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 :)

FIlm professionals petition seeks to bring back old Final Cut Pro

David McGavran said:
Please join us in the adobe workflow area so we can work on the problems you are seeing.

Thanks
Dave
Click to expand...

Hi David!
There was a file in the preferences folder that I was advised to delete (on a mac), which I did. I moved all r3d's to one raid 0 disc (3x1 tb); and I changed the fan settings; I don't know which of these helped, but it did. Everything is working fine; now I'd better follow a course in after effects (reason why I post this here is because I want to correct the impression I gave in my earlier post). oh, I also stopped using the sheer codec.
 
Frederick Giles said:
I gave up on FCP X, used it for a month. Just pisses me off, it's shouldn't be harder to edit in the timeline. The timeline magnetic/storyline thing is just a glossed over bullshit editing style. Apple said it would be awesome, it's an awesome wast of time.
Click to expand...

Agreed. Staying on FCP7 as long as I can while looking into alternatives. Seems to be coming down to Premiere and Avid.
 
Christoffer Glans said:
Yes, say that to the companies who invested in those thousands if not millions of dollars. Again, some can think like you do, others can't. Most people seem to not understand the ramifications this has to the industry, maybe because they haven't been involved in that scale of it yet. I gladly sign and use something else, Apple isn't a reliable source of professional gear, they have proven that now.
Click to expand...

That doesn't sound like a sensible way to run a business... I never assume that any supplier is reliable - I decide the minimum time I want to be using a software package (say, two years), and expect it to be the same all through that time, ie. not planning for future versions or updates. That way you can use the best software and if you get new features or can upgrade cheaply to a newer version, then all the better. But it's no problem if you can't...

Which is why I'm not using Final Cut X now but wouldn't have any problem to get it if it eventually improves.
 
Its the nature of this business.
I have a long list of software/hardware/peripherals/tech that's been laid to rest.
But seriously, FCP is not dead.
Its working fine along with Avid and Adobe CS 5.x here as well as FCPX, Resolve, Protools and Notepad :)
Im still choked my Onyx, Octane and O2 cant be gutted as a beer fridge here :P
Damn corporation frowns on it ;)
 
Apple no longer care about 'industry professionals'. Mainstream advertising has taught us their focus and attention is now dedicated to lifestyle products, the iPad, iPhone, iTunes, iPod and sexy silver mac books.

FCX seems to have balanced out well aimed at imovie users (the every day person) and Logic Pro hasn't had a decent update for yonks, which I've been using since 99, music production has been my career.

In my opinion the once 'Niche Mac' is now the new 'Mainstream PC'. While it's still my platform of choice, given it's robust stability, I still feel cheated that Apple have sat on the 'Mac PRO' for so long. Was I wrong in anticipating something that changed the game for the creative industry, maybe a 'Mac EPIC', nope instead I have an iPhone sitting to the left of me with a 2008 Mac Pro injected with enough steroids to keep my work flow fast. However I am getting tired of PP jumping and skipping.

I'm using Premiere Pro and love it, links to AE perfectly.
 
Last edited:
I have spent a lot of time not only evaluating FCPX, but also evaluating technological advancements in general since the late 1990's. Pointing out that FCPX is missing critical components to professional users is warranted and (more importantly) a large percentage of the reasoning behind limited implementation of this application in the workforce. But to suggest that FCPX is a step backwards is a gross misunderstanding of what is happening in this program, programs like it and Apple in general.

While it's easy to establish "WHAT" is wrong with FCPX, I encourage people to explore the "WHY." And when you can figure out the "WHY" you can always determine the "HOW."
For example, there are components inside the new architecture that are simply so advanced that there is no way to easily or efficiently upgrade existing project files from a previous iteration. But even more significant than that is the philosophical approach Apple is taking on editing in general and I personally am 100% behind Apple's stand on the matter, even though it means I cannot use the program for much of my work at this time.

What's happening with FCPX right now is no different than what Apple did when they switched from OS9 to OSX. The problems, limitations, dual-booting, limited functionality, restricted horsepower - all of this was part of a massive improvement that starts with massive causalities. And while there were few online message boards at the time of the OSX turnover, I am willing to bet the opinions of those feeling "marooned" due to their contentment was similar to the feelings now. -They just didn't have as easy a time of expressing it. But forward-thinking leaders like Apple (and there are many others) are able to identify when it's appropriate to sacrifice the few to save the many. So is the case of the current situation of FCPX.

Now a real risk: POLITICS;-)
One thing that always bothers me with political discussion is that people tend to assume they know as much as world leaders in terms of evaluation of decisions. In other words, people criticize presidents or senators, military officers or even mayors from making what seem "rash" decisions when there is no way all of the information that went into those decision are clear to the general public. That is to say we often do not have the largest perspective on the matter, yet we do have the largest (collective) voice in the matter. This is why I cannot partake in this petition because it assumes I know more than Apple does about what's good for the software and hardware they build for me...which I don't.
Some of you may remember a radical change in Apple's platform when in 1999 they removed the floppy drive from their computers. "How will we ever get content in and out of the CPU!?!?!" criticized many. But Apple knew of AT&T and Comcast who had been laying massive lines of cable (many cities with early fiber forms) that was going to offer high speed internet within 18 months. Steve said "You'll just send 3.5MB files through the internet without any physical media." But did everyone take this "organ transplant" well? Of course not, but the masses benefited hugely because Apple took a stand on a level of progressions that was necessary for it's own protection and advancement of the tools we use. When a company with as much reach, influence and general inside information as Apple has knows something about the future, they tend to position their product in line with that trend. This is the very reason that when Apple releases (what I believe will be their last) tower, it will be without optical drives. Like the floppy drive, optical media is a limiting format and a bottleneck that's lifespan is on a steady decline. While this will upset the tools of many, it will no doubt improve the tools for many more.

FCPX in a word: HORSEPOWER.
This system is by far the most advanced image and sound manipulation device that I've ever seen. Running incredibly complex tasks on my laptop in 2K resolution with this program is unmatched by any other software I've seen for the price of the tool and the hardware it runs on. For me, the road that FCPX is headed down is absolutely the right one, but it's a road under construction. And while I'm fully aware driving on that road now is going to be full of unfinished pavement, narrow lanes and those annoying K-rails really close to the side of my car, I know the direction the road is going is exactly where need to be.

My friends Steve Beres and Suny Behar have a podcast show called "Tech Media Planet." The show is fantastic not only because the content is good, but unlike many podcasts, Steve and Suny are hysterical. Making people laugh while talking about gear is about as rare as it gets, but that's why people love the show. Tech Media Planet recently did a show on FCPX and had me as a guest. If you want to hear and see (we did a clip component to the podcast) what I highlight as the right moves for FCPX, take a free listen at the link below. It just scratches the surface on what FCPX's positive affect will be on the next evolutionary trend of creative hardware and software potential.

http://techmediaplanet.com/2011/07/episode-26-final-cut-pro-x/

Apple clearly made mistakes in this release. And I'm as disappointed in the positioning of the application as anyone. But I have been a user and supporter of AVID, FCP and Premiere for over a decade and I like to think I know a good idea when I see one.

Taking in all that I just said, is it not clear what the real elephant in the room is here? Everything above seems strangely familiar with a significant, controversial and unfinished product release in September of 2007...

;-)

m
 
Michael,

I have been behind this software since long before it's release.

Thanks for bringing a shred of sanity to the discusison.

I agree. Convict Apple for a crappy release and a gaff, but this software is DEEP, it is VERY powerful and it will be a very important post production tool going forward.

In only a month there are things about it no other NLE has and I would have a hard time giving up.

Hating is easy. Going with the crowd is easy. Embracing something very new is hard, but REDUSERs did it years ago and know how good things are now.

If people don't want to go through the growing pains then they should switch to what is comfortable.

I like it out on the frontier. That's the primary reason I support RED.

The petition also reads like it was written by an irate 15 year old.

David
 
Thanks for taking the time to comment, Michael. I have felt like a lone voice of support for FCP-X in many discussions I have had but, rarely with any success in opening anyone's eyes. I remain among the faithful about Final Cut and Apple's place in the post production landscape. Yours is an eloquent commentary on FCP-X and you clearly have the credibility to put some weight behind your views. I hope more people will give this application its due and recognize the potential for a real paradigm shift in NLE process and performance. :thumbup1::thumbup1::thumbup1:
 
Terry VerHaar said:
Thanks for taking the time to comment, Michael. I have felt like a lone voice of support for FCP-X in many discussions I have had but, rarely with any success in opening anyone's eyes. I remain among the faithful about Final Cut and Apple's place in the post production landscape. Yours is an eloquent commentary on FCP-X and you clearly have the credibility to put some weight behind your views. I hope more people will give this application its due and recognize the potential for a real paradigm shift in NLE process and performance. :thumbup1::thumbup1::thumbup1:
Click to expand...
Met Michael (I hope) at the SuperMeet. Nice guy.
It really shouldnt have to take someone with his credibility to convince anyone out there.
Back in the day, we all had to test the waters on our own thanks to magazine articles that were clearly written 6 months prior to the softwares release.
The internet is what makes all of us have that "grab your torch" mentality.
The software works for me for what i know it does.
I still have FCP if I need it.
Even though were an Avid house, surely it would have been easy to jump on the band wagon and pick on Apple.
However since we are an Avid house, we stay aware with whats out there since Avid isnt exactly a bullet proof option :P
 
While I appreciate technical innovation as much as anyone, it is a bit presumptuous to think that a computer company knows more about the needs of editors than editors do. All of the technical underpinnings could likely have been implemented without ripping apart the basic paradigm that professional editors have been using for a very, very long time, and without removing the collaborative tools that are the life blood of professional post pipelines.

A long time ago - long before most people here were born - Ford tested out a replacement for the steering wheel. The substituted a pair of "twist grips" that were smaller, allegedly more ergonomic, and possibly easier to manufacture than the standard steering wheel. They built a bunch of Mercurys with the twist grip and showed them at a number of shows, including the New York Worlds Fair in 1964 and 65. And even though they thought it was a great idea, they simply didn't seem to take into account that there were already hundreds of millions of drivers who used steering wheels, were used to them, liked them, and saw no reason to replace them with something else that basically did the same thing but in a far less familiar way. Apple themselves have had rather monumental failures in the past, even during Steve's tenure. Remember the Newton? Remember the Cube? Steve does. And even though aspects of those things have led to other, more successful products, those particular mistakes weren't repeated.

I'm all for innovation, and I'm all for advancing technology. But if you look at the FCP debacle - and to this point, in our industry, it really is that - from the point of view of experienced post professionals, there is no conclusion other than that Apple made a very conscious decision to build a product for iMovie users trying to move a bit upscale, or for people outside of the professional industry to have more powerful tools to learn with. Yes, there are interesting, powerful tools in the software, there's no denying that. But an awful lot of them appeal to the person who has no knowledge of how professional editors actually work, and thinks that Apple's idea of media organization and media management is the standard. People who think that editors organize their material based on "facial recognition." Or think that picture editors do all of the sound work and never need to export tracks.

Being innovative doesn't always mean being right. And new and different doesn't always mean better. And having experience, and using methods that work well doesn't always mean being a dinosaur. As I said, I do understand the things they put in to FCPX, and I have played with it. If I were doing personal projects, wedding videos, or YouTube stuff I might actually use it. But in the professional world in which you and I live, well, it's not surprising in the least what the reaction has been.
 
I'm editing our second feature film, "Terminal," on a three-year old MacBook Pro using CS5.5. In real time. With the R3D files on a cheap consumer hard-drive. Connected to the computer via a Firewire 800 cable.

Now, granted, I'm only able to play things back at 1/16th resolution in real time, but, having previously used the very RED-UNfriendly FCP7, I am one happy camper.

Stephen
 
Why is it that people keep pointing out past failures around the world as proof that FCP-X is a "mistake." Whether it's the Apple Newton or steering wheels that failed to capture markets, the argument seems to be that innovation CAN fail so FCP-X must be a failure. It is not hard to understand why high end post production professionals are not completely switching over to FCP-X. Certainly, if you listened to Michael in the podcast, you know that he is not advocating using FCP-X only. He does, however, suggest that the future-thinking paradigm of Apple with FCP-X will be superior as a platform from which to move forward. Why not give a nod to innovation and it's potential to move the game to a higher level, rather than simply dismissing it? :furious3:

I have pretty much given up on this argument - people are pretty dug in - but I was encouraged that a consummate professional like Michael Cioni has spoken out enthusiastically and positively for FCP-X. Again, thanks Michael!! I encourage everyone to listen to Mr. Cioni in the aforementioned podcast.
 
I just finished listening to Michael's podcast on Tech Media Planet and enjoyed it very much - it's definitely a fresh perspective. Whether or not I agree with his conclusions, I always enjoy listening to Michael think out loud.

I do think that Apple's biggest - perhaps even only - mistake was EOL'ing FCS3 - with a $50 billion cash war chest, they should have released FCP X and continued to support the Studio package, with a warning that they were going to EOL it within the year, once more of X's features were built out in a way that would make it equal to, at least, FCS. Cutting their existing client base off at the knees that way was arrogant and hubristic. I don't agree with the "you've gotta break a few eggs" concept - they could have pushed this product and its innovations forward in a much more understanding and humane way.

But I think what they are pushing isn't a set of features. They are re-designing the business model as much as they are re-designing the software.

I'll throw my take into the ring as well, because I don't think I've read too many blogs addressing this distinction - mine is published on a finance website, so you have to scroll down the first third to get to the FCP section: http://blogs.minyanville.com/the-cr...-x-may-be-a-hunk-o-junk-but-is-it-actionable/

I think if you sort of dovetail what Michael is saying about horsepower with what I'm saying about re-designing the context in which editing tools are delivered - an entire re-think of the standards of suite packaging - you get a pretty good idea of the vision behind FCP X, for better or worse.

The ashbin of technology is loaded with ideas that failed to mesh with the zeitgeist. I remember rooting for a company in Denver producing a full networked tablet technology called the Q back in the 1997-1998. I had an architect friend who built a fully networked spec house based on that technology. It was really cool, and it was a bust. Twelve years later, voila the iPad, and a company that couldn't get out of its own way for a good portion of the 1990s is now the Master of the Universe. So it goes. A lot of factors go into the success or failure of invention, well beyond the invention itself.

The marketplace is the final arbiter of the success of these ideas. Time will tell.
 
Terry VerHaar said:
Why is it that people keep pointing out past failures around the world as proof that FCP-X is a "mistake."
Click to expand...

Uhhhh.... that wasn't my intent. I was trying to show that even otherwise great companies sometimes misstep. I wasn't trying to "prove" that it was a mistake. I think that's already shown itself to be the case by the reaction it got from the professional community that it purported to serve. It was really the rather raptuous fanboy reaction that I was decrying, the attitude that because it's Apple, they can do no wrong, and if you think they have done something wrong, it's your problem because you're not as smart as they are in any area. Whatever one may think of taking a long term view, in the short term the introduction of this product really severed a lot of the good will that this industry had towards Apple as a software supplier. They might indeed recover some or all of that over time, but for now it's been seriously damaged.
 
I just checked out Premiere CS 5.5. And wondering why I did not use it sooner.
Completely blows Final Cut out of the water.
Especially with Red footage. And the direct connection to After Effects and Photoshop
is just awesome.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top