Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Log in
  • Hey all, just changed over the backend after 15 years I figured time to give it a bit of an update, its probably gonna be a bit weird for most of you and i am sure there is a few bugs to work out but it should kinda work the same as before... hopefully :)

Apple finally responds to FCP X fallout

I think the best way to describe FCP X is "CHODE"

Google it then buy AVID for $999!
 
Ben Holmes said:
FCPX will then be the most affordable, native r3d edit program. Scarlet owners especially will love it. Why would RED not support it?
Click to expand...

Of course Red will support it, but I'm not so sure it will be all that "affordable." In the end, this idea of letting 3rd parties build the ecosystem may be a great one, but it will not make it inexpensive. For example, for me to use FCPx for any work I do right now would cost $900. (FCP+Motion+Compressor+Automatic Duck) As I add other bits from other parties for basic functions, the price will only go up.

So where's the incentive to switch from Adobe?
 
Dave Blackham said:
I dont think its really a satisfactory response. Id like to know which Pro editors are impressed. To me at least it confirm that Apple have completely misunderstood the market and whats needed. One aspect is how Red media is suggested to be handled.
Click to expand...

I agree.
 
D Fuller said:
Of course Red will support it, but I'm not so sure it will be all that "affordable." In the end, this idea of letting 3rd parties build the ecosystem may be a great one, but it will not make it inexpensive. For example, for me to use FCPx for any work I do right now would cost $900. (FCP+Motion+Compressor+Automatic Duck) As I add other bits from other parties for basic functions, the price will only go up.

So where's the incentive to switch from Adobe?
Click to expand...


Most likely based on Apples responses it seems like they focus on letting third party developers make the support, in that case, FCPX won't be "cheap", it will be like any other NLE. If so, I think it's better to go with the ones who offer great support without third party developers, much better support if something goes wrong and a lot easier to have it integrated within the NLE.
 
People keep tossing around this $500 number for Automatic Duck Pro Export FCP as if it's going to set the standard for the pricing of such workflow tools, but Pro Export FCP doesn't just export OMF from FCP X. It also provides better OMF export than Apple's from FCP 7 and (and this is probably where most of the product's complexity is) it translates FCP 7 sequences to Avid.

A plug-in that just provides FCP X with OMF exporting of similar quality to FCP 7's built-in OMF exporting, or just provides basic EDL exporting, is probably going to be a lot cheaper.

Personally, I see no problem with Apple leaving support for this stuff up to third parties. Am I really the only one who's ever been annoyed at some of the quirks in FCP 7's EDL exporting? Apple probably never had more than one engineer working part time on FCP 7's EDL exporting. Third parties will be able to focus more.

As far as native R3D support, people shouldn't read much into what Apple's saying today. Apple (for the most part) directly addressed the issues people were really freaking out about, because they basically had to. But native R3D support wasn't one of the issues causing widespread panic, and Apple is still Apple; their default mode of operation is extreme secrecy about future plans. FCP X's architecture opens the door for native R3D; support will probably show up sooner or later.
 
As far as native R3D support, people shouldn't read much into what Apple's saying today.
Click to expand...

What a laugh, first you bash every critique that Apple is gonna address the issues and make official statements "soon", when they finally do you say people shouldn't read into what Apple's saying today.
Even more funny, you read into a lot of stuff without them saying anything and say others shouldn't read into what Apple officially are saying.

I'm still curious why you need to defend Apple all the time and altering what you are saying based on what happens, now you say their default operation is secrecy about future plans. How do you know that? Isn't this just another assumption based on the fact that you weren't right about them addressing all the shortcomings the first time?
Your credibility is getting lesser and lesser for each post.

Apple addressed the issues and when they don't really say anything to sooth the climate of critique you still say: "they are gonna say something, soon just wait".
Seriously?
 
If they were working with video capture card manufacturers in the beta program... why didn't they release FCPX with basic external monitoring capabilities? Do they really think AJA desktop preview is sufficient? All this FAQ tell us is that FCPX will suck for a long time.
Plus saying they will provide multicam support in the next "MAJOR" release. Well will that be 1.5 or 2 years from now?
 
Andrae Palmer said:
If they were working with video capture card manaufacturers in the beta program... why didn't they release FCPX with basic external monitoring capabilities? Do they really think AJA desktop preview is sufficient? All this FAQ tell us is that FCPX will suck for a long time.
Click to expand...

Call me old fashioned but Id always thought it useful to have a monitor to see what the editor had perpetrated in the timeline.
 
Dave Blackham said:
Call me old fashioned but Id always thought it useful to have a monitor to see what the editor had perpetrated in the timeline.
Click to expand...

According to Apple you are not hip.... I guess modern file based workflows don't need color calibrated monitors with broadcast capabilities. Apple in their great hubris is trying to kill the TV.
 
Well Andre, if you mean the cathode ray tube then I would take this as an acknowledgement that it is not the future. It is almost dead already, Apple isn't killing it. That's a little dramatic, don't you think?
Apple hubris not withstanding ;-)
 
They aren't trying to kill TV, they are trying... believing they can take over TV. (Apple TV).
And yes, Apple has a lot of hubris.
 
Scott Crawley said:
Well Andre, if you mean the cathode ray tube then I would take this as an acknowledgement that it is not the future. It is almost dead already, Apple isn't killing it. That's a little dramatic, don't you think?
Apple hubris not withstanding ;-)
Click to expand...

No I mean monitoring interlaced formats.
 
Oh. Forgive my ignorance, but other than the cathode ray tube, what other monitor types require interlacing? Is it still being used as a file compression technique?
 
Last edited:
Scott Crawley said:
Oh. Forgive my ignorance, but other than the cathode ray tube, what other monitor types use interlacing?
Click to expand...

Have you never heard of 1080i HDTV format signals and also 1080i Plasma TV screens?
 
Wasn't the whole point of this remaking everything from scratch to be able to speed up releases and improve the future stability of the platform? So how does telling us that everything will be in the next 'major release' help anybody? Major? So, what? Six months+? We're going to have to wait six freaking months?

This doesn't seem like a statement, or wait. It isn't. It's just a mishmash of concerns addressed with a "well, that's not how we do it..." and "...but there is this cool workaround!"

Folks, there is a reason why major companies like Microsoft and Adobe don't do scratch rebuilds of any software - and it hasn't got a thing to do with them not trying it in the past. It's just that everytime it's happened they had to quietly kill it off before anybody notices what a cluster fuck it was.

But you know, the real issue isn't what's missing. It's that these are the best answers they could come up with - a big 'maybe' on the R3D department and some loose promises of future improvements in future releases in an... undetermined future. Wow.
 
Andrae Palmer said:
Have you never heard of 1080i HDTV format signals and also 1080i Plasma TV screens?
Click to expand...

Haha, yes of course. After thinking a minimal amount I rephrased the question. :-) is interlacing required by any modern monitoring technologies?
 
Scott Crawley said:
Haha, yes of course. After thinking a minimal amount I rephrased the question. :-) is interlacing required by any modern monitoring technologies?
Click to expand...

Have you never heard of monitoring for reversed interlaced footage? That is one of the main reasons people use a broadcast monitor.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top