Steve Jobs was the greatest product innovator within the last couple of centuries, and his passing saddened me significantly. My gratitude dates back to his storied commencement address at Stanford University, which disclosed him as a deep and thoughtful man. I stand in amaze of his extraordinary string of product successes, like the original Mac, iMac, iPod, iPhone, iPad, iTunes, and Apple App Store-in addition to Pixar-in addition to his capability to produce maniacal, passionate fans. But that doesn’t suggest that I personally like every product created under his watch or go along with every product-related decision.
This is particularly so after finishing Walter Isaacson’s outstanding biography, titled simply Steve Jobs, where I learned of 2 of Jobs’s passions: one for simplicity as well as the other for manipulating the experience. Particularly, I can’t reconcile Jobs’s love for simplicity with Final Cut Pro X.
Recently i reviewed the newest features in Final Cut Pro X Effects and found them impressive. Overall, though, I abhor the program. Once I run FCPX, my reaction is visceral; I feel the walls pressing in and my blood pressure rising. I adore the clean slate of Adobe Premiere Pro as well as its doppelganger Final Cut Pro 7. FCPX has so much structure, numerous completely foreign concepts, that it is like my 31″ monitor has shrunk to 17″. By using these a supposed give attention to simplicity, how could a business run by Jobs produce such a program?
Well, if you feel about this, while Apple’s hardware is simple, its software is complex, a velvet chain tying one to Apple’s vision in the “way things should be carried out.” If you’re over a Windows machine, you can’t drag a magazine on to your iPod in Windows Explorer; you must load it into iTunes and synch. That’s not simple. You can’t drag a photo from the iPhone for your desktop having a file manager; you have to load it into iPhoto and save it from there.
Needless to say, I realize how iTunes is perfect for inexperienced users, and that’s precisely the idea. With iTunes and iPhoto, and also the iPad and iPhone, Apple wasn’t selling to experienced users. It was opening new markets. On the other hand, with Final Cut Pro X, Apple was attempting to change the workflows of pros who knew more about video production than any of the engineers who come up with product.
You can only impose structure each time a industry is new or when the benefits of that structure are incremental. And the more structure you build in to a product, the less it’s prone to interest experienced users from the product it replaces. That’s why most profe
With that being said, you will find refinements through the entire app, though more with effects than editing. The newest version is worth time to upgrade. Once you begin to use the newest color tools, you’ll never return back. So what in the event you do? If you value being on the leading edge And also you are between projects, upgrade today.
In case you are a died-in-the-wool skeptic, wait per month and see how this rolls out before committing. There’s no harm in waiting – particularly if you rely on 3rd-party plug-ins and software. What am I going to do? I’m upgrading my main editing system to 10.4 tomorrow and keeping two backup editing systems on 10.3 for the upcoming month approximately. I like this latest version and I’m getting excited about using it for real productions.
Given how aggressively Adobe and Avid are supporting team editing, and particularly because Final Cut Pro X is constructed on a database engine, it continues to surprise me that collaboration is as difficult because it is.
This really is compounded by Final Cut’s limited support for editing libraries using shared storage, even though connected via 10gb Ethernet. Editing teams are available for even small projects today and Final Cut does zhxspu make it easy to share libraries or projects. Media sharing, of course, has been available since the creation of FCP X.
I am an enormous fan of Roles. They create making many tasks much easier, especially with regards to exporting – but not audio mixing. The concept of applying a compound clip to some role to ensure that we could apply filters for the compound clip is definitely an exercise in frustration. Audio mixing in FCP X is ridiculously awkward. It really is far faster to export an XML file from FCP X, convert it using XtoCC, import it into Adobe Audition, mix the project, export a stereo pair, import it into FCP X, assign a part into it, then export the finished project than to attempt to do the blend FCP X itself.
I know, I timed it. FCP X is 3-6 times slower than round-tripping in Audition. Roles are great, although not for mixing.
Finally, it could be that Apple has grown the quantity of clips which can be supported in a Library, but I’m getting emails virtually every week from editors experiencing performance slow-downs since they have a lot of clips in a library. Again, FCP X is a database, it must be able to handle a lot more clips without choking.
Pixel Film Studios
120 Vantis Dr.
Established in 2006, Aliso Viejo, California-based Pixel Film Studios is an innovative developer of visual effects tools for the post-production and broadcast community. Their products are integrated with popular non-linear editing and compositing products from Apple FCPX.