FWIW, I used a trail version of FCPX to do our Startup Chile application video. It was very easy to have multiple shots in the timeline and cut between them. In fact, the whole thing was very easy, and very powerful. It is a vast improvement over the previous versions of Final Cut[1], which I felt were really hampered by sticking to the traditional way of doing things, producing a worse UI.
I think it made sense for Apple to make the UI like traditional editors, which were as close to the moviola and the moviola inspired tape editing bays of the past, back when FCP came out. Back then, getting people into the digital age was the goal, and keeping the workflow as close as possible was advantageous.
Now, however, the outcry about FCPX from "professionals" is really about those "professionals" not wanting to learn anything new, because they really aren't editors, they're just cutting things together by rote. Anyone whose an actual editor- that is, a creative person, will find FCPX a vast improvement over FCP, and of course iMovie.
I highly recommend it.
(Also got Motion which is cheap at $50, and did a custom motion graphics intro... which is kinda amazing given that I had no experience with motion graphics before that.)
People talk about Apple "abandoning" pro users, but I don't see it. Sure, the prices of the software are lower, but that just broadens the potential market.
And these days, there are a lot more pros than there used to be-- because people who make videos for YouTube, and make their living from it, are, believe it or not, professionals.
[1] I've been shooting film and video for many decades, including for some projects as a professional.
For the record, I remember all of the serious complaints about the new version of Final Cut being about people are doing editing in teams for multi-stage production (having different people in charge of post-production audio, etc.) when dealing with large amounts of physical film.
"Now, however, the outcry about FCPX from "professionals" is really about those "professionals" not wanting to learn anything new, because they really aren't editors, they're just cutting things together by rote. Anyone whose an actual editor- that is, a creative person, will find FCPX a vast improvement over FCP, and of course iMovie."
This simply isn't (or wasn't) true. Most my video editor friends, many who work in Hollywood, hated FCPX for everything is lacked and 'broke'. All are 'real' editors. Many are trainers for FCP and AViD.
Editors can be a fickle bunch. Many are technical minded and love to have the latest newest gadget. But they also don't like to mess with their livelihood and FCPX was too big of a learning curve while missing too many features.
I personally think it was a great move by Apple, trying to push the paradigm of editing forward. That is difficult and time consuming to do in small steps so they chose a complete rewrite, losing a large percentage of the profesional market in the process. But what they lost, I'm guessing they gained back in consumers and as FCPX improves they will gain some of those back.
What I've seen as the biggest gain are creatives directors and photographers. I know several who are masters of photoshop and after effects but struggled to get their head around Avid and FCP, who didn't have time to jump in head first, but took to FCPX like duck to water. These are highly paid individuals, heads of agencies. Which is what annoyed me when editors complained it wasn't professional. If the creative director of a billion dollar ad agency has found it suits his needs, it's hard to paint it as a toy.
That's not to say the complainers didn't have a point, they did. But it's a complaint that's been with Final Cut since version 1. It was always necessary to find a work around, whether outputting for film, tape, or digital. My career was made because final cut was cheap to use, but didn't quite work as it should.
> But they also don't like to mess with their livelihood and FCPX was too big of a learning curve while missing too many features.
I don't think the learning curve was the issue, these are people considering (or even implementing) switches to Avid or Premiere after years of FCP.
From seeing the outcry from the outside, the issues seemed mostly twofolds: 1. lack of genuinely needed features (not necessarily intersecting from one studio to the next, but editors were understandably unwilling to tear down their whole production pipeline for the sake of FCPX) and 2. fear about the place of "pro" (as in medium-to-big-studios) editors in Apple's medium and long-term roadmap, boosted by a perceived iMovie-ification (real or not) pointing to a refocus on prosumer and lighter work.
> If the creative director of a billion dollar ad agency has found it suits his needs, it's hard to paint it as a toy.
That's nonsense, you said it youself: these are creative directors and photographers, they're not editing big-budget movies or TV shows, they're not dealing with TV stations or juggling with 30 cameras. You're basically saying Acorn is just fine for everybody because professional developers can draw with it.
Features that they were told would be in future updates...they abandoned FCP because it was so different, otherwise they would have waited (and many have waited).
>2. fear about the place of "pro"
This fear is not unfounded, see Shake. But the idea that because FCPX looks similar to iMovie it's not professional is BS, the same thing that crops up with any new, inexpensive product (I've lived through it with DV, HDV, DSLRs, FCP 1, Premiere, Color, Nuke, and too many others to name). For me, the only feature missing from FCPX is OMF export, which is handled by a third party. Out of all the commercials I've made in the past 12 months (roughly 24 national spots), all could have been handled with FCPX without any foreseeable problems (all the spots had digital delivery so no need for tape layoffs). Same goes for the features I've handled in the past year (2).
Final Cut made inroads in commercials and indie films long before the big features (and most of the FCP editing on TV is low budget reality tv shows, who were also ahead of the curve). And it's always lacked features, it was my job to get around what it lacked (and it's been very lucrative). While there was always a learning curve going from Avid to FCP, it was a relative small one that could be overcome in a day or two of intense editing. The learning curve for FCPX, even for experienced FCP users is much greater (and the kicking and screaming that editors displayed when having to move to earlier versions of FCP was bad enough).
Just like before, it will be early adopters that push FCPX. But don't discount the power of a creative director coming to a post house with an FCPX project that he wants finished. The last 5 years of my career has been that storyline. Someone will call me and pay me good money to set it up and babysit the project. And considering a campaign with a 30 second spot is typically budgeted at 3million plus, it's worth spending the money to make the creative happy.
>they're not dealing with TV stations or juggling with 30 cameras
Very few editors deal with tv stations or juggling 30 cameras (and FCPs multi-cam has always been mediocre, if you have to deal with more than 3 cameras you're better off using Avid). Most big budget editors edit. Dealing with TV stations, delivery specs, or anything technical is left to assistants, conform artists, finishing editors, flame artists, hell even producers typically deal with that more than editors.
And I don't see anything wrong with Acorn if it serves the purpose. Photoshop is overkill for most users, even many pro users. What is professional is what can get the job done well.
>these are people considering (or even implementing) switches to Avid or Premiere after years of FCP.
No, these are people who are already invested in Avid or Adobe, who can't even accurately represent the state of FCP X (because they haven't used it enough, it seems.)
>1. lack of genuinely needed features
Most of the "missing" features already exist. For instance, multi cam existed before todays update, I did it with the release in October.
> You're basically saying Acorn is just fine for everybody because professional developers can draw with it.
Once again the assertion that FCP X is lacking features that are intrinsic to editing. FCP X is the photoshop, FCP, Premiere and Avid care the Acorn examples.
All of those apps are based on an old workflow that dates back to the origin of cinema, and are terrible to work with, and much slower and more difficult to edit with.
But, the problem is there's a lot of people who were trained in the old ways, and because the old ways are the old ways, they feel they can say any new way must be a toy.
That's what's nonsense. You comparing FCP X to Acorn is nonsense, when FCP X can do more, faster, and with more creativity than any other editing package on the market right now.
Real professionals want that power. Sure, if you've got a workflow that you need to stick with you don't want to migrate yet. But to complain about the change in the workflow and ignore the fact that editing has advanced significantly, means that the complainers are either invested in a competing product, or don't actually care about creativity.
I actually couldn't agree more. As a professional post producer, I work with a lot of editors and post houses, and know many more. And what your friends are telling you is right; Apple didn't "change" the product. They destroyed it. Literally destroyed it. As in, took absolutely essential elements (think engine in a car) and just left big empty holes in the places where they ought to be.
And this @nirvana nitwit has no idea what he's talking about when he says people simply don't want to learn "new ways" of doing things. If he had even the slightest grasp of how actual post production works, he'd see that there are no new ways to learn - unless he means people need to "learn" to get out and push vehicles they can no longer drive.
Dropping XML support is probably the clearest example. Assuming you're talking about something more professional than wedding videos, editing isn't simply about "being creative". It's also a traffic management job in which you're responsible for thousands of files coming off a range if systems run by a multitude of facilities, and having them all line up with a precision that can come down to 1/48th of a second. XML is the interchange format that allows this work to take place. Deciding to drop that is like walking into an air traffic control tower and smashing all the radios. That's bad, of course, but it takes a real moron to turn around and say "I don't understand why this is a problem" before adding insult to injury by saying anyone who thinks otherwise was never really a "professional" in the first place.
I actually couldn't agree more. As a professional post producer, I work with a lot of editors and post houses, and know many more. And what your friends are telling you is right; Apple didn't "change" the product. They destroyed it. Literally destroyed it. As in, took absolutely essential elements (think engine in a car) and just left big empty holes in the places where they ought to be.
And this @nirvana nitwit has no idea what he's talking about when he says people simply don't want to learn "new ways" of doing things. If he had even the slightest grasp of how actual post production works, he'd see that there are no new ways to learn - unless he means people need to "learn" to get out and push vehicles they can no longer drive.
Dropping XML support is probably the clearest example. Assuming you're talking about something more professional than wedding videos, editing isn't simply about "being creative". It's also a traffic management job in which you're responsible for thousands of files coming off a range if systems run by a multitude of facilities, and having them all line up with a precision that can come down to 1/48th of a second. XML is the interchange format that allows this work to take place. Deciding to drop that is like walking into an air traffic control tower and smashing all the radios. That's bad, of course, but it takes a real moron to turn around and say "I don't understand why this is a problem" before adding insult to injury by saying anyone who thinks otherwise was never really a "professional" in the first place.
> Now, however, the outcry about FCPX from "professionals" is really about those "professionals" not wanting to learn anything new, because they really aren't editors, they're just cutting things together by rote. Anyone whose an actual editor- that is, a creative person, will find FCPX a vast improvement over FCP, and of course iMovie.
That simply is not true. There are a number of workflows which FCPX simply does not support at the moment, even with this update. And the original version was even worse.
When your editing toolchain works using EDL or OMF, FCPX is not a matter of "not wanting to learn anything new", it's a matter of not being able to work. Same with multicam (before this update), tape out, native raw, ...
Dismissing these issues does not put you in a good light.
I'm sorry you felt the need to characterize me in a derogatory manner, especially based on a dishonest characterization of the point I was making.
I'm not aware that the previous version of Final Cut Pro has stopped working, or that anyone has been forced to upgrade to FCPX. Nor am I aware that the new UI for editing, which naturally involves a new workflow, makes it impossible for people to adapt to it, or prevents them from sticking with their previous version.
It's unfortunate that your response contains broad assertions with few specifics, as this makes it difficult to refute them. In fact, this is exactly the kind of response I saw from the so called "professionals" bashing the product in the first place-- broad assertions that the product doesn't do what it needs to do, without specifics.
Further, unfortunately, the specifics you do mention are enabled by third party software, and other apps in the Final Cut suite.
If you don't want people treating you like an asshole, stop behaving like one.
Case in point: "Now, however, the outcry about FCPX from "professionals" is really about those "professionals" not wanting to learn anything new, because they really aren't editors, they're just cutting things together by rote."
Sart with those air quotes. These people aren't "professionals" they're professionals. Denigrating others like this is just a dick move through and through. Stop it.
And then there's this:
"I'm not aware that the previous version of Final Cut Pro has stopped working, or that anyone has been forced to upgrade to FCPX. Nor am I aware that the new UI for editing, which naturally involves a new workflow, makes it impossible for people to adapt to it, or prevents them from sticking with their previous version."
Translation: "I'm not aware of any of the specific problems that have been discussed extensively and in great detail, nor do I understand how any of this works in practice meaning none of the conversations I glanced at made much sense to me anyway, so in truth, I have absolutely no idea what's really going on."
And yet you've got no problem insulting people who are very familiar with the problems by saying they they are just "doing things by rote" and "simply don't want to learn."
Again, total dick moves.
If you have any genuine interest in this, and would like to stop coming across like a complete ignoramus, start by learning more about XML. This really is lynchpin stuff, and if you can appreciate why that it is so important to high-end professional workflows (i.e. on shows with budgets in the tens to hundreds of millions), you may begin to understand what the issues are really about.
So far you've called me a moron, a nitwit, an idiot, and now asshole, dick and "a complete ignoramus".
I really do just wish you'd address my points honestly, rather than spend your time characterizing me.
One of the reasons I reached the conclusion I did about those complaining about FCP X is both their lack of knowledge about the product, but also their almost compulsive need to insult the people they disagree with.
The only reason I used the word professional in the first place is that those who bashed the product constantly claimed they were professional and that it wasn't professional. Thus they are using an arbitrary definition of professional, one I disagree with, and thus when I refer to it, the quotes are absolutely correct. But, rather than address my point, you used this as an example to pretend like I was saying something else entirely.
Even if I had, it doesn't justify the name calling.
It's hard to address your points directly when they reflect a near-total ignorance of the actual situation. I'm sorry, but "idiot" is really the best that I can do.
And if you honestly think people who have spent literally decades working day-in-day-out as editors and post producers on major network and studio projects still have a debatable status as "professionals" then "idiot" is actually being kind.
This is silly - saying "anyone whose [sic]...a creative person... will find FCPX a vast improvement over FCP" is like saying "anyone who's a creative person will find Emacs superior to Vim."
Some people are highly experienced with a certain workflow and to entirely uproot that workflow interferes with their creative process. Dislike for change in a workflow is not a sign that you were using that workflow in a rote or non-creative way. Just a sign that you were used to it.
In nirvana's defence, if you spent any time in video editor's forums when FCPX was launched, it would have been very easy to get the impression that editors, as a group, simply didn't like anything new. The amount of misinformation was staggering. Think of the worst, most misinformed emacs vs. vim debate you've ever seen: it was like that almost everywhere. That isn't to say that there weren't (and aren't) legitimiate complaints, but there was a massive amount of noise.
Your comparison also discounts the fact that the workflow in most modern video editors is extremely broken. Emacs and VIM users can make a good argument for a code editor being vastly customizable or controllable by keyboard only, but there are fewer defences for the way most video editors work: they behave as they do due to intertia, and because editors 20 and 30 years ago had to work a certain way due to the limitations of the hardware at the time. Many of the changes in FCPX are hugely welcome, but many editors -- including "pros" -- can't (or refuse to) see it.
Thanks for the feedback about my comparison - I'll agree that the "editor holy war" comparison I chose wasn't as apt as it could have been, and that Vim is not as to Emacs as FCP is to FCPX.
With that in mind, I still think there's a big difference between saying "video editors as a group tend to be too resistant to change," which I would have no problem agreeing with, and saying that "anyone who is creative will think FCPX is better than FCP," which is silly.
I'm not trying to assert that FCPX isn't better than FCP or that the old FCP workflow wasn't broken, because honestly, it probably was, and beyond missing a few key features (which I'm sure will slowly return), FCPX really is better. I'm just trying to say that being resistant to a major workflow change does not mean you're "not an editor" or "performing only rote tasks" like nirvana asserts.
>"anyone who is creative will think FCPX is better than FCP," which is silly.
Then you say:
>FCPX really is better.
So, obviously it isn't silly, because I accurately predicted what your opinion of the product would be.
>being resistant to a major workflow change does not mean you're "not an editor" or "performing only rote tasks" like nirvana asserts.
That's not what I was saying. I'm saying that this outcry is baseless and nonsensical.
If the workflow change for FCPX would negatively impact your job, then don't switch to it. FCP 7 didn't stop working when it was released.
Thus there is no reason for an "outcry". Which is why I think the outcry is really from people invested in, or employees of, Avid or Adobe.
Further, since the complainers improve the massive improvement in creative editing ability and instead focus on allegedly missing features (most of which are not actually missing) its clear to me that none of them are even addressing the main point of an editor-- to enable creative editing.
I'm sure there are people who just assemble shows based on a formula, for whom workflow is much more important than creativity. I was wrong, though, in assuming these people are the source of the outcry-- that was a mistake-- the outcry is coming from people invested in the Adobe and Avid alternatives. Those for whom workflow is a bigger issue have no reason to complain because they don't have to switch to FCP X.
You're making an error of fact, I beleive. Nobodies workflow has been uprooted, as the previous versions of Final Cut Pro did not cease to work when FCP X was released. If they wish to migrate to the better way of doing things then they can do that at their own pace when they are comfortable migrating their workflow.
It is not at all silly to say that a significant improvement in the UI for editing video is something that everyone who is creative with video will appreciate.
Given the responses (including the ones in this thread) from people who are unhappy with FCPX, it is clear that they are not from people who are creative editors, but from people who are doing a rote job.
IF you are creative, having more creative tools is always going to be a benefit.
Your editor analogy is not appropriate because Emacs and Vim are comparable.
A better analogy would be "its like saying that anyone who's a creative person would rather work with paint brushes, canvas and oil paint than dirt, fingers and a similarly colored rock wall."
Actually, the previous versions of FCP 7 did stop working in one very important way; a multi-seat system built around FCP 7 could no longer be expanded legally.
Sure, you could finish what you were doing, provided you needed no additional resources. But you couldn't switch to FCP X without cutting yourself off from audio post, effects pipelines, and so on. If you wanted to grow your operation in the "who knows when support for interchange will appear" window, you'd have to abandon FCP altogether, and re-invest in Avid or Adobe.
Now, however, the outcry about FCPX from "professionals" is really about those "professionals" not wanting to learn anything new, because they really aren't editors, they're just cutting things together by rote. Anyone whose an actual editor- that is, a creative person, will find FCPX a vast improvement over FCP, and of course iMovie.
That's just like saying 'programmers' don't want to learn Logo because they are programming by rote in Java or whatnot. that is just derogatory towards professional editors out there. Professional editors have tight deadlines, daily editing (most of world's editing) relies on muscle memory, tools which were essential were not existent in FCPX (OMF lack is a showstopper for example). Not to mention that post production is extremely technically inclined area which adopts anything new/easier/streamlined ASAP into their pipelines. Larger shops even have their in-house r&d that has great programmers and solution providers (that's how first NLE even started).
FCPX might be a good tool for a small time editor that needs an occasional video, but it is not up to professional standards yet. Outcry was not a knee jerk reaction, I can vouch for that.
One example would be that after first screening/demo of FCPX was received almost universally with great enthusiasm in editing community. Everybody wanted to see for themselves how they could fit in their workflow what was shown... and then people actually got their hands on it - it went downhill from that.
That's just like saying 'programmers' don't want to learn Logo because they are programming by rote in Java or whatnot.
There are many programmers who resist learning another language because it's different than what they originally learned. I believe pg himself wrote an essay about that once. There are absolutely blub video editors.
FCPX might be a good tool for a small time editor that needs an occasional video, but it is not up to professional standards yet.
There are plenty of valid criticisms of FCPX, but this stuff is nonsense: there are plenty of professional editors using it already.
There are plenty of valid criticisms of FCPX, but this stuff is nonsense: there are plenty of professional editors using it already.
Where? I know none and I know hundreds of them, hundreds. Not single television network, production company, post production facility I know uses FCPX. AVID is still the king (and always has been), I see lots of FCP7 still around, and new to the production and post production sphere is Premiere, which is getting a lot of traction recently. I have even seen EDIUS around (especially RTL/Bertelsmann/Fremantle group), but I have yet to see one FCPX suite anywhere.
Don't know why you're getting down-voted. This is absolutely true.
And the reason that it's true is because post houses can't integrate FCP X with the rest of their workflows even if they want to. Apple inexplicably stopped supporting the exchange format that allows this to happen.
>FCPX might be a good tool for a small time editor that needs an occasional video, but it is not up to professional standards yet.
I don't buy the argument hat only non-professional people are creative. I've worked with film and video for 20 years, including professionally.
That the outcry comes from people who completely ignore the massive advance in usability that FCPX represents, and instead focus on outdated (output to tape) and things that are supported by third party or FCP suite applications (7 to X migration, output in raw) tells me that this is not an outcry of creative professionals.
Sure there are a lot of people cutting together formulaic reality TV shows who want to preserve their workflow. That's fine, stay with FCP 7.
If preserving your workflow is your primary concern then you're not the target of this product, yet. FCP 7 didn't stop working.
You have failed to mention any serious features that it is missing, yet you say it "might be a good tool for a small time editor that needs an occasional video, but it is not up to professional standards yet."
This is exactly the same kind of nonsensical argument I hear from Canon fans. To them, Canon cameras are "professional" and everything else isn't, because they don't have the "Canon" name on them and therefore, can't possibly be "professional."
Its circular nonsense.
You, not a single person complaining about FCP X here or elsewhere, has named a single creative feature missing from FCP X, or otherwise justified the claim that its not "professional".
The references to what "professionals" need is an example of the fallacy of argument from authority. "I'm professional, therefore you're an nitwit if you disagree". Worse, its argument from false authority because nobody here is appointed to decide what is and is not "professional".
FCP X has been enthusiastically embraced by the editing community. That's my point. They're not the ones complaining (who I suspect are all on the payroll of Adobe or Avid, or otherwise bought into those systems....)
If the outcry were legitimate, the people engaging in it would be able to recognize that FCP X has moved the state of the art of editing forward significantly. They do not, they only talk about what they claim is missing, and often claim things are missing that actually aren't, but are just different (Showing they haven't even used the product enough to give a "professional" opinion.)
"You, not a single person complaining about FCP X here or elsewhere, has named a single creative feature missing from FCP X"
If you've managed to follow this issue at all without seeing (repeated) references to the lack of XML support, then you are mentally retarded.
I don't mean that as an insult. I mean that in the clinical sense of not having a properly functioning brain. It is simply not credible that an individual who has got an even passing familiarity with professional post production could miss this, or fail to understand why it's on par with an air-traffic control tower stripped of its radios.
XML is a feature, not a creative feature. I think its hilarious that you've dedicate yourself to bashing FCP X anywhere its talked about, and you can't even respond honestly to people's points.
Not once in my life have I ever bashed an Avid product or Premiere, and I certainly don't jump into threads where they're discussed to do so, calling people "asshole", "nitwit", "moron", "dick", etc.
There exists a product called "7toX" that converts projects from FCP 7 to FCP X. It does the XML conversion. In fact, making convertibility easy is the whole purpose of using XML in the first place.
But if that doesn't work for you, then you don't have to transition to FCPX at all.
So, what are you complaining about? A product you don't use doesn't have a feature you want, and so you're going to run around calling people names for the crime of liking that product?
@nirvana: "XML is a feature, not a creative feature."
Reality: XML is what allows creatives to work together. It represents the very core of collaboration. In collaborative arts, the collaboration is a driver of creativity. No creative team, no creative teamwork.
@nirvana: "I think its hilarious that you've dedicate yourself to bashing FCP X anywhere its talked about"
Reality: I've been relying on FCP based workflows since 2003. I bought my first personal copy in 2005. I have a copy of FCP X, and I like it very much. Indeed, in situations where it works, it works better than anything else I've ever used. Between the hardware and the software, I have spent thousands of dollars on my ability to edit in FCP. I have never dedicated myself to "bashing FCP anywhere it's talked about".
@nirvana: and you can't even respond honestly to people's points.
Reality: I can respond honestly, point by point, with this response being a case in point.
@nirvana: Not once in my life have I ever bashed an Avid product or Premiere, and I certainly don't jump into threads where they're discussed to do so, calling people "asshole", "nitwit", "moron", "dick", etc.
Reality: You introduced yourself to this conversation by denigrating the professional status of professional editors and post-producers, accused them of performing their jobs mindlessly, stated that they were simply luddites hostile to change, and that their inability to adapt to FCP X was a function of laziness, and NOT with any deficiencies in the product itself. In other words, you launched an unprovoked wave of personal attacks that had little bearing on the technical and business issues that have been central to the whole FCP X fiasco.
You were behaving like an asshole. And then you got upset when called out for behaving like an asshole. That's a quintessential dick move.
@nirvana: There exists a product called "7toX" that converts projects from FCP 7 to FCP X. It does the XML conversion.
Reality: Uncontested, but irrelevant. The concern with XML is not with the conversion of old projects to the new format (though that's certainly an issue). The concern is that a lack of native support means that FCP X cannot work seamlessly with industry standard software like ProTools, Maya, and so on. Given that a core function of an editor is compiling elements built in a variety of different systems, the inability to talk to those systems is a very big deal. Indeed, when people say "this is not a professional product" this is precisely what they mean; unlike its predecessor, it is fundamentally incompatible with the professional environments it's expected to manage.
@nirvana: Making convertibility easy is the whole purpose of using XML in the first place.
Reality: And that's why removing native support for XML is like going into an air traffic control tower and smashing the radios. How do you not understand this?
@nirvana: But if that doesn't work for you, then you don't have to transition to FCPX at all.
Reality: No one has to transition to FCP X, but they do have to transition. As noted elsewhere, ending sales of FCP 7 means that existing pipelines are frozen. No additional seats can be lawfully added. Firms wanting to grow legally will need to switch to a platform that will accomodate this growth. This is a non-trivial expense. Moreover, the announcement came with zero warning, which was ham-fisted in the extreme.
It is absolutely idiotic to say (as you did) that the "outcry" isn't coming from people faced with this unexpected and unnecessary cost, and that it's actually astroturf coming from Apple's competitors. In reality, it is coming from people who no longer have a clear roadmap from a primary vendor, can no longer plan their own operations accordingly, who were shocked by the ineptitude of the FCP X rollout, and who now have to assume the heavy cost of transitioning away from a suddenly untrustworthy partner.
@nirvana: So, what are you complaining about?
Reality: There is no question about what I, and many many others are complaining about. Only...
FCP X has been enthusiastically embraced by the editing community. That's my point.
Where? What editing community? My day job involves moving around various small and big TV networks (national and international), production and post production houses. Not single one of them even considers FCPX, let alone having one in house.
As for features lacking, there are many. I'll give you one on my personal example. I'm finishing up a documentary I'm working on now (in FCP7, but let's pretend I was working in FCPX), in order for me to move it to a finishing stage from editing it needs to go through grading via EDL/XML (with this update I believe it's settled) and I have to get OMF out the door with a small preview file to a sound post facility. If I were in FCPX I couldn't give them OMF. No OMF, no sound post in pretty much any facility out there. I'd have to give them a raw EDL sheet and sound files, which they would charge me significantly more, that is if they would take it like that at all.
As for multicam lacking, I personally don't need it since I have a habit of editing multicams via separate synched tracks, but I can see how other might find this lacking.
XML support (if it works) might resolve major issues like integrating with grading suites and other post production stages. OMF is a must, without it - no go. Multicam, as I've described above. Color discontinuation in favor of integrated grading tools is not a major issue to me since I never relied on color for grading to begin with. Inability to work with previous Final Cut projects (unless it's resolved with XML support) is something that bugs me, since I tend to open past projects a lot. Not having an ability to open more than one sequence at a time is something I'm familiar with from AVID and which I liked a lot in FCP, but I can live with that. No native support for R3D (which Premiere has) would be very nice and expected, but isn't there which means I still have to work with rushes (we mostly work with red cameras).
As far as me personally goes, I need rock solid XML (which maybe it now has) and OMF (which I can't work without). Other people might be more picky. Main thing why I won't switch to FCPX in the future is because there are better alternatives (new Premiere looks like what FCP8 should have been, AVID6 does wonders...) and because I don't put trust in Apple when my job depends on it. How long was FCP without any feature release or secretive nature of not disclosing anything in advance for their 'Pro' products is not something I want to rely on. I relied on Shake, they have killed it. I have used India Pro, they have killed it. I have used FCP6 and FCP7 (still do and am transitioning to other programs) and they have released new version which renders me not being able to finish a project without supporting old version. We were even one of the fools that bought Final Cut Server (which is a POS that doesn't even work as advertised) and XServes, they have killed those too. We're currently waiting to see if there will be a new Mac Pro offering at all in the coming months or we'll jump to HP machines for editing. Why would I ever again want to rely on that company again? And I'm not alone in this thinking. I have my Macbook Air for scriptwriting and that's what I will trust them with, laptops and gadgets.
I used Final Cut pro while creating a daily video documentary for Kanye West and Jay-Z's Watch the Throne tour and I can honestly say that it was the best tool for the job, largely because of the new background rendering capabilities. There are some interface flaws in the new magnetic timeline but I really appreciate the dev team's willingness to experiment with new video editing paradigms. Within another few point releases I think FCP X will begin to persuade the crusty old FCP 7 guard that it's worth another look.
I don't think the UI changes caused the visceral reaction and subsequent hate-dom as much as the completely inexplicable and unwarranted removal of features and file formats that professionals (I.e. the TARGET FUCKING MARKET) use.
First impressions are everything - and Apple blew it bad on this one.
> as much as the completely inexplicable and unwarranted removal of features and file formats that professionals (I.e. the TARGET FUCKING MARKET) use
Not sure about "unwarranted". Debatable yes, but they made the decision that the previous product was not evolvable and rewrote the whole bloody thing from scratch. It took them a good two years (assuming they started right as FCP7 got out the door), there was no way it was going to happen with full feature parity short of taking twice as long.
> First impressions are everything - and Apple blew it bad on this one.
Not like they don't have a history of it, they did the same when they rewrote iMovie. It did end a better product than it was, I think.
Still, might not be as good an idea on a non-linear video editor in a market where switching costs are significant.
Unless they changed what their TARGET FUCKING MARKET is, of course.
>Not sure about "unwarranted". Debatable yes, but they made the decision that the previous product was not evolvable and rewrote the whole bloody thing from scratch. It took them a good two years (assuming they started right as FCP7 got out the door), there was no way it was going to happen with full feature parity short of taking twice as long.
Then that's what needed to happen - it was half baked, put it back in the oven for a while. But releasing a flagship product (Final Cut is THE video editing app of choice on Mac) in the state that FCPX was done in was complete lunacy.
>Not like they don't have a history of it, they did the same when they rewrote iMovie.
But that's iMovie, consumer grade software. The worst you'll do by changing it around is tick a few people off who will hopefully get over it.
If I were a videographer and found out that I could no longer open or save in a format that is industry standard and that I rely upon, my very first reaction would be to wonder what the developers were smoking, followed by wondering the same about Apple, followed by leaving a bad review on the store page (They shut down reviews on FCPX it was getting so bad.. and keep in mind, you can't review things on the app store that you haven't installed at least once), followed by petitioning for my money back.
> Then that's what needed to happen - it was half baked, put it back in the oven for a while. But releasing a flagship product (Final Cut is THE video editing app of choice on Mac) in the state that FCPX was done in was complete lunacy.
That's one point of view, with which I don't agree. By releasing it when they did and building upon this, Apple could/could have built a better product with a live feedback loop in the field. The core engine was there for using or complaining about, and for people for whom it was insufficient, FCP7 still worked just as it would have worked had they waited longer to release FCPX.
What Apple failed here was managing expectation and their release, the basic strategy is not only sound but a way to get a better product in the end.
I agree with your evaluation, though I'd also add that there was quite a bit of concern about no longer being able to get licenses for FCP 7 that took quite a while to get cleared up (IIRC, it wasn't possible at all to get them, at least from Apple, for a few weeks).
I think that's what really took it from a "calm down, stick with what already works until the new infant version is suitable for you" story to a "this could really mess up some businesses" story.
> I agree with your evaluation, though I'd also add that there was quite a bit of concern about no longer being able to get licenses for FCP 7 that took quite a while to get cleared up (IIRC, it wasn't possible at all to get them, at least from Apple, for a few weeks).
True as well. I'd put that in the "botching the release" part
That's an highly superficial assessment. The real uproars had little to do with the UI, which had actually been previewed to favorable responses some time before the release.
No, what people were truly furious about were things under the hood. Or more precisely, things that weren't under this hood. Specifically, the lack of support for XML. What turned this from disappointing to infuriating was the simultaneous yanking of FCP 7 from the market, meaning that the entire FCP using community was frozen in place. It was actually illegal to add extra seats to a pipeline.
That's like walking into an air traffic control tower and smashing all the radios, then bombing the runway, just for added good measure. The difference is that Apple's customers weren't a hostile nation at war with the attackers. They were the attackers CUSTOMERS.
Indeed, the technology problems are almost a distraction. The real issue was the raw idiocy on display. I mean, this was stupidity on par with showing up drunk for a driving test. People were truly astonished that Apple could employ people this moronically dumb. And more to the point, that they'd give them access to a product with a LOT of exposure to the media industry.
If you think the situation was even remotely analogous to a Facebook redesign, you have no idea what actually happened.
I think the difference is that the people complaining about Facebook were Facebook users, while the people complaining about FCPX are avid and adobe fans.
I'm forced to reach this conclusion because none of the complaints has been accurate about the features of FCP X, or acknowledged the significant advancement that FCP X made to editing. Thus its clear to me that they've not used FCP X, yet are still highly motivated to attack it.
I love how this comment has a negative score, while the guy who calls me a name in every response (asshole, dick, nitwit, moron, idiot, and retarded so far) has positive scores for every single one of the posts with an insult in it. So do the other people who felt the need to derogatorily characterize me or my argument.
This is why Hacker News is in decline. So long as those who engage in bad behavior are expressing an opinion that the majority agrees with (And bashing Apple is always popular here) they will not have negative scores and thus not be flagged for review by the hellbanners.
>I'm forced to reach this conclusion because none of the complaints has been accurate about the features of FCP X, or acknowledged the significant advancement that FCP X made to editing. Thus its clear to me that they've not used FCP X, yet are still highly motivated to attack it.
Go read the reviews of FCP X on the App Store (which may or may not be cleared by now.. I don't have access to a mac). You cannot leave reviews on app store apps unless you have installed it at least once. That would seem to imply that most of the bad reviews there are legitimate.
I just read through the comments that you're talking about. There's a difference between saying "You're coming across like a $pejorative" and "You are a $pejorative".
If you can't twig that simple difference, well, you are coming off like a dumbass.
45 comments
[ 2.7 ms ] story [ 133 ms ] threadI think it made sense for Apple to make the UI like traditional editors, which were as close to the moviola and the moviola inspired tape editing bays of the past, back when FCP came out. Back then, getting people into the digital age was the goal, and keeping the workflow as close as possible was advantageous.
Now, however, the outcry about FCPX from "professionals" is really about those "professionals" not wanting to learn anything new, because they really aren't editors, they're just cutting things together by rote. Anyone whose an actual editor- that is, a creative person, will find FCPX a vast improvement over FCP, and of course iMovie.
I highly recommend it.
(Also got Motion which is cheap at $50, and did a custom motion graphics intro... which is kinda amazing given that I had no experience with motion graphics before that.)
People talk about Apple "abandoning" pro users, but I don't see it. Sure, the prices of the software are lower, but that just broadens the potential market.
And these days, there are a lot more pros than there used to be-- because people who make videos for YouTube, and make their living from it, are, believe it or not, professionals.
[1] I've been shooting film and video for many decades, including for some projects as a professional.
This simply isn't (or wasn't) true. Most my video editor friends, many who work in Hollywood, hated FCPX for everything is lacked and 'broke'. All are 'real' editors. Many are trainers for FCP and AViD.
I personally think it was a great move by Apple, trying to push the paradigm of editing forward. That is difficult and time consuming to do in small steps so they chose a complete rewrite, losing a large percentage of the profesional market in the process. But what they lost, I'm guessing they gained back in consumers and as FCPX improves they will gain some of those back.
What I've seen as the biggest gain are creatives directors and photographers. I know several who are masters of photoshop and after effects but struggled to get their head around Avid and FCP, who didn't have time to jump in head first, but took to FCPX like duck to water. These are highly paid individuals, heads of agencies. Which is what annoyed me when editors complained it wasn't professional. If the creative director of a billion dollar ad agency has found it suits his needs, it's hard to paint it as a toy.
That's not to say the complainers didn't have a point, they did. But it's a complaint that's been with Final Cut since version 1. It was always necessary to find a work around, whether outputting for film, tape, or digital. My career was made because final cut was cheap to use, but didn't quite work as it should.
I don't think the learning curve was the issue, these are people considering (or even implementing) switches to Avid or Premiere after years of FCP.
From seeing the outcry from the outside, the issues seemed mostly twofolds: 1. lack of genuinely needed features (not necessarily intersecting from one studio to the next, but editors were understandably unwilling to tear down their whole production pipeline for the sake of FCPX) and 2. fear about the place of "pro" (as in medium-to-big-studios) editors in Apple's medium and long-term roadmap, boosted by a perceived iMovie-ification (real or not) pointing to a refocus on prosumer and lighter work.
> If the creative director of a billion dollar ad agency has found it suits his needs, it's hard to paint it as a toy.
That's nonsense, you said it youself: these are creative directors and photographers, they're not editing big-budget movies or TV shows, they're not dealing with TV stations or juggling with 30 cameras. You're basically saying Acorn is just fine for everybody because professional developers can draw with it.
Features that they were told would be in future updates...they abandoned FCP because it was so different, otherwise they would have waited (and many have waited).
>2. fear about the place of "pro"
This fear is not unfounded, see Shake. But the idea that because FCPX looks similar to iMovie it's not professional is BS, the same thing that crops up with any new, inexpensive product (I've lived through it with DV, HDV, DSLRs, FCP 1, Premiere, Color, Nuke, and too many others to name). For me, the only feature missing from FCPX is OMF export, which is handled by a third party. Out of all the commercials I've made in the past 12 months (roughly 24 national spots), all could have been handled with FCPX without any foreseeable problems (all the spots had digital delivery so no need for tape layoffs). Same goes for the features I've handled in the past year (2).
Final Cut made inroads in commercials and indie films long before the big features (and most of the FCP editing on TV is low budget reality tv shows, who were also ahead of the curve). And it's always lacked features, it was my job to get around what it lacked (and it's been very lucrative). While there was always a learning curve going from Avid to FCP, it was a relative small one that could be overcome in a day or two of intense editing. The learning curve for FCPX, even for experienced FCP users is much greater (and the kicking and screaming that editors displayed when having to move to earlier versions of FCP was bad enough).
Just like before, it will be early adopters that push FCPX. But don't discount the power of a creative director coming to a post house with an FCPX project that he wants finished. The last 5 years of my career has been that storyline. Someone will call me and pay me good money to set it up and babysit the project. And considering a campaign with a 30 second spot is typically budgeted at 3million plus, it's worth spending the money to make the creative happy.
>they're not dealing with TV stations or juggling with 30 cameras
Very few editors deal with tv stations or juggling 30 cameras (and FCPs multi-cam has always been mediocre, if you have to deal with more than 3 cameras you're better off using Avid). Most big budget editors edit. Dealing with TV stations, delivery specs, or anything technical is left to assistants, conform artists, finishing editors, flame artists, hell even producers typically deal with that more than editors.
And I don't see anything wrong with Acorn if it serves the purpose. Photoshop is overkill for most users, even many pro users. What is professional is what can get the job done well.
No, these are people who are already invested in Avid or Adobe, who can't even accurately represent the state of FCP X (because they haven't used it enough, it seems.)
>1. lack of genuinely needed features
Most of the "missing" features already exist. For instance, multi cam existed before todays update, I did it with the release in October.
> You're basically saying Acorn is just fine for everybody because professional developers can draw with it.
Once again the assertion that FCP X is lacking features that are intrinsic to editing. FCP X is the photoshop, FCP, Premiere and Avid care the Acorn examples.
All of those apps are based on an old workflow that dates back to the origin of cinema, and are terrible to work with, and much slower and more difficult to edit with.
But, the problem is there's a lot of people who were trained in the old ways, and because the old ways are the old ways, they feel they can say any new way must be a toy.
That's what's nonsense. You comparing FCP X to Acorn is nonsense, when FCP X can do more, faster, and with more creativity than any other editing package on the market right now.
Real professionals want that power. Sure, if you've got a workflow that you need to stick with you don't want to migrate yet. But to complain about the change in the workflow and ignore the fact that editing has advanced significantly, means that the complainers are either invested in a competing product, or don't actually care about creativity.
I actually couldn't agree more. As a professional post producer, I work with a lot of editors and post houses, and know many more. And what your friends are telling you is right; Apple didn't "change" the product. They destroyed it. Literally destroyed it. As in, took absolutely essential elements (think engine in a car) and just left big empty holes in the places where they ought to be.
And this @nirvana nitwit has no idea what he's talking about when he says people simply don't want to learn "new ways" of doing things. If he had even the slightest grasp of how actual post production works, he'd see that there are no new ways to learn - unless he means people need to "learn" to get out and push vehicles they can no longer drive.
Dropping XML support is probably the clearest example. Assuming you're talking about something more professional than wedding videos, editing isn't simply about "being creative". It's also a traffic management job in which you're responsible for thousands of files coming off a range if systems run by a multitude of facilities, and having them all line up with a precision that can come down to 1/48th of a second. XML is the interchange format that allows this work to take place. Deciding to drop that is like walking into an air traffic control tower and smashing all the radios. That's bad, of course, but it takes a real moron to turn around and say "I don't understand why this is a problem" before adding insult to injury by saying anyone who thinks otherwise was never really a "professional" in the first place.
>And this @nirvana nitwit has no idea what he's talking about
>it takes a real moron to turn around and say
QED
I actually couldn't agree more. As a professional post producer, I work with a lot of editors and post houses, and know many more. And what your friends are telling you is right; Apple didn't "change" the product. They destroyed it. Literally destroyed it. As in, took absolutely essential elements (think engine in a car) and just left big empty holes in the places where they ought to be.
And this @nirvana nitwit has no idea what he's talking about when he says people simply don't want to learn "new ways" of doing things. If he had even the slightest grasp of how actual post production works, he'd see that there are no new ways to learn - unless he means people need to "learn" to get out and push vehicles they can no longer drive.
Dropping XML support is probably the clearest example. Assuming you're talking about something more professional than wedding videos, editing isn't simply about "being creative". It's also a traffic management job in which you're responsible for thousands of files coming off a range if systems run by a multitude of facilities, and having them all line up with a precision that can come down to 1/48th of a second. XML is the interchange format that allows this work to take place. Deciding to drop that is like walking into an air traffic control tower and smashing all the radios. That's bad, of course, but it takes a real moron to turn around and say "I don't understand why this is a problem" before adding insult to injury by saying anyone who thinks otherwise was never really a "professional" in the first place.
That simply is not true. There are a number of workflows which FCPX simply does not support at the moment, even with this update. And the original version was even worse.
When your editing toolchain works using EDL or OMF, FCPX is not a matter of "not wanting to learn anything new", it's a matter of not being able to work. Same with multicam (before this update), tape out, native raw, ...
Dismissing these issues does not put you in a good light.
I'm not aware that the previous version of Final Cut Pro has stopped working, or that anyone has been forced to upgrade to FCPX. Nor am I aware that the new UI for editing, which naturally involves a new workflow, makes it impossible for people to adapt to it, or prevents them from sticking with their previous version.
It's unfortunate that your response contains broad assertions with few specifics, as this makes it difficult to refute them. In fact, this is exactly the kind of response I saw from the so called "professionals" bashing the product in the first place-- broad assertions that the product doesn't do what it needs to do, without specifics.
Further, unfortunately, the specifics you do mention are enabled by third party software, and other apps in the Final Cut suite.
Case in point: "Now, however, the outcry about FCPX from "professionals" is really about those "professionals" not wanting to learn anything new, because they really aren't editors, they're just cutting things together by rote."
Sart with those air quotes. These people aren't "professionals" they're professionals. Denigrating others like this is just a dick move through and through. Stop it.
And then there's this:
"I'm not aware that the previous version of Final Cut Pro has stopped working, or that anyone has been forced to upgrade to FCPX. Nor am I aware that the new UI for editing, which naturally involves a new workflow, makes it impossible for people to adapt to it, or prevents them from sticking with their previous version."
Translation: "I'm not aware of any of the specific problems that have been discussed extensively and in great detail, nor do I understand how any of this works in practice meaning none of the conversations I glanced at made much sense to me anyway, so in truth, I have absolutely no idea what's really going on."
And yet you've got no problem insulting people who are very familiar with the problems by saying they they are just "doing things by rote" and "simply don't want to learn."
Again, total dick moves.
If you have any genuine interest in this, and would like to stop coming across like a complete ignoramus, start by learning more about XML. This really is lynchpin stuff, and if you can appreciate why that it is so important to high-end professional workflows (i.e. on shows with budgets in the tens to hundreds of millions), you may begin to understand what the issues are really about.
I promise you, a new UI is the very least of it.
I really do just wish you'd address my points honestly, rather than spend your time characterizing me.
One of the reasons I reached the conclusion I did about those complaining about FCP X is both their lack of knowledge about the product, but also their almost compulsive need to insult the people they disagree with.
The only reason I used the word professional in the first place is that those who bashed the product constantly claimed they were professional and that it wasn't professional. Thus they are using an arbitrary definition of professional, one I disagree with, and thus when I refer to it, the quotes are absolutely correct. But, rather than address my point, you used this as an example to pretend like I was saying something else entirely.
Even if I had, it doesn't justify the name calling.
And if you honestly think people who have spent literally decades working day-in-day-out as editors and post producers on major network and studio projects still have a debatable status as "professionals" then "idiot" is actually being kind.
Some people are highly experienced with a certain workflow and to entirely uproot that workflow interferes with their creative process. Dislike for change in a workflow is not a sign that you were using that workflow in a rote or non-creative way. Just a sign that you were used to it.
Your comparison also discounts the fact that the workflow in most modern video editors is extremely broken. Emacs and VIM users can make a good argument for a code editor being vastly customizable or controllable by keyboard only, but there are fewer defences for the way most video editors work: they behave as they do due to intertia, and because editors 20 and 30 years ago had to work a certain way due to the limitations of the hardware at the time. Many of the changes in FCPX are hugely welcome, but many editors -- including "pros" -- can't (or refuse to) see it.
With that in mind, I still think there's a big difference between saying "video editors as a group tend to be too resistant to change," which I would have no problem agreeing with, and saying that "anyone who is creative will think FCPX is better than FCP," which is silly.
I'm not trying to assert that FCPX isn't better than FCP or that the old FCP workflow wasn't broken, because honestly, it probably was, and beyond missing a few key features (which I'm sure will slowly return), FCPX really is better. I'm just trying to say that being resistant to a major workflow change does not mean you're "not an editor" or "performing only rote tasks" like nirvana asserts.
Then you say:
>FCPX really is better.
So, obviously it isn't silly, because I accurately predicted what your opinion of the product would be.
>being resistant to a major workflow change does not mean you're "not an editor" or "performing only rote tasks" like nirvana asserts.
That's not what I was saying. I'm saying that this outcry is baseless and nonsensical.
If the workflow change for FCPX would negatively impact your job, then don't switch to it. FCP 7 didn't stop working when it was released.
Thus there is no reason for an "outcry". Which is why I think the outcry is really from people invested in, or employees of, Avid or Adobe.
Further, since the complainers improve the massive improvement in creative editing ability and instead focus on allegedly missing features (most of which are not actually missing) its clear to me that none of them are even addressing the main point of an editor-- to enable creative editing.
I'm sure there are people who just assemble shows based on a formula, for whom workflow is much more important than creativity. I was wrong, though, in assuming these people are the source of the outcry-- that was a mistake-- the outcry is coming from people invested in the Adobe and Avid alternatives. Those for whom workflow is a bigger issue have no reason to complain because they don't have to switch to FCP X.
It is not at all silly to say that a significant improvement in the UI for editing video is something that everyone who is creative with video will appreciate.
Given the responses (including the ones in this thread) from people who are unhappy with FCPX, it is clear that they are not from people who are creative editors, but from people who are doing a rote job.
IF you are creative, having more creative tools is always going to be a benefit.
Your editor analogy is not appropriate because Emacs and Vim are comparable.
A better analogy would be "its like saying that anyone who's a creative person would rather work with paint brushes, canvas and oil paint than dirt, fingers and a similarly colored rock wall."
Sure, you could finish what you were doing, provided you needed no additional resources. But you couldn't switch to FCP X without cutting yourself off from audio post, effects pipelines, and so on. If you wanted to grow your operation in the "who knows when support for interchange will appear" window, you'd have to abandon FCP altogether, and re-invest in Avid or Adobe.
That's the epitome of a broken product.
That's just like saying 'programmers' don't want to learn Logo because they are programming by rote in Java or whatnot. that is just derogatory towards professional editors out there. Professional editors have tight deadlines, daily editing (most of world's editing) relies on muscle memory, tools which were essential were not existent in FCPX (OMF lack is a showstopper for example). Not to mention that post production is extremely technically inclined area which adopts anything new/easier/streamlined ASAP into their pipelines. Larger shops even have their in-house r&d that has great programmers and solution providers (that's how first NLE even started).
FCPX might be a good tool for a small time editor that needs an occasional video, but it is not up to professional standards yet. Outcry was not a knee jerk reaction, I can vouch for that.
One example would be that after first screening/demo of FCPX was received almost universally with great enthusiasm in editing community. Everybody wanted to see for themselves how they could fit in their workflow what was shown... and then people actually got their hands on it - it went downhill from that.
There are many programmers who resist learning another language because it's different than what they originally learned. I believe pg himself wrote an essay about that once. There are absolutely blub video editors.
FCPX might be a good tool for a small time editor that needs an occasional video, but it is not up to professional standards yet.
There are plenty of valid criticisms of FCPX, but this stuff is nonsense: there are plenty of professional editors using it already.
Where? I know none and I know hundreds of them, hundreds. Not single television network, production company, post production facility I know uses FCPX. AVID is still the king (and always has been), I see lots of FCP7 still around, and new to the production and post production sphere is Premiere, which is getting a lot of traction recently. I have even seen EDIUS around (especially RTL/Bertelsmann/Fremantle group), but I have yet to see one FCPX suite anywhere.
And the reason that it's true is because post houses can't integrate FCP X with the rest of their workflows even if they want to. Apple inexplicably stopped supporting the exchange format that allows this to happen.
I don't buy the argument hat only non-professional people are creative. I've worked with film and video for 20 years, including professionally.
That the outcry comes from people who completely ignore the massive advance in usability that FCPX represents, and instead focus on outdated (output to tape) and things that are supported by third party or FCP suite applications (7 to X migration, output in raw) tells me that this is not an outcry of creative professionals.
Sure there are a lot of people cutting together formulaic reality TV shows who want to preserve their workflow. That's fine, stay with FCP 7.
If preserving your workflow is your primary concern then you're not the target of this product, yet. FCP 7 didn't stop working.
You have failed to mention any serious features that it is missing, yet you say it "might be a good tool for a small time editor that needs an occasional video, but it is not up to professional standards yet."
This is exactly the same kind of nonsensical argument I hear from Canon fans. To them, Canon cameras are "professional" and everything else isn't, because they don't have the "Canon" name on them and therefore, can't possibly be "professional."
Its circular nonsense.
You, not a single person complaining about FCP X here or elsewhere, has named a single creative feature missing from FCP X, or otherwise justified the claim that its not "professional".
The references to what "professionals" need is an example of the fallacy of argument from authority. "I'm professional, therefore you're an nitwit if you disagree". Worse, its argument from false authority because nobody here is appointed to decide what is and is not "professional".
FCP X has been enthusiastically embraced by the editing community. That's my point. They're not the ones complaining (who I suspect are all on the payroll of Adobe or Avid, or otherwise bought into those systems....)
If the outcry were legitimate, the people engaging in it would be able to recognize that FCP X has moved the state of the art of editing forward significantly. They do not, they only talk about what they claim is missing, and often claim things are missing that actually aren't, but are just different (Showing they haven't even used the product enough to give a "professional" opinion.)
If you've managed to follow this issue at all without seeing (repeated) references to the lack of XML support, then you are mentally retarded.
I don't mean that as an insult. I mean that in the clinical sense of not having a properly functioning brain. It is simply not credible that an individual who has got an even passing familiarity with professional post production could miss this, or fail to understand why it's on par with an air-traffic control tower stripped of its radios.
XML is a feature, not a creative feature. I think its hilarious that you've dedicate yourself to bashing FCP X anywhere its talked about, and you can't even respond honestly to people's points.
Not once in my life have I ever bashed an Avid product or Premiere, and I certainly don't jump into threads where they're discussed to do so, calling people "asshole", "nitwit", "moron", "dick", etc.
There exists a product called "7toX" that converts projects from FCP 7 to FCP X. It does the XML conversion. In fact, making convertibility easy is the whole purpose of using XML in the first place.
But if that doesn't work for you, then you don't have to transition to FCPX at all.
So, what are you complaining about? A product you don't use doesn't have a feature you want, and so you're going to run around calling people names for the crime of liking that product?
Really?
Reality: XML is what allows creatives to work together. It represents the very core of collaboration. In collaborative arts, the collaboration is a driver of creativity. No creative team, no creative teamwork.
@nirvana: "I think its hilarious that you've dedicate yourself to bashing FCP X anywhere its talked about"
Reality: I've been relying on FCP based workflows since 2003. I bought my first personal copy in 2005. I have a copy of FCP X, and I like it very much. Indeed, in situations where it works, it works better than anything else I've ever used. Between the hardware and the software, I have spent thousands of dollars on my ability to edit in FCP. I have never dedicated myself to "bashing FCP anywhere it's talked about".
@nirvana: and you can't even respond honestly to people's points.
Reality: I can respond honestly, point by point, with this response being a case in point.
@nirvana: Not once in my life have I ever bashed an Avid product or Premiere, and I certainly don't jump into threads where they're discussed to do so, calling people "asshole", "nitwit", "moron", "dick", etc.
Reality: You introduced yourself to this conversation by denigrating the professional status of professional editors and post-producers, accused them of performing their jobs mindlessly, stated that they were simply luddites hostile to change, and that their inability to adapt to FCP X was a function of laziness, and NOT with any deficiencies in the product itself. In other words, you launched an unprovoked wave of personal attacks that had little bearing on the technical and business issues that have been central to the whole FCP X fiasco.
You were behaving like an asshole. And then you got upset when called out for behaving like an asshole. That's a quintessential dick move.
@nirvana: There exists a product called "7toX" that converts projects from FCP 7 to FCP X. It does the XML conversion.
Reality: Uncontested, but irrelevant. The concern with XML is not with the conversion of old projects to the new format (though that's certainly an issue). The concern is that a lack of native support means that FCP X cannot work seamlessly with industry standard software like ProTools, Maya, and so on. Given that a core function of an editor is compiling elements built in a variety of different systems, the inability to talk to those systems is a very big deal. Indeed, when people say "this is not a professional product" this is precisely what they mean; unlike its predecessor, it is fundamentally incompatible with the professional environments it's expected to manage.
@nirvana: Making convertibility easy is the whole purpose of using XML in the first place.
Reality: And that's why removing native support for XML is like going into an air traffic control tower and smashing the radios. How do you not understand this?
@nirvana: But if that doesn't work for you, then you don't have to transition to FCPX at all.
Reality: No one has to transition to FCP X, but they do have to transition. As noted elsewhere, ending sales of FCP 7 means that existing pipelines are frozen. No additional seats can be lawfully added. Firms wanting to grow legally will need to switch to a platform that will accomodate this growth. This is a non-trivial expense. Moreover, the announcement came with zero warning, which was ham-fisted in the extreme.
It is absolutely idiotic to say (as you did) that the "outcry" isn't coming from people faced with this unexpected and unnecessary cost, and that it's actually astroturf coming from Apple's competitors. In reality, it is coming from people who no longer have a clear roadmap from a primary vendor, can no longer plan their own operations accordingly, who were shocked by the ineptitude of the FCP X rollout, and who now have to assume the heavy cost of transitioning away from a suddenly untrustworthy partner.
@nirvana: So, what are you complaining about?
Reality: There is no question about what I, and many many others are complaining about. Only...
Where? What editing community? My day job involves moving around various small and big TV networks (national and international), production and post production houses. Not single one of them even considers FCPX, let alone having one in house.
As for features lacking, there are many. I'll give you one on my personal example. I'm finishing up a documentary I'm working on now (in FCP7, but let's pretend I was working in FCPX), in order for me to move it to a finishing stage from editing it needs to go through grading via EDL/XML (with this update I believe it's settled) and I have to get OMF out the door with a small preview file to a sound post facility. If I were in FCPX I couldn't give them OMF. No OMF, no sound post in pretty much any facility out there. I'd have to give them a raw EDL sheet and sound files, which they would charge me significantly more, that is if they would take it like that at all.
As for multicam lacking, I personally don't need it since I have a habit of editing multicams via separate synched tracks, but I can see how other might find this lacking.
XML support (if it works) might resolve major issues like integrating with grading suites and other post production stages. OMF is a must, without it - no go. Multicam, as I've described above. Color discontinuation in favor of integrated grading tools is not a major issue to me since I never relied on color for grading to begin with. Inability to work with previous Final Cut projects (unless it's resolved with XML support) is something that bugs me, since I tend to open past projects a lot. Not having an ability to open more than one sequence at a time is something I'm familiar with from AVID and which I liked a lot in FCP, but I can live with that. No native support for R3D (which Premiere has) would be very nice and expected, but isn't there which means I still have to work with rushes (we mostly work with red cameras).
As far as me personally goes, I need rock solid XML (which maybe it now has) and OMF (which I can't work without). Other people might be more picky. Main thing why I won't switch to FCPX in the future is because there are better alternatives (new Premiere looks like what FCP8 should have been, AVID6 does wonders...) and because I don't put trust in Apple when my job depends on it. How long was FCP without any feature release or secretive nature of not disclosing anything in advance for their 'Pro' products is not something I want to rely on. I relied on Shake, they have killed it. I have used India Pro, they have killed it. I have used FCP6 and FCP7 (still do and am transitioning to other programs) and they have released new version which renders me not being able to finish a project without supporting old version. We were even one of the fools that bought Final Cut Server (which is a POS that doesn't even work as advertised) and XServes, they have killed those too. We're currently waiting to see if there will be a new Mac Pro offering at all in the coming months or we'll jump to HP machines for editing. Why would I ever again want to rely on that company again? And I'm not alone in this thinking. I have my Macbook Air for scriptwriting and that's what I will trust them with, laptops and gadgets.
First impressions are everything - and Apple blew it bad on this one.
Not sure about "unwarranted". Debatable yes, but they made the decision that the previous product was not evolvable and rewrote the whole bloody thing from scratch. It took them a good two years (assuming they started right as FCP7 got out the door), there was no way it was going to happen with full feature parity short of taking twice as long.
> First impressions are everything - and Apple blew it bad on this one.
Not like they don't have a history of it, they did the same when they rewrote iMovie. It did end a better product than it was, I think.
Still, might not be as good an idea on a non-linear video editor in a market where switching costs are significant.
Unless they changed what their TARGET FUCKING MARKET is, of course.
Then that's what needed to happen - it was half baked, put it back in the oven for a while. But releasing a flagship product (Final Cut is THE video editing app of choice on Mac) in the state that FCPX was done in was complete lunacy.
>Not like they don't have a history of it, they did the same when they rewrote iMovie.
But that's iMovie, consumer grade software. The worst you'll do by changing it around is tick a few people off who will hopefully get over it.
If I were a videographer and found out that I could no longer open or save in a format that is industry standard and that I rely upon, my very first reaction would be to wonder what the developers were smoking, followed by wondering the same about Apple, followed by leaving a bad review on the store page (They shut down reviews on FCPX it was getting so bad.. and keep in mind, you can't review things on the app store that you haven't installed at least once), followed by petitioning for my money back.
That's one point of view, with which I don't agree. By releasing it when they did and building upon this, Apple could/could have built a better product with a live feedback loop in the field. The core engine was there for using or complaining about, and for people for whom it was insufficient, FCP7 still worked just as it would have worked had they waited longer to release FCPX.
What Apple failed here was managing expectation and their release, the basic strategy is not only sound but a way to get a better product in the end.
I think that's what really took it from a "calm down, stick with what already works until the new infant version is suitable for you" story to a "this could really mess up some businesses" story.
True as well. I'd put that in the "botching the release" part
No, what people were truly furious about were things under the hood. Or more precisely, things that weren't under this hood. Specifically, the lack of support for XML. What turned this from disappointing to infuriating was the simultaneous yanking of FCP 7 from the market, meaning that the entire FCP using community was frozen in place. It was actually illegal to add extra seats to a pipeline.
That's like walking into an air traffic control tower and smashing all the radios, then bombing the runway, just for added good measure. The difference is that Apple's customers weren't a hostile nation at war with the attackers. They were the attackers CUSTOMERS.
Indeed, the technology problems are almost a distraction. The real issue was the raw idiocy on display. I mean, this was stupidity on par with showing up drunk for a driving test. People were truly astonished that Apple could employ people this moronically dumb. And more to the point, that they'd give them access to a product with a LOT of exposure to the media industry.
If you think the situation was even remotely analogous to a Facebook redesign, you have no idea what actually happened.
I'm forced to reach this conclusion because none of the complaints has been accurate about the features of FCP X, or acknowledged the significant advancement that FCP X made to editing. Thus its clear to me that they've not used FCP X, yet are still highly motivated to attack it.
I love how this comment has a negative score, while the guy who calls me a name in every response (asshole, dick, nitwit, moron, idiot, and retarded so far) has positive scores for every single one of the posts with an insult in it. So do the other people who felt the need to derogatorily characterize me or my argument.
This is why Hacker News is in decline. So long as those who engage in bad behavior are expressing an opinion that the majority agrees with (And bashing Apple is always popular here) they will not have negative scores and thus not be flagged for review by the hellbanners.
Go read the reviews of FCP X on the App Store (which may or may not be cleared by now.. I don't have access to a mac). You cannot leave reviews on app store apps unless you have installed it at least once. That would seem to imply that most of the bad reviews there are legitimate.
I just read through the comments that you're talking about. There's a difference between saying "You're coming across like a $pejorative" and "You are a $pejorative".
If you can't twig that simple difference, well, you are coming off like a dumbass.
http://www.apple.com/finalcutpro/software-update.html
http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3533320