Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: « 1 2 3 [4] 5 »   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: New FCP  (Read 15274 times)
Morgan_Moore
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2196


WWW
« Reply #60 on: June 28, 2011, 02:54:12 AM »
ReplyReply

Cooter is right X is fantastic software .. for my mother
Logged

Sam Morgan Moore Cornwall
www.sammorganmoore.com -photography
michael
Administrator
Sr. Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 4731



« Reply #61 on: June 28, 2011, 09:26:25 AM »
ReplyReply

FCP-X bashing is both deserved, and undeserved.

If you're someone like Chris Sanderson, who spends his days editing complex multi-camera video productions then no, X does not hit the spot.

But, I've been learning and working with X for the past week and I must say that for the type of video work that I do it is a brilliant bit of code. My productivity is much higher than with FCP 7, and I hardly know FCP-X yet.

As I see it, Apple screwed the pooch not by releasing X, but by cutting FCP-7 and its tens of thousands of daily users off at the knees.

For hundreds of thousands of people FCP-X is going to be a great video editing tool. For existing FCP-7 professional users who have been abandoned by Apple the only real decision now is whether to switch to Avid or Premier.

Michael

Logged
bcooter
Guest
« Reply #62 on: June 28, 2011, 09:56:40 AM »
ReplyReply

FCP-X bashing is both deserved, and undeserved.

If you're someone like Chris Sanderson, who spends his days editing complex multi-camera video productions then no, X does not hit the spot.

But, I've been learning and working with X for the past week and I must say that for the type of video work that I do it is a brilliant bit of code. My productivity is much higher than with FCP 7, and I hardly know FCP-X yet.

As I see it, Apple screwed the pooch not by releasing X, but by cutting FCP-7 and its tens of thousands of daily users off at the knees.

For hundreds of thousands of people FCP-X is going to be a great video editing tool. For existing FCP-7 professional users who have been abandoned by Apple the only real decision now is whether to switch to Avid or Premier.

Michael

I kinda still don't get it.

OK, I understand apple wants to make an easy software to appeal to a less that involved market, but why would any image maker that aspires to move forward spend the time learning anything, software,  cameras, or computers with so many limitations, that are essentially dumbed down?

It's like learning how to paint with only two colours.   You might get good, it might be faster, definitely easier,  but you'll always be limited to two colours.

It's funny, I know photographers that have added some motion to their work and they'll love X because it's easy.  Though these are the same image makers that never would have learned only a Vivatar 283 for lighting, or ever thought about using photoshop elements or whatever the lite version is  called.

To each his own, but I don't think Apple screwed up, I just think they leveraged a respected brand name to a lesser product.  It's been done before in commerce and it will be done again.

For the next few years Apple can continue to say the Cohen Bros. used it, but in reality the Cohen Bros used another software called Final Cut Pro, not FCP EX.

It's not what  EX does that's bad, it's what it doesn't allow you to do that's the issue, regardless of what level your at.

It's an Aston Martin with a lawnmower motor.  

It looks good, it just doesn't do much, but people can say, yea man, I drive an Aston.

I could almost see it for colouring, or some effects to insert back into a real edit, but it really doesn't do that very well in comparison to the previous software and it doesn't recognize most professional cameras anyway.

Actually I thought maybe it would be fast for a casting, but it only works on one track and one sequence per project.

But for those hundreds of thousands of users that think it's great, they really don't know what they're missing.  

For me that's probably a good thing, for you tube it's gonna be a world of home movies.



IMO

BC







« Last Edit: June 28, 2011, 09:59:57 AM by bcooter » Logged
fredjeang
Guest
« Reply #63 on: June 28, 2011, 10:18:18 AM »
ReplyReply

FCP-X bashing is both deserved, and undeserved.

If you're someone like Chris Sanderson, who spends his days editing complex multi-camera video productions then no, X does not hit the spot.

But, I've been learning and working with X for the past week and I must say that for the type of video work that I do it is a brilliant bit of code. My productivity is much higher than with FCP 7, and I hardly know FCP-X yet.

As I see it, Apple screwed the pooch not by releasing X, but by cutting FCP-7 and its tens of thousands of daily users off at the knees.

For hundreds of thousands of people FCP-X is going to be a great video editing tool. For existing FCP-7 professional users who have been abandoned by Apple the only real decision now is whether to switch to Avid or Premier.

Michael



Didn't want to post any more here because I have just a few months on professional video edition, wich does not give me credits, and because I've not downloaded the FC X. But I do for 2 reasons because it seems to me that there is some confusion and I've actually seen the software in action on a Mac compared to a Premiere Pro CS5 on the same unit with the same footage.

In short, FC X is way behind in terms of speed and overall performance once you work with a certain volume of footage. As my voice means nothing, I'll post this link in Spanish for the people who can understand spanish. It's Jose Luis Tamez, a very knowledgable voice for spanish speakers in this industry and trained in the US by big names. You can trust his words better than mine.

The think is that Jose luis didn't bombed at all FCP X, he is very respectfull about it but clearly explains that it simply dosen't work for him as expected. But something else also: he did the same as I saw and came to exactly the same conclutions: the implementation of the background transcoding is not suitable very fast and therefore makes the workflow unrealistic if you just have a little more volume of footage.  

Worth the listening the video if you understand spanish. It's call: "the myth of the FCP X's real time processing". Very informative: http://www.cinedigital.tv/el-mito-del-procesamiento-en-tiempo-real-de-fcp/
and the video is there for more explainations: http://vimeo.com/25554708

What I'm seeing, is that many people who have been amazed of the FCPX speed and usability compared to FCP 7 don't have a clew of the workflow in what the competition is doing. FCP 7 was an outdated software. I'm not sure people realised how good are Premiere Pro CS5, Avid Media Composer 5, Edius 6...they are really good! It was FCP 7 that hasn't catch up.
The conclusion of what I've seen and what Jose Luis Tamez is saying is when you put it on competition with Premiere Pro for ex, the speed and workflow becomes a myth. Faster than FCP 7? that was not hard to beat. No doubt. But what is currently available while Apple was sleeping in their laurels, others have walked a long way.

Also, a personal argumentation and I disappear from here: Many FCP X defensors are saying that ok, it's not suitable for pros but for the vast majority of us, included some pros but who don't really need the missing features.
I don't buy that. Even if you are not a power user. Why? Time!
Who knows if you won't need those features very soon? Learning a workflow from scratch is time consuming. Yes, those are not Flame or Nuke, but still, weeks and weeks of learning curve. You have to be really really sure you won't need more power very soon because then it will be another new learning curve. Who wants to do that?

I saw in a post more above a comment on Morgan, saying that probably Morgan does not need today more than what FCP X ia able to deliver. I'm not Morgan and can't answer for him, don't know his workflow but I'm prety sure he might want to work with more than one timeline and one sequence, but just looking at his work, it's clear that Morgan is deeply involved into motion and it will grow. Therefore, it's understandable that even if somebody could work today reasonably well with FCP X features, if video is your path, very fast you will be in a dead end and forced to another learning curve. It's perfectly understandable that Morgan don't want to take that risk even if he would love the software (wich I doubt). We don't have time, and the competition offers on the table today way more solid softwares even for beginners and advanced users.

I have those 3 editors in my workstation. All are superb softwares. Avid is IMO the best for heavy stuff (interconnections between plkatforms) and the most logically implemented in terms of editing workflow.
http://www.grassvalley.com/products/edius_6
http://www.adobe.com/es/products/premiere.html?promoid=BPBJH
http://www.avid.com/es/specialoffers/fcppromotion?intcmp=AV-HP-S2

Don't know about Vegas.

And a good 100% free editor that actually allows red workflow http://www.lightworksbeta.com/ that is already much more powefull that FCPX in the sense that it allows you to start beginner and grow until Red workflow, AAF XML workflow right now... It's under windows but they plan a Mac version in the future so keep an eye on it.
The features, very impressive for an open source software: http://www.lightworksbeta.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=108&Itemid=247

Michael, I don't think Autodesk and Resolve are very happy about the Apple "oax" when they put their Smoke unit and Da.Vinci available Mac only. They must be ruminating. And thank god I didn't do the move to Apple when I was hesitating because I wanted the Smoke worflow...thank god I just canceled my order on the last minute! I had a good intuition.

Have a nice evening.

Fred.

« Last Edit: June 28, 2011, 12:01:46 PM by fredjeang » Logged
Paul Barker
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 39


« Reply #64 on: June 28, 2011, 10:19:46 AM »
ReplyReply

I don't think it's got anything to do with what FCPX is capable of. I'm sure Hitchcock could have cut Psycho with it.

As an upgrade to iMovie, it's great and that's what it should have been called. There's nothing wrong with FCPX in itself. The problem with it is completely replacing FC7 studio... with less features and less capabilities. Bit like buying a brand new improved car, that now only has 3 wheels, but hey, it's cheaper!

My gripe is having invested a lot of time and money over the years learning software. I like to be hands on and started with (IIRC) Radius Edit DV, then earlier versions of Premiere, the AE and then a few years ago investing in FCS and maintaining it with upgrades.

And now it's dead and not even supported anymore. Thanks Apple. I think it's an appalling way to treat loyal customers. OK, maybe FC7 is used by a relatively small group of professionals, but why did they spend so much time developing it into an industry standard and boasting about it?

I do use iMovie, just for slinging together a quick holiday vid, but anymore than that, I find its Fisher Price looks and implementation frustrating. But maybe that's just me, a dinosaur stuck in my ways.

So FC7 still works, I can still use it, while the OS supports it, but for how long? I'm now busy crashing my way through the Avid tutorials deciding whether to invest in something that has a future. It just saddens me, but guess that's the price to pay for 'progress'.

Ironically, just before FC was launched, I seem to remember Avid alienating half its customers by declaring they would no long code/support their products for Apple (the platform where it started), instead moving entirely NT. A lot of techs complained that with NT, to troubleshoot a system problem, all disks had to be connected, so you couldn't just swap a drive with footage to another machine and carry on editing.

In the end, Avid saw reason and dropped plans to abandon Apple. But I'm sure they have lost a lot of customers to FC, now perhaps, they are going to get them all back again, unless Apple sees reason.... but I'm not hopeful.

All IMO, YMMV.
Logged
Chris Sanderson
Administrator
Sr. Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1830



« Reply #65 on: June 28, 2011, 12:17:04 PM »
ReplyReply

From Larry Jordan's blog:

In FCP X, Apple got some things amazingly right. But they also got key features amazingly wrong. And if they don’t change course, this software, which has significant potential, is going to spin further and further out of control. At which point, its feature set is irrelevant, its reputation will be set. We’ll be looking at another Mac Cube.

I believe its reputation is now pretty much set...
Logged

Christopher Sanderson
The Luminous-Landscape
bcooter
Guest
« Reply #66 on: June 28, 2011, 12:48:35 PM »
ReplyReply

From Larry Jordan's blog:

In FCP X, Apple got some things amazingly right. But they also got key features amazingly wrong. And if they don’t change course, this software, which has significant potential, is going to spin further and further out of control. At which point, its feature set is irrelevant, its reputation will be set. We’ll be looking at another Mac Cube.

I believe its reputation is now pretty much set...



Prior to FCP (the original FCP) Avid and Media 100 kind of had this view of this is the way we do it so take it or leave it.

Then FCP turned the world upside down because macromedia and apple listened and gave us options for 1/500th of the cost we could only imagine before.

Now it's kind of the opposite.

Avid listens, Media 100 is virtually gone and Apple says take it or leave it.

Doesn't make any sense.

IMO

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

Posts: 1692


« Reply #67 on: June 28, 2011, 01:29:55 PM »
ReplyReply

"the myth of the FCP X's real time processing"
imagine Apple in fact incorporates multicam soon.
with the footage of 9 hd cameras (or even just 3) and automated background rendering the software will certainly not be very responsive... I guess.
Logged
John.Murray
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 893



WWW
« Reply #68 on: June 28, 2011, 01:34:09 PM »
ReplyReply

I've not downloaded the FC X. But I do for 2 reasons because it seems to me that there is some confusion and I've actually seen the software in action on a Mac compared to a Premiere Pro CS5 on the same unit with the same footage.

I have both (premiere is a trial) and my impression so far is the opposite.  I'm RAM limited (8GB  Macbook Pro) without out knowing  a specific setup to compare it's hard to say.  FCPX just feels more responsive overall.  Probably because of my comfort with Lightroom - file managment is definately easier; I can take care of everything within the app.  I feel like I can achieve a given task faster and more efficiently than with Premiere - my skill level with both being the same - rank beginner.

The one worrisome thing for me is the lack of Closed Caption support in FCPX (my wife is deaf) - very possibly a deal breaker.....
« Last Edit: June 28, 2011, 01:53:29 PM by John.Murray » Logged

fredjeang
Guest
« Reply #69 on: June 28, 2011, 01:59:14 PM »
ReplyReply

I have both (premiere is a trial) and my impression so far is the opposite.  Possibly I'm RAM limited (8GB  Macbook Pro) without out knowing  a specific setup to campare it's hard to say.  FCPX just feels more responsive overall.  Probably because of my comfort with Lightroom - file managment is definately easier.  I feel like I can achieve a task faster and more efficiently than with Premiere - my skill level with both being the same.

Jose Luis Tamez is a reliable source. I trust his analysis. What he basically said is that if you work with a limited amount of clip you will probably find FCPx faster. But the problem is when you ingest in the software, volume, let's say an hour of footage.
I've actually seen exactly what Jose luis saw in fast unit friend who's working with FCP 7 and is a Mac fan and today's boiling in flames but I didn't dare posting because of my limited training on video but when I saw the Tamez's post I thought it could be interesting to know, he even pointed that it took them hours before they could start editing properlly with volume while it was instantaneous on Premiere CS5.
Basically, the background rendering can't handle a lot so what is happening is that it is oversolicitated and what was supposed to happen in background without thinking about it actually ended to slow down the all process.
With some hollidays footages nobody will notice it but the moment you want to work in serious it is almost impossible.
The computer was a Mac Pro with doble processor 2.6ghz con 16 cores, 24 gb ram with external raid e-sata of 4gb de capacidad, equiped 2 video cards nvidia gtx 285 1 gb ram and one Geforce GT 120 with 512 Mb ram. A solid unit but not crazyly solid.

Honestly, the software might have goodies, brilliant ideas inside but I would spend a new workflow's time on something more stable, even if didn't need the pro features.  
« Last Edit: June 28, 2011, 02:08:53 PM by fredjeang » Logged
fredjeang
Guest
« Reply #70 on: June 28, 2011, 03:42:19 PM »
ReplyReply

What I particularly like with Avid is that I import footage in AMA, wich gives instant workflow. Then I transcode the files I'm going to edit in DNxHD from the bins. The very powerfull thing of this editing format is that even in its higher resolution in 10bits, the transcoding is really fast and the playback never slowdown while quality is high. On a limited 4 years old computer I can work 10 bits with DNxHD 422 brodacast standart and not one time it would slowdown while if I edit in native it will, depending on the source. With a fast computer it won't slowdown in native. (the very worse in that aspect is AVCHD but fair enough it's not an editing format, by far slower than Red despite the convertion involved)

The transcoding in Avid is impressively fast and flexible (from bin, transcode when and what you want).

Send AAF to anything, to Smoke to Scratch, to Premiere etc... as long as the format size-speed is respected to avoid issues. It's all clean. It bloody works.

If you are going to start from learning a new workflow I would recommend Avid without hesitation. As James said, these are not the Avids of years ago. They learned and listened.

fun with avid: http://vimeo.com/groups/6159/videos/17170026

Good night (here is a damn hot nite) to all.
 
« Last Edit: June 28, 2011, 04:14:54 PM by fredjeang » Logged
tho_mas
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1692


« Reply #71 on: June 28, 2011, 04:02:08 PM »
ReplyReply

What I particularly like with Avid is that I import footage in AMA, wich gives instant workflow. Then I transcode the files I'm going to edit in DNxHD from the bins. The very powerfull thing of this editing format is that even in its higher resolution in 10bits, the transcoding is really fast and the playback never slowdown. On a limited 4 years old computer I can work 10 bits with DNxHD 422 brodacast standart and not one time it would slowdown while if I edit in native it will, depending on the source. (the very worse in that aspect is AVCHD but fair enough it's not an editing format, by far slower than Red despite the convertion involved)
The transcoding in Avid is impressively fast.

Good night (here is nite) to all.
 
I was just about to write the same :-)
"Import" through AMA is actually no import... you just link the files and Avid can playback the files through a (built in) plugin instantly.
Editing with Full HD QT files linked through AMA works amzingly good on my computer (and it's just an 8core 2.26GHz Nehalem). AMA works with quite a wide range of formats, including QT, XDCAM, MXF, P2, Red and others.
However for best performance (if you want to work with effects and multiple tracks) it's better to transcode to an Avid codec. The nice thing here is: you can first transcode the footage to a low res codec (DNxHD36 or so). So the files will be quite small and editing even with a massive amount of tracks goes fluently. When your edit is finished you consolidate/transcode only the actual sequence (with customizable handle lenght at head and tails of each clip if you want to) to a high res codec (DNxHD whatever 10bit). So a typical offline/online workflow... just within the same system.
So Avid - just as FCP / FCPX - works best in it's own codec. But it offers a wide variety of options to speed up your workflow based on the particular requirements of the actual project.
« Last Edit: June 28, 2011, 04:10:33 PM by tho_mas » Logged
Frank Doorhof
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1513


WWW
« Reply #72 on: June 29, 2011, 12:49:55 AM »
ReplyReply

@Johns,
Deselect the stabilize option, that can take very long.
Comparing that to MPEG streamclip is like comparing a 80MP RAW file that goes through filtering to an iPhone JPEG going straight to preview Cheesy

When you just convert Final Cut X is rather fast.
Logged
Chris Sanderson
Administrator
Sr. Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1830



« Reply #73 on: June 29, 2011, 02:24:54 PM »
ReplyReply

For those interested in the why? & how? of FCP X - there is a deceptively simple answer:

It's the metadata, stupid!

This is a concept more easily understood by those of us who use Lightroom and goes a long way to explaining how & why Apple has re-written Final Cut.

Philip Hodgetts has written an excellent $5 PDF e-booklet titled Conquering the metadata foundations of Final Cut Pro X. There is a free ToC and Chapter here.

Highly recommended reading for those of us still puzzling over the surprising debacle of the FCP X launch.

Even though the core FCP engineers got it, it strikes me that a whole bunch of others at Apple did not. A little explanation goes a long way!
« Last Edit: June 29, 2011, 02:27:37 PM by Chris Sanderson » Logged

Christopher Sanderson
The Luminous-Landscape
John.Murray
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 893



WWW
« Reply #74 on: June 30, 2011, 12:59:51 AM »
ReplyReply

@Chris

Agreed! If nothing else, a quick skim of the link to Philip Hodgetts' book will give you an idea of how it's organized.  It's curious; Apple just doesn't get "evangelism".  Consider Adobe and Lightroom - they got early copies in the hands of people whose opinions matter.  Anyone remember Michael and Jeff's early opinions here?  They helped define and refine our expectations.

Contrast that with Apple deciding to share working code with people able to write about it less than a month before release.....

Another interesting exchange between Phillip and Steve Miller in the comments section (again, it's great to read about others workflow):

http://chrisfenwick.squarespace.com/home/2011/6/28/fcpx-by-steve-miller.html

For me, an absolute neophyte, I'm faced with some major choices - some of which will determine hardware purchases in the near future.  Obviously, if I choose anything other than FCP X - I'm free to go the Windows route (again, I'm an IT consultant, MSDN and Intel Channel Partner).  I can easily build a full equivalent to any Mac Pro offering for roughly 1/2 to 2/3 the cost.  Still, running both Premiere 5.5 and FCPX, I'm finding a lot to like about FCP X.
« Last Edit: June 30, 2011, 01:09:59 AM by John.Murray » Logged

Frank Doorhof
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1513


WWW
« Reply #75 on: June 30, 2011, 01:12:20 AM »
ReplyReply

Main problem with X is that it's already almost destroyed by some people.
Everyone I hear is steering away from X without trying it, and those are the guys now using FCE or iMovie.

From day 1 I've been playing with FCPx and fell in love with it, not for the animated cuts and moves but the sheer speed, it's a delight to work with, als the real time viewing of color effects and filters. I've heard/read several people complain about FCPx and although some of their remarks are true, a LOT are based on non information. One podcast was ranting about blending modes missing (ridiculous, how could they etc.) to find out 4 minutes later that it was still there, the rant continued that it was in a ridiculous place. To be honest I LOVE the inspector tab.

I do have to add that I don't have any routine experience with FCP, I've cut several instructional DVDs on it, did some videoclips and privat videos.
A while ago I switched to iMovie voor the backstage videos because my interns work easier with iMovie and let's be honest for the backstage videos we don't need more, I really liked the no nonsense approach from iMovie and found me looking at FCP like there was so much that I would never touch.

With X there is A LOT missing for the high end production companies without a doubt, but how much larger is the market for the people like me (and more aimed at video, I'm still a photographer), just one/two workstations and max 2 people working on a project, we don't export to protools, or broadcast, or protools.

And even then a lot of the XML and protools rants have been solved by Automatic Duck, but because it's a third party supplier it seems they don't feel that a solution, for me Apple has moved in a new direction, they have a 1.0 release (bit of a beta to taste what will happen), You will probably see more third party releases that hook on to X and make the program more and more customizable. If you're like me that's a gift, I don't need XML, tape, extensive color etc. so I can CHOOSE not to buy those, however I do want Multicam (who doesn't) and I can CHOOSE to expand X with that plugin when it comes available.

Yes X is totally different in some form.
I don't think it's iMovie in steroids, on the other hand Photoshop is also Paint on steroids.

It's a new program and the main problem for Apple is that it's already destroyed by people from day 1, who are now slowly saying they do like some stuff, but I'm afraid the blow is already done, Apple should have communicated from the start that they are releasing MC, XML etc. this summer maybe that would have solved some problems. Same with the drivers for AJA etc. silence (Apple) is never a good option, they could have made sure that they released with the drivers already in place a month later, OR they could have said "Guys, you can testdrive X now, but wait at least 1-2 months before we upgrade to use it in a pro situation) I think the whole response wave would have been different by then.

Logged
bcooter
Guest
« Reply #76 on: June 30, 2011, 03:39:22 AM »
ReplyReply

Main problem with X is that it's already almost destroyed by some people.

big snip



The problem with FCP X is not the buzz, or disinformation.

The problem with FCP X is it doesn't have the features of FCP 6/7 and does not work in a professional atmosphere and no I'm not talking about edit to tape, or edl.

One person in our studio that is Mac everything, phone, pad, computers, screens, software . . . heck if apple made a car he'd drive it and he asked apple for a refund of FCP X.

As much as I dislike the new FCP I originally  thought it was a good move to go for a larger market.

Today, I don't think so.  It's early yet, but X seems to fall in nowhere land.  It's more difficult than Imovie (which is free) it's features aren'y really professional so the artist can't really grow, so I understand the comparison with FCP X and the Apple Cube.

Even if you never use the features of fcp 7, Avid or Premier, you can at least start a project in those programs and lay it off to someone more advanced.  With X your stuck.

I really believe Apple answered a question that nobody asked.

Frank,

You work in a closed loop.  Your videos are for your own use and to your own design, so it may work for you (though I don't think you really understand what your missing).

But once your in a position  to cut for money, or work with outside sources, or have to shoot 4:4:4 cameras, or 4k,  then you realize that how limiting a system it is.

A NLE that doesn't allow for export of multiple sound tracks doesn't work . . . period.  A 4k NLE that won't accept 4k footage doesn't work . . . period.

You mentioned it transcoded dslr footage quickly as long as there is no stabilization, filters or effects.  Transcoding compressed dslr footage in not a big leap and doesn't take much equipment.  As Chris mentioned MPEG streamclip is free and does it easier than any program I've tried, but that's 2k dslr footage.  Try transcoding 4k 5k red files in fcp.  Actually FCP 7 would read a RED file, FCP EX won't.

I could continue, but the best way I can explain this to you is you have an I phone right?  So why not us it for all your photography?   I mean it's got a lens, a good lcd and unlike your other cameras you can e-mail each image around the world with the touch of a button.

So the Apple way for shooting photography is better . . . right?

Look, it doesn't mean a thing to me if Apple sells 20 or 20 million copies of FCP EX.   

But don't blame the messengers, blame the message.

IMO

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

Posts: 1513


WWW
« Reply #77 on: June 30, 2011, 05:05:23 AM »
ReplyReply

Thanks BC, always love to read your replies.
Maybe we have a problem of the written word, or I don't explain it correctly.

Let me try to make it more bolt...

At the moment X is probably aimed at persons like me.
We're doing backstage videos, an occasional music video, some demo videos, instructional videos etc.
All done by max 2 people (often only one).
As X is now I really miss multicam but I can work arround it because motion is maybe 1% of my workflow.

What I think would make X good enough for the future and people like you and others is that there will be a LOT (and read a LOT) of 3rd party people starting to write addons. Like automatic duck now already has, but let's say there will be a multicam solution from Apple and from company Y. As I understand now the new way X is writen makes it possible for 3rd parties to not only write simple filters but also some deeper add ons, in a sence making it for example possible to add things to the program in a different way than before.

I could be 100% wrong of course, I trust your vision on motion much more than mine and I always listen to the people working in that area.
Again we are just venturing into motion and it's all in the startup fase, all DSLR and 1-2 people working on a project from begin to finish, and at the moment no demands for heavy colorgrading, broadcast etc. when that happens I'm sure I will run into big problems you are 100% right but at that moment I hope there will be add ons that really work.

For the time being (not being stupid Cheesy) I also installed Premiere and am learning that one.
FCP is a dead end for me, I'm not experienced enough in Final Cut Pro yet to do things blind (pun intended), and can probably switch very easily to Premiere within a few days, so as a backup I'm learning Premiere and will switch immediately when we have demands for more.

Hope this explains it a bit more.
In short there must be a truckload of addons coming out, otherwise x will probably end up as the "perfect" consumer product. Because for the consumer it's pretty "cool". Cheesy
Logged
tho_mas
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1692


« Reply #78 on: June 30, 2011, 05:21:46 AM »
ReplyReply

What I think would make X good enough for the future and people like you and others is that there will be a LOT (and read a LOT) of 3rd party people starting to write addons.
so a software that is practically a motley assortment of tools from different suppliers. Thinking about technical support I can't imagine this is going to be a good and "reliable" solution.
Logged
Frank Doorhof
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1513


WWW
« Reply #79 on: June 30, 2011, 05:29:39 AM »
ReplyReply

Depends on the way it works.
I also don't have problems with Photoshop and I really use some plugins very extensively.
Logged
Pages: « 1 2 3 [4] 5 »   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad