Printable View
Anyone considering it?
I am curious but I found the last version a bit of a pig to use but likewise I find iMovie too simple.
It does certainly look good in concept and the price is a lot better but its a pity there is no way to produce dvd's any more :(
Anyone had a play yet?
UK Appstore: http://itunes.apple.com/gb/app/final...24389933?mt=12 (£179.99)
US Appstore: http://itunes.apple.com/us/app/final...24389933?mt=12 ($299.99)
Going to be getting the volume license for this. We've been waiting for Lion and Final Cut Pro X to come out before placing all of our Apple orders! It does look interesting, but its a shame that they seem to have "unbundled" various bits and taken out the dvd authoring tools :(
Also reading some reviews a lot of pro's involved in tv/media are saying its basically imovie plus and is missing a fair few critical features although that wouldnt affect me.Quote:
Originally Posted by Soulfish
It really isn't 'Pro' anymore ... a number of functions have been limited or removed and whilst that would not affect me, it would affect many pro-end studios who have to work with external sound studios, those who require an archive to tape function, limitations on the use of monitors ...
It is a reworked FCE to me ... and for the limited stuff I do requiring more than iMovie, I could not justify that cost when I have a version of FCP that already does what is needed, even if it is a bit slower and misses a few new tools / improvements.
Yeh I half expect a *pro* pack to be released later adding stuff in for a much larger fee more in line with FCS 3 prices.
One thing is nice is its smaller at 1gb odd but I fear this is at the expense of all the extra content though.
It would also be nice is there was a trial, thats a lot of quid to spend without it.
That's probably because it won't be long until Apple removes DVD drives from all of their computers. The Mac App Store, MacBook Air and no more DVD Studio Pro, show Apple is going in this direction very quickly. I bet the new Core i3/i5 Mac mini's will be the next Mac's not to have an optical drive, followed by the redesigned MacBook Pro early 2012 (when Intel releases their Ivy Bridge processors).Quote:
Originally Posted by ZeroHour
FCP X = what iMovie '08 did to iMovie.Quote:
Originally Posted by ZeroHour
This lengthy first look by Steve Martin is well worth a read.Quote:
Originally Posted by ZeroHour
Quote:
My Overall Impressions
I love the organizational intelligence of FCP X and frankly it's long overdue. If you think about what a computer was born to do, it excels at chugging through and making sense of huge amounts of raw data. This is something a machine should be doing, otherwise it's something I have to do myself or pay someone else to do. I also like the smart analysis, background rendering, the skimmer and the Precision Editor. These features make the editing experience feel fluid, organic and less mechanical then track based editing applications. Also, I don't mind the single monitor. The Viewer is simple and clean and the interface does not feel cluttered. Anyone should feel at home editing on it from an iMac to a MacBook Air (which is the point of the single window interface). Also, adding effects, titles and transitions and editing them is infinitely easier and more intuitive. The interface is not daunting like Final Cut Pro 7 and anyone coming from iMovie will immediately "get it". And speaking of iMovie, (I didn't mention before) you can open iMovie projects and even your entire iMovie library into FCP X. This feature alone makes upgrading to FCP from iMovie a no-brainer. While FCP X will no doubt be referred to as a souped up version of iMovie by some, this is not my impression at all. I have been cutting a documentary on it among other things, and I just finished a tutorial that is close to 5 hours long which speaks to it's depth. I was very surprised at how much iron the Apple engineers put into it.
While FCP X is very promising, it still lacks key features for professionals. (I'm cutting it some heavy slack because I'm taking into account this is essentially a version 1 product built on an entirely new foundation). But the fact remains that there is no professional audio editing capabilities. With many of the features of Soundtrack Pro now rolled into FCP X, I still long for a full featured waveform editor to perform bread-and-butter audio editing chores. This coupled with the fact that there is no built-in way to collaborate with sound editors using ProTools or other DAWs is problematic.
Also there is currently no support for 3rd party effects plug ins. This is something that most likely will be addressed in the future. That said, Motion 5 is now much more that a motion graphics application. It's now a motion graphics publishing application and you can easily "publish" your own titles, effects, generators and transitions for any Final Cut Pro X editor. This is such an important development, that Mark Spencer and I produced an entire Motion 5 tutorial called Rigging & Publishing in Motion 5 to teach people how to "roll their own" FCP X visual content.
The other thing that needs improvement is color correction. While the simplicity of the Color Board will be great for the YouTube set, professional colorists will find the color grading tools wanting. With no way to export EDL's or XML files, there is no way to hand off your project to a Colorist - so again, you're stuck in your own sandbox until the next upgrade or someone really smart is able to write hooks into FCP X.
Another challenge I see with all the terminology changes is that old school editors may be put off by it. I hear them asking: "Did we really need a new editing metaphor called a "Storyline?" And while a legitimate case can be made as to why legacy FCP projects cannot be opened in FCP X, some editors will not be understanding. Also, it's yet to be seen how professional editors will react to the "magnetic timeline." Let me explain. The whole purpose of this new feature is to keep things in sync and prevent clip collisions. The magnetic timeline solves problems for the beginner who cannot fathom why a clip won't move from point a to point b. But knowing pro editors as I do, they may get frustrated wondering why an editing program is making these decisions for them. They will then turn to the Position tool (a tool I did not have time to cover in this article) to work around this "problem" and soon discover that this tool creates a different set of "problems". Most of the frustration will therefore result in not understanding the thinking behind a given tool or feature. But this is to be expected. I remember all the detractors when FCP 1 was released. Few broadcast professionals is 1999 took it seriously and many outright labeled it a toy.
I also believe many editors will be willing to give FCP X a shot for the price point alone. If not for that reason, they will buy it for the curiosity and novelty factor. If the features I mentioned above are eventually addressed, then yes, they will be invested in future versions. However, my Spidey-sense tells me they will keep using FCP 7 on a "wait and see" basis while watching how the market reacts to it over time. On the other extreme, they might, based on their initial experiences with this product, decide to abandon it altogether because it's just too foreign to them and it lacks the aforementioned "pro" features. Finally, only a company as big and successful as Apple would have resources and temerity to try to reinvent the wheel. From my perspective, FCP X is not so much revolutionary, but rather, evolutionary - because at the end of the day, your reasons for using Final Cut Pro have not changed - you're still using it to make movies. A re-invented wheel is still a wheel. (Source)
you should of got a windows compuuter
Sounds like Premier Pro is the better tool then :p must admit iMovie is a quick neat little tool though :)
Thanks Arthur, I have been looking at some videos showing effects etc and I have to say it looks impressive as I found iMovie just a bit too basic, it could do nice effects but its more limited by the tweaking of the effects.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=whqgFAc_OEY
David Pogue has posted an update on his New York Times blog which clears up almost all of the misconceptions and half-truths regarding Final Cut Pro X.
http://pogue.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/...nal-cut-pro-x/
Quote:
In Thursday’s paper, I reviewed Apple’s Final Cut Pro X, a professional video-editing program. It’s not an update of the existing Final Cut, which is by far the most popular such program; it’s completely new and radically redesigned. It looks different, its strengths are different — and after one day of using it, many professional video editors are running through the streets with pitchforks. [...]
I wrote my review from the perspective of an advanced amateur; I’m not a professional editor. I made four movies with Final Cut Pro X, including helping my son with a 20-minute final eighth-grade project. I found FCP X infinitely more powerful than iMovie, yet infinitely less intimidating than the old Final Cut.
But in this post, I’m going to address the concerns of professional video editors, one by one. The information here comes from consultation with Final Cut Pro X's product managers at Apple.
The “missing features” generally fall into three categories: features that are actually there and have just been moved around, features that Apple intends to restore and features that require a third-party (non-Apple) add-on or plug-in.
I’m not trying to be an Apple apologist; FCP X offers legions of amazing features that the old version didn’t have, but it doesn’t have all the features of the old one, either. It’s only fair, however, to separate what’s really missing from knee-jerk "It’s so different!" hysteria.
I can't say I'd want to get this. I mean £300 for imovie plus a few extras? no, thanks.
FCP X has certainly taken a bashing for its lack of pro features.
People in the youtube community like it because it's more advanced than iMovie, but the Pro users aren't happy. As ZeroHour said I think they'll release some sort of update.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VXepNCs_iZo
Was reading about David Pogues reaction on tuaw ref final cut pro X and think there was a sentance in there somewhere that suggested if people had both an old and a newer version that they would need to partition there HDD and have one version installed on one installation of OS X and the other version of final cut pro X on the other OS X installation which would require a reboot everytime you wanted to swap between versions of final cutQuote:
Originally Posted by Arthur
According to the Apple website you don't have to install FCPX/FCS to a separate partition to use both at the same time (although that is the preferred method): http://support.apple.com/kb/HT4722
Wouldn't a professional video editor have more than one Mac? If so, couldn't they install FCPX on just one of them? Obviously no one is forcing them to buy the latest version of Final Cut either so they could stick with what they have. :)
I'm not sure that follows... I was going to make a somewhat flippant comment that a self employed "professional" driving instructor probably owns only the one car (or at least only one they can teach in) but even without looking at people like that, professional doesn't mean "£$£ big business £$£" - there are plenty of people out there working for themselves in a professional capacity who can't afford to carry a lot of spare kit.Quote:
Originally Posted by Arthur