Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 5 »   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: New FCP  (Read 15229 times)
KevinA
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 883


WWW
« on: June 22, 2011, 03:47:13 PM »
ReplyReply

Looks to be getting the thumbs down, no doubt give it a week or two and it will be better understood. So far I have heard anything positive.

Kevin.
Logged

Kevin.
fredjeang
Guest
« Reply #1 on: June 22, 2011, 04:10:11 PM »
ReplyReply

AAAAArrrrrgggghhhh....I'm tremendously jalous.

Michael has donwloaded one, sure that Chris also, maybe will have a review here.
Logged
tho_mas
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1692


« Reply #2 on: June 22, 2011, 04:43:51 PM »
ReplyReply

if all this > http://magazine.creativecow.net/article/final-cut-pro-x-whats-missing-for-some-pros < is true (it certainly is)... than FCPX is pretty useless.
Logged
fredjeang
Guest
« Reply #3 on: June 22, 2011, 06:08:50 PM »
ReplyReply

if all this > http://magazine.creativecow.net/article/final-cut-pro-x-whats-missing-for-some-pros < is true (it certainly is)... than FCPX is pretty useless.

I'm not jalous any more...

You know what? it reminds me when Adobe released Soundbooth instead of Audition.
Logged
John.Murray
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 893



WWW
« Reply #4 on: June 22, 2011, 06:33:50 PM »
ReplyReply

I've been reading (and listening) to several articles at creative cow, not all are as harsh as the two, who obviously have a huge investment into fcp7 and it's ecology.

I'm one whose contemplating my choices - based on using a 5d2 and either 7d or gh2 as a second camera

1) Avid at $1000 - either platform PC or Mac
2) Adobe Premiere at $800 - either platform
3) FCPX at $300 for Mac

I have invested in Premiere Elements and it truly sucks - with the possible exception of Silverfast, and Microsoft Bob - probably one of the most unusable pieces of software ever written....
Logged

fredjeang
Guest
« Reply #5 on: June 22, 2011, 06:44:43 PM »
ReplyReply

I've been reading (and listening) to several articles at creative cow, not all are as harsh as the two, who obviously have a huge investment into fcp7 and it's ecology.

I'm one whose contemplating my choices - based on using a 5d2 and either 7d or gh2 as a second camera

1) Avid at $1000 - either platform PC or Mac
2) Adobe Premiere at $800 - either platform
3) FCPX at $300 for Mac

I have invested in Premiere Elements and it truly sucks - with the possible exception of Silverfast, and Microsoft Bob - probably one of the most unusable pieces of software ever written....


Also check Edius 6, serious stuff too.

Well, it depends. If you value intuitive interface I'd go Premiere CS5. No hassle.

If you really want to go deep into editing I'd go Avid Media Composer 5 # but it has a learning curve a little more serious than Premiere. But worth. I come from Premiere and switched to Avid "by accident"(in fact had pressure from work) and at first it looked unfriendly to me, but now I don't want to edit in Premiere any more. Avid helps you a lot to tell the story. It's very special.

Trying to explain by image. Avid is a software made by and for full time editors, Premiere Pro is a software made by a company who's very good making good softwares. To me, one is not better than the other, just different philosophy. Edius is in between both IMO.

If you plan in the future to work with Red, I strongly recommend Avid because you can actually reveal the raw file directly in the timeline and adjust raw parameters in real time from your source (exactly like Adobe Camera Raw would do with stills) so you don't really need the RedCine X develloper.
« Last Edit: June 22, 2011, 07:10:36 PM by fredjeang » Logged
tho_mas
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1692


« Reply #6 on: June 22, 2011, 07:10:14 PM »
ReplyReply

I'm not jalous any more...

You know what? it reminds me when Adobe released Soundbooth instead of Audition.
As I actually like some of FCP(7)'s color tools I was just about to buy FCPX (I thought for €240,- you can't go wrong). But then I first searched for some initial feedback from users and came across the link posted above. The lack of basic and essential features is really shocking, especially the file management, the impossibilty to assign audio tracks and the lack of true video output. Kind of unbelievable mistake on behlaf of Apple...
Logged
tho_mas
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1692


« Reply #7 on: June 22, 2011, 07:22:44 PM »
ReplyReply

I'm one whose contemplating my choices - based on using a 5d2 and either 7d or gh2 as a second camera

1) Avid at $1000 - either platform PC or Mac
2) Adobe Premiere at $800 - either platform
3) FCPX at $300 for Mac
I think for occasional and not professional use (not in the sense of personal creative demand but in the sense of heavy deadlines, mix of file formats, adherence to broadcast standards, interchangeabilty of projects etc. etc.) Avid MC is a bit oversized. It's by far the most mature editing software (IMO) but it includes a lot you will never need (most likely).
Logged
fredjeang
Guest
« Reply #8 on: June 22, 2011, 07:24:42 PM »
ReplyReply

As I actually like some of FCP(7)'s color tools I was just about to buy FCPX (I thought for €240,- you can't go wrong). But then I first searched for some initial feedback from users and came across the link posted above. The lack of basic and essential features is really shocking, especially the file management, the impossibilty to assign audio tracks and the lack of true video output. Kind of unbelievable mistake on behlaf of Apple...
I really wanted to use Smoke, and Smoke is on Mac only. Then ProRes was very appealing but in the end just decided think pragmatic, looking at the numbers and Mac was too expensive for the power I needed. At first I thought that the 300€ FCP was because Apple waited a long time, but in fact it was suspect.
I'm going to keep happily DNxHD 422, Avid and PC workstation. Oh well, think it's 300€ for the precious ProRes codec...
Logged
fredjeang
Guest
« Reply #9 on: June 22, 2011, 07:34:30 PM »
ReplyReply

I think for occasional and not professional use (not in the sense of personal creative demand but in the sense of heavy deadlines, mix of file formats, adherence to broadcast standards, interchangeabilty of projects etc. etc.) Avid MC is a bit oversized. It's by far the most mature editing software (IMO) but it includes a lot you will never need (most likely).
Totally agree. Avid has a learning curve in the aspects tho_mas mentionned wich is to take into consideration. Of course, you are not obliged to use the software to its full potential but then it is overkill if you plan editing tasks non pro (in the noble sense tho_mas mentionned).
Logged
Chris Sanderson
Administrator
Sr. Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1830



« Reply #10 on: June 22, 2011, 07:43:41 PM »
ReplyReply

I'll repeat what I said in a previous thread:
Just remember that this is a VERSION ONE complete re-write of Final Cut and likely should not be trusted for any meaningful work until several months in.

I would say at this very early stage that it looks promising; is not ready for prime time; and promises more than it delivers.
But
Do not count FCP X out; like iMovie, FCP is probably worth learning from the beginning. But it makes my teeth grind to be told to import my iMove Events [Hello? did you say Pro?]; it makes my head spin to know it has no multi-camera support - effectively rendering it useless for my workflows... But I am prepared to humour it, while I get work done on FCP7.
Logged

Christopher Sanderson
The Luminous-Landscape
tho_mas
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1692


« Reply #11 on: June 22, 2011, 07:57:17 PM »
ReplyReply

FCP is probably worth learning from the beginning.
so true ... cancel all your workflows and start from scratch on a standalone unit with FCPX :-)
Seriously: who wants to "learn" FCPX from the beginning? ... certainly not production houses that edit tv series on mulitple workstations or so...
Upgrades should add features and speed things up. Upgrades should not take away features.
New workflow = slow workflow.

re version 1: at least this version 1 tells a lot about the basic design of the application. It will take a long time to turn it into something you can use for professional production. If that is Apple's plan at all...
Logged
bcooter
Guest
« Reply #12 on: June 23, 2011, 01:23:04 AM »
ReplyReply

That ringing noise you hear, is 1.2 million I-phones calling Adobe and Avid asking the question . . . How Much?

The e-mails you see clogging the Apple system is the investors with the question . . . "When did Apple sell their company to RIM?".

IMO

BC Cry

Logged
Frank Doorhof
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1513


WWW
« Reply #13 on: June 23, 2011, 01:33:24 AM »
ReplyReply

I'm no pro video guy but I will give my opinion Wink

I've used FCP and iMovie for the last 2 years.
We shoot mainly backstage videos and instructional videos.
Working with FCP is most of the time just a huge overkill and slows me down, while working with iMovie was much faster but frustrating because I missed many editing options I did have with FCP.

Recently we picked up video more and are moving into the realm of videoclips, this is for me best done in FCP and with the multicam option that rocks and works very fast, but than we have the problem of the continues need to render, assign a look and wait, nah not ok, wait again, give it a new look, wait again. It sucks the time out of a day.

Enter FCPx, looks on the fly, color matching between clips is a simple and fast, magnetic timeline is a cool feature, keeping audio in sync. Compound clips is a nice feature to keep me from getting overwhelmed with my timeline (again I don't work on video every day).

Actually if they add multicam for me FCPx is done and I welcome every addition after that.

When I read the comments I do understand them, but most are done by the guys that need stuff like exporting to tape or XML etc. What some don't realize is that there is a HUGE market of DSLR and video shooters out there that don't need it and will stay within FCPx and will even than probably never need anything else.

My prediction is indeed that this is a version 1.
Apple will probably release a paid upgrade for multi cam, making it only "costly" for people needing it.
Apple will release an export option, add support for external monitors etc.

When I look at the massive rewrite I really don't understand the opinions that it's iMovie 2.
I wonder if those people ever really worked with iMovie.
The difference between iMovie on my iPad and my Mac is smaller than the difference between FCPx and iMovie Wink it does look like iMovie in some cases, it has the good features from iMovie but it goes so much further that it's indeed a new app for me with a lot from FCP and some from iMovie.

The fact it it imports iMovie timelines is I think because the structure from IMovie is much simpler than from FCP and I'm sure apple will also come with an option for FCP import, because I also have some projects in FCP of course.

I'm now using FCPX and still have FCP on my Mac for everything that X does not do, but after two days of testing and playing with it I think I will only use FCP for some quick multicam stuff. I will work the videos in x and export them as QuickTime to import as multiclips in FCP and do the mutlicam, and later insert them in x again. Yes it would be great to do it straight from x but the speed increase x gives me is just too good to pass, and seeing what I do with color/looks and matching clips is just great.
Logged
fredjeang
Guest
« Reply #14 on: June 23, 2011, 03:21:52 AM »
ReplyReply

I'll repeat what I said in a previous thread:
Just remember that this is a VERSION ONE complete re-write of Final Cut and likely should not be trusted for any meaningful work until several months in.

I would say at this very early stage that it looks promising; is not ready for prime time; and promises more than it delivers.
But
Do not count FCP X out; like iMovie, FCP is probably worth learning from the beginning. But it makes my teeth grind to be told to import my iMove Events [Hello? did you say Pro?]; it makes my head spin to know it has no multi-camera support - effectively rendering it useless for my workflows... But I am prepared to humour it, while I get work done on FCP7.
Chris, the problem IMO is not that much that it can't or will not be ready in the future, it is that the market is very sensitive to the first impression, even for a non-finished product. Nobody's today can sell a car with one seat and 3 wheels. Nobody except maybe Apple because of the sacred cool factor ! The perception is key and even if this version would be enough for a vast market, the legitimate complains of the people who trusted Apple in their daily jobs will damage forever the image of this software.
Logged
bcooter
Guest
« Reply #15 on: June 23, 2011, 04:23:08 AM »
ReplyReply

I'll try to be kind about this.

I've got 10 years of FCP, from crash central to a very stable program that today allows you at a budget price to do about anything, that is with FCP 6 ot 7.

Now we have 10 and come one Chris, do you really think Apple is going to rewrite the whole program to work off a network, or external drives, or allow the edit to be purposed to multiple machines?

Anyway, Apple knows their market, Frank's happy (though I'll bet if apple bought his beloved Leaf/phase/mamiya and turned it into i-phone 5 he'd take a strong exception to that process).

The thing is Frank probably represents 2 million users and guys like me 1/4 of that, so that's where the money is and that's where Apple will go, though I can promise you that the Cohen Bros. or Ron Howard won't be cutting their next film on FCP X.

Anyway,

I have to thank Apple for pushing Avid to a grand, down from $300,000 and I have to thank Apple for adding a lot to my bottom line, though today it pretty much stops.

When time permits, I go to Avid land.

I'll let you know how that works out.

IMO

BC
Logged
fredjeang
Guest
« Reply #16 on: June 23, 2011, 04:51:01 AM »
ReplyReply

When time permits, I go to Avid land.

I'll let you know how that works out.

IMO

BC

You won't be disapointed! It really is a great software.

I find that the learning curve is a little more serious (no let's be honest, clearly more serious) than Premiere, but then it is so efficient that you save time. When you overcome the particular Avid's approach you realise how greatly designed is this program and more importantly, if you delegate tasks it is the best platform to date for datas exchange.

It bloody rocks!

Back to the Topic; I'm really surprised of Chris's generous view. I know that the relation with Apple and users has always been very strong, in fact Apple was serious stuff when Windows was a peice of crap and there was a sensation of proudness, love relationship. But Apple is changing, Windows has changed, competition is hard. I find the company more and more arrogant. When I enter Apple stores here the client is treated like s....t, their prices are high and not sure justified etc...I have the old Mac Pro that I haven't touched for a long time now and really don't perceive the same attraction or necesity as 5 years ago.
Apple is derivating step by step to the mass market, we can't blame them for that but I don't see why FCP couldn't have been rock solid. Adobe is mass market and they do products well usable by pros.
Behind that, I perceive a drift to lands Windows was known for years ago...sad in a way but hey, those are just bits.

So Chris, you are betting that Apple will do the homeworks. Will they? It's putting yourself IMO at risk in a complete new learning process with the Damocles sword always present above your head that it will evolve the way you expect or not. And when? Another long waiting until the product's stabilized? You know what? If the re-learn is almost from zero I'd change the grocery shop.

edit: Also thinking about Frank's post. If you want to work in closed-circuit, self production only, any NLE will do the job included Imovie and FCP XXX. But Frank, you point DSLR's users. Well, when I first started with the commercial photographer to shoot movies with 5D2, the very first time it resulted that different prods where involved from outside the studio. In fact, there was no stable crew. So you got those video pros asking you for EDL, XML etc...and we said "¿¿what?". The thing is that Avid is really strong on that. It has dedicated "peripherical" mini programs just for those tasks. Also, we never know what kind of cameras will be used. The boss will rent an Alexa just because he wanted to. Or you end with zillion files format, never balanced etc etc...I've been learning from the beginning the hard way and now that I'm starting to see through the mist, I can't be more thankfull having a rock solid software that really handles all situations.
« Last Edit: June 23, 2011, 05:29:30 AM by fredjeang » Logged
Frank Doorhof
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1513


WWW
« Reply #17 on: June 23, 2011, 05:38:30 AM »
ReplyReply

BC is 100% right.
I'm not a hollywood film maker.
FCP was for what we do great but 80% of what you could do with it I would never use.
FCPx misses the Multicam which for me is a disaster at the moment but when they add this it would pretty much be my perfect workhorse.

I also think that Apple realizes they will loose people but will probably gain millions more who are now struggling with Final Cut Express, Vegas, Premiere/Express, Studio etc. and who need more than iMovie but the other options are too complicated and giving WAY too much.

I'm a bit in the middle.
We're starting more and more in video, so my learning curve is pretty much very flexible, so is the investments I've made, cameras and FCP that's about it. FCPx is cheap, and with the additions it CAN become interesting.
I would not be surprised if Apple releases something soon by the way, they are not stupid, a Multicam option for example would probably already help a lot of people to start doubting, add an export function and most pro's would be happy ?

And the hollywood guys.... well FCP still works ?
Why spend 300.000 when you before was earning your money with FCP ?
That's something I don't understand, if I would be using FCP on a daily basis and earn money with it I would not dare to shelve down $300.000 at the moment and start learning from the bottom up and maybe kick myself in the butt in a year when FCPx is probably expanded to a "pro" version ?

Again, I'm a photographer with a "fresh" few on video, I do know iMovie is WAY underpowered for what I do, FCPx is looking awesome when it adds multicam.
Logged
fredjeang
Guest
« Reply #18 on: June 23, 2011, 06:27:20 AM »
ReplyReply

But Frank, you are pointing Hollywood. It's not justr about Hollywood.

I'm far from being Hollywood. But, ok, let's take a simple real life example.

I had to do a shared work with an external editor person. The thing is that the guy was on Premiere Pro and I was on Avid. I had to export for him an EDL so he could keep going the project to another stage.
Premiere Pro reads CMX 3600 EDL. So export in Avid, choosed the correct option for Premiere Pro was instantaneous. No hassle, it simply does the job.
As I still own a Premiere, I could verify first that my export was correct.
If FCP can't do those kind of stuff properlly, it's not about being Hollywood, it's a common task that can appear at any point even at the rather basic level I am.

« Last Edit: June 23, 2011, 06:47:59 AM by fredjeang » Logged
Frank Doorhof
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1513


WWW
« Reply #19 on: June 23, 2011, 07:11:12 AM »
ReplyReply

Without a doubt you are right.
But it's a V1.0 program, I think there will be loads of changes and also export options.
There is already talk about adding FCP imports ?
So if there would be FCP exports there will be more options hopefully.

Time will tell.
What I'm trying to say is that what you read is almost 99% negative and it's called iMovie2.
As I've worked a lot with iMovie and also for some years with FCP I can say that it's so much more than an iMovie2.
But it's no FCP at all I agree on that.

However how many people are working on one station (or two stations running the same software), I think from the LARGE market almost 99% of the people will work at their own or maybe with FCPx on several machines.

I do agree (don't get me wrong) that Apple is loosing some of the real pros, without a doubt and I think it's a HUGE shock for them. I think if Apple would have called it Visual producer Pro it would probably all been a different story. Make FCP a legacy product that is being sold but stopped support, iMovie for the consumers and Visual producer Pro for the middle market. I think maybe boat loads of people would have switched from FCP to FCPx (with a different name) and the results would have been positive.

It's now changing way too much, and releasing it without the future additions and claiming it's the new FCP, and that is wrong I think.
However I also believe that if we fast forward maybe 1-2 years FCPx has matured (at least I hope). And let's be honest FCP still runs and $299.00 is of course a price which is incredibly low for what you get (even in a 1.0 version).
Logged
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 5 »   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad