Personal View site logo
FCX Explained- Fresh Perspective
  • I don't know if this is the correct place to post this, or if it has already been widely watched, but I took the time to watch this today, and it broke down a lot of myths about FCX. Let's have a constructive discussion, shall we?
  • 20 Replies sorted by
  • May be use existing Finac Cut X topic?
  • nice marketing...
  • @B3Guy, Thanks for posting this. I watched the entire thing and it was very informative. I already intended to move to FCPX, but this made me more relaxed about it.
  • @Vitaliy_Kiselev, is there a way I can move it, or is that done by you?

    @RuhrCity I realize completely that FCX is not perfect, and quite possibly not as good as he makes it out to be in the video, but there's a lot of mother-dogging about bovine excrement it doesn't have, and this debunks several of those claims. Most of the internet community seemed to have a very strong knee-jerk reaction, and everyone has instantly written it off as a pile of garbage. While I completely understand that for some it just isn't the right cup of tea, I was pretty wary when it got bashed so quick. Internet communities blow up so easy sometimes and they often are wrong when this happens.

    I wanted to share this because it provides some counterbalance to a seemingly over-hostile, closed-minded view of FCX.

    Out of curiosity, did you actually watch all thru?

  • Most of the Production managers I know who were already shying away from FCP in professional situations are even more reluctant to use FCPX with its current problems (real or not)
  • I alternate between working for one large proco with 50 networked avids and a smaller ones that were final cut but are now migrating to avid or (if they mainly do one offs) premiere. Some thoughts on the video:

    - A lot of the new features seem to be mouse-based. From my experience in the edit, editors with good keyboard skills and a well laid out keyboard are always faster than mouse-based ones. Also, editing 40-60 hrs per week with a largely mouse (or pen) based interface will seriously f up your shoulder.

    - I still can't imagine editing without a source monitor.

    - Track assignment, for the sort of projects I work on at least, is absolutely vital for online and mix as well keeping track of archive.

    - Tagging seems to me a poor substitute for proper media management -- what happens when you get a new editor on a project -- does the other have to read his mind to know how he tagged things? For me, far preferable to thoughtfully ingest it right in the first place.

    - Does nothing to address what was always FC's biggest flaw -- inability to properly run multiple edits on one project.

    It will be interesting to see how it evolves, and I generally love apple and their products, so I'm by no means ruling it out, but in my world at least (deadline driven, multiple concurent edits, broadcaster requirements for tape output) nothing in X suggests it will be more useful to us soon. It may be just the thing for an independent project, but it won't be taking professional production houses by storm. In fact, faced with the option of a total upgrade of their systems and all the problems with orphaned media and plug ins, many may well decide to just move to AVID which, for all it's flaws, will be dedicated to the professional market first and foremost.

    But thanks for sharing the clip. Was interesting to watch and understand. And background rendering is absolutely killer.
  • It's so early in the game that I think too many are drawing conclusions too fast. I've seen this happen so many times with Apple over the years with decisions they've made. This is perhaps the most controversial. I think that Apple will eventually be able to satisfy the Production Houses as well as the vast multitudes of independent newcomers that this program has made editing more accessible to, like myself.

    It's possible that having this new base code will allow faster development. part of the problem for old programs is that the code has many limiting factors that have to be worked around or can't be worked around. Often starting fresh permits more significant development in the future. I'm very optimistic about the product. I'm coming from the Audio world and as an engineer i've seen how a complete rewrite has totally improved the development path of a company's product.
  • Tell that to the missus who's got a Post facility with 30 Avids with their plethora of inherent boxes, a smattering of FCP, Audio suites, Graphics and plummeting budgets - there's no more money in the tin I'm afraid. The editors wanted by productions (generally) are AVID old boys/girls, and when your suite stops working because Quicktime V x.xx is bugged, it doesn't cut the mustard on any job other than a small edit ... saying that I worked on Cold Mountain when Walter Murch bashed it out with FCP, but he's a nutter lol. I'm a dubbing mixer also, by the way, and 9/10 jobs I do daily are AVID cut. FCP is great for some things, just not large facility jobs (it seems!)
  • Professional's hate FCPX because 1. It's different and 2. because it's becoming more accessible and powerful for the prosumer. It's the same mind-set of DSLRs... people don't hate them because of the technical problems (those are just the scapegoat), people hate them because the image is on par with what "most people" consider professional and cinematic... the barrier of price/performance that most professionals rely on, has been removed.

    I always hear people saying "it's the shooter that makes a professional product, not the camera." Well, this is exactly what allot of professionala (and others) are afraid of. Before if you wanted to get into the video production game, talent didn't really even matter that much, you could just go out and get a 2/3" Varicam for $60k and instantly be shooting on a quality level that would separate you from the student/indie crowd. Now, it doesn't really matter, everyone is forced to play on the same field... and many don't like it.

    From what I've observed, the majority people who act hostile towards DSLRs and other industry paradigm sifts (digital audio, NLE's), are generally not that talented. They simply bought the best stuff and have relied on the price/quality barrier to separate themselves. Some of the most hostile DSLR "bashers" are guys that just run video production "services"... basically their business is just shooting general/expendable content on professional formats. Artistic and creative talent don't even come into play here. These "video services" guys are probably going to have trouble finding business as the era of consumer gear out-performing the stagnant professional market moves forward.

    The professional market has always been planned and more linear in nature, while the consumer market starts out lower, but ultimate surpasses professional gear due more revenue and quicker development.
    1000 x 500 - 52K
  • I owned a 2600 Sq. Ft. Recording Studio in Georgia, USA. I closed mainly cuz so many musicians can afford a Computer and Pro Tools LE and record at home. Especially when it comes to Hip Hop. Even when I dropped my prices, it was impossible to beat some kid with a home studio. There were other factors like the economy, but primarily it was the higher quality of the home studio equipment. I still had better stuff, but the home studio was close enough for most. I ended up with mostly Rock, R&B, Jazz and Gospel bands in my A room, but my smaller suites barely got any business. I still got business when it came to mastering and duplication, but sessions just died out. It's the way of the world. Tho it ruined me financially, i'm not bitter, cuz it's a transition that can't be stopped. Now i'm moving to other services, such as TV Commercials, Local TV show production, Corporate Training Modules, Music Videos etc.
  • @bwhitz seriously? What exactly do you base that on? Have you ever shot 120 fps on a red? Have you seen the different in colour correct during an online of 10 bit 422 footage versus 8 bit 420? I love my gh2, but I'm not under any illusions that it is as good as a 100k camera kit, or even a 20k f3 with a gemini (incidentally, that is where the debate in in the industry right now -- not whether dslrs are as good as big cameras, but whether there's any need to ever spend more than $25k on a camera package).

    On the edit side, have you ever had to edit and lock four hours of programming, cutting down nearly 100 hours of footage into three different versions for international audiences in 20+ countries? If you have, you'll know FC (7 or X) isn't up to the task (for starters, it will crash; more importantly if deadlines are a problem, multiple editors can't have the same project open without running into a versioning nightmare).

    Professionals are not professionals because they are snobs, professionals are professionals because they have to meet the highest standards, with 100 percent reliability, on tight deadlines, without fail. We work in an ever changing market place where standards set by our clients (broadcasters) are forever rising, and timelines are always getting shorter, so we gravitate towards the highest quality, most reliable equipment we can find.
  • @bwhitz

    Your posts are mostly not FCP X related.
    And we have suitable topic in Offtopic category, please use them for this.
  • Whatever happened to everyone wanting to work like Minority Report???
    FCPX is just one step closer--

    If anyone wants to geek out just have a look at AVFoundation- this thing has legs!
  • @JDN "On the edit side, have you ever had to edit and lock four hours of programming, cutting down nearly 100 hours of footage into three different versions for international audiences in 20+ countries?"

    No, I'm more into the creative side of production. Mostly narrative stuff. Maybe they should sell off FCP7 to someone as a broadcast solution, and then market FCX as the more narrative-creative driven product? Broadcasting and narrative are VERY different fields... what is better for one, may be terrible for the other.

    Consumer gear may not have 100% caught up to professional products... but it's damn close... and the results are nearly identical for the end-viewer now. It will also continue to advance exponentially since there is more money to be made by selling to the consumer/prosumer market. There are usually 2 or 3 consumer product cycles for every professional one (unless they change their model) and we're right at the heals of pro-gear as of now. In 2-3 more cycles, consumer gear will probably be more advanced, unless they change their marketing strategies for pro gear. It's the exact same thing as what happened to pro-audio.

  • Sadly, and not wanting to piss on creative bonfires - if the Production manager hates FCP its dead, if they like it, the remaining facilities in town try to win it (in London anyhow!), hell I live next door to my kebab wielding chum who's a big lad in deciding where post goes (what do I know!) and listen to his emperor new clothes - is FCP good? rant weekly - essentially what I can glean is - what's cheapest?! I think of the guys I do know the big guns stuff is done in Avid always, because the big guns guys are old and use it!
  • IMO FCX will eventually be a winner. It's faster, easier to use and CHEAP! A kid looking to get into the video world can get FCX and he and his friends can learn it, master it and grow up with it in their blood. Newcomers will very likely come into this without preconceptions and so they will only see a powerful and affordable program that still has a huge reputation as a professional platform. Only the production house crowd will be put off with it's limitations.

    The improvements and missing features will soon come and when they do, it will be a top tier platform than is accessible to both Pro and Consumer. I really like the Timeline and the more you work with it I believe it will become 2nd nature like anything else usually does.
  • But if he want to be hired by an editing house - ....... really not even judged as anything other than hobby, unless you're Preditors in Soho, which who is, as everyone knows, Reg who runs it - you'd be surprised how much editing Skill is>whatever buttons you push, great to fiddle at home. but when MTV want it at 2PM ... The terribly boring guys n gals who book me as a mixer or you as an editor really have no idea or care how lovely our software is - all they want to know is will it be on me SR tape at 6:00PM ... yes lol
  • @test1
    And if 'eventually' FCPX can work in this workflow then it will be a winner. The reality is that FCP has been taking a back seat for a while- with Avid really taking over (whenever wasn't it any way!).
    FCPX could possibly be Apples last effort to change the "pro" landscape - if they pull it off- it will be amazing! Time will tell. Regardless- if the foundations are there in FCPX - then if any serious TV stations want to work with it- they will just have to write their own plugins for import and export. (there are enough developers that know Objective C now anyway!) (what I want now though is proper external monitoring- that's it- I'm easy pleased!)
  • Yeah, really enjoyed it!
  • There's a huge bug that causes me more than 5 hours of editing today.
    FCPX suddenly loses the ability to go 'undo' (it's greyed out).
    Apparently it's a known bug. The bad thing is that 'auto-saving' also doesn't work anymore when undo is greyed out.

    Now there's no excuse for that. These pricks should have tested FCP in a professional environment before releasing it to the public.

    Anyway I'm annoyed by OSX Lion too.