Everyone certainly seems to have an opinion about FCPX, it's certainly not leaving anyone ambivalent about it. (Well, except the guy who start the ambivalence about FCPX thad...) so, i thought i would put mine out there, as invalid as it may be.

A little backstory, or grain of salt disclaimer, about me. I've been a professional freelance adventure photographer for the last few years. And like many other photographers, thanks to the HDSLR revolution, I've begun making a pretty serious exploration into video production. Im really digging it, and will definitely be sticking with it. No fad here.

What I see going on from a macro perspective, is something that photography is a little further along with: the mass democratization and accessibility of high quality results. The barriers that keep people out, or keep them from making great stuff, are coming down. When DSLR's broke the 10mp barrier a few years ago they surpassed 98% of the needs of 98% of their users. Now, even the cheapest DSLR's are more than 12mp, which is more than enough to print double page in a larger than usual magazine. Nw any person who buys the worst new camera you can find, and spends a little bit of money on lenses has access to image quality that the best pro cameras didn't have 5 years ago.

Photoshop used to rule the imaging world. Then Lightroom came out. People said all the same stuff that people are saying about FCPX right now. It's too weak, this is consumer garbage, this has nothing on Photoshop, I don't see how this would ever fit into a professional workflow, and so on. Now, 98% of my work is all entirely inside of Lightroom, and I only open Photoshop if I absolutely have to. Nearly every other pro photographer i talk to says the same thing. Why? Despite the fact that from a technical capability standpoint Photoshop is stronger, anything that both programs do, Lightroom does much easier and five times faster. What would take me 3 hours in Photoshop, i can do in 20 minutes in Lightroom. The editing is lightning fast and seamless, the sorting is quick, the media management makes a mockery of Photoshop/Bridge, and it does all of this for $300 instead of $900 for Photoshop. Plus, the UI of Photoshop is ungainly, and slow. It takes a long time and many tutorials to. Even have an awkwardly slow, working knowledge in the program. Lightroom is amazingly intuitive, and anyone with a vision of what they want to create, and a little bit of computer savvy, will be cranking out great results in no time.

I had only recently started working in FCP 7 when the FCPX buzz started happening. My time in FCP 7 was painstakingly slow at best. It felt the same as Photoshop. The UI was clunky and had so much room for improvement and streamlining, it seems incomplete in the way that it had little to offer in media management, and I just felt like there was this constant technological barrier between what I wanted to create, and my ability to do so. Now, obviously all sorts of great content comes out of FCP 7" so its more than possible. But just because it's possible, doesn't mean its the best way, and it always felt like there were so many technological roadblocks that could be removed from the creative process of editing.

Enter FCPX. When the buzz started, i really liked what I heard. Bt as people started using it, i felt like I heard nothing but negative, and wasn't going to get it. But eventually, I decided that I really wanted to experience it for myself. And for $300 it seemed like a reasonable risk to take. I opened it, and immediately started ginger through the free tutorial series on Izzy Video. I was blown away almost immediately. This is exactly what I've been wanting video editing to be! Intuitive. Vie only had it for 3 days and i already feel more comfortable in it than in FCP 7. I would even say that i have an advantage never having fully learned FCP 7.

FCPX is is Lightroom, and FCP 7 is Photoshop. No editing feels relatively easy to me and intuitive. Media management is just like in Lightroom. It makes a mockery of what FCP 7 could do (to the best i can tell...). now I spend all time just editing, and trying to make my content come alive, rather then trying to bridge the gap between software and vision. The huge different here, and this is where i think apple dropped the ball, is that photographers can still buy Photoshop if they needs that kind of horsepower. I think FCPX is beautiful program, with enormous potential, but it does leave a big gaping hole at the top of its potential. At the moment, FCPX fully encompasses my needs, but I also realize that I'm not a professional video editor, and that many people have needs far above and beyond mine. I think FCPX should have been released in conjunction with a pouch more powerful program over its head that fully encompassed the needs of any pro editor, and something that was meant to the beginning to work in tandem with FCPX. As powerful as Lightroom is, it's even more powerful when you team it up with Photoshop, which is just on right click away.

The other thing is about how Apple position this software. Apparently they missed the mark for what pro software is taken to mean, although it seems like it'll get there. They seem to have let down a lot of people working in Hollywood, broadcast and and other high end markets. But they seems to hit the bullseye for, and I think were very keen in realizing, a relatively new, emerging market for professional video: which is online content. Its really two sub-markets. There are so many clients looking for high quality, original content for their websites, blogs and social media channels. I know of quite a few people who are making really good money doing short run webisode type things for outdoor brands, focussing on the athletes they sponsor. I'm currently working on a project that is exactly that. FCPX is a dream machine for this type of work.

The other sub-market is people looking to do real time or semi real time video coverage of things going on, that is of a decently high quality. There is plenty of crap quality real time coverage going on, but it se EMS tough to do anything of quality that is remotely real time, until now. I was part of the media team for a yoga festival a few weekends back, and we were attempting to be releasing short video pieces throughout the weekend to the festival's YouTube, and sharing via twitterr and facebook. It didn't go well because we just couldn't make the process fast enough. Im convinced that if we would have been working in FCPX, which seems extremely streamlined for exactly this, we would have been much more successful.

So, the way I see it is: Did Apple really neglect the needs of the professional video editor, or did they just recognize, prioritize, and supremely satisfy the needs of a new kind of professional? Again this is where i see the need for a secondary or sidecar program that is optimized for the needs of cinema, broadcast and other high end markets.

That's my take on it all. Feel free to disagree. Thoughts?

Cheers,

Ben

Very interesting perspective. Thanks for sharing it.
I've been livid after waiting for 64 bit processing for 2 years . . . you've tempered my angst.

Glad I could help...? :)

Interesting take on everything. I agree for the most part. One thing is for sure...They are abandoning the pro-user for an emerging market that as Bill Gates said 2 years ago on the Today show "will be the biggest technology revolution of his lifetime". It is coming. The way that the phone, Ipad and tv will work together will only get more user friendly. As pros, we have make adjustments in what is getting ready to be a rapidly changing market. Apple is working to lead the way just like they did on their big moneymakers IPhone and IPad. Soon, they will be releasing their first tv and will continue to lead the way. It doesn't make me happy as a pro user of their software, but from a business standpoint they are probably making the best decision.

One thing that I am surly pleased with is match color in FCPX. It has taken me less than a minute to do this in 4 different set-ups in a scene. I don't need to tell anyone how much of a pain it is to do this in color or any other color detail plug-in.

I don't see why FCP X has to divide into two camps - professional and quasi-professional. I guess I don't fully understand why Apple couldn't make a product that would appeal to both camps. Essentially the software could work on two levels. For professionals, the features would be there if you want to employ them. For the quasi-professionals, they don't have to use the added complexity or learn any keyboard shortcuts.

I also wonder if FCP X does disillusion the professional market will there be support among the quasi-professionals. Developers won't develop plug-ins or software solutions for people who can't afford them. Plus, there is the aspirational element. Quasi-professionals like using the same software the guys in the big leagues use. Maybe they want to grow in their professionalism. There is a critical mass when it comes to software. I'm not sure FCP X can get that without the professional market.

I do think FCP X will get there for the professional market. It really isn't that far away IMHO. But Apple actually needs to work at it and listen to the professionals to get it to that point.

I think that the Lightroom/Photoshop analogy is non-applicable.

Photoshop's range of functionality is so vast beyond photo tweaking...Lightroom is simply a small component of its capabilities. Still photographers don't make up the majority of Photoshop users...therefore Photoshop isn't designed with only them in mind. I use Photoshop everyday...and I don't take still photos.

...and since Photoshop wasn't taken off the market and replaced with Lightroom...the situation isn't applicable.


Keep in mind that Apple has been trumpeting how credible their editing application is based on how many feature films, etc that are cut on it. As their users have sat waiting for their chosen application to catch up with the rest of the field, Apple has been promising those high end users that really great stuff was on its way. What arrived might have been great but the very users Apple has been flaunting for the past 5 years weren't considered in the feature priorities...they can't use it.


FCPX was introduced with innovations like "background rendering"...Pinnacle had a mid range NLE product a decade ago that did background rendering. The fact that Apple presents it as if they've discovered cold fusion is...pathetic.

It's as if Lightroom was introduced as the Photoshop REPLACEMENT and the inclusion of an exposure slider was the grandest thing you've ever seen as the presenter says with a flourish "That age old challenge with using 'levels' to try to affect exposure?...We've solved it with this major innovation!"

Meanwhile Photoshop users everywhere are asking "Where are the layers? Illustrator import? PDF import? Smart layers? EPS import? Support for 3D objects? Pixel-level editing? Alpha Channels?

Lightroom doesn't...and didn't...replace Photoshop.

So...I would respectfully, but forcefully, disagree with the Photoshop/Lightroom analogy.

I think the OP's analogy illuminates Apple's mindset perfectly. You're correct in pointing out that it's an 'apples to oranges' comparison - but the OP doesn't care, and neither does APPLE.

They. Simply. Don't. Care.

The OP IS the market for this product - they've hit their mark perfectly.

I think the OP's analogy illuminates Apple's mindset perfectly....

The OP IS the market for this product - they've hit their mark perfectly.

I agree with you on that point, Richard.

And...I'm not trying to say that the OP is somehow an "illegitimate" customer target, or that his feeling that FCPX is a good fit is misguided.

I was trying to point out that the comparison to PS/Lightroom is just not a good parallel for a variety of reasons...most of them having more to do with Apple's approach to all this as opposed to the product itself.

Richard I have to agree.
Way back when, Apple used to be about the Professionals. This was when you were considered a professional designer, production person etc. if you worked on a MAC. That was where they made their money.
The average consumer, was such a tiny part of computing back then. And for most technology was out of reach due to the market and price point.

That was then, this is now.
As technology has increased, and the world has gotten smaller and more information now due to the advent of the internet. So has the gap between the professional and the consumer. It's easy for someone now to work on a powerful computer and shoot with prosumer electronics than ever before.

The advent of tablets, cell phone technology, wireless technology has made if affordable and even more so very profitable for companies such as Apple to change direction in how they generate revenue.

Where the money used to be with the professionals, isn't really profiterole anymore, as the numbers dictate that it's much more profitable to go after the average consumer now as their numbers far outweigh the pros. Apple has been trying to push streaming content and workflow for quite some time now to go after the average consumer. Now while mom and pop aren't their niche, their children are, And internet and cell phone technology is leading the way.

Eventually those children and even in between get older and they become the majority and the norm.

So it's gotten to a point now, where it seems that Apple is bidding goodbye to the professionals (studios, production houses and such), and moving towards a much more profitable future with the consumer. Unfortunately it's going to ruffle some feathers as the professionals are going to feel slighted and abandoned.

But as for the big picture, Apple (which is a company who has to pay shareholders), which created their own niche with ipods, iphones, imacs etc., consumers now are where the money lies.

Smart move on Apple part for revenue means, but not the greatest for PR and the immediate future.
But given time, all of this will fade away, and some might stay with Apple if it fits their needs, and some will move to another platform.

As for myself, I actually like FCPX for my needs, DVD creation and internet streaming (personal and cooperate) video. But I am also moving back to Adobe as well. It never hurts to have your foot dipped in two pools.

Tim - I agree with you. And i guess I should have made the clarification that I was referring to PS/LR, specifically in regards to a photographer's needs. Photoshop is essentially a graphic design program that go hijacked by photographers, and s much as it fully encompasses almost anything a photographer would ever need, it's so much bigger than that. I also agree that the key difference is that LR wasn't a prelacement for PS, even though in many ways, and for many shooters, it has almost completely done that. And that's what i think apple should have done. I think FCPX as we know it is a beautiful program, but clearly not everything that everybody needs. I think they should have released it as part of the pro suite, but under a different name, and then released a new FCP as something designed to work with with all the horsepower anyone could want.

So it's gotten to a point now, where it seems that Apple is bidding goodbye to the professionals (studios, production houses and such), and moving towards a much more profitable future with the consumer. Unfortunately it's going to ruffle some feathers as the professionals are going to feel slighted and abandoned.

Everyone keeps saying this, but I think it's a serious mistake to think of this as apple abandoning the pros and turning towards the consumer. Studios & production houses used to be the only pros - but now they're probably a small (and shrinking) subset of a much larger pool of video professional. Apple's not turning away from professionals, it's turning towards the largest block of professionals.

Everyone keeps saying this, but I think it's a serious mistake to think of this as apple abandoning the pros and turning towards the consumer. Studios & production houses used to be the only pros - but now they're probably a small (and shrinking) subset of a much larger pool of video professional. Apple's not turning away from professionals, it's turning towards the largest block of professionals.

Evan, what I was meaning to say was that the Pro market has shrunk considerably as the consumer/prosumer market has grown. As the lines have blurred quite considerably between what is a pro and amateur.

The pros that seem to be very upset are the longtime professionals who work in larger studios.
Independent professionals such as myself, doesn't have nearly the overhead in which to make transitions from one app/platform to another, and simply move on and adapt and learn a new way to do things.

Everyone keeps saying this, but I think it's a serious mistake to think of this as apple abandoning the pros and turning towards the consumer. Studios & production houses used to be the only pros - but now they're probably a small (and shrinking) subset of a much larger pool of video professional. Apple's not turning away from professionals, it's turning towards the largest block of professionals.

Evan, a LOT of the features that seperated Final Cut Pro from Final Cut Express are just GONE in this release.
That's why people are saying that...
They keep calling it Final Cut PRO, but they removed most of the features that made that software package PRO in the first place. And no, not every professional needs those features, but I think the criticism is VERY valid.

I mean, FCP X doesn't even remember IN and OUT points on a clip (could be a bug though).

I mean, FCP X doesn't even remember IN and OUT points on a clip (could be a bug though).

If you use the Favorite feature you can mark multiple ranges in a clip and even give them names with Keywords. They will then show up as separate clips when Favorite view option is used with keyword displayed.

When viewing the entire clip you will see all the marked ranges with green stripe. I find this very handy. And easier than making sub clips in FCP7.

There are a lot of "Pro" features missing at the moment, but I think they will be back soon. And once you get used to the new way of using meta data for organizing media, it will be very fast and versatile.

FCPX is a whole new concept of Database managing of projects and events. It is very efficient and different than what we are used to. But I think it shows great promise.

I fully agree, Olof.

Range-based keywords is a gerat way to work through footage after getting the footage into FCP. I really like it so far, and find it superior to the subclip-method already.

If only the part when I start to edit was equally good. :D

The application has some good things working for it, and I'm very interested in seeing how the first couple of updates turn out.

In plain English, Apple slit my throat with this release. Full stop.

Back in '98 when I started media college I did something that I don't see a lot of the new breed of video professionals doing: I learned how to use the tools.

The new professionals want the tools to adapt to them, how they THINK the tool should work instead of how the tool was designed (and evolved to work). I have railed against implementing such "enthusiast" "features" as ignoring In and Out points if the user wants to add a dissolve or other effect that they have not allowed handles for.

I'm outnumbered now and I understand the business model.

I vote with my dollars and am now migrating to a solution that works for me. I JUST bought a used copy of FCS (3) so I can continue in the interim. Apple will get ONE more computer purchase out of me (iMac instead of the Mac Pro tower spec'd out I ANTICIPATED buying...) and then I'm gone.

My ire is raised by the fact that Apple has ABANDONED an industry standard tool and reallocated all resources to a prosumer level tool (right now...) that many pros will be able to use.

I'm not one of those users.

My 2 cents.

By the way, I have OWNED all my FCP/FCS versions legally since 1.0.2 and have HAPPILY paid the $800 - 1600 price tag each time, without complaint. I know LOTS of FCP editors (obviously none HERE...) who feel perfectly vindicated in "borrowing" their friend's copy or some other less-than-legal use.

Again, I vote with my dollars. Moving on...

As an ex CEO of several software and Internet companies, this whole argument reminds me of the early days of software, 1980s, when "experts" proclaimed that people should learn to use the tools rather than redo the tools so that they are easy to use and behave as you would expect.

We produced the first WSIWYG word processor and all of the old word processor companies said that people were already expert on their hard to use systems and that they would not give up that expertise to use simpler systems. None of those word processing companies are still in business - none of them.

We went through the same thing when switching from the command line interface of MS-DOS to graphics interfaces of Windows and Mac. People constantly pointed out that the command line was much more powerful if you would just take the time to learn it. No one uses MS-DOS anymore, and even the "expert only" systems based on UNIX command lines, which almost no one reading this will have used, are no housed in LINUIX and OSX graphic interfaces.

Experts will always say to stay with the old and difficult because it is more powerful, but what is more powerful - a system that is used infrequently and only by a few or a easier to use system accessible to the many.

Information follows the laws of entropy, Shannon's Law, and will expand so that it fills the maximum ecological niches and produces the greatest distribution of information. Expert systems try to go against this, and that is why expert systems always die off.

So when I here someone complain, as are most of the "pro" editing community, that FCPX is bad because it ignores their hard earned expertise I know that they are the same as the word processing experts who fought the introduction of WYSIWYG word processors with graphics interfaces.

Just so you know, I have worked on legal copies of Final Cut from version 3 to FCS3. Will it do more than FCPX - of course it will. But I also see that video is becoming the new media of communication, and that duplicates the revolution that happened when word processors turned everyone into writers. Before that writing was a specialized skill, and now it is expected. Whenever a new communication media starts to become widespread it will move from expert systems to accessible systems that grow in response to the new imperatives of mass communication.

I still do somethings in FCS3, no choice; but I recognize that Adobe and AVID are the same as the word processing companies I dealt with at the beginning of the personal computer revolution. Do not mistake short term advantages for the long term advantage of following a media revolution as it becomes democratized.

I am also a best selling author, and I found that there is still a market for my writing skills, despite the fact that it is now easy for the masses to publish their thoughts online or in print via Lulu.com and its other printing on demand competitors.

Good editing will always win. Only bad editors should be in fear, for as video becomes an instrument of person to person communication there will be lots of talents newcomers. I look forward to seeing their work.

To be clear:

I don't begrudge Apple for releasing a solution for the new breed. I begrudge them for End-Of-Line-ing a pro level tool with pro level features and then usurping that name for another product all together because EVERYONE wants to be a Final Cut Pro editor.

It's iMovie Plus, not Final Cut PRO in my (VERY biased) opinion.

ProVideo Coalition.com: the EDITBLOG on PVC by Scott Simmons (http://provideocoalition.com/index.php/ssimmons/story/tweets_from_avids_committed_to_the_professional_event/)

Avid: Commited to the Professional: At least Avid is showing where their products are moving to in the future vs. everyone guessing (like Apple rumor sites) and then all of the sudden ,,,boom,,,here it is. (FCPX)

I have heard many over the years compare word processing to film and video editing and frankly the two could not be further from each other. The cognitive processes are different, the processing power and bandwidth are hugely different, everything is completely different. "Writing with pictures" is just too simplistic.

As I said before, the pro market will complain because there is much skin in the game. A lotta money at stake in post. Sure there is a changing media landscape, but I don't see FCPX fitting into feature/commercial/broadcast post, which while declining, will always be around. Movie production requires collaboration and flexibility, and FCP7 sorta had, but threw out. And right now Avid is listening to the pro market.

I think one place for FCPX will end up being a tool for collaboration with non-editors, where the non-editors working in iMovie serve as "assistant editors" where they can organizt the content and the editor on FCPX finishes it up.

What an interesting idea, optimize FCPX as a finishing system for simplier editing content.

As an ex CEO of several software and Internet companies, this whole argument reminds me of the early days of software, 1980s, when "experts" proclaimed that people should learn to use the tools rather than redo the tools so that they are easy to use and behave as you would expect.

The editing program designed for use by editors rather than software engineers has already existed, it was Lightworks. It had a small console ‪Lightworks Touch - The Console (2002)‬‏ - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cO0-0IVEYnM) which controlled all functions instead using of a keyboard (an obsession amongst software people) and you could spin through the maternal very quickly

Unfortunately, due to poor managerial decisions the whole thing got lost.

Thanks for a very good post, Philip.

That is exactly how I feel about much of the complaints in this situation.

One thing though - it's too soon to tell if Apple will be the ones leading this revolution with FCP X. It may just be a dead end, but I think it's quite silly to proclaim that right now, instead of waiting it out for a little while to see how it develops. As I have stated several times now: some parts of the application is very good, and clear and drastic improvements from FCP Old, while other areas will clearly have to be developed if the app is to be the future.

Excellent post, Phillip! I completely agree. The democratization of anything is a scary thing for the current people in power. Again, back to my original analogy, this is going to be (I think) exactly what happened to photography 10 years ago.

For a long time, professional photography was in my opinion very static. Not much changed, there weren't many spikes in competition, and there were lots of built in barriers separating the pros from the amateurs. The equipment was more expensive, darkroom, was tough to work in and expensive, it took a lot of effort to really get your work out there, and so on. There were lots of reason why the person who isn't necessarily the most creative or the most original might stay in business for a long time, and have little reason to fear the super creative person with no resources. Then digital happened. Then software got easier and cheaper. Then the internet made it really easy to get your work in front of a lot of people. Then those who had been siting pretty on the top started getting really pissed that these "amateurs" who "don't know what they're doing" were "taking all their business".

But, let's be honest, maybe they were mad that the amateurs who, didn't know what they were doing, were more creative, more original, not stuck in the rut that professional photography had been, and were ultimately making better images that connected to more people. All of the sudden, there were very few barriers keeping out people who might really want to be involved in photography and might be very good. If you want in now, it's certainly easy enough to get in. You can no longer rest solely on the fact that you've gotreally nice equipment, or you really have a lot of knowledge about lighting or photoshop or composition. Everything is out there. The equipment is cheap and good. The software is easier than ever. Anything you could ever want to learn is on youtube. The only things that remains as a serparating factors are who's the most creative and who's the most motivated. And that's a scary thing.

Our whole country is coming off a phase where we've been essentially taught the idea that if you've had a job for a while, it's you're right to have that job until you retire. People in other industries have certainly found out that it is no longer true, and people in the photo/video world are figuring it out too. I hear it all the time: "I've been a photographer for over 25 years!" Hey, that's great, and if you're willing to adapt with your craft, then you can be one for another 25 years. But if you think that it's your right to just sit back on your job, not learn anything new or evolve with, and still get work. Sorry. Those days are over. Sometimes things change so much in a short period of time, that it really doesn't matter how long you've been doing what you've been doing,because we're all playing a new game. True, many skills from the way it used to be will carry over, be useful and maybe even give you an edge. But if you're willing to stay on the forefront of the way it happens now, now how it used to, then you're on you're way out.

That rant was very much photo related, but in my opinion, video is headed the same way very soon. Video Quality is going up and up, for less and less money. Software is apparently getting easier and fast, if you're willing to evolve with it. What used to take a whole editing house, can be done by a 15 year old on his macbook pro in his mom's basement. And it's very easy to get your work in front of a big audience. The playing field is leveling out, the pressure is on everybody, and the cream of the crop will rise to the top. Whoever has the best vision, whoever is the most creative, whoever is the most motivated, whoever makes the best content, that engages the most people. These are the new professionals. And it doesn't matter if they used iMovie or Avid, an Epic or an iPhone. Video is going from being a novelty that was meant to be made by few and enjoyed by many, to being a way we communicated and created by everyone. There will still be professionals sitting on top, with better equipment, better tech, and better skills, making the best content and the money. But it won't be because they held fast to the way it was and how it used to be done. It'll be because they adapted to the way it's done now better and faster than everyone around them. That's my plan.

I completely agree. The democratization of anything is a scary thing for the current people in power.

It's not an "in power" thing, it's recognizing that some of us have made a SIGNIFICANT investment, not only in Apple software and hardware but in 3rd party software and hardware as well that are no longer functional going forward with FCPX, at least currently.

I appreciate everyone's enthusiasm but just realize that there are a lot of people with a VERY significant investment in infrastructure who (at the moment) have ZERO upgrade path moving forward as FCPX doesn't open "legacy" FCP projects.

What an interesting idea, optimize FCPX as a finishing system for simplier editing content.

At the moment, that's exactly how I'm treating FCPX. I just did a series of different interviews within the same environment and used FCPX for the project. It was small and I wanted to explore FCPX in a real work environment. I found that it worked quickly ... especially useful was 'match color' ... !

...just realize that there are a lot of people with a VERY significant investment in infrastructure who (at the moment) have ZERO upgrade path moving forward as FCPX doesn't open "legacy" FCP projects.

Not to mention that the people with the investment have been the ones who established FCP's reputation in the market...and that reputation has been what bought Apple all this time to stop patching or updating FCP while they made this left-turn...and took that brand with them, but leaving the part of the market that anchored it off the map.

I'm not sure how a new piece of software suddenly turns you into a brilliant editor, just as a word processing program doesn't turn you into brilliant writer. There's more to it than pushing buttons, some great writers use long hand while some terrible writers can touch type on a word processor.

There are processes that a good NLE needs to do and the environment that 15 year needs to use them is very different to that required on a TV production, with a high shooting ratio, a tight schedule and TV producers breathing down your neck. Will a later version of FCP X fit into that environment? Who knows, but their requirement is different to someone basically working on their own.

In the end, this new program will offer no more than any other NLE and the creative process is exactly the same as been done for decades.

‪Battleship Potempkin - Odessa Steps scene (Einsenstein 1925)‬‏ - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ps-v-kZzfec&feature=related)

It's not an "in power" thing, it's recognizing that some of us have made a SIGNIFICANT investment, not only in Apple software and hardware but in 3rd party software and hardware as well that are no longer functional going forward with FCPX, at least currently.

I appreciate everyone's enthusiasm but just realize that there are a lot of people with a VERY significant investment in infrastructure who (at the moment) have ZERO upgrade path moving forward as FCPX doesn't open "legacy" FCP projects.

I totally hear that, and can only only imagine how much that sucks. Something tells me that Apple didn't make this decision flippantly. But I think at the end of the day, they saw something that in their opinion was a better editing option for the future. And despite the fact that there was no way to realize this new option within completely leaving behind it's predecessor, they decided to move forward with it.

I fully acknowledge that a LOT of people are getting screwed in this exchange, and I don't expect them to not be significantly bothered by it. But any time there's a large technological shift, some group of people gets totally screwed by it. When the cotton gin was invented, lots of people lost their jobs. When cars started getting run by ECU's, lots of people who were great at working on carburetors found themselves all of the sudden lost in the engine bay. When photography went digital, many people now had thousands of dollars of effectively useless darkroom equipment. It's an unfortunate reality of technological advancements that when things change, one group of people gets the shaft and another group gets hooked up.

All of this would make a lot more sense if Apple had decided to continue supporting FCP7 for quite some time, while the transition happened. It's not like Canon launched their first digital camera and stopped selling film bodies that day...

When Adobe replaced Premiere 6.5 with Premiere Pro, my large investment in Matrox Digisuite edit bays had no upgrade path as well. At the time most Premiere users in the Pro domain used Matrox and Adobe dumped us.

They had to, the code had moved on, as it has with FCPX

'' Do not mistake short term advantages for the long term advantage of following a media revolution as it becomes democratized."


I have very simple question regarding this "pro" or "prosumer" use of this software:

My last project was a 7 piece 52 minutes documentary series. We had some 30 000 clips in this project. My next project I am just about to enter is a 12 piece 52 minuted documentary series. With tens of thousands of clips.

Now, given the user interface of FCP X, I do not see how could I organize all this rushes having actually one screen setup. Because FCP X IS one screen setup, regardless the possibility to spread the interface over two monitors. It is meant for laptop, and it is OK fine, as it indicates the target market of this product.

So I commend all this "democratization" of media, but I need a tool that is more preoccupied with what I need to edit, and less with the future of the industry. We shall all meet there anyway, some will cut short stories, some huge projects. Each will choose suitable tool. FCP X is not suitable for me, whatever future brings.

My 2 piaster...

When Adobe replaced Premiere 6.5 with Premiere Pro, my large investment in Matrox Digisuite edit bays had no upgrade path as well. At the time most Premiere users in the Pro domain used Matrox and Adobe dumped us.

They had to, the code had moved on, as it has with FCPX

Back when I was a student I had an analogue Matrox capture card that was pretty much new. I found to my horror that if I upgraded to Windows XP although there would be display drivers for the card there would be no drivers for the capture portion. Ever.

I don't believe that's the only example of that kind of thing happening with their kit.

I
All of this would make a lot more sense if Apple had decided to continue supporting FCP7 for quite some time, while the transition happened. It's not like Canon launched their first digital camera and stopped selling film bodies that day...

And THAT is something I can agree with you on whole heartedly.

Both Nikon and Canon Nikon still have film cameras, although very much top of the range.

Interestingly Arri seem to have stopped manufacturing film cameras, however, since these cameras can have a working life of 20 years or more I wouldn't get in panic if you want to shoot a movie on film. I gather Paul Thomas Anderson may be shooting "The Master" on 65mm using Arri 765 cameras and these would've been made around the early 1990s.

The democratization of anything is a scary thing for the current people in power. Again, back to my original analogy, this is going to be (I think) exactly what happened to photography 10 years ago.

Good editing will always win. Only bad editors should be in fear, for as video becomes an instrument of person to person communication there will be lots of talents newcomers.

Respectfully, I think these comments are off the mark. This isn't about "people in power" or fear of change. The backlash against FCPX is because it simply removes functionality that is essential in a well rounded editing platform - basic functionality that you need to achieve day to day tasks.

An improved GUI, 64bit, more intuitive user experience, lower price - this is all great, is anyone complaining about the new bells and whistles? The negativity about FCPX is not springing from snobbery. I look forward to faster, simpler ways of doing things and I'm sure the majority of creative professionals are no different.

I'm by no means a high-end, power user. I run a very small (two person) production house. We make fairly straightforward corporate dvds and web videos. Nevertheless, in the course of a month I get a number of little jobs that FCPX (as it stands) either can't handle, or could only navigate with great difficulty. These are bread and butter tasks, things that FCP7 does without breaking a sweat.

When the new UI was revealed and new features promoted, pros were almost unanimously excited about what FCPX would be. We're not, as a community, afraid of change. But when core functionality is removed that affects our ability to work, and thereby our livelihoods, many of us feel our hands are being forced by Apple. I personally don't want to switch to Adobe or Avid - it's a hassle I can do without - but unless a lot of functionality is added to FCPX very soon, I don't see many options.

From Apple's perspective, sure, it's a smart business move. They will make a lot of money from FCPX. They are a corporation: they are about making money. Understood, but many of us who've stuck with FCP over the years naturally feel the rug's been pulled from under us, and we need to reassess our options.