FCPX The Good, The Bad, The Ugly

[Terry VerHaar]

Best move is for each person to stick with what they know.

David - I agree about 95% with this sentiment but I also think it always makes sense to stretch and to be ready to change and adapt. I see why working editors don't want to change their paradigms when what they have works for them. But, it is always a danger to get too comfortable because people come along who adopt new ways that save time and effort and those people can gain competitive advantage. When to make these changes and adaptations is the tricky part kind of like knowing when to buy or sell a stock, no one knows the future until it happens.

As far as I can tell, the "other" NLEs aren't broken and do the job quite well. (You could argue that Avid, as a company, is in trouble, but that's another issue). So, yes, if it's working well for you, stay with it. But don't close your eyes to potential change.

 

[Scot Yount]

Must have chewed off several limbs building this....

 

[Oliver Peters]

I see why working editors don't want to change their paradigms when what they have works for them.

It's not just that. On many larger projects, you are part of an ecosystem. If you change the tool you use - and it has to integrate with everyone else in the chain, like audio, VFX, grading - then you really are taking on a large responsibility. Most editors don't have the luxury of a team of assistants who can take care of keeping it all straight and fixing it when it's wrong. The "Focus" team took on the challenge of using X on a feature film with the understanding that they would all be canned if it didn't work. And they had to maintain a mirrored FCP7 project the whole way. Fortunately they'd done their testing and were confident - and had the obvious blessing and encouragement from the directors. But there's always a chance it doesn't work so well. It's a lot easier when you are a one-man-band editor than in this type of playground.

- Oliver

 

[Hrvoje Simic]

Must have chewed off several limbs building this....

I see sarcasm-style ridicule attempting remark was chosen over consideration of presented point.

 

[Steve Sherrick]

To borrow a line from the world of Star Wars "...stay on target". I understand that in order to assess FCPX we need to have points of reference (the other NLEs). However, I think we should try to use the power of a forum like this to investigate these matters in a way that is highly beneficial for everyone involved. For example, many of us are used to working with tradional audio tracks. Ultimately if a new tool is to be used we need to discover the best practices in the other tool that allow the same if not better productivity. That's what I'm looking at here and hoping that the contributions everyone makes is aimed at sharing tips and techniques that help us better understand something, in this case FCPX.

Once I complete my lists of the things I like and the things I'm struggling with I would be excited to see responses that address these things, utilizing the many intelligent, experienced minds we have here at Reduser. For example, if someone sees something on my list and says, Steve you're going about it the wrong way, here's how you accomplish that in a lot less time. That's gold. We can all learn from it.

FCPX vs Avid vs Premiere has use but only if we keep it to how we can use those NLEs to compare and contrast what can be done in FCP X. It never needs to get personal or definitive.

 

[Sergio Perez]

To borrow a line from the world of Star Wars "...stay on target". I understand that in order to assess FCPX we need to have points of reference (the other NLEs). However, I think we should try to use the power of a forum like this to investigate these matters in a way that is highly beneficial for everyone involved. For example, many of us are used to working with tradional audio tracks. Ultimately if a new tool is to be used we need to discover the best practices in the other tool that allow the same if not better productivity. That's what I'm looking at here and hoping that the contributions everyone makes is aimed at sharing tips and techniques that help us better understand something, in this case FCPX.

Once I complete my lists of the things I like and the things I'm struggling with I would be excited to see responses that address these things, utilizing the many intelligent, experienced minds we have here at Reduser. For example, if someone sees something on my list and says, Steve you're going about it the wrong way, here's how you accomplish that in a lot less time. That's gold. We can all learn from it.

FCPX vs Avid vs Premiere has use but only if we keep it to how we can use those NLEs to compare and contrast what can be done in FCP X. It never needs to get personal or definitive.

A bit off topic or not, but imagine what a damn INCREDIBLE control surface the new Ipad Pro and Pencil could be for Final Cut, Motion, or Resolve! (Not even speaking of photography apps.) I hope Apple monitors us or someone can send them this feedback. If I could work on Final Cut's Masks with the Ipad Pro and Pencil, or Motion, there's a system seller right there!

 

[Hrvoje Simic]

David - I agree about 95% with this sentiment but I also think it always makes sense to stretch and to be ready to change and adapt. I see why working editors don't want to change their paradigms when what they have works for them.

Before addressing this rhetoric...question.

If one is building a house...who does one listen to primarily in finding the optimal building approach ?

a) The architect
b) Tool manufacturer

 

[Michael Tiemann]

Before addressing this rhetoric...two questions.

If one is building a house...who does one listen to primarily in finding the optimal building approach ?

a) The architect
b) Tool manufacturer

The tool manufacturer: Chinese company builds 57-storey skyscraper in 19 days, in pictures

 

[Hrvoje Simic]

The tool manufacturer: Chinese company builds 57-storey skyscraper in 19 days, in pictures

Built by construction company (not tool manufacturer), based on approach envisioned by architects.

 

[Corey_O]

Built by construction company (not tool manufacturer), based on approach envisioned by architects.

Structural engineers will tell you architects design things that sometimes cannot be accomadated. Just sayin

 

[Hrvoje Simic]

Structural engineers will tell you architects design things that sometimes cannot be accomadated. Just sayin

Understandable.

Editors with mileage may tell you that $200B cash-hoarding, gadget-making & other's creations reselling corporations sometimes make things to appeal to masses, ignoring thousands of professionals, heavy investing into PR BS to hype, redirect focus and shush the criticism.

And if one sees a bitten fruit logo enough times on every corner with a couple of satisfied desires related to it, the notions served coming from that direction tend to get more easily accepted than those coming from folks editing for a living and writing on forums. And desire to recycle and even fight for notions served by the more appealing source are not uncommon and are planned and counted on on marketing department's meetings.

Just sayin'.

 

[Corey_O]

Understandable.

Editors with mileage may tell you that $200B cash hoarding gadget-making/media & app-reselling corporations sometimes design things to appeal to masses, ignoring thousands of professionals, heavy investing into PR BS.

And if one sees a bitten fruit logo enough times on every corner with a couple of satisfied desires related to it, the notions served coming from that direction tend to get more easily accepted than those coming from folks editing for a living and writing on forums, accompanied with desire to recycle and even fight for notions served by the more appealing source.

Just sayin'.

Understandable.

One would hope that a small group of these high mileage editors would be working closely with development team at the forbidden fruit company.

 

[Hrvoje Simic]

Understandable.

One would hope that a small group of these high mileage editors would be working closely with development team at the forbidden fruit company.

If a product is designed for a mass market "small group's" decisive factors are not on the list of priorities for the product manufacturer. If that group was participating in development and/or actually listened to, there wouldn't be that much outrage within the professional worldwide community and five figures on petition. Before it was removed.

The perception of the size of that group varies greatly, depending on the position in market segment and related points of reference. Plus influence of corporate PR.

In my experience and many talks with colleagues, 19 out of 20 people have zero intentions of switching to an editor based on ass-backwards approach to non-linear editing, with highly conditioned and borderline linear type of canvas and one preview screen, and they care squat for its extra features or what its manufacturer wants them to believe. Many of them still using FCP7. Not willing to switch to Adobe.

FCPx has many good solutions and great advancements in media management, but its main approach is greatly limiting editing regardless of those advancements, and this is not based on subjective "paradigms" and inert comfort zones, but on laws of perception and very basis of non-linear editing.

 

[Craig W. Bickerstaff]

If a product is designed for a mass market "small group's" decisive factors are not on the list of priorities for the product manufacturer. If that group was participating in development and/or actually listened to, there wouldn't be that much outrage within the professional worldwide community and five figures on petition. Before it was removed.

The perception of the size of that group varies greatly, depending on the position in market segment and related points of reference. Plus influence of corporate PR.

In my experience and many talks with colleagues, 19 out of 20 people have zero intentions of switching to an editor based on ass-backwards approach to non-linear editing, with highly conditioned and borderline linear type of canvas and one preview screen, and they care squat for its extra features or what its manufacturer wants them to believe. Many of them still using FCP7. Not willing to switch to Adobe.

FCPx has many good solutions and great advancements in media management, but its main approach is greatly limiting editing regardless of those advancements, and this is not based on subjective "paradigms" and inert comfort zones, but on laws of perception and very basis of non-linear editing.

Let's pretend that I've never used Final Cut Pro X before, on that basis explain all this stuff to me... elaborate.

 

[Hrvoje Simic]

Let's pretend that I've never used Final Cut Pro X before, on that basis explain all this stuff to me... elaborate.

I already wrote an essay few years ago when this corporative arrogance based debacle happened.

The potential of any non-linear editor depends primarily on its non-linearity, practicality and intuitivity. Not "brain rewiring".
As long as the timeline works the way it does squeezed down there, this is half-assed editor, polished with extra features which fail to compensate editing special olympics. Most of the promoted features have zero relations to actual editing process.

Media preparation is not editing. Motion graphics are not editing. Grading is not editing.

Editing is rhythm, context, flow, relations, motion, order, constant comparison, consideration, reviewing, checking details, references and outcomes...none of which can be done as intuitively, practically and efficiently with this stripped/then compensated approach as it can be done with a normal approach. There are tons of things one can do on a normal timeline, used by all serious video and audio editing tools. With minimal "brain rewiring" and additional mental processing and with maximal focus on the actual content. With minimal logical navigation and constant switching between logical > visual.

This is not editor's wishful thinking, these are main principles discovered and proven countless of times by the editors, which they have to use to their fullest potential.

Who ever buys the idiotic nonsense sold by PR that profesional video editors make decisions based on Ego or function based on inert & difficult to adapt minds, while working with tons of content, nitpicky clients, deadlines, differing projects, approaches and production teams, multiple tools and delivery destinations, overcoming constant obstacles and improvising on the go with minimal/no room for mistakes....is completely clueless about professional editing and lives in a reality bubble designed by corporate PR.

The solution. For a start.

Multiple independent tracks. Muting, solo, movable. Open, comprehensive, unconditioned, customizable timeline.
This empowers the editor through most usable temporal canvas and most comprehensive insight and media manipulation abilities possible on a digital 2D plane.
Not less options, or replacing one with the other, more options. Merging new features with basis of non-linear editing.
Plain and simple.

No "paradigm" BS, one button mouse type of approaches and reinventing the wheel.
Who gets intimidated by tracks perhaps is not best suited for manipulating trains.

If there is one company with largest potential for making the best NLE ever it is the one sitting on $200B with FCP collecting dust in its drawer.
For this to happen someone somewhere must decide to step down from its high horse, invest 0.0001 % of that pile and start listening instead of telling.

 

[Craig W. Bickerstaff]

I already wrote an essay few years ago when this corporative arrogance based debacle happened.

The potential of any non-linear editor depends primarily on its non linearity and intuitivity. Not "brain rewiring". As long as the timeline works the way it does squeezed down there, this is half assed editor polished with extra features which fail to compensate editing special olympics.
Most of the promoted features have zero relations to actual editing process.

Media management is not editing. Motion graphics are not editing. Grading is not editing.

Editing is rhythm, context, flow, relations, motion, order, constant comparison, consideration, reviewing...none of which can be done intuitively, practically and efficiently on the main premise of this editor.

There are tons of things one can do on a normal timeline, used by all serious video and audio editing tools. With minimal "brain rewiring" and additional mental processing and with maximal focus on the actual content. With minimal logical navigation and constant switching between logical > visual.

Multiple independent tracks. Muting, solo, movable. Open, comprehensive, unconditioned, customizable timeline.
Empowers the editor through most comprehensive insight and media manipulation abilities possible on a digital 2D plane. Not less options, more options. Merging new features with foundations of non linear editing.
Plan and simple.

No "paradigm" BS, one button mouse type of approaches and reinventing the wheel.
Who gets intimidated by tracks perhaps is not best suited for manipulating trains.

I don't care about a few years ago, tell me about NOW, no bullshit, no fluff. Just facts.

 

[Hrvoje Simic]

Craig, if this all seems as bullshit and fluff, all else would not matter much.

 

[Scott Crawley]

Hrvoje,

I think we all understand that you dislike it. As you stated you have written many a treatise on your disrespect of Apple and disdain for their editing software.

While you have been busy railing against it however you seem to be missing a shift that is happening. It is not as wholly unpopular as it was. It has become more functional and editors are becoming more adept with it. Many of those editing tasks that you claim it is incapable of doing... People are doing them.

:chillpill:

 

[Hrvoje Simic]

Hrvoje,

I think we all understand that you dislike it. As you stated you have written many a treatise on your disrespect of Apple and disdain for their editing software.

While you have been busy railing against it however you seem to be missing a shift that is happening. It is not as wholly unpopular as it was. It has become more functional and editors are becoming more adept with it. Many of those editing tasks that you claim it is incapable of doing... People are doing them.

:chillpill:

Subjective part is irrelevant here and attempting to drag the subjectivity into discussion to relativize the issues will not change anything.

When you have ten thousands professionals signing petitions, after years of investing into a company and relying on its tools being ignored and treated as secondary, in order to further increase a mountain of money, it may be a good time to start considering what this corporatized bean counting world has turned into, and what are preferrable sources for more objective picture of reality.

I just wrote what is not a subjective thing. Your photographic memory on which your brain functions to navigate your body through its surroundings is not something I imagined. The amount of insight and control you have in front of you with one fixed track and many independent ones is not a subjective thing. It's physics and psychology.

FCP7 is also Apple's editing software.

I can edit anything on one track without anything else. I can learn to paint with my nose or write with feet.
That is not the point and I'm not going through this all over again.

You can expect serious perception of FCPx within the pro community when it meets the requirements for serious non linear editing.
I just named a few. I didn't invent those or will achieve financial gain by promoting them.
Good place to start.

No need for a chill pill, I'm not the one getting pissed here.

 

[Scott Crawley]

Subjective part is irrelevant here and attempting to drag the subjectivity into discussion to relativize the issues will not change anything.

When you have ten thousands professionals signing petitions, after years of investing into a company and relying on its tools being ignored and treated as secondary, in order to further increase a mountain of money, it may be a good time to start considering what this corporatized bean counting world has turned into, and what are preferrable sources for more objective picture of reality.

I just wrote what is not a subjective thing. Your photographic memory on which your brain functions to navigate your body through its surroundings is not something I imagined. The amount of insight and control you have in front of you with one fixed track and many independent ones is not a subjective thing. It's physics and psychology.

FCP7 is also Apple's editing software.

I can edit anything on one track without anything else. I can learn to paint with my nose or write with feet.
That is not the point and I'm not going through this all over again.

You can expect serious perception of FCPx within the pro community when it meets the requirements for serious non linear editing.
I just named a few. I didn't invent those or will achieve financial gain by promoting them.
Good place to start.

No need for a chill pill, I'm not the one getting pissed here.

I'm not pissed, nor am I repeating myself.