The FCP X Problem; University level

[dillont]

Ben,

As a college institution who is prepping students for the real world, we can't simply just say "oh well, I guess we won't teach OMF/EDL ....". That would be cheating the student out of experience of working with professional workflow standards.

Yes, we already have CS5.

Or you can ignore X until they add in the missing features (although some used by smaller numbers like OMF will be via third parties - making it cheaper for everyone else) then be 6 months behind everyone else. It's entirely possible in my opinion.

FCP did well because it was feature comparible and cheaper than the competition. If you think X is the sake price as PPro for students I'll repeat: you get FIVE installs for $299. Not one. If X is completed, the same rules will apply. People will look at the value proposition again, and be back using it.

Read the FAQs and tell me if it sounds like they're doing nothing for professionals. I have no problem with third party involvement given the low cost per seat. I don't use OMF, or AAF, but I do use XML for import only. That's all I want to pay for. A la carte is fine by me.

 

[dillont]

The FAQ page for FC X says volume licensing will be handled by the app store soon. However, this still doesn't address our particular relationship with Apple. We have a yearly paid subscription plan with them that is supposed to give us access to all upgrades that Apple puts out, and so far, no word from our education rep at Apple as to how we're supposed to get our copies to install. Contacted him today, and he still doesn't know!

Dillon

No, actually, according to Apple, it WILL be solved SOON.
I'm intrigued to know whether Apple agree with your idea of buying one copy and letting 5 people use it.
If, as I suspect, they are only happy for ONE person to use it, on up to 5 computers, then that is no solution.

 

[dillont]

Methinks you're right, Blair.

I don't blame any company for following the path to more profit (for Apple, its the consumer gizmos they make). But being dishonest to its loyal professional user base about its latest software "upgrade'? This isn't an upgrade. It's not even FCP. It is missing all the features that make Final Cut Pro, PRO.

Dillon

If on the day Apple released FCPX they had given everyone a heads up that FCP7 would be EOL'd in one year that would be one thing. Pros could wait for specific issues to be addressed by Apple or 3rd parties before migrating.

If FCPX was not such a radical departure from FCP7, good or ill, that would be another thing. Product evolution usually involves some hassle.

Instead, Apple chose a path that tells me they consider the Professional market more trouble than its worth.

Perhaps expecting the same company to make cool, easy to use gadgets AND powerful, intuitive, professional tools was too much to ask.

Cheers - #19

 

[Christoffer Glans]

Ben,

As a college institution who is prepping students for the real world, we can't simply just say "oh well, I guess we won't teach OMF/EDL ....". That would be cheating the student out of experience of working with professional workflow standards.

Yes, we already have CS5.

They won't listen, for them Apple didn't include OMF/XML/EDL so now everyone should stop using it. Maybe you could teach out wishful thinking, hope and that the real professional world is about waiting for something that might come... *sigh*

Here's a good article looking at not just FCPX for the pro market. It might be that the entire Apple professional foundation is going out the window so again, my biggest question: Is Apple a company you would like to rely on for professional equipment or should you look around for something better or at least with more professional support?

Read here

 

[Tom Greenberg]

Well, after much research, discussion, throwing chicken bones, etc. I have decided that FCP X represents (at least for now) the wrong path for our students. Although it seems fairly well suited for the individual editor who is working on a single machine, creating web deliverables; I don't think FCP X provides the right training they need for the "real" (professional) world. I want them to be able to go out into the industry and successfully integrate themselves into any production situation with a good understanding of professional workflows, and I don't think that a closed ecosystem like FCP X gives them the necessary knowledgebase.

After looking over the landscape for the last two weeks, I decided that Premiere Pro 5.5 represented the best alternative to FCP 7 for us. It has a similar "operational logic" and editing philosophy with FCP 7, and the timeline and editing tools are at least somewhat familiar to those of us that have spent years mastering FCP. The tight integration with Photoshop and After Effects is a huge plus for me, since we teach both of those apps extensively. My biggest concern is color correction, but I guess that between AE and Magic Bullet Suite 11, there are enough tools to get the job done. Much as I hated the Color interface, I did think that Color was a very powerful tool (especially considering that you got it for free along with FCP 7 and the other apps in FCS 3).

The majority of our student projects are shot on various Canon DSLRs (because of ease of use, low cost, and accessibility of equipment) but some of our larger projects are shot with RED One. I am looking forward to working with both of these formats without transcoding (hallelujah) and filling up our disks with multiple file versions!

I guess it takes a major upheaval in the post-production landscape to force people out of their comfort zones. I know this situation has been traumatic for me, and I sure others feel the same way. I started editing on very early AVID systems (AVR-21 anyone??), then switched to Media 100, and have been using FCP since v1.2.5. Although there were things about FCP that I learned to ignore (or work around), in general it was a good tool that did what I needed. I was very hopeful that the long-promised update to FCP 7 would fix all the things that pissed me off about the current version, and add wonderful new things that I didn't know I needed until I saw them. Well, Apple giveth and Apple taketh away...

So now I am off to learn Adobe Premiere Pro over the next 6 weeks (I have a somewhat hard time even saying this because my memories of early versions of Premiere are SO bad). I am going to lock myself in an edit bay, edit a few short projects, and force-feed myself on tutorials and exercises until I feel like I really understand this software, inside and out. Then I will spend a week or so going through my curriculum, changing and tweaking all the things that used to be FCP-centric. And then I'll dive right into teaching two classes of editing...

As a 10-year user of FCP, I did not make this decision lightly, but I feel that at this point in time, Premiere Pro 5.5 will give our students the best opportunity to learn an industry-standard program, with good future development potential, that will enhance their chances for internships and career advancement. I sure hope that Adobe's vision and their focus on Pro apps stays clear and strong, because I don't want to have to go through this process again in a year or two!

 

[Chris Kenny]

Well, after much research, discussion, throwing chicken bones, etc. I have decided that FCP X represents (at least for now) the wrong path for our students. Although it seems fairly well suited for the individual editor who is working on a single machine, creating web deliverables; I don't think FCP X provides the right training they need for the "real" (professional) world. I want them to be able to go out into the industry and successfully integrate themselves into any production situation with a good understanding of professional workflows, and I don't think that a closed ecosystem like FCP X gives them the necessary knowledgebase.

There are numerous confirmations at this point (the FAQ, the info that leaked from the London briefing last night) that FCP X is going to stop being a "closed ecosystem" very soon, with the first steps taken in that direction occurring in "a few weeks" (counting from last week). It seems a little nuts to make decisions that you'll have to abide by for years because an app is missing some features for its first four or five weeks on the market.

 

[George Butterfield]

It seems a little nuts to make decisions that you'll have to abide by for years because an app is missing some features for its first four or five weeks on the market.

That's right, the taxpayer who funds all the teachers and their wasteful spending and who doesn't give a %^&% about movies or moviemaking deserves a break. Don't panic, wait a year, explain the facts of life to the students. Save the guy who funds all this nonsense, FCP7 is the best thing to use right now. Or do you have taxpayers money that you must waste er spend?

 

[Tom Greenberg]

That's right, the taxpayer who funds all the teachers and their wasteful spending and who doesn't give a %^&% about movies or moviemaking deserves a break. Don't panic, wait a year, explain the facts of life to the students. Save the guy who funds all this nonsense, FCP7 is the best thing to use right now. Or do you have taxpayers money that you must waste er spend?

Well, George, not only is that a totally offensive attitude, you don't know what you are talking about. Compass is a private college, completely funded by our tuition and our donors. No direct taxpayer dollars of any kind (although our students do have access to government student loans if they qualify). We pinch pennies like every other responsible organization, and consider the financial ramifications of every decision carefully. Unlike other universities that have a "film program", film is all we teach. We are a vocational college, educating highly-motivated students to actually go out and work in this industry.

 

[Tom Greenberg]

There are numerous confirmations at this point (the FAQ, the info that leaked from the London briefing last night) that FCP X is going to stop being a "closed ecosystem" very soon, with the first steps taken in that direction occurring in "a few weeks" (counting from last week). It seems a little nuts to make decisions that you'll have to abide by for years because an app is missing some features for its first four or five weeks on the market.

Chris, I think that in a year or two FCP X "may" be a "complete" solution that works for most pros...however that burden seems to be depending to a great degree on third-party developers to fill in the cracks that Apple has left. But we don't have the luxury of waiting to see if that happens. I have a fresh group of students coming in here in 6 weeks that will work their tails off for 1 year, graduate with an Associates degree, and head out into the industry to make a living...those students need to be equipped with the best possible skills to succeed, and I just don't think that FCP X represents that skillset at this point in time. I need to make the best decision that I can make right now...and live with the costs and consequences. Like any responsible educational organization, we re-evaluate our curriculum constantly, so if FCP Xs status changes drastically in the future, we will reconsider our position.

 

[Chris Kenny]

Chris, I think that in a year or two FCP X "may" be a "complete" solution that works for most pros...however that burden seems to be depending to a great degree on third-party developers to fill in the cracks that Apple has left. But we don't have the luxury of waiting to see if that happens.

I think people are vastly overestimating how long this is going to take. Yes, what's missing is very important to some workflows, but there's just not that much of it, and between the info from the FAQ and what's being reported from last night's London briefing, it seems like many of the big issues are going to be resolved in weeks, not months or years.

I have a fresh group of students coming in here in 6 weeks that will work their tails off for 1 year, graduate with an Associates degree, and head out into the industry to make a living...those students need to be equipped with the best possible skills to succeed, and I just don't think that FCP X represents that skillset at this point in time. I need to make the best decision that I can make right now...and live with the costs and consequences. Like any responsible educational organization, we re-evaluate our curriculum constantly, so if FCP Xs status changes drastically in the future, we will reconsider our position.

Especially now that Apple is saying they're going to allow volume customers (almost certainly including education) to add new FCP 7 licenses in the future if they need to, it really seems like the best bet is to stay put on FCP 7 for now. You'll save a bunch of money. You won't have to commit to anything new until you see how things play out a bit more. And the skills you teach will generalize well to other software that uses a traditional multitrack approach.

 

[Tom Greenberg]

Well, we certainly aren't going to delete FCP 7 off any of our machines, and I'm sure we'll purchase a license or two of FCP X just to experiment with. Some of our incoming students (and all our alumni) have FCP experience and I'm sure those tools will still get some use for a long time to come.

That being said, I can't see investing any more of our time or money resources into supporting a dead product (FCP 7), or one that is just not ready for prime time yet (FCP X), IMHO. I'd rather put those resources into a product that appears to best meet our needs at this moment, and for us, that product is Premiere 5.5.

 

[Terry VerHaar]

Tom - There was an interesting article in the NY Times recently that noted the difficulty film school grads are having finding jobs. Here's the link:

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/05/movies/film-school-graduates-job-prospects-at-usc-nyu-ucla.html

The irony, I think, is that video is undeniably a growing industry, given the huge demand for video on the web, but when we define "professionals" narrowly, as only those working in film and television, we end up missing most of the job opportunities. The world is shifting in many fields but probably none more dramatically than ours. If the goal of your school is to get people into the "Hollywood" industry, not only do you have a tremendous challenge, you may be causing them to have unrealistic expectations and miss real opportunities. My point in this discussion is: if FCP-X ends up being the NLE "for the rest of us," meaning those of us who cut for the web, indies, corporate stuff, becuase it is efficient and flexible, then it just might be the best tool for what I'll call "the new professional." Just some thoughts.

 

[David Rasberry]

Adobe arguably has the best suite of software for cross media support from broadcast to web to print production.

 

[Terry VerHaar]

Adobe arguably has the best suite of software for cross media support from broadcast to web to print production.

Arguably. But, I'd also add the word "now." :smile5:

 

[AnthonyFlores]

Tom - There was an interesting article in the NY Times recently that noted the difficulty film school grads are having finding jobs. Here's the link:

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/05/movies/film-school-graduates-job-prospects-at-usc-nyu-ucla.html

The irony, I think, is that video is undeniably a growing industry, given the huge demand for video on the web, but when we define "professionals" narrowly, as only those working in film and television, we end up missing most of the job opportunities. The world is shifting in many fields but probably none more dramatically than ours. If the goal of your school is to get people into the "Hollywood" industry, not only do you have a tremendous challenge, you may be causing them to have unrealistic expectations and miss real opportunities. My point in this discussion is: if FCP-X ends up being the NLE "for the rest of us," meaning those of us who cut for the web, indies, corporate stuff, becuase it is efficient and flexible, then it just might be the best tool for what I'll call "the new professional." Just some thoughts.

Terry this is an excellent point and often overlooked, especially here on Reduser, since a great many of the posters are involved in more high-end production, including TV and features. And granted that is the "holy grail" for film students, the reality is that things are changing rapidly and more and more work will be done purely for the web ... most will never have the chance to work on a TV or feature film set.

I know that in my main industry (internet marketing - which deals with health, finance, and many other niches), a whole world of possibilities is be opened up for those with a well rounded editing/effects skill set. For instance, there are many product launches being done that involve basic video editing/transitions ... simple text/image effects ... and yet pay fairly well. (Think of a keynote presentation intercut with footage of a person speaking into a camera ... only on steroids, kinda like this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=GGJfEk_xHfI that gives away information or sells a product.) The editors who can take the footage and direction from the client and do an amazing job will have an almost endless supply of work, provided they network and market themselves effectively.

And I think most film students will eventually come to the realization that working from home and making great income as a pro editor -- even if not in "Hollywood" -- is still a great thing. Unfortunately, most don't realize this until they are stuck in an office doing something they hate (no offense to anyone who is). But as you alluded to, defining "pro" primarily as those work with TV (around the world) or features potentially does some harm to those who enter the rapidly changing, broad professional market, where more and more work comes from non-TV or industry sources.

 

[AnthonyFlores]

p.s. -- The video I posted was part of a campaign that sold $7-8 million worth of a $3,000 product in about 6 weeks time. There is MONEY in these types of videos, which is something aspiring full time professionals must take note of. Yes, it's very basic by most standards, but it is the kind of work for which demand is skyrocketing, and will only continue to going forward.

So why post it on Reduser? Well, of course, this type of video is not at all "cinematic" and could just as easily be done with an ordinary HD camera, I firmly believe web videos are going to become much more advanced and film-like in the future. (I foresee a day when many informational/marketing type videos like this will be less cheesy and more have the feel of a very high-level documentary). This is where I believe that cameras like the Scarlet will especially shine and as the web one day progresses to 4k, so too will the Epic become a killer tool -- EVEN for those who shoot exclusively for the web.

 

[Steve Dent]

Run, don't walk, away from Apple. They are phasing themselves out of the professionnel market.

 

[Terry VerHaar]

Anthony - I couldn't agree with you more and I think you make several good points about all the work there is in the "boring trenches" of production and post production. Because my own career background is more business and marketing rather than "the creative arts," it has taken me a while to realize why there is such stubborn insistence here on REDuser toward defining the "professional" so narrowly; basically, someone who works only on television or Hollywood feature films. Here in the SF Bay Area, there are actually very few film and video "professionals" under that definition, but is that really an accurate picture of the market? Seems kind of like defining golf pros as just the guys who are at the top of the PGA tour when there are really thousands of people around the world who earn a nice living as a "golf pro" in a much more mundane way. It goes back to the pages and pages of commentary here on REDuser as to what it means to be "professional." In the end, there is no complete agreement.

Not sure I understand Steve's comment above but I also don't agree with it at all. I have spend much time with FCPX and I think it will serve many of those "other" professionals very well. I wouldn't presume to speak for the Hollywood and broadcast folks but I suspect it will evolve to serve them well, too. The whole "Apple hates pros" thing is just a silly rant and presumes one knows what Apple's strategy is. It also rather wildly assumes all the folks at the world's most successful tech company are clueless buffoons compared to all of the wise and sage "experts" here on REDuser. IMHO, the only one here who has earned the right to claim that is Mr. Jannard himself; but I doubt that he would. :thumbup1:

 

[David Collard]

Adobe's original premiere started as a grass roots thing internally, I believe. They did however buy the Company of Science and Arts to
create After Effects. Having said all that, did Final Cut Pro start as a grass roots development within Apple or was it started
from a company purchased by Apple? I'm just trying to understand the Final Cut Pro history in relation to where it is now.

 

[Terry VerHaar]

Adobe's original premiere started as a grass roots thing internally, I believe. They did however buy the Company of Science and Arts to
create After Effects. Having said all that, did Final Cut Pro start as a grass roots development within Apple or was it started
from a company purchased by Apple? I'm just trying to understand the Final Cut Pro history in relation to where it is now.

The whole history is floating around here if you do some research but basically, Final Cut was purchased as a WIP (I believe) while in development at Macromedia. Apple finished it and launched it as FCP 1.0. Interestingly enough, Randy Ubillos (did I spell that correctly?) was a part of the team that developed FCP originally and is also the architect of FCPX. I believe he saw that the approach to editing could evolve from what it was 12 or so years ago and felt he knew how to do that.