Apple released a completely overhauled version of its Final Cut Pro software yesterday, much to the chagrin of some of its users. The early response to Final Cut Pro X is at best mixed, with some complaining that the film editing application lacks XML support, and worse still, is bereft of backward compatibility with previous …
Any product with "Pro" in the name is never for professional use
I thought everyone knew that?
MacBook Pro for instance?
yeh, bought it to 'upgrade' my FCS3 I bought last year.
So far not too impressed. Usual lack of docs and crappy online help you get with apple stuff (online help only!!! so can't use it on the laptop without net acces for help - mental)
Still, it could just be getting used to the new paradigms, but at the moment I'm no convinced.
Motion integration in particular seems to have almost disappeared... though it does leave motion as a standalone bargain at 25 quid.
FCPx is gonna need a tutorial course purchase before I can work out if I stick with it or go back to FCP7.
this is very good- and a good price too- comes with sample files etc.
it certainly gets your head into the FCPX gear.
Very important to read the release notes
Apple documentation was never clearer
you know it's bad when you need help finding help...
Business as usual
iMovie worked fine and they revamped that too.
I once remarked to an Applestore employee that they should "really get some cash registers in here!" after a straighforward purchase went south when he couldn't locate a working remote keypad for me to enter my pin. "They're all being used at the moment" he proudly announced. When I pressed him on why they didn't have the usual counter/ cash register setup he simply replied 'our customers don't want them.' "Well, I'm a customer...and I wasn't asked!" I said and walked out.
Apple are not interested in giving you what you need... only what they want to sell you.
Final Cut Pro
Final Cut Pro.
But it's neither "final" nor "pro".
Not for Pros?
I hate posts like this. Unfortunately for companies, like Apple, who strive to build a good product, people tend to read snippets of information like, "Final Cut Pro X 'not actually for pros'." And then they tell their friends and so on.
Not backwards compatible? Boohoo. Then don't upgrade. I'm an engineer using a $3k program called SolidWorks Premium. Guess what, each year they come out with a new and improved version. But they don't force me to upgrade. I do when I'm at a point to upgrade. I've prepared my files, etc.
To say that a piece of software is "not for pros" because of it's lack of backwards compatibility with an archaic outdated version of it's former self is maligned and misinformed. Check your facts and stop spreading this nonsense.
If a company wants to make a better product, they should be able to. But guess what kind of coding power it will take to not only give us the next gen software package, BUT keep it backwards compatible with software from years ago. That's asking way too much. Don't upgrade. It's really just that simple.
Actual users are complaining and are being explicit
Complaints include many items other than backward compatibility: (from http://forums.creativecow.net/readpost/335/3171)
- Missing features: OMF, EDL, XML, Multicam, export options, RED RAW, third-party hardware support, etc. I expect some of those to become available through upgrades. I am afraid that we will have to pay extra for individual features (or buy them in packages), especially proprietary codecs that involve license costs. This is a common strategy with Store apps, and wouldn't be beyond Apple. Can you imagine? 100$ for RED RAW support, 75$ for OMF export, etc... by the time you're set up, FCP X cost you 900$ or so. That would explain why Apple is selling FCP X for 300$. Or maybe I'm just paranoid. But then again, it might be a good thing for those that don't need everything.
- You can't import legacy FCP 7 projects. Sure you can retain your FCP 7 install, but I would have liked to transition one of my current projects to FCP X, in order to learn it in my free time.
- I don't like the inability to save a project where you want. I usually save my project in a Dropbox folder, so I can work from the office or home; media files remain in local copies. I'll have to go back to carrying around an external hard disk every day (which will have to contain both project an event folders).
- You can't customize the interface, other than sending either the Event Library or Viewer to the second monitor.
On the upgrade comment - it's *NOT* an upgrade, the previous installation of FCP remains intact so you can continue to edit your old material with that.
@Zohso - You don't seem to know much about software
or maybe you haven't read the article. Users are not requiring backward compatibility with older software, all they want is to be able to open data files and projects created with older versions of that software. Changing file formats without providing a way of converting data is plain wrong.
Version migration is risky
For some complex applications, e.g. CAD/BIM, it's quite sensible to finish projects in the version they were started with. This means holding onto multiple versions of the applications, but this is a small price to pay.
The problem is that moving files between major upgrades will *always* contain an element of risk. The more complex the application content, the greater the risk. A single, critical error can cost more than the entire project is worth. I currently have 4 versions of one application for that reason (because projects can run on for years).
I think it's a shame Apple didn't provide a forward migration route for current projects, but it isn't a big deal either. I suspect they have released this version a bit early (for people champing at the bit for 64-bit software) and some of the niceties will follow in due course. It sounds to me like this version has completely gutted the earlier one, which is a risky (but essential) step in software development.
@Not for Pros?
Some engineers could use reading skills classes! Or didn't you read the whole article. See posts above about missing "pro" features in the new version for a hint...
see my comment from "Anonymous Coward" above. You fit into the same category as they do.
I have not clue how you're able to discern my level of software knowledge from a single post, but we'll go with it for now. Just as I don't know if you are mentally challenged.
As I stated in my post: Just don't upgrade. Like a poster said after me, "It's actually a risky move to switch platforms (eg FCP 7 to FCP X) within a project." And I used the analogy of my use of SolidWorks, too expensive to buy the latest version every year, to show that I don't change platforms with that either. Too many headaches associated with it. Same with Adobe Illustrator. They add new functionality with every release. And sometimes, my old CS2 files simply don't look quite right in my new CS5 version.
Understand software... pft.
Let me understand you...
"You can't import legacy FCP 7 projects. Sure you can retain your FCP 7 install, but I would have liked to transition one of my current projects to FCP X, in order to learn it in my free time."
Seriously? You want Apple to invest months of work and months more of testing to provide for an import and the best rational you can come up with is "in order to learn it in my free time"?
You just don't get it do you.
New versions of software should at least give you the choice of moving to a new version on a given project if you want to.
Solidworks can always read old projects in new versions. That's how essentially all software upgrades work. Apparently Apple has forgotten. They might as well have given it a new name given it is a new product with nothing to do with the old one at all, other than the general idea of what it is to be used for.
So solidworks is backwards compatible, FCP X is not. I can't even think of another product where that has ever happened. It would be commercial suicide for any company to release a new version that can't open files from previous versions. You don't need to be able to save in previous formats (although often you can), but you do very much need to be able to load from previous formats.
You failed to.
Maybe the reason isn't the best, but it certainly is a mandatory feature of any new version of a product. This is why all products (except FCP X apparently) has it.
If you cut off your existing customer base, you are committing suicide. Why should anyone ever trust you again?
Its more that....
While I'm sure you would be happy to get a new version of SolidWorks that wouldn't open your previous Solidworks projects, there is more than that as to why people are complaining.
'Pro' video editing applications support features like video output to a video monitor (because compuer monitors aren't an accurate display of video content) and also support EDL (basic timecode edit lists) and most 'pro' application support Multicam editing. All of these features are missing in the new FCP-X, but are in FCP7.
Not for Pros?
"Not backwards compatible? Boohoo. Then don't upgrade. I'm an engineer using a $3k program called SolidWorks Premium. Guess what, each year they come out with a new and improved version. But they don't force me to upgrade. I do when I'm at a point to upgrade. I've prepared my files, etc"
On the contrary, Apple are very good at finding ways to force you to upgrade. Besides, how would you prepare your files when FCPX seems to offer no way to read the old ones?
"To say that a piece of software is "not for pros" because of it's lack of backwards compatibility with an archaic outdated version of it's former self is maligned and misinformed. Check your facts and stop spreading this nonsense."
Try explaining that to a production house that has projects created in older versions of FCP that took 1000s of man hours to create.
Also, we aren't talking about compatibility with "archaic" software. We are talking about compatibility with the previous version. No one is expecting compatibility with the really old versions.
A lack of backward compatibility is more or less never forgivable. It is even less professional when the task itself has not changed. Video editing is still video editing and the same formats are still out there. How much could it cost to do the job properly? It's not like Apple are short of cash. This amounts to telling people to piss off and take their business somewhere else. I, for one, hope they do.
May I recommend
Anything to do away with the myth that if you work in film/media you HAVE to have Apple
thank you sir
Oooh, interesting - thank you sir, haven't used Lightworks since 1992, will check it out...
So your "alternative" to an Apple application...
... is to suggest a *Windows* one?
Thanks, but I think I'll pass. FCX ticks all the boxes on my own list, so I'll go with that. (And I'm very interested in Motion. Especially at that price.)
My Understanding Of...
...Final Cut is that it is a film editing program. Although so many movies are made in video these days.
I have been using Sony Vegas almost since they bought Sonic Foundry. I switched from Adobe Premire, another film editor, because Vegas talked the language of video, a language i had already been using for 30 years.
Then enjoy your mugging
If you're going to write off alternatives because they're not on the "right" platform then you deserve the daylight robbery Apple appear to be inflicting on you
3rd party conversion for FC7 backwards compatibility may happen - as it did with Adobe Audition
Suite Spot Studios based in Australia provide a collection of conversion tools, some at cheap prices such as the Adobe Audition .ses to .sesx converter, for $20. http://www.aatranslator.com.au/
Adobe dropped support for the old .ses format (in since CoolEditPro over 10 years ago) in their radio industry standard audio editor, Audition, when they released version CS5.5 for Windows and on Mac for the first time. There was an initial uproar: http://forums.adobe.com/message/3271907
And then the announcement of the aforementioned 3rd-party converter quelled all the dissonant voices. And works very well it does too.
So to those unhappy with the discontinued support for older formats: don't speak too soon. Apple can either hire these guys to provide a tool to do the conversion, or, open source the format to allow anyone to have a go. I expect the former.
Apple actually reported the response from previous FCP professionals
"“We have shown it to many of the world’s best Pro editors, and their jaws have dropped.”
This can be interpreted in a couple of ways...
yes, the fcp experts have spent ages smugly telling anyone who finds something crappy in fcp7: "You are making a fuss for nothing. It'snot that fcp7 is crap at doing many things in realtime; it's simply that YOU need to work out the workarounds and fixes and cludges", and it's all about the 'experts' ability to do workarounds, making them a sort of secret society almost.
now the shoe is on the other foot, and the 'pros' are screeching from the rafters the EXACT same complaints they previously sneered at. You gotta laugh
i can't see why they are so het up, this is the first release. Give it time. Also i think everything is changing. We're pushing towards more web video and web & tv gradually merging. card/disk based cams taking over, etc.
...why not leave the older versions installed? Most Apple software - for example iWork &iLife - will happily sit alongside older versions of itself.
Maybe these 'Pros' don't realise there's no need to uninstall/overwrite their existing software just in case they need to go back to an older project?
There's a problem with that, long-term, in that the previous versions will one day (one day soon? Lion?) be incompatible with the OS. I have this situation with 60-odd projects written in VisualStudio6, and another 20-odd in VC8.
VC8 is kind enough to perfectly convert VC6 projects if you want to move up to the newer IDE & compiler (well worth it BTW) but it's way more convenient to fire up VC6 for a quick fix on an old project.
All of which was fine until I had to get Win7 and guess what - VC6 just won't run on Win7, and several upgrades are now required to each of these legacy projects.
So now I either *have* to convert them all or run a virtual machine with WinXP so I can use VC6... it's a hassle any way round. I wish now I'd kept my old WinXP box - but then I don't get the choice about that kind of thing :(
Visual C++ 6 does work in Windows 7
It's fine on this system and has built projects without issue. The only problem I've found so far is when using the Intel compiler plugin (part of the project using VC6 uses the MS compiler, part uses Icc) when I tend to run the IDE as admin, because the ICC setup hasn't poked the necessary parts of the registry/whatever to enable the plugin option for all users.
The one problem I have found is that certain older projects have a dependence on an old SDK (in this case, the XP SP2 SDK). The latest version of the platform SDK drops a few features, and the XP SP2 CD is only obtainable via CD from Microsoft (it is not downloadable). If you still have it lying around, don't chuck it away..
You're lucky then! Or I'm unlucky....
VC6 just randomly crashes out on my win7 box, but then it is a cheapo Dell thing, maybe that has something to do with it.
perhaps the plan is to release app upgrades to add-on required pro features? after all why include them all when additional pro-user specific features can be bought and added-on almost like plugins?
could be the way they intend to go (?), I'd be down with that, cos it makes alot of sense to do it that way. NOT paying for features you DON'T need and then being able to buy additional features as cheap add-ons would be awesome
"...and then being able to buy additional features as cheap add-ons would be awesome"
Now if only Apple sold anything at a "cheap" price.... C'mon, these are the 100% markup people.
No big deal
This is just a bunch of overworked pros whinging because some stuff has changed. Give them time, they'll settle down and enjoy getting to grips with the new version.
The whole reason FCP is so popular is the price. It has been a tenth of the price of some other pro video editing suites.
Using it to day for paid 'Pro' work
well i'm a 'pro' and i'm using FCP X today, for paid production work.
It's defiantly early days for it, and you defiantly need some structured training and patience if your coming from a Final Cut Pro background.
I've been using FCP for over 10 years commercially (since version 1.5).
FCP has always depended on 3rd party hardware and software venders for it's scalability and it's early day form them too.
FCP X seemed like a nightmare when i first opened it yesterday- but I'm beginning to love it.
Final Cut Studio 3 will still be used for most of my work for the time-being, but i don't know of anyone who was expecting like for like with FCP7, not for the first version of FCPX.
It does sound like the iMovie transition
iMovie HD was a good old fashioned linear editing app. iMovie '08 was a 'What the hell' moment as the entire way you worked was thrown out of the Window, iMovie '09 returned most of the capabilities that went missing in the previous version, but still in a form that would make anyone familiar with the traditional approaches really disorientated.
I had to buy my first ever Missing Manual to get my head around iMovie '09 It's bloodyt powerful, but even now I still find myself fighting it and not quite getting my head around the new way of doing things.
best tool for the job- is the one you know how to use
I have never used iMove on a mac, but i have on an iPad quite a good experience-
ive heard some great things about the current imovie too, from some experienced FCP users, the commercially released film 'Tarnation' was made with imovie 3 as i remember.
I started editing with film , then tape based analogue linear editing, then used a few dodgy but hugely expensive NLE before moving to FCP around 1999/2000 even with sticking to the same app there was always things to learn and get to grips with technically but it's just a tool.
11 years down the line with FCP i'm still learning new things- depending on what type of project i'm working on. Hardware, Codecs and delivery formats change a lot too
Creatively editing is the same on any platform-they transfer over from app to app fine, the only difference is the technical skills you need to keep your kit running.
There are so many great online training courses around these days like the ones on Lynda or Ripple- it often pays to give them a watch even if you think you know the application.
Your response to a request for a more professional product is to suggest the beta version of an open source project? Seriously??
Errr yes, yes it is
Kings Speech (including an Oscar nomination for best film editing), Pulp Fiction, Shutter Island.
Good enough for them, good enough for anyone. It is only beta because they have just released the code but it is a fully developed product and has been worked on for over 20 years. They announced their intention to release the source and now they have done. They have been reviewing code (and still are) to make sure it doesn't fall foul of any software licenses which would give someone the right to sue if they released it. Just because it's open source doesn't mean it isn't a fully featured professional product.
Try doing some research before commenting.
>>Your response to a request for a more professional product is to suggest the beta version of an >>open source project? Seriously??
If it does the job then why not? Sounds like it based on an established product that's been widely used by studios. Certainly not a FAIL.
Sounds like typical anti Open Source snobbery to me. Give it a go, you never know it might actually be quite good. If it's crap then you've only lost a couple of hours. That's what OS is all about.
Those films *were* edited on Lightworks, but the original Lightworks, not the current open source beta product. The original commercial Lightworks product had an excellent reputation with professional film editors, but failed in the marketplace under the onslaught of Avid, which had their television/corporate/news customers to help finance the (quite successful) hard sell to film editors. Avid also offered better lease terms to middlemen than Lightworks.
Which all led to Lightworks becoming an open source project. But it has had to be pretty much completely rewritten to work with modern hardware and OS's. I haven't looked in several months, but the last time I did look it was still in the "promising but too incomplete to use on a real project" phase.
I certainly do wish the Lightworks project success, but it's not here yet.
Lightworks on OSX and Linux
is mooted to be coming late this year.
Editors are cranky old farts...
And I am one of them. There are some glaring issues (No DVD Studio? Really?!) but anyone who starts a commercial editing project on software that was just released is a HUGE idiot. I'm looking forward to the upgrade (holding off until 10.6.8 comes out like the recent tech bulletin recommended) but all my current projects are in FCP 7, and will stay there. I have some toy projects I will be doing in FCP X as soon as I get it, but anyone who is doing for-pay work on brand new software... I feel for their clients, and hope to steal them away.
If this was Adobe, or Avid, or Joe's Software Haus, there wouldn't be one tenth the butthurt about the software. But everyone is primed to kvetch about Apple. We'll likely see an entire software ecology built up around the new release, addressing shortcomings and adding features. Calling it a failure the day it was released is.. very typical of people who complain about Apple.
It'd be like calling the iPhone a failure because it didn't have copy-paste. Oh, wait, they added that.
@AC re. Lightworks
Slight problem; Windows only. Better luck next time.
I refer you to my first post
Why must those in media use Apple? What is the justification other than it's shiny and more expensive. It certainly isn't that a windows PC isn't capable of doing exactly the same things and more and quite often much cheaper too. I'm sure there would be something similar on linux which would be cheaper still but those in the 'creative' industries still insist on wasting money on Apple kit cos 'it's just better' when in reality it isn't. That is just their perception of it.
- Review Reg man looks through a Glass, darkly: Google's toy ploy or killer tech specs?
- MEN WANTED to satisfy town full of yearning BRAZILIAN HOTNESS
- +Comment 'Stop dissing Google or quit': OK, I quit, says Code Club co-founder
- Nokia: Read our Maps, Samsung – we're HERE for the Gear
- Apple tried to get a ban on Galaxy, judge said: NO, NO, NO