Revisiting FCP X: I Was Wrong

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.

In Defense of Final Cut Pro X

Since Final Cut Pro X's release last week, the editing community has been largely divided by those who love it, and those who absolutely hate it. Take a look at the current ratings for it on the App Store, and you'll see it earns a 2.5, with most people going with either one or five stars: there isn't much middle ground on this one. Let me try to put this whole thing into a bit of perspective that could bring both sides together.

First, it is inaccurate to refer to this as an update, or even really a new release of Final Cut Pro. While it made sense for Apple to keep the name for marketing purposes, had this software launched with a different name, the reaction could have been a bit different...

Let's pretend that the app had another name. Let's call it SuperVidEdit for the purposes of this discussion. Now imagine it was released by a small startup programmer or two. SuperVidEdit hits the App Store at a third of the price of Final Cut Pro 7, and offers lightning-fast rendering, tremendous utilization of available processing power, and does it all with a radical new interface. Some brave editors might tinker with the program while most watch from the sidelines.

"Fresh interface!" some would proclaim. "Yeah, but it's not ready for real work; I can't even import my projects into it, or lay projects back to tape." However those who found it fitting into their workflow, would experience tremendous efficiency and get projects done in a fraction of the time compared to Final Cut Pro 7. Over time, the developers of SuperVidEdit would add more and more features, bringing greater feature parity, until almost a year goes by. Suddenly, the excuses for not using SuperVidEdit have faded away, while the logic behind holding onto the old way of doing things look like a sure way to lose business to faster, more nimble competitors. 

So let's start to mend the divide by thinking of Final Cut Pro X as a completely new editing application, that just happens to share the same name as one of the most popular editing programs in history. An app by any other name would not be facing the backlash seen by Final Cut Pro X.

Next, I have to think that the ratings are largely based on knee-jerk reactions. When you open Final Cut Pro X, frankly very little of it operates the same way as Final Cut in terms of being able to jump in right away and start on a project. This is new software. That means things are different. (David Pogue has already debunked most of those initial issues, so I won't duplicate that effort here.) I absolutely hate the most recent version of iMovie, so when I first saw the interface, I was more than a little leery. If you had asked me to write a review in that first five minutes, or even an hour later as I tried to simply get two clips into the timeline and apply a transition, I would have been firmly in the one-star camp.

It was then that I realized I needed to think of this as all new software, and make the assumption that I had no idea how to do anything, despite ten years of using Final Cut Pro. The best thing I did was to purchase some training videos (in my case from Larry Jordan's $99 training, which should be part of the official FCP X download, and that is not a paid endorsement) and start from square one.

Soon, I started to see how to do 95% of what I was used to doing in FCP. In most cases, the new technique saved time, and simplified editing in a good way. Over the weekend I had to work on a project in FCP 7, and already I was thinking of the ways I could more effectively complete the project in FCP X. 

With that said, Apple shipped this software with some real head scratchers for those working in high-end editing environments. The fact that all projects are visible in the project library pane is one major issue. Essentially this means that if you open the project library in front of a client, they could get a glimpse at the projects you might be working on for competing companies. It could be a real issue for those who work government editing, or if you'd rather not have all of your clients see some of your more unseemly projects, depending on your clientele.

Again though, I can't say it enough: If this was an all-new piece of software, the people that issue affects would write feedback, and wait to see if the software would eventually work for them. I agree with Larry Jordan that in 18 months, nearly all of us who use FCP will have made the transition to FCP X. It was no accident that FCP X does not overwrite your existing version of Final Cut. This is a piece of software that has a lot of growing to do to reach the saturation level that Final Cut Pro 6/7 has found in the market. I have sneaky feeling that the quiet Cupertino startup behind this software has the resources to make that happen.

Final Cut Pro X Announced

Wow.

Editors are probably wiping their collective brow as previous talk of the next version of Final Cut Pro had made it seem like an iMoviefication would be coming to the Pro app. While Apple has significantly overhauled the interface, and changed some long-held editing philosophies, at this point, it looks like it has a ton to offer professional editors. The highlights: one-click color conform, edit AVCHD footage while it is still ingesting, smart changes to the way nesting works, as well as the way audio and video travel together, ensuring everything stays in sync, rolling shutter fix for HDSLR's, Flips, etc. Oh, and background rendering, and people/shot detection.

Demoing the product in front of a friendly crowd at the FCP meetup at NAB, the reaction was positive. With that said, there are still questions as we await the June release ($299 in App Store).

First, we're talking strictly about Final Cut here. Will this herald the end of Soundtrack Pro? With a new emphasis on sound editing, it looks like many of the uses for Soundtrack could be integrated into FCP. The same for Color. While high-end color correction would still require a standalone app, Apple could decide integrating the most-used features of Color into Final Cut is enough, and leave the super high-end of color correction to other vendors. What about DVD Studio Pro? Has Apple's crusade to get everyone off of disc-based media finally made it to the pro apps?

The new timeline doesn't have tracks. That could be an interesting thing to get used to. There was also a rumor that tape capture would be cut from this version of FCP. No word on that yet. Also we don't have any idea how much of a real-world performance boost could come from the 64-bit re-write of the app.

While questions remain, the features and enhancements Apple chose to show to a picky group of editors shows a ton of promise. We can't wait to try it out.