Limitations with FCPX?

I've been to a few conferences for public access centers, and i've heard a lot of people talking about FCPX saying it's so limited and that they can't do precise editing on it. i've even heard someone saying 'you can't get frame by frame editing down right on fcpx'.

i never asked if any of them have ever even tried learning it (and i mean ACTUALLY learning it, and not opening it for 5 seconds and see things aren't of norm, and then leave it), but i feel like none of them have. They all stick with Avid or Premiere. Both programs are fine, but we're just talking about working in community media here. I don't see what they're seeing i guess.

can anyone help me by telling me some basic limitations that fcpx has compared to Premiere Pro and AVID?

We use Premiere Pro at my work, which is fine, i love it. but personally and for freelance, at my home i use FCPX, so i'm pretty well skilled in both, and i can't think of a single limitation that FCPX has

The amount of complete crap you hear about FCPX is truly staggering. It could edit frame by frame and sub frame audio since June 21, 2011.

People are funny. Some people develop this certain way of working and that's it. I got hired recently to consult on a film where the studio insist that they cut on FCPX (unbelievable but apparently true) and the Director who was editing the film himself was an Avid/FCP7 guy. So my job was to come in and consult on workflow strategies and to answer any questions (as they were already well into the edit when they called me in). When I left he was pretty happy and less annoyed with X, but his pet peeve that we couldn't solve at the time was that when he hit the space bar, it took a fraction of a second for video to begin playback. I had never noticed this before, but it is true. I don't mean that issue in a big project where you start to get lag after you have been cutting for a while. I mean whenever you attempt playback, there is a delay of between a quarter of a second and a second. Maybe people with really maxed out graphics cards on new Mac Pros don't have that issue (which I suggested as the only remedy that I could think of looking into).

So that is the long way of saying that he said something along the lines of it lacking precision, and that is what he meant. It is true that in other programs this doesn't happen. I never noticed it before and it still doesn't bother me now that I have.

I've seen this sort of "I'm against it" approach in other activities throughout my lifetime. Back during my competitive sailing days stupid comments like "I'd rather sail the box my Brand A came in than sail a Brand B" surfaced. Same stuff with the Canon/Nikon rivalry, what brand of skis, etc. Some people are threatened by anyone who doesn't hold their opinions and use their methodology. Recently I came across the term "CAVERS" for the first time: (Citizens Against Virtually Everything) applied to those who didn't approve of a local initiative's way of doing things.

Back to FCPX. I'm not an experienced editor by any means. I found FCPX a couple of years back, waded through all the online whining about it, tried it and bought it: a decision I've been very happy with. What I'm wondering about is whether FCPX really does have more problems than other NLEs? I've witnessed some growing pains which I'd expect with any complex software and am also aware that the trolls like to stir the pot. My suspicion is that other sites dedicated to other NLEs get the same.

In following this site (my daily addiction) and also the Apple Support Communities' FCPX forum I see many questions and discussions about problems and ways to deal with them. That makes these sites particularly valuable IMO but can leave the impression that FCPX has a disproportionate number of issues. So my question is really aimed at the subset of FCP.co readers and contributors who are well versed in various NLEs. Is FCPX more limited than the other well known NLEs and prone to more problems?

Well the Frame by Frame trimming is annoying. To my knowledge you can't open the precision editor find the point you want by playing, or by moving the playhead with the arrow keys and then press i or o to change the cut, you have to skim the clip and click that frame with your mouse, which can be imprecise at times, and then start using the "." or "," keys to change the frame exactly

I agree there's a lot of crap going around on the internet regarding FCP X, mostly from people who don't know the program at all or who don't know how to use it. After having worked with it on many high-profile projects I can honestly say FCP X has no more or no less limitations than any other NLE I have worked with on a professional level. It just works.

As to trimming: I think this is one of the stronger sides of FCP X. I find it to be very precise and easy to use if you know how to use it. Personally I don't use the Precision Editor much as I'm very keyboard-driven and for keyboard trimming FCP X is absolutely great. To better understand the basics of fast and precise keyboard trimming in FCP X, here's a very good start:

www.macprovideo.com/hub/final-cut/final-...-trimming-techniques

Oh, and I nearly forgot about the playback lagging. It is indeed correct that any NLE can manifest playback lagging depending on the system you are working on and the kind of footage you are working with. I have seen this with any NLE I have ever worked with. Just google "Avid playback lags", "Premiere Pro CC choppy playback" and whatever... and you will find many posts dealing with this issue. FCP X is no exception to this.

The better you adapt your workflow to working with FCP X the less issues you will have, and the more power you throw at it the better it works. Clean installs, powerful macs and optimized workflows (I don't necessarily mean optimizing to ProRes, but that's also a good thing) will vastly improve your editing experience. Just to say playback lagging is not an FCP X-related issue. It's a system- and workflow-related problem.

- Ronny

It's mostly all bull dust from people who have never even tried FCP X.

However there are some things where it is easier to be precise with AVID quickly.
For example fading a title up and down. One button press. Add your values and you're done.
There are many more and I just hope that these are all things that FCP X will get in good time.

Even without these things though FCP X still runs rings around AVID in terms of speed. What you might lose in a few seconds here or there against AVID you more than make up in minutes and hours in the speed of workflow.

" Is FCPX more limited than the other well known NLEs and prone to more problems?"

Skim some other NLE forums, you'll see just as many problems.

As for precision, FCPX is just as precise, and faster. I've been an ACT since version 4, and FCPX is just as precise as legacy FCP, or MC, or PPro, and faster. We have a variety of tools to do that. Highlight the clip, put the playhead where you want it, Option with [ or }, poof, done. There are a variety of ways to be precise. Hell, just pick a edit point, type in time code to be as surgically precise as possible.

I just taught a 10.1 class last week. All of my students were from other NLEs, a few having experience with FCP 7. They all LOVED how much faster and easier editing and trimming was. These professionals, half of them having worked with film and tape, being in their mid to late 50's, all thought FCPX was amazing, and were looking forward to using it. Only a couple were kids, one in film school, one who produces media for his church. The college kids was the only one not "paid for editing". So, there you have is, a room full of very long time, very experienced broadcast and film editors, all learning properly, and loving FCPX. No one found limitations with it, no one found any lack of professionalism about it.

Limitations? What limitations, exactly?
And I've said this before; What exactly are "industry standards" and what determines if a product is "professional"?
www.macrumors.com/2014/05/15/bentley-ad-iphone-5s/

FCPX does not really leave a good first impression. I used to be one of the naysayers. But I kept using it. Slowly I began to appreciate it and then eventually love it. It's far from perfect and still needs some minor features added in but most of those have workarounds. There is a site, I forget the URL but it has a list of all of the thing that need to be added to FCPX. Apple should add 80% of those.

I think fcpx is more limited, in some ways. The other way of looking at that is it's a lot more focused. Apple generally are very good at trimming the fat of their interfaces, which I appreciate greatly and why I personally think fcpx has the advantage over other nles despite their longer feature lists

I do understand the complaint over lack of precision. It does initially feel quite hard to control coming from premiere or 7. It just takes time to get used to, but the controls all there.

You are absolutely right. There are no limitations in FCPx.

What people call missing are one button solutions for actions that might need a few clicks right now. (see Seanus example)

-start rant-
I'm sick of people defending FCPx by saying 'yes it needs improvement but it is pretty good right now' or 'sure the other NLE's are great too, use what you think is best'.
There is absolutely no need to apologise for using FCPx because it is the best editing software out now! I bought Avid and used it for 5-7 years when it came out. It broke the ground for NLE but killed itself by staying greedy when the world was moving on.
I got one of the first if not the first physical copy in Australia of FCP legacy after I tried Premiere for a few weeks. It was an even better editor than Avid and it started the more software less hardware trend. But in essence it was the same concept as Avid.
FCPx is a total shift. It took me a moment to get it but boy do I get it now.
And everything else is still a version of Avid's basic concept which originated as a tape editor merged with film editing in computer form.
FCPx is the first truly computer based editing system which is not based on anything or tries to simulate something else. I guess that's why people are so confused
Right now FCPx is accurate almost to the audio sample, has a colour sync engine that produces exact results through all steps, has a first class colour and frame resizing engine (there is no difference in quality to e.g. what the Davinci Resolve engine delivers, only different tools to manipulate - I did tests so I know this as a fact), has a class A database engine for media management, has first class audio engine that again is no different to what Logic or ProTools produces (again only diff tools of manipulation), and has the best autosave functionality which make it nearly impossible to loose your work.
FCPx has the best interface to look at (and no the UI should not be user changeable!!!) and the best to work with your footage. Other NLE's don't even come close. A million buttons and symbols on the screen don't make a good editor. They only take away screen real estate and are hard on your eyes (tiny). And quite frankly 99% of time you don't use them and even forget that you have them. Same goes for track panels and patching. What a waste of time!
I just hope Apple will not fall into the trap of adding convoluted functions that only do the same as you can do now but create a new button and make it all messy and will only satisfy the few.
People should stop apologising and call it what it is: the best and most forward looking NLE right now. No more 'yes you can get results with all the other NLE's and FCPx is still young'. In fact FCPx is actually the most mature way to edit there is right now. I feel sorry for editors still needing to work on the others
-rant over-

Happy editing

odedh wrote: Well the Frame by Frame trimming is annoying. To my knowledge you can't open the precision editor find the point you want by playing, or by moving the playhead with the arrow keys and then press i or o to change the cut, you have to skim the clip and click that frame with your mouse, which can be imprecise at times, and then start using the "." or "," keys to change the frame exactly

The precision editor can absolutely be controlled by the keyboard. Once the edit is selected hover over the A or B side then JKL to movie the clip skimmer as you would like, then shift X or trim top and tail with option [ or ] as needed.

With that said, precision editor is not the Avid trim tool, and I think the name throws folks off. It would be better named the "expanded editor" or something like that, in that it lets you see the A and B side of an edit at glance. It isn't any more precise, just an expanded view.

Precise timing is accomplished in the magnetic timeline of FCPX without having to switch to a special trim mode.

Redifer wrote: FCPX does not really leave a good first impression.

I think it really depends on how it is shown, and how someone uses it.

I just hired a new editor who is starting in a couple of weeks and hasn't touched FCPX, but has been on Avid and Premier. I took a few minutes and showed him connected clips and the magnetic timeline and with just those two things he was blown away.

Now I didn't try this, but I'll bet if I told him "FCPX doesn't have any tracks or bins" that probably wouldn't have impressed him at all, and he would have thought it was junk. I think so many folks are just spreading around FCPX FUD—and jumping to conclusions.

But isn't that like so many things in our world? We get an idea about them and perhaps a negative one, until we really investigate it and than discover that our first impression was totally wrong?

I know that I'm doing more work and better work because of FCPX. I'm doing things I never would have attempted in legacy FCP. I'm spending more time analyzing the story, trying different versions, and much less time pushing buttons. I wouldn't dream of going back to a track based editor.

@ cofe:

Best rant I've ever read

I just hope Apple will not fall into the trap of adding convoluted functions ... that only satisfy the few.

Amen to that, my friend. They made that mistake with FCP7 and I know they won't make that mistake again. FCP X is unique in its editing concept and it has no competition in this respect. It should stay that way and not start looking or working more like any other NLE.

@tpayton

I'm doing things I never would have attempted in legacy FCP. I'm spending more time analyzing the story, trying different versions, and much less time pushing buttons. I wouldn't dream of going back to a track based editor.

Absolutely my opinion as well.

- Ronny

ronny courtens wrote: Absolutely my opinion as well.

- Ronny

Certainly not surprised.

I love Apple. There's no room for improvement. They're already perfect! The current NLE has no design flaws at all! Man I feel pretty elite right now.

Redifer wrote: The current NLE has no design flaws at all! Man I feel pretty elite right now.

Assuming you mean this ironic

But lets talk business. What in your view is a design flaw?

And please think about this! Is this 'flaw' only your personal taste of how things should work or an actually flaw/bug that really hinders you finishing your work or worse destroys your finished film.

I ask this because unfortunately a lot of people confuse the 2.

Happy editing

Redifer wrote:
I love Apple. There's no room for improvement. They're already perfect! The current NLE has no design flaws at all! Man I feel pretty elite right now.

That's precisely counter to the point. I don't think anyone who edits for a living uses fcpx because apple make it, they use it because, from them, it's the best available. Fcpx should be, and is, roundly criticised on this forum because the users on here know it's weaknesses.

The message is that people don't need to to be apologetic for using fcpx. It's not the poor cousin of NLEs, it's a legitimate professional tool on its own right.

I agree, people don't need to be apologetic about using it. But to practically profess it as perfect and say things like "the UI should not be user changeable!!!" is basically saying "take it and like it!!!!" or "How DARE YOU want to customize your UI you are feeble you will take what Apple gives you, cretin!!!!" That whole attitude really reeks of elitism to me. FCPX is not perfect, does not have everything it needs, it just happens to be the best out there. There's plenty to improve on. And what's the harm in allowing me to adjust my UI?

As for design flaws there's quite a few things that it won't let me do that FCP7 will. None of you care about this because you don't edit the same footage I do. The fact is that I need to take extra steps and duplicate files in order to do the same exact thing in FCPX. And I need to do these things because I edit a show that pays very good money. It could be fixed if Final Cut Pro X let me select field order on a segment by segment basis on the same clip. As it is now if I select the field order every instance of the entire clip is affected, and it needs not to be. That is a design flaw. But trust me, you don't care simply because it does not affect you at all. That's how most people are. And yes I've mentioned this to Apple bu the chances of them implementing this tiny change are somewhere between zero and none. From their point of view, everyone needs to be editing 4K ASAP.

Redifer wrote: if Final Cut Pro X let me select field order on a segment

Okay I'm completely intrigued. So you are being given a single clip with different field orders spread throughout the clip? How many segments are you talking about per clip? So what was working in fcp7, did you make subclips?

And how does someone create a single clip with different field orders?

Ok Ok - it was a rant after all

And I stand by my 'don't make the UI user changeable' because right now it is a single window that scales perfectly to any screen size you might use. I fear making it a bunch of windows that you can arrange any way you like would mess this up.

Redifer wrote: The fact is that I need to take extra steps and duplicate files in order to do the same exact thing in FCPX. And I need to do these things because I edit a show that pays very good money. It could be fixed if Final Cut Pro X let me select field order on a segment by segment basis on the same clip. As it is now if I select the field order every instance of the entire clip is affected, and it needs not to be. That is a design flaw. But trust me, you don't care simply because it does not affect you at all.

Trust me I don't care about this not because I don't need it but because I actually disagree with your opinion of this being a design flaw. I actually like that something like changing the field order is global because if I discover that a particular clip is captured/copied incorrectly I want to change this clip once and not have to triple check that I have missed one instance somewhere in a project.
If there might be the need to have diff field orders for the same clip I make a copy like you said.

And this example is actually a very good illustration of my point: If a software tries to accommodate for every little special case of a few it becomes in danger of getting messy. FCPx right now is very lean but extremely powerful. Everything can be solved, even if it needs to be taken outside the 'edit environment' FCPx is made for. FCPx is an editor with some basic additions to get 90% of all work done. The last 10% can be so diff that it doesn't make sense to implement all the thousands of 10% versions there are. Create a hook like XML and everybody can take stuff from FCPx to whatever they want. I think Apple is very wise not to try to speak all languages out there but provide a method for all the languages to translate FCPx data into their own.

But this is just my opinion. Call me elitist or arrogant. I just wanted to complain about that all anti FCPx can say what they want and all FCPx likers are being polite and almost by default have to add 'yes we know it's young and it will get better' It's good enough as is. And I hope Apple takes a very cool headed approach to look at improvements and doesn't chase the hype we nerds so much crave for.

Happy editing