Of all the questions I am asked each day, this is the most popular: “When will Final Cut Pro X be ready for professional use?”
Sigh… Right now! Final Cut Pro X is ready for professional use today. Editors have been making money with FCP X since the first week it shipped. But this is asking the wrong question.
A much better question is: “Why should I consider using Final Cut Pro X?” This blog is designed to help you answer that question, from my perspective as a trainer, editor, and businessman.
THE DAMAGE BEGAN AT THE LAUNCH
The Final Cut Pro X launch was not one of Apple’s best. In the launch, Apple introduced Final Cut Pro X, and killed the entire Final Cut Studio suite and Final Cut Server.
Normally, when new versions come out, old versions die. But, in this case, there were three missing elements:
The reaction was swift, bitter, and emotional; and instantly colored everyone’s perception of Final Cut Pro X.
So, in thinking about Final Cut Pro X today, you need to separate in your mind your reactions to the launch from your perception of the product.
Personally, I think the launch was terrible, but that FCP X is quite good.
IMPROVEMENTS BEGAN IMMEDIATELY
One of the promises Apple made at the launch of Final Cut Pro X was that they would be updating it rapidly. In fact, the software foundation of FCP X made these updates easier and faster to implement.
NOTE: One of the reasons Apple moved FCP X to the Mac App Store, at least initially, was that they wanted to take advantage of the upgrade mechanism built into the store.
In the year and a half since the launch, Apple released seven updates for Final Cut; a remarkable record for any company. All updates brought bug fixes, along with a variety of new features. (The following list of highlights comes from Wikipedia.)
By my very approximate count, Apple has added more than three dozen significant new features to Final Cut since it’s release. Final Cut Pro X is not the same product it was when it was released.
CAN I CONVERT MY FCP 7 PROJECTS?
Yes. However it takes a utility from Intelligent Assistance to do so.
The process is similar to moving an FCP 7 project into Adobe Premiere Pro CS6:
Just as with moving files between FCP 7, Premiere, or Avid (using the tools from Automatic Duck), some things won’t transfer to FCP X. Edits and media transfer almost perfectly. Some effects and retiming do not; check the Intelligent Assistance website for all the details.
NOTE: It could be argued that this conversion utility should have been available at launch. I would agree. However, these conversion utilities needed XML to work, which wasn’t available until later. The important thing is that conversion utilities are available now.
ISN’T FINAL CUT PRO X SIMPLY IMOVIE PRO?
Well, you can believe that if you want, in the same way that a Ferrari is simply a super-charged VW Beetle. They both have four wheels and an engine, but the results are totally different.
Just as you can not say that since a Ferrari and a Bug are both cars, therefore they must do the same thing, you can not say that because iMovie and Final Cut look similar, they must BE similar.
NOTE: By the way, have you compared the performance differences between iMovie and FCP X? My golly, iMovie is SLOW!!!
Yes, Final Cut Pro X imports iMovie events and projects. (On the other hand, with 50 million iMovie users out there, this was not a bad decision, as FCP 7 couldn’t import iMovie files at all.)
Yes, FCP X and iMovie have a similar look to the interface. (On the other hand, so do all the applications in the Adobe Creative Suite, or the applications in Final Cut Studio 3.)
Don’t judge the book by its cover. The question is not how it looks, but whether it allows you to get your work done.
ARE MY FAVORITE PLUG-INS AVAILABLE FOR FCP X?
Yes. In fact the development of FCP 7 plug-ins has essentially stopped.
This is for three main reasons:
Here are just some of the companies that have released new plug-ins for Final Cut Pro X:
And that is only a partial list. New plug-ins are announced every day.
One of the things I’m struck by is the number of new companies that are migrating to the platform and creating plug-ins for FCP X.
ISN’T IT BETTER TO BUY ADOBE PREMIERE PRO CS6?
Adobe Premiere Pro CS6 is a great application. It is fast, cross-platform, 64-bit, supports many GPUs and multiple processors and easily imports XML files from Final Cut Pro 7.
Adobe has done an amazing job bringing this application into the modern day. I enjoy editing on it and creating training for it. However, while there are some things that Premiere does better than FCP X, there are also some things that Final Cut Pro X does better than Premiere.
This gets to the crux of my argument: Buy the tool that best meets the needs of your project. (I’ll have more on that in a few paragraphs.)
SHOULD I BUY FINAL CUT PRO X WHEN I AM STILL ANGRY AT APPLE?
Well, that depends. This question moves the issue from picking the right software into areas of personal expression and politics. Only you know how to answer this question for yourself.
Final Cut Pro X is not essential to Apple’s revenues, that’s not why Apple developed it. They created it to set their direction for video editing in the future.
If you want to make a political statement, feel free. But don’t hide behind condemning the software when there are other reasons underlying your decision.
SO WHY SHOULD I CONSIDER FINAL CUT PRO X?
There’s only one reason to buy any software: because it can enable you to do things faster, better, or more simply than other software for the same, or similar, price.
WHAT IS FINAL CUT PRO X GOOD FOR?
Let’s back into this a bit, by looking at other software first.
If you are happy with your current FCP 7 system, you don’t need to upgrade. Keep on using FCP 7. However, that also means that you can’t upgrade your OS either, and can’t take advantage of future software or hardware improvements.
I would recommend editing all current Final Cut Pro 7 projects on Final Cut Pro 7. Stay with the system you know for an existing project, unless, for other reasons, you are forced to move.
Avid Media Composer with Isis is probably the best choice if you are doing feature films, reality shows with thousands of hours of media, or workgroup editing,
Adobe Premiere Pro CS6 also has many benefits:
However, Final Cut Pro X also excels in many areas:
The biggest weakness in FCP X, for me, is audio mixing. Here, FCP X is almost as bad as FCP 7, though with better audio filters. Currently, it is cumbersome to move projects out of FCP X into either Adobe Audition or ProTools for mixing.
THE INTERFACE IS A PLUS?
Yes, absolutely. However, not for the reasons you think. If you are a died-in-the-wool FCP 7 editor and just don’t want to learn something new, then move to Adobe Premiere Pro CS6.
Premiere has speed, power, and mimics the keyboard shortcuts and interface of Final Cut Pro 7. Adobe makes a very good product that is fast and fun to use.
However, with each passing day, FCP 7 editors are not increasing in number. New kids are tackling video for the first time.
Here, I think, FCP X has an advantage. I did a test this semester at the class I teach at USC in Los Angeles. I decided to teach FCP X to non-film students who just wanted to learn how to do video editing. I discovered that I could make them productive in about one-quarter the time it would have taken me in either FCP 7 or Premiere Pro CS6.
From a standing start and no prior knowledge, they were knowledgeably editing video and outputting in 90 minutes. It would take me far longer to achieve the same results with FCP 7 or Premiere.
In terms of interface, Final Cut Pro X is the wave of the future, because it appeals to people who are new to editing.
BE CAREFUL HOW YOU DEFINE YOURSELF
One of the byproducts of the “NLE Religious Wars,” earlier in this decade, was that we defined ourselves by the tools we used. We would say we were a “Final Cut editor,” or an “Avid editor.” Fist-fights would then ensue. (I plead guilty to supporting this dichotomy for many years, as I enjoyed poking fun at Avid editors.)
But, as the recession hit, I realized how misguided this was, because it costs us clients and money. We are not technologists, we are story-tellers who use technology.
Each of us is an editor who loves to tell stories using moving pictures. We hire a carpenter not because they own a particular brand of hammer, but because they can build us a house that looks beautiful.
We need to define ourselves by the results we create for our clients, not the tools we use to create them.
SUMMARY
This is no longer a choice of “either/or.” We are awash in excellent editing tools from Apple, Adobe, Avid, and others. This is truly a time when there are no bad choices.
This is my point: we have choices. I choose to use Final Cut Pro X as one of my major editing tools.
When it comes to my business, I am very cautious. I will learn and train on anything, but when it comes to the systems my business needs to make money and pay the rent, I change slowly and carefully.
I need to see a clear benefit before adopting a new tool. With Final Cut Pro X I can improve my workflow, do more work in less time, and meet my standards for quality.
Final Cut Pro X allows me to make money, and keep clients happy, which is the essence of professional use.
As always, I am interested in what you think.
Larry
LARRY’S HANDS-ON TRAINING
In February and March, I’ve partnered with Video Symphony in Burbank, CA to teach a two-day class in Final Cut Pro X for professional editors. If you want to learn how to use this software to improve your business, check out this website.
Larry Jordan is a producer, director, editor, author, and Apple Certified Trainer with more than 35 year’s experience. Based in Los Angeles, he’s a member of the Directors Guild of America and the Producers Guild of America. Visit his website at www.larryjordan.biz.
67 Responses to Is Final Cut Pro X Ready For Professional Use?
← Older Comments Newer Comments →-
Chris Harlan says:
January 28, 2013 at 2:13 pm
-
Drew says:
January 28, 2013 at 2:49 pm
-
Roger Abrego says:
January 28, 2013 at 4:39 pm
-
Ryan Velin says:
January 28, 2013 at 4:42 pm
-
Pat says:
January 28, 2013 at 4:54 pm
-
Shari Dyer says:
January 28, 2013 at 5:39 pm
-
Tim Kolb says:
January 28, 2013 at 5:44 pm
-
Larry says:
January 28, 2013 at 9:47 pm
-
Dev says:
January 28, 2013 at 6:18 pm
-
Reeshard says:
January 28, 2013 at 9:43 pm
-
Larry says:
January 28, 2013 at 9:46 pm
-
Don helms says:
January 28, 2013 at 9:46 pm
-
Larry says:
January 28, 2013 at 9:52 pm
← Older Comments Newer Comments →Larry: Right on, as always!
By leaving Apple’s editing software I’m not making a political statement, but a business statement. I run a post house with half a dozen systems, and have worked for an Apple reseller for years. The persistent strategy of non-communication and not caring about clients simply seems like the wrong way to run our business. I can’t recommend relying on such a vendor.
That said, post houses are a dying breed anyway so B2B practices will matter less and less in editing, and people will be increasingly flexible about their editing tools.
Larry,
I’ve been delivering my jobs done as I am a video maker mainly filming institutional and small docs videos of 5 to 10 minutes long and online educational vids that I also filmed. I’ve even done some audio post production without problems with someone else. But I had bad experiences trying to work with a group. Even sharing projects with other FCP X user’s is a hell. We quite still don’t know what goes wrong with duplicate projects.
When I have any other work group to do I will get back to FCP 7 but it’s very frustrating have to step back.
As always a great article, Larry!
Right now I am working for a Danish production company and we have been using FCPX since version 0.3. We have been editing a series of documentaries for national Tv2 since April 2012 and now we have just begun editing our first multicam show for national DR 1.
To us FCPX has been ready for professional use for quite a while.
People need to stop hating and just focus on the things FCPX does like no other NLE. We rarely encounter problems of any kind and FCPX just chews it’s way through video material, effects etc.
I am also working in AVID and I still don’t get why AVID doesn’t update their program to include background rendering, ability to work with waveforms on without having to render all the time or many of the other good things FCPX has to offer.
My only complaint about FCPX: I really miss a scrolling timeline 🙂 but hey, you can’t have it all 🙂
I was one of those people who wrote to you many months ago asking whether I should invest in FCP X or migrate to Adobe. Although I was impressed that you responded at all, given the amount of email you get in a day, I didn’t feel like I got the answer I needed. With this article, you’ve answered all my questions in detail. Thank you so much!
I ended up buying FCP X, in part because I’m just entering the profession and FCP X is the least-expensive option, and in part because I’d already invested in FCP X training and was comfortable enough to move forward. At this point, since I’m not earning a living as an editor but making videos to support my own business, I’m one of those people who would be considered “home users,” and so perhaps I fit the profile of the “consumer market.” But I also went to film school, learned from professionals working in the field, and did an internship at a well-respected production company, so in that regard, I’m not the typical home user.
I absolutely HATE the bugs in FCP X (lastest is fluctuations in audio that have almost busted my ear drums a couple of times), and I hate the way I was treated by Apple customer service (sic) when I had trouble downloading the app. It took 3 DAYS to get it to download! I was on deadline to finish a project, and spent hours on the phone with them trying to figure out what the problem was. And for all that, all they offered me as compensation was a credit on an iPhone! So I’m afraid I have to agree with the comments about Apple not being trustworthy and caring more about phones than software. And yet…
FCP X is fun and makes me look way more experienced than I am. In film school, we learned on FCP 7. I can do way cooler stuff in X that would have taken me months to master in 7. I was the first in my film program to migrate, and the senior class was stonished by what I was doing.
The icing on the cake is Motion 5. I never learned Motion with 7, so I don’t know how it compares, but FCP X and Motion 5 are a blast! There are bugs in that program, too, to be sure, but it’s a $50 program with an incredible library of effects, some of which can be used as is or need only minor tweaking. Customization is easy in some cases, totally frustrating in others, but there are always choices. You also can use it to easily customize the effects built into FCP X.
BTW, in the FCP X classes I took, we used your book, which was extremely useful in learning the program from the bottom up.
In all, I’m happy with the choice I made and am glad to see that it wasn’t a bad judgment call.
Thanks again, Larry, for the great article.
Hi Larry,
I Agee with your whole blog on the professionalism of FCPX. In spite of my initial hard reaction against the NLE, I now find myself depending on it for all my editing. It’s very fast. But, as you mentioned, audio needs a lot of work. Other than that, it’s become a pleasure to use. Shari
I think the key is the different approach to business as opposed to the tool itself.
As someone who admittedly dropped away from the Mac when OSX was first released (Cheetah) and we had to dual boot to run FCP and Premiere 6.5 ran from day one…which I thought strange…I think that you can’t overlook the fact that the reseller community was the source of a great deal of the technical support and configuration wizardry that made FCP such a solid platform for post production. FCPX is now an inexpensive download, and just plain accounting says that tech support costs money.
About ten years ago, I was on a beta team for an application that was competing with FCP, and one day my receptionist told me I had a phone call of a person rather high up in the software company…(they’ve since moved to another software company that is key to this conversation in a similar role).
This person got me on the phone and asked me various questions about what I thought of the software, and then asked me “So what does FCP have that we don’t have?” My answer without hesitation was “A $1,000.00 price tag.”
The software in question was, at the time, being bundled with every FireWire interface card and video I/O card on the planet. It was cheap, it was easy to get, and there it was, in the bottom of the box your Pyro card came in with the packing peanuts and the product catalog…it was worth what you paid for it in your mind and you may have paid nearly zero… You didn’t get FCP bundled with your Radius card for an extra 100 bucks, and it made perfect sense to me.
Supporting a product costs money and as our applications get cheaper, this will continue to be a stress point. The biggest challenge of FCPX filling some of the shoes that FCP7 has vacated will be supporting a professional community of users with specific and diverse needs with no reseller network and a 300.00 USD retail price.
As far as learning the interface, I suspect that Larry has hit upon the issue with so much of the tools of our trade, we tend to work well with the paradigms we are accustomed to… Introduce someone to video editing on FCPX (or Vegas…or Lightworks for that matter), and that’s how they build their perception of the task…any alternative metaphor seems illogical and therefore difficult for us old guys (and gals) to learn.
As to Larry’s article…just a few observations though as usual, it is overall, extremely well thought-out…
You put reading camera data media in the “pro” list for FCPX, but keep in mind that Premiere Pro was reading (and editing) camera data files direct from the native file structure years before FCPX arrived. In fact while PPro was accepting the (mostly deserved) slings and arrows for their constant struggle with dependable VTR support vs FCP…loading camera data was what they COULD do. In many ways, PPro didn’t catch up in this respect, the industry came back toward PPro…
On the car reference…wouldn’t the Porsche 911 be the better analog for FCPX vs the VW Bug of iMovie in this case?
…just sayin’
🙂
Tim:
It is amazing what one discovers in hind-sight. Porsche makes a perfect analogy with the VW Beetle — wish I would have thought of it while I was writing the article.
Larry
I do not like FCP X. I see one should train on it to stay on track in a way. On track – I find the trackless timeline is incredibly stupid and the whole magnetic thing causes trouble without end. (I am one one that wool-something FCP 7 editors) The Colour Correction – what on earth happened to replace that marvellous FCP 7 Color Correctio with that stupid square thing where you can jump back and forth without end. 64-Bits thing sound good, but in fact I have the “ball of death” quite often on my monitors. THe whole programm seems to be also quite hostile to working with the mouse. Of course 50 million iMovie played a role – and so it is wrong to say, Apple is not interested in Final Cut Pro but just sacrifices it’s important time for 3 1/2 FCP Editors. The truth is, they created a semiprofessional, ugly fashion-application mainly for Youtube-Users but masked as a professionally usable programm. Still there aren’t a lot of professional Users here who dare to use that programm, even though one tries to understand that misscarriage of sorts. Menawhile after a bunch some things work better than before. Maybe sooner or later the programm will prove me wrong. It just – as for me – has no class.
Larry,
First I’d like to say I’m a fan of your great work. Here’s My question, is audio mixing better in Logic Pro? Just curious.
Reeshard:
A good question. Since Logic is designed to create audio, I would suspect that audio mixing using Logic (and Soundtrack Pro, if it is still bundled with it) would be superior. However, Logic is designed more for music creation, like MIDI, synthesizers, keyboards, and the like. I am not a composer and I don’t create music. I record what is performed by others. For that reason, I don’t use Logic.
Larry
I tried X and my biggest complaint is audio wave form. The X waveform pales in comparison to 7. Until that is fixed I will stay with 7
Don:
I’m curious why you say this? In FCP X, waveforms change size as you adjust volume levels, they display yellow and red tops as you get close to 0, they display a ghosted image of normalized volume settings (which can be turned off with a preference) and they can be displayed with greater vertical and horizontal resolution (size) than FCP 7.
What do you like better about FCP 7?
Larry