What can 7 do that X can't (Really)

• Roundtrip to Motion - Publishing Motion files to FCPX is great, but for one-off graphic sequences, we really need this back

• iChat Theatre - This was THE #1 feature of FCP7 for me as a freelance. Being able to cut interactively with a client and have them viewing the program with me is absolutely brilliant- I've cut whole videos like this. We definitely need it back, but something tells me it's exclusion is mostly to do with Apple's transition from iChat to FaceTime/iMessage.

• Copy/Paste attributes - absolutely.

• I'd say native OMF export, but I'm becoming more convinced that the shoe is ultimately on the other foot and the real solution will be ProTools importing FCPXML. Until then 3rd parties are filling the gap.

• Better mixing tools, but we know this is coming...

• AutoSave Vault. Lion was supposed to have a "Time Machine" for files, so that you could step back into a documents history. Hopefully we'll see a more full featured autosave in an upcoming update.

• I'd also like to see the sequence multi-TC overlay back, preferably in a HUD like overlay.

I love that there are some good thoughts here and I now have stuff I can say, but I have to admit that a lot of these features are either 1) improvements on FCPX stuff or 2) can be done with some workarounds.

Its good people are putting it through the paces.

Let me try and narrow down this question before we get too off.

What is a SHOWSTOPPER that FCPX can't do that you were doing in your FCP7 workflow. It's a question I get asked all the time, but for me I can't say that there is anything at this point that prevented me from jumping to X.

And the beautiful 64-bit GPU accelerated software it is outweighs any minor annoyances (for me)

At first, i would have said stability. But since 10.0.3, it's been pretty solid...and the features are pretty much there...its just small things for me. And 10.0.5, for me, has been rock solid. With a Da Vinci workflow, sound mixing is all I'm really waiting for.

So, as long as I had a thunderbolt RAID, I would have no problem taking on a major task with FCP X.

There are NO showstoppers. I still edit faster with FCP X than I ever did with 7. Plus it puts a smile on my dial while I do it.

fcpguru wrote: What is a SHOWSTOPPER that FCPX can't do that you were doing in your FCP7 workflow. It's a question I get asked all the time, but for me I can't say that there is anything at this point that prevented me from jumping to X.

Most of the list that I posted is not a showstopper to use the program, but it IS a showstopper to use it at our working facility. We could really use some of the new FCP X features (sometimes the magnetic timeline, the Callouts plugin from Ripple alone would be a HUGE timesaver, now I just do those clips on my own computer), but as I said, putting FCP X in our workflow would at this point in time, give us more issues than benefits it would deliver.

Also, as I'm editing a small behind-the-scenes video on a congress... Performance still isn't what FCP 7 was in many cases. Sometimes you scroll trough, video cannot keep up. Shot with an EX1, and the strange thing is, is that FCP 7 seems to have a lot less problems with it.
I noticed this while editing a 3D medical operation too, also shot on XDCAM. Performance in the timeline after a while seemed a lot worse in FCP X then in FCP 7 (and I only have 2 projects and 1 event at the time in the Event Browser).
So I would still add stability (not in the sense of crashing, but in the sense of suddenly not showing something, showing the wrong picture while skimming trough a retimed shot, ...) and performance to the list too.

Also - unless this is possible - is there a way in FCP X to copy the Motion properties to another clip? Like the scale and the crop settings? If not, that's a huge show stopper for our facility too.

You're editing XDCAM natively, while in 7 you're transcoding to ProRes. Please use feedback to request the option to transcode and optimize XDCAM, HDV and other GOP structure formats to ProRes on import as you can H.254.

You can copy/paste clip attributes, but it's all or nothing.

Tom Wolsky wrote: You're editing XDCAM natively, while in 7 you're transcoding to ProRes. Please use feedback to request the option to transcode and optimize XDCAM, HDV and other GOP structure formats to ProRes on import as you can H.254.

You can copy/paste clip attributes, but it's all or nothing.

Hi Tom,

I am not cutting transcoded Prores in FCP 7. I just use the same workflow for 7 as for X:
importing them via XDCAM Transfer. It just puts in a Quicktime wrapper around the MPEG2-media, it doesn't transcode to Prores.
Performance with the same media is much better in 7 then in X on the same hardware.

Are you using filmstrips in the browser and the timeline? Or lozenges?

In most cases my work is not editing but organizing workflows.

As Tom already mentioned handling of TC is very poor. Only Source TC - which for many productions makes X a "No Go".

For me one of the most important points is the really very poor handling of XML. This causes a lot workflow issues. Compared to FCP legacy FCPX is years behind.

Similar and connected to the above is metadata handling. While in FCP it was possible to modify/add/remove metadata of files (mostly in XML) there is no way in FCPX.

Some examples:

• TC (Source, Aux1,Aux2):
FCP allowed either to modify the source file or via XML to modify any the TC tracks inside the project if they were not inside the source file - mostly AUX. This was a huge timesaver and made it possible to reconnect files to their original without destroying project internal TC metadata. That way it was very easy to use LTC for devices which couldn't record TC in way using a master TC. This worked fine (with 3rd party app) in FCP, but currently there is no chance in FCPX to sync video sources with different timecodes and no or different audio with external audio - rather than using markers. And even this will not that cool if you want to create multiclips out of them. This doesn't mean FCP was perfect, definitively not, but it allowed very effective workarounds.

With a customer we made a test for a daily soap using 2 P2 cams one hand held without synced TC (but LTC) both without audio and a 744T (using 4 separate tracks each saved as BWAV). With FCP and a third party app (using XML) and a QT component they were ready to edit within 5 Minutes (Multiclips were created using the XML and contained all needed metadata). This included the time to write referenced movies. Using FCPX it took half an hour to copy/re-wrap the P2 material. Then the footage had to synced - partially visually. The BWAV files had to merged (loosing their metadata for scene/take/note) and merged with the video (loosing metadata again). Markers had to set, multiclips had to be created and metadata had to entered - this took a long time.
Additionally creating the merged referenced movies (video/audio merged) always keeps the scene/take/note within the movie. Using the clip in any other project (for a "what happened up to now") always shows the scene/take/note no matter what project - in so far FCP was way better in handling source metadata.
Same thing with Alexa files - and additionally no chance to get metadata since FCPXML doesn't have the options to match FCP XMEML. For Red the 2 TCs are not supported.

• XML exchange:
A lot of companies I'm working with are doing (a lot of) subtitles. FCP XMEML allowed to do seemless integration of translated subtitles into an existing sequence. No chance with FCPXML. There are several customers who really love FCPX, but say it's a nightmare when it comes to multiple language subtitles — I do understand them.
Another thing with subtitles in comparison FCP/FCPX is that FCP allowed to modify a sequence XML in a way that each subtitle only had a duration of 1 frame without loosing the settings and metadata. Exporting this new sequence as image sequence allowed a 1:1 transfer of subtitles (or titles) to other applications.
Next thing is Digital Cinema. FCP allowed to keep basic font settings which then could be transported into the DCP XML. With FCPXML not style or size nor any other thing than text will be transported. It's not fun.

• Open in Editor:
I miss this as well. It could be used for round trips with Motion and other apps. The "other apps" quite often work with "Reveal in Finder" but you have do some more clicks.

It's not that I don't like FCPX, but there is a real lot things to be done.

Andreas

Someone mentioned in another thread about how upper management wanted an iMovie Pro more consumer type app, the dev team wanted a killer pro app. I think that's probably true.

I used to have a dear friend who used to be an Apple engineer. He said Phil Schiller made the dev team leave a ton of stuff out and dum it down a great deal. Then when the poop hit the fan upon it's release, Steve Jobs who was always hands-off with the pro apps got upset and stepped in. Told the dev team to bring FCP X up to par, and Phil got in deep trouble. He made Phil do a campaign to let the public know FCP was going to be fully pro.

A day or two after I was told this (and thus it is hearsay) that magazine I forget the name of came out with a brief interview with Phil talking about Apple's commitment to pros and that they had a 10 year development plan for FCP X, along with some other public statements he and others made along those lines.

Now, how true all of this is, I'm not sure, but this is what I was told second hand by someone internally at Apple.

Then someone here posted they emailed Tim Cook and got a call from the FCP marketing team asking how folks were using FCP X. My big question is why the FCP marketing team has to even ask that? Do they think users were not using FCP 7's features and tools in top level productions? How would they be so out of touch with their user base after a full year of backlash?

The only conclusion I can reach is that somewhere someone at Apple dropped the ball and crated a huge mistake that they are not trying to rectify and patch up as best as they can. Dropping Color and Final Cut Server I'll just never understand. Not at all. But then they dropped Shake, promised it would come back in some form, and that never happened. Who knows...

Not sure what the point of this rant was. But I guess it's that I really, really love FCP X in many ways. But it doesn't satisfy a lot of the market today like 7 did, which makes me a bit miffed at Apple and confused about their real intentions, and how far they may or may not go with FCP X, and how long Motion and Logic Pro will be around. Love FCP X, losing trust in Apple.

BenB wrote:
Then someone here posted they emailed Tim Cook and got a call from the FCP marketing team asking how folks were using FCP X. My big question is why the FCP marketing team has to even ask that? Do they think users were not using FCP 7's features and tools in top level productions? How would they be so out of touch with their user base after a full year of backlash?

I emailed Tim Cook and got a call from the marketing team to apologize personally to me about feeling like the presentation was a let down. They are fully aware how FCP7 was being used in top level productions and also recognized they did a lot more for that app than whats being done for X so far. I think the point he was making was that they are stepping up and doubling down on FCPX in a big way. But as with anything, I think, it will take time for that to happen. Hate to remind everyone, but FCP7 was the bastard child of video editing for YEARS. All the way from V1 (when I started to use it) to v4.5 when it finally got some traction.

After speaking with them, I don't at all think they are out of touch with the user base. I think instead they are genuinely interested in how pro editors work, but they wanted to push the technology forward and do things differently and I think they did just that! Few people here could say they enjoyed going back to FCP7 after using X for a period of time. I know I feel like 7 is the past. X works differently and Apple is really trying to push it forward. They care. A whole lot.

So, who knows what happened. I'm not going to speculate on the reasons behind the total f*ck up by Apple a year ago. But the facts I do know after speaking to them is 1) They care about Pros and 2) Workflow improvements are coming and it's a top priority for them.

Everybody's workflow is different. People are using the app in all sorts of applications. Hell, I used 7 for a decade on several feature films, commercials and shorts and never used ganging! That's a lot of different people's needs to keep in mind when trying to revolutionize some thing.

Rant over

"1) They care about Pros and 2) Workflow improvements are coming and it's a top priority for them."

Very encouraging! Thanks for letting us know.

As for going back to 7, no way. It always freaks me out as a trainer how awesome it was for so long, and now how it makes me feel so primitive and awkward when I'm forced to use it.

But someone at Apple has me miffed, that remains.

So moving forward, use X, ask questions about using it, share tips, and best of all, sharing the templates for free. I use more free user created templates from here than I do third party paid for templates. I think that says a lot.

One thing I find fascinating is that experienced 7 users are asking for the old 7 features back. But new users new to editing are asking for features no NLE ever had before. Very interesting twist on "Think Different". I get this stuff in my classes all the time.

Did they mention Motion at all?

Ben. I think the primary reason they may be asking who the user base for X is simply because they want to know what kind of traction they're getting in different areas of post. As the #2 top paid app on the store, LOTS of somebody's are buying FCPX. The questions for them has certainly got to be not who's downloading it, but who's using it and in what areas of the business.

It was sort of funny watching the PostChat twitter feed that preceded the LAFCPUG presentation. You have a group of people there chiming in and saying very plainly that they're using FCPX for promos, corporate, commercial, broadcast, features.... Meanwhile, you've got the regular suspects of FCPX naysayers (Biscardi, DylanReeve, TheEditDoctor, kyl33t, ronsussman, comebackshane, and that twit that used to post here who's name I can't find at the moment) in the same thread saying, "Is anybody using this?". There are a group of people out there who are just never going to let this go. The bar by which FCPX will be considered "professional" will just keep moving further and further away as the developers keep adding and improving functionality.

FCP7 had 10 years of development behind it. Because Apple was willing to essentially start over with FCPX, it goes without saying that all the little nooks and crannies of special cases that make up the post world aren't going to be immediately addressed by the software.

For a while FCPX likely won't meet those needs. In another year or two it might.

I always think it comes back to the core ideals of the program. If you can't get behind the magnetic timeline, metadata based organizational structure, and Roles- then you should absolutely leave the software for more familiar pastures. But if those concepts are intriguing, then the other stuff will sort itself out.

So Phil's in charge of screwing with QuickTime player AND FCP X -- and is now telling us how great the MBPr is...uh oh.

I've always wondered why those guys ignore the Apple Certified Trainers so much? They have no interest in what the feedback we're getting from our students is. And much of that has no place to include on the course evaluations. Most of what we hear from students is after the class when we get feedback and questions from students. Things there are just mysterious to me. They don't ever ask us how the courseware is, either.

But, at least it seems the dev team is trying their best. I'm looking forward to exciting things over the next year.

BenB wrote: ... But, at least it seems the dev team is trying their best. I'm looking forward to exciting things over the next year.

Me too.

But the problem is that many of those "shiny" customers (Apple had) don't want to wait a year or two til FCPX catches up.

XML development for the new version was stopped end of 2010 and went down to the bottom of priorities for the new version — in spite they knew that for nearly all big customers it made FCP a work horse.
Apple did spent even money to fly around half the world to see the XML workflow we created and they had been very impressed (same as Abode and Avid) by the speed but answered the simple question "Can we do that with FCPX?" with a simple "No".
So a lot of bad decisions had been made (and somehow still are made) during development.

Very interesting, thanks for sharing that with us Andreas.

Just found an "ancient" stress test done on an ancient machine maybe it helps to understand what I mean when I'm talking about XML. Unfortunately I deleted the VO. The movie is real time capture without any editing - except I deleted the VO.

There is no common TC with the cameras because they can't be synched (same with DSLRs) but have LTC for each track, also cameras don't have any other audio recorded, the Audio HDR runs the same source TC as the LTC on the cams on the cams, it also provides the metadata for scene/take/note.

So if there is anybody out there who can show how to analyze, merge, transfer metadata, changing file names and create a "ready to go" multiclip project for 8 P2 cards and one audio card with FCPX within that time I would say "I obviously missed something serious - and shame on me"

System setup that time:
2008 Intel MP 3GHz 8MB RAM
MXF4Mac QT component
Our custom XML workflow app
FCP 7

www.spherico.com/filmtools/multiSync/multiSyncLTC.mov

well FCPX doesn't have these:


WOuld it be possible to post the email here or maybe to a news site?

Scrubelicious wrote: well FCPX doesn't have these:

WOuld it be possible to post the email here or maybe to a news site?

Very funny, but in some cases, FCP X has 5x the render times of FCP 7, because it doesn't have the smart render/media functions of FCP 7 which was based on Quicktime. There is already a topic about this:

www.fcp.co/forum/4-final-cut-pro-x-fcpx/...es-uncompressed-only

It seems FCP X does like Premiere does it: it doesn't smartly copy Quicktime Media when doing a straight cut for instance, but re-renders the whole thing, every image.
I recently shot and edited a quick behind the scenes of a congress, and again I found render times to be longer then if I had done the same thing in FCP 7.
FCP 7 also seems to work a bit more fluidly with XDCAM HD media then FCP X, but I hope the MXF update to FCPX later this year will solve that.
Editing itself was very quick in FCP X though, and wouldn't have been done so quickly in 7.