Final Cut Pro X Released

[Eric Santiago]

One of my largest problems with FCPX:

http://support.apple.com/kb/HT4722

No software should be like this. No one should ask you to dual boot the same OS for software to function, especially when many people who will be adopting FCPX will still need FC7 to function and finish their current/ongoing projects (including working with contract editors).

Running both fine so far no problems. What are the symptoms?

On top of that, I have to tell my production company (as Post Supervisor) not to buy Final Cut Pro X because it doesn't meet our needs. We are in the middle of a season of a television show and we can't give up all the functionality we have to switch to FCPX. Perhaps next year if they fix several glaring issues. Everything from import, editing (we use Final Cut Server), to export we have with FC7 and not FCPX. It's sort of sad really. They've lost 10+ licenses worth of sales. That's not a lot in the overall, but if others are feeling like that, it adds up.

Hmm Im not running a huge production company but isnt it a little scary to be changing software in the middle of any type of workflow?

 

[Steve Sherrick]

To avoid confusion, here is Apple's instructions for installation.

Summary
It is strongly recommended that you install Final Cut Pro X, Motion 5, and Compressor 4 on a startup disk that does not have Final Cut Studio (2009) already installed.

Products Affected
Compressor 4, Motion 5, Final Cut Pro X
If your Mac has only one hard disk and it already has Final Cut Studio (2009) installed on it, you can partition the hard disk to create a separate startup volume to install Final Cut Pro X, Motion 5, or Compressor 4. For instructions, see the section below titled "Install Final Cut Pro X, Motion 5, or Compressor 4 on a new partition".

If you must install Final Cut Pro X, Motion 5, or Compressor 4 on the same startup disk as Final Cut Studio (2009), see the section below titled "Install Final Cut Pro X, Motion 5, or Compressor 4 on the same startup disk as Final Cut Studio (2009)."



Install Final Cut Pro X, Motion 5, or Compressor 4 on a new partition

1. To create a new partition of your hard disk, follow instructions in Partitioning a disk. The partition must be large enough to contain all the files required by the version of Mac OS X you are installing, the applications you install, and enough room for projects and media.

Note: By default, Final Cut Pro X saves imported and rendered media files in your Movies folder in your home folder (/Users/username/Movies/). Final Cut Pro X Templates (generators, effects, titles, & transitions) and Motion Templates created in Motion 5, are saved to the Movies folder as well.

2. Install Mac OS X on the new disk partition by inserting the Mac OS X install media and double-clicking the Install Mac OS X icon.
3. Follow the onscreen instructions. In the pane where you select a disk, select the disk partition you just created in step 1.
4. If you want to control which parts of Mac OS X are installed, click Customize, and then select the parts you want to install.
5. To start the installation, click Install.
6. Start up your system from the new startup volume.
7. From the Apple () menu, choose Software Update. Install the following updates if they appear in the list:
Mac OS X v10.6.7
ProKit Update Version 7.0
8. Purchase Final Cut Pro X, Motion 5, or Compressor 4 from the Mac App Store. The app will begin downloading automatically, and the app icon will be added to your Dock with a progress bar below the app icon. Once the app is done installing, the progress bar below the app icon will go away.
9. From the Apple () menu, choose Software Update to download ProApps QuickTime codecs and the Final Cut Pro X or Motion supplemental content.
You can now use Final Cut Pro X, Motion 5, or Compressor 4 from this new startup volume. You can also restart on the other startup volume to use Final Cut Studio (2009).



Install Final Cut Pro X, Motion 5, or Compressor 4 on the same disk as Final Cut Studio (2009)

This is not the preferred method, but you can use it if you are unable to install on a separate partition.

1. From the Apple () menu, choose Software Update. Install the following updates if they appear in the list:
Mac OS X v10.6.7 or later
ProKit Update Version 7.0
The latest versions of the Final Cut Studio (2009) applications
2. Purchase Final Cut Pro X, Motion 5, or Compressor 4 from the Mac App Store. The app you purchase will begin downloading automatically, and the app icon will be added to your Dock with a progress bar below the app icon. Once the app is done installing, the progress bar below the app icon will go away.
When you install Final Cut Pro X, Motion 5, or Compressor 4 on the same startup disk as Final Cut Studio (2009), the Final Cut Studio (2009) applications are moved to a new location (/Applications/Final Cut Studio).

3. To verify that the Final Cut Studio (2009) applications operate correctly, open Motion 4, and then quit Motion 4.
Important: Make sure to open Motion 4 first, before opening any other Final Cut Studio (2009) applications.

You can now use Final Cut Studio (2009) and Final Cut Pro X, Motion 5, or Compressor 4 on the same system, from the same startup disk.

Note: Final Cut Server, Podcast Producer, Software Updates for Final Cut Studio (2009), and some third-party workflows and tools may require that the Final Cut Studio (2009) applications remain in their original location in the Applications folder.



Restore the Final Cut Studio (2009) applications to their original location

Follow these steps to move the Final Cut Studio (2009) applications to their original location while still being able to use Final Cut Pro X, Motion 5, or Compressor 4 on the same system.

1. Create a folder called "Final Cut Pro X" (without quotations) in your Applications folder.
2. Drag the Final Cut Pro X, Motion 5, and Compressor 4 apps into the Final Cut Pro X folder you created.
3. Locate the Final Cut Studio folder in the Applications folder. Modify the permissions on the Final Cut Studio folder by selecting it and choosing File > Get Info.
4. Click the disclosure triangle to the left of "Sharing & Permissions" to show the permissions for the Final Cut Studio folder (if they are not already visible).
5. Click the lock icon in the lower-right corner of the window.
6. When prompted, type your administrator password.
7. For the "admin" entry, click the current privilege setting and choose "Read & Write." Close the Get Info window.
8. Drag the contents of the Final Cut Studio folder into the Applications folder.
9. Open Motion 4 (now located in the Applications folder). After it opens completely, quit Motion 4.

 

[Steve Sherrick]

Hmm Im not running a huge production company but isnt it a little scary to be changing software in the middle of any type of workflow?

Yes, and is not common. Especially with a V1.0. The app would have to have a major feature that post needed. You would almost never do this during a project. Too many things can go wrong. There are exceptions, but I think we can safely say that FCPx would not be one of those.

 

[Eric Santiago]

Yes, and is not common. Especially with a V1.0. The app would have to have a major feature that post needed. You would almost never do this during a project. Too many things can go wrong. There are exceptions, but I think we can safely say that FCPx would not be one of those.

Haha learned this the hard way with Avid period
I dont update for weeks and basically have to check their forum to see if it works.

 

[Carey Lee Coffey]

I applaud Apple for releasing this product prematurely. It gives me time to learn it before I have to actually use it. It also gives me something to do while awaiting Epic's release. :thumbup:

 

[Kevin Wild]

Here's one that will get you "pro's" fired up...

If you're truly a "professional editor," you would not have expected V1 of a total re-write of an application to work in a pro setting on day 1. PERIOD. I've been around a long time using AVID and FCP and I NEVER, EVER expect such a thing even when it's just an incremental upgrade. So, people need to chill and let this play out a little. If it's still so unusable in 6 months, I will be there with you. No PRO editor on any platforms upgrades day 1...because we learned these lessons long ago. So, to me, the biggest complainers are probably the people who expected too much from day 1. A few months ago, I told my editors that I'd say 3-6 months after it's release and the Lion release is when it'd probably be bug free and working with our SAN, AJA, etc. I stand by that.

You all are like bad doctors...you got no patience.

Okay...come and get me. Ha.

Kevin

 

[Andrew Hollister]

All this talk talk talk about monkey ball sucking unusable premature crapware with no support for r3d files. Oh my.

I bought FCPX & Compressor this morning, while I was on client call talking over a small edit project.
Got the materials, imported and cut, low and behold FCPX did the job. I just sent off the file and a $2500 invoice.

Turned out to be a pretty good day.

 

[D Fuller]

I think Apple has made a terrific new editing app. But not for us.

Now, i have no more insider info than anyone else here, but it's clear from the pricing that Apple is after volume sales of FCP. Sales they are simply not going to get from the high end of the production market. The number of people who need to get a project out of FCP to Resolve or Protools just won't make enough of an impact on Apple's sales figures at $300 per seat. On the other hand, a simpler, self-contained program with a lot of speed and a great interface will sell like hotcakes to all kinds of people. Apple is a mass-market company - one of the biggest in the world. That would be a perfectly valid business decision for them.

They went to NAB. So what? NAB is not just for people who make movies. It's primarily for broadcasters. Those guys who bring their (Sony or Panasonic) digital media into the edit bay and edit like madmen until they have just enough time to render, then put out a file for broadcast. If there's color-correction available in the edit app they might have time to make the story look a little better - this looks like a great leap forward for them. there are a lot of those guys, and I suspect it was for them that Apple went to NAB.

But those of us who care enough about color to take the piece to Resolve or a separate Color station or to AE (and have time enough to do that) are a pretty small segment of the production business. I don't let anything out of my company without its passing through the hands of a very good sound mixer, so FCPx is a non-starter for me. But I don't think i'm Apple's target market for this software.

By making it simpler, they make it more appealing to maybe an additional $100 million worth of customers. I think the reality may be that Apple has gotten too big for it to be in its interest to serve the fairly small market that is high-end motion-picture production.

Like everything else in this thread, this is just conjecture. But if it turns out to be true, I can't say I can find much fault with Apple for making that choice.

 

[AnthonyFlores]

I want to preface this by saying, I have zero insider information on what's coming in future updates to FCP. Everything is speculation. But I want to throw some ideas out there and see where people are at.

iMovie haters:Do I enjoy editing in iMovie? Can't say I've done much in that app. Wasn't the biggest fan the couple of times I've tried it. Possible reason, it's just different from what I'm used when it comes to an editor. For those dissing the iMovie import. Let me ask you a question. If you had a client that likes to do an initial rough draft edit in iMovie and then wants to get a project over to you and your professional editing system, would it hurt to have a way to do it? If that client is paying you a good rate, wouldn't you want to be able to accommodate them. Not saying this is going to be the norm, but does it hurt having it as an option? As for the interface looking like iMovie, I don't necessarily care if it looks the same or similar, but I do care that it's capable of doing everything I need it to when it comes to meeting the needs of my clients and making me money. That is still to be determined.

Lack of professional workflow:I truly believe there will be solutions coming, and not just from Apple. Otherwise, why go through this rewrite, and why keep the name of the app, Final Cut Pro? They could have combined iMovie and FCP and called it iMovie Pro, which if intended to hit more consumers would fit right in with their "i" branding. Also, if this were intended more for the consumer base, why not make a bigger splash on Apple's website. Today's release is a bit buried don't you think? That's because the people they are aiming this at make up a small market compared to just about everything else they offer. They knew professionals would find it and pass the word along. They also know that we're all kind of used to beta products and internet updates by now. They felt it was time to get it out there and start getting people used to the new interface while continuing development and helping third parties add support. I will be the first to admit, if we're still lacking some of the necessary professional workflow solutions in a year, then Apple missed the mark by a long shot. I expect to see more features added in the next 3-6 months as the new Mac Pros roll out, and Thunderbolt matures and becomes more integrated. I believe if the architecture has been done well, then the solutions we will see from 3rd parties might in fact be much better than Apple could have done on their own. If Black Magic is able to tap into Final Cut and create a seamless way to get a sequence from FCP to Davinci, will we complain about that? Probably not. If a third party comes along and writes a robust XML/EDL plug-in that is far better than anything Apple has ever done, would we complain? Probably not. It might take some time, but if that's the route they go and 3rd parties are able to put in great tools inside FCP, I think the workflow fears may go away. I could be completely wrong on this.

Native R3D supportCan anyone confirm or deny this is not coming? The backbone appears to be there to allow it. Yes, it is not there right now, but not sure we can blame Apple just yet. There may be reasons why. Until we get official word on this, probably have to wait it out. Having said that, I would love to have the option (and it's just an option because sometimes I would still prefer NOT to use native format) of cutting with R3Ds using RR to decode playback and rendering. But quite honestly, i have also seen some limitations to this in the past, namely getting a signal back out to an HD-SDI monitor. So, there's still work to be done in this area across the board.

What does this change right now?A lot of people seem to be indicating they will jump ship. I'm curious what work are you not able to do right now? And if there is something that FCP 7 is doing that limits your ability to get work done, does Adobe or Avid solve those problems in the interim? To me, FCPx is a product that has potential 3-6 months from now, if for no other reason than that's usually about the amount of time I feel comfortable using something for paid work, unless it's a one of a kind product that works right out of the box and is easy to get implemented. But if FCP 7 suits your needs right now and is making you money, then you have the luxury of playing with FCPx until it reaches the potential you need it to. And if it doesn't, then it's probably time to explore other avenues. But how many people honestly feel there is a gun being held to their head right now to upgrade or cross-grade their editing platform? That's not to say I don't have a laundry list of things that challenge my workflow at times (gamma issues, etc). Perhaps it's not knowing what is coming down the road that is the problem. Which leads me to:

Apple's CommunicationApple's policies when it comes to NDAs are strict, okay perhaps a better way to put it, they are insanely secretive and go to great lengths to keep product announcements, R&D, etc out of the public eye until they are ready. In some ways, it's part of the Apple mystique. In other ways, it drives professionals like ourselves mad because we can't always plan our purchases, or in the case of FCP what direction we'll go in when it comes to upgrading our facilities. Apple works on their schedule, not ours. So, when they release a product like FCPx and it has a lot of things missing, or it's not quite what people expected, their model falls apart in some ways. I'm sure there are people in their pro apps division who would love to come out and say "Look, we've got all of this covered. In August you will see support for this, and in November you will see support for that". But I don't think that's how it works at Apple. When you see Dave from Adobe come on here and say we're working on a solution for that problem, it leaves you with a sense of direction. With Apple, you are left wondering if there will be a solution and you'll probably never know until it's ready. Different philosophy. Will Apple change? I don't know. I think they should to a certain extent. I think they need a couple of really good reps who can interface with the pro market and communicate with them. Perhaps they can't reveal everything they are working on, but they could reassure people that they are listening. Then again, Apple is worth a hell of a lot more money than I am, so I guess they can do it anyway they want. Communication, especially in a social media type of world, is something that companies can't underestimate.

Panic?No need to. In 3 months we will probably know a lot more. By then, if you have invested the $299 to learn the interface, see where they are going with it, you wil probably either be on the train, hungry for more features or you will have moved on, or stayed right where you are. No need to panic today. If you are a diehard FCP user, you may have more reason to panic later if what I have been talking about above doesn't happen. If they leave a lot of professionals out in the cold, and decide to ignore the needs of many an editor working with all kinds of formats, all kinds of workflows, then yes, it may be time to panic. Personally, I think they have a plan. It may not live up to everyone's expectations, but I can't see the completely F'ing this up because if they do, they wasted a lot of time and effort and should have just sold it to another company.

Awesome post Steve, you make a lot of sense and for some reason - Apple tends to stir strong emotions in people, both positive and negative. I DO think they value the pro market, not so much from a cash perspective, but in a sense that when top pros use their hardware and software is acts as proof that it's the "best" ... so I will be patient and see how everything evolves with this.

 

[Eric Santiago]

I think Apple has made a terrific new editing app. But not for us...

I know more prosumer editors/video users than actual broadcast/film editors personally, almost 20 to 1 ratio. It is geared towards the low end but it shouldnt stop the high end folks from giving it a try Apple is a business for the masses (now). Such is life...

 

[Zachary Marsh]

Running both fine so far no problems. What are the symptoms?

Hmm Im not running a huge production company but isnt it a little scary to be changing software in the middle of any type of workflow?

I don't know of any symptoms, I'm simply saying that these are the directions from Apple. Maybe you'll discover them later and hate yourself, or maybe not. But to expect that is somewhat silly. Don't jump to conclusions.

Our workflow would allow the possibility of an upgrade. We deliver every episode before they air (all 13 episodes to the studio before the 1st episode airs) so it's possible to consider this kind of upgrade. Especially with future projects. But due to our needs, FCPX will not be purchased and won't be used at this time. We'll see in 6 months.

 

[Elan Gunos]

FCPX is great if you shoot on an iPhone4 and share videos on youtube with your hipster friends.

But seriously, why exclude XML/EDL already? You can always phase those out when they introduce something better—removing a few lines of code that spits out what is ultimately a text file is unlike phasing out a physical mechanism like a SCSI port or floppy drive. In any case, I'm sticking with FCP7 and I'll start playing around with Premiere for when Epic comes out.

 

[Brandon Kraemer]

It's a tough call. Very disappointing release given the anticipation of pro users for a sharper tool. I think the FCP LA User Group guru's cautionary tale was spot on, he must of had inside info. Not sure where this will go, could be in 5 months we have a real pro app or a Frankenstein of helper apps to do contemporary workflow, or it could be the industry doesn't take to this product with the market share Apple has hoped. Someone mentioned the "New Coke" metaphor... will we see Coke Classic in a year?

I don't think I will buy it at this stage and I will probably invest now in Premier as a NLE. After waiting for marked improvements for so long from FCP, to be workflow handcuffed by FCPX makes the Premier->AE workflow world look like a better tool that is ready now. Color will continue to be a useful stand alone tool until they take it out back and EOL it like Shake.

Now how about fixing that QT API bug?

 

[Scott Crawley]

I'd be willing to bet that XML/EDL will appear with Lion and the new Mac Pros. Give it a few weeks.

 

[Andrae Palmer]

No sarcasm here... but I would so buy FCPX when they release the iPad version. It looks cool. Wouldn't want to use it on my Mac Pro but would love to slide things around with it on the iPad.

 

[AnthonyFlores]

For those who are in love with Premier - what makes it so much better than Avid? And does that hold equally true if you're using Premier on a Mac?

I must admit, as an exclusive Apple user, I have something of a bias against Adobe ... especially since a lot of time when my MBP gets really hot, slow or freezes, it's because there's a flash video on screen. But maybe it's time to rethink that - Adobe and Apple used to be so close once upon a time ....

Anyway, I'm still hoping FCPX will be a "complete solution" that can be paired with Da Vinci at some point soon. This was a blow, especially considering how sharp Apple has been with their consumer releases. But I think it's a blow Apple can recover from. I'm hoping they will

 

[Uli Plank]

Your MBP will get really hot with FCPX too – until now it wasn't using your hardware to the max most of the time.

 

[Craig W. Bickerstaff]

Someone mentioned the "New Coke" metaphor... will we see Coke Classic in a year?

Remember that they migrated from Carbon to Cocoa and a switch back to "Coke Classic" would require a return to Carbon so I'd say "Classic Coke" is dead, what will happen is "New Coke" will just begin to improve it's taste over time until "Coke Classic" is a thing of the past and "New Coke" is just called "Coke".
I took the metaphor off the rails there but yeah.

 

[David McGavran]

For those who are in love with Premier - what makes it so much better than Avid? And does that hold equally true if you're using Premier on a Mac?

I must admit, as an exclusive Apple user, I have something of a bias against Adobe ... especially since a lot of time when my MBP gets really hot, slow or freezes, it's because there's a flash video on screen. But maybe it's time to rethink that - Adobe and Apple used to be so close once upon a time ....

Anyway, I'm still hoping FCPX will be a "complete solution" that can be paired with Da Vinci at some point soon. This was a blow, especially considering how sharp Apple has been with their consumer releases. But I think it's a blow Apple can recover from. I'm hoping they will

We work very very hard on making sure the mac is a great editing platform. We are 100% feature parity (we finally got the mac version of universal counting leader in 5.5 which was the last windows only feature, did anyone notice?). About half the team develops on the mac as the main platform (me included been working on adobe mac video software for over 12 years now) and the other half work first on windows. Every member of the team has a mac and windows machine. Give us a try there is a free 30 day demo that is fully functional and a lot of online resources. Join me in the Adobe Workflow section of this forum if you have questions.

Cheers

Dave

 

[Brian Boyer]

Some thoughts on FCPX:

FCP didn't always have multi-cam support or a whole host of other features but they eventually found their way in OVER TIME. For the record, I hope native R3D support and the other missing features do make it back in. I get the impression Apple simply grossly misjudged the "Pro" community's willingness to cut them some slack on the missing features and are probably genuinely surprised that so many are fearing total abandonment, especially given the time and money they've poured into the reworking of the software. So, yes, I think Apple may be a out of touch on that point.

But, if you truly want to make it the software you hoped it would be:

1) Don't buy it and complain TO APPLE about the missing features and functionality.

2) Buy it, then complain TO APPLE about the missing features and functionality.

3) Buy something else instead and then complain TO APPLE about the missing features and functionality of FCPX.


To say the software is useless as it stands now is an exaggeration and irresponsible. The best you can say, as some of you have, is that it breaks your particular workflow. Once you calm down and ice your legs from all the knee jerking, try looking at editing something in it from the standpoint of someone who the software better suits in its current state. I bet most of you will find it does some stuff that blows your wig back. And, I'm willing to bet that once they add all the stuff that's missing, some of your favorite features will be things that are in there today.

We can debate consumer versus pro all we want. Ultimately, what it has always boiled down to is gear that meets your current needs versus gear that doesn't. Sometimes the same piece of gear qualifies as both depending on what you're doing. If I want something to look like it was shot on VHS I'm not going to grab an Epic and a set of Master Primes. I'm going to shoot on a VHS camcorder. Is VHS a pro format? If it suits my needs in that instance, you bet your monkey nuts it is. Why would I want VHS quality on anything, you ask? The same reason I might record my guitar amp using the built-in microphone from my 1984 Panasonic Platinum boom box. The same reason The Mill built a special rig to shoot an entire commercial (http://themill.com/work/city-harvest-apples.aspx) on an iPhone, complete with VFX (VFX breakdown: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SALSn9E1fkc&feature=related). That reason is Art.

If the tool meets your current needs and helps you further your art in some way, it's the right tool for the job, period...no matter what it's lacking. And, I guarantee you someone is going to finish something kick-ass in FCPX that blows most of you whiners out of the water. It won't just be good, it will be amazing, and it will be due to the fact that they saw past the limitations to all the possibilities and worked around everything else. Hell, any grip worth his or her salt has a story about how they saved a shot with a stick of gum, a shoestring and a baby's pacifier. You pride yourselves on how well you adapt to situations in your industry. So, those of you who bought it and hate it for all that it doesn't do, we get it. Now, try to see where it's revolutionary or a game changer. Will Avid and others follow suit? Will this be the preferred method of editing 5 years from now?