Mike Jones Digital Basin
cinematic media rinse cycle

Final Cut Pro and the Emperor's New Clothes

Much like everyone else in the media production world I owe a good chunk of my professional career to the Mac. Avid, Media 100 and Premiere NLE's all had a home on the Mac in the early days through to today. And then when Apple decided to enter their phase of schizophrenic indecision whereby they hybridized between hardware manufacturer and software developer, Final Cut Pro came along courtesy of the purchase of Keygrip from Macomedia. Their really is no argument that the impact of Final cut Pro has been profound in terms of simple widespread popularity. But from the privileged position I have as a film-maker and journalist, a position whereby I have had the opportunity to use, abuse review and exploit every NLE on the market, its very hard not to see Final Cut Pro as the Emperor's New Clothes of post-production.

Of course saying that is just asking for a flame war. And I hereby declare that i wont be responding to flame comments supplied to this post; rather I'll say my piece here to be constructive not just critical and let it be.

It seems everyone is so enamoured by their love for the Mac (that strange cult-like thing they have going on that I've never understood despite being a long-time Mac user) that they?re oblivious to the fact that this enormously popular software, on a feature for feature basis, is so significantly lagging behind all other NLE contenders -? under powered, under developed and inflexible. Have Apple been pouring so much of their finite corporate resources into I-Phones and I-Pod accessories that they have starved their software development teams? Why is FCP so far behind? Why is it persisting with archaic, retrospective modes of working? Why is it taking so long for a new version? And when it comes will it Really deliver because whilst version 1-3 of FCP were ground-breaking, versions 4 and 5 delivered not a single new feature that wasn?t already implemented in other competing NLE?s 1, 2 and even 3 years prior. FCP is playing a losing game of catch-up rather than leading with new and innovated features. Let me count the ways in frustration with this once great application that everyone else seems too afraid to disparage as if Steve J himself will come to your house and beat you with a lead-weighted Mighty Mouse...!

To bring it up to scratch FCP desperately needs....

1. REAL audio editing and mixing tools. Current audio tools in FCP are woeful at best. Make FCP a complete tool and not one that relies on an external audio DAW (and frankly Soundtrack is not the answer being a half-baked dreadful attempt that itself needs a major rethink) True sample level accurate editing. Real time audio effects that can be adjusted and monitored in real-time during playback. Live input monitoring with effects for recording. 24bit96khz input sampling. Multichannel simultaneous input. And the ability to edit, envelopet and manipulate sound in the timeline rather than the source window.

2. The ability to open multiple copies of FCP at the same time and running independently so you can, for example, be editing in one copy whilst another is rendering. With the abundance of power available from dual core and quad systems there no excuse for not having background rendering or multiple open projects.  Other NLE's do this with ease, why not FCP?

3. True integration between applications. There has been some steps taken in this regard between FCP and Motion for example but its still rudimentary and has a very long way to go before it is even close to the level of integration currently being demonstrated by Adobe which is leading the way with inter-app productivity right now.

4. REAL File Format, Codec and Resolution independence. Every other NLE has this WHY NOT FCP? This means a number of things; firstly ending FCPs strict protectionist exclusivity to Quicktime. FCP should work with AVI wrappers as efficiently as MOV (which it currently doesn't do) and should read natively all manner of codecs and formats. The future of media production is one where producers will continually need to work with a massive variety of formats. Many of these formats certainly have been traditionally considered not ideal but when mobile phone footage is a staple of broadcast TV news we seriously have to re-consider our absurd notions of what used to be called 'broadcast quality'. We need tools that say YES more often than they say NO and get on an ethical high horse about what is 'acceptable'. We need tools that are as flexible as possible, handling all situations and currently FCP is just not  flexible. WHY does FCP demand that any event added to the timeline, that doesn't match the project settings, be rendered to be viewed real-time? All other major NLE's did away with this years ago and function in a format independent environment. Why when you mix resolutions (HD and SD) do i have render one or the other, again no other NLE demands this any more.  FCP really needs to play catch up on this. It lags far behind Vegas, Premiere Pro, Edius and Liquid which all fundtion in a true codec and resolution independant environment.

5. Frame rate independence. Why does FCP have such trouble with mixed frame-rates on the same timeline. Why do i need to render to see real-time previews of clips with different frame rates? Likewise aspect rations - trying to mix PAR's in FCP is a nightmare!

6. The ability to adjust and modify video FX in real-time during playback. I should not have to stop the timeline to adjust an effect. I should be able to tweak effects whilst the timeline plays, viewing the result in real-time in the monitor. Is the underlying engine architecture of FCP so inflexible that it cant perform colour correction on the fly? Cant adjust a blur on the fly? Cant contrast adjust on the fly? Again, other NLE"s do this, why not FCP?

7. Improved compositing tools. Motion is fine, and of course so is After Effects but why cant FCP be a more complete tool? I shouldn't have to leave FCP for relatively simple or even moderately complex composits - I want 3D motion for events and tracks including pan-behind. I want parent-child track controls for animating groups of tracks together. I want unlimited point bezier masks. I want to be able to apply FX at a Track and Project level without having to nest timelines.

8. Surround sound mixing...! My GOD Apple, where have you been?? Everyone else added this years ago..!!!

Now certainly there is already a host of hardcore FCP users breathing fire and yelling diatribes at their computer monitors that exert the notion that FCP is an editor and NOT a compositor, NOT a audio workstation and doesnt need to do these things. But this I believe is very backward thinking. If FCP is designed purely to cater to the very traditional segmented and hierarchical workflow of production where each element of production ? (edit, sound, mix, effects, composit, grade and output) ? is dealt with by a separate process and separate systems then i would argue it's living in the past.

The future is integration. The future is unified production. The future is non-hierarchical between media forms. The future is where the sound is cut with the picture, not after it. Where effects are part of composition and editing, not an after process to the edit. The future is where all the arms of production inform each other rather than conform to the one that came previous in a hierarchy of privilege.  

This may not be where the bulk of current production process is at but it is certainly destined to be a large part of the future of media production. All the major software developers seem to be heading in this direction ? Adobe have gone the path of uber-integration between apps where project files can be directly exchanged. Sony have taken the all-in-one path where Vegas is a complete NLE and DAW in one package with the most comprehensive compositing tools of any current NLE. Avid have been scrambling hard to patch together a complete box of goodies through acquisitions to bring Avid and Protools, hardware and software under the one box. Where is FCP? Obviosuly they want to push the Final Cut bundle of apps but its a fundementaly weak production suite. FCP is soley focused on traditional editing, Soundtrack is a cruel joke and seriously under/mis developed, Motion has some nice ideas but is a very long way short of being After Effects and integration between FCP and Motion is still rudimentary at best. DVD Studio Pro is the rock solid exception but as a whole Apple's suite is arguably the weakest and least integrated on the market. It would ppear that  Apple want to continue to steer FCP deeper into a traditional, off-line, segmented work flow with, thus far, only token gestures at cross-app integration.

Not only do i think Apple are perfectly placed to be an industry leader again, I believe they absolutely must be; that they must think outside of the traditional workflow mentality to a bigger picture of the future if they don't want to risk becoming irrelevant and obsolete. Everyone else moves on to a more flexible future whilst Apple chase the big end of town trying to be the next Avid.

Posted at 01:00AM Apr 07, 2007 by Mike Jones in video  |  Comments[2]