Steve Jobs was the best product innovator during the last couple of centuries, and his passing saddened me significantly. My gratitude dates back to his storied commencement address at Stanford University, which uncovered him to be a deep and thoughtful man. I stand in amaze of his extraordinary string of product successes, such as the original Mac, iMac, iPod, iPhone, iPad, iTunes, and Apple App Store-in addition to Pixar-in addition to his capacity to produce maniacal, passionate fans. But that doesn’t mean that I personally as with any product created under his watch or agree with every product-related decision.
This is 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 as well as the other for manipulating the experience. In particular, I can’t reconcile Jobs’s passion for simplicity with Final Cut Pro X.
Recently i reviewed the new features in Fcpx Plugins and discovered them impressive. Overall, though, I abhor the program. After I run FCPX, my reaction is visceral; I feel the walls pressing in and my blood pressure levels rising. I adore the clean slate of Adobe Premiere Pro as well as its doppelganger Final Cut Pro 7. FCPX has a lot structure, numerous completely foreign concepts, which it is 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 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 should be done.” If you’re over a Windows machine, you can’t drag a novel onto 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 in your desktop with a file manager; you need to load it into iPhoto and save it after that.
Needless to say, I realize how iTunes is perfect for inexperienced users, and that’s precisely the idea. With iTunes and iPhoto, as well as the iPad and iPhone, Apple wasn’t selling to experienced users. It had been opening new markets. On the other hand, with Final Cut Pro X, Apple was trying to alter the workflows of experts who knew much more about video production than the engineers who come up with product.
You can only impose structure each time a market is new or when the advantages of that structure are incremental. As well as the more structure you build in to a product, the less it’s likely to attract experienced users from the product it replaces. That’s why most profe
With that being said, you will find refinements throughout the app, though more with effects than editing. The newest version is worth time to upgrade. Once you begin using the brand new color tools, you’ll never return back. What exactly should you do? If you like being on the cutting edge And you also are between projects, upgrade today.
In case you are a died-in-the-wool skeptic, wait a month and discover how this rolls out before committing. There’s no harm in waiting – specifically if you rely on 3rd-party plug-ins and software. What am I likely 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 roughly. I enjoy this latest version and I’m getting excited about making use of it for real productions.
Given how aggressively Adobe and Avid are supporting team editing, and particularly because Final Cut Pro X is constructed on a database engine, it continues to surprise me that collaboration is as difficult because it is.
This is compounded by Final Cut’s limited support for editing libraries using shared storage, even when connected via 10gb Ethernet. Editing teams are available for even small projects today and Final Cut does zhxspu allow it to be easy to share libraries or projects. Media sharing, obviously, continues to be available since the introduction of FCP X.
I am an enormous fan of Roles. They can make making many tasks much easier, especially in terms of exporting – but not audio mixing. The idea of applying a compound clip to your role so that we are able to apply filters towards the compound clip is surely 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 part with it, then export the finished project rather than to try to do the mix in FCP X itself.
I understand, I timed it. FCP X is 3-6 times slower than round-tripping in Audition. Roles are excellent, however, not for mixing.
Finally, it may be that Apple has risen the amount of clips that may be supported in a Library, but I’m getting emails nearly every week from editors experiencing performance slow-downs since they have way too many clips in a library. Again, FCP X is a database, it should be able to handle much 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.