Talk:Final Cut Pro X

Requested NPOV review (June 2012)

The Summary section of this article looks highly suspect. Consider this passage:

Within minutes of the announcement, professional users realized the new product was a radical difference from the previous line of Final Cut Pro products suggesting it was a dumbing down of the previous product they had invested into. What was realized later was the new "advancement" also, necessarily meant the termination of any future development of the previous versions of Final Cut Pro.

The tone of this particular section (consider the "speech marks" around the word 'advancement') appears to be that of a disgruntled Final Cut Pro user. While I do understand that reception to FCPX has been hostile in some sections of the user base, the article appears to lend undue weight to this viewpoint, and has been written from an extremely negative point of view. I believe the page requires some heavy NPOV rewriting. Jrothwell (talk) 23:46, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

I did not start the "reception" section, but I did expand upon it. When someone else tried to delete that section I started researching and found a lot more where that came from. There was a bit of an edit war, so I made sure I was using sourced comments. There are seven diverse sources in that section, clearly it is not one disgruntled user, but a mass of public opinion, which I documented. At that, I had to pare down the amount of material along that line. Wikipedia is not just about creating a positive image for their subjects. It is about reporting the story--the facts. As I researched, this is the story I found. Excluding Apple press releases, this is the weight I found. The majority of what I added was directly quoted. If you think it is undue weight, my suggestion (and the tag's suggestion) is to add to the content. I'm not going to delete sourced positive opinions about Final Cut X, but this is documented in the appropriate media for the subject and also should not be deleted. Trackinfo (talk) 09:20, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Unfortunately the "reception" section is not the only source of problems in this article. The "history" section is highly suspect as it does not provide an objective summary of FCPX's functions without prejudice. The only reference for the first paragraph is an online forum thread, which is discouraged as a source under WP:SPS. It also has issues with its tone and adopts a voice that suggests it was written primarily by a disgruntled FCP customer. Furthermore, the "reception" section includes long tracts quoted from the source articles---approximately half the bulk of the section consists of quotes from a very limited pool of external articles. The article is also littered with unsourced and somewhat opinionated statements and spelling/grammar issues. I might attempt a rewrite in the next few days, if I can find the time. Jrothwell (talk) 05:37, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

I've had a go at tidying it up from a structural perspective and to make it more encyclopaedic. It now has a lead. The "history" section was too prominent, and highly polluted with subjective opinion verbiage. I've tried to collect all this opinion and add it to "reception" (as both topics are opinion-related). Whether that should be there at all is another topic... Feline Hymnic (talk) 20:15, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Once again an IP user is trying to sanitize the controversy about the reception. In a series of edits, they removed sourced content, replacing it with an unsourced opinion that all of these problems were addressed and solved (including a promotion for one movie that could be considered an advertisement). Before removing sourced content and making statements about . . . opinions . . . please provide sources of a retraction by the named source or the source of the opinion you are placing in the article. That opinion should not be your own. This is standard WP policy. This section already contains the TAG stating that it is unbalanced. I normally hate tags. I'd like to remove it. Lets insert something from the opposing opinion. But it has to be attributable to a source. I couldn't find any. Trackinfo (talk) 17:48, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

I inserted something (improvements to the software over time, positive reports of usage) and scaled back some of the previous coverage (primarily things like direct blockquotes from the petition). The section is going to err on the side of negative coverage for a while, because the backlash and its repercussions were pretty significant, but it's important that the article itself not bash the software as well. That was a lot of what I had to cleanup, after going through something similar over at Adobe Creative Suite. --FuriousFreddy (talk) 06:43, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

I followed up with little corrections, primarily that users do not feel it deserving of being part of the Final Cut line of products, and the multiple-sourced "dumbed down" phrase. Another phrase that is more and more common recently on-line, attributable to "pro" users is "unworkable" but I don't find a context to drop that in within the current phraseology. Trackinfo (talk) 09:16, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Incorrect

"During the 2015 NAB Show, Apple updated FCP X to 10.2, adding 3D text abilities, native support of Panasonic AVC-Ultra and Sony XAVC codecs"

XAVC support was added in 10.0.8 is March 2013. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.105.155.234 (talk) 19:34, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Incorrect

"In 2014, Final Cut Pro X 10.1 introduced switchable media libraries (previously, all items were imported into one default container)."

The application did not require using a default container. It had a default location, just as the library became the default location in 10.1, but there was not and still is no requirement to use the default location. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.105.155.234 (talk) 19:37, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Final Cut Pro without X

Final Cut Pro X has apparently been renamed to just Final Cut Pro. https://apps.apple.com/app/final-cut-pro/id424389933?mt=12 Should we move the page? I didn't because all the links to this page don't redirect automatically to the new. --IPhoneNerd2.0 (talk) 18:39, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

Final Cut Pro X

We should have Final Cut Pro be the page for everything Final Cut relate. It becoming the new page for everything Final Cut related after they dropped the X. It’s both the Predecessor and the Successor to Final Cut Pro X. New logo and updates are equivalent.

• Motion 5
• Compressor 4
• Logic X

And

• MainStage 3

Didn’t get there own pages. I suggest we merge the pages and give Final Cut X a section. Doremon764 (talk) 13:40, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

I think you make a good point; this is a worthy alternative to my (now-withdrawn) move request. The Interface section of Final Cut Pro is solely a description of the different sections of FCP7's main interface; it reads more like a user manual than an encyclopedia entry, and I think it's undue and should be removed. That just leaves two relevant sections in Final Cut Pro: §Features, which has been updated for FCPX and does not contain version-specific information; and History, which would perfectly belong in a merged article. So the two articles would fit together perfectly.

I used to oppose a merge, but after reading more about Final Cut, I've changed my mind; they're two versions of the same software, just like iMovie and iMovie '08 (which are in the same iMovie article). Furthermore, when I imagine what a Featued Article about Final Cut Pro would look like, it would cover all versions, from 1999 to today.

I think the initial split was partially a reflection of the backlash against FCPX by film producers; but Apple is ultimately trying to win back professionals, so it's not like they're two different products made for two different markets. The split between the two was not justified. DFlhb (talk) 16:30, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Final Cut Pro which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 23:46, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

Merge Talk pages

Talk:Final Cut Pro X and Talk:Final Cut Pro pages. Doremon764 (talk) 00:22, 26 January 2023 (UTC)