Tell me what is GOOD about FCP X

[Bill Edmunds]

Man, I've been out of the loop for a while, I guess! All I read about FCP X is about how awful it is and how it stripped out many of the great features of FCP 7 (multiclip, etc). So tell me: what is better about FCP X than FCP 7? Surely there must be a few things...

[Evan Lloyd]

Long story short, it helps you get your work done faster and more efficiently. Download it and put in the time learning it. Once you do, you'll start to see the benefits. People hate change, don't believe all the anti hype.

[Jason Burkhimer]

1. Loaded with USABLE sound and video effects, title and transition generators
2. background rendering.
3. audio/video analysis on ingest for fix of rolling shutter, stabilization, color matching, crappy audio
4. optical flow w/speed ramp. (twixtor style slow/fast time remapping (decent now depending on footage, but room to improve)
5. good color correction tools.
6. fast output.

timeline is not bad when you readjust to workflow and shortcuts. turn off skimmer!(personal pref)

The biggest group of complainers are old codger editors that think anything different sucks. That is not to say that all of the gripes are unfounded. I can see frustration about no fcp7 import. various project sharing and export options, and currently no multicam.

Personally, my biggest gripe, beside the program being a touch unstable with this first release, is the inability to import native mts files from my sony fs100. Currently using clipwrap to get around the issue(50 dollar program unless you keep all of your clips under a minute, in which you could get away with the demo)

I think Apple hit a home run, honestly, and when people come around and they drop a couple updates, FCX is going to really be a hit.

-burk

[Jason Burkhimer]

...and oh yea, PRICE!! 299.99!!!

The best thing about this program is what I posted in the first couple of items in my list. The inclusion of great "looks" effects and color correction tools, eliminates the need to purchase Magic Bullet stuff(or other style grading software). The inclusion of an absolute buttload of sound effects (greatly, but not totally) eliminates the need to peruse royalty free audio clip shops. The optical flow time remapping is a very nice alternative to Twixtor, so you can save money there.

The point is, it does so much for an already great price point, and eliminates the need to spend extra money for plugins.

This is the way I feel anyway for my situation

-burk

[Bill Edmunds]

Tell me more about the color correction and video effects/filters. How are they an improvement over FCP 7?

What about compositing? Can FCP X do any? I'm thinking of stuff like multiple P-in-Ps, layers, et al.

[Olof Ekbergh]

Hi Bill,

Stop by and I will demo it for you.

Once it gets XML i/o and AJA Matrox etc. start working it will be a great tool.

Right now it is great for new work with no need to monitor on NTSC/PAL monitors.

As you know I never liked FCP much. This is the first version I am actually considering for production. I like the Metadata based organizing and I like the Timeline a lot. I always preferred the M100 A/T/B and then supers for split L/J edits, FCPX does that and more.

BTW the new M100 is very good as well. And it is still faster no rendering.

[Jason Burkhimer]

Originally Posted by Bill Edmunds

Tell me more about the color correction and video effects/filters. How are they an improvement over FCP 7?

What about compositing? Can FCP X do any? I'm thinking of stuff like multiple P-in-Ps, layers, et al.

It comes with a lot of stylized looks(film stock emulation kinda dealies) and preset image processing(that can be modified to your taste) that you usually have to pick up as a plug in.

pic in pic and other compositing is very streamlined and very easy to use in this version.

[Bill Davis]

Apple just posted 4 videos under the big photo on the Final Cut Pro home page that show the thinking behind FCP-X in various core areas.

They compare the approach of FCP-X directly to Avid and Premier workflows.

Watch and decide for yourself.

[Bill Edmunds]

Those are very cool videos and go a long ways in showing the good points of the software. What's this about not being able to reconnect media, however?

[Bill Davis]

FCP-X has a pretty rigid structure as to where assets have to be located.

FCP-7 didn't really care that much. If clips or sound files or render files got moved, you could do a "reconnect media" and it would look all over hell and back to locate them and establish a fresh link.

FCP-X's data structure is NOTHING like that. Its much more powerful relational database keeps assets in very specific folder locations that are linked to the structure of that database - so assets are PART of the whole - not separate elements that float around as necessary.

For example, the simplest way to show or not show video clips in FCP-X (for example if you don't want Client A to see that you're also doing work for Client B!) you simply move Client B's asset folder out of where X expects to find it - and X will no longer display those files until you move them back to where they're expected.

Like much of the way X operates, it's just something you have to get used to.

[Bart Walczak]

Also, if you replace a file with another version or even change the metadata within the file outside of FCPX you will not be able to reconnect.

[David Parks]

The overall interface event window is really good for editing on a MacBook Pro, skimming and background rendering.Previewing effects okay. Performance is good but no better than Avid or Premiere.

BTW, the Apple comparison video on magnetic timeline vs. Avid, and FCP7 is an insult. They compare trimming 10 tracks, 3 video and 6 audio in Avid to just 3 in FCPX.(if there are more than 3 then they are nested and you cannot see them!! Which is a problem.) And the FCP 7 comparison for clip collisions makes look it like the operator in FCP 7 is either drunk or lost. And all they can say is this is new and FCP 7 Premiere and Avid are old.

Sometimes some things just cannot be improved upon and track based timelines are here to stay.It is based on the same metaphor film editors have used since 1927!!!! I am convinced that FCPX will not make a dent into the pro market until they come back with some model that resembles tracks and a timeline that doesn't assume anything.

Cheers

[Bill Davis]

David,

I'm honestly interested. Do you edit on FCP-X or is this just your impressions of how it looks to work from watching the demos?

Everything I've read from those who use it, none of them seem concerned that X's compound clip vertical orientation provide less flexibility than the stacked horizontal linear clips of FCP-7. Just that it's a very different way to approach the issue of multiple video assets arranged simultaneously over time.

Genuinely interested.

[Shaun Roemich]

Originally Posted by Jason Burkhimer

The biggest group of complainers are old codger editors that think anything different sucks.

Originally Posted by Evan Lloyd

People hate change, don't believe all the anti hype.

Seriously... stop.

You are welcome to your beliefs/opinions about the workflow but DON'T be dismissive of the VERY well founded issues a number of those of us with a long history of working with the product have. Just because YOU don't NEED to open legacy projects (in my case going back to 1999 occasionally and 2005 OFTEN), doesn't mean some of us don't need to.

I'm SO TIRED of this dismissiveness toward those of us that REQUIRE things that FCPX does NOT provide. I know the argument: "Then don't update!"... I didn't... in fact, I'm currently installing FCS3 on a brand new iMac that I bought so that I could continue to edit.

The issue for a LOT of us "old codgers" is that FCP has been end-of-lined. That means NO MORE SUPPORT. THAT SUCKS. It means that new codecs and workflows that develop are possibly lost to us that REQUIRE a different workflow than FCPX currently has or promises to deliver.

It's NOT because we like to complain. It's that we are left in a VERY vulnerable position.

Hope this clears up some of the misconceptions around why some of us don't see FCPX as the best thing since sliced bread.

PS. I turn 40 a week today. Not sure if that makes me a codger or not...

[Craig Seeman]

I am an old codger who started in the waining days of 2" dubs. I had been in post for years when I used my first NLE. The CMX6000. I started using Avid in 1989 and FCP in 2001.

I too still have to open older projects as clients come back to rebrand and change fx for reuse. I know over time this need will fade just as my edit session EDLs saved on 8" floppies along with my favorite ADO fx on 5 1/4".

Since 1989 I thought the timeline and tracks were like a musician stuck in 3/4 or 4/4 time. I had hoped that something would supplant that organization grid. To me FCPX is like free jazz.

I can stack clips and they stay with primary clip when I move it without making complex selections. I can use secondary storylines when clips above the primary need to interact with each other. I can move things freely without having to think about clip collisions. And now I have the freedom to experiment to resolve the resultant overlaps. If my brain thinks of a clip or parts thereof as multiple categories, I can tag it for each and find the clip in each collection. One moment it's a two shot, the next it's an exterior shot and next it's in the Jersey City collection as well as the material shot in the first two weeks of June.

I certainly have serious concerns about FCPX. It reminds of a grand sport stadium in which they didn't include the bathrooms and the only entrance to the mezzanine requires a walk all around the stadium. There's lots of promise in FCPX so I do hope that Apple adds the bathrooms and conveniently placed escalators. If Apple comes through, this will be a paradigm shift I welcome.