I have to say, the release of FCPX seems to be a rare (in recent times) stumble on Apple's part. It's really not a good thing for them for the platform to alienate so many creative professionals, even if they do end up selling a lot of copies of FCPX to non-pros.
I don't think this is likely for a bunch of reasons. First off the development costs of the Mac Pro are tiny. The physical case hasn't changed in years, and the electronics inside are all essentially off the shelf. As a result the Mac Pro can survive on a relatively small market.
Second the Mac Pro supports an essential user base, Mac developers both inside Apple and outside. While the pro video editors are a nice market to have on your platform, high end developers are critical and are the foundation which the platform rests upon.
Can I import projects from Final Cut Pro 7 into Final Cut Pro X?
Final Cut Pro X includes an all-new project architecture structured around a trackless timeline and connected clips. In addition, Final Cut Pro X features new and redesigned audio effects, video effects, and color grading tools. Because of these changes, there is no way to ?translate? or bring in old projects without changing or losing data. But if you?re already working with Final Cut Pro 7, you can continue to do so after installing Final Cut Pro X, and Final Cut Pro 7 will work with Mac OS X Lion. You can also import your media files from previous versions into Final Cut Pro X.
This is not unprecedented in the video editing and finishing software world. In 2002 Quantel famously did not offer any way of reading projects from it's Editbox/Henry line by it's newly released eQ and iQ systems. People had thousands of Henry archives that could not be opened by the new high definition eQ systems. And these are machines that cost a quarter of million dollars. So I guess Apple is in good company???
However, Apple could have done this release better; this FAQ should not be needed now; it should have been out the first day, even on the App store page. They seem to be cleaning up a mess.
That said, I am stunned at the reaction of many so-called "pros" who couldn't find some of these answers easily themselves early on or didn't bother to research before buying and are so seemingly opposed to anything approaching change.
Why do you assume any of the answers are the main concerns? The 'so called pros' need to know a lot more than what is there. None of the concern is about change, have you any idea how many changes the industry has gone through already? It is about continuity of data, media access, support and planning ahead. This discussion is obviously not one that is understood by many here and seeing it as 'pros being opposed to change' proves that.
I do trust Steve Jobs when he says they will continue to build trucks. I personally have gravitated to all laptops but I am nobody.
Order of last four purchases:
15" MacBook Pro 2.33 GHz
BlackBook 2.4 GHz
early 2011 13" MacBook Pro 2.3 GHz
early 2011 17" MacBook Pro 2.2 GHz
Not helping you much, huh? Ok, I'll buy a tower with Sandy Bridge.
Quote:
Originally Posted by digitalclips
Horrible thoughts ...
Has any rumor surfaced yet as to the future of the MacPro? I had a thought last night, maybe this all foreshadows Apple dropping the high end hardware while making MacBook Pros ever more powerful and migrating pro apps to the prosumer variety. It make sense looking at the sales numbers, and look at XServe!
As a Mac Desk top owner since they first existed it is a scary thought personally but as a share holder I could see the logic. I admit I now use a MacBook Pro i7 and iPad 2 a hell of a lot of the time though. Apple could abandon the high end altogether, leaving that small market to PCs and Adobe.
Has any rumor surfaced yet as to the future of the MacPro? I had a thought last night, maybe this all foreshadows Apple dropping the high end hardware while making MacBook Pros ever more powerful and migrating pro apps to the prosumer variety. It make sense looking at the sales numbers, and look at XServe!
As a Mac Desk top owner since they first existed it is a scary thought personally but as a share holder I could see the logic. I admit I now use a MacBook Pro i7 and iPad 2 a hell of a lot of the time though. Apple could abandon the high end altogether, leaving that small market to PCs and Adobe.
Tell me I am just having nightmares.
I've been concerned with the exact same thing for awhile now. It will make me sad if they kill the MacPro.
This is not unprecedented in the video editing and finishing software world. In 2002 Quantel famously did not offer any way of reading projects from it's Editbox/Henry line by it's newly released eQ and iQ systems. People had thousands of Henry archives that could not be opened by the new high definition eQ systems. And these are machines that cost a quarter of million dollars. So I guess Apple is in good company???
I don't get what all the hubbub is surrounding project importation. Least we forget that Apple did nearly the same thing with the update to FCP 5.1 during the Intel transition. Projects created in 5.1 wouldn't open in 5.0, so you either had to upgrade every machine in your office or none of them. And that was compounded by the fact that 5.1 was Universal, meaning that if you bought a new Mac, you HAD to upgrade, as 5.0 was available for PPC only. (Most facilities have more than one editing bay - we had 7 - so it wasn't going to be a slow rollout.) Sure it was annoying, but there was hardly the mass panic that is ensuing now; although, it's also true that the product wasn't EOL'd at the same time. That being said, I do think it would behoove Apple to provide SOME way of opening legacy files, in the event that you need to go back to something several years later, but perhaps another solution will be forthcoming from a 3rd party vendor.
Why do you assume any of the answers are the main concerns? The 'so called pros' need to know a lot more than what is there. None of the concern is about change, have you any idea how many changes the industry has gone through already? It is about continuity of data, media access, support and planning ahead. This discussion is obviously not one that is understood by many here and seeing it as 'pros being opposed to change' proves that.
I would even assert that it is the "Pros" at the highest level who are early adopters of new products and certainly are the ones who drive innovation because they demand it. Just because Apple decides to go off to an island and create new software with no industry input doesn't mean they got it right. Change is good and pro editors embrace change when it is good change. Much of what FCP X has brought to the party is worthwhile, but they left out some stuff that is pretty important. Industry change is often organic and is sometimes driven by one small company offering an innovative product. Apple has not presented FCP X as a future option designed to evolve and be gradually adopted by the industry. They have dropped it into the deep end and taken away the life preservers. That won't work in this particular pool. They most likely have succeeded in driving away a large number of long time, evangelical customers. I think FCP X looks very interesting and innovative. I'll try it out in three years when it can do what we need it to do.
I don't get what all the hubbub is surrounding project importation. Least we forget that Apple did nearly the same thing with the update to FCP 5.1 during the Adobe transition. Projects created in 5.1 wouldn't open in 5.0, so you either had to upgrade every machine in your office or none of them. There was hardly the mass panic that is ensuing now. That being said, I do think it would behoove Apple to provide SOME way of opening legacy files, in the event that you need to go back to something several years later, but perhaps another solution will be forthcoming from a 3rd party vendor.
To be able to open a project and have it fully functional as it was in the old version would be a lot to ask of a totally new app like FCP X. What is unfortunate is they didn't even give you way of importing an EDL or XML of the old project so you could at least get the cuts and dissolves into X. That is lame.
I've been concerned with the exact same thing for awhile now. It will make me sad if they kill the MacPro.
Stop panicking. You're fine - rumours about a redesigned MP have been circulating for several months. Don't forget that Steve Jobs also owns a little company called Pixar whose artists need 128 GB of RAM to render their projects. Great as they are, a MPB will never do that.
Why do you assume any of the answers are the main concerns? The 'so called pros' need to know a lot more than what is there. None of the concern is about change, have you any idea how many changes the industry has gone through already? It is about continuity of data, media access, support and planning ahead. This discussion is obviously not one that is understood by many here and seeing it as 'pros being opposed to change' proves that.
Continuity of data!
Simple question, because you post in a reasoned fashion and appear to be a pro in post.
Do any competitive products have the capability to:
1) Open an FCP7/FCS * project
* I include FCS so that the FCP projects that round-trip to other FCS components are covered.
or
2) Provide a migration tool to move an FCP7/FCS project to their product(s) -- realizing that there may be differences that require a "best effort" migration.
Or, does migration of an FCP7/FCS project to a competitive system involve manual re-creation (not recreation of the project in the new system on a "best effort" basis?
I have to say, the release of FCPX seems to be a rare (in recent times) stumble on Apple's part. It's really not a good thing for them for the platform to alienate so many creative professionals, even if they do end up selling a lot of copies of FCPX to non-pros.
Over the past week since this all this started, the news has made me one of the unhappy video editors, however, I don't really think it is a miscalculation on Apple's part. They knew what was going to happen, which is why they wanted to conceal the known issues until the last minute. They didn't want to have it dragged through the mud for months. They wanted all the bitching and complaining to be over and done with in a week's time and then we all move on.
Maybe it is a good thing to have a powerful yet stripped down editing app. If you look at any Apple produced video or commercial, you don't see many fancy special effects, except some of those older iTunes animated ads. Their stuff is clean straight cuts, simple titling and conservative audio mixing. Should that be the new direction for video? Less is more, you know?
Perhaps next Google will come out with Viddy? for Chrome. Then we can edit our movies over the Internet. That should make FCP X look totally professional by comparison.
1. Keep FCP7 & enhance it then launch FCPX as a seperate "in between product" called iMove Pro.
2. Say we are killing FCP coz we dont want to be in the pro market anymore and launch FCPX as an entirely new product.
3. Sell or spin-off FCP to someone else and concentrate on the consumer/semi-pro market with iMovie and iMovie Pro. There is probably more money in that market anyway.
Calling FCPX the next gen version of FCP7 was all wrong.
Can I ask why so many people have abandoned Avid Media Composer? For me, it was a matter of cost at the time. Avid was adamant about using their over-priced hardware with their software and kept their prices much higher than FCP. I had reached the point where my biz could no longer afford another $25,000-per-system Avid upgrade and I reluctantly switched to FCP. However, Avid has lowered their prices and has adopted more "open" use of 3rd-party hardware. Let me just say that for speed and ease of use, Avid is a great program. Media stays connected in the project, unlike FCP where you must keep close attention to where all your media elements wander off to and tend to end up all over my drives, then often go offline. Avid makes that simple. The editing is faster with fewer keystrokes and intuitive trim and slide functions. I grew up with Avid, so for me, it is second nature. What about others?
Apple has been systematically dismantling everything "pro" for several years now. No more Xserve, No more Xserve RAID, OS X Server is now pretty much an afterthought, no more FCP Server and so on. I hope I'm wrong on this - but I see the marginalization of FCP by going to X is just another nail in the pro coffin...
1. Keep FCP7 & enhance it then launch FCPX as a seperate "in between product" called iMove Pro.
2. Say we are killing FCP coz we dont want to be in the pro market anymore and launch FCPX as an entirely new product.
3. Sell or spin-off FCP to someone else and concentrate on the consumer/semi-pro market with iMovie and iMovie Pro. There is probably more money in that market anyway.
Calling FCPX the next gen version of FCP7 was all wrong.
How would option 2 have helped you? The 'pros' would all still be up in arms.
Stop panicking. You're fine - rumours about a redesigned MP have been circulating for several months. Don't forget that Steve Jobs also owns a little company called Pixar whose artists need 128 GB of RAM to render their projects. Great as they are, a MPB will never do that.
They don't do full render on Macs, they have dedicated hardware for that. The artists do use Macs for animating.
Stop panicking. You're fine - rumours about a redesigned MP have been circulating for several months. Don't forget that Steve Jobs also owns a little company called Pixar whose artists need 128 GB of RAM to render their projects. Great as they are, a MPB will never do that.
Steve Jobs owned Pixar over ten years ago before he made it a public company. Then the shareholders owned it. He WAS ceo and did sell Pixar to Disney.
I doubt pixar use macs for little else than send emails.
Comments
I don't think this is likely for a bunch of reasons. First off the development costs of the Mac Pro are tiny. The physical case hasn't changed in years, and the electronics inside are all essentially off the shelf. As a result the Mac Pro can survive on a relatively small market.
Second the Mac Pro supports an essential user base, Mac developers both inside Apple and outside. While the pro video editors are a nice market to have on your platform, high end developers are critical and are the foundation which the platform rests upon.
Ok, thanks
Import
Can I import projects from Final Cut Pro 7 into Final Cut Pro X?
Final Cut Pro X includes an all-new project architecture structured around a trackless timeline and connected clips. In addition, Final Cut Pro X features new and redesigned audio effects, video effects, and color grading tools. Because of these changes, there is no way to ?translate? or bring in old projects without changing or losing data. But if you?re already working with Final Cut Pro 7, you can continue to do so after installing Final Cut Pro X, and Final Cut Pro 7 will work with Mac OS X Lion. You can also import your media files from previous versions into Final Cut Pro X.
This is not unprecedented in the video editing and finishing software world. In 2002 Quantel famously did not offer any way of reading projects from it's Editbox/Henry line by it's newly released eQ and iQ systems. People had thousands of Henry archives that could not be opened by the new high definition eQ systems. And these are machines that cost a quarter of million dollars. So I guess Apple is in good company???
This summer. Nice pace.
However, Apple could have done this release better; this FAQ should not be needed now; it should have been out the first day, even on the App store page. They seem to be cleaning up a mess.
That said, I am stunned at the reaction of many so-called "pros" who couldn't find some of these answers easily themselves early on or didn't bother to research before buying and are so seemingly opposed to anything approaching change.
Why do you assume any of the answers are the main concerns? The 'so called pros' need to know a lot more than what is there. None of the concern is about change, have you any idea how many changes the industry has gone through already? It is about continuity of data, media access, support and planning ahead. This discussion is obviously not one that is understood by many here and seeing it as 'pros being opposed to change' proves that.
Order of last four purchases:
15" MacBook Pro 2.33 GHz
BlackBook 2.4 GHz
early 2011 13" MacBook Pro 2.3 GHz
early 2011 17" MacBook Pro 2.2 GHz
Not helping you much, huh? Ok, I'll buy a tower with Sandy Bridge.
Horrible thoughts ...
Has any rumor surfaced yet as to the future of the MacPro? I had a thought last night, maybe this all foreshadows Apple dropping the high end hardware while making MacBook Pros ever more powerful and migrating pro apps to the prosumer variety. It make sense looking at the sales numbers, and look at XServe!
As a Mac Desk top owner since they first existed it is a scary thought personally but as a share holder I could see the logic. I admit I now use a MacBook Pro i7 and iPad 2 a hell of a lot of the time though. Apple could abandon the high end altogether, leaving that small market to PCs and Adobe.
Tell me I am just having nightmares.
Horrible thoughts ...
Has any rumor surfaced yet as to the future of the MacPro? I had a thought last night, maybe this all foreshadows Apple dropping the high end hardware while making MacBook Pros ever more powerful and migrating pro apps to the prosumer variety. It make sense looking at the sales numbers, and look at XServe!
As a Mac Desk top owner since they first existed it is a scary thought personally but as a share holder I could see the logic. I admit I now use a MacBook Pro i7 and iPad 2 a hell of a lot of the time though. Apple could abandon the high end altogether, leaving that small market to PCs and Adobe.
Tell me I am just having nightmares.
I've been concerned with the exact same thing for awhile now. It will make me sad if they kill the MacPro.
This is not unprecedented in the video editing and finishing software world. In 2002 Quantel famously did not offer any way of reading projects from it's Editbox/Henry line by it's newly released eQ and iQ systems. People had thousands of Henry archives that could not be opened by the new high definition eQ systems. And these are machines that cost a quarter of million dollars. So I guess Apple is in good company???
I don't get what all the hubbub is surrounding project importation. Least we forget that Apple did nearly the same thing with the update to FCP 5.1 during the Intel transition. Projects created in 5.1 wouldn't open in 5.0, so you either had to upgrade every machine in your office or none of them. And that was compounded by the fact that 5.1 was Universal, meaning that if you bought a new Mac, you HAD to upgrade, as 5.0 was available for PPC only. (Most facilities have more than one editing bay - we had 7 - so it wasn't going to be a slow rollout.) Sure it was annoying, but there was hardly the mass panic that is ensuing now; although, it's also true that the product wasn't EOL'd at the same time. That being said, I do think it would behoove Apple to provide SOME way of opening legacy files, in the event that you need to go back to something several years later, but perhaps another solution will be forthcoming from a 3rd party vendor.
Why do you assume any of the answers are the main concerns? The 'so called pros' need to know a lot more than what is there. None of the concern is about change, have you any idea how many changes the industry has gone through already? It is about continuity of data, media access, support and planning ahead. This discussion is obviously not one that is understood by many here and seeing it as 'pros being opposed to change' proves that.
I would even assert that it is the "Pros" at the highest level who are early adopters of new products and certainly are the ones who drive innovation because they demand it. Just because Apple decides to go off to an island and create new software with no industry input doesn't mean they got it right. Change is good and pro editors embrace change when it is good change. Much of what FCP X has brought to the party is worthwhile, but they left out some stuff that is pretty important. Industry change is often organic and is sometimes driven by one small company offering an innovative product. Apple has not presented FCP X as a future option designed to evolve and be gradually adopted by the industry. They have dropped it into the deep end and taken away the life preservers. That won't work in this particular pool. They most likely have succeeded in driving away a large number of long time, evangelical customers. I think FCP X looks very interesting and innovative. I'll try it out in three years when it can do what we need it to do.
http://tech.fortune.cnn.com/2011/06/...nal-cut-pro-x/
http://news.cnet.com/8301-27076_3-20...final-cut-pro/
I'm no pro when it comes to video editing, but I'd say 600 filmmakers is a pretty nice crowd.
I don't get what all the hubbub is surrounding project importation. Least we forget that Apple did nearly the same thing with the update to FCP 5.1 during the Adobe transition. Projects created in 5.1 wouldn't open in 5.0, so you either had to upgrade every machine in your office or none of them. There was hardly the mass panic that is ensuing now. That being said, I do think it would behoove Apple to provide SOME way of opening legacy files, in the event that you need to go back to something several years later, but perhaps another solution will be forthcoming from a 3rd party vendor.
To be able to open a project and have it fully functional as it was in the old version would be a lot to ask of a totally new app like FCP X. What is unfortunate is they didn't even give you way of importing an EDL or XML of the old project so you could at least get the cuts and dissolves into X. That is lame.
I've been concerned with the exact same thing for awhile now. It will make me sad if they kill the MacPro.
Stop panicking. You're fine - rumours about a redesigned MP have been circulating for several months. Don't forget that Steve Jobs also owns a little company called Pixar whose artists need 128 GB of RAM to render their projects. Great as they are, a MPB will never do that.
Why do you assume any of the answers are the main concerns? The 'so called pros' need to know a lot more than what is there. None of the concern is about change, have you any idea how many changes the industry has gone through already? It is about continuity of data, media access, support and planning ahead. This discussion is obviously not one that is understood by many here and seeing it as 'pros being opposed to change' proves that.
Continuity of data!
Simple question, because you post in a reasoned fashion and appear to be a pro in post.
Do any competitive products have the capability to:
1) Open an FCP7/FCS * project
* I include FCS so that the FCP projects that round-trip to other FCS components are covered.
or
2) Provide a migration tool to move an FCP7/FCS project to their product(s) -- realizing that there may be differences that require a "best effort" migration.
Or, does migration of an FCP7/FCS project to a competitive system involve manual re-creation (not recreation
Yeah, MacPro rumors have been going around... Something like a rack mountable case. Never know. This is Apple.
I have to say, the release of FCPX seems to be a rare (in recent times) stumble on Apple's part. It's really not a good thing for them for the platform to alienate so many creative professionals, even if they do end up selling a lot of copies of FCPX to non-pros.
Over the past week since this all this started, the news has made me one of the unhappy video editors, however, I don't really think it is a miscalculation on Apple's part. They knew what was going to happen, which is why they wanted to conceal the known issues until the last minute. They didn't want to have it dragged through the mud for months. They wanted all the bitching and complaining to be over and done with in a week's time and then we all move on.
Maybe it is a good thing to have a powerful yet stripped down editing app. If you look at any Apple produced video or commercial, you don't see many fancy special effects, except some of those older iTunes animated ads. Their stuff is clean straight cuts, simple titling and conservative audio mixing. Should that be the new direction for video? Less is more, you know?
Perhaps next Google will come out with Viddy? for Chrome. Then we can edit our movies over the Internet. That should make FCP X look totally professional by comparison.
Apple should have done one of the following IMHO:
1. Keep FCP7 & enhance it then launch FCPX as a seperate "in between product" called iMove Pro.
2. Say we are killing FCP coz we dont want to be in the pro market anymore and launch FCPX as an entirely new product.
3. Sell or spin-off FCP to someone else and concentrate on the consumer/semi-pro market with iMovie and iMovie Pro. There is probably more money in that market anyway.
Calling FCPX the next gen version of FCP7 was all wrong.
Can I ask why so many people have abandoned Avid Media Composer? For me, it was a matter of cost at the time. Avid was adamant about using their over-priced hardware with their software and kept their prices much higher than FCP. I had reached the point where my biz could no longer afford another $25,000-per-system Avid upgrade and I reluctantly switched to FCP. However, Avid has lowered their prices and has adopted more "open" use of 3rd-party hardware. Let me just say that for speed and ease of use, Avid is a great program. Media stays connected in the project, unlike FCP where you must keep close attention to where all your media elements wander off to and tend to end up all over my drives, then often go offline. Avid makes that simple. The editing is faster with fewer keystrokes and intuitive trim and slide functions. I grew up with Avid, so for me, it is second nature. What about others?
Apple has been systematically dismantling everything "pro" for several years now. No more Xserve, No more Xserve RAID, OS X Server is now pretty much an afterthought, no more FCP Server and so on. I hope I'm wrong on this - but I see the marginalization of FCP by going to X is just another nail in the pro coffin...
Apple should have done one of the following IMHO:
1. Keep FCP7 & enhance it then launch FCPX as a seperate "in between product" called iMove Pro.
2. Say we are killing FCP coz we dont want to be in the pro market anymore and launch FCPX as an entirely new product.
3. Sell or spin-off FCP to someone else and concentrate on the consumer/semi-pro market with iMovie and iMovie Pro. There is probably more money in that market anyway.
Calling FCPX the next gen version of FCP7 was all wrong.
How would option 2 have helped you? The 'pros' would all still be up in arms.
This is escalating fast now isn't it?
http://tech.fortune.cnn.com/2011/06/...nal-cut-pro-x/
http://news.cnet.com/8301-27076_3-20...final-cut-pro/
I'm no pro when it comes to video editing, but I'd say 600 filmmakers is a pretty nice crowd.
600 people. There's nothing to suggest a single one of them is a filmmakers, although I'm sure some are.
Stop panicking. You're fine - rumours about a redesigned MP have been circulating for several months. Don't forget that Steve Jobs also owns a little company called Pixar whose artists need 128 GB of RAM to render their projects. Great as they are, a MPB will never do that.
They don't do full render on Macs, they have dedicated hardware for that. The artists do use Macs for animating.
Stop panicking. You're fine - rumours about a redesigned MP have been circulating for several months. Don't forget that Steve Jobs also owns a little company called Pixar whose artists need 128 GB of RAM to render their projects. Great as they are, a MPB will never do that.
Steve Jobs owned Pixar over ten years ago before he made it a public company. Then the shareholders owned it. He WAS ceo and did sell Pixar to Disney.
I doubt pixar use macs for little else than send emails.