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

Bruce Allen said:
People complain that it was released feature-incomplete - eg "too early" in terms of development. Not "too early" in terms of time. A FCP update was long overdue. There is a difference.

FCP X was late, feature-incomplete and kept secret.
Let's pretend you're sending over an edit to a client of their showreel.
Client wants to see your edit. You say "you can't see it but I promise it is awesome!".
Client says "But it's been years! I just want you to update the old reel a bit! Send it over!"
And a few months later you send over something that is totally incomplete. And say "Well don't knock it - it's only version 1! This is just for you to evaluate!"
Client gets very angry.

Late, incomplete and secretive! Not mutually exclusive!


Name another professional post-production software company that works that way. Adobe, Assimilate, Avid, Autodesk, Quantel, etc do not.

Bruce Allen
www.boacinema.com
Click to expand...

I am not saying anything about "calendar" late. I am saying people are complaining that they don't have access to what Apple is thinking when, in fact, Apple has given them the program "early" while acknowledging that there are many more features to come. Should Apple have waited until those features were ready before releasing it? Then the complaint might be they sprung all these features on us without taking feedback - and it was so long in coming, too. While I acknowledge that in a the perfect world it would have every feature everyone wants, and have been released a year ago, but I'd also like a magic unicorn for my birthday. And, as far as killing FCP7 prematurely, I agree it was a bad decision on Apple's part.

And, Adobe and Avid don't exactly have an unblemished track record when it comes to dealing with their products, features and costumers.
 
Last edited:
Terry VerHaar said:
I am not saying anything about "calendar" late. I am saying people are complaining that they don't have access to what Apple is thinking when, in fact, Apple has given them the program "early" while acknowledging that there are many more features to come.
Click to expand...

"Calendar late" has everything to do with it. If they released FCP X in, say 2009, the reaction would have been positive. Plenty of time to add the features needed and still be ahead of the competition.

Folks are not complaining about the lack of features in isolation.

They're complaining about the combination of lack of features PLUS the secrecy and hype PLUS the fact that it's been so long since the last FCP that Apple had plenty of time to do a much better job if it had felt like it.

Bruce Allen
www.boacinema.com
 
One argument that's been posited in various circles is that Apple created FCP-X because they wanted out of the professional market, because professional editors were time vampires and the software wasn't expensive enough to justify their support requirements.

After reading this thread, I can fully see their point :)
 
Meryem Ersoz said:
yes, but RED did not cancel support of RED ONE while they work out the feature set of EPIC.

the analogy is weak.
Click to expand...

Can't resist - I think the analogy might also reach back to the RED ONE. Like it or not, FCP-X is more like a new product than an upgrade. I have already agreed with the fact they should not have EOL'd FCP7 quite so abruptly.

This discussion is tedious; I am sure many on both sides of the fence would agree. I was just happy to see that people I respect, like Michael Cioni, David, B., Chris Kenny, seem to feel somewhat as I do about the potential for FCPX. And, of course, there are many others as well. I don't mind at all being in the minority. (In fact, I sort of like it.) And, I enjoy the opportunity to bat the pros and cons back and forth. The thing that always seems unfortunate is when it drops to the level of bashing. I respect people's right to have a completely different POV and welcome the discussion. But why not argue on the strength of what you are positively advocating, rather than just name-calling and tearing things down? (Not you, personally.)

And on another point - something being "posited in various circles" is just a euphemism for "those other guys are just guessing, too.":001_smile:
 
Bruce Allen said:
"Calendar late" has everything to do with it. If they released FCP X in, say 2009, the reaction would have been positive. Plenty of time to add the features needed and still be ahead of the competition.

Folks are not complaining about the lack of features in isolation.

They're complaining about the combination of lack of features PLUS the secrecy and hype PLUS the fact that it's been so long since the last FCP that Apple had plenty of time to do a much better job if it had felt like it.

Bruce Allen
Click to expand...

That very well be your own argument, but it isn't necessarily what others are actually articulating. If you know that to be the case because of some secret meetings you have held to discuss it, and you were elected spokesperson without my knowledge , then I am hurt for being excluded. :cryin:
 
Terry VerHaar said:
Like playback, and audio recording. :001_smile:
Click to expand...

Exactly - in a pro environment having dual system sound is common, and those shoots requiring playback can do so at the DIT station or by having a playback operator. It's the NON power users that are most hurt by those features not being there - the exact opposite of FCPX

Not to say that I'm not looking forward to those features being enabled, but RED has always been clear about what features are coming, and they have the reputation of adding in unannounced features.
 
Colin Sheldon said:
Exactly - in a pro environment having dual system sound is common, and those shoots requiring playback can do so at the DIT station or by having a playback operator. It's the NON power users that are most hurt by those features not being there - the exact opposite of FCPX
Click to expand...

That's right... cuz no pro would ever be caught dead playing back from the camera or recording reference audio directly to the camera! ;-)
 
Terry VerHaar said:
That very well be your own argument, but it isn't necessarily what others are actually articulating.
Click to expand...

We're going to have to agree to disagree there. I sincerely and strongly feel that you misread what the majority of folks upset about FCP X are articulating.

Most filmmaker folks have no interest in starting some religious argument against Apple (a company that's done a lot for us with FCP), let alone you (probably a very nice guy on Reduser, with a really sweet-looking dog).

I sincerely believe that if Apple had released this in 2009 and had a more open, editor-friendly development process, there would be great excitement and enthusiasm amongst the post community.

If you think I'm a weird outlier, you're welcome to that opinion. But I strongly feel that if you read most of what's written with an open mind, it supports my point of view. Do you really want me to find like 50 quotes that substantiate this?

Cheers!

Bruce Allen
www.boacinema.com
 
Terry VerHaar said:
That's right... cuz no pro would ever be caught dead playing back from the camera or recording reference audio directly to the camera! ;-)
Click to expand...

Although i like how my R1 records audio, not one audio guy is happy recording audio directly to the camera, and video assist guys, well, they don't give playback from camera either, i on the other hand, like to do bth things myself with the camera. But yes, pro features were there, and Epic M is clearly stated a beta program. When my Epic x arrives i let you know if it can record audio and playback takes.

Even if fcpx handles multicam, omf, xml, etc in one year from now, i still won't like the magnetic timeline, the way you must organize material, the one monitor only, etc, so it is not a question of time for me.
 
While I don't feel the need to call out anyone directly, I do feel there are great points fed by both sides...well, on second thought, all sides, (as there is more than one side do this important topic:)

But there are a few components that I do wish to address directly:

REMEMBER THE PAST
In the late 1990's and early 2000's, film was a largely unchallenged format for narrative acquisition. During this time, there were many discussions about the reality of professional level DP's to learn and/or switch to digital capture. At a DGA panel I attended in 2002, it was concluded that (intentionally withholding names and paraphrasing here)
"Digital capture offers a strong alternative to film for independents and internet content" and that "because digital does not offer any qualitative, cost or pipeline advantages over film, it is unnecessary for many DPs to learn the medium given film's present state."

BEING MULTI-LINGUAL
We all obviously know what has happened/is happening to film v digital, thus rendering statements like the one above to be easily forgotten. While this obviously goes way beyond Final Cut Pro-X, given what you know today about cinematography, I find it just as constricting for a DP to rely on a single format to capture with as it is for an editor to rely on a single NLE to edit with.
By knowing each of the main software NLE options out there, myself and my team consistently swap between them and exercise the pros of one without being negatively affected by the cons of another. Suggesting that people need to make a single career choice on NLE software is similar to DP's making a single career choice for a camera. I believe that choice is the best thing to each of us and guess what? -Lucky to us editors: NLE's don't cost 50K anymore:-)

INDUSTRY FORWARD MOMENTUM
Remember the quote from 2002? The reason I still tuck it away in the back of my mind is that I found the notion interesting that in 2002 many prominent industry leaders felt that "digital [did] not offer any qualitative advantages over film." This kind of absolute and black & white thinking is exactly what slows down our collective forward momentum.
Good or bad, bona fide ideas that move the collective group forward are to the benefit of us all. Dalsa is a product many people on this forum might not have ever seen in person, and though the camera failed, Dalsa most certainly contributed positively to industry forward momentum (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dalsa_Origin).
In my opinion FCP-X has the potential for reinventing the NLE and clearly offers some very unique industry forward momentum. Fair question; will FCP-X end up like Dalsa?

SIMPLE = CONSUMER
This is the only element that kinda aggravates me. Since when is a product that is simple make it unprofessional? The iPhone doesn't even come with a manual and yet it's quite possibly the most advanced tool you own. There are great arguments for all sides on this forum, but the only lousy one I find is EVEN HINTING at the conclusion that FCP-X is simpler and thus makes it more of a consumer product. For goodness sakes, I hope I'm not the only technically savvy person who celebrates when products become simpler! I supposed at the very least that makes me a happy consumer in only 300 bucks.

FAN-BOY
I don't care if I'm called an Apple Fan-Boy or not (that bit was hysterical). Call me whatever you want - I'm a happy person. If there is a myth to bust here then let me clear it up: I am a fan of many things and Apple is surely one of them. I don't have any qualms about saying I'm a fan of FCP-X any more than saying I'm a fan of GoPro! I believe that Apple got it right and time will reveal that FCP-X is the first NLE that fuses the depth of FCP Studio with the simplicity of the iPad. Think, just for a moment, if that were possible, how truly sweepingly powerfully exiting that would be.

FORESIGHT
I brought up the notion that Apple knows more about the future and how to design things for creative users than the users often do. It was argued that this statement is incorrect. In attempt to be clear as to my intention; I believe Apple knows what's coming around the corner (they are able to develop, manufacture and share private information enabling them to see further around the bend that most of us) and therefore can often know what we want better than we know. One simple example of dozens: in 2000, at the height of the SONY Discman, had you asked 1,000 users what they would do to improve the Discman, not a single person would have said "I want a Discman that's 1/3rd the size, plays 5,000 songs and doesn't require me to carry CDs around." Apple knew the potential of this idea better than the users. They probably didn't know their idea would bring down Discman in less than a decade (which is now a retired product) but they did know what the consumer wants more than the consumer knew. FCP-X has similar characteristics. Contrary to what it may seem like today, initial iPod penetration started slow.

PATIENCE
Apple is listening to much of this.
September.

m
 
Terry VerHaar said:
That's right... cuz no pro would ever be caught dead playing back from the camera or recording reference audio directly to the camera! ;-)
Click to expand...

That's not my point.

Who would be hurt more by not having those features? A $500 shoot or a $500,000 shoot? When you have the budget, finding work arounds for issues like sound and playback are possible, even easy. Is it that much more complicated to have your sound guy bring along a recorder instead of just a mixer? To use a timecode slate instead of just a dumb one? Not when you have money. If you're a one man crew, not having those features can be quite challenging, even inhibiting.

Now who is hurt more by the features missing in FCPX? A $500 project, or a $500,000 project? One will do all the editing on one machine and publish to Youtube. The other will want to have a separate dialogue edit, color correction, and then master to tape (for broadcast, festivals, etc).
 
This is, in fact, as the late-great Frank Zappa would say is, "the crux of teh biscuit".

FCP X is not a replacement for FCP 7, it's not even an upgrade. It's just a whole new (very well thought out) way of approacing post in a rapidly changing environment.

They can put more into this in a short time to take NLE's to the next stratosphere than any other player.

I also agree that broadcast (in the way it is consumed and in the vehicles it currently is delivered on) is dead.

Find me a person under 30 who makes an appointment with a Television set at 8;30 on a Thursday night, it's OVER!

It's easy to overlook the many, many, many positive things in this new offering from Apple.

Sure, FCP-X might be the DALSA (and I have seen that camera up close) but it is unlikely. Why, because Apple is in a very powerful seat right now, one that affords them to not only analyse the industry with a lot of resources regular folks don't have, but the economic power to steer the entire industry as well.

Video follows audio, when there was no solution on "how to make money with music on the internet and create a viable business model that helps eliminate piracy" it was Apple that invented the ipd and iTunes.

You think that Apple doesnl't now have the legal blueprint to implement the same sort of thing in movies and TV shows to help them earn money on the internet?

Where are you going to go? HBO.com, AMCTV.com, NBC.com, ABC.com or maybe, the iTunes store.

iTunes works because everyone gets paid.

How does all of this relate to FCP-X. That same company is thinking about (like RED) what things are going to be like in five years, not five minutes.

PPro and AVID can take the short money, but it won't last.

In the meantie, like Micheal suggests. Have them all on the machine. They all to great things.


David
 
With all due respect...

Michael Cioni said:
SIMPLE = CONSUMER
This is the only element that kinda aggravates me. Since when is a product that is simple make it consumer? The iPhone doesn't even come with a manual and yet it's quite possibly the most advanced tool you own. There are great arguments for all sides on this forum, but the only lousy one I find is EVEN HINTING at the conclusion that FCP-X is simpler and thus makes it more of a consumer product. For goodness sakes, I hope I'm not the only technically savvy person who celebrates when products become simpler! I supposed at the very least that makes me a happy consumer in only 300 bucks.
Click to expand...

Being simple does not necessarily make something "consumer".

Reducing options of current professional tools to justify saving $$$ by using a consumer software base (while it was told that new FCP will be totally re-written) and focusing to wider, less experienced and less depth-interested customer base, does not really seem like professional users oriented move. In this case product becoming simpler is a greatly limiting switch for all the users able to utilize all the potential of current NLE logic in various types of projects and their individual requirements, regarding their techniques and approach.

Regarding $300 comment...folks jump when they see a price decrease, but not many will clap and smile when they see their plumber charging more than their "competition". Not undermining the job of a plumber in any way, but he didn't invest five figures for tools from Cupertino, learned dozens of software tools, spent nights in edit bays because agencies want last minute changes, and carried a "last link in the chain" type of responsibility for TVC media buy figures, while pampering a platform which behaves like a spoiled diva.


Michael Cioni said:
FORESIGHT
I brought up the notion that Apple knows more about the future and how to design things for creative users than the users often do. It was argued that this statement is incorrect. In attempt to be clear as to my intention; I believe Apple knows what's coming around the corner (they are able to develop, manufacture and share private information enabling them to see further around the bend that most of us) and therefore can often know what we want better than we know. One simple example of dozens: in 2000, at the height of the SONY Discman, had you asked 1,000 users what they would do to improve the Discman, not a single person would have said "I want a Discman that's 1/3rd the size, plays 5,000 songs and doesn't require me to carry CDs around." Apple knew the potential of this idea better than the users. They probably didn't know their idea would bring down Discman in less than a decade (which is now a retired product) but they did know what the consumer wants more than the consumer knew. FCP-X has similar characteristics. Contrary to what it may seem like today, initial iPod penetration started slow.
Click to expand...

I'd say if you asked people at that time what type of music player they would like (not basing it on CD media, but just data) majority would say "I'd like it to be very small and practical and able to carry a lot of music inside". Seems pretty logical and something I wanted as well, so it's kind of far fetched for me to think no one would want that but somehow Apple had a great foresight about it. Apple didn't invent an mp3 player, it just marketed it well and made it "sexy".

Also, for every example of Apple's "foresight" there is a bunch of duds.
Some less visionary moves:

- One button mouse
- Mouse with a multy-touch on it (conflict of functionalities)
- Touch-pad without dedicated left/right-click buttons (lack of practicality and ergonomics)
- Device for browsing a web unable to support web wide-spread format
- Poor graphics options on a professional multimedia content creation platform
- Graphics drivers suckage on a professional multimedia content creation platform
- Inconsistent picture on a professional multimedia content creation platform
- Unusable all CPU cores by own in-house made software
- Interoperability issues
...
 
I just want to say that I've had the pleasure of meeting Michael a few times in person, and he doesn't come off as a fanboy at all. He even said some nice things about other companies that begin with the letter "A."

What I found so unique is that in one breath he's giving mad props to Sony Vegas and in the next he's explaining why he finishes on a Pablo. His mind casts a very wide net.
 
Andrae Palmer said:
You think anyone would purchase a Mac just for FCPX now?
Click to expand...

This is the best summary of Final Cut Pro X I've read yet.

Compared to Final Cut Pro 1.0, X isn't even in the same ballpark when it comes to innovation. The only thing people are buying in droves now is the competition (myself included).
 
Erich Ocean said:
This is the best summary of Final Cut Pro X I've read yet.

Compared to Final Cut Pro 1.0, X isn't even in the same ballpark when it comes to innovation. The only thing people are buying in droves now is the competition (myself included).
Click to expand...
really? I was there for v.1.0, Im pretty sure FCPX is ahead in terms of innovation. It couldnt get us away from Media 100 due to the DV format.
 
What's the point of innovation that no one wants to use? The iPhone, iPad and iPod are all desirable innovations. Why is it that FCPX is not so desirable to Apple fans such as myself?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top