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 →-
William Hohauser says:
January 28, 2013 at 10:48 pm
-
Pat says:
January 28, 2013 at 11:03 pm
-
Christopher Wright says:
January 29, 2013 at 1:45 am
-
Doug says:
January 29, 2013 at 5:52 am
-
Mary Love says:
January 29, 2013 at 10:17 am
-
Larry says:
January 29, 2013 at 11:35 am
-
Russtafa says:
January 30, 2013 at 6:23 am
-
Larry says:
January 30, 2013 at 11:33 am
-
Bruce Ingram says:
January 30, 2013 at 11:38 am
-
Matt says:
February 3, 2013 at 10:43 am
-
Cindy Eagles says:
February 3, 2013 at 5:35 pm
-
Larry says:
February 3, 2013 at 11:34 pm
-
Christopher Wright says:
February 4, 2013 at 5:03 pm
← Older Comments Newer Comments →FCPX is professional. PP6 is professional. Avid is professional. I can’t tell you how many times I have people come into my office over the past year incredulous that I am successfully using FCPX. Yet they watch me work and leave sometimes impressed, sometimes confused, sometimes angry that their happy fantasy of Apple screwing up isn’t entirely true.
Personally I don’t like PP6’s interface or Avid’s either. Yes, the audio is frustrating if I need to send it to somebody for sweetening. But I can do more with the audio then ever before within the program and that’s a big improvement. In month or so I will be editing a six episode mini-season of a multi-camera sitcom on FCPX. After that perhaps I might change my mind but I’m pretty sure I won’t.
Don (and Larry):
I think one of the problems with switching from 7 to X is that many of the powerful features of X are “hidden” in places you wouldn’t necessarily think to look for them. This is definitely true for audio.
A project I’m working on was shot on a DSLR with audio recorded separately. By doing as Larry suggests, I was able to use the sound waves from the DSLR audio and synch it to the recorded audio to the exact fraction of a frame — and very fast! Then you can easily detach and delete the DSLR audio. The waveforms are expandable in both width and height. I’ve been able to identify barely audible pops and use keyframes to eliminate them smoothly, without a trace. Again, I’m a rank beginner, so to be able to perform these fairly sophisticated functions is a testament to the ease of use of FCP X.
One of the things that is pretty well hidden but that may be of interest to editors new to FCP X is the built-in EQ panel. It allows you to manipulate up to 31 bands of frequency in a clip — a very sophisticated audio function that is clearly for professionals and not for the YouTube crowd.
I don’t know if that helps, but I just wanted to add that there are a lot of things in FCP X that you have to look for. Classes and training can really pay off.
The problem with the FCP X fiasco is the real problem Apple has now period. Starting with the FCP X roll-out, Apple basically said to professional editors “screw you, we know what is best for you.” This was a fine attitude to adopt for all the iJunk users, who worship at the altar of Apple and would even sell a kidney to get an iPad. For professional users is was just another betrayal. Like when the Amiga Video Toaster rebellion died to lack of forward thinking executives at Commodore, like Discreet Logic edit* died due to lack of forward thinking executives at Autodesk…
When you start pandering to the lowest common denominator, you set yourself up for being a company just chasing the latest fad for the quick and easy haul. Pretty soon you realize that others can do that cheaper and better (Samsung), and you start losing market share, and then your company. Larry was right when he said this move really pissed off professionals, who actually make their living with professional tools. These are not hobbyists, wedding photographers, or Larry’s “non film students” who just want to edit their dog’s or You Tube highlight reels, shot on their iPhones. The real problem with FCP X is that it was SUCH a step backward from the professional tools present in FCP 7, and for professionals, even with the upgrades, it is still not up to snuff. I mean, not even being able to read FCP7 projects?? The first version especially was most definitely a dumbed-down iMovie 10. The audio workflow is still atrocious and still keeps FCPX from being able to call itself a pro non-linear editing app.
Apple lost the trust and respect of those professionals who needed those pro features, and they will never be back. It is also the reason why serious pros who need really fast reliability and processing power are having to go to true desktop machines on the Windows side from companies like Boxx and Safe Harbor. The decision to kill the advancement of the powerful workstation by Apple execs also signaled their abandonment of the high end pros and the embracing of the Lowest Common Denominator quick buck again.
Larry of course has a dog in this fight. He makes his living doing training videos, and he does them well. Because FCP X was such a departure from the NLE norm, I’m pretty sure his FCP X videos are probably his main training “income maker,” and you don’t bite the hand that feeds you. Is PrPRO 6 perfect? no, Avid? no, Sony Vegas, actually close!!.. but at least all of them are trying (and succeeding) in adding more features to already truly professional and interactive tools, not going back to a beginning editors paradigm, and then promising to add “a few of the pro features back” in the near future.
Apple used to be the vanguard of the video and graphic revolution for creatives, it has since become the company of “give me 99 cents every time you turn on your iDevice to be able to use an app you have to rent on your machine…” When you no longer cater to the specialists, you get thrown into the lions den with the LCD consumerists…
I’m just a home video editor, so these comments may not be as relevant.
After purchasing FCPX, I tried to use it for a few months, but struggled with the different ways of doing things (e.g., media management). They weren’t wrong, just different.
As a result, I shifted across to Adobe and am very happy with it. As Larry noted, the interface and keystrokes are familiar and the functionality is excellent.
The initial teething problems FCPX had were unfortunate and gave Adobe an opportunity to pick up a few unhappy Apple customers. I’m very pleased with the Adobe products and plan to stay with them.
Larry,
You made the comment that FCP X’s biggest weakness was its audio editing capabilities. What one or two features would you most like to see that are currently missing? From all you can gather through the “grapevine,” is Apple aware of such audio deficiencies—and, more importantly, do you assume they will eventually address these?
Mary and Charles
Mary & Charles:
Sorry, I was imprecise. I think FCP X’s audio EDITING capabilities are quite good. What I think needs improvement is audio MIXING. And, here, Apple has two choices: add additional mixing abilities – such as the ability to group audio tracks, an audio mixer – or, which might be better overall, simplify the process of moving audio elements into dedicated audio software such as ProTools or Audition.
Larry
Oh dear come back to see the “video tribal wars” are still raging.
1..Is the tool you are using allowing a rhythm and a flow. In general if you can keep moving forwards with work then you are “making money”
2..Yet to see a product during my extensive career which is anywhere near perfect. No “size fits all” so workarounds often become a daily necessity to achieve the end result.
3..Most importantly and one Larry often emphasises does the tool facilitate you making money..actually most important point to put food on the table and pay the mortgage.
4..I have been impressed with Apple and their fairly constant update policy demonstrating commitment and an engineering team hard at work. So the question which is interesting.. where might FCPX be this time next year?
5..Find the comments about Youtube etc quite funny. For my own tastes I prefer high quality BBC drama/good documentaries/great films. To underestimate the massively expanding mobile market. Amount of global viewers Youtube/Vimeo etc get would be like cutting your right (editing) hand off. Where the overall business model lies is debatable, but for these markets to mature and develop one will appear sooner or later allowing contributors/content creators to make real money.
Plus the additional features for video of gps/location based data/metadata/image recognition and a host of other stuff appearing then actually software like FCPX looks like a “tool of the future”
Greater levels of interactivity/sales focus/knowledge focus will develop from the current “video business model”
To view video editing in a purely “linear fashion” anymore would be a huge mistake.. reminds me of a famous Bob Dylan song…..
“The times they are a-changin”
Russ:
Good to hear your voice again!
Larry
A mostly balanced look at FCPX and a good read. So far, in my experience, if I was mostly an offline editor, “one-man-band” editor or in a facility with a closed pipeline FCPX would certainly be an option I would look at (if Mac hardware could also meet my needs).
But, as a Colorist and online editor that must interface with various productions using various software and platforms, and after much debate and research, FCPX (as well as other NLEs) simply did not have the flexibility that I required. Premiere CS6 did and, for my needs, has turned out to be indispensable.
This isn’t me saying FCPX is a bad product, by any means. It’s more an agreement with your statement of choosing the right tool for what you do or need and to also agree with not defining yourself by your tools but by your results. If, during this year, FCPX, Avid, or even Lightworks (or some other hidden gem out there) becomes a better tool for what I do and how I need to work with my clients, I have no qualms about switching. Adobe has me as a customer now until they either mess up or someone out does them.
I also wanted to give a slightly different perspective from a different aspect of the post production arena.
To me, there is no question that FCPX is ready for professional use. We’ve seen several examples of it being used in broadcast and tv. My own personal tests put the image quality far above fcp7 (especially when mixing media types) with less conversion and hassle.
The tool is what you make of it. A pro editor is what brings the professionalism to the table. For me, FCPX let’s me focus on the story and how I’m constructing it. The multicam tools are second to none. The price is fantastic even with 3rd party additions.
I just can’t get over how people rag on it. Especially having not really tried it. And by try, I mean you have to really learn the software. It’s a lot different than premiere. Larry and ripple help a TON with this and if you haven’t done any training, then you don’t know what you are talking about and I don’t consider any professional editor to be a pro if they don’t know the software. Furthermore, who cares what you use? If I use FCPX and my clients are happy, how does that affect any one else? I’ve delivered sound to pro tools, XML to davinci, and burned Blu ray and web streaming. I’ve cut a 90 min doc with 400 hours of footage. To say this software is iMovie pro is ignorant and shameful since that tool can do neither. I loved FCP7, but the moment I switched, I realized it was time for it to die. 64bit, no rendering, working with red and h264 media natively. It’s a dream. For me, Apple got it right and I’m so glad they stuck with it instead of deferring to every one who wanted it read and FCP7 brought back. Goes to show, the mob is rarely right.
Thank you for being the answer to the Googled equivalent of “What the h— do I do now?!?!?”
(smile…)
Thanks, Cindy.
Larry
Just for the record, did try it, did learn it, edited a few simple projects on it, even watched some of Larry’s tutes and also Lynda.com. I’ve been a pro editor for 25 years and have learned and beta tested many more NLEs than Larry. Sorry, but FCPX is not a professional tool, not ready for prime time. Unless you are a one man band! Premiere has and will gain the pro users… X the hobbyists.