LIBRARY: Tutorials Reviews Interviews Editorials Features Business Authors RSS Feed

FCPX: Three Camps - The Pro vs. Non-Pro Debate

COW Library : Apple Final Cut Pro X Debates : David Battistella : FCPX: Three Camps - The Pro vs. Non-Pro Debate
CreativeCOW presents FCPX: Three Camps - The Pro vs. Non-Pro Debate -- Apple FCPX - Final Cut Pro X Editorial

director, editor,
Toronto Ontario Canada All rights reserved.

These have been some interesting days since the release of Final Cut Pro X

One thing that is emerging is the PRO vs. NON PRO debate.

There seem to be three camps.

  • I own and operate a facility with multiple edit suites.
  • I run a professional shop that "sausage factories" out shows every day.
  • I am a professional and I need a tool that fits this facitlity (which is my definition of what a professional is.)
  • I don't like too much change, and generally I have a conservative approach, because I am a mission-critical shop that depends on a software tool to be exactly what I need it to be with the functionality I ask for.

For CAMP ONE pros, FCP X is a disappointment because they have bought a lot of software licenses and hardware, and have made and invested a lot of money in "facility based factory" edit enviroments. These people cannot implement FCP TEN because it is not fully functional yet, but deep down they want it to be -- they want it to work like a mature ten year old software (that FCP 7 is) in a day to day enviroment. They see a very tempting feature set in and potential in FCP TEN, but will probably have to wait to install the software.

Ironically, CAMP ONE often talks about FCP's shortcomings and have been the ones saying it had weak points that could only be addressed if the software was completely rewritten!

I will call these people EDITING professionals. This can range from the following group of creatives.

  • Freelance editor -- who has to be ready to edit with anything and can't turn town jobs based on software.
  • Indy film makers -- Generally a crowd who are willing to risk and embrace (probably too soon) and like to feel like the drivers of technology.
  • Filmmakers -- Who wear many hats, including editing.
  • Directors, Director DP's -- who are increasingly moving toward editing.
  • Wedding/event Professional -- I can say without shame that I did this for two years (while in school) and it was in many ways more demanding than many professional environments. A wedding day carries a high personal expense and is emotionally charged. There is a lot of pressure to capturing and doumenting this day for people. There are excellent business models and it's a lucrative business.
Let's call this "Emerging Professionals". These fall into the following typical categories:
  • I am a student.
  • I am a photographer staring to shoot video.
  • I am a DSLR indy film maker making music videos for free
  • I am retired and always loved film
  • I've edited some stuff with iMovie or Adobe Premiere, or two VCRs

Most CAMP THREE people have been professionals in other fields or are moving toward a pro or semi pro career which includes editing their own material as a part of the plan.

The CAMP ONE people represent the least number of people in editing environments and that number is only going to get smaller as the skill set of the "editing professional" will have less and less to do with software tied to facilities and expensive workstations. CAMP TWO represents the bulk of hardworking pros who use editing software. This group is growing. CAMP THREE is all the potential new business.

What I am seeing and reading a lot of on the COW is that CAMP ONE people are upset that they have to learn a new tool, upset that the new tool is not what they wanted, they are experiencing a feeling of being disappointed and being left behind. but, some of them at the same time are showing a lot of resentment to other professional groups for using a tool they feel they have ownership of. They feel like they are the only true editing professionals.

There have been viscious attacks on Apple in the past week from this group.

CAMP TWO are either in the middle or defending the application and willing to wait a while to see how it evolves.

CAMP THREE are looking for an application that works on their Mac and is as easy to use as every other Mac app.

As I was reading forums all week I thought about changing my sig file to:
You are the professional, not the software tool you choose.

But I didn't. I do think there is something to that statement though. We become very identified with the tools we use. A camera is not just a camera, an NLE is not just an NLE.

Here is they way I like to think about it:
  • A pro does professional work.
  • A pro does professional work, preferably with professional tools.
  • A pro does not need professional tools to accomplish the task.
  • A pro acts like a pro at all times.

These are the qualities of being a professional. I've used many NLEs, many cameras, and they are all just tools in the hands of a professional -- which I call myself by these definitions.

We are in for an interesting post production ride. Let's all be pros here at the COW and let's get talking (in a constructive way) about how to use these new professional tools.




David Battistella, Creative COW Magazine David Battistella

David Battistella is a Writer and Film Maker. Visit to learn more.


@FCPX: Three Camps - The Pro vs. Non-Pro Debate
by Dustin Lau
We really need to take the pro, non-pro element of this out of the discussion because it inflames it with emotion and makes the topic degenerate into a insult fest, which doesn't make it a useful information resource, just a place to vent your spleen.

You're a pro if you make money off your work, regardless of the kind of work it is, whether you're a photographer moving into video, a multicam series editor, a wedding videographer or corporate video producer, so slinging non-pro insults isn't particularly accurate or helpful. A person's choice of tool does not define his ability or his 'pro'-ness, it just means the tool suits his needs and meets his budget. Why pay more than you need to?

On the other hand, it's also rather disrespectful to dismiss wanting certain features missing that were present in FCP7 as 'old luddites that will get left behind'. Just because you don't use it doesn't mean no one else does, and it's pretty self centered to declare that everything is fine because your personal needs are met.

Large companies have function on a roadmap of knowing their upgrade path and can't make rapid transitions, especially when it could mean buying 300-600 copies and re-training hundreds of staff. Board directors do not take kindly to being forced into that amount of re-investment because one company decided they wanted to do their NLE differently, and will push their CTOs to choose a company that doesn't cost them thousands of dollars of 'corrective reinvestment'.

It's more useful for all of us to define this by
What new features does FCPx have that its competitors doesn't?
In what scenarios are they useful?

what FCPx isn't capable of that people need (eg broadcast out, multicam)
whether these features are in the pipeline and how far away

What workflow is different from before?
Whether this is an improvement or worse than before
specifying situations where either is the case

What this FCPx situation means for me personally is that I have to learn 3 pieces of software (MC, FCP x and Premiere) so that when FCP7 can no longer keep up, I can make a recommendation of where my company can move to next. Re-training, learning a new interface and getting people up to scratch on a new toolset is a given, whichever NLE is chosen.

What I can say is that Apple has never been the best partner for large corporations to begin with because their roadmap is secret and they have a tendency to make snap decisions with willful disregard to their partners and clientbase. (EOL of shake, Xserve, etc) Who knows whether the MacPro will continue to be updated now that Thunderbolt is everywhere, nevermind that it doesn't support 16x lanes for GPU acceleration?

Also, FCP7 support for companies was always provided by VAR (Value Added Resellers). Now that they have been taken out of the equation (see willful disregard of partners point above), who provides tech support? The Genius Bar? Also, what it is their Volume licencing policy for FCPx? How do you buy 300 seats without jumping through hoops?

These considerations weigh heavily against Apple for larger companies. If I was in a small boutique production house, my concerns would be very different and narrower in scope.
@FCPX: Three Camps - The Pro vs. Non-Pro Debate
by Dan Stewart
What you mean is that for camps 1 & 2 this half formed toy is a totally meaningless and disappointing piece of crap that cannot remotely be used.
Camp 3 is students and non professionals who don't need a professional edit suite.

@Dan Stewart
by David Battistella
You nailed it Dan!

Thanks for the back handed slap.

I see myself as both a student and a non professional.

Sheesh! Folks really forget they are commenting in front of the whole world.



The shortest answer is doing.
Lord Herbert

Re: FCPX: Three Camps - The Pro vs. Non-Pro Debate
by Dusan Petkovic
Hi there,

I'm camp 2. Work mainly with AVID and FCP, for postproduction companies that concentrate on TV drama. However, my home station was always FCP and I loved it.
Bought the FCPX decided to jump in it head first. 8 hours of material 25 minute ducu, 2 camera, often additional external sound. Got hold of all tutorials I could pay for. I'm saying this to show that stubbornness is definitely a part of my character and that I was stoked to make this programme mine.

And the unimaginable happened. I actually don't want to get into too much details, still frustrated about it. I stopped the project shortly after the 0 version, bought an Adobe Production Package, had to redo the whole rough cut, and still I'm ecstatic I switched.

Now that I know a bit or two about FCPX I can comfortably say, that if this is ever going to be a norm in editing, it will take years.

Actually, my story aside, seems like a massive amount of people feel the same. Adobe just came out today with sales figures

A monstrous 45% sales increase of Creative Suite, directly connected to FCP switch. I think, even from business point of view, this was a mistake by apple...
Re: FCPX: Three Camps - The Pro vs. Non-Pro Debate
by Daniel DeCarli
Hi. I liked your post.
I guess a real pro is always a pro but try to make your footage more shaky, grainy and noisy and in lower quality and you will see that a pro without pro equipments is very limited on his work. I mean, depending on the camera and tripod you have, you can make a full movie if you are a pro.
Even on iMovie (I guess, not sure).
But yeah, a pro is a pro.
Re: FCPX: Three Camps - The Pro vs. Non-Pro Debate
by Paul Lewis
I'm glad I didn't stick with FCP once I got out of school. I jumped on the Adobe train, and I couldn't switch back. I do every aspect of production at my company. I am the script writer, the camera man, the editor, and even tech support. I learned on iMovie and a FCP system and Premiere Pro feels almost the same to me, and Adobe Dynamic link saves me so much time when editing. I feel like FCP doesn't have the tools a small business needs like adobe has, and now it seems they don't have the tools that the pros need either.
Re: FCPX: Three Camps - The Pro vs. Non-Pro Debate
by Andrew McKee
Well rounded up. A good cameraman can do a better job with an iPhone than a novice would with a Phantom Flex. A good editor can do a better job with iMovie than a novice would with Avid DS. At the end of the day we make decisions about what footage to show to an audience and in what order and it is the quality of those decisions that counts. However, good software enables you to make good decisions quickly and easily and accurately. Whilst I think FCPX has its time and place and a market who will love it, I am not part of that market. As I edit drama, the lack of a 2 up display and the lack of dynamic trimming stop me from making decisions as well or as quickly as I could with FCP7 or Avid.

One thing people seem to miss...
by Brad Ballew
So I work as an editor at a young company that just opened a 2nd studio in Dallas. Our workload has been steadily increasing and will continue to do so the next year thanks to several new contracts. Without a doubt we will be needing to add a number of new editing stations in the coming months. Final Cut Server and Final Cut 7 are what we depend on for our post production needs.

FCPX cannot integrate in our workflow. We have to be able to share project files not only between different editors in our Dallas facility but also our Austin one. We can't do that. The final cut server that we have spent so much time and energy getting up and running, which has also become the backbone of our workflow,.. is not compatible with FCPX. There are a number of other needs (not simply wants) that I could list, but I'll keep this short.

So when we need to add workstations later this year, we will not be able to use FCPX because it is completely incompatible with our needs. Since FCP7 is discontinued, we can't use that either. So our only option if we want to expand is to completely replace our post production workflow which is no easy task especially while trying to continue daily production work.

So yeah... we are a little bit annoyed since we kind of feel we got the carpet pulled out from under us.
Re: FCPX: Three Camps - The Pro vs. Non-Pro Debate
by Steve Tomich

Excellent analysis. Thanks for putting things in such a clear perspective.

Steve Tomich
Re: FCPX: Three Camps - The Pro vs. Non-Pro Debate
by Dustin Lau
Just strictly from a camp1 point of view, to reduce it to fear of change is somewhat simplistic. I have to point out that companies making long term investments in editing systems and platforms base their decisions upon recommendations from editors or heads of editing departments.

With a 32bit FCP7 reaching the limits of it's capability in a few years, editors who have recently made the recommendation to use FCP as the main editor in their facilities have been thrown under the bus in 2 ways.

First, that FCPx will not in the near future be a viable upgrade path for large facilities requiring collaborative workflows. Any conjecture about features that will be added is just that, conjecture. Without any firm release dates, all the assurances in the world aren't going to satisfy a CFO, MD or CTO out for blood.

Second, FCP7 will not be supported further, as recent actions regarding licensing and availability of upgrade packages show. (I know they are now back on the website)

This means being tied to a platform that will be obsolete in 1-2 years, with no concrete knowledge of whether the next incarnation (FCPx) will be ready for use within/before that time.

You're talking about companies who might have spent tens or hundreds of millions of dollars on hardware, software, plugins and integration to Media Asset Managers, News systems, Transmission systems, Playout servers.

Companies which will now hold the person/people who recommended FCP as an editing platform to them responsible for the additional cost of switching, re-training, re-integrating, writing off obsolete/incompatible hardware & software.

It's not about snobbery about wanting to feel like FCPx is for 'true pros'. I like range keywords. I'd like the option to toggle magnetic timeline on and off. I've always thought face detection was long overdue for an NLE. Autofixing rolling shutter and proxy edit until ingest is done are great features.

Here's the problem. I would like to use these features at work, because that's where I do most of my editing. And I can't unless it works the way it needs to work for my company to make money. Until it does, I'm not going to have the time to learn the 'new paradigm of editing'. Because I'll be too busy re-training people, transitioning servers and systems, and implementing new workflows to another platform.
@Dustin Lau
by David Battistella
Thanks for the post Dustin.

I boiled it down to fear because ultimately it is very scary to have to overhaul an operation as you discussed.

I wasn't trying to oversimplify or imply that there were not enormous problems in camp one. If anything CAMP one has the hardest, largest decisions to make.

The other problem that somes into play is who to bet on ADOBE or AVID. If CAMP one is a small group and demands a high level of service and pro features then to support AVID or ADOBE might mean a much higher fee for software.

There will be a CAP or a fixed number of seats that want those features and that is most likely for a fixed amount of time. Going ADOBE or AVID might be a shorter term solution than going with FCP X.

I really want to see how fast people respond with the SDK in hand. If it's a "pay as you go" third party featuer for EDL and OMF, then two of the biggest complaints could be resolved with two downloads from the app store.

I agree on the retraining, but everyone has to agree that one has to be very nimble and flexible as a professional in these times.

Most editors I know can use a combination of AVID, FCP and even lightworks on any specific job. If FCP X oens up and becomes another interchangable tool, and every editor can buy it and learn it, then the training becomes less of a problem.

For 99 dollars a complete set of training is available. It's up to the talent to learn it really.

If I was running a shop right now it think I would be moving toward a completely open kind of idea for the workflow. I'd want all of the software in various rooms and I'd let the talent decide what they want to edit on and make the conform and audio mixing fixed entities.

Editorial can happen any way it needs too.

FCP X doesn't plug into that scenario, yet.

Professionals will always create the best and most efficient solution for their needs.


Believe me. Everything is a lie.

Re: FCPX: Three Camps - The Pro vs. Non-Pro Debate
by Bill Davis
I think you've nailed it David.

Funny that once upon a time FCP was the tool of choice of a few radical editors who wanted to break free from the TV station traditions and forge a new path.

Today, FCP 7 shops are the "establishment." And now that Apple is willing to shake things up and looking to empower a new generation of explorers - that establishment is in an uproar.

Pogo got it right. We have met the enemy and he is us.

"Before speaking out ask yourself whether your words are true, whether they are respectful and whether they are needed in our civil discussions."-Justice O'Conner
Re: FCPX: Three Camps - The Pro vs. Non-Pro Debate
by Steve Tomich
I appreciate all the comments everyone has made so far. Here's my question: For anyone who ever went to an FCP user group meeting, or attended a trade show, or spoke to an Apple rep, or signed up as a beta tester--did you ever ask for any of the new features of FCPX? I'm just wondering what drove the decisions at Apple to take a mature product with a dedicated base and--apparently--deliver a whole bunch of changes that--apparently--no one using the product asked for.

--Steve Tomich, Editor/Producer
@Steve Tomich
by David Battistella

That is a great question. I think as individual users we have our own particular set of needs,we determine a workflow and we generally stick with what works. But the thing we are not privy to is the multitude of ideas that Apple receives and the wide range of people who use the software. Apple is not about the status quo, they are about looking at the entire landscape or breaking apart what editing is and figuring out how to put it together in a new (hopefully more beneficial way) for people who put images together.

So while there are features I need and features I do not need, I can say that there I things I like. Apple are the only ones in the editing chair that see the entire editing landscape. They want to provide tools that fit into that landscape.

They innovate, that means ask "everyone" what they want, coming up with new ideas and providing a tool that satisfies a lot of categories.

The word professional means a lot of things. There are "professionals" who do not use OMF and XML and edl's. There are professionals who use them every day. The segment of users who need these things has been very vocal. I need these things too, but I have software that will do those things and Apple has said they are working to implement those things in a future release.

That's today's reality. There is something new, and there is something that works with existing workflows. As a professional I choose.


Believe me. Everything is a lie.

@Steve Tomich
by Bill Davis
As to Steve's question: Uh, yes. They did. Regularly and overtly.

At SuperMeets, NAB confabs and in public surveys on-line via some of the boards and websites I frequent, the Apple development team requested comments, suggestions, and input.

People might have wondered who the camera crew was who were set up outside the SuperMeet at NAB in Vegas or in a similar venue - and there wasn't a big sign or anything - but those of us who paid attention and asked about it found out easily enough.

So yeah, there was a LOT of opportunity for public comment about features and needs in advance of FCP-X.

"Before speaking out ask yourself whether your words are true, whether they are respectful and whether they are needed in our civil discussions."-Justice O'Conner
Re: FCP X: Three Camps - The Pro vs. Non-Pro Debate
by Ron Dylewski
I need to add this. The entire concept that "Apple will add features as they go" is just insane. Ford doesn't come out with a new car and then add the brakes and door handles "later on." Over the years we have become inured to the software companies and their idiotic beta releases and endless patches and fixes. No other industry gets this kind of pass. If you release a new stove onto the market, and it doesn't work, it gets recalled.

Besides, as regards FCPX, why would I EVER believe that the missing features are going to return? And why would I wait? And why aren't they here RIGHT NOW? Oh, I know why -- for the same reason that the iPad didn't get a camera in the first round, 'cause it forces people to BUY THE NEW ONE. Self-crippling software and hardware, than meting out "upgrades" is just a marketing ploy, not an engineering issue. If Apple had cared to include many of the missing features THEY WOULD BE THERE NOW.

No, the shot across the bow was clear. "Move on, pros, Apple is a consumer products company."
Re: FCP X: Three Camps - The Pro vs. Non-Pro Debate
by Brendan Coots
A few points to consider:

1. FCP7 will still be around, yes. But Apple DID discontinue it, which means you are effectively frozen in time. This means no more updates, improvements or bug fixes. And if any new codecs or the like emerge in the next year, you will have to buy a third-party plugin to stay relevant. And on that note, all future plugin and hardware development will be focused on FCP X from here on, which is clearly incompatible with FCP7 so good luck getting access to ANYTHING new at all on the editing front.

2. It's bordering on irresponsible to say we should give FCP X a break because it's version 1 software. To users who rely on it, it's version 8 regardless of the misguided path Apple chose here. When has it ever been acceptable for a developer of mission-critical software to start over and put out a mostly unusable v1 release? Give the software a break, maybe - but the developer? They deserve every ounce of anger and loss of revenue they get from this rookie move.

3. Apple sent a message with this release - they left out features like RED support but included things like iMovie importing. Not just support for iMovie, but a giant, glowing iMovie import icon when you first open the software. The message was clear - pros AND prosumers were ignored in favor of the low end market. Remember, most of the missing features affect prosumers every bit as much as the big edit sausage factories.

Brendan Coots
Creative Director
Brandflow Video Studio
@Brendan Coots
by David Battistella
All good points.

Soem of which I addressed in a recent blog post.

I'm not going to convice the software, but it could have been handled better by the big A.


Believe me. Everything is a lie.

Re: FCP X: Three Camps - The Pro vs. Non-Pro Debate
by Ron Dylewski
I'm going to take issue with the basic premise that "tools do not a professional make."

Yes, indeed, they do, in many cases.

I never loaded an ARRI BL. I let my AC do that, because he understood the tools. I never recorded sound to a Nagra or to a DDR, because my Sound guy knew his tools better than I.

Understanding and mastering your tools is critical to being a good editor. It allows you to be fast, adaptive and creative. And for some software firm to arbitrarily obviate that knowledge in one fowl swoop is crazy and nasty and the height of hubris. Most software updates are made as incremental changes based on USER INPUT. Companies respond (or should) to what the users want and need -- not to what some code hack in Cupertino thinks will be "awesome."

I can only say that I am now glad that I edit on Avid every day. Suddenly, after years of being the "also ran," I'm back in the "Hey, do you know Avid?" camp.
@Ron Dylewski
by David Battistella

In my professional editing career I have had to use the following tools.

Grass valley
ADOBE premiere
Discreet EDIT
Media 100
Final Cut Pro
Tape to tape
Deck to Deck
Scotch tape

I take the professional position to not be overly identified with the tools I use. If I handed you a 5D and said, "you aren't a pro anymore", you might take offence.

I agree with your post, but I would say that I have preffered tools.

Today, like a week ago, it's proably FCP 7, but as I learn more about the features and experience the speed of putting shots together in FCP X that could change.

If I had to do something on AVID tomorrow I'd say, where is the chair and sit down and do it.


Believe me. Everything is a lie.

Re: FCP X: Three Camps - The Pro vs. Non-Pro Debate
by Jeremiah Belt
Yes the creativity, skill set, training, and artistic eye of an editor define him as a Pro and not the toolset. However there are standards set by the post production industry for broadcast and film that "Professionals" must abide by and follow. A reference point and quality standard that truly makes their work professional. For example Proper color and gamma levels (IRE) that your content must fall into to be broadcast legal and not be clipped or lose detail when aired. This requires more then just pretty scopes and a computer monitor or a broadcast safe filter. A computer monitor does not properly display the NTSC color space (and others 601, 709, log, etc) and levels needed to meet this standard so you have to own professional broadcast monitors to properly check such. FCPX cannot do this right now among many other professional requirements. Compression, Audio finishing, interoperability, etc.. These are all things that define a professional toolset and are missing from FCPX. It's great to revolutionize the way one works and thinks but you can't ignore the needs of the professional. A Professional Baseball player can't really be professional if he has to use a tennis racket to hit with instead of a bat. Some things are simply required.
Re: FCP X: Three Camps - The Pro vs. Non-Pro Debate
by David Battistella
I agree.

I also believe this will be addressed very soon.

FCP 1 was very similar to FCPX 1 in terms of what was "ready"

In the time that it takes for FCP X to come along FCP7 can chug alone and the migration can occur over a whole year instead of one day.

One thing though. SD video and IRE should have been killed long before Apple discontinued FCP 7.


Believe me. Everything is a lie.

Re: FCP X: Three Camps - The Pro vs. Non-Pro Debate
by Jeremiah Belt
Ah but it took 7 years for FCP to get to where it is now. Hears to hoping it doesn't take that long. I totally agree about the SD thing. But IRE is simply a measurement.
Re: FCP X: Three Camps - The Pro vs. Non-Pro Debate
by Paul Kerby
I re watched the demo from the supermeet. It's clear to me they over thought this... I have never in my 10 years of editing experienced losing sync or moving clips on a timeline that created a problem requiring a magnetic timeline. This software is for consumers that don't know what they are doing... I want control back in my hands. I really really dislike this imovie pro thing. The architects don't seem to be editors. booo apple!

It's also not running very smooth like it should. This is at best a joke!
Re: FCP X: Three Camps - The Pro vs. Non-Pro Debate
by John Silva
Great article, and great comments all around as usual. I fall into group 1, and work full time in an AVID based ecosystem. However the outside work I pick up, my personal work I do at home, and other things are all done on Final Cut. I have ambitions to start my own company in the future. I've always said that I'd go Final Cut, because of it's innate intuitiveness and high level of control.

Heres how the issue boils down to me. As professionals you all know that things change, formats change, etc etc. If thats the case then existing final cut suites will eventually go out of date, and be forced to move to AVID or Final Cut X. Im upset because FCP was always an amazing and cheap at home system, and was just fun to use. After logging tons of time on the new program It feels stripped down, and I won't go over all the pros and cons since they are well documented.

I am a professional, this is my craft and what I do. This seems equivalent of going up to a carpenter and saying he can't lose every single tool in his box to build a table. I think i'd like to learn this, get proficient, because eventually people will be using it and I may have a job that requires it. However, if I was to meet a young editor who wanted to know where to start I'd point them at AVID. AVID right now is only moving deeper and allowing more access, and thats the opposite of what Apple is doing.

Btw, I don't want to sound like some pro AVID guy... I actually prefer Final Cut to AVID, but looking forward it seems AVID is the more viable solution for the pro.
Re: Article: FCP X: Three Camps - The Pro vs. Non-Pro Debate
by trey haney
If Camp 1, the pros, abandon Final Cut because it does not have the features needed for their needs then using Final Cut X is no longer a road to becoming a professional editor. A professional needs to work in a collaborative environment, that is what professionals do, especially with regards to video production. If FC X is non-collaborative then that reduces its usability in a professional work space. If companies, large and small edit facilities, broadcasters, etc. no longer use Final Cut then knowing that program becomes non-essential while learning other NLEs would become more essential. That's being adaptive.

Most of Camp 2 would be affected by what Camp 1 does. A professional editor needs marketable skill sets and if Camp 1 does not use it then those in Camp 2 who are forward thinking would change their habits and learn the skills necessary to move forward in their careers. Camp 3 is the least affected by what Final Cut X has to offer and the most to gain by its introduction. It might be that FC X becomes an edit app just for amateurs and hobbyists which is in itself a very lucrative market.

How many people who have used and learned iMovie can parlay that knowledge into becoming a professional editor? Yes, their experience in editing can be used and appreciated, but their knowledge of the program can not. If someone is looking for an editor who can edit Final Cut, Premier Pro or Avid they are not looking for someone who can edit with iMovie. Perhaps FC X will evolve into something that can work within a professional work place. It just isn't obvious at this point in time. Since a professional needs to be adaptive they need to feel that the direction they are going gives them the best opportunities in a perceived future. Final Cut X's future ability to satisfy a professional's needs is very unknown therefore it is currently moving in a very uncomfortable direction. Do you think that CNN with its multiple Final Cut seats would switch over to Final Cut X in the near future? It took them 10 years to switch from Avid to Final Cut. What do you think they will do in another year or two when they need an upgrade? Will Final Cut X have a newer version by then and be acceptable to a corporate client? Unknown, unknown and unknown.

Why didn't they just call it iMovie Pro and let Final Cut 7 continue with no more upgrades? In a year or two, maybe iMovie Pro 2 would come out that could then rival and replace Final Cut 7.

As has been stated by many folks on this list about the resistance to learning a new approach to editing with a new tool. I don't think it is really the issue of learning a new program that is turning people off. I feel it is more of an issue of does this program allow you to move your business forward in a better way or does it make you take a step or two backward? If it moves you forward, then Final Cut X is for you, if it takes you backward, then it isn't. It appears that folks in Camp 1 think it will take them backwards.
Re: Article: FCP X: Three Camps - The Pro vs. Non-Pro Debate
by Jan Bliddal
I am having a difficult time understanding why people are so upset about Final Cut Pro X. It is a 300USD new program, that leaves your existing Final Cut Studio on your harddrive. You do not need to use it for anything but trying to see if you like the new way of editing, and you can continue to use your existing version until Final Cut X has matured enough to fix your needs.

I can only see one reason to be upset. That is your Current Final Cut does not meet your current needs and that you want to continue using Apple Software. In my mind that is just plain stupid. Sorry

I started using Final Cut with version 1.25 (The first PAL capable version) because Premiere 5 Sucked editing with DV and Avid was out of my priceleague as a hobbyist. Adobe realized that they needed to start a new and the result was Adobe Premier Pro wich as of version 2 became a great mac product again.

Why not look at the latest Adobe version if your current Final Cut does not full fill your need? You can always return to Final Cut again, if it becomes the best program for your job again.

Let the machine work for you. Not you for the machine
Re: Article: FCP X: Three Camps - The Pro vs. Non-Pro Debate
by Mark Suszko
Well, the wedding videographers in camp 2 can't be happy they lost multicam. The lucrativer weddings all sue multiple cameras for their coverage.

My intuition (and that's all it is) about Apple's design for X is that they made it a consumer-oriented application first, as the core, with an expectation that the missing "pro" attributes would accrete to it over time from third party developers and additional internal development, and in this way the software could start paying Apple for itself from day one to fund the expansions needed to make it "pro", while immediatley gratifying those "camp 3" people.

Trouble is, Apple destroyed the camp, they put us pro users out on a leper colony. There was no reason to nuke the sales of the older product on day one, much less support for the older product's update server, that is just plain mean. I would not be at all surprised if a useless but symbolic and publically embarassing class action was filed in Cupertino shortly.
Re: Article: FCP X: Three Camps - The Pro vs. Non-Pro Debate
by oliver michaels
Ohhhh! i get it now.. i see what is happening here,

The price reduction is a trojan horse! as soon as the program is purchased it sneeks into you wallet and sits and waits; i imagine some bright spark in accounting is behind all this -

Operation iSubEditingSystem

Interior Office Cupertino

Jobs stands at the window sipping a skimmed latte while rolling a piece of ear wax between his fingers.

Jobs - "What is it Bod, Rundleson(?) said you had an idea"..

Bob - "Yes Sir, we reduce the price of fcpro to $300 dollars"

Jobs - (silently crushing his delicate ball of earwax) - "Get this creap out of here Rundleson."

Rundleson - "he cut his teeth on sub-primes sir "

Jobs looks interested

Bod - "we start by enticing the imovie folks and the crackers in with a cheap price, we still bill it as the 'real deal', the all singing, all dancing, ProTasitc apperjastic indolglallactic magi--"

Jobs "get a grip man"

.... "we leave out all the Pro Features sir...!"

tick tock tick tock

"then, we slowly claw back the $600 dollar reduction, and then some, by selling all the plugins necessary to make it actually Pro in the app store, and we make extra cash from the 3rd party developers(?) thereby hooking in thousands of sucker in who wouldn't pay the $1000 dollars in the first place into spending money they hadn't planned on spending... tee hee"..

Cut to:

You, depressed at your computer having given up after days of hope and begrudgingly admitting that all those Pro Editor Naysayer's turned out to be right.. at leased for the time being.. you poke around one more time in the ridiculous magnetic time line, find no interesting porn and go to bed.

"come on boy hand it over we know it's jingling around in there somewhere..."
Re: FCP X: Three Camps - The Pro vs. Non-Pro Debate
by Jørgen Stokke Halvorsen
I really feel you are focusing on the wrong thing here Greg Burke.
As mentioned earlier here, its important to keep in mind that you are not a tool for FCP, but that FCP can be a tool for you and your creativity.
Re: FCP X: Three Camps - The Pro vs. Non-Pro Debate
by James Mortner
@ Matt

Agreed, these categories dont fit at all. And its not my fault, I simply cannot use FCPX within my facility environment.

Its a team effort in here ! If I cant share, I cant work. It really is that simple, if FCP is unable to cater to my needs, ill go elesewhere.
Re: FCP X: Three Camps - The Pro vs. Non-Pro Debate
by Jamie Franklin
Vast oversimplification, and not exactly fair to start lumping people together. Especially with quotes of being scared off from a new interface or new way of doing things...

If those "things" aren't allowing crossovers, and lets start saying this more, there is no timeline, then that doesn't bode well, and that is the bulk of their beef...

Not this imagined fear people keep getting labeled with...I've been in the same environment for over a decade, change is good. Please change things!@ But killing mission critical things...we should speak up.

As people keep touting, "it's only been out a couple of days, it's only 1.0"...yeah, well, the same can be said the other way. This is our first reaction to a product that has taken several steps back and given no road map for things killed off...we're not supposed to voice concern, make other arrangements, try other avenues which could be the only work around...most are saying they will stay where they are...that's panicing?

Why is this so hard to grasp? Kinda getting more annoyed with this odd pushback to the pushback frankly than apple killing off some great features...
Re: FCP X: Three Camps - The Pro vs. Non-Pro Debate
by Chris Jacek
Well said. And much shorter than my rant.

Professor, Producer, Editor
and former Apple Employee
Re: FCP X: Three Camps - The Pro vs. Non-Pro Debate
by David Battistella
I think concern is good. I think voicing concern is good.

I played hockey for a while. In all my years of playing the game I watched people protest, get angry, smash sticks and yell and scream at referees when they were called for a penalty.

I've seen entire teams get in the face of refs at a "bad call".

I never once saw a ref reverse a call.

So when I look at this, I see the new software, I use apple products, I know full well that they are not going to pull this software and build a 64 bit verison of FCP 7. They went a different direction. You either accept it and know that it is not going to change, or you respectfully voice your concerns to them.

I beleive they have a roadmap, but why do they need to share it? Look at how much RED customers went after them when they tried a more open approach to their customers.

Apple knows we all have choices, they chose to move in an entirely new direction with a groud up approach. They knew there would be flak, but they have a vision an d maybe a view to things that are beyond the 20 inch screen in front of our face day in day out.

Nobody is telling you not to criticize, but I happen to beleive that embracing the changes and expressing opinion that can serve to improve the product is a far more useful and calm way to spend my energy.

Nobody took anything from you. You have all the choices you had yesterday, with one additional one.


Believe me. Everything is a lie.

@David Battistella
by Jamie Franklin
"Nobody took anything from you. You have all the choices you had yesterday, with one additional one."

Again, I'm not sure patronizing those who are legitimately opinionated strongly towards these developments is in any-way helpful to this argument. "Nobody took anything from me"? I'm not 12 years old. And I think looking at ALL the facts of these developments, you would *clearly* see you are wrong. They pulled 7 off the shelves. Removed the installer for updating 7's prokit as far as I can tell. While maybe this doesn't bother you, those of us willing to wait to transition to X are legitimate concerned by some of Apple's moves here.

We're not spoiled brats. We're not unhinged. Some of us are stunned by these moves, especially when this product was released with limitations and that FCS3 was still going to be important to fill those transitional gaps, if ever...which looks very unlikely too

Everyone has a different need. But what is clear, is X doesn't fill a vast majority of them as was promised, so no, it is not an "additional tool", for now it is a toy, and pretending it's not while putting people in a box, and frankly telling them how it is who disagree is an attitude I just can't understand...
@Jamie Franklin
by David Battistella

I am going to be really clear. I am not trying to patronize anyone. It's a fact. It's a version one new software release. FCP 7 is no worse to you today than it was yeasterday.

I have high expectations from apple and their pro apps. From what I see, this is a cornerstone and a great foundation to their way forward.

I will still use FCP 7, why wouldn't I? It's a mature and stable application.

I am having a hard time figuring out what you want.

There are so many NLE choices, FCP X is just another one. If I hated the NEW FCP X then I would be looking hard at AVID or ADOBE.

Ten years ago APPLE changed the NLE landscape and put a tool in peoples hands for a thousand bucks. It was DV only, pros said it was a piece of shit DV editor. Fast forward. Now they put a tool in peoples hands for 300 bucks.

If you prefer another tool that is entirely up to you.

I don't know what else to say, except that I respect whatever choices you make for yourself in your situation, whatever that might be.

Believe me. Everything is a lie.

@David Battistella
by Jamie Franklin
You're just saying a lot of white noise David and not listening to what is being *pointedly* criticized.

This has been a common theme with the pushback-pushback. You just said: "If I hated the NEW FCP X then I would be looking hard at AVID or ADOBE."

And..? That's exactly what you are complaining about them voicing...?

Yes Final Cut 7 is still a great tool...does this need to be parroted in every post? That's not even remotely the point of's as if either A) this is selective hearing or B) Arguing for arguments sake (another common theme here)

But you went further and suggested that "group 1" was scared of change. Please.

Yes, you have been clear. And repeated yourself a lot here. We get it. We're scared. We're over-reacting. And it's all sunshine and lollipops.

@Jamie Franklin
by David Battistella

I'm listening.

I'm hearing you attack me for pointing out that pros who own facility based EDIT houses are not going to change because they need to have a more conservative midset and can not jump all over a new software product.


If I was in camp one right now (and I have been in the past) I would be very afraid to switch to FCP X. It would be status quo for me and my business model.

You seem so offended. Maybe just take a breather.


Believe me. Everything is a lie.

@David Battistella
by Chris Tomlinson
David, I have no problem embracing change and I would very much like to embrace Final Cut X but not being able to open prior FCP projects in some form with some - however limited functionality is a deal killer. And you know that just because FCP 7 runs now on SL and probably on Lion means nothing since I can't buy anymore licenses and as you correctly point out we're not going to have any visibility into Apple's roadmap so there's no reason to believe that importing prior FCP projects is ever going to happen in a meaningful way. The situation is really the same as getting Photoshop CS6 and finding that it won't open *.psd files from prior versions. It just doesn't work
Re: FCP X: Three Camps - The Pro vs. Non-Pro Debate
by Peter McAuley
Did Apple hold a gun to the heads or visa cards of the people demanding refunds. Come on it's $300 for crying out loud not $30,000 or $300,000. If $300 is going to make or break your business, i'm guessing your not quite ready for prime time yourself.

Peter McAuley
Axyz Edit
Re: FCP X: Three Camps - The Pro vs. Non-Pro Debate
by Scott Douglas

I'm probably part of Camp TWO myself. My day job has me interact with a beta deck, and send files out to be mixed as most of our work is TV Commercial production, but I am the entire post department at our production company.

Meanwhile I do freelance off of my MacBook Pro at home everything from Shorts to Music Videos to mostly promo vids.

Because of my day job I've had to learn CC (Apple Color for the most part), AE, Logic to an extent. Everything I've learned has been a great experience and I've taken into my freelance, it's one of the best parts of this profession, constantly learning new things, ways, techniques.

That's my background, and reading the forums, from what I saw there wasn't as many people who didn't want to learn FCP X, but that had either tried it or had read enough about it (in my case) to realize that it was missing many options that are necessity's for everyday workflows.

For me at my day job, no RS-422 edit to tape option is the number one missing feature as we finish most of our stuff to our in-house beta-deck (why we do is another story for another day).

For myself, I love going between FCP and Color, Color has been a lot of fun to work with. But I suppose that there are other options that I can only comment on in theory, that I've heard are missing that has me waiting. Such as trackless audio, the organization, lack of output options, and an inability to spread myself over 2 monitors (I'm a duo monitor whore I tell ya).

When Lion comes out I'll dive in and grab a copy or at least suggest to the production house that we grab a copy of FCP X to see what it's like.

But unfortunately at this point I'm going to have to make a pitch to my boss as to how we can future proof ourselves, and that probably means taking the CS5.5 upgrade, and grabbing Avid at it's discounted cost right away, just to save a little cash, and have our asses covered.

Myself like most of us in the field love learning new technology, love updates, but I have to agree with Walter who suggests that starting over again at a version 1.0 just isn't an acceptable reason/excuse, and removing a lot of important features feels like a pimp slap to the face... and I'm nobody's whore (well, only to duo monitors).

If I was in Camp ONE, I'd be livid not because I have to learn new software, but because it's come across fairly blatantly that Apple to a degree flipped them off and walked away, even after they spent mounds of money and championed Apple/FCP for 10 years now... I don't think I'd expect anyone not to react the way Camp One has.

Brand New Website UP! -
Re: FCP X: Three Camps - The Pro vs. Non-Pro Debate
by Ian Bailey
I guess I fit into camp 2. Bits and pieces of commercial work and my own projects. But these days I mostly provide training in creative and communications technologies. I am an Apple Cert trainer in FCP 7, train in most Adobe apps and general web design.

I'm very excited by FCP X and can't wait to start using it. Yes, it is a beta version and yes some important features are missing, but there is plenty to enjoy.

I understand there are those who feel personally betrayed by Apple, mainly the very vocal camp 1 guys. But this current version of FCP X wasn't made for them. It's for the next generation of film-makers. Apple is primarily a hardware company, camp 1 guys have invested in MacPros, doesn't matter too much which NLE they run. The big question is: how to get the next generation of film-makers on board? How to Apple persuade the iPhone / Vimeo / DSLR kids to buy iMacs and MacPros? Presumably FCP X is the answer.

But guys, don't take it so personally and think before you jump ship. I too have spend hours mastering Soundtrack Pro, Color and Shake, but don't regard that time as wasted. I use all the apps in Studio, but I know I'm an exception rather than the rule. Plenty of people bought Studio and only used FCP. Rolling ST Pro and Color into FCP was the right decision.

Let's be honest, if Apple had decided to delay this release until December or January, the reaction would have been exactly the same. It's a personal betrayal, you don't care about pros, I'm going to convert to Adobe / Avid / a pair of scissors. Well I'm for giving FCP X a chance. I'll use it along side Studio and get a handle on this new way of working. In the long term I don't think Apple will betray us FCP veterans, but right now we aren't the priority.
Re: FCP X: Three Camps - The Pro vs. Non-Pro Debate
by Chris Jacek
" In the long term I don't think Apple will betray us FCP veterans, but right now we aren't the priority."

And when exactly do you think that we are going to be a priority? When they sell a million copies of their new Beta software? I'm sorry but I think that is naive. I don't think the pro support will EVER be a priority again.

Professor, Producer, Editor
and former Apple Employee
Re: FCP X: Three Camps - The Pro vs. Non-Pro Debate
by Matthew Celia
David, you restore my faith in the community here at the COW. Excellent post.

FCP Guru
Re: Article: FCP X: Three Camps - The Pro vs. Non-Pro Debate
by Chris Jacek
I'm sorry but I think your article is way off base. I would consider myself firmly in Camp 2, with a couple caveats. I am an educator, and I worked on the FCP team as a QA in the early years. I'm mad as hell because this move by Apple is flat-out irresponsible.

This is NOT a case of editors being scared of new interfaces, or new ways of doing things. If you've been in the game as long as some of us have, you've gone from pre-read decks on your CMX systems, to the pizza box AVID DVE, to Automatic Duck, and a million things in-between. Final Cut users are generally very welcome to change and even revolution.

Final Cut Pro X is something altogether different. This is a new product that is supposedly "Awesome" to quote Steve Jobs, that removes BASIC functionality. I don't care if you run a 20 station facility, or you're a solo "preditor." You do not strip a large portion of an application's functionality, refuse to open ANY projects created previous versions of software, remove the previous software from the market, and call it a revolutionary improvement.

Consider this analogy. Imagine if Microsoft released a brand new word processor, called say, MS-Word Vista. The new MS-Word Vista would not open any previous MS-Word documents. On the same day, Microsoft removes MS-Office from the stores, and removes the MS-Office updater from their web-site. You can only choose between two page sizes: letter and tabloid. This is not THAT big of an issue, because the new MS-Word Vista does not allow you to print your documents. Microsoft justifies this by saying we're moving to a paperless society, and everyone is emailing their documents anyway. Microsoft tells you this is all okay, because MS-Word Vista has an AWESOME new autofill engine that is revolutionary.

We aren't angry because we FEAR change. We LIKE good change, but not all change is good. Re-inventing the wheel to make it square is not an improvement. We are angry because Apple is being arrogant and presumptuous. We are angry because Apple is not merely abandoning us, they are actually attacking us with their irresponsible choices.

Franky, I think it is capitulation to suggest otherwise.

Professor, Producer, Editor
and former Apple Employee
Re: Article: FCP X: Three Camps - The Pro vs. Non-Pro Debate
by David Battistella
It's not much different than the release of FCP which was a DV only NLE that showed a lot of potential but was not ready for primetime TV work and every possible workflow.

That came with time.

I think it will take a lot less time for that to happen with Ten than it did with the original.

In terms of where FCP 7 and the suite is right now, which is a mature and stable platform, I do not believe that anyone has to stop using it. They don't have to invest in it because it's no longer for sale and anyone could still use a full FCP 7 system with and Aja or BMD card in it for YEARS to come.

I've been in all of the camps at one point or another. It's an observation of where the industry is.

Everyone can choose to look at this in any way they wish but I know one thing, Apple will be putting resources toward FCP X, it's their multimedia authoring tool now and their existing customers will make choices based on their personal needs and their business requirements.


Believe me. Everything is a lie.

Re: Article: FCP X: Three Camps - The Pro vs. Non-Pro Debate
by Grant Gomm
[David Battistella] "Apple will be putting resources toward FCP X, it's their multimedia authoring tool now and their existing customers will make choices based on their personal needs and their business requirements. "

This is true, however who's to say that apple hasn't changed their "Target Audience" so to speak? That is the question, and I feel it is a legitimate concern. Is Apple really going to invest time, money, energy, and resources to make FCPX something that can be used to cut a feature film, or are they trying to streamline the way you take your GoPro and Flipcam footage from your last snowboarding trip, put it together with your favorite song you downloaded from iTunes, and publish it to YouTube so you and your friends can watch it on your iPad/iPhone?

You can draw the line wherever you want concerning pro/amateur, but cutting a TV series or a feature film, or a national spot for a major company are totally different beasts from stuff that ends up on YouTube.

I personally am in the "wait it out" camp because at this moment, I still can't tell what Apple's intentions are, although I get a feeling they're in the more lucrative iOS business now. Especially when there are comments from Apple saying it's time from pros to "look elsewhere." Ok, so I'm hanging on to 7, and taking Apple's advice - I'm looking elsewhere (but keeping my fingers crossed Apple will come around).

-Grant Gomm
@Grant Gomm
by David Battistella

When I look at feature like AUDITION in the timeline It does not make me think of GOPRO and snowboarders. It makes me think of how many times I had nine sequences loaed with alternate endings to spots.

Just that alone is the kind of feature that is TAILOR MADE for professional hardcore everyday editing work.

They looked at how we work and they tried to minimize the number of keystrokes and tasks. Do you think they did that sort of thing for the "casual user"? I don't.

There is alot of professional foundation here.

Where I see potential others get stuck on the fact that it looks like imove.

Do you think that the metadata power and keyword processing was put in for a person who shots one video a month or maybe for that person searching for a shot across 20 terabytes of online material.

Do you think they built that kind of organizational functionality for amatures?

Look at what it does. Learn abot what it does and you will start to uncover what it DOES do and what it CAN do, right now.

There is a focus on the negative right now and that is to be expected because drama is what people are used to, but there is a lot of positive stuff in this 1.0 release.


Believe me. Everything is a lie.

Re: @Grant Gomm
by Grant Gomm
Interesting point David, however consider for a moment the Conan Video. At the end of it there is a list of "missing features":
10 year legacy project support
Autosave Vault & Versioning
Assignable Audio/Video Tracks
DVD Chapter Markers & Marker Export
Log & Batch Capture from Tape
XML & EDL import/Export
OMF Export
Customizable Workspaces
Customizable Bin Column Views
Copy/Paste Clip Attributes
Photoshop Layer Support
In/Out Section Timeline Exporting
Broadcast Video Monitoring
Output to Tape
More that One Timeline per Project

I haven't bought FCPX, so perhaps whoever came up with this list is incorrect, or just doesn't know how to do these things yet since it's new.

there are a couple others that concern me, but I'm not sure if I'm 100% right about them:
No Red support? - Does anyone have a list of formats FCPX can work with? I would like to see that.
And you can't set scratch disks - files are saved on the local drive?

But by not including these items, one of two things is true.
1. Apple doesn't care and is not marketing to those who need these features
2. Apple released FCPX too soon, and these features will be made available at some point down the road.

Again, from a comment from an Apple employee, it's time professionals should look elsewhere.

That comment makes me think the first scenario is the more accurate one. However, I hope I'm wrong. I'd love to be wrong and see FCPX 2 come out with all of those features and more.

-Grant Gomm
@Grant Gomm
by David Battistella
You areally have to look at it and see.

It's a new approach.

When I look at the BIG Mac list of ingredients you provided it seems daunting, but you can't really base any opinions on wht you are reading.

You need to see what the software does and see how they took a whole new approach.

FOR EXAMPLE. you can put a piece of AUDIO ABOVE a video track. it does not have to be below. you can have a narration track above a video track. Understanding this you can start to begin to see that track assignment does not matter much and it doesn't bother me one bit.

You currently can copy attributes, like motion scale, etc. but not filters.

But lets say you want a letterbox across all the shots.

Create a compound clip. Apply the letterbox to the compound clip and everything is letterboxed. No more new track, blah, blah blah. It smart and fast.

Same with a film look or a global effect.

If you use or understand nesting the compund clips are easy to understand.

There is a lot of freakout over output to tape.

Here is a workaround TODAY. Export the finished FCP movie. If you ahve a KONA card youe serial control goes from the card to the deck. Open KONA TV and use that to output to tape.

Or import teh Clip into FCP 7 and use that to output to tape.

I agree that NO XML and NO OMF is a large pain in the ass. EDL, not so much as XML has been replacing it. EDL Support would be nice because it has been a standard. I am guessing it might be coming.

Legacy support. 64bit or 32 bit. Take your pick. You can't have it both ways. I'm sure an XML tool is forthcoming, if you really need that then Automatic DUCK can do it today. and you can buy that as an add on for your professional set up.



Believe me. Everything is a lie.

@David Battistella
by Chris Tomlinson
David, since you're sure that an import tool is coming to permit brining in FCP 7 projects in some form into FCP X what is that sureness based on? We don't have visibility over Apple's roadmap as you point out. Further, if such a tool is forthcoming it should have been given priority and released along with FCP X and at least 80% of the annoyance would have been mitigated since at least there would have been an evident path to get from 7 -> X. As it is now it looks like 7 is a cul dé sac.
@Grant Gomm
by Chris Tomlinson
+1 Grant. I think that Apple has indeed changed the target audience. They are I think attempting to build on an audience that has been influenced by the public successes of big names using FCP and Apple are now defining a new future for the creative production of video / film. I'm not sure if Apple has gauged it right from a marketing perspective but they are taking a position that they are a mainstream company now - not the boutique firm of 10 - 15 years ago, and I think they are taking a perspective that they are in the driver's seat and can take the kind of bold move that is so infuriating to people who see their own investment in time and money being essentially devalued over night with no warning.
Re: Article: FCP X: Three Camps - The Pro vs. Non-Pro Debate
by Borko Grujic
I am a studio owner, I am not an editor.

I am sorry to see that FCP died. But that happens too. Shake got killed too few years ago... We got Nuke... Even better!

I am happy that fcpx is 300$ (others will follow). There are things to be happy about.

Apple made a decision to increase sales and this is what happens. No point getting angry if apple didnt call you personaly to ask what you need. Noone is married to apple products. They probably think your business is not all that important to them. That is legit.

If I had to buy an avid I'll buy it because I need it, no point in whining about it. If fcpx gets better... even better (it will still be 300$). We still have fcp7 and no one will take it from you.

Do you remember what happened when davinci reduced price from 80000$ (or somethin) to 995$? Sky is still there.... I got one davinci and I got two excellent colorist and few more clients.

Dont forget: you are still a pro even if fcpx isn't anymore.

At the end of the day one thing remains: work will get done (with fcp, fcpx or avid or whatever) and thiis why people need facilities and editors and multicamera edits and tape decks and preview monitors. There is a reason why paying clients like working with studios (rather than with kids on their imac)... reason is yoir knowledge and expertise.

Take care and chillout
Re: FCP X: Three Camps - The Pro vs. Non-Pro Debate
by Matt Callac
Not saying that I don't agree with a lot of the things you are saying, but I'm afraid this article won't sit well with a few people.

you forgot about editors who work at post facilities who don't own part of their companies. Like myself.

I think a lot of what you said in the article has merit, but I think it's way too oversimplified to just lump people into categories like that. I'm sure there are plenty of Wedding videographers who don't like the changes b/c it doesn't fit their workflow, and there are some of the people who have a wait and see attitude who do own their own facilities (or at least run them).

Re: FCP X: Three Camps - The Pro vs. Non-Pro Debate
by David Battistella
These are all fair comments and I appreciate them Matt.



Believe me. Everything is a lie.

Re: FCP X: Three Camps - The Pro vs. Non-Pro Debate
by David Tames
To be fair to Camp 1 folks, yes, they have been vocal about the shortcomings of FInal Cut Pro (my favorite issue is rendering not going on in the background) but I've never heard a camp 1 person say, "leave me out in the cold with a end-of-life product and no clear path across the chasm between the old and the new," for that is a scary place to be.

David Tames | | @cinemakinoeye
Re: Article: FCP X: Three Camps - The Pro vs. Non-Pro Debate
by Greg Burke
I'm camp 2. And frankly I'm scared, I've spent allot of time and money(mainly time) learning fcs 3, and know apple abandoning me a new "tool" that is consumer friendly just makes my freelancing that much harder now that Joe smoe can do everything easily himself. I can't be picky about jobs, I can't afford to be. Witch is why I get upset at so many vets telling me Fcp x is great but they have accounts and clients that will use them for the next 10 years regardless of what tool they're using. I don't have that luxury.

Related Articles / Tutorials:
Apple FCPX - Final Cut Pro X
FCPX - First Cut with the new Final Cut Pro X

FCPX - First Cut with the new Final Cut Pro X

David Battistella, ever willing to engage in new adventures in film and digital capture, has taken the leap toward editing his latest work with the new Final Cut Pro X. When you watch the clip from Calcio Storico Fiorentino, you will feel drawn in to the action, taste the dust in your mouth, feel the strength and violence of the game, and be washed away by the sheer power of this centuries-old sport. That's how well FCPX worked for David.

David Battistella
Apple FCPX - Final Cut Pro X
FCPX - Final Cut Pro Flux

FCPX - Final Cut Pro Flux

As the world of post-production enters dramatic changes as of this late June 2011, with the introduction of Final Cut Pro X, Dennis Kutchera looks at the inevitable flux of new technology and what really works for the editing professional and offers some intelligent solutions for a not-yet obsolete workflow.

Dennis Kutchera
Apple FCPX - Final Cut Pro X
FCPX - Response to David Pogue’s  “Professional Video Editors Weigh In on Final Cut Pro X”

FCPX - Response to David Pogue’s “Professional Video Editors Weigh In on Final Cut Pro X”

In the continuing debate about the future of FCPX and video editing, David Pogue addresses the concerns of professionals. In response to David Pogue’s “Professional Video Editors Weigh In on Final Cut Pro X”, Richard Harrington adds his voice to the growing list of concerns and solutions.

Richard Harrington
Apple FCPX Techniques
FCPX - Using Match EQ in Final Cut Pro X

FCPX - Using Match EQ in Final Cut Pro X
  Play Video
Match EQ is a welcome addition to the audio functionality in Final Cut Pro X. Adopted from Logic Pro, this tool is as easy to use as it is powerful. While Soundtrack Pro provided a similar function, this new implementation in FCPX has more options. If you aren't obtaining your desired results using the automated match, you can delve in deeper to get the custom results you are looking for.

Tutorial, Video Tutorial
Sam McGuire
Recent Articles / Tutorials:
NAB Show
Pure Mission: NAB 2018 Highlights for Video Creatives

Pure Mission: NAB 2018 Highlights for Video Creatives

Everyone who attended NAB this year was on a mission. A mission to create the best content, a mission to deliver content to the right audience, a mission to produce great films for device and theatre viewing. We'll start by discussing some of the best solutions for some of the creative people we know - shooters, production/post folks. And there was plenty of new products, new services, new features announced at the show to get a filmmakers motor running this year. And again SuperMeet was fun, insane and informative. Shoot it, produce it, store it. Then? Sell it. It's all good and getting better!

Andy Marken
NAB Show
NAB 2018: Journey, Connections, and Life-Changing Takeaways

NAB 2018: Journey, Connections, and Life-Changing Takeaways

Many people say that the best thing about the NAB Show is the people, but then their NAB conversations are mostly about products. Thanks to a grant from the Blue Collar Post Collective, longtime Creative COW member, editor, licensed drone operator, podcaster and videographer Hannah Byars-Walker set out to build an NAB experience not around this year's gear, but around the people she'd meet who could change the course of her career, if not her life. This is her inspiring story of what happened next.

Hannah Byars-Walker
Go Creative Show: The Cinematography of A Quiet Place

Go Creative Show: The Cinematography of A Quiet Place

Charlotte Bruus Christensen is the Danish cinematographer behind the lens of the horrifying and beautifully shot film A Quiet Place. Charlotte joins commercial director and Go Creative Show host Ben Consoli to discuss the camera, lighting, and lensing choices for A Quiet Place, its unique sound design and how show created its horrifying yet warm look.

Ben Consoli
NAB Show
The Introvert's Guide to the NAB Show, by Kylee Peña

The Introvert's Guide to the NAB Show, by Kylee Peña

If you're like most people in video production, you're a bit of an introvert, which can make trade shows a challenge. Shyness is real, and social anxiety is its own thing to be managed carefully, but are you selling yourself short before you give yourself a chance to achieve your goals? Creative COW Managing Editor Kylee Peña offers practical steps to help even the shyest creatives make the most of NAB.

Editorial, Feature, People / Interview
Kylee Peña
Could This The Real Reason Apple Wants To Ditch Intel?

Could This The Real Reason Apple Wants To Ditch Intel?

Creative COW's Tim Wilson thinks this is the real reason for Apple's announcement that they will drop Intel. Do You agree?

Creative COW
RED Camera


Shot in LA and set in D.C. and Philly, Scandal & How To Get Away With Murder’s stories unfold in virtual environments that seamlessly blend with live-action footage, defying the viewer’s eye. Here Is some of how it is done using Shotgun, Redshift, The Foundry’s NUKE, Media Shuttle, et al.

Sherri Golden
© 2018 All Rights Reserved