fbpx
Welcome, Guest
Username: Password: Remember me

TOPIC: With Resolve being free, is there any reason for FCP to exist any more?

With Resolve being free, is there any reason for FCP to exist any more? 11 Dec 2019 21:29 #103141

  • FCPX.guru
  • FCPX.guru's Avatar
  • Offline
  • Platinum Boarder
  • Platinum Boarder
  • bbalser.com
  • Posts: 3530
  • Karma: 34
  • Thank you received: 489
Walter Murch eventually backtracked and ended up liking Final Cut...

FCPX is not destructive audio editing.

Wow, let's stick to the fact that we are expressing opinions, not scientific facts, please.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

With Resolve being free, is there any reason for FCP to exist any more? 11 Dec 2019 22:46 #103145

  • Domscillator
  • Domscillator's Avatar
  • Offline
  • Junior Boarder
  • Junior Boarder
  • Posts: 26
  • Thank you received: 0

FCPX.guru wrote:
FCPX is not destructive audio editing.

Wow, let's stick to the fact that we are expressing opinions, not scientific facts, please.


Sorry, I didn’t mean to imply that FCPX does “destructive” editing, my bad.

What I meant was that if an audio engineer gets an export from Final Cut Pro with clicks on zero crossings or audio that has clip distortion (very usual due to the very basic gain staging in Final Cut Pro) there is very little you can do after the fact.

If you have an audio savvy person happy days, if not , you have to go back and fourth with the editor trying to explain what is wrong.

Add to this the lack of ability to do a simple crossfade...

There’s room for improvement imo.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

With Resolve being free, is there any reason for FCP to exist any more? 11 Dec 2019 23:42 #103146

  • Redifer
  • Redifer's Avatar Topic Author
  • Offline
  • Platinum Boarder
  • Platinum Boarder
  • Posts: 856
  • Thank you received: 79

joema wrote: Another option is using a color grading plugin with FCPX. Color Finale 2.0 will be released tomorrow and it will include auto-tracked masks, image analysis, Metal 2.0 support, and many other features. This would allow retaining editorial within FCPX without the complexity/uncertainty of round-tripping to Resolve.

Very true but then you need to pay for FCP and also for Color Finale, which is $100 at its cheapest. Resolve is FREE. So looking at it from the perspective of someone new to editing who doesn't already have years invested into a particular NLE, what would make them choose FCP over Resolve? FCP needs to attract new users, not just old farts like ourselves.


Domscillator wrote: I guess what is the most worrying thing of all is that DaVinci Resolve and Premiere Pro are constantly coming up with new features and updates and with Final Cut Pro X (pretty much like Logic X), we users are getting really small, incremental updates for years.

Mostly agreed. Apple doesn't seem to be innovating as much as they used to. They also still have outstanding keyframe bugs that have been in FCPX forever that they just won't fix, likely because they literally cannot without a complete rebuild. Lots of audio issues as well (compound clipping a bunch of manually-panned audio tracks sums them all to mono, destroying the pan information). They just can't be bothered, you know? At least that's what it feels like to me, a paying consumer. But hey I've learned to work around these faults, so there's that. It'd just be nice if I didn't have to.

Aside from the bugs I think the audio experience in FCP is pretty good. I am an audio guy. I've made several VERY impressive 5.1 mixes. I feel there's really nothing I can't do, audio-wise... I just wish it didn't have the bugs and I could compound clip audio files non-destructively just to clean up and organize the timeline (compared to having hundreds of inidivdual layered sound effects all over the place). Oh and I wish I could create 7.1 mixes. 5.1 is soooo 2004.


arc wrote: I don't doubt what you say is true but keep in mind I can assemble, organize, edit and export 42 times faster using Premiere Pro than when using FCPX.

PFFFFT!! I can assemble, organize, edit, and export 43.1 times faster using FCP than Premiere. Top that! SPOILER: You can't.


Domscillator wrote: Add to this the lack of [Final Cut's] ability to do a simple crossfade...

LOLOLZ. I do simple audio crossfades in FCP all the time. But then again I almost always detatch my audio from my video because I can't stand them being stuck together. Anyway once that is done just highlight the join and press Command + T. DONE!


FCP Guru wrote: This should seriously have been put (or needs to be moved to) the off-topic section.

It's OK. It's an interesting discussion and I like reading everyone's takes. Nobody ever looks in those other forums anyway. Perhaps that's why you want it moved? You can always just ignore this one if it bothers you, which it seems to.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

Last edit: by Redifer.

With Resolve being free, is there any reason for FCP to exist any more? 11 Dec 2019 23:47 #103147

  • Oliver Peters
  • Oliver Peters's Avatar
  • Offline
  • Senior Boarder
  • Senior Boarder
  • Posts: 73
  • Karma: 2
  • Thank you received: 5

FCPX.guru wrote: Walter Murch eventually backtracked and ended up liking Final Cut...
.


Huh? Walter is cutting on Premiere Pro these days.

- Oliver

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

With Resolve being free, is there any reason for FCP to exist any more? 12 Dec 2019 00:17 #103148

  • Domscillator
  • Domscillator's Avatar
  • Offline
  • Junior Boarder
  • Junior Boarder
  • Posts: 26
  • Thank you received: 0

Domscillator wrote: Add to this the lack of [Final Cut's] ability to do a simple crossfade...
LOLOLZ. I do simple audio crossfades in FCP all the time. But then again I almost always detatch my audio from my video because I can't stand them being stuck together. Anyway, once that is done just highlight the join and press Command + T. DONE!


Well... yes and no. This does not result in a proper crossfade.
It's a dirty and quick way to do it but in no way it can substitute a proper crossfade with proper S or linear curves and the ability to morph dynamically while you move the audio clips.

Due to the lack of this, I prefer to do my fades manually :(

Also, if you have an effect with tail (e.g. reverb or delay-pretty standard stuff) or an effect with lookahead (anybody here using lookahead true peak limiters?) FCPX will create all sort of problems when dealing with audio to the point that you might completely miss a few seconds of a voiceover.

Premiere Pro is not problem-free (on the contrary, it has loads of problems), but the bread and butter stuff is covered.
I am not expecting FCP to have proper Vu Meters or M/S processing or even better audio effects but some basic functions would be nice to be seen sooner than later (normalize audio anyone????).

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

Last edit: by Domscillator.

With Resolve being free, is there any reason for FCP to exist any more? 12 Dec 2019 00:24 #103149

  • Redifer
  • Redifer's Avatar Topic Author
  • Offline
  • Platinum Boarder
  • Platinum Boarder
  • Posts: 856
  • Thank you received: 79

Domscillator wrote: It's a dirty and quick way to do it but in no way it can substitute a proper crossfade with proper S or linear curves


Da hell?

Check this:


Note that you can select S-curves, +3db, -3db, or linear. If you want one side fading faster than the other then yes you need to do it manually, which you'd need to do anyway. And it's super simple in FCP with the audio handles.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

Last edit: by Redifer.

With Resolve being free, is there any reason for FCP to exist any more? 12 Dec 2019 02:20 #103150

  • haysoos123
  • haysoos123's Avatar
  • Offline
  • Platinum Boarder
  • Platinum Boarder
  • Posts: 398
  • Karma: 6
  • Thank you received: 70

Domscillator wrote: Final Cut Pro has a huge marker in the YouTube community and independent filmakers. If you send me an audio file cut in FCPX and all to edit in ProTools or Wavelab I am unable to do anything about this if there are clicks due to the destructive audio editing process in FCPX.


I don't doubt your knowledge of audio, but we've sent audio out to pro tools for additional editing/mixing many many times without issue (usually with 2 or 3 seconds of handles). Our cross-fades are usually done with the fade handles, but it could be keyframes or the fade transition. Perhaps you're looking at things from a very technical audio guy perspective, and obviously there's always room for improvement, but all I care about is: does it sound good, and can I achieve the effect I want? I can get like 90% of what I want in the timeline, and then the rest can be polished by the real audio guys. Not a problem.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

With Resolve being free, is there any reason for FCP to exist any more? 12 Dec 2019 05:19 #103151

  • arc
  • arc's Avatar
  • Offline
  • Gold Boarder
  • Gold Boarder
  • Posts: 253
  • Karma: -2
  • Thank you received: 19

Redifer wrote:

arc wrote: I don't doubt what you say is true but keep in mind I can assemble, organize, edit and export 42 times faster using Premiere Pro than when using FCPX.

PFFFFT!! I can assemble, organize, edit, and export 43.1 times faster using FCP than Premiere. Top that! SPOILER: You can't.


I can edit 10 X faster than you in my sleep using Premiere Pro CS 4 but as I stated in my other post without proof our comments have no merit.

If you notice I have never stated Premiere is faster or better than FCPX. That being said I do like the GUI of Premeire Pro better.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

With Resolve being free, is there any reason for FCP to exist any more? 12 Dec 2019 08:25 #103154

  • Axel
  • Axel's Avatar
  • Offline
  • Platinum Boarder
  • Platinum Boarder
  • Posts: 559
  • Karma: 10
  • Thank you received: 72
arc wrote:
„ If you notice I have never stated Premiere is faster or better than FCPX. That being said I do like the GUI of Premeire Pro better.“



The GUI is the NLE.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

With Resolve being free, is there any reason for FCP to exist any more? 12 Dec 2019 09:01 #103155

  • arc
  • arc's Avatar
  • Offline
  • Gold Boarder
  • Gold Boarder
  • Posts: 253
  • Karma: -2
  • Thank you received: 19

Axel wrote: arc wrote:
„ If you notice I have never stated Premiere is faster or better than FCPX. That being said I do like the GUI of Premeire Pro better.“



The GUI is the NLE.



Kind of. The GUI is the most important feature of any software program but there is more to a NLE program than just the GUI layout. Window's Movie Maker has a GUI but not a database for metadata. Real-time playback and rendering for example are not really part of the GUI. It is a feature some people want but it is not really part of the GUI. Premiere Pro can output to broadcast complaint hardware better than FCPX using the Intensity Shuttle but that is not really part of the GUI layout. For some closed captioning is very important. For example a person might like the metdata feature of FCPX better than the metadata features of Premiere Pro but they might also like the more customizable GUI of Premiere Pro better than the GUI of FCPX. What feature is the most important? Some could say background rendering. Others might say metadata. When FCPX gets a fully customizable GUI you will realize what you were missing out on.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

With Resolve being free, is there any reason for FCP to exist any more? 12 Dec 2019 10:36 #103158

  • Domscillator
  • Domscillator's Avatar
  • Offline
  • Junior Boarder
  • Junior Boarder
  • Posts: 26
  • Thank you received: 0

haysoos123 wrote:

Domscillator wrote: Final Cut Pro has a huge marker in the YouTube community and independent filmakers. If you send me an audio file cut in FCPX and all to edit in ProTools or Wavelab I am unable to do anything about this if there are clicks due to the destructive audio editing process in FCPX.


I don't doubt your knowledge of audio, but we've sent audio out to pro tools for additional editing/mixing many many times without issue (usually with 2 or 3 seconds of handles). Our cross-fades are usually done with the fade handles, but it could be keyframes or the fade transition. Perhaps you're looking at things from a very technical audio guy perspective, and obviously there's always room for improvement, but all I care about is: does it sound good, and can I achieve the effect I want? I can get like 90% of what I want in the timeline, and then the rest can be polished by the real audio guys. Not a problem.


I am not looking to prove my knowledge of audio to anyone sorry I am a bit picky about it :)
I just find it strange that there are many people resistant to the idea that FCPX needs improvements in audio. It's always a good thing if an application moves on and becomes better imo.

I mentioned quite a few problems already and the comments that I get back are not addressing them (I am not expecting everyone to be an expert in audio of course!).

1. Simple normalize function - you shouldn't need ProTools for this
2. Snap to zero crossing- Axel pointed out exactly what needs to be done (subframe division possible!)
3. Audio engine handling of plugins - otherwise tail effects like reverb and delay cut off when the clip is finished. This is really restrictive and to be honest, I am not sure how Apple is going to overcome this without the use of tracks. They could add a tail parameter per clip (e.g. tail size: 3sec)
4. Proper handling of plugins; try and add a lookahead compressor on a voiveover. Then cut the breath at the beginning of a clip. Result: the first half word is cut even though the waveform shows it.
5. Better and more reliable redraw of waveforms
6. Most importantly: A new way to MASTER your audio in its entirety using a mastering chain (eq, compression, limiter) Right now because it's all clip-based your only option is to make a compound clip on all the audio and use the effects on that. But there is no way to know how to rebalance your music vs dialogue vs fx to know if you clipped the master. With the new specifications on YouTube and other video platforms, this is hugely important.
7. Sidechain and Ducking: This is the only thing that still slows me down in FCPX when I have music and dialogue going on at the same time. Again if you don't want this then you're probably only editing music videos so good for you :)

I work in three production houses and I was the reason why we switched from PP to FCPX (I needed to PROVE them that it was actually faster), I think it was the best decision ever made, I don't miss the track philosophy of PP, the easy title's creation with Motion is a breeze and the application is darn FAST.

But I can't stop people from looking elsewhere, so I hope the new update gives us something substantial.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

With Resolve being free, is there any reason for FCP to exist any more? 12 Dec 2019 11:10 #103160

  • ronny courtens
  • ronny courtens's Avatar
  • Offline
  • Moderator
  • Moderator
  • Posts: 4237
  • Karma: 196
  • Thank you received: 895
I have worked with Avid, Premiere and classic FCP for many years. I started using FCP X as soon as it was released and stayed with it. So I know what customizable GUIs are. And I certainly do not miss them in Final Cut Pro X at all, quite the opposite.

Back to the original question:

Apple does not give a hoot about what competitors are doing or not. They develop their hardware and software according to their own scheme and vision, with input from a vast user-base, and they hope that their products will appeal to as many people as possible. So far, this has been a very successful strategy both for Apple hardware and software.

If the question had been: "With Resolve being free, is there any reason for Premiere or Avid to exist any more?", I may have had only a few arguments about why Premiere and Avid are still better placed in their respective markets. We are indeed seeing some Premiere editors saying publicly that they have moved to Resolve, or they intend to, and I know one big reality production company that is considering moving from Avid to Resolve. Still, I don't think Resolve will create any big land-slides in the content creation markets. It's just one of the available classic tools.

As opposed to those other NLEs, Final Cut Pro X is so unique in its organizing and editing approach that it will always appeal to a very large user base who prefer a fluid creative experience above settings, windows, and niche features. The FCP X dev team has chosen to create a pretty complete professional editor with features that satisfy the majority of its user base, and every user has the choice to add specialized third-party options according to their specific workflows. I think that has been a very wise decision because it has allowed the team to keep the FCP X core code and UI lean and clean and not bloated with features that only a few people need or want. This also explains why FCP X is still by far the most agile NLE on the market. I do agree that there is always room for improvement in any software.

As to the cost of Resolve: I am not a huge fan of race-to-the-bottom policies. I prefer to pay a respectful amount of money on tools that make me happy in my work than to always look for the cheapest solution on the market. If you cannot afford a few grand for your tools-of-choice today, I honestly think you are in the wrong business. That's another reason why I don't think that Resolve will create any major land-slide just because it's free.

I do appreciate the argument that the basic version being free, Resolve might appeal to students and starting users who have never used an NLE and who don't have much money to spend. OTOH, I doubt that the complexity of Resolve makes it a good platform to start learning how to edit. I will always remember the words of an Avid teacher at the famous Blanquerna Media School in Barcelona when I asked him why they had decided only to teach their students FCP X for editing, and not Avid or anything else. He said:

"It has been our experience that students learn FCP X much faster than any other NLE. The user interface is simple and intuitive, while the underlying technology is extremely powerful and deep. This offers us a big advantage as teachers. We don’t need to spend much time to get our students up and running with the software and, consequently, we can focus much more on what is really important: teaching them the art of editing."

I entirely agree with this assessment. You can find the full article here: www.fcp.co/final-cut-pro/articles/1957-c...with-final-cut-pro-x


On a side note:

I am seeing that this thread has diverted into arguments that don't relate to the OP's question anymore. I am also seeing that there is quite some misinformation in several posts, which I will attribute to the lack of practical knowledge of the people posting. If we can stick to known facts and polite arguments, I will leave the thread here because I find it interesting. If this continues to be an "X" vs. "Y" thread, I will move it to another section.

- Ronny

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

With Resolve being free, is there any reason for FCP to exist any more? 12 Dec 2019 12:07 #103161

  • Axel
  • Axel's Avatar
  • Offline
  • Platinum Boarder
  • Platinum Boarder
  • Posts: 559
  • Karma: 10
  • Thank you received: 72
arc wrote:
"When FCPX gets a fully customizable GUI you will realize what you were missing out on."



It's not that none of us hadn't worked with NLEs that offered this. I bet that while it would be welcomed, the majority would see it as a minor improvement. And would rarely make use of it.
I used to have a "triptych" - three displays, surrounding me at my desk, one being AV out. I could have this too now, the only difference being that the windows had to stay in their relative positions. However, I find one big display with retina resolution (iMac 5k) better on the long run, and for this approach less fuss is an advantage.

Yes, there are differences in the GUIs, but are they really so significant as to describe one of them as "horrible" in comparison? If anything, I find the (relatively) rigid GUI of FCPX more tidy, less cluttered. But the Premiere jig isn't too obnoxious either.

Slightly more on topic: one can tell that they're in Resolves Edit page instead of FCPX only at second glance. The design is very similar. Is it unfair to say that BM modeled their current GUI on FCPX's?


arc wrote:
"I can edit 10 X faster than you in my sleep using Premiere Pro CS 4 but as I stated in my other post without proof our comments have no merit."


Indeed.
You may need 10 times longer in FCPX, but then it's you who hasn't yet figured out how to handle it properly. In CS4, one still had to double-click every single footage clip to play it back, which added up considerably depending on how many clips there were.
Therefore, whether the cutter was in a hurry or not, a habit developed out of this frustration to throw big chunks into the timeline and qualify it there. They had/have a track with the clips in chronological order, from which they copied/copy selections to their, er, primary track.
A similar procedure is suggested in Resolves Cut page, which could also have been named Rough Edit page: all source clips are spliced together in one big source clip view. From which you can make selections with i + o.

At the time when Adobe CS could make use of the Mercury Engine and could edit Mpeg4 video natively (I don't know the exact version history, should be 10-12 years ago), there once was a challenge on stage, hosted by Adobe, where a short sequence was shown to the audience and to two experienced cutters, one Premiere and one FCP guy. They worked with the same 100 or so H.264 HD clips, and they had to replicate the sequence from memory. The FCP cutter was of course handicapped by the need to transcode everything to ProRes, and, needless to say, lost the race in a degrading way.

Without the "need for speed", however, and if the clocks had been stopped during the transcoding process (which wasn't a background task back then), FCP had been faster. By a narrow margin admittedly, but we FCP users checked and proved it. There was a merit in "Log & Transfer", as there is a merit in organizing footage in the browser.

Then there is the aforementioned difference in general approach. As a wedding videographer, I have a story, a pattern, a typical "template" (that's only adjusted to fit the individual wishes of the clients) beforehand, I shoot with my 6-7 plot points in mind, the rest is B-roll. I import the footage with that existing concept and the fresh memories ready, and I favorite and tag accordingly. That's what I meant with "executing". Nobody can tell me that he is faster elsewhere then.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

With Resolve being free, is there any reason for FCP to exist any more? 12 Dec 2019 14:09 #103167

  • FCPX.guru
  • FCPX.guru's Avatar
  • Offline
  • Platinum Boarder
  • Platinum Boarder
  • bbalser.com
  • Posts: 3530
  • Karma: 34
  • Thank you received: 489
Just my two cents and this is all going to be subjective based on one's knowledge and skills sweetening audio and unique workflow requirements. For me, the very super tight turnaround for super short deadlines in broadcast, just my perspective. Everyone's going to have different needs, so the original list is not at all a universal for all editor's needs. But for me personally:

1. In all my years of editing video, I never needed a normalize function. Nor have I ever needed it in my many more years as a composer in audio studios.
2. I've never had clicks and pops issues in FCPX, and it has sub-frame audio trimming if needed.
3. Compound clips work around this quite easily. A track doesn't solve this by itself, as legacy FCP and AVid had tracks and didn't add any "tail" automatically for reverbs. But would be nice to do without the need for a compound clip. Not a deal-breaker for me at all.
4. There are many professional-level compressors available for Logic and thus for FCPX. I do voice over work daily, every week I'm working with clients doing their own voice work who've never done voice work. I don't have any issues with the Compressors and such that come bundled. I edit audiobooks, too. Not to mention the plethora of third party audio plugins that handle all of the necessary needs of audio sweetening, these functions exist, and I don't have any issues here.
5. Not sure what this means, or what it would look like, but yeah, maybe, faster anything is nice.
6. Yes, you have to put everything into a compound clip, then you can expand them by roles and master that way. It works just fine. Does what you are asking for. BUT I agree this is not a realistic way to master, as you lose your ability to edit the video to your audio mastering. I agree, FCPX's weakest spot is professional-level audio work, and round-tripping to LPX or PT is not an option for me, taking too much time on my tight deadlines, creating more copies of audio files I don't need, and I can't tweak edits without repeating the whole Send To process. It definitely needs major improvement.
7. Would be nice, I'm happy with the Range tool for doing this, wish there was a plug-in that did this inside of FCPX, but not a deal-breaker. It would really help me out in broadcast work a lot, though.

And I'm with Roney, as for the OP, yes, FCPX still has a solid place in the professional market and is not going anywhere any time soon.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

With Resolve being free, is there any reason for FCP to exist any more? 12 Dec 2019 14:33 #103168

  • joema
  • joema's Avatar
  • Offline
  • Platinum Boarder
  • Platinum Boarder
  • Posts: 1517
  • Karma: 27
  • Thank you received: 329
Re cost of Resolve vs FCPX, as mentioned above, the free version of Resolve has several limitations including no de-interlace, no HEVC, no resolution above UHD (which means no DCI 4k).

That said, the $300 one-time cost of *either* Resolve Studio or FCPX is essentially free in the long run. They don't charge for updates. Think of the cost difference over a several-year period vs a subscription model.

Re performance of FCPX and Resolve Studio, they are both very fast and efficient on Mac hardware. Re how rapidly can a skilled editor achieve a given task, that's really up to the editor. FCPX is very strong at high shooting ratio productions, esp documentaries. The skimmer and organizing features are hyper fast. However FCPX is also good at things like music videos and commercials, as shown in the below demonstration by Thomas Grove Carter. A highly skilled Resolve editor might be able to do similar, but I have never seen a similar demonstration using that NLE:

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

With Resolve being free, is there any reason for FCP to exist any more? 12 Dec 2019 17:29 #103173

  • Axel
  • Axel's Avatar
  • Offline
  • Platinum Boarder
  • Platinum Boarder
  • Posts: 559
  • Karma: 10
  • Thank you received: 72

joema wrote: Re cost of Resolve vs FCPX, as mentioned above, the free version of Resolve has several limitations including no de-interlace, no HEVC, no resolution above UHD (which means no DCI 4k).


Not only that. It seems that features that were free in #15 have now moved to Studio in #16. For instance the very useful "uprez" function (in >Media >Clip Attributes). They are slowly but surely crippling the free version.

As I said, I am in no way an audio guy. I always try to record clean, external audio, and my "mixing" is best described by hearing the audio clip I just connected in concert with the rest, applying fades and adjusting the volume.

Would it be helpful to mix in Fairlight, in the same way you XML to Resolve for color tweaking?

I just now tried this and found that with the standard XML, the roles get dropped in any free space in as few audio tracks as possible. Not useful.

However, since I use X2CC (inexpensive), I made a "Fairlight_test_XtoCC.xml" and imported this as a timeline in Resolve. While the four different role-colors are not preserved (only the "Effects" have a slightly darker green), there are at least in separate tracks now:


What do the audio guys say?

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

Last edit: by Axel.

With Resolve being free, is there any reason for FCP to exist any more? 13 Dec 2019 04:52 #103187

  • arc
  • arc's Avatar
  • Offline
  • Gold Boarder
  • Gold Boarder
  • Posts: 253
  • Karma: -2
  • Thank you received: 19

ronny courtens wrote: I am seeing that this thread has diverted into arguments that don't relate to the OP's question anymore. I am also seeing that there is quite some misinformation in several posts, which I will attribute to the lack of practical knowledge of the people posting. If we can stick to known facts and polite arguments, I will leave the thread here because I find it interesting. If this continues to be an "X" vs. "Y" thread, I will move it to another section.

- Ronny


I tend to agree there is some misinformation but what is the misinformation you are referring to?

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

With Resolve being free, is there any reason for FCP to exist any more? 13 Dec 2019 05:17 #103188

  • Redifer
  • Redifer's Avatar Topic Author
  • Offline
  • Platinum Boarder
  • Platinum Boarder
  • Posts: 856
  • Thank you received: 79

Ronny wrote: Apple does not give a hoot about what competitors are doing or not.


I do think they pay attention to the competition. They'd be extraordinarily dumb and, honestly, pretentious not to and I don't think Apple is dumb. Well maybe on the phone market they're not paying as much attention. That's why iPhone gets features waaaay after Android phones. But then again even the iOS is starting to be a little more Android-like in a few subtle ways. So I do believe they pay some attention to the competition. And copy/immitate. I liked it when it was the other way around. Thanks to Apple's fancy packaging, even random lowly products come in crazy nice packaging these days. Apple set that trend as well as so many others. I'd like to see that continue.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

Last edit: by Redifer.

With Resolve being free, is there any reason for FCP to exist any more? 13 Dec 2019 05:29 #103190

  • arc
  • arc's Avatar
  • Offline
  • Gold Boarder
  • Gold Boarder
  • Posts: 253
  • Karma: -2
  • Thank you received: 19
arc wrote:
"When FCPX gets a fully customizable GUI you will realize what you were missing out on."[/i]

Axel
It's not that none of us hadn't worked with NLEs that offered this. I bet that while it would be welcomed, the majority would see it as a minor improvement. And would rarely make use of it.

Arc
Are you sure? After watching my video about markers using Premiere Pro you did state FCPX should maybe add some of those features to the keyword/ranges.



arc wrote:
"I can edit 10 X faster than you in my sleep using Premiere Pro CS 4 but as I stated in my other post without proof our comments have no merit."

Axel
Indeed.
You may need 10 times longer in FCPX, but then it's you who hasn't yet figured out how to handle it properly.

Arc
I hope people know I was being sarcastic. Having said that could the same be said of FCPX user when it come to using Avid, DR and Premiere Pro? As I stated you were not aware of how makers could be useful until you seen my video.



Axel
At the time when Adobe CS could make use of the Mercury Engine and could edit Mpeg4 video natively (I don't know the exact version history, should be 10-12 years ago), there once was a challenge on stage, hosted by Adobe, where a short sequence was shown to the audience and to two experienced cutters, one Premiere and one FCP guy. They worked with the same 100 or so H.264 HD clips, and they had to replicate the sequence from memory. The FCP cutter was of course handicapped by the need to transcode everything to ProRes, and, needless to say, lost the race in a degrading way.

Arc
I seen that video. It was done with CS 4 prior to the Mercury Playback Engines of CS 5.0.



Axel
Then there is the aforementioned difference in general approach. As a wedding videographer, I have a story, a pattern, a typical "template" (that's only adjusted to fit the individual wishes of the clients) beforehand, I shoot with my 6-7 plot points in mind, the rest is B-roll. I import the footage with that existing concept and the fresh memories ready, and I favorite and tag accordingly. That's what I meant with "executing". Nobody can tell me that he is faster elsewhere then.

Arc
Perhaps you could do a simple tutorial of your workflow. I would watch it.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

Last edit: by arc.

With Resolve being free, is there any reason for FCP to exist any more? 13 Dec 2019 06:15 #103195

  • dgwvideo
  • dgwvideo's Avatar
  • Offline
  • Platinum Boarder
  • Platinum Boarder
  • Posts: 1978
  • Karma: 32
  • Thank you received: 242

joema wrote: Re cost of Resolve vs FCPX, as mentioned above, the free version of Resolve has several limitations including no de-interlace, no HEVC, no resolution above UHD (which means no DCI 4k).


Yes, the free version is missing these items, however the studio version comes bundled with a variety of BMD products including the new BMPCC 6K and includes all of theses items. We are shooting a lot with this lately and exporting 6K 2.4:1 files just fine. Also, the 1080 footage sampled from the 6K sensor is really phenomenal. That said, I vastly prefer editing in FCPX and only go to resolve for dealing with braw footage.
Creating history....one edit at a time !

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

Last edit: by dgwvideo.