155 replies to this topic

[Sao_Bento]

Figured it might be useful to have a thread to discuss the new version of FCP.

Here are a few links to summaries from the FCP Supermeet at NAB;

http://fcp.co/final-...in-june-for-299

http://www.electroni...inal.cut.pro.x/

http://www.macrumors...rmeet-coverage/


Did I mention it's hella iMovie??
Some people expressed disbelief that the software that was previously $999 was now $299, but I imagine others thought "they are charging $299 for iMovie????"

I bet places like Baseline, who just released a $999 plug-in for FCP aren't so thrilled about the new hobbiest pricing.

[Duder]

"It's magical" - Steve Jobs

[Aaron Scott]

Ugh.

Most of the new features announced -- 64bit, unlimited memory, real-time hardware rendering, etc -- are features that Premiere has had for an entire version already. Other features, like the redesigned timeline, are clearly catering to the iMovie crowd looking for something a little more powerful, and don't really help professional editors. And I guess Studio was killed off?

Maybe my mind will change once I've actually used it, but so far it just looks like it's trying to play catch-up with Premiere.

Yes, ladies and gentlemen, we're at the point where Final Cut is playing catch-up with Premiere. Hell hast frozen over.

[Sao_Bento]

I suppose it depends on what OS you run. For Macs, Premiere has only really had maybe two usable versions (CS4 and CS5) and It's "real-time" power is largely dependent upon your hardware. FCP will undoubtedly need Lion and one of the 2011 Macs to run at top speed / 4K, but for the average soccer dad (who the new FCP seems to be aimed at) buying a mac and FCP may be a simpler choice than finding the right PC/Graphics card/Premiere combo.

Now that Adobe is infatuated with making iPad finger painting apps instead of professional tools, I'm not sure what the future for our industry really looks like.
I'm quite disappointed in the whole lot. Are you seriously telling me that Randy Ubillos is the only guy on the planet who knows how to make a non-linear editor??

P.S. Supposedly Premiere still has lots of 32 bit processes going on (certainly in the area of plug-ins).

Ugh.

Most of the new features announced -- 64bit, unlimited memory, real-time hardware rendering, etc -- are features that Premiere has had for an entire version already. Other features, like the redesigned timeline, are clearly catering to the iMovie crowd looking for something a little more powerful, and don't really help professional editors. And I guess Studio was killed off?

Maybe my mind will change once I've actually used it, but so far it just looks like it's trying to play catch-up with Premiere.

Yes, ladies and gentlemen, we're at the point where Final Cut is playing catch-up with Premiere. Hell hast frozen over.

[Mylenium]

I suppose it depends on what OS you run. For Macs, Premiere has only really had maybe two usable versions (CS4 and CS5) and It's "real-time" power is largely dependent upon your hardware. FCP will undoubtedly need Lion and one of the 2011 Macs to run at top speed / 4K, but for the average soccer dad (who the new FCP seems to be aimed at) buying a mac and FCP may be a simpler choice than finding the right PC/Graphics card/Premiere combo.

I don't think that is a valid comparison. Those "soccer dads" would be just as happy on an average PC with a cheap GeForce and a reasonable processor. It's enough to decode and manipulate a single AVCHD/ HDV/ H.264 stream. It's also kinda circular argument - by defining specific OS versions as a qualifying factor, Apple in a way is just making sure specific hardware requirements are met. If you could do the same in the PC world, then this would be a level playing field. However, since it isn't and people are trying to run PC software even on the most atrocious netbooks one could imagine, it considerably skews perception and makes any PC software look somewhat pale.... I mean, there are people trying to run AE CS5 with 2GB RAM! Put a PC and a Mac in a similar price and performance range side by side and install comparable software, and you will see comparable results. You can't even blame graphics hardware or any of that, as likewise Apple with their limited selection of models make sure it's "certified hardware" to begin with...

Now that Adobe is infatuated with making iPad finger painting apps instead of professional tools, I'm not sure what the future for our industry really looks like.

*lol*

Are you seriously telling me that Randy Ubillos is the only guy on the planet who knows how to make a non-linear editor??

I guess the foretold disappearance of Avid is now postponed, huh? I could imagine quite a few happy faces outside the Apple world on this rainy morning today...

Mylenium

[AromaKat]

I vote its time to drop "pro" from the product name. My opinion may change after using it first hand, but I'm betting that soon shops wouldn't be caught dead telling clients they are fcp based any more. Its just screams cheap / consumer now .

Edited by AromaKat, 13 April 2011 - 06:31 AM.

[parallax]

Imagine something you want to make. Ask yourself the question: does my current setup limit me in any way? The anwser is probably 'no'.

Welcome to the age of plenty.

[Aaron Scott]

I suppose it depends on what OS you run. For Macs, Premiere has only really had maybe two usable versions (CS4 and CS5) and It's "real-time" power is largely dependent upon your hardware.

The hardware limitation is weird. The new Mercury playback engine is fantastic, and it works on all CUDA cards... then they go and artificially disable support on almost all of them. The fact that you have to sneak into the Premiere directory and change a text file just to get the better playback engine is... weird.

I guess the foretold disappearance of Avid is now postponed, huh? I could imagine quite a few happy faces outside the Apple world on this rainy morning today...

I'll admit, I was really hoping for a finishing blow to Avid, but I guarantee that Apple will make 100x the money targeting the casual user. They could have either gone more or less professional, and it's clear they don't think the professional side is where the money is.

I vote its time to drop "pro" from the product name. My opinion may change after using it first hand, but I'm betting that soon shops wouldn't be caught dead telling clients they are fcp based any more. Its just screams cheap / consumer now.

Again, funny how things have flipped. For years, most professionals wouldn't be caught dead admitting they used Premiere. A lot still wouldn't. I wonder if we're a couple years away from Final Cut being the stigma and Premiere being the standard.

Aww, who am I kidding. The hardcore editors will use Avid, Final Cut users will upgrade and say "well, at least it's not as complicated as Avid", and Premiere users will continue to operate in secret, feeling slightly dirty but unsure as to why. And the world will keep spinning, spinning, spinning.

Or maybe X is fantastic and amazing, and I just don't see how yet.

[AromaKat]

Again, funny how things have flipped. For years, most professionals wouldn't be caught dead admitting they used Premiere. A lot still wouldn't. I wonder if we're a couple years away from Final Cut being the stigma and Premiere being the standard.

Autodesk Smoke may silently be triumphant within the pro market, especially with it being offered for OS X now.

[mario5]

screenshot:




Auditioning Demo




They're not dropping the other apps. Apple has said that this was just a sneak peak of FCP X & "stay tuned".

[Mylenium]

I'll admit, I was really hoping for a finishing blow to Avid,

You evil little boy! ;-) Dunno, Avid has been making great strides in Media Composer 5 and it seems they are back on track. I'd hate to see them bite the bullet as to me, it still is the most efficient editing system once you get over the various oddities and old-fashioned-ness.

and it's clear they don't think the professional side is where the money is.

I'm sure they would love to take that money, but outside FCP they lack commitment on that end because their impatience for the quick buck doesn't give their apps time to mature enough based on a broad user base and in turn they would not assign enough R&D effort to it. You know, just like After Effects has crept in all our workflows over the years, Apple would have to have thought more long-term with e.g. Motion.... One could even argue that FCPs success was a lucky accident because at the time Avid and Adobe were not part of the game. I'm not sure if it would have the same success in a more competitive environment or if conversely Apple would not long have pulped it if it didn't generate as much money as it did...

Mylenium

[boy.finley]

Before the announcement I joked with one of our editors that it would be gutted of features & released exclusively through the App Store for £50... BUT, this actually looks like a really solid release with a lot of good new features? Are people upset because it has a more contemporary UI? Are huge price cuts really a bad thing & do 'hobbyists' really spend $300 on editing software? This seems all good to me.

[wysee]

Still sceptic..
but why not , it's not because it looks like iMovie that it is iMovie. What iMovie user cares about a resolution/codec independant timeline ? 4K ? native RED file ?
more user friendly doesn't mean bad. And sorry if some pro-users like to be spread over the world how pro they are because they're using Avid and not FCP, or FCP and not FCE..
As I said... I'm quite sceptic but really open to see all these improvements.. There is also a lot of features I really don't want to lose.
As a new software, we can't expect a good enough / pro version until V.2 at least..
I will definitely buy and test it on my own side, but I will not change my 10 seats company until a long time.
I love the metadata / smart folder management / the auto-sync features... if all of these actually work.
Nothing about video cards for now... Does my Kona 3, Blackmagic HD will work..??? when ??
What about the link to other softwares ? Protools ? After effect via XMLtransfer or whatever..
But the idea of putting one of these in a new sonnet box with thunderbolt on my laptop and finish work home and or wherever is nice..
the increase in performance sounds great , no more weekends to transform R3D in prores.. great... as much as the actual version and a good workflow do 95% of what I want it to do..
I really want to use it, some features looks really great... but I'm scared...

[Mylenium]

I don't think anyone scoffs on the UI - I actually like it and it looks a lot cleaner and better organized than the current one. The rest we'll just have to see when people start using it. If it works as marketed, it will be fun. The main point of concern is compatibility in all directions and that is a big deal, no doubt. All this smart rendering doesn't do you any good if it doesn't work with your hardware... I also think until they provide some info about the fate of the other studio apps, people will remain skeptical. Using DVDSP and Compressor is just as important to many of them.

Mylenium

[kitkats]

Until we see exactly what's missing (if anything) it's too early to write it off.

Jobs' idea of professional has never meant technically competent so much as creatively enabled. There are quite a lot of editors, one-man-bands and producer-directors out there who don't understand the deeper technical stuff. And with it changing every year or two why should they, if the tools are powerful enough to do everything they need them too? I guess I'm kind of talking about what was once called 'Prosumers'. I don't know that Apple ever intended to kill Avid so much as make a better Premiere (which was awful at that time), eg. affordable yet fairly powerful desktop NLE, and got lucky with the timing in terms of the developments the hardware then took.

[boy.finley]

Mostly commenting on posters here and elsewhere saying things like 'its just so cheap / it looks like imovie / they've finally abandoned the pro users..' etc.

Agree that there are always plenty of reasons to be sceptical about ground-up re-writes.

[jayfaker]

My only speculation would be to assume the $299 price tag is for FCPX only, available as a separate app downloaded from the Mac app store (just like the iWork/iLife apps are now sold separately), and NOT the studio bundle. To sell it separate from a bundle means they can stop spending extra money developing Final Cut Express by making it cheap enough that Pro/Express users will both pay for it.

But will that mean more work on the consumer side, and less work on the pro side? I dunno. I hope not...

Ground-up rewrites are cause for skepticism for sure, but I think they are more welcome than stagnation and waiting for another company to come up with the next big thing. After Effects may be getting faster, and that is nice, but I'm sure many would like to see a ground-up rewrite / paradigm shift to make what was once great and innovative into what could be great and innovative NOW. Especially where there seems to be no signs of up-and-coming competition to usurp the 'innovative' position. Well, perhaps Apple has something in mind with Motion, but like Mylenium said, it's gotta be good and have a long term plan.

Edited by jayfaker, 13 April 2011 - 02:22 PM.

[J Montreuil]

While, I understand people are concerned with the iMovie-ing of FCPX, I doubt that the feature to handle 4K streams is aimed at the consumer level.

I think this release might be focusing on streamlining the process to allow the editor to focus on being creative. Parts of FCP before were aimed at a hold over from the film editing process. Maybe this is aiming towards phasing that out and focusing on digital workflows?

I don't really think a $300 price tag is aimed at the consumer. Who knows what will even happen with the rest of the Studio bundle.

All in all, I think we should wait for a more comprehensive reveal before we cry the end of Final Cut.

[jayfaker]

Full-length video of the announcement: Part 1, Part 2

[ianfreeze]

I don't think anyone scoffs on the UI - I actually like it and it looks a lot cleaner and better organized than the current one.

How can you get more organized than 4 windows? Bin, viewer, canvas, timeline.

The interface was a byproduct of almost a century of editing technique from the moviolas to flatbeds. Viewer and Canvas and a bin just make sense to me as far as editing is concerned. Now instead of the viewer we have an event library? I don't want the computer to tell me what kind of shots I have or whatever the hell the event library does, it's my job to know that. It wasn't broke, no need to fix it.

I am aware that my hatred of the new UI is probably not shared, but I learned avid, and switched to FCP because it worked the way I thought an editor should work. Now it doesn't. Hence the