NEW Final Cut to be Announced at NAB?

[Roberto Lequeux]

I think this version does it for me. I am gonna have to get a Mac as my personal. Or build something special.

Really loving the animation. Very intuitive. I am very excited.

And finally, it looks like Mac finally took a hard look at Vegas and learned a thing or two about audio!

I am only wondering where the color correction tools stop. Will there be accurate metering? How many effects are there? Will it take plug-in effects?

 

[Bruce Allen]

i really like the way of editing, much more visual to me.

Agree, agree!

will omf export work properly?

Also: how the hell will you re-conform?

I really hope they have "magnetic lanes" for the audio for the Magnetic Timeline. EG I really want all of my music tracks to be in a set of colored, magnetic, auto-expanding MX lanes. I don't want clips jumping into my SFX lanes because they get bored.

will edl and xml work flawlessly?

I expect better than old FCP because there is no BS like sequences within sequences anymore. Everything just expands to one timeline.

Good thing DaVinci has a multi-layer timeline though!

will it then be able to load whats coming back form CC, VFX , Titling and Sound and work as a true finishing app?
does its render engine do 10 bit RGB.

I'd say, yes.

is there a viewer?
3d?
rocket?

Hope so!

Bruce Allen
www.boacinema.com

 

[Alexander Ibrahim]

Maybe they'll get rid of Color or maybe they'll make it as strong as Resolve.

And what inside info do you have to support such a thing about color?... I do agree that perhaps DVDSP is gone... it has not seen an update since 2005 I think. that is the reason I moved to Adobe.

None at all.

That's my point: We do not know anything, and have no reason to prefer one notion over another.

Let me put that differently: We could suppose Apple plans any number of different things. All our predictions have equal support, and thus equal validity.

That is to say they have NO support and NO validity.

I make a prediction about DVD Studio Pro only because of Apple's public stance against BluRay and their stance that downloadable media is the future.

 

[Mike Bell]

I make a prediction about DVD Studio Pro only because of Apple's public stance against BluRay and their stance that downloadable media is the future.

It's not just Apple's stance... it's the reality today. Netflix confirms it:

The CEO of Netflix has said that by the fourth quarter, streaming will have surpassed renting DVD’s. He also said that Netflix are now a streaming company that happens to rent DVD by mail as well.

DVDs/BluRay is only gonna go down from here so investing resources in it is a waste.

 

[Uli Plank]

I's not only that. To comply with copy protection for Blu-ray, Apple would have to seal parts of their OS which are still open to the public.

 

[Josh C]

... some of the most work shy amateurs I've ever had the misfortune to meet and some of the dumbest workflows I've encountered have been in post-houses in Soho...

Ha, add internal production units for TV networks to that list.

 

[shashbugu]

I think this version does it for me. I am gonna have to get a Mac as my personal. Or build something special.

Really loving the animation. Very intuitive. I am very excited.

And finally, it looks like Mad finally took a hard look at Vegas and learned a thing or two about audio!

I am only wondering where the color correction tools stop. Will there be accurate metering? How many effects are there? Will it take plug-in effects?

Roberto I thought you and Jarred were the two leftover Sony Vegas fanboys. Well Sony silently announced an upgrade to Vegas 10, check out the specs, you would think Apple hired a Sony tech to build FCPX. I haven't seen a working version of vegas in lord knows how long...

 

[Steve Johnson]

Realistically, say you shot the whole feature and ending up the footage exceed 3TB. I won't tell the editor to drag the whole 3TB of footage with her/his MacBook Pro to edit offline nor use RED ROCKET to edit. I would simply transcode the whole footage to Prores Proxy (3TB converting can be done in less than two days with properly sleeping between). Then the editor can edit with entire footage on the MacBook Pro to edit in 1080. Then take the XML or the project and conform to the R3D, then send it to Davinci Resolve. Resolve can color grade in native R3D with RED ROCKET acceleration and the Resolve version 8 will even do 4K monitoring and stabilizing. After grading then you can render them out and send them to FCP X with Decklink 4K (or even with HD versions) for online editing now that FCP X will be improved on the color handling (with hopefully proper display profiles). I'm stoked that I don't have to switch to Premiere or Avid.

Kaku,

Could you not save some extra time here by doing onset conversion of the R3D files once you offload from the media? You could take the R3D, transfer to main drive, backup to two additional drives and convert to ProRes HQ or 4444 for offline - do that at the point of offloading the SSD mags and save a further 2 days later.

Steve

 

[Cüneyt Kaya]

btw the baselight plug in makes much more sense to me now.
imagine all the other nice plugins, so a blown up fcpX can maybe be a one stopp app besides sound.
the video shows what editing is about... experiments, shuffling around takes, scenes and whole sequemces.
some smart ideas in there.

 

[Liam Hall]

Looks like a lot of footage used in the FCP demo could be RED, judging by file naming conventions. But probably Alexa since they're pretty similar to RED naming.

Phantom, Alexa, Go Pro and DSLR. Not RED. All playing in real time on the same timeline without rendering.

It's worth noting that according to Larry Jordan the software version used in the demo is at least three months old, so many features may have been added already - including R3D support.

EDIT: Oops I see that you mention the February build...

 

[nigelsmith]

If Apple says it's aimed at professionals I think it's a fair bet that it will be aimed at professionals and it's also a fair bet that Apple knows what professional editors do on a daily basis.

I don't know why so many people are dismissive of this FCPX when we know so little about it. I don't know why some of you feel threatened by a new system that is potentially smarter and more intuitive than anything else on the market and I certainly don't understand comments like the one you make about "professional workflows in the film industry"; some of the most work shy amateurs I've ever had the misfortune to meet and some of the dumbest workflows I've encountered have been in post-houses in Soho.

I used to edit with sprocket holes and sticky tape, when Avid and Lightworks came along there was a massive amount of resistance to change among the old guard - I know quite a few who refused to change and either retired or went out of business. In many ways today we are all still transitioning to fully integrated digital workflows, FCPX could be the next step in completing that journey. I hope so.

It seems to me there is an attitude in many people that equates ease of use with amateurism. That's silly. If you want editing to be difficult buy a Moviola and some tape - I've got scars on my hands that are nearly thirty years old and prove how painful editing can be!

I think you are [over] reacting to the wrong post here.
You can certainly find plenty of histrionics on this and other forums if you look properly.

I am not dismissive either - I would love FCPX at home for my own personal work, where I am doing everything myself, and will probably buy it.
However as others have pointed out, the info so far available is all about auto functions and not about how it would fit into workflows using Protools, Baselight etc.
This is where FCP generally falls down at the moment - EDLs and XML are not very satisfactory methods for today's typically complex projects.

I too learned to edit on a Steenbeck [still have one outside my office], and I valued the way that you got to know your material as you searched up and down [as described by Walter Murch]. That doesn't mean I didn't take to using Avid when it appeared, and enjoy the benefits of non-linear.
Auto-tagging on ingest and smart folders suggest that the editor can save time because s/he no longer needs to actually look through all their material and get to know it properly.
Well if you don't like watching rushes, you shouldn't be an editor!

I would guess most professional users of FCP wanted to see faster rendering, better integration into professional workflows, better media management, and more powerful tools,
rather than a more intuitive interface and auto functions that are designed to appeal to newbies.
These changes have overshadowed the exciting stuff like 64 bit and mutlithreaded processing, perhaps because there was no proper demonstration - figures, speed tests or comparisons.
Maybe a few graphs on that would have helped?

Anyway, I'm hoping that FCPX will allow me to create 'one stop shop' work more easily, and ALSO allow more 'polished' offline edits, that are fully accessible to professional grading, FX, audio post and conforming tools.

 

[Liam Hall]

I think you are [over] reacting to the wrong post here.
You can certainly find plenty of histrionics on this and other forums if you look properly.

I am not dismissive either - I would love FCPX at home for my own personal work, where I am doing everything myself, and will probably buy it.
However as others have pointed out, the info so far available is all about auto functions and not about how it would fit into workflows using Protools, Baselight etc.
This is where FCP generally falls down at the moment - EDLs and XML are not very satisfactory methods for today's typically complex projects.

I too learned to edit on a Steenbeck [still have one outside my office], and I valued the way that you got to know your material as you searched up and down [as described by Walter Murch]. That doesn't mean I didn't take to using Avid when it appeared, and enjoy the benefits of non-linear.
Auto-tagging on ingest and smart folders suggest that the editor can save time because s/he no longer needs to actually look through all their material and get to know it properly.
Well if you don't like watching rushes, you shouldn't be an editor!

I would guess most professional users of FCP wanted to see faster rendering, better integration into professional workflows, better media management, and more powerful tools,
rather than a more intuitive interface and auto functions that are designed to appeal to newbies.
These changes have overshadowed the exciting stuff like 64 bit and mutlithreaded processing, perhaps because there was no proper demonstration - figures, speed tests or comparisons.
Maybe a few graphs on that would have helped?

Anyway, I'm hoping that FCPX will allow me to create 'one stop shop' work more easily, and ALSO allow more 'polished' offline edits, that are fully accessible to professional grading, FX, audio post and conforming tools.

Nigel, I agree with most of what you say here. My point is twofold; firstly it is too early to dismiss FCPX as something for "homeworkers" or "one-stop-shops". We simply don't know if that is the case or not - it might be a turkey, but I suspect/hope it wont be. Anyway, at this price point it doesn't really matter - it's almost free.

Secondly, I agree many of the auto features are just candy for the newbies (I've seen and ignored many of these things before in other programs), but that in itself doesn't mean they are all strictly for the amateur or one-man-band. Who is to say what the "professional workflows" will be in the future? It was hard enough convincing some people to use audiofile in the 80s, but I don't see too many dubbing suites running loops today.

There are too many unanswered questions, certainly too many to make a proper judgement.

 

[Chris Kenny]

I find it really, really hard to imagine that Apple opened that event by bragging about FCP's use for feature film and broadcast work, and then proceeded to introduce a product totally unsuitable for those markets. It's pretty obvious to me that we didn't see anything about workflow enhancements mostly because they don't demo well. It's clear from what we did see that a lot of thought went into this product, and I doubt workflow considerations were overlooked.

 

[Roberto Lequeux]

Roberto I thought you and Jarred were the two leftover Sony Vegas fanboys. Well Sony silently announced an upgrade to Vegas 10, check out the specs, you would think Apple hired a Sony tech to build FCPX. I haven't seen a working version of vegas in lord knows how long...

Honestly, if the details about cutting action we didn't see, and the audio processing, and audio plug-ins are where they SHOULD be based on this meticulously crafted and rehearsed presentation of a major product... if it isn't all fluff... then I don't need Vegas at home anymore.

I loooooooooove (ed?) Vegas for one-man stuff. If you are not an editor; and want simple, everything in one and INTUITIVE, then Vegas is a dream come true --a one piece software that lets me get in, do anything, and get out. But now if this FC GUI also comes with --real-- audio, and piles on all the other cool FC aspects... then FC will be a more developed and polished (read: better) Vegas for me, all while also satisfying others' needs and fears!

I am hoping this is true, so that I can become an avid (certainly no pun intended) FC user. It will make me a better director to work with in FC cutting rooms.

 

[Stephen Gentle]

Secondly, I agree many of the auto features are just candy for the newbies (I've seen and ignored many of these things before in other programs), but that in itself doesn't mean they are all strictly for the amateur or one-man-band. Who is to say what the "professional workflows" will be in the future? It was hard enough convincing some people to use audiofile in the 80s, but I don't see too many dubbing suites running loops today.

Yep, Nigel makes it sound like Apple is holding a gun to your head and forcing you to use these features - but really they're optional features that could prove really time saving to use sometimes.

And just because a product has an optional feature that a professional thinks is not professional enough for them, doesn't discount the whole product...

 

[Chris Kenny]

I don't really get the idea that this sort of automation is "not professional" in the first place. Things like automatic color matching and audio cleanup all sound great to me even for feature film editing. Sure, a feature gets an actual shot-by-shot color grade and a full audio mix done... but that's after you lock your edit. If Final Cut can be used to do a quick and dirty job cleaning these things up at the start of the offline editing process, that means fewer distractions for the editor during the hundreds of hours they're working with the footage, and it means cleaner rough cuts can be generated, which is pretty nice if you're sending them around to try to raise more money, screening them for feedback, etc.

 

[Craig Schober]

All "non-professional" automated features are the job of an assistant editor or 2nd assistant. Are editors that don't handle all the organizational details and workflow logistics all by themselves somehow less professional? That being said, to me the workflow improvements struck me more in line with what tv editors and documentary filmmakers need as opposed to feature film editors.

Give Apple credit for trying to shake up a stagnant pro software market. Editing software has increasingly become the processor wars of the 90's. "My editor renders in realtime" "my editor does 10-bit RGB". These are all things fcpx addresses but as usual, Apple goes beyond that to attempt delivery of a software/hardware solution to facilitate creativity in an exciting way.

 

[Chris Kenny]

Give Apple credit for trying to shake up a stagnant pro software market. Editing software has increasingly become the processor wars of the 90's. "My editor renders in realtime" "my editor does 10-bit RGB". These are all things fcpx addresses but as usual, Apple goes beyond that to attempt delivery of a software/hardware solution to facilitate creativity in an exciting way.

Yeah, I think you really have to look at all of this together -- the automatic footage cleanup, the automatic shot tagging, the Magnetic Timeline, the ability to start cutting before footage is even done ingesting, the GCD/OpenGL-accelerated automatic background rendering, the ability to simplify timelines via collapsing, etc. This isn't just a random collection of features. Every single one of these is targeted at removing some specific thing that can distract from the actual creative process of editing.

 

[Roberto Lequeux]

You know what determines professional or not? The end product. And very little of that has to do with the software.

Programs may make your life easier, so they may make it easier to have fun, and make it easier to remain creative. But they don't give you taste, timing, balance, etc...

 

[Ed Wes]

Idle Speculation

Idle Speculation

Reading tea leaves and some idle speculation!

Looking at the top menu structure of Final Cut X, I see some changes.
Sequence, Effects And Tools are gone, Clip and Share have been added.
Some of the omissions are understandable in terms of the new workflow.
What I am finding intriguing is the Share menu. What is to be shared
and what creatures are going to be able to take part in the sharing?

Is FCP X going to be able to share its timeline with other component of
the suite or perhaps other suitably written programs instead of having
to export and then re import i.e. will we be able to quickly transfer to a
dedicated color, effects or audio component refine and adjustment, and
then continue with the edit.

As I said, idle speculation or perhaps wishful thinking.

Edwin Wes