7 ms·

Apple updates Final Cut Pro X with multicam, broadcast monitoring

41 points by Slimy 15y ago

nirvana 15y ago
FWIW, I used a trail version of FCPX to do our Startup Chile application video. It was very easy to have multiple shots in the timeline and cut between them. In fact, the whole thing was very easy, and very powerful. It is a vast improvement over the previous versions of Final Cut[1], which I felt were really hampered by sticking to the traditional way of doing things, producing a worse UI. I think it made sense for Apple to make the UI like traditional editors, which were as close to the moviola and the moviola inspired tape editing bays of the past, back when FCP came out. Back then, getting people into the digital age was the goal, and keeping the workflow as close as possible was advantageous. Now, however, the outcry about FCPX from "professionals" is really about those "professionals" not wanting to learn anything new, because they really aren't editors, they're just cutting things together by rote. Anyone whose an actual editor- that is, a creative person, will find FCPX a vast improvement over FCP, and of course iMovie. I highly recommend it. (Also got Motion which is cheap at $50, and did a custom motion graphics intro... which is kinda amazing given that I had no experience with motion graphics before that.) People talk about Apple "abandoning" pro users, but I don't see it. Sure, the prices of the software are lower, but that just broadens the potential market. And these days, there are a lot more pros than there used to be-- because people who make videos for YouTube, and make their living from it, are, believe it or not, professionals. [1] I've been shooting film and video for many decades, including for some projects as a professional.
- Keyframe 15y ago
  Now, however, the outcry about FCPX from "professionals" is really about those "professionals" not wanting to learn anything new, because they really aren't editors, they're just cutting things together by rote. Anyone whose an actual editor- that is, a creative person, will find FCPX a vast improvement over FCP, and of course iMovie. That's just like saying 'programmers' don't want to learn Logo because they are programming by rote in Java or whatnot. that is just derogatory towards professional editors out there. Professional editors have tight deadlines, daily editing (most of world's editing) relies on muscle memory, tools which were essential were not existent in FCPX (OMF lack is a showstopper for example). Not to mention that post production is extremely technically inclined area which adopts anything new/easier/streamlined ASAP into their pipelines. Larger shops even have their in-house r&d that has great programmers and solution providers (that's how first NLE even started). FCPX might be a good tool for a small time editor that needs an occasional video, but it is not up to professional standards yet. Outcry was not a knee jerk reaction, I can vouch for that. One example would be that after first screening/demo of FCPX was received almost universally with great enthusiasm in editing community. Everybody wanted to see for themselves how they could fit in their workflow what was shown... and then people actually got their hands on it - it went downhill from that.
  - watsix 15y ago
    That's just like saying 'programmers' don't want to learn Logo because they are programming by rote in Java or whatnot. There are many programmers who resist learning another language because it's different than what they originally learned. I believe pg himself wrote an essay about that once. There are absolutely blub video editors. FCPX might be a good tool for a small time editor that needs an occasional video, but it is not up to professional standards yet. There are plenty of valid criticisms of FCPX, but this stuff is nonsense: there are plenty of professional editors using it already.
    - Keyframe 15y ago
      There are plenty of valid criticisms of FCPX, but this stuff is nonsense: there are plenty of professional editors using it already. Where? I know none and I know hundreds of them, hundreds. Not single television network, production company, post production facility I know uses FCPX. AVID is still the king (and always has been), I see lots of FCP7 still around, and new to the production and post production sphere is Premiere, which is getting a lot of traction recently. I have even seen EDIUS around (especially RTL/Bertelsmann/Fremantle group), but I have yet to see one FCPX suite anywhere.
      - alexqgb 15y ago
        Don't know why you're getting down-voted. This is absolutely true. And the reason that it's true is because post houses can't integrate FCP X with the rest of their workflows even if they want to. Apple inexplicably stopped supporting the exchange format that allows this to happen.
  - nirvana 15y ago
    >FCPX might be a good tool for a small time editor that needs an occasional video, but it is not up to professional standards yet. I don't buy the argument hat only non-professional people are creative. I've worked with film and video for 20 years, including professionally. That the outcry comes from people who completely ignore the massive advance in usability that FCPX represents, and instead focus on outdated (output to tape) and things that are supported by third party or FCP suite applications (7 to X migration, output in raw) tells me that this is not an outcry of creative professionals. Sure there are a lot of people cutting together formulaic reality TV shows who want to preserve their workflow. That's fine, stay with FCP 7. If preserving your workflow is your primary concern then you're not the target of this product, yet. FCP 7 didn't stop working. You have failed to mention any serious features that it is missing, yet you say it "might be a good tool for a small time editor that needs an occasional video, but it is not up to professional standards yet." This is exactly the same kind of nonsensical argument I hear from Canon fans. To them, Canon cameras are "professional" and everything else isn't, because they don't have the "Canon" name on them and therefore, can't possibly be "professional." Its circular nonsense. You, not a single person complaining about FCP X here or elsewhere, has named a single creative feature missing from FCP X, or otherwise justified the claim that its not "professional". The references to what "professionals" need is an example of the fallacy of argument from authority. "I'm professional, therefore you're an nitwit if you disagree". Worse, its argument from false authority because nobody here is appointed to decide what is and is not "professional". FCP X has been enthusiastically embraced by the editing community. That's my point. They're not the ones complaining (who I suspect are all on the payroll of Adobe or Avid, or otherwise bought into those systems....) If the outcry were legitimate, the people engaging in it would be able to recognize that FCP X has moved the state of the art of editing forward significantly. They do not, they only talk about what they claim is missing, and often claim things are missing that actually aren't, but are just different (Showing they haven't even used the product enough to give a "professional" opinion.)
- saurik 15y ago
  For the record, I remember all of the serious complaints about the new version of Final Cut being about people are doing editing in teams for multi-stage production (having different people in charge of post-production audio, etc.) when dealing with large amounts of physical film.
- cowmix 15y ago
  "Now, however, the outcry about FCPX from "professionals" is really about those "professionals" not wanting to learn anything new, because they really aren't editors, they're just cutting things together by rote. Anyone whose an actual editor- that is, a creative person, will find FCPX a vast improvement over FCP, and of course iMovie." This simply isn't (or wasn't) true. Most my video editor friends, many who work in Hollywood, hated FCPX for everything is lacked and 'broke'. All are 'real' editors. Many are trainers for FCP and AViD.
  - modfodder 15y ago
    Editors can be a fickle bunch. Many are technical minded and love to have the latest newest gadget. But they also don't like to mess with their livelihood and FCPX was too big of a learning curve while missing too many features. I personally think it was a great move by Apple, trying to push the paradigm of editing forward. That is difficult and time consuming to do in small steps so they chose a complete rewrite, losing a large percentage of the profesional market in the process. But what they lost, I'm guessing they gained back in consumers and as FCPX improves they will gain some of those back. What I've seen as the biggest gain are creatives directors and photographers. I know several who are masters of photoshop and after effects but struggled to get their head around Avid and FCP, who didn't have time to jump in head first, but took to FCPX like duck to water. These are highly paid individuals, heads of agencies. Which is what annoyed me when editors complained it wasn't professional. If the creative director of a billion dollar ad agency has found it suits his needs, it's hard to paint it as a toy. That's not to say the complainers didn't have a point, they did. But it's a complaint that's been with Final Cut since version 1. It was always necessary to find a work around, whether outputting for film, tape, or digital. My career was made because final cut was cheap to use, but didn't quite work as it should.
    - masklinn 15y ago
      > But they also don't like to mess with their livelihood and FCPX was too big of a learning curve while missing too many features. I don't think the learning curve was the issue, these are people considering (or even implementing) switches to Avid or Premiere after years of FCP. From seeing the outcry from the outside, the issues seemed mostly twofolds: 1. lack of genuinely needed features (not necessarily intersecting from one studio to the next, but editors were understandably unwilling to tear down their whole production pipeline for the sake of FCPX) and 2. fear about the place of "pro" (as in medium-to-big-studios) editors in Apple's medium and long-term roadmap, boosted by a perceived iMovie-ification (real or not) pointing to a refocus on prosumer and lighter work. > If the creative director of a billion dollar ad agency has found it suits his needs, it's hard to paint it as a toy. That's nonsense, you said it youself: these are creative directors and photographers, they're not editing big-budget movies or TV shows, they're not dealing with TV stations or juggling with 30 cameras. You're basically saying Acorn is just fine for everybody because professional developers can draw with it.
- masklinn 15y ago
  > Now, however, the outcry about FCPX from "professionals" is really about those "professionals" not wanting to learn anything new, because they really aren't editors, they're just cutting things together by rote. Anyone whose an actual editor- that is, a creative person, will find FCPX a vast improvement over FCP, and of course iMovie. That simply is not true. There are a number of workflows which FCPX simply does not support at the moment, even with this update. And the original version was even worse. When your editing toolchain works using EDL or OMF, FCPX is not a matter of "not wanting to learn anything new", it's a matter of not being able to work. Same with multicam (before this update), tape out, native raw, ... Dismissing these issues does not put you in a good light.
  - nirvana 15y ago
    I'm sorry you felt the need to characterize me in a derogatory manner, especially based on a dishonest characterization of the point I was making. I'm not aware that the previous version of Final Cut Pro has stopped working, or that anyone has been forced to upgrade to FCPX. Nor am I aware that the new UI for editing, which naturally involves a new workflow, makes it impossible for people to adapt to it, or prevents them from sticking with their previous version. It's unfortunate that your response contains broad assertions with few specifics, as this makes it difficult to refute them. In fact, this is exactly the kind of response I saw from the so called "professionals" bashing the product in the first place-- broad assertions that the product doesn't do what it needs to do, without specifics. Further, unfortunately, the specifics you do mention are enabled by third party software, and other apps in the Final Cut suite.
    - alexqgb 15y ago
      If you don't want people treating you like an asshole, stop behaving like one. Case in point: "Now, however, the outcry about FCPX from "professionals" is really about those "professionals" not wanting to learn anything new, because they really aren't editors, they're just cutting things together by rote." Sart with those air quotes. These people aren't "professionals" they're professionals. Denigrating others like this is just a dick move through and through. Stop it. And then there's this: "I'm not aware that the previous version of Final Cut Pro has stopped working, or that anyone has been forced to upgrade to FCPX. Nor am I aware that the new UI for editing, which naturally involves a new workflow, makes it impossible for people to adapt to it, or prevents them from sticking with their previous version." Translation: "I'm not aware of any of the specific problems that have been discussed extensively and in great detail, nor do I understand how any of this works in practice meaning none of the conversations I glanced at made much sense to me anyway, so in truth, I have absolutely no idea what's really going on." And yet you've got no problem insulting people who are very familiar with the problems by saying they they are just "doing things by rote" and "simply don't want to learn." Again, total dick moves. If you have any genuine interest in this, and would like to stop coming across like a complete ignoramus, start by learning more about XML. This really is lynchpin stuff, and if you can appreciate why that it is so important to high-end professional workflows (i.e. on shows with budgets in the tens to hundreds of millions), you may begin to understand what the issues are really about. I promise you, a new UI is the very least of it.
- bri3d 15y ago
  This is silly - saying "anyone whose [sic]...a creative person... will find FCPX a vast improvement over FCP" is like saying "anyone who's a creative person will find Emacs superior to Vim." Some people are highly experienced with a certain workflow and to entirely uproot that workflow interferes with their creative process. Dislike for change in a workflow is not a sign that you were using that workflow in a rote or non-creative way. Just a sign that you were used to it.
  - watsix 15y ago
    In nirvana's defence, if you spent any time in video editor's forums when FCPX was launched, it would have been very easy to get the impression that editors, as a group, simply didn't like anything new. The amount of misinformation was staggering. Think of the worst, most misinformed emacs vs. vim debate you've ever seen: it was like that almost everywhere. That isn't to say that there weren't (and aren't) legitimiate complaints, but there was a massive amount of noise. Your comparison also discounts the fact that the workflow in most modern video editors is extremely broken. Emacs and VIM users can make a good argument for a code editor being vastly customizable or controllable by keyboard only, but there are fewer defences for the way most video editors work: they behave as they do due to intertia, and because editors 20 and 30 years ago had to work a certain way due to the limitations of the hardware at the time. Many of the changes in FCPX are hugely welcome, but many editors -- including "pros" -- can't (or refuse to) see it.
    - bri3d 15y ago
      Thanks for the feedback about my comparison - I'll agree that the "editor holy war" comparison I chose wasn't as apt as it could have been, and that Vim is not as to Emacs as FCP is to FCPX. With that in mind, I still think there's a big difference between saying "video editors as a group tend to be too resistant to change," which I would have no problem agreeing with, and saying that "anyone who is creative will think FCPX is better than FCP," which is silly. I'm not trying to assert that FCPX isn't better than FCP or that the old FCP workflow wasn't broken, because honestly, it probably was, and beyond missing a few key features (which I'm sure will slowly return), FCPX really is better. I'm just trying to say that being resistant to a major workflow change does not mean you're "not an editor" or "performing only rote tasks" like nirvana asserts.
marcusestes 15y ago
I used Final Cut pro while creating a daily video documentary for Kanye West and Jay-Z's Watch the Throne tour and I can honestly say that it was the best tool for the job, largely because of the new background rendering capabilities. There are some interface flaws in the new magnetic timeline but I really appreciate the dev team's willingness to experiment with new video editing paradigms. Within another few point releases I think FCP X will begin to persuade the crusty old FCP 7 guard that it's worth another look.
- Karunamon 15y ago
  I don't think the UI changes caused the visceral reaction and subsequent hate-dom as much as the completely inexplicable and unwarranted removal of features and file formats that professionals (I.e. the TARGET FUCKING MARKET) use. First impressions are everything - and Apple blew it bad on this one.
  - edkennedy 15y ago
    It really reminds me of the facebook re-design uproars. UI evolution has such a dramatic affect on it's user base.
    - alexqgb 15y ago
      That's an highly superficial assessment. The real uproars had little to do with the UI, which had actually been previewed to favorable responses some time before the release. No, what people were truly furious about were things under the hood. Or more precisely, things that weren't under this hood. Specifically, the lack of support for XML. What turned this from disappointing to infuriating was the simultaneous yanking of FCP 7 from the market, meaning that the entire FCP using community was frozen in place. It was actually illegal to add extra seats to a pipeline. That's like walking into an air traffic control tower and smashing all the radios, then bombing the runway, just for added good measure. The difference is that Apple's customers weren't a hostile nation at war with the attackers. They were the attackers CUSTOMERS. Indeed, the technology problems are almost a distraction. The real issue was the raw idiocy on display. I mean, this was stupidity on par with showing up drunk for a driving test. People were truly astonished that Apple could employ people this moronically dumb. And more to the point, that they'd give them access to a product with a LOT of exposure to the media industry. If you think the situation was even remotely analogous to a Facebook redesign, you have no idea what actually happened.
schiffern 15y ago
Could we link somewhere without a referral link? http://www.apple.com/finalcutpro/software-update.html http://www.apple.com/finalcutpro/software-update.html
- jader201 15y ago
  Like this: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3533320 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3533320

41 points by Slimy 15y ago

FWIW, I used a trail version of FCPX to do our Startup Chile application video. It was very easy to have multiple shots in the timeline and cut between them. In fact, the whole thing was very easy, and very powerful. It is a vast improvement over the previous versions of Final Cut[1], which I felt were really hampered by sticking to the traditional way of doing things, producing a worse UI. I think it made sense for Apple to make the UI like traditional editors, which were as close to the moviola and the moviola inspired tape editing bays of the past, back when FCP came out. Back then, getting people into the digital age was the goal, and keeping the workflow as close as possible was advantageous. Now, however, the outcry about FCPX from "professionals" is really about those "professionals" not wanting to learn anything new, because they really aren't editors, they're just cutting things together by rote. Anyone whose an actual editor- that is, a creative person, will find FCPX a vast improvement over FCP, and of course iMovie. I highly recommend it. (Also got Motion which is cheap at $50, and did a custom motion graphics intro... which is kinda amazing given that I had no experience with motion graphics before that.) People talk about Apple "abandoning" pro users, but I don't see it. Sure, the prices of the software are lower, but that just broadens the potential market. And these days, there are a lot more pros than there used to be-- because people who make videos for YouTube, and make their living from it, are, believe it or not, professionals. [1] I've been shooting film and video for many decades, including for some projects as a professional.

Keyframe 15y ago
Now, however, the outcry about FCPX from "professionals" is really about those "professionals" not wanting to learn anything new, because they really aren't editors, they're just cutting things together by rote. Anyone whose an actual editor- that is, a creative person, will find FCPX a vast improvement over FCP, and of course iMovie. That's just like saying 'programmers' don't want to learn Logo because they are programming by rote in Java or whatnot. that is just derogatory towards professional editors out there. Professional editors have tight deadlines, daily editing (most of world's editing) relies on muscle memory, tools which were essential were not existent in FCPX (OMF lack is a showstopper for example). Not to mention that post production is extremely technically inclined area which adopts anything new/easier/streamlined ASAP into their pipelines. Larger shops even have their in-house r&d that has great programmers and solution providers (that's how first NLE even started). FCPX might be a good tool for a small time editor that needs an occasional video, but it is not up to professional standards yet. Outcry was not a knee jerk reaction, I can vouch for that. One example would be that after first screening/demo of FCPX was received almost universally with great enthusiasm in editing community. Everybody wanted to see for themselves how they could fit in their workflow what was shown... and then people actually got their hands on it - it went downhill from that.
- watsix 15y ago
  That's just like saying 'programmers' don't want to learn Logo because they are programming by rote in Java or whatnot. There are many programmers who resist learning another language because it's different than what they originally learned. I believe pg himself wrote an essay about that once. There are absolutely blub video editors. FCPX might be a good tool for a small time editor that needs an occasional video, but it is not up to professional standards yet. There are plenty of valid criticisms of FCPX, but this stuff is nonsense: there are plenty of professional editors using it already.
  - Keyframe 15y ago
    There are plenty of valid criticisms of FCPX, but this stuff is nonsense: there are plenty of professional editors using it already. Where? I know none and I know hundreds of them, hundreds. Not single television network, production company, post production facility I know uses FCPX. AVID is still the king (and always has been), I see lots of FCP7 still around, and new to the production and post production sphere is Premiere, which is getting a lot of traction recently. I have even seen EDIUS around (especially RTL/Bertelsmann/Fremantle group), but I have yet to see one FCPX suite anywhere.
    - alexqgb 15y ago
      Don't know why you're getting down-voted. This is absolutely true. And the reason that it's true is because post houses can't integrate FCP X with the rest of their workflows even if they want to. Apple inexplicably stopped supporting the exchange format that allows this to happen.
- nirvana 15y ago
  >FCPX might be a good tool for a small time editor that needs an occasional video, but it is not up to professional standards yet. I don't buy the argument hat only non-professional people are creative. I've worked with film and video for 20 years, including professionally. That the outcry comes from people who completely ignore the massive advance in usability that FCPX represents, and instead focus on outdated (output to tape) and things that are supported by third party or FCP suite applications (7 to X migration, output in raw) tells me that this is not an outcry of creative professionals. Sure there are a lot of people cutting together formulaic reality TV shows who want to preserve their workflow. That's fine, stay with FCP 7. If preserving your workflow is your primary concern then you're not the target of this product, yet. FCP 7 didn't stop working. You have failed to mention any serious features that it is missing, yet you say it "might be a good tool for a small time editor that needs an occasional video, but it is not up to professional standards yet." This is exactly the same kind of nonsensical argument I hear from Canon fans. To them, Canon cameras are "professional" and everything else isn't, because they don't have the "Canon" name on them and therefore, can't possibly be "professional." Its circular nonsense. You, not a single person complaining about FCP X here or elsewhere, has named a single creative feature missing from FCP X, or otherwise justified the claim that its not "professional". The references to what "professionals" need is an example of the fallacy of argument from authority. "I'm professional, therefore you're an nitwit if you disagree". Worse, its argument from false authority because nobody here is appointed to decide what is and is not "professional". FCP X has been enthusiastically embraced by the editing community. That's my point. They're not the ones complaining (who I suspect are all on the payroll of Adobe or Avid, or otherwise bought into those systems....) If the outcry were legitimate, the people engaging in it would be able to recognize that FCP X has moved the state of the art of editing forward significantly. They do not, they only talk about what they claim is missing, and often claim things are missing that actually aren't, but are just different (Showing they haven't even used the product enough to give a "professional" opinion.)
saurik 15y ago
For the record, I remember all of the serious complaints about the new version of Final Cut being about people are doing editing in teams for multi-stage production (having different people in charge of post-production audio, etc.) when dealing with large amounts of physical film.
cowmix 15y ago
"Now, however, the outcry about FCPX from "professionals" is really about those "professionals" not wanting to learn anything new, because they really aren't editors, they're just cutting things together by rote. Anyone whose an actual editor- that is, a creative person, will find FCPX a vast improvement over FCP, and of course iMovie." This simply isn't (or wasn't) true. Most my video editor friends, many who work in Hollywood, hated FCPX for everything is lacked and 'broke'. All are 'real' editors. Many are trainers for FCP and AViD.
- modfodder 15y ago
  Editors can be a fickle bunch. Many are technical minded and love to have the latest newest gadget. But they also don't like to mess with their livelihood and FCPX was too big of a learning curve while missing too many features. I personally think it was a great move by Apple, trying to push the paradigm of editing forward. That is difficult and time consuming to do in small steps so they chose a complete rewrite, losing a large percentage of the profesional market in the process. But what they lost, I'm guessing they gained back in consumers and as FCPX improves they will gain some of those back. What I've seen as the biggest gain are creatives directors and photographers. I know several who are masters of photoshop and after effects but struggled to get their head around Avid and FCP, who didn't have time to jump in head first, but took to FCPX like duck to water. These are highly paid individuals, heads of agencies. Which is what annoyed me when editors complained it wasn't professional. If the creative director of a billion dollar ad agency has found it suits his needs, it's hard to paint it as a toy. That's not to say the complainers didn't have a point, they did. But it's a complaint that's been with Final Cut since version 1. It was always necessary to find a work around, whether outputting for film, tape, or digital. My career was made because final cut was cheap to use, but didn't quite work as it should.
  - masklinn 15y ago
    > But they also don't like to mess with their livelihood and FCPX was too big of a learning curve while missing too many features. I don't think the learning curve was the issue, these are people considering (or even implementing) switches to Avid or Premiere after years of FCP. From seeing the outcry from the outside, the issues seemed mostly twofolds: 1. lack of genuinely needed features (not necessarily intersecting from one studio to the next, but editors were understandably unwilling to tear down their whole production pipeline for the sake of FCPX) and 2. fear about the place of "pro" (as in medium-to-big-studios) editors in Apple's medium and long-term roadmap, boosted by a perceived iMovie-ification (real or not) pointing to a refocus on prosumer and lighter work. > If the creative director of a billion dollar ad agency has found it suits his needs, it's hard to paint it as a toy. That's nonsense, you said it youself: these are creative directors and photographers, they're not editing big-budget movies or TV shows, they're not dealing with TV stations or juggling with 30 cameras. You're basically saying Acorn is just fine for everybody because professional developers can draw with it.
masklinn 15y ago
> Now, however, the outcry about FCPX from "professionals" is really about those "professionals" not wanting to learn anything new, because they really aren't editors, they're just cutting things together by rote. Anyone whose an actual editor- that is, a creative person, will find FCPX a vast improvement over FCP, and of course iMovie. That simply is not true. There are a number of workflows which FCPX simply does not support at the moment, even with this update. And the original version was even worse. When your editing toolchain works using EDL or OMF, FCPX is not a matter of "not wanting to learn anything new", it's a matter of not being able to work. Same with multicam (before this update), tape out, native raw, ... Dismissing these issues does not put you in a good light.
- nirvana 15y ago
  I'm sorry you felt the need to characterize me in a derogatory manner, especially based on a dishonest characterization of the point I was making. I'm not aware that the previous version of Final Cut Pro has stopped working, or that anyone has been forced to upgrade to FCPX. Nor am I aware that the new UI for editing, which naturally involves a new workflow, makes it impossible for people to adapt to it, or prevents them from sticking with their previous version. It's unfortunate that your response contains broad assertions with few specifics, as this makes it difficult to refute them. In fact, this is exactly the kind of response I saw from the so called "professionals" bashing the product in the first place-- broad assertions that the product doesn't do what it needs to do, without specifics. Further, unfortunately, the specifics you do mention are enabled by third party software, and other apps in the Final Cut suite.
  - alexqgb 15y ago
    If you don't want people treating you like an asshole, stop behaving like one. Case in point: "Now, however, the outcry about FCPX from "professionals" is really about those "professionals" not wanting to learn anything new, because they really aren't editors, they're just cutting things together by rote." Sart with those air quotes. These people aren't "professionals" they're professionals. Denigrating others like this is just a dick move through and through. Stop it. And then there's this: "I'm not aware that the previous version of Final Cut Pro has stopped working, or that anyone has been forced to upgrade to FCPX. Nor am I aware that the new UI for editing, which naturally involves a new workflow, makes it impossible for people to adapt to it, or prevents them from sticking with their previous version." Translation: "I'm not aware of any of the specific problems that have been discussed extensively and in great detail, nor do I understand how any of this works in practice meaning none of the conversations I glanced at made much sense to me anyway, so in truth, I have absolutely no idea what's really going on." And yet you've got no problem insulting people who are very familiar with the problems by saying they they are just "doing things by rote" and "simply don't want to learn." Again, total dick moves. If you have any genuine interest in this, and would like to stop coming across like a complete ignoramus, start by learning more about XML. This really is lynchpin stuff, and if you can appreciate why that it is so important to high-end professional workflows (i.e. on shows with budgets in the tens to hundreds of millions), you may begin to understand what the issues are really about. I promise you, a new UI is the very least of it.
bri3d 15y ago
This is silly - saying "anyone whose [sic]...a creative person... will find FCPX a vast improvement over FCP" is like saying "anyone who's a creative person will find Emacs superior to Vim." Some people are highly experienced with a certain workflow and to entirely uproot that workflow interferes with their creative process. Dislike for change in a workflow is not a sign that you were using that workflow in a rote or non-creative way. Just a sign that you were used to it.
- watsix 15y ago
  In nirvana's defence, if you spent any time in video editor's forums when FCPX was launched, it would have been very easy to get the impression that editors, as a group, simply didn't like anything new. The amount of misinformation was staggering. Think of the worst, most misinformed emacs vs. vim debate you've ever seen: it was like that almost everywhere. That isn't to say that there weren't (and aren't) legitimiate complaints, but there was a massive amount of noise. Your comparison also discounts the fact that the workflow in most modern video editors is extremely broken. Emacs and VIM users can make a good argument for a code editor being vastly customizable or controllable by keyboard only, but there are fewer defences for the way most video editors work: they behave as they do due to intertia, and because editors 20 and 30 years ago had to work a certain way due to the limitations of the hardware at the time. Many of the changes in FCPX are hugely welcome, but many editors -- including "pros" -- can't (or refuse to) see it.
  - bri3d 15y ago
    Thanks for the feedback about my comparison - I'll agree that the "editor holy war" comparison I chose wasn't as apt as it could have been, and that Vim is not as to Emacs as FCP is to FCPX. With that in mind, I still think there's a big difference between saying "video editors as a group tend to be too resistant to change," which I would have no problem agreeing with, and saying that "anyone who is creative will think FCPX is better than FCP," which is silly. I'm not trying to assert that FCPX isn't better than FCP or that the old FCP workflow wasn't broken, because honestly, it probably was, and beyond missing a few key features (which I'm sure will slowly return), FCPX really is better. I'm just trying to say that being resistant to a major workflow change does not mean you're "not an editor" or "performing only rote tasks" like nirvana asserts.

marcusestes 15y ago

I used Final Cut pro while creating a daily video documentary for Kanye West and Jay-Z's Watch the Throne tour and I can honestly say that it was the best tool for the job, largely because of the new background rendering capabilities. There are some interface flaws in the new magnetic timeline but I really appreciate the dev team's willingness to experiment with new video editing paradigms. Within another few point releases I think FCP X will begin to persuade the crusty old FCP 7 guard that it's worth another look.

Karunamon 15y ago
I don't think the UI changes caused the visceral reaction and subsequent hate-dom as much as the completely inexplicable and unwarranted removal of features and file formats that professionals (I.e. the TARGET FUCKING MARKET) use. First impressions are everything - and Apple blew it bad on this one.
- edkennedy 15y ago
  It really reminds me of the facebook re-design uproars. UI evolution has such a dramatic affect on it's user base.
  - alexqgb 15y ago
    That's an highly superficial assessment. The real uproars had little to do with the UI, which had actually been previewed to favorable responses some time before the release. No, what people were truly furious about were things under the hood. Or more precisely, things that weren't under this hood. Specifically, the lack of support for XML. What turned this from disappointing to infuriating was the simultaneous yanking of FCP 7 from the market, meaning that the entire FCP using community was frozen in place. It was actually illegal to add extra seats to a pipeline. That's like walking into an air traffic control tower and smashing all the radios, then bombing the runway, just for added good measure. The difference is that Apple's customers weren't a hostile nation at war with the attackers. They were the attackers CUSTOMERS. Indeed, the technology problems are almost a distraction. The real issue was the raw idiocy on display. I mean, this was stupidity on par with showing up drunk for a driving test. People were truly astonished that Apple could employ people this moronically dumb. And more to the point, that they'd give them access to a product with a LOT of exposure to the media industry. If you think the situation was even remotely analogous to a Facebook redesign, you have no idea what actually happened.

schiffern 15y ago

Could we link somewhere without a referral link? http://www.apple.com/finalcutpro/software-update.html http://www.apple.com/finalcutpro/software-update.html

jader201 15y ago
Like this: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3533320 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3533320