It’s no secret that Final Cut Pro X, the overhauled follow up to Apple’s widely used video editing software, wasn’t exactly a hit with its users when the app was first released in 2011.
A comprehensive change in the way the software functioned and a lack of legacy features from the prior version gave the app a reputation for being “iMovie Pro” rather than a true professional desktop video editor. Soon after its launch, Apple addressed the flood of criticism with an FAQ site and a promise that more features would slowly become available in the new version.
Nearly four years later, the first Hollywood film edited in Final Cut Pro X is set to be released. To showcase the movie debut and FCPX’s role in the film, Apple has launched a microsite detailing the production.
The movie entitled Focus (trailer above) stars Will Smith and is set to be released this Friday. From the USA Today:
Focus directors Glenn Ficarra and John Requa choose Final Cut for a simple reason: “We wanted to do the edit in a way that was quicker,” says Ficarra.
The move produced “a lot of eye rolling and sympathetic prayers,” he adds. But the negativity about FCPX was based on “old information,” and not informed, he says.
The report notes that the directors used a combination of iMacs, Mac Pros, and MacBook Pros to edit the film in addition to two plug-ins: Sync-N-Link X, a $199 plug-in for syncing audio with video, and SliceX, a $99 plug-in for stabilizing footage.
[youtube https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=btI7yHxn1NU]
Perhaps more surprising than Focus being edited in Final Cut Pro X, Apple’s $299 video production app, is that it took almost four years for a first Hollywood film to be edited with the software. You can read more about the Glenn Ficarra’s and John Requa’s experience with using Final Cut Pro X to edit a Hollywood film from Apple’s Final Cut Pro X ‘In Action’ site, and let us know in the comments what your experience with the professional video editing app has been.
FTC: We use income earning auto affiliate links. More.
Wait, FCPX is just now being used to edit a film, even though its been out for almost 3.5 years? O_o
It’s very common in big production industries like Hollywood (and in music studios etc) to stick with the same old ancient software for years and wait for the new stuff to mature to a point where the old stuff isn’t cutting it any more or the machines they’re running it on are showing their age. They’ll replace the entire workflow all in one go pretty much. New machines, new software.
Plenty of things have been made with FCPX by the way, this is just the first major Hollywood production. It’s been more popular in TV shows because of it’s quick turn around. I believe they use it on Top Gear for example.
>It’s very common in big production industries like Hollywood (and in music studios etc) to stick with the same old ancient software for years
Or to transition to a new piece of software that works the way they’re use to working like Adobe Premier Pro.
There are top end audio recording studios still using older version of Pro Tools. What WaveMedia said is absolutely true.
The issues with large production is they don’t change horses in the middle of an existing production because any new piece of software has various bugs, plus there are sometimes a learning curve and they simply can’t stop production just because a new piece of software came out. It’s the same reasoning behind why major corporations don’t upgrade their desktop OS that quickly, just because there’s a new release. Most full length movies can take a 2-4 years in development/production from the initial green light to do the movie to the actual public release.
FCPX was a big departure from the previous version because of the UI, and that’s throws these guys for a loop. Plus there was some negative media attention which created a lot of attitude amongst the users as since they had to wait a little longer for the Pro features, they just cast it off as a new version of FCP Express.
I guess when Apple made the decision to switch from two different versions of FCP to only one, the perception was skewed incorrectly. What they should have taken away from the new release was that FCP was going to merge so they can finally get rid of the lower end version and come out with a better entry level version that’s the same as the high end version and drop the price so it’s more affordable. They took out the Soundtrack software for the simple reason was most users simply weren’t using it. The higher end pros are using mostly ProTools for the audio and maybe Logic for the lower end users, so taking out Soundtrack allowed them to drop the price and since these guys are typically using Pro Tools, taking out Soundtrack shouldn’t be an issue, so why pay for it.
Since Apple had totally re-written from the ground up, it just took them a little longer to get the multi-cam, etc. support. I think Apple should have maybe hired a few more programmers and just had those features upon release. If they had just waited a little longer, then the negative perception would have been minimized.
I’ve read several reviews from experienced pros that were complaining about FCPX in the beginning, but once they had some time with FCPX as it got the pro features it was waiting for, these same reviewers that were once negative were now praising FCPX as being a LOT better. One admitted he needed to spend time with FCPX with the Pro features and then he realized WHY it was better, so the people that waited and took some time with it have often switched their perception.
I hope Apple can just get off their ass and learn from their mistakes and realize that it’s better if they wait until they have all of the features these guys want than to release a temporary crippled version.
Yea, it’s proof that FCPX was a major F*up. Here’s a list of FCP edited films of the past. I believe the dates shown are release dates. Apple clearly screwed any editors that vested themselves in the FCP workflow. I’m sure they either had to switch apps or find a new job:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Final_Cut_Pro#Major_films_edited_with_Final_Cut_Pro
The initial release of FCPX was a disaster and that sentiment still caries a lot weight in the industry. Everyone thought they were getting an update to Final Cut Studio 3. In fact they got an brand new NLE built on the (powerful) foundations of the modern iMovie.
It was the worst communicated product launch known to man. And the initial app was buggy and a beta at best. It got useable with the 10.0.3 update. It absolutely rocks since 10.0.6.
The roadmap they chose is right though. File based workflows are now standard, tapes are a relic. Compressed codecs used for recording require modern and fast code. Metadata has become very important and timesaving if you adapt your pipeline. FCPX is built for the future, from the ground up. It’s dirt cheap, has many good plug ins available and is backed by virtually all the important hard- & software makers for film and television. That in itself says it’s not going to die soon. And, other than Aperture, the FCPX user group is huge and expanding fast. Among pros and amateurs alike. Now if Apple could get around to a decent multi-user workflow, it would be near perfect. Oh, and a less messy way to do audio fades quickly along a timeline would be nice too…
So, at this time June 2018, what is your opinion of FCP X 10.4, are you still using it? Or you moved to other software? hen I read this kind of news that some “Hollywood” company used FCPX for a feaured film, I wonder if Apple gave them some license with support to use the FCPX in order to test the software in the real life and to get a testimonial (from the Hollywood!) that FCP X is the best.
Of course the software doesn’t make more or less creative. However, there technical facilities that we can not control. I care a lot for chromakeying. which one offers better performance and “natural” look, FCPX or Premiere?
And now that these softwares (even Premiere Pro CC) are becoming more optimized for laptops. Sometimes, I feel that FCPX is made more for domestic users. when you see the Compressor and those options like “Compress for youtube, compress for facebook..” why? just to make easy? A professional editor should know the settings for youtube or facebook combined with his own preferences regarding bit rate, frame size, format, etc.
The look of the film in the trailers are what stuck with me. I think it looks stunning and wondered what cameras were used. Now I know, the Arri Alexa camera.
Wonder why they didn’t stick with it? it looks fantastic.
Where did you find that is was shot with the Arris?
Nevermind-found it on the microsite.
It’s a digital camera, I just read most of the Oscar nominated film in cinematography use this camera. Hollywood has fully embraced digital cinematography.
What this doesn’t tell you is that in many cases where Final Cut Pro X adoption was delayed, Final Cut Studio 3 was still in use.
“But the negativity about FCPX was based on “old information,” and not informed”
Which describes pretty much all negativity towards Apple.
This just isn’t true at all. Apple has made enough big recent missteps to warrant plenty of negativity.
I agree Mike Beasley. Apple has a lot of issues. They are probably one of the best, “computer, tech & gadget” companies around. They do get a lot of things that people and other companies (and the press) completely miss – even when its right in front o them, though like many people and companies Apple often drops the ball – or fails to see the forest for all the tress in their way – maybe they get too myopic at times … or put form over function – at times.
FCPro X is a huge miss in so many ways. Like Windows 8.0, Apple failed to release there were many people, studios and companies that relied on the old workflow – and maybe were ticked off at the current lack of support for OS X Server, XSAN, XRAID, etc… or lack of other updates – say the old Mac Pro towers (which are still very nice machines, just not leading edge). So Apple kills the old software -that maybe someone or some company needed – but was unable to actually buy from Apple … or and the new stuff did lack features – so – WTF Apple? Why does Apple screw the pooch so many times? They could be better. I do hold them to a higher standard.
As a pro-user, I would definitely consider iMoviePro X – I mean Final Cut Pro X – but as a company running a business that relies on such products and software – I would would need a very good deal to go back – yes the price is great, but if it costs you money due to lack of support from the vendor – save a few $1,000 – could easily cost a contract in the end.
Exactly.
“The iPhone doesn’t play Flash?! No way that’ll last…”
“The MacBook Air (or MACAir by those who typically shouted this) doesn’t have a CD drive?! Who in their right mind would buy that…”
“The iPhone doesn’t have a removable battery? lol, that’ll be a flop..”
“The iPad is just an oversized iPod touch (iTouch, hurrrr), no way will it be a success”
Don’t get me wrong. Some criticism is deserved but far more often than not the criticism stems from ignorant old attitudes that are resistant to any sort of change, even though they constantly demand change & innovation.
My prediction? The Watch will be a monumental flop because the battery only lasts a day for most people. I mean, no way will the rest of it be awesome enough to overcome that massive shortcoming. Who in their right mind would want to charge a device every night? /s
I hope it’s a better film than that last stinker (“After Earth”) he put out.
I keep a copy of it only to show people what the “absolute worst movie in every way” looks like. :-)
they shouldnt have even paid him to be in it. he literally cannot do anything in the movie.
If FCPX would only get rid if it’s complete garbage of a timeline, or at minimum give an option for editors to turn off the magnetic BS and turn on a traditional timeline I might finally ditch FCP7. After editing with FCP7 for a decade I put a serious effort into learning X last year. But the timeline is so damn terrible and annoying, and I cannot get precision enough with editing audio waveforms tied with video tracks (which is the way I edit a lot of the time). Went back to 7 for serious projects.
By “magnetic” you mean where clips snap together? You can disable that easily… the shortcut is the N key
No he means the way clips snap perfectly into place and ripple when you move them to different parts of the timeline. But this can be overridden by pressing P to use the Position tool.
It sounds like you looked at the UI and gave up to be honest because those things you asked for are in it and have been since day one.
Extremely misleading title. there are a good a mount of “films” cut on FCPX coming out of H-Wood. the question is what makes it a ” Hollywood Movie “. was this film actually cut in HW…. first major cut with FCPX would be a better title
The software is not the reason for the title quality. I put this example: If Fox, Paramount, BBC, NBC, Disney, all of them use Pinnacle Studio 9, it might mean that is the best software. Nothing else. Sometimes, it could be an agreement between between the software developer and the producer. But these kind of discussions are aimed to the prestigious of the software, the marketing of the software, not the creativity of the film. Even with Windows media you can make a Great featured film, if you are a huge creative.
There were plenty of reasons to attack FCPX that were not just based on being old and traditional. The software as released was not usable in a professional workflow, with the quality that people who edit the best features and television want. Those who pretend it didn’t have problems are the ones who are uninformed. Many editors owned previous versions and wanted desperately to be able to use FCPX, but it was not usable. Now, maybe…
It’s understandable with the new architecture that FCPX would take awhile to be used in major productions. Still though, that’s quite a long time. What happened with initial release of FCPX and the end-of-life for Aperture gave me no confidence that Apple wants to be involved with pro software as the company focuses on more consumer products. I think a lot of people either stayed with an older version of FCP or moved to a new editor when they upgraded camera hardware.
A lot moved to Premiere Pro then moved back or up to Media Composer when they realised how crap it is for multi-user projects. Adobe stuff is good but it’s VERY single user centric. Media Encoder doesn’t even have a split rendering feature. It can only be used on a single machine. Compressor on the other hand can be run on any OS X machine to split the render load over multiple machines. Media Composer has the same feature too. It’s a rather simple, common pro level feature that I’m seriously shocked Adobe don’t offer. Saying that they also have no way to properly edit PDF files that they’re the creators of and when you bring the damn things into Illustrator is absolutely mangles them within a plethora of clipping masks etc.
That is exactly what i heard! Avid’s second coming some may say. it is a interesting subject as there were a good number of students and pros that used FCPX for certain types of projects (usually short form). but the current sales models may have people move back to FCPX if apple beefs up its features. a lot of independents hate Adobes sales model and very much dislike that Avid is trying to do the same thing. Although Avid still offers a option to buy. I could see this going in Apples favor at some point.
Post production house here. We have copies of FCPX, Premiere, and MC. What’s funny is on this thread you are claiming that everyone is putting misinformation about FCPX, but you are doing the same for other NLE’s. How is Premiere Pro’s multi-user project crap and single-user centric? We have 10 edits bays where any person can work on any project at anytime. You can easily login to change your window layout/keyboard. You want to talk about horrible mutli-user workflow? Sparse disk image FCPX project files over a network is one of the most retarded things I have ever attempted.
Have you ever tried using compressor’s cluster batch workflow? It’s horrible. It takes more time to allocate sections and re-collect them over the network (even fiber networks) that it’s faster to use a local render machine to do encoding. Episode Pro offers the same cluster feature that actually works. Compressor lacks encoding basic flv’s, mkv’s, and other pro level video files. We found it to be 60% slower on a new mac pro versus MC, Sorenson squeeze, and episode pro.
And I don’t even know where to start on your PDF comment. I don’t think you know enough about Illustrator to even be working in it.
I dig that you love FCPX and I still respect the software. I’m the first to criticize Adobe/AVID/FCPX on some of their crap features, but please refrain from being a blatant hypocrite. It’s ok to point out differences, but when your fanboy shines through, you need to re-think how much you really don’t know.
Adobe is an odd company, but maybe the oddest is Quark … who decided they would not fully support their main product on their main (or significant) platform.
As someone who has had to buy Adobe’s software for professional users – and integrate the stuff – I would say Adobe – in many ways is horrible on the sales end – for simply making stuff stupid complicated. It is like they hire a college grad or something to make things retiredly complicated. I do not think Adobe went full retard on the sales/marketing/bundling/licensing front, but they did come damn close. Thankfully some other poor schmuck is now doing my old job… I just wish him well!
It does seem odd that multi million and billion dollar companies forget that their paying customers want a full featured and supported product that works well with minimal hassle. I think somehow most forgot, though they may remember after they have killed their business… but maybe nobody learned from Quark?
Also, I do not really see Adobe as a video editing power house, though I think their stuff can work great for certain uses (it has been some time since I looked at their software – beyond Acrobat Pro/PDF). Maybe Avid, or others and Apple really did drop the ball, hardcore, with FCProX.