Steve Jobs was the best product innovator within the last couple of centuries, and his passing saddened me considerably. My appreciation goes back to his storied commencement address at Stanford University, which revealed him as a deep and thoughtful man. I stand in shock of his extraordinary string of product successes, like the original Mac, iMac, iPod, iPhone, iPad, iTunes, and Apple App Store-in addition to Pixar-as well as his capacity to produce maniacal, passionate fans. But that doesn’t imply that I personally like every product created under his watch or go along with every product-related decision.
This is particularly so after finishing Walter Isaacson’s outstanding biography, titled simply Steve Jobs, where I learned of two of Jobs’s passions: one for simplicity and also the other for manipulating the experience. Specifically, I can’t reconcile Jobs’s desire for simplicity with Final Cut Pro X.
Not long ago i reviewed the new features in Final Cut Pro X Plugins and found them impressive. Overall, though, I abhor this program. When I run FCPX, my reaction is visceral; I experience the walls pressing in and my blood pressure levels rising. I adore the clean slate of Adobe Premiere Pro along with its doppelganger Final Cut Pro 7. FCPX has a great deal structure, so many completely foreign concepts, that it seems like my 31″ monitor has shrunk to 17″. With such a supposed focus on simplicity, how could a company run by Jobs produce this kind of program?
Well, if you think regarding it, while Apple’s hardware is straightforward, its software program is complex, a velvet chain tying one to Apple’s vision of the “way things ought to be done.” If you’re on a Windows machine, you can’t drag a magazine on your iPod in Windows Explorer; you need to load it into iTunes and synch. That’s not simple. You can’t drag a picture from your iPhone to your desktop using a file manager; you must load it into iPhoto and save it from there.
Needless to say, I understand how iTunes is perfect for inexperienced users, and that’s precisely the point. With iTunes and iPhoto, and the iPad and iPhone, Apple wasn’t selling to experienced users. It was opening new markets. On the other hand, with Final Cut Pro X, Apple was trying to alter the workflows of professionals who knew more about video production than the engineers who come up with product.
You can only impose structure when a marketplace is new or when the advantages of that structure are incremental. As well as the more structure you build right into a product, the less it’s prone to interest experienced users from the product it replaces. That’s why most profe
With that being said, there are refinements through the app, though more with effects than editing. The brand new version may be worth time to upgrade. When you start using the new color tools, you’ll never go back. What exactly in case you do? If you value being on the leading edge And also you are between projects, upgrade today.
In case you are a died-in-the-wool skeptic, wait monthly and see how this rolls out before committing. There’s no harm in waiting – particularly if you depend on 3rd-party plug-ins and software. What am I planning to do? I’m upgrading my main editing system to 10.4 tomorrow and keeping two backup editing systems on 10.3 for the next month or so. I love this new edition and I’m looking towards utilizing it for real productions.
Given how aggressively Adobe and Avid are supporting team editing, especially because Final Cut Pro X is constructed on a database engine, it will continue to surprise me that collaboration is as difficult because it is.
This really is compounded by Final Cut’s limited support for editing libraries using shared storage, even though connected via 10gb Ethernet. Editing teams are available for even small projects today and Final Cut does zhxspu make it easy to share libraries or projects. Media sharing, of course, continues to be available since the development of FCP X.
I am just a huge fan of Roles. They make making many tasks much simpler, especially when it comes to exporting – however, not audio mixing. The idea of applying a compound clip to some role so that we are able to apply filters towards the compound clip is definitely an exercise in frustration. Audio mixing in FCP X is ridiculously awkward. It is actually far faster to export an XML file from FCP X, convert it using XtoCC, import it into Adobe Audition, mix the project, export a stereo pair, import it into FCP X, assign a role with it, then export the finished project rather than to make an effort to carry out the mix in FCP X itself.
I am aware, I timed it. FCP X is 3-6 times slower than round-tripping in Audition. Roles are excellent, however, not for mixing.
Finally, it might be that Apple has grown the amount of clips that can be supported in a Library, but I’m getting emails almost every week from editors experiencing performance slow-downs since they have way too many clips in a library. Again, FCP X is really a database, it should be able to handle far more clips without choking.
Pixel Film Studios
120 Vantis Dr.
Established in 2006, Aliso Viejo, California-based Pixel Film Studios is an innovative developer of visual effects tools for the post-production and broadcast community. Their products are integrated with popular non-linear editing and compositing products from Apple FCPX.