Sheesh, it seems some folks can't think past "today" when they look at something.

Kind of like playing "peekaboo" with a baby... If they can't see you, they think you've ceased to exist.

There is actually a very simple way to get your favourite FxPlug plugins to work in FCP X, assuming the plugin already works in Motion 5. You can create a FCP X filter template in Motion 5, "publish" the controls you want, name it, save it, and it will show up in FCP X. I just did it with one of my own plugins and it works fine.
Special dynamic UI stuff won't carry over though, so complicated plugins like Primatte will likely need a rewrite.

I think I'll go to the London Supermeet and see what Larry has to say about all this...

Larry's on a very difficult position: he can' t criticize too much FCPX if he wants to sell FCPX' DVD training (and continue to be friend with Apple's guys), but he must be objective about the defaults of FCPX if he doesn't want to loose his credibility…

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.

No need for a high horse here. I'm not saying it is useless at all but just not ready for prime time. I'm not really an elitist either. I'm ok with certain things and personally am a huge fan of what FCPX does bring to the table.

With that said however there are certain things pros need to be able to do and I don't see anything wrong with some of else discussing about how it isn't ready for primetime for many of us.

Perhaps the indy remark was a bit harsh but I meant no disrespect about it and was mainly referring to the latest sub culture around video production where everybody with a DSLR thinks they are the new Spielburg. I also use a DSLR these days and am considering selling off the rest of my video gear.

I do like where FCPX is going but it isn't there yet and we are basically moving from a solid platform to one not ready for primetime. I think many pros here would have been fine with this if FCS was still supported. It looks like no new editors will even be able to buy FCS anymore. So if you are a pro and already have it you may be fine to wait it out. If you are a new editor or company you may be stuck with a half finished product.

We also do not know when these updates are coming and if there will be a price. It is possible that things like XML and multicam may be add-on modules that pros have to buy. Lets face it not everybody needs the pro features which is why FCPX 1.0 doesn't have them yet. We all also thought the price seemed a bit low at $299.00 and perhaps there is good reason for that. If you take FCP 7 and remove all the pro stuff missing from FCPX then perhaps it would have also been as cheap. Maybe Apple's thought is to charge for the extra features that only some people still need to use such as XML, OMF and batch capture. Kind of makes sense to me in a way. For those who do shoot (indy and pros) file based material and just need a polished editor then they can get it for a much lower cost then forcing them to buy the entire beast.

I just saw a share command which allows me to send to CNN iReport.??? What?? I guess CNN paid Apple for that privildege. So did Vimeo, You Tube, etc.

I just can't see how Apple could leave out XML, AAF, or OMF exporting functions but add CNN iReport sharing.

EDIT: My co-worker and I are here laughing at the irony of "new" vs. "old" editing paradigms. Avid and Premiere are often maligned as being old looking in the interface. I've seen a lot of posts by people on this forum and others begging for a "more up to date" and "new" model for editing. So Apple just gave everyone a new model for editing< for what I assume< without doing ergonomic tests with Professional editors. So, Apple listened and gave us a new interface. But, the interface is only part of the process. Avid has had the same interface for decades. It might be old,,but it is proven. It is what is under the hood that counts. And when they teach post production on Avids at schools like USC...there is a solid base of knowledge to work from. Predictability,, yes.

So, Apple just gave everyone what they were asking for. A new interface.

This also reminds us of New Coke...which failed horribly in the 1980's. Maybe they will come back with Final Cut Pro Classic!!!

An export function for CNN iReport? Guess there are a lot of "citizen journalists" out there, heh heh.

I want to try FCP X before I go on the record crying foul, or saying it's the greatest thing, or somewhere in the middle. I don't want to be criticizing it too heavily until I actually try it out. Sure, it's missing some important features that many use, and of course there are others who don't use them.

But before I go too far, I want to at least give it a shot, even if it's on a Mac at an Apple Store.

heath

Didn't Apple themselves say it was "not ready for professional use" before it even came out? And what is the overwhelming comment by people? "THIS IS NOT PROFESSIONAL!"

People are so strange.

When did Apple say it isn't for professional use? I know Larry Jordan said something like that, then took it back recently (http://www.larryjordan.biz/app_bin/wordpress/archives/1498).

Apple's press release (http://www.apple.com/pr/library/2011/06/21fcp.html) also states:

Apple® today announced Final Cut Pro® X, a revolutionary new version of the world’s most popular Pro video editing software... “Final Cut Pro X is the biggest advance in Pro video editing since the original Final Cut Pro,” said Philip Schiller, Apple’s senior vice president of Worldwide Product Marketing.

heath

My bad then. . .guess I got mixed up.

Well, some would agree with you, I suppose. I like that Larry called his article "Wiping Egg Off My Face."

heath

"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.

David, I'm in the same boat. We have about a dozen open projects going right now. I would never have expected to move them into what was obviously a brand new editing paradigm if every pro feature were available - that would be crazy.

I can't imagine that anyone would be expecting to use "today" a piece of software that is literally 24 hours old. WE all have to take responsibility for our work and Apple let everyone know loud and clear with big pictures that you would be learning new software from day one.

Why would you be thinking of editing todays professional work on a system that would take days to learn at the very least?

David Pogue's mostly positive review:

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/23/technology/personaltech/23pogue.html?_r=3&pagewanted=1

Hat tip to Digital Rebellion's Jon Chappell for tweeting the link, then re-tweeting someone else's link to Pogue's negative review of iMovie '08, which essentially p.o.'d iMovie users, until the latest version righted the wrongs:

Apple Takes a Step Back With iMovie '08 - NYTimes.com (http://pogue.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/08/17/apple-takes-a-step-back-with-imovie-08/)

So, I guess Pogue likes FCP X enough to justify all the changes, from UI on down.

heath

Good podcast here from Rich Harrington and Walter Biscardi on FCP X and their impressions of using it (or not) in a professional environment.

Why We Can't Use Final Cut Pro X at Our Companies : Final Cut Help Tutorials Podcast (http://podcasts.creativecow.net/final-cut-studio-podcast/why-we-cant-use-final-cut-pro-x-at-our-companies)

I just saw a share command which allows me to send to CNN iReport.??? What?? I guess CNN paid Apple for that privildege. So did Vimeo, You Tube, etc.

I just can't see how Apple could leave out XML, AAF, or OMF exporting functions but add CNN iReport sharing.

EDIT: My co-worker and I are here laughing at the irony of "new" vs. "old" editing paradigms. Avid and Premiere are often maligned as being old looking in the interface. I've seen a lot of posts by people on this forum and others begging for a "more up to date" and "new" model for editing. So Apple just gave everyone a new model for editing< for what I assume< without doing ergonomic tests with Professional editors. So, Apple listened and gave us a new interface. But, the interface is only part of the process. Avid has had the same interface for decades. It might be old,,but it is proven. It is what is under the hood that counts. And when they teach post production on Avids at schools like USC...there is a solid base of knowledge to work from. Predictability,, yes.

So, Apple just gave everyone what they were asking for. A new interface.

This also reminds us of New Coke...which failed horribly in the 1980's. Maybe they will come back with Final Cut Pro Classic!!!

No offense David but that is patently false. Apple spent several years and millions of dollars to build an entire new 64 bit architecture. The GUI is simply the skin over an entirely newly coded product built on an entire new media system. Complaining about what they haven't implemented so far is reasonable but to purport what you did is simply untrue and misleading on a user forum.

Many, many film schools are teaching Final Cut Pro over Avid these days, or do a combination of FCP, Avid and Premiere Pro. To be fair, I've heard one or two schools teach Vegas Pro.

At any rate, here's something to chew on, as I did with a recent Google search of reactions to Apple announcing Final Cut Studio 2009 (v. 3) and FCP 7... many users were unhappy that Apple didn't update it to 64-bit or add any significant new features, which was true. Now, users are unhappy with the changed interface, missing pro features, etc. Apple can't win, heh heh.

Check out the old thread (you'll need to go through a couple of pages to find thoughts and reviews): http://www.dvinfo.net/forum/final-cut-suite/239565-new-final-cut-studio-announced-today.html

heath

Why would you be thinking of editing todays professional work on a system that would take days to learn at the very least?

Just the same as why would anyone, circa 2004-06, buy an HD camera and start shooting paid projects immediately, without taking a day or two to get used to it? Back then, many of us went from fullscreen DV to widescreen HD, and it was quite the change, with everything from framing to focus, etc.

I just started thinking about current and upcoming side video gigs for me, and it seems I'd have to keep using FCP 7 for most of one client's projects, since he usually likes to just do small updates to his TV commercials and web videos, and maybe FCP X for a couple of future corporate videos with my other client. I could see this getting a bit, shall I say, schizophrenic?

heath

Heath,

Indeed - FCP7 was a wildly minimal upgrade and people were rightfully disappointed with it. And for a company that makes the hardware AND the software, it was ridiculous that they couldn't make their own software take advantage of their own 64-bit architecture. Likewise ridiculous that they couldn't make it take advantage of all the cores of a computer.

But at least they didn't take away functionality that was crucial to a professional work environment. You would have heard more complaints if so.

The reason they didn't update FCP7 to 64-bit, of course, is that they were working on FCPX and planning on only going to 64-bit with a major upgrade. But they made the decision that it was going to be be a prosumer product and not a professional one.

You're absolutely right, Barry! I guess all the rumors we heard about it being like an "iMovie pro" (going back to 2010) may have been a little closer to reality than we thought. You'll recall that Apple had to put out an official press release, and Steve Jobs himself said in an email that it would be "awesome." In fact, both Jobs and Apple said it.

I don't want to comment anymore on FCP X until I can at least sit down for 20 minutes with it, which I might do tonight at my local Apple Store.

I guess I just wanted to point out how Apple got flak for FCP 7 and now for FCP X.

heath

You're righ Jim. Apple did more than just develop a new interface. But 64 bit architectures alone don't functionally help me open older past projects, perform multicam editing, export to Pro Tools, share project files with After Effects, work with broadcast monitors and I/O cards,,,functions that FCP 6 and 7 had and FCP X currently nixed.

We've been messing with FCP X here for a 1/2 day now,,,and the bottom line opinion of me, my co-worker, an editor friend across town at a large post facility called Texas Video and Post agree that FCP X is not ready for professional post production. Too many things missing that affect the entire workflow for our group.

So far, the magnetic timeline is cool (Edius already has it) and I like the audition feature and I;m still getting used to the iMovie feel. But, I just will not be able to use it for my particular projects.

I may have gone a little overboard with the interface statements and musings earlier about FCP X and New Coke...but I don't have the power to mislead anyone here. You guys are on your own and certainly entitled to your own opinions.

Cheers.

Heath..You're right they do teach FCP 7 in more schools than Avid,,,which is why I am more puzzled about the direction Apple is taking overall towards professional post.

Case in point: Apple has nixed : Shake, DVD Studio Pro, Color, Cinema Tools, Sound Track Pro, FCP 7, never really had Blu ray authoring and nixed it's own X-serve. Plus no XML interchange which has become an industry standard protocol.





But come on,,,send to CNN iReport...I mean any pro editor is going to laugh at that!!

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 ... l

I agree. I've been working with FCP X for two days now and have cut some nice sequences and figured out how to do what I want, however, with that said... If Apple called this "iMovie Pro 1.0" I would not gripe.

But without the ability to do things like multi-track audio editing and exporting multitrack audio for doing a sound mix in an external application, without multicam support, without the ability to import Final Cut Pro 7.x projects; without the ability to import and export XML, etc. etc. etc. it is disingenuous to call this new application "Final Cut Pro X Version 10.0, this is what's hard to take, in spite of all the snazziness and sizzle of the new workflow is that there are things many of us need to do today, not sit around and wait for the feature or that feature to appear, so now I'm editing with a dead product (Final Cut Pro 7.x) with no support no future, it's like being on stormy seas in a leaky sailboat and being offered a canoe instead.

I'm worried there will be some OS X upgrade that will mess with Final Cut Pro 7.x and then where am I? I have two long form documentary projects I'm editing right now, and of course I will finish them in Final Cut Pro 7.x, while doing short projects in FCP X to learn it, but then what? How long will it take for Final Cut Pro X Version 10.0 to live up to it's name, rather than come off as iMovie Pro 1.0?

Would you say it's an iMovie Pro 1.0 or a newer Final Cut Express?

Chris,

I'll hold off on my own impressions for now until I can try it out, but a good friend of mine spent all of yesterday, most of the overnight hours and much of today working with FCP X, and he calls it "iMovie on steroids." Final Cut Express was just Final Cut Pro minus about 15 to 25% of key features, but the UI was pretty much identical.

I'll take the high road for now, and call it "the next generation of Final Cut Pro." (wink)

Heath

It took FCP 1.0 two years to get to 2.0, then 6-8 more months to get to the much better 3.0, with a lot of the features that made editors take notice. It took iMovie '08 three years to get to version '11, and now iMovie users are very happy with it. iMovie '08 was the big change, and it made a lot of users unhappy. (Maybe Apple saw that many more people were using iMovie than FCP... ?)

But I think it will take a shorter amount of time to see features added in. There was already an update, right? Plus, Apple recommends the unreleased Snow Leopard Mac OS X 10.6.8 with FCP X:

AppleInsider | Apple recommends yet unreleased OS X 10.6.8 for Final Cut Pro X users (http://www.appleinsider.com/articles/11/06/21/apple_recommends_yet_unreleased_os_x_10_6_8_for_final_cut_pro_x_users.html)

heath

There's quite a few people on this thread who seem to understand the situation with new software and I think there are others who don't.

FCPX certainly wont meet a lot of people's needs today. Betting on horses, Apple has invested a lot in the development of AV Foundation and FCPX and Motion built on it as well as Thunderbolt to bring high speed storage and video I/O throughout the rest of the computer product lines. To me, that's a company making a MAJOR commitment to professional video. They can't do it on "your" timeline. This is a MASSIVE change almost as radical as OS9 to OSX. That's how different AV Foundation is. You're seeing a foal today that will be tomorrow's champ. If all you see is the foal and can't recognize the strong underpinnings you have other choices. I'm betting that it took Apple a major investment and there's a lot more coming. Their marketing of FCPX has been an unmitigated disaster but that doesn't mean the programming is.

It's a foal. Expect no more nor less. It's got a serious pedigree if you understand why Apple's designed it around metadata handling and how AV Foundation opens things up just as OSX opened things that were not possible in OS9.

There's quite a few people on this thread who seem to understand the situation with new software and I think there are others who don't.

Having spent 10 years working as a software architect, I'll assume that you are considering me to be one of the ones who does understand new software.

It would be one thing if Apple said, "Hey guys, we know that it doesn't meet your professional needs but it's a 1.0... we're going to leave the old FCP suite on the market and support it while we bring this up to speed and when it's there - BOOM, you'll love it just like the hobbyist will."

Have they said anything of the sort? Not from what I've seen. Everything I've seen from the company in the last five years has told me that they are moving towards being a consumer-focused company and not a professional-focused one. The bought and then shelved Shake, and now Color and Soundtrack as well - all without replacing them with a superior professional-level product. Every move they have made has been towards making products for consumers.

And I don't blame them... the economies of scale there are huge. There is more money to be made. Professional video people are - and we've seen it here today - a very picky bunch. And a very small market. It doesn't necessarily make sense for them to support us. Of course it also doesn't make sense for them to come out and say, "Hey professionals - sorry guys, but this isn't for you." They'll toe the line that they are making new professional products, even knowing clearly that a certain percentage of us will jump ship. They have to, that's good business.

So what - besides hope - gives you specific reason to believe that they are going to continue to develop FCP as a professional product that could be used in post houses? Why would FCP NOT be going the way of Shake? or Color? or Soundtrack? I'm not being rhetorical here - I'd really like to hear from you on that.

(And btw, I'm sure Larry makes fine training products, but him saying that they are telling him that they'll make it way better while he's trying to sell training to people who upgrade to it doesn't register in my books as evidence that they'll ever meet my needs).

Barry, I think it was dumb that Apple pulled FCS2009. FCPX is not yet a replacement and they have to know this. Pulling FCS009 does not force FCPX purchases, if that's their intent. If someone is managing a small facility and needs to keep all systems functional and compatible, something that's beyond possible with current FCPX, they are now locked out since they can't add more FCS2009 seats.

As I note, I think FCPX has grew potential, it's not there yet by any stretch. A great foal doesn't help when you have a race today. Apple abandoned the bridge (FCS). Yup, their marketing is a disaster. They have an app that might be great by June 2012 (and I think it will) but a facility can't be stuck without a CURRENTLY functional Suite to purchase to tide them over. Apple kept Shake available for a reduced price for a very long time after it was EOLd and they should have done the same with FCS.

I really love where FCPX is going but they've dumped the bridge for many to take that road. That's the problem. I don't blame FCPX (or the very creative program team). I think Apple did not think about how a professional can get from point A to point B over the next 6 to 12 months.

FCPX will be great . . . probably no earlier than Dec or sometime next year . . . at the EARLIEST. A great concept car. A great prototype, Not yet roadworthy and people need to know what car to get today in the meantime.

I think Apple has made a serious investment in the technology, more so than the other products you've listed. I just think releasing a very good work in progress does replace an established tool set . . . until it gets to the point it feature competitive.

I agree with all of that EXCEPT your confidence that they are even moving in that direction. I was serious in wanting to know what you're basing it on, because I'd love to agree with you. I just haven't seen any evidence that makes me think they are.

FCP X is DOA.

I need to be able import and export from tape, discs and cards. (Sorry the broadcast world is not tapeless and won't be for a long time).
I need TC in and out.
I need RS422.
I need composite, component and SDI in and out.
I need to be able to use third party video cards and external broadcast monitors.
I need adjustable TC in the sequence.
...and lots of other things FCP X will NOT do.

FCP X is the upgrade from iMovie not FCP3.

I can't believe I'm saying this but Apple laid a big ole stinky poop with FCP X!

Apple kept Shake available for a reduced price for a very long time after it was EOLd and they should have done the same with FCS.

And again, Shake makes my point precisely. It was a pro product that was a strong competitor in its field, and the did some tiny incremental upgrades and then they just put it to bed without ever replacing it with a comparable pro (or no pro) product. That's exactly that I think has happened to FCP. And like Shake, I never expect it to come back.

I agree with all of that EXCEPT your confidence that they are even moving in that direction. I was serious in wanting to know what you're basing it on, because I'd love to agree with you. I just haven't seen any evidence that makes me think they are.

Actually Thunderbolt. The high speed storage and video I/O is really only of use to professionals. Apple generally uses software to sell hardware.

There's no way they expend years of development (and significant resources that involves) on AV Foundation (FCPX and Motion are the surface for some serious under the hood work) without wanting to address higher end pro applications. The engine is great but the chassis is a work in progress. I'm not sure how to make that kind on investment any more obvious.

Loading… (http://developer.apple.com/library/ios/#documentation/AudioVideo/Conceptual/AVFoundationPG/Articles/00_Introduction.html)

What is Apple doing with QuickTime? | The present and future of post production business and technology (http://www.philiphodgetts.com/2011/02/what-is-apple-doing-with-quicktime/)

Apple spent millions of dollars and worked with a lot of engineers to make FCP X. Is it perfect? No, and I don't have an answer for Shake disappearing, other than, elements of it are in FCP. They got rid of LiveType, but you could find elements of it in Motion 4. They got rid of Soundtrack Pro and Color, but elements of it are found in FCP X.

I think FCP X is gonna improve, and I think it'll be around for a long time.

Now, consumer electronics and software vs. professional, well, no matter what, consumer will beat out pro, no matter what. People have been complaining that Apple's been ignoring pro since the iMac and iBook blew up, the iPod came out, the iPhone debuted, etc. Sony sells far more consumer-level HD cameras (or camera phones) than they do $5,000 HD cameras. And so on. Trust me, I know, I review more consumer items than I do pro items.

Still, I can't say much more about FCP X until I get my hands on it. My local Apple Store hasn't downloaded it yet, but to be honest, they may not for a while.

heath

Barry, Shake was not an Apple developed product and they decided not to invest in further development.
FCP, in it's original form, was not an Apple product either, it was Macromedia. They decided there was no practical reason to build on that old code.
FCPX is an Apple creation from the ground up, as is Motion and they continue.
Color was not an Apple developed product and that seem to be gone too.

Apple is aggressively creating products developed in house now. That's very much related to deep ties with OS and AV Foundation. They've tossed out anything in which parts of the code base isn't theirs. Starting from scratch isn't easy (well maybe it is actually) but it means the ties into software and hardware are far more direct. It also means it may take some time to see all this grow. This has to be a major resource investment though.

Yah, I disagree. Thunderbolt is a universal technology - for hard drives, displays, everything. There is no part of that technology which is exclusively the realm of video professionals over video consumers. It is the next in a long chain of USBs and 1394s.

As for the core technology - investment in that in no way guarantees that they are going to service post house level professionals. Certainly they are going to use that core engine for a long time. But that might be in the form it is right now. The fact is that by reducing the feature set in FCPX the only people they can possibly disappoint are working video professionals. And looking at this board, it seems that only half of them are disappointed. Business-wise, I think it makes perfect sense for Apple to drop us from the list and use that shiny new engine to service the much larger and profitable prosumer market.

I see no evidence to the contrary, and they are making no statements to the contrary. They love it like it is. And they should, it will make them a lot of money. Just not from me.

Chris wrote: Would you say it's an iMovie Pro 1.0 or a newer Final Cut Express? the reason it feels to me like " iMovie Pro 1.0" is that the orientation of FCP X is clearly towards the consumer. Final Cut Express had the identical interface as it's big brother, a great tool I've been using in teaching allowing students to move up to Final Cut Pro if they needed to. And I truly understand the value of a new generation program based on new technology like AV Foundation, Grand Central Dispatch, projects built around a database, improved media management, strong metadata foundation, etc. But when you do things like completely change the interface semantics and the ability to bring legacy projects into the new application, it's a cause for concern. Adobe has been a model of gradual under interace evolution, taking advantage of new technology and adding valuable new features with each version (I've been using Photoshop since version 1.0), and not leaving their professional users out in the cold. But one can say that Photoshop, InDesign, Illustrator, After Effects, Premiere, Audition are solidly targeted towards a professional market. Adobe would shoot themselves in the foot if they made a radical departure with any of their professional tools. But Apple can afford to make this change, for the tiny professional segment will not make a difference on way or the other on the profitability of the company, in the long term, video has become democratized and Apple is making a video editing application for "the rest of us." On the one hand in my role as an educator who coordinates a program training almost 400 students each year on video editing fundamentals, I applaud what Apple has done with Final Cut Pro X, but as a documentary filmmaker, I feel like I've had the rug pulled out from under me. I'm sure the pro features will come, but in this transition stage, I'm not given a lot to quel my anxiety.

FCP X is DOA.

I need to be able import and export from tape, discs and cards. (Sorry the broadcast world is not tapeless and won't be for a long time).
I need TC in and out.
I need RS422.
I need composite, component and SDI in and out.
I need to be able to use third party video cards and external broadcast monitors.
I need adjustable TC in the sequence.
...and lots of other things FCP X will NOT do.

FCP X is the upgrade from iMovie not FCP3.

I can't believe I'm saying this but Apple laid a big ole stinky poop with FCP X!

If this was a whole new field for Apple, I could understand these omissions, but FCP is a mature, decade old program that's incredibly well established in the video community. Yes, this is new code, but the specs were well defined. Telling people "it'll get better" really isn't going to sit well, and little if any of this can be addressed by a quick X.0.1 update.

Looks like Avid was a little premature with their FCP-crossgrade promotion. They should have waited until FCP X was released, but they were probably worried that it was going to crush them.

That said, I think that for emerging and web-based media outlets, FCP X will be a dream come true. Fast, easy to use (a much shallower learning curve that FCP or FCE), and output to the formats they need. It truly is iMovie Pro, and I mean that as a compliment.

Seems like the reviews on the App store tell a very interesting story (CNN Money):

The Final Cut Pro X debacle - Apple 2.0 - Fortune Tech (http://tech.fortune.cnn.com/2011/06/22/the-final-cut-pro-x-debacle/)

I have been using FCP X quite a bit over yesterday as well as today and I have mixed feelings. I did an edit start to finish. It turned out well. So is it usable? Absolutely! Are there some really important things missing? Sure. I will continue to use FCP X to learn it more thoroughly and I will eagerly await updates to add more features.

It almost feels as if this is a somewhat bipolar release. Its like FCP X can decide what it wants to be. They add support for more formats, release Motion 5 (a pro software with pro features) and Compressor 4 (also a pro app), and the app has some really nice options and features that are great. Then in other areas they took out things that we really need. In this way this release is a bit puzzling.

I am not editing for broadcast so for my needs this is a great piece of software that will only get better. At this point the biggest bummer for me is the lack of a widescreen matte generator. No more 235 edits unless I do them in FCP 7.

. . . It truly is iMovie Pro, and I mean that as a compliment.

Goes to show that in the wake of all the hype, reality is now setting in. This is becoming a fascinating case study in expectations, and the meaning of the "Final Cut Pro" brand. It's a risky strategy to kill off an old product, replace it with a completely different one, and call the new version "awesome" as if it was the second coming. As "iMovie Pro 1.0" FCP X is brilliant. As the next version in the Final Cut Pro line? It's ludicrous. It's going to take the hyperspace edition of the reality distortion field to fix this situation...

App Store blocks purchases if you have an early MacPro GPU. I have MacPro 3.1 (early 2008) with Radeon 2600 so I can't purchase.

I'm hoping someone with 5770 installed on MacPro early 2008 or older can confirm a purchase even though that combination is not "officially" supported. Many have reported the combination runs just fine but that doesn't mean it'll pass Apple's detection demons.

I have a 2008 8-core 3.2GHz MacPro 3,1 with a brand new 5870 card installed. FCP X seems to run fine with that combo. No rejection whatsoever by any system checks.

Response is quick and everything looks great. I have had a few crashes and background analysis hangs, but I just attribute those to the newness of the software. Not sure, of course. And I haven't tried the 5770.

One note with this setup is that there are occasional, not too intrusive display hiccups. But these occured before FCP X and are system wide. I see them in the Finder when nothing else is running,

As it stands right now, I think Apple has given us a very clean way to slowly transition to this new FCP. I'm happily running FCP 7 and FCP X on the same machine. One foot in the old world, and one foot in the new. I have the opportunity to learn a new workflow, while still being able to depend on old ones. When I take a big, long term perspective, that's a pretty good place to be in.

As for new features we"ll just have to wait and see.

I like your attitude David.
There's no question that X isn't ready for edit houses and there's no question as a communications consultant that I wouldn't have advised Apple to take a very different approach to their release priorities - or communicated their intent much more clearly to their base.
I love Apple products (for the most part, running literally dozens of systems I've had more than a few WTF moments) but I think their secrecy and often cultish approach does their true vision a disservice.

Anyway you and I probably pretty much agree on it all and I appreciate your candor.

I'm happily running FCP 7 and FCP X on the same machine. One foot in the old world, and one foot in the new. I have the opportunity to learn a new workflow, while still being able to depend on old ones. When I take a big, long term perspective, that's a pretty good place to be in.

Good attitude, and probably the approach I'll take when I dip my toes in the FCP X water.

heath

I guess it's early days with FCP X and my question is... Where will this leave origination's that cut on FCP7, will we have updates on this system or is the end of the line for FCP7?

I know that most of you, (if not all of you that are participating in this thread), seem to be professionals in the video industry. I have enjoyed reading this long discussion and like many of you, I have also been eagerly anticipating FCPX, the only difference is that I came to offer a different and rather frightening perspective.
I just graduated and I am heading off to school next year and will be studying film. Although I have worked with FCP7 extensively for the past year or so, I don't own it myself because I have been using a friend's old laptop to do my editing. He has it on both of his mac's but I won't be able to take it with me to school. My school offered the FCP7 student edition for 250$ and the school receives all of Apple's latest hardware and software for their editing bays because of some kind of sponsorship.
Many of you have said that you will be continuing to work in FCP7 until Apple's new baby is mature enough to handle the needs of a professional market, especially one geared to handle broadcast media. This seems to be the most feasible course of action but like someone said, this leaves many new editors like myself in the dark. I have no option but to purchase FCPX and hope for the best if I come across any hiccups or problems in my workflow.
I could overcome this by starting early with a option like Adobe's line or Avid, but it seems somewhat counterproductive considering my schools editing bays, my professor's methods of teaching, and being a student, I don't have the money to buy either of these suites.
I really only have one option and I am hoping that we see some critical updates in the future that will shed some light on this "debacle", and alleviate the concerns for many of us.

I guess it's early days with FCP X and my question is... Where will this leave origination's that cut on FCP7, will we have updates on this system or is the end of the line for FCP7?

That's it, unfortunately. No more support or updates for FCP 7, FCE 4 or FC Server.

heath

I really only have one option and I am hoping that we see some critical updates in the future that will shed some light on this "debacle", and alleviate the concerns for many of us.

Welcome aboard! (off topic for a second: I have family in Amarillo! Great to have you here!)

The sky's the limit for you, in one sense -- you can pick up a new NLE and just go for it, but the problem is your film school. When I helped put together the Palm Beach Film School years ago, we started with FCP 4 and Avid Xpress, and we realized quickly that FCP was easier to master and teach, so we dropped Avid.

I'm curious what my old film school will now do? Teach FCP X, keep teaching FCP 7, or move to something else? My guess would be they stick with FCP 7 for the time being, and make a move in 6 months.

heath

WOW!!!!

I hope FCP X will prove to be a great NLE with future updates.

Cheers

I am not editing for broadcast so for my needs this is a great piece of software that will only get better. At this point the biggest bummer for me is the lack of a widescreen matte generator. No more 235 edits unless I do them in FCP 7.


There IS a widescreen Matte generator. Its in the effects window. Select widescreen, and you can change the mate size to what you need, 2:35:1 included.

Also, I have FCP X installed in both a Macbook Pro 3.06 GHZ Duo with nvidia 9600GT, and in a Macpro early 2008 with a Quadro 4000 recently purchased. Works in both, but is struggling in the Macbook pro with an external monitor.

sergio

I'm looking to get a 13 " macbookpro dual core i5 machine (the entry level new one just released) in a couple of weeks. Do you think this machine will be up to running FCPX with a monitor?