Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: « 1 2 [3] 4 5 »   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: New FCP  (Read 16768 times)
fredjeang
Guest
« Reply #40 on: June 24, 2011, 01:02:21 PM »
ReplyReply

I read all the Mr Hodgetts.
Interesting. A more contrasted point of view to the burning forums all over the internet.
I concur that if they won't finally implement EDL it would not be a great lost, although still in use. (I used EDL last week to communicate with Premiere and worked perfectly).

But just a question. They seem to put a lot of emphasis about the incredible speed of this version. Are they refering in comparaison to the #7 ?
I mean the person is obviously a FCP guru. Are those really aware of the speed that are capable Premiere Pro CS5 and Avid MC5? Are they really aware of what the competition is doing and the workflow of those? I'm not sarcastic at all here but an honnest question
« Last Edit: June 24, 2011, 01:04:31 PM by fredjeang » Logged
Chris Sanderson
Administrator
Sr. Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1905



« Reply #41 on: June 24, 2011, 01:31:46 PM »
ReplyReply

For me: Speed = faster workflow.

Achieved by (Premiere-like) native editing and background rendering to ProRes. No time wasted in transcoding.
Logged

Christopher Sanderson
The Luminous-Landscape
pschefz
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 244


« Reply #42 on: June 24, 2011, 02:28:09 PM »
ReplyReply

something is not right here...conan doing a thing on his show last night making fun of fcpX?

afaik fcpX works exactly as advertised....it does everything it is supposed to do...and really well....

the problems brought up are things that people thought it might do, should do or were hoping it would....i guess apple should have made it even more clear in march when they saidt :"this is not an upgrade, this is a completely different software"....and explain all the things fcpX would NOT be doing once it shipped...

i understand that some people are not happy because they will have to re-learn and re-think their workflow.....OR just stick with your existing workflow OR look somewhere else....

i would put money on most issues being resolved within 6months.....either by apple or 3rd party....apple does not sink considerable resources into something like this and completely ignore the needs of its core customers ....and fcp really only has core customers....someone dabbling in imovie will not just so shell out 300 to play with fcpX...it would have been a LOT cheaper and easier to simply tweak fcp and charge 200 for it....or 500 which is what adobe does every year....

so some people who work with fcp every day feel betrayed because fcpX won't do right now what fcp does...and once fcpX does it, they will have to adjust....and at that point 1000s of young punks will have the advantage because they used fcpX from the first day and they are used to it and it does do some things better and faster on cheaper equipment then the old trusted fcp....

as much as i understand the frustration with apple's move, i don't understand the almost blind rage....fcpX has a ton of features that make my jaw drop (and not only mine it seems...there are also some people who know their stuff who really like it and what it will become...)

everybody who works with cameras of any kind, computers and tech in general knows and has found out the hard way: don't rely on anything v1 for critical work....regardless of anything....don't upgrade within a month...don't jump on the latest tech too fast...

Logged

schefz.com
artloch.com
fredjeang
Guest
« Reply #43 on: June 24, 2011, 03:48:43 PM »
ReplyReply

everybody who works with cameras of any kind, computers and tech in general knows and has found out the hard way: don't rely on anything v1 for critical work....regardless of anything....don't upgrade within a month...don't jump on the latest tech too fast...

That's correct, it should be a golden rule in general.

I also think that the ww blind rage is exhacerbated. But maybe if that happened in such a way, Apple might have lacked of correct communication because it seems that almost everyone, and just look in Redusers, CreativeCow kind of forums, and here higly trained FCP where totally caught by surprise.

This kind of thing at this scale and with this violence do not happen when a fair communication is delivered.

I'm not sure though about the other part Paul. Young punks already work by million in adobe suites for ages because it's the most intuitive, easily piratable for the kids that start the learning curve very young. They are already highly trained on Adobe fast easy and intuitive workflows, build their powerfull pc by hand.

I don't think those kids will be interested in FCP, Adobe provide everything they need from Ps to AE, update regularly and their #1 versions are generally pretty much acheived, logical, well featured, compatibility without platforms without the need to be an engineer, material abunds, and the software is fun in use and would suit as well a beginer, a power user, or a big prod.

Those punks are the one who will be the next Coens but I think they already have their softwares. They only might attract the metrosexual punks because of the brand effect. (kind of teasing here)


Also, it is a complete re-write.

That means a new workflow, almost like learning a completly new software. When a company does that, you need to put on the table something more acheived, even in #1 version. Not putting this sort of mist and unconfidence.

Nobody knows exactly how and when will be the updates and it's already been a long time waiting for the FCP users.

So I can understand that so many users are pissed and feel that if they have to learn a new workflow, why not going directly in the competition that by the way will release soon their next versions, more powerfull and matured, instead of sticking with a company that gives any garantee or missed the point in communicating it.

The only solution is to have faith on the brand...? Yes, those reactions went too far IMO, but I can understand it.

Anyway, wish the best to this software. It might be better than we think, it might reveal itself a great product with more time and I'm sure many users will like it and will do wonders with it. It's just not for me.
« Last Edit: June 25, 2011, 03:52:39 AM by fredjeang » Logged
Frank Doorhof
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1521


WWW
« Reply #44 on: June 25, 2011, 01:32:33 PM »
ReplyReply

Been watching the ripple for a few days now, and based my review/opinion on that.
Most of all I'm still VERY positive but miss multicam.
Again (as mentioned before) for MY work it's almost perfect (except MC).

For real pros I can't speak, but I do think a lot of people jumped the gun much too early.
I've read a lot of things that simply aren't true.
Like not being able to take projects on the road with you, We've been doing that with iMovie for some time now, FCPx has the same options.
Same for remarks about missing editing tools, FCP was different without a doubt, but spend a few hours editing with it and I think you will love it.
But as mentioned before I've been a light FCP user and a very light iMovie user (never really liked iMovie but our interns work with it a lot and I finish those projects on my Mac).

I think that Apple will start releasing some extras soon, they will have too Cheesy
Logged
bcooter
Guest
« Reply #45 on: June 25, 2011, 02:28:07 PM »
ReplyReply



snipped

I think that Apple will start releasing some extras soon, they will have too Cheesy



I just received an e-mail from an Apple Store manager I buy from and they have received a few copies of FCP 7 that they are holding for me.

So, read into this however you like, but 4 days ago there was no way to buy a FCP7 and now Apple has them.

There is really no reason to rehash what X is missing or won't do, though I know as of today it doesn't do what I need to do my work.

If you step back and look at it from a distance, I think non linear editors needed some streamlining, even more single program features, but if your going to completely reinvent the system, the new one has to come out of the box with more usability, not less.  Actually much more usability.

I don't buy the 2007 line of "it's a 1.0 system".   Today bad 1.0 anything doesn't get off the starting block unless it's spot on and that holds true for professional as well as consumer devices.   How many people do you know have a Microsoft operating system on their phone, or raise your hands if you plan on buying a blackberry this month.

I think the user response to X is a mind shift we're seeing in every professional device, from cameras, to phones, computers to software. 

This isn't 2007 and people view everything different today.  It's not just the money, (though everyone is watching their money), it's the ROI.   Nobody has a surplus of  time  to try something that may work in a year or so, because today when you put a camera in your hands, or sit down in front of a computer to deliver still or motion imagery, you have to DELIVER. 

Three/Four years ago you would bite.  You'd buy a digital camera, hoping they'd come out with lenses, or a firmware fix.  You'd buy a new software, with the thought of even if it doesn't work you might use it later, but now up and down the chain from clients to content producers nobody is wiling to take any risk.

I was at my editorial house yesterday and asked them if they would go to X and they just shook their heads in a kind of strange amazement that Apple went this direction.  I asked if they would even download one copy to try and like me the response is "who has the time?".

It's not just the money spent, because even if X was a 6 weeks free download, I doubt if anyone I know would have it on their computer.  At least the people I know that make a living at this.  Other than the amusement factor their is no reason to load anything onto a working machine that doesn't work . . . yet.

Whether Apple fixes this or not, is their business, but if they take a year or two to get it up to speed, they will lose a large part of their core base.

That's just the way things are today.

IMO

BC

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

Posts: 1521


WWW
« Reply #46 on: June 25, 2011, 03:12:09 PM »
ReplyReply

Well to be honest I also are learning premiere now just in case.
Won't stay with FCP 7 because I'm afraid it's a dead end and probably premiere will jump at this. But for now and if mc is realized my main workflow could be X.
Logged
tho_mas
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1696


« Reply #47 on: June 25, 2011, 03:34:58 PM »
ReplyReply

t also has completely recreated so much of the workflow in a more efficient way. For anyone who uses Lightroom and works with collections to organize images, that is conceptually how FCPX organizes media, quite fluidly I might say.
is this article about project management in FCPX basically true? Or again a premature conclusion from someone how didn't dive deep enough into the software?


I think non linear editors needed some streamlining, even more single program features, but if your going to completely reinvent the system, the new one has to come out of the box with more usability, not less.  Actually much more usability.
IMO one of the strengths of Avid MC is the workflow and the interface never changed radically. They added new features, more "power" under the roof, new (customizable) workflow options... but basically you can work with the current version almost in the same way as 10 years ago. The next release will be 64bit ... and (most likely) will still look the same. To me, this is a strength... and I think one of the reasons why working with MC is so fast.

Logged
Chris Sanderson
Administrator
Sr. Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1905



« Reply #48 on: June 25, 2011, 03:52:17 PM »
ReplyReply

FCP Studio (old version) is and always has been available at Amazon. But I see there is only one left  Roll Eyes
Logged

Christopher Sanderson
The Luminous-Landscape
Chris Sanderson
Administrator
Sr. Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1905



« Reply #49 on: June 25, 2011, 03:58:40 PM »
ReplyReply

...and, as is generally the case, I pretty much agree with Pogue in the NYTimes
Logged

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

Posts: 1696


« Reply #50 on: June 26, 2011, 09:36:12 AM »
ReplyReply

That J. Harrell rant is what's wrong with people. He bitches and moans but finds the solutions of how to make FCPX work as it was intended, but just bitches and moans more. The application was fundamentally written to be different, to have a workflow differently.
(...)
That guy rants but then answers his own moaning questions. He doesn't want to change his ways, he wants FCPX to change and that ain't going to happen.
Actually I do not agree. He found the solutions how to make FCPX work as intended and he gives well-founded reasons why he is finding the new media management problematic (for instance that FCPX always shows all media all the time - so that a client can see the media of other clients unless you unplug the drive the respective project is stored on).
I also do not understand why the new approach is not a choosable option (instead of the only way to organize a project). What's wrong with bins? In Avid I can throw everything into one single bin or I can choose to create different bins, just as I like to ... and I still can search a project based on keywords (of any kind).

Quote
If people don't like that, then they should seek other software
that's valid for people who start with editing... but hardly for editors and/or production houses whose workflows are based on FCP7's (and almost any other NLE's) capabilities. For instance the whole thing with video and audio-tracks is very far-reaching ... and it's not understandable (to me) why you can't choose a preference to run a sequence in "magnetic" mode without (real) tracks or alternatively in a "traditional" mode.
So again: why not just make it a choosable option?

Maybe choosable options of this kind are too much to ask for with regard to a $300 software, I don't know. I just think it's way to easy say sink or swim.



« Last Edit: June 26, 2011, 09:44:24 AM by tho_mas » Logged
bcooter
Guest
« Reply #51 on: June 26, 2011, 04:39:19 PM »
ReplyReply

From everything that has been written this past week from the why's of development, FCPX was never designed to be the upgrade to FCP7. It simply is the new direction Apple is taking. That's why I say it truly is a take or leave it. Apple's huge mistake was not making that abundantly clear from the start, also dropping FCP7 entirely is another huge mistake. What has transpired is what it is. We will obviously see much more added to FCPX, for no other reason than that's just what software development is, a continual growth. They just chose to start from scratch with a new path of growth. Napalm was laid down on the old forest and they are planting a new Apple utopian forest.



I think we're talking to different groups.

If your a professional user, or work with professional editors, FCP X won't work for you today and probably won't work in the future.

Still, the final result of final cut ten is it's not useable in a professional arena and I doubt if this is  some kind of silly mistake, this is a planned move.

Apple could have made or bought any NLE they want.   After all they bought the original FCP.  

This isn't a shift to a better editor, it's a play to a larger market that wants to work easy.

Apple came at this as if a NLE never existed and no one had ever cut a project prior to this week and there in lies the reasoning.

Apple isn't looking at the professional editors because in the real world AVID really has that covered (and has for a long time) and real professional production is just a drop in the bucket next to the millions of people shooting Youtube and blog videos.

For a lot of people that have never cut a project before this might seem to be a good system, but that just places emphasis on the fact that they don't know what they're missing.

For the rest, it's a scary proposition to know that if you were FCP based all progress stopped last week.

It's even scarier to know there is no way to work with multiple tracks and sequences.

Whether Apple promises to replace some of these functions is irrelevant, since moving to X takes a complete relearn anyway, might as well go to AVID that is made for professional image editing.

Yesterday I finished 4, 1 minute videos that had over 12 tracks and 36 sequences for client review.    

I had to park footage on the timeline to match the client's background colors.

When approved the imagery will go to a secondary source for coloring and back to the sequence for finish.

I made my deadlines, I made a profit, I have it backed up, I can show it on multiple computer and broadcast monitors.

These 4 little videos could not but cut on X, but if I was shooting "girls gone wild", it would have worked.  (Hmmm, why aren't I shooting "girls gone wild"?)

Anyway.

To me the only real problem with Final Cut Pro Ten is they called it Final Cut Pro.  

Actually, had they named it Apple Party Editor  (well I guess ape won't work) or something that didn't make us believe this was a professional application then Apple might have gotten by with this, but for me and thousands like me, this just signals that Apple is not interested in professional motion image production.

Apple should have just fessed up and said "sorry guys, but your just not that large of a market.  We're going to facebook, but here's Avid's phone number, give em a call".

Apple is  looking for the 10 million people that are not like me.

IMO

BC

P.S.   I might be wrong, because I remember saying that when FCP was introduced, AVID is in trouble.  

Wow, has the moused turned.

P.S. 2   I will buy a copy of FCP 7 on Monday.  I've been running 3-6's for a long time and just didn't want to upgrade hoping X would be something useable for me.

Why 7?  Just to be able to work on legacy files, but in a few weeks, when my schedule clears we'll move to Avid.

Why?   Because they only have one agenda and that's to sell to professionals.

« Last Edit: June 26, 2011, 04:44:27 PM by bcooter » Logged
Chris Sanderson
Administrator
Sr. Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1905



« Reply #52 on: June 26, 2011, 09:37:43 PM »
ReplyReply

An excellent (& depressing) follow-up to Pogue's piece in the NYTimes can be found here

My confidence in Apple, the Mac platform & FCP X just got a serious side-swipe.

I urge anyone currently using FCP 7 or contemplating FCP X to read Harrington's Blog.
Logged

Christopher Sanderson
The Luminous-Landscape
bcooter
Guest
« Reply #53 on: June 27, 2011, 12:53:37 AM »
ReplyReply

url]

My confidence in Apple, the Mac platform & FCP X just got a serious side-swipe.



What I said.

IMO

BC
Logged
Chris Sanderson
Administrator
Sr. Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1905



« Reply #54 on: June 27, 2011, 07:01:54 AM »
ReplyReply

Yes, what you and others said.

If you are looking for current alternatives, Alan Tépper has a good simple graphic
« Last Edit: June 27, 2011, 07:18:11 AM by Chris Sanderson » Logged

Christopher Sanderson
The Luminous-Landscape
Chris Sanderson
Administrator
Sr. Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1905



« Reply #55 on: June 27, 2011, 08:51:16 AM »
ReplyReply

FCP guru Larry Jordan's blog illustrates just how badly the FCP X group at Apple handled this introduction
Logged

Christopher Sanderson
The Luminous-Landscape
Chris Sanderson
Administrator
Sr. Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1905



« Reply #56 on: June 27, 2011, 10:33:14 AM »
ReplyReply

I learned a new word today: disintermediation.

Basically: cut out the middle man.

I think the X in FCP X means disintermediation: X the Editor.

Perhaps in the future I will simply put all the terabyte of footage for a project on a cloud-based drive and let others find the tutorial or Video Journal within.

Meantime back to work...

Logged

Christopher Sanderson
The Luminous-Landscape
bcooter
Guest
« Reply #57 on: June 27, 2011, 12:05:04 PM »
ReplyReply

I learned a new word today: disintermediation.

Basically: cut out the middle man.





I think all of these responses come from a premise that Apple made a mistake and I don't think they view it that way.

This isn't a PR problem.  This is the plan.

I don't believe apple's future is professional editors working on broadcast or cinema projects.  That market is covered by specialty software companies.

Apple sees a world where everyone that has angry birds on their phone, cutting their own movies which will play on something like you tube, though don't think that Apple is going to let youtube, vimeo or facebook be the only carrier.

I'm sure the next upgrade to X will be to upload video to I-cloud and played through I-tunes.

I'm sure the next upgrade after that will be an i-pad version.

Apple's not looking at 20,000 users, they're looking at 20 million.

So if you want to cut professionally, FCP is not the way forward.

That doesn't make FCP X bad, it just doesn't make it work for 20,000 people.

Apple owns the kewl imaging market.  they just don't own the heavy lifting imaging market, at least not in motion, at least not with fcp x.

Though the world is changing.

On a movie lot a month ago I saw an editorial trailer between two sound stages and they were ingesting, cutting, coloring and finishing each day's shoot as it was in progress.

Maybe that is where FCP goes, though once again I doubt it. 

I just don't believe FCP X is for heavy lifting and sales of 20,000 anything mean very little to Apple.


IMO

BC
Logged
tho_mas
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1696


« Reply #58 on: June 27, 2011, 03:52:28 PM »
ReplyReply

This isn't a PR problem.  This is the plan.
I am not quite sure.
This implies the presumtion Apple knows everything and doesn't make wrong moves intentionally...

A lot of things would have been easy to implement (I guess) - so even if they want to reach the masses with FCpX (what they certainly want) they could still make this an application approriate for professinal workflows. With features implemented amateurs will never discover (but pros look for from the very beginning) they wouldn't lose potential customers.
This is why I think, yes, they want to reach the masses but they also made mistakes because they simply overlooked the need of certain functionalities.
If that hopefully makes some sense what I am trying to say :-)
Logged
Kirk Gittings
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1547


WWW
« Reply #59 on: June 27, 2011, 06:57:47 PM »
ReplyReply

I know of one major university art school that just canceled their order for the update-to the tune of 150K
Logged

Thanks,
Kirk

Kirk Gittings
Architecture and Landscape Photography
WWW.GITTINGSPHOTO.COM

LIGHT+SPACE+STRUCTURE (blog)
Pages: « 1 2 [3] 4 5 »   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad