Final Cut Pro X Released

[Steve Sherrick]

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.

I think Apple has made a mistake not showing their full hand on this. Leaving a lot of people confused. They should have just let the whole cat out of the bag.

 

[Matt Gottshalk]

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"

There are no refunds for electronic downloads.

You are SOL.

 

[Mark L. Pederson]

I think Apple has made a mistake not showing their full hand on this. Leaving a lot of people confused. They should have just let the whole cat out of the bag.

Marketing trainwreck. Somebody should loose some stock options

All they had to do was say "3rd party application integration in development"

 

[Terry VerHaar]

I think Apple has made a mistake not showing their full hand on this. Leaving a lot of people confused. They should have just let the whole cat out of the bag.

Well, this way they sure generated a lot of publicity among the self anointed "pro" users!! :laugh:

 

[Matt Gottshalk]

Walter Biscardi lays it out rather nicely:

http://magazine.creativecow.net/article/final-cut-pro-x-whats-missing-for-some-pros

 

[Jared Caldwell]

There are no refunds for electronic downloads.

You are SOL.

You can get refunds on apps, actually. At least, you could 3 or so months ago.

 

[Steve Sherrick]

Well, this way they sure generated a lot of publicity among the self anointed "pro" users!! :laugh:

As optimistic as I am that Apple will eventually get this right, I also have to side with the frustrated editors out there. Looking at what was released yesterday, they've opened themselves up to this barrage of criticism. As Mark said, just tell people what they are getting today, and provide them the roadmap for the next year. All of the questions that are being asked in this thread, and across many forums, had to have gone through the pro apps marketing team's mind. They should have been prepared to address at least some of these issues. If you are going to make big changes, be prepared to explain why and again if there are feature coming at a later date, at least provide a hint of this. For example, they absolutely had to know that XML or lack thereof would come as a huge surprise to people. So, from day one say why it's not there and what is being done to implement it in a future release.

The only reason I can think they haven't done this is a tad bit of arrogance. I think they figure that the people who are screaming loudly these past two days will eventually be back once the program is updated and becomes feature rich. They may be right, but they also may be wrong. I guess only time will tell. I'm trying really hard to give them the benefit of the doubt. There are also some great alternative right now, which does buy them some time.

 

[Mark L. Pederson]

The only reason I can think they haven't done this is a tad bit of arrogance.

FLASHBACK - The way they handled the NAB event this year.

 

[IAN SUN]

playing around with it for the last couple of hrs.
It's allright. Not yet sold on the no dedicated preview window but the timeline is pretty sweet. The magnetic timeline reminds me of the reason I migrated to Final Cut from from avid in the first place. The flexibility of the timeline and and the ability to place clips where I want is liberating.
Learning the hot keys certainly helps.

 

[Eric Santiago]

playing around with it for the last couple of hrs.
It's allright. Not yet sold on the no dedicated preview window but the timeline is pretty sweet. The magnetic timeline reminds me of the reason I migrated to Final Cut from from avid in the first place. The flexibility of the timeline and and the ability to place clips where I want is liberating.
Learning the hot keys certainly helps.

Im diggin the view options now. Show Viewer on second monitor is sweet with dual 30. It is a lot different than most apps as far GUI options. but all this is trivial, when it comes to speeding up rendering and conversions. ..so far, thats impressive

 

[Erich Ocean]

That's more like it! Being able to use FCP in a Python pipeline makes more sense, being able to tie it to Nuke, Shotgun. That would be amazing! Render your vfx shot, approve the comp, it's automatically in the edit.

I'm already doing this, without Final Cut Pro X.

 

[Bruce Allen]

Well, this way they sure generated a lot of publicity among the self anointed "pro" users!! :laugh:

The critics are not self anointed pros. Generally they actually are pros. Anointed by clients who pay them money. Please don't insult people who actually need to make an OMF because they want to have a nice mix, or would prefer to use Resolve than color with the rather pathetic coloring tools built into FCP X. Their criticism of FCP X as it stands is valid. I don't understand why you take it personally?

Scripting functionality is great. But until it is implemented, FCP X sucks.

It was 2009 when the lackluster Final Cut Pro 7 came out. Everyone said "hey, cut them slack - half the team probably didn't even work on it - they've likely been rewriting Final Cut from the ground up to be 64bit and awesome already - look forward to seeing something at NAB 2010!"

If Apple had said "Actually, you're still going to have to wait over 2 years for the next release - and when it comes out, it's not even going to be able to write out an EDL. You're going to have to wait for us to turn on scripting a little while later..." would there really be many people left who didn't switch over to Avid or Premiere?

One more thing: criticizing FCP X for not having vital things on release does not mean we don't think it'll turn into a good program later.

But at this moment there's a serious disconnect between what it's currently marketed as (final cut PRO TEN - and it says v10.0, not v1.0 on the splash screen, by the way) - and what it can currently deliver.

Im diggin the view options now. Show Viewer on second monitor is sweet with dual 30. It is a lot different than most apps as far GUI options. but all this is trivial, when it comes to speeding up rendering and conversions. ..so far, thats impressive

I and many other editors use dual monitors plus a video monitor. One monitor for bins, the other for timeline stuff. Versus that... are you sure the FCP X way (which cuts folks down from 3 to 2 monitors) is better?

Bruce Allen
www.boacinema.com

 

[Tim Morten]

Walter Biscardi lays it out rather nicely:

http://magazine.creativecow.net/article/final-cut-pro-x-whats-missing-for-some-pros

From the article:

Apple has had at least two years to completely redevelop the software from the ground up. To have left out so many of the features that were already in Final Cut Pro 7 and say 'well it's a 1.0 release and it will grow as we move along' is just completely self serving. In other words, the developers at Apple, who do NOT make a living as a video editor, decided that they would completely re-invent video editing based on their preconceived notion of what a video editor does. If it's not right the first time, we'll just develop more features, on our own timeline without telling anyone what we're doing, until we get it right. It's just painfully obvious this is a consumer product first and a professional application second. If that's Apple's goal, that's perfectly fine because the consumer market FAR exceeds the professional market. Just tell us so we can move on instead of waiting out this two year game of "what will they do."

 

[Alexander Ibrahim]

But at this moment there's a serious disconnect between what it's currently marketed as (final cut PRO TEN - and it says v10.0, not v1.0 on the splash screen, by the way) - and what it can currently deliver.

Well, if you are going to draw a point at the disconnect between the version number and the feature set, then you can't have it both ways.

It's called FCP X, and the splash screen says 10.0

We all should know that its a complete rewrite, they've said as much. So, regardless of what they call it we should expect it to in fact be version 1.0 software.

We have the feature set on day of of v1.0 software.

We also have the completely new architecture of v1.0 software.

Unfortunately those are tied together.

I and many other editors use dual monitors plus a video monitor. One monitor for bins, the other for timeline stuff. Versus that... are you sure the FCP X way (which cuts folks down from 3 to 2 monitors) is better?

You asked someone else, and I'll answer: NO going from support for 3 monitors down to 2 monitors is abysmal.

We need more options as far as configuring the GUI goes.

The main thing we need though is a broadcast/evaluation display output ... or even a TV for that matter.

I frankly don't care too much how that is accomplished - so long as I can see a broadcast signal or a calibrated projector ... or whatever it is I need to see.

That said ... I'm not so convinced anymore that we need such a display for editing. I'd say its a convenience, not a necessity for most editors. That might excuse Final Cut Pro 6 or 7.

We definitely need it for finishing and grading which Final Cut Pro X "wants" for us to do inside the one "hero" application.

If I am editing a feature ... I need to see it on a projector. I can do that today with FCP 6 and BMD Decklink ... I can't do it at all on FCP X ... that is NOT progress.

The way FCP X works, as a one stop post solution - ingest to finish - the only thing it is suitable for is web/computer delivery.

Today FCP X is very limited ... but today it also represents a great foundation for the future of Apple NLE software ... and frankly if the right user and device interfaces are built for it for Apple "hero" post.

 

[shashbugu]

Thank you for the kind words.

Please listen to me now.

I agree that FCP X is not ready for deployment as a primary NLE even in small one man band studios, like mine.

I think you are still missing my point - there is a LOT of exciting stuff going on with FCP X.

For years I've been saying that Apple should tear the guts out of FCP and do a completely modern rewrite.

Well they did, and I'm just not going to knock them for it.

I am surprised that there is no XML import/export option, and no option for importing FCP 6/7 projects. Aside from that I got more or less what I expected from the product on day one. Great technology that needs to mature.

I am going to edit a music video with it. I shot the video with a 7D, I frankly feel its destined for the web. Its also a project I think I can keep entirely within FCP X and the other new Apple post applications.

That's the sort of project where FCP X can work well today ... and its a very small minority of projects.

This will change ... Apple simply can not afford for it not to change. I think we can bank on extensive project import/export modules so FCP X plays well with other applications, and support for video IO boards very fast. The lack of those two features are garnering the majority of negative reviews.

XML interchange is a huge issue, and one that Apple should have been prioritizing from day one. Even powerful "hero box" applications that can do everything like Smoke have great interchange capabilities. Whoever decided to ignore this at Apple simply doesn't understand real practical editorial work.

I don't know why Apple didn't work with its partners at AJA and Black Magic to make sure FCP X had i/o support on day one. That was a very bad decision.

If Apple fixes those two issues within the month, I'll be happy with their direction.

If they fix it slower than that, I'll question their commitment and market understanding, but still be happy with the technology FCP X 1.0 represents.

If they don't fix it ... well its a fantastic upgrade to iMovie and Final Cut Express.

That's a pretty harsh review, but the key is the high notes: This product has the technology Apple needs to actually deliver the tools we really need. FCP 7 was a bad foundation for modern postproduction.

So, bravo to Apple for being bold and making a big change - now follow it through with fast updates adding essential professional features.

Alexander I fully agree with you on the coolness factor of FCPX. Check out Sony vegas it has more bells and whistles that any NLE, but alas its not a pro App for obvious reasons. All we are hearing is there will be updates. We have patience, but rest assured until apple actually confirms updates, FCPX is a DUD. Alexander, you have better intentions than apple has for FCPX. There are many NLE's out there, but we as Redusers can only rely on those that can get the job done. That said if you work on DSLRs and handy cams, then all means FCPX is a Godsend. I'm sure you can play with it all day and learn the work arounds but you will realize it not serious project ready.

 

[Rob Ruffo]

I think there are a lot of great tools out there that are more efficient for short format profesional projects such as music videos and commercials, where a lot of the finishing is done in AE and other motion graphics platforms. I, however, primarily work in features, and taking away tape output, xml, audio outputs, dpx, etc. eliminates everything that I do for a long form project deliverables, including creating outputs for high end post houses to color correct and audio mix.

You can do all that in Premiere.

 

[Rob Ruffo]

I don't know guys. I've just downloaded and it seems pretty freakin' awesome. It is SOOO fast. And isn't that a lot of what we all wanted? Just got back from REDucation where Michael Cioni from Light-Iron was talking about how native support of R3d's really isn't a top priority, and encourages everyone to use a transcode workflow right off the bat anyhow. Yes, it would be cool if more of this transcode and redrocket stuff was in the first release, but, let's face it, that probably was pretty unlikely. Already this morning they had an update that added support for xdcam and some other codecs. My guess is they've built this baby pretty modular and the plug-ins for Aja support, red support, etc. will be simpler than in the past and thus quickly forthcoming.

The only thing that is really different to me is that when you import say, a red proxy, you're not connect to the actual red proxy, you're connected to an alias of the red proxy (I know, an alias of an alias, etc.). Anyhow, it always is collecting all of these aliases and keeping them in one place on your local drive. I can't seem to figure out how to work off of the shared drive. And when I ask it to "organize" everything it says it will move all of the original data to one folder, but then it comes up right after and says it already is all in one folder. Hmm. Maybe some things to be worked out still. Ditto for dSLR footage...

However, I would warn all of you that are so excited about Premiere that I tried to move over to that about 6 months ago, and on the mac, it is awful. I'm talking about serious crashing, and crashing, and crashing. I've heard this echoed from everyone who tried it on a mac, although everyone on a pc said it was great. So, who knows, but I think probably this will be an awesome tool - but you're going to pay for ALOT of plug-ins!

Max

Why would you do transcodes unless you really have to!? This is truly stupid advice.

 

[Tim Morten]

Just to give credit where credit is due: kudos to Alexander for being the optimist among us! We may not all agree, but I absolutely respect your positive spirit!

 

[Jake Bastian]

#fcpx will never be able to open an #fcp project. Too big a change in project structure.

From Walter Biscardi's twitter feed. XML is just too complicated for FCPX to handle...

 

[Geoff McLeod]

Okay, in the spirit of 'Peace, Love and Understanding' I'll ask you all is there some bigger picture I'm missing here? Have Apple simple developed a platform rather than a stand-alone app? Have they simply taken the first step to providing one application that handles editing/grading/compositing? Is there code or the potential for other companies to provide all this in the FCPx? I'm not a software guru so I don't know. Could it be possible that Apple wants to do away with multiple applications (editing, grading, compositing etc..)? If it's built from the ground up, have they just provided an 'empty building' in which they hope to have third party developers fill it with all manner of amazing abilities?
Or does it seem that this is not the case?