Why is FCP7 still around?

[Jarek Zabczynski]

I found just the opposite. 8 out of 10 editing jobs still come to me on FCP7, the other being Premiere. I've never been given an FCPX project. I still edit the best and fastest in FCP7. I've been using FCP since version one and know it like the back of my hand. I still offline in FCP7 and move to Premiere and Resolve for online, works really well for me. I'd still kill for a proper FCP8 release. The shitty part is that we all know it exists in the bowels of Apple. Shame they chose to tweak a clip logging program and release that instead.

 

[Matt Bass]

Being that this is a RED forum let's NOT forget you DONT have to transcode with modern software. Gone are the days of ProRes transcodes if you are not on fcp7. That to me is a good enough reason to NEVER use FCP7 ever again. End of story.

I started with vhs, cut on a steenbeck in college, edited plenty of 3/4 tape and eventually moved onto FCP7. But I would NEVER go back to any of those ancient technologies. It's 2015 and I shoot RED Dragon 6k and I currently use Adobe Premier 2015 and its fucking awesome.

 

[fred gasc]

But then if the criteria has to be
A 2015 tech, it seems to me that even the concept of Premiere is
Outdated. Why not Resolve then? It's a real all in one for free
Or almost gifted and the compo is covered by Fusion
What gives PP apart from native editing that does not bring Avid?
Those are still in essence old school fragmentated suites. Resolve IMO is what 2015 is, following this logic.

 

[fred gasc]

I found just the opposite. 8 out of 10 editing jobs still come to me on FCP7, the other being Premiere. I've never been given an FCPX project. I still edit the best and fastest in FCP7. I've been using FCP since version one and know it like the back of my hand. I still offline in FCP7 and move to Premiere and Resolve for online, works really well for me. I'd still kill for a proper FCP8 release. The shitty part is that we all know it exists in the bowels of Apple. Shame they chose to tweak a clip logging program and release that instead.

Why not LW? Have a look at Lightworks maybe?

I know many people will smile reading this, specially because I'm a newcomer in this industry and my words have no credit in such knowledgable high-end forum.

Maybe this
Scott Hill interview: *https://library.creativecow.net/battistella_david/lightworks/2 on it (bit outdated and since then the software evolved drastically) will stop once a awhile the sarcasms or scepticisms and more people will realise that there is something really good today (and frankly much better than Avid that I run for years and rarely touch) that is completly different and made FOR editors.*


I specially think that it might suits fcp7 editors in search of a 8th version better.

Ps: oh yeah, it's integrated with Fusion, has no issues to roundtripp
With AE and Resolve and is 64bit and takes Red native (and your
Source setting access is Cinex).

Now everyone can laugh again...

 

[Christoffer Glans]

But then if the criteria has to be
A 2015 tech, it seems to me that even the concept of Premiere is
Outdated. Why not Resolve then? It's a real all in one for free
Or almost gifted and the compo is covered by Fusion
What gives PP apart from native editing that does not bring Avid?
Those are still in essence old school fragmentated suites. Resolve IMO is what 2015 is, following this logic.

From a pure editing standpoint I would say that Avid has it all, because I can manage the vast number of projects, long and short on the same system. I found that both FCP and Premiere has always and to this day not being able to handle the complexity of continious editing project after project and sometimes projects at the same time or projects within another project etc. Yes, if there's a facility with a lot of people managing the tech side, but for a freelancer with their own system, the way Avid is structured I have no problem to safely work with thousands of projects on the same system without any hickup what so ever.

But I do agree that the future is what BlackMagic has shown us. Subscription is a good way forward for editors working day to day, but the current release of Resolve is a milestone in NLE editing that few seem to understand the power of. More and more editors need to be able to do moderate composition work together with being a colorist. For shorter projects, even some high end commercials, it's been essential for me to deliver that type of service in order to compete with others. Resolves editing capabilites have become vastly more advance and smooth in Resolve 12 than earlier versions and if they continue down this path they might take the crown from Avid.... ...if they do it right.

They've hinted on more advanced media management, but this and the speed of actual editing is still Avids greatest strenghts. BM need to study hard on why Avid is still around, because Avid isn't the most easy software to handle, but when you do, few NLEs can rival the speed and robustness of it. If Resolve 13 is close to deliver that level of organized work and smooth editing experience, it will definetely become a choice for many editors. They still, like many others, need to create a better EDL, AAF and XML export tool as well. Actually, I don't really understand why no NLEs have a great project conversion tool. There are so many times that you need to be able to export projects to other NLEs and you can loose jobs if you say that there might be a problem to convert to other NLEs based on your current NLE. Many times I've been involved with complex projects where the need to transition my editing to another editor after my contract ends is a must and it's a hard deliver if I work in one NLE and they in another.

Problem here is that FCP7 stands out as the least collaborative, since migrating projects both to and from is an absolute mess. It's also a problem if the hardware is based on 64bit tech and FCP7 comes into the picture with it's 32bit limit.

So, Premiere is "almost there", but limits it's collaboration to Adobe only software, which means that it lacks compositing tools based on nodes and powerful grading like Resolve. Speedgrade is not really there yet and After Effects is really good, but not really purposely made for motion pictures, more like motion graphics. Which leaves Resolve as something that could become the greatest NLE of them all, having node based compositing (Fusion) and top notch grading tools in the same software, without switching between software architectures.
I have done some test edits on Resolve and it shows a massive potential.

Point being, if you want to stay in the game, always look for the best tool. Master what you own, but do not be afraid to jump ship if something better comes along. "Why fix something that isn't broken?" doesn't even seem to apply since you aren't fixing something that's broken but rather use something that's better.

 

[Marc Wielage]

I still edit the best and fastest in FCP7. I've been using FCP since version one and know it like the back of my hand. I still offline in FCP7 and move to Premiere and Resolve for online, works really well for me. I'd still kill for a proper FCP8 release. The shitty part is that we all know it exists in the bowels of Apple.

It was said about 3 years ago that a few user groups complained and presented Apple with a petition to sell them the code for FCP7 so that they could keep the program going, even upgrade it to 64-bit. Apple refused, essentially saying it was not their intention to hand over to anybody a product that would compete with their software.

I think what a lot of users object to is FCPX's user interface. If there was one button in the prefs that basically said, "make FCPX look and run exactly like FCP7," I suspect quite a few people would use it.

Being that this is a RED forum let's NOT forget you DONT have to transcode with modern software. Gone are the days of ProRes transcodes if you are not on fcp7. That to me is a good enough reason to NEVER use FCP7 ever again.

The question you gotta ask is: why has nearly every major Hollywood movie of the last 10 years been cut on proxies? To me, in truth, the only person who has to worry about that is the person doing the final conform, which is typically the colorist (and/or the colorist's assistant). The most recent 6K conform I had took about 2 minutes per reel in Resolve. It took hours to copy the footage over, but only minutes for me to conform the edit timeline itself.

The advantages of using proxies are that you can use very, very lightweight computers -- even $500 laptops with dinky drives -- and cut anywhere you want: on the beach, on a plane, in a hotel room, in a truck, on the kitchen table. It's much harder to do if you're accessing 20 or 30 or 40TB of original camera files. Not so bad if it's just a couple of TB of proxies. It also helps to have proxies if you've stacked 10 different timelines on top of each other and are looking at multiple shots simultaneously. I would bet you'd have problems on most systems even trying to pull three 5K or 6K shots at one time, particularly if real-time rendering and VFX are involved.

Proxies are not the big bugaboo people think they are. The key is to have good assistants who are aware how to deal with them, and to have a decent workflow in place so that everything lines up and drops in quickly and efficiently. To me, proxies are fine as long as they still have the detail you need to see on a reasonable monitor. And as I've often said, if there's a focus problem in 6K, you're still going to see the same problem in HD on a 30" monitor from three feet away.

 

[Christoffer Glans]

It was said about 3 years ago that a few user groups complained and presented Apple with a petition to sell them the code for FCP7 so that they could keep the program going, even upgrade it to 64-bit. Apple refused, essentially saying it was not their intention to hand over to anybody a product that would compete with their software.

I think what a lot of users object to is FCPX's user interface. If there was one button in the prefs that basically said, "make FCPX look and run exactly like FCP7," I suspect quite a few people would use it.



The question you gotta ask is: why has nearly every major Hollywood movie of the last 10 years been cut on proxies? To me, in truth, the only person who has to worry about that is the person doing the final conform, which is typically the colorist (and/or the colorist's assistant). The most recent 6K conform I had took about 2 minutes per reel in Resolve. It took hours to copy the footage over, but only minutes for me to conform the edit timeline itself.

The advantages of using proxies are that you can use very, very lightweight computers -- even $500 laptops with dinky drives -- and cut anywhere you want: on the beach, on a plane, in a hotel room, in a truck, on the kitchen table. It's much harder to do if you're accessing 20 or 30 or 40TB of original camera files. Not so bad if it's just a couple of TB of proxies. It also helps to have proxies if you've stacked 10 different timelines on top of each other and are looking at multiple shots simultaneously. I would bet you'd have problems on most systems even trying to pull three 5K or 6K shots at one time, particularly if real-time rendering and VFX are involved.

Proxies are not the big bugaboo people think they are. The key is to have good assistants who are aware how to deal with them, and to have a decent workflow in place so that everything lines up and drops in quickly and efficiently. To me, proxies are fine as long as they still have the detail you need to see on a reasonable monitor. And as I've often said, if there's a focus problem in 6K, you're still going to see the same problem in HD on a 30" monitor from three feet away.

Proxy work can be a hassle though. You are speaking about perfect conditions, when there's only one type of footage, not much compositing or pre-comps, no advanced retiming and reframing etc. I've been doing a lot of offline and online and if there's a chance to edit original files at the same speed as traditional proxy offlines I wouldn't hesitate of doing that. Last two weeks I've been trying to conform an edit of a feature film I myself edited. Because of software limitations and new updates and bugs etc. it has not been as smooth as the original tests we did two years ago before we began editing.

The thing here isn't about how proxy editing is worse or better, because right now it's still the best way to be able to work with editing creatively without any hickups and problems. But we are talking about where we are heading and that is editing original files directly. The speed will become faster and faster. But it's also about what you do when you need to work fast. Not all projects have assistants and not all projects have the time needed to transcode and organize. Some jobs you have to just shoot and edit directly. Every time I hear someone say that "the only thing you need are good assistans", I just roll my eyes. This is not the truth of our profession. I've rarely been involved with a project where I have the luxery of assistants and if they are present it's mostly people who aren't professional assistants but rather newcomers who desperately want to do editing instead. Those times I just do the organizing myself because there would be more problems otherwise. If you work in a facility with employed assistants, yes, but that's just one part of the industry.

You can't say that the past ten years we have been fine with proxy editing because, yes, it is true that we have, but the past ten years isn't at all like the world we work in today. The workflows are faster and the workflow is different. So this is about how it is right now and how it will be further on.

 

[fred gasc]

Native editing Red, is unstable. Debayered at 1/16 is hugly and better watch a proxy on screen to be honest, and 1/8 can slowdown drasticaly at the moment we got 10 audio tracks with waves etc...
Who is doing big volume 6k Red native editing with stability? With our beautifull "powerfull" Macs with glossy screens?
Let's be serious.
Arriraw same story. Ingest 10 Arriraw with 4 audio tracks and it will work. Now tell me about 200 arriraw with 16 audio tracks and luts? Who's got the power to handle that with ease?
And even so, I doubt any serious editor is going to want to stress the station to limits where it could affect the performances-creativity, and have the dudes behind his shoulders asking for
A different edit then it suddenly freezes...
Mmmmm

Proxy is no hassle in the moment people don't mess with filenames and folders. Just have to see that a big % of M.P helping people on Avid issues are just about that, and all the time they made a mess with namings and folder structure.

Ps: and if we'd really want to edit volume of 6, 8k native in almost real time, then the question is this: are Macs at the level of PCs today?

 

[Christoffer Glans]

Native editing Red, is unstable. Debayered at 1/16 is hugly and better watch a proxy on screen to be honest, and 1/8 can slowdown drasticaly at the moment we got 10 audio tracks with waves etc...
Who is doing big volume 6k Red native editing with stability? With our beautifull "powerfull" Macs with glossy screens?
Let's be serious.
Arriraw same story. Ingest 10 Arriraw with 4 audio tracks and it will work. Now tell me about 200 arriraw with 16 audio tracks and luts? Who's got the power to handle that with ease?
And even so, I doubt any serious editor is going to want to stress the station to limits where it could affect the performances-creativity, and have the dudes behind his shoulders asking for
A different edit then it suddenly freezes...
Mmmmm

Proxy is no hassle in the moment people don't mess with filenames and folders. Just have to see that a big % of M.P helping people on Avid issues are just about that, and all the time they made a mess with namings and folder structure.

Ps: and if we'd really want to edit volume of 6, 8k native in almost real time, then the question is this: are Macs at the level of PCs today?

Trust me, sometimes the hassle comes from the companies making the software, not your workflow. Minor errors can have great implications. But still, I said where we are now and where we are heading. People seem to be hung up on how things have been rather than look ahead. Just with my own 5 year old system I've been able to go from not even opening and play Red One files to editing 6K Dragon files just by getting better software. So coming hardware and software changes like Metal for OSX, continously makes it easier to do native editing.
Further on we will be able to do it easier and better. Technology has exponential growth which people seem to forget.

It's still better to do proxy editing, but as I said, we are heading into better native workflows and then there is the need to do fast editing or to just edit in something that was just shot into an offline edit that needs to be delivered ten minutes later. The workflow today is totally dependent on being able to edit natively. But all of this seem to be taken out of context by some.

...and who in their right mind use Macs for high level native editing? Put those outrageous sums of money into something else instead.

 

[fred gasc]

...and who in their right mind use Macs for high level native editing? Put those outrageous sums of money into something else instead.

My thoughts, exactly.

 

[fred gasc]

http://www.media100.com/

Have someone tried Media 100?

...

 

[Marc Wielage]

Have someone tried Media 100?...

Sure, back in 1999.

 

[Marc Wielage]

Proxy work can be a hassle though. You are speaking about perfect conditions, when there's only one type of footage, not much compositing or pre-comps, no advanced retiming and reframing etc. I've been doing a lot of offline and online and if there's a chance to edit original files at the same speed as traditional proxy offlines I wouldn't hesitate of doing that. Last two weeks I've been trying to conform an edit of a feature film I myself edited. Because of software limitations and new updates and bugs etc. it has not been as smooth as the original tests we did two years ago before we began editing.

Eh, it's all about experience and expectations. I've done at least 20 pictures in the last 2 or 3 years that were all edited with proxies and -- with few exceptions -- there were no issues with conforming. Generally when we did encounter issues, it was because of speed changes or repositions that just didn't translate. Was it a disaster? No. It just added another half day or maybe (at most) a day to the conform. Just an annoyance, not a deal killer. In most cases, we're talking a grand total of maybe 30 or 40 shots among thousands.

Every time I hear someone say that "the only thing you need are good assistans", I just roll my eyes. This is not the truth of our profession. I've rarely been involved with a project where I have the luxury of assistants and if they are present it's mostly people who aren't professional assistants but rather newcomers who desperately want to do editing instead.

Well, this is what happens when people work outside the traditional Hollywood / New York / London industry system. There are very bright people out there who can save you tons of time and money, particularly those who have the training to know what they're doing. If you can't find those people, you have no choice but to roll up your sleeves and do it yourself. The more often you have to do it, the better you'll be at anticipating and solving problems.

My joke is often "I have the worst editorial assistant in Southern California: me." But even I can fumble through a conform without too much difficulty. I curse and swear and throw things, but I get the job done. But I work much faster and more happily when all I have to worry about is just color and delivery. The conform is a mess even if the people cut with the original camera files, because things just don't always translate from your editing software to the color-correction software. These are limitations within existing XML and AAF standards, and it's a moving target that's hard to hit.

 

[fred gasc]

Sure, back in 1999.

Lol...
But it seems that this is a current version, for the specs.
I was surprised to find it really. It looks that a bunch of dudes
Have rescued it and got the code.
A bit like what was pointed here before on people who wanted to get
The apple code to keep going FCP8.
For what they say, this current Media100 is particularly aimed for on-set.

Hey...who knows...maybe it's good.

 

[David W. Jones]

Lol...
But it seems that this is a current version, for the specs.
I was surprised to find it really. It looks that a bunch of dudes
Have rescued it and got the code.
A bit like what was pointed here before on people who wanted to get
The apple code to keep going FCP8.
For what they say, this current Media100 is particularly aimed for on-set.

Hey...who knows...maybe it's good.

Funny, I have an old Media 100 setup in the attic. My computer graveyard. Also have a couple of Media Composers, SGI workstation, ProTools rigs, ICE FX After Effects acceleration, and a few nubus expansion chassises. Probably time to throw all that crap out and clean the Attic.

 

[Björn Benckert]

I want my turbo tube back


To me that had both the cool / quick console and then also I really liked the cutting room floor. The area unerneat the timeline where I could have piles of clips laying around kind of like a long horisontal desktop that scrolled along with the timeline... perfect to keep things semi organized, I could make piles of stuff that belonged to different parts of the edit.

 

[Christoffer Glans]

Eh, it's all about experience and expectations. I've done at least 20 pictures in the last 2 or 3 years that were all edited with proxies and -- with few exceptions -- there were no issues with conforming. Generally when we did encounter issues, it was because of speed changes or repositions that just didn't translate. Was it a disaster? No. It just added another half day or maybe (at most) a day to the conform. Just an annoyance, not a deal killer. In most cases, we're talking a grand total of maybe 30 or 40 shots among thousands.


Well, this is what happens when people work outside the traditional Hollywood / New York / London industry system. There are very bright people out there who can save you tons of time and money, particularly those who have the training to know what they're doing. If you can't find those people, you have no choice but to roll up your sleeves and do it yourself. The more often you have to do it, the better you'll be at anticipating and solving problems.

My joke is often "I have the worst editorial assistant in Southern California: me." But even I can fumble through a conform without too much difficulty. I curse and swear and throw things, but I get the job done. But I work much faster and more happily when all I have to worry about is just color and delivery. The conform is a mess even if the people cut with the original camera files, because things just don't always translate from your editing software to the color-correction software. These are limitations within existing XML and AAF standards, and it's a moving target that's hard to hit.

But you are only speaking of a portion of the editing industry. There are a lot of other areas and countries that affect the parameters of this. The corporate post production facilities have a large workflow set in stone with assistants and list prices. Freelance editing might be different over there compared to here, but the projects vary from jobs with 10 assistants and some even with 10+ editors, to jobs where there are no assistants, little money and unexperienced producers and production companies. Just as the worlds most wealthy make up 1% of the global population the top part of the industry is smaller than the bulk of work down below. I'm all over the place, doing freebies to high paid jobs with almost unlimited resources. Point being, as a professional editor you need to be prepared for anything, especially if you house your own gear and work as a freelancer. I'm not counting in post production facilities since they have a workflow set in stone... but rarely does such facilities build around FCP7 today. If they did, it would be suicide.

 

[fred gasc]

Funny, I have an old Media 100 setup in the attic. My computer graveyard. Also have a couple of Media Composers, SGI workstation, ProTools rigs, ICE FX After Effects acceleration, and a few nubus expansion chassises. Probably time to throw all that crap out and clean the Attic.

Got a friend who gave me his Protools workstation after he went
Crazy with Avid for a commercial issue and switched to Reapper.
I used the Protools for a week and happily gave it to another friend that I
Think ended to ebay it.
Then got rid of all my Macs for a bunch of bucks because I wanted
Space and fast sale. Got pc workstations built by company that works
In the industry, with windows 8. Hugly, no cool factor but much better!
Then canceled all my Avid MCs upgrades after discovered LW by accident and gazillion periphericals apps
In the garbage bin.
Now I breathe.

 

[Marc Wielage]

Funny, I have an old Media 100 setup in the attic. My computer graveyard. Also have a couple of Media Composers, SGI workstation, ProTools rigs, ICE FX After Effects acceleration, and a few nubus expansion chassises. Probably time to throw all that crap out and clean the Attic.

I can remember vividly when a 4-source Avid multicamera editing system was $100K... and that was in standard def. Now, you can do that on a laptop for maybe $2K -- including the laptop and Avid software. That's a big improvement.

It's sobering to reflect that every video and audio product ever made will most likely eventually sell for $35 on eBay. There are always exceptions: grip gear, lenses, tripods, microphones... those hold their value for a long time. But what's a $150,000 1999 Sony F900 worth today?

I'm all over the place, doing freebies to high paid jobs with almost unlimited resources. Point being, as a professional editor you need to be prepared for anything, especially if you house your own gear and work as a freelancer. I'm not counting in post production facilities since they have a workflow set in stone... but rarely does such facilities build around FCP7 today. If they did, it would be suicide.

I'm not so sure about that. FCP7 can still function to a point. I know for a fact there are people using it -- I'm doing a 4K music video all cut on FCP7 and it conformed very well just a few hours ago. Not that big a deal. And I had that "worst assistant" doing the grunt work (me).

The key is to find a way to take care of the time-consuming repetitive tasks in a way that doesn't waste your valuable time. For example, when people whine to me about the time needed to sync dailies, my standard response is, "hire a trainee assistant editor right out of film school, show them what to do, and let them do all the syncing in your off hours." Heck, stick them on a laptop on another table and let them go at it while you work on a different scene. They'll learn something, you'll get more time, and everybody benefits. There are high school kids that would kill to be paid minimum wage to do this, and that's totally legit assuming it's a rock-bottom zero budget project. $100 for syncing up 4 hours of dailies... I'd give them that AND lunch AND gas money just to avoid the drudgery.

All the edit houses I know have to be prepared for everything, so they have machines set up for FCP7, FCPX, Premiere, and various flavors of Avid. I know of cases where old projects have come back in and they've had to load older software to make changes or export out a list. The key is having post people who are competent, don't let problems overwhelm them, and can handle bumps in the road. But I'd much rather have a genius talent on the order of (say) Walter Murch and Final Cut 7 than a neophyte idiot running Premiere 2015 or Avid 8.4. It's the person running it who makes the difference, not the software. The lack of presence of 4K or 5K or 6K means nothing, assuming there's a final step through color that goes back to the camera raw.

 

[Steve Sherrick]

I can remember vividly when a 4-source Avid multicamera editing system was $100K... and that was in standard def. Now, you can do that on a laptop for maybe $2K -- including the laptop and Avid software. That's a big improvement.

It's sobering to reflect that every video and audio product ever made will most likely eventually sell for $35 on eBay. There are always exceptions: grip gear, lenses, tripods, microphones... those hold their value for a long time. But what's a $150,000 1999 Sony F900 worth today?

F900 is $1500 to $5000. Same as Red One Body. a lot of projects shot on that camera, including the tv show The Office. And of course Robert Rodriguez owned a few of them and shot Spy Kids with it. Coppola used it on Youth Without Youth and Tetro. It is amazing what can be had for so little right now. Cameras like the Red One, Sony F35, and others can be had for bargains and in the right hands could make a movie that will hold up for years to come.