FCPX: A Pro Photographer/Video Noob's POV.

[Henrik Reach]

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.

[Shaun Roemich]

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...

[Philip Lipetz]

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.

[Shaun Roemich]

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.

[David Parks]

ProVideo Coalition.com: the EDITBLOG on PVC by Scott Simmons

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.

[Philip Lipetz]

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

[Brian Drysdale]

Originally Posted by Philip Lipetz

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 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.

[Henrik Reach]

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.

[Ben Fullerton]

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.

[Shaun Roemich]

Originally Posted by Ben Fullerton

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.

[Dean Harrington]

Originally Posted by Philip Lipetz

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' ... !

[Tim Kolb]

Originally Posted by Shaun Roemich

...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.

[Brian Drysdale]

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

[Ben Fullerton]

Originally Posted by Shaun Roemich

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...

[Steve Connor]

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