Final Cut Pro X Released

[Paul Nordin]

I believe, that FCPx is a DEVELOPMENT PLATFORM and not simply an NLE.

I also hope you are right. But I'm not convinced. I've never seen a major release of new technology from Apple, that didn't have at least a few key 3-rd party soloutions keynoted, IF such support was a key part of that product's strategy. In this case, the only example we have is Automatic Ducks' OMF, which is pretty much a lame duck in my mind.

 

[jake blackstone]

I am not willing to buy this theory at this point for the simple fact that they are highlighting the broad native format support. And indeed, they seem to be quite successful, supporting everything from DSLRs to XDCAM EX. The glaring omission is, of course, R3D.

Second, it seems awfully lazy of the software developers. Look at Adobe - they seem to have no problems keeping up to date with the latest in R3D tech. How can you suddenly expect a camera manufacturer to write code for NLE software? Blackmagic writes code for DaVinci software, not Apple software.

It sounds much more like "incomplete platform" than "developmental platform". Just using the Occam's Razor. Everything else sounds like an excuse. I have no doubt that XML and EDL will come at some point, but it has to come from Apple. Why a competitor would suddenly fill in the blanks is beyond me.

You're wrong. BM codec is written by BM, so is AJA. Apple has nothing to do with it. As far as "native" support, what's more native, than Prores? For Apple that is

 

[Brandon H]

The more I think about the new FCPx, the more i become convinced, that FCPx is a different animal altogether. I believe, that FCPx is a DEVELOPMENT PLATFORM and not simply an NLE. In the good old days of FCP7, Apple had to deal with every aspect of I/O and formats, as well as working on being able to "send" the timeline to Color, Logic audio etc. We all know, that this approach din't work very well in case of Red support. I think now, Apple decided to concentrate on everything edit, color, composite, sound etc, EXEPT I/O. So, if, for example, Red wants the R3D functionality in FCPx, Red will have to provide it. Same thing, if Resolve wants the roundtrip XML-like functionality, BM will have to provide it. And so forth... If that is indeed the case (obviously, I have no information on that), I think it's super smart. This way, for example, Apple doesn't have to deal with Red SDK anymore. Let Red deal with it. BM can provide as much or as little of the functionality for Resolve. Every manufacturer would be able to include features, they deem needed, without relaying on Apple!!!

I bet this is what they are planning. Of course apple, being a marketing machine, must keep some things close to the chest that they aren't ready to market yet. In FCPX 1.1 I'm sure they'll have some SDK released for it or something. Like their iPod's and iPhones, I'm sure Apple is in the business of simplifying their relationships and they don't want to be in the business of frantically adding support for every new camera and format and firmware upgrade there is for every camera. They want to put that in the hands of the hardware manufacturers.

 

[Brandon H]

I also hope you are right. But I'm not convinced. I've never seen a major release of new technology from Apple, that didn't have at least a few key 3-rd party soloutions keynoted, IF such support was a key part of that product's strategy. In this case, the only example we have is Automatic Ducks' OMF, which is pretty much a lame duck in my mind.

Look at the iPhone, in 2007 it was an overly simplified $600 piece of tech, with just a clock, calculator and sms app. Now it is massive development platform with tons of apps. At the beginning of iPhone they even had those ridiculous "web apps" that they marketed before they created a native SDK

 

[Paul Nordin]

Doesn't that fly in the face of Apple's core philosophy of nothing getting into it's system without Apple's vetting?

 

[jake blackstone]

I also hope you are right. But I'm not convinced. I've never seen a major release of new technology from Apple, that didn't have at least a few key 3-rd party soloutions keynoted, IF such support was a key part of that product's strategy. In this case, the only example we have is Automatic Ducks' OMF, which is pretty much a lame duck in my mind.

If Automatic Duck has this capability, how do you know, that when Resolve 8 appears, it will not be able to do the same "drag and drop" the whole FCPX timeline? Or better yet, why not a one button "send to resolve" in FCPx? Obviously the infrastructure is in place, so it's really up to BM to do that

 

[Subhadip Sen]

You're wrong. BM codec is written by BM, so is AJA. Apple has nothing to do with it. As far as "native" support, what's more native, than Prores? For Apple that is

That's not what I meant at all. EDL is a universal format. Why should BlackMagic write the EDL feature in Final Cut Pro? They would do so for Resolve, yes, but why Final Cut Pro?

And why does FCP X support XDCAM EX natively? Shouldn't Sony be writing their own part of FCP too? Why the discrimination against RED?

All those predicting the demise of FCPx may end up regretting it. I suspect on the day of release of Lion, many apps and drivers will stop functioning as usual. Give it a couple of weeks. Although, I have to say, Lion on my Macbook Pro, so far, runs flawlessly. Except iTunes

No one is predicting a demise. We are just looking at FCP X as it is today. And it is unusable for a lot of people around here. When these basic features make their way into FCP X we will all give it another look. But as it is today, editors here are clearly not impressed.

 

[jake blackstone]

I bet this is what they are planning. Of course apple, being a marketing machine, must keep some things close to the chest that they aren't ready to market yet. In FCPX 1.1 I'm sure they'll have some SDK released for it or something. Like their iPod's and iPhones, I'm sure Apple is in the business of simplifying their relationships and they don't want to be in the business of frantically adding support for every new camera and format and firmware upgrade there is for every camera. They want to put that in the hands of the hardware manufacturers.

Exactly! This way users will be yelling at Red and not Apple

 

[Marko Bunker]

I just hope I'll bump into "Switch to professional mode" within all those crippled-down menus

 

[Tim Morten]

Why buy a 1.0 release at all? Too many mature solutions out there that already fit the bill. Yes, Apple needed a rewrite, but releasing it before it has feature parity with the prior releases is a major mistake. Not communicating their road-map only compounds the issue. Not including R3D support is a mind-numbingly poor decision.

Some will counsel patience... but I expect many will move on. Implementing iPhone and Facebook pathways before EDL/XML couldn't send a clearer message: consumer market first, pro market when (if?) Apple gets around to it.

 

[Paul Nordin]

If Automatic Duck has this capability, how do you know, that when Resolve 8 appears, it will not be able to do the same "drag and drop" the whole FCPX timeline? Or better yet, why not a one button "send to resolve" in FCPx? Obviously the infrastructure is in place, so it's really up to BM to do that

Yours is a convincing argument. I'll turn my Apple-ire down to simmer until more unfolds. I like your version of the future a lot better than the bleak landscape I've been seeing this morning.

 

[jake blackstone]

That's not what I meant at all. EDL is a universal format. Why should BlackMagic write the EDL feature in Final Cut Pro? They would do so for Resolve, yes, but why Final Cut Pro?

And why does FCP X support XDCAM EX natively? Shouldn't Sony be writing their own part of FCP too? Why the discrimination against RED?

You need to get that Red persecution chip off your shoulder. How about ARRI RAW, Fantom, SI etc? Nope, not there too...EDL is old, while XML and AAF are much more robust formats. Apple shouldn't deal with material getting in and out of FCPx. Let BM, Autodesk, Nuke etc deal with it...

 

[Robert Frank]

I never imagined that so many folks in the RED camp would be so terribly resistant to change.

I personally embrace change. I am feeling let down that there is so much missing from FCPX. I know people are saying "it will get there", but Apple isn't saying that, so at this point the app does seem like it is geared as an upgrade path for iMovie users. I also believe that it will be more fully featured at some point, but Apple clearly biased it toward the iLife type user. Look at the supported formats and devices.

The changes I was hoping for are not there right now.

And it was also a cocoa 64 bit rewrite, there seems to be some kind of trend here were apps are being re written in cocoa for 64 bit and maybe final cut pro grew so big that the transition is bound to take some time.

You may be right, but even in QT-X Apple removed functionality that was in QT7, never to return.

 

[Brandon H]

I have a question, which I'm sure has been answered, but is there any way currently with automatic duck or anything else, to allow me to interchange timelines between RedCine and FCPX with XML's?

 

[Subhadip Sen]

You need to get that Red persecution chip off your shoulder. How about ARRI RAW, Fantom, SI etc? Nope, not there too...EDL is old, while XML and AAF are much more robust formats. Apple shouldn't deal with material getting in and out of FCPx. Let BM, Autodesk, Nuke etc deal with it...

I could just as well have mentioned Canon XF as something that is supported and ARRI RAW as something that is not. The point was not "RED persecution". So, why are some formats supported natively by FCP X, and why should certain other camera manufacturers have to write code?

Why is there not an AAF (once again, this is just use as an example) Export feature? If you are suggesting the capability is there, why is there not a GUI for it? Why bother writing a feature and not providing a GUI? It has nothing to do with BM or Autodesk, it's an industry standard format. Incomplete platform, a work-in-progress. We will see how it shapes up a few months down the line.

And if you are predicting this bold theory, why has Apple not communicated it? Why has their keynote talked about and hyped up so much but not this extremely key "feature" about FCP X being a "developmental platform"?

 

[Craig W. Bickerstaff]

You may be right, but even in QT-X Apple removed functionality that was in QT7, never to return.

I wouldn't say never, there is a reason they still offer QT pro 7. Eventually QT X will retain those features and QT pro 7 will be phased out.

 

[jake blackstone]

Has anyone noticed total silence from Red, concerning the absence of R3D support in FCPx? Wouldn't Red already made some noise about it? Me thinks, that it could possibly be up to Red to provide this functionality. Can anyone in Red comment on this?

 

[Robert Frank]

Why buy a 1.0 release at all? Too many mature solutions out there that already fit the bill. Yes, Apple needed a rewrite, but releasing it before it has feature parity with the prior releases is a major mistake. Not communicating their road-map only compounds the issue. Not including R3D support is a mind-numbingly poor decision.

Some will counsel patience... but I expect many will move on. Implementing iPhone and Facebook pathways before EDL/XML couldn't send a clearer message: consumer market first, pro market when (if?) Apple gets around to it.

+1

I was ready to buy FCPX because of the tremendous improvement in system performance. Having a Mac Pro but not being able to use all CPU cores is insane.

That Apple introduced it to the world at the LAFCP Supermeet had me thinking that the professional user was a priority. Now that the hardware works, it is the software that isn't fully implemented. And to dig in a little to discover consumer features have made the first round versus features that the Final Cut PROfessional needs and use everyday was a considerable letdown.

The previous stripped down version was called Final Cut Express. That is what FCPX looks like to me at this moment.

 

[Dave Blackham]

Yep, noted. The guys at Red certainly know how to write good software. My guess still is it will be up to third parties to write the clever bespoke stuff to plug in to this thing.

 

[jake blackstone]

I could just as well have mentioned Canon XF as something that is supported and ARRI RAW as something that is not. The point was not "RED persecution". So, why are some formats supported natively by FCP X, and why should certain other camera manufacturers have to write code?

Why is there not an AAF (once again, this is just use as an example) Export feature? If you are suggesting the capability is there, why is there not a GUI for it? Why bother writing a feature and not providing a GUI? It has nothing to do with BM or Autodesk, it's an industry standard format. Incomplete platform, a work-in-progress. We will see how it shapes up a few months down the line.

And if you are predicting this bold theory, why has Apple not communicated it? Why has their keynote talked about and hyped up so much but not this extremely key "feature" about FCP X being a "developmental platform"?

Obviously, you're so blinded by your own believes, that you still not getting it. THERE IS NO SUPPORT FOR BAYERED MATERIAL AT ALL!!! It's not just RED...
As to why Apple not communicating the FCPx roadmap, when did they ever do that?