Scott, thanks for the opportunity to see the presentation again. I was there that night, but this second viewing revealed more of the details that slipped by me in the excitement of the moment. I can see June is going to be a very fun month..
Posted by Tom Daigon on 04/17 at 08:12 PM
This was a helpful and informative article. I also went to iMovie 11 to see the similarities and they abound for sure. One thing that came to mind about the similarities is where Apple has prioritized their efforts. In my eyes, Apple has put much more thought into consumer apps recently. The similar features we see are just where FCP would have gone if they had been putting more efforts into pro apps. They simply chose iMovie “first”. I am a loyal fan and trying to stick with FCP, although I did go and price out Adobe directly after only seeing a few pics and hearing details. The videos have helped me be a “little” more comfortable with this change. I think an open mind will be key here, I like change. I am concerned about the suite as I have been a customer since FCP 4.0 and have always updated and paid my money. I feel I have an investment in the suite and would like to see that continue.
Posted by splitrock on 04/18 at 05:13 AM
he Apple guy’s response to you embodies all the ways Apple as a company is great for consumers but maddening to pro users.
They do this with regularity: Introduce a productivity suite, say, then lose interest for years, then (sometimes) come roaring back with something completely new to learn that may or may not carry over essential features, that they may or may not lose interest in too.
Can you imagine Microsoft or Adobe all but abandoning Office or the Creative Suite software you or your company has come to depend upon, then cavalierly announce the new version may not be up to the tasks it once was because they’re just sort of, you know, starting over and seeing what happens.
What are the feature film editors who made the mistake of relying on Apple for more than their ipod playlist supposed to do for the couple years the FCP team is getting the program back up to speed, go into accounting?
I recently started editing a new feature in FCP, but became so frustrated by its creaky limitations that I reluctantly moved over to Premiere Pro. When I heard about the new FCP I thought I’d be heading back, but now I see I’m better off where I am. Say what you will about Adobe, they keep their eye on the ball, improve their apps in a manner that respects the time people have put into learning them and projects they have in the pipeline, and can be counted on to be there tomorrow.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on 04/19 at 01:34 PM
unfortunately, the Apple presentation did not provide enough info to make the decisions many of us have been waiting to make.
Yes - finally 64 bit - but what about the rest of the Studio apps? will they “round-trip” still? or are they in 64 bit complete re-write progress? That is a big one for us. Tried to ask Rudy U that question but he took off quickly from the presentation - probably knew he was going to beseiged with questions he was not allowed to answer or could not answer.
After the presentation I had mixed thoughts -looks many good things - but also some big workflow changes - especially for long form as noted in this article.
And the plug-ins ??? why did Apple not realize their importance and include the developers in the process?
The magnetic jumping tracks seem to make for disorganization - but the idea of the help they provide is cool. Trying to wrap my head around it.
And the trainers - were they given any headstart to prepare? Ripple Training - Steve Martin/Motion Mark - and Diana Weynand - big changes.
After some thought about how long this all is going to take, I went and upgraded our CS3 to CS5.5 because - well, their WHOLE solution is already been up and workable. It appears it is going to take the FCP Studio and 3rd party value added solutions quite some more time to get there - and maybe never get there.
I will keep an open mind though for the same reason we switched from Adobe and Edius - just so many folks you end up collaborating with are on the FCP train. But I worry about many leaving after this slow speed development train.
Posted by lightprismtv on 04/20 at 05:32 AM
it interesting because before FCPX we seems to have two different ways to edit (at least on the Mac).
There’s the Media Composer way and the FCP / Adobe Premiere way. FCP& and Premiere Pro are very, very similar as we all know.
Now we’ll have 3: Avid, PPro and FCPX.
Now what’s interesting will be to see how many people who don’t like FCPX force themselves to learn it, use it because it is made by Apple instead of jumping to PPro where it offers FCP7 similarities in many, many ways.
Posted by Scott Simmons on 04/20 at 07:21 AM
Think of Final Cut Studio as the Microsoft Office of TV and film - edting and fx for the masses. With the WSJ predicting the death of Post you can’t really blame them.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on 04/20 at 11:40 AM
Keep in mind that Apple’s new method of distribution through the App Store means they’ve cut the cost and time of burning discs, warehousing, shipping. They will be able to move out major feature additions much more quickly than they (or Avid and Adobe) can.
Apple/FCPX might be doing a little catchup for a bit but it’s not going to be the 24 month cycle for major upgrades. I wouldn’t be surprised that a lot of what we find missing in June might be there by December.
Apple never “lost interest” in Pro apps. They were starting over and looking to future infrastructure likely implemented in Lion for example (I suspect there may be Lion specific enhancements) and those are the things you might be seeing by December.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on 04/22 at 01:27 PM
It just seems blatantly obvious to me that they consider the Pro market dead and this is an attempt to get iMovie users to upgrade to Final Cut. Look for the next version to be called “iMovie Pro”.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on 04/26 at 12:53 PM
Sorry motionmatt you have no grasp at all of Apple’s motives. Thunderbolt, for example, is specifically for the Pro market and FCPX will likely be deeply tied into that for i/o, high speed storage, video networked server applications.
The Supermeet presentation itself involved a broadcast TV spot.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on 04/26 at 01:02 PM
@craig - I have to agree that motionmatt may be a bit premature in that assessment but ask:
“The Supermeet presentation itself involved a broadcast TV spot.”
What makes you say that?
Posted by Scott Simmons on 04/26 at 07:10 PM
60 second car spot. It’s clipped at the head. OK maybe it’s a pseudo spot (a real one would have be 30 and would have tagged the brand) but it looks like they were trying to convey a broadcast spot or brand car marketing video.
http://vimeo.com/groups/46575/videos/22355212
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on 04/26 at 08:41 PM
It’s for the Audi R8. May have just been a promotional video. It does convey high end work though.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on 04/26 at 08:53 PM
I would disagree that it looked anything like a broadcast spot, it felt much more like a short promo piece or the beginning of a corporate piece. In fact I’d say it was far from a broadcast spot as they have to hit a specific time, 30 seconds. When he showed the magnetic timeline the first thing most any editor who does broadcast spots thought was ‘can I turn that off?’ I know they mentioned that some things can be turned on and off but if they were wanting to convey that FCPX was cutting for broadcast they’d have showed it being toggled on and off, IMHO. It being about the R8 is incidental as sports cars, race cars aren’t unusual in demos as they are exciting.
Posted by Scott Simmons on 04/27 at 04:46 AM
It’s actually an “Audi TV” promo for the R8 for their podcasts (they have nearly 160 of them) for their website video channel and iTunes (likely how Apple worked out rights to use for demo purposes). I thought it we a faked 60 (It times to that) but it is just a corporate promo piece.
Magnetic timeilne can be a blessing or curse depending on the approach to audio in a given piece. Some will cut audio to time and want that locked down and unmovable and at other times locking to picture is critical even if it means timing is fluid. I’d think it could be disabled but that obviously wasn’t shown.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on 04/27 at 05:49 AM
I think after FCPX is released in June, there will also be many more answers to the plethora of questions we all have.
It is just unfortunate that Apple allowed these fine products to get so far behind
Posted by lightprismtv on 04/27 at 06:24 AM
A few things to think about:
1. NAB 2009 Harris (apparently) was to buy Apple’s Pro Apps (Final Cut Studio). The deal went down in flames, Apple wanted too much money. Harris would have needed to double the price of the software.
2. NAB 2010 had rumors of Apple dumbing down FCP for prosumer use. If you remember, there were Apple job postings for taking “Pro” apps and making them “Consumer”. Also, a lot of Apple’s pro apps personnel were moved into the consumer division.
3. NAB 2011, Apple needed to re-write FCP to be 64bit. Instead of a complete re-write, why not take an existing program with modern coding and create a new FCP? Let’s see…what program could that be…Ah yes, iMovie! Also, we won’t need a new entry level editor like Final Cut Express…we already have it…iMovie! iMovie editors can work their way up to become FCPX editors.
An industry full of iMovie/FCPX editors; they can under-cut each other so much that everyone can make minimum wage!
Doesn’t that make you feel all warm, fuzzy and secure in your jobs?
4. Q2, 2011, Apple Pro Video resellers are going away. Apple has made the Pro Video reseller’s margins so impossible to reach they will all be “cut” by this time next year. Well, B&H might make their number. Why would Apple do this unless they no longer want to focus on the “Pro” side of the market?
All of these “dots” do connect and they form a straight line. Does anyone else see where it’s pointing?
A few things about FCPX…they have taken some of the best ideas from a lot of different editing applications and shoved it all into the iMove interface. It may be a very powerful program, but I see it as more of a corporate/event/preditor edit system. I don’t see the iMovie interface as one that would suit itself to long form projects.
Like I’ve always said, “I could edit a feature on Windows Movie Maker, but would I really want to?”
Also, I love the fact that everyone is so excited about background rendering, which is nice and has been in a few different applications over the years. But did anyone understand what happened when they demoed that feature at the Super Meet? They color corrected a clip…the timeline indicated processing was needed…then it did a background render. Wow, what applause from the crowd. My question: Why does a new 64bit whiz-bang “Pro” app need to render a color correction? Seriously?
Well, I hope I HAVE thrown some gas on the fire! 
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on 04/28 at 09:18 AM
Thunderbolt is a high end interface and there’s money to be made in that market. I suspect FCPX and ancillary software (server based maybe) may take specific advantage. FCPX may not be a money maker for dealers but systems may. If there is server based Thunderbolt solutions, it’ll move sales in that market and that will be facility based. Granted FCPX is a 1.0 app but Apple always uses software to sell hardware. Not only has that not changed since the iPod and iTunes, it’s a main area of expansion for them.
I think you misunderstand the iMovie connection. Apple has always been about easier to use interfaces. That doesn’t mean dumbing down at all. For professionals, if an interface improves productivity it makes money for them. Randy Ubillos used iMovie as a testing ground for creating a new UI. A UI a 10 year old can use, can benefit a Pro if the appropriate feature depth is added.
If you’ve followed the changes in Professional cameras, many of the most sought after and now standard camera features appeared first on consumer cameras. The flip out LCD is one good example.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on 04/28 at 09:50 AM
The problem with FCPX is if the interface is radically different from the prior version of FCP and you’ve never used iMovie, you have to decide whether you want to learn a whole new way of editing with FCPX or do you want to learn a new way of editing with Avid, Vegas or Premiere?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on 04/29 at 10:44 AM
I don’t see the interface as a major problem. With over 30 years experience I’ve had to learn new interfaces from CMX to Paltex to GVG to Sony linear systems then to CMX 6000 to Avid to FCP. I can get fairly comfortable with a new interface in about a week.
Once you get the logic and it’s consistent, it’s not that difficult. The same can be said for hardware as people moved from tape to tapeless systems. It’s really the nature of the industry.
The whole point of UI design/re-design is that in the long run the new UI is actually more efficient. Apple has a very strong history in good UI. The very premise of the Mac OS is based on UI.
I really think the key goal of the sneak peek was to show the new UI’s relationship to improved editing functions.
In fact I think most of the hand wringing has to do that UI was the focus rather than certain core under the hood functions like XML export, hardware compatibility, etc. Granted that are real and serious concerns but I think the UI changes and its workflow improvements are the key to “selling” the new FCP.
I think Apple’s approach might have been, if you can grasp why the UI is good you’ll see the value in FCPX. I think many professionals might be thinking, we can work with any decent UI but it the under the hood stuff isn’t there, the UI improvements are pointless. There’s truth to both aspects. That Apple chose to focus on UI is part of what’s leading the concerns though.
Personally, I have some belief that Apple knows what needs to be done under the hood (even if it’s not all there yet, and it may not be) but being persuaded that the UI change is good is going to be critical for long term success.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on 04/29 at 11:22 AM
For those of us who had no problems whatsoever with the UI (I think it’s been about 10 years since I worried about clips going out of sync on the timeline), having to learn a new UI, especially one that appears to make editing longform more difficult, is not an improvment. The only thing wrong with FCP from my point of view was long render times. Otherwise, editing was a virtually effortless process.
I,too,have learned new systems in 30 years—from film to tape to Editdroid, Lightworks, Avid, and FCP—but I didn’t enjoy learning the new ones, and only did it because I was not happy with the one I had. With the exception of render times, I was content with fcp.
I agree with what motionmatt and todd said: rather than simply making fcp 64 bit, because it would have been too much trouble, apple is giving us an imovie pro, and I seriously question the Pro part of that. Of course, nothing can be determined until we have the final product, but having viewed all the presentation clips, that conclusion does not seem farfetched.
If Adobe has some equivalent to ichat theatre, and if there really is not going to be a viewer and just that silly filmstrip, then I may be inclined to switch over. If Adobe doesn’t have an ichat, then I guess I’m stuck.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on 05/02 at 08:39 AM
Generally Apple has a good history with UI. In fact that’s been their main asset in all their software. I expect the same here. If the UI helps me edit faster, and it looks like it will. I’m all for it. Of course there were aspects not shown but what I’ve seen would indicate a much faster timeline editing experience. I’d certainly prefer a viewer as well though. I can’t think of an accurate way to cut on action otherwise. I’d expect there would be a “2-up” display for those circumstance. I believe when Ubilos was doing color grading a 2 up appeared at one point.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on 05/02 at 09:06 AM
Bottom line if you’re truly a “Pro” shop, time is money, so you have to decide if the new UI is worth the downtime of climbing up the learning curve so your workflow with clients is unaffected(and hopefully improved).
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on 05/02 at 09:24 AM
A 2-up would be nice.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on 05/02 at 02:56 PM
One thought I had before the Supermeet was that Apple may use a sort of tiered user interface like the 3 options you get in DVD Studio Pro of Basic, Extended and Advanced. I didn’t see such a big change as a rewrite of the entire ui.
I think they should have left the familiar ui and added many of the new features that Apple knows we would like to see.
I pray we can tweek the layout as individual users see fit. It is a “Pro” app after all, that should be an option.
Posted by splitrock on 05/02 at 04:53 PM
