Nope, $29 for SL and $29 for Lion. A nice, affordable way to upgrade! Much better than the $129, or so, for one OS, all the way up to Leopard.

heath

Still shocked it's not possible to import FCS projects into FCPX.
Is this confirmed? Is there a link to this info?

It is confirmed. You cannot open FCP 7 files in FCP X. But you can open iMovie projects. That tells me a lot right there. This is not for facilities level post production.

Final Cut Pro X - A first Look (http://www.kenstone.net/fcp_homepage/fcp_x_first_look_martin.html)

Great overview by Steve Martin.

Ouch!

And thanks for the great link, David.

P.S. I guess there's an opening for someone to develop a new plug-in, "FCS Importer". If someone could work it out, it would prove quite lucrative, I reckon. It seems that it would have to make a new FCP X "Project" for each "Sequence" in the old FCS project (because in FCP X the concept of sequences has been done away with as the project itself now functions as your sequence). It would require a bit of genius to solve, but I would certainly buy such a plug-in.

Jon Chappell from Digital Rebellion has a bit of a FAQs page going:

Final Cut Pro X Frequently Asked Questions - Digital Rebellion Blog (http://www.digitalrebellion.com/blog/posts/final_cut_pro_x_frequently_asked_questions.html)

Heath

I guess there's an opening for someone to develop a new plug-in, "FCS Importer". If someone could work it out, it would prove quite lucrative, I reckon. It seems that it would have to make a new FCP X "Project" for each "Sequence" in the old FCS project (because in FCP X the concept of sequences has been done away with as the project itself now functions as your sequence). It would require a bit of genius to solve, but I would certainly buy such a plug-in.

<RANT FOLLOWED BY LEGITIMATE IDEA/QUESTION...STICK WITH ME, GUYS!>

I can see why backward compatibility would be problematic with the new project architecture, but that's not exactly the point.

Yes, it could be very lucrative for a company to develop a plug in, but I have to ask: Why should they have to?

I appreciate that Apple has rebult Final Cut from the ground up. I think everyone agrees that the overhaul was long overdue. There's been a lot of p!$$ing and moaning about what features Final Cut doesn't have, and if Apple is abandoning their pro users. I've remained silent and hopeful, because there's always folks screaming that the sky is falling because Apple tends to be so tight-lipped about their product developments and releases, but this is really a slap in the face.

If Microsoft released a version of Microsoft Word tomorrow that utilized a WHOLE new software architecture and introduced a whole new paradigm for word processing. How useful is it going to be to people who already USE MS Word if it doesn't open ".doc" files?

It's insane, and Microsoft's developers could try to justify it all they wanted to, but it's still insane.

OK...I'm finished ranting. I'll still be damned if I would pay money for a plugin to import a project to an application that technically authored it, (even if in name only.)

SO...what about this: Is there ANY way to import an EDL into FCPX? I've given things a quick look, and I don't see anything, (I know you can't EXPORT EDLS...Once again...WTF?) but what about creating an EDL in Final Cut 7, and bringing it into Final Cut X as a work-around.

Something for you lucky early-adopters to look into ;)

All the best! Thanks to all for sharing all the news/experiences/info/etc!

-Dan

has anybody had any luck with 1080p60 AVCHD? I have a Sony CX700v, and can't seem to get FCPX to recognize the files (as .MTS or ClipWrapped to .MOV). They work if I convert to 1080p30, but QuickTime can play the 1080p60 files so I would expect FCPX to handle them as well.

Kinda feels like Apple is moving out of the business of providing tools for video professionals.

That sucks the big one.

I've been using Adobe CS5.5 for the last couple months, and they are definitely stepping it up. I'm sure they are thrilled with the new Apple release...

Avid has got to be throwing a party for themselves right now. VS. Apple countering with a better product for professional post...they ducked and tried to make a new market for themselves. Which they might succeed!! But if all else Avid is breathing a sigh of relief. I predict that their market for feature film and broadcast/commercial post will probably go back up. The truly professional market is a small market..too small for Apple.

Just a little bit of practicality.
Apple had to make the break somewhere if they were going to move to a 64 bit program that was render free and finally utilized the multi-cores that we've all been buying for a few years.
The reality is you can't run 32 bit files in the new 64 bit world.
It's just like you couldn't put oats in your Model-T when it came time to move on from the horse and buggy.
Maybe not the best analogy but you get the point.
There's going to be some breaking points when you make a pivotal transition and a period of adjustment.
I'm pretty psyched with what I'm seeing overall even though I'm not thrilled that a couple of my systems won;t run it without new cards...again, just part of the change.

I cut on AVID, have a tiny bit of FCP experience, and a little bit on VEGAS. But I'm in the market for a new laptop and was thinking about Macbook - and picking up a copy of the 'new' version of FCP - running both it and AVID on the laptop.

So I'm reading these reviews with interest. I't does sound like a 'more powerful' version of I-movie. And it has a kind of 'vegas' feel to it too - odd that. I'm less inclined to go Macbook at this point, and even less inclined to add FCP to my chops.

So, I'll agree with David in his assesment that AVID is smiling - and the professional houses are scratching their heads.

Larry Jordan has some interesting things:

Ain’t Nothing Like It In the World – Larry’s Blog (http://www.larryjordan.biz/app_bin/wordpress/archives/1505)

"DISTRIBUTION VIA THE APP STORE

This is a real biggie, as Apple explained it to me. Because no physical media is involved (think packages in an Apple Store), Apple can push out updates faster and at much lower cost because they are using the App Store.

In the past, Apple used a 18 month, or so, cycle between updates. Now, Apple is telling me they are hoping to do an update once or twice a year.

This ability to respond faster to the market and deliver economical updates has already born fruit with the new low prices for Final Cut, Motion, and Compressor.

This gives me lots of hope for the future."

and

"Apple tells me they are committed to quickly improving this version and building on it. They tell me they are committed to making changes quickly and bringing them to market. They tell me they are interested in hearing our reactions to the software.

I believe them and look forward to them fulfilling their promises."

Sorry to pull huge quotes like that, but it's worth reading and noting. I have a feeling a quick free update comes out shortly. I'd love to see bigger $49 updates once a year, too!

heath

The reality is you can't run 32 bit files in the new 64 bit world.

The 32-64 bit transition has nothing to do with the fact that you can't read old FCP files. Zero. That was a choice that was about their editing paradigm shift, not a CPU change.

The bottom line for me is this: If they are putting out a system that doesn't let you export your audio to be mixed properly (and doesn't let you mix it properly in the app) and that doesn't let you run an external production monitor and more, then they are saying WE ARE NOT MAKING A PROFESSIONAL PRODUCT.

They are now making a very fancy hobbyist product.

Again it's a shame, because I was really looking forward to a reinvention of the paradigm within a professional arena.

Larry Jordan has some interesting things:

I like his post. He points out a lot of things that don't work in it. He also says that it's great and everyone will be using it. BUT... he certainly has a large business interest in everyone porting to FCPX because he's spent months making training for it that he wants to sell you... so you have to take that gung-ho part with some grain of salt.

I agree with you, but I also believe that Apple has told him they're listening and watching. I bet we see an update soon.

heath

Ok, so I played with it all day... and its looking like I might be calling up apple tomorrow asking for my money back.. Fine, $300 for FCP, is cheap, and thats why I was willing to be an early adopter, but after using this product for a few hours testing it out... its not about the money... its about the fact that they are calling this piece of garbage product "Final Cut Pro" this software is totally, 100% iMovie Pro and if you are a professional in the video production field, I recommend buying anything but fcpx.

I bet we see an update soon.

It's possible. But it's not like they left out one feature that they couldn't have guessed professionals would want. They left out nearly all of them, and they knew it.

I look at the 60 Avid suites at Discovery, where I've done some work. FCP 7 could work in that environment... where they always mix separately... where there is always a production monitor... where they lay out to tape. FCP X could not come close. It would be a joke there.

And they knew that, and still made those choices. I think it's a question of what market they want to serve, and they are making that known loudly and clearly.

I no longer think Apple is abandoning the Pro market, they are just changing the architecture of their software to more elegantly accommodate the needs of the market. With the release of Motion and Compressor, it looks like professional functions that not everybody needs will be offered as separate external programs. For example, audio mastering & multi-cam - these don't really need to be part of the core application. When looking at the big picture, only a few users actually use them. But it looks like it would be easy to offer them as separate US$50 additions? Plus it's much easier to update a separate module instead of constantly rewriting the core editing application. Not only is that smart, but it lets Apple be so much more responsive to the separate consumer, prosumer & professional markets. In the long run, I think it will make everyone happy. And my theory may also be the reason we don't see the "lite" version of FCP. The core application itself is the "lite" version, with professional "heavy" features being introduced as separate programs.

Personally I'm definitely getting good vibes. While FCP X isn't going to be able to currently handle a lot of current professional workflows, it is going to fulfill a huge part of the needs of the video editing market - and in the process that will spur and fund the development of more "professional" features in the future.

I love seeing a plan come together.

I guess I can say that this version of FCP is probably ideal for me... I am a one-man-band who is getting paid to edit content shot on cameras like the EX1, and the content is going to both the web and to broadcast (via Compressor and tapeless delivery). I can't open my last couple of films (started editing with FCP 5, finished in FCP 6, made some minor fixes in FCP 7) in FCP X, but that's okay. I'm moving onto the next project.

I don't own FCP X, nor have I used it yet, but I will soon.

heath

The 32-64 bit transition has nothing to do with the fact that you can't read old FCP files. Zero. That was a choice that was about their editing paradigm shift, not a CPU change.

The bottom line for me is this: If they are putting out a system that doesn't let you export your audio to be mixed properly (and doesn't let you mix it properly in the app) and that doesn't let you run an external production monitor and more, then they are saying WE ARE NOT MAKING A PROFESSIONAL PRODUCT.

They are now making a very fancy hobbyist product.

Again it's a shame, because I was really looking forward to a reinvention of the paradigm within a professional arena.

OK maybe I wasn't clear with my point.
The new 64 bit editing paradigm won't allow for the import of the 32 bit editing paradigm because the timeline alone is completely different.
It would be like trying to import FCP files into Avid or Premiere.
This, like Avid is a completely different program so it can;t be expected to accept a radically different format.

The things you are frustrated with do not translate into the all cps statement you made.
That's just an assumption.
My assumption is that Apple will address those issues quickly and this new program will move forward the way we've experienced with other new but well supported apps.

I think Apple has thought this through a lot more than they're being credited by some. I'd bet on seeing a fully integrated pro system in less than a year.

For $300 bucks it's a great way to move into the future now and evolve with it.
Or not.

By the way, the plusses of X and Motion are pretty amazing so far at my studio.
It's not like this is some blunder.

Will this work on Leopard (NOT snow Leopard, still on Leopard), or do I have to upgrade to SL, necessitating adding another $99 to the cost?Snow Leopard costs just $29 & you really should have upgraded long ago Mac OS X 10.6 Snow Leopard - Apple Store (U.S.) (http://store.apple.com/us/product/MC573Z/A?fnode=MTY1NDAzOA&mco=MTc1MTEzNjY)

Went to download it and the reviews were so bad it scared me off. Think I might wait on the sidelines and see what happens with updates. FCP7 is working just fine! Maybe we should just ask for 64bit FCP7. What's wrong with that?

Ok, so I played with it all day... and its looking like I might be calling up apple tomorrow asking for my money back.. Fine, $300 for FCP, is cheap, and thats why I was willing to be an early adopter, but after using this product for a few hours testing it out... its not about the money... its about the fact that they are calling this piece of garbage product "Final Cut Pro" this software is totally, 100% iMovie Pro and if you are a professional in the video production field, I recommend buying anything but fcpx.

I don't believe that FCPX should be called a piece of garbage just because version 1.0 no longer meets certain needs yet.

For all we know, in a few months Thunderbolt I/O devices, a 32-bit float OPENCL/GCD rendering engine, 64-bit support, multi-CPU rendering and a powerful metadata engine that FCPX already has will make the next version of FCPX a more powerful tool for professionals. One forum poster on another board found FCP X hooks for XML Import/Export and Python references.

FCPX is starting to look better now that I have steadfastly worked through its editing paradigm, tried compound clips (which behave more intuitively then nesting), audio repair features, logic-sourced audio filters and multiple secondaries in the Color-sourced color correction panel.

Once I learned to use the Q,W,E,D,T and Position tool, my editing speed went way up.

I've already cut together one paying job (a dance video) today. I used the in-built vimeo sharing function to let my client evaluate the job.

It's easy to lose sight of the impressive technical execution of what's there already in FCPX when everyone's crying about features that aren't there yet. I realise the pain of those (including me) who miss Multicam and OMF/XML I/O. I've been there. I use Logic to sweeten my audio mixes. Hope Apple will fix it in the next revisions. That's why FCP7 is still in my Applications folder...

Best,
-Greg

p.s. I don't believe Avid is 64-bit yet, nor does it officially work with 10.6.7 yet.

OK maybe I wasn't clear with my point.
The new 64 bit editing paradigm won't allow for the import of the 32 bit editing paradigm because the timeline alone is completely different.
It would be like trying to import FCP files into Avid or Premiere.
This, like Avid is a completely different program so it can;t be expected to accept a radically different format.
Or not.

Yes, but in your example you could at least export an EDL and bring that into Avid. Now that option has been taken away as well apparently.

A couple of things I'd like to know:

There's no sequences... what about having multiple instances of FCPX running simultaneously? And can you still use nesting? What happens if you double click on a nested sequence? Does it open a new window or open that project in the current window?

Nesting has been replaced by compound clips which allows you to group together a complex set of elements and collapse them into a single clip right on the timeline. Double-clicking unpacks it again.

Not sure yet what to do about the old sequences workflow, it's gone. Separate timelines doesn't seem to be an option. Well figuring it out is half the fun I suppose.

So far so good, I'm enjoying using this, working through an advert that's due next week, and it's making me smile.

<<Yes, but in your example you could at least export an EDL and bring that into Avid. Now that option has been taken away as well apparently.>>

I'm thinking not taken away, just not implemented yet.

<<A couple of things I'd like to know:

There's no sequences... what about having multiple instances of FCPX running simultaneously? And can you still use nesting? What happens if you double click on a nested sequence? Does it open a new window or open that project in the current window?>>

It's a whole new way of thinking but yes, "nesting" is more powerful and flexible than what you're used to. it's all one project and everything happens in front of you.

I'm telling you I've hated FCs media management for ten years. Once people get used to this new way of thinking most are going to love it. I already do. We do a ton of photography for our clients and media, and Event based management is something I'm already very fond of.

Apple's not stupid, just the opposite. Of course they're making this integrate with iPhoto and Aperture and that's great because it simplifies our workflow enormously. I'm happy to spend more money with them if they keep evolving and integrating their multimedia tools.
I love CS5 for the same reasons.
Win/win

Ah ha, ok I get it now. Compound clips can be re-used in different projects. So you don't have sequences anymore, you just build your compound clips on the timeline and re-use them later. They are stored like any other clip. Even better, it looks like you can use compound clips with the auditioning feature. And you are supposed to be able to carry over effects as well by applying compound clips to multiple elements on the timeline. That's a pretty slick workflow. Looks like compound clips just became my new best friend.

I'm a long term user from the Premiere/AE side, i have in fact the first copy of AE somewhere around here. I have invested thousands in Adobe Products. I tried Final Cut Express but hated it. I've edited short commercial pieces up to 2 hour dramas.

I absolutely love this Final Cut. It combines 99% of what i need across Premiere and AE in a single place, the grading, animated masks and overall editing are what i think should be in an editing package. (I have a VFX background so like to do my own work)

I'm on a macbook pro i7 and it runs really well. I will live with it longer but probably move my main machines over to Macs for this.

I do think though that there are a lot of existing workflows people have that simply don't fit into this approach. Tape based for one. But i've not used tape in years. There's also a massive shift in editing and i think the UI promotes creativity rather than mundane logging and editing. So these things are not right for a lot of 'bread and butter' work. Maybe these issues can be addressed.

I'm not one for being a fanboy, but i really do think apple have managed to shove the creative side of editing up a level and i look forward to doing serious work in it and concentrating on the content - not dynamic linking of compositing, faffing with Magic Bullet Look masks because they don't animate. etc,. etc,.

cheers
Paul

Having used FCP since version 1.5, I am disappointed.
I believe that a new version of an established product should be an improvement, whether you redesign, recode or just paint it with a different color.
The new product should have the features that users used in the old one. They can get rid of old features that are no longer used but not features that users need.

So I have a few problems:

We premix sound and then export OMFs for just about every project and do the mix in a sound studio.

We often use Muliticlip edits.

We archive our final products either on HDCAM or Digibeta. Now I need a standalone solution to ingest and output? We will move to a completely tapeless solution as soon as all our clients and Broadcast stations do as well.

We don't use our burned in Cinema Displays as broadcast monitors... We have proper, calibrated Broadcast Monitors. We must. Our clients need to be assured that what they see is a reference.

We have ABSOLUTELY NO INTEREST in publishing to YouTube or any other exhibitionist social media platform from Final Cut. (If we choose to do so, I don't mind a few extra mouseclicks to encode and upload) I don't want my menus to be cluttered with this time wasting stuff.

They could have kept these features, I am sure. But they didn't. I don't like what that tells me. Either they have been listening to amateurs to give them the wishlist for FCP X or they really don't care about pro users.

Of course they will make adjustments, and add features, but seeing upload to YouTube favoured over broadcast usability makes me shiver. I have a bad feeling about that shift of priorities.

I tried AVID MC 5.5 because they had a deal for 995 $ until last Friday. So I downloaded the demo.
The installation went fine, without any hiccups. When I tried to start the application though - It didn't like it. In fact, even my bluetooth mouse didn't work anymore...
I called the local dealer, asking "wtf..." and he wanted to know what OS I am running. 10.6.7, I replied. Ha! he said, that is the problem. MC 5.5 won't work with that... there is no patch yet. To my question why I can install the software on a OS that is not compatible, he did not have an answer.

So I tried the uninstaller, which made the app disappear from my app folder but still my bluetooth mouse and even FCP 7 didn't work anymore...

Time machine to the rescue. Now all is well again. Regardless to say - the test made it clear "NO MC for us" I don't need more problems. And I especially don't need software that screws up other applications...

So for us FinalCut X and MC is not a solution... then what is?
use FCP 7 until that is totally outdated, which actually last for a while - and then retire to a tropical island - drinking pineapple juice all day... ?

I not so sure this is an upgrade, rather a new product. Perhaps it should have been called something else and that would have cut out a lot of the issues.

I can imagine lots of broken workflows when you change paradigm, hence with FCP X is not for everyone.

Having said that I'm sure there will be support for monitoring, perhaps via thunderbolt (and maybe third parties). Apple have said they'd be updating sooner and more often and perhaps soundtrack will be another add on product soon.

I can totally understand the frustration of facility houses who have built workflows around FCP in the past.

cheers
paul

I must say I'm disappointed as well. I moved to FCP from an AVID PC world because of the deep rich features it had. No other NLE offered so much under the hood. Performance wasn't there for rendering but I didn't care because I felt FCP didn't hold me back. I tried every NLE out there and honestly felt FCP was the best extension to what I do.

FCPX on the other hand is just unacceptable for professional software. Sure if you want to edit simple projects or vacation videos it is nice and really attempts to take editing to the next level. There is just too much missing however and honestly kind of an embarrassment.

If you are somebody who does still use tape or uses multi-cam editing everyday FCPX is like taking a step backwards. FCPX borrowed a lot from SONY Vegas so it isn't even like what they did was cutting edge.

I feel as though FCPX was rushed to market before it was ready due to pressure from competition. Apple saw people starting to drift to alternative solutions. Now I think some of those people may drift even faster. Like many others I will continue to use FCP until FCPX gets out of beta or even alpha status. I also think it is time to buy CS5.5 Production Premium.

If you are an indy with no budget who just shoots your own projects on DSLR then FCPX may be a great product. If you actually work with video to pay the bills look elsewhere.

Interesting stuff going on here. I shall be hanging on to FCP6 for the time being, but look forwards to getting this for my new macbookpro in a couple of weeks.

I'm guessing that this version will attract massive contributions from users, like the iphone apps do. So instead of giving us DVD Studio Pro with a couple of dozen cheezy templates, we'll have thousands to choose from (and pay a small sum for) from the general user community.

Just a guess, but I think this would be a good idea, and make access to new stuff inexhaustible. Can't remember how many times i've used those awful DVDSP templates for corporate dvds in the past.

Thomas Smet

"If you are somebody who does still use tape or uses multi-cam editing everyday FCPX is like taking a step backwards."

These omissions are already being taken care of from what i read over at LAFCPUG. They will be coming as updates in the near future. It looks like Apple is putting this out gradually and will take a little time to be complete. A rather unorthodox way of doing things i agree, and all the more reason to wait a bit before taking the plunge.

Sheesh, it seems some folks can't think past "today" when they look at something.
FCPX is missing several important Pro features. It will likely get them in future updates which will come every few months rather than waiting for discs to print and ship.

The new way of thinking is going to be a major exponential speed increase for editors using it compared to other NLEs including FCP7. Project organization based on imported and created metadata is/should be the future. Finding shots, testing alternates, making changes all look to be faster in FCPX. Concepts like Compound clips seem much more efficient than Nesting or breaking things into "sub sequences." Being able to use both Playhead based and Skimming based navigation is going to be a major workflow efficiency improvement.

Sure FCPX is missing a lot. It's a newborn. Sometimes you can look at the new pedigree and see that it's heading in the right direction though. Judged today you'd be correct in that it can't do what mature systems can do. Looking at it though, it should be a much faster system then others within the next year or so with accelerated maturity that the App Store will provide (rapid updates).

It's like learning a new language. If all one knows is English, Esperanto is going to sound like gibberish. If you examine the new language closely, the potential exceeds where other NLEs are going. I've been at this for over 30 years, starting with CMX340 and dubbing with 2" machines and I think this is a new future I'm seeing.

Actually - you are right Craig. I can't see past today, because it is today that I need to be able to do my job and to deliver.
I don't mind glancing at the future, but as you say FCP X is not grown up yet, I agree totally, but I don't run a nursery for software... especially not when I have to pay.
I glady pay money for good software. I am not really concerned if they charge 40 $ extra for another bit of software. But I expect it to be at least a young adult kinda grown up....
I don't want to pay money to be a beta tester. I am not geeky enough for that.

oh and - I do speak 4 languages and currently learning a 5th. Your analogy doesn't really hold up because Languages becuase Language is an inherently complete system. I have never heard of a language that is missing a major part which restrict the users to certain parts of life and not all.
Apart from Esperanto maybe which is an artificial, constructed language that never had any real life use. I hope you are not comparing FCP X to Esperanto. If FCP X is Esperanto it is dead before it reaches childhood...

Future potential is one thing but an unusable app that was touted as an upgrade Is another. I think that's the real rub. I have thousands of dollars invested in plugins and hardware to make FCP work the way it needs to. I can't use FCPX until all of that investment can be supported. And Apple isn't the first or only company to leave people hanging...Adobe's release of CS5 actually killed a couple of very useful plugins that the companies simply couldn't rewrite code fast enough so I had to find alternates.
Much like Canons late entry into the tapeless camera game, I am hoping that Apple is watching the feedback and can implement changes fast enough to make this the best editing solution out there. But I just don't feel optimistic that they will be quick enough for those of us who do this for a living. I will continue to use FCP since it works but Apple will have to get things very right before seeing any money from me.

Olivier, check out Premiere Pro, it has certainly grown over past few years, and it is very similar to FCP in terms of operation.

Nobody is saying you have to upgrade now. I'm still quite happy with version 6, and will move over when i think the time is right.
New software always takes time to get up to speed, and as well as the upgrades, we can expect some bugs before X hits its stride.

Lest we forget, this is not FCP8 but a completely new program.

Although i've not tried it yet, i'm with the half-glass-full folks here. I think this will be a game changing bit of software within a year. Those complaining about how much better the old version was should ask themselves why they felt compelled to download a completely new application without even reading a review of it.

I don't mind glancing at the future, but as you say FCP X is not grown up yet, I agree totally, but I don't run a nursery for software... especially not when I have to pay.

There's no reason for you to use it today if you don't need to. You can keep using FCP7 or any other NLE until in matures. Some things grown in womb and some grow external and in this case the gestation is in full view. The advantage of it being being available as that one can start learning NOW.

I remember Avid in 1989 wasn't useful for many things as well. It was even a poor offline system when it was first released.

If FCP X is Esperanto it is dead before it reaches childhood

Apple may be the one company that can pull off Esperanto. I think they can. FCPX is truly an alien edit system to most people. It portends to be much faster and more efficient. I can see that already. Yes you have to wrap your head around something new (Klingon if you prefer) but I already see potential for much faster editing.

an unusable app

Actually usable by many people for many things right now despite glaring omissions to be resolved later. Not everyone uses the features that some pros use. It's usable now for self contained tapeless projects and that covers a lot of ground.

touted as an upgrade Is another

It never was nor could it be an upgrade. AV Foundation is entirely unrelated to Quicktime. Apple kept the name for marketing reasons but this is an entirely new beast with a new media handling structure, not even just a new codebase. It's like moving from OS9 to OSX. One had nothing to do with the other. In this case there's no "classic" feature as of yet though.

It's not simply a radical GUI change. That's superficial. What's going on under the hood is completely new and there's been no equivalent I know of to AV Foundation, hence Esperanto, as this is truly a new language to communicate. It will take some people some time to grasp it but those that do will be much faster editors then those using the older methodology. It's a metadata/database driven system based on new media handling technology. You don't' have to like it but that's doesn't detract from the power that it has and well have as the pro features are added quickly.

Sheesh, it seems some folks can't think past "today" when they look at something.
FCPX is missing several important Pro features. It will likely get them in future updates which will come every few months rather than waiting for discs to print and ship.



"Today"..let's see today i have a multicam edit to finish by 3:00 pm
Today I have to re-edit a STS 134 project from last April
Today I have to round trip a project to AE

Today is the real world...with real deadlines and real money and expectations.

Don't mean to be terse...use what works for you,,but it is hard to look to tomorrow when you have things to do today. But, again...today... FCP X is rating at 2 1/2 stars on reviews on Apple Store.

Cheers,,,If FCPX knocks my socks off tomorrow..I will buy it. But today...no way.

There's no reason for you to use it today if you don't need to. You can keep using FCP7 or any other NLE until in matures.

But you have to bet on a horse.

For the people out there who never do an external sound mix or never want to do an internal sound mix with a mixer or submixes - fine, use FCPX. Ditto for the people who never want an external monitor. Or who never want to use an advanced color correction system.

I have to start new projects today. I can't use FCPX for them. Do I use FCP 7? Knowing that there is no upgrade path for life? It's been pronounced dead. Or do I make the jump and use Premiere, or Avid, knowing that those companies are definitely catering to professional needs and will continue to.

There is no chance in hades that I'm going to even play with FCPX and learn a new editing paradigm with nothing but hope that Apple, who decided to put out a prosumer product, will suddenly decide that they want to put out a professional one. If they do, I'll cheer and reconsider. But there's no way that I'm betting on that horse.

I'm a long term user from the Premiere/AE side, i have in fact the first copy of AE somewhere around here. I have invested thousands in Adobe Products. I tried Final Cut Express but hated it. I've edited short commercial pieces up to 2 hour dramas.

I absolutely love this Final Cut. It combines 99% of what i need across Premiere and AE in a single place, the grading, animated masks and overall editing are what i think should be in an editing package. (I have a VFX background so like to do my own work)

I'm on a macbook pro i7 and it runs really well. I will live with it longer but probably move my main machines over to Macs for this.

I do think though that there are a lot of existing workflows people have that simply don't fit into this approach. Tape based for one. But i've not used tape in years. There's also a massive shift in editing and i think the UI promotes creativity rather than mundane logging and editing. So these things are not right for a lot of 'bread and butter' work. Maybe these issues can be addressed.

I'm not one for being a fanboy, but i really do think apple have managed to shove the creative side of editing up a level and i look forward to doing serious work in it and concentrating on the content - not dynamic linking of compositing, faffing with Magic Bullet Look masks because they don't animate. etc,. etc,.

cheers
Paul

Hi Paul,

You and I have a similar background although you have many more years on me. I wish there was a good NLE with some of AE integrated at a decent price but the only program I have found is Autodesk's Smoke (Linux or OSX). The bummer is that it costs $15k per seat on Mac or $45k-90k for a turnkey Linux setup. However, if you sign up to FXPHD, you get to use Smoke on Mac for free to learn.

To everyone saying that you should wait for it to 'mature', give me a break - it is 2011 and software developers are amazing now. Its not like OSX just became 64bit or Apple just switched to new hardware. I didn't hear ANY of this when Adobe completely re-wrote Premiere Pro and After Effects CS5 making them fully 64bit in addition to Encore and Adobe Media Encoder - that is 4 programs in 18 months. The ONLY feature I had to wait for was 10bit output from PPro.

I am not happy that FCPX is such a step backwards because it doesn't make Avid and Adobe work harder to make their apps better.

I

If you are an indy with no budget who just shoots your own projects on DSLR then FCPX may be a great product. If you actually work with video to pay the bills look elsewhere.

Forgive me, but this is elitist gibberish that is offensive and shows a lack of respect for those who march to the beat of a different drummer than you.

I'm a one man band, and I make a pretty decent living at it. I enjoy not being strapped to a desk in an office. I like very much the idea that if I don't get a paycheck, it's because of my own doing, not because the company I work for has made some poor economic choices. It was tough learning to light, shoot, record sound, edit, mix sound and color correct; but I did it and now I feel freer. It's very satisfying to have your creations actually be your creations.

I'm also not an Apple cheerleader. But in this case I applaud them for taking bold steps to correct the clunkiness of FCP. And I believe more traditionally professional features will come as time goes by... just as they did after FCP1 was released.

If you want to sit in your cubicle and look down your nose at those of us whom you consider unprofessional because we don't fit your mold, you should know a little more about the subject about which you speak. But if you ever get a chance to get out in the field, do a quick cut for the client to look at before you leave and have them smile and say "Wow, that looks great!" I highly recommend you do. It's very satisfying and I appreciate Apple making that possibility a little easier for me.

By the way: At the risk of attracting further scorn from you, I should also mention that in the last few months I have transitioned from horribly expensive video cameras to purchasing and learning how to use several DSLRs. I am absolutely enamored by the images they produce, and after reverting back to the old film-production techniques I learned years ago, it is now my principal means of acquisition. I've even learned how to overcome the audio issues some DSLR detractors keep tossing up for discussion.

I'm anxious to see how this all plays together in FCP X. For three hundred bucks, it won't sting very much if it turns out to be a hinderance, rather than an effective tool to help me along the path I've chosen.

There. I'll climb down from my high horse now.

I'm really interested to hear how Motion performs & how stable it is.

A while ago I created a new bin mistyped "Motion" as "Motino," looked at the mistake & thought "I'm going to keep it as 'Motino' since that sounds like an alcoholic drink and then maybe gives me the idea that Motion is really drunk all the time, which is what makes it crash all the time."

Gentlemen, there will be no ad hominem derision or attacks on DVinfo. Please keep all discussion related to the topic and not each other. We Wranglers don't like to wield our lassos, but have no hesitation about doing a rope-a-dope if the need arises. (In other words, threads that go ugly get yanked from view).

It is perfectly possible to discuss suitability for different market segments without insulting others.

Or do I make the jump and use Premiere, or Avid, knowing that those companies are definitely catering to professional needs and will continue to.


If you are running an up to date OS X (10.6.7) you can look forward to a clean install of OSX and update only to 10.6.6 otherwise Media Composer 5.5 will not run and it will screw up your system... Unless you find a way to downgrade your OS...

Went to download it and the reviews were so bad it scared me off. Think I might wait on the sidelines and see what happens with updates.

Probably a good idea!

heath

As I understand it, NO plug-ins will work with the new version

Noise Industries has already released an update for their plugins that work with FCP-X. I think it's safe to assume that many others will follow soon.

FxFactory 2.6 (http://www.noiseindustries.com/support/fxfactory260/)

Also, I think we'll see quick major updates (both regular-cycle upgrades, and revision number changes), especially compared to the two years it took for FCP 1 to upgrade to the not-so-great ver. 2 (remember, ver. 2 came out spring 2001, but ver. 3 shipped by the end of the year), and all the other upgrades. And I think we'll see affordable revision number changes

heath