or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Software › Mac Software › Apple looking into re-offering Final Cut Pro 7 volume licenses after FCP X backlash
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Apple looking into re-offering Final Cut Pro 7 volume licenses after FCP X backlash - Page 4

post #121 of 203
Quote:
Originally Posted by stanley99 View Post

You're probably right about Apple deciding to leave these features to 3rd party tools. But that's going to be a non-starter for most of the film and TV editors that I know and work with.

Truthfully. A lot of features on FCP didn't work that great to begin with. And these are features that were built into the program.

Like the 1 frame early/late when laying off to tape? That one dogged us for a long time and still hasn't gone away.
post #122 of 203
Quote:
Originally Posted by hmurchison View Post

http://www.automaticduck.com/products/pefcp/

OMF/AAF already supported via a 3rd party.

Have you ever used Automatic Duck products? They rarely work as advertised and are grossly overpriced. We have a couple of their products and don't use them.

Anybody tried this one out yet?
post #123 of 203
Quote:
Originally Posted by cloudgazer View Post

-arch x86_64

The fact is Apple could have flipped a switch and built a 64bit binary, though they still would have had issues with any 3rd party plugins if they were passing pointers across their interface. Maybe some issues if they had bad code that explictly assumed 32 bit pointers for file sizes or memory allocation and didn't use 'sizeof'. Most code, even most large projects can be migrated to 64 bit pretty easily- and I say this as somebody who has worked porting very large systems between compilers before.

There is no way Apple could have just flipped a switch to port FCP7. It is a C++ Carbon application and that entire framework is missing from 64-bit Mac OS, so at least the entire edge code for its user-interface would need to be rewritten in Cocoa, with all the attendant issues of mixing exception models etc. QuickTime: ditto. Given that the app is Mac-only, calls to these APIs were likely pervasive in the codebase. Plug-ins: Can't run both x64 and x86 binaries in the same process, need to spawn a 32-bit helper process and marshall the data across.

I'm guessing they scoped the effort for a 64-bit port and decided it was not worth the effort for market size of a Pro app, and management supported/encouraged a new direction.
post #124 of 203
Quote:
Originally Posted by dcr159 View Post

I'm guessing they scoped the effort for a 64-bit port and decided it was not worth the effort for market size of a Pro app, and management supported/encouraged a new direction.

I think you are right. FCP 7 had to have a large amount of garbage in it considering its heritage. And I support any company doing what needs to be done to make money and be successful. I guess they looked at all of the history of FCP including it's marketing, outreach to users, development costs etc and decided it made no sense to continue on that path. I know they courted lots of famous people over the years to use FCP. Funny thing is, those people did use it and won lots of awards doing so and Apple got all the publicity from it. But I'm sure it just didn't add up going forward. They could do the same thing again, but just like with the code, they would be starting from scratch. No one is going to cut a movie, or a doc or even a tV spot on FCP X until a whole bunch of functionality is added back in.
post #125 of 203
Quote:
Originally Posted by WelshDog View Post

I think you are right. FCP 7 had to have a large amount of garbage in it considering its heritage. And I support any company doing what needs to be done to make money and be successful. I guess they looked at all of the history of FCP including it's marketing, outreach to users, development costs etc and decided it made no sense to continue on that path. I know they courted lots of famous people over the years to use FCP. Funny thing is, those people did use it and won lots of awards doing so and Apple got all the publicity from it. But I'm sure it just didn't add up going forward. They could do the same thing again, but just like with the code, they would be starting from scratch. No one is going to cut a movie, or a doc or even a tV spot on FCP X until a whole bunch of functionality is added back in.

I couldn't agree more.
post #126 of 203
Quote:
Originally Posted by dcr159 View Post

There is no way Apple could have just flipped a switch to port FCP7. It is a C++ Carbon application and that entire framework is missing from 64-bit Mac OS, so at least the entire edge code for its user-interface would need to be rewritten in Cocoa, with all the attendant issues of mixing exception models etc.

Heh - my lack of actual OS-X development time shows me up Ok so I was wrong, but it is true that an enterprise shop intent on it could and would have found a kludgey solution. If they didn't want to rewrite the UI they could have kept the 32 bit UI as a thin client and moved the business end into a 64bit server process, using any kind of IPC to insulate the two address spaces.

Obviously any such solution would be horrid, which is exactly why I respect their decision to toss the whole mess out and start again.
post #127 of 203
Quote:
Originally Posted by WelshDog View Post

I think you are right. FCP 7 had to have a large amount of garbage in it considering its heritage. And I support any company doing what needs to be done to make money and be successful. I guess they looked at all of the history of FCP including it's marketing, outreach to users, development costs etc and decided it made no sense to continue on that path. I know they courted lots of famous people over the years to use FCP. Funny thing is, those people did use it and won lots of awards doing so and Apple got all the publicity from it. But I'm sure it just didn't add up going forward. They could do the same thing again, but just like with the code, they would be starting from scratch. No one is going to cut a movie, or a doc or even a tV spot on FCP X until a whole bunch of functionality is added back in.

In 1995 I was selling the Truevision Targa 2000 capture cards for a Mac reseller and that think supported Quicktime. Some of the editors now were in diapers when Quicktime 1.0 hit back in 1991.

Now is FXplug 2 going to be Motion only for a plugin format is it it going to be the standard way to get modern features in a plugin now?

http://www.fcp.co/forum/8-reference-...-ins-for-fcp-x

http://developer.apple.com/library/m...002180-CH7-SW1

Quote:
The biggest change is that all FxPlug-ins will now run either directly in Motion or as part of a Motion Effect running inside of Final Cut Pro.

This makes most of the differences between hosts from previous versions disappear, making it easier for developers to write and maintain plug-ins.

In order for your plug-ins to run in Final Cut Pro, you must create a Motion Effect for each one.

Ahhh not Motion only. If this plugin format is robust and stable then FCPX could be pretty extensible. There's a lot of new functionality in FXplug 2
He's a mod so he has a few extra vBulletin privileges. That doesn't mean he should stop posting or should start acting like Digital Jesus.
- SolipsismX
Reply
He's a mod so he has a few extra vBulletin privileges. That doesn't mean he should stop posting or should start acting like Digital Jesus.
- SolipsismX
Reply
post #128 of 203
Quote:
Originally Posted by ThePixelDoc View Post

And may I suggest, their "needs" in 2 years time will more than likely be completely different than today's? Broadcast? Tape drives? Broadcast proofing monitors?

Will they "really" need those "features" to broadcast over the Internet and make their shows available on YouTube, NetFlix, Hulu, Amazon, and iTunes? Output to BluRay for the "purists"?

Will the media co.'s really center their workflows, software and investments for people with old CRT TVs?


Absolutely we will need them. All our legacy material (50 years of it) sits on tape and no one is going to pay to ingest it all onto some uberserver in the Cloud. All international deliverables require tape, some (American distributors actually) still require analogue tape. Geez, to listen to you ardent futurists you'd think we were trying to promote vacuum tube amplifiers. In 5 years, not 2, tape will be a less common output. FCP7 and Avid do tapeless just fine, but they also do tape. I'm not going to wait 5 years for my clients' needs to match some consumer app that's missing what I need now.

This isn't like going "Look Ma, no floppy disk." These are things our clients require and will for half a decade or more. If Apple wants to drive change in the media industry as well as its own it will need significantly more influence and trust than it has. It might have changed its name, but Apple is still just Big In Computing.

Look at the numbers: who's paying for YouTube? Where's the money? Who's going to pay you all for these uploads for others to watch?

People have been predicting the death of the cinema since TV arrived. They've been predicting the death of TV since the internet arrived, 20 years ago now. These things will co-exist, and if you're making stuff for all of them, you need good tools that work across all of them. FCP was that, it is no longer.

This isn't fear of change, it's fear of poverty. Our clients' media flows will not be dictated by a technology company and their teenage fanboys telling them what they should need, nor by me. Sorry, it just doesn't work like that.

So FCP X is a great application for many things, it's just hopeless at being Pro. FCP X is a billboard announcing the future, it's not the future itself.
post #129 of 203
Quote:
Originally Posted by stanley99 View Post

One of the bigger complaints about FCP7 was that it's not nearly as good as AVID for multiple editors. This is a big issue for large movies and TV shows that have dozens of editors and assistants sharing projects and files. A plugin alone won't solve this problem.

Wasn't this what Final Cut Server was supposed to address? Things like centralized file management, access control, version control, multiuser? Does putting an FCP X project on a network drive suddenly bring all these features to FCP X?
post #130 of 203
Quote:
I don't agree with that at all. Few consumers are going to pay $300 for an edit program these days. I'd call this at the very least an enthusiast/prosumer app as it is.

Besides, what consumer has a 4k camera? FCPX can edit 4k footage, something the old software just couldn't.

Oh, there'll be 4K on GoPro in an instant. And we can argue til the cows come home about the gulf that separates the enthusiast from the consumer, but we're still talking hobbyists and secondary users - people who work in other fields and need to cut some video. iMovie does that.

4K is an interesting example to cite. Yes, a 4K workflow is usually heading for a DI and may indeed be professional and tapeless, but who's going to use FCP X to get there? No edls, 3rd party sound export, no tracks... come on!
post #131 of 203
Quote:
Originally Posted by Haggar View Post

Wasn't this what Final Cut Server was supposed to address? Things like centralized file management, access control, version control, multiuser? Does putting an FCP X project on a network drive suddenly bring all these features to FCP X?

Final Cut Server did address some of the issues for shows with multiple editors. It didn't address them very well - certainly not as well as AVID unity - but it did address them.

And then Apple discontinued Final Cut Server. And then added insult to injury by giving us FCPX.
post #132 of 203
Quote:
Originally Posted by cloudgazer View Post

Another way to think of it is that it's fractured between the people who build software and the sheep who merely use software

Yet another way to think about it is between the people who make movies and the sheep who merely watch movies.
post #133 of 203
Quote:
Originally Posted by Haggar View Post

Does putting an FCP X project on a network drive suddenly bring all these features to FCP X?

To give you an idea of our needs, I've been on reality TV shows where two dozens editors and assistants were editing 6 episodes all at the same time. There's a lot of chaotic jumping back and forth between projects and situations where 4 people might be simultaneously trying to edit, do sound work, and add titles and VFX on the same episode at the same time all within the space of an hour. Final Cut Server kind of worked for that. But it didn't work well. It's not just about putting the project on a central server. The way that AVID manages media and organizes the project makes it much easier for multiple editors to do work like this - especially in crunch situations.
post #134 of 203
Quote:
Originally Posted by stanley99 View Post

To give you an idea of our needs, I've been on reality TV shows where two dozens editors and assistants were editing 6 episodes all at the same time.

For a moment reading this I allowed myself to imagine that FCP-X would mean fewer reality TV shows would get created, then my ego caught up with my id and hopes were dashed.
post #135 of 203
Quote:
Originally Posted by Haggar View Post

Yet another way to think about it is between the people who make movies and the sheep who merely watch movies.

Ahh, but we programmers only watch so we can complain about flicks like Independence Day with unrealistic hacking/programming/etc.

We did used to watch Star Wars & Star Trek flicks, but you guys betrayed us on that, and we're going to continue to destroy your tools until you cry uncle! Soon you'll be back to assembling movies by hand with celluloid and glue
post #136 of 203
Quote:
Originally Posted by cloudgazer View Post

For a moment reading this I allowed myself to imagine that FCP-X would mean fewer reality TV shows would get created, then my ego caught up with my id and hopes were dashed.

If only...
post #137 of 203
Quote:
Originally Posted by cloudgazer View Post

Soon you'll be back to assembling movies by hand with celluloid and glue

I know most people think I'm crazy, but I kind of miss cutting on actual film.
post #138 of 203
Quote:
Originally Posted by stanley99 View Post

I know most people think I'm crazy, but I kind of miss cutting on actual film.

I can understand that - I kinda miss coding in assembler.
post #139 of 203
Quote:
Originally Posted by cloudgazer View Post

I can understand that - I kinda miss coding in assembler.

And I miss the dark room
post #140 of 203
Quote:
Originally Posted by Haggar View Post

Yet another way to think about it is between the people who make movies and the sheep who merely watch movies.

Yes, but with iMovie Pro, sheep who watch movies can now make movies!

"Apple should pull the plug on the iPhone."

John C. Dvorak, 2007
Reply

"Apple should pull the plug on the iPhone."

John C. Dvorak, 2007
Reply
post #141 of 203
Quote:
Originally Posted by bulk001 View Post

If you had to choose to use either for real serious work, say producing an ad campaign for a large company that will involve print, TV and web then Pixelmator is just not up to the task. At the same time, I meet people who complain about Photoshop but all they need is the red eye correction tool in iPhoto!

Quite true, it depends on the use. Photoshop started out as a less sophisticated program, and look what you can do with it now. I imagine a few years can make a big difference in the breadth of uses Pixelmator can serve. It already easily exceeds Elements in my opinion.


Quote:
Originally Posted by fearless View Post

Oh, there'll be 4K on GoPro in an instant.

Assuming they make it, it might be 4k in name and encoded image size, but given that nothing consumer seems to even have good 1080p quality, I wonder if there's a point. I think it will be a few years anyway, I doubt there's cheap hardware to do that kind of encoding. We haven't seen a camera less than $15,000 that can do it, so it's not going to jump to less than $1,000 without one in between first.
post #142 of 203
What the real story here is Apple's attitude toward the Pro community. if you have noticed over the last few years the Macs are no longer considered just for Pros. Apple went after the consumer community. they have succeed and are sitting on some hefty profits. Final cut does not fit in their dna anymore. FCPx reminds me of Aperture when it first came out. i wanted to love it but it would not read my cameras Raw files when they finally upgraded it to read my camera I was onto a newer model and had already moved to lightroom. Adobe keep up with upgrades much faster. Every new camera that came out they had an update with in a month. Apple took 6 months or more to upgrade Aperture's camera base. Thou Aperture was geared toward the Pro market, just the reverse of what happened with Final cut Pro 7. Apple is very arrogant now and maybe headed down the same path as MS and others with a very entrenched corporate culture where no one talks to anyone they just develop these projects without much feed back from the people who would actually be using the product, the jury is still out on FCPX. We will see how long it takes for them to update or not. they may just want to scrape having a pro app and be happy selling a semi pro app. then they can tell the consumer what he wants and not have to listen to their customers.
post #143 of 203
Quote:
Originally Posted by JeffDM View Post

It sounds like Pixelmator could be a fighting replacement for a lot of Photoshop uses. It uses the Core frameworks and it isn't held back by being multi-platform.

I've recommended and "pumped" Pixelmator a number of times here and on other forums, especially for Mac users, for just those reasons.

@bulk001 - you missed "probably" in my original statement. I have no concrete evidense to back up my statement.

However since using PS 1.0 until the present CS5, and witnessing the "bolted on factor" first-hand with Adobe's foray into 64-bit for Mac... let's just say, "it's just a hunch at 10x".

I think other's have experienced that hunch as well. Check out Adobe's own forums.
Knowing what you are talking about would help you understand why you are so wrong. By "Realistic" - AI Forum Member
Reply
Knowing what you are talking about would help you understand why you are so wrong. By "Realistic" - AI Forum Member
Reply
post #144 of 203
A good analogy here would be that FCP 7 is like driving a stick shift and FCP X is an automatic (minus features). Pro's don't want to be babied, or want any hand holding.

If software had a bunch of buttons that did everything for you it wouldn't be considered pro. Becoming a pro takes time and dedication to learn complex software and the craft. Adding cheap buttons and tricks that offer limited control takes away from that and devalues the craft.

There is no make an "incredible video button".

Quote:
Originally Posted by franktinsley View Post

Apple didn't make FCPX for fun. They made it to make editing faster and easier. If someone says they're good at video editing and can't use the faster and easier software then how good at editing are they really?
post #145 of 203
Quote:
Originally Posted by sternapples53 View Post

What the real story here is Apple's attitude toward the Pro community. if you have noticed over the last few years the Macs are no longer considered just for Pros. Apple went after the consumer community. they have succeed and are sitting on some hefty profits. Final cut does not fit in their dna anymore. FCPx reminds me of Aperture when it first came out. i wanted to love it but it would not read my cameras Raw files when they finally upgraded it to read my camera I was onto a newer model and had already moved to lightroom. Adobe keep up with upgrades much faster. Every new camera that came out they had an update with in a month. Apple took 6 months or more to upgrade Aperture's camera base. Thou Aperture was geared toward the Pro market, just the reverse of what happened with Final cut Pro 7. Apple is very arrogant now and maybe headed down the same path as MS and others with a very entrenched corporate culture where no one talks to anyone they just develop these projects without much feed back from the people who would actually be using the product, the jury is still out on FCPX. We will see how long it takes for them to update or not. they may just want to scrape having a pro app and be happy selling a semi pro app. then they can tell the consumer what he wants and not have to listen to their customers.

Yes, I think this will be the trend. Nothing diabolical though certainly frustrating IMO. Apple has been beating their heads against the enterprise and pro market for a long time with some success. But the iConsumer opportunities are so juicy and so vast, for Apple to focus on it they have to make compromises in the pro and enterprise space.

Some people may not like it and some people may not like to acknowledge it but this is happening.

The FCPX team's mistake was thinking that they could still serve some of the high-end editors with this first release.
post #146 of 203
This pretty much says it all: http://digitalcomposting.wordpress.c...6/28/x-vs-pro/

Apple needs to get it @ss in gear and fix things. I hope the release a new version of Final Cut Server or a replacement that out does the original. If not they should open source Final Cut Server along with Shake and Color.

Quote:
Originally Posted by sternapples53 View Post

What the real story here is Apple's attitude toward the Pro community. if you have noticed over the last few years the Macs are no longer considered just for Pros. Apple went after the consumer community. they have succeed and are sitting on some hefty profits. Final cut does not fit in their dna anymore. FCPx reminds me of Aperture when it first came out. i wanted to love it but it would not read my cameras Raw files when they finally upgraded it to read my camera I was onto a newer model and had already moved to lightroom. Adobe keep up with upgrades much faster. Every new camera that came out they had an update with in a month. Apple took 6 months or more to upgrade Aperture's camera base. Thou Aperture was geared toward the Pro market, just the reverse of what happened with Final cut Pro 7. Apple is very arrogant now and maybe headed down the same path as MS and others with a very entrenched corporate culture where no one talks to anyone they just develop these projects without much feed back from the people who would actually be using the product, the jury is still out on FCPX. We will see how long it takes for them to update or not. they may just want to scrape having a pro app and be happy selling a semi pro app. then they can tell the consumer what he wants and not have to listen to their customers.
post #147 of 203
Quote:
Originally Posted by franktinsley View Post

Apple didn't make FCPX for fun. They made it to make editing faster and easier. If someone says they're good at video editing and can't use the faster and easier software then how good at editing are they really?

They made it for the mass market. It does not necessarily make it easier or faster depending on what you need to do. As for those of us who make money with FCP 7, we just need to accept the fact that Apple is now a consumer focused company (and there is nothing wrong with that), find an alternative and move on. For now the hardware is good, the OS is good and there are viable alternatives from Adobe, Avid and probably some others.
post #148 of 203
Quote:
Originally Posted by ThePixelDoc View Post

I've recommended and "pumped" Pixelmator a number of times here and on other forums, especially for Mac users, for just those reasons.

@bulk001 - you missed "probably" in my original statement. I have no concrete evidense to back up my statement.

However since using PS 1.0 until the present CS5, and witnessing the "bolted on factor" first-hand with Adobe's foray into 64-bit for Mac... let's just say, "it's just a hunch at 10x".

I think other's have experienced that hunch as well. Check out Adobe's own forums.

I probably "didn't". I have used it for almost as long as you have and don't see a "bolted on factor". What exactly are these "bolted on factors" anyway that you don't like? If you are arguing for less features, by all means use Pixelmator but I am glad to see Adobe innovating and adding to Photoshop and think it is overall a fantastic product. As for your hunch I would disagree - the program is fast, it is stable and it is feature rich.
post #149 of 203
Quote:
Originally Posted by JeffDM View Post

Quite true, it depends on the use. Photoshop started out as a less sophisticated program, and look what you can do with it now. I imagine a few years can make a big difference in the breadth of uses Pixelmator can serve. It already easily exceeds Elements in my opinion.

I am sure in a few years it could and I think that competition is good and will make Photoshop a better program. The problem for is that as they add new features there will be people who start complaining about bloat, stuff "bolted on", speed etc.
post #150 of 203
Quote:
Originally Posted by ThePixelDoc View Post

Staaaanley and the rest of you with similar posts:

WE GET IT! Many of us have read the above post or similar 1000 times or more over the last couple of weeks! Everybody and their grandma knows what's missing... what's coming "soon"... and what's likely never to come, because it will no longer be needed... or because Apple no longer sees the need to cater to the pros.

I personally think that Apple and it's engineers are looking out well beyond 2 years time. I also believe the rewrite that they are releasing now can and will benefit early adopters if they give it a chance. Those are the pro editers of tomorrow... OK... in 2 years.

We keep getting posts like that because we keep getting posts from people who clearly have no idea how professional editing works and assume that the backlash has something to do with anti-Apple sentiment, or an unwillingness to adapt to the New Shiny, or lack of patience, or some kind of unseemly old person's clinging to outmoded tech, or some fundamental inability to Trust Apple and Embrace the Future.

Since all of those things are insultingly misinformed, we're going to keep getting folks going back over the fundamentals as long as other folks insist on getting the narrative completely wrong.
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
post #151 of 203
Quote:
Originally Posted by bulk001 View Post

I am sure in a few years it could and I think that competition is good and will make Photoshop a better program. The problem for is that as they add new features there will be people who start complaining about bloat, stuff "bolted on", speed etc.

Not necessarily. Pixelmator has the advantage of being modern code with no legacy cruft, plus they've seen the results of years of Photoshop feature creep and what it does to the interface.

If Pixelmator were to keep adding features to the point that it achieved Photoshop parity for, say, 80% of use cases (not saying it ever will, but just theoretically) I'd wager it would deliver that 80% in a much easier to use, much faster, much more streamlined package.

The big disadvantage for even a so empowered Pixelmator is that while they might get some percentage of Photoshop functionality, everybody may want a different subset. Similar to the "how many apps are enough" argument-- if the app you want isn't available on your platform, the answer is always "not enough." More apps = more likely that the specific tool your looking for is available. Photoshop is the App Store of image processing functionality-- if you don't need a particular process it might seem unwieldily, needlessly complex and pointlessly elaborated. But if you do need that process it's the only game in town. And, I would wager, every Photoshop jockey has a slightly different set of tools that they rely on.
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
post #152 of 203
Quote:
Originally Posted by addabox View Post

We keep getting posts like that because we keep getting posts from people who clearly have no idea how professional editing works and assume that the backlash has something to do with anti-Apple sentiment, or an unwillingness to adapt to the New Shiny, or lack of patience, or some kind of unseemly old person's clinging to outmoded tech, or some fundamental inability to Trust Apple and Embrace the Future.

Since all of those things are insultingly misinformed, we're going to keep getting folks going back over the fundamentals as long as other folks insist on getting the narrative completely wrong.

I'm going to copy this and paste into every thread where it applies from now on. Hope you don't mind.
post #153 of 203
Quote:
Originally Posted by addabox View Post

We keep getting posts like that because we keep getting posts from people who clearly have no idea how professional editing works and assume that the backlash has something to do with anti-Apple sentiment, or an unwillingness to adapt to the New Shiny, or lack of patience, or some kind of unseemly old person's clinging to outmoded tech, or some fundamental inability to Trust Apple and Embrace the Future.

Since all of those things are insultingly misinformed, we're going to keep getting folks going back over the fundamentals as long as other folks insist on getting the narrative completely wrong.

Dead right, we are. During the Platform Wars, Apple was always about emotional connections with things and Microsoft was all about doing what business needed. I could note how those tables have turned, but they haven't really. They're both on the same side of the table now - except Apple just let down a chunk of business customers. Indeed that generates emotion.

For all that Apple needs to "focus" or whatever, they're a multi billion dollar company with room for the odd Skunk Works, which is what Pro Apps became. OS X wasn't built by the marketing department, it was built by NeXT, which was a bunch of geeks. When the iPod then the iPhone became big, we all applauded because future development of the apps on which we relied depended on a healthy Apple bottom line. Instead, the tail wagged the dog so hard the dog died.

Apple could have had a bunch of high profile advocates supporting its brand doing stuff you'd go to the movies to see. Instead the links will point to skateboard vids, made by proud young "Pro" directors. Sad.
post #154 of 203
<saved for later>
post #155 of 203
Quote:
Originally Posted by fearless View Post

Absolutely we will need them. All our legacy material (50 years of it) sits on tape and no one is going to pay to ingest it all onto some uberserver in the Cloud. All international deliverables require tape, some (American distributors actually) still require analogue tape. Geez, to listen to you ardent futurists you'd think we were trying to promote vacuum tube amplifiers. In 5 years, not 2, tape will be a less common output. FCP7 and Avid do tapeless just fine, but they also do tape. I'm not going to wait 5 years for my clients' needs to match some consumer app that's missing what I need now.

Do you need tape at the recording stage though (putting aside high-end camera design)? Sony's recent issues with their factory don't help reliance on specialised tape:

http://www.hdwarrior.co.uk/2011/04/0...-short-supply/

Also, it doesn't have to be Final Cut Pro's job to handle the tape I/O.

It seems that the best workflow going forward is to record to fast SSD drives (like the RED cameras) in whatever format you choose - don't need to buy a tape per shoot so even expensive SSDs are cost-effective and you can record multiple SSDs simultaneously for some security. This allows very fast, direct ingest without a tape deck. Then you use inexpensive tape for archive and distribution:

http://www.quantum.com/Products/Tape...O-5/Index.aspx

Tape is absolutely still required but I don't think it's essential for video editing software developers to be the ones to support it directly.

Tape/SSD capture -- ingest via 3rd party -- [ digital -> Final Cut -> digital ] ---- Tape/HDD/SSD output
post #156 of 203
Quote:
Originally Posted by fearless View Post

Instead, the tail wagged the dog so hard the dog died.

That dog died in 1997.

FCP users were never the dog. By the time FCP was first released Apple was already re-inventing itself as a consumer driven computer maker with devices in bright candy colours. Pros weren't the target market for those early iBooks or iMacs.

Quote:
Apple could have had a bunch of high profile advocates supporting its brand doing stuff you'd go to the movies to see. Instead the links will point to skateboard vids, made by proud young "Pro" directors. Sad.

This paragraph perfectly exemplifies the emotions at play here. Anybody who isn't a card carrying 'pro' director who invested years in gaining that status immediately sees that young 'skateboard vid' directors will sell more macs than Francis Ford Coppola himself could.
post #157 of 203
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvin View Post

Tape is absolutely still required but I don't think it's essential for video editing software developers to be the ones to support it directly.

Tape/SSD capture -- ingest via 3rd party -- [ digital -> Final Cut -> digital ] ---- Tape/HDD/SSD output

This is wrong. I know everyone is saying that pro film and TV editors can use 3rd party plug ins for missing features like output to tape, but the truth is it probably won't work well enough.

The truth is output to tape in FCP7 already doesn't work every well. (See the early posting by Welshdog.) And in my experience, 3rd party plug ins usually don't work even as well as features built into the program.

In film and TV we often use output to tape to make reference tapes for our sound house, vfx guys, color correction, etc... If those reference tapes are off by even 1 frame, that can mean big headaches. In a worst case scenario, a reference tape that is off by 1 frame could actually get some poor assistant editor fired.

Features like output to tape are actually crucial features that need to function fast, reliably, and accurately. No editor wants to trust a 3rd party plug for that.
post #158 of 203
Quote:
Originally Posted by fearless View Post

Apple just let down a chunk of business customers. Indeed that generates emotion.

Most TV and feature film editors that I know are happy that we don't won't have to deal with FCP anymore.

Feature film and TV editors are not debating whether or not FCPX is a pro editing platform. We KNOW it's not a pro editing platform anymore. So the big question is: How are we dealing with it? The truth is most of are either indifferent or happy.

Most feature film and TV editors didn't really like FCP all that much to begin with. Most of the time it was not our first choice for an editing platform. We thought it was finicky and unreliable. And the more complicated the project - like a big multi-editor TV show - the harder it was to work with. Usually the producers were the ones who made us use it. They wanted to save money. So they forced us to use FCP instead of AVID.

I think what Apple did with FCPX will mainly screw over middle-class professional editors who don't work in feature film and TV. And I definitely feel sorry for those guys.

But in feature film and TV editing, I'd say 95% of my work was already AVID. And no one that I know is going to miss FCP.
post #159 of 203
Quote:
Originally Posted by stanley99 View Post

I know everyone is saying that pro film and TV editors can use 3rd party plug ins for missing features like output to tape, but the truth is it probably won't work well enough.

That wouldn't be Apple's fault though but the 3rd party software developers. AJA have products to let you do this sort of thing and not plugins but standalone apps:

http://www.facebook.com/ajavideo/pos...50678862540354

They may not work reliably but then it would be their responsibility to sort it out.

Quote:
Originally Posted by stanley99

We thought it was finicky and unreliable.

Yeah and IMO, that would suggest they should focus on making the core application stronger and not try to take care of everything themselves. For example don't try to support STP, Color, DVDSP, LiveType, FCE etc. Just bring it down to a very small core application and let it be a powerful component in a workflow so that it can be used with Logic, Nuke, Da Vinci, Pro Tools and so on seamlessly.

They've kinda messed that up a bit so far with the single-user design but they can turn it around in a future revision if they choose to.

As you quite rightly say though, it doesn't matter. People will make a choice on what works. If Apple doesn't deliver this then they are out. The market decides who wins and who loses and if Apple feel they still want to be in it, they have to realise they can't make the rules all the time.
post #160 of 203
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvin View Post

Do you need tape at the recording stage though (putting aside high-end camera design)? Sony's recent issues with their factory don't help reliance on specialised tape:

http://www.hdwarrior.co.uk/2011/04/0...-short-supply/

Also, it doesn't have to be Final Cut Pro's job to handle the tape I/O.

It seems that the best workflow going forward is to record to fast SSD drives (like the RED cameras) in whatever format you choose - don't need to buy a tape per shoot so even expensive SSDs are cost-effective and you can record multiple SSDs simultaneously for some security. This allows very fast, direct ingest without a tape deck. Then you use inexpensive tape for archive and distribution:

http://www.quantum.com/Products/Tape...O-5/Index.aspx

Tape is absolutely still required but I don't think it's essential for video editing software developers to be the ones to support it directly.

Tape/SSD capture -- ingest via 3rd party -- [ digital -> Final Cut -> digital ] ---- Tape/HDD/SSD output

With respect Marvin, you're once again confusing ingest with mastering. Hardly anyone shoots tape any more - we know that. And it's usually not where the pressure is. Of course we use RAID storage and LTO for archiving. That's not the problem.

Getting a show out on deadline should not require a journey to an external app and if it does, it's a workaround.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Mac Software
AppleInsider › Forums › Software › Mac Software › Apple looking into re-offering Final Cut Pro 7 volume licenses after FCP X backlash