Why is FCP7 still around?

[Enrique Blein]

+ for FCP 7. Most of my editing requires only cuts and maybe a dissolve of HD material. Why change ????

 

[Gunleik Groven]

+ for FCP 7. Most of my editing requires only cuts and maybe a dissolve of HD material. Why change ????

I think a solid workflow, as long as it doesn't limit you, is the best argument to stick to it ever.
And when treated nicely, FCP7 is remarkably stable, compared to many other options.

It takes a lot of time getting involved with alternate ways of working and bug-sets.

That said. FCP7 doesn't go anywhere…

And a lot of tech really does.

That is not a reason to change in itself, unless you want to do different kinds of work than what you could with the old tools.

(said the newly included Adobe partner… )

 

[Meryem Ersoz]

I sort of side with Bjorn. Creative tools are not one size fits all anymore. Unless you work on series TV, and the imaging industry has become much bigger than that singular world. I'm personally moving more towards Resolve 12. A professional editor is technically someone who gets paid for their labor as an editor, which I do. But I don't edit 40 hours a week. So the subscription model really doesn't serve me.

Perhaps you just need to partner with a conforming editor to eliminate some of your own frustration regarding finishing work. I think it is more likely that you'll need to bend to the clients rather than bending the clients to you, or, as you say, maybe the best solution is not taking certain jobs. I have had to learn not to take every job that comes across my desk, and it can be liberating sometimes.

 

[Marc Wielage]

So, I don't see any reason to stay in FCP7. It's both creating problems with deliveries, migrating projects etc. while it holds you back as an editor in a slower workflow than others. It's also unprepared when you all of a sudden need to access original files within the NLE, things that's easy for any other software.

I've worked on four or five small indie features in the last 18 months that were done in FCP7, and there were zero problems with deliveries, dubs, conforming, color, sound, or anything else. Everything was taken care of. There are no real issues.

There are issues with all editing systems when moving to final color for delivery. One big issue is that speed-changes, reframes, speed-ramps and so on rarely translate well. Composites in a VFX-heavy workflow are challenging. There are workarounds for all of these things, and it's the job of the editor and the post supervisor to understand the limits and know how to keep things moving forward.

I think you're making more of this than you need to. Look at it this way: world-famous best-selling author George R.R. Martin writes all the Game of Thrones novels on a 1985 DOS computer running WordStar 4.0. It's not even connected to the internet. He still can do creative work, make millions of dollars, and entertain vast audiences. His means for doing so is antiquited, but if it gets the job done for him, who cares? I'm the last guy to tell an artist what kind of brush to use or what kind of canvas on which to paint. That's their decision, not mine.

 

[Matt Bass]

Editing on FCP7 now is like shooting on Varicam with DVCPRO tape stock.

 

[Björn Benckert]

Editing on FCP7 now is like shooting on Varicam with DVCPRO tape stock.

Using old cameras and poor quality tape decks affects the picture quality in a negative way. Using one software instead of the other to create an edl does not have such effect. There is for sure more competent editing programs to learn and use than fcp7. But also there are still really good authors that use typewriters to write their books, even though most of us would think that learning to use some kind of "wordprocessor" instead of the typewriter would have benefits. In Sweden we have Jonas Åkerlund, a world famous music video director, He has for the longest time insisted to edit most of his videos on a VHS with tc in picture... logic no, but thats how he wanted to work and to me he's a better editor than most.

 

[Gunleik Groven]

Using old cameras and poor quality tape decks affects the picture quality in a negative way. Using one software instead of the other to create an edl does not have such effect. There is for sure more competent editing programs to learn and use than fcp7. But also there are still really good authors that use typewriters to write their books, even though most of us would think that learning to use some kind of "wordprocessor" instead of the typewriter would have benefits. In Sweden we have Jonas Åkerlund, a world famous music video director, He has for the longest time insisted to edit most of his videos on a VHS with tc in picture... logic no, but thats how he wanted to work and to me he's a better editor than most.

100% agree.
Use time on a great edit, and find a way that gives you the result you want.

Björn and I can do the offline/online mess for u

 

[Christoffer Glans]

Don't be a bloody sheep. Don't follow

My point still remains that this is an egocentric viewpoint. All collaborative or long format projects that I've encountered done in FCP7 has a lot of screw ups and assistants trying to bring everything into the rest of post production through a number of different problems. Best example being project migration if someone needs to come in and do further editing and the facility doesn't have FCP7 stations. The thing is that most other NLEs are easy to collaborate with other softwares.

There are two sides to this, one is that the editor or producer forces the project to be cut on FCP7 and in turn it creates a lot of problems if it's not streamlined together with the rest of the workflow chain, this I've seen many times. Far too many editors who doesn't know shit about anything else than editing in FCP7, the rest of the post doesn't matter and for projects that can't afford a lot of assistants it will be a problem.

The other side is from the editors side. If you edit your own work and projects it doesn't matter, I'm talking about freelance editing where you as an editor jump onto projects and are hired to edit. If you want to be ahead in the game and deliver services for these production companies you sure as hell shouldn't stay in FCP7 when all other NLEs have better features to solve some of todays workflow issues.
Almost every project I've worked with have not been focused on purely edit to EDL. It's been a mix of different footage types, mix of framerates etc. Then a producers calls and says that we need a new cut within ten minutes and some new original files are put onto an FTP for me to download. Should I transcode them in order to use them in FCP7 because it can't manage those file types? Or do I use another NLE so that I can open them and work with them directly and meet the fast deadline?

For a professional editor who's hired on a number of different projects and types of work, FCP7 simply doesn't cut it (no pun intended). So, anyone interested in full time editing as a freelancer, is it smart to stay with that software, no way.

 

[Mark Phelan]

I'm surprised that I still get job offers that demand I cut on FCP7. Why is this still around? I know it's possible to use it but no professional editor who oversee large workflows use it anymore so why do some companies keep demanding you to cut on it? Some of them, when I'm asking if it's ok to use Avid instead since it's, you know, updated a lot the past 7 years, gets anxious and feels the need to find another editor because of it. Seriously? Finding another editor based on the fact that few of us use FCP7 anymore. It's not that it's impossible to edit on it, but I cannot garantuee safety for workflows past editing if I do. I have been forced to help other so many times because clients edited on FCP7 and now they are stuck in other parts of the workflow because of it.

So why is it still around? Why can't the industry just bury FCP7 once and for all and trust professional editors to manage the workflow for them?

Simple answer really, older machine running older version of the program. I still use FCP7 on my 2008 Mac tower and Dulce ProRX raid. The system runs perfectly fine as is. It also has CS6 on it as well. But my current laptop has FCX and Premiere Pro on it. I see no reason to upset the apple cart, so to speak.

 

[Gunleik Groven]

My point still remains that this is an egocentric viewpoint. All collaborative or long format projects that I've encountered done in FCP7 has a lot of screw ups and assistants trying to bring everything into the rest of post production through a number of different problems. Best example being project migration if someone needs to come in and do further editing and the facility doesn't have FCP7 stations. The thing is that most other NLEs are easy to collaborate with other softwares.

There are two sides to this, one is that the editor or producer forces the project to be cut on FCP7 and in turn it creates a lot of problems if it's not streamlined together with the rest of the workflow chain, this I've seen many times. Far too many editors who doesn't know shit about anything else than editing in FCP7, the rest of the post doesn't matter and for projects that can't afford a lot of assistants it will be a problem.

The other side is from the editors side. If you edit your own work and projects it doesn't matter, I'm talking about freelance editing where you as an editor jump onto projects and are hired to edit. If you want to be ahead in the game and deliver services for these production companies you sure as hell shouldn't stay in FCP7 when all other NLEs have better features to solve some of todays workflow issues.
Almost every project I've worked with have not been focused on purely edit to EDL. It's been a mix of different footage types, mix of framerates etc. Then a producers calls and says that we need a new cut within ten minutes and some new original files are put onto an FTP for me to download. Should I transcode them in order to use them in FCP7 because it can't manage those file types? Or do I use another NLE so that I can open them and work with them directly and meet the fast deadline?

For a professional editor who's hired on a number of different projects and types of work, FCP7 simply doesn't cut it (no pun intended). So, anyone interested in full time editing as a freelancer, is it smart to stay with that software, no way.

While I get your point (and I work and have worked in large collaborative contexts and solve the issues you mention), I think the best option is to be so good at what you do, that what you mention is minor bumps compared to the results you deliver.

Tell a good story, and noone gives a shit.

 

[fred gasc]

My point still remains that this is an egocentric viewpoint. All collaborative or long format projects that I've encountered done in FCP7 has a lot of screw ups and assistants trying to bring everything into the rest of post production through a number of different problems. Best example being project migration if someone needs to come in and do further editing and the facility doesn't have FCP7 stations. The thing is that most other NLEs are easy to collaborate with other softwares.

There are two sides to this, one is that the editor or producer forces the project to be cut on FCP7 and in turn it creates a lot of problems if it's not streamlined together with the rest of the workflow chain, this I've seen many times. Far too many editors who doesn't know shit about anything else than editing in FCP7, the rest of the post doesn't matter and for projects that can't afford a lot of assistants it will be a problem.

The other side is from the editors side. If you edit your own work and projects it doesn't matter, I'm talking about freelance editing where you as an editor jump onto projects and are hired to edit. If you want to be ahead in the game and deliver services for these production companies you sure as hell shouldn't stay in FCP7 when all other NLEs have better features to solve some of todays workflow issues.
Almost every project I've worked with have not been focused on purely edit to EDL. It's been a mix of different footage types, mix of framerates etc. Then a producers calls and says that we need a new cut within ten minutes and some new original files are put onto an FTP for me to download. Should I transcode them in order to use them in FCP7 because it can't manage those file types? Or do I use another NLE so that I can open them and work with them directly and meet the fast deadline?

For a professional editor who's hired on a number of different projects and types of work, FCP7 simply doesn't cut it (no pun intended). So, anyone interested in full time editing as a freelancer, is it smart to stay with that software, no way.

Fair enough. You made good points too. I don't actually disagree
With you. It depends very much on the business model.

 

[Christoffer Glans]

Tell a good story, and noone gives a shit.

I believe though that this is only half the truth. Yes, tell a good story, be good at the editing craft, but for professional editors there's more to the profession than just knowing how to tell a story through editing. Maybe not if you are one of the most sought after editors in the business, then you may do what you like and still get the jobs, but for the thousands of people working as freelance editors who move from one job to the next and trying to become sought after, you probably need to bring something else to the mixture in that you are perfect in collaborating with others, both personally, but mostly knowing how to give everyone the smoothest workflow possible through editorial and after locking. FCP7 isn't really a tool, based on my experience with all the NLEs, that is fit to be a tool ready for that type of work and workflow. What happens when you get a job where you probably need to edit something faster, maybe even on location or two minutes after you got the drive with the material? If those codecs aren't supported in FCP7, should you still tell the producers that you are the right man for the job, while the transcoding process screw up the entire deadline? A day to day freelance editor shouldn't rely on such limitations and I've seen people pass on offers from editors who worked in FCP7 because of the same experiences I've encountered.

So, why can't we just bury FCP7 and move one to more modern NLEs? Personally I just want to get rid of expectations from lesser-knowing producers that I must cut on FCP7 when I have both up to date Premiere and Avid ready to go. It's stupid and if FCP7 could just die, then those stupid requests will stop, hence my strong standing in this discussion

 

[Steve Sherrick]

Just like cinematographers have gaffers, editors have assistants that help with the technical nuts and bolts of the workflow. On a feature or large scale commercial, the AEs allow an editor to step in and focus on editing. But just like there are cinematographers who will jump in and physically move lights, operate their own cameras, etc there are editors who are able to go beyond the creative part of the process and know how to handle workflow, they do advanced effects or sound mixing, they can basically do it all.

The use of FCP7 is only a problem when it interferes with the above. If AEs are not able to provide the necessary workflow that an editor would need to step in and edit comfortably or in the case of an editor who does it all, if FCP 7 affects their efficiency, then it's like the times a camera is chosen for a cinematographer rather than by a cinematographer. Sure, they'll probably get the job done but why not give them the tool they want/need? As we all know, sometimes these decisions are not based on logic.

Do I think FCP 7 needs to die? No, not if it's effective for people still using it. However, like you I wouldn't want to see it forced onto a project if it's clearly the wrong tool. Same goes for any of the NLEs. They all have strengths and weaknesses. And again, that's why having good AEs is important. You want to avoid as many hassles as possible throughout the post process.

The final thing I'll say about FCP7 is that it is EOL. That does make it challenging moving forward. There's really nowhere to go in terms of updating it to stay current with new OS and hardware. So as time goes on people using it will eventually need to decide whether they can continue to stay in that world.

 

[fred gasc]

Just like cinematographers have gaffers, editors have assistants that help with the technical nuts and bolts of the workflow. On a feature or large scale commercial, the AEs allow an editor to step in and focus on editing. But just like there are cinematographers who will jump in and physically move lights, operate their own cameras, etc there are editors who are able to go beyond the creative part of the process and know how to handle workflow, they do advanced effects or sound mixing, they can basically do it all.

The use of FCP7 is only a problem when it interferes with the above. If AEs are not able to provide the necessary workflow that an editor would need to step in and edit comfortably or in the case of an editor who does it all, if FCP 7 affects their efficiency, then it's like the times a camera is chosen for a cinematographer rather than by a cinematographer. Sure, they'll probably get the job done but why not give them the tool they want/need? As we all know, sometimes these decisions are not based on logic.

Do I think FCP 7 needs to die? No, not if it's effective for people still using it. However, like you I wouldn't want to see it forced onto a project if it's clearly the wrong tool. Same goes for any of the NLEs. They all have strengths and weaknesses. And again, that's why having good AEs is important. You want to avoid as many hassles as possible throughout the post process.

The final thing I'll say about FCP7 is that it is EOL. That does make it challenging moving forward. There's really nowhere to go in terms of updating it to stay current with new OS and hardware. So as time goes on people using it will eventually need to decide whether they can continue to stay in that world.

This is the key point actually. AEs or the lack of them in a different
Business model.

A great editor is paied for his artistic skills and the AEs are there to solve all sins.
In a high-end production, FCP7 or windows movie maker means nothing because they choose the editorial staff according to the criterious of talent.
In that sense, Thelma can cut in Lightworks, she not only got the AEs but also the full editshare support, wich is expensive and not possible for small business.

And she won't touch anything else than the console.
But for a more humble businesses, a swiss army knife NLE may be much more relevant. In more reduced teams, the pressure of time-efficiency is really more important and those guys need flexibility and inmediate response.
For those, it's maybe not even Avid but Resolve 12 actually.

Horse for course.

 

[Enrique Blein]

I'm personally moving more towards Resolve 12.

THIS. I think this would be the only route for me to change, to have the ability to track masks and do all the wonderful things Davinci Resolve does within the same program

 

[Brian Merlen]

i think having multiple apps just can help a freelancer/production and find myself jumping around as necessary depending on the workflow involved

 

[Marc Wielage]

While I get your point (and I work and have worked in large collaborative contexts and solve the issues you mention), I think the best option is to be so good at what you do, that what you mention is minor bumps compared to the results you deliver. Tell a good story, and noone gives a shit.

Gunleik is very wise.

Just like cinematographers have gaffers, editors have assistants that help with the technical nuts and bolts of the workflow. On a feature or large scale commercial, the AEs allow an editor to step in and focus on editing. But just like there are cinematographers who will jump in and physically move lights, operate their own cameras, etc there are editors who are able to go beyond the creative part of the process and know how to handle workflow, they do advanced effects or sound mixing, they can basically do it all.

That's one of the secrets of really big Hollywood-scale productions: there are often a half-dozen assistants behind the scenes that sweep all the problems under the rug. It's not unusual for big pictures to have two or three simultaneous edit crews working around the clock, each on different reels or different sequences, getting all the last-minute changes together. When you start clocking in the amount of time it takes to ingest, backup, deal with dailies, sound effects, music, metadata, organizing bins, rendering outputs and so on, a busy room can easily go 20 hours or more a day. Assistants go a long way towards lightening the load for any editor. And no software can take the place of an experienced assistant.

 

[Björn Benckert]

I think by the time everyone realize that they should do everything in resolve as it can edit, do advance grading and is a free download. Autodesk will pull the plug on Flame premium with built in luster on mac with a price tag to subscribe for just about nothing. Then thats supreme editing, compositing, grading and true nonlinear editing across network etc wich would be very atractive. Still I think the editors that stick to only editing will still be around. Atleast for the higher end budget stuff.

 

[Mikael Lubtchansky]

for long form projects, editing propres proxies in FCP 7 and conforming in resolve is still a very efficient workflow afaic...

As said earlier, for those who focus on the craft of editing their film, using simple cuts / dissolves and a few audio tracks there is no real need for more than what FCP 7 provides.

If we could give a RED One and an iMac with FCP 7 to Leonardo DaVinci, Akira Kurosawa or Charlie Chaplin, they probably would have been very happy to tell stories with such tools with no real need to upgrade any further for the rest of their life

 

[Scot Yount]

I still think its faster the premier PRO..
if it could play mutilple formats like the FCPX and PP... I'd still be on it.
Actually no... FCPX is way quicker.

+100