ProVideo Coalition.com: the EDITBLOG on PVC by Scott Simmons

As we sit what might be less than a week out from Final Cut Pro X’s release (if the rumors hold true) there’s been a new firestorm of controversy that erupted after fcp.co posted some YouTube videos from a recent LAFCPUG meeting where FCP guru/trainer made this statement about FCPX 1.0: “It will not be ready for professional use.” And he has since followed up on that comment. Comments should always be taking in context. With the context of what I have seen about FCPX here are the questions that I will answer first when I download my copy.

One big topic of contention is the term “professional” and what that term means in regards to FCPX. Will it really be a “pro” application? Is it just a more “pro” version of iMovie? Will FCPX do “professional” things right out of the download?

That’s where the term professional needs to be defined. In terms of this discussion I will define professional not just as one who makes money from editing but in terms of what the software will do. The professional workflows that many of us (those who read the blogs, follow along in Twitter and discuss in Internet forums) use include things like good I/O, 3rd party support (both software and hardware) and collaboration with other post-production people and other pieces for software to get the job done. If you cut on FCP, view your edit only on your computer monitor, deliver only for web or computer or non-broadcast playback and never interface or interact with anyone or anything outside your FCP box then this post probably isn’t for you.

If you use a AJA, Matrox or Blackmagic hardware, roundtrip around Final Cut Studio, interface with other applications for color grading or online, have to send jobs out for an audio mix or graphics and all the while make a living doing that then these may be questions that you are asking too.

Once Final Cut Pro X has been released I’ll repost these exact questions with the answers that I’ve found after kicking the tires on the thing.

And what are those questions now?

Of all the things that might be “missing” out of FCPX I think XML i/o might be the most glaring omission if it’s not there … but it also might be the most likely feature in this list to actually be included. XML interoperability allows for such an amazing interchange with 3rd party products I think it might single handily be the feature that could put FCP on the tip-top of the NLE heap if I was forced at gunpoint to use only one NLE for the rest of my life … that is if I could keep those 3rd party products in my workflow.

XML is responsible for so much: Automatic Ducking in and out of After Effects (not to mention Media Composer, Pro Tools, Quantel etc …); amazingly useful phonetic searching via Get for Final Cut Pro; the automagic syncing that is PluralEyes (yes FCPX will have some Pluraleyesing built-in but PluralEyes can do more than just sync audio to your DSLR picture); several of Digital Rebeillion’s products on XML to interact with FCP; the simple elegance that is EditMule’s Auto Collapse (yes with FCPX’s trackless timeline you’d think this might not be necessary but I shudder to think of how much more sloppy timelines might get for the unorganized editor without the constraints of tracks); CoreMelt’s Lock N Load X stabilizer, a lot of Intelligent Assistance’s products ... this list could go on and on.

There’s so many 3rd party tools that rely on XML I really can’t believe that Apple wouldn’t include XML i/o in FCPX. If you look at iMovie you’ll even see an option for XML out for Final Cut Pro.

If you’ve got a professional FCP edit suite then you’ve (most likely) got some type of AJA, Blackmagic Design or Matrox hardware that allows true broadcast monitoring on something other than your computer display. Yes FCP can use a computer monitor for full screen playback but to get a true representation of your video it needs to be viewed externally. Especially when working with interlaced and mixed format material.

There’s also the need of many professional edit suites to view on multiple monitors in different parts of the room for clients. In my edit suite I have a large progressive plasma display for viewing HD as well as a standard definition Sony that is always getting a down-convert. Sometimes that is displayed letterbox, sometimes center cut depending on the need. This is something I could not live without. If FCPX doesn’t support 3rd party hardware then moving to it is not an option.

There is the Firewire based AJA Io HD (and maybe some new Thunderbolt product to ship) but there’s way more AJA Kona cards out there that need to be supported.

I think the short answer to that is no. FCPX is a 64-bit application and plug-ins written for FCP7 and below are 32-bit. There was some pain to be had when Adobe went 64 bit with After Effects as a lot of those 3rd party plug-ins had to be rewritten. So that might be some pain in the wallet as we re-buy plug-ins. It also might be some pain in the workflow as we try to work without plug-ins we’ve come to know and love. In that case it’ll be keep using FCP7. There could be the possibility of some way to run 32-bit plug-ins in emulation mode in FCPX. I’d take having to render them all to not being able to use them.

A secondary question to this would be does FCPX even have a plug-in architecture? This wasn’t mentioned at the SuperMeet sneak peek and I haven’t seen it mentioned in anything else so that’s a valid question as well. A very valid question.

I’ll concede the point that there’s a whole lot of FCP users out there who never have and never will touch videotape. The Fred’s of the YouTube world couldn’t care less about tape and for those producers who shoot tapeless there’s always post-houses and service stations to handle your tape I/O if need be.

But as one who works in a post-house and one who works on broadcast programs I’ll sure miss the convenience of doing all my tape interfacing in FCP. Sure capture is almost as easy using something like Blackmagic’s Media Express and that tool works well. And as bad as FCP’s Edit to Tape functionality is (when compared to Media Composer’s Digital Cut) what’s even worse is nothing at all. It’s so easy to insert a slate or a copyright onto a master tape from within FCP. And it’s so convenient to stop a tape output if and issue is encountered, fix the issue in FCP and pick that Assemble Edit back up onto the tape without having to re-export the fix to be used in a different application.

And I still think ending up with a tape master is a good idea because they store so much better than a hard drive. Not just because you need to spin up a hard drive every now and then to ensure their life span but because you’re less likely to pull a tape master off the shelf in crunch and reuse it, losing what was originally on there. Yes that happened recently.

I’ll be curious to see if there’s any level of tape support in FCPX and what that might be. It might tell us a lot about where FCPX is to be positioned in the market.

Will we be able to switch the FCPX layout to a more traditional 2-monitor setup?

This idea of two separate, dedicated viewing windows, that has been the base of 3-point editing for as long as I can remember, appears to have gone out the window with FCPX. While rumors have floated that there might be a more traditional Viewer/Canvas - Source/Record window layout in FCPX we haven’t seen one in any of the screenshots or the public demo. Opinion may vary on whether two monitor windows are needed but I think I’m really going to miss the dedicated Viewer.

While it’s debatable whether or not FCPX is an iMovie Pro it’s not debatable that FCPX looks a lot like iMovie, right down to window configurations. I’ve played with and edited short videos on and off in iMovie for as long as it has been around. Maybe it’s because I’ve worked with a Viewer before but I very much miss it when I am in iMovie.

It’s not that I’m desperate to do keyframing in the Viewer (I’m looking forward to doing a lot of that right in the timline) but more because I often want to see my incoming or outgoing frame in the timeline while I audition clips in the Viewer. As I do that I’m looking at things like framing, focus, color and action while I search for the proper IN point of my clip in the Viewer. All the while I like to see my reference frame (I say IN point but it may be a different frame depending on the type of edit I’m going to do) in the timeline. Just having that image sitting in my peripheral vision can influence my choice of the next shot I use and, more specifically, the IN I choose as a cut point.

I’m all up for new ways of working if Apple has found a better way to audition source clips and choose IN and OUT points but this single monitor idea bothers me. And there’s not track patch panel in the FCPX timeline. I don’t know what they’ve come up with to replace that but if it’s better than I’m all for it. But after working with iMovie I’m not at all convinced it’s a better way of working.

Multiclipping and multicam isn’t something that most FCP editors need on a regular basis. In fact there’s probably quite a few people out there who are cutting their music videos and/or their four camera shoot without using those features. That’s sad as multiclipping and multicam can save so much time. Organization is so much simpler and workflow so much smoother from a timeline standpoint when you do use those features.

And to be clear, I see multiclipping and multicam as two different features. You can’t have multiCAM (as it currently exists) without multiCLIPPING, at least as it relates to how FCP and Media Composer work. I use multiclipping far more than multicam as I group together takes for music videos that often have 20, 30, 80 performance takes. It makes life so much easier as I cringe at the idea of working with a 50 layer FCP timeline that I’ve seen some directors who cut their own music videos do. Why not use a feature that so simplifies your work?

Multicam editing is achieved by multiclipping your camera angles together and viewing them live during timeline playback and switching the angles. With the prevalence of cheap DSLR cameras I find myself using multicam mode much more today than I did just a few years ago as so may jobs I work on shoot more than one camera. Most everyone on the crew has a Canon DSLR so why not shoot multiple angles at once (at least that often seems to be the equation)? How simple it is for timeline organization and how handy it is for viewing 2, 3, 4 angles when you can pop a multiclip into multicam with a few clicks and not worry about turning tracks on and off and cutting material away to see what’s on a lower video layer. And did I mention it makes for much faster editing?

Unless FCPX has something unique up its sleeve (and maybe it will since Apple is rethinking this whole non-linear edit thing a bit) it’s going to be hard to have a multicam mode without a Viewer (see above). They could very easily have multiCLIPPING in FCPX without full multiCAM but I’m not holding my breath.

Oh the Media Mangler. There was once a day when the thought of a trip to the Media Manager brought up visions of pain and suffering as you never knew what kind of craziness you might end up with when the operation was done. These days the Media Manager works much like it should (though recently it seems to not want to properly trim projects). It’s really a vital hub for performing a lot of housekeeping operations. It’s handy for archiving an edit, creating a low resolution version of an entire project, making an offline version and/or moving an entire project.

FCP’s major competitors both have media management type functions: Avid Media Composer with Transcode/Consolidate and Adobe Premiere Pro with Project Trimmer. A media management tool is quite a vital piece of a professional non-linear editing application. A large part of what we do is move media around to a lot of places in different forms for different reasons. It takes the guesswork out of trying to do it in the Finder. I can’t imagine there NOT being some type of project media management tool in FCPX but some rumors point to no.

If you look at the Events browser in iMovie, it is what it is. Pretty much everything you’ve ever imported into iMovie in one place. Never mind that it’s two years later and I don’t need media of granny’s birthday party around anymore as I edit video from the pool party. Turn that to professional editing and you often have multiple jobs from multiple clients on a system at once. There is no way I would ever want client A media around when working on job for client B. With the way FCPX Events appear to work it seems like it will all be around. Sure you can probably import via Event so one could leave client A media closed but what if you have clients A - K. That’s a lot of unused stuff just sitting there.

And as a side note to Events, FCPX introduces this new way of organizing by range-based key-wording and tagging to use in Collections. While this is an exciting new way to think about a rather tedious part of the editing process I would ask if we can option for traditional organization methods.

For example, if I keyword a shot for male, interior, and kitchen then that clip might show up in three different places. I’m not sure if that is a good or a bad thing. It guess it could be both depending on what you’re doing. But if all the media you’ve ever imported lives in the Event Library and you’ve keyworded and organized all of it then that could make for a pretty cluttered Event Library with a lot of clicking around and twirling down or little twirly triangles to find what you’re looking for.

This one is one what everybody is asking. We know FCPX is coming for $299 and we’ve seen rumors of Motion 5. But what of Compressor, Color and Soundtrack Pro? Some have suggested that Color and STP have been folded into FCPX. While FCPX does have some advanced features like secondaries and audio clean-up I can guarantee they haven’t built-in all the features of those dedicated applications. Compressor is one of those love/hate relationships. I hate how it often operates but I love that it is there. Encoding is a very important part of what we do today so some type of compression application is a must.

There’s bound to be more questions.

Those are some of the burning questions that I have been asking. I’m sure many pro users are asking the same things as well as many other questions that I either haven’t thought of or forgot to ask above. Feel free to leave your own questions in the comments. We’ll follow up on these after it ships.

The Editing of “Courageous” Part One

Steve Hullfish | 10/14

The off-line edit of a RED feature film

Last October, I had the rare opportunity to edit a feature film called “Courageous,” which is in theaters now. “Courageous” was the number one new movie the weekend it opened (September…

Final Cut Pro X Multicam Editing webinar now available on-demand

Scott Simmons | 05/15

Plus a little screencast in this blog post on a topic we didn’t get to cover.

I had great fun last week presenting the Final Cut Pro X multicam editing webinar…

Editing and Effects Together in One Editor Part 2

Brian Mulligan | 05/15

The NLE revolution isn’t over… Enter Autodesk Smoke for Mac

Editing & Effects All-In-One
Autodesk has always been known for the strength of their effects and image processing tools. The tools in Smoke have been used in everything…

You must be registered to comment. This is an effort to reduce spam. Please REGISTER HERE.

I’m looking forward to it. I think the X in the name sounds kinda cheap…

Posted by CBR Theorie Examen on 06/17 at 12:35 AM

I think it’s unfortunate that Apple made the choice to reveal so very little of what they planned for their NLE and Studio future. This fine system was so very late to the 64bit party.

I went to NAB with a primary goal of attending the big Supermeet announcement and to make a decision of either waiting for the new FCP 64bit or changing over to the CS5.5 suite.

As your fine article notes, there were far too many unanswered questions. Add to this mess is the fact that this will be a .0 release that will understandably have issues to fix in further point releases. The Adobe and Avid solutions are already in their point fix levels and stable.

We went with a change to Adobe. Had there been answers to most of the questions you pose, we may have likely continued our patience because FCP Studio is one fine 32bit product that so many that we collaborate with use.

Hopefully it will continue in the years to come.

I don’t see the marketing reason to have kept so much known info secret when being so late to the party. IMHO this time the Apple way of getting hype has worked in the wrong way.

Posted by lightprismtv on 06/17 at 05:27 AM

With the price of FCPX being so low, we plan to buy both Adobe CS5.5 and FCPX. It’s a great time to be a Mac based video editor!

Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on 06/17 at 05:52 AM

The questions will be answered when it is released. Why the desperation to know right now? Your old editing system will still work perfectly well right into a number of updates of FCP X.

Posted by Simon Wyndham on 06/17 at 06:27 AM

@Simon - I wouldn’t say there’s a “desperation” to know now but as one who makes their living partly off FCP (I’m only in post and not a hyphenate who is paid to do it all) these are some VERY big questions about FCPX. I also use Avid and Adobe but have a lot of clients who use FCP so if some of them want to use FCPX a lot of this has to be answered before we choose to use it in the real world. I posted this as a discussion.

Posted by Scott Simmons on 06/17 at 09:21 AM

I agree Scott. But while I accept that the questions need to be answered it makes no odds whether they are answered today, or once the software is released.

We have no information about any of those questions, so I’m not sure of the point of debating them. All that ends up happening is a discussion about stuff we don’t know anything about, which doesn’t get anyone anywhere other than blind speculation.

Posted by Simon Wyndham on 06/17 at 10:05 AM

For me personally Simon when there are big questions like this that need to be answered before I can use new software in a professional environment it greatly helps to think them out a bit, be it scribbled notes or a blog post. I know new questions will arrise as I use FCPX but these are the most pressing ones to me. I thought it might be helpful for others to see them written out as well as discussing their own as someone else’s question might not be my question. Sorry you didn’t find the article helpful.

Posted by Scott Simmons on 06/17 at 11:18 AM

I thin a more pertinent question to ask is not whether these features or abilities are in FCP X, but to start to ask and prepare what to do in a worst case scenario where they aren’t addressed.

In a cross system project, surely one of the things to look at is whether everyone is matched in software or at least able to deal with the workflow.

If I was to engage in the debate though I would say that Apple aren’t entirely stupid. I would find it unlikely that XML is missing. If it is then they really have lost their marbles. If it is missing, then what? You still need to deal with that situation anyway. So as I mentioned earlier, better to start working out what you will do if none of the answers to your questions are positive.

Posted by Simon Wyndham on 06/17 at 12:37 PM

I’m guessing that Apple’s learned a lesson with this release….

Don’t ever give a sneak preview of a professional product.

Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on 06/17 at 12:37 PM

Apple need to learn that the launch of a professional product should not be conducted in the same way as their consumer ones.

Posted by Simon Wyndham on 06/17 at 12:43 PM

Kind of simple to me:

When you’re the leader, continue to lead and not lag.

If you end up being the laggard but still the leader, don’t leave your customers in the dark too long.

It would be interesting to see the number of folks who’ve made the move to trying the other 64bit system since NAB.

Posted by lightprismtv on 06/18 at 05:39 AM

Multiclip?

OMF Export?

etc…

Posted by Terence Curren on 06/18 at 07:21 AM

Mitch Lewis,

I don’t think the sneak peak was necessarily the problem, but the total lack of follow up.

-AndrewK

Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on 06/18 at 10:58 AM

True.

Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on 06/18 at 11:08 AM

OMF tops my list along with pretty much everything else you’ve mentioned Scott.

I appreciate that Apple is trying to create something new, but taking away many vital features that we use every day in broadcast production seems like a major step backwards. Others seem to embrace the idea that this is “1.0 software” and we should allow Apple the time to let this software mature.

I’m sorry but this is already mature software, on a version 8.0. It should work with all our gear and our workflow from the day it drops. It’s painfully obvious it won’t. In fact, I’m not even going to bother paying the $299 for it when it drops. Why should I give Apple $300 just to find out what the software does and does not do? I don’t Apple is going to take it back after I download it.

So I’m going to let everyone else download it, read the reviews and most likely not even bother. If FCP X “1.0” is not going to work with our workflow (and from everything I’ve seen offline, it isn’t.) then it’s a complete waste of time to give Apple my money.

Someone in my twitter feed proudly stated that FCP X 1.0 will be far more profession than FCP 1.0. My response? iMovie 11 is much more professional than FCP 1.0.

Posted by walter biscardi on 06/18 at 01:17 PM

Apple MADE the unusual decision to hold a ‘sneak peak’. Every detail that was released/shown would have been meticulously rehearsed. They could easily have answered most of these questions at the Supermeet, but CHOOSE not to. If people who use FCP professionally are asking serious questions that will affect their business, then I’m afraid Apple (and those Apple fanboys) are just gonna have to grim and bear it. If (as it seems) FCPX won’t be ready for a Professional market, people can still use their FCP for a few years, or jump ship. Scott’s questions are very fair and will soon be answered.

Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on 06/18 at 05:06 PM

Larry Jordon seems to think it’s going to be better than FCP7.
http://www.larryjordan.biz/app_bin/wordpress/archives/1498

Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on 06/18 at 07:18 PM

Actually, that reads like Apple got to Larry after his previous analysis hit the net. It was direct response to:

http://www.fcp.co/final-cut-pro/news/421-fcpx-10-it-will-not-be-ready-for-professional-useq-larry-jordan

That is exactly the kind of thing that throws the Apple marketing police into overdrive.

Posted by Terence Curren on 06/18 at 07:21 PM

This is interesting from Larry Jordan: “But I no longer feel, as I once thought, that this is a step backward. Based on what I learned during my conversations with Apple, I believe this release provides us with an opportunity for a large step forward.”

I kinda read that as FCPx will be a bit of a dog but .... Fear not Apple faithful! We’ll be making incremental upgrades for years to come and we’ll try to add stuff back.

Posted by Scott Simmons on 06/18 at 07:30 PM

I predicted this release after NAB last year. My prediction was based on what I see as Apple’s big plan of controlling the entire chain from creation to end user. In that universe, some things really don’t matter, like tape I/O.

Remember, Steve Jobs believes everyone is going to watch all of their content streaming from the internet. Hence no BluRay support. And I would be willing to bet whatever amount you want, that there will not be a DVD Studio Pro release with FCPX.

My bet is you will see FCPX, Motion and maybe Compressor. The rest are toast as they aren’t necessary in the new universe of create and post to iTunes.

Posted by Terence Curren on 06/18 at 07:41 PM

@Ra-ey

Actually it’s not unusual for Apple to have presented something at NAB, they had done it for years in the past. It’s been about two years since they presented anything at NAB, but the actual presenting of something new was not unusual.

What WAS unusual was the fact that we had no opportunity to see the product in person, play with it and ask questions. Generally when a presentation like this is made, you’ll then get to go out on the NAB Show floor and really get a chance to dig in deep. Obviously Apple was not on the show floor and they would not allow any of their strategic partners to have it on the show floor either.

As for Larry Jordan I can guarantee you that after the Apple folks saw his video from the FCPUG meeting, they were immediately in contact with him. I find it very sad that Apple cannot come out and talk publicly. They let Larry speak out publicly about the software (which IS very unusual) but they won’t speak themselves and answer questions. How hard would it be for someone from Apple to attend an LAFCPUG and answer questions? Not hard at all.

Larry does not work for Apple, he’s a really good independent editor / trainer. Yet Apple is essentially letting him be their mouthpiece in public until the software comes out. I find that quite cowardice.

It’s obvious by now that someone at Apple is realizing they sort of kind of missed the boat on this entire re-write. “What, you still use tape?” “Wait, you NEED to go to ProTools for audio?” “Why do you need to collaborate with other editors?” “Why do you need to collaborate with other software outside of Apple?”

One of the telling and funny stories at NAB was from a hardware manufacturer who said they were asked by Apple before the SuperMeet how the sales of their I/O cards were going. “We’re selling more than ever.” “Really?” was the stunned reply from the Apple rep. They were shocked that I/O cards for capturing from and laying back to tape were still selling today. After all, who does tape anymore? Certainly not Apple….

If Apple wants to keep the Pro in Final Cut Pro, then yes, professionals are going to keep asking the questions such as those posted by Scott here. If it wasn’t for these constant questions, we wouldn’t already be hearing about revisions coming from Apple for the FCP X 1.1 or whatever it will be.

Posted by walter biscardi on 06/19 at 04:53 AM

After the NAB Supermeet we shifted one of our machines over to CS5.5 and are quite impressed so far. It is not THAT much different than the current FCP.

But still am holding out hope for FCPX and most of it’s Studio ...

But when the likes of Biscardi and Curren appear to have given up hope, well that is just pretty darn depressing.

And I personally love Color - took some time to learn it and it’s very powerful - now it appears to be going away or stick with the old Color.

How many of us would have loved to see the FCP Studio just remain relatively the same but move to 64bit rendering reduction? It was all so powerfull already - just needed 64 bit, a few tweaks, added better optical disc support and it would remain the king.

We will all know in short order what Apple has decided to do with these tools.

If the current old tools we are using are not wanted by Apple, sell it to an entity that would rewrite it to 64bit. If FCPX isn’t going to work for pro work fully, folks will be left with:
1. Workarounds with FCPX
2. Move to another 64bit system that does work for a pro solution
3. Stay at 32 bit FCP Studio3 (still very nice but full of render time loss compared to 64bit)

Posted by lightprismtv on 06/19 at 05:13 AM

I wouldn’t say I’ve given up hope and in fact I’m somewhat encouraged to hear that it appears they’re already scrambling to put back some of what they’ve removed in an update.

Yes, I would have liked FCP Studio to remain relatively the same with 64 bit upgrade and of course native support of all digital formats.

OMF Export and assignable tracks will be the most important features for them to put back immediately for our workflow.

I’m hoping Color didn’t completely disappear but we won’t know that for a few days yet.

I’m amazed at how many people think it’s OK to just stay with your Option Number 3 like it’s no big deal. “Well you know Final Cut Pro 7 will still work!” Yeah, it will still work as inefficiently as ever with digital media. That’s what we waited two years for.

Posted by walter biscardi on 06/19 at 05:32 AM

Adobe will be the biggest winner in the high end pro market shift followed by Avid. And I say that because Adobe is the most like the current FCP. Multi user pros (more than one editor working on the same project at the same time) will be all Avid.

Which doesn’t mean Apple loses at all. They are going to gain a TON of new FCP users. If they truly have the “2 million” FCP users they claim, then they are going to sell 2 million FCPX downloads in the first few weeks. Doesn’t mean all those folks will continue using it, but they will buy it. “Heck, it’s only 299 dollars”. And that means 598 million dollars for Apple for now packaging and shipping costs.

But better yet, the doctor in Peoria who dabbles in editing will buy it since it’s what the “Pros” use. As will the students, the iPhone users, the iPad users, etc.

Apple’s editing market just expanded to a much larger base. Every iMovie user who wants to be able to do a little more, is a potential customer.

If Apple loses a few “High end” pro users in exchange for that, will they really care? I think not.

Posted by Terence Curren on 06/19 at 07:20 AM

That should have read “no packaging and shipping costs”

Posted by Terence Curren on 06/19 at 07:21 AM

I would not be surprised to see FCP X surpass 10 million registered users after the first 12 months.

Someone speculated on either my blog or my twitter feed that this could be part of Apple’s strategy all along. The “high end pro” market is quite small compared to the overall consumer / prosumer market. So if they lose the very high end market, they are really only going to lose maybe 250,000 sales. That’s absolutely nothing compared to the potential sales base.

Posted by walter biscardi on 06/19 at 07:44 AM

I would be surprised if the high end post market, the ones who need tape I/O, film matchback, OMF export, the full Color app, etc is 250,000. I would guess it’s much smaller than that.

And Apple’s current share of that market would be even smaller yet.

Posted by Terence Curren on 06/19 at 07:51 AM

Almost every editor in our small town uses Final Cut Pro. NBC affiliate, CBS affiliate, ABC affiliate, FOX affiliate, Charter Cable, and three of the five post houses. Heck a local credit union just bought a FCP edit system for web video creation. Because some of them have multiple suites I can count at least 14 copies of FCP in our small market alone.

Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on 06/19 at 09:27 AM

Sorry Walter, I should have been clearer. I wasn’t suggesting that it was unusual for Apple to be at NAB, but that they did this kinda bizarre, ‘look don’t touch’ demo. And I completely agree with all yours and Terence comments.

Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on 06/19 at 03:04 PM

Frankly, I share Walter’s outrage. Aside from whatever anyone thinks of the Pro team’s development direction just now, it seems incredible that all of the arrogance of Apple’s consumer division should spill over into the Pro division with such disregard for our investment. I’ve used Avid, Adobe and Apple and, like many, have found the FC Studio suite to be useful to my personal, small company needs right now. And guess what, Apple? I’ve invested in that ‘Editing Ecology’ with numerous plug-ins, add-ons, workflows and so on.

I may not be an Academy award winner but a major new internationally-known client from the financial sector has me editing some previously acquired footage for internal use. All of the material was delivered to them (and thence to me) on 22 DV tapes. If there is more work it is likely to be delivered (internationally) in the same way. If I were to adopt Apple’s paradigm, should I tell them off for not being cool and up to date with tapeless workflows or for having better control of their production workflow? Do I want to eat this month? Do I want to be taken seriously by my clients?

I WILL be buying into an alternate, *Pro-friendly*, 64-bit, editing ecology soon - most likely Adobe given the likelihood of transferring some of my workflow and software extras more easily to that platform than to another. At this stage, I’m not sure I can really be bothered to buy FCPX, even if it were $29 and not $299. I was prepared to give Apple the benefit of the doubt - and maybe they deserve it - but as each day goes by, the holes in the new software identified above seem, if anything, to grow larger and more irritating.

What a pointless, self-inflicted wound this seems to be.

Posted by Justin Benn on 06/20 at 06:07 AM

Looks like it’s out. How long before Adobe drop their prices? Motion and Compressor an $50 a pop.

Posted by Justin Benn on 06/21 at 06:17 AM

Don’t forget the additional 495 for Automatic Duck if you want to go to ProTools.

Posted by Terence Curren on 06/21 at 06:18 AM

Yup. Not much mention of Soundtrack Pro either. Presumably the ‘main features’ have been rolled into FCP X. Not sure what others have to deal with but it’s fairly common for me to receive some poorly recorded material to deal with and the first thing that needs attention is the soundtrack. No idea if FCP X will cut it.

I notice that folk like Noise Industries have a FCP X ready version of their plug in platform. But right now, many of my plug-ins would be unavailable. Coremelt, makers of Lock & Load don’t have anything up on their site ye about compatibility. Pluraleyes must be crying in their tea.

Posted by Justin Benn on 06/21 at 07:00 AM

Don’t worry, FCPX automatically fixes your footage on import. Even color corrects it. :/

As for Noise industries, didn’t you wonder why they had a steep price drop a few months back. Probably realized they had a small window left to capitalize on.

Posted by Terence Curren on 06/21 at 07:06 AM

One thing I don’t like the sound of is the auto save option. Sounds like it can’t be turned off. Going to have to be very careful with versions of projects then.

Posted by Simon Wyndham on 06/21 at 07:50 AM

FCP X is NOT ready for any PRO use. It’s like using FCP 1.2. Maybe in a couple more versions, but as it is now, it’s lame how much functionality is missing.

Posted by georgemanzanilla on 06/21 at 08:56 AM

I thinks it works like a charm!

Posted by Theory on 01/20 at 01:26 PM

Name:

Email:

Location:

URL:

Smileys

Remember my personal information

Notify me of follow-up comments?

Submit the word you see below:

My burning questions about Final Cut Pro X

And what are those questions now?

There’s bound to be more questions.