Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Register 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 :)

Final Cut Pro X Released

My 6 year old loves it!!!! Not kidding. He's playing with it right now.

disclaimer: he's actually 5 and doesn't turn 6 for another 3 weeks.
 
Apple just should've been a lot more forthcoming with information as to what was left out of this initial release. They could've saved face instead of now having to deal with this shitstorm.
 
Tim Morten said:
Fair point. I think what ires the rest of us that they took two years, and set an expectation that this release would serve our needs. Instead, they obviously spent a lot of time on iMovie interoperability, iPhone support, etc. And they haven't set any kind of roadmap for the features that we care about. Those send a message that their priority is consumers first, pros second. I'm sure they will eventually roll out features to try to quell the uproar, but the bottom line is that moving forward, we should all expect consumer needs to come before our own when it comes to Apple's priorities. That's a strong motivator to move to another product/company.
Click to expand...

I don't know if your point is fair to the developers.

I hadn't thought of it before, but your post made me consider why they did this. Why not XML?

First off, supporting iPhone, FaceBook, Youtube ... that's really nothing more than a set of presets, plus maybe a login/connector widget. Its a simple task programmatically and one for which Apple already has the exact code they need in iMovie, iPhoto and other places.

They probably just copied it from one app to the other. It may even be a system wide API.

So, iMovie import but not FCP 6/7 import?

iMovie's single virtue is that its simple. What you can do in the timeline is VERY simple.

The FCP X magnetic timeline however is actually a very complicated thing.

If you try to make an FCP 6/7 timeline into a magnetic timeline automatically ... there could be all sorts of collisions and gotcha's to resolve that may have unpredictable results.

The first step is to analyze the FCP 6/7 timeline and simplify it as much as possible. You can get a tool like Edit Mule that does this.

Then you have to convert the resulting FCP 6/7 XML into a FCP X database. This should be as straightforward as possible now, but it may still present challenges.

One issue is that Magic Timeline is very minimalistic ... a naive import of XML would appear very cluttered and contain all sorts of information Magic Timeline seems to eschew. I don't know how FCP X would respond to that.

OK ... importing XML may not be trivial after all, but it should be solvable.

Exporting XML though seems like it should be VERY straightforward. Just naively export each Magic Timeline layer as a XML track. If there are FCP X operations that don't seem to play well with XML, just render them to files that do work with XML and link that media instead of whatever FCP X is using internally.

In fact that sort of rendering the timeline down so that it can be perfectly represented by XML seems like a good way to do FCP 6/7 exports for ingest into FCP X.

Well, its interesting to think about. I think Apple should have shipped some sort of solution yesterday, but I can see its not as trivial as we all assumed, and I can see that what they did ship was orders of magnitude easier to implement.
 
Alexander Ibrahim said:
I don't know if your point is fair to the developers.
Click to expand...

So you're telling me that you don't think Apple put consumers before pros? Umm.... I can tell you that as a software producer you prioritize features according to your target audience. If your target is pros, you focus on the features they care about before you release. Doesn't matter if it takes longer: if those features aren't there, your audience isn't going to be happy. Is EDL/XML support harder than iMovie and iPhone support? We can argue that one (the answer is no, BTW), but what there can be zero argument about is that Apple chose to release without the features that pros care about, and with the features that consumers care about. Imagining that wasn't a deliberate choice is stretching my credulty too far.
 
Dabling Harward said:
Apple just should've been a lot more forthcoming with information as to what was left out of this initial release. They could've saved face instead of now having to deal with this shitstorm.
Click to expand...
I was looking for a trial version first. Should be the first step for a serious pro app.
I like it, but I agree, the import possibilities are a joke.
 
Dabling Harward said:
Apple just should've been a lot more forthcoming with information as to what was left out of this initial release. They could've saved face instead of now having to deal with this shitstorm.
Click to expand...

OH, I agree wholeheartedly.

Extreme secrecy has served them in the past, and now its aprt of their corporate culture.

The thing is that with FCP X they let all the cool stuff out of the bag a while ago. If Adobe, Avid, Autodesk have any desire to implement Magic Timeline or Match Shot- they've had months to do their own version based on the NAB/FCPUG talk.

Apple however cut their own throat by not prepping the userbase for the reality of what FCP X was going to be like on day one.

They should have released FCP 6/7 migration tools at NAB, to help get some projects moved over, and to let people know how limited FCP X itself would be ... i.e. that it would have no built in XML import/export tools.

They should have talked about all the studio applications future before release date.

Well, maybe Apple will learn a lesson on when they should be open. I promise not to hold my breath.
 
Brian Boyer said:
Of course, more features and functionality would make it easier to complete those projects, provided they needed those things in the first place, which most people won't (I'll get to that in a second). Even if they did need them, human beings tend to do things just to see if they can. In a way, they're inspired by the limitations and the risks. I guess my point was that someone out there is going to do something spectacular in FCPX that dwarfs the "professional" projects of people who begrudge its lack of pro features. There are vastly more people out there now who are single users than people who need to export an XML for use in Resolve in a facility or other collaborative setting. Don't blame Apple for this. Blame technology, computing power, storage capability and miniaturization. Blame the Internet. Blame YouTube, Vimeo and Facebook. Almost anyone with a phone has a video camera and, therefore, a need to edit. But, the current iMovie is more than most folks need. FCPX is way more editor than those folks need. Apple is probably gearing up to take care of the rest of us. Otherwise, they just wasted a whole lot of time and money.
Click to expand...

Yes, this is all very true. It's funny this all reminds me of Boogie Nights haha. There is no denying the fact that the industry of video is ever evolving and you have to accept the changes or be left in the dust. Apple is not stupid. They are selling a program that's 1/2 price of their older studio software, yet are probably going to make 10 times the sales, since now every iMovie user can afford this new "pro" app. It was by no means a financial mistake for Apple I'm guessing... It just sucks for those that expected to be able to move to the new system, and can't for practical reasons.

Brian Boyer said:
I can't think of a single app that gives you the freedom to do whatever you need to carry out that vision. Ironically, when a company makes software that takes on the role of all things to all people and doesn't integrate well with others, it's dismissed as not being professional enough. Sound familiar? At any rate, everyone's choice is simple. Buy it now or wait and see.
Click to expand...

Haha, yea it's true! I wasn't saying that you have to be able to do EVERYTHING so to speak, that's impossible... I was more saying that an editorial software should allow the ability to move around to different software and utilize hardware necessary to see accurate results (i.e. XML support, and outboard SDI monitoring). You're right though, its new out, and either get it or don't. I don't see any reason to get too upset about it because if you don't like it, don't get it. Either switch, or wait, because I'm sure people can still cut amazing projects on FCP7 just the same for a few more months to see where things go.
 
Will Red now bring a close supporting relationship with Avid and Adobe instead of Apple as they did in the beginning of Red One? I always been calling out for a better support on the other platforms because FCP had such a high support rate in comparison.

Now that Apple killed R3D support, professional support etc. will Red perhaps let go of Apple and focus on bringing a close relationship with the others? Avid is getting better and better and I know it's largest problem now is that AMA is processor demanding, they need some help getting R3D's to play nice. I would love to see that.

As for those complaining that we who complain are only using other platforms then FCP, yes I don't use FCP, but I was looking forward to this release because it was supposed to be fast. It was the release I waited for to perhaps move me from Avid to FCP finally (because people always ask why I don't use FCP)... but I'm surprised how shitty this software became, what the hell happened to "Pro"? I'm surprised and furious that Apple did such a clusterF with FCPX.
I was mostly looking forward to taking my offline cut from my Media Composer and export import it into FCPX looking at 4K files, checking out grading and alike... and I can't do anything like that.

Well, I can open my Imovie files... thing is, I don't use Imovie because I'm a professional editor and not a youtube consumer editor. So, people defending FCPX, I love things like learning a new fast way of editing and so on... but how can it be fast when there's no support for post production, I don't mean just editing, I mean post production. There's no chance in hell that I can use this professionally, I cannot share my work with anyone!

If you use a DSLR or Iphone to shoot stuff, then fine, it might be perfect for you, but how many professionals actually use DSLR's and Iphones? for daily work?
 
Tim Morten said:
So you're telling me that you don't think Apple put consumers before pros? Umm.... I can tell you that as a software producer you prioritize features according to your target audience. If your target is pros, you focus on the features they care about before you release. Doesn't matter if it takes longer: if those features aren't there, your audience isn't going to be happy. Is EDL/XML support harder than iMovie and iPhone support? We can argue that one (the answer is no, BTW), but what there can be zero argument about is that Apple chose to release without the features that pros care about, and with the features that consumers care about. Imagining that wasn't a deliberate choice is stretching my credulty too far.
Click to expand...

"Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity." - Hanlon's Razor

I think they genuinely had no clue how important these few features are to their core audience.

This is a major misunderstanding of the target market works, and how they want to work.

I think it was magnified in part by early feedback based on limited demonstrations. I'm sure everyone was very excited about the magnetic timeline, match shot and the performance enhancements. In the early demos, nobody expected to see XML interchange demonstrated, so they probably didn't hear much. Then you have a guy like Larry Jordan ... he's a great smart guy, but he's principally a trainer not a working editor.

When weighed against a zillion positive reviews of a limited feature set deonstration, one voice can easily get drowned out.

That might be why it happened, but there is no disguising the fact that it happened, and that its a major failure on a flagship product.

I can imagine there is a bit of excitement today anywhere near Steve jobs.
 
Zachary Marsh said:
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).

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.
Click to expand...
Why would anyone in the midst of a major project even perform a minor update to their software, much less a switch to a full version upgrade? That is a non issue.

The kb article did explain how to install both apps on the same volume. Dual boot is preferred, but not mandatory.

Agreed, right now no production company or post house should buy FCP X if they intend to actually use it on paying job. Again, who would do that with a brand new piece of software when they have a perfectly good system (FCP 6 or 7) already up and running>
 
The real problem for me is that apple once gave us the tools that promised seamless integration (FCP for editing, Shake for compositing, Color for grading etc...) Now I'm seeing a FCPX that is stand-alone without the possibility sending your edit into a compositing environment (Like Premier Pro sends to After Effects). I was hoping that Motion was going to fill this role, but from what I see, it's a $49 joke. What's stopping people from moving to Premier where you can have a whole suite with seamless integration? History tells us the the company who offers the complete solution wins in the end (look a Quark Express and what Adobe did to its sales in desktop publishing simply by ofering a suite of pro products like photoshop, Illustrator etc...). FCPX has become the new Quark Express - the had it all then they f$%ked it up.
No compositing offering is a big disappointment. No doubt I could start using FCPX tomorrow and I might even like it. But this has really got me looking to Premiere. It's obvious that Apple are no longer a pro app company, despite what they keep saying. They've said goodbye to their raid systems, Shake, FCP server and now FCP studio.
 
Refund applied for:
"I have been a long time user of the FCP product line and this new version, 10 aka X, is severely lacking in features included in the previous version and will not support the work I do for a living.

No XML support
No EDL support
No multiple timelines
No VTR support
No professional color grading (like Color)
No professional DVD authoring (like DVD Studio)
No support for RED .R3D files
...and the list goes on

I request an immediate refund for my full purchase price, including taxes, for a total of $314.69

-Paul Lee"
 
I think I was wrong ...

I think I was wrong ...

So ... I threw FCPX under the bus on Twitter yesterday - like many others. No XML, no EDL, single timeline, etc.

However ... I now think I was wrong.

What changed my mind?

Chris Kenny posted this - http://blog.nicedissolve.com/2011/06/is-python-the-future-of-fcpx-workflow/

Python scripting in an NLE like FCP would be massive. If this become open and documented .... it's a pretty huge deal IMO.

STORM > FCPX > NUKE, etc. etc.

I'm not going to download the sucker until there is XML of some sort - but ... there appears to be light at the end of the tunnel.
 
Jeff Kilgroe said:
...

For what it's worth, I did install FCPX alongside FCP7 on one of my systems... No problems to report yet, but then again, I haven't loaded FCP7 on that system since X was installed.... Maybe I should and see if it blows up.
Click to expand...

I loaded FCP-X on the same drive as FC Studio, closely following Apple's directions for doing so, and I have successfully started both apps (not simultaneously, of course) without a problem. That said, I am going to tread lightly until they release 10.6.8, which is the recommended system to run with FCP-X. (Yeah, I know, cart before horse.) :coolgleamA:
 
Mark L. Pederson said:
So ... I threw FCPX under the bus on Twitter yesterday - like many others. No XML, no EDL, single timeline, etc.

However ... I now think I was wrong.

What changed my mind?

Chris Kenny posted this - http://blog.nicedissolve.com/2011/06/is-python-the-future-of-fcpx-workflow/

Python scripting in an NLE like FCP would be massive. If this become open and documented .... it's a pretty huge deal IMO.

STORM > FCPX > NUKE, etc. etc.

I'm not going to download the sucker until there is XML of some sort - but ... there appears to be light at the end of the tunnel.
Click to expand...

Hell yes to python implementation!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top