or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Software › Mac Software › Apple posts Final Cut Pro X FAQ: FCP7 will work with Lion, import not possible
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Apple posts Final Cut Pro X FAQ: FCP7 will work with Lion, import not possible

post #1 of 135
Thread Starter 
Apple on Wednesday posted a list of frequently asked questions on its website to address growing concern among video professionals over the newly released Final Cut Pro X.

Among the details, Apple reveals that the ability to import projects from Final Cut Pro 7 into the new Final Cut Pro X is not coming. The company explained that drastic changes to Final Cut Pro X make it impossible to "translate" old projects without changing or losing data.

"But if you're already working with Final Cut Pro 7, you can continue to do so after installing Final Cut Pro X, and Final Cut Pro 7 will work with Mac OS X Lion," the question-and-answer reads. "You can also import your media files from previous versions into Final Cut Pro X."

The answers provided also reiterate the fact that Apple is planning to add multi-camera support to Final Cut Pro X. Apple acknowledged that multicam editing for video professionals is "an important and popular feature," and that "great" support will arrive in a future release.

"Until then, Final Cut Pro X offers some basic support with automatic clip synchronization, which allows you to sync multiple video and audio clips using audio waveforms, creating a Compound Clip that can be used for simple multicam workflows."

Final Cut Pro X was first released on the Mac App Store last week, alongside Motion 5 and Compressor 4. The software, touted as a "revolutionary new version," is $299.99, while Motion 5 and Compressor 4 sell for $49.99 each.



But since its release, many video professionals have expressed their discontent with Final Cut Pro X. Some believe that the new version is vastly inferior to Final Cut Pro 7.

While Final Cut Pro 7 will be compatible with the forthcoming Mac OS X 10.7 Lion operating system, Apple discontinued the product last week when it made Final Cut Studio, Final Cut Server and Final Cut Express all "end of life" products. That means going forward, video professionals will only be able to buy a new copy of Final Cut Pro X from the Mac App Store.

More than a year ago, in May of 2010, AppleInsider first reportedthat Apple planned to widen the appeal of Final Cut Pro with features geared toward "prosumers" and more advanced home users. It's those changes, that some have derided as akin to Apple's entry-level iMovie software, that have caught the ire of a number of video professionals.

Apple's full list of questions and answers is included below:

Import
Can I import projects from Final Cut Pro 7 into Final Cut Pro X?

Final Cut Pro X includes an all-new project architecture structured around a trackless timeline and connected clips. In addition, Final Cut Pro X features new and redesigned audio effects, video effects, and color grading tools. Because of these changes, there is no way to translate or bring in old projects without changing or losing data. But if youre already working with Final Cut Pro 7, you can continue to do so after installing Final Cut Pro X, and Final Cut Pro 7 will work with Mac OS X Lion. You can also import your media files from previous versions into Final Cut Pro X.

Can I import my video directly into Final Cut Pro X as I could in Final Cut Pro 7?

Yes. Final Cut Pro X allows you to import video from a wide range of devices, including many AVCHD-based cameras and DSLR cameras. You can find a list of supported cameras here: http://help.apple.com/finalcutpro/cameras/en/. The list will grow as we continue to test and qualify new cameras.

Some camera manufacturers will need to update their import plug-ins to work with the new 64-bit architecture of Final Cut Pro, and we are working with them to provide these updates as quickly as possible. Until then, you can use your camera manufacturers import software to convert video for Final Cut Pro X.

For example, Sony offers an XDCAM Transfer application that allows you to convert XDCAM video without transcoding so it can be imported into Final Cut Pro X. You can find more information here: http://support.apple.com/kb/HT4724. If you are working with RED cameras, you can use the free RED software REDCINE-X, designed to transcode RED RAW video to ProRes for use in Final Cut Pro X: https://www.red.com/support/all/downloads.
Editing
Can I edit my tape-based workflow with Final Cut Pro X?

Yes, in a limited manner. Final Cut Pro X is designed for modern file-based workflows and does not include all the tape capture and output features that were built into Final Cut Pro 7. Final Cut Pro X does support FireWire import for DV, DVCPRO, DVCPRO 50, DVCPRO HD, and HDV. In addition, companies like AJA and Blackmagic offer free deck control software that allows you to capture from tape and output to tape.

Does Final Cut Pro X support multicam editing?

Not yet, but it will. Multicam editing is an important and popular feature, and we will provide great multicam support in the next major release. Until then, Final Cut Pro X offers some basic support with automatic clip synchronization, which allows you to sync multiple video and audio clips using audio waveforms, creating a Compound Clip that can be used for simple multicam workflows.

Does Final Cut Pro X support external monitors?

Yes. If you have a second computer monitor connected to your Mac, Final Cut Pro X gives you options to display the interface across multiple monitors. For example, you can place a single window such as the Viewer or the Event Browser on the second monitor, while leaving the other windows on your primary monitor. Like previous versions, Final Cut Pro X relies on third-party devices to support external video monitoring. Weve been working with third-party developers in our beta program to create drivers for Final Cut Pro X, and AJA has already posted beta drivers for its popular Kona card: http://www.aja.com/support/konaNEW/kona-3g.php.

Can I save different versions of my project?

Yes. Final Cut Pro X automatically saves your project during the editing process, so you never lose your work. If you want to save a version of your project, with or without duplicate media, select it in the Project Library and choose File > Duplicate Project.

Are keyboard shortcuts in Final Cut Pro X different from those in Final Cut Pro 7?

Many keyboard shortcuts for navigation, start/end marking, and tools are the same in Final Cut Pro X and Final Cut Pro 7. Some keyboard shortcuts have changed to support new features. Final Cut Pro X offers powerful keyboard customization, and you can view and modify keyboard shortcuts at any time by choosing Final Cut Pro > Commands > Customize.

Can I use my third-party plug-ins in Final Cut Pro X?

Youll be able to use them as soon as they are updated. Because Final Cut Pro X has a modern 64-bit architecture, third-party plug-ins must be 64-bit too. Final Cut Pro X already supports 64-bit Audio Units plug-ins. For motion graphics, third-party developers can build effects, titles, transitions, and generators as templates in Motion 5 for use directly in Final Cut Pro X. Developers can also build 64-bit FxPlug 2 plug-ins for Motion 5, and integrate those plug-ins into templates that can be used in Final Cut Pro X. These templates, together with any associated FxPlug 2 plug-ins, will work in Final Cut Pro X even if Motion is not installed on the computer.
Media Management
Can I specify a scratch disk location?

Yes. When you import media, you can specify the Event and the drive where youd like to put it. You can also specify where youd like to put your project. In Final Cut Pro X, a project and its rendered media always travel together in the same folder, so its easy to move projects between different hard drives and computers.

Can I share projects with other editors?

Yes. You have several options for sharing projects. You can hand over just the project file, and the recipient can reconnect the project to his or her own copies of the Event. Or you can send the complete project and Event as a package to another editor. Final Cut Pro X includes options for duplicating, moving, and consolidating projects and associated media to streamline sharing between editors.

Can I store media in locations other than my system drive?

Yes. Turning off the Copy files to Final Cut Events folder option leaves the imported files where they are currently located. You can also move the project and associated media at any point during the editing process by dragging the project to another mounted hard drive within the Project Library.

Can I hide Events that I am not working on?

Yes. You can hide Events in Final Cut Pro X by moving them out of the Final Cut Events folder. In the Finder, navigate to the /Users/username/Movies folder and create a new folder. Then move the Events you are not using out of the Final Cut Events folder and into your new folder. The moved Events will no longer appear in Final Cut Pro X. If your Events are located on an external drive, you can move the Events to a new folder on that drive, or you can simply unmount the drive.
Export
Can Final Cut Pro X export XML?

Not yet, but we know how important XML export is to our developers and our users, and we expect to add this functionality to Final Cut Pro X. 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.

Does Final Cut Pro X support OMF, AAF, and EDLs?

Not yet. When the APIs for XML export are available, third-party developers will be able to create tools to support OMF, AAF, EDL, and other exchange formats. We have already worked with Automatic Duck to allow you to export OMF and AAF from Final Cut Pro X using Automatic Duck Pro Export FCP 5.0. More information is available on the Automatic Duck website: http://automaticduck.com/products/pefcp/.

Can I send my project to a sound editing application such as Pro Tools?

Yes; you can export your project in OMF or AAF format using Automatic Duck Pro Export FCP 5.0. More information is available on the Automatic Duck website: http://automaticduck.com/products/pefcp/.

Does Final Cut Pro X allow you to assign audio tracks for export?

Not yet. 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.

Can I customize my export settings?

Yes. Compressor 4, available from the Mac App Store for $49.99, allows you to create a wide variety of custom export settings that you can use in Final Cut Pro X. The most popular export options and formats, including ProRes and H.264, are already built into Final Cut Pro X.
Purchase
Can I purchase a volume license?

Final Cut Pro X, Motion 5, and Compressor 4 Commercial and Education Volume Licensing will be available soon via the Apple Online Store for quantities of 20 or more. After purchasing, customers will receive redemption codes they can use to download the applications from the Mac App Store.
post #2 of 135
This summer. Nice pace.

However, Apple could have done this release better; this FAQ should not be needed now; it should have been out the first day, even on the App store page. They seem to be cleaning up a mess.

That said, I am stunned at the reaction of many so-called "pros" who couldn't find some of these answers easily themselves early on or didn't bother to research before buying and are so seemingly opposed to anything approaching change.

 

Your = the possessive of you, as in, "Your name is Tom, right?" or "What is your name?"

 

You're = a contraction of YOU + ARE as in, "You are right" --> "You're right."

 

 

Reply

 

Your = the possessive of you, as in, "Your name is Tom, right?" or "What is your name?"

 

You're = a contraction of YOU + ARE as in, "You are right" --> "You're right."

 

 

Reply
post #3 of 135
Can you please stop with all the douchebagism and realize there are major elements missing that actual pros need but you don't. I agree that this FAQ should have been there on the first day.
post #4 of 135
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bergermeister View Post

This summer. Nice pace.

However, Apple could have done this release better; this FAQ should not be needed now; it should have been out the first day, even on the App store page. They seem to be cleaning up a mess.

That said, I am stunned at the reaction of many so-called "pros" who couldn't find some of these answers easily themselves early on or didn't bother to research before buying and are so seemingly opposed to anything approaching change.

Really Mr Meister? Stunned are you? This release adds little that's new, other than to quash any speculation that FCP7 import may be possible, and to reaffirm that Apple really has no plans to provide, for example, PCIe-based output for HDSDI devices, relying instead on lame "preview" output for monitoring, but not professional level tape mastering other than to domestic devices. The promise that FCP7 will work under OS X 10.7 is a relief, but there's no commitment to keeping this suite going, and signals a reliance in FCP X on cobbling together third party plugins around a central app from Apple that falls short of a comprehensive architecture for core functions.

What kind of so-called "pro" are you to fails to see the glaring inadequacies exposed in this FAQ, but prefers to criticise those whose livelihood depends on an abandoned suite? Clearly yours does not.

The vanity and conceit implicit in this FAQ is stunning, however. It dismisses the real daily needs of an industry and promotes instead the notion that Apple is being so-so modern and the world is out of step. Delusional.

This does NOT solve the problem, nor will it serve to quell discontent. It may hasten the abandonment of a so-called "pro" platform by those paid to deliver shows, not play with cute GUI. Far from being stuck in a rut as you allege, FCP professionals are racing toward change at a rate that ought to concern Apple, but clearly doesn't. Change is great, lame duck software is not.
post #5 of 135
Quote:
Originally Posted by IronHeadSlim View Post

Can you please stop with all the douchebagism and realize there are major elements missing that actual pros need but you don't. I agree that this FAQ should have been there on the first day.

Hang on, now. At least be clear who you're insulting before insulting them.
post #6 of 135
The only problem I have is with the lack of export to OMF files for audio post work. That said I'm sure the next Logic Studio will support XML interchange with Final Cut again. That also tells me to assume the next version of Logic will be $299.

External monitoring and HDSDI support etc. is coming from third-parties. This is nothing different than before. It just needs new drivers and plugins.

Multicam will be coming, not that I ever used it.

It is clear Apple doesn't care about the large film and television production houses at all. Neither do I, they can afford Autodesk products, I can't.

As far as the lack of full tape support, who cares? This is Apple making a shot across the bow to all of the outfits out there that are stuck in 1999. Most people are shooting tapeless, or will be in the near future. Why should we have to worry about having to go back out to tape because some TV station still likes a Betacam tape? Maybe the stations should upgrade instead of the myriad producers of small content have to keep unreliable mechanical crap around just for them? Tape died four or five years ago, some people just refused to read the obituary.

Unlike "fearless" (what an oxymoron) I'm not afraid of the fact my job can be done by more and more people. You should keep your job because you know how to make a good video, not due to having made a huge investment in technology and "training" to keep the masses out.
post #7 of 135
Quote:
Originally Posted by fearless View Post

Really Mr Meister? Stunned are you? This release adds little that's new, other than to quash any speculation that FCP7 import may be possible, and to reaffirm that Apple really has no plans to provide, for example, PCIe-based output for HDSDI devices, relying instead on lame "preview" output for monitoring, but not professional level tape mastering other than to domestic devices. The promise that FCP7 will work under OS X 10.7 is a relief, but there's no commitment to keeping this suite going, and signals a reliance in FCP X on cobbling together third party plugins around a central app from Apple that falls short of a comprehensive architecture for core functions.

What kind of so-called "pro" are you to fails to see the glaring inadequacies exposed in this FAQ, but prefers to criticise those whose livelihood depends on an abandoned suite? Clearly yours does not.

The vanity and conceit implicit in this FAQ is stunning, however. It dismisses the real daily needs of an industry and promotes instead the notion that Apple is being so-so modern and the world is out of step. Delusional.

This does NOT solve the problem, nor will it serve to quell discontent. It may hasten the abandonment of a so-called "pro" platform by those paid to deliver shows, not play with cute GUI. Far from being stuck in a rut as you allege, FCP professionals are racing toward change at a rate that ought to concern Apple, but clearly doesn't. Change is great, lame duck software is not.

It appears you are a final cut pro 7 fan. Just because you paid for and received a product you love in final cut pro 7 doesn't mean that Apple owes you anything. These "pro's" with their entitlement issues...if you are so pro, keep making money with your current set up...

In reality, FCPX is laying the foundation for a revolution. I believe Apple would be completely satisfied if a child using their ecosystem could compete/outperform an entire post production company that won't yield to changing business, changing computer hardware and changing computer software.

Pro's will continue to be pro's and posers will continue to be posers, is that what you're so worried about?
post #8 of 135
Quote:
Originally Posted by fearless View Post

Really Mr Meister? Stunned are you? This release adds little that's new, other than to quash any speculation that FCP7 import may be possible, and to reaffirm that Apple really has no plans to provide, for example, PCIe-based output for HDSDI devices, relying instead on lame "preview" output for monitoring, but not professional level tape mastering other than to domestic devices. The promise that FCP7 will work under OS X 10.7 is a relief, but there's no commitment to keeping this suite going, and signals a reliance in FCP X on cobbling together third party plugins around a central app from Apple that falls short of a comprehensive architecture for core functions.

What kind of so-called "pro" are you to fails to see the glaring inadequacies exposed in this FAQ, but prefers to criticise those whose livelihood depends on an abandoned suite? Clearly yours does not.

The vanity and conceit implicit in this FAQ is stunning, however. It dismisses the real daily needs of an industry and promotes instead the notion that Apple is being so-so modern and the world is out of step. Delusional.

This does NOT solve the problem, nor will it serve to quell discontent. It may hasten the abandonment of a so-called "pro" platform by those paid to deliver shows, not play with cute GUI. Far from being stuck in a rut as you allege, FCP professionals are racing toward change at a rate that ought to concern Apple, but clearly doesn't. Change is great, lame duck software is not.

To give some perspective for everyone, how well did adobe and avid translation to 64 bit? Their feature upgrade time line etc? Just curious, I have no idea.

Also, could you expand on 'comprehensive architecture'? What is missing from the 'core architecture' that they did not at least attempt to address in their fax? Again curious, I'm not a editor, just trying to understand.
Hokey religions and ancient weapons are no match for a good blaster by your side, kid.
Reply
Hokey religions and ancient weapons are no match for a good blaster by your side, kid.
Reply
post #9 of 135
It's a big failure of Apple, so big that it's the best selling app on the App Store (I checked the App Stores of the US and the Netherlands).
Wow.

J.
post #10 of 135
There was no need for the last line of the first post. He had already made his point.

I am insulting everyone who adds ad hominem attacks that make no point.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

Hang on, now. At least be clear who you're insulting before insulting them.
post #11 of 135
Apple should have done one of the following IMHO:

1. Keep FCP7 & enhance it then launch FCPX as a seperate "in between product" called iMove Pro.

2. Say we are killing FCP coz we dont want to be in the pro market anymore and launch FCPX as an entirely new product.

3. Sell or spin-off FCP to someone else and concentrate on the consumer/semi-pro market with iMovie and iMovie Pro. There is probably more money in that market anyway.

Calling FCPX the next gen version of FCP7 was all wrong.
post #12 of 135
Quote:
Originally Posted by IronHeadSlim View Post

Can you please stop with all the douchebagism and realize there are major elements missing that actual pros need but you don't.

And why didn't the pros just said, not ready yet, nothing to see here, move along?
post #13 of 135
The magnetic timeline is revolutionary and the foundation of FCPx has a lot of potential. I will buy it this summer sometime.

Many were under the impression this was going to be a totally different app. Thus the disappointment.

Many Apple..lets call them aficionados...are defending Apple with arguments devoid of logic.

Maybe it will be all fixed in the future but in the present, where we are, there are major issues. The FAQ sheet leaves many open ended solutions to third parties. The one good thing is that FCP7 will work on Lion.
post #14 of 135
Because FCP7 is not 64 bit and FCPx does not do what they need done. It is not a neutral situation.

Quote:
Originally Posted by noirdesir View Post

And why didn't the pros just said, not ready yet, nothing to see here, move along?
post #15 of 135
My question is, what if Apple says "we aren't dropping support for FCP7" and continues to support it with bug fixes while FCPX matures, and then kills it off later?

Is the real issue dropping support for FCP7 before there is a good Apple alternative, or is it that FCPX is just never going to be able to do the things FCP7 can do?

Another issue is that I can see where Apple is probably never going to be able to get FCPX to import FCP7 projects, but that certainly leaves the pros with some issues when FCP7 stops working and they can't open old projects anymore.

I'm trying to remember a situation in the past where a company drops support for one file format between versions/evolutions of a product? The Adobe transition from Pagemaker to InDesign is the closest thing I can come up with.

I can certainly see situations in the future where someone has an "old FCP7" project they would like to open, and they can't because FCP7 won't run on OS X 11.0 or whatever.

Maybe this doesn't happen much in a pro video environment? I'm not involved with pro video, so excuse my inexperience if I am missing something here...

No question this was poorly handled though...
post #16 of 135
Horrible thoughts ...

Has any rumor surfaced yet as to the future of the MacPro? I had a thought last night, maybe this all foreshadows Apple dropping the high end hardware while making MacBook Pros ever more powerful and migrating pro apps to the prosumer variety. It make sense looking at the sales numbers, and look at XServe!

As a Mac Desk top owner since they first existed it is a scary thought personally but as a share holder I could see the logic. I admit I now use a MacBook Pro i7 and iPad 2 a hell of a lot of the time though. Apple could abandon the high end altogether, leaving that small market to PCs and Adobe.

Tell me I am just having nightmares.
From Apple ][ - to new Mac Pro I've used them all.
Long on AAPL so biased
Google Motto "You're not the customer. You're the product."
Reply
From Apple ][ - to new Mac Pro I've used them all.
Long on AAPL so biased
Google Motto "You're not the customer. You're the product."
Reply
post #17 of 135
Quote:
Originally Posted by IronHeadSlim View Post

Because FCP7 is not 64 bit and FCPx does not do what they need done. It is not a neutral situation.

Is the 4 Gig process address limit a massive problem in FCP7? I don't think that this response is based primarily on an imminent problem that pro users will suffer, so much as an emotional sense of betrayal by Apple.

Video and photography pros have a visceral disdain for the prosumer market that isn't necessarily shared by pros in other industries.
post #18 of 135
I agree with you there.

Quote:
Originally Posted by cloudgazer View Post

Video and photography pros have a visceral disdain for the prosumer market that isn't necessarily shared by pros in other industries.
post #19 of 135
A year from now FCPX will mature into the pro product many FCP7 were hoping for.
Until then, it's a prosumer product that performs quite well, notwithstanding any of the usual bugs for first-release software.

So let's be fair to pro users, they have been let down at this point in time. I'm happy they are very vocal, and some of that feedback is at least getting through to Apple. It takes a megaphone to get through to those ignorant suits that steamroll over software engineers left to choose between keeping their jobs or rocking the boat.

/me raises glass in a toast to the pro community
post #20 of 135
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shaun, UK View Post

Apple should have done one of the following IMHO:

1. Keep FCP7 & enhance it then launch FCPX as a seperate "in between product" called iMove Pro.

2. Say we are killing FCP coz we dont want to be in the pro market anymore and launch FCPX as an entirely new product.

3. Sell or spin-off FCP to someone else and concentrate on the consumer/semi-pro market with iMovie and iMovie Pro. There is probably more money in that market anyway.

Calling FCPX the next gen version of FCP7 was all wrong.

1. if apple had done this, they would be wasting their time developing "enhancements" to FCP7 and then when FCPX was ready, people would be criticizing it for being an upgrade of this in-between iMovie product. FCPX has too many features to be called iMovie.

2. But they do want to be in the pro market, and this new Apple FAQ basically says it's still being worked on. The only mistake Apple made was releasing it too early. Apple also seems to be the only company that doesn't want to use public Beta testing.

3. Why would Apple sell it when it is still a top seller for them? Even FCPX? It's a hefty amount of intellectual property to just sell off, it has been years in the making. Besides, Apple has $70 billion in cash...there is not much I can imagine them just selling off.
post #21 of 135
Quote:
Originally Posted by digitalclips View Post

Horrible thoughts ...

Has any rumor surfaced yet as to the future of the MacPro? I had a thought last night, maybe this all foreshadows Apple dropping the high end hardware while making MacBook Pros ever more powerful and migrating pro apps to the prosumer variety. It make sense looking at the sales numbers, and look at XServe!

As a Mac Desk top owner since they first existed it is a scary thought personally but as a share holder I could see the logic. I admit I now use a MacBook Pro i7 and iPad 2 a hell of a lot of the time though. Apple could abandon the high end altogether, leaving that small market to PCs and Adobe.

Tell me I am just having nightmares.

I don't think this is likely for a bunch of reasons. First off the development costs of the Mac Pro are tiny. The physical case hasn't changed in years, and the electronics inside are all essentially off the shelf. As a result the Mac Pro can survive on a relatively small market.

Second the Mac Pro supports an essential user base, Mac developers both inside Apple and outside. While the pro video editors are a nice market to have on your platform, high end developers are critical and are the foundation which the platform rests upon.
post #22 of 135
I have to say, the release of FCPX seems to be a rare (in recent times) stumble on Apple's part. It's really not a good thing for them for the platform to alienate so many creative professionals, even if they do end up selling a lot of copies of FCPX to non-pros.
post #23 of 135
Quote:
Originally Posted by cloudgazer View Post

I don't think this is likely for a bunch of reasons. First off the development costs of the Mac Pro are tiny. The physical case hasn't changed in years, and the electronics inside are all essentially off the shelf. As a result the Mac Pro can survive on a relatively small market.

Second the Mac Pro supports an essential user base, Mac developers both inside Apple and outside. While the pro video editors are a nice market to have on your platform, high end developers are critical and are the foundation which the platform rests upon.

Ok, thanks
From Apple ][ - to new Mac Pro I've used them all.
Long on AAPL so biased
Google Motto "You're not the customer. You're the product."
Reply
From Apple ][ - to new Mac Pro I've used them all.
Long on AAPL so biased
Google Motto "You're not the customer. You're the product."
Reply
post #24 of 135
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleInsider View Post

Import
Can I import projects from Final Cut Pro 7 into Final Cut Pro X?

Final Cut Pro X includes an all-new project architecture structured around a trackless timeline and connected clips. In addition, Final Cut Pro X features new and redesigned audio effects, video effects, and color grading tools. Because of these changes, there is no way to translate or bring in old projects without changing or losing data. But if youre already working with Final Cut Pro 7, you can continue to do so after installing Final Cut Pro X, and Final Cut Pro 7 will work with Mac OS X Lion. You can also import your media files from previous versions into Final Cut Pro X.

This is not unprecedented in the video editing and finishing software world. In 2002 Quantel famously did not offer any way of reading projects from it's Editbox/Henry line by it's newly released eQ and iQ systems. People had thousands of Henry archives that could not be opened by the new high definition eQ systems. And these are machines that cost a quarter of million dollars. So I guess Apple is in good company???
post #25 of 135
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bergermeister View Post

This summer. Nice pace.

However, Apple could have done this release better; this FAQ should not be needed now; it should have been out the first day, even on the App store page. They seem to be cleaning up a mess.

That said, I am stunned at the reaction of many so-called "pros" who couldn't find some of these answers easily themselves early on or didn't bother to research before buying and are so seemingly opposed to anything approaching change.

Why do you assume any of the answers are the main concerns? The 'so called pros' need to know a lot more than what is there. None of the concern is about change, have you any idea how many changes the industry has gone through already? It is about continuity of data, media access, support and planning ahead. This discussion is obviously not one that is understood by many here and seeing it as 'pros being opposed to change' proves that.
From Apple ][ - to new Mac Pro I've used them all.
Long on AAPL so biased
Google Motto "You're not the customer. You're the product."
Reply
From Apple ][ - to new Mac Pro I've used them all.
Long on AAPL so biased
Google Motto "You're not the customer. You're the product."
Reply
post #26 of 135
I do trust Steve Jobs when he says they will continue to build trucks. I personally have gravitated to all laptops but I am nobody.

Order of last four purchases:
15" MacBook Pro 2.33 GHz
BlackBook 2.4 GHz
early 2011 13" MacBook Pro 2.3 GHz
early 2011 17" MacBook Pro 2.2 GHz

Not helping you much, huh? Ok, I'll buy a tower with Sandy Bridge.


Quote:
Originally Posted by digitalclips View Post

Horrible thoughts ...

Has any rumor surfaced yet as to the future of the MacPro? I had a thought last night, maybe this all foreshadows Apple dropping the high end hardware while making MacBook Pros ever more powerful and migrating pro apps to the prosumer variety. It make sense looking at the sales numbers, and look at XServe!

As a Mac Desk top owner since they first existed it is a scary thought personally but as a share holder I could see the logic. I admit I now use a MacBook Pro i7 and iPad 2 a hell of a lot of the time though. Apple could abandon the high end altogether, leaving that small market to PCs and Adobe.

Tell me I am just having nightmares.
post #27 of 135
Quote:
Originally Posted by digitalclips View Post

Horrible thoughts ...

Has any rumor surfaced yet as to the future of the MacPro? I had a thought last night, maybe this all foreshadows Apple dropping the high end hardware while making MacBook Pros ever more powerful and migrating pro apps to the prosumer variety. It make sense looking at the sales numbers, and look at XServe!

As a Mac Desk top owner since they first existed it is a scary thought personally but as a share holder I could see the logic. I admit I now use a MacBook Pro i7 and iPad 2 a hell of a lot of the time though. Apple could abandon the high end altogether, leaving that small market to PCs and Adobe.

Tell me I am just having nightmares.

I've been concerned with the exact same thing for awhile now. It will make me sad if they kill the MacPro.

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply
post #28 of 135
Quote:
Originally Posted by WelshDog View Post

This is not unprecedented in the video editing and finishing software world. In 2002 Quantel famously did not offer any way of reading projects from it's Editbox/Henry line by it's newly released eQ and iQ systems. People had thousands of Henry archives that could not be opened by the new high definition eQ systems. And these are machines that cost a quarter of million dollars. So I guess Apple is in good company???

I don't get what all the hubbub is surrounding project importation. Least we forget that Apple did nearly the same thing with the update to FCP 5.1 during the Intel transition. Projects created in 5.1 wouldn't open in 5.0, so you either had to upgrade every machine in your office or none of them. And that was compounded by the fact that 5.1 was Universal, meaning that if you bought a new Mac, you HAD to upgrade, as 5.0 was available for PPC only. (Most facilities have more than one editing bay - we had 7 - so it wasn't going to be a slow rollout.) Sure it was annoying, but there was hardly the mass panic that is ensuing now; although, it's also true that the product wasn't EOL'd at the same time. That being said, I do think it would behoove Apple to provide SOME way of opening legacy files, in the event that you need to go back to something several years later, but perhaps another solution will be forthcoming from a 3rd party vendor.
post #29 of 135
Quote:
Originally Posted by digitalclips View Post

Why do you assume any of the answers are the main concerns? The 'so called pros' need to know a lot more than what is there. None of the concern is about change, have you any idea how many changes the industry has gone through already? It is about continuity of data, media access, support and planning ahead. This discussion is obviously not one that is understood by many here and seeing it as 'pros being opposed to change' proves that.

I would even assert that it is the "Pros" at the highest level who are early adopters of new products and certainly are the ones who drive innovation because they demand it. Just because Apple decides to go off to an island and create new software with no industry input doesn't mean they got it right. Change is good and pro editors embrace change when it is good change. Much of what FCP X has brought to the party is worthwhile, but they left out some stuff that is pretty important. Industry change is often organic and is sometimes driven by one small company offering an innovative product. Apple has not presented FCP X as a future option designed to evolve and be gradually adopted by the industry. They have dropped it into the deep end and taken away the life preservers. That won't work in this particular pool. They most likely have succeeded in driving away a large number of long time, evangelical customers. I think FCP X looks very interesting and innovative. I'll try it out in three years when it can do what we need it to do.
post #30 of 135
This is escalating fast now isn't it?

http://tech.fortune.cnn.com/2011/06/...nal-cut-pro-x/

http://news.cnet.com/8301-27076_3-20...final-cut-pro/

I'm no pro when it comes to video editing, but I'd say 600 filmmakers is a pretty nice crowd.
post #31 of 135
Quote:
Originally Posted by teejaysplace24 View Post

I don't get what all the hubbub is surrounding project importation. Least we forget that Apple did nearly the same thing with the update to FCP 5.1 during the Adobe transition. Projects created in 5.1 wouldn't open in 5.0, so you either had to upgrade every machine in your office or none of them. There was hardly the mass panic that is ensuing now. That being said, I do think it would behoove Apple to provide SOME way of opening legacy files, in the event that you need to go back to something several years later, but perhaps another solution will be forthcoming from a 3rd party vendor.

To be able to open a project and have it fully functional as it was in the old version would be a lot to ask of a totally new app like FCP X. What is unfortunate is they didn't even give you way of importing an EDL or XML of the old project so you could at least get the cuts and dissolves into X. That is lame.
post #32 of 135
Quote:
Originally Posted by mstone View Post

I've been concerned with the exact same thing for awhile now. It will make me sad if they kill the MacPro.

Stop panicking. You're fine - rumours about a redesigned MP have been circulating for several months. Don't forget that Steve Jobs also owns a little company called Pixar whose artists need 128 GB of RAM to render their projects. Great as they are, a MPB will never do that.
post #33 of 135
Quote:
Originally Posted by digitalclips View Post

Why do you assume any of the answers are the main concerns? The 'so called pros' need to know a lot more than what is there. None of the concern is about change, have you any idea how many changes the industry has gone through already? It is about continuity of data, media access, support and planning ahead. This discussion is obviously not one that is understood by many here and seeing it as 'pros being opposed to change' proves that.

Continuity of data!

Simple question, because you post in a reasoned fashion and appear to be a pro in post.

Do any competitive products have the capability to:

1) Open an FCP7/FCS * project

* I include FCS so that the FCP projects that round-trip to other FCS components are covered.

or

2) Provide a migration tool to move an FCP7/FCS project to their product(s) -- realizing that there may be differences that require a "best effort" migration.


Or, does migration of an FCP7/FCS project to a competitive system involve manual re-creation (not recreation of the project in the new system on a "best effort" basis?
"Swift generally gets you to the right way much quicker." - auxio -

"The perfect [birth]day -- A little playtime, a good poop, and a long nap." - Tomato Greeting Cards -
Reply
"Swift generally gets you to the right way much quicker." - auxio -

"The perfect [birth]day -- A little playtime, a good poop, and a long nap." - Tomato Greeting Cards -
Reply
post #34 of 135
Steve sold Pixar to Disney for a nice penny or two.

Yeah, MacPro rumors have been going around... Something like a rack mountable case. Never know. This is Apple.

 

Your = the possessive of you, as in, "Your name is Tom, right?" or "What is your name?"

 

You're = a contraction of YOU + ARE as in, "You are right" --> "You're right."

 

 

Reply

 

Your = the possessive of you, as in, "Your name is Tom, right?" or "What is your name?"

 

You're = a contraction of YOU + ARE as in, "You are right" --> "You're right."

 

 

Reply
post #35 of 135
Quote:
Originally Posted by anonymouse View Post

I have to say, the release of FCPX seems to be a rare (in recent times) stumble on Apple's part. It's really not a good thing for them for the platform to alienate so many creative professionals, even if they do end up selling a lot of copies of FCPX to non-pros.

Over the past week since this all this started, the news has made me one of the unhappy video editors, however, I don't really think it is a miscalculation on Apple's part. They knew what was going to happen, which is why they wanted to conceal the known issues until the last minute. They didn't want to have it dragged through the mud for months. They wanted all the bitching and complaining to be over and done with in a week's time and then we all move on.

Maybe it is a good thing to have a powerful yet stripped down editing app. If you look at any Apple produced video or commercial, you don't see many fancy special effects, except some of those older iTunes animated ads. Their stuff is clean straight cuts, simple titling and conservative audio mixing. Should that be the new direction for video? Less is more, you know?

Perhaps next Google will come out with Viddy for Chrome. Then we can edit our movies over the Internet. That should make FCP X look totally professional by comparison.

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply
post #36 of 135
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shaun, UK View Post

Apple should have done one of the following IMHO:

1. Keep FCP7 & enhance it then launch FCPX as a seperate "in between product" called iMove Pro.

2. Say we are killing FCP coz we dont want to be in the pro market anymore and launch FCPX as an entirely new product.

3. Sell or spin-off FCP to someone else and concentrate on the consumer/semi-pro market with iMovie and iMovie Pro. There is probably more money in that market anyway.

Calling FCPX the next gen version of FCP7 was all wrong.

Can I ask why so many people have abandoned Avid Media Composer? For me, it was a matter of cost at the time. Avid was adamant about using their over-priced hardware with their software and kept their prices much higher than FCP. I had reached the point where my biz could no longer afford another $25,000-per-system Avid upgrade and I reluctantly switched to FCP. However, Avid has lowered their prices and has adopted more "open" use of 3rd-party hardware. Let me just say that for speed and ease of use, Avid is a great program. Media stays connected in the project, unlike FCP where you must keep close attention to where all your media elements wander off to and tend to end up all over my drives, then often go offline. Avid makes that simple. The editing is faster with fewer keystrokes and intuitive trim and slide functions. I grew up with Avid, so for me, it is second nature. What about others?
post #37 of 135
Well, here's my take on things.

Apple has been systematically dismantling everything "pro" for several years now. No more Xserve, No more Xserve RAID, OS X Server is now pretty much an afterthought, no more FCP Server and so on. I hope I'm wrong on this - but I see the marginalization of FCP by going to X is just another nail in the pro coffin...
post #38 of 135
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shaun, UK View Post

Apple should have done one of the following IMHO:

1. Keep FCP7 & enhance it then launch FCPX as a seperate "in between product" called iMove Pro.

2. Say we are killing FCP coz we dont want to be in the pro market anymore and launch FCPX as an entirely new product.

3. Sell or spin-off FCP to someone else and concentrate on the consumer/semi-pro market with iMovie and iMovie Pro. There is probably more money in that market anyway.

Calling FCPX the next gen version of FCP7 was all wrong.

How would option 2 have helped you? The 'pros' would all still be up in arms.
post #39 of 135
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jexus View Post

This is escalating fast now isn't it?

http://tech.fortune.cnn.com/2011/06/...nal-cut-pro-x/

http://news.cnet.com/8301-27076_3-20...final-cut-pro/

I'm no pro when it comes to video editing, but I'd say 600 filmmakers is a pretty nice crowd.

600 people. There's nothing to suggest a single one of them is a filmmakers, although I'm sure some are.
post #40 of 135
Quote:
Originally Posted by teejaysplace24 View Post

Stop panicking. You're fine - rumours about a redesigned MP have been circulating for several months. Don't forget that Steve Jobs also owns a little company called Pixar whose artists need 128 GB of RAM to render their projects. Great as they are, a MPB will never do that.

They don't do full render on Macs, they have dedicated hardware for that. The artists do use Macs for animating.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Mac Software
AppleInsider › Forums › Software › Mac Software › Apple posts Final Cut Pro X FAQ: FCP7 will work with Lion, import not possible