Time to go back to FCPX

sorry uli, missed the reference...

and i'm one of those who find the cut page 'too different' of course, at my stage of life i'm finding way too many things 'too different', including the new tv remote...

/r what i find most annoying, and this reaches back to when i was teaching production at uni a lifetime ago, is aspiring video 'producers' lack of interest in learning the basics, such as camera technicalities, basic editing theory, let alone codecs, colour science, etc., oh, and let's not forget story telling... and when i look at some of the jobs advertised recently and see the ability to; produce, script, shoot, edit, graphics, audio mix and deliver as MINIMUM requirements for some positions, i wonder where and when they begin to realise that a little knowledge is a dangerous thing /r

I'm an amateur at best and only use DaVinci in my private life, so I don't earn any money with it.
Nevertheless, I opted for the studio version, because compared to the video editing programs Magix Deluxe and Powerdirector I used so far, it really uses my NVIDA GPU under Windows 10 with H264 and H265 and thus publishes the same video up to 500% faster than MP4! Yes DaVinci had a steeper learning curve and yes, every now and then I have a crash. In contrast to the earlier programs, I restart DaVinci and continue working at the exact point where it crashed - WITHOUT any loss!
I will also recognize what causes these occasional crashes ... until now it was always when there was no optimized data and I was quickly moving clips back and forth in the timeline. For me, switching to DaVinci Resolve Studio has been worth it so far. But everyone must know for themselves what they prefer to work with

sorry uli, missed the reference...

and i'm one of those who find the cut page 'too different' of course, at my stage of life i'm finding way too many things 'too different', including the new tv remote...

/r what i find most annoying, and this reaches back to when i was teaching production at uni a lifetime ago, is aspiring video 'producers' lack of interest in learning the basics, such as camera technicalities, basic editing theory, let alone codecs, colour science, etc., oh, and let's not forget story telling... and when i look at some of the jobs advertised recently and see the ability to; produce, script, shoot, edit, graphics, audio mix and deliver as MINIMUM requirements for some positions, i wonder where and when they begin to realise that a little knowledge is a dangerous thing /r

The subject of learning basic skills is a topic I’ve been debating for years. Looking at the social platforms that many (if not most) young/new filmmakers use tells me two things: 1. Some can produce impressive ‘looking’ shots. 2. Almost all of them don’t have a clue about story telling! - their films are boring, not thought out, weak character arcs and the story itself given no priority.. looking like they’ve made a film for the sake of making a film.

This makes me happy because it leaves the stage floor open to proper filmmakers.

“Don’t let anyone tell you what tools to use… But listen to their feedback once they’ve watched your films!”



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

of course, at my stage of life i'm finding way too many things 'too different', including the new tv remote...

You don't know how long it took me to figure out that you can tilt the volume key on Samsung's The Frame

Didn't know that we were colleagues!

uli -

jay - as alice said; I give myself very good advice, but I very seldom follow it

FCPX is generally faster than Resolve on the same hardware. I perceive this as a mixture of FCPX being somewhat fast and Resolve being somewhat slow, rather than an extreme of either one. Resolve chews up a lot more resources on the same computer to do essentially the same task, which can be problematic when working at the edge of the capabilities of your system. I am in that situation right now and using FCPX for some projects that I might have otherwise preferred working with Resolve for... but there are some aspects of those projects that FCPX is honestly a better fit for, particularly because of the way it handles editing of titles in the timeline, which is a big part of these projects.

Fusion is an exception to Resolve being only somewhat slow, however. It could definitely benefit from a speed boost. More importantly something needs to be done to improve its stability (particularly in low-memory situations) and its user interface (the standalone version in particular) as Fusion previously had a professional compositing interface but its integration into Resolve (which has more of a semi-pro interface) has really dumbed it down and it is a huge step backwards for the product. In nearly all cases if Resolve crashes on me it has something to do with Fusion.

Where Resolve really shines right now is its color grading tools (its bread+butter) and the fact that everything is integrated into one timeline, effectively eliminating the need for a conform pass when one person is doing all the work. That should not be discounted: it is truly a major benefit.

Thankfully my current projects do not require me to move the project around except between FCPX and Compressor, which works fairly smoothly for what I need to do. I can get away with doing all my audio work for this one inside FCPX, and its color tools, while a bit limiting, are acceptable as I am working with a small number of long clips rather than a large number of short ones.

In the end, the benefits of one over the other can really depend on the project at hand: I think FCPX works better with titles and with still images being placed in the timeline, while Resolve handles a lot of other things (particularly grading tasks) better than FCPX does... if you have the system resources to pour into it.

Apple being Apple, the "house" apps are always juiced. Definitely tied directly into the OS, so "outside" apps will never meet totally similar performance numbers. Always been that way. Whether it's spreadsheets, databases, whatever.

So on a Mac, FCP-X has a home-field advantage.

BlackMagic and Adobe are always trying to maintain a relationship with Apple, but there is always tension because Apple has the in-house app. And will protect their own toy box jealously. (Understandable of course. )

Over the last few years it's been intriguing to watch the three dancing around each other. They never openly fight, they always "publicly" talk sweet. But when you talk with some of the people in person, the facial expressions and silences may be rather more informative than the few words said aloud.

Part of the joy of attending live in-person major events like NAB.



Sent from my SM-G960U using Tapatalk

Almost everyone has no idea how to tell stories! - Your movies are boring, ill-conceived, weak character arcs, and the story itself is not a priority. They look like they made a movie to make a movie.

I am pleased because it leaves the stage floor open for real filmmakers.

Ever thought that not everyone necessarily wants to tell a story? There should be a "common thread", but you don't have to have a script for every film ...
And what is a "real filmmaker" ?! Is that someone who has the arrogance to devalue everything that does not meet his expectations and who with every question you first say "deal with the basics" without giving a really helpful answer? You could give away tips or tricks and then you are no longer unique yourself ...

In many ways I agree with Jay. You don't necessarily need to be making a scripted video to at least have an idea of a common thread running through it or a beginning, middle, and end.
With the lack of even some basic knowledge many video makers are themselves devaluing what they are creating. In many cases there seems to be no aspiration to do things better, often, I suspect, because family and friends tell them how wonderful their creation is, whether it is or not.
There is a wealth of how-to videos out there, and I am certainly not averse to giving advice on how or why I do things. Possibly telling is the fact that I have been asked only twice.

Almost everyone has no idea how to tell stories! - Your movies are boring, ill-conceived, weak character arcs, and the story itself is not a priority. They look like they made a movie to make a movie.

I am pleased because it leaves the stage floor open for real filmmakers.

Ever thought that not everyone necessarily wants to tell a story? There should be a "common thread", but you don't have to have a script for every film ...
And what is a "real filmmaker" ?! Is that someone who has the arrogance to devalue everything that does not meet his expectations and who with every question you first say "deal with the basics" without giving a really helpful answer? You could give away tips or tricks and then you are no longer unique yourself ...

And what has made you think that I don’t give away tips and tricks? I’ve gained tips from other users here and I am always grateful, so I try to give back where I can in the many forums and social platforms. I speak with the experience of having watched and analysed hundreds if not thousands of all types of films and my earlier comments are my conclusion.

I work in Europe’s largest and well known film facility, I get to see filmmaking at almost every level and often I’m privileged to meet those at the top. I’ve learnt a lot from others and I will always put in the effort to better myself. If you’re not making your film for your audience, then who are you making it for?

Like some, I don’t make excuses for bad filmmaking and I’ve made my fair share! it’s an art and although most art is subjective, there are ‘basics’ that when learnt go along way towards making the difference between those films you remember and those you don’t! In my opinion, this forms part of making the ‘real filmmaker’ or put another way, those that put in the effort are usually those that succeed.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

There is no objective truth what good filmmaking is, only the opinion of the masses. If everyone likes nice images without any story at all, that would be considered "good filmmaking".

I really dont like justin bieber. But a lot of people do. Then who am I to (arrogantly) claim he is "bad"?

Samsara has no story at all. Is that a bad movie? To me it is really good...

There is no objective truth what good filmmaking is, only the opinion of the masses. If everyone likes nice images without any story at all, that would be considered "good filmmaking".

I really dont like justin bieber. But a lot of people do. Then who am I to (arrogantly) claim he is "bad"?

Samsara has no story at all. Is that a bad movie? To me it is really good...

errr What?! Did you understand anything of what I wrote?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

This thread has taken interesting turns.

Anyways I‘m with the thread opener. But not because DR was buggy or too slow for me. The only thing I do complain about occasionally is that Resolve consumes 20-40 % of CPU in idle state. I‘ve not noticed anything similar with other apps (not even Adobe apps and that means something...)

This matters when you are editing on the go and running on internal battery.

The reason that I went back to editing in FCPX though was that while I generally like Resolves‘ editing capabilities they also feel over-engineered. Too many options, too many things to take care of when moving things around the timeline in a complex project.

With FCPX I feel I can generally edit faster. I have to think less. It‘s also buttery smooth even on old laptops.

I use DR for color, even though I only do very little myself. But the power windows alone are often worth the roundtrip.

Lastly, I do like Fusion a lot. It‘s more fun than AE and Motion for some reason. But performance wise it cannot compete with Motion. Motion is ridiculously fast.

So on a Mac, FCP-X has a home-field advantage.

Not quite, I don't think.

Rather, BMD and Adobe have the noteworthy disadvantage of developing cross-platform applications. This means that the developers will frequently make choices that attempt to work on both platforms, often at the expense of performance on at least one of the platforms.

MacOS provides a number of programming APIs to optimize performance on their systems, but those APIs only exist on the Mac (some of them on the iToys). The more of such APIs (relevant to the applications) cross-platform developers choose to leverage, the higher the potential performance of the application, but the more code they need to write and maintain, as they will need to maintain different code to get the same thing working on the other platforms they are trying to support.

FCPX does have the advantage of being written for exactly one platform. This means it can take more complete advantage of the provided functionality and does not need to compromise or complicate its code base in an attempt to be compatible with the others.

I truly believe not everybody should be praised just because they managed to slap together a few shots. I truly believe if something playing on the screen has no story it belongs in a contemporary art museum, not cinema. I truly believe artists nowadays are held to a very low standard and hurts art more than it supposedly helps.

Artists are telling stories, just in a different way. Look for Julian Rosefeldt or Tamiko Thiel, who come to my mind spontaneously while still being impressed by recent projects. Of course, there are many others. And also as many bad ones as there are bad movies or bad books.

FCPX does have the advantage of being written for exactly one platform. This means it can take more complete advantage of the provided functionality and does not need to compromise or complicate its code base in an attempt to be compatible with the others.

Nothing is stopping any developer from doing this with a cross platform product. Most simply choose not to do it.

I generally think Resolve is better optimized for macOS than PC. It will run much better on a lower end system than on macOS compared to Windows, IME. Bottlenecks due to weaker GPUs, for example, tend to be more severe on Windows systems.

That being said, we have gotten to the point where mid-range systems are suitable for a lot 4K work in Resolve, so even prosumer types can reliably use it as a main NLE - even on a cheaper laptop.

Things were not this good 3 years ago; however, you can still get more done with less if you were using Apple or Adobe creative products... or something like HitFilm Pro. I'm speaking from an Editing/Motion Graphics perspective... especially on machines limited to 16GB RAM, for example (soldered RAM, no option for more, etc.).

Unless Apple are using APIs and SDKs that aren't available to third party developers, which I don't really think is the case, I'm not inclined to agree that FCPX is faster simply due to home court advantage. I think Apple has just put more emphasis on optimizing performance and made the necessary concessions to hit those performance breakpoints.

For example, I don't see them mashing Final Cut Pro, Logic Pro, Motion and Compressor into one mega-application any time soon... Resolve is kind of bloated now that all of that stuff has been added into it. It has advantages, but there is naturally a price for that convenience. BMD just decided that that price was worth it, because the software is pretty much workstation software and not necessarily designed primarily for lower-spec consumer systems (though ignoring this market has become increasingly hard to justify, which is why they've started developing functionality targeting it... though at the cost of adding a bit more bloat).

This thread has taken interesting turns.

Anyways I‘m with the thread opener. But not because DR was buggy or too slow for me. The only thing I do complain about occasionally is that Resolve consumes 20-40 % of CPU in idle state. I‘ve not noticed anything similar with other apps (not even Adobe apps and that means something...)

This matters when you are editing on the go and running on internal battery.

The reason that I went back to editing in FCPX though was that while I generally like Resolves‘ editing capabilities they also feel over-engineered. Too many options, too many things to take care of when moving things around the timeline in a complex project.

With FCPX I feel I can generally edit faster. I have to think less. It‘s also buttery smooth even on old laptops.

I use DR for color, even though I only do very little myself. But the power windows alone are often worth the roundtrip.

Lastly, I do like Fusion a lot. It‘s more fun than AE and Motion for some reason. But performance wise it cannot compete with Motion. Motion is ridiculously fast.

Yes, we (I) did stray from the OP but I was compelled to!

Motion, I believe is underrated .. though I no longer use FCPX Motion is one of those apps that just does what is says without fuss. It’s fast and intuitive and deserves more recognition.

For me, FCPX fell short on it’s rather messy audio UI and management and its less-capable-than-Resolve colour grading capability - not rubbish, just frustrating!

Black magic are squarely aimed at movie making whereas Apple (with all of its enormous wealth and resource) is focused on consumer products such as phones and tablets, amongst other things. Resolve feels like a product that’s been crafted more around its users, rather than a product formed around the vision of a company! As a result I believe FCPX and Resolve have become two different products - one is aimed at the ever-growing market of social platform content and the other, a product to produce traditional style movies and narrative aimed more at a professional industry.

I particularly liked FCPX for its picture editing - it’s sheer speed and reliability. If only that could’ve been carried over to a more professional stylised and traditional way of working, something I’m sure Apple could easily do if they wanted. And of course having software built by the same manufacturer as its hardware will always have its advantages - a quote Steve jobbs has mentioned several times in his pitches, and quite rightly too.

However for me Resolve feels more like a professional NLE, it has become very robust even on my ageing late 2013 MacPro, and with Fairlight and it’s excellent colour grading (and not to mention fusion integration, it’s become a workhorse and powerhouse of a system.

Long live Resolve but so to its competition! (Always good for a company!)


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Error.

Nothing is stopping any developer from doing this with a cross platform product. Most simply choose not to do it.

I generally think Resolve is better optimized for macOS than PC. It will run much better on a lower end system than on macOS compared to Windows, IME. Bottlenecks due to weaker GPUs, for example, tend to be more severe on Windows systems.

That being said, we have gotten to the point where mid-range systems are suitable for a lot 4K work in Resolve, so even prosumer types can reliably use it as a main NLE - even on a cheaper laptop.

Things were not this good 3 years ago; however, you can still get more done with less if you were using Apple or Adobe creative products... or something like HitFilm Pro. I'm speaking from an Editing/Motion Graphics perspective... especially on machines limited to 16GB RAM, for example (soldered RAM, no option for more, etc.).

Unless Apple are using APIs and SDKs that aren't available to third party developers, which I don't really think is the case, I'm not inclined to agree that FCPX is faster simply due to home court advantage. I think Apple has just put more emphasis on optimizing performance and made the necessary concessions to hit those performance breakpoints.

For example, I don't see them mashing Final Cut Pro, Logic Pro, Motion and Compressor into one mega-application any time soon... Resolve is kind of bloated now that all of that stuff has been added into it. It has advantages, but there is naturally a price for that convenience. BMD just decided that that price was worth it, because the software is pretty much workstation software and not necessarily designed primarily for lower-spec consumer systems (though ignoring this market has become increasingly hard to justify, which is why they've started developing functionality targeting it... though at the cost of adding a bit more bloat).

Aren't most cross platforms better optimized on macOS than Windows thanks to the nature of unix?

Regarding mashing up all functions in one App.
I remember before FCPX was released, the internet was full of rumors that Apple is developing a one App solution for all segments. Which was probably misunderstood since Apple did take certain parts from Soundtrack Pro, Shake and Color added them into FCPX.

I personally, not a big fan of bloated Applications, which doesn't make it right or wrong. As mentioned before I am happy that Fusion is still available as single Application. Many VFX guys I know find this the best feature from Blackmagic Design for Fusion.

But we shouldn't forget that DaVinci Resolve is only what it is today thanks to acquisition and we seen this trend in the past with Apple when they introduced round tripping in Final Cut Studio. Which Adobe has keep this trend. But DaVinci Resolve is defiantly more elegant... Autodesk Smoke anybody? By the way Smoke and FCPX work very well together.

I think Apple main focus is sales of Hardware than instead of their software.
They even mentioned DaVinci in their Spring Loaded event. And the days are long gone when they presented major Presentation for their Applications. Apple rather wants you to use DaVinci on a Mac than on a HP.

I personally find FCPX one of the best Apps when it comes to what it is design to do, media organization and picture edit. Also spearheads the number one content creators section right next to Adobe, online media and commercial agencies.
Resolve is good finishing tool, Avid comes with a proofed and shared workflow. So its cool to have something for everything. But I think a experienced user can use any of the applications to get the job done.

Regarding the color correcting in FCPX, I have to admit. We have no issues with its workflow you have to go by a different approach then before. Which is in general for FCPX until the others final adapt (FCPX timeline)

But the option of renaming the color parts in FCPX inspector! Come one Apple...

P.S. ON FCPX performance over other NLES. I am not a programmer but isn't the main reason for FCPX being so fast is that it uses foundation in the macOS and is build on a database vs its previous version on a Quicktime foundation? I wonder if Blackmagic and Co are also considering the same rout?

As a result I believe FCPX and Resolve have become two different products - one is aimed at the ever-growing market of social platform content and the other, a product to produce traditional style movies and narrative aimed more at a professional industry.

Do you know the FCPX documentary "Off the Tracks"? The abridged version is on Youtube. I don't think that FCPX was primarily aimed at social platform content. Rather that the mastermind behind FCP (who was also involved with earlier versions of Premiere) actually thought NLE's needed a better approach.

There is a small but dedicated community of FCPX editors that come from the Avid world. The Youtube Channel Unauthorised FCPX, which is run by two editors, provides some great content for fellow Avid editors. In their experience an Avid pro needs 2 weeks to got through the valley of tears before they can fully embrace what FCPX has to offer.

Now, since this is a Blackmagic board: They have come such a long way with Resolve and they don't seem to be intent on stopping anytime soon. I use FCPX for editing and Resolve for color, some Fusion FX, even as an interpreter for roundtrips between FCPX and Logic

...Unless Apple are using APIs and SDKs that aren't available to third party developers, which I don't really think is the case, I'm not inclined to agree that FCPX is faster simply due to home court advantage. I think Apple has just put more emphasis on optimizing performance and made the necessary concessions to hit those performance breakpoints....

Resolve has made a lot of performance improvements in recent versions, esp. for decode and encode. It can feel slower for certain tasks like spatial/temporal noise reduction, but FCP is also slow if using similar functionality, ie Neat Video plugin.

However if you target a single platform, it's easier to leverage platform-specific optimizations. E.g, Apple's XCode IDE has an optional feature called "Profile Guided Optimization", which essentially reconstructs the final executable to improve CPU cache hit ratio: https://devstreaming-cdn.apple.com/vide ... n_llvm.pdf

I'm sure for FCP such optimizations are highly tuned. It is a documented, public technique but it would be more difficult to do that for a cross-platform app.

Another example is Apple's new "tile-based deferred rendering" method of using the GPU. That is also publicly documented but it takes work to leverage. You can't just make the same old OpenCL or Metal calls and expect best results: https://developer.apple.com/videos/play/wwdc2020/10602/

The more a developer leverages such platform-specific optimizations, the harder it is to keep a cross-platform code base unified.

...I don't think that FCPX was primarily aimed at social platform content. Rather that the mastermind behind FCP (who was also involved with earlier versions of Premiere) actually thought NLE's needed a better approach..

That is correct. Randy Ubillos was the creator of Adobe Premiere and was lead architect for Premiere at Adobe through version 4. He later created the NLE which became "classic" FCP, then did FCPX.

Up until recently the development manager for FCPX was Steve Bayes who was previously the principle product designer for Avid Media Composer.

Which documents that Apple is handling this segment seriously.

Which documents that Apple is handling this segment seriously.

Those who experienced the initial launch of FCPX might disagree. It was useless as a professional replacement for FCP Studio. It was so bad it was insulting to professional editors. It's much better now, but still drives me crazy occasionally!

BMD only have to fix a dozen or so fundamental issues/bugs to really be a great edit app, but these issues have been around for ages and don't look like being fixed anytime soon. Things like Edit page keyframe smoothing, Source viewer audio track patching/monitoring, alpha channel handling, etc.

Things like Edit page keyframe smoothing,

Oh Yeah. To be fair FCPX doesn't do it any better. If you want decent looking easing you need to use Plugins.
This is one thing that Premiere does well with the built-in speed graph editor for easing curves.

BMD only have to fix a dozen or so fundamental issues/bugs to really be a great edit app, but these issues have been around for ages and don't look like being fixed anytime soon. Things like Edit page keyframe smoothing, Source viewer audio track patching/monitoring, alpha channel handling, etc.

... and subclip design/operation, drag and drop re-ordering of bin items, retained menu memory, less finicky mouse trimming (said to be improved with v17; don't know), and any number of other small but crucial refinements. But there doesn't seem to be a whole lot of interest in this kind of refinement/development.

How can you delete posts on thing?

uli -

jay - as alice said; I give myself very good advice, but I very seldom follow it

I always follow mine, otherwise it would make me a hypocrite!

Which documents that Apple is handling this segment seriously.

Those who experienced the initial launch of FCPX might disagree. It was useless as a professional replacement for FCP Studio. It was so bad it was insulting to professional editors. It's much better now, but still drives me crazy occasionally!

I fully agree, my remark was commenting on the current state of things. We had two student labs running FCP 7 and refrained from switching to FCP X for quite some time after testing it. There were rumours that they wanted to please Steve Jobs seeing another of his babies born before he faded away. No idea about the truth in this, but that baby was definitely a premature birth.

Reading the last posts regarding the release of FCPX and proof that Apple takes the professional markets serious.

As mentioned above, maybe watching the documentary Off The Tracks can help and understand why and what happened.

Apple even admitted that the release wasn’t good move thanks to the marketing section. I do find it funny that Adobe abandoned Premiere on the Mac until Premiere Pro 2 was released. Which they have the habit ending a Application every year.

Regarding keyframe smoothing we are not talking about the right click on the key frame and choosing linear and smooth?

One thing I have noticed. Approximately 6 years ago being responsible for internal training at my previous position. I have found with FCPX, users had it easier and more comfortable to learn editing in FCPX with a faster result then with Premiere or Media Composer.

I find FCPX a good tool to have in the toolbox.

Regarding the Apple taking the Pro marketing serious. Well looking at their MacPro, monitor and now the iPad Pro. I would say what more proof do we need?



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Which documents that Apple is handling this segment seriously.

Those who experienced the initial launch of FCPX might disagree. It was useless as a professional replacement for FCP Studio. It was so bad it was insulting to professional editors. It's much better now, but still drives me crazy occasionally!

I fully agree, my remark was commenting on the current state of things. We had two student labs running FCP 7 and refrained from switching to FCP X for quite some time after testing it. There were rumours that they wanted to please Steve Jobs seeing another of his babies born before he faded away. No idea about the truth in this, but that baby was definitely a premature birth.

In Apples defence: They obviously didn’t intend on making only 1 release of the new FCPX. It was going to be basic by virtue of the fact it was the first release!

All those that criticised it on its launch completely failed to realise that it was a total rewrite from the ground up for the new 64-bit architecture. I praised it on the first day because I knew they’d just breathed many more years of new life into the software.

Apple didn’t tell people to stop using the legacy final cut, they just gave them an option for a way forward.

I like FCPX, always did, but at present it doesn’t feel like a professional NLE. I’m not an editor that likes to work at speed.. when I’m with a client (and when I’m not) I’m taking my time to craft every single clip on the timeline. I could spend weeks just on a single scene - that’s the difference between Cinema and Television!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk noooo hi

"All those that criticised it on its launch completely failed to realise that it was a total rewrite from the ground up for the new 64-bit architecture."

Not true at all. That fact was the main argument from Apple. The problem was that it could not work in a professional workflow for about 9 versions! No way to export for an audio mix, Motion no longer integrated into the workflow and unable to preview to an external broadcast monitor (STILL waiting for this) and on and on......

It was impossible to migrate from FCS3 because it was a new product that did not have tools necessary for a professional integrated workflow. It was so bad that Adobe and Avid saw the opportunity to kill off FCPX by offering cheap "trade-in" options. It worked. In the years since FCPX was launched the number of Apple Final Cut installations in my city dropped by about 90%. I had to learn Premiere to stay employed. I do not call that a success.

Apple did not listen to the user base, they forced a new idea with no consultation. Let's encourage BMD to keep listening!

As the OP stated it is interesting to see where this thread has gone. I do think inserting statements like "PCs are virus-infested" was clearly baiting the debate to jump off..., which it did.

I have not seen anyone from the AVID world (you know, that platform where you had to conform everything before you could import media to make everything run ssmooth?) make any comments here (unless I missed it). and this is till the NLE for major productions for broadcast and isn't changing soon. Do any of you work with Assistants or a team or are you solo? (Those details are important to me as many of the issues the OP dealt with are cleared up by someone else including replacing hardware if needed?)

What is the actual debate here? A dude comes on the forum and vents his frustration then prompts people to prove him wrong. Everyone has different needs from their tools and beyond a certain point, editing faster does not necessarily make a better end product in the documentary or narrative world. I appreciate the thread as there is lots of experience in the post being shared so thanks!

Just wanted to add my two cents.

We also Rock Media Composer here and yup work with one or two assistant editors.

But agree and already have mentioned should at least experience multiple Tools and have a good selection in your toolbox. But it won’t change much on people opinion.

Speed can be good but more important stability.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

"All those that criticised it on its launch completely failed to realise that it was a total rewrite from the ground up for the new 64-bit architecture."

Not true at all. That fact was the main argument from Apple. The problem was that it could not work in a professional workflow for about 9 versions! No way to export for an audio mix, Motion no longer integrated into the workflow and unable to preview to an external broadcast monitor (STILL waiting for this) and on and on......

It was impossible to migrate from FCS3 because it was a new product that did not have tools necessary for a professional integrated workflow. It was so bad that Adobe and Avid saw the opportunity to kill off FCPX by offering cheap "trade-in" options. It worked. In the years since FCPX was launched the number of Apple Final Cut installations in my city dropped by about 90%. I had to learn Premiere to stay employed. I do not call that a success.

Apple did not listen to the user base, they forced a new idea with no consultation. Let's encourage BMD to keep listening!

Yes I’m afraid it is true.. it’s a fact. Read it about it on the Apple website. FCPX is 64bit, FCP was 32bit.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

"All those that criticised it on its launch completely failed to realise that it was a total rewrite from the ground up for the new 64-bit architecture."

Not true at all. That fact was the main argument from Apple. The problem was that it could not work in a professional workflow for about 9 versions! No way to export for an audio mix, Motion no longer integrated into the workflow and unable to preview to an external broadcast monitor (STILL waiting for this) and on and on......

It was impossible to migrate from FCS3 because it was a new product that did not have tools necessary for a professional integrated workflow. It was so bad that Adobe and Avid saw the opportunity to kill off FCPX by offering cheap "trade-in" options. It worked. In the years since FCPX was launched the number of Apple Final Cut installations in my city dropped by about 90%. I had to learn Premiere to stay employed. I do not call that a success.

Apple did not listen to the user base, they forced a new idea with no consultation. Let's encourage BMD to keep listening!

Yes I’m afraid it is true.. it’s a fact. Read it about it on the Apple website. FCPX is 64bit, FCP was 32bit.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The statement is correct but completely irrelevant

"All those that criticised it on its launch completely failed to realise that it was a total rewrite from the ground up for the new 64-bit architecture."

Not true at all. That fact was the main argument from Apple. The problem was that it could not work in a professional workflow for about 9 versions! No way to export for an audio mix, Motion no longer integrated into the workflow and unable to preview to an external broadcast monitor (STILL waiting for this) and on and on......

It was impossible to migrate from FCS3 because it was a new product that did not have tools necessary for a professional integrated workflow. It was so bad that Adobe and Avid saw the opportunity to kill off FCPX by offering cheap "trade-in" options. It worked. In the years since FCPX was launched the number of Apple Final Cut installations in my city dropped by about 90%. I had to learn Premiere to stay employed. I do not call that a success.

Apple did not listen to the user base, they forced a new idea with no consultation. Let's encourage BMD to keep listening!

Yes I’m afraid it is true.. it’s a fact. Read it about it on the Apple website. FCPX is 64bit, FCP was 32bit.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The statement is correct but completely irrelevant

Like your original reply to my post. The point being Apple said at the start that they would be adding these features back in with later updates. It’s just that people got impatient and started posting inflammatory remarks.

Resolve wasn’t even an editor when it started! However, I would certainly agree that BM are far better and more pro-active at listening to its users.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Of course people got impatient as Apple even stopped selling FCP7 when FCPX was released. At that time you couldn't even export the timeline to standard formats. They later backtracked and continued selling FCP7 for a while.

Of course people got impatient as Apple even stopped selling FCP7 when FCPX was released. At that time you couldn't even export the timeline to standard formats. They later backtracked and continued selling FCP7 for a while.

It would have been impossible to release FCPX with every feature for every user on a version 1.0. As far as I know no manufacture has ever done that!! It was exciting that we had a new 64bit app that was more future proofed. A lot was happening in the hardware dept. at that point too in both camera acquisition (solid state) and computer systems.

Granted, Apple are not exactly Stella with quick releases like BM, but it was a much needed major step forward for Final Cut even though it did feel initially limited. I just personally didn’t feel it deserved all that negative comment so early on.

I remember one very scathing attack from a user appeared on the forums on the day of release (if I remember rightly, user was Red.. something), the post made way for a literal attack on FCPX within it’s first 24 hrs of release. Ridiculous! The users didn’t even know the software.

Of course it had its limitations but I knew if I had to, I could always continue to use the legacy version until such required functionality was available.

Anyhow, after 8 years of FCPX Resolve is best suited for my workflows now - though there are some changes I’d like to see there too!

But hey Red footage was best to edit in FCPX back then.

Regarding the Audio tools, let’s not forget that resolve basically had no audio function until they added another application. Like Apple has with Logic. :p


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

It would have been impossible to release FCPX with every feature for every user on a version 1.0.

Yeah, but the problem is that it wasn't even a proper version 1.0. There was so much core functionality missing that is was similar to buying a car without wheels, or seats, or a gas pedal.

You could push such a thing around for a little but, but you ain't taking that on a long trip.

It would have been impossible to release FCPX with every feature for every user on a version 1.0.

Yeah, but the problem is that it wasn't even a proper version 1.0. There was so much core functionality missing that is was similar to buying a car without wheels, or seats, or a gas pedal.

You could push such a thing around for a little but, but you ain't taking that on a long trip.

I don’t know the main functions for a NLE where their.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

You couldn't capture tape-based media, which was still relevant at that time.