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.