The GetDPI Photography Forum

Great to see you here. Join our insightful photographic forum today and start tapping into a huge wealth of photographic knowledge. Completing our simple registration process will allow you to gain access to exclusive content, add your own topics and posts, share your work and connect with other members through your own private inbox! And don’t forget to say hi!

Final Cut X is out, what is your take?

ustein

Contributing Editor
Final Cut X is out, what is your take?

We are working on our first impressions article right now.
 

ftbt

New member
Just a few customer reviews from Apple's site:

"Customer Reviews

Not for an Editing House...

by Kevin Lewis

I love the idea of 64bit editing and all of the other features, but the basics for pros are gone. Here's what's missing:

-- Importing of FCP 7 Projects, you simply can not import anything except for iMovie projects into it
-- No external video monitoring, at least for my Black Magic card and I would expect AJA as well. I haven't tested DV Devices yet.
-- None of my 3rd party effects seem to appear, at least FX Factory and Core Melt.

At least the original install of FinalCut Pro is in tact. So, my two stars, is because right now, I can't use it for any of my client projects when I have clients sitting behind me to edit with.

Extremely buggy , overly simplistic

by Fraize

The interface is big and chunky, like iMovie. While I love the 64 bitness of Final Cut Pro X (full use of multiple cores and >4GB of memory), the oversimplification of the interface makes me feel like I've somehow lost a lot of precision and control. I can't specifiy where precisely to store my project files, my asset files, or my render files. I can reorganize, but not while background processes are running (which is pretty much all the time). I get the impression that folks at Apple that design software don't actually run a production environment, and don't understand our needs at all. Finally, this dot-zero release is extremely buggy, and abnormally ended (blew up) within 20 minutes of working on a project. Lots will have to change, I'm afraid, before I will use FCPX on anything but the most basic of projects.

FCP X = Windows Vista

by Hectorsierra

I can't believe what apple did with FCP X... this is no longer a professional application... this is just an upgrade of iMovie!!!

1. You can't view an external monitor like a production monitor.
2. Hundreds of preferences and features are GONE!!
3. Settings are GONE as well...

This is a Final Cut Express meets iMovie!! I'm so disappointed that I want to cry!! : (

I'm a HUGE apple fan but this is a BIG blow for Professional Mac editors... so disappointing..."

From what I have read on various sites, these are typical reactions from quite a few professional video editors. At best FCP X has been kindly described by many as a "work in progress."

My hunch is that the folks over at Adobe and Avid have a smile or two on their faces right about now. Whether subsequent releases / fixes cure any of these criticisms, time will tell.

If you liked iMovie, you will probably like FCP X. (Just don't install it over your "old" copy of FCP like one guy did ... or you will be SOL.)
 

ftbt

New member
I am fortunate enough to have and edit on FCP 6, Media Composer 5.5, and Premiere Pro 5. (One should you use whatever tool is the most appropriate for the job at hand.) Let's put it this way: I don't see myself dumping any those programs any time soon in favor of FCP X.
 

thomas

New member
->
There is no doubt in our mind that FCPX is a professional editing tool
"professional" means it can be used in professional environments, no?
How so without the support of EDL or tape based workflows and without the ability to import existing projects?
How do you send your audio to a professional Audio Software?
How do you view your "professional" videos when there is no true video output?
Strange ...
 

ustein

Contributing Editor
>"professional" means it can be used in professional environments, no?

All good points. There are people that make a living to produce videos shown on the web.

Lets see how many indie filmmakers will use it? Also this is not the last version.
 

thomas

New member
There are people that make a living to produce videos shown on the web.
true. But they work more or less in their own "standards" and in their own time schedules. Also, they don't have to exchange data with other editors / workstations.

Also this is not the last version.
but it's the version we talk about and the version that took Apple 2 years or so to release it.
FCP7 was cumbersome in many ways, especially with large projects, but at least it worked (to some degree). FCPX doesn't work.
 

ustein

Contributing Editor
>FCPX doesn't work.

I mention that it does not work for some (most) pros. But with 4K support this is not aimed only for the hobby market, right.

This may be good for Premiere Pro but I guess that FCPX will be a strong player in the future. I know many FCP 7 users are pissed and I understand them.
 

thomas

New member
with 4K support this is not aimed only for the hobby market, right.
just a hollow feature. Apparently there is no native RED support. You have to convert to QT first but as you can't export XML you'll lose your reference when you want to use FCPX for offline editing only and roundtrip through an application that can work with RED files. Too, FCPX is a single monitor application and, again, without true video output.
So what's the point with 4K support?
 

ustein

Contributing Editor
One aspect is features but also on an other level FCPX has to improve: stability.

Edited a short piece and at some point decided to go back in history (fast). The idea was then to go forward to my last useful settings. No luck, FCPX told me that it cannot save and I had to quit. The complete project was gone.

With FCP 7 we had automatic saves to a temp location and could save the project to any place on our disks. This gives more control than the full automatic way in FCPX. Hardly ever seen an automatic system that works 100% and 99% is not good enough.
 

Godfrey

Well-known member
I've been following the Final Cut Pro X (FCPX) discussions on other forums.

The people who are currently disenfranchised by it are those folks who have an established workflow in FCP7. FCPX is a completely new application which doesn't support all the same things those folks are already depending upon, and it doesn't work the same way. Since Apple discontinued the availability of FCP7 and FCP Server with the introduction of FCPX, those who cannot move to FCPX are stymied and angry.

For the majority of new video users, however, and particularly new VDSLR users, FCPX seems to be a major improvement and advance in learnability and ease of use. These users aren't burdened with an existing workflow or in-progress projects, so the way FCPX works and the features it supports seem just fine. According to one credible source (who's entire business is based on FCP7), for a VDSLR user just getting started, "Don't walk: run to buy it! It's that good! You won't have to learn all the cruft of traditional FCP up to now and you'll get much more done."

Some comments suggest that Apple should have released it as "Final Cut X", leaving off the Pro part, and kept the FCP7 product in place while the new version is fleshed out to support what the established pro audience needs to migrate over to the new model. Several are petitioning Apple to bring FCP7 back on the market for just that purpose.

Very interesting stuff. I've not tried it out yet, but I'm interested. I find trying to start working with Final Cut Express (and Final Cut Pro, which I have an eval copy of) quite opaque, a very steep learning curve, and will likely dump both of them and just go straight to FCPX.
 

ftbt

New member
... Since Apple discontinued the availability of FCP7 and FCP Server with the introduction of FCPX, those who cannot move to FCPX are stymied and angry. ... I find trying to start working with Final Cut Express (and Final Cut Pro, which I have an eval copy of) quite opaque, a very steep learning curve, and will likely dump both of them and just go straight to FCPX.
At the end of the day ... use whatever tool that works the best for you and gets the job done. Just that simple.

Here is an interesting analysis of Apple's rationale and thought-process in this whole FCP X fiasco from Ron Brinkman:

http://digitalcomposting.wordpress.com/2011/06/28/x-vs-pro/

The name may not mean anything to many of you, but he was one of the key individuals in the development of what was (and some say still is) one of the best pieces of compositing software ever made ... namely: Shake. (I still use it.) Apple bought Shake, (when they had a real interest in the "professional" market), Brinkman went to Apple as a result of the sale, Apple sold Shake for a while as a stand-alone program, and then killed it, while rolling some of the key features into other Apple video products.

As Brinkman states, "...“Doesn’t Apple care about the high-end professional market?” In a word, no. Not really. Not enough to focus on it as a primary business."

"Let’s talk economics first. There’s what, maybe 10,000 ‘high-end’ editors in the world? That’s probably being generous. But the number of people who would buy a powerful editing package that’s more cost-effective and easier to learn/use than anything else that’s out there? More. Lots more. So, a $1000 high-end product vs. a $300 product for a market that’s at least an order of magnitude larger. Clearly makes sense, even though I’d claim that the dollars involved are really just a drop in the bucket either way for Apple."

...

" Bottom line is that I do think that FCPX will provide incredible value for a huge number of people and will undoubtedly continue to grow in terms of the features that are added (or re-added) to it. Just don’t expect everything that was in FCP7 to return to FCPX because they’re really different products addressing different markets. It’s up to you to decide which market you work in."

Sort of sums it up.
 

Godfrey

Well-known member
I knew Ron (somewhat distantly at best) when we were both at Apple. Yes, he's on the right track with the economics of the market. Based on what a couple of friends have told me, since Apple put up the App Store and listed Aperture for $79 vs the original $250 or $300 retail price, they've made multiples of the profit from it they'd made over all the previous years of it being sold.

For me, anything that makes learning video editing easier is a plus. Most of the software out there is just confusing as hell to start learning. FCPX seems to be moving in the right direction from that perspective.
 
Top