Mike Tomei has a good recap of what you may have missed at the Boston SuperMeet, and Chris Portal wrote a recap on Walter Murch’s presentation and thoughts on FCPX. Here’s an excerpt:

“Walter was in Cupertino when Final Cut Pro X was first dangled in front of a few editors. It was a beta version, and Apple highlighted things like 64 bit support. After that initial exposure to FCPX, he dove into making a film, and it wasn’t until June when FCPX was published that he revisited it. He quickly looked at it, and said he couldn’t use it, wondering where the “Pro” had gone. It didn’t have XML support which he depended on, the ability to share projects on a raid with people, etc. He was confused and wondered what was happening.”

Indeed, you and everyone else, Walter. You and everyone else.


9 Responses to “Recap of the Boston SuperMeet, Walter Murch and FCPX”  

  1. 1 Joe Parnell

    You left out the part where Murch said he was “cautiously optimistic” about FCPX’s future, and spoke of rebuilding its “professional ecosystem.”

    Murch is a lot more open-minded than the FCPX “sky is falling” crowd. Why ami not surprised?

  2. 2 Matthew Jeppsen

    They sky isn’t falling, Joe…it already vanished. Apple took a professional tool, and reduced it to a consumer featureset. They wouldn’t have to “rebuild their professional ecosystem” if they hadn’t ripped it’s heart out, and then acted surprised when the backlash came.

    When that attitude towards professionals changes, I’ll take another look at FCPX for my work. Until then, I need certain features to accomplish my day to day production. Perhaps you feel differently, and if that’s the case I’m happy that the tool works for you.

    -MJ

  3. 3 Joe Parnell

    Odd that Murch – arguably a professional as well – is appreciably more optimistic than you.

    Perhaps it’s less cut & dry than you think….

  4. 4 Matthew Jeppsen

    Walter’s optimism about FCPX is irrelevant to my workflow needs today. Ask Murch what NLE he’ll cut his next film on.

    -MJ

  5. 5 Craig Seeman

    Matthew, some of us are thinking about tomorrow.
    I don’t know what it will bring but personally, I like the sign post even on that rocky road . . . even if we can’t travel down it today.

  6. 6 Matthew Jeppsen

    My issue with that is, changing an NLE is a big investment for me, in terms of cost of the software + the time to learn it. Not to mention the cost of re-purchasing plugins that aren’t cross-NLE, finding all the new gotchas in workflows that you already can do in your sleep, etc etc etc.

    I can’t be doing that every couple years, that is a ridiculous waste of resources. There is a lot to like about FCPX, it’s a very promising platform. But it’s unusable for me in it’s current form, and for the foreseeable future. And I’d venture it’s even more unusable right now for feature film editors like Murch, in terms of the tools they need.

    -MJ

  7. 7 Craig Seeman

    I remember the angst people went through with $60K Avids and the $Ks it cost to upgrade . . . until some finally broke down and decided buying FCP was much less expensive than the Avid upgrades. They were willing to go through the learning period.

    The cost to move is a magnitude less than it was then. Some would lock down systems and keep old Avids going for years because they couldn’t afford the upgrades and didn’t have a great need for anything FCP was offering at the time.

    Some are just as willing to lock down FCP and wait and see what happens. Of course others find FCP so far behind PremierePro that they’re will to take the plugin hit to cross over. But the crossgrade package itself is inexpensive as is Avid’s compared to any previous time in NLE history. It certainly seems the plugin developers have had one more round of updates for FCP7 although I’m sure that will soon draw to a close.

    None of this is painless but it’s far less than it ever was and, in fact, it’s easier for some to own all the A’s as tools best for a project’s given demands.

    Otherwise, I have no rush to jump to something else. FCP7 works and FCPX works for certain types of jobs. Whenever I use FCPX, I dread going back to FCP7. Media Composer and Premiere Pro would not relieve that dread for me . . . so I’m willing to wait and work with what I have. Maybe MC6 or PP6 will excite me. I’m make that decision then and I’ll see where FCPX has traveled to at that point.

    Of course Apple really blew it by not following the same very long transition from OS9 to OSX. The first iterations of X had very little use also. It wasn’t until 10.2 it was serviceable and was still missing things that OS9 had. If Apple had continued to sell FCS and promised maintenance updates, they may have found a patient audience. Perhaps there was a business reason it happened this way, that we’ll never be aware of.

    For me, FCPX has enough promise that I’m willing to watch it while it matures and use it where it fits.

  8. 8 Jan Becker

    And now Apple is thinking about discontinuing there Mac Pro line because they doubt it’s profitability. It’s a stab in the heart if all Pros like us.
    I turned my back on FCP after the X disaster. Do I now have to turn my back onto Apple all together?
    Sad, sad, sad.

  9. 9 Craig Seeman

    @Jan Becker, You’re making a wild assumption that there will be no MacPro replacement.

    Personally I think it will be replaced by an Thunderbolt based box which will have wider market value.

    A large MacMini shaped box up to 16 cores, 1 or 2 PCIe (one populated by GPU), and SSD boot drive with one additional internal drive, optical drive gone, 3 or 4 Thunderbolt ports. It’ll have the power of a tower but a much lower profile and, with Thunderbolt, your higher end devices such as Video I/O and RAID will be portable through the whole Mac line.

    Would you really prefer Apple to take Avid’s route losing money year after year, laying off employees even after the FCP to MC cross grade?