# New Final Cut, Motion and Compressor - out now



## keebler27

Apple Announces Final Cut Pro X, Motion 5, and Compressor 4 - Available Now - Mac Rumors


----------



## keebler27

keebler27 said:


> Apple Announces Final Cut Pro X, Motion 5, and Compressor 4 - Available Now - Mac Rumors


interesting...I was wondering about DVD studio pro then in the details section, there's a line: add your content to a set of themed menus then burn a dvd or blu ray disc.

things are working well for me with the latest FCS, but I am having to clipwrap all the HD footage from my own camcorders.... hmmm.


----------



## ehMax

*Apple releases Final Cut Pro X, Motion 5 and Compressor 4 in App Store*

Apple has officially announced and released the much anticipated Final Cut Pro X today with immediate availability in the Mac App Store for Canadian customers.








_“Final Cut Pro X is the biggest advance in Pro video editing since the original Final Cut Pro,” said Philip Schiller, Apple’s senior vice president of Worldwide Product Marketing. “We have shown it to many of the world’s best Pro editors, and their jaws have dropped.”_

*Final Cut Pro X* is available today for $299.99 Cdn from the Canadian Mac App Store. Motion 5 and Compressor 4 are also available today for $49.99 Cdn. All prices are identical to the US App Store prices.

The main features Apple is touting to Final Cut Pro X, is the *new "magnetic" timeline*, dynamic *media organization* and *faster performance*.


----------



## okcomputer

Very nice.

I haven't done much video recently, so I won't be buying just yet. But $300 is a really nice price.

Wonder if Apple is still going to do Education discounts though. I could have previously bought Final Cut Studio for the same price, but with all apps bundled. The same would now cost at least $400.


----------



## Chealion

So what's everyone's take?

I know for my workplace it's come down to "neat but we can't care until it actually works for a post house"

- No OMF, EDL or XML support (Automatic Duck is a $500 plugin for a $300 program?!)
- No multicam
- No tape support (you can import without any control - no output)
- Designed as a single monitor app mostly (can only stick either bins or viewer on a second monitor)
- No proper 3rd party video card support (eg. AJA or Blackmagic cards - AJA's current recommendation is use the Kona card to output the desktop as your second display)

With the exception of multicam all dealbreakers within the first half hour of work.

However we are excited to see many of the features, especially the performance and native editing ones.

---

Of note, Final Cut Server has been discontinued as well. Can't say I'm surprised but it looked a lot nicer to the eye than CatDV.


----------



## okcomputer

Chealion said:


> - No multicam
> - No tape support (you can import without any control - no output)


Both of these really suck haha. Multicam was the main reason I used Studio over Express. I was doing weddings, graduations, etc. and I really didn't need most of the pro features... but multicam was a lifesaver.

And I still have a Canon HV20 that produces a decent image for a small camcorder. Annoying that it's not fully supported.


----------



## ehMax

I'm coming at it from perspective of just doing video podcasts in HD. My first thought was, I was looking to move away from iMovie to Final Cut Pro, as I can't stand the iMovie interface... as much as I try to like it. Final Cut Pro looked to be more of a precise editor with a professional interface without having the program try to do so much for you. 

Final Cut Pro X seems to be really taken after the iMovie interface, which I find really unfortunate, especially with the main feature being the "Magnetic" timeline. To me, that really sounds like what I was trying to get away from, of things snapping into place. 

I'm sure it will be a lot more flexible and I'm looking forward to trying it, but I'm quite a little scared by the iMoviefication of the program.


----------



## ehMax

Apple has released a *tech article on Final Cut X Graphics Card compatibility*. The article also lists many specific cards that are NOT compatible. 

For example, the ATI Radeon HD 2600 PRO with 256MB of GDDR3 memory found in my iMac 2008 is not compatible. 

Looks like I'll hold off trying it until I hopefully get my new iMac later this summer / early fall.


----------



## ehMax

Apple also has an *online database of cameras supported for Final Cut Pro X*. 

They also list in the "Additional compatibility notes"

Final Cut Pro X is compatible with iPhone 3GS, iPhone 4, iPad 2, and iPod touch (4th generation).
Final Cut Pro X is compatible with most MiniDV tape-based camcorders using DV and HDV formats, which use a FireWire (also known as IEEE 1394 or i.LINK) cable to transfer video.
If you have imported video into iPhoto or Aperture from a digital still camera, you can drag compatible video clips from iPhoto or Aperture directly to an Event in the Final Cut Pro X Event Library or a project in the Timeline.


----------



## jellotor

No support for my Kona card means I'll wait for a bit. I agree, the $300 price is a good start (and, frankly, $50 for software as flexible as Motion is pretty sweet too) but until some more professional features (such as the XML import/export, more robust colour correction) get added--and they probably will get added--I'll wait.

I haven't had a lot of time to read up yet...will FCPX finally be able to read the metadata from the MXF files my HVX200 generates?!? Aside from that quibble, the metadata tools seem demonstrably better than FCP7.

Where's my viewer window!?!?!! Aaaawwwraaaaaaaahhhhhaaaagggpfpfpftt...

<pant, pant>

Ok, all good now.


----------



## Guest

Chealion said:


> So what's everyone's take?
> 
> I know for my workplace it's come down to "neat but we can't care until it actually works for a post house"
> 
> - No OMF, EDL or XML support (Automatic Duck is a $500 plugin for a $300 program?!)
> - No multicam
> - No tape support (you can import without any control - no output)
> - Designed as a single monitor app mostly (can only stick either bins or viewer on a second monitor)
> - No proper 3rd party video card support (eg. AJA or Blackmagic cards - AJA's current recommendation is use the Kona card to output the desktop as your second display)
> 
> With the exception of multicam all dealbreakers within the first half hour of work.
> 
> However we are excited to see many of the features, especially the performance and native editing ones.
> 
> ---
> 
> Of note, Final Cut Server has been discontinued as well. Can't say I'm surprised but it looked a lot nicer to the eye than CatDV.


All deal breakers for me aside from the 3rd party card support. You can do ducking without that plug (using built-in apple plugins) but it's more work.

It's a bit of a surprise that they have knocked so many recent machines out of the compatibility list ... very surprising actually. One of the great things about FCP was it's ability to work on older hardware.

This whole single monitor approach Apple is taking to their new apps is really ticking me off.

Lastly, $50 for Compressor? Really? Who is going to pay $50 for it honestly ... even if they have fixed it up nicely so many free apps are probably still much better than it anyway.

Guess I'll be waiting until they resolve the missing bits (or moving to something else if they don't).


----------



## Guest

Just reading the writeup here:

64-bit Final Cut Pro X now in Mac App Store, reaction is mixed

It really seems like they rushed this out the door feature incomplete to me. 



> Also, Jordan said, "the inability to apply effects, volume, and pan settings to a track is a huge omission."


Am I understanding that right ... is there no longer a way to do any of this audio stuff in FCPX? If so ... umm ... wow. It seems like they just kind of swept aside all things audio ... but they no longer provide Soundtrack Pro or from what Chealion said any real way to properly do the audio externally and keep things in lockstep. I'm going to hold my judgements until they release at least a few updates and some more serious users chime in. Apple says that they showed it to "some" professionals and their jaws dropped ... but I think some _other_ professionals are going to be pretty unhappy with the initial offering here.


----------



## ehMax

Two things of interest:

One is that Final Cut Express has been discontinued also. 

Second is that how Apple Resellers must be thinking. First off, Mac OS X Lion is being sold only through app store. Now, a huge program like Final Cut Pro is only being made available through app store. 

These two programs alone have to equal tens of thousands of dollars in sales a year. Poof... to the cloud. 

If 3rd party app developers start going app store only, that will really hurt a lot of retailers.


----------



## Garry

I see that soundtrack pro has been integrated into final cut.. There's a bunch of audio effects included, plus I'm happy to see i can do a 5.1 surround mix in the app. No more round tripping.


----------



## Chealion

mguertin said:


> Lastly, $50 for Compressor? Really? Who is going to pay $50 for it honestly ... even if they have fixed it up nicely so many free apps are probably still much better than it anyway


I really like Compressor and most people I know who were grabbing FCP X were grabbing Motion and Compressor as well. I wasn't expecting Compressor to be separate however.



mguertin said:


> 64-bit Final Cut Pro X now in Mac App Store, reaction is mixed


Larry Jordan's flopping/contradicting oneself, hyperbole and lack of concern over being factually incorrect often drives me up the freaking wall. This is the same guy who said every jaw dropped when they showed off FCP X at NAB. (Having been there I can say they didn't for the reasons he said they did)

A lot of the audio tools have been moved into FCP X with Soundtrack being dropped. However you can so add effects, change the volume and pan audio on a "track" (except they aren't known as tracks anymore - but clips on a storyline)

See http://help.apple.com/finalcutpro/mac/10.0/#verc1fabcd8

------



ehMax said:


> I'm coming at it from perspective of just doing video podcasts in HD. My first thought was, I was looking to move away from iMovie to Final Cut Pro, as I can't stand the iMovie interface... as much as I try to like it. Final Cut Pro looked to be more of a precise editor with a professional interface without having the program try to do so much for you.


I think you'll like it - if you don't require the features that are essential to higher end editing it's looking to be a fabulous application. I'm tempted to get it for home


----------



## keebler27

for me, i'm not worried about the hit regarding batching tape captures, but i can see how that would be a major fail for others. I've always just captured now due to the nature of the transfers.

half surprised that there was no blu ray authoring update. You can output to burn a DVD, but no authoring like in DVDSP. Guess it's Toast or Encore then.

and compressor...oh compressor...have they fixed you? This, I am unwilling to pay for until I see a video showcasing it can be easy to set up distributed computing.

As for now, I'm holding on. Maybe in the future.

A newer, faster (ie. double or triple quad core) machine is needed on my desk more than a new editing program.


----------



## Guest

From the docs the audio bits still seem very rudimentary compared to what was available with soundtrack pro (or any other DAW application). No true automation to be able to do things beyond the basics (volume and pan) ... no way to automate any effects from what I can tell (which as a sound guy I use ALL the time, especially for video projects where the original audio captures might not be the best). The lack of tape stuff is really troubling too .. yes you can capture blind, but what about timecode on your tapes? What about dropped frames? I think they are really jumping the gun by ditching tape.

Again I will say that it seems like Apple moves away from the pro needs more each year. Yes it looks like they fixed up a lot of the problems with the current FCP but they also tied a lot of hands and dumbed things down considerably. I think this is a bad direction to take, especially with regards to pro needs. It seems like FCPX is a lot closer to what the pevious gen of FC Express was.

They won't be getting my money for it for quite a while most likely, at least until they get some of the functionality back (if they ever do).


----------



## mac_geek

Seems like "iMovie Pro" to me. Pity.


----------



## Guest

mac_geek said:


> seems like "imovie pro" to me. Pity.


+1


----------



## Chealion

keebler27 said:


> for me, i'm not worried about the hit regarding batching tape captures, but i can see how that would be a major fail for others. I've always just captured now due to the nature of the transfers.
> 
> half surprised that there was no blu ray authoring update. You can output to burn a DVD, but no authoring like in DVDSP. Guess it's Toast or Encore then.
> 
> and compressor...oh compressor...have they fixed you? This, I am unwilling to pay for until I see a video showcasing it can be easy to set up distributed computing.
> 
> As for now, I'm holding on. Maybe in the future.
> 
> A newer, faster (ie. double or triple quad core) machine is needed on my desk more than a new editing program.


Bad news is that Compressor seems to have hardly changed. I haven't grabbed the program yet but a couple people I know who did said it's still just as flaky (though I've never really had an issue). They also have renamed "unmanaged services on other computers" to just "This Computer Plus".

No word on whether they fixed the FCP to Compressor and use QMaster directly bug.



mguertin said:


> It seems like FCPX is a lot closer to what the pevious gen of FC Express was.


Very, very true.


----------



## keebler27

Chealion said:


> Bad news is that Compressor seems to have hardly changed. I haven't grabbed the program yet but a couple people I know who did said it's still just as flaky (though I've never really had an issue). They also have renamed "unmanaged services on other computers" to just "This Computer Plus".
> 
> No word on whether they fixed the FCP to Compressor and use QMaster directly bug.
> 
> 
> 
> Very, very true.


wow...that's not good news chealion. honestly...if they haven't figured out how to maximize the power of their own damn computers so their own software can talk to the hardware....that's just brutal. unreal...

sure...tout the power of 12 cores and not be able to use it effectively with other computers. doh!


----------



## MacDoc

sigh.......well - get those high clock speeds....since the multi-core performance seems MIA.....again 

Will try and get our onboard editor to do a before and after set of tests this weekend.

Ouch - look at some of the comments on here

Apple releases Final Cut Pro X to the Mac App Store for $299.99 - latimes.com

and here

CreativeCOW

Apple knows it's got issues - otherwise why let the two apps co-exist at the same time?

What a recipe for disaster. XX)
Wonder what my sealed copy of FCP 7 is worth ??


----------



## Chealion

MacDoc said:


> sigh.......well - get those high clock speeds....since the multi-core performance seems MIA.....again


Only in terms of Compressor (which is required for better export options)



> otherwise why let the two apps co-exist at the same time?


Final Cut Studio 3/2009 isn't available for sale (officially) any longer. What apps are you referring to?


----------



## Guest

Chealion said:


> Final Cut Studio 3/2009 isn't available for sale (officially) any longer. What apps are you referring to?


FCP7 and FCPX can coexist, I think that's what he's referring to.


----------



## keebler27

MacDoc said:


> sigh.......well - get those high clock speeds....since the multi-core performance seems MIA.....again
> 
> Will try and get our onboard editor to do a before and after set of tests this weekend.
> 
> Ouch - look at some of the comments on here
> 
> Apple releases Final Cut Pro X to the Mac App Store for $299.99 - latimes.com
> 
> and here
> 
> CreativeCOW
> 
> Apple knows it's got issues - otherwise why let the two apps co-exist at the same time?
> 
> What a recipe for disaster. XX)
> Wonder what my sealed copy of FCP 7 is worth ??


wow. i'm listening to the 2nd link with Walter Biscardi and wow is all i have to say. They raise some good points. Sounds like Apple really screwed the pooch on this one...


----------



## Amiga2000HD

Apple needs to get a major software update out for this ASAP to correct some of the most severe deficiencies and omissions, and then steadily chip away at the less critical issues. If Apple doesn't, they're going to cede the film, broadcast, and mid-high end pro market to Avid and Adobe whose products, I should mention, are cross platform.


----------



## boukman2

*final cut X demo video won't load*

oddest thing... the demo videos for the new final cut won't load in safari. i get an odd notice from divx saying the video has 'failed to finish downloading'. er, what?
tried it in firefox and it works fine. running safari 5.0.5.


----------



## steviewhy

sudo rm -rf /


----------



## MacDoc

Editor wrinkled nose in disgust....not going near it.
He contends this is a replacement for FinalCut Express ( note the X which lends some validity ) and that a true Pro app is in the works.

This seems a major face plant by Apple.


----------



## Amiga2000HD

MacDoc said:


> Editor wrinkled nose in disgust....not going near it.
> He contends this is a replacement for FinalCut Express ( note the X which lends some validity ) and that a true Pro app is in the works.
> 
> This seems a major face plant by Apple.


It is unusable in a broadcast facility. There is no breakout box support which means that you can't:

- Capture audio and video from your plant infrastructure (video router, EVS, video switcher etc).
- Play out into your plant infrastructure (ie. it is not possible to roll Final Cut X on air)
- Use a reference broadcast monitor to check interlace and perform confidence viewing.
- Use a reference audio monitoring setup.
- Use external scopes for quality control purposes.
- Do anything involving tape. Tape's been on its way out for a while now for shooting new content but the existing mountains of tapes on shelves or in vaults out there can't be ignored.

Apart from the breakout box issue, there are several other big ones:

- You can't export OMF files which means sending films or shows to an audio post production facility for mixing in ProTools cannot be done.
- Can't do audio post in Soundtrack Pro either because it's discontinued and there's no round trip workflow for that in Final Cut X to go to/from an existing copy of STP.
- Can't do colour correction in Colour because it's discontinued and there's no round trip support to go to/from an existing copy of Colour.
- You can't open any old projects from Final Cut 7 or earlier so if you sell a show and need to retitle it in a different language and add a second language soundtrack or edit for length or content to meet client delivery requirements is out. To do so requires keeping a Final Cut Stuio 3 suite around which makes the point of upgrading to Final Cut X irrelevant.
- No XML or EDL output. Again, Final Cut X is unusable if an EDL is a deliverable required by your clients. Most of Hollywood and many TV networks and some stock footage/music houses specify EDLs as a contractual requirement. Final Cut X will not allow you to meet these contractual requirements when required by clients.

As a professional, I can no longer recommend Final Cut in good faith unless Apple makes serious progress in addressing the critical deficiencies with the current version of the package.


----------



## jellotor

Well, it looks like AJA has released some beta drivers for FCP X as a band-aid solution.

Something tells me that the whole FCP X debacle will be eventually considered a mistake on the level of New Coke.


----------



## keebler27

Amiga2000HD said:


> It is unusable in a broadcast facility. There is no breakout box support which means that you can't:
> 
> - Capture audio and video from your plant infrastructure (video router, EVS, video switcher etc).
> - Play out into your plant infrastructure (ie. it is not possible to roll Final Cut X on air)
> - Use a reference broadcast monitor to check interlace and perform confidence viewing.
> - Use a reference audio monitoring setup.
> - Use external scopes for quality control purposes.
> - Do anything involving tape. Tape's been on its way out for a while now for shooting new content but the existing mountains of tapes on shelves or in vaults out there can't be ignored.
> 
> Apart from the breakout box issue, there are several other big ones:
> 
> - You can't export OMF files which means sending films or shows to an audio post production facility for mixing in ProTools cannot be done.
> - Can't do audio post in Soundtrack Pro either because it's discontinued and there's no round trip workflow for that in Final Cut X to go to/from an existing copy of STP.
> - Can't do colour correction in Colour because it's discontinued and there's no round trip support to go to/from an existing copy of Colour.
> - You can't open any old projects from Final Cut 7 or earlier so if you sell a show and need to retitle it in a different language and add a second language soundtrack or edit for length or content to meet client delivery requirements is out. To do so requires keeping a Final Cut Stuio 3 suite around which makes the point of upgrading to Final Cut X irrelevant.
> - No XML or EDL output. Again, Final Cut X is unusable if an EDL is a deliverable required by your clients. Most of Hollywood and many TV networks and some stock footage/music houses specify EDLs as a contractual requirement. Final Cut X will not allow you to meet these contractual requirements when required by clients.
> 
> As a professional, I can no longer recommend Final Cut in good faith unless Apple makes serious progress in addressing the critical deficiencies with the current version of the package.


the link to walter biscardi's audio stream is a good one. he says the same thing and suggests there's a rumour that Time Warner, one of Apple's largest seated FCP users, is about to switch to avid. 

I have to wonder if SJ is going to obliterate the FCX team like he did with the 1st edition of the mobileme team way back when (according to rumour). There have been few positive reviews and it sure seems they are about to lose a major segment of a market of which they were one of the premiere leaders.

and speaking of premiere, tell me Adobe and Avid aren't just sitting back laughing right now.... wow.


----------



## jellotor

Until the end of June, I believe it is, you can crossgrade to MC5.5 for $995 USD. It's hard to beat that.

Walter Biscardi seems to be on an anti-FCP X crusade. He's pretty prolific in terms of writing already, but this debacle has shot him into the stratosphere.

I really like Premiere Pro CS5.5, especially with the ability to open FCP XMLs. It's ironic that Apple's competitor's software can open projects from Apple's EOL'd NLE, but Apple's new NLE can't.

Viewer window!


----------



## Guest

MacDoc said:


> Editor wrinkled nose in disgust....not going near it.
> He contends this is a replacement for FinalCut Express ( note the X which lends some validity ) and that a true Pro app is in the works.
> 
> This seems a major face plant by Apple.


Agreed. Also if this is the case then they tripled the price of the "X"press offering at the same time and are trying to convince the pro editors to beta test it for them :/

I don't know a single editor that I've spoken to about this who's "jaw dropped" ... so I'm not sure who Apple showed it to and got that reaction ... iMovie users maybe?


----------



## keebler27

jellotor said:


> Until the end of June, I believe it is, you can crossgrade to MC5.5 for $995 USD. It's hard to beat that.
> 
> Walter Biscardi seems to be on an anti-FCP X crusade. He's pretty prolific in terms of writing already, but this debacle has shot him into the stratosphere.
> 
> I really like Premiere Pro CS5.5, especially with the ability to open FCP XMLs. It's ironic that Apple's competitor's software can open projects from Apple's EOL'd NLE, but Apple's new NLE can't.
> 
> Viewer window!


I was wondering if Biscardi will end up having a chat with SJ to further discuss FCX and its plans? Biscardi made a great point that Apple's beta involves maybe 100 testers, but supposedly none of the 'pros'. Apple said there's more coming, but you have to wonder what...


----------



## i-rui

so disappointed in this.... in a few months it went from "jaw dropping" to "dropping the ball".


----------



## jellotor

I doubt that after what Walter has been writing he's going to have a chat with anyone from Apple. At least, I wouldn't speak to him if I was the captain of the ship.

Which isn't to say that he doesn't have a point, and make good points. He's right on the money, and passionate about it, too.

But rather than appease and calm users who are threatening to jump ship--even if they're BIG users--just get an update. No amount of talk is gonna fix this, and in the end it'll probably make you look foolish.

Unless you say "we screwed up!"


----------



## SoyMac

*Professional Video Editors Weigh In on Final Cut Pro X*

- Final Cut Pro X.
"In 10 years of writing Times columns, I’ve never encountered anything quite like this.

... it’s completely new and radically redesigned. It looks different, its strengths are different — and after one day of using it, many professional video editors are running through the streets with pitchforks."

Pogue's Review of FCP X


Also, Philip Hodgetts’ FCP X answers here:
Answers to the Unanswered Questions about Final Cut Pro X


----------



## Ottawaman

+
YouTube Video









ERROR: If you can see this, then YouTube is down or you don't have Flash installed.


----------



## ehMax

Ottawaman, you beat me to it. Saw this last night as I was falling asleep, and thought I was having a bizarre dream at first.


----------



## broad

cant wait to see what the new version of logic is like..:|


----------



## Guest

broad said:


> cant wait to see what the new version of logic is like..:|


It'll either be exactly the same as the old one with darker windows, or it will be just like garage band. I don't think they've milked Logic for long enough and had enough complaints about it's performance yet, so I think it will just be dark windows and the same engine running things.


----------



## jellotor

A bizarre, hilarious dream!

Being a professional editor myself (and using something much older by several orders of magnitude here at the day job) I find this whole business wildly funny on many different levels.

First, you have the knee-jerk crowd (and I vacillate between being a member of them and not) and some of the unintentionally bizarre, funny, paranoid things they're saying. APPL stock must be taking a HUGE hit!!!!! Eeeediots!

Second of all, the techno-geek writers who, after stating that they're not professional editors, proceed to crap all over the concerns said editors have. Crybabies! Tape is DEAD!

Thirdly...all this hue & cry over an NLE. I mean, hell, I trained on an Avid and FCP 2 back in the day and I've taught myself Premiere Pro, Grass Valley Aurora and even, if you can believe it, a Sony ES-3...editing skills translate to any system or application.

That said, I understand why companies who have invested in Xserve, XSAN, FCP, FCSvr and related hardware would feel abandoned and even betrayed. I understand Walter Biscardi's visceral reaction. (Well, it seems like a visceral reaction.)


----------



## keebler27

Ottawaman said:


> +
> YouTube Video
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ERROR: If you can see this, then YouTube is down or you don't have Flash installed.


lol wow. that's gotta hurt. 

oh to be a fly on the wall inside Cupertino HQ right now!

Pogue's article was interesting (thanks for posting SoyMac).

It will be interesting to see how long it takes for Apple to roll out the missing features.


----------



## broad

mguertin said:


> It'll either be exactly the same as the old one with darker windows, or it will be just like garage band. I don't think they've milked Logic for long enough and had enough complaints about it's performance yet, so I think it will just be dark windows and the same engine running things.


YouTube - ‪Logic Studio 2011 Release Version .mov‬‏

you see this?


----------



## Chealion

Really good response to Pogue's article offering some workarounds for issues:

My Response to David Pogue?s* ?Professional Video Editors Weigh In on Final Cut Pro X? *Updated* | Apple, Video, DSLR Video, Business, Personal | RichardHarringtonBlog

I am glad Biscardi has finally admitted he's been actively looking for a replacement for FCP. He's been very vocally frustrated/negative with it the past 6 months.



MacDoc said:


> ( note the X which lends some validity )


 No, it must not have anything to do with that fact it's using QuickTime X. (and AVFoundation)



mguertin said:


> I don't know a single editor that I've spoken to about this who's "jaw dropped" ... so I'm not sure who Apple showed it to and got that reaction ... iMovie users maybe?


I do know that many of the real time bits and performance improvements were huge hits at the Supermeet. At least until it became painfully apparent they were avoiding showing anything to do with the workflow and focusing on redesigned features. (eg. compound clip is a better nested sequence).

I'll leave my rant about Larry Jordan for another time...


----------



## Guest

broad said:


> YouTube - ‪Logic Studio 2011 Release Version .mov‬‏
> 
> you see this?


LOL maybe it was not that far off  The windows need to be darker though


----------



## Guest

Chealion said:


> I do know that many of the real time bits and performance improvements were huge hits at the Supermeet. At least until it became painfully apparent they were avoiding showing anything to do with the workflow and focusing on redesigned features. (eg. compound clip is a better nested sequence).
> 
> I'll leave my rant about Larry Jordan for another time...


The realtime performance bits are definitely welcomed but the big issue is that fact that you have to be able to have the software meet the requirements for the actual _editing_ before you can get to the nice bits. Of all the editing pro's that I know, I know of exactly ONE that is in a fully tapeless environment and he doesn't really like the new offering at all because he is (was) a big color user -- he even has a nice control surface that he paid a bundle for that is not going to do him much good going forward it seems.

It has potential but it's unfinished. In retrospect I think they should have said "This is something new and we're calling it ________." instead of keeping with the FCP name. Maybe one day it will replace the current offerings of final cut pro ... but I dunno to be honest. Apple is really big on leaving whatever it considers "legacy" behind.


----------



## Amiga2000HD

Apple's pulled all the copies of Final Cut Studio 3 from their store shelves yet, ironically, the demonstrator machines at Yorkdale still run it and not Final Cut X. Rumour has it on the internet is that Apple's been pushing independent retailers to ship unsold copies back. The ramifications of this are serious:

- Final Cut Studio 3 still works fine, if you have all the copies you need. However, if you need to expand your facilities, you're SOL because as of now, you can't buy any additional licenses. This has already turned into an issue at one company I work for where management was considering building an additional Final Cut edit suite. This is no longer possible unless an unsold copy of Final Cut Studio 3 can be found somewhere since there's a requirement of version parity (FCS 3 across the board) and workflow considerations (Colour is used for grading via roundtrip workflow and OMF is used to ship out work for audio post production).

- Anybody owning Final Cut Studio 2 or earlier that wasn't keen on FCS 3 as an upgrade and held out for what was expected to be Final Cut Studio 4 is now stuck if they can't use Final Cut X, which all of a sudden makes FCS 3 a more desirable upgrade since it'll probably be more Lion compatible than FCS 2 is and buy a bit more service life from existing products and workflows while migration to other non-linear packages is planned and budgeted for.

Lastly, the most serious issue I see from this mess is one that has hardly been discussed anywhere, if at all. Media Composer, ProTools, and Creative Suite are all cross platform products. You have a choice of using a Mac or a PC running WIndows 7 with those and since most Final Cut shops are going to have to retool around the other software now, how willing are the suits authorizing purchasing decisions going to be to keep purchasing Macs now that Apple's created this mess? Will they accept the risk that Apple could pull a similar stunt with the operating system or the hardware that dead-ends a fleet of expensive equipment prematurely vs. move over to the PC world? 

In effect, if I was to suggest building a Media Composer on Mac edit suite instead, would I suffer a credibility problem with the management that could be avoided if I suggested Media Composer on Windows 7? The Final Cut Pro X mess also impacts Apple's hardware and operating system sales since it brings into question the medium/long term viability of the Mac platform for professional use as a whole, and I think it is something that Apple should be concerned about.


----------



## keebler27

Amiga2000HD said:


> Apple's pulled all the copies of Final Cut Studio 3 from their store shelves yet, ironically, the demonstrator machines at Yorkdale still run it and not Final Cut X. Rumour has it on the internet is that Apple's been pushing independent retailers to ship unsold copies back. The ramifications of this are serious:
> 
> - Final Cut Studio 3 still works fine, if you have all the copies you need. However, if you need to expand your facilities, you're SOL because as of now, you can't buy any additional licenses. This has already turned into an issue at one company I work for where management was considering building an additional Final Cut edit suite. This is no longer possible unless an unsold copy of Final Cut Studio 3 can be found somewhere since there's a requirement of version parity (FCS 3 across the board) and workflow considerations (Colour is used for grading via roundtrip workflow and OMF is used to ship out work for audio post production).
> 
> - Anybody owning Final Cut Studio 2 or earlier that wasn't keen on FCS 3 as an upgrade and held out for what was expected to be Final Cut Studio 4 is now stuck if they can't use Final Cut X, which all of a sudden makes FCS 3 a more desirable upgrade since it'll probably be more Lion compatible than FCS 2 is and buy a bit more service life from existing products and workflows while migration to other non-linear packages is planned and budgeted for.
> 
> Lastly, the most serious issue I see from this mess is one that has hardly been discussed anywhere, if at all. Media Composer, ProTools, and Creative Suite are all cross platform products. You have a choice of using a Mac or a PC running WIndows 7 with those and since most Final Cut shops are going to have to retool around the other software now, how willing are the suits authorizing purchasing decisions going to be to keep purchasing Macs now that Apple's created this mess? Will they accept the risk that Apple could pull a similar stunt with the operating system or the hardware that dead-ends a fleet of expensive equipment prematurely vs. move over to the PC world?
> 
> In effect, if I was to suggest building a Media Composer on Mac edit suite instead, would I suffer a credibility problem with the management that could be avoided if I suggested Media Composer on Windows 7? The Final Cut Pro X mess also impacts Apple's hardware and operating system sales since it brings into question the medium/long term viability of the Mac platform for professional use as a whole, and I think it is something that Apple should be concerned about.


good points Amiga!

Although nothing official from Apple, but from David Pogue, it seems that Apple is aware of how serious this is.

I'm a one man shop and despite the issues with FCX, they don't affect me as much. I'm almost tempted to put my full retail copy of FCS3 up for sale. Almost. But it does work for me so I haven't bought FCX just yet. I was hoping for a reliable Compressor, but that sure seems like it hasn't happened either.

doh!


----------



## Dennis Nedry

[deleted]


----------



## jlcinc

Read this on the Ken Stone site. This is the first positive info I have read and it makes sense since this guy knows what he is talking about. Gives me hope.


http://www.kenstone.net/discussions/read.php?3,33816,33838#msg-33838


----------



## Ottawaman

> *I have no title for this*
> 
> 
> About this video:
> "I spent a few days using Final Cut Pro X. And I formed some opinions about it.


I have no title for this on Vimeo


----------



## Guest

Ottawaman said:


> I have no title for this on Vimeo


That was well done, I like it  Sums things up pretty well too.


----------



## SoyMac

I don't know if this will make the pros feel better or not, but here's Ryan Ritchey's take;

*In Defense of Final Cut Pro X*


----------



## Ottawaman

+
YouTube Video









ERROR: If you can see this, then YouTube is down or you don't have Flash installed.


----------



## Joker Eh

Ottawaman said:


> I have no title for this on Vimeo


It has been deleted apparently.


----------



## Ottawaman

Joker Eh said:


> It has been deleted apparently.


Found it on youtube.








+
YouTube Video









ERROR: If you can see this, then YouTube is down or you don't have Flash installed.


----------



## Guest

Ottawaman said:


> +
> YouTube Video
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ERROR: If you can see this, then YouTube is down or you don't have Flash installed.


:clap:


----------



## SoyMac

And now ...
Apple refunding those who purchased FCP X and don't like it.

_Please note: The link seems to be a bit flakey, and it took me a few refreshes before I got to see the web page._

From the story:
"Apple have been processing refunds for Final Cut Pro X as complaints flood in from grumpy pros – and it seems they are taking a lenient approach.

Although the iTunes / App Store terms and conditions state that ‘all sales are final’, when an application does not meet the expectations of a user, like in the case of a 59p iPhone game, Apple have been known to refund the purchase. Now it seems they are doing so with Final Cut Pro X to the tune of $299.

Here is an example of one such email a disappointed pro received from Apple:

'Moving forward, I understand that you are not satisfied with the app “Final Cut Pro”. I can certainly appreciate you would like a refund, and I would be more than happy to help you out with this today. In five to seven business days, a credit of £179.99 should be posted to the credit card that appears on the receipt for that purchase.

Please note that this is a one time exception because the iTunes Terms and Conditions state that all sales are final.'

It is not clear what happens to the activation of the FCPX license after the refund is handled, and whether the user can continue to use the software. FCPX is the first pro app to be offered exclusively as an electronic download."


----------



## Guest

SoyMac said:


> I don't know if this will make the pros feel better or not, but here's Ryan Ritchey's take;
> 
> *In Defense of Final Cut Pro X*


He makes good points ... had they called this iMovie Pro people wouldn't be in an uproar ... but .... they didn't. And to make matters worse they decided to pull FCP 7 from the shelves and tout this as a replacement for it, which it is not ... or at least not for a large portion of the market.

Apple made a seriously bad move on this one and it's going to take some strenuous back pedalling to mollify the pros that they pretty much abandoned with this move. The first step they could take is to put FCP 7 back up for sale. I honestly fear that if they don't do this they are going to lose some serious traction in the pro market. As other writers have pointed out there's a big problem right now for the pros that rely on FCP in their workflow ... if they want/need to setup a new editing workstation setup today (and they don't already have a site license for FCP 7) they have no choices from Apple that they can buy that will work for them. They need to rectify this ASAP or the pro's will abandon in droves and likely not come back. No one in this market is going to want to invest in new software (and possibly hardware to work with it) for a temporary move. I bet the people behind the Avid and Adobe editing suites are rubbing their hands together in anticipation of all the pro market users that will be moving to their platforms because of this.

This is probably the worst single move Apple has made in regards to the pro market in the last decade (if not ever).


----------



## keebler27

i see that Apple started to refund FCX for unhappy customers.

I wonder if they'll rethink the pull of FCS3 as well. The refund move seems to appear they might be cluing into the issues. 

I hope they offer a trial for FCX b/c for my needs, it might work and some of the new rendering changes might save me time.

but i'm not buying for a long time...that's for sure!


----------



## Guest

With luck with will continue to sell the FCP 7 suite again.

I'd love to see a demo of FCPX. Would like to try it to see how it runs but unwilling to shell out $300 to do so as I know I can't use it for my paying gigs as I have to be able to both capture from tape (properly, not blindly) and to be able to exchange XML files with my client.


----------



## Chealion

mguertin said:


> With luck with will continue to sell the FCP 7 suite again.
> 
> I'd love to see a demo of FCPX. Would like to try it to see how it runs but unwilling to shell out $300 to do so as I know I can't use it for my paying gigs as I have to be able to both capture from tape (properly, not blindly) and to be able to exchange XML files with my client.


Rumour has it they just might be as soon as tomorrow. At our local FCPUG meet up there was a quick run through of the program. It's very different and everyone is very much in agreement that if Apple hadn't called it Final Cut Pro and stopped sales of FCP 7 they'd be more excited and interested about the product and the direction.

That said Apple *just* posted a FAQ on many of the questions that have come out.

Apple - Final Cut Pro X - Answers to common questions.

The Coles Notes:

FCP 7 will work on Lion

And you're not really going to be super excited...

Apple - Final Cut Pro X - Answers to common questions.

Postive things to note:

Final Cut Pro 7 works on Lion
Multicam confirmed for next major release
XML exporting is coming... sometime (and with that 3rd parties can make EDL, OMF and other tools)
It will be possible to assign audio tracks later this summer
Volume Licensing will be available (already known)

They're still in denial about FCP 7 projects. I don't see this stance changing until the next release.
OMF/AAF export is Automatic Duck only right now. Ugh.
R3D files? What are those. You need to transcode still.
No real built-in tape control - they want you to use AJA/Blackmagic's programs to input and output to tape.
No word on importing XML.

----

Suffice to say FCP X 1.0 isn't ever going to be "professional" ready (namely TV/Film pros). I'm hoping for 2.0 but I suspect it won't be until 3.0.


----------



## MacDoc

> *Apple on Wednesday posted a list of frequently asked questions on its website to address growing concern among video professionals over the newly released Final Cut Pro X.*
> 
> *Among the details, Apple reveals that the ability to import projects from Final Cut Pro 7 into the new Final Cut Pro X is not coming.*The company explained that drastic changes to Final Cut Pro X make it impossible to "translate" old projects without changing or losing data.


what were they thinking.....XX)


----------



## Guest

They weren't thinking, that's the problem. It sounds like some marketing monkey somehow got control of this whole final cut pro replacement project and ran with it unchecked. I'm worried that it will be too little too late for Apple in this market with a move like this. The pros don't want re-inventing the wheel ... they are happy with traditional timelines and managing their own bins and scratch and rendering locations. What the pros needed was fixups to the background rendering, the ability to use multi-cores and fixes to things like the gamma shift problems inherent to the two different quicktime engines. What we got was iMovie Pro.

Apple has basically laid down their cards now and we can pretty much guarantee that it will be _years_ before Apple has a pro offering in this area that can do what FCP7 did -- if they ever do again -- they really do seem to be in denial with a lot of this stuff. How can they even consider calling this Final Cut pro and it not having the ability to open FCP 7 (or previous) projects?


----------



## i-rui

no old projects from previous versions? wow. that is mind blowingly stupid.

apple needs to bring back fcp7 ASAP, and change the name on this new program. i'm shocked at how clueless they are acting right now.


----------



## Guest

i-rui said:


> no old projects from previous versions? wow. that is mind blowingly stupid.
> 
> apple needs to bring back fcp7 ASAP, and change the name on this new program. i'm shocked at how clueless they are acting right now.


It is a bit mind blogging, isn't it? I have never seen Apple drop the ball as badly as they have here, and that's an especially bad thing to do with the pro market.

After reading the FAQ it seems like Apple are going to just dump the responsibility of making all the important pieces for people's workflows onto third parties using their new (as of yet unpublished) API ... which is a bad way to go once again. No one wants to have to buy an app and then 10 third party add-ons that may or may not keep working as things get updated, etc. ... most especially when all the third party add-ons are going to cost way more than the app itself.


----------



## hayesk

mguertin said:


> It sounds like some marketing monkey somehow got control of this whole final cut pro replacement project and ran with it unchecked.


You do know who Randy Ubillos (sp?) is, right?



> After reading the FAQ it seems like Apple are going to just dump the responsibility of making all the important pieces for people's workflows onto third parties using their new (as of yet unpublished) API ... which is a bad way to go once again. No one wants to have to buy an app and then 10 third party add-ons that may or may not keep working as things get updated, etc. ... most especially when all the third party add-ons are going to cost way more than the app itself.


So, what is wrong with the Automatic Duck method of converting FCP7 to FCX projects? Does it not work well? If so, maybe that's why Apple doesn't want to do it. Maybe they can't make it work well either.

I think Apple wants to offload a lot to plugins because I think there are many different kinds of workflows out there, and Apple doesn't want a big bloated, monolithic app to try and do everything for everyone. Jack-of-all-trades type apps tend to do everything ok, but nothing exceptionally well. Apple wants the editing part to work exceptionally well, so they're focusing on that. The workflows to get the data in and out of the app are being left to third parties because they can offer more specialized work flows to the portion of editors that need it. If I never have to deal with tapes, why do I want Apple to spend developer resources on tape import? Let a third party deal with that - then the tape editors can give them their money.

I don't see the problem of having to buy several plugins. All professionals have more than one tool. Plugins are just another tool. Buy what you need, don't buy what you don't.


----------



## Guest

The problem with offloading all the plugins to third parties is that there will no longer be any sort of lockstep with the app. Apple releases an update, potentially breaking all the third party plugins, you have to wait until they catch up and test all their products, push their updates, and have to potentially pay for newer versions. While it's welcome to see the price drop in the application and I understand them trying to streamline the app it ends up making things worse for the end users. Avid was much the same way, if you wanted to do something you needed to add all kinds of plugins and the issue is that a lot of those companies did one-off dev jobs on them so they don't end up getting fixed on new releases and/or they decide that they needed to hire devs to do it again and make it a paid upgrade. This makes things a nightmare for the people that manage the hardware/software. It's no longer a simple update for things, it's a lot of testing and potentially spending a lot more money just to have the latest fixes. It's a slippery slope to take and doesn't feel very "Apple" at all. One of the things that FCP had going for it was the ability to easily update to the newest versions without worry of breaking compatibility with your workflows and hardware solutions.

As for converting FCP7 projects to FCPX projects that's not what is happening with what I've read ... they are converting all of the clips -- not the projects. You will have to reconstruct all of the projects in the new app and just have the "edited" clips to work from. That excludes any/all automation you may have done (unless they are all "burned" into the new clips, and then going back and tweaking anything would be impossible).

How many applications out there that are considered updates or upgrades do you know of that cannot open previous versions of the same app's files? FCPX is one of the only ones I can think of ... and it's not like this is something simple like a text document with formatting ... some of these projects can be insanely complicated and not easy to recreate.

I stand by my opinion that Apple dropped the ball HUGE on this one. It will be years before a lot of the pro market updates to FCPX, if they do it at all. They are all clutching their FCP7 licenses like they were gold at the moment and probably scrambling to buy up unused copies wherever they can because they have had the whole application suite pulled from underneath them without a proper replacement for their needs. Had Apple waited another year to let FCPX catch up and add the missing features and allow third party devs to release tools to take over for what the new app couldn't do before they pulled FCP7 from the shelves it might have been a different story.


----------



## Amiga2000HD

mguertin said:


> The problem with offloading all the plugins to third parties is that there will no longer be any sort of lockstep with the app. Apple releases an update, potentially breaking all the third party plugins, you have to wait until they catch up and test all their products, push their updates, and have to potentially pay for newer versions.


Add to this changes in the version of Mac OS and then multiply that by however many edit suites you're responsible for - especially if your facility was built over several years and includes different hardware revisions of Mac Pro and MacBook Pro computers - and you end up with a big headache with keeping the whole assortment of plugins you need to do your work working everywhere in a compatible manner. Deploying one package, Final Cut Studio, was better.

There is something that keeps coming up on the Macrumors forums and elsewhere that nobody seems to have really addressed yet that I think I should speak about. The whole "it's a 1.0 release" argument that many people keep bringing up is a total red herring. Final Cut appeared in 1999. Since then it's grown considerably from the 1.0 release twelve years ago as has the entire non-linear video editing industry as a whole. It is unacceptable in any working professional environment for any vendor to arbitrarily force the clock back 12 years to 1999 and leave everybody depending on advances made over the last decade-plus to swing in the breeze while they catch up to where their own product used to be as of three weeks ago. Final Cut X may be a new "1.0" build of software but one that needed to pick up where the old Final Cut left off at version 7. The problem was that it didn't and Apple made the assumption that everybody out there can go back to working with a 1999 set of functionality all over again. A lot of people don't seem to understand that starting from scratch is not OK when the result is not a direct replacement for the previous, discontinued product.




mguertin said:


> I stand by my opinion that Apple dropped the ball HUGE on this one. It will be years before a lot of the pro market updates to FCPX, if they do it at all. They are all clutching their FCP7 licenses like they were gold at the moment and probably scrambling to buy up unused copies wherever they can because they have had the whole application suite pulled from underneath them without a proper replacement for their needs. Had Apple waited another year to let FCPX catch up and add the missing features and allow third party devs to release tools to take over for what the new app couldn't do before they pulled FCP7 from the shelves it might have been a different story.


Agreed. Apple created the perfect storm here between releasing Final Cut Pro X as is, discontinuing a good number of the applications in the suite, withdrawing Final Cut Studio 3, and discontinuing Final Cut Server in one go. Nevermind individual edit suites here and there - anybody running a fleet of edit suites combined with some Apple infrastructure like some Final Cut Server installations running on XServes (discontinued in January) is now completely hamstrung. Expansion's out of the question because the discontinuations. Lifecycle replacement's also out of the question except for editing systems if you can live with Final Cut X.

Three weeks ago, Apple had a comprehensive set of software for sale (Final Cut Studio 3, Final Cut Server) that admittedly was aging. But the limitations and maintenance issues were well known as were the workflows, and there was excellent third party support. Now all you have is an editing application of debatable usefulness and a lot of very unhappy customers sitting on orphaned systems and infrastructure who are wondering how long they can run as-is and how to modify expansion or lifecycle replacement plans that can no longer depend on Final Cut Studio and/or Final Cut Server.

Ron Brinkmann's blog has an excellent article, X-vs-Pro, about the Final Cut X situation. I think he comes to a similar conclusion that I did about the whole Apple ecosystem being placed into question now in terms of being beholden to one company that doesn't really depend on you as a customer. Any kind of business that is dependent on the continued availability and viability of Apple products is probably seriously questioning whether this is a good idea because Apple might decide that the next product they should "improve" is something they use.

It's unfortunate because I think a lot of the underlying technologies that Apple's been building into Mac OS for a while now would be of significant benefit in many professional sectors except nobody's going to want to hitch their wagon to this horse and have to depend on it to keep pulling reliably. No sane business would depend on that, not after seeing how Apple totally upended the entire Final Cut ecosystem, knowing that there's not the faintest guarantee that Apple won't do the same in a different line of business (eg. anybody that depends on expansion cards of any kind is totally at the mercy of Apple not discontinuing Mac Pros). Other industries are probably looking at Apple right now and contemplating whether or not they want to all of a sudden find themselves in the same position that the Final Cut guys are. That's why I think when the dust settles from this, the implications for the professional market may be wider than just the Final Cut side of the non-linear video editing business.


----------



## Guest

Amiga2000HD said:


> Ron Brinkmann's blog has an excellent article, X-vs-Pro, about the Final Cut X situation. I think he comes to a similar conclusion that I did about the whole Apple ecosystem being placed into question now in terms of being beholden to one company that doesn't really depend on you as a customer. Any kind of business that is dependent on the continued availability and viability of Apple products is probably seriously questioning whether this is a good idea because Apple might decide that the next product they should "improve" is something they use.


He does make some good points and when you step back a few steps to take a look at the even larger picture of the pro market it's getting a bit scary. At one point it did make sense for Apple to cater to the pro market. It was a smaller but profitable and important market for them to cater to, but with the advent of iOS and all the devices that run on it and the huge push into portable computing and all the sales related to it the pro market is a very small part of the big picture now when it comes to the money (and it's all about the money, right?)

I honestly do fear for the pro's in the Apple ecosystem. The last nail in the coffin is the Mac Pro ... if they ever pull it from their lineup, eeek. As much as people say they love iMacs the Apple pro market really cannot survive on them. The education market has taken a lot of similar hits as far as losing Apple's attention, but at least the education market mostly _can_ run on portables and iMacs and doesn't rely on any "pro" software offerings from Apple.


----------



## MacDoc

Amiga....great post :clap:

I'm dreading the fall out here....we have a lot of multi-suite vid clients many who are expanding and also due for upgrades of gear.
Dreading Lion was bad enough.....having this Final Cut debacle is really worrying.

I cannot supply them even current suites with FCP 7 

So who is going to weigh in here on an Avid solution?? seems the door is open.

••

Mark - a lot of the pros are moving to laptop based editing - the machines are certainly good enough tho there is still a need for the towers.
With TBolt that reduces the tower dependency for speed.

I really think the limitation is in the GPU - not gonna stuff a big gun into a lappie - but then GPU with Apple is a reluctant after-thought. XX)


----------



## jellotor

I went on vacation for five days, drank some beer and sat by the water in Craigleith, came home and checked all the usual suspects (LAFCPUG, Creative Cow, here) and was surprised to hear that the song remains the same, at least from Apple's perspective.

Most people still don't like FCPX it seems (or the people who don't like it are drowning out those who do) and Apple apparently is still giving the middle finger to editors everywhere with their FCPX FAQ.

My perspective is this: I've never been as big of an evangelist for Apple/FCP as others (although I trained on FCP 2 at college) but I can see the end of the road. Lots of people can.

Many people have suffered with higher hardware costs over the years from Apple due to a built-in professional software component, and it's always worked well for the price. After training on Media Composer and moving to FCP, it was a revelation in terms of flexibility: there were multiple ways of doing a single thing, and that was refreshing. FCP could run on a 13" screen all the way up to dual or triple displays. Support for I/O cards was probably less robust in the early days but was slick on FCP7. I rarely, if ever, had a problem with my Kona LHe card and FCP7. (I'll give AJA credit for that, however!)

If there isn't a robust set of professional software, I personally don't have much of a reason to re-invest in expensive Apple hardware. I will be gradually switching to MC or PPro over the coming year or so, mothballing the FCP7 system so that I can access my old projects. Perhaps if I run MC or PPro on a Windows system it won't be as stable as on a Mac Pro, but we'll see.

In the end, this is the way that it HAS to be. Apple, Steve Jobs or not, makes its own way in the world regardless of what its users or customers thinks. Its shareholders (so far) have been cool with that. AVID and Adobe aren't going anywhere anytime soon in terms of higher end software and the future may bring Mac editing software that fills the gap left by FCP7's demise.

Whatever.

Professional editors can't rely on one company, especially one so monolithic and controlling as Apple, to provide hardware and software and therefore maintain so much control over livelihoods. Months from now, everyone will have moved on to the platform of their choice and there will only be memories of FCP.

Personally, the only software I'll be likely to buy from Apple going forward is Motion, until they kill that too.

MacDoc, what's your sense of Premiere Pro CS5.5? I've got it running ok on my MacPro1,1 and it's been fine. I hate the look of the UI, but it's better than iMovie. I seem to be having some issues with the new AJA Kona drivers/plugins/presets for it, but it seems to run quickly on an older Mac Pro. It looks like the immediate "successor" to FCP7, but if AJA/AVID comes out with Kona drivers for MC that's (hopefully) the way I'm going to go.


----------



## Guest

MacDoc said:


> Mark - a lot of the pros are moving to laptop based editing - the machines are certainly good enough tho there is still a need for the towers.
> With TBolt that reduces the tower dependency for speed.
> 
> I really think the limitation is in the GPU - not gonna stuff a big gun into a lappie - but then GPU with Apple is a reluctant after-thought. XX)


I'm still skeptical about the thunderbolt solution ... until we start seeing the hardware hit the streets anyway. At this point it's mostly theory. Yes we've seen some stuff demonstrated that was insanely fast ... but when does it go up for sale? What's the bottom line on the pricing of it all? That can make or break a new technology.

With FCPX the GPU would be an even bigger limitation as it relies on it so much, yet another reason why editors would want to be editing on bigger guns than what you get in your laptop. I know that they are willing to do some editing on portable these days, but will everyone be happy to move away from the mac pro rigs? Editing on portables only works in certain specific situations.


----------



## Chealion

Amiga2000HD said:


> The whole "it's a 1.0 release" argument that many people keep bringing up is a total red herring. Final Cut appeared in 1999. Since then it's grown considerably from the 1.0 release twelve years ago as has the entire non-linear video editing industry as a whole. It is unacceptable in any working professional environment for any vendor to arbitrarily force the clock back 12 years to 1999 and leave everybody depending on advances made over the last decade-plus to swing in the breeze while they catch up to where their own product used to be as of three weeks ago.


I disagree. It is a 1.0 release and it's pretty freaking awesome for NEW PRODUCT 1.0, it's not as feature filled as others but it looks very, very promising. Calling it Final Cut Pro and killing off 7 to say this not quite there 1.0 product is a replacement? That's the mistake. The company I work for doesn't have 3 years to wait for FCP X to get good enough along with a laundry list of 3rd party apps I'll need to do things they won't do in FCP X (eg. real tape input/output)



mguertin said:


> ...but with the advent of iOS and all the devices that run on it and the huge push into portable computing and all the sales related to it the pro market is a very small part of the big picture now when it comes to the money...


I still think this is a red herring - Apple and their Pro Apps team do care and that the release of FCP X is a very obvious misstep. They've stated they're making the app for the next 10 years of video editing - which would be a lot easier to accept if they had a transition or even told us an actual roadmap (like that would ever happen) of when it moves from being a toy to a tool.



MacDoc said:


> Mark - a lot of the pros are moving to laptop based editing - the machines are certainly good enough tho there is still a need for the towers.
> With TBolt that reduces the tower dependency for speed.


I'm really waiting to see the price and shipping versions of the Thunderbolt devices from AJA, Blackmagic and Matrox.

-----

Both Adobe and Avid have large discounts; Adobe has 50% off Production Premium with the code SWITCH, while Avid is still selling Media Composer 5.5 at $995 instead of $2495.


----------



## Guest

Chealion said:


> I still think this is a red herring - Apple and their Pro Apps team do care and that the release of FCP X is a very obvious misstep. They've stated they're making the app for the next 10 years of video editing - which would be a lot easier to accept if they had a transition or even told us an actual roadmap (like that would ever happen) of when it moves from being a toy to a tool.


I'm not saying that they don't care ... I'm saying that the pro market no longer drives Apple's decisions like it used to because it's a very very small piece of the pie that is Apple's quarterly sales. They used to really cater to the pro users, now they still do things for them but they do not _cater_ to them, they kind of toss the stuff out there and say "this is what you get right now, later there may be more." -- or at least that's what they've done here.

This move was a shocker. We all knew that a new FCP release was coming, but we didn't know that it would also immediately EOL Final Cut Server and the whole Final Cut Pro suite. At least when they decided to EOL the XServe they gave everyone fair warning. This time around it was all gone before we knew what hit us ... within days of the new release they pulled the plug on their whole pro video lineup.

As I said before if Apple at least puts the FCP suite back on sale then it will mollify those that can't do their work in FCPX and will buy some time for 3rd parties to release plugins and add-ons that will fill the (big) gaps.


----------



## kps

I'm a rank amateur when it comes to FCP, but I'm so p*ssed that I bought FCP Studio last June for $1200. 

I can't remember how many times this has happened to me with Apple and some others too. People complain about MS, but I feel Apple is no better, if not worst. The money it cost me to go from OS 9 to OS X in terms of software and then again going from PPC to Intel.

I could have probably stopped contributing to my RRSPs if I invested that money elsewhere....but I wouldn't have had as much fun.:lmao:


----------



## Chealion

mguertin said:


> I'm not saying that they don't care ... I'm saying that the pro market no longer drives Apple's decisions like it used to because it's a very very small piece of the pie that is Apple's quarterly sales. They used to really cater to the pro users, now they still do things for them but they do not _cater_ to them, they kind of toss the stuff out there and say "this is what you get right now, later there may be more." -- or at least that's what they've done here.


Along with this from a former member of the FCP team ( Why Apple built Final Cut Pro X - Sachin's Posterous ) I stand corrected.


----------



## groovetube

Interesting link, it says pretty much what I have thought about apple and it's perspective on pros in general in regards to it's software. I don't doubt apple will continue to be a great platform to do pro work -on-, but there's other software out there surely now that the Mac platform has grown such that there is so much to choose from. Though I'm afraid what might happen to logic after seeing what has gone down with fcp. But truthfully, the vast majority of musicians I know, far bigger numbers than actual recording pros, love garage band and logic express because they aren't about becoming serious recording pros, they are interested in writing songs and producing demos etc with as little getting in the way of that artistic process as possible.

And that's what apple, does best. And btw, GarageBand on the iPad? Holy eff.


----------



## Guest

Yep that lines up with my thoughts on the whole thing too. Great platform, pro apps ... hard to say where they are going. They are a lot of work and don't return a lot of money, especially with Apple going for the "more at cheaper is better" approach with the Mac App store. Luckily in the DAW world there are a lot of good choices at reasonable prices. The video world not as much ... FCP caused a real turn around in that world.

As I said, let's hope they hold up with the pro line of hardware though ... that's the other key thing in the pro world. Yes portables are becoming acceptable for a lot of things, but certain things just really need the "trucks" and since Apple doesn't license their OS out they really need the Apple branded "trucks".


----------



## groovetube

well if they don't, te content creators, developers, etc. will go to another platform. My guess, windows, since m$ seems to be getting it's act together as they go with win7, and we'll see where win8 goes.

But apple couldn't make a colossal blunder like this.


----------



## screature

*Hitler hates FCP X*

This is freakin' hilarious... Warning adult language.





+
YouTube Video









ERROR: If you can see this, then YouTube is down or you don't have Flash installed.


----------



## Joker Eh

:clap::clap::lmao::lmao:


----------



## Garry

I used the new final cut for about 9 hours yesterday and I can't say I hate it as much as other people. I've been editing for about 30 years, and have used final cut since version 1. The interface takes some getting used to, but I could bang off a simple corporate video with a minimum muss and fuss.

But that was a corporate video.. I couldn't see editing something that would make someone actual money.. actual serious projects like a feature/documentary film or a commercial or a news story or a trailer with it.

For someone that shoots wedding videos or their kids birthday parties or corporate stuff it might make them feel like a pro, but for actual pros working in TV Stations and film... they should stick to final cut pro 7.


----------



## broad

screature said:


> This is freakin' hilarious... Warning adult language.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> +
> YouTube Video
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ERROR: If you can see this, then YouTube is down or you don't have Flash installed.


HAHAHA that one rules. i think my favourite is still the "hitler learns about dany heatley refusing a trade to edmonton"


----------



## screature

broad said:


> HAHAHA that one rules. i think my favourite is still the* "hitler learns about dany heatley refusing a trade to edmonton"*


Hadn't seen that one before... just watched it... that was great as well. :lmao:


----------



## SoyMac

*Former Avid employee gives his opinion about FCP X*

This looks to be a pretty honest assessment, by Mike Bernardo, of what Apple is doing with FCP X.
Mike doesn't dislike Avid, he simply moved on to start his own company.

The interview is short, only 4 questions, and is an easy and compelling read. with some insight into Avid as well as Apple:

A Former Avid Employee’s Thoughts On FCPX: “Even though the FCPX rollout seemingly exposes Apple’s hubris, I’m glad they did it.”


----------



## hayesk

Garry said:


> But that was a corporate video.. I couldn't see editing something that would make someone actual money.. actual serious projects like a feature/documentary film or a commercial or a news story or a trailer with it.


Why? I don't doubt what you are saying, but other than the missing features (a temporary problem) I haven't read anything about why the new UI is not suitable for professional work.

IMHO, Apple needs to get some pros to edit a film or news story with FCPX quickly and publish several articles highlighting that yes, you can indeed do pro level work with FCPX.


----------



## screature

hayesk said:


> Why? I don't doubt what you are saying, but other than the missing features (a temporary problem) I haven't read anything about why the new UI is not suitable for professional work.
> 
> IMHO, *Apple needs to get some pros to edit a film or news story with FCPX quickly and publish several articles highlighting that yes, you can indeed do pro level work with FCPX.*


I wonder what Pixar is using these days.....


----------



## MannyP Design

screature said:


> I wonder what Pixar is using these days.....


From what I've read in interviews, they seem to lean on Avid.

EDIT: Found a job posting…*seems they focus on heavily on Avid, but also use FCP (pre-viz?): Pixar Jobs - Current Openings


----------



## MannyP Design

hayesk said:


> Why? I don't doubt what you are saying, but other than the missing features (a temporary problem) I haven't read anything about why the new UI is not suitable for professional work.
> 
> IMHO, Apple needs to get some pros to edit a film or news story with FCPX quickly and publish several articles highlighting that yes, you can indeed do pro level work with FCPX.


Seems to me that if something is good enough, you don't need to pay for endorsements. With Final Cut Studio, professionals were quite vocal about what they using.


----------



## MacDoc

> I used the new final cut for about 9 hours yesterday and I can't say I hate it as much as other people. I've been editing for about 30 years, and have used final cut since version 1. The interface takes some getting used to, but I could bang off a simple corporate video with a minimum muss and fuss.


we got some hands on with our associate video editor who actually does this for a living ( just edited his first feature ) and we decided to do a two- fer

see if a new quad core i7 was worth going to from his 2.66 i7 twin core.

He wanted to play with X as well so we spent a half hour seeing how the processing threads played out and the video card helped.

Qualified approval on both X and the new architecture.
X did do some things in real time he could not do before and in some cases we had all 8 processing threads going wide open.....but it was a mixed bag on that front.

No way on earth would he switch but at the same time it had some additions he liked and some ease of use.

The new machine pulled off real time that he could not on the previous gen - how much video card, how much processor....hard to tell.

Bottom line he took home the 2.2 and will let me know this week if it's going to stick over the 2.66.

IF we see TBolt video edit drives sooner than later it's ideal for his situation so that's a positive - high bandwidth access without going to the 17" cardbus route.

This seems a positioning face plant by Apple.

A worthy successor to Final Cut Express and had they left Pro 7 in place and available at the higher price point then likely no storm.

Those that wanted and liked the interface and low price of X could build workflows and those established on 7 could expand stations.

Now it's a bloody mess.


----------



## kps

This landed in my inbox today. Years ago I had some of their early software and they stayed in touch...LOL

Special message (and pricing) for FCP users.

Media Composer: Committed to the Craft


----------



## MacDoc

Interesting that if you snag Final Cut X you can get Media Composer for $995 ...clever move.


----------



## SoyMac

*Some movement from Apple ...*

*Event reveals that Apple is working on allowing existing Final Cut Pro 7 enterprise deployments to purchase additional FCP 7 licenses*

"Apple held a private Final Cut Pro X (FCP X) briefing for enterprise contracts in London on July 6th. One first hand report has been posted to the internet detailing what Apple discussed during the event. Alex4d summarizes tweets by @aPostEngineer which reveals the following points:
1. FCP XML in/out is coming via 3rd party soon…no FCP 6/7 support project support coming ever it seems… 
2. Ability to buy FCP7 licenses for enterprise deployments coming in the next few weeks… 
3. FCPX EDL import/export coming soon… 
4. FCPX AJA plugins coming soon for tape capture and layback…capture straight into FCPX [events]. 
5. XSAN support for FCPX coming in the next few weeks… 
6. FCPX Broadcast video output via #Blackmagic & @AJAVideo coming soon… 
7. Additional codec support for FCPX via 3rd Parties coming soon… 
8. Customizable sequence TC in FCPX for master exports coming soon… 
9. Some FCPX updates will be free some will cost… "

Please See Full Article Here


----------



## Guest

Good for the enterprise deployment customers (maybe), too bad for everyone else. All this third party support for core features is a big miss from where I see things. FCPX may be only $300 but by the time you shell out for all the 3rd party stuff to do what you could do with FCP7 it's not going to be cost effective any longer and it's going to be a complete nightmare to support. Apple has dug themselves a big hole with the pro video market and it's unlikely they will ever recover if it continues the way it's going right now.

The people at Avid must be partying like it's 1999 (again)


----------



## Guest

macdoc said:


> interesting that if you snag final cut x you can get media composer for $995 ...clever move.


+1


----------



## Chealion

MacDoc said:


> Interesting that if you snag Final Cut X you can get Media Composer for $995 ...clever move.


FWIW it's been available for that price since NAB. It was discontinued on June 17th but then brought back.


----------



## Guest

Chealion said:


> FWIW it's been available for that price since NAB. It was discontinued on June 17th but then brought back.


The price listed on their web store is $2,295.00 – $2,469.95 (if you don't click through the link saying that you have FCPX).


----------



## Chealion

mguertin said:


> The price listed on their web store is $2,295.00 – $2,469.95 (if you don't click through the link saying that you have FCPX).


Before FCP X came out you just had to say you had FCP 7.


----------



## MacDoc

After Final Cut Pro debacle, does Apple still care about creative pros?

good article


----------



## jellotor

Well, it's been a few weeks and a few more developments on the periphery of FCPX.

Avid MC6 will supposedly be 64 bit and arrives in April 2012 and is rumoured to have support for AJA, Blackmagic and Matrox cards.

Adobe & Avid promo pricing continues.

Has anyone made a decision on what to switch to (if you're switching at all) yet?

I've test-driven Premiere Pro CS5.5 and I like it, but I've hit a roadblock with compatibility issues between my first gen Mac Pro, the software and the Kona LHe card.

Rumours also abound that Avid MC5.5 will support AJA cards...if that happens, Avid gets my money, whether it's MC5.5 or MC6.

I sampled the demo version of Media100, sniffed, and uninstalled it. Maybe if I have more free time on my hands in the late fall.

For now any work is going to continue on FCP7...until I decide whether it's in my best interest to upgrade my Mac Pro or ditch Apple altogether.

Which route are the rest of you editors planning to take?


----------



## Guest

I will probably nurse along my current FCP install for as long as I can before I have to switch ... which will hopefully be for a long while yet. I was soooo looking forward to having a setup without all the gamma issues but alas i don't think it will be for a while yet sadly.


----------



## jlcinc

Final cut pro X upgrade and free 30 day trial. Well this is interesting. 

Apple - Final Cut Pro X - Trial

John


----------



## jellotor

I downloaded it yesterday, haven't installed or tried it yet.

I read on Larry Jordan's blog that there is a "raging debate" at Apple about persistent edit points. That had to be read to be freakin' believed. I haven't tried FCPX yet...but more than a lack of viewer, "keywords" replacing bins, magnetic timelines, storylines, lack of baseband video out, XML in/out and general worries about a thousand bugs and resultant work-arounds, the lack of persistent edit points runs counter to what I percieve a non-linear editing to be.

In a way, even the cruddy, antiquated Sony PVE-500s that I use at work have "persistent" edit points in the form of a quasi-EDL that is generated but never accessed.


----------



## Guest

Supposedly with the new update (which was released or supposed to be released at the same time as the demo) XML import/export are available now. There was some sort of generic statement something like "we listened to what everyone had to say and this update should give everyone what they thought was missing" ... except it doesn't. I really wonder who they are talking about when they say "everyone" ... is that the prosumer crowd or the professional market. I'm guess prosumer because there's no way that this first .1 update has delivered everything the professional market wanted (back).

When I have some time I'm going to download the trial -- but I'm extremely skeptical. I absolutely HATE the magnetic timeline stuff and the horizontal+vertical scrubbing stuff from iMovie so somehow I think I'm already doomed to dislike the new interface.


----------



## Guest

Apple - Final Cut Pro X - Software Update



> Coming in early 2012
> 
> Multicam Editing
> Broadcast-Quality Video Monitoring


Should be more like "coming BACK" -- it's amazing how they can rip all kinds of stuff out of a product and then advertise things as new features all over again. I really don't know how they can claim to have a professional video editing application that does NOT support multicam editing and does NOT have proper video monitoring support.


----------



## keebler27

I dloaded it today. I'll give it a whirl later tonight or tomorrow when I work on a new project.
I'm interested to see if i'll save any time working on projects. my editing requirements are basic in nature so we'll see.


----------



## media_jedi

Well the free trial will at least give me reason to give Final Cut X a try, but maybe I'm just getting to old in the tooth to learn new things


----------



## SoyMac

I started with FCP2 and have used FCP extensively, through the FCP Suite I bought for close to 2 grand.

I found FCP getting too big and heavy for my needs, and I bought FCExpress. Express was okay, but still kludgy, like FCP.

The new iMovie came out. I still can't get that to work. 
At all.

I downloaded the free trial of FCP X, and started using it a few days ago.

My impression of FCP X:

*Fantastic*.
*Wow*.
This is *EXACTLY* what I've been waiting for in a video editing software. So amazingly intuitive. 
*FINALLY*.
(Can you tell by the fonts, that I'm excited?!)

I'm barely pro, and don't have heavy workloads, so I am not commenting from a power user's perspective, but I have to say that for me, FCP X is the *one*.
I am editing quickly, creatively, intuitively, and I have not yet cracked the Help guide.

With FCP X, I see me getting back in to editing in a big way.


----------



## CubaMark

*Crumplepop Final Cut Pro X SplitScreen*



> Crumplepop is one of the very first to release plug-ins for Final Cut Pro X. The first one I tested is their SplitScreen X plug-in, which gives Final Cut Pro X users the ability to show different clips in one screen.
> 
> SplitScreen X is available in a free version, which then has some 4 screen settings to choose from. However, if you pay the low price Crumplepop is asking, you’ll get some three dozen settings to choose from, making more exciting combinations a possibility.


(IT-Enquirer)


----------



## MacDoc

SoyMac you are the exact user FCX is designed for.

ProSumer.....unfortunately the video pros don't like it. - or it is insufficient for them.
It's insulting of Apple to offer it as a replacement.

But glad you enjoy it - our video edit staff liked some things.


----------



## SINC

Why the video pros are moving away from Apple


----------



## jellotor

I read with interest on Creative COW about Bunim/Murray's switch to AVID, and all for very good and unemotional reasons.

FCPX lacks the evangelists that FCP had when it was "growing up." I mean, there are early adopter types who are happy to explain their experiences, the shortcomings and what they like and dislike about FCPX. Ten years or so ago Walter Murch was editing Cold Mountain on FCP, and there's been no mention of anything of that scope being attempted on FCPX...yet.

Murch himself seems to be a bit cagey on the subject of whether FCPX is right for him.

You'd like to think that a company like Bunim/Murray, an editing factory, would appreciate the keywording/metadata capabilities of FCPX and would make a great evangelist for the app. But they clearly can't see a way to shoehorn FCPX into their workflow, and that's a shame. For Apple.

Apple seems to have dismissed the feedback from many "pro" editors as part of either a grand strategy or an equally grand screwup and they've only got themselves to blame. If they even care, which is probably the core question that has every "Pro App" user scratching their head.

This whole curious and entertaining debacle proves one thing: editors should be platform agnostic.


----------



## broad

man a lot of logic users are quaking in fear right now...


----------



## groovetube

any word on logic, if it's being 'pro-sumered' as well?


----------



## Guest

If I was a Logic user I'd be worried too. Apple won't give any official word on anything, they don't do that any longer. One day you will wake up and your app will no longer be supported, that's the way things roll over there now.

6 months after the FCPX release and it's still floundering. Still no backwards compatibility, still no pro features coming back into the pipeline. I don't know a single pro shop that's migrated to FCPX. Avid is laughing all the way to the bank.


----------



## groovetube

hmm. pro tools, here I come.


----------



## steviewhy

sudo rm -rf /


----------



## keebler27

being faithful has hurt me! lol

I didn't buy the premiere Pro CS package when it was on sale if you switched from a competitor.

I had faith.

(slap me now!)

While I really like some of the changes in FCX, basic features such as chapter markers not going from the timeline through to Compressor (REALLY!?!?!?! I have to re-add them!?!?! tptptptp yes, it's easy to do, but another step that is completely unnecessary)

Then you take the fact it won't import 1080P at 60 fps.

Other little quirks.

Then a big one.

Compressor sucks, at best. Asking THEIR own software to utilize all cores is a friggin' chore (at least for me).

Oh, I got around that in FCP7 by exporting a non-self-contained QT file then using a 3rd party - Bitvice to compress m2vs, which btw, recognized ALL CORES without begging.

Oh wait, compressor's a b*itch to export a QT file - has to be prores = no other choices available. Plus, because using all cores is a chore, it takes a long time = oh and because you can't export a non-self-contained file!

I get they want us to use Compressor, but I have never had so many issues with any vendor's software. Honestly, I don't consider myself an idiot with computers and I don't profess to being the messiah, but I get around if you know what I mean.

Then, after compressor crashed twice, I finally got it to burn a blu ray. The quality was simply outstanding. Truly amazing. But I certainly didn't like the lack of authoring choices. I've heard Toast is ok, but the menus look hokey. At least with DVD Studio Pro, I had something that was consistent and with the template saving features, I saved time while providing what I feel is a quality output to clients. 

I was trying to be open minded with FCX and compressor, but now i'm just p*ssed.

Probably more so b/c I missed out on spending that money for the Adobe suite. I should have bought it just in case. I could use Encore for sure and probably Premiere Pro too.

Tabernac!!!!!!

And yes, I've already been talking to FCX support team - in fact, I have a 2nd level issue going on with them because FCX (and/or QT 10.1) won't recognize their own file format being a .mov DV NTSC file captured from FCP7. FCX captures SD in .mov DV/DVPRO NTSC.

How idiotic is that!?!?!? Their OWN software....and not only that...their OWN PREVIOUS VIDEO EDITING SOFTWARE file format can't be imported! WTF!!!?!?! I sent screen shots and sample files to which their team replicated the same issue. I was told I'm using older technology so it's a different workflow. I squashed that right away - my 8 or 9 year old G4 works perfectly for capturing SD files tptptptp

Anyhoo, as you can tell, I'm on a rant today.

Anyone still have a copy of that sale on CS 5.5 they want to get rid of? lol :clap:

Cheers,
keebler


----------



## jellotor

Why not wait for CS6 at this point?

Compressor has more or less always been a necessary evil for me. I have never gotten Qmaster to work properly without crashing for reasons that always seemed mysterious to me.

FCP7 was never completely free of the pain-in-the-ass workarounds for things like Blu-ray and so forth and breaking the paradigm so completely with FCPX certainly couldn't help with that. Compressor, for all of its useful abilities was still a resource hog and not easily configured to do more with more resources. Again, that's my personal opinion.

Compressor always sort of seemed like the red-headed stepchild of the whole suite. Well, maybe not as much as Soundtrack Pro or Cinema Tools, but it always seemed to lack the finesse and ease of use that Apple has reportedly "always been known for."

Speaking of ease of use, I had to break it to my mom on Saturday that the great program she found to keep her website up to date, iWeb, has been discontinued.

I wonder what the future holds for the only other Apple software I use regularly, Aperture? I really want to move to Lightroom but the pain of having to migrate my Aperture libraries to LR is a major drawback for me. At this point.


----------



## keebler27

jellotor said:


> Why not wait for CS6 at this point?
> 
> Compressor has more or less always been a necessary evil for me. I have never gotten Qmaster to work properly without crashing for reasons that always seemed mysterious to me.
> 
> FCP7 was never completely free of the pain-in-the-ass workarounds for things like Blu-ray and so forth and breaking the paradigm so completely with FCPX certainly couldn't help with that. Compressor, for all of its useful abilities was still a resource hog and not easily configured to do more with more resources. Again, that's my personal opinion.
> 
> Compressor always sort of seemed like the red-headed stepchild of the whole suite. Well, maybe not as much as Soundtrack Pro or Cinema Tools, but it always seemed to lack the finesse and ease of use that Apple has reportedly "always been known for."
> 
> Speaking of ease of use, I had to break it to my mom on Saturday that the great program she found to keep her website up to date, iWeb, has been discontinued.
> 
> I wonder what the future holds for the only other Apple software I use regularly, Aperture? I really want to move to Lightroom but the pain of having to migrate my Aperture libraries to LR is a major drawback for me. At this point.


good point. I hadn't thought of CS6. Guess I'm just a little ticked today lol

I think you're ok with Aperture in the sense I don't believe they'll screw it up. It's $79 price point and feature base is attractive.

It's funny or not so, but I was completely frustrated with Compressor 3.5 never working that I bought the Matrox CompressHD card for H.264 and it's been fantastic. I still am amazed at the outstanding blu ray I created with it (in just over real time too!).

But trying to get compressor to maximize all cores or recognize other machines is just ick.

I've put some feelers out there. I know some people who have ties to Adobe. I'm willing to pay the upgrade price they had. My edits are generally basic for the most part so this version may suit me well. Even for editing my own Panasonic TM900 footage without having to transcode b/c after seeing that blu ray, I'm really keen to get my own family movies on blu ray 

cheers,
keebler


----------



## jellotor

keebler27 said:


> I've put some feelers out there. I know some people who have ties to Adobe. I'm willing to pay the upgrade price they had. My edits are generally basic for the most part so this version may suit me well. Even for editing my own Panasonic TM900 footage without having to transcode b/c after seeing that blu ray, I'm really keen to get my own family movies on blu ray


I tend to chuckle a bit when I hear people raving about not having to transcode H.264 or MPEG transport streams or whatever. Maybe I'm old skool but I still think there are excellent reasons to transcode to ProRes or DNxHD or what-have-ya.

But, yes, Adobe's format-agnostic approach is great...now they have to implement the open timeline concept from FCP and I'll use them more often. More robust support for AJA cards would be great, too...they're starting to get there but the setup of the card for Premiere (considering the fact that there's no open timeline) is backwards and feels half-assed in comparison to FCP. Which is why I'm still using FCP7, transcoding and all.


----------



## keebler27

jellotor said:


> I tend to chuckle a bit when I hear people raving about not having to transcode H.264 or MPEG transport streams or whatever. Maybe I'm old skool but I still think there are excellent reasons to transcode to ProRes or DNxHD or what-have-ya.
> 
> But, yes, Adobe's format-agnostic approach is great...now they have to implement the open timeline concept from FCP and I'll use them more often. More robust support for AJA cards would be great, too...they're starting to get there but the setup of the card for Premiere (considering the fact that there's no open timeline) is backwards and feels half-assed in comparison to FCP. Which is why I'm still using FCP7, transcoding and all.


well I used to transcode for FCP7 and I probably will for awhile yet, but a client gave me their HD footage on SD cards (1080i) and being able to edit within a minute or 2 was eye opening. Most of my work are simple transfers so the editing is quick and painless. I had an edited and ready for output timeline within 20 minutes tops (for 1.5 hours of footage)

That makes me not want to transcode as little as possible.


----------



## jellotor

keebler27 said:


> That makes me not want to transcode as little as possible.


Oh, for sure. Not transcoding makes a lot of sense for a lot of people and I'm included in that group, too. For quick turnaround projects native codec support is of great assistance.

Where I balk at not transcoding is when using a DSLR, for example. I don't care if my computer is able to edit H.264 natively, there are very good reasons to get the video into ProRes especially if you're hoping to do any colour grading.

I didn't mean any offense, keebler; lots of people can't afford the extra downtime. Native codec support in FCPX, PPro or MC is great news and another tool in the toolbox, so to speak. It makes me sad, however, that FCPX still doesn't recognize MXF natively. That is one thing that pisses me off royally; I still shoot with an HVX200 and there is _no concievable reason_ why I should have to convert the container file from MXF to QT. I used MXF media in PPro _once_ and I was instantly impressed with how PPro handled it, metadata and all...and I shook my head in sadness over what could have been with FCP.

PPro still has a way to go for me, personally, but now that the performance issues with my antiquated Mac Pro are starting to get ironed out, it's becoming more and more of a viable option. Just being able to access the P2 metadata from my HVX200 MXF footage was something that I knew I was missing with FCP...but never realized how big of a deal it was!

Anyway, back to your regularly scheduled analysis of FCPX.


----------



## keebler27

jellotor said:


> Oh, for sure. Not transcoding makes a lot of sense for a lot of people and I'm included in that group, too. For quick turnaround projects native codec support is of great assistance.
> 
> Where I balk at not transcoding is when using a DSLR, for example. I don't care if my computer is able to edit H.264 natively, there are very good reasons to get the video into ProRes especially if you're hoping to do any colour grading.
> 
> I didn't mean any offense, keebler; lots of people can't afford the extra downtime. Native codec support in FCPX, PPro or MC is great news and another tool in the toolbox, so to speak. It makes me sad, however, that FCPX still doesn't recognize MXF natively. That is one thing that pisses me off royally; I still shoot with an HVX200 and there is _no concievable reason_ why I should have to convert the container file from MXF to QT. I used MXF media in PPro _once_ and I was instantly impressed with how PPro handled it, metadata and all...and I shook my head in sadness over what could have been with FCP.
> 
> PPro still has a way to go for me, personally, but now that the performance issues with my antiquated Mac Pro are starting to get ironed out, it's becoming more and more of a viable option. Just being able to access the P2 metadata from my HVX200 MXF footage was something that I knew I was missing with FCP...but never realized how big of a deal it was!
> 
> Anyway, back to your regularly scheduled analysis of FCPX.


I wasn't offended.

I actually saved some edited footage in prores so I could have the format readily available whenever AppleTV supports 1080 etc..

I would love to be a fly on the wall in the fcx team office right about now. Especially to dig into their computers to see if there really was an almost finished 64 bit of FCS.


----------



## Ottawaman

FCPUG just dropped the F and is now Creative Pro User Group


----------



## jellotor

I was wondering when that would start happening. The Los Angeles FCPUG forum is dead quiet since FCPX dropped.

The only place where I see a real community of FCPX users supporting each other is Creative Cow...and probably apple's discussion groups.


----------



## groovetube

I'm not a fc user, but that doesn't sound great.


----------



## Guest

Indeed ... those are not good signs for the product in the pro market.


----------



## corey111

new FCP update released today....10.0.3
Apple release a free update to Final Cut Pro X - 10.0.3 New features and more


----------



## CubaMark

NICE!



> _A significant update, Final Cut Pro X version 10.0.3 appeases to pro editors with two new features: *Multicam editing* – which automatically syncs up to 64 angles of video and photos – and *broadcast monitoring*. The software also advances *XML 1.1 support* for better plug-in compatibility, it supports *media relinking* and boasts enhanced chroma keying with edge quality, light wrap and color sampling. Also important, users can finally* import layered Photoshop files*._


(9to5mac.com)


----------



## jlcinc

Did anyone watch the video on the site comparing AVID and FCX. Pretty interesting stuff. I don't think they are even comparing the new release still very interesting.

John

Comparing FCPX to Avid Media Composer 6 on MacBreak Studio Live


----------



## corey111

Can’t wait to try the new multi cam editing. I like the idea that it syncs together using the audio waveforms... Now I just need to see if it works.


----------



## jlcinc

Go to the Apple final X update on the Apple.com site and watch the Multi cam edit video. Multi cam looks like a great addition to FCP X.

John


----------



## Guest

I do like the look of how they've handled the updated multicam and the addition of a built-in PluralEyes sort of deal is a good thing. It's nice to see them actually moving forward with things I might be interested in using ... but alas they still have a long way to come to make the pro market happy again, if they ever even want to or can.


----------



## jellotor

Agreed.

From my perspective--using FCP7 for now on an aging Mac Pro--it's hard to consider Apple for software _or_ hardware at this point. After the initial shock of having FCP "destroyed" wore off I remembered that I've cut plenty of things on MC over the years. With the discounts and the increased (frantic?) competition between the 4 A's I've got more choice than ever.

And as far as the hardware goes, Apple is a less than attractive option for software if only because FCPX isn't cross platform like the others. Actually, I don't know if Autodesk Smoke is a cross-platform license like Adobe & AVID. At $15,000 per seat, I guess it doesn't matter much, either.

An appropriately spec'd Windows editing machine may be in my future. I guess I'll probably have to keep a FCP7 or FCPX capable Mac around for the sake of compatibility.

My beefs with the software continue to be kind of specific...no viewer window, no MXF support, no roundtripping with Motion. Yep, multicam is great. Yep, better XML support is good. Looks like the software designers kind of "get it." Too bad the marketing people didn't.


----------



## Ottawaman

I read something interesting today. It went something like; 

" The one thing they can't fix with an update is trust".


Found it.



> The one thing they can't add back with an update is trust.
> They threw out a tool relied upon by professionals without warning. All of the sudden post houses built on Apple and FC7 could not grow. After that you would be crazy to get back in bed with Apple without a backup plan.
> This update is a good start but they have a lot of work to do.


----------



## jlcinc

FCP 10.6 update a good read.

Final Cut Pro X - 10.0.6 - A first Look

John


----------

