Back To Listings RSS Print

Proof that FCP X is really just iMovie - directly from Apple

Apple publicly admits that FCP X is just iMovie!

By Steve Hullfish | June 25, 2011

If you still have doubts that FCP X is really just iMovie on steroids - and the fact that the first thing it asks to import from IS iMovie and that's not enough of a clue - then take a very close look at the launch screen for FCP X.

This is supposed to be a BRAND NEW APP, as Apple has said numerous times in defending itself that FCP X is NOT the next version of FCP7.

I think most viewers agree with that.

But the launch screen says that FCP X is ... VERSION TEN DOT ZERO ... but of what?

I have to write that out in words and all caps, because otherwise, FCP X v1.0 looks an awfully lot like FCP X v10.


But if you look at the number of releases for iMovie, then version 10 as it becomes FCP X is just about right.

Don't believe me? Look at the LATEST VERSION OF iMovie! What's the version number on that, you ask?


This is PERFECTLY consistent with the way Apple names and numbers their products. Remember Mac OS9. I still have the discs around here someplace. Anyway, the next version of Mac OS 9 was Mac OS X and the VERSION number was Mac OS X version 10.0.

Fast forward a few years and we're up to iMovie '11 version 9.03 and the next version is called FCP X and the VERSION number was FCP X version 10.0. The corollary is perfect.

Now, this doesn't mean that FCP X is worse. I happen to love Mac OS X. Never complained about it. It was far superior to Mac OS 9 in exactly the same way that FCP X is far superior to iMovie 9.

FCC Disclaimer: I bought my own version of FCP X. The fact that it is currently useless for professionals is in no way influenced by the fact that I spent $399 of my own money on the unbundled FCP X apps. If Apple had given me the app for free I probably would have written glowing things about it, though.

Editor's Choice
PVC Exclusive
From our Sponsors

Share This

Back To Listings RSS Print

Get articles like this in your inbox: Sign Up


Terence Curren: | June, 25, 2011

LOL, you go Steve.

Dylan Reeve: | June, 25, 2011

Great catch! smile

Actually it would be interesting to try and find out if there is much in common… Any interesting clues from running “strings” on the binary files? Thats how the XML and Python hints have been found.

Sproketz: | June, 25, 2011

Love the disclaimer.

But you can add:
“If Apple had given me the app for free, OR INVITED ME TO PRIVATE PRE-RELEASE PRESENTATIONS, I probably would have written glowing things about it.”

Since that is apparently what happened given some of the positive reviews… I mean spin, wafting like the sweet flowery smell of a cattle feed lot across the web right now.

Chris Meyer: | June, 26, 2011

Really, Steve? Has the fevered pitch of the FCP X debate driven even you down to this level of childish conspiracy theories and blatant attempts to garner traffic? (smile)

I will say this, though: I think everyone - on both sides of the argument - are rushing to judgement. People have had it less than a week; heck, some of the strongest voices (again, both pro and con) haven’t even downloaded and installed it yet! (On the other hand, you have to admire the heartfelt opinion that’s uncolored by actual experience…)

I bet after a few months of use, we’ll hear a lot more sane discussion. Many of those who hate it today will realize that - despite it’s glaring shortcomings (some of which will hopefully be addressed sooner rather than later) - there are indeed some worthwhile new ideas in there. And many of those who are singing its praises today will no doubt tire of those shortcomings as they try to get real work done with over time. Just like putting a copy of Motion in front of an After Effects user: Many run screaming; those who hang around find a lot of cool things. Maybe not enough to switch to Motion (and I’m sure both Avid and Adobe are thanking Apple for their bold move with FCP X), but enough to respect the idea behind it.

In the meantime, I just have to shake my head at the tone of the debate. Like Jon Stewart said about those deeply opposed to same-sex marriage: “Excuse me; I didn’t realize it was MANDATORY…” (smile again - and duck, as bottles are now no doubt being thrown at me from all directions…)

Steve Hullfish: | June, 26, 2011

You are correct that this is deliberately provocative. But the question behind the provocation is very difficult to deny. I am NOT saying anything positive or negative about FCP X. I am just saying that Apple CLAIMED that FCP X isn’t iMovie. It claimed that FCP X isn’t FCP 8. But the SOLID, ABSOLUTE, INCONTROVERTIBLE, IN-YOUR-FACE, NO-DENYING IT, TRUTH is that iMovie was at version 9 and FCP X is now at version 10. What does that tell you? Where else could Apple have gotten this versioning if FCP X isn’t iMovie X? I am completely serious. Philip Hodgetts says, “Well, the code for iMovie back a decade ago isn’t the same as what’s in FCP X now.” That is not an argument. iMovie has changed over the years. So has Avid. Look at Avid’s versioning. Sometimes the underlying media code changes, but it’s still the same old Media Composer, right? So the question is a simple one, “Why is FCP X version 10?” Riddle me that one, Steve Jobs. Seriously. I would love to have a truthful answer. Apple claims that FCP X is version 1. I say it is version 10 of SOMETHING and the only thing that goes to version 9 is iMovie. Or are you saying that the designer accidentally placed the decimal in the wrong place? I am not a coder. I don’t understand the underlying structure or FCP X. I admit that. I don’t understand the underlying code to iMovie. I can’t say that one is the other, other than to say that the sure LOOK a lot alike ... and, oh yeah, FCP X is magically at version 10 on the FIRST DAY THAT IT IS RELEASED. I posted this as a lark, but really the truth is that this is ... THE TRUTH. I did NOT Photoshop the graphics. Anyone can simply look at their OWN copy of FCP X and their OWN copy of iMovie and see the truth for themselves. I did cut my son’s Little League game today on FCP X and I enjoyed it. It worked perfectly and I posted it to my iDisk account - it did take 20 minutes to export a 2 minute video on an OCTO MacPro loaded with RAM, but it looks great up there on YouTube. It was much more of a professional experience than when my daughter cut her freshman Spanish video on iMovie. I shot it on a 5D Mark II and it imported it and played it very nicely. No crashes. Nice user interface. The audio scrubbing sounded a little funky, but I really haven’t given it a fair shake yet, which is why I haven’t posted a review yet. I want to be completely fair about actually editing with it. I am being a provocateur. Yes. That’s what makes for good ratings. I’m an Apple fan. I’m an FCP fan. I have more than 20 Apple pieces of hardware in my house. But I’m just calling out FCP X for what it is. A WAY WAY WAY better version of iMovie…and a pretty lame version of FCP7.

lin2log: | June, 26, 2011

Bravo Chris.

lin2log: | June, 26, 2011

Bravo Chris. I, too, can hardly believe he would be so open about his bizarre, childish little SCREAMING CRUSADE!!! on such a NON-topic. Like a little rabid chihuahua of “I’LL SAVE YOU FROM YOUR OWN STUPIDITY, BECAUSE ONLY *I* HAVE SEEN THE LIGHT!!” bullshit.

What an amazing threat Apple obviously poses to his little world, for him to actually take time out of his day for such ad hominem baloney. Wonder if we’ll ever find out why. Actually, I doubt anyone cares. But someone seriously has some issues here.

Blayne Gorum: | June, 26, 2011

Seriously, this is was ridiculous Wednesday, now it’s getting pathetic. iMovie and FCP X probably share a lot of code. Let me put this in a way you might understand—THEY SHOULD. Why would Apple want to support two completely different code bases?

iMovie is now the intro piece to get people interested in moving up. FCP X is the version with all the real tools.

While it really staggers belief that Apple would release a “pro” version of software that is so lacking in expected features, this is just the 1.0 version of a completely new product that will probably add in a ton of features over the next year.

The community response should have been to point and laugh, not this.

Tequila and keyboards don’t mix.

Tom Daigon: | June, 26, 2011

Steve,I just got my refund. You can to!

Jordi J. Recort: | June, 26, 2011


and waste of time

Is called 10.0 because that philosophy began with MacOS X 10.0 (which incidentally was also called “Apple’s big mistake and would only be for home user iMacs)

Then will come 10.1 with it’s 10.1.xx and then 10.2.xx and when we get there and no one will remember these discussions or FCP7.

With 10.0 they gain a single-digit and will not run out of number versions so fast!

Steve Hullfish: | June, 26, 2011

OK, I buy the numbering argument based on the fact that since the product is called “X” that - because of the Latin numeral designation - then the version should be 10, but to say that they run out of numbers slower seems crazy. If you start with 1, you have 9 more versions than if you start with 10.

But I suppose your point is that they will never create a version 11, just 10.1, 10.2…

I’m just saying that if you want to claim you have a NEW product, you start it at 1.

But the fact that Mac OS X STARTED at 10 is stupid, because the OS version BEFORE 10 was 9, just like iMovie was at 9 and now FCPX is at 10.

See, Mac’s naming convention is further proof of my point. You get something, like an OS to version 9, then you call it X and number it 10. Then you get something like iMovie to version 0 and then you call it X and number it 10. Your logic is actually perfect, it just reinforces my point.

lightprismtv: | June, 26, 2011

Folks - you’re bashing Steve’s article without getting the point of what he was simply saying:

Apple clearly advertised FCPX as a newly written from scratch program to replace FCP7.

That is all he said.

Whether you like the new tool as is for what it currently can do is up to each.

But clearly for many folks, it’s current iteration does not work for a replacement for FCP7.

Will it work as a replacement for FCP7 in the future for most - hopefully. I am not waiting around any longer thankfully. And no further statements or claims about the future will make me wait either. Credibility and patience have both been strained from my viewpoint.

Steve Hullfish: | June, 26, 2011

Correct, Mr. lightmprismtv!

I have owned FCP since version 2. I have cut primarily on FCP for the last two years, including co-editing a feature film that could be the top box office release its opening weekend on it.

FCP has been the professional tool I use to get work done for a while. I freelance on it. I own it. It’s on my laptop. It’s on my MacPro.

I just cut a project last night on FCP X. Granted it was my son’s Little League video, but that’s kind of where FCP X is at the moment. If you don’t believe me, check out the MAJORITY of other professionals in the App store who rate it a 1 out of 5. (Any ratings from the first day should be discarded, because those people had nothing to RATE.) This is probably the lowest rated, most hated software release in Apple’s history, though I have no specific proof. I have NOT done the research on that, but Apple makes great products that I buy all the time and to get a 2.5 rating based on 1000 or so people must be pretty sucky in a company that is used to knocking it out of the park.

Keep the cards and letters coming! I’m trying to beat the Pogue, NYT rant-fest.

wsmith: | June, 26, 2011

Personally, I thought Steve’s insight re version numbering was not unwarranted and the highly offended are seemingly neurotic. The bashing is very unprofessional and I somehow doubt it happen in a group or face-to-face discussion. Noone is forcing anyone to belive anything or adopt anything they don’t want to. 

Now, as a Windows/Adobe user, in a shop where everyone else prefers FCP - until now; they seem to stubbornly prefer to stick with FCP7 for now - I’ll say this:

I was waiting to see what was in store for this new iteration of FCP. I was thinking about giving it a go. And really I’ve nerve really had to pay for it so cost wasn’t an issue. I could have simple sat down at our house Power Mac and started a project. Anyone who can edit on PPro can do so rather straight-forwardly on FCP. A young child can learn the basics of editing rather quiclky on either NLE and then dive deeper as needed. 

With all of the various shortcomings over the years compared to Adobe, I was never even inspired to do that. Never needed to, at least for my projects. But I was thinking about actually buying a copy for myself. Not now.

Certainly, if I were advising a newcomer, I could never suggest FCP over Adobe - even if the cost is a lot less.

I’ve seen a lot of freelance projects pass me by because the producer insisted on using FCP. That was the inspiration for thinking I might take the plunge into FCP. I could be conversant in both if I wished. And if one pulled dramatically ahead in technology, I’d be there, to take advantage of it.

But now I see no advantage whatsoever. I suspect that Apple will lose pros and never get the influx newcomers it needs to continue to thrive. It could be a downward spiral. In my personal opinion, one would have to be a real diehard fanboy to continue to wait around for something that that may be fizzling as we speak. After all this time, FCP finally has 64bit. Is Adobe going to sit still while Apple catches up? Adobe is overwhelmingly compelling and FCP is anything but.

Chris Meyer: | June, 26, 2011

Hey, Steve -

Sorry you took my poking at you for trying to out-flame Pogue as some sort of serious attack. FWIW, I thought you were being tongue in cheek as well.

Apple’s penchant for odd product numbering has already been covered (but let’s pile on anyway: Look at the jump from QuickTime Player 7 to QuickTime Player X - v 10.0 - for further “proof” that Apple is more about branding “X” than linear product numbers).

As for whether FCP X is all-new, shares some code with iMovie, or shares some code with Hitchcock…well, that may be the foundation for some class action lawsuits about truth in advertising (marketers will be marketers), but frankly, I don’t care what’s under the hood - I care about how the product works. It apparently doesn’t work for you, and not for a lot of folks. That’s the real bottom line; not what the code base is.

Time will tell whether Randy Ubillos is the second coming of Steve Jobs (smile), or went too far off the reservation. I wouldn’t be surprised if Apple gets out some updates in response. I bet more will get comfortable as they get over their initial shock. I bet they attract some new users. And I bet some old users leave.

I get it that many have invested years of their life, a business model, etc. on FCP the way it was. Some may need to migrate away, and that’s going to be a big opportunity cost - and that’s significant. I understand many are freaking out as a result. But to the point where people pick up knives and torches and turn on their fellow users?

At least all the old version of FCP didn’t stop working the day they shipped FCP X, and users have some time to perform that migration.

Jordi J. Recort: | June, 26, 2011

Steve, it’s true that they called the MAC OS X 10, because It was coming after macos 9. But after that they wanted to set like a convention naming, and this is why they use the X instead of 10.

That convention mean in their terms that it’s something complete new in terms of inside architecture. So X or 10 it’s just a “tabula rasa” and from there they start naming again 0, 1 , 2 etc.. etc… so this way they gain digits, because nowadays software is much more updated in short basis time with small updates, rather than big spaced updates.

Following the “old” convention, we will be now in MAC OS 18! which makes no sense.. so its 10.7.. this way they reserve 11 or 20 for a really big, start again from basement, completely new thing.

As said here, Quicktime jumped from 7 to X, and I think the iMovie numbering it’s mere coincidence.

I agree with most pros, that FCPX is lacking of basic tools to deal with the rest of nowadays workflows.  But talking strictly about editing, about montage, it’s a step ahead and it’s a diamond in the rough.

I think it’s the other way around, Randy Ubillos team, has been using iMovie as a guinea pig to test new things and techniques to later be implemented on FCPX.

And Apple is doing the same it did with MAC OS X 10.0, give us the chance to play and know whats going to come, to be ready when the real thing came out. On their side, they really need to do something. FCS is starting to be obsolete.

The very same comments FCPX is receiving now, was for MACOS X, if you swap MACOS9 for FCP7 and MACOSX for FCPX, most is valid..

it’s a kind of D

JordanACE: | June, 26, 2011

>Time will tell whether Randy Ubillos is the second coming of Steve Jobs (smile), or went too far off the >reservation.

With all due respect to our friend Randy, I don’t think any Apple software release is shipped without the enthusiastic (“It’s Insanely Great!) blessing of Herr Jobs.

>I get it that many have invested years of their life, a business model, etc. on FCP the way it was. Some may need to migrate away, and that’s going to be a big opportunity cost - and that’s significant. I understand many are freaking out as a result. But to the point where people pick up knives and torches and turn on their fellow users?

I know there are a bunch of veteran Avid owners/editors out there (myself included) just shaking their heads on hearing how much of a financial hit FCP users are taking because of this. Over the years there have been more than several occasions, whether it was due to hardware and software evolution or internal company politics where Avid owners were forced to pay 10’s of thousands of dollars to get to the next version if they wanted to stay in business.

I’m not saying that FCP users don’t have a legitimate gripe about Apple advertising FCP X as one thing and delivering another. In this age of social media, I’m surprised how much the company underestimated the vocal nature of the post community. OTOH, please don’t complain about how much money you have invested in the FCP “ecosystem.” Most of your gear will work with Premiere. And Frankly, this is the cost of doing business in a technology dependent business like ours. If you want to stay competitive, be ready to pay the price, and on a fairly regular basis.


zadie: | June, 26, 2011

I totally thought this was a linkbait joke until you stated your seriousness in one of the comments. There are some really valid points on both sides of this debate, but this is just total nonsense. Did you think about what the next version of iMovie will be numbered before you wrote this? I doubt it.

The designation of an X release from Apple is indicative of a fresh start/total rewrite/rethinking of a software line. It’s a move to an entirely new numbering system. This is why you don’t see “Mac OS 16.7” as the current system number. What happened to Quicktime 8 and 9? Just curious.

wsmith: | June, 26, 2011

Apparently this discussion is devolving into rampant speculation re naming conventions. It started out in a fun but now is a yawn.

I’m trying to get clear on certain things and maybe we can hopefully see a fresh article dealing with it.

Mr. Recort’s most recent observation does include one thing is a topic that is worth pursuing an understanding of.

While he points to some supposed correlation re QuickTime’s naming convention, he may not know it but Apple, with FCPX has replaced the underlying QT architecture with the new “AV Foundation”. I just listened to the “Terrence and Philip” audio blog and I’d forgotten about AV Foundation until that.

Everyone knows that a 64bit version of QT was sorely lacking and I had long made the connection that its absence was directly related to Apple’s lagging behind on a 64bit version of FCP. That was until I learned that Apple was dumping it in favor of AV Foundation.   

Question: Is AV Foundation something that so radically improves everything (in the context of the pro industry itself) to the extent that suffering through this transition that Apple is subjecting it’s pro customers to?

I also understand (unless wrong) that AV Foundation is baked into Lion. 

Question: On the Adobe-under-Windows side, they seem to have obviated QT with MainConcept’s importer. I guess, aside from needing to export to a QT file for whatever reason, QT is no longer needed in a Windows system? As always, by default, I have installed but not really sure what it’s still needed for. What? please.

I guess the obvious question now is this: Is AV Foundation an overwhelmingly compelling reason for current FCP devotees to suffer through this transition? Is this some kind of potential ‘world-beater’ for Apple?

Is it a reason to make a die hard Windows Adobe user like me to step back from my previous comments here and reconsider my current resistance to FCP?


Jordi J. Recort: | June, 26, 2011


I’m aware of the substitution of QT architecture by AV foundation.
As well as Lion it’s also a big step in “inner” changes, not only due to the AV foundation implementation, also they have ported iOS to MAC OS, this will not be something that we, users, will perceive (Lion will be yet another MAC OS X version) but changes RADICALLY the way to develop apps for the Mac.

But this is technical stuff, and naming comes under marketing folks.

So probably next Quicktime Player will be also Quicktime Player X (10. something) but inside will be a complete different thing.. not anymore a complete architecture and a system layer behind, will be simply a movie player using now AV foundation instead or QT architecture.


Dylan Reeve: | June, 26, 2011

This thread is getting pretty full of outrage, fun times.

I think Steve’s initial post was somewhat tongue-in-cheek, but there’s a serious element of truth to it.

Philip Hodgetts has said that iMovie is based on Quicktime and FCP X is based on AV Foundation so they can’t be sharing code.

Even if that were true (that they couldn’t be sharing code - I think they could) it doesn’t mean that FCP X can’t be a new version of iMovie - not every version has to be built on the same codebase.

If it walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck… If you look at FCP X as a whole (not considering any of the underlying code) it shares a LOT more in common with iMovie than with FCP.

The version numbering doesn’t prove anything, but it is an interesting observation after all smile

Jordi J. Recort: | June, 26, 2011

That’s correct, but you can have some code that was used for something connecting with QT and then adapt the same code to work over AV foundation.

Yes iMovie and FCPX can share some code. that’s feasible totally.

Dylan Reeve: | June, 26, 2011

Indeed, fundamentally it’s just API calls really. It’s obviously more complex, but there’s no reason to think that large parts of iMovie code could not also be present in FCP X. The same seems much less likely of FCP7.

motionmatt: | June, 27, 2011

How much mediocrity are we willing to accept for the sake of corporate mass marketing and a few hundred dollars before we starting insisting on a better quality product?  I’d like to see more FCPX reviews end with “It ain’t great but hey it’s cheap!”

IEBA: | June, 28, 2011

“Rebuilt from the ground up to meet the needs of today’s creative editors…”

The part of the sentence they omitted is, “ 2007.”

Let’s look back to when Apple _really_ rewrote the app from the ground up for “creative” editors. (Apple didn’t say Professional, and they mean exactly what they say.)

Here’s part of the commentary from that time:

“Most people are used to a product cycle that goes like this: Release a new version every year or two, each more capable than the last. Ensure that it’s backward-compatible with your existing documents.

“X, on the other hand, has been totally misnamed. It’s not [like the previous application] at all. In fact, it’s nothing like its predecessor and contains none of the same code or design. It’s designed for an utterly different task, and a lot of people are screaming bloody murder.

“The new X was, as Apple admits, designed primarily for throwing together movies quickly. It lets you scan through a clip to see what’s in it, isolate the good parts, and rapidly drop them into a sequence.”

sound familiar?

“Meanwhile, X is incapable of the more sophisticated editing that the old app made so enjoyable. The old app offered the essential tools of professional programs ...without the cost or complexity.

The new X, for example, is probably the only video-editing program on the market with no timeline-no horizontal, scrolling strip that displays your clips laid end to end, with their lengths representing their durations. You have no indication of how many minutes into your movie you are.

The new X gets a D for audio editing. You can choose one piece of music to put behind the video, but that’s it. You can’t manually adjust audio levels during a scene (for example, to make the music quieter when someone is speaking). You can’t extract the audio from a clip. The program creates a fade-out at the end of an audio clip, but you can’t control its length or curve.

All the old audio effects are gone, too. No pitch changing, high-pass and low-pass filters, or reverb.

The new X doesn’t accept plug-ins, either. For years, I’ve relied on’s plug-ins to achieve effects like picture-in-picture, bluescreen and subtitles. That’s all over now.

You can’t add chapter markers for use in iDVD… Bookmarks are gone. You can no longer export only part of a movie.

Incredibly, the new X can’t even convert older X projects. All you can import is the clips themselves. None of your transitions, titles, credits, music, or special effects are preserved.”

(quotes edited to make a point.)

Apple has done this before.

But terminating the entire momentum of the entire Final Cut Studio profile overnight is just bad business in this business. It leaves a very sour taste in our mouths.

willardj: | December, 15, 2011

While you all have been writing all this information from the boxes you live in, i edited a very nice documetary about the most beautiful movietheater in the world, on final cut po x. With 5 tbyte of archived footage from back to as far as 1921, in all formats and bitrates.

I just upgraded my mc 5.5 to mc 6 and am very happy with it. So with my after effects 5.5, fcp 7 and quicktime pro. They all have merit in editing. Fcp x excels in its visual representation of footage in events ( very easy to find shots in long clips, right in the event (bin), the open time line and the speed in which it renders and transcodes and background rendering.

Fcp x is very very useful for people with an open mind. And to quote andrew kramer..don’t let the tings you think you know stand in the way of learning the things you don ‘t know.

Or .. It’s not about the amount of buttons you have, it’s about knowing when to push them.

In only a few year a lot of us will be pulling out their grey hair and see how a new generation of storytellers has taken over command with new tools. Maybe not the broacast workflow we consider the holy grail. But how long will that last? How long will TV be the dominant medium we watch video o ? 5, 6 years?

So don’t cry with the wolves, but learn fcp x. It’s cheap, easy to learn, thanks to tutorials by Larry Jordan and Steve Martin, fun to work with and has great tools building your story from all sorts of media you have to your disposal. And if you really want to tae your skills to the next level, learn rigging in motion because that is truly awsome.

Tomorrow i wil be editing on my mc 6 in the professional broadcast workflow. I use ‘m all for the Best. That’s because I am not endorsed by any of hem.

Greetings from holland,


Steve Hullfish: | December, 15, 2011

The issue is not “the boxes you live in” but that I am aware that not everyone works in the “box I live in.” In other words, while FCP X can definitely deliver results for many editors who are professionals, the real issue is that it does NOT have all of the tools needed for many high-level professionals. Cutting broadcast, cutting features… these require more tools than FCP X has at the moment. Professionals need to collaborate. They need to deliver very specific “deliverables.” They need - often - to cut multicam. I understand that some of these things may be forthcoming. This is a blog about now. Not tomorrow. I too, use all of them. I have FCP X installed. I have MC6 installed. I have FCP 7 installed. I have PremierePro 5.5 installed.

And I certainly take exception to the final potshot “I am not endorsed by any of them.” Neither am I. I don’t take money from any of them. Sometimes I get free stuff. I’m not selling my reputation for a $200 plug-in, trust me. So, Willard, the entire article didn’t even COMMENT on the useability of FCP X actually. It just said “As much as Apple doesn’t want us to call it iMoviePro… that’s basically what I think it is. That doesn’t mean it’s unuseable, just that the underlying concepts have a lot more to do with iMovie than they do with FCP 7. Is that a bad thing? Heck no! THere are some great things about iMovie and FCP X has adopted many of them.

willardj: | December, 16, 2011

Thanks for the clarification, Steve. I am aware of your achievement a an Editor. Respect! I am in the business for 20 years. Did camera and editing in warzones and went to entrrtainment ( endemol ).  Now freelancer. I too was dissapointed with some omissions in FCP X. But the massive attack on the internet it has suffered in uncalled for, in my opinion. We know by now what it has not, let’s now try to fugure out what ot has. Sure for multicam, digibeta workflows etc in broadcast environments I use Meda Composer. Have been doing shows on Fcp but away’s felt that I was somewhat in the dark. I guess many Avid editors and edit shops sufferd from anxiety that FCP would take over their world and are now so happy that FCP X is a premature child, releved that Avid won, that hey cant stop bashing. FCP x has some very good tools for professional editing, that can help you being a creative storyteller. Mostly when te budget is tight, the time is short and there are no tapes to capture fom multiple camera’s.
Or in my recent case, when you have tons of material of all sorts of formats. So it is not what we expected in soe ways but in many ways it exceeded my expectations. I am also happy with the 64 bit MC, more open and a better interface (finally dumped those neon colors that drove me mad when importing bins from fellow editors. And thank God the tabbed bins are there.But i would love to see a more visual representations of clips, like FCP X has. Also previewing looks, filters and effects before applying them, like in FCP X would be nice.
And a better tite tool and compsiting environment than title tool, marquee ne avidfx would be great. Motion is way ahead.
And the roundtripping paradigm of FCP X and Motion is great for graphics intensive shows. So to those who see this as a race…, avid won, for now. Those who want to expand their toolkit.., examine FCP X more closely and more open minded. You don’ have too chose, you can youse ‘m all. Now that autoduck is a free product and with X27 they even integrate.
And there are some very usefull and estheticslly great plugins, for example by crumble pop and FCPFX, just to name the less obvious. I don’t agree that you should call it iMoviePro. Because it is not. It is a premature born Final Cut Pro. I agree with Walter Murch that it is not pro, yet, although his greatest concern with version 1.0, lack of XML, has been solved. But it is aimed at the creative editors of the near (tapeless) future. Not the wiping and pip spinning home movie hobbyists. I am pretty conifend about that.

Pardon, my english

Greetings from Holland


Steve Hullfish: | December, 17, 2011

Your English is excellent Willard. I too, respect your intelligent discussion of the subject. I think that FCP X definitely has some very interesting and provocative new ways to approach editing and I look forward to the next point release. I’m expecting great things.

My issue, and I believe the reason so many “pro” editors were so angry is because Apple really backed them into a corner and lost their trust. For FCP X to NOT be backwardly compatible was probably the main thing that created the backlash. The other factor was that it was released without ALL of the things that would make it a professional tool for ALL editors, instead of just SOME editors.

Thanks for the reasoned and intelligent discussion.


Terence Curren: | December, 17, 2011

You guys are forgetting the salt in the wound that Apple caused by pulling FCP 7 from the shelves at FCPX’s release. That truly left pros with no hope.

willardj: | December, 18, 2011

Steve & Terence I see what you mean. I think in this discussion, it is indeed more significant to mourn the demise of FCP 7 then the premature birth of FCP X. But let me end my part of the discussion with this personal story.

In the old days my father used to be a carpenter, with a very big toolbox. But he also had a bunch of very cheap unprofessional stuff in a plastic bag. Stuff that one would never excpect to see a professional carpenter work with. But on more than one occasion I noticed that he used this stuff because for this particular thing he was working on they were very handy little tools. they worked just quicker then and gave him more flexibility that if he would your his, heavy sluggish professional stuff. My dad is the true anti-snob, very creative.

Happy Holidays, Merry Christmas and a great 2012 to you all,



willardj: | December, 18, 2011

Oh, One more thing (sorry always want to say that). I found an excellent little tool on the app store, an iPad app called custom keystrokes. With that i turned my iPad into a remote control. You can easily make buttons, trackpad, joysticks etc, map them to either keystrokes or mouse clicks and have a very handy tool to complement the keyboard. I use it for example to switch between toolsets, do quick <set markers / mark markers / make subclip> toggle things like audio waveforms, the title tool, save color corrections to memories etc.  handy tool worth exploring, if you own an iPad.


Please login or register to comment