Back to Mobile View

Skip to Content

First-Person Final Cut Pro X, Day Four: Gaining Perspective

First-Person Final Cut Pro X is the unvarnished story of one pro editor's week-long introduction to the new Final Cut.

I thought the next installment would be on trimming, but I wasn't able to write it, because FCP X failed to save all the work I did yesterday afternoon. You may have heard that there's no "Save" command in X. This is true. It just instantly saves everything you do, just like Google Docs (and just like most applications will do on Mac OS X 10.7 Lion, in a few weeks).

Unlike Google Docs, it seems that sometimes it completely fails to do this. Sigh. Apparently there have been other reports of FCP X failing to save, as well, so it's not just me.

I'm actually less upset about this than you might think. I'm not thrilled about it, of course, but I've been down this road before, back in 1999, with a new product called Final Cut Pro that professionals did not want to use because it didn't have a lot of features that professionals needed. Like, for example, multicamera editing.

From my perspective, FCP X is a totally new product that I'm testing out, and many of you have cheerfully watched me messing up as I did that; thank you for pointing out my mistakes. I don't expect X to instantly replace FCP 7. So if it doesn't have some features I regularly use, or it crashes or screws up on a project that wasn't that critical to begin with, that's not the end of the world. In fact, it's kind of expected. And having to redo the edits helps me master the program.

Furthermore, we all need to realize that FCP 7 is at the end of its road. As Apple moves its hardware and OS forward, at some point in the not too distant future that hardware and OS will not support FCP 7 and its legacy code, and so anybody who sticks with it for too long will get hosed. I suppose there is a small chance that Apple will announce that they're abandoning FCP X and will go back and just port FCP 7 to Cocoa exactly as it was, but I'm not seeing it.

[Keep in mind that there are plenty of shops still running legacy versions of Final Cut on Mac OS X 10.5 or 10.4. –Ed.]

But there are some things about the way FCP X is structured that make it unusable for certain projects. For instance, as I've mentioned, the lack of defined tracks is a significant problem. On a long project, I will segregate certain types of audio on certain tracks -- for instance, all the sound effects might be on tracks A5 and A6. The reason for this is that if the producer listens to the mix and says, "all the sound effects are too loud," I can easily find them all and lower them by 2dB.

On FCP X, I guess I would need to do this using the Timeline Index. I'd tag all SFX with the keyword "SFX," and then search for that in the Timeline Index and select all those clips and lower their audio.

I would be very reluctant to undertake, say, a 90-minute documentary in FCP X unless I knew for sure how this was going to work. And so are all my colleagues. When I first posted my FCP X experiences, my editor friends ripped me apart for appearing to defend this program too much! And a program that sometimes silently fails to save your work could be more powerful than any edit system in the world -- I'm still not going to adopt it if I can't trust it.

So I think we are all thinking about our options now. You can tell us that we're just too stuck in our ways to see the power of this awesome new program, but I've been doing this for decades now. In my career, I've already switched platforms three times: from linear editing to Avid and then to Final Cut Pro.

This would not be my first paradigm-shift rodeo. But many editors are thinking that if they have to make a change, FCP X is not their only option. In fact, the alternatives are eagerly courting FCP editors with some pretty aggressive cross-grade pricing.

Option one is to jump ship to Avid Media Composer. You could go to Media Composer today if you wanted; if not having to learn a new interface is a priority for you, its interface is pretty much frozen in carbonite, so if you used it in 1992 (I did!) you can use it today. It has all those features that FCP X doesn't. If you're a single-editor shop and you've got $2500 (or even $995) in your software budget --- just buy MC and be on your way. If you don't know how to use MC, now would be a good time to invest in learning it (there is a 30-day free trial of MC, which is not an option with FCP X). It's a great program.

Option two is Adobe's Premiere. I'm of two minds about Premiere. Don't let me stop you from buying it (or trying it), but if you weren't using it yesterday, why was that? Did it suddenly get better than FCP 7 overnight? I think that Adobe is in kind of a bind with that program. For years the Premiere market mainstay has been hobbyists. As a result, even though I think Adobe really want to make it a professional product, there are places where they are afraid to change it because they think their installed base will rebel -- just like Apple's just did. So Premiere, for me at this point, is a prosumer program with some professional features tacked on, even though Adobe is making a full-court press to convince FCP users to give it a try.

[Premiere does have native support for RED and many other formats that FCP X lacks, and if it's bought as part of the Production Premium bundle you get the advantage of dynamic linking with After Effects straight from the timeline. Premiere also will roundtrip import/export (or at least try to) your FCP 7 projects so you can choose the editor that works best for what you're doing; FCP X will not. –Ed.]

It's worth mentioning again: both Avid MC and Adobe Premiere allow 30-day trials of the application, which is crucial for effective evaluation and figuring out if the app works the way you want to work, rather than you having to change gears to work the way it thinks you ought to. Final Cut Pro X's price point of $299 is a big improvement over the FCP 7 pricing, but it would be even better with a 30-day trial in the mix; better still if FCP 7 remained available through the transition period, instead of dropping off the price list like a hot potato.

Other than standing pat for the next six months to see how FCP X evolves, the remaining option is to give FCP X a chance. Start learning it now, on the understanding that Apple will probably make big changes. Plus, even if you decide in a year that it's not the right solution for you, if you're truly a professional, it's likely that at some point somebody will ask you to use it or teach it or something, so you might as well start at least considering it now.

Professional film & video editor Matthew Levie is based in San Francisco; he produced and edited the documentary Honest Man and writes Blog and Capture. First-Person Final Cut Pro X is the unvarnished story of his week-long introduction to the new Final Cut.

Note that all opinions and assessments of FCP X expressed here are Matt's own, not TUAW's, and represent Matt's hands-on first reactions. –Ed.



Categories

Software Mac

I've been down this road before, back in 1999, with a new product called Final Cut Pro that professionals did not want to use because it didn't have a lot of features that professionals needed.
 

Add a Comment

*0 / 3000 Character Maximum Comment Moderation Enabled. Your comment will appear after it is cleared by an editor.

55 Comments

Filter by:
Buzz Mega

Thanks Matt, for this series. To those of us who started on FCP 1.0 up to the present, it seems that Apple has thrown out the baby with the bathwater. A few features that need exploration and which have not been discussed by anybody I'm aware of are the institution and handling of keyframes. You can keyframe lots of things, but once you place them; they're gone from view. Sliding one to a new time is frankly impossible. Slipping a group into mutual alignment can't be done at all. There is no graphic representation of where they are. A keyframe laid is a keyframe lost to visibility forever.

Also, the positioning controls are substandard. If the standard was FCP7. You have X / Y and angle controls on lots of things, but to quickly move something, you have to click-hold-move in the number field in the Y direction for both. You can't click on any part of the control indicator except for the dim, microscopic number field to drag out a new position.

For the Angle change, you click-hold-move in an X/Y spin direction. And the previously wonderful clockface-analogy angle indicator is completely absent in FCPX.

Who came up with this profoundly crippled interface? An artist? A technician? A programmer? Certainly not someone concerned with ergonomics.

And there are more deficiencies. Wait till you get to scopes. Or perhaps I should say Mega Scopes. Scopes as big as God.

More here: http://www.hdslrreview.com/HDSLRreview/Software_2.html

July 06 2011 at 1:00 PM Report abuse rate up rate down Reply
timb21

The concept behind this series would have been great if paired with an FCPX expert who could provide the answers to Matthew's questions and if there were no answers say that too. Instead what we were left with was a beginner's guide to FCPX but instead of being written for the beginner it was written by the beginner. Interesting idea and don't forget you learn by your mistakes.

July 05 2011 at 8:48 PM Report abuse rate up rate down Reply
Actionable Mango

"Option two is Adobe's Premiere. I'm of two minds about Premiere. Don't let me stop you from buying it (or trying it), but if you weren't using it yesterday, why was that? Did it suddenly get better than FCP 7 overnight?"

It got 50% less expensive overnight.

July 05 2011 at 6:57 PM Report abuse rate up rate down Reply
DJ

Yikes! Lot's of hostility here.

Hi Matthew-
For what it's worth, I've been finding these articles very informative. I'm mainly an AVID guy. I haven't used FCPX yet, and only occasionally use FCP7 for work. So far your articles have been addressing a lot of questions I have about the new FCPX.

July 05 2011 at 4:27 PM Report abuse +1 rate up rate down Reply
2 replies to DJ's comment
Vertigo

DJ, the problem is that these articles are NOT informative. Most of the things he is saying are missing are not missing. Many of the features he claims FCPX can't do it actually CAN DO. That's the problem with this series. Someone like yourself might form opinions about the software based on a bunch of false facts.

July 06 2011 at 12:27 AM Report abuse rate up rate down Reply
Cris Colbert

DJ ~ Ok, since you've chimed in so many times; which is it? Have you used FCPX or not? Because lower early on in this conversation you said that you have used it for several days when someone challenged your opinion. Now you are saying that you haven't used it. So what's the truth? And why do you feel such an overwhelming need to defend Matthew?

July 06 2011 at 1:21 AM Report abuse rate up rate down Reply
Vertigo

No new article posted in this series today. Are we to assume that the smarter people at TUAW returned from their long weekend and decided to listen to the commenters and pull this terrible series?

Or did the writer finally realize he is committing career suicide?

July 05 2011 at 2:22 PM Report abuse rate up rate down Reply
rochlis2

"I will segregate certain types of audio on certain tracks -- for instance, all the sound effects might be on tracks A5 and A6. The reason for this is that if the producer listens to the mix and says, "all the sound effects are too loud," I can easily find them all and lower them by 2dB."
Hello Matthew ,
You still can though the issues are as you say let me suggest can make a a compound clip with the effects and use it like a track or even group depending on your layers.
--D

July 05 2011 at 10:03 AM Report abuse rate up rate down Reply
2 replies to rochlis2's comment
djbtv

When you are looking at 12-20 tracks of audio that need to be discrete and adjusted as a track and exported to Pro Tools... FCPX has no real solutions here. Trackless editing is good for simple projects but not for actual television editing. Compound clip will not work for a 2 hour History Channel special. I'm sorry. FCPX is still just iMovie on steroids. Maybe one day but NOT today. Not even close.

July 05 2011 at 10:55 AM Report abuse rate up rate down Reply
natcreat

It remains to be seen, but it's not beyond the realm of possibility that senior TUAW editors came in and pulled the plug on this travesty.

Misinformation, whether born of laziness or prideful ignorance, is never a good thing.

July 05 2011 at 5:01 PM Report abuse -1 rate up rate down Reply
Wintergreen

Why is it that none of these so-called pros are willing to discuss the most important missing professional requirement: It is utterly impossible to online anything created with Final Cut Pro 10. So yeah, cut your digitally sourced material, publish it to youtube and ireport. But if you're working on a film, what are you going to give your colourist or neg-cutter? If someone can provide a reasonable answer to this question, I'll start listening to people who claim to speak on behalf of other professionals.

July 05 2011 at 6:13 AM Report abuse +1 rate up rate down Reply
1 reply to Wintergreen's comment
djbtv

Many Pros are talking extensively on this. The pro that wrote this series was merely journaling his initial experiences trying to learn the new application cold. Your concern is a huge concern. That and the lack of audio tracks and even with automatic duck no way to reliably export those audio tracks discretely to go into pro tools for audio post... is what is making the vast majority of pros switch to Avid and/or Premiere.

July 05 2011 at 10:50 AM Report abuse +1 rate up rate down Reply
1 reply to djbtv's comment
scamsnl

Not (necessarily) to question your claim, but FCP X has been out all of, what, two weeks? Do you have concrete numbers to convey just how large this "vast majority of pros" is that are switching? Coming from the pro audio side of things, I can understand editors' concerns, even if I don't fully understand the specific issues they're talking about, but trying to get an idea of the severity FCP X's faults is hard when all I'm reading is vitriol and hyperbole.

July 05 2011 at 7:01 PM Report abuse rate up rate down
Richard Strong

This is supposed to be one editor's "unvarnished story of his week-long introduction to the new Final Cut" but this article is spent telling people the merits of alternative NLEs?

July 05 2011 at 4:14 AM Report abuse -1 rate up rate down Reply
philipamanha

So many aggressive and useless comments here. One of the features of final cut "pro" x is that you can import from imovies. That tells everything. Final Cut x is for youtube "professionals" and the language of people here defending it is a perfect match to youtube comments. An editing software that fails to save? And people consider it revolutionary? Really. Of course, When final cut 1 started there was a lot of doubts about it but that was about twelve years ago, in the "infancy" of off line editing. Start from the scratch now? Really. Good luck, youtubers "professionals".

July 04 2011 at 7:24 PM Report abuse +1 rate up rate down Reply
2 replies to philipamanha's comment
Cris Colbert

Yours happens to be the most useless comment here today. Like could you get anymore snobbish? Editing software that fails to save is a genuine concern. It's actually called a bug. One that will undoubtedly be resolved quickly, like most all bugs are. And really FCPX is revolutionary in that it is the second real imagining of how a non-linear editing system could work.

I will be so entertaining to watch a year from now when all you knee-jerk thrashers will be eating crow, and looking for work because you've been replaced by someone who isn't so adverse to change.

July 04 2011 at 7:34 PM Report abuse -2 rate up rate down Reply
djbtv

"When final cut 1 started there was a lot of doubts about it but that was about twelve years ago, in the "infancy" of off line editing. Start from the scratch now? Really. Good luck, youtubers "professionals"."

Thank you. Exactly.

July 05 2011 at 10:56 AM Report abuse +1 rate up rate down Reply
David H Dennis

I remember trying out Media Composer and finding it awfully clunky to use. If my memory serves, you had to change into various modes, and in each mode some commands were available and not others, and it was a royal pain to figure out what would work and what wouldn't. Is my memory correct? Are there advantages to this setup that were not apparent in my admittedly short demo use?

The only thing that really bothers me about FCP X is lack of RED Support - I want to buy a Scarlet when it comes out. Fortunately for me, I suspect RED Scarlet will be out at about the same time as RED support for FCP X. I'm afraid my two favorite companies are about equally tardy :(.

D

July 04 2011 at 6:23 PM Report abuse rate up rate down Reply
Buy an ad here

Tweets

© 2012 AOL Inc. All Rights Reserved.