On other boards I frequent, the angst appears to be starting to drop away and the grown ups are starting to seriously discuss the massive and fundamental changes that have resulted from the ground up re-imagining of FCP-X.

And the discussion is FASCINATING.

The hidebound thinkers on both sides (my perjoritive view only) are still spouting either RUN AWAY or ITS THE SECOND COMING OF THE EDITING DIETY. But as the dust finally settles, most of us can see that both views are silly, particulary since even after weeks, most people are still barely getting their brains around such a fundamental new approach to editing software.

It's interesting that the people most encouraged by the new build are those who have come to a rapid understanding of the core distinctions. (database structures, trackless modes, clip connections as links between datapoints across media groupings rather than strictly linear tracks, etc, etc, etc.)

Clearly FCP-X is NOT a simple re-arrangement of what an NLE used to be.

I'm interested in hearing from those who are actively learning/using it here on DV Info as to what you've discovered that's caused you to "think different(ly)" about editing.

Is your brain stretching to re-imagine things? Are you getting knocked out of the discovery stream because this is simple TOO different?

Are you still seeing only what's NOT there? Or are you discovering new stuff that you've never considered before?

I'm truly interested.

I sense greatness once I get proper IO. The problem is that the review films are hardwired to old paradigms and actually hide what is in FCP by trying to explain how to do the old things within the old philosophy but not the new things within the new philosophy. I would love to do a crowd sourced book on that.

I really like what I see in FCPX which makes me that much more impatient for the improvements it needs. The database metadata of clip organization has power that's fairly easy to see.

I think people are having a harder time grasping the timeline and how it can be powerful. Key is that it builds on clip relationships in time rather than strictly time based relationships. Clip Connections and Storylines, which are also connected, allows for some potentially very powerful vertical stacking. Key, and often overlooked, is that you can also move the connection points such that a clip or storyline can connect to any given clip and frame that lies directly beneath it (therefore overlapping in time). It reminds me of the NLE equivalent of a Nodal Compositor. It's never been done before in an NLE though. To use another analogy it's like 3D chess compared to old fashioned checkers.

I think Craig just hit on what I don't like about the magnetic timeline. Time base is what editing is all about. Timing,,to music, to narration ,,to a time guide,, . Maybe FCPX should keep the magnetic timeline for rough editing,,,where you can build the story,,,and then switch to a tracked based timeline for tightening everything up. I tried editing a music loop tonight and it was a huge pain. Since it wasn't my primary storyline I had to create a compound clip of the same music duplicated four times and then switch back and forth to edit the loop tighter. It took me much longer than if I had a dedicated audio track.

I don't like all of the clips moving around,, timeline management is important to me and the mag timeline is just too free form for me and the way I like working with clients, multiple versions, and editing to time.

I hope Apple adds some of the pro features back in and allow for more control over the timeline. Seriously, any experienced editor knows how to maintain audio sync and doesn't need help from a magnetic timeline.

There are some cool concepts here and there,,, but just let us turn the magnetic time line off on tracking and I think that would help.

David if you put your music in the Primary Storyline, everything can lock to it clips can connect to the music beats as can Secondary Storylines. Key is that the music, which you want everything to lock to, is the primary storyline. Then you can build all sorts of composites and FX geared towards hitting the beats. Actually editing to music is one of FCPX strong points in my opinion. And if you needed to edit the music, Connected Clips and Secondary Storylines would remain locked to the beats no mater how you cut it.

Over and over again, I keep seeing the same thing.

People don't like FCP-X - because it doesn't work the way they THINK it should work - but when they start to understand how it actually works, they start to see that it does a LOT of what they thought it couldn't do - it just does it in a different way.

This is part of what's messing everyone up - being mentally stuck in how the existing FCP works.

That seems to be the biggest stopper to learning how the new one ACTUALLY works.

(this doesn't negate the things it doesn't do that it's older brother can do much better after the 10 years of solid incremental development - but that's another story.)

I'm starting to see that this reality is the source of quite a bit of the frustration out there.

FWIW.

Key, and often overlooked, is that you can also move the connection points such that a clip or storyline can connect to any given clip and frame that lies directly beneath it (therefore overlapping in time).

Silly question, but one that has cost me quite a lot of time already - how do I move the connection point? As in, I have two clips, one connected to the other, but it is connected to the start of the "main" clip, and I want to move the point (not any of the clips), so that the top one moves with the particular part that is important for sync...

So far I have just been working around, editing it in way too late so that it connects with the right part, then ripple'ing/moving the top clip so that it gets the right position. Very very cumbersome.

And I had the same problems as the other guy when making music video type shots. So used to video above the bar, sound below, but after a couple runs I figured out that the music was indeed the primary storyline on a project like that, which actually made a lot of sense, and helped things greatly. :p

I thought the major problem was that you couldn't use FCP7 projects and it can't interface with software that professional editors are using. The timetime editing itself looks quite similar to Sony Vegas.

Hold down Command Option then click on the TOP of the clip or Storyline that has the Connection you want to move.

Example
Command Option click on TOP of the Connect Clip and it will change it's connection to the Primary Storyline at that location.

Instinct would lead you to believe you should click at the bottom where the connection point is but it's the TOP.

I have to keep repeating it because people will do this wrong a thousand times and not get it.

Thanks a lot! That sounds exactly like what I've been looking for, and I have indeed tried many combinations of modifier keys and pulling at the connection-point itself. :D

The thing is, I haven't bashed FCP X for my inability to do this, as I have assumed it's pretty straightforward - I just haven't had the time to do any real tutorials etc. yet.

David if you put your music in the Primary Storyline, everything can lock to it clips can connect to the music beats as can Secondary Storylines. Key is that the music, which you want everything to lock to, is the primary storyline. Then you can build all sorts of composites and FX geared towards hitting the beats. Actually editing to music is one of FCPX strong points in my opinion. And if you needed to edit the music, Connected Clips and Secondary Storylines would remain locked to the beats no mater how you cut it.

I'm not editing TO the music, I'm editing the music. I'm editing to make a 30 second piece time to :60 seconds. And it has to sound right and seamless. You illustrated my point perfectly. I don't want to edit to the beat,,I don't want to connect to the Primary storyline.

Bill, As an editor I shouldn't have to adjust to the software this much,,,I'm hanging in there with this software,,but you will never to convince me it is reaslly powerful. Avid is way more flexible,,it doesn't think for you,,but allows many avenues for an edit workflow strategy.

Cheers.

I'm in total agreement with Bill in that people are just starting to get their head round it. The best example I can make is that early on a lot of 'experts' were telling people that Events=Projects and Projects=sequences

Once you get into it you see this is wrong Projects=projects withe the organisation of clips moved to a new idea called events. It needs to be treated as a whole new way of working without trying to relate it to the workflow in FCP7 as hard as that is

Are these events in anyway related to the use of the term "event" in Sony Vegas? There each event seems to be "each piece of media placed in the timeline", so I'm curious if the FCP X usage (events) refers to something similar e.g. a set of media joined together in the timeline.

Of course, Apple could've just gone their own way, but both NLE seem to be basically timeline editing.

I waited 2 years on a shift of Final Cut Pro to the way the market was going.

We need metadata of all types at ingest and beyond, we need text<-->voice, we need speed.

Now that we have FCP-X and CS5.5, I have come to appreciate FCP7 more. I love it.

But... FCP-X is so fast in finding and previewing stuff. It's clumsy in places (if a few clips are over another set of clips, why can't you do a fade transition? Why are video transitions still glued to audio transitions?) but its heart is in the right place.

But if a cameraman hands over a card, I can get a good glimpse of what's usable with skimming.

What we need are the third parties to mend all of FCP-X's ills.

The 'magic' chromakey and colour correction plugins are baked to amateur perfection, but I just want to apply a neutral look and bend it. Yet the half baked controls lack the precision and the control of something like Colorista (the built-in controls do the same thing as the FCP 3-Way colour corrector in that the toe is connected to the ear rather than being independent). And again, the 'Key' plugin is eager to please, but it lacks subtlety and follow-through. No subtlety, no pixel-peeping control to compensate for electronic sharpening, light wrap and DCT artefacts.

On and on through the feature set, it's a good elevation of iMovie to a more controllable level. I do believe I will be editing with this in a year's time.

Just not now. If professional editors are spending time trying to work out the metaphor, then it's not a pro package. So many times, I've hit a brick wall with the interface suggesting a situation and the UI not allowing me to do it. You can't turn to a client and say 'Computer Says No' and still proffer an invoice.

Premiere's an interesting 'alternate reality SciFi FCP5' that my PC clients use, FCP7 is still a monster editing program that's better than I realised, Avid gave me scars, and I won't abandon Mac hardware again, so I'll dilute my skills with CS5.5, FCP7 and FCP-X.

We're not talking 3 brands of piano here, it's Piano, Harpsichord and Rhodes. Big difference, small window.

Thanks, Jobs. Thanks Ubilos. Way to go. Strike 2.

Well, after using FCPX since its release I have to say that I really overall like the application very much. I cannot see myself going back to FCP 6 (which I used so far) . I don't have the same (and very well known) complaints that the "pros" have about the app.

But besides the bugs (I think there is definitely some memory leak, after a while working I have to logout and login again) and some other stuff my major complain is about the "missing" sound editing features. As everyone knows - the sound is 80% of the experience and with FCPX it is simply impossible to make a good sound mix. And if you export the sound and edit it in another app you have the issue with changes on the timeline. I really hope Apple offers a solution for this soonish.

More FCP X thoughts digitalfilms (http://digitalfilms.wordpress.com/2011/07/21/more-fcp-x-thoughts/)

Oliver Peters says why FCP X won't work for professional feature, commercial, or corporate editing and how film schools may not teach FCPX. He also doesn't see FCPX as an appplication really changing much.

Read the whole blog, Frankly I think the magnetic timeline and lack of tracks has painted FCPX into a corner.

I and some other editors out here are in agreement that FCPX v. 15?? will work if they use the current timeline (storyline) for initial rough cut and then a traditional tracked interface for more complex timeline.

Cheers

Sorry, but your language is unsupportable.

You probably meant to write "Oliver Peter says why he THINKS FCP X won't work for professional...

And why he doesn't THINK FCPX as an application will change much...

Nothing wrong with having opinions.

But Mr. Peters was quite careful to note that these were his opinions, not facts. And while he has supporting ideas for many of his contentions, he is quite clear that his thinking is based on not just his personal experience, but his suppositions and guesses as well.

My guess is that while he's right about much of what he says - he's ignoring the fact that to succeed, even WILDLY - FCP-X doesn't have to supplant FCP-7 in it's users hearts. Those are $1000 a seat editors.

It merely has to attract and satisfy $300 a seat editors. A TOTALLY different group.

We're all obsessed about what it means to people JUST LIKE US.

But I suspect Apple has figured out that as much as we think WE should be the center of the editing universe, we might not be that at all. Not the way things are going.

It doesn't really MATTER if FCP-X is superior to or inferior to or merely different from FCP-7.

What matters is whether it will find it's own audience and satisfy them.

I bet it does in spades. Because every young person I know (rightly or wrongly) views video editing as no more daunting than word processing.

Yes, yes, I know that to do it professionally or even really, really well in an amateur sense takes huge amounts of skill and dedication. But Apple believes that there's a much more massive group of people who simply need to do it "adequately." Exactly like most people who use word processors to write aren't high-end professional writers - just people who need to communicate efficiently via text.

But we're making a HUGE mistake if we think that "professional editing software" is something that must be big, expensive, complex, and reserved exclusively for the use of "professional editors."

Cuz actually it's not. A whole slew more people than ever before might want to try their hand at the video equivaent of writing their novels and spouting their poetry and doing their own business letters - video style!

And what if FCP-X turns out to be PERFECT for that?

Time will tell.

Speaking to an editor friend, he feels that the magnetic timeline is intended to be touch screen friendly for use on iPad type machines.

There are a whole raft of people who don't need a full range of NLE facilities and many don't do much full on track laying. This is a different group of people to those who do and need to make changes to the various tracks up to the last minute.

Prosumer is a person who can deliver pro level results at consumer level prices. The 90% rule. Most people will not notice the difference between something done fully and something with 90%. Right now FCPX cannot deliver the full 100% but might deliver 90%.

When I look at most indie feature films, and the Academy Award nominated shorts and I saw them all, I see film making at all levels down at 90%. Is it reasonable to think that they need 100% editing solutions?

The big commercial films cannot be done with FCPX, simply impossible; but the art house and direct to DVD or download films can.

With the dSLR and video cam revolutions the lower end market will grow to be bigger than technically expansive films. Such film makers will value speed and ease of use over the last 10%.

When I ran software companies I knew that the last 10% cost more than the first 90%. In the last few years a strange thing has happened to software, most companies only create the the first 90% in first releases. And it works, look at the iPhone iPad App marketplace.

People now value diversity and segmentation more than technical perfection and universality. It has changed the economics of the software industry, and soon look for this to happen for film making.

You say that the end result will be the loss of big income? Tell that to the makers of iPhone iPad Apps whose companies are valued at billions of dollars, more than some film studios.

Sound track laying is one area where a low budget feature can punch higher than its weight. The process is time consuming but makes a real difference, however, even 90% is a lot of work and you still need to be pretty demanding.

Usually the difference between the awarding shorts and many others is the quality of the acting and the script rather than the kit used.

I'm sure Apple are aiming at a larger market than higher end professional, who have demands that wouldn't be so affordable to people who don't need those features.

I'm in pretty much the same camp as Bill & Brian.

I think that FCP-X will succeed on it's own terms, even if it doesn't suit my needs, professionally. After all, I'm only 1 of about 2,000,000 seats of FCP "classic". If FCP-X sells 100,000 seats in it's 1st 12 months, that's a pretty hot piece of software, and a noticeable chunk of the editing market.

And there are a LOT of people for whom FCP-X has all they need and is better suited for their workflow and deliverables. People who are doing events, small to middle sized industrials, local TC commercials, web destined docs & narratives, etc.

Also, as I've said elsewhere, if you plan to work with indie film makers, it's in your best interest to know how to get what you need out of their FCP-X project and into your own set of tools.

Hold down Command Option then click on the TOP of the clip or Storyline that has the Connection you want to move.

Example
Command Option click on TOP of the Connect Clip and it will change it's connection to the Primary Storyline at that location.

Hi Craig ... I must be missing something. No amount of clicking top/bottom/anywhere with command and option held down, will move the connection point from the primary clip to another clip above it.

What's am I doing wrong?

move the connection point from the primary clip to another clip above it.
I'm sorry but this doesn't make sense.
I don't know what "primary clip" is and you don't connect to clips above, you connect to clips below.

You move a connection from a Connected Clip or Secondary Storyline to a clip beneath it on the Primary Storyline. You need to click on the top of the Connected Clip or Secondary Storyline.

I'm the guy FCX should be perfect for. I do news out of a backpack. Speed is really important to me. In theory I should be really happy with FCX. I can use footage from small AVCHD cams with it and it devours DSLR footage without burping.

But after all these weeks of thrashing it, all these weeks of tutorials, I find that working with the magnetic timeline is way slower than tracks in FCP7.

Everything I shoot has two mono tracks of audio. All that mouse clicking to adjust the levels independently grows old after a while. J and L cuts take twice as long as FCP7. Frame-accurate editing takes many mouse clicks.

The magnetic timeline is too clumsy for what I do. I've given up.

I like the skimming. I like that FCX is usable with a small laptop screen. I like how you can start editing as soon as you stick a card in the reader. I like being able to insert stuff without collisions. But it's just too slow, too clumsy in the actual editing.

That doesn't mean I think it's a bad program. I've recommended it to a number of people who want to step up from iMovie. It's very good for someone who only does video every once in a while. I'm sure a lot of really good work will be done using FCX. It's what iMovie should have been all along.

But for day-in, day-out production, it needs a way to set frame-accurate in and out points QUICKLY by looking at the audio waveforms, it needs a way to turn off the magnetic timeline, it needs a way to default to dual mono audio tracks on the timeline, it needs a way to set target tracks, and it needs a way to turn off auto-save so I can more easily make multiple versions of a piece. It needs better tools to manage media and It needs more fine-grained control over text and keyframing. I need to organize clips free-form. I don't think these are esoteric or unusual needs, limited only to the exalted editors in hip edit suites with leather couches and huge client monitors. I think every editor needs these things.

I'm particularly disappointed in the database structure of this program. The lack of bins, folders, sequences, etc works against creative editing. It seems to drag us back to the old concept of film edits and logging tape: The footage gets logged, then someone who isn't looking at the footage comes up with a script - the script being the organizing mechanism for the story, a set of instructions for a monkey to follow later to assemble edit into a final piece.

I don't want to work that way. I don't want to enter metadata on my clips. I want to organize by sight and sound! I want to organize by putting stuff in containers and piles, not by doing a search. I want to edit the story using sound and vision - which is why the skimming is great. Why take the non-linear out of NLE? Sure, give me metadata - auto generated by image recognition and voice recognition and time code - but don't make me enter it!

I really really want free-form organization in bins as I'm editing.

(And a rigid database structure? If I move or rename a source clip outside of FCX, everything comes to a screeching halt. Really? Why isn't it object oriented like the rest of the operating system?)

Anyway, that's my opinion. I think the core structure - database & magnetic timeline - is a real negative. I think the surface stuff - skimming, easy effects, format-agnostic timeline, etc is great.







On other boards I frequent, the angst appears to be starting to drop away and the grown ups are starting to seriously discuss the massive and fundamental changes that have resulted from the ground up re-imagining of FCP-X.

And the discussion is FASCINATING.

The hidebound thinkers on both sides (my perjoritive view only) are still spouting either RUN AWAY or ITS THE SECOND COMING OF THE EDITING DIETY. But as the dust finally settles, most of us can see that both views are silly, particulary since even after weeks, most people are still barely getting their brains around such a fundamental new approach to editing software.

It's interesting that the people most encouraged by the new build are those who have come to a rapid understanding of the core distinctions. (database structures, trackless modes, clip connections as links between datapoints across media groupings rather than strictly linear tracks, etc, etc, etc.)

Clearly FCP-X is NOT a simple re-arrangement of what an NLE used to be.

I'm interested in hearing from those who are actively learning/using it here on DV Info as to what you've discovered that's caused you to "think different(ly)" about editing.

Is your brain stretching to re-imagine things? Are you getting knocked out of the discovery stream because this is simple TOO different?

Are you still seeing only what's NOT there? Or are you discovering new stuff that you've never considered before?

I'm truly interested.

Bravo to that last message! All I can say is that I feel exactly the same way. I LOVE apple and FCP7, and while I think X is a great program, it just doesn't work the way I like to edit. I, too, have recommended it to friends, but it's not for me.

If you told me a year ago I'd be using Premiere, and considering a switch to PCs, I'd have laughed at you!

Best,

Ben

+1 - but I rather hope that in 9 months time I'll be on FCP-X.

Skimming, favourites and keywording (assigning to bins) is great. I actually love the new re-timing tools. But I too find the magnetic timeline more of a hinderance than a help.

It also breaks the fourth wall with subclips not taking transitions unless they are, in some kooky way, made into sub-stories (sob stories?). I cannot use the built in chromakeyer, colour correction tools and associated stuff, so have to wait for third parties to fill in the void. ToD BITC is too difficult,

I still haven't forgiven Avid's scars in my early experience, but Premiere Pro is sort of like FCP5's lost brother with mysterious ways and interesting approaches to work. However, not perfect.

Loving (absolutely LOVING) Audition (how dare Apple give us this STP mockery!), Encore and especially AE (welcome back). Worth the upgrade for those alone. Even if I do stick with FCP7.

But I do remember FCP1 & 2 weren't exactly great to start with, which is why there's a little space at the table reserved for FCP-X if it matures well.

I don't want to work that way. I don't want to enter metadata on my clips. I want to organize by sight and sound! I want to organize by putting stuff in containers and piles, not by doing a search. I want to edit the story using sound and vision - which is why the skimming is great. Why take the non-linear out of NLE? Sure, give me metadata - auto generated by image recognition and voice recognition and time code - but don't make me enter it!

You don't HAVE to use metadata at all!, you can use Keywords in EXACTLY the same way as you use bins, set a keyword like "Bin1" on 1 clip. then simply drag all the clips you want to put into the "bin" on to the keyword in the event library, no other input required.

I am completing my first long form project with it (for a client) and I am overall impressed. I purposely picked a simple on the effects, but a cutting complex project to start serious editing on it. There are lots of small complaints I have (and have sent to Apple thru the feedback menu) and more every time I use it but the experience of tagging, skimming, cutting and trimming is better than any other program I have worked with. The magnetic timeline was initially hard to get used to but aside from a few quirks, it is a big timesaver. At first I didn't understand the method to do split edits but once I got it, L & J edits are a breeze with the magnetic timeline.

Audio has been good for me as well although I would like to see a return of increment buttons on the adjustment sliders. The immediate access to pan filters and EQ is great. Immediate access to the color corrector is good as well but I found the color wheels in FCP 7 easier to use and more intuitive. Also the color corrector's exposure and saturation tabs are too similar looking which has caused me some confusion. Key frames are not implemented properly yet in the inspector window although once you have set them it's easy to adjust them. The memory leak is clearly a problem on my 2009 8-core and I find quitting and rebooting the program a couple of times a day helps.

I see an upwards evolution of this program. Right now it stand next to FCP 7 (and in few ways surpasses, in other ways lags behind) as an advanced editing program but not as an advanced professional finishing program. Perhaps Apple isn't interested but hopefully those ingenious third-party developers who have brought hundreds of add-ons to FCP 7 will be able to step in.

After this last workshop and getting real-world feedback from pro and high-level amateur editors FCP X certainly has it's niche, but put simply it really is iMovie on steroids.

The biggest issue I see with the interface - as mentioned several times here - is that it *forces* a complete re-think of how to do your work rather than giving you more options.

There were two warning signs to me which direction "X" was headed; One, when it was announced that the guy who created iMovie 6 that everybody hated was developing FCP X and; Two, during the first public release of the feature set that FCP would "automatically fix white balance/camera shake/exposure..." etc.

That's clearly an iProduct methodology, to have the software immediately make decisions for you rather than be creatively open and free-flowing.

Like most, I still love my FCP 7 interface and workflows, but for me extending capabilities isn't trying to find workarounds for FCP X it's instead adopting Production Premium CS5.5 which after having it around for a solid month has clearly shown it's strengths far beyond FCP 7 and FCP X put together.

FCP X doesn't fix anything unless you want it to.

I for one can't think of anyone being bothered by the \option\ of analyzing clips on import... Then again, people are bothered by the strangest things.

There were two warning signs to me which direction "X" was headed; One, when it was announced that the guy who created iMovie 6 that everybody hated was developing FCP X and; Two, during the first public release of the feature set that FCP would "automatically fix white balance/camera shake/exposure..." etc.

I hate when things float around on the Internet and a vast majority are still uninformed. "That guy" isn't known for creating iMovie 6, but for creating Premiere and then creating Final Cut Pro. His name is Randy Ubillos.

The second thing is that automatic isn't bad. In fact, every automatic feature in the software doesn't apply itself. It just analyzes. Then you can turn in on or off per clip to see if it did anything you liked.

With all the gripes, Final Cut Pro X can ingest, sort and preview your clips faster than 7, Premiere CS5 and others. Everything else will come in time. I do want to export or round-trip to Motion or AE or even Logic. I hate that you can't do that. Everything else seems like minor complains of using something new. And I have minor complaints about every piece of software, especially CS5, not because it's new but because there are still some bugs they have never fixed.

:-)

I am just finishing three projects with X next week. All for serious clients but for very different purposes. When I have time I will summarize the experience, positives and negatives.

However I will leave with this thought: FCPX was designed by a set of very, very smart but very stubborn people. Back in 2008 Apple put a help wanted ad for a working video professional (not a software programmer) to oversee the development of what became X. That ad (which I answered but was never contacted) remained up for over a year. The more I work with the program the more I feel that if they ever actually hired someone for that position that they were routinely ignored or were a team "yes" person afraid to say anything to raise the ire of Ubilios (who might be the nicest guy on the planet for all I know). Anybody who is surprised by Apple's ingrained stubbornness hasn't paid much attention. That said anyone posting here could advise Apple on how to improve the solid foundation of X. The fixes are clear.

Can't wait to read your experience with X.

Three projects:

1) 20 minute DVD loop for federal agency. Content: various short films produced by high school students delivered in various edit-unfriendly formats (h264, WMV). This was an interesting job to try on X. Some of the films were in weird frame rates (31fps for example) and mis-exported aspect ratios. This would be problem in FCP7 as well but I know what to do there. First I tried to work with the raw files in an HD timeline but that proved to overwhelm X so I used Compressor 4 to convert everything to ProRes. This took almost no time and I went back to work. Unfortunately the WMV files didn't transfer the sound (the video looked fine) so I used MPEG Streamclip to make ProRes file which had the audio and looked just as good. Afterwards I easily constructed the program with graphics titles imported from Photoshop. Fixing the messed up aspect ratios was easy in the Inspector window with the X/Y scale adjustments although X lacks the simple ratio adjustment of FCP7. A few minor audio adjustments which were easy to accomplish. I sent the completed program (unrendered, I have turned background rendering off) to Compressor 4 and created MPEG/AC3 files for DVDSP as it needed loop programming.

A simple job with some difficulties outside the scope of either X or 7. Verdict: X worked fine, no net gain or loss versus 7.

2) Test web series for major publisher, for internal use only at this point. The project consists of short programs containing single answers extracted from longer interviews. Each interview generates four or five short programs in a series. Each series has it's own opening and closing which is identical, only an title card containing the question and the footage of the answer changes from program to program. After creating the openings and closings which was relatively easy for this project using the title generator and some graphic stills provided by the client I set about skimming the interviews for suitable material for the programs. The method of creating favorites within a single clip to isolate potential material proved to be very useful and easier to use then markers in 7. Unfortunately writing in the note column of the Clip browser is an erratic thing, sometimes you can, sometimes you can't. I am not clear why. Needs to be fixed. Where X really shined here was in the Replace function. All I had to do was duplicate the first completed program and drag the clip for the next program into the previous clip selection. X asks how I want it replaced, I picked the standard replace function and the new clip is placed in the timeline complete with previous transitions intact and the timeline length adjusted accordingly. A quick test of the transitions, perhaps a small adjustment, change the question title and it's done. Very efficient for this job and the result impressed the clients.

A modest, perhaps simple job but not without importance. Verdict: X was an improvement over 7 for the specifics of this job.

3) A 40 minute documentary for internal purposes for a client. Rough material consists of 7 hours of interviews shot on HDV, various bits of video footage from iPhones, consumer still cameras and DVDs. Capturing the HDV footage from a Sony camera was easy and without any problem. The odd files from phones and still cameras had to be dealt with on a file by file basis. Some just dropped in, others needed conversion in Compressor. X uprezed the footage very well. The client provided timecode numbers of potential footage which was easy to access by skimming and using favorites made picking clips out of large file captures simple. Building the project was mostly easy and the magnetic timeline became very useful once I got the hang of it. The same with "L" & "J" split edits, once you understand the method it becomes easy. A sticking point is when I wanted to remove a clip that had still overlays or titles but keep the stills. Here I had to convert the clip to a "Gap" to keep the shape of the timeline otherwise overlays will disappear or the timeline will collaspe in strange ways. This project used a lot of stills and music files. Stills are not the easiest to work with but no worse than 7. Animating movement is not well implemented as the key frames are hard to turn on or off. Where in 7 once you started key frames in a clip every time you changed a parameter in the course of a clip 7 adds a new keyframe. In X you must initiate a new key frame in the inspector before changing a parameter for animation. Prevents accidental keyframes but annoying when I was used to the other method. Unfortunately the key frame button highlights with the same color as an activated keyframe, confusing. Part of the documentary had a live music performance but with horrible audio. The producer had a professionally recorded version of the song which was at a slower tempo. Thru the Retiming editor I was able to slow down the video footage to the recorded music by dragging the end of the clip using the audio waveforms on the timeline as a guide. The footage slowed down nicely. Very nifty. Audio control on the interview clips was easy via the inspector. No more splitting the files to isolate non-microphone tracks, just switch to dual mono and shut a track off. If I wanted to manipulate the two tracks separately I turned the clip into a compound track and separated the audio tracks there. That way I never lost sync in the main timeline. There are many audio options in X such as a 31 band EQ immediately available for every clip. There are several useful preset pan filters as well. The draggable audio fades available on every clip in very nice. The color corrector is OK but I don't like the way it's arranged and you can't type in values, only drag sliders. The same issue is with other adjustment sliders, some you can type in values but none have single increment buttons. Why? Makes no sense. The waveform monitor is good but way it is displayed is limited. It's not resizable as in 7. Unfortunately, just like 7, X slows down when you add a lot of stills to the timeline, I'll have to think of a work around the next time. The credit title scroll generator got goofy when I tried to have different font colors and sizes within the roll. It did work but not without strange behavior. The font color picker is incompletely programed compared to the vastly inferior titler in 7. Frustrating. The finished product came out very well on BluRay and DVD.

A decent experience even when interrupted by having to consult the X help file to get up to speed on certain functions. Verdict: I would definitely choose X again for another documentary if I was going to complete the audio myself. Sending the audio out to an audio shop at this point would require a costly third party option that I might get if the budget was there. Until multi cam comes to X, I'll stick with 7 for those jobs and those jobs only (like in two weeks for a public television program). Otherwise X was wonderful for scrubbing footage and trimming edits on the timeline. The magnetic timeline is 80% there, very very useful. Media management is much better than 7 but oddly implemented. The included filter, effects, sound effects and title templates are everywhere from tacky to excellent but I'm glad they are all there. Frankly Apple needs to address the odd deficiencies of X that aren't even in the realm of highly advanced editing. I found that quitting and restarting the program helped performance on the documentary when I would notice functions slowing down. In 7 I never had to do this but I do remember that 6 and earlier would occasionally need to be closed but not like X presently does. The smaller X projects never needed rebooting so perhaps it's a project size issue. Certainly X is using many more resources live than 7 does.

William,
Thank you very much for sharing your experience.
I am planning to start with Larry Jordan"s tutorials next week with fcpX istalled on my laptop. It is obvious that on FCPX if you try to use your intuition you can lose time. So I'll start with tutorials and move on slowly, I am pretty confident that the moment I get in use with FCPX way of working I'll install it on the edit stations and start tu use it on a regular basis.
Thanks again for your input,
Eugen

A very good review/opinion of FCP X

https://www.editorsguild.com/Magazine.cfm?ArticleID=1016

I am being approached to edit a dramatic feature in the coming months and I am not comfortable initiating the job on X until Apple activates XML import/export. It's the color correction and special filters that I am worried about although X is certainly good with these features. There are just many more options available in 7. If the job happens soon I will use FCP 7 but I will miss the footage organization in X.

I have a hunch we will see an update to FCPX within the next two weeks or so. It might impact your decision. Apparently Apple met with some VARs (why VARs I don't know) at IBC and said some things that those are under NDA about.

That is curious. Perhaps they are worried about the long history of hardware/software sales that went with FCP.

Hopefully the promised update is soon.

I have a hunch we will see an update to FCPX within the next two weeks or so. It might impact your decision. Apparently Apple met with some VARs (why VARs I don't know) at IBC and said some things that those are under NDA about.

There is a guy over on another forum who is a Apple Certified Master Trainer, quite switched on with FCPX and helpful, he posted just recently:

"Apple has told a fellow trainer that we should see updates in Sept and Oct. We'll have to wait and see what happens."

I guess that ties in with you are saying.

Personally FCPX is almost ready for 100% of what I do. The issues I have are with stability. For example if you have any "bad" fonts that can make the titling inspector unstable and cause FCPX to crash. That is NOT professional grade behaviour.

I've yet to edit a complex timeline with FCPX due to these stability issues but I am confident it will provide me with a great way of putting together my material (PSC, Cinema Direct, etc) and it would have saved me lots of time on ALL of my previous projects (shorts, features, fiction and non-fiction).

For me, FCPX represents the digital equivalent of cutting and splicing physical film, which I am very familiar with having been through the Super8 days.

J-cuts and L-cuts are extremely easy compared to previous NLE I have used (all the way back to Ulead Mediastudio) - this alone is a killer feature for me because I seem to do so many.

I just don't trust FCPX stability to invest time in anything but simple projects right now.

I do agree that this is more like iMovie than FCS - however, iMovie would always drive me nuts which is why I went with FCS eventually.

With FCPX, I believe Apple is making it even easier for an artist to express himself with motion picture, not harder.

I think Apple is taking this position because they know those who prefer the FCS way (with a high degree of collaboration with other departments) will go with Adobe. Let's not forget that FCS has been pretty stagnant the last few years (as have most other NLE, reaching a plateau of editing features and GUI presentation) and a bunch of FCS/FCP developers were fired/left a few months ago. It's almost like Apple were cutting Adobe some slack to get CS5(.5) up to speed from Carbon to Cocoa or whatever it was that made Adobe leave the Apple platform for a few years (probably they thought Apple were doomed along with the rest of the tech industry). Apple have waited until there are alternatives on their platform before killing FCS (even though I hear FCS has been partially resurrected in terms of purchasing/support).

For me, Adobe CS is just too much. I'm a simple guy when it comes to my own projects, an auteur.

As for Hollywood features - even Walter Murch is back on his Avid.

Differentiate or die - I think we can all agree that FCPX is at least different.

But, yeah, FCPX has been a PR nightmare. Which has led to mindshare.

About VARs.
It was likely Apple, not the VARs that setup this meeting. Given that FCPX is designed to sell hardware, I think Apple is interested in keeping VARs in that loop. I personally believe you're going to see some new directions as part of FCPX. I think a MacPro redesign with hooks into a server based solution. FCPX metadata seems pointed toward some very sophisticated control, not included in FCPX.

I don't think Apple is intentionally ceding ground to Adobe. It's just a byproduct of Apple's rebirthing of FCPX in a new strategy. It will be very easy for those moving to Premiere to go back to FCPX if/when the time comes. Only Premiere left Mac, not Photoshop or After Effects so there was no "doom" involved. When Premiere left, it had undergone a major rewrite and FCP1 left little room for Adobe to get a foothold in the Mac NLE market.

FCPX has a couple feature implementation issues that go far beyond broadcast/feature markets. Multicam, which Apple has already said it will add and, handling of Dual Mono. It handles the latter poorly. Even Expand Audio/Video doesn't show two audio tracks. You have to Detach Audio in order to have control of both tracks in the timeline. This also means Dual Mono isn't handled in the Precision Editor. There are workarounds but they're all awkward.

Apple also needs to make a better case for Connected Clips and Secondary Storylines over Tracks.

BTW amongst the rumors is that SoundTrack Pro, or equivalent, may resurface soon. It may simply be Logic Pro X in the App Store.

Apple needs to get the APIs out to plugin developers as well.

I suspect the next couple of updates will bring on FCPX like gangbusters. The first one coming in the next couple of weeks will be telling. I suspect by November it'll be much clearer where Apple is headed.

This isn't iMovie Pro by a long shot. A more elegant GUI doesn't diminish what's going on under the hood.

Connected clips and secondary story lines were beyond me at first but once I figured it out (connected clips at least) they are very, very useful especially when working with splitting audio tracks into dual mono tracks. It's not the ideal way to work with those audio issues but it works.

This is why I wonder if Apple ever had a working videographer in the development loop. Anyone who shoots interviews solo will have at some point recorded two different mikes on the stereo tracks and needed independent control during the edit. I just filmed and edited a multi cam interview with a seasoned news pro (he's on every night on a cable network and has a booming voice) and a interviewee who could barely talk due to an illness. That was easy to adjust in 7, in X besides the lack of multi cam I'm not so sure how happy I would have been.

I'm finding not being able to have multiple tracks is a bit... limiting, if not annoying. If I correct some footage and I want other clips to have the same brightness, contrast, color-correction, or whatever, I'd just drop clips on a track I set up with those settings. Now I have to copy the first clip's attributes, then drop those on each and every subsequent clip I want to match. That seems like the hard way to do it, and it increases the likelihood I'll miss one.

You can save your own presets in the color board.

Yes, I understand that. But I would still have to apply those presets to each individual clip, rather than having them applied automatically if I had the presets on a track.

It's not impossible to work around. It's just not as well thought out as some of FCPX's other features.

I seem to remember that I was able to apply a copied preset to a selection of clips but as my edit station is not in front of me I can't verify that until later. I am starting a new 30 sec. HD commercial project today on X that has to be delivered for weekend broadcast tomorrow, wish me luck.

The commercial is edited and running as we speak. I didn't get a chance to try to paste a color correction across a series of clips but I did try to copy an adjusted audio filter to two audio files and couldn't do it. The audio filter really helped the voice over so I typed in the adjustment values but I would have preferred to copy and paste ala FCP7.

FCPX is not great when it comes to building a project to an audio file as I had to leave a gap clip over the audio track for the entire edit or the edit would collapse in weird ways when it was removed. Layered video tracks don't take transitions unlike layer tracks in FCP7 unless you turn them into compound clips.
This could be solved by having a choice of replacing gaps only where you drop the clip even if that means there's still gap fillers on either side of the clip. This would keep the project the same length. Some of the included blur transitions worked great so I was happy to have them available and I used a couple of filters to give some very flat graphics a breath of life.

Edit rating FCPX versus FCP 7: 60/40
Plus: built in audio and image filters, built in transitions, clip scrubbing and favorite marking.
Minus: track layering needlessly hobbled

William,

When you say you used a "gap clip over the audio track for the entire edit" do you mean that you put the gap & video clips on the main storyline with the audio as a connected clip?

Just trying to understand, I feel like I'm doing the exact same thing but completely different, by putting the audio on the main storyline as the base of the edit and then using a secondary storyline to place the video.

Yes, I understand that. But I would still have to apply those presets to each individual clip, rather than having them applied automatically if I had the presets on a track.

It's not impossible to work around. It's just not as well thought out as some of FCPX's other features.

There's keyboard commands to apply color correction from previous, two edit prior, three edits prior. You can also Copy and Paste Effects although that copies everything if you have other effects. Also have you tried creating a Compound Clip of all the targeted clips and then pasting the Color Correction? Also creating a Secondary Storyline, selecting the Storyline "bar" above the clips and pasting the Color Correction? The latter allows you to paste to the entire "track."

William,

When you say you used a "gap clip over the audio track for the entire edit" do you mean that you put the gap & video clips on the main storyline with the audio as a connected clip?

Just trying to understand, I feel like I'm doing the exact same thing but completely different, by putting the audio on the main storyline as the base of the edit and then using a secondary storyline to place the video.

Let me say that I am a horrible instruction reader but perhaps that's from giving up after years of trying to deduce equipment from poorly translated instructions or reading software instructions written by engineers (good programmers don't always make good writers), so I don't try until I hit a blockage.

Unlike 7, you can not just build an audio track and then introduce the video later. X wants something in the main track at all times if there is audio. As I had a VO track that was in two pieces to accommodate a sound byte from a video clip and a 15sec music loop that needed work, I set a gap to the time of the commercial and went from there. This forced all the video clips to be overlays as using the replace function on the gap clip (which I found so useful on another job) caused the magnetic timeline to wreck the audio edit I did already. Finally I made the selected video clips into a compound clip where I could apply transitions. If there is a better way to do this, I'm all ears. This was a rush job and I was editing to the VO.