Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: « 1 ... 3 4 [5]   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: New FCP  (Read 17599 times)
John.Murray
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 893



WWW
« Reply #80 on: June 30, 2011, 10:59:53 AM »
ReplyReply

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.

A perfect description of Photoshop, or for that matter FCP 7 Cheesy
Logged

pschefz
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 244


« Reply #81 on: July 01, 2011, 01:20:18 AM »
ReplyReply

i find all this very confusing...every day i read that fcpX does not do this and then i read that it DOES do it...that it does not do that and apple comes out saying it WILL do that.....i have been using aperture for a while now and can relate to some of the frustrations voiced here (and everywhere...)
and yes, at this point it is clear that somehow apple has completely messed up this release...and i don't necessarily mean the software but everything about this seems screwed up....actually: again, except the software....because it does what it promises to do very well...

someone said hitchcock could have cut birds on it...i guess that does not matter since most clients arent interested in birds but the perfectly PC version that plays well with red and blue states....so actually the un-birds....

it will be interesting to see where all this is at in a year from today...because james is of course correct, apple wants 20mill users and more.....and they are already starting 20mill users off on imovie and let's not forget imovie for iphone and ipad which is what kids are growing up on....and fcpX is the next logical step for them...

somehow i get the feeling the people screaming the loudest right now are the ones who are simply afraid to see that a lot of their work will simply vanish the way service bureaus and printers have vanished....easier workflow means more in house production, lower budgets, less people working on these projects...
Logged

schefz.com
artloch.com
Frank Doorhof
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1524


WWW
« Reply #82 on: July 01, 2011, 01:42:06 AM »
ReplyReply

Did a first "real" edit on X yesterday.
Just a backstage video but still enough to testdrive some things.

Some things that I loved/hated :

Positive:
The way you edit is a huge improvement, you can still A/B (normal/blade) the clips and delete or backspace (gap or autoclose), but even better is to just drag edit the clips, you can always go back and redo the drag or cut, this is a much faster way to edit.

Compound clips are incredibly fun to work with. Make a complex edit, just make a compound clip and edit it as one clip, meaning one click to add effects etc. Not happy with something ? just double clip the compound clip and you can make the changes in the original edit, make compound again and you're back in the normal edits with effects.

Speed is much faster that FCP7, real time editing is now possible with effects, color etc. Run the clip and see live what happens.

Playing with color, saturation, filters etc. has become a breeze of fresh air, everything is simple to achieve (some people will hate this, but why make it difficult if it can be easy) because you see what you're doing. I love the way you can manipulate the "curves" of the color on three points makes it easy to make a nice custom color.

Negative :
I REALLY want two viewers. I'm used to using a 40" LCD on top of 2 other monitors. In FCP7 I could see the viewer AND a large preview. Now I can see the large viewer on the 40" but I can't see the edit anymore, so looking up and looking down. In the end I settled for the viewer on the mainscreen (so working on 1 monitor) and the events on the second monitor, when a clip needed to be watched on the 40" I switched to viewer on separate monitor, it does work but I think it would be a small task to make the option of 2 viewers.

Sometimes without any reason I can't seem to be able to work in the viewer anymore. The image doesn't move when I scrub the time line, but when I press play on the viewer it does move, happend 2 times yesterday, a simple quit start solved it.

Timeline=story line means you can add effects on the storyline but not on the second storyline (the tracks above the storyline) this makes no sense, now I will just make all the tracks storylines and I can add all the effects I want ?? why not just make them all storylines, or just add the option to add effects to all of the "tracks", but maybe I'm missing something.

Can't import MPEG files. I tried to import a MPEG file (done in compressor), Premiere 5.0 does open it but needs to render it first (that's ok) FCPx doesn't even open it, I need to first make it QT and than it imports. It's a bit weird that they do support the most compressed junk from iPhones, HDV, 5DMKII etc. but not the standard MPEG (hope I'm doing something wrong), it's not a big deal but I would love to have a real import all option. Thanks to MPEG streamclip it's no problem of course.

Real time editing on my MacPro8/16GB HT was ok but you could see that on some moments it was a bit hard on the machine, I have to add that I was trying to see what would happen when I added 3-4 effects on top of each other, at that moment the machine slowed down a bit in the dissolves BUT without any effects or just 2 it did not slow down.


Overal the first editing session was a succes, love the worfklow, it's not as dumb-down as some people claim, but it is very easy to learn. I guess that if you have limited editing experience or a bit of experience that FCPx will be a breath of fresh air compared to both FCP and iMovie, for me the way the effects work is a gift, I love to see what I'm doing (like in Photoshop) and hate to wait for rendering. 
Again as mentioned before I REALLY understand why people hate X compared to FCP so this is in NO way a defence plea for X, but I do find it fair to also show some of the positive stuff. I started 100% open with FCPx and decided to look at it with a fresh approach, I don't expect it to be FCP7, I don't expect it to be iMovie and when I think about the options for add ons and the workflow/editing/effects changes I do think that if we fast forward 1-2 years this product can be HUGELY successful also in the pro market, it's just such a departure from FCP7 and Premiere that WHEN it clicks, you probably will have a hard time to go back.... for me after 1 more "real" edit it starts to click and I like it. But again I really do understand that there is too much missing at the moment for some of the pro editors, but WHEN that gets added by Apple or 3rd party developers.... Cheesy
Logged
bcooter
Guest
« Reply #83 on: July 01, 2011, 03:08:24 AM »
ReplyReply

I have this feeling that Apple let Final Cut Pro stretch out on the sofa, drinking beer and eating pizza for 5 years in the basement while Avid and Premier we're at the gym working out, earning money and working hard.

Then all of a sudden Apple went "oh S*&t, we're way behind the other guys so instead of just getting as good, we'll adopt that kid next door, I-movie.   He's young, he's fast and looks pretty good so we'll  dress him up and call him Final Cut Pro and say we reinvented video editing."

That'll do it and for most of Apple's dslr market it will, so no problem, no complaints, especially from me, because I don't need it.

I do  think they kind of missed the point of 3 point editing, clip viewers, canvas and multiple sequences, but it won't matter to most of their market because they don't know what those things are anyway.

In reality I can promise you successful editorial houses aren't afraid of FCP EX.

Like everyone they've already been hit by the recession and the good houses have survived, some good one's haven't, but a cheaper, easier software won't effect them in the positive or negative, now or in the future.

Regardless, not that many professional editorial houses we're 100% running on Final Cut Pro in any version, though most have a few systems of 6 or 7 around.

Most serious work is cut on Avid.

The market the FCP EX is not aimed at the serious editing for money market . . . at least today.  Maybe someday, but I have my doubts.

I don't care about EX because it doesn't do what I have on my computers at the moment and out of the 12 client requests per video it can only perform functions of about half that. 

I don't have time to list everything, but I have 5 videos in production at this moment, (some in house, some outsourced) and another series of 5 videos to be shot in the next month.

None can be done completely on the current FCP EX so me, my clients and the editorial houses I work with aren't really worried by this software, even if it was full featured.

In fact my client's don't even know it exists and when they come to an edit they expect to walk into an edit suite with multiple screens, a real time network and soft chairs where they make their decisions in real time.

They don't sit at a desk and look at an I-mac.

Professional editing is much more than the NLE, just like interesting image creations is much more than a camera or a light. 

It's a complete professional method of working from concept to delivery, with heavy investment in hardware, space and talent so saving $400 on a NLE seat really doesn't effect the professional houses.

IMO

BC


Logged
fredjeang
Guest
« Reply #84 on: July 01, 2011, 08:42:55 AM »
ReplyReply

James is absolutly right.

It is true that FCP had certainly been present in number of edit houses, but let's also be honest. Here in the tv and cine industry, the NLE softwares are Avid and Grass Valley Thomson. Yeah they have FCP units but the main editor still is Avid and specially since the MC 5 released, it is even more Avid. But as James said, motion post prod is much more than just an NLE.

For a lot of professionals in this industry, they couldn't care less about what Apple is doing or not doing. It's simply not their business.

Actually, if what we really want was to impress clients we would be much more successfull with a Smoke unit workflow because it looks much more impressive and faster to be honest. But people don't even care what it is.

The TV boys really impress me in the incredible knowledge they have on Avid, they know everything like engineers, they know all the tricks and how to resolve every situation. Rarelly talk about FCP.

I don't think pros are really frightened about the fact that FCP X could make the editing so easy for everyone that we will see gran'ma taking the work from the current pros.
Because it already happens in the low-end like in still and sorry but the software involved is called Adobe Premiere Pro because it is one of the best and most easily pirated and kids won't pay 800 bucks but not even 250 for youtubing or training.

The target is not the kid who will be the tomorrow's Visconti; the target is 1: the 30 years old new rich metrosexual executive wich Apple will suits well in the designed living room.

and 2: the current photographer who's in Mac like 99% of the photographers and wants video as an extra but without wanting the harsh learning. It's the short way, the easy way... relax today generally means painfull in the future...I don't have advice to give to anybody except maybe this one.

And once someone has done his little indy stuff or commercial movies for the district mall or friend's company, the workflow to grow is such that most of those people will never go further. Too much to learn and learn in team is another story. I'm in the middle of it and beleive me, it's serious work and no fun, and people want fun. Nobody has time for exploring unfinished and uncertain products even if it features any famous logo.  We are not in 2005 anymore.

FCP X is no way putting fear anywhere, it's just IMO in a no man's land.. or more exactly, in the land of cloud, myspace, myface and mybottom. And it will do it the cool and fast way, and some people will start to writte codes, mini programs, they will create cool social reds, they will have a lot of fun and Apple a lot of money, yes...

you know:

7 years ago, you entered an Apple store and what did you see? Arquitects, designers, photographers, paintors...more or less Apple customers where the creatives of the image industry, mostly independant structures, the free-lance, the arquitect studio...but they where not the big prod houses. We where well received, customers where a sort of discrete fashionable people, the independant artists.

Now you go and it's a very different picture. It's a toy store. Still has the cool effect but just a toy store totally massified. They receive you like crap (to be gentle), you have to cue, they don't have the pro equipments in stock so you have to order, customer service stinks etc etc...It's not the Apple I've known. It's Windows politics 10 years ago with a better interface, fancy gadget and cooler design.

Apple has changed. It's a phone house.

The world too has changed.
« Last Edit: July 01, 2011, 11:02:13 AM by fredjeang » Logged
UlfKrentz
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 308


WWW
« Reply #85 on: July 05, 2011, 12:18:57 PM »
ReplyReply

As expected, just got an info: Adobe is starting a special PremierePro CS5.5 crossgrade promo for fcp and avid users, price cut 50%, valid through 30th of september, details to be annouced soon. Seems they take their chance and let their pro market grow...

Cheers, Ulf
Logged
BFoto
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 241



WWW
« Reply #86 on: July 05, 2011, 01:22:02 PM »
ReplyReply

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?

Because thats what apple does with everything they produce, dumb down version of everything IMO.
Logged

bcooter
Guest
« Reply #87 on: July 06, 2011, 02:07:02 AM »
ReplyReply

As expected, just got an info: Adobe is starting a special PremierePro CS5.5 crossgrade promo for fcp and avid users, price cut 50%, valid through 30th of september, details to be annouced soon. Seems they take their chance and let their pro market grow...

Cheers, Ulf

Adobe has a lock on a lot of specialized motion work with after effects and photoshop.

It's the Premier thing that you have to be concerned about, especially if your on a Mac Platform.  It's not that it's not good, it's just different, but does as much as FCP7 and is the only forward path for fcp users that want to migrate legacy projects to a faster system.

The only thing that would worry me is It seems that Adobe and Apple don't play that nice anymore and Premier has three steps up on FCP EX, because it's more professional, it's just as fast or faster, it integrates with adobes suite and it's a lot easier to add a send to face book button on a professional program than it is to take an amateur program like FCP EX and make it professional.

How long will apple let Adobe play on their computers?   Who knows because it's a very proprietary world in digital creation and if Apple didn't care how any NLE would effect FCP EX, they would have kept selling FCP 7.

FCP EX is fine if your playing around but as of today you can't do client driven projects with it. 

Even the facebook crowd wants to "look" talented and important, even if they're not.

Some people feel abandoned for the consumer market, some people feel apple is playing the long game, thinking this is where video editing is going.

I think apple is pulling another "force you to change" and this time their are too many options for virtually the same price once you add all the different pieces to make fcp EX even close to usable.

Whether you ever need the ability to "go pro" and do what avid and premier can do, is not the issue.  What if you want to move your project to someone that is pro?  If your working in EX you can't, cause the pros are busy using systems that work and I haven't heard of an editorial house that is even considering FCP EX.

I think Apple makes a good operating system, they also make cool looking stuff sold at a premium, but they don't write the best software and haven't ever written a professional ap from scratch that moved the mass professionals over to their team.

But this forced change is something apple just sneaks in and everyone accepts it.  We've seen it from firewire to thunderbolt.

What I don't understand is why the PC world can't attack apple head on with a slicked out hardware/software product that is backward and forward capable and has the style of an apple product.

Anyway . . .

If Apple is right and in 5 years everyone is working on something that looks like EX then fine, I'll switch back, though this time I think apple has finally hit the wall.

Apple is too stubborn to admit they had a great product in FCP 7, that they just needed more speed and less gamma issues, but overall it was intuitive, smart and dead solid stable.

Even if they wanted to write a 64 bit FCP 8, it will be too late, the migration will be complete and it will be an AVID, Premier world . . . at least for professionals working in motion.


IMO

BC
Logged
fredjeang
Guest
« Reply #88 on: July 06, 2011, 04:48:11 AM »
ReplyReply

http://www.avid.com/US/about-avid/customer-stories/RTVE

The Spanish national tv completly re-equipted by Avid. It must have been a huge contract indeed and a reference, the spanish TV is for ex a much more important structure than the french or german because spanish is the second occidental spoken lenguage and RTVE is far from being just a small country tv but a reference in this industry.

I think this is where the Avid target mainly stands. The pros, from a simple indy cineast to a big national TV. CBS also works with Avid.

The very good think about Avid is that the systems are similar. Once you're trained on MC, the learning curve adquired is stable. Same as solutions like ISIS etc...there are different powers for different needs.
It means that someone who invert in Avid basic, can grow without limits but without having to relearn from sratch anything. Every upgrade is within a familiar interface and the transitions are smooth.

I find the system extremely stable and gives a sensation of confidence in the money spent.

About Media Composer, what really amazes me is the versatility of the workflow. It allows more ways to do a same task successfuly. In other words, it would suit different kinds of operator's styles. DNxHD codec is really good. CBS uses the 145 : http://www.avid.com/US/about-avid/customer-stories/60-Minutes

My backup or second editor is Edius 6. Really good and fast and probably the only true other professional editor (don't jump at me on this because I know that Premiere and Vegas are also used perfectly by pros but they are first consummer products). AVCHD native editing and batch transcoding if needed in a click and probably the most intuitive multicam workflow to date. Very good alternative to Avid. http://vimeo.com/26040740 and http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mcrbHB3q0DI highly recommended to evaluate if Avid is not your cup of tea.

I've been told that Vegas is very good too. In fact it seems that they are all good NLE.
« Last Edit: July 06, 2011, 07:02:59 AM by fredjeang » Logged
pschefz
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 244


« Reply #89 on: July 06, 2011, 04:37:12 PM »
ReplyReply

so in which way did fcpX turn premier into a suddenly better product? i do think their stabilisation software is amazing but if you did not want to go to adobe before fcpX came out, why would you now?
i am trying to stay away from ps (and the whole CS suite) as much as possible...i know it is not possible...yet...but i am really hoping there is something better in our future....
i really would not worry too much about any adobe product not running on mac....support is already pretty bad and it does not seem like adobe is putting a lot of effort in supporting mac...but they always slap something together a few months late and charge too much for it....and we have to pay because it is the only game in town....so why should they change that? and in reality apple can't afford to loose them or cut them out completely....

for my part...i was excited about fcpx, wanted to get it the first day, still haven't gotten around to it and am a little less enthousiastic about it because of all the bad press...i am sure it will do what i need it to do and i am sure there will be some things it won't right now mostly because it seems like that with any software these days....or maybe it is just me pushing the limits (which does not seem too hard with fcpx)....
so when i have a couple of evenings/nights i will bite the bullet and dive in.....in the long run, it is the future....i hope...
Logged

schefz.com
artloch.com
fredjeang
Guest
« Reply #90 on: July 06, 2011, 04:57:45 PM »
ReplyReply

so in which way did fcpX turn premier into a suddenly better product? i do think their stabilisation software is amazing but if you did not want to go to adobe before fcpX came out, why would you now?
i am trying to stay away from ps (and the whole CS suite) as much as possible...i know it is not possible...yet...but i am really hoping there is something better in our future....
i really would not worry too much about any adobe product not running on mac....support is already pretty bad and it does not seem like adobe is putting a lot of effort in supporting mac...but they always slap something together a few months late and charge too much for it....and we have to pay because it is the only game in town....so why should they change that? and in reality apple can't afford to loose them or cut them out completely....

for my part...i was excited about fcpx, wanted to get it the first day, still haven't gotten around to it and am a little less enthousiastic about it because of all the bad press...i am sure it will do what i need it to do and i am sure there will be some things it won't right now mostly because it seems like that with any software these days....or maybe it is just me pushing the limits (which does not seem too hard with fcpx)....
so when i have a couple of evenings/nights i will bite the bullet and dive in.....in the long run, it is the future....i hope...

Paul, really I don't get it. I'm trying from all angles and it doesn't match. I mean you're far from being a novice and your imagery is elaborate and personaly I think very talented. What do you find so attractive and a bet for the future in the Apple path?

Are you ready to work with one timeline and one sequence per project?
The communication between platforms is something really serious. At my level, we use it all the time and it becomes very fast a necessity. It would just be unworkable.

You're going to dive in a learning curve from scratch but it's like diving in unknown waters blind. Yes, we can find a sort of Bond attitude: I dare, I take the risk, and if it does not work I still can see myself drinking my Martini Vodka shaked in the reflection of the new white Lion's glossy screen...turned off since weeks.  

What Apple understands that others no? I've been reading everything and still can't get the point of the Apple choice. Even if they know something right now we don't, Avid, Grass Valley, Premiere and Sony will take the train anyway if it's worth, probably doing it progressively.

?

All the pros, power users, or indy guys (I just realised that there were no girls, mmm...) I've been talking to here are burning in Flame like the Neron's persecutions about this release and some are Apple crazy fans to the absurd who just couldn't be able to stand a PC workstation at less than 10 miles away...none is going to use it by any means.

I really think that this time Apple did a bug and not so much a visionary move.

Time will tell.
« Last Edit: July 06, 2011, 05:20:24 PM by fredjeang » Logged
ziocan
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 427


« Reply #91 on: July 06, 2011, 05:20:30 PM »
ReplyReply

We can shoot and produce a feature film without even touching the editing thing.
You can hire either the kid, the good guy or the guy with the soft couches and the miramax editing room, depending on your budget.
Or if the budget is really small, I can do it on my own with Premiere or the old FCP.
Honestly why do we even care what FC X does or does not, considering all the goodies that exist out there.
Logged
tho_mas
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1696


« Reply #92 on: July 06, 2011, 08:03:05 PM »
ReplyReply

Paul, really I don't get it. I'm trying from all angles and it doesn't match. I mean you're far from being a novice and your imagery is elaborate and personaly I think very talented. What do you find so attractive and a bet for the future in the Apple path?
Fred, I honestly think the debate goes nowhere.
You use Avid MC (and other tools) for a good reason (due to the requirements of your work). But for some FCX delivers all they need. That's fine - no reason to convince others to use "better" tools (what for, if FCX does the job for them?).
Me, I agree with almost everything you say. 80% of my video-work is broadcasted. That's quite easy. You start in broadcast standards and you output to broadcast standards (of course you need some kind of offline/online workflow, the option to export EDLs and especially the option to assign real tracks and OMF export, real video output to class-1 broadcast monitors... etc.). 15% of my work is screened at events (trade shows or so). The workflow is actually the same. 5% of my work is for web presentation and these 5% are a real PITA as you have to find something that works on MAC and on Windows in at least a "decent" reproduction of gamma, colors and shutter-free playback. It's absolutely unclear to me how you would handle this in FCX... but so be it. I don't use it anyway.
For professional standards everything is really quite simple (as you can expect professional equipment on the recipient- resp. client-side)... as long as you work in a professional environment. But the latter clearly doesn't apply to FCX. So the deabte is actually irrelevant.
I always wondered about statements like "FCP owns the editing world" here on the forum. Here in Germany all major production houses use Avid. Only some promo and trailer departments (producing short films of 1-2 minutes or just 10'' or 20'' films) use FCP. My phone list contains at least 20 Avid Editors. But no explicit FCP editor (2 or 3 of the Avid editors also edit on FCP... but only if they are forced to do so). I've always refused to edit tv shows on FCP (I did twice and it was actually a nightmare). Simply too cumbersome, too nervous... too slow. Above all: too insecure (when working with heavy deadlines). So for me FCP always has been half-professional at most. FCX is 100% unprofessional. So what ...


« Last Edit: July 06, 2011, 08:06:28 PM by tho_mas » Logged
fredjeang
Guest
« Reply #93 on: July 07, 2011, 02:55:46 AM »
ReplyReply

Fred, I honestly think the debate goes nowhere.
You use Avid MC (and other tools) for a good reason (due to the requirements of your work). But for some FCX delivers all they need. That's fine - no reason to convince others to use "better" tools (what for, if FCX does the job for them?).
Me, I agree with almost everything you say. 80% of my video-work is broadcasted. That's quite easy. You start in broadcast standards and you output to broadcast standards (of course you need some kind of offline/online workflow, the option to export EDLs and especially the option to assign real tracks and OMF export, real video output to class-1 broadcast monitors... etc.). 15% of my work is screened at events (trade shows or so). The workflow is actually the same. 5% of my work is for web presentation and these 5% are a real PITA as you have to find something that works on MAC and on Windows in at least a "decent" reproduction of gamma, colors and shutter-free playback. It's absolutely unclear to me how you would handle this in FCX... but so be it. I don't use it anyway.
For professional standards everything is really quite simple (as you can expect professional equipment on the recipient- resp. client-side)... as long as you work in a professional environment. But the latter clearly doesn't apply to FCX. So the deabte is actually irrelevant.
I always wondered about statements like "FCP owns the editing world" here on the forum. Here in Germany all major production houses use Avid. Only some promo and trailer departments (producing short films of 1-2 minutes or just 10'' or 20'' films) use FCP. My phone list contains at least 20 Avid Editors. But no explicit FCP editor (2 or 3 of the Avid editors also edit on FCP... but only if they are forced to do so). I've always refused to edit tv shows on FCP (I did twice and it was actually a nightmare). Simply too cumbersome, too nervous... too slow. Above all: too insecure (when working with heavy deadlines). So for me FCP always has been half-professional at most. FCX is 100% unprofessional. So what ...

Thomas,
I agree with all your lines without exception and understand that my post apparently sort of leaded nowhere. But indeed I was trying to be constructive and not just convinced to used "better" NLE. Sorry if I couldn't transmit correctly the idea I wanted to express.

I'll be more explicit here because I do think that the debate is not that much a dead end.

Resuming, my post wanted to say: invest in a solution where you can grow at any time, even if the needs are today basics, and any time can be tomorrow.

Here in Spain, and for what I've heard of some collegues in France too, the current situation is simple: deadlines are shortened, volume of work is more fragmented and unpredictable, and much more is asked for the same costs.
The first thing I've noticed compared to let's say 3 or 4 years, is that we have much less time.


Then the photographers. That's important. Motion have irrupted in the stills workflow and really what was yesterday photography is now a mess. Stills, motion, paper, web, broadcast...whatever. The demand is real and each time the frontiers are unclear and it's going to be more and more like that.

I've also seen a change in the AD generations. The new generation has a completly different position when they contract a photographer, the reality is that they contract an image maker. They want a studio that can work stills AND motion with the costs of stills alone 10 years ago.
The Dinausors here, the big boys of the photographic scene who actually didn't embrassed motion are working less and less, no mather their talent and reputation. That's the (sad or not) reality.

In my experience, we also thought at first that a simple NLE would do the job. Why do we need more if we are just photographers who's motion assignements are fews and really basics? But then in practise, it didn't worked that way. Very fast and unpredictable, the needs appear, and then it's the rush.
In the studio, the boss can not have a fixed team as big as before because of the crisis and delegate became an obligation. Also, deadlines are very short so in the end, even if you're not Hollywood, you need a stable, reliable fast platform to stay competitive and grow.
If the software does not allow you to grow at any time, (not maybe if tomorrow when possibly) it is a real problem.

Flexibility within stability is the today's grail. As diving into FCPX is a completly new learning curve from almost zero, the question falls on the table by itself...are there better alternatives in the market even for a basic workflow? IMO, the answer is yes and triple yes! I think that this FCPX is in a land of no where. I might be wrong but that's really my feeling.

Again, you might not want and need an overkill platform today, but what I've been through is that tomorrow's needs come very fast, the game can change in a question of days, and in a question of days you're not preapared for a new workflow.

The idea I've read here that: if tomorrow I need more power FC(P)X can't cover, I'll change software and that's it...yes, but I might live in another planet because honestly, we don't have time to play with uncertain possible solutions. All pros I'm seeing here are under harsh pressure to maintain their clients and grow or at least, not sink.

They have less free time (in fact no free time at all) to play with a learning curve that could lead to nowhere. I have much less free time than 3 years ago and couldn't afford putting myself in a learning curve from sratch without being sure I'm walking on solid terrain. It's to the point that most of the photographers I know here have probs with their wifes because their private life has been reduced to a minimum.
If wifes work in the business they will understand but most of them don't.

anyway, wifes are not the topic.

Then, from what I said above, what I really don't get it is this: someone might not need Media Composer. Fine and understandble. But then look at the offers, for ex Edius Neo3, an entry cheap version of Edius 6. Well, Neo3 is already a reliable platform and already more featured than FCex and if you need to grow, you switch at anytime to the pro NLE, but your learning curve is not dead, you'll find a similar workflow. Same with Avid, same with Adobe.

The thing is that the money to spend to reach a professional workflow is very little. FCX costs 250, but MC if you come from FC costs 800. It is just 550 euros to obtain a rock solid software. The cost of a point-and-shoot minicam. I would understand if we where tal˝king about thousands and thousands of euros, but the reality is that softwares are cheaper and cheaper. You might not need the power of those, but when you need it, it's there. No need to relearn anything but just going deeper in what's already there.

All IMHO.
« Last Edit: July 07, 2011, 03:25:11 AM by fredjeang » Logged
tho_mas
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1696


« Reply #94 on: July 07, 2011, 03:36:47 AM »
ReplyReply

Sorry if I couldn't transmit correctly the idea I wanted to express.
I think it was me who narrowed down what you've said to just one point - not your fault. sorry for that!

full quote
perfectly makes sense.
Logged
fredjeang
Guest
« Reply #95 on: July 07, 2011, 03:46:59 AM »
ReplyReply

No need to apologyse Thomas. I found your post deeply relevant.
In the end we are using english wich is not our native lenguage and that's not always easy to transmit what we have in mind on the first intent, sorry, attempt (I just check on the dic because I had a doubt on intent, typicaly mistakes I'm doing)

I construct sentences with tons of mistakes, most of the time I'm not even aware of the gramatical uses so really the only possibility I have is just expressing an overall idea betting that it would bite, but it's very easy that it doesn't.

In fact I thank all the people here who read my posts and don't get crazy about the form because I really writte the way I would speak and it might sound kind of monkey style for an english native.

Cheers.

  
« Last Edit: July 07, 2011, 03:55:54 AM by fredjeang » Logged
tho_mas
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1696


« Reply #96 on: July 07, 2011, 04:10:20 AM »
ReplyReply

In the end we are using english wich is not our native lenguage and that's not always easy to transmit what we have in mind
so true :-(
Logged
ziocan
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 427


« Reply #97 on: July 07, 2011, 04:47:57 AM »
ReplyReply

Though, FC X may still be a good solution to get the Prores codec legally for 299$. Grin
So we can export Prores using other soft. Tongue

I mean despite FCP being an half professional software, there are still too many companies that require delivery on prores.
Then if you shoot with Alexa and do not have a nuclear power plant back at the studio, prores is a no brainer.
Logged
bcooter
Guest
« Reply #98 on: July 08, 2011, 03:55:13 AM »
ReplyReply

We can shoot and produce a feature film without even touching the editing thing.
You can hire either the kid, the good guy or the guy with the soft couches and the miramax editing room, depending on your budget.
Or if the budget is really small, I can do it on my own with Premiere or the old FCP.
Honestly why do we even care what FC X does or does not, considering all the goodies that exist out there.

Those options have always been there, depending on how deep your pockets are, so nothing new in that thought.

The deal with FCP was it didn't take deep pockets to produce almost any look, style or effect.  The downside was it was slow once you really started on complex edits.

Anyway . . .

Doesn't matter what we think because Apple will do what it wants.

It's the most valued company in the world and if anyone thinks they don't have the resources to buy all the talent it takes to make FCP 8 have all the ease and speed of X, the depth of 7 and probably more than any of us could imagine, IMO is wrong.

This is just a shift on Apple's part to go from pros to semi-pros.   For pros that have invested millions on FCP base studios it's a bummer, for most of us that learned FCP and just wanted more speed and a little more stability in gamma it's a bummer, but for Apple it's a plan.

Raise your hand.  What would you do.  Make a product that sells at 4 million an month of 4 million in 5 years.  

I know my answer, as much as I hate to admit it.

Now there are some rumors that FCP 7 will be back on the shelves, probably due to legal reasons, but I don't expect to see 7 working on anything past Lion which means it's lifespan is limited.

But if you want to go pro, FCP EX isn't the path.  It might be someday but I doubt it.

It's kind of looking like in the imaging world, Apple is no longer the way, unless going pro means white i phones.


IMO

BC

P.S.   One of the reasons FCP heavy users are so upset about EX, is FCP 7 did so much within one system.    Other NLE's like Avid were always better at cutting, but FCP did almost anything you could dream of all in the sequence or multiple sequences.   

All their core users we're just biting their nails waiting for the day fCP would be faster and the result of EX is the reason you see such anger across the spectrum.

Indie users to full blown 30 seat houses feel very abandoned and so they should because they are.

« Last Edit: July 08, 2011, 09:34:22 AM by bcooter » Logged
Pages: « 1 ... 3 4 [5]   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad