FCPX

Discussion in 'Fan Films, Fan Audio & SciFi 3D' started by Django211, Jun 30, 2011.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
Moderators: AdamBertocci
  1. Django211 Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Mar 6, 1999
    star 4
    This is without a doubt the most controversial software that Apple has ever released. Opinions are all over the board. Anyone here get it? Plan on getting it?
  2. AdamBertocci Manager

    Manager
    Member Since:
    Feb 3, 2002
    star 7
    I make it a point not to be an early adopter for _anything_ and especially not for this.

    And really, it's not the lack of professional features that bugs me. Those can be added. I just don't like the interface. I like precision and making choices. I feel the iMovieish layout will encourage sloppiness and shortcuts, a let's-drop-shots-in-and-play mentality.



    Rick McCallum loves you!
  3. BruceM Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Mar 8, 2006
    star 4
    I have a few thoughts on it. I love how they changed the colour scheme, which even though it make "look" like iMovie, it now has that same look as all the other pro apps I use such as Maya and Nuke. I don't like how they changed the file bin into the events. I really don't like that. I also hear that FCP X can't open older files, which also sucks. But some of the improvements such as 64-bit and background rendering are awesome. I think I will probably get it at some point, just not right now. I don't edit that often, but for now I have Final Cut Studio 3, which serves my purposes just fine.
  4. GreenGreatWarrior Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Apr 16, 2003
    star 4
    Apparently most of the missing features will be brought back in future updates apart from the ability to import old project files.
  5. Django211 Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Mar 6, 1999
    star 4
    I think Apple botched this release. FCS 3 should still be available until FCP X is up to par, however there's the rub. As of now nobody knows where Apple plans to take FCP X. It appears that Apple is gearing toward the everyday user who wants to post to Youtube & the like. Post houses can not use FCP X and for companies that have built their studios around FCP they are in a quandary of what to do. The way Apple killed off Shake, the X-San, FCP Server, Color, Cinema Tools, etc it looks like Apple is saying good bye to the professional market. I wouldn't be surprised if the Mac Pro gets discontinued in the near future. Hopefully the more advanced features get restored in Lion.
  6. tumblemoster Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Dec 1, 2000
    star 4
    I've spent a couple hours with FCP X now, here are my first impressions, some good, some bad. I'm going to focus on the actual process of editing, because it seems like this thread has largely ignored that. The bad are probably minor gripes in the long run, and I understand apple is trying to create a new way of editing, but I put them in as the impressions of an editor that started in premiere before FCP existed, and have been using FCP since version 1. I've edited feature films, TV shows, corporate video, and everything else. Also, these are first impressions, nothing more. I'm probably complaining about a couple things I simply don't know how to do yet. Ok here goes

    The good:
    Tags are COOL. I know people have been grumpy about not being able to create bins and move clips around and stuff, but keyword tags are SO MUCH BETTER. The process is slick. You can individually tag and rename clips, use keyboard shortcuts which set up automatically or can be created yourself, and once a tag is set up you can select it and import new files into that tag set, automatically adding tags to them. Once tags are set up you can drag and drop them between Events, so you don't have to recreate them for every project.

    I like how the timeline works (with one exception, below). It feels more natural. Audio stays connected, clips don't get overwritten in the timeline when you're shifting things around, and you can quickly adjust the length of a clip without having to move the entire edit to accommodate it.

    I like the single viewer, it streamlines a lot of things, creates one fewer active window to deal with, and is intuitive. Also working with effects on clips is much easier as the info pain slides in from the right, so you don't have to load a clip in a second viewer then visit its motion/effects tabs to make adjustments and changes.

    IT'S FAST. Really fast. I'm on a first gen unibody macbook pro. Background editing is quick, search is snappy, even through my itunes library of 30k songs, and everything feels smooth.

    The geometry tools are much improved and faster. Cropping, resizing and masking are all much faster and simpler.

    The not so good:
    No Separate audio track - Trackless editing, I get it. But COME ON. This has to be my number one gripe. You can't drop an audio track without attaching it to a clip. I do music videos, and I often lay a bunch of clips in and then place my music track below, then rearrange the clips as desired. When I then drop an audio track underneath, it has to attach to something, meaning that whenever I move whatever it's attached to, the audio track moves with it. I can't figure out how to disconnect this track completely, so if anyone knows, please tell me.

    Transitions - Adding Right click transitions are visually confusing. I find myself accidentally adding cross dissolves to whole clips instead of between two clips as expected. In the same vain, there is not enough power for default transitions, in fact a right click transition can only default to a cross dissolve, and the only control over the default transition is the Default Transition Length setting in the preferences. What if I want to use a Fade In Fade Out Dissolve as my default? Oh wait, I can't, because FCP X only ships with cross dissolve and Dip to Color Dissolve :/ (and a bunch of home video cheese). Finally, there is no drag and drop with default transition. You can select all and right click to add the default transition, so this is really just a workflow change I guess, but the old way worked great.

    Speaking of things that are missing: 8 point masks, tons of useful transitions and filters, etc. I should probably compile an exhaustive list. Possibly some of that stuff is restored with Motion, but I haven't downloaded that yet.

    There is now a separate "position" tool for creating gaps in an edit. It's annoying to have to select a second tool to move all my clips and create a space for later. Also missing is the type to move feature: In FCP 2-7 you could simply type a number while the timeline was active and reposition the clip x fr
  7. Zurita-Films Jedi Grand Master

    Member Since:
    Aug 26, 2006
    star 3
    I just came back from the Apple store to get my repaired machine, but unfortunately there isn't a demo yet to use of FCPX there. So just from pure conjecture and reviews, here it goes with things that haven't been touched on:

    I'm thrilled for things like the magnetic timeline and tagged media. For DSLR or file based workflows, this is a must! However, I wonder what kind of support it has for tape type workflows, since with its current way of capturing tapes encourages capturing the entire tape. Will I be able to subclip those large files, or just tag bits I want for use later? I wish they just added these features to the pre-existing FCP as an upgrade instead of writing a whole new program.

    The biggest problem I see that hasn't been talked about is lack of support for collaboration with other editors on a project. The baringly big example is lack of XML, EDL, and OMF support. I know there's going to be 3rd party support for that later (I preferred the well oiled way it worked in FCP 7 and before when Apple made it themselves). The other example I'm talking about is the (apparent) innability for multiple editors to work on the same media from multiple computers, then compile it into a master project.

    I work on a video game review show, and the way we edit our episodes is each review or news segment is a sequence in a seperate project. Then they put them in order in a new, master project by copying the sequences over. I don't think the compound clip feature will quite serve this purpose.

    There's more, but I'd need to get some actual experience to say anything else. From these basics, we probably won't be switching to it on the tv show, or any others at the station, and I'm probably going to finally pick up Avid and Premiere as a replacement.

    It's interesting. I agree with everyone who says Apple is trying to appeal to someone using a flip cam or found out about the video mode on their still camera (shaky and rolling shutter detection?) so they can get their video on youtube (Point proven here) I'm hoping Apple makes some major changes. Or 'regressions'. They really left behind a popular, fine tuned product in exchange for FCPX, and I think they'll lose a lot of users too. But will they attract some people who've been using iMovie and getting ready to step up to something new? Yes.
  8. tumblemoster Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Dec 1, 2000
    star 4
    Zurita -

    There is NO support for tape at all. Zero. In my case not a big deal, I've been using tapeless workflows exclusively for years, and have been asked to deliver on tape exactly once.

    Subclips are handled with tags. Rather than selecting an in and out and creating a subclip, you pick an in and out and tag it. It automatically adds that to a bin and you're good to go. There also aren't subclip limits so if you need to expand it later you don't have to promote the whole thing.
  9. Django211 Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Mar 6, 1999
    star 4
    Its great you can work without tape but for a number of post houses that's impossible. If I tell a client that I can't deliver a master on tape then they'll simply find someone who can and not use me. Many clients need a master on tape and right now FCPX doesn't support that & I'm not sure if it ever will. Apple tells users to rely on 3 party cards. As of now there is no support but I'm sure that Aja, Kona & the like are working on it, but once again Apple is relying on 3rd party support for what was standard in previous versions.

    So let's add up how much FCP X will cost to get it to the same level as FCS 3. 299 for the download, 98 for Motion & Compressor, 499 for Automatic Duck (there is an upgrade price but most users probably didn't have the program before), at least 1500 for a card (speculation since there are no cards that currently support FCP X but this is what cards that support FCS3 can cost) & don't forget the machine has to be a Mac Pro made within the last couple of years. All of a sudden that affordable 300$ has racked up some high costs and we still haven't discussed a DVD program or real color correcting. Anyone thinking about editing or expanding seats now has to weigh those costs against the competitors. Right now Adobe & Avid are offering their software at half price. This is what Apple did years ago and got a ton of users to switch. Adobe CS 5.5 can do everything FCS 3 could do, including importing FCP projects. Premiere has gotten better with each version and you can even map it to an FCP keyboard. It also has After Effects which is far more powerful than Motion, Encore which is the equivalent of DVD SP & of course Photoshop (which reminds me FCP X doesn't support Photoshop layers anymore).

    From a business standpoint I think Apple going after the consumer market is a no brainer however dumping the pro market that helped get them there is a **** move. Why not call it iMovie plus or something like that. It could also have been given a new name. Instead it piggybacked on the Final Cut name and many of those users are justifiably upset. They came out to NAB with big presentations but they forgot to mention all the things left out. So they were targeting the pros but I find the strategy very strange. They should have left FCS 3 available for purchase and give notice that eventually it would be dropped until FCP X is ready to do everything that is missing.
  10. Zurita-Films Jedi Grand Master

    Member Since:
    Aug 26, 2006
    star 3
    Does FCP X really not support Photoshop anymore? As in I couldn't take a .png/.psd of a title or graphic I made int superimpose it on top of some video?
  11. Django211 Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Mar 6, 1999
    star 4
    It will still support those, it just doesn't support layers within a photoshop file.
  12. tumblemoster Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Dec 1, 2000
    star 4
    FCP X doesn't support photoshop layers any more. It does recognize transparency in pngs. Another thing to be aware of is you cannot put transitions on connected clips. So for example, you want to overlay a logo and use a transition to fade it in and out, you can't. You have to key frame it's opacity instead.
  13. Psilaef_Zeias Jedi Knight

    Member Since:
    Dec 17, 2006
    star 1
    Just puttin' this in here. Obviously from a vested interest.
  14. AstroninjaStudios Jedi Knight

    Member Since:
    May 16, 2007
    star 1
    The bad is way worse than what TumbleMonster is letting on. I work in LA on all sorts of TV shows, at many different production houses and my opinion is the same as theirs: this software is dead in the water. For professional television and film turnaround there are several reasons why not a single post house has adopted FCPx, and unless there are some drastic patches implemented soon, none will. Apple seems to think professionals are limited to wedding videographers, short film makers, and indie corporate film companies. Maybe this works for them, but for people who actually make TV and Film that airs via a screen or idiot box, this simply doesn't work. Without saying names, I can tell you of three very large (150+ work stations each) companies that exclusively used FCP that are switching back to AVID, and many more are keeping their FCP 6 or 7 licenses with no intention of upgrading. The reasons are this.

    Tumblemonster, it's great that you have worked taplessly for years now, but most TV shows still use tape for at least part, if not all, of their media. As to why, that's a a spearate discussion, but even when we do shoot on P2 or 7D, most companies lay it off to tape before ingesting. As long as their is no serious tape support, it will be a huge stumbling block in getting folks to switch.

    You mention trackless editing, but you failed to mention why its a big deal. If their is no tracks, then how am I going to assign audio elements for a separate audio engineer to finish? Let alone that there is not a single OMF export option in the program, thereby making it impossible for me to hand it off to pro tools.

    No EDL or XML is a huge issue in the offline/online workflow. In their FAQ Apple made it sound like these were antiquated relics of editing, and that's the furthest from the truth. EDL's and XML's get used regularly by actual professionals all the time.

    NO MULTICAM. THat alone is reason enough for half of television to not use FCPx. Apple says its a priority. Obviously not a big one.

    No broadcast monitor support. Kinda hard to check if your video signals are legal and will pass QC without it.

    No backwards compatibility with FCP 7 or under projects is serious bullshit. In my own private projects this would be a nightmare, but on a show that may need to access cuts or elements going back a few years, Apple has made it untenable.


    I could go on about interface preferences, scratch disk clownery, relinking issues, etc. But my biggest problem with this? The day FCPx went on sale, they yanked ALL other versions of FCP off the market. It's either FCPx or no FCP at all. THerefore they've drawn this permanent line of demarcation in the sand and are asking companies that have invested hundreds of thousands of dollars to completely change and limit their workflow overnight. It's crazy that they would do this. There are some neat features to FCPs, but its all fruit of a poisoned tree. IF the things I listed above are not directly addressed by Apple, thenthe pro market is going to leave in droves, as they already are.
  15. tumblemoster Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Dec 1, 2000
    star 4
    but even when we do shoot on P2 or 7D, most companies lay it off to tape before ingesting./i]

    LOLWUT?! That is retarded and completely not true. NO ONE IS THAT STUPID.

    As for the rest, I think you've painted me as FCPX defender, and I'm not. Apple F'ed up big time, I hope they turn it around. If not? Some other options coming available...
  16. Zurita-Films Jedi Grand Master

    Member Since:
    Aug 26, 2006
    star 3
    Surprisingly, yes, footage is still backed up to tapes professionally. Even things shot on RED get qued for tape backup. It's just an insurance against data loss.
  17. tumblemoster Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Dec 1, 2000
    star 4
    Old people need to GTFO of this industry. Tape is NOT good insurance against data loss. It's DUMB. I've worked all over the tapeless workflow for years. No one has even suggested backing up to tape because we all know it's RETARDED.
  18. AstroninjaStudios Jedi Knight

    Member Since:
    May 16, 2007
    star 1
    Sigh....let me try to make this clear. Cards are flimsy, tape is sturdy. This is why the IMX format completely dominated DigiBeta so quickly some years back, because IMX tapes withstand far more exposure to heat and cold, and last way longer. As for card media, yes, they're great. They are also lost easily and damaged easier. I just did a shoot for an MMA show on FUEL TV a few weeks back and I was shooting BRoll and BTS footage on a Panasonic GH2. I ejected the card, like I had done a thousand times before, and the threading stripped. I could still recover the footage, but the post protocol of backing that up to tape was a good idea then, and always.

    It's extraordinarily easy for you to make an inane comment about "old people" in the industry. Im not old, and having worked in broadcast TV for 11 years, I can tell you it's a good idea to do it. You could listen to those who make their livings in post, and hear their side of it, or you can puff your chest out and pound your fist about a side of the industry you do not know.
  19. tumblemoster Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Dec 1, 2000
    star 4
    Lol, I've been working in post production for 8 years in every position for multiple post houses, we always choose a digital workflow and avoid tape like the plague.

  20. AstroninjaStudios Jedi Knight

    Member Since:
    May 16, 2007
    star 1
    Which houses and in what cities have you worked at? I'm genuinely curious to see what other workflows are out there. I've worked at Bunim-Murray, 51 Minds, Flight 33, World Race, BCII, 3Ball, and now at Ping Pong. I've had to learn the specific network deliverable and backup requirements to networks like CBS, NBC, ABC, MTV, Vh1, Discovery, Style, History, SyFy, BET, Planet Green, Bravo, Fuel, Style, and HGTV. Every single one of them lays off card media to tape. I'm not saying your way is wrong, I'm just trying to tell you is there are practical reasons for doing it this way, and calling everyone retards doesn't change that. For network shows this is the standard, maybe it will change, but I doubt it. What sort of projects do you work on?
  21. DorkmanScott Manager Emeritus

    Member Since:
    Mar 26, 2001
    star 6
    I think there's a little bit of confusion going on between tape-based acquisition/intermediate (e.g. HDCAM SR) and tape-based backup (e.g. LTO). LTO backup is very, very common even with digital workflows, but the SR tape intermediate is rather less so these days.

    I can see the value of laying off to tape if you're going to be doing a lot of online/offline workflows, and I'd think having a tape with timecode makes it much easier to rebuild an edit down the line without having to reinstitute an entire digital folder structure. I don't work that way myself, but I'm just me, not a whole pipeline.
  22. AstroninjaStudios Jedi Knight

    Member Since:
    May 16, 2007
    star 1
    That's the intimation I was going for. Offline and Online sessions require these sort of workarounds and I've seen ridiculous ones over the years, myself. Bunim-Murray, for instance, used to lay all of their digibeta off to 3/4 VHS tape and THEN digitize those at 15:1 to a) maximize storage space, and b) protect their masters from the wear and tear of two separate digitizing sessions. It made the offline image look like lego's, and I thought that was a bit much, myself. But with card media I absolutely see the value in it.
  23. tumblemoster Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Dec 1, 2000
    star 4
    I work in Minneapolis, doing contract work at post houses in the twin cities. There are houses here that archive to storage tape, but despite your claim that that's what you were referring to, you know it's not. One of my favorite demonstrations with p2 cards is one I saw at a convention, a pani rep was showing off the (at the time) new storage media and he would toss the card up into the air and let it hit the floor, then pop it in the camera and record and play back some footage. Try doing that with a Digibeta cassette. You also said originally that you take digital, lay it off to tape, and then ingest that, which is absurd. Perhaps it's simply a failure to clearly communicate on your part, because no one anywhere with any sense would degrade their footage right out of the gate by dropping it to tape to ingest, not to mention waste all that time.
  24. DorkmanScott Manager Emeritus

    Member Since:
    Mar 26, 2001
    star 6
    You do realize that post-production workflows aren't a zero-sum game, right? If two people/companies have different workflows, it doesn't mean one of them must be wrong and stupid and shouted down. If the final product is at the desired quality and delivers on-time, then the best workflow is the one that works for the people involved.
  25. tumblemoster Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Dec 1, 2000
    star 4
    Actually yes, if a workflow is wrong and stupid it should be shouted down.
Moderators: AdamBertocci
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.