or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Software › Mac Software › It's time to call for Ubilllos' head...
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

It's time to call for Ubilllos' head...

post #1 of 32
Thread Starter 
He 's the wrong guy at the wrong time that turned Final Cut into Premiere v.4 with a shiny veneer. Obviously a lot of Pro customers are looking towards Avid MC and Premiere CS5.5 I do think however users need to get very specific about what their problem is and in this case it's Randy Ubillos and his philosophy on building cinema/video editing applications. Most Pro users aren't buying it, third party developers for the most part aren't buying it the thing left is to name a name to place blame in this debacle. I guarantee Final Cut will never improve to the level that's necessary with Randy Ubillos running things. Remember...the guy invented the original totally amateur version of Adobe Premiere.
post #2 of 32
And this couldn't go in one of the three existing threads about people complaining about Final Cut Studio why?

Originally Posted by Slurpy

There's just a TINY chance that Apple will also be able to figure out payments. Oh wait, they did already… …and you’re already f*ed.

 

Reply

Originally Posted by Slurpy

There's just a TINY chance that Apple will also be able to figure out payments. Oh wait, they did already… …and you’re already f*ed.

 

Reply
post #3 of 32
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

And this couldn't go in one of the three existing threads about people complaining about Final Cut Studio why?

Because it doesn't have anything to do with nit-picking about missing a boatload of necessary features or about Final Cut specifically. This thread is about throwing a spotlight/microscope on Randy Ubillos specifically and recognizing that a failed core philosophy that's been tried already was engineered by the same person 15 years ago. Final Cut can get better, but not with him running the show. Once people start digging into Ubillos' past I think it will be crystal clear that slamming Final Cut, to a large extent, makes no sense because it's what everyone should have expected from the Media and Entertainment group with Ubilos at the head.
post #4 of 32
Fair enough; I respect that.

Originally Posted by Slurpy

There's just a TINY chance that Apple will also be able to figure out payments. Oh wait, they did already… …and you’re already f*ed.

 

Reply

Originally Posted by Slurpy

There's just a TINY chance that Apple will also be able to figure out payments. Oh wait, they did already… …and you’re already f*ed.

 

Reply
post #5 of 32
Quote:
Originally Posted by Imhotep397 View Post

Because it doesn't have anything to do with nit-picking about missing a boatload of necessary features or about Final Cut specifically. This thread is about throwing a spotlight/microscope on Randy Ubillos specifically and recognizing that a failed core philosophy that's been tried already was engineered by the same person 15 years ago. Final Cut can get better, but not with him running the show. Once people start digging into Ubillos' past I think it will be crystal clear that slamming Final Cut, to a large extent, makes no sense because it's what everyone should have expected from the Media and Entertainment group with Ubilos at the head.

You people slammed iMovie 8 and rightfully so as it didn't have many features that were in iMovie HD but it did offer a nice peak into the future with the realtime playback of effects and transitions on even basic systems and the skimming functionality.

iMovie 9 has improved by leaps and bounds and once you grasp it ..it's easy to create something that looks presentable with little effort.

Truth time

Final Cut Express was an abomination. It was usable only if you slogged through a book or had prior experience with Final Cut Pro (which you slogged through a book to learn). I cheer the demise of FCE because it was not suitable for consumers taking the next step beyond iMovie.

Final Cut Pro X is the pro version that won't cause people to panic when they launch it the first time. It's just an easier UI to grasp even from the screenshots. I think it's going to usher in a lot more slick prosumer productions and it presents much less roadblocks like transcoding and logging and capturing.

I suspect that FCPX 2.0 will be a great leap forward in polish to an app that already has the chutzpah needed for the 21st century at its core.

Ubillos is still the man.
He's a mod so he has a few extra vBulletin privileges. That doesn't mean he should stop posting or should start acting like Digital Jesus.
- SolipsismX
Reply
He's a mod so he has a few extra vBulletin privileges. That doesn't mean he should stop posting or should start acting like Digital Jesus.
- SolipsismX
Reply
post #6 of 32
Quote:
Originally Posted by Imhotep397 View Post

Remember...the guy invented the original totally amateur version of Adobe Premiere.

And Final Cut Pro - even the versions you like.
JLL

95% percent of the boat is owned by Microsoft, but the 5% Apple controls happens to be the rudder!
Reply
JLL

95% percent of the boat is owned by Microsoft, but the 5% Apple controls happens to be the rudder!
Reply
post #7 of 32
Thread Starter 
The only thing I can say is that either he, Jobs or both have completely lost their marbles. I can't even buy a copy of FCS 7 or FCS 3 from Apple or virtually anyone else at this point and they've already at least admitted the version of FCP X is not finished. How do you cut off supplies of a working pro app for a beta amatuer app? I just don't understand how anyone would do that.

They totally expected most users to just rollover and say "Great job guys, we don't need all of those critical features anyway. We'll wait and see what you come up with."
post #8 of 32
Just out of curiosity, what's the "failed core philosophy" that was "engineered by the same person 15 years ago"?
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
post #9 of 32
Perhaps you just don't understand Randy Ubillo's full vision of what he believes an NLE should be. I don't know if the market will get on board with him.

Visionaries are often called crazy before everyone understands what they could see the whole time.
post #10 of 32
Quote:
Originally Posted by Imhotep397 View Post

Remember...the guy invented the original totally amateur version of Adobe Premiere.

Amateur? The first version of Adobe Premiere was released in 1991.
post #11 of 32
Quote:
Originally Posted by TenoBell View Post

Perhaps you just don't understand Randy Ubillo's full vision of what he believes an NLE should be. I don't know if the market will get on board with him.

Visionaries are often called crazy before everyone understands what they could see the whole time.

The entire television production industry is not going to change how it works to satisfy either Mr. Ubillo's or Mr. Jobs' vision.
post #12 of 32
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by addabox View Post

Just out of curiosity, what's the "failed core philosophy" that was "engineered by the same person 15 years ago"?


Premiere 1-4 was a "Timeline Only" based editor, which is fine for educational purposes. I learned editing with it the beginning of filmschool. Essentially, you have the whole dragging and dropping of clips to a timeline where macro layout of a project is great, but editing shot to shot transitions are made exponentially more difficult. In a "Timeline Only" editor you're forced to work with postage stamp sized windows to make a precision edit and that's just not acceptable. Getting into long form editing that needs precision cutting, with multiple revisions just amplifies the problem. That's not even touching the surface of half of the things that that a pro editing app needs, but as soon as people look at the interface the first thing they see is basically..."Sorry guys, No precision editing for YOU. Postage stamp style editing all the way baby!"

The one thing Premiere had going for it was project portability, because everything including a project file could be saved to one folder and you could save that folder, move it to a completely different workstation and keep things moving without missing a beat, FCPX doesn't have an option for that even though it has the amateur editing structure Premiere 1-4 had. People didn't start taking Premiere seriously until Adobe added real, usable 3-point editing.

Collaborative editing and better full pipeline data asset management, like Avid has, was something people were expecting in the next FCP, because of the introduction of Final Cut Server and XSan. However, with Apple nixing all server services except iPhone and iPad networked application development that's pretty much out the window which is another huge reason to dislike FCP at this point.
post #13 of 32
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by TenoBell View Post

... I don't know if the market will get on board with him...

It's already crystal clear that NO PROFESSIONAL is down with Ubillos' "Vision" for the NLE. Even the pro editors that are trying to remain optimistic are telling others to stick with FCP7 and reserve judgment until the miracle updates roll out.
post #14 of 32
Quote:
Originally Posted by Imhotep397 View Post

It's already crystal clear that NO PROFESSIONAL is down with Ubillos' "Vision" for the NLE. Even the pro editors that are trying to remain optimistic are telling others to stick with FCP7 and reserve judgment until the miracle updates roll out.

I mentioned earlier in another thread I'm surprised Randy U. hasn't been singled out more specifically. It seems strange that we also haven't heard anything from him directly AFAIK... Just a variety of "product managers" who are smaller fish compared to Randy who probably reports directly to Steve Jobs.

Edit, MacNN reported Randy's response, which surprisingly has not been mentioned by AppleInsider AFAIK:
http://www.macnn.com/articles/11/06/...rs.after.fcpx/

Apparently Randy has been keeping a low profile and the only contact from him is an email posted in a forum:
http://forums.creativecow.net/thread/335/4302

This is what Randy said:

"FCP7 projects do not have enough information in them to properly translate to FCPX (in FCP7 all of the clip connections live in the editor's head, not in the timeline). We never expected anyone to switch editing software in the middle of a project, so project migration was not a priority.

Final Cut Pro X 1.0 is the beginning of a road, not the end."
post #15 of 32
Overall it is disquieting that the person whose vision and responsibility is most related to FCPX has been essentially MIA these past few weeks.
post #16 of 32
Quote:
Originally Posted by nvidia2008 View Post

Overall it is disquieting that the person whose vision and responsibility is most related to FCPX has been essentially MIA these past few weeks.

Not surprising. Ubillos was thinking about the methodology for editing video over two decades ago. He didn't have the luxury of getting a finished product and manual to learn.

Let's face it ....editing video isn't Rocket Science and it takes considerably more effort to start with a blank sheet and create a new way of looking at completing task knowing that you are going to anger the users who have learned a way of doing tasks and dogmatically cling to these methods.

Randy is so far ahead of every editor out there. He knows what is coming and what isn't because he's creating it. Trying to placate the angry mob is futile. As he said FCPX is the beginning and not the end.
He's a mod so he has a few extra vBulletin privileges. That doesn't mean he should stop posting or should start acting like Digital Jesus.
- SolipsismX
Reply
He's a mod so he has a few extra vBulletin privileges. That doesn't mean he should stop posting or should start acting like Digital Jesus.
- SolipsismX
Reply
post #17 of 32
Quote:
Originally Posted by hmurchison View Post

Let's face it ....editing video isn't Rocket Science and it takes considerably more effort to start with a blank sheet and create a new way of looking at completing task knowing that you are going to anger the users who have learned a way of doing tasks and dogmatically cling to these methods.

Randy is so far ahead of every editor out there. He knows what is coming and what isn't because he's creating it. Trying to placate the angry mob is futile. As he said FCPX is the beginning and not the end.

This isn't the issue at all - it's not about visionary vs dogmatic. It's about collaborative vs single-user.

The way Final Cut Pro X is designed so far is all about the single-user - evident from the lack of volume licensing for a start. That design is not far ahead of anyone else's thinking because no single-user is making a big budget production in their bedroom using just the internal storage in their iMac. This design is wrong and it needs to be fixed.

Right now, you cannot import a file into FCPX without it being transcoded to ProRes and the render files being placed in the same place as the projects (which is silly); you cannot take the files you have placed into the timeline into a visual effects package like Shake, Nuke, AE, Color or even Motion, edit them and reconnect the media (FCP 7 did this live without even having to ask you).

From the outset, FCPX should have been designed as a collaborative product because this design works for everyone. Once the XML API arrives, it will help fix some import/export issues but the file connection design is wrong.

As for the rest of the software, there's not really a huge departure from standard editing to the point you could call it groundbreaking. Being able to index clips with metadata is great but it's not a new idea. The magnetic timeline is great but is just a little thing to make life easier. The editing workflow is unchanged.
post #18 of 32
Apple doesn't need the entire television/film production community to change its work to satisfy Mr. Ubillo's vision. Apple doesn't make very much money from the television/film production community.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Conrail View Post

The entire television production industry is not going to change how it works to satisfy either Mr. Ubillo's or Mr. Jobs' vision.
post #19 of 32
I don't think that matters all that much for Apple.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Imhotep397 View Post

It's already crystal clear that NO PROFESSIONAL is down with Ubillos' "Vision" for the NLE. Even the pro editors that are trying to remain optimistic are telling others to stick with FCP7 and reserve judgment until the miracle updates roll out.
post #20 of 32
You make it sound like this was an accident and not purposeful.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvin View Post

The way Final Cut Pro X is designed so far is all about the single-user - evident from the lack of volume licensing for a start. That design is not far ahead of anyone else's thinking because no single-user is making a big budget production in their bedroom using just the internal storage in their iMac. This design is wrong and it needs to be fixed.
post #21 of 32
With XSAN support coming in a future update clearly there's a strategy for
collaborative environments.

I'm keen on finding out more seeing as how Lion Server has XSAN Admin built in
and Lion has XSAN Client.

Back to Ubillos.


Lion should enable some nice features but FCPX has to straddle Snow Leopard/Lion so we're likely not seeing the full spectrum of functionality until Lion gains many more users. I suspect in 18 months people will look back and marvel at how far FCPX has come along with Apple updates and great 3rd party tools.
He's a mod so he has a few extra vBulletin privileges. That doesn't mean he should stop posting or should start acting like Digital Jesus.
- SolipsismX
Reply
He's a mod so he has a few extra vBulletin privileges. That doesn't mean he should stop posting or should start acting like Digital Jesus.
- SolipsismX
Reply
post #22 of 32
Quote:
Originally Posted by TenoBell

Apple doesn't make very much money from the television/film production community.

Final Cut Studio used to cost $1000. If a company installs 100 seats, they make $100,000 from a single client and sell 100 (likely high-end) Macs. If a film school bases a program around Final Cut, they have to fit classrooms full of Macs and also license the product.

Apple even said at the FCP Supermeet that out of new NLE purchases, Apple make about 55% of the sales volume, Avid make 15% and Adobe 20%. If Avid can keep a business running on 15% then I'd say Apple with 55% must be doing ok, despite the price difference.

It's not going to be anything compared to hardware sales:

http://www.filmmakingwebinars.com/20...tant-to-apple/

but you can't estimate how many hardware sales are made because of the software. Did all of the 2 million customers already own Macs? I doubt it. Apple is already as synonymous with editing as it is with graphic design.

Increasing the volume of the target audience is fine but the bad decisions made in FCPX also affect those people. It's not that Apple has designed a product without features that only professional workflows need, the bad decisions create a restricted workflow for everyone and it was unnecessary.

Quote:
Originally Posted by TenoBell View Post

You make it sound like this was an accident and not purposeful.

They might have been trying to turn it into a product like Avid Studio:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6m4M7GuHGyU

but even consumers need to modify files outside of FCPX after they have been used in the timeline - a collaborative workflow isn't just about other users but other software like iPhoto, Garageband, Motion etc. Say for example, you put a film together and you just have to use a fairy dust transition. You can do it in iMovie so you naturally expect to open up your clip in iMovie and save it in the same place and be able to load it back into FCPX; you can't. Obviously for the odd effect, you can do a reimport but for an entire timeline of changes, having to manually reinsert every edit every time is not feasible.

I also don't think consumers ever want to see the offline icon appearing - I reckon they'll get a lot of support calls about that. Your instinctive reaction is to want to tell it where the clip is by e.g right-clicking and reconnecting but FCPX won't even let you do that. As I say, FCP 7 just figured it out by itself in real-time for timeline changes and asked you when files were moved and auto-reconnected entire folders with a click. If they make a program harder to use than the old version then that's taking a step back.

Quote:
Originally Posted by hmurchison

With XSAN support coming in a future update clearly there's a strategy for
collaborative environments.

That doesn't fix the issue about modifications to shared files being acceptable though. You can use shared storage but if someone else colour corrects or keys a clip you have in your timeline, it will go offline for you instead of just being replaced transparently.
post #23 of 32
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvin View Post

Final Cut Studio used to cost $1000. If a company installs 100 seats, they make $100,000 from a single client and sell 100 (likely high-end) Macs. If a film school bases a program around Final Cut, they have to fit classrooms full of Macs and also license the product.

This is an easy one to address.





The far majority of Apple's revenues are coming from the iPhone and iPad. Of its Mac sales about 70% are notebooks. So desktops to professionals account for a very small percentage of the entire picture.



Quote:
but even consumers need to modify files outside of FCPX after they have been used in the timeline - a collaborative workflow isn't just about other users but other software like iPhoto, Garageband, Motion etc.

Marvin you keep going over the same things over and over. Apple has said updates and more functionality are coming. We'll just have to wait and see.

Quote:
I also don't think consumers ever want to see the offline icon appearing - I reckon they'll get a lot of support calls about that.

This is already the case in iMove. That doesn't change for consumers moving up from that.
post #24 of 32
Quote:
Originally Posted by hmurchison View Post

With XSAN support coming in a future update clearly there's a strategy for
collaborative environments.

I'm keen on finding out more seeing as how Lion Server has XSAN Admin built in
and Lion has XSAN Client.

Back to Ubillos.


Lion should enable some nice features but FCPX has to straddle Snow Leopard/Lion so we're likely not seeing the full spectrum of functionality until Lion gains many more users. I suspect in 18 months people will look back and marvel at how far FCPX has come along with Apple updates and great 3rd party tools.

It will be interesting to see how expensive FCP X turns out to be, once you add enough third party plug ins and hardware to give it the functionality that was lost.

If this is Apple's plan-- to offer core functionality at a mass market price while making that core extensible enough to get it up to speed for pros (while not ending up paying Avid prices to get there) then they may yet have some success.

But that core functionality will have to be pretty attractive to convince post houses that it's worth the trouble against just getting something that does most things out of the box. And of course they'll be swimming upstream against the ill-will they've pointlessly engendered to date.

One possible selling point is what they've done with Motion, wherein you can save an effect as a template to be used directly in the FCP timeline (if I'm understanding that bit correctly). It that can be done with third party software-- if, for instance, you could set up your audio parameters in Pro Tools and access them directly in FCP-- that would be pretty sweet. It would in effect turn compatible software into plugins.
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
post #25 of 32
Here is the trojan horse.

Final Cut Pro X on the iPad
post #26 of 32
I think iMovie and FCP X show unmistakable signs of having been designed with touch friendliness in mind. That may be where Ubillos has been going with the UI and why he's received the blessings of top management (it remains my theory that Apple didn't ever expect FCP X to met with anything but derision by the pro editing community and actually doesn't much care).

In fact, I suspect that Apple/Jobs think touch is sufficiently important that they're willing to roll with the poor reception that FCP X has received, because the Big Plan is, in fact, something like FCP X on something like an iPad, with high bandwidth wireless taking the place of ports.

It's an appealing scenario if you don't think terribly hard about the nitty gritty particulars of cutting a show, but maybe they have actually thought that through as well and have some ideas about how that might work somewhere down the road. Except they're building towards a world that doesn't exist yet, so it remains to be seen if they can even get back in the door once all the pieces are in place to make it functional. Or if editors will ever consider a touch interface "functional."
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
post #27 of 32
Quote:
Originally Posted by TenoBell View Post

Of its Mac sales about 70% are notebooks. So desktops to professionals account for a very small percentage of the entire picture.

iTunes also accounts for very little - sometimes there are other factors to consider. The little chunks may seem relatively small but even 5% of $6b = $300m per quarter will come in handy for something. They're going to need to buy stationary for their new office so that budget has to come from somewhere.

Quote:
Originally Posted by TenoBell View Post

Apple has said updates and more functionality are coming. We'll just have to wait and see.

They have but no specific dates and no real mention of the workflow decisions. The points they have mentioned are features that get tacked on top.

Quote:
Originally Posted by TenoBell View Post

This is already the case in iMove. That doesn't change for consumers moving up from that.

That makes two apps that need fixing. Sometimes Apple doesn't cater for getting from a problem to a solution - leaving you with an offline message really doesn't make for a good experience.

Quote:
Originally Posted by addabox

In fact, I suspect that Apple/Jobs think touch is sufficiently important that they're willing to roll with the poor reception that FCP X has received, because the Big Plan is, in fact, something like FCP X on something like an iPad, with high bandwidth wireless taking the place of ports.

I think the idea of using touch is great - some parts of FCPX actually feel kind of broken using a mouse. Like dragging a clip from the Events window, it keeps wanting to set the select state first. This makes sense for touch because a dragging action defaults to scroll. The previews on everything point to finger-friendliness too. All they'd need to adjust are the Events bin and options panels, which they can do with the pop-over menus. The binaries have lots of references to multitouch e.g:

multitouchEnabled\\showsTouchesYloopStartUtitleXke ywords_geometryFlipped\\touchesColor
documentWidth_multitouchDisablesMouse_publishedObj ects
loopingEnabled_multitouchEnabledWloopEnd_snappingE nabled

Obviously the trackpad is multitouch but it would behave the same on the iPad. You could imagine actions like breaking apart or closing compound clips and audio/video with vertical pinch gestures. You can zoom the timeline with horizontal pinch and panning is very easy too - easier than a mouse. The hovering scrub would behave like normal scrub on an iPad.

It doesn't even have to be standalone, you could have the iPad beside you at a desk and select whichever screen you wanted to show on the iPad. With multi-cam, you could have 9 or so videos showing on it and just tap to switch between each one.

With their proxy transcode option, you could transfer half resolution ProRes Proxy files direct to an iPad (10GB onto fast NAND via Thunderbolt), edit on it and sync the project file back via iCloud.

The thing that's good about this kind of setup is it gives you the freedom to edit together a story in an environment that's better for creativity. A desk isn't the best place for this and even a laptop isn't the most portable device when you have to use a trackpad.

There are certain design issues that go against this setup though - like render files filling up the iPad memory quickly. If they allowed SD card support though, it might be a way round it.
post #28 of 32
Another feature that's interesting is Python support:

http://blog.nicedissolve.com/2011/06...fcpx-workflow/

IMO, Python should be the standard for in-app scripting for all apps and workflow scripting.

A Python plugin environment like you get in Maya can allow document migration of any type. It seems like it might be part of Motion too.

With scripting support of a language like Python, 3rd parties can have control over everything depending on how deeply it has been implemented. If the plugin hooks go as deep as contextual menus, you could even write your own media relinking code.

It's still limited to scripting tasks but having access to the data locations and being able to execute shell programs means you can do a lot of things - again if it's hooked deeply into the app.

It seems like a lot of things have been left in an unfinished state to get past the initial release and it's good that now there's a single product they can focus on instead of FCE and FCP. FCE had yearly releases. From now on, I expect the same will be true of FCP X.

If the critical collaborative features won't be ready in a reasonable timeframe, it would make sense to bring back FCP 7 licensing to hold people out until FCP X 2.0 (codenamed backpaddle).
post #29 of 32
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvin View Post

iTunes also accounts for very little - sometimes there are other factors to consider. The little chunks may seem relatively small but even 5% of $6b = $300m per quarter will come in handy for something. They're going to need to buy stationary for their new office so that budget has to come from somewhere.

iTunes and FCP for that matter are value added services to help sell hardware. FCP X is intended to extend the FCP user base from hundreds of thousands into the millions. Millions of people buying Macs are of much more value to Apple than a few hundred thousand.



Quote:
They have but no specific dates and no real mention of the workflow decisions. The points they have mentioned are features that get tacked on top.

True. You seem to associate a lack of information with a lack of action. Which isn't necessarily true.


Quote:
There are certain design issues that go against this setup though - like render files filling up the iPad memory quickly. If they allowed SD card support though, it might be a way round it.

In that video I posted they are running FCP on the iPad using a remote desktop app. So FCP itself isn't using any of the iPad's software services.
post #30 of 32
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…


macrummors
post #31 of 32
Quote:
Originally Posted by TenoBell

FCP X is intended to extend the FCP user base from hundreds of thousands into the millions.

I think they could have done that by just dropping the price of FCS.

Quote:
Originally Posted by TenoBell View Post

1. FCP XML in/out is coming via 3rd party soon…no FCP 6/7 support project support coming ever it seems…

That would be ok, the XML files will hold all the info about an FCP project. It would be much more time consuming to handle the FCP binary files and no benefit besides saving a user exporting an XML from FCP but you do it once.

Quote:
Originally Posted by TenoBell

4. FCPX AJA plugins coming soon for tape capture and layback…capture straight into FCPX [events].

They updated it to say standalone apps not plugins for this. Automatic Duck is similarly a standalone app. Maybe Apple won't have a low-level plugin API.

Quote:
Originally Posted by TenoBell

9. Some FCPX updates will be free some will cost…

As long as it's just major releases that cost and minor ones are free.
post #32 of 32
Not if the newer UI is simpler for most people to use.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvin View Post

I think they could have done that by just dropping the price of FCS.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Mac Software
AppleInsider › Forums › Software › Mac Software › It's time to call for Ubilllos' head...