What about BluRay Any Idea, or Support ??
Posted by RPBPRO on 04/13 at 12:02 AM
Thanks for the wonderful analysis. I was at the event last night. I walked away generally feeling like FCP was innovative, but dumbed down and less professional . I am not comfortable with the interface and have the same list of questions as you.
In some respects its seems there is no clear direction for the future. Avid doesnt support Kona 3 or exporting xml. FCP seems “imovied” for the masses. Strange as it may seem. Premiere Pro has all the things I look for (64 bit, all formats native and unsurpassed integration with After Effects).
Even though I had a great time meeting and talking to folks, FCP seems to be a let down.
Posted by Tom Daigon on 04/13 at 03:00 AM
Thanks for this Scott. Well put together.
The whole thing has left me feeling drained and disappointed. Judging by the #FCP twitter tags, a lot feel the same way. Should we be be worried or excited?
Right now I’m worried. A Premiere upgrade or the Avid Xgrade options are looking interesting.
Hopefully Apple might gather enough confidence in their new product to actually show it on theApple.com website and perhaps even show us the FCP X Suite or Motion X / Color X?
Posted by Nick WB on 04/13 at 04:19 AM
My guess is that we can probably quite predict the answer to a few of these questions just by looking at iMovie.
What about 3rd party plug-ins?
Yes, iMovie has a history of supporting 3rd party effects/plugins, so its more than likely that FCPX will support OS X’s native effect languages like Quartz Composer / FxPlug etc ... but FxScript support would surely be unlikely.
What about XML and EDLs in and out of FCP X?
Yes, iMovie has import/export options including XML so no reason to imagine that FCPX won’t have the full raft of expected options
Is there a better title tool?
iMovie has Titling over it’s ‘canvas’ window ... FCPX sports a similar “T” button on its interface so something is there
How do filters work?
In iMovie, filters are applied directly from a clip instances inspector window ... hope thats not how its done in FCPX.
Check out the hires screenshots over at loopinsight ... can glean some more info from those.
Posted by Andy on 04/13 at 05:31 AM
Thanks for the comments.
@Andy - I think you’re correct in assuming we’ll have those things in FCP X. In fact one developer I talked too said that Apple has told them there will be an api. But what struck me was that with such a robust and exciting 3rd party community that lives around FCP I thought they would at least mention this fact that 3rd party developers will have a place within FCP X. They would be stupid to kill it off so we know they won’t. Just a mention of that in the presentation would have gone a LONG way toward answering some of these questions.
My bet is they’ll all find a home on the App Store!
Posted by Scott Simmons on 04/13 at 06:20 AM
Good point. Remember last years dreadful presso? It was all about 3rd party ‘partners’ ... so yes, as a bit of a dabbler myself, it sure would be nice to get some ‘official’ word on the intended support rather than relying on my present crossed fingers approach 
Posted by Andy on 04/13 at 07:31 AM
Thanks Guys, I think your are both right and have hit the nail on the head - there has been no mention of third party support or even supporting studio apps which is why it feels all wrong.
FCP is all about the studio apps and plugins that make it such a rich and professional environment to work in.
I’m amazed that there is still nothing on the main site, even in ‘Hot News’. It almost like a denial that last night ever happened.
Posted by Nick WB on 04/13 at 07:51 AM
Steve: Did you see Avid’s latest software? And the CS5 thing is killing us. Get Randy on the phone.
Randy: Wassup Stevie baby.
Steve: Stop acting like a kid. We need something to keep our Pro Apps users on board & buying hardware. It’ll take too long for QuickTime X and Lion to enable the infrastructure for a new & power Final Cut Studio. What do you have?
Randy: Well, consumers love the new iMovie!
Well, they did after we put back many of the features I threw away when I redid it.
But they love it now! It’s the only version of iMovie they buy any more!
Steve: Randy, it’s the only version of iMovie we offer any more.
Randy: Oh, yea, righto, Stevo.
Steve: Stop it Randy.
I really need a rabbit out of a hat here.
Randy: What if I dress up iMovie with some cool higher end features I’ve been thinking of and we call it iMovie Pro?
Steve: What? That’s inane. Nobody’d buy into that bullshit.
Randy: No, really! If we present it just the right way, and I make sure it has a few of the most asked for features that people have been begging for in FCP for a decade… they’ll gobble it up!
Steve: oh yea, the “reality distortion field thing?”
Randy: Exactimundo!
Steve: Okay, I’ll bite, what do you propose?
Randy: Okay, I’ve always wanted to have the software, like, autodetect things- like faces, people, etc. Like the iPhoto thing. And we can have the clips slide around in the timeline like it did with iMovie 1 back in 1999.
Steve: That’s going back a ways there, Randy.
Randy: ...oh, and I know people hate waiting for rendering, that’s why Premiere is so cool with that whole GPU thing. That ROCKS! The way you can just stack up HD clips an—
Steve: RANDY!
Randy: Oh, yea, sorry. Anyway, I could also grab background rendering from iMovie 1. FCP users will just gobble that UP! We’ll talk about 64-bit and all that, but we can fudge what doesn’t really work in software.
Steve: No render bars?
Randy: Nope.
Steve: Can I manually dedicate CPU processing to interface and background tasks so the interface doesn’t slow…
Randy: NO! We make it all “automagically” happen like with the iPhone. The less they have to think, the better. Plus, then they can’t screw it up and blame the application.
Steve: Good point. That has worked well with the iPhone. Control everything. ... Can you have this ready by NAB?
Randy: WOW! You thinking of the big stage on the show floor again. That would be awesome! We could…
Steve: No.
Randy: Huh?
Steve: I’ll give a call to the FCP users group and see if they’d be interested in letting us take over the Supermeet. It’s about 1/50th the cost of the NAB booth and we target exactly who we need to target.
Randy: User group meeting? Like, not even at the Las Vegas Convention Center?
Steve: The reality distortion field works best when you fill the room with people who already believe. I’ve been doing this a while. Trust me.
Randy: Wow, you going to present it? That would really be gre—
Steve: No. It’s not worth my time.
...
You do it.
...
Yea, You present iMovie Pro.
But you’ll have to come up with a catchier name.
Randy: oh, okay.
Steve: Great. Thanks! (click)
Posted by IEBA on 04/13 at 08:23 AM
I’m in charge of post for a television production company in the U.S. After watching the presentation, I’m very excited about this new version of FCP. It will definitely be one heck of a learning curve - it’s a whole new program! But after seeing so many features in the demo that will make my work easier, faster, and more creative, I’m excited about learning FCP X. This is NOT iMovie Pro. This is what a modern day NLE should look and act like. I’m excited.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on 04/13 at 09:07 AM
@IEBA haha great one. Man - I was at NAB last year when the best thing about the Supermeet was the lingerie show we had to walk thru to get there. I remember seeing cameras and streaming gear everywhere, and couldn’t help but wonder why. Weather was cold and rainy…
This year, tons of action and I’m stuck in the rain… in NY. Apple brings the goods to Supermeet and no streaming. Was there at least enough food this time? Oh well.
(OK rant over - I’m just jealous I couldn’t be there this year 
)
Some really nice stuff in FCPx I think - potentially anyway. Too bad for Apple they’re well over a year behind. I went back to Premiere (which I learned back with v4.2) with CS5 (after years of waiting for FCP to do… anything) and my After Effects-using brain isn’t really looking back.
That said, for $299 it would be silly not to pick it up - and Apple will sell a TON of copies, even to people who aren’t really that into it. For that price, hard to pass it up.
I want to hear how they will handle exporting a timeline for something like AE or Resolve or… the old version of Color.
Have to think Color (too specialized and confusing for non-colorists) and DVD Studio (pretty much obsolete) are done. Curious to see if they step up Motion’s game at all. I remember so much promise years back and then a gradual slow-down in interest…
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on 04/13 at 09:21 AM
Forgot to say - thanks, Scott for this coverage!
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on 04/13 at 09:25 AM
@scottieb LOL thanks for making me smile!! - It may be closer to the truth than anyone would like to admit?
Posted by Nick WB on 04/13 at 09:57 AM
The “it’s just iMovie with some lipstick” thing is getting old already. So what if it borrows some of the tech? If it works well, rendering while I edit without me noticing, leveraging all my RAM and cores, and just “gets out of the way” while we edit, I don’t really care about its patronage.
Third party plugins or [insert feature here]: my guess is FXplug might work. Expect them not to. We’ve been here before: OS 9 to X; PPC to Intel. Those were probably more disruptive than this transition will be.
I’d be shocked if there wasn’t robust XML in & out. That’s a huge part of many, many workflows and they’ve worked hard to refine those features over the last 10 years.
I don’t agree with the whole, “it’s dumbed down and not ‘professional’” impressions, either: the functionality seems to get revealed when needed. And, clearly much wasn’t revealed yet.
Henry Ford once said, “if I had asked people what they wanted, they would have said, ‘a faster horse’!”.
Posted by Allan W. on 04/13 at 11:00 AM
I have to say I really… dislike… that Henry Ford reference. We’re not talking horse to car here, we’re talking final cut to final cut. Nothing that I saw in the new Final Cut (which I like so far) can be compared to the horse-to-car transition. More like gas to hybrid - maybe? Not quite the same magnitude. Every new tech there has been asked for before - people know what they want here.
Or maybe I just hate it because Apple put it in people’s mouths so I’ve heard it about 50 times in the last 3 days. 
Apple makes good stuff. So does Adobe. And Avid. And foundry etc etc
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on 04/13 at 11:08 AM
“There’s only one man who would dare give me the raspberry!” 
Fine, it’s a Prius. Can’t wait to drive it regardless!
Posted by Allan W. on 04/13 at 11:13 AM
Allan wrote:
“The “it’s just iMovie with some lipstick” thing is getting old already. So what if it borrows some of the tech? If it works well, rendering while I edit without me noticing, leveraging all my RAM and cores, and just “gets out of the way” while we edit, I don’t really care about its patronage.”
Then I’d have to wonder why you don’t already edit with iMovie.
iMovie 1, from 1999, rendered in the background. What shocks me most is editors who get excited at the opportunity to use iMovie Pro when there was little stopping them from editing HD in iMovie for the past two years. There was a reason they didn’t.
As for “borrows some of the tech” ...
By “some” do you mean the entire interface, workflow, windowing, import & export? If yes, then I’d agree with you.
Posted by IEBA on 04/13 at 11:32 AM
“As for “borrows some of the tech” ... By “some” do you mean the entire interface, workflow, windowing, import & export?”
No one here uses iMovie because it’s very limited in feature set and workflow. That doesn’t mean it doesn’t have some useful tech in it. FCPX goes way, way beyond that, and I think that’s rather plain to see. Randy U.‘s DNA is apparent, and he’s rethinking how editing iteself can work. Putting some of the innovations he put in iMovie (tagging, smart folders, facial recognition, background multithreaded render) into a more powerful FCP will be awesome for many workflows.
I think they’ve borrowed some of the best ideas out there from Vegas, Edius, PPro, and created some new ones.
I don’t want to turn this thread into a sparring match. We don’t agree, that’s ok. I’ve been ready to dump FCP for Premiere CS5 for a while now; I’ll give FCPX a shake and if it’s just crap, Premiere will be happy to edit my clips.
Posted by Allan W. on 04/13 at 11:47 AM
@scottieb - you mentioned “good tools” from Avid, Foundry, etc. - I’ve really been fascinated by Storm. As a big fan of metadata-driven workflows, I was intrigued to see some of their <a href=“http://www.thefoundry.co.uk/products/storm/features/”>:
http://www.thefoundry.co.uk/products/storm/features/ (image)
The cross-pollination we’re seeing is amazing and I think the users will win.
Posted by Allan W. on 04/13 at 11:56 AM
Phil Hawes made a very good observation at the Creative Cow that made a lot of sense to me…
“From what I read of the reports of the demo of the new Final Cut X, the new features demonstrated are targeted towards the amateur video maker with a camcorder or DSLR. Features like stabilization, rolling shutter correction, noise cancellation, and audio sync, all supposedly happening on import, are targeting users who have basic production equipment problems. These are all features to compensate for amateur errors. A lot of these tools are problematic and not what a professional is asking for.
Nor does the professional want a new “event list” , filmstrip viewers, a new iMovie like trim editor, or pop up color correction.
The only feature here that any professional would want is 64 bit and multi-threading and not so they could edit H.264 natively in an iMovie like environment or have a no transcoding workflow. A 64 bit multi-threaded Final Cut 7 would have satisfied most people and taken away a lot of headaches.
If the demo had been targeted towards professionals the following features may have been shown: better Media Management tools, improvement for filters (10 bit), a better Compressor interface, better integration with Color, and perhaps Motion working in 10 bit with more finesse.
It remains to be seen what the actual Final Cut X really is but as for now it is definitely not being marketed to the professional. Does Apple really have the audacity to believe that they can rewrite the history of video editing with a Final Cut GUI change? I think not. I just suspect that they are shifting their market.”
Phil
Posted by Tom Daigon on 04/13 at 01:00 PM
Bear with me here, I posted my thoughts and Allan replied, but in the video thread, so I’m pasting them here since this is where all of the action is centralized:
“I read the blogs last night, but haven’t watched the videos yet. Definitely waiting to see more about how this affects the other Pro Apps. Speaking of which, where’s our new Shake; Phenomenon?
Looks like they hit my main desires; 64-bit, real multi-core support w/ Grand Central, improvements to the horribly inept keyframing of old, real speed ramping control (did they mention if optical flow is now integrated?). Did I miss the part about Open CL support? They did mention it, right?! Would also like to know more about Media Management. Did anyone see any menus hinting at all of the STP functionality (besides the auto-magic FCPX cleans in one click on import)?
I’m still out on the interface. I’d have to see the video footage. I don’t care if the interface resembles iMovie, as long as the workflow and under the hood power are all improvements, without loss of control. Overall, I’m intrigued, and holding out judgement until I know more. The interface and “X” moniker does have me a bit worried that it could end up going the Quicktime X route (flashy, but where’s my Pro export options?) And I hope that it doesn’t become overly simplified like Motion (look, GPU livetype particle previews, it’s the AE/Shake killer!).
Sure, I have some gripes with Apple’s Pro App line decisions and lack of progress in the past few years. But like I said, I’m holding out hope for the time being, and giving them the benefit of the doubt until I’ve seen more of FCP X in action and have more info. about the other FCS apps.”
Posted by Brad B. on 04/13 at 01:25 PM
Allan’s reply:
“Great points Brad, I’m with you on most of it. I don’t care what the DNA is, as long as it’s powerful, elegant, and gives us the control we need.
I know what you mean about Motion/Phenomenon. Who knows if we’ll see what that could have been. I’d really like to see something groundbreaking, maybe like Motion plus the nodal power of Nuke. Trying to copy & compete with AE will be a losing battle.
I’d be happy to never need STP. I hate going to another app for audio sweetening. I cut on Vegas for a while (don’t laugh!) - it’s ACID heritage gave it amazing audio tools baked right in, which I hope FCPX has.
Count me in line in June! Oh wait, it’s in the App Store…
Posted by Allan W. on 04/13 at 01:06 PM”
Posted by Brad B. on 04/13 at 01:26 PM
Well, I just watched the 2 part videos of the whole presentation (the one shot from the right w/ the whole screen showing in 720p). I have to say, I’m really damned impressed. I think this will make the cutting workflow tremendously faster, especially for really complicated projects. Honestly, after watching that, I have to say my worries are alleviated (mostly), and I think people who have watched the high quality video and are still on the “they’ve turned FCP into a glorified iMovie” bandwagon, well either they’re scared to learn new tools, or they’re primarily a technical editor rather than creative, and they’re worried that they’re less valuable now that it doesn’t take so many layers of knowledge to properly edit without screwing up the timeline by overwriting things, dealing with all of the workarounds to a proper workflow, like the current nesting. There will still be plenty of room for technicality in the edit bay with FCP X, from what I’ve seen so far. And the ability to be creative will be exponentially increased, due to the time of iteration to try new ideas (see Nick’s video blog about the 12-core computers over at greyscalegorilla.com).
Allan, yes, I don’t think competing with AE would be productive. That’s an excellent and well established product (although I would love to see many parts of the AE workflow overhauled from the ground up). It would be awesome if they reveal that a powerful nodal structure has been built-in from the ground up, like Softimage XSI’s ICE. That could be the basis for accessing both color corrections like in Color, compositing like in Shake/Nuke, as well as be used for establishing the relationships between sets of attributes (filters, color grading) of clips. For instance, the auto color match feature is cool. But, if you can have an AVCHD 8-bit 4:2:0 file that you’ve color matched to a native ProRes HQ 10-bit file, you’re going to run into limitations. It would be great to have a nodal structure to setup secondary corrections to make compensations on the AVCHD clips (and all others in the timeline which are linked in the color match to the master ProRes clip). That would greatly simplify both color grading, and also filter sets (so you don’t have to keep hunting for all clips to remove attributes, and then copy and paste back onto those clips, while worrying about loosing the gamma/3-way that you had to do on the AVCHD clips, just to have a consistent grade before applying the newly adjusted filters.
It would be great if FCP X was modular, with the ability to have other functionality from the additional FCS apps purchased on a per-licensed basis, and modular but fully integrated into the same application, with the core code running off of the FCP X structure, and the others apps adding in the secondary functionality, with the ability to adjust the approach to the timeline elements (like when they showed how you can show the audio waveforms only). But I’m not certain how that would work exactly, given how the effects in STP are applied on a per track basis rather than per clip basis. I think it may be possible to make the interface work, seeing as how they’ve spent so much attention to managing the relationships between clips and compounding, etc. Yes, it would be fantastic to see full STP functionality fully integrated in the same application. STP is horribly antiquated, slow and doesn’t allow auto-save.
Posted by Brad B. on 04/13 at 01:27 PM
@Lasvideo This is exactly what Apple did with Aperture a few years back: pretended it was a Pro tool. At that point it was a new tool and only early adopters were using RAW.
With FCP, the market is seemingly very different with an already established user base. However a closer look tells us what we already know - DSLR and other products are democratising the video market, just as happened in the photo industry. A whole new audience, and customer base are ripe to purchase the product.
Does Apple, despite it protestations, actually need its broadcast and pro users? In the scheme of things numbers (and realtive profit) are low and the brand credibility is already established.
Posted by Nick WB on 04/13 at 01:28 PM
Ronny Courtens posted some helpful info that I think professionals want to hear.
” Hi Steve,
I have been working on a major project during the past six months and I was not able to participate in any board anymore. From today you can count me in again.
As to your concern about FCP X:
You are correct that the new GUI may take some time to adapt to. But althhough It looks a bit like iMovie that’s where the comparison ends. While in iMovie you are stuck with the specific iMovie way of editing, in FCPX you can edit exactly the same way you as did in FCP7. You can just open clips in the viewer, place in and out points, use 3-point editing etc… And if you don’t wish to use the advaced timeline features your timeline will look much like any timeline in FCP, Avid or PPro.
But if you wish you can also use some handy extra features that were taken from iMovie (such as skimming in timeline and viewer) as well as lots of advanced features that are specific to this new app. These of course will take time to get used to, but many of them really seem worth while learning. The new application is still being beta tested and it remains to be seen what Apple will add or drop in the final version.
I don’t mind getting used to a new interface and new features IF this adds functionality and speed to my current workflow. When we switched from Avid to FCP it took some time to adapt to the different GUI, but editing was the same and the GUI was quickly forgotten. I still switch from FCP to Avid and PPro on rare occasions and frankly this does not bother me.
Best wishes
Ronny”
That sure alleviates some of my concerns.
Posted by Tom Daigon on 04/13 at 01:39 PM
Yeah Nick I think that nails it - Apple isn’t a company whose passion is making production tools. Their passion is making technology accessible - and COOL - to the masses (remember when computers were geeky and programming them? HA!—these days I hear teens talking about how cool it is to make apps - BIG shift!!!).
FCPX follows this trend, and it is exactly this trend that makes me think Color is dead, and their won’t be any nodal compositing coming either. I hope I am wrong - I really do - but why drop Shake then? The average person these days knows about editing, and probably has used iMovie and heard of Final Cut. But ask them about nodal compositing and that’s the end of the conversation. Final Cut at $299 will sell to Pros AND non-pros. A shake-like app simply wouldn’t. Motion as it is now with some usability tweaks… maybe it would. As you said, Final Cut is already an established brand, and anyone with a DSLR would be happy to have it. Continuing this app is a no-brainer and DOES fit in. The other apps are getting into more specialized territory IMO and are a larger question mark.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on 04/13 at 01:42 PM
@lasvideo thanks for those posts!
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on 04/13 at 01:44 PM
My pleasure (especially the one from Ronnie).
Posted by Tom Daigon on 04/13 at 01:47 PM
Here’s an article which says that the beta version used to demo, was an older version from February, and that it’s nowhere near representative of the final feature set:
http://www.macrumors.com/2011/04/13/final-cut-pro-x-demo-nowhere-near-final-version-more-on-final-cut-studio-apps-coming/
Posted by Brad B. on 04/13 at 02:01 PM
And in case anyone hasn’t seen the higher quality videos of the presentation:
http://www.macrumors.com/2011/04/13/video-of-final-cut-pro-x-introduction-now-available/
Posted by Brad B. on 04/13 at 02:03 PM
I’m a “Pro” user and I’m excited as hell to try the new Final Cut. I’ve been using it since 1.2, to make a living, and i know it’s not going to change the way I edit, only speed up what I already do. That’s what matters to me… speed. Faster editing, means faster results, less time spent in front of the computer.
I love the new interface. Anything that refreshes this tired gray screen is a move in the right direction for me.
Posted by georgemanzanilla on 04/13 at 05:33 PM
“As to your concern about FCP X:
You are correct that the new GUI may take some time to adapt to. But althhough It looks a bit like iMovie that’s where the comparison ends. While in iMovie you are stuck with the specific iMovie way of editing, in FCPX you can edit exactly the same way you as did in FCP7. You can just open clips in the viewer, place in and out points, use 3-point editing etc… And if you don’t wish to use the advaced timeline features your timeline will look much like any timeline in FCP, Avid or PPro.”
How does this person know the above information? It certainly wasn’t shown in the demo.
Posted by Scott Simmons on 04/13 at 05:34 PM
Do you want to know who is happier than ever with this new FCP version?
ProTools editors! They are going to charge you double rate just to put those “magnetic audio tracks” in order to create FullMix, VO, Music, SFX audio tracks for international master tapes.
BTW, seeing the timeline expanding and collapsing just because I moved a group of clips scares me. Some tools shown today are very interesting, others don’t.
Sorry, I’m an Avid user since 2001 and I really can’t understand why professional editors would choose Final Cut Pro instead of Avid.
Posted by canelson on 04/13 at 07:07 PM
Scott, great informative article as usual. I was there as well and it was pretty crazy.
But I have some of the same questions as Brad B. The new speed ramping controls in the timeline look great but is it based on Motion’s Optical Flow technology? I also think it would be very cool if FCP X was modular. But unless they have also rebuilt the rest of Studio from the ground up as well I don’t think it is possible.
Scottieb I made the same observation you made when you stated that at $299, FCP “will sell to pros AND non-pros”. But it won’t be just because of the price, it will also be because of FCPs scalable functionality. The default look and feel of the GUI will be in “basic” mode. But if the editor wants to see the “advanced” mode they will have to know how to toggle open Smart Collections and Compound Clips as well as how to do Auditioning and Inline Precision Editing. But even if novice editors are blissfully unaware these features exist, no worries - they will still have a smooth ride at 55 mph even though they’re sitting on a V10 engine. Genius.
Posted by Eric Wise on 04/13 at 07:30 PM
@Brad - those hi-quality demo videos sure illuminated a lot. Wow. Some really nice refinements there.
A lot of the conversation here and elsewhere makes me think about what kinds of projects - and mindsets - are going to enjoy these kinds of changes. FCP X does seem to empower a certain style of editing, a more playful and exploratory approach. I can see how, for editors that like to “play” with iterations quickly, this tool style might be appealing. My boss, a 30-year editing vet, will love that sort of thing. He’s a big scrub-the-whole-tape kind of guy.
Then there’s productions with more rigid workflow patterns and editing styles that are more… rigorous (e.g. the Avid way). For those working on those sorts of projects, with that sort of process, all this loosey-goosey UI jello that never sits still - might cause some anxiety.
I’m not making any value judgements here - both styles and many kinds of projects are clearly the norm. Just trying to read behind the “pain points” to understand peoples’ perspectives.
Posted by Allan W. on 04/13 at 08:47 PM
