For anyone who's interested, my last 2 blog posts:
Arnieblog (http://www.arniepix.com/index.php?option=com_k2&view=itemlist&layout=category&task=category&id=5&Itemid=5)

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.

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.

I am not my tools

Bingo!

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.

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 (http://www.artoftheguillotine.com/?page=list_full_media&article_id=3932)

"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?

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?

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?

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!

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

. 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.

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.

We actually found a use for FCP X. Go figure,,but it makes sense. We are about to complete a flash web-site outline edit for every EVA station of the Apollo 15 moon landing. Video clips based on research from UTEP. It took two years and it was a pain working from their notes, etc. just to get to this point

Fast forward to today, literally today, we are looking at starting a Apollo 16 EVA project. This time a lunar expert is coming in from Univ. of Washington and she knows...you guessed it iMovie. So, the plan is for her to organize all of the material in advance. Not really an offine,,but organize with keywords and collections,,and then move to FCP X. And I will edit the narration, stills, and EVA footage into about 25 sequences. This will be a good test for FCPX media management. But hoefully she will do a bang up job in organizing everything. So, two weeks ago I never thought I would be editing a pro project with FCPX, and now I am going to. Not that I like it more than Avid.

While I am still getting used to FCP X and keep finding myself playing with it at home,,and still don't like a lot of things about the program,,, trimming sux,,,only one event window open at a time,,etc. etc. But it really makes too much sense for this particular project. So, go figure.

While I wouldn't quite call this a new workflow of the future,,,it does allow for collaboration with people that don't edit. So, I now have Avid MC 5.5, FCP 6, FCPX ,PPro CS3, Edius NEO, and Vegas 8 for work and Avid MC 5, FCPX, on MAC,, and an old Avid Xpress, Vegas 7 and CS4 on PC. There is a tool somewhere for the job there. :)

Richard, I should have been more specific. It seemed to many of us at that time that Avid was going to abandon Mac. They brought out Symphony for PC but not Mac, and they got way behind in updates and in making MC compatible with Apple's OS updates. There was a huge backlash and a few thousand people jumped ship. It wasn't Apple that made FCP what it was, it was Avid giving them a big chunk of the market. So Avid didn't totally abandon Mac, but they put it on the back burner far enough so many people felt abandoned, or felt impending abandonment coming on.

Now go forward a little, and Avid recovered nicely from the bad press. The current MC is way better than FCP, from all I've read--haven't used it personally. If I were starting from scratch, I'd most likely go with Avid because it's probably the most intuitive of the systems and I know it well. But because of way too many old FCP projects I have to keep active, PP is easier for me, even though I have to learn a new system. I don't think whoever masterminded this new development at Apple is as smart about the professional editing market as Avid is (or maybe they just don't care about that market), so I really doubt they'll change things and resurrect FCP 7 and improve it.

I haven't yet had time to get fully into PP, but what I've seen so far makes it worth the money. Although I never like spending money when I don't want to, I'm now glad Apple pushed me in this direction. Somethings in PP are already just so much nicer than in FCP.

A little history from the late 90's NLE world. Apple in the 90's was about to become extinct. The MAC market share was not even a blip less than 5%, the MAC Clones were selling almost as much as Apple's and PC workstations were becoming the platform of choice for 3D animation/FX. Avid received funding in the form of stock from Intel and Microsoft and decided it was best not to be dependent on just the MAC platform and moved aggressively to the PC platform. So, they did become more beholden to PC's as a result of their agreement.They didn't abandon the MAC intitally, but there was this rumored fist fight between and Apple and an Avid guy in the Avid booth I believe in 1997 NAB or so and the relationship just tanked from there. The two companies really didn't trust each other at all.

At that time, I had Compaq Computer as a client, and no one, and I mean no one in any marketing research group believed Apple would ever recover and rebuild the way they did when Steve Jobs took back over.

So Avid did yield the NLE MAC market to Apple FCP because they saw the same declining numbers as everyone else and thhe only way to survive was to in their minds adapt. And much much to their credit Apple adapted and you know the rest of the story.

I've just read that Avid's Media Composer free trial works fine on OS 10.6.8, so they are fully caught up now.

Avid was planning to abandon Apple for sure, around 1999, if I recall. The plan wasn't just talk, it was written policy that by Q3 of that year, they would be purely PC based. It caused an uproar even within the company, and when word leaked out (however such things do) their LA / Hollywood customers made them reverse the bonehead move. The difference is, people heard about the plan long before it went into action. With FCP-X, all I heard was blind praise and hype by everyone because they believed a smoke-and-mirrors demo done by Apple. The backlash only came after the product was already out. I don't think Apple is going to change their trajectory- they'll add some updates and fixes and call it a day while they focus on their iCrap.

Avid's not a great company, but they need us to function, unlike Apple, and for that reason alone, they'll do the bare minimum to keep customers happy, which is more than what Apple needs to do. They're no longer the top dogs they used to be, thanks to Apple, ironically. My dream would be an open-source editing program that everyone could add to, making it better and better all the time... if only I knew anything about programming!

Lightworks (http://www.lightworksbeta.com/)

David, Here you go. I don't know how long they will be open source, but for now it is pretty amazing. Free download of public beta. The only catch is that Lightworks only run on PC's. OS/X is coming they say. i havn't tried yet, but plan to soon.

Lightworks (http://www.lightworksbeta.com/)

David, Here you go. I don't know how long they will be open source, but for now it is pretty amazing. Free download of public beta. The only catch is that Lightworks only run on PC's. OS/X is coming they say. i haven't tried yet, but plan to soon.AFAIK the idea is for it to always be free & open source. They are moving to a different business model of getting Lightworks itself used by as many people as possible while proprietary plugins will be offered from an online shop.

BTW They brag about a long list of feature films that have been edited on Lightworks Production Credits (http://www.lightworksbeta.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=107&Itemid=260)

Thanks- I had forgotten about Lightworks... mostly because it's on a PC and, for better or for worse, I'm on a mac almost everywhere I go. Good to hear that OSX is planned- I will definitely keep an ear out- the more of us who push for this, the better off everyone will be in the long run.