Betting Everything on FCP X

Don't know if it will be true or not in a year, but they do make a case for FCP X.

[www.crumplepop.com]

Not sold at all. Quantity = Quality? That's bull. I also read one guy who'd boasted that he had cut a 28-minute show in 17 minutes on FCPX. That means he didn't even watch the thing in real time -- or the footage -- before sending it out the door.


www.derekmok.com

Well, he didn't watch it on a proper broadcast monitor, that's for sure. I can only start re-assessing FCP X after I can send shows out for an audio mix and XMLs for color correction. I see track discipline being replaced by keyword collection discipline, and online guys having to wade through a mess of an edit to find music tracks and graphics so they can get the project to the online guy.



www.strypesinpost.com

C'mon Adage, it's really hardly surprising that a company that runs a business based entirely or in some part on building and selling Motion Templates is going to have some motivation for making a case for FCP X regardless.

That said, I think CrumplePop's products are great, and I really hope they are right about FCP X. The current limitations of X pain me greatly but if Apple genuinely want to make something for the Broadcast Pro's out of this new app then I'll be very happy because its got huge potential as a powerful edit tool.

Most of those arguments can also be made about Premiere Pro. You can essentially boil those arguments down to two things: it's fast and it has a great effects architecture. I won't argue against the second one but the first is not enough to justify using it alone.

If FCPX truly lives up to its potential two years from now I may switch back, but I'm not going to wait around for that to happen and neither will Apple's competitors.

My software:
Pro Maintenance Tools - Tools to keep Final Cut Studio, Final Cut Pro X, Avid Media Composer and Adobe Premiere Pro running smoothly and fix problems when they arise
Pro Media Tools - Edit QuickTime chapters and metadata, detect gamma shifts, edit markers, watch renders and more
More tools...

"3. FCP X Makes Your Existing Hardware More Valuable"

Is that so? Under FCP X, my Matrox Mini is now a paper weight. My Sony HDTV, I can now put it in the bedroom.

My hunch is that Apple is banking on wide "mid level" adaption, fostering wide third party support. Of course that's a gamble but CrumplePop's blog is a good example of what Apple is banking on.

Andy Mees Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> C'mon Adage, it's really hardly surprising that a
> company that runs a business based entirely or in
> some part on building and selling Motion Templates
> is going to have some motivation for making a case
> for FCP X regardless.
>
> That said, I think CrumplePop's products are
> great, and I really hope they are right about FCP
> X. The current limitations of X pain me greatly
> but if Apple genuinely want to make something for
> the Broadcast Pro's out of this new app then I'll
> be very happy because its got huge potential as a
> powerful edit tool.


I agree Andy and when I read it I also thought of the same thing that since they make products specifically for Apple they have to look at the positives. And yes, I am a fan of their products as well (not too big on the name though).

I haven't used X so I really don't know personally. But one can see the lack of features. I am happy with FCP 7 as of now and I am sure it will be good for more than a year. I do occasionally cut on MC so I can go back and forth.

But I do some freelancing for a local cable station, year and a half ago they switched five seats completely from PC Avids to FCP and were happy with the decision. Now they are stuck and really have no idea what to do because Apple stopped EVERYTHING abruptly.

On the other hand that you can use FCPX on a MacBook Air (and the upcoming is rumored to have Thunderbolt) is important for field based work.

I have MXO2 so I feel your pain as far as monitoring but if you're looking for RS422 tape capture . . .

Make any statement a "universal" and you can find fault but generally for inexpensive 64bit support it's true. FCPX is a very low cost powerful point of entry and it may boost sales of iMacs with Thunderbolt ports as very low cost workstations. It think there's a lot coming into play that influences purchases that people aren't considering. Once Apple gets their file and video I/O issues worked out, FCPX is going to allow for lots of "budget" operations to get off the ground much as FCP1 and DV did.

You may apply many perjoritives to Apple but one thing they aren't is stupid. Like it or not, they're pretty good at predicting (or controlling?) the future.

With the downward spiral of budgets, there's going to be a lot of low end corporate work and maybe even low end broadcast work that may be done on FCPX in a year or so (assuming Apple adds the required features). FCPX may not be the tool for feature films for a long time but there's a vast and GROWING middle and a stagnant economy (if not downward) that will drive a lot of decisions. For facilities you may well have lots of iMacs attached to a MacPro server at some point.

>>one guy who'd boasted that he had cut a 28-minute show in 17 minutes on FCPX<<

Wow. That's so telling, isn't it? Made me feel a little bit nauseous that people think that's a thing to boast about.

Jude Cotter Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> >>one guy who'd boasted that he had cut a
> 28-minute show in 17 minutes on FCPX<<
>
> Wow. That's so telling, isn't it? Made me feel a
> little bit nauseous that people think that's a
> thing to boast about.

Sounds like a reality show on deadline. That's broadcast isn't it?

No.

Yes.

OK Craig. Sounds like a complete hack job to me, but you clearly know better. Whatever.

Jude Cotter Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> OK Craig. Sounds like a complete hack job to me,
> but you clearly know better. Whatever.

Most reality shows seem like hack jobs to me. That's the point 17 minutes to cut a 28 minute show sounds like a reality show on deadline.

Really? Reality shows have 17 minute deadlines? No wonder they all look like they were cut by a 14 year old hopped up on Frosted Flakes. This thread is nauseating. 28 minute show in 17 minutes? At a rate of $100 per hour, you would invoice for $28.00? Great. How do you bill for the new "soopah-fast FCP X"...by the minute? Jr. High schools are going to have this in their libraries. If Apple doesn't dramatically retool this dog, anyone claiming to be a "FCP X Editor" going forward will not be taken too seriously.

When life gives you dilemmas...make dilemmanade.

Joe, I think you just described the typical reality show editor at MTV. I think $28 is closer to their hourly rate though. Like it or not (obviously not though) FCPX allows one to slap things together quickly and somewhere in the world that's going to be more important than editing aesthetics unfortunately. FWIW FCPX does facilitate that.

If a 28 minute show was cut in 17 minutes, how does the editor know what all the content of that edit was?

> I think you just described the typical reality show editor at MTV.

I seriously doubt that.

What is reality? No matter how sloppy the editing is, reality is all about content -- the stuff that takes the longest to evaluate, organize, structure and edit. Reality-show producers are all about the "soundbites", and that takes time. Even with a to-the-second, on-paper "story edit", no way you can edit 28 minutes in 17 minutes.

Especially when you consider that reality is mostly multi-cam. Twenty-eight minutes in 17 minutes sounds more like a photo slideshow with music -- let's say if each slide is exactly the same length, or if the edit is strictly to the beat. And that's not editing. That's assembly.

I tried searching for that thread where I'd found that ratio posted to triple-check and see if I'd written down a wrong ratio from the guy. If I hadn't misrepresented him, I don't know what the heck kind of "show" the guy was cutting. Or maybe there was a mistake or miscommunication in the numbers. (Spinal Tap? He'd meant 17 hours?) Couldn't find the thread again, though. I had come across it while looking up Secondary Storylines. I think it was Creative Cow, and I'm fairly certain Tom Wolsky was in that thread. Maybe Tom can verify to see if I'm just insane.


www.derekmok.com

That sounds like me on a deadline. Once I cut a show by going for the circle takes and watching everything at double speed. Won't advise cutting that way.



www.strypesinpost.com