Creative COW SIGN IN :: SPONSORS :: ADVERTISING :: ABOUT US :: CONTACT US :: FAQ
Creative COW's LinkedIn GroupCreative COW's Facebook PageCreative COW on TwitterCreative COW's Google+ PageCreative COW on YouTube
LIBRARY:TutorialsVideo TutorialsReviewsInterviewsEditorialsFeaturesBusinessAuthorsRSS Feed

Post Production: Did Everything Change in Post?

COW Library : Apple FCPX or Not: The Debate : Walter Biscardi : Post Production: Did Everything Change in Post?
Share on Facebook
CreativeCOW presents Post Production: Did Everything Change in Post? -- Apple FCPX or Not: The Debate Editorial


Biscardi Creative Media
Buford Georgia USA

©2011 CreativeCOW.net. All rights reserved.


In this article, Walter Biscardi discusses the state of Post Production as he sees it in these months since the June release of FCPX, including comments on the latest 10.0.1 release.



A discussion of FCPX, including comments on the latest 10.0.1 release

It's been five months since the "big sneak peek," and three months since "everything changed in Post." I was asked recently, "So where do we stand now? What's everyone doing?" From where I'm sitting and the conversations I'm having with many Final Cut Pro folks in the industry, there are three camps forming within the Post industry...

Those who have already left Final Cut Pro.

Those who are testing alternatives to Final Cut Pro.

Those who are delving into Final Cut Pro X while maintaining Final Cut Pro 7 as their day to day editing system.


Camps 1 and 2 are quite large while the third is much smaller. Again, this is from where I'm sitting and the conversations I'm having with folks.

The overwhelming consensus on Reason Number One for the defection of the first two camps is directly off the Apple Final Cut Pro X FAQs.

"Can I import projects from Final Cut Pro 7 into Final Cut Pro X?"

The short answer is still a rounding "NO." But Apple says....

Final Cut Pro X includes an all-new project architecture structured around a trackless timeline and connected clips.  Because of these changes, there is no way to "translate" or bring in old projects without changing or losing data. But if you're already working with Final Cut Pro 7, you can continue to do so....
Still, more than anything else, that is the complete deal breaker for everyone I know and those who are reaching out to me and my colleagues for advice. Apple spells it out quite clearly in their response, "there is no way to bring in old projects without losing data."

There is just no way, as a business owner, I can say to the client "I know we charged you $20,000 for that project last year, but we're going to have start all over. See we upgraded all our systems to Final Cut Pro X and we cannot open older legacy projects. Yeah, we can still use that media, but we'll literally have to start all over from scratch to build the project." I will not be in business very long if I have to have that conversation with clients. In my case we go back 5 years or more for news story updates, documentary updates, corporate presentation updates, etc... I'm working on a documentary project right now that was completed three years ago because it needs to be re-edited for broadcast. 250 hours / 6 TB of materials, over 40 original timelines, dozens of bins and all the organization from that original project. Sure FCP X could read all those original files, but losing my 40 timelines, my organization by bin, I could not do that to my client.

Part of the reasoning for this in Apple's explanation is the trackless architecture of FCPX. I don't know anyone who is a professional in this industry who would have ever suggested trackless editing is a smart thing. As an editor in a collaborative workflow, track management, especially in audio, is one of the most important things you do. When a show is handed off to a sound designer, for example, you generally hand them a chart that lays out exactly what they will find on each track. If the application is "trackless" there's no way to know what's what.


FCPX Event Library
FCPX Interface - working in the timeline. Image courtesy Kevin P. McAuliffe.


This is a very VERY basic principal in editing and while it might be "old fashioned" and an "antiquated paradigm" it makes sense and is very easily understood between artists when projects and worked on together.

Evan Schechtman has been making a very well done and quite humorous presentation at User Groups around the country that presents a history lesson of sorts of Apple and Final Cut Pro. We were fortunate to have Evan come our Inaugural Atlanta Cutters meeting and he's a very smart and very funny guy whom I really want to get back to another Cutters event. The presentation essentially shows how Apple is simply following along with their tried and true method of "taking something just so far, and then they re-invent" using FCP, the Mac OS and the iOS as examples. It's a very clever presentation and you can clearly see the logic in Apple's approach when he's done.

There is one major fatal flaw in the logic of Apple "re-inventing" Final Cut Pro at this time. In 1999, when Final Cut Pro first came out, it was derided as a toy. I started with the product in 2001 with version 1.2.5. In 2003, with the release of FCP 4, it started to become good and people started to take notice. By NAB 2005, Final Cut Studio 1 is released and now it's starting to take the Post Production Industry by storm to the point where it was literally the Industry Standard Non Linear Editing Tool as NAB 2011 approached.

I'm not sure how many registered users there were in 1999, but as of 2011, there were over 2 million registered users of Final Cut Pro. Independent artists, post production facilities, broadcast facilities were almost exclusively running FCP, turning out thousands of hours of projects per year. In fact, in the past two years alone there was a HUGE influx of very major broadcasters and large post facilities finally making the move away from Avid and to Final Cut Pro. Apple literally had the entire post production market in its back pocket and was gaining momentum with each passing year.

So when Apple "re-invented Post" in 1999, there were no legacy projects to start from. In 2011, there are literally millions of legacy Final Cut Pro projects with millions of dollars invested, thousands of hours invested, but no way to access them if you move to Final Cut Pro X. Those are Apple's own words, not mine.

When you re-invent an OS, you're making folks choose to use a new computer operating system. But you can migrate your work forward, witness Final Cut Pro 7 running on the new OS Lion. When you release an iOS that can't copy and paste for several years, you've created something annoying that people complain about; but they buy the phone anyway because it's a super slick shiny object that will make them the envy of all.

Apple claims Final Cut Pro X was designed for professionals and with the help of professionals. There is not a professional I have met or talked to who requested a radical change in the Final Cut Pro architecture that would result in the loss of legacy project support. Somebody at Apple made the decision, in my opinion, to completely move the product away from professional users and toward the consumer / prosumer / hobbyist market with this one move. It seems that in somebody's mind at Apple, the product was "too hard, too confusing" for the average person to use, so it had to be made so simple that anyone could just throw stuff into the timeline and come out on the other end with a finished piece. Make it so folks don't think about anything, just throw it all in there, the software will figure it out. Apple calls this storytelling. The industry folks who are contacting me call it a mess.

When you re-invent the software that thousands (millions?) of people make their living with and cut off any access to the work that has been produced even just over the past two to four years, that's a huge problem. This isn't just some annoying software that had a few glitches in it but I'll use the phone anyway, this is the livelihood for many many people. This is the financial backbone of an entire industry that built its infrastructure around a single product.

"This is just a version 1.0 of the software, it's going to get better"

If I had a nickel for every person who had told me that, tweeted it, emailed it to me, I'd have quite the chunk of change right now. That is the fallback position for all those who are looking to Final Cut Pro X as "the new paradigm in editing." (By the way, name ONE time you heard the word paradigm used to describe anything in post production BEFORE FCPX came out.) This is an incredibly lame defense of a product that was introduced by the same team who were able to literally take over the entire Post Production industry in just 10 years by building a very affordable and very capable non-linear editing tool. A 1.0 software is something that didn't exist before. Final Cut Pro as an editing tool has certainly existed and had built an incredible legacy over that time.

Final Cut Pro 7.0.3 was going on three years old, it was very long in the tooth and was very outdated in its approach to working with the newer digital formats. So Final Cut Pro HAD to upgrade to native editing formats. We expected a great new release as Apple spent at least two years preparing for the new software.

So Final Cut Pro 10 is software that Apple "built from the ground up for pro video editors." Those are Apple's words on their Final Cut Pro X page. So Apple is telling us THIS - not the NEXT version - is the software they absolutely, positively intended to be developed for pro video editors. There is nothing there that says "This is a 1.0 release, please bear with us as we get this sorted out."

So they have said to their entire client base, "The old rules of editing don't apply anymore, what we are giving you today is what the pro editor needs moving forward. What you did yesterday, last week, last year, five years ago doesn't apply to the new world order of editing."

Being the dominant player in Post Production, Apple was in a position to dictate to the market the next move forward. Had they created the proper next generation tool of Final Cut Pro, that would have absolutely, positively been true. But they didn't. They managed to alienate much of their professional client base and brought eleven years of momentum to a screeching halt in just one day.

The reason that Final Cut Pro became the dominant player in Post Production was twofold:
  1. It was cheap. Nothing on the planet touched Final Cut Studio for $999
  2. It played nice with others.
Now Final Cut Pro X sort of plays nice with others (more shortly) and it can't even play with its younger siblings. It also removed basic support for proper video monitoring and legacy tape machine support. Yes, Apple, there are still thousands of VTRs in use in facilities large and small all around the world. Relying on a third party application to do what a professional video editing tool is supposed to do is incredibly lame. Sorry.

The complete shift in the editing workflow, the move away from easily achieved artistic collaboration with other industry standard tools, the lack of legacy support - all of these things have shaken the trust of the industry. For me personally, I simply do not trust Apple any longer with my professional livelihood. I'm getting the same "lack of trust" feedback from many of my colleagues.

As a business owner, you need to be able to trust that the vendor you purchase from is not only looking to make a profit, but is also doing what is in the best interest of your business. I don't care if you're the owner of Discovery Networks or an independent artist working in a spare bedroom, like I did for four years. You trust that a company making a professional product, especially something as central as non-linear editing software, will continue to develop. the product based on a strong foundation. As the product improves, it builds on the legacy of what came before. One does not expect a clean break from the past and a complete do-over to your workflow.

Apple is first and foremost a consumer based hardware company. Look at their sales numbers (record breaking at that.) Apple absolutely, positively does not need professional applications at all. If they were to simply step away from the professional video and film market, it would not affect their computer sales at all. At our first Atlanta Cutters Meeting we had Apple, Adobe, Avid and Autodesk all present FCPX, Premiere Pro, Media Composer and Smoke. The common denominator? All were running on Apple computers.

There is literally no incentive for Apple to continue its pro applications lineup because there are plenty of other professional applications running on the Mac hardware. Many of us really didn't pay much attention to this because we had built complete infrastructures around the product and believed that Apple would want to maintain their hold over a very cool and engaging industry. But the release of a product that clearly borrowed from their consumer grade product line and even interfaces with that consumer grade product, really opened our eyes.

From a business perspective, you absolutely cannot blame Apple. Do the math - it's a very smart business decision to go after the masses instead of a singular industry. In your own company, would you continue to go after that client who keeps giving you $2,000 jobs a couple of times per year or five clients who bring in $10,000 each per month? You'll ditch the lower paying client in favor of those five. In effect, Apple is poised to ditch the smaller entertainment industry for the potential of millions of users in the consumer arena. I have to believe this was a very deliberate decision by someone at Apple in order to streamline the Final Cut Pro X product and bring down the per unit costs.

So you can call this 1.0.1 software all you want, but Apple knew precisely what it was doing. It broke away from eleven years of software development and re-invented itself to optimize the profitability of the product, not because the industry needed or demanded the "improvements." It would have been nice if the industry had been given some warning of the sudden shift in direction. Such a warning would have affected many decisions over the past few years -- many very expensive decisions that now might have to be reversed.

But wait, Apple released a new .0.1 update that fixes some of the things we need! See they ARE listening

Apple finally responded to some of the crticism today by releasing a 10.0.1 update.

From the 10.0.1 update page:
"Media Stems Export: Traditional, track-based editing systems require you to constantly rearrange and disable tracks to export audio and video stems. With the latest version of Final Cut Pro X, flexible metadata removes the burden of track management. Use the new Roles tag to label clips -- dialogue, effects, music, and more -- then export a single multitrack file or separate stems based on your tags."

What? OMF can output all the audio necessary for an audio mixing session in one export pass. No need to re-arrange and disable anything. And this business about "constantly re-arranging tracks" is something that a good professional editor avoids by laying out their tracks as they go. This is called Basic Editing 101. You must lay out your timeline in logical order so it's easy to export your project or share your project with someone else.

Then there's this metadata deal. That's going to require an editor to spend however much time applying metadata information to clips just so they can be properly identified by the software at the end of the editing process. This is a solution solely to fix a problem Apple created with the trackless timeline. There is really no need to add this metadata information for any other reason than when you have a trackless system, you have to have a way to identify what is what at the end. If FCPX had the traditional track based editing architechture, there would be no need for this additional metadata just to identify what I want to use the material for.

So now this new "trackless" easy way of editing has just taken a bit of a turn requiring editors to now enter additional metadata to their clips before they start editing so the software can identify what those clips are to save the editor all that precious time from having to lay out the clips as they edit. What?

Apple seems to be missing the point that part of an editor's job is organization. Especially in a collaborative workflow, you must be able to lay out the information in a logical way so that the next person down the line can look at the timeline and know what they are looking at.

Here's an example: In our facility there are 6 editors working together on most days. For our series "This American Land," we required some changes to an episode after it had already been completed. Because of the tight turnaround schedule for the Post, the editor was already working on another episode, so I jumped in and took over the show with the changes. Without even looking at the timeline I know that:

Audio 1 & 2 are Narration
Audio 3, 4, 5 & 6 are interviews and sound bites
Audio 7 - 12 are natural sound
Audio 13 and lower are music
This is how we organize all our edits and it's a nice logical flow. If this same situation occurred in FCPX, the audio could be anywhere in the timeline just depending on where the application put it. So first I would have to decipher the timeline and then I could start to make the changes.

See, we don't just want to assign audio and video tracks when we're DONE with a project, we need to organize as we are WORKING in the project. And any particular piece of audio might be used both as natural sound and as a sound bite. The different uses would be designated by where they are positioned in the audio tracks.

Now we're just a small facility. Imagine a facility like Turner Studios or CNN here in Atlanta where you have hundreds of editors working on projects. Imagine 100 different timelines looking completely different from one another. That would drive an editor absolutely crazy every time they opened a new timeline. You MUST have a logical layout of your audio and video or nobody will be able to know what is what.


Biscardi Creative Media Edit Suite
Biscardi Creative Media Edit Suite - for more information, read Walter's article, "Anatomy of an Edit Suite." Click on image for larger view.


Apple has created a mess on their hands with the trackless editing and now they are trying to figure out how to make that system work in a more traditional Post environment. It's nice that they are trying to get the collaborative workflow going by adding XML Import / Export and this Media Stems / Roles thing, but they are still missing the basic point of collaborative sharing. A professional editor needs control over the timeline AS THEY EDIT and not just at the end to share something with someone else.

Ok, let's backtrack: they sort of kind of have added XML import / export to Final Cut Pro 10. It's not the established XML that has been used for the past few years by multiple applications including Final Cut Pro 7 and Adobe Premiere Pro. It's a "new" flavor of XML called FCPXML. So developers will have to work to create tools on another protocol. Also it's important to note that Apple has simply released the XML protocols to the developers so THEY can develop the import / export tools for Final Cut Pro 10. These will be third party solutions, not from Apple. It's beside me why these tools to get into and out of Final Cut Pro are being handled by third parties. Sure, if you're moving between editing platforms like FCP and Avid I would expect a third party like the incredible Automatic Duck products to be in play, but just to export an XML from the Final Cut Pro 10 timeline? I would expect that to be from within the NLE.

More from the 10.0.1 Update Page:
"Coming in early 2012 Multicam Editing, Broadcast-Quality Video Monitoring"

Coming one year AFTER the release of the video editing product designed by professionals for professionals Apple is going to add Broadcast Quality Video Monitoring. This is not something you add to a professional video editing product. This is a very basic function that is included in the original release.

I really get the sense that Apple really doesn't know what they want Final Cut Pro X to be. Is it a consumer product that we're going to try to backtrack and add professional features to in order to quell all the backlash and defections or is it a professional product that also needs to be super easy for a consumer to use? Editing is not rocket science, people -- certainly not from a technical and organizational perspective, but Apple seems to keep insinuating that it is. Organization is just a part of basic editing, it's what we do, there was no need to throw that organization out the window just because they can. There was no industry demand for a trackless, metadata driven workflow, there WAS a demand for Final Cut Pro to support the new digital formats natively.

Apple is now in a position to create convoluted workarounds to the very workflow THEY created.

There is a bright side to all of this.

I've quite honestly never seen such an immediate and unified response from our industry to a single product in so short a time. The industry was looking for a new and improved Final Cut Pro that would improve on the legacy of the product by enhancing the efficiency of the workflow with all the new digital formats in a seamless manner with as little disruption as possible. Within a matter of days the conversation turned to "Where do I take my company so we can continue to work with legacy projects? We don't need new paradigms, we need software that will work with our established workflows."

Most importantly, "How do we do this with the limited budgets we have to work with?" I don't care if you're that single artist working in a spare bedroom or the head of Discovery Networks, you can't just throw a lot of money to overhaul your entire infrastructure because of the decision of one company. These are not exactly the best economic times to throw money at gear. Ironically, Apple set the stage for a relatively easy and cost effective transition away from their own software.

When Apple became the dominant leader in Post Production, they not only drove down the cost and accessibility of non-linear editing software, they opened up an entirely new infrastructure community that simply didn't exist before Final Cut Pro. Only Adobe After Effects comes close, with their tremendous library of plug-ins and add-ons.

Because FCP was produced as software that was hardware independent (except the Mac), we were free to pair up that software with any manner of media storage, computer monitors, host bus adapters, video I/O cards and external boxes, probably thousands of plug-ins and more directly related to the operation of the software. On the peripheral side, high quality reference video and audio monitors became much more affordable. With all of that third party hardware and software, it became possible to configure a very high end non-linear workstation capable of working on and outputting darn near any type of project imaginable -- from the web to feature film -- at a very reasonable price.

Apple's dominance in the field, and its ability to drive market forces both by inspiring the wealth of choices and the lowering of price points are the factors that are driving the two primary camps that I mentioned at the beginning of this article. That same infrastructure of hardware and software that you configured for Final Cut Pro is also almost universally supported by Adobe Premiere Pro and very soon Avid Media Composer is scheduled to support most of the same.


Adobe Premiere Pro Interface
Adobe Premiere Pro Interface


From a purely financial perspective, Adobe is in a particularly good position because a lot of video editors already own the product as part of a suite. It's cheaper to purchase a Production Premium suite, for example, than just buying Photoshop and After Effects as stand alone items. Premiere Pro comes as part of that package. Adobe Premiere Pro also supports much of the hardware, in particular the video I/O boards / boxes from AJA Video Systems and Blackmagic Design. Adobe recently announced a 45% jump in sales over this time last year and they can directly relate most of those sales to people switching from Apple. One has to wonder if that number would be any higher if so many people didn't already own the product.

Avid has been much slower to react to the market forces, but that is understandable because they too have a lot of legacy products and hardware to protect. But just the fact that they've announced future support for the AJA and Blackmagic hardware has spurred a lot of folks to look again at their software.

In addition, Adobe, Avid and even Autodesk made the very smart business decision to put their products online for a free 30 day trial. (Apple finally joined the 30 day free trial boat with FCP 10.0.1) The end user can download the products, test the workflow, get feedback from the end users, ensure the products work with their infrastructure BEFORE committing any money to the product. This is huge because it's one thing to read a review or watch a demo and see the product work as expected, and quite another to actually get your hands on a working copy of that product and use it in your environment with your workflow and your personnel. Nothing is going to be perfect and it's going to be different than Final Cut Pro. But does it work? Does it disrupt our workplace? Does it support our legacy Final Cut Pro projects? There's only one way to know that and it is a brilliant piece of marketing to allow the end user real time peace of mind.

Adobe and Avid present a very good example of what the professional editing community expects from their non linear editing software. Adobe moved Premiere Pro to a 64bit architecture and have added many new features while maintaining the same workflow that their users have come to expect. The product grows and moves forward but the user is not required to drop everything, learn a new workflow and abandon their old projects.

Avid is not only moving forward into 64bit, but now opening up the product to third party hardware for the first time. Right now, it's the AJA IoExpress -- and we can expect that they will support third party hardware cards in the near future. This is a major quantum shift from Avid -- and one that is being watched closely by many of my peers.

Adobe's native support and Avid's opening of the application to third party hardware have made what could have been a huge financial drain on my company to move to another platform not that bad. We are talking hundreds of dollars per seat vs. thousands per seat. It's this relatively cheap migration path that I believe is spurring the rapid move away from Apple to other platforms, particularly the cross-grade offers from Avid and Adobe. Not to mention the legacy support path to move FCP projects into both Adobe and Avid.

But wait... Final Cut Studio 3 is back.

Since Apple sort of re-instated the Final Cut Studio 3 package (only available by calling the 800 telephone number) a new debate has sprung up on whether you should spend the $999 to get more seats of Final Cut Pro 7 while we wait to see Apple's next move with Final Cut Pro X.

My answer is quite simply, "No." Apple's decision made me look beyond the Final Cut Studio universe and I realized that many of the "new from the ground up" features in X were already in Premiere Pro and / or Avid. In some cases exactly the same feature was present -- in some cases something quite similar -- particularly with Adobe Premiere Pro, which feels more like Final Cut Pro 8 than something completely new. With both Adobe and Avid, their native workflows give the end user a much more efficient day to day workflow over the transfer to ProRes workflow of Final Cut Pro 7. In other words, keep moving forward rather than falling back to the familiar.

Now some folks are honing in on very small quibbles about Avid and Adobe as to why they are not more efficient than Final Cut Pro 7. It is true that Avid, Adobe, Autodesk, Media 100, Sony Vegas, and so on are NOT Final Cut Pro. You will have to adjust your workflow to the new tool. You've done it before, you can do it again. You can also make requests to the various companies to add new tools to their products. I have already adjusted my workflow in just a matter of weeks in Premiere Pro.

Regardless, Final Cut Studio 3 is at the end of the road. Spend that $999 on something else to move yourself or your company forward. At some point in the near future you are going to have to migrate to something else. Why not make the move on your own terms when you can ease into it rather than when you are forced to move because the software / hardware doesn't work any longer. By spending $999 on legacy software you are only delaying the inevitable.

For those very smart people who ask if my copies of Final Cut Pro 7 have suddenly vaporized or just stopped working because X came out…after trying out Adobe Premiere Pro on the exact same systems with the exact same hardware, our team has discovered just how inefficient and slow FCP 7 is in today's post production environment. So we chose to make the move away from FCP 7 now rather than wait.

Where I see it today.

With so many citing the lack of trust in Apple moving forward because of the release of FCP X and their history of EOL'ing pretty much every piece of professional software they've ever branded, I'm not sure they'll ever re-gain the market share they once had in this industry. Most telling for me are the number of schools with media focuses that are not moving to X because of the industry backlash against the product. They want to teach what the industry is using.

The complete ease of transition to another product caused such a quick migration either directly away from Apple or into the exploration of other platforms that many decisions will be made and implemented before Apple even has a chance to release 1.5 or 2.0 or whatever they are going to call their next iteration. Again, I'm not sure this industry was even their primary target with this tool all along, so that may not much matter to the powers that be at the company. So long as we keep using their hardware, it really doesn't matter what software we use.

As I've stated earlier, when FCP originally came out 11 years ago, it was a completely different market. Today, Avid doesn't cost $100,000 per seat anymore. Adobe Premiere Pro is a very viable NLE. Autodesk even has a killer editing / finishing system in Smoke. So it's not like Apple is presenting some dramatic NLE alternative any longer. FCP 1.0 was revolutionary because of the price. It didn't re-invent Post Production, it simply gave the professional editor another choice. The playing field is very level and we all have very affordable options should we choose to go elsewhere. Today the editor, the post production shop owner, the broadcaster have to decide whether to buy into Apple's "revolutionary way" of Post Production or go with systems that blend the traditional with the new.

What I have been recommending to people is to download any or all of the free trials from Adobe, Avid, Autodesk, and now Apple…If you have the Adobe Premiere Pro package in house, you really should at least open that up and try it. If you have the AJA or BMD hardware on your systems, you won't be able to use Avid Media Composer 5.5 with that hardware, but you can at least poke around and try out the interface until support for those products is available.


Avid Media Composer
Avid Media Composer


In our facility we are actively transitioning away to Adobe Premiere Pro CS 5.5 because it absolutely positively works with our infrastructure and I already own a copy of it for every one of our suites. Premiere Pro easily opens any FCP legacy project via XML transfer with no third party tools required. So it's a natural fit and it's becoming a very easy transition for us.

That being said, as we are an independent Post facility, we are testing out Avid and once they deliver on the promise of our AJA Kona hardware working with the tool, I plan to install at least one seat. It makes good business sense to support both Adobe and Avid workflows to give the maximum flexibility for our clients.

Most of all, the most refreshing thing for me and many MANY others that I have been speaking to is that both Adobe and Avid are listening and responding. Those of us who have worked with Apple's silence for so long are very much enjoying the ability to reach out to a company with ideas, questions, etc... and actually get responses back.

Everything certainly did change in Post this past June of 2011. Just not exactly the way we expected.







  View 66 Comment(s)

  Apple FCPX or Not: The Debate Tutorials   •   Apple FCPX or Not: The Debate Forum
Reply   Like  
+6
Share on Facebook
Comments

Re: Post Production: Did Everything Change in Post?
by David Peralta
Hi Walter,

When you open up FCP projects in Premiere, how are you addressing old plug-ins? We have quite a few projects that use a bunch of effects. Do they still work? Are there adobe equivalents to say, FX Factory or Colorista?

Thanks

Dave
@David Peralta
by walter biscardi
Many of the same plug-ins are available for Premiere Pro like pretty much the entire Red Giant lineup (Colorista, Magic Bullet, etc....) Sometimes the filters will translate over and sometimes we have to rebuild them.

Walter Biscardi, Jr.
Editor, Colorist, Director, Writer, Consultant, Author, Chef.
HD Post and Production
Biscardi Creative Media

Blog Twitter Facebook
Re: Post Production: Did Everything Change in Post?
by Scott Shucher
Thank you, Walter for investing your time in a very well thought out article. It reflects everything I've been seeing in this new "paradigm." While I'm very open to new ways of working-I along with you were one of those early FCP "Cinewave" pioneers-the new paradigm doesn't work for me. I wish I could analyze, in-depth, how the demographics fall whether your an "X" fan or not. I wonder if it would tell an interesting story.
Re: Post Production: Did Everything Change in Post?
by Jackie Virgo
Great write up Walter! I wish my company had more insight and interest in moving forward, they are in the wait on FCP 7 and see with FCPX. I am in the mean time re-learning premiere pro and Avid MC as well as Smoke.
Re: Post Production: Did Everything Change in Post?
by ron sussman
There is no question that Apple is planning to move away from Desktop towers within the next few years. The MacPro is at the end of its life cycle. Apple is clearly focusing on the consumer and advancing the capabilities of the Tablet. Just look at the desperate attempts by all the PC makers to come out with anything as good or inciting as the iPad. FCPX fits into this paradigm as it doesn't require a big, powerful computer to function. We are on the cusp of a major shift in computing and unfortunately it is all about to be chaos and confusion for a few years. HP, clearly the best manufacture of PCs is getting out of the hardware business. Dell makes crap and has never been on the same level and the Koreans and chinese are not quite there yet. This is more of an issue than wether or not FCPX is professional. Apple doesn't care.
Re: Post Production: Did Everything Change in Post?
by Emiliano Tidona
I think wanting to open fcp7 projects in fcpx is just a stupid thing. Why would someone do that? its like trying to shot a film roll with a digital camera! its just another generation of tools!
You can finish your work in fcp7 and start the next one in fcpx... if you dont need multicam. If you do need multicam wait some other month... very simple.

Moreover mr. Biscardi you're forgetting about a lot of happy fcpx users who find it great from the version .0
@Emiliano Tidona
by walter biscardi
I think wanting to open fcp7 projects in fcpx is just a stupid thing. Why would someone do that? its like trying to shot a film roll with a digital camera! its just another generation of tools!
You can finish your work in fcp7 and start the next one in fcpx... if you dont need multicam. If you do need multicam wait some other month... very simple.


And what do we do next year when we have to open up a project to revise it? Or 2, 4, 5 years from now like we do right now? As I mentioned in the article we have a documentary completed three years ago that is being revised for broadcast television. A documentary that we spent over 2 years cutting.

Using your logic, we would have to start all over again with a brand new project and I'm quite certain my client is not going to want to pay me to do that. With opening up the old project, I can spend about a month or less revising the project. If I have to start all over again, it'll be much longer.

THAT's the issue with opening old projects in Final Cut Pro X. For the past 11 years we've been able to move projects forward with ease so you never had to worry about opening older projects. With X, the older projects are cut off.


Moreover mr. Biscardi you're forgetting about a lot of happy fcpx users who find it great from the version .0

First off, call me Walter or Wally, everyone else does.

Second, I've said repeatedly that if FCP X works for you and your business model, then keep right on using it. I'm merely outlining why we cannot use it in our facility and what I am seeing in our industry.

I'm speaking at an event locally where the main topic is migration away from FCP. Right now, from where I'm sitting, the industry trend is to move away from FCP right now. What will happen in the future is anyone's guess.

But if you like the tool and you're making money using it, then by all means, there is no reason to change that.

Walter Biscardi, Jr.
Editor, Colorist, Director, Writer, Consultant, Author, Chef.
HD Post and Production
Biscardi Creative Media

Blog Twitter Facebook
@walter biscardi
by Emiliano Tidona
ok Walter, I understand your point, but maybe these fears are overestimated and are (more or less) the same fears we had when we switched from analog to digital photography.
workflow changed and we had a transition period with both a darkroom and photoshop. We survived and life is better now.
I dont think this can be a discriminating point for a good piece of software.
@Emiliano Tidona
by walter biscardi
ok Walter, I understand your point, but maybe these fears are overestimated and are (more or less) the same fears we had when we switched from analog to digital photography.
workflow changed and we had a transition period with both a darkroom and photoshop. We survived and life is better now.
I dont think this can be a discriminating point for a good piece of software.


Sorry, the analogy doesn't work here. In the 11 years of FCP, we've switched from Analog to Digital to HD to 2K to 4K. We've had to adjust our workflows all along the way to ensure the we meet the ever changing demands of broadcast television and independent films.

We've had to endure an endless array of digital formats coming out on almost a weekly basis.

The one thing we've always had access to is our project files and our organization. Clients are not going to pay me to re-create projects we completed 5 years ago to do the revisions.

In our company we are constantly revising projects for other deliveries, exactly as I described in the article.

So this is not just going from shooting film and developing it in my home darkroom using the still awesome Beseller enlarger, the D76, the Dektol and all the other wonderful chemicals in the glorious glow of red lights and shooting on cards to adjust in iPhoto. In that case you're talking about single images or maybe a campaign of photos where you can still develop the film if you want to or more than likely, scan the negatives into a digital format. So you can still use the film negatives to create new projects today so your work is not lost.

With FCP X our work is lost. I have 250+ hours of material for the documentary we completed 3 years ago, again, this has been mentioned repeatedly in multiple articles. If I can't have access to that entire project and all of the organization, my client has to pay me to re-create that entire project using the "new tool" and that is never going to happen. I lose the client and work moving forward.

As for your point of FCP X being a "good piece of software" I'm just not there. It's ok and has some good ideas, but it's not a good piece of software if it's designed as insular in a collaborative industry. This is why we will not even start brand new projects in FCP X. All of our new projects are moving forward in Adobe Premiere Pro right now.

Walter Biscardi, Jr.
Editor, Colorist, Director, Writer, Consultant, Author, Chef.
HD Post and Production
Biscardi Creative Media

Blog Twitter Facebook
Re: Post Production: Did Everything Change in Post?
by Jimm Fox
I jumped into the industry 3 years ago. After a great deal of investigation and discussion I chose Adobe as my editing platform. My ultimate decision was based on the company, not the current popularity of any one software.

My decision was based on the belief that Adobe would commit the most amount money over the next ten years to video editing. Adobe had both the means and the business need to become the dominant player. Apple had the means but not the need. Avid had then need, but not necessarily the means.

I believe I made the right decision.
Re: Post Production: Did Everything Change in Post?
by Matt Short
Great post and discussion! I edit to make money so I didn't even bother to try FCPX. I don't really have the time to experiment with it. I do love to learn as many apps as I can but I'd rather spend that time investment on Smoke. I still have and use FCP7. I also use PP & MC. To work in LA, you need to be proficient on all of them. I'm using PP more and more these days. FCP used to be my go to NLE but I use the entire Adobe suite for everything else so PP just makes the most sense.

http://www.9Gfilms.com
http://9gfilms.blogspot.com/
Aerial Cinematographer / Editor
@Post Production: Did Everything Change in Post?
by Rob Manning
On AVID, the heady days of they owning the stage right acreage in South Hall, and Apple owning the stage left are long gone.

The acquisition of Digi Design, and the year(s) worth of catch up to FCP, price cutting, loss of hardware share as NLE loomed, all conspired with the demise from the show for both companies, really telling when until 2008, one couldn't even get by the masses congregated between the competing demos and decibel pitch fests.

Then both companies chucked NAB. Avid because they were bleeding, and Apple because of the bleeding for A/V functionality regarding the next wave of market share and whether it was enough game for them to field a team.

It appears from your post below about management actually listening to you last April, that there may well be a horizon to aim for to advance AVID. Perhaps AVID learned to appreciate out of the box innovations, as the post alludes.

That can only be a plus as the industry evolves, tools etc., they have advantage in a huge user base and can be like Farve coming out of retirement to win back some of the folks who have less inclination to absolve iJOBS near term.

Competition is good for everyone.

Insular dictatorships, not so much, because it can lead to innovations which might prove to non starters like Creative's MP3 machine. Even the plush review in HD Video Pro stalled out on pulling the trigger at the end of the article on FCPX.

Good for you Walter for making the case and good for AVID for heeding reality.

My how things have changed.
@Rob Manning
by walter biscardi
It appears from your post below about management actually listening to you last April, that there may well be a horizon to aim for to advance AVID. Perhaps AVID learned to appreciate out of the box innovations, as the post alludes.

Well the one thing Avid has had for quite some time is a good relationship with AJA Video Systems. Their cards have been powering the Avid Symphony line for quite some time. So now Avid and AJA just need to work together to get the Kona boards to support the Media Composer. It is coming, just no exact timeframe on the release date.

Walter Biscardi, Jr.
Editor, Colorist, Director, Writer, Consultant, Author, Chef.
HD Post and Production
Biscardi Creative Media

Blog Twitter Facebook
Re: Post Production: Did Everything Change in Post?
by Eric Kuehnapfel
Great article and even better feedback from everyone. I think I'm more upset with Avid than anyone else, having been an Avid editor long before Macromedia introduced Final Cut. Back then, as everyone knows, Apple's FCP was Avid with an unbeatable price point, a love of QT and a healthy desire to play well with others. As a result, during the years FCP matured Avid lost tremendous market-share and STILL they have not learned this lesson! If Avid was smart they would have opened to AJA and BM years ago when they moved the MC software back to Mac. They would have been in an absolutely perfect position to capitalize on this moment. Instead, listening to everyone's comments, Adobe's PP seems to be the best place to turn to. I used Premiere a long time ago and will likely return to it, but what I really want is the good old MC interface stepping in with an open format updated 64-bit engine saying "hey, look, we'll drop our price to $300 too...come back to us!". Yeah, I know, it'll never happen.

BTW, I kind of like the idea of event-based metadata bins, especially since good editing is 50% good logging anyway. Why can't we have both trackless editing AND track-based editing in one software package??? Ah, dreams...

Regards, Eric.
@Eric Kuehnapfel
by walter biscardi
I used Premiere a long time ago and will likely return to it, but what I really want is the good old MC interface stepping in with an open format updated 64-bit engine saying "hey, look, we'll drop our price to $300 too...come back to us!". Yeah, I know, it'll never happen.

That part about 64bit and opening up to AJA and BMD is in the process of happening right now with Avid. It's going to be part of the MC6 release according to everything Avid has said publicly. Not sure on the release date, but I'm sure you noticed that Avid also announced permanent cross-grade pricing. It's a bit higher than the $995 pricing it's at through tonight, but it's going to be permanent.

So yes, Avid completely dropped the ball and I told the senior management as much during my NAB meeting with them this past April. But they have finally begun to listen and all my communications with them in the past few months definitely has shown me they are trying to break away from the "old Avid" mentality. They "get it" now and while you might not see 100% 3rd party compatibility when MC6 ships, expect them to rapidly add more and more 3rd party compatibility as the product matures.

Adobe is definitely in the catbird seat right now with all the compatibility, but if you're an Avid fan and want to switch back to Avid, just hold tight a little longer.

Walter Biscardi, Jr.
Editor, Colorist, Director, Writer, Consultant, Author, Chef.
HD Post and Production
Biscardi Creative Media

Blog Twitter Facebook
@Post Production: Did Everything Change in Post?
by Rob Manning
I'm fairly low on the chops totem pole for video but after weeks of hand wringing (costs) and test drives, decided on APP, Production Premium.

Glad so far, said with learning curve voice inflection intact.

What seems to be the main point is man hours and revenue especially with native files and 64bit CUDA.

The folks positing here on the thread generally seem to orbit around the time is money sphere.

As a sales professional, it appears that their patience has dissolved especially after the plethora of feedback given to the Cupertino Monastics, and the integral changes (new methods) offered by iJOBS, so far at least, are not bankable enough.

So 'yall decided to vote with feet and wallets even as loyalists.

The admonition about market share, I've posted up several times in other forums, saw the demise and changes standing South Hall booth bound over NAB's of the last decade.

The evolution is that Creative allowed the iPOD to manifest, and the rest is history.

iJOBS is a phone company that happens to sell computers and is focused on html5 now, so not much else matters.

They may well drop actual processor based (graphics and video seats) computing next, we will just have to wait and see.

Interesting also that Nvidia banged out a Quadro card just for MAC retrofits.

So, yes, there might well be reason to acquire the FCPX version skill-set, but from reading this thread, it seems the train has already left the station, and might already be round the bend.

Just sayin'

Rob Manning
Photographer, Composer, Video Cub Scout
@Rob Manning
by walter biscardi
The train is moving away very fast for the time being. But should FCP X improve over the years and become something we can use, there's nothing to say we can't incorporate it as another tool down the road.

Adobe is clearly in the best position right now of all the NLEs with a very nice suite of apps for a very reasonable price. Avid is playing catch up with the third party hardware.

The bottom line is that editors and facilities have many more reasonably priced choices today than they did in 1999 when FCP originally came out. We're all looking to work together instead of insular.

Walter Biscardi, Jr.
Editor, Colorist, Director, Writer, Consultant, Author, Chef.
HD Post and Production
Biscardi Creative Media

Blog Twitter Facebook
Re: Post Production: Did Everything Change in Post?
by Rob Manning
Herb,

That is funny, some might sense a closet full of see through non dresses here and there.

Rob
Re: Post Production: Did Everything Change in Post?
by Winston A. Cely
After learning FCPX through the Apple Pro training series, and actually teaching it to a class of people, I feel that there are only very specific, and highly unlikely circumstances that would keep me from learning and eventually using FCPX as my main, go to NLE. Other than a better workflow with external audio engineers, FCPX fits the work flow of any company willing to learn a new more streamlined process. Legacy versions of FCP work fine for now and in the immediate future, and unless you're working with a project that has stood dormant for many years, and won't become active until working with legacy versions of FC is completely undoable, there's no reason not to learn FCPX. Even the best arguments for switching to Adobe or Avid - the best I've seen is above in Walters's article - deter me from moving forward with FCPX. Quite frankly, most (not all circumstances) for abandoning Apple's FCP are because we're already engrained in a workflow that works, that works and blinds us from what could and in my (limited) experience does work better than what we use now. Of course, this is all IMHO. ;)

Winston A. Cely
Editor/Owner | Della St. Media, LLC

17" MacBook Pro | 2.3 GHz Intel Core i7
4 GB RAM | Final Cut Studio 3 | FCPX | Motion 5 | Compressor 4

"If you can talk brilliantly enough about a subject, you can create the consoling illusion it has been mastered." - Stanley Kubrick
@Winston A. Cely
by walter biscardi
Winston there are some very good features in X and there is absolutely no reason not to learn it. I still keep a copy of it on my home iMac and am following its progress. However, just like with FCP 1, it's being roundly ignored by the majority of the production industry here in Atlanta. It's funny how people are pointing to the history of FCP and how it grew, well it looks like X will have to do the same thing. In fact, I've been asked to speak a seminar next week on migrating facilities away from FCP.

So as an independent Post facility, I have to move stay with the market forces and right now those forces are clearly shifting away from Apple in our area. Nothing to say we can't switch back at some point, but I honestly don't see us as a single platform facility any longer.

Obviously we're moving to Adobe Premiere Pro in a hurry because it's much more efficient than FCP 7, but as Avid moves forward with the third party compatibilities, it'll make sense to put that product in our shop.

At the moment, FCP X will be relegated to "start up" status again for us and we'll just have to watch where it goes as it matures. But you're right that there's no reason not to learn it.

Walter Biscardi, Jr.
Editor, Colorist, Director, Writer, Consultant, Author, Chef.
HD Post and Production
Biscardi Creative Media

Blog Twitter Facebook
Re: Post Production: Did Everything Change in Post?
by Joseph Mastantuono
I believe that every single of FCPX's current issues are easily fixable, except for two.

XML is in, early probes into the python scripting engine, Motion Dev, A Metadata focus (despite that you can't search any of these metadata fields) are all really exciting, and under better/smarter leadership, could have really been a home run.

Bad marketing, and not understanding that the "pros" rule the market has caused serious issues. This has been a huge marketing setback. I've spent the last 7 years showing Avid folks how much money and time they could save by switching to the FCS, if they used proper workflow practices. I've probably been personally responsible for 50+ seats of FCS to be purchased, and I've personally called or put purchase orders in for about 10-15 copies.

I would've just held and waited for the next version and expected FCPX to actually "Change everything in post" if it wasn't for just one thing:

(Walter is one of the few people to really showcase and talk about how huge of an issues it is too.)

Tracks. The metaphor of video tracks and audio tracks are SO integral to the way I work, and the way that I collaborate with Sound houses, Editors, Assistants, and quickly create deliverables, that I can't imagine a world without them. I mean, they're so integral to working with sound that they're even in Garageband.

As I joked with colleagues, FCPX doesn't cost 300$, it costs 300$ and the price of Premiere Pro, because that's what you're likely to switch to.

It's really too bad. Many parts of the interface are really slick, I love the precision editor, and the performance on a good machine is great. The way effects instantly preview with a mouseover and the mouseover skim, hit i, o, drag clip is actually a really efficient way of editing, especially for stringouts/roughs,

However, the lack of tracks is such a fundamental design flaw that I can't ever see myself taking it seriously.

Although, they *COULD* just add a track mode that simply adds a track metadata field, and auto places video/audio on the track they're assigned to. And if they did it in a slick enough fashion, they could bring me right back in. But with the way they've borked this up, I doubt it.

And based on my experiences with windows 7, if I can use Premiere or Avid on a PC just fine, I really don't see that much of a reason to keep buying Mac hardware.

Joseph Mastantuono
http://www.goodpostny.com
Color Grading & Post Production Consulting
@Joseph Mastantuono
by Patrick Sheffield
XML is in


Yes, but it does nothing for backwards compatibility - it's only a handle for 3rd parties to write conversions...

Patrick Sheffield
Sheffield Softworks
@Joseph Mastantuono
by walter biscardi
And based on my experiences with windows 7, if I can use Premiere or Avid on a PC just fine, I really don't see that much of a reason to keep buying Mac hardware.

I don't know about Avid but I do know that Premiere Pro projects are completely cross platform. That is just another reason why I like them so much right now.

Tracks is front and center the most important issue that Apple dropped and it sounds like they really don't have a way to truly put that back the way it should be unless they re-write the app yet again....

Walter Biscardi, Jr.
Editor, Colorist, Director, Writer, Consultant, Author, Chef.
HD Post and Production
Biscardi Creative Media

Blog Twitter Facebook
Re: Article: Post Production: Did Everything Change in Post?
by David Lawrence
Great article, Walter. Your observations are as spot-on today as they were on June 22.

I'm in camps 2 and 3. Still using FCP7 for day-to-day work and looking into all options for the future. For projects with my partners in LA, we'll probably make the leap to Premiere Pro because the transition seems so straightforward and the learning curve relatively minor. It also doesn't hurt that we already own it. For my own freelance work, it'll likely be a combination of PP and AVID.

And I continue to investigate FCPX to see if there's anything useful I can get out of it. I'm in agreement with @ Aindreas Gallagher -- in its current form, FCPX doesn't feel like an editing system to me. But it might be a useful preflight tool.

Ironically, I should be the ideal customer for FCPX. I do all my work on on a laptop. I use a suped-up late 2008 unibody 15" macbook pro. I usually have it in clamshell mode under my desk hooked up to a 24" Cinema Display and many TB of storage. When a client needs me to work on site, I pop it in my bag and it's a portable edit suite, with all the tools I need at my fingertips. I work exclusively in 1080p HD in various formats. Over 50% of the time, my source is DSLR. I rarely have budget to work with my favorite sound guys so 90% of the time I'm a one-man-band providing all post-production services. I never deliver for broadcast, my clients exclusively want video for web, PowerPoint embeds and projected presentations.

But sorry, the UI is a complete deal killer for me for reasons I've written extensively about. If they don't fix it, I'll be forced to move on.

[walter biscardi] "I know that dozens and dozens of pages of feedback was given to the development team during beta testing that was roundly ignored by Apple. Most of what was being asked and suggested are pretty much what caused all the uproar when the product was released. Apple knew exactly what the professional community thought of the product and knew exactly what it was missing BEFORE they released the product. "

Did you see this recent quote from Richard Townhill, Apple's senior director of applications product marketing in a recent CNET article?
"We're pretty good at this stuff actually," Townhill said of the change from Final Cut Pro to Final Cut Pro X. "We have a long history of successful transitions: OS 9 to OS X, PowerPC to Intel. We know we've done something revolutionary with Final Cut Pro, and we sincerely think that our professional customers will love it. And some of that is letting them know we will make good on the promises we made, and the (Final Cut Pro X) 10.1 update is the first public indication that we're doing that."

I wonder what Mr. Townhill would have to say about all those pages of ignored feedback.

_______________________
David Lawrence
art~media~design~research
propaganda.com
publicmattersgroup.com
facebook.com/dlawrence
twitter.com/dhl
Re: Article: Post Production: Did Everything Change in Post?
by walter biscardi
[David Lawrence] "I wonder what Mr. Townhill would have to say about all those pages of ignored feedback."

He just did, he ignored it. No mention at all of the facts that much of what was complained about after the release was already known by Apple prior to the release. But now it's time for revisionist history as if they are hearing all of this for the first time so they are trying to look like the good guys. But Avid and Adobe have shown the correct way to actually listen to your end users and improve the product efficiency.

And now today there's one more feather in Adobe's cap, they just brought Wes Plate on board from Automatic Duck. Now Premiere Pro will talk even better with all the other apps out there and you can bet the dynamic linking features will get even more robust between the apps. I'm especially excited to see what they do with the Premiere Pro to SpeedGrade round trip or will it be a dynamically linked operation. THAT will be sweetness.

http://www.autoduckinc.com/news.html

Walter Biscardi, Jr.
Editor, Colorist, Director, Writer, Consultant, Author, Chef.
HD Post and Production
Biscardi Creative Media

Blog Twitter Facebook
Re: Article: Post Production: Did Everything Change in Post?
by David Lawrence
[walter biscardi] "He just did, he ignored it. No mention at all of the facts that much of what was complained about after the release was already known by Apple prior to the release. But now it's time for revisionist history as if they are hearing all of this for the first time so they are trying to look like the good guys."

Guess that's right. It must be a tough gig spinning your most technically savvy and informed customers with a straight face. But it's hard to be sympathetic. This situation is entirely Apple's own making.

It's funny, back when Apple was struggling to survive after having lost the desktop OS war to Microsoft, I remember all the speculative chatter about how much better things would have been if Mac OS won over Windows. Now I'm not so sure. If you're the biggest company on the planet, you can say and do whatever you want. But that doesn't mean you get to redefine reality. Spin may work in the press, but professional users and related institutions will ultimately vote with their wallets.

The Automatic Duck announcement is great news. Those guys make outstanding products and they clearly see which way the wind is blowing.

_______________________
David Lawrence
art~media~design~research
propaganda.com
publicmattersgroup.com
facebook.com/dlawrence
twitter.com/dhl
Re: Post Production: Did Everything Change in Post?
by Jacob Kerns
Our facility has dumped FCP as well and purchased Adobe Production Suite. We even dumped the MacPros and switched to Windows7 and i7s. It actually saved us money for new Camera equipment.

Just finished our first project for AutoZone was cut on PP CS5.5 and AE CS5.5. The transition was smooth and rendering times were cut by %50 to %70. We were able to go back and make tweaks because of the time it saved us. We were 5days ahead of schedule and this wouldn't of been possible without Premiere.

Autozone was so impressed with the turnaround time and has already signed another 4 episodes because we were cheaper and faster than their in house production team.

NIADA
Technical Director
Re: Post Production: Did Everything Change in Post?
by Jacob Kerns
Are facility has dumped FCP as well and purchased Adobe Production Suite. We even dumped the MacPros and switched to Windows7 and i7s. It actually saved us money for new Camera equipment.

Just finished our first project for AutoZone was cut on PP CS5.5 and AE CS5.5. The transition was smooth and rendering times were cut by %50 to %70. We were able to go back and make tweaks because of the time it saved us. We were 5days ahead of schedule and this wouldn't of been possible without Premiere.

Autozone was so impressed with the turnaround time and has already signed another 4 episodes because we were cheaper and faster than their in house production team.

NIADA
Technical Director
-1
Re: Post Production: Did Everything Change in Post?
by Jacob Kerns
Are facility has dumped FCP as well and purchased Adobe Production Suite. We even dumped the MacPros and switched to Windows7 and i7s. It actually saved us money for new Camera equipment.

Just finished our first project for AutoZone was cut on PP CS5.5 and AE CS5.5. The transition was smooth and rendering times were cut by %50 to %70. We were able to go back and make tweaks because of the time it saved us. We were 5days ahead of schedule and this wouldn't of been possible without Premiere.

Autozone was so impressed with the turnaround time and has already signed another 4 episodes because we were cheaper and faster than their in house production team.

NIADA
Technical Director
-1
Re: Post Production: Did Everything Change in Post?
by Patricio Veloso
Great article Walter.

I'm moving forward too. As an After Effects professional user, Premiere Pro seems to be the natural change, its fast, cheap, compatible, works at 64bits, friendly with others, etc.
Ok. PPro its a great App, but what about LIGHTWORKS?

They have announced that will be an OSX and Linux version in Q4 2011.

Its a real alternative to the FCP widows?


Patricio Veloso
Director, Editor and Postproduction Nerd
http://www.maquinavisual.tv

Patricio Veloso
Broadcast Editor / Postproducer / HD Addict!
Greetings from Chile.
@Patricio Veloso
by walter biscardi
Ok. PPro its a great App, but what about LIGHTWORKS?
They have announced that will be an OSX and Linux version in Q4 2011.
Its a real alternative to the FCP widows?


We simply don't know yet. It's been announced but that's about it. Until we see it and test it, there's no way to speculate anything. One thing is for sure, they've been able to watch the FCP X roll out and they know exactly how the production community responded to that.

Walter Biscardi, Jr.
Editor, Colorist, Director, Writer, Consultant, Author, Chef.
HD Post and Production
Biscardi Creative Media

Blog Twitter Facebook
@Post Production: Did Everything Change in Post?
by Gerald Baria
For some reason, as is pointed out at an PPro and Avid comparison here, FCPX's UI just makes so much sense.





Quobetah
New=Better
-3
Re: Post Production: Did Everything Change in Post?
by Justin Nathanson
I dont like FCP X mostly (at the top of a LONG line of WTF's) because it doesnt FEEL like I am editing.

And I love editing.

After much deliberation, today I've ceased all FCPX training, and purchased the CS suite.
So, goodbye FCP, and hello, Premiere Pro.
Im actually pretty damn psyched - PP is rad. Im just a FCP editor, and always was....

That, and I'll prolly drive FCP7 till the wheels fall off.

JFN, filmmaker
the cut company
http://www.thecutcompany.com
@Post Production: Did Everything Change in Post?
by Patrick Sheffield
See, if I was smart, I would have gotten all these comments together in one post, but here's one more thought:
[timelines with tracks are]... a very VERY basic principal in editing and while it might be "old fashioned" and an "antiquated paradigm" it makes sense and is very easily understood between artists when projects and worked on together.

Yep. I'd add Apple's (and Mr. Schechtman's) dismissal of EDLs as "old technology" to the same bin. Yes, they're old, but they are working, understood, standards that allow all other professional editing/finishing/color correcting systems to work with each other. When I finish a broadcast spot, what does the artist with a Flame/Smoke/Nuke ask for from me? An EDL. What does the colorist want from me? An EDL.

Tracked timelines and EDLs may be "old fashioned" and "old technology", but so is the alphabet and without the alphabet, we'd be hard pressed to communicate with each other.

You don't see Microsoft redesigning Word to replace the alphabet with a "paradigm changing" new symbology...

Patrick Sheffield
Sheffield Softworks
@Patrick Sheffield
by walter biscardi
You don't see Microsoft redesigning Word to replace the alphabet with a "paradigm changing" new symbology...

qidyy, ahdyb akeno kooyw wup hai rpq tui theasr! eyop hbo voi noaiuw cbiop aihoepsie qupoahuxb wt ahi niop ssutia. baaiipa ghauii qkniio aihugop xuiop vansuo qui? naity hor!

hakeop wyipa Microsoft Word X ahyg quopa, cyandlhaip cio.

Walter Biscardi, Jr.
Editor, Colorist, Director, Writer, Consultant, Author, Chef.
HD Post and Production
Biscardi Creative Media

Blog Twitter Facebook
+2
@Post Production: Did Everything Change in Post?
by Patrick Sheffield
Walter, I'd say your article is right on the money. I've said it elsewhere... If you only do the math, broadcast professionals number in the what? tens of thousands? Against a FCP userbase of over 2 million? Couple that with some 50 million iMovie users who can move their projects right into FCX.

We're like a virus in a bacterium on a mite on a flea on a tick on the tail of the dog that is the potential FCP userbase. My read is that Apple have cut us loose.

I'll bet some bean counter at Apple said - wow - these broadcast folk are such a small percentage of the market, but they're so demanding, they tie up a lot of our time. And their numbers are not likely to grow... How can we grow our market? What if we simplified - held peoples hands - protected them from themselves, avoid problems like mis-relinking by eliminating relinking altogether - concentrated entirely on a digital workflow - tape's dead, right? That gives us most of FCP's old market (minus broadcast professionals) plus all those folks who've outgrown iMovie.

And you have to admit, that argument does make numerical sense. Now, I'd point out that there are many who might use FCP because that's what the Pro's use. Because big time commercials, music videos, and feature films are cut on FCP. That part of FCP's success is that schools teach it because the skillset is directly marketable. But I'm biased making that argument and I don't have hard numbers to back it up.

I'm sure Apple still cares about us broadcast professionals, but kind of like a girl who cares for her ex-boyfriend after she left him for someone with more money. I'm sure they wish us well and hope we find happiness with someone new, and don't let the door hit you in the butt on your way out...

Patrick Sheffield
Sheffield Softworks
@Patrick Sheffield
by walter biscardi
I think what the bean counters didn't count on was the colleges and institutions that the next generation of filmmakers are going to balking at FCP X. After all they are going to use what the industry is using. If the industry balks at FCP X, then many of the major colleges / training centers are going to balk as well.

From a purely financial standpoint it makes sense for Apple to do the bare minimum for professional users moving forward. They are squarely a consumer company. I know that dozens and dozens of pages of feedback was given to the development team during beta testing that was roundly ignored by Apple. Most of what was being asked and suggested are pretty much what caused all the uproar when the product was released. Apple knew exactly what the professional community thought of the product and knew exactly what it was missing BEFORE they released the product.

They released it anyway because the professional market was not their primary target. It was the consumer at home who really wants to do more than just use iMovie. Now they scramble like crazy to get third party developers to add band aids to make this sort of kind of work with the tools we need because it's obvious someone at Apple has laid down the law that nothing will be added to FCP X by Apple to make it more pro friendly.

And yesterday we have Larry Jordan saying that the next XML tool that allows you go BACKWARDS from FCP X to FCP 7 so you can export your project to other apps is the "tip of the iceberg" of what's to come. Wha? Two NLEs required to do the job of one is progress?

In other words, Apple boxed themselves into a corner and now they need the 3rd party developers to come with something, anything, to get them out. Gonna be an interesting couple of years to watch how they progress.

Walter Biscardi, Jr.
Editor, Colorist, Director, Writer, Consultant, Author, Chef.
HD Post and Production
Biscardi Creative Media

Blog Twitter Facebook
Re: Post Production: Did Everything Change in Post?
by Patrick Sheffield
"The first time I remember hearing "paradigm shift" to describe a video product was the Amiga Toaster (Not an NLE, but still a "paradigm" reference). While is was incredible for it's time, that story didn't end so well."


Actually that story didn't end and Newtek is still very much alive in the portable live video production field and LightWave 3D.

just sayin'

Patrick Sheffield
Sheffield Softworks
Re: Post Production: Did Everything Change in Post?
by kim krause
"In our facility we are actively transitioning away to Adobe Premiere Pro CS 5.5 because it absolutely positively works with our infrastructure and I already own a copy of it for every one of our suites. Premiere Pro easily opens any FCP legacy project via XML transfer with no third party tools required. So it's a natural fit and it's becoming a very easy transition for us.."
Translation: it does everything the previous version of final cut did!
again, am i really that dumb! i seem to be missing something here because all i can see is how all the alternatives to final cut studio work in the same way as final cut currently does....someone enlighten me with some clear and powerful logic!
i'll summarize: with final cut studio we have a system that currently works as well as most other things out there. this is proven by the fact that people are looking for alternatives that work in the same way and are backwards compatible with older fcp projects...okay! and we also have the benefit of something entirely new that those of us who are open minded enough may want to give a try...just in case it just might have some new and interesting ideas! the problem then is.....?
-2
@kim krause
by Herb Sevush
"am i really that dumb!"

A leading question that I shall leave alone for the moment.

Here's what many of us want.

1 - Ability to read legacy FCP7 projects.
2 - 64 bit for increased speed.
3 - Ability to handle tapeless workflow natively.
4 - Ability to play well with others.
5 - Observes basic NLE timeline conventions.

FCP7 doesn't have 2 & 3. Plus it's D E A D. Every new project you do with it creates a project your going to have to migrate in the future, so why not avoid that step and edit with something that isn't a corpse.

FCPX doesn't have 1, 4 & 5. It may have 4 someday, but maybe not.

PPro has 1 thru 5.

Avid has 1, 3, 4 & 5, with promises of 2 before NAB.

Is this really that hard to grasp? (this leads us back to the opening question.)

Herb Sevush
Zebra Productions
+3
@Herb Sevush
by walter biscardi
Avid has already presented MC6 to an audience in Hollywood and has announced that support for the AJA and BMD hardware is coming soon. So the 64bit application is coming along and from what I've been able to gather from my conversations with them, it sounds like things are progressing as expected. No timetable for release, but it is moving along. So #2 on your list will be here soon along with a #6 of working with all the FCP 3rd party hardware (which Adobe already does today).

And yes, I did way with my conversations with them. I'm in communication with both Adobe and Avid, and even Autodesk, about their product lines moving forward. And I'm definitely not alone, lots of my peers also getting direct communication with folks at both companies to offer advice and getting great feedback.

Walter Biscardi, Jr.
Editor, Colorist, Director, Writer, Consultant, Author, Chef.
HD Post and Production
Biscardi Creative Media

Blog Twitter Facebook
@kim krause
by walter biscardi
this whole backwards compatible argument is complete b.s.! and you yourself mentioned that in the beginning no one even wanted to look at final cut or take it seriously and yet it became an industry standard? i am very confused by the logic here!

Not in the least. I have clearly mentioned in the article how we need to open older projects all the time to revise.

In Adobe Premiere Pro we can open the older projects to continue our work, but now we're working in a 64bit native application that works with native formats, features dynamic link to After Effects, features a superior text tool, superior audio controls and many more features that are not found in FCP 7 to make the editor more efficient.

Not sure what's so difficult to understand. That's why I call Premiere Pro FCP 8. It has pretty much everything FCP 7 had, but has expanded on that in a way to make the editor more efficient than if we stay in FCP 7.

If you don't require any sort of legacy support period, then FCP X will work fine for your situation. For us, we need to be able to go back at least 5 years with our projects (sometimes more) so Premiere Pro is there for us.

And you can absolutely open an FCP project in Avid by the use of the Automatic Duck plug-in.

As for the AJA and BlackMagic boards, Adobe supports those now and Avid will be on board in the near future.

As for the trial downloads, I would have been extending that courtesy to Apple but they didn't offer it until a few days ago. Adobe, Avid and Autodesk have had that offer for months. It is noted in the article that Apple has offered the trial. It is also noted in the article that if you want to switch you owe it to yourself to download the other apps.

Obviously you really like FCP X and it's doing really good business for you so keep using it. It's also working for other folks out there too.

Me I have to run a business and it doesn't work for me and I have outlined the reasons why it still doesn't work for me four months later in this article. If I was the only person who felt this way then I would look like the odd man out. But based on the wealth of broadcasters and Post houses shedding Final Cut Pro and switching to Avid / Adobe, I'm clearly not alone. So my business decision right now is to switch to Adobe Premiere Pro and very shortly add Avid to the mix.

There is absolutely nothing in the world that says I can't add FCP X at a later date. That's the part of the picture the fanboys can't seem to figure out. Just because I don't use it today doesn't mean we can't use it years from now. Things change as Apple has clearly demonstrated. Right now the tide it moving away from Apple. Will it return? That remains to be seen. But short term, we move on and away from Apple.

Walter Biscardi, Jr.
Editor, Colorist, Director, Writer, Consultant, Author, Chef.
HD Post and Production
Biscardi Creative Media

Blog Twitter Facebook
Re: Post Production: Did Everything Change in Post?
by kim krause
and what's this? people complain because of lack of support for broadcast monitors yet you say this?

If you have the Adobe Premiere Pro package in house, you really should at least open that up and try it. If you have the AJA or BMD hardware on your systems, you WON'T be able to use Avid Media Composer 5.5 with that hardware, but you can at least poke around and try out the interface until support for those products is available.

why not extend the same courtesy to apple until fcpx has all the bugs worked out?
sometimes i feel like i'm the only sane one here.........
Re: Post Production: Did Everything Change in Post?
by kim krause
just one little thing...again from my warped sense of humor! how does jumping to another platform maintain the so called "legacy" that i keep hearing about. everyone bitches that fcpx is not compatible with fcp studio. but neither is avid and altho you can open tcp projects in premiere ( sometimes) it still doesn't explain the defection. even worse i've heard of some editors leaving the mac for windows...wheres the compatibility in that? this whole backwards compatible argument is complete b.s.! and you yourself mentioned that in the beginning no one even wanted to look at final cut or take it seriously and yet it became an industry standard? i am very confused by the logic here! on top of all that everyone was complaining about an antiquated way of working with time lines, and logging and linear this and that, yet as soon as fcpx offered them a change they all went running to something that worked more or less how they always worked. where's the progress in that? it's like demanding a better car be made but then buying the older model because it's more familiar! i am really lost here!
@kim krause
by Herb Sevush
"everyone bitches that fcpx is not compatible with fcp studio. but neither is avid and altho you can open tcp projects in premiere ( sometimes) it still doesn't explain the defection. even worse i've heard of some editors leaving the mac for windows...wheres the compatibility in that?"

I can open my project files in PPro on Windows, I can't open them on FCPX on a Mac. What's hard to understand. And why is it "worse" to switch to Windows. Do you feel some sort of loyalty to Apple? They obviously don't to you. If you make the decision to go to PPro then switching to Windows for your next hardware upgrade gives you a faster computer for less money without any down side.

"on top of all that everyone was complaining about an antiquated way of working with time lines, and logging and linear this and that..."

I don't know of anyone, except Randy Ubilos, who was complaining about time lines being antiquated in any way. Everyone was complaining about FCP7's inability to utilize all the cores on a Mac Pro, and that it couldn't natively handle many digital formats. Those were the two main problems. Avid and PPro, along with some others like Edius, had already surpassed FCP in these areas. Show me one posting asking for a magnetic trackless timeline, or anything remotely like it, and I'll wear your non-existant dress.

Herb Sevush
Zebra Productions
+1
@Post Production: Did Everything Change in Post?
by Tim Wilson
Now more than ever, it's how you use the tool not the tool itself.

Respectfully, it often IS the tool, and ONLY the tool. If it's the wrong tool, it's the wrong tool.

Continuing this thread's hammer simile: I can drive nails with a shoe, but if I ever need to remove a nail, it's simply not going to happen with a shoe. There's nothing about my ability to use shoes that makes them a reasonable substitute for an actual hammer.

The question then is, is FCPX a hammer or a shoe? For all of the "wait and see" exhortation, it actually doesn't take long at all to evaluate whether a hammer or a shoe is the right tool for the job.

And there's nothing a shoe horn can do to help you if you're trying to wear hammers on your feet.
Re: Post Production: Did Everything Change in Post?
by Brittany DeLillo
Very well-written article. I especially like the observations regarding the new Roles feature, which is really only a workaround for the problem Apple created.

I just finished up my first project in Premiere. I was mixing so many formats that Premiere was hands down the way to go. And like you said, it's already built into the Production Premium suite so no extra purchase necessary. My first ride through it was shaky (it crashed more than expected) but handling all that video natively was a dream come true! And whenever I vocalized my concerns via social channels, there was Adobe, responding with suggestions and interest!

As much as Apple has changed the game, I'm somewhat welcoming the shake up. It gives us all a chance to look to other vendors and solutions and find something that might work BETTER than what we had. Not to make it sound like we should all go out and buy new hardware/software, but I'm certainly learning a lot about what's out there that I'd normally turn a blind eye to because of my "allegiance" to FCP. Now more than ever, it's how you use the tool not the tool itself. And that's lost sometimes.
Re: Post Production: Did Everything Change in Post?
by TImothy Auld
Aside from not being able to open legacy projects I think that FCP X's Achilles heel is the trackless timeline. I agree that Apple seems to be scrambling for a way to make it work in the context of long established workflows. I think the only way they have a prayer of getting back the community they have lost is to add the "old thinking" functionality to a future update. And, as you point out, it is not really clear if they even want that community back. Excellent article. Thanks.

bigpine
+1
@TImothy Auld
by Chris Harlan
Great article, Walter. Right on the money.
Re: Post Production: Did Everything Change in Post?
by Marcus Moore
"That is the kind of academic design statement that sounds great but is totally meaningless.

Most hammers look alike, does that mean it's time to create "Hammer X" a new paradigm for hammers? I think hammers work pretty well at this point, we've got them figured out, so now it's time to make the best hammer you can, with the best materials and ergonomic design."

Uh... there is a "Hammer X". It's called a nail gun.

@Marcus Moore
by Herb Sevush
Apparently my metaphors need refining.

Herb Sevush
Zebra Productions
@Herb Sevush
by Marcus Moore
No. I think I made my point.

Re: Post Production: Did Everything Change in Post?
by John Ward
After getting burned when Media 100's 844 system went the way of the Dodo, we invested in FCP specifically because it was the least proprietary and talked to the largest number of 3rd party developers. Part of my knee-jerk reaction to what we had just been through was to export XML at the archive stage of every project because, hey ... you never know. We will be moving to Premiere Pro in the near future and the wonderful thing is that we have a 5 to 6 year backlog of XML's we can just import and go - no need to even go back to FCP 7 for past projects.

Having been through the process with the 844's end of life and now FCP's end of usefulness, if not life, I can tell you the first thing I'm going to do when archiving our first Premiere Pro project is to spit out an XML, batch list and EDL in addition to the Premiere Pro project file itself.

Because, hey ... you never know.

John Ward

Editor / Animator,
Synergetic Productions
locomation@yahoo.com
john.ward@synergeticproductions.com
http://www.synergeticproductions.com
315.437.7533
Re: Post Production: Did Everything Change in Post?
by emy fehmi
One observation I made from the article is the end. Walter says that at this point FCP, Premiere Pro, and Avid are all a lot alike. Is that not the point when it comes time for a disruption? When everyone is fighting to support the status quo and everyone is doing exactly the same thing. Is the time that someone comes and tips over the boat.

@emy fehmi
by Herb Sevush
"When everyone is fighting to support the status quo and everyone is doing exactly the same thing. Is the time that someone comes and tips over the boat."

That is the kind of academic design statement that sounds great but is totally meaningless.

Most hammers look alike, does that mean it's time to create "Hammer X" a new paradigm for hammers? I think hammers work pretty well at this point, we've got them figured out, so now it's time to make the best hammer you can, with the best materials and ergonomic design.

All spreadsheets look alike, all word processors look alike, all computers look alike - does this mean we should look forward to "Mac Pro X" - it has no CPU but it's made of graham crackers- look an edible computer.

The idea isn't to tip the boat, the idea is to make good tools so craftsman can make good products.

Herb Sevush
Zebra Productions
@emy fehmi
by Herb Sevush
"When everyone is fighting to support the status quo and everyone is doing exactly the same thing. Is the time that someone comes and tips over the boat."

That is the kind of academic design statement that sounds great but is totally meaningless.

Most hammers look alike, does that mean it's time to create "Hammer X" a new paradigm for hammers? I think hammers work pretty well at this point, we've got them figured out, so now it's time to make the best hammer you can, with the best materials and ergonomic design.

All spreadsheets look alike, all word processors look alike, all computers look alike - does this mean we should look forward to "Mac Pro X" - it has no CPU but it's made of fig newtons - look an edible computer.

The idea isn't to tip the boat, the idea is to make good tools so craftsman can make good products.

Herb Sevush
Zebra Productions
Re: Article: Post Production: Did Everything Change in Post?
by Chris Walsh
Great article outlining the challenges facing any "revolutionary" product in the pro marketplace. We're on a is a big ship that turns very slowly, even in our new all-digital age. That's why it took Final Cut ten years to become the industry standard.

Most of us can't walk away from existing workflows overnight, because we'd be walking away from our clients. I'm in group 2 and will watch FCPX and Apple closely to see if they can do it again, start from scratch to become the new industry standard.

I hope they do.

Chris Walsh

http://www.musicfog.com
Silver Spring, MD
Final Cut & AVID MC5
Former Windows User and edit* lover
Re: Article: Post Production: Did Everything Change in Post?
by Richard Cardonna
Yes I agree But It must be a totaly new industry because fcpx does not quite fit in the currect one save for less complicated professional work.

Richard
Re: Post Production: Did Everything Change in Post?
by Marvin Holdman
The first time I remember hearing "paradigm shift" to describe a video product was the Amiga Toaster (Not an NLE, but still a "paradigm" reference). While is was incredible for it's time, that story didn't end so well. Looks like history might just be repeating itself.

Marvin Holdman
Production Manager
Tourist Network
8317 Front Beach Rd, Suite 23
Panama City Beach, Fl
phone 850-234-2773 ext. 128
cell 850-585-9667
skype username - vidmarv
@Post Production: Did Everything Change in Post?
by Herb Sevush
Walter -

Great article as usual. To underscore your opening point I just had a producer ask me to open a 5 year old project to adjust a show they were now licensing for international. If they go forward I have 26 shows that I will need to re-cut. To do it I will need tape machine control to re-capture the media and proper video monitoring; oh and it was also a multi-cam job, so I guess FCPX is not going to cut it for me.

Herb Sevush
Zebra Productions
Re: Post Production: Did Everything Change in Post?
by Dan Stewart
Another good one Walter, thanks.
Avid must be kicking themselves they refused to recognise reality for so long and missed the chance to be AJA & BM ready when Apple dropped the ball.

Re: Article: Post Production: Did Everything Change in Post?
by Aindreas Gallagher
it's done though isn't it? Isn't FCPX early done? I'm a dead harpsichord on this point, and open to contradiction, but absolutely no facility or shop in London, from the lowliest corporate to the highest is touching this software.

It is basically being rejected going forward. I do not think colour coded tagging will change this.
no one is touching it with a barge pole. A notable example is a gigantic online pure play design shop with a blue chip american sports brand and software gaming clients. FCPX is a black laugh dead letter in there. I asked had they installed it, wondering if I'd get a project in anger for real practise but there is a basic and total refusal. There is no tape in the house. The head of the film department as they term it exists off 5D's and Red and most of it goes to very high eyeball websites.
They have a very large xsan and teens of FCP seats. Their reaction to FCPX does not bear printing.

I know one american news, and one american network entertainment london subsidiary that completely threw out FCP and the entire supporting mac hardware via their engineering staff. there were quite a few seats there.

there's no year to eighteen months to fix this is there? Apple EOL'd the entire existing platform and then left a 1800 number?
the whole 1.0 let us grow, kernel to build a decade stuff is ludicrous isn't it? Isn't this software just dead?


http://www.ogallchoir.net
promo producer/editor.grading/motion graphics
Re: Article: Post Production: Did Everything Change in Post?
by walter biscardi
[Aindreas Gallagher] "but absolutely no facility or shop in London, from the lowliest corporate to the highest is touching this software."

That's the part most stunning to me. How quickly many large established facilities are shedding the entire platform and a large part of that has to do with the fact that Adobe already does and Avid very soon will support almost all of the third party infrastructure built for FCP.

This is truly becoming a "history repeats itself" with FCP 1.0 which many of the FCP 10 fans like to call the current release. "It's a 1.0 software so we're starting all over again."

It took almost 9 years for FCP to have enough people using it for the "large players" from broadcasters and very large commercial Post Houses to accept FCP as the standard NLE to use. And now it's going to have to happen again if Apple is going to make a dent in the pro industry. There will have to be enough people using it to create it as a "mainstream" product again for the "large players" to consider it again.

I can say that there is not one broadcaster or large post facility who is asking me how to transition to FCP X. Every conversation I'm having is how to transition to Adobe or Avid. Apple trying to backtrack and add the features back in that should have been in the product all along is simply not helping the situation.

It's like I said in my article, it's like Apple really doesn't know what they want to do with the product. At the release, it was clear to me they were willing to shed the professional market to gain the larger consumer share. Now it appears the professional outcry over the application is hurting the consumer sales so they are trying to backtrack and make it "professional enough" to appease the pros.

It's going to be interesting to see where this all plays out in a few years. I still have my copy of X and there are certainly some clever concepts in there, but right now, Adobe has the best of both worlds. Traditional editing with many of the native editing / metadata features that are very important for today's editors.

Walter Biscardi, Jr.
Editor, Colorist, Director, Writer, Consultant, Author, Chef.
HD Post and Production
Biscardi Creative Media

Blog Twitter Facebook
Re: Article: Post Production: Did Everything Change in Post?
by Aindreas Gallagher
it's rather crazy and slightly unnerving how fast its moving.

And yes - I'm presuming, as quite a few are, that at least in primarily short form broadcast spots up to a few minutes of corporate/sizzle reel with integrated grading and motion graphics - all of that is all going to be premiere pro as a mortal lock if version six of premiere truly delivers.
I still think they need a codec though. the new project codec dialogue box is not at all enticing. they had a chance to buy a very good codec there a while back and I'm surprised they didn't. I still think PPRO needs a codec. an avc timeline still feels wrong to me with all the gop stuff?


http://www.ogallchoir.net
promo producer/editor.grading/motion graphics
@Aindreas Gallagher
by walter biscardi
Adobe doesn't so much need a central codec as they need the "media management" style of converting your final timeline into one codec of choice.

Right now they have an awesome Project Manager that can trim your project down based on a single timeline, multiple timelines of choice or your entire project. What it cannot do yet is to take your final timeline and recompress all of those elements to a single codec, such as ProRes or DNxHD. That's what I've been asking Adobe to do.

I edit everything natively, which works brilliant. Now I'm done and I want to send the whole thing into Resolve for color grade, so now convert all my raw clips in the timeline to ProRes with whatever handles I set.

That will make Premiere Pro the perfect app. So they don't so much need a codec so much as they need the easy ability to take our final timeline and give us the raw clips in the codec of choice.

Walter Biscardi, Jr.
Editor, Colorist, Director, Writer, Consultant, Author, Chef.
HD Post and Production
Biscardi Creative Media

Blog Twitter Facebook
Re: Post Production: Did Everything Change in Post?
by Tom Daigon
(By the way, name ONE time you heard the word paradigm used to describe anything in post production BEFORE FCPX came out.)

As a CMX editor I was part of a large facility that had trainers come in from Avid. In the orientation Avid was described as a paradigm shift in the editing world. It was an accurate description of Avids ground breaking technology. More appropriate in the description of Media Composer then FCP XXX I feel.

Tom Daigon
Avid DS / PrP / After Effects Editor
http://www.hdshotsandcuts.com
Mac Pro 3,1
8 core
10.6.8
Nvidia Quadro 4000
24 gigs ram
Maxx Digita / Areca 8tb. raid
Kona 3


Related Articles / Tutorials:
Apple FCPX or Not: The Debate
FCPX On Air. Coming Soon

FCPX On Air. Coming Soon

Former skeptic John Davidson was right there with everyone else when FCPX was released who deemed it a complete disappointment for broadcast pros. Many updates and much experimentation later, he's now a believer: he has FCPX not only running on shared storage for broadcast work, but for John, it does so even better than FCP 7 ever did. Here he introduces a 5-part series, taking you step-by-step from project set-up to delivery, ready to help other broadcast pros get moving with FCPX.

Editorial, Feature
Apple FCPX or Not: The Debate
Workflow Update: iMac, Adobe & the X Factor

Workflow Update: iMac, Adobe & the X Factor

With five edit suites currently running at Biscardi Creative Media, and four more on standby, Walter Biscardi and crew need the best possible performance our of their workflow and machines. Here, Walter describes the power (yes, power) of the iMac, the workhorse Adobe Premiere Pro, and some never say never insight on FCP X.

Editorial, Feature
Apple FCPX or Not: The Debate
Smoke: A Journey and a Look Ahead

Smoke: A Journey and a Look Ahead

An FCP user and enthusiast since version 1.0, David Jahns looks at Autodesk Smoke for Mac, and discusses color-grading, tracking, editing, compositing and overall performance.

Editorial
Apple FCPX or Not: The Debate
High Noon in the Editors' Corral

High Noon in the Editors' Corral

A group of editors gathered at a Hollywood Post Alliance Sales Resource Group luncheon to debate the merits of today's nonlinear editing systems. In the process, they argued less over tools and complained more about an ever-changing workflow. And, yes, there are a few fans of FCPX.

Feature
Apple FCPX or Not: The Debate
For your Bovine Mastication and Consideration: FCPX Can Work

For your Bovine Mastication and Consideration: FCPX Can Work

After coming across and commenting on a post in the forums concerning FCPX and its current popularity and possibility for serious editing use, Charlie Austin was contacted by Tim Wilson to expand his original thoughts for Bovine consumption. Care to chew the cud with us?

Editorial
Apple FCPX or Not: The Debate
A Cautionary Tale for the FCP Switcher

A Cautionary Tale for the FCP Switcher

Herein lies the cautionary tale of a long-time user of Final Cut Pro, penned for those who would consider switching NLEs. Are there tools that will positively replace FCP 7? Are there NLEs that are even more powerful than our now evanescent favorite?

Editorial
Apple FCPX or Not: The Debate
Colorgrading Round-Up

Colorgrading Round-Up

Dennis Kutchera went to Vegas with a goal - to be tantalized by the new colour-grading options - in essence, to cheat on his beloved Avid. What happens in Vegas, this time, comes back with some great stories.

Feature
Apple FCPX or Not: The Debate
Confessions of a Creative Maniac: Unified Theory of Media

Confessions of a Creative Maniac: Unified Theory of Media

Convenience is more important than quality -- I've taught a couple of generations of students that understanding this basic reality is a great way to predict just about any future media trend, and in the case of NAB, it looks like the equation has not lost a molecule of relevance.

Editorial, Feature
Apple FCPX or Not: The Debate
Confessions of an NAB Virgin

Confessions of an NAB Virgin

This is no ordinary NAB recap. This isn't a collection of thoughts about products and software. This is the confession of a small-town starry-eyed NAB virgin, and the adventures and anxieties she finds herself in.

Feature
Apple FCPX or Not: The Debate
What a Long, Strange Year It's Been!

What a Long, Strange Year It's Been!

Apple imploding. Adobe ascending. Avid opening up. Who could have seen it coming? Here's Walter's look at what happens when the blinders come off.

Feature, People / Interview
MORE


FORUMSTUTORIALSFEATURESVIDEOSPODCASTSEVENTSSERVICESNEWSLETTERNEWSBLOGS

Creative COW LinkedIn Group Creative COW Facebook Page Creative COW on Twitter
© 2014 CreativeCOW.net All rights are reserved. - Privacy Policy

[Top]