Revisiting FCP X: I Was Wrong
Friday, July 8, 2011 at 4:33PM 
Two weeks ago, in this very blog, I had a post entitled "In Defense of Final Cut Pro X." In that post, I talked about my own journey from initial hesitation of the interface of the new software, to an open-armed embrace of the software following 11 hours of training. I said (and still believe) that the biggest mistake Apple made was naming this app Final Cut Pro X, and had they simply called it something else, and released a few more versions of FCP while working out the bugs, all would be well in the world. Well, I'm here to tell you I was wrong. This app shows no signs of being ready for a pro workflow. What changed my mind so drastically? Simple: I tried to use FCP X on a project for a client.
This was no big-time feature film, but rather a simple corporate project, consisting primarily placing PowerPoint slides over video from a training session. The tools and methods that seem to make so much sense in a training environment, quickly de-volved into hair-pulling frustration in real-world use. I'm not referring to the problems big production houses have with this release (things like 3rd party card support, EDL support, etc.) as those have been well documented.
I'm talking about tiny, daily irritations like the inability to mark an in and out point on the timeline, and then export that portion of the video. A quick explanation for the non-editors in the audience: traditionally, you could mark an in and out point in the main timeline of your video, then export that portion as it's own clip. This is helpful, if for example, you are working on a two-hour project, and just need to show a brief portion of the project to a client for approval. You export that tiny portion, and send it to the client for approval.
In FCP X though, you must export the entire timeline; in to out export is not supported. The workaround is to either export the entire movie to compressor, then mark an in and out in there, and export, or copy the entire timeline to a new project (not a new sequence as the concept of having more than one sequence per project has disappeared) delete the portion(s) the client doesn't have to see, then export there. Either of these solutions adds a significant amount of time to what was previously a simple operation.
This is one example of many "death by a thousand cuts" irritations in using the program in real-world conditions. I'm not talking about "paradigm shifts" here. I'm talking about little, conscious decisions that were made somewhere in the Apple food chain, that the same philosophy applied to iOS and the iPad would work in a pro app: We'll give you the features we think you need. No need for your input. While that strategy has worked wonderfully at creating groundbreaking hardware, it doesn't translate to an environment where people's very livelihood depends on their ability to get work done in a program.
There are some really cool features in FCP X, but I can't think of one that wouldn't be better served within the structure, layout, and functionality of the previous versions. Will Apple listen to the pro customers? I wouldn't hold my breath. What I do know is I have had email exchanges with bot Avid and Adobe, and both have taken the time to explain how certain features work in their programs. They seem to, what's the word- respect - professional video editors. Meanwhile emails to Apple (even an initial congratulatory email) went into that great black hole in Cupertino where suggestions from customers have gone for years. I've seen the light, and now appreciate the value of companies who treat their customers as adults, rather than as children: "You'll get your shiny new toy when we tell you," might be a great strategy to sell the world more phones, but it isn't the best way to reach the pro market. Maybe that's why Apple has chosen to abandon it.
Reader Comments (16)
I have to agree. I have been one to defend FCP X to others, but based on my understanding of its shortcomings, we're now evaluating Premiere Pro and Avid.
I've tried using Premiere Pro, which is free to our department (Adobe product licenses handled at a higher level in the company), but it has a terrible interface. I can't comprehend how an application can be out for several years and still can't look and work as nicely as FCP, it's main competition. I can't understand how Adobe apparently doesn't have a single designer working on Premiere: they evidently only have programmers who get all of their UI ideas from Photoshop or After Effects.
So we're faced with jumping ship to a product that is in most ways inferior to FCP 7, or to stick with the end-of-life'd FCP 7 (no more purchases) and hope it works under Lion. (Or freeze our desktops on Snow Leopard, simply to support FCP 7.) What a bad place to be in. (Avid is worse than Premiere Pro in almost every way. Much of their UI looks like it has not changed since 1990, and they've obviously held their workflow as sacred for 10 or 15 years and never looked at FCP or Premiere for possible improvements.)
What's an editor to do? It almost makes me want to examine open source alternatives.
There are definitely some niggles like this. I personally think the lack of chapter markers is a bigger one as it's quite time consuming in Compressor. On the other hand, I think the new features outweigh these problems, and I'm fairly hopeful that they will address them. A lot of the problems are just a case of getting used to the new system IMHO.
There actually is a really way to export a section. Just trim to the selected part, export, and then undo the trim.
Hi Christopher,
You are correct, although I am leery of anything that causes me to change an edit in order export. If more than one person is working on the project, there's always the chance of a miscommunication (ie. remember to undo my last trim in the morning!) etc. But it is a doable workaround.
And there you have the problem with FCPX encapsulated in a nutshell. It's all about finding workarounds to problems that Apple have created themselves. Doing away with simple, basic everyday features that editors use such as exporting sections and then telling us they've re-invented the wheel. And by leaving many of these problems to third party developers to iron out with plug-ins, a $200 software will rise to closer to $1000. You'll be paying for things that are as standard on pretty much all other NLEs. "Doable workarounds" should not be a phrase associated with a pro editing app. I am/or was an FCP Certified Trainer in London, and have been appalled by the lack of communication from Apple. In short, they're not interested in people who make their living from FCP7, even their own trainers.
I asked Steve Jobs to allow FCP7 to be returned while FCPX develops to maturity. It looks like that may be coming to fruition though in stages.
Obviously FCPX is a 1.0 version thus will be missing features FCP7 currently has. But as it develops, it will become equivalent to FCP7 but will be much more efficient in its workflow.
I doubt people will be efficient with as new and complex a software as FCPX until about 6 months of use. It uses just too different a model for NLE compared to FCP7. Thus, all the complaints - while justified - are also too early. Many features which are "missing" for example are actually present but in a different form and are thus missed. It is not about "workarounds" so much as the model for NLE editing is completely different. Thus it is more about lack of knowledge and experience in using it.
The analogy I use is: FCP7 is like driving a BMW. But FCPX is like driving a Kawasaki Superbike. They are completely different vehicles that can get you to the same place. But obviously the Kawasaki will need completely different though somewhat similar skills to drive. Eventually the Kawasaki will metamorphose into something equivalent to FCP7. But some will be complaining about the process.
Regarding "And by leaving many of these problems to third party developers to iron out with plug-ins, a $200 software will rise to closer to $1000." This is a cheapskate argument that is impertinent.
It takes a very strong character to admit he was wrong!
Regarding the problem with exporting just a sub-portion of your video, how about this:
File > Duplicate Project
then trim the duplicate & export.
That way there's no danger of data loss.
I add one more step to Christopher's approach:
Duplicate the project, trim to the selected part, export, then delete the duplicate.
I'm sure this won't work for someone else, but I'm pretty simple, so it works for me.
@james katt I would add to your analogy: It's like riding a Kawasaki Superbike without a helmet.
@ James Katt I think it's a pertinent point to raise that the Automatic Duck plug in for OMF/AAF export is $495, more than twice the value of the original software for a basic functionality that was already in FCP7. It's amusing that you think that qualifies me as a cheapskate. Anyway, got to log off for now as I'm writing this on my phone and it's probably costing me a fortune.
The real test of FCP X will be how quickly Apple adds essential and other features. Consider that there have been no significant updates for FCP 7 for a couple of years. Now, with a modern new base to build on, we should see quick successive releases that address "missing" features. On this powerful platform, that scales so well with improving CPU, and GPU advancements, FCP X will dominate the next decade. Premiere Pro and Avid's reluctance to take such a courageous step will leave them even further in the dust.
@Richard I would add: it's like riding a Kawasaki Superbike without a helmet, in a formula one race after qualifying for pole position driving a BMW.
Even if FCP 10.0 did everything imaginable, perfectly, from day one, we still wouldn't be moving over to it for at least a year. We're not even on Snow Leopard yet. What is the rush? My FCP7 works like a dream and I'm getting to know FCP X at home in my spare time. Who knows where FCP X will be in three, six, or twelve months time - or where the 3rd party support will be in that time. We'll look back at this moment and wonder what the fuss was about.
I spent a couple of days teaching myself FCPX determined to ignore the negative hype and find out for myself. I was initially impressed by the 64-bit nature of the programme but the more time i spent and the more complex my edits became the more FCPX proved itself to be an inadequate piece of software. James Katt, would you buy a Kawasaki expecting it to "metamorphose" into a German automobile? FCPX is useless and it's such a shame.
To answer the question of whether Apple listens to Pros, the answer is NO. Pros often need matte screens on their computers, and Apple have not listened in 4 years. This is a serious matter for Pros. Recent surveys (search for PCPro and Which? magazine in the UK indicate around 75-89% want matte screens, and this correlates with earlier polls that indicate 40-80% matte preference. it is the silent majority. GLOSSY IS GREAT!!!! I agree, but don't forget that for many people too, matte is their "great". See the growing petition at http://macmatte.wordpress.com which has reached 1,700 petitions already. If you prefer matte, you really need to sign that petition to show Apple what you think. Sending private feedback to Apple's website does nothing because Apple can pretend everyone loves glossy screens, when the public polls show differently. Apple/Steve have an agenda for glossy screens, and it has nothing to do with what users actually want.