Final Cut Pro X: Apple's final cut on video professionals

Posted on August 19, 2011 @ 1:07am by Patrick Shannon

Despite being primarily involved in graphic design and web development, I've always kept one finger on video production.

I began learning professional non-linear editing with the very first version of Final Cut Pro on Mac OS 9 over ten years ago and have continued to support the product over the years. While most of my video work has been for education, fun and creativity, I've also put my skills to good use whenever a job needed me to fill in and do revisions/edits on television spots or web videos in Final Cut. As I am working on a new weekly video production with a partner on the side, video skills are becoming more necessary to me than ever before.

But I can tell you that none of my future video work will be on Final Cut Pro. For the reasons why, let's rewind back to earlier this summer.

After promising a significant update for some time, Apple finally released Final Cut Pro X, a completely rewritten version of their professional video editing software. Available only on the Mac App Store at $299, the new 64-bit native software features a dramatically overhauled interface and replaces the entire $999 now EOL (end-of-life'd) Final Cut Suite. And boy, does the new product have video professionals in an uproar.

Backlash over the new software has ranged from scathing to downright amusing, including tepid reviews in the Mac App Store, video parodies including Conan O'Brien, the now-tired Hitler clips, and even a spin on Apple's old "I'm a PC/Mac" campaign.

So why the hate? There is a lot of finger-pointing that Apple is dumbing down Final Cut Pro to the consumer/prosumer crowd, and with lexicon like 'events' and 'storylines' replacing established terms like bins and sequences, being able to import iMovie files instead of old Final Cut Pro files (FAR more demanded), removal of collaborative workflow and a significantly reduced and consumer-accessible $299, it's hard to argue with this.

More importantly, there is a laundry list of necessary features that Final Cut Pro X does not have or support, something other articles have already gone over in finer detail. Playing damage control, Apple promises that much of what is missing will return in future updates to the software, and other writers and presenters are attempting to educate users on the truths and mistruths about Final Cut Pro X. Despite all the reassurances, certain things will continue to be problematic for editors that won't be addressed by Apple; the inability for Final Cut Pro X to open older Final Cut files being at the forefront.

So why can't these places simply just continue to run the older Final Cut Pro software, at least for their older projects? This is the typical response of many FCPX apologists, and I think they're completely missing the point. Yes, studios can happily continue to edit on Final Cut Pro 7; I think any panic is premature in the short term.

Long term? The old Final Cut Studio is now end-of-life and no longer supported, so those either needing more licenses or updates to existing software are simply out of luck. (Sorry, future Mac OS X upgraders with legacy issues.)

So what is a smarter long-term investment for a production company? Apple, known for either changing, discontinuing or staginating professional market products in the blink of an eye (Shake, Xsan, XServe) and promising that their new software 'might' address professional needs 'someday'? Or Adobe and Avid, with years of proven records in professional software that will continue to support your files and fulfill all of those needs TODAY? Apple has nothing to lose as professionals aren't their market, while Adobe and Avid have EVERYTHING to lose as professionals ARE.

Some have argued - or read off Apple's marketing - that Final Cut Pro is a new paradigm and such things take time to learn, pointing out comparisons with the transition of Mac OS 9 to OS X for good measure. I don't think that analogy works for several reasons.

The OS9-to-OSX change was NOT abrupt as Apple continued to dual-install both OS's for quite a while until OS X was ready for the spotlight. The classic Mac OS was dreadfully outdated at the time while Apple faced heavy competition from Microsoft and huge defections to Windows PCs in the 90s. The transition was absolutely necessary for Apple in order to offer developers and consumers a stable platform to build and run applications on and ultimately woo consumer confidence back. 

Besides, editing was not broken to begin with. While Final Cut itself was in need of an update to play catchup, more than anything I think customers wanted 64-bit compatibility that would finally support pro hardware to the fullest. The editing workflow itself has been well established and effective for years, and sometimes change for the sake of change is unnecessary and more time consuming in the end. As I've seen it put, Final Cut Pro X is ultimately a solution in search of a problem.

I gave Final Cut Pro X a test drive recently and found that much of the hate is warranted; there were immediately things about the program that put me off such as the annoying magnetic timeline and the way it skimmed across videos. Getting used to a new program takes time, granted, but Apple's philosophy for consumer products is that people can sit down, use the product for a little while and "get it" right away. But this time, I think Apple tried too hard to apply a consumer's approach to the professional market - a very different crowd - and I left Final Cut Pro X with the feeling of not being intuitive to the way video editors want to work at all.

Unlike Adobe Premiere Pro CS5.5, which instantly felt right as I sat down in front of it. While there are differences, it took no time to adjust to the program at all and I was immediately off to the races with editing. Better yet, it does what Final Cut Pro X CAN'T…import my older Final Cut Pro projects via XML. While certain edits in the video weren't imported near-perfectly (particularly on Final Cut specific features), it was 90% of the way there and certainly would take me much less time to fix than having to redo the entire project from scratch in Final Cut Pro X. To me, Adobe Premiere Pro felt in many ways like the real upgrade Final Cut needed to be.

As both my Adobe software and Final Cut software was a few versions out of date and needing upgrades, I decided the most logical choice for me was to consolidate and invest on upgrading to the Adobe Master Collection. It made a lot of sense with my Adobe workflow and the whole integration across the line can't be beat. Gaining Adobe After Effects and Encore CS5 (as a replacement for the seemingly discontinued DVD Studio Pro) was a strong plus, and my positive reaction to the change made me question why I hadn't switched years ago. 

Except Premiere was abandoned and wasn't available on the Mac at one time, something Apple fanatics will certainly attack Adobe's credibility on. However, Premiere returned following the Intel transition and I think Adobe sees a greater opportunity than ever before to support the Mac platform in the wake of Final Cut Pro refugees.  Worse case scenario, Adobe allows crossgrades across platforms if it becomes necessary. Adobe Premiere Pro CS5.5 is not your father's Premiere with the horse on the box that you may have heard poorly about, so I highly suggest giving it another chance.

And what of Final Cut Pro X? I think Apple knew exactly what they was doing all along - making an indirect statement about which market they see their future in. What they lose in professionals, they WILL gain much more back in the consumer / prosumer crowd. Final Cut Pro X is not a bad product per se; blowing $299 versus $1000-2500 on the teenager in the family taking an interest in editing is undoubtedly an easier pill to swallow. All roads start somewhere; many artists got their start with a crayon rather than a drawing pen and likewise, many will get their feet wet with Final Cut Pro X and eventually move up to Avid or Premiere.

Will the day come when Apple completely turns it's back on the professional market entirely? Man, that is a whole different can of worms that needs further analysis, so I think I'll save that for a future blog post.

Stop beating a dead browser: IE6 is really dead, folks

Posted on November 7, 2010 @ 1:33pm by Patrick Shannon

This is in no way an obituary for Internet Explorer 6. Doing that would be like reporting today that Michael Jackson had died. While I'm sure there are hermits who haven't heard that news yet, it's just as certain that some people are still wondering whether the time has come to drop IE6 or not. Just when you think it's time to finally put IE6 in the dust, you get the odd client/company who "insists" that their customer-base is still primarily using the browser.

While developers know the trials of dealing with IE6, let me explain to the general audience why IE6 is so troublesome. Imagine that all the web browsers out there are calculators that you've punched the equation "7+6" into. The Firefox calculator returns "13," as does the Safari and Chrome calculator. The IE8 calculator returns "13" but has a display glitch, but easy enough to deal with. The IE7 calculator returns "14," but you figure it's close enough. However, the IE6 calculator's display flickers, glitches and throws the answer nearly off the screen, but you can make out a sum of "54." But nevermind proper mathematics, it maintains it's sum is correct because it still claims to be the most popular calcuator out there.

It's a silly sounding analogy, but developing for IE6 is a lot like that, requiring lots of hacks and workarounds to make things work that other browsers handle with no issues. Aside from that, IE6 is highly insecure and even Microsoft has recommended that users upgrade to a newer version of it's browser.

Most people have moved onto newer versions of Internet Explorer or other alternatives like Firefox, Safari and Chrome. So why is IE6 still out there? There are a few reasons, one in particular is users running older computers who never bothered to upgrade. The other popular culprits are companies who have outdated intranets that only work with IE6, thus they lock down the computers so they can't be upgraded.

However, the number of people still running IE6 is dwindling fast. New computers purchased today running Windows 7 come with Internet Explorer 8 installed by default. As for the argument about supporting aging company networks, there isn't anything stopping the IT departments from installing Firefox or Chrome alongside IE6. And some companies may be FORCED to update soon: an IT guy at a company I worked at recently was telling me Microsoft would no longer be supporting them past next year unless they updated.

As far as my official stance, I will only support browsers made within the last four years or so, and only one or two versions down. Currently I support Internet Explorer 7 and 8, but with IE9 coming out soon, I will be dropping support for IE7 at that time. There are a few exceptions where I will support an outdated browser, but this comes with higher development costs and the understanding that not all site functionality will be supported.

As far as the rest of the web, the big dogs like Youtube, Google and Facebook have already dropped support for IE6, which says a whole lot about the answer to the question of whether it's time to stop supporting IE6. While there are still a few out there who are using it, it is important to focus on the experience for the majority first and foremost. Remember, while Aunt Erma might not see your site correctly, is she your majority audience?

You can't please everyone: Why it's important to determine your target audience

Posted on October 11, 2010 @ 8:00pm by Patrick Shannon

Whenever I consult with a potential client, one of the first things I ask is what portion of the audience they're trying to appeal to. Sometimes this question is met with perplexion. "Don't I want to get everyone to visit my site?" Indeed it does make sense on paper: more people visiting, more potential sales...right?

But it's like the message portrayed in the Aesop's fable of The Miller, The Son and the Donkey, which is "he who ends up trying to please everyone, pleases no one." In most cases, a product, service or situation will appeal to one portion of an audience, while another will be completely indifferent to it. If you try to design to market something without a clearly defined direction and carefully think things through, then you're setting yourself up for a lot of problems later on.

For example, let's say you're marketing a brand new toy. Where do you focus your efforts? Clearly not on single guys like me: I don't have kids and you'll more likely find me in an ACE Hardware than a Toys R' Us. The teen and college crowd have long outgrown toys and have school books and supplies to worry about buying, so airing spots between episodes of The Jersey Shore is probably not the best use of your advertising dollars, either.

But you already knew that. It's a TOY after all...so our audience is clearly children. But not so fast.

For starters, what age group are we talking about here? Three year olds don't play with the same toys that a nine year old would. Next, is this toy going to appeal more to a boy, a girl...or even both? Most importantly, WHO is REALLY purchasing this toy? Unless a kid has a really generous allowance, it is usually going to be the adults with children to buy for. Yet if this toy doesn't fit THEIR values or expectations - whether educational, age-appropriate or whatever that may be - then it doesn't matter how many commercials pop up during children's programming...NO SALE.

The same logic applies to ANYTHING marketing-related from billboards to even websites. While we want as much traffic and attention as humanly possible, it is incredibly difficult and rare to create something that appeals to ALL ages and genres.

Remember the fable above: try to please everyone and you'll please no one. Focus on those who are interested in your product, and don't worry about what other audiences will think.

Is your efforts benefiting your customers?

Posted on September 14, 2010 @ 1:10pm by Patrick Shannon

Although I legitimately had a strong opinion about Toy Story and Shrek in my last post, there is another reason why I posted my thoughts on that subject and it directly relates to everyday marketing. In that post, I expressed my thoughts that the only people that benefited by another Shrek sequel was Dreamworks themselves. Likewise, when you decide to put anything out there, are you doing so to benefit your customers...or simply trying to please yourself?

I've had a lot of odd requests from clients, from placing sports scores to moon phase widgets on their website. The thing was: neither had websites remotely covering sports or the skies and such things served to please the site owners more than their audience. A bigger example of this is requests for websites built entirely in Flash. I've never gotten a good explanation from a client of "why" they need a Flash website. In most cases it's the desire for slideshows, dynamically loading pages and animated menus, but all of the above can be accomplished using more accessible technologies like jQuery and soon - HTML5. Despite that, some people still felt they HAD to have a Flash website. it certainly looks good on paper.

But in reality, the superfluous animation and loading times end up being a detrimental experience for visitors who might give you five seconds to grab their attention before they click the "back" button. Visitors are usually looking for information to satisfy their questions, and forcing them to wait at some preloader is one of the best ways to chase them off towards a competitor's website. And not all platforms support Flash: I heard a story once about a company that ended up completely redoing their expensive (and new) Flash website when the CEO complained he couldn't pull it up on his iPhone.

Even website redesigns in general need to be thought through. I've created some websites that started to feel long in the tooth after a year or two, while I've done others over five years ago that have aged incredibly well and still fulfills the needs of that business. Some people approach website redesigns like rearranging their furniture in the living room: they're just simply sick of the same thing and changing things for the sake of change. This is the wrong way to approach it.

Or what about social media? It's a popular buzzword right now and everyone is jumping on the Twitter / FaceBook bandwagon...but does your business really need it? Let's put it this way: I don't think an accounting firm would have as much need for a Twitter account than a show promoter.

Whenever you decide on putting ANY effort out there - from websites to social media - think about your potential customers. Will these changes benefit them better? Is your current efforts not getting through to them, or perhaps your information could be reorganized more effectively? Design is problem solving and if your plans involve addressing these issues, then you are on the right track.

Toy Story and Shrek: Why only one sequel worked

Posted on September 5, 2010 @ 10:17pm by Patrick Shannon

This past summer, two computer animated franchises gave audiences a final farewell at the box office.

The first is Toy Story 3. The reviews have been overwhelmingly favorable, scoring a 99% amongst critics at Rotten Tomatoes. With each movie in the series has outperformed each other in gross revenue at the box office, I think it's hard to argue that the entire trilogy has been a success.

On the other hand, there is Shrek: The Final Chapter. The fourth and final movie in the series has received tepid ratings and holding at a 58% on RT. While the movie has certainly profitted at the box office, revenues dropped considerably from Shrek the Third (only earning as much as it did coming off of a successful Shrek 2, in my opinion) and the last two movies have been greatly lacking from the first two. I think audiences are simply tired of the big green ogre; as I've heard it put, it's "just another Shrek movie."

After seeing the film myself when it came to the dollar show nearby, I'd have to agree. It certainly entertained the kids in attendence...but only barely. Little laughter came from even the youngest ones, and the only parts that had the audience chuckling was Puss in Boots's pouty, wide-eyed expression...a gag we've seen in several movies already. But as I left the movies, it got me wondering: where did Pixar win with Toy Story where Dreamworks has failed with Shrek? I think the answer lies in the approach of "why" each company made a sequel.

Pixar's stance on sequels is that they have no problem doing them, so long as there is a good story to be told. They could have easily left the series alone after Toy Story 2 (and have for eleven years), but the new movie addressed a lingering concern pondered at the end of the last movie: what would become of the toys when their owner Andy grew up? In Toy Story 3, that time has come as Andy is off to college and the audience is curious as to what the character's fate will be. It addressed the fear of abandonment as well as growing up and leaving childish things behind. It was absolutely a logical direction to go in and a welcomed extension to the story. Most importantly, the movie related to ALL ages - not an easy task to do.

Now, let's sidestep for a moment and compare that to the direction Toy Story 3 *almost* took when Disney planned to do the movie on it's own years ago when a split from Pixar seemed certain. The plot - ready for this? - involved a recall on malfunctioning Buzz Lightyear units. An uninspired and unnecessary plot offering audiences no value other than seeing familiar characters on the screen once again in some random plot.

Which is precisely the trap that Shrek has fallen into. Without ruining anything, the movie essentially came full circle and ended back the way it started, making the whole story completely unnecessary other than Shrek's realization about his family life...It's a Wonderful Life, it wasn't. The only thing that Shrek 4 fulfilled was the wishes of the marketing machine again. The ogre's dopey, smiling face graces more products at the grocery store than I care to see. It's a lot easier to sell Shrek's face when there's a movie out, that's for certain - plot be damned.

So the difference between the movies is clear: Pixar had a story to tell, while Dreamworks had marketing to sell. To be fair, Woody and crew certainly don't have clean hands when it comes to product shilling. But that doesn't change the fact that their movies offer VALUE to audiences. Tickets are very expensive these days and there is a lot of crap out there, but people feel confortable and assured that they are guaranteed a good time when they plunk down the money for a Pixar movie.

I'm not delusional; movies are a business like anything else and the primary goal is to make money. But a movie sequel that offers value - a REASON for audiences to care - will create loyalty and return investments on future ventures. As I pointed out, each Toy Story movie has made more money than the last, whereas Shrek peaked and fell. VALUE is the difference between a ninety minute distraction that the kids will quickly forget about on the drive home, versus a movie that ultimately ends up in a family's home collection and repeatedly worn out from use.

About

I'm a left-over relic of the "graphic designer" exodus of the 1990's, right before "video game creators" became the hot late night recruitment commercial between reruns of Two and a Half Men. Fortunately, that whole "internet" thing took off.

When not futzing around with Adobe applications or looking at code, I'm out being physically active, or mentally active by painting or drawing. This blog is my random thoughts on anything from advertising to art and not intended to enrich anyone except by accident.

In other words...I'll fit right in with the blogosphere.