complex long form projects on FCP I developed some effective strategies that relied on the way tracks operate. Is there a better way to do the same things in FCPX? Perhaps, but with the nomenclature changes/paradigm shift I have had little luck finding alternative strategies.

In a perfect world Apple would have kept improving Final Cut while maintaining the track based approach, then released X as either a separate product or as a "room" in FCP. Where I am most firmly in agreement with Hrvoje is the frustration of feeling forced to work a specific way.

Cheers - #19

 

[Hrvoje Simic]

You have made valid points, but there comes a point where opinions being stated as facts don't necessarily help. And not quite sure why I would need to change the title of my own thread.

I suggest having more patience with people who see things a different way, even if you believe their points of view are wrong. Humble pie always tastes best.

Steve...

Thanks for your input.

Good luck with the thread.

 

[Scot Yount]

In a perfect world Apple would have kept improving Final Cut while maintaining the track based approach, then released X as either a separate product or as a "room" in FCP. Where I am most firmly in agreement with Hrvoje is the frustration of feeling forced to work a specific way.

Blair, you aren't forced. You can use another NLE.

I am sure Hrvoje will say Michael Cioni is wrong of course....but here was his take a full two years ago. The software has matured a great deal since then.

https://vimeo.com/user6714186/review/74681700/4997b00f82

 

[Craig W. Bickerstaff]

On the side of audio one thing I've wondered is this, It seems everyone's go to app is pro tools, what does pro tools offer that you can't get from Logic Pro X?

 

[Scott Crawley]

On the side of audio one thing I've wondered is this, It seems everyone's go to app is pro tools, what does pro tools offer that you can't get from Logic Pro X?

Any studio you go into is going to have Pro Tools and odds are that is going to be what they are built around. So if there is any chance at all of your project going into a studio mixing session, you should just be working in Pro Tools from the start.

So your answer is mobility that is practically guaranteed. I guess that is what it gets you.

 

[Steve Sherrick]

Perhaps FCPX could offer alternative GUIs and the editor could choose whichever tool set they prefer. The actual manipulation of data could still be based on the latest tech. The editors that can zip through projects using the X modality with roles, magnetic timeline, etc can rock on. Editors/projects that are best served by a more traditional track based modality can choose that. My analogy would be a blueprint that has top view, side view, front view options.

I think this is the only thing I have an issue with Hrvoje on. It seems like his tone is a bit condescending towards people who choose to use it. I can see where he is coming from on some of his points but if someone is able to be productive with this tool, then it seems like they should be able to say they are productive and here is why. But this is the internet, and it's easy to misread tone, so it's possible I am completely missing the boat on what he means and the tone he is using to express it.

Having completed several complex long form projects on FCP I developed some effective strategies that relied on the way tracks operate. Is there a better way to do the same things in FCPX? Perhaps, but with the nomenclature changes/paradigm shift I have had little luck finding alternative strategies.

We are so used to track based editing, it's hard to step outside that paradigm. I fought it for years. I'm still not completely convinced Apple's approach with FCP X is better across the board, but I do know it's different. It has some things that seem better to me than other NLEs and other things that leave me scratching my head. But the reason I haven't completed the Bad and The Ugly parts yet is I'm still trying to get more info about the things I perceive as being bad. I run the danger of inexperience with the app leading to judgements that perhaps are not accurate.

In a perfect world Apple would have kept improving Final Cut while maintaining the track based approach, then released X as either a separate product or as a "room" in FCP. Where I am most firmly in agreement with Hrvoje is the frustration of feeling forced to work a specific way.

Cheers - #19

I do think there is room for offering customization, allowing the editor to choose the way they want to work. That is limited right now. It would be interesting to see them offer the option of a "classic" mode.

 

[Steve Sherrick]

Sound design has no place in any video editor. Not even close.

As far as sound editing goes, if you are doing the edit, after you do the rough edit I suggest exporting the sound files for a proper Protools/Nuendo work.
They have to be checked more thoroughly and if necessary alligned more precisely. Also, they have to be separated for a proper mix.

This is my preferred method. I don't disagree with it being a better approach. However, I would still argue it has a place in the NLE too as editors like Walter Murch do preliminary sound design in the editor all the time. And he is in my opinion one of the best sound designers of all time in addition to being a great editor. But your overall point is actually fine, it does make more sense to do it in a tool built for that purpose especially when you get into creating sounds from integrated apps and plugins.

 

[Steve Sherrick]

Steve...

Thanks for your input.

Good luck with the thread.

Perhaps my tone was a little out of character yesterday. I think you have valid concerns and I can understand challenging Apple's thinking on approach. You did give some examples and you are correct that I have not listed the The Bad and The Ugly, hence why you questioned the thread title. Project is done in two weeks, at which point I will list those. Just need more time with the app to sort things out and make sure I'm thorough about it.

I think if we can keep the thread focused on specifics, that will work best.

 

[Blair S. Paulsen]

Just to make a point:

If Apple assigned a team to develop FCP8, which was FCP7 with improvements that don't change the basic approach to editing with tracks - and took advantage of many of the "under the hood" technologies that make FCPX faster - how many do you think they would sell?

Cheers - #19

 

[Steve Sherrick]

Hard to quantify. Younger people seem to really like it and at $250 it's affordable. The amount of established editors in the industry is probably a small number in comparison. Now the hard part is if FCPX doesn't exist, then the only option would be FCP8 but there would also be Premiere with its full suite of apps. Really hard to know. Just spoke with a producer yesterday who had dabbled in FCP7, never really grabbed onto it but when he finally gave FCPX a try it made more sense to him and how he works. I guess we'll never know, unless you consider Premiere CC FCP8 in which case, maybe have to compare sales/rentals of that to FCPX.

 

[Douglas Underdahl]

Great that you are doing this thread, Steve.

I'm using FCP7 and I think I'd like to move to FCPX or Premiere, mainly because I think that I can work with both R3D files and MP4 files and H.264 files natively. Is this true? Right now I must transcode the R3D's to Pro Res and also convert files shot on DSLRs and GoPros, etc via Wondershare Video Converter. I just find that FCP7 does not like more than one codec in a timeline, though I do mix Pro Res and DVCPro and jpeg stills sometimes. But anything mp4 / h.264 won't work.

I lke that Premiere is integrated with Photoshop and After Effects but don't particularly look forward to another monthly fee.

 

[Kalechi Noel]

Great that you are doing this thread, Steve.

I'm using FCP7 and I think I'd like to move to FCPX or Premiere, mainly because I think that I can work with both R3D files and MP4 files and H.264 files natively. Is this true? Right now I must transcode the R3D's to Pro Res and also convert files shot on DSLRs and GoPros, etc via Wondershare Video Converter. I just find that FCP7 does not like more than one codec in a timeline, though I do mix Pro Res and DVCPro and jpeg stills sometimes. But anything mp4 / h.264 won't work.

I lke that Premiere is integrated with Photoshop and After Effects but don't particularly look forward to another monthly fee.

@Douglas... that is correct! fcpx will import and allow you to drop all the mentioned files/codes on a timeline and begin editing right away with no rendering necessary. You can also sync external sound, with the click of a button, with the many different codecs/files mentioned, and begin editing in second with sync sound. It does not need to render at all and if your machine is fast enough with enough ram, you are running 5k r3d's with no drop frames.

Built from the ground up, and built to take advantage of apple's own hardware, FCPX is the most optimized and fastest NLE available for mac hardware.

Here is a test running FCPX vs Premiere on a new Macbook Pro, for common rendering and processing task (1080, 4k, multicam etc). FCPX trumps the competition with 2x-3x faster speeds and stability. The results are impressive. (scrub to the 4:50 mark)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?t=291&v=ecqVGeocgSo

 

[Hrvoje Simic]

Perhaps my tone was a little out of character yesterday. I think you have valid concerns and I can understand challenging Apple's thinking on approach. You did give some examples and you are correct that I have not listed the The Bad and The Ugly, hence why you questioned the thread title. Project is done in two weeks, at which point I will list those. Just need more time with the app to sort things out and make sure I'm thorough about it.

I think if we can keep the thread focused on specifics, that will work best.

Your tone is not the issue.
Fanatic behavior of others with incapacity to handle the criticism or comprehend the matter is.

The humble pie comment was unnecessary though, but I do appreciate your effort for helping the discussion.
I assure you, if the pie was rotting in the fridge some folks here would be addressed quite differently after the assault attempts.

The thread title comment was not directed at your contribution but at the thread content. The discussion made to address the advantages and issues without capacity or willingness to face the issues is half pointless.

I mentioned specifics and even got to visual perception and the way mind works.
It is not the "opinion". It is not debatable. It is not something one gets to choose.

So - you go more into specifics of unpopular and not-so-pleasing notion, and folks chained to their version of reality (how much "theirs" it actually is, is debatable), once faced with the specifics which they have never encountered - either do not believe as true - or simply cannot comprehend, and get pissed in both cases.

Also, more specifics requires more time and patience and time I invest for these matters somewhere else - some pay, and here for using little of spare time left between two parallel jobs, to help the domain which got generally screwed by bean counters, I get a clown parade, drinking the Kool Aid sold by those bean counters, so my patience for addressing the matter in more detail has flown out the window.

Just spoke with a producer yesterday who had dabbled in FCP7, never really grabbed onto it but when he finally gave FCPX a try it made more sense to him and how he works.

He dabbled in FCP7 and got more closer to FCPsexy because first one was designed primarily for professional video editors and second one is designed to cater mass market with additional features for professional usage.

Just to make a point:

If Apple assigned a team to develop FCP8, which was FCP7 with improvements that don't change the basic approach to editing with tracks - and took advantage of many of the "under the hood" technologies that make FCPX faster - how many do you think they would sell?

Cheers - #19

If the reference is mass market and FCPsexy - not much.
If the reference is professional domain and the cornered folks signing the petition - a lot.

 

[Terry VerHaar]

Fanatic behavior of others with incapacity to... comprehend the matter...

And here is where the communication breaks down. It's the arrogance.

 

[Kalechi Noel]

It's clear all this bashing and back and forth is counter productive. More people are getting offended than actually being informed or gaining enlightenment.

Proposed Solution:

Doing screen capture videos comparing the plus's and minus's of both NLE's (having both opened simultaneously) and tackling the same project, tasks and operations. Personally, Coming from fcp7 to X... i can say there is no comparison. i'm 1000x faster overall, AND jobs i used to outsource to our After Effects guy are now done in house (in fcpx) by powerful customizable template and motion plugins that integrate with fcpx backend (see motionVFX.com ). I even Chromakey .r3d's in FCPX without hiccup and edit 4 streams simultaneously through their Multicam implementation (The best by far).

And as far as the "professional " debate... I was once told that the difference between a professional and an amateur is what you are able to negotiate for your worth and compensation.

So as X takes the cake for 95% percent of work the team and I do, and customers all remain happy, keep coming back and referring others.... i welcome any curious editor to not just Edit in FCPx, but to edit faster, smarter, and to be more efficient overall.

Time is money.

Cheers

 

[Oliver Peters]

Built from the ground up, and built to take advantage of apple's own hardware, FCPX is the most optimized and fastest NLE available for mac hardware.

I've got to disagree here. Yes, the Apple apps render faster using the same media and criteria. I've run similar tests with similar results. However, rendering is not the defining act in the process. There are certain tasks and processes where end-to-end time is better with Adobe and/or Avid and/or FCP X. And media is a big factor, too.

Yes, FCP X can handle a range of native codecs, but it doesn't do it nearly as well as Premiere on identical hardware. For example, in my testing REDCODE 4K from a RED One performs equally well in FCP X and Premiere. But 5K media from an Epic seems to perform a lot better in Premiere (at least for now). Both have their sweet spots. For FCP X it's ProRes, whereas Premiere seems to like ProRes and or AVC-Intra the best (on Mac). On the PC, Premiere does OK with Avid DNxHD but better with a high-res MPEG2 codec. So, it's very difficult to make statements like "the most optimized". While it might technically be true, it doesn't always pan out that way in real-world production.

- Oliver

 

[Hrvoje Simic]

And here is where the communication breaks down. It's the arrogance.

Terry, let me help you with those quotes.

In order to avoid needless polarization and either/or reasoning, instead of focusing in "that vs. this tool" it is much more productive to perceive specific functionalities which many find essential and missing here, and which can be implemented in this tool as well further improving it.

Yes, obviously FCPx improves certain aspects. With sacrifices mentioned previously. It does not have to be like this and it can be much better by fusing advantages and very essentials of non-linear editing.

Frankly, I think your whole discussion of "intuition" is pure BS.

I get it, you don't like FCPX. But, your pseudo-phlisophic meanderings are nothing more than a verbose way of saying that you are right while everyone who likes and appreciates working with it is wrong.

You dropped a part in this one.
I gather it was unintentional.

Fanatic behavior of others with incapacity to handle the criticism OR comprehend the matter is.

 

[Christian Schmitt]

@Hrvoje Simic
Why do you keep derailing this thread...?
Why not just take the high road and let your arguments speak for themselves?
Now it seems the other way around:
You have opinions and general assumptions about how editing is supposed to be and how FCX falls short in that category, and when someone answers with evidence-based arguments or even visible proof, like the pictures of complex FCX timelines, you keep derailing and choose to answer like a a greek oracle.
Please, let's just collect the good, bad and ugly as the thread title intended - even if in the end there's mostly good, some bad and very little ugly opposed to an equal division by thirds...

One "ugly" I have is, when clicking on a clip, my FCX sometimes jumps back to another project (timeline), is that a known bug...?

 

[Steve Sherrick]

To be fair, what's missing here is the criticism. Let's get rid of the Bad and the Ugly for a second as those are merely Thread Title teases. What Hrvoje is asking for is me to complete what I set out to do which is mention what I like but also provide the things that are lacking or need improvement. My first project is almost over. I feel better about waiting until the end to go into criticism. I'm still relatively inexperienced in FCPX right now, so before I come out guns blazing I need to gather my thoughts and present them in a constructive way.

I'm hoping I have time to incorporate screen shots and make this thread a bit more visual than wordy.

I was out of line yesterday with my humble pie comment. That didn't contribute much to the thread and it's out of character for me to make judgements on people I don't know. So, let's carry on and see where we can take it.

 

[Gunleik Groven]

Great thread. Play nice.

Thx Steve!

I haven't come beyond opening it yet

My son uses it all the time and loves it.