Printable View
Final Cut Pro X -
is an abomination -
written by someone who has never worked through a complex edit -
or done any complex input or output movies-
just terrible- doesnt even do basic stuff right -
so many things wrong with it....
absolutely terrible
completely unusable
--
its like turning Logic into Garage Band-
Oh dear. Apple messed up there! FCP had established itself as the editing software of choice for so many professional editors over the last 10 years. FCPX is missing so many essential features. Own goal Apple!
Hugh
its quite difficult to imagine a more clueless attempt at the editing problem-
its stuffed full of hideous fx and transitions and things that noone in their right mind would ever use-
yet has removed sdi input AND output ( no sdi capture ) - in any form-
EDL - batch capturing- even entering numbers for in and out points-
it forces you to foillow their file structure -
no sequences -
No sub-sequences-
No timecode-
no multicam editing-
NO final cut project import -
Sure you can import iMovie - Oh my god.... but which editors are using iMovie?
Almost all multichannel audio support
Forces you to edit with this magnetic thing - that just doesnt work the way editors work in NLE
No non-square pixels-
Only image sizes they specify/allow!!!
the whole thing is quite extra-ordinary - and incredibly clueless
An Abomination-
This is an interesting article on this too..
http://pogue.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/...ce=twitterfeed
final cut pro is a tool to solve problems - not iMovie problems - problems with complex solutions
apple is like saying - we dont think these problems need solving in this way - so we are removing them - it shows complete failure to understand what people need
when we have all spent 15 years dealing with really complex things
like taking logic and saying "well you know garage band is fine"
like taking in design and saying well you know pages is fine
every single piece of functionality in software - solves some really difficult problem that often crops up
Final cut pro can no longer solve many of the problems that catalyst users need to-
Apple will lose the professional video industry with this
Quote:
David, with all due respect - how are you qualified to "address the concerns of professional editors"? FCP X is probably fantastic for cutting an eighth grader's class project, but please take a breath and try to understand why the professional editorial community is totally freaking out about this. The changes, omissions, and "new direction" of Final Cut X are truly devastating to any editor who uses the software in a rigorous and/or professional post-production context. Going down your list, it's abundantly clear that you just don't understand. You're answering concerns "one by one" with a lack of experience, knowledge and understanding- and it's really frustrating because your article is just going to reinforce the totally false idea that editors are over-reacting to this release with nerdy hissy fits.
I cut feature films. I have been using FCP for over a decade, and even with all its quirks and eccentricities it has worked like a charm. I can tell you without any doubt or question that FCPX is absolutely not equip to handle the type of work that I do, and it hurts me to say it- but based on what I see, I can't imagine it ever will be. The financial implications of this are significant. I am going to need to re-train on new software (Avid or Premiere), buy some amazingly expensive new hardware, and re-position myself professionally- no longer can I tout my 10 years of cutting with this software as a marketable skill set. I want you to take a split second, right now, and think about my situation. No vacation this summer. Serious economic stress. Immense frustration.
Angus Wall (editor of The Social Network) has blurbed the new FCP, which is a total mystery. Call him up. Ask him if he plans to use FCPX on his next project. Call Walter Murch. Ask him. Call the Coens. Ask them. Please, call them. Feature films will not be edited on Final Cut anymore. It's cooked.
Quote:
Welcome to the New Coke digital fiasco.
You have commeted on the wrong game. This is about professional tools not beefing up pretty toys.
While a valiant effort and I know your heart is in the right place, and I admire technical neatness like the next guy, but with a heavy heart, I go to bed on day 3 thinking this is the end of Final Cut as professional tool.
The demise started with Quicktime X last year ( toy) and it ends today with another X.
I have been in software design for maybe 15 years and a professional user of Final Cut for maybe 5 and i have never seen a new product day as dark as this. ( OK maybe New Coke or whatever it was called).
Contrary to what many so passionately state, Apple does not deserve a break claiming this is V1 of a product.
They had 10 years to learn how to do this right. They DO deserve a break similar from when we went from OS 9 to Mac OS X - that was big, stuff broke, it was hard, but we could see it was worth it. We could do some things with it on day one. Open a WORD doc written in OS 9, play a movie made in OS 9, run an old DVD etc., etc., It was more than Macdraw and MacPlay.
This is different - whats there works pretty well, even lovely sometimes.
What is fundamentally NOT there is likely the basis of the firestorm across all the boards, blogs, tweets, etc.,. the pro industry is scared because this is it. And Its not enough to make a living on.
Respectfully you do 1 million Final Cut users a disservice defending this on purely 'growing pains' grounds. Collectively we are little more than a rant to Apple, but you owe it to this community to re-educate Apple on the difference between tools and toys.
I don't need it all to work, but this is an unprecedented storm of discontent. It really might be that pulling up 5 million iMovie users is far more lucrative ( in the short term at least) then improving the workflow and life of of hundreds of thousands of professional film, TV, music video and theatrical trailer editors.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ryanww
Richard, let me disagree... as editor, working with computers and video since the mid 80's I have to say that FCP X it's the 1st real step ahead since the timeline was invented.
I have worked with many systems... now afters a few months of using FCPX, the rest of apps seems to me as old as going back to U-Matic editors. It's ultra fast, I do the same as before in half the time... it's a sample of the future of the editing... obviously, there are lot's of lacks, but this is why is version 0... just a "taste" of what is coming.
fine to disagree- i have been doing this a long time too- i used to edit with real film - back in the day - on steenbecks or similar - you don't even have twin AB rolls on these devices- I'm a film guy - not a video guy - i started on film- not umatic-
but i just hit a brick wall trying to use it to edit after around 15 minutes of trying-
so maybe it just doesn't suit my way of editing at all-
editing is an indeterminate thing - its an indeterminate process - you don't know the answer to an edit- whats going to work or not work-
editing is like feeling in the dark for the creative solution to creating a meaning - through an intuition - through an emotion - through a connection-
actually the technology is irrelevant - unless it gets in the way
its the way you feel the cut - or the way the cut works - it doesn't have to be precise-
but you lay it out in a certain way - opening it up- you don't work in one direction
creating little sequences- on separate reels - asking questions like - how will these pieces join together-
---
but as a tool - they removed many pieces that people still use- and so do my clients.
projects don't develop from 'tasters' thats bullshit - this isn't a way to treat your clients in any industry- you don't throw your 10 year old product in the bin - unless you have an agenda.
I'm a developer- there is an agenda here - that isn't obvious
Quote:
Originally Posted by jjrecort
oh - the agenda-
well apple considers 'quicktime' as legacy - obsolete -
and so is removing it from all its products - and doesn't want any dependancy on it moving forwards- the 64 bit 32 bit performance hype is nonsense-
hence the removal of massive amounts of functionality for final cut X- all the 'legacy' stuff - the stuff that does things that people actually use...
like proper video capture- like proper video output- all these use 'legacy' obsoleted API - for which there is no equivalent replacement.
The reason they couldn't update final cut was - they killed the api's it relied on... but didn't replace them with anything anywhere near as complete
and replacing it with something that works on its iPhones and iPads.... making people use h264 -
well that causes a little problem for people who actually use quicktime to get things done.
you know - i just opened it up again
they removed my entire editing workflow... something that took me a long while to develop
i use sub clips and sequences to edit-
i hate the single window interface-
i hate the fact i can't drag clips where i want them on the timeline-
adding space before and after things-
i hate the fact i can't set in and out points on the timeline to export
i hate the fact it moves my clips around on the timeline when i don't want it to- opening and closing things up- if i want it on track 3- i want it to stay there-
i hate being unable to save versions of edits - when i want to save them
i hate not having the ability to enable or disable everything on a track- to try or test things out-
i can't locate media accurately from old projects- or old discs - i can't use lo-res proxies
i can't lay out my sound tracks-
i edit with multiple sequences at the same time -
i have multiple sequence types
i use multiple bins with clips in- of different types-
i log clips and create sub-clips with different takes - where are sub-clips?
I'm absolutely baffled by the concept of 'events' - i never edited anything like this- i edit sequences - then put them together
Quote:
Originally Posted by jjrecort
Better switch to Adobe Premiere then
Hugh
i switched from premiere in 2002?
didn't adobe attempt a redesign of premiere - premiere 6?
which was horrible and broken
then they ditched the mac version-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adobe_Premiere_Pro
--
I'm old enough to remember the lightworks vs avid stuff
http://www.lightworksbeta.com/index.php?
option=com_kunena&func=view&catid=20&id=9858&Itemi d=269
Premiere Pro has been a Mac/Windows application for several years.
Many Pro FCP users dishearted by FCP X are having a stab at it - it's not perfect, but at least it follows a professional workflow and has tight integration with other Adobe applications.
Hugh
94% customer satisfaction?Quote:
Steinauer opened the talk by explaining how this year’s Oscar nominees, Social Network andTrue Grit, as well as all of the documentary film nominees, were edited on Final Cut Pro. He claimed a 94% customer satisfaction with the software and noted that they were growing “our base more than twice as fast as the NLE market place competition.” He added that the competition (Avid and Adobe Premiere) were “in the race for second place,” hovering around twenty percent of the market each, while Apple’s Final Cut Pro holds over fifty percent of the NLE market.
so why did they turn it into iMovie?? remove all the pro stuff - import and export? backwards and forwards compatibility?
when it was working so well?
http://masteringfilm.com/apples-fina...quite-like-it/
Richard
Got to say it is well worth looking at premier now, since the FCPX train wreck I have made the jump and I'm very impressed. I know there are a lot of folks like your self that jumped ship to FCP, during the WTF Adobe days, who are impressed with CS5 and above. Only real negatives are the multicam setup which is limited to 4 cameras, and no ref files, but if that is a issue I still have FCP "Classic"to fall back on. can even setup using final cut keyboard short cuts. Plus the support of more codecs and containers is a boon not needing to rewrap or encode for editing is a real plus, particulary on rehearsals where you need to pull some content out of the air at midnite and your loading out to the first show(not that EVER happens).
Until FCPX can do the basics I need, I won't waste my money on it, better spent on a plug in for AFX... plus the events thing is @$£%. More concerning is the QT direction and how long we have till it is EOLed.
Phil
Philip G Haynes
Live Visual Design and Direction
I have been using Premiere for quite a while now. So much improved and the ability to link straight to Encore for DVD creation is very cool. Much easier than FCP/DVD Studio.
Nev.
fine to disagree- i have been doing this a long time too- i used to edit with real film - back in the day - on steenbecks or similar - you don't even have twin AB rolls on these devices- I'm a film guy - not a video guy - i started on film- not umatic-
I professionally started with video, but I also started with film, not on steenbecks (normally back in the early 90's I was hired to substitute steenbecks!:) but with moviola on Super8 and 16mm, my father was amateur filmmaker so I was born in between filmstrips! And because of this background I always have loved digital editing in front of video, because computers give me back the freedom of film editing. The freedom to rough cut the whole piece.. to let it "rest" watch and cut, again and again.. trim and move..again and again. what you really need to tell a story.
but i just hit a brick wall trying to use it to edit after around 15 minutes of trying-
so maybe it just doesn't suit my way of editing at all-
Well that's something personal, of course? but new things always take some time to adapt to. Again it's personal, but I don't feel FCPX "that" much different. Maybe is just like driving not he opposite side of the road :)
editing is an indeterminate thing - its an indeterminate process - you don't know the answer to an edit- whats going to work or not work-
that's totally true.. and I agree? you can learn "tricks" accumulated by the experience.. but those are not mathematics, not always work, there is also the perception of the viewer? your own perception at different moments and, of course, what footage you have.. that's the magic of editing? and it's what a I love of being editor.
editing is like feeling in the dark for the creative solution to creating a meaning - through an intuition - through an emotion - through a connection-
actually the technology is irrelevant - unless it gets in the way
again, I agree? in certain way, technology it's helping and getting in the way, both at same time. I guess that every editor works it's way, but in my case, I "see" the edit almost finished in my head, so perfect technology for me, will be some device to download the edit on my head as some form of XML and then just import it on the editing program :D? since this is not possible, for me, one of the biggest pains in the ass while editing it's the access to all the viewed footage, I have very bad memory, so I normally do and extensive work of ingest, renaming, and classifying. File naming it's the key for my editing style..having all the info in the name, as short as possible. That gives me speed of editing. Many colleagues and costumers sometimes get mad with me, because I can take days preparing and classifying the footage, but then I'm so fast working and I know where is everything? and at the end I'm doing the work in less time. So for me the new event and metadata approach of FCPX it's like rain in spring as we say here in the Mediterranean Countries were rain is a precious good.
its the way you feel the cut - or the way the cut works - it doesn't have to be precise-
but you lay it out in a certain way - opening it up- you don't work in one direction creating little sequences- on separate reels - asking questions like - how will these pieces join together-
again I agree, and I work the same way, but the sub-sequences in new FCPX let you do that and even more, so you can have many sequences and arrange them as compound clips, in much more faster and powerful way than the old nested sequences.
For me the new FCPX has finally found a way to break the "tirany" of the Timeline and the tracks, that was a pain precisely to work that way you mention. As a Shake user, I see in FCPX that they have merged the node editing to the timeline editing.. something I call timenode editing. Always when I was doing post on shake I was wondering why the flexibility of the node editing to move that nodes, understanding them as complete "mini-edited" pieces, cannot be applied to the editing.. so et voilÃÂ* here it is! you can move sequences, blocs, titles, etc.. with the faster and convenience of a simple clip and not having to worry to have your tracks and audio out of place in some track somewhere else.
---
but as a tool - they removed many pieces that people still use- and so do my clients.
projects don't develop from 'tasters' thats bullshit - this isn't a way to treat your clients in any industry- you don't throw your 10 year old product in the bin - unless you have an agenda.
They have agenda (I know the about the existence of FCPX since 2009), for sure, but I agree with you, Apple has been SO ARROGANT dropping Final Cut Studio.. "tastes" are okay, as technology preview, to get used to, to learn, to play with.. but don't kill the working tool, specially in a industry where finding the complete workflow it's complicated, has a lot of "collateral" effects and involves so many people.
I'm a developer- there is an agenda here - that isn't obvious.
I'm developer also, I know perfectly you need and agenda or the projects don't succeed.
Jordi.