FCPX and Long overdue logic of Evaluation

The much wailing and gnashing of teeth that has followed the release of FCPX seems to me like a long overdue dose of sanity and rational logic. A return to a proper workflow appraisal of available tools rather than the sycophantic ignorance that i have seen dominate the better part of the past decade.

A post house or editor choosing an NLE should follow nothing less than the following process - 

 

Make a list of 4 columns :

a) the core functionality required by your work and projects, 

b) the secondary but useful features that will suit your style of work 

c) the required integration workflow needs (i.e. what other apps and formats will need to be integrated with the NLE)

d) what output deliverables you need to be able to create

 

(to this you might also add what resources you have available for training and staff development in relation to their existing skill base)

 

Then, gather spec lists, reviews and trial versions of all the available tools (that fit your budget)

 

Test each one against each of the four criteria columns.

 

Which ever one comes out on top with, on balance, the best fit to the criteria is the one you buy…

 

Such an evaluation is what Professionals do…! 

 

This is so fucking obvious it pains me to write it. But far too many editors and post houses have chosen their NLE platform without ever undertaking such a professional evaluation. Usually the conversion goes “i hate Avid, get Final cut pro” or “i hate fcp, get Avid”. No rationale, no judgement, no evaluation.

 

Worse still, with the current FCPx debacle, production departments, post houses and organizations are facing the direct problem of an end of life FCP and no backwards compatibility. But Instead of saying “ok, we need to put in place a firm and reliable technology platform for the next 5 years so lets evaluate the options”, they are saying, “lets wait and see if FCPx gets better….!” It’s fucking moronic and simply doesn’t make any sense from a creative, workflow or business stand point. FCPx may indeed suit your needs well but until you have actually done an evaluation of your needs against the range of available tools, you’re just making an ill-informed decision with no logic or rational thinking. And moreover, Apple is wholly relying on that lack of logic and rationale to maintain their sales.

 

How many editors or post houses chose FCP as their platform without ever considering or evaluating alternatives…? Too many! Now that FCPX is a whole new beast, it needs to be subjected to a proper evaluation by everyone who is considering buying it.  And that evaluation must be done against the range of the NLE market if you want a good outcome.

 

So i really hope Lightworks picks up some of that market. I was highly critical of its first open source incarnation - without flexible drag and drop clips and a consistent and familiar drop-down menu paradigm, Lightworks was just never going to be attractive to anyone but old-school users. But they have made great strides to break away from the archaic construct and i am excited by what will come. Similarly Adobe i believe right now is offering the only truly professional focused, yet forward and progressively geared post solution. Workflow is king and Integration is the king of workflow and on this front no one but no one is anywhere near Adobe. But integration may not be important to you so perhaps the mind blowing flexibility of Vegas - its unrivaled ability to just playback Anything and integrated audio tools that can stand up to ProTools make all other NLEs look like audio-dinosaurs. Or perhaps the superb codec technology of Edius or the sheer horse power of Smoke… 

 

My message to any editor and post house is simply that if you’re not conducting an open and honest evaluation of all the available tools to find the right one for your needs, then you are just shooting yourself in the foot. If you unwittingly go with Apple and FCPx through sycophancy and misplaced brand-loyalty rather than rigorous and considered evaluation you are tying yourself to a company that does not have a focus on professional users at all and never will. There is nothing new about this, Apple have been a consumer electronics company for a long time.

Comments

[scott simmons]

It's the blinded by Apple factor. If they don't make it then some won't consider it. To those I say let them get burned.

[Mike Jones]

Ain't that the truth Scott. Creative professionals should commit only to developers who commit and communicate openly with them.

Apple do NOT fit that description.

Avid have made massive strides in this regard in recent years with much better open communication and responsiveness. And Adobe have similarly dedicated themselves to being the opposite of the Apple walled garden.

BTW - love your blog. Always well considered and thoughtful commentary.

Cheers, Mike

[Gunnar Refardt]

if it would only be switching to another NLE for me… I could easily switch back to Avid which I've been editing with for the last 12+ years. I only picked up FCP because it looked like the future, and in the last 5 years it evolved to about 80% of my jobs being on FCP…
Being a freelance editor who usually works with the machines the productions or their posts have, I'm heavily dependent on what my clients will choose. And I guess I need to know NOW. Right now. I talked to some of the technicians in the places I work in and they seem like deers in apple's headlights… wait for FCPX to evolve? wait and see what EditShare has up their sleeves with Lightworks? Going back to Avid? Adobe? I'm confident enough to say I can learn and pick up any tool… but learning 3 at the same time to adjust to my various clients? I guess I'll be proper f***ed…

[Mike Jones]

This is the increasing dilemma of the modern editor, Gunnar. Just when we thought dealing with shorter timeframes and exponentially more footage was bad enough. Now we have to deal with the persistence of the Apple reality distortion field. I'm sure FCPx will evolve but what will never change is Apples approach to Working professionals - What apple did with FCPX will happen again; no communication, no consultation, no warning, no engagement.

Thanks for posting
mike

[scott simmons]

Thanks Mike! Keep up the good work yourself.

[leslie wand]

well i'm out of it all thank goodness, and have found happiness in my retirement with vegas (which is the most UNcollaborative nle i can think of!).

i think one major change over the years has been the influx of editors with absolutely NO experience of linear editing. i don't know whether that's any bad thing in itself, but what i realise from teaching video is that the discipline and logistics when working with large amounts of footage, and collaborating with others (eg. sweetening, graphics, whathaveyou) is a hard learning curve for many, and NOT one that comes to mind when they're looking at getting / setting up systems for commercial work nowadays.

i remember looking at vision mixers from the likes of sony, gv, fora, etc., (all of which were hellishly expensive), and actually trailing them in various edit suites before committing to buy. i moved into the world of nle with media 100, avid, dynatech, etc., and trialled them all before opting for what was (then) the standard avid on a mac - done so with thought given too outside resources such as sweetening....

nowadays it's very slick advertising playing to buyers whims and affectations when those buyers should know better than to believe the hype they're faced with....