Final Cut Pro X Released

[Christoffer Glans]

But I'd be a fool to let it color the whole of Apple's hardware/OS line.

True, when speaking about Ipad, Macbook Air, Iphone etc. the consumer product or the "on the go" laptop not made for working with.
But I'm worried about where things are going with the OS, I read an article about how Apple is reducing pro features on all their areas, not just FCP. In it they mentioned Apple saying that Lion is the last iteration of how the OS looks and functions. It might go toward a more iOS type of OS and how will that be like when using a Mac with AE, Avid, Premiere etc? Can we trust Apple in keeping a professional support for their OS? Or will it become even more closed off, making it impossible to install anything outside of the Appstore?
Tried to find the articke, it's somewhere out there.

I love my Macbook Air, it' a beauty to use when not working with editing (although I have my Avid on it and it works for some projects), but if I'm gonna choose a system then I know what I get when putting together my own PC.

PC and windows is very stable. Most of the time it's people who do stuff they don't understand that screws up their system and then they blame microsoft. The risk of screwing up your own system is of course higher on a system that's not closed off. But it enables you to fine tune your system for what you are doing. You could also build a computer of the same power as a Mac Pro for about half the price.
Yes, if I had unlimited money I would just buy a Mac Pro and if it becomes useless for professional work in the future I will switch back. But no, I cannot see what's so good about having a company that do whatever they like whatever their customers think, keeping the risk of having something useless in the end.

Apple is good for other stuff.

 

[Chris Kenny]

A former developer with Apple confirms that Apple is leaving the true pro market.

It makes sense from a corporate standpoint, but it is clear that they are onky going to do the bare minimum to support "industry pros" (or for that matter, students who want to learn on pro software; For students, Avid 5.5 and CS5.5 can be cheaper than FCPX).

What people are calling the "pro market" here is really something more like "people doing broadcast and feature work". Final Cut Pro has never primarily targeted those market segments, because they're not really big enough. Not just by Apple's standards, but by objective business standards, i.e. whether you can reasonably develop a product of the necessary scope and actually make more money than you spend, selling it to such a small number of customers. Avid, the company that comes the closest to making a product targeted specifically at broadcast/feature work, has had a lot of trouble with the "make more money than you spend" thing recently.

FCP has always been primarily targeted at the overwhelming majority of video pros who don't do broadcast/feature work -- they do web video, event video, corporate video, etc. These folks are probably more than 90% of the market for pro video editing software, and this is why Apple didn't wait on features like XML support before shipping FCP X -- this market segment doesn't require it. (The idea that FCP X is targeted at "consumers", by the way, makes no sense. Consumers, to a pretty accurate first approximation, do not buy $300 computer software, and Apple is surely aware of this.)

Apple's priorities didn't shift from the original Final Cut Pro to FCP X. The reason FCP 7 had a bunch of features to support the broadcast/feature markets, and the initial release of FCP X is missing some of those features, is simple: 'classic' FCP had been around longer, so Apple had gotten around to lower-priority features, i.e. features that weren't important to as many customers. The same thing will happen -- is happening already -- with FCP X. If you believe this process lead to a credible tool for broadcast/feature work the last time around, there is no reason to believe it won't this time. And probably a lot faster, since the first release of FCP X is a lot further along than the first release of FCP was, back 1999.

To all the folks saying they want a tool from a company primarily focused on the broadcast/feature market, my response is, if you've been a Final Cut Pro user until now, then no, you don't want that. At least, the last time you had to make a choice between a company focused primarily on building a tool for that market, and a company building a tool for a larger market (which also provided some features to support broadcast/feature work), you chose the latter. And you probably did so for reasons that were a direct result of the fact that the tool was built for a larger market: lower price, less arcane user interface, a larger ecosystem of reasonably priced companion hardware and software. There are real advantages to using a platform designed for a large, diverse user base, rather than one exclusively targeted at your niche.

Ultimately, the process of moving Final Cut Pro into the broadcast/feature world has always been almost entirely bottom-up. Final Cut Pro was inexpensive, and had a much more accessible interface than Avid's products. New editors and folks with no money bought into it. Later, some of them moved upmarket and brought along the tools they were comfortable with. FCP X is even less expensive, and its user interface is even more accessible.... and people a predicting failure? The truth is, Apple may lose some share in the broadcast/feature markets over the next year, while getting FCP X up to speed. But in the long run, this bottom-up dynamic will make FCP stronger than ever there.

 

[Liam Hall]

What people are calling the "pro market" here is really something more like "people doing broadcast and feature work". Final Cut Pro has never primarily targeted those market segments, because they're not really big enough. Not just by Apple's standards, but by objective business standards, i.e. whether you can reasonably develop a product of the necessary scope and actually make more money than you spend, selling it to such a small number of customers. Avid, the company that comes the closest to making a product targeted specifically at broadcast/feature work, has had a lot of trouble with the "make more money than you spend" thing recently.

FCP has always been primarily targeted at the overwhelming majority of video pros who don't do broadcast/feature work -- they do web video, event video, corporate video, etc. These folks are probably more than 90% of the market for pro video editing software, and this is why Apple didn't wait on features like XML support before shipping FCP X -- this market segment doesn't require it. (The idea that FCP X is targeted at "consumers", by the way, makes no sense. Consumers, to a pretty accurate first approximation, do not buy $300 computer software, and Apple is surely aware of this.)

Apple's priorities didn't shift from the original Final Cut Pro to FCP X. The reason FCP 7 had a bunch of features to support the broadcast/feature markets, and the initial release of FCP X is missing some of those features, is simple: 'classic' FCP had been around longer, so Apple had gotten around to lower-priority features, i.e. features that weren't important to as many customers. The same thing will happen -- is happening already -- with FCP X. If you believe this process lead to a credible tool for broadcast/feature work the last time around, there is no reason to believe it won't this time. And probably a lot faster, since the first release of FCP X is a lot further along than the first release of FCP was, back 1999.

To all the folks saying they want a tool from a company primarily focused on the broadcast/feature market, my response is, if you've been a Final Cut Pro user until now, then no, you don't want that. At least, the last time you had to make a choice between a company focused primarily on building a tool for that market, and a company building a tool for a larger market (which also provided some features to support broadcast/feature work), you chose the latter. And you probably did so for reasons that were a direct result of the fact that the tool was built for a larger market: lower price, less arcane user interface, a larger ecosystem of reasonably priced companion hardware and software. There are real advantages to using a platform designed for a large, diverse user base, rather than one exclusively targeted at your niche.

Ultimately, the process of moving Final Cut Pro into the broadcast/feature world has always been almost entirely bottom-up. Final Cut Pro was inexpensive, and had a much more accessible interface than Avid's products. New editors and folks with no money bought into it. Later, some of them moved upmarket and brought along the tools they were comfortable with. FCP X is even less expensive, and its user interface is even more accessible.... and people a predicting failure? The truth is, Apple may lose some share in the broadcast/feature markets over the next year, while getting FCP X up to speed. But in the long run, this bottom-up dynamic will make FCP stronger than ever there.

Stop it Chris, you're making too much sense

 

[Liam Hall]

Oops, double post...

 

[Christoffer Glans]

Chris, listen to this, they make a good analysis of what market Apple missed entirely. There are alot of people who work outside of broadcast and studio features who still need the missing pro features, who still need to collaborate with others in the post production workflow.

http://reduser.net/forum/showthread.php?60467-Good-long-discussion-about-FCPXhttp://reduser.net/forum/showthread.php?60467-Good-long-discussion-about-FCPX

Also, you forget all the people working with commercials which is a HUGE market compared to film and broadcast.

Final Cut X is a consumer product for the underwear editor (listen to the podcast), it's not ready and might never be enough for the professionals, either in broadcast, feature films or as freelancers/post production houses doing commercials, music videos, industrial videos and so on. I know one post production facility in town who had their entire facility built around FCP. They now have to speak to clients outside that they should NOT use FCPX for any work before going to them, in their words; "it's useless".

What professionals need and work with is defined what they work with, not what you say that Apple had their focus on. Final Cut Pro has been a professional product, it has been used on large feature films since "Return to Cold mountain" and Apple has always focused their attention toward the professionals when speaking about FCP, not the consumer market. A consumer doesn't give a shit about what Cold Mountain was edited with, but the Walter Murch book about the process is as much propaganda as it is useful.

I really don't know where you get all your theories from, but there seem to be a lot of assumptions that change according to how the current status of FCPX is. Can you please stop trying to define the professional market and Apples true intentions. When we see how everything is going, I think I'm gonna put all your posts together and email you to see if your speeches are coherent to how things are.
What is even more interesting is that from I've heard from you, you are involved in a post production facility and you yourself can't use FCPX. So how is it that you defend Apple all the time?
Every time people say something you seem to have a need to act as their lawyer .
Or are you, as the podcast refer to, an underwear editor? If so, then I understand that you misunderstand the professional part of both Apple and our criticism.

 

[Liam Hall]

Chris, listen to this, they make a good analysis of what market Apple missed entirely. There are alot of people who work outside of broadcast and studio features who still need the missing pro features, who still need to collaborate with others in the post production workflow.

http://reduser.net/forum/showthread.php?60467-Good-long-discussion-about-FCPXhttp://reduser.net/forum/showthread.php?60467-Good-long-discussion-about-FCPX

Also, you forget all the people working with commercials which is a HUGE market compared to film and broadcast.

Final Cut X is a consumer product for the underwear editor (listen to the podcast), it's not ready and might never be enough for the professionals, either in broadcast, feature films or as freelancers/post production houses doing commercials, music videos, industrial videos and so on. I know one post production facility in town who had their entire facility built around FCP. They now have to speak to clients outside that they should NOT use FCPX for any work before going to them, in their words; "it's useless".

What professionals need and work with is defined what they work with, not what you say that Apple had their focus on. Final Cut Pro has been a professional product, it has been used on large feature films since "Return to Cold mountain" and Apple has always focused their attention toward the professionals when speaking about FCP, not the consumer market. A consumer doesn't give a shit about what Cold Mountain was edited with, but the Walter Murch book about the process is as much propaganda as it is useful.

I really don't know where you get all your theories from, but there seem to be a lot of assumptions that change according to how the current status of FCPX is. Can you please stop trying to define the professional market and Apples true intentions. When we see how everything is going, I think I'm gonna put all your posts together and email you to see if your speeches coherent to how things are.
What is even more interesting is that from I've heard from you, you are involved in a post production facility and you yourself can't use FCPX. So how is it that you defend Apple all the time?
Every time people say something you seem to have a need to act as their lawyer .
Or are you, as the podcast refer to, an underwear editor? If so, then I understand that you misunderstand the professional part of both Apple and our criticism.

First time I said I was going to work on FCP people laughed at me, they called it "final cut pathetic" and many other things. It was very flakey, but had some cool features and a lot of versatility. Most importantly, you could see where it was heading. It certainly wasn't considered a professional tool, but I made it work, the film got made and I got paid. The same is true with FCPX. Having just cut my first job on it - in a hotel bar in Kazakhstan - I think I'm well placed to evaluate it; FCPX has some very cool features and a lot of versatility, but it's flakey and I'm not entirely sure where it's heading...

FCPX won't be the tool of choice for everybody, even when they fix the things that so obviously need fixing; FCP never was either. Luckily for all of us, there are so many good deals to be had from Avid and Adobe as well as Apple that any professional filmmaker can afford to buy all of them.

 

[Chris Kenny]

Chris, listen to this, they make a good analysis of what market Apple missed entirely. There are alot of people who work outside of broadcast and studio features who still need the missing pro features, who still need to collaborate with others in the post production workflow.

Could you perhaps summarize, so I don't have to listen to an hour-long podcast?

Also, you forget all the people working with commercials which is a HUGE market compared to film and broadcast.

I was lumping commercials in with broadcast, because they have the same sorts of deliverables requirements (tape delivery, broadcast-quality QA and so on). It's still a small market compared with the event/corporate/web/etc. guys.

Final Cut X is a consumer product for the underwear editor (listen to the podcast), it's not ready and might never be enough for the professionals, either in broadcast, feature films or as freelancers/post production houses doing commercials, music videos, industrial videos and so on.

You keep simply repeating your thesis statement, and ignoring arguments that people advance against it. For instance, the above sentence shows no acknowledgement of my points that a) consumers don't actually buy $300 software, b) FCP has always been targeted (and FCP X continues to be targeted) primarily at the wider range of non-broadcast/non-featere editors and c) several of the critical issues for FCP X are going to be solved in weeks or months, not years.

I know one post production facility in town who had their entire facility built around FCP. They now have to speak to clients outside that they should NOT use FCPX for any work before going to them, in their words; "it's useless".

I'm sure that's true, but I don't think it means what you think it does. The truth is (and I've said this before) that FCP X is effectively useless to my company as well as of today. I mean, we're having interns cut some behind the scenes footage in it (for which it beats FCP 7 hands down, because it's all DSLR material), but we can't use it for our major projects, mostly Red-originated features that will eventually be graded in Resolve.

But it's not useless to us because Apple has fundamentally screwed up or gone of the rails and started making products for soccer moms. It's useless because it's missing three features we need. Two of these (XML export and more control over audio track exporting), Apple has explicitly said are coming before the end of the summer. The third ('real' video output) I believe will also mostly likely show up in that timeframe as well. It seems likely to me that we will be able to cut features in FCP X by October.

What professionals need and work with is defined what they work with, not what you say that Apple had their focus on. Final Cut Pro has been a professional product, it has been used on large feature films since "Return to Cold mountain" and Apple has always focused their attention toward the professionals when speaking about FCP, not the consumer market.

Once again, there is no "consumer market" for a $300 video editing application, and Apple is not silly enough to believe there is one. People are using "pro" as a synonym for "user who edits features or delivers to broadcast", and "consumer" as a synonym for everyone else (including a huge fraction of FCP's existing installed base), and this is leading them to badly misunderstand why Apple made certain decisions with the initial release.

 

[Andrew T Foster]

Hello,

A friend purchased it yesterday and I went over to have a go at it today. Wow.. W..T..F..?

I feel like I went from a sophisticated interface to .. happy shiny goo-goo gui? On a 30" Cinema Display everything is so.. BIG.

I'm having a hard time thinking that they will ever be able to bring this up to the level of sophistication feature-wise to match FCP 7 even with contributions (and probably expensive ones) from third parties.

This is really depressing. While we do use other tools, this was our primary NLE.

It's like watching a good friend be lobotomized and having the Doctor tell you that he/she is far, far better than before because all those old personality traits have been removed and new exciting, happy, shiny traits have been put in that will make her the talk of the party...

Best,

ATF

 

[Chris Kenny]

I feel like I went from a sophisticated interface to .. happy shiny goo-goo gui? On a 30" Cinema Display everything is so.. BIG.

I'm having a hard time thinking that they will ever be able to bring this up to the level of sophistication feature-wise to match FCP 7 even with contributions (and probably expensive ones) from third parties.

The interface is substantially "deeper" and better thought out than it appears at first glance. You really need to give it a day or two working on an actual project, with the documentation handy. And flip through the command editor to see all the keyboard shortcuts. There are a huge number of these, and some of them do really useful things (like back-timed edits) and aren't noted anywhere else in the interface. Also, maybe read this, where I try to explain how the magnetic timeline is fundamentally different from what it initially appears to be to someone coming from a track-based editing environment.

 

[Andrew T Foster]

Hello,

Will do. I need to spend some more time with it definitely. At first glance it really does look like little more than iMovie. Especially with the first screen asking you to import iMovie files, etc.. Where are all the color correction tools? Is that really it?

Anyhow.. I'll check that link out.

Thanks!

ATF

 

[Chris Kenny]

Where are all the color correction tools? Is that really it?

The color correction tools are actually pretty nice. I mean, for an NLE; it's not Resolve or anything. Except it does work in the same sort of 32-bit float color space, and even maintains this color space between corrections when stacking. So you can, for instance, blow highlights (even blow the entire frame to white) with one correction, and then bring things back with a second one. The color board interface is unusual, but actually a pretty clever way of visualizing what's happening.

 

[AnthonyFlores]

Hey Chris, thanks for your posts and glad I took the time to check out your blog. Kinda cool to see someone who works a lot with Red, and isn't totally freaking out about the new FCP - I agree with much of what you've posted here and over there.

Also, I'm sure you've been accused of being a "fanboy" but I actually find your approach to be fairly balanced. You are critical of FCPX and Apple's handing of the situation in the right places without screaming "exodus!" or rounding up the pitchforks.

Only time will tell but I feel like Apple is too smart and resource-rich to not fix this. It's not all a matter of numbers and spreadsheets, there's pride at stake here and with the way Apple is getting picked on by those like Avid and Adobe, I think they will be extra motivated to show "pros" they still care.

 

[Philipe Ratton]

I can't fucking believe I'll have to go back to Premiere.
Never thought this day would come.
But how the hell do they do things like no XML, no double monitor plus video out setup, no way to integrate sound ?
What the hell are they doing over there ?
iPhone editing software ?
I would really like to hear Jim's thoughts on this one.

 

[joe hedge]

I worked as an asst editor for a few years in the mid-'00's. Avid Meridiens running on On Mac G4's, on System 9, were pretty widely in use, even though FCP 6 and Intel Macs wth OS X were out by then

FCP 7 will still be in use 5 years from now (unless Apple actually makes FCP X usable...)

 

[Dave Blackham]

I worked as an asst editor for a few years in the mid-'00's. Avid Meridiens running on On Mac G4's, on System 9, were pretty widely in use, even though FCP 6 and Intel Macs wth OS X were out by then

FCP 7 will still be in use 5 years from now (unless Apple actually makes FCP X usable...)

Im still not sold on this app by any means. What I have seen is some clever work by third party developers getting metadata out to do XML exchange and integration with PP and Avid so it is possible to do. Also other posts suggest there are in built features that arnt enabled yet. Why it was ever left out at launch is beyond me.

On the Color Corretion front if Baselight get their plug in working then that would be a very good move, perhaps also Color Finesse would be useful here too.

I hope Im wrong but there seems to be a view in the development community saying it will be 2 years to get it back up to where FCP 7 is now and it still not clear what Apple with provide (so Im assuming nothing) and what third parties will need to write to achieve this.

 

[Christoffer Glans]

I worked as an asst editor for a few years in the mid-'00's. Avid Meridiens running on On Mac G4's, on System 9, were pretty widely in use, even though FCP 6 and Intel Macs wth OS X were out by then

FCP 7 will still be in use 5 years from now (unless Apple actually makes FCP X usable...)

FCP7 has been pulled from the shelves and Apple doesn't seem to support it. Avid has a much better support for their products, they still support people with Xpress Pro, even though it's not in production any longer.

Realize that Avid works ONLY with professional software toward professionals who need sound design software, video editing, online etc. they do not make Iphones, Ipads and such. They care about the professional market because IT IS their market.

That makes a huge difference that I think too many forget.

If you are going to be working primarily with editing and you need your own system, then isn't it best to focus on the system that has the best professional support? The product that is directly made for the professional market from a company who's only interest is to work closely with them? I would not want a business to be dependent on a company who don't communicate, who's updates is generally a lottery and who says they work toward professionals but show that they are working toward the consumer market instead.


It's not just all about the software, it's not just all about the price...

 

[Chris Kenny]

But how the hell do they do things like no XML, no double monitor plus video out setup, no way to integrate sound ?
What the hell are they doing over there ?
iPhone editing software ?

It's very easy to lose perspective on this sort of thing if one is in the segment of the industry most of us are in, but the truth is probably 90% of FCP's total user base has always been event/corporate/web video guys, who finish entirely in FCP and for the most part don't own video I/O equipment. From that perspective, and particularly given Apple's history of shipping initial versions of products with a minimum viable feature set rather than the full eventually intended feature set, shipping FCP X and then worrying about those features afterwards makes a great deal of sense.

Note that they've already said XML export is arriving in 'the next few weeks', more control over how audio is exported is arriving this summer, and they're continuing to work with AJA/Blackmagic on handling video output. Should they really have held the whole release for another two months to make sure it shipped with features 90% of their users don't need?

FCP7 has been pulled from the shelves and Apple doesn't seem to support it.

Do you have a citation for the "Apple doesn't seem to support it" claim? I seriously doubt Apple is now refusing to provide support for already-purchased copies of FCP 7. In fact, they'll still sell you AppleCare Professional Video Support.

Realize that Avid works ONLY with professional software toward professionals who need sound design software, video editing, online etc. they do not make Iphones, Ipads and such. They care about the professional market because IT IS their market.

That makes a huge difference that I think too many forget.

What you're saying has been true for the last decade. Meanwhile:

In the last round of the NLE wars, Apple's approach of targeting a broader market and then adding features more specific to broadcast and post facilities worked out much better for them, even among broadcast and post facilities, than Avid's narrow focus on those particular customers. It's not hard to figure out why. It let them offer lower prices, let a richer ecosystem of third-party products grow up around their platform, and put their product out there more widely for people to learn.

There is no particular reason to believe things will be different this time around. Apple hasn't had a chance to implement these sorts of features yet... but it looks like the more important workflow features are coming in the next few weeks/months, and multicam is already announced for the next major release.

 

[Christoffer Glans]

That image graph was presented before the release of FCPX, when people believed that FCPX was to be a huge and good upgrade to FCP7. Everyone was worried about the way you edit, but most people said that it's just something you got to learn. No one knew how bad things really was. As I said before, I would really like to see a graph showing the current state of Avid vs Premiere vs FCP.
Avid had problems with listening to professionals a few years ago, but that changed and now they are making huge improvements to their NLE.

There are a lot of reasons to believe that things are gonna be different. The Avid attitude is different, Premiere is more mature and has been so improved since past time that it's one of the strongest NLE's right now. Those graphs end at 2010. In 2010 Avid presented Media Composer 5 and Premiere matured it's CS5 release with mercury engine etc.

There's all but good reasons the market will be different. If Apple is taking huge steps backwards for professionals they will clearly fall behind. It might take a year before they have all the features we need.
And what will happen with Avid and Premiere during that time? CS6 and Media Composer 6? And if they are looking at FCPX and understand all the good things like for example background rendering, they might try to create something similar together with improving what they already have.

Just pointing to that graph, presented by Apple at a presentation where they first started marketing FCPX is just too much. It's their propaganda. I'm not so sure they included the premiere/Avid numbers of mid 2010, because people started investing in both those systems after NAB last year. Avid and Premiere showed such good and new things, both in specs and attitude that people started believing in them again.
And that graph shows the development of FCP to FCP7. It has nothing to do with FCPX which is another software all together (it is, no one is saying it is an actual upgrade from FCP7, to much have changed and you can't open old projects = new software)

So, there's way too many things pointing to the graph just inverting itself vertically, Apple's propaganda can't change that.

 

[M Most]

Should they really have held the whole release for another two months to make sure it shipped with features 90% of their users don't need?

Well, yes. And if they had, they would have at least minimized, if not eliminated, the PR nightmare they've created for themselves. With products like NLE's, the sales to professionals might not be large in terms of volume, but the PR value of having well known testimonials in rather incalculable. I think you'd find that even with Apple's own numbers, the sales of FCP increased dramatically following its endorsement by people like Walter Murch and the Coen Brothers. Everybody wants to aspire to be like those who are proven and successful, and that's what the PR has always stressed. So the blowback from that market is likely to have a strong effect in the opposite direction, which is clearly not something Apple wanted. Apple is one of the most cash rich companies in the world. Another couple of months of development prior to release most likely wouldn't have amounted to more than pennies in the scheme of things for them. But it might have led to a much brighter future and a much better relationship with a community they've always counted on to help spread their gospel.

It is very, very clear by everything surrounding the release of this product that Apple has made a very conscious decision to focus on the much larger and potentially higher growth consumer and prosumer market, a business decision that one can't really argue with given the numbers involved. They want to grow the user base and sell more MacBooks and iMacs, and the way to do that is to appeal to those who don't own your product yet. That is clearly not the professional community, which is not a high growth group and for the most part, made their NLE choices a long time ago. You likely won't see Avid selling large numbers of licenses to YouTube oriented shooters, and you won't find FCPX on a network television series. Each has their market, and each has chosen to concentrate on that market. In that sense, what Apple has done is not really surprising at all. Disappointing, but not surprising.

 

[Christoffer Glans]

Aspiring professionals, amateurs, students and pretenders look at what professionals use and want to use their tools, simple as that.