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 :)

Ok, I will take the heat. FCPX 10.3 works. Check this video

Scot Yount

Scot Yount

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 28, 2014
Messages
1,713
Reaction score
7
Points
38
Location
Marblehead, Massachusetts
From his Youtube Channel

THIS GUY EDITS (TGE) is a youtube channel by film editor Sven Pape, an A.C.E. award nominee, whose credits include work for directors James Cameron, Joseph Gordon-Levitt, and James Franco.


 
It doesn't say anything about using RED footie, but you get the idea.
 
Yep, I'm finding myself using it more and more now. None of the NLEs are perfect, and FCPX is no exception but I can't help that this is the one I have the most fun cutting in.
 
It is not the first theatrical feature cut on FCPX. There's actually been quite a few of them.

One of the first major Hollywood films cut on FCPX was the early-2015 Will Smith film Focus, and they wrote a book about the workflow:

http://www.fcp.co/final-cut-pro/new...-film-workflow-book-now-available-to-download

Note that they used a lot of tricks, 3rd party programs, duplicate systems, and workarounds in order to get it all done in FCPX.

There are things I like a lot about FCPX -- particularly its metadata handling -- but I really dislike the quirky user interface. FCP7 I understand, Avid I can tolerate, and Premiere makes relative sense. I'm not sure I see the point for FCPX unless you're just seduced by a program that costs $399 out the door.
 
I'm glad to see others enjoying FCPX as much as I do. I've been cutting on it since it came out and 10.3 seems to have more and more people saying "oh this isn't as bad as I thought". I've cut on Avid,FCP 3-7, and a little on Premiere over my 15 years ib broadcast tv. I am so much faster on FCPX. I save so much time. My major issue right now is that FCPX 10.3 crashes when trying to run my bizon box w/ titan x on it on my trashcan. Anyone else have that issue? I also wish they would allow Open CL support for external cards.
 
Looks like they charged Marc an extra $100. No wonder he doesn't like it. LOL

And Whiskey Tango Foxtrot was even more thoroughly run through the FCPX workflow.

And here is a feature project with more than 480 hours of footage: http://preview.tinyurl.com/jc2u5r8
 
Last edited:
Marc Wielage said:
It is not the first theatrical feature cut on FCPX. There's actually been quite a few of them.

One of the first major Hollywood films cut on FCPX was the early-2015 Will Smith film Focus, and they wrote a book about the workflow:

http://www.fcp.co/final-cut-pro/new...-film-workflow-book-now-available-to-download

Note that they used a lot of tricks, 3rd party programs, duplicate systems, and workarounds in order to get it all done in FCPX.

There are things I like a lot about FCPX -- particularly its metadata handling -- but I really dislike the quirky user interface. FCP7 I understand, Avid I can tolerate, and Premiere makes relative sense. I'm not sure I see the point for FCPX unless you're just seduced by a program that costs $399 out the door.
Click to expand...
Actually for me, price has nothing to do with it. Although, at $299 (a bit more when you factor in some key plugins) it certainly is attractive price point. It's the speed at which I can do things that has been the biggest eye opener for me. But I still have a need for an Avid as well. :-)
 
It's brilliant for what I do. I'm not an editor, but I have worked as one on some broadcast shows. Started with Premiere and fcp, then just fcp7 when that came out. Was "forced" over to Premiere around he time of CC. Started to do my own smaller project in FCPX at that time, and it's just so much faster.
I'm working on a TV show as a cameraman that has been edited in FCPX since version 1.1 so it certainly has its place in the "pro" world.
Version 1.3 gave new life to my 2008 Mac Pro, I can still edit my Red Epic footage on that (almost 10 year old) computer with the latest version of FCPX. Amazing.
 
There is no "heat" to take if someone criticizes someone's tool of choice. Choices and priorities differ. Who takes tool criticism personally, has a problem with emotional attachment, translating the matter to oneself and projecting the personal attack where there is none.
It doesn't matter what the piece is edited on, it matters what it says.

For the audience.
For the post team (not a single Creative) it matters.

If someone finds it useful, that doesn't remove the limitations to those who don't.
If someone doesn't find it useful, that doesn't remove the usefulness to those who do.


Which ever the case may be, corporation is flawless and will not be criticized or thou shall be expelled from the herd.
 
I work with all three NLEs.
They all have their quirks and "good god why?" issues.
In the end, its what gets it done.
I can list a few things I wish Premiere had that FCPX has but same goes for AVID/PREMIERE/FCPX/RESOLVE (press random generator now).
 
Marc Wielage said:
It is not the first theatrical feature cut on FCPX. There's actually been quite a few of them.
Click to expand...

I don't think the video in the OP was claiming his was the first feature cut in FCPX. The lead image shows the first feature cut in the original FCP in 2002... 14 years ago. And in the video, the editor talks about editing HIS first feature in FCPX.
 
I think this video actually encapsulates my experience with FCPX. And Sven makes it clear that these are just tools and you choose them based on the task at hand. And he finds he is editing twice as fast, which matches my experience as well. But honestly, I don't feel a need to defend FCPX or any NLE for that matter. You either invest the time to get to know the tool or you don't. And if you don't, you're a sideline observer which is what I would consider myself to be when it came to FCPX a year ago. To really feel justified in commenting on it, I knew I needed to invest months of hands on to gain any real insight into how FCPX could benefit me. I can say this, if you don't go in with an open mind it will be very difficult to accept a lot of things about FCPX. If you get past that, there are discoveries to be made. You still may not like it, but you know why you don't like it.

Anyway, Sven is far more elegant so watch the video rather than me ramble.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=-0PnlpDbMjw
 
Whatever works for you, use it. However, for big projects like feature films and series, the workflow is more important than the editors preferences and I might have prejudice opinions against FCPX, but it feels both Avid and Adobe have a much better solution for large post production work.
 
Christoffer Glans said:
Whatever works for you, use it. However, for big projects like feature films and series, the workflow is more important than the editors preferences and I might have prejudice opinions against FCPX, but it feels both Avid and Adobe have a much better solution for large post production work.
Click to expand...

Which is why I still need Avid because there are established workflows that it's just easier to use a standard everyone knows. And there are still things that I like about MC that are either missing in FCPX or not implemented in a way I am used to. For example, a gang function. I use that all of the time in MC. Access to view source and record timecode with many options on how you want to display it in the GUI. Transitions a bit easier to deal with in MC but I'm finding ways to accomplish what I need in FCPX. But things like having immediate access to composite mode, transform controls that are instantaneous and take so few clicks. There are a lot of efficiencies that start to become major advantages for FCPX. But I've worked with MC for over twenty years now, so some habits are hard to break. But being able to change a bunch of metadata on clips all at once, ease of audio levels adjustment, better management of native file formats, easy selects creation, etc. all have made me more interested in continuing down the FCP rabbit hole, knowing full well that someone might decide to fill that hole while I'm down there, burying me alive. :-)
 
Terry VerHaar said:
Looks like they charged Marc an extra $100. No wonder he doesn't like it.
Click to expand...
$399 with Motion and Compressor, which are mandatory for many users. They used to be free, but Apple split them out from the program.

I think buying anything -- particularly mission-critical software -- solely on the basis of cost is a big mistake. You have to look at the big picture of how efficient it is, how well your employees are in terms of adapting to it, the number of freelance people available who know how to run it, how good/bad the support is, the size of the install base, the availability of user groups and training, the availability of plug-ins... there's a lot beyond mere cost. In the long run, if you're shooting a $500,000 feature film, spending $400 vs. $800 vs. $2000 on the editing program is the least of your worries.

Again, read the workflow on Focus. They jumped through an enormous number of hoops in order to get that film done, and one of the biggest was using four or five sumultaneous workstations. Walter Murch went through similar steps when he cut Cold Mountain on FCP7. (I consider FCP7 to be a completely different program than FCPX, since the latter was rewritten from scratch.)

Users who dislike FCPX don't have lead programmer Randy Ubilos to kick around anymore: he left Apple more than a year ago. I always found it ironic that he also created iMovie, Premiere, and most of the original Final Cut Pro.

Steve Sherrick said:
Which is why I still need Avid because there are established workflows that it's just easier to use a standard everyone knows. And there are still things that I like about MC that are either missing in FCPX or not implemented in a way I am used to. For example, a gang function. I use that all of the time in MC. Access to view source and record timecode with many options on how you want to display it in the GUI. Transitions a bit easier to deal with in MC but I'm finding ways to accomplish what I need in FCPX. But things like having immediate access to composite mode, transform controls that are instantaneous and take so few clicks. There are a lot of efficiencies that start to become major advantages for FCPX. But I've worked with MC for over twenty years now, so some habits are hard to break. But being able to change a bunch of metadata on clips all at once, ease of audio levels adjustment, better management of native file formats, easy selects creation, etc. all have made me more interested in continuing down the FCP rabbit hole, knowing full well that someone might decide to fill that hole while I'm down there, burying me alive. :-)
Click to expand...
Yes to all of this. I agree there's a lot of gray area in the choice of one platform over another, and there are some really admirable features in FCPX, particularly the metadata handling. One wishes that Premiere could equal that ability.
 
Christoffer Glans said:
Whatever works for you, use it. However, for big projects like feature films and series, the workflow is more important than the editors preferences and I might have prejudice opinions against FCPX, but it feels both Avid and Adobe have a much better solution for large post production work.
Click to expand...
I think most people in LA, NY, and London working on Hollywood features and network shows feel the same way.

I also continue to be skeptical about Apple's longterm commitment to pro users.
 
I'm all over it and have been since day one.

Love 10.3 it's made for editors.
 
Im getting another computer in jan for a to use as a audiostation (the main workstation is not quiet enough by far). Im tinking maby getting a mac since I like to use a thunderbolt audio card/preamp. Is it any point to try to edit 5k on an Imac. Im not going to spend to much on this "audio station", so no trash can.
 
Joel Arvidsson said:
Im getting another computer in jan for a to use as a audiostation (the main workstation is not quiet enough by far). Im tinking maby getting a mac since I like to use a thunderbolt audio card/preamp. Is it any point to try to edit 5k on an Imac. Im not going to spend to much on this "audio station", so no trash can.
Click to expand...

Its amazing what my colleauges have finished on that 5K iMac.

I would have jumped on that but already knee deep in the nMP.

A few of my friends run Pro Tools and have not had any complaints.
 
Marc Wielage said:
...and there are some really admirable features in FCPX, particularly the metadata handling. One wishes that Premiere could equal that ability.
Click to expand...

I scratch my head on this one.

For the life of me, sharing projects and data is still a PITA with Premiere even up to CC2017.

I dont get why the search data window can just start from a root?

Having to select one file at a time to find disconnected data is not fun :P
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top