Why is FCP7 still around?

[David W. Jones]

One of the setups I looked at last night while plotting my cleaning efforts was an old Mac Quadra 950 and dual external nubus expansion chassis which had Media composer 8000 & the full film composer suite. I used that back when I was hot and heavy into shooting with the 35BL. Talk about an edit system that sucked your wallet dry. I remember having to take a lunch break with clients while shit rendered. I bought the Media 100 after I had a falling out with Avid. I also saw my old SGI O2 sitting in the corner. I bought it used along with a transfer of the software licenses. I can remember getting a call about renewing everything and the cost was so much that I took the money and bought 2 Mac G4 computers and software. At the time the SGI stuff was the only ride that let me do real time texture mapping. I will likely dumpster everything, as the cost of boxing and shipping everything will be greater that the $20 I would get from ebay.

 

[fred gasc]

One of the setups I looked at last night while plotting my cleaning efforts was an old Mac Quadra 950 and dual external nubus expansion chassis which had Media composer 8000 & the full film composer suite. I used that back when I was hot and heavy into shooting with the 35BL. Talk about an edit system that sucked your wallet dry. I remember having to take a lunch break with clients while shit rendered. I bought the Media 100 after I had a falling out with Avid. I also saw my old SGI O2 sitting in the corner. I bought it used along with a transfer of the software licenses. I can remember getting a call about renewing everything and the cost was so much that I took the money and bought 2 Mac G4 computers and software. At the time the SGI stuff was the only ride that let me do real time texture mapping. I will likely dumpster everything, as the cost of boxing and shipping everything will be greater that the $20 I would get from ebay.

Or, build an antique museum. And ask one buck for a guided visit.

 

[Marc Wielage]

BTW, on this same topic, here's a terrific 24-minute interview with one of the world's greatest editors, Walter Murch, talking about the differences between "The 3 A's: Apple, Adobe, and Avid." It's a very thoughtful analysis and comparison between the biggest editing systems out there now, along with Murch's opinions on where things are headed.

 

[Scott Crawley]

BTW, on this same topic, here's a terrific 24-minute interview with one of the world's greatest editors, Walter Murch, talking about the differences between "The 3 A's: Apple, Adobe, and Avid." It's a very thoughtful analysis and comparison between the biggest editing systems out there now, along with Murch's opinions on where things are headed.

Thank you... Love Murch. He is a great educator because he has a deep understanding that he is able to communicate extremely effectively. Yup, I love to listen to THAT GUY. In media revolving around the subject of editing, he is THAT GUY.

Here is the embedded link for IOS users who don't see the inline video: https://vimeo.com/142198470

 

[Steve Sherrick]

BTW, on this same topic, here's a terrific 24-minute interview with one of the world's greatest editors, Walter Murch, talking about the differences between "The 3 A's: Apple, Adobe, and Avid." It's a very thoughtful analysis and comparison between the biggest editing systems out there now, along with Murch's opinions on where things are headed.

As per usual, Walter is right on the money. And although some may be frustrated that FCP X is not spoken about in high regard, I think Walter is honest about it and admits he has not used it on a professional project yet. If anyone has read the Cold Mountain book you'll understand that the relationship with Apple was not always fluid. In fact, you can also get some insight in this interview that the relationship with Avid was not perfect either. Walter speaks very highly of Adobe in regards to interacting with filmmakers and listening/incorporating their ideas. I like Walter's view of pushing technology, as I look at it the same way. It's good to discover new ways of doing things but you have to be carefull of complete disruption because at the end of the day people still need to use the tools to complete their work, so innovation is good up to a point.

 

[Blair S. Paulsen]

A lot of the issues in this thread wouldn't exist if XML was up to the task it's supposedly designed for...

Cheers - #19

 

[Björn Benckert]

A lot of the issues in this thread wouldn't exist if XML was up to the task it's supposedly designed for...

Cheers - #19

Curius, what you mean with that? As I understand XML is pretty much an open standard, a list that can be filled with pretty much anything FCP used it to write their timelines into it and also made a "export" function for it.

But there is, as I understand, no white paper or such that states what could or should be included in an XML used as a editing decision list. It could be anything, like gyro data or Colorcorection settings or just tc in/out per clip and nothing more. So it's not like the EDLs' or CMX 3600 or such that was a set standard.

the export of FCP XML's are very much correct, as it's just a dump of what FCP uses for their timelines. Then how other software succeed to interpret such document is not really FCP's fault.

 

[Marc Wielage]

A lot of the issues in this thread wouldn't exist if XML was up to the task it's supposedly designed for...

That's very true. There are some holes in XML, particularly with speed changes and size changes, and those definitely do not always hold up between applications. I've even exported XML from within Resolve to​ Resolve, and the data does not get interpreted correctly for Titling or generators. Media is fine, speed is fine, cuts are fine.

 

[Hrvoje Simic]

I'm surprised that I still get job offers that demand I cut on FCP7. Why is this still around?

Because:

a) a lot of professionals are still using it, since -
b) it is thought through and more optimized for many types of editing approaches (unlike FCPsexy),
c) it still works nicely with HD workflows and HD delivery is still predominant, and for 4K proxy route and 4K finish is nothing uncommon or dramatical,
e) your FCP7 project will not cause drama for audio post,
f) someone sitting next to you paying for/leading a project with some experience in this domain might intuitively know what is going on on a complex but organized timeline, not giving a crap about what new gen Cupertino PR says, or about what is supposed to be "popular", or about a special feature which has nothing to do with the very process of editing, and in many cases is better off in an app specially designed for it, done with time and focus specially devoted to that particular process.

 

[Christoffer Glans]

Because:

a) a lot of people are still using it, since -
b) it is thought through and more optimized for many types of editing approaches (unlike FCPsexy),
c) it still works nicely with HD Prores workflows and HD delivery is still predominant,
d) your FCP7 project can be opened by someone else preferring to edit in FCP7,
e) your FCP7 project will not cause drama for audio post,
f) anyone sitting next to you paying for/leading a project will intuitively know what is going on on a complex but organized timeline and where what is, not giving a crap about what new gen Cupertino PR says, or a special feature which has nothing to do with the very process of editing, and in many cases is better off in an app specially designed for it.

a) Is that really a reason? That just confirms the "why".
b) Others are more optimized than FCP7 today, especially when there's a fast turnaround and you need to load those [insert camera here] clips directly to get the damn edit out. Good luck with that on FCP7.
c) Are you talking online or offline? What happens when the colorist gives you codecs that you can't import?
d) Yes... but not someone with another type of NLE, same goes for giving post facilities your work when they are based on either Avid or Premiere. Who's gonna pay for the extra work getting it to work? The freelancer who came with the project or the facility?
e) Well, can't argue with that, main thing is that IF they have a problem, how do you gonna fix it?
f) I don't even know what this means... anyone paying for me expects that I'm flexible enough to adjust workflow according to the production, FCP7 isn't that flexible with todays standards.

As I mentioned, these arguments are good if you are only doing one thing, it doesn't apply to freelance jobs with the magnitude of different things you must be able to do during complex workflows. This is why I had fix so many problems for people who screwed up with FCP7.

 

[Hrvoje Simic]

a) Is that really a reason? That just confirms the "why".
b) Others are more optimized than FCP7 today, especially when there's a fast turnaround and you need to load those [insert camera here] clips directly to get the damn edit out. Good luck with that on FCP7.

Yes but some do not prefer those others and have different priorities.

Software processing speed is not the main priority in many cases. Turnaround does not depend exclusively on that. You cannot speed up viewing, consideration, thought exchange, and inner natural creative process. You can mess them up though, if you add more variables and redundant processes.

c) Are you talking online or offline? What happens when the colorist gives you codecs that you can't import?

You (as in any user) convert them with another tool and edit with those you can.
In most cases colorist goes after the edit because apart from specific circumstances it is less sensible to grade material which will not make the cut.

d) Yes... but not someone with another type of NLE, same goes for giving post facilities your work when they are based on either Avid or Premiere. Who's gonna pay for the extra work getting it to work? The freelancer who came with the project or the facility?

You asked a question related to client's FCP7 choice.
Then this, if it somehow becomes the issue, is the client's problem.

e) Well, can't argue with that, main thing is that IF they have a problem, how do you gonna fix it?

You don't fix audio related problems.
You make sure none emerge from your part.

f) I don't even know what this means... anyone paying for me expects that I'm flexible enough to adjust workflow according to the production, FCP7 isn't that flexible with todays standards.

Than you explain the pros and cons of each route.
FCP7 is a format support diva in a slower carriage, FCPsexy is a fast and stylish runner in NLE special olympics.
Neither prevent from reaching the finish line, one requires pampering the diva, other fiddling with bionic arm.

If a client does not prioritize flexibility but preferred workflow, it is their money.

As I mentioned, these arguments are good if you are only doing one thing, it doesn't apply to freelance jobs with the magnitude of different things you must be able to do during complex workflows.

Which is one of the tellers which purposes was which tool primarily designed for.
Specific app for specific purpose is a more complex workflow.

This is why I had fix so many problems for people who screwed up with FCP7.

Problems mostly come from tool users, not tools. Unless Apple has a software update.
With this logic ER folks could easily vote against using machining tools. Or a stapler.

 

[Blair S. Paulsen]

Curious, what you mean with that? As I understand XML is pretty much an open standard, a list that can be filled with pretty much anything FCP used it to write their timelines into it and also made a "export" function for it. (snip)

I'm not sure exactly what XML can and cannot do in theory - but in reality, there are big gaps. Most vexing for me have been speed changes, re-frames and reverses. For projects that have a great deal of flashy editing effects, I often have to manually "pull apart" sections to create grading timelines with sufficient handles so that I can rebuild those sections manually in the NLE after color. YMMV.

Cheers - #19