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 …
Why must I use Apple?
I don't have to use Apple, quite right. But 3 years back when I evaluated all the packages available and what suited my business in the cold light of day Final Cut Pro came out head and shoulders above the others for my business and workflow. FCP of course is Apple only which meant I had to shell out (the old edit suite needed replacing anyway).
So yes I had to pay the Apple Tax, but it more than paid for itself in the workflow improvements over my old Windows/Adobe setup.
I don't care what the software runs on. Apple/Amstrad/Whatever. I do care that the software works for me. And FCP has been doing superbly.
Then I congratulate you
on being able to think for yourself and taking the trouble to find out about the options available before settling on a solution that does what you need it to. However most in the industry do not and they always go for Apple because 'they have to', 'it's what everyone uses' and 'it's just better'.
Probable Jobs response to emailed complaints?
"Get over it"
RE: Probable Jobs response to emailed complaints?
"Just avoid holding it in that way."
Just redo your projects
Not that big of a deal.
I was kind of distressed when I saw APerture included a facebook and flickr button. I think there is value in applications targeted to different needs. iPhoto for the snapshop crowd, Aperture for the value minded pro, and PhotoShop for the professional that can afford it in terms of time and money. If Apple focuses primarily on the consumer market, products like Aperture and Final Cut are going to be diluted into products that are not useful to the professional.
Aperture is a completely different product than Photoshop. Instead, it competes with Adobe Lightroom. Lightroom/Aperture are for managing catalogs of large numbers of photos with limited edits, but often editing multiple photos at once. Photoshop then gets relegated to only the difficult edits to single images.
Now personally I use Lightroom instead of Aperture, plus Photoshop, but even Lightroom has "export to Flickr" now. And this is a reasonable and useful feature if you like to publish photo sets on Flickr.
Not really a surprise
given that Quicktime X is currently missing huge chunks of the Quicktime 7 featureset. I haven't seen any in-depth analysis of FCP X yet, but I'm willing to bet that the ground-up rewrite is along the same lines
QT X never going to get QT 7 features
QT X was never intended to get the feature set of QT 7
QT was the heart of AV on the mac a big 'AV event engine' driving iMovie, FCP, iTunes .... but has been replaced by Core Audio, Core Video & Core Image and now AV Foundation for these applications.
FCP 7 needed QT 7 (not QTX) to run, but FCP X doesn't use QT at all for it's processing.
So QT X as far as the OS and Apple is concerned is missing nothing.
not to say that i don't love 'Classic QT' still a great tool
but your right FCP X will gain features over the next couple of years, some of these will be created by the vast array of 3rd party hardware/software developers that already produce kit for FCP and be with us within a few weeks/months.
Apple sticks it to their user base with an "upgrade" that completely disregards users' needs and/or requests!
In other news, the sea is wet.
Honestly, this kind of occurrence is hardly news anymore. People should just make up their minds on whether they want to get stuff done, or indulge in Apple's "experience" and damn if (when) critical features are suddenly pulled from under their feet.
Thank you very much for FCPX.
FCPX - Because 'Pro' users never...
... use more than one screen
... output to a monitor
... care where media is stored
... output to tape
... use SDI
... capture from tape
... open old projects
... use other software
... shoot multi-camera
... use xml import/export
... use external hardware
... use omf export
... use EDLs
... batch recapture from tape
only 50% of that list is true
best check your facts first
Perhaps a few of these will be paid for options - you know, say $50 for multi camera support...
Despite the critisim of the article's generalisation, perhaps, out of the box on day 1, it is indeed not a product for "professionals" but has the potential to be so.
It's hard to believe this new release is anything other than a Beta version that has been rushed out. I'm hoping Apple pull their fingers out for their own sakes because if they are going to forsake backwards compatibility then there's nothing to stop users like me jumping to Adobe or Avid instead.
If Adobe can manage the transition to 64 bit without cutting off users then Apple have no excuse.
Those who earn money with the software might be best to be patient before upgrading to see what the next revision brings.
-You can use Dual Screens.
-Output to a monitor will be supported with 3rd party hardware (as usual)
-Basic capture over firewire, for dv/hdv sources. is supported (more of a 'capture now')
-you can choose where your media is stored on a project by project bases (good new feature)
-you can choose where your project is stored on on a project by project bases
-other tape formats Analogue and Digital formats that used SDI will be supported with 3rd party hardware, this has always been the case e.g. AJA, Blackmagic & Matrox.
- yes you can use other software, plug ins are already available (not sure what he is getting at here)
- use external hardware um of course you can! but you can't plug your fridge into it
this software will over a short amount of time be as scalable as FCP 7 - but it doesn't replace FCP7 yet
Constructive corrections corrections...
Dual Screens -
"No raw display on a second monitor."
"No true video output. According to an AJA Video Systems PDF on using their Kona cards with FCPX what you see on your external display is a "preview" version of your video. Not a true video signal that you can use for color correction or confidence viewing in front of a client. Simply cannnot have a professional video editing application without true video output."
"No support for Capture from Tape (outside of Firewire) or Edit to Tape. DV/HDV is is not now, never has been, and will never be, a broadcast format."
Other formats will be supported -
"Sorry, that is not a correction, that is an opinion and not much use to professional users now."
"There is no way to customize the organization of the project media. "Events" are nice for home movies, home photos and such, but organzation is clunky at best for a professional video editing environment, whether that's working in your home or in a facility.
Media keeps wanting to copy itself to the local drive. We have over 60TB of media in our facility, we could not possibly copy that much to a local computer.
No directory structure when media is offline. When media is offline you simply get a red screen with an exclamation point. There is no "Reconnect Media" function or any other function that will tell you where the media is supposed to be. With previous versions you were presented the original media path. Since this is based on iMovie, it expects that everything lives internally."
"No integration with DVDSP, SP, Motion, Color and even Photoshop, layered files are flattened by FCPX."
If it can't replace FCP7 yet then why release it... it is nothing more than iMovie Pro.
Thanks, Apple for screwing a very loyal user base of professionals in favour of the more lucrative pro-sumer market. Avid and Adobe are only too happy and willing to provide solutions for the broadcast market. Professionals have never had a problem paying large amounts of money for products that support our industry, we understand that the market is small. We would rather pay well for a product that serves us well than be offered cheap tricks that don't serve our needs.
do your research
3rd party software and hardware manufactures are not all going to roll over and die, SDI capture is always done with 3rd party hardware and software. Broadcast monitoring is done the same way.
I've had some good chats with Blackmagic and AJA they are working on this stuff and releasing betas for Tape capture and monitoring.
we have well over 100TB of rushes and programmes- they do not need to be copied to your local hard drive- best read the manual and check your preferences.
no one should be under the impression that they can start up a production house with FCP X or move their production house to FCP X this week. wait until the software / hardware infrastructure around and within FCP X matures to your needs.
we always choose the best tool for the job, be that FCP, Avid or Smoke it's only a tool- choose the best one for you, but you should get to grips with what feature sets are in actually place and when you use supporting hardware.
It's going to be at least 6 months before anyone can make a serious dissuasion over FCP X and it's scalability and compatibility for large scale/long term implementations.
Until then we still have FCP (7), Avid, Smoke After Effects
If someone wants to make key decisions for a production house based on not actually knowing the feature set of an app, how it works or how 3rd party Hardware will integrate with it , with one days experience/trial- then i'm not sure they would be classed as a 'Pro' or a 'Realist'.
You seem to miss the point...
Why produce an 'update/upgrade' to a product that requires the established professional user base to not buy it until it supports the functionality of the 'older' product, if it ever will; it makes no logical sense. FCPX is not an update/upgrade, it is a new product that has merged iMovie and Final Cut Express, call it iMovie Pro, if you will. It is most certainly NOT Final Cut Pro, not an update and most definitely not an upgrade.
As a facility that uses Final Cut Pro in our workflow (along with Avid MC) we are annoyed with Apple calling their new product FCPX as it completely undermines the credibility of any post facility exclusively using FCP. FCPX has been positioned to appeal to the individual user who is using consumer/prosumer equipment, it is not aimed at post production facilities. Once upon a time, we sang the praises of FCP to our clients and fought an uphill battle to gain respect for Apple's emerging product in our broadcast market. Apple has completely destroyed that investment of time and energy. We will not be investing any time in the FCP argument going forward. Unlike some, we are in the fortunate position to have Avid MC in house too, as some clients could just not see FCP as a serious tool, no matter how hard we sold FCP to them.
As a professional editor, I'm disappointed, as I had a preference for FCP, in spite of the fact that I have been instructing others how to use Avid professionally for some years now.
I suppose it was inevitable. Apple is a consumer products company now, that's it. I wonder how many more revisions of the MacPro there will be before it disappears too.
Is The Register selling tickets?
Because I'm enjoying this show immensely!
Just to stoke some flames, I think that a new version that can't read the previous version's files at all is crap software. Imagine telling a software developer that Apple's new dev tools won't import or compile their existing source code. I'm sure the dev would be justified in being furious.
MS did a good thing (after complaints I imagine) with Office2k7 in producing a plugin for older versions to allow them to read the new file formats. That's the best possible philosophy when making big changes to a file format.
Having lit that firework I shall now retire to a safe distance.
If you're enjoying this, you'll love this...
Personally I think Apple have become a gadget company and are heading to only write apps for the consumer which is a much bigger market than professional editors but these editors are now left with aging software that no doubt will not run on newer hardware and more importantly can no longer get licenses. No doubt this will be reversed and Sir Steve will put it down to lay lines causing trouble with the website or something.
Now there is nothing wrong with changing your business direction that but if you have a 10 seat editing suite running FCP and then the consumer FCPX which incidentally was shown at NAB (professional editors). I am in no way a professional editor but I can see tape is still widely used in professional services as it's still more reliable than storage that de-magnetizes over time, so it's
FCPX may one day match FCP abilities no doubt with 3rd Party plugins but most professional editors will not wait and the slap in the face from Apple has shown so much disrespect for their "Pro" editors that Adobe will be quids in, especially as many have Premier when they bought After Effects, although many will return to the Daddy of Editors Media Composer but frankly Steve won't care as it's a fraction of the revenue of his overpriced gadgets and consumer software.
Although Walter Murch, The Coen Brothers will no longer be able to use FCPX and I bet Pixar had something to say too, being owned by Sir Steve they would be using FCP. Maybe I'll send them the link to Lightworks.
Before; BEFORE?! You're living in the past Marg, quit living in the past!
The original code base for FCP was written back before 1998 by Macromedia. For this type of software, where the technology surrounding it has advanced considerably, you'd have to say 13+ years is a pretty good run but you reach a point where it is too long in the tooth and you have to start over. Remember, this software was released before OS X was on the scene, so bear in mind the jump from OS 9 to OS X, Carbon to Cocoa, PPC to Intel and the jump from 32 to 64 bit (CPUs and the OS), so there would be all sorts of legacy crap gumming up the works after jumping through all those hoops. It was no doubt impractical, inefficient and/or impossible to bring the existing code base to 64bit goodness without further bogging it down.
It should come as no surprise that it would, at some point, need to be completely rewritten from the ground up. It is also reasonable to expect, with such a major exercise, the release of this rewritten app would be missing a lot of features present in the previous version.
Sure, sometimes you just want to slap someone at Apple. There's times where you think they're just doing things to deliberately piss people off. Sometimes they're so anal they risk disappearing up their own orifice. Keyed USB extension cables designed to ONLY connect with their own keyboards/mice comes to mind. But sometimes they do things, however inconvenient, because they simply have to. I think FPX falls into the latter.
It's not like FCP has suddenly stopped working.
If you're so keen to be on the bleeding edge, then you'll probably get a bit bloodied yourself. Me? I tend to sit back and wait for the dust to settle before venturing into the unknown. Maybe they will make a complete pigs breakfast of it, but it's a little early make that call.
The price of progress
"It's not like FCP has suddenly stopped working."
Actually, it is, if you downloaded and ran FCPX without reading the installation notes (and you already have a previous Final Cut Studio install).
I digress though. Out with the old and in with the new. A fine sentiment, but Apple have this habit of thinking they can change the way people do things overnight. That may be something they can get away with when dealing with the average sheep, sorry user, but it's not something you can do to a professional user base where the software is at the very core of users' businesses.
The absolute MINIMUM they should have done, was provide a tool for converting FCP7 projects or xml to FCPX. They've already said such a tool will be forthcoming, but that's irrelevent - they should have held back on the release until the tool was ready. Instead, they've alienated half their users needlessly.
3rd party hardware/plugins not working... doesn't that sound just like the Vista launch. Microsoft screwed up by not getting hardware manufacturers on board in time for release.
"It is also reasonable to expect, with such a major exercise, the release of this rewritten app would be missing a lot of features present in the previous version."
It's reasonable for something still in development; it's not reasonable for a 1.0 release. Even a Beta is essentially "All functionality present, with bugs". Not "Some functionality".
Emperor's clothes. Apple are selling FCP in droves to the iMovie crowd, so I'm sure they don't give a shit what the Pro crowd think, since they're probably a teeny tiny percentage in the scheme of things.
Apple computers are *not* for professionals anymore. Just accept it.
FCPX - the shiny new toy
rendered with after effects and sony vegas pro, as long as apple doesn't break quicktime .mov file support again. What a joke, us quicktime users bitch and bitch about this and not a peep to admit apple changed their quicktime and broke .mov. But when it's the core application of "an industry standard" which has screwed the pooch, a thousand CCow complaints.
The problem with apple is there's no feedback. A friggin disaster has to knock out their front windows to even get their attention.
somewhere in the reg article
.. was a post from someone who said they "will invest in ... Apple... in the blind faith..." ...
I have no opinion on FCPX but that comment in itself says a lot about Apple users.
Journalism..who needs trusted sources anyway?
My mate heard a guy in the pub say that his friend worked for a film editor once and his boss had said that he will stop using FCP because it's not pro enough. I think that's enough material right there to write an article about it.
The product is just out. El Reg have distilled the sentiment being felt and have included links to the forums where views are being expressed.
Give them a few weeks and you might see a full, proper review. This was just a short article highlighting all did not seem well...
If the Pros don't like it they'll shop elsewhere
A couple of professional editors post and get voted down? what's going on there?
I've listen to most of the linked podcast and from the sound of it this release will not go into pro shops except for compatibility with incoming projects. There's just too much missing.
I'm an FCE7 user (not a Pro) who's been thinking about upgrading to the full FCP. My problem now is that:
- Multi camera tools have gone from FCPX. That was my primary reason to want to upgrade.
- Even if I was prepared to take the risk and buy into FCP version 7, I can't because Apple have withdrawn it. This also means (for the 'you can always keep using FCP7' posters) that if you're an established FCP7 shop and you want to expand then you're stuffed because you can't buy any additional licences.
When companies refused to migrate to Vista due to compatibility issues, MS allowed a 'downgrade' to XP. This FCPX situation is almost identical.
This release will be good news for Adobe and Avid
Ground up rewrite
I'm in two minds about backwards compatibility. I like to be able run old files without a hitch but I am aware that software is built on rocky foundations and will start to crumble eventually (DOS extended memory and file name convention springs to mind). Apple seem a bit more willing to throw out the old stuff than other companies and the hardware is radically different to when it was first written. Probably in a version or two the benefits will really start to show.
I'm using it
So far I'm very impressed at the speed that X runs at, make changes to colour on the fly just happen etc etc. True, it's early days and I can understand people's issues but I really like where this is heading and will be editing my second project on it this afternoon.
- Game Theory The agony and ecstasy of SteamOS: WHERE ARE MY GAMES?
- Review Is it an iPad? Is it a MacBook Air? No, it's a Surface Pro 3
- Hello, police, El Reg here. Are we a bunch of terrorists now?
- Intel's Raspberry Pi rival Galileo can now run Windows
- Microsoft and HTC are M8s again: New One mobe sports WinPhone