Steve Jobs was the best product innovator in the last couple of centuries, and his passing saddened me considerably. My appreciation goes back to his storied commencement address at Stanford University, which disclosed him as a deep and thoughtful man. I stand in amaze of his extraordinary string of product successes, including the original Mac, iMac, iPod, iPhone, iPad, iTunes, and Apple App Store-in addition to Pixar-along with his ability to produce maniacal, passionate fans. But that doesn’t mean that Personally, i like every product created under his watch or accept every product-related decision.
This can be particularly so after finishing Walter Isaacson’s outstanding biography, titled simply Steve Jobs, where I learned of 2 of Jobs’s passions: one for simplicity and also the other for managing the experience. Particularly, I can’t reconcile Jobs’s desire for simplicity with Final Cut Pro X.
Not long ago i reviewed the new features in Fcpx and located them impressive. Overall, though, I abhor this program. Once I run FCPX, my reaction is visceral; I experience the walls pressing in and my blood pressure level rising. I adore the clean slate of Adobe Premiere Pro along with its doppelganger Final Cut Pro 7. FCPX has a great deal structure, a lot of 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 type of program?
Well, if you believe about this, while Apple’s hardware is straightforward, its software program is complex, a velvet chain tying you to definitely Apple’s vision from the “way things ought to be done.” If you’re on the Windows machine, you can’t drag a book on your iPod in Windows Explorer; you need to load it into iTunes and synch. That’s not simple. You can’t drag a photo out of your iPhone to your desktop using a file manager; you need to load it into iPhoto and save it from there.
Obviously, I understand how iTunes is great for inexperienced users, and that’s precisely the point. With iTunes and iPhoto, as well as the iPad and iPhone, Apple wasn’t selling to experienced users. It had been opening new markets. In comparison, with Final Cut Pro X, Apple was attempting to alter the workflows of professionals who knew much more about video production than some of the engineers who come up with product.
You can only impose structure whenever a industry is new or when the advantages of that structure are incremental. And the more structure you build into a product, the less it’s likely to attract experienced users in the product it replaces. That’s why most profe
That being said, you can find refinements throughout the app, though more with effects than editing. The new version will be worth enough time to upgrade. Once you start using the brand new color tools, you’ll never return. So what in the event you do? If you value being on the leading edge And also you are between projects, upgrade today.
If you are a died-in-the-wool skeptic, wait per month and find out how this rolls out before committing. There’s no harm in waiting – especially if you depend on 3rd-party plug-ins and software. What am I going to do? I’m upgrading my main editing system to 10.4 tomorrow and keeping two backup editing systems on 10.3 for the following month or so. I enjoy this new edition and I’m looking towards utilizing it for real productions.
Given how aggressively Adobe and Avid are supporting team editing, and particularly because Final Cut Pro X is made on a database engine, it continues to surprise me that collaboration is as difficult as it is.
This really is compounded by Final Cut’s limited support for editing libraries using shared storage, even if connected via 10gb Ethernet. Editing teams are available for even small projects today and Final Cut does zhxspu allow it to be simple to share libraries or projects. Media sharing, of course, continues to be available since the introduction of FCP X.
I am just a huge fan of Roles. They create making many tasks much simpler, especially in terms of exporting – although not audio mixing. The thought of applying a compound clip to some role in order that we could apply filters towards the compound clip is definitely an exercise in frustration. Audio mixing in FCP X is ridiculously awkward. It is far faster to export an XML file from FCP X, convert it using XtoCC, import it into Adobe Audition, mix the project, export a stereo pair, import it into FCP X, assign a role with it, then export the finished project than to make an effort to perform the blend FCP X itself.
I know, I timed it. FCP X is 3-6 times slower than round-tripping in Audition. Roles are wonderful, but not for mixing.
Finally, it may be that Apple has risen 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 too many clips in a library. Again, FCP X is actually a database, it must be able to handle a lot more clips without choking.
Pixel Film Studios
120 Vantis Dr.
Established in 2006, Aliso Viejo, California-based Pixel Film Studios is an innovative developer of visual effects tools for the post-production and broadcast community. Their products are integrated with popular non-linear editing and compositing products from Apple FCPX.