Apple attempting to redefine Pro with FCPX

The new version of Apple’s video editing software, Final Cut Pro X, has caused an incredible stir in professional video editing circles by removing features and changing how editing is done.

To many, Apple has abandoned Pros, dumbed down their software and created “iMovie Pro.” Much of that is hyperbole. What we do know about FCPX is that it’s a complete rewrite of Final Cut Pro.

Before I get too deep into this, it is important to point out that FCPX is in fact missing some huge features. Features that frankly do make this software unusable in many video editors workflows. Apple has acknowledged these omissions and has promised that many are on their way. But these features and support for key plugins are not there today.

FCPX sports a new technological foundation of 64-bit, OpenCL and Grand Central Dispatch. What that means to most people is that FCPX is much, much faster than FCP7 and will become even faster as computers gain more cores, more ram and better GPUs (which is where the future of desktop computing is heading).

Controversially, FCPX sports a new look and feel and new features. Apple believes that older versions of FCP and competing products (Avid, Premiere, etc) are needlessly hard to use. The paradigm that FCP is built around has been around since the 1990s. That’s an eternity in software terms, and Apple isn’t a company that supports legacy technology for the sake of supporting it (see also: floppy disks, dedicated mouse and keyboard inputs, Firewire 400, etc).

I believe that Apple genuinely thinks that FCPX is a better piece of software than FCP7. It has the best technological foundation of any video editing software out there and is built for the 64-bit, multi-core, OpenCL world we are now entering. It is certainly more Pro than FCP7 in terms of technology and speed, and in many ways that’s how Apple is defining Pro:

In the world of Apple, a Pro product used to mean “designed for high-end professionals with needs far beyond those of mortal men.” Now it simply means “the high-performance model.”

The old FCP could only use a core or two of a multi-core computer and only up to 4 GBs of ram. The new FCP can utilize 12 cores at once (that’s the peak of what Apple currently sells), up to 64 GBs of ram (that’s also the peak of what Apple currently sells) and sports GPU acceleration for even faster rendering of video and effects (Apple will have computers that have more than 12 cores and can handle more than 64 GBs of ram in the near future).

Beyond that, the new FCP is supposed to be easier for people who have never done serious video editing before. Pros don’t care about this, of course. In fact, many don’t like the idea of making video editing easier and expanding the pool of people who can do quality video editing. Making a task or software easier to use both makes current users’ jobs easier but also lowers the barriers to entry.

The thing about many Pros is that they like complexity on some levels. They like the idea of being elite and doing something that very few people can do. Or, more precisely, doing something that very few people would put up with. Just look at how complex and ugly Bloomberg Terminals are to see how people and industries like using something that looks complex and hard to comprehend by outsiders. Wall Street veterans have resisted a easier-to-user, easier-to-learn, more attractive Bloomberg Terminal for years.

Even Tweetdeck has somewhat of this allure for social media editors. When you’re using Tweetdeck Desktop, it sure looks like you’re working on something important. Never underestimate the psychology of Pros using technology or software that makes their work look complicated and hard to grasp.

FCP7 is not a hard piece of software to use per se, but it is complex, with much of its power is hidden. It also has issues like clips becoming out of sync that frustrate people to no end (but that Pros know how to get around).

Many Pros wanted the new FCP to just be FCP7 with a new technological foundation. They wanted more speed, not a new editing paradigm. They don’t care about making software easier to use for more people; in fact, that actively hurts their ability to stand out.

But if you’re going to rewrite a piece of software from the ground up, you would at least consider making changes to how it functions, right? It’s the perfect time to rethink how people do video editing and how it could be made easier.

Here’s the big key that almost everyone is missing: FCPX is unique; it has a look, feel and editing paradigm that no one else has. A lot of Pros are talking of making the switch to Premiere, and the thing is, it’s not that hard to make that switch since the two programs are pretty similar. Avid isn’t that much different either. But now Apple has an editing program that is both easier to use and distinct from everyone else.

Apple is hoping to bring powerful video editing to more people. FCPX is $299 ($399 with the Compressor and Motion add-ons), whereas FCP7 was $999. Apple clearly wants more users: students, hobbyists, independent documentary makers, prosumers journalists, new media websites, bloggers and, yes, people upgrading from consumer video editing software.

Looking at the new FCP, it seems fairly clear to me that Apple wants FCPX to be a solid foundation that works for most people’s video editing needs. If you need more power or more features, Apple is pointing you in the direction of third-party plugins. It’s very clear from Apple’s literature about FCPX that third-party plugins are meant to bridge many of the gaps missing from FCPX.

The future of video editing is all digital. Want tape support? That’s fine, just get it from a third-party plugin. Need some old format to output your files to another program? Time for a third-party plugin.

Yes these plugins cost money. But a true Pro is already used to paying $999 for FCP7 or more than $2,000 for Avid. The reason that FCPX is $299 is that Apple wants a bigger audience. If you need more power and you have more money to spend, Apple has built a third-party plugin architecture to fill the holes.

What this really comes down to is redefining Pro. For Apple it means faster, more powerful, more extensible. FCPX is no iMovie Pro. Anyone who has used iMovie knows that it is fine for quick, short editing of all-digital content, but it doesn’t have a lot of features, isn’t extensible and doesn’t have a rendering engine as powerful as FCPX.

Jeremy has mentioned that Lehigh is looking into FCPX for the journalism department. It looks like a capable platform for digital storytelling, and it’s easier to use, which means that more students will grasp the concepts. My work (an international non-profit) is looking into FCPX as well. All the work we do is digital from what we shoot, to how we edit to where we show our work. Distributing our work online will be the main way we use video moving forward.

The meaning of Pro is changing. More and more video is being produced for and consumed online. Internet video doesn’t need legacy file support and features. FCPX is a video editing program aimed at these producers and consumers.

Those saying that FCPX cannot be used by Pros are people who only believe that Pro video means film, broadcast or advertising. Online journalism? Not Pro. Digital documentary? Not Pro. Work for a non-profit organization? Not Pro.

But for those who define Pro by which industries are Pro, FCPX is not Pro. It currently cannot be used in most film or broadcast workflows. It’s missing too many features and third-party plugins. For those users, they’ll have to await for the promised updates that will restore many of the biggest missing features: multicam, XML, RED camera support, etc. And if those updates are not satisfactory, those users will have to adopt a new video editing program, unless their workflows suddenly stop requiring many of these legacy formats.

Whether or not this redefining or what Pro video editing is will work remains to be seen. Certainly if Apple loses all the broadcast, film and advertising users it currently has, FCPX will not be a success. But if FCPX maintains many of those users, while also becoming the go-to video editor for online journalism, bloggers, websites, students, indie documentaries, prosumers, etc, it will be a big hit.


27 Comments on “Apple attempting to redefine Pro with FCPX”

  1. Dave Gibson says:

    Very insightful and well thought out article. Thank you for sharIng

  2. DAKVideo says:

    Another Perspective on FCPX…

    Like many video editors, I keep looking for new ideas, insights and information about FCPX. Like I mention in an earlier article in this blog, I’m trying like many others to decide when its time to move to FCPX or, as the case may be, move to ano…

  3. Well thought through. the meaning of Pro is changing, well, has already changed dramatically.

  4. Stef Colosi says:

    Apple would be redefining “Pro” If apple were merely “adding” online journalism and digital documentary to the markets Final Cut catered for. But that is not what they are doing.

    They have “removed” Final Cut from the fields of Film, TV, Broadcast and Advertising, and these make up the main part of the “Pro” NLE market, whether Apple agree or not. As a side note, FCP7 was still a usable tool in the tapeless world of Online Journalism or Digital Documentary. The only things FCPX has over FCP7 are technical improvements and lower cost of entry, there isn’t anything it can do that can’t be achieved in FCP7.

    FCPX is a great piece of software, and I don’t think professional FCP7 editors fear a new editing paradigm, but the sad reality is that it cannot actually be used in any of those professions. And it really doesn’t matter if there will be workaround and 3rd party plugins that will make it usable in 6 12 or 18 months. FCP7 is no longer on sale so Apple don’t currently sell a professional NLE.

    • As it currently stands, Apple has removed FCP from anything that requires tape, XML and other features, but much of that is coming back. I have compared FCPX to Mac OS X 10.0. It was a great foundation for Macs moving forward, but it took a few versions to be a great OS. In fact, 10.0 was really just a public beta, and many pros were not able to switch over to OS X for a few versions. I see the same happening with FCPX.

      In the long run, however, keeping the OS 9 codebase would have killed Apple the company. Today, I and many people consider OS X to be the best operating system around.

      Also, word is that Apple is considering selling additional FCP7 licenses to current volume license customers. I hope they do, because many FCP7 customers simply can’t make the jump until FCPX gets a few updates and more third-party plugins are compatible with the new software.

      Don’t underestimate FCPX’s technical abilities over FCP7. It’s a huge difference that makes editing faster and allows people to edit on laptops and other devices in the field much faster.

      • Stef Colosi says:

        I’m not underestimating X’s technical abilities at all. I am painfully aware of them. As you have said it makes editing “faster”. But this is utterly futile if it cannot deliver an end product due to so many missing features.

        If your work requires your edit to have any other work done to it in ANY OTHER piece of software, FCPX CANNOT BE USED. If you need your audio to be sweetened/mixed/worked on, FCPX CANNOT BE USED. If you need to deliver audio on multiple tracks (ie dialogue on tracks 1&2, foley on tracks 3&4, etc FCPX CANNOT BE USED. If you need to grade your shots in any other program, FCPX CANNOT BE USED. If you are working on a project with other FCP editors, FCPX CANNOT BE USED. If your production needs to use multicam, FCPX CANNOT BE USED. If you don’t want Company A to see all of Company B’s work everytime they sit with you in an edit, FCPX CANNOT BE USED.

        These are absolutely essential components of FCP7 for a huge number of Pros, and there is no indication of when or if these features will be available from Apple or third parties. So if you couple this with the fact that FCP7 projects will never be able to be opened in X EVER (stated explicitly by Apple) this sadly these means FCP is completely off the table for most Professional work. We can either make the move to Premiere or Avid now and go through the arduous process of converting our fcp files->premiere/avid, or stay with FCP7/buy more licenses for 7 in the hope that someday X will become a professional NLE and if it ever does, start afresh with it (as we wont be able to convert any of our existing work anyway). Why would anyone stay with FCP anymore?

      • Those are all valid points. Support for exporting files to other programs is coming later this year. As of right now, if you wanted my buying advice, I’d say you are signing up for a beta right now. If you work with tape at all or need to export your files to other programs, this will not work for you.

        If you work digital the whole way through and don’t need outside programs for color correction or audio editing, you could use FCPX today. Just realize that it is still very much a beta product for even these uses.

        I’d wait 3-6 months and let this settle. I don’t know how fast the updates to FCPX will be. If the updates come this year and add in many of the missing features, many will be able to move to it. If not, it might be time for a new solution. But switching to a new system is a big move, and I’d wait a few months to see what happens before making a big switch.

      • Ahmad says:

        Please, I beg you, pass on the all caps. They had a certain logic on launch day but no one will be surprised by —and many will agree with—your criticisms.

  5. AndrewK says:

    Price was brought up more than once so I just have to say that FCP 7 was not $999. FCP 7, DVD Studio Pro, Soundtrack Pro, Motion, Compressor, Color and Cinema Tools were sold as a bundle for $999. Sure, in absolute terms $999 is more than $299 but in terms of value I think the Final Cut Suite is a better deal.

    For me, when I look at the current state of FCP X, I have to ask myself why would I choose an NLE that has decided to limit what I can do creatively and professionally compared to the previous versions and compared to competing products. One of the major draws of FCP has been it’s scalability and that spirit seems to have been lost w/FCP X. And this is coming from someone that primarily works w/content headed for the web and does indie docs on the side (I do work in broadcast as well). FCP X just had very ugly introduction to the world though so hopefully it’s upwards and onwards from here.

    Even if a content creator isn’t doing anything that shows up in a movie theater or on TV now that doesn’t mean they won’t be in the future or that someone won’t ask for them to package their web series on DVDs / Blu-ray. On a number of occasions I’ve worked with UGC (user generated content) that has to be repurposed for broadcast and many times it was painful. The audio mix was horrible, text was way out of title safe, the image quality (colors, contrast) was way off, etc.. Sometimes it’s so bad that we couldn’t salvage it so the piece got bumped from the program. Obviously there’s a level of talent/skill involved there but there’s no excuse for aiming low just because there are no standards for the web.

    We can debate what “pro” is forever because there’s no universal answer to it, but I will say that pro’s can pretty much use whatever tools they want but there are certainly better tools than others for certain uses. Just like there are many different types of shoe. Is a wingtip better than a flip-flop? That depends on if you are going to the beach or the boardroom. One is certainly free to run a marathon in a pair of cowboy boots but wouldn’t running shoes be a better choice (especially if you are trying to run the best race you can)?

  6. Ian Johnson says:

    What Pros (by which I mean people who edit all day every day) like about complex, maybe ugly interfaces is that the complexity comes from the fact that there are 5 ways to do any one thing. Out of those 5, one or two may be very efficient and offer a great deal of control. The easy to understand method might take 5 clicks to accomplish, but once you have learned the program in more depth you might realize you can do it with a click and a drag.

    If the easy, 5 click method is all there is, it can get really frustrating when you have to do it all day long. Complex, ugly interfaces may be harder to learn, but are often easier to use once you get to know them.

    Ease and accessibility are fine, but not at the cost of efficiency. Here’s a FCPX example from a recent tutorial. If you place a dissolve between two video clips, the audio will dissolve as well. Personally I never do that. If I want an audio dissolve I will have the audio track active, if I don’t want the dissolve I will have it turned off. In FCPX to not dissolve audio, you have to expand the clip so you can see the audio, then trim the audio clip back a little so it no longer lines up with the video. Then FCPX will no longer add the transition to both audio and video.

    Ease of use and accessibility can be achieved by assuming what the user wishes to accomplish and aiding them through default and automated behaviours. This may be correct the majority of the time, but if deviating from that default requires complicated workarounds, it’s going to be a constant source of irritation.

    FCPX sounds to me like a DSLR with cutting edge resolution and RAW support with a built in zoom lens, and the latest advances in autofocus, autoexposure, lots of preset “scenes” and no manual controls. It will make it easy to do what it thinks you want, but get in the way if what you want is a little different.

    • I’ll have to check into this. I would imagine there is a way to turn this automatic audio dissolve off. It would be really annoying if you couldn’t, and if you can’t, it’s something worth requesting of Apple.

      If you or anyone else has questions that you’d like me to ask of Apple, I’d be happy to send some along and see if we can get a collective response.

      Part of the issue that people are having with FCPX is that much of the features and menus has been moved around.

  7. Steve Kahn says:

    This review is spot on. As a professional editor for the past 25 years, FCP has been my primary tool for most of those years… ever since I left Media100. I just finished cutting a :30 spot with X and actually loved the process. Does it have all the tools I need? No, not yet, but it will. For my legacy projects, I just open fcp7 and do my thing. What’s the big deal? Too many people bitching and many of those haven’t even tried to work with X.
    To quote my friend Philip Hodgetts… “I’m not going backwards”

    • Steve,

      Which tools are missing for you? Also, what did you like about the new editing process that you didn’t like about the old FCP. I’m interested to hear more on your take.

  8. sam aint says:

    That is right in some way and wrong in some way.

    If a “pro” editor stands out by knowing some complicated software, and not by knowing how to deliver beautiful edit (and editing is not about technology, well, not only about technology), that’s not a pro editor, that’s a good technician.

    Last paragraph is very true – and I don’t want Apple to make choices for my workflow and my instruments – I just want them to be delivered in a comfortable box so I can choose and configure a pipeline that works for me. I would like to think of creative matters, not trying to predict which automated feature will make automated choice right in the middle of editing session.

    • On the next episode of the Interchange Project Podcast we’re discussing FCPX. Jeremy and I have already discussed how a great video editor is really an artist, and that if you’re actually a good editor, you have nothing to fear from video editing becoming easier to do for more people. We do believe that FCPX is easier to use than FCP7.

      • sam aint says:

        That’s truth, but only a part of truth, which relates to new users.

        New users are people who just don’t know what they want – they need a job done in the simplest way. And, in this way, Apple satisfies them – the “new face of editing” is actually much, much simpler and more accessible to newbie.

        But I care more about my own simplicity, simplicity of being sure that technical stuff is in order and I can spend time on creative matters. And this is something I’m not getting from this new product from Apple.

        And, I believe, this is a core point of frustration of most of professional people – they just feel betrayed by a product, developer of which used to listen to our needs, and try to deliver best for us. Even though it was far from perfect (as any product), but it used to have some faith in it, faith for something you’d stick to for a while.

        That’s the point of frustration, not the fact that a lot of people will become ‘editors’. Whatever, it’s their own destiny, has nothing to do with mine.

      • The issue that pros will have buying Apple software is that Apple doesn’t need to cater to niche markets. FCP7 sales were a rounding error for Apple. My read is that Apple has changed FCP, because they feel they need more users to justify continued product development.

        The base of FCPX does look like it does less than FCP7, but Apple is hoping that once a few updates are out and once third-party plugins are updated to work with the new FCP, pros will be able to use this product too. I see this as Apple attempting to make FCPX a strong foundation for more people to use, but a foundation that requires additional components for pro use.

        It’s a good strategy if Apple can pull it off. With the missing XML export, camera support, multicam and a few others, Apple isn’t there yet. But once those things are added and if third parties update their plugins, Apple may succeed in making the base $299 FCPX a hit with more people, especially mid-level users, while also making the $399 FCPX (with Compressor & Motion) + a bunch of plugins into a hit tool for pros as well.

        The problem with going with a niche software only company like Avid is that they don’t have the engineering talent to compete with Apple on quality of software. FCPX is the best video editing rendering engine around. Avid will never be able to compete with that.

        Hopefully Apple and third parties will be able to bring this great engine up to pro use. Otherwise pros will be stuck with companies that don’t have the same engineering chops as Apple.

      • AndrewK says:

        The only thing Avid will never be able to compete w/Apple on is price. How many people would buy FCP X if it was $2500? How many people would buy Avid MC if it was $299? Saying Avid, which isn’t just a software company BTW, lacks the ability to release NLE software that’s as good as Apple’s is a bit ridiculous, IMO.

      • I’m not saying that Avid can’t release pure editing software as good as Apple, but they surely can’t engineer software as well as Apple can. Apple attracts better talent than Avid, and Apple writes their own OS. FCPX makes great use of many of the new APIs of OS X that other software companies haven’t.

        In many ways Avid could very well produce software that caters more to the needs of certain editors, but Apple has the ability to write software that is faster, more efficient and better utilizes technology. That’s my point.

        Apple has some of the best engineering talent on the planet, right up there with Google, Facebook, Microsoft, Amazon and a few other companies. Avid can’t attract that level of talent. Even if they could, they don’t know the ins and outs of an OS the way Apple knows OS X.

        I think this is the conundrum that pro editors will be faced with: A company that caters more to their needs and that focuses on video editing and another company that simply writes better software. Adobe is somewhere in the middle; they write better software than Avid and care more about catering to niche markets than Apple.

      • AndrewK says:

        What “surely” makes Apple a superior software provide than companies like Assimilate, Avid, The Foundry, Autodesk, etc.,?

        If Apple can apparently write superior software than any ‘niche’ company why has Apple purchased niche companies and basically rebranded their software instead of writing better software from the ground up?

        I don’t think it’s a conundrum at all. Buy the best tool for your workflow. For example, Porsche may have better engineered vehicles than Ford but if I need a work truck I’m not going to be eyeballing a Boxster.

        Finally, how many people do you think would pay $2400 for FCP X (or even $2400 for FCS)?

      • sam aint says:

        The ‘engineering talent’ is pretty much a marketing babble, not any sort of reality. Engineering talent is what companies like The Foundry and PixelFarm are built on, delivering us things we’ve been thinking cannot exist.

        ‘Best video rendering engine’ needs to be dissected into:
        – Image math quality. Awesome in general, awful and terrible in little things. None of them changed.
        – Render speed. Not much different from Adobe Premiere CS 5.5 on equal hardware. Which is only small part of global project render speed, btw.
        – Render accuracy. FCPX is still plagued by same stupid assumptions as previous versions, and no workarounds for that are present (even ones we had in FCP7 were better than nothing). And no monitoring support even to figure out the fact that footage is really off the hook.
        – Transcoding. Which might work faster, but without all of the proper ingest procedures becomes like a supercharged mountain bike given to street races – yeah, that’s cool but that’s not something we need in this competition. With proper hardware and proper process, transcoding is time issue for notebook owners, wedding video operators (same day edit?), etc. Not the ‘pro’ world.
        – Format accessibility, conform / convert in render pipes – nothing changed from previous version.

        That’s not much of a best rendering engine. Rather “rewritten parts of old engine with very cool features, overlaid by general incompetence”.

        So, it ends up to usability engineering talent and talent in teaching users new way to do their jobs. Which is huge and this cannot be underrated. But after all, this talent is not listening to me anymore, it’s listening to a ‘broad $299 customer’, so why should I care?

  9. David Tames says:

    An excellent perpective, which I can appreciate from the perspectives of both a professional end-user of editing tools and an educator teaching students the basics of editing. However, the counterpoint to professionals liking things “complicated” is that in many cases, professionals have specific needs that mainstream users don’t. Most of us can get along fine with Apple’s Pages or Microsoft’s Word, but someone doing magazine layout will probably prefer to work with Adobe’s InDesign, as it affords many additional capabilities. While there may be a small number of professionals that like complexity, I believe most professionals demand more from their tools, and as a result, need capabilities, versatility, and options, which mainstream uses see as complexity, while the professional sees it as a larger palette. That said, as mainstream tools can do more, I agree, we are seeing a changing definition of professional and as the ecosystem changes, many people will feel anxious or threatened. As someone who straddles the pro and pro-sumer worlds, I say, bring on the change, embrace disruption, the more visually literate we all are, the sooner we reach the ideal of writing with a camera as Alexandre Astruc wrote back in 1948, which I discuss at:

    • Pros definitely have needs that even prosumers don’t. For most traditional pros, I wouldn’t jump to FCPX right now. In fact, I’d say wait a few months before even playing around with it. Wait for at least an update or two to come.

      Apple has promised that many of the missing features are on the way. If you need them, I wouldn’t bother playing around with software you know won’t work for you.

      To your Pages/Word to InDesign analogy, I’ll say this: Newspapers and other publishers use both a word processor and a layout program. Word is very good for writing documents and has strong features for tracking changes. InDesign is used merely to layout the pages and you can flow in the text from a Word file into InDesign. Many organizations use custom solutions.

      No one should use Word for layout. 🙂 Word is, however, very good for writing documents, especially those that have many reads (a newspaper article may have five people reading over it in session, all making different changes that need to be tracked). Your analogy is more like Apple taking away (currently at least) the ability to export FCP audio to external programs, for instance. No one would use InDesign if it couldn’t take text from a more full-featured text editor.

      But maybe your analogy also works in the sense that if FCPX takes too much granularity away from pros (and all pros in all fields need this), it will be difficult for many to use. I don’t believe FCPX actually takes away granularity, but it has changed the UI in such a way that many FCP veterans are lost as to how to do certain things.

      Change is ultimately good. I’ve used FCP (several versions) and Premiere, and I have to say they are fairly similar. Avid looks along the same lines as well. FCPX stands out as different, with a different take on video editing.

      That’s good for the market. Will many not like this? Yes. But others may love these new take on editing.

  10. Jude says:

    “many don’t like the idea of making video editing easier and expanding the pool of people who can do quality video editing. Making a task or software easier to use both makes current users’ jobs easier but also lowers the barriers to entry.”

    “They don’t care about making software easier to use for more people; in fact, that actively hurts their ability to stand out.”

    Editing is not adding flips and whizzy bits. Editing is knowing when and why to cut. Editing is storytelling. I don’t care that you can add cheezy stock effects that everyone in the world would immediately identify as being FCPX fx. I care that’s harder to do things that are tailored to the project. I care that when you add a video transition, it auto-adds an audio transition that messes up your carefully cut interview grabs. I care that unless you’re prepared to make a ‘favourite’ or add a keyword to every in-out you make, FCPX won’t recall your in-outs in the event browser once you switch to another clip. And that I can’t send my project out to tape. Or with audio tracks assigned as the station requires them. Or to the Colour department. And a whole bunch of other things.

    Our ability to ‘stand out’ doesn’t come from FCP7. It comes from understanding what we are doing, and being able to do it without struggling against the software.

    Seriously, I’ve taught people to edit. Hundred and hundreds of people. I’m not afraid of people becoming editors. But maybe ten of those people I’ve taught will ever be ‘real’ editors, because they have the skill, the patience and the desire to really understand it. Not because they can buy FCPX, or Avid MC, or Premiere or own a whole television station.

  11. QUANTAMIDIA says:

    “Apple is hoping to bring powerful video editing to more people. FCPX is $299 ($399 with the Compressor and Motion add-ons), whereas FCP7 was $999.”

    A: This incorrect, $ 999 for FCP 7, Soundtrack Pro, DVD Studio Pro, Color, Cinema Tools and Compressor ….. With printed manuals and media.

    “The future of video editing is all digital. Want tape support? That’s fine, just get it from a third-party plugin. Need some old format to output your files to another program? Time for a third-party plugin.”

    A: More money.

    Pro Edition requires monitoring HD-SDI, FCP X will not. So it’s a mistake to force him to call Pro. Yes, he is a iMovie Pro.

  12. We dedicated our entire podcast this week to FCP7:

    It goes even more indepth than this blog post does.

  13. Redefining “Pro” by making it inaccessible to the most competent group of users is like making people smarter by lowering the passing grade and kicking the smart kids out of class. They aren’t “redefining a paradigm” either, as you so pretentiously put it. They are redefining a business model, period.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s