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 :)

Final Cut Pro X Released

Chris Kenny said:
Again, your average FCP user is, and always has been, a corporate/web/edit video guy. All of what you're describing is niche, and this is why Apple released FCP X with the initial feature set that we saw.



My guesses, for the reasons I've extensively outlined, make much more sense.



The current MacBook Pros are almost indecently high-powered, rivaling Mac Pro towers from just a couple of years ago, and have an external interface with two 10 Gbps full-duplex channels, i.e. 8x the total bandwidth of ExpressCard 34. How come Apple ditching ExpressCard on one model of computer is evidence they really don't care about pros, but Apple adding Thunderbolt to everything isn't evidence that they do? This is what I mean when I say the case against Apple here is weak. It's just cherry picking data points that fit the a particular narrative.



It's already about 98% there. Seriously. They've rewritten the entire app as a 64-bit Cocoa app, running on top of a new engine and a new media framework. The hard stuff is done. There are only four significant missing features:

1) A way to export sequence data.
2) A way to map audio tracks for export.
3) 'Real' video output.
4) Multicam.

Apple has already announced the first and second of these are coming "in a few weeks" and "summer". The third, Apple is being slightly vague about, but it's very hard to believe it's not coming. The fourth is announced as a feature for the next major release, and there's lots of high-end single camera work that won't have to wait on it.

People are simply overstating the extent to which the app is not useful in high-end workflows. What's missing is critical to those workflows, but there isn't that much of it.
Click to expand...

Don't forget, if a MacPro laptop is still not enough power, a fully loaded iMac with the fastest CPU and 2gig video card, plus Thunderbolt, is a very powerful editing machine. Much more so than previous iMacs.
 
Some news or news to me at least. There seem to be indications that Apple are prioritising fixing whats missing or at least taking interest in pro views. Any one else get to hear of this ?

Ive taken another look at it, IF FCP X can be used as a framework to use other third party tools Automatic Duck, Base light Colour plug in and so forth If it gets re written for X. Then it starts to become a useful tool if Appel prioritise the essential stuff such as project import export, Monitoring and all the other essentials for our needs.

I hope also that FCS 3 life gets extended for sales and support to give some time to see if X is up to the job or for us to move else where. The other issue here is dealer support. These guys need to have a incentive to support systems and having a handle on the product is essential.
 
Chris Kenny said:
In my defense, the horse keeps trying to get up.
Click to expand...

Chris, as they should be, LOL!

I readily agree that FCPX may evolve very quickly. What I strongly disagree with is that FCPX is just a continuation of a consistent Apple vision for Pro Apps.

I remember going to the FCP area on Apple's website about a year ago. Here's what I saw:

Interviews with Walter Murch, Francis Ford Coppola and the Cohen brothers.

A demonstration of Color.

The introduction of a brand new all Apple professional post facility (I believe owned by Fox).

Direct quotes from industry professionals saying that FCP is up to the task for any size project, even the largest feature films.

Add to that being Red's first technology partner, 4:4:4:4 ProRes, Arri Alexa on-board recording and FCP being touted for cutting films from "Cold Mountain" to "The Social Network," and you have a product that was being aimed at the highest levels of post production.

Corporate and event videographers don't need any of these features. How many weddings are being shot on Alexa, cut by Walter Murch or need 4:4:4 resolution w/ an alpha channel?

You quite simply can't reconcile what had been added to FCP with what was taken away in FCPX w/o acknowledging that there was some type of philosophy shift inside Apple. (And I'm not saying that these features won't be added or that Apple won't reevaluate.)

You try to reconcile by saying that Apple wasn't all that pro in the first place. But clearly the motivation behind adding a professional $25K grading application for free, a codec that might surpass HDCAM-SR in terms of quality and showcasing the greatest living film editor using FCP was to promote the "P" in FCP. Perhaps you think people were naive to believe Apple's marketing? But I don't think they were. I think the simpler explanation is much more likely, a decisive delineation took place inside Apple as to specifically what FCP is and will be.

Again, this isn't to say that FCPX won't serve many people well nor that new features won't be added at a very fast pace. Apple could reevaluate their reevaluation. But to claim a philosophy change did not take place is stretching it, IMHO.
 
Peter Moretti said:
Chris, as they should be, LOL!
...

You quite simply can't reconcile what had been added to FCP with what was taken away in FCPX w/o acknowledging that there was some type of philosophy shift inside Apple. (And I'm not saying that these features won't be added or that Apple won't reevaluate.)
Click to expand...

Most folks seem to agree that the App simply is not complete. Apple has stated publicly that specific key features that had been in the previous version of the suite and are now missing are in development for future release, confirming that the app is incomplete. The CEO has repeatedly stated that they are still focused on the pro market and yet internet pontificators persist in concluding that his intentions are other...

So what does it take to get through the skulls of people that these features have not been "Taken away" and therefore it is NOT indicative of a shift in philosophy?

You may believe that they are doing a shitty job of servicing the professional community of editors and that is justifiable, but please stop beating me over the head with this flawed logic.


From the Apple website:
title.png


What would you have me believe that means?
 
Peter Moretti said:
You try to reconcile by saying that Apple wasn't all that pro in the first place.
Click to expand...

My argument along those lines is merely that film/TV editors were never the primary market for FCP.

Peter Moretti said:
But clearly the motivation behind adding a professional $25K grading application for free, a codec that might surpass HDCAM-SR in terms of quality and showcasing the greatest living film editor using FCP was to promote the "P" in FCP. Perhaps you think people were naive to believe Apple's marketing? But I don't think they were. I think the simpler explanation is much more likely, a decisive delineation took place inside Apple as to specifically what FCP is and will be.
Click to expand...

What you're saying is true in a very narrow sense. Apple clearly was not, with the very first release of FCP X, attempting to deliver an app that could be used to edit studio features. I've said myself, numerous times, that the initial release of FCP X is intended to be useful to the median FCP user, who is not a film/TV editor.

Where we differ is in our explanations of why Apple did this. Your explanation is that Apple doesn't care about film/TV editors anymore, or cares about them significantly less now. My explaination is that Apple is simply following what is now a well established pattern of "ship early, ship often", in which an initial release occurs as soon as a product is viable at all, and Apple then immediately begins to iterate.

We now know that Apple is planning to ship XML export in the next few weeks, audio track assignment features this summer, and already has multicam on the schedule for the next major release. That sure looks like Apple immediately beginning to iterate.
 
Chris Kenny said:
Given that nobody else Apple was talking to reported such a thing, this seems more likely to be David Pogue misunderstanding what he was told than Apple lying to him
Click to expand...

Scott Crawley said:
If that's your biggest beef then you don't have much to complain about... It's easier to attribute this to stupidity than deception.
Click to expand...

Point well taken. That was my biggest complaint, hands down.

Chris Kenny said:
In my defense, the horse keeps trying to get up.
Click to expand...

Only time will tell if Apple "fixes" FCPX in a quick enough manner or if they're trying to close the barn doors after the horse has bolted. I wish Apple would be more specific in their timeline in their FAQ so that we can get an answer straight from the horse's mouth. I really hope you're right Chris, because if you are, that means that we'll have a three-horse race for editing suites. It's amazing to think that FCPX makes Apple look like the dark horse candidate, but the competition will put pressure on all 3 companies to accelerate development. If each company actually had 33% market share and you could move projects back and forth freely, we'd have a dream situation and editors could pick the best tool(s) for a project -- "Horses for courses."

Anyhow, back to work. Actually, dinner first and then back to work. I'm so hungry, I could eat a horse...

/Alan
 
Chris Kenny said:
We now know that Apple is planning to ship XML export in the next few weeks, audio track assignment features this summer, and already has multicam on the schedule for the next major release. That sure looks like Apple immediately beginning to iterate.
Click to expand...

In lengthy press briefings with Apple, they have been extremely reluctant to place any timetable on new features. Do you have more specific information or are you just extrapolating from their very general statements on the FAQ? Typically when a public company doesn't define a timetable, it often means it's outside of the quarterly SOX limits.

- Oliver
 
Tim Morten said:
Or marketing is out of touch with production - that never happens! :)
Click to expand...

I like the sense of humor bit and your joke here Tim. You have made some valid arguments along the way but I still can't see any logic in this theory that Apple's intent is to abandon the Pro market. No offense is intended, but it makes no sense to me and runs contrary to my own assessment absolutely. I hope we can agree to disagree on this without rancor.


Brad Webb said:
As Apple sees it - People that buy FCPX = pro editors
Click to expand...

I think your cart is in front of your horse. It is reverse logic and it's making me dizzy. :willy_nilly:
 
Scott Crawley said:
I like the sense of humor bit and your joke here Tim. You have made some valid arguments along the way but I still can't see any logic in this theory that Apple's intent is to abandon the Pro market. No offense is intended, but it makes no sense to me and runs contrary to my own assessment absolutely. I hope we can agree to disagree on this without rancor.
Click to expand...

No worries - given the lack of concrete info from Apple, we're all speculating. We start from different assumptions (mistrust of the impure motives of a public company, versus a faith in Apple based on some positive past experiences), so it's reasonable that we'd wind up with different conclusions. If I've ever come across as rancorous, know that I really take all this debate in good humor. I may not be a fan of the method that certain other parties employ to express their opinions, but that doesn't mean I take any of this personally -- all in the spirit of making educated decisions! :)

Cheers,
Tim
 
:cheers2: We should all have a drink and put this ugly bitch to bed IMO.
 
Oliver Peters said:
In lengthy press briefings with Apple, they have been extremely reluctant to place any timetable on new features. Do you have more specific information or are you just extrapolating from their very general statements on the FAQ? Typically when a public company doesn't define a timetable, it often means it's outside of the quarterly SOX limits.
Click to expand...

Everything I said is straight out of the FAQ:

"We will release a set of APIs in the next few weeks so that third-party developers can access the next-generation XML in Final Cut Pro X."

"An update this summer will allow you to use metadata tags to categorize your audio clips by type and export them directly from Final Cut Pro X."

"Multicam editing is an important and popular feature, and we will provide great multicam support in the next major release."

Apple does not hint at when the next major release might be, but Apple's pattern seems to be to release approximately annually for the first few release cycles a new product goes through, and subsequently slow down as the long-hanging fruit gets picked off. OS X followed this pattern, and iOS now seems to be following it.
 
Chris Kenny said:
Everything I said is straight out of the FAQ:
Click to expand...

That's what I figured. What was told to me was that XML would likely be released as an SDK (there's a new XML format within FCP X) to third party developers and that XML interchange may or may not be done in-house. It might actually be another third party i/o step, like Automatic Duck. EDL sounded like it would definitely be third party. FCP7 project import was a big maybe. Also could be in-house or third party. They acknowledged importance of multi-cam. They were also very sketchy about how mixing might be implemented. They didn't seem to want to do an actual mixer panel, but rather deal with it through metadata. Presumably "audio roles" would be used. Right now those are only active as search parameters.

I realize what you are saying about Apple's patterns, but the under-the-hood stuff in FCP X permits a faster update cycle than in the past. That's, of course, IF they choose to do that.

- Oliver
 
If there’s a formula to Apple’s success over the past 10 years, that’s it. Start with something simple and build it, grow it, improve it, steadily over time. Evolve it.
Click to expand...

This is from an essay by John Gruber, one of the best-known Apple bloggers, someone who really understands the way Apple works. His piece from a few years back can be applied to just about any Apple product, including FCP X.

http://daringfireball.net/2009/04/complex

Gruber mentions how Apple nailed the launch of the initial iPhone, a device that we would now find painfully lacking: it was "simple enough to make it work and complex enough to be interesting."

I don't think Apple "nailed" the launch of FCP X. I also wouldn't expect anyone to sit around waiting for a future release which would finally address all their needs. I'm just saying that those jumping ship today should maybe keep an eye open, and not rule out working with FCP X again in the future... Whether that means making any specific decisions today is a different question.
 
FYI, for those thinking about Avid...last week at a seminar in DC, the Avid rep stated that the current MC 5.5 is not compatible/supported with the upcoming OSX Lion.
Avid plans to realease their 64bit version late this year, then it will be compatible with Lion.

also interesting editorial on why one person moved to Premier Pro from Final Cut Pro. From his point of view FCPX is just the straw that broke the camels back....

http://library.creativecow.net/kobler_helmut/FCP-vs-Premiere-Pro/1
 
Avid is never compatible with a brand new OS release from Microsoft or Apple, at least no immediately. It usually takes a little while for them to do internal testing and/or release an update to ensure your system doesn't break if/when you upgrade. If you switch to Avid, just don't upgrade to Lion until it's approved.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top