DV Info Net

DV Info Net (http://www.dvinfo.net/forum/)
-   Final Cut Pro X (http://www.dvinfo.net/forum/final-cut-pro-x/)
-   -   My ambivalence about FCP-X (http://www.dvinfo.net/forum/final-cut-pro-x/498139-my-ambivalence-about-fcp-x.html)

Arnie Schlissel July 6th, 2011 09:55 AM

My ambivalence about FCP-X
 
For anyone who's interested, my last 2 blog posts:
Arnieblog

To sum it up:
I am not my tools. I am a creative professional, regardless of the tools I choose to use. I should choose those tools for reasons that make sense to me.

And, BTW, if you're interested in working with emerging, indie film makers in the near future, you should learn FCP-X and Lightworks because many of them will be attracted to them by price and FCP-X's ease of use.

Richard Alvarez July 6th, 2011 10:54 AM

Re: My ambivalence about FCP-X
 
A pair of scissors and a scalpel both cut. They're both tools. They're both held in the hand. But some things require a scalpel to do effectively, efficiently, and with less chance of injuring the patient. "A good surgeon could perform an appendectomy with either" - isn't saying that the two are equal, and should be viewed as such.

Matthew Craggs July 6th, 2011 02:02 PM

Re: My ambivalence about FCP-X
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Arnie Schlissel (Post 1664865)
I am not my tools

Bingo!

Quote:

And, BTW, if you're interested in working with emerging, indie film makers in the near future, you should learn FCP-X and Lightworks because many of them will be attracted to them by price and FCP-X's ease of use.
This is the big thing for me. I'm staying back and seeing how things shake out, but if FCPX is where the world is headed, I'm going to learn it. I don't want to be the luddite, out of work, screaming "Kids these days don't know how to use real software" because I don't have the foresight to realize that technology changes and it's beneficial to stay up to date with it.

Granted, I hope the FCPX isn't the way of the future, but you get my point.

Brian Drysdale July 7th, 2011 01:57 AM

Re: My ambivalence about FCP-X
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Arnie Schlissel (Post 1664865)
And, BTW, if you're interested in working with emerging, indie film makers in the near future, you should learn FCP-X and Lightworks because many of them will be attracted to them by price and FCP-X's ease of use.

Lightworks is one of the original NLE systems and has a many credits, including recently "The Kings Speech". However, it's currently a windows program, so perhaps not for a mac person, but it seems to have the features that professionals need. Here's a review of the Lightworks beta version:

Lightworks Review | Art of the Guillotine

Jason Lowe July 7th, 2011 06:22 AM

Re: My ambivalence about FCP-X
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Richard Alvarez (Post 1664886)
"A good surgeon could perform an appendectomy with either"

Very true, but they shouldn't have to. I'm sure you could edit Cold Mountain or No Country for Old Men on FCP X, but why would you want the aggravation?

Nigel Barker July 7th, 2011 03:12 PM

Re: My ambivalence about FCP-X
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Jason Lowe (Post 1665113)
Very true, but they shouldn't have to. I'm sure you could edit Cold Mountain or No Country for Old Men on FCP X, but why would you want the aggravation?

Considering the number of feature films released every week it's clear that only a tiny minority have ever been edited on any version of FCP else it wouldn't be the same titles that get trotted out every time as examples. Perhaps nobody wants the aggravation?

Jason Lowe July 7th, 2011 07:19 PM

Re: My ambivalence about FCP-X
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Nigel Barker (Post 1665297)
Considering the number of feature films released every week it's clear that only a tiny minority have ever been edited on any version of FCP else it wouldn't be the same titles that get trotted out every time as examples. Perhaps nobody wants the aggravation?

Would you want to take credit for Alvin and the Chipmunks: The Squeakuel?

Geoffrey Cox July 8th, 2011 12:28 PM

Re: My ambivalence about FCP-X
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Arnie Schlissel (Post 1664865)


I am not my tools. I am a creative professional, regardless of the tools I choose to use. I should choose those tools for reasons that make sense to me.

A great point, but ... do you really think we are not influenced by our tools in not only how we do things but in actually what we chose to do? NL editing has changed the way we think about film altogether, just as audio sequencing for musical composition did and even written music did before that. It figures therefore that something like FCPX, which is quite different in the way it organises data, will subtly change what we actually chose to do which is far more interesting than how we do it (the two are intrinsically linked of course). I don't have a problem with this really as it has happened throughout history - some say that our visually dominated culture began with the invention of the printing press!

John C. Plunkett July 8th, 2011 05:18 PM

Re: My ambivalence about FCP-X
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Arnie Schlissel (Post 1664865)
And, BTW, if you're interested in working with emerging, indie film makers in the near future, you should learn FCP-X and Lightworks because many of them will be attracted to them by price and FCP-X's ease of use.

With technology growing by leaps and bounds while the cost of said technology decreases to the point where everyone can afford it, I think it's safe to say that our editing future is uncertain no matter what NLE we use.

William Hohauser July 9th, 2011 07:34 AM

Re: My ambivalence about FCP-X
 
My ambivalence about the program, as it stands, grows as I work with it. There are some excellent features in it as I learn the program that would work wonders for feature editing but as long as the audio tracks remain as formless as they are now I would avoid long form editing with the program. Short form editing, it's a great program right now but you have to learn it.

Bill Pryor July 9th, 2011 04:54 PM

Re: My ambivalence about FCP-X
 
I decided if I'm going to learn something new, I'll learn Premiere Pro. It will import all my old FCP projects with ease. I considered going back to Avid, but the way PP handles the FCP stuff with no need for third party software was the deciding factor there. PP, Avid, Vegas and FCP 7 all revolve around industry standard styles of editing, and there's a reason for that. Avid was hugely successful in its early days because they went to film editors to find out how they worked and made software to work that way. They didn't try to tell the editors they needed to change the way they think or work. I think FCP X has a definite market, but it's not in the production house or film editing arena. Just my jaded opinion. I don't blame Apple--they go where the money is, and there are lots more consumers and "pro-sumers" out there.

Marcus Durham July 10th, 2011 09:12 AM

Re: My ambivalence about FCP-X
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Bill Pryor (Post 1665858)
I think FCP X has a definite market, but it's not in the production house or film editing arena. Just my jaded opinion. I don't blame Apple--they go where the money is, and there are lots more consumers and "pro-sumers" out there.

I agree and watching the Apple zealots drink the Kool Aid is risible. FCP-X is fundamentally broken. It's a toy that isn't fit for purpose and no amount of patching is going to fix that.

I don't owe Steve Jobs anything. I don't owe Avid or Adobe anything. All I want is the best tool for the job. The logical upgrade isn't FCP-X it's Premiere and I shortly intend to be putting my money where my mouth is.

The mistake I made was trusting Apple and their smart marketing pitch and lower software costs to begin with. It was just a trick to sell their computers. Right now I wish I'd stayed on PC and stayed with Premiere. 3 years wasted.

Bill Pryor July 10th, 2011 09:56 AM

Re: My ambivalence about FCP-X
 
It's not time wasted if it worked for you for the past three years. I used Avid successfully for 10 years, then when they were in the process of abandoning the Mac platform, I switched to FCP and used it successfully from 2006 until today. Apple is only going where the big money is, ie., the consumer market. It's always been much bigger than the pro market. It would have been nice if they maintained the Studio 3 line, or upgraded it instead of coming out with something totally new that' s not compatible. But what's done is done.

Coke did the same thing years ago when they changed their formula. It was a huge mistake and their sales dropped dramatically. They were giving their market to Pepsi. It didn't take them long to move back to the original, but they only did that because sales went down. Apple's sales will go up. They will make millions more in this market and whoever made the decision to go that route will be a corporate hero.

I've bought Adobe CS5.5 and in just a bit of fooling around with it, it appears that the transition will be quite easy. There is lots of tutorial information available on the Adobe site, as well as the very reasonably priced lydia.com training programs. However, if I were starting from scratch and didn't have more than 60 old FCP projects, I would go with a high end HP PC and Avid.

Marcus Durham July 10th, 2011 11:19 AM

Re: My ambivalence about FCP-X
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Bill Pryor (Post 1665995)
. However, if I were starting from scratch and didn't have more than 60 old FCP projects, I would go with a high end HP PC and Avid.

As far as I can see it the Adobe advantage is this:

1: Premiere can open FCP projects.
2: Despite the high cost, you get a far better suite of software than Apple ever offered.
3: It appears they allow the 1 desktop/1 laptop per licence rule that Apple offer. This is vital for those of us who work on the road but also in an edit suite.

Avid looks great but Adobe is more complete. After Effects is well worth having as is Audition and Photoshop.

Richard Alvarez July 11th, 2011 02:46 PM

Re: My ambivalence about FCP-X
 
Avid never abandoned the MAC platform - it's always been a dual platform program, and SHIPS with versions for both platforms.

But you're right about FCP being essentially a 'loss leader' - to sell computers. If they had been serious about selling it as an EDITING solution - it would have been platform independent - but it wasn't.

Now that virtually everyone is carrying a video camera around in their pocket or purse (That also happens to be a phone) People want the ability to edit their videos. That's a HUGE market - much bigger than the professional film/editing world. So sure, Apple is going to get folks to download apps for editing the videos they shot on their phones. It's a winning strategy.


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 06:52 AM.

DV Info Net -- Real Names, Real People, Real Info!
1998-2018 The Digital Video Information Network