5 ms·

>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

by 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comes from people who completely ignore the massive advance in usability that FCPX represents, and instead focus on outdated (output to tape) and things that are supported by third party or FCP suite applications (7 to X migration, output in raw) tells me that this is not an outcry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.)

alexqgb 15y ago
"You, not a single person complaining about FCP X here or elsewhere, has named a single creative feature missing from FCP X" If you've managed to follow this issue at all without seeing (repeated) references to the lack of XML support, then you are mentally retarded. I don't mean that as an insult. I mean that in the clinical sense of not having a properly functioning brain. It is simply not credible that an individual who has got an even passing familiarity with professional post production could miss this, or fail to understand why it's on par with an air-traffic control tower stripped of its radios.
- nirvana 15y ago
  "you are mentally retarded." XML is a feature, not a creative feature. I think its hilarious that you've dedicate yourself to bashing FCP X anywhere its talked about, and you can't even respond honestly to people's points. Not once in my life have I ever bashed an Avid product or Premiere, and I certainly don't jump into threads where they're discussed to do so, calling people "asshole", "nitwit", "moron", "dick", etc. There exists a product called "7toX" that converts projects from FCP 7 to FCP X. It does the XML conversion. In fact, making convertibility easy is the whole purpose of using XML in the first place. But if that doesn't work for you, then you don't have to transition to FCPX at all. So, what are you complaining about? A product you don't use doesn't have a feature you want, and so you're going to run around calling people names for the crime of liking that product? Really?
  - alexqgb 15y ago
    @nirvana: "XML is a feature, not a creative feature." Reality: XML is what allows creatives to work together. It represents the very core of collaboration. In collaborative arts, the collaboration is a driver of creativity. No creative team, no creative teamwork. @nirvana: "I think its hilarious that you've dedicate yourself to bashing FCP X anywhere its talked about" Reality: I've been relying on FCP based workflows since 2003. I bought my first personal copy in 2005. I have a copy of FCP X, and I like it very much. Indeed, in situations where it works, it works better than anything else I've ever used. Between the hardware and the software, I have spent thousands of dollars on my ability to edit in FCP. I have never dedicated myself to "bashing FCP anywhere it's talked about". @nirvana: and you can't even respond honestly to people's points. Reality: I can respond honestly, point by point, with this response being a case in point. @nirvana: Not once in my life have I ever bashed an Avid product or Premiere, and I certainly don't jump into threads where they're discussed to do so, calling people "asshole", "nitwit", "moron", "dick", etc. Reality: You introduced yourself to this conversation by denigrating the professional status of professional editors and post-producers, accused them of performing their jobs mindlessly, stated that they were simply luddites hostile to change, and that their inability to adapt to FCP X was a function of laziness, and NOT with any deficiencies in the product itself. In other words, you launched an unprovoked wave of personal attacks that had little bearing on the technical and business issues that have been central to the whole FCP X fiasco. You were behaving like an asshole. And then you got upset when called out for behaving like an asshole. That's a quintessential dick move. @nirvana: There exists a product called "7toX" that converts projects from FCP 7 to FCP X. It does the XML conversion. Reality: Uncontested, but irrelevant. The concern with XML is not with the conversion of old projects to the new format (though that's certainly an issue). The concern is that a lack of native support means that FCP X cannot work seamlessly with industry standard software like ProTools, Maya, and so on. Given that a core function of an editor is compiling elements built in a variety of different systems, the inability to talk to those systems is a very big deal. Indeed, when people say "this is not a professional product" this is precisely what they mean; unlike its predecessor, it is fundamentally incompatible with the professional environments it's expected to manage. @nirvana: Making convertibility easy is the whole purpose of using XML in the first place. Reality: And that's why removing native support for XML is like going into an air traffic control tower and smashing the radios. How do you not understand this? @nirvana: But if that doesn't work for you, then you don't have to transition to FCPX at all. Reality: No one has to transition to FCP X, but they do have to transition. As noted elsewhere, ending sales of FCP 7 means that existing pipelines are frozen. No additional seats can be lawfully added. Firms wanting to grow legally will need to switch to a platform that will accomodate this growth. This is a non-trivial expense. Moreover, the announcement came with zero warning, which was ham-fisted in the extreme. It is absolutely idiotic to say (as you did) that the "outcry" isn't coming from people faced with this unexpected and unnecessary cost, and that it's actually astroturf coming from Apple's competitors. In reality, it is coming from people who no longer have a clear roadmap from a primary vendor, can no longer plan their own operations accordingly, who were shocked by the ineptitude of the FCP X rollout, and who now have to assume the heavy cost of transitioning away from a suddenly untrustworthy partner. @nirvana: So, what are you complaining about? Reality: There is no question about what I, and many many others are complaining about. Only idiots who can't be bothered to read what they actually have to say (including, it seems, some within Apple itself). @nirvana: A product you don't use doesn't have a feature you want, and so you're going to run around calling people names for the crime of liking that product? Reality: See above. But just to reiterate, I use FCP X and I like it a lot. I don't think liking it is a crime. I never said anything that would suggest otherwise. Indeed, you'd have to be an idiot to respond to what I said with an assumption like this.
Keyframe 15y ago
FCP X has been enthusiastically embraced by the editing community. That's my point. Where? What editing community? My day job involves moving around various small and big TV networks (national and international), production and post production houses. Not single one of them even considers FCPX, let alone having one in house. As for features lacking, there are many. I'll give you one on my personal example. I'm finishing up a documentary I'm working on now (in FCP7, but let's pretend I was working in FCPX), in order for me to move it to a finishing stage from editing it needs to go through grading via EDL/XML (with this update I believe it's settled) and I have to get OMF out the door with a small preview file to a sound post facility. If I were in FCPX I couldn't give them OMF. No OMF, no sound post in pretty much any facility out there. I'd have to give them a raw EDL sheet and sound files, which they would charge me significantly more, that is if they would take it like that at all. As for multicam lacking, I personally don't need it since I have a habit of editing multicams via separate synched tracks, but I can see how other might find this lacking. XML support (if it works) might resolve major issues like integrating with grading suites and other post production stages. OMF is a must, without it - no go. Multicam, as I've described above. Color discontinuation in favor of integrated grading tools is not a major issue to me since I never relied on color for grading to begin with. Inability to work with previous Final Cut projects (unless it's resolved with XML support) is something that bugs me, since I tend to open past projects a lot. Not having an ability to open more than one sequence at a time is something I'm familiar with from AVID and which I liked a lot in FCP, but I can live with that. No native support for R3D (which Premiere has) would be very nice and expected, but isn't there which means I still have to work with rushes (we mostly work with red cameras). As far as me personally goes, I need rock solid XML (which maybe it now has) and OMF (which I can't work without). Other people might be more picky. Main thing why I won't switch to FCPX in the future is because there are better alternatives (new Premiere looks like what FCP8 should have been, AVID6 does wonders...) and because I don't put trust in Apple when my job depends on it. How long was FCP without any feature release or secretive nature of not disclosing anything in advance for their 'Pro' products is not something I want to rely on. I relied on Shake, they have killed it. I have used India Pro, they have killed it. I have used FCP6 and FCP7 (still do and am transitioning to other programs) and they have released new version which renders me not being able to finish a project without supporting old version. We were even one of the fools that bought Final Cut Server (which is a POS that doesn't even work as advertised) and XServes, they have killed those too. We're currently waiting to see if there will be a new Mac Pro offering at all in the coming months or we'll jump to HP machines for editing. Why would I ever again want to rely on that company again? And I'm not alone in this thinking. I have my Macbook Air for scriptwriting and that's what I will trust them with, laptops and gadgets.

by nirvana 15y ago

alexqgb 15y ago

"You, not a single person complaining about FCP X here or elsewhere, has named a single creative feature missing from FCP X" If you've managed to follow this issue at all without seeing (repeated) references to the lack of XML support, then you are mentally retarded. I don't mean that as an insult. I mean that in the clinical sense of not having a properly functioning brain. It is simply not credible that an individual who has got an even passing familiarity with professional post production could miss this, or fail to understand why it's on par with an air-traffic control tower stripped of its radios.

nirvana 15y ago
"you are mentally retarded." XML is a feature, not a creative feature. I think its hilarious that you've dedicate yourself to bashing FCP X anywhere its talked about, and you can't even respond honestly to people's points. Not once in my life have I ever bashed an Avid product or Premiere, and I certainly don't jump into threads where they're discussed to do so, calling people "asshole", "nitwit", "moron", "dick", etc. There exists a product called "7toX" that converts projects from FCP 7 to FCP X. It does the XML conversion. In fact, making convertibility easy is the whole purpose of using XML in the first place. But if that doesn't work for you, then you don't have to transition to FCPX at all. So, what are you complaining about? A product you don't use doesn't have a feature you want, and so you're going to run around calling people names for the crime of liking that product? Really?
- alexqgb 15y ago
  @nirvana: "XML is a feature, not a creative feature." Reality: XML is what allows creatives to work together. It represents the very core of collaboration. In collaborative arts, the collaboration is a driver of creativity. No creative team, no creative teamwork. @nirvana: "I think its hilarious that you've dedicate yourself to bashing FCP X anywhere its talked about" Reality: I've been relying on FCP based workflows since 2003. I bought my first personal copy in 2005. I have a copy of FCP X, and I like it very much. Indeed, in situations where it works, it works better than anything else I've ever used. Between the hardware and the software, I have spent thousands of dollars on my ability to edit in FCP. I have never dedicated myself to "bashing FCP anywhere it's talked about". @nirvana: and you can't even respond honestly to people's points. Reality: I can respond honestly, point by point, with this response being a case in point. @nirvana: Not once in my life have I ever bashed an Avid product or Premiere, and I certainly don't jump into threads where they're discussed to do so, calling people "asshole", "nitwit", "moron", "dick", etc. Reality: You introduced yourself to this conversation by denigrating the professional status of professional editors and post-producers, accused them of performing their jobs mindlessly, stated that they were simply luddites hostile to change, and that their inability to adapt to FCP X was a function of laziness, and NOT with any deficiencies in the product itself. In other words, you launched an unprovoked wave of personal attacks that had little bearing on the technical and business issues that have been central to the whole FCP X fiasco. You were behaving like an asshole. And then you got upset when called out for behaving like an asshole. That's a quintessential dick move. @nirvana: There exists a product called "7toX" that converts projects from FCP 7 to FCP X. It does the XML conversion. Reality: Uncontested, but irrelevant. The concern with XML is not with the conversion of old projects to the new format (though that's certainly an issue). The concern is that a lack of native support means that FCP X cannot work seamlessly with industry standard software like ProTools, Maya, and so on. Given that a core function of an editor is compiling elements built in a variety of different systems, the inability to talk to those systems is a very big deal. Indeed, when people say "this is not a professional product" this is precisely what they mean; unlike its predecessor, it is fundamentally incompatible with the professional environments it's expected to manage. @nirvana: Making convertibility easy is the whole purpose of using XML in the first place. Reality: And that's why removing native support for XML is like going into an air traffic control tower and smashing the radios. How do you not understand this? @nirvana: But if that doesn't work for you, then you don't have to transition to FCPX at all. Reality: No one has to transition to FCP X, but they do have to transition. As noted elsewhere, ending sales of FCP 7 means that existing pipelines are frozen. No additional seats can be lawfully added. Firms wanting to grow legally will need to switch to a platform that will accomodate this growth. This is a non-trivial expense. Moreover, the announcement came with zero warning, which was ham-fisted in the extreme. It is absolutely idiotic to say (as you did) that the "outcry" isn't coming from people faced with this unexpected and unnecessary cost, and that it's actually astroturf coming from Apple's competitors. In reality, it is coming from people who no longer have a clear roadmap from a primary vendor, can no longer plan their own operations accordingly, who were shocked by the ineptitude of the FCP X rollout, and who now have to assume the heavy cost of transitioning away from a suddenly untrustworthy partner. @nirvana: So, what are you complaining about? Reality: There is no question about what I, and many many others are complaining about. Only idiots who can't be bothered to read what they actually have to say (including, it seems, some within Apple itself). @nirvana: A product you don't use doesn't have a feature you want, and so you're going to run around calling people names for the crime of liking that product? Reality: See above. But just to reiterate, I use FCP X and I like it a lot. I don't think liking it is a crime. I never said anything that would suggest otherwise. Indeed, you'd have to be an idiot to respond to what I said with an assumption like this.

Keyframe 15y ago

FCP X has been enthusiastically embraced by the editing community. That's my point. Where? What editing community? My day job involves moving around various small and big TV networks (national and international), production and post production houses. Not single one of them even considers FCPX, let alone having one in house. As for features lacking, there are many. I'll give you one on my personal example. I'm finishing up a documentary I'm working on now (in FCP7, but let's pretend I was working in FCPX), in order for me to move it to a finishing stage from editing it needs to go through grading via EDL/XML (with this update I believe it's settled) and I have to get OMF out the door with a small preview file to a sound post facility. If I were in FCPX I couldn't give them OMF. No OMF, no sound post in pretty much any facility out there. I'd have to give them a raw EDL sheet and sound files, which they would charge me significantly more, that is if they would take it like that at all. As for multicam lacking, I personally don't need it since I have a habit of editing multicams via separate synched tracks, but I can see how other might find this lacking. XML support (if it works) might resolve major issues like integrating with grading suites and other post production stages. OMF is a must, without it - no go. Multicam, as I've described above. Color discontinuation in favor of integrated grading tools is not a major issue to me since I never relied on color for grading to begin with. Inability to work with previous Final Cut projects (unless it's resolved with XML support) is something that bugs me, since I tend to open past projects a lot. Not having an ability to open more than one sequence at a time is something I'm familiar with from AVID and which I liked a lot in FCP, but I can live with that. No native support for R3D (which Premiere has) would be very nice and expected, but isn't there which means I still have to work with rushes (we mostly work with red cameras). As far as me personally goes, I need rock solid XML (which maybe it now has) and OMF (which I can't work without). Other people might be more picky. Main thing why I won't switch to FCPX in the future is because there are better alternatives (new Premiere looks like what FCP8 should have been, AVID6 does wonders...) and because I don't put trust in Apple when my job depends on it. How long was FCP without any feature release or secretive nature of not disclosing anything in advance for their 'Pro' products is not something I want to rely on. I relied on Shake, they have killed it. I have used India Pro, they have killed it. I have used FCP6 and FCP7 (still do and am transitioning to other programs) and they have released new version which renders me not being able to finish a project without supporting old version. We were even one of the fools that bought Final Cut Server (which is a POS that doesn't even work as advertised) and XServes, they have killed those too. We're currently waiting to see if there will be a new Mac Pro offering at all in the coming months or we'll jump to HP machines for editing. Why would I ever again want to rely on that company again? And I'm not alone in this thinking. I have my Macbook Air for scriptwriting and that's what I will trust them with, laptops and gadgets.