“This video neatly wraps up in a short, well put package why FCPX has become a superior non-linear editor compared to the traditional track based systems,” fcp.co writes. “Essential viewing, for your un-enlightened colleagues and friends.”
“Sven Pape very kindly sent us the link to his YouTube video,” fcp.co writes. “His new video brings the NLE debate right up to date.”
fcp.co writes, “So, enjoy the video and please share it where you can- there is still a lot of misinformation out there about Final Cut Pro X.”
Read more in the full article here.
MacDailyNews Take: Editors who do not use or, more precisely, do not know how to use Final Cut Pro X are doing themselves and their clients a disservice. They are taking longer and working harder to get to the same place.
Is all the noise we’re hearing today really coming from Final Cut Pro users who still have their previous Final Cut version(s) and already know how to properly and rationally submit feedback to Apple?
Or is it coming from non-Final Cut Pro users who see the $299 writing on the wall and realize that they’ll soon very likely have to learn something dramatically new and different from outside their comfort zone? Apple’s previous Final Cut Pro versions have not stopped working, nor has Apple stopped work on FCP X – in fact, they’ve just started working with a paradigm-shifing, extremely strong and powerful foundation upon which to build. Have a minute of patience, please. I heard the same sort of whining when we went from Mac OS 9 to Mac OS X and some had to be dragged kicking and screaming. People stopped crying over Mac OS 9 in short order, too.
Or do perhaps some editors feel a little bit threatened that “non-pro” users will be able to edit so well for so little? And/or perhaps it’s coming from Apple’s now price-demolished competition who simply cannot crunch their numbers and make them come out profitably if Apple is going to offer Final Cut Pro X for $299? – SteveJack, MacDailyNews, June 24, 2011
SEE ALSO:
A week editing with Apple’s new MacBook Pros and Final Cut Pro X – November 21, 2016
Apple releases significant Final Cut Pro X update – October 27, 2016
PC Magazine reviews Apple Final Cut Pro X: Editors’ Choice – June 15, 2016
The BBC adopts Apple’s Final Cut Pro X – September 4, 2014
Happy 3rd Birthday, Final Cut Pro X – June 20, 2014
Pushing Apple’s new Mac Pro and Final Cut Pro X to the limit (with video) – March 21, 2014
The first 24 hours with Apple’s new Mac Pro and Final Cut Pro X 10.1 (with video) – December 20, 2013
Apple aims to win over video editors with new Final Cut Pro X marketing push – March 28, 2013
Ultimate Mac: Building the Final Cut Pro X dream machine – November 9, 2012
Final Cut Pro X gets significant update with new features and RED camera support – October 23, 2012
PC Magazine reviews Apple’s Final Cut Pro X 10.0.3: Editors’ Choice for high-end video editing – February 7, 2012
Apple significantly updates Final Cut Pro X – January 31, 2012
Editor Walter Murch is feeling better about Final Cut Pro X – November 8, 2011
Apple releases major Final Cut Pro X update; debuts free 30-day full version trial – September 20, 2011
Film editor: Apple’s Final Cut Pro X is flexible, powerful, incredibly innovative software – September 12, 2011
IT Enquirer reviews Apple’s Final Cut Pro X: Very much a professional’s tool – July 8, 2011
Former Avid employee on Final Cut Pro X: Only Apple seems capable of pushing boundaries – July 5, 2011
Why Apple built Final Cut Pro X – July 1, 2011
PC Magazine: Apple’s Final Cut Pro X makes serious leaps and bounds past its predecessor – June 30, 2011
Apple revolutionizes video editing with Final Cut Pro X – June 21, 2011
FCP7 is a nightmare now. Limited on memory and crashes all the time on the several machines I’ve used it on – especially with feature length material. No point in going there. Either FCPX or Premiere Pro these days.
Yep, professional editors/post houses should switch to X. Apple has shown they are truly dedicated to professional software and hardware for the long haul.
Most of the readers here likely missed your sarcasm…
Hardware and Software?
Really ?
What hardware?
Software?
And aside from FCPX, they’ve axed Aperture, and while I’m in the professional studio business, NO ONE I know uses Logic.
But of course, perhaps you were being ironical…
He wasn’t being ironical. He was being ironic. Like Iron man singing Alanis Morissette songs.
Ironical is supposed to be an adjective, but what does that make moronical?
lol…indeed
“Editors who do not use or, more precisely, do not know how to use Final Cut Pro X are doing themselves and their clients a disservice. They are taking longer and working harder to get to the same place.”
I take exception to this TAKE.
Over the years, I, as a producer/client/media director, etc., based my editors on their ability. Being equal, the final decision reflected on my level of comfortability with the supplier to complete the job asap/on time, within the budgets set and of the highest quality.
As such, I didn’t really care what equipment was used. It was the person using them.
However, this did not stop me from encouraging my estabiished contacts to use or at least try FCPX. For all the reasons you cited.
But with the understanding that you just can’t load the application, trash your legacy systems and immediately finish off current projects.
To bring FCPX into a studio is not just updating one machine, one operator or one project.
It requires virtually everyone in the immediate chain be educated on an entirely new paradigm. It’s not like Microsoft Office or Pages importing a text file.
And more important, it’s not the cost of the FCPX application at all. it’s the cost/time of learning and getting the final production up to their/my standards. It’s the overlapping projects or services that inter-fear with the jobs in-hand.
And if I have spent a lifetime and literally ten’s/hundred’s of thousands building a successful business, it just may not be the time to experiment. If I were just starting out or had the luxury of expanding without compromising my current programs, there is no doubt that FCPX would be a dictate.
There is the old adage that, “Man is a creature of habit.” Anon.
However, I like, “The nature of men is always the same; it is their habits that separate them.” Confucius: Analects, I c. 500 B.C.
“The nature of men is always the same; it is their habits that separate them.” Confucius: Analects, I c. 500 B.C.
Yeah – and the nature of men is that they abhor change, and have to be dragged, kicking, and screaming into the future.
I’m sure Final Cut X is fine now, but what can we run it on? A laptop with 16 gig of ram? (I’ve got 24 in my 3-year old iMac.) A garbage can that Apple hasn’t touched in 3 years? An iPad?
@ Prof Sai
Ask these guys
http://www.apple.com/ca/final-cut-pro/in-action/
Meh, when I load Premiere Pro 2017, it loads ALL my audio and video plug-ins I rely on. The same is not true for FCPX. Plus, I’ve never lost a client by using Premiere Pro, nor have I gained any clients by using FCPX (or Media Composer.)
Also, I think it’s funny that the author praises the click ratio (claimed to be 1:3 vs Media Composer), but that was after praising the Audio Lanes, during which he was clicking like an overly caffeinated madman. The keyframe creation in FCPX is cool, but I strongly doubt the claimed 1:3 click ratio.
As a co-founder of a small media company…
Our problem with FCPX was with Apple’s execution, not with the software itself. I’ve been digitally editing video since the early 90s, and editing analog video prior to that. I instantly saw FCPX as having many advantages right away.
While one could argue the pros and cons of new features or missing features, overall if FCPX met your needs, it was almost from the beginning a better solution.
However, there were many things missing that came much later to FCPX that many people needed.
For us, the worst part was the inability to import previous FCP projects. We have a huge library of content and ironically importing projects into competitive software was easier than into FCPX.
The other issues had to do with uncertainty of Apple’s commitments to pros. Would Final Cut go the way of Aperture? Would Apple stop delivering hardware suitable for professional video studios?
Ultimately the death of Aperture ended up having the greatest impact on where our editors ended up… which sadly was Premiere.
Thought I recognized you.
More importantly, it got me to a great article, “Apple Updates Logic Pro X 10.0.7, Many New Features and Fixes” by Rounik Sethi, a fellow reviewer/editor
https://ask.audio/articles/apple-updates-logic-pro-x-1007-many-new-features-and-fixes
My error.
My previous reply should have referred to Matthew Loel T. Hepworth comment.
apples negligence of the Pro community will come back and haunt them real quick if they dont reverse course and get their act together immediately!
Pros are what tully bring credibilty to computing platform APPLE ! Tim and Team.
what are you guys thinking there ?
sigh.. to the obvious ……..
wake up !