Do I need (or want) FCP X?

[Janke]

I don't think so...

Took a look at the trial - sure, it's quick (but, if you're used to the old FC, that is quick, too), it does handle the T2i/550D's h.264 files in real-time, and has it has a great color corrector (I did all the corrections in this test in just a couple of minutes)... but:

The assortment of transitions proves (to me) that this wasn't produced for serious pros, but for home users and maybe some prosumers...

What professional would need these transitions, anyway:



... and I have no idea why the 16:9 info was lost when exported...

[Almohada]

Wow those transitions are so cheesy... those are right out of transition packs... from 10 years ago! Lame.

[cgbier]

FCP X is built up on iMovie. How many upgraders from iMovie would be miffed if they had lost all their fancy transitions they use on a daily?

I don't like the silver inlay on the shifter in my Kia either due to cheesiness, but I still bought it.

[Dr. Benway]

Wow those transitions are so cheesy... those are right out of transition packs... from 10 years ago! Lame.

Best transitions - the jump cut or fade to black. Who needs clock wipes?

[Janke]

FCP X is built up on iMovie.

Yes, and it shows...

How many upgraders from iMovie would be miffed

It's been the FCP people that have been miffed, not the iMovie users, if I've understood it right...

Best transitions - the jump cut or fade to black.

Indeed. In a tight spot, I might use a dissolve.

Who needs clock wipes?

Not me!

What I did like in FCP X was the color corrector; intuitive, fast and very easy to use.

[homestar_kevin]

FCPX is very nice and very fast. Is it as professional as FCP7 or Premiere Pro yet? No, not at all.

It's also had one update so far, where as 7 had 6 prior versions, than it's stream of updates, and Premiere has also had a ton of updates.

I bought FCPX this summer fairly cheaply to get used to working with it and I really like the interface. It's fast, and a lot of points remind me of premiere.

I'm excited to see where they go with it.

THey didn't get everything right, but the stuff that's right is really cool

[Janke]

I've now played with the FCP X demo for a while - it has lots of pre-defined effects, for sure, but where are the garbage mattes, the chroma-keyer etc? Those are the things I need, not fancy frosty or sunset colors, or cheesy transitions. I used the Help menu, but it gave no results for matte, garbage, green screen etc. I have them in FCE...

Are all those missing? Or am I missing something despite looking?

One more thing: Even though I don't save my changes when quitting, they're all there the next time I open the program. How come?

Also, the rolling shutter filter isn't very smart; if I select only the part of the scene that needs it, that part will be zoomed in quite a bit, which jumps badly. If I render the whole scene that contains one whip pan, it just takes forever. I can do it manually in FCE, probably faster, too...

No, FCP X is not for me. Thanks, though Apple, for letting me try it before committing to buy. I think I'll have to get FCS as long as it is still available...

[cgbier]

Chroma Key (better than the old one) is in the effects folders. Garbage mats are available as free plugin (I thought I put up a link somewhere), or you roll your own in Motion. I'd recommend every buyer to also get Motion. It is now the development app for a lot of things in FCP. The predefined effects can be changed to your liking in Motion (Open Copy in Motion), then published back to FCP - much deeper and better integration than the old version.

Rendering goes faster than with FCS2 on my 2010 MBP.

FCP is not for everyone. I like it.

[Janke]

Thanks for that info. I'll have to look deeper.

BTW, I'm now uploading a demo of a non-zoomed rolling shutter fix that I just did in FCE, it will be in the "Observations" subforum as soon as the YT upload is finished.

Rendering goes faster than with FCS2 on my 2010 MBP.

How much faster?

[cgbier]

About 10-15% for an h.264.

[cgbier]

There's, btw, a new Episode of Macbreak Studio that discusses increased rendering speed in FCP X. Get the beefiest GPU on a BTO Mac for FCP X.



It's supposedly 7 point some minutes long, but breaks off after 4:32 with me. Maybe you're luckier....
(It's not on the Pixelcorps Podcast list yet).

[Randy Malone]

Aparently it is getting better what with all of the add ons. I am running fcs3 right now but thinking I'll go to avid next. Or premiere.

[cgbier]

Do you really need that stuff? Most members here are perfectly well served with FCE or FCP X.

[pstan423]

I'll give X a single piece of credit, but it's rarely used with most of these users and probably not with you as well.

The greenscreen effect has a Keylight level of good quality. You barely have to touch the settings.

But then again, you can get the same effect on the latest version of Motion, which is an amazing upgrade of the previous Motion which was frustrating for me to get used to.

There are a few other things about X that are far superior to 7. But the magnetic timeline is NOT one of them. And that's a pretty important factor to consider. There just isn't a lot of things that make X good for features. But if you're a beginner, and I stress the word beginner, Final Cut X isn't too bad.

[cgbier]

Uhm, you know that all FCP X effects are built on the Motion engine. What happened in 10.0.3 was that all features of the Motion Keyer were published into FCP. I did that before already manually.

Magnetic timeline? The best thing since sliced cheese. You get your stuff done in half the time.

Disclaimer: I use it on a daily base.

[dearcatastrophe]

why would anyone go to avid? thats like taking three steps backward to supposedly move forward.

i think fcpx is starting to show itself seriously now, and the people who made the silly threats to jump ship are starting to see that neither avid or premiere or in any way better solutions, just other solutions.

i'm really liking fcpx.

[Bob Sanders]

i'm really liking fcpx.

If you're serious then you should try Vegas. A lot of what FCPx does now, Vegas has done for years. In fact it's a bit of a running joke on the vegas forums. Many have remarked that these "new" features in FCPx are right out of the Vegas play book.

[dearcatastrophe]

If you're serious then you should try Vegas. A lot of what FCPx does now, Vegas has done for years. In fact it's a bit of a running joke on the vegas forums. Many have remarked that these "new" features in FCPx are right out of the Vegas play book.

i use vegas 10 and 11 as well.
as well as MC and premiere.
and a couple of other packages as needed or required.

i like vegas, have no problems running it (most times). i'm not sure i'd say all the fcpx features are gleaned from vegas, but if vegas users need to feel better about it, then i guess they can say what they want.
i've always admired vegas for it's quality handling of audio. it's a solid daw on it's own, if you forego the video part.


i just wish MC would step into this decade. avid studio was a big jump for avid, but i have no want to edit on my iPad only to load it into media composer.

i'm very glad they moved symphony to software only so you no longer have to buy a nitris to use it capably. now if they'd only drop the price a little more...

[cgbier]

i've always admired vegas for it's quality handling of audio

Vegas' roots are DAW, so it is no wonder.

Bob, on your inferiority complex again?

[Bob Sanders]

i just wish MC would step into this decade. avid studio was a big jump for avid, but i have no want to edit on my iPad only to load it into media composer.

I'm not so sure Avid is going to take AS any further than it is. People have been waiting for updates/bugfixes for quite some time and it has fallen on deaf ears. It's clear (to me anyway) Avid is at a real crossroads with both AS and Pinnacle Studio, and they're trying to decide whether they should kill them or not.

I had the opportunity to pick up MC for pretty cheap (I was a liquid user at one point and Avid had a special deal for liquid users when they killed liquid). I played with the trial for a good couple months and decided that although you could get some incredible detail out of it... it was CLEARLY in the dark ages (and still is IMO). Personally speaking... I think MC needs a rewrite from the ground up

[dearcatastrophe]

I'm not so sure Avid is going to take AS any further than it is. People have been waiting for updates/bugfixes for quite some time and it has fallen on deaf ears. It's clear (to me anyway) Avid is at a real crossroads with both AS and Pinnacle Studio, and they're trying to decide whether they should kill them or not.

I had the opportunity to pick up MC for pretty cheap (I was a liquid user at one point and Avid had a special deal for liquid users when they killed liquid). I played with the trial for a good couple months and decided that although you could get some incredible detail out of it... it was CLEARLY in the dark ages (and still is IMO). Personally speaking... I think MC needs a rewrite from the ground up

when i'm talking about avid studio, i meant the iPad app that recently came out. it's buggy too, but they are addressing issues with it, already releasing one point release.

[dearcatastrophe]

i doubt avid would ever consider a rewrite of ANY of their main software packages. pro tools needs more then just bulked in features, and MC, well..... it needs to be treated like apple did to FCP.

both adobe and apple did their major rewrites, now its time for the "industry leader" to pitch in and fix their dinosaur. BUT, with that being said, the avid users, which are just as whiny as the cult of mac, cry when simple changes are made, i couldn't imagine how they would act if they actually had to work with new software.

[cgbier]

Could Avid eve afford a rewrite? They aren't too sound financially and have laid off a whole load of engineers. Avid could stay on top as long as they could sell their hardware, but since they opened up, they are losing.

[dearcatastrophe]

i don't know if avid could really afford to go into a cave and not have a release for a year to sit and rewrite their software. i couldn't imagine not seeing avid at NAMM pushing a "new" and "enhanced" pro tools every year. i don't think their digidesign, m-audio and other brands could eat up the loss of not having a software release.
they had a pretty solid final quarter last year from what i gathered, but i don't think they could stand up to not getting the upgrade money from their users.

but, with that in mind, with what some companies pay for support contracts for media composer, why fix what is broken?

[Bob Sanders]

Could Avid eve afford a rewrite? They aren't too sound financially and have laid off a whole load of engineers. Avid could stay on top as long as they could sell their hardware, but since they opened up, they are losing.

Avid's problem is their flag program (MC) isn't "indi friendly". Hollywood is not where the money is. There are only so many programs you can sell out there... which aren't many relatively speaking. The real money is in the smaller guy... the indi guy... the wedding video guy.... the hobbyist... et al. All these groups have one thing in common and that is they need a program which with a wide range of native I/O options and a combined quality audio editor.... and while MC is a really great cutter... it badly falls apart in the area of universality and the 'one-stop-shop' concept.

I think if they recognize this SOON and do SOME kind of re-write they MIGHT have some kind of chance to regain some ground.