FCP X Now available to buy and download from App Store

[David Tamés]

Originally Posted by Paul Curtis

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

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

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

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

[Chris Hurd]

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

[Heath McKnight]

Chris,

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

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

Heath

[Heath McKnight]

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

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

AppleInsider | Apple recommends yet unreleased OS X 10.6.8 for Final Cut Pro X users

heath

[Craig Seeman]

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

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

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

[Barry Gribble]

Originally Posted by Craig Seeman

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Craig Seeman]

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

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

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

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

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

[Barry Gribble]

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

[Rick L. Allen]

FCP X is DOA.

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

FCP X is the upgrade from iMovie not FCP3.

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

[Barry Gribble]

Originally Posted by Craig Seeman

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

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

[Craig Seeman]

Originally Posted by Barry Gribble

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

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

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

Loading…

What is Apple doing with QuickTime? | The present and future of post production business and technology

[Heath McKnight]

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

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

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

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

heath

[Craig Seeman]

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

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

[Barry Gribble]

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

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

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

[David Tamés]

Chris wrote:

Originally Posted by Chris Hurd

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

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