AppleInsider › Forums › Software › Mac Software › Adobe continues assault on Apple's Final Cut Pro X with 'switcher program'
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Adobe continues assault on Apple's Final Cut Pro X with 'switcher program' - Page 3

post #81 of 151
7/1/11 at 1:42pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvin View Post

.

Are you cooking microwave dinners during your posts or sending your posts to a social network?

I suspect you are virtually checking off the show-stoppers in FCPX. It's good to know FCPX has XML import/export in there somewhere. That will solve a big hurdle in adoption, though should have been ready for when it shipped. Once the other show-stopping elements are fixed, it will be good to go - it needs a few more pings until the turkey's done though.



The pings are virtual checkoffs as you suspect.

I, too am confused why they made it available... Except they comitted to June.

If the import works, reasonably well, I wish they would have activated it.

Most of the built-in effects in FCP 7 are not yet available in FCPX -- so the import wouldn't be able to do anything but log them as missing. That may have caused more frustration.


Elsewhere, I've posted that Apple may have done the FCPX release, as they did, to get everybody's attention -- they certainly did that!


Maybe Apple should have offered FCPX, with import active, as a beta to selected pros...

That implies knowlegable support staff at Apple...

I don't recall Apple ever doing a beta with an app.
"So at the end of the presentation, Steve came up to me and said: Is the iPhone worth criticizing? And I said: Make the screen five inches by eight inches, and you’ll rule the world."
– Alan Kay –
Reply
"So at the end of the presentation, Steve came up to me and said: Is the iPhone worth criticizing? And I said: Make the screen five inches by eight inches, and you’ll rule the world."
– Alan Kay –
Reply
post #82 of 151
7/1/11 at 1:46pm
Oh a half-price Adobe product? What does that come to? 4 million dollars?

Sorry, but fuck Adobe (can I say that on the Internet?) and their ridiculous price points.

I've replaced them for nearly everything I do in Illustration. I have a feeling we'll see more apps emerging from the Mac App Store to replace everything else Adobe does in the near future. I can't wait until they realize someone moved their cheese.
Reply
Reply
post #83 of 151
7/1/11 at 1:49pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by iamdeadfish View Post

Sorry, but fuck Adobe (can I say that on the Internet?) and their ridiculous price points.

But they're it. Period. No one makes any software comparable to what Photoshop, Illustrator, and InDesign do. If you need them, you have to have those. Period. So they can charge whatever they want.

Dreamweaver's a whore, easily supplanted by Coda or even TextEdit. Flash is tied up in my basement being cheese grated to death while Hype starts to take the stage.
PhilBoogie
That's Google alright. For a stupid company they sure do dumb things.
Reply
PhilBoogie
That's Google alright. For a stupid company they sure do dumb things.
Reply
post #84 of 151
7/1/11 at 1:57pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Haggar View Post

As another example, what is more significant? Hearing that the top 10% of a company (CEO's, Executive VP's, Senior VPs, etc) uses Macs, or that the remaining 90% uses PCs?

That was Apple's business for a long time, they felt that if the important opinion informers used Apple that eventually they'd win out in the desktop space. It turned out not to work that way and resulted in Apple's near death experience in the 90s.

Modern Apple is the house the iPod built, Apple has discovered that it can win with consumers by focusing on consumers, not by relying on some mythical pro->consumer trickle down effect. The entire focus then changed, with a product emphasis on tools that are useful to a mass market.

Does Apple still want pro users? Sure it does, and especially it wants you to keep buying Mac hardware, even if you're not using Apple application software. But it doesn't love Pro's enough to hold FCP-X Pro back from prosumers for the year or so it will take to get it to be a real pro statement.

Honestly I think much of the emotion in this is because of the sense that Apple doesn't love Pros anymore as much as it loves Consumers. Pros feel like the hot girl they brought to the dance has dumped them to hang out with a jock.
This is important! Someone is wrong on the internet
Reply
This is important! Someone is wrong on the internet
Reply
post #85 of 151
7/1/11 at 2:09pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by iamdeadfish View Post

Oh a half-price Adobe product? What does that come to? 4 million dollars?Sorry, but fuck Adobe (can I say that on the Internet?) and their ridiculous price points.

If you mange to fuck a whole company, that should deserve an award of some kind. Go for it!

Frankly, bitching about pricing tells me everything I need to know—you're not a professional (which is fine). Like all pro tools, you expense them out and write them off. If you can't make enough to pay for the entire suite, you're not charging enough or you're a hobbyist.
Reply
Reply
post #86 of 151
7/1/11 at 2:13pm
deleted
"Surely it is possible to love Apple products and still respect what others have achieved?" - Stelligent
Reply
"Surely it is possible to love Apple products and still respect what others have achieved?" - Stelligent
Reply
post #87 of 151
7/1/11 at 2:33pm
Thank goodness we have Adobe to step up to the plate with an advanced, modern editing system that will open our legacy Final Cut Pro 7 files unlike Final Cut Pro X!

Ah, wait a minute. Nevermind what I said.
Reply
Reply
post #88 of 151
7/1/11 at 2:40pm
Adobe is no better than Apple.

Examples:
We used PageMaker at work, screwed as Adobe killed it
We used Freehand at work, screwed as Adobe killed it
I owned GoLive, screwed as Adobe killed it
I own many, many versions of Photoshop, screwed everytime a new version comes out as they won't update camera RAW import plugins for older versions.

Fuck you Adobe.
Reply
Reply
post #89 of 151
7/1/11 at 2:42pm
It is utterly shocking that FCPX does not have backwards compatibility.

If Apple will do this to their video editing software, what other programs might they "upgrade" and leave out backwards compatiblity?

Imagine if they upgraded Keynote, and you couldn't use old presentations. Or pages.

If you are an enterprise manager, you're left wondering about Apple's reliability.

If they can treat ten years of professional video editing with such contempt, what else may fall victim to "the Apple future".
Reply
Reply
post #90 of 151
7/1/11 at 2:48pm
I'm so lucky to be a member of this site.

When I read a thread about a legal issue, I get all these posts from lawyers and IP experts debating the merits.

When I read a thread about publishing, I get all these posts from publishers, magazine editors and marketing experts debating the merits.

When I read a thread about iDevice supply, I get all these posts from supply chain experts debating the merits.

And now, when I read a thread about video production, I get all these posts from video pros and film execs debating the merits.

There is so much talent here, and it all is reposed in the same handful of people.

Remarkable.

What I read (from a person who used Prem 6 a long time ago and liked it, and cut a couple of home movies on iMovie and liked it) is not that the editing workflow is so problematic, even if it revolutionary, but rather the severely restricted interoperability and import/outpu options currently hobble the product for true professional use.

Good on Adobe for going after disgruntled pros. It's only business. Nothing personal, as they say.
Reply
Reply
post #91 of 151
7/1/11 at 3:40pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Conrail View Post

But if you went to buy a new Honda and found out they no longer offer air conditioning, would you feel obliged to buy it anyhow because of your past experiences with their cars?

No. Why would I? I guess I don't see your point.

If I bought it, knowing they didn't include AC and had no plans to add AC and told me that I can not add AC later myself, I would not buy it because it's a feature I want. I certainly wouldn't buy it and blame them and complain to other people about it. Likewise, if you buy a phone, knowing in advance that it is missing a feature that is important to you -- first of all, you're stupid -- second of all, you have no right to bitch about it.
Reply
Reply
post #92 of 151
7/1/11 at 3:45pm
Yes, accept those same people will complain that the iPhone is slow or crashes a lot. Apple will pay the price for Flash's short comings.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Alien987 View Post

So Apple deliberately blocking Flash in iPhones and iPads is a better culture? People should be able to choose whatever they want, no what one person wants.
Reply
Reply
post #93 of 151
7/1/11 at 4:55pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Conrail View Post

The discounted price for the Production suite is $150 cheaper than the retail price for either After Effects or Photoshop. Even if you're staying with FCP 7 or are completely thrilled with FCP X, this is a great deal.

Exactly - I'm probably going to pull the trigger myself later tonight. I just need to make sure I have enough disk space for it
Reply
Reply
post #94 of 151
7/1/11 at 5:05pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dick Applebaum View Post

Most of the built-in effects in FCP 7 are not yet available in FCPX -- so the import wouldn't be able to do anything but log them as missing. That may have caused more frustration.

Maybe but one thing it does is provide a nice security blanket. You have some assurance that you are getting a starting point instead of Apple unhooking your dinghy from the back of the motor boat and waving as they speed off into the distance without you.

It's also the best way to really try out the system because you can't have both apps open at the same time so importing a complex edit and seeing it all there in order is just a big relief because you have some future-proofing.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dick Applebaum View Post

Elsewhere, I've posted that Apple may have done the FCPX release, as they did, to get everybody's attention -- they certainly did that!

That's true, the bucket of cold water treatment certainly gets people out of their slumber pretty quick and is likely to encourage manufacturers to get on the case ASAP. The FCP scene was very old and crusty and there needed to be radical change so it gets everyone rushing to fix everything but it can also scare people off.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dick Applebaum View Post

I don't recall Apple ever doing a beta with an app.

They really should but people can't be trusted to keep a secret. Even people in the highest positions can't be trusted because having the information everyone wants gives people an urge to let it out and be hailed the hero. Then they don't get invited back. The only people that can really be trusted are the people who have too much to lose by leaking it and they are already working on it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by iamdeadfish

Sorry, but fuck Adobe (can I say that on the Internet?)

You can but the NSA have recorded it and it will be raised at your next job interview.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil

Dreamweaver's a whore

Expensive though and expensive whores are ok. I'd say Dreamweaver is more like the bloated wife. Reliable, dependable, goes through the motions but has put on a bit of weight, has loads of in-laws that piss you off, doesn't really excite you and doesn't keep up with the competition because they know you ain't going anywhere.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ThinkKnot

Adobe is no better than Apple.

Examples:
We used PageMaker at work, screwed as Adobe killed it
We used Freehand at work, screwed as Adobe killed it
I owned GoLive, screwed as Adobe killed it
I own many, many versions of Photoshop, screwed everytime a new version comes out as they won't update camera RAW import plugins for older versions.

Yeah, they've made a lot of shifts but they generally make sure to have something ready in the end. They've even taken on board subscription pricing now so you can license their apps as and when you need monthly and you get free updates to the latest version. That's really cool of them to do that.

The difference between Avid, Adobe etc and Apple is that Apple doesn't need this business to survive, the others do. That dependence forces them to not make stupid decisions or they may well go out of business. In some ways, that has given Apple more respect because of the fact they choose to be a part of it when they don't need to and they may well have just thrown it away.
Reply
Reply
post #95 of 151
7/1/11 at 5:09pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by SpinThis! View Post

It's not just lack of features. Fundamentally, FCPX is a whole different product. Pros weren't expecting that.

They they seriously weren't paying attention to the demo at the supermeet. I'm not a pro editor, but even to me it was blindingly obvious that FCP X is a completely different application.

Really, I think Apple's two main mistakes were A) stoppling sale of FCP 7 and B) not pro-actively addressing some of the missing features like multi-cam that they have now repeatedly told people that will be coming "soon".

Stopping sales of FCP 7 is the main kicker - if they hadn't done that so quickly, I think there would be a lot less consternation. Heck, they offered the original iMovie HD for some time after the release of the new version...
Reply
Reply
post #96 of 151
7/1/11 at 5:45pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvin View Post

Maybe but one thing it does is provide a nice security blanket. You have some assurance that you are getting a starting point instead of Apple unhooking your dinghy from the back of the motor boat and waving as they speed off into the distance without you.

It's also the best way to really try out the system because you can't have both apps open at the same time so importing a complex edit and seeing it all there in order is just a big relief because you have some future-proofing.

Yeah... What's that all about? FCPX and FCP7 each don't use a lot of resource when they aren't doing anything. Why can't they both be open at tha same time?

I have a 2 yo iMac 24 with a 23" Cinema display. To run both at tha same time I must do a 2-hour install of FCS on a Mini (won't run FCPX) and run under screen sharing -- just so I can view the FCP7 timeline and the FCPX storyline at the same time.
"So at the end of the presentation, Steve came up to me and said: Is the iPhone worth criticizing? And I said: Make the screen five inches by eight inches, and you’ll rule the world."
– Alan Kay –
Reply
"So at the end of the presentation, Steve came up to me and said: Is the iPhone worth criticizing? And I said: Make the screen five inches by eight inches, and you’ll rule the world."
– Alan Kay –
Reply
post #97 of 151
7/1/11 at 5:51pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by DocNo42 View Post

They they seriously weren't paying attention to the demo at the supermeet. I'm not a pro editor, but even to me it was blindingly obvious that FCP X is a completely different application.

Really, I think Apple's two main mistakes were A) stoppling sale of FCP 7 and B) not pro-actively addressing some of the missing features like multi-cam that they have now repeatedly told people that will be coming "soon".

Stopping sales of FCP 7 is the main kicker - if they hadn't done that so quickly, I think there would be a lot less consternation. Heck, they offered the original iMovie HD for some time after the release of the new version...

As far as I remember, the pre-NAB demo briefly displayed a representation of an FCP7 timeline...

It gave the impression that FCPX could open FCP7 timelines. They didn't say they they could -- but what they showed immplied that theY could.
"So at the end of the presentation, Steve came up to me and said: Is the iPhone worth criticizing? And I said: Make the screen five inches by eight inches, and you’ll rule the world."
– Alan Kay –
Reply
"So at the end of the presentation, Steve came up to me and said: Is the iPhone worth criticizing? And I said: Make the screen five inches by eight inches, and you’ll rule the world."
– Alan Kay –
Reply
post #98 of 151
7/1/11 at 6:17pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dick Applebaum View Post

As far as I remember, the pre-NAB demo briefly displayed a representation of an FCP7 timeline...

It gave the impression that FCPX could open FCP7 timelines. They didn't say they they could -- but what they showed immplied that theY could.

Yes, I don't dispute that. I was more reacting to his comment of "CPX is a whole different product. Pros weren't expecting that."

Which I think is silly.

I was taken aback by the not opening previous versions too. Even if it was just a partial open or a separate converter utility, it would imply more continuity than a clean break. Coupled with the halting of sales of the previous versions, I can understand why Pros are more than a little on edge. That was, without a doubt, their biggest blunder - esp. since there was no real reason to kill FCP 7 totally.
Reply
Reply
post #99 of 151
7/1/11 at 7:40pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by MacRulez View Post

Does Apple Insider believe that Avid and Adobe are the same company?

Here's how the headline reads on a site less agenda-driven than AI:

Adobe and Avid Target Final Cut Pro Users With 'Switcher' Discounts
http://www.macrumors.com/2011/07/01/...her-discounts/

You're misreading - AI is saying that Adobe is offering a switcher discount to users of Avid too, which macrumours is also saying

The new program offers a 50% discount on either Creative Suite CS5.5 Production Premium or Premiere Pro CS5.5 to current users of Apple's Final Cut Pro or Avid's Media Composer.
This is important! Someone is wrong on the internet
Reply
This is important! Someone is wrong on the internet
Reply
post #100 of 151
7/1/11 at 7:44pm
Thank you for screwing up, Apple. I was going to pay a lot more for the Production Suite.
Reply
Reply
post #101 of 151
7/1/11 at 8:53pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dick Applebaum View Post

I read the thread you mentioned!

It was informative... from his perspective.
But he claimed that Apple has no interest in the pros.
How does he know that?
How does he explain Apple bringing several leading pros to Cupertino to show FCPX (under NDA)?
How does he explain Apple making a presentation at NAB (first in several years, AFAIK)?
I believe there were 4 or 5 Apple managers doing the preso to the pros -- why would they bother if they weren't interested in them?
I have worked for several companies at a job level corresponding to Sachin Agarwal's -- basically an employee, a worker.
I have also worked as a team leader and in top management.
My experience is that every level of employee or manager does not (and need not) understand all the intentions, motivations and reasons for the decisions that are made.
I would be surprised if a team leader or first level manager would tell the workers that "Apple isn't interested in the pro market".
What would be gained by telling them (anyone) that?
Rather, I can see the same manager motivating his employees by telling them: "We are going to make FCPX the best Prosumer video editing app available". Maybe adding "It will be so good it will take sales from our competitors pro apps -- maybe even our own FCP".
There is also the need to avoid destroying the motivation of those working the older product, FCP7 -- which will eventually be replaced by the newer product, FCPX.

So, with all that considered, I submit that Sachin Agarwal offered his opinion that "Apple wasn't interested in the pros" -- and wasn't privy to what was Apple's opinion or its intentions.

OK you and I both wear big boy pants in the tech world (I assume anyway) and we both have been around enough to know that corporate culture permeates all levels of workflow. Moreover you and I have been privy to all the cultural commentary and leaks over the years about how Apple and in particular Steve Jobs does things. I have insider friends all over the place, Apple, Microsoft, Adobe, Google - all the heavy hitters of this industry. Apple is a necessarily (if secretive) FLAT organization by design - it's the way Jobs likes to run the business - the polar opposite of Microsoft in fact - which has a bloated, entrenched toxic culture replete with turf wars, protectionism and the usual nasty stuff. Not saying Apple is "better", just different. And different in ways that make Agarwal's statements closer to what's probably true than not. Apple is not silo'd like most organizations, the teams work collaboratively and consistently together. In some cases the team are "recombinant" that is smaller teams come together to form larger teams to ensure the level of awareness needed in bringing a product together.

Looking over the behavioral landscape Dick it makes sense for Apple to bring in the pros to see the changes (massive unilateral and workflow-changing changes), to say "this is what's coming, get ready". Not, "hey guys what do you think of us completely rewriting how your favorite cheap video editing tool works - tell us how you really feel". The smart ones saw it for what it was and went out and bought extra licenses of FCP7, the blindly optimistic ones said, "Apple wouldn't really do this to us" and ignored the writing on the wall. The rest were dumbfounded, shocked (shocked I tell you!), and OUTRAGED when it hit the street and was exactly what Apple showed them.

In the final analysis with the significant differences that are Apple corporate framework practices, you have to be careful extrapolating corporate behaviors that are not accurately matching what goes on in Cupertino. I've held enough positions at different levels in enough Fortune 50 companies (apparently like you) to comfortably agree with Argarwal, in principle if not in complete detail. The details don't really matter.

The bottom line is this, Agarwal is either accurate in what he presented, or he isn't. If he is, then Apple was deliberate and focussed in what they did - which potentially makes sense from their past acts, their culture as well as from a market perspective. IF he is not, then Apple is guilty of arbitrary and capricious behavior which not only alienates a "loyal" (sic) market segment, but does so in the most ludicrous way possible short of simply killing the application suite.
If you are going to insist on being an ass, at least demonstrate the intelligence to be a smart one
Reply
If you are going to insist on being an ass, at least demonstrate the intelligence to be a smart one
Reply
post #102 of 151
7/1/11 at 8:59pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by fecklesstechguy View Post

Apple is a necessarily (if secretive) FLAT organization by design - it's the way Jobs likes to run the business - the polar opposite of Microsoft in fact - which has a bloated, entrenched toxic culture replete with turf wars, protectionism and the usual nasty stuff.

Best visualization I have seen for Microsoft - and yes, I saw it first on DF - it's still relevant:

http://fireballed.org/linked/2011/06/29/org-charts/
Reply
Reply
post #103 of 151
7/1/11 at 9:25pm
deleted
"Surely it is possible to love Apple products and still respect what others have achieved?" - Stelligent
Reply
"Surely it is possible to love Apple products and still respect what others have achieved?" - Stelligent
Reply
post #104 of 151
7/2/11 at 12:51am
I saw a report the other day which billed the situation with FCPX a scandal that's several times worse than "Antennagate."

I don't understand all the hullabaloo over FCPX. What's the big deal if video pros decide to switch to an Adobe product? Talk to me when those video pros start using Windows machines instead of Macs. The amount of money that Apple makes from sales of software like FCPX is probably chump change compared to what Apple makes off of stuff like its hardware (e.g. iPad). As a shareholder, I'm not that concerned about it.
Reply
Reply
post #105 of 151
7/2/11 at 1:23am
Quote:
Originally Posted by fecklesstechguy View Post

OK you and I both wear big boy pants in the tech world (I assume anyway) and we both have been around enough to know that corporate culture permeates all levels of workflow. Moreover you and I have been privy to all the cultural commentary and leaks over the years about how Apple and in particular Steve Jobs does things. I have insider friends all over the place, Apple, Microsoft, Adobe, Google - all the heavy hitters of this industry. Apple is a necessarily (if secretive) FLAT organization by design - it's the way Jobs likes to run the business - the polar opposite of Microsoft in fact - which has a bloated, entrenched toxic culture replete with turf wars, protectionism and the usual nasty stuff. Not saying Apple is "better", just different. And different in ways that make Agarwal's statements closer to what's probably true than not. Apple is not silo'd like most organizations, the teams work collaboratively and consistently together. In some cases the team are "recombinant" that is smaller teams come together to form larger teams to ensure the level of awareness needed in bringing a product together.

Looking over the behavioral landscape Dick it makes sense for Apple to bring in the pros to see the changes (massive unilateral and workflow-changing changes), to say "this is what's coming, get ready". Not, "hey guys what do you think of us completely rewriting how your favorite cheap video editing tool works - tell us how you really feel". The smart ones saw it for what it was and went out and bought extra licenses of FCP7, the blindly optimistic ones said, "Apple wouldn't really do this to us" and ignored the writing on the wall. The rest were dumbfounded, shocked (shocked I tell you!), and OUTRAGED when it hit the street and was exactly what Apple showed them.

In the final analysis with the significant differences that are Apple corporate framework practices, you have to be careful extrapolating corporate behaviors that are not accurately matching what goes on in Cupertino. I've held enough positions at different levels in enough Fortune 50 companies (apparently like you) to comfortably agree with Argarwal, in principle if not in complete detail. The details don't really matter.

The bottom line is this, Agarwal is either accurate in what he presented, or he isn't. If he is, then Apple was deliberate and focussed in what they did - which potentially makes sense from their past acts, their culture as well as from a market perspective. IF he is not, then Apple is guilty of arbitrary and capricious behavior which not only alienates a "loyal" (sic) market segment, but does so in the most ludicrous way possible short of simply killing the application suite.

From 1978-1989 I had almost daily dealings with Apple management and employees at almost all levels. They had a fairly normal top level and administrative structure and a "matrix management" structure for the technical employees. There were notable exceptions to accommodate Jobs, and to a lessor extent, Woz.

I suspect Apple's organization is different now, and may be as you describe.

Now, to quote Agarwal:

Quote:
Apple doesn't care about the pro space

The goal for every Apple software product is to sell more hardware. Even the Mac operating system is just trying to get people to buy more Mac computers.

The pro market is too small for Apple to care about it. Instead of trying to get hundreds or even thousands of video professionals to buy new Macs, they can nail the pro-sumer market and sell to hundreds of thousands of hobbyists like me.

Millions of people are buying phones and cameras that can shoot HD video, and many of them are looking for ways to edit. I know how to use Final Cut Pro because I worked on it for 6 years, but for most people it's just too complex.

Why Apple built Final Cut Pro X


Apple doesn't care about the pro space

I disagree with him and your assessment that he is accurate or is not.


I submit that Apple doesn't need the pro space.


That gives Apple the freedom to move ahead boldly and even cut the cord,


But Apple understands that there are a few key pros who are decision-makers or decision-influencers that can set the trend for the industry.

Apple cares about these pros and cultivates them... Why, because they are highly visible and can influence buying decisions by Apple's largest target markets for FCPX -- the Prosumer and Consumer.

I suspect within a month or two, Apple will publish an article how several respected bleeding-edge pros are using FCPX to cut this or that video.

At, the same time, Apple and 3rd-parties will flesh out FCPX to be a viable replacement for FCP7...

There will be enough advantage that the forward-thinking pros (those worth Apple caring about) will begin to use FCPX in their daily workflow.

-
From another perspective, I have a friend -- a high-level executive at a TV Broadcast network, who, when asked about FCPX wrote (emphasis mine):

Quote:
FCP is actually a powerful program but I still think iMovie does the job for most less than 10 minutes productions. Its [FCP's] real value is revealed when using After Effects or Motion, integrated tight in the production. Content is still king and video 'direction' makes a video look pro... not really the 'editing' tools in most cases.

If you ever travel to NY I would love to give you a tour of some of the edit suites and see how the product is integrated in the workflow. FCP is not the main edit tool, however as a FCP fan you will see its value when connected to graphic virtual sets and tapeless video ingest servers. Pretty amazing in capable hands. But you will also see how simple on & off-line systems (equiv. to iMovie) does the bulk of the work.

You will also note that most of the success FCP stories are 30+ minute short films, documentaries, etc.

What... they are using iMove (or an equivalent) to do the bulk of their work?

These guys are pros, aren't they?

Now, these pros using FCPX (and optionally Motion 5) will be able to do their work faster and easier with better results.

I suspect a lot of the pros will use FCPX on MBPs for sports highlights, onsite news shorts. Other pros will use FCPX/Motion to cut commercials.


I suspect that Apple knows about these pros and cares quite a bit about them.
"So at the end of the presentation, Steve came up to me and said: Is the iPhone worth criticizing? And I said: Make the screen five inches by eight inches, and you’ll rule the world."
– Alan Kay –
Reply
"So at the end of the presentation, Steve came up to me and said: Is the iPhone worth criticizing? And I said: Make the screen five inches by eight inches, and you’ll rule the world."
– Alan Kay –
Reply
post #106 of 151
7/2/11 at 1:43am
That's a pretty sweet discount, but it also reveals how much margin is probably built in to applications like Premiere Pro, if they can sell it for 50% off!
"And just like that, everyone here realizes you're just another sweaty little Google licker with an axe to grind and no idea what he's talking about." --addabox
Reply
"And just like that, everyone here realizes you're just another sweaty little Google licker with an axe to grind and no idea what he's talking about." --addabox
Reply
post #107 of 151
7/2/11 at 3:02am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Conrail View Post

But if you went to buy a new Honda and found out they no longer offer air conditioning, would you feel obliged to buy it anyhow because of your past experiences with their cars?

MS doesnt advertise word for publication layouts. They sell a product as part of Office (at least the enterprise versions I manage at work) called Publisher that does all of that stuff, its no in design but its good enough for most anything that doesnt need a formal prepress workflow.
You can't quantify how much I don't care -- Bob Kevoian of the Bob and Tom Show.
Reply
You can't quantify how much I don't care -- Bob Kevoian of the Bob and Tom Show.
Reply
post #108 of 151
7/2/11 at 5:16am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alien987 View Post

So Apple deliberately blocking Flash in iPhones and iPads is a better culture? People should be able to choose whatever they want, no what one person wants.

Seriously, the iPhone has been around since 2006 and only on the past few months has Adobe had a semi-workable version of flash available. Its taken them 4 years to produce a proper mobile flash player, pathetic. Im sorry but you are a complete fool to think that this was Apples fault. Adobe fucked up and are continuing to make a c*nt of Macromedias work.
Reply
Reply
post #109 of 151
7/2/11 at 8:58am
Quote:
Originally Posted by bulk001 View Post

Then you must gladly support Adobe as they are working really hard to provide HTML5 alternatives - http://blogs.adobe.com/jnack/2011/06....html#comments

I will support Adobe's HTML5 initiatives as long as they are putting tools for building REAL websites first and not Flash websites. Adobe doesn't have anything to lose by depreciating Flash as a website development platform, but the internet does. People will still buy Adobe apps to create great HTML5 websites as long as Adobe provides tools that are as good as their Flash dev tools.
Check out my Apple Tech Podcast: Cidercast
Reply
Check out my Apple Tech Podcast: Cidercast
Reply
post #110 of 151
7/2/11 at 9:40am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dick Applebaum View Post

I suspect a lot of the pros will use FCPX on MBPs for sports highlights, onsite news shorts. Other pros will use FCPX/Motion to cut commercials.

Not if they have to output to any kind of post production - color correction, effects, graphics, titles, or audio mixing. Not if they have more than one camera to sync. Not if one of the sources is tape or Red. Not if any other member of the team uses Media Composer, After Effects or anything but FCPX.

FCPX can't do any of these, and I have seen any project that doesn't need one of those things, if not all. Sorry FCPX is not ready for pro use.

If you use one camera (not Red, not tape), and everyone on the team uses FCPX, and you don't need post, then yes, FCPX s perfect.
Reply
Reply
post #111 of 151
7/2/11 at 10:22am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Antinous View Post

This is still a conversation about what Apple (unbidden) decided to do with Final Cut. It's their product and they can do what they want, but I think someone high on the ladder at Apple has become wholly disconnected with their Final Cut user base. To have one's hard-earned skills are blithely rendered worthless is certainly worth a pout. I've seen several ageist references in other threads to "old dogs" not wanting to learn new tricks. I don't think that's germane. We're still expected to keep our workflow at pace while learning "What's New" with each iteration of a software package. When "What's New" is every damned thing in the box it looks like someone at Apple has gone insane. It will be interesting to see how it plays out. I don't think a few third-party plugins will fix this farrago.

Additionally software Like Final Cut 7 is not used in a vacuum. It must work with various other softwares and devices such as tape machines. Regardless of what the trolls and griefers say, this is not old school, it is reality. What the future holds is naturally to be determined and Apple is free to attempt to steer our progress towards that future. It is, and has been, very clear to all of us in post that tape and certain others things we use have no future. Perhaps the "insane" person at Apple thought all of these things would immediately cease to be used the day FCP X dropped. We have hundreds of thousands of dollars invested in our current facility so guess what? We didn't drop everything.

Yes we can keep using FCP 7 for now, but do we have any assurance that X will rise to meet our needs and expectations? I have read all the articles and the FAQ and the answer is still unclear. There is reason for hope however.
Reply
Reply
post #112 of 151
7/2/11 at 10:32am
Quote:
Originally Posted by UrbanVoyeur View Post

Not if they have to output to any kind of post production - color correction, effects, graphics, titles, or audio mixing. Not if they have more than one camera to sync. Not if one of the sources is tape or Red. Not if any other member of the team uses Media Composer, After Effects or anything but FCPX.

FCPX can't do any of these, and I have seen any project that doesn't need one of those things, if not all. Sorry FCPX is not ready for pro use.

If you use one camera (not Red, not tape), and everyone on the team uses FCPX, and you don't need post, then yes, FCPX s perfect.

"Not if they have to output to any kind of post production - color correction, effects, graphics, titles, or audio mixing. Not if they have more than one camera to sync."

FCPX can do all of these things.

Color correction, effects, graphics, titles, and audio mixing are buit-in.

Apple is working on multicam support. In the meantime, multicam can be accomplished by synching the sound from different cameras into special collections.

FCPX is all the post needed for some video products!

Edit: here's a video edited entirely with FCPX.

FCPX - First Cut with the new Final Cut Pro X

And here are the editor/author's comments (emphasis mine):
Quote:

Calcio Storico Fiorentino

Calcio Storico is a game that has been played in Firenze, Italia for centuries. Four teams; RED, WHITE, BLUE and GREEN, representing different parts of the city; punch, kick, run and scrape their way toward victory in a round robin tournament.

A mix, of rugby, soccer, american football, boxing, MMA and Greco Roman wrestling, CALCIO STORIC FIORENTINO is by for the most exciting sporting event I have ever witnessed live.


I'm no wall flower. Many of you who have read my posts here at the COW about FCP X know that I have been anticipating this software and very willing to embrace it. I've written about editing images and the software offerings out there and for a long time I have not only been longing for something new, but something that will allow us to be more creative in a very creative key position. EDITOR.

So I did it. I went ahead and did everything they told me not to. Don't install it on your main machine, back up everything, etc. I went to the App store and initiated the download. An hour later I was editing with a new piece of software.

I am a tester. With a camera, testing sometimes means shooting a chart, but we all know that the real test is when there is something on the line. With a new project on my machine this week, little time, a mix of RED, 5D footage, a began to shape a film in front of a computer, where all films come to life these days.

Normally, I use a combination of Color, FCP and Logic in my process, but I had this new tool in front of me, so the dance begins.

It's a scary proposition. If I got deep into the project there is no XML out, no EDL out, no taking the work somewhere else. Like it or not I was STUCK with the decision to edit this project in FCP TEN. Someone has to put their money where their mouth is and this was my chance.

So, off I went into unchartered territory.

I want to also state that I am a regular Apple customer. I have had no insight into the software, I have not seen it, touched it or "played" with it prior to the 1.0 download released version that the rest of you can download for 300 bucks.

I spent a morning tooling around and I liked what I found. The flow of editing images is so natural that I decided to just go for it and do the project in FCP X.

The footage is exciting. A mix of high octane action within an ancient game played over a two week tournament in the city of Florence. The game, CALCIO STORICO FIORENTINO, is a mix of soccer, rugby, football, boxing, greco-roman wrestling and MMA. There are no rules and I know few people (I've been in and around rough sports my whole life) who would walk onto this field to take part in what I describe as 50 minutes of violence and chaos.

This project has many of the same issues of other projects. Multiple cameras, different colors, shifting light, sound all over the place. Like the game itself the footage was also chaos. Three different timebases were shot, you name it. So this wasn't some, take four shots of my cat and edit them together movie.

Like always, I set out to create a film and to tell a story.

Like always, in the interest of the global good, I share it with you all openly.

I'll share my workflow.

Transcoded all of the RED footage to PR 4444
Transcoded all of the 5D footage to 4444
Imported all of the footage.
Edited the film
Did a color correction pass
Did a sound pass
Used the export to vimeo command to put it on the web from the timeline.

Ask anything and I will answer. I have no allegiances to anything.

Enjoy the film. I think you'll be able to see quite quickly that professional work can be accomplished in FCP-X.

Don't spend too much time here typing posts. Get out there and get your hands into a very powerful media authoring tool.

Peace.
David
"So at the end of the presentation, Steve came up to me and said: Is the iPhone worth criticizing? And I said: Make the screen five inches by eight inches, and you’ll rule the world."
– Alan Kay –
Reply
"So at the end of the presentation, Steve came up to me and said: Is the iPhone worth criticizing? And I said: Make the screen five inches by eight inches, and you’ll rule the world."
– Alan Kay –
Reply
post #113 of 151
7/2/11 at 11:27am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dick Applebaum View Post

"Not if they have to output to any kind of post production - color correction, effects, graphics, titles, or audio mixing. Not if they have more than one camera to sync."

FCPX can do all of these things.

Color correction, effects, graphics, titles, and audio mixing are buit-in.

Apple is working on multicam support. In the meantime, multicam can be accomplished by synching the sound from different cameras into special collections.

FCPX is all the post needed for some video products!

One thing to keep in mind is that rarely does one person do all these things that UrbanVoyeur mentioned and typically if they try they don't do them all WELL. Post people learned a long time ago that the do-it-all, Swiss Army Knife approach didn't not provide the best results. Some clients demand a higher level of talent and technical scope than FCP X can provide. Of course there are many, many thousands who do not and that may be what Apple is after.

Those who demand quality usually want their color done by a trained colorist and their audio done by someone who only does audio, etc., etc. The color, audio, graphics, titles and effects provided by FCP X are at best unproven to the high end clients and at worst incapable of meeting their quality requirements. However, if you look at the FCP population and then filter down to those who work at this high level, it is a tiny number. As many have said before me, Apple is probably focussing on the masses first and <maybe> the minority second. We'll see.
Reply
Reply
post #114 of 151
7/2/11 at 12:24pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by WelshDog View Post

One thing to keep in mind is that rarely does one person do all these things that UrbanVoyeur mentioned and typically if they try they don't do them all WELL. Post people learned a long time ago that the do-it-all, Swiss Army Knife approach didn't not provide the best results. Some clients demand a higher level of talent and technical scope than FCP X can provide. Of course there are many, many thousands who do not and that may be what Apple is after.

Those who demand quality usually want their color done by a trained colorist and their audio done by someone who only does audio, etc., etc. The color, audio, graphics, titles and effects provided by FCP X are at best unproven to the high end clients and at worst incapable of meeting their quality requirements. However, if you look at the FCP population and then filter down to those who work at this high level, it is a tiny number. As many have said before me, Apple is probably focussing on the masses first and <maybe> the minority second. We'll see.

I understand that! You likely, could add Log and Capture to your list.

Do they do these "specialty" activities within FCS -- or are other tools involved?

If done within FCS then they likely use Motion, Color, LiveType Soundtrack, etc.

Is so, each of the specialists, currently, must have a full FCS seat.

Now, while unproven, FCPX has capabilities similar to Color LiveType, and SoundTrack built in.

These specialists coud possibly do their jobs with a $300 FCPX seat as opposed to a $1,000 FCS seat.

For more advanced effects, graphics and titling -- the specialists could do their Job with a $50 Motion 5 seat.

If the files need to be processed outside of FCS, you can do some things now, more later:


Quote:
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.

Answers To Final Cut Pro X Questions.
"So at the end of the presentation, Steve came up to me and said: Is the iPhone worth criticizing? And I said: Make the screen five inches by eight inches, and you’ll rule the world."
– Alan Kay –
Reply
"So at the end of the presentation, Steve came up to me and said: Is the iPhone worth criticizing? And I said: Make the screen five inches by eight inches, and you’ll rule the world."
– Alan Kay –
Reply
post #115 of 151
7/2/11 at 2:29pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dick Applebaum View Post


I don't recall Apple ever doing a beta with an app.

But I have been stuck many times as an Apple user where I waited out version 1, bought version 2 and STILL considered myself an unofficial beta tester for three or four years, Aperture being the most recent and most affecting.

Maybe they don't do official beta programs but they sure do have a history of certain releases being unfinished and beta-like.
Reply
Reply
post #116 of 151
7/2/11 at 3:07pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dick Applebaum View Post

FCPX can do all of these things.
Color correction, effects, graphics, titles, and audio mixing are built-in.

My point was perhaps not clear. Yes, in a rudimentary fashion FCPX can do some of these things but you cannot import and export to the usual team of people/applications that specialize in these things - so FCPX does not work in most pro, student or even advanced amateur workflows.

As others have pointed out, rarely does one person do all these things, and rarely to the level required by most projects. And even if one person DOES do it all, they use software optimized for each task. Just because you have a hammer, not everything is a nail.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dick Applebaum View Post

In the meantime, multicam can be accomplished by synching the sound from different cameras into special collections.

ROFL - Really.
Maybe you've never edited a piece with multiple camera sources - I don't know. Syncing the sound or time code is only the very first and often most trivial step. Without simultaneous multiple source monitoring and synchronized edits that can be scrubbed and re-cut at will (ie FCP7, Media Composer and Premiere), it's like doing brain surgery with a backhoe. It can probably be done, but it won't be pretty.

Try it in FCP7 (or Premiere) then try it in FCPX. You'll see what I mean.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dick Applebaum View Post

FCPX is all the post needed for some video products!

Ummm. Yeah. Ok. Whatever you say.
Reply
Reply
post #117 of 151
7/2/11 at 3:45pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by UrbanVoyeur View Post

My point was perhaps not clear. Yes, in a rudimentary fashion FCPX can do some of these things but you cannot import and export to the usual team of people/applications that specialize in these things - so FCPX does not work in most pro, student or even advanced amateur workflows.

As others have pointed out, rarely does one person do all these things, and rarely to the level required by most projects. And even if one person DOES do it all, they use software optimized for each task. Just because you have a hammer, not everything is a nail.



ROFL - Really.
Maybe you've never edited a piece with multiple camera sources - I don't know. Syncing the sound or time code is only the very first and often most trivial step. Without simultaneous multiple source monitoring and synchronized edits that can be scrubbed and re-cut at will (ie FCP7, Media Composer and Premiere), it's like doing brain surgery with a backhoe. It can probably be done, but it won't be pretty.

Try it in FCP7 (or Premiere) then try it in FCPX. You'll see what I mean.


Ummm. Yeah. Ok. Whatever you say.


At the risk of reposting and offending you, the person below was able to do everything with FCPX.

He seemed to be able to resolve the issue of multiple cameras.


I don't claim to be a pro! You post as if you are an accomplished pro with knowledge and experience with all the pro tools.

Can you post a link to any of your work (allowing for the quality limitations of Vimeo) -- so we can compare your work with his?


Could it be that the professionalism resides in the person and not in the tools?


Here is a link to the FCPX author's site displaying some of his videos -- the most recent done using FCPX:

David Battistella's videos


Quote:
Originally Posted by Dick Applebaum View Post


Edit: here's a video edited entirely with FCPX.

FCPX - First Cut with the new Final Cut Pro X
Quote:
And here are the editor/author's comments (emphasis mine):

Calcio Storico Fiorentino

Calcio Storico is a game that has been played in Firenze, Italia for centuries. Four teams; RED, WHITE, BLUE and GREEN, representing different parts of the city; punch, kick, run and scrape their way toward victory in a round robin tournament.

A mix, of rugby, soccer, american football, boxing, MMA and Greco Roman wrestling, CALCIO STORIC FIORENTINO is by for the most exciting sporting event I have ever witnessed live.


I'm no wall flower. Many of you who have read my posts here at the COW about FCP X know that I have been anticipating this software and very willing to embrace it. I've written about editing images and the software offerings out there and for a long time I have not only been longing for something new, but something that will allow us to be more creative in a very creative key position. EDITOR.

So I did it. I went ahead and did everything they told me not to. Don't install it on your main machine, back up everything, etc. I went to the App store and initiated the download. An hour later I was editing with a new piece of software.

I am a tester. With a camera, testing sometimes means shooting a chart, but we all know that the real test is when there is something on the line. With a new project on my machine this week, little time, a mix of RED, 5D footage, a began to shape a film in front of a computer, where all films come to life these days.

Normally, I use a combination of Color, FCP and Logic in my process, but I had this new tool in front of me, so the dance begins.

It's a scary proposition. If I got deep into the project there is no XML out, no EDL out, no taking the work somewhere else. Like it or not I was STUCK with the decision to edit this project in FCP TEN. Someone has to put their money where their mouth is and this was my chance.

So, off I went into unchartered territory.

I want to also state that I am a regular Apple customer. I have had no insight into the software, I have not seen it, touched it or "played" with it prior to the 1.0 download released version that the rest of you can download for 300 bucks.

I spent a morning tooling around and I liked what I found. The flow of editing images is so natural that I decided to just go for it and do the project in FCP X.

The footage is exciting. A mix of high octane action within an ancient game played over a two week tournament in the city of Florence. The game, CALCIO STORICO FIORENTINO, is a mix of soccer, rugby, football, boxing, greco-roman wrestling and MMA. There are no rules and I know few people (I've been in and around rough sports my whole life) who would walk onto this field to take part in what I describe as 50 minutes of violence and chaos.

This project has many of the same issues of other projects. Multiple cameras, different colors, shifting light, sound all over the place. Like the game itself the footage was also chaos. Three different timebases were shot, you name it. So this wasn't some, take four shots of my cat and edit them together movie.

Like always, I set out to create a film and to tell a story.

Like always, in the interest of the global good, I share it with you all openly.

I'll share my workflow.
  • Transcoded all of the RED footage to PR 4444
  • Transcoded all of the 5D footage to 4444
  • Imported all of the footage.
  • Edited the film
  • Did a color correction pass
  • Did a sound pass
  • Used the export to vimeo command to put it on the web from the timeline.
Ask anything and I will answer. I have no allegiances to anything.

Enjoy the film. I think you'll be able to see quite quickly that professional work can be accomplished in FCP-X.

Don't spend too much time here typing posts. Get out there and get your hands into a very powerful media authoring tool.

Peace.
David


Here is the link to the movie: http://www.vimeo.com/25512336


"So at the end of the presentation, Steve came up to me and said: Is the iPhone worth criticizing? And I said: Make the screen five inches by eight inches, and you’ll rule the world."
– Alan Kay –
Reply
"So at the end of the presentation, Steve came up to me and said: Is the iPhone worth criticizing? And I said: Make the screen five inches by eight inches, and you’ll rule the world."
– Alan Kay –
Reply
post #118 of 151
7/2/11 at 8:48pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by nicwalmsley View Post

It is utterly shocking that FCPX does not have backwards compatibility.

If Apple will do this to their video editing software, what other programs might they "upgrade" and leave out backwards compatiblity?

Imagine if they upgraded Keynote, and you couldn't use old presentations. Or pages.

If you are an enterprise manager, you're left wondering about Apple's reliability.

If they can treat ten years of professional video editing with such contempt, what else may fall victim to "the Apple future".

If you're running a business, that requires more than one seat of NLE software, you should be asking yourself - in 5 years do I know Apple will be making professional level (not prosumer level) NLE software? Does Apple need my market (professional multi-user workflow NLE software)?

The answers are obvious. Make sure your NLE software vendor needs your market as much as you need them. Will Adobe and Avid be making professional multi-user workflow NLE software in 5 years...yes, they cater to those markets.

Apple isn't being vindictive, its just that true pro market apps are not what they are about anymore and that kind of software isn't where they're going (I don't even know if they'll be making Mac's in 10 years). JMHO...I'm looking forward to FCP X as a hobbyist, but its not where I'd want to anchor my business, because this field (pro level software) isn't what Apple is and you can't count on them there in the future.
Reply
Reply
post #119 of 151
7/2/11 at 9:28pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by jlandd View Post

But I have been stuck many times as an Apple user where I waited out version 1, bought version 2 and STILL considered myself an unofficial beta tester for three or four years, Aperture being the most recent and most affecting.

Maybe they don't do official beta programs but they sure do have a history of certain releases being unfinished and beta-like.

As one of those who paid 499 for aperture 1.0, I hear you - never buy v1 of any software, including Apple's (and I for one will avoid Lion v1 as it always takes till v3 or v4 for them to iron out the bugs and for developers to update their software). Wasn't the guy who gave us FCPX the same one who gave us Apeture as well? (or was he brought in to fix it?)
Reply
Reply
post #120 of 151
7/2/11 at 10:13pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dick Applebaum View Post

At the risk of reposting and offending you, the person below was able to do everything with FCPX.
He seemed to be able to resolve the issue of multiple cameras.

There is a very important difference between editing footage from multiple cameras shooting diferent things (which is what the Calcio Storico Fiorentino piece is) and editing footage from mutliple cameras simultaneously shooting the same event from different angles when sound and image must be in sync.

Think of the typical 4 camera sitcom. Think pratfall and reaction shot.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiple-camera_setup

This is used when shooting plays, concerts, training videos, sporting events, motivational speakers, church services, and many other types of live or difficult to repeat situations. I even saw it in a recent wedding.

For this you need an entrirely different kind of editing setup to do it quitckly, accurately and effectively. In the past, before NLE's, you'd have 4 tape decks slaved together and 1 recorder for the program. You'd watch 4 monitors plus 1 for program and use a live switcher to cut between them.

This is what people mean when they speak of "multi-cam editing"
Today, that experience is replicated in NLE's like FCP7, Media Composer, and Premiere Pro. But NOT FCPX. This is what Apple meant when they said multi-cam editing was not in the X release but that they are working on it.

I do not claim to be a good editor, but I have worked with them and have had my work edited by them. BUT, I will dig up a clip of mine to demonstrate what I am talking about.

The Calcio Storico Fiorentino is a great little peice, but I would point out that there was little in the way of graphics, effects, or post production sound. It was a series of shots strung together against a music track and with crowd sounds roughly matched to the screen action. Maintaining audio sync across cameras was not necessary.

Bottom line: you need the right tool for the job. Right now, FCPX is not the right tool for many (most?) pro-needs.
Reply
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Mac Software
AppleInsider › Forums › Software › Mac Software › Adobe continues assault on Apple's Final Cut Pro X with 'switcher program'