
Apple updates Final Cut Pro X with multicam, broadcast monitoring - Slimy
http://www.loopinsight.com/2012/01/31/apple-updates-final-cut-pro-x-with-multicam-broadcast-monitoring/
======
marcusestes
I used Final Cut pro while creating a daily video documentary for Kanye West
and Jay-Z's Watch the Throne tour and I can honestly say that it was the best
tool for the job, largely because of the new background rendering
capabilities. There are some interface flaws in the new magnetic timeline but
I really appreciate the dev team's willingness to experiment with new video
editing paradigms. Within another few point releases I think FCP X will begin
to persuade the crusty old FCP 7 guard that it's worth another look.

~~~
Karunamon
I don't think the UI changes caused the visceral reaction and subsequent hate-
dom as much as the completely inexplicable and unwarranted removal of features
and file formats that professionals (I.e. the _TARGET FUCKING MARKET_ ) use.

First impressions are everything - and Apple blew it bad on this one.

~~~
edkennedy
It really reminds me of the facebook re-design uproars. UI evolution has such
a dramatic affect on it's user base.

~~~
nirvana
I think the difference is that the people complaining about Facebook were
Facebook users, while the people complaining about FCPX are avid and adobe
fans.

I'm forced to reach this conclusion because none of the complaints has been
accurate about the features of FCP X, or acknowledged the significant
advancement that FCP X made to editing. Thus its clear to me that they've not
used FCP X, yet are still highly motivated to attack it.

I love how this comment has a negative score, while the guy who calls me a
name in every response (asshole, dick, nitwit, moron, idiot, and retarded so
far) has positive scores for every single one of the posts with an insult in
it. So do the other people who felt the need to derogatorily characterize me
or my argument.

This is why Hacker News is in decline. So long as those who engage in bad
behavior are expressing an opinion that the majority agrees with (And bashing
Apple is always popular here) they will not have negative scores and thus not
be flagged for review by the hellbanners.

~~~
Karunamon
>I'm forced to reach this conclusion because none of the complaints has been
accurate about the features of FCP X, or acknowledged the significant
advancement that FCP X made to editing. Thus its clear to me that they've not
used FCP X, yet are still highly motivated to attack it.

Go read the reviews of FCP X on the App Store (which may or may not be cleared
by now.. I don't have access to a mac). You cannot leave reviews on app store
apps unless you have installed it at least once. That would seem to imply that
most of the bad reviews there are legitimate.

I just read through the comments that you're talking about. There's a
difference between saying "You're coming across like a $pejorative" and "You
are a $pejorative".

If you can't twig that simple difference, well, you are _coming off like a_
dumbass.

------
schiffern
Could we link somewhere without a referral link?

<http://www.apple.com/finalcutpro/software-update.html>

~~~
jader201
Like this:

<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3533320>

------
nirvana
FWIW, I used a trail version of FCPX to do our Startup Chile application
video. It was very easy to have multiple shots in the timeline and cut between
them. In fact, the whole thing was very easy, and very powerful. It is a vast
improvement over the previous versions of Final Cut[1], which I felt were
really hampered by sticking to the traditional way of doing things, producing
a worse UI.

I think it made sense for Apple to make the UI like traditional editors, which
were as close to the moviola and the moviola inspired tape editing bays of the
past, back when FCP came out. Back then, getting people into the digital age
was the goal, and keeping the workflow as close as possible was advantageous.

Now, however, the outcry about FCPX from "professionals" is really about those
"professionals" not wanting to learn anything new, because they really aren't
editors, they're just cutting things together by rote. Anyone whose an actual
editor- that is, a creative person, will find FCPX a vast improvement over
FCP, and of course iMovie.

I highly recommend it.

(Also got Motion which is cheap at $50, and did a custom motion graphics
intro... which is kinda amazing given that I had no experience with motion
graphics before that.)

People talk about Apple "abandoning" pro users, but I don't see it. Sure, the
prices of the software are lower, but that just broadens the potential market.

And these days, there are a lot more pros than there used to be-- because
people who make videos for YouTube, and make their living from it, are,
believe it or not, professionals.

[1] I've been shooting film and video for many decades, including for some
projects as a professional.

~~~
cowmix
"Now, however, the outcry about FCPX from "professionals" is really about
those "professionals" not wanting to learn anything new, because they really
aren't editors, they're just cutting things together by rote. Anyone whose an
actual editor- that is, a creative person, will find FCPX a vast improvement
over FCP, and of course iMovie."

This simply isn't (or wasn't) true. Most my video editor friends, many who
work in Hollywood, hated FCPX for everything is lacked and 'broke'. All are
'real' editors. Many are trainers for FCP and AViD.

~~~
modfodder
Editors can be a fickle bunch. Many are technical minded and love to have the
latest newest gadget. But they also don't like to mess with their livelihood
and FCPX was too big of a learning curve while missing too many features.

I personally think it was a great move by Apple, trying to push the paradigm
of editing forward. That is difficult and time consuming to do in small steps
so they chose a complete rewrite, losing a large percentage of the profesional
market in the process. But what they lost, I'm guessing they gained back in
consumers and as FCPX improves they will gain some of those back.

What I've seen as the biggest gain are creatives directors and photographers.
I know several who are masters of photoshop and after effects but struggled to
get their head around Avid and FCP, who didn't have time to jump in head
first, but took to FCPX like duck to water. These are highly paid individuals,
heads of agencies. Which is what annoyed me when editors complained it wasn't
professional. If the creative director of a billion dollar ad agency has found
it suits his needs, it's hard to paint it as a toy.

That's not to say the complainers didn't have a point, they did. But it's a
complaint that's been with Final Cut since version 1. It was always necessary
to find a work around, whether outputting for film, tape, or digital. My
career was made because final cut was cheap to use, but didn't quite work as
it should.

~~~
masklinn
> But they also don't like to mess with their livelihood and FCPX was too big
> of a learning curve while missing too many features.

I don't think the learning curve was the issue, these are people considering
(or even implementing) switches to Avid or Premiere after years of FCP.

From seeing the outcry from the outside, the issues seemed mostly twofolds: 1.
lack of genuinely needed features (not necessarily intersecting from one
studio to the next, but editors were understandably unwilling to tear down
their whole production pipeline for the sake of FCPX) and 2. fear about the
place of "pro" (as in medium-to-big-studios) editors in Apple's medium and
long-term roadmap, boosted by a perceived iMovie-ification (real or not)
pointing to a refocus on prosumer and lighter work.

> If the creative director of a billion dollar ad agency has found it suits
> his needs, it's hard to paint it as a toy.

That's nonsense, you said it youself: these are creative directors and
photographers, they're not editing big-budget movies or TV shows, they're not
dealing with TV stations or juggling with 30 cameras. You're basically saying
Acorn is just fine for everybody because professional developers can draw with
it.

~~~
modfodder
>1\. lack of genuinely needed features

Features that they were told would be in future updates...they abandoned FCP
because it was so different, otherwise they would have waited (and many have
waited).

>2\. fear about the place of "pro"

This fear is not unfounded, see Shake. But the idea that because FCPX looks
similar to iMovie it's not professional is BS, the same thing that crops up
with any new, inexpensive product (I've lived through it with DV, HDV, DSLRs,
FCP 1, Premiere, Color, Nuke, and too many others to name). For me, the only
feature missing from FCPX is OMF export, which is handled by a third party.
Out of all the commercials I've made in the past 12 months (roughly 24
national spots), all could have been handled with FCPX without any foreseeable
problems (all the spots had digital delivery so no need for tape layoffs).
Same goes for the features I've handled in the past year (2).

Final Cut made inroads in commercials and indie films long before the big
features (and most of the FCP editing on TV is low budget reality tv shows,
who were also ahead of the curve). And it's always lacked features, it was my
job to get around what it lacked (and it's been very lucrative). While there
was always a learning curve going from Avid to FCP, it was a relative small
one that could be overcome in a day or two of intense editing. The learning
curve for FCPX, even for experienced FCP users is much greater (and the
kicking and screaming that editors displayed when having to move to earlier
versions of FCP was bad enough).

Just like before, it will be early adopters that push FCPX. But don't discount
the power of a creative director coming to a post house with an FCPX project
that he wants finished. The last 5 years of my career has been that storyline.
Someone will call me and pay me good money to set it up and babysit the
project. And considering a campaign with a 30 second spot is typically
budgeted at 3million plus, it's worth spending the money to make the creative
happy.

>they're not dealing with TV stations or juggling with 30 cameras

Very few editors deal with tv stations or juggling 30 cameras (and FCPs multi-
cam has always been mediocre, if you have to deal with more than 3 cameras
you're better off using Avid). Most big budget editors edit. Dealing with TV
stations, delivery specs, or anything technical is left to assistants, conform
artists, finishing editors, flame artists, hell even producers typically deal
with that more than editors.

And I don't see anything wrong with Acorn if it serves the purpose. Photoshop
is overkill for most users, even many pro users. What is professional is what
can get the job done well.

